scholarly journals Movements and behavior of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) determined by radio telemetry

1976 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.D. Winter

1978 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raj V. Kilambi ◽  
James C. Adams ◽  
William A. Wickizer

Growth, population size, and survival of resident largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were estimated before, during, and after the cage culture of Salmo gairdneri and Ictalurus punctatus. Growth in length, length–weight relationship, and condition factor were similar among the periods; however, abundance and survival of largemouth bass increased through the 3 yr of investigation. Stomach content analyses showed that the bass fed on fishes (mostly Lepomis macrochirus), crayfish, insects, and zooplankton (predominantly entomostracans). Increase in the standing crops of L. macrochirus and entomostracans during the study periods have provided forage to the increased bass population and thus resulted in greater survival of the young and adult bass of the cage culture and postcage culture periods. Key words: largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, cage culture, growth, abundance, survival



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.



2014 ◽  
Vol 71 (9) ◽  
pp. 1418-1429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Parkos ◽  
Joel C. Trexler

Spatial heterogeneity in habitat conditions within a landscape should influence degree of movement of species between natural and artificial environments. For wetland landscapes, this functional connectivity was predicted to emerge from the influence of spatiotemporal patterns of depth on permeability of habitat edges and distance and directedness of cross-habitat dispersal. We quantified how connectivity between canals and marshes of the Florida Everglades varies with species and landscape patterns bordering canals by using radio telemetry to measure movement of a native (Florida largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides floridanus) and a nonnative species (Mayan cichlid, Cichlasoma urophthalmus) common to canals. Both species moved similar distances inside canal networks, but Mayan cichlids dispersed outside of canals more frequently, at shallower conditions, and over greater distances than Florida largemouth bass. As topographic relief increased in marshes bordering canals, dispersal between these habitats decreased in distance and became more directed, with Florida largemouth bass sensitive to depth variability at a smaller spatial scale than Mayan cichlids. The way fish traits interact with submerged landscape structure to influence connectivity can serve as a basis for predicting potential impacts of artificial habitats that arise from dispersal outside their borders.



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


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 100757
Author(s):  
Li Wang ◽  
Zhenghe Cui ◽  
Xing Ren ◽  
Peng Li ◽  
Yan Wang


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 100642
Author(s):  
Wenqiang Wang ◽  
Peng Yang ◽  
Chaoqun He ◽  
Shuyan Chi ◽  
Songlin Li ◽  
...  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document