Ecology of larval blue sucker (<i>Cycleptus elongatus</i>) in the Mississippi River

Adams, Sally; Flinn, Michael B.; Burr, Brooks M.; Whiles, Matthew R.; Garvey, James E.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00157.x

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2003). River tributaries and backwaters, which were not sampled in this study, appear to be important areas for age‐0 blue sucker (Muth & Schmulbach 1984; Brown & Coon 1994; Fisher & Willis 2000; Adams, Flinn, Burr, Whiles & Garvey 2006). In addition, Moss et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

Eitzmann¹,

Makinster

Paukert³

2007

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

Eitzmann¹,

Makinster

Paukert³

2007

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We speculate that multiple mechanisms may interact to support fish abundances and diverse assemblages in complex channels of the Yellowstone River. First, side channels may offer high quality spawning (Burgess, Pine & Walsh, ) and nursery (Copp, ; Adams et al ., ) grounds, especially for fishes that broadcast demersal, adhesive eggs (e.g., sand shiners; Platania & Altenbach, ). Additionally, the ichthyoplankton of broadcast spawners with non‐adhesive eggs, such as western silvery minnows (Layher, ), flathead chub (Durham & Wilde, ), and emerald shiners (Becker, ), may drift into side channels during runoff, develop in the relatively slack waters of side channels, and subsequently migrate towards the main channel as seasonally inundated side channels dewater.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative use of side and main channels by small‐bodied fish in a large, unimpounded river

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Ecological theory and field studies suggest that lateral floodplain connectivity and habitat heterogeneity provided by side channels impart favourable habitat conditions for lotic fishes, especially fluvial fishes dependent on large patches of shallow, slow velocity habitats for some portion of their life cycle. However, anthropogenic modification of large, temperate floodplain rivers has led to extensive channel simplification and side‐channel loss. Highly modified rivers consist of simplified channels in contracted, less dynamic floodplains. Most research examining the seasonal importance of side channels for fish assemblages in large rivers has been carried out in heavily modified rivers, where side‐channel extents are substantially reduced from pre‐settlement times, and has often overlooked small‐bodied fishes. Inferences about the ecological importance of side channels for small‐bodied fishes in large rivers can be ascertained only from investigations of large rivers with largely intact floodplains. The Yellowstone River, our study area, is a rare example of one such river. We targeted small‐bodied fishes and compared their habitat use in side and main channels in two geomorphically distinct types of river bends during early and late snowmelt runoff, and autumn base flow. Species compositions of side and main channels differed throughout hydroperiods concurrent with the seasonal redistribution of the availability of shallow, slow current‐velocity habitats. More species of fish used side channels than main channels during runoff. Additionally, catch rates of small fishes were generally greater in side channels than in main channels and quantitative assemblage compositions differed between channel types during runoff, but not during base flow. Presence of and access to diverse habitats facilitated the development and persistence of diverse fish assemblages in our study area. Physical dissimilarities between side and main channels may have differentially structured the side‐ and main‐channel fish assemblages during runoff. Patches of shallow, slow current‐velocity (SSCV) habitats in side channels were larger and had slightly slower water velocities than SSCV habitat patches in main channels during runoff, but not during base flow. Our findings establish a baseline importance of side channels to riverine fishes in a large, temperate river without heavy anthropogenic modification. Establishing this baseline contributes to basic fluvial ecology and provides empirical justification for restoration efforts that reconnect large rivers with their floodplains.

show abstract

“…Similarly, blue sucker in the Wabash River did not fully recruit to the electric fishing gear until age 8 at a mean TL of 594 mm. Fisher & Willis (2000) and Adams, Flinn, Burr, Whiles & Garvey (2006) found age‐0 blue sucker inhabited backwater habitats adjacent to main channel areas, suggesting that early life‐history stages may avoid swift‐current, main‐channel habitats where adult fish are typically collected. Sampling efforts for blue sucker in the Wabash River were confined to main channel habitats, which may have limited our ability to capture younger, smaller fish.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blue sucker stock characteristics in the Wabash River, Indiana–Illinois, USA

Bacula

Daugherty

Sutton

et al. 2009

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blue sucker, Cycleptus elongatus (Lesueur), populations have declined because of habitat degradation and overharvest, and little information exists on the population characteristics and stock dynamics of this species. We examined size and age structure, mortality, growth and condition of blue sucker in the Wabash River, Indiana-Illinois, USA. A total of 356 fish collected by electric fishing from June 2003 to April 2006 ranged from 238 to 775 mm total length and 85 to 5288 g wet weight. Age ranged from 3 to 16 years and annual mortality ranged from 22 to 25%. Annual growth was greatest among younger age classes (range 48-141 mm yr )1 ) and declined after age 6, likely at the onset of reproductive maturity. Variation in the relative condition factor (range 66-141) was heteroscedastic over the size range of fish sampled, perhaps attributable to seasonal differences in reproductive condition among mature fish. K E Y W O R D S : age distribution, blue sucker, Cycleptus elongatus, growth, mortality, size structure. Present address: 105 110 J F A J J A O D M M S N Figure 6. Mean relative condition factor by month for blue sucker from the Wabash River, Indiana-Illinois. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals about the mean condition. BLUE SUCKER IN THE WABASH RIVER 25

show abstract

Ecology of larval blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus) in the Mississippi River

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

Comparative use of side and main channels by small‐bodied fish in a large, unimpounded river

Blue sucker stock characteristics in the Wabash River, Indiana–Illinois, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About