4.1 Article

Influence of Variable Interannual Summer Water Temperatures on Brook Trout Growth, Consumption, Reproduction, and Mortality in an Unstratified Adirondack Lake

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1577/T08-185.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rock Lake Club

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stressful water temperatures negatively affect physiological processes in fishes, yet evidence for how elevated temperatures influence population-level characteristics is rare. An 8-year field study of brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis in an unstratified Adirondack lake revealed that an aggregate measure of chronically stressful summer water temperatures strongly influenced brook trout population-level characteristics. We quantified chronic thermal stress using the cumulative degree-days over which bottom temperatures exceeded a range of thresholds (18-22 degrees C) and found that the strongest relationships were with cumulative degree-days over 20 degrees C (DD>20). Across years with similar brook trout densities, warmer summer water temperatures resulted in decreased brook trout growth, but growth was not reduced in a year with high water temperatures and low density. Maximum stomach fullness was negatively related to water temperature. Reproductive activity was negatively correlated with stressful summer thermal conditions and was less dependent on female brook trout density. Periods of chronically stressful summer water temperatures resulted in the apparent mortality of age-2 and older fish during a moderately stressful summer (156 DD>20) and apparent mortality of age-1 and older fish during the most stressful summer (210 DD>20). In contrast, extensive mortality was not evident in any year-classes when DD>20 was less than 115. Anthropogenic impacts on the thermal conditions of aquatic ecosystems occur at small (hydrology) and large (climate change) spatial extents, and in situ studies at the margin of an organism's thermal range can provide important insights into changes that will occur if temperatures increase.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据