Can size distributions of European lake fish communities be predicted by trophic positions of their fish species?

An organism's body size plays an important role in ecological interactions such as predator-prey relationships. As predators are typically larger than their prey, this often leads to a strong positive relationship between body size and trophic position in aquatic ecosystems. The distribution of body sizes in a community can thus be an indicator of the strengths of predator-prey interactions. The aim of this study was to gain more insight into the relationship between fish body size distribution and trophic position in a wide range of European lakes. We used quantile regression to examine the relationship between fish species' trophic position and their log-transformed maximum body mass for 48 fish species found in 235 European lakes. Subsequently, we examined whether the slopes of the continuous community size distributions, estimated by maximum likelihood, were predicted by trophic position, predator-prey mass ratio (PPMR), or abundance (number per unit effort) of fish communities in these lakes. We found a positive linear relationship between species' maximum body mass and average trophic position in fishes only for the 75% quantile, contrasting our expectation that species' trophic position systematically increases with maximum body mass for fish species in European lakes. Consequently, the size spectrum slope was not related to the average community trophic position, but there were negative effects of community PPMR and total fish abundance on the size spectrum slope. We conclude that predator-prey interactions likely do not contribute strongly to shaping community size distributions in these lakes

Effects of fish predation on density and size spectra of prey fish communities in lakes

Planktivorous and benthivorous fish have been documented to influence the density and size structure of their prey communities in lakes. We hypothesized that piscivorous fish modify their prey fish communities in the same way and sought to find evidence for such predation effects from a comparison across 356 lakes located in nine European ecoregions. We categorized individual fish as being either piscivore, non-piscivore or prey of piscivores, depending on species and individual size. We calculated piscivore, non-piscivore and piscivore prey densities, respectively, and fit linear abundance size spectra (SS) on lake-specific piscivore, non-piscivore and piscivore prey size distributions. Multiple linear regressions were calculated to quantify the effect of piscivore density and SS slopes on non-piscivore and piscivore prey densities and SS slopes, by accounting for potentially confounding factors arising from lake morphometry, productivity and local air temperature. Piscivore density correlated positively with piscivore prey density, but was uncorrelated to density of non-piscivores. Across a subset of 76 lakes for which SS slopes of piscivores were statistically significant, SS slopes of piscivores were uncorrelated with SS slopes of either non-piscivores or piscivore prey. However, densities of piscivores, non-piscivores or piscivore prey were a significant negative predictor of SS slopes of the respective groups. Our analyses suggest that direct predation effects by piscivorous fish on density and size structure of prey fish communities are weak in European lakes, likely caused by low predator-prey size ratios and the resulting size refuges for prey fish. In contrast, competition may substantially contribute to between-lake variability in fish density and size

Fish in lake ecological assessment in Europe: Quo Vadis?

It is well established that fish are sensitive indicators of environmental degradation and offer the major advantage of integrating the direct and indirect effects of stress over large scales of space and time. Nevertheless, the use of fish communities as indicators of environmental quality is highly challenging, therefore fish community has been one of the most neglected aspect of lake ecological monitoring. This paper gives an overview on fish-based assessment methods in Europe. By now, 15 Member States have finalised fish-based lake assessment systems, five of these assessment systems have been recently intercalibrated in the Alpine and Northern region, while Intercalibration is still ongoing in the Central-Baltic region. In contrary, several countries of the Mediterranean region have currently renounced the use of fish in lake assessment (mainly due to a low species richness, dominance of invasive taxa, and high costs of sampling), this opinion being strongly debated within region. This paper seeks to answer questions: How lake fish ecological assessment systems are built and used across Europe? Which pressures are assessed and are the pressure-response relationships tested? What are the main lessons and challenges of the lake fish methods` development and harmonization process

Density-dependent effects as key drivers of intraspecific size structure of six abundant fish species in lakes across Europe

Fish size structure has traditionally been used for elucidating trophic interactions and patterns of energy transfer through trophic levels(Trebilco et al.2013). We analysed the siz estructure of six common freshwater fish species in several hundred European lakes. We found little effect on the strength of the environmental gradients of size structure. The intraspecific density-dependent effect was the strongest and most consistent predictor

Water Framework Directive Intercalibration: Central-Baltic Lake Fish fauna ecological assessment methods

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the national classifications of good ecological status to be harmonised through an intercalibration exercise. In this exercise, significant differences in status classification among Member States are harmonized by comparing and, if necessary, adjusting the good status boundaries of the national assessment methods. Intercalibration is performed for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, focusing on selected types of water bodies (intercalibration types), anthropogenic pressures and Biological Quality Elements. Intercalibration exercises are carried out in Geographical Intercalibration Groups - larger geographical units including Member States with similar water body types - and followed the procedure described in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document on the intercalibration process (European Commission, 2011). The Technical report on the Water Framework Directive intercalibration describes in detail how the intercalibration exercise has been carried out for the water categories and biological quality elements. The Technical report is organized in volumes according to the water category (rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters), Biological Quality Element and Geographical Intercalibration group. This volume addresses the intercalibration of the Lake Central-Baltic Fish ecological assessment methods. Part A: This document comprises an overview and detailed descriptions of fish-based lake ecological assessment methods. Part B describes the construction of multiple pressure index in the Central-Baltic region. Part C describes the procedure and results of the boundary harmonisation of national fish-based lake assessment systemsJRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

Metadata of European lake fishes dataset

Here we provide the metadata for an overview on fish species presence/absence in 1943 Palearctic (Europe + Turkey) lakes and reservoirs. The data have been obtained by standardized multi-mesh gillnet fishing, primarily to fulfill the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). The species list encompasses about 100 species, a few of them split into subspecies. The database has been accumulated for the purpose of intercalibration of the evaluation systems for the WFD, and has systematically been used for research in the EU project WISER

Impacts of multiple stressors on freshwater biota across spatial scales and ecosystems

Climate and land-use change drive a suite of stressors that shape ecosystems and interact to yield complex ecological responses (that is, additive, antagonistic and synergistic effects). We know little about the spatial scales relevant for the outcomes of such interactions and little about effect sizes. These knowledge gaps need to be filled to underpin future land management decisions or climate mitigation interventions for protecting and restoring freshwater ecosystems. This study combines data across scales from 33 mesocosm experiments with those from 14 river basins and 22 cross-basin studies in Europe, producing 174 combinations of paired-stressor effects on a biological response variable. Generalized linear models showed that only one of the two stressors had a significant effect in 39% of the analysed cases, 28% of the paired-stressor combinations resulted in additive effects and 33% resulted in interactive (antagonistic, synergistic, opposing or reversal) effects. For lakes, the frequencies of additive and interactive effects were similar for all spatial scales addressed, while for rivers these frequencies increased with scale. Nutrient enrichment was the overriding stressor for lakes, with effects generally exceeding those of secondary stressors. For rivers, the effects of nutrient enrichment were dependent on the specific stressor combination and biological response variable. These results vindicate the traditional focus of lake restoration and management on nutrient stress, while highlighting that river management requires more bespoke management solutions.Additional co-authors: Tuba Bucak, Anthonie D. Buijse, Ana Cristina Cardoso, Raoul-Marie Couture, Fabien Cremona, Dick de Zwart, Christian K. Feld, M. Teresa Ferreira, Heidrun Feuchtmayr, Mark O. Gessner, Alexander Gieswein, Lidija Globevnik, Daniel Graeber, Wolfram Graf, Cayetano Gutiérrez-Cánovas, Jenica Hanganu, Uğur Işkın, Marko Järvinen, Erik Jeppesen, Niina Kotamäki, Marijn Kuijper, Jan U. Lemm, Shenglan Lu, Anne Lyche Solheim, Ute Mischke, S. Jannicke Moe, Peeter Nõges, Tiina Nõges, Steve J. Ormerod, Yiannis Panagopoulos, Leo Posthuma, Sarai Pouso, Christel Prudhomme, Katri Rankinen, Jes J. Rasmussen, Jessica Richardson, Alban Sagouis, José Maria Santos, Ralf B. Schäfer, Rafaela Schinegger, Stefan Schmutz, Susanne C. Schneider, Lisa Schülting, Pedro Segurado, Kostas Stefanidis, Bernd Sures, Stephen J. Thackeray, Jarno Turunen, María C. Uyarra, Markus Venohr, Peter Carsten von der Ohe & Daniel Herin

Intercalibration of the national classifications of ecological status for Central-Baltic Lakes: Biological Quality Element: Fish fauna: Part B and C

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the national classifications of good ecological status to be harmonised through an intercalibration exercise. In this exercise, significant differences in status classification among Member States are harmonized by comparing and, if necessary, adjusting the good status boundaries of the national assessment methods. Intercalibration is performed for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, focusing on selected types of water bodies (intercalibration types), anthropogenic pressures and Biological Quality Elements. Intercalibration exercises are carried out in Geographical Intercalibration Groups - larger geographical units including Member States with similar water body types - and followed the procedure described in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document on the intercalibration process (European Commission, 2011). The Technical report on the Water Framework Directive intercalibration describes in detail how the intercalibration exercise has been carried out for the water categories and biological quality elements. The Technical report is organized in volumes according to the water category (rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters), Biological Quality Element and Geographical Intercalibration group. This volume addresses the intercalibration of the Lake Central-Baltic Fish ecological assessment methods. This volume on intercalibration of the Lake Central Baltic Fish ecological assessment methods is split into three parts: Part A, a document that provides an overview and detailed descriptions of fish-based lake ecological assessment methods. Parts B and C: This document comprises two Parts, B and C. Part B describes the construction of multiple pressure index in the Central-Baltic region. Part C describes the procedure and results of the boundary harmonisation of national fish-based lake assessment systems.  JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

Defining Chlorophyll-a Reference Conditions in European Lakes

The concept of “reference conditions” describes the benchmark against which current conditions are compared when assessing the status of water bodies. In this paper we focus on the establishment of reference conditions for European lakes according to a phytoplankton biomass indicator—the concentration of chlorophyll-a. A mostly spatial approach (selection of existing lakes with no or minor human impact) was used to set the reference conditions for chlorophyll-a values, supplemented by historical data, paleolimnological investigations and modelling. The work resulted in definition of reference conditions and the boundary between “high” and “good” status for 15 main lake types and five ecoregions of Europe: Alpine, Atlantic, Central/Baltic, Mediterranean, and Northern. Additionally, empirical models were developed for estimating site-specific reference chlorophyll-a concentrations from a set of potential predictor variables. The results were recently formulated into the EU legislation, marking the first attempt in international water policy to move from chemical quality standards to ecological quality targets