<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Jeff C. Jolley</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>David W. Willis</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Steven R. Chipps</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Mark A. Kaemingk</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2012</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;1. When available, &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; spp. are often preferred by age-0 yellow perch and bluegill sunfish because of energetic profitability. We hypothesised that predation by age-0 yellow perch could lead to a midsummer decline (MSD) of &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; spp. and that priority effects may favour yellow perch because they hatch before bluegill, allowing them to capitalise on &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; spp. prior to bluegill emergence.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;2. Data were collected from 2004 to 2010 in Pelican Lake, Nebraska, U.S.A. The lake experienced a prolonged MSD in all but 1&amp;nbsp;year (2005), generally occurring within the first 2&amp;nbsp;weeks of June except in 2008 and 2010 when it occurred at the end of June. MSD timing is not solely related to seasonal patterns of age-0 yellow perch consumption. Nevertheless, when &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; spp. biomass was low during 2004 and 2006–2010 (&amp;lt;4&amp;nbsp;mg&amp;nbsp;wet weight&amp;nbsp;L&lt;sup&gt;−1&lt;/sup&gt;), predation by age-0 yellow perch seems to have suppressed &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; spp. biomass (i.e. &amp;lt;1.0&amp;nbsp;mg&amp;nbsp;wet weight&amp;nbsp;L&lt;sup&gt;−1&lt;/sup&gt;). The exception was 2005 when age-0 yellow perch were absent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3. Growth of age-0 bluegill was significantly faster in 2005, when &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; spp. were available in greater densities (&amp;gt;4&amp;nbsp;mg&amp;nbsp;wet weight&amp;nbsp;L&lt;sup&gt;−1&lt;/sup&gt;) compared with the other years (&amp;lt;0.2&amp;nbsp;mg&amp;nbsp;wet weight&amp;nbsp;L&lt;sup&gt;−1&lt;/sup&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;4. We conclude that age-0 yellow perch are capable of reducing &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; biomass prior to the arrival of age-0 bluegill, ultimately slowing bluegill growth. Thus, priority effects favour age-0 yellow perch when competing with age-0 bluegill for &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt;. However, these effects may be minimised if there is a shorter time between hatching of the two species, higher &lt;i&gt;Daphnia&lt;/i&gt; spp. densities or lower age-0 yellow perch densities.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02728.x</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Blackwell Publishing</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Priority effects among young‐of‐the‐year fish: reduced growth of bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) caused by yellow perch (Perca flavescens)?</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>