Coastal Wetland Support of Great Lakes Fisheries: Progress from Concept to Quantification

Abstract

Fishery support is recognized as a valuable ecosystem service provided by aquatic systems, but it is harder to quantify than to describe conceptually. In this paper, we combine data on fish inhabiting Great Lakes coastal wetlands (GLCWs) with information on commercial and recreational harvest and the piscivore forage base to develop quantitative understanding of the multiple species involved in direct and indirect fishery support of this complex fishery. We then examine patterns of species co‐occurrence and life history and relationships to GLCW conditions in order to identify fishery support metrics useful in aggregating species patterns and evaluating management outcomes. Our criteria for wetland prevalence (≥10% occurrence) and fishery importance (≥1% of recreational or commercial harvest in one or more of the Great Lakes or having a major forage fish role) yielded 21 wetland‐using, fishery‐relevant species representing multiple taxonomic groups and life history attributes. Wetland‐using species are estimated to make up half the biomass and 60% of the dollar value of the fish landed commercially and ∼80% of the fish numbers harvested recreationally. All of the GLCWs studied supported species of interest to recreational and commercial fishers but with widely varying composition. A few key habitat characteristics (e.g., vegetation structure) are broadly predictive of the types of sport and panfish present, with more degraded GLCWs generally supporting abundant but lower‐value taxa (rough‐fish species) and less degraded GLCWs supporting fewer but higher‐value taxa (sport and panfish species). No single taxonomic or functional metric seems adequate to capture the diversity of fishery‐relevant species supported by GLCWs; fishery support needs to be understood and managed in a multimetric context.Received May 16, 2014; accepted October 15, 2014

Reconstructing fish movements between coastal wetland and nearshore habitats of the Great Lakes

“…Although it is possible that yellow perch are moving into habitats that were not included in the analysis (i.e., offshore habitats), it has been suggested that yellow perch are an intermediate Great Lakes species, using nearshore areas as adults and wetland habitat for spawning and nursery purposes (Wei et al 2004). Previous studies of yellow perch have shown that yellow perch typically occupy nearshore, open water habitats (Roberge et al 2002;Hoffman and Trebitz 2015) and move to shallow water each spring to spawn in cobble reefs or wetland vegetation before moving back to deeper water (Robillard and Marsden 2001;Roberge et al 2002). Therefore, it is unlikely that the fish in this analysis are frequenting offshore habitats of the Great Lakes.…”

Modelling grass carp egg transport using a 3-D hydrodynamic river model: the role of egg retention in dead zones on spawning success

“…Coastal wetlands provide important nutrient sinks to help reduce eutrophication. Wetland using species in the Great Lakes are estimated to make up half of the fish biomass (Cudmore et al, 2017) and 60% of the dollar value of the fish landed commercially and 80% of the fish numbers harvested recreationally (Trebitz and Hoffman 2015).…”

Fish Community Responses to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Maumee Bay, Western Lake Erie

“…Restoration of habitat can affect the entire aquatic community and thus enhance community diversity and ecosystem services in systems that have become degraded over time (Lotze et al. ; Trebitz and Hoffman ).…”

“…Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in shallow bays and estuaries near river mouths serves as important aquatic habitat and plays an important role in improving water quality (Bakker et al 2013;Trebitz and Hoffman 2015). Submerged aquatic vegetation provides food and nesting material for waterfowl, reduces bank erosion by buffering wave energy, and reduces flow, which allows suspended sediments to settle out of the water column, thereby increasing water clarity (Carpenter and Lodge 1986;Perrow et al 1999;Hering et al 2006;Hestir et al 2016).…”

“…In addition, other activities such as bank stabilization with riprap and corrugated shipping bulkheads can further reduce habitat heterogeneity and support rapid riverine discharge of highly turbid water into estuarine and wetland habitats. Restoration of habitat can affect the entire aquatic community and thus enhance community diversity and ecosystem services in systems that have become degraded over time (Lotze et al 2006;Trebitz and Hoffman 2015).…”