Assessment of the movement behaviour of the bullhead (Cottus gobio), an endangered European freshwater fish

Abstract

Despite the increasing recognition that in-stream movement probably represents an important aspect of the ecology of many stream fish populations, there is still limited and often conflicting information on the movement behaviour of a wide range of fish, especially species that are threatened and/or with no economic interest. In this study, movement behaviour of the endangered bullhead (Cottus gobio), a small, bottom-dwelling European freshwater fish, was assessed by markrecapture in a Flemish (northern part of Belgium) lowland river between September 2002 and May 2003. The majority (61-72%) of tagged bullheads recaptured during the different sampling occasions were found at or near (<10 m) their initial tagging site. The other re-sighted specimens however had covered distances between 20 and 270 m. There were no significant indications of seasonal differences in bullhead movement behaviour. In general, our results strongly suggest that bullhead populations not only consist of stationary individuals but also of relatively mobile fish. Consequently, to effectively conserve this endangered species, fisheries managers should (i) consider sufficiently large areas of habitat as critical to bullhead populations, and (ii) minimise the impact of physical barriers on bullhead movement.

Assessment of the conservation status of endemic sculpinCottus haemusi(Cottidae) in the river Vit (Danube Tributary), northwest Bulgaria

“…It has been reported that bullheads are capable of rapid recolonization of rehabilitated watercourses (Pretty et al, 2003). By tagging fish with PIT markers Knaepkens et al (2005) demonstrated that bullhead populations not only consist of stationary individuals but also of relatively mobile fish that cover distances of up to 270 m. However, bullheads have little ability to overcome natural or man-made obstructions, and anything with a height of 20 cm or more is impassable for bullheads moving upstream (Utzinger et al, 1998). The migration of bullheads above sampling site K3 is prevented by an artificial obstruction (weir) and numerous natural rock shoots.…”

“…Cottus petiti) (Persat et al, 1996;Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). Some populations of Cottus species are becoming endangered as a result of water pollution and habitat deterioration (Pedroli et al, 1991;Utzinger et al, 1998;Fischer and Kummer, 2000;Knaepkens et al, 2005). The bullhead, Cottus gobio, was included in Annex II of the European Commission's Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive).…”

“…Mann, 1971;Crisp et al, 1974;Welton et al, 1983;Waterstraat, 1992;Perrow et al, 1997;Fischer and Kummer, 2000;Jansen et al, 2000;Cowx and Harvey, 2003;Carter et al, 2004;Kotusz et al, 2004;Legalle et al, 2005;Van Liefferinge et al, 2005;Abdoli et al, 2007). The spread of local populations of bullhead has been hampered by the low migratory ability of the species, its specific ecological requirements and river fragmentation (natural and man-made), which have prevented significant dispersal (Utzinger et al, 1998;Fischer and Kummer, 2000;Knaepkens et al, 2005). The current distribution of Cottus species across Europe is a result of colonization and re-colonization processes during interglacial periods (Riffel and Schreiber, 1995;Hänfling and Brandl, 1998;Englbrecht et al, 2000;Kontula and Väinölä, 2001;Volckaert et al, 2002;Šlechtová et al, 2004).…”

Using Environmental DNA to Monitor the Reintroduction Success of the Rhine Sculpin (Cottus rhenanus) in a Restored Stream

“…A density-dependent, exploratory behavioral mechanism to compensate for this high density is the dispersal of smaller individuals to sub-optimal habitats (Davey et al, 2005). Note that maximum moving distances of up to 395 m for the Rhine sculpin during 1 year and over 250 m for the closely related European bullhead during several months have been observed (Knaepkens et al, 2005(Knaepkens et al, , 2006Ovidio et al, 2009). Furthermore, seasonal migration has been shown for the European bullhead (Crisp et al, 1984).…”

Fish movement in an Atlantic Forest stream

“…Movement frequency seems to be higher than expected (Gowan et al, 1994;Smithson, Johnston, 1999;Crook, 2004;Roberts et al, 2008;Breen et al, 2009), and stream fish populations are not completely sedentary. There are also some intra-population behaviour differences in which some individuals are sedentary, some are mobile, and others alternate between both behaviours (Knaepkens et al, 2005). Such variability contributes to colonization and maintenance of the gene flow (Hughes et al, 2009).…”