DOCSLIB.ORG

Diverse Reproductive Patterns of Bluehead Chub (Nocomis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diverse Reproductive Patterns of Bluehead Chub (Nocomis Environ Biol Fish (2020) 103:783–794 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-020-00980-x Diverse reproductive patterns of Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) and their relationships with nest size and interactions with an associate, Yellowfin Shiner (Notropis lutipinnis) Seoghyun Kim & Brandon K. Peoples & Yoichiro Kanno Received: 17 May 2019 /Revised: 25 March 2020 /Accepted: 6 May 2020 /Published online: 5 June 2020 # Springer Nature B.V. 2020 Abstract Nest construction by males is a common males, and instances of pebble re-use for nest construc- reproductive strategy in fishes, but little is known about tion increased through the spawning season, which ex- intra-specific variation in nesting behavior and repro- tended from April to June. Larger males more likely ductive interactions with other species. In the southeast- shared the same nest with each other than smaller males, ern USA, reproductive interactions between bluehead and larger or more males constructed larger nests and chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) and their nest associate, attracted more yellowfin shiner. Nest size also increased such as yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), are mu- when males re-used substrate materials from old nests, tualistic because the shiner requires chub nests to spawn and nests built in this manner (36 nests) were equally but the chub also benefits from additional shiner eggs by prevalent as newly constructed nests (35 nests). This reducing predation risk on their own eggs (i.e., dilution study suggests that complex mechanisms mediate host effect). As proxies for reproductive success of bluehead nest size and interactions with nest associates, and indi- chub, we studied factors affecting their nest size varia- vidual variation likely shapes dynamics of the mutual- tion and utilization by yellowfin shiner in three streams istic reproductive interaction. in the upper Piedmont region of South Carolina, USA. A total of 92 nests (71 spawned and 21 abandoned) were Keywords Reproductive behavior . Mutualism . located, and we recorded spawning activity, nest size, Leuciscidae . Individual variation . Fitness number and size of male bluehead chub, number of yellowfin shiner, and environmental variables for 89 consecutive days in 2016. Path analysis showed that Introduction larger males spawned earlier in the season than smaller Fishes exhibit an array of parental care behavior for their Electronic supplementary material The online version of this offspring (Gross 2005). Nest construction, a form of article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-020-00980-x)contains parental care, is widely used among fishes (Barber supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. 2013). Nest construction can serve two main functions for male fitness. First, males construct nests to protect S. Kim : Y. Kanno Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, eggs and larvae against predation and environmental Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1474, USA conditions (e.g., high stream flows) (Suski and : : Ridgway 2007; Rushbrook et al. 2010). Thus, nest S. Kim B. K. Peoples Y. Kanno (*) construction can maximize offspring survival by pro- Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0317, USA viding a shelter and stable environment (Chin-Baarstad e-mail: [email protected] et al. 2009). Second, nests provide information on male quality that influences mate choice by females (Blais 784 Environ Biol Fish (2020) 103:783–794 et al. 2004;Wongetal.2007). Accordingly, variation in continents among a variety of taxa (Wisenden 1999). In nest size and design is a complex component of fish North America, nest association is common among mating systems and consequently affects reproductive minnows (Leuciscidae). During nest associative success (Wong et al. 2007;Barber2013; Lehtonen et al. spawning, associates often greatly outnumber nest 2015). building individuals. Eggs of associates comprise up to Male body size is associated with the timing of 97% of eggs in a nest (Wallin 1992; Cashner and Bart spawning, social hierarchy, territoriality, nest quality, 2010). Accordingly, nest building species benefit from a and hence reproductive success (Blais et al. 2004; ‘dilution effect’ by which high proportions of associate Lindström 1992;Lehtonenetal.2015). Larger males eggs on nests greatly reduce the probability of predation tend to spawn earlier and occupy better territories on eggs of nest building species (Johnston 1994a; (Lindström 1992;Oliveiraetal.1999). They use ag- Silknetter et al. 2019). Previous studies have shown that gressive behavior to secure nesting sites because domi- associate species select nests guarded by larger males nance hierarchies are typically structured by body size for spawning (Shao 1997). However, little is known (Lehtonen et al. 2015). In addition, larger males can about how a combination of factors, including nest construct higher quality (e.g., larger) nests because nest quality (e.g., nest size) or nest sharing behavior (i.e., building is energetically costly by requiring males to number of males on the same nest), operate to attract collect building materials from surrounding areas associates that determine reproductive success of nest (Lindström 1992). Thus, larger body size affords advan- building species. tages for not only gaining access to more females (Blais Bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) (hereafter, et al. 2004), but also protecting eggs to increase off- “chub”) is a suitable species to study intraspecific varia- spring survival (Suski and Ridgway 2007; Chin- tion in nesting behavior and interspecific reproductive Baarstad et al. 2009). interactions. Chub are distributed throughout the Atlantic However, smaller males can overcome the size- slope of North America and are abundant in the Blue dependent disadvantage by selecting alternative repro- Ridge and Piedmont of South Carolina (Lanchner 1952; ductive strategies, such as temporal segregation and Marcy et al. 2005). Chub engage in nest associative parasitic behavior (Sinervo and Zamudio 2001; spawning with yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis) Taborsky 1994). Additionally, nest sharing behavior (hereafter, “shiner”), which are also common throughout (where multiple males coordinate their behavior to at- the region (Wallin 1989, 1992; Marcy et al. 2005:Fig.1). tract females to the same nest) may also offset the size- Chub prefer to spawn in particular mesohabitats (e.g. mediated influence on reproductive success (Clutton- pool tails and slow runs; Peoples et al. 2014)andmicro- Brock 2002). Several nest sharing behaviors have been habitats (optimal depths and velocities; Bolton et al. documented in fishes (Taborsky 1994; Díaz-Muñoz 2015; Peoples et al. 2016). Single or multiple males et al. 2014). Males of some fishes show mutual tolerance construct a dome-shaped nest composed of pebble- and share mates while spawning at the same nesting sized substrates for spawning (Wallin 1989; Sabaj et al. sites (Reighard 1920). Cooperative parental care among 2000). After spawning, males continue to move pebbles individuals is also known in other species (Reighard onto the nest, increasing the size of the nest (Wallin 1989; 1943;Wallin1989). Such an array of reproductive Peoples et al. 2016). Additionally, males utilize nesting strategies provides valuable insights into reproductive resources (i.e., pebbles) from existing nests to build new cooperation among male fish, but questions still remain ones later in the spawning season (Wallin 1989). Like about how nest sharing behavior affects the quality of some leuciscids, shiner are an obligate nest associate nests and subsequently reproduction. (Peoples and Frimpong 2016), and cannot spawn without Factors affecting behavior and nest quality become a host species (Wallin 1992). further complicated when reproductive interactions oc- The goal of this study was to quantify factors affect- cur with other species. Positive reproductive interactions ing two key variables related to the reproductive success (mutualism, commensalism, and facilitation) occur be- of chub: (1) nest size at the completion of reproductive tween many nest building species and ‘nest associates’, activities (including parental care), and (2) nest utiliza- or fishes that spawn in nests constructed by other species tion by shiner (shiner abundance on nests). We focused (Johnston and Page 1992). Nest associative behavior is on these two response variables because (1) nest size is diverse, having evolved independently on at least three typically an indicator of reproductive success of males Environ Biol Fish (2020) 103:783–794 785 in fishes (Lehtonen et al. 2007), particularly in polyga- mm), used by chub for nest construction, accounted for mous mating systems of chub where males can mate 47–49% of substrate across three streams (Table 1). with multiple females and larger nest size can accom- Common species found across all streams included modate more females (Wallin 1989; Sabaj et al. 2000), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), creek chub (Semotilus and (2) higher abundance of spawning shiner benefits atromaculatus), green sunfish (L. cyanellus), redbreast egg survival of chub via the dilution effect (Johnston sunfish (L. auritus), and striped jumprock (Moxostoma 1994b;Silknetteretal.2019). Using a path analysis, we rupiscartes). Rosyface chub (Hybopsis rubrifrons), an- developed and tested a working conceptual hypothesis other known nest associate (Marcy et al. 2005), was of causal relationships
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director
    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director March 1, 2016 Honorable Jimmy Dixon Honorable Chuck McGrady N.C. House of Representatives N.C. House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 416B 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 304 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Senator Trudy Wade N.C. Senate 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 521 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Dear Honorables: I am submitting this report to the Environmental Review Committee in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765). As directed, this report includes a review of methods and criteria used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on the State protected animal list as defined in G.S. 113-331 and compares them to federal and state agencies in the region. This report also reviews North Carolina policies specific to introduced species along with determining recommendations for improvements to these policies among state and federally listed species as well as nonlisted animals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 707-0151 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Gordon Myers Executive Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Report on Study Conducted Pursuant to S.L. 2015-286 To the Environmental Review Commission March 1, 2016 Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765) directed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to “review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list as defined in G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • B4683 NRTR.Pdf
    NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Replace Bridge No. 20 on SR-1152 over South Deep Creek Yadkin County, North Carolina TIP B-4683 Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1152(12) WBS Element No. 38466.1.FD2 THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit Natural Environment Section June 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................... 1 3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 2 3.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 2 4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 3 4.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................................................................................... 3 4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ..................................................................................................... 3 4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) ..................................................... 3 4.1.3 Piedmont Alluvial Forest ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the Ozark Chub (Erimystax Harryi) Version 1.2
    Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the Ozark Chub (Erimystax harryi) Version 1.2 Ozark chub (Photo credit: Dustin Lynch, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission) August 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office This document was prepared by Alyssa Bangs (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office), Bryan Simmons (USFWS—Missouri Ecological Services Field Office), and Brian Evans (USFWS –Southeast Regional Office). We greatly appreciate the assistance of Jeff Quinn (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission), Brian Wagner (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission), and Jacob Westhoff (Missouri Department of Conservation) who provided helpful information and review of the draft document. We also thank the peer reviewers, who provided helpful comments. Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Species status assessment report for the Ozark chub (Erimystax harryi). Version 1.2. August 2019. Atlanta, GA. CONTENTS Chapter 1: Executive Summary 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Analytical Framework 1 CHAPTER 2 – Species Information 4 2.1 Taxonomy and Genetics 4 2.2 Species Description 5 2.3 Range 6 Historical Range and Distribution 6 Current Range and Distribution 8 2.4 Life History Habitat 9 Growth and Longevity 9 Reproduction 9 Feeding 10 CHAPTER 3 –Factors Influencing Viability and Current Condition Analysis 12 3.1 Factors Influencing Viability 12 Sedimentation 12 Water Temperature and Flow 14 Impoundments 15 Water Chemistry 16 Habitat Fragmentation 17 3.2 Model 17 Analytical
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • COPEIA February 1
    2000, No. 1COPEIA February 1 Copeia, 2000(1), pp. 1±10 Phylogenetic Relationships in the North American Cyprinid Genus Cyprinella (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) Based on Sequences of the Mitochondrial ND2 and ND4L Genes RICHARD E. BROUGHTON AND JOHN R. GOLD Shiners of the cyprinid genus Cyprinella are abundant and broadly distributed in eastern and central North America. Thirty species are currently placed in the genus: these include six species restricted to Mexico and three barbeled forms formerly placed in different cyprinid genera (primarily Hybopsis). We conducted a molecular phylogenetic analysis of all species of Cyprinella found in the United States, using complete nucleotide sequences of the mitochondrial, protein-coding genes ND2 and ND4L. Maximum-parsimony analysis recovered a single most-parsimonious tree for Cyprinella. Among historically recognized, nonbarbeled Cyprinella, the mitochondrial (mt) DNA tree indicated that basal lineages in Cyprinella are comprised largely of species with linear breeding tubercles and that are endemic to Atlantic and/or Gulf slope drainages, whereas derived lineages are comprised of species broadly distrib- uted in the Mississippi basin and the American Southwest. The Alabama Shiner, C. callistia, was basal in the mtDNA tree, although a monophyletic Cyprinella that in- cluded C. callistia was not supported in more than 50% of bootstrap replicates. There was strong bootstrap support (89%) for a clade that included all species of nonbarbeled Cyprinella (except C. callistia) and two barbeled species, C. labrosa and C. zanema. The third barbeled species, C. monacha, fell outside of Cyprinella sister to a species of Hybopsis. Within Cyprinella were a series of well-supported species groups, although in some cases bootstrap support for relationships among groups was below 50%.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Timing of the Largescale Stoneroller, Campostoma Oligolepis, in the Flint River, Alabama
    REPRODUCTIVE TIMING OF THE LARGESCALE STONEROLLER, CAMPOSTOMA OLIGOLEPIS, IN THE FLINT RIVER, ALABAMA by DANA M. TIMMS A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Biological Sciences to The School of Graduate Studies of The University of Alabama in Huntsville HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Bruce Stallsmith for all his guidance on this project and greater dedication to raising awareness to Alabama’s river ecosystems. I am grateful to my other committee members, Dr. Gordon MacGregor and Dr. Debra Moriarity also from UAH. Thanks to everyone who braved the weather and elements on collecting trips: Tiffany Bell, Austin Riley, Chelsie Smith, and Joshua Mann. I would like to thank Megan McEown, Corinne Peacher, and Bonnie Ferguson for dedicating long hours in the lab. Special thanks to Matthew Moore who assisted in collections, lab work, and data processing. Most of all, I would like to thank my husband, Patrick, for his love and encouragement in all my endeavors. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page • List of Figures viii • List of Tables x • CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 o Context 1 o Campostoma oligolepis Taxonomy 3 o History of Campostoma oligolepis 4 ▪ Campostoma oligolepis in the South 6 ▪ Campostoma Hybridization 8 ▪ Campostoma Ranges and Species Differentiation 9 ▪ Life History 12 ▪ Reproduction 12 o Purpose and Hypothesis 15 • CHAPTER TWO: Methodology 17 o Laboratory Analysis 19 o Reproductive Data 21 o Ovary and Oocyte Staging 22 o Statistical Analysis 22 • CHAPTER THREE: Results 27 o Reproductive Data 29 ▪ Ovary and Oocyte Development 32 ▪ Testicular Development 39 vi • CHAPTER FOUR: Discussion 40 o Study Limitations 40 o Lateral Line Scale Count 41 o Reproductive Cues and Environmental Influences 42 o Multiple-spawners 42 o Asymmetry of Ovaries 42 o Bourgeois Males 43 o Campostoma variability 44 o Conclusion 45 • WORKS CITED 46 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page • 1.1 Campostoma oligolepis, Largescale Stoneroller, specimens from the Flint River, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86
    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86 THE "LOST" JORDAN AND HAY FISH COLLECTION AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY Carter R. Gilbert: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA ABSTRACT. A large fish collection, preserved in ethanol and assembled by Drs. David S. Jordan and Oliver P. Hay between 1875 and 1892, had been stored for over a century in the biology building at Butler University. The collection was of historical importance since it contained some of the earliest fish material ever recorded from the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, and also included types of many new species collected during the course of this work. In addition to material collected by Jordan and Hay, the collection also included specimens received by Butler University during the early 1880s from the Smithsonian Institution, in exchange for material (including many types) sent to that institution. Many ichthyologists had assumed that Jordan, upon his departure from Butler in 1879. had taken the collection. essentially intact, to Indiana University, where soon thereafter (in July 1883) it was destroyed by fire. The present study confirms that most of the collection was probably transferred to Indiana, but that significant parts of it remained at Butler. The most important results of this study are: a) analysis of the size and content of the existing Butler fish collection; b) discovery of four specimens of Micropterus coosae in the Saluda River collection, since the species had long been thought to have been introduced into that river; and c) the conclusion that none of Jordan's 1878 southeastern collections apparently remain and were probably taken intact to Indiana University, where they were lost in the 1883 fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Part 1
    375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis-1967D-R418d.Pdf (6.356Mb)
    DESCRIPTIONS AND ANAllSES OF 'l'HE CEPHAUC LATERAL-LINE SYSTEMS OF 'l'BE CYPRINID GDmS HYBOPSIS ·~ , HARLEY f!AYNE ~O Bachelor of Science Oklah~ Stat• Univer~it7 Stillli!B.ter, Oklahoma 1961 !'aster or Science Oklahoma State University _Stillwater, Oklahoma l.963 Submitted to the faculty of the GradWtte College of th~ Oklahoma State tfniver~ity in partial tul:f'illmm.t of th~ requir~nts for ths degrc,e of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Juq; 1967 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF THE CEPHALIC LATERAL-LINE SYSTEMS OF THE CYPRJNID GENUS HYBOPSIS Thesis Approved: ~.o.m~ n nDean iJ&Ve,of the Graduate --- College 11 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ·1 . ~ ·1 JAN 16 191W } PRE.FACE Use of the cephalic lateral-line system as an ind.ex to habitats knowno and ecological requirements of fishes ha.111. long been. This lateral-line study o:t.Bzbopsis was aonduate~ to; (1) correlate lateral- .. line structure with species ecologies; (2) predict probable ecologies of little-known species 0£ Bybopsis;, (3) investigate the neuromast- bone :relationships in Hzbopsis; and (4) erect tentative phylogenies for some subgenera of ljtybopsiso I am indebted ta Dr. Rudolph J. Mill.er, 'filY' major advisor, tor his asaietanoe and encouragement during the courae or this •tu:iy and his critical examination of this manuscript. Dre. George Ao Moli>re, L. Herbert Bruneau, Br.van Po Gla11, am Roy w. Jones aerved on ?113' advisory committee and also evaluated the manuscript. Sincere thanks i1 pereon­ aJ4r extemad to Dr. George A. Moore 11 because it waa his initial in­ fluence years ago which aroused~ interests in fish morphology .
    [Show full text]
  • Making a Big Splash with Louisiana Fishes
    Making a Big Splash with Louisiana Fishes Written and Designed by Prosanta Chakrabarty, Ph.D., Sophie Warny, Ph.D., and Valerie Derouen LSU Museum of Natural Science To those young people still discovering their love of nature... Note to parents, teachers, instructors, activity coordinators and to all the fishermen in us: This book is a companion piece to Making a Big Splash with Louisiana Fishes, an exhibit at Louisiana State Universi- ty’s Museum of Natural Science (MNS). Located in Foster Hall on the main campus of LSU, this exhibit created in 2012 contains many of the elements discussed in this book. The MNS exhibit hall is open weekdays, from 8 am to 4 pm, when the LSU campus is open. The MNS visits are free of charge, but call our main office at 225-578-2855 to schedule a visit if your group includes 10 or more students. Of course the book can also be enjoyed on its own and we hope that you will enjoy it on your own or with your children or students. The book and exhibit was funded by the Louisiana Board Of Regents, Traditional Enhancement Grant - Education: Mak- ing a Big Splash with Louisiana Fishes: A Three-tiered Education Program and Museum Exhibit. Funding was obtained by LSUMNS Curators’ Sophie Warny and Prosanta Chakrabarty who designed the exhibit with Southwest Museum Services who built it in 2012. The oarfish in the exhibit was created by Carolyn Thome of the Smithsonian, and images exhibited here are from Curator Chakrabarty unless noted elsewhere (see Appendix II).
    [Show full text]