Movement pattern and growth ratio tagged fish in two lowland rivers of Central Poland

• Autorzy: Penczak T
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Using a mark-recapture technique in two lowland rivers, movements of ten fish species were investigated. Both rivers, the Pilica (the Vistula River system) and Warta (the Odra/Oder River system), located in Central Poland, are lowland, alluvial, meandering but dammed in the middle course. Reaches selected for the study have an almost natural structure (bottom structure, banks, vegetation). The subject of the study were cyprinids (barbel Barbus barbus (L.), chub Leuciscus cephalus (L.), dace Leuciscus leuciscus (L.), ide Leuciscus idus (L.), roach Rutilus rutilus (L.), bream Abramis brama (L.), tench Tinca tinca (L.) and giebel Carassius auratus gibelio (Bloch), as well as pike Esox lucius L. and perch Perca fluviatilis L. (predators) which in summer and autumn have realized life history strategies in small home section lengths (HSL), although undertaking ‘round-trip movements’. For a few species in the study the HSL values were equal or smaller than the calculated median displacement distances (MD). The neighboring man-made reservoirs have affected some individuals which moved dozens km from a channel to the reservoir. Body weight increase recorded for more abundant species at investigated rivers (pike and chub), shows that an individual can keep the same body weight for a long time or grow faster than it was described before.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

fish; growth ratio; home range; movement pattern; lowland river; marked fish growth; turnover rate

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: 54
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.267-282,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Penczak T

• University of Lodz, 12/16 Banacha Str., 90-237 Lodz, Poland

Bibliografia

• Albanese B., Angermeier P.L., Gowan C. 2003 – Designing mark-recapture studies to reduce effects of distance weighting on movement distance distributions of stream fish – Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 132: 925–939.
• Albanese B., Angermeier P.L., Dorai-Raj S. 2004 – Ecological correlates of fish movement in a network of Virginia streams – Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 857–869.
• Backiel T. 1985 – Fall of migratory fish populations and changes in commercial fisheries in impounded rivers in Poland. (In: Habitat Modification and Freshwater Fisheries, Ed. J.S. Alabaster) – Proceedings of a Symposium of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. Butterworths, FAO, London, pp. 28–41.
• Backiel T., Bontemps S. 1996 – The recruitment success of Vimba vimba transferred over a dam – J. Fish Biol. 48: 992–995.
• Balon E.K. 1990 – Epigenesis of an epigeneticist: the development of some alternative concepts on the early ontogeny and evolution of fishes – Guelph Ichthyol. Rev. 1: 1–48.
• Baras E. 1998 – Selection of opitimal positioning intervals in fish tracking: an experimental study on Barbus barbus – Hydrobiologia 371/372: 19–28.
• Bartel R. 1987 – Distribution, migration and growth of tagged Drawa salmon (Salmo salar L.) – J. Appl. Ichthyol. 3: 33–38.
• Bartel R. 2001 – Return of salmon back to Polish waters – Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 3: 377–392.
• Bartel R., Kosior M. 1991 – Migrations of tagged eel released into the lower Vistula and the Gulf of Gdańsk – Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 38: 105–113.
• Bruylants B., Vandelannoote A., Verheyen R. 1986 – The movement pattern and density distribution of perch, Perca fluviatilis L., in a channelled lowland river – Aquacul. Fish. Magmt. 17: 49–57.
• Brylińska M. (Ed.) 2000 – Ryby słodkowodne Polski [Freshwater fishes of Poland]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, 521 pp. (in Polish)
• Funk J.L. 1955 – Movement of stream fishes in Missouri. – Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 85: 39–57.
• Galicka W. 1994 – Primary production and state of water purity in the upper River Warta (central Poland) – Acta Hydrobiol. 36: 17–29.
• Gerking S.D. 1959 – The restricted movement of fish populations – Biol. Rev. 34: 221–242.
• Gliwicz Z.M., Jachner A. 1992 – Diel migrations of juvenile fish: a ghost of predation past or present ? – Arch. Hydrobiol. 124: 385–410.
• Gowan C., Young M.K., Faush K.D., Riley S.C. 1994 – Restricted movement in resident stream salmonids: a paradigm lost? – Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 51: 2626–2637.
• Hall C.A.S. 1972 – Migration and metabolism in a temperate stream ecosystem. Ecology 53: 587–604.
• Hunt P.C., Jones J.W. 1974 – A population study of Barbus barbus (L.) in the River Severn, England – J. Fish Biol. 6: 269–278.
• Kołder W. 1965 – Provisional results of research on the migration of fish in the upper basin of the River Vistula – Ekol. pol. 13: 33–37.
• Larson G.L., Hoffman R.L., Moore S.E. 2002 – Observations of the distributions of five fish species in a small Appalachian stream – Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 131: 791–796.
• Lonzarich D.G., Lonzarich M.R., Warren Jr. M.I. 2000 – Effects of riffle length on the short-term movement of fishes among stream pools – Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 1508–1514.
• Lucas M.C. 2000 – The influence of environmental factors on movements of lowlandriver fish in the Yorkshire Ouse system – Sci. Total Environ. 251/252: 223–232.
• Lucas M., Baras E. 2000 – Methods for studying spatial behaviour of freshwater fishes in the natural environment – Fish and Fisheries 1: 283–316.
• Lucas M., Baras E. 2001 – Migration of freshwater fishes – Blackwell Science, Oxford, 429 pp.
• Mann R.H.K. 1980 – The number and production of pike (Esox lucius) in two Dorset rivers – J. Anim. Ecol. 49: 899–915.
• Mann R.H.K., Penczak T. 1984 – The efficiency of a new electrofishing technique in determining fish numbers in a large river in Central Poland – J. Fish Biol. 24: 173–185.
• Mann R.H.K., Steinmetz B. 1985 – On the accuracy of age-deteremination using scales from rudd, Scardinius erythrophthalmus (L.), of known age – J. Fish Biol. 26: 621–628.
• Masse G., Dumont P., Ferrais J., Fortin R. 1991 – Influence of the hydrological and thermal regimes of the Aux Pins River (Quebec) on the spawning migration of northern pike and on the emigration of 0+ juveniles – Aquat. Living Resour. 4: 275–287.
• Penaz M., Barus V., Prokes M., Homolka M. 2002 – Movements of barbel, Barbus barbus (Pisces: Cyprinidae) – Folia Zool. 5: 55–66.
• Penczak T. 2004 – Angling record differences for selected fish species in the Oder and Vistula and in river systems emptying directly into the Baltic Sea – Arch. Pol. Fish. 12: 151–158.
• Penczak T., Głowacki Ł., Galicka W., Koszaliński H. 1998 – A long-term study (1985–1995) on fish populations in the impounded Warta River, Poland – Hydrobiologia, 368: 157–173.
• Penczak T., Moliński M., Zalewski M. 1976 – The contribution of autochthonous and allochthonous matter to the trophy of a river in the barbel region – Ekol. pol. 24: 113–121.
• Penczak T., Sierakowska K. 2003 – Anglers’ records as a tool for assesing changes in fish populations – J. Appl. Ichthyol. 19: 250–254.
• Penczak, T., Zalewski, M., Moliński, M. 1976 – Production of Pike, Roach and Chub in a Selected Fragment of Pilica River (Barbel Region) – Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., 23: 139–153.
• Rodriguez M. 2002 – Restricted movement in stream fish: the paradigm is incomplete, not lost – Ecology 83: 1– 13.
• Skalski G.T., Gilliam J.F. 2000 – Modeling diffusive spread in a heterogenous population: a movement study with stream fish – Ecology 81: 1685–1700.
• Smith R.J.F. 1991 – Social behaviour, homing and migration. (In: Cyprinid fishes (systematics, biology and exploitation), Eds: I.J. Winfield and J.S. Nelson ) – Chapman and Hall, London, pp 509–529.
• Smithson E.B., Johnston C.E. 1999 – Movement patterns of stream fishes in a Ouachita Higlands Stream: an examination of the restricted movement paradigm – Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 128: 847–853.
• Stott B. 1967 – The movements and population densities of roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.)) and gudgeon (Gobio gobio (L.)) in the River Mole – J. Anim. Ecol. 36: 407–423.
• Wilkońska H. 1967 – Spawning migration of roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) in Lake Śniardwy – Rocz. Nauk Rol. 90-H-3: 517–538 (in Polish, with Engl. Summ.)
• Williams W.P. 1965 – The population densities of four species of freshwater fish, roach (Rutilus rutilus L.), bleak (Alburnus alburnus L.), dace (Leuciscus leuciscus L.) and perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) in the River Thames at Reading – J. Anim. Ecol. 34: 173–185.
• Wydosky R.S., Emery L. 1983 – Tagging and marking. (In: Fisheries techniques, Eds: L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson) – Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, Maryland, 215–237 pp.