Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1683 2023-11-21 13:55:05 |
2 references update Meta information modification 1683 2023-11-22 06:20:43 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Costantini, M.L.; Kabala, J.P.; Sporta Caputi, S.; Ventura, M.; Calizza, E.; Careddu, G.; Rossi, L. Influence of Environmental Variables in Micropterus salmoides. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51860 (accessed on 23 June 2024).
Costantini ML, Kabala JP, Sporta Caputi S, Ventura M, Calizza E, Careddu G, et al. Influence of Environmental Variables in Micropterus salmoides. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51860. Accessed June 23, 2024.
Costantini, Maria Letizia, Jerzy Piotr Kabala, Simona Sporta Caputi, Matteo Ventura, Edoardo Calizza, Giulio Careddu, Loreto Rossi. "Influence of Environmental Variables in Micropterus salmoides" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51860 (accessed June 23, 2024).
Costantini, M.L., Kabala, J.P., Sporta Caputi, S., Ventura, M., Calizza, E., Careddu, G., & Rossi, L. (2023, November 21). Influence of Environmental Variables in Micropterus salmoides. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51860
Costantini, Maria Letizia, et al. "Influence of Environmental Variables in Micropterus salmoides." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 November, 2023.
Influence of Environmental Variables in Micropterus salmoides
Edit

Biological invasions in fresh waters cause biodiversity loss and impairment of ecosystem functioning. Many freshwater invasive species are fish, including the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, which is considered one of the 100 worst invasive species in the world. Fast individual growth rates, high dispersal ability, ecological tolerance, and trophic plasticity are among the characteristics contributing to its success. The negative impact of M. salmoides on littoral fish communities is believed to be mitigated by habitat structural complexity resulting from aquatic vegetation and coarse woody debris, while the main limits on its spread seem to be strong water flows and high turbidity, which impairs visual predation. Together with the human overexploitation of its potential fish antagonists, habitat alteration could result in M. salmoides having seriously detrimental effects on native biodiversity.

invasive species fish M. salmoides environments

1. Habitat Structural Complexity: The Effect of Vegetation and Coarse Woody Habitats

The interactions of the largemouth bass with other organisms are influenced by habitat structural complexity. Coarse woody habitats (CWH) and aquatic vegetation play an important role by providing shelter to prey species, thus favoring their abundance and diversity [1][2], and by influencing M. salmoides’s behavior. Indeed, bass are able to opportunistically change their predation strategy in response to habitat complexity [3][4][5]: beyond a certain level of vegetation density or CWH debris abundance, the bass switch their strategy from cruising to ambushing.
Differences in bass diets have been found in environments with different types of aquatic vegetation cover [6][7]. In the presence of both vegetation and open waters, largemouth bass forage almost exclusively on open-water fish species [8]. Dense vegetation reduces (a) predator–prey visual contact, (b) attacks per prey via active search, and (c) captures per attack [3], thus increasing the handling time (for chasing and catching prey) and reducing predator–prey encounter rates. This decreases the maximum number of prey a predator can catch per unit of time [9][10][11].
In experimental systems, vegetation was found to be effective at reducing predation by the largemouth bass on centrarchids (Lepomis spp. and juveniles of the largemouth bass itself), the cyprinid Squalius alburnoides [3][8][12], and the guppy Poecilia reticulata [9][10]. Furthermore, using artificial vegetation, Gotceitas and Colgan [13] found a density threshold above which the success of bass foraging on juvenile L. macrochirus was reduced and suggested a non-linear relationship between habitat complexity and prey habitat choice.
The largemouth bass can have greater attack rates in a diverse macrophyte assemblage than in a monotypic canopy, since the former leaves more gaps that allow the bass to access prey than the latter [11]. This suggests that the optimal habitat for bass is a mix of open or semi-open areas and areas with moderately dense vegetation, which results in both high prey abundance and successful predation ([11][14], and references therein]), as well as higher individual growth and fecundity [15]. In enclosures with Myriophyllum spicatum, the largemouth bass consumed mainly fish, while in enclosures with Potamogeton nodosus, it fed mainly on invertebrates, despite similar macrophyte densities and prey items [16]. It has also been observed that in areas characterized by dense macrophytes, hypoxic conditions might enhance the refuge effect for prey species that are more tolerant of low oxygen concentrations than bass [17], further reducing M. salmoides’s predation success and population growth [18].
The detrimental effect of vegetation does not appear to be a feature of the relationship between M. salmoides juveniles and invertebrate/insect prey [19][20]. Younger individuals were observed in densely vegetated areas, and their diet mostly consisted of macroinvertebrates. By providing habitat and food resources for invertebrates, aquatic vegetation boosts their abundance and diversity, making them alternative prey for adult bass, which may adopt a more generalist diet, reducing predatory pressure on fish [6].

2. Effect of Turbidity on Predation by Sight

Bass occurrence and foraging ability can be limited not only by vegetation in shallow waters and low light intensity in deep waters, but also by loss of transparency due to suspended particles, which reduce visibility. Turbidity has been suggested as an explanation for the largemouth bass’s failure to establish itself in some ecosystems in South Africa [21]. Using bentonite clay, it has been experimentally demonstrated that turbidity lowers the encounter rate between prey and predator by reducing visibility [22], thus lowering the feeding rate [8] and affecting prey selection as the bass switch to slower prey or to prey that use clear-water habitats. High turbidity levels might not allow M. salmoides to catch its daily food ration [23][24].
However, although sight plays a key role in the success of largemouth bass predation, laboratory studies have shown high success, albeit with greater catch effort, when M. salmoides attacked prey blindly [25][26]. Indeed, the prey movements in the water could be also detected by the lateral line organ [25], which ensures the success of M. salmoides attacks even in dark conditions. In these cases, the largemouth bass usually changes its predation strategy by swimming more slowly and opening its mouth more quickly and widely near prey [25][26].

3. Anthropogenic Alteration of Freshwater Systems

The effects of largemouth bass introduction are often exacerbated by other anthropogenic alterations to freshwater ecosystems (e.g., flow regulation, pollution, water extraction, and introduction of other exotic species). All these drivers can threaten local species if they are endemic or have a restricted distribution range [27][28][29][30].
In South Korea and southern Africa, the introduction and spread of M. salmoides and other invasive species have been linked to anthropogenic alterations to rivers, including the construction of impoundments and large dams, where exotic species recovered better than the native fauna [21][31]. In many other ecosystems, M. salmoides occurrence was greater in (or restricted to) sites influenced by dams [32][33][34]. Indeed, largemouth bass do not tolerate high flow conditions [35], as they are easily flushed out, or the intermittent conditions that are typical of Mediterranean streams [36]. The regulation of river flow can, thus, facilitate invasion by this species. Reservoirs provide lentic and stable conditions [36][37][38] and are characterized by simple communities and “vacant niches” [39][40][41], especially shortly after an inundation. Reservoirs and impoundments favor the establishment and spread of exotic fish species and can provide propagules of invasive species to nearby water bodies, acting as stepping stones [42]. They might also serve as bases for the recolonization of parts of the river from which bass have been displaced [35] and as nursery sites, producing juveniles that are able to populate downstream sections [43].

4. The Influence of Climate Change

Climate change influences an ecosystem’s vulnerability to invasion by non-native fish species, as it can change the distribution ranges of many species, including M. salmoides, prompting them to spread northward and colonize new environments [44][45], thereby threatening native species [45][46] or changing their distribution [47]. Adults of M. salmoides do not seem to be particularly constrained by low winter temperatures, tolerating long periods in cold and ice-covered waters [48][49][50]. However, M. salmoides displays lower growth and feeding rates at temperatures lower than 10 °C [51][52], and severe temperatures can limit its recruitment. Indeed, under long-lasting cold conditions, 0-year-old largemouth bass often fail to gain sufficient size and energy reserves to survive until the next favorable season [51][53]. In addition, ice coverage of water bodies can reduce oxygen levels in waters and, thus, promote winterkill, further reducing bass survival [51][52]. A warmer climate in the northernmost areas of M. salmoides’s current range could remove these limitations. In addition, the global increase in annual mean temperature appears to be the main factor in predicting the spread of bass toward higher altitudes, with an average movement of about 9 m per decade [54].
Climate change might also influence the spawning periods, growth rates, diets, behavior, and distribution of invasive fish, including the largemouth bass [54][55][56], with negative consequences for native species [57][58].
The effects of temperature on M. salmoides‘s foraging rates [59][60] are highlighted by several bioenergetic models, which estimate the fish energy budget and its variation [61][62]. Using this approach, Rice et al. [63] showed that seasonal temperature variation has an indirect effect on bass body condition, as it influences prey density and, thus, feeding rates. Based on bioenergetics and field studies, the lower increase in M. salmoides’s per capita prey demand with temperature and its higher capacity to tolerate prey decline could explain its increasing densities with respect to the congeneric M. dolomieu [64].
Altered foraging activity and individual growth rates are likely to influence the interaction of the largemouth bass with other piscivores: in a simulation of climate change scenarios for 2040 and 2060, the bioenergetic model showed increased impact on prey species and potential changes to the fish assemblage [65]. A comparison of 359 lakes in Wisconsin suggested that the negative effect of climate warming on the recruitment of other piscivores (e.g., the walleye Sander vitreus) was amplified where bass densities were high [66].
Climate change is also expected to favor flow regime alterations due to changes in rainfall patterns, increased evaporation rates, and reduced runoff, which, combined with changing thermal regimes, water chemistry, and DO dynamics, will stress local communities, leading to changes in the interactions between bass and native biota. These effects can be exacerbated by human activities. Indeed, climate change, along with water extraction and the construction and use of dams, is expected to increase the frequency of severity of drought events and the intermittence of freshwater ecosystems [59][67]. Habitat fragmentation could favor the development of pools in which organisms undergo severe stress related to extreme temperature variation, low resource availability, and strong biotic interactions [67]. This could increase the spread of highly tolerant top-predator species such as Micropterus salmoides, further stressing and threatening the persistence of native communities [59][67][68]. In contrast, as a limnophylic species that needs protected nursery and wintering habitats, bass will struggle to colonize intermittent streams, as they are able to survive only in the dry-season pools of downstream reaches [12][67].
Climate change could also influence bass abundance in large and deep lakes, where rising temperatures will generate a larger total volume of thermally suitable habitat for this invasive species than small and shallow lakes [69]. Furthermore, climate change is expected to have negative effects on the vegetated littoral belt and its associated species richness, exacerbated by human activities [31][70]. All this can result in both direct and indirect benefits for warmer and opportunistic species such as M. salmoides, with strongly negative effects not only on native fauna, but also on the functioning of the entire ecosystem.

References

  1. Gaeta, J.W.; Sass, G.G.; Carpenter, S.R. Drought-Driven Lake Level Decline: Effects on Coarse Woody Habitat and Fishes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2014, 71, 315–325.
  2. Tsunoda, H.; Mitsuo, Y.; Ohira, M.; Doi, M.; Senga, Y. Relationship between the Impact of Invasive Largemouth Bass and Environmental Conditions in Ponds. Res. Rep. Res. Educ. Cent. Inlandwater Environ. Shinshu Univ. 2010, 6, 133–141.
  3. Savino, J.F.; Stein, R.A. Predator-Prey Interaction between Largemouth Bass and Bluegills as Influenced by Simulated, Submersed Vegetation. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1982, 111, 255–266.
  4. Savino, J.F.; Stein, R.A. Behavior of Fish Predators and Their Prey: Habitat Choice between Open Water and Dense Vegetation. Environ. Biol. Fishes 1989, 24, 287–293.
  5. Ahrenstorff, T.D.; Sass, G.G.; Helmus, M.R. The Influence of Littoral Zone Coarse Woody Habitat on Home Range Size, Spatial Distribution, and Feeding Ecology of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). Hydrobiologia 2009, 623, 223.
  6. Costantini, M.L.; Carlino, P.; Calizza, E.; Careddu, G.; Cicala, D.; Sporta Caputi, S.; Fiorentino, F.; Rossi, L. The Role of Alien Fish (the Centrarchid Micropterus salmoides) in Lake Food Webs Highlighted by Stable Isotope Analysis. Freshw. Biol. 2018, 63, 1130–1142.
  7. Tsunoda, H.; Mitsuo, Y. Variations in Piscivory of Invasive Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Associated with Pond Environments. Limnology 2018, 19, 271–276.
  8. Ferrari, M.C.O.; Ranåker, L.; Weinersmith, K.L.; Young, M.J.; Sih, A.; Conrad, J.L. Effects of Turbidity and an Invasive Waterweed on Predation by Introduced Largemouth Bass. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2014, 97, 79–90.
  9. Anderson, O. Optimal Foraging by Largemouth Bass in Structured Environments. Ecology 1984, 65, 851–861.
  10. Alexander, M.E.; Kaiser, H.; Weyl, O.L.F.; Dick, J.T.A. Habitat Simplification Increases the Impact of a Freshwater Invasive Fish. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2015, 98, 477–486.
  11. Valley, R.D.; Bremigan, M.T. Effects of Macrophyte Bed Architecture on Largemouth Bass Foraging: Implications of Exotic Macrophyte Invasions. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2002, 131, 234–244.
  12. Godinho, F.N.; Ferreira, M.T. Influence of habitat structure on the fish prey consumption by largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, in experimental tanks. Limnética 2006, 25, 657–664.
  13. Gotceitas, V.; Colgan, P. Predator Foraging Success and Habitat Complexity: Quantitative Test of the Threshold Hypothesis. Oecologia 1989, 80, 158–166.
  14. Carpenter, S.R.; Kitchell, J.F. The Trophic Cascade in Lakes; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996; ISBN 978-0-521-56684-1.
  15. Brown, S.J.; Maceina, M.J. The Influence of Disparate Levels of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation on Largemouth Bass Population Characteristics in a Georgia Reservoir. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 2002, 40, 28–35.
  16. Dibble, E.D.; Harrel, S.L. Largemouth Bass Diets in Two Aquatic Plant Communities. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 1997, 35, 74–78.
  17. Yamanaka, H. Hypoxic Conditions Enhance Refuge Effect of Macrophyte Zone for Small Prey Fish from Piscivorous Predators. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2013, 20, 465–472.
  18. French, C.G.; Wahl, D.H. Influences of Dissolved Oxygen on Juvenile Largemouth Bass Foraging Behaviour. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 2018, 27, 559–569.
  19. Stahr, K.J.; Shoup, D.E. The Effects of Macrophyte Stem Density and Structural Complexity on Foraging Return of Invertivorous Juvenile Largemouth Bass. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2016, 36, 788–792.
  20. Choi, J.-Y.; Kim, S.-K. Effects of Aquatic Macrophytes on Spatial Distribution and Feeding Habits of Exotic Fish Species Lepomis macrochirus and Micropterus salmoides in Shallow Reservoirs in South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1447.
  21. De Moor, I.J. Case Studies of the Invasion by Four Alien Fish Species (Cyprinus carpio, Micropterus salmoides, Oreochromis macrochir and O. mossambicus) of Freshwater Ecosystems in Southern Africa. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 1996, 51, 233–255.
  22. Huenemann, T.W.; Dibble, E.D.; Fleming, J.P. Influence of Turbidity on the Foraging of Largemouth Bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2012, 141, 107–111.
  23. Shoup, D.E.; Wahl, D.H. The Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection by Piscivorous Largemouth Bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2009, 138, 1018–1027.
  24. Shoup, D.E.; Lane, W.D. Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection and Foraging Return of Adult Largemouth Bass in Reservoirs. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2015, 35, 913–924.
  25. Gardiner, J.M.; Motta, P.J. Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) Switch Feeding Modalities in Response to Sensory Deprivation. Zoology 2012, 115, 78–83.
  26. Janssen, J.; Corcoran, J. Lateral Line Stimuli Can Override Vision to Determine Sunfish Strike Trajectory. J. Exp. Biol. 1993, 176, 299–305.
  27. Clark, B.M.; Impson, D.; Rall, J. Present Status and Historical Changes in the Fish Fauna of the Berg River, South Africa. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 2009, 64, 142–163.
  28. Alcaraz, C.; Carmona-Catot, G.; Risueño, P.; Perea, S.; Pérez, C.; Doadrio, I.; Aparicio, E. Assessing Population Status of Parachondrostoma arrigonis (Steindachner, 1866), Threats and Conservation Perspectives. Environ. Biol Fish 2015, 98, 443–455.
  29. Didham, R.K.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Gemmell, N.J.; Rand, T.A.; Ewers, R.M. Interactive Effects of Habitat Modification and Species Invasion on Native Species Decline. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 489–496.
  30. Ellender, B.; Weyl, O. A Review of Current Knowledge, Risk and Ecological Impacts Associated with Non-Native Freshwater Fish Introductions in South Africa. AI 2014, 9, 117–132.
  31. Jo, H.; Jeppesen, E.; Ventura, M.; Buchaca, T.; Gim, J.-S.; Yoon, J.-D.; Kim, D.-H.; Joo, G.-J. Responses of Fish Assemblage Structure to Large-Scale Weir Construction in Riverine Ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 657, 1334–1342.
  32. Gratwicke, B.; Marshall, B.E. The Relationship between the Exotic Predators Micropterus salmoides and Serranochromis robustus and Native Stream Fishes in Zimbabwe. J. Fish Biol. 2001, 58, 68–75.
  33. Azami, K.; Takemoto, M.; Otsuka, Y.; Yamagishi, S.; Nakazawa, S. Meteorology and Species Composition of Plant Communities, Birds and Fishes before and after Initial Impoundment of Miharu Dam Reservoir, Japan. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 8, 81–105.
  34. Han, M.; Fukushima, M.; Kameyama, S.; Fukushima, T.; Matsushita, B. How Do Dams Affect Freshwater Fish Distributions in Japan? Statistical Analysis of Native and Nonnative Species with Various Life Histories. Ecol. Res 2008, 23, 735–743.
  35. Moyle, P.B. Inland Fishes of California: Revised and Expanded; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0-520-22754-5.
  36. Godinho, F.N.; Ferreira, M.T. Composition of Endemic Fish Assemblages in Relation to Exotic Species and River Regulation in a Temperate Stream. Biol. Invasions 2000, 2, 231–244.
  37. Clavero, M.; Hermoso, V.; Aparicio, E.; Godinho, F.N. Biodiversity in Heavily Modified Waterbodies: Native and Introduced Fish in Iberian Reservoirs. Freshw. Biol. 2013, 58, 1190–1201.
  38. Almeida, D.; Almodóvar, A.; Nicola, G.G.; Elvira, B.; Grossman, G.D. Trophic Plasticity of Invasive Juvenile Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides in Iberian Streams. Fish. Res. 2012, 113, 153–158.
  39. Olive, J.A.; Miranda, L.E.; Hubbard, W.D. Centrarchid Assemblages in Mississippi State-Operated Fishing Lakes. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2005, 25, 7–15.
  40. Herbold, B.; Moyle, P.B. Introduced Species and Vacant Niches. Am. Nat. 1986, 128, 751–760.
  41. Nentwig, W. Biological Invasions: Why It Matters. In Biological Invasions; Nentwig, W., Ed.; Ecological Studies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-3-540-36920-2.
  42. Johnson, P.T.; Olden, J.D.; Vander Zanden, M.J. Dam Invaders: Impoundments Facilitate Biological Invasions into Freshwaters. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 357–363.
  43. Almeida, D.; Grossman, G.D. Regulated Small Rivers as ‘Nursery’ Areas for Invasive Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides in Iberian Waters. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2014, 24, 805–817.
  44. Alofs, K.M.; Jackson, D.A.; Lester, N.P. Ontario Freshwater Fishes Demonstrate Differing Range-Boundary Shifts in a Warming Climate. Divers. Distrib. 2014, 20, 123–136.
  45. Alofs, K.M.; Jackson, D.A. The Abiotic and Biotic Factors Limiting Establishment of Predatory Fishes at Their Expanding Northern Range Boundaries in Ontario, Canada. Glob. Change Biol. 2015, 21, 2227–2237.
  46. Alofs, K.M.; Jackson, D.A. The Vulnerability of Species to Range Expansions by Predators Can Be Predicted Using Historical Species Associations and Body Size. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20151211.
  47. Mamun, M.; Kim, S.; An, K.-G. Distribution Pattern Prediction of an Invasive Alien Species Largemouth Bass Using a Maximum Entropy Model (MaxEnt) in the Korean Peninsula. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 2018, 11, 516–524.
  48. Hanson, K.C.; Cooke, S.J.; Suski, C.D.; Niezgoda, G.; Phelan, F.J.S.; Tinline, R.; Philipp, D.P. Assessment of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) Behaviour and Activity at Multiple Spatial and Temporal Scales Utilizing a Whole-Lake Telemetry Array. Hydrobiologia 2007, 582, 243–256.
  49. Peat, T.B.; Gutowsky, L.F.G.; Doka, S.E.; Midwood, J.D.; Lapointe, N.W.R.; Hlevca, B.; Wells, M.G.; Portiss, R.; Cooke, S.J. Comparative Thermal Biology and Depth Distribution of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) and Northern Pike (Esox lucius) in an Urban Harbour of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Can. J. Zool. 2016, 94, 767–776.
  50. Miranda, L.; Bettoli, P.W. Largemouth Bass Natural History. In Largemouth Bass Aquaculture; 5M Publishing Ltd.: Sheffield, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-78918-086-2.
  51. Brown, T.; Runciman, B.; Pollard, S.; Grant, A. Biological Synopsis of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2009, 2884, 1–27.
  52. Scott, W.B.; Crossman, E.J. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 1973, 184, 1–966.
  53. Fullerton, A.H.; Garvey, J.E.; Wright, R.A.; Stein, R.A. Overwinter Growth and Survival of Largemouth Bass: Interactions among Size, Food, Origin, and Winter Severity. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2000, 129, 1–12.
  54. Kim, Z.; Shim, T.; Ki, S.J.; An, K.-G.; Jung, J. Prediction of Three-Dimensional Shift in the Distribution of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) under Climate Change in South Korea. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 137, 108731.
  55. Mulhollem, J.J.; Colombo, R.E.; Wahl, D.H. Effects of Heated Effluent on Midwestern US Lakes: Implications for Future Climate Change. Aquat. Sci. 2016, 78, 743–753.
  56. Ruiz-Navarro, A.; Gillingham, P.K.; Britton, J.R. Predicting Shifts in the Climate Space of Freshwater Fishes in Great Britain Due to Climate Change. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 203, 33–42.
  57. Shelton, J.M.; Weyl, O.L.F.; Esler, K.J.; Paxton, B.R.; Impson, N.D.; Dallas, H.F. Temperature Mediates the Impact of Non-Native Rainbow Trout on Native Freshwater Fishes in South Africa’s Cape Fold Ecoregion. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 2927–2944.
  58. Jeppesen, E.; Meerhoff, M.; Holmgren, K.; González-Bergonzoni, I.; Teixeira-de Mello, F.; Declerck, S.A.J.; De Meester, L.; Søndergaard, M.; Lauridsen, T.L.; Bjerring, R.; et al. Impacts of Climate Warming on Lake Fish Community Structure and Potential Effects on Ecosystem Function. Hydrobiologia 2010, 646, 73–90.
  59. Rypel, A.L. Climate–Growth Relationships for Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) across Three Southeastern USA States. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 2009, 18, 620–628.
  60. Ouizgane, A.; Farid, S.; Majdoubi, F.Z.; Droussi, M.; Guerriero, G.; Hasnaoui, M. Assessment of Climate Change Effects on Predation Activity and Growth of Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede, 1802) by Water Temperature Variations. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2018, 30, 515–522.
  61. Essington, T.E.; Hodgson, J.R.; Kitchell, J.F. Role of Satiation in the Functional Response of a Piscivore, Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2000, 57, 9.
  62. Deslauriers, D.; Chipps, S.R.; Breck, J.E.; Rice, J.A.; Madenjian, C.P. Fish Bioenergetics 4.0: An R-Based Modeling Application. Fisheries 2017, 42, 586–596.
  63. Rice, J.A.; Breck, J.E.; Bartell, S.M.; Kitchell, J.F. Evaluating the Constraints of Temperature, Activity and Consumption on Growth of Largemouth Bass. Environ. Biol. Fish. 1983, 9, 263–275.
  64. Zweifel, R.D.; Hayward, R.S.; Rabeni, C.F. Bioenergetics Insight into Black Bass Distribution Shifts in Ozark Border Region Streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1999, 19, 192–197.
  65. Breeggemann, J.J.; Kaemingk, M.A.; DeBates, T.J.; Paukert, C.P.; Krause, J.R.; Letvin, A.P.; Stevens, T.M.; Willis, D.W.; Chipps, S.R. Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on a Shallow Natural Lake Fish Assemblage. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 2016, 25, 487–499.
  66. Hansen, G.J.A.; Midway, S.R.; Wagner, T. Walleye Recruitment Success Is Less Resilient to Warming Water Temperatures in Lakes with Abundant Largemouth Bass Populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2017, 75, 106–115.
  67. Ilhéu, M.; da Silva, J.; Morais, M.; Matono, P.; Bernardo, J.M. Types of Dry-Season Stream Pools: Environmental Drivers and Fish Assemblages. Inland Waters 2020, 10, 516–528.
  68. Choi, J.-Y.; Kim, S.-K.; Kim, J.-C.; Lee, H.-J.; Kwon, H.-J.; Yun, J.-H. Microhabitat Characteristics Determine Fish Community Structure in a Small Stream (Yudeung Stream, South Korea). Proc. Natl. Inst. Ecol. Repub. Korea 2021, 2, 53–61.
  69. Höök, T.O.; Foley, C.J.; Collingsworth, P.; Dorworth, L.; Fisher, B.; Hoverman, J.T.; LaRue, E.; Pyron, M.; Tank, J. An Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Freshwater Habitats and Biota of Indiana, USA. Clim. Change 2020, 163, 1897–1916.
  70. Sass, G.G.; Kitchell, J.F.; Carpenter, S.R.; Hrabik, T.R.; Marburg, A.E.; Turner, M.G. Fish Community and Food Web Responses to a Whole-lake Removal of Coarse Woody Habitat. Fisheries 2006, 31, 321–330.
More
Information
Subjects: Ecology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , , , , ,
View Times: 124
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Nov 2023
1000/1000
Video Production Service