“…Our 11-month tracking showed that the upper reach of the reservoir was much less used by pike then by wels catfish and pikeperch, although the longitudinal extent visited was generally similar for all species, covering 50-75% (4-6.5 km) of the reservoir extent. These results are consistent with previous studies on pikeperch (Fickling & Lee, 1985;Koed, 2001;Vehanen & Lahti, 2003), but show greater movement ability for Northern pike and wels catfish than is usually documented (Cucherousset et al, 2018), and corroborate with recent studies that showed greater space use and movement by these species (Capra, Pella, & Ovidio, 2018;Nyqvist et al, 2020;Lenhardt et al, 2021;Říha et al, 2021). It shows that these species were able to survey a relatively large portion of the reservoir and select suitable locations to reside during different parts of the annual cycle, and partly question the view of Northern pike and wels catfish as stationary species with a relatively strict home range (Slavík et al, 2007;Craig, 2008;Brevé et al, 2014;Daněk et al, 2016;Sandlund, Museth, & Øistad, 2016), while pikeperch is a species with low site fidelity (Fickling & Lee, 1985;Koed, 2001;Vehanen & Lahti, 2003).…”