DOCSLIB.ORG

Prey Selection and Diets of Bluegill Lepomis Macrochirus with Differing Population Characteristics in Two Nebraska Natural Lakes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prey Selection and Diets of Bluegill Lepomis Macrochirus with Differing Population Characteristics in Two Nebraska Natural Lakes Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2003, 10, 31–40 Prey selection and diets of bluegill Lepomis macrochirus with differing population characteristics in two Nebraska natural lakes N.W.OLSON*,C.P.PAUKERT&D.W.WILLIS Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, SD, USA J. A. KLAMMER Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Bassett, Nebraska, USA Abstract Environmental prey samples and stomach contents of bluegill Lepomis macrochirus (Rafinesque) were collected in spring and summer 2000 from two Nebraska Sandhill lakes. Watts Lake contained a low-density bluegill population, whereas Cozad Lake contained a high-density bluegill population. Bluegill diets from both lakes were compared to determine if bluegill prey preference differed between the two populations. The highest median per cent (by calories) of zooplankton in the diet was 1.3%; the remainder was macroinvertebrates. Watts Lake bluegills preferred (based on Manly’s alpha) amphipods in spring and chironomids in summer. Cozad Lake bluegills did not show a strong preference (compared with Watts Lake) for any macroinvertebrates, but still utilized amphipods and chironomids during both seasons. Larger bluegills in Watts Lake preferred chironomids in summer, but Cozad Lake bluegills did not exhibit this relationship. The higher density Cozad Lake bluegill population appeared to be more opportunistic than the lower density Watts Lake population, but both preferred macroinvertebrates. KEYWORDS: bluegill, diets, food habits, Lepomis macrochirus, Nebraska. 1974; O’Brien, Slade & Vinyard 1976). In addition, Introduction feeding habits may be related to bluegill population Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus (Rafinesque) food habits density (Kitchell, O’Neill, Shutgart, Magnuson & have been well documented throughout its geographical Booth 1974). When prey density is held constant, range, incorporating zooplankton (Mittelbach 1981; higher density bluegill populations typically have Harris, Galinat & Willis 1999), macroinvertebrates slower growth (Weiner & Hanneman 1982), presum- (Schramm & Jirka 1989; Dewey, Richardson & Zigler ably because of intraspecific competition for food 1997), and small fish (Flemer & Woolcott 1966; resources. Higher density fish populations may exhibit Applegate, Mullen & Morais 1967; Engel 1988). Their less selective feeding habits, apparently because they diets may differ temporally (Gerking 1962; Keast & need to forage on less-preferred prey (Schindler, Welsh 1968; Keast 1978). Larger bluegills typically Hodgson & Kitchell 1997). Therefore, we compared select larger prey (Hall, Cooper & Werner 1970); and the food habits and prey selection of two contrasting Engel (1988) found that larger bluegills (i.e. >210 mm) Nebraska Sandhill bluegill populations to determine if primarily preyed upon larger aquatic insects and even differences in bluegill density affected their food habits fish fry. and prey selection. We hypothesized that the higher Optimal foraging theory suggests that bluegill will density Cozad Lake bluegill population may exhibit select for prey items based on the net energy gain, more opportunistic feeding compared with the low- which is affected by prey type, searching time for prey, density Watts Lake bluegill population, which would habitat type, and predator avoidance (Werner & Hall specifically select preferred prey items. Correspondence: Craig Paukert, Southwest Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA (e-mail: [email protected]). *Present address: Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA Ó 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 31 32 N. W. OLSON ET AL. Study area Materials and methods Watts Lake and Cozad Lake are both located in the Bluegills were collected along the vegetated, nearshore Sandhills of north-central Nebraska (USA), approxi- zones of Watts Lake in May (i.e. spring) and August mately 80 km apart. Both lakes are relatively shallow (i.e. summer) 2000 and from Cozad Lake in April (i.e. (mean depth: 1.3 m for Watts Lake; 1.9 m for Cozad spring) and August (i.e. summer) 2000. Spring water Lake), are highly vegetated (72% coverage for Watts temperatures in Watts and Cozad Lakes were 17 and Lake and 95% coverage for Cozad Lake), and relat- 13 °C, respectively, whereas summer water tempera- ively clear (Secchi depth readings: 122 cm for Watts tures were 25 °C in both lakes. Daytime electric fishing Lake and 213 cm for Cozad Lake). Although both was used in spring; however, short-term (<4 h) sets of lakes were shallow and vegetated, groundwater springs modified fyke nets (i.e. trap nets) were used in summer prevented winterkills. Both lakes were moderately because of the difficulty in collecting bluegills in these productive, with chlorophyll a values of 2.7 lgL)1 in lakes by electric fishing. All bluegills collected in Cozad Lake and 7.5 lgL)1 in Watts Lake (Paukert & summer were from modified fyke nets. When possible, Willis 2000). Watts Lake is 93 ha in surface area while five bluegills per centimetre length group were collected Cozad Lake has an area of 32 ha. Both catchments are to obtain a diversity of fish lengths. primarily grasslands and have no agricultural crops. Bluegills were weighed (g), total length measured Angling pressure and harvest are presumably minimal, (TL; mm), and stomach contents removed nonlethally based on these lakes being in remote locations and using an acrylic tube (Kamler & Pope 2001) and were poor access (Paukert, Willis & Gabelhouse 2002). subsequently released alive. Stomach contents were Watts Lake contained a low-density bluegill popula- preserved in 10% formalin and returned to the tion compared with Cozad Lake. The mean total laboratory for identification. Laboratory procedures number of bluegills collected per trap (i.e. modified consisted of examining the entire stomach sample for fyke) net night was 32 (n ¼ 10 nets, SE ¼ 4.1) in Watts diet items under a dissection microscope with 40· Lake and 233 (n ¼ 10 nets, SE ¼ 29.0) in Cozad Lake magnification. Prey species were identified and counted (Paukert & Willis 2000). Watts Lake bluegills reach a only if the entire organism or prominent body feature mean length of 168 mm by age 3 whereas Cozad Lake (i.e. heads) was present. Because the use of other body bluegills only attained 126 mm by age 3. Watts Lake features (e.g. spines, segments, carapaces, segmented bluegills also had slightly higher body condition than legs, etc.) would not accurately reveal a quantitative did Cozad Lake bluegills (Paukert & Willis 2000). Both number of a specific organism, they were not included lakes contained largemouth bass, Micropterus sal- in laboratory analyses. All diet items were identified to moides (Lace´ pe` de), black bullhead, Ameiurus melas the class, order, or family level and prey frequency of (R), and yellow perch, Perca flavescens (Mitchill). occurrence was calculated (Bowen 1996). Because Black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur), were caloric content may better estimate energetic content also present in Cozad Lake; Watts Lake contained of diets compared with other methods (Hyslop 1980), saugeye, Stizostedion vitrium (M) · S. canadense the analysis was conducted using per cent of the diet by (Smith). Although they were not sampled in our study, calories. muskellunge, Esox masquinongy (M) were last stocked To estimate environmental prey abundance, in 1997 and are presumably present in Watts Lake in zooplankton and benthos (i.e. macroinvertebrates) low numbers (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, samples were collected at six locations in each lake unpublished data). However, largemouth bass appear each season. These collections were along the same to be the primary predator on bluegill in Sandhill lakes transect as bluegill sampling immediately following the (Paukert, Willis & Klammer 2002). Both lakes had fish collections. Two composite benthic grabs were moderately abundant populations of largemouth bass, taken at each site with a 156-cm2 Ekman dredge, sieved with the number of 200 mm and longer largemouth in the field, and preserved in 10% formalin. Zooplank- bass collected per hour of electric fishing being 38 ton samples were collected using a 2-m integrated tube (n ¼ 12 stations, SE ¼ 4) in Cozad Lake and 96 sampler, sieved through a 65-lm Wisconsin plankton (n ¼ 12 stations, SE ¼ 13) in Watts Lake (Paukert & net and preserved in 10% formalin. All invertebrate Willis 2000). In addition, there was little evidence that samples were returned to the laboratory, identified to bluegill interspecific competition with other fish species the lowest possible taxon and enumerated. (e.g. yellow perch, black bullhead, and black crappie) For prey items in the stomach and the environment, was detrimental to bluegill growth, condition, or stock weight-length regressions obtained from Dumont, Van structure (Paukert & Willis 2000). de Velde & Dumont (1975) and Smock (1980) were Ó 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2003, 10, 31–40 BLUEGILL FOOD HABITS 33 used to calculate dry weight values. These values were (range, 88–193, r ¼ 0.258, n ¼ 31, P ¼ 0.161). However, then converted to calorie content using equations from relative weight did increase with fish length for the few Cummins & Wuycheck (1971). To estimate bluegill fish collected in August (range, 69–117, r ¼ 0.825, prey selection, Manly’s alpha for constant prey pop- n ¼ 14, P ¼ 0.0003). The weight of individual macro- ulations (Chesson 1978; Krebs 1989) was
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois (Ecosystem Restoration)
    PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, ILLINOIS (ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION) FEASIBILITY STUDY WITH INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MAIN REPORT MARCH 2003 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS CLOCK TOWER BUILDING - P.O. BOX 2004 ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61204-2004 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil CEMVR-PM-M PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, ILLINOIS (ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION) FEASIBILITY STUDY WITH INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MAIN REPORT MARCH 2003 Executive Summary he Peoria Riverfront Development (Ecosystem Restoration) Project area includes Lower Peoria Lake. The area lies within Peoria and Tazewell Counties, Illinois, and includes TIllinois River Miles 162-167. The project is related to the Peoria Riverfront Development Project, a public and private cooperative effort that also includes revitalization of the City’s downtown area. Development includes a visitor’s center, city park, residential redevelopment, community center, riverboat landing, sports complex, entertainment centers, and retail development. The region has begun to reclaim its abandoned industrial riverfront, with the understanding that a healthy, attractive, and sustainable environment must be present. The Illinois River is a symbol of the region’s economic, social, and cultural history, as well as its future. Therefore, ecosystem restoration in Peoria Lake is a vital component to an overall effort and vision to develop the Peoria Riverfront in an ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable manner. This Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Non-Federal Sponsor) to investigate the Federal and State interest in ecosystem restoration within Peoria Lake. In support of this resource vision, several regulatory efforts on the part of the cities and counties to address the sedimentation issue affecting the Illinois River have been adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation of the Spotted Sunfish, Lepomis Punctatus Complex
    Variation of the Spotted Sunfish, Lepomis punctatus Complex (Centrarehidae): Meristies, Morphometries, Pigmentation and Species Limits BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY The scientific publication of the Alabama Museum of Natural History. Richard L. Mayden, Editor, John C. Hall, Managing Editor. BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY is published by the Alabama Museum of Natural History, a unit of The University of Alabama. The BULLETIN succeeds its predecessor, the MUSEUM PAPERS, which was terminated in 1961 upon the transfer of the Museum to the University from its parent organization, the Geological Survey of Alabama. The BULLETIN is devoted primarily to scholarship and research concerning the natural history of Alabama and the midsouth. It appears irregularly in consecutively numbered issues. Communication concerning manuscripts, style, and editorial policy should be addressed to: Editor, BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, The University of Alabama, Box 870340, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0340; Telephone (205) 348-7550. Prospective authors should examine the Notice to Authors inside the back cover. Orders and requests for general information should be addressed to Managing Editor, BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, at the above address. Numbers may be purchased individually; standing orders are accepted. Remittances should accompany orders for individual numbers and be payable to The University of Alabama. The BULLETIN will invoice standing orders. Library exchanges may be handled through: Exchange Librarian, The University of Alabama, Box 870266, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0340. When citing this publication, authors are requested to use the following abbreviation: Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. ISSN: 0196-1039 Copyright 1991 by The Alabama Museum of Natural History Price this number: $6.00 })Il{ -w-~ '{(iI1 .....~" _--.
    [Show full text]
  • Labidesthes Sicculus
    Version 2, 2015 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 1 Atherinidae Atherinidae Sand Smelt Distinguishing Features: — (Atherina boyeri) — Sand Smelt (Non-native) Old World Silversides Old World Silversides Old World (Atherina boyeri) Two widely separated dorsal fins Eye wider than Silver color snout length 39-49 lateral line scales 2 anal spines, 13-15.5 rays Rainbow Smelt (Non -Native) (Osmerus mordax) No dorsal spines Pale green dorsally Single dorsal with adipose fin Coloring: Silver Elongated, pointed snout No anal spines Size: Length: up to 145mm SL Pink/purple/blue iridescence on sides Distinguishing Features: Dorsal spines (total): 7-10 Brook Silverside (Native) 1 spine, 10-11 rays Dorsal soft rays (total): 8-16 (Labidesthes sicculus) 4 spines Anal spines: 2 Anal soft rays: 13-15.5 Eye diameter wider than snout length Habitat: Pelagic in lakes, slow or still waters Similar Species: Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax), 75-80 lateral line scales Brook Silverside (Labidesthes sicculus) Elongated anal fin Images are not to scale 2 3 Centrarchidae Centrarchidae Redear Sunfish Distinguishing Features: (Lepomis microlophus) Redear Sunfish (Non-native) — — Sunfishes (Lepomis microlophus) Sunfishes Red on opercular flap No iridescent lines on cheek Long, pointed pectoral fins Bluegill (Native) Dark blotch at base (Lepomis macrochirus) of dorsal fin No red on opercular flap Coloring: Brownish-green to gray Blue-purple iridescence on cheek Bright red outer margin on opercular flap
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN SUNFISH (Lepomis Cyanellus)
    GREEN SUNFISH Oneida Lake Status: (Lepomis cyanellus) Not Common • Oneida Lake population small but on the rise • Out competes bluegills in Oneida Lake • Hybridization makes identification difficult Green sunfish may grow to 9 inches in Oneida Lake, and weigh up to a ½ pound. Green sunfish are not as deep bodied as other commonly known sunfish, and typically have a more Green sunfish in the wild: drab color scheme. They have a blue-green back that fades to http://www.bobberstop.com/images/gr yellow or white at the belly, and have a black earflap with a een_sunfish.jpg yellow edge (see drawing). Green sunfish have a top jaw that extends back to the middle of the eye, and a mouth that is larger than its close relatives. Unfortunately, green sunfish may hybridize with pumpkinseed and bluegill sunfish (see photo to left), making identification difficult. Sunfish identification becomes difficult when hybridization occurs: http://www.southernpondsandwildlife.c om/upload/articletitles/000052.50.jpg Small green sunfish before release back to the water: http://www.tnfish.org/PhotoGalleryFish_TWRA/FishPhotoGallery_ TWRA/pages/GreenSunfishMeltonHillNegus_jpg.htm Green sunfish do not favor any bottom type in Oneida Lake, but generally live near brush, vegetation, and rocks. Unlike most sunfish, greens tolerate areas with high turbidity and Line drawing of a green sunfish low dissolved oxygen. In Oneida, green sunfish eat small fish, aquatic insects, and other invertebrates, and their large mouths allow them to eat larger prey than other sunfish can. Prepared by: Green sunfish are found in Oneida Lake and throughout New York State. While it is possible that they are native to Alexander Sonneborn Oneida, green sunfish are an invasive exotic in many places Cornell Biological Field Station and often out-compete the native bluegill.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Species of the Pacific Northwest
    Invasive Species of the Pacific Northwest: Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Derek Arterburn FISH 423: Olden 12.5.14 Figure 1: Adult Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus . Photo from http://www.freshwater-fishing- news.com/fish-species-north -america/green-sunfish/ Classification Lepomis cyanellus may have a few teeth, Order: Perciformes which can be found on the tongue. Family: Centrarchidae Additional distinguishing marks are the 7-12 Genus: Lepomis parallel diffused dark bars running ventral to Species: cyanellus dorsal along the side of L. cyanellus, and the bluish-green pattern. The bluish-green Identification coloration takes place on the mainly black/dark brown/olive body, composed of Adult Green Sunfish, Lepomis ctenoid scales, which fades to a lighter cyanellus, commonly reach a total length of ventral color. The dark sides of L. cyanellus 31cm, with juveniles ranging from 12-15cm. are contrast with a yellow/cream ventral Adult Green Sunfish have been known to coloration (Cockerell 1913). The thick reach a maximum weight of one kilogram caudal peduncle is without an adipose fin, (2.2lbs). L. cyanellus is a deep bodied, and the peduncle runs to a rounded, slightly laterally compressed species, with a lateral forked, homocercal caudal fin. The paired line running from the operculum to the fins on Lepomis cyanellus are derived in caudal peduncle. The posterior of the orientation. The Green Sunfish has lateral operculum has a characteristic dark spot placement of the pectoral fins with vertical relatively the same size as the eye, and the insertion, anterior pelvic fins, and spines same size spot may also be found at the base found on the anal and dorsal fins.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin
    Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin International • Peer-Reviewed • Open-Access Published continuously since 1876 Status, trends, and population demographics of selected sportfish species in the La Grange Reach of the Illinois River Levi E. Solomon1, Richard M. Pendleton2, Kristopher A. Maxson1, Jacob N. McQuaid3, Daniel K. Gibson-Reinemer1, Cory A. Anderson4, Rebekah L. Anderson5, Eli G. Lampo5, James T. Lamer1, and Andrew F. Casper1 1 Illinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, 704 North Schrader Avenue, Havana, Illinois 62644, USA 2 Division of Marine Resources, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, New York 12561, USA 3 Missouri Department of Conservation, 3500 East Gans Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201, USA 4 Carterville Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 9053 Route 148, Suite A, Marion, Illinois 62959, USA 5 Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, Illinois Department of Natural Resource, Silver Springs State Fish and Wildlife Area, 13608 Fox Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560, USAPennsylvania 19103, USA Research Article Abstract Cite This Article: Solomon, L. E., R. M. Pendleton, Sportfish species, specifically, Yellow Bass Morone mis- K. A. Maxson, J. N. McQuaid, D. K. sissippiensis, White Bass Morone chrysops, Largemouth Gibson-Reinemer, C. A. Anderson, Bass Micropterus salmoides, Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, R. L. Anderson, E. G. Lampo, Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus, and White Crappie J. T. Lamer, and A. F. Casper. 2019. P. annularis, often drive economically valuable fisheries in Status, trends, and population demo- large river systems, including the Upper Mississippi River graphics of selected sportfish species System (UMRS).
    [Show full text]
  • Pennington Creek Fish
    FAMILY: CENTRARCHIDAE (sunfishes) FAMILY: CYPRINIDAE (minnows) Bluegill Orangespotted Sunfish Smallmouth Bass Bigeye Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis humilis Micropterus dolomieu Notropis boops Characteristics: deep-bodied, small mouth, Characteristics: small with orange spots Characteristics: large mouth, vertical dark Characteristics: large eye relative to black spot posterior dorsal rays on side, long white-edged opercular flap bars are sometimes present on olive- body size, large mouth with a small bronze colored sides of the fish, juveniles head, dark lateral stripe extends from have an orange and black band on the cau- the lips through the eye to the end of dal fin the caudal peduncle Green Sunfish Redear Sunfish Largemouth Bass Blacktail Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus salmoides Cyprinella venusta Characteristics: elongated body, large Characteristics: large, short opercular flap Characteristics: large mouth, upper jaw Characteristics: prominent black spot at mouth, black spot posterior dorsal & anal with a bright red crescent marking extends past the eye, dark midlateral the base of the caudal fin, large stripe from snout to base of the caudal fin diamond shaped scales outlined in black, breeding males develop yellow fins Longear Sunfish White & Black Crappie Spotted Bass Bluntnose Minnow Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis, Pomoxis nigromacula- Micropterus punctulatus Pimephales notatus Characteristics: small, deep-bodied, long tus Characteristics: resembles the largemouth Characteristics: blunt, rounded
    [Show full text]
  • Lepomis Spp. Technical Note Prepared by IUCN for the European Commission
    Information on measures and related costs in relation to species considered for inclusion on the Union list This technical note has been drafted by a team of experts under the supervision of IUCN within the framework of the contract No 07.0202/2016/739524/SER/ENV.D.2 “Technical and Scientific support in relation to the Implementation of Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species”. The information and views set out in this note do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this note. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This document shall be cited as: Zogaris, S.2017. Information on measures and related costs in relation to species considered for inclusion on the Union list: Lepomis spp. Technical note prepared by IUCN for the European Commission. This technical note provides information on the effectiveness of measures, alongside the required effort and resources, used to prevent the introduction, and to undertake early detection, rapid eradication, and management for the invasive alien species under review. Each table represents a separate measure. Date of completion: 04/12/2017 Comments which could support improvement of this document are welcome. Please send your comments by e-mail to [email protected] Species (scientific name) Genus: Lepomis (Rafinesque,
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana
    Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 61 2021 Article 3 March 2021 Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Michael H. Doosey University of New Orelans, [email protected] Henry L. Bart Jr. Tulane University, [email protected] Kyle R. Piller Southeastern Louisiana Univeristy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biodiversity Commons Recommended Citation Doosey, Michael H.; Bart, Henry L. Jr.; and Piller, Kyle R. (2021) "Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 61. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss61/3 This Original Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Abstract Since the publication of Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana (Douglas, 1974) and a revised checklist (Douglas and Jordan, 2002), much has changed regarding knowledge of inland fishes in the state. An updated reference on Louisiana’s inland and coastal fishes is long overdue. Inland waters of Louisiana are home to at least 224 species (165 primarily freshwater, 28 primarily marine, and 31 euryhaline or diadromous) in 45 families. This checklist is based on a compilation of fish collections records in Louisiana from 19 data providers in the Fishnet2 network (www.fishnet2.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition
    Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition Pictures from – NANFA (2017) Warren Lamb Aquatic Biology Program Bemidji State University Bemidji, MN 56601 Introduction Minnesota’s landscape is maze of lakes and river that are home to a recorded total of 163 species of fish. This document is a complete and current dichotomous taxonomic key of the Minnesota fishes. This key was based on the 1972 “Northern Fishes” key (Eddy 1972), and updated based on Dr. Jay Hatch’s article “Minnesota Fishes: Just How Many Are There?” (Hatch 2016). Any new species or family additions were also referenced to the 7th edition of the American Fisheries society “Names of North American Fishes” (Page et al. 2013) to assess whether a fish species is currently recognized by the scientific community. Identifying characteristics for new additions were compared to those found in Page and Burr (2011). In total five species and one family have been added to the taxonomic key, while three have been removed since the last publication. Species pictures within the keys have been provide from either Bemidji State University Ichthyology Students or North American Native Fish Association (NANFA). My hope is that this document will offer an accurate and simple key so anyone can identify the fish they may encounter in Minnesota. Warren Lamb – 2017 Pictures from – NANFA (2017) References Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp. Hatch, J. 2015. Minnesota fishes: just how many are there anyway? American Currents 40:10-21. Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Redbreast Sunfish Management and Fishing in Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission fishandboat.com Redbreast Sunfish (Lepomis auritus) Management and Fishing in Pennsylvania Prepared by R. Lorantas, B. Frick, PFBC Warmwater Unit; and Fisheries Management Biologists 2018 Update Goal: Maintain or enhance Redbreast Sunfish sport fisheries through harvest management of naturally sustained Redbreast Sunfish populations and through habitat preservation and enhancement. Redbreast Sunfish occur in stream and river (lotic) habitats throughout Pennsylvania’s Atlantic slope river Drainages: Delaware River, Susquehanna River, and Potomac River Drainages. The Susquehanna River Drainage includes the West Branch Susquehanna River and Juniata River Drainages. The Delaware River Drainage includes the Lehigh River and Schuylkill River Drainages. Redbreast Sunfish are very rare in lake and pond (lentic) habitats. Redbreast Sunfish are unknown in the Ohio River and Lake Erie Drainages. Redbreast Sunfish populations are managed for sport fishing through harvest management. Anglers may be curious as to the size some species, such as Redbreast Sunfish can attain in Pennsylvania waters. A state record for Redbreast Sunfish is not maintained, but for reference to size potential, we note that one of the largest Redbreast Sunfish captured by PFBC biologists exceeded 9 inches and weighed 0.64 pounds. Below, we illustrate the growth of Redbreast Sunfish in Pennsylvania, and note that a 7-inch Redbreast Sunfish is approximately 4 years old (Figure 1) and weighs about 0.2 pounds (Table 1). Redbreast Sunfish are not stocked to maintain populations in Pennsylvania. Instead, abundance management is geared toward harvest regulation in terms of fisheries management. Inland regulations accommodate harvest of 50 panfish, combined species, which includes Redbreast Sunfish and other species.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Procedures for Fish Processing and Identification
    Revision History Date of Revision Page(s) Revised Revision Explanation January 1, 2009 Section 8. Standard Methods for Assessing Biological Fish Community Integrity of Surface Waters in Kentucky Structure Laboratory Methods for Fish in Wadeable Waters was separated from preceding document and revised/updated for general content regarding laboratory methods. March 13, 2008 Standard Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters in Kentucky General Content Document was re-formatted for maintaining headers, section titles, etc in a consistent style. All references to detailed water chemistry sampling were removed, and a reference inserted directing the reader to the ‘Standard Operating Procedures for Sampling and Monitoring Surface Waters for Kentucky’, in draft July, 2002 Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters in Kentucky original document Suggested Citation: Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). 2009. Standard Operating Procedure: Laboratory Procedures for Fish Processing and Taxonomic Identification. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort, Kentucky. Standard Operating Procedure: Laboratory Page 2 of 25 DOWSOP03007 Procedures for Fish Processing and Revision: 2.0 Taxonomic Identification EFFECTIVE DATE – March 2009 Table of Contents Procedures....................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope and Applicability.............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]