Posts

Oil wells spewing crude oil into the ocean, sea turtles choking on plastic bags, and industry pumping toxic emissions into the atmosphere through their smokestacks are some of the talked about environmental problems due to the fact that they are easily seen; however, some of today’s most daunting ecological issues are comprised of things that cannot be see with the naked eye. Over the last few years the topic of microplastics within the environment, especially the role that they play in aquatic ecosystems, has been of rising concern to scientists because of the potential negative consequences that arise as a result of being consumed by fish.

 

What are microplastics and where do they come from?

Before we begin discussing the potential ecological impacts pf microplastics, we must first define what we mean when we say “microplastics”. If when you first read the term microplastics and the thought of tiny pieces of plastic popped into your head, then you are correct! The term microplastics can be more thoroughly defined as small pieces of plastic with a length of five millimeters or less¹. There are a multitude of sources in which microplastics come from but two of the major contributors to microplastics in the environment are the natural degradation of larger pieces of plastic into smaller pieces of plastic due to exposure of solar radiation, and from the addition of microbeads to personal hygiene products². The addition of microbeads, which are tiny pieces of polyethylene plastic used for exfoliation, to personal care products has been a practice for over fifty years until they were banned in 2015 under the Obama administration¹. Research into the ecological effects of microplastics is a relatively new field of study which comes as a result of the ever-increasing input of plastic wastes into the oceans however, studies have shown that microplastics have the potential to wreak havoc on fish populations.

 

How are microplastics affecting fish all around the world

Since the topic of microplastics is still considered an emerging field of study, many of the effects of the microplastics on fish health are still unknown. Although this is still a relatively new field of study, several lab studies have shown a link between the ingestion of microplastics with stunted growth rates, reduced appetites, and the potential for reduced reproduction rates³. These studies have also shown a correlation between the ingestion of microplastics by larval fish and an increased mortality rate among those fish as a result of the plastic getting stuck and blocking the fish’s digestive tract³. Another study has shown that microplastics can not only affect fish populations by direct consumption, but microplastics can also decrease the population of fish food sources which ultimately can cause a shift in the population density of the fish species. This study showed that when Daphnia magna, a freshwater planktonic crustacean, are exposed to microplastics that their growth rates and reproduction rates are reduced and that these reductions are passed to the next generation which can significantly reduce their populations⁴. These studies have shown that microplastics can have both direct and indirect negative effects on fish populations.

 

Photo 1: A rainbow runner that consumed 18 plastic pieces

Credit: Dr. Marcus Eriksen Gyres Institute

 

 

Why you should care

Now, you may be thinking “I don’t even like fishing” or “I don’t eat fish so why should I care” so here are a few reasons as to why you should care about this emerging problem. Fish provide food for approximately three billion people worldwide, and with the potential of microplastics causing a reduction in the populations of many fish species world wide some areas may be subject to decreased food storages. Commercial and recreational fishing is a multi-billion-dollar industry within the US which provides a stable economic environment for many areas, so we as a nation need to try to minimize the negative effects of microplastics on aquatic ecosystems in order to maintain a stable economic well-being in those areas. We also need to realize that even if you don’t eat fish, some of your food sources may consume fish which allows for the microplastics found within fish to be consumed by you indirectly through the bioaccumulation, the process where contaminants move up the food web by consuming prey items containing the contaminants, of the microplastics⁵.

 

What can I do to help?

The major driving force which can reduce the impacts of microplastics on fish populations is to help prevent additional plastic from being introduced into the environment and to reduce the current amount of plastic already out in the environment. Every individual can make an impact to prevent an increase in the amount of microplastics in the environment by doing any of the following⁶.

• Reduce the amount of single-use plastics you use on a daily basis. By using reusable products, you can decrease the amount of trash that you produce which reduces the likeliness of your trash being introduced into the environment.
• Support cleanup efforts. By cleaning up litter before it reaches the ocean and other waterways, you are preventing the larger plastic items from degrading into the microplastics size categorization.
• Inform others about the potential harmful effects of microplastics. Education is key to making your efforts a success. By educating others, they will realize the importance of the issue and will likely spread the word to others.
• Lobby for bans on single use plastics and support organizations which strive to eliminate plastic pollution. Preventing the manufacturing of single use plastics can dramatically reduce the amount of plastic that ends up in the environment. It is much easier to prevent the problem than it is to try to clean up the problem.

 

 

 

References

1.) (2018, June). What are microplastics?. Retrieved from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html

2.) (N.d.) What Are Microplastics?. Retrieved from https://www.greenmatters.com/t/microplastics

3.) Parker, L. (N.d.) Baby fish have started eating plastic. We haven’t yet seen the consequences. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/05/microplastics-impact-on-fish-shown-in-pictures/

4.) Martins, A., and Guilhermino, L. (2018, August). Transgenerational effect and recovery of microplastics exposure in model populations of the freshwater cladoceran Daohnia magna Straus. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718308088

5.) Thompson, A. (2018, September). From Fish to Humans, A Microplastic Invasion May Be Taking a Toll. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/

6.) Hutchinson, B. (N.d.). 7 Ways To Reduce Ocean Plastic Pollution Today. Retrieved from https://www.oceanicsociety.org/blog/1720/7-ways-to-reduce-ocean-plastic-pollution-today

 

 

Image Source

1.) Thompson, A. (2018, September). From Fish to Humans, A Microplastic Invasion May Be Taking a Toll. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/

 

Brooke Tracy, Ohio State University, College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences. September 25th, 2019

To the untrained eye, it is very tempting to call any small fish a Bluegill, especially in Ohio. As a kid, I went fishing with my dad and I was just excited to catch a fish, I didn’t really care what it was. My dad would call it a Bluegill or a bass and we’d take a picture and toss it back to its happy little fishy pond. Now, I am majoring in Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife at Ohio State University, and identifying fish has become an interest of mine. I want to provide some tips on how to tell the difference between a Bluegill and some of Ohio’s other sunfish for those of you who are less familiar with fish ID.

Figure 1 is a photo of a Bluegill. There are a few key things to look for when identifying a Bluegill. 1.) The dorsal fin, which is the fin on the top of the fish, starts out spiny. Be careful, those spines are the easiest way to get pricked when you’re taking one of these fish off a hook. 2.) The second half of the dorsal fin is made up of soft rays, with no spines. 3.) The body of a Bluegill has vertical blueish stripes, and depending on the fish, these can be more or less obvious. 4.) And finally, the Bluegill has blue gills, which are located under the ear and behind the mouth of the fish. Additionally, the Bluegill is usually between 6-10 inches long. Seems easy enough, right? Let’s look at another sunfish.

Figure 2 is a photo of a Green Sunfish. Notice any differences between the Green and the Bluegill? They have the same body shape overall, with slightly different tails. The Green Sunfish has a more rounded caudal fin, which is just the name for the tail fin. Also note that the body color is much more green than that of the Bluegill, and the vertical lines on the body are much less noticeable. The gills on the Green Sunfish don’t stand out, but they have beautiful blue streaking (striations) on their face. Compared to the Bluegill, the Green Sunfish are generally much smaller, usually between 3-7 inches long.

Figure 3 is a photo of an Orange Spotted Sunfish. Aren’t they pretty? The Orangspot has the same “sunfish shaped body” as the Bluegill and the Green, but this one has beautiful orange fins and a silvery blue body. They also have Orange spots on their cheeks and body. This fish is even smaller than the Green Sunfish, usually being only 2 or 3 inches long.

Why Bother?

Fish identification is important when you’re out there fishing on your own because some species are threatened or endangered. When species are in danger of extinction, regulations are put in place that limits what you’re allowed to catch, that way the fish populations that are in danger have a chance to recover without being in danger of humans. If you mistakenly take the wrong fish you could worsen their state of concern as well as receive a monetary fine. Make sure you know what you’re catching!

Your Turn!

Below are a few unlabeled pictures for you to try to identify on your own. Pay attention to the tail shape as well as the body and face markings. Good luck!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*You can find the answers under the sources and photo credits. Happy fishing!

References

Wildlife, Ohio DNR Division of. “Ohio.gov / Search.” Ohio DNR Division of Wildlife, wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/bluegill-sunfish.      (Figure 1 was obtained from this source)

Wildlife, Ohio DNR Division of. “Ohio.gov / Search.” Ohio DNR Division of Wildlife, wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/green-sunfish.      (Figure 2 was obtained from this source)

Wildlife, Ohio DNR Division of. “Ohio.gov / Search.” Ohio DNR Division of Wildlife, wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/orangespotted-sunfish.     (Figure 3 was obtained from this source)

Photo Credit

1. Photo © Steve Harwood/Flickr
2. https://alchetron.com/Orangespotted-sunfish#-
3. Photo credit: J.D. Wilson, https://www.flickr.com/photos/57809070@N03/
4. Photo by Nate Tessler, http://vtichthyology.blogspot.com/2016/09/green-sunfish-is-one-tough-sparring.html

Answers

1. Bluegill
2. Orange Spotted Sunfish
3. Trick Question! This is a Bluegill-Green Sunfish Hybrid, which means the two species intermixed. That’s why it resembles both a Bluegill and a Green Sunfish. Good job if that one was tough!
4. Green Sunfish

 

Are Fish Friends, or Are Fish Food? 

Having a sustainable diet and knowing where your food comes from is one way to contribute to combatting climate change and preserving ecosystems. Eating fish can contribute to a healthy diet, can be culturally significant, and is more sustainable than eating other meats such as beef. However, it is important to consume fish in a way that protects these resources for now and the future. Below is a (solo) podcast that talks about these issues including sustainable fishing and fish as part of our population’s diets. 

 

As mentioned in the podcast, there are many ways to avoid these dilemmas. Below are a few helpful links to get you started on your sustainable fish-eating journey:

Sustainable Fish Harvesting Labeling Organizations:

Marine Stewardship Council- https://www.msc.org/

Aquaculture Stewardship Council- https://www.asc-aqua.org/about-us/about-the-asc/

Best Aquaculture Practices-https://www.bapcertification.org/

Seafood Watch lists and describes species of fish that are more sustainable to eat depending on where you are from: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/

Ohio Division of Natural Resources Fishing Licenses:

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/fishing/fishing-regulations/licenses

 

References: 

Kituyi, M. & Thomson, P. “90% of fish stocks are used up – fisheries subsidies must stop emptying the ocean”. World Economic Forum. July 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/fish-stocks-are-used-up-fisheries-subsidies-must-stop/ on 22 September 2019.

Leal, D. R. “Community-Run Fisheries: Avoiding the “Tragedy of the Commons” 1998. 19 (3), 225-245.

McDermott, A. “ Eating seafood can reduce your carbon footprint, but some fish are better than others” Oceana. February 2018. Retrieved from: https://oceana.org/blog/eating-seafood-can-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-some-fish-are-better-others on 22 September 2019.

Stehfest ,E., Bouwman, L., Vurren, D. P., Elzen, M. G. J., Eikhout, B., & Kabat P. 2008. “Climate Benefits of changing diet”. Springer. 95 (1-2), 83-102. 

Government agencies and NGOs pour money into the management of waterways every year.  The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) alone has four ongoing watershed restoration projects, including Riparian Corridor Protection, Channel Restoration, Alternate Cattle Water Sources, and Dam Removal.  While these projects are numerous, the results of restoration and management are often hard to immediately see.  However, a new study led by Dr. Mark Pyron, a researcher at Ball State University, sheds light on how the management of the Ohio River Basin has led to benefits for fish populations.

The Ohio River Basin, shown below in Figure 1, has been altered dramatically by agricultural use and urban development over the last two centuries.  Prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, restrictions on what could be dumped into the waterway were few and far between.  Pollution levels were high in the river basin and negatively impacted aquatic habitat for fishes. Today, the water quality in the Ohio River Basin is improving.  Discharges into the Ohio River from direct sources, also known as point sources, are heavily regulated by agencies such as the EPA.  The Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) is another agency committed to improving the water quality and aquatic habitat in the Ohio River Basin.  One way ORSANCO does this is through the long-term monitoring of fish populations in the river.  Yearly monitoring allows scientists and management officials to see how conservation initiatives, like the Clean Water Act or ODNR restoration projects, are paying off for fish.

Using 57 years of fish population data from ORSANCO, Dr. Pyron and colleagues investigated how the composition of fish in the Ohio River Basin has changed over the last half century.  Their study, entitled “Long-term fish assemblages of the Ohio River: Altered trophic and life history strategies with hydrologic alterations and land use modifications”, found that there have been significant changes in Ohio River fish populations over the last 50 years.  More specifically, there has been an increase in the species richness, or number of species present, with year.  In the study, 135 species of fish across 19 families were identified, with the most common species being the Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides), Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), Channel Shiner (Notropis wickliffi), Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense), Skipjack Herring (Alosa chrysochloris), Common Carp, Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and White Bass (Morone chrysops) (Pyron et al 2019).

Researchers think that the increase in the number of fish species present in the Ohio River could be evidence that the management of the basin for improved water quality is working.  As agriculture around the Ohio River Basin has decreased and forests have increased, runoff into the river has also decreased and led to less turbid, or clearer, waters.  Less turbid water allows for better predation in fish that use vision to catch their prey, and forests increase the presence of insects, which are commonly consumed by fish.  The availability of new resources allows more fish to be present in the river.

While results from the study have shown an overall increase in the number of fish species present, they have also shown that human alterations to the Ohio River waterway have impacted the types of fish species present.  More piscivores, or fish that eat other fish, were found in the river each year.  This could be due to the presence of dams that slow the flow of water and create lake-like conditions where piscivores normally thrive.

Overall, the study conducted by Dr. Pyron and his colleagues emphasizes that the management of the Ohio River Basin has been beneficial to fish conservation.  However, as the climate continues to change and humans continue to impact waterways, it is necessary to conduct further investigations into how humans can influence fish populations and conserve their habitat into the future.

References:

1. About Us. ORSANCO. Online. Retrieved September 24, 2019 from http://www.orsanco.org/
2. Aquatic Stewardship. ODNR. Online. Retrieved September 24^th, 2019 from http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/aquatic-stewardship
3. Pyron, M., Mims, M. C., Minder, M. M., Shields, R. C., Chodkowski, N., and Arts, C. C. 2019. Long-term fish assemblages of the Ohio River: Altered trophic and life history strategies with hydrologic alterations and land use modifications. PLOS ONE 14(6):e0218915. Retrieved September 24, 2019 from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211848
4. Summary of the Clean Water Act. EPA. Online. Retrieved September 24, 2019 from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act
5. Van Velzer, R. 2019, May 7. Fish Diversity Making a Comeback in The Ohio River. WFPL. Online. Retrieved September 24, 2019 from https://wfpl.org/fish-diversity-making-a-comeback-in-the-ohio-river/

In addition to the ongoing problem of algae blooms, for years Lake Erie has been impacted by the invasive Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus) (Bunnell et al., 2005). Having been introduced in the early to mid-90’s as a result of ship ballast water, the invasive Round Goby has had both positive and negative impacts on the Lake Erie ecosystem (State of Michigan) because of a complex relationship with native and other invasive species. Being able to change its diet based on available food sources, as well as being competitive, makes Round Goby a successful invader to the Lake Erie ecosystem (Sea Grant).

The primary food source of Round Goby in Lake Erie has been Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), since their introduction (Bunnell et al., 2005). Zebra Mussels have contributed to the success of Round Goby in Lake Erie, being an abundant food source, and invasive Round Goby have helped in preying on this invasive mussel species. Even though Round Goby prey upon Zebra Mussels, this alone does not help with removing the population of invasive Zebra Mussels, which negatively impacts the phytoplankton (Sea Grant). With Round Goby successfully surviving off of Zebra Mussels, Round Goby themselves have been a food source for native fish species such as Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) (Bunnell et al., 2005), walleye, and trout (Sea Grant). Many times when people think of invasive species they only see them as destroying the native ecosystem, but the invasive Round Goby has also positively impacted the Lake Erie ecosystem in a way that some native species have been declared to no longer be endangered, such as the Lake Erie Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) (Bunnell et al., 2005).

While the invasive Round Goby is thriving in Lake Erie because of abundant food source of Zebra Mussels, they also compete with native fish species for prey and use native fish as another food source. One case in which Round Goby are negatively impacting native fish species is that they compete with native fish, such as Sculpins (Sea Grant), darters and logperch (Bunnell et al, 2005) which has a negative impact on native fish populations. Round Goby have also been found to use small native fish as a food source, in addition to Zebra Mussels, such as sculpins, darters, and logperch in which they also compete with for food (Sea Grant).

Invasive Round Goby have been successful in negatively impacting the Lake Erie ecosystem and native fish populations, and because of this successful establishment, there has been little to no success in removing Round Goby.  One way to manage invasive Round Goby is to make sure that they do not spread to new watershed ecosystems, where methods such as electrical and chemical barriers may be used (Bunnell et al, 2005). There is also importance in preventing the spread of other invasive species by having regulations on ballast water in waterways, so that non-native species do not get dumped into an ecosystem, potentially to become an invasive species population (Sea Grant).

Since the introduction of the invasive Round Goby into Lake Erie, both native species and non-native fish species have both been positively and negatively impacted as a result of complex relationships. Round Goby have been successful in the Lake Erie ecosystem because of readily available food sources of invasive Zebra Mussels and native fish populations, reducing populations of native fish species. Careful considerations need to be made in following regulations on dumping ballast water in watersheds as well as human stocking introductions of species in order to prevent non-native species from establishing and reducing native species.

 

Bunnell, David B, et al. “Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences – 62(1):15 – PDF, 2005, https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f04-172.

Lydersen, Kari. “The Round Goby, an Uninvited Resident of the Great Lakes, Is Doing Some Good.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 May 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/us/27cncgoby.html.

Mychek-Londer, Justin G, et al. “Ecological Impacts Of Invasive Round Goby (Neogobius Melanostomus) In The Laurentian Great Lakes And Beyond: Summary Of Presentations At IAGLR 2014.” Lake Scientist, 19 Nov. 2014, https://www.lakescientist.com/ecological-impacts-invasive-round-goby-neogobius-melanostomus-laurentian-great-lakes-beyond-summary-presentations-iaglr-2014/.

Ray, William J., and Lynda D. Corkum. “Predation of Zebra Mussels by Round Gobies, Neogobius Melanostomus.” SpringerLink, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Nov. 1997, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007379220052.

“Round Gobies Invade North America.” Minnesota Sea Grant, http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/gobies_invade.

“Status and Strategy for Round Goby Management.” State of Michigan , https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-ais-neogobius-melanostomus_499884_7.pdf.

What Are the Current Pressures Impacting Lake Erie. 2005, https://archive.epa.gov/solec/web/pdf/erie.pdf.

“Zebra Mussels Threaten Inland Waters: Minnesota Sea Grant.” Zebra Mussels Threaten Inland Waters | Minnesota Sea Grant, http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/zebramussels_threaten.

You’ve heard about the bait and switch in your dating apps, but have you considered it at your favorite seafood restaurant?

Photo courtesy of Boston Magazine.

Fish and other seafood are major sources of nutrition for much of the world’s population. The United States is behind China as the second largest consumer of seafood worldwide. More than 90% of the seafood consumed by the United States is imported (3), and just 2% of it is inspected annually (2). Oceana conducted a major study in 2013 using DNA analyses to examine the accuracy of seafood labeling in various markets. The study collected samples from a range of grocery stores and restaurants across the country in 21 different states. This study found that of the 1,215 samples analyzed, 33% were mislabeled (4). The study relaunched in 2018 to determine whether the issue still persists and found that it does – with 21% of the 449 samples mislabeled(5). While the rate has decreased, the issue is proven to still be prevalent.

Chart courtesy of Oceana.

Red Snapper had one of the highest rates of mislabeling of all the fish species examined at 87% mislabeling. Of all the specimens labeled as Red Snapper examined, 28 different species of fish were identified during the DNA analysis. Seventeen of which didn’t even fall into the snapper family (4).

Chart courtesy of Oceana.

Overall, restaurants were found to have higher rates of mislabeling at 38%, than grocery stores at 18%. Sushi venues in particular had a mislabeling rate at a staggering 74% (4). Another 2017 study by UCLA looked at mislabeling in sushi restaurants in Los Angeles and found that 77% of Red Snapper, Halibut, Yellowfin tuna and yellowtail were mislabeled; and every restaurant examined had at least one instance of mislabeling (6).

Mislabeling of fish can result in many ecological, economic and human health consequences. Some fish were labeled as an entirely different species, which is especially problematic when an endangered or illegally caught fish is being advertised as one that is more sustainable. This can contribute to population loss of certain species and can have major ecosystem ramifications.The supply chain for the fishing industry is complex, and it is widely unknown at which point in this chain the fraud is occurring (6). A study by the world economic forum found that 30% of fish caught globally are caught illegally, which can result in a $10-$23.5 billion economic loss (1).

Consumers are not only unable to make informed and accurate choices in their fish consumption – their health could be harmed as well. People may think they’re ordering a wild caught fish when they actually receive a farmed fish, sometimes from regions like Asia with less stringent chemical regulations for farm-raised fish (3). Some fish are advised to be avoided by certain groups due to their high mercury levels. Consuming fish with high mercury levels can be dangerous for health, especially for groups like young children or pregnant women. This was exemplified in the substitution of high mercury fish like tilefish for snapper (4).

While there are regulations and systems in place like the Seafood Import Monitoring Program to monitor the harvest and sale of fish, they are not always effective. Illegal fishing and overfishing are great threats to the marine environment. Inaccurate labeling by sellers of seafood can have many consequences. Next time you order Red Snapper, you may want to ask, is it really Red Snapper?

 

REFERENCES

1. Brett, A., & Lee, V. (2019). Ending Illegal Fishing: Data Policy and the Port State Measures Agreement. World Economic Forum.
2. GAO. (2009). Seafood Fraud: FDA Program Changes and Better Collaboration among Key Federal Agencies Could Improve Detection and Prevention. United States Government Accountability Office. GAO-09-258
3. Gibbens, S. (2019, March). What is seafood fraud? Dangerous—and running rampant, report finds. National Geographic.
4. Warner, K., Timme, W., Lowell, B., & Hirshfield, M. (2013). Oceana Study Reveals Seafood Fraud Nationwide. Oceana.
5. Warner, K., Roberts, W., Mustain, P., Lowell, B., & Swain, M. (2019). Casting a Wider Net: More Action Needed to Stop Seafood Fraud in the United States. Oceana.
6. Willette, D. A. (2017). Using DNA barcoding to track seafood mislabeling in Los Angeles restaurants. Conservation Biology, 31(5).

The Longhead Darter (scientific name, Percina macrocephala) had not been found in Ohio since 1939. Now, in the upper Muskingum River system, that’s changed.

A team of researchers from the Stream and River Ecology (STRIVE) Lab at The Ohio State University has been working since 2016 to reintroduce fish like the Longhead Darter to rivers where they were historically, but are not currently, found. They do this through the process of translocation – finding an abundant source population of the species and moving a large group of those individuals to the desired location.¹

Andrew Nagy, a research assistant for STRIVE lab, has been working on the fish translocation project since early 2018. He says that the lab has chosen to focus on state-listed fish species – those identified as threatened, endangered, or extirpated (locally extinct) – including the Longhead Darter and Tippecanoe Darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe), as well as other species that are particularly sensitive to water quality, like the Bluebreast Darter (Etheostoma camurum). Fish of these species may have struggled to survive the intensive pollution that was historically pervasive in Ohio rivers.

 

Tippecanoe Darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe). Image from Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

 

In many ways, Ohio was the birthplace of federal regulation on water pollution in the U.S., largely encompassed by the Clean Water Act. Through much of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, industrial pollution severely damaged aquatic ecosystems across the nation; by the 1950s and 1960s, there were no fish to be found in the section of the Cuyahoga River between Akron and Cleveland.­­² In 1969, a pollution-induced fire on the Cuyahoga (one of many over the previous century) gained national attention and finally galvanized the public into action to improve water quality across the U.S. As a result, in 1972, extensive amendments made to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 made it recognizable as the Clean Water Act we know today.³ With more rigorous regulation on dumping pollutants and widespread cleanup efforts, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters slowly became healthier and more hospitable to fish and other organisms that had once inhabited them. That wasn’t the end of the story, though. Even with the water quality improving to a state that could theoretically sustain them, fish were blocked from parts of their geographic range by anthropogenic barriers like dams.¹ The habitat was there, but the fish weren’t.

 

A low head dam on Muskingum River. Dams like this one can keep fish from returning to parts of their historical geographic range. Photo by littlesis43756 / Creative Commons.

That’s where the research group comes in, intervening to restore ecosystems that have lost some of their key players. “Although keeping the environment in good condition via general things like reducing pollution and limiting human alteration is important,” says Nagy, “it is often not enough.  In many cases, we need to take specific action to repair damage that we’ve already done.” For three years in a row, the team has attempted to do just that, translocating Bluebreast Darters from large populations in the Muskingum River system to various locations in the Licking River System.¹ They have also begun the same process with the Tippecanoe and Longhead Darters, says Nagy, moving fish from the Scioto River and even the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania to the Muskingum River.

The hope is that the reintroduced populations will eventually be self-sustaining, reproducing and expanding their range without ongoing intervention. Nagy says things look promising. During follow-up surveys at release sites, the team found evidence of natural reproduction in both Bluebreast and Tippecanoe Darters. As for the Longhead Darters, while there are still no signs of reproduction, fish have at least survived through the full breeding season.

No one can say for sure whether the project will reach its ultimate goal. For now, though, the team presses on with translocations and surveys, enjoying the work in various forms. For Nagy, a streamside snack of native pawpaws from a nearby grove makes the successes all the sweeter. “Few things are as satisfying for me as sitting next to a river on a cool fall afternoon, enjoying fresh fruit directly after a successful survey of a fish that I helped reintroduce.”

 

References

1. OSU Stream and River Ecology (STRIVE) Lab. (2018). Rare Fish Reintroduction via Translocation. Retrieved from https://u.osu.edu/strive/field-photos/darter-reintroduction/.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2019, April 1). Introduction to the Clean Water Act. Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleFrame.cfm?parent_object_id=2569.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2017, August 8). History of the Clean Water Act. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act.

‘Asian carp’ is an umbrella term for four invasive species of carp native to Asia that include bighead, grass, bullhead and silver carp. Asian carp were brought to the States as a way for farm ponds, sewage lagoons and aquaculture facilities to control for algae, parasites and aquatic macrophytes (Baerwaldt et al, n.d.). They established themselves in the Mississippi river system after flood events and are rapidly making their way to the Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes fisheries can be valued up to $7 billion dollars annually and Silver carp threaten that market (Golowenski, 2019). Silver carp are filter feeders that can consume 5-20% of their body weight regularly, making them a formidable adversary against native species in the fight for food, and the cumulative feeding habits of Asian carp could reduce the turbidity that native fish depend on (Baerwaldt et al, n.d.). Adult Silver carp do not have predators in the Mississippi river system, and because this species reaches adulthood quite rapidly their window of vulnerability is quite low (ACRCC, n.d.).

Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix ) are a particular interest of mine because of their tendency to jump out of the water when startled by boat motors. Weighing up to 20 pounds and with the ability to jump 9-10 feet out of the water, they are a hazard to the safety of recreational boaters.

Some ways carp are being managed by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC) is through electric barriers, contract fishing, and a new development of sound technology. A study by the University of Minnesota demonstrated that Asian carp have been deterred from barriers when low frequency noises were emitted, while native fish species are not known to be affected (Pennekamp, 2017).  These methods alone would not prevent the introduction of Silver carp to the Great Lakes, but in conjunction may be enough. Personally, my favorite method of Silver carp control comes from the town of Bath, Illinois. Since 2005 the tiny town has been home to the annual Original Redneck Fishing Tournament. Equipped with dip nets and sometimes football padding, boaters take to the water in droves and try to snag the flying fish out of the air. Silver carp are a schooling species so the boaters will drive close together to ensure the fish start leaping. There are 4 heats and contestants have up to two hours to fill their boat with as many fish as they can grab. There is a prize of $1000 for the team that catches the most fish and past tournaments have been able to remove over 1500 Silver carp out of the river in the span of two day. Silver carp are edible and considered delicacies in some Asian communities but are not commonly consumed by Americans. If this was implemented in Ohio, a cookout contest could be used in conjunction with the tournament to introduce Silver carp into the midwestern diet. Obviously, this method of control would not work alone but it is a way to increase awareness, raise funds, and decrease the population.

References:

Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee. (2018). Asian Carp Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2018 (pp. 1276).

Baerwaldt, K., Credico, J., Kromrey, R., & Monroe, E. (n.d.). Asian Carp eDNA Monitoring. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Golowenski, D. (2019, September 8). Outdoors: Asian carp threat remains for Great Lakes. Retrieved from https://www.dispatch.com/sports/20190907/outdoors–asian-carp-threat-remains-for-great-lakes

National Geographic, Redneck Fishing Tournament. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bZ_9B_RlGY

Pennekamp, T. (2017, November 13). Broadcasting underwater noise may be a sound solution for repelling Asian carp on Mississippi River. Retrieved from https://www.guttenbergpress.com/articles/2017/11/13/broadcasting-underwater-noise-may-be-sound-solution-repelling-asian-carp

The great and powerful muskie

The muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), also known as muskie, is a large predatory freshwater fish that is native to Ohio. Mature fish weigh from 7 to over 30 pounds and have an average length of 29 to 43 inches. They are a member of the pike family (Esocidae), and have a green, yellow, and brown coloration with dark stripes. A key distinguishing feature that sets them apart from other members of the pike family is that only half of their cheek has scales. (2,3)

Muskies are long and narrow, shaped somewhat like a torpedo. This shape allows them to move quickly through the water to chase down prey. With this large, powerful form, they can put up a good fight when caught, making them a highly coveted fish by anglers for the challenge they offer. For instance, the largest recorded muskellunge caught in Ohio was over 55 pounds and over 50 inches in length. (1-3)

 

 

The return of the Muskellunge

In the early 20^th century, the muskellunge was viewed under the myth of super-abundance as a commercial fish. This means there were no regulations on how many or what size fish could be taken, nor was there any thought to maintaining their habitat. Dams were added in rivers, which disrupted spawning routes, and wetlands were removed to allow for farming or building sites. As a result of this, muskellunge populations in Ohio began to diminish. (1,3)

In the 1950s, the Ohio Division of Natural Resources (ODNR) began restoration efforts of muskie populations by hatching and raising muskellunge and using them to restock different locations throughout Ohio. Habitat loss for the muskellunge does not allow wild muskies to successfully reproduce. Because of this, the ODNR collects eggs and sperm from mature fish and allows the young muskies the hatch to develop in a controlled environment until they are about 10 inches in length, and then reintroduces them into their natural environment. This program, along with a daily catch limit, has allowed the muskie population in Ohio to stabilize. (2-6)

Up for the challenge?

In efforts to help maintain the muskellunge population, anglers are also encouraged to catch and release fish that are less than 30 inches even though there is no state size limit. This allows the muskie a better chance of reaching sexual maturity, which is 3 years for males and 4 years for females. If you are interested in catching a muskie, you can find them in lakes and streams throughout Ohio, such as Alum Creek, Caesar Creek, and Little Muskingum River. They can be found in shallow water during the spring and fall and in deeper water as temperatures increase throughout the summer. They prefer pristine water with a non-muddy, stony bottom. They also like to hide near logs and vegetated areas. (1-3,5)

 

Thanks to the ODNRs restocking program, you have the opportunity to get out there and enjoy the thrill of landing a trophy muskie!

 

 

 

 

1. Farrell, J, M., Klindt R, M., Casselman, J, M., LaPan, S, R., Werner R, G., & Schiavone, A. (2006). Development, implementation, and evaluation of an international muskellunge management strategy. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 79:111–123. DOI 10.1007/s10641-006-9091-7.

 

2. “Muskellunge”, Ohio History Central, September 20, 2019. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Muskellunge

 

3. “Muskellunge Fishing in Ohio”. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Accessed 9/20/2019. https://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/publications/fishing/pub133.pdf

 

4. Nohner, J, K., & Diana, J, S. (2015). Muskellunge Spawning Site Selection in Northern Wisconsin Lakes and a GIS-Based Predictive Habitat Model, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 35:1, 141-157, DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2014.977471

 

5. “Ohio Fishing Regulations (2019-2020)”. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Accessed 9/20/2019. http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/fishing/2019-20%20Ohio%20Fishing%20Regs_WEB.pdf

 

6. “The Division of Wildlife’s Muskellunge Management”. (2012). Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Accessed 9/23/2019. http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/fishing/fishing-clubs-and-programs/muskie-management

 

 

What do you get when you cross a catfish and an eel? The result is an Ohio-native fish called the burbot. Burbots (Lota lota) are the only member of the cod family (Lotidae) that live completely in freshwater (Stapanian et al., 2008). In Ohio, burbots are found primarily in Lake Erie (Rice, D. & Zimmerman, B., 2019). Populations of this species are difficult to study due to their choice in habitat. Burbot need cooler water temperatures in order to survive and reproduce. They spend the warmer months in the deeper, eastern basin of Lake Erie where the water is cooler. In the cooler months, burbot move into shallower waters in the central and western basins of the lake (Trautman, 1997).

Although global burbot populations are doing well, many regional populations are threatened or extirpated. Burbots have been extirpated from Europe and the United Kingdom and are threatened or endangered in most of North America. In Ohio, they are listed as a species of concern. (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2012). Because burbot are not a popular commercial fish species, few have considered the species when deciding upon management plans.

One factor that has a large, negative impact on Lake Michigan, Huron and Ontario burbot populations is the sea lamprey. Before sea lamprey populations were controlled and their numbers reduced as a result, they mercilessly preyed upon burbots, causing burbot populations to decline dramatically. In Lake Erie, the main factor influencing the decline in burbot population has been due to a combination of decreased water quality—a result of pollution—habitat degradation, and past overexploitation (Stapanian et al., 2010).

Why is it important that we conserve this species? While they may not be the best game or commercial fishing species, burbot are a fantastic indicator species. An indicator species is an organism that serves as a measure of the environmental conditions that exist in a given locale; meaning, the organism helps highlight certain characteristics within its environment (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2016). Because they are very sensitive to disturbance (changes in their environment), burbot populations can be monitored to help gain insight as to how human actions are impacting burbots’ environment (Stapanian et al., 2010). Burbot population numbers in their cold month habitats can also serve as an indicator of the impacts of climate change. Less burbot will be found in shallow waters as the water temperature rises. Along with burbot, these rising water temperatures can have negative, long-lasting impacts on other biota in Lake Erie.

Link to NOAA CoastWatch Great Lakes Water Temperature Statistics: https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/

In order to help conserve our burbots here in Ohio, there are some easy things we can do to help. We can improve our water quality by reducing the amount of pollution entering our waterways—this can be done by recycling, creating less one-use-plastic waste, becoming educated on the impacts of industrial runoff, etc. We can also help combat habitat degradation by supporting local, regional, state, and national organizations and agencies that are fighting to conserve lands and restore those that were damaged.

Fascinating, borderline bizarre, and scientifically invaluable, the burbot is an Ohio species that deserves our attention. By studying their behaviors, humans are aided by burbots in determining habitat quality in Lake Erie. In this way, we can help conserve their populations and the populations of many aquatic species for generations to come.

 

References:

Encyclopædia Britannica. 2016. Indicator species. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. https://www.britannica.com/science/indicator-species. Accessed: 9/23/19

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Division of Wildlife. Burbot. http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/burbot. Accessed 9/24/19.

Rice, D. & Zimmerman, B. 2019. A Naturalist’s Guide to the Fishes of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus.

Stapanian, M., Bronte, C., Ebener, M., Lantry, B.F. & Stockwell, J.D.. (2008). Status of Burbot populations in the Laurentian Great Lakes. American Fisheries Society. 59:111-130. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/scientific-pubs/p-2007-4.pdf. Accessed 9/24/19.

Stapanian, M. A., Paragamian, V. L., Madenjian, C. P., Jackson, J. R., Lappalainen, J. , Evenson, M. J. & Neufeld, M. D. (2010), Worldwide status of burbot and conservation measures. Fish and Fisheries, 11: 34-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2009.00340.x. Accessed 9/23/19.

Trautman, M. B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus.

 

Images:

http://fisheries.org/docs/wp/burbot.jpg

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/getmedia/57d35785-68c7-4d85-9562-de415810a729/Burbot1?width=300&height=225&ext=.jpeg

Sharks glow in the dark. This may seem absurd, but recent research into the biofluorescence of fish has uncovered a startling new world of glowing fish. There are currently over 180 fish species that are biofluorescent. This means that the fish can absorb one wavelength of light, then reemit that light but at a lower energy wavelength (Sparks et al. 2014). The most common is absorbing blue light, which is the only type of light in most marine systems and emitting green light. They do this in order to be seen. Many fish, including sharks, have yellow filters in their eyes that would accentuate the biofluorescence of other fish(Sparks et al. 2014).

Park et al

Exactly how this happens in fish is mostly unknown. Only the chemistry behind eel fluorescence has been found until recently researchers unlocked how the swell shark and the chain catshark are able to glow (Park et al. 2019). Traditionally, green fluorescent proteins (GFPs) and other similar proteins have been found to enable bioluminescence, some of which have led to important innovations within the medical community (Park et al. 2019). But the researchers discovered a new type of protein, brominated tryptophan molecules, that enable these sharks to get their glow on. They discovered 8 new molecules in the sharks’ skin that are bioluminescent by using a battery of different methods to determine the shape and makeup of the different molecules, many of which are found more often in a chemistry lab than a biology lab (Park et al).

Park et al 2019

These molecules would seem to also play a dual role for the sharks. Not only do they fluoresce, but some of them actually have antibacterial properties (Park et al. 2019). This is especially important for the swell shark and catshark as they live on the seafloor, which has a much higher concentration of bacteria than the water above. Having these molecules in their skin may actually protect the shark from illnesses contracted from bacteria. There are other properties of these molecules that are unknown, and many other potential molecules in other fish that have yet to be discovered. These sharks and their amazing biology just may shed some light onto other avenues of exploration not just in the field of fish biology, but in fields such as chemistry and medicine.

Sources:

1. Park, H. B. et al. Bright Green Biofluorescence in Sharks Derives from Bromo-Kynurenine Metabolism. iScience 0, (2019).
2. Sparks, J. S. et al. The Covert World of Fish Biofluorescence: A Phylogenetically Widespread and Phenotypically Variable Phenomenon. PLOS ONE 9, e83259 (2014).

While Ohio houses many types of fish in its variety of lakes, streams, and rivers, there are many fish that are housed in ponds that could potentially suffer from improper pond construction. Some of Ohio’s most popular sporting fish could be subjected to fish kills such as asphyxiation, disease, or poisoning.  Fish suffocation due to lack of oxygen is one of the more easily avoidable but potentially devastating to pond fish populations. Some Ohio fish that would be affected would be the Bluegill, Largemouth Bass, and Channel Catfish.

Since many ponds get their available dissolved oxygen from plants that perform photosynthesis and the air vegetation is key to maintaining a healthy pond ecosystem. Ironically, these plants can be the very cause of a winterkill. If the pond does not have a proper depth ratio the plants could die during the winter and start decomposing. The bacteria that is responsible for the decomposition use the oxygen available in the water. The longer and more severe the winter is the more likely that this will happen. This is more likely to occur in the northern most counties of Ohio because of the more frequent snowfall and severe winters because of the lake effect from Lake Erie.

Unfortunately, there is almost no way to tell if a winterkill has happened until possibly months after it has occurred. With a good log of water quality management, the cause can usually be determined. Some people are not able to control the construction of their pond but proper pond construction could potentially prevent a winterkill. A 3:1 gradient ratio and a proper depth of 10-12 feet that covers 25% of the pond floor can keep plants from taking root too far into the pond. Also good watershed management practices can stop extra nutrients from entering the pond, halting the growth of harmful algae’s.

Works Cited

Pond Management. ODNR Division of Wildlife (2012). Retrieved from http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/pond-management

Over recent years, brook trout, a species thought to have disappeared from Ohio, has been making a return due to reintroduction and ecosystem restoration efforts. 10,000 years ago brook trout colonized Ohio’s Lake Erie tributary streams. This genetically distinct population of fish is the only trout native to the inland waters of Ohio. However, by the 19th century, only two stream systems were suitable habitat and contained thriving trout populations.
Brook trout only survive in cold and clean water. They have a very low tolerance to pollutants and human disturbance. During the early 1990s, the Chagrin River, Grand River, and Rocky River watersheds were severely impacted by deforestation, agriculture, and residential development resulting in the loss of their pristine habitat and remaining brook trout populations.
As a result, Ohio Division of Natural Resources developed plans to address the rehabilitation and restoration of Ohio brook trout with local park systems, trout clubs, educators, and state and local agencies. The main objectives were to identify and protect native brook trout habitat, take an inventory of potential brook trout habitat, and implement reintroduction in suitable sites.
Stream Surveys:
Streams in the Lake Erie watershed were first surveyed for existing trout populations and evaluated for potential habitat for brook trout. This was done by collecting the temperature of the stream during mid-summer. If the water was less than 20 degrees Celsius, then the stream habitat and fish populations were evaluated. This was often done with the use of seines; however, they also utilized a backpack electrofishers on some occasions. The streams with cold water, good habitat, and presence of other fish species were considered possible sites for brook trout reintroduction.

Propagation:
The streams meeting these standards were then stocked with enough brook trout to develop a self-sustaining population. Brook Trout reach sexual maturity at age three, therefore, this would need to be done for about four years in order for the populations to be successful.
In order to preserve the genetic distinction of native Ohio brook trout, gametes from fish captured in the stream were taken back to hatcheries and raised until they were of approximately 40 mm. The releases often occurred at the beginning of April in the shallow water riffle and run habitat throughout the streams to avoid predation and allow for the best chance of survival of the population.
Population Monitoring:
In order to evaluate the successes and failures of this reintroduction, population monitoring surveys were completed in the years following the releases. This was done once the populations demonstrated evidence of natural reproduction. Similar to the stream surveys seines and electrofishers were used. If the seining survey captured less than five total brook trout an electrofisher was used to verify the population size.
Protection:
Like stated above, the brook trout is a very sensitive species and therefore are under constant threat for extirpation. In order to prevent this, habitat restoration, education of sportsmen and residents, and conservation agreements were implemented. However, ODNR could not accomplish this without the help from other organizations and the public. To facilitate these processes and communication, the Brook Trout Advisory Committee was developed. This committee was comprised of stakeholders in the protection of brook trout.

The site evaluations, hatchery propagation, and stream surveys were successful in the reintroduction of brook trout in 10 Northeast Ohio streams. However, the species is still considered threatened and conservation efforts have continued to be implemented.

References:

Burt, A. (2007, July 01). Brook Trout Reintroduction: Lake Erie Drainage, NE Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.tumadmen.org/assets/documents/ODNR%20Brook%20Trout%20Final%20 Report.pdf

Images:

https://www.geaugaparkdistrict.org/nrm/brooktrout.shtml

http://www.fondriest.com/news/ohio-brook-trout-sulphur-springs.ht

Living Fossils in Ohio?

 

Ever seen a living fossil? If you said no, you may get the opportunity relatively soon. A fish farmer in Urbana, Ohio is attempting to revive the population of Lake Sturgeon in the Ohio fisheries. Lake sturgeon are a species that has been traced back to around 136 million years ago, causing many people to refer to it as a living fossil. They can grow up over six feet long and can live around 100 years. They used to be prevalent through the Great Lakes and major river systems such as the Mississippi and Hudson rivers.

 

 

Dave Smith is the man behind Freshwater Farms in Urbana. He is attempting to successfully breed the species in captivity. Part of the challenge is the long time that the females take to reach reproductive maturity. Females require around 20 years to start reproducing, and they can only reproduce every 4 years. Smith already owns white sturgeon, and he hopes his experience with a similar species will help him breed Lake sturgeon. Smith got his Lake sturgeon from The Ohio State University, who had specimens for research, but have not researched them heavily.

 

For more information on Dave Smith’s Freshwater Farms of Ohio, click this link: https://fwfarms.com/

 

For more information on the Lake Sturgeon, click here: http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/lake-sturgeon

 

 

References

 

Lake sturgeon, Ohio DNR

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish/lake-sturgeon

 

Ohio fish farm aims to raise ancient, endangered species

 

Picture reference

 

http://www.tnaqua.org/our-animals/fish/lake-sturgeon

Every place has a story and  the inhabitants are the ones that tell that story. Natural places and the species that exist in those places are no different; such is the case of the fish found in the Great Miami River. In Southwestern Ohio, sits a roughly 165  mile long tributary of the Ohio River, called the Great Miami River. The Great Miami River watershed flows through 10 counties and drains 3,802 square miles of land, going through both Dayton and Cincinnati (Figure 1). The river currently goes through 15 metropolitan areas of the region.

The Great Miami river has suffered floods, extreme physical alterations and pollution, affecting the fish species that are able to live in it. After the 1913 floods devastated both Dayton and Cincinnati, the Miami Conservancy District would be created in 1915 and begin the building of levees and retention basins (See Image 2 for a snapshot of what this river looks like). Pollution also became a huge issue, especially as people were flushing prescription medications and birth control pills down their toilets. Medications in the water meant that there were higher levels of certain chemicals, such as progesterone, which can cause male fish to develop half-formed eggs, instead of fully-formed sperm, created reproduction issues in certain species. Fish which were more tolerant of pollutants (and were often not native to the area), became more populated in the Great Miami, while native fishes struggled.

Over the last 100 years, some levees have been removed, and thanks to Ohio EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) water quality research, policy, and enforcement, the Great Miami River has seen some improvement in water quality. Starting in 2008 and going through 2010, the Ohio EPA began surveying the Great Miami River, starting in Dayton and going the roughly 80 miles dowstream to the mouth of the Ohio River. One way that surveys were done was by doing electrofishing. This is a method where an electric current is sent through the water, not to kill the fish, but to stun them. Once the fish have been stunned, the researchers can easily collect and identify species before releasing them.

 

Some fish that are common in the Great Miami River are smallmouth, largemouth and spotted bass, white and rock bass, sunfish, and channel and flathead catfish. While pollutant-tolerant species may be in decline and native fish are definitely present, according to the Ohio EPA, as of 2012, 72% of the sites tested in the Great Miami River watershed failed to meet bacteria water quality standards; this is probably due to failing septic systems and agricultural use. And while the Great Miami River, itself and some of its tributaries showed good quality, overall, many of its western tributaries exhibited boor quality. The fish present and their population sizes can help to determine the threshold for pollutants in this stream system. When pollutants and turbidity (the amount of suspended sediments in the water which lead to water being “murky”) are kept in check, fish populations will remain successful and continue to be present for locals to enjoy for viewing and fishing.

Kevin Fisher

Sea Lamprey in the Great Lakes

 

Retrieved from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Diversas_lampreas.1_-_Aquarium_Finisterrae.JPG on 11/02/2017

Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) (depicted above) is an invasive, eel like, jawless fish that looks like something straight out of a horror film. It was first reported to have invaded from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie in 1921, believed to have been facilitated through the opening of the Welland Canal. Sea Lamprey were initially not a problem, but with the enactment of policies to prevent pollution, salmonid stocking programs and stream restoration they began to proliferate and soon spread to the other Great Lakes (Sullivan et al., 2003). Sea lamprey have a very unique life history (shown below), spending the majority of their life in a larval stage, called an ammocoetes, in which they are sedentary filter feeders living in stream beds. Once they have reached a certain point, they emerge from stream beds and transition to a parasitic phase in lakes. One adult parasitic Sea Lamprey can apparently kill up to 40 pounds of fish in its life time (Morrison, 2017). The parasitic life stage of Sea Lamprey is especially devastating to Lake Trout (bite mark pictured below), whose population declined rapidly with increased abundance of Sea Lamprey in Lake Erie. This led the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission to establish an integrated Sea Lamprey management plan in 1986 (Sullivan et al., 2003). Control measures taken rapidly saw declines in the populations of Sea lamprey through the use of pesticides, barriers to reproduction, trapping, and even the release of sterile males (Klassen et al., 2004). With the initial success of the program people believed that the program may be able to successfully eradicate Sea Lamprey from the Great Lakes (Sullivan et al., 2003). While the program has been extremely successful, decreasing the amount of fish killed from 100 million pounds to 10 million pounds per year in the Great Lakes (Morrison, 2017). The complete eradication seems unlikely. A recent report from the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission also conveyed a startling discovery, Sea Lamprey populations have been increasing for the past few years in Lake Erie and Superior (Morrison, 2017). While the current levels are still near historic lows, the recent trend of increasing populations has fisheries managers worried (Morrison, 2017). No one really knows why there has been an increase in these populations, but two hypotheses have been given that may explain why this trend has occurred. The first, is that the restoration of stream habitats have allowed the Sea lamprey to establish into new tributaries that they were historically not present. The second, is that the mild winters that have been experienced throughout the Great Lakes region in the last two years have led to more favorable conditions during spawning (Morrison, 2017). While the integrated Sea Lamprey management plan has been a great success in curbing the spread of this species, there are still unknown factors which require continued vigilance to keep this invasive threat under control.

Retrieved from: https://greatlakesinform.org/sites/default/files/sealamprey_lifecycle_seagrant%20UMN_with%20credit.jpg on 11/2/2017

 

Klassen, W., Adams, J.V., Twohey, M.B., 2004. Modeling the suppression of sea lamprey populations by the release of sterile males or sterile females. Journal of Great Lakes Research 30, 463–473.

Morrison, A. A., Oct. 24 2017. Sea Lamprey on rise in Lakes Erie and Superior. Great Lakes Today. Retrieved from: http://news.wbfo.org/post/sea-lamprey-rise-lakes-erie-and-michigan on 11 November 2017.

Sullivan, W.P., Christie, G.C., Cornelius, F.C., Fodale, M.F., Johnson, D.A., Koonce, J.F., Larson, G.L., McDonald, R.B., Mullett, K.M., Murray, C.K., 2003. The sea lamprey in Lake Erie: a case history. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29, 615–636.

 

 

Across the country, wetland habitat has been converted to different types of land uses causing massive loss of species abundance in the process.  In Ohio, we have lost over 90% of the original wetland habitat because we converted it mostly to agriculture use.  In the past 20 years, many organizations including state government agencies have worked to acquire and/or restore this habitat.  Aside from the obvious measures that they have taken, what else can they focus on to help meet their goal?  The answer is fish!

First, let me explain how wetlands are functionally important for many reasons.  They are known as Earth’s “kidney’s” because they take the contaminants out of upland water and then this water continues down to other waterways.  They help prevent flooding by taking in extra water.  They provide habitat to some of the most diverse ecosystems, which helps enhance the aesthetic value of the land.

Fish, as a whole, are very important to the wetland ecosystem.  Without being species specific, they are a major component in the food web.  Fish are a major prey source for many species and they also are a main predator of invertebrates.  If taken out of the wetland habitat, there would be major consequences for predators on fish.  The invertebrate populations would get out of control and they would eventually eat everything they could, which would have negative effects downward.  The wetland habitat could collapse.

Not only are fish extremely important to wetlands, but fish need wetlands to survive as well!  Many ocean and sea fishes use mangroves and other coastal marshes to lay their eggs in.  The cover of vegetation helps provide protection against predators and currents.  When the eggs hatch, the juveniles are also able to feed easier on the vegetation or invertebrates available.  Without these coastal marshes, fishes in Lake Erie would not be successful at reproducing.  Fishes also use seasonal wetlands to disperse to other waterways and breed.  When the seasonal wetlands do not last as long, are not as deep, or dry up completely, these fish populations are then isolated and are not able to disperse, i.e. they lose gene flow.

By protecting and restoring wetlands, recreational fisherman and commercial fisherman have a better chance at continuing to catch and do what they love.  But, with everything, there is a downside.  With increased wetlands and waterway connections come increased invasability by some of the fish that we don’t want in Ohio.  I’m looking at you, Common Carp.  As always, be sure to identify what you catch correctly.  If it is a Paddlefish or Sturgeon: throw it back; if it is a Common Carp or a Sea Lamprey: take it to your ranger.

 

Henning, J. A., et. Al. (2007). Use of seasonal freshwater wetlands by fishes in a temporal river floodplain. Journal of Fish Biology, 71:476:492

Johnson, David J., et al. (1997). Fish Communities in a Dike Lake Erie Wetland and An Adjacent Undiked Area. Wetlands, 17:43:54

Office of Environment and Heritage. (2017, October 24).  Fish In Wetlands.  Retrieved from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/water/wetlands/plants-and-animals-in-wetlands.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, February 27). Why are Wetlands Important?  Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/why-are-wetlands-important.

When most people envision fish, they oftentimes picture an individual swimming, feeding, or perhaps interacting with conspecifics (individuals of the same species). While these behaviors and interactions are important, many miss the idea of interspecific interactions (two or more individuals from different species). Streams are complex and fish encounter many different organisms, affecting one another in different ways. Recognizing these relationships can aid us in our understanding of the aquatic ecosystem, as well as, increase general appreciation of the fish within our streams (and other water bodies).  To demonstrate this, let us take a look at the Logperch darter (Percina caprodes) and a brief overview of interactions between two different species.

Logperch dwell on bottoms of streams and lakes, particularly with beds consisting of sand and gravel. This darter species can be identified by its very characteristic conical snout and striping along the body. Logperch prey upon aquatic invertebrates, using the conical snout to flip cobble and gravel to forage. This species can be found throughout Ohio as seen in the distribution map below.^1-3

Snuffbox Mussel and Logperch Interaction

The Snuffbox Mussel and Logperch interact in a very interesting way. As noted before, Logperch darters dwell near the bottom of streams and lakes. While foraging, Logperch can become entrapped by Snuffbox Mussels. The Snuffbox Mussel clamps the snout or head of the Logperch. Why does this interaction occur? Is it a protective measure for the mussel?

While this may seem strange, the Snuffbox mussel has ulterior motives. The Logperch acts as a host for the mussel larvae (called glochidia). The mussel will clamp down on the Logperch and release the glochidia, which in turn, uses the gills of the Logperch for development. Once the glochidia is released, the Snuffbox mussel releases the Logperch. Demonstration of this phenomenon can be seen in the following video:

The glochidia remain on the Logperch while developing for approximately 3 weeks. Although this ‘ride’ may seem short and perhaps insignificant, it is critical for Snuffbox Mussel development. This interaction drives the propagation of another species.^4-6

Round Goby and Logperch

Another example of interspecific interaction can be seen between the Logperch and Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus). The Round Goby is an invasive species, originating from the Black Sea. It is thought they were brought to North America through ballast ships.⁷ The addition of Round Gobies to North American habitats have affected many species, including Logperch. Balshine, et al. showed a displacement of Logperch by Round Gobies through displays of aggression (see graph below). This negative interaction is thought to be due to competition for both habitat and food.⁷ Round Gobies are also territorial, which cause displacement of Logperch, as well.

Why does this matter?

In order maintain healthy ecosystems, we must understand both the biology/life history of a given species, as well as, the relationships between species in a given system. By understanding the complexity, we will be more equipped to manage accordingly. For example, if Logperch darters show a decline, managers are able to expect mussels to be impacted, as well. The examples given for the Logperch are just two of many interactions. Also, by understanding interspecific interactions, we can gain appreciation for the beauty of our systems.

 

1.Becker, G.C. 1983. Perch family- Percidae. Pages 869-954. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

2.Spalding, W. 2006. Percina Caprodes (Online), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed November 02, 2017 at http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Percina_caprodes/.

3.Zimmerman, B. and Division of Wildlife. N.d. Stream Fishes of Ohio field guide (Online), Division of Wildlife. Accessed November 02, 2017 at https://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/publications/id%20guides/pub5127.pdf.

4.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Snuffbox (freshwater mussel) Epioblasma triquetra (Online), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed November 02, 2017 at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/snuffbox/SnuffboxFactSheet.html.

5.Schwalb, A.N., M.S. Poos, and J.D. Ackerman. 2011. Movement of Logperch-the obligate host fish for endangered snuffbox mussels: implications for mussel dispersal. Aquatic sciences 73: 223–231.

6.Datnow, B. 2011. Snuff Box Mussel (Video). Youtube, Accessed November 02, 2017 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V6V4daH_Ik&feature=youtu.be.

7.Kornis, M.S., N. Mercado-Silva, M.J. Vander Zanden. 2012. Twenty years of invasion: a review of round goby Neogobius melanostomus biology, spread and ecological implications. Journal of Fish Biology 80: 235–285.

8.Balshine, S., A. Verma, V. Chant, and T. Theysmeyer. 2005. Competitive interactions between Round Gobies and Logperch. Journal of Great Lakes Research 31: 68–77.

9.Sea Grant Michigan. N.d. Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus. Accessed November 02, 2017 at http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/explore/native-and-invasive-species/species/fish-species-in-michigan-and-the-great-lakes/round-goby/nggallery/thumbnails.

So are fish that important do we really need them? Maybe you enjoy eating fish but there are plenty of other protein sources right? Maybe you enjoy fishing but there are plenty of other things you can do with your free time. This may seem silly but this is the way many people think. People in wealthier countries or in landlocked areas may have a harder time seeing how important fish are. Not everyone relies on fish at the same degree in reference to protein consumption and economics. But looking worldwide fish are crucial to millions of people all around the world. People rely on fish for protein, jobs, recreation, and much more.

As many people may know fish are a protein source that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, calcium, zinc, and iron. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations “fish provide 6.7 percent of all protein consumed by humans”. This percentage however does not truly represent how important fish are to specific countries. For example, fish contribute 20% of all animal protein consumption in developing countries according to green facts. They also note that this percentage may be underrepresented because of unrecorded contribution of subsistence fisheries. We can continue to zoom in and see that people in more specific locations can be even more dependent on fish. For example, “It is estimated that fish contributes to at least 50 percent of total animal protein intake in some small island developing states, as well as in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, French Guiana, the Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia and Sierra Leone” according to Green Facts. It is clear that people are dependent on fish on varying levels for protein consumption.

Can people benefit from fish for more than food? Yes, millions of individuals or even countries rely on the fishing industry for economic gain. The fishing industry includes, fishermen, guides, recreational fishing and equipment, aqua culture, and more. In the United States alone the fishing industry contributes nearly $90 billion annually and supports over 1.5 million jobs according to Harris et al. 2014. Fish have historically been and continue to be one of the most traded foods worldwide. According to the FAO greater than 50% of fish exports by value originate in developing countries. The fishing industry contributes substantially to economies of countries all over the world.

So it may be hard to understand the importance of a resource if you are less dependent on it yourself. If you live in the planes of the western United States where fish diversity is relatively low and cattle or various livestock appear to out number nearly all other protein food sources, it is probably easy for you to view livestock as a more valuable resource. Now this may be true for you, it is still important to understand that people outside of your state or even country may more heavily rely on fish instead. People all over the world benefit from the fishing industry for individually specified reasons. It is clear however that developing countries and more specifically smaller islands are substantially more reliant on fish for protein consumption and economic gain. Although this paper is only looking at how people benefit from fish looking at protein intake and economics there are many other ways to look at this topic. Some follow up research could be how other animals depend on fish or how various components of the ecosystem are impacted by fish and how that can effect humans or recourses that humans care about or rely on.

 

 

Work Cited

 

FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome.200 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf

 

“Fisheries Latest Data.” Fisheries: 6. How Much Fish Is Consumed Worldwide?, FAO Fisheries, www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/l-2/06-fish-consumption.htm. Web. 31 Oct. 2017

 

“Global per Capita Fish Consumption Rises above 20 Kilograms a Year.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/421871/icode/. Web. 31 Oct. 2017.

 

Harris, Benjamin H., et al. “Economic Contributions of the U.S. Fishing Industry.” Brookings, Brookings, 28 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/09/03/economic-contributions-of-the-u-s-fishing-industry/. Web. 31 Oct. 2017.

The aquarium trade is a popular business and it is not difficult to obtain a pet fish. People may purchase fish for a hobby and others may have gained an additional pet goldfish when their child won at a ring toss game at the county fair.  For as many reasons people get a pet fish there are just as many reasons for why they may eventually want to it up. The fish may be sick, noncompatible with other tankmates, it may be too expensive to upgrade the aquarium when the fish grows, moving to a new apartment is a hassle with an aquarium and the list goes on.  The issue with this choice is when a fish owner decides that the most humane way to treat their pet is to release it to swim free in the wild (1).

Unfortunately releasing a pet is unethical due to the physiological stress from the new environment, it’s susceptibility to parasites and disease and possible predation from a larger predator (1).  If the pet(s) survive then there is a risk of the fish establishing a population and spreading which can be ecologically harmful if the fish is in a nonnative habitat. In the United states alone, 75 if 185 different exotic fishes that have been caught are known to have established breeding populations, with half of them being due to release or escape (1).

When a pet exotic fish becomes invasive it is not only costly to remove but can harm native species and alter predator prey dynamics. A classic example of the pet trade influencing invasive species is with the goldfish (Carassius auratus). The goldfish is a durable fish, that can tolerate a wide range of conditions, which makes all continents except Antarctica carry potential habitats for the fish (2). When the fish is established, the fish may deplete native food resources, taking away from native organisms. The fish can decrease the overall diversity of an ecosystem by uprooting plants and predation, increase cyanobacterial blooms, and alter the chemical properties of the water (2,3).

A solution to preventing invasive establishment is to return unwanted fish to a local pet store for resale or trade. The fish may also be given to another hobbyist, public aquarium or even a public institution such as a school. The last option is to have a fish humanely euthanized and assistance can be sought by a veterinarian or fishery biologist (1).

 

References

1) Problems with the Release of Exotic Fish. USGS. Available at https://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/fish/docs/dont_rel.aspx (Last accessed November 1, 2017).

2) Pinto L, Chandrasena N, Pera J, et al (2005) Managing invasive carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) for habitat enhancement at Botany Wetlands, Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15:447-462.

3) Guo Z, Sheath D, Trigo FA, et al (2016) Comparative functional responses of native and high-impacting invasive fishes: impact predictions for native prey populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 26:533-540.