Seasonal habitat-use differences among Lake Erie’s walleye stocks

Matley, Jordan K.; Faust, Matthew D.; Raby, Graham D.; Zhao, Yingying; Robinson, Jason M.; MacDougall, Tom; Hayden, Todd A.; Fisk, Aaron T.; Vandergoot, Christopher S.; Krueger, Charles C.

doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2020.03.014

Cited by 33 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once a baseline of genetic connectivity and movement is established, assessments of mixed-stock composition can help identify interannual shifts in abundance and help managers anticipate changes in stock abundance. Our findings support previous work documenting movement of western basin walleye into the eastern basin (e.g., Zhao et al 2011;Matley et al 2020) and advanced understanding by providing a baseline estimate of harvest composition in the eastern basin.…”

Section: Stock Contributions To Eastern Basin Fisheriessupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Walleye from the west/central basin substantially contributed to the recreational and commercial harvest in the eastern basin, although their contribution varied among years, seasons, and locations. Walleye from the western basin are known to migrate seasonally towards the eastern basin after spawning (Zhao et al 2011; Vandergoot and Brenden 2014; Matley et al 2020), but the extent to which these migrations influenced the actual harvest of walleye was previously unknown. Because western basin walleye spawning stocks are highly productive (DuFour et al 2015) and have been tracked migrating to the eastern basin (Zhao et al 2011; Matley et al 2020), we were not surprised that western basin walleye contribute to eastern basin harvests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Walleye from the western basin are known to migrate seasonally towards the eastern basin after spawning (Zhao et al 2011; Vandergoot and Brenden 2014; Matley et al 2020), but the extent to which these migrations influenced the actual harvest of walleye was previously unknown. Because western basin walleye spawning stocks are highly productive (DuFour et al 2015) and have been tracked migrating to the eastern basin (Zhao et al 2011; Matley et al 2020), we were not surprised that western basin walleye contribute to eastern basin harvests. Importantly, our first quantification of seasonal, annual, and spatial variation in the contributions of western basin migrants to eastern basin fisheries supports previous evidence that walleye stocks can be treated as a portfolio whereby both eastern and western basin spawning stocks contribute to lake-wide harvest opportunities (DuFour et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, some behavioral evidence exists that suggest that walleye from Ontario's Grand River remain close to the northern shore of Lake Erie throughout the summer, and do not mix evenly with walleye from the west/central and east basin reporting groups (TM, unpublished data;Matley et al 2020). Therefore, our sample collections from commercial fisheries may not have included Ontario Grand River walleye.…”

Section: Stock Contributions To Eastern Basin Fisheriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the lake’s walleye production occurs in the western basin where tributary and open-lake spawning stocks of varying productivity exist (DuFour et al 2015). Individuals from these stocks move throughout Lake Erie during non-spawning periods in search of preferred habitat (Kersher et al 1999; Raby et al 2018), where they intermix with the smaller spawning stocks from the central and eastern basins (Zhao et al 2011; Vandergoot and Brenden 2014; Matley et al 2020). Migration of western basin stocks into Lake Erie’s eastern basin is likely to have a disproportionate influence on local commercial and recreational fisheries because of presumed differences in population productivity and abundance (Zhao et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mixed-stock analysis in the age of genomics: Rapture genotyping enables evaluation of stock-specific exploitation in a freshwater fish population with weak genetic structure

Euclide

MacDougall

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed-stock analyses using genetic markers have informed fisheries management in cases where strong genetic differentiation occurs among local spawning populations, yet many fisheries are supported by multiple spawning stocks that are weakly differentiated. Freshwater fisheries exemplify this problem, with many harvested populations supported by multiple stocks of young evolutionary age that are isolated across small spatial scales. As a result, attempts to conduct genetic mixed-stock analyses of inland fisheries have often been unsuccessful. Advances in genomic sequencing now offer the ability to discriminate among populations with weak population structure by providing the necessary resolution to conduct mixed-stock assignment among previously indistinguishable stocks. We demonstrate the use of genomic data to conduct a mixed-stock analysis of Lake Erie’s commercial and recreational walleye (Sander vitreus) fisheries and estimate the relative harvest of weakly differentiated stocks (pairwise FST < 0.01). We used RAD-capture (Rapture) to sequence and genotype individuals at 12,081 loci that had been previously determined to be capable of discriminating between western and eastern basin stocks with 95% reassignment accuracy, which was not possible in the past with microsatellite markers. Genetic assignment of 1,075 fish harvested from recreational and commercial fisheries in the eastern basin indicated that western basin stocks constituted the majority of individuals harvested during peak walleye fishing season (July – September). Composition of harvest changed seasonally, with eastern basin fish comprising much of the early season harvest (May – June). Clear spatial structure in harvest composition existed; more easterly sites contained more individuals of east basin origin than did westerly sites. Our study provides important stock contribution estimates for Lake Erie fishery management and demonstrates the power of genomic data to facilitate mixed-stock analysis in exploited fish populations with weak population structure or limited existing genetic resources.

show abstract

Section: Stock Contributions To Eastern Basin Fisheriessupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stock Contributions To Eastern Basin Fisheriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mixed-stock analysis in the age of genomics: Rapture genotyping enables evaluation of stock-specific exploitation in a freshwater fish population with weak genetic structure

Euclide

MacDougall

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A new GTSeq resource to facilitate multijurisdictional research and management of walleye Sander vitreus

Euclide

Larson

Bootsma

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation and management professionals often work across jurisdictional boundaries to identify broad ecological patterns. These collaborations help to protect populations whose distributions span political borders. One common limitation to multijurisdictional collaboration is consistency in data recording and reporting. This limitation can impact genetic research, which relies on data about specific markers in an organism's genome. Incomplete overlap of markers between separate studies can prevent direct comparisons of results. Standardized marker panels can reduce the impact of this issue and provide a common starting place for new research. Genotyping‐in‐thousands (GTSeq) is one approach used to create standardized marker panels for nonmodel organisms. Here, we describe the development, optimization, and early assessments of a new GTSeq panel for use with walleye ( Sander vitreus ) from the Great Lakes region of North America. High genome‐coverage sequencing conducted using RAD capture provided genotypes for thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). From these markers, SNP and microhaplotype markers were chosen, which were informative for genetic stock identification (GSI) and kinship analysis. The final GTSeq panel contained 500 markers, including 197 microhaplotypes and 303 SNPs. Leave‐one‐out GSI simulations indicated that GSI accuracy should be greater than 80% in most jurisdictions. The false‐positive rates of parent‐offspring and full‐sibling kinship identification were found to be low. Finally, genotypes could be consistently scored among separate sequencing runs >94% of the time. Results indicate that the GTSeq panel that we developed should perform well for multijurisdictional walleye research throughout the Great Lakes region.

show abstract

Estimating internal transmitter and external tag retention by Walleye in the Laurentian Great Lakes over multiple years

Colborne,

Faust,

Brenden

et al. 2024

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveBoth electronic tags (e.g., acoustic and radio transmitters) and conventional external tags are used to evaluate movement and population dynamics of fish. External tags are also sometimes used to facilitate the recovery of internal electronic tags or other instrumentation because healing can make it difficult to identify fish with internal tags based on appearance alone. With both tag types, tag shedding and failure of electronic tags can affect accuracy and precision of study results.MethodsWe used a decade (2011–2021) of recapture data for Walleye Sander vitreus tagged in the Laurentian Great Lakes, where fish were double‐ or triple‐tagged with external tags (T‐bar, loop, or internal anchor tags) and internal acoustic transmitters, to quantify external tag and internal transmitter shedding and transmitter failure rates.ResultIn total, 1125 (33%) Walleye were recovered that had retained at least one external tag or internal transmitter. No confirmed cases of transmitter shedding were observed; 15 of 899 transmitters (2%) that were checked for functionality failed prior to the expected battery expiration. The retention of external T‐bar tags 1 year after release differed depending on whether the tag was placed anterior or posterior to the secondary dorsal fin (anterior, fish length = 420 mm: 73% retention; anterior, fish length = 700 mm: 73%, posterior: 63%) but was <26% after 4 years for both tag positions and fish sizes. Internal anchor tags had an 88% 1‐year retention probability and 81% 4‐year retention probability. Loop tags had the highest 1‐year retention (89%) but after 4 years retention (28–34% depending on agency) was comparable to that of T‐bar tags.ConclusionBetter understanding of tag retention characteristics through long‐term tagging studies such as this can inform study design, be considered in model design, and ultimately improve inferences from mark–recapture studies.

show abstract

Seasonal habitat-use differences among Lake Erie’s walleye stocks

Cited by 33 publications

References 50 publications

Mixed-stock analysis in the age of genomics: Rapture genotyping enables evaluation of stock-specific exploitation in a freshwater fish population with weak genetic structure

Mixed-stock analysis in the age of genomics: Rapture genotyping enables evaluation of stock-specific exploitation in a freshwater fish population with weak genetic structure

A new GTSeq resource to facilitate multijurisdictional research and management of walleye Sander vitreus

Estimating internal transmitter and external tag retention by Walleye in the Laurentian Great Lakes over multiple years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About