|
|
 |
Loch Tay Freshwater Fish Study, 2000
Dr. David Summers |
|
Introduction
Over recent years reports from the western end of Loch Tay
suggests there has been an increase in the abundance of pike
there. In addition, within the last five years anglers report
seeing roach in abundance, a species formerly unknown. In
western Ireland in recent decades roach have also been introduced
into a number of loughs and pike numbers of have increased
as a consequence, which it has been feared could have negative
consequences for salmonid fish. The concern must be that a
similar phenomenon had occurred on Loch Tay.
To obtain some insight into the status of pike, roach and
salmonids in western Loch Tay a gill netting survey and dietary
analysis was conducted at weekly or fortnighly intervals in
the mouth of the River Dochart at Auchmore between late April
and early July 2000. The findings are presented here.
Methods used
Initially the gill net used was a 10 metre multi-monofilament
gill-net with 70mm “stretched” mesh – that
is 140mm circumference. The net was set in a standard location
close to reed beds near the mouth of the Dochart, out of the
main salmon migration route. The net was typically set in
an evening and lifted the following morning at about 8.30.
However, on 3 June a different net was used. This was a 30m
“multi-mesh sampling net”. This monofilament net,
consisted of short panels of different mesh size so as to
sample all sizes of fish present. While it was found to be
well capable of catching roach, this net was not strong and
could not hold pike. On 8 July, the last sampling occasion,
both nets were set.
Results
Pike
The overall numbers of pike caught are displayed in Figure
1 in terms of length and sex. Most of the pike were in the
50 – 70 centimetre range. The numbers of pike caught
on each sampling occasion and the presence or absence of stomach
contents are presented in Table 1. This shows that the proportion
of pike which had recently fed tended to increase with time.
Early on, when the water was still cold, the majority of pike
had empty stomachs but these were a distinct minority by early
summer. Individual food items in pike stomachs, where identified,
are presented in Table 2. The most common food item was roach,
with wild trout second in importance. In terms of weight of
fish consumed, only the roach and trout are likely to be significant
food items (except for what was eaten by very small pike,
but these were not adequately sampled), given that lampreys
and minnows are very small fish.
Owing to the state of digestion it did not prove possible
to measure all food items, but some roach and trout were measured
and these are given in Table 3. While too much should not
be read into this, for example small fish will be digested
more quickly and will have a lower probability of still being
measurable, it does indicate that there is wide variation
in the sizes of fish consumed. Also many of the roach eaten
were substantial sized fish, therefore by weight, roach do
account for a major part of the pike’s diet.
|


|
 |
| |
|
|
Date |
Food present |
No food present |
Total caught |
| 24 April |
2 |
2 |
4 |
| 30 April |
2 |
4 |
6 |
| 6 May |
4 |
5 |
9 |
| 13 May |
6 |
1 |
7 |
| 22 May |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| 27 May |
4 |
3 |
7 |
| 24 June |
4 |
1 |
5 |
| 8 July |
10 |
1 |
11 |
| Total |
35 |
18 |
53 |
Table 1. Numbers of pike caught with food items
in their stomachs and those without |
| |
|
| |
Char |
Lamprey |
Minnow |
Perch |
Roach |
Trout
(wild) |
Trout
(stock) |
Unknown |
| 24
April |
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
| 30
April |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| 6
May |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
| 13
May |
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
2 |
|
| 22
May |
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
| 27
May |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
| 24
June |
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
| 8
July |
|
|
7 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
1 |
| Total |
1 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
17 |
8 |
2 |
4 |
Table 2. Food items present in pike stomachs |
| |
|
| Roach |
12cm, 14cm, 16cm, 5 x 20cm, 22cm and 24cm |
| Wild Trout |
12cm, <15cm, 19cm, 25cm, 28cm, 30cm and 30cm |
Table 3. Approximate lengths of individual fish
found in pike stomachs which were intact enough to measure.
|
| |
|
Roach |
|
 |
| |
|
The length frequency distribution of roach caught in gill-nets
is presented in Figure 2. Data are amalgamated prior to 3
June, when the multi-mesh net was first used. Without the
multi-mesh net, roach were inadequately sampled, only big
fish being caught in the large mesh deployed. However, on
the first setting of the multi-mesh net a very large catch
was obtained of small roach. Another good catch of small roach
was also made on 8 July. It was noted that of roach opened
up on 3 June around 15cm in length, many were sexually mature
of both sexes.
Analysis of the scales of the roach suggests that those around
15 cm are around 4 years old, but the 30 cm roach are of the
order of 10 – 12 years old. Thus, roach must have been
present in Loch Tay for over 10 years, albeit in smaller numbers.
If these oldest roach were the first in Loch Tay, it would
only have been recently that they became a size to be noticeable.
However, they would have been able to breed at least five
years ago, which may account for the large number of smaller
roach present, which themselves are now breeding. The roach
are, therefore, well established.
Conclusions
The large roach population which has become established in
the lower Dochart is clearly providing a major food source
to pike in the area, at least during the period of this study.
However, during the period of the study, trout were also a
major food item of the pike. Therefore, if the presence of
a new and abundant food item, roach, has resulted in increased
growth and survival of pike, then the potential exists for
overall levels of predation on trout to have increased. Though
none were found in stomach samples, the potential for increased
predation on salmon smolts may also be a possibility. While
we do not know for sure how the roach arrived in Loch Tay
(they could have migrated up from the lower Tay where they
were introduced during the Second World War or they may have
been discarded live bait from pike anglers) this is a graphic
example of the knock on effects of introductions of alien
species and why it is essential that there should be legislation
to control such fish movements.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Alex Stewart, Dougal MacGregor and members
of the Killin and Breadalbane Angling Club for operating the
nets and to Group Captian Dowling of Auchmore for permission
to conduct the study. Thanks are also due to the Tay Foundation
for purchasing the multi-mesh sampling net.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|