Comparisons of growth and condition of fluvial and resident brook trout within partially migratory populations

Stolarski, Jason T.; Hartman, Kyle J.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00715.x

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many previous studies have acknowledged likely divisions in mobility within populations of different salmonid species (Hilderbrand and Kershner 2004;Olsson et al 2006;Utz and Hartman 2006;Stolarski and Hartman 2010) as well as other fishes (Skalski and Gilliam 2000;Schaefer et al 2003;Petty and Grossman 2004;Hudy and Shiflet 2009). Different movement strategies involve different cost-benefit tradeoffs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brook Trout Movement in Response to Temperature, Flow, and Thermal Refugia within a Complex Appalachian Riverscape

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We quantified movements of brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis and brown trout Salmo trutta in a complex riverscape characterized by a large, open‐canopy main stem and a small, closed‐canopy tributary in eastern West Virginia, USA. Our objectives were to quantify the overall rate of trout movement and relate movement behaviors to variation in streamflow, water temperature, and access to coldwater refugia. The study area experienced extremely high seasonal, yearly, and among‐stream variability in water temperature and flow. The relative mobility of brook trout within the upper Shavers Fork watershed varied significantly depending on whether individuals resided within the larger main stem or the smaller tributary. The movement rate of trout inhabiting the main stem during summer months (50 m/d) was an order of magnitude higher than that of tributary fish (2 m/d). Movement rates of main‐stem‐resident brook trout during summer were correlated with the maximum water temperature experienced by the fish and with the fish's initial distance from a known coldwater source. For main‐stem trout, use of microhabitats closer to cover was higher during extremely warm periods than during cooler periods; use of microhabitats closer to cover during warm periods was also greater for main‐stem trout than for tributary inhabitants. Main‐stem‐resident trout were never observed in water exceeding 19.5°C. Our study provides some of the first data on brook trout movements in a large Appalachian river system and underscores the importance of managing trout fisheries in a riverscape context. Brook trout conservation in this region will depend on restoration and protection of coldwater refugia in larger river main stems as well as removal of barriers to trout movement near tributary and main‐stem confluences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brook Trout Movement in Response to Temperature, Flow, and Thermal Refugia within a Complex Appalachian Riverscape

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to Brook Trout in other locations within the species’ range, Brook Trout in the Shavers Fork watershed appear to have high levels of dispersal among streams, a life history strategy to maximize both growth and reproductive success (Rogers and Curry ; Stolarski and Hartman ; Petty et al. , , ; Utz and Hartman ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic Assignment of Brook Trout Reveals Rapid Success of Culvert Restoration in Headwater Streams

Wood

Welsh

Petty

2018

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fragmentation of aquatic habitats is a global conservation concern. Losses of both biodiversity and genetic diversity have been attributed to this phenomenon as dispersal movements between habitat patches are restricted. Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis in the upper Shavers Fork watershed of West Virginia exhibit high dispersal rates and lengthy dispersal distances; however, road culverts have been hypothesized to influence the movement of Brook Trout between tributaries. Removing impassable culverts could serve as a tool to facilitate movements into previously isolated streams. We classified the passability of road culverts by their physical attributes and collected samples above each structure as well as in two streams without culverts to test for genetic population differentiation attributed to culverts. After we determined that the majority of streams consisted of a single genetic population, with the exception of two streams containing culverts designated as impassable (Beaver Creek and Lamothe Hollow), the culvert structures were restored to eliminate outlets perched above the stream bottom and were subsequently resampled 1 year after project completion. Although no individuals were assigned as first‐generation migrants into either Beaver Creek or Lamothe Hollow before culvert restoration, five individuals were detected as first‐generation migrants into Beaver Creek (13%), and one individual was identified as a first‐generation migrant into Lamothe Hollow (4.5%) after culvert restoration. Three different streams were found to be sources of the migrants into Beaver Creek, and the single individual migrating into Lamothe Hollow was from a fourth source stream. The identification of first‐generation migrants through genetic assignment not only provides a tool with which to test the effectiveness of barrier removal and subsequent restoration success but also to support the importance of culvert replacement in headwater streams.

show abstract

“…An additional causal mechanism which could explain the differences in movement and dispersal metrics could be the disparity between relatively sedentary individual Brook Trout and highly mobile ones (Marin 2010). This difference in movement patterns among individuals within a species has been observed in many different groups of fish (Olsson et al 2006, Stolarski & Hartman, 2010, Petty & Grossman 2004. The differences in movement among groups of fish tagged in this study could also be explained by the competitive interactions between Brook and Brown Trout.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Brook and Brown Trout Movement in a Restored Appalachian Watershed

Harris¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the localized ecological impacts of large-scale environmental (i.e., land use and climate) change is of critical importance not only to scientists tasked with natural resource management, but also individuals and communities across the world. In the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern United States, Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis serve as a key indicator species for the integrity of stream habitats. Brook Trout populations have largely declined throughout their native range, with impending climate change and thermal habitat exclusion potentially reducing Brook Trout habitat by more than 50%. Therefore, it is imperative that we understand interactions between Brook Trout and the changing thermal landscape, as well as their responses to management projects designed to mitigate effects of land use and climate change. We conducted a telemetry study within Shavers Fork, West Virginia, to assess Brook and Brown Trout Salmo trutta response to restoration activities which were designed to create thermal refugia and improve Brook Trout habitat suitability in the main-stem channel while increasing fish access to previously severed tributary systems. The objectives of this study were to 1) quantify Brook and Brown Trout movement and habitat use throughout a high-elevation watershed consisting of a restored mainstem stream channel and reconnected tributaries, comparing these results to a prerestoration study; and 2) determine association of native and exotic trout with restored habitat structures on the mainstem channel. We implanted 51 Brook Trout and 13 Brown Trout with radio transmitters during two field seasons from June 1-3, 2015 (23 Brook Trout and 5 Brown Trout) and June 1-4, 2016 (28 Brook Trout and 8 Brown Trout) and tracked the movements of 38 Brook Trout and 11 Brown Trout through August 15, 2015 and 2016 On average, Brook Trout moved greater total distances from their tagging site (>3.00 km) than Brown Trout (<1 km), in some cases moving over 4km in 24 hours. Brown Trout remained in the mainstem channel in all cases and associated with constructed habitat structures and natural pools. Analyses for relationships between Brook Trout and habitat structures show no verifiable response (X 2 =38.86, p = 0.651), while there does appear to be an association between Brown Trout and structure pools (X 2 = 14.24, p < 0.001). Net Dispersal analyses indicate a difference (t = 1.70, p = 0.02) in Brook Trout dispersal post versus pre-restoration. Comparisons of movement rates in Brook Trout using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests also indicate a difference in rates of movement (meters/day) for Brook Trout from this study compared to those tagged in the pre-restoration survey (D = 0.35, p = 0.02). These results confirm the importance of connected, continuous fluvial systems with accessible coldwater habitat in facilitating Brook Trout dispersal and maintaining large-scale metapopulation structure. Our study suggests that native fish communities may benefit more from the removal of dispersal barriers than structural habi...

show abstract

Comparisons of growth and condition of fluvial and resident brook trout within partially migratory populations

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Brook Trout Movement in Response to Temperature, Flow, and Thermal Refugia within a Complex Appalachian Riverscape

Brook Trout Movement in Response to Temperature, Flow, and Thermal Refugia within a Complex Appalachian Riverscape

Genetic Assignment of Brook Trout Reveals Rapid Success of Culvert Restoration in Headwater Streams

Brook and Brown Trout Movement in a Restored Appalachian Watershed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About