Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:28:00.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Artificial propagation of freshwater fishes: benefits and risks to recipient ecosystems from stocking, translocation and re-introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2015

By
John M. Epifanio  and
Robin S. Waples
Edited by
Gerard P. Closs ,
Martin Krkosek  and
Julian D. Olden
John M. Epifanio
Affiliation:
Illinois Natural History Survey
Robin S. Waples
Affiliation:
Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Gerard P. Closs
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Martin Krkosek
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Julian D. Olden
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access

Summary

We must not think that the highly laudable but expensive art and science of restoration ecology is going to put back ecosystem integrity, even though it ‘regreens’ with a highly convincing look-alike. –

M. J. Samways (1996)

INTRODUCTION

This book examines emerging and historical perspectives and approaches to the conservation of inland fish biodiversity and the freshwater ecosystems upon which this diversity relies. Together, these approaches present enormous opportunities, yet daunting challenges, in efforts to sustain viably functioning freshwater ecosystems with the full complement of ecosystem services and societal values they provide. In this chapter, we focus the reader's attention to a set of interrelated practices aimed at augmenting the production of new recruits to a targeted population and ecosystem often as means to restore or conserve fish populations. These practices include artificial propagation and stocking, direct translocation and re-introduction (NB: key terms used herein are italicised on first use and defined in Box 13.1. Many of these terms have no widely accepted definitions in practice. Therefore, we provide these as they relate to our usage). Widely used in fisheries management, aquatic conservation and restoration, these activities are the subject of considerable scrutiny and lingering debate as to whether they truly provide a demonstrable ecological benefit as opposed to a suite of more societal benefits (economic, cultural, political, and so on). Moreover, critical examination of whether such benefits justify or balance the attendant risks to recipient biodiversity and ecosystems are generally lacking. We address both sides of the debate by presenting a general discussion of the kinds, range and magnitude of benefits and risks associated with artificial enhancement practices including those used under the banner of ‘conservation’, but also more generally. Where space and information permit, we also provide evidence gleaned from specific cases documented from the literature or the authors’ experiences. We acknowledge a bias toward examples gleaned from our North American experiences with inland and anadromous species, but suggest that underlying concepts are common and broadly relevant to any fauna regardless of geographical location.

Type
Chapter
Information
Conservation of Freshwater Fishes , pp. 399 - 436
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allendorf, F. W., Spruell, P. & Utter, F. M. (2001). Whirling disease and wild trout: Darwinian fisheries management. Fisheries, 26, 27–29.Google Scholar
Berst, A. H. & Simon, R. C. (Eds). (1981). Proceedings of the 1980 Stock Concept International Symposium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottom, D. L. (1997). To till the water: a history of ideas in fisheries conservation. In Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. New York, NY:International Thomson Publishing, pp. 569–598.Google Scholar
Bowen, J. T. (1970). A history of fish culture as related to the development of fishery programs. In A Century of Fisheries in North America. Special Publication No. 7. Washington, DC: American Fisheries Society, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Brown, B. L., Waters, J. M., Gunter, T. & Epifanio, J. M. (2000). Restoration genetics of American shad in the James River, Virginia (USA): evaluation of captive release. Conservation Biology, 14, 294–303.Google Scholar
Busack, C. A. & Currens, K. P. (1995). Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations: fundamental concepts and issues. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 15, 71–80.Google Scholar
Christie, M. R., Marine, M. L., French, R. A. & Blouin, M. S. (2011). Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 238–242.Google Scholar
Coates, D. (1998). Codes of practice for the stocking and introduction of fish. In Stocking and Introduction of Fish. Oxford:Fishing News Books, pp. 383–396.Google Scholar
Cowx, I. G. (Ed.). (1998). Stocking and Introduction of Fish. Oxford:Fishing News Books.Google Scholar
Epifanio, J. (2000). A status report of coldwater fishery management in the U.S. – an overview of state programs. Fisheries, 25, 13–27.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (1983). Report of the Expert Consultation on the Utilisation and Conservation of Aquatic Genetic Resources. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 491. Rome: FAO.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2005). World inventory of fisheries. Stocking techniques for increased production. Issues Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome: FAO (available from www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14885/en).
George, A. L., Kuhajda, B. R., Williams, J. D., et al. (2009). Guidelines for propagation and translocation for freshwater fish conservation. Fisheries, 34, 529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. M., Fraser, D. J., Meier, K. & Mensberg, K. D. (2009). Sixty years of anthropogenic pressure: a spatio-temporal genetic analysis of brown trout populations subject to stocking and population declines. Molecular Ecology, 18, 2549–2562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). (2004). Hatchery reform: principles and recommendations of the HSRG. Available from www.hatcheryreform.us
Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). (2011). Hatcheries, conservation, and sustainable fisheries – achieving multiple goals: results of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group's Columbia River basin review. Fisheries, 36, 547–561.
Hendricks, M. L. (1995). The contribution of hatchery fish to the restoration of American shad in the Susquehana River. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 15, 329–336.Google Scholar
Kitada, S. & Kishino, H. (2006). Lessons learned from Japanese marine finfish stock enhancement programmes. Fisheries Research, 80, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, R. A., Corn, P. S. & Schindler, D. E. (2001). The introduction of nonnative fish into wilderness lakes: good intentions, conflicting mandates, and unintended consequences. Ecosystems, 4, 275–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laikre, L., Schwartz, M. K., Waples, R. S., Ryman, M. & The GeM Working Group. (2010). Compromising genetic diversity in the wild: unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25, 520–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leber, K. M., Kitada, S., Blankenship, H. L. & Svåsand, T. (Eds). (2004). Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching: Developments, Pitfalls and Opportunities, second edition. Oxford:Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzen, K., Beveridge, M. C. M. & Mangel, M. (2012). Cultured fish: integrative biology and management of domestication and interactions with wild fish. Biological Reviews, 87, 639–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahnken, C. V., Ruggerone, G., Waknitz, F. W. & Flagg, T. A. (1998). A historical perspective on salmonid production from Pacific Rim hatcheries. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin, 1, 38–53.Google Scholar
Merz, J. E. & Moyle, P. B. (2006). Salmon, wildlife, and wine: marine-derived nutrients in human-dominated ecosystems of central California. Ecological Applications, 16, 999–1009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metcalf, J. L., Pritchard, V. L., Silvestri, S. M., et al. (2007). Across the great divide: genetic forensics reveals misidentification of endangered cutthroat trout populations. Molecular Ecology, 16, 4445–4454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, L. M. & Kapuscinski, A. R. (2003). Genetic guidelines for hatchery supplementation programs. In Population Genetics: Principles and Applications for Fisheries Scientists. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, pp. 329–356.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) (1996). Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nickum, M. J., Mazik, P. M., Nickum, J. G. & MacKinlay, D. D. (Eds). (2004). Propagated Fish in Resource Management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 44.Bethesda, MD:American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. L. (Ed.). (1995). Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17.Bethesda, MD:American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northwest Power & Conservation Council (NPPC) (2009). Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program – 2009 Amendments. Document 2009–09. Portland, OR, USA. Available from www.nwcouncil.org/media/115273/2009_09.pdf.
Philipp, D. P., Epifanio, J. M., Marsden, J. E., Claussen, J. E. & Wolotira, Jr, R. J. (Eds). (1995). Protection of Aquatic Biodiversity. Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 3. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt.Google Scholar
Philipp, D. P., Claussen, J. E., Kassler, T. W. & Epifanio, J. M. (2002). Mixing stocks of largemouth bass reduces fitness through outbreeding depression. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 31, 349–364.Google Scholar
Reisenbichler, R. R. (1988). Relation between distance transferred from natal stream and recovery rate for hatchery coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 8, 172–174.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samways, M. J. (1996). The art of unintelligent tinkering. Conservation Biology, 10, 1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindler, D. E., Hilborn, R., Chasco, B., et al. (2010). Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature, 465, 609–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schramm, H. L. & Piper, R. G. (Eds). (1995). Uses and Effects of Fish Culture in Aquatic Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15. Bethesda, MD:American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
Stewart-Oaten, A., Bence, J. R. & Osenberg, C. W. (1992). Assessing effects of unreplicated perturbations: no simple solutions. Ecology, 73,1396–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, R. H. (Ed.). (1986). Fish Culture in Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society Publication Symposium 9.Bethesda, MD:American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
Svåsand, T., Kristiansen, T. S., Pedersen, T., et al. (2000). The enhancement of cod stocks. Fish and Fisheries, 1, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unauthored, . (1995). Considerations for the use of cultured fishes in fisheries resource management. American Fisheries Symposium, 15, 603–606.Google Scholar
Utter, F. & Epifanio, J. (2002). Marine aquaculture: genetic pitfalls and potentialities. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 12, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waples, R. S. (1999). Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. Fisheries, 24, 12–21.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waples, R. S. & Drake, J. (2004). Risk/benefit considerations for marine stock enhancement: a pacific salmon perspective. In Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching: Developments, Pitfalls, and Opportunities. Oxford: Blackwell, pp 260–306.Google Scholar
Waples, R. S., Hindar, K. & Hard, J. J. (2012). Genetic risks associated with marine aquaculture. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-119, 149 pp.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×