Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 582, Issue 1, pp 143–153 | Cite as

Mobility of individual roach Rutilus rutilus (L.) in three weir-fragmented Belgian rivers

  • Caroline Geeraerts
  • Michaël Ovidio
  • Hilde Verbiest
  • David Buysse
  • Johan Coeck
  • Claude Belpaire
  • Jean-Claude Philippart
Fish Telemetry

Abstract

Adult roach Rutilus rutilus (L.) (N = 24; 19.9–36.1 cm FL) from three highly fragmented Belgian rivers were tagged with surgically implanted radio transmitters. Their seasonal movements were observed from March to August 2004 (circum reproduction period) in river stretches delimited by two physical barriers. In the three rivers, roach displayed similar patterns of movements which were mainly influenced by the date of observation (movements increased in late April–May) and water temperature (travel distances were more important when water temperature ranged between 10°C and 14°C). Roach sometimes cleared physical obstacles. The mean distances travelled in each river were relatively short (max. 2.5 km) and mainly influenced by the length of the study reach, which was delimited by physical barriers.

Keywords

Roach Migration Telemetry Barrier Fragmentation Seasonal movements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was part of the FISHGUARD project ‘Impact assessment and remediation of anthropogenic interventions on fish populations’ financed by the Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs. The authors wish to thank D. Hennebel, R. Baeyens, S. Martens, G. Rimbaud and Y. Neus for field support. We are grateful to P. Verschelde and M. Melsen for their assistance with the draft of the graphs, F. Coopman for drawing the maps and two anonymous referees for their critical comments. We also would like to thank J. Carr for reviewing and providing constructive comments.

References

  1. Baade, U. & F. Fredrich, 1998. Movement and pattern of activity of the roach in the River Spree, Germany. Journal of Fish Biology 52: 1165–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Diamond, M., 1985. Some observations of spawning by roach, Rutilus rutilus L., and bream, Abramis brama L., and their implications for management. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management 16: 359–367.Google Scholar
  3. Goldspink, C. R., 1977. The return of marked roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) to spawning grounds in Tjeukemeer, The Netherlands. Journal of Fish Biology 11: 599–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Huet, M., 1949. Aperçu de la relation entre la pente et les populations piscicoles des eaux courantes. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Hydrologie 11: 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holcik, J. & V. Hruska, 1966. On the spawning substrate of roach, Rutilus rutilus L., and bream, Abramis brama L. and notes on the ecological characteristics of some European fishes. Vestnik Ceskoslvenske Spolecnosti Zoologicke 30: 22–29.Google Scholar
  6. Jepsen, N., A. Koed, E. B. Thorstad, & E. Baras, 2002. Surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish: how much have we learned. Hydrobiologia 483: 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. L’Abée-Lund, J. H. & L. A. Vøllestad, 1985. Homing precision of roach Rutilus rutilus in Lake Aarungen, Norway. Environmental Biology of Fishes 13: 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lucas, M. C., T. J. Thom, A. Duncan & O. Slavik, 1998. Coarse Fish Migration Occurrence, Causes and Implications. Technical Report W152, Environment Agency, 161.Google Scholar
  9. Mulcahy, D. M., 2003. Surgical implantation of transmitters into fish. ILAR Journal 44(4): 295–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ovidio, M. & J. C. Philippart, 2002. The impact of small physical obstacles on upstream movement of six species of fish (Synthesis of a—year telemetry study in the River Meuse basin). Hydrobiologia 483: 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Poncin, P., 1994. La reproduction des poissons de nos rivières. Cahiers d’Ethologie 13: 317–342.Google Scholar
  12. Stott, B., 1967. The movements and population densities of roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) and gudgeon (Gobio gobio L.) in the River Mole. Journal of Animal Ecology 36: 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Svärdson, G., 1951. Spawning behaviour of Leuciscus leuciscus (L.). Reports of the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottingholm 33: 199–203.Google Scholar
  14. Vandelannoote, A., R. Yseboodt, B. Bruylants, R. Verheyen, J. Coeck, J. Maes, C. Belpaire, G. Van Thuyne, B. Denayer, J. Beyens, D. De Charleroy & P. Vandenabeele, 1998. Atlas van de Vlaamse Beek- en Riviervissen. Water-Energik-Vlario (WEL), Wijnegem, 1–303.Google Scholar
  15. Vøllestad, L. A. & J. H. L’Abée-Lund, 1987. Reproductive biology of stream-spawning roach, Rutilus rutilus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 18: 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Williams, W. P., 1965. The population density of four species of freshwater fish, roach (Rutilus rutilus L.), bleak (Alburnus alburnus L.), dace (Leuciscus leuciscus L.) and perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) in the River Thames at Reading. Journal of Animal Ecology 36: 407–423.Google Scholar
  17. Winter, J. D., 1983. Underwater Biotelemetry. In Nielsen, L. A. & D. L. Johnson (eds), Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 371–396.Google Scholar
  18. Worthington, A. D., N. A. A. Macfarlane & K. W. Easton, 1982. Controlled reproduction in the roach (Rutilus rutilus L). In Richter, C. J. J. & H. J. H. Goos (eds), Reproductive Physiology of Fish. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Wageningen, 220–223.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Geeraerts
    • 1
  • Michaël Ovidio
    • 2
  • Hilde Verbiest
    • 1
  • David Buysse
    • 1
  • Johan Coeck
    • 1
  • Claude Belpaire
    • 1
  • Jean-Claude Philippart
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Institute for Nature and ForestGroenendaal (Hoeilaart)Belgium
  2. 2.Biology of Behaviour Unit, Laboratory of Fish Demography and Hydro ecologyUniversity of LiègeTihangeBelgium

Personalised recommendations