RESTORATION OF A DEPLETED CRAYFISH FISHERY IN EUROPE – LESSONS LEARNT
The world´s biodiversity of freshwater crayfish are threatened by numerous factors, including loss and degradation of habitat, overharvesting, climate change and introduction of alien species of crayfish and associated diseases (Taylor 2002, Holdich et al. 2009), and more than one-third of the world´s crayfish species are likely threatened with population decline or extinction (Taylor 2002). Ironically, introduction of alien crayfish species, also in restoration projects aiming to compensate for lost native stocks, is regarded among the most serious threats to indigenous cray- fish populations (Taugbøl & Skurdal 1999, Lodge et al. 2000).
The commercially important crayfish fisheries of Europe were heavily depleted during the last century, especially of the noble crayfish (Astacus astacus), which was reduced to near 10 % of “historical” catches (Westman et al. 1990). One of the main reasons for this decline was the spreading of crayfish plague (Apahnomyces astaci) throughout Europe after its introduction in Italy in 1859 (Söderhäll & Cerenius 1999), most likely as a result of importation of infected North American crayfish (Al- derman & Polglase 1988).
In 1959 a small batch of signal crayfish was introduced to Swe- den from California, USA (Svärdson 1995). The signal crayfish
was considered resistant to the crayfish plague and to occupy the same ecological niche and therefore presumably able to restore the recreational and commercial important crayfish fishery in the plague affected areas. The fact that it was also a natural host of the oomycyte Aphanomyces astaci (the causative agent of crayfish plague) was probably unknown at the time (Unestam 1972). Trials were successful and in 1967–69 a large number of signal crayfish were imported from USA and intro- duced into Swedish and Finnish waters (Svärdson 1995, West- man 1995). These were followed by secondary introductions, mostly from Sweden, to many European countries (Lowery and Holdich 1988, Holdich et al. 2009). This led to an increase in the number of crayfish plague outbreaks, and 65 % of the reg- istered incidences of crayfish plague in Sweden from 1907 – 2004 have occurred after the increased introduction of signal crayfish from 1969 (Bohman et al. 2006)
To alleviate the problem of reduced stocks of indigenous spe- cies, the plague carrying North American species Orconectes limosus and Procambarus clarkii is also widespread in Europe, and are now established in 21 and 15 countries/territories re- spectively (Holdich et al. 2009)
In Europe, three of the five recognized indigenous species are on the IUCN red-list (Baillie & Groombridge 1996), and some countries are establishing “ark-sites” (secure sites) in an at- tempt to protect indigenous crayfish species (Sibley et al. 2007, Horton 2009). Restoration of many European crayfish fisher- ies with transplants of North American crayfish species may be regarded as a success in terms of establishing new plague resistant stocks for harvest (Ackefors 1999), but has been detri- mental for the indigenous crayfish species of Europe (Holdich et al. (2009). Extreme caution and careful planning must be conducted when restoring ecosystems to ensure the use of in- digenous species and that no infestations or invasive species are introduced unintentionally.
Figure 18: The distribution and main spreading route of the Signal crayfish in Europe.
90
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112