A model of bluegill-largemouth bass interactions in relation to aquatic vegetation and its management

Trebitz, Anett S.; Carpenter, Stephen R.; Cunningham, Patrick N.; Johnson, Brett M.; Lillie, R.A.; Marshall, David; Martin, Thomas H.; Narf, Richard P.; Pellett, Thomas D.; Stewart, Scott; Storlie, Christine; Unmuth, Jean M. L.

doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(96)00009-9

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the macrophyte clearance increased both the availability and total abundance of macroinvertebrate prey. Increases in fish growth, such as those observed in previous studies Trebitz et al, 1997;Olson et al, 1998), could be explained by either a combination of improved accessibility to prey or increased prey abundance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Additionally, the creation of macrophyte edges possibly increased predation on bullies by piscivorous fish (brown and rainbow trout in lake Dunstan) Olson et al, 1998) thus counteracting any increase. Furthermore, abundance itself might be not a very suitable parameter to evaluate the 'fish' response to harvest (Carpenter et al, 1995;Trebitz et al, 1997). Growth rate might be much better suited for this purpose; however, the experimental scale was too small to measure growth responses in highly mobile organisms such as fish.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, there might be even positive effects of some vegetation removal on littoral zone fish abundance, growth, weight and fecundity (Killgore et al, 1998;Sammons et al, 2005). Theoretical considerations and modelling suggest that removal of about 20-50% of macrophyte areal cover should be most beneficial for fish growth due to increased predation success (easier access to prey fish) and an increase in prey fish abundance due to prey accessibility along macrophyte edges Trebitz et al, 1997). Initial experiments conducted in lakes in North America showed a positive response of growth of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)) after the cutting of channels into macrophyte beds (Carpenter et al, 1995;Olson et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Initial experiments conducted in lakes in North America showed a positive response of growth of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)) after the cutting of channels into macrophyte beds (Carpenter et al, 1995;Olson et al, 1998). Increased fish growth was attributed to better access to prey, higher predation success and a reduction of population size due to predation (Carpenter et al, 1995;Trebitz and Nibbelink, 1996;Trebitz et al, 1997;Olson et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Impact of partial removal of the invasive macrophyte Lagarosiphon major (hydrocharitaceae) on invertebrates and fish

Bickel

Closs

2008

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive macrophyte species are a threat to native biodiversity and often grow to nuisance levels, therefore, making control options necessary. Macrophyte control can have pronounced impacts on littoral fish by reducing habitat heterogeneity and the loss of profitable (high density of invertebrates) foraging areas. Yet, there is little known about the impacts of macrophyte removal on invertebrates themselves. We conducted a macrophyte removal experiment, that is the cutting of channels into dense macrophyte beds, to investigate the impact of mechanical macrophyte control on invertebrate and fish communities in a littoral zone dominated by the invasive macrophyte Lagarosiphon major. The effect of macrophyte removal had only a temporary effect on macrophyte areal cover (4 months). Nevertheless, the treatment increased light penetration significantly. However, we could not detect any difference in epiphyton biomass. Invertebrate biomass increased in macrophyte stands 4 months after treatment and there was a shift in the invertebrate community composition. Mechanical control had no effect on invertebrate biodiversity. The higher invertebrate biomass did not translate into a higher fish density in the treated areas. The results of this study indicated that partial mechanical removal is a suitable option to control unwanted macrophyte stands.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of partial removal of the invasive macrophyte Lagarosiphon major (hydrocharitaceae) on invertebrates and fish

Bickel

Closs

2008

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Macrophyte architecture and littoral habitat complexity have been studied extensively and found to influence largemouth bass predation on prey such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and crayfish (Savino and Stein 1982, 1989, Bettoli et al 1992, Dibble and Harrel 1997, Trebitz et al 1997, Ward and Neumann 1998, Valley and Bremigan 2002. However, little is known how littoral habitat complexity influences largemouth bass predation on salmonids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Largemouth bass consumption demand on hatchery rainbow trout in two Washington lakes

Christensen

Moore

2010

Lake and Reservoir Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting responses to climate change using a joint species, spatially dependent physiologically guided abundance model

Custer,

North,

Schliep

et al. 2024

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting the effects of warming temperatures on the abundance and distribution of organisms under future climate scenarios often requires extrapolating species–environment correlations to climatic conditions not currently experienced by a species, which can result in unrealistic predictions. For poikilotherms, incorporating species' thermal physiology to inform extrapolations under novel thermal conditions can result in more realistic predictions. Furthermore, models that incorporate species and spatial dependencies may improve predictions by capturing correlations present in ecological data that are not accounted for by predictor variables. Here, we present a joint species, spatially dependent physiologically guided abundance (jsPGA) model for predicting multispecies responses to climate warming. The jsPGA model uses a basis function approach to capture both species and spatial dependencies. We apply the jsPGA model to predict the response of eight fish species to projected climate warming in thousands of lakes in Minnesota, USA. By the end of the century, the cold‐adapted species was predicted to have high probabilities of extirpation across its current range—with 10% of lakes currently inhabited by this species having an extirpation probability >0.90. The remaining species had varying levels of predicted changes in abundance, reflecting differences in their thermal physiology. Though the model did not identify many strong species dependencies, the variation in estimated spatial dependence across species suggested that accounting for both dependencies was important for predicting the abundance of these fishes. The jsPGA model provides a new tool for predicting changes in the abundance, distribution, and extirpation probability of poikilotherms under novel thermal conditions.

show abstract

A model of bluegill-largemouth bass interactions in relation to aquatic vegetation and its management

Cited by 25 publications

References 32 publications

Impact of partial removal of the invasive macrophyte Lagarosiphon major (hydrocharitaceae) on invertebrates and fish

Impact of partial removal of the invasive macrophyte Lagarosiphon major (hydrocharitaceae) on invertebrates and fish

Largemouth bass consumption demand on hatchery rainbow trout in two Washington lakes

Predicting responses to climate change using a joint species, spatially dependent physiologically guided abundance model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About