Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 37–44 | Cite as

Microhabitat partitioning in a diverse assemblage of darters in the Allegheny River system

  • Jay R. StaufferJr.
  • Jeff M. Boltz
  • Karen A. Kellogg
  • Ellen S. van Snik


Habitat partitioning among eleven species of darters (Percidae: Etheostomatini) from the Allegheny River system was studied through underwater observation. Percina caprodes and Percina copelandi showed consistent segregation from Etheostoma by occupying deeper habitats. Substrate size, depth, and water velocity were important variables by which Etheostoma species segregated. Analysis of niche breadth values indicated that species differed widely in their degree of specialization in habitat use; based on the variables measured, Etheostoma zonale was a habitat generalist whereas Etheostoma camurum, Etheostoma tippecanoe, and Percina caprodes tended towards habitat specialization. Habitat segregation appears to be an important mechanism allowing the coexistence of these closely related and ecologically similar species. Microhabitat quantification on a fine scale was important in discovering habitat differences in this diverse system.

Key words

Resource partitioning Niche breadth Percina Etheostoma Fishes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Bovee, K.D. 1986. Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for use in the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream flow information paper no. 21, Biological Report 86: 1–28.Google Scholar
  2. Chipps, S.W., W.B. Perry & S.A. Perry. 1994. Patterns of microhabitat use among four species of darters in three appalachian streams. Amer. Midl. Nat. 131: 175–180.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park. 243 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Englert, J. & B.H. Seghers. 1983. Habitat segregation by stream darters (Pisces: Percidae) in the Thames River watershed of southwestern Ohio. Can. Field-Natur. 97: 177–180.Google Scholar
  5. Flint, R.T. 1947. Glaciated ecology and the Pleistocene Epic. J. Wiley Co., New York. 589 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Greenberg, L.A. 1991. Habitat use and feeding behavior of thirteen species of benthic stream fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 31: 389–401.Google Scholar
  7. Hlohowskyj, I. & T.E. Wissing. 1986. Substrate selection by fantail (Etheostoma flabellare), greenside (E. blennioides), and rainbow (E. caeruleum) darters. Ohio J. Sci. 86: 124–129.Google Scholar
  8. Hurlbert, S.H. 1978. The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives. Ecology 59: 67–77.Google Scholar
  9. Kessler, R.K. & J.H. Thorp. 1993. Microhabitat segregation of the threatened spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum) and closely related orangefin darter (E. bellum). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 1084–1091.Google Scholar
  10. Kuehne, R.A. & R.W. Barbour. 1983. The American darters. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 177 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Lachner, E.A., E.F. Westlake & P.S. Handwerk. 1950. Studies on the biology of some percid fishes from western Pennsylvania. Amer. Midi. Nat. 43: 92–111.Google Scholar
  12. Leidy, R.A. 1992. Microhabitat selection by the johnny darter, Etheostoma nigrum Rafinesque in a Wyoming stream. Great Basin Naturalist 52: 68–74.Google Scholar
  13. Matthews, W.J., J.R. Bek & E. Surat. 1982. Comparative ecology of the darters Etheostoma podostemone, E. flabellare, and Percina roanoka in the Upper Roanoke River drainage, Virginia. Copeia 1982: 805–814.Google Scholar
  14. McCormick, F.H. & N. Aspinwall. 1983. Habitat selection in three species of darters. Env. Biol. Fish. 8: 279–282.Google Scholar
  15. Netting, M.G. 1956. Geography of the upper Ohio valley. pp. 2–13. In: C.A. Tryon & M.A. Shapiros (ed.) Man and the Waters of the Upper Ohio Basin, Special Publication 1, Pymatuning Laboratory off Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  16. Paine, M.D., J.J. Dodson & G. Power. 1982. Habitat and food resource partitioning among four species of darters (Percidae: Etheostoma) in a southern Ontario stream. Can. J. Zool. 60: 1635–1641.Google Scholar
  17. Schlosser, I.J. & L.A. Toth. 1984. Niche relationships and population ecology of rainbow (Etheostoma caeruleum) and fantail (E. flabellare) darters in a temporally variable environment. Oikos 42: 229–238.Google Scholar
  18. Schoener, T.W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.Google Scholar
  19. Schwartz, F.J. 1965. Densities and ecology of the darters of the Upper Allegheny River watershed. pp. 95–103. In: C.A. Tryon, R.T. Hartman & K.W. Cummins (ed.) Studies on the Aquatic Ecology of the Upper Ohio River System, Special Aquatic Ecology of the Upper Ohio River System, Special of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  20. Smart, H.J. & J.H. Gee. 1979. Coexistence and resource partitioning in two species of darters (Percidae), Etheostoma nigrum and Percina maculata. Can. J. Zool. 57: 2061–2071.Google Scholar
  21. Thomas, D.L. 1970. An ecological study of four darters of the genus Percina (Percidae) in the Kaskaskia River, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 70: 1–18.Google Scholar
  22. Winn, H.E. 1958. Comparative reproductive behavior and ecology of fourteen species of darters (Pisces: Percidae). Ecological Monographs 28: 155–191.Google Scholar
  23. Wynes, D.L. & T.E. Wissing. 1982. Resource sharing among darters in an Ohio stream. Amer. Midl. Nat. 17: 294–304.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay R. StaufferJr.
    • 1
  • Jeff M. Boltz
    • 2
  • Karen A. Kellogg
    • 1
  • Ellen S. van Snik
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forest ResourcesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkU.S.A.
  2. 2.EA Engineering, Science & TechnologyHunt ValleyU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations