Cargando…

Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?

Installation of feral pig (Sus scrofa) exclusion fences to conserve and rehabilitate coastal floodplain habitat for fish production and water quality services remains untested. Twenty‐one floodplain and riverine wetlands in the Archer River catchment (north Queensland) were surveyed during postwet (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Waltham, Nathan J., Schaffer, Jason
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8525148/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34707817
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8054
_version_ 1784585635442458624
author Waltham, Nathan J.
Schaffer, Jason
author_facet Waltham, Nathan J.
Schaffer, Jason
author_sort Waltham, Nathan J.
collection PubMed
description Installation of feral pig (Sus scrofa) exclusion fences to conserve and rehabilitate coastal floodplain habitat for fish production and water quality services remains untested. Twenty‐one floodplain and riverine wetlands in the Archer River catchment (north Queensland) were surveyed during postwet (June–August) and late‐dry season (November–December) in 2016, 2017, and 2018, using a fyke net soaked overnight (~14–15 hr) to test: (a) whether the fish assemblage are similar in wetlands with and without fences; and (b) whether specific environmental conditions influence fish composition between fenced and unfenced wetlands. A total of 6,353 fish representing twenty‐six species from 15 families were captured. There were no wetland differences in fish assemblages across seasons, years and for fenced and unfenced (PERMANOVA, Pseudo‐F < 0.589, p < .84). Interestingly, the late‐dry season fish were far smaller compared to postwet season fish: a strategy presumably in place to maximize rapid disposal following rain and floodplain connectivity. In each wetland, a calibrated Hydrolab was deployed (between 2 and4 days, with 20 min logging) in the epilimnion (0.2 m) and revealed distinct diel water quality cycling of temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH (conductivity represented freshwater wetlands), which was more obvious in the late‐dry season survey because of extreme summer conditions. Water quality varied among wetlands in terms of the daily amplitude and extent of daily photosynthesis recovery, which highlights the need to consider local conditions and that applying general assumptions around water quality conditions for these types of wetlands is problematic for managers. Though many fish access wetlands during wet season connection, the seasonal effect of reduced water level conditions seems more overimprovised when compared to whether fences are installed, as all wetlands supported few, juvenile, or no fish species because they had dried completely regardless of the presence of fences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8525148
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85251482021-10-26 Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values? Waltham, Nathan J. Schaffer, Jason Ecol Evol Original Research Installation of feral pig (Sus scrofa) exclusion fences to conserve and rehabilitate coastal floodplain habitat for fish production and water quality services remains untested. Twenty‐one floodplain and riverine wetlands in the Archer River catchment (north Queensland) were surveyed during postwet (June–August) and late‐dry season (November–December) in 2016, 2017, and 2018, using a fyke net soaked overnight (~14–15 hr) to test: (a) whether the fish assemblage are similar in wetlands with and without fences; and (b) whether specific environmental conditions influence fish composition between fenced and unfenced wetlands. A total of 6,353 fish representing twenty‐six species from 15 families were captured. There were no wetland differences in fish assemblages across seasons, years and for fenced and unfenced (PERMANOVA, Pseudo‐F < 0.589, p < .84). Interestingly, the late‐dry season fish were far smaller compared to postwet season fish: a strategy presumably in place to maximize rapid disposal following rain and floodplain connectivity. In each wetland, a calibrated Hydrolab was deployed (between 2 and4 days, with 20 min logging) in the epilimnion (0.2 m) and revealed distinct diel water quality cycling of temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH (conductivity represented freshwater wetlands), which was more obvious in the late‐dry season survey because of extreme summer conditions. Water quality varied among wetlands in terms of the daily amplitude and extent of daily photosynthesis recovery, which highlights the need to consider local conditions and that applying general assumptions around water quality conditions for these types of wetlands is problematic for managers. Though many fish access wetlands during wet season connection, the seasonal effect of reduced water level conditions seems more overimprovised when compared to whether fences are installed, as all wetlands supported few, juvenile, or no fish species because they had dried completely regardless of the presence of fences. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8525148/ /pubmed/34707817 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8054 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Waltham, Nathan J.
Schaffer, Jason
Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?
title Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?
title_full Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?
title_fullStr Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?
title_full_unstemmed Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?
title_short Will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?
title_sort will fencing floodplain and riverine wetlands from feral pig damage conserve fish community values?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8525148/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34707817
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8054
work_keys_str_mv AT walthamnathanj willfencingfloodplainandriverinewetlandsfromferalpigdamageconservefishcommunityvalues
AT schafferjason willfencingfloodplainandriverinewetlandsfromferalpigdamageconservefishcommunityvalues