Survival, Growth, Movement, and Distribution of Two Brook Trout Strains Stocked into Small Adirondack Streams

Abstract

Six field trials were conducted in two streams to compare the survival, growth, movement, and distribution of young-of-year Assinica strain and Temiscamie strain brook trout Salvelinusfontinalis 15-91 d after stocking. No consistent differences between strains in recovery after stocking or in growth were detected; however, movement and distribution within streams differed consistently between strains. Approximately four Temiscamie to one Assinica fish moved downstream 2-15 h after stocking. At the conclusion of five trials, the strains were dissimilarly distributed within streams (distribution was not assessed in the sixth trial): a large proportion of Assinica fish were found in the most upstream section of the streams, whereas a large proportion of Temiscamie fish were found in the most downstream section. These differences in movement and distribution may be related to the origins of the strains in large lake systems in Quebec, where spawning occurs in inlet and outlet streams. Assinica fish, which have a probable outlet origin and which moved upstream in this investigation, may be better suited for stocking in areas downstream of where brook trout are to be established. Conversely, their probable inlet origin and demonstrated downstream movement make Temiscamie fish candidates for stocking in upstream areas.

Juvenile Movement among Different Populations of Cutthroat Trout Introduced as Embryos to Vacant Habitat

“…Early life movement patterns exhibited by individuals native to lake inlet versus lake outlet streams and from populations above versus below waterfalls are heritable (e.g., Northcote 1962;Bowler 1975;Kaya 1989;Van Offelen et al 1993) and selection for sedentary habits can occur very rapidly (Pearse et al 2009). …”

Estimates of gene flow and dispersal in wild riverine Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations reveal ongoing migration and introgression from stocked fish

“…Nevertheless, the river systems that comprise the Upper Hudson drainage are unique in that they are fed by a number of tributaries that possess ideal Brook Trout habitat (DeWeber & Wagner, ). The Upper Hudson drainage has, however, been subjected to decades of state‐sanctioned stocking activities in the main stem of all three of these systems (Van Offelen, Krueger, & Schofield, ; Webster & Flick, ). Despite the long‐term interest in, and attempted management of, this fishery, little is currently known about Brook Trout population genetic structure in this region (but see Bruce et al, ; Perkins et al, , ) or the potential impacts, genetic or otherwise, of these stocking activities on naturally occurring Brook Trout populations.…”

“…The Upper Hudson drainage has, however, been subjected to decades of state-sanctioned stocking activities in the main stem of all F I G U R E 1 Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) three of these systems (Van Offelen, Krueger, & Schofield, 1993;Webster & Flick, 1981). Despite the long-term interest in, and attempted management of, this fishery, little is currently known about Brook Trout population genetic structure in this region (but see Bruce et al, 2018;Perkins et al, 1993aPerkins et al, , 1993b or the potential impacts, genetic or otherwise, of these stocking activities on naturally occurring Brook Trout populations.…”

Growth, Movement, and Catch of Brook, Rainbow, and Brown Trout after Stocking into a Large, Marginally Suitable Adirondack River

“…Differences among species or strains in terms of behavior (e.g., movement and habitat use: Helfrich and Kendall 1982) or physiology (e.g., optimal and lethal temperatures: Brauhn and Kincaid 1982) can also influence the performance of stocked trout. Comparisons of domestic and wild strains have been conducted for brook trout (e.g., Van Offelen et al 1993), rainbow trout (e.g., Babey and Berry 1989), and brown trout (e.g., Hulbert 1985). However, few studies have concurrently compared all three trout species.…”