Cited by 10Fish Ecology and Management StudiesFish Biology and Ecology StudiesMarine and fisheries research

Telemetry-based spatial–temporal fish habitat models for fishes in an urban freshwater harbour

Open access
Brownscombe, Jacob W., Midwood, Jonathan D., Doka, Susan E., Cooke, Steven J.·2023·Hydrobiologia

Abstract

Fish habitat associations are important measures for effective aquatic habitat management, but often vary over broad spatial and temporal scales, and are therefore challenging to measure comprehensively. We used a 9-year acoustic telemetry dataset to generate spatial–temporal habitat suitability models for seven fish species in an urban freshwater harbour, Toronto Harbour, Lake Ontario. Fishes generally occupied the more natural regions of Toronto Harbour most frequently. However, each species exhibited unique habitat associations and spatial–temporal interactions in their habitat use. For example, largemouth bass exhibited the most consistent seasonal habitat use, mainly associating with shallow, sheltered embayments with high aquatic vegetation (SAV) cover. Conversely, walleye seldom occupied Toronto Harbour in summer, with the highest occupancy of shallow, low-SAV habitats in the spring, which corresponds to their spawning period. Others, such as common carp, shifted between shallow summer and deeper winter habitats. Community level spatial–temporal habitat importance estimates were also generated, which can serve as an aggregate measure for habitat management. Acoustic telemetry provides novel opportunities to generate robust spatial–temporal fish habitat models based on wild fish behaviour, which are useful for the management of fish habitat from a fish species and community perspective.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10750-023-05180-z

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The species should be largely local to the Humber Bay area, but their potential foraging in other parts of Lake Ontario could have contributed to variability in microplastic levels.

    “Although these species should be largely local to the Humber Bay area of the fish collection, their potential foraging in other parts of Lake Ontario could have contributed to the variability in the microplastic levels.83”

    From Microplastics and Anthropogenic Particles in Recreationally Caught Freshwater Fish from an Urbanized Region of the North American Great Lakes (2024) · cites this paper as [83]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports seasonal use of Toronto Harbour and says some fish may use habitats outside the harbour, supporting the possibility of movement into other parts of Lake Ontario. It does not establish that the collected species are largely local to Humber Bay, document foraging elsewhere in the lake, or link movement to variability in microplastic levels. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cudmore-Vokey, B., & C. K. Minns, 2002. Reproductive Ecology and Vegetation Association Databases of Lake Ontario Fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 2607. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237569241.
  2. García-Berthou E Size-and depth-dependent variation in habitat and diet of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) Aquatic Sciences 2001 63 466 476 10.1007/s00027-001-8045-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brownscombe, J. W., Midwood, J. D., Doka, S. E., & Cooke, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (CA)
  • Carleton University (CA)
Corresponding author
Brownscombe, Jacob W.
Venue
Hydrobiologia
Published
2023-03-16
Volume
850
Issue
8
Pages
1779-1800
ISSN
  • 0018-8158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-5117
OpenAlex
W4327615716
Cited by
10
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hydrobiologia (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
  • Great Lakes Action Plan
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
Keywords
fish habitat use, acoustic telemetry, Toronto Harbour, Lake Ontario, largemouth bass, walleye, Cyprinus carpio, aquatic vegetation cover, seasonal habitat use, spawning, habitat importance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review