Response of yellow perch (Perca flavescens) in Oneida Lake, New York, to the establishment of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)

Abstract

We used long-term data on Oneida Lake, New York, to evaluate hypotheses about the effects of introduced zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on yellow perch (Perca flavescens). We detected no change in survival, diet, or numbers of young-of-the-year (YOY) yellow perch. YOY growth increased in association with zebra mussel introduction and was marginally correlated with zooplankton size, which increased after zebra mussel introduction. Low numbers of YOY in recent years did not explain their increased growth rate. The percentage of age 3 and older yellow perch that consumed zooplankton and benthos increased after zebra mussel introduction. Water clarity, which has increased since zebra mussel introduction, was inversely related to the percentage of the adult population with empty stomachs and positively related to the percentage that consumed benthos. The percentage of adult yellow perch that consumed zooplankton was positively related to zooplankton size. Despite the increase in percentage of adults consuming both types of invertebrate prey, we detected no changes in adult growth associated with zebra mussel introduction. This suggests that the principal effects of zebra mussels on yellow perch in Oneida Lake were not via benthic pathways but through modifications of water clarity and zooplankton. Thus far, these effects have not been negative for the yellow perch population.

Evaluating alternative harvest policies for yellow perch in southern Lake Michigan

“…4). Growth rates of yellow perch often appear density dependent (Mayer et al, 2000;Headley and Lauer, 2008), with reduced growth rates during periods of high density. However, density-independent processes also have been important for yellow perch growth in Lake Michigan (Horns, 2001).…”

Foraging selectivity by larval yellow perch (Perca flavescens): implications for understanding recruitment in small and large lakes

“…Factors found to be important to growth and survival of larval yellow perch in smaller systems include density dependence (Post and McQueen 1988;Sanderson et al 1999), predation (Campell 1998;Mayer et al 2000), interspecific competition (Roseman et al 1996), and overwinter mortality (Post and Evans 1989). Owing to the size and depth of Lake Michigan, density-dependent effects are going to be ameliorated by larval dispersion, and long-term survey data indicate that yearclass strength is highly correlated with juvenile abundance in the fall (Clapp and Makauskas 2002), which suggests that overwinter mortality is not an important factor.…”

“…For populations of yellow perch in systems such as Green Bay or Oneida Lake that exhibit higher larval survival (Mayer et al 2000), population regulation is more dependent on factors regulated by perch density, such as overwinter mortality or predation during the juvenile stage (Mayer et al 2001). In Lake Michigan, where annual recruitment appears dependent on density-independent factors such as spatial and temporal overlap with prey, recruitment patterns observed in smaller systems would have less value for predicting annual recruitment.…”

A food web modeling analysis of a Midwestern, USA eutrophic lake dominated by non-native Common Carp and Zebra Mussels

“…Zooplankton move energy "up" the pelagic food web, providing support for higher trophic levels, whereas zebra mussels shunt energy away from pelagic food webs by converting phytoplankton into pseudofeces (Berg et al, 1996;Vanderploeg et al, 2001) and into their own biomass which is then utilized by benthic consumers (e.g., amphipods, insects, benthivorous fishes) (Magoulick and Lewis, 2002;Stewart and Haynes, 1994;Stewart et al, 1998). Shunting energy away from the pelagic food web can reduce abundance and growth of sport fishes (Mayer et al, 2000;Miehls et al, 2009;Rutherford et al, 1999;Thayer et al, 1997). However, some fish species can prey directly on zebra mussels and invertebrates associated with zebra mussel colonies, potentially enhancing those populations and fisheries they support (Magoulick and Lewis, 2002;Watzin et al, 2008).…”