Reproductive-behavioral Phylogenetics of Nocomis Species-groups

Maurakis, Eugene G.; Woolcott, William S.; Sabaj, Mark H.

doi:10.2307/2426154

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study excluded pebbles greater than 40 mm. Although statistically significant, we do not consider the difference of 3 mm between preferred and available substrate in 2012 to be biologically meaningful because (1) we observed no significant difference in 2013 or pooled between the two years and (2) the hydrodynamic advantages of nest spawning (Maurakis et al 1992) are very similar among nests of dramatically different pebble sizes (Maurakis et al 1990(Maurakis et al , 1991a(Maurakis et al , 1991b. Given the detection of a significant and small effect in 2012, we do not attribute our lack of observed significant differences in 2013 and among years to modest sample size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Aside from breeding behavior (Johnston 1991;Maurakis et al 1991a;Sabaj et al 2000) and nest dimensions (Wallin 1989), virtually no quantitative information on bluehead chub spawning microhabitat use exists. Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to (1) quantify spawning microhabitat preferences of bluehead chubs and (2) compare patterns in microhabitat use between the breeding seasons of two consecutive years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recognizing gape limitation and interannual variability in bluehead chub nesting microhabitat use in a small Virginia stream

Bolton

Peoples

Frimpong

2015

Journal of Freshwater Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the reproductive microhabitat requirements of keystone species such as the gravel mound nesting bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus can be useful for whole-community management. Nocomis have been shown to be microhabitat specialists, but no study has accounted for interannual variability in microhabitat use or for the possibility that substrate choices are constrained by mouth size. Our goals were to quantify the spawning microhabitat requirements of bluehead chub in the North Fork Roanoke River, Virginia, USA. Specifically, we sought to (1) account for gape limitation of nesting chubs when quantifying substrate size preference and (2) to examine interannual variability in their nesting microhabitat preferences. In June 2012 and 2013, we measured pebbles on chub nests and determined the gape limit as the largest measured pebble. With the gape limit as a ceiling for measurable particles, we compared substrate used by chubs to randomly selected particles adjacent to each nest. Depth and velocity were also measured at nests during both years and compared to random points near nests. Patterns in microhabitat selection differed between years. Chubs exhibited substrate size preference in 2012, but not 2013. The mean size difference in 2012 was approximately 3 mm but we do not consider this biologically meaningful. This stands in contrast with other studies showing large mean differences in preferred and available substrate. We suggest that the gape limitation of adult male Nocomis imposes a restriction on usable nesting substrate, causing observed significant differences between preferred and available substrate sizes. Current velocities used by chubs were significantly slower than paired measurements in 2013, but did not differ in 2012; depth preference did not differ between years. Differences in velocity preference likely represent adjustment to the above-average instream flow conditions of 2013. This study demonstrates the importance of examining interannual variability in fish spawning habitat requirements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognizing gape limitation and interannual variability in bluehead chub nesting microhabitat use in a small Virginia stream

Bolton

Peoples

Frimpong

2015

Journal of Freshwater Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Large interstitial spaces between gravel on chub nests allow eggs to sink several centimeters through the nest (Maurakis et al 1992). Furthermore, tending male Bluehead chubs continue to deposit gravel on nests, effectively burying eggs well within the nest (Maurakis et al 1991). Stoneroller nests, with their finer gravel and pitted structure, probably have smaller interstitial spaces for eggs, possibly making them more exposed to predation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After two days of active spawning, Bluehead chubs Nocomis leptocephalus (hereafter, 'chubs') began construction of their large gravel spawning mounds (see Maurakis et al 1991 andSabaj et al 2000). At the onset of chub spawning, all associates immediately abandoned stoneroller nests and began actively spawning on chub nests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nesting microhabitat comparison of Central stoneroller and Bluehead chub: potential inference for host-switching by nest associates

Peoples

Floyd

Frimpong

2015

Journal of Freshwater Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several nest-building North American minnows (Cyprinidae) function as reproductive hosts to nest associatesÀspecies that require nests of other species for spawning. Understanding the microhabitat preferences of hosts can yield insight into the reproductive ecology of many species, especially of nest associates that can utilize nests of two or more hosts. We observed nests of Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum in which several associate species were actively spawning. Bluehead chubs Nocomis leptocephalus began constructing nests two days later in the same stream, at which time associates abandoned stoneroller nests and continued on to spawn on chub nests. This presented a unique opportunity for accomplishing two objectives: (1) quantifying stoneroller nesting microhabitat preference and (2) comparing stoneroller and chub habitat preference to gain insight into the mechanisms that may drive host switching by nest associates. We measured substrate size, current velocity, water depth, and egg depth on seven paired stoneroller and chub nests, and compared these measurements to paired microhabitat measurements at a randomly selected point near each nest. Repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey tests revealed that stonerollers exhibited distinct nesting microhabitat preferences from chubs. Gravel on stoneroller nests was considerably smaller than on chub nests and stonerollers nested in shallower depths than chubs. However, both species nested at similar current velocities. If nest associates switch partners based on the physical characteristics of nests, then substrate size is likely the most important factor. The larger gravel sizes on chub nests likely provide better egg aeration than stoneroller nests. Chub nests may also be safer for associate broods because male Bluehead chubs cover eggs with gravel after spawning; stonerollers do not. Future work should take an experimental approach to elucidate these mechanisms.

show abstract

“…Male chubs construct nests by first excavating concavities in the streambed, then filling the concavity with pebbles (primarily 6 to 11.5 mm in diameter) to construct a platform. They then erect a dome-shaped mound on top of the platform and use their snouts to hollow out a furrow on the mound's upstream slope in which they deposit eggs (Maurikis et al 1991). According to Johnston and Page (1992), fertilized eggs are then covered with gravel by the male.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bluehead chub nesting activity: a potential mechanism of population persistence in degraded stream habitats

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aquatic biodiversity continues to decline as humans modify the landscape, mainly because of stream habitat alterations and loss caused by urban development. Bluehead chubs may mitigate some effects of instream habitat degradation by providing clean gravel substrate via their spawning nests. We used path analysis, an extension of multiple linear regression, to explore the relationships among instream habitat degradation, adult chub abundance, chub nesting activity, and chub reproductive performance. Age-0 chub abundance was best explained by small adult abundance and nest abundance. Habitat disturbance indirectly and negatively influenced age-0 chub abundance through adult chubs and nest abundance. Percentages of pool and run habitat also had indirect negative effects on age-0 chub abundance. Several metrics of chub nesting activity (nest density [proportion of substrate occupied by nests], average nest size, and number of nests) were explained by both adult chub abundance and nesting site conditions. Variability among stream systems described significant variation in adult chub abundance and nesting characteristics and, if unaccounted for, would have resulted in large unexplained variability. Chub nesting activity served as a link between habitat degradation, adult chub abundance, and their reproductive performance. Our study provides preliminary evidence that bluehead chubs' nesting activity may be a mechanism of their persistence in degraded stream reaches. We recommend confirmatory studies through in-stream manipulative experiments.

show abstract

Reproductive-behavioral Phylogenetics of Nocomis Species-groups

Cited by 25 publications

References 3 publications

Recognizing gape limitation and interannual variability in bluehead chub nesting microhabitat use in a small Virginia stream

Recognizing gape limitation and interannual variability in bluehead chub nesting microhabitat use in a small Virginia stream

Nesting microhabitat comparison of Central stoneroller and Bluehead chub: potential inference for host-switching by nest associates

Bluehead chub nesting activity: a potential mechanism of population persistence in degraded stream habitats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About