Comparative Swimming Performance of Five Catostomus Species and Roundtail Chub

• Published in: North American journal of fisheries management Vol. 34; no. 4; pp. 753 - 763
• Main Authors: Underwood, Zachary E, Myrick, Christopher A, Compton, Robert I
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis 01.01.2014
• Subjects: body length; Catostomus catostomus; Catostomus commersonii; Catostomus discobolus; Catostomus latipinnis; Catostomus platyrhynchus; freshwater fish; Gila robusta; habitats; introduced species; swimming; threatened species
• ISSN: 1548-8675; 1548-8675
• DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2014.902412

— Decreased habitat connectivity and competition with nonnative species have led to declines of many freshwater fishes. An understanding of swimming performance can aid in the conservation of these fishes; however, acquiring sufficient numbers of rare and threatened species to perform swimming studies can be logistically challenging and ecologically costly. In order to determine whether swimming data for common sucker species may be substituted for that of similar but rare sucker species, we compared the swimming abilities of two rare western catostomids, Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus and Flannelmouth Sucker C. latipinnis , as well as one catostomid with a less well understood status, Mountain Sucker C. platyrhynchus , with those of the common White Sucker C. commersonii and Longnose Sucker C. catostomus . We also examined Roundtail Chub Gila robusta because they are often included in conservation efforts involving Bluehead Sucker and Flannelmouth Sucker. The critical swimming velocities (U cᵣᵢₜ), standardized by body length, of Bluehead Sucker and Longnose Sucker differed significantly from those of White Sucker. However, there was no significant difference between the U cᵣᵢₜ of Mountain Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, and White Sucker. During constant acceleration trials, Bluehead Sucker exhibited the greatest swimming ability, reaching a mean maximum velocity of 4.56 ± 1.28 body lengths per second (BL/s; mean ± SD), followed by Mountain Sucker (3.56 ± 0.57 BL/s), White Sucker (3.28 ± 0.90 BL/s), Longnose Sucker (2.97 ± 0.31 BL/s), and Flannelmouth Sucker (2.22 ± 0.42 BL/s). Additionally, key behavioral differences in the swimming behaviors of the fishes studied were observed. We conclude that swimming performance data for common White Sucker should not be used in place of data for rarer species. Comprehensive swimming studies should be conducted on individual sucker species before implementing conservation strategies involving fish passageways or barriers. Received November 6, 2013; accepted February 28, 2014