Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 995–1003 | Cite as

The effects of suspended sediment on walleye (Sander vitreus) eggs

  • Burton C. Suedel
  • Charles H. Lutz
  • Joan U. Clarke
  • Douglas G. Clarke



Sediment resuspension is among the most widely cited concerns that lead to restricted dredging timeframes. Protection of fish species is a primary concern regarding the effects of dredging operations, yet experimental data establishing thresholds for uncontaminated suspended sediment effects are largely lacking. We conducted research to determine suspended sediment effects on walleye (Sander vitreus) egg hatching success and gross morphology following exposures mimicking sediment resuspension during dredging operations.

Materials and methods

Newly spawned eggs of northern and southern walleye strains were continuously exposed for 3 days to suspended sediment concentrations of 0, 100, 250, and 500 mg l−1, using sediment from Maumee Bay, OH, USA. These concentrations spanned the range measured in the vicinity of dredging operations in the Western Basin of Lake Erie.

Results and discussion

Northern and southern strain egg hatching rates were 53% and 39% of exposed eggs and 82% and 74% of viable eggs exposed, which are within reported ranges for this species. Data indicated no statistically significant effects of suspended sediment on hatching success. Gross morphological observations of exposed fry yielded no evidence of detrimental effects.


Experimental results indicated that walleye eggs are relatively tolerant to exposures likely to be encountered at dredging projects as performed in the Great Lakes region. Our results suggest that, given detailed knowledge of dredging project site-specific conditions and the mode of dredging to be used, better informed decisions can be made regarding adequate protective management practices. In many cases, flexibility could be given to the dredging contractor while maintaining a very low probability of risk to walleye spawning habitat.


Dredging Environmental windows Suspended sediment Walleye (Sander vitreus



We gratefully thank Pat Howard of the Hebron State Fish Hatchery, OH, and Justin Wilkins of the North Mississippi Fish Hatchery and their staffs for their assistance in providing walleye eggs. We thank Roger Knight, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, for helpful insights prior to the study. We thank Scott Pickard of the Corps of Engineers Buffalo District, for coordination of sediment collection and experimental design insight and review of an earlier version of the paper; Cynthia Banks for her expert technical assistance and comments on an earlier draft; and Gary Ray for grain size analysis. This research was funded by the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program, Todd Bridges, Director. Permission was granted by the Chief of Engineers to publish this material.

Supplementary material

11368_2012_521_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (198 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 198 kb)


  1. Ali MA, Rvder RA, Anctil M (1977) Photoreceptors and visual pigments as related to behavioral responses and preferred habitats of perches (Perca spp.) and pikeperches (Stizostedion spp.). J Fish Res Board Can 34:1475–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anchor Environmental (2003) Literature review of effects of resuspended sediments due to dredging operations. Prepared for the Contaminated Sediments Task Force, Los Angeles Region. Irvine, California, USA. Accessed 27 July 2011
  3. ASTM Standard D422-63 (2007) Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI:  10.1520/D0422-63R07,
  4. Auer NA, Auer MT (1987) Field evaluation of barriers to walleye egg and larva survival in the Lower Fox River, Wisconsin. Am Fish Soc Symp 2:93–101Google Scholar
  5. Auld AH, Schubel JR (1978) Effects of suspended sediment on fish eggs and larvae: a laboratory assessment. Estuar Coast Mar Sci 6:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilotta GS, Brazier RE (2008) Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water chemistry and aquatic biota. Water Res 42:2849–2861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bristow BT, Summerfelt RC, Clayton RD (1996) Comparative performance of intensively cultured larval walleye in clear, turbid, and colored water. The Progress Fish-Cult 58:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke DG, Wilber DH (2000) Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to sediment resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection (TN-DOER-E9), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. Accessed 27 July 2011
  9. Clayton RD, Morris JE, Summerfelt RC (2009) Effect of turbidity duration on culture of walleye larvae. N Am J Aquac 71:174–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffin FJ, Smith EH, Vines CA, Cherr GN (2009) Impacts of suspended sediments on fertilization, embryonic development, and early larval life stages of the Pacific Herring, Clupea pallasi. Biol Bull 216:175–187Google Scholar
  11. Ivan LN, Rutherford ES, Riseng C, Tyler JA (2010) Density, production, and survival of walleye (Sander vitreus) eggs in the Muskegon River, Michigan. J Great Lakes Res 36:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kemp P, Sear D, Collins A, Naden P, Jones I (2011) The impacts of fine sediment on riverine fish. Hydrol Process 25:1800–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lake RG, Hinch SG (1999) Acute effects of suspended sediment angularity on juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:862–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Malison JA, Held JA (1996) Reproductive biology and spawning. In: Summerfelt RC (ed) Walleye culture manual. NCRAC Culture Series 101. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center Publications Office, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  15. McMahon TE, Terrell JW, Nelson PC (1984) Habitat suitability information: Walleye. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-82/10.56, 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Mion JB, Stein RA, Marschall EA (1998) River discharge drives survival of larval walleye. Ecol Appl 8:88–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgan RP, Rasin VJ, Noe LA (1973) Effects of suspended sediments on the development of eggs and larvae of striped bass and white perch. Final Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Newcombe CP, Jensen JOT (1996) Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. N Am J Fish Manag 16:693–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newcombe CP, MacDonald DD (1991) Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. N Am J Fish Manag 11:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NRC (2001) A process for setting, managing, and monitoring environmental windows for dredging projects. Marine Board, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 262. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Owens PN, Batalla RJ, Collins AJ, Gomez B, Hicks DM, Horowitz AJ, Kondolf GM, Marden M, Page MJ, Peacock DH, Petticrew EL, Salomons W, Trustrum NA (2005) Fine-grained sediment in river systems: environmental significance and management issues. River Res Appl 21:693–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phillips TA, Summerfelt RC (2003) An estimate of optimal turbidity to maximize survival and growth rate of larval walleye in intensive culture. In: Barry TP, Malison JA (eds) Proceedings of Percis III: The Third International Percid Fish Symposium, Madison, WI, July 20–24, 2003. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp 51–52Google Scholar
  23. Redding JM, Schreck CB (1982) Mount St. Helens ash causes sublethal stress responses in steelhead trout. In: Mt. St. Helens: effects on water resources. Washington State University, Washington Water Research Center, Report 41, Pullman, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Redding JM, Schreck CB, Everest FH (1987) Physiological effects on coho salmon and steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Trans Am Fish Soc 116:737–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reine KJ, Dickerson DD, Clarke DG (1998) Environmental windows associated with dredging operations. DOER Technical Notes Collection (TN DOER-E2), U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA Accessed 27 July 2011
  26. Reine K, Clarke D, Dickerson C, Pickard S (2007) Assessment of potential impacts of bucket dredging plumes on walleye spawning habitat in Maumee Bay, Ohio. Proceedings of the 18th World Dredging Congress (WODCON XVIII), Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Rieger PW, Summerfelt RC (1997) The influence of turbidity on larval walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, behavior and development in tank culture. Aquaculture 159:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roseman EF, Taylor WW, Hayes DB, Fofrich J, Knight RL (2002) Evidence of walleye spawning in Maumee Bay, Lake Erie. Ohio J Sci 102:51–55Google Scholar
  29. Roseman EF, Hayes DB, Taylor WW, Tyson JT, Haas RC (2005) Spatial patterns emphasize the importance of coastal zones as nursery areas for larval walleye in western Lake Erie. J Great Lakes Res 31(Suppl 1):28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roseman EF, Taylor WW, Hayes DB, Jones AL, Francis JT (2006) Predation on walleye eggs by fish on reefs in western Lake Erie. J Great Lakes Res 32:415–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryder RA (1977) Effects of ambient light variations on behavior of yearling, subadult, and adult walleyes (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum). J Fish Res Board Can 34:1481–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Savino JF, Blouin MA, Davis BM, Hudson PL, Todd TN, Fleischer GW (1994) Effects of pulsed turbidity and vessel traffic on lake herring eggs and larvae. J Great Lakes Res 20:366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schubel JR, Wang JCS (1973) The effects of suspended sediment on the hatching success of Perca flavescens (yellow perch), Morone americana (white perch), Morone saxatilis (striped bass) and Alosa pseudoharengus (alewife) eggs. Johns Hopkins University, Chesapeake Bay Institute, Special Report 30-73-3, Baltimore, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Sherk JA, O’Connor JM, Neumann DA, Prince RD, Wood KV (1974) Effects of suspended and deposited sediments on estuarine organisms, Phase II. Reference no. 74–20. Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Sherk JA, O’Connor JM, Neumann DA (1975) Effects of suspended and deposited sediments on estuarine environments. In: Cronin LE (ed) Estuarine research 2. Academic, New York, USA, pp 541–558Google Scholar
  36. Sigler JW, Bjornn TC, Everest FH (1984) Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 113:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (2003) SAS version 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Suedel BC, Kim J, Clarke DG, Linkov I (2008) A risk-informed decision framework for setting environmental windows for dredging projects. Sci Total Environ 403:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilber DH, Clarke DG (2001) Biological effects of suspended sediments: a review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. N Am J Fish Manag 21:855–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilber DH, Brostoff W, Clarke DG, Ray GL (2005) Sedimentation: potential biological effects from dredging operations in estuarine and marine environments. DOER Technical Notes Collection (TN-DOER-E20), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. Accessed 27 July 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Burton C. Suedel
    • 1
  • Charles H. Lutz
    • 1
  • Joan U. Clarke
    • 1
  • Douglas G. Clarke
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental LaboratoryUS Army Engineer Research and Development CenterVicksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations