See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299373331 A moving target—incorporating knowledge of the spatial ecology of fish into the assessment and management of freshwater fish populations Article in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · April 2016 Impact Factor: 1.68 · DOI: 10.1007/s10661-016-5228-0 CITATION READS 1 267 11 authors, including: Eduardo Martins Martyn C Lucas University of Waterloo Durham University 67 PUBLICATIONS 618 CITATIONS 102 PUBLICATIONS 2,731 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Christopher M Holbrook United States Geological Survey 27 PUBLICATIONS 116 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Christopher M Holbrook letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 24 June 2016 Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:239 DOI 10.1007/s10661-016-5228-0 A moving target—incorporating knowledge of the spatial ecology of fish into the assessment and management of freshwater fish populations Steven J. Cooke & Eduardo G. Martins & Daniel P. Struthers & Lee F. G. Gutowsky & Michael Power & Susan E. Doka & John M. Dettmers & David A. Crook & Martyn C. Lucas & Christopher M. Holbrook & Charles C. Krueger Received: 2 October 2015 /Accepted: 3 March 2016 # Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2016 Abstract Freshwater fish move vertically and horizon- how to deploy assessment gears is essential to inform, tally through the aquatic landscape for a variety of refine, or calibrate assessment protocols. Such informa- reasons, such as to find and exploit patchy resources or tion is also useful for quantifying or avoiding bycatch of to locate essential habitats (e.g., for spawning). Inherent imperiled species. Knowledge of habitat connectivity challenges exist with the assessment of fish populations and usage can identify critically important migration because they are moving targets. We submit that quan- corridors and habitats and can be used to improve our tifying and describing the spatial ecology of fish and understanding of variables that influence spatial struc- their habitat is an important component of freshwater turing of fish populations. Similarly, demographic pro- fishery assessment and management. With a growing cesses are partly driven by the behavior of fish and number of tools available for studying the spatial ecol- mediated by environmental drivers. Information on ogy of fishes (e.g., telemetry, population genetics, these processes is critical to the development and appli- hydroacoustics, otolith microchemistry, stable isotope cation of realistic population dynamics models. analysis), new knowledge can now be generated and Collectively, biological assessment, when informed by incorporated into biological assessment and fishery knowledge of spatial ecology, can provide managers management. For example, knowing when, where, and with the ability to understand how and when fish and S. J. Cooke (*) : E. G. Martins : D. P. Struthers : D. A. Crook L. F. G. Gutowsky Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada M. C. Lucas e-mail: [email protected] School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK E. G. Martins : M. Power Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada C. M. Holbrook Hammond Bay Biological Station, United States Geological S. E. Doka Survey, Millersburg, MI, USA Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington, ON, Canada C. C. Krueger Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of J. M. Dettmers Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, USA USA 239 Page 2 of 18 Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:239 their habitats may be exposed to different threats. drive population and ecosystem-level processes (e.g., Naturally, this knowledge helps to better evaluate or material and process subsidies; Flecker et al. 2010). develop strategies to protect the long-term viability of Spatial ecology (i.e., processes that influence the fishery production. Failure to understand the spatial spatiotemporal abundance and distribution of ecology of fishes and to incorporate spatiotemporal data populations and communities; Legendre and Fortin can bias population assessments and forecasts and po- 1989) is fundamental for understanding the structure tentially lead to ineffective or counterproductive man- and function of populations (Tilman and Kareiva agement actions. 1997), linking animals to each other and their environ- ment (Lima and Zollner 1996), and influencing the ways Keywords Habitat use . Movement ecology. Behavior. in which humans interact with them. The abundance and Fisheries . Telemetry . Hydroacoustics . Sampling distribution of fish in space and time provides the infor- strategy. Trophic ecology mation necessary to (A) identify critical habitats, (B) understand inter-specific interactions, (C) develop effec- tive assessment techniques, (D) understand how human Introduction activities (e.g., development, water use, fishery exploi- tation) influence fish populations, and (E) effectively Biological assessment of inland fish populations is a manage and conserve fish populations. Failure to under- fundamental component of a science-based approach to stand the spatial ecology of fish, therefore, can bias freshwater fishery management (Cowx 1996;Krueger population assessments and potentially lead to ineffec- and Decker 1999;King2013). Key components of bio- tive or counterproductive management actions. For ex- logical assessment include knowledge of the production ample, consider the erroneous conclusions that would potential of a given water body, fish-habitat relationships, be made if assessment gears were only deployed in areas habitat quality and quantity, population size and trends, occupied by fish of a given sex or life stage. Consider demographic parameters (e.g., natural mortality rates, the consequences if one failed to identify critical habitats population age, growth, and sex structure), and commu- needed for reproduction and did not protect such habi- nity assemblage composition (Cowx 1996;Power2007; tats from degradation. What would be the effect if one Hilborn and Walters 2013). Moreover, in systems with placed a barrier on a river that confined the population to fishing pressure, knowing the distribution of effort, catch short reaches lacking critical habitats? Poor manage- (relative to what is available to be caught), and harvest ment decisions can also arise when the spatial dynamics (i.e., fishing mortality) in time and space is necessary for of fisher behavior is not understood. effective fishery management (Hilborn and Walters At times, consideration of the spatial ecology of fish 2013). Information about fish, their habitat, and the be- appears to be an afterthought in assessment and monitor- havior of humans involved in exploitation represent the ing programs. We know of few examples where knowl- triad of knowledge components needed to ensure that edge of spatial ecology is fully integrated into biological biological assessment can inform fishery management assessment programs in freshwater (noting that some (Krueger and Decker 1999). exceptions exist in the marine realm; Cooke et al. Biological assessment of inland fishes is not a simple 2014), perhaps because the recent maturity of advanced task. Beyond financial, human, and technical resource technologies has not been widely recognized and to limitations, it is difficult to study freshwater fish in the integrate new methods and information into standard wild due to low visibility and habitat complexity. assessment protocols takes time. In past decades, a num- Moreover, many freshwater fishes are highly mobile, ber of important technological innovations have enabled moving vertically and horizontally through the aquatic scientists and resource managers to effectively study the landscape (Lucas and Baras 2001). Fish move for a spatial ecology of fish (Lucas and Baras 2000; Cooke et variety of reasons, such as to find and exploit patchy al. 2013). Indeed, spatial ecology can now be studied at a resources or to locate essential habitats (e.g., for variety of spatial (e.g., from micro-habitats to macro- spawning; Lucas and Baras 2001). Fish movements habitats) and temporal (e.g., from seconds to millennia) determine demographic characteristics such as immigra- scales. This expanding toolbox provides opportunities tion and emigration (and thus potential exchange of for unprecedented understanding and has great potential genetic material), define population boundaries, and to improve fishery assessment and management. Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:239 Page 3 of 18 239 The objective of this paper is to elucidate how studies have used electronic tags to study fish ecology knowledge of the spatial ecology of freshwater fish (see Cooke and Thorstad 2012). Fish can now be tagged can inform biological assessment and identify path- across a variety of sizes (including as small as several ways to improve management decision making and grams) and life stages in habitats as diverse as headwater outcomes. This understanding is particularly rele- streams to the largest lakes in