Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 13, Issue 13, pp 2443–2452 | Cite as

Spawning habitat enhancement in the European bullhead (Cottus gobio), an endangered freshwater fish in degraded lowland rivers

  • Guy Knaepkens
  • Liesbet Bruyndoncx
  • Johan Coeck
  • Marcel Eens


Due to river regulation, the natural habitat of the European bullhead (Cottus gobio) has been degraded and often there is an apparent lack of suitable spawning substrates (hard objects like stones). Addition of artificial structures to degraded habitats may be a very promising tool for habitat enhancement. In this study, we evaluated the use of ceramic tiles as artificial spawning substrates in canalised and (remaining) meandering parts of anthropogenically perturbated lowland rivers in Flanders (northern part of Belgium). Furthermore, we examined whether water depth and velocity were important determinants for the choice of tiles in these different river trajectories. Tiles were successfully used by the bullhead as spawning substrates. In the meandering parts of the river, the number of egg deposits was significantly positively correlated with water depth, while in canalised river parts, water depth and velocity were of no importance for tile usage. In general, supplementation of rivers with artificial substrates like tiles may be a promising, inexpensive and easy-to-use enhancement technique for degraded bullhead spawning habitat.

Artificial spawning structure Conservation Cottidae Cottus gobio Fisheries management Habitat rehabilitation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bisazza A. and Marconato A. 1988. Female mate choice,male–male competition and parental care inthe river bullhead Cottus gobio L. (Pisces,Cottidae). Animal Behaviour 36: 1352–1360.Google Scholar
  2. Collares-Pereira M.J., Coelho M.M. and Cowx I.G. 2002. Conservation of Freshwater Fishes: Options for the Future. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Cowx I.G. 2000. Management and Ecology of River Fisheries. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Cowx I.G. and Welcomme R.L. 1998. Rehabilitation of Rivers for Fish. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  5. DeWaal L., Large A.R.G. and Wade M. 1998. Rehabilitation of Rivers: Principles and Implementation. John Wiley & Son Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  6. Frissel C.A. and Nawa R.K. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of arti cial habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 182–197.Google Scholar
  7. Gillet C. and Dubois J.P. 1995. A survey of the spawning of perch (Perce fluviatilis), pike (Esox lucius)and roach (Rutilus rutilus), using artificial spawning substrates in lakes. Hydrobiologia 300: 409–415.Google Scholar
  8. Johnston C.E. 2001. Nest site selection and aspects of the reproductive biology of the pygmy sculpin(Cottus paulus) in Coldwater Spring,Calhoun County,Alabama. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 10: 118–122.Google Scholar
  9. Knaepkens G., Bruyndoncx L., Bervoets L. and Eens M. 2002. The presence of arti cial stones predicts the occurrence of the European bullhead (Cottus gobio) in a regulated lowland river in Flanders (Belgium). Ecology of Freshwater Fish 11: 203–206.Google Scholar
  10. Littell R.C., Milliken G.A., Stroup W.W. and Wolfinger R.D. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  11. Matthews W.J. 1998. Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Meffe G.K. and Carroll C.R. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Morris D. 1955. The reproductive behaviour of the river bullhead (Cottus gobio L.), with special reference to the fanning activity. Behaviour 7: 1–32.Google Scholar
  14. Natsumeda T. 1999. Year-round local movements of the Japanese fluvial bullhead, Cottus polux (large egg type),with special reference to the distribution of spawning nests. Ichthyological Research 46: 43–48.Google Scholar
  15. Piller K.R. and Burr B.M. 1999. Reproductive biology and spawning habitat supplementation of the relict darter, Etheostoma chienense, a federally endangered species. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55: 145–155.Google Scholar
  16. Punchard N.T., Perrow M.R. and Jowitt A.J.D. 2000. Fish habitat associations,community structure,density and biomass in natural and channelised lowland streams in the catchment of the River Wensum, UK. In: Cowx I.G. (ed.) Management and Ecology of River Fisheries. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK,pp.143–157.Google Scholar
  17. Smyly W.J.P. 1957. The life-history of the bullhead or Miller's thumb (Cottus gobio L.). Proceedings of the Zoological Society London 128: 431–453.Google Scholar
  18. Utzinger J., Roth C. and Peter A. 1998. Effects of environmental parameters on the distribution of bullhead (Cottus gobio )with particular consideration of the effects of obstructions. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 882–892.Google Scholar
  19. Vandelannoote A., Yseboodt R., Bruylants B., Verheyen R., Coeck J., Maes J., Belpaire C., Van Thuyne G., Denayer B., Beyens J., De Charleroy D. and Vandenabeele P. 1998. Atlas van de Vlaamse Beeken Riviervissen. WEL v.z.w., Wijnegem, Belgium.Google Scholar
  20. Zar J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Knaepkens
    • 1
  • Liesbet Bruyndoncx
    • 1
  • Johan Coeck
    • 2
  • Marcel Eens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of AntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Institute of Nature ConservationBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations