Diel microhabitat use of age‐0 bull trout in Indian Creek, Washington

Polacek, Matt; James, Paul W.

doi:10.1034/j.1600-0633.2003.00004.x

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was found that total catch efficiency did not interact with D, V or S. Lower absolute catches during the day, most likely caused by the difficulty of sampling fish that use cover in interstitial spaces between substrata, confirms that daytime surveys may greatly under-estimate abundance of species that engage in daytime concealment behaviour (Johnson and Covich, 2000;Roni and Fayram, 2000;Polacek and James, 2003), but there was no difference between day and night in the proportion of fish caught on the first pass.…”

Section: Reducing Study Limitationssupporting

confidence: 58%

Diel variation in stream fish habitat suitability criteria: implications for instream flow assessment

Davey

Booker

Kelly

2011

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. Habitat suitability criteria that fail to incorporate temporal variability in habitat preferences of stream fish may mis-represent critical habitat requirements and lead to setting of inappropriate flow targets when used in instream flow assessments. Developing suitability criteria from daytime observations alone relies on the assumption that habitat preferences are constant over the diel cycle. Few studies have tested these assumptions, particularly for small-bodied, cryptic, benthic species.2. During summer in two gravel-bed rivers, bluegill bullies (Gobiomorphus hubbsi), torrentfish (Cheimarrichthys fosteri) and upland bullies (Gobiomorphus breviceps) exhibited strong preferences with respect to water depth, velocity and substratum size. All three species underwent a diel shift in microhabitat preference for at least two of these variables.3. Microhabitat preferences were generally weaker when fish were active at night; bluegill bullies, upland bullies and especially torrentfish were observed over a broader range of depths, velocities and substratum sizes at night than during the day. Observations of fish in a stream simulator confirmed that bluegill bullies and torrentfish showed a preference for runs at dusk and return to riffles before dawn, but habitat preferences of upland bullies remained static across the diel cycle.4. Diel microhabitat shifts affected the assessment of flow requirements. Instream habitat analysis of the Waipara River using separate day and night suitability criteria predicted differing amounts of habitat available at a given flow, and the relationships between fish abundance, fish density and flow. The presence of diel microhabitat shifts in stream fishes suggests that instream habitat analyses will produce more effective and defensible flow recommendations when patterns of nocturnal microhabitat preferences are known and critical habitat bottlenecks can be identified.

show abstract

Section: Reducing Study Limitationssupporting

confidence: 58%

Diel variation in stream fish habitat suitability criteria: implications for instream flow assessment

Davey

Booker

Kelly

2011

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on water temperature, prey attack distance is typically shorter at night (Nicieza & Metcalfe, 1997). Salmonids can mitigate reduced night-time foraging efficiency by selecting slower waters where drifting food is easier to detect (Polacek & James, 2003). In turn, they can modify their mobility while searching for and attacking prey in different habitats to increase their energetic intake (Grant & Noakes, 1988;Tunney & Steingrímsson, 2012).…”

Section: Stream Salmonids Are Visual Predators Feeding On Driftingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diel activity and foraging mode of juvenile Arctic charr in fluctuating water flow

Larranaga

Valdimarsson

Linnansaari

et al. 2018

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Streams fluctuate in water flow because of natural (e.g., rain) and human-induced events (e.g., hydropeaking). Magnitude, frequency, and predictability of these events can have drastic consequences for fish populations. We studied how rapid modifications of water flow affect diel activity and foraging mode of juvenile Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus in stream enclosures exposed to either stable (intermediate) or fluctuating (low vs. high) water flow. Under stable conditions, Arctic charr showed limited activity (9.4%). In fluctuating water flow, charr increased activity during low flow periods, especially during the first hours after the flow decreased, but ceased activity almost completely at high flow. Charr were mostly nocturnal, and more nocturnal at low than intermediate water flow. Fish were more mobile and swam faster during prey search and attacked prey at longer distances at low water flow. Activity and foraging mode differed between the first and second day after reduced water flow, suggesting that Arctic charr require time to adjust their foraging behaviour. This study demonstrates the importance of behavioural flexibility for population ecology in fluctuating environments such as regulated rivers. (Magoulick & Kobza, 2003). Additionally, natural water flow can be altered by humans, for example, via hydroelectric dams. The magnitude, duration, and frequency of hydropeaking events depends on human demands for electricity and sometimes follow predictable patterns, for example, when the water is stored at night and released during the day or vice versa (Scruton et al., 2005). However, hydropeaking can alter the flow regime more drastically and --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…Additionally, stream dwelling bull trout are generally located within the lowermost portion of the water column (Polacek and James 2003;Al-Chokhachy and Budy 2007). Results from this laboratory study indicate that bull trout in standing waters do use cover and bottom habitat, but they also used water column habitat.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Treatments varied in the presence of cover habitat (present or absent), fish density (one or two fish per tank), and species composition (bull trout, lake trout, or bull trout and lake trout) (Table 1). Fish densities were at least as great as those observed for these species in field studies (e.g., Peck 1982;Fraley and Shepard 1989;Hagen and Taylor 2001;Polacek and James 2003;Banish et al 2008;Meeuwig et al 2008). Cover consisted of one 85 mm long by 98 mm inside diameter section of PVC pipe, which was cut in half (internal volume=0.32 l).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Studies have shown that juvenile bull trout in natural and artificial stream environments are positively associated with cover habitat (Polacek and James 2003;Al-Chokhachy and Budy 2007), but that use of cover habitat may change over a diel period (Baxter and McPhail 1997;Thurow 1997). Additionally, stream dwelling bull trout are generally located within the lowermost portion of the water column (Polacek and James 2003;Al-Chokhachy and Budy 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of cover habitat by bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, and lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, in a laboratory environment

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lacustrine-adfluvial bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, migrate from spawning and rearing streams to lacustrine environments as early as age 0. Within lacustrine environments, cover habitat provides refuge from potential predators and is a resource that is competed for if limiting. Competitive interactions between bull trout and other species could result in bull trout being displaced from cover habitat, and bull trout may lack evolutionary adaptations to compete with introduced species, such as lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush. A laboratory experiment was performed to examine habitat use and interactions for cover by juvenile (i.e., <80 mm total length) bull trout and lake trout. Differences were observed between bull trout and lake trout in the proportion of time using cover (F 1,22.6 =20.08, P<0.001) and bottom (F 1,23.7 =37.01, P<0.001) habitat, with bull trout using cover and bottom habitats more than lake trout. Habitat selection ratios indicated that bull trout avoided water column habitat in the presence of lake trout and that lake trout avoided bottom habitat. Intraspecific and interspecific agonistic interactions were infrequent, but approximately 10 times greater for intraspecific interactions between lake trout. Results from this study provide little evidence that juvenile bull trout and lake trout compete for cover, and that species-specific differences in habitat use and selection likely result in habitat partitioning between these species.

show abstract

Diel microhabitat use of age‐0 bull trout in Indian Creek, Washington

Cited by 13 publications

References 15 publications

Diel variation in stream fish habitat suitability criteria: implications for instream flow assessment

Diel variation in stream fish habitat suitability criteria: implications for instream flow assessment

Diel activity and foraging mode of juvenile Arctic charr in fluctuating water flow

Use of cover habitat by bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, and lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, in a laboratory environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About