Adverse Effects of Alewives on Laurentian Great Lakes Fish Communities

Abstract

The alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, an invader to the Laurentian Great Lakes from the Atlantic Ocean, has been blamed for causing major disruptions of Great Lakes fish communities during the past 50 years. We reviewed the literature and examined long‐term data on fish abundances in the Great Lakes to develop a new synthesis on the negative effects of alewives on Great Lakes fish communities. The results indicated that certain fish populations are substantially more vulnerable to the effects of alewives than others. More specifically, the effects of alewives on other fish populations appeared to follow a continuum—from such fishes as slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus, lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis, and bloater Coregonus hoyi, which were relatively unsusceptible—to Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush, and emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides, which were highly susceptible. Intermediate species in this continuum included yellow perch Perca flavescens, deepwater sculpin Myoxocephalus thompsonii, and burbot Lota lota. The predominant mechanism by which alewives exerted their negative effect appeared to be predation on the larvae of other fishes. The key factor in the extirpation of Atlantic salmon from Lake Ontario, however, was probably early mortality syndrome induced by a diet rich in alewives. We conclude that the degree of restoration of the native Great Lakes fish community depends in part on the degree of control of the alewife population.

Population ecology of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) as an invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes and an imperiled species in Europe

“…In the 1960s, sea lamprey control in conjunction with intensive stocking enabled a buildup of lake trout populations in the 1970s and 1980s in the upper Great Lakes, and widespread natural reproduction by lake trout in Lake Superior. Further, sea lamprey predation contributed to declining abundance of lake whitefish in the upper Great Lakes in the 1950s (Lawrie and Rahrer 1972;Berst and Spangler 1973;Wells and McLain 1973), after which sea lamprey control contributed to recovery of lake whitefish populations (Madenjian et al 2008b). Sea lamprey predation has also been suspected of having some effect on abundance of coregonines other than lake whitefish in the upper Great Lakes (Lawrie and Raher 1972;Berst and Spangler 1973;Wells and McLain 1973).…”

“…Sea lamprey predation has also been suspected of having some effect on abundance of coregonines other than lake whitefish in the upper Great Lakes (Lawrie and Raher 1972;Berst and Spangler 1973;Wells and McLain 1973). Last, sea lamprey predation contributed to declining burbot abundance in the upper Great Lakes in the 1950s (Berst and Spangler 1973;Wells and McLain 1973;Gorman and Sitar 2013), after which sea lamprey control enabled recovery of burbot populations in the Laurentian Great Lakes (Madenjian et al 2008b;Stapanian et al 2008).…”

The efficacy of two synthesized sea lamprey sex pheromone components as a trap lure when placed in direct competition with natural male odors

“…Invasion of the Laurentian Great Lakes by the sea lamprey resulted in near extinction of the dominant piscivore (lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush), contributed to the extinction of three endemic fishes-the deepwater cisco (Coregonus johannae), the shortnose cisco (C. reighardi), and the blackfin cisco (C. nigripinnis)-and set the stage for a population explosion by two invasive prey fishes (alewife, Alosa psuedoharengus, and rainbow smelt, Osmerus mordax) (Smith 1970;Smith and Tibbles 1980;Madenjian et al 2008;IUCN 2010;USFWS 2010). The US and Canadian governments undertake an integrated pest management program to suppress sea lamprey populations by reducing recruitment to the parasitic stage (pesticide application) and suppressing reproduction (barriers to spawning migrations, sterile male introduction) (Christie and Goddard 2003).…”

Reply to comments by Riley and Dunlop on He et al. (2015)

“…For example, assuming equal catchability per unit area trawled in the two lakes during 1973-1991, biomass density was 4.0 times higher in Lake Michigan than in the main basin of Lake Huron (Madenjian et al 2008). Further taking into account the differences in lake area, total biomass was 6.1 times as high.…”