Coauthors
Dr. John M. Farrell (SUNY-ESF) and Dr. Brent A. Murry (Central Michigan University) contributed to the data collection, analysis, and authorship of a journal article that will be peer reviewed and published on this subject matter. However, they had not input on this blog, so any errors below are my own.
Management Problem / Ecological Questions
Our ability to conserve muskellunge is compromised because several questions about their feeding ecology remain unanswered. For example, it is difficult to protect or restore optimal nursery habitats if we don’t know what fishes muskellunge rely upon for food during their first growing season. Therefore, we analyzed data collected on young-of-the-year (YOY) muskellunge from St. Lawrence and upper Niagara River nursery habitats to answer three important questions. First, do diets of muskellunge reared in lentic (still-water) and lotic (flowing-water) nursery habitats differ? Second, do muskellunge feed selectively on different prey fishes, especially recently introduced prey (e.g. round goby)? Third, do muskellunge select prey based on length?
Methods
We captured YOY muskellunge by seining and electrofishing, and extracted stomach contents via gastric lavage (stomach flushing).

Flushing out stomach contents

Retrieving prey fish with tweezers

Banded killifish retrieved from muskellunge stomach
All muskellunge were measured for total length and released. Prey fish recovered from muskellunge stomachs were identified and measured for total length when possible (some were digested).
We compared the diets of muskellunge from the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers based on the percent composition by number and weight of different prey types. We also compared the proportion of prey fish in the diet to that in the field (seine catches) to determine if muskellunge fed selectively. Finally, we determined if prey were selected based on size by comparing the length of muskellunge and their prey.
Results
Banded killifish was the most important prey type in the St. Lawrence River (44% by number, 50% by weight) and the second most important in the upper Niagara River (27% by number, 23% by weight).

Banded killifish
Native minnows were the most important prey type in the Niagara River (31% by number, 33%) and second most important in the St. Lawrence River (15% by number, 11% by weight). Darters were also important in both rivers.
Muskellunge from both habitats preyed selectively upon banded killifish, darters, and non-native round goby, and non-native minnows (carp/goldfish) were selected in lotic habitats; sunfish (pumpkinseed, bluegill, and bass) and native minnows were consumed at lower proportions than were available.
Prey length ranged from 6% to 58% of muskellunge length, and increased with muskellunge length in both habitats.
Conclusions
YOY muskellunge in both rivers fed heavily on a single species, the banded killifish.
The presence of round goby in diets of YOY muskellunge from the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers in 2009 is the first record of this occurrence. It is uncertain whether predation on round goby will benefit muskellunge populations via energetic gain or harm them via disease related mortality.

Round goby
YOY muskellunge typically selected elongated, soft-rayed fishes as prey and avoided deep-bodied, spiny-rayed fishes like pumpkinseeds and yellow perch.

Spottail shiner (photo by Konrad Schmidt)
Which would you rather try to swallow whole, the shiner above or the yellow perch below? Consider the body shapes and whether or not the fin rays are spiny.

Yellow perch (photo by M. Gautreau)
Consistent patterns in selective feeding by muskellunge were observed across habitats, and selection for non-native prey suggests that muskellunge broadened their diet in response to some introduced fishes (round goby) but not others (rudd).
Management Implications
How do we manage for healthy populations of the prey fish important to YOY muskellunge (banded killifish, minnows, & darters)? These species prefer habitats with clean substrates and healthy aquatic vegetation, so we should protect nearshore areas from dredging and shoreline development, and support management practices that reduce silt loads (e.g. storm water retention, restoring riparian habitats, etc.).