Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 79, Issue 3–4, pp 339–356 | Cite as

Population Status of North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris

  • Peter B. Adams
  • Churchill Grimes
  • Joseph E. Hightower
  • Steven T. Lindley
  • Mary L. Moser
  • Michael J. Parsley
Green Sturgeon

Abstract

North American green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The two questions that need to be answered when considering an ESA listing are; (1) Is the entity a species under the ESA and if so (2) is the “species” in danger of extinction or likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range? Green sturgeon genetic analyses showed strong differentiation between northern and southern populations, and therefore, the species was divided into Northern and Southern Distinct Population Segments (DPSs). The Northern DPS includes populations in the Rogue, Klamath-Trinity, and Eel rivers, while the Southern DPS only includes a single population in the Sacramento River. The principal risk factors for green sturgeon include loss of spawning habitat, harvest, and entrainment. The Northern DPS is not considered to be in danger of extinction or likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. The loss of spawning habitat is not large enough to threaten this DPS, although the Eel River has been severely impacted by sedimentation due to poor land use practices and floods. The two main spawning populations in the Rogue and Klamath-Trinity rivers occupy separate basins reducing the potential for loss of the DPS through catastrophic events. Harvest has been substantially reduced and green sturgeon in this DPS do not face substantial entrainment loss. However there are significant concerns due to lack of information, flow and temperature issues, and habitat degradation. The Southern DPS is considered likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. Green sturgeon in this DPS are concentrated into one spawning area outside of their natural habitat in the Sacramento River, making them vulnerable to catastrophic extinction. Green sturgeon spawning areas have been lost from the area above Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River and Oroville Dam on the Feather River. Entrainment of individuals into water diversion projects is an additional source of risk, and the large decline in numbers of green sturgeon entrained since 1986 causes additional concern.

Keywords

Green sturgeon Population status Endangered Species Act Distinct population segment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayres WO (1854) Descriptions of three new species of sturgeon San Francisco. Proc California Acad Nat Sci 1:14–15 (1854–1857)Google Scholar
  2. Bailey HC, Alexander C, DiGiorgio C, Miller M, Doroshov SI, Hinton DE (1994) The effect of agricultural discharge on striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage. Ecotoxicology 3:123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bemis WE, Kynard B (1997) Sturgeon rivers: an introduction to acipenseriform biogeography and life history. Environ Biol Fish 48:167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg LS (1948) Freshwater fishes of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries, vol I, 4th edn. Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. Zoological Institute. Published for the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. by the Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem 1962Google Scholar
  5. Birstein VJ, Poletaev AI, Goncharov BF (1993) DNA content in Eurasian sturgeon species determined by flow cytometry. Cytometry 14:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birstein VJ, DeSalle R (1998) Molecular phylogeny of Acipenserinae. Mol Phylogentics Evol 9:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boreman J (1997) Sensitivity of North American sturgeons and paddlefish to fishing mortality. Environ Biol Fishes 46:399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busby PJ, Wainwright TC, Bryant GJ, Lierheimer LJ, Waples RS, Waknitz FW, Lagomarsino IV (1996) Status review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA-NWFSC Tech. Memo. 27, 261 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Cech JJ Jr (1992) White sturgeon. In: Leet WS, Dewees CM, Haugen CW (eds) California’s living marine resources and their utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92–12, pp 70–72Google Scholar
  10. Cohen AN, Carlton JT (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deng X (2000) Artificial reproduction and early life stages of the green surgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Unpublished. Master of Science thesis. University of California. Davis, CA. 61 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Erickson DL, North JA, Hightower JE, Weber J, Lauck L (2002) Movement and habitat use of green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris in the Rogue River, Oregon, USA. J Appl Ichthyol 18:565–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erickson DL, Hightower JE (in press) Oceanic distribution and behavior of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). In: Munro J, Hatin D, McKown K, Hightower J, Sulak KJ, Kahnle AW, Caron F (eds) Symposium on anadromous sturgeons. American Fisheries Society, Symposium. Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  14. Farr RA, Hughes ML, Rien TA (2002) Green sturgeon population characteristics in Oregon. Annual Progress Report. Sport Fish Restoration Project F-178-R. 27 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Galbreath JL (1985). Status, life history, and management of Columbia River white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus. In: Binkowski FP, Doroshov SI (eds). North American sturgeons. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 119–125Google Scholar
  16. Gross MR, Repka J, Robertson CT, Secor DH, Van Winkle W (2002) Sturgeon conservation: insights from elasticity analysis. Am Fish Soc Symp 28:13–30Google Scholar
  17. Houston JJ (1988) Status of green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in Canada. Can Field-Nat 102:286–290Google Scholar
  18. Israel JA, Blumberg M, Cordes J, May B (2004) Geographic patterns of genetic differentiation among western U.S. collections of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). North Am J Fish Manage 24:922–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindley, ST, Schick R, May BP, Anderson JJ, Greene S, Hanson C, Low A, McEwan D, MacFarlane RB, Swanson C, Williams JG (2004) Population structure of threatened and endangered chinook salmon ESUs in California’s Central Valley basin. NOAA TM NMFS SWFSC 360. 56 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindley ST, Schick RS, Agrawal A, Goslin M, Pearson T, Mora E, Anderson JJ, May BP, Greene S, Hanson C, Low A, McEwan D, MacFarlane RB, Swanson C, Williams JG (2006) Historical population structure of Central Valley steelhead and its alteration by dams. San Francisco Estuary Watershed Science 4(1)Google Scholar
  21. Linville RG, Luoma SN, Cutter L, Cutter GA (2002) Increased selenium threat as a result of invasion of the exotic bivalve Potamocorbula amurensis into the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Aqua Toxicol 57:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayfield RB, Cech JJ Jr (2004) Temperature effects on green sturgeon bioenergetics. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:961–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 502 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Musick JA, Harbin MM, Berkeley SA, Burgess GH, Eklund AM, Findley L, Gilmore RG, Golden JT, Ha DS, Huntsman GR, McGovern JC, Parker SJ, Poss SG, Sala E, Schmidt TW, Sedberry GR, Weeks H, Wright SG (2000) Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries 25:6–30Google Scholar
  25. Myers JM, Kope RG, Bryant GJ, Teel D, Lierheimer LJ, Wainwright TC, Grant WS, Waknitz FW, Neely K, Lindley ST, Waples RS (1998) Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA-NWFSC Tech. Memo. 35. 443 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (1998) Status review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA, 126 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council (NRC) (2004) Endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River Basin: causes of decline and strategies for recovery. Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 424 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. North JA, Farr RA, Vescei P (2002) A comparison of meristic and morphometric characters of green sturgeon Acipencer. J Appl Ichthyol 18:234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pine WE III, Allen MS, Dreitz VJ (2001) Population viability of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon: inferences from capture–recapture and age-structured models. Trans Am Fish Soc 130:1164–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rien TA, Burner LC, Farr RA, Howell MD, North JA (2001) Green sturgeon population characteristics in Oregon. Annual Progress Report. Sportfish Restoration Project F-178-R, 41 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Scheiff AJ, Lang JS, Pinnix WD (2001) Juvenile salmonid monitoring on the mainstem Klamath River at Big Bar and mainstem Trinity River at Willow Creek 1997–2000. USFWS, AFWO, Arcata, CA 95521, 114␣ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Secor DH, Anders PJ, Van Winkle W, Dixon DA (2002) Can we study sturgeons to extinction? What we do and don’t know about the conservation of North American sturgeons. Am Fish Soc Symp 28:3–10Google Scholar
  33. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1967) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Shortnose Sturgeon. Federal Register 32:4001Google Scholar
  34. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1990) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the Pallid Sturgeon. Federal Register 55(173):36641–36647Google Scholar
  35. United States Fish, Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1994) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon. Federal Register 59(171):45989–46022Google Scholar
  36. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2000) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Alabama sturgeon as endangered. Federal Register 65(88):26437–26461Google Scholar
  37. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1991) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the Gulf Sturgeon. Federal Register 56(189):49653–49658Google Scholar
  38. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1996) Policy regarding the recognition of distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under The endangered species Act. Federal Register 61(26):4721–4725Google Scholar
  39. Weitkamp LA, Wainwright TC, Bryant GJ, Milner GB, Teel DJ, Kope RG, Waples RS (1995) Status review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA-NWFSC Tech Memo-24, 258 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Wirgin II, Stabile JE, Waldman JR (1997) Molecular analysis in the conservation of sturgeons and paddlefish. Environ Biol Fish 48:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yoshiyama RM, Gerstung ER, Fisher FW, Moyle PB (2001) Historical and present distribution of chinook salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California. CDFG, Fish Bull 179(1):71–176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. Adams
    • 1
  • Churchill Grimes
    • 1
  • Joseph E. Hightower
    • 2
  • Steven T. Lindley
    • 1
  • Mary L. Moser
    • 3
  • Michael J. Parsley
    • 4
  1. 1.NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science CenterSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.USGS, North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitRaleighUSA
  3. 3.NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science CenterSeattleUSA
  4. 4.USGS, Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research LaboratoryCookUSA

Personalised recommendations