The structure of sculpin populations along a stream size gradient

Anderson, Charles S.

doi:10.1007/bf00002577

Cited by 46 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to the Brown and Downhower (1982) and Schmetterling and Adams (2004) with freshwater sculpins, we found the length of Potomac sculpin did not affect movement. Several flood events occurred during our study, and we found, as did Anderson (1985), that floods did not increase movement rates. We hypothesized that the flood effect, if any, would increase downstream movement.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…The lack of large potential predators of Potomac sculpin (i.e., salmonids, rock bass Ambloplites rupestris) in Smith Creek may also have affected behavior and movement needs at many scales. The density of Potomac sculpin in our study was considerably higher than would be predicted from other streams with similar widths (Anderson 1985). Anderson (1985) found a consistent relationship between freshwater sculpin density and stream width and hypothesized that a reduction in density with increasing stream width was related to the presence of predators (i.e., salmonids, rock bass) in wider streams.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Hudy¹,

Shiflet²

2009

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.-Movement patterns of benthic fishes have not been widely studied, but an understanding of those movement patterns may be necessary in assessing the full effects of habitat fragmentation and the need to restore connectivity in fragmented watersheds. We evaluated nonspawning movement of 3,353 marked Potomac sculpin Cottus girardi over a 1-year period on a 3.14-km segment of a third-order stream. In addition, we conducted a fish removal experiment at the pool-riffle sequence scale (90 m) to evaluate the effects of fish density on movement and recolonization rates. The majority of recaptured Potomac sculpin stayed within 30 m of their original capture location throughout the study (81% at 30 d; 64% at 75 d; 53% at 363 d). Upstream (US) movement was greater than downstream (DS) movement at 30 d (US 17%; DS 3%), 75 d (US 30%, DS 6%) and 363 d (US 32%, DS 15%). After 75 d, 10% of the fish that moved upstream moved more than 250 m (21% after 363 d). The maximum distance moved was 1,711 m in 75 d. There were no significant differences in mean total length between recaptured Potomac sculpin that either moved or did not move or between upstream and downstream movers. The presence or absence of fishes in adjacent 30-m habitat sections influenced upstream, but not downstream, movement of Potomac sculpin. After 30 d, Potomac sculpin population densities and size structure were similar between fish removal and reference sections. We found our results to be similar to those of other studies, which found that, on average, freshwater sculpin are sedentary. However, we identified great dispersal capabilities (.250 m) for a small percentage of Potomac sculpin. The long dispersal distances suggest that this typically sedentary species may need greater habitat connectivity than previously assumed.Information on movement is necessary for assessing the full effects of fragmentation and a species' population needs when restoring connectivity in fragmented watersheds. The short-term and long-term movement patterns of many benthic fishes are unknown, but, in general, home ranges appear to be small. While there has been considerable research on fish movements in general (see reviews by Gowan et al. 1994;Matthews 1998;Rodriguez 2002), most work has focused on salmonids and other sport fish.Previous research has indicated that most freshwater sculpins (Cottidae) do not move frequently or far (see Table 1 for a detailed summary), but no current information has been published on the movement patterns of Potomac sculpin Cottus girardi. Matheson (1979) and Jenkins and Burkhead (1993) do, however, summarize the general ecology and taxonomy of the Potomac sculpin.Bailey (1952) concluded that mottled sculpin Cottus bairdii were relatively sedentary, with typical yearly movements of 50 m. McCleave (1964) estimated the home range of mottled sculpin to be less than 50 m. In two Montana streams, mottled sculpin movement during nonspawning times (June and July) was found to be short (mean ¼ 1.2 m) and haphazard (no preference for upstream or ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Hudy¹,

Shiflet²

2009

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, densities of sculpins in the Eel River system were relatively low compared to other streams and rivers. In small streams (3 to 5 meters wide), sculpin densities measured in other studies range from 0.5 to 5 fish m-2 (Anderson 1985, Daniels 1987, Morgan & Ringler 1992. Morgan & Ringler (1992) conducted experimental additions of slimy sculpins, Cottus cognatus, and found that densities of up to 10.1 fish m-2 could be established and maintained.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Differences in habitat choice (Mason & Machidori 1976, Finger 1982, Matheson & Brooks 1982, Daniels 1987, Brown 1991, physiological responses to temperature (Brown 1989), and responses to predation and competition (Andreasson 1972, Finger 1983, Anderson 1985, Brown 1991 have all been suggested as processes promoting segregation. The diet data suggest that neither intranor interspecific predation are very important processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparative ecology of prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and coastrange sculpin, C. aleuticus, in the Eel River, California

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisWe documented species7 distributions, size structure of populations, abundance in mainstem and tributary streams, habitat use, and diets of prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and coastrange sculpin, C. aleuticus, in the Eel River drainage of California, to determine the processes allowing coexistence of these very similar fishes. We observed prickly sculpins at 43 sites and coastrange sculpins at 34. The species co-occurred at 26 sites. Youngof-year coastrange sculpins were only observed within 42 km of the ocean, but young-of-year prickly sculpins were present throughout the species range. Mean, maximum, and minimum lengths of coastrange sculpins were positively correlated with distance from the ocean but no significant relationships were found for prickly sculpins. Absolute abundance of both species was highest in mainstem habitat (prickly sculpins = 0.6 sculpins m-2 and coastrange sculpins = 0.4 sculpins m-'). Tributary densities of both species tended to be less than 0.1 sculpins m-' . The species inhabited very similar habitats and had very similar diets. Coastrange sculpin populations in upstream areas were maintained by immigration from downstream areas in contrast with prickly sculpin populations that produced young-of-year fish throughout their range. Densities were probably not high enough for interspecific interactions to be important. The factors limiting the upstream distribution of the species may include high water temperatures, stability of the stream bed, and behavior of the fish. In the past, the range of sculpins within the Eel River drainage probably fluctuated with changing physical conditions. Recent introductions of exotic species that compete with and prey upon'sculpins, and ongoing human activities in the drainage could result in major reductions in the distribution and abundance of one or both species.

show abstract

“…Some studies have shown that fish become smaller with progression upstream, because fish size was related to stream depth observed at the habitat unit scale (see, for example, Patrick. 1975;Schlosser, 1982;Anderson, 1985). Hughes (1998) suggested, however, that this relationship does not always apply to drift-feeding stream salmonids.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution and movement of bull trout in the upper Jarbidge River watershed, Nevada

Allen¹,

Connolly²,

Mesa³

et al. 2010

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprodTo order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Allen, M.B., Connolly, P.J., Mesa, M.G., Charrier, Jodi, and Dixon, Chris, 2010, Distribution and movement of bull trout in the upper Jarbidge River watershed, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1033, 80 p.Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Table 6. Number (n) of bull trout captured, the sampling distance (rkm), the number of bull trout captured with a fork length greater than 200 mm, the number of bull trout with a fork length greater than 250 mm, the minimum (min) fork length, the maximum (max) fork length, and weight of bull trout for each creek sampled in the Jarbidge River watershed, Nevada, in 2006Nevada, in -2007 Contents AbstractIn 2006 and 2007, we surveyed the occurrence of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), the relative distributions of bull trout and redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and stream habitat conditions in the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River in northeastern Nevada and southern Idaho. We installed passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag interrogation systems at strategic locations within the watershed, and PIT-tagged bull trout were monitored to evaluate individual fish growth, movement, and the connectivity of bull trout between streams. Robust bull trout populations were found in the upper portions of the East Fork Jarbidge River, the West Fork Jarbidge River, and in the Pine, Jack, Dave, and Fall Creeks. Small numbers of bull trout also were found in Slide and Cougar Creeks. Bull trout were numerically dominant in the upper portions of the East Fork Jarbidge River, and in Fall, Dave, Jack, and Pine Creeks, whereas redband trout were numerically dominant throughout the rest of the watershed. The relative abundance of bull trout was notably higher at altitudes above 2,100 m.This study was successful in documenting bull trout population connectivity within the West Fork Jarbidge River, particularly between West Fork Jarbidge River and Pine Creek. Downstream movement of bull trout to the confluence of the East Fork and West Fork Jarbidge River both from Jack Creek (rkm 16.6) in the West Fork Jarbidge River and from Dave Creek (rkm 7.5) in the East Fork Jarbidge River was detected. Although bull trout exhibited some downstream movement during the spring and summer, much of their emigration occurred in the autumn, concurrent with decreasing water temperatures and slightly...

show abstract

The structure of sculpin populations along a stream size gradient

Cited by 46 publications

References 37 publications

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Comparative ecology of prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and coastrange sculpin, C. aleuticus, in the Eel River, California

Distribution and movement of bull trout in the upper Jarbidge River watershed, Nevada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About