Enhancement of red abalone Haliotis rufescens stocks at San Miguel Island: reassessing a success story

Burton, Ronald S.; Tegner, Mia J.

doi:10.3354/meps202303

Cited by 43 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unique genetic fingerprints indicate that it may be possible to use genetic analysis to monitor success of future outplanting programs. If animals are bred to carry particular unique multi-locus microsatellite genotypes, offspring could be tracked after outplanting, as could their wild-bred progeny (Burton and Tegner 2000;Milbury et al 2004). Ideally, more microsatellite loci would be added in the future to provide greater detection power.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic diversity and species identification in the endangered white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni)

Gruenthal

Burton

2006

Conserv Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2001, the white abalone Haliotis sorenseni became the first marine invertebrate in United States waters to receive federal protection as an endangered species. Prior to the endangered species listing, 20 abalone were collected as potential broodstock for a captive rearing program. Using DNA from these animals, we have developed genetic markers, including five nuclear microsatellite loci and partial sequences of one nuclear (VERL) and two mitochondrial (COI and CytB) genes, to assess genetic variability in the species, aid in species identification, and potentially track the success of future outplanting of captive-reared animals. All five microsatellite loci were polymorphic and followed expectations of simple Mendelian inheritance in laboratory crosses. Each of the wild-caught adult abalone exhibited a unique composite microsatellite genotype, suggesting that significant genetic variation remains in natural populations. A combination of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequencing demonstrated that one of the original wild-caught animals was, in fact, not a white abalone, but H. kamtschatkana (possibly subspecies assimilis). Similarly, another animal of uncertain identity accidentally collected by dredging was also shown to be H. kamtschatkana. Inclusion of these two animals as broodstock could have resulted in unintentional hybridizations detrimental to the white abalone recovery program. Molecular genetic identifications will be useful both in preventing broodstock contamination and as markers for future restocking operations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic diversity and species identification in the endangered white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni)

Gruenthal

Burton

2006

Conserv Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, taxes, levies and property rights have also been used as fisheries management tools around the world. Although such approaches can work in many instances, stock recovery is often perceived as too slow (Dayton et al, 2000;Ziemann, 2001;Molony et al, 2004) and changes in traditional management unpopular or unacceptable (Burton and Tegner, 2000;Crowder et al, 2000). Traditional management tools are unlikely to be effective in cases of habitat loss or modification (Hendricks, 1995;Southworth and Mann, 1999;Goldberg et al, 2000).…”

Section: Restructuring the Pastmentioning

confidence: 96%

The mangrove-based coastal and nearshore fisheries of Bangladesh: ecology, exploitation and management

Islam

Haque

2004

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…May lead to a reduction in abundances of competing species and prey species Rowland (1994), Wiley (1995), Cooney and Brodeur (1998), FAO (1999) Displacement of wild stock: by hatchery-reared conspecifics, although there are no well documented examples (Blaxter 2000) L'Abee'Lund (1991), Leber et al (1995), (1998), Bannister and Addison (1998), Butcher et al (2000) Introduction of diseases and parasites: due to poor hatchery management and husbandry Fja¨lling and Fu¨rst (1987), Heggberget et al (1993), Loneragan et al (1998), Wootten (1998), FAO (1999), Burton and Tegner (2000), Lee et al (2001) Genetic bottleneck: due to lack of genetic management of broodstock within the production system Rowland (1994), Busack and Currens (1995), Compton (1995), Loneragan et al (1998), Penman and McAndrew (1998), Utter (1998), Wootten (1998), Cross (1999), FAO (1999), Hershberger (2002), Lester (2002) Loss of genetic diversity and fitness: ceratin alleles of wild fish may become rare due to the release of hatchery-reared fish with a low genetic diversity. This is of higher risk where the wild stock is reduced to very low levels prior to stock enhancement.…”

Section: Riskmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Stock enhancement was used in isolation from other management tools: Most authors agree that stock enhancement is unlikely to be successful unless used in conjunction with other fisheries management tools (e.g., Brand et al, 1991;Heppell and Crowder, 1998;Hilborn, 1998;Blaxter, 2000). In some cases, stock enhancement has been seen as a way of avoiding effort reduction or other unpopular measures (Hilborn, 1998;Burton and Tegner, 2000). Stock enhancement projects that are planned in conjunction with other management tools imply a better understanding of an ecosystem and the causes of a stock's decline (Beal, 1993;Robinson, 1994;Cadwallader, 1999;Clapp, 2000;Walton and Walton, 2001) and have greater chances of success.…”

Section: Stock Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Alternatively, taxes, levies and property rights have also been used as fisheries management tools around the World. Although such approaches can work in many instances (e.g., in Western Australia, where fishery jurisdictional issues are relatively straight-forward), stock recovery is often perceived as too slow (Michelson, 1993;Wilbur and Bert, 1998;Dayton et al, 2000;Ziemann, 2001;Beattie, 2002) and changes in traditional management (e.g., no-take zones; Crowder et al, 2000) are unpopular or unacceptable (Burton and Tegner, 2000). Traditional management tools are unlikely to be effective in cases of habitat loss or modification (Hendricks, 1995;Southworth and Mann, 1999;Goldberg et al, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stock enhancement as a fisheries management tool

Molony

Lenanton²,

Jackson³

et al. 2005

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

page 409 Introduction 410 Stock enhancement 412 Reasons for the lack of success in previous attempts at stock enhancement 413 A way forward 417 A flow-chart for the scientific evaluation of stock enhancement proposals 418 Criticisms of the Flow-Chart model 425 The role of aquaculture in the future of stock enhancement 425 Conclusion 426 Acknowledgements 426 References 426Abstract Stock enhancement has been viewed as a positive fisheries management tool for over 100 years. However, decisions to undertake such activities in the past have often been technology-based, i.e., driven by the ability to produce fishes, with most stock enhancement projects having limited or no demonstrated success. The reasons for this have been due to an inability to identify and/or control the underlying reasons why a fishery is under-performing or not meeting management objectives. Further, stock enhancement has often been applied in isolation from other fisheries management tools (e.g., effort control). To address these issues and consider stock enhancement in a broader ecosystem perspective, a new approach for stock enhancement is proposed. The proposed model comprises four major steps; a review of all information about an ecosystem/fishery/stock and the setting of clear management targets; a comparison of all relevant fisheries management tools with the potential to meet the management targets; the instigation of a scientifically based, pilot-scale, stock enhancement program with clear objectives, targets, and evaluations; and a fullscale stock enhancement program if the pilot project meets the objectives. The model uses a flow-chart that highlights a broad range of scientific and other information, and the decisions that need to be made in relation to stock enhancement and fisheries management in general. In this way all steps are transparent and all stakeholders (managers, scientists, extractive and non-extractive users, and the general public) can contribute to the information collection and decision making processes. If stock enhancement is subsequently identified as the most-appropriate tool, then the stepwise progression will provide the best possible chance of a positive outcome for a stock enhancement project, while minimizing risks and costs. In this way, stock enhancement may advance as a science and develop as a useful fisheries management tool in appropriate situations.

show abstract

Enhancement of red abalone Haliotis rufescens stocks at San Miguel Island: reassessing a success story

Cited by 43 publications

References 15 publications

Genetic diversity and species identification in the endangered white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni)

Genetic diversity and species identification in the endangered white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni)

The mangrove-based coastal and nearshore fisheries of Bangladesh: ecology, exploitation and management

Stock enhancement as a fisheries management tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About