Effects of siltation on resource utilization and dynamics of allopatric brown trout,Salmo trulta, in a reservoir

Borgstrøm, Reidar; Brabrand, Åge; Solheim, Johan Trygve

doi:10.1007/bf00004770

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that a substantial amount of cyclopoid copepods were eaten may be interpreted as a response to the low availability of cladoceran zooplankton prey. The effect of increased turbidity on zooplankton feeding accords with the observations of Borgstrøm et al (1992) in Ringedalsvatn reservoir where a heavy draw-down causes reservoir waters to become turbid, resulting in an allopatric brown trout dietary switch from a cladoceran zooplankton dominated to surface insect dominated diet. Cold water temperatures in lake L5 may also favour the development of an Arctic charr dominated fish community.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Habitat use and diet of sympatric Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) in five lakes in southern Norway: not only interspecific population dominance?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stable coexistence of Arctic charr and whitefish does occur in a number of native lake fish communities in Scandinavia. Even so, whitefish introductions into Arctic charr lakes have resulted in serious decline and possibly local extinction of Arctic charr. In this article, we analyze the habitat use and diet of the two species in five Norwegian lakes differing in basin shape and environmental conditions. In two of the lakes, both species are native, and appear to live in a relatively stable coexistence. Here, whitefish mainly occupy the littoral and upper pelagic zone, while Arctic charr live in the deeper habitats. Diets are generally quite different in terms of the zooplankton species eaten. In the three other lakes, either whitefish or both species have been introduced. In the shallowest lake, habitat segregation is similar to that seen in the pristine lakes, although Arctic charr appears to be on the brink of extinction. In the remaining two lakes, however, Arctic charr dominates, and occurs in higher numbers than whitefish in all the habitats. Our observations indicate that coexistence of the two species in oligotrophic and relatively pristine lakes requires an extensive profundal zone to serve as a refugium for Arctic charr. If the littoral zone is rendered inaccessible or unprofitable for whitefish due to dominance of a third competitor or predator, or as a result of lake regulation, then Arctic charr may be the dominant species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Habitat use and diet of sympatric Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) in five lakes in southern Norway: not only interspecific population dominance?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the evacuation rate is computed using gut fullness, gut content should also be computed using gut fullness, otherwise the daily ration will be under-or overestimated depending on which values was used. For example, Borgstrom et al (1992), in a study on brown trout, Salmo trutta, estimated the mean stomach content with gut fullness (F) and used the evacuation rate, estimated by Elliott (1972), based on stomach content weight (W) values. If we had estimated our daily ration in this way, we would have obtained 0.64 g dry weight 100 g fish wet weight-' d-' instead of 0.61 g dry weight 100 g fish wet weight-' d-'.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The estimation of fish daily ration was widely used to investigate questions such as the relation between ration and growth (Walsh et al 1988, Boisclair & Leggett 1989, Parrish & Margraf 1990a, Walh & Stein 1991, predation pressure on prey species (Boisclair & Leggett 1985, Ruggerone 1989, Vigg et al 1991, profitability of different habitats (Swenson 1977, HCroux 1990, impact of environmental modifications (Borgstrom et al 1992), food limitations during the season (Ensign et al 1990), and competition (Parrish & Margraf 1990a). Recently, the estimation of fish daily ration has been used to test bioenergetic models in different species (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In situ determination of food daily ration in fish: review and field evaluation

Héroux

Magnan

1996

Environ Biol Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisA literature review showed that numerous studies have dealt with the estimation of fish daily ration in the field. Comparisons of results from different studies are often difficult due to the use of different approaches and methods for parameter estimations. The objective of the present study was to compare the most commonly used approaches to estimate fish daily ration and to propose a standardized procedure for their estimation in the field. Comparisons were based on a field experiment specifically designed to investigate these questions and on data and theoretical considerations found in the literature. The results showed that (1) the gut fullness computed with entire digestive tract content is preferable to the stomach content only, supporting recent research done on other fish species; (2) it is important to consider the data distribution before estimating parameters; (3) estimates of experimental evacuation rates should be used rather than maximum evacuation rate for species showing no feeding periodicity; (4) it is necessary to exclude parasites from gut content in the computation of daily ration as they may significantly decrease daily ration estimates (by an average of 29.3% in this study); and (5) the Eggers (1977) model is as appropriate as, and less complex than, the Elliott & Persson (1978) model for estimating fish daily ration in the field, again supporting recent experiments done on other fish species.

show abstract

“…Schei & Jonsson 1989;Borgstr€ om et al 1992;Brodersen et al 2012). Schei & Jonsson 1989;Borgstr€ om et al 1992;Brodersen et al 2012).…”

Section: N B 1àisunclassified

“…In allopatric populations in lakes and reservoirs, trout mainly uses the littoral and near-surface waters but may also feed on zooplankton in the pelagic zone (Klemetsen 1967;Schei & Jonsson 1989;Borgstr€ om et al 1992;Brodersen et al 2012). Conversely, in trout-charr sympatric systems, although both species are able to utilise both the pelagic and littoral zone, trout in general occupies the littoral, whereas charr more commonly exploit all habitat types, but especially the pelagic and profundal zone (Hegge et al 1989;Langeland et al 1991;Cavalli et al 1998;Saksg ard & Hesthagen 2004;Eloranta et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trophic ecology of brown trout (Salmo truttaL.) in subarctic lakes

Sánchez‐Hernández

Amundsen

2014

Ecology of Freshwater Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In subarctic lake systems, fish species like brown trout are often important predators, and their niche performance is a key characteristic for understanding trophic interactions and food web functioning at upper trophic levels. Here, we studied summer habitat use and stomach contents of brown trout under both allopatric and sympatric conditions in six subarctic lakes to reveal its trophic role, and population-and individual-level niche plasticity. In allopatry, brown trout mainly used the littoral habitat, but also less commonly used the pelagic zone. In sympatry with stickleback, there was always a considerable habitat overlap between the two species. In contrast, sympatric populations of brown trout and Arctic charr generally revealed a distinct habitat segregation. In the sympatric systems, in general, there was a distinct resource partitioning between the trout and charr, whereas the observed diet overlap between trout and stickleback was much larger. Trout modified their individual dietary specialisation between the littoral and pelagic zone, always being lower in the pelagic. Piscivorous behaviour of trout was only found in sympatric systems, possibly contributing to a competitive advantage of trout over charr and stickleback. Hence, the trophic level of trout was strongly related to the fish community composition, with a higher trophic level in sympatric systems where piscivorous behaviour was frequent. These changes in the trophic level of trout linked with the observed food resource partitioning might be an important mechanism in the ecosystem functioning of subarctic lakes to allow coexistence among sympatric-living fish species.

show abstract

Effects of siltation on resource utilization and dynamics of allopatric brown trout,Salmo trulta, in a reservoir

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Habitat use and diet of sympatric Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) in five lakes in southern Norway: not only interspecific population dominance?

Habitat use and diet of sympatric Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) in five lakes in southern Norway: not only interspecific population dominance?

In situ determination of food daily ration in fish: review and field evaluation

Trophic ecology of brown trout (Salmo truttaL.) in subarctic lakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About