DOCSLIB.ORG

Lough Derg Native Fish Biodiversity Project Lough Derg: River Shannon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lough Derg Native Fish Biodiversity Project Lough Derg: River Shannon Lough Derg Native Fish Biodiversity Project Lough Derg: River Shannon Vital statistics Surface area 118 km² Average depth 7.6 m Max. depth 36 m Water volume 0.887 km³ Residence time 0.15 years Shore length1 179,000 m Surface elevation 33.5 Image etc (source Wikipedia) Multiuser resource Important recreational fishery for trout and coarse fish species Impacts include Impoundment Pollution Invasive non-native species Navigation works The bloody shrimp Zebra mussel Lough Derg Native Fish Biodiversity Project Core Aim “To identify and describe the native fish biodiversity in Lough Derg, and risks affecting their survival which should facilitate sustainable management of the lake and the native fish community for future generations to appreciate and enjoy” Lough Derg Native Fish Biodiversity Project Partners 13 Angling Clubs, Inland Fisheries Ireland, ESB, Irish Char Conservation Group, Lough Derg Sub-Aqua Club and two universities (Queens and University of Waterloo, Canada). Aims 1. To identify and describe the native fish biodiversity of Lough Derg using phenotypic and genetics 2. Figure out why the pollan stocks have collapsed 3. Examine changes in fish composition in the lough 4. See if there really are different types of trout in the lough 5. See if the non-native fish and invertebrates are causing problems to food web. Lough Derg NFB Project • 2006: stakeholders met and project started • 2006 -2010 anglers contribute to sampling of fish • 2007 major netting survey of the lough by stakeholders • 2007 local divers survey substrate, also visit ot Lough Neagh to see “pollan fishery” • 2008 PhD funding from EPA – sampling commences on streams for juvenile trout genetics • 2008 – 2010 major call for lampreys and trout samples • 2010 sampling ongoing for universities • 2011 recognition that funding needed to progress project to next phase Kevin Grimes (standing) St. Flannans Fishing Club and Rory Sheehan (IFI) carry out hydroacoustic survey Sample of fish taken -perch Setting gill nets in 2007 survey Divers in Lough Derg Diver PJ Phelan (Lough Derg Subaqua club collect benthic samples Angler head out to collect trout samples Public awareness key element of project Lough Derg NFB Project A few examples Pollan: Status and conservation issues Derg pollan (source F. Igoe) 1. Last sighting before project commenced was in 2002 2. Recorded 2 pollan in 2007 3. Estimated at ~1.5% of population present in 1920 4. Highly threatened Brown trout: Trout diversity in the Lough Derg Anecdotal evidence of diversity The Gillaroo trout •Anglers report different types of trout from the lough The Croneen trout •Historical literature also reports different •species or types of trout, e.g., Gillaroo •old log books, folklore of local people • and early surveys also report presence of Gillaroo trout Presumed migration of the Croneen Trout FISH PHOTOGRAPH FOR IDENTIFICATION AND MORPHOMETRICS Shape analysis to be carried out in tandem with genetics Trout genetics (funded by EPA) Preliminary genetic work (J. McGee, Queens University pers comm.). • >700 lake trout samples collected (13 angling clubs) • >1200 juvenile fish collected (IFI/ShRFB and ESB) •Atleast four distinct trout groups or types have been identified from the samples Lamprey attached to freshly landed trout Source (Mylo) Lamprey: Status and conservation issues Lamprey known to attack trout on the lough •What species of lamprey? Sea lamprey •What species of fish were under attack? Brown trout, pike and also bream and roach •Are they landlocked or opportunistic migrating juveniles? Not sure •Are they having a negative impact on the other fish species on the lough? Individual yes, population level probably not? •Where do they spawn? Unknown Survey of lamprey attacks on coarse fish carried out in 2010 (Lower L. Derg) Perentage of bream showing lamprey attack marks 25 n=10 20 n=35 n=26 15 % 10 n=12 5 n=6 0 27th. May 2010 31st. May 2010 17Th. June 2010 20th. July 2010 12th August 2010 Special thanks to TJ O Brien To conclude Lough Derg NFB Project • Pollan still surviving in L. Derg – only just! • Trout diversity high based on genetic work • No evidence that the Croneen (Camcor) trout occur in L. Derg • Gillaroo trout appear to be extinct! • Sea lamprey actively feeding on trout, pike, roach and bream • Invasive species Gammarus tigrinnus present in the lough • Rudd virtually disappeared and replaced by roach in biomass terms • Future collaboration with other countries to learn from each others experiences Big thanks toSummary all the volunteers and •thoseOverall in stateaim is agencies the sustainable and others use who of haveLough helped Derg and worked to the spirit of • Protection ofthe native project fish community • Development of eco-friendly tourism • Development of appreciation by local community and stakeholders of the lough • More integrated planning and management by statutory agencies with direct “bottom up” stakeholder participation in management decisions.
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]
  • Onseriation of Bull Trout
    United States - De artment of Iariculture Demographic and Forest Service Intermountain Research Statlon Habit4 Reauirements General Technical Report INT-302 for ~onseriationof September 1993 Bull Trout Bruce E. Rieman John D. Mclntyre THE AUTHORS CONTENTS BRUCE E. RlEMAN is a research fishery biologist with Page the lntermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Introduction ................................................................... 1 Laboratory in Boise, ID. He received a master's degree Ecology ......................................................................... 1 in fisheries management and a Ph.D. degree in for- Biology and Life History ............................................ 2 estry, wildlife, and range sciences from the University Population Structure.................................................. 3 of Idaho. He has worked in fisheries management and Biotic Interactions ...................................................... 3 research for 17 years with the ldaho Department of Habitat Relationships ................................................ 4 Fish and Game and the Oregon Department of Fish Summary ...................................................................7 and Wildlife. He joined the Forest Service in 1992. His Implications of Habitat Disturbance .............................. 7 current work focuses on the biology, dynamics, and' Extinction Risks ......................................................... 9 conservation of salmonid populations in the Intermoun- Viability ...................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Are Brown Trout Replacing Or Displacing Bull Trout Populations In
    Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI) 1 ARTICLE Are brown trout replacing or displacing bull trout populations in a changing climate? Robert Al-Chokhachy, David Schmetterling, Chris Clancy, Pat Saffel, Ryan Kovach, Leslie Nyce, Brad Liermann, Wade Fredenberg, and Ron Pierce Abstract: Understanding how climate change may facilitate species turnover is an important step in identifying potential conservation strategies. We used data from 33 sites in western Montana to quantify climate associations with native bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and non-native brown trout (Salmo trutta) abundance and population growth rates (␭). We estimated ␭ using exponential growth state-space models and delineated study sites based on bull trout use for either spawning and rearing (SR) or foraging, migrating, and overwintering (FMO) habitat. Bull trout abundance was negatively associated with mean August stream temperatures within SR habitat (r = −0.75). Brown trout abundance was generally highest at temperatures between 12 and 14 °C. We found bull trout ␭ were generally stable at sites with mean August temperature below 10 °C but significantly decreasing, rare, or extirpated at 58% of the sites with temperatures exceeding 10 °C. Brown trout ␭ were highest in SR and sites with temperatures exceeding 12 °C. Declining bull trout ␭ at sites where brown trout were absent suggest brown trout are likely replacing bull trout in a warming climate. Résumé : Il importe de comprendre comment le climat pourrait faciliter le renouvellement des espèces pour cerner des stratégies de conservation potentielles. Nous avons utilisé des données de 33 sites de l’ouest du Montana pour quantifier les associations climatiques avec l’abondance et les taux de croissance de populations (␭) d’ombles a` tête plate (Salvelinus confluentus) indigènes et de truites brunes (Salmo trutta) non indigènes.
    [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]
  • Growth of Brook Trout (Salvelinus Fontinalis) and Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta) in the Pigeon River, Otsego County, Michigan*
    [Reprinted from PAPERS OF THE MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, ARTS, AND LETTERS, VOL. XXXVIII, 1952. Published 1953] GROWTH OF BROOK TROUT (SALVELINUS FONTINALIS) AND BROWN TROUT (SALMO TRUTTA) IN THE PIGEON RIVER, OTSEGO COUNTY, MICHIGAN* EDWIN L. COOPER INTRODUCTION ITIHE Pigeon River Trout Research Area was established in Ot- sego County, Michigan, in April, 1949, by the Michigan De- partment of Conservation. It includes 4.8 miles of trout stream and seven small lakes. The stream has been divided into four ex- perimental sections, and fishing is allowed only on the basis of daily permits. This makes possible a creel census that assures examination and recording by trained fisheries workers of the total catch. Most of the scale samples upon which the present study is based are from fish taken in the portion of the stream in the research area. The fish were collected by two different methods: by hook and line, and by electric shocking. In all, scale samples were obtained from 4,439 brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and 1,429 brown trout (Salmo trutta) older than one year; the collections were made be- tween April 20, 1949, and November 30, 1951. VALIDITY OF AGE DETERMINATION BY MEANS OF SCALES Evidence in favor of the method of determining the age of brook trout by means of scales was 'presented in an earlier publication (Cooper, 1951). Further support for this method is given here because of the availability of fish of known age and also because the trout in the Pigeon River usually form quite distinct annuli, making the interpretation of age a relatively simple task (Pl.
    [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]