Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 98, Issue 3, pp 833–844 | Cite as

Movement patterns and spawning sites of muskellunge Esox masquinongy in the Antrim chain of lakes, Michigan

  • James S. Diana
  • Patrick Hanchin
  • Nicholas Popoff
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify spawning habitat, determine home ranges, and examine movement patterns for a naturally reproducing population of Great Lakes muskellunge in the lower Antrim County chain of lakes, Michigan. Muskellunge spawning sites were identified by tracking of implanted muskellunge using a directional hydrophone and by nighttime spotlight surveys. All spawning fish tagged in Torch or Clam Lake spawned in Clam Lake, while most spawning fish tagged in Elk or Skegemog Lake spawned in the Torch River; one appeared to spawn in Lake Skegemog. Of the 32 potential spawning sites, 28 (87.5 %) contained submerged aquatic vegetation as the dominant habitat type, while the remaining 4 sites were divided equally between woody debris (6.25 %) and bare substrate. All but one implanted muskellunge returned from spawning sites to the same lake in which they were captured and implanted. Of the 24 tagged muskellunge, four were harvested via angling or spearing within 1 year after tagging, and two additional fish were assumed harvested when contact was lost. Implanted muskellunge tended to remain in the lakes during the winter, then move into spawning areas in spring, eventually returning to open lake sites where they resided over summer. Muskellunge movement behavior diverged after spawning each year, with 11 tagged fish (61.1 %) remaining in Skegemog or Clam Lake for the summer, and seven individuals traveling to Elk or Torch Lake. Muskellunge home ranges averaged 612 ha and ranged from 17 to 5,287 ha.

Keywords

Spawning sites Home range Telemetry Habitat 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project represents a cooperative study between the University of Michigan and Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Additional financial support was provided by the Michigan Muskie Alliance and the Hugh C. Becker Foundation of the Twin Cities Chapter of Muskies, Inc. We thank J. Molenhouse, W. Schultz, and A. Krieger for their assistance in field collections, lab evaluations, and spatial analysis. The animal use methods for this study were approved by the University of Michigan Unit for Lab Animal Medicine, protocol 10246–1.

References

  1. Anderson WG, McKinley RS, Colavecchia M (1997) The use of clove oil as an anesthetic for rainbow trout and its effects on swimming performance. N Am J Fish Manag 17:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battige K (2011) Great Lakes spotted muskellunge restoration: evaluating natural recruitment and modeling spawning habitat in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. MSc thesis, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker GC (1983) The fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  4. Clapp DF, Wahl DH (1996) Comparison of food consumption, growth, and metabolism among muskellunge: an investigation of population differentiation. Trans Am Fish Soc 125:402–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crossman EJ (1977) Displacement and home-range movements of muskellunge determined by ultrasonic telemetry. Environ Biol Fish 1:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cummins KW (1962) An evaluation of some techniques for the collection and analysis of benthic samples with special emphasis on lotic waters. Am Midl Nat 67:477–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dombeck MP (1979) Movement and behavior of the muskellunge determined by radio-telemetry. Wisconsin DNR Tech. Bull. 113, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dombeck MP, Menzel BW, Hinz PN (1984) Muskellunge spawning habitat and reproductive success. Trans Am Fish Soc 113:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eilers CD (2008) Movement, home-range, and habitat selection of muskellunge (Esox masquinongy Mitchell), in Thornapple Lake, Michigan. M.Sc. thesis, Central Michigan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell JM (2001) Reproductive success of sympatric northern pike and muskellunge in an upper St. Lawrence River bay. Trans Am Fish Soc 130:796–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrell JM, Werner RG, LaPan SR, Claypoole KA (1996) Egg distribution and spawning habitat of northern pike and muskellunge in a St. Lawrence River marsh, New York. Trans Am Fish Soc 125:127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haas RC (1978) The muskellunge in Lake St. Clair. In: Kendall RL (ed) A symposium on selected coolwater fishes of North America. Special Publication 11. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 334–359Google Scholar
  13. Harrison EJ, Hadley WF (1978) Ecological separation of sympatric muskellunge and northern pike. In: Kendall RL (ed) A symposium on selected coolwater fishes of North America. Special Publication 11. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 129–134Google Scholar
  14. Jennings MJ, Sloss BL, Hatzenbeler GR, Kampa JM, Simonson TD, Avelallemant SP, Lindenberger GA, Underwood BD (2010) Implementation of genetic conservation practices in a muskellunge propagation and stocking program. Fisheries 35:388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kapuscinski KL, Sloss BL, Farrell JM (2013) Genetic population structure of muskellunge in the Great Lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 142:1075–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koppelman JB, Philipp DP (1986) Genetic applications in muskellunge management. In: Hall GE (ed) Managing muskies. Special Publication 15. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 111–121Google Scholar
  17. Miller ML, Menzel BW (1986) Movements, homing, and home range of muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, in West Okoboji Lake, Iowa. Environ Biol Fish 16:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pierce RB, Younk JA, Tomcko CM (2007) Expulsion of miniature radio transmitters along with eggs of muskellunge and northern pike—a new method for locating critical spawning habitat. Environ Biol Fish 79:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodgers AR, Carr AP, Beyer HL, Smith L, Kie JG (2007) HRT: home range tools for ArcGIS. Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry of Nat Res, Centre for Northern Forest 223 Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. Rust A, Diana JS, Margenau T, Edwards C (2002) Lake characteristics influencing spawning success of muskellunge Esox masquinongy. N Am J Fish Manag 22:834–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanderson DW (1970) Food of lake trout in Torch and Elk lakes, Antrim County, Michigan with special reference to the Torch Lake cisco as a major forage organism. MSc thesis, Central Michigan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  22. Schoettger RA, Julin M (1967) Efficacy of MS-222 as an anesthetic on four salmonids. Investig Fish Control US Dep Inter 13:1–15Google Scholar
  23. Scott WB, Crossman EJ (1973) Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish Res Bd Can Bull 184, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  24. Strand RF (1986) Identification of principle spawning areas and seasonal distribution and movements of muskellunge in Leech Lake, Minnesota. In: Hall GE (ed) Managing muskies. Special Publication 15. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 62–73Google Scholar
  25. Van Meter HD, Trautman MB (1970) An annotated list of the fishes of Lake Erie and its tributary waters exclusive of the Detroit River. Ohio J Sci 70:65–78Google Scholar
  26. Weeks J (2006) Walleye and muskellunge movement in the Manitowish Chain of Lakes, Vilas County, Wisconsin. MSc thesis, University of Wisconsin, Steven’s PointGoogle Scholar
  27. Wingate PJ, Younk JA (2007) A program for successful muskellunge management: a Minnesota success story. Environ Biol Fish 79:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Younk J, Cook M, Goeman T, Spencer P (1996) Seasonal habitat use and movements of muskellunge in the Mississippi River. Minnesota DNR Inv Rep 449Google Scholar
  29. Zorn S, Margeneau T, Diana JS, Edwards CJ (1998) The influence of spawning habitat on natural reproduction of muskellunge in Wisconsin. Trans Am Fish Soc 127:997–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • James S. Diana
    • 1
  • Patrick Hanchin
    • 2
  • Nicholas Popoff
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesCharlevoix Fisheries Research StationCharlevoixUSA

Personalised recommendations