Size-dependent foraging behaviour and use of cover in juvenile coho salmon under predation risk

Reinhardt, Ulrich G.; Healey, M. C.

doi:10.1139/z97-791

Cited by 44 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This type of size-based hierarchical behavior in terms of occupying preferable habitats has been demonstrated for stream-dwelling juveniles of brown trout (Salmo trutta) (Elliot 1990(Elliot , 1994. Reinhardt and Healey (1997) proposed a similar mechanism to explain size-related, differential habitat usage by coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). They suggested that in the presence of predators, larger fish were more risk averse than smaller fish, which occupied energetically more favorable but riskier habitats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating Size of Juveniles to Survival Within and Among Populations of Chinook Salmon

Zabel

Achord

2004

Ecology

136

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Understanding relationships between the size of individuals and their subsequent survival can not only provide insights into mechanisms of mortality, but can also identify traits to measure for monitoring at-risk populations. We analyzed a data set of more than 54 000 juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from 15 populations over five years. The juveniles were tagged during the summer in their freshwater rearing habitats and then recaptured at downstream sites the following spring after an extended rearing and overwintering period. We measured the length and weight of fish at tagging and computed a ''condition index'' that determined how fat or thin a fish was relative to others. Among populations, mean length and mean condition index were poor predictors of survival, but we did detect year and site effects. Within populations, survival was strongly related to the relative length of individuals but not to relative condition index. Our results are consistent with length-related mechanisms of mortality mediated by hierarchical behavior, and thus merely measuring changes in mean values of morphological traits in populations of juveniles may provide little insight into expected changes in population viability. Expanding upon these results, we predicted a nearly 60% increase in selection for juvenile fish length when we extended our observation period through adulthood. Thus, monitoring populations through only a portion of their life history may present an incomplete picture of their survival variability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating Size of Juveniles to Survival Within and Among Populations of Chinook Salmon

Zabel

Achord

2004

Ecology

136

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Age-1 steelhead show much stronger preference for deeper pools and cover than age-0 steelhead Chapman 1972, Bisson et al 1988). Whether young steelhead reared in the two treatments would develop different affinities for cover in the stream as they grow older, or under the threat of predators Godin 1991, Reinhardt andHealey 1997) remains to be tested. Conservation hatcheries for maintaining or restoring populations of salmonids have the option to restock hatchery-reared offspring into their ancestral habitats at various life history stages, for example, eyed egg, age-0, age-1, or smolt.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Natural Rearing System to Improve Supplemental Fish Quality, 1996-1998 Progress Report.

Maynard¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report covers the 1996-1998 Natural Rearing Enhancement System (NATURES) research for increasing hatchery salmon postrelease survival and producing fish with more wildlike behavior, physiology, and morphology prior to release. Experiments were conducted evaluating automatic subsurface feeders; natural diets; exercise systems; seminatural raceway habitat enriched with cover, structure, and substrate; and predator avoidance conditioning for hatchery salmonids. Automatic subsurface feed delivery systems did not affect chinook salmon depth distribution or vulnerability to avian predators. Live-food diets only marginally improved the ability of chinook salmon to capture prey in stream enclosures. A prototype exercise system that can be retrofitted to raceways was developed, however, initial testing indicated that severe amounts of exercise may increase inculture mortality. Rearing chinook salmon in seminatural raceway habitat with gravel substrate, woody debris structure, and overhead cover improved coloration and postrelease survival without impacting in-culture health or survival. Steelhead fry reared in enriched environments with structure, cover, and point source feeders dominated and outcompeted conventionally reared fish. Exposing chinook salmon to caged predators increased their postrelease survival. Chinook salmon showed an antipredator response to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics and exhibited acquired predator recognition following exposure to paired predator-prey stimuli. The report also includes the 1997 Natural Rearing System Workshop proceedings.NATURES type research is called for in the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (sections 7.2D.1-3) and the ESA Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (sections 4.4.c-d). NATURES can be used to help restore depleted stocks within the Columbia River Basin. Conservation programs may benefit from increased postrelease survival to produce more recruits to the spawning population. Production programs can use NATURES to reduce their impact on wild-reared fish by releasing fewer smolts to negatively interact with wild fish, while maintaining their recruitment levels to the fishery.iii CONTENTS PagePreface v Over the history of the project, the effects of seminatural raceway habitats, automated underwater feeders, exercise current velocities, live food diets, and predator avoidance training have been investigated. The findings of these studies are reported here and in an earlier contract report ). The first section of the current report summarizes the earlier research results. The remainder of the report focuses on research that has been conducted between 1996 and 1998. This includes studies on the effect of seminatural raceway habitat, automated underwater feeders, live food diets, predator avoidance training, and exercise on salmon and steelhead trout. IntroductionTraditionally, salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) are reared in barren concrete raceways that lack natural substrate, in-stream structure, or overhead cover. The fish are fed in an u...

show abstract

“…(2002) 365/366 : 297-324 the highest risk of predation in shallow habitats is for large fish, due to non-gape limited predators (birds and mammals) whereas in deeper habitats it is for small fish from gapelimited, piscivorous fish (POWER, 1987;SCHLOSSER, 1987). Some laboratory and field experimental studies have clearly demonstrated that terrestrial predation risk from wading/diving animals is much higher for water-column species in shallow pools than in deep pools and added cover markedly increases their survival (HARVEY and STEWART, 1991;LONZARICH and QUINN, 1995;REINHARDT and HEALEY, 1997). Hence, beyond physical structures that provide shelter from predators, water depth heterogeneity constitutes an essential cover feature regulating predator-prey interactions.…”

Section: Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have shown that small fish taxa increased cover use in the presence of fish predators (WERNER et al, 1983b;HUNTINGFORD et al, 1988a;RAHEL and STEIN, 1988; and bird predators (HOLIERHOEK and POWER, 1995;REINHARDT and HEALEY, 1997) or remained in risky sites only if those sites were structurally complex (FRASER and CERRI, 1982). The underlying mechanisms of the reduction in predator foraging success included a limitation of manoeuvrability of predators, a reduction in visual contacts, and an increase in evasive abilities of prey (HELFMAN, 1981).…”

Section: Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of its different functional roles, cover use also varies broadly among species (HEGGENES and TRAAEN, 1988;DOLLOFF and REEVES, 1990;THÉVENET, 1998), fish size or age (GRANT and NOAKES, 1987;MIKHEEV et al, 1994;REINHARDT and HEALEY, 1997), sex (ABRAHAMS and DILL, 1989), life-history strategy (HUNTINGFORD et al, 1988b;GRAND, 1999), and more generally with individual energetic status. Several studies have shown that hungry or energy-stressed (i.e.…”

Section: Cover Use and Trade-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nature and Functions of Cover for Riverine Fish.

Allouche¹

2002

Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review attempts to assess the nature and the role of cover for riverine fish assemblages. Although early identified as a key factor for fish distribution, especially for salmonids, cover (i.e. woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, turbidity...) still remains the variable least considered in the studies of fish habitat relationships. This is mainly due to the diversity of ecological functions of cover structures in fish assemblages. Cover structures are structuring components of fish habitat and contribute to the biological productivity of streams. But, at the individual scale, cover fulfils three main functions: protection against predators, visual isolation reducing competition, and hydraulic shelter. In fact, the use of cover by fish results from a trade-off between the costs and the benefits associated with its use. Although the relationships between fish and cover appear extremely complex and context-specific, a growing body of evidence highlights the potential role of cover for management purposes.Key-words : cover, shelter, riverine fish, fish habitat. NATURE ET FONCTIONS DU COUVERT POUR LES POISSONS LOTIQUES. RÉSUMÉCet article décrit la typologie ainsi que les fonctions du couvert pour les poissons lotiques. Identifié très tôt comme un facteur explicatif de la distribution des poissons, principalement chez les salmonidés, le couvert (i.e. débris ligneux, sous-berges, blocs, turbidité...) demeure néanmoins la variable la moins considérée dans l'étude des relations habitat-poissons. Ceci s'explique notamment par les fonctions écologiques très diverses que le couvert remplit vis-à-vis des assemblages piscicoles. Les structures pourvoyeuses de couvert sont des agents structurants de l'habitat piscicole et contribuent à la productivité biologique des cours d'eau. Au niveau du microhabitat du poisson, le couvert remplit trois fonctions majeures : anti-prédation, isolation visuelle limitant la compétition, et abri hydraulique. En fait, l'utilisation du couvert par les poissons résulte d'un compromis entre les coûts et les bénéfices associés d'où l'extrême complexité de cette relation qui semble plutôt spécifique à un contexte donné. Malgré les difficultés d'extrapolation, de nombreux travaux mettent en évidence la signification écologique ainsi que l'utilisation potentielle du couvert pour une gestion optimale des ressources piscicoles.Mots-clés : couvert, abri, poissons lotiques, habitat piscicole.

show abstract

Size-dependent foraging behaviour and use of cover in juvenile coho salmon under predation risk

Cited by 44 publications

References 24 publications

Relating Size of Juveniles to Survival Within and Among Populations of Chinook Salmon

Relating Size of Juveniles to Survival Within and Among Populations of Chinook Salmon

Development of a Natural Rearing System to Improve Supplemental Fish Quality, 1996-1998 Progress Report.

Nature and Functions of Cover for Riverine Fish.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About