Pink Salmon warning after species found in Irish rivers

[agentaqua]

A non-native species of salmon has been found in rivers along the west coast of Ireland, causing concern among Irish fishing authorities.
14 July 2017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40608134

 

[Dave]

Interesting. You have to admire pinks and their ability to find new areas to colonize. Will be interesting to see how they do ... lets hope flossing is not allowed in Ireland.

 

[agentaqua]

new species of "sea trout" for the Irish anglers...

Wonder, though - where they are from? Barents Sea? Alaska? Would be interesting to do the DNA and compare...

 

[Dave]

I thought about the DNA as well... gotta think someone would be all over that.

 

[Birdsnest]

The next big question would be if they produce returning spawners. So many questions.

 

[walleyes]

Couple things strike me. It says they likely didn't migrate there do to there small size, what the heck does their small size have to do with their mirgration capabilities. Also I would assume at one time Pink salmon as most salmon species FIRST appeared in most streams. They didn't just pop up in every stream they are in today at one time, they migrated and spread over thousands of years. I think we as humans think too small some times and don't take time to embrace the power Mother Nature has. Maybe they should view this as a blessing and accept it as a natural migration of a species. Maybe, maybe not just Some thoughts.

 

[Dogbreath]

Russians have been introducing Pinks in a number of places that's how they're thought to have spread to Greenland in the past.

 

[agentaqua]

Couple things strike me. It says they likely didn't migrate there do to there small size, what the heck does their small size have to do with their mirgration capabilities. Also I would assume at one time Pink salmon as most salmon species FIRST appeared in most streams. They didn't just pop up in every stream they are in today at one time, they migrated and spread over thousands of years. I think we as humans think too small some times and don't take time to embrace the power Mother Nature has. Maybe they should view this as a blessing and accept it as a natural migration of a species. Maybe, maybe not just Some thoughts.

I thought the same too, WE. I am guessing the Irish fisheries really don't understand Pacific salmon.

 

[Dave]

Apparently they have been seen as far back as 2007.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCwYr5lI_VAhUKyGMKHSIaAvQQPAgD#hl=en&q=pink+salmon+in+england&spf=1500257566445

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/11888422/Britains-native-salmon-under-threat-from-pink-invader.html

 

[Dave]

Sorry, here's the 2007 link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/3308228/Pink-Pacific-salmon-caught-in-Cornwall.html

 

[california]

Maybe they should view this as a blessing and accept it as a natural migration of a species. Maybe, maybe not just Some thoughts.

I don't think its a natural migration of the species at all when the Russians have been actively transplanting them in Atlantic rivers for quite some time. They didn't get there from the Pacific which would be a natural migration and highly unlikely considering the distance. Its an invasive species in Ireland and the UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden or anywhere else they may be entering rivers in that part of the world , their concern is warranted as introductions of invasive species rarely have no other consequences on the ecosystems they come into. Hopefully they are unable to reproduce successfully.

 

[Birdsnest]

I don't think its a natural migration of the species at all when the Russians have been actively transplanting them in Atlantic rivers for quite some time. They didn't get there from the Pacific which would be a natural migration and highly unlikely considering the distance. Its an invasive species in Ireland and the UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden or anywhere else they may be entering rivers in that part of the world , their concern is warranted as introductions of invasive species rarely have no other consequences on the ecosystems they come into. Hopefully they are unable to reproduce successfully.

Just because a species is non-native to a system does not necessarily make it invasive. I am not familiar with the river in the article but I wouldn't rule out a system benefiting from such an "invasion". I know that here in the pacific pinks are often the grass roots species for other salmon and trout species in our rivers. The possibility of a river benefitting from the arrival of pinks salmon is plausible. Nature has done this naturally for tens of thousands of years however with the extremely aggressive un-natural pink releases into the oceans by salmon ranching etc my gut says this may be related, but maybe not. The work has to be done to know.

Does anyone know of a system that was negatively effected by the arrival of pinks?

 

[agentaqua]

Interesting discussion. I think there are always unintended consequences of every introduction - and as BN stated - not all of them are bad all the time - although many are. WRT pinks - I an unaware of the Russian/Atlantic experience - but we are slowly seeing the pinks invade the Arctic from the West as global warming hits the Arctic: https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/.../P .../ICECCM2016PinkSalmonInTheArctic.pdf

Researchers suggest that the fact that pinks and chums have negligible freshwater needs - that their juvies can use the warmer marine waters to extend their ranges: http://arctic.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/2037

That to me is an interesting point - most conflict between resident fish and introduced pinks would likely be in the marine nearshore environment - but juvie pinks could become a food source - like they are for larger coho juvies in the Pacific.

 

[california]

Just because a species is non-native to a system does not necessarily make it invasive.

Actually the definitions of invasive species necessarily include it being non-native as these pinks are, and generally includes it being in some way harmful the the ecosystem, which they always are as they have to displace something in the existing ecosystem to survive. If they can not reproduce I would concede they are not invasive. Your kind of thinking that its beneficial because they are fun for humans to catch or eat has made a mess of lots of ecosystems. Pink Salmon (or any Pacific Salmon) have not established themselves in the Atlantic basin over hundreds of thousands of years naturally, over many cycles of global warming and freezing. They don't belong in Ireland, I hope they don't reproduce, just as I hope Atlantics don't reproduce here, and if the Irish decide to try and eradicate them they are well within their right and scientifically justified to do so. The idiotic Russian's should stop transplanting them and there would be no pinks and no problem, but dictatorships like that are not terribly concerned about environmental issues, just $. Putin's corrupt Orange fan boy running the US is on board with that philosophy too.

 

[Birdsnest]

Actually the definitions of invasive species necessarily include it being non-native as these pinks are, and generally includes it being in some way harmful the the ecosystem, which they always are as they have to displace something in the existing ecosystem to survive.

If pinks enter the system in question and provide a benefit or no effect to the system itself they could be titled a Non-native species. Whether this introduction is natural or not the effects must be monitored/studies to provide these answers. Californias approach to this topic make Vancouver island's brown trout invasive and they simply have shown not to be however this conclusion is arrived to after many many years of existence here. There are many examples of non-native species not being invasive.

Your kind of thinking that its beneficial because they are fun for humans to catch or eat has made a mess of lots of ecosystems.

You can make that assumption about "my type of thinking" however it is only an assumption on your behalf about me personally. I bit short sighted IMHO. I do agree with your statement however I am just not willing to accept it as my out look on the issue.

 

[Dave H]

Couple things strike me. It says they likely didn't migrate there do to there small size, what the heck does their small size have to do with their mirgration capabilities. Also I would assume at one time Pink salmon as most salmon species FIRST appeared in most streams. They didn't just pop up in every stream they are in today at one time, they migrated and spread over thousands of years. I think we as humans think too small some times and don't take time to embrace the power Mother Nature has. Maybe they should view this as a blessing and accept it as a natural migration of a species. Maybe, maybe not just Some thoughts.

"What the heck does their small size have to do with their migration capabilities?" you asked.

Lots says I.

Do you recall some years back when there were Sockeye salmon in many of our smaller river systems along the coast?
It was during the '90's and we had lots of small Sockeye spawning in the Campbell where they normally don't spawn at all.
Same up and down the coast.

The reason was the huge El Nino present and the fact that the salmon had basically been driven north into the Bering Sea which has much poorer pasture conditions than does the North Pacific.

This resulted in producing a very small sized salmon so they stayed out feeding as long as they could before heading for their home river, in this case mostly the Fraser.

Being smaller in size than normal and with smaller tails they were unable to cover the distance required to get "home" before they matured so much they had to spawn, so they hit whatever freshwater system was available.

Smaller fish cannot cover the same distance larger fish can simply because of their propulsion systems being bigger and more effective.

Basic stuff but maybe not quite germane to what you were thinking.

Trying to help.






Take care.

 

[agentaqua]

"What the heck does their small size have to do with their migration capabilities?" you asked.

Lots says I...

Smaller fish cannot cover the same distance larger fish can simply because of their propulsion systems being bigger and more effective.

Take care.

Not wishing to speak on behalf of Walleyes - but size is not necessarily an indicator of migration distance nor ability - esp in the marine environment.

Yes - going upstream in freshwater - the larger you are - the higher you can jump over obstacles - and the more reserves you have wrt energy to go upstream and battle current and slope/height.

Somewhat different situation wrt ocean migration. The smaller, pink salmon can still cover many thousands of kilometers:

 

[walleyes]

"What the heck does their small size have to do with their migration capabilities?" you asked.

Lots says I.

Do you recall some years back when there were Sockeye salmon in many of our smaller river systems along the coast?
It was during the '90's and we had lots of small Sockeye spawning in the Campbell where they normally don't spawn at all.
Same up and down the coast.

The reason was the huge El Nino present and the fact that the salmon had basically been driven north into the Bering Sea which has much poorer pasture conditions than does the North Pacific.

This resulted in producing a very small sized salmon so they stayed out feeding as long as they could before heading for their home river, in this case mostly the Fraser.

Being smaller in size than normal and with smaller tails they were unable to cover the distance required to get "home" before they matured so much they had to spawn, so they hit whatever freshwater system was available.

Smaller fish cannot cover the same distance larger fish can simply because of their propulsion systems being bigger and more effective.

Basic stuff but maybe not quite germane to what you were thinking.

Trying to help.






Take care.

Interesting Dave.
I would have never thought that the tail size if a fish would contribute to its ability as a traveler, but it makes sense and I would never discredit it. I would tend to think it would be like our logger discussion a bit back that the smaller ones just work harder to accomplish the same feat. They sure seem to be able to travel up our river systems to the extent the other Salmon species do.

 

[Dave H]

Interesting Dave.
I would have never thought that the tail size if a fish would contribute to its ability as a traveler, but it makes sense and I would never discredit it. I would tend to think it would be like our logger discussion a bit back that the smaller ones just work harder to accomplish the same feat. They sure seem to be able to travel up our river systems to the extent the other Salmon species do.

My reply was badly worded but essentially was meant to show that smaller tails simply cannot cover the same distance as larger tailed fish can in the same time period, although I failed to make that clear.

Don't know why I flashed on that year and those Sockeye as my example either as it's not really the same scenario, as was pointed out by agentaqua.


My bad, but screw Pinks anyway.



I want Tyee.





Take care.

 

[california]

My reply was badly worded but essentially was meant to show that smaller tails simply cannot cover the same distance as larger tailed fish can in the same time period, although I failed to make that clear..

I'm not sure tail size has anything to do with it. In a year like the one you mention where all the fish are small, it would also probably correlate to the fish being more lean, and having less fat reserves. If indeed they did not make it back to their native rivers and just went up the nearest stream, it would be more likely due to not having the energy to do so than not having a big enough tail. Jacks are much smaller than their older cohorts but have no problem making the migrations all the way back to the native streams. I do not know the physics for sure, but would guess the ratio of the tail surface area to body mass is actually greater in a smaller fish than it is in a larger fish.