Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 575, Issue 1, pp 259–270 | Cite as

Identification of critical prey items to Appalachian brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) with emphasis on terrestrial organisms

  • Ryan M. UtzEmail author
  • Kyle J. Hartman
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Appalachia experience prolonged periods of poor feeding conditions, particularly during summer and fall. To determine which prey organisms are important in sustaining brook trout populations, we monitored the feeding patterns of a population of brook trout over the course of 2 years with an emphasis on seasonal change. We employed a bioenergetics model to estimate whether or not each fish had obtained enough energy to meet daily metabolic demand. As a result, qualitative comparisons between fish feeding above maintenance ration (successfully feeding fish) and fish feeding below maintenance ration (unsuccessfully feeding fish) were possible. With the exception of winter, brook trout derived significantly more energy from terrestrial organisms than aquatic organisms. During each season, successfully feeding brook trout fed on greater proportions of specific prey types. Terrestrial Coleoptera and Lepidoptera consistently proved to be important prey during warmer seasons, while large organisms such as vertebrates and crayfish appeared to be important during winter. Our findings suggest that terrestrial organisms are more important than aquatic organisms in sustaining brook trout populations. Further, certain large and abundant terrestrial taxa are critical in providing energy to brook trout.

Keywords

Brook trout Feeding ecology Terrestrial input Prey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Brett Moore for his extensive field and laboratory assistance. This study was funded by Mead-Westvaco, the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service’s Monongahela National Forest and Northeastern Experiment Station. Care and handling of all fish was completed in accordance with approved protocols filed with the West Virginia University Animal Care and Use Committee.

References

  1. Allan, R. K., 1951. The Horokiwi stream: a study of a trout population. The New Zealand Marine Department of Fisheries Bulletin 10: 1–231.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J. D., 1981. Determinants of diet of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a mountain stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 38: 184–192.Google Scholar
  3. Allan, J. D., M. S. Wipfli, J. P. Caouette, A. Prussian & J. Rodgers, 2003. Influence of streamside vegetation on inputs of terrestrial invertebrates to salmonid food webs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60: 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benke, A. C., A. D. Huryn, L. A. Smock & J. B. Wallace, 1999. Length-mass relationships for freshwater macroinvertebrates in North America with particular reference to the southeastern United States. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 308–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borror, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn & N. F. Johnson, 1989. An introduction to the study of insects, 6th edn. Saunders College Publishers, Ft. Worth, Texas.Google Scholar
  6. Bowen, S. H., 1996. Quantitative description of the diet. In Murphy, B. R. & D. W. Willis, (eds), Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland: 513–529.Google Scholar
  7. Bridcut, E. E. & P. S. Giller, 1995. Diet variability and foraging strategies in brown trout (Salmo trutta): an analysis from subpopulations to individuals. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 52: 2543–2552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cada, G. F., J. M. Loar & M. J. Sale, 1987. Evidence of food limitation of rainbow and brown trout in southern Appalachian soft-water streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116: 692–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chipps, S. R. & J. E. Garvey. In press. Assessment of food habits and feeding patterns. In Brown, M. & C. Guy (eds), Analysis and Interpretation of Freshwater Fisheries Data. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland: xx–yy.Google Scholar
  10. Clayton, J. L., E. S. Dannaway, R. Menendez, H. W. Rauch, J. J. Renton, S. M. Sherlock & P. E. Zurbuch, 1998. Application of limestone to restore fish communities in acidified streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18: 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins, K. C., & J. C. Wuycheck, 1971. Caloric equivalents for investigations in ecological energetics. Mitteilungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 18.Google Scholar
  12. Cunjak, R. A. & G. Power, 1987. The feeding and energetics of stream-resident trout in winter. Journal of Fish Biology 31: 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Crespin de Billy, V., B. Dumont, T. Lagarrigue, P. Baran & B. Statzner, 2002. Invertebrate accessibility and vulnerability in the analysis of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) summer habitat suitability. River Research and Applications 18: 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, E. D. & A. D. Huryn, 1995. Annual contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to a New Zealand Stream. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29: 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eggers, D. M., 1977. Factors in interpreting data obtained by diel sampling of fish stomachs. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34: 290–294.Google Scholar
  16. Ellison, A. M., M. S. Bank, B. D. Clinton, E. A. Colburn, K. Elliot, C. R. Ford, D. R. Foster, B. D. Kloeppel, J. D. Knoepp, G. M. Lovett, J. Mohan, D. A. Orwig, N. L. Rodenhouse, W. V. Sobczak, K. A. Stinson, J. K. Stone, C. M. Swan, J. Thompson, B. Von Holle & J. R. Webster, 2005. Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 479–486.Google Scholar
  17. Ensign, W. E., R. J. Strange & S. E. Moore, 1990. Summer food limitation reduces brook and rainbow trout biomass in a southern Appalachian stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 894–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forrester, G. E., J. G. Chace & W. McCarthy, 1994. Diel and density-related changes in food consumption and prey selection by brook charr in a New Hampshire stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes 39: 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hakala, J. P. & K. J. Hartman, 2004. Drought effect on stream morphology and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations in forested headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 515: 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartman, K. J. & J. A. Sweka, 2001. Development of a bioenergetics model for Appalachian brook trout. Procedures from the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fisheries and Wildlife Agencies 38–51.Google Scholar
  21. Hartman, K. J. & S. B. Brandt, 1995. Estimating energy density of fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnston, T. A. & R. A. Cunjak, 1999. Dry mass–length relationships for benthic insects: a review with new data from Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada. Freshwater Biology 41: 653–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kawaguchi, C., Y. Taniguchi & S. Nakano, 2003. Terrestrial invertebrate inputs determine the local abundance of stream fishes in a forested stream. Ecology 84: 701–708.Google Scholar
  24. Kawaguchi, Y. & S. Nakano, 2001. Contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to the annual resource budget for salmonids in forest and grassland reaches of a headwater stream. Freshwater Biology 46: 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lehane, B. M., B. Walsh, P. S. Giller & J. O’Halloran, 2001. The influence of small-scale variation in habitat on winter trout distribution and diet in an afforested catchment. Aquatic Ecology 61: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merritt, R. W. & K. W. Cummins, 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3rd edn. Kendall and Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
  27. Mookerji, N., Z. Weng & A. Mazumder, 2004. Food partitioning between coexisting Atlantic salmon and brook trout in the Sainte-Marguerite River ecosystem, Quebec. Journal of Fish Biology 64: 680–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakano, S., H. Miyasaka & N. Kuhara, 1999. Terrestrial–aquatic linkages: riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a stream food web. Ecology 80: 2435–2441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neveu, A., 1999. Feeding strategy of the brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in running water. In Bagliniere, J. L. & G. Maisse (eds), Biology and Ecology of the Brown and Sea Trout. Springer, Chichester, UK: 91–113.Google Scholar
  30. Petty, T. P., P. J. Lamothe & P. M. Mazik, 2005. Spatial and seasonal dynamics of brook trout populations inhabiting a central Appalachian watershed. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 572–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Platts, W. S. & R. L. Nelson, 1988. Fluctuations in trout populations and their implications for land-use evaluation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sabo, J. L., J. L. Bastow & M. E. Power, 2002. Length-mass relationships for adult aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates in a California watershed. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sample, B. E., R. J. Cooper, R. D. Greer & R. C. Whitmore, 1993. Estimation of insect bimass by length and weight. American Midland Naturalist 129, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Somerton, D. A., 1991. Detecting diferences in fish diets. Fishery Bulletin 89: 167–169.Google Scholar
  35. Sweka, J. A., 2003. Aquatic–terrestrial linkages in Appalachian streams: influence of riparian inputs on stream habitat, brook trout populations, and trophic dynamics. Ph.D. dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  36. Sweka, J. A., M. K. Cox & K. J. Hartman, 2004. Gastric evacuation rates of brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 204–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweka, J. A., & Hartman, K. J., In press. Contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to yearly brook trout prey consumption and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 00, 0000–0000.Google Scholar
  38. Sweka, J. A. & K. J. Hartman, 2001. Fall and winter brook trout prey selection and daily ration. Procedures from the Annual Conference of Southeastern Assosiation of Fisheries and Wildlife Agencies 55: 8–22.Google Scholar
  39. Thonney, J. P. & R. J. Gibson, 1989. Feeding strategies of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, and juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in a Newfoundland river. Canadian Field Naturalist 103: 48–56.Google Scholar
  40. Thorne, D. W., 2004. Spatial and seasonal variation in brook trout diet, growth, and consumption in a complex Appalachian watershed. M.Sc. thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  41. Twomey, H. & P. S. Giller, 1990. Stomach flushing and individual Panjet tattooing of salmonids: an evaluation of the long-term effects on two wild populations. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management 21: 137–142.Google Scholar
  42. Utz, R. M., 2005. Temporal trends in consumption, growth, and successful feeding traits of a central Appalachian brook trout population at the watershed scale. M.Sc. thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  43. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37: 130–137.Google Scholar
  44. Webster, J. J. & K. J. Hartman, 2005. The role of terrestrial invertebrates in allopatric brook trout headwater streams in the central Appalachian mountains. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 20: 101–107.Google Scholar
  45. Wipfli, M. S., 1997. Terrestrial invertebrates as salmonid prey and nitrogen sources in streams: contrasting old-growth and young-growth riparian forests in southeastern Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 54: 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wipfli, M. S. & D. P. Gregovich, 2002. Export of invertebrates and detritus from fishless headwater streams in southeastern Alaska: implications for downstream salmonid production. Freshwater Biology 47: 957–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. WVDNR (West Virginia Division of Natural Resources), Middle Fork River: Limestone treatment of acid mine drainage. 2001. Elkins, West Virginia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wildlife and Fisheries Resources Program, Division of Forestry and Natural ResourcesDavis College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer SciencesMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Appalachian LaboratoryUniversity of MarylandFrostburgUSA

Personalised recommendations