Effects of woody debris and the supply of terrestrial invertebrates on the diet and growth of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a boreal stream

Abstract

Summary Changes to the riparian vegetation of forest streams during timber harvesting may have considerable impacts on stream biota, but few studies have attempted to separate the effects of individual factors that are altered during clear‐felling operations. We studied the effects of large wood and terrestrial invertebrate supply, two factors affected by forest harvesting, on the growth and diet of two size classes of brown trout (Salmo trutta) during a two‐month (June–August) field enclosure experiment. Twelve 20‐m‐long enclosed stream reaches were used in a 2 × 2 factorial design, with large wood either absent or added to mimic pre‐modern forestry conditions, and terrestrial invertebrate inputs either reduced or maintained at ambient levels. The addition of large wood had a positive effect on the growth of large trout but no effect on small trout, whereas terrestrial invertebrate input had no effect on the growth of either size class. Growth rates were highest in the treatment with ambient terrestrial invertebrate inputs and added wood, were lowest in the treatment with reduced terrestrial invertebrate inputs and no added wood and were intermediate in the other two treatments. Dietary analyses showed no difference in treatments with and without added wood, perhaps because instream wood influences growth by producing profitable stream positions for trout, rather than by acting as a source of prey. Terrestrial invertebrate inputs affected the diet, as trout in enclosures with reduced inputs had a lower proportion of terrestrial invertebrate biomass in the diet than trout in enclosures with ambient terrestrial inputs. Our results suggest that leaving woody debris in streams when harvesting forests may enhance trout growth and that this is probably due to the physical changes in depth and current velocity caused by the wood rather than to changes in dietary prey composition.

Do trout respond to riparian change? A meta‐analysis with implications for restoration and management

“…Adding instream woody debris is a common strategy to enhance fish populations (Stewart et al ., ; Howson et al ., ; Roni et al ., ), and can increase habitat complexity, provide food or habitat for prey species, or alter the stream channel by reducing water velocity and increasing stream depth and pool frequency (Urabe & Nakano, ; Keim, Skaugset & Bateman, ). Our results are consistent with previous work that has demonstrated the benefits of woody debris to trout (Degerman et al ., ; Sweka & Hartman, ; Whiteway et al ., ; Gustafsson, Greenberg & Bergman, ).…”

River reaches with impaired riparian tree cover and channel morphology have reduced thermal resilience

“…Large wood is a significant catalyst for morphological change and has the potential to act as a self-restoration tool for degraded river channels (Osei, Harvey, & Gurnell, 2015). LWD recruitment improves hydrology and morphology by promoting processes that create natural features including pools, channel bars, and sediment storage (Elosegi, Daez, Flores, & Molinero, 2017;Pilotto, Harvey, Wharton, & Pusch, 2016;Wohl, 2017) and also has significant benefits for salmonids (Gustafsson, Greenberg, & Bergman, 2014;Hafs, Harrison, Utz, & Dunne, 2014). An approach that focuses on restoring natural riparian and physical processes will provide the most sustainable approach to climate change proofing of impaired temperate rivers.…”

River modification reduces climate resilience of brown trout (Salmo trutta) populations in Ireland

“…A further assessment measure, the extent of large woody debris (LWD) present at each sample site, was also estimated because of strong evidence linking LWD to river health, hydromorphological function (Pilotto, Harvey, Wharton & Pusch, ; Wohl, ) and salmonid abundance (Gustafsson, Greenberg & Bergman, ). LWD cover is usually absent or low in managed channels, owing to its removal for flood control, compared with their more natural counterparts.…”