Predation on Fish Larvae by Adult Red Shiner, Yampa and Green Rivers, Colorado

Ruppert, Jack B.; Muth, Robert T.; Nesler, Thomas P.; Collins, Fort

doi:10.2307/3671627

Cited by 50 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lentsch et al (1996) identified six species of nonnative fishes as existing threats, including red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), common carp, sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), channel catfish, and green sunfish. Small forms, such as adult red shiner, are known predators of larval native fish (Ruppert et al 1993). Large predators, such as walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) and northern pike (Esox lucius) also pose a threat to subadult and adult razorback sucker (Tyus and Beard 1990).…”

Section: Nonnative Fishesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers believe that nonnative fish species in those habitats limit the success of razorback sucker recruitment (e.g., Muth and Nesler 1993;Bestgen 1997;Bestgen et al 1997;McAda and Ryel 1999;Valdez et al 1999a). Adult red shiner are known predators of larval native fish in backwaters of the upper basin (Ruppert et al 1993), and predation by nonnative fishes such as red shiner may influence within-year-class recruitment of razorback sucker.…”

Section: A8 Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Razorback sucker transbasin movement through Lake Powell, Utah

Durst

Francis

2016

The Southwestern Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Nonnative Fishesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A8 Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Razorback sucker transbasin movement through Lake Powell, Utah

Durst

Francis

2016

The Southwestern Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At those sites, changes in assemblage structure (primarily loss of native species) have been attributed to competition with (Greger and Deacon 1988) or predation on larvae by (Ruppert et al 1993) red shiners, as well as to hybridization between red shiners and closely related species (Burr and Page 1986;Larimore and Bayley 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They have become numerically dominant in many streams of the American west (Hubbs 1954;Minckley 1991;Ruppert et al 1993;Gido et al 1997), where they are suspected to have severely impacted native species or assemblages (Greger and Deacon 1988;Ruppert et al 1993;Douglas et al 1994). In Illinois, the range of red shiners has expanded eastward since 1908 (Page and Smith 1970) and expanding populations have hybridized with, and gradually supplanted or displaced native minnows (Burr and Page 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial variation in relative abundance of a widespread, numerically dominant fish species and its effect on fish assemblage structure

Marsh‐Matthews

Matthews

2000

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collections of fish assemblages from streams in the midwestern United States were used to examine assemblage-level effects of spatial variation in relative abundance of the red shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis, a widespread and highly abundant minnow species. This species has been widely introduced outside its native range and is suspected to have impacted local assemblages where it has become established. Given its overall dominance of midwest fish assemblages, and its suspected impact on assemblage structure, we asked if structure of the residual fish assemblages (red shiners excluded) was a function of the relative abundance of red shiners throughout the native range of C. lutrensis in the USA. Although red shiner ranked first in abundance in half of the assemblages and numerically dominated 28% of the assemblages, red shiner relative abundance in an assemblage had no detectable effect on richness, diversity, evenness, or complexity of other (residual) species in the assemblage. Relative abundance of red shiners did have a positive effect on the abundance of benthic minnows in the residual assemblage, but not on water column minnows that are ecologically most like red shiners. Environmental factors did not explain a significant amount of the variation in relative abundance of red shiners, but did explain some variation in residual assemblage structure. Although widespread and numerically dominant at many localities, red shiners do not appear to have a strong impact on local fish assemblage structure within their native range. This is in sharp contrast to the reported negative effects of red shiners on fish assemblages where they have been introduced outside their native range.

show abstract

“…The second stressor is interaction with exotic fish that have invaded the Green River; we represent exotic fish as the most abundant species, red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis). Red shiners stress pikeminnow by competing for invertebrate prey and by preying directly on pikeminnow (Ruppert et al, 1993;Karp and Tyus, 1990) but can also serve as prey for larger pikeminnow. The model's purpose is to predict and understand effects of flow fluctuations and their interactions with the exotic fish stressor: How does the magnitude of flow fluctuations affect the survival and growth of pikeminnow?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%