DOCSLIB.ORG

Brown Trout Stocking: an Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brown Trout Stocking: an Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review Brown Trout Stocking: An Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review T. A. Lasenby and S. J. Kerr Fisheries Section Fish and Wildlife Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources March 2001 This publication should be cited as follows: Lasenby, T. A. and S. J. Kerr. 2001. Brown trout stocking: An annotated bibliography and literature review. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 187 p. + appendices. Printed in Ontario, Canada (0.3 k P. R. 01 15 03) MNR 51488 ISBN 0-7794-0784-9 Copies of this publication are available from: Fish and Wildlife Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P. O. Box 7000 300 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5 Cette publication spécialisée n’est disponible qu’en anglais. Cover drawing by Ruth E. Grant, Brockville, Ontario. Table of Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................(i) Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................(ii) History of Brown Trout Stocking in Ontario ...................................................................................1 Synthesis of Selected Literature .......................................................................................................5 Annotated Bibliography .................................................................................................................25 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................173 Subject Key ..................................................................................................................................175 Subject Index................................................................................................................................177 Appendix 1. Brown trout stocking in Ontario waters, 1900-2000. Appendix 2. A summary of post-stocking survival rates of brown trout reported from various waters. Appendix 3. Contribution of stocked brown trout to selected recreational fisheries in various waters. (ii) History of Brown Trout Stocking in Ontario History of Brown Trout Stocking in Ontario Brown trout (Salmo trutta) was originally believed to be two separate species. The Loch Leven trout (formerly Salmo leveninsis) originated in Scotland, while the German brown trout (formerly Salmo fario), was from Germany. It is now believed that these fish were simply local strains of the same species. Both varieties were introduced into the United States during the 1880s and shortly after became indistinguishable from one another due to mixing in hatcheries (Holcomb 1964). Records indicate that brown trout were introduced into Ontario in 1913, although it is suspected that private citizens may have planted the species into several waters at an earlier date (MacCrimmon and Marshall 1968). The first confirmed introduction consisted of fingerlings stocked into the Speed River near Hespeler and into several streams in the counties of Simcoe, Norfolk and Perth (MacKay 1957). Trout planted in Perth County were of the German variety (Anonymous 1914). At this time Ontario had no brown trout rearing facilities and the fish were obtained from Pennsylvania (MacCrimmon and Marshall 1968). Other early introductions of brown trout in Ontario were made using parental brood stock from Michigan hatcheries and were of unknown strain (Crossman 1984). Brown trout were experimental rearing at the Mount Pleasant hatchery resulted in 2,590 fish being planted into Big Clear Lake (Frontenac County), Eagle Lake (Peterborough County), Nepahwin Lake (Sudbury District) and Muskoka Lake (Muskoka District), in 1929 (Anonymous 1930). Several early introductions of the brown trout into Ontario waters are presented in Table 1. During the initial years, retention of a brown trout brood stock was restricted to the Mount Pleasant facility with the provincial fish hatchery at Kenora also providing facilities to handle the fish to the fry stage (Anonymous 1932). By 1949, six hatcheries (Chatsworth, Codrington, Glenora, Ingersoll, Mount Pleasant and Normandale) were involved in some form of brown trout culture (Anonymous 1950). Table 1. Some early stocking records of brown trout in Ontario waterbodies. Year Waterbody (County) Life stage Number Stocked Reference 1913 Speed River (Hespeler) Unknown 1,000 Anonymous (1914) 1913 Misc. Simcoe area streams (Norfolk) Unknown 1,000 Anonymous (1914) 1913 Misc. streams (Perth) Unknown 1,000 Anonymous (1914) 1914 Whiteman’s Creeks (Waterloo) Unknown 800 Anonymous (1915) 1918 Misc. St. Williams area streams (Norfolk) Unknown 15,000 Anonymous (1919) 1918 Glencoe area pond (Middlesex) Unknown 10,000 Anonymous (1919) 1929 Big Clear Lake (Frontenac) Adults 400 Anonymous (1930) 1929 Eagle Lake (Peterborough) Adults 1,000 Anonymous (1930) 1929 Muskoka Lake (Muskoka) Adults 800 Anonymous (1930) 1929 Nepahwin (Sudbury) Adults 390 Anonymous (1930) 1931 Mississippi River (Carleton) Fingerlings 15,000 Anonymous (1932) 1931 Saugeen River (Grey) Fingerlings 15,000 Anonymous (1932) 1931 Trout Lake (Kenora) Fingerlings 15,000 Anonymous (1932) 1931 Charleston Lake (Leeds) Fingerlings 15,000 Anonymous (1932) 1931 Muskoka River (Muskoka) Fingerlings 8,000 Anonymous (1932) 1931 Rosseau River (Muskoka) Fingerlings 8,000 Anonymous (1932) 1931 Maitland River (Perth) Fingerlings 10,000 Anonymous (1932) …cont’d Table 1 (cont’d) 1 History of Brown Trout Stocking in Ontario Year Waterbody (County) Life Stage Number Stocked Reference 1932 Lake Manitou (Manitoulin) Fingerlings 10,000 Anonymous (1933) 1932 Madawaska River (Renfrew) Fingerlings 30,000 Anonymous (1933) 1933 Haliburton Lake (Haliburton) Fingerlings 5,000 Anonymous (1934) 1933 Humber River (Peel) Fingerlings 10,000 Anonymous (1934) 1933 Catchacoma Lake (Peterborough) Fingerlings 25,000 Anonymous (1934) 1933 Grand River (Waterloo) Fingerlings 15,000 Anonymous (1934) 1933 Ganaraska River (Durham) Yearlings 674 Anonymous (1934) In 1932, a brown trout stocking policy was endorsed by the Ontario government which allowed planting only in streams where brook trout did not exist and in lake trout lakes without tributary streams (Anonymous 1933). Between 1913 and 1962, approximately ten million brown trout fry, fingerlings and yearlings were planted into Ontario waters by the provincial government (MacCrimmon and Marshall 1968). Over the course of the last century numerous fish culture stations have been involved in the rearing of brown trout (Table 2). The culture of brown trout ceased in the early 1960s due to disease concerns. It was feared that furunculosis was being passed on to native trout populations (Anonymous 1983). In 1982 the culture of brown trout was revived at Codrington Fish Culture Station and 290,000 eggs were collected from the Ganaraska and Sydenham rivers, reared to the fingerling and yearling stages and returned to those rivers. These hatchery-reared fish were superior to their predecessors in being pathogen-free. The renewal of the stocking program came at the request of southern Ontario anglers in contrast to the attitudes of anglers in the 1960s who felt that the return on hatchery trout was too low to make an impact on the brown trout fishery (MacCrimmon and Marshall 1968). Brown trout stocking in Ontario has continued on an annual basis since 1982 (Anonymous 1982). Table 2. The propagation of brown trout in Ontario government hatcheries, 1929-2000. Name Years of Operation Known Year(s) of Brown Trout Propagation Mount Pleasant 1909-1965 1929-49 Kenora 1915-? 1930-1931 Ingersoll 1931-1962 1947-1949* Glenora 1923-1955 1947-1949* Chatsworth 1936-present 1947-1949*, 1987-2000 Codrington 1930-1991 1947-1949*, 1982-1991 Harwood 1985-present 1986-1992, 1994-2000 Normandale 1917-present 1947-1949, 1986, 1991-2000 Westport 1950-1985 1961 Ringwood 1980-present 1992-1998 Tarentorus 1956-present 1999 White Lake 1934-present 1971, 1993-2000 Blue Jay Creek 1989-present 1997-2000 *Although it is highly likely that these fish culture stations were rearing brown trout for a longer period of time, no specific documentation could be found. Currently, the majority of the brown trout are stocked into the waters of the Great Lakes (Table 3). Table 3. Brown trout stocked in Ontario waters by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 2000. 2 History of Brown Trout Stocking in Ontario Region MNR/Great Lake District Number of fish stocked by year Northeastern Sault Ste. Marie 8,379 Southcentral Aurora 27,557 Aylmer 0 Bancroft 1,000 Cambridge 33,447 Kemptville 9,422 Midhurst 27,372 Parry Sound 0 Pembroke 9,831 Peterborough 500 Great Lakes Lake Ontario 167,033 Lake Superior 0 Total 284,541 Brown trout stocking can vary within administrative districts from one year to the next, depending on the purpose of the stocking; Aurora, Parry Sound and Lake Superior were stocked in 1999. No brown trout were stocked into northwestern Ontario in either 1999 or 2000. In 2000, 167,033 yearling brown trout were stocked into the Great Lakes and 117,508 into inland waters. The total number of brown trout planted in 2000 accounted for only 3.0% of the total number of fish stocked from provincial fish culture stations. Currently, the only brown trout strain in the Provincial hatchery system is of Ganaraska River origin. Brood stock are taken from Lake Ontario and the Ganaraska River. This strain reproduces naturally, although its migrational
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Baseline Assessment of the Lake Ohrid Region - Albania
    TOWARDS STRENGTHENED GOVERNANCE OF THE SHARED TRANSBOUNDARY NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE LAKE OHRID REGION Baseline Assessment of the Lake Ohrid region - Albania IUCN – ICOMOS joint draft report January 2016 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................... i A. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 B. The study area ........................................................................................................................................... 5 B.1 The physical environment ............................................................................................................. 5 B.2 The biotic environment ................................................................................................................. 7 B.3 Cultural Settings ............................................................................................................................ 0 C. Heritage values and resources/ attributes ................................................................................................ 6 C.1 Natural heritage values and resources ......................................................................................... 6 C.2 Cultural heritage values and resources....................................................................................... 12 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling the Fish Community Population Dynamics and Forecasting the Eradication Success of an Exotic Fish from an Alpine Stream
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible This is an author’s version published in: http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/20862 Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.024 To cite this version: Laplanche, Christophe and Elger, Arnaud and Santoul, Frédéric and Thiede, Gary P. and Budy, Phaedra Modeling the fish community population dynamics and forecasting the eradication success of an exotic fish from an alpine stream. (2018) Biological Conservation, 223. 34-46. ISSN 0006-3207 Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the repository administrator: [email protected] Modeling the fish community population dynamics and forecasting the eradication success of an exotic fish from an alpine stream Christophe Laplanchea,⁎, Arnaud Elgera, Frédéric Santoula, Gary P. Thiedeb, Phaedra Budyc,b a EcoLab, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INPT, UPS, Toulouse, France b Dept of Watershed Sciences and The Ecology Center, Utah State University, USA c US Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USA ABSTRACT Keywords: Management actions aimed at eradicating exotic fish species from riverine ecosystems can be better informed by Invasive species forecasting abilities of mechanistic models. We illustrate this point with an example of the Logan River, Utah, Population dynamics originally populated with endemic cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah), which compete with exotic brown Bayesian methods trout (Salmo trutta).
    [Show full text]
  • Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Stable Coexistence of Alien Rainbow Trout and Native Marble Trout in a Slovenian Stream
    Innocent until proven guilty? Stable coexistence of alien rainbow trout and native marble trout in a Slovenian stream Naturwissenschaften The Science of Nature ISSN 0028-1042 Volume 98 Number 1 Naturwissenschaften (2010) 98:57-66 DOI 10.1007/ s00114-010-0741-4 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer- Verlag. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication. 1 23 Author's personal copy Naturwissenschaften (2011) 98:57–66 DOI 10.1007/s00114-010-0741-4 ORIGINAL PAPER Innocent until proven guilty? Stable coexistence of alien rainbow trout and native marble trout in a Slovenian stream Simone Vincenzi & Alain J. Crivelli & Dusan Jesensek & Gianluigi Rossi & Giulio A. De Leo Received: 20 September 2010 /Revised: 3 November 2010 /Accepted: 4 November 2010 /Published online: 19 November 2010 # Springer-Verlag 2010 Abstract To understand the consequences of the invasion than density of RTs. Monthly apparent survival probabili- of the nonnative rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss on the ties were slightly higher in MTa than in MTs, while RTs native marble trout Salmo marmoratus, we compared two showed a lower survival than MTs. Mean weight of marble distinct headwater sectors where marble trout occur in and rainbow trout aged 0+ in September was negatively allopatry (MTa) or sympatry (MTs) with rainbow trout related to cohort density for both marble and rainbow trout, (RTs) in the Idrijca River (Slovenia).
    [Show full text]
  • And Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta L.)
    UCC Library and UCC researchers have made this item openly available. Please let us know how this has helped you. Thanks! Title The study of molecular variation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) Author(s) O'Toole, Ciar Publication date 2014 Original citation O'Toole, Ciar. 2014. The study of molecular variation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). PhD Thesis, University College Cork. Type of publication Doctoral thesis Rights © 2014, Ciar O'Toole. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Item downloaded http://hdl.handle.net/10468/1932 from Downloaded on 2021-09-23T17:31:56Z The study of molecular variation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) Ciar O’Toole, B.Sc. (Hons.), M.Sc. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Research supervisors: Professor Tom Cross, Dr. Philip McGinnity Head of School: Professor John O’Halloran School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences National University of Ireland, Cork January 2014 Table of Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 2 General Abstract........................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1: General Introduction .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Vannforvaltningsplan 2022-2027 Vårt Verdifulle Vann
    Vårt verdifulle vann Regional vannforvaltningsplan 2022–2027 www.vannportalen.no Høringsutkast november 2020 Forsidefoto: Anita Aarvik Bukta 1 Vårt verdifulle vann (forord) Vannforvaltningens hovedmål er godt vannmiljø. Denne vannforvaltningsplanen forteller hva som er miljømålene for årene 2022-2027, og hvilke tiltak som foreslås for å beskytte, forbedre og gjenopprette vannmiljøet slik at målene nås. For folk flest vil godt vannmiljø i praksis bety at de har rent og nok vann i springen som trygt kan drikkes og brukes til matlagning og vasking. For næringslivet betyr godt vannmiljø i praksis at det er rent og nok vann til jordbruk, fiskeoppdrett, næringsmiddelindustri og vannkraftproduksjon. For naturen betyr godt vannmiljø at det er både rent og nok vann til laks, ørret, ål, elvemusling og andre organismer som lever i vassdragene og i kystvannet. For friluftsliv og turisme betyr godt vannmiljø i praksis at det finnes rene og trygge badeplasser, at det går an å fiske i elven og langs kysten, at folk kan gå på tur og nyte fossebrus og bekke-klukking. Og at det både er nok og innbydende vann i vassdraget til å kunne padle, ro og rafte. Dersom vi nærmer oss eller oppnår vannforvaltningens miljømål om god økologisk og kjemisk tilstand, så vil dette bidra til bedre forhold også for mange av disse viktige brukerinteressene. FNs bærekraftsmål er lagt til grunn for planarbeidet, der særlig bærekraftsmål nr. 14 Liv under vann og bærekraftsmål nr. 17 Samarbeid for å nå målene, er førende for denne regionale vannforvaltningsplanen. I praksis betyr dette en effektiv og langsiktig forvaltningsdialog mellom stat, fylket, kommuner og innbyggere.
    [Show full text]
  • Autoecology of the Marble Trout Salmo Marmoratus in the Province of Verbano
    Autoecology of the marble trout Salmo marmoratus in the Province of Verbano Cusio Ossola Codice Azione A.2. Collection of abiotic, hydromorphological and biological Titolo information necessary to plan concrete actions Codice Subazione - Titolo - Tipo di elaborato Deliverable Stato di avanzamento Final Version Data 14.02.2020 Autori CNR – Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi Responsabile dell’azione CNR – Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi Collection of abiotic, hydromorphological and biological information A B C D E F necessary to plan concrete actions LIFE Nature and Biodiversityproject LIFE15 NAT/IT/000823 Project title: Conservation and management of freshwater fauna of EU interest within the ecological corridors of Verbano-Cusio-Ossola Project acronym: IdroLIFE Name of the Member State: IT - Italy Start date: 15-11-2016 End date: 14-11-2020 Coordinating beneficiary CNR - Institute of Ecosystem Study (abbrev. CNR-ISE) Associated beneficiaries Provincia del Verbano-Cusio-Ossola (PROVCO) Ente Parco Nazionale della Val Grande (PNGV) G.R.A.I.A. srl - Gestione e Ricerca Ambientale Ittica Acque (GRAIA) Action A.2. Collection of abiotic, hydromorphological and biological information Action Title necessary to plan concrete actions Subaction - Subaction Title - Title of the product Autoecology of the marble trout in the Province of Verbano Cusio Ossola. Type of product Deliverable Progress Final version Date 14.02.2020 Authors CNR – Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi Beneficiary responsible for CNR – Istituto per lo Studio degli
    [Show full text]
  • NASCO Scientific Working Group
    N A S C O NORTH AMERICAN COMMISSION PROTOCOLS FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF SALMONIDS by NAC/NASCO Scientific Working Group on Salmonid Introductions and Transfers Edited by T. Rex Porter Canadian Co-chairman Department of Fisheries and Oceans P O Box 5667 St John's, NF A1C 5X1 NAC(92)24 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PART I SUMMARY OF PROTOCOLS BY ZONE .............................................. 3 1 ZONING OF RIVER SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 5 2 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES ................................................................................. 5 3 PROTOCOLS ......................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Protocols applicable to all three Zones ..................................................... 6 3.2 Protocols applicable to Zone I ................................................................... 7 3.2.1 General within Zone I ................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Rehabilitation ................................................................................................ 7 3.2.3 Establishment or re-establishment of Atlantic salmon in a river or part of a watershed where there are no salmon ........................................ 7 3.2.4 Aquaculture ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pug-Headedness Anomaly in a Wild and Isolated Population of Native Mediterranean Trout Salmo Trutta L., 1758 Complex (Osteichthyes: Salmonidae)
    diversity Communication Pug-Headedness Anomaly in a Wild and Isolated Population of Native Mediterranean Trout Salmo trutta L., 1758 Complex (Osteichthyes: Salmonidae) Francesco Palmas 1,* , Tommaso Righi 2, Alessio Musu 1, Cheoma Frongia 1, Cinzia Podda 1, Melissa Serra 1, Andrea Splendiani 2, Vincenzo Caputo Barucchi 2 and Andrea Sabatini 1 1 Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell’Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli 1, 09126 Cagliari (CA), Italy; [email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (C.F.); [email protected] (C.P.); [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (A.S.) 2 Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell’Ambiente, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Brecce Bianche, 60100 Ancona, Italy; [email protected] (T.R.); [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (V.C.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.:+39-070-678-8010 Received: 28 August 2020; Accepted: 12 September 2020; Published: 15 September 2020 Abstract: Skeletal anomalies are commonplace among farmed fish. The pug-headedness anomaly is an osteological condition that results in the deformation of the maxilla, pre-maxilla, and infraorbital bones. Here, we report the first record of pug-headedness in an isolated population of the critically endangered native Mediterranean trout Salmo trutta L., 1758 complex from Sardinia, Italy. Fin clips were collected for the molecular analyses (D-loop, LDH-C1* locus. and 11 microsatellites). A jaw index (JI) was used to classify jaw deformities. Ratios between the values of morphometric measurements of the head and body length were calculated and plotted against values of body length to identify the ratios that best discriminated between malformed and normal trout.
    [Show full text]
  • Length-Weight Relationship of Ohrid Trout, Salmo Letnica (Karaman, 1924), Inhabiting Transboundary Ohrid Lake (Albania-Macedonia)
    ISSN(Online): 2319-8753 ISSN (Print): 2347-6710 International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization) Vol. 4, Issue 6, June 2015 Length-Weight Relationship of Ohrid Trout, Salmo letnica (Karaman, 1924), Inhabiting Transboundary Ohrid Lake (Albania-Macedonia) Viola Prifti1 PhD Student, Department of Biochemistry – Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, University “F. Noli”, Korҫa, Albania1 ABSTRACT: Length-weight and total length- standard length, relationships were derived for Ohrid trout, Salmo letnica (Karaman), inhabiting the ancient Ohrid Lake, at the transboundary area shared between Albania and Macedonia. Sampling was done between January–December of 2014 using different approaches including fishing gears and direct sampling at the hatcheries in two localities, Lin and Zagorҫan. The relationships between lengths were all significantly linear (r2 from 0.975 to 0.855) and there are significant differences of r2 at the localities Zagorҫan to Hudënisht. The Ohrid trout through different authors has been considered like polymorph species regarding the taxonomical and ecological features: Salmo letnica typicus, Salmo letnica balcanicus, Salmo letnica lumi and Salmo letnica aestivalis. According many authors four forms of Ohrid trout can be distinguished with different place, time and substrate for spawning. This species, in the conditions that are present in the lake, reaches weight of 1 kg in the seventh year of its life with an average total body length of 420-460 mm, while the maturity among males occurs in the 4th year and 5th for the females. Further to that the length-weight approach was developed to see different patterns in different supposed localities.
    [Show full text]
  • NINA OM 753 Innmat
    NINA Norsk institutt for naturforskning Effekter av ørekyteintroduksjoner og utfiskingstiltak – en vurdering av kunnskaps- grunnlaget Trond Taugbøl Trygve Hesthagen Jon Museth Børre Dervo Oddgeir Andersen NINA Oppdragsmelding 753 NINA Norsk institutt for naturforskning Effekter av ørekyteintroduksjoner og utfiskingstiltak – en vurdering av kunnskaps- grunnlaget Trond Taugbøl Trygve Hesthagen Jon Museth Børre Dervo Oddgeir Andersen nina oppdragsmelding 753 Taugbøl, T., Hesthagen, T., Museth, J., Dervo,B.. & Andersen, NINAs publikasjoner O. 2002. Effekter av ørekyteintroduksjoner og utfiskingstiltak – en vurdering av kunnskapsgrunnlaget. - NINA Oppdrags- NINA utgir følgende faste publikasjoner: melding 753: 1-31. NINA Fagrapport Her publiseres resultater av NINAs eget forskningsarbeid, pro- Lillehammer, september 2002 blemoversikter, kartlegging av kunnskapsnivået innen et emne, og litteraturstudier. Rapporter utgis også som et alter- ISSN 0802-4103 nativ eller et supplement til internasjonal publisering, der tids- ISBN 82-426-1337-0 aspekt, materialets art, målgruppe m.m. gjør dette nødven- dig. Forvaltningsområde: Opplag: Normalt 300-500 Bevaring av naturens mangfold Conservation of biodiversity NINA Oppdragsmelding Dette er det minimum av rapportering som NINA gir til opp- Rettighetshaver ©: dragsgiver etter fullført forsknings- eller utredningsprosjekt. I NINA•NIKU Stiftelsen for naturforskning tillegg til de emner som dekkes av fagrapportene, vil opp- og kulturminneforskning dragsmeldingene også omfatte befaringsrapporter, seminar-
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in the Spawning Ecology of the Lake Ohrid Trout Salmo Letnica (Karaman)
    Changes in the spawning ecology of the Lake Ohrid trout Salmo letnica (Karaman) CHANGES IN THE SPAWNING ECOLOGY OF THE LAKE OHRID TROUT, Salmo letnica (Karaman) Zoran SPIRKOVSKI Hydrobiological Institute, 6000 Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia [email protected] Spirkovski Z. (2004). Changes in the spawning ecology of the Lake Ohrid trout, Salmo letnica (Karaman)Snow boundary - theoretical aspects and reconstruction during the würm climate minimum in the southwest part of the Republic of Macedonia. Proceedings of the 2nd Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, 25-29.10.2003, Ohrid. Special issues of Macedonian Ecological Society, Vol. 6, Skopje. The investigations of the spawning of the Lake Ohrid trout, comprised from several subpopulations (forms) within the same lake ecosystem, during the past already seven decades has been always one of the main subject in the lymnological investigations of Lake Ohrid. Unlike the usual population fluctuations within the dynamics of the ecosystem which were recorded during the first 5,5 decades (since 1934/35 year), in the last 1,5 decade and mainly in the last five years very significant and unfamiliar changes were recorded for the process of the natural spawning of this trout. Namely, changes were registered as in the composition of the spawning population as well in the abundance of present spawning nests in all of the up to date natural spawning sites and grounds. Due to this changes - which are mainly provoked by human activities like fishing, disruption of the spawning grounds, over fishing, pollution etc. - the population recruitment was drastically affected by reducing the reproductive capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Introduced Fishes of Nevada, with a History of Their Introduction
    TtlE INTIl()I)I'(!ED FISltES ()F NEVAI)A, WITII A IIISTORY ()F TltEIR INTRODUCTION I{OB1,;RTR. 51mne•d Museum o[ Zoology, University o[ Michigan A•,• Arbor, Michiga• AND J. R. A•cou• Departme•t o.f the Interior, Fish a•d Wildlife Service Fallon, Nevada .•BSTRACT At least 39 spccies and subspecies of fishes ht;vc beta introduced into the waters of Nevada since 1873. Of these, 24 kinds arc now known to occur in the state. A thorough survey of the exotic fishes has not been nmde, but specimens or records of introduced species have been kept in the course of rather extensive collectlug of the native fish famm from 1934 te 1943. Con- sequently it is believed that the number of introduced species herein eaumer- ated approaches a complete tabulation. Some additions among the sunfishes and eatfishes may be expected. The annotated list is divided into tWO parts: species now present in the state, and species introduced but never established. The established kinds constitute about two-thirds of the total number of known native species, but are far outnumbered by the indigenous fishes when all the local subspecies (I-Iubbs a•d Miller, in press) are included. The stocking of cutthroat trout and rainbow trout in the stone creek should be discouraged since these two species hybridize extensively and the cntthroa• trout are speedi'ly eliminated. Brook trout and cutthroat trout, however, do not hybridize. A suggested practice would be to select separate streams when planting rainbow and cutthroat species, a procedure greatly simplified by the presence of many isolated creeks throughout the state.
    [Show full text]