Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 98, Issue 12, pp 2337–2352

A life-table metamodel to support the management of data deficient species, exemplified in sturgeons and shads

Article

Abstract

Population models in fish represent one of the major scientific approaches to identify and bridge existing gaps in the understanding of the ecology and life history, as well as to support management. In general, the more complex the models get, the more they are restricted to a case-by-case basis for particular, well-studied species, because demographic data required for detailed models are unavailable for the majority of species. In the present study, we propose a simple life-table metamodel, which facilitates population and fishery assessments across entire groups of fish. The general approach is described and its application is demonstrated on two groups of fish, which reflect extremes in their life cycle: sturgeons (order Acipenseriformes) and shads (genus Alosa). The approach allows to determine fishing mortality thresholds across different life history types, and to analyze their general population elasticity. Its application is suggested for rapid assessments across large, species-rich groups of fish. The method also allows utilizing life history data from well-studied species to infer fishing mortality thresholds for other, poorly studied species within the same group. Comparisons of the model output with results from other population models indicated a good congruity.

Keywords

Acipenser Alosa Fishery MSY Eggs-per-recruit 

Supplementary material

10641_2015_439_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (326 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 326 kb)

References

  1. Alagaraja K (1984) Simple methods for estimation of parameters for assessing exploited fish stocks. Indian J Fish 31(2):177–208Google Scholar
  2. Anderson AW (1954) A 152-year-old lake sturgeon caught in Ontario. Commer Fish Rev 18:28Google Scholar
  3. Andrews KI, Mangel M (2012) Asymptotic size and natural mortality of long-lived fish for data poor stock assessments. Fish Res 127–128:45–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aprahamian MW, Aprahamian CD, Bagliniere JL, Sabatié R, Alexandrino P (2003) Alosa alosa and Alosa fallax spp. literature review and bibliography. Environment Agency Research and Development Report W1-014, BristolGoogle Scholar
  5. Arlinghaus R, Krause J (2013) Wisdom of the crowd and natural resource management. Trends Ecol Evol 28(1):8–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bajer PG, Wildhaber ML (2007) Population viability analysis of Lower Missouri River shovelnose sturgeon with initial application to the pallid sturgeon. J Appl Ichthyol 23:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beamesderfer RCP, Rein TA, Nigro AA (1995) Differences in the dynamics and potential production of impounded and unimpounded white sturgeon populations in the Lower Columbia River. Trans Am Fish Soc 124:857–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beamesderfer RCP, Simpson ML, Kopp GJ (2007) Use of life history information in a population model for Sacramento green sturgeon. Environ Biol Fish 79:315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beddington JR, Kirkwood GP (2005) The estimation of potential yield and stock status using life-history parameters. Phil Trans R Soc B 360:163–170PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Beissinger SR (2002) Population viability analysis: past, present, future. In: Beissinger R, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, pp 5–17Google Scholar
  11. Berkson J, Barbieri L, Cadrin S, Cass-Calay SL, Crone P, Dorn M, Friess C, Kobayashi D, Miller TJ, Patrick WS, Pautzke S, Ralston S, Trianni M (2011) Calculating acceptable biological catch for stocks that have reliable catch data only (Only Reliable Catch Stocks – ORCS). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616Google Scholar
  12. Billard R, Lecointre G (2001) Biology and conservation of sturgeon and paddlefish. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:355–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birstein VJ (1993) Sturgeons and paddlefishes: threatened fishes in need of conservation. Conserv Biol 7(4):773–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boreman J (1997) Sensitivity of North American sturgeons and paddlefish to fishing mortality. Environ Biol Fish 48:399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boyce MS (1992) Population viability analysis. Annu Rev Ecol Sci 23:481–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brander K (2003) What kinds of fish stock predictions do we need and what kinds of information will help us to make better predictions? Sci Mar 67(suppl 1):21–33Google Scholar
  17. Brooks EN, Powers JE, Cortés E (2009) Analytical reference points for age-structured models: application to data-poor fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 67(1):165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown JJ, Murphy GW (2010) Atlantic sturgeon vessel-strike mortalities in the Delaware estuary. Fisheries 35(2):72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bruch RM (2008) Modeling the population dynamics and sustainability of lake sturgeon in the Winnebago system, Wisconsin. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  20. Bruch RM, Miller G, Hansen MJ (2006) Fecundity of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens, Rafinesque) in Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin, USA. J Appl Ichthyol 22(suppl 1):116–118Google Scholar
  21. Carruthers TR, Walters CJ, McAllister MK (2012) Evaluating methods that classify fisheries stock status using only fisheries catch data. Fish Res 119:66–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carruthers TR, Punt AE, Walters CJ, MacCall A, McAllister MK, Dick EJ, Cope J (2014) Evaluating methods for setting catch limits in data-limited fisheries. Fish Res 153:48–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ceapa C, Williot P, Bacalbasa-Dobrovici N (2002) Present state and perspectives of stellate sturgeon brood fish in the Romanian part of the Danube. Int Rev Hydrobiol 87(5–6):507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chaput GJ, Atkinson G (2001) The gaspereau fisheries (Alosa pseudoharengus and A. aestivalis) of the Miramichi River with updates on the fishery of the Richibucto River of Gulf New Brunswick, 1997 to 2000. Canadian Science Advisory SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  25. Colombo RE, Garvey JE, Jackson ND, Brooks R, Herzog DP, Hrabik RA, Spier TW (2007) Harvest of Mississippi River sturgeon drives abundance and reproductive success: a harbinger of collapse? J Appl Ichthyol 23:444–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cope JM (2013) Implementing a statistical catch-at-age model (stock synthesis) as a tool for deriving overfishing limits in data-limited situations. Fish Res 142:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crecco VA, Gibson M (1990) Stock assessment of river herring from selected Atlantic coast rivers. Special Report No. 19 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries CommissionGoogle Scholar
  28. de Kroon H, Plaisier A, van Groenendael J, Caswell H (1986) Elasticity: the relative contribution of demographic parameters to population growth rate. Ecology 67(5):1427–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dick EJ, MacCall AD (2011) Depletion-based stock reduction analysis: a catch-based method for determining sustainable yields for data-poor fish stocks. Fish Res 110(2):331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Doukakis P, Babcock EA, Pikitch EK, Sharov AR, Baimukhanov M, Erbulekov S, Bokova Y, Nimatov A (2010) Management and recovery options for Ural River beluga sturgeon. Conserv Biol 24(3):769–777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Dowling NA, Smith DC, Knuckey I, Smith AD, Domaschenz P, Patterson HM, Whitelaw W (2008) Developing harvest strategies for low-value and data-poor fisheries: case studies from three Australian fisheries. Fish Res 94(3):380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Edwards CTT, Hillary RM, Levontin P, Blanchard JL, Lorenzen K (2012) Fisheries assessment and management: a synthesis of common approaches with special reference to deepwater and data-poor stocks. Rev Fish Sci 20(3):136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Flowers HJ, Pine WE III, Dutterer AC, Johnson KG, Ziewitz JW, Allen MS, Parauka FM (2009) Spawning site selection and potential implications of modified flow regimes on viability of Gulf sturgeon populations. Trans Am Fish Soc 138:1266–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Froese R, Pauly D (eds) (2015) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication, version 02/2015. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 30 Apr 2015
  35. Gibson AJF, Myers RA (2003a) Biological reference points for anadromous alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) fisheries in the Maritime provinces. Can Tech Rep Fish Aquat Sci 2468Google Scholar
  36. Gibson AJF, Myers RA (2003b) A statistical, age-structured, life-history-based stock assessment model for anadromous Alosa. Am Fish Soc Symp 35:275–283Google Scholar
  37. Goodyear CP (1993) Spawning stock biomass per recruit in fisheries management: foundation and current use. In: Smith SJ, Hunt JJ, Rivard D (eds) Risk evaluation and biological reference points for fisheries management. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, NRC Research Press, Ottawa, pp 67–82Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Heppell SS (2007) Elasticity analysis of green sturgeon life history. Environ Biol Fish 79:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heppell SS, Caswell H, Crowder LB (2000) Life histories and elasticity patterns: perturbation analysis for species with minimal demographic data. Ecology 81(3):654–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hewitt DA, Lambert DM, Hoening JM, Lipcius RN, Bunnell DB, Miller TJ (2007) Direct and indirect estimates of natural mortality for Chesapeake Bay blue crab. Trans Am Fish Soc 136:1030–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hobday AJ, Smith A, Webb H, Daley R, Wayte S, Bulman C, Dowdney J, Williams A, Sporcic M, Dambacher J, Fuller M, Walker T (2007) Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing: methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  43. Hobday AJ, Smith ADM, Stobutzki IC et al (2011) Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fish Res 108(2):372–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hoenig JM (1983) Empirical use of longevity data to estimate mortality rates. Fish Bull NOAA 82(1):898–903Google Scholar
  45. Holčik J (ed) (1989) The freshwater fishes of Europe. AULA Verlag, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  46. Jager HI (2005) Genetic and demographic implications of aquaculture in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) conservation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:1733–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jager HI (2006) Chutes and ladders and other games we play with rivers. I. Simulated effects of upstream passage on white sturgeon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jarić I, Gačić Z (2012) Relationship between the longevity and the age at maturity in long-lived fish: Rikhter/Efanov’s and Hoenig’s methods. Fish Res 129–130:61–63Google Scholar
  49. Jarić I, Gessner J (2012) Analysis of publications on sturgeon research between 1996 and 2010. Scientometrics 90(2):715–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jarić I, Gessner J (2013) A life-stage population model of the European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) in the Elbe River. Part I: general model outline and potential applications. J Appl Ichthyol 29:383–493Google Scholar
  51. Jarić I, Ebenhard T, Lenhardt M (2010) Population viability analysis of the Danube sturgeon populations in a VORTEX simulation model. Rev Fish Biol Fish 20(2):219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jarić I, Cvijanović G, Knežević-Jarić J, Lenhardt M (2012) Trends in fisheries science during 2000–2009: a bibliometric study. Rev Fish Sci 20(2):70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jarić I, Gessner J, Acolas ML, Lambert P, Rochard E (2014) Modelling attempts utilized in sturgeon research: a review of the state-of-the art. J Appl Ichthyol 30:1379–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jarić I, Jaćimović M, Cvijanović G, Knežević-Jarić J, Lenhardt M (2015) Demographic flexibility influences colonization success: profiling invasive fish species in the Danube River by the use of population models. Biol Invasions 17:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jennings S (2001) Patterns and prediction of population recovery in marine reserves. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10(2):209–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Johannes RE (1998) The case for data-less marine resource management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 13(6):243–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kahnle A (2011) Alosine stock assessment history. In: Tuckey T, Read A (eds) Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management for Chesapeake Bay: Alosine Species Team Background and Issue Briefs. College Park, pp 73–77Google Scholar
  58. Kell LT, De Bruyn P (2012) The Robin Hood approach for data poor stocks: an example based on albacore. Collect Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 68(1):379–386Google Scholar
  59. Kenchington TJ (2014) Natural mortality estimators for information-limited fisheries. Fish Fish 15:533–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kennedy AJ, Sutton TM (2007) Effects of harvest and length limits on shovelnose sturgeon in the upper Wabash River, Indiana. J Appl Ichthyol 23:465–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. King JR, McFarlane GA (2003) Marine fish life history strategies: applications to fishery management. Fish Manag Ecol 10(4):249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Leggett WC, Carscadden JE (1978) Latitudinal variation in reproductive characteristics of American shad (Alosa sapidissima): evidence for population specific life history strategies in fish. J Fish Res Board Can 35(11):1469–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Martell S, Froese R (2013) A simple method for estimating MSY from catch and resilience. Fish Fish 14(4):504–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McBride R, Hendricks M, Duffy B, Kritzer J (2011) Life history of alosines growth, condition, and reproduction. In: Tuckey T, Read A (eds) Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management for Chesapeake Bay: Alosine Species Team Background and Issue Briefs. College Park, pp 81–91Google Scholar
  65. McDowall RM (2003) Shads and diadromy: implications for ecology, evolution, and biogeography. In: Limburg KE, Waldman JR (eds) Biodiversity, status, and conservation of the world’s shads. Am Fish Soc Symp 35:11–23Google Scholar
  66. Miller TJ (2010) Estimating bycatch limits for American shad and river herrings in the northwest Atlantic. Report prepared for: MRAG Americas, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Ref: [UMCES] CBL, 10–089Google Scholar
  67. Molloy PP, McLean IB, Côté IM (2009) Effects of marine reserve age on fish populations: a global meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 46(4):743–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Morris WF, Doak DF (2002) Quantitative conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  69. Navodaru I (1997) Evoluţia efectivelor scrumbiei de Dunăre în noile condiţii ecologice ale fluviului şi măsuri de menţinere a lor. PhD dissertation, Universitatea “Dunărea de Jos” Galaţi, Romania (In Romanian)Google Scholar
  70. Pianka ER (1970) On r- and K-selection. Am Nat 104(940):592–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pikitch EK, Doukakis P, Lauck L, Chakrabarty P, Erickson DL (2005) Status, trends and management of sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries. Fish Fish 6(3):233–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Punt AE, Smith DC, Smith AD (2011) Among-stock comparisons for improving stock assessments of data-poor stocks: the “Robin Hood” approach. ICES J Mar Sci 68(5):972–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Quist MC, Guy CS, Pegg MA, Braaten PJ, Pierce CL, Travnichek VH (2002) Potential influence of harvest on shovelnose sturgeon populations in the Missouri River system. N Am J Fish Manag 22:537–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rikhter VA, Efanov VN (1976) On one of the approaches to estimation of natural mortality of fish populations. ICNAF Res Doc 79/VI/8, p 12Google Scholar
  76. Rockwood LL (2006) Introduction to population ecology. Blackwell PublishingGoogle Scholar
  77. Secor DH, Woodland RJ (2005) Recovery and status of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River. Technical Report Series No. TS-493-05-CBL of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  78. Semakula SN, Larkin PA (1968) Age, growth, food, and yield of the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) of the Fraser River, British Columbia. J Fish Res Board Can 25(12):2589–2602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Spasić S, Jarić I, Navodaru I, Višnjić Jeftić Ž, Gessner J, Lenhardt M (2012) Life table model of the Pontic shad (Alosa immaculata Bennet, 1835) from the Danube River and the Black Sea. Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Association of Danube Research: Living Danube, August 21–24, Szentendre, Hungary, pp 47–52Google Scholar
  80. Vélez-Espino LA, Koops MA (2009) Recovery potential assessment for lake sturgeon in Canadian designatable units. N Am J Fish Manag 29:1065–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vélez-Espino LA, Fox MG, McLaughlin RL (2006) Characterization of elasticity patterns of North American freshwater fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:2050–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ward DL (ed) (1998) Effects of mitigative measures on productivity of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam, and determine the status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers upstream from McNary Dam, Annual Progress Report (April 1997-March 1998). Boneville Power Administration, Portland, p 216Google Scholar
  83. Winemiller KO, Rose KA (1992) Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: implications for population regulation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49(10):2196–2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhou S, Griffiths SP (2008) Sustainability assessment for fishing effects (SAFE): a new quantitative ecological risk assessment method and its application to elasmobranch bycatch in an Australian trawl fishery. Fish Res 91:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Multidisciplinary ResearchUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Institute for Biological ResearchUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations