Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Musky Studies |
| Message Subject: Musky Studies | |||
Dirt1123 |
| ||
Posts: 132 | Does anyone have a link to some studys done how having a healthy musky population is good for the fishery as a whole? Or studys done that show what a muskys diet consists of? basically anything that supports having musky in a lake would help. thank you | ||
| jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | Sorry this doesn't come directly from the DNR or anything, but you could probably find the actual document with some searching: http://www.lakevermilion.com/muskies/htmls/diets.html | ||
| Dunlap |
| ||
Posts: 284 | Here you go Shaun Till Dawn !! https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/42665/INHS2012... Muskellunge diet information showed a consistent pattern of little predation on largemouth bass or other game species in lakes where gizzard shad are present. Diet information from Lakes Mingo, Pierce, Sam Dale, Otter, and Shelbyville indicates that gizzard shad make up the bulk of muskellunge diet wherever they are available. These findings are similar to other studies that have shown gizzard shad to be the dominant prey item in Ohio impoundments and that muskellunge prefer gizzard shad and other soft rayed fishes when present (Wahl and Stein 1988). This suggests that muskellunge are not responsible for significant amounts of direct predation on most popular game species where gizzard shad are present. However our data set is limited to spring and fall seasons when muskellunge are vulnerable to sampling gear and further research will be necessary to describe summer and mid-winter diets. Diet composition from Ridge Lake shows that when gizzard shad or other soft rayed prey are not present, bluegill become the primary diet item making up more than 80 % of the diet. In these types of lakes largemouth bass become a more common prey item (although still less than 15 % of the total diet). Managers should consider that the availability of soft rayed alternative prey such as gizzard shad may largely determine the degree to which introduced muskellunge consume recreationally important species such as bluegills and largemouth bass. Our results show no negative effects of muskellunge introduction on largemouth bass relative abundance. In contrast we found that largemouth bass catch-per-hour increased significantly relative to controls in three of the eight lake pairs examined and effect sizes were positive for seven of the eight cases. Although the available data precludes any definitive interpretation as to the cause of the increases in largemouth bass catch rates, recent research and past studies implicate three likely candidate causes for this observation. In a recent pond study the presence of muskellunge lead to increased growth of largemouth bass when controlling for predator densities and biomass (Carey and Wahl 2010). Laboratory observations indicated that this effect was likely due to a facilitative interaction between largemouth bass and muskellunge when foraging on shared prey (Carey and Wahl 2011). Such facilitative interactions have been documented among other piscivorous predators and are known to increase population growth rates of the benefiting predator (Eklov and VanKooten 2001; Schulze et al. 2006). These observations may offer an explanation for the numerical response of largemouth bass to muskellunge introduction. Alternatively, studies involving the introduction of new predator types often result in shifts in habitat utilization of resident predators (Werner and Hall 1977). For example, the introduction of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) to a European lake resulted in increased use of the littoral zone by resident piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis). A similar effect might be expected in largemouth bass as they reach smaller adult sizes than muskellunge 28 and body size is a known determinant of intra-guild competitive interactions (Fedriani et al. 2000). If competition with adult muskellunge caused largemouth bass to increase their utilization of littoral areas we would expect electrofishing catch rates to increase as this gear primarily indexes the littoral zone. A third hypothesis for the observed increase in largemouth bass relative abundance may be that lakes targeted for muskellunge introduction may be selected non-randomly by biologists undertaking active management to increase largemouth bass populations. Because these lakes may have been selected non-randomly it is possible that alternative management activities may have contributed to the improvement of largemouth bass populations in lakes where muskellunge were introduced. Nevertheless our results suggest that muskellunge introduction is not a significant barrier to improving largemouth bass populations. A growing body of research supports a need to further explore interactions between largemouth bass and muskellunge at the lake scale to determine mechanisms by which these two species interact. With the exception of largemouth bass the only other species exhibiting consistent responses to muskellunge introduction in our study lakes were black and white crappie. These results are consistent with one of the few previous studies examining responses of lake fish communities to muskellunge introduction, which implicated predatory effects on crappie populations (Siler and Bayerle 1986). Furthermore, responses of crappie population characteristics including increased size structure and decreased relative abundance are consistent with predictions of a direct predatory effect. Several previous studies have implicated a role of predators including largemouth bass, northern pike (Esox luscious) and saugeye (Sander vitreus x Sander canadense) in regulating crappie abundance and size structure (Gabelhouse 1984; Willis et al. 1984; Boxrucker 2002; Galinet et al. 2002). The response of crappie populations to muskellunge introduction are in contrast to those of the other sunfishes in our lakes posing a question as to why crappie populations may be more sensitive to this predator. We can only speculate as to the potential explanations for this disparity in responses between species however previous research has suggested differences in habitat selection and diel movements between crappie and other sympatric sunfishes (Keast et al. 1992), which may alter the likelihood of interactions with muskellunge. These differences in movement and habitat selection may result in greater predation on these species during mid-summer and mid-winter seasons not well represented by our diet data. Regardless of the potential causes of differing responses among species our results may be of particular interest in crappie management of lower latitude lakes where the development of high density, slow growing populations comprised of smaller individuals is a common problem (Mitzner 1984). Our results suggest muskellunge may influence abundance and size structure of crappie populations however we caution that these results are based on findings from a limited number of lake pairs and a limited number of years post introduction. Further study will be required to determine the generality of these findings, long-term responses and potential mechanisms governing interactions among crappie populations and introduced muskellunge. With the exception of crappie populations we found little evidence for predatory impacts of introduced muskellunge on important prey species in these systems including bluegills, redear sunfish and gizzard shad. We found evidence for a potentially strong positive interaction between introduced muskellunge and largemouth bass populations when generalizing across eight Illinois lakes, which we feel warrant further study of the interactions between these species. In addition we found evidence that muskellunge may influence the size structure and/or abundance of crappie populations although these findings are from a smaller number (four) of 29 lakes systems. The known preference for muskellunge to consume gizzard shad combined with the lack of population responses by this species suggests that muskellunge may be utilizing an abundant and potentially underutilized forage base in these systems. While we feel this study represents a valuable first step in exploring fish community responses of lower Midwestern lakes to muskellunge introduction we urge that more research will be necessary to validate the generality of these findings. As the introduction of muskellunge into systems outside its native range continues there is a particular need for longer-term assessments of the effects of this introduced predator as well as a need to evaluate responses of other potentially important fishes not evaluated here. Edited by Dunlap 7/23/2015 10:20 AM | ||
| MuskyMatt71 |
| ||
Posts: 141 Location: Minnetonka | This is quite an old publication (1987), but has some very interesting studies in it, many of which are directly related to the introduction of muskies into new waters. You can buy it on Amazon for around $15 shipped. Managing Muskies: A Treatise on the Biology and Propagation of Muskellunge in North America (Special Publication (American Fisheries Society)) | ||
| Ronix |
| ||
Posts: 977 | My former bosses/research colleagues published this: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10... Its very current and has a lot of information you'd find helpful in there. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |