Loading…

Distribution, Density, and Size of Migratory and Fluvial Sculpins in Relation to Barriers in Puget Sound Lowland Streams

We examined the effects of potential barriers on populations of migratory sculpins (Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus and Prickly Sculpin C. asper) and fluvial sculpins (Riffle Sculpin C. gulosus, Shorthead Sculpin C. confusus, and Torrent Sculpin C. rhotheus). Barriers can alter sculpin distribut...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:North American journal of fisheries management 2017-08, Vol.37 (4), p.729-742
Main Authors: Tabor, Roger A., Waterstrat, Frithiof T., Lantz, Daniel W., Berge, Hans B., Liermann, Martin C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3339-257a3315627491551ebdf43fa609b680bce4d969a5a439a68b2bda3a3f0dac263
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3339-257a3315627491551ebdf43fa609b680bce4d969a5a439a68b2bda3a3f0dac263
container_end_page 742
container_issue 4
container_start_page 729
container_title North American journal of fisheries management
container_volume 37
creator Tabor, Roger A.
Waterstrat, Frithiof T.
Lantz, Daniel W.
Berge, Hans B.
Liermann, Martin C.
description We examined the effects of potential barriers on populations of migratory sculpins (Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus and Prickly Sculpin C. asper) and fluvial sculpins (Riffle Sculpin C. gulosus, Shorthead Sculpin C. confusus, and Torrent Sculpin C. rhotheus). Barriers can alter sculpin distribution because migratory sculpins have pelagic larvae that drift downstream to calm waters and juveniles and adults migrate upstream. We compared sculpin populations upstream and downstream of a barrier in 19 lowland streams in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Within each stream, we examined the farthest downstream barrier that would be most likely to impact the upstream movements of migratory sculpins. All study streams had populations of migratory sculpins in stream reaches downstream of the barrier. In 8 of the 19 streams with a barrier, at least one species of fluvial sculpin was also present. We also documented the relative distribution of migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins in one reference stream without a barrier. In all streams examined, the density of migratory sculpins upstream of the barrier was lower than that downstream of the barrier and the differences were statistically significant. In 12 of the 19 streams, migratory sculpins were not present upstream of the barrier. In streams with fluvial sculpin populations, fluvial sculpins were usually rare downstream of barriers and were statistically less abundant than upstream of the barrier. The migratory sculpins collected upstream of barriers were statistically larger than those collected downstream of barriers. In the reference stream, migratory sculpin species dominated the lower stream reaches and were gradually replaced by fluvial sculpin species in more upstream reaches. Overall, barriers appear to have an important effect on the distribution of both migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins, which should be taken into account when assessing habitat modifications and fish communities in Puget Sound lowland streams. Received November 4, 2016; accepted March 25, 2017 Published online June 12, 2017
doi_str_mv 10.1080/02755947.2017.1313795
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1926973566</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1926973566</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3339-257a3315627491551ebdf43fa609b680bce4d969a5a439a68b2bda3a3f0dac263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1LwzAYhYMoOKc_QQh4u858NEmDV3NzKswPnF6HtE1HRtfMpHXWX--6zXuvXjg8z3nhAHCJ0RCjBF0jIhiTsRgShMUQU0yFZEegh1mcRAkX7Bj0OibqoFNwFsISIcQSRnrge2JD7W3a1NZVAzgxVbB1O4C6yuHc_hjoCvhkF17Xzre7dFo2X1aXcJ415dpWAdoKvplSdwWwdvBWe2-N3-WvzcLUcO6arTdzm3LXWnujV-EcnBS6DObicPvgY3r3Pn6IZi_3j-PRLMoopTIiTGhKMeNExBIzhk2aFzEtNEcy5QlKMxPnkkvNdEyl5klK0lxTTQuU64xw2gdX-961d5-NCbVausZX25cKS8KloIx3FNtTmXcheFOotbcr7VuFkepGVn8jq25kdRh5693svY0tTfs_ST2Ppk9IEEl_ARtGgG8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1926973566</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Distribution, Density, and Size of Migratory and Fluvial Sculpins in Relation to Barriers in Puget Sound Lowland Streams</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Tabor, Roger A. ; Waterstrat, Frithiof T. ; Lantz, Daniel W. ; Berge, Hans B. ; Liermann, Martin C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tabor, Roger A. ; Waterstrat, Frithiof T. ; Lantz, Daniel W. ; Berge, Hans B. ; Liermann, Martin C.</creatorcontrib><description>We examined the effects of potential barriers on populations of migratory sculpins (Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus and Prickly Sculpin C. asper) and fluvial sculpins (Riffle Sculpin C. gulosus, Shorthead Sculpin C. confusus, and Torrent Sculpin C. rhotheus). Barriers can alter sculpin distribution because migratory sculpins have pelagic larvae that drift downstream to calm waters and juveniles and adults migrate upstream. We compared sculpin populations upstream and downstream of a barrier in 19 lowland streams in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Within each stream, we examined the farthest downstream barrier that would be most likely to impact the upstream movements of migratory sculpins. All study streams had populations of migratory sculpins in stream reaches downstream of the barrier. In 8 of the 19 streams with a barrier, at least one species of fluvial sculpin was also present. We also documented the relative distribution of migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins in one reference stream without a barrier. In all streams examined, the density of migratory sculpins upstream of the barrier was lower than that downstream of the barrier and the differences were statistically significant. In 12 of the 19 streams, migratory sculpins were not present upstream of the barrier. In streams with fluvial sculpin populations, fluvial sculpins were usually rare downstream of barriers and were statistically less abundant than upstream of the barrier. The migratory sculpins collected upstream of barriers were statistically larger than those collected downstream of barriers. In the reference stream, migratory sculpin species dominated the lower stream reaches and were gradually replaced by fluvial sculpin species in more upstream reaches. Overall, barriers appear to have an important effect on the distribution of both migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins, which should be taken into account when assessing habitat modifications and fish communities in Puget Sound lowland streams. Received November 4, 2016; accepted March 25, 2017 Published online June 12, 2017</description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-5947</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1548-8675</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2017.1313795</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>Adults ; Barriers ; Coastal environments ; Cottidae ; Distribution ; Downstream ; Fish ; Juveniles ; Larvae ; Marine fishes ; Migration ; Migratory species ; Population studies ; Populations ; Potential barriers ; Rivers ; Statistical analysis ; Streams ; Upstream</subject><ispartof>North American journal of fisheries management, 2017-08, Vol.37 (4), p.729-742</ispartof><rights>2017 American Fisheries Society</rights><rights>American Fisheries Society 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3339-257a3315627491551ebdf43fa609b680bce4d969a5a439a68b2bda3a3f0dac263</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3339-257a3315627491551ebdf43fa609b680bce4d969a5a439a68b2bda3a3f0dac263</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tabor, Roger A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waterstrat, Frithiof T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lantz, Daniel W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berge, Hans B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liermann, Martin C.</creatorcontrib><title>Distribution, Density, and Size of Migratory and Fluvial Sculpins in Relation to Barriers in Puget Sound Lowland Streams</title><title>North American journal of fisheries management</title><description>We examined the effects of potential barriers on populations of migratory sculpins (Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus and Prickly Sculpin C. asper) and fluvial sculpins (Riffle Sculpin C. gulosus, Shorthead Sculpin C. confusus, and Torrent Sculpin C. rhotheus). Barriers can alter sculpin distribution because migratory sculpins have pelagic larvae that drift downstream to calm waters and juveniles and adults migrate upstream. We compared sculpin populations upstream and downstream of a barrier in 19 lowland streams in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Within each stream, we examined the farthest downstream barrier that would be most likely to impact the upstream movements of migratory sculpins. All study streams had populations of migratory sculpins in stream reaches downstream of the barrier. In 8 of the 19 streams with a barrier, at least one species of fluvial sculpin was also present. We also documented the relative distribution of migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins in one reference stream without a barrier. In all streams examined, the density of migratory sculpins upstream of the barrier was lower than that downstream of the barrier and the differences were statistically significant. In 12 of the 19 streams, migratory sculpins were not present upstream of the barrier. In streams with fluvial sculpin populations, fluvial sculpins were usually rare downstream of barriers and were statistically less abundant than upstream of the barrier. The migratory sculpins collected upstream of barriers were statistically larger than those collected downstream of barriers. In the reference stream, migratory sculpin species dominated the lower stream reaches and were gradually replaced by fluvial sculpin species in more upstream reaches. Overall, barriers appear to have an important effect on the distribution of both migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins, which should be taken into account when assessing habitat modifications and fish communities in Puget Sound lowland streams. Received November 4, 2016; accepted March 25, 2017 Published online June 12, 2017</description><subject>Adults</subject><subject>Barriers</subject><subject>Coastal environments</subject><subject>Cottidae</subject><subject>Distribution</subject><subject>Downstream</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Juveniles</subject><subject>Larvae</subject><subject>Marine fishes</subject><subject>Migration</subject><subject>Migratory species</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Populations</subject><subject>Potential barriers</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Streams</subject><subject>Upstream</subject><issn>0275-5947</issn><issn>1548-8675</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkF1LwzAYhYMoOKc_QQh4u858NEmDV3NzKswPnF6HtE1HRtfMpHXWX--6zXuvXjg8z3nhAHCJ0RCjBF0jIhiTsRgShMUQU0yFZEegh1mcRAkX7Bj0OibqoFNwFsISIcQSRnrge2JD7W3a1NZVAzgxVbB1O4C6yuHc_hjoCvhkF17Xzre7dFo2X1aXcJ415dpWAdoKvplSdwWwdvBWe2-N3-WvzcLUcO6arTdzm3LXWnujV-EcnBS6DObicPvgY3r3Pn6IZi_3j-PRLMoopTIiTGhKMeNExBIzhk2aFzEtNEcy5QlKMxPnkkvNdEyl5klK0lxTTQuU64xw2gdX-961d5-NCbVausZX25cKS8KloIx3FNtTmXcheFOotbcr7VuFkepGVn8jq25kdRh5693svY0tTfs_ST2Ppk9IEEl_ARtGgG8</recordid><startdate>201708</startdate><enddate>201708</enddate><creator>Tabor, Roger A.</creator><creator>Waterstrat, Frithiof T.</creator><creator>Lantz, Daniel W.</creator><creator>Berge, Hans B.</creator><creator>Liermann, Martin C.</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H98</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201708</creationdate><title>Distribution, Density, and Size of Migratory and Fluvial Sculpins in Relation to Barriers in Puget Sound Lowland Streams</title><author>Tabor, Roger A. ; Waterstrat, Frithiof T. ; Lantz, Daniel W. ; Berge, Hans B. ; Liermann, Martin C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3339-257a3315627491551ebdf43fa609b680bce4d969a5a439a68b2bda3a3f0dac263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adults</topic><topic>Barriers</topic><topic>Coastal environments</topic><topic>Cottidae</topic><topic>Distribution</topic><topic>Downstream</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Juveniles</topic><topic>Larvae</topic><topic>Marine fishes</topic><topic>Migration</topic><topic>Migratory species</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Populations</topic><topic>Potential barriers</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Streams</topic><topic>Upstream</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tabor, Roger A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waterstrat, Frithiof T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lantz, Daniel W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berge, Hans B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liermann, Martin C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tabor, Roger A.</au><au>Waterstrat, Frithiof T.</au><au>Lantz, Daniel W.</au><au>Berge, Hans B.</au><au>Liermann, Martin C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Distribution, Density, and Size of Migratory and Fluvial Sculpins in Relation to Barriers in Puget Sound Lowland Streams</atitle><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle><date>2017-08</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>729</spage><epage>742</epage><pages>729-742</pages><issn>0275-5947</issn><eissn>1548-8675</eissn><abstract>We examined the effects of potential barriers on populations of migratory sculpins (Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus and Prickly Sculpin C. asper) and fluvial sculpins (Riffle Sculpin C. gulosus, Shorthead Sculpin C. confusus, and Torrent Sculpin C. rhotheus). Barriers can alter sculpin distribution because migratory sculpins have pelagic larvae that drift downstream to calm waters and juveniles and adults migrate upstream. We compared sculpin populations upstream and downstream of a barrier in 19 lowland streams in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Within each stream, we examined the farthest downstream barrier that would be most likely to impact the upstream movements of migratory sculpins. All study streams had populations of migratory sculpins in stream reaches downstream of the barrier. In 8 of the 19 streams with a barrier, at least one species of fluvial sculpin was also present. We also documented the relative distribution of migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins in one reference stream without a barrier. In all streams examined, the density of migratory sculpins upstream of the barrier was lower than that downstream of the barrier and the differences were statistically significant. In 12 of the 19 streams, migratory sculpins were not present upstream of the barrier. In streams with fluvial sculpin populations, fluvial sculpins were usually rare downstream of barriers and were statistically less abundant than upstream of the barrier. The migratory sculpins collected upstream of barriers were statistically larger than those collected downstream of barriers. In the reference stream, migratory sculpin species dominated the lower stream reaches and were gradually replaced by fluvial sculpin species in more upstream reaches. Overall, barriers appear to have an important effect on the distribution of both migratory sculpins and fluvial sculpins, which should be taken into account when assessing habitat modifications and fish communities in Puget Sound lowland streams. Received November 4, 2016; accepted March 25, 2017 Published online June 12, 2017</abstract><cop>Bethesda</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><doi>10.1080/02755947.2017.1313795</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0275-5947
ispartof North American journal of fisheries management, 2017-08, Vol.37 (4), p.729-742
issn 0275-5947
1548-8675
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1926973566
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Adults
Barriers
Coastal environments
Cottidae
Distribution
Downstream
Fish
Juveniles
Larvae
Marine fishes
Migration
Migratory species
Population studies
Populations
Potential barriers
Rivers
Statistical analysis
Streams
Upstream
title Distribution, Density, and Size of Migratory and Fluvial Sculpins in Relation to Barriers in Puget Sound Lowland Streams
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T03%3A26%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Distribution,%20Density,%20and%20Size%20of%20Migratory%20and%20Fluvial%20Sculpins%20in%20Relation%20to%20Barriers%20in%20Puget%20Sound%20Lowland%20Streams&rft.jtitle=North%20American%20journal%20of%20fisheries%20management&rft.au=Tabor,%20Roger%20A.&rft.date=2017-08&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=729&rft.epage=742&rft.pages=729-742&rft.issn=0275-5947&rft.eissn=1548-8675&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02755947.2017.1313795&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1926973566%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3339-257a3315627491551ebdf43fa609b680bce4d969a5a439a68b2bda3a3f0dac263%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1926973566&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true