Swimming and jumping ability of 10 Great Plains fish species

Abstract

Stream fragmentation can be detrimental to lotic fish species by preventing important life history movements. The maximum swimming speed and jumping ability of 10 stream fish species were evaluated to describe potential water velocity and height barriers to fish movement. A 10-L swim tunnel was used to test maximum swimming performance and an artificial waterfall with an adjustable weir was used to test jumping performance. All tested fish were between 30 and 100 mm total length. Mean maximum swimming velocity ranged from 37.5 § 1.2 cm/s for mosquitofish to 65.0 § 1.7 cm/s for largemouth bass and jumping ability ranged from 0 cm for bluegill to 13 cm for green sunfish. Differences in swimming and jumping ability demonstrate how limits to dispersal can be taxa specific and therefore, impact the conservation of rare species and management of exotic species. The values determined in this study can be useful in creating models to predict barriers to fish passage.

Restricted movement of prairie fishes in fragmented riverscapes risks ecosystem structure being ratcheted downstream

“…Fish jumping ability was measured using artificial perched barriers originally designed by Kondratieff and Myrick (). This original design has been modified to meet the particular study objectives by Ficke et al (), Prenosil et al (), and the current study; however, the internal dimensions [60 × 120 (divided by a weir) × 120 cm], weir design, and protocol for use has remained consistent. All trials were conducted at water temperatures ranging from 17 to 20°C.…”

“…Road crossings offer little refuge and may block fish movements when the stream channel is sufficiently reduced and water velocities become impassable (Anderson et al, ; Bouska & Paukert, ; Kemp & O'Hanley, ; Perkin, Gido, Al‐Ta'ani, & Scoglio, ). Perches, located on the downstream end of many culverts, potentially further segregate fish assemblages by restricting access to species that are physically able or motivated to jump (Burford, McMahon, Cahoon, & Blank, ; Ficke, Myrick, & Jud, ; Kondratieff & Myrick, ; Prenosil, Koupal, Grauf, Schoenebeck, & Hoback, ). Thus, road crossings may confine fish to downstream reaches if they are unable to traverse barriers in two dimensions (i.e.…”

“…vertical and longitudinal). Although studies of fish movement in relation to road crossings are common, research that directly quantifies the ability of small‐bodied fishes to both jump (vertical) and navigate (longitudinal) barriers is relatively rare (Ficke et al, ; Perkin et al, ; Prenosil et al, ).…”

Fish assemblages above and below three road crossing types are similar in a prairie stream

“…Direct effects of road crossings may include a restriction in the upstream and downstream 82 movement of fishes within a stream, especially small-bodied fishes (Prenosil et al 2015). Such 83 movement may be prohibited by increases in water velocities and turbulence (Davies & Nelson,108 assemblages dominated by tolerant native and non-native species (Poff & Allan, 1995).…”

Untitled

“…Direct effects of road crossings may include a restriction in the upstream and downstream movement of fishes within a stream, especially small-bodied fishes (Prenosil et al 2015). Such movement may be prohibited by increases in water velocities and turbulence (Davies & Nelson, 1993, Eaglin & Hubert, 1993, Schnackenberg & MacDonald, 1998Cornish 2001;, the creation of artificial drops between the crossing structures and the main channel of the stream , the concentration of debris (Votapka, 1991;Jones et al, 2000;Wall and Berry, 2004;Coffman, 2005), or a decrease in water depths through the structure (Warren & Pardew, 1998).…”