Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 52, Issue 1–3, pp 345–355 | Cite as

Competitive interactions for foraging microhabitat among introduced brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, and native bull charr, S. confluentus, and westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, in a Montana stream

  • Shigeru Nakano
  • Satoshi Kitano
  • Katsuki Nakai
  • Kurt D. Fausch

Abstract

Competitive interactions for foraging microhabitat among introduced brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, and native bull charr, S. confluentus, and westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, were studied by species removal experiments in a tributary of the Flathead Lake and River system, northwestern Montana, focusing on brook charr influences on bull charr. When the three species were in sympatry, they interacted with each other, forming a size-structured, mixed-species dominance hierarchy in two stream pools. The influences of interference interactions were examined by measuring changes in five characteristics of foraging microhabitat and behavior, focal point height and velocity, cover use, and foraging rate and distance, after the successive removal of two species. Cutthroat trout removal resulted in increased foraging rates and distances, and decreased cover use for brook charr, but no changes for bull charr. After removal of brook charr from the two-species system, bull charr also increased foraging rates and distances and occupied more exposed positions. Moreover, total fish densities, which had initially decreased owing to the removal experiments, were partly compensated for by subsequent bull charr immigration, implying that competitive interactions with brook charr are an important factor in the mechanisms responsible for the regulation of bull charr densities, at least on a local scale.

interspecific dominance hierarchy removal experiment foraging rate foraging distance cover use salmonid fishes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behavior, sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 226–267.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, R.A. 1984. Foraging behavior of free-living wild and hatchery brown trout in a stream. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 113: 1–32.Google Scholar
  3. Buckman, R.C., W.E. Hosford P.A. Dupec. 1992. Malheur River bull trout investigations. pp. 45–57. In: P.J. Howell D.V. Buchanan (ed.) Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.Google Scholar
  4. Burgert, R.M., T.C. Bjornn W.R. Meehan. 1991. Summer habitat use by young salmonids and their responses to cover and predators in a small southeast Alaska stream. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 120: 474–485.Google Scholar
  5. Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. Calif. Fish Game 64: 139–174.Google Scholar
  6. Cavender, T.M. 1980. Systematics of Salvelinus from the north Pacific basin. pp. 295–322. In: E.K. Balon (ed.) Charr: Salmonid Fishes of the Genus Salvelinus. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
  7. Dambacher, J.M., M.W. Buktenica G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance, and habitat utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek. Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. pp. 30–36. In: P.J. Howell D.V. Buchanan (ed.) Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.Google Scholar
  8. Dolloff, C.A. 1986. Effects of stream cleaning on juvenile coho salmon and dolly varden in southeast Alaska. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 115: 743–755.Google Scholar
  9. Dolloff, C.A. G.H. Reeves. 1990. Microhabitat partitioning among stream-dwelling juvenile coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisuich, and dolly varden, Salvelinus malma. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 2297–2306.Google Scholar
  10. Donald, D.B. D.J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Can. J. Zool. 71: 238–247.Google Scholar
  11. Elliott, J.M. 1990. Mechanisms responsible for population regulation in young migratory trout, Salmo trutta. III. The role of territorial behaviour. J. Anim. Ecol. 59: 803–818.Google Scholar
  12. Everest, F.H. D.W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29: 91–100.Google Scholar
  13. Fausch, K.D. 1988. Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in streams: what have we learned? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 2238–2246.Google Scholar
  14. Fausch, K.D. 1989. Do gradient and temperature affect distributions of, and interactions between, brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) and other resident salmonids in streams? Physiol. Ecol. Japan. Spec. Vol. 1: 303–322.Google Scholar
  15. Fausch, K.D. 1993. Experimental analysis of microhabitat selection by juvenile steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) in a British Columbia stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 1198–1207.Google Scholar
  16. Fausch, K.D. R.J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) for positions in a Michigan stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 1220–1227.Google Scholar
  17. Fausch, K.D. R.J. White, 1986. Competition among juveniles of coho salmon, brook trout, and brown trout in a laboratory stream, and implications for Great Lakes tributaries. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 115: 363–381.Google Scholar
  18. Fraley, J.J. B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Sci. 63: 133–143.Google Scholar
  19. Glova, G.J. 1986. Interaction for food and space between experimental populations of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and coastal cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) in a laboratory stream. Hydrobiol. 131: 155–168.Google Scholar
  20. Griffith, J.S. 1972. Comparative behavior and habitat utilization of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) in small streams in northern Idaho. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29: 265–273.Google Scholar
  21. Griffith, J.S. 1974. Utilization of invertebrate drift by brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) in small streams in Idaho. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 103: 440–447.Google Scholar
  22. Griffith, J.S. 1988. Review of competition between cutthroat trout and other salmonids. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 4: 134–140.Google Scholar
  23. Grossman, G.D. V. Boule. 1991. An experimental study of competition for space between rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 1235–1243.Google Scholar
  24. Grossman, G.D. M.C. Freeman. 1987. Microhabitat use in a stream fish assemblage. J. Zool. London 212: 151–176.Google Scholar
  25. Haas, G.R. J.D. McPhail. 1991. Systematics and distribution of dolly varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in North America. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 2191–2211.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, J. G.D. Grossman. 1993. An energetic model of micro-habitat use for rainbow trout and rosyside dace. Ecology 74: 685–698.Google Scholar
  27. Katano, O. 1990. Dynamic relationships between the dominance of male dark chub, Zacco temmincki, and their acquisition of females. Anim. Behav. 40: 1018–1034.Google Scholar
  28. Kitano, S., K. Maekawa, S. Nakano K.D. Fausch. 1994. Spawning behavior of bull trout in the Upper Flathead Drainage, Montana, with special reference to hybridization with brook charr. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 123: 988–992.Google Scholar
  29. Krueger, C.C. B. May. 1991. Ecological and genetic effects of salmonid introduction in North America. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48(Suppl. 1): 66–77.Google Scholar
  30. Larson, G.L. S.F. Moore. 1985. Encroachment of exotic rainbow trout into stream populations of native brook trout in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 114: 195–203.Google Scholar
  31. Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf K.L. Knudsen. 1983. Consistently high meristic counts in natural hybrids between brook trout and bull trout. Syst. Zool. 32: 369–376.Google Scholar
  32. Likness, G.A. P.J. Graham. 1988. Westslope cutthroat trout in Montana: life history, status, and management. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 4: 53–60.Google Scholar
  33. Lohr, S.C. J.L. West. 1992. Microhabitat selection by brook and rainbow trout in a southern Appalachian stream. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 121: 729–736.Google Scholar
  34. MacCrimmon, H.R. J.S. Campbell. 1969. World distribution of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 26: 1699–1725.Google Scholar
  35. Markle, D.F. 1992. Evidence of bull charr X brook charr hybrids in Oregon. pp. 58–67. In: P.J. Howell D.V. Buchanan (ed.) Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.Google Scholar
  36. Morse, D.H. 1974. Niche breadth as a function of social dominance. Amer. Nat. 108: 818–830.Google Scholar
  37. Nakano, S. 1995a. Competitive interactions for foraging microhabitats in a size-structured interspecific dominance hierarchy of two sympatric stream salmonids in a natural habitat. Can. J. Zool. 73: 1845–1854.Google Scholar
  38. Nakano, S. 1995b. Individual differences in resource use, growth and emigration under the influence of a dominance hierarchy in fluvial red-spotted masu salmon in a natural habitat. J. Anim. Ecol. 64: 75–84.Google Scholar
  39. Nakano, S., K.D. Fausch, T. Furukawa-Tanaka, K. Maekawa H. Kawanabe. 1992. Resource utilization by bull char and cutthroat trout in a mountain stream in Montana, U.S.A. Japan. J. Ichthyol. 39: 211–217.Google Scholar
  40. Nakano, S. T. Furukawa-Tanaka. 1994. Intra-and interspecific dominance hierarchies and variation in foraging tactics of two species of stream-dwelling chars. Ecol. Res. 9: 9–20.Google Scholar
  41. Orth, D.J. 1983. Aquatic habitat measurements. pp. 61–84. In: L.A. Nielsen D.L. Johnson (ed.) Fisheries Techniques, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda.Google Scholar
  42. Ratliff, D.E. P.J. Howell. 1992. The status of bull charr populations in Oregon. pp. 10–17. In: P.J. Howell D.V. Buchanan (ed.) Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.Google Scholar
  43. Schoener, T.W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. Amer. Nat. 122: 240–285.Google Scholar
  44. Tanida, K., K. Yamashita A. Rossiter. 1985. A portable current meter for field use. Japan. J. Limnol. 46: 219–221.Google Scholar
  45. Wang, L. R.J. White. 1994. Competition between wild brown trout and hatchery greenback cutthroat trout of largely wild parentage. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 14: 475–487.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fish of North America: endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Fisheries 14(6): 2–20.Google Scholar
  47. Ziller, J.S. 1992. Distribution and relative abundance of bull charr in the Sprague River subbasin, Oregon. pp. 18–29. In: P.J. Howell D.V. Buchanan (ed.) Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shigeru Nakano
    • 1
  • Satoshi Kitano
    • 2
  • Katsuki Nakai
    • 3
  • Kurt D. Fausch
    • 4
  1. 1.Tomakomai Research StationHokkaido University ForestsTakaoka, Tomakomai, HokkaidoJapan
  2. 2.Research Institute of North Pacific Fisheries, Faculty of FisheriesHokkaido UniversityHakodate, HokkaidoJapan
  3. 3.Lake Biwa Museum Project OfficeShiga Prefecture Board of EducationOtsu, ShigaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Fishery and Wildlife BiologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsU.S.A

Personalised recommendations