Habitat use by the fish assemblages of two chalk streams

Abstract

Patterns of habitat use by fish assemblages in two chalk streams in southern England were examined to identify species preferences with respect to major habitat gradients. Both study sites although differing in some physical habitat characteristics, mainly channel width, water temperature and instream cover, could be similarly arranged along a continuum extending from erosional to depositional habitats. Twelve fish species were collected from stream surveys conducted during July 1993. The habitat was partitioned into six fish species associations that could be assigned to three habitat guilds: depositional (Barbatula barbatula, Gasterosteus aculeatus and Anguilla anguilla), riffle (Leuciscus leuciscus, Thymallus thymallus and Salmo salar) and generalist (Salmo trutta, Phoxinus phoxinus, Gobio gobio, Cottus gobio, Lampetra planeri and Pleuronectes flesus).At low to moderate densities the different species associations were collected in the same habitat patch, but at higher densities there was a clear tendency to mutual avoidance. In particular, large trout appeared as strong interactors that tended to exclude other species from their territories. We hypothesize that the fish assemblage of the Mill Stream and Bere Stream have partitioned the habitat in such a way as to minimize potential competition.

Spatial and ontogenetic variability in the microhabitat use of stream-dwelling spined loach (Cobitis taenia) and stone loach (Barbatula barbatula)

“…Variations in available substratum were found to influence respiration rates (Fischer, 2000a) but not growth (Fischer, 2000b) in stone loach studied under experimental conditions. Gravel is the most preferred substratum (Prenda et al., 1997a), although preferences shift from smaller to larger alluvial with increasing developmental status (Zweimüller, 1995; Kováč et al., 1999). Cobbles may be more important in some locations (Brunken, 1989; Mastrorillo et al., 1996; Fischer, 2000b), such as riffle areas (Lamouroux and Souchon, 2002), and in some life history intervals (Kováč et al., 1999), although the use of larger substrata may require higher daytime respiration rates (Fischer, 2000a).…”

“…Microhabitat use by both spined and stone loach changes during ontogeny (Kováč et al., 1999; Bohlen, 2000, 2003), however, spatial variations have received limited attention (Zweimüller, 1995; Mastrorillo et al., 1996). Past descriptions of general (Smyly, 1955; Robotham, 1978; Welton et al., 1983, 1991; Brunken, 1989; Prenda et al., 1997b, 2000; Nunn et al., 2003) and age‐ or size‐specific habitat use by the two species (Copp, 1992b; Skryabin, 1993; Slavík and Ráb, 1995; Prenda et al., 1997a; Watkins et al., 1997) suggest great spatial variation, even when a single habitat variable is examined (Prenda et al., 1997b; Fischer, 2000b; Slavík et al., 2000). Habitat use in stone loach can be influenced by competition from other species (Fischer, 2000a), so differences in fish assemblage structure and available habitat should be a source of variation in their microhabitat use within and among river basins (Oberdorff et al., 1998).…”

Size‐related and diel variations in microhabitat use of three endangered small fishes in a Mediterranean coastal stream

“…In the last six surveys traps were set in pairs, with one trap touching the substratum and the other at the water surface. The depth (cm) of each trap and the presence of surrounding refuge (submerged or emergent macrophytes, or submerged riparian vegetation) was noted (Prenda et al ., 1997). Traps were set both during daytime and at night.…”

Untitled

“…The comparison of habitat use as a function of habitat availability has been the subject of numerous studies in the past few decades (Johnson 1980, Byers et al 1984, Santilli and Bagliacca 2010, Beyer et al 2010. Most of the studies were implemented on mammals (Neu et al 1974, John andKostkan 2009), large birds (Chiang et al 2012) and fishes (Prenda et al 1997) using mark-recapture methods to detect the movements of individuals within and among habitat types.…”