MINIMUM HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSLOCATED CUTTHROAT TROUT POPULATIONS
By Amy L. Harig, K. Fausch. 2002
218 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6e7ee6d6a78531a393b80241462d1711c7c9f31e
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Ecology
In Nature and Landscape Conservation
Citations in the corpus
- Isolation Management with Artificial Barriers as a Conservation Strategy for Cutthroat Trout in Headwater Streams (2003, background): “Habitat alteration such as increasing pool habitats and improving riparian conditions to benefit cutthroat trout in coordination with isolation also might promote enhancement of populations (Binns & Remmick 1994; Harig & Fausch 2002).”
- Genetic variation and effective population size in isolated populations of coastal cutthroat trout (2010, background): “Other studies have found a positive relationship between population persistence and amount of habitat above barriers for two other salmonid species (Harig and Fausch 2002; Morita and Yamamoto 2002).”
- Temperature and Competition between Bull Trout and Brook Trout: A Test of the Elevation Refuge Hypothesis (2007, background): “However, congeneric Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus grow at temperatures as low as 18C (Brannas and Wiklund 1992) and, in cold headwater streams where water temperatures rarely exceed 108C (Gamett 2002; Harig and Fausch 2002; Rieman et al. 2006), the majority of the year is below our assumed 88C gr”
- Know Thy Enemy: Experience Affects Elk Translocation Success in Risky Landscapes (2007, background): “…remains uncontrolled (Armstrong and McLean 1995, Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000), habitat requirements might be ill-defined (Gray and Craig 1991, Harig and Fausch 2002, Owen–Smith 2003), or novel risks now occur (O’Bryan and McCullough 1985, Stanley Price 1989, Short et al. 1992, Armstrong and…”
- Information needs for assessing critical habitat of freshwater fish (2006, background): “Hybrids are fertile but selected against because they are less fit than either parental type, owing to intermediate morphology and lower reproductive success (Hatfield and Schluter 1999).”
- Strategies for conserving native salmonid populations at risk from nonnative fish invasions: tradeoffs in using barriers to upstream movement (2006, background): “Indeed, Harig and Fausch (2002) found that 32 of the 70 historical populations persisted in stream fragments with watersheds smaller than 14.7 km2.”
- Comparative Thermal Requirements of Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout: Implications for Species Interactions and Development of Thermal Protection Standards (2007, background): “In turn, westslope cutthroat trout may have greater tolerance than rainbow trout to the recruitment failures that are common to higher-elevation sites because of their cold summer temperatures and short growing season ( Harig and Fausch 2002 ).”
- A paradox of trout invasions in North America (2008, background): “However, this leaves little growing season for eggs to incubate and fry to emerge and grow, contributes to the poor recruitment success of the remaining historic populations, and limits the success of translocations to found new populations (Harig et al. 2000a; Harig and Fausch 2002; Coleman and F”
- Assessing the Habitat Requirements of Stream Fishes: An Overview and Evaluation of Different Approaches (2003, methodology): “These models can be based on either logistic regression (Watson and Hillman 1997; Porter et al. 2000; Harig and Fausch 2002; Olden et al. 2002) or discriminant function analysis (Bozek and Hubert 1992), both of which predict membership in different classes (i.e., present versus absent) on the basi”
- Status and Conservation of Westslope Cutthroat Trout within the Western United States (2005, background): “Harig and Fausch (2002) found that cutthroat trout translocations were most successful when the drainage area was at least 15 km 2 , which translates to inhabited habitat lengths of about 5 km.”