DOCSLIB.ORG

New Insight Into the Spawning Behavior of Lake Trout, Salvelinus Namaycush, from a Recovering Population in the Laurentian Great Lakes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Insight Into the Spawning Behavior of Lake Trout, Salvelinus Namaycush, from a Recovering Population in the Laurentian Great Lakes Environ Biol Fish DOI 10.1007/s10641-014-0247-6 New insight into the spawning behavior of lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, from a recovering population in the Laurentian Great Lakes T. R . B i n d e r & H. T. Thompson & A. M. Muir & S. C. Riley & J. E. Marsden & C. R. Bronte & C. C. Krueger Received: 3 July 2013 /Accepted: 18 February 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Spawning behavior of lake trout, Salvelinus expand the current conceptual model. Lake trout namaycush, is poorly understood, relative to stream- spawning consisted of at least four distinct behaviors: dwelling salmonines. Underwater video records of hovering, traveling, sinking, and gamete release. spawning in a recovering population from the Hovering is a new courtship behavior that has not been Drummond Island Refuge (Lake Huron) represent the previously described. The apparent concentration of first reported direct observations of lake trout spawning hovering near the margin of the spawning grounds in the Laurentian Great Lakes. These observations pro- suggests that courtship and mate selection might be vide new insight into lake trout spawning behavior and isolated from the spawning act (i.e., traveling, sinking, and gamete release). Moreover, we interpret jockeying for position displayed by males during traveling as a T. R. Binder (*) unique form of male-male competition that likely Great Lakes Fishery Commission and Michigan State evolved in concert with the switch from redd-building University, Hammond Bay Biological Station, 11188 Ray Rd., Millersburg, MI 49759, USA to itinerant spawning in lake trout. Unlike previous e-mail: [email protected] models, which suggested that intra-sexual competition and mate selection do not occur in lake trout, our model H. T. Thompson includes both and is therefore consistent with evolution- United States Geological Survey, Hammond Bay Biological Station, 11188 Ray Rd., ary theory, given that the sex ratio on spawning grounds Millersburg, MI 49759, USA is skewed heavily towards males. The model presented : in this paper is intended as a working hypothesis, and A. M. Muir C. C. Krueger further revision may become necessary as we gain a Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2100 Commonwealth Blvd. Suite 100, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, more complete understanding of lake trout spawning USA behavior. S. C. Riley . Great Lakes Science Center, United States Geological Survey, Keywords Reproductive ecology Itinerant spawning 1451 Green Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA Courtship . Male-male competition J. E. Marsden The Rubenstein School of Environment and Resources, University of Vermont, Introduction 308D Aiken Center, Burlington, VT 05405, USA Lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, were the apex pred- C. R. Bronte United States Fish and Wildlife Service, ator in the Laurentian Great Lakes, and supported a 2661 Scott Tower Drive, New Franklin, WI 54229, USA valuable commercial fishery until the 1950s. However, Environ Biol Fish after invasion of the upper Great Lakes by predatory sea rocky substrates with clean interstitial spaces where lamprey, Petromyzon marinus, lake trout populations, embryos incubate over winter (Gunn 1995; Marsden already in decline due to expanding commercial harvest et al. 1995). Males mature at younger ages, arrive on (Hile 1949;Hileetal.1951), were lost from all but a few spawning grounds earlier and stay longer, and are gen- regions of lakes Superior (Hansen et al. 1995)and erally present in higher numbers than females (Royce Huron (Eshenroder et al. 1995). Despite intensive sea 1951;Eschmeyer1955; Martin 1957;McCrimmon lamprey control (Smith and Tibbles 1980) and more 1958;DeRoche1969; Peck 1986;Bronteetal.2007; than 50 years of stocking juvenile lake trout, self- Muir et al. 2012b). Females arrive on spawning grounds sustaining populations have only recovered where rem- after males and appear to remain for a shorter duration nant stocks remained after the crash, in Lake Superior than males. However, contrary to reproductive theory, (Hansen 1999;Bronteetal.2003) and in Parry Sound, which predicts that males should compete for females Lake Huron (Reid et al. 2001). In lakes Michigan, Erie when the sex ratio on spawning grounds is skewed and Ontario, rehabilitation has been slow and popula- towards males (Clutton-Brock and Parker 1992; tions continue to rely on stocking (Muir et al. 2012a). Kvarnemo and Ahnesjö 1996), observations of agonis- However, catches of wild lake trout juveniles and adults tic interactions among males are rare (Royce 1951; in annual assessments over the last decade suggest that Esteve et al. 2008;Muiretal.2012b). reproduction is widespread in Lake Huron (Riley et al. Three distinct spawning behaviors have been previ- 2007;Heetal.2012) and increasing in Lake Michigan ously identified from observations of lake trout (Hanson et al. 2013). For example, in the Drummond spawning at a shallow-water (<1 m) site in Kushog Island area of northern Lake Huron, wild fish now Lake, in southern Ontario (Esteve et al. 2008): 1) trav- comprise about 50 % of the adult spawning population eling, 2) sinking, and 3) gamete release. Within the (He et al. 2012), but population density is still below context of mating ritual, these behaviors are expressed historic levels. The recent reproductive success of lake as follows. Courtship begins with traveling, wherein a trout in Lake Huron presents a useful opportunity to female swims rapidly over spawning grounds with one understand the reproductive ecology of lake trout from or more attending males alongside or behind. Males a recovering population in the Great Lakes. quiver next to her and brush and nibble at her vent Compared to stream-spawning salmonines, relatively region. After making several large loops, the female little is known about spawning behavior of lake trout. and attending male(s) stop swimming and sink slowly Direct observations of spawning behavior are rare be- to the substrate. Once on the substrate, the group quivers cause lake trout spawn mainly at night, in deeper water vigorously with jaws agape and release gametes into the than stream-spawning salmonines, and during a logisti- substrate. Following gamete release, which lasts only a cally challenging season for field observations when second or two, the group returns immediately to travel- autumn weather changes to winter. Most information ing and the cycle is repeated (Esteve et al. 2008). Muir comes primarily from studies in small inland lakes et al. (2012b) expanded that conceptual model, based on (Martin 1957;McCrimmon1958;Gunn1995; Esteve observations at Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories, et al. 2008). Most studies in the Great Lakes described to include splashing and porpoising display courtship, variables that affected timing and location of spawning and a novel display behavior that they termed ‘finning’. activity, and density, origin, and composition of recov- Finning involved two or more lake trout hovering or ering spawning populations, rather than spawning be- moving very slowly just beneath the surface of the havior (e.g., Eschmeyer 1955; Peck 1986; Marsden and water. The name ‘finning’ refers to the fully erect dorsal Krueger 1991; Selgeby et al. 1995;Bronteetal.2002; and adipose fins that conspicuously broke the water Claramunt and Jonas 2005). In the Great Lakes, lake surface. While jumping has been observed in studies trout spawn on shoals, although some historical popu- on other lakes (Merriman 1935; Royce 1951;Marsden lations were adfluvial (Loftus 1958). Spawning occurs and Krueger 1991), finning has not been observed out- mainly in October and November for the lean side of Great Bear Lake. This may indicate greater morphotype, but timing varies with latitude and weather dependence on visual courtship displays in Great Bear (DeRoche 1969; Peck 1986; Scott and Crossman 1998). Lake, a hypothesis supported by a greater degree of Unlike other salmonines, lake trout do not construct sexual dimorphism among lake trout populations in nests (i.e., redds). Lake trout deposit their eggs over Great Bear Lake, relative to more southern lakes (Muir Environ Biol Fish et al. 2012b). Alternatively, an absence of observations of high-quality spawning habitat (i.e., several layers of of finning elsewhere may be an artifact of most cobble substrate with clean interstitial spaces for over- spawning behavior studies being limited to spawning winter egg incubation) on the north-most tip of the east sites shallower than 1 m in depth (Merriman 1935; arm of Horseshoe Reef, a submerged drumlin on the Royce 1951; DeRoche 1969; Esteve et al. 2008). south side of Drummond Island (Fig. 1). The spawning In this paper, we describe the first reported observa- site is located on top of the reef in 3 to 4 m of water, tions of spawning behavior in a recovering population adjacent to a steep slope (~ 50°) where water depth of lake trout (lean morphotype) from the Laurentian increases from 4 to 10 m. An ongoing fine-scale acous- Great Lakes. Our objectives were first, to describe tic telemetry study on adult lake trout has identified this spawning behaviors of lake trout at Drummond Island, site as the most highly-used spawning site within the Lake Huron, in comparison to those observed else- 27 km2 study area, and recovery of fertilized eggs and where. Second, based on our observations in Lake emergent fry at this site in 2011, 2012, and 2013 indi- Huron, we revise the current conceptual framework for cated successful spawning (Binder unpubl. data). lake trout spawning behavior. The revised conceptual framework advances a foundation for development of hypotheses centered on understanding the evolution of Video observations the lake trout spawning strategy, which is unique among salmonines. Behaviors reported herein occurred at the peak of the spawning period, on 22 and 24 October 2012. Diver surveys 6 days earlier on 16 October found few lake Materials and methods trout at the site, although eggs were found in the sub- strate, which indicated that some spawning had already Study site occurred.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarki Utah) Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Is One of Three Cutthroat Trout Subspecies Native to Utah
    FISH Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) Bonneville cutthroat trout is one of three cutthroat trout subspecies native to Utah. Bonneville cutthroat trout historically occurred in the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville basin, which included portions of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming (Kershner 1995). The desiccation of Lake Bonneville into the smaller Great Salt Lake and fragmentation of other stream and lake habitats may have led to three slightly differentiated groups of Bonneville cutthroat trout. These groups are found in the Bonneville basin proper, the Bear River drainage, and the Snake Valley (Behnke 1992). There are five known populations of pure strain Bonneville cutthroat trout on the Fishlake National Forest inhabiting approximately 38 miles of stream habitat. There are several recently reintroduced populations, and several small potential remnant populations. Habitat for the Bonneville cutthroat trout is widely distributed and variable. It ranges from high elevation (3,500 m mean sea level) streams with coniferous and deciduous riparian trees to low elevation (1,000 m mean sea level) streams in sage-steppe grasslands containing herbaceous riparian zones. As such, Bonneville cutthroat trout have adapted to a broad spectrum of habitat conditions throughout their range (Kershner 1995). Sexual maturity is typically reached during the second year for males and the third year for females (May et al. 1978). Both the age at maturity and the annual timing of spawning vary geographically with elevation, temperature, and life history strategy. Lake resident trout may begin spawning at two years of age and usually continue throughout their lives, while adfluvial individuals may not spawn for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Trout Management Plan
    LAKE TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND HATCHERIES PREPARED BY PAUL JOHNSON REGIONAL FISHERIES BIOLOGIST REGION E MARCH 2001 LAKE TROUT LIFE HISTORY Description The lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) lacks the distinctive coloration of its close relative, the eastern brook trout. Lake trout are usually either dark green or grayish brown in color, with white or pale yellow bean-shaped spots. In clear waters lake trout are often so silvery that the white spots are difficult to see. In stained waters they are very dark, almost black. Generally, a narrow border of white is present along the anterior margins of the pectoral, pelvic, and anal fins. This is most pronounced during spawning; however, at no time is this border as accentuated as it is on the fins of the brook trout. Lake trout fins are not orange or orange-red, like those of the brook trout. Distribution Lake trout are distributed throughout Canada. In the United States their natural range was restricted to northern New England, the Great Lakes, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska. In Maine they were originally found in about 100 lakes throughout the State. However, lake trout have been successfully reared in hatcheries. Consequently, their range has been extended considerably in the United States. In Maine they have been introduced into waters from Aroostook County in the north, to York County in the south. Throughout their native range lake trout are known by a wide variety of common names. In Maine they are called togue, whereas in other parts of the country and Canada they are referred to as mackinaw, salmon trout, lakers, grey trout, namaycush, Great Falls char, or mountain trout.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Food Web MENT of C
    ATMOSPH ND ER A I C C I A N D A M E I C N O I S L T A R N A T O I I O T N A N U E .S C .D R E E PA M RT OM Lake Superior Food Web MENT OF C Sea Lamprey Walleye Burbot Lake Trout Chinook Salmon Brook Trout Rainbow Trout Lake Whitefish Bloater Yellow Perch Lake herring Rainbow Smelt Deepwater Sculpin Kiyi Ruffe Lake Sturgeon Mayfly nymphs Opossum Shrimp Raptorial waterflea Mollusks Amphipods Invasive waterflea Chironomids Zebra/Quagga mussels Native waterflea Calanoids Cyclopoids Diatoms Green algae Blue-green algae Flagellates Rotifers Foodweb based on “Impact of exotic invertebrate invaders on food web structure and function in the Great Lakes: NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 4840 S. State Road, Ann Arbor, MI A network analysis approach” by Mason, Krause, and Ulanowicz, 2002 - Modifications for Lake Superior, 2009. 734-741-2235 - www.glerl.noaa.gov Lake Superior Food Web Sea Lamprey Macroinvertebrates Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). An aggressive, non-native parasite that Chironomids/Oligochaetes. Larval insects and worms that live on the lake fastens onto its prey and rasps out a hole with its rough tongue. bottom. Feed on detritus. Species present are a good indicator of water quality. Piscivores (Fish Eaters) Amphipods (Diporeia). The most common species of amphipod found in fish diets that began declining in the late 1990’s. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pacific salmon species stocked as a trophy fish and to control alewife. Opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta). An omnivore that feeds on algae and small cladocerans.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Information for Lake Ontario Anglers
    Additional Information for Anglers 2020 Lake Ontario Stocking Decision Q: How will this stocking reduction impact fishing in 2020? A: The reductions being implemented in 2020 will have little impact on fishing in the near term as the fish that anglers will catch next year have already been stocked in the system. In addition, about 50% of the adult Chinook salmon in Lake Ontario are naturally reproduced or “wild” fish. Q: How will this impact fishing in the future? A: If alewife abundance continues to decline, the size of Chinook may decline, but angler success (i.e. catch rate) may remain high as Chinook salmon become more vulnerable to angling. Q: Are other fish species slated for reductions? A: Not at this time. Q: What are the actual numbers of fish being stocked? A: Even with these reductions, lake-wide salmon and trout stocking in Lake Ontario in 2020 will exceed 3.6 million fish, including approximately 1.1 million Chinook salmon, 755,000 rainbow trout/steelhead, 556,000 brown trout, 601,000 lake trout, 325,000 coho salmon and 200,000 yearling Atlantic salmon. Q: Why isn’t the stocking of other species of trout and salmon being reduced? A: While other trout and salmon species eat alewife, Chinook salmon consume the largest amount in the shortest timespan. Reducing Chinook salmon numbers provides the greatest reduction of alewife consumption in the short-term. Further reducing lake trout stocking is intended to provide more long-term relief, since they grow slower and live longer than Chinook salmon. Lake Ontario’s diversity of trout and salmon supports a world-class fishery, and managers want to maintain that diversity to the extent possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Market-Sized Cutthroat Trout Technical Report Western Regional Aquaculture Center
    Feeds for Production of Market-sized Cutthroat Trout Technical Report WESTERN REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTER Gary Fornshell, University of Idaho Christopher Myrick, Colorado State University Madison Powell, University of Idaho Wendy Sealey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture 1 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Christopher Myrick, Colorado State University Cheyenne Owens, Colorado State University Biswamitra Patro, University of Idaho Madison Powell, University of Idaho Pat Blaufuss, University of Idaho Tracy Kennedy, University of Idaho Wendy Sealey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Brian Ham, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Gary Fornshell, University of Idaho Jeremy Liley, Liley Fisheries, Inc. David Brock, Rangen, Inc. Jackie Zimmerman, Skretting USA Rick Barrows, Aquatic Feed Technologies, LLC Photo credits: Cover: Gary Fornshell Above: iStock.com/KaraGrubis 2 Table of Contents Introduction: Why Consider Cutthroat Trout? 1 Snake River Cutthroat Trout—A Culturable Cutthroat 2 Is Raising Fish for the Recreational Market Worthwhile? 3 Overcoming Challenges to Raising Cutthroat Trout 3 Fish Nutrition 101—A Primer on Feed Formulation 3 Feed Pellet Texture Matters 5 Cutthroat Trout Growth—Does It Match Rainbow Trout? 5 Thermal Growth Coefficient 5 Comparing Rainbow and Cutthroat Trout Performance 6 Suggested Readings 10 Acknowledgments 11 Figures 1. Snake River cutthroat trout. 1 2. Map showing the distribution of extant cutthroat trout 2 subspecies in the western United States. 3. Juvenile Snake River cutthroat trout ready for stocking. 3 4. Classic bell-shaped growth-temperature curve. 6 5. Sigmoid growth curve. Based on Fish Hatchery Management, Second Edition, Gary Wedemeyer, editor 7 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 EAGLE LAKE RAINBOW TROUT Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aquilarum
    EAGLE LAKE RAINBOW TROUT Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum (Snyder) Status: High Concern. The Eagle Lake rainbow trout (ELRT) does not exist as a self-sustaining wild population because of dependence on hatchery propagation. Habitat degradation and the presence of alien brook trout in Pine Creek, the ELRT’s principal spawning grounds, along with continued reliance on hatchery production to maintain the ELRT population will make it increasingly difficult to re-establish a wild population. Description: This subspecies is similar to other rainbow trout in gross morphology (see Moyle 2002), but differs slightly in meristic counts, especially in having finer scales than coastal rainbow trout. It is also distinctive in possessing 58 chromosomes, rather than the 60 typical of other rainbow trout (Busack et al. 1980). Taxonomic Relationships: Snyder (1917) described this trout as a subspecies of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri aquilarum. However, Hubbs and Miller (1948) examined Snyder's specimens and concluded that ELRT were derived from hybridization between native Lahontan cutthroat trout (presumed to have occupied Eagle Lake prehistorically) and introduced rainbow trout. Miller (1950) later retracted the hybridization theory. Needham and Gard (1959) then suggested that ELRT were descended from introduced or immigrant rainbow trout from the Feather or Pit River drainages. Behnke (1965, 1972) proposed a redband-rainbow hybrid origin, although redband trout are now considered to be rainbow trout subspecies. Busack et al. (1980), in an extensive electrophoretic, karyotypic and meristic analysis, suggested that ELRT were derived either from immigration or an unrecorded introduction of a rainbow trout with 58 chromosomes. The distinctive morphology, ecology, and physiology of this form all point to ELRT being derived from natural colonization from the Sacramento River drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • LAKE TROUT­ (Salvelinus Namaycush)
    LAKE TROUT­ (Salvelinus namaycush) Common Names: Lake trout, laker, grey trout, Mackinaw, Great Lakes trout Lake Michigan Sport Catch in Wisconsi n : 100,000 per year Preferred Temperature Range: 48‐52 ºF, 9‐11 ºC Predators for Adults – Sea Lamprey, humans for Juveniles – Larger carnivorous fish Eggs – Whitefish, burbot, and sculpin Length: 17‐36 inches Weight: 3‐30 pounds State Record: 9/9/46; 47 pounds, from Lake Superior State Record (Inland): 6/1/57; 35 pounds, 4 ounces, from Big Green Lake, Green Lake County Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Fisheries Management PUBL‐FM‐101 08 April 2008 Identification: Lake trout are distinguished by Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan. Unfortunately, having a deeply forked tail, the inside of their successful natural reproduction of the lake trout has mouth white, and 10‐11 rays in their anal fin. The not taken place, even with many millions of fish color of the lake trout varies from light green or planted. Stocking, therefore, remains essential to grey to dark green or almost black with light spots sustain the lake trout population in Lake Michigan. and worm‐like markings on their back and sides. Eggs for the hatchery program are collected Distribution: Lake trout are native to New from mature lake trout held in hatcheries in October England, the Great Lakes area, and Canada. In the and November. The eggs incubate about 90 days Lake Michigan waters of Wisconsin, they can be before hatching. After being reared in the hatchery found in the outer half of Green Bay and along the for a year, they are stocked the following spring from entire Lake Michigan shoreline.
    [Show full text]
  • Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Program Lahontan National Fish Hatchery Complex US Fish and Wildlife Service
    Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Program Lahontan National Fish Hatchery Complex US Fish and Wildlife Service Tahoe Working Group Meeting February 16, 2010 Presentation Outline ¾ Lahontan cutthroat trout –Background ¾ LCT reintroduction in Fallen Leaf Lake using adaptive management strategies ¾ Lake Tahoe Assessment Lahontan cutthroat trout –A Tahoe Legacy ¾ The only trout native to the basin ¾ Provided extensive recreational and commercial fisheries ¾ Extirpated from the basin in the 1930’s Pilot Peak LCT ¾ Represents the original Tahoe Basin strain based on genetic comparisons with museum specimens ¾ Exhibits ancestral life history characteristics Conservation and Recovery Efforts ¾ Recovery Plan in 1995 ¾ Short‐term Action Plans for Walker and Truckee Basins 2003 ¾ Formation of Tahoe Basin Recovery Implementation Team 2007 ¾ Recovery Implementation Plan 2010 Fallen Leaf Lake Research 2002‐2005 (FWS,UCD,UNR,UW) ¾ Stunted lake trout indicate resource limited system ¾ High shore angler catch rate of LCT ¾ Significant lake trout predation on stocked LCT ¾ Full compliment of native zooplankton species Fallen Leaf Lake Research 2007 (FWS,UNR) ¾ Refined lake trout abundance estimate: 8,799 lake trout (Schnabel) 95% CI = 4,990 –16,530 ¾ Identification of refugia from predation for LCT z Thermocline segregation z LCT refuge in woody debris ¾ Diet of lake trout dependent on size and time of year Adaptive management at Fallen Leaf Lake ¾ The challenges z Lake trout z Mysid shrimp z Over fishing ¾ The strategy z Improve stocking methods z Research lake
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Literature on Lake Trout Life History with Notes on Alaskan Management
    A REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON LAKE TROUT LIFE HISTORY WITH NOTES ON ALASKAN MANAGEMENT R. Russell Redick , Fishery Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish Homer, Alaska ABSTRACT The lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum) , is the largest of the chars and is distinguished from other chars by having more than 100 pyloric caeca. It is restricted to North America and chiefly inhabits oli- gotrophic lakes of Alaska, Canada, and the northern United States. Food availability rather than preference usually determines the diet of lake trout. If forage fish are available, older lake trout are piscivorous while younger fish are chiefly dependent upon invertebrates. The opposum shrimp, Mysis relicta , is important to the diet of young lake trout in many lakes. Spawning occurs over rocky shoals in the fall when water temper- atures cool to 12" C or lower. The eggs typically hatch in 135 to 145 days. The fry move to deeper water after hatching ad reside in rock crevices during their juvenile development. Growth rates and age at maturity are correlated to latitude, with northern populations growing slower and maturing later than southern populations. Most states manage their lake trout populations for recreation. However, limited commercial lake trout fisheries exist in Canada and attempts have been made to establish similar commercial fisheries in Alaska. TAX0 NO MY AND DES CRIPTIO N The lake trout is the largest of the North American chars and has been classified by some ichthyologists as the only species of the genus Cristivomer , with all remaining chars divided into the sub-genera Baione and Salvelinus .
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Brown Trout Rainbow Trout Golden
    IDENTIFICATION BROOK TROUT The front edges of the pectoral fins (sides and bottom of the trout) are white. Red spots with bluish halos dot the body. The tail is nearly square. The brook trout is Pennsylvania’s official State Fish. BROWN TROUT A brown trout’s body is golden-brown. The body has lsrge dark spots with pale halos. Sometimes the body also has red or yellow spots. The fins are yellowish-brown. They have no spots or white edges. The tail usually has few or no spots. GOLDEN RAINBOW TROUT The golden rainbow is also known as a palomino trout. A golden rainbow’s body is deep-yellow or orange-like. The sides are unmarked, but some golden rainbows have a darker-orange lateral line. The tail is nearly square. RAINBOW TROUT A rainbow trout’s body is greenish. The adults usually have a pinkish lateral stripe. Rainbow trout also have many small, black spots on the body. The tail is heavily spotted. The inner mouth and gums are white. IN THE LAKES... LAKE TROUT The lake trout is found only in a few of Pennsylvania’s STEELHEAD deepest and coldest lakes. Lake trout are bright-gray, often Steelhead trout are rainbow trout that live in Lake Erie and olive, shading to silvery white on the belly. They are pro- ascend Lake Erie tributaries. A steelhead’s body is silvery. fusely covered with large light-colored spots, and the tail is deeply forked. Pennsylvania Angler & Boater Fishing & Boating Memories Last A Lifetime.
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout Identification Course
    MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS Bull Trout Identification Course in cooperation with: Avista Utilities • Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes • Idaho Council of Trout Unlimited Idaho Fish and Game Department • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service Welcome For thousands of years, bull trout have traveled some of the longest migration routes of any trout in North America. Once common throughout the inland Pacific Northwest, bull trout now live in reduced numbers in five western states and two Canadian provinces. They no longer live in California. Montana and Idaho are the bull trout’s strongholds, but even here bull trout face a chance of eventual extinction in some streams where they live. One very important thing that you can do to help minimize the impact that we humans have on the bull trout, is We all want Montana to provide our children to learn to correctly identify the fish that and our grandchildren with the same sort of you catch, and also the fish that you see unique, nature-rich experience that we are swimming in Montana’s waters. Correct enjoying. Conservation is not always easy, identification, both in and out of the water, but it is important. We owe it to ourselves will help you release the right fish and and to our environment to do our best avoid hooking a bull trout by accident. to see that we are not the enemy of our Bull trout are protected by both state and environment, but part of it. Protecting the federal law; there is no fishing season for bull trout is something that will truly help them (except in northwestern Montana’s Montana remain “the last best place on Swan Lake) and they have been listed since Earth.” 1998 as threatened by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture of Salmonids
    COLDWATER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Culture of Salmonids Overview The stocking of New Jersey waters with trout spans well across an entire century. The stocking program, fish culture technology and attitudes have changed considerably during this time frame. Initially viewed as only serving the wealthy, the stocking of trout was not supported by the New Jersey Fish and Game Commission. The first stocking of brook trout by the Commission in 1879 was only in response to a severe drought and was intended to replenish native populations which were believed to be decimated. The idea caught on however and more focused efforts were made for expanding recreational opportunities across the state. The first stocking records date back to 1879. The mode of transport was by train, using milk cans. Upon arrival trout were transferred to wagons which transported the fish to streams. Fish were initially purchased under contract from private hatcheries. In 1912, the State began construction of its own hatchery in Hackettstown and began producing fingerlings. Production of catchable size brook, brown and rainbow trout began in 1914. By 1932, the Hackettstown hatchery was raising over 500,000 trout for distribution across the state. The transport of fish was now done by truck but milk cans still served as holding areas. In the years that followed disease outbreaks among the hatchery stock due to the intensive culture increased, as did the demand for other warmwater species. In 1980, the construction of the Pequest Trout Hatchery began and the production of all trout, with the exception of lake trout, was transferred there when the facility opened in 1983.
    [Show full text]