DOCSLIB.ORG

Molecular Genetic Investigation of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout and Finespotted Snake River Cutthroat Trout

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Molecular Genetic Investigation of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout and Finespotted Snake River Cutthroat Trout MOLECULAR GENETIC INVESTIGATION OF YELLOWSTONE CUTTHROAT TROUT AND FINESPOTTED SNAKE RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT A REPORT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF: AGREEMENT # 165/04 STATE OF WYOMING WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION: GRANT AGREEMENT PREPARED BY: MARK A. NOVAK AND JEFFREY L. KERSHNER USDA FOREST SERVICE AQUATIC, WATERSHED AND EARTH RESOURCES DEPARTMENT UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY AND KAREN E. MOCK FOREST, RANGE AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS__________________________________________________ii LIST OF TABLES _____________________________________________________ iv LIST OF FIGURES ____________________________________________________ vi ABSTRACT _________________________________________________________ viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________________ ix INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________1 Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Phylogeography and Systematics _________________2 Cutthroat Trout Distribution in the Snake River Headwaters ____________________6 Study Area Description ________________________________________________6 Scale of Analysis and Geographic Sub-sampling ____________________________8 METHODS____________________________________________________________9 Sample Collection ____________________________________________________9 Stream Sample Intervals ____________________________________________10 Stream Sampling Protocols __________________________________________10 Fish Species Identification ___________________________________________10 Fish Metrics, Photographs, and Tissue Samples __________________________13 Genetic Analysis ____________________________________________________13 Extraction of DNA __________________________________________________13 Methods by Objective _______________________________________________14 Objective 1 – Develop cost-effective, reliable, and repeatable molecular tools that will answer the study questions _____________________________________14 Objective 2a – Determine morphological differences between the two morphotypes of cutthroat trout (YSC & SRC) in the study landscape ________18 Objective 2b – Determine genetic differentiation between the two morphotypes of cutthroat trout (YSC & SRC) in the study landscape _____________________19 Objective 3 – Describe patterns of genetic variation in cutthroat trout within and among major drainages in the study landscape _________________________19 Objective 4 – Assess introgression with rainbow trout using both morphologic and genetic tools_________________________________________________20 Results______________________________________________________________20 Survey Results ______________________________________________________20 Genetic Structuring __________________________________________________22 Results by Study Objective___________________________________________22 Objective 1 – Develop cost-effective, reliable, and repeatable molecular tools that will answer the study questions _____________________________________22 Objective 2b – Determine genetic differentiation between the two morphotypes of cutthroat trout (YSC & SRC) in the study landscape _____________________26 Objective 3 – Describe patterns of genetic variation in cutthroat trout within and among major drainages in the study landscape _________________________36 Objective 4 – Detection of Rainbow Trout Introgression___________________41 Discussion ___________________________________________________________44 Develop cost-effective, reliable, and repeatable molecular tools that will answer the study questions _____________________________________________44 ii Genetic Differentiation among Morphotypes __________________________45 Genetic Differentiation among Major Drainages _______________________46 Detection of Rainbow Trout Introgression____________________________47 Management Recommendations __________________________________48 References Cited ______________________________________________________49 APPENDIX A _________________________________________________________55 APPENDIX B _________________________________________________________64 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Common and scientific names1 of fishes and amphibians in the Snake Headwaters basin of Wyoming, and species abbreviations as identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. _________________________________12 Table 2 Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers used to amplify and sequence the ND1-2 region in cutthroat trout. Unpublished primer sources are noted: IDFG = Idaho Fish & Game Eagle Fish Health Lab; USU = Utah State University. ______15 Table 3 Sample subset used to assess landscape-scale sequence variation in the mitochondrial ND1-2 region and to design internal primers to capture this variation. ________________________________________________________________16 Table 4 Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers used to amplify and assess polymorphism at nDNA microsatellite loci in cutthroat trout. Unpublished primer sources are noted by place of origin: GIS = Genetic Identification Services._____17 Table 5 Summary by river drainage for numbers of streams and stream reaches, and stream length (km) surveyed for cutthroat trout presence/absence between 1998 and 2003 in the Snake River headwaters of northwest Wyoming. River drainages are listed as they flow into the Snake River proceeding upstream from Palisades Reservoir. ________________________________________________________21 Table 6 Number of streams with cutthroat, brook, and rainbow trout present and the stream length (km) occupied, based on presence/absence surveys between 1998 and 2003 in the Snake River headwaters, Wyoming._______________________21 Table 7 Presence of Yellowstone cutthroat trout (large spotted morphotype) and Snake River cutthroat trout (fine spotted morphotype) in streams surveyed, and stream length (km) occupied in the Snake River headwaters, Wyoming. _____________22 Table 8 Average pairwise genetic distances (and standard errors) between individuals within (along diagonal) and between morphotypic groups of cutthroat trout in the upper Snake River drainage, Wyoming. Samples were pooled across all drainages. Distances within and between groups are expressed as average number of mutational differences (below diagonal, italicized) or average percent of mutational differences (above diagonal). ________________________________26 Table 9 Average pairwise genetic distances (and standard errors) between individuals within (along diagonal) and between morphotypic groups of cutthroat trout in the Jackson Hole segment of the Snake River, Wyoming. Distances within and between groups are expressed as average number of mutational differences (below diagonal, italicized) or average percent of mutational differences (above diagonal). ________________________________________________________26 Table 10 Average pairwise genetic distances (and standard errors) between individuals within (along diagonal) and between morphotypic groups of cutthroat trout in the Gros Ventre River drainage, Wyoming. Distances within and between groups are expressed as average number of mutational differences (below diagonal, italicized) or average percent of mutational differences (above diagonal). ______________27 Table 11 Average pairwise genetic distances (and standard errors) between individuals within (along diagonal) and between morphotypic groups of cutthroat trout in the Hoback River, Wyoming. Distances within and between groups are expressed as iv average number of mutational differences (below diagonal, italicized) or average percent of mutational differences (above diagonal).________________________27 Table 12 Average pairwise genetic distances (and standard errors) between individuals within (along diagonal) and between morphotypic groups of cutthroat trout in the Snake River Canyon segment of the Snake River, Wyoming. Distances within and between groups are expressed as average number of mutational differences (below diagonal, italicized) or average percent of mutational differences (above diagonal). ________________________________________________________27 Table 13 Average pairwise genetic distances (and standard errors) between individuals within (along diagonal) and between morphotypic groups of cutthroat trout in the Greys River, Wyoming. Distances within and between groups are expressed as average number of mutational differences (below diagonal, italicized) or average percent of mutational differences (above diagonal).________________________28 Table 14 Average pairwise genetic distances (and standard errors) between individuals within (along diagonal, shaded) and between geographic groups of cutthroat trout in the Snake River headwaters, Wyoming. Distances within and between groups are expressed as average number of mutational differences (below diagonal, italicized) or average percent of mutational differences (above diagonal). ______36 Table 15 Genetic diversity indices for cutthroat trout in Snake River headwaters drainages. Nucleotide diversity (π), haplotype diversity (Hd), and number of haplotypes are presented for each drainage. _____________________________37 Table 16 Genetic differentiation among cutthroat trout in Snake River headwaters drainages, based on haplotype distributions, characterized using the GST statistic (Nei 1987; Hudson et al. 1992). _______________________________________37 Table 17 Locations and fish metrics for five rainbow trout (RBT) and seven rainbow- cutthroat trout hybrids (RXC) captured in the Snake River
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wild & Scenic River
    APPENDIX 2-E WILD & SCENIC RIVER ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST Background Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Congress declared that there are certain rivers in the nation that possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural values that should be preserved in a free-flowing condition. These rivers and their environments should be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. During forest plan revision, a comprehensive evaluation of the forest‘s rivers is required to identify those that have potential to be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Forest planning must address rivers that meet one of these criteria: Are wholly or partially on National Forest System lands Were identified by Congress for further study Are in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) Have been identified as a potential Wild and Scenic River by inventory conducted by the agency. The BTNF identified 31 river segments as potential Wild and Scenic Rivers during an inventory in 1991-1992; a number of additional eligible segments have been identified since and they have been added to the total list of __ river segments and __ miles in each of the following categories. In order to be considered eligible rivers must be essentially free flowing and have one or more outstandingly remarkable values. Rivers identified as eligible will be managed to maintain eligibility until suitability is determined. Rivers determined to be eligible were given a tentative classification as wild, scenic, or recreational according to their proximity to development and level of access.
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Coexistence of Fish Species with Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Low Order Streams of Western Oregon and Washington, USA
    fishes Article Evaluating Coexistence of Fish Species with Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Low Order Streams of Western Oregon and Washington, USA Kyle D. Martens 1,* and Jason Dunham 2 1 Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA 98504, USA 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: When multiple species of fish coexist there are a host of potential ways through which they may interact, yet there is often a strong focus on studies of single species without considering these interactions. For example, many studies of forestry–stream interactions in the Pacific Northwest have focused solely on the most prevalent species: Coastal cutthroat trout. To examine the potential for interactions of other fishes with coastal cutthroat trout, we conducted an analysis of 281 sites in low order streams located on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula and along the central Oregon coast. Coastal cutthroat trout and juvenile coho salmon were the most commonly found salmonid species within these streams and exhibited positive associations with each other for both presence and density. Steelhead were negatively associated with the presence of coastal cutthroat trout as well as with coho salmon and sculpins (Cottidae). Coastal cutthroat trout most frequently shared streams with juvenile coho salmon. For densities of these co-occurring species, associations between these two species were relatively weak compared to the strong influences of physical stream conditions Citation: Martens, K.D.; Dunham, J. (size and gradient), suggesting that physical conditions may have more of an influence on density Evaluating Coexistence of Fish Species with Coastal Cutthroat Trout than species interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations: Salmonid Studies
    KOOTENAI RIVER FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS: SALMONID STUDIES ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT April 1, 2005 — March 31, 2006 Prepared by: Jody P. Walters Senior Fishery Research Biologist IDFG Report Number 06-48 November 2006 Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations: Salmonid Studies Project Progress Report 2005 Annual Report By Jody P. Walters Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 To U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97283-3621 Project Number 1988-06500 Contract Number 00004691 IDFG Report Number 06-48 November 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................ 3 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 4 Bull Trout Redd Surveys ........................................................................................................... 4 Creel Survey.............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America
    CItiEt'SW XHPYTD: RSOTLAITYWUAS 4 Monograph of ha, TEMPI, AZ The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo Of Western North America Robert J. Behnke "9! August 1979 z 141, ' 4,W \ " • ,1■\t 1,es. • . • • This_report was funded by USDA, Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service , Bureau of Land Management FORE WARD This monograph was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Behnke under contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Region 2 of the Forest Service was assigned the lead in coordinating this effort for the Forest Service. Each agency assumed the responsibility for reproducing and distributing the monograph according to their needs. Appreciation is extended to the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, for assistance in publication. Mr. Richard Moore, Region 2, served as Forest Service Coordinator. Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Rocky Mountain Region September, 1980 Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. it TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Clarkii) Data
    Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) Data: 1999 NOAA Status Review; 2007 PSMFC Review Partners: AK, BC, CA, OR , WA, FWS, USFS, USGS, NMFS, PSMFC, Tribes._____________ Species Status review: evidence that current smolt counts represent a fragment of historic counts. In addition, we are Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii certain about the disappearance of many clarkii) have been considered a vulnerable populations that were once fished in certain indicator species in recent years and have been highly developed ecoregions. petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 1996, National Marine CCT are the only sub-species of O. clarkii Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Umpqua without a multi-agency management plan in River coastal cutthroat trout (CCT) as a place. In 2006, in an effort to remedy this threatened species under the Endangered situation and as part of the decision to withdraw Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. the listing of the SWWC-ESU, Pacific States 1531 et seq). Following this listing, NMFS Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) and conducted a status review of the species FSW initiated a voluntary effort among state, throughout their distributional range in the tribal, federal and provincial agencies that lower 48 state region of North America. represent agencies throughout the distributional During that process NMFS identified six range of CCT. The goal of this effort is to Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU’s). The coordinate agency efforts, share knowledge Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS (meta data approach), and advance our have, in the past, jointly managed CCT under understanding of CCT with the long-term goal of the ESA and on April 5, 1999, the agencies developing a consistent framework for the published a joint proposal to list the management, research, restoration, and southwestern Washington-Columbia River conservation of the subspecies.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Fact Sheet Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus Clarkii
    Species Fact Sheet Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii STATUS: SPECIES OF The Southwestern Washington/Lower Columbia CONCERN River Distinct Population Southwestern Segment of Coastal cutthroat Washington/Lower trout potentially occurs in these Washington counties: Thurston, Columbia River Distinct Lewis, Yakima, Mason, Pacific, Population Segment Grays Harbor, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Clark, Skaminia, Klickitat, (Map may reflect historical as well as recent sightings) In 1999, the southwestern Washington/lower Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of coastal cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii, was listed as threatened by National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FR 64(64): 16397-414. Subsequently, the Fish and Wildlife Service assumed sole regulatory jurisdiction. Based on changes in forest management regulation, the latest information indicating better than expected total populations in a large portion of the area, and an improved understanding of the ability of freshwater forms to produce anadromous progeny, the Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew the listing proposal in 2002. Current and Historical Status This Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes populations in the Columbia River and its tributaries downstream from the Klickitat River in Washington and Fifteenmile Creek in Oregon to the Columbia River estuary; and the Willamette River and its tributaries downstream from Willamette Falls, to its confluence with the Columbia River, as well as in tributaries of Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay. The southwestern Washington-lower Columbia River region historically supported highly productive coastal cutthroat trout populations. Coastal cutthroat trout are well distributed in most river basins in this geographic region, although probably in lower numbers relative to historical population sizes.
    [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]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Habitat Needs for Brook Trout and Brown Trout in the Driftless Area
    Stream Habitat Needs for Brook Trout and Brown Trout in the Driftless Area Douglas J. Dietermana,1 and Matthew G. Mitrob aMinnesota Department of Natural Resources, Lake City, Minnesota, USA; bWisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA This manuscript was compiled on February 5, 2019 1. Several conceptual frameworks have been proposed to organize in Driftless Area streams. Our specific objectives were and describe fish habitat needs. to: (1) summarize information on the basic biology 2. The five-component framework recognizes that stream trout pop- of Brook Trout and Brown Trout in Driftless Area ulations are regulated by hydrology, water quality, physical habi- streams, (2) briefly review conceptual frameworks or- tat/geomorphology, connectivity, and biotic interactions and man- ganizing fish habitat needs, (3) trace the historical agement of only one component will be ineffective if a different com- evolution of studies designed to identify Brook Trout ponent limits the population. and Brown Trout habitat needs in the context of 3. The thermal niche of both Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis and these conceptual frameworks, (4) review Brook Trout- Brown Trout Salmo trutta has been well described. Brown Trout interactions and (5) discuss lingering un- 4. Selected physical habitat characteristics such as pool depths and certainties in habitat management for these species. adult cover, have a long history of being manipulated in the Driftless Area leading to increased abundance of adult trout. Brook Trout and Brown Trout Biology 5. Most blue-ribbon trout streams in the Driftless Area probably pro- vide sufficient habitat for year-round needs (e.g., spawning, feeding, Brook Trout.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Rainbow Trout on Brook Trout Population Size in Tributaries to Lake Superior in Cook County, Minnesota
    Effects of Rainbow Trout on Brook Trout Population Size in Tributaries to Lake Superior in Cook County, Minnesota Craig Tangren Biology Department Bemidji State University This study looked at the effects of Rainbow Trout stocking on the size of Brook Trout populations above migratory barriers. Linear mixed effects models were used to determine if there was a relationship between Brook Trout and Rainbow Trout catch rates. Age 1 or older Brook Trout populations were influenced by relative abundance of age 1 or older Rainbow Trout, according to the best supported model based on AIC scores. Population responses varied by stream, ranging along a gradient from high catch rates with a positive relationship to a negative relationship with low relative abundances. Streams with a positive relationship are likely more productive, with more prey and smaller territories, which allows for greater relative abundance. Streams with a weak relationship may have Brook Trout populations limited by the capacity for natural reproduction, a factor which would not influence Rainbow Trout. A clear negative relationship in some streams is likely due to density-dependent effects. This study did not perform an analysis comparing Brook Trout population sizes before and after the presence of Rainbow Trout. It is possible, but undetermined, that Brook Trout populations in this study would be larger if not for the introduction of Rainbow Trout. Management of Brook Trout and Rainbow Trout populations should be considered on a stream-by-stream basis due to the wide variation in population responses, and particular attention should be paid to the potential effects of Rainbow Trout introduction on streams with low abundances of Brook Trout.
    [Show full text]