DKCDKC
Distribution, biology, and conservation of American eels
in Canada
American Eel Symposium: Future Directions for Science, Law and Policy Portland, Maine, 23 - 25 October 2015
David Cairns Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Panmixia and stocks
The entire species forms one breeding unit
Therefore the entire species forms one stock
Panmixia
So we expect coherence in behaviour, life history,
and population trends across the range.
The Panmixia Paradox
. . . but major ecological characteristics often vary sharply, even over short
distances.
The Panmixia Paradox
American eels are a true biological stock, but they
often don't behave like one.
Eel range in Canada
Range in Greenland
Range includes both . . . Saline waters Fresh waters
? 9,000 km2
Range includes both . . . Saline waters Fresh waters
? 14,000 km2 18,000 km2 9,000 km2
(East coast)
But we know that range has diminished in fresh water, especially in areas distant from the sea
Data from MacGregor et al. 2010
Eel landings
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Repo
rted
land
ings
(t)
St. Lawrence Basin
Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Newfoundland
Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence
Scotia-Fundy
US (1950-2011 only)
0 2000 2010
Shifts in the landscape
0 2000 2010
Shifts in the landscape
Main focus of conservation
concern
Status
Endangered (IUCN)
2006 2012 2008 2014
Status
Endangered (IUCN)
2006 2007 2012 2015 2008 2014
*Unclear if Depleted refers to all US eels, or only those subject to exploitation
Status
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72: 1–13 (2015)
In Canada, there is a distinction between assessment by COSEWIC and official listing under the Species at Risk Act. Most common outcomes of COSEWIC assessments: - Delays of several years before a listing decision - COSEWIC recommendation not accepted COSEWIC first assessed eels in 2006. A decision still awaits.
Canadian status: Overall decline, but high spatial variability
y = 2E-197e0.2305x
R² = 0.7482y = 4E+126e-0.141x
R² = 0.4415y = 3E+131e-0.146x
R² = 0.5641
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015C
ount
of e
els
y = 2E-197e0.2305x
R² = 0.7482
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
1996 2001 2006 2011
Cou
nt o
f eel
s
Upper St. Lawrence River: Precipitous decline, slight recent improvement
Canadian status: Overall decline, but high spatial variability
y = 2E-197e0.2305x
R² = 0.7482y = 4E+126e-0.141x
R² = 0.4415y = 3E+131e-0.146x
R² = 0.5641
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015C
ount
of e
els
y = 2E-197e0.2305x
R² = 0.7482
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
1996 2001 2006 2011
Cou
nt o
f eel
s
Upper St. Lawrence River: Precipitous decline, slight recent improvement
y = 5E-68e0.0775x
R² = 0.7715
0
1
2
3
4
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Catc
h ra
te (k
g pe
r ne
t per
day
)Gulf NS
Predicted
PEI
Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: Increase since the mid 1990s
Canadian status: Elvers ascending the East River, Chester, Nova Scotia
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Elve
r Cou
nt
Threats Migratory obstructions
Upstream - loss of habitat
Downstream - turbine mortality
Habitat alteration
Contaminants
Parasites - Anguillicola crassus
Ocean changes
Fisheries
Threats Migratory obstructions
Upstream - loss of habitat
Downstream - turbine mortality
Habitat alteration
Contaminants
Parasites - Anguillicola crassus
Ocean changes
Fisheries
Threats Migratory obstructions
Upstream - loss of habitat
Downstream - turbine mortality
Habitat alteration
Contaminants
Parasites - Anguillicola crassus
Ocean changes
Fisheries
Threats Migratory obstructions
Upstream - loss of habitat
Downstream - turbine mortality
Habitat alteration
Contaminants
Parasites - Anguillicola crassus
Ocean changes
Fisheries
Threats Migratory obstructions
Upstream - loss of habitat
Downstream - turbine mortality
Habitat alteration
Contaminants
Parasites - Anguillicola crassus
Ocean changes
Fisheries
Threats Migratory obstructions
Upstream - loss of habitat
Downstream - turbine mortality
Habitat alteration
Contaminants
Parasites - Anguillicola crassus
Ocean changes
Fisheries
Most eel habitat on the east coast of Canada is unfished
Science advice
Stakeholder input
Management decisions
The standard model of fisheries management
Assumptions: 1. The fish under management constitute a stock
The standard model of fisheries management
In Canada, 5 administrative
units
Ontario
Quebec
3 DFO Regions
Ontario
Quebec
3 DFO Regions
US Atlantic
In the US, the ASMFC
coordinates eel management
Entire stock
We need a management regime that
covers the entire stock range.
Assumptions:
2. If you control fisheries, you control the main or key anthropogenic impactors on the stock
1. The fish under management constitute a stock
The standard model of fisheries management
But fisheries is only one of many impacts . . .
Entire stock
A fully comprehensive
management regime would
cover many non-fisheries issues across the stock
range.
DKCDKC
Conclusion
A Canada-US collaboration that manages fisheries only, but which also serves as a
forum to discuss other conservation issues, is a realistic medium-term goal.
Getting a head start on international science
Poirier et al., ICES J. Mar. Sci, submitted Cairns in prep., Atlas and classification of aquatic habitat by wind fetch