Effect of habitat selection and behavior on vulnerability to predation of introduced fish

1995 ◽  
Vol 52 (11) ◽  
pp. 2312-2319 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Wahl

Losses from resident predators can be an important source of mortality for introduced fish, but may vary among species. I compared vulnerability between muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) to predation by largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). In pool experiments (N = 51) with simulated vegetation, muskellunge were more susceptible to predation than walleye. Habitat selection explained some of these differences as walleye spent more time in the simulated vegetation and associated with the substrate than muskellunge. Expectations from pool experiments were confirmed in reservoirs stocked with two size groups of walleye (N = 8 introductions) and esocids (N = 20). Walleye were less susceptible to largemouth bass predation for both small (mean 14% of stocked fish) and large (mean 0%) size groups than were small (mean 36%) and large (mean 21%) esocids of three taxa. For muskellunge only, walleye were less vulnerable to predation for large size groups, but not for small ones. Predation from largemouth bass should be a more important source of poststocking mortality for esocids than for walleye in lakes and reservoirs. Largemouth bass population demographics, specific to each system and year, should be considered more carefully in determining where esocids should be introduced than for percids.


1989 ◽  
Vol 46 (12) ◽  
pp. 2095-2103 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Wahl ◽  
Roy A. Stein

We compared vulnerability among tiger muskellunge (Esox masquinongy × E. lucius) (TM), northern pike (E. lucius) (NP), and muskellunge (E. masquinongy) (M) to predation by largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Equal numbers (about 25/ha) and sizes (either 145, 180, or 205 mm) of each esocid taxa were stocked into three reservoirs (40–89 ha) during 3 yr (five stockings total). Tiger muskellunge were significantly more susceptible to predation ([Formula: see text], range 1–53% mortality) than muskellunge ([Formula: see text], range 2–26%); northern pike were intermediate in susceptibility ([Formula: see text], range 2–35%). Esocid size influenced predation rates for all taxa; losses to predation by largemouth bass decreased from an average of 31% at 145 mm to 2% at 205 mm. Pond experiments (N = 7) provided results similar to reservoirs: TM>NP>M. In laboratory pools with simulated vegetation (N = 106 experiments), susceptibility to predation among esocids did not differ. Dispersal rates by esocids were similar in reservoirs and all taxa preferred vegetated habitats. However, differential habitat selection may partially explain why tiger muskellunge are more vulnerable to largemouth bass predation, as they spent more time in open than vegetated habitats in both pond and pool experiments than either of the parent species. For all taxa, stocking lengths [Formula: see text] in fall will increase survival by reducing predatory losses.



<em>Abstract.</em>—Largemouth Bass <em>Micropterus salmoides</em> is typically thought of as a freshwater species, but populations occur in oligohaline portions of estuaries throughout the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, often with popular fisheries. These coastal populations must deal with the physiological stresses associated with salinity variation and may be isolated from inland freshwater populations, increasing the potential for differentiation. To understand factors important to the ecology and management of these coastal populations, we quantified individual- and population-level parameters for Largemouth Bass across a natural salinity gradient in the Mobile-Tensaw River delta in southwestern Alabama during 2002–2009 (including population demographics, feeding ecology, movement, recruitment, and bioenergetics processes). Combining traditional mark–recapture and telemetry techniques with otolith microchemical analyses, we demonstrated that Largemouth Bass of all ages moved very little, even in response to increasing salinity (up to 15‰) in downstream areas. Large individuals were rare in our sampling across both fresh and brackish habitats (only 7 out of 9,530 individuals were >2.27 kg), and fish body condition increased downstream with increasing marine influence. Growth responses for fish across the estuary were more complex, varying with both fish age and salinity. Faster growth was observed in the brackish, downstream areas for fish ≤age 2, while growth of older fish was faster in freshwater upstream sites. Using bioenergetics modeling, we demonstrated that a complex combination of spatial variation in water temperature, prey energetic content, and metabolic cost of salinity was responsible for age-specific spatial variation in growth. Preliminary genetic analysis suggests that these coastal Largemouth Bass may differ genetically from inland fish. Coastal Largemouth Bass populations face a number of potential conservation concerns, and their management will require different approaches compared to their inland counterparts, including different goals and expectations, likely even requiring consideration as unique stocks.



1998 ◽  
Vol 55 (11) ◽  
pp. 2414-2424 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E Garvey ◽  
Russell A Wright ◽  
Roy A Stein

How large size affects overwinter growth and survival of age-0 fish may vary as a function of food, predation, and energetic condition. During two winters in Ohio, we assessed how these factors affected growth and survival of varying sizes of age-0 largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) by combining a field survey (N = 2 reservoirs) with multiscale experiments (reservoirs, ponds, outdoor pools). In our survey, more small (< 100 mm total length) individuals died by spring in one reservoir than in the other. Similarly, when we stocked two reservoirs with marked age-0 largemouth bass in fall, mortality of small individuals was higher in one system overwinter, potentially due to differences in predation intensity. In ponds during two winters, size-selective mortality of small largemouth bass occurred in only two of eight ponds, potentially as a function of cannibalism. Varying ration in pools (starved, 0.5× maintenance, or 1.5× maintenance) did not affect survival, even though starved individuals lost substantial wet weight and energy content. Only when predators were present did small individuals die at high rates, although energy depletion may have contributed to predatory mortality. To increase the probability of overwinter survival, managers should seek to improve first-summer growth, reduce winter predation, and increase winter forage.



2007 ◽  
Vol 64 (12) ◽  
pp. 1761-1769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor M Selch ◽  
Steven R Chipps

We used muscle-derived lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to measure effects of prey size and vegetation density on anaerobic foraging activity by largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Largemouth bass (240–303 mm total length, TL) were fed bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) prey (range 33–83 mm TL) in laboratory feeding trials. Prey selectivity experiments showed that small bluegills (<50 mm) were strongly preferred (>88%) over larger (>65 mm) individuals. Largemouth bass activity, as indexed by LDH, increased with increasing prey size and was 20% higher in fish feeding on large (mean size = 80 mm) versus small (mean size = 35 mm) bluegill. Bioenergetics modeling revealed that food consumption was appreciably underestimated (29%–34%) for largemouth bass foraging on large bluegills (65 and 80 mm), implying that activity costs vary with prey size, consistent with LDH measurements. In contrast to prey size, vegetation density had little effect on anaerobic energy expenditure of largemouth bass. For two size groups of largemouth bass (mean = 244 and 316 mm) foraging on 50 mm bluegill, mean LDH activity was similar across simulated vegetation densities ranging from 70 to 350 stems·m–2. These findings highlight the importance of prey size on foraging costs by piscivores and the difficulties of accounting for activity level in bioenergetics models.



2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 654-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongmei MA ◽  
Guocheng DEND ◽  
Junjie BAI ◽  
Shengjie LI ◽  
Xiaoyan JIANG ◽  
...  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document