Comparative Swimming Performance of Five Catostomus Species and Roundtail Chub

Abstract

Abstract.—Decreased habitat connectivity and competition with nonnative species have led to declines of many freshwater fishes. An understanding of swimming performance can aid in the conservation of these fishes; however, acquiring sufficient numbers of rare and threatened species to perform swimming studies can be logistically challenging and ecologically costly. In order to determine whether swimming data for common sucker species may be substituted for that of similar but rare sucker species, we compared the swimming abilities of two rare western catostomids, Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus and Flannelmouth Sucker C. latipinnis, as well as one catostomid with a less well understood status, Mountain Sucker C. platyrhynchus, with those of the common White Sucker C. commersonii and Longnose Sucker C. catostomus. We also examined Roundtail Chub Gila robusta because they are often included in conservation efforts involving Bluehead Sucker and Flannelmouth Sucker. The critical swimming velocities (Ucrit), standardized by body length, of Bluehead Sucker and Longnose Sucker differed significantly from those of White Sucker. However, there was no significant difference between the Ucrit of Mountain Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, and White Sucker. During constant acceleration trials, Bluehead Sucker exhibited the greatest swimming ability, reaching a mean maximum velocity of 4.56 ± 1.28 body lengths per second (BL/s; mean ± SD), followed by Mountain Sucker (3.56 ± 0.57 BL/s), White Sucker (3.28 ± 0.90 BL/s), Longnose Sucker (2.97 ± 0.31 BL/s), and Flannelmouth Sucker (2.22 ± 0.42 BL/s). Additionally, key behavioral differences in the swimming behaviors of the fishes studied were observed. We conclude that swimming performance data for common White Sucker should not be used in place of data for rarer species. Comprehensive swimming studies should be conducted on individual sucker species before implementing conservation strategies involving fish passageways or barriers. Received November 6, 2013; accepted February 28, 2014

Inconsistent reproductive isolation revealed by interactions betweenCatostomusfish species

“…; Underwood et al. ), and overlap in spawning habitat and timing to varying extents (Sweet and Hubert ). Given their variation in admixture, and the different crosses involved, Catostomus hybrids are likely to express a wide range of phenotypes, perhaps including transgressive phenotypes (Stelkens and Seehausen ; Stelkens et al.…”

“…Hybrids often have different phenotypes from either parental species, and might be able to exploit different resources (e.g., Williams and Ehleringer 2000;Lexer et al 2004;Gompert et al 2006;Rieseberg et al 2007;). Specific to this system, we know that different Catostomus species have different diets and swimming abilities (Cross et al 2013;Walsworth et al 2013;Underwood et al 2014), and overlap in spawning habitat and timing to varying extents (Sweet and Hubert 2010). Given their variation in admixture, and the different crosses involved, Catostomus hybrids are likely to express a wide range of phenotypes, perhaps including transgressive phenotypes ).…”

Tank Acclimation and Induced Spawning of the Catostomid, Black Buffalo

“…For example, Underwood et al. () noted wild‐caught White Suckers Catostomus commersonii displayed coloration indicative of stress and would not respond to feed for several days during acclimation to tanks. For tank acclimation in this study, specific conditions designed to ease stress, such as cool temperatures (~15°C), increased salinity (3.0‰), and covered tanks to reduce light intensity within the tank, appeared to help fish and resulted in a low mortality during tank acclimation in 2016.…”

Multispecies Fish Passage Evaluation at a Rock‐Ramp Fishway in a Colorado Transition Zone Stream

“… b Swim speeds and associated MTL for each species were obtained from the following references: Brassy Minnow (Ficke et al 2011), Brown Trout (Aedo et al 2009; Peake et al 1997), Creek Chub (Ficke 2015; Leavy and Bonner 2009), Green Sunfish (Ficke 2015; Prenosil 2014; Scott and Magoulick 2008; Ward et al 2003), Largemouth Bass (Farlinger and Beamish 1978), Longnose Dace (Aedo et al 2009; Dockery et al 2016; Ficke 2015), Longnose Sucker (Jones et al 1974; Underwood et al 2014), Rainbow Trout (Bainbridge 1960; Burgetz et al 1998; Gregory and Wood 1998; Harper and Blake 1990; Hawkins and Quinn 1996; Jones et al 1974; Webb 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978), and White Sucker (Ficke 2015; Underwood et al 2014). NA indicates that data were not available. …”