Migratory gauntlets on oceanic islands: Watershed disturbance increases the cost of amphidromy

Ernie F. Hain, Kristine N. Moody, Bradley A. Lamphere, Stacy A.C. Nelson, Peter B. McIntyre, James F. Gilliam, Michael J. Blum

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

Migratory fishes can be threatened by conditions encountered along dispersal pathways that impede access to feeding or breeding grounds. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that amphidromous fishes are equally or more sensitive to conditions along dispersal pathways than conditions in primary residential habitats. We did so by conducting distribution-wide population surveys of all five amphidromous gobies native to the Hawaiian Islands to assess responses to in-stream habitat, invasive species and watershed land use. We used Redundancy Analyses to assess whether goby densities varied according to local, downstream or upstream conditions. We found that population densities of the two non-climbing species (Eleotris sandwicensis, Stenogobius hawaiiensis) varied according to local land use and local habitat conditions. Greater densities of E. sandwicensis also were found in watersheds with greater forest cover upstream of survey sites. Lower densities of two species that migrate farther inland (Awaous stamineus, Sicyopterus stimpsoni) were observed in watersheds with greater anthropogenic land use downstream or at the stream mouth. Population densities of E. sandwicensis and both Sicydiine species (Lentipes concolor, S. stimpsoni) also were lower when non-native Poeciliids were locally present or present downstream in the watershed. These findings suggest that densities of native Hawaiian amphidromous fishes are equally or more sensitive to conditions along migratory pathways relative to conditions in primary residential habitats. Thus, alleviating pressures by removing invasive species and restoring habitat along dispersal pathways could be effective approaches to increasing densities of amphidromous species, especially those that migrate farther inland to higher elevations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)446-458
Number of pages13
JournalEcology of Freshwater Fish
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2019
Externally publishedYes

Funding

We would like to thank E. Childress, J. Fenner, R. Gagne, G. Glotzbecker, T. Haas, J.D. Hogan, D.P. Lindstrom, T. Rayner and R.P. Walter for assisting with data collection, the Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources for providing research permits and guidance and the individual and agency land owners who provided access to sam‐ ple sites. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable guidance and recommendations. The study was funded by the US Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research Development Program (SERDP) through project RC-1646, the NCSU College of Natural Resources and the Southeast Climate Science Center. We would like to thank E. Childress, J. Fenner, R. Gagne, G. Glotzbecker, T. Haas, J.D. Hogan, D.P. Lindstrom, T. Rayner and R.P. Walter for assisting with data collection, the Hawai?i Division of Aquatic Resources for providing research permits and guidance and the individual and agency land owners who provided access to sample sites. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable guidance and recommendations. The study was funded by the US Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research Development Program (SERDP) through project RC-1646, the NCSU College of Natural Resources and the Southeast Climate Science Center.

FundersFunder number
Hawai?i Division of Aquatic Resources
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Strategic Environmental Research and Development ProgramRC-1646

    Keywords

    • Gobiidae
    • Hawai‘i
    • Poeciliidae
    • biological invasions
    • diadromy
    • land use

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Migratory gauntlets on oceanic islands: Watershed disturbance increases the cost of amphidromy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this