Abstract
Wetlands serve as unique habitats that can support high biodiversity. Large-scale loss of wetland habitats can threaten important linkages between lake and wetland habitats that could affect diversity and growth of aquatic organisms. In this study, we compare prey diversity and abundance as well as Walleye (Sander vitreus) diets and condition in a large glacial lake (Lake Kampeska, South Dakota) with a connected wetland to better understand seasonal changes in the benefits provided by each habitat. We examined seasonal differences (spring, summer, and fall) through two years (summer 2021 through fall 2022) between the habitats using prey fish catch per unit effort, richness, Shannon diversity, and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity as well as Walleye relative weight, percent of empty stomachs, diet weight, stomach fullness, diet energy, and diet taxa importance. The prey fish community was more diverse and abundant in the wetland, and Walleye consumed more prey (by weight) in the wetland during all seasons except spring. Wetland reconnection can be a tool for managers to improve water quality while providing seasonal habitat needs for fish. Additionally, the diversity of prey resources provided by wetlands, many of which are unique, support resilience in the face of ecological change. Protection of wetlands may be critical for maintaining healthy and resilient fisheries into the future.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The importance of wetlands to fish populations can vary seasonally, and knowing how and when wetland ecosystem services benefit fishes may help inform decisions on the management of wetland resources. Wetlands support a diversity and abundance of taxa that provide food and habitat resources for many species (Cucherousset et al. 2008; Dahl 2011; DeAngelis et al. 2005). Wetland use and access is closely tied to fishery health (Meynecke et al. 2008; Modde 1997; Seilheimer and Chow-Fraser 2006) and can lead to increased food availability, consumption, and growth in fishes (Madon et al. 2001; Woo et al. 2018). High diversity and abundance of prey and habitat resources are essential to support ecosystem resilience (Chapin et al. 2000; Walker 1995) and sustainable fisheries in the face of changing habitat or climate.
Fish benefit from wetlands when they have access to wetland resources, undisrupted by dams or other barriers. The impacts of reduced habitat connectivity on fisheries are well-documented and often result in reduced fish diversity (Bouvier et al. 2009), abundance (Meynecke et al. 2008), recruitment (US ACE 2020), and individual growth (Craig et al. 2014). For wetland complexes already impacted by reduced or lost connectivity, restoration and reconnection can help restore diversity and abundance of fishes (Vilizzi et al. 2013) and maintain resilience. Since wetlands tend to have gradual slopes and shallow depths, even small changes in water level can have a large impact on the surface area of wetlands available to fishes, making them disproportionately vulnerable to fluctuating water levels.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Prairie Pothole Region of North America experienced above average annual precipitation that led to increased water levels region-wide, connecting lakes to previously isolated wetlands and giving fish access to high-quality habitat (South Dakota GFP 2019; Vanderhoof and Alexander 2016). Many highly productive sportfisheries emerged throughout the region in the newly created and expanded waters (Dembkowski et al. 2014). The increased accessibility of wetlands during these high water periods led to greater relative weights and faster growth of Walleye (Blackwell et al. 2019, 2020; Dembkowski et al. 2014; Neumann et al. 2012).
Although the importance of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region is well documented, fine-scale seasonal and habitat-specific differences that could impact fish populations are unknown. Connected wetlands are common in Prairie Pothole glacial lakes, but wetland drainage and/or filling have become common practices in the region owing to agricultural expansion (Dahl 2011; Wright and Wimberly 2013). Walleye are one of the most important sportfish in the Midwestern United States (McClanahan and Hansen 2005; South Dakota GFP 2019; US Department of the Interior et al. 2016), and knowing when wetlands are most important for Walleye can help managers ensure wetland access during critical periods to potentially improve Walleye growth, abundance, recruitment, and condition. Our objective was to evaluate temporal differences in prey availability and Walleye diets in a large, glacial lake (Lake Kampeska, South Dakota, USA) and a connected wetland. Specifically, we examined prey fish catch per unit effort, alpha and beta diversity, and Walleye relative weight, percent empty stomachs, diet weight, stomach fullness, diet energy, and diet taxa importance (percent by weight and energy). The economic and social importance of high-priority sportfish like Walleye can be used to enhance ecosystem resilience and countless other ecological services provided by wetlands.
Methods
Study Site
Lake Kampeska, located in Watertown, South Dakota, USA, is a 2,125 ha glacial lake connected to the Big Sioux River via a 25 ha, shallow, open-water wetland (Fig. 1). Hereafter, we will use lake to refer to the lake habitat, wetland to refer to the wetland habitat, and Lake Kampeska system to refer to both habitats combined. The lake has a relatively simple basin with a maximum depth of 5 m, minimal submerged vegetation, and largely silt substrates with some sand, gravel, and rock primarily along the shorelines. Although many wetlands were historically connected to the lake, shoreline development and alterations around the lake have left the wetland that we studied as the only substantial wetland that fish can access. The wetland is classified as palustrine wetland with a semi-permanently flooded water regime (Cowardin et al. 1979). The wetland consists mostly of fine textured substrates, shallow waters (< 1.5 m), seasonally variable water temperatures (Online Resource 2), thick submerged vegetation during the growing season, and is surrounded by cattails (Typha spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and other emergent wetland vegetation. The Lake Kampeska system is managed for Walleye and Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu), but also features important fisheries for Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens), Northern Pike (Esox lucius), crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus and P. annularis), Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and White Bass (Morone chrysops).
The Lake Kampeska system has faced a range of challenges including eutrophication, sedimentation, shoreline development, variable water levels, and most recently the establishment of a Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) population. A primary concern is high sediment load from the lake’s inlet–outlet to the Big Sioux River, which has contributed to undesirable water quality and declines in tourism, fish populations, and recreational opportunities (City of Watertown 2019). To mitigate sediment deposition, a single-channel weir (concrete wall across channel with V-shaped opening) was installed in November of 2001. As a result, access for fishes to the only remaining connected wetland was limited to a single access point approximately 1 m in width. Despite the narrow opening, a concurrent acoustic telemetry study indicated that fish were able to access both habitats throughout the study period (Cutler 2023).
Prey Fish
Prey fish, defined as fish < 150 mm in total length, were used to assess adult Walleye food availability in both the lake and wetland. Prey fish were captured using mini-fyke nets set overnight perpendicular to shore in water < 2 m. Mini-fyke nets (2 m long by 0.6 m tall, 3 mm bar mesh, 4.3 m long by 0.6 m tall lead, unrestricted throat) were made of two rectangular frames (1.3 m wide by 0.6 m tall) followed by two circular hoops (0.6 m diameter). Six nets were set in each habitat (i.e., lake and wetland), each season (i.e., spring [late April to early June], summer [mid-July to mid-August], and fall [late September to early November]). Sampling occurred in summer and fall of 2021 and spring, summer, and fall of 2022. Collected prey fish were weighed (0.1 g) and measured (total length; mm) for up to 30 individuals per species, season, and habitat, and all remaining individuals were counted. Prey fish biomass was calculated using these weights and extrapolated to non-weighed individuals using the mean weight for each species, season, and habitat combination. Prey fish were grouped into the following categories due to limited sample sizes and our inability to consistently distinguish them in Walleye diets: sunfish (i.e., Bluegill, Orangespotted Sunfish [Lepomis humilis], and Green Sunfish [L. cyanellus]), crappie (i.e., Black Crappie and White Crappie), shiners (i.e., Spottail Shiner [Notropis hudsonius], Emerald Shiner [Notropis atherinoides], and Golden Shiner [Notemigonus crysoleucas]), darters (i.e., Johnny Darter [Etheostoma nigrum], Iowa Darter [E. exile], and Logperch [Percina caprodes]), bullheads (i.e., Black Bullhead [Ameiurus melas] and Yellow Bullhead [A. natalis]), and large-bodied Cypriniformes (hereafter Cypriniformes; i.e., Common Carp [Cyprinus carpio] and Bigmouth Buffalo [Ictiobus cyprinellus]). Sunfish were separated into two size classes (small, < 60 mm; large, ≥ 60 mm) due to distinct differences in size and energy density.
Prey fish catch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated for each net as biomass (g) per hour of set time. Prey fish CPUE was log(x + 0.01) transformed due to high variability (Aarestrup et al. 2015; Schrandt et al. 2021) and compared between habitats and seasons using linear models. All statistical analyses were conducted using R Statistical Software 4.2.0 (R Core Team 2022) and an alpha of 0.05. Seasons sampled in consecutive years were treated separately. Interactive, additive, and single factor (i.e., only season and only habitat) models were compared using likelihood ratio tests with the “lmtest” package (Zeileis and Hothorn 2002). Tukey’s post-hoc test was then run on covariates in the best model using package “multcomp” (Hothorn et al. 2008). Prey fish alpha diversity was estimated using taxa richness and Shannon-Weiner diversity for each habitat and season with the “vegan” package (Oksanen et al. 2022). To assess which seasons the lake and wetland prey communities were most similar (i.e., beta diversity), we used the Bray–Curtis community dissimilarity index with catch data (biomass per hour as an index of relative abundance; Oksanen et al. 2022; as in Bray and Curtis 1957, David et al. 2014, and Kornis et al. 2015). Species groupings mentioned earlier were not used when calculating any diversity metrics.
Walleye Diets
Up to 25 Walleye (> 275 mm) per season and habitat were captured using pulsed DC boat electrofishing and short-term (1–3 h) gill net sets. Sampling occurred in summer and fall of 2021 and spring, summer, and fall of 2022. Multiple gears were used due to differences in physical habitat that led to limited success with gill nets in the wetland and electrofishing in the lake. Differences in gear selectivity are not expected to substantially impact diet sampling (Glade et al. 2023; Pothoven et al. 2017; Quist et al. 2002; Selch et al. 2019). Collected Walleye were euthanized via carbon dioxide-induced hypoxia and measured for total length (mm) and weight (g). Stomachs were removed by cutting at the connections to the esophagus and small intestine, placed in a bag with distilled water, immediately stored in a cooler with ice to slow digestion, and frozen upon arrival to the lab.
We identified invertebrate diet items to family and fish diet items to the previously described taxa groups. However, invertebrates were an extremely small portion of diets (< 5%) and had little influence on results. Cleithrum morphology was used in addition to external characteristics to assist in the identification of digested prey fish (Traynor et al. 2010). Empty stomachs and stomachs with only inorganic material, detritus, and/or vegetation were recorded as empty. We blotted fish diet items dry with a paper towel and individually weighed them to the nearest 0.1 mg. Invertebrates were enumerated, blotted dry, and batch weighed by taxon within individual diets (0.1 mg; Bertoli et al. 2021).
We estimated the energy content of diets using wet weights of diet items and energy density estimates from our prey fish specific to the species group, season, and habitat. Up to 30 individuals from each prey fish species, habitat, and season from mini-fyke net samples were euthanized via carbon dioxide-induced hypoxia, measured for total length and weight, and frozen for later energy density estimation. If less than five individuals were captured for a given species, season, and habitat combination, boat electrofishing was used to supplement mini-fyke net collections. Within 6 months of capture, prey fish were thawed, weighed for wet weight (0.1 mg), dried at 60 °C until reaching a constant weight, and re-weighed for dry weight. We estimated energy density (ED, J/g wet weight) as,
where DW is dry weight (g), and WW is wet weight (g; Hartman and Brandt 1995b). Energy densities were averaged by season, habitat, and species grouping. Two small sunfish from fall 2021 (1 from each habitat) were removed from analyses due to having energy density estimates over 6 standard deviations above the mean while all other individuals were within 2 standard deviations of the mean.
The most complete prey fish energy density data (> 10 individuals per season and habitat) were available for small sunfish. Therefore, relative differences among habitats and seasons observed in small sunfish were used to estimate missing energy densities in some seasons/habitats for other species groups. For example, we only captured bullheads from the wetland in fall, but sunfish energy density was 15% higher in the lake in fall; therefore, we estimated lake bullhead energy density as 15% higher than wetland energy density in fall. Shiners were used instead of small sunfish for all proportions including spring in the lake, as small sunfish were not collected in the lake during the spring. The average energy density of all prey fish in a season and habitat was used for unidentified fish in Walleye diets. Cypriniformes and White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) collection was limited, so energy densities could not be estimated. Energy density for Common Carp < 10 g was obtained from Breck (2008) for Cypriniformes, and White Sucker energy density was obtained from Johnson et al. (2017) using the mean weight of White Suckers in Walleye diets. For energy densities of insects and Amphipoda, we used literature values for Ephemeroptera (Pizzul et al. 2009) and Gammaridae (James et al. 2012), as those were the dominant taxa in Walleye diets. Crayfish energy density was obtained from Eggleton and Schramm (2004).
We compared prey fish energy density between habitats and seasons using a linear mixed effects model (fixed effects of season and habitat; random effect of species group) using package “lme4” (Bates et al. 2015). Seasons sampled in consecutive years were combined due to small sample size of some species, season, and habitat groups. The best model was selected by likelihood ratio testing and significance was determined using Tukey’s test.
Walleye relative weight was calculated as
(Murphy et al. 1990) with the diet weight removed from the total weight of the fish. A stomach fullness indicator was calculated as
(Pothoven et al. 2017). We compared Walleye relative weight, diet weight, stomach fullness, and diet energy among seasons and between habitats using linear models. Percent empty stomachs was calculated and compared using binomial family generalized linear models. The best model was selected by likelihood ratio testing and significance was determined using Tukey’s tests. Proportions of diets by weight and by energy were used to compare the relative importance of taxa in Walleye diets across habitats and seasons (Garvey and Chipps 2012).
Results
Prey Fish
We captured a total of 3,470 prey fish from the lake and 2,021 prey fish from the wetland, but biomass catch per unit effort (biomass per hour) was significantly lower in the lake and during spring 2022 (additive model; Table 1). Prey fish taxa richness ranged from 4 to 10 species (\(\overline{x}\) = 6.5 ± 0.6) but showed no consistent differences between seasons or habitats (Online Resource 1). Shannon diversity was higher in the wetland in all seasons except spring 2022 (Fig. 2). Shannon evenness, Simpson diversity, and Simpson evenness showed similar patterns to Shannon diversity (Online Resource 1). Bray–Curtis dissimilarity indices did not show any consistent patterns, but values were between 0.60 and 0.97 (\(\overline{x}=\) 0.82 ± 0.06) indicating that prey communities were different between habitats regardless of season.
Mean energy densities of prey fish were 2,982 ± 78 S.E. J / g wet weight or 3,276 ± 73 J / g wet weight in the lake and wetland, respectively (Table 2). Prey fish energy density was best described by the interactive model, so grouping habitats or seasons to increase sample size of species groups would not be appropriate (Table 2). Prey fish energy density was higher in the wetland during summer and higher in the lake during fall (interactive model; p < 0.02). In the lake, prey energy density was lower in summer than in spring or fall, and in the wetland, prey energy density was lower in summer than in spring (all p < 0.02).
Walleye Diets
We collected a total of 100 Walleye from the lake and 79 Walleye from the wetland (Table 3). Relative weight was always highest among Walleye collected from the wetland (additive model; Fig. 3). Walleye collected in fall 2021 had higher relative weights than summer and fall 2022 (Fig. 3). Percent of empty stomachs was always highest among Walleye collected from the lake (additive model; Fig. 4a). Walleye collected in summer 2022 had a greater proportion of empty stomachs than during fall 2021 and 2022 and spring 2022 (Fig. 4a). Diet weights were greater for Walleye collected in the wetland, and no pairwise differences among seasons were found (additive model; Fig. 4b). Stomach fullness and diet energy both showed temporal variation where fall 2021 values were high and summers 2021 and 2022 were low (additive models; Fig. 4c-d). Stomach fullness was greater in the wetland (p = 0.004; Fig. 4c), but diet energy was not significantly different between habitats (p = 0.053; Fig. 4d).
Mean relative weight with diet weight removed of Walleye (Sander vitreus) captured in Lake Kampeska (lake), South Dakota, and a connected wetland in summer (SU) and fall (FA) of 2021 (21SU; 21FA) and spring (SP), summer, and fall of 2022 (22SP; 22SU; 22FA). Error bars represent 1 standard error. Lower case letters indicate significant differences among seasons from Tukey’s test. Significant differences between habitats from Tukey’s tests indicated in the right margin
Percent empty stomachs (a), mean diet weight (b), mean stomach fullness (c), and mean diet energy (d) for Walleye (Sander vitreus) in Lake Kampeska (lake), South Dakota, and a connected wetland in summer (SU) and fall (FA) of 2021 (21SU; 21FA) and spring (SP), summer, and fall of 2022 (22SP; 22SU; 22FA). Error bars represent 1 standard error. Lower case letters indicate significant differences between seasons from Tukey’s test. Significant differences between habitats from Tukey’s tests indicated in the right margin
We examined 195 and 233 prey items in Walleye diets from the lake and wetland, respectively. Proportions by weight and energy showed similar patterns each season (Fig. 5). Most common taxa were different between habitats in all seasons except for spring when bullhead was the primary Walleye prey taxon in both habitats. In general, Walleye in the lake relied heavily on Yellow Perch, White Bass, and bullheads (Fig. 5). Walleye in the wetland consumed mostly large-bodied Cypriniformes (i.e., Common Carp and Bigmouth Buffalo) in 2021 and bullheads, White Suckers, and sunfish in 2022 (Fig. 5).
Proportion by weight (a) and proportion by energy (b) of Walleye (Sander vitreus) prey items in Lake Kampeska (lake), South Dakota, and a connected wetland in summer (SU) and fall (FA) of 2021 (21SU; 21FA) and spring (SP), summer, and fall of 2022 (22SP; 22SU; 22FA). Prey items that made up < 1% by weight or energy were omitted for clarity. Bullheads (Ameiurus spp.), (Crayfish (Orconectes spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp. and Percina caprodes), shiners (Notropis spp. and Notemigonus crysoleucas), unidentified fish (UID Fish), White Bass (Morone chrysops; WHB), White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii; WHS), Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens; YEP). We defined small sunfish (Lepomis spp.) as < 60 mm, while large sunfish were ≥ 60 mm
Discussion
Our study highlights the importance of lake-wetland connections for fishes that has also been documented in river floodplains (Modde 1997; Sarkar et al. 2021), Great Lakes coastal wetlands (Jude and Pappas 1992; Seilheimer and Chow-Fraser 2006), and marine estuaries (Madon et al. 2001; Meynecke et al. 2008; Woo et al. 2018). Walleye accessed more abundant and diverse prey in the wetland than in the lake, leading to improved condition of individuals collected from the wetland. This finding supports that of Dembkowski et al. (2014) that higher Walleye relative weight in high water years can be attributed to increased access to flooded terrestrial vegetation and other attributes associated with wetlands. Increased Walleye feeding in the wetland may be related to the higher relative abundance of prey fish in this habitat, and Walleye have been found to move between these habitats on a regular basis (Blackwell 2001; Cutler 2023). Walleye are also known to feed more effectively in low light conditions (Lester et al. 2004; Raabe et al. 2020), which the wetland provided due to high turbidity and macrophyte cover. However, water temperature in the wetland was also greater during part of the year (Online Resource 2), which increases the energetic requirements of Walleye. Walleye are known to thermoregulate by moving to more desirable habitat (Raby et al. 2018), and macrophyte cover may help mitigate higher temperatures by providing refuge from direct sunlight. Bioenergetic modeling could be used in the future to better explain the influence of each habitat on Walleye growth in this system.
The wetland provided a more diverse prey community than the lake which is likely more resilient to ecological change (Bernhardt and Leslie 2013; McCann 2000; Petchey 2000), including changes in climate, land use, habitat connectivity, disturbance regimes, and species introductions. Additionally, the prey fish communities were consistently different between habitats, further increasing the diversity and resilience of the system as a whole. However, small sample sizes (4–6 net nights per season and habitat) led to large seasonal and annual variation, making temporal trends difficult to detect. Alternatively, prey fish production may be sporadic and highly variable between years, further demonstrating the value of a diversity of habitats to consistently provide sufficient prey. More broadly, heterogeneity and connectivity are cited as some of the most important factors for maintaining ecosystem resilience (Dahl 2011; Grantham et al. 2019; Van Looy et al. 2019). The more diverse prey community of the wetland may also lead to better food resource partitioning among predators, decreasing the risk of competition for food resources (Sánchez-Hernández et al. 2017) and benefitting valuable sportfish.
Walleye feeding can also vary seasonally as different prey resources become available and as somatic and gonadal growth requirements change. We observed greater food consumption in fall and the lowest consumption during summer. This matched the findings of Quist et al. (2002), where Walleye in a large Kansas reservoir exhibited greater feeding rates during fall and had a higher proportion of empty stomachs and lower total consumption during summer. Many spring-spawning predators, including Walleye, feed heavily in fall in order to support gonadal growth and prepare for declining food resources over the winter (Quist et al. 2002). Although variability in prey CPUE was high, some of the highest CPUEs of prey fish also occurred in fall. Fish could be targeting these high-density resources (Lyons 1987) resulting in higher fall consumption. Low consumption during the summer can be attributed to increased metabolic and digestion rates (Kawaguchi et al. 2007; Madon and Culver 1993) and decreases in maximum consumption due to high, stressful temperatures (Kitchell et al. 1977).
Many trends and differences between habitats that we observed in summer and fall were reversed in spring. For example, spring was the only season in which prey diversity was higher in the lake than in the wetland, the only season that Walleye consumed more in the lake than the wetland, and the only season that the most important taxa in diets were similar between habitats. Additionally, we struggled to collect Walleye from the wetland during the spring, with only 10 captured in 24 h of electrofishing time. Seasonal life history events (i.e., spawning) contributed to the shift in habitat use in addition to a lack of differences in prey resources. Preyfish also appeared to use the wetland seasonally, resulting in differences in community composition throughout the year and changing benefits to feeding in the wetland. The dominance of fine sediments in the wetland provides less than ideal habitat for Walleye spawning (Johnson 1961; Raabe and Bozek 2012) which occurs in the spring. However, the abundance of submergent vegetation in the wetland is used by sunfish, crappies, and other taxa, creating high densities of young-of-year prey fish for Walleye and other piscivores to feed on. Alternatively, the lake has abundant shoreline gravel habitat to potentially be used by Walleye for spawning (Raabe and Bozek 2012), but may not be as beneficial for many of the prey species eaten by Walleye in the wetland. As a result, it was not surprising that the wetland was less important to Walleye during spring as compared to summer and fall. Therefore, for fish to move between habitats and optimize resource use, connectivity is necessary.
Currently, fish in the lake have access to only one main wetland despite historically abundant wetlands that were once connected to the lake. Similar trends have been observed throughout the Prairie Pothole Region and worldwide as human development has encroached upon shoreline habitats (Hartig and Bennion 2017; Johnston 2013; Sundar et al. 2015; Wright and Wimberly 2013). Wetland reconnection may be used as a tool for fisheries managers to increase growth, condition, and prey availability and to meet management objectives for sportfish populations. These reconnections around the lake may not only give Walleye and other sportfish access to more area of wetland, but also decrease the distance they may need to travel between thermal refugia or spawning habitat in the lake and high food availability of wetlands. Reconnections may also help create redundancy and resilience in the face of ecological change (e.g., changes in climate, water levels, human development, etc.). However, reconnection can also lead to unintended consequences. For example, reconnected wetlands can act as additional spawning, nursery, or feeding habitat for nuisance or invasive species including Common Carp (Bajer et al. 2009) and Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis; Coulter et al. 2017; DeGrandchamp et al. 2008). The large number of young carp that we found in Walleye diets supports the notion that Common Carp use these habitats for reproduction. As a result, some agencies have intentionally limited fish access to wetlands to minimize reproduction of these species (Iowa DNR 2022). Alternatively, seasonal differences in wetland importance for priority species may be leveraged to maximize benefits. For example, temporary disconnection of wetlands in spring may be effective at reducing Common Carp or Silver Carp recruitment while having minimal impacts on Walleye that could benefit more from summer and fall access. However, understanding how and when species of interest use wetland habitats may be needed to avoid negative impacts on non-target species that may rely heavily on wetlands as spawning habitat during spring (e.g., Bluegill and Northern Pike; Miller et al. 2001).
Access to wetlands has been severely limited in Lake Kampeska, throughout the Prairie Pothole Region, and globally. Yet many fish species, including Walleye, may use wetlands seasonally or throughout the year for feeding or as a thermal refuge. Through reconnection and restoration of wetlands, managers may be able to improve water quality and benefit fisheries. High connectivity and habitat heterogeneity is known to increase ecological resilience in a wide variety of ecosystems (Chapin et al. 2000; Levine et al. 2016; Walker 1995) including aquatic environments (Pander et al. 2018); therefore, continued access to wetlands may be necessary for fishery resilience now and into the future (Bernhardt and Leslie 2013; McCann 2000; Petchey 2000).
Data Availability
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available at https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/nrm_datasets/13.
References
Aarestrup K, Baktoft H, Thorstad EB, Svendsen JC, Höjesjö J, Koed A (2015) Survival and progression rates of anadromous Brown Trout kelts Salmo trutta during downstream migration in freshwater and at sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 535:185–195
Bajer PG, Sullivan G, Sorensen PW (2009) Effects of a rapidly increasing population of Common Carp on vegetative cover and waterfowl in a recently restored Midwestern shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 632:235–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9844-3
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bernhardt JR, Leslie HM (2013) Resilience to climate change in coastal marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 5:371–392
Bertoli M, Piazza G, Pastorino P, Prearo M, Cozzoli F, Vignes F, Basset A, Pizzul E (2021) Macrobethic invertebrate energy densities and ecological status in freshwater watercourses, Friuli Venezia-Giulia, northeast Italy. Aquatic Ecology 55:501–518
Blackwell BG (2001) A comparison of adult and sub-adult Walleye movements and distribution in lakes having simple and complex morphometry. Dissertation, South Dakota State University
Blackwell BG, Kaufman TM, Moos TS (2019) Angler exploitation of an unexploited Walleye population in the northern Great Plains. Fisheries Research 216:59–64
Blackwell BG, Smith BJ, Kaufman TM, Moos TS (2020) Use of a restrictive regulation to manage Walleyes in a new South Dakota glacial lake. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 40:1202–1215
Bouvier L, Cottenie K, Doka S (2009) Aquatic connectivity and fish metacommunities in wetlands of the lower Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66:933–948
Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:325–349
Breck JE (2008) Enhancing bioenergetics models to account for dynamic changes in fish body composition and energy density. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:340–356
Chapin FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Díaz S (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242
City of Watertown South Dakota (2019) Lake kampeska master plan. https://www.watertownsd.us/DocumentCenter/View/4789/Lake-Kampeska-Master-Plan-Approved-12162019. Accessed 10 Aug 2021
Coulter AA, Schultz D, Tristano E, Brey MK, Garvey JE (2017) Restoration versus invasive species: bigheaded carps’ use of a rehabilitated backwater. River Research and Applications 33:662–669
Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. fish and wildlife service. Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31
Craig B, Simenstad C, Bottom D (2014) Rearing in natural and recovering tidal wetlands enhances growth and life-history diversity of Columbia Estuary tributary Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch population. Journal of Fish Biology 85:31–51
Cucherousset J, Carpentier A, Paillisson JM (2008) Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non-native fish in wetland habitats. River Research and Applications 24:1240–1250
Cutler LM (2023) Walleye feeding, movements, and energetics reveal the importance of connected wetlands in glacial lakes. Thesis, South Dakota State University
Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. fish and wildlife service report to congress. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-in-the-Conterminous-United-States-2004-to-2009.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2021
David AT, Ellings CS, Woo I, Simenstad CA, Takekawa JY, Turner KL, Smith AL, Taakekawa JE (2014) Foraging and growth potential of juvenile Chinook Salmon after tidal restoration of a large river delta. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143:1515–1529
DeAngelis DL, Trexler JC, Loftus WF (2005) Life history trade-offs and community dynamics of small fishes in a seasonally pulsed wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:781–790
DeGrandchamp KL, Garvey JE, Colombo RE (2008) Movement and habitat selection by invasive Asian carps in a large river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:45–56
Dembkowski DJ, Chipps SR, Blackwell BG (2014) Response of Walleye and Yellow Perch to water-level fluctuations in glacial lakes. Fisheries Management and Ecology 21:89–95
Eggleton MA, Schramm HL (2004) Feeding ecology and energetic relationships with habitat of Blue Catfish, Ictalurus furcatus, and Flathead Catfish, Pylodictis olivaris, in the lower Mississippi River, U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes 70:107–121
Garvey JE, Chipps SR (2012) Diet and energy flow. In: Zale AV, Parrish DL, Sutton TM (eds) Fisheries techniques, 3rd edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, pp 733–778
Glade K, Herwig BR, Ahrenstorff TD, Reed JR, Hafs AW (2023) Diet patterns and niche overlap of Muskellunge and co-occurring piscivores in Minnesota lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 43:656–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10880
Grantham TE, Matthews JH, Bledsoe BP (2019) Shifting currents: managing freshwater systems for ecological resilience in a changing climate. Water Security 8:1–8
Hartig JH, Bennion D (2017) Historical loss and current rehabilitation of shoreline habitat along an urban-industrial river—Detroit River, Michigan, USA. Sustainability 828:1–20
Hartman KJ, Brandt SB (1995a) Comparative energetics and the development of bioenergetics models for sympatric estuarine piscivores. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1647–1666
Hartman KJ, Brandt SB (1995b) Estimating energy density of fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:347–355
Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50:346–363
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (2022) Lake restoration program 2022 report and 2023 plan. https://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/water/lakerestoration/22lrreport.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2023
James DA, Csargo IJ, Eschen AV, Thul MD, Baker JM, Hayer CA, Howell J, Krause J, Letvin A, Chipps SR (2012) A generalized model for estimating the energy density of invertebrates. Freshwater Science 31:69–77
Johnson FH (1961) Walleye egg survival during incubation on several types of bottom in Lake Winnibigoshish, Minnesota, and connecting waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 90:312–322
Johnson BM, Pate WM, Hansen AG (2017) Energy density and dry matter content in fish: new observations and an evaluation of some empirical models. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 146:1262–1278
Johnston CA (2013) Wetland losses due to row crop expansion in the Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. Wetlands 33:175–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0365-x
Jude DJ, Pappas J (1992) Fish utilization of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Journal of Great Lakes Research 18:651–672
Kawaguchi Y, Miyasaka H, Genkai-Kato M, Taniguchi Y, Nakano S (2007) Seasonal change in the gastric evacuation rate of Rainbow Trout feeding on natural prey. Journal of Fish Biology 71:1873–1878
Kitchell JF, Stewart DJ, Weininger D (1977) Applications of a bioenergetics model to Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) and Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1922–1935
Kornis MS, Weidel BC, Powers SM, Diebel MW, Cline TJ, Fox JM, Kitchell JF (2015) Fish community dynamics following dam removal in a fragmented agricultural stream. Aquatic Sciences 77:465–480
Lester NP, Dextrase AJ, Kushneriuk RS, Rawson MR, Ryan PA (2004) Light and temperature: key factors affecting Walleye abundance and production. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:588–605
Levine NM, Zhang K, Longo M, Baccini A, Phillips OL, Lewis SL, Alvarez-Dávila E, Segalin de Andrade AC, Brienen RJW, Erwin TL, Feldpausch TR, Mendoza ALM, Vargas PN, Prieto A, Silva-Espejo JE, Malhi Y, Moorcroft PR (2016) Ecosystem heterogeneity determines the ecological resilience of the Amazon to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:793–797
Lyons J (1987) Prey choice among piscivorous juvenile Walleyes (Stizostedion vitreum). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:758–764
Madon SP, Culver DA (1993) Bioenergetics model for larval and juvenile Walleyes: an in situ approach with experimental ponds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:797–813
Madon SP, Williams GD, West JM, Zedler JB (2001) The importance of marsh access to growth of the California Killifish, Fundulus parvipinnis, evaluated through bioenergetics modeling. Ecological Modelling 135:149–165
McCann KS (2000) The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228–233
McClanahan DR, Hansen MJ (2005) A statewide mail survey to estimate 2000–2001 angler catch, harvest, and effort in Wisconsin. Wisconsin department of natural resources, fish management report 151. https://p.widencdn.net/1f08yb/Manage_FH151. Accessed 17 Sept 2022
Meynecke JO, Lee SY, Duke NC (2008) Linking spatial metrics and fish catch reveals the importance of coastal wetland connectivity to inshore fisheries in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 141:981–996
Miller LM, Kallemeyn L, Senanan W (2001) Spawning-site and natal-site fidelity by Northern Pike in a large lake: mark-recapture and genetic evidence. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:307–316
Modde T (1997) Fish use of old charley wash: an assessment of floodplain wetland importance to razorback sucker management and recovery. US fish and wildlife service draft final report
Murphy BR, Brown LM, Springer TA (1990) Evaluation of the relative weight index, with new applications to Walleye. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:85–97
Neumann RM, Guy CS, Willis DW (2012) Length, weight, and associated indices. In: Zale AV, Parrish DL, Sutton TM (eds) Fisheries techniques, 3rd edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, pp 733–778
Oksanen J, Simpson G, Blanchet F, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin P, O'Hara R, Solymos P, Stevens M, Szoecs E, Wagner H, Barbour M, Bedward M, Bolker B, Borcard D, Carvalho G, Chirico M, Caceres MD, Durand S, Evangelista H, FitzJohn R, Friendly M, Furneaux B, Hannigan G, Hill M, Lahti L, McGlinn D, Ouellette M, Ribeiro Cunha E, Smith T, Stier A, Ter Braak C, Weedon J (2022) Vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.6–2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed 15 June 2023
Pander J, Mueller M, Geist J (2018) Habitat diversity and connectivity govern the conservation value of restored aquatic floodplain habitats. Biological Conservation 217:1–10
Petchey OL (2000) Prey diversity, prey composition, and predator population dynamics in experimental microcosms. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:874–882
Pizzul E, Bertoli M, Basset A, Vignes F, Calligaris M, Tibaldi E (2009) Energy densities of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and its main prey items in an alpine stream of the Slizza Basin (northwest Italy). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24:403–410
Pothoven SA, Madenjian CP, Höök TO (2017) Feeding ecology of the Walleye, a resurgent piscivore in Lake Huron after shifts in the prey community. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 26:676–685
Quist MC, Guy CS, Bernot RJ, Stephen JL (2002) Seasonal variation in condition, growth and food habits of Walleye in a Great Plains reservoir and simulated effects of an altered thermal regime. Journal of Fish Biology 61:1329–1344
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed 23 Jan 2022
Raabe JK, Bozek MA (2012) Quantity, structure, and habitat selection of natural spawning reefs by Walleyes in a north temperate lake: a multiscale analysis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141:1097–1108
Raabe JK, VanDeHey JA, Zentner KL, Cross TK, Sass GG (2020) Walleye inland lake habitat: considerations for successful natural recruitment and stocking in North Central North America. Lake and Reservoir Management 36:335–359
Raby GD, Vandergoot CS, Hayden TA, Faust MD, Kraus RT, Dettmers JM, Cooke SJ, Zhao Y, Fisk AT, Kreuger CC (2018) Does behavioural thermoregulation underlie seasonal movements in Lake Erie Walleye? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 75:488–496
Sánchez-Hernández J, Gabler HM, Amundsen PA (2017) Prey diversity as a driver of resource partitioning between river-dwelling fish species. Ecology and Evolution 7:2058–2068
Sarkar UK, Mishal P, Borah S, Karnatak G, Chandra G, Kumari S, Meena DK, Debnath D, Yengkokpam S, Das P, DebRoy P, Yadav AK, Aftabuddin M, Gogoi P, Pandit A, Bhattacharjya BK, Tayung T, Lianthuamluaia L, Das BK (2021) Status, potential, prospects, and issues of floodplain wetland fisheries in India: synthesis and review for sustainable management. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 29:1–32
Schrandt MN, MacDonald TC, Sherwood ET, Beck MW (2021) A multimetric nekton index for monitoring, managing and communicating ecosystem health status in an urbanized Gulf of Mexico estuary. Ecological Indicators 123:1–10
Seilheimer TS, Chow-Fraser P (2006) Development and use of the Wetland Fish Index to assess the quality of coastal wetland s in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:354–366
Selch TM, Chipps SR, Blackwell BG, Hanten RP (2019) Influence of season, sex, age, and diet composition on mercury concentration in Walleye. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 77:336–343
South Dakota Game Fish and Parks (GFP) (2019) Fisheries and aquatic resources adaptive management system: northeast fisheries management area 2019–2023. https://gfp.sd.gov/userdocs/docs/NEFMA_Plan_2019_-_2023_Commission_Adopted.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2021
Sundar KSG, Chauhan AS, Kittur S, Babu S (2015) Wetland loss and waterbird use of wetlands in Palwal District, Haryana, India: the role of agriculture, urbanization and conversion to fish ponds. Wetlands 35:115–125
Traynor D, Moerke A, Greil R (2010) Identification of Michigan fishes using cleithra. Great lakes fisheries commission. Miscellaneous Publication 2010–02
US Army Corps of Engineers (2020) Annual fish passage report: Columbia and snake rivers for salmon, steelhead, shad, and lamprey. Northwestern Division of the US army corps of engineers. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll3/id/912/rec/42. Accessed 19 Aug 2021
US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau (2016) 2016 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw-16-nat.html. Accessed 13 Sept 2022
Van Looy K, Tonkin JD, Floury M, Leight C, Soininen J, Larsen S, Heino J, Poff NL, Delong M, Jähnig SC, Datry T, Bonada N, Rosebery J, Jamoneau A, Ormerod SJ, Collier KJ, Wolter C (2019) The three Rs of river ecosystem resilience: resources, recruitment and refugia. River Research and Applications 2019:1–14
Vanderhoof MK, Alexander LC (2016) The role of lake expansion in altering the wetland landscape of the Prairie Pothole Region, United States. Wetlands 36:309–321
Vilizzi L, McCarthy BJ, Scholz O, Sharpe CP, Wood DB (2013) Managed and natural inundation: benefits for conservation of native fish in a semi-arid wetland system. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23:37–50
Walker B (1995) Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience. Conservation Biology 9:747–752
Woo I, Davis MJ, Ellings CS, Nakai G, Takekawa JY, De La Cruz S (2018) Enhanced invertebrate prey production following estuarine restoration supports foraging for multiple species of juvenile salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.). Restoration Ecology 26:964–975
Wright CK, Wimberly MC (2013) Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:4134–4139
Zeileis A, Hothorn T (2002) Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News 2:7–10. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2002-3.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2023
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the many students at South Dakota State University (SDSU) Department of Natural Resource Management that assisted with field and lab work for this project, especially Lauren Allex. We also thank the family of Dr. David Willis for continuing to make an impact on the field of fisheries through a research endowment at SDSU that helped fund this research. All fish capture, handling, and euthanasia procedures were approved by the SDSU Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol 2103-016A). The South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, SDSU, and South Dakota Department of Game, Fish & Parks. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Funding
Funding for this study was provided by Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (Grant F-15-R, Federal Aid Study 1548) administered through South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station at SDSU, and the David W. Willis Fisheries Research Endowment distributed by the Department of Natural Resource Management at SDSU.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by Logan M. Cutler and Alison A. Coulter. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Logan M. Cutler. Alison A. Coulter, Brian G. Blackwell, and Steve R. Chipps commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Cutler, L.M., Chipps, S.R., Blackwell, B.G. et al. Importance of a Lake-Wetland Complex for a Resilient Walleye Fishery. Wetlands 44, 69 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01815-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01815-6