My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7143
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7143
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:29 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 12:01:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7143
Author
Inskip, P. D.
Title
Habitat Suitability Index Models
USFW Year
1982.
USFW - Doc Type
Northern Pike.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Areas used for spawning can be far away from areas inhabited during the r <br />rest of the year. Northern pike tagged on spawning grounds in a Missouri <br />River reservoir were later recaptured up to 322 km away; most, however, were <br />caught within 32 km of the site where they were tagged (Moen and Henegar <br />1971). Pike tagged during the upstream spawning run out of a Michigan lake <br />were subsequently recaptured up to 15 km away in the lake (Carbine and <br />Applegate 1948). <br /> <br />The degree to which northern pike home to particular spawning grounds is <br />unclear. Tagging and meristic studies of northern pike in Lac La Ronge, <br />Saskatchewan, suggested the presence of separate populations within the lake, <br />but. it is not necessary to postulate a homing instinct to account for this <br />observation (Koshinsky 1979). The northern pike did not disperse far from the <br />mouths of tributaries used for spawning. In spring, they may simply have <br />moved up the nearest suitable stream (Koshinsky 1979). Frost and Kipling <br />(1967) also gave evidence of repeated use of a spawning area in a lake in <br />England, but their results did not conclusively demonstrate homing. Miller <br />(1948) reported movements of several northern pike among widely separated (2.4 <br />to 3.2 km) spawning areas within a 10-day period. He did not note whether the <br />fish were ripe at each capture location. Franklin and Smith (1963) concluded <br />that northern pike in a Minnesota lake do not home to particular spawning <br />grounds. <br />Specific Habitat Requirements <br />Northern pike are not adapted for life in strong currents. Throughout <br />their ,range, they occur more frequently in lakes than in rivers (Grossman <br />1978), where they inhabit backwaters and pools (Christenson and Smith 1965; <br />Kamyshnaya and Tsepkin 1973; Paragamian 1976; Kallemeyn and Novotny 1977). <br />They avoid channelized reaches (Kallemeyn and Novotny 1977). Strong currents <br />(> 1.5 m/s) can block spawning migrations (Dryden and Jessop 1974). <br />The availability of suitable spawning habitat is the factor which most <br />often excludes northern pike from lakes, reservoirs, and slow moving rivers <br />and which limits abundance where the species does occur. Shallow vegetated <br />areas, such as flooded marshes, flooded terrestrial vegetation, or weedy bays <br />provide suitable habitat, provided that high water levels are maintained <br />throughout the embryo and fry stages (Hasler 1970). Strong year-classes <br />often occur as a newly created reservoir fills and in years when exceptionally <br />high spring water levels flood previously unflooded terrestrial vegetation <br />(Crabtree 1969; Cooper 1971; June 1976; Groen and Schroeder 1978; Nelson <br />1978). Conversely, weak year-classes in impoundments and natural environments <br />are associated with low water levels (Johnson 1957; Cooper 1971; Schryer et <br />al. 1971; Rundberg 1977; Nelson 1978; Stewart 1978}. Northern pike do not do <br />well in reservoirs with widely fluctuating water levels (wajdowicz_ 1964) <br />because nearshore vegetation does not develop. Long term reductions in the <br />abundance of northern pike have accompanied the draining and filling of wet- <br />lands (Brynildson 1958; Threinen 1969; Baumann et al. 1974; Forney 1977), <br />reductions in the density of aquatic plants (Hurley arrd Christie 1977; <br />Ciepielewski 1981), and blocking of access to spawning grounds (Trautman <br />1957). Fishery managers in Michigan were able to substantially increase <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.