An official website of the United States government
Abstract The phenology of critical biological events in aquatic ecosystems is rapidly shifting due to climate change. Growing variability in phenological cues can increase the likelihood of trophic mismatches (i.e., mismatches in the timing of peak prey and predator abundances), causing recruitment failures in important fisheries. We assessed changes in the spawning phenology of walleye (Sander vitreus) in 194 Midwest US lakes to investigate factors influencing walleye phenological responses to climate change and associated climate variability, including ice‐off timing, lake physical characteristics, and population stocking history. Ice‐off phenology shifted earlier, about three times faster than walleye spawning phenology over time. Spawning phenology deviations from historic averages increased in magnitude over time, and large deviations were associated with poor offspring survival. Our results foreshadow the risks of increasingly frequent natural recruitment failures due to mismatches between historically tightly coupled spawning and ice‐off phenology.
more »
« less
Walleye spawning, ice phenology, and covariate data for Upper Midwestern Lakes: 1939-2019
The phenology of critical biological events in aquatic ecosystems are rapidly shifting due to climate change. Growing variability in phenological cues can increase the likelihood of trophic mismatches, causing recruitment failures in commercially, culturally, and recreationally important fisheries. We tested for changes in spawning phenology of regionally important walleye (Sander vitreus) populations in 194 Midwest US lakes in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin spanning 1939-2019 to investigate factors influencing walleye phenological responses to climate change and associated climate variability, including ice-off timing, lake physical characteristics, and population stocking history. Data from Wisconsin and Michigan lakes (185 and 5 out of 194 total lakes, respectively) were collected by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) through standardized spring walleye mark-recapture surveys and spring tribal harvest season records. Standardized spring mark-recapture population estimates are performed shortly after ice-off, where following a marking event, a subsequent recapture sampling event is conducted using nighttime electrofishing (typically AC – WDNR, pulsed-DC – GLIFWC) of the entire shoreline including islands for small lakes and index stations for large lakes (Hansen et al. 2015) that is timed to coincide with peak walleye spawning activity (G. Hatzenbeler, WDNR, personal communication; M. Luehring, GLIFWC, personal communication; Beard et al. 1997). Data for four additional Minnesota lakes were collected by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) beginning in 1939 during annual collections of walleye eggs and broodstock (Schneider et al. 2010), where date of peak egg take was used to index peak spawning activity. For lakes where spawning location did not match the lake for which the ice-off data was collected, the spawning location either flowed into (Pike River) or was within 50 km of a lake where ice-off data were available (Pine River) and these ice-off data were used. Following the affirmation of off-reservation Ojibwe tribal fishing rights in the Ceded Territories of Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in 1987, tribal spearfishers have targeted walleye during spring spawning (Mrnak et al. 2018). Nightly harvests are recorded as part of a compulsory creel survey (US Department of the Interior 1991). Using these records, we calculated the date of peak spawning activity in a given lake-year as the day of maximum tribal harvest. Although we were unable to account for varying effort in these data, a preliminary analysis comparing spawning dates estimated using tribal harvest to those determined from standardized agency surveys in the same lake and year showed that they were highly correlated (Pearson’s correlation: r = 0.91, P < 0.001). For lakes that had walleye spawning data from both agency surveys and tribal harvest, we used the data source with the greatest number of observation years. Ice-off phenology data was collected from two sources – either observed from the Global Lake and River Ice Phenology database (Benson et al. 2000)t, or modeled from a USGS region-wide machine-learning model which used North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) meteorological inputs combined with lake characteristics (lake position, clarity, size, depth, hypsography, etc.) to predict daily water column temperatures from 1979 - 2022, from which ice-off dates could be derived (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/6206d3c2d34ec05caca53071; see Corson-Dosch et al. 2023 for details). Modeled data for our study lakes (see (Read et al. 2021) for modeling details), which performed well in reflecting ice phenology when compared to observed data (i.e., highly significant correlation between observed and modeled ice-off dates when both were available; r = 0.71, p < 0.001). Lake surface area (ha), latitude, and maximum depth (m) were acquired from agency databases and lake reports. Lake class was based on a WDNR lakes classification system (Rypel et al. 2019) that categorized lakes based on temperature, water clarity, depth, and fish community. Walleye stocking history was defined using the walleye stocking classification system developed by the Wisconsin Technical Working Group (see also Sass et al. 2021), which categorized lakes based on relative contributions of naturally-produced and stocked fish to adult recruitment by relying heavily on historic records of age-0 and age-1 catch rates and stocking histories. Wisconsin lakes were divided into three groups: natural recruitment (NR), a combination of stocking and natural recruitment (C-ST), and stocked only (ST). Walleye natural recruitment was indexed as age-0 walleye CPE (number of age-0 walleye captured per km of shoreline electrofished) from WDNR and GLIFWC fall electrofishing surveys (see Hansen et al. 2015 for details). We excluded lake-years where stocking of age-0 fish occurred before age-0 surveys to only include measurements of naturally-reproduced fish.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2025982
- PAR ID:
- 10493436
- Publisher / Repository:
- Environmental Data Initiative
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Managing fisheries in a changing socio-ecological environment may require holistic approaches for identifying and adapting to novel ecosystem dynamics. Using 32 years of Ceded Territory of Wisconsin (CTWI) walleye ( Sander vitreus) data, we estimated production ( P), biomass ( B), biomass turnover ( P/B), yield ( Y), and yield over production ( Y/P) and tested for hyperstability in walleye yield. Most CTWI walleye populations showed low P and B, and Y/P < 1 . Yet, production overharvest ( Y/P > 1) was prevalent among Wisconsin walleye recruitment-based management approaches (natural recruitment (NR), sustained only by stocking, combination). Production, B, and P/B have declined in NR populations, while Y and Y/P have remained constant. Walleye Y was hyperstable along a production gradient among all management approaches and fishery types (i.e., angling only, angling/tribal harvest combined). Diminishing productivity and hyperstable yield may be jointly contributing to observed walleye declines. We classified lakes into management groups of low, moderate, or high vulnerability to harvest based on Y/P and P/B dynamics and identify that harvest may benefit from declines to maintain or increase the adaptive capacity of CTWI walleye.more » « less
-
Mark–recapture surveys affect nest site fidelity but not reproductive timing of male Smallmouth BassAbstract ObjectiveFish population surveys in north-temperate lakes are often conducted in the fall or spring when individuals are easy to capture with traditional fisheries techniques. Because some fishes are preparing to spawn or are spawning during these seasons, there is a critical need to better understand the potential influences of these surveys on decisions that are related to fish reproduction. MethodsWe tested whether spring mark–recapture surveys using fyke nets followed by electrofishing affect the reproductive behaviors of male Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu in a northern Wisconsin lake. Fyke netting, electrofishing, and whole-lake nest snorkeling surveys were conducted during 2001–2008, and Floy-tagged males were tracked across years to test whether capture in the fyke nets only or capture in the electrofishing survey influenced interyear nest site fidelity and reproductive timing. ResultThe mark–recapture surveys were conducted preceding the spawning of Smallmouth Bass, and returning males that were caught in the electrofishing survey nested ~50 m farther from their prior year's nest than both males that were captured only in fyke nets and males that were captured by neither method. Average interyear nest distances were ~200 m, and median interyear nest distances were ~90 m for males that were not captured in the electrofishing survey. Electrofishing and fyke netting did not influence the timing of reproduction. ConclusionSpring electrofishing surveys for Smallmouth Bass have the potential to displace breeding males from preferred nesting habitats. If displacement negatively influences fitness (i.e., age-0 survivorship to maturation), spring electrofishing surveys would not be recommended for assessing Smallmouth Bass populations. However, spring population surveys often occur soon after ice off, and surveys that are conducted at these colder temperatures are typically less stressful and less likely to result in mortality. Future research should test for fitness implications of reduced nest site fidelity following electrofishing in Smallmouth Bass while considering potential fitness trade-offs if surveys are moved later in the year.more » « less
-
This data set is a derived data set based on fish catch data. Data are collected annually to enable us to track the fish assemblages of eleven primary lakes (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, Trout, bog lakes 27-02 [Crystal Bog] and 12-15 [Trout Bog], Mendota, Monona, Wingra and Fish). Sampling on Lakes Monona, Wingra, and Fish started in 1995; sampling on other lakes started in 1981. Sampling is done at six littoral zone sites per lake with seine, minnow or crayfish traps, and fyke nets; a boat-mounted electrofishing system samples three littoral transects. Vertically hung gill nets are used to obtain two pelagic samples per lake from the deepest point. A trammel net samples across the thermocline at two sites per lake. In the bog lakes only fyke nets and minnow traps are deployed. Parameters measured include species-level identification and lengths for all fish caught, and weight and scale samples from a subset. Derived data sets include species richness, catch per unit effort, and size distribution by species, lake, and year. Protocol used to generate data: Day seines were only used in 1981 and have been eliminated from this data set to make sampling effort across years comparable. Number caught for each species is summed over repetitions of a gear within a lake and over depth. For information on fish stocking by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in LTER lakes in Dane and Vilas counties, see https://dnr.wi.gov/fisheriesmanagement/Public/Summary/Index. Beach seining was discontinued after 2019. The only sampling done in 2020 were a single gill-netting sample in Sparkling, Crystal, and Trout lakes. Sampling in Fish Lake was missed in 2021 due to significant lake level changes. Data from the two bogs is missing in 2022. Sampling Frequency: annually. Number of sites: 11more » « less
-
This data set is a derived data set based on fish catch and length data. Data are collected annually to enable us to track the fish assemblages of eleven primary lakes (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, Trout, bog lakes 27-02 [Crystal Bog] and 12-15 [Trout Bog], Mendota, Monona, Wingra and Fish). Sampling on Lakes Monona, Wingra, and Fish started in 1995; sampling on other lakes started in 1981. Sampling is done at six littoral zone sites per lake with seine, minnow or crayfish traps, and fyke nets; a boat-mounted electrofishing system samples three littoral transects. Vertically hung gill nets are used to obtain two pelagic samples per lake from the deepest point. A trammel net samples across the thermocline at two sites per lake. In the bog lakes only fyke nets and minnow traps are deployed. Parameters measured include species-level identification and lengths for all fish caught, and scale samples and weight from a subset. Derived data sets include species richness, catch per unit effort, and size distribution by species, lake, and year. Dominant species vary from lake to lake. Perch, rockbass, and bluegill are common, with walleye, large and small mouth basses, northern pike and muskellunge as major piscivores. Cisco have been present in the pelagic waters of four lakes, and the exotic species, rainbow smelt, is present in two. The bog lakes contain mudminnows. Protocol used to generate data: The number of fish caught in each five mm length interval (0more » « less
