Recruitment dynamics of walleyes (Stizostedion vitreum) in Kansas reservoirs: generalities with natural systems and effects of a centrarchid predator

Abstract

Knowledge of factors influencing recruitment dynamics of walleyes (Stizostedion vitreum) in different systems and regions is important for developing a better understanding of walleye ecology. Therefore, we investigated associations among walleye recruitment and climatic, water-level, and biotic characteristics in four Kansas reservoirs during 1985–1999. Walleye recruitment was positively related to spring storage ratios and temperatures and negatively associated with spring water levels and abundance of 130- to 199-mm white crappies (Pomoxis annularis). The influence of juvenile white crappie predation on larval walleyes was examined by conducting a manipulative experiment. Regardless of zooplankton density or water clarity, mortality of larval walleyes resulting from white crappie predation was over 90%. Based on our empirical and experimental results, we propose a biotic–abiotic confining hypothesis (BACH) to explain abiotic and biotic effects on walleye recruitment dynamics. Specifically, high variability in walleye recruitment was observed during years with low densities of 130- to 199-mm white crappies and likely resulted from the effects of abiotic factors. When white crappie abundance was high, walleye recruitment was low and exhibited little variability, suggesting that white crappies can have an overriding influence on walleye recruitment regardless of abiotic conditions.

Multispatial-scale variation in benthic and snag-surface macroinvertebrate assemblages in mid-continent US great rivers

“…Similar to macroinvertebrate densities on the UMRS, many biotic components in diverse aquatic ecosystems exhibit high temporal variability (Gido et al 1997;Bunn and Davies 2000;Dunham et al 2002;Quist et al 2003). Much of the year-to-year variability seen in the target taxa collected by the LTRMP is actual change and not error variance.…”

Small but tough: What can ecophysiology of croaking gourami Trichopsis vittata (Cuvier, 1831) tell us about invasiveness of non-native fishes in Florida?

“…Once fish have passed through this step, invasiveness (at least in terms of geographic spread) may ultimately rely on a secondary set of criteria including biotic interactions and life-history variables. The intriguing combination of high abiotic tolerance and low invasiveness in T. vittata may support the biotic-abiotic constraining hypothesis (Quist et al 2003), wherein abiotic environmental variables structure population levels until overridden by biotic ones (e.g., predation, competition). For example, Quist et al (2003) showed that variation in walleye Stizostedion vitreum (now Sander vitreus [Mitchill, 1818]) populations in Kansas reservoirs could be explained by environmental variables until a critical threshold for biotic interactions was reached.…”

“…The intriguing combination of high abiotic tolerance and low invasiveness in T. vittata may support the biotic-abiotic constraining hypothesis (Quist et al 2003), wherein abiotic environmental variables structure population levels until overridden by biotic ones (e.g., predation, competition). For example, Quist et al (2003) showed that variation in walleye Stizostedion vitreum (now Sander vitreus [Mitchill, 1818]) populations in Kansas reservoirs could be explained by environmental variables until a critical threshold for biotic interactions was reached. In that case, once the density of a predator (Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque, 1818) was exceeded, then biotic interactions overrode abiotic influences and S. vitreum population dynamics were related to P. annularis density.…”

The influence of a severe reservoir drawdown on springtime zooplankton and larval fish assemblages in Red Willow Reservoir, Nebraska

“…The number of larval fish present in a given area can vary dramatically (Cole and MacMillan 1984;Weaver et al 1997;Quist et al 2003;Roseman et al 2005). Thus, rather than compare relative abundances, we decided to use a presenceÀabsence-based approach (sensu Strayer 1999; Royle and Nichols 2003), a well-documented approach in studies of terrestrial organisms.…”

“…Reservoirs can be variable and dynamic ecosystems and management of water levels in reservoirs is typically guided by hydrological and economic factors (e.g., flood control, hydropower generation, and irrigation), with little consideration given to biotic organisms (Sammons et al 1999;Sammons and Bettoli 2000). For example, some reservoirs experience unpredictable and extreme water-level fluctuations (June 1977;Quist et al 2003;Olds et al 2011) that can be detrimental to the survival of zooplankton and larval fish (Carline 1986;Willis 1986;Naselli-Flores and Barone 1997).…”