Fische des Rheins

Lelek, Anton; Buhse, Günter

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-06645-4

Cited by 30 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An observed dominance of eurytopic species (esp. perch, roach, white bream, common bream and bleak) was also found in other European streams and rivers [Lelek and Buhse, 1992; Schiemer et al., 1994; Carrel and Rivier, 1996; Internationale Kommission zum Schutze des Rheins (IKSR), 1997; Wolter and Bischoff, 2001]. Backwaters were not considered in the present investigations thus, as expected, limnophilic species were rarely represented.…”

Section: Structure Of Fish Assemblagesupporting

confidence: 64%

Modelling the habitat preferences of preadult and adult fishes on the shoreline of the large, lowland Elbe River

Fladung

Scholten

Thiel

2003

Journal of Applied Ichthyology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary From the years 1997 to 2000, fish assemblages from 15 groyne fields and training walls (a current guiding dyke, protecting the groyne field) of the Middle Elbe River (Germany) were examined by electrofishing. The aim of the study was to detect abiotic environmental key variables which determine preadult and adult fish assemblage in typical riverbank structures using multivariate ordination techniques (canonical correspondence analysis) and univariate methods (logistic regression analysis). Habitat preferences of preadult and adult stages of selected fish species were also estimated. Fish sampling was carried out at 190 river stretches; a further 1615 samples were taken by the point‐abundance sampling method. In total, 21 732 preadult and adult individuals belonging to 30 fish species were caught; perch, eel, ide, roach, chub, gudgeon, bleak and white bream were the most frequent. Eurytopic species clearly dominated the fish assemblage with 72% total abundance, followed by rheophilic species (26%). Limnophilic fish species (rudd, crucian carp, stickleback and tench) were relatively rare (2% of total abundance), with frequencies of occurrence between 1 and 10%. The highest species diversities were estimated in structurally diverse training walls and groyne fields with defective groynes, whereas low species diversity was found to occur in poorly structured, strongly silted groyne fields with intact groynes. Additionally, typical seasonal and annual changes of the fish assemblage were observed. From the mesoscalic point of view, the structure of the preadult and adult fish assemblage was affected by both spatial (type of groyne field, river stretch) and temporal factors (year, season). Regarding the microhabitat, hydromorphological parameters (slope, current velocity, water level, predominant and secondary substrate) followed by physicochemical water values [dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and pH‐value] are of significance for the structure of the fish community. Furthermore, hiding places (shelter) are of subordinate but significant importance for the fish assemblage in the poorly structured main channel of the Elbe River. Importance of hydromorphological factors on the microhabitat scale was confirmed by multiple logistic regression in 12 of 14 preference models, conducted for different ontogenetic stages of roach, bream, white bream, bleak, ide, chub, gudgeon, asp, perch and eel. Habitat preferences of adult bleak and preadult roach were first determined by physicochemical water values and seasonal influences. Univariate models were generated to describe specific habitat preferences of different species and age‐stages regarding the most important environmental variables (depth, velocity, predominant substrate, slope and shelter). Intraspecific differences were noticed between preadult and adult chub regarding preferences for water velocity, or between preadult and adult perch concerning slope of shore. Interspecific differences were observed, e.g. between adult roach and white bream, with regard to the ...

show abstract

Section: Structure Of Fish Assemblagesupporting

confidence: 64%

Modelling the habitat preferences of preadult and adult fishes on the shoreline of the large, lowland Elbe River

Fladung

Scholten

Thiel

2003

Journal of Applied Ichthyology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since 1980, the species has established numerous populations in the Rhine, Main and Danube basins (summarized in Wiesner et al ., 2010). In the Rhine basin, the species commonly occurs in water bodies adjacent to the main river, attaining high local population densities (Lelek & Buhse, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited parasite acquisition by non-native Lepomis gibbosus (Actinopterygii: Centrarchidae) at two ponds in the Upper Rhine basin, Germany

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metazoan parasite communities of Lepomis gibbosus (Centrarchidae), one of the most successfully introduced fish species in Europe, were studied at two isolated ponds (Knielingen, Tropfen) along the Upper Rhine in Germany. Nine parasite taxa were observed, including North American species co-introduced to Europe (ancyrocephalid monogeneans, diplostomid trematodes), circumpolar species infecting L. gibbosus in both their native and non-native ranges (bothriocephalid cestodes) and locally acquired parasitic nematodes. Both parasite communities consisted predominantly of North American species. Acquisition of local parasites was not observed at Tropfen, where the fish community comprised just two species, with L. gibbosus dominant. Low prevalence and abundance of acquired parasites was found at Knielingen, which supported a diverse fish community. At Tropfen, a high abundance of the North American parasite Posthodiplostomum centrarchi probably contributed to the lower condition index, hepatomegaly and splenomegaly observed. Due to low local parasite competency, L. gibbosus appears to have no significant impact on parasite dynamics in affected habitats.

show abstract

“…Reasons for the spatial expansion of Prussian carp are not so clear (Holčík, 1980 a ). Its expansion through aquaculture, together with the common carp Cyprinus carpio L., is historically known, and has continued recently (Lelek & Buhse, 1992; Baruš & Oliva, 1995). Intensive migrations of the species in riverine systems are another possible explanation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the reasons for the Prussian carp expansion in the upper Elbe River, Czech Republic?

Slavík¹,

Bartoš²

2004

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fifty five Prussian carp Carassius auratus gibelio were radio‐tracked weekly along the course of the upper Elbe River, for 15 months. In addition, diurnal movements were observed in three different habitat types (main channel, navigation canal and floodplain areas). Fish species composition from 10 fish ladders was regularly analysed in 1996, 2000 and 2001, and patterns of juvenile (0+ year) fish distribution and abundance were collected in 2000 and 2001, to support telemetric data on longitudinal migrations, and habitat preference within the studied stretch. Downstream migrations dominated in all seasons, being most intensive in spring and reaching a maximum distance of 85 km. Migration stopped when specimens found a floodplain area, where they occupied larger home ranges compared to the main channel. Migrations upstream of up to 2 km were rare, and specimens did not enter fish ladders. Spontaneous reproduction only occurred on the floodplain and its success was very low. The results suggested that neither upstream migrations, nor spontaneous reproduction represented the key mechanism for the Prussian carp invasion into the Elbe catchment area of the Czech Republic. It can be assumed that escapes from aquaculture activities are primarily responsible for its expansion.

show abstract

Fische des Rheins

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Modelling the habitat preferences of preadult and adult fishes on the shoreline of the large, lowland Elbe River

Modelling the habitat preferences of preadult and adult fishes on the shoreline of the large, lowland Elbe River

Limited parasite acquisition by non-native Lepomis gibbosus (Actinopterygii: Centrarchidae) at two ponds in the Upper Rhine basin, Germany

What are the reasons for the Prussian carp expansion in the upper Elbe River, Czech Republic?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About