Author Institution: Illinois Natural Survey Laboratory ; Lake Head UniversityCreek chub movements were monitored in a small stream in the spring and summer of 1972 to determine the magnitude of seasonal changes in distribution. A large percentage of the adult chubs moved upstream between late April and mid-May, but distances traveled by individuals were generally less than 300 m. Immature chubs moved upstream throughout the spring and summer, the catch being predominantly 2 and 3 year old fish in May and early June, and 1 and 2 year old fish in late June and July. Upstream movement of all but young-of-the-year chubs greatly exceeded downstream movement. Some young-of-the-year fish drifted downstream passively. Large population shifts, associated with the exodus of fish from 2 beaver ponds, had implications for estimation of population size, mortality and other population parameters

Momot, Walter T.

Storck, Ted W.

The Ohio Journal of Science

KnowledgeBank at OSU

Copyright © 1981 Ohio Acad. Sci. 0030-0950/81/0001-0009 $2.00/0MOVEMENTS OF THE CREEK CHUB IN ASMALL OHIO STREAM1TED STORCK, Illinois Natural History Survey Laboratory, R.R. 1, Box 157, Sullivan, IL 61951WALTER T. MOMOT, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, Postal Code P7B 5E1Abstract. Creek chub movements were monitored in a small stream in the spring andsummer of 1972 to determine the magnitude of seasonal changes in distribution. Alarge percentage of the adult chubs moved upstream between late April and mid-May,but distances traveled by individuals were generally less than 300 m. Immature chubsmoved upstream throughout the spring and summer, the catch being predominantly 2and 3 year old fish in May and early June, and 1 and 2 year old fish in late June andJuly. Upstream movement of all but young-of-the-year chubs greatly exceededdownstream movement. Some young-of-the-year fish drifted downstream passively.Large population shifts, associated with the exodus of fish from 2 beaver ponds, hadimplications for estimation of population size, mortality and other populationparameters.OHIO J. SCI. 81(1): 9, 1981Knowledge of movement and migrationpatterns of a species contributes to anunderstanding of its population dynamics.Movement patterns of creek chubs, Semo-tilus atromaculatus, in small streams andthe modifications in these patternsbrought about by the presence of beaverponds have not been examined quanti-tatively. This study was part of a largerstudy concerned with the populationdynamics of the creek chub in a smallstream. The movements of this specieswere monitored in the spring and summerof 1972 to determine the magnitude ofseasonal changes in distribution and toevaluate the importance of the presenceof beaver ponds.Description of Study Area. Our studywas conducted in Indian Creek, a tribu-tary of Clear Creek, Fairfield County insoutheastern Ohio (fig. 1). The studyarea, part of the unglaciated AlleghenyPlateau, is underlain by resistant ledge-forming Black Hand sandstone (Wolfeel al 1962). The valley through whichIndian Creek flows is narrow with steepsides and the stream gradient is moderate.The forested watershed is classified assecond growth mixed mesophitic.1Manuscript received 6 December 1977 and inrevised form 27 March 1980 (#77-91).FIGURE 1. Indian Creek in August, 1972showing trap locations. The second beaverpond and each tributary constituted na-ural segments. The remaining main chan-nel was divided into 3 similar segments.From BP2, section 2 terminated at a cul-vert 500 m upstream. Section 3 ended atthe entrance of Trib A approximately 800 mupstream, and section 4 terminated at thejunction of RB and BB.The stream enters Lake Ramona, a 4ha artificial impoundment constructed inthe early 1930's. Water passing over thespillway of this lake continues about 100m before entering Clear Creek. Thespillway effectively isolates Indian CreekfroirL Clear Creek. The portion of the10 T. STORCK AND W. T. MOMOT Vol. 81stream above Lake Ramona includes ap-proximately 2,300 m of fish-inhabitedwater in mid-summer with a surface areaslightly greater than 0.4 hectare. Ac-cording to Horton (1945), the mainchannel is a second order stream and the3 tributaries are first order streams.The downstream end of Indian Creekhas been modified by 2 beaver ponds.The one farther downstream is nearlycontiguous with Lake Ramona (fig. 1).This pond is designated the first beaverpond (BP1), and the other immediatelyupstream from it is designated as thesecond beaver pond (BP2).The first tributary (Trib A), which en-ters approximately 800 m upstream fromBP 2, is reduced to a series of isolatedpools in the summer. Indian Creek isdivided equally into two more tributariesat a point 1,200 m upstream from LakeRamona. One of these, the road branch(RB), has good pool development sup-porting a substantial number of chubs.During late summer dry periods the flowfrequently ceases in this section, produc-ing isolated pools. The other tributary,the back branch (BB), having almost nopool development, was inhabited by onlya few chubs. During the study periodthis tributary always maintained a flow.In addition to the creek chub, sub-stantial populations of both redbelly dace,Phoxinus erythrogaster, and blacknosedace, Rhinichthys atratulus, were presentin Indian Creek. Their combined den-sities approximated that of the creek chub(Storck 1974). The least brook lamprey,Lampetra aepyptera, also occurred in thestream and was most abundant in thefirst 500 m above BP 2.MATERIALS AND METHODSWeirs and rectangular traps were placed at 5locations as shown on the map (fig. 1). Trap 1was located 20 m upstream from BP2. Trap 2was located at the junction of section 2 and 3.The remaining 3 traps were located in themouths of the 3 tributaries. Traps were con-structed of 6.3 mm hardware cloth and had di-mensions of about 30 x 15 x 36 cm. Trap 2 hada single funnel directed downstream and moni-tored only upstream movement. Other trapshad a funnel in each end, a partition in thecenter, and monitored both upstream and down-stream movement. Traps were always situatedin the middle of shallow runs or riffles approxi-mately 15 cm deep. Weirs constructed of 6.3mm hardware cloth and reinforced with 2.5 x5.0 mm welded wire cloth extended from eachside of the trap to shore. Weirs were approxi-mately 25 cm high and were held in place bywood stakes. Fish movement was monitoredfrom. 3 March through 5 July and from 25 Julythrough 16 September.Drift nets were set a few meters upstreamfrom trap 1 to detect possible downstream driftof creek chub larvae. Sets were made at vari-ous times of day over a 3 week period shortlyafter initiation of spawning activity.Trapped fish were sexed, classified as imma-ture or mature, and the total length of eachfish recorded. Ages were determined by prob-ability paper analysis of length frequency histo-grams (Cassie 1954). Because it was not pos-sible to separate older age groups using thismethod, age IV and older fish were combined.Population size was estimated for each streamsection using Bailey's modification of the Peter-son mark and recapture method (Cormack1968). A variable voltage pulsating direct cur-rent electric shocker and a minnow seine wereused to collect fish. The length of time be-tween mark and recapture collections alwaysexceeded 2 days and the interval was generally3 days. Captured fish were anaesthetized withMS-222 (Sandoz Co.), total length meas-urements were taken and fish were finclipped inthe marking census. Too few age IV and olderfish were recaptured to estimate their popula-tion size independently. In this case, numberswere estimated by forming a pooled estimate inthe ratio of abundance in the catch as describedby McFadden (1961). The use of this methodprecludes estimation of confidence limits for theoldest age group.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONUpstream migrations of mature chubsbegan in the last week of April and wereessentially completed by the second weekof June. Although midmorning watertemperature reached 12 °C at the be-ginning of the spawning migrations, largediurnal fluctuations made the effect ofspecific temperatures difficult to interpret.All mature males produced milt whenstroked lightly on the abdomen. Manymature females were ripe, while othersyielded eggs only when considerable pres-sure was applied to the abdomen. Smallnumbers of spent females were encoun-tered. Only 4 adult downstream mi-grants entered the traps.The upstream movement of immaturefish occurred throughout the spring trap-ping with similar numbers moving nearlyevery day. All age groups of immatureswere involved in the upstream movement.Most fish caught in May and early Junewere 2 and 3 years old with 1 and 2 yearold fish predominating in late June andJuly. One year old fish dominated theOhio J. Sci. CREEK CHUB MOVEMENTS 11TABLE 1Creek chub movement in Indian Creek during the spring and summer of 1972 (3 March through5 July and 25 July through 16 September).Adult malesAdult femalesImmature fishTrap 1up60*2381284down12119Trap 2up down25 —28 —438 —Trib Aup66365down0039up826238RBdown107up310231BBdown0021"Represents total number of creek chubs trapped at each site.catch after they first appeared in largenumbers on June 24. During the non-trapping period of July 5 through 24,large numbers of 1 year old fish ap-parently moved from the beaver pondsto section 2, where few had previouslyoccurred. Large schools of 1 year oldchubs that had previously inhabited thebeaver pond were no longer present inthat section. Upon resumption of trap-ping, only 250 more immature upstreammigrants were captured in the remaining25 trapping days.Only 190 downstream migrant chubswere captured, and these were mostly 1and 2 year olds (table 1). While largenumbers of chubs moved upstream asearly as May 4, substantial numbers didnot move downstream until May 21.The numbers were distributed ratheruniformly throughout the season. Usinga similar trap design, Hall (1972) foundfish species entered traps just as readilywhen moving downstream as when mov-ing upstream with escape rates nearlyidentical for both directions. Only afew downstream migrants were captureddue to lack of movement (not because ofthe ineffectiveness of traps). Since up-stream migrants greatly exceeded down-stream migrants, random wanderingcould not account for the observed pat-terns. Hall (1972) observed similar up-stream and downstream movements forcreek chubs in New Hope Creek, NC.The patterns observed in Indian Creekmay not be typical of small streams.The presence of BP2 probably modifiedthe distribution of creek chubs in thisstream. Beaver ponds increase the num-ber of species of fish, their standing crops,and the standing crops of plankton com-pared with those of unmodified streamsections (Hanson and Campbell 1963).The increase in depth, available cover,water volume, and food abundancedoubtless contributed to the high stand-ing crop of creek chubs in the beaverponds of Indian Creek and may have en-hanced the survival of young-of-the-yearfish that gathered there. The large in-flux of fish into section 2 in the springreflected the unusually large concentra-tion of fish in the beaver pond (table 2).TABLE 2Creek chub population estimates for April 15 through 21, 1972 (sexes combined).AgeGroupIIIIIIV andOlderBP21900**(1334-2466)221(152-290)842531(357-705)57(10-104)4Stream3347(265-429)21(11-33)4Section*4660(551-809)71(64-78)2A221(67-375)33(9-57)9RB151(107-195)36(24-48)15*See map (fig. 1) for identification of stream section."*Data presented as total number (95% confidence limits). Population size of age group IVand older fish was determined by a pooled estimate based on the ratio of abundance inthe catch. The use of this method precludes estimation of confidence limits.12 T. STORCK AND W. T. MOMOT Vol. 81Mature female chubs are more abun-dant than males in Indian Creek andmore females were trapped. The sexratios also differed from trap to trap(x2 = 21.67, df = 4, P<0.005). The pro-nounced differences in sex ratios betweentraps 1 and 2 may be a consequence ofthe unique habitat provided by thebeaver pond (table 1). Overwinteringmature fish had to move upstream tospawn because substrate and currentvelocities within the beaver pond wereunsuitable for spawning. If the migra-tion rate of the 2 sexes differed, the sexratio of fish migrating from the beaverpond should have deviated from thatexpected in typical stream habitat. Thetemporal distribution of migrants fromthe beaver pond was more protracted,but by the end of May, spawning move-ments through traps 2 and RB werecompleted. Mature fish, however, con-tinued to pass through trap 1 for anothermonth with movements of immature fishshowing little difference among traps.Migrant adults made substantial con-tributions to the spawning population ofeach stream section. The premigrationestimates (table 3) were derived frompopulation estimates completed prior tospawning migrations (table 2). Basedon these estimates, nearly all adult chubsleft BP2 during the spring spawningseason, and this movement increased themale and female breeding stock presentin section 2 by 78% and 42%, respec-tively (table 3). Likewise, migrants inTrib A, RB and BB constituted a sub-stantial fraction of the total spawningpopulation even though actual numbersof migrants entering these tributarieswere small (table 1). For the entirestream, 102 mature males and 308 ma-ture females were captured in migrationtraps. Judging from estimates of 92males and 475 females present in thestream as reported by Storck (1974), weconcluded that a large fraction of theadult population made at least small up-stream movements.The relative contribution of immaturemigrants to each section of stream couldnot be assessed because of lack of data onthe number of 1 year olds present; how-ever, numbers of immatures passingthrough each trap are available (table 1).The number of immature fish movingfrom BP2 into section 2 exceeded thenumber of resident 2 and 3 year old im-matures initially present in that sectionbut accounted for less than half of theimmatures present in the beaver pondthroughout the summer. In the 3 tribu-taries, ingress also exceeded the numbersof overwintering of 2 and 3 year old fish.Fish movement measured by trapcatches are undoubtedly conservative.Gerking (1950) found that fish tended tomove upstream during high water. Ourtraps in Indian Creek were least effectiveduring such periods, and movement wasprobably even greater than indicated byour trapping records.Huge schools of young-of-the-yearchubs were present in BP2 by mid-August. Since reproduction did not oc-cur in this section or areas downstreamfrom it, these fish must have enteredTABLE 3Number of premigrant and spawning adults and net ingress of migrants into each stream sectionas number and % contribution to the spawning population of that section.StreamSectionBP2234ARBBBPre-migrants5110312780MalesSpawners i945161113163Netingress035**683%migrants078——4650100Pre-migrants26052216236440FemalesSpawners222623630427010N e tingress0110——6261007/omigrants042——1437100"It was not possible to estimate net ingress into sections 3 and 4 because movement between thesesections was not monitored.Ohio J. Sci. CREEK CHUB MOVEMENTS 13from upstream. As early as the begin-ning of June, an unknown number ofthese fish passively entered the beaverpond as drift. Fifty chub larvae rangingfrom 7 to 9 mm TL were collected indrift nets set about 30 m upstream fromthe beaver pond. Although nets wereset at various times of day, larvae werecaptured only at night.Although upstream migrants producedsubstantial changes in chub distribution,individuals apparently did not move far.Even if all fish passing through trap 2had been BP2 residents, more than 50%of the males, 90% of the females, and 66%of the immature fish that left BP2 did notreach trap 2. The majority of fish en-tering trap 2 probably were originallyresident in section 2, indicating thatmovement occurs by displacement ratherthan by long distance migrations of in-dividuals. This finding agrees with theconclusions of Hall (1972).All annual upstream movement prob-ably occurred within our trapping in-terval. Although downstream movementof adults was negligible during this in-terval, large numbers of adults werepresent in the beaver pond during springbefore the initiation of the upstreammigration. Thus, downstream move-ments must have occurred during thefall or winter.The observed movements of creekchubs have implications for studies ofpopulation dynamics. The magnitudeof the movement may result in largeerrors in mortality rate estimates basedon successive population estimates ofsmall stream sections. The populationsize of both mature and immature fish inBP2, section 2, and the 3 tributarieschanged substantially as a result of im-migration and emigration. Often, instudies in which small sections of a streamare repeatedly sampled, it is assumedthat immigration and emigration areequal. Obviously, one cannot makesuch assumptions in streams interceptedby beaver ponds, and the entire popula-tion should be sampled if estimates aremade at intervals of less than one year.LITERATURE CITEDCassie, R. M. 1954 Some uses of probabilitypaper in the analysis of size frequency distri-butions. Australian J. Marine and FreshWater Res. 5: 513-522.Cormack, R. M. 1968 The statistics of cap-ture-recapture methods, p. 455, Vol. 6, H.Barnes (ed.) Oceanography and MarineBiology. George Allen and Unwin Ltd.,London.Gerking, S. D. 1950 Stability of a stream fishpopulation. J. Wildl. Manage. 14: 193-202.Hall, C. A. 1972 Migration and metabo-lism in a temperate stream ecosystem. Ecol-ogy 53: 585-604.Hanson, W. D. and R. S. Campbell _ 1963 Theeffects of pool size and beaver activity on dis-tribution and abundance of warmwater fishesin a north Missouri stream. Amer. Midi.Nat. 69: 136-149.Horton, R. E. 1945 Erosional developmentof streams and their drainage basins. Bull.Geol. Soc. Amer. 56: 275-300.McFadden, J. T. 1961 A population study ofthe brook trout, Salivelinusfontinalis. Wildl.Monogr. No. 7, 73 pp.Storck, T. W. 1974 Production and popula-tion dynamics of two fishes in a small wood-land stream. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, OhioState Univ., Columbus.Wolfe, E. W., J. L. Forsyth and G. D. Dove1962 Geology of Fairfield County, Geol.Sur. Bull. 60. 230 pp.

Movements of the Creek Chub in a Small Ohio Stream

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/22751/1/V081N1_009.pdf

Movements of the Creek Chub in a Small Ohio Stream

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU