Distribution and growth of blue sucker in a Great Plains river, USA

Abstract

Blue sucker, Cycleptus elongatus (Le Sueur), was sampled in the Kansas River, Kansas, USA to determine how relative abundance varies spatially and growth compares to other populations. Electric fishing was conducted at 36 fixed sites during five time periods from March 2005 to January 2006 to determine seasonal distribution. An additional 302 sites were sampled in summer 2005 to determine distribution throughout the river. A total of 101 blue sucker was collected ranging from 242 to 782 mm total length and 1-16 years old. Higher catch rates were observed in upper river segments and below a low-head dam in lower river segments, and catch rates were higher during November in the upriver sites. Kansas River blue sucker exhibited slower growth rates than other populations in the Great Plains including populations as far north as South Dakota.

Longitudinal Differences in Habitat Complexity and Fish Assemblage Structure of a Great Plains River

“…The upper Kansas River reaches were dominated by blue sucker, river carpsucker, smallmouth buffalo, shovelnose sturgeon, bluntnose minnow, bullhead minnow, red shiner and Western mosquitofish. Shovelnose sturgeon and blue sucker prefer high velocity habitats (Galat et al, 2005) and had the highest abundances in the upriver reaches suggesting the diverse habitat and increased flows are beneficial to these large river obligate species (Quist and Guy, 1999;Eitzmann et al, 2007). In the Wabash River, Indiana, fish species that preferred sand substrates and had body morphologies suitable for higher water velocities were found in higher abundance in the upper, less impacted portions of the river (Pyron and Lauer, 2004).…”

“…Bowersock Dam has created a low velocity, reservoir environment 5-6 km upstream. Additionally, Johnson County Weir (a small rock weir used to divert river flows associated with a water intake structure) at rkm 27 may restrict fish movement at low discharge (Eitzmann et al, 2007) and creates a semi-reservoir environment for 5-6 km upstream. The upper river reaches are braided with multiple shallow side channels, and sandy islands that are usually overgrown with willows and grasses (Eitzmann et al, 2007).…”

“…to 22 Aug. 2007. Boat electrofishing and shoreline seining were used to assess the fish community as these gears collected .90% of the species available (Eitzmann and Paukert, 2007). We attempted consistent effort in each reach for each gear to facilitate comparisons among reaches.…”

“…Invertivores (fishes that feed on water column invertebrates) and herbivores (fishes that feed on plant material in the water column and substrate) are the most abundant trophic guilds in the upper reaches of the Missouri River, whereas omnivores and benthic invertivores (fishes that feed on bottom-dwelling invertebrates) become more abundant downstream (Pegg and Pierce, 2002;Galat et al, 2005). Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus and blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus prefer moderate to high velocity flows and specific habitats (Quist and Guy, 1999;Eitzmann et al, 2007) and had increased abundance in the relatively unimpacted upper Missouri River. Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus, river carpsucker Carpiodes carpio and freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens are generalist fishes that prefer slow water and occur in the highly impacted, channelized lower river (Galat et al, 2005).…”

Fish Community Response to Habitat Alteration: Impacts of Sand Dredging in the Kansas River

“…A stratified random design was used to determine the bank side (left or right) of the starting location of an electrofishing site in the upper, mid, and lower portion of each reach, prior to collections. Each electrofishing sample lasted 300 s with the boat moving downstream (Eitzmann et al 2007) and catch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated as fish collected per h. Benthic fishes were collected at three sites within each reach using a Gerken siamese trawl with a 2.5-m headrope, 2.9-m footrope, 38-mm outer mesh and 4-mm innermesh fish separator at the cod end. Trawling sites in each reach were selected using the stratified random design previously mentioned and were field verified to ensure they were clear of obstructions (e.g, submerged trees) and were at least 2 m deep; sites that did not meet these criteria were moved to the nearest location that met the criteria.…”