Habitat use by the Formosan landlocked salmon Oncorhynchus masou formosanus

• Published in: Aquatic Biology
• Main Authors: Hsu, C.B., 林幸助, Tzeng, C.S., Yeh, C.H., Kuan, W.H., Kuo, M.H., Lin, H.J., 郭美華
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: 2010
• Subjects: Physicochemical parameter; Substratum; Habitat composition; Biotic; component; Chichiawan Stream; Taiwan; young atlantic salmon; juvenile brown trout; microhabitat use; cutthroat; trout; seasonal-changes; fish assemblage; selection; trutta; river; Atlantic salmon
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/38534; https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00280

The critically endangered Formosan landlocked salmon Oncorhynchus masou formosanus is one of the southernmost natural salmon populations in the world, which only occurs in Chichiawan Stream and its tributaries in the Wuling basin of subtropical Taiwan. We examined habitat uses by different size classes of the Formosan salmon and the sympatric shovelmouth minnow Varicorhinus barbatulus, and identified the relative importance of environmental variables, biotic components and seasonal effects in explaining the variance in the relative occurrences of fish at the catchment scale. After removing seasonal effects, 74.9% of the variation in the relative occurrence of fish was explained by the measured environmental variables and biotic components. Habitat uses by the Formosan salmon and shovelmouth minnow were distinct. The shovelmouth minnow occurred more frequently at sites with a high concentration of NH(3)-N and high proportions of gravel and riffles, while the Formosan salmon utilized sites at high elevations. Habitat uses by Formosan salmon of different size classes varied slightly. Juvenile and subadult salmon inhabited sites with lower temperatures and current velocities, but adult salmon occurred more frequently with large-grain-sized substratum. Our study showed that variations in the relative occurrence of fish in the Wuling basin were best explained by physicochemical parameters (38.8%), followed by substratum composition (11.4%). The variations exclusively explained by mesohabitat composition, seasonal effects, and biotic components were not significant. This conclusion has important consequences for local managers and conservationists.