Supplementary material

Figure S1. Block design of the experiment with each block (n = 6) containing each of the four treatments.

Figure S2. Additional habitats used in the experiment: (a) coarse woody habitat (CWH) composed of a deadwood bundle (downy oak, Quercus pubescens) and (b) caged-CWH composed of a deadwood bundle (downy oak, Quercus pubescens) installed within an iron cage (Biohut®, ECOCEAN, Montpellier, France).

Figure S3. Initial stocking biomass of largemouth bass Micropterus nigricans in treatments with stocking. For all treatments, five hatchery-reared young-of-the-year (YOY) largemouth bass were introduced in each mesocosm (n_total = 90 individuals). There was no significant different between treatments in initial stocking biomass (Tukey post-hoc test, p > 0.05).

Figure S4. Density (ind.L⁻¹) of each taxon zooplankton sampled in each treatment (a) before and (b) after fish stocking.

Figure S5. Effect of management practices (a-b) before and (c-d) after fish stocking on zooplankton richness and density (ind.L⁻¹). Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments (Tukey post hoc test, p < 0.05).

Figure S6. Density (ind.mesocosm⁻¹) of sampled macroinvertebrate per taxon and for each treatment (a) before stocking and (b) after fish stocking.

Figure S7. Effect of management practices (a-b) before and (c-d) after fish stocking on macroinvertebrate richness and density (ind.mesocosm⁻¹). Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments (Tukey post hoc test, p < 0.05).

Figure S8. Density (ind.hab⁻¹) of each taxon of macroinvertebrates for each treatment with a habitat enhancement device (CWH only and caged-CWH) after fish stocking.

Figure S9. Macroinvertebrate (a) richness and (b) density (ind.hab⁻¹) within the CWH and the caged-CWH. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments (ANOVA, p < 0.05).

Figure S10. Effects of treatments (a) before and (b) after stocking on conductivity (μS.cm⁻¹). Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments (Tukey post hoc test, p < 0.05).

Tab. S1. Details on the models, transformation and distributions used for each response variable before and after stocking.

© M. Gimenez and J. Cucherousset, Published by EDP Sciences 2024