Paper detail

Plump Cutthroat Trout and Thin Rainbow Trout in a Lentic Ecosystem

Background: Much has been written about introduced rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) interbreeding and outcompeting cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii). However, the specific mechanisms by which rainbow trout and their hybrids outcompete cutthroat trout have not been thoroughly explored, and the published data is limited to lotic ecosystems. Materials and Methods: Samples of rainbow trout and cutthroat trout were obtained from a lentic ecosystem by angling. The total length and weight of each fish was measured and the relative weight of each fish was computed (Anderson R.O., Neumann R.M. 1996. Length, Weight, and Associated Structural Indices, Pp. 447-481. In: Murphy B.E. and Willis D.W. (eds.) Fisheries Techniques, second edition. American Fisheries Society.), along with the mean and uncertainty in the mean for each species. Data from an independent source (K.D. Carlander, 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume One, Iowa University Press, Ames.) was also used to generate mean weight-length curves, as well as 25th and 75th percentile curves for each species to allow further comparison. Results: The mean relative weight of the rainbow trout was 72.5 (+/- 2.1); whereas, the mean relative weight of the cutthroat trout was 101.0 (+/- 4.9). The rainbow trout were thin; 80% weighed below the 25th percentile. The cutthroat trout were plump; 86% weighed above the 75th percentile, and 29% were above the heaviest recorded specimens at a given length in the Carlander (1969) data set. Conclusion: This data casts doubt on the hypothesis that rainbow trout are strong food competitors with cutthroat trout in lentic ecosystems. On the contrary, in the lake under study, the cutthroat trout seem to be outcompeting rainbow trout for the available food.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.