Spawning and Larva Drift of Sympatric Walleyes and White Suckers in an Ontario Stream

Abstract

Walleyes Stizostedion vitreum vitreum and white suckers Catostomus commersoni shared a common spawning ground in Apsley Creek. Their reproduction overlapped in time, but white suckers spawned mainly in the riffle zone (710 eggs/m 2) and rarely in quiet water (0.5 eggs/ m 2) surrounding the riffle. In contrast, walleyes spawned more in quiet water (6,241 eggs/m :) than in the riffle (65 eggs/m:). Walleye egg survival was higher on a sand-gravel-rock substrate than it was on a mud-detritus bottom. Spottail shiners Notropis hudsonius and yellow perch Perca fiavescens fed extensively on walleye eggs; predation on white sucker eggs was not detected. Larva drift of both species was passive, varying with stream velocity, and occurred during periods of decreasing light (2100-0100 hours). Although eggs of both species began hatching on May 7, white sucker larvae drifted 11-13 d after walleye larvae. There was no indication that walleyes and white suckers competed for spawning areas as adults or for food as larvae.

Patterns and processes in the drift of early developmental stages of fish in rivers: a review

“…Drifting during flood events can lead to substantial mortality, likely caused by gill damage from suspended sediment (Mion et al 1998). Notably, moderate variation in discharge does not appear to affect the abundance or taxonomic and size composition of drifting larvae (Corbett and Powles 1986;Robinson et al 1998;Copp et al 2002;Zitek et al 2004b;Humphries 2005).…”

“…If this is the case, drift should be considered a predominantly active process. The alternative explanation is that drift primarily occurs accidentally, and environmental factors, such as current and light, override the physical capabilitiesswimming capacity and orientation-of small fish (Corbett and Powles 1986;Wolter and Sukhodolov 2008). In that case, drift should be considered a predominantly passive process.…”

“…The loss of visual orientation and the ensuing displacement from refuges is a common explanation for the increase in drift density of fish larvae with the onset of darkness and in highly turbid waters (Northcote 1962;Corbett and Powles 1986;Gadomski and Barfoot 1998;Peňáz et al 1992;Reichard et al 2001;Oesmann 2003;Reeves and Galat 2010). In this context, Bardonnet (1993) demonstrated that phosphorescent landmarks lessened the nocturnal drift peak of emerging brown trout (Salmo trutta, Salmonidae).…”

“…But despite the importance of such information, our understanding of the patterns and processes of the drift of the free embryos and larvae of riverine fishes is limited (Corbett and Powles 1986;Flecker et al 1991;Schmutz and Jungwirth 1999). There are many studies from around the world that have described temporal and spatial patterns of drift of the larvae of riverine fishes (e.g.…”

The drift of early life stages of Percidae and Gobiidae (Pisces: Teleostei) in a free-flowing section of the Austrian Danube

“…The ultimate reason behind this fact, however, is still not clear. Proposed explanations include not only active following of prey (Armstrong & Brown, 1983), or inversely predator avoidance (Corbett & Powles, 1986;Harvey, 1991), but also passive displacement due to loss of visual orientation (Pavlov et al, 1978;Pavlov, 1994). According to the results of the present study, percids seem to be less influenced by such factors.…”