2002
DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659(2002)131<1119:eobtab>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Bull Trout and Brook Trout Interactions on Foraging Habitat, Feeding Behavior, and Growth

Abstract: Observations of free‐ranging sympatric bull trout Salvelinus confluentus and nonnative brook trout S. fontinalis in two eastern Oregon headwater streams provided little evidence of habitat partitioning. Both species held focal feeding points in similar microhabitats and fed primarily from the water column rather than from the surface or benthos. In an instream experiment, 20 enclosures were assigned one of three treatments: two bull trout, four bull trout, or a mix of two bull trout and two brook trout. In the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
45
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, densities of stocked Atlantic sallnoll and wild rainbow trout were higher in our streams than those in the Heam and Kynard (1986) study. Under such conditions of relative resource scarcity and elevated densities, we would anticipate interspecific interactions to be more frequent and intense in our study (e.g., Gunckel et al 2002). Competing fish may have occupied energetically-inefficient foraging microhabitats (Li and Brocksen 1977), and if current velocities were lower than optimum, then the available drifting prey would have been relatively small (cf.…”
Section: Ud Vs Ld Drift Ld Vs Dr Drift Dr Vs Ud Drin Ats-allo Vs Ats-mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Additionally, densities of stocked Atlantic sallnoll and wild rainbow trout were higher in our streams than those in the Heam and Kynard (1986) study. Under such conditions of relative resource scarcity and elevated densities, we would anticipate interspecific interactions to be more frequent and intense in our study (e.g., Gunckel et al 2002). Competing fish may have occupied energetically-inefficient foraging microhabitats (Li and Brocksen 1977), and if current velocities were lower than optimum, then the available drifting prey would have been relatively small (cf.…”
Section: Ud Vs Ld Drift Ld Vs Dr Drift Dr Vs Ud Drin Ats-allo Vs Ats-mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because the native and invasive salmonines share no co-evolutionary history and have not experienced selective pressures to evolve niche-partitioning mechanisms, the resulting competitive interactions may be intense. For example, Gunckel et al (2002) found that bull charr (Snlvrlit~za confluentus) did not alter feeding behavior or microhabitat selection when placed into sympatry with competitively superior brook charr (Snlvelinzrs fonrinalis) and thus experienced a decline in growth rate and dominance status as a result of interference competition that could have been alleviated via niche-shifi. Alternately, while sympatric with competitively-dominant brown trout (Saln~o tnltta), subordinate brook charr underwent a niche-shift, occupying microhabitats that offered less potential for net energy gain than those occupied in allopatry (Fausch and White 1986).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Invasive species that initiate aggressive encounters can displace native species, as has been seen with the invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile; Human and Gordon 1999). Other studies show effects of invasive species on natives via aggressive behavior (Gunckel et al 2002;Warburton and Madden 2003;Klocker and Strayer 2004;Dame and Petren 2006). Like many invasive species, H. cyanoguttatus is most successful in disturbed habitats, including GNOMA (personal observation), and this could be due to a lack of complex interactions in the relatively low diversity of city canals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…We also observed greater numbers of hybrids in Lake Creek (n = 10) than the other two streams we surveyed. Given that brook trout may display a competitive advantage in some cases when the two species are sympatric (Gunkel et al 2002;McMahon et al 2007), interspecific competition has likely contributed to the low abundance of bull trout as well. The likely threats posed by brook trout in Lake Creek suggest that active measures (e.g.…”
Section: Conservation Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%