Modeling Diffusive Spread in a Heterogeneous Population: A Movement Study With Stream Fish

Skalski, Garrick T.; Gilliam, James F.

doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1685:mdsiah]2.0.co;2

Cited by 241 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in Petty and Grossman (2004), leptokurtosis was a general feature of the sculpin movement distributions in our study. Leptokurtosis can be an indication of significant intrapopulation variability in movement rates (Skalski and Gilliam 2000;Petty and Grossman 2004). We do not know if the Potomac sculpin population in Smith Creek comprises both mobile and sedentary subpopulations or whether individuals switch between mobile and sedentary behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Hudy¹,

Shiflet²

2009

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.-Movement patterns of benthic fishes have not been widely studied, but an understanding of those movement patterns may be necessary in assessing the full effects of habitat fragmentation and the need to restore connectivity in fragmented watersheds. We evaluated nonspawning movement of 3,353 marked Potomac sculpin Cottus girardi over a 1-year period on a 3.14-km segment of a third-order stream. In addition, we conducted a fish removal experiment at the pool-riffle sequence scale (90 m) to evaluate the effects of fish density on movement and recolonization rates. The majority of recaptured Potomac sculpin stayed within 30 m of their original capture location throughout the study (81% at 30 d; 64% at 75 d; 53% at 363 d). Upstream (US) movement was greater than downstream (DS) movement at 30 d (US 17%; DS 3%), 75 d (US 30%, DS 6%) and 363 d (US 32%, DS 15%). After 75 d, 10% of the fish that moved upstream moved more than 250 m (21% after 363 d). The maximum distance moved was 1,711 m in 75 d. There were no significant differences in mean total length between recaptured Potomac sculpin that either moved or did not move or between upstream and downstream movers. The presence or absence of fishes in adjacent 30-m habitat sections influenced upstream, but not downstream, movement of Potomac sculpin. After 30 d, Potomac sculpin population densities and size structure were similar between fish removal and reference sections. We found our results to be similar to those of other studies, which found that, on average, freshwater sculpin are sedentary. However, we identified great dispersal capabilities (.250 m) for a small percentage of Potomac sculpin. The long dispersal distances suggest that this typically sedentary species may need greater habitat connectivity than previously assumed.Information on movement is necessary for assessing the full effects of fragmentation and a species' population needs when restoring connectivity in fragmented watersheds. The short-term and long-term movement patterns of many benthic fishes are unknown, but, in general, home ranges appear to be small. While there has been considerable research on fish movements in general (see reviews by Gowan et al. 1994;Matthews 1998;Rodriguez 2002), most work has focused on salmonids and other sport fish.Previous research has indicated that most freshwater sculpins (Cottidae) do not move frequently or far (see Table 1 for a detailed summary), but no current information has been published on the movement patterns of Potomac sculpin Cottus girardi. Matheson (1979) and Jenkins and Burkhead (1993) do, however, summarize the general ecology and taxonomy of the Potomac sculpin.Bailey (1952) concluded that mottled sculpin Cottus bairdii were relatively sedentary, with typical yearly movements of 50 m. McCleave (1964) estimated the home range of mottled sculpin to be less than 50 m. In two Montana streams, mottled sculpin movement during nonspawning times (June and July) was found to be short (mean ¼ 1.2 m) and haphazard (no preference for upstream or ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Hudy¹,

Shiflet²

2009

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). branches. Within-network dispersal has been described for a number of stream-associated organisms [e.g., invertebrates (31), fish (32,33), and salamanders (34,35)]. In contrast, overland dispersal is poorly characterized for most species, although studies have documented this dispersal pathway in stream invertebrates (22,36), observed short-distance overland movements in stream salamanders (35), and inferred overland dispersal in studies of genetic relatedness in stream salamanders (17) and invertebrates (37).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of multiple dispersal pathways facilitates amphibian persistence in stream networks

Grant

Nichols²,

Lowe³

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although populations of amphibians are declining worldwide, there is no evidence that salamanders occupying small streams are experiencing enigmatic declines, and populations of these species seem stable. Theory predicts that dispersal through multiple pathways can stabilize populations, preventing extinction in habitat networks. However, empirical data to support this prediction are absent for most species, especially those at risk of decline. Our mark-recapture study of stream salamanders reveals both a strong upstream bias in dispersal and a surprisingly high rate of overland dispersal to adjacent headwater streams. This evidence of route-dependent variation in dispersal rates suggests a spatial mechanism for population stability in headwater-stream salamanders. Our results link the movement behavior of stream salamanders to network topology, and they underscore the importance of identifying and protecting critical dispersal pathways when addressing region-wide population declines.amphibian decline | dendritic ecological network | stream salamander | plethodontidae | movement

show abstract

“…Studies by Pezold et al (1997) and Butler and Fairchild (2005) concluded that creek chub were year-round residents of small temperate streams, and Skalski and Gilliam (2000) found that creek chub do not display directional bias of movement during spring and summer months. The results of these studies coincide with our findings: marked creek chub were repeatedly captured at their station of original marking during the spring, summer, and autumn sampling periods; for creek chub displaying movement between sites, the numbers of upstream (three fish) and downstream (four fish) movements were comparable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish Passage in a Western Iowa Stream Modified by Grade Control Structures

Litvan

Pierce

Stewart

et al. 2008

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grade control structures (GCSs) are commonly used in streams of western Iowa to control bank erosion and channel headcutting but may be barriers to fish passage. From May 2002 to May 2006, we used mark-recapture methods to evaluate fish passage over a total of five GCSs, ranging in slope (run : rise) from 13:1 to 18:1 in Turkey Creek, Cass County, Iowa. Three structures, over which limited fish movement was documented from 2002 to 2004, were modified in the winter of [2004][2005] to facilitate fish passage. Before modification, the majority of recaptured fish were recaptured at the station where they were originally marked; only 1% displayed movement between sites and either upstream or downstream over a GCS. After modification fish passage improved, 14% of recaptured fish displayed movement either upstream or downstream over a GCS. Individuals of four target species-channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis, black bullhead A. melas, and creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus-passed over at least one modified structure. The majority of documented movements over GCSs were in the upstream direction and occurred in late spring and early summer, when streamflow was relatively high. Although we documented low numbers of fish passing both upstream and downstream over GCSs, these structures are probably barriers to fish movement during periods of low flow and when there is a structural failure, such as in-channel movement of riprap. Grade control structures are pervasive in western Iowa streams; nearly every low-order stream contains at least one instream structure. To sustain fish populations, management efforts should focus on constructing or modifying GCSs to allow fish passage. RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is e...

show abstract

Modeling Diffusive Spread in a Heterogeneous Population: A Movement Study With Stream Fish

Cited by 241 publications

References 48 publications

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Movement and Recolonization of Potomac Sculpin in a Virginia Stream

Use of multiple dispersal pathways facilitates amphibian persistence in stream networks

Fish Passage in a Western Iowa Stream Modified by Grade Control Structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About