Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 490, Issue 1–3, pp 11–21 | Cite as

Impact of black bullhead (Ameiurus melas) on turbidity in a diked wetland

  • Eugene C. Braig
  • David L. Johnson
Article

Abstract

Benthivorous fish in shallow, aquatic systems have been correlated with increased turbidity and declines in macrophyte production and wildlife use. Bullheads have been credited with increasing turbidity, but this has been seldom tested and has not been studied in a diked marsh. To assess the relationships of black bullhead (Ameiurus melas) and turbidity, we assembled mesocosmsin the Show Pool Management Unit of The Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, OH, U.S.A. We stocked treatment enclosures with different biomasses of black bullhead at weekly intervals. Mean turbidity within treatment enclosures was significantly higher than within controls but remained lower than that of the open marsh. Both surface and bottom turbidity increased with adult and juvenile black bullhead biomass. Turbidity increased with fine sand concentration only in the presence of juvenile fish. Wind speed and direction were significant influences on the turbidity of the open marsh, but not within control enclosures. That treatment turbidity – even at extreme biomasses – remained significantly lower than the turbidity of the open marsh implicates fetch in having a greater influence on a marsh's turbidity than the presence of black bullhead. The greater impact of benthivorous fish on turbidity within shallow systems may be an indirect one through the destruction of macrophytes and subsequent destabilization of unconsolidated substrates.

turbidity wetland benthivore black bullhead substrate mesocosm 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bookhout, T. A., K. E. Bednarik & R. W. Kroll, 1989. The Great Lakes marshes. In Smith, L.M., R. L. Pederson & R. M. Kaminski (eds), Habitat Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America. Texas University Press, Lubbock: 131–156.Google Scholar
  2. Bouffard, S. H. & M. A. Hanson, 1997. Fish in waterfowl marshes: waterfowl managers' perspective. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 25: 146–157.Google Scholar
  3. Breder, C. M., 1939. Variations in the nesting habits of Ameiurus nebulosus (Le Sueur). Zoologica 24: 367–377.Google Scholar
  4. Breukelaar, A. W., E. H. R. R. Lammens, J. G. P. K. Breteler & I. Tátrai, 1994. Effects of benthivorous bream (Abramis brama) and carp (Cyprinus carpio) on sediment resuspension and concentrations of nutrients and chlorophyll a. Freshwat. Biol. 32: 113–121.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, R. D. & B. A. Branson, 1978. Ecology and population dynamics of the black bullhead, Ictalurus melas (Rafinesque), in central Kentucky. Tulane studies Zool. and Bot. 20:99–136.Google Scholar
  6. Cline, J. M., T. L. East & S. T. Threlkeld, 1994. Fish interactions with the sediment–water interface. Hydrobiologia 275/276: 301–311.Google Scholar
  7. Dreimanis, A., 1962. Quantitative gasometric determination of calcite and dolomite by using the Chittick apparatus. J. sedimentary Petrology 32: 520–529.Google Scholar
  8. Hamilton, D. P. & S. F. Mitchell, 1997. Wave-induced shear stress, plant nutrients and chlorophyll in seven shallow lakes. Freshwat. Biol. 38: 159–168.Google Scholar
  9. Hanson, M. A. & M. G. Butler, 1994a. Responses of plankton, turbidity, and macrophytes to biomanipulation in a shallow prairie. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 51: 1180–1188.Google Scholar
  10. Hanson, M. A. & M. G. Butler, 1994b. Responses to food web manipulation in a shallow waterfowl lake. Hydrobiologia 279/280: 457–466.Google Scholar
  11. Hanson, M. A. & M. G. Butler, 1990. Early responses of plankton and turbidity to biomanipulation in a shallow prairie lake. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 317–327.Google Scholar
  12. Havens, K. E., 1991. Fish-induced sediment resuspension: effects on algal biomass and productivity in a shallow hyper-eutrophic lake. J. Plankton Res. 13: 1163–1176.Google Scholar
  13. Havens, K. E., 1993, Responses to experimental fish manipulations in a shallow, hypereutrophic lake: the relative importance of benthic nutrient recycling and trophic cascade. Hydrobiologia 254: 73–80.Google Scholar
  14. Hayes, J. W., M. J. Rutledge, B. L. Chisnall & F. J. Ward, 1992. Effects of elevated turbidity on shallow lake fish communities. Envir. Biol. Fishes 35: 149–168.Google Scholar
  15. Herdendorf, C. E., 1987. The ecology of the coastal marshes of western Lake Erie: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological report 85.Google Scholar
  16. Herdendorf, C. E., 1992. Lake Erie coastal wetlands: an overview. J. Great Lakes Res. 18: 533–551.Google Scholar
  17. Hosper, S. H. & E. Jagtman, 1990. Biomanipulation additional to nutrient control for restoration of shallow lakes in The Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 523–534.Google Scholar
  18. Hosper, H. & M-L. Meijer, 1993. Biomanipulation, will it work for your lake? A simple test for the assessment of chances for clear water, following drastic fish-stock reduction in shallow, eutrophic lakes. Ecol. Eng. 2: 63–72.Google Scholar
  19. Jeppesen, E., J. P. Jensen, M. Sondergaard, T. Lauridsen, L. J. Pedersen & L. Jensen, 1997. Top-down control in freshwater lakes: the role of nutrient state, submerged macrophytes and water depth. Hydrobiologia 342: 151–164.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, D. L., 1989. Lake Erie wetlands: fisheries considerations. In Kreiger, K. A. (ed.), Lake Erie and Its Estuarine Systems: Issues, Resources, Status, and Management. NOAA Estuary-ofthe-month Seminar Series No. 14, 4May 1988.Washington, DC: 257–273.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, D. L, W. E. Lynch Jr. & T. W. Morrison, 1997a. Fish communities in a diked Lake Erie wetland and an adjacent undiked area. Wetlands 17(1): 43–54.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. L., T. W. Morrison, V. L. McLean & S. T. Zezula, 1997b. Alternative management strategies for diked marshes: fi-nal report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Service; Ohio Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Ohio State University School of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH: 311 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Kilmer, V. L. & L. T. Alexander, 1949. Methods of making mechanical analysis of soils. Soil Sci. 68: 15–24.Google Scholar
  24. King, D. R. & G. S. Hunt, 1967. Effect of carp on vegetation in a Lake Erie marsh. J. Wildlife Manage. 31: 181–188.Google Scholar
  25. Kolterman, B. F., 1990. Effects of common carp and black bullheads on sago pondweed. M.S. thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings: 100 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Kroll, R. W., J. F. Gottgens & B. P. Swartz, 1997. Wild rice to riprap: 120 years of habitat changes and management of a Lake Erie coastal marsh.Transactions of the 1997 North amer. Wildlife Natural Resources Conference: 490–500.Google Scholar
  27. LaMotte Company. LaMotte Turbidimeter Operator's Manual: Model 2008. LaMotte Company, Chestertown, Maryland: 11 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Lassen, C., N. P. Revsbech & O. Pedersen, 1997. Macrophyte development and resuspension regulate the photosynthesis and production of benthic microalgae. Hydrobiologia 350: 1–11.Google Scholar
  29. Littel, R. C., G. A. Milliken, W. W. Stroup & R. D. Wolfinger, 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  30. Lougheed, V. L., B. Crosbie & P. Chow-Fraser, 1998. Predictions on the effect of carp exclusion on water quality, zooplankton and submergent macrophytes in a Great Lakes wetland. Can. J. Fish aquat. Sci. 55:1189–1197.Google Scholar
  31. McLean, V. L., 1996. Carp impacts on diked wetland communities. M.S. thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus: 145 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Meijer, M. L., M. W. de Haan, A. W. Breukelaar & H. Buiteveld, 1990. Is reduction of the benthivorous fish an important cause of high transparency following biomanipulation in shallow lakes? Hydrobiologia 200/201: 303–315.Google Scholar
  33. Minitab Inc., 1996. Minitab users guide, release 11 for windows. Minitab Inc., State College, PA.Google Scholar
  34. Mitsch, W. J., 1992. Combining ecosystem and landscape approaches to Great Lakes wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res. 18: 552–570.Google Scholar
  35. Mitsch, W. J., B. C. Reeder & D. Robb, 1994. Modelling ecosystem and landscape scales of Lake Erie coastal wetlands. In Mitsch, W. J. (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam: 563–574.Google Scholar
  36. Mjelde, M. & B. A. Faafeng, 1997. Ceratophyllum demersum hampers phytoplankton development in some small Norwegian lakes over a wide range of phosphorus concentrations and geographical latitude. Freshwat. Biol. 37: 355–365.Google Scholar
  37. Moss, B., 1990. Engineering and biological approaches to the restoration from eutrophication of shallow lakes in which aquatic plant communities are important components. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 367–377.Google Scholar
  38. Muskgrave, D. K. & G. D. Derringer, 1985. Soil survey of Ottawa Co., Ohio. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Consertvation Service in cooperation w/ Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil and Ohio Agricultural Resource and Devlopment Center.Google Scholar
  39. Nelson, D. W. & L. E. Sommers, 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Page, A. L., R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeney (eds), Methods of Soil Analysis, pt 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, Agronomy Monograph 9, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI: 539–579.Google Scholar
  40. Ozimek, T., R. D. Gulati & E. Van Donk, 1990. Can macrophytes be useful in biomanipulationof lakes? The Lake Zwemlust example. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 399–407.Google Scholar
  41. Perrow, M. R., M. L. Meijer, P. Dawidowicz & H. Coops, 1997. Biomanipulation in the shallow lakes: state of the art. Hydrobiologia 342: 355–365.Google Scholar
  42. Post, G. J., 1956. A study of three methods for determination of organic carbon in Ohio soils of several great groups and the profile distribution of carbon-nitrogen ratios. MS thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  43. Prince, H. H., 1985. Avian communities in controlled and uncontrolled Great Lakes wetlands. In Prince H. H. & F. M. D’Itri (eds), Coastal Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI: 99–119.Google Scholar
  44. Qin, J. & S. T. Threlkeld, 1990. Experimental comparison of the effects of benthivorous fish and planktivorous fish on plankton community structure. Arch. Hydrobiol. 119: 121–141.Google Scholar
  45. Richardson, M. J. & F. G. Whoriskey, 1992. Factors influencing the production of turbidity by goldfish (Carassius auratus). Can. J. Zool. 70: 1585–1589.Google Scholar
  46. Richardson, M. J., F. G. Whoriskey & L. H. Roy, 1995. Turbidity generation and biological impacts of an exotic fish Carassius auratus, introduced into shallow seasonally anoxic ponds. J. Fish Biol. 47: 576–585.Google Scholar
  47. Riemann, B., K. Christoffersen, H. J. Jensen, J. P. Müller, C. Lindegaard & S. Bosselmann, 1990. Ecological consequences of a manual reduction of roach and bream in a eutrophic temperate lake. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 241–250.Google Scholar
  48. Robb, D. M., 1989. Diked and undiked freshwater coastal marshes of western Lake Erie. M.S. thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  49. Robb, D. & W. J. Mitsch, 1989. Hydroperiods and water chemistry of diked and undiked wetlands in western Lake Erie. In Mitsch, W. J. (ed.), Wetlands of Ohio's Coastal Lake Erie. Technical report to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the Ohio Sea Grant Program: 113–134.Google Scholar
  50. SAS Institute, Inc., 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC: 1028 pp.Google Scholar
  51. SAS Institute Inc., 1993. SAS Companion for the Microsoft Windows Environment, Version 6, First edn. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC: 356 pp.Google Scholar
  52. Scheffer, M., 1990. Multiplicity of stable states in freshwater systems. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 475–486.Google Scholar
  53. Scheffer, M., S. H. Hosper, M-L. Meijer, B. Moss & E. Jeppesen, 1993. Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 275–279.Google Scholar
  54. Sidorkewicj, N. S., A. C. L. Cazorla & O. A. Fernandez, 1996. The interaction between Cyprinus carpio L. and Potamogeton pectinatus L. under aquarium conditions. Hydrobiologia 340: 271–275.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, C. L., 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany: 522 pp.Google Scholar
  56. Tarzwell, C. M., 1941. The fish population of a small pond in northern Alabama. In Transactions of the fifth American wildlife conference. Wildlife Institute, Washington, DC: 245–251.Google Scholar
  57. Todd, D. K. (ed.), 1970. The Water Encyclopedia. Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, NY.Google Scholar
  58. Trautman, M. B., 1981. The Fishes of Ohio, 2nd edn. The Ohio State University Press, Columbus: 782 pp.Google Scholar
  59. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, 1984. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples, Method 3A. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  60. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, 1972a. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples, Method 6A2B. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  61. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, 1972b. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples, Method 8Cla. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  62. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, 1972c. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures For Collecting Soil Samples, Method 8Cle. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  63. Van Donk, E., M. P. Grimm, R. D. Gulati & J. P. G. Klein Breteler, 1990a. Whole-lake food-web manipulation as a means to study community interactions in a small ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 275–289.Google Scholar
  64. Van Donk, E., M. P. Grimm, R. D. Gulati, P. G. M. Heuts, W. A. De Kloet & L. Van Liere, 1990b. First attempt to apply wholelake food-web manipulation on a large scale in The Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 291–301.Google Scholar
  65. Welcomme, R. L. (ed.), 1981. Register of International Transfers of Inland Fish Species. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 213: 120 pp.Google Scholar
  66. Welcomme, R.L. (ed.), 1988. International Introductions of Inland Aquatic Species. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 294: 318 pp.Google Scholar
  67. Wilber, C. G., 1983. Turbidity in the Aquatic Environment. C.C. Thomas, Springfield, IL: 133 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene C. Braig
    • 1
  • David L. Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Natural ResourcesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations