DOCSLIB.ORG

Synopsis of Biological Data on the Perch Perca Fluviatilis Linnaeus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FIR/S113 SASTPerca fluviatilis 1,70(14)002,01 ) Fisheries Synopsis No. 113 and P. flavescens 1,70(14)002,02 ,. arYNOPSIS F IOLOGICAL ItATA ON THE PERCH Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 and Perca flavescens Mitchill, 1814 FOOD AND AGRICULTU ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS FIR/S113 FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 113 SAST - Perca fluviatilis - 1,70(1)4)002,01 (Distribution restricted) and P. f1avescens - 1,70(1)3)002,02 SYNOPSIS OF BIOLOGICAL DATA ON THE PERCH Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 and Perca flavescens Mitchill, 1814 Prepared by John Thorpe Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland Faskally, Pitlochry, Perthshire P1116 5LB Scotland, U.K. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, December 1911 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression oi any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Naiions concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M-42 ISBN 92-5-100504.-4 The copyright in this book is vested in the Food and Agriculture Orga- nization of the United Nations. The book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, byiy method or process, without written permission from the copyOgio. -ioloer.Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and ex'coni o ihe reproduction desired, should be addr9ssed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Orç:t6iLE.I.tc,n of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. © FAO 1977 - PREPARATION OF THIS SYNOPSIS This synopsis of biological data on the perch has been prepared to fulfil part of the programme of work established at the Seventh Session of EIFAC, Amsterdam, May1972. The author has pleasure in acknowledging the help of the following people, who supplied data and assisted in many ways: A. Allison, Nature Conservancy Council, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. G. Aneer, Ask8 Laboratory, Trosa, Sweden Apostolski, Agricultural Faculty of University, Skopje, Yugoslavia T. Backiel, Instytut Rybactwa Srodladowego, Olsztyn-Kortowo, Poland R.M. Bailey, University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. j.W. Banks, Freshwater Fisheries Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, O.K. R.E. Boltt, Department of Zoology, Rhodes University, Grahamstoun, South Africa G. Chervenkov, SEB Ribno Stopanstvo, Bourgas, Bulgaria P.J. Colby, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Box 2089 Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada B.B. Collette, NOAA/NNFS Systematics Laboratory, National Mnseum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 0560, U.S.A. J.F. Craig, Freshwater Biological Association, Ferry Mouse, Ambleside, U.K. J. Dahl, Danmarks Fiskeri og HavundersqSgelser, Charlottenlund, Denmark E. Donaszy, Fish Culture Research Station, Szarvas, Hungary P. Fitzmaurice, Inland Fisheries Trust Inc., Balnagowan, Mobhi Boreen, Glasnevin, Dublin, Eire J.L. Forney, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Bridgeport, N.Y., U.S.A. E. Grimaldi, Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia, Verbania Pallanza (NO), Italy J. Hartmann, Institut far Seenforschung, Langenargen, West Germany J. Hemsen, Bundesinstitut far Gewasserforschung und Fischereiwirtschaft, Scharfling, Austria J. Holik, Laboratorium Rybarstva a Hydrobiologie, Bratislava, C.S.S.R. M. Euet, Station de Recherches des Eaux e For;ts, Grocnendaal-Hoeilaart, Belgium B. Hutchison, Cornell University Field Station, Bridgeport, N.Y.; U.S.A. K. Jensen, Department of Fisheries, Vollebekk, As. Norway J.S. Lake, Department of the Northern Territory, P.O.Box 231, Darwin. Australia M. Leopold, Zaklad Ekonomiki, Instytut Rybactwa Srodladowego, Olsztyn-Kortowo, Poland E.A. Lind, Department of Zoology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland D.D. Lynch, Inland Fisheries Commission, 127 Davey Street, Hobart, Tasmania R. McDowall, Fisheries Research Division, Box 19062, Wellington, New Zealand Miron, Statiunea de Cometan i Stejarul, Pingarati,Neamt, Romania B. Mailer, Federal Office for Environmental Protection, Bern, Switzerland E. Neuman, Statens Naturvardsverk, n-egrund, Sweden J.C. Schneider, Institute for Fisheries Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan481a,U.S.A. N.B. Scott, Department of Ichthyology, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada D.F. Smith, jcnkershoek Fishery Station, Stellenbosch (Cape), South Africa L.L. Smith jr, Department of Entomology, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A. O. Suman, Riista-ja Kalatalouden Tutkimuslaitos Laukaan Keskuskalenviljelylaitos, Valkola, Finland F.W. Tesch, Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Zentrale Hamburg-Altona, 2 Hamburg 50, Palmaille9,Germany R.D. Tilzey, Chief Secretary's Department, Fisheries Branch, Box 30, Sydney, Australia B.R. Tunbridge, Arthur Rylah Institute of Environmental Research, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia G. Tuffery, Labcratoire Central de Recherches Veterinaires, Maisons-Alfort, France Vostradovsky, CAZ, Vyzkumny ustav rybarsky a hydrobiologicky, 11000 Praha 1, Zitna 13, C.S.S.R. J. Willemsen, Rijksinstituut voor Visserijonderzoek, Ijmuiden, The Netherlands Distribution: Bibliographic entry: PAO Department of Fisheries Thorpe, J.(1977; FAO Regional Fisheries Officers FAO Fish.Synop., (113):138 p. Regional Fisheries Councils and Synopsis of biological data on the perch Perca fluviatilis Commissions Linnaeus,1758and Perca flavescens Mitchill, 181)4 Selector SI Author Synopsis. Biological data. Freshwater fish. Taxonomy. Identifica- tion keys. Vernacular names. Morphology (organisms). Geographical distribution. Hybridization. Sexual reproduction. Life cycle. Dc:ve- lopment (biological). Autecology. Population characterisdcs. Inland fisheries. Fishing gear. Fishing grounds. Fishery regulations. Habitat improvement. Stocking (organisms). Fish culture. Freshwater aquaculture. Perca fluviatilis. Perca flavescens. Eurasia. North America. South Africa. Australia. New Zealand. FIR/S113 Perca fluviatilis and P. flavescens CONTENTS Page 1 IDENTITY 1 1.1 Nomenclature 1.1.1Valid names 1 1.1.2 Objective synonymy 1 1.2Taxonomy 1 1.2.1Affinities 1 1.2.2Taxonomic status 4 1.2.3 Subspecies 4 1.2.4 Standard common names, vernacular names 4 1.3 Morphology 6 1.3.1 External morphology 6 1.3.2 Cytomorphology 8 1.3.3 Protein specificity 8 2 DISTRIBUTION 8 2.1 Total area 8 2.2 Differential distribution 11 2.2.1Spawn, larvae and juveniles 11 2.2.2Adults 11 2.3 Determinants of distribution changes 11 2.3.1Temperature 11 2.3.2 Currents 12 2.3.3Waves 12 2.3.4 Depth 12 2.3.5 Light 12 2.3.6Turbidity 13 2.3.7Substratum 13 2.3.8Shelter 13 2.3.9 Ice 13 2.3.10 Dissolved gases 13 2.3.11 Dissolved (inorganic) solids 13 2.3.12 Pollutants 14 2.3.13 Vegetation 14 2.3.14 Fauna 14 2.4 Hybridization 14 3 BIONOMICS AND LIFE HISTORY 15 3.1 Reproduction 15 3.1.1 Sexuality 15 3.1.2Maturity 15 3.1.3 Mating 16 3.1.4 Fertilization 16 3.1.5 Gonads 16 3.1.6 Spawning 19 3.1.7 Spawn 23 vi FIR/S113Perca fluviatilis and P. flavescens Page 3.2Pre-adult phase 24 3.2.1Embryonic phase 24 3.2.2 Larval phase 25 3.2.3Adolescent phase 33 3.3Adult phase (mature fish) 33 3.3.1 Longevity 33 3.3.2 Hardiness 33 3.3.3Competitors 35 3.3.4 Predators 36 3.3.5 Parasites, diseases, injuries and abnormalities 36 3.4 Nutrition and growth 45 3.4.1 Feeding 45 3.4.2 Food 49 3.4.3 Growth rate 50 3.4.4 Metabolism 73 3.5Behaviour 78 3.5.1Migrations and local movements 78 3.5.2Shoaling 79 3.5.3Responses to stimuli 79 4 POPULATION 82 4.1'Structure 82 4.1.1 Sex ratio 82 4.1.2Age composition 84 4.1.3Size composition 84 4.2Abundance and Density (of population) 84 4.2.1 Average abundance: estimation of population size 84 4.2.2Changes in abundance 90 4.2.3Average density 90 4.2.4 Changes in density 92 4.3 Natality and recruitment 92 4.3.1Reproduction rates 92 4.3.2Factors affecting reproduction 98 4.3.3Recruitment 98 4.4 Mortality and morbidity 98 4.4.1Mortality rates 98 4.4.2Factors causing or affecting mortality 99 4.4.3Factors affecting morbidity 99 4.5Dynamics of population (as a whole) 99 4.6The population in the community and the ecosystem 102 4.6.1Physical features of the biotope of the community 102 4.6.2 Species composition of the community 102 4.6.3 Interrelations within the community 106 FIR/S113 Perca fluviatilis and P. flavescens vii Page 5 EXPLOITATION 106 5.1 Fishing equipment 106 5.2 Fishing areas 106 5.2.1 General geographic distribution 106 5.2.2 Geographic ranges 106 5.2.3 Depth ranges 106 5.3Fishing seasons 1_06 5.3.1 General pattern of seasons 106 5.3.2 Dates of beginning, peak and end of seasons 106 5.3.3 Variation in date or duration of season 110 5.4 Fishing operations and results 110 5.21.1 Effort and intensity 110 5.4.2 Selectivity 110 5.4.3 Catches 110 6 PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT 110 6.1 Regulatory (legislative) measures 110 6.1.1 Limitation or reduction of total catch 110 6.1.2 Protection of portions of populations 110 6.2 Control or alteration of physical features of environment 113 6.3 Control or alteration of the chemical features of the environment 113 6.4 Control or alteration of the biological features of the environment 113 6.5 Artificial stocking 115 6.5.1 Maintenance stocking 115 6.5.2 Transplantation, introduction 115 7 POND FISH CULTURE 116 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 117 FIR/8113 Perca fluviatilis and P. flavescens 1 1 IDENTITY Generic 1.1 Nomenclature Genus: Perca Linnaeus 1758 1.1.1 Valid names Ref: Systema naturae, ed. X, p. 289 (based on Artedits description of 1738) Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus 1758Ref: Systema naturae, ed. X, p. 289 and Perca flavescens Diagnostic characters: Mitchill 1814 Ref: Report in part of Refs: Berg, L.S.
Recommended publications
  • Do Some Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Skip Spawning?

    Do Some Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Skip Spawning?

    SCRS/2006/088 Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(4): 1141-1153 (2007) DO SOME ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA SKIP SPAWNING? David H. Secor1 SUMMARY During the spawning season for Atlantic bluefin tuna, some adults occur outside known spawning centers, suggesting either unknown spawning regions, or fundamental errors in our current understanding of bluefin tuna reproductive schedules. Based upon recent scientific perspectives, skipped spawning (delayed maturation and non-annual spawning) is possibly prevalent in moderately long-lived marine species like bluefin tuna. In principle, skipped spawning represents a trade-off between current and future reproduction. By foregoing reproduction, an individual can incur survival and growth benefits that accrue in deferred reproduction. Across a range of species, skipped reproduction was positively correlated with longevity, but for non-sturgeon species, adults spawned at intervals at least once every two years. A range of types of skipped spawning (constant, younger, older, event skipping; and delays in first maturation) was modeled for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna population to test for their effects on the egg-production-per-recruit biological reference point (stipulated at 20% and 40%). With the exception of extreme delays in maturation, skipped spawning had relatively small effect in depressing fishing mortality (F) threshold values. This was particularly true in comparison to scenarios of a juvenile fishery (ages 4-7), which substantially depressed threshold F values. Indeed, recent F estimates for 1990-2002 western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock assessments were in excess of threshold F values when juvenile size classes were exploited. If western bluefin tuna are currently maturing at an older age than is currently assessed (i.e., 10 v.
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)

    REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)

    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
  • Review and Meta-Analysis of the Environmental Biology and Potential Invasiveness of a Poorly-Studied Cyprinid, the Ide Leuciscus Idus

    Review and Meta-Analysis of the Environmental Biology and Potential Invasiveness of a Poorly-Studied Cyprinid, the Ide Leuciscus Idus

    REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1822280 REVIEW Review and Meta-Analysis of the Environmental Biology and Potential Invasiveness of a Poorly-Studied Cyprinid, the Ide Leuciscus idus Mehis Rohtlaa,b, Lorenzo Vilizzic, Vladimır Kovacd, David Almeidae, Bernice Brewsterf, J. Robert Brittong, Łukasz Głowackic, Michael J. Godardh,i, Ruth Kirkf, Sarah Nienhuisj, Karin H. Olssonh,k, Jan Simonsenl, Michał E. Skora m, Saulius Stakenas_ n, Ali Serhan Tarkanc,o, Nildeniz Topo, Hugo Verreyckenp, Grzegorz ZieRbac, and Gordon H. Coppc,h,q aEstonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; bInstitute of Marine Research, Austevoll Research Station, Storebø, Norway; cDepartment of Ecology and Vertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Łod z, Poland; dDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia; eDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, USP-CEU University, Madrid, Spain; fMolecular Parasitology Laboratory, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, UK; gDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, Bournemouth University, Dorset, UK; hCentre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK; iAECOM, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada; jOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; kDepartment of Zoology, Tel Aviv University and Inter-University Institute for Marine Sciences in Eilat, Tel Aviv,
  • 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act

    2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-62, 73 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act Margaret M.
  • Binder 021, Bucephalidae [Trematoda Taxon Notebooks]

    Binder 021, Bucephalidae [Trematoda Taxon Notebooks]

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Trematoda Taxon Notebooks Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of February 2021 Binder 021, Bucephalidae [Trematoda Taxon Notebooks] Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/trematoda Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Parasitic Diseases Commons, and the Parasitology Commons Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology, "Binder 021, Bucephalidae [Trematoda Taxon Notebooks]" (2021). Trematoda Taxon Notebooks. 21. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/trematoda/21 This Portfolio is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Trematoda Taxon Notebooks by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Family BUCEPHALIDAE POCHE, 1907 1. Bucephalus varicus Manter, 1940 Host. Caranx hippos (Linn.): Common jack; family Carangidae Incidence of Infection. In 1 of 1 host Location. Mainly close to pyloric junction and a few scattered speci­ mens along length of entire intestine Locality. Bayboro Harbor, Tampa Bay, (new locality record) Florida Discussion. Manter (1940) pictured variation of tentacles and displa- ---- -- cement of organs in preserved B. varicus from the Tropical American Pacific and Tortugas, Florida. We have studied live B. varicus under slight coverslip pressure and can confirm the variations observed by Manter ( 1940) . B. varicus has been reported from no less than eleven different carangid species from Okinawa, the Red Sea, Tortugas, Florida, and the Tropical American Pacific. The only other record of B. varicus from Caranx hippos is by Bravo and Sogandares (1957) from the Pacific Coast of Mexico.
  • Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus Elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River

    Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus Elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River

    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications Summer 2020 Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River Dakota S. Radford Eastern Illinois University Follow this and additional works at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Radford, Dakota S., "Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River" (2020). Masters Theses. 4806. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/4806 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGING TECHNIQUES & POPULATION DYNAMICS OF BLUE SUCKERS (CYCLEPTUS ELONGATUS) IN THE LOWER WABASH RIVER By Dakota S. Radford B.S. Environmental Biology Eastern Illinois University A thesis prepared for the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Biological Sciences Eastern Illinois University May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Thesis abstract .................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
  • Endangered Species

    Endangered Species

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • Changing Communities of Baltic Coastal Fish Executive Summary: Assessment of Coastal fi Sh in the Baltic Sea

    Changing Communities of Baltic Coastal Fish Executive Summary: Assessment of Coastal fi Sh in the Baltic Sea

    Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 103 B Changing Communities of Baltic Coastal Fish Executive summary: Assessment of coastal fi sh in the Baltic Sea Helsinki Commission Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 103 B Changing Communities of Baltic Coastal Fish Executive summary: Assessment of coastal fi sh in the Baltic Sea Helsinki Commission Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Editor: Janet Pawlak Authors: Kaj Ådjers (Co-ordination Organ for Baltic Reference Areas) Jan Andersson (Swedish Board of Fisheries) Magnus Appelberg (Swedish Board of Fisheries) Redik Eschbaum (Estonian Marine Institute) Ronald Fricke (State Museum of Natural History, Stuttgart, Germany) Antti Lappalainen (Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute), Atis Minde (Latvian Fish Resources Agency) Henn Ojaveer (Estonian Marine Institute) Wojciech Pelczarski (Sea Fisheries Institute, Poland) Rimantas Repečka (Institute of Ecology, Lithuania). Photographers: Visa Hietalahti p. cover, 7 top, 8 bottom Johnny Jensen p. 3 top, 3 bottom, 4 middle, 4 bottom, 5 top, 8 top, 9 top, 9 bottom Lauri Urho p. 4 top, 5 bottom Juhani Vaittinen p. 7 bottom Markku Varjo / LKA p. 10 top For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as: HELCOM, 2006 Changing Communities of Baltic Coastal Fish Executive summary: Assessment of coastal fi sh in the Baltic Sea Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 103 B Information included in this publication or extracts thereof is free for citing on the condition that the complete reference of the publication is given as stated above Copyright 2006 by the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission - Design and layout: Bitdesign, Vantaa, Finland Printed by: Erweko Painotuote Oy, Finland ISSN 0357-2994 Coastal fi sh – a combination of freshwater and marine species Coastal fish communities are important components of Baltic Sea ecosystems.
  • Chapter 101 Minnesota Statutes 1941

    Chapter 101 Minnesota Statutes 1941

    MINNESOTA STATUTES 1941 101.01 DIVISION OF GAME AND FISH; FISH 846 CHAPTER 101 DIVISION OF GAME AND FISH; FISH Sec. Sec. 101.01 Manner of taking flsh 101.21 Sale of flsh caught In certain counties; o).her 101.02 Manner of taking minnows for bait flsh not bought or sold at any time 101.03 Open season for black bass and yellow bass 101.22 Prohibited methods and equipments 101.04 Open season for trout, except lake trout; 101.23 Polluting streams hours for taking 101.24 Fish screens; removal 101.05 Fishing in trout streams 101.25 Dark houses or fish houses, when used; 101.06 Open season for lake trout licenses 101.07 Open season for pike, pickerel, and muskel- 101.26 Open season for whiteflsh, tullibees, and her­ lunge ring 101.08 Closed season for sturgeon, hackleback, 101.27 Open season for frogs spoonbill, or paddleflsh. 101.28 Turtles and tortoises 101.09 Open season for crappies 101.29 Fishways; construction; fishing near flshways 101.10 Fishing in boundary waters forbidden 101.11 Open season for fishing in boundary waters 101.30 Fish may be taken and sold from certain lakes 101.12 Open season for sunflsh, rock bass, and other 10.1.31 Regulations by director / varieties 101.32 Restriction 101.13 Open season for sunflsh in Goodhue county 101.34 Sections 101.30 to 101.32 supplementary 101.14 Open season for carp, dogfish, redhorse, 101.35 Disposition of dead flsh sheepshead, catfish, suckers, eelpout, garfish, 101.36 Open season for fishing in Lake of the Woods bullheads, whiteflsh, and buffaloflsh 101.37 Open season for suckers and other rough flsh 101.153 Propagation of game flsh in Lake of the Woods 101.16 When and where artificial lights may be used 101.38 Fishing from towed boats prohibited in spearing certain fish 101.39 Taking of fish in natural spawning beds 101.18 Placing carp in waters prohibited prohibited 101.19 Fishing in Minneapolis 101.40 Fish screens; permits 101.20 Limit of catch 101.01 MANNER OF TAKING FISH.
  • Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report

    Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report

    Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Jeff Hogle and Ken Lujan collecting genetic and fish health samples in Eagle Creek, Oregon. Photo Credit: Maureen Kavanagh Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Prepared by: Maureen Kavanagh, William R. Brignon and Doug Olson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Hatchery Assessment Team Vancouver, WA 98683 -and- Susan Gutenberger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center Willard, WA 98605 -and- Andrew Matala and William Ardren U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abernathy Fish Technology Center Applied Research Program in Conservation Genetics Longview, WA 98632 July 23, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 Geographic Area ................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Background Information on Winter Steelhead in the Clackamas River & Eagle Creek ....................... 13 5.0 Methods ...............................................................................................................................................
  • Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest Under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

    Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest Under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

    Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC Final version, February 2007 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 4 I. CONTEXT 6 I.1 Species conservation within a wider legal and political context 6 I.1.1 Political context 6 I.1.2 Legal context 7 I.2 Species conservation within the overall scheme of Directive 92/43/EEC 8 I.2.1 Primary aim of the Directive: the role of Article 2 8 I.2.2 Favourable conservation status 9 I.2.3 Species conservation instruments 11 I.2.3.a) The Annexes 13 I.2.3.b) The protection of animal species listed under both Annexes II and IV in Natura 2000 sites 15 I.2.4 Basic principles of species conservation 17 I.2.4.a) Good knowledge and surveillance of conservation status 17 I.2.4.b) Appropriate and effective character of measures taken 19 II. ARTICLE 12 23 II.1 General legal considerations 23 II.2 Requisite measures for a system of strict protection 26 II.2.1 Measures to establish and effectively implement a system of strict protection 26 II.2.2 Measures to ensure favourable conservation status 27 II.2.3 Measures regarding the situations described in Article 12 28 II.2.4 Provisions of Article 12(1)(a)-(d) in relation to ongoing activities 30 II.3 The specific protection provisions under Article 12 35 II.3.1 Deliberate capture or killing of specimens of Annex IV(a) species 35 II.3.2 Deliberate disturbance of Annex IV(a) species, particularly during periods of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration 37 II.3.2.a) Disturbance 37 II.3.2.b) Periods
  • (Coregonus Zenithicus) in Lake Superior

    (Coregonus Zenithicus) in Lake Superior

    Ann. Zool. Fennici 41: 147–154 ISSN 0003-455X Helsinki 26 February 2004 © Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board 2004 Status of the shortjaw cisco (Coregonus zenithicus) in Lake Superior Michael H. Hoff1 & Thomas N. Todd2* 1) U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 2800 Lake Shore Drive East, Ashland, Wisconsin 54806, USA; present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Division, Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111, USA. 2) U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, USA (*corresponding author) Received 26 Aug. 2002, revised version received 7 Mar. 2003, accepted 9 Sep. 2003 Hoff, M. H. & Todd, T. N. 2004: Status of the shortjaw cisco (Coregonus zenithicus) in Lake Supe- rior. — Ann. Zool. Fennici 41: 147–154. The shortjaw cisco (Coregonus zenithicus) was historically found in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior, but has been extirpated in Lakes Huron and Michigan appar- ently as the result of commercial overharvest. During 1999–2001, we conducted an assessment of shortjaw cisco abundance in fi ve areas, spanning the U.S. waters of Lake Superior, and compared our results with the abundance measured at those areas in 1921–1922. The shortjaw cisco was found at four of the fi ve areas sampled, but abundances were so low that they were not signifi cantly different from zero. In the four areas where shortjaw ciscoes were found, abundance declined signifi cantly by 99% from the 1920s to the present. To increase populations of this once economically and ecologically important species in Lake Superior, an interagency rehabilitation effort is needed.