DOCSLIB.ORG

TECH Ical REPORT NO. 181 1910 FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD of CANADA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

11....." ...- .... - FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA TECH ICAl REPORT NO. 181 1910 FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA Teahnical Reports FRB Technical Reports are research documents that are of sufficient importance to be preserved, but which for some reason are not appropriate for scientific pUblication. No restriction is placed on sUbject matter and the series should reflect the broad research interests of FRB. These Reports can be cited in pUblications, but care should be taken to indicate their manuscript status. Some of the material in these Reports will eventually appear in scientific publication. Inquiries concerning any particular Report should be directed to the issuing PRB establishment which is indicated on the title page. FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 161 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 'mE PIKE PERCH OF THE GENUS STIZOSTEDION (INCLUDINC TIlE CENUS KNOWN AS LUCIOPERCA) by G. Lewis Robins This is the Eighth FRB Technical Report from the Fisheries Research Board of Canada Freshwater Institute Winnipeg, Manitoba 1970 l (i) Acknowledgements This bibliography was begun in 1967 while the author was the holder of a Post Doctoral Fellowship in the Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, and completed in 1969 at the Nanaimo Biological Station of the Fi sheries Research Board of Canada. Special thanks are extended to Mrs. Audrey Clements who typed the manuscript and checked many of the references. Introduction The references appearing in the text were obtained from the following sources: (1) Biological Abstracts 1927 to 1968 (ii) Zoological Record 1864 to 1968 (iii) A Bibliography of Fishes by Bashford Dean, Vol. I (1916). Vol. II (1917) and Vol. III (1923). New York. Approximately 10% of the papers cited were seen by the author. The balance have merely been taken from the abstracting services. The key words used in selecting references were ILucioperca l , 'Pike-perch', 'Sauger', 'Stizostedion', 'Walleye', and 'Zander'. The author was only briefly concerned with walleye research, hence the small number of papers seen. However, in view of the usefulness of such a bibliography to other workers and prospective workers in the field of walleye research, it was decided to complete the Literature search and publish the complete bibliography. (ii) l IN DE X Section Reference No. Subject No. Page I General Texts 1-8 I II Geographical Range 9-34 2 III Systematics 35-65 5 IV Palaeoecology 66-69 9 General biology 70-109 10 VI Distribution within Lake/River 1l0-I26 14 VII Food and Feeding 127-176 16 VIII Predator/Prey relationships 177-185 22 IX Age and Growth 186-231 23 X Migrations 232-257 28 Xl Spawning 258-282 31 XII Endocrinology 283-286 34 XIII Embryology (Normal Development) 287-302 35 XIV Embryology (Effects of pollutants, etc.) 303-320 37 XV Physiology and Biochemistry 321-363 39 XVI Parasitology and Pathology 364-414 44 XVII Pike-Perch Culture 415-467 50 XVIII Pike-Perch Introductions 468-490 55 XIX Management of the Fishery 491-581 58 1 - 1 - 1. General Texts 1. CHlGUNOVA, N. I. 1931 [On the biology of the pike perch (Luciooerca lucioperca) of the Sea of Azov, So. Russia.] Trudy Asovsko-Cherno­ morsko! Nauchno-Promyslovo~ Ekspedi£511 (Abhandl. Wiss. Fischerei-Exped. 1m Asowschen und Schwarzen Meer, 9: 1-170). (Gennan swrmary). 2. DEASON, H. J. 1939 Morphometry and life history studies of the pike-perches (Stizostedion) of Lake Erie. University of Michigan Ph.D. Thesis. 358 p. 3. OEELI1:R, C. L., and J. WILLEMSEN 1964 Synopsis of biological data on pike-perch Lucioperca lucioperca (Linnaeus) 1758. [Taxonomy, nomenclature, distribution, life history, population, exploitation.] FAD Fish. BioI. Synopses, 28(1): 1-6, 8. l11us. Map. 4. ESCHMEYER, PAUL H. 1950 The life history of the walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum (Mitchill) in Michigan. Mich. Dep. Co~lnst. Fish Res. Bull., 3: 7-99. 111us. Map. ~. PAYNE, N. R. 1964 The life history of the walleye (Stizostedion vitreum ~ Mitchill) in the Bay of Quinte. University of Toronto M.A. Thesis. 6. RAWSON, D. S. 19~7 The life history and ecology of the yellow walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, in Lac la Ronge, Saskatchewan. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 86(l9~6): 1~-37. lllus. 7. RYDER, R. A. and W. S. ADDISON Bibliography of North American Stizostedion species. ant. Dept. Lands and Forests unpublished MS. 8. ZARYAOOVA, E. B. 1960 [Biology of the zander (Stizostedion lucioperca) in the lower Volga. Ir. Saratvosk. Otd. Gos. Nauchn. -lssled. lnst. Ozernogo Rybn. Khoz., 6: 38-7~. Referat Zhur. BioI. 1962, No.9 I 31. See also numbers: 63, 70-109 and 204. - 2 - I!. Geographical Range 9. BAILEY, REEVE M., and HARRY M. HARRISON, JR. 1945 The fishes of Clear Lake, Iowa. Iowa State ColI. Jour. SeL, 20(1): 57-77, 1 fig. 10. BARNICKOL, PAUL G., and WILLIAM C. STARRETT 1951 COlIlllercial and sport fishes of the Mississippi River between Caruthersville, Missouri and Dubuque, Iowa. Bull. Illinois Nat. Hist. Serv., 25(5): 267-350. !lIus. ll. BERG, LEO S. 1935 Sommer-und Winterassen bei den anadromen Fischen. Arch. Naturgesch (Zeitschr. Wiss. Zoo1. Abt. B.), 4(3): 376-403. 12. BROWN, BRADFORD E. 1962 Occurrence of the walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, in Alabama south of the Tennessee Valley. Copeia 2: 469-471. Map. 13. CARL, C. C. 1945 Three apparently unrecorded fresh water fishes of British Columbia. Canadian Field-Nat., 59(l}: 25. 14. CASPARS, H., and H. MANN 1960 Bodenfauna und Fischbestand in der Hamburger Alster. Ein quantitaturokologischer Vergleich in emein Stadt­ gew!JJ.sser. Abh. nature Ver. Hamburg N. F. 5: 89-110. 9 fig. 15. CHEVEY, P. 1925 Un poisson nouveau pour la faune franljaise: Lucioperca lucioperca Linn. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr., 49: 548. 16. DYMOND, J. R. 1947 A list of the freshwater fishes of Canada east of the Rocky Mountains with keys. Royal Onto Mus. Zool. Toronto Misc. Publ., No.1: 1-36. 17. EDDY, S., and T. SURBER 1943 Northern fishes with special reference to the upper Mississippi Valley. Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minneapolis Press, xi + 252 p. 18. HUBBS, CARL L. 1929 Materials for a distributional study of Ontario fishes. Trans. Roy. Canadian Inst" 17(1): 1-56. - 3 - 1 19. JE:~~iLE~~~~ ~~ei f~r die Fauna Ungans neue Fische, Lucioperca volgensis Cuv. Val. und Albernus maculatus Kessler. Zoologische Mittheilungen i Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien, 11: 323-326. 20. JORDAN, D. S. 1877 Scientific report of Ohio fishes. Rept. Ohio State Fish. Go"",., 1 (1875-76), 57-70. 21. 1882 Report on the fishes of Ohio. Rept. Gee!. Serv. Ohio, 4(1), 737-1020. 22. KUDERSKII, 1. A. 1961 [Reasons for the absence of pike-perch in the White Sea basin and the Pechora River.] ill: Materialy po Zoogeo­ grafH Karelii [Materials on the zoogeography of Karelia.] Petrozavodsk, 1: 8-18. Referat. ZhUT. BioI., 1962 No. 17122 (translation). 23. LANKESTER, EDWIN RAY 1912 Science from an easy chair; a second series. London, xiii, 412 p. Plates and 55 illus. (Ref: pike-perch in Switzerland, p. 3). 24. LUK~GS, K. , 1932 A balatoni fogasxol. Termeszett. K~zl. Budapest, 64, 112-119, 4 text figs. 25. McALLISTER, D. E. 1962 The brassy minnow, river shiner and sauger new to Alberta. Canad. Field-Nat., 76: 124-125. 26. MAGNIN, E., and V. LEGENDRE 1964 Extension d'aire de trois poissons d'eau douce dans Ie nord-ouest de 1a province. Rapp. Minist. Tour. Chas. p~che, Provo Que., 3: 17-19. 27. Rad. Jugoslav. Ak., 126: 84. 28. OLIVA, O. 1950 [Notes on a small collection of fishes from Bulgaria.] Cas. n~r. Mus. Prague, 1949-50 (1950): 100-106. (English sunmary). 29. REGNEL, STEN 1967 [Concerning certain fishes from north Smaland's coastal islands.] Fauna Flora, 1: 17-23. Hlus. - 4 - 30. rOCHETTER. PAUL G. 1941 Notes on Chordata for Day County, South Dakota. Proe. S. Dakota Acad. Sci., 21: 18-21. 31. VL~~~OVpO~~S~~S de la Russie sous-carpathique (Tchtcoslovaquie). Mem. Soc. ZooL France, Paris, 29: 217-374. 32. VlITSKlTS. G. 1915 [Ueber die Artmerkmale von tucioperca volgensics und den Sexual-dimorphismus von Lucioperca sandra.] AUatt. K6z1em. Kot Budapest, 14: 197-207, 274, 2 figs. (Text 1n Hungarianj German resum', p. 274.) 33. ZILLIOX. ROBERT G. 1962 The walleyes of Lake Champlain. Conservationist, 16(5): 10-11. Illus. map. 34. ZYSIN, A. S. 1964 [Zander in the Irtysh River.] lzv. Qnskogo Otd. Geogr. Obshchest SSSR, 6.13: 119-120. From: Ref. Zh. Biol. 1965, No. 4128 (translation). See also numbers: 1-8, 45, 54, 62, 78, 79, 93, 104, 105, 109, 210, 211, 218, 251, 291, 456, 468-490, 493-496, 500, 508, 521, 522, 542, 543 and 554. - 5 - III. Systematics 35. ANON. 1916 Der Zander (Le Sandre) Lucioperca lucioperca (L.) Lucioperca sandra Cuv. und Val. Sch~eiz Fischerei Zeitg 1916, 24 Jahrg, 33-39. Fig. 36. ANON. (GILL, To N.?) 1877 [LuciopercaJ StizQstethium. Synonymy and descriptions of the American species. Bull. Nat. Mus., 10: 43-49. 37. ANON. 184~ Reports on Zoology for 1843 and 1844. Translated from the German for the Ray Society. London. 596 p. (Brief mention on p. 99). 38. BELYI, N. D. 1965 [Biological groups of the zander Lucioperca lucioperca (L )]. Vopr. Ikhtio1., 5(2), 279-289. 39. 8ERINKEY, L 1958 The osteology of Lucioperca lucioperca and Lucioperca volgensis. Ann. hist. nat. Mus. hung., 50: 313-329, 14 fi9. 40. 8OULENGER, G. A. 1892 On Lucioperca marina C and V. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 411-413. Plates. 41. COLLETTE, 8. 8. 1963 The sub families, tribes and genera of the Percidae (Te1eostei). Copeia, 4: 615-623. 42. DUKRAVETS, G. M. 1965 [Information on the Systematics of Lucioperca in the basin of the Ta1as River.] Vestnik Akad.
Recommended publications
  • Environmental DNA Assays for the Sister Taxa Sauger (Sander Canadensis) and Walleye (Sander Vitreus)

    Environmental DNA Assays for the Sister Taxa Sauger (Sander Canadensis) and Walleye (Sander Vitreus)

    RESEARCH ARTICLE Environmental DNA assays for the sister taxa sauger (Sander canadensis) and walleye (Sander vitreus) Joseph C. Dysthe1*, Kellie J. Carim1, Michael Ruggles2, Kevin S. McKelvey1, Michael K. Young1, Michael K. Schwartz1 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana, United States of America, 2 Montana a1111111111 Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Region 5, Billings, Montana, United States of America a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract Sauger (Sander canadensis) and walleye (S. vitreus) are percid fishes that naturally co- occur throughout much of the eastern United States. The native range of sauger extends OPEN ACCESS into the upper Missouri River drainage where walleye did not historically occur, but have Citation: Dysthe JC, Carim KJ, Ruggles M, been stocked as a sport fish. Sauger populations have been declining due to habitat loss, McKelvey KS, Young MK, Schwartz MK (2017) fragmentation, and competition with non-native species, such as walleye. To effectively Environmental DNA assays for the sister taxa sauger (Sander canadensis) and walleye (Sander manage sauger populations, it is necessary to identify areas where sauger occur, and par- vitreus). PLoS ONE 12(4): e0176459. https://doi. ticularly where they co-occur with walleye. We developed quantitative PCR assays that can org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176459 detect sauger and walleye DNA in filtered water samples. Each assay efficiently detected Editor: Tzen-Yuh Chiang, National Cheng Kung low quantities of target DNA and failed to detect DNA of non-target species with which they University, TAIWAN commonly co-occur.
  • The Round Goby (Neogobius Melanostomus):A Review of European and North American Literature

    The Round Goby (Neogobius Melanostomus):A Review of European and North American Literature

    ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. CI u/l Natural History Survey cF Library (/4(I) ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY OT TSrX O IJX6V E• The Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus):A Review of European and North American Literature with notes from the Round Goby Conference, Chicago, 1996 Center for Aquatic Ecology J. Ei!en Marsden, Patrice Charlebois', Kirby Wolfe Illinois Natural History Survey and 'Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Lake Michigan Biological Station 400 17th St., Zion IL 60099 David Jude University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division 3107 Institute of Science & Technology Ann Arbor MI 48109 and Svetlana Rudnicka Institute of Fisheries Varna, Bulgaria Illinois Natural History Survey Lake Michigan Biological Station 400 17th Sti Zion, Illinois 6 Aquatic Ecology Technical Report 96/10 The Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus): A Review of European and North American Literature with Notes from the Round Goby Conference, Chicago, 1996 J. Ellen Marsden, Patrice Charlebois1, Kirby Wolfe Illinois Natural History Survey and 'Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Lake Michigan Biological Station 400 17th St., Zion IL 60099 David Jude University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division 3107 Institute of Science & Technology Ann Arbor MI 48109 and Svetlana Rudnicka Institute of Fisheries Varna, Bulgaria The Round Goby Conference, held on Feb. 21-22, 1996, was sponsored by the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program, and organized by the
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • Final Report

    Final Report

    2011 Project Abstract For the Period Ending June 30, 2014 PROJECT TITLE: Mississippi River Water Quality Assessment PROJECT MANAGER: Michael Sadowsky AFFILIATION: University of Minnesota MAILING ADDRESS: 140 Gortner Lab, 1479 Gortner Ave CITY/STATE/ZIP: Saint Paul, MN 55108 PHONE: (612) 626-0977 E-MAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: http://www.cbs.umn.edu/main/news/inthefield/m3p.shtml FUNDING SOURCE: Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund LEGAL CITATION: M.L. 2011, First Special Session, Chp. 2, Art.3, Sec. 2, Subd. 05c APPROPRIATION AMOUNT: $ 557,000 Overall Project Outcome and Results A metagenomics-based sequencing approach was utilized to characterize the bacterial community at sites along the Mississippi River in Minnesota to understand how these communities were influenced by or indicative of water quality. Results of this study revealed that the bacterial community throughout the river primarily consisted of a small number of highly abundant species that comprise a “core microbial community” that was stable both in terms of community membership and inferred functional traits. Variation in community membership and species abundances were primarily influenced by physicochemical parameters (e.g. pH and temperature) rather than spatial distance, and a reproducible community structure occurred annually toward the late summer. Furthermore, specific bacterial orders were related to chemical concentrations that co-varied with surrounding land use, suggesting that increases in abundance of these orders may be indicative of specific types of contamination throughout the river. Therefore, assessment of the total bacterial community provides more information about water quality and contamination sources than could be previously gleaned from traditional enumeration of indicator bacteria like Escherichia coli.
  • Using Stable Isotopes to Investigate Movement of Fish in Rice Paddy Fields

    Using Stable Isotopes to Investigate Movement of Fish in Rice Paddy Fields

    Int Aquat Res DOI 10.1007/s40071-015-0105-y ORIGINAL RESEARCH Using stable isotopes to investigate movement of fish in rice paddy fields Jaeyong Lee . Jae-Ok Kim . Jeffrey S. Owen . Bomchul Kim Received: 7 January 2015 / Accepted: 17 April 2015 Ó The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract We evaluated movement of fish, especially Misgurnus spp. (loach), in paddy fields and irrigation ponds by conducting an inventory of d13C and d15N of fish, potential food sources, and soil organic matter in two irrigation pond–paddy field systems in Korea. The pond–paddy systems differ with respect to the presence or the absence of a ridge between the paddy field and the irrigation pond and also whether or not livestock are present in their watersheds. The ridge prevents the free movement of fish between paddy field and irrigation pond habitats in one of the pond–paddy watersheds, but not in the other watershed. We found differences in loach d13C and d15N inhabiting the paddy fields compared to those in loach d13C and d15Nin the irrigation ponds. In irrigation ponds, loach d13C was lower in September (average -27.9 and -27.7 %) compared to July (average -26.2 and -26.3 %) in the watershed with a ridge (station 1) and without a ridge (station 6), respectively. Loach d13C in irrigation ponds in September was similar to loach d13C in the paddy field in July at both sampling sites, indicating loach might have moved into irrigation pond from paddy field. Loach d15N in the watershed with livestock was significantly higher (average 18.2 %) in the irrigation ponds than loach d15N in the watershed with no livestock present (average 11.3 %), probably reflecting higher anthropogenic nitrogen inputs from livestock.
  • A Case Study of Weatherfish (Misgurnus Fossilis)

    A Case Study of Weatherfish (Misgurnus Fossilis)

    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN The role of detritivory as a feeding tactic in a harsh environment – a case study of weatherfsh Received: 31 July 2018 Accepted: 28 May 2019 (Misgurnus fossilis) Published: xx xx xxxx Kacper Pyrzanowski 1, Grzegorz Zięba 1, Małgorzata Dukowska1, Carl Smith1,2,3 & Mirosław Przybylski1 The weatherfsh (Misgurnus fossilis) is a species that is tolerant of unfavourable environmental conditions and can survive low dissolved oxygen concentrations and high water temperatures. Although this species occurs across almost the whole of Europe, and is protected in many countries, relatively little is known regarding its ecology. To determine the diet of weatherfsh, 120 individuals from an artifcial drainage canal in central Poland were collected in two seasons (spring and late summer) with contrasting abiotic condition (oxygen concentration, water temperature and transparency). Analysis of gut fullness showed that weatherfsh consumed a greater quantity of food in spring (0.92 ± 0.90) compared with summer (0.20 ± 0.26). Contrary to other cobitid taxa, weatherfsh fed actively during daytime in both seasons. An estimate of the importance of each dietary component indicated that the most important food categories were chironomids, copepods, Asellus aquaticus and detritus. SIMPER analysis indicated that these four categories together constituted over 65.8% of cumulative dissimilarity in the diet between seasons. Additionally, trophic niche breadth difered signifcantly between seasons. The study demonstrated that the weatherfsh is an opportunistic feeder, consuming large quantities of detritus despite possessing a gut morphology that is atypical of a detritivore. The quantity of detritus in the gut of weatherfsh was positively associated with fsh total length and varied seasonally, with a greater quantity of detritus in the diet in late summer.
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf

    Kyfishid[1].Pdf

    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
  • Invasive Species and Your Business Join Us in Protecting Minnesota Waters | Sell Only Low-Risk Species and Help to Prevent Releases and Escapes

    Invasive Species and Your Business Join Us in Protecting Minnesota Waters | Sell Only Low-Risk Species and Help to Prevent Releases and Escapes

    INVASIVE SPECIES AND YOUR BUSINESS JOIN US IN PROTECTING MINNESOTA WATERS | SELL ONLY LOW-RISK SPECIES AND HELP TO PREVENT RELEASES AND ESCAPES The invasive plants and animals pictured here have been documented in the pet and aquarium trades and are illegal to possess or sell in Minnesota. Invasive species are non-native species that present risks to Minnesota’s fish, wildlife and plant communities, water quality and recreation or human health. Please note, this is not a complete list of species that are illegal to possess or sell. DO NOT OFFER THESE SPECIES FOR SALE AT YOUR BUSINESS! AQUATIC PLANTS Visit dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/pet-and-aquarium-businesses.html for a complete list. Indian swampweed, dwarf hygrophila Giant salvinia Brittle naiad (Hygrophila polysperma) (Salvinia molesta) (Najas minor) Hydrilla Water soldier, water aloe (Hydrilla verticillata) (Stratiotes aloides) Please remind your customers not to release aquarium pets and plants into the wild! Remember: It is illegal to release most non-native animals and plants into a free-living state in Minnesota. PHOTO CREDITS Indian swampweed, dwarf hygrophila – U.S. Geological Survey Giant salvinia – Vic Ramey, UF/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants Brittle naiad – Mark Warman Hydrilla – L. Gettys, UF/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants DO NOT OFFER THESE SPECIES FOR SALE AT YOUR BUSINESS! FISH, CRAYFISH AND INVERTEBRATES Visit dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/pet-and-aquarium-businesses.html for a complete list. Oriental weatherfish, pond loach, dojo loach Western mosquitofish *Eastern mosquitofish (Misgurnus anguillicaudataus) (Gambusia affinis) (Gambusia holbrooki) Stone moroko Northern snakehead *Nile perch, Victoria perch, African snook (Pseudorasbora parva) (Channa argus), *Channa spp.
  • Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana

    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).
  • (Percidae) Is the Valid Generic Name for Walleye, Sauger, and Eurasian

    (Percidae) Is the Valid Generic Name for Walleye, Sauger, and Eurasian

    ESSAY Stizostedion Rafinesque, 1820 (Percidae) is the Valid Generic Name for Walleye, Sauger, and Eurasian Pikeperch John Clay Bruner | University of Alberta, Department of Biological Sciences, 116 St & 85 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] Theodore Nicholas Gill’s misconception of Lorenz Okenfuss’s use of the Latvian vernacular name Sander for Cuvier’s French vernacular name Les Sandres, as a properly coined Latin name, led to Gill’s and subsequent authors’ incorrect acceptance of Sander as the senior synonym for Stizostedion. However, some authors, aware Sander is a common name and never proposed as a valid generic name, have continued using the correct generic name Stizostedion. American Fisheries Society guidelines for pub- lication in their journals and the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences requires authors to use the current edition of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which has incorrectly used Sander in the last two editions. Thus, fishery biologists have been forced to use an incorrect generic name for one of the most important freshwater fisheries of North America. Stability of zoological nomenclature will never be at- are found possessing the same distinctions, in which tained as long as authors exercise indiscriminately their case my two perches may then be called Stizostedion privilege of introducing into the literature any name salmoneum, and Lepibema chrysops. that suits their fancy or convenience. Few users of sci- entific terminology have the means, the time, or the in- Rafinesque’s Stizostedion thus was the first correctly de- clination to verify the validity of each name they use.
  • Abricot (M) Meruňka

    Abricot (M) Meruňka

    aberace aberration amorfní amorphous, shapeless abnormita abnormality, abnormity amortizér shock absorber, shock-absorber abort abortion amur amur abortivní abortive, undeveloped amur bílý grass carp, white amur abortivní mitóza abortive mitosis amur černý black carp absolutní plodnost absolute fertility anadromní ryby anadromous fish acentrická inverze acentric inversion anafázický anaphasic acentrický acentric anafázický pohyb anaphase number acentrický chromozóm acentric analog analogue chromosome aneuploid aneuploid adaptér k rychlé výměně splávku float aneuploidie aneuploidy adaptor anisomagie anisogamy adheze adhesion anofeles anopheles, anopheles mosquito aditiva additives anténní splávek antenna float aditivní účinek additive effect antibiotika antibiotics afinita affinity antigen antigen aglutinace agglutination antikinker antikink device achromatická figura achromatic figure antimutagen antimutagene achromatický achromatic antimutagenní antimutagenic achromazie achromasie apomiktický apomictic akce action archiplasma archiplasm, archoplasm akce prutu v dolním konci butt action arktický arctic akce prutu ve špičce tip action artefakt artefa akcesorní accessory asociace jader nuclear association akcesorní chromozóm accessory aster aster chromosome, B chromosome asymetrický bivalent skew bivalent aklimatizace ryb acclimatization of fish asynapse asynapse, asyndesis akrocentrický acrocentric atavismus atavism aktivace activation atavistický atavistic aktivita activity aterina Bleekerova flathead silverside akutní příznak acute symptom
  • Pikeperch Hybrid Sander Lucioperca × Sander Volgensis

    Pikeperch Hybrid Sander Lucioperca × Sander Volgensis

    PANNON PIKEPERCH: PIKEPERCH HYBRID SANDER LUCIOPERCA × SANDER VOLGENSIS TAMÁS MÜLLER* – MIKLÓS BERCSÉNYI** – BENCE SCHMIDT-KOVÁCS*** – GÁBOR SZILÁGYI*** – ZOLTÁN BOKOR* – BÉLA URBÁNYI* *Department of Aquaculture, Szent István University, Gödöllô, Hungary e-mail:[email protected] **University of Pannonia Georgikon Faculty, Keszthely, Hungary ***V’95 Ltd., Nagyatád, Halastó, Hungary Due to the geographical and climatic conditions of the pikeperch consumes live food, thus, this species require Carpathian basin, the dominant fish species of standard a specific diet. fish farms is the common carp. According to last year’s The lack of knowledge on (pond) culture conditions statistical summary of fish production of pond culture, inhibited evaluation of intensive rearing methods so far. 75% of the total harvested market-size fish (14,282 tons) In the last 15 years, research on percids has accelerated. is common carp and 1,26% is the rate of carnivorous Pikeperch rearing on formulated feeds is a new alternative species (catfish, pikeperch, pike). The amount of way for the intensification of its production (Bódis et al. pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) was only 27,1 tons (0,19%!) 2007, Kestemont et al. 2007). However, there is another (Statisztikai Jelentések, lehalászás Jelentés, 2015, in possible way to increase the production of percids. Instead Hungarian). Because of a market demand for better of technology improvement, a new product shall be created meat quality and less fattening products the production which can be implemented and used in a production of rate of Hungarian carnivorous fish should be increased. pond culture. This way, there is no need for an expensive A significant increase of pikeperch production can be farm construction.