fisheriesfisheries | 141145 a towed-diver survey in the florida keys national marine sanctuary....

Fisheries

Seeking the Fountain of Youth

Vol. 40 • No. 4 • April 2015

Fish Passage in China

Indexing Reservoir Aging

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 141

145 A towed-diver survey in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Photo credit: Amy Uhrin.

COLUMNSPRESIDENT'S COMMENTARY

143 How to Be a Meeting Participant and Not Just an Attendee

Donna Parrish

POLICY144 Reaching Outside AFS to Heighten Our Impact Thomas E. Bigford

LANDSCAPE148 What Can I Tell You About the Flint River in

Alabama? Bruce Stallsmith

JOURNAL SUMMARY

145 Lobster Trap Debris in a Marine Sanctuary— More Than You Could Imagine

Sarah Harrison

146 MEETING UPDATE: Welcome to Portland!

INTERVIEWS

150 Q&A: Interview with David Fielder Returning to Graduate School as a Professional—

Perspectives from a Non-Traditional Student Jeff Schaeffer

152 Q&A: Fish Talk with Kristen Dahl Sarah Harrison

FEATURES

155 Myths That Continue to Impede Progress in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Wesley S. Patrick and Jason S. Link

161 Development of Fish Passage in China Xiaotao Shi, Boyd Kynard, Defu Liu, Ye Qiao, and

Qiuwen Chen

170 Functional Age as an Indicator of Reservoir Senescence

L.E. Miranda and Rebecca M. Krogman

177 Reservoir Rehabilitations: Seeking the Fountain of Youth

Mark A. Pegg, Kevin L. Pope, Larkin A. Powell, Kelly C. Turek, Jonathan J. Spurgeon, Nathaniel T. Stewart, Nick P. Hogberg, and Mark T. Porath

Vol. 40 • No. 4 • April 2015

Fisheries

146 Portland's Festival of Flowers. Photo credit: Travel Portland.

152 The invasive Indo-Pacific Red Lionfish Pterois volitans. Photo credit: Kristen Dahl.

142 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 4 • April 2015

AFS NEWS

182 Student Loan Forgiveness Program Aims to Keep Great Minds in Government

Tom Lang

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS

183 North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Volume 35, Number 1, February 2015

184 AFS BOOTH REGISTRATION FORM

185 CALENDAR

BACK PAGES

187 Hitch-Hiking Beaver Spotted Napping Atop Humpback Whale

Natalie Sopinka

188 Fisheries Enhancement on the Half-Shell Annie B. Morgan

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2015. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If request-ing from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple repro-duction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199.

Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

An aging reservoir. Photo credit: Rebecca Krogman.

COVER

American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110•Bethesda, MD 20814-2199(301) 897-8616 • fax (301) 897-8096 • [email protected]

The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlight-ened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

AFS OFFICERSPRESIDENTDonna L. Parrish

PRESIDENT-ELECTRon Essig

FIRST VICE PRESIDENTJoe Margraf

SECOND VICE PRESIDENTSteve L. McMullin

PAST PRESIDENTBob Hughes

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORDoug Austen

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORDoug Austen

DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron Lerner

MANAGING EDITORSarah Fox

CONTRIBUTING EDITORSBeth BeardSarah Harrison

CONTRIBUTING WRITERNatalie Sopinka

EDITORSCHIEF SCIENCE EDITORSJeff SchaefferOlaf P. Jensen

SCIENCE EDITORSKristen AnsteadMarilyn “Guppy” Blair Jim BowkerMason BryantSteven R. ChippsKen CurrensAndy DanylchukMichael R. DonaldsonAndrew H. FayramStephen FriedLarry M. GigliottiMadeleine Hall-ArborAlf HaukenesJeffrey E. HillDeirdre M. KimballJeff KochJim LongDaniel McGarveyJeremy PrittRoar SandoddenJesse TrushenskiUsha Varanasi Jeffrey WilliamsBOOK REVIEW EDITORFrancis Juanes

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONPablo del Monte-Luna

ARCHIVE EDITORMohammed Hossain

DUES AND FEES FOR 2015 ARE:$80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members, $20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members, and $40 ($50 elsewhere) for retired members.

Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.

Nonmember and library subscription rates are $191.

Fisheries


Examples:• I was running to a talk, and I saw an old friend. We started

talking, and then we realized we were too late to make the talk. We spent the next hour catching up outside the meeting rooms and finally decided to just go to lunch.

• I just finished my talk, and I wanted to go to another session. So I quickly ran off the stage, picked up my things, and left as the next person was being introduced. Someone left with me and wanted to talk about my presentation.

• This is my first time in (fill in city name), and I wanted to see the area.

• I gave my talk on Tuesday, so I can go home on Wednesday. • My talk was on Wednesday, but I had to spend all day Tues-

day in my room practicing since I did not prepare before I left home.These excuses have become acceptable, but they should

not be. We need to emphasize that each presenter deserves an attentive audience. The variety of talks in 35 concurrent sessions should provide attendees with ample choices of topics that are relevant to their interests. If someone gives a presentation in a symposium, shouldn’t that person attend all of the other talks in that session? After all, the symposium is supposed to be of im-portance to all of the presenters. In contributed paper sessions, we should have the good manners to stay through that time block rather than walk off the stage and leave the room. What is the next speaker supposed to think? It is important for all speak-ers in a session to be respectful of each other.

There has been much written about how to use meetings for networking as a form of furthering careers. Fortunately, we have a lot of time allotted for socials where networking can occur. We have breaks where it is easy to meet someone, exchange phone numbers or email addresses, and set a time to meet later in the day. I have heard some advanced-career attendees say that they learn the most from hallway conversations. If that is true, perhaps we should develop some new formats for information exchange if our standard format is not adequate.

Developing alternative program structures in coming years could keep more attendees in the meeting rooms instead of the hallways or off sightseeing. In the meantime, we need to remem-ber that we are not at the meeting just to talk. Presentations are a two-way street, and most of the time we should be listening to talks, asking questions, and basically fulfilling our obligation of being a true meeting participant.

The 145th Annual Meeting of our Society in August prom-ises to be one of the largest in our history. Over 100 symposium proposals were submitted, which translates to approximately 35 concurrent sessions when the symposium and contributed paper presentations are totaled. A major reason for so many presentations is that many attendees need an active meeting role to obtain employer approval, and an oral presentation is

the standard method of doing so. However, the proportion of meeting attendees giving presentations is much greater in recent years, which is at least partially related to some individuals giv-ing multiple presentations.

To provide a quality scientific program in the midst of this quantity, AFS needs to apply restrictions similar to those of other societies. First, to be fair, no one should give more than one oral presentation. We need to rethink the purpose of oral presenta-tions and our obligations for providing a level playing field for students as well as more mature professionals. The Annual Meeting should not be considered a venue in which individuals present all of their current work. Multiple presentations are great for adding to one’s curriculum vitae, but presenting is not the most important aspect of meeting attendance.

Eliminating multiple presentations by individuals should free up time to attend more talks, but does it? If there are 4,000 meet-ing attendees and there are 35 concurrent sessions, the average number in each room listening to presentations throughout the day should be 114. However, that number is typically much less. We have heard many reasons (i.e., excuses) for attending only a few talks during a four-day meeting.

How to Be a Meeting Participant and Not Just an AttendeeDonna Parrish, AFS President

COLUMNPRESIDENT'S COMMENTARY

AFS President Donna Parrish [email protected]

COLUMNPRESIDENT'S COMMENTARY

AFS President Donna Parrish [email protected]

In contributed paper sessions, we should have the good manners to stay through that time block rather than walk off the stage and leave the room.


My pride reaches back to 2014 and is morphing into great opportunities in 2015. In the conference/meeting arena, AFS leaders participated in a first-ever Joint Aquatic Sciences Meet-ing in May 2014. That group has since become the Consor-tium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS), with AFS a proud member. As noted below, our new CASS partnerships are already bearing fruit via science and policy forays with wetlands societies and a joint effort to address Clean Water Act issues. Also in 2014, our Annual Meeting in Québec City exceeded all expectations. Nearly 40 symposia showcased the power of sci-ence to influence management decisions related to dam removal, hook-and-release strategies, sustainable ecosystem services, fire management, and much more. Shortly after the AFS 2014 Annual Meeting, we joined the Chesapeake Conservancy to host

Serving as your dutiful correspondent and policy wonk, I wrote this column from the AFS Southern Division Annual Meeting in Savannah, Georgia (late January), a gorgeous coastal city that also hosted the mid-year meeting of the AFS Govern-ing Board (early February). The hugely successful Southern Division event reminded me how much AFS members offer to the allied aquatic professions. I’m proud of our ecological footprint and hope the power of our presence will inspire you as 2015 marches on and we look toward 2016. It is the future that is foremost in my mind. As I wrote this column, I found myself wondering how well our successes are positioning AFS for our immediate future. Do we have the expertise, structure, and vi-sion to tackle the pressing issues that will demand our attention in 2016?

Reaching Outside AFS to Heighten Our ImpactThomas E. Bigford, AFS Policy Director

Continued on page 186

COLUMNPOLICY

AFS Policy DirectorThomas E. [email protected]


RETAWHSERF · ENIRAUTSE · ENIRA

M

[email protected]. 1.208.882.2588www.ecoanalysts.com

Benthic InvertebratesFish Stomach AnalysisZooplankton & Phytoplankton316b Ichthyoplankton Taxonomy Field SamplingData Analysis & Repor ngElectrofishing Equipment Rental

Check out the special 316b session at the AFS annual mee ng in Portland and

come see us at our booth!

ANALYSTS, INC.L I F E I N W A T E R

tes

n

Every year, commercial fishing traps are lost, abandoned, or discarded, contributing to the ever-increasing amount of marine debris submerged on the seafloor. Although recognized worldwide as a detriment to marine ecosystems, quantitative data on the amount of abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear is lacking.

So just how much of this marine debris is on the seafloor? A new study by Amy Uhrin, Tom Matthews, and Cindy Lewis in the American Fisheries Society’s journal Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science is shedding light on the quantity of trap debris (spiny lobster or stone crab) in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. In a first ever study, the team of scientists conducted surveys using towed divers to identify and count trap debris—intact fishing traps, degraded non-fish-ing traps, wood slats only, and rope—as well as nontrap debris.

The study found that the majority of submerged marine debris was from commercial trap fisheries, primarily the spiny lobster fishery. The study estimated that over 85,000 spiny lobster traps were ghost fishing on the sea floor of the sanctuary and over 1 mil-lion pieces or remnants of traps were also present. Although trap debris was observed in a variety of environments—bare substrate, seagrass, and algae—the highest density was observed in coral-dominated habitats. The authors state that the accumulation of trap debris in these sensitive habitats, where commercial fishing is prohibited, highlights the role wind plays in moving traps around.

Although trap removal programs do exist in Florida, trap debris accumulates faster than it can be removed. The authors state that additional research is needed on trap modifications to reduce movement from wind and currents and accumulation on reefs.

REFERENCEUhrin, A. V., T. R. Matthews, and C. Lewis. 2014. Lobster trap debris in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: distribution, abundance,

density, and patterns of accumulation. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 6:20–32.

JOURNAL SUMMARY

Lobster Trap Debris in a Marine Sanctuary—More Than You Could ImagineSarah HarrisonAFS Contributing Editor, E-mail: [email protected]

A lobster trap on top of some octocorals. Photo credit: Cindy Lewis, Keys Marine Lab.


Early Registration ends June 26, 2015 Rate

Member Early $430

Non-member Early $630

Student Member Early $130

Student Non-member Early $180

Retired Member Early $170

Retired Non-member Early $630

Young Professional Member Early $170

Young Professional Non-member Early $630

Daily Early $220

Guest Early $150

Late Registration ends July 31, 2015 (on-site registration only after July 31)

Member Late $560

Non-member Late $820

Student Member Late $170

Student Non-member Late $240

Retired Member Late $230

Retired Non-member Late $820

Young Professional Member Late $230

Young Professional Non-member Late $820

Daily Late $280

Guest Late $180

SCHEDULED SYMPOSIA

Portland, Oregon, August 16–20, 2015The 2015 AFS Annual Meeting promises to reflect the diverse interest of fisheries professionals. The list of accepted symposia, available at 2015.fisheries.org/program/symposia, addresses topics such as:

• Endangered species and conservation• Recreational fisheries• Fish habitat restoration efforts• Lamprey management• Taxonomy and evolutionary biology of Cutthroat Trout• Salmon and steelhead management, monitoring, and

evaluation• Fish passage for small and large dams• Technological and genetic advancements• Life history and life cycle complexities• Climate change and other anthropogenic impacts• Marine fish species sampling and addressing bycatch• Modeling tools and addressing uncertainties• Traditional and scientific knowledge• Partnerships and collaborations• International case studies—Mekong and Murray-Darling river

basins• Social and economic dimensions• Communication, outreach, and ethics of fisheries conservation• Ecosystem and watershed scale management• Transboundary and transdisciplinary approaches• Hatcheries and fisheries restoration• And much more!

REGISTRATION DATES

• Registration opens on May 1, 2015.• Early bird rate ends on June 26, 2015.• Late registration closes on July 31, 2015.• All requests for refunds must be submitted by July 3, 2015.

No refunds after that date.• On-site registration only after July 31, 2015.

ACCOMMODATIONS AVAILABLE

• Online booking is now open. The AFS has secured two hotels in Portland with discounted nightly rates: Hilton Portland & Executive Tower, 921 SW 6th Ave., Portland, OR 97204 and DoubleTree by Hilton Portland, 1000 NE Multnomah St., Portland, OR 97232. The block of reserved rooms will expire in July.

• To reserve your room, visit 2015.fisheries.org/registration/accommodations.

STUDENT ACTIVITIES

• Student Reception—All Aboard the Portland Spirit!The AFS 2015 Student Social will be Tuesday the 18th aboard the Portland Spirit. As there is a capacity limit on the boat, this event will be operated on a first-come, first-served basis. Portland Spirit cruises board near the Salmon Street Springs Fountain in Tom McCall Waterfront Park (where Salmon Street meets Naito Parkway/Front Avenue). We will begin boarding the boat at 6:30 p.m. and cruise along the Willamette River from 7 to 9 p.m. Join us for food, beverages, dancing, and the scenic view.

• Student/Mentor Lunch & Career FairThere will be a student/mentor luncheon followed by a job fair on Tuesday the 18th. During the luncheon, students will have an opportunity to meet and network with professionals who will provide occupational information and advice. The job fair will provide a setting for employers to meet with prospective job seekers. Don’t forget to bring your résumé!

• For more information, use the Student Activities web link at 2015.fisheries.org.

VOLUNTEER

• Volunteers are needed to assist with presentations, posters, events, signs and banners, and much more. A minimum of one 4-hour commitment is required. Eligible student volunteers will be paid $10.00 per hour to help defray their meeting costs. Sign up to be a volunteer when you register for the conference. Registration will be available starting in May 2015, but you can contact Becky Flitcroft, volunteer coordinator, now to get started: [email protected].

MEETING UPDATE

WELCOME TO PORTLAND!

MEETING UPDATE

Oregon Convention Center. Photo credit: Travel Portland.

Bicycling the Hawthorne Bridge over the Willamette River. Photo credit: Travel Portland.


• Call 800-843-1172 to discuss your custom tagging needs • Email us at [email protected] • View our website for our latest catalog www.floytag.com

The World Leader & Innovator in Fish Tags

floy tag ad3.indd 1 1/24/2013 6:45:34 PM

blueleafenviro.com

It’s 3:00 a.m.

Do you know where your

fish are?

With technical expertise that spans nearly all facets of fisheries telemetry, we are happy to share what we’ve learned. Contact us for a free consultation to discuss your project and your needs.

Wisconsin • USA • 920-208-1500

A GRADER THAT MAKESYOUR JOB EASIER

Now you can adjust grading sizes without juggling multiple baskets. Our graders float, adjust quickly

and have larger bars so fish pass through with little chance of gill damage. Perfect for fresh or salt water,

choose either the 30 or 50 settings model.

15” x 17” x 11.5” Larger size

also available.

Visit www.freshflo.comfor more details.

Check out our aerators and feeder too!


COLUMNLANDSCAPE

What Can I Tell You About the Flint River in Alabama?Bruce Stallsmith University of Alabama in Huntsville, Department of Biological Sciences, Shelby Center, Huntsville, AL 35899. E-mail: [email protected]

The south bend of the Tennessee River in north Alabama defines a drainage containing a large part of Alabama’s diverse fish fauna, with 163 recognized species in the Ten-nessee proper and tributaries such as the Flint and Paint Rock rivers. The reasons for this unusually high diversity for a temperate freshwater system are largely based on long-term stable climate and geology, but the maintenance of this diversity is dependent on water quality. Many species found in this drainage are at the southern edge of their ranges.

My lab has been studying the reproductive biology of three fish species from the Flint River, which rises in Ten-nessee and flows south through Madison County, Alabama, into the Tennessee River. Much of it is clear, clean water running over stretches of broken slabs of exposed flint bedrock alternating with beds of sand and coarse gravel through a landscape of farms and new suburbs. It is part of the drinking water supply for Huntsville, Alabama. But a significant section of the river has been listed as impaired since 2000 due to organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen levels, pathogens (fecal coliform), and turbidity.

Our primary collecting site is right in the middle of this listed stretch. However, seasonal patterns exist to these im-pairments. Immediately following storms, the water is clear. In winter, during hunting season, butchered deer carcasses are dumped along the bank. Summer brings day-trippers who often leave trash on the beaches on gravel bars. All of this refuse is swept away by flooding of the river.

Water quality is also threatened by the suburban expansion of Huntsville. The river basin is being rapidly developed, and what was historically farmland is becoming suburban development with nonpoint source pollutants: soil runoff, lawn nutrient loading, and trash deposition. Benthic macroalgae blooms now form in the Flint, a sign of nutrient loading. Remediation efforts by the states of Alabama and Tennessee have recently improved water quality in terms of pathogens and organic enrichment, but turbidity still exceeds federal standards.

The three species we study represent both the historic high diversity and current threats to diversity: Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis, Blotched Chub Erimystax insignis, and Whitetail Shiner Cyprinella galactura. These species are known from some of the northern tributaries to the Tennessee River in Alabama, including the Flint. All three require clean water; in particular, the Blotched Chub has disappeared from much of its original range due to stream degradation.

The Silver Shiner has not been reported as present in the Flint River in relevant literature, although it has been observed erratically since 1971 by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Silver Shiners are relatively large, pelagic insectivorous fish and are typically found in moderate- to high-gradient, clear, weedless streams over sand and gravel. Recently, my lab found this species in the river and confirmed that it is relatively common if collected with the correct gear. The Silver Shiner may be sensitive to human influences; epi-sodes of elevated pollution may have interfered with its reproduc-tion and survival, making it difficult for earlier researchers to find. The current state status for this species is of moderate conservation concern. My lab has been studying its reproductive schedule for two years.

The Whitetail Shiner has been better known in the Tennessee drainage of Alabama. It is still considered rare here, listed as criti-cally imperiled, and at the extreme southern edge of its range. It has the same habitat requirements as the Silver Shiner—clean, flowing waters over sand or gravel—and is often found feeding on insects. This species requires rocks not fouled by algal growth for nesting spots.

The Blotched Chub is most common in high-elevation streams that are tributary to the Tennessee River in east Tennessee and southwest Virginia. It has suffered range contraction due to stream alterations by logging, mining, and other developmental activi-ties that mobilize sediment into previously pristine water. It is also at the southern edge of its range and is listed as imperiled. The Blotched Chub is a benthic feeder most commonly found in shal-low flowing water over gravel in large creeks. Fouling of streams interferes with its survival by disrupting the life cycles of aquatic

Whitetail Shiners collected in the Flint River, with a large male in reproductive colors and tubercles at the top of the image. Photo credit: Bruce Stallsmith.


An Ichthyology class from the University of Alabama in Huntsville drives fish into a seine in the Flint River. Photo credit: John Carnell.

insects on which it feeds and by making these food items difficult to find.

These species have distinct breeding seasons and mi-crohabitat use that discretely partition the river. The Silver Shiner starts breeding around February when river tempera-ture is about 12°C, and females carry up to 10,000 relatively small oocytes, released in open water broadcast spawning events by April. Whitetail Shiners spawn from late May to August, with females carrying around 3,000 relatively large oocytes deposited in rock or wood crevices. Blotched Chubs are in the middle of this triad, spawning from late March to May, with females carrying around 5,000 small oocytes released in shallow water spawning over sand. Turbid or overenriched water interferes with the successful breeding of all three species by lowering oxygen levels.

There are always new threats to rivers despite legislation such as the Clean Water Act. A new Walmart Supercenter will open soon along the Flint, not far from our collec-tion site. It will build its own treatment plant for generated wastewater and release the treated water into the river. Local property owners are alarmed over this development as a threat to river water quality. But maybe it’s better seen as good news, bad news—good news that a “big box” store tries to limit negative impacts, bad news that more riverside is paved. The future of our three research species depends on the good outweighing the bad.

When you’re ready to apply principles of field biology.You are ready for American Public University.

With more than 90 degrees to choose from, there’s almost no end to what you can learn. Pursue a respected Environmental Science degree or certificate online — at a cost that’s 20% less than the average published in-state rates at public universities.*

Visit: StudyatAPU.com/fisheries

*College Board: Trends in College Pricing, 2013.

We want you to make an informed decision about the university that’s right for you. For more about our graduation rates, the median debt of students who completed each program, and other important information, visit www.apus.edu/disclosure.

2015

ONLINE PROGRAMSBEST

BACHELOR’S


How much time had elapsed between your master's degree, and decision to seek a Ph.D.? What were you up to during that time?

I did my master’s degree at the University of Michigan, graduating in 1987. I then spent eight years as a fisheries research biolo-gist for the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department. In 1994, I returned to Michigan as a fisheries research biologist for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources working on Lake Huron. That was 20 years ago. It's hard to believe all that time has passed.

So you were a research biologist at a field station with growing responsibilities but that was actually los-ing positions. You were close to the peak of a career that had already been successful by any measure. You had just gotten married. What were you thinking?

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time [laughing]! Seriously, however, I was 49 years old; I had experienced some change in my life and had a rare opportunity to rewrite my future, part of that including what I wanted to do for myself professionally and aca-demically. It was probably 45% opportunity, 45% vision, and maybe 10% impulsiveness. Sometimes the big, seemingly crazy things in life require a bit of a leap of faith.

How did your agency view your decision, and did they support it?

The administration was supportive and complimentary. I think they were surprised a bit and glad for me. For their part, they were accommodating and supportive with flexibility and some resources to help make it happen. Of course, there were no less expectations of me at work. It was up to me to work out the logistics of making this happen. I credit my immediate supervisor, Jim Johnson, the most with supporting my efforts. I couldn’t have done it without his ongoing support and appreciation for what I was trying to do. It helped that my dissertation research was so closely tied with my work and role as an agency biologist. That made it easier for them to support my efforts and rationalize a benefit for the agency and resource.

You worked about four hours away from Michigan State University. How did you manage to balance work, home, and classes? And how was this even possible?

If it takes a village to raise a child (as the saying goes), it takes a lot of friends, family, and supportive coworkers to go back to graduate school mid-career. Logistically, the hardest part was course work. Fortunately, at the Ph.D. level, there wasn’t that much of it (more research credits instead). I had one class online, and twice, I had required seminars that elected to meet intensively for a three-day weekend to get it all done at once. Those things helped, but I did have to do one semester “on campus,” so to speak, where I spent about three days a week in East Lansing. I used “leave” for the actual class time and worked on agency work most of the rest of the day. There were a lot of evening hours and weekend work that semester making up my work time and keeping up with class work. I “crashed” at Ed Roseman’s house. Roseman is a fisheries research biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey. That was a big help and savings. Actually, there were three other graduate students in our lab who were also returning professionals like me. It turns out being a mid-career graduate student isn’t such a rare thing, and it helped having them along the way for friendship and occasional commiseration.

Marie, my wife, was great. She was supportive and patient. She made it all possible for me. We very much did this “together.” Part of what made it possible was that our kids were mostly grown up, and I had a bit more freedom that way. The timing was just right. Still, none of it was easy, but it was a good kind of “hard.” There were some stressful moments, a couple of days where I won-

David Fielder is a research biologist for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources stationed in Alpena, Michigan, on Lake Huron. During 2014, Fielder had many professional accomplishments and was a co-recipient of the American Fisheries Society President's Fishery Conservation Award for his work on conservation and management of the Saginaw Bay fish community. But his greatest achievement last year was receiving a Ph.D. from the Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Fielder had been working professionally for many years before deciding to seek that degree, and we interviewed him to learn about his experience and gain insight into how he did it so that other fisheries professionals might take advantage of his knowledge to further their own educational goals.

Q&A: INTERVIEW

Interview with David FielderReturning to Graduate School as a Professional – Perspectives from a Non-Traditional Student

Jeff SchaefferAFS Co-Chief Science Editor, E-mail: [email protected]


Interview with David Fielder

dered what I had gotten myself into, but if these things were easy, everyone would have advanced degrees. I didn’t mind the hardship for myself as long as I could see that no other part of my life (family and work) was suffering unduly. Midway through, my elderly mother suffered a debilitating stroke, and I had to take over her management and coordinate her care. My wife was instrumental in that too. Yeah, honestly looking back, I’m not sure how I did it all [chuckling]. I credit everyone else, including my major advising professor, Jim Bence. He too was patient, supportive, and accommodating.

What was the most unexpected part of returning to school?

It was probably the course work. I thought that would be drudgery, but it was fun and felt good (if not odd) to be back in a class-room. True, pure learning is something a lot of us don’t get to indulge in once we get busy with our lives. I really enjoyed that. I will say it was strange, however, working on class projects with fellow students who were the same age as my own kids. They were great though, the other students. They were very relaxed about me being in the class. I was just a fellow student to them.

What was the hardest class, and why?

Well, I’d have to say probably Jim Bence’s Population Dynamics class—very quantitative, fast paced, and lots of material to cover. It was also my favorite class too. While some of it was review, it was exactly in line with my dissertation research and my agency work, so it was so great to have in-depth instruction to pair with the context I could bring to the learning from my own experiences as a biologist. It was a challenging class to be sure, but I was fascinated and really enjoyed it.

Tell us about your dissertation topic, and how it tied into your day job.

I developed a series of models and analysis of the Saginaw Bay stock of Walleye Sander vitreus in Lake Huron. Specifically, a statistical catch-at-age (SCAA) model and a stochastic simulation model to evaluate various management options through a decision analysis and value of information analysis. The SCAA model was called for as part of a larger bioenergetics study of predators and prey in Lake Huron. The funding that covered most of my graduate school expense, as a sort of fellowship, resulted from a grant to the university for the development of that SCAA model. For my agency job, I was to work closely with whomever was going to de-velop that model (either a student or postdoc). It was then that I and Jim Bence mutually asked of me, “Why not just be that person?” That was the “opportunity” part of this. It was a fortuitous alignment of my professional work and an educational opportunity. So it really helped that my dissertation research and my agency work was pretty much one and the same. Since then, I’m gratified to say that my analysis has become part of the basis for a new management initiative for Walleye in the Michigan waters of Lake Huron.

In terms of your work or personal life, how has it changed you?

Well, unquestionably, it has expanded my skill set. I can confidently engage in quantitative stock assessment modeling at a level that I couldn’t have before the experience. I’m applying that to my agency work every day. Beyond that, I guess it reminded me that there is a great deal of breadth to the science and method of our profession. The experience helped remind me that there is a ton I don’t know too. I think it’s easy to get comfortable in one’s job, thinking they have it mastered, but fisheries science has matured as a field of study, and there are a lot of dimensions to it nowadays. On a more personal level, I guess it reinforced to me that, at my age, I can still go do new, big things. That’s empowering.

What advice do you have for other people considering going back to school mid-career?

I think you have to sort of build the right opportunity: a blend of support from your employer, the university you might attend (more specifically the exact advisor you’d work with), and of course your family. It’s sort of a simultaneous three-way dialog. For me, it was essential to have the dissertation research integrated in with my agency research or job duties. That was enormously helpful. It really helped too that the project was sufficiently funded to include the necessary tuition coverage. Being a working professional, I didn’t need the added stipend that some graduate students require, so in that respect, I was probably a little easier graduate student to take on for the university. I think one wants to make sure their agency administration is fully aware and in agreement, but it’s also really important to have the support and understanding of your immediate supervisor. They are the ones that will have to continually help make this work on an on-going basis for some period of time, potentially a matter of years. Just as important as the logistical ar-rangements is the mindset. I think to make this the most meaningful and sustainable is to find some research that will really stretch you and challenge you. Don’t just find a project that is the same as you’ve done on the job for years. Jim Bence challenged me, "If you’re going to do this, you might as well really learn something new.” I took that to heart and am glad I did.

Do people in your agency treat you differently?

Oh, I got lots of congratulations upon completion. That was nice, but no, not really, they don’t treat me any differently, and hon-estly, I’m glad. I prefer it that way.

If you could relive the past, would you do it again?

Yes, absolutely. Graduate school, especially mid-career, falls into one of those categories of “I’m really glad I did it, but I’m also really glad it’s done” type of things. My only regret is that I didn’t get to more fully immerse myself in the graduate student experi-ence. I didn’t get to spend as much time as I would have liked with my lab mates and getting in on some of the campus life. It went by fast, and I never really got to savor the experience, but regardless, I’m glad I did it.


Q&A: INTERVIEW

Fish Talk with Kristen Dahl

Sarah HarrisonAFS Contributing Editor, E-mail: [email protected]

Kristen Dahl is a Ph.D. student at the University of South Alabama. She is conducting research on the invasive Indo-Pacific Red Lionfish Pterois volitans at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab under the direction of Will Patterson.

How did you get interested in studying marine biology and lionfish research?

I grew up along the Gulf Coast in Navarre, Florida. I was al-ways interested in all types of animals, really biology in general. My house was five minutes from the beach where I spent long summers beach combing and snorkeling. My parents had a set of international encyclopedias from the 1970s, and there were already species that had become extinct in just that short time period. I developed a desire to make a career out of conserving the natural world. For my undergraduate degree, I went to the University of West Florida and majored in marine biology. I did undergraduate research with Will Patterson and Philip Darby. That experience got me interested in invasive species. We did research on the Florida apple snail Pomacea paludosa —a declin-ing but prime food source for all kinds of animals in the Florida Everglades, including the endangered snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis. Unfortunately, Florida is also home to four other species of apple snails, which are invasive, making the plight of the native apple snail more evident. After I graduated, I went to work for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission doing dockside surveys. One day, Patterson contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in graduate school with the opportunity to research lionfish. It has worked out nicely because when I was at West Florida, we did fish community surveys of the offshore reefs, south of Pensacola, with remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). This was before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the invasion of Indo-Pacific Red Lionfish (hereafter lionfish), so we have this great baseline data on native fish com-munities to compare to our current research on lionfish.

What is some of the research you are currently working on?

I am doing several different projects with lionfish in the northern Gulf of Mexico. I am looking at the general ecology of lionfish in this region, specifically interactions with native reef fish communities. Lionfish are very adaptable, and we see them doing different things in different regions based on the recipi-ent communities being inherently different. We are looking to examine direct lionfish impacts, such as eating native reef fishes, and indirect lionfish impacts, such as affecting exploited species like Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus and groupers through competition for food and/or space. In the summer of 2013, we

tagged Red Snapper with acoustic transmitters to test for differ-ences in their fine-scale movements between areas with lionfish and areas without lionfish present. Red Snapper that were released onto reefs that had lionfish present were 85% higher in the water column and 75% further away from the reef center consistently across all time blocks of the day and across the three-month time period sampled. Overall, Red Snapper spent 40% less time on reefs when lionfish were present, representing clear competition for space. And if Red Snapper and lionfish share the same feeding strategy, they could be competing for the same forage base. I am also characterizing lionfish diet and age and growth among varying levels of lionfish density and across habitat types and seasons. Finally, I am studying the impacts of regular removals of lionfish at artificial reefs.

What exploited species should we be worrying about the most in the northern Gulf of Mexico?

In our area, it seems to be Vermilion Snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens. I know a lot of people are worried about Red Snap-per; however, Vermillion Snapper, because of their life history, are recruiting to reefs at small enough sizes and are shaped like a torpedo, which makes them perfect for lionfish to eat. In con-trast, Red Snapper recruit to the reefs when they are one or two years old and have a greater body depth. Perhaps the biggest lionfish in the area could eat them, but I haven’t found any Red Snapper in the diets of hundreds of lionfish I have examined. I know others think they are eating them, but I haven’t seen it yet. I have found Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus, which was pretty recent and hasn’t yet been published, as well as Tomtate Haemulon au-rolineatum, also known as ruby lips. These fish are considered bait fish and are fairly deep bodied fish, so it is a possibility we may one day find a Red Snapper in a lionfish stomach. We are more concerned with the indirect impacts lionfish may be having on Red Snapper.

Why do you believe you are finding more lionfish on artificial reefs than natural reefs?

We really are not sure. It seems like if you were to go into this, you would hypothesize that lionfish densities would be greater on natural reefs because of all the published diet studies saying that they preferably eat small demersal reef fishes. Look-


Fish Talk with Kristen Dahl

Vermilion Snapper found in the stomach of a lionfish. Photo credit: Kristen Dahl.

ing at reef fish community data collected over the last 10 years with ROVs, we’ve found that the most numerically dominant taxa on natural reefs are these small, demersal, reef fishes and that they were nearly absent from artificial reefs in recent years. We have hypothesized that it may have something to do with where the lionfish larvae are settling out. Where we sample off the Florida Panhandle, it is pretty much bare, sandy bottom, and then you have these expansive artificial reef areas (over 200 square kilometers) with high vertical relief compared to everything else around. That could be concentrating the settling juveniles. We don’t have a lot of data from the surrounding areas. Maybe there are areas just outside of this artificial reef zone that have high densities that are from deeper waters that we don’t typical sample; maybe they are filtering off of there.

Do you know how far lionfish are traveling?

Because of our diet study results, showing high numbers of what we would consider non-reef fish—flounders, sea robins, lizardfishes, etc.—inside the stomachs of lionfish, we think they are moving a lot more than studies in other regions have found. One study found that the majority of tagged fish moved less than 10 meters in 10 months. We believe that lionfish in our area may have a feeding strategy similar to that of Red Snapper. Red Snapper reside on reef structure but forage off of the reef. We are going to tag lionfish on artificial reefs to test this hypoth-esis this upcoming summer. I will be working with divers in Pensacola, Florida, that have donated a lot of their time, effort, and funds to harvest lionfish. They will be helping us capture live lionfish to tag. We are going to surgically implant acoustic transmitters and track them within a grid of 25 Vemco receiv-ers. With the arrangement of our receivers, you can triangulate the position of the fish, and the tags will have depth sensors, so you can see their individual movements in the water column 24 hours a day. This will be very high-resolution data, so hopefully we will be able to uncover some interesting lionfish movement patterns.

I am also conducting a controlled experiment looking at removal efforts required to keep artificial reefs clean of lionfish. This study started in January 2014. We have 27 sites; 18 of those we cleared of lionfish, and then 9 of the 18 we are clearing every three months. We are monitoring these sites for lionfish densities using ROVS and looking at how many repopulate cleared reefs and what the size structure of those individuals is. The last time we did sampling on those reefs, I really expected maybe 75 lionfish on the nine reefs, and I observed over 200 lionfish, ranging from very small to large ones. So, it is apparent that they must be moving as large adults, but the telemetry study should give us a better idea.

What are some interesting things you have found in the stomachs of lionfish?

I have found a lot of rocks because they eat whatever is in their way. One stomach had six arrow crabs Stenorhynchus seticornis, which looks like the most terrible thing to eat, claws and long legs sticking out everywhere. I had one stomach that had three really large squid, tentacles and all. Many stomachs are stuffed with tens of fish of the same species. I also measure lionfish gape, and I opened one fish to measure, and it had a big tail sticking out of its mouth. It turned out to be a 14 cm long Sand Perch Diplectrum formosum folded up with the tail stick-ing out. It was impressive because the lionfish was not notably large itself (27 cm TL).

Squid found in the stomach of a lionfish. Photo credit: Kristen Dahl.

Arrow crabs found in the stomach of a lionfish. Photo credit: Kristen Dahl.

What is the biggest lionfish you have captured?

My divers caught one that was 405 mm. This fish was larger than our previous published data for the area. Lionfish here are continuing to grow larger and heavier every year, and they have


only been present for four or five years. We aren’t sure what the threshold will be.

What is one thing you have learned about lionfish that you did not know since starting your research?

One thing I’ve learned is just how adaptable or “plastic” lionfish are. They inhabit a range of habitats in the wider invaded region including seagrass beds, coral reefs, patch reefs, artificial reefs of all shapes and sizes, mangroves, and even some estuarine systems. The conditions of these environments are all very different from each other in terms of depth, water quality, salinity, temperature, and the communities of native species inhabiting them. However, lionfish have this ability to adapt and thrive in all of these non-native environments. In addition, we are seeing them at extremely high densities on artificial reefs. The fish on these reefs don’t appear to be hindered by intraspe-cific competition for food or space, but age and growth analyses are still in the works. They really are the perfect storm in terms of an invader. It’s quite fascinating but disheartening at the same time.

Assuming lionfish are here to stay, what steps do you recommend to stop their further spread?

First, you can support the removal of lionfish from your wa-ters directly or indirectly. If you are a SCUBA diver, there are clinics and workshops available to learn how to spear lionfish safely and effectively. Some states have relaxed licensing and gear requirements for lionfish removal. Occasionally, dive shops will also support SCUBA divers by providing free trips for people who want to volunteer to shoot lionfish. Secondly, you can show your support at public outreach events, such as lionfish derbies, as a member of the general public, or a spear fisherman with prizes for most lionfish removed, smallest lionfish, largest lionfish, etc. The organizers of these types of events often cook up the catches of lionfish and serve to the public. Many times these events provide the public the first culinary experience with lionfish, so you can then ask your local restaurants to serve lionfish. I would also advise anyone that observes lionfish to report their sightings to their respective state wildlife agencies. Another step to stop invasion is the development of lionfish spe-cific traps. A lot of people think traps are the way to go because of their low effort in comparison to divers. In terms of legisla-tion, Florida is really at the forefront of policy to help prevent future lionfish spread. They have enacted policy that prohibits the importation of live lionfish, prohibits intentional breeding of lionfish in captivity, and prohibits the harvest and possession of lionfish eggs or larvae for anything other than destruction.

Have you ever attended an AFS Annual Meeting?

I went to the one in Little Rock in 2013, and it was really awe-some because you got to see a really broad range of research possibilities and collaborations and also a chance to do some networking. Additionally, I was able to learn about ongoing research in the freshwater field, which I don’t get too much ex-posure to here at a marine-oriented lab. I really hope to be able to attend another meeting before I graduate.

For cool videos of Kristen Dahl’s research on lionfish, go to American Fisheries Society News at news.fisheries.org.

Lionfish captured off the Florida Panhandle. Photo credit: Kristen Dahl.

Kristen Dahl holding a lionfish. Photo credit: Kristen Dahl.

A fish inside the mouth of a lionfish. Photo credit: Kristen Dahl.


FEATURE

Wesley S. PatrickNOAA Fisheries, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East–West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. E-mail: [email protected]

Jason S. LinkNOAA Fisheries, Office of the Assistant Administrator, Woods Hole, MA

Ecosystem-based fisheries management has been perceived as something desirable but pragmatically unachievable due to several impediments identified earlier during its implementation phase. Over the years, many of these impediments have been resolved but not well communicated to stakeholders, managers, scientists, and policymakers. As a result, several past impediments to implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management have taken on a mythical status. Here we identify six common myths, address why they in fact no longer impede ecosystem-based fisheries management, and propose solutions for moving forward. We assert that these myths need not continue to exist and that improved approaches for fisheries are indeed feasible.

Myths That Continue to Impede Progress in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Mitos que siguen impidiendo el progreso del manejo de pesquerías basado en el ecosistemaEl manejo de pesquerías basado en el ecosistema se ha percibido como algo deseable, pero de manera pragmática imposible de lograr debido a ciertos impedimentos que fueron identificados durante la fase de implementación del enfoque. Al pasar de los años, muchos de estos impedimentos se han resuelto pero esto no se le ha comunicado a los interesados en los recursos, manejadores, científicos y funcionarios. Como resultado, muchos obstáculos del pasado que impedían implementar el manejo de pesquerías bajo un enfoque de ecosistema, han adquirido un estatus mítico. Aquí se identifican seis mitos comunes, se ahonda en las razones por cuales actualmente ya no son un obstáculo para este tipo de manejo y se proponen soluciones para avanzar al futuro. Se asevera que no es necesario que estos mitos sigan existiendo y que, de hecho, si son factibles nuevos enfoques para manejo de pesquerías.


INTRODUCTION

The canons of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) have been expounded upon for decades (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1993; Grumbine 1994; Griffis and Kimball 1996) as a holistic approach to fisheries management that recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social complexities of managing living marine resources. From the 1990s to present, discussions over marine EBFM have shifted from, "What is it and why we do it?" to "How can we do it and when can we operationalize it?” (Pitcher et al. 2009; Link 2010; Link and Browman 2014).

Yet, skepticism still remains about fishery managers’, scientists’, and policymakers’ ability to operationalize EBFM. A multitude of articles discuss the daunting challenges of opera-tionalizing EBFM (e.g., Browman and Stergiou 2004; Curtin and Prellezo 2010) and how they may differ between developed and developing countries (Pitcher et al. 2009; Tallis et al. 2010). In general, these works point to impediments such as defining, prioritizing, and monitoring long-term ecosystem-related goals and objectives (e.g., Cury et al. 2005; Ruckelshaus et al. 2008; Jennings and Rice 2011); issues with linguistic uncertainty and understanding the levels of ecosystem management (Arkema et al. 2006; Link and Browman 2014); developing appropri-ate data collection, analytical tools, and models (e.g., Hilborn 2011; Cowan et al. 2012; Walther and Möllmann 2014); and the need for drastically different governance structures to deal with the uncertainty and complexities of EBFM, as well as long-term planning (e.g., Leslie et al. 2008; Jennings and Rice 2011; Berkes 2012).

These and other issues have been around for over 20 years, and many of them, if not all, have already been resolved in the United States and other developed countries (Pikitch et al. 2004; Murawski 2007; Curtin and Prellezo 2010; Cowan et al. 2012). There are, of course, some issues that just will not die, such that these “myths” of EBFM impediments live on, still pervading the minds of the public, interest groups, managers, scientists, and policymakers who play a role in implementing EBFM. Until these myths are refuted, the operationalization of EBFM will continue to be hindered. Previously, Murawski (2007) addressed 10 myths that “counter-revolutionists” use to circumvent or disrupt the implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM), and we found the approach an interesting tactic. Thus, we adopt a similar approach to refute the myths that impede the implementation of EBFM. Unlike Murawski (2007), however, we do not believe that these myths are primarily used to main-tain status quo; rather, they are misconceptions about what is needed to operationalize EBFM (i.e., make functional). Here we note each of these common myths, address why they are indeed factually inaccurate today, and suggest ways to move forward.

MYTH #1—MARINE ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT SUFFERS FROM CRIPPLING

LINGUISTIC UNCERTAINTY, SUCH THAT IT IS UNABLE TO BE OPERATIONAL

Over the last 20 years, a common observation about ecosys-tem management (EM) is that it means different things to differ-ent people (e.g., Lackey 1998; Yaffee 1999; Arkema et al. 2006). As a result of this linguistic uncertainty, many believe that the concept of EM has no universal definition or consistent way to apply it to different levels of management in terms of scope and jurisdiction.

As with Murawski (2007), this issue is at the top of our list of myths, given that definitions of EM, EBM, EBFM, and ecosystem approaches to fisheries management (EAFM) have been thoroughly vetted in the scientific literature over the last 20 years (e.g., Larkin 1996; Arkema et al. 2006; Link and Browman 2014). Although scientists will always discuss nuances to these definitions, the scientific community largely agrees that marine EM contains three hierarchal levels, with EM being the umbrella term used by stakeholders to generally describe the various levels of implementation (Table 1). Ecosystem management, or even EBM, is used colloquially as effective shorthand to note more holistic resource management—management that consid-ers more facets of the ecosystem than just a species of interest. Building upon that foundation there are sector-specific systems efforts (i.e., EBFM), followed by ecosystem-cognizant species specific approaches (i.e., EAFM; see Table 1).

Although the scientific literature has been clear about the definition of EM and its levels of implementation, it appears that the translation to stakeholders, managers, and policymakers has been somewhat erratic. For example, Arkema et al. (2006) compared common EBM principles noted within the scientific literature, to agency management plans that were implementing EBM. Their results showed that some principles of EBM are being practiced, but the gap between the scientific literature and management plans suggests that the concept of EBM needs to be more effectively translated. We simply assert that applying the appropriate EM levels of the hierarchy may help to alleviate this confusion.

MYTH #2—FISHERIES MANAGEMENT LACKS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND MANDATES TO

IMPLEMENT EBFM

Some claim that to fully implement EBFM, there needs to be drastic changes to fishery governance structures to overcome the regulatory constraints of current mandates designed for single-species management (e.g., Leslie et al. 2008; Pitcher and Lam 2010; Berkes 2012). Governance impediments have been described as the lack of mandates to implement EBFM; a more complex and costly approach to management that our current management regime can accommodate; or changing the focus of what is actively managed (Rice 2011).

Yet, Murawski (2007) noted that many, if not all, marine resource management institutions have already adopted some form of EM. There also exist a plethora of mandates worldwide that emphasize the use of EBFM, such as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Constable 2011), Marine Planning Framework for South Australia (Day et al. 2008), and the Common Fisheries Policy for European countries (Jennings and Rice 2011).

Within the United States, McFadden and Barnes (2009) reviewed how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration (NOAA) has been committed to implementing EM over the last two decades. They identified more than 90 separate federal legislative mandates, which give NOAA its stewardship authorities either implicitly or explicitly to implement EM. In their study, among the various line offices of NOAA, NOAA Fisheries reported the largest number of projects that focused on EAFM and EBFM (McFadden and Barnes 2009). Tromble (2008) highlighted that four (now five) of the eight regional fishery management councils have developed fishery ecosystem plans that work within the existing management framework, even though such plans have never been mandated.


Another related concern has been the lack of operational decision criteria for undertaking EBFM. Operationally, fishery managers and scientists already implement EM via modifica-tions to existing biological reference points and harvest control rules that incorporate ecosystem considerations in an EAFM context. For example, extended stock assessments, multispecies assessments, and related models can produce routine biological reference points that incorporate ecosystem considerations, such as predation mortality on forage or thermal effects on growth. Additionally, there are aggregative or system-level analogues to these common biological reference points (see Bundy et al. [2012] and references therein). There are also other efforts to explore indicators of ecosystem overfishing defined by Muraw-ski (2000) and Link (2005) and as proposed by others (Coll et al. 2008; Libralato et al. 2008). There have also been both empirical (Samhouri et al. 2010; Large et al. 2013) and simulation (Fay et al. 2011) efforts to establish thresholds and harvest control rules for a broader suite of indicators than just typical Bmsy/Fmsy (biomass that supports maximum sustainable yield [MSY]/level of fishing mortality that will keep harvests at MSY) types of biological reference points. These operational capabilities are conducted well within existing mandates.

Although additional or revised mandates would help clarify the roles of management agencies in implementing EBFM, man-agers and scientists have ample mandates and the discretionary authorities to advance EBFM. Several experts have noted that implementing EBFM is an adaptive or evolving process (e.g., McFadden and Barnes 2009; Hilborn 2011; Fogarty 2014), so rather than waiting on the perfect mandate to move forward with EBFM, managers, scientists, and policymakers can and should move forward within current authorities.

MYTH #3—EBFM CAN ONLY BE IMPLEMENTED IN REGIONS WHERE WE HAVE COPIOUS DATA, AND THE COROLLARY, DOING EBFM REQUIRES

MODELS THAT ARE TOO COMPLICATED

A common misconception about EBFM is that it can only be implemented in data-rich regions where certain types of infor-mation are available and that it needs to be done in the context of horrendogram-style food webs and Frankensteinish-level models (Browman and Stergiou 2004 and references therein). Prominent among these assumed requirements are a food web model, information on habitat quality, or an understanding of the detailed mechanistic climate impacts on the environment.

As noted in prior calls for EBFM, Pikitch et al. (2004) and Hobday et al. (2011) clearly recognized that EBFM can and needs to be conducted in data-poor situations and especially in the developing world. Critics of EBFM argue that attempting to manage something as complex as an ecosystem is effectively an insurmountable challenge given the difficulties we have faced just trying to understand single populations (Mace 2004). Such critics posit that managing entire ecosystems on a scientific basis is bound to be nearly impossible given our present lack of knowledge about the dynamics and emergent features of marine subsystems (Mace 2001; Browman and Stergiou 2004). However, which is more complex—a single-species model with an age-structured, time-varying catchability, dynamic fleet repre-sentation, and variable recruitment responses, or a three-species production model with a simple interaction and fishery removal term? The point is that one can construct models as complex as one can think, but the range of topics being modeled can vary. Just because one is including an additional process does not necessarily make it a more complex model; it depends on the factors being modeled (Link et al. 2010). How one addresses uncertainty is not necessarily a function of model complexity but also has structural and process considerations as well (Link et al. 2012).

This myth was also addressed by Murawski (2007; 686), who noted that while food web models

“are useful for managing species that have preda-tor–prey or habitat interrelationships, even a qualita-tive understanding of these relationships (e.g., ‘who eats whom,’ spatial distributions of key species, and human-use ‘footprints’) can be used to establish cautionary manage-ment accounting for these potential interactions.” For instance, loop analysis and related approaches can

inform this element (and similarly for habitat or climatic factors) and be just as robust (Dambacher et al. 2003).

The reality is that EBFM is being done in data-poor situa-tions now (Smith et al. 2007). The methods being used range from qualitative to semiquantitative to fully analytical, depend-ing upon the salient information and data available and on the need to consider this material across a range of factors. Hence, ecological risk assessments, or some other form of triage (Levin et al. 2009; Link 2010; Hobday et al. 2011) to denote which processes are important and which can be treated in a more cursory manner, are a critical part of EBFM. The point is to not necessarily include more complex data or analytical approaches but rather to be more comprehensive in the range of factors

Table 1. Levels of ecosystem management (EM) as applied in a fisheries context: EAFM (ecosystem approaches to fisheries management), EBFM (ecosystem-based fisheries management), and EBM (ecosystem-based management).

Level of EM Definition Focus of

ManagementManagement framework* References

EAFM

Inclusion of ecosystem factors into a (typically single species) stock focus to enhance our understanding of fishery dynamics and to better inform stock-focused management decisions

Fisheries stocks Fishery Management Plan

Pitcher et al. 2009; Link and Browman 2014

EBFM

Recognizes the combined physical, biological, eco-nomic, and social tradeoffs for managing the fisheries sector as an integrated system, specifically addresses competing objectives and cumulative impacts to opti-mize the yields of all fisheries in an ecosystem

Fisheries systems

Fishery Ecosystem Plan

Link 2010; Link and Browman 2014

EBM

A multi-sectored approach to management that ac-counts for the interdependent components of ecosys-tems, and the fundamental importance of ecosystem structure and functioning in providing humans with a broad range of ecosystem services

All sectors, including fisheries

Regional Ocean Plan

MacLeod and Leslie 2009; Curtin and Prellezo 2010; Link and Browman 2014

*Examples from the United States


2004; Blomquist and Schlager 2005). Even apart from the biogeochemical, biophysical, oceanographic, and ecological complexities, EBFM is viewed as an approach that simply does not account for all of the permutations and realities facing a participatory decision-making process. Critics of EBFM express skepticism that implementing EBFM will better solve problems with inherent and significant socioeconomic, cultural, emotional, and political challenges (see Browman and Stergiou 2004).

This is a lot like saying to financial investors that choosing multiple stocks in which to invest is impossible, because the market is too complicated and risky. However, we know that investors often select a blend of stocks that represent multiple sectors of the market, minimize overall levels of risk simultane-ously, maximize returns, and do so to address a balance across multiple investing objectives (Graham et al. 2008). Why not be transparent about the objectives of various sectors within a fish-ery to afford an opportunity to explicitly compare and contrast tradeoffs to optimize yields? In effect, this is what EBFM aims to do.

Certainly, it is difficult for managers to evaluate multiple objectives in a highly charged political context. Yet EBFM is about tradeoff analysis, explicitly examining what options meet the most objectives as an integrated system (Link 2010). It is actually quite pragmatic in that it provides a context within which multiple objectives can be evaluated simultaneously with transparency. Ignoring tradeoffs, or the existence of such mul-tiple objectives, does not make them go away (Fogarty 2014). The risks of not considering the full suite of ecosystem factors have, for a long while, outweighed the risks of attempting to address them. Certainly, governance structures or processes may need to adapt to accommodate this broader set of scientific evidence (cf. Myth 2), but if modified or constructed with a suite of tradeoff measures in mind, the more robust decisions for the overall fishery system can become more apparent in an EBFM context. Analytical tools, like management strategy evaluation framework (Fulton et al. 2014), are specifically designed to help identify the most viable management options across this range of challenges.

Moving forward, we need to consider the suite of informa-tion that best captures the socioeconomic tradeoffs across all fisheries in a given location. Several participatory approaches have been used to elicit what are the main objectives for all stakeholders involved in the full fisheries sector in a given location; these should certainly be used (Levin et al. 2009; Fulton et al. 2014). The salient point is not to ignore that differ-ent stakeholders have different and often competing interests. Instead, managers need to acknowledge these differences and identify management options that best optimize the full range of interests—particularly noting that many robust strategies can often meet multiple objectives of interest to multiple parties—such that no one stock, fishery, sector, economy, or commu-nity is unknowingly depleted at the expense of another. Such methods exist, such options have been and are continually being explored, and such options are beginning to coalesce around common themes that can be applied appropriately. The utility of EBFM is facilitating these tradeoffs across and within fisheries in a transparent and quantitative manner.

MYTH #6—WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO DO EBFM

The perception is that how are we ever going to do EBFM when we do not even have enough resources to fully imple-

being considered to manage a fishery. Just as in single-species stock assessments, the methods continue to develop to handle this range of considerations.

MYTH #4—EBFM ALWAYS RESULTS IN TOO CONSERVATIVE AND RESTRICTIVE ADVICE

The perception is that implementing EBFM would univer-sally and categorically result in a reduction in allowable catch. This perception often stems from aggregate surplus production models, which show that system-level harvest levels can be approximately 25% less than that produced by single-species management (Fogarty et al. 2012; Gaichas et al. 2012). Other reasons may include stakeholder perceptions that EBFM would require more precautionary catch limits to account for the sci-entific uncertainty in complex ecosystem models or that EBFM would result in more restrictive fishing regulations to protect threatened and endangered species or, more generally, nontarget species. Therefore, why would stakeholders ever want to move from single-species fisheries management to EBFM?

A better question might be why would stakeholders ignore the best available science and jeopardize the resiliency of the stocks and ecosystem? Fisheries scientists over the last half century have criticized the concept of maximum sustainable yield for single species because of the impossibility of MSY for all species simultaneously (Larkin 1977; Mace 2001). Preda-tor–prey demands, fluctuating environmental conditions, the selectivity of the fishing fleet, and other factors regulate the population abundances of living marine resources above and below theoretical MSY levels. This is one reason why EBFM came to the forefront in the 1990s as a more holistic approach to management and was adopted by the United States and other countries (cf. Myth 2). Multispecies or system-level reference points provide a more realistic view of the system-level produc-tivity.

The perception that ecosystem level reference points result in lower yield is predicated on the review of individual species, not the aggregate. This is because system-level models account for multispecies interactions, so the allowable catch for any given species at any given time may be less. However, if one focuses on aggregated landings—and value thereof—across all targeted species in an ecosystem, studies and summations of fisheries performance metrics have shown that the total biomass landed is actually quite similar to landings based on single-spe-cies management (Lucey et al. 2012). Plus, the economic value may stay the same or actually increase, given that the attendant benefits of some fish groups recovering may actually lead to an increase in overall landed biomass of certain subgroups over time. Beyond that, there is also a stability component when considering a system-wide view. There is biological stability from conserved, emergent ecosystem properties and functional redundancies that have not been utilized. Such constancy can lead to both regulatory and economic stability, which promote better business planning.

MYTH #5—EBFM IS A PIE-IN-THE-SKY PANACEA FOR AN ALREADY DIFFICULT

SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM

The perception is that EBFM is viewed by enthusiasts as a cure-all to the ills of fisheries management, whereas critics see EBFM as a naïve attempt to describe the complex realities of a contentious and political allocation system for public natural resources (e.g., Fitzsimmons 1996; Browman and Stergiou


We assert that one does not need perfect knowledge of every process to implement EBFM. We reiterate that the knowledge base to do so exists. We also reiterate that doing EBFM is fea-sible with information, tools, and approaches that are currently available. However, as we continue to move toward EBFM, several challenges remain, and we very much recognize them. Yet, we also assert that by building upon the knowledge base we have and the examples of implementation to date, we are poised to more fully implement EBFM. The key point is to address this broader range of issues, issues that have been often overlooked, and issues that are known to impact living marine resources. We trust that helping to disprove these myths will at least further the debate on the topic and lead to even further implementation of EBFM to better manage our fisheries.

REFERENCES Arkema, K. K., S. C. Abramson, and B. M. Dewsbury. 2006. Marine

ecosystem-based management: from characterization to imple-mentation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(10):525–532.

Baumgärtner, S., and S. Strunz. 2014. The economic insurance value of ecosystem resilience. Ecological Economics 101:21–32.

Berkes, F. 2012. Implementing ecosystem-based management: evo-lution or revolution? Fish and Fisheries 13:465–476.

Blomquist, W., and E. Schlager. 2005. Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management. Society and Natural Resources 18:101–117.

Browman, H., and K. I. Stergiou. 2004. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Ma-rine Ecology Progress Series 274:269–270.

Bundy A., E.C. Bohaboy, D.O. Hjermann, F.J. Mueter, C. Fu, and J.S. Link. 2012. Common patterns, common drivers: Comparative analysis of aggregate systemic surplus production across eco-systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 459:203-218.

Cicin-Sain, B., and R. Knecht. 1993. Ocean management and the large marine ecosystem concept: taking the next step. Pages 237–241 in K. Sherman, L. M. Alexander, and B. Gold, editors. Large ma-rine ecosystems: stress, mitigation and variability. American As-sociation for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.

Coll, M., S. Libralato, S. Tudela I. Palomera, and F. Pranovi. 2008. Eco-system overfishing in the ocean. Plos One 3(12):e3881.

Constable, A. J. 2011. Lessons from CCAMLR on the implementa-tion of the ecosystem approach to managing fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 12:138–151.

Cowan, J. H., Jr., J. C. Rice, C. J. Walters, R. Hilborn, T. E. Essington, J. W. Day, Jr., and K. M. Boswell. 2012. Challenges for implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Sci-ence 4(1):496–510.

Curtin, R., and R. Prellezo. 2010. Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Marine Policy 34(5):821–830.

Cury, P. M., C. Mullon, S. M. Garcia, and L. J. Shannon. 2005. Viability theory for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:577–584.

Dambacher, J. M., H. K. Luh, H. W. Li, and P. A. Rossingnol. 2003. Qualitative stability and ambiguity in mode ecosystems. Ameri-can Naturalist 161(6):876–888.

Day, V., R. Paxinos, J. Emmett, A. Wright, and M. Goecker. 2008. The marine planning framework for South Australia: a new ecosys-tem-based zoning policy for marine management. Marine Policy 32:535–543.

Fay, G., A. E. Punt, and A. D. M. Smith. 2011. Impacts of spatial uncer-tainty on performance of age structured-based harvest strate-gies for blue eye trevalla (Hyperoglyphe Antarctica). Fisheries Research 110(3):391–407.

Fitzsimmons, A. K. 1996. Sound policy or smoke and mirrors: does ecosystem management make sense? Water Resource Bulletin 32(2):217–227.

Fogarty, M. J. 2014. The art of ecosystem-based fishery manage-ment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71:479–490.

Fogarty, M. J., W. J. Overholtz, and J. S. Link. 2012. Aggregate sur-plus production models for demersal fishery resources of the Gulf of Maine. Marine Ecology Progress Series 459:247–258.

Fulton, E. A., A. D. M. Smith, D. D. Smith, and P. Johnson. 2014. An

ment single-species fisheries management (Link 2002; Riggs 2001). Currently, within the United States, approximately 300 of the 478 federally managed stocks are assessed on a regular basis to provide estimates of biomass and fishing mortality rates (NMFS 2014). The perception is that surely the implementation of EBFM would require more stocks to be assessed and with more sophisticated models that require more funding, more data collection systems, and a larger workforce.

However, the gains in efficiencies of doing EBFM are too easily overlooked. Fogarty (2014) suggested that fully implementing EBFM may actually reduce the administrative complexity of managing fisheries. Single-species management systems are immensely complex processes. Domestic fishery agencies and international bodies support a very large number of working groups, each with several representatives charged with developing regulations or assessments for individual spe-cies. Furthermore, each assessment often goes to additional workgroups to determine its adequacy for making management recommendations. Over the long term, EBFM is expected to reduce the number of workgroups and modeling structures into a much smaller integrated assessment process, using multispecies and aggregate approaches and indicators to monitor stock status for more species simultaneously (Fogarty 2014).

Ecosystem-based fisheries management gains efficiencies from prioritization efforts to triage key drivers of a system. Overall this prioritization and aggregative approach builds on increased stability in system productivity, compared to more dynamic productivity on a stock-by-stock basis (Fogarty et al. 2012; Gaichas et al. 2012). Ecosystem-based fisheries manage-ment takes a macrolevel look at system-level productivity, while protecting against overfishing, to smooth out the variability that occurs at the individual species level. This is analogous to managing for a portfolio of stocks, in a financial context. The results of this broader view and more stable system provide for better regulatory and biological stability, again resulting in better business planning (Smith 1996; Baumgärtern and Strunz 2014).

SUMMARY

These myths lead to the false perception that EBFM is too complex and thus poorly defined. Whether models, data, or even basic understanding, the criticism is that fishery managers and scientists simply do not know enough to take action. Conse-quently, we will never fully understand ecosystems; therefore, comprehensive management of their use is impossible. Does that mean that we stop trying to understand ecosystems or abdicate our mandated responsibilities to manage them and their associ-ated trust species?

The challenge has been to determine the relative importance of those processes (usually by partitioning variance in some multivariate sense) as they influence the dynamics of marine ecosystems and tracking their associated dynamics over time and space. For instance, overexploitation generally leads to depleted fish stocks, fluctuations in primary production can be driven by large-scale oceanic phenomena, fishers tend to target easier-to-access and more abundant stocks, species that migrate from one area to another have impacts in the systems they migrate from and to, the interplay between predators and prey remains dynamic and challenging given the complexities of marine food webs, etc. The point is that there already exist a wide range of patterns, processes, and principles whose general directionality and outcomes we can use to inform and guide our management.


integrated approach is needed for ecosystem based fisheries management: insights from ecosystem-level management strat-egy evaluation. Plos One 9(1):e84242.

Gaichas, S., R. Gamble, M. Fogarty, H. Benoît, T. Essington, C. Fu, M. Koen-Alonso, and J. Link. 2012. Assembly rules for aggregate-species production models: simulations in support of man-agement strategy evaluation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 459:275–292.

Graham, B., J. Zweig, and W. Buffet. 2008. The intelligent investor. 4th edition. HarperCollins, New York.

Griffis, R. B., and K. W. Kimball. 1996. Ecosystem approaches to coast-al and ocean stewardship. Ecological Applications 6(3):708–712.

Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserva-tion Biology 8(1):27–38.

Hilborn, R. 2011. Future directions in ecosystem based fisheries man-agement: a personal perspective. Fisheries Research 108:235–239.

Hobday, A. J., A. D. M. Smith, I. C. Stobutzki, C. Bulman, R. Daley, J. M. Dambacher, R. A. Deng, J. Dowdney, M. Fuller, D. Furlani, S. P. Griffiths, D. Johnson, R. Kenyon, I. A. Knuckey, S. D. Ling, R. Pitcher, K. J. Sainsbury, M. Sporcic, T. Smith, C. Turnbull, T. I. Walker, S. E. Wayte, H. Webb, A. Williams, B. S. Wise, and S. Zhou. 2011. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fisheries Research 108(2–3):372–384.

Jennings, S., and J. Rice. 2011. Towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries in Europe: a perspective on existing progress and fu-ture directions. Fish and Fisheries 12:125–137.

Lackey, R. T. 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Land-scape and Urban Planning 40(1/3):21–30.

Large, S. I., G. Fay, K. D. Friedland, and J. S. Link. 2013. Defining trends and thresholds in responses of ecological indicators to fishing and environmental pressures. ICES Journal of Marine Sci-ence 70(4):755–767.

Larkin, P. A. 1977. An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106(1):1–11.

———.. 1996. Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6:139–164.

Leslie, H. M., A. A. Rosenberg, and J. Eagle. 2008. Is a new mandate needed for marine ecosystem-based management? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(1):43–48.

Levin, P. S., M. J. Fogarty, S. A. Murawski, and D. Fluharty. 2009. In-tegrated ecosystem assessments: developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based management of the ocean. PloS Biology 7(1):e1000014.

Libralato, S., M. Coll, S. Tudela, I. Palomera, and F. Pranovi. 2008. Novel index for quantification of ecosystem effects of fishing as removal of secondary production. Marine Ecology Progress Series 355:107–129.

Link, J. S. 2002. What does ecosystem-based fisheries management mean? Fisheries 27(4):18–21.

———.. 2005. Translating ecosystem indicators into decision criteria. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:569–576.

———.. 2010. Ecosystem-based fisheries management: confronting tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Link, J. S., and H. I. Browman. 2014. Integrating what? Levels of ma-rine ecosystem-based assessment and management. ICES Jour-nal of Marine Science 71(5):1170–1173.

Link, J. S., T. F. Ihde, C. J. Harvey, S. K. Gaichas, J. C. Field, J. K. T. Brodziak, H. M. Townsend, and R. M. Peterman. 2012. Dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models: the paradox of use for living marine resource management. Progress in Oceanography 102:102–114.

Link, J. S., T. F. Ihde, H. M. Townsend, K. E. Osgood, M. J. Schirripa, D. R. Kobayashi, S. Gaichas, J. C. Field, P. S. Levin, K. Y. Aydin, and C. J. Harvey, editors. 2010. Report of the 2nd National Ecosystem Modeling Workshop (NEMoW II): bridging the credibility gap—dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-102.

Lucey, S. M., A. M. Cook, J. L. Boldt, J. S. Link, T. E. Essington, and T. J. Miller. 2012. Comparative analyses of surplus production dy-namics of functional feeding groups across 12 Northern Hemi-sphere marine ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 459:219–229.

Mace, P. M. 2001. A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosys-tem approaches to fisheries stock assessment and manage-ment. Fish and Fisheries 2(1):2–32.

———.. 2004. In defence of fisheries scientists, single-species mod-els and other scapegoats: confronting the real problems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274:285–291.

MacLeod, K., and H. Leslie, editors. 2009. Ecosystem-based man-agement for the oceans. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

McFadden, K. W., and C. Barnes. 2009. The implementation of an ecosystem approach to management within a federal govern-ment agency. Marine Policy 33(1):156–163.

Murawski, S. A. 2000. Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:649–658.

———.. 2007. Ten myths concerning ecosystem approaches to marine resource management. Marine Policy 31:681–690.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014. Status of stocks 2013: annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Avail-able: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/status_of_stocks_2013.html. (January 2015).

Pikitch, E. K., C. Santora, E. A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D. O. Conover, P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E. D. Houde, J. Link, P. A. Livingston, M. Mangel, M. K. McAllister, J. Pope, and K. J. Sainsbury. 2004. Ecosystem-based fishery man-agement. Science 305(5682):346–347.

Pitcher, T. J., D. Kalikoski, K. Short, D. Varkey, and G. Pramod. 2009. An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries. Marine Policy 33:223–232.

Pitcher, T. J., and M. E. Lam. 2010. Fishful thinking: rhetoric, reality, and the sea before us. Ecology and Society 15(2):12.

Rice, J. 2011. Managing fisheries well: delivering the promises of an ecosystem approach. Fish and Fisheries 12:209–231.

Riggs, F. 2001. Comments on V. Subramaniam, “Comparative Public Administration.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 679(2):323–328.

Ruckelshaus, M., T. Klinger, N. Knowlton, and D. R. Demaster. 2008. Marine ecosystem-based management in practice: scientific, and governance challenges. Bioscience 58(1):53–63.

Samhouri, J. F., P. S. Levin, and C. H. Ainsworth. 2010. Identify-ing thresholds for ecosystem-based management. Plos One 5(1):e8907.

Smith, F. 1996. Biological diversity, ecosystem stability and econom-ic development. Ecological Economics 16(3):191–203.

Smith, A. D. M., Fulton, E. J., Hobday, A. J., Smith, D. C., and P. Shoul-der. 2007. Scientific tools to support the practical implementa-tion of ecosystem-based fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:633–639.

Tallis, H., P. S. Levin, M. Ruckelshaus, S. E. Lester, K. L. McLeod, D. L. Fluharty, and B. S. Halpern. 2010. The many faces of ecosys-tem-based management: making the process work today in real places. Marine Policy 34(2):340–348.

Tromble, G. R. 2008. The ecosystem approach to fisheries manage-ment in the USA. Pages 301–308 in G. Bianchi and H. R. Skjoldal, editors. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. CAB International and Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

Walther, Y., and C. Möllmann. 2014. Bringing integrated ecosystem assessments to real life: a scientific framework for ICES. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71(5):1183–1186.

Yaffee, S. L. 1999. Three faces of ecosystem management. Conserva-tion Biology 13(4):713–725.


FEATURE

Development of Fish Passage

in China

China began to develop fish passage at hydroelectric dams in the 1960s, but few were implemented until the 2000s, when a federal law was passed in 2002 that required fish passage at new hydroelectric dams that block fish migrations. Because of this regulation, in the past 10 years, about 40 fish passage facilities have been or are being built. Even though fish scientists and hydraulic engineers

are enthusiastic to develop fish passage, progress is limited mainly because of (1) the lack of an accepted and enforced process to plan, design, and evaluate fish passage; (2) the lack of knowledge on migratory fish life history movement, behavior, and swimming ability; and (3) the failure of fish biologists and engineers to work together as a fish passage team. Future development should focus on the following: educating agency staff, fish biologists, and the public on the importance of river connectivity and migratory fish conservation using fishways; improving regulations; and setting national standards that require scientific evaluation of all fishways. We also suggest consideration of the following: a reward system, basic fish biological research, national fish passage research and development centers, and collaboration by Chinese engineers and biologists with foreign fish passage expertise.


Xiaotao ShiEngineering Research Center of Eco-environment in Three Gorges Reservoir Region, Ministry of Education, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China; Center for Eco-Environmental Research, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing, China; and Key Laboratory of Ecological Impacts of Hydraulic-projects and Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystem, Ministry of Water Resources, Wuhan, China

Boyd KynardBK-Riverfish, LLC and Environmental Conservation Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

Defu LiuEngineering Research Center of Eco-environment in Three Gorges Reservoir Region, Ministry of Education, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China

Ye QiaoKey Laboratory of Ecological Impacts of Hydraulic-projects and Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystem, Ministry of Water Resources, Wuhan, China

Qiuwen ChenEngineering Research Center of Eco-environment in Three Gorges Reservoir Region, Ministry of Education, China Three Gorges University, 8 University Avenue, Yichang, 443002, China; and Center for Eco-Environmental Research, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing 210029, China. E-mail: [email protected]

Desarrollo de pasadizos para peces en ChinaChina comenzó a desarrollar pasadizos para peces en presas hidroeléctricas en la década de 1960, pero pocas fueron implementadas hasta la década del 2000, cuando una ley federal se aprobó en 2002 en la que se establece como requisito construir pasadizos para peces en aquellas hidroeléctricas que interrumpieran la migración de estos. En virtud de esta regulación, en los últimos 10 años, cerca de 40 pasadizos se han construido o se están construyendo. A pesar de que ictiólogos e ingenieros hidráulicos son entusiastas de los pasadizos para peces, el progreso está limitado por 1) la falta de un proceso que permita planear, diseñar y evaluar los pasadizos para peces; 2) la falta de conocimiento de la historia de vida de los peces migratorios, movimientos, conducta y habilidad de natación; y 3) la ineficiencia con la que biólogos de peces e ingenieros colaboran como equipo para establecer pasadizos. Los retos a futuro debieran enfocarse en lo siguiente: educar al personal de las agencias de gobierno, ictiólogos y público en general acerca de la importancia de la conectividad en los ríos y la conservación de peces migratorios mediante pasadizos, mejorar las regulaciones existentes y crear estándares nacionales que requieran de la evaluación científica de todos los pasadizos. También se sugiere considerar lo siguiente: un sistema de recompensas, investigación de la biología básica de los peces, establecimientos de centro nacionales y de desarrollo de investigación sobre pasadizos para peces, y la colaboración de ingenieros y biólogos de China con expertos foráneos en pasadizos para peces.

INTRODUCTION

Increasing hydroelectric capacity has been a key component of economic modernization in China (Figure 1), resulting in the construction of many new dams on large and small rivers with future plans for many more (e.g., Xiaonanhai Dam on the Yang-tze River, upstream of the Three Gorges Reservoir, and a sluice gate between the Yangtze River and Poyang Lake). By 2008, there were 5,191 dams, 30 m or more in height, that had been constructed in China (Jia et al. 2009).

Fragmentation effects from dams on migratory fishes are well documented, including segmenting fish populations, block-ing fish migrations, reducing species diversity, altering habitat, and causing turbine-related mortality to downstream migrants (Zhong and Power 1996; Tiemann et al. 2004; García et al. 2011). Therefore, if a good representation of the native riverine and diadromous fish species is to be left in China after the dam-

building period ends, it is important to integrate effective fish passage and protection with dam building.

This article provides a historical review of fish passage in China, discusses the present passage development program, and uses the Western experience for developing fish passage to suggest some aspects China might consider as it develops fish passage.

Before 1958: A Brief History on Water Control Projects in China

Water control projects likely started about 2100 years BCE (Yi 2010). However, the first water projects recorded in the lit-erature began in 600 BCE, when many successful projects were built. The Dujiangyan Weir (built about 250 BCE) in Sichuan Province and the Ling Channel (built in 214 BCE) in Guangxi Province still function today (Yi 2010). Until 1958, the numer-ous water regulation projects in China were mainly constructed

for flood control, irrigation, or navigation. These projects focused on the welfare of people and ignored environmental protection, including fish passage.

1958–1983: The Beginning of Fishway Construction

Compared to many Western countries, China has a short history of experience with upstream or downstream fishways. Fishway investiga-tions at dams began in 1958 during a series of studies associated with developing the Qililong Hydropower Station, Fuchun River, Heilongji-ang Province. The first fishway built in China was the Xinkailiu Fishway, which was built in Figure 1. Annual growth of hydroelectric capacity in China. Note: GW = gigawatt.


1960 (CFRTCDAP, Anhui Province 1972; Wang 1990). There were more than 40 fishways built in China during the 1960s and 1970s, mainly in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, Anhui, Guang-dong, Hunan, and a few other provinces (Figures 2, 3; Table 1). There were no design criteria for these fishways, and they were mostly designed with limited fish swimming data by Chinese engineers according to experience from the Western world. Monitoring of fishway effectiveness showed that construction of these fishways resulted in increased fish conservation. However, almost all fishways were nonfunctional within a few years after construction, mainly due to the poor process of fishway design and construction as well as inadequate maintenance, lack of funds, and unclear regulations as to the parties responsible for fishway management (Chen et al. 2012).

In 1963, an attempt was made to improve fishway develop-ment and management by both the federal and provincial gov-ernment bodies (Ministry of Water Conservancy and Hydroelec-tricity and Ministry of Aquatic Products), through the issuance of the Notice on Protection of Proliferation Aquatic Resources on Hydro Construction and Management. This Notice required the dam builder to consider fish passage (Song et al. 2008). However, the ministry only suggested, but did not require, that dam builders build a fishway, and nobody made a final deci-sion on the matter. In 1974, the Ministry of Water Resource and Hydroelectricity and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry held the Conference on Experience of Fishway Facilities (Nan-jing Hydraulic Research Institute 1975; Song et al. 2008). This conference helped scientists and managers to better understand fishway development through scientific exchange and provided an opportunity to discuss potential fishway designs.

1984–2001: An Inactive PeriodFrom 1984 to 2001, research and management interests in

fishways were minimal (Figure 3, Table 1). This situation was mainly a result of fish passage policy issues decided during the fishway debate associated with the construction of the Gezhouba Dam, the first hydroelectric dam built on the mainstem of the Yangtze River. Construction of the Gezhouba Dam (Yichang, Hubei Province) fueled a major debate on whether a fishway could be constructed to pass migratory fish, particularly Chinese Sturgeon Acipenser sinensis, Chinese Paddlefish Psephurus gladius, Chinese Sucker Coreius heterodon, and four species of Asian carps (Cyprinidae). The reasons given by scientists for not building an upstream fish passage at the Gezhouba Dam were as follows: (1) Gezhouba Dam would not affect the four Asian carps, (2) Chinese Suckers did not need to migrate upstream of the dam, (3) the need for Chinese Paddlefish to migrate upstream of the dam was unknown, and (4) construction of an upstream fishway could not solve the problems for Chinese Sturgeon and Chinese Paddlefish because it would not provide both upstream and downstream passage (Yi 1982). Thus, artificial spawning and stocking of early life stages of the target species blocked by the Gezhouba Dam were adopted as mitigation for fish passage. Fishways were rarely built in China during the following 20 years (only one rebuilt fishway; see Table 1).

Fish culture and stocking were also adopted as mitigation for the lack of migratory fish passage at dams in Brazil (Agostinho et al. 2005; Godinho and Kynard 2009) and in parts of the the United States (Lichatowich and Williams 2009). In the Yangtze River, this management technique did not result in successful spawning and recruitment of target species, for example, Chi-

Figure 2. Distribution and type of fishways built in the provinces of China. Note: AH = Anhui, BJ = Beijing, GD = Guangdong, GX = Guangxi, HB = Hubei, HLJ = Heilongjiang, HN = Hunan, JL = Jilin, JX = Jiangxi, JS = Jiangsu, LN = Liaoning, QH = Qinghai, SC = Sichuan, SX = Shanxi, XJ = Xinjiang, YL = Yunlan, ZJ = Zhejiang, TB = Tibet, HJP = Hydro-Junction Project, HNP = Navigation and Hydropower Complex Project, HPS = Hydropower station. The num-ber inside each fishway type box in each province refers to the number of the fishway in Table 1.


nese Sturgeon and Chinese Sucker (Chen et al. 2009). A growing environmental awareness by managers, researchers, and the public regarding the ecological problems caused by dams (e.g., Gezhouba Dam and Three Gorges Dam) has triggered concern and provided a conservation foundation for fishway develop-ment in China.

It should be noted that laws related to fishways existed since the 1980s (federal fisheries law in 1986 and federal water law in 1988). These laws state that fish passage facilities should be built if construction of a sluice gate or dam has deleterious effects on the migration of fish, shrimp, or crab. However, the laws did not provide definitions of “deleterious effects”; thus, they left the interpretation of deleterious effects to be argued between the dam owner and conservation agencies.

2002–Present: Renaissance Interest in fish passage increased after the beginning of the

21st century. Laws requiring fish passage facilities at new dams were updated by the federal government (Song et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2012). One of the most effective laws was Article 27, Law of the People’s Republic of China on Water, enacted in 2002. This law encouraged the development and utilization of streams but also required the builder of any dam to build and pay for facilities for fish passage, vessel passage, and transport of com-mercial logs (harvested trees) when the rivers provided these functions before impoundment. Any exemption given by the Chinese government to builders was based on an evaluation by scientists who would consider other conservation methods, such as conservation culture and stocking and creation of artificial fish spawning habitat. However, exemption from fishway con-struction is becoming more and more difficult for dam builders. Further, the federal government passed other laws on fish pas-sage in 2000, such as Article 32: Law of the People’s Republic of China on Fishery, which states that if construction of a sluice gate or dam has deleterious effects on the migration of fish, shrimp, or crab, the builder shall adopt fish passage facilities or other remedial measures (Song et al. 2008). However, Article 32, like previous laws, did not provide (1) a definition on what deleterious effects were for aquatic life, (2) criteria for evaluat-ing when a builder had reached an approved level of passage or conservation, or (3) specific requirements for evaluating fishway performance.

Concurrent with the new laws, Chinese fisheries administra-tors and scientists began to learn about Western fish passage and fish protection methods from talks at scientific meetings. Examples of this occurred at national fisheries meetings in China (Kynard 2003, 2006) and in the United States (Interna-

tional Fish Passage Conference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in 2012). In addition, national environmental meetings specifically for fish passage were held in 2005, 2011, and 2013 with proceedings published (Department of Environmental Impact Assessment in Ministry of Environmental Protection of China 2006, 2012; Cao et al. 2013), which promoted the develop-ment of fishways in China.

Since 2002, 10 fishways have been built, with construction being planned for an additional 30 fishways (Song et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2012; Cao et al. 2013; Figure 2). Dam builders on major riv-ers always have to seriously consider a fishway

to receive an approval permit from the federal environmental protection authority (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China). Small dams on tributaries do not require federal approval; therefore, dam builders are much less regulated and local officials do not uniformly require fish-ways. Builders of large dams voluntarily obtain extensive advice on fish passage design mainly from the United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, Japan, and Taiwan. For example, the Qinghai Lake fishway for Naked Carp Gymnocypris przewalskii was designed by experts from Taiwan, and it has passed hundreds of adults upstream (Cao et al. 2013; Table 1). The vertical-slot ladder is the most popular fishway design, mainly because vertical-slot ladders provide passage at all water depths and can be built at low cost. The seminatural bypass is the second most popular fishway design (Cao et al. 2013; Figure 4). The first fish lift in China has been proposed for the Shankou Dam, Xinjiang Province. Nontraditional fishway designs have also emerged. A trap-and-truck system using a floating fish-trap to trap fish downstream of a dam was built at the Pengshui Hydroelectric Dam, Chongqing City (Cao et al. 2013). This system allows fish to be transported upstream by a truck or the entire trap may be transported upstream through navigational locks. For most fish-ways, hydraulics and fish swimming ability were investigated to assist the fishway design. However, only limited fish passage evaluation has been done at any fishway (Li et al. 2013).

The Future of Fish Passage Development in China The conservation ethic of protecting wild migratory fishes

and the river ecosystem connectivity function of fishways for fish and invertebrates (Roscoe and Hinch 2010) needs to be fur-ther developed in the Chinese culture and particularly to Chinese fisheries agencies, where fisheries scientists were only recently exposed to the concept of ecosystem connectivity. Western cul-tures have a long history of providing fish passage to migratory fishes (Kareiva et al. 2000). A cultural history of using fishways is lacking in China. This is surprising given the very old culture, the rule of law, and that even in aboriginal societies there was an appreciation of and concerns about artificial fragmentation. However, to our knowledge, there are no records of ancient fishways in China. Education of the Chinese public is needed to develop a conservation ethic that appreciates the importance and biological need for migratory fish to pass dams to complete their life histories. Visitor centers at fishways can provide this opportunity to schoolchildren and adults, as in the United States (e.g., Holyoke Fish Lift Visitors Center, Holyoke Dam, Holyoke, Massachusetts, and the Bonneville Ladder Visitors Center, Bon-neville Dam, Oregon). Public viewing and information facilities should be considered at all fishways required by federal or local governments because these facilities are a win–win for all par-

Figure 3. Number of fishways built in China before 1983, from 1984 to 2001, and since 2002.


Table 1. Characteristics of fishways in China.

# Fishway name* Province1 Height2 Fishway type3

Target species4 Fishway characteristics and comments5 Reference

1 Xinkailiu HLJ L=70.0, W=11.0, ran well in the beginning. Guo and Rui (2010)

2 Liyugang HLJ Guo and Rui (2010)

3 Doulonggang Sluice JS HL=1. 5 VS AJ, ES, MC,

CH1

L=50.0, V=1.0, more than 210 AJs with backward tide in one afternoon on 17 July 1967 in com-parison to 7,900 MCs in four hours with tide the morning of May 19, 1968.

Wang and Guo (2005)

4 Tuanjie River JS HL=1.0 PO CH1 L=51.0, V=0.8 Wang and Guo (2005)

5 Yuxi Sluice AH HL=4.0 VSAJ, ES, CI, HM, HN, MP, CE

L=256.0, V=0.9, 87 fish per hour during 228 hours in March and April of 1974 in comparison to 37.5 per hour fish during 230 hours in March and April of 1975, CEs and AJs composed of 73.8% and 22.2%, respectively.

ECWRHAP et al. (1978); Wang and Guo (2005)

6 Taiping Sluice JS HL=3.0 PWAJ, ES, CI, HM, HN, MP, CE

L=541.0, V=0.8, one exit with two entrances, one small fishway joins a big fishway, 340 individuals per hour during observation, mainly CEs and AJs.

Wang and Guo (2005) FTNHRI (1973)

7 Liu River JS HL=1.2 VSAJ, ES, CI, HM, HN, MP, CE

L=101.0, V=0.8, more than 22,000 individuals during 246 hours in April to June of 1976, mainly CEs, CCs, and AJs with more than 20 individuals with total length > 60.0 cm, thousands of larval crabs during high tide.

Wang and Guo (2005)

8 Qililong Hydro Power Station ZJ MHL=18.0 VS AJ, ES Designed in 1958, no success (only eel can pass). Wang and Guo

(2005)

9 Yangtang Sluice HN HL=4.5 PW CI, MP, CC, XA, XD, PM

L=317.0, V=1.2; D=1.5, with fish segregation chan-nel and water supplement channel, big success in the beginning, 759,325 individuals during 1,464 hours from March to June 1982 with 45 species, fishway has since stopped because of silting and structure deterioration.

Wang and Guo (2005)Lin and Yang (1984)

10 Jin Lake JS FTNHRI (1973)

11 Maotanggang JS FTNHRI (1973)

12 Small Fishway on Liming River JS PO Hu et al. (2008)

13 Big Fishway on Liming River JS VS Hu et al. (2008)

14 Yangkoubei Sluice JS PO Wang and Guo

(2005)

15 Guazhou Sluice JS VS Wang and Guo (2005)

16 Suifen River HLJ HL=1.5 VS Song et al. (2008)

17 Caohu Sluice AH HL=1.0 VS L=137.0, changed PW to VS with orifice to facili-tate ESs and small AJs. CFRTCDAP (1972)

18Shaliu River, Quanji River, and Haergai River

QH VS GP1

L=150.0, three fishways at rivers entering QH Lake (the largest salty lake in inland China), Shaliu fishway worked poorly with the original design and worked very well after the redesign by Taiwan Experts in 2008 with 39 fish per sec-ond passing through the fishway.

Zhang and Shi (2009)19

20

21 Shangzhuang Sluice BJ MHL=5.6 VS

L=160.0, V=0.9, D=0.3, representative anadro-mous species in local river do not exist now, designed for biological connection.

Sun et al. (2007)

22 Laolongkou HJP JL HL=28.0 VS OM, OK, LJ L=282.0, V=2.0, no specific management faculty. Mei and Wang (2012)

23 Hadamen JL VS OM, OK, LJ L=62.0, downstream of Laolongkou HJP. Mei and Wang (2012)

24 Yangpao JL VS OM, OK, LJ, L=91.0, downstream of Laolongkou HJP. Mei and Wang (2012)

25 Changzhou Hy-draulic Complex GX HL=16.0 VS AS, AR, CG,

AJ, LC, AM

L=1,443.0, electrical screen was used to guide fish to fishway entrance, 3,798 fish including 18 species passed through fishway during a trial run but no target species.

Zhou et al. (2011)Pan and Nong (2008)

26 Xunyang HPS SX HL=24.0 VS CM2, SC2, EI, CI

L=1,200.0, V=1.2, pebbles on the bottom of fishway. Jing et al. (2011)

27 Yilan HNP HLJ DH=6.0 NB CI, HM, HN L=1,010.0, V=1.2, D=2.0 Yu and Wang (2011)

28 Shihutang HNP JX HL=9.0 VS CI, HM, HN, MP, AR L=713.0, V=0.9 Liang and Tu (2011)

29 Hydro Complex on Xiang River HN DH=39.7 VS CI, HM, HN,

MP L=930.0, V=1.0, D=1.8 Chen et al. (2012)

30 Caoe River Sluice ZJ DH=13.4 OC AJ, JES L=500.0, V=0.6 Chen et al. (2012)


# Fishway name* Province1 Height2 Fishway type3

Target species4 Fishway characteristics and comments5 Reference

31 Angu HP SC DH=28.7 NBPV, PP1, PT, PA1, MV, LE, MM, PF

L=711.0, V=1.2, D= 5.0 Chen et al. (2012)

32Nanxi River Water Supply Projects

ZJ VS PA2 L=478.0, V=1.5, D=1.0 Bao and Wang (2009)

33 Sanwan Hydro-Juction LN HL=5.5 VS TF L=799.0, D=0.4 Cao (2009); Cao et al.

(2013)

34 Yuliang HNP GX DH=11.8 VS

SC1, SC2, PP2, CI, HM, HN, MP

L=602.0, V=1.1 Cao et al. (2013)

35 Xinglong HB DH=19.2 VS AJ, CM1, CI, HM, HN, MP

L=106.0, V=1.0, D=0.7 Cao et al. (2013)

36 Cuijiaying HB DH=13.0 VSPF, RT, PP2, CI, HM, HN, MP

Cao et al. (2013)

37 Xi’niu HNP GD HL=5.0 VS GG, CC, ZP, OB, MG

L=82.0, V=1.4, 11,853 individuals during March to August 2012, comprised of 38 species, which is 49.4% of the total population species.

Cao et al. (2013); Li et al. (2013)

38 Xiajiang HJP JX DH=28.7 VSCI, HM, HN, MP, and local fish

L=905.0, V=1.1, D=2.5 Cao et al. (2013)

39 Laokou HJP GX DH=42.0 VS AJ, LC L=7,097.0, V=0.8, D=1.1 Cao et al. (2013)

40 Yindajihuang Project QH DH=11.2 VS GP2, SP1,

GE L=374.0, V=1.2, D=1.4 Cao et al. (2013)

41 Lidi HPS YL DH=75.0 VS SL1, SL2, SG2 L=3,000.0, V=1.1, D=0.6 Cao et al. (2013)

42 Second HPS of Shaping Dam SC DH=62.0 VS SD, ED, OD,

BL L=597.0, V=1.2, D=0.5 Cao et al. (2013)

43 First HPS of Shentou Dam SC DH=56.0 VS SD, ED, OD,

BL L=1,300.0, V=1.2, D=1.1 Cao et al. (2013)

44 Yongshui Dam JL DH=3.0 VS CI, HM, HN, MP L=169.0, V=0.8 Cao et al. (2013)

45 Fengman HPS JL DH=94.5 VS LJ, CI, HM, MP L=1,074.0, V=0.8, D=1.4 Cao et al. (2013)

46 Xinji HPS HB DH=23.3 VS

AJ, SM1, SG1, CI, HM, HN, MP, CH2, EB

L=812.0, V=1.0, D=0.6 Cao et al. (2013)

47 Duobu HPS TB DH=27.0 VS SO, SM2, SW, OS L=1,408.0, V=1.1 Cao et al. (2013)

48 Zoumatang Project JS DH=9.1 VS LJ, HN, HM,

PP2, ES L=60.0 Cao et al. (2013)

49Second Diver-sion HJP in Kaidu River

XJ VS GD, SB L=123.0, V=1.0, D=0.7 Cao et al. (2013)

50 Shiquan River TB HL=23.0 VS SP2, PC L=735.0, V=1.0, D=2.7 Yan et al. (2005); Cao et al. (2013)

1: AH=Anhui, BJ=Beijing, GD=Guangdong, GX=Guangxi, HB=Hubei, HLJ=Heilongjiang, HN=Hunan, JL=Jilin, JX=Jiangxi, JS=Jiangsu, LN=Liaoning, QH=Qinghai, SC=Sichuan, SX=Shanxi, XJ=Xinjiang, YL=Yunlan, ZJ=Zhejiang, TB=Tibet, HJP=Hydro-junction project, HNP= Navigation and Hydropower Complex Project, HPS=Hydro power station. 2: H=Height of barrier, HD=Height of dam, HL=Height of head loss. 3: PW=Pool-weir, VS=Vertical-slot, PO=Pool-orifice, OC=Open-channel, NB=Natural bypass. 4: AJ=Anguilla japonica, AM=Anguilla marmorata, AR=Alosa reevesii, AS=Acipenser sinensis, BL=Beaufortia liui, CC=Cyprinus carpio, CE=Coilia ectenes, CG=Coilia grayi, CH1=Chelon haematocheilus, CH2=Coreius heterodon, CI=Ctenopharyngodon idella, CM1=Coilia macrognathos, CM2=Culter mongolicus, EB=Elopichthys bambusa, ED=Euchiloglanis davidi, EI=Eryghroculter ilishaeformis, ES=Eriocheir sinensis, GD=Gymnodiptychys dybowskii, GG=Gobio gobio, GE=Gymnocypris eckloni, GP1=Gymnocypris przewalskii, GP2=Gymnodiptychus pachycheilus, HM=Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, HN=Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, LC=Leucosoma chinensis, LJ=Lampetra japonica, LE=Leptobotia elongate, MC=Mugil cephalus, MG=Mystus guttatus, MM=Mystus macropterus, MP=Mylopharyngodon piceus, MV=Megagobio ventralis, OB=Opsariichthys bidens, OD=Onychostoma daduemsis, OK=Oncorhynchus keta, OM=Oncorhynchus masou, OS=Oxygymnocypris stewartii, PA1=Parasilurus asotus, PA2=Plecoglossus altivelis, PC=Ptychobarbus conirostris, PF=Pelteobagrus fulvidraco, PM=Plagiognathops microlepis, PP1=Pseudogyrinocheilus procheilus, PP2=Parabramis pekinensis, PT=Pseudobagrus truncates, PV=Pelteobagrus vachelli, RT=Rhinogobio typus, SB=Schizothorax biddulphi, SC1=Spinibarbus caldwelli, SC2=Spualiobarbus curriculus, SD=Schizothorax davidi, SG1=Saurogobio gracilicaudatus, SG2=Schizothorax griseus, SL1=Schizothorax lantsangensis, SL2=Schizothorax lissolabiatus, SM1=Scaphesthes macrolepis, SM2=Schizothorax mac-ropogon, SP1=Schizopygopsis pylzovi, SO=Schizothorax oconnori, SP2=Schizothorax plagiostomus, SW=Schizothorax waltoni, TF=Trachidermus fasciatus, XA=Xenocypris argentea, XD=Xenocypris davidi, ZP=Zacco platypus.5: L= Length (m), V=Velocity (m/s), D=Discharge (m3/s). *Data were from published reference. Blank means information unavailable.

Table 1. (continued).


Figure 5. Target fish species for passage during 1958−2013 and 2002−2013. Key: AJ = Anguilla japonica; ES = Eriocheir sinensis; CI = Asian carps; LJ = Lampetra japonica.

Figure 4. Percentage of different designs of 46 fishways built in China. Note: The number 46 is the total number of fishways where the fishway type was recorded in the literature.

ties involved in regard to public relations.Although the new laws and regulations in China requiring

fishways at new dams is a good first step, these laws and regula-tions are not sufficient to guarantee protection and conservation of migratory fishes. The authorities responsible for fish passage construction, operation, and management need clarification and coordination among national agencies for fisheries, the environment, and water resources. In addition, the regulations requiring fishways in China need to have standards for fish-way design because there currently are none, whereas fishway design criteria are updated in the United States and most other countries with active fishway programs (NMFS 2008). There is also a great need for regulators to require evaluation of each fishway as part of the permitting process. Long-term monitor-ing of fish passage should be a part of this process, but this does not replace scientific evaluation to determine fishway efficiency. In the process of designing a new dam, design of the fishway is presently done after the basic dam design is complete and often the dam is already under construction. Thus, the fishway is not a priority, and this process likely prevents the design of the most effective and least expensive fishway. Fishway design should be incorporated into the basic design of the dam, or there is a high probability the fishway will not operate efficiently (Williams et al. 2012). Other aspects, such as public viewing, tourism, and waterborne entertainment, also need to be considered early in the dam design process. Fishways are not presently reviewed by regulators for numbers or rates of passage, and there is no en-forced schedule for maintenance and improvement. These items need to be added to the initial permit given to dam builders as is required by permits to hydroelectric dam operators in the West. Additionally, regulatory agencies might consider a reward system for dam builders that build and operate a successful fishway that has passed all evaluations and passes fish success-fully. Awarding the builder with a “green certificate” could be a potential reward from regulators (Berg 2013). Perhaps, for green certificate projects, which conserve wild fish well, the govern-ment could offer special economic compensation.

Little information exists on life history movements and habi-tat needs of almost all Chinese riverine fish. This includes the Asian carps, which are often included as target species for fish passage (Figure 5). The future of fish passage in China will be much more promising if there is a serious effort to study basic riverine fish movement, seasonal habitat use, and behavior of riverine and diadromous migratory fish. In China, many riverine fish are assumed to be nonmigratory because there is insuffi-cient evidence that shows otherwise. This situation is similar to riverine fish in Brazil where a dam and fish ladder were built and observations of the fishway found 20% more migratory fish spe-cies than previously known (Bizzotto et al. 2009). Thus, when new fishways in China are monitored, the knowledge of which species are migratory and require passage will likely be greatly expanded.

The focus of fish passage in China is currently on upstream fish passage. However, if some fish swim upstream of a dam as part of their natural life history movements, they will likely return downstream and need protection from passing through a turbine. It is critical that downstream fish passage be included at all dams with upstream fishways because it makes no biological sense to send fish upstream of a dam with no ability to return safely downstream of the dam. Western countries have been developing downstream passage facilities since the 1970s, and their experience can greatly assist China (EPRI 1986; Mallen-Cooper and Brand 2007).

Information is needed on the behavior of Chinese fish in various fishway designs in response to structure and hydraulics. This can be accomplished by building an experimental flume alongside a fishway. Given the need for timely information throughout China on diverse fishways, perhaps a national fish passage center might best provide information on a national scale. An experimental facility built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Bonneville Dam in the 1950s greatly assisted in testing salmon fishway designs for dams on the Columbia River, Oregon and Washington (Osborn 1987). The Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center in Massachusetts, which was built by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service but is now part of the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource Discipline, is an example of a facility with flumes for testing fish in full-scale fish passage conditions of water flow and structure (Kynard and Buerkett 1997; Haro et al. 1999; Castro-Santos et al. 2012).

Multidisciplinary collaboration of Chinese with foreigners with fishway experience during the present period of fishway construction is critically important. Fishway design involves many disciplines, particularly hydraulics, fish behavior, and fish physiology. Presently, Chinese fishway designs depend on en-


gineers, with emphasis on hydraulics, but rarely include experts on fish. The model of only engineers doing fishway design is the U.S. model and was practiced until the mid-20th century, when many fishways were found to be unsuccessful. A collabo-ration of fish experts and hydraulic engineers, as has been used on some rivers in Brazil, produces the best results for fishway design and operation (Godinho and Kynard 2009).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are given to Jianbo Chang, Ted Castro-Santos, and Alex Haro for suggestions. The editor and four anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on a previous version of this article.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (50979049, 51009082), the Chutian Schol-arship (KJ2010B002), the Ministry of Water Resources’ Special Funds for Scientific Research on Public Causes (201201030), the Key Laboratory of Ecological Impacts of Hydraulic-Projects and Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystem of Ministry of Water Resources (2013002), the Engineering Research Center of Eco-Environment in Three Gorges Reservoir Region, the Ministry of Education, and the China Three Gorges University (KF2013-03).

REFERENCESAgostinho, A. A., S. M. Thomaz, and L. C. Gomes. 2005. Conservation

of the biodiversity of Brazil’s inland waters. Conservation Biol-ogy 19(3):646–652.

Bao, Z. J., and F. Q. Wang. 2009. An experimental study of the hy-draulic models of the sluice in Nanxi River Water Supply Pro-jects. China Rural Water and Hydropower 1:83–85.

Berg, S. V. 2013. Regulatory functions affecting renewable energy in developing countries. The Electricity Journal 26(6):28–38.

Bizzotto, P. M., A. L. Godinho, V. Vono, B. Kynard, and H. P. Godinho. 2009. Influence of diet, lunar, and other abiotic factors on up-stream fish passage in the Igarapava fish ladder, Brazil. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 18:461–472.

Cao, G. 2009. The fishway design of Sanwan Hydro-Junction Pro-ject. China Water Transport 4:122–123.

Cao, X., M. Chen, and W. Lv. 2013. Present situation and prospect of fishways in China. Special issue for maintaining of river con-nectivity in Symposium for Ecology Conservation of Water Con-servancy and Hydropower Projects, Nanning, China.

Castro-Santos, T., F. J. Sanz-Ronda, and J. Ruiz-Legazpi. 2012. Breaking the speed limit—comparative sprinting performance of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70(2):280–293.

CFRTCDAP (Chaohu Fisheries Research Team of Chaohu District, Anhui Province) 1972. The first fishway was built in our country. Freshwater Fisheries 1:4–5.

Chen, D., F. Xiong, K. Wang, and Y. Chang. 2009. Status of research on Yangtze fish biology and fisheries. Environmental Biology of Fishes 85:337–357.

Chen, K. Q., Z. N. Chang, X. H. Cao, and H. F. Ge. 2012. Status and prospection of fish pass construction in China. Journal of Hy-draulic Engineering 43(2):182–197.

Department of Environmental Impact Assessment in Ministry of En-vironmental Protection of China. 2006. Research and practice of ecological protection for water conservancy and hydropower development projects. China Environmental Science, Beijing.

———. 2012. Researches of fish protection technology (fishway spe-cifically) for assessments on environmental impacts of construc-tion projects. China Environmental Science, Beijing.

ECWRHAP (Engineering Corporation of Water Resources and Hy-dropower in Anhui Province), Nanjing Hydraulic Research Insti-tute, Aquacultual Station of Agricultural and Forest Department of Caohu Lake Region, Lake Management Office, and Yuxi Sluice Management Office. 1978. The observation of Yuxi Sluice Fish-

way in Anhui Province in 1975. Waterway Transportation Scien-tific and Technical Information 5:55–61.

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1986. Assessment of down-stream migrant fish protection technologies for hydroelectric application. EPRI AP-4711, Palo Alto, California.

FTNHRI (Fishway Team in Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute). 1973. Preliminary summary of Taiping Sluice Fishway in Jiangsu Province. Waterway Transportation Science and Technology In-formation 6:1–15.

García, A., K. Jorde, E. Habit, D. Caamaño, and O. Parra. 2011. Down-stream environmental effects of dam operations: changes in habitat quality for native fish species. River Research and Ap-plications 27(3):312–327.

Godinho, A. L., and B. Kynard. 2009. Migratory fishes of Brazil: life history and fish passage needs. River Research and Applications 25(6):702–712.

Guo, J., and J. L. Rui. 2010. Question and suggestion on fishway con-struction in China: lesson learned from the operation of Yang-tang Lock Fishway. Water Power 4:8–10, 19.

Haro, A., M. Odeh, T. Castro-Santos, and J. Norieka. 1999. Effect of slope and headpond on passage of American Shad and Blue-back Herring through simple Denil and deepened Alaska steep-pass fishways. North American Journal of Fisheries Manage-ment 19(1):51–58.

Hu, W. B., D. J. Han, X. M. Zhang, J. X. Zheng, H. T. Zheng, and X. Wang. 2008. Research on measures for restoring fish passage in Yangtze River Basin. Fishery Modernization 35(3):52–55, 58.

Jia, J., Y. Yuan, C. Zheng, and Z. Ma. 2009. Analysis on statistics, technique progress and related questions of dams in China 2008. 1st International Symposium on Rockfill Dam, Chengdu, China.

Jing, Y., J. M. Kang, W. Q. Yu, and Q. L. Tan. 2011. Design of fishway for Xunyang Hydropower Station. Water Power 37(12):13–15.

Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and manage-ment options for spring/summer Chinook Salmon in the Colum-bia River Basin. Science 290:977–979.

Kynard, B. 2003. Habitat management and fish passage for migra-tory fish in rivers of the USA. Fisheries Forum, Shanghai, China.

———. 2006. Diadromous fish migrations that connect river and estu-ary: importance and need for study. International Symposium on Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation, Shanghai, China.

Kynard, B., and C. Buerkett. 1997. Passage and behavior of adult American Shad in an experimental louver bypass system. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(3):734–742.

Li, J., X. Li, F. Pan, Y. Li, M. Yang, F. Yu, X. Tan, J. Yang, and S. Fang. 2013. Preliminary study on the operating effect of Xiniu Fishway in Lianjiang River. Reservoir Fisheries 4:53–57.

Liang, C. H., and X. X. Tu. 2011. Fishway layout design of Shihutang Navigation Project. Pearl River 6:37–39.

Lichatowich, J. A., and R. N. Williams. 2009. Failures to incorporate science into fishery management and recovery programs: les-sons from the Columbia River. Pages 1005–1019 in C. Krueger and C. Zimmerman, editors. Pacific Salmon: ecology and man-agement of western Alaska’s population. American Fisheries So-ciety, Symposium 70, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lin, Q. H., and C. Y. Yang. 1984. The layout of the Yangtang fishway. Hydro-Science and Engineering 4:67–72.

Mallen-Cooper, M., and D. Brand. 2007. Non-salmonids in a salmonid fishway: what do 50 years of data tell us about past and future fish passage? Fisheries Management and Ecology 14(5):319–332.

Mei, S. F., and Y. H. Wang. 2012. Laolongkou Reservoir and Down-stream Fishway Joint Operation Scheme. Agriculture in Beijing 18:183.

Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute. 1975. Proceeding of experi-ences exchange symposium on fish passage. Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing, China.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Anadromous sal-monid passage facility design. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Osborn, J. F. 1987. Fishways—historical assessment of design prac-tices. Pages 122–130 in M. J. Dadswell, R. J. Klauda, C. M. Moffitt, and R. L. Saunders, editors. Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 1, Bethesda, Maryland.

Pan, Z. W., and J. Nong. 2008. General layout of Changzhou Hydrau-lic Complex. Hong Shui River 27(5):32–38.

Roscoe, D. W., and S. G. Hinch. 2010. Effectiveness monitoring of fish passage facilities: historical trends, geographic patterns and future directions. Fish and Fisheries 11(1):12–33.


Song, D. J., H. Jang, C. T. Guan, and Q. S. Chen. 2008. Design of a fishway for LaoLong Kou Hydro-Junction Project. Marine Fisher-ies Research 1:92–97.

Sun, S. K., M. Y. Deng, and Y. Y. Li. 2007. Hydraulic research on the layout of vertical slot fishway in Shangzhuang Gate. The Third National Conference on Progress in Hydraulics and Hydroinfor-matics 7:348–353.

Tiemann, J. S., D. P. Gillette, M. L. Wildhaber, and D. R. Edds. 2004. Effects of lowhead dams on riffle-dwelling fishes and macroin-vertebrates in a midwestern river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133(3):705–717.

Wang, X. Y., and J. Guo. 2005. Brief review on research and construc-tion of fish-ways at home and abroad. Journal of China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research 3(3):222–228.

Wang, Y. 1990. Design and application of fish passage and protec-tion facilities in China. In Proceedings of the International Sym-posium on Fishways. Gifu, Japan.

Williams, J. G., G. Armstrong, C. Katopodis, M. Larinier, and F. Tra-vade. 2012. Thinking like a fish: a key ingredient for development of effective fish passage facilities at river obstructions. River Re-search and Applications 28:407–417.

Yan, L., D. Q. Chen, X. Zhang, S. P. Liu, and X. B. Duan. 2005. The fishway design study on Shiquan River in Tibet. Freshwater Fish-eries 35(4):31–33.

Yi, B. 1982. The idea of no necessity of building fish passage on Gezhouba Dam. Reservoir Fishery 1:4–9.

Yi, W. 2010. People in history of flow regulation in China. Disaster Reduction in China 19:54–55.

Yu, G. N., and Y. A. Wang. 2011. Study on flow condition in fish-pass structures of Yilan navigation and hydropower project. Journal of Waterway and Harbor 32(6):423–426.

Zhang, H., and J. Q. Shi. 2009. Problem analysis and suggestions on fish passage for Gymnocypris przewalskii. China Fisheries 6:24.

Zhong, Y., and G. Power. 1996. Environmental impacts of hydroelec-tric projects on fish resources in China. Regulated Rivers: Re-search and Management 12:81–98.

Zhou, P., Y. T. Zhou, and B. S. Yao. 2011. Current research situation and trend of development of fishway during hydropower de-velopment. Water Resources Development and Management 7:40–43.


FEATURE

La edad funcional como indicador de senescencia en reservoriosSe ha discutido que los reservorios se diferencian entre sí por la tasa a la cual manifiestan senescencia, sin embargo no ha habido esfuerzos para encontrar un indicador de senescencia que funcione mejor que la edad cronológica. Se construyó un indicador de edad funcional mediante una escala multimétrica que consiste en diez métricas descriptivas del ambiente de los reservorios que se previó que cambiaran de dirección a medida que aumenta la senescencia de los reservorios. En una muestra de 1,022 reservorios en los EE.UU., no se encontró correlación entre la edad cronológica y la edad funcional. La edad funcional estuvo directamente relacionada con el porcentaje de tierra cultivada y la capacidad de captación del reservorio, e inversamente relacionada con la profundidad de este. Más aún, algunos aspectos de la calidad para la pesca en el reservorio y características de las poblaciones de peces explotadas, también se relacionaron con la edad funcional. Una escala multimétrica como indicativo de la edad funcional de un reservorio presenta la posibilidad para intervenir en el manejo en varios frentes. Si un reservorio está envejeciendo en términos funcionales a una tasa acelerada, se pueden tomar acciones para remediar aquellas condiciones que más contribuyen con el envejecimiento funcional. La intervención dirigida a reducir las calificaciones sólo de métricas selectas puede potencialmente reducir la tasa de senescencia e incrementar la expectativa de vida del reservorio. Esto da pie a la curiosa implicación que es posible reducir la edad funcional de los reservorios y, de hecho, hacerlos más jóvenes.

It has been conjectured that reservoirs differ in the rate at which they manifest senescence, but no attempt has been made to find an indicator of senescence that performs better than chronological age. We assembled an indicator of functional age by creating a multimetric scale consisting of 10 metrics descriptive of reservoir environments that were expected to change directionally with reservoir senescence. In a sample of 1,022 U.S. reservoirs, chronological age was not correlated with functional age. Functional age was directly related to percentage of cultivated land in the catchment and inversely related to reservoir depth. Moreover, aspects of reservoir fishing quality and fish population characteristics were related to functional age. A multimetric scale to indicate reservoir functional age presents the possibility for management intervention from multiple angles. If a reservoir is functionally aging at an accelerated rate, action may be taken to remedy the conditions contributing most to functional age. Intervention to reduce scores of selected metrics in the scale can potentially reduce the rate of senescence and increase the life expectancy of the reservoir. This leads to the intriguing implication that steps can be taken to reduce functional age and actually make the reservoir grow younger.

Functional Age as an Indicator of Reservoir Senescence

10

20

3040

5060

70

80

90

100

120

130140

150160 170180

2030 40

50 70

80

90

100 110

120

130 140

150160

170 180

20

30

40

50

6070

80

90

10011020

130

140150

160 170

180

L. E. MirandaU.S. Geological Survey, Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, P.O. Box 9691, Mississippi State, MS 39762. E-mail: [email protected]

Rebecca M. KrogmanMississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi State, MS

Current address for Rebecca M. Krogman: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 24570 U.S. Highway 34, Chariton, IA

150 30


130

4080

90

140INTRODUCTION

Gerontologists have long recognized that definitions of age that focus exclusively on chronological age (years since birth) are incomplete because they are independent of human physi-ological and psychological factors (Baars and Visser 2007). Similarly, the rate at which reservoirs age may not be described best by chronological age. The rate of aging may depend on a diversity of attributes driven by climate and geography, catch-ment magnitude and composition, and reservoir hydrology and morphology. The crux of the problem with chronological age is that there are marked differences among humans and among reservoirs in the rate at which entities change over time. The implication of these differences is that chronological age and functional age (position along life span) may be only weakly related, and for many applications functional age may be more relevant.

Reservoirs vary in their geographical distribution, physi-cal characteristics, and operational scheme, potentially creat-ing large variability in functional age. Reservoirs tend to have large catchments and tributaries because they were engineered to capture as much water as possible to serve flood control, water supply, hydropower, or other purposes (Kennedy 1999). This unique hydrology can produce large input and retention of sediments and nutrients, although quantity may vary depending on climate, geology, and land cover. Thus, effects of inputs may differ depending on reservoir morphology. Depositional filling reduces depth and surface area and has been estimated to cause backwater isolation and habitat fragmentation (Patton and Lyday 2008). Wave action coupled with unnatural water level fluctua-tions dictated by operational goals alters shorelines that were once uplands and are maladapted to continuous flooding. Over time this promotes erosion and homogenization of once diverse littoral habitats (Allen and Tingle 1993). Well-established ripar-ian zones and wetlands that provide key ecological services to natural lakes and the original river are generally limited to upper reaches near the entrance of tributaries but often degrade due to unnatural water level fluctuations (Miranda et al. 2014). Lack of woody debris deposition in the littoral zone, limited access to backwaters and wetlands, and lack of seed banks and stable water levels to promote native aquatic plants characterize bar-ren littoral habitats in many reservoirs (Miranda 2008). Woody materials flooded during impoundment disintegrate within a few decades (Agostinho et al. 1999). Inequalities in the manifesta-tion of these and other key variables can reduce the correlation between chronological and functional age.

A limited number of published studies have included chrono-logical age as a covariate in models designed to describe or predict reservoir biological characteristics, but chronological age has seldom been a reliable covariate. Jenkins and Morais (1971) examined various metrics descriptive of sportfishing effort and harvest and concluded that although as expected chronological age was inversely related to harvest, it accounted for less than 5% of the variability in harvest. Miranda and Durocher (1986) reported that growth of fish in reservoirs declined rapidly soon after impoundment but subsequent reductions were minor, and Hendricks et al. (1995) reported that size of fish increased with reservoir age. In both of these studies, correlations with chrono-logical age were unexpectedly low. Dolman (1990) reported that age did not help separate among distinct reservoir fish assem-blages. Carol et al. (2006) noted that chronological age was surprisingly not a primary factor governing nutrient levels or fish assemblages in reservoirs. These studies suggest that chrono-

logical age is not a good predictor of reservoir senescence (i.e., the process of growing old in a detrimental sense). Our objective was to evaluate functional age as an indicator of reservoir senes-cence. To this end, we construct a multimetric indicator of func-tional age using in-reservoir descriptors expected to change over the life span of a reservoir. To evaluate the resulting indicator of functional age, we assess its correlation with external abiotic variables documented to change directionally with senescence.

METHODS

An indicator of functional age was constructed with a data-base assembled to document reservoir fish habitat status (Krog-man and Miranda 2015). This database consisted of responses to an online survey completed by state natural resource agency personnel responsible for managing fish in reservoirs. The questionnaire included more than 50 questions that asked about environmental degradation issues within U.S. reservoirs 100 ha or more and within the catchments surrounding these reservoirs. Degradation status was scored by respondents on a six-point ordinal scale.

Twelve survey questions (metrics) characterizing within-reservoir degradation were selected to construct a multimetric indicator (Table 1). These metrics were chosen because they were expected to change directionally over the life span of a reservoir, thus potentially indicating senescence. The metrics rated reservoirs relative to extent of sediment, nutrients, and contaminants accumulation; water quality; loss of littoral habitat and structural habitat; and changes associated with shoreline erosion. All of these properties have been previously linked to reservoir senescence (Allen and Tingle 1993; Patton and Lyday 2008; Hargrove et al. 2010).

Factor analysis was applied to determine whether the 12 metrics tended to separate into more than one influential factor that may indicate different aspects of reservoir senescence. The factor analysis was applied to a similarity matrix reflecting the polychoric correlations of the 12 metrics, as suggested for ordinal data (Flora and Curran 2004). For each factor retained, a multimetric total score (a scale) was calculated as the sum of the ordinal ratings for each of the metrics loading high on the factor (correlation with axis > |0.5|). The total score for the scale was adjusted to 0–100, with a 0 indicating early functional age (all metrics scored as zero) and 100 indicating late functional age (all metrics scored as 5). Reliability of a scale was estimated with Cronbach’s α, a measure of internal consistency. As a rule of thumb, a Cronbach’s α of 0.7 or better suggests a reliable scale (Nunnaly 1978).

Functional age cannot be adequately evaluated in terms of its correlation with chronological age because a key premise is that chronological age does not reflect functional age—if there is a strong correlation, there would not be a need for functional age (Salthouse 1986). Instead, the ability of functional age to indicate senescence was evaluated relative to abiotic and biotic variables. Functional age is expected to increase with increased levels of landscape disturbances in the catchment (Jones and Knowlton 2005) and by reduced reservoir depth (Hargrove et al. 2010). Percentage cultivated land (including row crops, small grains, and fallow land) and mean reservoir depth were avail-able from a database compiled by Rodgers and Green (2011). Conversely, functional age is expected to influence the structure and function of fish assemblages and fisheries. Fish descriptors available encompassed 17 metrics illustrative of fish abundance, population characteristics, and the recreational fishery. These


fish metrics were available from the database com-piled by Krogman and Miranda (2015) scored on a five-point ordinal scale. To reduce dimensionality of the fish database, the 17 metrics were submitted to the factor analysis procedure described earlier, and the factors that accounted for the most vari-ability in the data set were evaluated relative to functional age.

Land use and reservoir depth are undoubt-edly not the only variables influencing functional age and senescence. However, these two vari-ables may well limit the minimum or maximum functional age attainable within a given reservoir. Similarly, functional age is not the only factor affecting fish assemblage and fisheries character-istics, but functional age may limit minimum or maximum levels of fish-related variables. These scenarios were examined with quantile regression (Cade et al. 1999), which tested whether the 5th or 95th percentiles of a dependent variable changed along the gradient of the independent variable. See Sidebar at the end of this article.

RESULTS

Complete data on chronological age and the 12 metrics were available for 1,022 reservoirs dis-tributed throughout the continental United States, representing roughly 24% of all reservoirs 100 ha or more according to the National Inventory on Dams database (NID 2013). Chronological ages of the study reservoirs ranged from 7 to 176 years, with a median 54 years. Most study reservoirs were multipurpose (77%), with two or more primary uses. Primary uses listed included flood control (41%), municipal/industrial water supply (41%), fish/wildlife habitat or conservation (28%), hydropower generation (20%), irrigation (16%), navigation (8%), cooling (7%), water quality improvement downstream (3%), and assimilation of waste effluents (1%). In addition, 75% of the

reservoirs listed recreation as a primary use either as the only primary use (7%) or along with other primary uses (68%).

The 12 metrics were attributed an array of scores by re-spondents (Table 1). The highest rated metric was sedimentation, with 28% of the reservoirs scored as 4–5 (i.e., above average to high). Next in decreasing order were insufficient structural habitat (22% scored 4–5), excessive nutrients (20%), shore homogenization (17%), and shore erosion (17%). The factor analysis suggested that the 12 metrics reflected mainly a single latent variable represented by factor 1. This factor accounted for 67% of the variability, axis 2 for 11%, and axis 3 for 10%. All 12 metrics were adequately correlated with the factor 1 loadings (r = 0.52 to 0.85, all positive). The Cronbach’s α analysis sug-gested that internal consistency among the metrics was maxi-mized when organic turbidity and high diel oxygen variability were excluded. With the remaining 10 metrics, Cronbach’s α was maximized at 0.89.

Functional age scores ranged from 0 to 94, with a median of 36. The distribution was skewed to the right, with 5th and 95th percentiles of 8 and 66, respectively. Reservoirs with the highest functional age scores generally occurred in the central United States from North Dakota to Texas and in agricultural regions

Table 1. Variables included in the online survey and selected to index functional age. Data were collected with a six-point ordinal scale with 0 = no impairment, 1= low, 2 = low to moderate, 3 = moderate, 4 = moderate to high, and 5 = high impairment. The description for each metric was available to respondents to the survey.

Metrics DescriptionPercentage scored as0 and 1 4 and 5

MudflatsSeasonally flooded and exposed expansive soft sediments; unvegetated unless exposed for many months

59 15

Low connectivity to tributar-ies due to sediment

Sedimentation has decreased connectivity to tributaries during low flows, acting as a barrier to fish movement

65 8

Insufficient structural habitat

Lacking or deficient structure such as large woody debris, gravel substrates, or diverse bot-tom relief

34 22

Excessive nutrients

Excessive nutrients, primarily N or P, which may result in excessive primary productivity and reduced water quality

46 20

Harmful algae blooms

Frequent occurrence of algal blooms that may be toxic to aquatic ecosystems or inhibit public enjoyment

71 9

Excessive organic turbidity

Particulate organic matter, other than algae blooms, suspended in the water column 63 9

Extreme diel variation in dissolved oxygen

Potentially harmful daily changes in dissolved oxygen 86 4

SedimentationSettling of suspended sediments, which over time may reduce depth and homogenize substrates

35 28

Shore erosion

Removal of soil and terrestrial vegetation from the land–water interface due to weathering of banks or adjacent land slopes by water, ice, wind, or other factors

40 17

Loss of cove habitat due to depositional filling

Sedimentation has changed cove habitat includ-ing area reduction, isolation, fragmentation, and establishment of terrestrial vegetation in newly deposited land

47 17

Shore homog-enization

A reduction of the shore’s original habitat diver-sity by erosion or other processes 43 17

Homogeniza-tion of littoral substrates

A reduction of the substrate’s original diversity by erosion and sedimentation 42 17

Figure 1. Functional age in relation to chronological age in 1,022 reservoirs ≥ 100 ha distributed throughout the continental United States.


of the Midwestern United States. Thirteen reservoirs shared the lowest possible functional age scores (i.e., 0); these reservoirs were mostly at high elevations in the Rocky and Appalachian mountains. According to primary use, median functional age of reservoirs listed as hydropower generation was 34, flood control 40, irrigation 36, municipal/industrial water supply 36, recreation 36, fish/wildlife habitat or conservation 38, cooling 40, water quality improvement downstream 40, navigation 48, and assimilation of waste effluents 52. No statistical test was applied to verify if these means were different because 77% of the reservoirs were multipurpose; therefore, the uses listed are not mutually exclusive. A scatterplot of functional age against chronological age showed no discernible pattern (Figure 1), and functional age scores were not correlated with chronological age (r = 0.04; P = 0.21).

Functional age was highly variable relative to reservoir depth and catchment agriculture (Figure 2). Nevertheless, functional age showed a decreasing trend in its 95th percentile relative to mean depth (Wald’s chi-square = 36.9; P < 0.01) but no trend in its 5th percentile (Wald’s chi-square = 3.3; P < 0.18). This pattern suggests that depth limited the maximum functional age scores, and although higher scores could be attained in shal-low lakes, often other mitigating variables prevented reaching high functional age. Conversely, functional age scores showed no trend in its 95th percentile relative to extent of cultivated land in the catchment (Wald’s chi-square = 2.3; P < 0.21) but an increasing trend in its 5th percentile (Wald’s chi-square = 598.1; P < 0.01). This pattern suggests that catchments with high levels of cultivated land almost always tend to have a high functional age and that catchments with low levels of cultivated land tend to have lower functional ages, although sometimes they may have high functional age due to something other than the effects of a cultivated catchment.

The 17 fish/fishery metrics submitted to the factor analysis to reduce dimensionality produced four interpretable factors that together accounted for 67% of the variability in the metrics (Table 2). Factor 1 accounted for 26% of the variability in the 17 metrics and reflected fishing quality as it was positively correlat-ed (correlation with axis > |0.5|) with fishing pressure, catch rate, frequency of fishing tournaments, angler satisfaction, predator standing stock, overall standing stock, and population density. Factor 2 accounted for 17% of the variability and reflected size and growth as it was positively correlated with size structure, condition, and growth rate. Factor 3 accounted for 14% of the variability and reflected recruitment as it was positively cor-related with recruitment to age 1, recruitment to adulthood, and population density. Factor 4 accounted for 10% of the variability and reflected mortality as it was positively correlated with natu-ral mortality, fish kills, and standing stock of exotic species.

These four factors showed various patterns relative to functional age (Figure 3). For factor 1, the 5th (Wald’s chi-square = 4.2; P = 0.04) and 95th (Wald’s chi-square = 6.4; P = 0.02) percentile regressions decreased relative to functional age, suggesting higher fishing quality at low functional age but high variability. In contrast, for factor 4, the 5th (Wald’s chi-square = 24.6; P < 0.01) and 95th (Wald’s chi-square = 17.0; P < 0.01) percentile regressions increased relative to functional age, sug-gesting higher mortality at high functional age but also high variability. Factors 2 and 3 showed hump-shaped patterns in the 95th (Wald’s chi-square = 4.3 and 14.3; P = 0.03 and < 0.01, re-spectively) percentiles but no trend in the 5th percentiles (Wald’s chi-square = 0.2 and 0.1; P = 0.69 and 0.74, respectively), sug-

gesting intermediate functional age scores optimized maximum size and growth and recruitment.

DISCUSSION

It has long been conjectured that reservoirs differ in the chronological rate at which they manifest senescence (Pegg et al. 2015), but so far no attempt has been made to find an indicator that performs better than years since impoundment. In gerontol-ogy and related fields, the term “functional age” has been used as a descriptive label for research efforts that have suggested that functional capabilities are likely to be more meaningful than mere chronological age for characterizing the senescing status of an individual. Although the goal of monitoring a person’s or a reservoir’s capacity for functioning has practical implications, the concept of functional age has generated controversy in the gerontology literature (Costa and McCrae 1980) and is likely to do so in the reservoir ecology literature.

Figure 2. Functional age in relation to percentage of cultivated land in the reservoir catchment and to mean depth in the reservoir. The lines represent the 5th and 95th percentiles; the slopes of dashed lines were not statistically significant, P > 0.05. Catchments with high levels of cultivated land almost always had high functional age, whereas catchments with low levels of cultivated land had low functional ages, although sometimes had high functional age prob-ably due to something other than cultivated land. Deep lakes limited the maximum attainable functional age scores, and although higher scores could be attained in shallow lakes, other variables may have prevented reaching high functional age.


In reservoirs 100 ha or larger, chronological age was not cor-related with functional age. This result suggests that reservoirs differ widely in terms of how quickly they senesce. This finding is not entirely surprising considering how diverse reservoirs are relative to in-reservoir and off-reservoir characteristics and to hydraulic variables. Given that functional age was assem-bled with metrics expected to worsen as reservoirs senesce, we suggest that functional age does track senescence. Moreover, functional age was directly related to percentage of cultivated land in the catchment and inversely related to reservoir depth, both as expected. Also as expected, the fishing quality factor was inversely related to functional age and the mortality factor was directly related to functional age. The size and growth and recruitment factors were optimized at intermediate levels of functional age, suggesting that fish population characteristics key to maintaining desirable recreational fisheries will eventu-ally decline if a reservoir is allowed to senesce. Thus, functional age may be a useful indicator of reservoir senescence.

However, this indicator has limitations that reduce its accu-racy. Scoring of the metrics that make up functional age depends on the perception and professional judgment of respondents, and these may vary depending on experiences. There are several reported limitations associated with relying on professional judgment (Jenkins and Hine 2003). Survey respondents likely differed in familiarity with reservoir habitats and perception of impairment (i.e., subjective calibration of the six-point scale), potentially producing unequal scoring for reservoirs with essen-tially equal status. To promote equivalence of responses among

Table 2. Results of factor analysis applied to 17 fish and fishery metrics submitted to factor analysis. Factors 1–4 reflected fishing quality, size and growth, recruitment, and mortality, respectively. Values in bold identify correlations with axis ≥ |0.5| and were used to name the factors.

Metrics DescriptionFactor

1 2 3 4

Standing stock

Biomass of the fish community in the reservoir

0.67 0.33 0.22 −0.01

Prey standing stock

Biomass of prey fish species in the reservoir

0.44 0.47 0.05 0.05

Predator standing stock

Biomass of preda-tor fish species in the reservoir

0.71 0.23 0.26 −0.13

Prey–predator ratio

Biomass of prey in relation to bio-mass of predators

0.37 0.24 0.05 −0.08

Exotic species standing stock

Biomass of un-wanted introduced species

−0.05 0.01 0.11 0.54

Fish kills

Localized die-offs associated with unsuitable water chemistry

−0.07 −0.02 0.01 0.73

Catch ratePace at which anglers hook fish, regardless of size

0.77 0.22 0.27 −0.03

Fishing pressure

The relative amount of fishing effort received by the reservoir

0.79 0.13 0.01 0.05

Angler satisfaction

Overall content-ment of anglers with catch rates and fish size

0.68 0.34 0.23 −0.16

Frequency of tournaments

Regularity with which the reser-voir is chosen for organized tourna-ments, whether small or large tournaments

0.64 −0.07 0.03 0.09

Population density

Relative abun-dance of principal target species

0.58 0.23 0.52 −0.10

Size structure

Quality of the length distribu-tion of the target population

0.26 0.79 0.16 −0.11

Condition

Average observed weight of indi-vidual fish in the population rela-tive to expected weight for the species

0.11 0.88 0.07 −0.02

Growth rate Rate of increase in length 0.15 0.83 0.10 0.05

Natural mortality

Mortality attrib-uted to factors such as environ-mental conditions or interactions with other species; does not include mortality due to fishing

−0.02 −0.04 −0.14 0.66

Recruitment to age 1

Juveniles that survive their first year of life

0.20 0.02 0.87 −0.04

Recruitment to adulthood

Juveniles that reach reproductive maturity

0.27 0.21 0.83 −0.12

Figure 3. Plots of factors 1–4 relative to functional age. The lines rep-resent the 5th and 95th percentiles; the slopes of dashed lines were not statistically significant, P > 0.05. For the fishing quality factor, the 5th and 95th percentile regressions (solid lines) decreased, sug-gesting higher fishing quality at low functional age but high variabil-ity. For the mortality factor, the 5th and 95th percentile regressions increased relative to functional age, suggesting higher fish losses at high functional age but also high variability. The size and growth and recruitment factors showed hump-shaped patterns in the 95th percentiles, suggesting intermediate functional age scores optimized their scores.


respondents and reduce error, each question was coupled with an expanded narrative to help focus respondents. Nevertheless, error in scoring probably remained. Various other methods exist for reducing the occurrence or magnitude of these inaccuracies, although often at various costs (Bernard et al. 1984; Huber and Power 1985). Further improvement in accuracy of scoring may be obtained by upgrading to objective onsite quantitative habitat surveys but at a substantial rise in cost and likely without match-ing increases in evaluation accuracy.

The concept of functional age has advantages. Combining multiple metric scores to assemble an indicator of senescence presents the possibility for management intervention from mul-tiple angles. If it is determined that a reservoir is functionally aging at an accelerated rate, action may be taken to remedy the conditions contributing most to functional age. Intervention to reduce scores of selected metrics can potentially reduce the rate of senescence and increase the life expectancy of the reservoir. This leads to the intriguing implication that steps can be taken to reduce functional age and actually make the reservoir grow younger.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank J. Boxrucker for assistance with a pilot survey and the many reservoir managers who provided data for this study. P. Bettoli, W. Neal, K. Pope, C. Raines, and S. Shaw provided use-ful comments that improved previous versions of this article.

FUNDING

We thank the Reservoir Fish Habitat Partnership and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Student Career Experience Program for their support of this research. The Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is a cooperative

effort among the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks; Mississippi State University; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey; and the Wildlife Management Institute.

REFERENCESAgostinho, A. A., L. E. Miranda, L. M. Bini, L. C. Gomes, S. M. Thomaz,

and H. I. Susuki. 1999. Patterns of colonization in neotropical res-ervoirs, and prognoses on aging. Pages 227–265 in J. G. Tundisi and M. Straškraba, editors. Theoretical reservoir ecology and its applications. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Allen, H. H., and J. L. Tingle, editors. 1993. Proceedings, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers workshop on reservoir shoreline erosion features; a national problem: miscellaneous paper W. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Baars, J., and H. Visser, editors. 2007. Aging and time: multidiscipli-nary perspectives. Baywood, Amityville, New York.

Bernard, H. R., P. Killworth, D. Kronenfield, and L. Sailer. 1984. The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology 13:495–517.

Cade, B. S., and B. R. Noon. 2003. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environ-ment 1:412–420.

Cade, B. S., J. W. Terrell, and R. L. Schroeder. 1999. Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. Ecology 80:311–323.

Carol, J., L. Benejam, C. Alcaraz, A. Vila-Gispert, L. Zamora, E. Nav-arro, J. Armengol, and E. Garcia-Berthou. 2006. The effects of limnological features on fish assemblages in fourteen Spanish reservoirs. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 15:66–77.

Costa, P. T., Jr., and R. R. McCrae. 1980. Functional age: a conceptual and empirical critique. Pages 23–46 in S. G. Haynes and M. Fein-leib, editors. Second conference on the epidemiology of aging. U.S. Government Printing Office, NIH Publication, Washington, D.C.

Dolman, W. B. 1990. Classification of Texas reservoirs in relation to limnology and fish community associations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:511–520.

Flora, D. B., and P. J. Curran. 2004. An empirical evaluation of alter-native methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis

Quantile Regression

Ordinary least-squares regression estimates the rate of change in the mean of the response variable as a function of a predictor variable. Quantile regression extends the ordinary regression model by estimating the rate of change in the median (50th percentile) or any other percentile in the response-predictor relationship. The nth percentile of a set of numbers is the number below which n% of the values fall. Quantile regression may be particularly useful when (1) extremes are important, such as when there are relationships along the edges of a distribution (e.g., 5th or 95th percentiles), or when (2) the rate of change in the response, expressed by the regression coefficient, depends on the quantile (Cade and Noon 2003). Quantile regression through the upper or lower extremes of a distribution may be the best estimate of the effects expected from the predictor variable because values toward the middle of the distribution may be more heavily influenced by other variables.

As an example, consider the percentage composition of Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis in floodplain lakes of the Lower Mississippi River (Miranda 2011) illustrated in Figure 4. A decreasing trend was apparent in the upper edge of the distribution (95th percentile) of Orangespotted Sunfish percentage composition in the fish assemblage but no trend in the lower edge (5th percentile). This pattern suggested that lake depth limited the maximum attainable relative abundance of Orangespotted Sunfish, and although greater relative abundances could be attained in shallower lakes, often other variables prevented reaching high relative abundances in every lake. The upper edge of the distribution may most closely approximate the limiting effect of depth in the absence of other variables that may influence Orangespotted Sunfish relative abundance.

Figure 4. Orangespotted Sunfish percentage composition in the fish assemblage of 42 floodplain lakes relative to lake maximum depth. The 5th and 95th percentiles of the percentage composition were estimated with quantile regression.


Customers can view real-time information and see what is going on in the river at any time.

Counts and charts available without having to download data and start a specific software.

Automatic reports are available for any chosen period of time.

Easy to share information.

Easy to compare data.

Examine temperature records for a particular period.

Analyze images of each fish and sort the fish in different groups.

Users can easily edit data if needed.

All data securely stored and accessible at any time.

The Riverwatcher is in operation to monitor fish migration patterns in over 300 rivers world-wide.

MA

IN B

EN

EF

ITS

Know your Riverwww.riverwatcher.is

MONITOR FISH MIGRATION ONLINE

LIVEDATA

with ordinal data. Psychological Methods 9:466–491.Hargrove, W. L., D. Johnson, D. Snethen, and J. Middendorf. 2010.

From dust bowl to mud bowl: sedimentation, conservation measures, and the future of reservoirs. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65:14A–17A.

Hendricks, A. S., M. J. Maceina, and W. C. Reeves. 1995. Abiotic and biotic factors related to black bass fishing quality in Alabama. Lake and Reservoir Management 11:47–56.

Huber, G. P., and D. J. Power. 1985. Retrospective reports of stra-tegic-level managers: guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal 6:171–180.

Jenkins, B. R., and P. T. Hine. 2003. Benchmarking for best practice environmental management. Environmental Monitoring and As-sessment 85:115–134.

Jenkins, R. M., and D. I. Morais. 1971. Reservoir sport fishery effort and harvest in relation to environmental variables. Pages 371–384 in G. E. Hall, editor. Reservoir fisheries and limnology. Ameri-can Fisheries Society, Special Publication 8, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jones, J. R., and M. F. Knowlton. 2005. Suspended solids in Missouri reservoirs in relation to catchment features and internal pro-cesses. Water Research 39:3629–3635.

Kennedy, R. 1999. Reservoir design and operation: limnological im-plications and management opportunities. Pages 1–29 in J. G. Tundisi and M. Straškraba, editors. Theoretical reservoir ecology and its applications. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Nether-lands.

Krogman, R. M., and L. E. Miranda. 2015. A classification system for large reservoirs of the continental United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187:174.

Miranda, L. E. 2008. Extending the scale of reservoir management. Pages 75–102 in M. S. Allen, S. Sammons, and M. J. Maceina,

editors. Balancing fisheries management and water uses for im-pounded river systems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 62, Bethesda, Maryland.

———. 2011. Depth as an organizer of fish assemblages in floodplain lakes. Aquatic Sciences 73:211–221.

Miranda, L. E., and P. P. Durocher. 1986. Effects of environmental fac-tors on growth of largemouth bass in Texas reservoirs. Pages 115–121 in G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Avyle, editors. Reservoir fisheries management: strategies for the 80’s. American Fisher-ies Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Miranda, L. E., S. L. Wigen, and J. D. Dagel. 2014. Reservoir flood-plains support distinct fish assemblages. River Research and Applications 30:338–346.

NID (National Inventory of Dams). 2013. National inventory of dams. Available: www.nid.usace.army.mil (November 2013).

Nunnaly, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.Patton, T., and C. Lyday. 2008. Ecological succession and fragmenta-

tion in a reservoir: effects of sedimentation on habitats and fish communities. Pages 147–167 in M. S. Allen, S. Sammons, and M. J. Maceina, editors. Balancing fisheries management and water uses for impounded river systems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 62, Bethesda, Maryland.

Pegg, M. A., K. L. Pope, L. A. Powell, K. C. Turek, J.J. Spurgeon, N. T. Stewart, N.P. Hogberg, and M. T. Porath. 2015. Reservoir reha-bilitations: seeking the fountain of youth. Fisheries 40(4):177-181.

Rodgers, K., and R. Green. 2011. A national reservoir database of geographical, physical, and morphological metrics for classifica-tion and discrimination for fisheries habitat assessment. U.S. Ge-ological Survey, Arkansas Water Resources Center, Little Rock.

Salthouse, T. A. 1986. Functional age: examination of a concept. Pag-es 78–92 in J. E. Birren, P. K. Robinson, and J. Livingston, editors. Age, health, and employment. Prentice-Hall, New York.


Rehabilitación de reservorios: en búsqueda de la fuente de la juventudEl envejecimiento de los reservorios altera las funciones y los servicios que están asociados a estos ecosistemas. El objetivo de la rehabilitación de hábitats suele ser alterar la trayectoria del proceso de envejecimiento de manera tal que prolonga la duración de un estado deseable del sistema. Existen dos características importantes cuando se altera dicha trayectoria -amplitud relativa del estado actual y la subsecuente tasa de cambio, o envejecimiento- que últimamente determinan la duración del estado deseado. La mayoría de los procesos de rehabilitación caen en tres grandes categorías: manipulación de comunidades ícticas, manipulación de la calidad del agua y manipulación del hábitat físico. Es posible retardar el envejecimiento de los reservorios implementando cuidadosamente medidas de manejo, e incluso tal vez regresando el tiempo, pero no es posible detener el envejecimiento. Aquí se hace referencia a perspectivas novedosas que incorporan la comprensión del proceso de envejecimiento en todos los pasos de la rehabilitación de reservorios, particularmente en lo que se refiere a planeación y evaluación.

Aging of reservoirs alters the functions, and associated services, of these systems through time. The goal of habitat rehabilitation is often to alter the trajectory of the aging process such that the duration of the desired state is prolonged. There are two important characteristics in alteration of the trajectory—the amplitude relative to current state and the subsequent rate of change, or aging—that ultimately determine the duration of extension for the desired state. Rehabilitation processes largely fall into three main categories: fish community manipulation, water quality manipulation, and physical habitat manipulation. We can slow aging of reservoirs through carefully implemented management actions, perhaps even turning back the hands of time, but we cannot stop aging. We call for new, innovative perspectives that incorporate an understanding of aging processes in all steps of rehabilitation of reservoirs, especially in planning and assessing.

Reservoir Rehabilitations: Seeking the Fountain of Youth

FEATURE

Mark A. PeggSchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, 402 Hardin Hall, 3310 Holdrege Street, Lincoln, NE 68583-0974. E-mail: [email protected]

Kevin L. PopeU.S. Geological Survey—Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Larkin A. PowellSchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Kelly C. TurekNebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Jonathan J. SpurgeonSchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Nathaniel T. StewartNebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Nick P. HogbergSchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Mark T. PorathNebraska Game and Parks Commission, Fisheries Division, Lincoln, NE

Present address for Nick P. Hogberg: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Casper, WY 82604


Reservoirs often contain recreational fisheries that enhance local, regional, and national economies (Wilson and Carpenter 1999; Chizinski et al. 2005; U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2014). These ecosystems are temporally and spatially complex combinations of biotic and abiotic elements that provide important ecosystem services (Daily et al. 1997; Holmlund and Hammer 1999). Aging of reservoirs alters the functions of these systems through time and likely changes the services provided, especially cultural provisioning (e.g., fish as food, hydropower, etc.; Kimmel and Groeger 1986; Cairns and Palmer 1993; Miranda et al. 2010). Anthropogenic activity is inherent in the creation of reservoirs but can also increase aging rates in natural lakes. However, reservoirs generally have larger ratios of watershed to waterbody area and faster rates of geomorphic processes (e.g., sedimentation) than lakes (Thornton et al. 1990; Wetzel 2001) and, ultimately, aging processes that are more easily observed by humans. Therefore, in this essay, we focus on examples from reservoirs because they age rapidly (e.g., annual to decadal scales vs. century to millennia scales) and many now require specific attention to alleviate aging phenomena, though we believe the principles herein are generally applicable to natural lakes that follow similar aging processes (Rast and Thornton 1996), albeit at longer temporal scales. As reservoirs are filled following construction, new terrestrial habitats are inundated, causing a release of nutrients and creating diverse habitats for aquatic organisms that thrive and increase in abundances—termed “trophic upsurge” (Straskraba et al. 1993). Conditions in the reservoir then rapidly change as the reservoir matures into a desired state. Following trophic upsurge, abundances of many aquatic organisms decline as habitats are degraded by the processes of eutrophication and sedimentation that are often accelerated by human activities (Straskraba et al. 1993). Many rehabilitation efforts strive to mitigate the effects of aging following this trophic upsurge period and attempt to reset reservoirs to earlier, more desirable states—that is, seeking the proverbial fountain of youth.

YOUTH SPRINGS ETERNAL

The process of habitat rehabilitation begins with planning (Pegg and Chick 2010). A model of the system’s desired state must be developed and must also consider what is attainable given its current state (Palmer et al. 2005). Habitat improvement is an iterative process that requires establishment of predetermined criteria for success and frequent evaluation of objectives through an assessment plan (Pegg and Chick 2010). Knowledge concerning success or failure of management actions can aid in allocating future funds, adjusting methods, and ultimately maintaining healthy aquatic habitats with sustainable fishing opportunities (Palmer et al. 2005). Unfortunately, the political will and financial support to adequately monitor and assess management actions is often lacking, perhaps due to the rapid nature in which rehabilitation projects are generated. Even so, we believe that it is crucial to consider the logistics and appropriate timelines required for proper assessments of management actions.

The goal of habitat rehabilitation is to alter the trajectory of the aging process such that the duration of the desired state is prolonged (Figure 1A). We acknowledge that there are numerous measures of the desired state, including desired nutrient levels, primary productivity, secondary productivity, resilience to invasive species, and many other factors. The onus will be on the shoulders of decision makers to specify characteristics of

quality reservoirs in their specific circumstances. Our intent is not to debate the specifics of what meets requirements of reservoir “quality” because that definition will vary by location, management objectives, and capabilities of the system in question. Rather, we emphasize the need to comprehend the aging processes in reservoirs, and we contend that most factors used to determine quality follow a similar response curve like that shown in Figure 1A.

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF RESPONSES TO A REHABILITATION—AMPLITUDE, RATE,

AND DURATION

There are two important characteristics to consider when altering the aging trajectory—the amplitude or increase in “quality” relative to current state and subsequent rate of change, or aging, following rehabilitation—that ultimately determine the duration of extension for the desired state. Specifically, we refer to rate of change, hereafter termed rate, as the slope of the descending limb of the aging curve (Figure 1). We typically do not know whether amplitude or rate is correlated with duration; thus, all need to be estimated in current assessments. The combinations of possible responses to amplitude, rate, and duration are extensive. For example, a management action may cause a change that is characterized by large amplitude and a large rate of change such that the duration of the subsequent

Figure 1. (A) Conceptualization of the aging process in reservoirs and response to implementation of a rehabilitation technique; (B) responses in amplitude, rate, and duration to two different rehabili-tation techniques; and (C) potential for diminishing returns from consecutive rehabilitations.


desired state is brief (Figure 1B; Technique X). In contrast, a management action may cause a trajectory change that is characterized by large amplitude and a moderate rate of change such that the duration of the subsequent desired state is moderately long (Figure 1B; Technique Y). Given the above scenario, we can explore responses to specific rehabilitation techniques like sediment removal. The removal of sediment meets many objectives in improving aquatic habitat within reservoirs; hence, estimating specific responses in terms of how strong an effect (amplitude), how resilient an effect (rate), and how durable an effect (duration) can depend on exactly what is accomplished. Specifically, if 10% of the accumulated sediment is removed from a reservoir, there could be a large amplitude response through increased habitat, but if nothing is done to reduce sediment loading (e.g., Technique X), the removal will not last very long. Alternatively, if sediment removal were coupled with sediment traps in the watershed to prevent sediment from entering the reservoir (e.g., Technique Y), the amplitude would be similar to the more simple action, but the reservoir would benefit from a slower rate of change in functional aging (Miranda and Krogman, this issue), thereby extending the duration of the desired outcome. Clearly, an understanding of interactions among amplitude, rate, and duration would enhance our ability to predict system responses to management actions.

PERSPECTIVE ON REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES—AMPLITUDE, RATE, AND DURATION

Nebraska’s Aquatic Habitat Plan (AQHP) was established to address habitat issues in water bodies across the state (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission [NGPC] 1997). The AQHP was authorized by legislative action in 1996 (NGPC 1997). This action established a funding mechanism to support aquatic habitat rehabilitation where the ongoing funding process is strictly limited to aquatic habitat rehabilitation efforts and solely supported through an aquatic habitat stamp required of all anglers who purchase fishing licenses. The US$5 stamp generated $9.5 million through 2006; these funds were then levied against funds from 70 other agencies and organizations to generate $26 million devoted to aquatic habitat improvement projects (Pegg and Chick 2010). The AQHP was the first program of its kind in the United States and is nationally recognized, and a large portion of the program has been devoted to dealing with reservoir aging issues; thus, we use the program as a basis for the examples used herein.

Lake and reservoir rehabilitation processes largely fall into three main categories: (1) fish community manipulation, (2) water quality manipulation, and (3) physical habitat manipulation (Figure 2A). Techniques used to influence specific aspects of one of these categories can influence responses of a reservoir in the other two categories. For example, a complete fish community renovation using rotenone is a common rehabilitation technique used in the AQHP as a means to reestablish targeted sportfish populations that have declined through time (Figure 2B). The objective is typically to remove undesirable species, like Common Carp Cyprinus carpio, followed by replacing the fish community with more desirable species, yet removal of Common Carp can also have secondary outcomes specific to a reservoir’s desired productivity. Common Carp are known to disturb sediments as they feed (Lougheed

et al. 1998; Parkos et al. 2003), so their removal can reduce resuspension of sediment and nutrients into the water column. The secondary responses could include reduced sedimentation rates, improved water quality, reduced primary productivity, and establishment of aquatic vegetation, among other responses, thereby slowing the aging rate.

There are many approaches used to hold back the afflictions of time on reservoirs. Intuitively, all rehabilitation techniques range in cost as well as benefits realized in amplitude, rate, and duration. The AQHP has predominantly used 12 techniques (Table 1) to functionally “grow younger” (Miranda and Krogman, this issue) a reservoir. As a frame of reference, we summarize the relative cost, change in amplitude, change in aging rate, and change in duration of these techniques to provide a tangible context to the conceptualization (Figure 1A) of how a reservoir rehabilitation may influence the aging process. The relative cost information provided (Table 1) reflects a compilation of activity-specific expenses for 59 rehabilitation projects incurred by AQHP, partners, and stakeholders from 1996 through 2011. Projects often incorporated more than one rehabilitation technique, but as a frame of reference, total costs ranged from about $1,100 for simple applications (e.g., aeration only) to $6.9 million for complex system-based applications (e.g., sediment removal, fish renovation, sediment basin construction, and shoreline stabilization).

Figure 2. (A) Conceptual response of a reservoir to a rehabilitation technique and (B) an example of a specific response using rotenone to remove all fish to change the overall fish community. Direct re-sponses are indicated with black arrows, whereas indirect responses or secondary outcomes are shown with grey arrows.

A

B


A CALL TO ARMS—MELDING CONCEPT WITH ACTION TO BREATHE LIFE INTO RESERVOIRS

The time is nigh for our profession to embrace new perspectives toward planning, including defining objectives and developing best management practices, of reservoir rehabilitations in the context of the current ages and life spans of these systems. Development of best management practices will be challenging because any one rehabilitation technique will almost surely not provide a uniform response across a given region. However, managers are encouraged to hypothesize or predict changes in reservoir aging trajectories (e.g., rate, amplitude, or duration) that will be affected by proposed management actions. Likewise, scientists are encouraged to quantify and report changes in reservoir aging trajectories that are affected by implemented management actions. It is possible, especially for an old reservoir (e.g., >50 years), that management actions will not result in a shift to the desired state; that is, we believe that responses to rehabilitation efforts are inversely related to reservoir age. It is critical in these situations to consider input from stakeholders and potential funding partners to understand that returns on investments, and associated responses within and across reservoirs will likely not be similar given current and desired states. This further highlights the need for monitoring and purposeful implementation of techniques for proper assessments to ensure that desired endpoints of management actions are realized. Careful elucidation of goals and objectives prior to any management action, specific outcomes of anticipated responses to any management action, and administrative commitment to long-term assessment are needed for successful assessment. The latter perhaps presents the greatest challenge to successful assessment because political pressures tend to favor doing (management action) to learning (management assessment), and political pressures are generally impatient (unable to wait for learning to occur). Doing is admirable and very much needed, yet it is important to understand the return on any investment of resources. Keeping stakeholders informed of expected outcomes and the timeline for such outcomes to occur when prioritizing actions is critical. Indeed, the legislation that formally established the Nebraska AQHP specifically precluded the use of generated funds for assessment purposes. Even so, managers and scientists must be creative and seize opportunities

for comprehensive assessments to enhance our learning and ultimately increase the effectiveness of future management actions.

We can slow reservoir aging through carefully implemented management actions, perhaps even temporarily turning back the hands of time, but we cannot stop the processes of reservoir aging. We speculate a diminishing return of reservoir responses through successive rehabilitation projects, especially when projects of similar scope are initiated with the reservoir in different states or functional ages (Figure 1C). Further, we speculate that tipping points (May 1977; Gladwell 2000; Horan et al. 2011) in habitat quality within a reservoir, and hence fish community status, exist and are related to reservoir age or quality. These tipping points, characterized by shifts in fish communities, will require different management strategies to meet goals and objectives. For example, a newly constructed reservoir may be able to sustain a two-story fishery (i.e., a reservoir thermally stratified to allow a cold water fish community below a warm water fish community) for a number of years before accumulation of nutrients becomes an issue, leading to habitat and water quality changes that could eventually eliminate the viability of the cold water fishery (Scheffer et al. 2001). Moving forward in time, the resulting single-story fishery could also shift from one set of species to another (e.g., Centrarchidae-dominated to Cyprinidae-dominated community) based on responses to reservoir aging. This scenario would require understanding the factors that “tipped” the fish community to another state, what it would take to return to a previous state if desired, and possibly how to optimally deal with the new state of the reservoir if nothing is done (Westley et al. 2011). Thus, managers are encouraged to consider strategies for implementing subtle and not-so-subtle changes in management goals and associated objectives and actions as reservoirs age. To that end, Pope et al. (2014) encouraged managers to develop management plans with 5-, 10-, and 50-year horizons that consider changes likely to occur in the social and ecological components of a fishery. The aging processes in reservoirs are important considerations in the development of these mid- and long-term management plans.

Reservoirs are dynamic systems that respond somewhat predictably to a complex set of biotic and abiotic variables through time (Thornton et al. 1990). Human perceptions of

Table 1. Relative (1 symbol = low; 4 symbols = high) costs and predicted responses of rehabilitation techniques implemented by the Nebraska Aquatic Habitat Plan (NGPC 1997). See Figure 1 for conceptualization of amplitude, rate, and duration.

Rehabilitation technique Cost Amplitude Rate Duration

Aeration $ ↑ ↓ →→→→

Breakwaters $$$ ↑↑ ↓↓ →→→→

Dredging $$$$ ↑↑↑ ↓ →→

Fish barrier $$$$ ↑ ↓ →→→→

Fish community manipulation $$$ ↑↑↑↑ ↓↓ →→

Fringe wetlands $$ ↑ ↓↓ →→→→

Headwater wetlands $$ ↑↑ ↓↓ →→→

Nutrient sequestration $$$$ ↑↑↑↑ ↓↓↓↓ →→

Sediment basins $$$ ↑ ↓↓↓↓ →

Shoreline stabilization $$$$ ↑↑ ↓↓↓ →→→→

Spawning beds $$ ↑ ↓ →→

Water level management $ ↑↑↑↑ ↓↓ →→→→


these responses can lead to a scenario like the shifting baseline syndrome (Pauly 1995; Pinnegar and Engelhard 2008). Specifically, the general public and biologists may have different perspectives on what is a functional ecosystem in the face of processes associated with reservoir aging. This phenomenon illustrates that the desired minimum quality line (Figure 1A) can fall at different points along the curve that defines most quality measures used to assess the need for rehabilitation of reservoirs. We anticipate that harmony among fishery managers and stakeholders will be greatest when perspectives are similar and efforts are made to enhance communication through forums, such as public meetings, yet we doubt that that scenario is frequently realized given the myriad of interests among stakeholders (Hein et al. 2006; Dallimer et al. 2009). Therefore, we believe that it is imperative that all involved understand the reservoir aging process and what is or is not feasible given the specific state of a reservoir.

The age of managing reservoirs without consideration of life spans is gone. We call for new perspectives that incorporate reservoir aging processes in all steps of reservoir rehabilitation, especially in planning and assessing. These new perspectives need to consider what can or cannot be accomplished during a reservoir rehabilitation effort relative to current reservoir state. A critical component of this call is the development of methods to determine reservoir functional age—see Miranda and Krogman (this issue) for further discussion of possible methods. Rigorous and strategic evaluation of reservoir rehabilitations that account for responses of amplitude, rate, and duration is essential in the search for the fountain of youth as we manage fisheries in reservoirs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The ideas presented herein were generated by discussions between MAP, KLP, LAP, and MTP and were further developed during a graduate-level course entitled “Managed Aquatic Systems” that was taught during spring 2013; we thank the students in that course for their participation in lively discussions. An earlier draft of this article was improved by comments provided by L. E. Miranda.

FUNDING

The Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the University of Nebraska, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

REFERENCESCairns, J., and S. E. Palmer. 1993. Senescent reservoirs and ecologi-

cal restoration: an overdue reality check. Restoration Ecology 1(4):212–219.

Chizinski, C. J., K. L. Pope, D. B. Willis, G. R. Wilde, and E. J. Ross-man. 2005. Economic value of angling at a reservoir with low visitation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25(1):98–104.

Daily, G. C., P. R. Ehrlich, L. H. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney, S. H. Schneider, G. M. Woodwell, and D. Tilman. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 2:1–16.

Dallimer, M., D. Tinch, S. Acs, N. Hanley, H. R. Southall, K. J. Gas-ton, and P. R. Armsworth. 2009. 100 years of change: examin-ing agricultural trends, habitat change and stakeholder per-ceptions through the 20th century. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(2):334–343.

Gladwell, M. 2000. The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown, New York.

Hein, L., K. van Koppen, R. S. de Groot, and E. C. van Ierland. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem ser-vices. Ecological Economics 57(2):209–228.

Holmlund, C. M., and M. Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem services gener-ated by fish populations. Ecological Economics 29(2):253–268.

Horan, R. D., E. P. Fenichel, K. L. S. Drury, and D. M. Lodge. 2011. Managing ecological thresholds in coupled environmental–hu-man systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(18):7333–7338.

Kimmel, B. L., and A. W. Groeger. 1986. Limnological and ecological changes associated with reservoir aging. Pages 103–109 in G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Avyle, editors. Reservoir fisheries man-agement: strategies for the 80’s. Reservoir Committee, Ameri-can Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lougheed, V. L., B. Crosbie, and P. Chow-Fraser. 1998. Predictions on the effect of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) exclusion on water quality, zooplankton, and submergent macrophytes in a Great Lakes wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1189–1197.

May, R. M. 1977. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states. Nature 269:471–477.

Miranda, L. E., M. Spickard, T. Dunn, K. M. Webb, J. N. Aycock, and K. Hunt. 2010. Fish habitat degradation in U.S. Reservoirs. Fisheries 35(4):175–184.

NGPC (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission). 1997. Revised pro-ject list & work schedule, 1997–2005 for the Nebraska aquatic habitat plan. Fisheries Division, Nebraska Game and Parks Com-mission, Lincoln.

Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allen, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D. L. Galat, S. G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, and E. Suddith. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42(2):208–217.

Parkos, J. J., III, V. J. Santucci, Jr., and D. H. Wahl. 2003. Effects of adult Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) on multiple trophic lev-els in shallow mesocosms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60(2):182–192.

Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and shifting baseline syndrome of fisher-ies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:430.

Pegg, M. A., and J. H. Chick. 2010. Habitat mitigation and enhance-ment of altered systems. Pages 295–324 in W. A. Hubert and M. C. Quist, editors. Inland fisheries management in North America, 3rd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Pinnegar, J. K., and G. H. Engelhard. 2008. The “shifting baseline” phenomenon: a global perspective. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 18:1–16.

Pope, K. L., C. R. Allen, and D. G. Angeler. 2014. Fishing for resilience. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143(2):467–478.

Rast, W., and J. A. Thornton. 1996. Trends in eutrophication research and control. Hydrological Processes 10(2):295–313.

Scheffer, M., S. R. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. H. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596.

Straskraba, M., J. G. Tundisi, and A. Duncan. 1993. State-of-the-art of reservoir limnology and water quality management. Pages 213–288 in M. Straskraba, J. G. Tundisi, and A. Duncan, editors. Comparative reservoir limnology and water quality manage-ment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Thornton, K. W., B. L. Kimmel, and F. E. Payne, editors. 1990. Res-ervoir limnology: ecological perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated rec-reation. Report FHW/11-NAT (RV), Washington, D.C.

Westley, F., P. Olsson, C. Folke, T. Homer-Dixon, H. Vredenburg, D. Loorbach, J. Thompson, M. Nilsson, E. Lambin, J. Sendzimir, B. Banarjee, V Galaz, and S. van der Leeuw. 2011. Tipping towards sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio 40(7):762–780.

Wetzel, R. G. 2001. Limnology: lake and river ecosystems, 3rd edi-tion. Academic Press, San Diego.

Wilson, M. A., and S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of fresh-water ecosystems services in the United States: 1971–1997. Eco-logical Applications 9(3):772–783.


You went to college, worked hard, and graduated. You went to another college and received a higher degree. You incurred a great deal of student loan debt, but it was worth it because you were hired by the government to do your dream job in fisheries. You are hardworking, intelligent, and proud that you chose to do something with your life that you really care about…your passion. You receive your first paycheck and not long after your first student loan bill. A little wind is taken out of your sails, but you carry on because fisheries science is your passion.

Fisheries folks belong to a unique community; we all have persevered through hardships personally, so we can spend our lives pursuing our passion professionally. Frankly, if you have the work ethic and intelligence to acquire advanced degrees and a career in fisheries, then you possess the work ethic and intelligence to succeed in many other professions that are more fiscally rewarding. Which is why there tends to be high turnover in many segments of government employment (although not in fisheries).

Brain drain, turnover, or simply the loss of great minds in government is a problem for many agencies trying to fulfill their missions and provide services to the people. This is one reason as to why the College Cost Reduction and Access Act passed in 2007 (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ84/pdf/PLAW-110publ84.pdf). This act was signed into law by President Bush and is the basis for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSFL; www.studentaid.ed.gov/publicservice). A great many AFS members work full time for state or federal government entities, thus qualifying them for this program (local government, tribal organization, and some universities are also considered qualifying employers). However, part-time employees are eligible as well as long as they average 30-hours per week.

If you have Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans (which include Federal Stafford Loans, Federal PLUS loans, and FFEL Consolidation loans), Federal Perkins Loans, or Federal Ford Loans then you could qualify for the PSFL. Under the PSFL, essentially once you make 120 qualified monthly payments while working for a qualifying employer, the balance of your qualifying loans will be forgiven. If you consider paying off your loans in 10 years instead of 30 years, the interest savings alone could be quite significant, but it is likely that a significant portion of your principle will be forgiven as well. I won’t quote any specific figures as your situations vary, but if you have qualifying loans and do intend on working for a government entity for at least 10 years, then you should investigate this program and see if it can help you.

You are in an honorable career and are making a real difference in the world as a government employee. Commonly government employees are passed over for raises or benefit increases by legislators in favor of more publicly supported projects. Do yourself a favor, and don’t pass over this potential opportunity to help you and your family. Check out PSLF; if it’s for you, then you just made a great financial move. If it’s not for you, then you just wasted 30 minutes of your time and can now go back to fisheries work no worse for wear. I, simply in good conscience, couldn’t keep something to myself that I believe could not only help my fellow fish heads but also help keep our agencies staffed with very qualified and dedicated individuals.

AFS NEWS

Student Loan Forgiveness Program Aims to Keep Great Minds in Government

Tom LangAFS Socioeconomics Section PresidentTexas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, 409 Chester Ave., Wichita Falls TX 76309. E-mail: [email protected]


Journal HighlightsNORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENTVolume 35, Number 1, February 2015

www.sonotronics.com • (520) 746-3322

Offering more than a Two Fold ApproachProviding equipment for

Active and Passive tracking

Sonotronics

Mark and Relocate your Underwater Equipment

“working together to make a difference in the world we share”

Evaluation of Daily Creel and Minimum Length Limits for Black Crappie and Yellow Perch in Wisconsin. Kyle J. Mosel, Daniel A. Isermann, and Jonathan F. Hansen. 35:1–13.

[Management Brief] Structural Complexity Influences Littoral Coarse Woody Habitat Selection by Juvenile Muskellunge. Curtis P. Wagner, Michael J. Weber, and David H. Wahl. 35:14–19.

Origin of Atlantic Sturgeon Collected off the Delaware Coast during Spring Months. Isaac Wirgin, Matthew W. Breece, Dewayne A. Fox, Lorraine Maceda, Kevin W. Wark, and Tim King. 35:20–30.

Status and Conservation of Interior Redband Trout in the Western United States. Clint C. Muhlfeld, Shannon E. Albeke, Stephanie L. Gunckel, Benjamin J. Writer, Bradley B. Shepard, and Bruce E. May. 35:31–53.

Effects of Reservoir Drawdowns and the Expansion of Hydrilla Coverage on Year-Class Strength of Largemouth Bass. Eric J. Nagid, Travis Tuten, and Kevin G. Johnson. 35:54 –61.

Removal and Mark–Recapture Methods for Estimating Abundance: Empirical and Simulation Results for Mottled Sculpin in Streams. Carl R. Ruetz III, Brandon S. Harris, James N. McNair, and Jared J. Homola. 35:62–74.

[Management Brief] Age-0 Sturgeon Accessibility to Constructed and Modified Chutes in the Lower Missouri River. Nathan J. C. Gosch, Marcus L. Miller, Todd R. Gemeinhardt, Schuyler J. Sampson, and Joseph L. Bonneau. 35:75–85.

Depth and Artificial Reef Type Effects on Size and Distribution of Red Snapper in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. J. Jaxion-Harm and S. T. Szedlmayer. 35:86–96.

Evaluation of Behavior and Survival of Fish Exposed to an Axial-Flow Hydrokinetic Turbine. Stephen V. Amaral, Mark S. Bevelhimer, Glenn F. Čada, Daniel J. Giza, Paul T. Jacobson, Brian J. McMahon, and Brenda M. Pracheil. 35: 97–113.

[Management Brief] Contrasting Population Demographics of Invasive Silver Carp between an Impounded and Free-Flowing River. Jason G. Stuck, Anthony P. Porreca, David H. Wahl, and Robert E. Colombo. 35:114–122.

Seasonal Migration Behaviors and Distribution of Adult Pacific Lampreys in Unimpounded Reaches of the Snake River Basin. Brian J. McIlraith, Christopher C. Caudill, Brian P. Kennedy, Christopher A. Peery, and Matthew L. Keefer. 35:123–134.

[Management Brief] A Laboratory Evaluation of Tagging-Related Mortality and Tag Loss in Juvenile Humpback Chub. David L. Ward, William R. Persons, Kirk L. Young, Dennis M. Stone, David R. Vanhaverbeke, and William K. Knight. 35:135–140.

Muskellunge Spawning Site Selection in Northern Wisconsin Lakes and a GIS-Based Predictive Habitat Model. Joel K. Nohner and James S. Diana. 35:141–157.

Trophic Ecology of Nonnative Northern Pike and their Effect on Conservation of Native Westslope Cutthroat Trout. John D. Walrath, Michael C. Quist, and Jon A. Firehammer. 35:158–177.

Guide for Authors


AFS 2015 Portland BOOTH RESERVATION

August 16th- 20th, 2015 Please complete this application in its entirety.

Please print or type all information.

Company Name _____________________________________________________________________________________

Address____________________________________________________________________________________________

City ______________________________________State ___________________________ Zip ______________________

Phone ___________________________________________ Fax _______________________________________________

Company Contact__________________________________________Email _______________________________________

*Please email your company’s description, (Approximately 75 words) as you would like it to appear in the meeting program guide. Please also include your address, phone, and web-address and forward to [email protected] prior to June 1, 2015. Due to printing deadlines, descriptions received after this date will not appear in the program guide.

BOOTH FEES -AFS member firm*: $1,800.00 per 10 x 10 booth -AFS nonmember firm: $1,1950.00 per 10 x 10 booth -Crafters $450.00 per 10 x 10 booth -Govt Approved Non Profit $650.00 -Boat Display: $500.00 w/Booth Rental * To qualify for member rate, the exhibiting company must hold a sustaining, official, or associatemembership with AFS. Please include your verifiable membership number: #__________________.

Number of Booths Total Cost–––––––– –––--–––––

We would like to be located near_____________________________________________

We would rather not be located near_____________________________________________ AFS reserves the right to assign an alternative choice based on availability. We agree to abide by the AFS 2015 Annual Meeting Booth Reservation Terms

_________________________________________ Signature

PAYMENTPlease send reservation request with full payment, or 50% deposit of the full payment payable to American Fisheries Society. The balance will be due by July 1, 2015. Applications submitted after July 1, 2015 must be accompanied by full payment. Cancellations received on or after April 15, 2015 and prior to July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to 50% of the total exhibit space rental fee. Cancellations received after July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to 100% of the total exhibit space rental fee. CHECK:

Amount enclosed: $______________

CREDIT CARD (Circle One): Visa Amex MasterCard

________________________________________________ Name as it appears on card

________________________________________________ Card Number

________________________________________________ Exp. Date 3-digit Security Code ________________________________________________ Signature

RETURN COMPLETED FORM WITH DEPOSIT TOAmerican Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD 20814, Attn: Shawn Johnston

Questions about the Trade Show or Advertising? Please contact Shawn Johnston, AFS Trade Show Coordinator, 301-897-8616 x 230 [email protected] Fax 301-897-8096


April 28–30, 2015

FLOW 2015: Protecting Rivers and Lakes in the Face of Uncertainty | Portland, Oregon | www.instreamflowcouncil.org/flow-2015

May 17–19, 2015NPAFC International Symposium on Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Production in a Changing Climate: Past, Present, and Future | Kobe, Japan | npafc.org

May 18–22, 2015

AFS 2015 Piscicide Class | USU, Logan, Utah | fisheries.org

May 26–30, 2015World Aquaculture 2015 | Jeju Island, Korea | was.org

May 28–29, 2015

2015 Louisiana Chapter Meeting | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | sdafs.org

June 22–24, 2015Fish Passage 2015 | Groningen, Netherlands | fishpassageconference.com

July 12–17, 201539th Annual Larval Fish Conference | Vienna, Austria | larvalfishcon.org

July 26–31, 2015World of Trout | Bozeman, Montana | Facebook > The World of Trout - 1st International Congress

August 16–20, 2015145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society | Portland, Oregon | 2015.fisheries.org

November (TBA), 20155th International Symposium on Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching | Sydney, Australia | www.searanching.org

February 22–26, 2016Aquaculture 2016 | Las Vegas, Nevada | marevent.com

To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS website calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/ province, web address, and contact information to [email protected]. (If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.) More events listed at www.fisheries.org

CALENDAR

[email protected]

Fish & Wildlife Monitoring

Environmental Assessment

Species at Risk

Baseline Studies

Dredging

Contaminate Uptake

AFS 2015 Portland BOOTH RESERVATION

August 16th- 20th, 2015 Please complete this application in its entirety.

Please print or type all information.

Company Name _____________________________________________________________________________________

Address____________________________________________________________________________________________

City ______________________________________State ___________________________ Zip ______________________

Phone ___________________________________________ Fax _______________________________________________

Company Contact__________________________________________Email _______________________________________

*Please email your company’s description, (Approximately 75 words) as you would like it to appear in the meeting program guide. Please also include your address, phone, and web-address and forward to [email protected] prior to June 1, 2015. Due to printing deadlines, descriptions received after this date will not appear in the program guide.

BOOTH FEES -AFS member firm*: $1,800.00 per 10 x 10 booth -AFS nonmember firm: $1,1950.00 per 10 x 10 booth -Crafters $450.00 per 10 x 10 booth -Govt Approved Non Profit $650.00 -Boat Display: $500.00 w/Booth Rental * To qualify for member rate, the exhibiting company must hold a sustaining, official, or associatemembership with AFS. Please include your verifiable membership number: #__________________.

Number of Booths Total Cost–––––––– –––--–––––

We would like to be located near_____________________________________________

We would rather not be located near_____________________________________________ AFS reserves the right to assign an alternative choice based on availability. We agree to abide by the AFS 2015 Annual Meeting Booth Reservation Terms

_________________________________________ Signature

PAYMENTPlease send reservation request with full payment, or 50% deposit of the full payment payable to American Fisheries Society. The balance will be due by July 1, 2015. Applications submitted after July 1, 2015 must be accompanied by full payment. Cancellations received on or after April 15, 2015 and prior to July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to 50% of the total exhibit space rental fee. Cancellations received after July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to 100% of the total exhibit space rental fee. CHECK:

Amount enclosed: $______________

CREDIT CARD (Circle One): Visa Amex MasterCard

________________________________________________ Name as it appears on card

________________________________________________ Card Number

________________________________________________ Exp. Date 3-digit Security Code ________________________________________________ Signature

RETURN COMPLETED FORM WITH DEPOSIT TOAmerican Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD 20814, Attn: Shawn Johnston

Questions about the Trade Show or Advertising? Please contact Shawn Johnston, AFS Trade Show Coordinator, 301-897-8616 x 230 [email protected] Fax 301-897-8096


the sold-out National Workshop on Large Landscape Conserva-tion to showcase conservation innovation at the landscape scale. In the advocacy arena, AFS joined more than 200 non-profits across the conservation, sport, and science communities to sign a letter coordinated by the Theodore Roosevelt Conserva-tion Partnership. The letter was sent to the U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) urging them to persevere in the political battle over proposed Clean Water Act regulations governing wet-lands and waterways. That debate is based on interpretations of two Supreme Court decisions, connects to every fish and every watershed across the United States, and may well cycle back to the courts for clarity.

Befitting the new year, early 2015 started with fireworks. The Clean Water Act remained in the policy spotlight when Congress convened a rare joint House and Senate hearing in February. The AFS remained engaged by sending its own letter to USEPA and USACE on their joint “Waters of the United States” rule, building on the broad 2014 letter with more facts focused on fish. In a related effort, AFS is working with The Coastal Society (TCS), the Environmental Law Institute, and our colleagues in CASS to organize a Capitol Hill briefing on May 21 related to the Clean Water Act.

In addition to CASS, AFS ventured into several other note-worthy partnerships. Shortly after what promises to be a great AFS Annual Meeting in Portland, Oregon (August 16-20), AFS will be back in the Rose City as a partner with the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (CERF) for its 2015 conference. Working with TCS, we will convene a technical session on the power of fish to integrate ecosystem health across watersheds. Those talks will bring a fish, food chain, and watershed focus to a society renowned for its long-term emphasis on estuaries. At the regional level, AFS, TCS, and CERF considered several op-tions for a joint meeting at the AFS division/CERF affiliate/TCS chapter level. Our first effort will be a joint meeting of TCS and CERF’s New England Estuarine Research Society in Bristol, Rhode Island, on April 16-18, again with a coastal watershed theme. Next year could bring a similar effort with an AFS divi-sion or chapter and perhaps a CERF regional affiliate.

Those TCS, CERF, and AFS partnerships are natural for me as I’ve been a member of all three societies for decades. I have been an AFS member on and off since 1973 (mostly “on” since the 1990s), served for years as the AFS liaison to TCS, and last year added CERF to my liaison portfolio. My connections are especially deep with TCS as I just started my term as president of the oldest society in the world committed to coastal issues (founded in 1976). Like our new partners in CASS, these socie-ties are natural allies.

At the other end of the geographic scale, AFS continues to be very active on the international front. We were deeply involved in the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Global Conference on Inland Fisheries in Rome in January 2015 that focused on freshwater fish, subsistence fisheries, and seafood security. Those discussions built on earlier efforts by several World Fisheries Congresses, an effort now led by Doug Austen (Secretary General of the World Council of Fisheries Societies) and aiming toward its 7th Congress in Busan, South Korea, in May 2016. Watch the AFS publications website for proceedings of earlier World Fisheries Congresses and the FAO

COLUMNPOLICY (continued from p. 144)

conference. So many great efforts, each with follow-up oppor-tunities!

Finally, I can say with great optimism that another success will be the effort led by AFS President Donna Parrish to clarify our Society’s role across the full realm of communications–by leaders, in Society publications, as advocates, in the media, and in many other venues. By virtue of our long history, our esteemed journals, this highly regarded Fisheries magazine, websites for each unit and the Society, and the personal achieve-ments of our members, AFS can speak with authority on specific projects, national legislation, policy matters, science budgets, and the myriad of topics that arise through our sections and divisions. We can all look forward with comfort knowing that the AFS Governing Board, augmented by the messaging gurus at Potomac Communications Group hired by AFS to share their insights on non-profits, has charted a course that will strengthen us and benefit fisheries. By the time we convene in Portland, AFS should have a communications plan with a more coher-ent vision of our messages and actions and a clear path toward implementation. Many of the topics mentioned in these columns will be touched by our new communications strategy—policy, advocacy, partnerships, science and management, and more.

These are exciting times! In the next issue, look for the top 10 fisheries issues demanding our attention in the science/man-agement/policy/education milieu.

www.nmt.us

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc

Coded Wire TagsTM Visible Implant Alpha TagsTM Visible Implant Elastomer TagsTM AutoFish SystemTM Juvenile & Adult Fish Counters

Tagging Systems & Methods for the Research & Management of Fish and other Aquatic Resources


Hitch-Hiking Beaver Spotted Napping Atop Humpback Whale

Perhaps exhausted after a long-distance swim along the St. Lawrence River, a beaver was seen sleeping on the back of a humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae in the Bay of Fundy. Upon closer inspection of the whale (which was likely demonstrating logging behaviour and remaining still at the surface), quiet snores could be heard from the snoozing beaver.

April Fools!

April 1st is the day of the year traditionally reserved for silly jokes and playful pranks. In France, the first day of April is celebrated as Poisson d’Avril which translates to April Fish. The customary trick of Poisson d’Avril is trying to stick a cardboard fish on the back of an unsuspecting friend. While we humans play tricks on land, aquatic creatures are playing tricks too.

LEAFY SEADRAGON

The mood is quite peaceful among the wavy strands of seaweed swaying gracefully under the command of Australia’s currents. Slowly fluttering, the delicate leaves feed on tiny mysid shrimp (Order Mysida). Shrimp-eating seaweed? Surprise! You have been duped by the Leafy Seadragon Phycodurus eques. A relative of seahorses Hippocampus spp., the Leafy Seadragon has numerous leaf-like appendages growing from its body. The elaborate, seaweed-mimicking extensions provide remarkable camouflage. Leafy Seadragons also have cryptic markings on their snouts. These unique facial patterns can be used for individual identification (Connolly et al. 2002).

BROKEN RAYS MUSSEL

The broken-rays mussel Lampsilis reeveiana is an excep-tional trickster. The two flaps extending from the mussel’s mantle are colored, shaped, and move like a small fish. Don’t

BACK PAGE

Natalie SopinkaAFS Contributing WriterUniversity of British ColumbiaE-mail: [email protected]

be fooled, this teleost imposter is actually a balloon filled with larval mussels (glochidia) that bursts when an unsuspecting bass takes a bite. A flurry of parasitic larvae are freed and affix to the gills of their piscivorous host (Barnhart and Roberts 1997).

REFERENCESBarnhart, M. C., and A. D. Roberts. 1997. Reproduction and fish hosts

of unionids from the Ozark Uplifts. Pages 14–20 in K. S. Cum-mings, A. C. Buchanan, L. M. Koch, editors. Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

Connolly, R. M., A. J. Melville, and J. K. Keesing. 2002. Abundance, movement and individual identification of Leafy Seadragons, Phycodurus eques (Pisces: Syngnathidae). Marine and Freshwa-ter Research 53(4):777–780.

Broken-rays mussel Lampsilis reeveiana. Photo credit: Chris Barnhart, Missouri State University.

Leafy Seadragon Phycodurus eques. Photo credit: Christian Loader.

Fisheries Enhancement on the Half-Shell


At the Marine Discovery Center (MDC) in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, volunteers and staff recently gathered to shovel oyster shells into mesh bags to help rebuild damaged or eroded shorelines. Throughout the morning, as sweat dripped and shovels scraped, the number of oyster bags grew to nearly 400, with each bag weighing about 30 lbs.

Each oyster bag created through the Shuck and Share Oyster Recycling Project is destined for a new home in the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), the most biologically diverse estuary in North America. In recent years, declining water quality in the IRL has resulted in devastating algae blooms, loss of seagrass beds, and unusual mortality events for brown pelicans Pelecanus occidentalis, manatees Trichechus spp., and bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus. The oyster bags will be placed along the shoreline to stabilize the sediment and reduce wave energy from boat wakes that cause erosion. The bags also naturally recruit baby oysters, known as “spat,” which will settle and grow to form a new living oyster reef. The complex habitat of an oyster reef serves as a nursery for many commercially and recreationally important fish species in Florida. Additionally, oysters are filter feeders that improve both water quality and clarity in the lagoon.

The shells used for restoration come from fourteen local seafood restaurants that now send their shucks to MDC, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and restoring Florida’s coast and the IRL ecosystems, to be recycled into new oyster reefs, instead of going in the trash and hauled off to the nearest landfill. WastePro USA donates their waste management services to transport shells from the restaurants to the center, where they are quarantined for 90 days before being prepared for deployment. With support from St. Johns River Water Management District and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Shuck and Share staff and volunteers work alongside restoration teams at the University of Central Florida and Brevard Zoo to improve the shorelines of the IRL.

In the past year, over 102,000 lbs of oyster shell have been recycled through the Shuck and Share program. This shell material has created 2,133 oyster bags and 1,670 oyster mats, another technique used for reef restoration, with more to come

BACK PAGE

Annie B. MorganShoreline Restoration Coordinator, Marine Discovery Center, 520 Barracuda Blvd., New Smyrna Beach,FL 32169. E-mail: [email protected]

this season. The mats and bags have repaired and restored several damaged reefs within Canaveral National Seashore, a popular playground for recreational fishermen and guides.

The project’s success is due in large part to residents, visitors, and students who contributed over 2,500 hours of volunteer time last year alone. Whether shoveling shells, deploying oyster bags, or just ordering another dozen on the half-shell at a participating seafood restaurant, the community has shown a strong commitment to improving the health of our local waters.

A hardworking team of volunteers and staff celebrates the construction of sev-eral hundred oyster bags that will be used for shoreline restoration in the Indian River Lagoon. Photo credit: Annie Morgan.

Oyster bags help stabilize the shoreline and prevent erosion, especially when combined with vegetation to create a living shoreline. Photo credit: Annie Morgan.

Advance Your Research to New Frontiers

Collaborative Efforts: Developing a Marine Acoustic Tag Tracking System for Fine-Scale Behavioral ResearchIn October 2014, a new acoustic telemetry study kicked off to track the high-resolution, three dimensional movement of copper rockfish off Cantilever Point at Friday Harbor Laboratories (FHL). The ongoing acoustic study includes a high-resolution, photomosaic mapping survey of the seafloor with the help of an autonomous underwater vehicle. The aim of this study is to evaluate HTI’s new marine telemetry system in high-resolution investigations of behavioral responses of copper rockfish to the features of their environment.

Until now, existing marine telemetry systems have been limited by positional errors on the scale of ten meters (~33 ft), and the number of tagged fish or “targets” that could be tracked in one place at one time was limited to 12 fish. The newly installed HTI system is expected to reduce positional error to less than a meter (~3 ft), increase the number of individual tags that can be tracked in one location at one time to 500 fish, and provide an expansive range up to 1 km (~3,280 ft).

The team, made up of scientists from the Ocean Resources & Ecosystems Program at Cornell University, Earth Sciences at NASA Ames Research Center and HTI, set out to field test the new system with copper rockfish. In this first stage of the study, rockfish were captured by research divers and placed into cages resting on the

seafloor, which were slowly raised to the surface. The rockfish were brought onboard a research vessel, anesthe-tized, and acoustically tagged. After implanting the tag, rockfish recuperated in a tank of seawater, then lowered to the seafloor for full recovery, and later released back into their habitat by the divers. Four hydrophones, deployed by small boat and the R/V Centennial, are used to detect the signals from the tagged rockfish, which will be tracked for approximately one year.

Ecological questions addressed by this study include analyzing site fidelity, home ranges, microhabitat selection, and seasonal movement patterns. Plans are underway to tag rockfish predators and examine behavior associated with predator-prey interactions.

HTI is pleased to work with Dr. McGarry, Dr. Brosnan, Dr. Greene, and the team at Friday Harbor Labs. To learn more about the equipment development or methods used, contact Colleen or Sam at (206) 633-3383 or email them at [email protected].

Copper Rockfish next to sea star. Image courtesy: G. Amptman

GoPro with the Divers

Deploying a hydrophone mount from the R/V Centennial. Courtesy: C. Greene

Checking mounts. Courtesy: J. Nordstrom

See Project Pics

Watch Videos

www.HTIsonar.com/Marine

This type of technology has tremendous potential for enhancing the study of

fish ecology, including the design of Marine

Protected Areas (MPAs).- Dr. Louise McGarry, Cornell University

With Special Thanks:

Get a Glimpse of What’s Happeningfor Advanced Marine Research at

fisheriesfisheries | 141145 a towed-diver survey in the florida keys national marine sanctuary....

Documents