Reintroduction of fishes in Canada: a review of research progress for SARA-listed species

Lamothe, Karl A.; Drake, D. Andrew R.; Pitcher, Trevor E.; Broome, Jeremy E.; Dextrase, Alan J.; Gillespie, Ashley; Mandrak, Nicholas E.; Poesch, Mark S.; Reid, Scott M.; Vachon, Nathalie

doi:10.1139/er-2019-0010

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 179 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While habitat restoration may provide the best long-term recovery strategy for Pugnose Shiner in Lake Ontario, in this study the recovery strategy of stocking suitable habitats was chosen to provide a more immediate, less expensive short-term solution. As such, this study forms a critical bridge between Pugnose Shiner habitat suitability modeling studies (Venturelli et al 2010;McCusker et al 2014aMcCusker et al , 2014bHaynes et al 2019) and restoration strategies (DFO 2012;Carlson 2019;Lamothe et al 2019) where stocking was an identified recovery action.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…This project provided empirical support for the recovery strategy of captive breeding and stocking of Pugnose Shiner (Carlson 2019; Lamothe et al 2019). By successfully expanding the number of self‐reproducing populations in Lake Ontario, the downlisting of the conservation status of Pugnose Shiner from “Endangered” to “Special Concern” has been recommended by New York State.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Pugnose Shiner is listed as threatened in Canada (COSEWIC 2013), and in the United States it is listed as extirpated in Ohio, endangered in New York, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and vulnerable in Michigan and Minnesota (DFO 2012; Lamothe et al 2019). Globally, this species is listed as Threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pugnose Shiner recovery strategies developed in Canada and New York call for supplementation or repatriation of populations that have been extirpated or reduced (DFO 2012; Carlson 2019; Lamothe et al 2019). In the Great Lakes, Pugnose Shiner populations are isolated and fragmented because their preferred habitat in embayments with clear water and abundant vegetation occur in isolated pockets along the lake shore.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Empirical support for a strategy for the restoration of Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus)

Foster

Lehman

Carlson

et al. 2021

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over much of its range, Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) populations are isolated and endangered. This study tested the feasibility of pond culturing Pugnose Shiner for restoration. In 2015, 65 wild broodstock from Sodus Bay, New York State's last remaining Lake Ontario population, were stocked into a 0.2ha aquaculture pond. Thousands of juveniles were quickly produced, and during 2016–2017, 7,400 pond‐reared Pugnose Shiner were stocked into Chaumont Bay, Lake Ontario. Poststocking surveys in 2020 demonstrated the establishment of 4‐year classes in Chaumont Bay from natural reproduction. Following the successful establishment of Pugnose Shiner in Chaumont Bay, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recommended the downlisting of the Pugnose Shiner from Endangered to Special Concern. The restoration strategy described here is applicable to other sites in the United States and Canada, where this species is also of conservation concern.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Empirical support for a strategy for the restoration of Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus)

Foster

Lehman

Carlson

et al. 2021

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, extinction rates of freshwater biota are estimated to be 112–855 times higher than rates for terrestrial species (Collen et al., ; Tedesco et al., ). For example, between 1896 and 2006, 57 North American freshwater fish species went extinct (Burkhead, ) and, in Canada, 71 of the 207 native fish species are considered at risk by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (Dextrase & Mandrak, ; Lamothe et al., In press). As such, improvements to the protection of freshwater ecosystems and continued restoration are needed to sustain future freshwater ecosystem services provisioning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating functional diversity conservation for freshwater fishes resulting from terrestrial protected areas

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are one of the hammers in conservation toolkits, yet few protected areas exist that were designed to protect freshwater ecosystems. This is problematic as freshwater ecosystems are among the most threatened systems on earth. Nonetheless, terrestrial protected areas (TPAs) may afford spill‐over benefits to freshwater ecosystems included within their boundaries, but evaluations of these potential benefits for the protection of freshwater fish diversity are lacking. Using fish community data from 175 lakes inside, outside, or bordering TPAs in Ontario, Canada, we sought to determine if TPAs preserve fish functional diversity. We focused on functional diversity because previous work indicated no taxonomic differences between these lakes, but a difference in normalised‐length size‐spectra slopes inside versus outside TPAs (indicator of unique predator–prey ratios and trophic energy transfer). We expected that communities inside TPAs would show greater functional diversity (i.e. functional dispersion and functional richness) and have more extreme trait combinations (i.e. functional divergence) than communities outside or bordering TPAs. We also tested for differences in the rarity of species‐specific functional traits between fish communities inside, outside, or bordering TPAs, between thermal guilds, and across average body size and overall prevalence of the species. Our results indicated no significant differences in functional diversity among lake fish communities inside, outside, or bordering TPAs. However, fish communities inside TPAs had more extreme trait combinations than outside TPAs because abundant species in lake communities outside TPAs had more ubiquitous trait combinations than abundant fishes inside TPAs. Small‐bodied species showed greater functional rarity than large‐bodied species, indicating that small‐bodied fishes fill functionally unique roles while the most prevalent, large‐bodied species possess a more generalist set of traits. Overall, the similarity of functional diversity metrics for lake fish communities inside, outside, or bordering TPAs in Ontario suggests that TPAs capture the functional diversity of Ontario's lake fish communities. However, we encourage similar evaluations in regions where environmental conditions and stressors are more distinct across TPA boundaries than they are in Ontario, as these types of evaluations will inform guidelines for the design of freshwater protected areas and monitoring of their effectiveness in the future.

show abstract

Co-production of models to evaluate conservation alternatives for a threatened fish in a rapidly changing landscape

Benjamin,

Dunham,

Banish

et al. 2023

Aquat Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reintroductions are one means of managing species distributions, but the feasibility of such efforts is uncertain. Here we consider reintroduction for threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) that currently occupy a small fraction of historically occupied habitats in the upper Klamath River basin owing to climate warming and human modifications of ecosystems. We engaged stakeholders across multiple organizations to co-produce a decision support model that estimated the potential of reintroduction to establish new populations and persistence of donor populations. Stakeholders identified recipient and donor populations, strategy (e.g., artificial propagation, translocation), number of individuals, and life stage of bull trout. The most optimal decision for reintroduction was artificial propagation of 10,000 fry into Annie Creek. This strategy may have negative consequences on donor populations, with the exception of Sun Creek, which was resilient to simulated removal of bull trout. Donor populations and recipient streams identified as most feasible were generally consistent across all of these scenarios. During model development, however, an unexpected and intense wildfire affected half of the streams considered and may have dramatically impacted donor populations. With models in hand from the initial feasibility assessment, we adapted them to further evaluate the potential of supplementation following this massive disturbance. Overall, results of this study indicate the value of developing co-produced tools that can be rapidly adapted to evaluate the consequences of whole-system transformations in near-real-time assessments.

show abstract

Reintroduction of fishes in Canada: a review of research progress for SARA-listed species

Cited by 18 publications

References 179 publications

Empirical support for a strategy for the restoration of Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus)

Empirical support for a strategy for the restoration of Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus)

Evaluating functional diversity conservation for freshwater fishes resulting from terrestrial protected areas

Co-production of models to evaluate conservation alternatives for a threatened fish in a rapidly changing landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About