2 results
11 - Conservation of migratory fishes in freshwater ecosystems
-
- By Peter B. McIntyre, University of Wisconsin, Catherine Reidy Liermann, University of Wisconsin, Evan Childress, University of Wisconsin, Ellen J. Hamann, University of Wisconsin, J. Derek Hogan, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, Stephanie R. Januchowski-Hartley, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, Aaron A. Koning, University of Wisconsin, Thomas M. Neeson, University of Wisconsin, Daniel L. Oele, University of Wisconsin, Brenda M. Pracheil, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Edited by Gerard P. Closs, University of Otago, New Zealand, Martin Krkosek, University of Toronto, Julian D. Olden, University of Washington
-
- Book:
- Conservation of Freshwater Fishes
- Published online:
- 05 December 2015
- Print publication:
- 03 December 2015, pp 324-360
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Migratory fishes are natural wonders. For many people, the term migratory fish evokes images of salmon audaciously jumping at waterfalls as they return to their own riverine birthplace to spawn after years of growth in the ocean, but freshwater fishes actually show a broad spectrum of migration strategies. Migratory fishes include small species – three-spined sticklebacks that spawn in coastal streams around the northern Pacific and gobies that move from the ocean into tropical island streams by climbing waterfalls (McDowall, 1988) – as well as some of the largest freshwater fishes in the world, such as the Mekong dog-eating catfish and the Chinese paddlefish (Stone, 2007). Aside from migratory habits, these species have few shared characteristics; they encompass numerous evolutionary lineages, enormous differences in life history, and every possible direction and distance of migration. Biologists treat migratory freshwater fishes as a functional group because their life-history strategy revolves around long-distance movement between ecosystems in a perilous quest to take advantage of both high-quality breeding sites and bountiful feeding areas. As humans have physically blocked fish migrations, degraded breeding and feeding grounds and relentlessly harvested migrants for their flesh and roe, many populations have declined or been extirpated. This chapter will provide an overview of fundamental and applied research that is helping to guide efforts to conserve migratory freshwater fishes.
For practical purposes, we define migratory behaviour as the synchronized movement of a substantial proportion of a population between distinct habitats, which is repeated through time within or across generations. Modern definitions of fish migrations typically recognise both the adaptive benefits of migrating and individual variation in executing the general strategy (see McDowall, 1988; Lucas & Baras, 2001). Not every individual must move, the timing may vary somewhat from year to year, and the motive for migrating may include seeking refuge from harsh conditions in addition to breeding and feeding. Nonetheless, in most cases, migration is critical to individual fitness and population persistence because it enables specialised use of different habitats for growth and reproduction. Where their migration routes are blocked or key habitats are lost, migratory fishes often suffer rapid and catastrophic losses.
Human appropriation and degradation of the Earth's freshwater ecosystems (Vörösmarty et al., 2010; Carpenter et al., 2011) have transformed this reliance on multiple habitats into a detriment for many migratory fishes.
Building research capacity in Australian departments of general practice and rural health: a document review of annual reports
- Ellen McIntyre, Deborah Saltman, Vanessa Traynor, Jane Sims, Jeffrey Richards, Joanne Dollard
-
- Journal:
- Primary Health Care Research & Development / Volume 8 / Issue 1 / January 2007
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 March 2007, pp. 3-11
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Aim: To describe the scope and nature of research capacity building activity within academic departments of general practice and rural health in Australia. Method: Document review of Annual Reports for the years 2000 and 2003 of 17 university departments of general practice and rural health, funded through the Research Capacity Building Initiative (RCBI) of the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy. Results: The review indicated that from 2000 to 2003, departments increased their activities in all areas of research capacity building activities. Mentoring and/or supervision other than higher degree students increased from 14 in 2000 to 266 in 2003. Twenty-two research networks involving over 1377 participants were operating in 2003. All departments were involved in collaborations either as part of grant applications, research projects or educational activities. Over 3630 people participated in 189 educational activities in 2003 compared to over 624 people attending 103 activities in 2000. Compared to $10.98 million in 2000, departments had obtained more than $15.6 million for research projects in 2003. While there were more peer reviewed papers published in 2000 (n = 178) compared to 2003 (n = 130), these 17 departments gave 187 conference presen-tations. Conclusions: This review shows that the RCBI has contributed towards a considerable increase in research activities in these university departments of general practice and rural health. This has provided a major boost to primary health care research in Australia. These activities would have been unlikely to occur without the support and assistance of the PHCRED Strategy. Clearly, the full impact of the RCBI will take some time to evolve.