This article was downloaded by: [Department Of Fisheries]On: 25 November 2013, At: 19:23Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

FisheriesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20

Full Issue PDF Volume 38, Issue 10Published online: 18 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: (2013) Full Issue PDF Volume 38, Issue 10, Fisheries, 38:10, 429-476, DOI:10.1080/03632415.2013.851552

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2013.851552

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Sound Science and Future Trends An Imperative Change is NeededScary Habitat NumbersAvoiding BycatchDigitizing Applications for DiversitySmartphones and Digital Tablets in Fisheries Fishery-Induced Collapse of Invasive Asian Carp

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

VOL 38 NO 10 OCT 2013

03632415(2013)38(10)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 429

NEW AFS MEMBERS 471

473 Fisheries Events

CALENDAR

Contents

Fisheries VOL 38 NO 10 OCTOBER 2013

President’s Commentary431 We Must Do Better—We Have To Do BetterThe major reason I am writing this column was that I learned from one of our members who is a person of color that I was the first person to really engage him in meaningful conversation at an AFS annual meeting. Until then, he felt that he had been invisible, if not disliked, for his race.

Bob Hughes, AFS President

Fish Habitat Connections432 Scary NumbersWe know the challenges and must now seize the opportunities to protect and restore habitats.

Thomas E. Bigford

Digital Revolution433 Hiring ToolsFinding diversity in applications for fisheries programs can be an easier fix than you may think.

Jeff Kopaska

Director’s Line469 Sound Science and Future TrendsWe need to question these and many other basic premises of the Society, and ensure that we understand the challenges, identify the opportunities, and aggressively respond.

Doug Austen

COLUMNS

434 Forming a Partnership to Avoid BycatchFleet communication is a cost-effective way to collect and disseminate information to facilitate bycatch reduction, but requires high levels of fleet participation.

Catherine E. O’Keefe and Gregory R. DeCelles

445 Prospects for Fishery-Induced Collapse of Invasive Asian Carp in the Illinois RiverIt may be possible to collapse the Bighead Carp and Silver Carp populations in the Illinois River if efforts to expand commercial fishing of Asian Carp are combined with economic incentives to capture a wider range of fish sizes, along with increased targeting of Silver Carp.

Iyob Tsehaye, Matthew Catalano, Greg Sass, David Glover, and Brian Roth

FEATURES

Cover: Vessels leaving New Bedford Harbor. Photo credit: Catherine E. O’Keefe.

465 Robert “Bob” L. Hunt

IN MEMORIAM

466 Second Call for Papers: Québec City 2014

AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2014

455Oregon commercial salmon fisherman Kevin Bastien trying out the at-sea SPT system developed by Lavrakas et al. (2012). Photo credit: John Lavrakas.

455 Smartphones and Digital Tablets: Emerging Tools for Fisheries Professionals Our handheld digital devices and fisheries.

Lee F. G. Gutowsky, Jenilee Gobin, Nicholas J. Burnett, Jacqueline M. Chapman, Lauren J. Stoot, and Shireen Bliss

470 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,Volume 142, Number 5, September 2013

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS

462 Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium, edited by P. H. Michaletz and V. H. TravnichekReviewed by James M. Long

463 Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global Perspective, edited by Villy Christensen and Jay MacleanReviewed by Jason S. Link

464 Ecosystem-Based Management for Marine Fisheries: An Evolving Perspective, edited by Andrea Belgrano and Charles W. FowlerReviewed by John M. Emlen

BOOK REVIEWS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 430

MEMBERSHIP TYPE/DUES (Includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory)

Developing countries I (Includes online Fisheries only): N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$10 OTHERDeveloping countries II: N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$35 OTHERRegular: _____$80 NORTH AMERICA; _____$95 OTHERStudent (includes online journals): _____$20 NORTH AMERICA; _____$30 OTHERYoung professional (year graduated): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERRetired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERLife (Fisheries and 1 journal): _____$1, 737 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1737 OTHERLife (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years): _____$1,200 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,200 OTHER: $1,200Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year): _____ $1,000 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,000 OTHER

JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (Optional)

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$55 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$65 OTHER PRINT North American Journal of Fisheries Management: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$55 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$65 OTHER PRINT North American Journal of Aquaculture: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Journal of Aquatic Animal Health: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Fisheries InfoBase: ____$25 ONLINE ONLY

Recruited by an AFS member? yes noName

EMPLOYERIndustryAcademiaFederal gov’tState/provincial gov’tOther

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110•Bethesda, MD 20814-2199(301) 897-8616 • fax (301) 897-8096 • main@fisheries.org

The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened 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.

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2013. 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 requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction 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.

2013 AFS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONAMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • 5410 GROSVENOR LANE • SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199

(301) 897-8616 x203 OR x224 • FAX (301) 897-8096 • WWW.FISHERIES .ORG

PAID:

NAME

Address

City

State/Province ZIP/Postal Code

CountryPlease provide (for AFS use only)Phone

Fax

E-mail

PAYMENTPlease make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank, or pay by VISA, MasterCard, or American Express.

_____Check

_____American Express

Account #______________________________________

Exp. Date _____________

Signature ______________________________________

_____VISA

_____MasterCard

All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received Janu-ary 1 through August 31 are processed for full membership that calendar year (back issues are sent). Applications received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of the following year.

AFS OFFICERSPRESIDENTBob Hughes

PRESIDENT ELECTDonna L. Parrish

FIRST VICE PRESIDENTRon Essig

SECOND VICE PRESIDENTJoe Margraf

PAST PRESIDENTJohn Boreman

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORDoug Austen

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORDoug Austen

DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron Lerner

MANAGING EDITORSarah Fox

EDITORSCHIEF SCIENCE EDITORJeff Schaeffer

SCIENCE EDITORSMarilyn “Guppy” Blair Jim BowkerMason BryantSteven R. ChippsSteven CookeKen CurrensAndy DanylchukMichael R. DonaldsonAndrew H. FayramStephen FriedLarry M. GigliottiMadeleine Hall-ArborAlf HaukenesJeffrey E. Hill

DUES AND FEES FOR 2013 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 $174.

Deirdre M. KimballJeff KochJim LongDaniel McGarveyRoar SandoddenJesse TrushenskiUsha Varanasi Jack E. WilliamsJeffrey Williams

BOOK REVIEW EDITORFrancis Juanes

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONPablo del Monte Luna

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 431

I am writing this column two days after listening to Presi-dent Obama’s speech on race in the United States and his call for increased civic discussions on the matter of what it feels like to be a person of color in North America. First a bit of my personal history: I grew up in a small, all-white northern Michigan town. The first black person I saw was at a Saginaw, Michigan, department store lunch counter where I was enjoying a chocolate ice cream cone with my mom. I was 5 years old and openly asked her if the other lady was chocolate. The lady at the counter laughed and my mother embarrassingly explained that some people have dark skin but are the same as the rest of us inside. My second embarrassing encounter was with a black family that stopped at the service station where I was working in the summer of 1963. We were not busy, but the two other attendants refused to serve them (this was in the days when we filled the tank, washed the windows, and checked oil, cool-ant, lights, and sometimes tire pressure—usually as a team and with a smile). I could not understand their behavior, and when I asked my fellow attendants what was happening, they explained that they did not like Negroes because “they stick together” and were dangerous. Although this family was together (as is true of most families in a car), they were very pleasant and did not look at all dangerous to me. My third embarrassing experience was when my father refused to let my black university roommate spend a weekend in our home in 1966. Dad explained that al-though he lacked any personal objections, he felt that he would be shunned by the rest of that town’s residents should he do so. However, I had previously been able to enjoy meals and music with my roommate’s family in Detroit.

My most traumatic experience occurred the day after Mar-tin Luther King was murdered in 1968. I was teaching high school biology in a small, all-white southern Michigan town, and several of my students stated that King deserved to die be-cause he was a communist. Together, with a history teacher, we circulated a petition that all but one teacher signed, requesting a school assembly featuring a black professor of mine discussing what it was like being black in the United States. The princi-pal refused, voicing community opposition, and told me that I would not be teaching there the following year. Racial rela-tions have improved considerably in this country (including my hometown) since the 1960s, but we still have a long way to go.

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) can do its part in welcoming underrepresented persons to our ranks. We have already done some. We established an International Fisheries

Section in 1987 (to as-sist international infor-mation exchange, now with 185 members), an Equal Opportunity Sec-tion in 1991 (to promote information exchange among all persons inter-ested in fisheries, espe-cially underrepresented groups, currently with 97 members), a Na-tive Peoples Fisheries Section in 1994 (but it has been inactive since 2009 and has only 27 members), the Hutton Junior Fisher-ies Biology Program in 2001 (to stimulate interest in fisheries careers among minorities and women, which has funded 279 minority students), the Emmeline Moore Prize in 2009 (for the promotion of demographic diversity, five awardees to date), and a Native Peoples Student Travel Award in 2011 (which has been underfunded and little used). The Equal Opportunity Section developed a program for aiding minority student travel to AFS meetings, as did the Hutton Program, but both are underfunded. In addition, we have become more inclusive of Latin Amer-icans—adding a Mexico Chapter in 2005 and a Puerto Rico Chapter in 2013. The Mexico Chapter will be hosting the AFS Western Division annual meeting April 7–11, 2014, in Mazat-lan. We have formal agreements with the Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Japanese Society of Fisheries Science, Korean Society of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, and Brazilian Soci-ety of Ichthyology to promote cooperation and information ex-change.

However, we can do better in at least three ways: (1) Assess the degree to which the Hutton Program and minority travel awards are used versus their demand, as well as how the Hut-ton students progress in their careers; (2) fund and report on a survey of our current 223 minority members to collect stories illustrating unequal treatment or a lack of inclusiveness within the AFS and suggest how this could be remedied; (3) develop and fund a program to encourage minority student attendance at AFS annual meetings and link them with a meeting mentor. For pertinent examples, see Cuker (2007), the Multiculturalism in Aquatic Sciences Program of the American Society of Lim-nology & Oceanography, the Instars Program of the Society for Freshwater Sciences, the Seeds Program of the Ecological So-ciety of America, and the Undergraduate Mentoring in Environ-mental Biology programs of the Society of Wetlands Scientists and the Estuarine Research Federation.

COLUMNPresident’s Commentary

AFS President Bob Hughes can be contacted at: hughes.bob@amnisopes.com

We Must Do Better—We Have To Do BetterBob Hughes, AFS President

As your president, I personally ask each of you to make a point of having a conversation with an AFS meeting at-tendee who appears to be of a different race than yours.

Continued on page 472

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 432

Fish folk are al-ways counting—fin rays, acre-feet of this, linear feet of that. It can be clinical and precise for some in our field, but in the fish habitat

world the tabulations are often more qualitative than quantita-tive. Still, hidden behind the cautions and caveats are habitat trends that demand our attention. Some of the numbers are dis-couraging and must be reversed.

Without being an alarmist or confrontational, the topics covered in this column have hopefully inspired serious conver-sation about fish habitat. After an introductory column in May, the June column explained how habitat is the connective tissue shared by American Fisheries Society units and members, the July column sounded a clarion call for urgent action, the August column implored an ecosystem-based approach, and last month I reminded all of the importance of education and awareness as we seek to engage with a broader swath of disciplines and society. Now in this sixth column I will tug at your conscience by sharing some alarming numbers on habitat loss. Those places we hold sacred are disappearing—slowly but steadily. Statistics might downplay annual changes, but over the course of decades small losses escalate into ecosystem degradation. The problem of fish habitat loss requires a concerted effort that touches on the issues covered in earlier columns. Each American Fisheries Society member needs to bring her or his expertise to the table. Soon.

“Fish habitat” is a sweeping term that could refer to a stream, lake, reservoir, estuary, or the ocean. For any aquatic system, discrete habitats could include the water column, raging currents, mudflats, construction pilings, an engineered reef, or submerged vegetation. And each habitat type could be threat-ened by total destruction (wetland fill), conversion to another type of fish habitat (blocking a river to create a reservoir), or temporary change (for instance, when a habitat recovers from a seasonal or short-term impact, such as when cultured shellfish and attached fauna are harvested, then followed by seed for the next crop). For all of those reasons it is difficult to find a few metrics that tell the whole story of fish habitat trends. But that won’t keep me from trying!

So, here are some primary trends by habitat categories, culled from the solid efforts of agencies and experts:

COLUMNFish Habitat Connections Scary Numbers

Thomas E. BigfordOffice of Habitat Conservation, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. E-mail: Thomas.bigford@noaa.gov

• The “National Rivers and Streams Assessment” (U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2013) offers a glimpse at changes since the comparable “Wadeable Streams Assessment” of 2004. National results were mixed. Habi-tat quality decreased for some habitat types, usually due to reasons such as increased pollutant concentration. Stream lengths in good condition increased due to reduced nitrogen or reduced riparian disturbance. Overall, the report found “more than half of our nation’s rivers and streams exhibit poor biological condition.”

• The most recent national wetlands survey (Dahl 2011) de-scribed a net gain (number of acres) between 1998 and 2004 (estimated at about 32,000 acres for that period) followed by a loss of about 62,300 for 2004 to 2009. Those quanti-tative losses probably underestimate the loss of functional values that would be reflected by habitat quality, not just acreage. The National Wetland Condition Assessment Study scheduled to be released later this year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USEPA should provide a more detailed assessment of wetland condition, reflecting quantity and quality.

• Even when the national trend leaned toward a net wetland gain (Dahl 2011, for 1998 to 2004), coastal and marine wetland trends leaned toward a net loss. Pressures along the coast are greater than those for inland wetlands. For that same 6-year period when our nation had a net gain (of about 5,400 acres/year), the net loss was about 59,000 acres/year (Stedman and Dahl 2008). Those losses increased for the 5-year period 2004 to 2009 to about 80,160 acres/year (Dahl and Stedman, in press). Because those reporting peri-ods were for different durations, the total net loss was about 361,000 acres for each span.

• Nutrient inputs from upland sources often translate into an-nual cycles of anthropogenic hypoxia. In the Chesapeake Bay region, multi-billion-dollar investments have not re-versed trends (Boesch et al. 2007). Habitat loss from hy-poxia is also acute at the mouth of the Mississippi River.

• Ocean changes are now predicted or evident. Climate change is expected to shift water temperature, salinity, and water column structure, prompting some fish populations to move to deeper waters or to shift latitudes (Fogarty et al. 2007). Sea surface temperature anomalies in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation index have been correlated with distri-butional shifts of marine species (Nye et al. 2009). Ocean acidification from increased carbon dioxide could reduce pH and erode calcium-based shells and structures.

Those trends are deduced from numbers that reflect a multi-tude of complex variables, including economic factors that

Continued on page 472

We know the challenges and must now seize the opportunities to protect and restore.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 433

that would allow automatic scoring. All of the questions were transformed to categorical re-sponses that had a drop-down menu (e.g., Describe your level of boating experience—none; some; familiar; skilled; expert) or required a numerical response (e.g., How many credit hours have you earned in fisheries courses?). Next was to plug into the network of human resources staff in DNR and DAS to find the right contact. I needed to know who programmed in the questions and if they would be willing to add a number of new questions for these seasonal positions. Fortunately, that person had gone through a professional devel-opment certification with one of my collaborators and was very willing to help us out!

After these big hurdles were overcome, the remaining steps were easy. We worked with DAS staff to post these positions in the online system. Job boards and listservs were used to dis-seminate the information. However, the applications were again being collected online, with the applicants entering all of their own data. After the position application period closed, a spread-sheet with the applicant response data was generated. Based on that data, a scoring system was programmed in the spreadsheet, as well as a location/position preference guide. Each applicant had an individual score, which was used to select the interview list for the available positions.

The beauty of this system is that it does not eliminate “known commodities” from being hired at the local level. Any-one can apply for any job, and the hiring committee always values suggestions from other field staff. However, this system opened the door to a broader applicant pool. The results reveal the success of the program. Over the last 6 years, the applicant pool has been much larger (x = 141, range 127–156), roughly 20% of the applicants are females (x = 27, range 21–30), and around 20% of available positions are being filled by females. A big plus is that all of the information is electronic, and after doing the initial programming, I can generate a scored list of applicants in less than 30 minutes. I needed to have a little luck at that time to get the right people to go along with this idea. Today, a person could do all this outside the realm of a hiring agency by utilizing free, easy-to-use online tools, such as Sur-vey Monkey. Technology—it can be a wonderful thing.

Do you have suggestions for topics or questions that need answering? Please write to Jeff at Jeff.Kopaska@dnr.iowa.gov

COLUMNDigital Revolution

Hello, and welcome to my attempt to inform and educate American Fisheries Society (AFS) members regarding technol-ogy. Why me? A little of my background might explain that, as I currently serve AFS as the chair of the Electronic Services Advisory Board, and have in the past served as the president of the Fisheries Information and Technology Section. I work for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fisheries Bureau as the Natural Resources Biometrician; however, my job is tailored more toward technological endeavors than statistical endeavors. I’m not a programmer or an “IT guy”. I’m a fish guy who likes to leverage technology to solve problems or make my coworkers’ lives easier.

For this first article, I would like to go back a few years and share with you a problem encountered at work in Iowa and how technology solutions were brought to the table to help alleviate the issue. The problem involved hiring our seasonal employees, a task undertaken by a centralized hiring committee of field biologists. There were no longer enough students in the Fisher-ies and Wildlife curriculum at the local university to fill all of the positions we had available. Furthermore, the diversity of the applicant pool was not acceptable to the oversight commit-tee in Iowa’s hiring agency, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). In 2006, we had a total of 25 applicants, none of whom were females. Looking toward 2007, we needed to fill approximately 40 positions. The first step was to utilize avail-able Internet venues, such as jobs boards and listservs, and to provide a downloadable application form that could be filled out and submitted. Not exactly high-end technology utilization, but just using some appropriate tools for the job at hand. The results came in: 96 applications, including 17 females—Success! How-ever, 96 paper applications are hard to sort and organize, and I really wanted the ability to query all the data without having to hand-enter it. Two of the initial issues had been addressed, but the results had reduced the efficiency of the process. Back to the drawing board.

I was aware of the mechanism that DAS used for accepting applications for full-time positions—an online system that had a variety of questions for users to complete. I also knew that the issue with the size and diversity of the applicant pool for fisheries positions was an issue for wildlife and parks positions, and that they might participate if they saw the value of col-laboration. After some informal discussions, everyone thought that casting a wider net would be beneficial and were willing to come aboard.

In preparation, the existing application forms were re-viewed to see whether the questions could be formatted in a way

Hiring ToolsJeff KopaskaIowa Department of Natural Resources, 1436 255th St., Boone, IA 50036. E-mail: Jeff.Kopaska@dnr.iowa.gov

Continued on page 472

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 434

FEATURE

Forming a Partnership to Avoid Bycatch

Formación de asociaciones para evitar captura incidentalRESUMEN: En los EE.UU., la captura incidental de la platija amarilla es una limitante para que la pesquería de almeja alcance la captura óptima. Entre 2000 y 2009, las vedas estacionales de captura incidental en las áreas de pesca de la almeja produjeron pérdidas económicas por encima de los 100 millones de dólares. Con el fin de estudiar esta limitante, en 2010 se puso en marcha una colaboración con la industria pesquera de almeja para implementar un programa de evasión de la captura inci-dental en la zona de pesca de Nantucket Lightship. Las em-barcaciones compartían, en tiempo real, la localización de regiones y volúmenes de captura incidental obtenidos du-rante las actividades de pesca. Se compiló la información, se identificaron las zonas clave de captura incidental y se brindaron asesorías diarias a las embarcaciones en las áreas de pesca. Tanto la captura por arrastre de la platija como el esfuerzo pesquero en regiones de alta captura in-cidental, se redujeron sustancialmente después de que las embarcaciones recibieran la asesoría. La captura de alme-jas en sitios selectos representó una ganancia de 40 mil-lones de dólares, a la vez que se alcanzaba sólo el 32% del límite de captura incidental de la platija. Este programa continua como un enfoque colaborativo e iterativo para reducir la captura incidental de forma tal que se tienda a un balance entre los objetivos de la flota y las limitaciones que impone la conservación.

Catherine E. O’KeefeUniversity of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology, 200 Mill Road, Suite 325, Fairhaven, MA 02719. E-mail: cokeefe@umassd.edu

Gregory R. DeCellesUniversity of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology, Fairhaven, MA

ABSTRACT: Bycatch of Yellowtail Flounder in the U.S. Sea Scallop Fishery is a constraint to achieving optimum yield of scallops. Between 2000 and 2009, in-season bycatch closures of prime scallop grounds resulted in economic losses over US$100 million. To address this constraint, we collaborated with the scallop fishing industry to implement a bycatch avoidance program in the Nantucket Lightship harvest area in 2010. Ves-sels shared near real-time location information about bycatch amounts during fishing activities. We compiled the informa-tion, identified bycatch hotspots, and provided daily advisories to vessels on the fishing grounds. Catch per tow of Yellowtail and fishing effort in high bycatch regions significantly declined after the fleet received the advisories. The fleet harvested the target scallop allocation worth US$40 million while catching only 32% of the Yellowtail bycatch limit. This program contin-ues as a collaborative, iterative approach to bycatch reduction that balances fleet objectives with conservation constraints.

INTRODUCTION

Mitigation measures to reduce bycatch of nontarget spe-cies in commercial fisheries often focus on conservation goals (Alverson et al. 1994; Kelleher 2005) and may not incorporate socioeconomic incentives for the fishery. Socioeconomic im-pacts related to bycatch mitigation include constraints on fish-ing operations, reduced landings of target species, and potential losses of employment and community structure (Pascoe 1997). Bycatch reduction strategies often limit economic yield and op-portunity in fisheries that sustainably target a single species or mixed-species fisheries, in which distributions of abundant spe-cies overlap with overfished or depleted stocks (Boyce 1996; Hall et al. 2000; Salomon et al. 2011).

Various mitigation strategies, including gear modifications and restrictions, time/area closures, and quota systems can be successful in meeting conservation goals (Alverson et al. 1994). However, these methods can impose increased operational costs on the fishing industry and increased administrative responsibil-ity on managers and enforcement agencies (Catchpole and Gray 2010). An alternative or complementary approach to reducing bycatch is avoidance of nontarget species through fleet com-munications. This approach requires cooperation from fishing industry participants to exchange spatial and temporal bycatch

information (Gauvin et al. 1996; Watson et al. 2003). Socioeco-nomic incentives to avoid fisheries bycatch must also exist in order to influence changes in fishing behavior.

Cooperative approaches to reducing bycatch that include input from fishermen, scientists, and managers can be suc-cessful for harvesting valuable target species while conserving nontarget species. Within the cooperative context, fishing in-dustry members play a role in defining objectives and desired outcomes of harvest strategies (Pinto da Silva and Kitts 2006; Johnson and van Densen 2007). Often these goals differ from scientific and regulatory objectives that focus on biological and ecological mandates. A cooperative approach to bycatch avoid-ance can ensure that objectives of the fishery participants are acknowledged and prioritized. Though outcomes of bycatch avoidance programs can be ecologically beneficial, specific aspects of program design can include measures that lead to socioeconomic benefits as well (Bethoney et al. 2013).

We employed a cooperative, iterative approach to reduc-ing bycatch of Yellowtail Flounder (Limanda ferruginea) in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 435

U.S. Atlantic Sea Scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) fishery. Our objective was to assist the fleet in maximizing scallop yield by avoiding bycatch of Yellowtail. Rather than focusing solely on the ecological goal of reducing bycatch, we focused on the socioeconomic goal identified by the scallop industry, which was harvesting the entire scallop allocation by preventing an in-season bycatch closure. Achieving optimum yield from each fishery and developing practical measures that minimize by-catch are also policy goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S. Department of Com-merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service 2007).

BACKGROUND

Georges Bank supports the world’s largest single natu-ral Sea Scallop resource (Caddy 1989). Annual scallop land-ings from this region averaged 8,500 mt since 2004, when the New England Fishery Management Council implemented an area-based management plan for scallops (Figure 1). Under the area-based plan, access to defined regions of the resource was periodically restricted to increase overall yield by allow-ing scallops to grow, and to minimize impacts on finfish and essential fish habitat (NEFMC 2004). Three areas on Georges Bank (Closed Area I, Closed Area II and the Nantucket Light-ship Closed Area) were closed to all mobile fishing gear in 1994 to reduce fishing mortality on depleted groundfish stocks. Re-gions within the closures, which contain high abundances and biomass of scallops, were opened for scallop harvest under the area-based management plan in 1999 (Figure 2; NEFSC 1994; NEFMC 2004).

The area-based scallop management plan included mea-sures to minimize bycatch of groundfish stocks, specifically Yellowtail Flounder. Yellowtail are managed as three separate

stocks, with mixing of the stocks occurring across portions of Georges Bank (Cadrin 2010). The Georges Bank and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock units have overlapping distri-butions with scallops in Closed Area II and the Nantucket Light-ship Closed Area, respectively. Both stocks of Yellowtail are in rebuilding plans, and allocations of Yellowtail to the scallop fishery are relatively low (Figure 1). The Yellowtail allocation to the scallop fleet in the access areas was limited to 10% of the overall Yellowtail catch limit, and the areas were closed to all fishing during peak spawning times from February to mid-June (NEFMC 1999).

In recent years, the access area fisheries opened in June, with a target scallop allocation managed through individual trip possession limits of 8.2 mt (18,000 lbs). The amount of exploit-able scallop biomass observed in annual surveys determined which areas would open and the number of trips per vessel. The Yellowtail bycatch allocation was shared by the entire scallop fleet and monitored through the industry-funded observer pro-gram at a target level of 10% coverage. The Yellowtail quota was monitored weekly, and when the estimated Yellowtail by-catch reached the allocated quota, the access areas closed and no further fishing was allowed inside the areas.

METHODS

Forming a Partnership

Prior to the opening of the Nantucket Lightship access area fishery in June 2010, the School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) Scallop Steering Committee identified an approach for maximizing scallop yield from the access areas on Georges Bank by avoiding areas with high abundance of Yellowtail Flounder. The Steering Committee was created in 1999 as a partnership between members of the scallop fishing

Figure 1. U.S. landings in metric tons of Georges Bank Sea Scallops (solid line) and Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder (dashed line) from 1965 to 2011.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 436

harvest from the area (2,672 mt; NEFMC 2010), a minimum harvest rate of 58 mt of scallops to 1 mt of Yellowtail was needed to avoid in-season closure. The Virginia Institute of Marine Sci-ence (VIMS) conducted an industry-based dredge survey in the Nantucket Lightship access area in July 2009, collecting catch ratio information for scallops and Yellowtail (DuPaul and Rud-ders 2010). Results from this survey were compared with the scallop-to-Yellowtail catch ratio threshold of 58:1 mt to identify regions where scallops could be harvested without exceeding the Yellowtail bycatch limit (Figure 3). Additionally, a video survey was conducted by SMAST (Stokesbury et al. 2004) in the Nantucket Lightship access area in May 2010, providing in-formation on scallop abundance and distribution. The combined survey information was sent to the 348 permitted scallop vessels two weeks prior to the area opening with a letter encouraging the fleet to avoid regions where the catch ratio would cause a premature closure of the fishery.

Phase 2: Real-Time Bycatch Avoidance

In Phase 2, a fleet communication system was developed to identify bycatch “hotspots” and facilitate vessel avoidance. We held several meetings with fleet members to address con-cerns about data collection and data sharing, and the costs of implementing a bycatch avoidance program. These meetings were designed as open discussions to identify a balance between data needs and industry incentives to facilitate an operational protocol that would meet the fleet objective of harvesting the full scallop allocation. We attempted to minimize expenses to industry members for the 2010 Nantucket Lightship fishery. We collectively decided to use existing technology and to incorpo-rate a user-friendly e-mail system to provide advice in a simple format. In addition to the discussions and meetings with fleet members, we used several media outlets to publicize the avoid-ance program and promote participation.

The Nantucket Lightship access area is approximately 1,525 km2, with depths from 30 to 80 m. Yellowtail tend to ag-gregate between 50 and 70 m in the area during summer months

fleet and scientists from SMAST (O’Keefe and Stokesbury 2009). The committee was formed to identify research topics, discuss management strategies, and set cooperative objectives to achieve ecological and economic goals.

The Scallop Steering Committee identified several prob-lems associated with Yellowtail bycatch in the access areas on Georges Bank, including a restrictive allocation of Yellowtail; lack of knowledge of species’ distributions prior to the fishery opening; extrapolation of single bycatch events over large re-gions based on small, highly variable at-sea observer samples; and time lags in access to at-sea observer data. We collaborated with the Steering Committee and scallop fishing industry mem-bers to design a two-phase system to reduce Yellowtail bycatch in the Nantucket Lightship access area fishery.

Phase 1: Survey Information

Phase 1 provided information on the distributions of scal-lops and Yellowtail to the fleet prior to the area opening. We compiled information from industry-based surveys in the Nan-tucket Lightship region and examined historic catch rates to inform the fleet about bycatch rates before they reached the fish-ing grounds. The objective in providing this information was to educate the fleet about potential bycatch hotspots. Annual fed-eral resource surveys for scallops and Yellowtail were designed to assess biomass and size–structure of the entire resource from North Carolina to Maine, and sampling locations are random within depth strata. This design produces a low number of sam-pling locations within the scallop access areas of Georges Bank that do not provide fine-scale spatial information on scallop and Yellowtail distribution or bycatch rates. At-sea observer data are compiled on a weekly basis to inform the public on the level of Yellowtail bycatch taken from the access areas; however, spa-tially specific bycatch information within the access areas is not publicly available.

Based on the allocation of Yellowtail to the scallop fleet for the Nantucket Lightship area (47 mt) and the target for scallop

Captain Chris Wright onboard the F/V Huntress e-mails fishing location, number of tows, and amount of Yellowtail caught through Boatracs vessel monitoring system (VMS) to the SMAST Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch Avoidance Program. Photo credit: Catherine E. O’Keefe.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 437

Figure 2. Georges Bank with closed areas outlined in black, scallop fishery access areas shaded in gray, and 50- to 70-m depth range where Yellowtail aggregate in the Nantucket Lightship region. Inset depicts U.S. East Coast with the 70-m isobath shown in gray.

Figure 3. Ratio of metric tons of scallops to metric tons of Yellowtail caught in the Nantucket Lightship access area during 15-min survey tows conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in 2009 with the SMAST Bycatch Avoidance Program reporting grid overlaid. Green circles indicate areas with low Yellowtail bycatch rates, and red circles indicate high Yellowtail bycatch rates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 438

Figure 4. Grid map of the Nantucket Lightship access area with 34 lettered cells showing the Yellowtail bycatch advisory for 9 July 2010 with high (red), medium (yellow), and low (green) bycatch areas. The text depicts the e-mail message that was sent to the 122 participating vessels on 9 July 2010.

(Figure 2; NEFMC 2012). In order to provide information on a fine spatial scale, a grid was overlaid on the area to create uniquely identifiable cells. The size of the grid cells was con-figured to be large enough to collect information from entire dredge tows and mask individual fishing locations, but small enough to identify small-scale aggregations of Yellowtail and facilitate movement away from hotspots. Fishermen suggested using the 13000 and 43000 Loran C lines to create the report-ing grid. The grid contained 34 individual lettered cells, each representing approximately 50 km2 (Figure 4).

Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) with ship-to-shore e-mail capability are required on all scallop vessels. An authorized e-mail account was established with the VMS service provid-ers Boatracs and SkyMate, enabling communications between SMAST and participating vessels. Prior to the area opening, vessels were provided with the grid map of lettered cells, data collection sheets, and instructions for how to record Yellowtail catch. During fishing trips, vessel captains recorded the letter of the cell they were fishing in, the number of tows completed in each cell, and total pounds of Yellowtail caught in each cell. The recorded information was entered into a text-based e-mail and sent to SMAST once every 24 h. The e-mails were compiled each day at 8:00 a.m. EST and all reports from the previous 24 h were analyzed. As a quality control measure, two research-ers separately entered, compiled, and analyzed the Yellowtail catch information. Yellowtail catch per tow for each cell was calculated based on the number of tows and total pounds of Yellowtail reported. Tow duration did not differ significantly during the reporting period (28 June–15 July) with a mean tow time of 34 min (±16 min). A daily and cumulative (all days) weighted average bycatch amount in pounds (weighted by the number of tows) was calculated to classify the status of bycatch in each cell (Figure 4).

The cells were classified as low, medium, and high based on the amount of bycatch reported relative to bycatch thresh-olds. Fishing industry members agreed to share Yellowtail Flounder catch information only, so an assumed scallop catch rate of 0.27 mt/tow (600 lb/tow), estimated by industry mem-bers from historical catch rates in the access area, was applied for the duration of the fishery. Combining this assumed scallop catch rate with the allocated threshold rates (58 mt scallops to 1 mt Yellowtail) yielded a bycatch threshold of 10 lb of Yellowtail per tow. A low cell was an area with low bycatch amounts (cu-mulative weighted average of 0 to 5 lb per tow) where continued fishing was expected to allow full harvest of the scallop target without exceeding the Yellowtail bycatch allocation. A medium cell was an area with variable, intermediate, or high bycatch amounts (5 to 10 lb per tow) that could lead to a premature closure of the area from Yellowtail bycatch. A high cell was an area with high bycatch amounts (10 or more pounds per tow) where continued fishing was expected to lead to a premature closure of the access area due to exceeding the Yellowtail by-catch allocation.

Likelihood ratio G-tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) were used to test for significant differences in reported bycatch amounts and the reported number of tows conducted in medium or high cells before (28 June–1 July) and after (2 July–15 July) the first advisory was sent to the fleet. Similarly, G-tests were used to test for significant differences in Northeast Fisheries Observer Program–observed bycatch amounts and the number of tows in medium and high cells before and after the first advisory. The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program provided data from all observed scallop trips in the Nantucket Lightship for fishing year 2010. All at-sea observer data were analyzed on a vessel and tow basis between 28 June and 15 July and then aggregated by grid cell.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 439

Results from the SMAST program and Northeast Fisher-ies Observer Program data sets were compared to determine whether the voluntary reported bycatch amounts and vessel movements were similar to at-sea observed bycatch amounts and vessel movements. The effectiveness of the program in reducing bycatch could not be directly quantified because of many uncontrolled factors that may have influenced the distri-bution of scallops and Yellowtail, variability in fishing behavior and gear configuration, and the voluntary nature of the program. Instead, program effectiveness was evaluated by examining re-ported changes in fishing locations by vessels and performance of the fishery in the access area.

RESULTS

The Nantucket Lightship access area fishery opened on 28 June 2010 and real-time reporting extended to 15 July, at which point 88% of the fleet had completed their trips in the area. The bycatch avoidance program had 122 vessels out of the 348 permitted vessels participating (35%), with 61 vessels sending 3,397 tow reports. A Yellowtail bycatch hotspot was identified within 32 h of the fishery opening and three additional medium bycatch areas were identified over the next 72 h (Figure 4). Due to an initial malfunction in the VMS e-mail transmissions, ves-sels did not receive information about the locations of bycatch hotspots for the first 3 days of the fishery. The first effective advisory on Yellowtail bycatch hotspots was received by all 122 participating vessels on 2 July. Following the first advisory, Yellowtail catch per tow significantly declined for the remain-der of the reporting period (G = 5.10; P = 0.02; Figure 5). Re-ported fishing effort in cells that had been identified as high and medium also declined significantly (G = 106.64; P < 0.0001; Figure 6) All reported fishing effort from the high bycatch cell ceased within 3 days of the first advisory.

The spatial distributions of Yellowtail and scallops in the Nantucket Lightship access area observed by the Northeast

Fisheries Observer Program matched closely with reports from vessels participating in the bycatch avoidance program and with VIMS and SMAST survey information that was disseminated prior to the area opening. Following the first bycatch advisory, data collected by at-sea observers showed that Yellowtail catch per tow declined significantly (G = 42.70; P < 0.0001; Figure 7), and the number of tows conducted in high and medium cells also declined, though not significantly. Observed vessels gener-ally moved from the central portion of the access area to the northern and eastern borders, where bycatch rates were lower.

By the end of the reporting period (15 July), the entire Nantucket Lightship access area scallop target (2,624 mt) was harvested, and only 26% of the Yellowtail bycatch allocation had been caught, increasing to 32% (14.4 mt) by the end of the fishery in February 2011 (Table 1). Following the first advisory, bycatch reports to SMAST indicated that Yellowtail catch was reduced by an average of 57%. At-sea observer data showed that Yellowtail catch was reduced by an average of 65% in the period after the first advisory was sent, and the bycatch rate (mt Yellowtail/mt scallops) was reduced by an average of 50% (from 0.008 to 0.004).

DISCUSSION

Fleet communication is a cost-effective way to collect and disseminate information to facilitate bycatch reduction but requires high levels of fleet participation (Gauvin et al. 1996; O’Keefe et al. 2010; Bethoney et al. 2013). Time/area closures for bycatch reduction tend to ignore the potential for increased bycatch in other areas due to effort shifts (Powell et al. 2004), density-dependent effects on nontarget species (Pastoors et al. 2000), and increased operational costs to the fishing industry (Murray et al. 2000). Gear modification can be a successful mitigation tool but can increase operational costs and lead to increased need for enforcement (Valdemarsen and Suuronen 2003). Quota systems alone may not reduce bycatch and can

Figure 5. Distribution of SMAST-reported Yellowtail bycatch by date. The vertical dashed line separates the reporting period prior to and after the first bycatch advisory was received by participating vessels. The solid horizontal line at 10 lb/tow represents the threshold for classification as high bycatch. Box plots indicate the median, interquartile range, 1.5 times the interquartile range, and outliers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 440

Figure 7. Distribution of Northeast Fisheries Observer Program–collected Yellowtail bycatch by date. The vertical dashed line separates the reporting period prior to and after the first bycatch advisory was received by participating vessels. The solid horizontal line at 10 lb/tow represents the threshold for classification as high bycatch. Box plots indicate the median, interquartile range, and 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Figure 6. Number of SMAST reported tows in cells classified as high (black) and medium (gray) each day. The vertical dashed line separates the reporting period prior to and after the first fleet advisory was received.

Table 1. Results from the access area fisheries in the Nantucket Lightship (NLCA) and Closed Area II (CAII) between 2006 and 2010. Foregone revenue (in millions USD) was calculated using the unadjusted average price per pound of scallops in 2006, 2008, and 2009.

2006 2006 2008 2009 2010

Access area NLCA CAII NLCA CAII NLCA

Opening date 15 June 2006 15 June 2006 15 June 2008 15 June 2009 28 June 2010

Expected fishery duration (days) 231 231 231 231 218

Actual fishery duration (days) 36 84 57 15 218

% Time fishery was open 16 36 25 6 100

Yellowtail total allowable catch (mt) 14.3 204 31.2 174.3 47

Actual Yellowtail catch (mt) 25.2 210 30.6 142 14.4

% Yellowtail total allowable catch harvested 176 103 98 81 31

Scallop target (mt) 5,235 7,459 2,841 2,503 2,672

Actual scallop catch (mt) 4,078 6,144 2,125 1,531 2,780

% Scallop target harvested 78 82 75 61 104

Forgone revenue (millions USD) 16.5 19 11 14 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 441

Figure 8. Map of Closed Area II scallop (red circles) and Yellowtail (blue circles) distribution sent to the scallop fleet in 2009 with areas to target for scallops (yellow polygon) and avoid for Yellowtail (gray polygon).

lead to increased regulatory requirements (Diamond 2004). When applied iteratively and used in combination, these tech-niques can be effective to increase fleet incentives for bycatch reduction (Croxall 2008). Additionally, programs that incorpo-rate fishermen’s knowledge are likely to be more successful in meeting fleet objectives (Kaplan and McKay 2004).

Results from the 2010 Nantucket Lightship access area fish-ery indicate that the scallop fleet utilized information from the bycatch avoidance system to avoid Yellowtail bycatch hotspots in order to maximize scallop yield. Bycatch amounts dropped significantly after the fleet received information about hotspot locations as vessels moved to areas with lower bycatch levels. This mitigation technique, in combination with the fleetwide bycatch quota and threat of in-season closure, may have been effective because of the collaborative nature of the program and the iterative approach employed to identify objectives and de-sign the advisory.

Prior to the development of the SMAST Yellowtail Floun-der Bycatch Avoidance Program, several mitigation approaches were unsuccessful in reducing Yellowtail Flounder bycatch in

the scallop fishery. An examination of measures that failed to reduce Yellowtail bycatch indicates that industry collaboration was lacking and fleet incentives were not considered. The 2008 scallop fishery conducted in the Nantucket Lightship access area closed prematurely due to Yellowtail bycatch, resulting in a loss of approximately US $11 million (Table 1; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2013). Projected es-timates of Yellowtail bycatch for this region were low (NEFMC 2007), and fishing behavior was based on expectations that the target scallop allocation would be harvested (M. Buron, Eastern Fisheries, personal communication; D. Eilertsen, Nordic Fisher-ies, personal commication; E. Hansen, Hansen Scalloping, per-sonal communication). However, the area closed 57 days after opening when Yellowtail catch reached 98% of the limit, leav-ing 25% of the scallop allocation unharvested.

In May 2009, SMAST provided information on scallop and Yellowtail distributions in advance of the Closed Area II access area fishery. Results from a Yellowtail tagging experi-ment (Melgey 2010) were combined with scallop distribution information from the SMAST video survey to identify areas of spatial separation between the two species in Closed Area

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 442

II (Figure 8). The information was disseminated to the scallop fleet before the fishery opened but was not utilized by the entire fleet. Although the species’ distributions proved accurate based on at-sea observer information, one third of the observed vessels chose to fish in areas where high bycatch rates were expected. The Closed Area II access area closed to harvest after only 15 days due to reaching the bycatch limit. The resulting economic loss from unharvested scallops in this area was US$14 million (Table 1; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2013).

The New England Fishery Management Council con-sidered an option for rights-based fishing cooperatives in the scallop fishery during the spring of 2010. They proposed a sys-tem to transfer Yellowtail allocation between the scallop and Groundfish fleets as a mechanism to increase individual stew-ardship for the Yellowtail resource and attempt to maximize scallop yield. The proposal was rejected by the scallop industry, and the rights-based management option was withdrawn from further consideration. Despite reported benefits of quota man-agement systems (Beddington et al. 2007; Costello et al. 2008), there are many uncertainties and concerns surrounding rights-based management (Bromley 2009; Pinkerton and Edwards 2009). The scallop industry voiced fear of fleet consolidation, lost wages and employment, high costs of increased observer coverage, and changes in community structure in relation to the rights-based bycatch options. Furthermore, the scallop industry disputed claims that a rights-based approach would incentivize bycatch reduction, and they anticipated lowered Yellowtail al-locations resulting from confounded individual catch histories.

The focus of the 2010 SMAST Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch Avoidance Program was to meet the national policy objective

and fleet objective of maximizing scallop yield, which required substantial collaboration from the fleet. The preexisting rela-tionship between the fleet and SMAST, based on a decade of collaborative efforts in resource surveys, habitat research, tag-ging studies, and policy analysis, was critical in defining expec-tations of the bycatch avoidance system. The scallop fleet was willing to address bycatch constraints but did not favor alterna-tives that relied on static information or caused increased op-erational costs. The only cost to vessel owners to implement the program was additional VMS provider charges to facilitate the daily e-mails, estimated at approximately US$12 per vessel for the duration of the reporting period. Costs associated with ves-sel movements included potential for foregone scallop yield and increased fuel consumption. Because the high-density aggre-gations of Yellowtail were relatively small, the longest move-ment needed to avoid a hotspot during the advisory period was approximately 5 km (2.7 nautical miles). These short distance movements likely kept costs low in terms of foregone catch and fuel (Abbot and Wilen 2010).

The near real-time nature of information from the bycatch avoidance program provided a context for individual vessel accountability. Prior to the 2010 bycatch avoidance program, fine-scale spatial information on bycatch rates was not avail-able while the fishery was occurring. Providing daily bycatch advisories alerted fishermen about hotspots in a time frame that allowed them to move to areas with lower bycatch. The daily advisories also promoted self-enforcement in the fleet. The Nantucket Lightship access area is relatively small, allowing vessels to see where others are fishing. Vessel captains fishing in the area indicated that they discussed the advisories through radio communications and encouraged each other to follow the advice about bycatch hotspots.

Crew members onboard the F/V Huntress sort through a pile of scallops, saving marketable scallops and discarding bycatch species, including Yellowtail Flounder. Photo credit: Catherine E. O’Keefe.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 443

CONCLUSIONS

The SMAST Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch Avoidance Pro-gram was an effective voluntary effort that relied on fleet incen-tives to avoid Yellowtail bycatch. The benefits for the fleet of harvesting the full scallop allocation from the Nantucket Light-ship access area may have outweighed individual costs of shar-ing data in near real-time. The program did not require additional regulations or include enforcement provisions, individual vessel data remained confidential, and the system was technologically simple and inexpensive. Fishermen had little motivation to mis-report catch data to the program because bycatch advice relied solely on fishery-dependent information, the program was vol-untary, and no regulatory action was associated with individual reports. The ability to utilize fishermen-collected data to make decisions about fishing operations empowered the scallop fleet and encouraged increased participation in the program.

The bycatch avoidance program was continued in 2011 for the access area fisheries in Closed Areas I and II. The fleet agreed to report both scallop and Yellowtail catch, which fa-cilitated calculations of bycatch rates and enabled us to better advise the fleet where bycatch hotspots were occurring. Partici-pation increased to include 211 vessels and the fleet-reported catch information from 8,363 tows. The fleet was again able to catch the target scallop allocation, while catching only 30% of the Yellowtail bycatch allocation. Derby effects also decreased, and fishing effort was sustained over 3 months. Several factors, including the bycatch avoidance program, may have influenced the reduced derby effects of the fishery in the access areas. In 2012, all three of the access areas (Nantucket Lightship, Closed Areas I and II) were open for fishing. Participation increased to include 243 vessels (70% of the fleet), with 108 vessels report-ing scallop and Yellowtail catch information from over 20,000 tows. Objectives for the scallop fleet have changed to a lon-ger term focus of maintaining access to Georges Bank fishing grounds in the future and the 2013 bycatch avoidance program expanded to all Georges Bank fishing grounds. Bycatch of Yel-lowtail continues to constrain the fishery and could undermine the area-based management system.

In 2012, the fleet began providing financial donations to support the bycatch avoidance program, including funding for research staff to conduct the daily data analyses and bycatch advisories. Additional funding from the Sea Scallop Research Set-Aside Program (NEFMC 1999) supports staff to conduct outreach efforts, coordinate with VMS providers, and present research results at scientific and management meetings. Despite its voluntary nature, the fleet has identified the program as a funding priority in the near term. The bycatch avoidance pro-gram continues to adapt to the changing objectives and manage-ment environment, and future plans include expansion to all scallop fishing grounds and application to other bycatch species.

The avoidance program has been a useful tool to reduce bycatch in the scallop fishery, but it is not a universal solution to bycatch problems in all fisheries. Understanding the manage-ment requirements as well as life history traits of scallops and

Yellowtail was necessary prior to identifying a feasible solu-tion to reduce bycatch. The spatial separation of scallops and Yellowtail facilitated the avoidance approach because vessels could move to areas with lower bycatch rates. The sessile nature of scallops allowed us to provide useful information on spatial distribution prior to the fishery. In addition, we knew from sur-vey data that Yellowtail tend to form small-scale spatial aggre-gations. Previous economic losses and uncertainty associated with management provided the fleet with incentives to share catch data and attempt an alternative bycatch reduction method to complement the area-based bycatch quotas and in-season closures. We specifically tailored the solution to the problem and, as a result, voluntary participation to reduce bycatch has grown to include over 70% of the scallop fleet since 2010. The iterative, adaptive, and collaborative nature of the program has supported continued effectiveness in meeting fleet objectives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the substantial contributions from Daniel Georgianna, Steven Cadrin, and Kevin Stokesbury in designing and implementing the bycatch avoidance program. We thank the owners, managers, captains, and crew members from the U.S. Sea Scallop Fleet who assisted in program design and vol-untarily participated in fleet communications and the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program for providing data. Nikki Jacobson provided programming and data analysis assistance. Mike Sis-senwine, Jake Kritzer, and one anonymous reviewer provided critical review of the article. Funding for the program was provided by donations from the Fisheries Survival Fund, the American Scallop Association, scallop fishing vessel owners, and NOAA grant NA12NMF4540035.

REFERENCES

Abbott, J. K., and J. E. Wilen. 2010. Voluntary cooperation in the com-mons? Evaluating the Sea State Program with reduced form and structural models. Land Economics 86:131–154.

Alverson, D. L., M. H. Freeberg, J. G. Pope, and S. A. Murawski. 1994. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fish-eries Technical Paper No. 339, Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion, Rome.

Beddington, J. R., D. J. Agnew, and C. W. Clark. 2007. Current prob-lems in the management of marine fisheries. Science 316:1713–1716.

Bethoney, N. D., B. P. Schondelmeier, K. D. E. Stokesbury, and W. S. Hoffman. 2013. Developing a fine scale system to address River Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus, A. aestivalis) and American Shad (A. sapidissima) bycatch in the U.S. northwest Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 141:79–87.

Boyce, J. R. 1996. An economic analysis of the fisheries bycatch problem. Journal of Experimental Economics and Management 31:314–336.

Bromley, D. W. 2009. Abdicating responsibility: the deceits of fisheries policy. Fisheries 34(6):280–290.

Caddy, J. F. 1989. A perspective on the population dynamics and as-sessment of scallop fisheries, with special reference to the Sea Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin). Pages 559–589 in J. F. Caddy, editor. Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 444

Cadrin, S. X. 2010. Interdisciplinary analysis of Yellowtail Floun-der stock structure off New England. Reviews in Fisheries Sci-ence18:281–299.

Catchpole, T. L., and T. S. Gray. 2010. Reducing discards of fish at sea: a review of European pilot projects. Journal of Environmental Management 91:717–723.

Costello, C., S. D. Gaines, and J. Lynham. 2008. Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321:1678–1681.

Croxall, J. P. 2008. The role of science and advocacy in the conser-vation of Southern Ocean albatrosses at sea. Bird Conservation International 18:S13–S29.

Diamond, S. L. 2004. Bycatch quotas in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery: can they work? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fish-eries 14:207–237.

DuPaul, W. D., and D. B. Rudders. 2010. Abundance and distribution of Sea Scallops and Yellowtail Flounder during the 2009 VIMS/industry cooperative survey of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area (NLCA). Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Marine Re-source Report No. 2010-2, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Gauvin, J. R., K. Haflinger, and M. Nerini. 1996. Implementation of a voluntary bycatch avoidance program in the flatfish fisheries of the eastern Bering Sea. University of Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant Program, Sea Grant Program Report 96-03, Fairbanks.

Hall, M. A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals. 2000. By-catch: prob-lems and solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41:204–219.

Johnson, T. R., and W. L. T. van Densen. 2007. Benefits and organi-zation of cooperative research for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:834–840.

Kaplan, I. M., and B. J. McCay. 2004. Cooperative research, co-man-agement and the social dimension of fisheries science and man-agement. Marine Policy 28:257–258.

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Melgey, J. H. 2010. A Petersen tagging experiment to estimate popula-tion size of Yellowtail Flounder in a closed area on Georges Bank. Master’s thesis. University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.

Murray, K. T., A. J. Read, and A. R. Solow. 2000. The use of time/area closures to reduce bycatches of harbour porpoises: lessons from the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(2):135–141.

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). 1999. Frame-work Adjustment 11 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Man-agement Plan and Framework Adjustment 29 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachusetts.

———. 2004. Final Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fish-ery Management Plan with a supplemental environmental impact statement, regulatory impact review and regulatory flexibility analysis. New England Fishery Management Council, Newbury-port, Massachusetts.

———. 2007. Framework 19 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP includ-ing an environmental assessment, and initial regulatory flexibility analysis and stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) re-port. New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachusetts.

———. 2010. Addendum to Framework Adjustment 44 to the North-east Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and its environ-mental assessment. New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachusetts.

———. 2012. DRAFT Framework 24 to the Scallop FMP and Frame-work 49 to the Multispecies FMP including a draft environmen-tal assessment (EA), an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE Report). New

England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachu-setts.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1994. Report of the 18th North-east Regional Stock Assessment Workshop. U.S. Department of Commerce, NEFSC Reference Document 94-22, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

———. 2010. 50th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (50th SAW) assessment summary report and assessment report. U.S. Department of Commerce, NEFSC Reference Document 10-09 and 10-17, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Regional Office. 2013. NOAA Fisheries Sea Scallop fishery monitoring. Available: www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/scal.htm. (February 2013).

O’Keefe, C. E., G. R. DeCelles, D. Georgianna, K. D. E. Stokesbury, and S. X. Cadrin. 2010. Confronting the bycatch issue: an incen-tive-led approach to maximizing yield in the US Sea Scallop fish-ery. Pages 1–9 in Proceedings of the 2010 ICES Annual Science Conference. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark.

O’Keefe, C. E., and K. D. E. Stokesbury. 2009. From bust to boom: the success of industry collaboration in U.S. Sea Scallop research. Pages 1–12 in Proceedings of the 2009 ICES annual Science Con-ference. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Pascoe, S. 1997. Bycatch management and the economics of discard-ing. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 370, Food and Agricul-ture Organization, Rome.

Pastoors, M. A., A. D. Rijnsdorp, and F. A. Van Beek. 2000. Effects of a partially closed area in the North Sea (“plaice box”) on stock development of plaice. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:1014–1022.

Pinkerton, E., and D. N. Edwards. 2009. The elephant in the room: the hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing quota. Marine Policy 33:707–713.

Pinto da Silva, P., and A. Kitts. 2006. Collaborative fisheries manage-ment in the Northeast U.S.: emerging initiatives and future direc-tions. Marine Policy 30:832–841.

Powell, E. N., A. J. Bonner, B. Muller, and E. A. Bochenek. 2004. Assessment of the effectiveness of scup bycatch-reduction regula-tions in the Loligo squid fishery. Journal of Environmental Man-agement 71:155–167.

Salomon, A. K., S. K. Gaichas, O. P. Jensen, V. N. Agostini, N. A. Sloan, J. Rice, T. R. McClanahan, M. H. Ruckelshaus, P. S. Levin, N. K. Dulvy, and E. A. Babcock. 2011. Bridging the divide be-tween fisheries and marine conservation science. Bulletin of Ma-rine Science 87(2):251–274.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd edition. W.H. Free-man and Company, New York.

Stokesbury, K. D. E., B. P. Harris, M. C. Marino II, and J. I. Nogueira. 2004. Estimation of Sea Scallop abundance using a video survey in off-shore USA waters. Journal of Shellfish Research 23:33–44.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended through January 12, 2007. Public Law 94-265.

Valdemarsen, J. W., and P. Suuronen. 2003. Modifying fishing gear to achieve ecosystem objectives. Pages 321–341 in M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson, editors. Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. FAO and CABI International Publishing, Wallingford, U.K.

Watson, J., D. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2003. Experiments in the Western Atlantic northeast distant waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic longline fishery. National Ma-rine Fisheries Service report on experiments conducted in 2001–2003. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula, Mississippi.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 445

FEATURE

Prospects for Fishery-Induced Collapse of Invasive Asian Carp in the Illinois River

Prospectos de un colapso inducido por pesca en la carpa asiática del Río IllinoisRESUMEN: . La carpa asiática amenaza con invadir el Lago Michigan a través del sistema de vías acuáticas del área de Chicago, lo cual podría acarrear serias consecuen-cias en las tramas tróficas de los grandes lagos. Además de los esfuerzos llevados a cabo para impedir el ingreso de estos peces al Lago Michigan mediante barreras eléctricas, el estado de Illinois ha iniciado un programa de pesca en el Río Illinois, cuya finalidad es reducir la densidad po-blacional a través de una pesca comercial intensiva. En este estudio se exploran los prospectos de un colapso de la carpa asiática por medio de un régimen de pesca inten-siva. Sobre la base de un meta-análisis de datos demográfi-cos, se desarrolla un modelo de simulación dinámica para comparar el desempeño de estrategias de explotación tanto reales como alternativas para el Río Illinois. Las proyec-ciones del modelo sugieren que, de mantenerse las tasas de captura por debajo de 0.7 o si la pesca continua siendo selectiva a tallas (dirigiéndose a peces >500 mm o <500 mm) o a especies (carpa cabezona), entonces es poco prob-able colapsar la carpa asiática en el Río Illinois, aunque la biomasa se puede reducir considerablemente. Se argu-menta que, pese a lo anterior, es posible lograr el nivel de esfuerzo pesquero predicho por el modelo, necesario para colapsar las poblaciones de la carpa asiática, si la pesca comercial se expande y se combina con incentivos económicos con tal de mejorar la selectividad a la talla y a las especies objetivo.

Iyob Tsehaye and Matthew CatalanoQuantitative Fisheries Center, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Greg SassIllinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey, Havana, IL

David GloverCenter for Fisheries, Aquaculture, & Aquatic Sciences, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL

Brian RothDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, Room 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: rothbri@msu.edu

ABSTRACT: Invasive Asian Carp are threatening to enter Lake Michigan through the Chicago Area Waterway System, with potentially serious consequences for Great Lakes food webs. Alongside efforts to keep these fishes from entering Lake Michigan with electric barriers, the state of Illinois initiated a fishing program aimed at reducing their densities through intensive commercial exploitation on the Illinois River. In this study, we explore prospects for the “collapse” of Asian Carp in the Illinois River through intensive fishing. Based on a meta-analysis of demographic data, we developed a dynamic simulation model to compare the performance of existing and alternative removal strategies for the Illinois River. Our model projections suggest that Asian Carp in the Illinois River are un-likely to collapse if existing harvest rates are kept below 0.7 or fishing continues to be size selective (targeting only fish >500 mm or <500 mm) or species selective (targeting mostly Bighead Carp), although their biomasses could be greatly reduced. We argue that it would still be possible to achieve fishing effort targets predicted by our model to collapse the Asian Carp popu-lations if efforts to expand commercial fishing are combined with economic incentives to improve size selectivity and species targeting.

INTRODUCTION

Invasive species have long been recognized as a major cause of decline of native freshwater species and loss of bio-diversity worldwide, with biological invasions and associated economic and ecological effects growing annually (Vitousek et al. 1997; Lodge et al. 2006; Jelks et al. 2008). At current invasion rates, nonnative species are predicted to have the most adverse effects on biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems in the next century (Sala et al. 2000). Given the serious threat that biological invasions pose to ecosystem structure and func-tion, management agencies have developed control programs

to reduce abundance or limit spread of invasive species into new systems (Lodge et al. 2006; Keller et al. 2007, 2008). For example, the National Park Service has developed a Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) suppression program in Yellowstone Lake with the aim to rehabilitate native Cutthroat Trout (On-corhynchus clarkii bouvieri; Syslo et al. 2011). Similarly, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has implemented a binational integrated pest management program in the Great Lakes to con-trol invasive Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), thereby al-lowing recovery of native fishes impaired by their predation (Jones et al. 2009). Because future biological invasion rates are predicted to increase (Lodge et al. 2006), similar large-scale re-movals of invasive species are likely to be considered for many other ecosystems (Kolar and Lodge 2002).

With many of its native populations already imperiled by nonnative species, the Laurentian Great Lakes face a new threat of invasion from Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) and Silver Carp (H. molitrix), highly efficient filter-feeding species collectively known as Asian Carp (Chapman and Hoff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 446

2011). In light of evidence of global Asian Carp introductions leading to decreased fish diversity and abundances, an Asian Carp invasion of the Great Lakes is feared to adversely affect native populations, with potentially serious consequences for aquatic food webs and a fishing industry valued at $7 billion annually (Schrank et al. 2003; Irons et al. 2007; Southwick As-sociates, Inc. 2008; Sampson et al. 2009). Asian Carp were first introduced into North America in the early 1970s to control algae in aquaculture and municipal wastewater treatment facili-ties (Kelly et al. 2011). Shortly thereafter, they escaped confine-ment and established naturally reproducing populations in the Mississippi River (Chick and Pegg 2001). Since that time, their abundance has increased exponentially, and both species have migrated up the Mississippi River and its tributaries (Sass et al. 2010; Chapman and Hoff 2011; Irons et al. 2011). There are now dense populations of both species throughout the Illinois River, threatening to enter Lake Michigan through the Chicago Area Waterway System (Cooke and Hill 2010; Sass et al. 2010; Cudmore and Mandrak 2011).

Given political resistance to closure of navigation locks on the Chicago Area Waterway System, management agencies are trying to prevent invasion of the Great Lakes by Asian Carp with electric barriers built on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Moy et al. 2011). However, these barriers may not be 100% effective at repelling Asian Carp; traces of environmental DNA have been detected in Lake Michigan, and a live Bighead Carp was captured beyond the barriers in June 2010 (Jerde et al. 2011; Mahon et al. 2011). Along with the use of electric barriers, the state of Illinois has recently developed a fishing program aimed at reducing Asian Carp densities through in-tensive commercial exploitation on the Illinois River, with the ultimate goal being to minimize propagule pressure on the elec-tric barriers (Garvey et al. 2012). Pursuant to this program, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity signed an agreement in 2010 to export 13.6–22.7 million kg of Asian Carp annually to the People’s Republic of China, where they have more commercial value than in North America (Gar-vey et al. 2012). Although commercial exploitation is expected to lead to a substantial reduction in Asian Carp biomass, the fishing program was developed without adequate understand-ing of Asian Carp population dynamics, which is essentially a prerequisite for the development of an effective fishing policy.

Garvey et al. (2006) performed a yield-per-recruit analysis for Asian Carp in the upper Mississippi River and found that high exploitation rates targeting small (<200 mm) individu-als would be required to reduce abundance by 50%. However, their analysis did not account for density-dependent effects on recruitment and uncertainty in demographic parameters, such as growth and natural mortality. In this study, we obtained im-proved estimates of demographic parameters with reduced un-certainties using a meta-analysis of multiple data sets on key life history characteristics of Asian Carp in the Illinois and middle Mississippi rivers. We then developed a dynamic simulation model to compare the effectiveness of various harvest policies at reducing Asian Carp biomass in the Illinois River. Finally, we explored exploitation rates necessary to “collapse” these

populations and examined how size- and species-selective har-vesting may affect efficacy of these removals.

METHODS

Population Dynamics

We assessed the population dynamics of Silver (SC) and Bighead Carp (BC) using hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses of life history data collected from the Illinois and middle Missis-sippi rivers. The data were obtained from all known published and unpublished studies of SC and BC population dynamics in these systems (Table 1). The life history characteristics exam-ined were longevity, natural mortality, growth, maturity, and the strength of compensatory density dependence in recruitment.

Longevity was assumed to be the age of the oldest indi-vidual in our data, which were derived from pectoral fin spine readings. Natural mortality (M) rates were estimated using four methods, including catch curve analysis (Chapman and Robson 1960) and three empirical methods relating natural mortality to demographic and/or environmental parameters (Pauly 1980; Hoenig 1983; Jensen 1996). Growth parameters (L∞, K, t0, σ

2) were estimated by fitting hierarchical Bayesian von Bertalanffy growth models to individual length–age data from eight studies for each species, with study treated as a random effect:

( ) iataK

iiaiiieLL ,)(

,,,01 ε−= −−

∞ , (1)

where L∞,i is the asymptotic length (mm) for study i, with each study representing a unique combination of investigator, year, and location; Ki is the growth coefficient, t0,i is the time at zero length; and εa,i are age- and study-specific random errors rep-resenting individual variation in length at age. We assumed that L∞,i and Ki were independent and log-normally distributed across studies. For both parameters, we assumed uninforma-tive log-normal priors (mean = 0; σ2 = 1.0 × 106). The data sets we used were uninformative on t0 because few observations of age-1 fish existed, and Asian Carp grow rapidly in their first year. This lack of information resulted in unrealistically high L∞ and unrealistically low K estimates. Thus, we allowed an informative prior on t0,i. The prior was based on the mean and variance of estimates found on fishbase.org (SC: n = 6, mean = −0.067 years, σ = 0.027; BC: n = 5, mean = 0.042, σ = 0.049), which were mostly from studies within the native range of these species. Probability of maturity (mi) was estimated as a func-tion of fish length by fitting Bayesian binomial logit models to pooled female SC and BC maturity data from three studies conducted in the Illinois River:

ii LCCm 10)(logit += , (2)

where Li is the observed total length (mm) of a female fish i, C0 is the intercept, and C1 is the slope. Length at 50% maturity was determined as −C0/C1. Observed maturity (1 = mature, 0 = immature) was determined from macroscopic visual inspection and the gonadosomatic index (100 × Ovary weight/Ovary-free

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 447

fish weight). Females were assumed mature if the gonadoso-matic index exceeded 1%, a cutoff consistent with macroscopic observations on a subset of individuals. Our analysis was based on data collected from May to August because BC gonads be-come very small in winter and hence are difficult to detect. Pooled data were used for maturity analysis because only three studies were available and few observations of immature fish existed for two of the data sets. All Bayesian models (growth, maturity, and catch curve) were fit using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using a Gibbs sampler as implemented in WinBUGS (Spiegelhalter et al. 2004). Posterior distributions of parameters were assessed after 500,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo samples and a burn-in period of 20,000, with a thinning interval of 100 samples. Convergence was assessed with the Gelman-Rubin statistic and by inspecting trace plots.

The strength of compensatory density dependence in re-cruitment is typically assessed by fitting stock–recruitment relationships to recruit and spawner abundance data. How-ever, data on BC and SC in the Illinois and Mississippi rivers were not sufficient to estimate stock–recruitment relationships. Therefore, we obtained estimates of Ricker’s stock–recruitment (Ricker 1954) parameters for SC and BC based on the strength of compensatory density dependence in recruitment drawn from a published meta-analysis of stock–recruit data from 208

Table 1. Summary of data sets used for analyses of Silver and Bighead Carp life history parameters. Each data set represents a unique combi-nation of investigator, year, and river reach. River abbreviations are as follows: IR = Illinois River, MMR = Middle Mississippi River. The sample size (N; number of fish examined) is indicated for each study.

Species Analyses Investigator Year River (reach) N

SC Growth and natural mortality 1 2004 IR (Alton) 26

1 2005 IR (Alton) 49

2 2010 IR (Alton) 102

2 2010 IR (La Grange) 287

2 2010 IR (Peoria) 233

2 2010 IR (Starved Rock) 14

4 2007 IR (La Grange) 145

5 2003 MMR (Pool 27) 147

Maturity 3 2008 IR (La Grange) 187

1 2004 IR (Alton) 31

1 2005 IR (Alton) 20

BC Growth and natural mortality 1 2004 IR (Alton) 78

1 2005 IR (Alton) 78

6 1998 MMR (Pool 27) 32

6 1999 MMR (Pool 27) 4

2 2010 IR (Peoria) 2

1 2004 MMR (Pool 27) 2

6 1998 MMR (Pool 26) 12

6 1999 MMR (Pool 26) 8

Maturity 3 2008 IR (La Grange) 80

1 2004 IR (Alton) 81

1 2005 IR (Alton) 33

Investigators: 1. K. Baerwaldt, unpublished, Southern Illinois University; 2. D. Glover and J. Garvey, unpublished, Southern Illinois University (Garvey et al. 2012); 3. E. Trone, unpublished, Illinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey; 4. LTRMP, Illinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey (USGS 2012); 5. C. Williamson and D. Garvey (Williamson and Garvey 2005); 6. M. Nuevo, R. J. Sheehan and P. S. Wills (Nuevo et al. 2004).

commercially exploited fish stocks (Myers et al. 1999). More specifically, stock–recruitment parameters for SC and BC were calculated using empirical relationships that predict Ricker stock–recruitment parameters from maximum lifetime repro-ductive rate ( ) adjusted for the expected lifetime spawner bio-mass per recruit of a population at carrying capacity (unfished) equilibrium (Walters and Martell 2004). Probability distribu-tions of stock–recruitment parameters were obtained by calcu-lating Ricker’s α and β for each of the maximum reproductive rates drawn by sampling with replacement (i.e., bootstrapping) from the meta-analysis estimates of for the 208 species. A measure of interannual recruitment variation ( ) and associ-ated uncertainty was obtained by resampling with replacement from meta-analysis estimates of for 54 commercially ex-ploited marine fish stocks (Goodwin et al. 2006).

Simulation Model

To evaluate the performance of alternative exploitation rates at achieving removal targets, we constructed an age-struc-tured dynamic simulation model that forecasted biomass and harvest of SC and BC over a 25-year time horizon in the Illinois River under different fishing scenarios. We used 10% of un-fished biomass as a removal target, below which the population was considered to have collapsed (Worm et al. 2009). At 10%

2Rσ

2Rσ

α̂

α̂

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 448

of unfished biomass, recruitment is presumed to be severely reduced, and a population would no longer play a substantial ecological role (Worm et al. 2009).

Numerical recruitment to the first age-class was generated separately for each species from a Ricker stock–recruitment re-lationship, which included stochasticity to allow for interannual recruitment variation. The average unfished recruitment was set at an arbitrary value of 1.0 because (1) the absolute magnitude of abundance for these species was unknown for the Illinois River and (2) population scaling was not relevant to our analysis because we evaluated the effects of proportional removals on relative changes in biomass. For each species, numbers at age after recruitment were calculated over time using an accounting equation of the form:

)1(,1,1 UveNN aM

tata −= −++ , (3)

where e−M is survival in the absence of fishing mortality, va is age-specific vulnerability to fishing, and U is time-invariant annual exploitation rate. Biomass at age was obtained by mul-tiplying abundances by an estimate of mean individual mass at age, which was calculated as a power function of length at age obtained from the literature (Irons et al. 2007).

By incorporating U and va into the accounting equation, the simulation model allowed us to evaluate changes to the Asian Carp populations under different combinations of (a) exploita-tion rates (0.5 to 0.9 in 0.1 increments) and (b) vulnerability schedules (all size classes fully targeted by the fishery, only fish >500 mm targeted or only fish <500 mm targeted). We assumed that vulnerability of each species to harvest was determined solely by their respective length at age relative to the target size threshold (i.e., 500 mm) and not by any other inherent charac-teristic of the species (e.g., locations relative to fishing areas, commercial value). Populations of both species were modeled separately over time and aggregate Asian Carp biomass was cal-culated by summation. Initial species composition was assumed to be 82% SC and 18% BC based on their relative biomasses in the 2006–2010 collections of the Long Term Resource Monitor-ing Program (LTRMP; U.S. Geological Survey 2012) from the La Grange Reach of the Illinois River and Pool 26 of the Missis-sippi River. Finally, because no data existed to inform whether current population size has reached equilibrium or what current Asian Carp population size is relative to system carrying capac-ity, we evaluated population responses to fishing assuming that initial (i.e., current; 2012) Asian Carp biomass was (a) already at carrying capacity equilibrium; (b) 75% of carrying capac-ity equilibrium; and (c) 50% of carrying capacity equilibrium. The most recent biomass estimates from the three lower reaches (Peoria, La Grange, and Alton) of the Illinois River were 1,075 MT (95% confidence interval = 950–1,200 MT) for SC and 338 MT (95% confidence interval = 298–377 MT) for BC based on over 3,423 km of hydroacoustics transects, which represented about 0.39% of total river volume (Garvey et al. 2012).

We accounted for uncertainty in Asian Carp population dynamics when evaluating the performance of alternative har-

vest strategies by repeating the 25-year simulations for 1,000 combinations of (a) stock–recruitment parameters, (b) maturity, (c) natural mortality, and (d) growth parameters, which were taken from the Bayesian posterior distributions or bootstrapped samples of parameters from the demographic analyses and lit-erature values. For each of the 1,000 simulated time series, we computed proportional change in biomass by dividing initial biomass (i.e., year 1) by the final biomass (i.e., year 25). The distribution of proportional biomass change across the 1,000 simulations was evaluated for each fishing scenario. The prob-ability of collapse was then computed as the percentage of simulations in which final biomass was less than 10% of the initial. For each fishing scenario, we visually inspected time series plots of biomass to determine the number of years needed to cause population collapse.

Data from LTRMP suggest that SC constitute a larger pro-portion of Asian Carp biomass in the Illinois River (Sass et al. 2010). Therefore, in the absence of species-selective fishing, the response to fishing of the aggregate Asian Carp population is expected to more closely resemble the SC response to fishing. However, harvest data from the Illinois Department of Natu-ral Resources suggest that existing fish targeting strategies are more selective toward BC than SC, with BC catches compris-ing nearly 90% of current commercial harvest of Asian Carp (Irons et al. 2007). The preference for BC may be due to their larger size, easier capture (i.e., trammel netting and gill netting), or perhaps a higher value. Thus, to mimic existing fisheries, we ran an additional set of simulations assuming that BC of a given age were twice as vulnerable to existing fishing methods compared to SC. These scenarios allowed for an evaluation of the efficacy of commercial removals if current species targeting practices persisted into the future.

RESULTS

Population Dynamics

Maximum age (longevity) estimates of wild SC and BC from outside of North America suggest that these species can reach ages of 7 to 16 years (Johal et al. 2001; Kolar et al. 2007). Despite sufficient time since colonization (late 1980s–early 1990s), the oldest fish observed in our data set were 7 years old for both species, which is close to the maximum observed age from the Mississippi River basin (Schrank and Guy 2002; Nuevo et al. 2004; Williamson and Garvey 2005). Although pectoral fin spine readings may have underestimated maximum age, this would have a minimal effect on our estimates of popu-lation dynamics parameters. Other life history parameter esti-mates differed between the two species (Table 2). SC reached a smaller asymptotic length than BC, but both species approached asymptotic length at nearly the same rate (Table 2). BC reached maturity at a larger size than SC, with their length at 50% matu-rity much higher than that for SC (Table 2). Differences in size at maturity and length at age resulted in substantial differences in maturity at age between the two species. We estimated that 38% (±20%) of age-2 and 61% (±20%) of age-3 SC were ma-ture, whereas 3% (±4%) of age-2 and 21% (±15%) of age-3 BC

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 449

Table 2. Growth and maturity parameter and natural mortality estimates (and associated uncertainties) from meta-analyses of Bighead and Sil-ver Carp population dynamics in the Illinois and Middle Mississippi Rivers.

Species Analysis Variable Expected value Median Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval SE

SC Growth L∞ 802.826 793.700 628.663 1,020.050 98.150

K 0.445 0.435 0.255 0.702 0.109

t0 −0.230 −0.232 −0.351 −0.115 0.062

σl 0.103 0.103 0.098 0.107 0.002

Maturity C0 −6.226 −6.104 −9.158 −3.734 1.410

C1 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.016 0.002

L50% 545.341 548.399 483.881 590.915 27.452

Natural mortality M 0.684 0.654 0.298 1.258 0.255

Pauly 0.363 0.310 0.093 0.930 0.226

Hoenig 0.733 0.652 0.243 1.642 0.402

Jensen 0.667 0.652 0.383 1.053 0.164

CC 0.984 0.975 0.778 1.241 0.121

Length–weight a* 5.082 × 10−6 NA NA NA NA

b* 3.122 NA NA NA NA

Stock–recruitment α 19.152 6.716 0.605 128.51 45.940

β 2.829 1.313 0.181 17.205 5.582

BC Growth L∞ 982.938 983.250 890.170 1,086.025 49.071

K 0.433 0.418 0.304 0.668 0.087

t0 −0.015 −0.012 −0.202 0.178 0.097

σl 0.104 0.103 0.094 0.115 0.005

Maturity C0 −15.859 −15.770 −21.762 −10.290 2.902

C1 0.020 0.020 0.013 0.028 0.004

L50% 784.562 785.749 762.082 802.780 10.454

Natural mortality M 0.654 0.631 0.293 1.244 0.239

Pauly 0.333 0.281 0.093 0.868 0.203

Hoenig 0.723 0.632 0.236 1.653 0.396

Jensen 0.650 0.626 0.456 1.001 0.131

CC 0.885 0.875 0.680 1.110 0.114

Length–weight a* 1.452 × 10−5 NA NA NA NA

b* 2.952 NA NA NA NA

Stock–recruitment α 21.476 6.035 0.538 121.422 119.224

β 3.272 1.333 0.190 14.897 16.797

Both Recruitment σR † 0.542 0.500 0.230 1.240 0.233

Parameter symbols: L∞ = asymptotic length; K = growth coefficient; t0 = time at zero length; σl = standard deviation in length at age (log scale); C0 = maturity inter-cept; C1 = maturity slope; L50% = length at 50% maturity (−C0/C1); M = instantaneous natural mortality rate (average of four methods); a = length–weight coefficient; b = length–weight exponent; α = initial slope of Ricker stock–recruitment relationship; β = density-dependent parameter of stock–recruitment relationship; σR = standard deviation of recruitment variability (log scale). *Irons et al. (2007)†Goodwin et al. (2006)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 450

were mature. Instantaneous natural mortality rate, given as an average of estimates from the four methods, did not vary much between the two species (Table 2). Given these estimates of mortality, maturity, and von Bertalanffy growth parameters for each species, median Ricker parameters were estimated at α = 6.716 and β = 1.313 for SC and α = 6.035 and β = 1.333 for BC.

Population Response to Fishing

Although population responses to fishing were predicted to be highly variable due to high uncertainty in life history pa-rameters for both species (especially in stock–recruitment pa-rameters), underlying trends were evident. In general, model predictions indicated that exploitation rates must be maintained at considerably high levels to collapse the aggregate Asian Carp population. However, higher exploitation rates are required to cause the SC population to collapse, which is attributable to

their earlier maturity and smaller length at age, resulting in lower overall vulnerability to fishing in the size-selective sce-narios (Figure 1). When all age classes were assumed to be fully vulnerable to harvest, the SC and BC populations had a 60% and 68% probability of collapse at exploitation rates of 0.7 and 0.6, respectively (Figure 1), and the aggregate population had a 65% probability of being reduced to 10% or less of its ini-tial biomass at an exploitation rate of 0.7. Under size-selective harvesting that targeted either small (<500 mm) or large (>500 mm) Asian Carp, both populations were less likely to collapse at an exploitation rate of 0.7, with the probability of collapse for the aggregate population estimated at 25% (Figure 1). Given the relative body sizes of SC and BC, targeting smaller fish was predicted to have stronger effects on SC than BC. With initial biomasses below carrying capacity, both SC and BC popula-tions would continue to increase if subjected to low levels of exploitation targeting only small or large fish (e.g., when only

Figure 1. Proportions (median, first, and third quartiles) of initial biomass remaining at year 25 for Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, and the aggregate Asian Carp population in the Illinois River as a function of exploitation rate under different vulnerability schedules (all size classes fully targeted, only fish >500 mm targeted and only fish <500 mm targeted) and assumptions of current population size relative to population size at carrying capacity (popu-lation at carrying capacity equilibrium, eql; population at 75% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 75% of eql; and population at 50% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 50% of eql).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 451

initial harvesting), with biomass stabilizing in subsequent years (Figure 3).

DISCUSSION

Previous studies based on the LTRMP and fishery-depen-dent data suggest that both Asian Carp populations in the Il-linois River have increased considerably in recent years (Chick and Pegg 2001; Sass et al. 2010; Irons et al. 2011). The SC pop-ulation has experienced exponential growth since 2000, with the subadult and adult population size in the La Grange Reach of the Illinois River estimated at 2,500 fish per kilometer river length in the late 2000s (Sass et al. 2010). Although information

Figure 2. Proportions (median, first, and third quartiles) of initial biomass remaining at year 25 for Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, and the aggregate Asian Carp population in the Illinois River as a function of exploitation rate, assuming all size classes were equally targeted, but Bighead Carp are twice as vulnerable to existing fishing methods as Silver Carp, and under different assumptions of current population size relative to population size at carrying capacity equilibrium (population at carrying capacity equilibrium, eql; population at 75% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 75% of eql; and population at 50% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 50% of eql). (Note that all exploitation rates are in relation to aggregate population size, not individual population size; initial species composition was 82% Silver Carp and 18% Bighead Carp.)

Figure 3. Silver and Bighead Carp biomass trajectories (median, first, and third quartiles) under different levels of exploitation rate (U; 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9), assuming all sizes were fully vulnerable to fishing.

fish >500 mm were targeted and U = 0.5; Figure 1). If all sizes were assumed fully targeted, both populations would decrease from their initial biomasses irrespective of assumptions of ini-tial population size relative to carrying capacity.

Our results indicated that even at an exploitation rate that would collapse the BC population with a probability of almost 100%, the aggregate Asian Carp biomass could on average be reduced to at most 50% of the initial biomass, with probability of collapse less than 25% (Figure 2). Although predicted popu-lation responses to fishing varied between the two species, bio-mass projections indicated that the largest population responses to fishing occurred during the first few years (1–5 years after

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 452

on population growth of BC is limited, Illinois commercial har-vest of this species suggests exponential population growth since the 1990s (Irons et al. 2007). With the exception of infor-mation on body condition of adult Asian Carp (mass at length) being lower than historically reported (Garvey et al. 2012), no data existed to inform what current Asian Carp population size might be relative to system carrying capacity. Thus, unless an effective control program is put in place, it is possible that Asian Carp densities in the Illinois River will continue to increase and raise the threat of invasions of the Great Lakes.

Although operating models have been used for several ex-ploited fish stocks to develop policies that objectively account for uncertainty in key fishery parameters (Walters and Martell 2004), few invasive species control programs have followed a model-based evaluation of alternative removal strategies. In this study, we developed a simulation model for SC and BC that explicitly accounted for uncertainty in key demographic parameters when comparing the performance of alternative harvest polices at reducing Asian Carp biomass in the Illinois River. Based on our model predictions and evidence of Asian Carp collapse elsewhere, including in their native Yangtze River (Li et al. 1990), we argue that it may be possible to collapse the SC and BC populations in the Illinois River if efforts to expand commercial fishing of Asian Carp are combined with economic incentives to capture a wider range of fish sizes and increase targeting of SC. Our predictions showed that targeting all size classes of Asian Carp was the most effective strategy at achieving removal targets, which is consistent with results from the equilibrium yield-per-recruit analysis by Garvey et al. (2006). Although our simulation results suggested that target-ing only small or large individuals would decrease the prob-ability of achieving removal targets, size-selective fishing is the strategy that is most likely to be implemented in practice; indeed, targeting larger-sized Asian Carp is the strategy that has been proposed by the commercial fishing industry (Garvey et al. 2012). Small Asian Carp are less desirable because of their lower commercial value under current market conditions. In addition, harvest of smaller individuals could be economically less viable due to higher rates of bycatch and fouling in the smaller-mesh gears used to catch these sizes. Thus, to improve the effectiveness of existing fishing practices, strong economic incentives will be required to encourage less size-selective fish-ing. Economic incentives to target small fish may come from increased use of Asian Carp for fish meal, liquid fertilizer, and/or fish oil products. To test the effectiveness of such a strategy, Southern Illinois University actually initiated a pilot fishing program encouraging fishers by providing monetary incentives to harvest up to 1.36 million kg of Asian Carp of all sizes to be converted to fish meal (Garvey et al. 2012). Similar to our sug-gestions for improving Asian Carp removals from the Illinois River, changing the size selectivity of fishing was also recom-mended to increase the efficacy of Lake Trout suppression strat-egies in Yellowstone Lake, where targeting mature Lake Trout or undeveloped embryos was predicted to yield better outcomes (Syslo et al. 2011).

Due to their higher reproductive rate and larger population size, a higher exploitation rate would be required to achieve de-sired removal targets for SC than for BC. Thus, continued con-centration of fishing effort on BC (for their market value or ease of capture) will undermine the prospects for achieving desired removal targets. Therefore, just as for improving size selectivity of fishing, the stronger economic incentive to target BC needs to be reversed to achieve the level of fishing effort needed to collapse the aggregate Asian Carp population, possibly through offering incentives to harvest more SC. Overall, the species- and size-selective nature of existing Asian Carp fisheries highlights the need to realign economic incentives with fishery manage-ment goals to improve the prospects for the collapse of Asian Carp in the Illinois River.

Though our Asian Carp simulation model could serve as a valuable management tool for simulating the consequences of management decisions for SC and BC removals from the Illinois River, the process of evaluating population responses to fishing could also help identify areas of critical uncertainty in the population dynamics and/or fisheries of Asian Carp. For example, our analysis showed that recruitment dynamics were a critical source of uncertainty in predicting Asian Carp popula-tion responses to fishing. Only one study to date has published a stock–recruitment relationship for Asian Carp (Hoff et al. 2011). However, the Hoff et al. (2011) study was based entirely on catch-per-effort data, which cannot be used directly for assess-ing recruitment dynamics without knowledge of differences in catchability among adults and recruits. It was for this reason that we employed a literature-based approach to obtain estimates of Ricker stock–recruitment parameters. Unsurprisingly, our ap-proach resulted in a high degree of uncertainty, which appro-priately reflected our level of understanding of the recruitment dynamics of these species in the Mississippi River basin.

Finally, though our population model could already be used to develop effective removal policies for the Illinois River, it could also be readily adapted to allow for the development of temporally or spatially explicit fishing policies by incorporating information on temporal and spatial distribution of Asian Carp in the river. While information on spatial distribution of Asian Carp could allow managers to improve the efficacy of existing removal strategies by directing fishing and other control efforts toward areas of fish aggregations, data on interannual variabil-ity in fish abundance could be used to vary fishing effort sea-sonally in order to improve removal impacts. Indeed, there are ongoing studies to gather information on the spatial and tem-poral distributions of Asian Carp in the Illinois River, includ-ing hydroacoustic and telemetry studies to quantify Asian Carp movement from the adjacent Mississippi River into the Illinois River and reconstruct their interannual patterns of distribution (DeGrandchamp et al. 2008; Garvey et al. 2012). By allowing us to evaluate the effectiveness of various harvest location and timing scenarios, such additional information from recent and ongoing studies could be used to develop more refined removal policies, thereby improving the prospects for the collapse of Asian Carp in the Illinois River.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 453

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by funding through Cooperative Agreement No. 30181AJ071 between the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. We acknowledge additional financial support from the Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, through J. Garvey and from the Quantitative Fish-eries Center, Michigan State University, through M. Jones and J. Bence. We are grateful to K. Baerwaldt, J. Garvey, and E. Trone for making available their Asian Carp life history data from the Illinois and Middle Mississippi rivers. This is manu-script 2013-09 of the Quantitative Fisheries Center at Michigan State University.

REFERENCES

Chapman, D. G., and M. H. Hoff. 2011. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Chapman, D. G., and D. S. Robson. 1960. The analysis of a catch curve. Biometrics 16:354–368.

Chick, J. H., and M. Pegg. 2001. Invasive Carp in the Mississippi River Basin. Science 292:2250–2251.

Cooke, S. L., and W. R. Hill. 2010. Can filter-feeding Asian Carp in-vade the Laurentian Great Lakes? A bioenergetic modeling exer-cise. Freshwater Biology 55:2138–2152.

Cudmore, B., and N. E. Mandrak. 2011. Assessing the biological risk of Asian Carps to Canada. Pages 15–30 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

DeGrandchamp, K., J. Garvey, and R. Colombo. 2008. Movement and habitat selection by invasive Asian Carps in a large river. Transac-tions of the American Fisheries Society 137:45–56.

Garvey, J. E., K. L. DeGrandchamp, and C. J. Williamson. 2006. Growth, fecundity, and diets of Asian Carps in the Upper Missis-sippi River system. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center, ANSRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/EL ANSRP-06), Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Garvey, J. E., G. G. Sass, J. Trushenski, D. Glover, P. M. Charlebois, J. Levengood, B. Roth, G. Whitledge, B. C. Small, S .J. Tripp, and S. Secchi. 2012. Fishing down the Bighead and Silver carps: re-ducing the risk of invasion to the Great Lakes. Project completion report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Goodwin, N. B., A. Grant, A. L. Perry, N. K. Dulvy, and J. D. Reyn-olds. 2006. Life history correlates of density-dependent recruit-ment in marine fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:494–509.

Hoenig, J. M. 1983. Empirical use of longevity data to estimate mortal-ity rates. Fishery Bulletin 82:898–903.

Hoff, M. H., M. A. Pegg, and K. S. Irons. 2011. Management implica-tions from a stock–recruit model for the Bighead Carp in por-tions of the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. Pages 5–14 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Irons, K. S., G. G. Sass, M. A. McClelland, and T. M. O’Hara. 2011. Bighead Carp invasion of the La Grange Reach of the Illinois River: insight from the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. Pages 31–50 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Inva-sive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Irons, K. S., G. G. Sass, M. A. McClelland, and J. D. Stafford. 2007. Reduced condition factor of two native fish species coincident with invasion of non-native Asian carps in the Illinois River, U.S.A. Is this evidence for competition and reduced fitness? Jour-nal of Fish Biology 71:258–273.

Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. Mc-Cormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Ren-aud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372–407.

Jensen, A. L. 1996. Beverton and Holt life history invariants result from optimal trade-off of reproduction and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:820–822.

Jerde, C. L., A. R. Mahon, W. L. Chadderton, and D. M. Lodge. 2011. “Sight-unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environ-mental DNA. Conservation Letters 4:150–157.

Johal, M. S., H. R. Esmaeili, and K. K. Tandon. 2001. A comparison of back-calculated lengths of Silver Carp derived from bony struc-tures. Journal of Fish Biology 59:1483–1493.

Jones, M. L., B. J. Irwin, G. J. A. Hansen, H. A. Dawson, A. J. Treble, W. Liu, W. Dai, and J. R. Bence. 2009. An operating model for the integrated pest management of Great Lakes Sea Lampreys. The Open Fish Science Journal 2:59–73.

Keller, R. P., K. Frang, and D. M. Lodge. 2008. Preventing the spread of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological predictions. Conservation Biology 22:80–88.

Keller, R. P., D. M. Lodge, and D. C. Finnoff. 2007. Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:203–207.

Kelly, A. M., C. R. Engle, M. L. Armstrong, M. Freeze, and A. J. Mitchell. 2011. History of introductions and governmental in-volvement in promoting the use of Grass, Silver, and Bighead carps. Pages 163–174 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries So-ciety, Bethesda, Maryland.

Kolar, C. S., D. C. Chapman, W. R. Courtenay, Jr., C. M. Housel, J. D. Williams, and D. P. Jennings. 2007. Bigheaded Carps: a biological synopsis and environmental risk assessment. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Kolar, C. S., and D. M. Lodge. 2002. Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233–1236.

Li, S. F., W. Lu, B. Zhou, M. Xu, and M. Ren. 1990. Status of fisher-ies resources of Silver, Bighead, and Grass carp in the Yangtze River, Pearl River, and Heilongjiang River. Freshwater Fisheries 6:15–20.

Lodge, D. M., S. Williams, H. J. MacIsaac, K. R. Hayes, B. Leung, S. Reichard, R. N. Mack, P. B. Moyle, M. Smith, D. A. Andow, J. T. Carlton, and A. McMichael. 2006. Biological invasions: recom-mendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Applica-tions 16:2035–2054.

Mahon, A. R., C. L. Jerde, W. L. Chadderton, and D. M. Lodge. 2011. Using environmental DNA to elucidate the Asian Carp (genus Hy-pophthalmichthys) invasion front in the Chicago Area Waterway System. Integrative and Comparative Biology 51:e1–e157.

Moy, P. B., I. Polls, and J. M. Dettmers. 2011. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier. Pages 127–137 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Myers, R. A., K. G. Bowen, and N. J. Barrowman. 1999. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2404–2419.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 454

Nuevo, M., R. J. Sheehan, and P. S. Wills. 2004. Age and growth of the Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis in the middle Missis-sippi River. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 160:215–230.

Pauly, D. 1980. On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters, and mean environmental temperature in 175 fish stocks. Journal du Conseil 39:175–192.

Ricker, W. E. 1954. Stock and recruitment. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 11:559–623.

Sala, O. E., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker, and D. H. Wall. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774.

Sampson, S., J. Chick, and M. Pegg. 2009. Diet overlap among two Asian Carp and three native fishes in backwater lakes on the Il-linois and Mississippi rivers. Biological Invasions 11:483–496.

Sass, G., T. Cook, K. Irons, M. McClelland, N. Michaels, T. M. O’Hara, and M. Stroub. 2010. A mark–recapture population estimate for invasive Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in the La Grange Reach, Illinois River. Biological Invasions 12:433–436.

Schrank, S. J., and C. S. Guy. 2002. Age, growth, and gonadal char-acteristics of adult Bighead Carp, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, in the Lower Missouri River. Environmental Biology of Fishes 64:443–450.

Schrank, S. J., C. S. Guy, and J. F. Fairchild. 2003. Competitive interac-tions between age-0 Bighead Carp and Paddlefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:1222–1228.

Southwick Associates, Inc. 2008. Today’s angler. American Sportfish-ing Association, Alexandria, Virginia.

Spiegelhalter, D. J., A. Thomas, N. Best, and D. Lunn. 2004. Win-BUGS User Manual (version 1.4.1). MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK. Syslo, J. M., C. S. Guy, P. E. Bigelow, P. D. Doepke, B. D. Ertel, and T. M. Koel. 2011. Response of non-na-tive Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to 15 years of harvest in Yellowstone Lake, Yellowstone National Park. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:2132–2145.

Syslo, J. M., C. S. Guy, P. E. Bigelow, P. D. Doepke, B. D. Ertel, and T. M. Koel. 2011. Response of non-native lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to 15 years of harvest in Yellowstone Lake, Yellow-stone National Park. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:2132–2145.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Long Term Resource Monitoring Pro-gram–Environmental Management Program (LTRMP-EMP). Available: http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp.html. (September 2012).

Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D’Antonio, L. L. Loope, M. Rejmanek, and R. Westbrooks. 1997. Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global environmental change. New Zealand Jour-nal of Ecology 21:1–16.

Walters, C. J., and S. J. D. Martell. 2004. Fisheries ecology and man-agement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Williamson, C. J., and J. E. Garvey. 2005. Growth, fecundity, and diets of newly established silver carp in the Middle Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:1423–1430.

Worm, B., R. Hilborn, J. K. Baum, T. A. Branch, J. S. Collie, C. Costello, M. J. Fogarty, E. A. Fulton, J. A. Hutchings, S. Jen-nings, O. P. Jensen, H. K. Lotze, P. M. Mace, T. R. McClanahan, C. Minto, S. R. Palumbi, A. M. Parma, D. Ricard, A. A. Rosen-berg, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325:578–585

From the Archives

I have stated enough to show the prospects before us in the way of increasing, to an almost unlimited degree, the food re-sources of our country, and in rendering the productiveness of our waters, in this respect, superior, acre to acre, to that of land. Of course, time and expenditure of money will be required, but the larger the scale of operations the sooner and more effectually the result will be ac-complished. There is also something still to be done by the United States in the way of extending the area of cultivation of lobsters, crabs, oysters, etc., if not by actual planting on a larger scale, yet by making the necessary experiments and supplying detailed instruction for the work. It is not impossible, indeed, that the great Salt Lake and other interior bodies of saline waters may be made the nurseries of objects such as those men-tioned above.

Spencer F. Baird (1873): National Fish Culture, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 2:1, 25-32.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 455

Smartphones and Digital Tablets: Emerging Tools for Fisheries Professionals

Teléfonos inteligentes y tabletas digi-tales: herramientas emergentes para profesionales de las pesqueríasRESUMEN: Los teléfonos inteligentes y las tabletas digi-tales se utilizan para colectar datos geográficos, de agri-cultura y de investigaciones médicas. Los profesionales de la ciencia encuentran atractivos estos dispositivos porque contienen accesorios útiles de hardware (p.e. cámaras, sistemas de posicionamiento geográfico –GPS-, aceleró-metros, etc.) y además son capaces de brindar acceso y configurar aplicaciones de software (apps). Con el fin de mejorar el aprendizaje de los estudiantes, algunos educado-res están integrando las tabletas digitales en las matrículas tanto dentro como fuera de los salones de clases. Reciente-mente, los profesionales de las pesquerías han comenzado a usar estos dispositivos para colectar datos, para difusión y concientización. Con nueva tecnología submarina, cubi-ertas y adaptadores periféricos, los teléfonos inteligentes y las tabletas digitales están volviéndose cada vez más rele-vantes para educación y para colectar datos pesqueros. En este estudio se resume parte de la información disponible en lo tocante al uso de teléfonos inteligentes y tabletas digi-tales con fines educativos y de recolecta de datos. También se exploran algunos usos actuales y oportunidades futuras que guardan estos dispositivos para la ciencia pesquera. El principal objetivo es demostrar que los teléfonos inteli-gentes y las tabletas digitales son herramientas útiles para los profesionales de las pesquerías, incluyendo técnicos, manejadores y educadores.

Lee F. G. GutowskyFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1S 5B6. E-mail: leegutowsky@gmail.com

Jenilee GobinEnvironmental and Life Sciences Graduate Program, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada

Nicholas J. Burnett, Jacqueline M. Chapman, Lauren J. Stoot, and Shireen BlissFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

ABSTRACT: Smartphones and digital tablets are used to col-lect data for agricultural, geographical, and medical research. Science professionals find these devices attractive because they contain many useful hardware accessories (e.g., camera, Global Positioning System [GPS], accelerometer) and the ca-pacity to access and customize software applications (apps). To enhance student learning, some educators are also integrating tablets into curricula for both indoor and outdoor course work. Recently, fisheries professionals have begun using these devices for data collection and public outreach and awareness. With new waterproofing technology, cases, and peripheral adapters, smartphones and digital tablets are continually becoming more relevant for data collection and education in fisheries. Here, we synthesize some of the available information on smartphone and tablet use for data collection and education and explore some current uses and future opportunities for these devices in fisher-ies. Overall, our objective is to demonstrate that smartphones and digital tablets are useful tools for fisheries professionals, including technicians, managers, and educators.

INTRODUCTION

Touchscreen technology was first introduced publicly with the Palm Pilot in 2001 (Varshney and Vetter 2001). A decade later, Internet-capable smartphones (i.e., phones with advanced computing capability compared with traditional mobile phones) and digital tablets outsold personal computers (Al-Hadithy et al. 2012). In 2009, roughly half of the developed world owned a traditional mobile phone (Kwok 2009), and smartphone owner-ship has been projected to exceed one billion by 2013 (Dufau et al. 2011). Smartphones have also been predicted to possess 30% of the mobile market share by 2014 (Cochrane and Bate-man 2010) and will undoubtedly continue to play a key role in global connectivity and communications.

Smartphones and digital tablets (herein referred together as SPTs) are probably best known as devices for web surfing, e-mail, instant messaging, two-dimensional bar codes (i.e.,

Quick Response [QR] codes, where an SPT is used as a scan-ner to convert a bar code into a website URL), and electronic commerce transactions (i.e., digital wallet). In addition to these more popular functions, SPTs are used as teaching tools (Rieger and Gay 2002; Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler 2005; Stewart et al. 2011) or a means to collect data (Kwok 2009; Raento et al. 2009; Dufau et al. 2011). For instance, teachers, social sci-entists, and health professionals are taking advantage of SPT popularity and their ability to immediately retrieve information (Kwok 2009; Benedict and Pence 2012; Chang et al. 2012). Given the combined functionality of a camera/video recorder, accelerometer, notepad, Global Positioning System (GPS), high-capacity memory storage (>8 GB), powerful processors, and native and web-based software apps, SPTs are an attractive alternative to carrying multiple devices. It is not surprising that today these devices are being used by professionals who teach and work outdoors in fields such as geology (Weng et al. 2012), agriculture (Mesas-Carrascosa et al. 2012), and fisheries (Nie-renburg et al. 2011).

FEATURE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 456

FEATURE Given the increasing use of SPTs in data collection and education, we explore the opportunities that these devices pres-ent to fisheries professionals and synthesize this information in a descriptive mini review (Donaldson et al. 2011). Because many fisheries professionals are often directly involved with research and education (e.g., mentoring, delivering university courses, outreach, and public awareness), we investigate where SPT technology is currently applied in these two areas outside of fisheries. We then discuss how SPTs are being used specifi-cally in fisheries. Finally, we discuss some possible opportuni-ties for fisheries professionals who are interested in SPTs.

SPTs for Data Acquisition and Research Outside of Fisheries

Recent developments in hardware and software have transformed SPTs into powerful research tools (Aanensen et al. 2009; Dufau et al. 2011). New technologies allow SPTs to collect a wide variety of data types. For example, some smart-phones are equipped with numerous hardware devices, includ-ing a digital barometer, altimeter, magnetometer, ambient light sensor, accelerometer, and gyroscope (e.g., Motorola Xoom and Samsung Galaxy Nexus). There are also external hardware ac-cessories that could be used for collecting environmental data, such an infrared thermometer that measures ambient tempera-ture to one decimal place (Medisina ThermoDock, Medisina/Neuss, Germany; Table 1). High-resolution SPT cameras are already used for geotagging (Welsh et al. 2012) and, with the aid of a mounted peripheral camera and biosensors, SPTs have even been used to collect data on moving objects (e.g., eye move-ment to assess driver alertness; B. Lee and Chung 2012). In ad-dition, the camera, GPS, accelerometer, and notepad functions in a single smartphone have been used to collect geology data (Weng et al. 2012) or land use data for agricultural subsidies (Mesas-Carrascosa et al. 2012).

SPTs offer a variety of stand-alone and web-based (online only) applications (apps) designed for data collection, informa-tion sharing, or education. Whereas stand-alone apps are tai-lored specifically to a particular operating system and machine firmware, web-based apps download software each time they are run and can be accessed on any web-capable SPT (Luo 2010). Today, web-based apps have access to device hardware (e.g., accelerometers and gyroscopes) and long-term evolu-tion networks that provide fast Internet browsing (up to 100 mbps). Despite the increasing utility of web-based apps, current data collection on SPTs is often accomplished by combining the performance of stand-alone apps with an Internet connec-tion so that geolocated data can be accessed by third parties in near real-time. For example, with a geotagged photograph and some optional typed details, individuals can voluntarily report observations of invasive species (whatsinvasive.com), report an oil spill (oilreporter.org), or document wildlife (projectnoah.org). These kinds of apps promote citizen science that is educa-tional (e.g., Project Noah) and informative to managers who can evaluate observations in an online database (e.g., What’s Inva-sive; WA PestWatch; Table 1). For project managers, the web-based program called EpiCollect allows users (e.g., technicians)

to upload data forms into a manager-defined project. As with the previously described apps, EpiCollect data are geotagged (with an error estimate and elevation) and may also include a photograph (Table 1). With an Internet connection, data can be instantly uploaded to an online database (Aanensen et al. 2009). In addition to data collection software, inexpensive (~US$5) geographic information system (GIS)-based mapping software is available to provide geospatial information about a study site (e.g., ArcGIS by Esri, iPhone GIS by Integrity Logic).

Although water damage, impact, and battery life are thought to be limitations to using SPTs in the outdoors, there are options that address these potential issues. At the 2013 World Mobile Congress in Barcelona, several manufacturers exhibited waterproofing technology and waterproof devices. For example, Liquipel offers an inexpensive (~US$70) nanotechnology that effectively waterproofs the inside and outside of SPTs (Table 1). Several other companies have developed devices that are manufactured waterproof; for example, the Panasonic Eluga, Samsung Galaxy S4 Active, and Sony Xperia Z. To avoid physi-cal damage to devices, tough tablets (e.g., Armour tablets) or specialized cases can be purchased (Table 1). In remote areas, low batteries can be recharged with solar power chargers that are available for practically all SPTs (e.g., solio.com/chargers). Data can also be backed up by software (e.g., EpiCollect), micro SD cards, or manually through cloud computing online stor-age systems such as Dropbox, SugarSync, SkyDrive, or Google Drive. Together, these safeguards reduce the chance of device damage and data loss. To address screen glare in bright outdoor conditions, some manufacturers install antireflective technol-ogy directly into their products (e.g., ClearBlack display in the Nokia Lumina 900); however, matte screen protectors and vi-sors are inexpensive alternatives to counter screen glare on any SPT.

SPTs for Education Outside of Fisheries

SPTs have become popular tools among professional edu-cators (Busis 2010; Cochrane and Bateman 2010; Benedict and Pence 2012). To introduce students to the some of the newest information management tools, iPads are being integrated into curricula at Briar Cliff University (2011) and Boreal College (2012; Thompson 2011). Libraries are also beginning to pro-vide digital tablets to enhance student learning. For example, Wake Forest University, University of West Florida, Virginia Tech University, and Concordia University have begun loaning iPads at their libraries (Thompson 2011). In addition, there are several education programs where SPTs are implemented for student learning. Biology and chemistry educators are engaging students by incorporating SPTs into their course curricula (J. Lee et al. 2011; Benedict and Pence 2012). Specifically, biol-ogy students explore a field site, photograph flora and fauna, and acquire more information by using their smartphone to scan QR codes on field sheets (J. Lee et al. 2001). Chemistry students share videos and photo blogs of their experiments via QR codes that allow their classmates to view the experiments online (Benedict and Pence 2012). Medical educators also take advantage of SPTs. For example, at the University of Manitoba,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 457

Table 1. A summary of selected SPT hardware and software technologies relevant to fisheries.*

Technologies and applications Current uses Benefits Links or references

Smartphones and digi-tal tablets for education or data collection

Hands on education experi-ence in field courses

Field and lab data collection

Field-based software availabilityBuilt-in camera, GPS, and sensorsQuick data entry drsarmor.com

Medisina ThermoDock Measure ambient tempera-ture

Quickly and accurately (10th/mm) measure ambient temperature

medisana.com/en/Health+control/Thermometer/ThermoDock+Infrared+Thermometer+Module.html

Pocket microscope accessory

First industrial and con-sumer models available March 2012

Accurate to 100th/mm Compact and user-friendlyPhotos can be taken and 3D images can be created

vtt.fi/news/2012/02152012_Finnish_research_ organisation_VTT_combines_mobile_phone_technology_and_microscopy.jsp?lang=en

Protective cases and waterproofing

Available as a consumer product and can be used by anyone

Helps protect SPTs from cracks, scratches, or water

goballisticcase.comotterbox.comphotojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-scuba-suitliquipel.comp2i.com

EpiCollectCollect multiple data entries from a mobile phone and up-load to a central database

Users define their own project (specify the data to be collected)Data can be monitored and verified in real time

epicollect.net

FishingUsed by anglers to ID fish, check regulations, and lo-cate vendors

Increases angler knowledge of regulationImproves user fish ID accuracyCreates easy link to regulation hotlines and police

itunes.apple.com/au/app/fishing/id493874267?mt=8

MFP Fishing Log Used by anglers to keep track of fishing trips and re-cord catch information

Anglers can share their catches with fam-ily and friends and monitor their catch successesSimple and easy to use

itunes.apple.com/ca/app/mfp-fishing-log-catch-reports/id523631349?mt=8

Rectext

Used by marine recreational fisherman and charter cap-tains to update real-time information on catch and fishing effort via text mes-saging

The website archive is password protectedMore current information is collected by various people for several areas of research, such as fishing pressures

rectext.org

ncseagrant.org/home/coastwatch/coastwatch-articles?task=showArticle&id=7014

What’s Invasive, WA PestWatch, and Project Noah

For smartphones that allow a GPS location and sample observations to be sent to a server

Mainly used by research-ers, naturalists, and citizen scientists

The general public can help to generate a database of specific biotic sightings, such as invasive or at-risk speciesSimple and easy to use

whatsinvasive.com

projectnoah.org/mobile

itunes.apple.com/au/app/wa-pestwatch/id610940171?mt=8

Ocean Wise Guide to eating seafood Current consumer information on sustain-able seafood oceanwise.ca/iphone-app

Freshwater Fish ID South

Identify a number of fresh-water fishes in the Southern United States

Identify fish species with illustrations and descriptionsNo Internet connection required

quikiphoneproducts.com

Fish Culture Section Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Solubility Calcula-tor and Fish Culture Section Drug Treatment Calculator

Calculate DO solubility and drug treatments at aquacul-ture facilities

Perform on-the-spot calculations sites.google.com/site/fishculturesection/resources/android-apps

*This list is not exhaustive or meant to endorse any particular brands or products.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 458

nurse educators use Android operating system–based SPTs to teach students how to digitally document patient wounds (as an alternative to paper-based documentation; Vivanco et al. 2011). In Botswana, residents are using smartphone-based mobile learning to provide immediate access to information, which has important implications for physicians in remote areas (Chang et al. 2012).

SPTs can be used for outdoor learning, as shown by univer-sities that offer field courses that incorporate SPTs into exercises to collect course-related data (Rieger and Gay 2002; Stewart et al. 2011). In the Introduction to Environmental Science course at Lawrence University (Appleton, Wisconsin) course instruc-tors provide students with digital tablets that contain remote GPS receivers. Using the tablet’s GPS system in combination with GIS and aerial photographs, students are able to enter temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and water conductivity at their geospatial coordinates. From this information, students then immediately analyze data, observe trends, and ask ques-tions that relate directly to the surrounding geography (Stewart et al. 2011). In a field course through the University of Chester, UK, geography students use smartphones to collect data from geotagged photographs (time and geospatial coordinate; Welsh et al. 2012). Students who have taken the courses at either Law-rence University or the University of Chester have reported an increased ability to interpret results and geospatial data, prepare lab reports, create conceptual models (Stewart et al. 2011), and recount an overall positive experience with the use of geotag-ging (with smartphones) to collect field data (Welsh et al. 2012).

SPTs in Fisheries

Although still relatively uncommon, there are several pub-lished examples where SPTs were used to acquire data and con-duct research in fisheries (e.g., Nierenburg et al. 2011). In a recent issue of Fisheries, Bowker (2012) briefly mentioned a smartphone app designed to calculate drug treatment rates and dissolved oxygen solubilities in aquaculture. This Android op-erating system app, designed by Fish Culture Past President and President-Elect Jesse Trushenski, can be found at the newly de-signed Fish Culture Section website (sites.google.com/site/fish-culturesection). In France, a field ID book is under development to help field specialists identify native and nonnative crayfish (De Vaugelas et al. 2011). This project was originally developed by students and is now in the final stages of completion (De Vaugelas et al. 2011; J. De Vaugelas, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, personal communication).

There are government fisheries agencies that enlist SPTs for collecting and visualizing data for the purposes of research and management. In Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources Northwest Science and Information Branch recently (2012) began a pilot project to capture fisheries data with digital tab-lets. The agency is trying these devices because they combine data recording, GPS, and a camera in a single unit, thus elimi-nating the need to carry multiple electronic devices (J. Wright, Northwest Science and Information Branch, personal commu-nication). Digital tablets allow the user to organize files such as

bathymetry maps, aerial survey maps, net sampling locations, and fish tallies into digital folders that can be uploaded (pro-vided Internet accessibility) immediately to a server for instant access by managers (e.g., Aanensen et al. 2009). By minimiz-ing time spent reentering data, there is less potential for human error. Among the cons are the initial purchase cost, tablet du-rability, employee training, and battery life while in remote lo-cations (J. Write, Northwest Science and Information Branch, personal communication).

In addition to using SPTs for data collection by government employees, some state- and federally run natural resource agen-cies have begun using this technology to disseminate fishing regulation (e.g., Texas Hunt and Fish, Colorado Hunting and Fishing) and gather data from anglers in the United States (Han-cock 2012). According to Hancock (2012), there are currently more than 100 Android and iOS apps designed for recreational anglers, with several of these apps (stand-alone and web-based) designed specifically to allow government agencies to gather data that have been recorded by anglers using their smart-phones. SPT technology is also being employed by government agencies outside of the United States. For instance, today the Alberta and British Columbia (BC) governments maintain apps to disseminate fishing information to resident and nonresident resource users (Alberta Outdoor Adventure Guide iPhone app and BC Fishing).

There are few examples where SPTs are used to collect commercial fisheries data. In 2011, the American Fisheries So-ciety annual meeting in Seattle hosted a workshop that explored electronic fisheries information systems (Steinberg et al. 2012). The participants found that existing systems were ill suited to small fishing vessels and were typically restricted to dry condi-tions. Despite these challenges, an SPT system has been devel-oped for at-sea, on-the-deck use by small-vessel commercial salmon fishers (Lavrakas et al. 2012). Specifically, a system comprised of a Nook tablet reader, an Android smartphone, Bluetooth and wireless technology, and various SPT embed-ded sensors is being tested for the collection of near real-time salmon harvest data, oceanographic conditions, and vessel movement and altitude (Lavrakas et al. 2012; Figures 1 and 2). If successful, this system could be employed to collect data in a number of commercial fisheries, including those in freshwater.

We were unable to find any examples where SPTs are being used for formal fisheries education; however, SPTs are currently used for outreach, public awareness programs, and citizen sci-ence in fisheries, e.g., the Ocean Wise guide to eating sustain-able seafood (Table 1). In Australia, the Department of Primary Industries has recently designed a free recreational fishing guide application called Fishing for Victoria’s Waterways (Table 1). Alongside color illustrations of resident species for identifica-tion, the app lists size and catch limits, fishing seasons, and legal fishing equipment. The app called Fishing also offers a direct link to both the illegal fishing report line and water police in Victoria, which raises awareness of illegal fishing and simpli-fies the reporting process. The application is free and available online for both Android and iOS devices (Table 1). Although

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 459

Figure 2. Oregon commercial salmon fisherman Kevin Bastien trying out the at-sea SPT system developed by Lavrakas et al. (2012). Photo credit: John Lavrakas.

Figure 1. Components of the three-device, at-sea SPT system for small-vessel commercial salmon fishers: Barnes and Noble Nook tablet, MiFi Hotspot, and Samsung Precedent smart-phone (Lavrakas et al. 2012). Photo credit: John Lavrakas.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 460

not exclusive to smartphones and digital tablets, Baker and Oe-schger (2009) developed a catch reporting program (RecText; Table 1) through which recreational fishers and charter captains in southeastern North Carolina can send texts of their daily catches to managers who then upload the information to an online database via Twitter—an online social networking and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read text-based messages. Constructed as user-friendly software, the RecText system is intended to bridge the gap between anglers and scientists while providing managers with a more complete picture of fishing pressure and catch rates (Baker and Oeschger 2009). During a trial study in 2010, angler participation was 14.8% of tournament entrants, a number that is expected to in-crease with mobile phone use among resource users (P. Smith 2011). This type of two-way information sharing system be-tween anglers and managers will continue to evolve with tech-nologies such as SPTs (Dresler 2012). In Florida, Nierenburg et al. (2012) described the progression of an outreach and public awareness campaign about red tides (caused by dinoflagellate algae), which have direct negative consequences to human and fish health. The program began in 2000 with press releases, TV media coverage, and educational materials, such as shirts, pam-phlets, and signs. The program evolved rapidly, and by 2006 full-time lifeguards and biologists began using smartphones to provide real-time geotagged photos and information about red tides (Mote Marine Laboratory’s Environmental Health Pro-gram 2013; Figure 3).

STP Opportunities for Fisheries Professionals

SPTs can already be used for the collection of environ-mental data (temperature, barometric pressure, light levels) and for data visualization. With respect to the latter, Hydroacoustic Technology Inc. now offers a way to use a smartphone to moni-tor the tracks of tagged fish (htisonar.com/acoustic_tags.htm). Additionally, it may be possible to develop apps for field iden-tification of fishes, such as fish ID eBooks that allow users to

Figure 3. A Blackberry smartphone used for collecting data and reporting red tides in Florida. Photo credit: Kate Kohler.

quickly “key out” unknown species captured during sampling. A similar application called Freshwater Fish ID South is cur-rently available for iOS devices (Table 1), and although the full version could be useful, the app still only covers species found in the Southern United States. As described at the 2012 Ameri-can Fisheries Society annual meeting (Loftus et al. 2012), fish ID eBooks could also include visual recognition software that automatically keys out the specimen (at least to family) based on a photograph. Such technology has already been developed by researchers from Columbia University, the University of Maryland, and the Smithsonian Institute and integrated into the free app called Leafsnap (leafsnap.com). Finally, fish ID apps could have uses in formal education, where SPTs already offer a great way to access and annotate eBooks and PDF copies of papers that are recommended for reading in courses on fish and fisheries related topics.

CONCLUSION

SPTs are becoming increasingly popular among the general public, researchers, and educators (e.g., Dufua et al. 2011; A. Smith 2012). The technologies embedded in SPTs have made them ideal for collecting a variety of data types and waterproof-ing technologies and shock-absorbent cases provide damage resistance. SPTs may not offer a replacement for all of the so-phisticated tools available to fisheries professionals; however, as demonstrated in other professions, SPTs do provide a means for data collection and student learning. With advances in tech-nology and ever increasing global connectivity, SPTs certainly present opportunities for creative and innovative fisheries pro-fessionals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Steven Cooke, Nick Lapointe, and Sarah Gutowsky for commenting on early versions of our article. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 461

f eedback. The idea for this article may have never been imag-ined among the authors if not for productive conversations at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Ontario Chapter of the Ameri-can Fisheries Society.

REFERENCES

Aanensen, D. M., D. M. Huntley, E. J. Feil, F. al-Own, and B. G. Spratt. 2009. EpiCollect: linking smartphones to web applications for ep-idemiology, ecology and community data collection. PLoS ONE 4:e6968. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006968.

Al-Hadithy, N., P. D. Gikas, and S. S. Al-Nammari. 2012. Smartphones in orthopaedics. International Orthopaedics 36:1543–1547.

Baker, M. S., Jr., and I. Oeschger. 2009. Description and initial evalu-ation of a text message based reporting method for marine rec-reational anglers. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 1:143–154.

Benedict, L., and H. E. Pence. 2012. Teaching chemistry using stu-dent-created videos and photo blogs accessed with smartphones and two-dimensional barcodes. Journal of Chemical Education 89:492–496.

Bowker, J. 2012. The new fish culture section website. Fisheries 37:123.

Busis, N. 2010. Mobile phones to improve the practice of neurology. Neurological Clinics. 28:395–410.

Chang, A. Y., S. Ghose, R. Littman-Quinn, R. B. Anolik, A. Kyer, L. Mazhani, A. K. Seymour, and C. L. Kovarik. 2012. Use of mobile learning by resident physicians in Botswana. Telemedicine and E-Health 18:11–13.

Cochrane, T., and R. Bateman. 2010. Smartphones gives you wings: pedagogical affordances of mobile web 2.0. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 26:1–14.

De Vaugelas, J., V. Leyendecker, H. Leca, P. Luc, P. Noel, J.-C. Riva, A. Sabatier, and C. Souty-Grosset. 2011. Use of smartphones (iPhoneTM, AndroidTM, etc.) for the field identification of Euro-pean crayfish. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosys-tems 401:1–6.

Donaldson, M. R., D. D. Aday, and S. J. Cooke. 2011. A call for mini-reviews: an effective but underutilized method of synthesizing knowledge to inform and direct fisheries management, policy, and research. Fisheries 36:123–129.

Dresler, J. 2012. Visions for future management scenarios: marine rec-reational fisheries management. American Fisheries Society An-nual General Meeting, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Dufau, S., J. A. Duñabeitia, C. Moret-Tatay, A. McGonigal, D. Peeters, F.-X. Alario, D. A. Balota, M. Brysbaert, M. Carreiras, L. Ferrand, M. Ktori, M. Perea, K. Rastle, O. Sasburg, M. J. Yap, J. C. Ziegler, and J. Grainger. 2011. Smart phone, smart science: how the use of smartphones can revolutionize research in cognitive science. PLoS ONE 6:e24974. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024974

Hancock, H. 2012. There’s an app for that: using apps for scientific data collection. Fisheries Information and Technology Section.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., and J. Traxler. 2005. Mobile learning: a hand-book for educators and trainers. Taylor & Francis, New York.

Kwok, R. 2009. Phoning in data. Nature 458:959–961.Lavrakas, J., W. Black, and A. Lawson. 2012. At-sea electronic data

logging and data entry for salmon fisheries. Advanced Research Corp. Report No. PSC-2012-002. Advanced Research Corpora-tion, Newport, OR.

Lee, B., and W. Chung. 2012. Driver alertness monitoring using fu-sion of facial features and bio-signals. IEEE Sensors Journal 12:2416–2422.

Lee, J., S. Yong, and J. Kwon. 2011. Scan & learn! Use of quick re-sponse codes & smartphones in a biology field study. American Biology Teacher 73:485–492.

Loftus, A., J. Schratwieser, and P. Belhumeur. 2012. Development of an iPhone application for collecting fisheries data with visual rec-ognition component. American Fisheries Society Annual General Meeting, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Luo, L. 2010. Native or web application? How best to deliver content and services to your audiences over the mobile phone. Global Intelligence Alliance, Helsinki, Finland..

Mesas-Carroscosa, F. J., I. L. Castillejo-Gonzalez, and M. S. de la Orden. 2012. Real-time mobile phone application to support land policy. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 85:109–111.

Mote Marine Laboratory’s Environmental Health Program. 2013. Available: http://coolgate.mote.org/beachconditions/. (Septem-ber 2013).

Nierenberg, K., J. Hollenbeck, L. E. Fleming, W. Stephan, A. Reich, L. C. Backer, R. Currier, and B. Kirkpatrick. 2011. Frontiers in outreach and education: the Florida red tide experience. Harmful Algae 10:374–380.

Raento, M., A. Oulasvirta, and N. Eagle. 2009. Smartphones: an emerging tool for social scientists. Sociological Methods Re-search 37:426–454.

Rieger, R., and G. Gay. 2002. Using mobile computing to enhance field study. Interactive Media Group, Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Smith, P. 2011. Counting kings: text reporting catches on. Available: http://www.ncseagrant.org/home/coastwatch/coastwatch-articles?task=showArticle&id=701. (August 2012).

Smith, A. 2012. Smartphone users now outnumber users of more basic mobile phones within the national adult population. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Available: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-2012/Findings.aspx. (Au-gust 2012).

Steinberg, N., S. Gil, and J. Dresler. 2012. Development of electronic fishery information systems for West Coast and national fisher-ies: proceedings of two workshops. eFIS Proceedings: Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington.

Stewart, M., J. Clark, J. Donald, and K. VanCamp. 2011. The education potential of mobile computing in the field. Educause Quarterly 34. Available: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/educational-potential-mobile-computing-field. (Accessed August 2012).

Thompson, S. Q. 2011. Setting up a library iPad program: guidelines for success. College & Research Libraries News 72:212–236.

Varshney, U., and R. Vetter. 2001. A framework for the emerging mo-bile commerce applications. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Maui, Hawaii.

Vivanco, J., B. Demianyk, R. D. McLeod, and M. R. Friesen. 2011. Work in progress—a smartphone application as a teaching tool in undergraduate nursing education. 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, South Dakota.

Welsh, K. E., D. France, W. B. Whalley, and J. R. Park. 2012. Geotag-ging photographs in student fieldwork. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 36:469–480.

Weng, Y., F. Sun, and J. D. Grigsby. 2012. GeoTools: an Android™ phone application in geology. Computers and Geosciences 44:24–30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 462

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International SymposiumEdited by P. H. Michaletz and V. H. Travnichek. American Fisheries So-ciety. Bethesda, MD. 2011. 800 pages. US$79.00 (hardcover)

This is the sec-ond publication in a series published by the American Fisheries So-ciety devoted to catfish research, biology, and management, which was organized as a sym-

posium held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2010 and builds upon the first symposium that was held in Davenport, Iowa, in 1998 (Irwin et al. 1999). The organizers of the second symposium stated that this was to “serve as an addendum to Catfish 2000” and “to cover the four corners of catfish science: catfish biol-ogy, ecology, management, and conservation” (p. xi). The book meets this standard easily. With 64 papers organized into nine sections (plenary, catfishes as sport fish, nongame catfishes, nonnative catfishes, movement and habitat use, sampling and population assessment, age and growth, behavior, and future directions), this publication covers these four corners and more.

The first section of the book covering the plenary session of the symposium consists of an introduction and three well-writ-ten, broad-based discussions of catfish ecology. Steve Quinn’s paper on human interactions goes beyond traditional hook-and-bullet views of catfish and even touches on mythology and lore of catfish in a variety of cultures. Jonathan Armbruster then dis-cusses the global diversity of catfishes (37 families and over 3,400 species!) and his work on the National Science Founda-tion–funded All Catfish Species Inventory Project. Zeb Hogan concludes this section with an excellent discourse on large-bodied freshwater catfish and the alarming downward trend observed for many of these species. It is this section that I think will have the most broad-based appeal; the remainder of the book generally contains more specific information on a limited number of species.

Except for the plenary section and the section on nongame catfishes (eight papers covering mostly Madtoms and Bull-heads but also the lone paper on a marine species), the book is largely a tome related to the biology and management of only three freshwater species in North America: Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Flathead Catfish. Researchers working with one of these species will find valuable information on sampling techniques and tools for assessing population metrics

(11 studies using tandem hoop nets, gill nets, electrofishing, isotopic analyses, and even soap-on-a-rope), habitat use and movement (seven field-based studies in lotic systems and one laboratory-based study on interstice size selection), and impacts due to introductions outside of their native range (particularly how some species tolerate and invade saltwater habitats). It is for this group in particular that this book should become an indispensable resource.

In a review of the first catfish symposium, Ney (2001) not-ed that the title had a “tenuous claim to being ‘international’” (p. 66) because the vast majority of papers were focused on por-tions of the United States. And, except for one paper on Channel Catfish in the country of Georgia, even the seven papers in the nonnative section of this second symposium contained informa-tion on only the “big three” (i.e., Blue, Channel, and Flathead catfish) where they were nonnative to portions of the United States. Although the publication from this second symposium has improved on its international claim, room still seems to remain for improvement. The last paper, by Tom Kwak and oth-ers, acknowledges these issues, stating, “the majority of work on catfish taxonomy, genetics, behavior, and paleontology has been conducted outside of North America” (p. 764). If there is to be a third symposium and organizers heed the “international” shortcomings of the previous two, greater global representation should occur, which would benefit a wider array of scientists. Until then, this book, which is well organized and well edited, is still an excellent resource for those studying catfish in North America.

James M. LongU.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research

Unit, 007 Agriculture Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078

REFERENCES

Irwin, E. R., W. A. Hubert, C. F. Rabeni, H. L. Schramm, Jr., and T. Coon, editors. 1999. Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the Interna-tional Ictalurid Symposium. American Fisheries Society, Sympo-sium 24, Bethesda, Maryland.

Ney, J. J. 2001. Book review: Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the In-ternational Ictalurid Symposium. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 17:66.

BOOK REVIEWS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 463

Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global PerspectiveVilly Christensen and Jay Maclean, editors. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 2011. 342 pages. US$120.00 (hardcover), US$59.00 (paperback)

Ecosystem approach-es to fisheries (EAF) is clearly a current topic of high interest, with this book being one of several produced in the past few years germane to EAF dis-

cussions. It provides another set of views on the broad range of considerations that influence the production, sustainable use, and broader context of how fisheries are executed around the world—views that are apt to be refreshing or novel to North American readers because the focus of this book is largely on tropical and developing-nation perspectives. Yet it should also be noted that the topics cover much more ground than solely an emphasis on EAF. This book is also a Festschrift for Daniel Pauly. As the editors explicitly note—and many chapter authors reiterate—a reader should see the influence of Pauly in several areas of fisheries science and management. Hence, this book will be of great interest to most American Fisheries Society members.

The book is organized into five sections. The first section, entitled “Life in the Oceans,” has three chapters, one of which (by Bakun) delightfully discusses the oxygen constraint–gill raker area/volume hypothesis; the other two chapters are a compendium on the FishBase and SeaLifeBase databases. The second section is “Evaluating Impact on Marine Life.” Under-standably, the chapters of a book such as this do not necessarily need to (nor do they) form a cohesive story, but as a whole they demonstrate the broad array of topics with which Pauly has been involved.

The third section, entitled “Managing Living Resources,” contains the history of adapting stock assessment methods to tropical (and hence data-poor) situations, the effects of climate change, and the use of Ecopath models. There is also a chapter by Munro on the history of assessments in the tropics, with a focus on North American ecosystems, that is well worth read-ing for this broader context.

The fourth section, entitled “The Human Side,” has chap-ters on capacity building, small-scale fisheries, integrated coastal management, and a potpourri of economics, all cover-ing an array of socioeconomic considerations. The chapter by

Jason S. LinkNational Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,Woods Hole, MA 02543

Ruddle provides an especially intriguing view of (and in some cases refreshingly frank opinions on) coral reef or coastal fish-eries management in the broader context of the supporting watersheds surrounding such fisheries; this watershed approach is a common concept to many North American fisheries, but here the concept is presented within a very distinct cultural and ecological milieu.

The fifth and final section, “Impacting Policy,” has five relatively short chapters that explore how past science has im-pacted (or not) the policies of how fisheries are managed. The theme of “the role of scientist as advocate” is central to many of these chapters, which will surely foster continued debate.

Some of the materials presented are more developed than others; such diversity is to be expected due to the breadth of topics covered. Some chapters read as simple summaries or re-ports of other work and some are straight opinion pieces. Still others explored in detail the history of a specific theme and Pauly’s involvement therein (all had merit, but the latter were especially informative). Several authors herein directly list the suite of topics that involved or were influenced by Pauly. A partial list of such themes includes the oxygen constraint, developing global databases readily available of common life history parameters (e.g., FishBase), advocating for fish as food, developing aquaculture and the technical basis for improving it, ramping up readily available catch and economics databases, cleaning up said databases (e.g., Sea Around Us), conducting global fisheries meta-analyses, posing the Fishing Down the Food Web and Primary Production Required for Fisheries hy-potheses, developing and distributing a commonly available ecosystem model (e.g., EwE), Malthusian overfishing, better public communication of scientific results, developing assess-ment methods (e.g., ELEFAN) for data-poor situations, the shifting baseline syndrome, etc.—it is an impressive list. As Ruddle notes, the idea was “to get others to think and contribute to it” (p. 266), and in that regard Pauly’s career has been clearly more successful than most, the details of which are captured nicely in this book.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 464

Ecosystem-Based Management for Marine Fisheries: An Evolving PerspectiveAndrea Belgrano and Charles W. Fowler, editors. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 2011. 384 pages. US$115.00 (hardcover)

The challenges of managing human interac-tions with, and influences on, other species, ecosys-tems, and the biosphere are fraught with diffi-culty. Particular among these challenges is the

complexity involved; not only is each species and ecosystem unimaginably complex but so is the human system that we are attempting to manage. Where and how do we find an approach to management that can account for such complexity? How do we go about setting quantitative goals for such management so that our political and economic institutions and belief systems are taken into account objectively and evenhandedly? The ho-lism required to achieve such ends is clearly foremost in the minds of these editors.

The book guides the reader toward holism through a pro-gression of realized changes in our approach to management. Part 1 is a collection of chapters exemplifying the kind of sci-ence behind management as it being practiced today—what the editors refer to as conventional management. As described in the editors’ overview (Chapter 12), these presentations con-tribute invaluable insight, substantiate essential principles, and identify problems worthy of serious attention by managers.

Part 2 serves up a diverse array of topics and opinions, dis-cussing the problems for stock recovery posed by philopatry (important information for the establishment of marine re-serves), arguing both for the critical roles of single-population dynamics models and the need for multispecies models and em-phasizing the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and social collaboration among stakeholders.

The chapters in Part 3 take a leap into quite a higher or-der of holism. It is argued that if we are to harvest the ocean sustainably we must do so in a manner that protects the entire species complex and ecosystem from deterioration. Unfortu-nately, this can’t be done without complete knowledge of all ecological interactions, knowledge we can never hope to have. How, then, to manage? First, we must acknowledge that we can

reliably manage only our own behavior—and second, we must do so with an aim to fitting “normal” patterns in nature—those observed patterns that arguably reflect the integration of geo-logic, evolutionary, and ecological processes through time. We should, for example, adjust our harvest of biomass to be in line with that of biologically similar species (same taxonomic class, similar body mass). Currently human harvest rates are roughly 10- to a 100-fold what they ought to be by such criteria.

What I continually wanted to hear throughout this book was some suggestion as to how human stakeholders might be brought around to such a policy. Though the arguments make good sense to an ecologist, the consequences of such manage-ment practices are still far from quantitatively predictable. It is hard to imagine that the average fisherman will likely be swayed by an argument that states that by sacrificing, say, 50% of his catch, now he will continue to harvest a (possibly simi-lar) catch in the (undefined and unknown) future, whereas, if he doesn’t there will (likely) be a crash sometime in the future. Will the local politician who needs this person’s vote force such a sacrifice on him? The real breakthrough in management sci-ence, it seems to me, will be when the manager scientists come up with a cogent argument that the “future” is sometime beyond tomorrow afternoon.

Keith Brander’s “Afterword” is a refreshing jolt to the reader who, upon finishing this book, may be pleased to feel that the practical questions in management might finally have answers with real solutions. Cultural and attitudinal questions remain. Should we be aiming to preserve the natural balance in nature? Or, if our aim is primarily to feed the human popula-tion—or play to its culturally varied sense of the aesthetics of beauty or power—shouldn’t we then be trying something en-tirely different?

The writing is occasionally a bit shaky and repetitive—weaknesses often seen in multi-author, far-ranging books, but it detracts from a message that needs to be made strongly. Section 3, however, is offered with real conviction, and it is because of such certitude that this book is important.

John M. Emlen31117 44th Ave. SW, Federal Way, WA 98023

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 465

Robert “Bob” L. Hunt passed away in April 2013 at the age of 79 from complications due to Lyme disease and Parkinson’s disease. Bob played a ma-jor role in conserving and enhancing the coldwater resources of Wisconsin by contributing much to the understanding of Brook and Brown Trout life histo-ries and their habitat requirements, leading to innovative management actions (habitat enhancement techniques, angling regulations, and land stewardship). More than anyone else, he contributed to the knowledge about Wisconsin’s 10,000 miles of trout streams and advanced their stewardship. His pioneering research on wild trout and management recommendations has helped to im-prove conservation and angling throughout North America’s trout-producing regions.

Following high school in McFarland, Wisconsin, Bob joined the Army, serving in Germany and being discharged with honors. He attended the Uni-versity of Wisconsin (UW), receiving bachelor’s and master’s degrees in zoology, and then began his professional career in 1959 with the Wisconsin Conservation Department as leader of the Lawrence Creek Trout Research Project. This was a long-term study to test the effects of angling restrictions on Wild Brook Trout populations and later included the evaluation of their habitats and habitat improvement needs (mentored by Dr. Ray White). This work led to a landmark publication on Brook Trout life history and habitat requirements, “A Long-Term Evaluation of Trout Habitat Development and Its Relation to Improving Management-Related Research” (AFS Transactions, 1976). This is still one of the most widely cited publications on trout stream restoration.

In 1974, Bob became Wisconsin’s Coldwater Research Leader and, with fellow biologists Robert Carline and Ed Avery, con-ducted studies on trout populations throughout Wisconsin. Over his 33-year career he is credited with 45 professional publications, hundreds of popular articles, and numerous oral presentations. One of Bob’s greatest accomplishments was his book, Trout Stream Therapy (University Wisconsin Press, 1993), which is widely utilized by scientists, fisheries managers, and the angling public. Bob was highly respected due to his superb research and concern with detail yet was able to make results known in ways that guided public management direction at state and national levels. Most of Bob’s studies and publications illustrated the importance of good habitat to trout populations. In 1975, Bob cochaired the first international workshop on the Management of Brook Trout held in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. In 1977, his influence led to the adoption of the Wisconsin Trout Stamp, with anglers’ money being spe-cifically earmarked for trout habitat improvement. Since that time, hundreds of miles of Wisconsin trout streams have been restored or enhanced and no longer require stocking. Bob has guided several graduate students from UW Madison or UW Stevens Point and mentored many young fisheries biologists on the virtues of a quality trout resource. In 1978, Bob organized the second Brook Trout Workshop in North Carolina. Bob was a major contributor to the 1988 Workshop on Brown Trout Management, presenting papers and serving on discussion panels.

Bob was a founding member of the Wisconsin AFS Chapter and served as its second president. He was a certified fisheries scientist, presenting papers at many state and national AFS meetings.

In retirement Bob remained involved with trout and the coldwater resource by becoming an active member of Trout Unlimited (TU). Bob enjoyed fly-fishing for trout and relished the opportunity to teach others the art of fly-fishing. He initiated a TU project to promote anglers’ unharmed release of trout, called CPR (Consider Proper Release—five steps to reduce postrelease mortality). Thousands of released trout have had their lives extended by anglers who follow these simple practices, and Bob considered this project one of his more important accomplishments. Bob served as scientific advisor to the Wisconsin TU Council and participated in the national TU Wild Trout Management symposiums.

In 2012, Robert L. Hunt was inducted into the Wisconsin Conservation Hall of Fame, which includes other distinguished con-servationists, including Aldo Leopold and John Muir. Bob was a humble man of few spoken words, which he chose well, stating scientific findings and management implications effectively. Bob left trout habitat resources much improved.

Farewell “Mr. Trout.”Submitted by Lee Meyers

With input from Dr. Robert Carline

IN MEMORIAMRobert “Bob” L. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 466

AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2014

Second Call for Papers: Québec City 2014

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Atlan-tic International Chapter, and the North-east Division of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) are pleased to announce the second call for papers for the 144th Annual Meeting of the American Fish-eries Society in Québec City, Canada! The meeting’s theme—“From fisheries research to management: Think and act locally and globally”—should foster pre-sentations and discussions that consider topics such as:• Growing evidence for meaningful

local adaptation despite the lack of neutral genetic differentiation;

• Incorporating metapopulation con-

cepts into regional assessment and management actions;

• Research on and management of transboundary stocks;

• Shifting source–sink dynamics in metapopulations under climate change and their implications for conserva-tion;

• Eel and salmon biology, ecology, and management;

• Any other topic relevant to the theme.AFS 2014 will be held on 17–21 August

2014 at the Québec City Convention Centre, next to the historic Old City. This fortified city on the banks of the Saint Lawrence River is a UNESCO World Heritage Treasure. Come experience the “Joie de Vivre” and hospitality of Québec City’s people and prepare yourself to be amazed!

GENERAL INFORMATIONThe scientific program consists of three types of sessions: Symposia (oral presen-tations organized by individuals or groups with a common interest), Contributed Oral Presentations (grouped into sessions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 467

by topic), and Contributed Poster Presen-tations (organized to coincide with either symposia or contributed oral presentation topics). Fisheries professionals are in-vited to submit symposia proposals and abstracts for oral or poster presentations that address the meeting’s theme or that are relevant to fisheries. We encourage participation of fisheries professionals from academia (professors and especially students), from all levels of government, from First Nations, and from the private sector. We are hoping that topics related to marine systems and invertebrate re-sources will be well represented at the meeting.

SyMPOSIAThe Program Committee invites propos-als for symposia. Symposia related to the meeting theme will receive priority, and those not addressing the meeting theme should be of general interest to AFS members. The Program Committee also strongly encourages integrative symposia that span freshwater and marine systems (e.g., freshwater and marine phases of eel and Atlantic Salmon, stock assessment methods, etc.).

Symposium organizers are responsible for recruiting presenters, soliciting their abstracts, and directing them to submit their abstracts and presentations through the AFS online submission forms. The Program Committee will work with symposium organizers to incorporate ap-propriate presentations that were submit-ted as contributed papers. A symposium should include a minimum of 10 presen-tations. Time slots for oral presentations are limited to 20 minutes, but multiple time slots (i.e., 40 or 60 minutes) may be offered to keynote symposia speakers.

Symposium proposals must be submitted by 10 January 2014. All symposium proposal submissions must be made using the AFS online symposium proposal submission form available on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org). The Program Committee will review all symposium proposals and notify organizers of acceptance or refusal by 31 January 2014. Please note that once the core speakers of a symposium are confirmed, organizers will use the AFS

list server to contact additional potential speakers, especially students and young professionals with whom they may not be familiar, to broaden participation by the membership. If accepted, symposium organizers must submit a complete list of all confirmed presentations and titles by 7 March 2014. Symposium abstracts (in the same format as contributed oral and poster abstracts; see below) are due by 14 March 2014.

FORMAT FOR SyMPOSIUM PROPOSALS

(Submit using AFS online symposium submission form)

When submitting your abstract, include the following:

1) Symposium title: Brief but descrip-tive.

2) Organizer(s): Provide name, affilia-tion, telephone number, e-mail address of each organizer. The first name entered will be the main contact person.

3) Chairs: Supply name(s) of individual(s) who will chair the sympo-sium.

4) Description: In 300 words or less, describe the topic addressed by the pro-posed symposium, the objective of the symposium, and the value of the sympo-sium to AFS members and participants.

5) Format: Indicate whether the sympo-sium format is for oral presentations only or a mix of oral and poster presentations.

6) Presentation requirements: Speakers should use PowerPoint for presentations.

7) Audiovisual requirements: LCD projectors and laptops will be available in every room. Other audiovisual equip-ment needed for the symposium will be considered, but computer projection is strongly encouraged. Please list special audiovisual requirements.

8) Special seating requests: Standard rooms will be arranged theater style. Please indicate special seating requests (for example, “After the break, a panel

discussion with seating for 10 panel members will be needed”).

9) List of presentations: Please supply information on potential presenters, tenta-tive titles, and oral or poster designations.

10) Sponsors: If applicable, indicate sponsorship. Please note that a sponsor is not required.

CONTRIBUTED ORAL AND POSTER PRESENTATIONS

The Program Committee invites abstracts for sessions of contributed oral and poster presentations. Authors must indicate their preferred presentation format:

1. Contributed oral presentation only;

2. Contributed poster presentation only;

3. Contributed oral presentation preferred, but poster presentation acceptable.

Only one contributed oral presentation will be accepted for each senior author. Con-tributed oral presentations will be orga-nized by 20-minute time slots (14 minutes for presentation, 3 minutes for questions, and 3 minutes for room change or further questions). All oral presenters are ex-pected to deliver PowerPoint presenta-tions.

We encourage poster submissions be-cause of the limited time available for oral presentations. The program will include a dedicated poster session to encourage discussion between poster authors and at-tendees. Presenters are currently expected to have hard copies of their poster, but the Program Committee is exploring the pos-sibility of incorporating electronic post-ers. Further details will be provided in subsequent calls for papers.

STUDENT PRESENTERSStudent presenters must indicate whether they wish their contribution to be consid-ered for competition for a best presenta-tion (paper or poster, but not both) award. If the response is “no,” the presentation will be considered for inclusion in the An-nual Meeting by the Program Committee but will not receive further consideration

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 468

by the Student Judging Committee. If the response is “yes,” the student will be re-quired to submit an application to the Stu-dent Judging Committee. Components of the application will include an extended abstract and a check-off from the stu-dent’s mentor indicating that the study is at a stage appropriate for consideration for an award.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSIONAbstracts for contributed papers and poster papers must be received by 14 February 2014. All submissions must be made using the AFS online abstract sub-mission form, available at www.fisheries.org. When submitting your abstract:

• Provide a brief but descriptive title, avoiding acronyms or scientific names in the title unless the common name is not widely known;

• List all authors, their affiliations, ad-dresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses;

• Provide a summary of your find-ings and restrict your abstract to 200 words;

• Provide two prioritized keywords.

All presenters will receive an e-mail con-firmation of their abstract submission and will be notified of acceptance and the

designated time and place of their presen-tation by 18 April 2014.

The Program Committee will group con-tributed papers by topic based on the title and the two prioritized keywords.

Late submissions will not be accepted. The AFS does not waive registration fees for presenters at symposia, workshops, or contributed oral or poster presentation sessions. All presenters and meeting at-tendees must pay registration fees. Reg-istration forms will be available on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org) begin-ning May 2014. Register early for cost savings.

FORMAT FOR ABSTRACTSTitle: An Example Abstract for the AFS 2014 Annual Meeting

Format: Oral

Authors: Castonguay, Martin. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Maurice Lamon-tagne Institute, 850 route de la Mer, C.P. 1000 Mont-Joli, QC G5H 3Z4; 418-775-0634; martin.castonguay@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Sainte-Marie, Bernard. Pêches et Océans Canada, Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, 850 route de la Mer, C.P. 1000 Mont-Joli, QC G5H 3Z4; 418-775-0617; bernard.sainte-marie@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Presenter: Martin Castonguay

Abstract: Abstracts are used by the Pro-gram Committee to evaluate and select papers for inclusion in the scientific and technical sessions of the 2014 AFS An-nual Meeting. An informative abstract contains a statement of the problem and its significance, study objectives, prin-cipal findings, and applications. The ab-stract conforms to the prescribed format and must be no more than 200 words in length.

Student presenter: No.

PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONTACTS

Program Co-Chairs:

Martin CastonguayPêches et Océans Canada / Fisheries and Oceans Canadamcastonguay.afs2014@gmail.com418-775-0634

Bernard Sainte-MariePêches et Océans Canada / Fisheries and Oceans Canadabsaintemarie.afs2014@gmail.com418-775-0617

General information:Questions regarding the AFS 2014 meeting and Québec City, please contact info.afs2014@gmail.com or visit www.afs2014.org

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 469

COLUMNDirector’s Line

Sound Science and Future TrendsDoug AustenFisheries Senior Editor

Recently, Jeff Bezos, owner of Google, purchased the Washington Post. Typical of newspapers nationwide, the Post has been losing subscribers and is now printing about half of what it did just 10 years ago. Questions have been rampant about the potential demise of the paper that broke Watergate and has won 58 Pulitzer prizes. Already, newsroom staff have been reduced from over 1,000 to 600. The question frequently asked is, “Does the model of a printed newspaper still make sense?” One can easily extend this to an examination of the value that we place upon the high-quality journalism that the Post supported. Does the lack of support for the morning pa-per that so many of us consider a staple of life also underlie a diminished support for insightful and compelling journalism? Probably the most telling assessment that I have seen of this is that the model of delivery may be antiquated, but the devo-tion to journalism has not diminished; it simply may need to be repackaged, sold, distributed, and supported in new ways. In a somewhat comparable situation, similar questions can be asked of many types of professional, trade, and scientific associations, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) among them.

Many of our peer group scientific associations have been undergoing dramatic, often life-threatening, challenges to their existence. A quick survey of the financial health of several of them has shown that they may simply not be able to continue as currently conceived; to survive, they will need to undergo sub-stantial changes or restructuring. Membership is stagnant, the traditional printing of journals has been dramatically altered by all forms of electronic media, the ability of members to attend conferences will be increasingly challenged, and the rate and forms of information dissemination and access have expand-ed immensely. Furthermore, in a direct challenge to the very foundation of the professional and scientific associations, we find conflicting values that society places on science. Though committed to producing and providing the best available sci-ence to support management and policy decisions, the AFS and others are increasingly seeing science questioned, undermined, or simply ignored. The public has routinely been confused with conflicting, poor, or abused science on so many issues that they, naturally, are suspicious of all science. In an intriguing com-mentary on this issue, Bob Lackey (Oregon State University) challenged the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission to carefully consider how to position science in a decision arena where it is increasingly questioned. In another forum, I recently attend-ed the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council meeting to

become reacquainted with the councils and their efforts to fulfill the roles specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Here the management challeng-es of immense fishery resources, constantly shifting environmental stresses, always tight research budgets, and the uncertainty associated with these factors have created a rich opportunity for cooperative science efforts between the fishing community (commercial and recreational) and scientists and managers. Increasingly, the exploration of science policy is encouraging coproduction of science and other models that both challenge us and provide new opportunities for growth. Clearly, the old models on many fronts are being challenged.

So what does all this mean for the AFS? The AFS carefully managed the fiscal resources to ensure that the society is cur-rently in a solid financial position. Yet we need to be concerned about future trends, which are not working in our favor. Clearly, our old sources of revenue (conferences, membership, journals, and books) are far from a certain source of future funds. Where are the new opportunities and how should the society be posi-tioning itself to best exploit these opportunities. Second, if we are to fully engage in our mission, “to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals,” we need to ensure that we are effectively addressing the role of science in the reality of society as it exists, not how we hope or wish it would exist. We need to question these and many other basic premises of the society and ensure that we understand the challenges, iden-tify the opportunities, and aggressively respond. The officers, governing board, and others have initiated this dialogue and it was a major source of discussion at the Little Rock meeting. As this process moves forward, we will be actively pursuing your thoughts, insights, and guidance on how to ensure that the American Fisheries Society can best fulfill its mission in a world where an institution as storied as the Washington Post is weathering a storm as violent and turbulent as Sandy yet hopes to still be true to its journalistic foundation that altered the course of history.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 470

Comparison of Two Life History Strategies after Impoundment of a Historically Anadromous Stock of Columbia River Red-band Trout. Dean E. Holecek and Dennis L. Scarnecchia. 142:1157–1166.

Fall and Early Winter Move-ment and Habitat Use of Wild Brook Trout. Robert Mollenhau-er, Tyler Wagner, Megan V. Kepler, and John A. Sweka. 142:1167–1178.

Spatiotemporal Variation of Juvenile Common Carp Foraging Patterns as Inferred from Stable Isotope Analysis. Michael J. Weber and Michael L. Brown. 142:1179–1191.

Population Structure of a Neotropical Migratory Fish: Contrast-ing Perspectives from Genetics and Otolith Microchemistry. Sarah M. Collins, Nate Bickford, Peter B. McIntyre, Aurélie Coulon, Amber J. Ulseth, Donald C. Taphorn, and Alexander S. Flecker. 142:1192–1201.

Consequences of Incidental Otter Trawl Capture on Survival and Physiological Condition of Threatened Atlantic Sturgeon. Jeffrey W. Beardsall, Montana F. McLean, Steven J. Cooke, Brian C. Wilson, Michael J. Dadswell, Anna M. Redden, and Michael J. W. Stokesbury. 142:1202–1214.

Coding Gene Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Population Genet-ics of Nonnative Brook Trout: The Ghost of Introductions Past. H. M. Neville and L. Bernatchez. 142:1215–1231.

[Note] Microscale Environments along the Seaward Migration Route of Stocked Chum Salmon Fry. Koh Hasegawa and Satoru Takahashi. 142:1232–1237.

Individual-Based Modeling of Delta Smelt Population Dynamics in the Upper San Francisco Estuary: I. Model Description and Baseline Results. Kenneth A. Rose, Wim J. Kimmerer, Karen P. Ed-wards, and William A. Bennett. 142:1238–1259.

Individual-Based Modeling of Delta Smelt Population Dynamics in the Upper San Francisco Estuary: II. Alternative Baselines and Good versus Bad years. Kenneth A. Rose, Wim J. Kimmerer, Karen P. Edwards, and William A. Bennett. 142:1260–1272.

Patterns of Population Structure Vary Across the Range of the White Sturgeon. A. Drauch Schreier, B. Mahardja, and B. May. 142:1273–1286.

Fragmentation and Drought Legacy Correlate with Distribution of Burrhead Chub in Subtropical Streams of North America. Josh-uah S. Perkin, Zachary R. Shattuck, Joseph E. Gerken, and Timothy H. Bonner. 142:1287–1298.

[Note] The Effects of Semichronic Thermal Stress on Physiological Indicators in Steelhead. Brittany D. Kammerer and Scott A. Heppell. 142:1299–1307.

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTSTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietyVolume 142, Number 5, September 2013

Water Body Type Influences Climate–Growth Relationships of Freshwater Drum. Jordan C. Richard and Andrew L. Rypel. 142:1308–1320.

Relative Vulnerability of PIT-Tagged Subyearling Fall Chi-nook Salmon to Predation by Caspian Terns and Double-Crested Cormorants in the Columbia River Estuary. Scott H. Sebring, Melissa C. Carper, Richard D. Ledgerwood, Benjamin P. Sandford, Gene M. Matthews, and Allen F. Evans. 142:1321–1334.

The Effects of Pulse Pressure from Seismic Water Gun Tech-nology on Northern Pike. Jackson A. Gross, Kathryn M. Irvine, Siri Wilmoth, Tristany L. Wagner, Patrick A. Shields, and Jeffrey R. Fox. 142:1335–1346.

Contemporary Population Structure in Klamath River Basin Chinook Salmon Revealed by Analysis of Microsatellite Ge-netic Data. Andrew P. Kinziger, Michael Hellmair, David G. Han-kin, and John Carlos Garza. 142:1347–1357.

Impacts of Diet on Thiamine Status of Lake Ontario Ameri-can Eels. John D. Fitzsimons, Scott B. Brown, Lisa R. Brown, Guy Verreault, Rémi Tardif, Ken G. Drouillard, Scott A. Rush, and Jana R. Lantry. 142:1358–1369.

Species and Life History Affect the Utility of Otolith Chemical Composition for Determining Natal Stream of Origin for Pa-cific Salmon. Christian E. Zimmerman, Heidi K. Swanson, Eric C. Volk, and Adam J. R. Kent. 142:1370–1380.

Anadromous Sea Lampreys Recolonize a Maine Coastal River Tributary after Dam Removal. Robert Hogg, Stephen M. Coghlan Jr., and Joseph Zydlewski. 142:1381–1394.

Upper Thermal Tolerances of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout under Constant and Fluctuating Temperatures. Matthew P. Zeigler, Stephen F. Brinkman, Colleen A. Caldwell, Andrew S. Todd, Matthew S. Recsetar, and Scott A. Bonar. 142:1395–1405.

Body Size and Growth Rate Influence Emigration Timing of Oncorhynchus mykiss. Ian A. Tattam, James R. Ruzycki, Hiram W. Li, and Guillermo R. Giannico. 142:1406–1414.

Using Seasonal Variation in Otolith Microchemical Compo-sition to Indicate Largemouth Bass and Southern Flounder Residency Patterns across an Estuarine Salinity Gradient. Troy M. Farmer, Dennis R. DeVries, Russell A. Wright, and Joel E. Gagnon. 142:1415–1429.

Conservation of the Owens Pupfish: Genetic Effects of Mul-tiple Translocations and Extirpations. Amanda J. Finger, Steve Parmenter, and Bernie P. May. 142:1430–1443.

Abundance and Size Structure of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Douglas L. Peterson and Michael S. Bednarski. 142:1444–1452.

Evidence for Density-Dependent Changes in Growth, Down-stream Movement, and Size of Chinook Salmon Subyearlings in a Large-River Landscape. William P. Connor, Kenneth F. Tif-fan, John M. Plumb, and Christine M. Moffitt. 142:1453–1468.

[Note] The Effects of Ethanol Preservation on Fish Fin Stable Isotopes: Does Variation in C:N Ratio and Body Size Matter? Carmella Vizza, Beth L. Sanderson, Douglas G. Burrows, and Holly J. Coe. 142:1469–1476.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 471

NEW AFS MEMBERS

David AbregoKyle BalesGregory BarkerChristina BoltonGary ByrneAndrew DeinesLucas DriverEd EischSally EntrekinNicholas FeltzAdam FoxChris FullerRodney GamezKristin GarabedianZachary GillumMolly GoodDanielle GrunzkeDavid HigginbothamCourtney HoldenChristopher HollenbeckKathy HovermanAmanda KellyChristopher KempCarl KlimahBret LadagoMichael LancasterJacqueline LeidigJean LeitnerPaul LenosSean LynottHector MalagonRalph MannsAndrew Marbury

Chris MiddaughSeiji MiyazonoClinton MorgesonAdam MustoAnna NeuheimerBryan NorrisSandi PartenThomas PateCasey PennockTyler ReevesJordan RichardAnthony RiethAlex RosburgCody SalzmannTimothy SesterhennMarian ShafferEvan ShieldsJune ShresthaMeredith SmylieStephen StowellMark SyphusThor TackettJohn TaylorJamie ThompsonJason ThroneberrySara TrippJoe TyburczyManna WarburtonKevin WengKaren WilsonRodrigue Yossa NouagaSean ZeigerYingming Zhao

www.sonotronics.com • (520) 746-3322

Celebrating 42 years“working together to make a difference in the world we share”

...Looking back over 42 years providing Equipment for Tracking Marine Animals.

Tortuguero, Costa Rica (early 70’s)

Tag used for Turtle Tracking

Acoustic Submersible

Receiver (early 80’s)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 472

My fifth embarrassing moment, and the major reason I am writing this column, was that I learned from one of our members who is a person of color that I was the first person to really engage him in meaningful conversation at an AFS annual meeting. Until then, he felt that he had been invisible, if not disliked, for his race. So, during a social or a break at your next AFS meetings, as your president, I personally ask each of you to make a point of having a conversation with an AFS meeting attendee who appears to be of a different race than yours. I stress that this goes both ways; we both can learn something about what it is like to walk in the other’s shoes. If mutual interests are sufficient, they might even lead to research and travel opportunities in markedly different ecosystems and cultures that will further one’s professional growth. They certainly have for me. Regardless of the possible professional rewards, we need to make the AFS even more personally welcoming than it is already—especially for people who feel a history of discrimination in North America that stems largely from fear and insufficient knowledge of others.

REFERENCE

Cuker, B. E. 2007. Programs for building ethnic diversity in the aquatic sciences. Bulletin of the American Society of Lim-nology and Oceanography 16:42–45.

Continued from page 431 “A lake is the landscape’s most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth’s eye; looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature.”—Henry David Thoreau

REFERENCES

Boesch, D. F., V. J. Coles, D. G. Kimmel, and W. D. Miller. 2007. Coastal dead zones and global climate change—ramifications of climate change for Chesapeake Bay hypoxia. Pages 57–70 in Re-gional impacts of climate change: four case studies in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia.

Dahl, T. E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the coterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Available: www.fws.gov/wetlands/Status-And-Trends-2009/index.html. (August 2013).

Dahl, T. E. and S. M. Stedman. In press. Status and trends of wetlands in coastal watersheds of the United States 2004 to 2009. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish-eries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-life Service.

Fogarty, M., L. Incze, R. Wahle, D. Mountain, A. Robinson, A. Per-shing, K. Hayhoe, A. Richards, and J. Manning. 2007. Potential climate change impacts on marine resources of the Northeastern United States. In Northeast climate change impacts assessment. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Avail-able: www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf. (August 2013).

National Fish Habitat Board. 2010. Through a fish’s eye: the status of fish habitats in the United States 2010. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C. Available: www.fishhabitat.org/content/through-fish%E2%80%99s-eye-status-fish-habitats-united-states-2010. (August 2013).

Nye, J. A., J. S. Link, J. A. Hare, and W. J. Overholtz. 2009. Chang-ing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States Continental Shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393:111–129. Available: www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v393/p111-129. (August 2013).

Stedman, S. M., and T. E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in coastal watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-in-the-Coastal-Watersheds-of-the-Eastern-United-States-1998-to-2004.pdf. (August 2013).

Stroud, R. H., editor. 1992. Stemming the tide of coastal fish habitat loss. Marine Recreational Fisheries 14, Proceedings of a sympo-sium on conservation of coastal fish habitat. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Savannah, Georgia.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. National riv-ers and streams assessment 2008–2009: a collaborative survey. Available: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/upload/NRSA0809_Report_Final_508Compliant_130228.pdf. (August 2013).

affect land use, environmental issues such as rainfall, regulatory and enforcement measures, and climatic changes. Still, even with dueling variables, the general trend is toward more fish habitat loss than should be acceptable, whether you’re a fish or a fish lover. Our nation adopted a national goal of “no net loss” of all wetlands in 1988 (under President George H.W. Bush), but we’re not there yet.

Though perhaps not as dire as they were decades ago (when rivers caught fire and when we built amusement parks in wet-lands), these trends still demand attention. As the National Fish Habitat Board (2010) reported in the first national assessment of fish habitat, we know the challenges and must now seize the op-portunities to protect and restore. Our concern, and our actions, must reflect not just the beauty of these habitats (see Thoreau’s quote accompanying this column) but the societal benefits of their existence. One of the earliest reports on coastal fish habitat loss (Stroud 1992) offered a strong call to arms but did little to vulcanize action. Decades later, agency reports such as those cited above are once again tugging at our hearts. We need to sculpt appropriate action for each habitat, for the primary threats to those waters, and based on reasonable budgets and schedules.

Now grab your gear and head to the front lines. For me, that’s a conference room down the hall where I must fight for much-needed research dollars. For others, it will hopefully be a trip to a watering hole that needs our help. Together we must reverse these trends—for our children’s children and their chil-dren and on and on.

Continued from page 432

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 473

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITE

October 21–27, 2013 3rd International Marine Protected Areas Congress

Marseille, France impac3.org

December 4–7, 2013 Ball State Chapter – Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference

Des Moines, IA bsuafs.iweb.bsu.edu

January 22–26, 2014 Southern Division Spring Meeting Charleston, SC sdafs.org/meeting2014

January 26–29, 2014 K-State Student Subunit of AFS / Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference

Kansas City, MO k-state.edu/ksuafs/events.shtml

February 5–7, 2014 Annual Meeting of the New York Chapter Geneva, NY newyorkafs.org

February 11–13, 2014 GA-AFS Annual Meeting Athens, GA gaafs.org

February 18–20, 2014 Florida Chapter Meeting Ocala, FL sdafs.org/flafs

February 25–27, 2014 Wisconsin Chapter Meeting Green Bay, WI wi-afs.org

April 7–12, 2014 The Western Division Meeting’s 2nd International Mangroves as Fish Habitat Symposium

Mazatlan, Mexico fishconserve.org/email_messages/ Mangrove_Symposium.html

August 3–7, 2014 International Congress on the Biology of Fish Edinburgh, United Kingdom

icbf2014.sls.hw.ac.uk

August 17–21, 2014 AFS Annual Meeting 2014 Québec City, Canada

afs2014.org

August 31–September 4, 2014

AFS-FSH – International Symposium on Aquatic Animal Health (ISAAH)

Portland, OR afs-fhs.org/meetings/meetings.php

CALENDARFisheries Events

To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS web site calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/ province, web address, and contact information to sgilbertfox@fisheries.org.

(If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

More events listed at www.fisheries.org

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 474

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 475

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org 476

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Very cool, indeed. ‘ ’‘ ’- Attendee, American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting 2013The secret is out.

www.HTIsonar.com/2014-fisheries-tech

HTI’s engineers gave us two thumbs up to share three new fisheries technologies currently in prototype beta testing. So we thought we’d drop a few hints...

AutonomousData Logger

TagPredationHTI’s

Longer Life, Acoustic

Tags

smaller&

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dep

artm

ent O

f Fi

sher

ies]

at 1

9:23

25

Nov

embe

r 20

13