Factors Affecting Survival of Age-0 SaugeyeStizostedion vitreum×S. canadenseStocked in Ohio Reservoirs

Stahl, Thomas P.; Thiede, Gary P.; Stein, Roy A.; Lewis, Edward M.; Austin, Milton R.; Culver, David A.

doi:10.1577/1548-8675(1996)016<0378:fasoas>2.3.co;2

Cited by 26 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar data to those collected from reservoirs in 1993 and 1994 were collected during 1991 (N ϭ 4 reservoirs; reported in Stahl et al 1996; Table 1) and 1992 (N ϭ 8; reported in Stahl et al 1993; Table 1). Sampling for zooplankton, larval fish, and age-0 saugeye were as described for the 1993 reservoir experiment, with the following exceptions.…”

Section: And 1992 Reservoir Monitoringsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…4A, B). Saugeye primarily consumed zooplankton and chironomids immediately after stocking; conversion to piscivory was delayed 1-5 wk (also reported in Stahl et al 1996). In reservoirs with adequate recovery of saugeye to assess diet composition (N Ն 5 saugeye/date), we quantified the date saugeye switched to piscivory (Ն50% with fish prey) in 1993 and 1994.…”

Section: Ontogeny Of Saugeyementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1992 and 1994, when larval gizzard shad peaks were delayed, saugeye were stocked in the virtual absence of piscine prey, and their survival was uniformly low (Ͻ6%), despite eventual peak densities as great as 20 larval gizzard shad/m 3 . Given the delay to piscivory by saugeye in all years (see Stahl et al 1996 for 1991 data), rapid growth coupled with an increasing ability to avoid predation probably does not explain why gizzard shad density positively influenced saugeye survival. Rather, larval gizzard shad probably act to buffer predation on stocked saugeye by resident piscivores such as largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and age 1ϩ saugeye.…”

Section: Prey Density and Saugeye Survival: Size-independent Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Enhancing Percid Stocking Success by Understanding Age-0 Piscivore-Prey Interactions in Reservoirs

Donovan¹,

Stein²,

White³

1997

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Though young-of-year (YOY) saugeyes (Stizostedion vitreum ϫ S. canadense) are routinely stocked in spring to create and maintain percid fisheries, their growth and survival to fall vary greatly among Ohio reservoirs, as well as among years within a reservoir. To understand the relative importance of size-dependent and size-independent mechanisms during ontogeny that underlie variable stocking success of saugeye, we quantified the role of stocking date and prey density (zooplankton and ichthyoplankton, i.e., larval gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum]) in field enclosure, pond, and reservoir experiments. In 1-m 3 enclosures, ichthyoplankton density (0, 5, 10, or 20 larval gizzard shad/ m 3 ) did not influence time to switch to piscivory by saugeye (all switched in Ͻ12 h); saugeye in enclosures with ichthyoplankton, regardless of density, grew faster than those without ichthyoplankton. In 0.4-ha ponds, saugeye growth and survival did not differ between ponds with zooplankton plus macrobenthic prey and ponds with those prey plus small ichthyoplankton (Ͻ10 mm).In reservoir experiments, we evaluated how time in reservoirs, zooplankton density, and peak density (as well as date) of ichthyoplankton influenced saugeye growth and survival during 1991-1994 (N ϭ 31 reservoir-years). In 1993, we attempted to bracket the ichthyoplankton peak in five Ohio reservoirs by stocking two genetically identifiable cohorts of saugeye 2 wk apart in spring. For all reservoirs, those saugeye stocked before the ichthyoplankton peak grew larger than those stocked after the ichthyoplankton peak by 1 October. In 1994, we hypothesized that saugeye might overexploit local populations of ichthyoplankton when stocked at a single site. We paired 10 reservoirs (N ϭ 5 pairs) with one reservoir of each pair scatter-stocked (i.e., saugeye numbers equally divided among five sites) and the second point stocked (i.e., at a single site). Stocking method did not influence saugeye survival; late gizzard shad spawning, coupled with low larval densities, yielded poor saugeye survival in 1994. However, YOY saugeye were considerably larger in fall 1994 than in fall 1993, when gizzard shad appeared earlier and produced more larvae. Zooplankton density at stocking influenced neither growth nor survival. Increased time in reservoirs increased fall size but did not influence survival. Although saugeye growth and survival during their first year were unrelated, both measures of stocking success critically depended on gizzard shad availability. Across all years, saugeyes stocked before ichthyoplankton peaks were large (as a result of their ability to consume fast-growing gizzard shad through summer), but survived poorly to fall (perhaps owing to early, high predatory mortality). Conversely, saugeyes stocked after ichthyoplankton peaks were small in fall (for they were unable to exploit large gizzard shad) but survived better (perhaps because gizzard shad provided a predatory buffer). By manipulating stock date relative to ichthyoplankton peaks, fisheries man...

show abstract

Section: And 1992 Reservoir Monitoringsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Ontogeny Of Saugeyementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prey Density and Saugeye Survival: Size-independent Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing Percid Stocking Success by Understanding Age-0 Piscivore-Prey Interactions in Reservoirs

Donovan¹,

Stein²,

White³

1997

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1992 and 1994, when larval gizzard shad peaks were delayed, saugeye were stocked in the virtual absence of piscine prey, and their survival was uniformly low (Ͻ6%), despite eventual peak densities as great as 20 larval gizzard shad/m 3 . Given the delay to piscivory by saugeye in all years (see Stahl et al 1996Stahl et al for 1991, rapid growth coupled with an increasing ability to avoid predation probably does not explain why gizzard shad density positively influenced saugeye survival. Rather, larval gizzard shad probably act to buffer predation on stocked saugeye by resident piscivores such as largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and age 1ϩ saugeye.…”

Section: Prey Density and Saugeye Survival: Size-independent Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Percid Stocking Success by Understanding Age-0 Piscivore–prey Interactions in Reservoirs

Donovan

Stein

White

1997

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though young‐of‐year (YOY) saugeyes (Stizostedion vitreum × S. canadense) are routinely stocked in spring to create and maintain percid fisheries, their growth and survival to fall vary greatly among Ohio reservoirs, as well as among years within a reservoir. To understand the relative importance of size‐dependent and size‐independent mechanisms during ontogeny that underlie variable stocking success of saugeye, we quantified the role of stocking date and prey density (zooplankton and ichthyoplankton, i.e., larval gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum]) in field enclosure, pond, and reservoir experiments. In 1‐m3 enclosures, ichthyoplankton density (0, 5, 10, or 20 larval gizzard shad/m3) did not influence time to switch to piscivory by saugeye (all switched in <12 h); saugeye in enclosures with ichthyoplankton, regardless of density, grew faster than those without ichthyoplankton. In 0.4‐ha ponds, saugeye growth and survival did not differ between ponds with zooplankton plus macrobenthic prey and ponds with those prey plus small ichthyoplankton (<10 mm). In reservoir experiments, we evaluated how time in reservoirs, zooplankton density, and peak density (as well as date) of ichthyoplankton influenced saugeye growth and survival during 1991–1994 (N = 31 reservoir‐years). In 1993, we attempted to bracket the ichthyoplankton peak in five Ohio reservoirs by stocking two genetically identifiable cohorts of saugeye 2 wk apart in spring. For all reservoirs, those saugeye stocked before the ichthyoplankton peak grew larger than those stocked after the ichthyoplankton peak by 1 October. In 1994, we hypothesized that saugeye might overexploit local populations of ichthyoplankton when stocked at a single site. We paired 10 reservoirs (N = 5 pairs) with one reservoir of each pair scatter‐stocked (i.e., saugeye numbers equally divided among five sites) and the second point stocked (i.e., at a single site). Stocking method did not influence saugeye survival; late gizzard shad spawning, coupled with low larval densities, yielded poor saugeye survival in 1994. However, YOY saugeye were considerably larger in fall 1994 than in fall 1993, when gizzard shad appeared earlier and produced more larvae. Zooplankton density at stocking influenced neither growth nor survival. Increased time in reservoirs increased fall size but did not influence survival. Although saugeye growth and survival during their first year were unrelated, both measures of stocking success critically depended on gizzard shad availability. Across all years, saugeyes stocked before ichthyoplankton peaks were large (as a result of their ability to consume fast‐growing gizzard shad through summer), but survived poorly to fall (perhaps owing to early, high predatory mortality). Conversely, saugeyes stocked after ichthyoplankton peaks were small in fall (for they were unable to exploit large gizzard shad) but survived better (perhaps because gizzard shad provided a predatory buffer). By manipulating stock date relative to ichthyoplankton peaks, fisheries managers can eithe...

show abstract

“…The specific density of D. pulex (30 individuals/L) was selected to reflect commonly recorded zooplankton densities occurring across Ohio reservoirs at the time of walleye or saugeye stocking (Dettmers and Stein 1996;Stahl et al 1996). Equal densities of zooplankton were achieved by introducing the same volume of concentrated D. pulex mixture to each aquarium.…”

Section: Experiments 2: One Predator -Two Preymentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging patterns of juvenile walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) in a system consisting of a single predator and two prey species: testing model predictions

Czesny¹,

Dabrowski²,

Frankiewicz³

2001

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the hypothesis that the presence of a large number of energetically inferior prey (Daphnia pulex) in the environment with energetically superior prey (larval carp, Cyprinus carpio) interferes with foraging efficiency of juvenile walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). We monitored functional responses of juvenile walleye feeding on larval carp alone or in combination with D. pulex. When walleye were offered larval carp at increasing densities (10, 20, 50, and 100 individuals/30-L aquarium), they responded in accordance with a type-II functional response in 10-min trials. Walleye captured the maximum number of larval carp when offered a carp density of 20 individuals/aquarium without the daphnids. Further increase in density of larval carp had no effect on walleye foraging rate. The presence of D. pulex (900 individuals/aquarium) suppressed the efficiency of foraging walleye. The predator consistently captured fewer larval carp in all treatments when they were offered together with the daphnids even though walleye continued to select the more profitable larval carp. The negative effect of daphnids on the feeding rate is an example of environmental constraints interfering with optimal foraging models. In this study, walleye appeared to experience a confusion effect caused by the large number of inferior prey. Consequently, the predator could not gain as much energy per unit time when confronted with two prey types as it was when foraging on larval carp alone.

show abstract

Factors Affecting Survival of Age-0 SaugeyeStizostedion vitreum×S. canadenseStocked in Ohio Reservoirs

Cited by 26 publications

References 25 publications

Enhancing Percid Stocking Success by Understanding Age-0 Piscivore-Prey Interactions in Reservoirs

Enhancing Percid Stocking Success by Understanding Age-0 Piscivore-Prey Interactions in Reservoirs

Enhancing Percid Stocking Success by Understanding Age-0 Piscivore–prey Interactions in Reservoirs

Foraging patterns of juvenile walleye (<i>Stizostedion vitreum</i>) in a system consisting of a single predator and two prey species: testing model predictions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About