Habitat utilization by sympatric arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus L. and brown trout Salmo trutta L. in Lake Atnsjø, south‐east Norway
SUMMARY. 1. Habitat utilization, as well as inter‐ and intraspecific relations of different size groups of arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in Lake Atnsjø, south‐east Norway, were investigated by analysing food and spatial niches from monthly benthic and pelag...
Published in: | Freshwater Biology |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
1989
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1989.tb01089.x https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2427.1989.tb01089.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1989.tb01089.x |
Summary: | SUMMARY. 1. Habitat utilization, as well as inter‐ and intraspecific relations of different size groups of arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in Lake Atnsjø, south‐east Norway, were investigated by analysing food and spatial niches from monthly benthic and pelagic gillnet catches during June‐October 1985. 2. Small individuals (150–230 mm) of both arctic charr and brown trout occurred in shallow benthic habitats. However, they were spatially segregated as arctic charr dominated at depths of 5–15 m and brown trout at depths of 0–5 m. 3. Larger (>230 mm) arctic charr and brown trout coexisted in the pelagic zone. Both species occurred mainly in the uppermost 2‐3 m of the pelagic, except in August, when arctic charr occurred at high densities throughout the 0–12 m depth interval. On this occasion, arctic charr were segregated in depth according to size, with significantly larger fish in the top 6 m. This was probably due to increased intraspecific competition for food. 4. The two species differed in food choice in both habitats, Arctic charr fed almost exclusively on zooplankton, whereas brown trout had a more variable diet, consisting of surface insects, zooplankton. aquatic insects and fish. 5. The data suggest that the uppermost pelagic was the more favourable habitat for both species. Large individuals having high social position occupied this habitat, whereas small individuals lived in benthic habitat where they were less vulnerable to agonistic behaviour from larger individuals and less exposed to predators. The more aggressive and dominant brown trout occupied the more rewarding part of the benthic habitat. |
---|