Quantification of native muskellunge nursery habitat: influence of body size, fish community composition, and vegetation structure

  • Brent A. MurryEmail author
  • John M. Farrell
Special Issue – Crossman
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes 26 book series (DEBF, volume 26)


Habitat utilization of native young-of-the-year (YOY) muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, was quantified by the type and density of vegetation present, water depth, and fish communities associated with their presence and abundance in nursery bays of the Upper St. Lawrence River. We completed 441 seine hauls and captured 400 YOY muskellunge in 11 bays that were sampled each July and August over a 3-year period (2002–2004). We hypothesized a change in habitat utilization related to increasing body size, as YOY muskellunge doubled in total length from July to August. Fine-leafed submerged and emergent macrophytes and prey availability (cyprinids, Notropis sp., banded killifish, Fundulus diaphanous and tessellated darter, Etheostoma olmstedi), were positively related to muskellunge use in July, while in August coverage of broad-leafed submerged macrophytes and increased overall vegetation density were the best habitat descriptor. In both months, muskellunge were associated with moderate (20–60%) vegetation coverage and density, however, captures were in areas of significantly greater vegetation coverage and density than was generally available. A negative relation of muskellunge occurrence with water depth, yellow perch, Perca flavescens, and stonewort, Chara vulgaris, was observed in both months. The negative relationship between muskellunge and depth, plus their strong linkages to nearshore submerged vegetation and forage fish that inhabit the nearshore areas, highlights the importance of protecting the ecological integrity of nearshore habitats. Our findings should assist managers in protecting native stocks, planning restoration and enhancement initiatives, and in regulating riparian and nearshore development.


Ontogenetic habitat utilization Submerged macrophytes Predator-prey relationships 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bendig A (1995) 1994 St. Lawrence River muskellunge nursery habitat inventory. St. Lawrence River Subcommittee Report to the Lake Ontario Committee, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, pp 83–91Google Scholar
  2. Clapsadl MD (1993) An examination of habitat characteristics influencing the survival of stocked muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, in four St. Lawrence River Embayments. Master’s thesis, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Craig RE, Black RM (1986) Nursery habitat of muskellunge in southern Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Canada. Am Fish Soc Spec Publ 15:79–86Google Scholar
  4. Cushing DH (1990) Plankton production and year-class strength in fish populations: an update of the match/mismatch hypothesis. Adv Mar Biol 26:249–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dombeck MP (1986) Muskellunge habitat with guidelines for habitat management. Am Fish Soc Spec Publ 15:208–215Google Scholar
  6. Farrell JM (1998) Population ecology of sympatric age-0 northern pike and muskellunge in the St. Lawrence River. PhD dissertation, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Farrell JM, Klindt R, Cassellman JM, LaPan SR, Werner RG, Schiavone A (this issue) Development, implementation, and evaluation of an international muskellunge management strategy for the upper St. Lawrence River. Environ Biol Fish 00:000–000Google Scholar
  9. Farrell JM, Meade JV, Murry BA (2006) Protracted spawning of St. Lawrence River northern pike (Esox lucius): simulated effects on survival, growth, and production. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell JM, Werner RG (1999) Distribution, abundance, and survival of age-0 muskellunge in upper St. Lawrence River nursery bays. N Am J Fish Manag 19:309–320CrossRefGoogle 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. Garvey JE, Wright RA, Stein RA (1998) Overwinter growth and survival of age-0 largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides): revisiting the role of body size. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:2414–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonckheere BV (1994) Production and survival of juvenile muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) in the St. Lawrence River, and the habitat characteristics affecting distribution. Master’s thesis, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. Juanes F, Buckel JA, Conover DO (1994) Accelerating the onset of piscivory: intersection of predator and prey phenologies. J Fish Biol 45(Suppl A):41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. May RC (1974) Larval mortality in marine fishes and the critical period concept. The early life history of fishes. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Osterberg DM (1985) Habitat partitioning by muskellunge and northern pike in the international portion of the St. Lawrence River. NY Fish Game J 32:158–166Google Scholar
  17. Paukert CP, Wittig TA (2002) Applications of multivariate statistical methods in fisheries. Fisheries 27(9):16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Szendrey TA, Wahl DH (1996) Size-selective survival and growth of stocked muskellunge: effects of predation and prey availability. N Am J Fish Manag 16:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wahl DH (1999) An ecological context for evaluating the factors influencing muskellunge stocking success. N Am J Fish Manag 19:238–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wahl DH, Stein RA (1988) Selective predation by three esocids: the role of prey behavior and morphology. Trans Am Fish Soc 117:142–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Werner RK, LaPan SR, Klindt R, Farrell JM (1990) St. Lawrence River Muskellunge Investigations Phase I—Final Report: Identification of muskellunge spawning and nursery habitat. SUNY-ESF and NYSDEC, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental Forest Biology, College of Environmental Science and ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations