Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 4, pp 557–567 | Cite as

Ecological influences on the local movement dynamics of the blackspotted topminnow, Fundulus olivaceus

  • Scott R. ClarkEmail author
  • Jacob F. Schaefer
Original Article


Movement of individuals throughout a landscape is fundamental to a wide array of ecological processes; however, the interacting spatiotemporal effects of environmental influences on movement remain poorly understood. Using a series of mesocosm trials, we examined relationships between local abiotic and biotic variables and movement patterns of the blackspotted topminnow, Fundulus olivaceus, using passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. In one series of trials, we assessed the influence of local population factors (density, sex ratio) and phenotypic variables (growth, condition) on movement rates across seasons (spawning, nonspawning). Movement was strongly influenced by different factors seasonally, and movement rates were approximately 7.5 times higher in the spawning season compared to nonspawning periods. Males moved more than females and movement was greater in low-density treatments; however, these patterns persisted only during the spawning period. In a second series of trials, we examined abiotic (habitat complexity) and biotic (predator; Micropterus punctulatus) influences on the movement dynamics and habitat usage of F. olivaceus. Predators were found to suppress movement; however, this response was ameliorated by the presence of habitat structure. Movement rates of F. olivaceus were negatively related to predator movement and individuals showed a higher propensity to group in the presence of the predator. The predator induced shifts in habitat usage, as individuals utilized the shallower habitat at a greater frequency and for longer durations compared to trials without a predator. Taken together, our results suggest local environmental variables may strongly influence spatiotemporal movement behaviors of F. olivaceus.


Movement Fundulus PIT tag Temporal Habitat heterogeneity 



We thank J. Harris, L. Stewart, B. Kreiser, C. Qualls, M. Davis, J. Barr, C. Coleman, N. Frazier, and W. Matamoros for assistance in various aspects of this project and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments that improved the quality of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


The study was funded by the National Science Foundation (DEB no. 0716985) awarded to JFS.

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed on animals were in accordance with The University of Southern Mississippi’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (US Public Health Service Animal Welfare Assurance Number A3851-01) and carried out under the University of Southern Mississippi’s IACUC protocol no. 13041102.


  1. Albanese B, Angermeier PL, Dorai-Raj S (2004) Ecological correlates of fish movement in a network of Virginia streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:857–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alldredge P, Gutierrez M, Duvernell D, Schaefer J, Brunkow P, Matamoros W (2011) Variability in movement dynamics of topminnow (Fundulus notatus and F. olivaceus) populations. Ecol Freshw Fish 20:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ammann AJ, Michel CJ, MacFarlane RB (2013) The effects of surgically implanted acoustic transmitters on laboratory growth, survival and tag retention in hatchery yearling Chinook salmon. Environ Biol Fish 96:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aparicio E, De Sostoa A (1999) Pattern of movements of adult Barbus haasi in a small Mediterranean stream. J Fish Biol 55:1086–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell AV, Rader RB, Peck SL, Sih A (2009) The positive effects of negative interactions: can avoidance of competitors or predators increase resource sampling by prey? Theor Popul Biol 76:52–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchard TA (1996) Ovarian cycles and microhabitat use in two species of topminnow, Fundulus olivaceus and F. euryzonus, from the southeastern United States. Environ Biol Fish 47:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonte D, de la Pena E (2009) Evolution of body condition-dependent dispersal in metapopulations. J Evol Biol 22:1242–1251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Braasch ME, Smith PW (1965) Relationships of the topminnows Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus in the upper Mississippi River valley. Copeia 1965:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown RS, Cooke SJ, Anderson WG, McKinley RS (1999) Evidence to challenge the “2% rule” for biotelemetry. N Am J Fish Manag 19:867–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carranza J, Winn HE (1954) Reproductive behavior of the blackstripe topminnow, Fundulus notatus. Copeia 1954:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chipps SR, Clapp DF, Wahl DH (2000) Variation in routine metabolism of juvenile muskellunge: evidence for seasonal metabolic compensation in fishes. J Fish Biol 56:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooke SJ, Midwood JD, Thiem JD, Klimley P, Lucas MC, Thorstad EB, Eiler J, Holbrook C, Ebner BC (2013) Tracking animals in freshwater with electronic tags: past, present and future. Anim Biotelem 1:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croft DP, Albanese B, Arrowsmith BJ, Botham M, Webster M, Krause J (2003) Sex-biased movement in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Oecologia 137:62–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Crook DA (2004) Is the home range concept compatible with the movements of two species of lowland river fish? J Anim Ecol 73:353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixon CJ, Mesa MG (2011) Survival and tag loss in Moapa White River Springfish implanted with passive integrated transponder tags. T Am Fish Soc 140:1375–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flaxman SM, Lou Y, Meyer FG (2011) Evolutionary ecology of movement by predators and prey. Theor Ecol 4:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser DF, Cerri RD (1982) Experimental evaluation of predator–prey relationships in a patchy environment: consequences for habitat use patterns in minnows. Ecology 63:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser DF, Gilliam JF, Yip-Hoi T (1995) Predation as an agent of population fragmentation in a tropical watershed. Ecology 76:1461–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986) A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ Manage 10:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gandon S (1999) Kin competition, the cost of inbreeding and the evolution of dispersal. J Theor Biol 200:345–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gandon S, Michalakis Y (2001) Multiple causes of the evolution of dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhont AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 155–167Google Scholar
  23. Gatz AJ, Adams SM (1994) Patterns of movement of centrarchids in two warmwater streams in eastern Tennessee. Ecol Freshw Fish 3:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (2001) Movement in corridors: enhancement by predation threat, disturbance, and habitat structure. Ecology 82:258–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gorman OT (1986) Assemblage organization of stream fishes: the effect of rivers on adventitious streams. Am Nat 128:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gowan C (2007) Short-term cues used by foraging trout in a California stream. Environ Biol Fish 78:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gowan C, Fausch KD (1996) Mobile brook trout in two high-elevation Colorado streams: reevaluating the concept of restricted movement. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1370–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gros A, Hovestadt T, Poethke HJ (2008) Evolution of sex-biased dispersal: the role of sex-specific dispersal costs, demographic stochasticity, and inbreeding. Ecol Model 219:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gurarie E, Ovaskainen O (2011) Characteristic spatial and temporal scales unify models of animal movement. Am Nat 178:113–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamilton WD, May RM (1977) Dispersal in stable habitats. Nature 269:578–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris JA (2013) Convergence of life history phenotypes in two species of topminnows, Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus. Masters Thesis, The University of Southern MississippiGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvey BC (1991) Interactions among stream fishes: predator-induced habitat shifts and larval survival. Oecologia 87:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harvey BC, Nakamoto RJ, White JL (1999) Influence of large woody debris and a bankfull flood on movement of adult resident coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) during fall and winter. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:2161–2166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ims RA, Hjermann DÃ (2001) Condition-dependent dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhont AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 203–216Google Scholar
  36. Jepsen N, Koed A, Thorstad EB, Baras E (2002) Surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish: how much have we learned? Hydrobiologia 483:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knaepkens G, Maerten E, Tudorache C, De Boeck G, Eens M (2007) Evaluation of passive integrated transponder tags for marking the bullhead (Cottus gobio), a small benthic freshwater fish: effects on survival, growth and swimming capacity. Ecol Freshw Fish 16:404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knight GL, Gido KB (2005) Habitat use and susceptibility to predation of four prairie stream fishes: implications for conservation of the endangered Topeka shiner. Copeia 2005:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kobler A, Klefoth T, Wolter C, Fredrich F, Arlinghaus R (2008) Contrasting pike (Esox lucius L.) movement and habitat choice between summer and winter in a small lake. Hydrobiologia 601:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koed A, Balleby K, Mejlhede P, Aarestrup K (2006) Annual movement of adult pike (Esox lucius L.) in a lowland river. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawrence WS (1987) Dispersal: an alternative mating tactic conditional on sex ratio and body size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Le Galliard JF, Ferriére R, Clobert J (2003) Mother-offspring interactions affect natal dispersal in a lizard. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1163–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lehmann L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lucas MC, Batley E (1996) Seasonal movements and behaviour of adult barbel Barbus barbus, a riverine cyprinid fish: implication for river management. J Appl Ecol 33:1345–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matthews WJ, Gido KB, Garrett GP, Gelwick FP, Stewart JG, Schaefer J (2006) Modular experimental riffle-pool stream system. T Am Fish Soc 135:1559–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matthysen E (2005) Density-dependent dispersal in birds and mammals. Ecography 28:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthysen E (2012) Multicausality of dispersal: a review. In: Clobert J, Baguette M, Benton TG, Bullock JM (eds) Dispersal ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:19052–19059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Perrin N, Mazalov V (1999) Dispersal and inbreeding avoidance. Am Nat 154:282–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Perrin N, Mazalov V (2000) Local competition, inbreeding, and the evolution of sex-biased dispersal. Am Nat 155:116–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Petty JT, Grossman GD (2004) Restricted movement by mottled sculpin (Pisces: Cottidae) in a southern Appalachian stream. Freshwater Biol 49:631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poethke HJ, Weisser WW, Hovestadt T (2010) Predator-induced dispersal and the evolution of conditional dispersal in correlated environments. Am Nat 175:577–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Power ME (1984) Habitat quality and the distribution of algae-grazing catfish in a Panamanian stream. J Anim Ecol 53:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Power ME, Matthews WJ, Stewart AJ (1985) Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and stream algae: dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecology 66:1448–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, version 2.15, Vienna, Austria,
  57. Roberts JH, Angermeier PL (2007) Spatiotemporal variability of stream habitat and movement of three species of fish. Oecologia 151:417–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Ross ST (2001) Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, JacksonGoogle Scholar
  59. Sandell M, Agrell J, Erlinge S, Nelson J (1990) Natal dispersal in relation to population density and sex ratio in the field vole, Microtus agrestis. Oecologia 83:145–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schaefer J (2001) Riffles as barriers to interpool movement by three cyprinids (Notropis boops, Campostoma anomalum and Cyprinella venusta). Freshwater Biol 46:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schaefer J, Walters A (2010) Metabolic cold adaptation and developmental plasticity in metabolic rates among species in the Fundulus notatus species complex. Funct Ecol 24:1087–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schaefer JF, Duvernell DD, Kreiser BR, Champagne C, Clark SR, Gutierrez M, Stewart LK, Coleman C (2012) Evolution of a sexually dimorphic trait in a broadly distributed topminnow (Fundulus olivaceus). Ecol Evol 2:1371–1381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Schlosser IJ (1988a) Predation risk and habitat selection by two size classes of a stream cyprinid: experimental test of a hypothesis. Oikos 52:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schlosser IJ (1988b) Predation rates and the behavioral response of adult brassy minnows (Hybognathus hankinsoni) to creek chub and smallmouth bass predators. Copeia 1988:691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schlosser IJ (1995) Critical landscape attributes that influence fish population dynamics in headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 303:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shaw AK, Kokko H (2014) Mate finding, Allee effects, and selection for sex-biased dispersal. J Anim Ecol 83:1256–1267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Skalski GT, Gilliam JF (2000) Modeling diffusive spread in a heterogeneous population: a movement study with stream fish. Ecology 81:1685–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomerson JE, Wooldridge DP (1970) Food habits of allotopic and syntopic populations of the topminnows Fundulus olivaceus and Fundulus notatus. Am Midl Nat 84:573–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vigueira PA, Schaefer JF, Duvernell DD, Kreiser BR (2008) Tests of reproductive isolation among species in the Fundulus notatus (Cyprinodontiformes: Fundulidae) species complex. Evol Ecol 22:55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weisser WW (2001) The effects of predation on dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhont AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 180–188Google Scholar
  71. Werner EE, Mittelbach GG, Hall DJ, Gilliam JF (1983) Experimental tests of optimal habitat use in fish: the role of relative habitat profitability. Ecology 64:1525–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wesner JS (2010) Aquatic predation alters a terrestrial prey subsidy. Ecology 91:1435–1444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Wisenden BD, Harter KR (2001) Motion, not shape, facilitates association of predation risk with novel objects by fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Ethology 107:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesThe University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations