Downstream effects of hydroelectric dam operation on thermal habitat use by Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis ) and Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus )

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 552-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne Kelly ◽  
Karen E. Smokorowski ◽  
Michael Power
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Use ◽  
Brook Trout ◽  
Salvelinus Fontinalis ◽  
Cottus Cognatus ◽  
Thermal Habitat ◽  
Slimy Sculpin ◽  
Downstream Effects ◽  
Hydroelectric Dam ◽  
Dam Operation

Ontogenetic and diel variation in stream habitat use by brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a headwater stream

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Johnson ◽  
Robert M. Ross ◽  
David S. Dropkin ◽  
Lori A. Redell
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Use ◽  
Brook Trout ◽  
Salvelinus Fontinalis ◽  
Headwater Stream ◽  
Stream Habitat ◽  
Diel Variation

Threat-sensitive predator avoidance by slimy sculpins: understanding the importance of visual versus chemical information

2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 867-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas P Chivers ◽  
Reehan S Mirza ◽  
Pamela J Bryer ◽  
Joseph M Kiesecker
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Brook Trout ◽  
Predator Avoidance ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Chemical Cues ◽  
Salvelinus Fontinalis ◽  
Chemical Information ◽  
Cottus Cognatus ◽  
Predation Threat

The supposition that prey animals assess and behave flexibly in response to different degrees of predation threat is known as the threat-sensitive predator avoidance hypothesis. We completed a series of field and laboratory experiments to examine whether slimy sculpins (Cottus cognatus) exhibit threat-sensitive predator avoidance when exposed to sympatric predatory brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). In a field experiment we caged small and large trout in similar habitats and found that sculpins avoided areas containing trout that were large enough to pose a threat to them, but did not avoid areas containing trout that were small and hence not a threat. In a series of laboratory experiments we found that sculpins showed threat-sensitive predator avoidance when they could assess the predator visually. However, when only chemical cues from the predator were presented, sculpins responded to the predator regardless of its size. Chemical cues seem to function to warn the sculpin that the predator is in the vicinity, but visual cues are needed in order to accurately assess the risk posed by the predator.

scholarly journals Spawning Season and Habitat Use of Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus) in Southeastern Minnesota

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 301-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Majeski ◽  
Philip A. Cochran
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Use ◽  
Spawning Season ◽  
Cottus Cognatus ◽  
Slimy Sculpin

Habitat use and hybridisation between the Rocky Mountain sculpin (Cottussp.) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyana Rudolfsen ◽  
Jonathan L. W. Ruppert ◽  
Eric B. Taylor ◽  
Corey S. Davis ◽  
Douglas A. Watkinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Use ◽  
Rocky Mountain ◽  
Cottus Cognatus ◽  
Slimy Sculpin

Interactions of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) with native and nonnative trout: consequences for growth

2006 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 1526-1535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie KH Zimmerman ◽  
Bruce Vondracek
Keyword(s):  
Brown Trout ◽  
Brook Trout ◽  
Salmo Trutta ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Cottus Cognatus ◽  
Slimy Sculpin ◽  
Brown Trout Salmo Trutta ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Juvenile Brown Trout ◽  
Potential Interactions

We examined growth of native slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and nonnative brown trout (Salmo trutta) to investigate potential interactions of a native nongame fish with native and nonnative trout. Enclosures (1 m2) were stocked with five treatments (juvenile brown trout with sculpin, juvenile brook trout with sculpin, and single species controls) at three densities. Treatments (with replication) were placed in riffles in Valley Creek, Minnesota, and growth rates were measured for six experiments. We examined the difference in growth of each species in combined species treatments compared with each species alone. We did not find evidence of inter actions between brook trout and sculpin, regardless of density or fish size. However, sculpin gained greater mass when alone than with brown trout when sculpin were >16 g. Likewise, brown trout grew more when alone than with sculpin when brown trout were >24 g. In contrast, brown trout ≤5 g grew more with sculpin compared with treatments alone. We suggest that native brook trout and sculpin coexist without evidence of competition, whereas nonnative brown trout may compete with sculpin.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document