Suckers and Trout, an observation...
- Thread starter cmkrachen
- Start date
Well, did anyone indicate that streams where suckers reside year round are typically warm water ecosystems? And that when suckers are in the cold water streams its typically because of spawning urges to find a suitable substrate for their redds?
Where suckers reside year round are likely marginal trout streams or rather ones where they cannot get downstream to warmer water.
At any rate, I don't believe that suckers infringe upon the nutrition of wild trout any more than the trout infringe upon the suckers. They feed in different areas.
Lets try not to allow this one to go down the rathole too.
Where suckers reside year round are likely marginal trout streams or rather ones where they cannot get downstream to warmer water.
At any rate, I don't believe that suckers infringe upon the nutrition of wild trout any more than the trout infringe upon the suckers. They feed in different areas.
Lets try not to allow this one to go down the rathole too.
Chaz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,470
What limits trout populations is not competition with suckers or undesirable fish, trash fish if you will, what limits trout populations is HABITAT,HABITAT,HABITAT. What does this mean, it means water that is more than ankle deep, it means having undercut banks, it means having forested buffers, it means we stop the silliness of building in flood plains. That is what will increase trout size and numbers.
There is one other thing, trout populations will level off at a size less than the optimum in streams that receive a lot of fishing pressure because the big fish end up suffering from being caught too many times reducing the numbers of trout over 14 inches.
There is one other thing, trout populations will level off at a size less than the optimum in streams that receive a lot of fishing pressure because the big fish end up suffering from being caught too many times reducing the numbers of trout over 14 inches.
Chaz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,470
OK, I know a limestone stream in SE PA that has pretty good numbers of wild brook trout that grow up to 17 inches, this stream also has a pretty good population of suckers up to about the same length. After that the numbers drop to zero, meaning that neither species grow much larger if at all. This stream because of it's location receives fairly low pressure so the trout get a chance to attain large numbers of large fish.
The habitat over the years has changed and every time it does the trout take a hit. My conclusion is that in this stream, the limiting factor is habitat alteration by floods, that may be wrong, but since there is very little pressure and little evidence of pressure what else can it be?
Because it is a limestone stream it has only a few very good hatches, and most hatches are sparse, so the main diet of the trout is other fish, suckers, and crayfish.
The habitat over the years has changed and every time it does the trout take a hit. My conclusion is that in this stream, the limiting factor is habitat alteration by floods, that may be wrong, but since there is very little pressure and little evidence of pressure what else can it be?
Because it is a limestone stream it has only a few very good hatches, and most hatches are sparse, so the main diet of the trout is other fish, suckers, and crayfish.
wrighter00
New member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 27
Hey all, I'm new to the site, and found this thread interesting. I thought I'd share my 2 cents.
As far as there being more food for trout if the suckers were taken out of the equation. I don't think that would be the case. I'm under the impression that that means there would just be more insects. This is based on different feeding habits. Factoring in evolution and adaptation, the suckers are built for sucking. IE rooting around the bottom rocks and sucking up nymphs, grubs, crayfish, and vegetation. Hence the "sucking" lips. Trout, however are built to be more predatory. They have jaws/teeth meant for biting and gulping what they can grab from the current, surface, or what they can find on top of the rocks.(Crayfish, grubs etc) The majority of these species feeding is done in this way. There may be exceptions, but surely they are adaptations. *Note most young fish, and even desperate fish will eat anything they find as edible. Proof, I have catfish(meat-eaters) in a tank that will actually nibble at the plants if they're hungry enough. This is most likely due to adaptation.
That said, I've caught a trout on a live worm that was already choking down a creek chub that was 2/3 it's size. In that creek some of the chubs grew to the size of, and looked like, small suckers. They even compared to some of the trout. The two species would also school together. I think the most important factor is eating when and what they can. I don't doubt suckers would eat small fish or dead fish if desperate, but I don't think they'd hunt in that manner. So, I'd think the trouts size would come from eating larger, hunted, prey, but the suckers size would come from foraging and feeding more continually on the bottom.
*Note I have seen certain species of sucker work over smooth rocks covered in algae as well as the above mentioned rock-rooting for feeding. In that same river the red tailed sucker, as I've observed, don't work over the smooth rocks like that. I wish I knew the different species to make the comparison. I suppose too, that it could just be what I've observed. Not to be said that the red tailed don't feed that way, but there are far more red
tailed sucker than the other ones, and I've never observed them doing it.
As far as there being more food for trout if the suckers were taken out of the equation. I don't think that would be the case. I'm under the impression that that means there would just be more insects. This is based on different feeding habits. Factoring in evolution and adaptation, the suckers are built for sucking. IE rooting around the bottom rocks and sucking up nymphs, grubs, crayfish, and vegetation. Hence the "sucking" lips. Trout, however are built to be more predatory. They have jaws/teeth meant for biting and gulping what they can grab from the current, surface, or what they can find on top of the rocks.(Crayfish, grubs etc) The majority of these species feeding is done in this way. There may be exceptions, but surely they are adaptations. *Note most young fish, and even desperate fish will eat anything they find as edible. Proof, I have catfish(meat-eaters) in a tank that will actually nibble at the plants if they're hungry enough. This is most likely due to adaptation.
That said, I've caught a trout on a live worm that was already choking down a creek chub that was 2/3 it's size. In that creek some of the chubs grew to the size of, and looked like, small suckers. They even compared to some of the trout. The two species would also school together. I think the most important factor is eating when and what they can. I don't doubt suckers would eat small fish or dead fish if desperate, but I don't think they'd hunt in that manner. So, I'd think the trouts size would come from eating larger, hunted, prey, but the suckers size would come from foraging and feeding more continually on the bottom.
*Note I have seen certain species of sucker work over smooth rocks covered in algae as well as the above mentioned rock-rooting for feeding. In that same river the red tailed sucker, as I've observed, don't work over the smooth rocks like that. I wish I knew the different species to make the comparison. I suppose too, that it could just be what I've observed. Not to be said that the red tailed don't feed that way, but there are far more red
tailed sucker than the other ones, and I've never observed them doing it.
