 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
To test the hypothesis that motorised craft disturb fish in lochs and thereby adversely affect angling a series of controlled and replicated experiments and observations were conducted. Caged trout which had no previous exposure to vessels were used, which could detect a 3m 45H speedboat at distances in excess of 70m, with trout responding to both audible and visual cues from craft. The audible response was relatively insignificant, where as the visual response was relatively large. Repeated exposure did not result in habituation, rather an escalating response. In tagged fish in open water, visual response was significant (movement away) with some response to audible (decrease in movement in active fish, no response on inactive fish). Neither cue resulted in fish consistently moving to different habitats or depths, with behaviour returning to pre-exposure levels after approximately 50 minutes.
Author: Adams, CE, Duguid, RA, Bissett, N and Bell, A
Year: 1997
Document Source: Fish Biology Group, University Field Station, Rowardennan, Glasgow
Avalability: Grey literature
Interaction: Disturbance
Confidence: Good
Quantified: Quantified
Interaction significance: It is likely that fish have to see passing craft before any significant response can effect angling. The distance will depend vary with water body but is highly dependant on water clarity. Where fish are subject to visual cues from passing boats, the response is likely to be significant and likely to affect their catchability for some time, but is not sufficient to result in fish moving to different areas.
Purpose of research: University research report for the Scottish Sports Council
Context: The work was undertaken on caged and free trout in a freshwater loch
Mitigation/Best practice: Not a focus of the study
» Print this page
» New search
« Back to homepage
