OSU Navigation Bar

The Ohio State University University Libraries Knowledge Bank

The Knowledge Bank is scheduled for regular maintenance on Sunday, April 20th, 8:00 am to 12:00 pm EDT. During this time users will not be able to register, login, or submit content.

Competition between Larval Fishes in Reservoirs: The Role of Relative Timing of Appearance

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/37942

Show full item record

Files Size Format View
20071201-AEL-SteinR-Competition.pdf 218.5Kb PDF View/Open

Title: Competition between Larval Fishes in Reservoirs: The Role of Relative Timing of Appearance
Creators: Garvey, James E.; Stein, Roy A.
Keywords: larval fishes
larval survival
bluegill growth and survival
Ohio reservoirs
gizzard shad
Issue Date: 1998
Citation: Garvey, James E.; Stein, Roy A. "Competition between Larval Fishes in Reservoirs: The Role of Relative Timing of Appearance," Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 127, no. 6, 1998, pp. 1021-1039.
Abstract: In small, hypereutrophic reservoirs (<100 ha; >100 mg total phosphorus/L), larval gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum and threadfin shad D. petenense (henceforth, shad) reach high densities in the limnetic zone, virtually eliminate zooplankton, and perhaps compromise success of other planktivorous larvae, such as bluegill Lepomis macrochirus. Because relative timing of appearance of shad and bluegills probably influences their relative success, we quantified densities of fish larvae and zooplankton during spring through summer in three reservoirs across 8 years (1987–1994), and we conducted three hatchery experiments with varying larval appearance times and gizzard shad densities in plastic bags (1 m3). When shad were abundant in reservoirs, bluegill abundance often peaked either at the same time (36% of reservoirs and years combined) or after (40% of reservoirs and years combined) shad peaks. When gizzard shad were placed in bags 2 weeks before bluegills (N = 1 experiment), they depleted zooplankton, reducing growth (~0.075 g · g-1· d-1) but not survival of bluegills. In experiments (N = 2) in which both species were added simultaneously, zooplankton declined only slightly with gizzard shad, and there was little effect on bluegill growth (~0.21 g · g-1· d-1) and survival; in general, gizzard shad growth declined with time and increasing gizzard shad density. Based on experiments, bluegill success should vary among reservoirs and years as a function of their appearance relative to gizzard shad. In reservoirs, zooplankton availability and bluegill abundances were consistently low during years when gizzard shad dominated reservoir fish assemblages. Because gizzard shad probably reduce bluegill success in hypereutrophic Ohio reservoirs, management strategies that reduce gizzard shad should improve bluegill success.
Description: Funding for this project was provided by National Science Foundation grants DEB 9407859 and DEB 9107173 to R.A.S and Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, project F-69-P, administered jointly by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Ohio Division of Wildlife. A Presidential Fellowship from The Ohio State University supported J.E.G. during part of this research.
ISSN: 0002-8487 (print)
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/37942
Bookmark and Share