Difference between revisions of "Rainbow trout / humpback chub predation studies"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 67: Line 67:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 +
 +
'''2018'''
 +
*[https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10216 Ward et al., 2018, Are hatchery‐reared rainbow trout and brown trout effective predators on juvenile native fish?: North American Journal of Fisheries Management]
  
 
'''2017'''
 
'''2017'''
*[https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1951&context=wats_facpub Pine et al. Growth of Endangered Humpback Chub in Relation to Temperature and Discharge in the Lower Colorado River. USU Watershed Sciences Faculty Publications]
+
*[https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1951&context=wats_facpub Pine et al. 2017. Growth of Endangered Humpback Chub in Relation to Temperature and Discharge in the Lower Colorado River. USU Watershed Sciences Faculty Publications]
  
 
'''2015'''
 
'''2015'''

Revision as of 14:08, 25 September 2018


A brown trout that had eaten a 10" rainbow trout

Introductions of nonnative salmonids, such as rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and brown trout Salmo trutta, have affected native fishes worldwide in unforeseen and undesirable ways. Predation and other interactions with nonnative rainbow trout and brown trout have been hypothesized as contributing to the decline of native fishes (including the endangered humpback chub Gila cypha) in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon. A multiyear study was conducted to remove nonnative fish from a 15-km segment of the Colorado River near the Little Colorado River confluence. We evaluated how sediment, temperature, fish prey availability, and predator abundance influenced the incidence of piscivory (IP) by nonnative salmonids. Study objectives were addressed through spatial (upstream and downstream of the Little Colorado River confluence) and temporal (seasonal and annual) comparisons of prey availability and predator abundance. Data were then evaluated by modeling the quantity of fish prey ingested by trout during the first 2 years (2003–2004) of the mechanical removal period. Field effort resulted in the capture of 20,000 nonnative fish, of which 90% were salmonids. Results indicated that the brown trout IP was higher (8–70%) than the rainbow trout IP (0.5–3.3%); however, rainbow trout were 50 times more abundant than brown trout in the study area. We estimated that during the study period, over 30,000 fish (native and nonnative species combined) were consumed by rainbow trout (21,641 fish) and brown trout (11,797 fish). On average, rainbow trout and brown trout ingested 85% more native fish than nonnative fish in spite of the fact that native fish constituted less than 30% of the small fish available in the study area. Turbidity may mediate piscivory directly by reducing prey detection, but this effect was not apparent in our data, as rainbow trout IP was greater when suspended sediment levels (range = 5.9–20,000 mg/L) were higher. [1]

--
--
--

Updates

RBT BT piscivory.jpg

Links and Information

Projects


Presentations and Papers

2018

2017

2015

2013

2012

2011

Other Stuff