Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 411–419 | Cite as

Habitat partitioning in a community of darters in the Elk River, West Virginia

  • Stuart A. Welsh
  • Sue A. Perry


Microhabitat use and habitat partitioning for 10 darter species (Percidae: Etheostomatini) were studied by direct observation (snorkeling) at five sites in the Elk River drainage, West Virginia, U.S.A. We used canonical discriminant analysis and univariate tests to determine microhabitat variables that were important in segregating species. Darter species were segregated by depth, substrate size, and water velocity. In addition, Percina typically occurred in the water column, whereas species of Etheostoma were benthic and segregated by occurring under, between, and on top of rocks.

resource use microhabitat Percina Etheostoma fishes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Bain, M.B. 1985. Quantifying stream substrate for habitat analysis studies. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manag. 5: 499–506.Google Scholar
  2. Chipps, S.R., 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. Fisher, W.L. & W.D. Pearson. 1987. Patterns of resource utilization among four species of darters in three central Kentucky streams. pp 69–76. In: W.J. Matthews & D.C. Heins (ed.) Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  4. Greenberg, L.A. 1991. Habitat use and feeding behavior of thirteen species of benthic stream fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 31: 389–401.Google Scholar
  5. Hlohowskyj, I. & A.M. White. 1983. Food resource partitioning and selectivity by the greenside, rainbow, and fantail darters (Pisces: Percidae). Ohio J. Sci. 83: 201–208.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Ingersoll, C.G. & D.L. Claussen. 1984. Temperature selection and critical thermal maxima of the fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare, and the johnny darter, E. nigrum, related to habitat and season. Env. Biol. Fish. 11: 131–138.Google Scholar
  8. Kessler, R.K., A.F. Casper & G.K. Weddle. 1995. Temporal variation in microhabitat use and spatial relations in the benthic fish community of a stream. Amer. Midl. Nat. 134: 361–370.Google Scholar
  9. Kessler, R.K. & J.H. Thorp. 1993. Microhabitat segregation of the threatened spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum) and closely related orangefin darter (Ebellum) Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 1084–1091.Google Scholar
  10. Martin, F.D. 1984. Diets of four sympatric species of Etheostoma (Pisces: Percidae) from southern Indiana: interspecific and intraspecific multiple comparisons. Env. Biol. Fish. 11: 113–120.Google Scholar
  11. Matthews, W.J. 1985. Critical current speeds and microhabitats of the benthic fishes Percina roanoka and Etheostoma flabellare. Env. Biol. Fish. 12: 303–308.Google Scholar
  12. Page, L.M. 1978. Redescription, distribution, variation, and life history notes on Percina macrocephala (Percidae). Copeia 1978: 655–664.Google Scholar
  13. Page, L.M. & D.L. Swofford. 1984. Morphological correlates of ecological specialization in darters. Env. Biol. Fish. 11: 139–159.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Ross, S.T. 1986. Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 1986: 352–388.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Simonson, T.D. 1993. Correspondence and relative precision of stream habitat features estimated at two spatial scales. J. Freshw. Eco. 8: 363–373.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Stauffer, J.R., J.M. Boltz & L.R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. 389 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Stauffer, J.R., J.M. Boltz, K.A. Kellogg & E.S. van Snik. 1996. Microhabitat partitioning in a diverse assemblage of darters in the Allegheny River system. Env. Biol. Fish. 46: 37–44.Google Scholar
  21. Stiles, R.A. 1972. The comparative ecology of three species of Nothonotus (Percidae: Etheostoma) in Tennessee's Little River. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 96 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Winn, H.E. 1958. Comparative reproductive behavior and ecology of fourteen species of darters (Pisces-Percidae). Ecol. Monog. 28: 155–191.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart A. Welsh
    • 1
  • Sue A. Perry
    • 1
  1. 1.West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Biological Resources Division, U.S.G.S.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations