1995
DOI: 10.1016/s0380-1330(95)71037-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predation on Mysis relicta by Slimy Sculpins (Cottus cognatus) in Southern Lake Ontario

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Kraft and Kitchell (1986) found no significant relationship between Mysis length in fish size. Mysis became more vulnerable to predation by sculpins when Mysis migrated to sediment bottoms during daylight (Grossnickle, 1982;Owens and Weber, 1995;Johannsson et al, 2001).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kraft and Kitchell (1986) found no significant relationship between Mysis length in fish size. Mysis became more vulnerable to predation by sculpins when Mysis migrated to sediment bottoms during daylight (Grossnickle, 1982;Owens and Weber, 1995;Johannsson et al, 2001).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our finding that Mysis was nearly always more selected by deepwater sculpin than by slimy sculpin accords well with this pattern and suggests that differential exploitation of Mysis is fundamental to the food resource partitioning dynamics of slimy and deepwater sculpin in Lake Michigan and possibly other Great Lakes as well. Selection for Diporeia was not always greater for slimy sculpin than for deepwater sculpin despite the historical dominance of this prey in the diets of Great Lakes slimy sculpin (Wells, 1980;Brandt, 1986;Selgeby, 1988;Owens and Weber, 1995). In contrast to deepwater sculpin, which are found only in a handful of cold-water lakes containing glacial relic prey such as Diporeia and/or Mysis (Sheldon et al, 2008), slimy sculpin have a broad North American distribution and are found in many cold-water ecosystems that do not contain Diporeia (Scott and Crossman, 1998).…”
Section: Preymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The challenge to ecologists, therefore, is to examine naturally occurring populations and determine which set of habitat variables is influencing the density and distribution of their species of study. Rather than focusing on their distribution in relation to environmental variables, most previous studies of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) fall into two camps: those of a primarily qualitative nature in which the presence/absence of fish and habitat characteristics were noted, and those investigating the impact of sculpin on benthic invertebrate communities and their predation on salmonid eggs and juvenile fish (Krohn 1968;Moyle 1977;Hudson et al 1995;Owens and Weber 1995). From these studies, however, we have learned that sculpin are highly sedentary benthic fish exhibiting limited mobility and possessing small home ranges (McCleave 1964;Morgan and Ringler 1992;Gray et al 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%