Everyone knows that pollution is bad. We all do it to some extent, despite our efforts to minimize it. Often, we can get caught up in the mindset that a little bit of pollution or one littered item can’t hurt anything. However, this isn’t true. Scientists have discovered that even the smallest amounts of plastics in a fish’s habitat can cause major health problems (1). For instance, you drop a water bottle into the water from a boat. You’d think that this would have no effect on the fish that inhabit that water, but it does. Bits of plastic as small as half a millimeter can be eaten by small fish (1). In fact, fish tend to eat these bits quite often. They are unable to distinguish the difference between food and these bits of plastic. These pollutants not only affect adult fish but also prevent eggs from hatching, stunted growth, and increase their chances of being predated (1). These effects can cause major harm to not only an individual, but an entire population, community, and ecosystem. Populations can easily dwindle due to exposure to plastic. This can have a large effect on a community or ecosystem in many ways. For instance, if Northern Pike in Lake Erie prey on perch and the perch population is dwindling due to plastic, then the pike population can also begin to decline (2). This can then have an effect on other fish populations that are no longer predated by the pike, causing their population to soar and throwing the balance of the ecosystem out of whack. So next time you don’t care about that bottle falling out of a boat or you miss the trash can and don’t want to pick it up, think about the effect that you are having on our fish and their ecosystem!
Bibliography
1. Plastic cups found in fish. (1975). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 6(10), 148. doi:10.1016/0025-326x(75)90178-2
2. What do Northern Pike Eat? (2017, February 13). Retrieved September 26, 2017, from http://exc-adventures.com/what-do-northern-pike-eat/
Image courtesy of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources website
Hey Central Ohio!
I’ve got some good news for you regarding the water quality at Alum Creek. It has recently been discovered, by Ohio Dominican University Students, that a rare fish is inhabiting Alum Creek. The fish is a Tippecanoe Darter (Etheostoma Tippecanoe if you want to impress your friends with the latin name), which is considered a threatened species in Ohio. Darters are small fish (Tippecanoe darters rarely exceeding 1.5 inches long!) that prefer to inhabit riffles (relatively shallow reaches of a river where the water “tumbles” over gravel and cobbles). Historically they have been found in the northeastern U.S. from Ohio to Tennessee vertically and from Pennsylvania to Illinois laterally where they occur in sporadic or patchy populations. However, these darters have been extirpated (eliminated) in many of their historical reaches including the Muskingum River watershed here in Ohio.
Their numbers largely have been decreasing because of excess sedimentation and habitat alteration. Excess sedimentation has the potential to fill in the crevasses in the riffles where the fish lay their eggs, and can also cause increased turbidity (cloudiness in the water) which can make it harder for the fish to find each other during mating seasons. Sedimentation can occur in both urban and rural agricultural areas. Habitat alteration can occur when impoundments like dams or levees impede the water and sediment transfer abilities of the stream; channelizing a stream (constructing a floor and walls around the river usually with concrete) also eliminates all potential habitat and mostly occurs in urban areas.
Restoration efforts are diverse and involve many organizations, local governments and concerned citizens working in unison. One organization, Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries (FACT), has been working to better the watershed as a whole since 1998 through education/outreach, advocacy, and restoration events like river clean-ups and corridor restoration. It’s important that these sensitive darters were found in Alum Creek because they are good indicators of water quality. Finding them in Alum Creek is not only good news for restoration efforts, but for all us in Central Ohio that care about healthy waterways!
Have you ever caught a tagged fish and wondered what to do with it?
If yes, below you will find answers to common questions regarding tagged fish and reporting. If not, consider the role you can play in assuring the fish you enjoy catching continue to thrive.
Why are fishes tagged?
Fish populations are studied by biologists and fisheries managers alike, and without this dedicated field of professionals, many of the sought-after fishes in Ohio would have unhealthy numbers. Tagging fish allows for estimates of abundance, behavior, and survival patterns.
Who is collecting this information?
In Ohio, the Department of Natural Resources, among other agencies, collect data on a variety of fish species in different locations. Independent researchers may also be collecting information.
What do tags look like?
There are a variety of tags; ones most commonly used are anchor tags, coded wire tags, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, and visible implant transponder (VIE) tags.
Saugeye caught in Alum Creek with an anchor tag. Source: ODNR
Anchor tags carry information about reporting, while the other types are mainly specific for researchers to identify (or track in the case of PIT tags).
What do I do if I catch a tagged fish?
Reporting tagged fish is easy and some researchers may even provide a cash reward.
Some tags may have contact information, such as a phone number or email address, and others may have a tracking number. In most cases, you are able to harvest the fish. But if you decide to catch-and-release, make sure to leave the tag attached.
Recently, the Toledo Lucas County Health Department has issued a recreational public health advisory for a portion of the Maumee River due to the current algae bloom. The toxic algae, also known as microcystis, has spread to the Maumee River from Lake Erie. Harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie are caused by run-off from nearby farms and cities. The bloom of microcystins is so prominent now that the top of the affected water is coated with the thick, vibrant green algae. Two tests that were taken in the Maumee River resulted in 1.8 and 11.8 parts per billion of microcystins, which is under the 20ppb limit set by the World Health Organization for safe drinking water. While the water is still safe to drink for humans, the algae can still be toxic to local wildlife if they have been exposed for prolonged periods of time. Earlier this month, tests along Maumee Bay State Park recorded measurements of upwards of 250ppb in areas but had decreased down to just 30ppb by September 11th.
Areas of water with a strong presence of microcystins can result in low or depleted oxygen levels, also known as hypoxic zones. When algae die, they drop to the water floor and decompose. The bacteria that decompose the algae respire, which absorbs oxygen in the area. Larger blooms of algae being decomposed lead to greater amounts of oxygen being consumed by the bacteria. When the water is warmer, the oxygen at the bottom of the water is not replaced because the warm surface water will not blend with the cooler water on the bottom. The current warm front northwest Ohio has been experiencing this September has led the temperature levels in the Maumee River to increase by 23-25 degrees Fahrenheit. Along with the rising heat, the area has not received much rain lately, which is causing the river to become more stagnant. These conditions could pose a threat to local fish populations if the blooms become worse in the area. Some fishes will be unaffected because they can swim beneath the algae and avoid hypoxic zones, but other species such as the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) or rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) may not be as fortunate. During this time of year, these fish are feeding on aquatic invertebrates near the bottom of the water column. In times when oxygen is depleted, their prey cannot escape to areas with more oxygen and die off. Less prey to feed on leads to decreased habitat quality in these species. With the current climate trends leading to warmer temperatures, it is likely that northwest Ohio will continue experiencing these algal blooms and hypoxic zones in their waters, despite the efforts of nearby cities and farmers to mitigate run-off. This may have an effect the future of fish populations in the region.
Cited Sources:
1.) US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Hypoxia.” NOAA’s National Ocean Service, 6 Oct. 2014, oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/hypoxia/. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
2.) “Maumee River recreational advisory continues during algal bloom.” The Blade, The Toledo Blade, 23 Sept. 2017, www.toledoblade.com/local/2017/09/23/Maumee-River-recreational-advisory-continues-during-algal-bloom.html. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
3.) “Green algae leads to water advisory for Maumee River near Downtown Toledo.” The Blade, The Toledo Blade, 21 Sept. 2017, www.toledoblade.com/local/2017/09/21/Recreational-water-advisory-issued-for-Maumee-River-near-Downtown-Toledo.html. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
4.) “Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Technical Bulletin No. 3.” How is Fish Habitat Affected? Lake Erie’s Dead Zones, July 2015, wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/public%20areas/OWC_TechBull3.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
5.) Staff, WTOL. “Algal bloom on Lake Erie thrives in September heat wave.” Wtol.com, 25 Sept. 2017, www.wtol.com/story/36449847/algal-bloom-on-lake-erie-thrives-in-september-heat-wave. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
How are your Prescriptions Effecting Fish Populations ?
Have you or anyone you know ever discarded pills by flushing them down the toilet or washing them down the drain?
Do you know where these medications that are flushed or washed down the drain go after you lose sight of them?
Do you know how to properly discard of pills or other pharmaceutical products?
(1)
When I began asking myself these questions I realized that there was a lot that I was unsure of myself when it came to the proper disposal of household medications.
I began thinking about the first question, “have you or someone you know ever discarded pills by flushing them down the toilet or washing them down the drain?”, and I realized that I myself am guilty this action.
I remember being prescribed medication for temporary issues or after-surgery care throughout my life, but shortly after the issues were resolved I was left with pills that were no longer needed or eventually became expired. I distinctly remember cleaning out my medicine cabinet and flushing these unneeded pills down the toilet without ever thinking where these pills go or what they could effect once they were out of my site.
I began to wonder who else around me were discarding their medication in the same manner.
I surveyed 20 individuals that I know.
I first surveyed my four roommates that I live with here in Columbus, Ohio. Two out of the four roommates admitted to previously discarding pharmaceuticals by flushing them down the toilet.
Next, I surveyed family members that live in Mansfield, Ohio. Out of my ten family members, three of them admitted to discarding medications either through drains or toilets.
Lastly, I surveyed my immediate family members living in Massillon, Ohio (Northeast Ohio) and 2 of the four members of my family (mother and father) admitted to previously discarding their medications through the toilet.
That is eight people (including me) over a 100 miles of Ohio that are contributing pharmaceuticals to our water system in some way. This is only a glimpse of my closest group of people surrounding me, with I’m sure many more individuals that are discarding medications in similar ways.
These results led me to begin thinking about my next question I asked at the beginning of this discussion, “where do the items that are flushed or washed down the drain go after you lose sight of them?”. Specifically, how do these medications affect the environment and organisms that I am experiencing around me.
A study conducted in the Great Lakes region by Randolph Singh from the University of Buffalo explored how flushed pharmaceuticals are affecting species of fish, primarily walleye, bass, and perch. Throughout the course of their research they discovered the presence of anti-depressant in the brains of 10 different species of fish. Furthermore, they indicated that this presence of anti-depressants in the fish brains caused the fishes’ behaviors to be altered. The fish studied began to lose their instinctual behaviors to evade predators. They then became an easier target to kill and this pattern could eventually dramatically effect populations of fish living in the Great Lakes region1.
Singh continues that the amount of these medications found in the fish that were causing behavior changes were only in parts per trillion. This means that if the public continues to be uninformed and continues its trend of flushing medications down the drain, this issue could grow and affect more fish or potentially begin affecting humans in the food chain line.
After knowing what these flushed medications are doing to the environment and organisms in my own state of Ohio, I began looking t the third question I posed “how to properly discard of pills or other pharmaceutical products?”.
The FDA also mentions that if these drug take-back programs are not feasible, drugs can be thrown away in a household trash if handled in the correct way. They should first be combined with an unpalatable substance such as dirt, coffee grounds, or kitty litter in some type of container. This will create a holding place for these medications that will prevent the leaching through soil into aquatic ecosystems by groundwater or precipitation.
I was not always informed on how improperly discarded medications can cause detrimental effects to fish populations or even there was a right or wrong way to properly discard medications. However, now that I know the facts and that there are precautions that can be taken to avoid this phenomenon I will begin to integrate this into my life and I challenge others to do the same !
Text References:
1.Shoup, C. (2017, September, 15) Flushed Pills affecting Great Lakes Fish, Study Says. The News-Messneger. Retrieved from http://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/news/local/2017/09/15/flushed-pills-affecting-great-lakes-fish-study-says/658216001/
What is a lamprey? A lamprey is a primitive fish that looks like a worm and dates back to 360 million years ago. There are 38 known species and 7 in Ohio. Three of the species are parasitic and four are non-parasitic. All of them have a non-parasitic juvenile life stage called an ammocete.
Ammocete lamprey found in southeastern Ohio stream.
Image source: Scott Glassmeyer 2016
The lifespan is depending on the species but ranges from 3 to 7 years (Hardisty, 1944). They spend most of their time in the soil as an ammocete feeding on detritus and algae. A study from an Ohio State University master’s student thesis found Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), as ammocetes, eat more fresh plant an soil organic matter when younger and more algae when older (Evans, 2012).
The eyes of an ammocete are not fully developed because they don’t use their eyes for seeing more than light and dark. They spend the first 3 years in sandy soils usually beneath leaf patches in small rivers and streams.
Head of ammocete lamprey from southeastern Ohio stream.
Image source: Scott Glassmeyer 2016
The dark holes on the side of the “neck” are gill openings where water goes in and out to exchange oxygen across the gills. They do not actively pump water across the gills like most other fish, it simply moves in and out through natural movements.
They metamorphose into adults in the sand and sometimes gravel between July and early winter (Hardisty, 1944). Depending on the species when they metamorphose to adults they transform into parasitic feeding adults and non-parasitic adults (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Life cycles of parasitic and non-parasitic life stages.
Non-parasitic lamprey metamorphose into adults, spawn, and die without feeding. Parasitic lamprey metamorphose into adults, feed on larger fish by latching onto the side and sucking out blood until the victim dies. After feeding and growing, they return to the river, spawn and die. When lamprey are of reproductive age, they spawn in rivers usually at around 10 inches of water right above a riffle in a nest that they dig out. The eggs stay in the substrate for a few weeks and when they hatch, the life cycle repeats itself.
Video Source: Scott Glassmeyer spring 2016
Evans, T. (2012). Assessing Food and Nutritional Resources of Native and Invasive Lamprey Larvae Using Natural Abundance Isotopes. In J. Bauer, M. Daly, & S. Ludsin (Eds.): Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University.
Hardisty, M. W. (1944). The life history and growth of the brook lamprey (Lampetra Planeri). Journal of Animal Ecology, 13, 110-122. doi:10.2307/1444
Have you ever wondered what some of the most colorful species of fish are in Ohio? While it may seem like Ohio couldn’t possibly be home to fish of all colors of the rainbow, there are many. We have gathered some of the most brilliantly colored fish below, one for each color of the rainbow!
The Redside Dace has a distinctive wide red band that stretches along its body, qualifying it as the first fish in this ROY-G-BIV series. They are found in the Eastern Region of the state and in the Mad River (west central Ohio) and are often seen jumping into the air to catch insects flying just above the surface of the water!
Photo courtesy of ODNR
This colorful species was accepted as extirpated from Ohio since 1893, until a consulting company found an individual in the Ohio River in 2010. Their disappearance for some time can be attributed to poor water quality: they most likely sought refuge in up stream areas and returned recently due to improving quality. The Gilt Darter is now considered Endangered in Ohio and can be found only in the clearest waters, near swift rifles, and around a very rocky substrate with large boulders.
Photo courtesy of ODNR
During spawning, male Pumpkinseed Sunfish dig nests anywhere from 6-12 inches deep and females may lay up to 2,900 eggs! These fish are found farther north than any other Lepomis sunfish species, and are often found in the bays and marshes surrounding Lake Erie.
Photo courtesy of ODNR
This beautiful fish, belonging to the Percidae family, is known to have brilliant green colorings along its body, head, and dorsal fin. The males typically have a much brighter coloration than females or juveniles, and will defend the area where eggs are laid until hatching, upon which time they will no longer care for the young. These fish can be found in both Lake Erie and Ohio River drainage, and have been victim to the invasive Round Goby in some areas where they were historically found.
Photo courtesy of ODNR
These multicolored darters are considered Endangered in Ohio and are found in natural lakes formed through glacial activity, most commonly known as kettle lakes. The females are not as colorful as the males, which are known to have blue markings along their bodies and throughout their fins.
Photo courtesy of B. Zimmerman, via ODNR
This popular sport fish has deep black blotches along their head, bodies, and fins that most closely resembles the color indigo. Belonging to the Centrarchidae family, females can lay up to 30,000 eggs in the nest created by the male!
Photo courtesy of ODNR
While “blue” is in this fish’s common name, it has a tendency to look very violet when young, making it the perfect species for the violet spectrum of the rainbow. The Blue Catfish is among the largest species found in North America, only outcompeted by the Alligator Gar and a few species of Sturgeon; the largest recorded individual in Ohio weighed 96 pounds! They can be found in the Ohio River, mainly in the section stretching from Portsmouth downstream to Cincinnati.
Photo courtesy of B. Zimmerman, via ODNR
In order to get the general public excited about Ohio fishes, I created a personality quiz called ‘What Ohio Fish Are You?’. After answering a few questions, anyone can be matched up to one of the seven species of Ohio fishes I have selected, dependent upon the answers they choose. The “personality” is based on the ecology and behaviors of each species. There is a description that goes along with each species, which gives further detail about the Ohio fish your personality best matches. I attained this information through the Ohio Division of Wildlife’s website: http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/species-guide-index/fish
The largest indigenous fish found within the Greats Lakes Basin is the Lake Sturgeon (Aciperser fulvescens). Lake Sturgeon have flourished in their natural habitat since the glaciers that shaped the basin we know today retreated and gave way to the Great Lakes. However, this once booming population found throughout the majority of the Great Lakes Basin, has declined rapidly since the late 1800s and early 1900s. Today, the Lake Sturgeon is recognized by the American Fisheries Society as either endangered, threatened, or of special concern in 19 of the 20 states throughout its range5. Overexploitation of the Lake Sturgeon due to its importance in commercial fisheries and sport fishing, as well as, habitat alteration in the streams and rivers that the Sturgeon rely upon for spawning are considered two of the most influential drivers of the current status of the fish1. Current management practices aimed at the recovery of the Lake Sturgeon have proven challenging due to several life history and reproductive traits associated the fish. Lake Sturgeon prefer clean gravel shoals and stream rapids during spawning2. In addition, the Lake Sturgeon requires many years to reach sexual maturity, have slow growth rates, and intermittent spawning cycles that make population restoration progress difficult to track in small periods of time3. Understanding these traits and how they alter management, on top of controlling exploitation, has provided the framework guiding our current recovery practices. This framework has offered a hopeful outlook into the future of Lake Sturgeon populations.
It is important to understand how the Lake Sturgeon population declined from its historical abundances to being classified as endangered or threatened across the majority of its range. Between 1879 and 1900 an estimated 4 million pounds of Lake Sturgeon were harvested annually5. Lake Sturgeon populations were decimated throughout the basin and many of the commercial and sport fishing operations struggled to take in sustainable numbers of catch. Management of Lake Sturgeon exploitation began to spread in the early 1900s as many states began to regulate commercial and recreational fishing. With these regulations in place, Lake Sturgeon population status was widely unknown for vast majority of the last century. Along with overexploitation, human induced destruction and fragmentation of spawning habitat greatly hindered that ability of populations to recover. The installation of dams throughout the tributaries of the Great Lakes prohibited adult Lake Sturgeon from reaching preferred spawning sites located in streams and rivers. Land use, such as extensive deforestation and agricultural development, gave way to increased erosion and siltation that covered these the once prime gravel spawning habitats found in the tributaries3. Documented research of increased water pollution causing low hatching success and decreased survival of young Sturgeon further enhanced the population crash illustrated below1. These anthropogenic stressors act as the primary source of disturbance in natural reproducing populations of Lake Sturgeon and, as stated earlier, mitigating these disturbances has been the main goal of recovery initiatives.
Graph illustrating both the rapid decline of Lake Sturgeon population numbers, but also the decline in juvenile size. Retrieved from: Paragamian et al. 2001
Current Management Practices:
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) consists of over 40 multi-agency partnerships whose mission is to preserve, protect, and recover populations of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes Basin1. Funding aimed at reestablishing naturally spawning Lake Sturgeon populations, in addition to hatchery based populations, have initiated many of current recovery projects found in the Great Lakes. The combination of closed seasons, catch limits, and gear restrictions have nearly eliminated all harvesting and recreational exploitation from the Great Lakes in both the United States and Canada. Increased knowledge of habitat fragmentation caused by the installation of dams has resulted in efforts to remove dams that are no longer in use. On top of removal efforts, fish passages through and around barriers that prevent upstream travel have been implemented in existing Sturgeon streams, enhancing the opportunity for Sturgeon to reproduce naturally through many generations. Stream-side rearing facilities have been installed in the majority of the 26 tributaries that currently support Sturgeon1. Rehabilitation efforts and rearing facilities will stock approximately 25,000 Sturgeon each year in an effort to enhance the existing populations basin-wide4. Implementation of human-constructed reefs systems that resemble native stream beds, consistent monitoring of spring run numbers, and consistent communication and monitoring of water usage by hydroelectric power plants are all considered essential for health populations1,3.
Pictured above is a streamside rearing facility withLake Sturgeon eggs and juvenile fish raised as part of restorations efforts. Retrieved from: https://greatlakesinform.org/knowledge-network/532
Looking into the Future:
As we look into the future of Lake Sturgeon populations in the Great Lakes Basin, there a number of successful operations that have populations trending in the right direction. Many of the stocking and recovery programs initiated in recent years have existedlong enough for reproduction to occur, yet strategies are full go. Recovery efforts in the New York ‘s Oneida-Lake system and Oswegatchie River have existed long enough for reproduction to occur. Reports indicate that not only are Lake Sturgeon reproducing naturally within these systems, but they are displaying unparalleled growth rates6. Lake Michigan is reporting increasing growth rates as a result of enhanced water quality6. The St. Louis river, which has been extensively cleaned and stocked with thousands of fry and fingerlings beginning in 1983, is a shining example of the success of current recovery efforts6. Building on these success stories and continuing to spread awareness will aid our efforts to return these magnificent fish to their once historic populations numbers.
Schram, S. T., Lindgren, J., & Evrard, L. M. (1999). Reintroduction of lake sturgeon in the st. louis river, western lake superior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 19(3), 815-823.
Auer, N. A. (1999). Population characteristics and movements of lake sturgeon in the sturgeon river and lake superior. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 25(2), 282-293
Smith, K. M., & King, D. K. (2005). Movement and habitat use of yearling and juvenile lake sturgeon in black lake, michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134(5), 1159-1172
Holtgren, J. M., Ogren, S. A., Paquet, A. J., & Fajfer, S. (2007). Design of a portable streamside rearing facility for lake sturgeon. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 69(4), 317-323
Over recent decades, the adverse effects of dams have given rise to an interest in dam alternatives and removal in the management and conservation community (Hart, 2002). Barriers such as dams may impede and delay organism migration, fragment habitats, alter the natural cycle of flow, and shift species diversity and composition (Hart, 2002). Hydroelectric dams, in particular, have damaged the ecological integrity and have decimated runs of migratory fish in many of the rivers in the Eastern United States (Waldman, 2016).
The Gorge Metro Park Dam was originally constructed in 1913 for hydroelectric power on the Cuyahoga River (“Ohio EPA”, 2015). It served this purpose until 1958 and was then used until 1992 as a source of cooling water for a coal-fired power plant (“Ohio EPA”, 2015). In the 2000s the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency declared this 57-foot-high and 440-foot-wide dam an impairment to aquatic life along the middle and lower segments of the Cuyahoga River both of which have been designated areas of concern by the International Joint Commission (Conn, 2017). The dam has segmented the Cuyahoga River altering its flow and chemistry by essentially creating a nearly 1.5-mile-long “lake” (Conn, 2017). This allows for an unhealthy accumulation of algae which reduces oxygen levels and has the potential to kill fish (Conn, 2017). The dam also acts as a barrier to a variety of migratory fish such as suckers and noninvasive native lampreys (Conn, 2017).
Recent studies have raised concerns over the impacts of obstructions of the demography of many lamprey species (Nunn et al., 2017). Lampreys tend to face a variety of threats throughout their life cycles such as pollution, habitat degradation, predation, and barriers to migration (Nunn et al., 2017). Obstructions such as dams prevent lampreys from reaching spawning grounds and often result in delayed spawning or reduced spawning success due to a large amount of energy expended to overcome the obstacles (Nunn et al., 2017). This could possibly result in low densities and missing age classes in suitable habitat (Nunn et al., 2017).
There is also a common misconception that suckers are tolerant to degraded conditions (Cooke et al., 2005). However, recent studies say otherwise. The decline in some species is a result of lack of conservation, loss of habitat, and competition. In addition, stream alteration due to dams and blockage of migration routes are key factors (Cooke et al., 2005). Catostomid offspring develop upstream and may not be able to reach far enough downstream where suitable habitat and food is available (Cooke et al., 2005). In addition, many sucker species are sensitive to river discharge and water velocity which may be irregular due to the presence of dams (Cooke et al., 2005).
As a result, to these concerns, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Cuyahoga Falls Mayor Don Walters are working with local, state, and federal agencies to facilitate a plan for the removal of the Gorge Metro Park Dam in 2019 (McGraw, 2017). This will ironically coincide with the 50th Anniversary of the 1969 fire (McGraw, 2017). It is estimated to cost about $70 million dollars for removal and cleanup; most of which will be put towards sediment removal (McGraw, 2017). This is a key component as approximately 832,000 cubic yards of sediment lies under the dam containing arsenic, mercury, and other harmful hydrocarbons that must be safely removed in order to prevent further harm (Downing, 2015). If the current plans are feasible, not only will the removal of the dam yield a better environment for fish and healthier water by allowing the river to resume its natural filtering process and flow; but it will also create a safer and healthier community for eco-tourism and environmental education (Conn, 2017).
Sources:
Conn, J. (2017, April 19). Gorge Dam removal pushing ahead, despite threats to Great Lakes Restoration funds. Retrieved September 27, 2017, fromhttp://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2017/03/officials_still_looking_to_tak.html
Cooke, S. J., Bunt, C. M., Hamilton, S. J., Jennings, C. A., Pearson, M. P., Cooperman, M. S., & Markle, D. F. (2005). Threats, conservation strategies, and prognosis for suckers (Catostomidae) in North America: insights from regional case studies of a diverse family of non-game fishes. Biological Conservation,121(3), 317-331. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.015
Downing, B. (2015, September 24). Removing Gorge Dam on Cuyahoga River between Akron and Cuyahoga Falls could cost about $70 million. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/removing-gorge-dam-on-cuyahoga-river-between-akron-and-cuyahoga-falls-could-cost-about-70-million
Hart, D. D., Johnson, T. E., Bushaw-Newton, K. L., Horowitz, R. J., Bednarek, A. T., Charles, D. F., Velinsky, D. J. (2002). The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Bioscience,52 (8), 669-681. doi:10.1130/9780813741215
McGraw, D. J. (2017, March 27). America’s Great Dam Teardown Means Cleaner Water, More Parkland. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://nextcity.org/features/view/dam-removal-cuyahoga-ohio-epa-funding-restore-watersheds
Nunn, A. D., Taylor, R. J., Cowx, I. G., Noble, R. A., Bolland, J. D., & Harvey, J. P. (2017). Demography of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) ammocoete populations in relation to potential spawning-migration obstructions. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,27(4), 764-772. doi:10.1002/aqc.2748
Ohio EPA. (2015, September 21). Feasibility Study for the Removal of the Gorge Dam.
Waldman, J. (2016, August 6). Undamming Rivers: A Chance For New Clean Energy Source. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from http://e360.yale.edu/features/undamming_rivers_a_chance_for_new_clean_energy_source
Ohio contains over 40,000 miles of streams, 2.4 million acres of inland water (including Ohio waters of Lake Erie), and 450 miles of the Ohio River (DoW 4/2012).
Usually when people envision fish of Ohio, they generally think of species such as bass, walleye, catfish, and perch. When people think of fish, ones that are important to the economy, comparatively large, and/or fairly easy to identify are the first to thought. Many know little of the other species comprising the waterways of Ohio. With such variety in the waterways of Ohio, from tiny stream to large river, to wetlands and various sizes of lakes, the species have become just as diverse and unique as their habitats. Ohio supports more than 170 species of fish (DoW x/2012), many of which escape detection from the average sportsperson. Of this large number of species dwelling within Ohio waters, generally less than 30 are considered a “game species”. These “other” fish are either too small to eat the bait used in conventional fishing, have no interest in it, or live in areas that aren’t normally fished, among other reasons.
One such unique group of fish are the darters (in the Percidae family). More than 20 species of this small, benthic (bottom-dwelling) fish family live in Ohio rivers and streams (with a few living in reservoirs); areas with moving water. The largest of this group, the logperch darter, is likely the only one to ever be caught on a line and hook. It can reach 7 inches in length while the average for others in this family is 3-5 inches. The smallest (one of which is the tippecanoe darter – a threatened species) rarely exceeds 1 ½ inches as an adult. This group also has members in it that comprise some of the most colorful fish in Ohio, yet few people get the chance to enjoy their displays. The orangethroat, rainbow, banded, and variegate darters (to name a few) are likely the most brilliantly marked of all Ohio fish species. These fish sport bright oranges, blues, and greens coupled with striking changes in dark to light colors in a variety of eye-catching patterns, all squeezed onto a fish smaller than the length of your hand, sometimes on a fish the length of a finger.
Some of these tiny jewels could potentially be in your backyard stream if the right requirements are met. There are a lot of things a landowner can do to increase the quality of the creeks and streams on their property, potentially leading to more diversity in wildlife and definitely improving water quality downstream. Darters and many other small species of fish feed on macroinvertebrates (such as the larvae of crane flies, mayflies, and black flies), but if “macros” can’t survive in the stream, the stream can’t support those that depend on them. Macros tend to be sensitive to water quality and they also have other needs to be met such as substrate, food sources, and hiding places. On an interesting side note, darters get their name from their habit of darting away from danger. Usually they merely rest on the bottom of the stream/river searching for macros. Their hunting method is likely why they have evolved to no longer have a swim bladder (or only have a small one) (PA Fish & Game). Swim bladders are how most fish control their position in the water column. They fill it with gas (in various ways that I won’t explain here) or empty it depending on whether they want to be closer to the surface of the water or closer to the bottom. This reduces their energy input into movement.
There are many ways to mitigate, or improve/reduce your negative impact on a stream. Reducing the amount of chemicals you use on your yard (such as fertilizer and weed-killers) and allowing a “buffer zone” of native vegetation to grow alongside the stream are great ways to help (DoW x/2012). Pollution and runoff highly affect what can and cannot survive in a stream. The plants will help filter out chemical runoff from yards and roads and the trees and taller vegetation will shade the stream, reducing the water’s temperature (and allowing more dissolved oxygen to be held in the water). Vegetation also reduces bank erosion, which in turn reduces sediment in the water that can stifle fish eggs amongst the gravel in the streambed before they even have a chance to hatch. These plants provide habitat and food for macro-invertebrates, too. As they grow in and around the banks of the waterway, they drop leaves and twigs (etc) that provide food and hiding places for macros. Providing for the lowest part of the food chain, in turn, provides for the species that feed on them.
Blog by: Nicole Freshour
References
Ohio Division of Wildlife; Publication 5334, Sport Fish of Ohio Identification 4/2012
Ohio Division of Wildlife; Publication 5127, Stream Stream Fishes of Ohio Field Guide x/2012
The Gilt Darter is a colorful fish that is currently endangered in Ohio. While endangered in Ohio the International Union for Conservation of Nature listed it as a species of least concern, since it has many sub-populations and large populations throughout the southeast [1]. The gilt darter was believed to be extirpated from Ohio since an individual has not been spotted since 1893. That was until 2010 where an individual Gilt Darter was caught at the Ohio River [2].
The Gilt darters are believed to have been from the upper big sandy river basin (KY) and moved back into the Ohio River as water quality improved. Their habitat preference is clear, fast to moderate-flowing riffles or clean pools in a river. They also have preferences for habitat that contain algae and aquatic vegetation. Dams and siltation (pollution of water by suspended sediments) pose a great threat to this darter, who is intolerant of murky and slow riffles [1;2].
These little fish can be used as barometers for stream health, since they are intolerant of change. Watershed management can gauge physical and chemical deterioration based on this darter and other organisms associated with a river system. While little is known about the darter and the extent of its contribution to an ecosystem, preservation of an endangered species is important. For wildlife, as stated by the Congress discussing the Endangered Species Act of 1973, “are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational and scientific value to the nation and its people” [4]. This organism is unique for its beauty and its ability to be used as an environmental monitor, and if management can work toward better water quality who knows what else extirpated animals may return with the Gilt Darter.
With regards to aquatic creatures, sea creatures tend to ‘steal the show,’ as they say. To be fair, there are some really neat and quirky species that inhabit the oceans. Like this guy….
Stonefish (Synanceia spp.): This family contains the most venomous fish species- Photo by walknboston
And this rarely seen shark…
Frilled Shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus): An ancestral shark rarely seen by humans- Photograph by Awashima Marine Park, Getty Images
Freshwater fishes, however, seem to get less attention despite containing a lot of neat variation, as well.
In Ohio, we have the super neat American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula).
American paddlefish (I mean, seriously, look at those gills!)- Photograph by aqualive.xooit.fr
The American paddlefish is made of cartilage and is known for its protruding, spatula-like snout. This snout is unique in that it is covered in electoreceptors, aiding in the capture of its prey (which consists of plankton). American paddlefish are scaleless and require slow moving water. A given female spawns every two to three years and averages 7,500 eggs/pound of her body weight.
That’s a lot of eggs.
Most likely you have not seen this quirky looking cartilaginous organism. The reason this species is not more well-known is most likely due to its low abundance. In fact, the American paddlefish is listed as threatened in Ohio. This is due to habitat alteration, pollution, and caviar-loving individuals (mmmm…nothing like some undeveloped paddlefish to go with my 1917 cabernet sauvignon).
Paddlefish used to be abundant throughout Ohio’s river systems and the Great Lakes. Shown below is an excerpt of a table found in a USGS report on fish abundance in the Great and Little Miami River Basins. Paddlefish, as seen in the table, were no longer sited in any of the three surveyed rivers after 1980. Scientists believe the increase in sediment and chemical compounds in the water due to urbanization and agricultural runoff greatly affected this species.
Table excerpt taken from “Occurrence and Distribution of Fish Species in the Great and Little Miami River Basins, Ohio and Indiana, Pre-1900 to 1998”, USGS.
Now paddlefish are only seen in the Ohio river from about Portsmouth to Cincinnati.
So next time your annoying, perpetually vacationing friend tries to gloat about snorkeling with Angelfish, you can stun him/her with a photoshopped picture of you high-fiving an American paddlefish (because… why not?).
A totally realistic depiction to use for bragging rights (*cough cough*). – Pre-altered photographs by Caddo Lake Institute and Euspert.com
Asian carp respond to complex noise created by fishing boat. Source: Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research
Background: We all know the story of the Asian carp invasion in the US. In the 1970s, fish farmers from Southern states in the US began importing Asian carp (Silver Carp and Bighead Carp) from China in an effort to control phytoplankton blooms in their aquaculture ponds and sewage treatment lagoons. Asian carp are filter feeders; they feed on small food items at the base of the food chain. Trouble began when fish escaped into the Mississippi River watershed after floods that breached the man-made lagoons in Arkansas. Asian carp can consume up to 20% of their body weight per day. They grow quickly and can decimate plankton populations, small floating organisms that form the foundation of the aquatic food chain and are an important food source to native fishes. Asian carp outcompete native fish populations and have quickly taken over the Mississippi watershed. Once they enter an ecosystem, they are extremely difficult to eradicate; Adult Asian carp have no predators in North America and females lay about half a million eggs each time they spawn. Asian carp continue to expand their range northward, threatening the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Asian Carp in the Great Lakes? Asian carp have not yet established sustainable populations in the Great Lakes. However, there have been several close calls.
A Bighead Carp was caught 6 miles from Lake Michigan near Chicago below the first electric barrier.
A Silver Carp was caught by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC) in the Des Plaines River in Illinois only 14 kilometers south of Lake Michigan.
Environmental DNA (eDNA) evidence has been found in several locations on the Lake Michigan side of electric barriers. However, positive eDNA doesn’t necessarily indicate presence of live carp – the source could be from a dead fish, or transported through other sources such as bilge water from boats.
Asian carp eggs, fry and fingerlings were found in the Wabash River in Indiana. If the Wabash River floods, there is potential for Asian carp to enter the Maumee River, which flows directly into Lake Erie.
Between 1995-2000, three Bighead Carp were found in western Lake Erie. Follow-up surveys suggest that there is not a reproducing population in Lake Erie.
There is some speculation over whether Asian carp could have a stable population in the Great Lakes. Because Asian carp are filter feeders, they need algae and plankton to sustain larger populations. They may not be able to establish stable populations in deeper, colder lakes that are less productive, such as Lake Michigan or Lake Superior. If an invasion of Asian carp in the Great Lakes occurs, it will likely take several years for the population to become problematic, based on historical carp invasions and models of invasive species, and the size of the Great Lakes.
Preventing Asian Carp entry to the Great Lakes: Prevention efforts are ongoing to keep Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. Current actions to block invasion to the Great Lakes focus on the Mississippi River Basin (MRB) and the Ohio River Basin (ORB). The shipping canal that connects the Mississippi River to Lake Michigan is the pathway of most concern in the MRB, and multiple barriers have been established there. In the ORB, agencies like the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife are working together to identify potential pathways for carp to enter Lake Erie where future barriers could be most effective. Physical, electrical and behavioral barriers are being used in places were Mississippi River tributaries connect to the Great Lakes.
Physical Barriers: Dams and screens are common physical barriers to Asian carp. Dams across the Mississippi prevent Asian carp from swimming further upstream. However, most dams are not optimized to reduce carp passage. Lock and Dam #8 is the only dam on the river that has been adjusted to target carp. The Des Plaines River Bypass Barricade was built between the river and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent Asian carp dispersal during a possible flooding event. Physical barriers are often used in combination with electrical and behavioral barriers.
Electrical Barriers: Electrical barriers send low-voltage, pulsing, direct current through underwater electrodes, creating an electrified field throughout the water column. They block fish by shocking them if they get to close because a portion of electrical energy applied to the water transfers to the fish. The electric current also inhibits a fish’s ability to maintain its position in the current. When fish encounter the current, they experience galvanotaxis. Galvanotaxis is a process that immobilizes muscles and physically stops fish from moving through the barrier. It can also lead to taxis, or forced swimming. This process sometimes causes trauma or is lethal, and may requires extra infrastructure to remove dead fish. Stronger electrical currents are required to effect small fish or juveniles, which may translate to young carp passing through this type of barrier. Several electrical barriers are in use within the Chicago Sanitary and Shipping Canal to block Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan.
Behavioral Barriers: Physical and electrical barriers are non-selective; there has been an increasing interest in barriers that use behavioral deterrents instead, such as sound, light and bubbles, because they have the potential to be species specific.
Source: Ovivo USA LLC
Sound barriers were initially dismissed, but Asian Carp respond differently to sound than other fishes. The sensory mechanism in Asian carp are aggravated by complex noise, so they avoid it. Asian carp have Weberian ossicles that connect their swim bladder and inner ear. The ossicles provide carp with broad hearing and greater sensitivity than other Midwestern and Great Lakes. For example, Lake Sturgeon, Paddlefish, and Bluegill Sunfish detect sounds at much lower frequencies because they lack the connection that helps amplify sound. The use of higher frequency sound has the potential to modify carp behavior while minimizing the effect on native fish. Ambient light influences fish several aspects of fish behavior – orientation, location of food, communication between conspecifics, and avoidance of predators. Strobe lights introduce unnatural light levels that can impact fish behaviors and illicit an avoidance response. Strobe lights are not as effective in daytime or in highly turbid areas, and are suggested to be more effective when used in combination with other barriers. Bubble curtains are another type of behavioral barrier; they use a dense plume of noisy bubbles to repel fish. They also act as an unnatural visual cue for fish to avoid. Bubble curtains can be less efficient in locations with periodic high water events because they may be unable to maintain equal air pressure across differing depths. Behavioral deterrents don’t block fish 100% of the time because some fish are less sensitive or learn to ignore the barriers. Behavioral barriers are sometimes used in combination with other behavioral barriers and with physical or electrical barriers.
If Asian carp establish stable populations in the Great Lakes, it could cause declines in abundances of native fishes. Carp will compete with native fish for food and habitat. Several federally and/or state listed threatened and endangered fish rely on the Great Lakes and have been historically impacted by other Great Lakes invasives – the introduction of Asian carp could amplify those impacts and further harm these organisms.
Side Dish: The Scientific American recently published an article that encourages Americans to “carpe eat’um”. Because Asian carp are viewed negatively and are more difficult to prepare than other fish, people are not inclined to bite into a fillet o’ carp. Now, there is a movement to put Asian
Carp spring rolls. Source: Scientific American, Carpe Eat’um, Tim Wall
carp on the menu, promoting the idea that if you can’t beat them, eat them. There is some concern over the commercializing carp. If a market develops demand for carp, people may not want to eradicate them, and may even want to spread them intentionally. However, other fish could be swapped for carp if they were eradicated, perhaps another invader could substitute for carp on the menu.
Noatch MR, Suski CD (2012) Non-physical barriers to deter fish movements. Environmental Reviews 20:71–82. doi: 10.1139/a2012-001
Scientific American. Carpe Eat’um: Invasive Asian Carp Leap into Restaurants, Grocery Stores. Available at https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/carpe-eat-um-invasive-asian-carp-leap-into-restaurants-grocery-stores/ (last accessed 26 September 2017).
US Army Corps of Engineers. Going Green: Protecting our Great Lakes from the invasive Asian carp (2013). Available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Archive/Story-Article-View/Article/478051/going-green-protecting-our-great-lakes-from-the-invasive-asian-carp/ (last accessed 26 September 2017).
Vetter BJ, Cupp AR, Fredricks KT, et al (2015) Acoustical deterrence of Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix). Biological Invasions 17:3383–3392. doi: 10.1007/s10530-015-0964-6
Zielinski DP, Sorensen PW (2015) Field test of a bubble curtain deterrent system for common carp. Fisheries Management and Ecology 22:181–184. doi: 10.1111/fme.12108
As an angler, I would contest that carp are not the prettiest fish or the most prestigious but they are a heck of a lot of fun to catch. As a young boy, my brother (shown on the left) and I always loved to go to the nearby lakes and ponds and catch whatever we could. We would hear tales about released pet fish that grew to gigantic sizes that ruled the lakes and ponds. We would always go for our friend’s goldfish that they released into the city lake to no avail. Catching fish and understanding their importance grew on my brother and I from a young age and fueled us to catch as many different fish as we could. This thrill for the catch is what fuels conservation efforts and education from the very kids who grew up having this childhood.
Recently in Pymatuning Lake in northeastern Ohio, thousands of carp have washed up on the shore for what looks like no reason. Upon investigation, it was determined that these fish all died because of Koi herpes virus (KHV), a virus that causes mass mortality in carp (Kempter et al., 2012).
As I have become older I have realized how bad it is to release pet fish into the wild. These fish can transmit diseases to the wild populations and can have terrible effects on the local population numbers. Once a pet fish is released it can infect carrier fish in the wild so that even if the pet fish gets eaten or dies, that KHV is still alive in the environment. Common carriers in Pymatuning lake are other species of carp along with northern pike and possibly pet fishes released into the lake. Officials on scene at Pymatuning are saying that the virus has a mortality rate of between 80-90% which is very high for a contagious lake virus (Knoedler, 2017). This is increasingly important because carp make up a good portion of most bodies of water when they are present with percentages ranging up to 96% of all fish biomass in some areas (McColl et al., 2007). The good news in this situation is that the virus is very specific to carp so there is little concern that it will spread to other fish types. It is believed that this year’s cold weather should kill the virus over time (Knoedler, 2017).
Conservation and public education are important for the public in situations just like this which is why when things like this happen experts are very reactionary and will throw a great deal of information into the public light to educate the public as much as possible.
This situation just goes to show that the tales about fish being released into lakes should stay tales and should not become a reality. From this situation, the severity of releasing fish becomes more apparent to those who may lack knowledge of how bad the activity really is. So just keep in mind that next time a pet goldfish is released into a pond or lake it could spell the end for the native species that call the body of water home.
Sources:
Kempter, J., Kielpinski, M., Panicz, R., Sadowski, J., Mysłowski, B., & Bergmann, S. M. (2012). Horizontal transmission of koi herpes virus (KHV) from potential vector species to common carp. Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol, 32, 212-219.
Knoedler, M. (2017, September 21). Dead carp test positive for virus in Pymatuning Lake. Retrieved September 25, 2017, from http://www.erienewsnow.com/story/36426536/dead-carp-test-positive-for-virus-in-pymatuning
McColl, K. A., Sunarto, A. G. U. S., Williams, L. M., & Crane, M. S. T. J. (2007). Koi herpes virus: dreaded pathogen or white knight. Aquaculture Health International, 9, 4-6.
In August, three Western Lake Erie tributaries experienced massive fish kills. The Ohio Division of Wildlife and Natural Resources have pinned the cause of these events on poor manure management. Allegedly manure was applied improperly or just before rain arrived, which washed the manure and all of its contaminants into the tributaries. Ammonia in manure takes Oxygen out of the water, which caused a combined 66,000 fish to die in these 3 rainfall events. These fish ranged from minnows to carp and littered the shores of Northwestern Ohio.
Figure 1: A deceased bass, effected by the manure-laden runoff.
Animal cultivation facilities in America produce 133 million tons of usable fertilizer from manure per year. In places where agriculture is extremely prominent, such as Ohio, water sources experience a great deal of runoff. Manure can have many harmful effects on fish of all kinds. Anoxic conditions and extremely high concentrations of ammonium are what these tributaries experienced. Other harmful effects include increased total phosphorus, which causes dramatic harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie annually, increased suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria throughout the water column. Agriculture and land use have greatly altered the Great Lakes Basin already, and the rate at which it is happening is alarming. But what can we do to help our local watersheds?
Figure 2: Harmful algal bloom caused by Agricultural runoff
The EPA already has laws in place that attempt to stop farmers from improper use of manure and irresponsible runoff controls. However, where agriculture is prominent, it’s not possible to eliminate these issues completely. In order to reduce runoff and properly handle unavoidable runoff, each aspect of a community must be involved. The government, farmers, convervationists, schools and Universites, businesses and organizations must each contribute if runoff pollution is to be mitigated. Fertilizer application must be monitored, ensuring that is used in the correct amount, at the right time of year, and that runoff controls are in place. Community events are highly effective, whether it is trash collection or planting trees alongside a stream, anyone can help. A reduction in field tilling can reduce erosion greatly, along with soil compaction. Proper drainage management by both private facilities and the Government is imperative to a watershed’s health. And lastly, strict monitoring of the disposal of livestock waste is obvious. It’s a group effort, and if each party involved carries their weight, each party will get to enjoy Ohio’s many waterways.
Works Cited
Burkholder, JoAnn, Bob Libra, Peter Weyer, Susan Heathcote, Dana Kolpin, Peter S. Thorne, and Michael Wichman. “Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality.” Environmental Health Perspectives. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Feb. 2007. Web.
“Easy Things to Protect Drinking Water Sources.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 02 Nov. 2016. Web.
“Large Fish Kills in Ohio Linked to Livestock Manure.” U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, 24 Aug. 2017. Web.
“The Sources and Solutions: Agriculture.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 10 Mar. 2017. Web.
Asian carp are a group of invasive species, which have spread in the US through both accidental and purposeful release. There are three species of Asian carps currently present in Ohio’s lakes and rivers: Bighead Carp, Silver Carp, and Grass Carp. Bighead and Silver carp where accidentally released from aquaculture facilities in Arkansas during the 1970s (Freeze and Henderson, 1982) and have spread throughout the Mississippi River Basin, including the Ohio River. Grass Carp on the other hand were stocked to ponds and lakes to control aquatic vegetation growth.
Grass Carp have been previously found in Lake Michigan, Erie, and Ontario. In Ohio, currently only sterilized Grass Carp may be stocked but the process that is utilized is not always 100% effective. New surveys conducted this year by the Ohio Department of Natural Resource have found that Grass Carp are successfully spawning in the Sandusky River, near Lake Erie (Seewer, 2017). This is some of the first evidence that this species can naturally reproduce in the Great Lakes. The expansion of Grass Carp populations has been a concern of fisheries managers throughout the past few decades, because they can consume large quantities of aquatic vegetation. A decline of aquatic vegetation around shorelines and in wetlands surrounding Lake Erie may reduce habitat, impacting native fish species that utilize these areas for food or to spawn. While this species is a pressing worry to Lake Erie and increased efforts for control are currently being developed (Seewer, 2017), the estimated impacts of Bighead and Silver carp are far more concerning (Zhang et al., 2016).
Bighead and Silver carp are both filter feeders, primarily consuming zooplankton (Burke et al., 1986). They are primarily located in and around the Ohio River, but there have been reports that these species have been found in small numbers within Lake Erie. The main concern associated with these species is their ability to grow to large sizes (18-23 kg) in a relatively short amount of time (4-5 years) (Henderson, 1978). Zooplankton are especially important for juvenile fish as well as fish that are important prey species for commercial and sport fish. A model of potential impacts by Zhang et al. (2016) found that these species may be able to alter current food webs, which could affect a 7-billion-dollar annual sport fishery in the Great Lakes (Southwick Associates, 2007).
There are still many unknowns associated with Asian carp’s potential for proliferation within Lake Erie, but significant efforts are underway to develop plans for controlling the spread of these species. More information regarding current regional and national management and control of Asian carp can be found at http://asiancarp.us/documents/2017ActionPlan.pdf and http://asiancarp.us/documents/Carps_Management_Plan.pdf.
Burke, J.S., Bayne, D.R., and Rea, H. (1986). Impact of silver and bighead carps on plankton communities of channel catfish ponds. Aquaculture 55, 59–68.
Freeze, M., and Henderson, S. (1982). Distribution and Status of the Bighead Carp and Silver Carp in Arkansas. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2, 197–200.
Henderson, S. (1978). An evaluation of the filter feeding fishes, silver and bighead carp, for water quality improvement. In Smitherman R.O., W.L. Shelton, and J.H. Grover, (Eds.). Culture of exotic fishes symposium proceedings. Fish Culture Section, American Fisheries Society, Auburn, Alabama, 121–136.
Seewer, J. (Sept. 24, 2017). Invasive grass carp pose risk to Lake Erie. The Columbus Dispatch, B5.
Southwick Associates. (2007). Sportfishing in America: an economic engine and conservation powerhouse. American Sportfishing Association, Multistate Conservation Grant Program.
Zhang, H., Rutherford, E.S., Mason, D.M., Breck, J.T., Wittmann, M.E., Cooke, R.M., Lodge, D.M., Rothlisberger, J.D., Zhu, X., and Johnson, T.B. (2016). Forecasting the Impacts of Silver and Bighead Carp on the Lake Erie Food Web. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 145, 136–162.
Although this creature may look like something dreamt up for use in a horror movie, these fish are very real and have their own sort of horror story in the Great Lakes. The Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is a jawless fish that resembles an eel in appearance. Able to live in both marine and freshwater habitats, the sea lamprey’s home range includes the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic coasts of Europe and the United States, and freshwater habitats in Europe and the US (USGS NAS 2016). This fish gained notoriety when it expanded its range into the Great Lakes ecosystem, causing devastation.
How did the sea lamprey get into the Great Lakes?
Researchers are unsure as to whether the sea lamprey is native to Lake Ontario, or whether it was introduced after the completion of the Erie Canal (USGS NAS 2016). However, the lamprey is not native to the rest of the Great Lakes, where it is now found today. When the Welland Canal was completed in 1829, linking Lake Ontario with Lake Erie, it provided a corridor through which the sea lamprey was able to invade, but it took over a century for the first sea lamprey to be found in Lake Erie. This happened in 1921 (Trautman 1981). However, within thirty years, the fish had established populations in the remaining three Great Lakes: Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Superior (USGS NAS 2016). The sea lamprey had successfully invaded the largest freshwater lake system on Earth.
What impact did the sea lamprey’s introduction have on the Great Lakes?
The sea lamprey is a parasite, meaning that it lives on another organism (its host) to get its nutrients, to the detriment of the host. The sea lamprey uses its teeth to attach to a fish, grind through their scales and skin, and feed on the fish’s blood and other bodily fluids. The following is an image of sea lampreys attached to a trout.
Photo by US Fish and Wildlife
This parasitism can result in the death of the host fish, either due to loss of blood or due to infection (NY Department of Environmental Conservation). One sea lamprey is able to kill as much as forty pounds of fish in one year (National Ocean Service 2016). Sea lampreys prey on large sporting fish, including trout, pike, salmon, walleye, and sturgeon which are commercially fished in the Great Lakes (NY Department of Environmental Conservation). In 1940, as the sea lampreys were in the process of becoming established in the Great Lakes, these fisheries were valued at $5.5 million dollars. After the sea lamprey was introduced, these fisheries collapsed. From 1938-1959, the lake trout fishery in Lake Huron went from producing 2268 tons of fish to a complete crash. In Lake Michigan, lake trout catches went from 2948 tons to 1181kg in ten years (Smith and Tibbles 1980). Not only did the sea lamprey invasion have severe impacts on the fish already living in the lakes, it had a negative financial impact as well.
What can be done to control sea lamprey populations?
When trying to combat the sea lamprey, wildlife managers tried using barriers to prevent the sea lampreys from breeding in streams. Physical barriers such as dams were designed prevent lampreys from passing through, while still allowing other “good” fish to pass. Electrical barriers were put in place to prevent lampreys from entering rivers to lay their eggs. While these barriers were somewhat effective and are still in place today, they were not able eliminate the problem of the sea lamprey (Great Lakes Fishery Commission 2000; Smith and Tibbles 1980). In 1958, managers started using a chemical called 3-trifluromethyl-4-nitrophenol, commonly abbreviated as TFM, to control lamprey populations. TFM is a lampricide, a chemical designed to kill lamprey in their breeding streams when they are still young. This prevents them from growing up and doing damage to fish populations. The lampricide proved to be effective, greatly reducing population sizes of the sea lamprey (Smith and Tibbles 1980). This has allowed some fish populations decimated by the lamprey to increase, but it will take more time for the fisheries to fully recover (USGS NAS 2016). However, treatments with TFM are ongoing to prevent the sea lampreys from ever reaching their 1950s numbers. Researchers are continuing to search for other treatments that reduce sea lamprey numbers to reduce dependence on TFM, which could have negative effects on other fish living in areas where lampricide has been used (Birceanu et al. 2014; USGS NAS 2016). Researchers at the Hammond Bay Biological Station, a partner of Michigan State University, are examining how pheromones (chemicals that animals release into the environment) can be used to alter movements of sea lamprey and to lure them into areas where they can be easily captured or killed (USGS Great Lakes Science Center 2016).
To end, MSU researchers have also begun studying how odors from dead sea lampreys can affect the behavior of living individuals. This is another avenue with which managers can control sea lamprey behavior to eliminate them or prevent them from doing more damage (USGS Great Lakes Science Center 2016). They have recorded the alarm response of living sea lampreys when exposed to these odors, and published them at the following links for your enjoyment:
View from above the water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxvorkIBbOo
View from below the water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBvYCBk_ZHM
Works Cited:
Birceanu, O., Sorenson, L.A., Henry, M., McClelland, G.B., Wang, Y.S., and Wilkie, M.P. 2014. The effects of the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) on fuel stores and ion balance in a non-target fish, the rainbow troug (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 160: 30-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2013.10.002
Great Lakes Fishery Comission. 2000. Sea lamprey barriers: New technologies help solve an old problem. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Online. Retrieved September 28, 2017 from http://www.glfc.org/pubs/FACT_5.pdf.
Great Lakes Science Center USGS. 2016. Hammond Bay Biological Station. USGS Great Lakes Science Center. Online. Retrieved on September 28, 2017 from https://www.glsc.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/infosheets/HBBS20150818.pdf.
National Ocean Service. 2016. What is a sea lamprey? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Online. Retrieved September 28, 2017 from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sea-lamprey.html.
NY Department of Environmental Conservation. Sea Lamprey Biology. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Online. Retrieved September 28, 2017 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7242.html.
Smith, B.R., and J.J. Tibbles. 1980. Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior: history of invasion and control, 1936-78. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37(11):1780-1801.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH.
USGS NAS. 2016. Petromyzon marinus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Online. Retrieved September 28, 2017 from https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=836.
(2)
(3)
(4)
