Panu Oulasvirta Metsähallitus. Nature protection experts meet Bioforsk, Svanhovd

Transcription

1 Panu Oulasvirta Metsähallitus Nature protection experts meet Bioforsk, Svanhovd

2 FPM can live > 200 years, documented record ca. 280 years! After becoming mature (15-20 years) remains fertile rest of its lifetime Growth continues whole life time Biggest individuals cm in length, but normally max cm Longer life time and slower growth rate in the north

3 1. Male mussels release their sperm into the water. The sperm enters female gills with the current and fertilizes the egg cells 2. Glochidia larvae are released in the autumn. Some of the larvae attach themselves to the gills of a host fish, where they live as parasites over the winter. During the parasitic stage, the larvae metamorphose into juvenile mussels 3. After dropping off the host fish, the juveniles burrow into the bottom substrate, where they live submerged for 1 7 years. They eventually become visible on the surface of the sediment at a length of 7 9 mm. High mortality in the glochidium and juvenile stage is compensated by the huge glochidia production and long life span of the adult mussels!

4 BECAUSE OF THE PEARLS! To find a pearl required killing of mussels Most of the pearls were worthless, but the most valuable ones really valuable Organized pearl fishing was conducted by the Swedish royal court,, orhodox monestery and couple of professional pearl fishers Pearl fishing was denied in Finland in 1955 and in Norway in 1993 (?), Russia (??)

5 BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND NATURE CONSERVATION: High environmental requirements (especially juveniles!) Required: 1. Oxygen rich environment! 2. Suitable substrate! 3. Suitable water flow! 4. Enough right kind of host fish!

6 One mussel filtrates ca. 50 litre water/ day Maintains the ecosystem and creates a healthy environment to many other species When an umbrella species disappears the function of the whole ecosystem changes

7 Indicator species: Functional fpm population indicates a natural stage of the ecosystem If only adult mussels present: indicates a negative change in the past By studying the growth and accumulation of the toxics in the shells we get information on the river history

8 Due to the high environmental requirements of fpm, protection of it benefits also the conservation of many other species e.g. its host fish salmon and brown trout

9 Nowadays protected against pearl fishing European Union habitat directive Annex II species which requires designation of Special Areas of Conservation Red listed also in Norway and Russia

10 Protection of fpm has not saved it: more than 90 % European populations have become extinct Most of the remaining populations are nonfunctional=> will be vanishing in near future The classification was changed in 2010 from vulnerable (VU) to class endangered (EN) in the IUCN red list of threatened species In Finland we have lost more fpm rivers after its protection in 1955 than after it!

11 In Europe the biggest and most viable populations are in Norway and Russia Also Sweden, Finland, Scotland and Ireland important in the terms of protection of the species Country 1000 mussels Russia > Norway n Sweden n Tähän taulukko yksilömääristä eri maissa UK Ireland Finland n Portugal Germany Czech France 100 Austria 50 Spain 50 Estonia Latvia Luxembourgh and Belgium < 5

12 Beginning: Finnish-Norwegian expedition to River Näätämö in 1998 Result: 14 alive and ca. 100 dead mussels found something wrong in the river, because population almost extinct Need for further research

13 Norway Funded by European Union Interreg Kolarctic and Micro- Tacis program+project partners Cross-border areas and -rivers of Finland, Norway and Russia, especially Pasvik River Basin Sweden Russia Main objective: Locate the nowadays populations in the area Finland

14 Finland: Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage Services Lapland (Lead partner) Finnbarents/ Rovaniemi Municipal Federation of Education Innofocus/ Adult Education Centre in Western Uusimaa Inari Sport Diving Club Alleco Ltd. Norway: Bioforsk Jord og Miljö Svanhovd Russia: Pasvik zapovednik Institute of Northern Industrial Ecological Problems

15 Main catchments Pasvik (Finland-Norway-Russia) Tuloma/ Lutto (Finland-Russia) Näätämö/Neiden (Finland-Norway) Teno/ Tana (Finland-Norway) Karpelva (Norway) Botnelva (Norway) Tårnelva (Norway) Örnebekken (Norway) Grense Jacobselv (Norway_Russia) Litsa (Russia)

16 (on-going) Funded by European Union Interreg North program+project partners Seven Work Packages: 1. Network 2. Analyses of the state of the freshwater pearl mussel populations and their habitats 3. Water quality and heavy metals in freshwater pearl mussels and their habitat 4. Population genetic analyses of northern freshwater pearl mussel populations 5. Host fish and cultivation experiments 6. Searching for new mussel populations 7. Dissemination of information Investigations were carried out in 187 different rivers!

17 Seven partners from Finland, Sweden and Norway: - Metsähallitus, (Lead partner, Finland) - University of Jyväskylä (Finland) - Lapland Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environment (Finland) - Bioforsk Soil and Environment (Norway) - NINA (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research) - Akvaplan niva (Norway) - County Administrative Board of Norrbotten (Sweden)

18 State of the populations: Population status assessment was carried out in 24 rivers out of which 10 are located in Pasvik, Lutto, Tana, Neiden river basins In addition, preliminary/ earlier data from 10 rivers in Norway and 4 rivers in Russia

19 Status class Viable Viable? Non-viable Dying-out Almost extinct Extinct Criteria >20 % <50 mm and >0 % <20 mm (>500 ind.) >20 % <50 mm or >10 % <50 mm and >0 % <20 mm (>500 ind.) <20 % <50 mm (>500 ind.) or >20 % <50 mm (<500 ind.) All >50 mm, (>500 ind.) All >50 mm, (<500 ind.) Earlier documented occurrence but now gone Söderberg et al. (2009); Bergengren et al. (2010) Population size estimate and the proportion of juvenile mussels in random transects Do digging of substrate: only visible mussels (observing by snorkling/scuba diving)

20 River Size Status Min 1. Hanhioja Viable 4 mm 2. Ruohojärvenoja Non-viable/ Viable? 20 mm 3. Hirvasjoki Non-viable 15 mm 4. Lutto > Non-viable/ Dying-out 5. Torkonjoki Non-viable (Viable?) 30 mm (2003) 20 mm 6. Kuutusoja Non-viable 29 mm 7. Suomu ~ Non-viable/ Dying-out 41 mm Kiertämäoja Non-viable (Viable?) Data: Metsähallitus, Valovirta (1997) 14 mm

21 River Size Status Min Näätämö < 500 Almost extinct 90 mm Data: Metsähallitus

22 River Size Status Min Lovttajohka Non-viable 46 mm Utsjoki FPM observed: no pop.status assessment Karasjohka FPM observed: no pop.status assessment

23 Botnelva: Viable? (not studied) Ørnebekken: Viable? (not studied) Grense Jakobselv: few individuals, no recruitment Tårnelva Haukedalselva: weak Karpelva: 700,000 ind.; viable Skjellbekken: 30,000 ind.;viable Pasvikelva main course: 1 ind. Found 1995 Spurvbekken: 20,000 ind.; viable Føllelva: Only partly investigated: 14,000 ind.; viable Ellenelva: 1,000-2,000 ind.; no pop.status assessment

24 Juveniles observed, but no population status assessment carried out

25

26 Litsa: Some juveniles, no populations status assessment done (viable?)

27 In main rivers (except Karpelva) the remaining FPM populations are all non-functional (no recruitment/ only minor recruitment) Primary host Atlantic salmon! Unmapped: Rivers Utsjoki, Tornionjoki, Inarijoki, Karasjoki (Teno)

28 Genetic diversity Genetic diversity highest in salmon river mussels

29 All viable/ maybe viable populations are found from the small brooks situated at the upper part of the catchment (exception Karpelva) => Without conservation measures FPM distribution will be fragmented into few isolated small populations Within the river, recruitment takes place often only in the upper course (less anthropogenic pressure from the catchment)

30 Combined effect of: Airborne and local nutrients & pollution+ low ph peaks (spring flood) resulting dissolution of aluminium and other heavy methals Historical pearl fishing Natural reasons: populations are located at the limit of their climatic distribution range =>recruitment successful only in most favourable years(?)??? Euthrophication visible in the Näätämö river!

31 In main channels (Lutto&Suomu): Lack of host fish (salmon) due to the construction of upper Tuloma power plant in 1960s In tributaries: forestry actions, high nutrient levels (reindeer herding???)

32

33 Спасибo! Kiitos! Takk!