InteL'lJational Council for . C'. M. 1993/ J: 58 the boxploration of lJhe Sea ,. 11 Anad.comous ,WQ Catadromous l!~ish Committee
SALMON FtI VERS Ob' "!L,; KOLA P3 HNüU1A. R.uPRO) TCflIIV'~ PO'l'El: (1'1 AL AND .sTOCK ~'lIA'lIUS 01" Nl'LAN'I'IC GALlION FROII (NiE U\1BA RIVER by Zubchenko A.V. and O.G.Kuzmin
Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO), 6, Iillipovich Street, 183763, Murmansk, Russia • IN'l'RODUC'l'I ON
~hc Umba River is one of thc lllain salmen rivers on tlle Kola Peninsula. I t is 25 km long. 1'he river flows in the meridianal direction from the north to the south along the break in the crystalline shield extended from the Voronya River through the Lovozero Lake to the coast of the White Sea.
2 fhe square of the Umba basin is 6.248,5 kru • There are 599 rivers of different lcngths (4.229 km on the whole), inflowing; in it.
• 'l'he Umba is a river of a lacustrine ty~e. On its way, it cros:'5es several lakes of 61,1 km extent (49 % of tae total river length). '1\ he bigges t lakes among the lineaL' ones aL'e the Kan ozero (25.5 2 2 km. long, 89.6 l<.m ) and Ponchozero lakes (9• .3 lan and 20 km , correspondingly).
Quite a large nwabcr of great lakes (the Vyalozero, Munozero and Ingozero) is situated in tne basin of the Umba. fl'he sUlD.!Ilerized 2 wa ter square of alllakes from the Umba basil1 is 807• .3 km • Coefficient of lake content constitutes 12.9 % (and 7.1 % in average for rivers of the Kola Peninsula). 2. • Ichthyofauna of the Umba basin and its inflows includes 15 opecies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salur L.), trout!(~. trutta ~.), Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)), cisce CCoregonus albula CL.)), whitefish CCorep;onus lavarctus CL.)), g~'()yling (1J.1h.ymalluo th,ymallus CL.)), pike (Esox lueius L.), jroaeh (Rutilun rutilus CL.)) ide (Leuciscus ~ (L.)), minnow CPhoxinus phoxinus (L.)), burbot (Lota ~ (~.)), threcspinc sticklebück (Gasterosteus I aculeatus L.), ninespine stickleback (PunBitius pungitius (~.)), perch (Ferca fluviatilis (L.)),- rutfe CAcerina cernua .CL.)).- In SOULe 'ycarß, pink salmon COncorhynchus gorbuseha (Walbaum)), adapted in the European North, come into the Umba,river. • Twelve species of fish are target spec~es for commercial fishery and e;ame: Atlantic salmon, pink salmon, itrout, Arctic cmr, cisco, • whitcfish, gray1ine, pike, roach, ide, iburbot end perch. However, "". thc most important commercial species is. Atlarltic salmon, which io ~hc target spacies for commercial and sport licenced fisheries. I During the whole period of fisheries onithe Umba River, measures have been baken to malee salmon fishery rational and reproduction . I of this speeies optiit!l.lllu. In the middle of 30-ies, a fish ha lichery I waS built with the same oim, ~hich still operates. ! In 1978, Ghe coneentrated fishery of salmon was introdueed on the • I eounting fenee of the Umba river, installed seme kilometers from the estuary. In 1989, fishery on the cOUnting fence was prohibited by the USSt{ Committee of Nature Protection, anti. by some other e organs. ~ater on, this decision was eon~idered as an error and eanceled. Nevertheless, it led to the complete desorganization of the existed sys tem cf exploi ta liion o~ lihe Umba salmon otocl~, cODsequenees of VJhleh take plnce n't pL'esent t and maue tllc proteetion • and works on reproduction more difficult. I Undoubtedly all thio, tObether with other negative fuctors, influenced more or lesn the otatus of salmon stock f~om the Umba River. fl'o evaluat;e this stn tus on the basis of ovailable uata is tne csin taskof the paper. 1U~ERIAL M~D' ~ffi~HODS
Data of investigations conducted in the Umba basin in 1986-1992 are used, as well as archives of PIWlO and MUHMANRYBVOD (fisher.y statistics). Datu on squares of salmon spawning-rearing oreas (Kuzmin et al., 1ge9) we~e corrected durinG ~urvoys in 1991-1992. ~otal extent of routes constibuted abaut 183 km. Surveys on spawning-rearing areas (SRA) were conducted by methods of PINRO. Borders of SRA were determined visually, squares were calculated by topographie maps and by data of aerovideosurveys. The bottom is charaeterized by the elassifieation of M.V.Klenova (1931). To deseribe the YOllIlg salmon density of coneentration , the published • data (Kuzmin et al., 1989) and data, obtained by thc eleetro-trap in 1992, were used. The initial data for evaluation of status of . Mum~~mYBVOD • salmen stock in the Umba River were those of for the period of 1950-1992. At this, eatch statisties till 1978 ineludes data of eoastal fishery; data for 1979-1989 were obtained in the result of the direet aecount of coming spawners on the aeeoLmting fenee; and spawners abundanee. in 1990-1992 1s calculated by the results of thc control csteh using average eoeffieients of return anu survival of variaus year elasses, obtained fo~ salmon from this river in previous years.
RESULTS AND DIDCUSSION
According to PINRO data, total spawning and rear1ng fund of the Umbä River, 01' influents of the first ami second orders (the Vyala, Muna, Inga and Lyamuksa rivers)an~ of arms Kitsa, Rodvinga, Nizma • B~IShoi 2 und Krivets (Fig. 1) constitutes 4.477.800 m ; 1.909.700 nf 2 of thcm are spuwning e;rounds and 2.568.100 m ~ reari.ng grounds ((llable 1). 2 In the Umbn R i vor t ehe spawning-rearing areas occuPY 2.677.270 m , 2 including spawninp; g.cOW1US (1.041.950 m ). The most qualifie<1. SHA are situated nearby the Semiverstny and Kanozersky 'l'hreshoulds anel Zhemchuzh.ny Reach. , 4. , In the l\iWlO River (39 lan lone;), more than 1.t~ km are occupied by Sl{A. ~he main spa~ning areas are situated 20-28 km from the river-heau. ! 1'he bottorn of the spawnine; grounds consi~t of gravel and pebbles, current speed is 0.5-0.8 rn/ s, depths are; down to 0.9 m. 1
In ~he Inga River (it is an influent of the Muno Riveri 17 km lonß), I the main spa~ning und rearing aroos ure Dltuated in the area of 7-8 and 12-14 tan.
In the Kitsa arm (6.6 !an long, it floVls out of the Kanozero Lake), spawning grounds are extended for 2.5 km~
In the Rodvinßa arm (7.3 km long, it flows from the Kanozero Lake), the main spawning grow1ds are situated in the area of 1-2 and 4-5 km •
More than half of tue Nizma arm (15 km Iong;"it flows out of the • Rodvinga River and inflows into the Ponc~ozero Lake) is occupied by spawning grounds and rearing areas. The main SRA are situated in the areas of '1-;), 8-11 and 12-15 km. ; i
In tae Bolnhoi Kriyots url.il (l~. 8 km long; l i t flow8 out of the Ponchozero Lake and inflows into the Nizma R.), SRA aie situated alone; the whole extent. On the tllreshoulds, which'are the rearing I " areas of young salmon, the bottom i6 mainly of boulders, current speed is 0.6-1.0 mls, depths are down to 1 m. On the bars, the pebbles predominate, current speed i8 0.6-0.8 mls. Noarly tne wholeextent of the Vyala River (38 km long; it flows • out of the Vyalozero Lake) is threshoulds (28 of 38 km). 'l'he total 2 square of threshoulds and bars constituc~s 380.000 m , that is a gooel potential for salmon reproduction~ However, due to O.G. Kuzmin et ale (1989), the prolongated exploitation of the river ror the timber rnfting led to the cbange; of a structure of bottorn biocenoses and to the domination of organisms, which are not the ! feeding ones for young salmon. Besic.les, in tte result 01' technical preparation for thc timber rafting (deeping, and straightening .of the rivar bed, buildlnG of dams and crib~)t the Vyala Hiver becarne a trough without sanctuaries for young s~lmon. Complete destroying \ of·the rivel' bed liquidated, to the opin~on of authors, the con- ditions for sulmon spawIling und roproduction {the lat;t;er takes place only in Dwall rivers, inflowlng into the Vynla River, and in tl~ influent of the Lyamuksa River).
In the Lyumuksu R. (26 km long, inflows out 01' the Lyamozero Lal\:e an Studying of parr' 8 distribution derJSity on various areas of the \" river proves, that it varies sufficiently. Small densities are nobei 2 in tüe middle Ili 18 kDown fro!iJ. the literature (Berg, 1935; Smirnov, 1935) ttwij salmon catches were 825 to 1.086 fish (955 fish in average) in the Umba in 1928-1930, whereas the weights were 7.65 to -10 t (8.83 t in average) ~ rrhis information does not unfortunately allow to justify on the Umba stock at that period, since it dees not characterize the total abund~lIlce. rro evaluate salmen stock in the Umba at present, we use data of Mm~~NRYBVOD for 1950-1992 (Figs. 2 and 3). ~he figures show that thc abundance of the Umba stock was quite stable. It fluctuated. frara 3.924 tu 12.190 fish and constituted 8.4-32 fish in average. At this, the minimum stock abundance differed ffrom the rnaximwIl" one a 1itt1e bit more than th.t'ee times, end the In ttc.t' o.iffered front the cnlculated potential abun<1ance less than three ,.. o. tioes; that was typical for other commercialI salmon rivers of ,thc I Kola Peninsula and pointed to the normal status of the population. I However, the situation has changed. ~he :trend-analysis of the Umba I stock abundance proves it (Eigs. 4 and 5), as weIl as the results of studying of young salmon distributiori., In 1992, total' production of young fish 'at age of ü+ in the Umba River constituted about 149 thou. spec.;: 1+ - about 121.5 thou. spec., 2+ - about 117 thou. spec., 3+ - Iabout 42.1 thou. spec. I '. . • and 4+ - about 0.6 thou.spec. Data on mean density of yOUDg fish I .• distribution of corresponding age groups and on squares of spawning and rearine areas were used in calculati~ns. i I Just fioh at age of 1+ and 2+ arid older will migrate do~~stream in summer 1993 and return into the river~, in 1994-1996. Due to data • of V.G.Martynova and Kuznetsova (1985), ~he long-term corr~latian between smolts at age of 2+, 3+, 4+ and 5+ constitutes 12.3 %; 58.6 %, 28.7 % and 0.4 %, correspondingly, in the Umba river. tiortality of older flsh is not usually hieh and constitutes about 16 % per year due to Nikiforov (1959). Accounting this, about • I 123.2 thou. fish at age of 1+ - 4+ (281,.2 thou. spec. -in total) , . I will migrate to the sea in 199j, that iOi5.6 times less than I calculated potential abundance of smolts~ I ! j. . . Smell abundance of fingerlings at age oflO+ should also be noted, I that justifies on low effectiveness of spawning in 1991. To make back cal~ulation, the followin6 survival~coefficientswere uoed: I • from egg formation to hatching of free embryo - 0.081 (Nikiforov, I 1959), from the stage of free embryo to the stage of active feeding of larvae - O.?(expeDimental dataobtain~d by one of the autnors), from the stuge of larvue to stage of fingerling - 0.13 (McCrimmon, 1954), froli1 the st~ge cf fingerling to yearling at age of 1+ .; 0.76 (Nikiforov, 1959). Back calculation~ shows that this y3ar, about 2.020 females were spavming; accounting the correlation I bet';:ct::n I.UJ,luG und femoles. the total abundance of tele spä\"ming I stock constituted about 4~200 fish in 1991, while äuout 5.6 thou. spec. were allowed to pass to the ~pm'JDint~ Grouncls (47~J J:'ich rlc.re CiJUe-;tlt on t;l'le uccow1ting fcnce and ?37 zpec. were tuken f?r cultiva ein,.:;). I 0 .;.~~ ~;). l.i.. c:;lu bit :l1ore thun in 1976-1986; when ' 7. the ave~age abunduncc of thc passed spawners was about 3.500 specimens, but a lit tle bit less thon .abl.müance of spawners necessary to fill optirnally tho spawning grounds (duo to data of O.G.Kuzmin et 01. (1989), this abundance constitu'ces about 27.000 spccimons). Naturully, tllc presentod calculations give average resul GS and do noti account tho conditions of 0 specific year. Nevertheless, they show that in 1994-1997, poor year classes of salmon will be spawnine;; while in other rivers, the increase of total abundancc of spawners is expected. It also is proved by the prognosis of ßenero.l regularit:Les of changing 01' salmon abundance in the UIllbö River for the nearest 6 years (Fiß. 6) • • As it was mentioned above, the desorganization 01' the system of exploitation, reproduction and protection of salmon from this river played its role. Besides, the expected reduction of salmon stock in the Umba was conneeted with some other faetors. Firstly, the timber rafting influeneed negatively. It resulted in complete destroy of spwning-rearing areas in the influents 01' the first and second order of the Vyala and Lyamuksa rivers. Duo to calculations, thc annuul losses of smolts in the result of raftinc; constituted about 28.000 specimens. Besidos, the rafting dama~ed thc spawning-rearing areas located lower in the river. • Seeonllly, the absence of elear lews led to the noticeable increase of illßgal catch. For example, due to invcstigatio.ns, ttle illegal cateh eonstituted about 25% of total number of spawners in 1991, passed to the spawning t)l'oWlds. In previous years, the illegal eateh reaehed 26 % sometimes (Zubehenko, 1992). Thirdly, fishery both on areas of fattening and eoastal areas .of the White Sea influenees strongly the status of salmon stock in lihe Umba. Aceording 'co üata of SIIlolt tagging in the Porya H. (nearby the Urnba R.), the L FOUL'til1y, i t is nocessary to accüwlt the river pollutilull :)j' was te products of the mininf industry. ~hough the Umbozero Lake is a natural sedimentation tank and, apparently, a port 01' suspensfons occurs in the Umba. \"Je hove not .got special data on influence 01' run off on the salmon reproductian, since speeific investigations heve not been eonduetcd. However, the observed silting of spawning grounds in thc hend river was probably caused by these reasons. Fifthly, small effectivity of the Umba fishing farm ( the average • value of return i8 0. 04- 7~) ,should be noted. as weIl. Sixthly, because of many lakes, thc .influence of predators is very strong in thc Droba H. as nowhere alse on:the Kola Peninsula. Due to Kuzmin et ale (1989), 1-7 smolts were revealed in stomachs of 55.6 % of invcstigated pike, and 50 %'of perch had young fish fram the farm in ttleir stomachs, that eonstituted 91.5 % 01' the food bolus weight. All Ghis led to the fact that present status of salmon stock requircs a pL'ecautious management in spite of the introduc tiion of flshery prohibition in 1987 (till 1989, the eateh had not. to • exceed 33%; and it was limited by 1500 ·spcc. per year in 1991- 1992) • ", ~o improve tho situation, it i5 nccessary to change the existed system of exploitation of salmon stock from this river. ~irst 01' all, it i8 necessary to reduce (and then to prohibit) . the COIll!'lercial f'isher.y on salmon in this river, and to dcvelop thc rccroational fishcry. ~here are all necessary conditions ror tinin, since it i3 easy to reach the Umba R. by car (in contrast to the majority of rivers of the Kola Peninsula) and the motor boats can be used in the lowers. ~o reduce tae illegal catch, it i8 necessary to introduce the pDid fishing for residcnts even at the expense 01' foreign tourism reduction. It is also necessary to prohibit timber rafting on this river and to conduct works on recultivating of bars and gorges in the Vyala and Lyamuksa rivers and on cleaning 01' bottOill from sank trees. To reduce the influence 01' predators, it is necessary to carry out the specialized fishing on pi,ke and perch in the places 01' their maximal concentrations. in the period after the debacle• • Just this system 01' measures, to the opinion cf authors, will be more ef'fective' than measures on protection and penalties, 'being used till present time • • 10. REFERENCES BALillHTANSKY, E.L., L.F.ZAGURAEVA, and ~.D.lfES02ROV. 1976. Resultn cf tasging of finGerlings of Atlnnt{c salmon in 1960-1974.' rrrudy VNIRO, l',loscow,' '113: 19-23 (in 'Hussinn). BA1~H~A~SKY, E.L., and M.Ya.YAKOVENKO. 0976. Migrutions of kelts of Atlnntic salmon from the Varzuga1river. 'l'r.udy VNIRO, r/108co\'1, 113: 33-38 (in Russian). BERG, L.S. 1935. Ma terials on solmon biology. Bulletin of l;he Institute of Freshwater Eisheries, L~ningrad, 20: 114-186 (in Rus~ian). KLENOVA, M.V. 1931. Report on the work of, the Commission on the mechanical analysis of the ground (the State Oceanographic Ins- titute). Bulleten GOIN, Moscow, 1: alp. (in Russian). tt KULIDA,S.V., and V.G.clAd~YNOV. 198? Populationsl composition of . , . salmon co tches Oll fi~hing gro:mds of; the Whi te Sea. lt,ybnoe khoz,yoistvo, 11: 39-42 (in Russian).! KUZI.IIN, O.G., M. Ya. :fAKOVENKO, I .L.SHCHYUROV,, Yu.a.SHUS'l'OV, and S.E.MASLOV. 1989. Salmon Salmo salarlfrom the Umba river (natural and artificial reproduction). AN SSBR, Petrozavodsk, 4l~ p. (in Russian). MAUTtNOV, V.G., and G.M.KUZNE~SOVA. 1985. Salmon Salmo salar L. of the Umba river. Sbopnik nauclwykh:trudov, Murmonsk: 3-15 (in Russian). McCri~non H.R. 1954. Straom studies on planted Atlantic salmon. J.Fish.Res.Bd. of Canada, 2(4): 362~3. NES1'EROV, V.D. 1981. Results of tagßing lor salmon smolte from the • Soyany river in 1973. Materialy seminaraI ttBiologicheskie I resursy Belogo rnorya i vnutrennikh vocloemov Evropeinkogo severa", I Petrozavodsl{: 110-113 (in Russian). . NIKIFOROV, N.D. 1959. Developlllent, grow~h and survival of embryoes and young salmon under natural condi~ions. Izvestiya V,NIORKH, 48: 65-79 (in Russion). i SMIRNOV, A.G. 19~5. Investigations of biology and fishery of salffion in rivers of the eastern part of the ,rl'ersky shore and on Murman in 1932 and 1953. Bulletin of the In~titute of Freshwater Finheries, Leningrad, 20: 114-186 (in .RusGian). ZUBCHE.N,.{O, A.V. 1992. ~tatus of tl1e Atl~ntic salmon stocl, in the Nhite Seo rivers of the Kola Peninsula. Tezisy dokladov V regionolnoi konforelltsil, lJetrozavods;lc: 22-2'1- (in Russian). I' Table 1. Characteristics of spawning-rearing grounds in the basin of the Umba river River, apart of a rivel' Square of spawning Square o~ rearing Total squa~e SRA extent, areas, m aress, m of SRA, m km Ullibozero lake- Verkhnee Kapustnoe lake 250.000 249.000 499.000 Nizhnee Kapustnoe lake- Dedkova Lambina 75.550 269.300 341t.850 Semivel'stny Threshould 213.750 439.120 652.870 Zhernchuzhny PIes 447.600 540.400 988.000 Maly Krivets - estual'Y 55.000 137.500 192.500 the MW18 1'1ver 145.450 221.700 367.150 14.6 the Inga river 17.150 181.500 19ß.650 5.4 Kitaa 58.500 87.750 146.250 2.5 Roavinga 81.650 60.700 142.350 3.0 Nizraa 26,.050 104.350 367.400 7.7 Bolshoi Krivets 270.000 166.100 436.100 4.8 the Lyamuksa river ,2.000 110.680 142.680 7.8 'l'otal 1.909.700 2.568.100 4.477.800 .. 12. Fi~. 1. LaRe KapultDoe Lake KapustDoe Lake Dedkova Lake • Zhemchuzlmy • Krivets "aly WHITE SEA , , .... Flg.2. Catches 01 atlantlc salmon In the Umba R. In 1950·1992 36,------, • 30 _.---.._- --_ - - _--.--..- --._- - _ .- -- _ . 25 ------.------. I 20 - -_ --. ------.---.-.---.------.- ----....- ..... 15'" . _.- - - -...... ············1 .I 10 - o...I.y-r-r-T'""r.,.-r"T""T"'T""T-r'"T""'T"I-"""'-'r""T"""1r-!1!=n-r-r-T'""rT-rT-r""""""""I"""'T.--r""l1-,-J 1&60.1864 1&58 1&e2 1886 1870 1874 1878 1882 1986 1990 • 1852 19S8 1880 1884 196e 1972 1876 1880 1884 1988 1992 y_ra Flg.3. Catch and abundance 01 atlantlc salmon in the Umba R. in 1969·1992 14-r------, 10 ...-.--.----.--.---..-.----.----.-----f 'i" iCD "'Cfi 8 _ -_ _.- -._ _..-_._ __ _---._ _- .a CD ~ ~ -~ o . 1&6818711873187518771878188118831886188718881881 197019721974197819781880198219841886198819901992 y.r. • .1--- eatch -+- abundane. Fig.4. Trend-~nalysis oT ~tl~ntic salmon abundance in the Umba R. in 1969-1992 (X 1000) • ...... , ; , : .;.. 15 : : : : : : : : : ': • • • • • · . . . · . . . · ...... ~ ~ ~ ; :.. 12 : : : : : · . . . . · . . . . · . . . · . . . · . . . ·: :. .: ----- · . · . ..~ ~. 9 •• : n • : : •• Ul t GI !Ie ~ · . . . . . c 6 .." .., ,.. . : . 3 ..; ,; ;. .;:.. j' ~ [ ~ . ..'· . . : : · . . . . · . · . · . · . · . . o ...':::: ~: :.. 9 19 29 39 49 period(years) .': /,." Fig.5. Trend-analysis of atlantic salmon (X 1000) abundance in the Umba R. in 1988-1992 ...... 13 .1"' "1"" "1" : ~ "1"" . '. . : :: : . '. . : :: : : :: : : :! ! ~ . i : 9 ~ : :. ;;:.. • ; .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '. '. · . '. · . '. · . '. · . '. · '. · '.. · . · . fl · . L · . · . '.. .· . . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ -:" ~ : :.. 5 · . . . . . e · . . . . . j '. '. : . '. '. c · '. · . · . · . · . · . ...... n ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 · . ·. . .. . ~...... ~ -3 ..· ...... e 4 8 12 16 20 peri od(years) .1 ., f () , .Fig.6. Prognosis of possible changes of salmon abundante in Umba R.in 1993-1998 (X 10000) 4 ..i ·· ····..····(··..·················· (·· · ; ; ; ;.. : ·: .: ..: : .: :. ·.· ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ · . ..\ .\ ··...... · ...... · .' . : :: : · .' . · .' ...... · .' . ..: : : ..: : : .:.. 3 ·..·....·...... : : : : : : : ·. .' .' : : :: ;: : : :: :: :: :: · .' · .'·. ··.. u\ t. · ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 •• ••••• , : ••••••••••••••n ••••••••••: ••••••••••••••••• ", •••••••:'. . e ~ ~ j ~ ~ : ~ j : : :: . ·. ... . c · . ... ·...·.... . · . . . ·..·.... ··...... ··...... ·...· . .. ·...·. . . 1 ..:::: & : : : .• . : . ,: . • • : .. . . . 8 .+ ~ ~ ; j ~ ~ : ;.. e 5 18 15 28 25 30 period(years)