Download 2004-05 New

F-81-R-6, Michigan
Study 230741
New Study: 2004-05
Name of Study: Towards comprehensive databases and coordinated fish surveys for ecosystem
management in the Great Lakes
A. Problem: Fish surveys are routinely carried out in the Great Lakes to assess fish populations and
the status of stocks. Several organizations are responsible for carrying out these surveys, most
importantly the State’s Department of Natural Resources and USGS. The surveys have different
goals and are carried out at several spatial and temporal scales using a variety of gears and fishing
protocols. Data generated from these surveys are vital to understanding ecosystem dynamics in the
Great Lakes and to conducting sound management. Nevertheless, evaluation of the survey designs
and protocols has seldom been performed. Further, coordination of these surveys is lacking. In
order to engage in such endeavors it is necessary to perform comprehensive data analysis.
However, a major constraint is the lack of complete databases that are documented and evaluated.
It is often the case that effort and cost involved in managing and analyzing data is insignificant
compared to that of implementing fish survey programs. The situation in the Great Lakes is no
exception. Generally, the extent of the analysis of survey data is restricted to calculating annual
abundances or preliminary indices. This normally results in inefficient use of resources and data
time series with unforeseen weaknesses. In order to overcome these problems it is indispensable to
bring together all the available data from routine fish surveys in the Great Lakes for analysis. Only
then can surveys be evaluated for their adequacy to provide necessary information. The problem is
general for the Great Lakes and the dimension is overwhelming. Thus, this proposal is for a study
case focusing on Lake Huron as a practical approach to develop a working model for other lakes.
B. Objectives: A first objective is to compile, integrate, and evaluate Lake Huron fish/habitat data
sources to undertake the articulation of coordinated monitoring programs that provide necessary
information for Great Lakes fish community studies. A second objective is to enhance the use of
data available and quantify changes in fish community structure in their relation with to stressors
such as invasive species, nutrient fluctuations, and key environmental conditions. A third
objective is to evaluate coherence and connectivity between fish communities in Saginaw Bay
and Lake Huron main basin.
Specific objectives are:











inventory monitoring efforts
review rationale for monitoring programs
improve documentation of the existing surveys and databases (protocols, metadata)
evaluate data in the databases (eliminate non informative information, consistency of
denominations, define actual missing data etc)
improve compatibility of databases (i.e. find common special resolution, create common
variables)
evaluate data properties to derive model-based abundance indices for main species in the
catch and develop indices (variability of indices in spatial/time, definition of effort)
enhance monitoring process and protocols by analyzing factors that affect catch rates such as
gear types, trawling speed, timing etc
evaluate the effect of change of survey gears on catch rates of main species in the catch
enhance current data series (improve coherence)
evaluate survey designs in collaboration with corresponding agencies
characterization of fish community structure
F-81-R-6, Study 230741 - 2
C. Justification: Many groups within the Great Lakes scientific community have identified the need
for establishing comprehensive databases and coordinated biological and fisheries surveys in the
Great Lakes. This is viewed as fundamental to generate necessary data to conduct studies at the
ecosystem level. The scientific community recognizes that a review of survey designs is necessary
to ensure the existence of solid time series of basic data. In addition, databases need to be improved
and integrated. These data are required to address issues ranging from setting management
objectives on restoration of native fish populations to evaluation the impact of exotics on the fish
community structure and food web disruptions. Thus, availability of these resources has
tremendous implications for management and restoration of fish populations in the Great Lakes.
D. Expected Results and Benefits: Expected results include: i) an integrated and documented
Lake Huron fish database containing data that has been evaluated and that can serve in the design
of coordinated monitoring programs. ii) description and quantification of Lake Huron fish
community structure and changes in relation with to stressors such as invasive species, nutrient
fluctuations, and key environmental conditions, iii) evaluation of coherence and connectivity
between fish communities in Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron main basin. The benefits expected
are many and range from enhancing the current fish data series in Lake Huron, to providing an
example for a working model for other Great Lakes to conduct fish community research and
move towards integrative databases and surveys.
E. Background: The Lake Huron ecosystem as a study case.
Changes in the Lake Huron fish community structure and the extent to which it has been affected
by invasive species and fluctuating nutrient loads are poorly understood. This is not surprising
since Lake Huron has received less study than any other Great Lake. These areas have abundant
fish populations supporting valuable commercial and sport fisheries that in the past have been
affected by over fishing, eutrophication, invasions of exotic species, and habitat degradation.
The main basin appears to be relatively unaffected by nutrient loadings and exotic species in
comparison to Saginaw Bay, but may be indirectly impacted by changes to Saginaw Bay forage
communities through fish migration and predator-prey interactions. The study of these dynamics
requires integration of information at the ecosystem level. Data sets are available to attempt a
comprehensive study of Lake Huron ecosystems (Saginaw Bay, main basin) but the adequacy of
these sources to investigate key aspects of fish community structure remains questionable.
In the main basin of Lake Huron, nutrient loadings have been remarkable constant during the last
150 years (Beeton and Saylor, 1995) and conditions have not been seriously deteriorated as in
other Great Lakes ecosystems. However, the lake is moving towards a mesotrophic state
(Dobson et al., 1974; Stevens et al., 1985), with the phytoplankton community shifting towards a
more “disturbed” stage (Barbiero and Tuchman 2001), zooplankton community varying
considerably in composition, abundance and size (Watson and Carpenter, 1974; Evans, 1986;
Sprules and Jin, 1990) and the benthic macroinvertebrates communities affected by a decrease of
Diporeia densities (Nalepa, NOAA-GLRL, personal communication). Causal mechanisms
behind these changes are unclear but could be related to nutrient fluctuations or zebra mussel
invasions, or to predation by the exotic spiny-tailed water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi) or
alewife (Wells, 1970). The fish community structure has been affected by the above-described
changes. Lake trout and burbot were the keystone predators of the main basin ecosystem (Berst
and Spangler, 1973; Eshenroder et al., 1995; Ebener, 1995) and the prey base was dominated by
lake herring (Coregonus artedii), sculpins (Cottus spp.), and deepwater ciscoes (Coregonus
spp.). The structure and function of this fish community was forever changed in the late 1800s
by a combination of over-exploitation, habitat degradation of spawning and nursery areas near
shore and in tributaries, and by invasions of exotic species such as rainbow smelt, alewife, and
F-81-R-6, Study 230741 - 3
sea lamprey (Eshenroder and Burnham-Curtis, 1999). In present times the effects of invaders are
still not understood (Eshenroder and Burnham-Curtis, 1999), the role of alewife remains
unresolved and top predator recruitment is strongly dependent on supplemental stocking. The
Saginaw Bay ecosystem is warmer and more productive than the main basin and has experienced
higher levels of habitat degradation. Main stressors have been severe eutrophication, which
coincided with extirpation of some sensitive benthic invertebrates (i.e. Hexagenia mayflies,
Schaeffer et al. 2000), and invasion of exotic species. Although by the early 1980’s,
eutrophication was partially alleviated and substantial sport fisheries established through
stocking (Haas and Schaeffer, 1992), the bay was further subjected to fluctuating nutrient levels
and a wave of invading non-native species such as zebra mussels, white perch (Morone
americana), round goby, and zooplankton species (Cercopagis pengoi, Bythotrephes). The
invasion of zebra mussels in early 1991 had immediate impacts on the physical environment
(Bially and MacIsaac, 2000), on primary productivity and benthos (Fahnenstiel et al., 1995,
Nalepa and Fahnenstiel, 1995, Nalepa et al., submitted). Direct effects of zebra mussels on the
fish community remain unclear. They are believed to alter availability of food for many fish
populations and enhanced biomass of benthic prey available to upper trophic levels pathways but
recent data indicate that pelagic planktivores (specifically alewives but also smelt and shad)
remain as abundant as ever (Fielder and Thomas, MDNR personal communication). Further,
population abundance of omnivorous yellow perch has declined and growth rates increased since
zebra mussel invaded. Also, catch rates of piscivorous walleye, largely controlled by stocking,
have declined recently (Fielder et al. 2000, Fielder, 2002). An unexpected extremely successful
2004 year class of walleye and yellow perch in Saginaw Bay is diverting the attention to zebra
mussel as major stressor in the lake towards alewives. According to MDNR surveys (Fielder and
Thomas, MDNR personal communication) catch rates of these two species are many folds larger
than any figure in records and this coincides with a very reduced alewife adult population in the
main basin according to USGS surveys (Schaeffer personal communication). This adds to
accumulated evidence that alewives suppress recruitment of important native species including
ciscoes, lake trout, burbot, cyprinids, and deepwater sculpins among others (Eshenroder and
Burnham-Curtis, 1999).
Comprehensive databases and integrated analysis at the whole ecosystem level are needed to
evaluate and investigate changes in fish Lake Huron community structure. Further, there is
concern that the survey data in Lake Huron might not be adequate to perform analysis at the
ecosystem level. This is catch 22 because without analysis at the ecosystem level is not possible
to evaluate the adequacy of survey designs. This proposal is to advance towards an iterative
process of analysis of data and improvement of data sources including surveys and databases.
F. Procedure:
Main surveys to include:
•
Saginaw Bay Fall Trawl Surveys–Data are from MDNR annual bottom trawl surveys,
conducted in fall since 1970. Data were collected on RV Channel Cat at stations within a 2minute latitude x 2.8-minute longitude grid system (Fielder et al., 2000) using a 10.66 m
headrope otter trawl, with a 9-mm stretched mesh cod end towed on a single warp and a
45.7- bridle. Trawls were made for 10 minutes at a speed of about 2.0 knots.
•
Saginaw Bay Fall Gillnet Surveys–Gillnet surveys have been conducted in fall since 1989 for
a minimum of eight sites from RV Chinook, using nets 335 m long by 2 m deep, with 30.5 m
panels. Gillnets were fished overnight, on bottom in depths > 3 m. Two net sets were made
at each station. The gillnet survey has a different fish selectivity than the trawl survey.
F-81-R-6, Study 230741 - 4
•
Lake Huron Lake Trout Spring Surveys–Lake trout survey data are available from MDNR
gillnet surveys conducted from April to through June at fixed stations since 1975. Surveys
were carried out by personnel at the MDNR Alpena Great Lakes Fisheries Research station
on board RV Chinook in Michigan waters of Lake Huron with sets of graded-mesh,
multifilament gillnets. Nets were 1.8 m deep and consist of nine 30.5-m panels of 51- to
152-mm mesh in graded increments of 13 mm. Stations were located from north to south in:
Nine Mile and Adams Point (MH-1), South Point, Thunder Bay; Presque Isle and Rockport
(MH-2), Sturgeon and Au Sable Point (MH-3) and Grindstone City and Harbor Beach (MH4, 5). Gillnets were set across depth contours at depths of 5 to 45 m. (Sitar et al., 1999).
Typically, gillnet effort was 3000-5000 m net fished in northern, central and southern basin,
respectively. All fish were counted, measured, and weighed. Scales and otoliths for age
determination were taken for some species. Data were recorded on lake trout sex, maturity,
lamprey wounds, and stomachs contents.
•
Lake Huron Fall Forage Fish Surveys–Forage fish trawl surveys have been made by USGSGreat Lakes Science Center (GLSC) in fall at fixed stations since 1973. Surveys were
conducted from the RV Grayling in Michigan waters of Lake Huron. From 1973 to 1991, an
otter trawl with a 12 m headrope was operated at target towing speed of 1.3 to 1.5 mph.
Stations were located in Detour (MH1), Hammond Bay (MH-1), Thunder Bay (MH-2), Au
Sable Point (MH-4), and Harbor Beach (MH-5). Ten-minute trawls were performed at 9, 18,
27, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 82, 91, and 110 m. Replicate trawls were made at some stations. For
each haul, information on time of day, weather, and “sea” conditions was recorded. Catch
was sorted by species, weighed, and measured. Scales or otoliths were taken for age
determination depending upon species and survey years. To complement these data, data
from the Chub Survey conducted by RV Grayling using the 21 m trawl will be considered.
This survey was conducted from 1980 to 1991, 1 to 60 days before the USGS Fall Forage
Fish Survey, in the same ports but at depths of 46, 55, 64, and 73 m.
•
Lake Huron Creel Survey–Data are from non-charter boat fishing operations taking place in
Michigan State waters of Lake Huron including Saginaw Bay and the main basin. Data are
collected year round by creel clerks in locations according to a defined schedule. All data
available for years concurrent with fish surveys will be incorporated.
•
Lake Huron charter boat data–Data are from self-reported by charter boat captains. Data are
reported year round from Michigan State waters of Lake Huron including Saginaw Bay and the
main basin. All data available for years concurrent with fish surveys will be incorporated.
Analysis will be for individual surveys in order to understand the statistical properties of catch
rates for individual species. The analysis will consider fish size/age groups separately. Results
by species from each survey will be compared and coherency of the results will be evaluated.
Auxiliary information on fish population dynamics such as migratory behavior, habitat
preferences, diets, will be used to evaluate the reliability of independent indices.
To investigate fish community structure the analysis will be for all species and for meaningful
groupings in fish assemblages such as planktivores - benthivores, and native - non-native. When
appropriate, seasonal as well as annual trends will be investigated. The analysis will consider
information on fish stocking, fishing mortality and fish migration.
The analysis will use generalized linear models and additive models (GLMs and GAMs) (McCullagh
and Nelder 1989, Hastie and Tibshirani, 1990), and various multivariate techniques. Models will be
implemented using routines in the S-Plus computing environment (Becker et al. 1988).
F-81-R-6, Study 230741 - 5
Job 1. Evaluate suitability of catch rates from each selected survey as abundance indices.
Job 2. Model variation in distribution and density of forage fish species from corresponding
surveys
Job 3. Quantify the relationships of forage fish distribution and abundance with stressors
Job 4. Model variation in distribution and density of predators from corresponding surveys
Job 5. Quantify relationship of distribution of abundance with stressors.
Job 6. Compare results from analysis of separate surveys
Job 7. Integrate results into maps of distribution of populations considered
Job 8. Evaluate the survey designs based on the results from the previous analysis
Job 9. Write research manuscript (s)
Job 10. Write annual performance report
Job 11. Publish manuscript through the Fisheries Division's editing and finishing process for
Research and Technical reports.
Job 12. Write final report.
G. Schedule:
Years
Work Planned
2004-05
Job 1.
Job 10.
Evaluate suitability of catch rates from each survey
Write annual performance report.
2005-06
Job 2.
Job 3.
Job 4.
Job 5.
Job 10.
Model variation in distribution and density of forage fish
Quantify relationships of distribution and abundance with stressors
Model variation in distribution and density of predators
Quantify relationships of distribution of abundance with stressors
Write annual performance report.
2006-07
Job 6.
Job 7.
Job 8.
Job 9.
Job 10.
Compare results from analysis of separate surveys
Integrate results into maps of distribution of populations considered
Evaluate survey designs based on the results from previous analysis
Write research manuscript (s)
Write annual performance report
2007-08
Job 11.
Job 12.
Publish manuscript
Write final report
H. Geographical Location: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
I. Personnel: Principal Investigator: Sara Adlerstein, Assistant Research Scientist, Department of
Natural Resources, University of Michigan. In collaborating agencies are the Great Lakes
Science Center and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. The work will be developed in
collaboration with researchers from MDNR Alpena, Lake St. Clair, and Charlevoix Research
Stations.
F-81-R-6, Study 230741 - 6
Literature cited:
Barbiero, R. P., R. E. Little, and M. L. Tuchman. 2001. Results from the U.S. EPA’s biological
open water surveillance program of the Laurentian Great Lakes: III. Crustacean zooplankton. J.
Great Lakes Res. 27:167-184.
Beeton, A. M., and J. H. Saylor. 1995. Limnology of Lake Huron. In The Lake Huron Ecosystem:
Ecology, Fisheries and Management. Edited by M. Munawar, T. Edsall, and J. Leach. SPB
Academic Publishing Bv, Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 1-37.
Becker, R. A., J. M. Chambers, and A. R. Wilks. 1988. The new S language. A programming
environment for data analysis and graphics. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books &
Software, Pacific Grove, Calif.
Berst, A. H., and G. R. Spangler. 1973. Lake Huron: the ecology of the fish community and man’s
effects on it. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. No. 21.
Bially, A., and H. J. MacIsaac. 2000. Fouling mussels (Dreissena spp.) colonize soft sediments in
Lake Erie and facilitate benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology 43: 85-97.
Bierman, V. J., D. M. Dolan, and R. Kasprzyk. 1984. Retrospective analysis of the response of
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, to reductions in phosphorus loadings. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:23-31.
Dobson, H. F. H., M. Gilbertson, and P. G. Sly. 1974. A summary and comparison of nutrients and
related water quality in Lakes Erie, Ontario, Huron, and Superior. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:731738.
Eshenroder, R. L., N. R. Payne, J. E. Johnson, C. Bowen II, and M. P. Ebener. 1995. Lake trout
rehabilitation in Lake Huron. J. Great Lakes Res. 21(Suppl.1): 108-127.
Eshenroder, R. L., and M. K. Burnham-Curtis. 1999. Species succession and sustainability of the
Great Lakes fish community. In Great Lakes fishery policy and management: a binational
perspective. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. Michigan State University Press, E.
Lansing, Mich. pp. 145-184.
Ebener, M. P. (Editor) 1995. The state of Lake Huron in 1992. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec.
Pub. 95-2. 140 p.
Evans, M. S. 1986. Lake Huron rotifer and crustacean zooplankton, April-July, 1980. J. Great
Lakes Res. 12:281-292.
Fahnenstiel, G. L., T. B. Bridgeman, G. A. Lang, M. J. McCormick, and T. F. Nalepa. 1995.
Phytoplankton productivity in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron: effects of zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha) colonization. J. Great Lakes Res. 21:465-475.
Fielder, D. G., J. E. Johnson, J. R. Weber, M. V. Thomas, and R.C. Haas. 2000. Fish Population
Survey of Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, 1989-97. Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Research Report 2052, Ann Arbor.
Fielder, D. G. 2002. Sources of walleye recruitment in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, and
recommendations for further rehabilitation. Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Research Report 2062, Ann Arbor.
F-81-R-6, Study 230741 - 7
Haas, R. C., and J. S. Schaeffer. 1992. Predator-prey and competitive interactions among walleye,
yellow perch, and other forage fishes in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 1984, Ann Arbor.
Hastie T. J., and R. J. Tibshirani. 1990. Generalized Additive Models. Chapman & Hall, New York.
335pp.
International Joint Commission (IJC). 1977. The waters of Lake Huron and Lake Superior. Volume
II (Part B). Report to the International Joint Commission by the Upper Lakes Reference Group
743 pp.
McCullagh, P., and J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall, London.
509 pp.
Nalepa, T. F., and G. L. Fahnenstiel. 1995. Dreissena polymorpha in the Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron
ecosystem: overview and perspective. J. Great Lakes Res. 21:411-416.
Nalepa, T. F., D. L. Fanslow, M. B. Lansing, and G. A. Lang. (submitted). Trends in the benthic
macro-invertebrate community of Saginaw Bay, 1987-96: responses to phosphorus abatement
and Dreissena polymorpha.
Schaeffer, J. S., J. S. Diana, and R. C. Haas. 2000. Effects of long-term changes in the benthic
community on yellow perch in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. J. Great Lakes Res. 26:340-351.
Sitar, S., J. Bence, and J. Johnson. 1999. Lake trout mortality and abundance in Southern Lake
Huron. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19 (4): 881-900.
Stevens, R. J. J., M. A. T. Neilson, and N. D. Warry. 1985. Water Quality of the Lake HuronGeorgian Bay System. Environment Canada, Scientific Series No. 143. Inland Waters
Directorate, Ontario Region, Burlington, Ont.
Sprules, W. G., and E. H. Jin. 1990. Composition and size structure of zooplankton communities in
the St. Lawrence Great Lakes. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 24:379-382.
Wells, L. 1970. Effects of alewife predation on zooplankton populations in Lake Michigan.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 15: 556-565.