Loading…

Trophic Economics of Lake Trout Management in Reservoirs of Differing Productivity

Because of their potential to reach large size, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush are managed as trophy fish in many reservoirs in the western United States. In Colorado, restrictive harvest regulations for lake trout were enacted in reservoirs exhibiting a range of productivities. Annual stockings of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:North American journal of fisheries management 2000-02, Vol.20 (1), p.127-143
Main Authors: Johnson, Brett M., Martinez, Patrick J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2657-20aeb2d7992531ecef43d96cd5f56ccf5fbfc1587f86154a47fdd3fee7005c6e3
container_end_page 143
container_issue 1
container_start_page 127
container_title North American journal of fisheries management
container_volume 20
creator Johnson, Brett M.
Martinez, Patrick J.
description Because of their potential to reach large size, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush are managed as trophy fish in many reservoirs in the western United States. In Colorado, restrictive harvest regulations for lake trout were enacted in reservoirs exhibiting a range of productivities. Annual stockings of kokanee (lacustrine sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka) and rainbow trout O. mykiss sustained sport fisheries, but stocked fish also dominated the prey fish assemblages in these systems. Hydroacoustic surveys suggested that lake trout management allowed an imbalance to develop between prey fish biomass and the biomass of piscivorous lake trout. Piscivorous fish biomass was, on average, 60% of total pelagic fish biomass. Bioenergetics modeling confirmed the imbalance: annual lake trout consumption was near or exceeded annual pelagic prey fish supply (standing stock plus production); the degree of imbalance was greater in less productive reservoirs. Annual subsidies to the food web, in the form of stocked sport fish, were necessary to allow the imbalance between predator and prey populations to persist, especially in the least‐productive systems. Though highly sensitive to the size at which hatchery fish are consumed, the per capita costs to sustain lake trout growth at observed levels would total about US$200 per lake trout in the more productive reservoirs and $300–600 per lake trout in the less productive reservoirs. The cost of maintaining high lake trout biomass in these stocked systems may be a difficult management strategy to justify and sustain, either economically or socially.
doi_str_mv 10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020<0127:TEOLTM>2.0.CO;2
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_879469524</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>879469524</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2657-20aeb2d7992531ecef43d96cd5f56ccf5fbfc1587f86154a47fdd3fee7005c6e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkF1PwjAUhhujiYj-h135cTFou3Xd1JiQCWjCnCF43YzuFKuwYjsw_Hs3MV564dW5eJ_z5pwHoT7BPcI47xMWxn4ccXZJMcZXmOJbTCi_ng3zySy7oz3cS_MbeoA6v-Qh6mDKmc-SkB-jE-femk0WM9pB05k161ctvaE0lVlp6TyjvEnxDl6TbGovK6piASuoak9X3hQc2K3R9hu710qB1dXCe7am3Mhab3W9O0VHqlg6OPuZXfQyGs7SB3-Sjx_TwcSXNGLcp7iAOS15klAWEJCgwqBMIlkyxSIpFVNzJQmLuYqj5pMi5KosAwXAm9tlBEEXXex719Z8bMDVYqWdhOWyqMBsnIh5EkYJo2FDnv9JEh5TQkjQgOM9KK1xzoISa6tXhd0JgkVrX7RORetUtPZFY1-09sXevqACizQXtGnK9k2fegm7_9aIp8Eoa4PgC2EPkvQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17821113</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Trophic Economics of Lake Trout Management in Reservoirs of Differing Productivity</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Johnson, Brett M. ; Martinez, Patrick J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Brett M. ; Martinez, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><description>Because of their potential to reach large size, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush are managed as trophy fish in many reservoirs in the western United States. In Colorado, restrictive harvest regulations for lake trout were enacted in reservoirs exhibiting a range of productivities. Annual stockings of kokanee (lacustrine sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka) and rainbow trout O. mykiss sustained sport fisheries, but stocked fish also dominated the prey fish assemblages in these systems. Hydroacoustic surveys suggested that lake trout management allowed an imbalance to develop between prey fish biomass and the biomass of piscivorous lake trout. Piscivorous fish biomass was, on average, 60% of total pelagic fish biomass. Bioenergetics modeling confirmed the imbalance: annual lake trout consumption was near or exceeded annual pelagic prey fish supply (standing stock plus production); the degree of imbalance was greater in less productive reservoirs. Annual subsidies to the food web, in the form of stocked sport fish, were necessary to allow the imbalance between predator and prey populations to persist, especially in the least‐productive systems. Though highly sensitive to the size at which hatchery fish are consumed, the per capita costs to sustain lake trout growth at observed levels would total about US$200 per lake trout in the more productive reservoirs and $300–600 per lake trout in the less productive reservoirs. The cost of maintaining high lake trout biomass in these stocked systems may be a difficult management strategy to justify and sustain, either economically or socially.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-5947</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1548-8675</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020&lt;0127:TEOLTM&gt;2.0.CO;2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</publisher><subject>Freshwater ; Oncorhynchus ; Oncorhynchus mykiss ; Oncorhynchus nerka ; Salvelinus namaycush</subject><ispartof>North American journal of fisheries management, 2000-02, Vol.20 (1), p.127-143</ispartof><rights>2000 American Fisheries Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2657-20aeb2d7992531ecef43d96cd5f56ccf5fbfc1587f86154a47fdd3fee7005c6e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Brett M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><title>Trophic Economics of Lake Trout Management in Reservoirs of Differing Productivity</title><title>North American journal of fisheries management</title><description>Because of their potential to reach large size, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush are managed as trophy fish in many reservoirs in the western United States. In Colorado, restrictive harvest regulations for lake trout were enacted in reservoirs exhibiting a range of productivities. Annual stockings of kokanee (lacustrine sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka) and rainbow trout O. mykiss sustained sport fisheries, but stocked fish also dominated the prey fish assemblages in these systems. Hydroacoustic surveys suggested that lake trout management allowed an imbalance to develop between prey fish biomass and the biomass of piscivorous lake trout. Piscivorous fish biomass was, on average, 60% of total pelagic fish biomass. Bioenergetics modeling confirmed the imbalance: annual lake trout consumption was near or exceeded annual pelagic prey fish supply (standing stock plus production); the degree of imbalance was greater in less productive reservoirs. Annual subsidies to the food web, in the form of stocked sport fish, were necessary to allow the imbalance between predator and prey populations to persist, especially in the least‐productive systems. Though highly sensitive to the size at which hatchery fish are consumed, the per capita costs to sustain lake trout growth at observed levels would total about US$200 per lake trout in the more productive reservoirs and $300–600 per lake trout in the less productive reservoirs. The cost of maintaining high lake trout biomass in these stocked systems may be a difficult management strategy to justify and sustain, either economically or socially.</description><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Oncorhynchus</subject><subject>Oncorhynchus mykiss</subject><subject>Oncorhynchus nerka</subject><subject>Salvelinus namaycush</subject><issn>0275-5947</issn><issn>1548-8675</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqdkF1PwjAUhhujiYj-h135cTFou3Xd1JiQCWjCnCF43YzuFKuwYjsw_Hs3MV564dW5eJ_z5pwHoT7BPcI47xMWxn4ccXZJMcZXmOJbTCi_ng3zySy7oz3cS_MbeoA6v-Qh6mDKmc-SkB-jE-femk0WM9pB05k161ctvaE0lVlp6TyjvEnxDl6TbGovK6piASuoak9X3hQc2K3R9hu710qB1dXCe7am3Mhab3W9O0VHqlg6OPuZXfQyGs7SB3-Sjx_TwcSXNGLcp7iAOS15klAWEJCgwqBMIlkyxSIpFVNzJQmLuYqj5pMi5KosAwXAm9tlBEEXXex719Z8bMDVYqWdhOWyqMBsnIh5EkYJo2FDnv9JEh5TQkjQgOM9KK1xzoISa6tXhd0JgkVrX7RORetUtPZFY1-09sXevqACizQXtGnK9k2fegm7_9aIp8Eoa4PgC2EPkvQ</recordid><startdate>200002</startdate><enddate>200002</enddate><creator>Johnson, Brett M.</creator><creator>Martinez, Patrick J.</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200002</creationdate><title>Trophic Economics of Lake Trout Management in Reservoirs of Differing Productivity</title><author>Johnson, Brett M. ; Martinez, Patrick J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2657-20aeb2d7992531ecef43d96cd5f56ccf5fbfc1587f86154a47fdd3fee7005c6e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Oncorhynchus</topic><topic>Oncorhynchus mykiss</topic><topic>Oncorhynchus nerka</topic><topic>Salvelinus namaycush</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Brett M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Johnson, Brett M.</au><au>Martinez, Patrick J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Trophic Economics of Lake Trout Management in Reservoirs of Differing Productivity</atitle><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle><date>2000-02</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>127</spage><epage>143</epage><pages>127-143</pages><issn>0275-5947</issn><eissn>1548-8675</eissn><abstract>Because of their potential to reach large size, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush are managed as trophy fish in many reservoirs in the western United States. In Colorado, restrictive harvest regulations for lake trout were enacted in reservoirs exhibiting a range of productivities. Annual stockings of kokanee (lacustrine sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka) and rainbow trout O. mykiss sustained sport fisheries, but stocked fish also dominated the prey fish assemblages in these systems. Hydroacoustic surveys suggested that lake trout management allowed an imbalance to develop between prey fish biomass and the biomass of piscivorous lake trout. Piscivorous fish biomass was, on average, 60% of total pelagic fish biomass. Bioenergetics modeling confirmed the imbalance: annual lake trout consumption was near or exceeded annual pelagic prey fish supply (standing stock plus production); the degree of imbalance was greater in less productive reservoirs. Annual subsidies to the food web, in the form of stocked sport fish, were necessary to allow the imbalance between predator and prey populations to persist, especially in the least‐productive systems. Though highly sensitive to the size at which hatchery fish are consumed, the per capita costs to sustain lake trout growth at observed levels would total about US$200 per lake trout in the more productive reservoirs and $300–600 per lake trout in the less productive reservoirs. The cost of maintaining high lake trout biomass in these stocked systems may be a difficult management strategy to justify and sustain, either economically or socially.</abstract><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020&lt;0127:TEOLTM&gt;2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0275-5947
ispartof North American journal of fisheries management, 2000-02, Vol.20 (1), p.127-143
issn 0275-5947
1548-8675
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_879469524
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Freshwater
Oncorhynchus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salvelinus namaycush
title Trophic Economics of Lake Trout Management in Reservoirs of Differing Productivity
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T00%3A00%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trophic%20Economics%20of%20Lake%20Trout%20Management%20in%20Reservoirs%20of%20Differing%20Productivity&rft.jtitle=North%20American%20journal%20of%20fisheries%20management&rft.au=Johnson,%20Brett%20M.&rft.date=2000-02&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=127&rft.epage=143&rft.pages=127-143&rft.issn=0275-5947&rft.eissn=1548-8675&rft_id=info:doi/10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020%3C0127:TEOLTM%3E2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E879469524%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2657-20aeb2d7992531ecef43d96cd5f56ccf5fbfc1587f86154a47fdd3fee7005c6e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17821113&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true