2001
DOI: 10.1006/jfbi.2001.1782
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Growth rate responses of Missouri and Lower Yellowstone River fishes to a latitudinal gradient

Abstract: Notropis atherinoides, freshwater drums Aplodinotus grunniens, river carpsuckers Carpiodes carpio and saugers Stizostedion canadense collected in 1996-1998 from nine river sections of the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers at two life-stages (young-of-the-year and age 1+ years) were significantly different among sections. However, they showed no river-wide latitudinal trend except for age 1+ years emerald shiners that did show a weak negative relation between growth and both latitude and length of growing s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since growth is related to fish size, which in turn is related to several other life‐history traits (Peters, 1983), the present results have clear consequences for future large‐scale comparative studies, particularly those focusing on latitudinal variability in freshwater fish species traits (Lobón‐Cerviá et al , 1996; Pegg & Pierce, 2001; Heibo et al , 2005; Blanck & Lamouroux, 2007; Lappalainen & Tarkan, 2007). Authors comparing freshwater fish populations from different drainages often use data from the literature and try to reach a whole species distribution range but without accounting for local habitat characteristics.…”
Section: Mean ±Sd Values Of Environmental Characteristics and Leucimentioning
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Since growth is related to fish size, which in turn is related to several other life‐history traits (Peters, 1983), the present results have clear consequences for future large‐scale comparative studies, particularly those focusing on latitudinal variability in freshwater fish species traits (Lobón‐Cerviá et al , 1996; Pegg & Pierce, 2001; Heibo et al , 2005; Blanck & Lamouroux, 2007; Lappalainen & Tarkan, 2007). Authors comparing freshwater fish populations from different drainages often use data from the literature and try to reach a whole species distribution range but without accounting for local habitat characteristics.…”
Section: Mean ±Sd Values Of Environmental Characteristics and Leucimentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Because riverine fish species often have particular habitat requirements (Buisson et al , 2008), restricting their distribution within rivers, variability in fish growth has usually been the focus of local‐scale studies (Abdoli et al , 2007). At large spatial scales and except for latitudinal studies (Heibo et al , 2005; Blanck & Lamouroux, 2007), very few papers have considered large environmental gradients in comparative approaches of intraspecific variation in growth rates (Przybylski, 1996; Pegg & Pierce, 2001).…”
Section: Mean ±Sd Values Of Environmental Characteristics and Leucimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The adverse bioenergetic responses of the species directly downstream of the impoundment are consistent with the predictions of reduced abundance and spawning success (Sherman et al., ; Thoms et al., ). Pegg and Pierce () similarly showed that native fish, including channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ), emerald shiner ( Notropis atherinoides ) and freshwater drum ( Aplodinotus grunniens ), were largely absent or had low growth rates, downstream of impoundments of the Missouri River, USA. Our model predicted that juvenile Murray cod were gradually released from these bioenergetic constraints as flow velocity declined and temperature increased along the disturbance gradient.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 1 Robertson et al , 2005 ; 2 Power & McKinley, 1997; 3 Conover, 1990; 4 Lapolla, 2001; 5 Braaten & Guy, 2002; 6 Hamel et al , 1997; 7 Schultz et al , 1996; 8 DiMichele & Westerman, 1997; 9 Salvanes et al , 2004; 10 Purchase & Brown, 2000; 11 Marcil et al , 2006; 12 Olsen et al , 2005; 13 Wright et al , 2004; 14 Jonassen et al , 2000; 15 Arendt & Wilson, 1999; 16 Garvey et al , 2003; 17 LobonCervia et al , 1996; 18 Conover & Present, 1990; 19 Billerbeck et al , 2000; 20 Schultz & Conover, 1997; 21 Klahre, 1998; 22 Yamahira & Conover, 2002; 23 Philipp & Whitt, 1991; 24 Conover et al , 1997; 25 Brown et al , 1998; 26 Pegg & Pierce, 2001; 27 Edmundson & Mazumder, 2001; 28 Craig & Foote, 2001; 29 Grether et al , 2005; 30 Kokita, 2003; 31 Nicieza et al , 1994 a ; 32 Nicieza et al , 1994 b ; 33 Finstad et al , 2004; 34 Imsland et al , 2000; 35 Imsland et al , 2001 b ; 36 Imsland et al , 2001 c ; 37 Lombardi‐Carlson et al , 2003. …”
Section: Local Adaptation and The Geography Of Adaptive Variationmentioning
confidence: 99%