Habitat utilization & movements of white suckers (Catostomus commersonii) in Cobleskill Creek, New York1 Zachary R. Diehl2, Lyndon Watkins2, John R. Foster3 & Richard Clark Abstract: White suckers (Catostomus commersonii) are one of the most widely distributed freshwater fish in North America, but relatively little is known about their habitat utilization and movements. The little research that has been conducted to date has focused on large rivers and lakes. This study’s goal was to characterize the habitat utilization and movements of white suckers in a small watershed, Cobleskill Creek. Fifteen adult white suckers were surgically implanted with radio tags and tracked in this 27.2 km, 3rd order stream. Over a 6- year period, 2,151 fish positions were plotted with GPS. White suckers in Cobleskill Creek had a much more limited home range than those described in rivers. Adult white suckers primarily occurred in pools, followed by runs and riffles. The majority of the time they remained in their home pool, venturing into shallower riffles and runs primarily at night. Greatest movements, up to 3 km, occurred during spring spawning migrations. In spite of substantial differences in the physical environment between large rivers and small streams, this study found that the habitat utilization and movements of adult white suckers were remarkably similar.
INTRODUCTION
White suckers (Catostomus commersonii) are one of the most widely distributed freshwater fish in North America, and were once commonly used in the diet of Native Americans and colonists. However, white suckers, like other freshwater nongame species, are often understudied and underappreciated (Monroe et al. 2009). Competing interests in freshwater fisheries resources inevitably focus research efforts on large bodied game fish and keystone species or focus on population dynamics and conservation threats (Stone 2007).
White suckers play an important role in the ecology of both fish and benthic communities in lakes and streams, but behavioral aspects of their habitat utilization and movements have received little attention (Saint-Jacques 2000, McManamay et al. Young 2012). Radio telemetry has been used to assess habitat utilization and seasonal movements of other members of the sucker family (Matheney and Rabeni 1995, Verrill et al. 1995, Banish et al. 2009, Neely et al. 2009). However, what little research that has been conducted on white sucker habitat utilization and movements, has focused on large rivers and lakes (Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011, McManamay et al. 2012).
1 This work was supported by the Schoharie County Conservation Association. 2 Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, SUNY Cobleskill. 3 Professor Emeritus. Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, SUNY Cobleskill.
The goal of this study was to describe white sucker habitat utilization and movements in a small watershed, and compare those findings to their life habits in larger river systems. To achieve this goal fifteen radio tagged adult white suckers were observed over a 6-year period to assess their habitat utilization and movements. The hypothesis was that white sucke’rs behavior in small watersheds would be different than that observed in larger river systems (Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011).
MATERIALS & METHODS
White sucker habitat utilization and movements were studied in Cobleskill Creek, a 3rd order stream, approximately 27.2 km long, located in Schoharie County, NY (Figure 1). White suckers were tracked primarily in the township of Cobleskill, although some fish ventured into Richmondville Township.
White suckers were collected by angling or electrofishing from three adjacent pools (Figure 5). The upper pool was 51m long and 20.3m wide, the mid-pool was 82 m long and 36.5m wide and the lower pool was 96m long and 34m wide.
Captured fish were placed in an anesthetic bath of tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222) and surgically implanted with ATS radio tags following Ross and Kleiner (1982). The 15 adult white suckers utilized in this study were between 425-473mm long and 5-8 years old.
Radio telemetry was used to locate and plot (N=2,151) fish positions over a 6-year period from June 2012 – Jan. 2018. Fish locations were determined throughout the week and throughout the day, although the majority of the data were collected at 8am, noon. 5pm and mid-night. GPS points were used to plot habitat use and movements (James et al. 2000). Creek temperature was measured during each sampling.
Figure 1. Cobleskill Creek study area (arrow).
RESULTS
Habitat Utilization
In Cobleskill Creek, adult white suckers did not distribute themselves evenly throughout 2 the habitat (X test, P < .001). Pools were utilized 51% of the time, followed by runs (33%) and riffles (16%, Figure 2).
White sucker habitat utilization differed throughout the seasons (Figure 3). Pool utilization was highest in the summer and winter, while utilization of runs was highest in the spring and fall. There was no significant difference in the seasonal use of riffles.
White Sucker Habitat Utilization (%)
Riffle 16%
Pool 51%
Run 33%
Figure 2. Habitat utilization of adult white suckers in Cobleskill Creek.
White Sucker Seasonal Habitat Utilization
80% Pool Run Riffle 70%
60% 50%
40%
30%
20% 10% 0% Spring Summer Fall Winter Figure 3. Seasonal habitat utilization of adult White suckers in Cobleskill Creek.
Habitat utilization also differed throughout the day (Figure 4). White suckers utilized riffles and runs more frequently at night than during the day (χ2 test, P < .001).
Day vs. Night White Sucker Habitat Utilization
700 Day 600 Night
500
400
300
200
100
0 Run Riffle Pool
Figure 4. Day versus night habitat utilization of adult white suckers in Cobleskill Creek.
Pool Fidelity & Homing
In this study, tagged adult white suckers were immediately returned to one of three adjacent pools from which they were originally captured. For months at a time all 15 white suckers were most frequently observed in their “home” pool complex, which included the adjacent riffles and runs (Figure 5).
Figure 5. An example of pool fidelity over a 6-month period (June – November 2012) for three adult white suckers tagged in three adjacent pools.
The 15 white suckers in this study spent a total of 3175 consecutive days in their home pool (Figure 6). One fish spent 21 consecutive days in an adjacent upstream pool, while three other white suckers spent a total of 232 consecutive days in an adjacent downstream pool. Fish #422-482 were only observed for three months and spent 100% of their time in their home pool complex.
Consecutive Days Suckers Spent in Home Pools
400 Upstream 350 Home 300 Downstream 250 200 150
100 Consecutive Days 50 0 193 232 252 273 323 422 433 464 482 503 523 523 530 940 1150 Fish Number - Frequency
Figure 6. Consecutive days white suckers spent in their home pool complex.
While adult white suckers moved into other habitats and could travel up to 3 km, they invariably returned to the pool where they were initially captured.
Movements
White sucker short-term movements had a significant diel component. While adult white suckers spent the day (Figure 7) in their home pool, they moved into adjacent riffles and runs during the night (Figure 8). This would indicate that short-term movements occur at dawn and dusk or at night.
Although runs and riffles occurred at both ends of their home pool, the short-term movements of white suckers outside of their home pool were primarily upstream (86%, χ2 test, P < .001). Relatively few adult white suckers exhibited short term downstream movements (14%) and these seemed to be associated with high flow events.
In the spring, adult white suckers made their most extensive movements. Of the eight suckers tracked in the spring, 5 made substantial upstream movements of up to 3 km. However, 3 adult suckers did not move beyond the riffles just upstream of their home pool, indicating that extensive movements did not occur every spring with every fish.
Riffles Run Pool
Figure 7. Daylight positions of white suckers.
Riffles Run Pool Figure 8. Night positions of white suckers showing upstream movement.
DISCUSSION
In spite of substantial differences in the physical environment between large rivers and small streams, this study found that the habitat utilization and movements of adult white suckers were remarkably similar over a wide geographic range (Minckley 1963, Geen et al. 1966, Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011). Adult white suckers in Cobleskill Creek primarily inhabited pools, followed by runs and riffles. A tagging study in a similar sized creek (Doe Run, Kentucky) also found white suckers were concentrated in pools (Minckley 1963). White suckers in rivers were also most highly concentrated in pools (Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011). In streams and rivers, white sucker activity was very limited in winter greatly enhancing the percent of time spent in pools (Brown et al. 2001).
While home ranges of white suckers in rivers was relatively restricted, they were much larger than that observed in this study in streams. In a similar sized creek (Doe Run, Kentucky) a mark & recapture study showed that there was a strong tendency for white suckers to remain in specific pools for relatively long periods (Minckley 1963). Riffles often limit the home ranges of stream fishes and serve as barriers to their movement (Gerking, 1953). As elsewhere (Minckley 1963, Doherty et al. 2011), this study showed that tagged white suckers generally stayed in the pool in which they were captured.
Adult white suckers in the Saint John River also maintained small home ranges and strong site fidelity (Doherty et al. 2011). This study and Minckley (1963) showed that white suckers in small watersheds were much more localized in their day to day activities, than suckers in large river systems (Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011).
In Cobleskill Creek, adult white suckers moved into runs and riffles more frequently at night, perhaps to feed while avoiding predators. This is consistent with earlier studies showing white suckers were more active during the hours of darkness than daylight (Reynolds & Casterlin 1978, Kavaliers 1982), and that white suckers were observed feeding in shallow water at night, but not in deep water during the day (Emery 1973). Others suggest that white suckers were crepuscular in their activity, searching for food around dawn and dusk (Logan et al. 1991). White suckers were most active during spring spawning migrations. In rivers and lakes, white suckers migrate many kilometers in the spring, to fast-flowing waters for spawning (Rainey and Webster 1942; Geen et al. 1966). As in this study, spawning movements last only a few days or weeks before white suckers return back to their home pool (Minckley 1963). One major difference between white suckers in streams versus rivers is the distance travelled during spring spawning movements. In the St. John River white suckers moved long distances, up to 40 km in the spring to spawn (Doherty et. al 2011). In Cobleskill Creek the maximum distance travelled was much shorter, 3 km. However, in both large and small watersheds, white suckers returned to their same home habitats after spawning (Doherty et. al 2011).
As in the St. John River study, not all white suckers in Cobleskill Creek made extensive spring spawning movements (Doherty et al. 2011). This may suggest that in Cobleskill Creek some suckers move just upstream into the adjacent riffles to spawn. However, other studies of white suckers indicate that not all fish spawn every spring (Quinn & Ross 1985, Trippel & Harvey 1989, Wakefield & Beckman 2005).
In small watersheds, white suckers are often the largest fish species present and a significant component of a stream’s biodiversity. However, in spite of their widespread utilization of freshwater habitats, extensive geographical distribution, historical and ecological importance, remarkably little is known about the behavioral ecology of white suckers in small watersheds. In fact, this was the first telemetry study of white sucker habitat utilization and movements in streams. More studies are needed to document the important ecological role played by this species.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Schoharie County Conservation Association (SCCA) helped fund this project. Mark Cornwell and Ben German and their Fisheries Biology and Fisheries Techniques students assisted in fish collection and tracking. Robin LaRochelle provided extensive help with this project. Finally yet importantly, I would like to thank Dr. John Foster for all his assistance with this project.
LITERATURE CITED
Banish, N.P, B.J. Adams & R.S. Shively. 2009. Distribution and habitat associations of radio- tagged adult lost river suckers and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 153-168
Brown, R. S., G. Power, and S. Beltaos. 2001. Winter movements and habitat use of riverine brown trout, white sucker, and common carp in relation to flooding and ice break-up. Journal of Fish Biology 59:1126–1141.
Doherty, C. A., and R. A. Curry, and K. R. Munkittrick. 2011. Spatial and temporal movements of white sucker: implications for use as a sentinel species. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139: 1818-1827
Emery, A. R. 1973. Preliminary comparisons of day and night habits of freshwater fish in Ontario lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada, 30(6), 761-774.
Geen, G. H., T. G. Northcote, G. F. Hartman, and C. C. Lindsey. 1966. Life histories of two species of catostomid fishes in Sixteen Mile Lake, B.C., with particular reference to inlet stream spawning. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 23:1761–1788.
Gerking, S.D. 1953. Evidence for the concepts of home range and territory in stream fishes. Ecology, 34:347-365.
James, D. A., and J. W. Erickson, and B. A. Barton. 2003. Using geographic information system to assess the accuracy of radio-triangulation techniques for fish telemetry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 1271-1275.
Kavaliers, M. 1982. Seasonal and circannual rhythms in behavioral thermoregulation and their modifications by pinealectomy in the white sucker, Catostomus commersoni. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 146(2), 235-243. Matheny, M.P., and C.F. Rabeni. 1995. Patterns of movement and habitat use by northern hog suckers in an Ozark stream. Trans. of the American Fisheries Society 124: 885-897.
McManamay, R.A., J.T Young & D.J. Orth, 2012. Spawning of white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) in a Stormwater Pond Inlet. American Midland Naturalist, 168(2), 466-476.
Minckley, W. L. 1963. The ecology of a spring stream, Doe Run, Meade Co., Kentucky. Wildlife Monograph 11.
Modde, T., & D. B Irving. 1998. Use of multiple spawning sites and seasonal movement by razorback suckers in the middle Green River, Utah. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18(2), 318-326.
Monroe, J. B., C.V. Baxter, J.D. Olden, and P.L. Angermeier. 2009. Freshwaters in the public eye: understanding the role of images and media in aquatic conservation. Fisheries 34(12):581-585.
Neely, B. C., M. A., Pegg, & G. E. Mestl, 2009. Seasonal use distributions and migrations of blue sucker in the Middle Missouri River. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 18(3), 437-444.
Quinn, S. P., & M. R. Ross. 1985. Non-annual spawning in the white sucker, Catostomus commersoni. Copeia, 613-618.
Reynolds, W.W. & M.E. Casterlin. 1978. Behavioral thermoregulation and diel activity in white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 59 (3) 261- 262.
Rainey, E. C., and D. A. Webster. 1942. The spring migration of the common white sucker, Catostomus c. commersonnii (Lacepede), in Skaneateles Lake inlet, New York. Copeia 1942:139–148.
Ross, M.J., & C.F. Kleiner. 1982. Shielded-needle technique for surgically implanting radio- frequency transmitters in fish. Progressive Fish Culturist. 44(4):41-43.
Saint-Jacques, N., H. H. Harvey, and D.A. Jackson. 2000. Selective foraging in the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1320-1331.
Spoor, W. A., & C. L Schloemer. 1939. Diurnal activity of the common sucker, Catostomus Commersonnii (Lacépède), and the rock bass, Ambloplites Rupestris (Rafinesque), in Muskellunge Lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 68(1), 211-220.
Stone, R. 2007. The last of the leviathans. Science 316(5832):1684-1688.
Trippel, E. A., and H. H. Harvey. 1989. Missing opportunities to reproduce: an energy dependent or fecundity gaining strategy in white sucker (Catostomus commersoni)? Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:2180–2188.
Verrill, D. D., & C. R. Berry Jr. 1995. Effectiveness of an electrical barrier and lake drawdown for reducing common carp and bigmouth buffalo abundances. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15(1), 137-141.
Wakefield, C. K., & D.W. Beckman. 2005. Life History Attributes of white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) in Lake Taneycomo and associated tributaries in southwestern Missouri. The Southwestern Naturalist, (4). 423.