Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 235–240

Fish distribution and benthic invertebrate biomass relative to depth in an Ontario lake

  • Allen Keast
  • Jennifer Harker
Article

Synopsis

A survey of fish distribution relative to depth in Lake Opinicon, Ontario, using the strip count method showed 80–90% of the biomass to be concentrated along the lake margins at a depth of up to 2.5 m. This figure applied throughout the summer, and to both day and night. Invertebrate diversity and biomass was also biassed towards the margins but slightly less so (mean summer figure 68% of biomass at depth of 2.5 m or less) for the segment of the lake studied. The central parts of the lake have good populations of 1–2 cm Chironomus spp. not predated by fish.

There is a close link between the distribution of the specific prey organisms of fish species and the fish themselves. In their predominantly marginal distribution both are concentrated into the area of maximum productivity.

Keywords

Ecosystem Fish distribution Density Biomass Community Invertebrate distribution Prey invertebrates Seasonal distribution Centrarchids Cyprinids Chironomids Crustacea Odonata 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Adamstone, F. B. 1924. The distribution and economic importance of the bottom fauna of Lake Nipigon with an appendix on the bottom fauna of Lake Ontario. Univ. Toronto Studies. Publ. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 24: 35–100.Google Scholar
  2. Allanson, B. R. & J. E. Kerrich. 1961. A statistical method for estimating the number of animals found in field samples drawn from polluted rivers. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 14: 491–494.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, F. C. 1918. The productivity of invertebrate fish food on the bottom of Oneida Lake, with special reference to mollusks. Tech. Pub. New York State College of Forestry, Syracuse Univ. 93, 264 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Deevey, E. S., Jr. 1941. Limnological studies in Connecticut. vi. The quantity and composition of the bottom fauna of thirty-six Connecticut and New York Lakes. Ecol. Monogr. 11: 414–455.Google Scholar
  5. Edmondson, W. T. & G. G. Winberg(eds.). 1971. A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters. IBP Handbook, Blackwell Scientific Publ. Oxford, 358 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Gibson, C. G. M. 1974. Seasonal abundance of Cladocera and Copepoda in Lake Opinicon. B. Sc. Hons. thesis, Queen's University, Kingston. 34 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Harker, J. 1976. Prey selection relative to availability: a comparison of the feeding of four inshore fish assemblages, Lake Opinicon, Ontario. M. Sc. Thesis, Queen's University. 220 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Jobes, F. W. 1952. Age, growth, and production of yellow perch in Lake Erie. U.S. Fisheries Bull. 70: 204–266.Google Scholar
  9. Jonasson, P. M. 1969. Bottom fauna and eutrophication. pp. 274–305. In: Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Correctives. National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Keast, A. 1965. Resource subdivision amongst cohabiting fish species in a bay, Lake Opinicon, Ontario. Proc. 8th Conf. Gt. Lakes Res., Univ. Michigan: 106–132.Google Scholar
  11. Keast, A. 1966. Feeding biology of the black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25: 285–297.Google Scholar
  12. Keast, A. 1970. Food specializations and bioenergetic inter-relations in the fish faunas of some small Ontario water-ways. pp. 377–410. In: J. H. Steele(ed.), Marine Food Chains, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  13. Keast, A. 1977a. Mechanisms expanding niche width and minimizing intraspecific competition in the rock bass and bluegill sunfish (Centrarchides). Evolutionary Biology. in press.Google Scholar
  14. Keast, A. 1977b. Diet overlaps and feeding relationships between the year classes in the yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Env. Biol. Fish. in press.Google Scholar
  15. Keast, A. 1977c. Feeding interrelationships of the year classes of the pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), and comparisons with the bluegill (L. macrochirus). J. Fish Res. Board Can. in press.Google Scholar
  16. Keast, A. & J. Harker. 1977. Strip counts as a means of determining densities and habitat utilization patterns in lake fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 1: 181–188.Google Scholar
  17. Keast, A. & L. Welsh. 1968. Daily feeding periodicities, food uptake rates, and dietary changes with hour of day in some lake fishes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25: 1133–1144.Google Scholar
  18. Klugh, A. B. 1926. The productivity of lakes. Quart. Rev. Biol. 1: 572–577.Google Scholar
  19. Mathias, J. A. 1971. Energy flow and secondary production of the amphipods Hyallella azteca and Crangonyx richmonensis occidentalis in Marion Lake, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 28: 711–726.Google Scholar
  20. Needham, P. R. 1928. A quantitative study of the fish food supply in selected areas. Suppl. 17th Ann. Rept., State of N.Y. Cons. Dept.: 192–208.Google Scholar
  21. Okland, J. 1964. The eutrophic Lake Borrevann (Norway) — an ecological study on shore and bottom fauna with special reference to gastropods, including a hydrographic survey. Folia Limnol. Scandinavica 13: 1–337.Google Scholar
  22. Ranson, J. D. & T. C. Dorris. 1972. Analyses of benthic community structure in a reservoir by use of diversity indices. Amer. Midl. Natural. 87: 434–447.Google Scholar
  23. Rawson, D. S. 1930. The bottom fauna of Lake Simcoe and its role in the ecology of the lake. Univ. Toronto Studies. Publ. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 40: 1–183.Google Scholar
  24. Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 743 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk b.v., Publishers 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen Keast
    • 1
  • Jennifer Harker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations