Sea Lamprey Vs. Zebra Mussels

1. Section 8 Group 3 Sea Lamprey Vs. Zebra Mussels Greg Lee – gilee@umich.edu Christine Hucal - hucalc@umich.edu Doug Galante - dgalante@umich.edu dnr.wi.gov/.../critter/invert/zebramussel.htm www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/.../lampr65_mouth.htm

2. Introduction • There have been numerous invasive species introduced into the Great Lakes • Some examples include: sea lamprey, zebra muscles, carp, milfoil, white perch and many others • Certain invasive species have a larger impact on the ecosystem compared to others

3. The question • Between zebra mussels and sea lamprey, which invasive species has a larger impact on their newly invaded ecosystems? • Our Hypothesis: Compared to sea lamprey, we believe that the zebra mussels have a larger impact on the Great Lakes Region.

4. Background information for sea lamprey • Invaded the Great Lakes Region around 1932 (Coble 1990) • Gained access into region after the completion of Welland Canal around Niagara Falls (Coble 1990) • The average matured sea lamprey has a life span of 18 months. They spawn in June and then die after they spawn(Coble 1990) • Mature sea lampreys ascend tributaries from April to September (Coble 1990)

5. Background (cont) • Non-parasitic ammocoetes remain in substrate for 4-8 yrs (Coble 1990) • Metamorphosize in July and mature in 1-1.5 yrs (Coble 1990) • Shaped like eels and feed by attaching to native fish (such as lake trout) and suck blood and other body fluids out of them (Fetterolf 2006) www.scar.utoronto.ca/~youson/lamprey-photo.htm

6. Background info on Zebra Mussels • Dreissena polymorpha; a mollusk • First found in Great Lakes Region in 1988 (Graham 2006) • Feed by filtering algae • No natural predators in Great Lakes region (Charlton 2006) www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/zebra_mussels.html

7. Background (cont) • Known as “ecosystem engineers” (Zhu 2006) • Able to move by muscular foot • Feed and breathe by filtering water through extensible tubes called siphons (Encyclopedia.com) • Can filter a quart of water per day (Encyclopedia.com)

8. www.lakegeorgeassociation.org/html/zebra_muss...

9. Effects of Sea Lamprey in Great Lakes Region • Mainly impact fish communities • Suggested to have caused a decline in burbot, trout, whitefish and herring (Fetterolf 2006) • Most notable damage was seen in Lake Trout (Fetterolf 2006) www.umesc.usgs.gov/.../tech_assistance.html

10. Effects (Cont) www.sgnis.org/publicat/slide/sl_s5.htm www.invasive.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1354049 • Sea Lamprey suggested to be major cause of decline of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan and Huron but not Superior (Coble 1990) • Even so, this hypothesis is still under further investigation because decline of Lake Trout was shown to have occurred within a year of sea lamprey introduction which isn’t enough time to have caused such a drastic decline (Coble 1990)

11. Graph of decline in Lake Trout(Coble 1990)

12. Sea Lamprey and Trout Predation Stella Model Assumptions for Stella model: 1)All death of trout are caused by Sea lamprey 2)Trout are the only prey for sea lamprey 3)There are no predators for the sea lamprey

13. Scenario 1: Sea lamprey population: 500, trout population: 1333. The sea lamprey population grows as they eventually push the trout to extinction. The sea lamprey population only declines because we assumed that trout were their only prey Scenario 2: The Trout population was increased by 200% (population 3999) as a result of restoration efforts. Because nothing was done about the sea lamprey, the population declined just as quickly

14. Scenario 3: Sea lamprey population was reduced to 100 as a result of recovery efforts. The trout population was restocked by 200% once again (stays at 3999). The trout population still is destroyed by the sea lamprey • From the information gained using the Stella model, It can be said that the sea lamprey has great impact on the trout population and the population for other large fish within the great lakes • However, it appears that the sea lamprey only have an effect on these fish and not much else • Because fish such as Lake trout are In a high trophic level, there is less effect on the total ecosystem

15. Effects of Zebra Mussels in Great Lakes Region • Since no natural predator, zebra mussel population has gotten very large • Harmed the lake bottoms, affecting fish habitat and spawning (Charlton 2004) • Excrete nutrients which can lead to poor water quality (Charlton 2004) • Promotes formation of algae growth along shorelines and outbreaks of botulism in wildlife (Sullivan 2006) • Causes a big gap in food chain by consuming a vast quantity of plankton (Giacomo 1993) dnr.wi.gov/.../critter/invert/zebramussel.htm

16. Effects (cont) • Increase water clarity by filtering particles and consuming them or binding them in pseudofeces (Zhu 2006) • Leads to deeper light penetration and enhances photosynthesis (Zhu 2006) • See expanded distribution and diversity of macrophytes due to increasing nutrient availability by mussels (Zhu 2006) • Therefore they might actually be increasing biodiversity http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/zebra_1.jpg

17. Because zebra mussels have no natural predators, they have been able to spread across North America through rivers and streams. Spread of Zebra Mussels in North America from 1988 to 1998 (Charlton 2004)

18. Stella Model Representing AreasEffected by Zebra Mussels

19. Analysis of Stella Chart • Zebra mussels have many direct and indirect effects on the great lakes ecosystem • Because zebra mussels are lower on the trophic level they effect many species that are higher on the trophic level • They produce a wider ranging effect on a multitude of other native species by altering the environment. • They impact the environment both in a positive and negative way

20. Take Home Messages • Sea lamprey as a whole only affect small subset of fish population with very little secondary affects • The effect of sea lamprey are still under further investigation as to whether or not they truly have a dramatic impact on the decline certain species of fish • Zebra mussels on the other hand are known to be “ecosystem engineers” and have a larger effect on their newly acquired environment as a whole. Images: -Zebra Mussels clogging a pipe. (Left) -Shopping cart that resided in Zebra mussel infested waters for a few months. (Right) www.fnal.gov/.../archive_2006/today06-05-04.html www.miseagrant.umich.edu/photos/ais/zmussel.html

21. Bibliography • Aldridge, D.C., Elliot, P., and Moggridge, G.D. 2003. Microencapsulated BioBullets for the Control of Biofoulling zebra mussels. Environmental Science and Technology 40.3: 975-979 • Bially, A., & Macisaac, H. J. 2000. Fouling mussels (Dreissena spp.) colonize soft sediments in Lake Erie and facilitate benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology 43(1): 85-97 • Coble, D.W., Bruesewitz, R.E., Fratt, T.W., and Scheirer, J.W. 1990. Lake Trout, Sea lampreys, and Overfishing in the Upper Great Lakes: A Review and Reanalysis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:985-995 • Giacomo, R.S., and Randell, N.G. 1993. Invasion of the Zebra Mussels. Civil Engineering 63: 56-58 • Reed, T., Wielgus, S.J., Barnes, A.K., Schiefelbein, J.J., and Fettes, A.L. 2004. Refugia and Local Controls: Benthic Invertebrate Dynamics in Lower Green Bay, Lake Michigan following Zebra Mussel Invasion. Great Lakes Res. 30(3):390–396 • Zhu, B., Fitzgerald, D.G., Mayer, C.M., Rudstam, L.G., and Mills, E.L. 2006. Alteration of Ecosystem Function by Zebra mussels in Oneida Lake: Impacts on Submerged Macrophytes. Ecosystems 9:1017-1028

22. Internet References • Charlton, M. “Are Zebra Mussels Reshaping Great Lakes Shorelines?” 2004. <http://www.nwri.ca/envirozine/issue35-e.html > • Fetterlof, C. “Sea lamprey in the Great Lakes”. 2003. <http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/g1129.htm> • Graham, L. “Invasives Destroying Great Lakes Food Chain”. 2006. <http://glrc.org/transcript.php3?story_id=3213> • Sullivan, P. “Invasive Species Starts to take a Toll”. 2006. < http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/nov/18bird.htm> • http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=zebra%20mussels