Cited by 16Fish Ecology and Management StudiesFish Biology and Ecology StudiesAquaculture Nutrition and Growth

Trophic Interactions and Consumption Rates of Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Nonnative Juvenile American Shad in Columbia River Reservoirs

Haskell, Craig A., Beauchamp, David A., Bollens, Stephen M.·2017·Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

Abstract

We used a large lampara seine coupled with nonlethal gastric lavage to examine the diets and estimate consumption rates of subyearling Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha during July and August 2013. During August we also examined the diet and consumption rates of juvenile American Shad Alosa sapidissima, a potential competitor of subyearling Chinook Salmon. Subyearling Chinook Salmon consumed Daphnia in July but switched to feeding on smaller juvenile American Shad in August. We captured no juvenile American Shad in July, but in August juvenile American Shad consumed cyclopoid and calanoid copepods. Stomach evacuation rates for subyearling Chinook Salmon were high during both sample periods (0.58 h−1 in July, 0.51 h−1 in August), and daily ration estimates were slightly higher than values reported in the literature for other subyearlings. By switching from planktivory to piscivory, subyearling Chinook Salmon gained greater growth opportunity. While past studies have shown that juvenile American Shad reduce zooplankton availability for Chinook Salmon subyearlings, our work indicates that they also become important prey after Daphnia abundance declines. The diet and consumption data here can be used in future bioenergetics modeling to estimate the growth of subyearling Chinook Salmon in lower Columbia River reservoirs. Received July 27, 2016; accepted November 22, 2016 Published online February 1, 2017

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00028487.2016.1264997

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Higher July caloric intake was likely due to highly nutritious prey including Trichoptera, Hemiptera, and Hymenoptera replacing some amphipods in the Welch and Whites Island's diets, and fish and insects replacing cladocerans in Campbell Slough diets.

    “Higher July caloric intake was likely due to highly nutritious prey including Trichoptera, Hemiptera, and Hymenoptera replacing some amphipods in the Welch and Whites Island’s diets, and fish and insects replacing cladocerans in Campbell Slough diets”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haskell, C. A., Beauchamp, D. A., & Bollens, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Washington State University Vancouver (US)
  • Western Fisheries Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Haskell, Craig A.
Venue
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Published
2017-02
Volume
146
Issue
2
Pages
291-298
ISSN
  • 0002-8487 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-8659
OpenAlex
W2583610614
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Keywords
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Alosa sapidissima, trophic interactions, diet, consumption rate, daily ration, Daphnia, copepods, bioenergetics modeling

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