Potential Effects of Jaw Tag Loss on Exploitation Estimates for Lake Erie Walleyes

Isermann, Daniel A.; Knight, Carey T.

doi:10.1577/m04-012.1

Cited by 12 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our estimated exploitation rates were 4.9% higher when we accounted for the 4.7% tag loss and 28.0% higher when we accounted for the 21.9% tag loss. These results are comparable to other studies that reported estimates of Walleye exploitation increasing by 25-59% after accounting for tag loss (Kallemeyn 1989;Isermann and Knight 2005).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Kallemeyn (1989) reported that estimates of Walleye population size decreased by approximately 8.5% after accounting for 24.2% tag loss rates, and Isermann and Knight (2005) documented exploitation rates that were 25-59% higher after accounting for tag loss. Ebener and Copes (1982) calculated exploitation and fishing mortality rates that were 17% higher after accounting for tag loss, and these increases led to a 40% increase in yield-per-recruit model outputs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Estimated rates of tag loss for Walleye Sander vitreus have been variable as well, depending on tag type and water type. Annual jaw tag loss ranged from 23% to 50% in Lake Erie (Isermann and Knight 2005) and from 12.5% to 27.8% in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin (Newman and Hoff 1998). Walleyes in Kabetogama Lake, Minnesota, shed Carlin tags at an annual rate of 24.2% (Kallemeyn 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Weeks and Hansen (2009) reported mean annual anchor tag loss rates of 2.9% for Walleyes inhabiting the Manitowish Chain, Wisconsin, which, to our knowledge, is the only estimate of anchor tag loss for Walleyes reported in the peer-reviewed literature. 909 910 KOENIGS ET AL. Not accounting for tag loss leads to overestimation of population abundance and underestimation of exploitation rates (Ebener and Copes 1982;Kallemeyn 1989;Isermann and Knight 2005). Kallemeyn (1989) reported that estimates of Walleye population size decreased by approximately 8.5% after accounting for 24.2% tag loss rates, and Isermann and Knight (2005) documented exploitation rates that were 25-59% higher after accounting for tag loss.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Impacts of Anchor Tag Loss on Walleye Management in the Winnebago System

Koenigs

Bruch

Kamke

2013

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rates of tag loss should be estimated and accounted for when using mark–recapture surveys and angler tag returns to estimate fish population abundance and exploitation rates. Walleyes Sander vitreus sampled during April 2010 spawning assessments conducted in the Winnebago system, Wisconsin, were marked with anchor tags and upper caudal fin clips to estimate tag loss rates during three time intervals: 0–11 d posttagging, 0–90 d posttagging, and 1 year posttagging. Tag loss was negligible (<0.5%) within the first 11 d but increased to 4.7% within the first 90 d and to 21.9% after 1 year. After we corrected for the tag loss occurring within the first 90 d, estimates of population abundance decreased 4.3% for females and 4.4% for males, while estimates of exploitation increased 4.9% for both sexes. Accounting for 21.9% annual tag loss led to more severe decreases in the estimates of population abundance (20.0% for females and 21.2% for males) and increases in the estimates of exploitation (28.0% for both sexes) than not accounting for any tag loss. Higher exploitation rates resulted in higher estimates of fishing mortality and lower estimates of natural mortality. When used in yield‐per‐recruit models, the estimated natural mortality rates derived from exploitation rates that accounted for tag loss resulted in higher yields through the implementation of larger minimum length limits to maximize yield. We recommend that managers evaluate the effectiveness of their tagging operations by estimating tag loss and assessing the potential impacts of quantified loss on management metrics. We also caution against the application of population models without an accurate estimate of tag loss and the associated impacts on estimates of population abundance and exploitation and, in turn, fishing and natural mortality rates. Received May 22, 2013; accepted June 11, 2013

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impacts of Anchor Tag Loss on Walleye Management in the Winnebago System

Koenigs

Bruch

Kamke

2013

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We calculated exploitation rates of the total number of individuals in the population (E i ) for each year using estimates of walleye harvest from the creel surveys (Larson et al 1991;Pierce et al 1995;Isermann and Knight 2005):…”

Section: Exploitation Rate Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production rates of walleye and their relationship to exploitation in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, 1965–2009

Rypel

Goto

Sass

et al. 2015

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding variability in fish production, biomass, production/biomass (P/B) ratios, and their relationship to exploitation is central to fisheries sustainability. At Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, USA, data from a compulsory creel census were combined with survey data on fish populations to test for empirical relationships between annual production and exploitation rates of walleye (Sander vitreus). Empirical estimates of walleye production were relatively high and temporally variable in Escanaba Lake. Annual production, biomass, and P/B ratios ranges were 2.4-11.3 kg·ha −1 ·year −1 , 9.1-49.4 kg·ha −1 , and 0.15-0.30 year −1 , respectively. Walleye production rates were significantly and positively correlated with adult (i.e., age 3+) walleye density -the core metric used to manage walleye populations in the Ceded Territory of Wisconsin. However, adult walleye density correlated best with ages 4-6 production. Annual exploitation based on the percentage of individuals removed from the population was linearly related to annual exploitation based on the percentage of production removed. On average, 100% of annual production was harvested at ϳ20% annual exploitation of individuals; thus, higher sustained exploitation rates would deplete walleye biomass in Escanaba Lake over time. A sustainable annual exploitation rate of 20% annually is lower than the 35% limit reference point currently used for walleye management in the Ceded Territory of Wisconsin. Nevertheless, our estimate is strongly concordant with two recent and independent modeling efforts addressing this same topic. We suggest empirical estimates of fish production are a vastly underutilized tool for better understanding sustainable exploitation rates in walleye populations and, likely, fisheries in general.Résumé : La compréhension des variations de la production, de la biomasse et des rapports production/biomasse (P/B) ainsi que de leur lien avec l'exploitation est essentielle à la durabilité des pêches. Au lac Escanaba, au Wisconsin (États-Unis), des données d'un relevé des prises obligatoire ) ont été combinées à des données d'évaluation des populations de poissons afin d'établir s'il y a un lien empirique entre la production annuelle et les taux d'exploitation du doré jaune (Sander vitreus). Les estimations empiriques de la production de dorés jaunes étaient relativement élevées et variables dans le temps au lac Escanaba. La production annuelle, la biomasse et les rapports P/B étaient de 2,4-11,3 kg·ha −1 ·an −1 , 9,1-49,4 kg·ha −1 et 0,15-0,30 an −1 , respectivement. Les taux de production de dorés jaunes présentaient une corrélation significative positive avec la densité de dorés jaunes adultes (c.-à -d. 3 ans et plus), le principal paramètre utilisé dans la gestion des populations de dorés jaunes dans le Territoire cédé du Wisconsin. Toutefois, la densité des dorés adultes présentait la meilleure corrélation avec la production d'individus âgés de 4 à 6 ans. L'exploitation annuelle basée sur le pourcentage d'individus extraits de la population était ...

show abstract

Genetic Divergence of Nearby Walleye Spawning Groups in Central Lake Erie: Implications for Management

Stepien

Snyder

Knight

2018

N American J Fish Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spawning-site philopatry may lead to genetic differentiation among reproductive populations, despite their locations being in close proximity within single bodies of water. Identifying and maintaining locally differentiated spawning groups of Walleye Sander vitreus constitute an agency management priority of the multi-agency Walleye Task Group advisory for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Although genetically separable spawning groups of Walleyes have been identified from several areas in the Great Lakes, those in central Lake Erie were previously unknown. The Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) collected Walleyes for the present analysis from two spawning groups in Lake Erie's central basin, located just 2 km apart-one in the Grand River, Ohio, and the other at the nearby central basin reef. The hypothesis of whether the two spawning groups were genetically different was tested by analyzing variation at 14 nuclear DNA microsatellite loci from Walleyes (n = 147) reproducing in 2012 at the two sites and among three separate years (1996, 2003, and 2012) in the Grand River (to evaluate temporal trends). Results revealed relatively high genetic diversity in both spawning groups, with the reproductive population in the Grand River having significantly greater allelic richness and representation of private alleles. The Grand River Walleye runs showed a slight temporal decline in allelic richness from 1996 to 2003, which coincided with ODW reports of declining numbers of Walleyes reproducing there. The two spawning groups differed in genetic composition suggesting that they are closely related, yet are separable reproductive subpopulations, with both contributing to the overall diversity of Lake Erie Walleye. Their maintenance and integrity thus may need management attention and further monitoring.

show abstract

Potential Effects of Jaw Tag Loss on Exploitation Estimates for Lake Erie Walleyes

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

Impacts of Anchor Tag Loss on Walleye Management in the Winnebago System

Impacts of Anchor Tag Loss on Walleye Management in the Winnebago System

Production rates of walleye and their relationship to exploitation in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, 1965–2009

Genetic Divergence of Nearby Walleye Spawning Groups in Central Lake Erie: Implications for Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About