The theory behind this study was largely based on McIntosh and Peckarsky's 1996 paper, in which they tested the drift behavior of mayflies based on the presence or absence of trout smell in the water. The conditions in which they worked were very different from mine. The experimental design I used did not have water flow in the dishes where I measured the behavior. Stream flow is important to aquatic insects, and its absence in this study may have contributed to the lack of behavioral differences. McIntosh and Peckarsky also studied a different family of mayflies than I did, and it is possible that the family Heptageniidae simply does not have a behavioral response to trout smell, at least at the level I studied.
Trout provide one of the major sources of recreation in much of Virginia.
The stocking programs were initiated more than a century ago without regard to the health of the waters in which the trout are placed, or the presence or health of native organisms. It is impossible to know what large-scale effects trout stocking has had on Virginia's native streams, because data were not collected prior to the program's start. It is imperative, however, that any further detrimental effects are thoroughly examined and, as much as possible, anticipated, in order to prevent further native population declines. This study provided some baseline information concerning the relationship between trout and one type of their prey, mayflies. This type of information is important not only for conservation of native species, but also to supply data concerning basic predator-prey interactions.