FMRI Technical Report TR-5 2000

TECHNICAL REPORTS

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

(Alosa species): A Review of Population

and Fishery Characteristics

Richard S. McBride

FLORIDA MARINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TECHNICAL REPORTS

ISSN 1092-194X
Jeb Bush

Governor of Florida

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Allan E. Egbert

Executive Director

The Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) is a division of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The FWC is “managing fish and wildlife resources for their longterm well-being and the benefit of people.” The FMRI conducts applied research pertinent to

managing marine-fishery resources and marine species of special concern in Florida.

Programs at the FMRI focus on resource-management topics such as managing gamefish and

shellfish populations, restoring depleted fish stocks and the habitats that support them, protecting coral reefs, preventing and mitigating oil-spill damage, protecting endangered and

threatened species, and managing coastal-resource information.

The FMRI publishes three series: Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises, Florida Marine Research Publications, and FMRI Technical Reports. FMRI Technical Reports contain information relevant to immediate resource-management needs.

Kenneth D. Haddad, Chief of Research

James F. Quinn, Jr., Science Editor

Institute Editors

Theresa M. Bert, Paul R. Carlson, Mark M. Leiby,

Anne B. Meylan, Robert G. Muller,

Ruth O. Reese

Judith G. Leiby, Copy Editor

Llyn C. French, Publications Production
Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

(Alosa species): A Review of Population

and Fishery Characteristics

Richard S. McBride

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida Marine Research Institute

100 Eighth Avenue Southeast

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FMRI Technical Report TR-5

2000
Cover Photograph

A lone angler catches an American shad on the St. Johns River

near Sanford, Florida. Photograph by Richard S. McBride.

Copies of this document may be obtained from

Florida Marine Research Institute

100 Eighth Avenue SE

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095

Attn: Librarian

Document Citation

McBride, R. S. 2000. Florida’s shad and river herrings (Alosa species): A review of population and

fishery characteristics. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-5. 18 pp.

Document Production

This document was composed in Microsoft® Word and produced using QuarkXPress® on Apple

Power Macintosh® computers.The headline font is Adobe® Avant Garde, the text font is Adobe®

Palatino, and the cover headline is Adobe® Gill Sans.The cover and text papers are Consolidated Fortune Matte Recycled.

The cover and text papers used in this publication meet the minimum requirements of the

American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48—1992.
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

SPECIES DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION IN FLORIDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

AMERICAN SHAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Research Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Commercial Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Recreational Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Stock Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

OTHER ALOSIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Research Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

MARKETS AND REGULATIONS—ALL ALOSIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

ADVERSE FACTORS—ALL ALOSIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

i
Acknowledgments

S. Brown, R. Davis, and J. Holder provided unpublished data. B. Brock assisted with literature searches.

R. Crabtree, F. Cross, B. Mahmoudi, R. Matheson, J. Quinn, R. Williams, and D. Winkelman made helpful suggestions for improving the manuscript. J. Leiby copyedited the final manuscript. L. French produced

the document for printing. L. Palmer (National Museum of Natural History, Division of Fishes) furnished digital images for Figure 1. I thank all of the above.

ii
Five species of shad and river herrings occur in Florida. American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (A.

mediocris), and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) occur in

northeast Florida. Alabama shad (A. alabamae) and

skipjack herring (A. chrysochloris) are present in northwest Florida. With the possible exception of skipjack

herring, these species are anadromous, spawning in

rivers and spending most of their adult lives at sea.The

sea migration of Alosa species can extend into international waters. For example, locally spawned

American shad migrate to Canada before returning to

Florida to spawn.

All of these Alosa species occur in other states,

where their biology may differ from the biology of

Florida’s populations.The life cycle of American shad

in populations from Florida to Canada is well documented and serves as a good example. In populations

north of the Carolinas, American shad live longer and

grow larger but they produce fewer eggs per unit body

weight than southern populations of American shad.

South of the Carolinas, water temperatures are too

high and migration distances in the ocean are too long

for American shad to spawn more than once in a lifetime. Fish in southern populations compensate for

this inability to spawn repeatedly by reducing the size

and age at spawning and increasing their egg production per unit of body weight. Consequently, adult

shad migrating in Florida’s St. Johns River are smaller and younger but have higher egg counts than adult

shad migrating into other North American rivers. Florida’s American shad spawn once and then die, whereas

American shad from rivers north of the Carolinas can

spawn more than once in a lifetime.

Netting for shad began in Florida during the mid1800s, and this fishery expanded rapidly once railroads

began transporting shad to northern markets a few

decades later. Most Florida shad were harvested from

the St. Johns River during the December–April spawning run. Florida’s populations spawned earlier than

populations of the other Atlantic states did, so they

entered the northern markets earlier and sold at higher prices than shad harvested from other Atlantic states

did. At the turn of the nineteenth century, American

shad was among the top five fishery species in the

U.S. Landings (i.e., pounds) and value peaked at this

time but have declined steadily during the twentieth

century. Hickory shad and blueback herring were also

landed and sold during the late 1800s and early 1990s,

and although they no longer constitute significant fisheries in Florida, they are still economically important

to a few east coast states. Fisheries for Alabama shad

and skipjack herring never developed.

Shad fishing methods have changed considerably

since the 1950s in Florida. Haul seines were used until

the 1970s, and gill nets were gradually phased out by

various regulations during the 1990s. Hook and line

fishing for shad first became popular in the 1940s; during the 1950s and 1960s, the largest shad sport fishery

among the Atlantic states was in Florida’s St. Johns

River. Today, the only allowable gear for shad fishing

is hook and line. In addition, a saltwater fishing license

is now required for most anglers who land shad or river

herrings in Florida, and it is illegal to possess more than

an aggregate of 10 American shad, Alabama shad, and

hickory shad. Because of the virtual elimination of

Florida’s commercial fishing effort, it is predicted that

there will be increases in shad abundance, length of the

spawning run, average fish size, and numbers of female

shad (up to a 1:1 sex ratio). Commercial ocean-intercept fisheries that exist offshore of nearly all other

Atlantic coastal states can still affect Florida’s populations, but these fisheries are scheduled to be phased

out by the year 2005. Adequate water flow and water

quality at shad spawning grounds are now probably

the major factors limiting Florida’s shad abundance and

recovery.

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 iii

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

(Alosa species): A Review of Population

and Fishery Characteristics

Executive Summary
Figure 1. Florida’s shad and river herrings (digital images courtesy of the Smithsonian

Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Division of Fishes).

American Shad

480 mm TL

Hickory Shad

309 mm TL

Blueback Herring

265 mm TL

Alabama Shad

380 mm TL

Skipjack Herring

320 mm TL

drawn by

H. L. Todd

drawn by

N. D. Patton

drawn by

A. H. Baldwin

drawn by

S. Stearns

illustrator

unknown
Introduction

Of the six shad and river herring species (Clupeidae:

Alosa species) found in North America, five occur in

Florida (Figure 1), more than in any other state in the

U.S. These species, with one possible exception, are

anadromous (i.e., they move from salt water to fresh

water to spawn). On Florida’s Atlantic coast, there are

three species: American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (A. mediocris), and blueback herring (A.

aestivalis). Two species are present on Florida’s gulf

coast: Alabama shad (A. alabamae) and skipjack herring

(A. chrysochloris).The Atlantic species range northward

from Florida to as far as Canada, and the gulf species

range westward to Louisiana.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, American

shad was one of the most economically important U.S.

fishes, but shad populations have declined dramatically

in abundance and value since then. Florida’s shad

spawned earlier than those in populations in other

east coast states did, so Florida’s shad sold for higher

prices than were available later in the year. The early

spawning season in Florida also meant that tourists

could fish for shad weeks or months earlier than they

could in their home states. Recreational shad fishing

in Florida grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, and

the largest shad sport fishery along the Atlantic coast

was in Florida’s St. Johns River. More recently, Florida’s commercial fishery for shad and river herrings has

been virtually eliminated by a series of regulations

that restrict the use of fishing nets, but an economically

valuable recreational fishery persists for American

shad in the St. Johns River.

In this document, I assemble and summarize information about Florida’s populations of Alosa species

and discuss the status and trends of those populations. Much of the information assembled here is from

the published literature, but I also review and synthesize unpublished reports and data available from

the archives and databases of the Florida Marine

Research Institute. After a general account of species

distributions, I review the biology, ecology, and fishery

of American shad. Comparative information, whenever

available, is presented for other alosid species in subsequent subsections. A review of markets, regulations,

and factors that adversely affect alosid populations is

followed by a brief summary.

Species Diversity and 

Distribution in Florida

Shad and river herrings, collectively referred to as

alosids, occur in several river systems on the east and

west coasts of Florida (Lee et al., 1980; Rulifson et al.,

1982; Warren et al., 2000; Williams and Grey, undated).

American shad, hickory shad, and blueback herring are

present in the St. Johns and St. Marys rivers in northeastern Florida (Figure 2). Some individuals may range

south to the Tomoka River, just north of Cape Canaveral, but there are no reports of these species south of St.

Lucie Inlet. On the gulf coast, Alabama shad ranges

through Florida’s panhandle and south to the Suwannee River, whereas skipjack herring does not occur

south or east of the Apalachicola River. The southern

distributional limit for all these alosids is limited by

temperature (Hildebrand, 1963; Leggett, 1969; Leggett

and Whitney, 1972).

American Shad

Research Review

The American shad was described by Wilson (1811), and

it was included in classic references on American fishes by Mitchill and DeKay (Hildebrand, 1963). The

fishery and husbandry of American shad was well

detailed in the literature of the nineteenth century

(e.g., Baird, 1874a–g; Milner, 1874; McDonald, 1884a–d,

1887; Stevenson, 1898, 1899). Early references that

specifically mentioned shad in Florida are Baird (1874g),

Goode and Shepard (1874), Osborn (1882, 1883),

Hamlen (1884), McDonald (1884a, b, c, d, 1887), Smiley

(1884), Cary (1885), Stearns (1885, 1887), Dempsey (1887),

Collins (1892), Smith (1893, 1894, 1898), Brice (1898b),

Evermann and Bean (1898), Henshall (1898), Stevenson

(1898, 1899), and Townsend (1899, 1900). Hildebrand

(1963; see also Berry, 1964) provided an excellent sumFMRI Technical Report TR-5 1

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

(Alosa species): A Review of Population

and Fishery Characteristics
mary of ecological and systematic research on shad and

river herrings; Walburg and Nichols (1967) assessed the

economics of the shad fishery and culture; fishery

landings, values, and trends were complied by various

authors (see Fishery sections); McLean (1955), Moody

(1961), Williams and Bruger (1972), and Williams et al.

(1975) investigated shad and river herring life histories

and the ecology of the St. Johns River (Table 1).

American shad are anadromous, and in the St.

Johns River they spawn in the freshwater part of the

river between Lake Monroe and Lake Poinsett

(Williams and Bruger, 1972).Their progeny move downstream to the sea and eventually migrate to Canada.

After four years, on average, they return to the St.

Johns River to spawn. Each river from Florida to Canada presumably hosts a reproductively isolated

population of American shad. Researchers often use

specimens from the St. Johns River when examining

intraspecific genetic, morphological, or life-history

variations, because this Florida population is at the

limit of the southern range of the species. Population

studies that have examined the Florida population of

American shad exclusively or in part include those of

Walburg (1956, 1960a, b), Davis (1957), La Pointe (1957),

Nichols (1959, 1964, 1965, 1966a, b), Leggett (1969),

Leggett and Whitney (1972),Williams and Bruger (1972),

Carscadden and Leggett (1975), Leggett and Carscadden (1978), Glebe and Leggett (1981a, b), Dadswell et

al. (1987), Conover (1990), Nolan et al. (1991), Melvin et

al. (1992), Bentzen et al. (1993), Hogans et al. (1993),

Epifanio et al. (1995), and Brown et al. (1996, 1999).

Because American shad are anadromous, the population size in any specific river can vary independently

from the sizes of populations in other rivers. A recent

stock assessment of shad populations (ASMFC, 1998)

documented declining abundance in 2 of 12 selected

populations from Maine to Georgia (no Florida rivers

were included in this assessment because of insufficient

data). The American shad is frequently used in studies of fish recruitment dynamics (e.g., Leggett, 1969;

Crecco et al., 1983; Crecco and Savoy, 1984; Savoy and

Crecco, 1988; Limburg, 1995). Nonetheless, the causes

of population declines remain debatable (see Adverse

Factors section).

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

2 FMRI Technical Report TR-5

Figure 2. Map of Florida’s rivers, indicating water bodies and other landmarks mentioned in the text.
American shad research has led to important

insights regarding the evolutionary ecology of fishes.

The seminal work of Leggett (1969; see also Leggett

and Carscadden, 1978) established the adaptive significance of geographic variation in shad life history.

Leggett noted that American shad arrive at each Atlantic

coast river at different dates but at similar water temperatures (i.e., southern populations arrive at rivers to

spawn during winter months and northern populations arrive at spawning rivers during late spring

months). These temperatures are optimal for the survival of eggs and larvae, but they occur at the various

rivers during different times of the year because of latitudinal variation in seasonality. He also demonstrated

the adverse effects of high temperatures on spawning

adults and how fecundity (i.e., egg number) and spawning frequency vary with latitude; in fact, American shad

is a repeat spawner (iteroparous) in the north but a onetime spawner (semelparous) in the south. He concluded that because southern populations of American

shad die after spawning once, these populations appear

to be at a biological disadvantage when compared with

the multiple-spawning northern populations of American shad.This total mortality in the south results from

the shad’s physiological limits being exceeded during

the very long oceanic migrations and from the rapidly rising temperatures in southern rivers. The biology

of southern shad populations, however, has evolved to

compensate for this inability to spawn repeatedly.

Despite being smaller and younger than individual

shad in northern rivers, Florida’s shad produce more

eggs per unit of body weight. Consequently, the lifetime

reproductive potential of individuals in both the northern and southern populations of American shad is

roughly equal.This adaptive variation in size, age, egg

number, spawning frequency, and migration energetR. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 3

Table 1. Life history data for Alosa species in Florida. Data for American shad come from Walburg (1960a),

Williams and Bruger (1972), and Williams et al. (1975); data for hickory shad and blueback herring are from 

Williams et al. (1975); data for Alabama shad are from Laurence (1967) and Laurence and Yerger (1967); 

data for skipjack herring are from Wolfe (1969).

St. Johns River Apalachicola River

American Hickory Blueback Alabama Skipjack

shad shad herring shad herring

Adults

Fecundity (1,000s) 277–659 168–591 151–349 46–149 76–962a

Fish sizeb (mm) 353–460 323–414 213–278 368–427 352–451

Riverine diet Not feeding Fish Invertebrates Not feeding Fish

Spawning

Months Dec–Apr Nov?–Feb Dec–Apr Feb–Apr Dec–Apr

(Peak) (Feb–Mar) (?) (Feb–Mar) (Apr) (Mar–Apr)

Areas (km)c 240–330 <300? 200–380 Below Woodruff Extensive

Dam

Length rangeb 317–480 303–416 204–262 330–431 240–482

Modal age IV III V–VI III III

(Age range) (III–VI)d (II–IV) (III–VIII) (II–IV)e (II–IV)e

Frequency 1 1? 5? 2? 1?

Juveniles

Growth rate 0.23–0.32 mm d–1 —f —f —f —f

Diet Invertebrates — — Fish/ Fish/

Invertebrates Invertebrates

a Length–fecundity relationship was not statistically significant.

b Studies in the St. Johns River measured fork length (FL), and studies in the Apalachicola River measured total length (TL).

c There is a 14% difference in river miles/kilometers reported in Williams and Bruger (1972) and Williams et al. (1975).

d Less than 1% of the fish in the spawning run were either ages II or ages VI+. e 1%–2% of the fish in the spawning run were age I.

f Data in original report/thesis could probably be used to calculate growth rates.
ics across latitudes is strong evidence of life history

evolution in a marine fish. Such fine tuning between

reproductive strategies and the environment may be the

ultimate cause for the evolution of homing behavior

(Leggett and Carscadden, 1978).

Commercial Fishery

Today, American shad landings are of minor importance when compared to the U.S. landings of all other

fishes (e.g., U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993). Historically, however, the American shad fishery was one

of the most important fisheries along the Atlantic

seaboard (Smith, 1894; Walburg and Nichols, 1967),

and shad were a very popular foodfish (Nichols, 1918).

Native Americans fished for anadromous fishes, and

fishing rights along alosid spawning runs were leased

during the Colonial period (Loesch and Atran, 1994).

At the turn of the nineteenth century, millions of

pounds of shad—worth millions of dollars then—were

landed (Figure 3; Leim, 1924; Lyles, 1967a–c; Walburg,

1960a, b; ASMFC, 1985). In 1896, approximately 25,000

fishers were engaged in shad fishing (Stevenson, 1898,

1899). In 1908, American shad ranked second by volume and third by value for all fisheries nationwide

(Walburg and Nichols, 1967).

A gill-net fishery for American shad began in Florida’s St. Johns River in the 1850s (Walburg, 1960a), but

this was the last shad fishery to develop along the U.S.

east coast (Goode and Shepard, 1874; McDonald, 1887;

Stevenson, 1899; Walburg and Nichols, 1967). It was also

relatively small compared to shad fisheries in other

states (Figure 4; Collins, 1892; Smith, 1893, 1894, 1898;

Stevenson, 1899; Leim, 1924). Still, in 1889 and 1890,

Florida’s shad landings (> 2 million lbs) and their value

($100,000) were higher than those of any other marine

product harvested within the state (Smith, 1893). Brice

(1898a) discussed the rapid expansion of Florida’s fisheries as the railroad expanded along the east coast

and reached Titusville, Florida, in 1885. Railroads provided the infrastructure for transporting American

shad to northern markets and made Florida’s fishery

much more valuable. Florida’s shad landings peaked

at the turn of the century at about 1–3 million lbs and

fluctuated between 200,000 and 900,000 lbs from the

1920s to the 1960s. Landings have declined further,

from <200,000 lbs in the early 1970s to nearly zero by

the late 1990s (Tables 2, 3; Walburg, 1960a, b; Lyles,

1967a; Walburg and Nichols, 1967; ASMFC, 1985).

Both Walburg (1960a, b) and Nichols (1964, 1965,

1966a) estimated the population biomass of Florida’s

American shad to range from 1 to 3 million pounds during the 1950s and 1960s, which is roughly equal to the

peak yields of the fishery at the turn of the nineteenth

century. During the 1950s, about 2%–8% of the American shad stock in the St. Johns River was harvested

annually with commercial gill nets, another 7%–20%

taken with commercial haul seines, and 3%–8% taken

with hook and line by sport anglers (Walburg, 1960a,

b; see also Walburg and Nichols [1967] and ASMFC

[1985]); total fishing mortality then was about 15%–37%.

Based on these values, either the virgin (or predevelopment) stocks were much larger than those during the

1950s were, or the mortality rates were astonishingly

high at the turn of the nineteenth century, or both of

these conditions existed.

Fishers at the turn of the nineteenth century in

Florida caught shad primarily in drifting gill nets, secFlorida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

4 FMRI Technical Report TR-5

Figure 3. Weight (circle) and value (triangle) of American

shad landings, 1880–1960, for the United States Atlantic coast.

Values are unadjusted for inflation (from Walburg and Nichols,

1967,Table 55).

Figure 4. Annual landings, 1926–1985, of American shad in

Florida (open portion of bar) and all other Atlantic states (filled

portion of bar). Complete data do not exist for all years before 1950.

Data source: ASMFC (1985: Table II-2).
ondarily in haul seines, and thirdly in anchored or

staked gill nets (Smith, 1898; Stevenson, 1899). These

gears were common in nearly all other states, although

pound nets, weirs, fyke nets, and bow nets were also

used outside of Florida. In many areas of the St. Johns

River gill nets were not used because the waters were

too sluggish or the aquatic vegetation was too dense

(Walburg and Nichols, 1967). Haul-seining was discontinued during the early 1970s in Florida’s St. Johns

River, but gill netting effort remained relatively constant from the 1950s to the 1970s (Williams and Bruger,

1972). Therefore, the decline in gill-net landings during the 1970s (Table 2) probably represents a real

decline in population size.The declining trend in Florida’s landings during the 1990s (Table 3), however,

should be credited to the increase in fishing gear

restrictions (see Markets and Regulations).

As has happened in many other states, Florida’s

shad fishing grounds shifted geographically in the last

few decades, so that by the 1990s most of the shad

harvested came from gill nets fished in coastal waters.

Because American shad migrate between their natal

river and Canada they are vulnerable to fishing in

coastal waters beyond the state of origin. Ocean-intercept fishing offshore of other Atlantic states probably

adds to the fishing pressure on Florida’s populations.

Ocean-intercept landings have more than doubled in

the past two decades (ASMFC, 1999), which could indicate that this source of fishing mortality has increased

recently. Unfortunately, the impacts of this developing

R. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 5

Table 2. Pounds of American shad landed in Florida, by gear type.

Data from Walburg and Nichols (1967) and ASMFC (1985).

Gill Net

Year Drift Anchor Seine Rod & Reel

1896 940,000 5,000 353,000 no data reported

1960 50,000 163,000 299,000 198,000

1965 239,000 202,000 316,000 no data reported

1970 27,000 65,000 127,000 no data reported

1976 5,000 23,000 0 no data reported

Table 3. Annual commercial landings of Alosa in Florida. Landings are presumably all American shad, but reporting

criteria did not require distinguishing between American and hickory shad. Data are restricted to reports from Nassau,

Duval, and St. Johns counties (all coastal) and Putnam County (inland). A fishing year (July–June) is used because 

the spawning run begins as early as November and continues for several months. Data source: Florida Marine 

Fisheries Information System (Steve Brown, Florida Marine Research Institute, personal communication).

Data for 1997–98 are preliminary.

Coastal County Landings All Florida Landings

Year Pounds Trips Value ($) Pounds Trips Value ($)

1986–87 142,026 248 12,454 155,430 313 13,620

1987–88 266,251 220 22,900 266,374 224 22,911

1988–89 164,839 254 16,484 165,112 263 16,511

1989–90 169,881 278 18,501 289,293 544 31,419

1990–91 58,810 278 8,527 71,592 322 10,084

1991–92 49,633 267 6,170 49,798 270 6,191

1992–93 24,503 133 5,574 24,503 133 5,574

1993–94 24,930 174 7,346 24,968 175 7,357

1994–95 26,791 150 5,853 26,886 152 5,881

1995–96 3,650 2 818 3,650 2 818

1996–97 54 2 12 54 2 12

1997–98 18 2 4 18 2 4
fishery for various shad populations cannot be assessed

because attempts to delineate the stock composition in

these mixed-stock ocean fisheries have been inconclusive (Epifanio et al., 1995; ASMFC, 1998; ASMFC,

1999; Brown et al., 1999). Because of concerns that fishing mixed stocks of shad in the ocean could be

adversely affecting small populations, whereas larger

(and generally better monitored) populations could

appear unaffected (ASMFC, 1985, 1998), ocean-intercept fishing will be phased out by 2005 (ASMFC, 1999).

Although the exact effect of this fishery on Florida’s

shad population size is not known, a phase-out of

ocean fishing by other states will improve Florida’s

ability to control fishing pressure on local anadromous populations.

Recreational Fishery

Seining for shad was considered sport at the turn of the

nineteenth century, and anglers were fishing for shad

in the St. Johns River as early as the 1880s (Pfeiffer, 1975).

Nonetheless, Florida’s shad sport fishery is generally

recognized as originating in 1942 (Snyder, 1949; Nichols,

1959; Walburg, 1960a, b).The introduction of spinning

tackle in the 1940s helped popularize shad sport fishing, principally because it was an effective way to fish

with the light lures used to catch shad. Fly-fishing for

shad has also become popular in recent years (Lindsay, 1999). Anglers fish for shad from public boat ramps

and at a small number of fish camps on the St. Johns

River between Lake Monroe and Lake Poinsett (Branyon, 1999).Traditional shad fishing spots in this area are

found at Marina Isle, Mullet Lake Park, Lemon Bluff,

Puzzle Lake, and Hatbill Park.The certified state record

fish (a tie) for American shad (5.19 lbs.) were caught in

Seminole and Volusia counties.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the shad sport fishery

in the St. Johns River was estimated to be larger than

the shad sport fisheries in any of the other Atlantic

states (Nichols, 1959, 1966a; Walburg and Nichols,

1967). Other estimates of recreational landings have

been reported by Nichols (1964, 1965),Walburg (1960a,

b), Williams and Bruger (1972), Williams (1996), Holder and Cross (1996), Holder (1998), Davis (1999), and

Cheek (undated). Estimates from the above reports

are not easily compared to each other, however, except

as noted below. During the 1990s, catch per unit effort

(CPUE) for shad caught by recreational fishers in the

St. Johns River ranged between 0.5 and 1.2 American

shad per fishing hour (Table 4). Release rates of boated fish varied from 20 to 89% in any given year. In

years of exceptional rainfall (i.e., 1993–94 and 1997–98)

the CPUEs were lower, most likely because when river

water levels are extremely high, the fish scatter. One

overall trend in the data is that the average CPUE for

1995–96 and 1998–99 was higher than that for 1992–93

and 1994–95 (1.2 versus 0.71 fish per angler hour).This

increase in CPUE may be due to the implementation

of Florida’s 1995 constitutional amendment banning

certain nets in state waters (see Markets and Regulations), which would be expected to improve the chances

that adult fish reach the spawning grounds.Tentative

plans are to continue to gather CPUE data during

1999–2004 and to add an electrofishing survey so that

we can independently evaluate whether the recent

increase in shad recreational CPUE is significant and

sustained (McBride, 1999).

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

6 FMRI Technical Report TR-5

Table 4. Catch and effort in the St. Johns River recreational shad fishery for six fishing seasons. Catch per unit effort

(CPUE) is a stratified mean number of fish per angler hour. The same stratified, roving sampling design was used in 

all years of this survey. Sampling times were chosen randomly within predetermined periods (weekdays/weekends,

morning/mid-day/afternoon). The survey was conducted in an area where shad fishing is concentrated,

a 9.6-km stretch of river from the Lake Jessup boat ramp to Iron Bend.

Year Catch (n) Effort (Angler-hours) CPUE

1992–93 9,432 12,623 0.77

1993–94 4,907 9,143 0.55*

1994–95 5,270 8,357 0.65

1995–96 8,423 7,190 1.18

1996–97 No data No data No data

1997–98 2,367 5,610 0.46*

1998–99 5,434 4,764 1.19

*The winters of 1993–94 and 1997–98 were exceptionally rainy, with very high water levels in rivers, and may be anomalous.

Data for 1998–99 are preliminary. Data sources: Holder and Cross (1996), Holder (1998), and Davis (1999).
Stock Enhancement

Artificial fertilization of American shad eggs succeeded

as early as 1848, and the federal government stocked

U.S. streams with nearly 100 million shad fry during

the 1870s alone (Baird, 1874a–e; Milner, 1874; Walburg

and Nichols, 1967).There were several letters advocating

the stocking of American shad in Florida’s St. Johns and

St. Marys rivers (Goode and Shepard, 1874; Osborn,

1882, 1883; Hamlen, 1884; Smiley, 1884; Cary, 1885;

Dempsey, 1887; McDonald, 1887; Smith, 1893; Evermann and Bean, 1898; Henshall, 1898; Stevenson, 1899;

Townsend, 1900), but there is no clear evidence that this

was done (nor any evidence that it was necessary).

American shad were stocked in Florida’s Indian River

(Evermann and Bean, 1898), but this system is probably too warm for shad, and stocking was not successful.

Stearns (1885) and letters in Baird (1874g) advocated

stocking gulf coast rivers, and stocking occurred in

the Suwannee (Brice, 1898b), the Alabama (Baird, 1874f;

McDonald, 1884c), and in the Mississippi (Baird, 1874c;

Pfieffer, 1975) rivers. Efforts to stock fish in Gulf of

Mexico rivers were considered to be unsuccessful by

Hildebrand (1963) and Walburg and Nichols (1967).

Elsewhere, unsuccessful stocking occurred in Colorado streams, the Great Lakes, and the Great Salt

Lake, but a successful introduction of shad occurred in

the Pacific along the U.S. west coast (Welander, 1941;

Walburg and Nichols, 1967).The federal shad hatchery

program declined in production after the turn of the

nineteenth century and ended in 1950, although many

states (but not Florida) have their own programs.

Other Alosids

Research Review

Hickory shad and blueback herring were first described

by Mitchill (1814) and re-classified by Svetovidov (1964).

Blueback herring and alewife, A. pseudoharengus, are

collectively referred to as ’river herrings’ because they

occur together abundantly in northern rivers and are difficult to distinguish from each other.This is not a problem

in Florida, because alewife does not occur here (Hildebrand, 1963).The prior research emphasis on American

shad and the passage of the Anadromous Fish Act of

1965 (Public Law 89-304) led Williams et al. (1975) to

focus their attention on hickory shad and blueback herring during their investigation of the ecology of American

shad in the St. Johns River (Table 1). Detailed information on hickory shad and blueback herring in Florida

appears to be limited to Williams et al.’s (1975) unpublished report and to McLean (1955) and Moody (1961).

The presence of ‘white shad’ along the gulf coast

was first noted by Baird (1874f, g). Twenty years later,

Evermann (1896) described the Alabama shad from

specimens of white shad from an Alabama river and

from Pensacola, Florida. Evermann stated:

“In view of the importance of this discovery, it is

thought desirable to publish this preliminary description

in advance of a more complete report upon the species.”

The more “complete” report of this species was

not done, however, for another 70 years. Laurence

(1967) and Laurence and Yerger (1967) examined the

ecology of Alabama shad in the Apalachicola River

(Table 1), and Mills (1972) continued this research

using funds made available under the Anadromous

Fish Act (P.L. 89-304). Evermann (1898), Bailey et al.

(1954), Hildebrand (1963), and Boschung (1992) also

made noteworthy contributions to the knowledge of

this species in several Florida rivers, and the consensus is that the largest population occurs in the

Apalachicola River. Huntsman (1994) regards Alabama shad as being notably reduced in abundance and

vulnerable to extinction.

Rafinesque’s 1820 description of skipjack herring

was so confounding that this species’taxonomic status

was in doubt until the review of alosids by Hildebrand

(1963) confirmed its validity.This species is distributed

extensively in freshwater river systems of the midwestern U.S. (Lee et al., 1980), and the type specimen (i.e.,

the fish used to describe the species) was from the

Ohio River. Distributional records reported by Hildebrand (1963),Wolfe (1969), Lee et al. (1980), and Boschung

(1992) included several records in the Gulf of Mexico

and in Florida estuaries. Still, the lone population study

of this species (Wolfe, 1969; Table 1) presented only

equivocal evidence that it is anadromous.

Fisheries

There has been no directed commercial fishery for

hickory shad, but landings of this species have been

included as unidentified bycatch in American shad

landings.The amount of such bycatch is unknown and

is difficult to estimate because it varies depending on

both river location and season. For example, Williams

et al. (1975) reported catching roughly 1 hickory shad

for every 7 American shad during the 1971–72 sampling

season (combined n = 880) but only about 1 hickory

shad for every 99 American shad during the 1972–73

season (combined n = 1216). These very different

between-year results may be partially explained by

the fact that hickory shad enter rivers earlier than

American shad (Moody, 1961), and Williams et al. started sampling three calendar weeks earlier in their first

year than they did in their second year, when they

found fewer hickory shad (Figure 5). Hickory shad also

R. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 7
do not migrate as far upstream as American shad do,

and they appear to be more abundant (by frequency

of occurrence and by weight) in deeper water than

American shad are (Moody, 1961).

Historic reports of ‘alewife’landings in Florida are

a combination of blueback herring and hickory shad

on Florida’s east coast (McDonald, 1887) and menhaden (Brevoortia spp.) on Florida’s west coast. These

landings peaked at just over 1 million pounds in the

first quarter of the twentieth century (Lyles, 1967a).

Landings reported by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC, 1985) depict Florida’s

landings of river herrings as high and steady in the

1930s and 1940s, variable and lower in the 1950s, and

declining to zero by the 1960s (remaining so during the

1970s and 1980s).

Hildebrand (1963) reported nominal landings of

Alabama shad, but a commercial fishery for either this

species or skipjack herring has never developed (Baird,

1874f, g; Evermann and Kendall, 1898; Mills, 1972).

‘Shad’are often reported as landed in west coast counties, according to the State of Florida’s Marine Fisheries

Information System, but these fish, locally called shad,

are actually menhaden (Brevoortia spp.).

Recreational fishing for Alosa species other than

American shad is minor. There is no directed sport

fishery for hickory shad, although some anglers may

land them preferentially because they consider their

roe to be better to eat than American shad’s (Nichols,

1959). Still, hickory shad are relatively rare; a 1958

angler creel survey (Walburg, 1960a) reported that

1,553 (2.4%) hickory shad were present among the

65,246 shad caught in the St. Johns River. Our perception of hickory shad as a rare species is influenced at

least partly by angler behavior, particularly to fish in

late winter and in upstream portions of the St. Johns

River. These conditions exaggerate the abundance of

American shad compared to hickory shad, because

hickory shad has an earlier spawning run and does not

migrate as far up the river. Many anglers simply cannot distinguish between American and hickory shad

(Walburg, 1960a), so detailed records of species composition of the catch are not available. Sport fishing for

Alabama shad began around 1950 but has not developed significantly (Smith, 1968; Mills, 1972), and there

is no sport fishery for blueback herring. Sport fishing

for skipjack herring occurs during spring, and Yerger

(1977) reported that this species is popular among flyrod enthusiasts.

Markets and Regulations—

All Alosids

Fillet quality varies from “delicious”for American shad,

Alabama shad, and blueback herring, to “inferior in flavor”for hickory shad, to “not especially well flavored”

for skipjack herring (Hildebrand, 1963). The roe of

American shad, hickory shad, and Alabama shad is also

eaten (Nichols, 1959; Smith, 1968).Walburg and Nichols

(1967) concluded that American shad had declined in

popularity relative to other fishes and recommended

that improved methods of handling, particularly

deboning, could increase the demand for shad.

Florida has a particular marketing advantage over

other states because of the early spawning season for

American shad there. Historically, this allowed Florida to be a main supplier during February and March,

when prices were high (Figure 6; Henshall, 1898;

Stevenson, 1899).Walburg and Nichols (1967) noted that

American shad caught in the St. Johns River were usually shipped to New York City and other distant

markets, whereas those caught in the St. Marys River

were mainly sold at local or regional markets. Although,

landings of hickory shad are not recorded separately

from those of American shad, they probably do not contribute substantially to shad landings in Florida. In

Florida, as in most other Atlantic states, landings of

blueback herring are generally far less than those of

shad. Blueback herring were a historically valuable

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

8 FMRI Technical Report TR-5

Figure 5. Catch per unit effort of American shad (filled symbols)

and hickory shad (open symbols) in a tidal portion of the St. Johns

River, between Palatka and Welaka.Two sampling periods were covered: December 1971–April 1972 (circles) and December 1972 and

March 1973 (triangles). Data are from Williams et al. (1975).
commercial fishery in Florida, when these fish were a

salted and shipped to distant markets, but blueback

herring declined in importance after the development

of refrigeration (McDonald, 1884a; Hildebrand, 1963).

In the 1970s, both blueback herring and hickory shad

were used primarily as bait for the crab and catfish fisheries (McLean, 1955; Williams et al., 1975). Markets for

Alabama shad and skipjack herring never developed.

Commercial fishing regulations for Florida’s American shad populations have existed since at least 1896,

when (1) fishing was allowed only from sunrise on

Monday to sundown on Saturday and from December

1 to March 31, (2) mesh sizes were restricted to > 5 inches for gill nets and to >3 inches for seines, and (3)

using seines in the lake portions of the rivers was prohibited (Stevenson, 1899; Walburg and Nichols, 1967).

Moreover, an act approved in 1893 prohibited netfishers (except those using cast nets) from taking

commercial food-fish within one mile of any pass,

inlet, or river mouth connecting with the Atlantic

Ocean (Brice, 1898a).

Regulations for the St. Johns River in 1960 included

(1) a restricted commercial season from November 15 to

March 15 and (2) an area closed to commercial nets

south of Lake George.The legal fishing season for the St.

Marys River (which runs along the Florida-Georgia border) in 1960 was from December 15 to April 15, but there

were no other restrictions for Florida’s part of this river

(Walburg, 1960a; Walburg and Nichols, 1967).

A series of regulations in the 1990s caused sharp

reductions in Florida’s commercial landings of shad.

Landings for upstream gill-net fishing were severely

reduced after January 1, 1992, by a regulation to increase

mesh size (≥6 inches stretched mesh) to assist in the management of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) populations

(Williams, 1996).The ocean shad fishery was restricted

by net-tending and net soak-time regulations that gradually took effect from March 1992 to May 1994 (Williams,

1996). Furthermore, fishing with nets in coastal waters is

now severely restricted by a ‘net ban’ amendment to

Florida’s Constitution (Art. X, Sec. 16) that took effect in

July 1995. This amendment prohibits the use of entangling nets >500 ft2, which were commonly used for shad

fishing, within three miles of the Atlantic coast. Consequently, although sale of alosids is not prohibited, the

commercial net fishery for shad and blueback herring

has been effectively eliminated within state waters.

Sport fishing for American shad has been regulated

by bag limits since 1955, and the initial bag limit of 15

fish per day was lowered to 10 fish in 1973 (Williams,

1996). Since January 1, 1990, a saltwater fishing license

has been required of most anglers who fish for marine

species, and this also applies to anglers who fish for

anadromous species such as shad and river herrings.

Since January 1, 1997 (Chapter 68B-52.001 of the Florida Administrative Code), hook and line has been the

only allowable fishing gear for alosids and it has been

unlawful to possess more than 10 fish (as an aggregate

of American shad, Alabama shad, and hickory shad).

Management of all U.S. east-coast shad and river

herring populations is overseen by the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) through a

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) subscribed to by the

individual Atlantic-coast states. Maximum exploitation

rates for Florida’s Atlantic populations of alosids was

set at 25% in 1985 by the ASMFC (ASMFC, 1985).

Amendment 1 to the ASMFC’s ‘Shad and River Herring FMP’ calls for (1) a 5-year phase out of the

ocean-intercept fishery, (2) regulating the in-river fishery at target exploitation rates (e.g., F30), and (3)

implementing bag limits of 10 fish per day in the recreational fishery (ASMFC, 1999). American shad

abundance had been closely monitored in some states

but not in others, such as Florida (ASMFC, 1998), so

Amendment 1 also establishes monitoring programs

for all states; it requires Florida to monitor commercial and recreational shad fisheries and to complete

fishery-independent surveys of American shad

(McBride, 1999).

Adverse Factors—All Alosids

Declines in shad and river herring populations were

evident in many Atlantic rivers as early as the nineR. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 9

Figure 6. (A) Prices of shad in New York City, by week and sex,

during 1896 (from Stevenson, 1899), (B) Daily number of shad per

net fished from 1 December 1885 to 31 March 1886 at New Berlin,

Florida (from Dempsey, 1887).
teenth century (Baird, 1874e; Walburg and Nichols,

1967; Loesch and Atran, 1994). Many different factors

have been cited as causing population declines of

alosids during the past two centuries. Rulifson et al.

(1982) listed a number of anthropogenic factors that

could adversely affect anadromous fish populations in

Florida rivers, none of which are unique to Florida, and

Williams and Bruger (1972) discussed several of these

factors—fishing pressure increases, river-flow alterations, water quality declines, and human population

growth in the St. Johns watershed—in more detail.

Not all variations in shad production are the result of

anthropogenic causes, however. Leggett (1969) related

year-class strength and post-spawning mortality to

variations in temperature in a Connecticut river, and

Summers and Rose (1987) found that spawning stock

size, river flow rate, and temperature were important

predictors of future American shad population sizes.

The major factors affecting or that have the potential

of affecting Florida’s populations of shad and river

herring are discussed below.

Dam building, which precluded fish movement

between freshwater spawning grounds and marine

feeding grounds, was one of the earliest known causes of alosid population declines. This was a particular

problem in the northeastern states, where industrial

power was developed with water resources as early as

Colonial times, and there are numerous cases in which

entire runs of shad were eliminated by damming (Stilwell et al., 1874; Stevenson, 1898; Loesch and Atran,

1994). Fishways built prior to 1930 were largely unsuccessful in allowing fish to pass around dams, but fishway

designs have improved since for both allowing adult fish

to move upstream (Walburg and Nichols, 1967; Quinn,

1994) and for reducing the mortality rates of young-ofthe-year fish moving downstream (Martin et al., 1994).

In Florida, there are a few structures that adversely

affect shad populations. A dam built on the Ocklawaha River, a branch of the St. Johns River, has been under

consideration for removal for several years (Joseph,

1998; Klinkenberg and Hauserman, 1998). Removing this

dam would be a first step towards restoring a shad run

to this area, but it will have little effect unless shad

spawning habitat is restored. The Lake Washington

Weir cuts off areas of the upper St. Johns River that were

historic spawning grounds for shad, but it is not considered a significant impediment to shad spawning

success because it occurs upstream of what is now the

major spawning area for shad.To protect farming communities from floods, alterations along the St. Johns

River were made beginning at the turn of the nineteenth

century and continued to be made during the 1940s and

1950s.These flood-control activities had severe effects

on sedimentation dynamics, water quality, and habitat

availability (Bass and Cox, 1985; Walther, 1989; Cox,

1997).Two proposed water-control structures, at Lakes

Harney and Poinsett along the St. Johns River, were proposed as recently as the 1970s, but they were not built

because of environmental concerns (Williams and

Bruger, 1972). The spawning migration of Alabama

shad is limited in the Apalachicola River by the

Woodruff Dam and in the Chipola River by the Dead

Lakes Dam. Suitable spawning habitat occurs below

these dams, and there is no historical evidence that

the fish migrated farther upstream (although they probably did; Laurence, 1967). Obstructions within Florida

rivers probably reduce total shad production to some

degree, and improved designs to existing structures

may improve shad population size.

Pollution is also cited frequently as being detrimental to shad production. As was true for damming,

the effects from declining water quality were evident

even before the turn of the nineteenth century, again

mainly in the industrialized northern states (Walburg

and Nichols, 1967). In the Delaware River during summer, for example, extremely low levels of dissolved

oxygen caused by municipal and industrial pollutions

may kill both adult and juvenile shad during migrations

in some years (Sykes and Lehman, 1957). Ironically,

sewage loads have existed for so long (i.e., since prior

to 1929) in the Delaware River, as well as in the Hudson River, that they were not identified as significantly

affecting shad populations in time-series analyses of

shad populations and habitat quality during the years

1929–1976 (Summers and Rose 1987). Significant factors for predicting shad population sizes in the

Summers and Rose study were spawning stock size,

water flow, and water temperature, the last two of

which are related indirectly to water quality. More

recently,Weisberg et al. (1996) documented the increasing distribution and abundance of American shad in

the Delaware River concurrent with improvements in

water quality during the period 1980–1993.

In Florida’s St. Johns River, approximately 35 million gallons of treated sewage enter the river daily

between Lake Harney and Lake Monroe (Bass and

Cox, 1985), an area that overlaps American shad spawning grounds. Here, the combination of severely altered

river flow and the increased nutrient loadings from

sewage has degraded water quality and sometimes

caused fish kills. However, since the 1970s, this situation has been mitigated somewhat by restoration of the

floodplain marsh habitats and by installation of more

advanced sewage treatment systems (Bass and Cox,

1985; Miller, 1997). Dredging can also affect water quality, and there is increasing concern about the effects of

dredging on fish and wildlife communities in the

Apalachicola River (Bass and Cox, 1985; Hauserman,

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

10 FMRI Technical Report TR-5
1999). Williams et al. (1975: 109) identified the following in their discussion of water quality in the St. Johns

River and alosid populations:

“The large elevation gradient between Lake Harney and Lake Poinsett is an important geological

characteristic that ensures a current in the upper river

and ensures that American shad have a suitable spawning area, even during low water conditions. The

importance of this area as a spawning ground for

American shad should be given high consideration

by agencies, organizations, or individuals that seek to

build flood control or water conservation structures that

would in any way impair or prevent shad migration into

this area, or that would lower the quality of water in

this area, or that would alter its physical characteristics such as adequate current and clean sand bottom.”

Power plants that require cooling water may

adversely affect alosids. Alosa larvae or juveniles may

become trapped on the intake screens and die (Fletcher, 1985; Horwitz, 1987) or they may be killed by the

elevated temperatures associated with power plant

cooling systems (Schubel et al., 1977). At present, power

plant cooling systems do not appear to be located in

areas that affect Florida alosids (e.g., Grimes, 1975).

The adverse effects of fishing pressure on shad

populations have been demonstrated by increases in

population sizes that occurred after fishing effort was

reduced in some northern rivers (Walburg and Nichols,

1967). Relatively high levels of fishing mortality of

American shad occurred in the St. Johns River during

the 1950s (Walburg, 1960a, b), but Nichols (1959: 39)

concluded that “sport and commercial fisheries [in the

St. Johns River] are not of a great enough magnitude,

at least at the present time, to adversely affect the [shad]

population.” Later, Nichols (1964: 13) even postulated

that the 1962 shad “production increase of 30 percent

over the previous season, probably resulted from the

large spawning escapement of more than 2 million

pounds in 1957–58.”Nonetheless, in a summary of these

studies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Walburg

(1960a: p. 499) concluded that “factors that affect size of

the run are unknown.”The size of the St. Johns River

population appeared to decline shortly after the early

1960s, and Williams and Bruger (1972) raised concerns

about the effects fishing pressure was having on American shad in the St. Johns River. They noted that

American shad sex ratios deviated from 1:1, which they

associated with high levels of gillnetting effort and

concurrent declines in haul-seining effort. They reasoned that because female shad are larger than male

shad, and because shad egg production is related to

body size, then this shift in fishing gears disproportionally reduces the numbers of the largest females

reaching the spawning grounds and subsequently it

could substantially reduce shad egg production.

Analyses of fishing effects on shad have repeatedly

focused on the overlap of shad fishing grounds versus

shad spawning grounds. Early on, Stevenson (1898,

1899) noted geographic shifts in shad fishing effort so

that by 1896 approximately 45% of U.S. shad landings

were harvested from estuarine waters, whereas 50

years earlier all fishing was near river headwaters.

Stevenson concluded that because nearly half the fish

caught were landed before they reached the spawning

grounds, this change in fishing areas had an adverse

effect on the population sizes of American shad. Over

the past two decades, the expansion of shad fishing in

coastal waters has renewed concern about the adverse

effects of fishing away from the spawning grounds

(ASMFC, 1999), and now it is not just because the fish

are harvested before they reach the spawning grounds.

Coastal fishing is referred to as ocean-intercept,

because such fishing (north of Florida) harvests a mixture of alosid stocks. The actual composition of this

mixed-stock, ocean-intercept fishery varies with location and season, but it is largely undocumented and it

appears to be impractical to monitor routinely (see

Melvin et al., 1992; Epifanio et al., 1995; Thorrold et al.,

1998; Brown et al., 1999). Complicating this matter,

intensive fishing of river herring stocks by foreign

fleets occurred in the Fisheries Conservation Zone

(3–200 miles offshore) during the 1970s (Richkus, 1988),

and alosids may still be significant but undocumented bycatch in ocean fisheries such as that for Atlantic

herring (Field et al., 1996). Until these fisheries outside

Florida’s waters are managed, Florida has only a limited ability to control the total fishing mortality

experienced by its populations.

Summary

American shad were historically valuable to Florida and

other Atlantic states, but population sizes have declined

dramatically during the twentieth century. Information

about other alosids in Florida is scant, and nothing is

known about Alosa populations in Florida rivers other

than the St. Johns and Apalachicola except for presence

or absence. No current information about Florida’s St.

Johns River population of American shad was included in the ASMFC’s recent stock assessment (ASMFC,

1998) because insufficient information was available,

but new monitoring requirements should lead to a

better determination of the status and trends of this

population (ASMFC, 1999). American shad in the St.

Johns River are familiar to both resident and tourist

anglers, and the fishing pressure on Florida’s alosid

populations is probably lower today than it has been

R. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 11
for the past several decades. This could lead to a stable or a rebuilding population in the future.

Literature Cited

ASMFC (ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES

COMMISSION). 1985. Fishery Management Plan for

American Shad and River Herring. Fisheries Management Report No. 6. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission, Washington, D.C.

ASMFC (ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES

COMMISSION). 1998. American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review Report. March 1998. Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington, D.C. 217 pp.

ASMFC (ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES

COMMISSION). 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate

Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring.

Fishery Management Report No. 35 of the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington,

D.C. 76 pp.

BAILEY, R. M., H. E.WINN, and C. L. SMITH. 1954. Fishes from the Escambia River, Alabama and Florida,

with ecologic and taxonomic notes. Proceedings of the

Academy of Natural Sciences at Philadelphia 106:

109–164.

BAIRD, S. F. 1874a. Propagation of shad in 1873. Report

of the Commissioner for 1872 and 1873, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 2: xxvi–xxx.

BAIRD, S. F. 1874b. Fishes especially worthy of multiplication. I.The shad. Report of the Commissioner for

1872 and 1873, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries,

Part 2: xlviii–lix.

BAIRD, S. F. 1874c. Statistical tables of propagation. Distribution of young shad to the waters of the United

States. Report of the Commissioner for 1872 and 1873,

U.S.Commission of Fish and Fisheries,Part 2: lxxxviii–xci.

BAIRD, S. F. 1874d. Statistical tables of propagation.

Shad-hatching operation in the United States. Report

of the Commissioner for 1872 and 1873, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 2: xcii.

BAIRD, S. F. 1874e.The shad and alewife (species of Clupeidae). Report of the Commissioner for 1872 and 1873,

U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 2 (Appendix C): 387–462.

BAIRD, S. F. 1874f. Letters referring to experiments of

W. C. Daniell, M.D., in introducing shad to the Alabama River. Report of the Commissioner for 1872 and

1873, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 2

(Appendix C): 387–390.

BAIRD, S. F. 1874g. Letters referring to the presence of

shad in rivers tributary to the Gulf of Mexico. Report

of the Commissioner for 1872 and 1873, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 2 (Appendix C): 391–395.

BASS, D. G., and D.T. COX. 1985. River habitat and fishery resources of Florida. Pp. 121–187 inW. Seaman, Jr.,

ed. Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources.

American Fisheries Society, Florida Chapter, Kissimmee, Florida.

BENTZEN, P., W. C. LEGGETT, and G. G. BROWN.

1993. Genetic relationships among the shads (Alosa)

revealed by mitochondrial DNA analysis. Journal of

Fish Biology 43: 909–917.

BERRY, F. 1964. Review and emendation of: Family

Clupeidae. Copeia 1964(4): 720–730.

BOSCHUNG, H.T. 1992. Catalogue of freshwater and

marine fishes of Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama

Museum of Natural History No. 14.

BRANYON, M. 1999. A cruise down shad alley. Florida Sportsman 31(1): 186–193.

BRICE, J. J. 1898a. The fisheries of Indian River, Florida. Report of the Commissioner for the year ending

June 30, 1896, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries,

Part 22: 223–227.

BRICE, J. J. 1898b.The fish and fisheries of the coastal

waters of Florida. Report of the Commissioner for the

year ending June 30, 1896, U.S. Commission of Fish and

Fisheries, Part 22: 263–342.

BROWN, B. L., J. M. EPIFANIO, P. E. SMOUSE, and C.

J. KOBAK. 1996. Temporal stability of mtDNA haplotype frequencies in American shad stocks: to pool or

not to pool across years? Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2274–2283.

BROWN, B. L., P. E. SMOUSE, J. M. EPIFANIO, and C.

J. KOBAK. 1999. Mitochondrial DNA mixed-stock analysis of American shad: coastal harvests are dynamic

and variable. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 128: 977–994.

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

12 FMRI Technical Report TR-5
CARSCADDEN, J. E., AND W. C. LEGGETT. 1975.

Meristic difference in spawning populations of American shad Alosa sapidissima: evidence for homing to

tributaries in the St. John River, New Brunswick. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:

653–660.

CARY, H. H. 1885. The Saint John’s River as a shad

stream. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 5 (for

1885): 422.

CHEEK, R. P. Undated. Biological studies to determine

the possible effect of the proposed upper St. Johns River

flood control project on the American shad fishery,

1963. Progress Report of the Bureau of Commercial

Fisheries Biological Laboratory,Beaufort,North Carolina.

COLLINS, J. W. 1892. Statistical review of the coast

fisheries of the United States. Report of the Commissioner, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 16

(for 1888): 271–378.

CONOVER, D. O. 1990.The relation between capacity

for growth and length of growing season: evidence

for the implications of counter gradient variation.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119 (3):

416–430.

COX, D.T. 1997. Pressures leading to restoration of the

upper St. Johns River. P. 20 in Florida Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration: Is It Possible? Symposium. Program

Abstracts for the 17th Annual Meeting Florida Chapters

of the American Fisheries Society.Withlacoochee Training Center. Brooksville, Florida. February 25–27, 1997.

CRECCO,V. A., and T. F. SAVOY. 1984. Effects of fluctuations in hydrographic conditions on year-class

strength of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the

Connecticut River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 41: 1216–1223.

CRECCO,V.,T. SAVOY, and L. GUNN. 1983. Daily mortality rates of larval and juvenile American shad (Alosa

sapidissima) in the Connecticut River with changes in

year-class strength. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 40: 1719–1728.

DADSWELL, M. J., G. D. MELVIN, P. J.WILLIAMS, and

D. D.THEMELIS. 1987. Influence of origin, life history

and chance on the Atlantic coast migration of American shad. American Fisheries Society Special

Symposium Series 1: 313–330.

DAVIS, R. 1999. American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)

Angler Creel Survey St. Johns River. Report of the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute. St. Petersburg, Florida.

DAVIS, W. S. 1957. Ova production of American shad

in Atlantic coast rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Research

Report 49: 1–5.

DEMPSEY, W. 1887. Shad in the Saint John’s River,

Florida. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 6 (for

1886): 96.

EPIFANIO, J. M., P. E. SMOUSE, C. J. KOBAK, and B.

L. BROWN. 1995. Mitochondrial DNA divergence

among populations of American shad (Alosa sapidissima): how much variation is enough for mixed-stock

analysis? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 52: 1688–1702.

EVERMANN, B.W. 1896. Description of a new species

of shad, Alosa alabamae, from Alabama. Report of the

Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1895, U.S.

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 21: 203–205.

EVERMANN, B. W. 1898. The fish fauna of Florida.

Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 17 (for 1897):

201–208

EVERMANN, B.W., and B. A. BEAN. 1898. Indian River

and its fishes. Report of the Commissioner for the year

ending June 30, 1896, U.S. Commission of Fish and

Fisheries, Part 22: 227–248.

EVERMANN, B. W., and W. C. KENDALL. 1898.

Descriptions of new or little-known genera and species

of fishes from the United States. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish

Commission 17 (for 1897): 125-133.

FIELD, J., L. FLAGG,V. CRECCO, H. JOHNSON, D. ST.

PIERRE, and H. MEARS. 1996. 1995 Review of the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery

Management Plan for American Shad and River Herring (Alosa sp.). Pp. 7–16 in 1995 Annual Review of

Interstate Fishery Management Plans. Special Report

No. 60 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

FLETCHER, R. I. 1985. Risk analysis for fish diversion

experiments: Pumped intake systems.Transactions of

the American Fisheries Society 114: 652–694.

GLEBE, B. D., and W. C. LEGGETT. 1981a. Temporal,

intra-population differences in energy allocation and

use by American shad (Alosa sapidissima) during the

R. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 13
spawning migration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences 38: 795–805.

GLEBE, B. D., and W. C. LEGGETT. 1981b. Latitudinal

differences in energy allocation and use during the

freshwater migrations of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and their life history consequences. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 806–820.

GOODE, G. B. and J. SHEPARD. 1874. Letters to S. F.

Baird. Report of the Commissioner for 1872 and 1873,

U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 2: xlviii–l.

GRIMES, C. B. 1975. Entrapment of fishes on intake

water screens at a steam electric generating station.

Chesapeake Science. 16(3): 172–177.

HAMLEN, W. 1884. Reconnaissance of Florida rivers

with a view to shad hatching. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish

Commission 4 (for 1884): 206–208

HAUSERMAN, J. 1999. Officials question river’s dredging during visit. St. Petersburg Times, September 8,

1999: 5B.

HENSHALL, J. A. 1898. A plea for the development and

protection of Florida fish and fisheries. Bulletin of the

U.S. Fish Commission 17 (for 1897): 253–255.

HILDEBRAND, S. F. 1963. Family Clupeidae. Pp. 257–454

in Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Sears Foundation for Marine Research, New Haven, Connecticut.

Memoir I, Part 3.

HOGANS, W. E., M. J. DADSWELL, L. S. UHAZY, and

R. G. APPY. 1993. Parasites of American shad, Alosa

sapidissima (Osteichthyes: Clupeidae), from rivers of the

North American Atlantic coast and the Bay of Fundy,

Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 941–946.

HOLDER, J. 1998.The 1997–1998 American Shad Angler

Creel Survey of the Lower St. Johns River. Report to the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute. St. Petersburg, Florida.

HOLDER, J., and F. CROSS. 1996.The 1995–1996 American Shad Angler Creel Survey of the Lower St. Johns

River. Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute.

St. Petersburg, Florida.

HORWITZ, R. J. 1987. Impingement studies. Pp. 254–269

in K. L. Heck, Jr., ed., Ecological Studies in the Middle

Reach of Chesapeake Bay. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

HUNTSMAN, G. R. 1994. Endangered marine finfish:

neglected resources or beasts of fiction? Fisheries 19(7):

8–15.

JOSEPH, P. 1998.The battle of the dams. Smithsonian

29(8): 48–61.

KLINKENBERG, J., and J. HAUSERMAN. 1998. Letting

a river run free. St. Petersburg Times, April 12, 1998:

F1, F3.

La POINTE, D. F. 1957. Age and growth of the American shad, from three Atlantic coast rivers.Transactions

of the American Fisheries Society 87: 139–150.

LAURENCE, G. C. 1967. Life history studies of the

Alabama shad, Alosa alabamae, in the Apalachicola

River, Florida. M.S. thesis. Florida State University,

Tallahassee. 58 pp.

LAURENCE, G. C., and R. W.YERGER. 1967. Life history studies of the Alabama shad,Alosa alabamae, in the

Apalachicola River, Florida. Pp. 260–273 in Proceedings

of the 20th Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners.

LEE, D. S., C. R. GILBERT, C. H. HOCUTT, R. E. JENKINS, D. E. McALLISTER, and J. R. STAUFFER, JR. 1980.

Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North

Carolina Biological Survey, Publication No. 1980-12:

61–68.

LEGGETT, W. C. G. 1969. Studies on the reproductive

biology of the American shad (Alosa sapidissima, Wilson). A comparison of populations from four rivers of

the Atlantic seaboard. Ph.D. dissertation. McGill University, Montreal. 124 pp.

LEGGETT, W. C., and J. E. CARSCADDEN. 1978. Latitudinal variation in reproductive characteristics of

American shad (Alosa sapidissima): Evidence for population specific life history strategies in fish. Journal of

the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35: 1469–1478.

LEGGETT, W. C., and R. R. WHITNEY. 1972. Water

temperature and the migrations of American shad.

Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 70 (3): 659–670.

LEIM, A. H. 1924. The life history of the shad, Alosa

sapidissima (Wilson), with special reference to factors

limiting its abundance. Contributions in Canadian

Biology 2(11): 163–284.

LIMBURG, K. E. 1995. Otolith strontium traces enviFlorida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

14 FMRI Technical Report TR-5
ronmental history of subyearling American shad Alosa

sapidissima. Marine Ecology Progress Series 119: 25–35.

LINDSAY, B. 1999. Florida shad flies. Florida Sportsman

31(1): 100, 101.

LOESCH, J. G., and S. M. ATRAN. 1994. History of

Alosa fisheries management: Virginia, a case study. Pp.

1–6 in J. E. Cooper, R. T. Eades, R. J. Klauda, and J. G.

Loesch, eds. Anadromous Alosa Symposium.Tidewater Chapter, American Fisheries Society. Bethesda,

Maryland.

LYLES, C. H. 1967a. Historical catch statistics (South

Atlantic States). U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, D.C. C.F.S. No. 4148.

LYLES, C. H. 1967b. Historical catch statistics (Chesapeake States). U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C. C.F.S. No. 4147.

LYLES, C. H. 1967c. Historical catch statistics (Middle

Atlantic States). U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, D.C. C.F.S. No. 4146.

MARTIN, P., N.TAFT, and C. SULLIVAN. 1994. Reducing entrainment of juvenile American shad using a

strobe light diversion system. Pp. 57–63 in J. E. Cooper, R. T. Eades, R. J. Klauda, and J. G. Loesch, eds.

Anadromous Alosa Symposium. Tidewater Chapter,

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

McBRIDE, R. 1999. Florida’s plan for state fishing/recovery of American shad. Submitted to the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission’s Shad and River Herring Technical Committee.

McDONALD, M. 1884a. The shad and the alewives.

The river herrings, or alewives—Clupea aestivalis and

C. vernalis. Pp. 570–588 in G. B. Goode, ed.The Fisheries

and Fishery Industries of the United States. Section I.

Natural History of Useful Aquatic Animals. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McDONALD, M. 1884b. The inland alewife or skipjack (Clupea chrysochloris). P. 594 in G. B. Goode, ed.The

Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States.

Section I. Natural History of Useful Aquatic Animals.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McDONALD, M. 1884c. The shad and the alewives.

The shad—Clupea sapidissima. Pp. 594–607 in G. B.

Goode, ed.The Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the

United States. Section I. Natural History of Useful

Aquatic Animals. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McDONALD, M. 1884d.The hickory shad or Mattowacca

(Clupea mediocris). Pp. 607–609 in G. B. Goode, ed. The

Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States.

Section I. Natural History of Useful Aquatic Animals.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McDONALD, M. 1887. The rivers of eastern Florida,

Georgia, and South Carolina. Pp. 613–625 in G. B.

Goode, ed.The Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the

United States.Vol. I, Section V, Part XII, No. 1. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McLEAN, W. M. 1955.The fishes of the St. Johns River

system. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida,

Gainesville. 362 pp.

MELVIN, G. D., M. J. DADSWELL, and J. A. McKENZIE. 1992. Usefulness of meristic and morphometric

characters in discriminating populations of American

shad (Alosa sapidissima) (Ostreichthyes: Clupeidae)

inhabiting a marine environment. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(2): 266–280.

MILLER, S. J. 1997.The upper St. Johns River Basin Project: Merging flood control with aquatic ecosystem

restoration and preservation. Pp. 20, 21 in Florida

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration: Is It Possible? Symposium. Program Abstracts for the 17th Annual

Meeting Florida Chapters of the American Fisheries

Society, February 25–27, 1997. Withlacoochee Training

Center. Brooksville, Florida.

MILLS, J. G., Jr. 1972. Biology of the Alabama shad in

northwest Florida. Florida State Board of Conservation,

Marine Laboratory Technical Series 68: 1–24.

MILNER, J. W. 1874. The progress of fish-culture in

the United States. Report of the Commissioner for

1872 and 1873, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries,

Part 2: 523–558.

MITCHILL, S. L. 1814. Fishes of New York. (Not seen,

cited from Hildebrand, 1963.)

MOODY, H. L. 1961. Exploited fish populations of the

St. Johns River, Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 24(1): 1–18.

NICHOLS, J. T. 1918. Favorite food fishes. American

Museum Journal 18(1): 66–69.

R. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 15
NICHOLS, P. R. 1959. St. Johns shad fever. Florida

Wildlife 12(9): 22–39.

NICHOLS, P. R. 1964. Shad program. Pp. 12, 13 in Annual Report of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

Biological Laboratory, Beaufort, N.C. for the Fiscal Year

Ending June 30, 1963. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 184.

NICHOLS, P. R. 1965. Shad program. P. 16 in Annual

Report of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory, Beaufort, N.C. for the Fiscal Year Ending

June 30, 1964. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 215.

NICHOLS, P. R. 1966a. Shad program. Pp. 27-38 in

Annual Report of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

Biological Laboratory, Beaufort, N.C. for the Fiscal Year

Ending June 30, 1965. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 240.

NICHOLS, P. R. 1966b. Comparative study of juvenile

American shad populations by fin ray and scute counts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific

Report—Fisheries No. 525. 10 pp.

NOLAN, K., J. GROSSFIELD, and I. WIRGIN. 1991.

Discrimination among Atlantic coast populations of

American shad (Alosa sapidissima) using mitochondrial DNA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 48: 1724–1734.

OSBORN, J. H. 1882. Notes and suggestions concerning the Florida shad fishery. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish

Commission 1 (for 1881): 351.

OSBORN,J.H.1883.Shad fishing on the Saint John’s River.

Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 2 (for 1882): 132.

PFEIFFER, C. B. 1975. Shad fishing. Crown Publishers,

Inc., New York. 177 pp.

QUINN, R. F. 1994. Fish passage facilities for Alosa. Pp.

119–127 in J. E. Cooper, R.T. Eades, R. J. Klauda, and J.

G. Loesch, eds. Anadromous Alosa Symposium.Tidewater Chapter, American Fisheries Society. Bethesda,

Maryland.

RAFINESQUE, C. S. 1820. Ichthyologia Ohiensis. (Not

seen, cited from Hildebrand, 1963.)

RICHKUS,W. 1988. Overview of anadromous fish biology and management. Pp. 23–34 in C. S. Manooch, and

A. B. Manooch, eds. Impacts of dredging on anadromous fish: a transcript of presentations at a workshop,

Raleigh, North Carolina, September 18–19, 1987. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-210.

RULIFSON, R. A., M.T. HUISH, and R. W.THOESEN.

1982. Status of anadromous fishes in southeastern U.S.

estuaries. Pp. 413–426 in V. S. Kennedy, ed. Estuarine

Comparisons. Academic Press, New York.

SAVOY,T. F., and V. A. CRECCO. 1988.The timing and

significance of density-dependent and density-independent mortality of American shad,Alosa sapidissima.

Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 86(3): 467–482.

SCHUBEL, J. R., C. F. SMITH, and T. S.Y. KOO. 1977.

Thermal effects on power plant entrainment on survival

of larval fishes: A laboratory assessment. Chesapeake

Science 18 (3): 290–298.

SMILEY, C. W. 1884. Notes on the shad season of 1884,

with references to other species. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish

Commission 4 (for 1884): 337–341.

SMITH, G. 1968. Seeking secluded shad. Florida

Wildlife 21(9): 12–17.

SMITH, H. M. 1893. Report on the fisheries of the south

Atlantic states. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 11

(for 1891): 271–356.

SMITH, H. M. 1894. Statistics of the fisheries of the United States. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 13 (for

1893): 389–417.

SMITH, H. M. 1898. Report of the division of statistics

and methods of the fisheries. Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1897, U.S.

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 23: cxxv–cxlvi.

SNYDER, B. 1949. Silver lightning! Florida Wildlife. 2

(11): 36 pp.

STEARNS, S. 1885. Examination of the fisheries of the

Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission

5 (for 1885): 285–287.

STEARNS, S. 1887. Some of the fisheries of western

Florida. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 6 (for

1886): 465–467.

STEVENSON, C. H. 1898.The restricted inland range

of shad due to artificial obstructions and its effect on

natural reproduction. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 17 (for 1897): 265–71.

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

16 FMRI Technical Report TR-5
STEVENSON, C. H. 1899. The shad fisheries of the

Atlantic coast of the United States. Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1898, U.S.

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 24: 101–133.

STILWELL, E. M., M. C. EDMUNDS, M. McKENNIE,

J. F. INGALLS, and J. M. MILNER. 1874. On obstructions

to the ascent of fish in certain rivers. Report of the

Commissioner for 1872 and 1873, U.S. Commission of

Fish and Fisheries, Part 2: 617–634.

SUMMERS, J. K., and K. A. ROSE. 1987.The role of interactions among environmental conditions in controlling

historical fisheries variability. Estuaries 10(3): 255–266.

SVETOVIDOV, A. N. 1964. Systematics of the North

American anadromous clupeioid fishes of the genera

Alosa, Caspialosa, and Pomolobus. Copeia 1964(1): 118–129.

SYKES, J. E., and B. A. LEHMAN. 1957. Past and present Delaware River shad fishery and considerations

for its future. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Research Report

46: 1–25.

THORROLD, S. R., C. M. JONES, S. E. CAMPANA, J.

W. McLAREN, and J. W. H. LAM. 1998. Trace element

signatures in otoliths record natal river of juvenile

American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Limnology and

Oceanography 43(8): 1826–1835.

TOWNSEND, C. H. 1899. Report of the division of statistics and methods of the fisheries. Report of the

Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1898, U.S.

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Part 24: cxlvii-clxxv.

TOWNSEND, C. H. 1900. Statistics of the fisheries of

the south Atlantic states. Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1899, U.S. Commission

of Fish and Fisheries, Part 25: 171–227.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 1993. Status of

the fishery resources off the northeastern United States

for 1993. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSF/NEC-101. 140 pp.

WALBURG, C. H. 1956. Observations on the food and

growth of juvenile American shad, Alosa sapidissima.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 86:

302–306.

WALBURG, C. H. 1960a. Abundance and life history of

shad, St. Johns River, Florida. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 60:

486–501.

WALBURG, C. H. 1960b. Abundance of St. Johns River

shad.Transactions of the 25th North American Wildlife

Conference: 327–333.

WALBURG, C. H., and P. R. NICHOLS. 1967. Biology

and management of the American shad and status of

the fisheries, Atlantic coast of the United States, 1960.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Scientific Report—Fisheries 550: 1–105.

WALTHER, L. 1989. Enhancing the St. Johns. Florida

Wildlife 43(3): 35.

WARREN, M. L., Jr., B. BURR, S. WALSH, H. BART, Jr.,

R. CASHNER, D. ETNIER, B. FREEMAN, B. KUHAJDA,

R. MAYDEN, H. ROBISON, S. ROSS, and W. STARNES.

2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of

the native freshwater fishes of the southern United

States. Fisheries 25(10): 7–31.

WEISBERG, S. B., P. HIMCHAK, T. BAUM, H. T. WILSON, and R. ALLEN. 1996. Temporal trends in

abundance of fish in the tidal Delaware River. Estuaries 19(3): 723–29.

WELANDER, A. D. 1941. Notes on dissemination of

shad,Alosa sapidissima (Wilson), along the Pacific coast

of North America. Copeia 1941(4): 221–223.

WILLIAMS, R. O. 1996. Background document for

workshop on American shad management. January

16–17, 1996. Sanford and Cocoa Beach, Florida. Florida Marine Fisheries Commission,Tallahassee.

WILLIAMS, R. O., and G. E. BRUGER. 1972. Investigations on American shad in the St. Johns River. Florida

State Board Conservation Marine Laboratory Technical Series No. 66: 1–49.

WILLIAMS, R., and W. GREY. Undated. Stream Survey Section of Anadromous Fish Project. Florida

Department of Natural Resources Marine Research

Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida.

WILLIAMS, R. O., W. F. GREY, and J. A. HUFF. 1975.

Study of anadromous fishes of Florida. Completion

Report for the period 1 May 1971 to 30 June 1974 for

research funded by the Anadromous Fish Act (PL 89-

304). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg,

Florida.

WILSON, A. 1811. Ree’s New Cyclopedia. Volume 9.

Unpaginated. (Not seen, cited from Hildebrand, 1963.)

R. S. McBride Florida’s Shad and River Herrings

FMRI Technical Report TR-5 17
WOLFE, J. C. 1969. Biological studies of the skipjack herring, Alosa chrysochloris, in the Apalachicola River,

Florida. M.S. thesis. Florida State University,Tallahassee. 68 pp.

YERGER, R. W. 1977. Fishes of the Apalachicola River.

Pp. 22-33 in Proceedings of the Conference on the

Apalachicola Drainage System, 23–24 April 1976.

Gainesville, Florida. R. J. Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr.,

eds. Florida Marine Research Publications 26.

Florida’s Shad and River Herrings R. S. McBride

18 FMRI Technical Report TR-5