1 Articles 

2 

3 Growth and Survival of Hatchery-Produced Atlantic Sturgeon Released as Young-of-Year 

4 into the Hudson River, New York 

5 

6 Jerre W. Mohler,* John A. Sweka, Andrew Kahnle, Kathryn Hattala, Amanda Higgs, Mark 

7 DuFour, Matthew W. Breece, and Dewayne A. Fox 

8 

9 J.W. Mohler, J.A. Sweka 

10 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 75, Lamar, Pennsylvania 16848 

11 A. Kahnle, K. Hattala, A. Higgs, M. DuFour 

12 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Fisheries Unit, 21 

13 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561-1696

14 M.W. Breece, D.A. Fox

15 Delaware State University, 1200 N. DuPont Highway, Dover, Delaware 19901 

16 

17 Abstract 

18 In 2007, a team of United States scientists performed a status review of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser 

19 oxyrinchus oxyrinchus and concluded that the species would likely become endangered in the 

20 foreseeable future over much of its range, including populations of the New York Bight which is 

21 comprised of the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. Therefore, we evaluated an experimental release of 

22 hatchery-produced Atlantic sturgeon that took place in 1994 to determine the value of using stocked 

23 fish as a population recovery tool. We obtained recapture data on hatchery fish from the Atlantic 

24 Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database. Hatchery fish were identified by presence of a pelvic fin 
25 removal. A hatchery evaluation of the fin removal showed that 36% of clipped individuals retained 

26 a clean fin clip after 49 d. The minimum survival rate for hatchery fish to age 5 was estimated to be 

27 in the range of 0.49-0.66% using documented recaptures (N=24), known number of fish stocked, 

28 and results of the pelvic fin removal evaluation. Length and weight-at-age for recaptured hatchery 

29 fish at known ages 5-17 were within the range of values reported for wild fish whose ages were 

30 estimated by pectoral spine analysis. We also report that one ripe male hatchery fish at age 15 was 

31 captured along with other spermiating males at its parental spawning area in the Hudson River in 

32 2009. 

33 Keywords: Atlantic, sturgeon, survival, hatchery, growth, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus

34 Received: January 14, 2011; Accepted: September 16, 2011; Published Online Early: December 

35 2011; Published: xxx 

36 Citation: Mohler JW, Sweka JA, Kahnle A, Hattala K, Higgs A, DuFour M, Breece MW, Fox DA. 

37 2012. Growth and survival of hatchery-produced Atlantic sturgeon released as young-of-year into 

38 the Hudson River, New York. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management x(x):xx-xx; e1944-687X. 

39 doi: 10.3996/012011-JFWM-005 

40 * Corresponding author: jerre_mohler@fws.gov 

41 

42 Short title: Growth and Survival of Hatchery-Produced Atlantic Sturgeon 

43 

44 Introduction 

45 A major fishery for Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus began in the late 1800s 

46 when a caviar market was established. Record landings were reported in 1890, when over 3350 

47 metric tons of Atlantic sturgeon was landed from coastal rivers along the Atlantic Coast. The 
48 fishery collapsed in 1901 with less than 10 percent of the peak landings reported. Landings 

49 continued to decline to about 5% of the peak until 1920 and have remained between 1-5% until a 

50 complete moratorium on harvest was initiated in 1998. A team of United States scientists performed 

51 a status review of Atlantic sturgeon and concluded that the species would likely become endangered 

52 in the foreseeable future over much of its range, including populations of the New York Bight 

53 which is comprised of the Hudson and Delaware Rivers (ASSRT 2007). By-catch mortality, water 

54 quality, lack of adequate state and/or Federal regulatory mechanisms, dredging activities, habitat 

55 impediment, and boat strikes were among the stressors identified as significant threats to the 

56 viability of Atlantic sturgeon populations. 

57 

58 In order to provide information pertinent to recovery efforts for Atlantic sturgeon, we evaluated an 

59 experimental release of hatchery-produced Atlantic sturgeon that took place in 1994 to determine 

60 the value of using stocked fish as a population recovery tool. When using fish stocking as a 

61 management option for population recovery, the general goal of fishery managers is to build 

62 depleted or extirpated fish populations to self-sustaining levels. There has been considerable 

63 controversy over fish hatchery programs, with some stating that opportunistic stocking of Atlantic 

64 sturgeon without regard to protocols for maintenance of appropriate effective population size can 

65 contribute to population declines (St. Pierre 1999). Others believe that distribution of hatchery fish 

66 could result in outbreeding depression, loss of fitness, negative impacts on wild fish production 

67 (Hilborn and Eggers 2000; Henderson et al. 2004; Jennings et al. 2010) and that fish hatcheries 

68 have been used as a substitute for addressing root causes of declines in abundance (Waples 1999). 

69 
70 Short-term evaluations of Atlantic sturgeon survival and growth are helpful but not conclusive in 

71 determining the value of using hatchery-produced fish to help achieve self-sustaining population 

72 goals due to the biology of the species. A major factor to be considered is that this group of fishes 

73 generally displays a long period of immaturity. With Atlantic sturgeon, the age to reach sexual 

74 maturity of females varies with latitude and ranges from seven years in South Carolina, USA rivers 

75 (Smith 1985) to 27 years in the St. Lawrence River, Canada (Scott and Scott 1988). On average, 

76 individuals from more southerly areas mature sooner (Gilbert 1989). Evaluating the contribution of 

77 hatchery Atlantic sturgeon to the target population requires a long-term project with the ability to 

78 discriminate hatchery fish from wild fish for a decade or more after stocking. 

79 

80 The objectives of this paper are: (1) to evaluate an experimental pelvic fin clip as a long-term 

81 identifying mark for hatchery-produced fish and (2) to evaluate survival and growth of hatchery82 produced Atlantic sturgeon using data reported to the Atlantic Sturgeon Coastal Tagging Database 

83 over a 17-yr period and similar data reported for wild Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Hudson 

84 River. 

85 

86 Methods 

87 Producing, tagging, and stocking fish 

88 A female Atlantic sturgeon (2200 mm total length; 67 kg) was captured via gill net on June 26, 

89 1994 in the Hudson River at a well-documented spawning reach near Esopus Island at river 

90 kilometer (rkm) 135 in the vicinity of Hyde Park, NY. The female was transported to the U.S. Fish 

91 & Wildlife Service’s Northeast Fishery Center in Lamar, Pennsylvania and given hormone 

92 injections of common carp pituitary extract according to techniques described in Conte et al. (1988) 
93 and Mohler (2004). Eggs were extracted and fertilized on June 30 using milt from two males that 

94 had been captured previously in the same river reach as the female. The milt was stored in a 

95 refrigerated, oxygen-enriched environment and was composited just prior to fertilization. Offspring 

96 resulting from this spawning hatched on July 3 and were reared in indoor raceways and circular 

97 tanks using techniques described by Mohler (2004). Approximately 4,966 individuals were 

98 anesthetized on day 108 post-hatch (October 20, 1994) with 50 mg/L tricaine methane-sulfonate 

99 (MS-222), tagged with a coded wire tag (CWT) (Northwest Marine Technologies, Shaw Island, 

100 Washington, USA) under the first dorsal scute, and the left pelvic fin was severed as close to the 

101 body as possible with surgical scissors. The fish were an average of 4.1 g (1.8–8.3 g) and 10.3 cm 

102 (7.8–13.7 cm total length). The fish were maintained in indoor raceways and given a daily salt 

103 treatment of 1 ppt for 10 d. There were 39 mortalities during this 10-d period that were likely due 

104 to tagging and handling. On October 30, 1994, the survivors (N=4,927) were transported from the 

105 Northeast Fishery Center at Lamar, Pennsylvania to Newburgh, New York and released in 

106 Newburgh Bay (rkm 90-99) of the Hudson River about 40 rkm downriver from where the parents 

107 had been captured (Figure 1). Temperature of the transport water was approximately 16° C and 

108 mean water temperature in Newburgh Bay was 15.5° C. 

109 

110 Pelvic fin removal trial 

111 The method of pelvic fin removal described above was untested as a long-term identifying mark for 

112 Atlantic sturgeon, therefore a pre-stocking trial was performed on 120 fish produced from the same 

113 spawning episode described above. On day 67 post-hatch, 120 fish (average weight = 1.9 grams) 

114 were randomly selected from the production lot and were anesthetized as described above. Sixty 

115 individuals received a pelvic fin removal using surgical scissors by severing the fin as close as 
116 possible to the body. Sixty individuals were also used as controls and treated similarly with the 

117 exception of fin removal. For each treatment, equal numbers of fish (n=20) were then placed into 

118 each of three circular 54-L tanks and offered a closed formula dry diet (Fry Feed Kyowa, Type C119 200, Biokyowa, Inc., Chesterfield, Missouri) at a rate of four percent initial tank biomass daily. 

120 About 50 g of non-iodized salt was placed into each tank daily for a few days to promote fin 

121 healing. Tanks were maintained on flow-through conditions (flow rate not measured) at 17-19°C. 

122 An inventory for feed adjustment was performed after 19 d for all tanks and feed rate was changed 

123 to five percent tank biomass daily. Final mortality, growth, and condition of the amputated area 

124 were recorded after 49 d for fish in each study treatment group. Growth of clipped vs. control 

125 sturgeon was then compared via t-tests using Sigma Stat Version 2.0 with an alpha level of 0.05. 

126 

127 Evaluation of released sturgeon 

128 We evaluated growth and survival for stocked fish using data from both direct and indirect 

129 sampling sources. The first direct sampling took place beginning on May 31, 1995, approximately 

130 6 months after release of the hatchery fish and continued until December 15, 1995. Fish were 

131 captured using various-sized mesh gill nets via stratified random sampling at 57 locations 

132 distributed from the Tappan Zee Bridge (rkm 43) to Staatsburg, New York (rkm 194) (Peterson et 

133 al., 2000). Another sampling study occurred from 1995 to 1997 through targeted gill netting in 

134 North Haverstraw Bay of the Hudson River (rkm 60-65) where previous acoustic tagging had been 

135 used to locate Atlantic sturgeon congregations (Cornell University, 1998). 

136 

137 Indirect sampling by researchers from various agencies ranging from New York to North Carolina 

138 also resulted in recapture of hatchery-released Atlantic sturgeon. Data documenting these 
139 recaptures were reported to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Maryland Fishery Resource Office 

140 that coordinates the Atlantic Sturgeon Coastal Tagging Database. We obtained length and weight 

141 data from the database for all fish reported from 1999 through 2011 (known ages = 5 through 17 

142 years) with a missing left pelvic fin (Table 1). We considered hatchery-released fish to be age 1 on 

143 January 1, 1995. Since many researchers did not verify the presence of a CWT, we assumed all fish 

144 with missing left pelvic fins were of hatchery origin. 

145 

146 Minimum survival rate to age 5 was calculated by the expression: 

147 Sm = (n / N) 100 

148 Where n is the number of Atlantic sturgeon that were reported to the Atlantic Sturgeon Coastal 

149 Tagging Database from 1999-2011 with a missing left pelvic fin and N is the number of fish 

150 released in 1994 (4,927). An alternative method for calculating minimum survival was also 

151 performed based on results from the pelvic fin removal trial that showed a proportion of fish had 

152 fully regenerated the clipped fin, rendering them visually unrecognizable as hatchery fish to 

153 researchers conducting indirect sampling. We calculated the alternative minimum survival rate 

154 using the expression: 

155 Sma = [n / {N – N(rf)}] 100 

156 Where rf is the proportion of sturgeon in the fin removal trial which fully regenerated the clipped 

157 fin. 

158 

159 We obtained length and weight data for wild Atlantic sturgeon from Dovel and Berggren (1983) 

160 and Van Eenennaam et al. (1996) where sturgeon ages were determined via analysis of pectoral fin 

161 ray sections (i.e., pectoral fin ray analysis = pectoral spine analysis). Length and weight data for 
162 fish from all sources were log10 transformed and analysis of covariance was used to compare 

163 condition (weight at a given length). An alpha level of 0.05 was used in hypothesis testing. Due to 

164 imprecision in aging sturgeon by spine analysis (Rossiter et al. 1995; Paragamian and Beamesderfer 

165 2003; Hurley et al. 2004), length and weight data were not compared statistically between wild and 

166 hatchery fish, but simply plotted against age to construct a scatter plot. 

167 

168 Results 

169 Pelvic fin removal trial

170 Post-clipping mortality over the first 19 d totaled only one Atlantic sturgeon from the clipped 

171 treatment and final mortality after 49 d was similar between clipped and control treatment at 2 and 3 

172 individuals, respectively. Weights of clipped and control fish were similar (P = 0.541) after 49 d 

173 with mean weights (SD) at 19.6 (7.3) g and 18.8 (7.2) g. Mean lengths (SD) of clipped and control 

174 Atlantic sturgeon were also similar (P = 0.322) at 16.7 (2.6) cm and 16.2 (2.7) cm, respectively. 

175 Evaluation of the clipped fish after 49 d showed that 36.2% of the individuals had no sign of a left 

176 pelvic fin, 37.9% had partial fin regeneration, and 25.9% had fully regenerated pelvic fins. 

177 

178 Recaptured hatchery sturgeon 

179 From 1995 to 1997, 110 stocked fish were recaptured through directed gill netting in Haverstraw 

180 Bay, Hudson River (Cornell University 1998). Hatchery fish comprised 35-53% of the total 

181 juvenile catch during that time period. Recaptured Atlantic sturgeon were reported to have slower 

182 growth, poorer condition, and higher rates of physical deformity than their wild counterparts. 

183 Fifteen hatchery fish and 14 of their wild age-1 counterparts were captured during a 6.5 month 

184 sampling period in 1995 at 15 locations in the Hudson River from the Tappan Zee bridge (rkm, 43) 
185 to Staatsburg, New York (rkm 194). Both fin clips and CWTs were found on all hatchery fish 

186 captured, indicating minimal tag loss during the study (Peterson et al. 2000). 

187 

188 Indirect sampling from 1999 to 2011 resulted in reports of 24 different Atlantic sturgeons with a 

189 missing left pelvic fin in the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database by numerous researchers 

190 from Long Island Sound to North Carolina waters (Table 1). One-half of the hatchery recaptures 

191 (12 of 24) were captured in Long Island Sound but others were captured in Delaware Bay, coastal 

192 Delaware off Bethany Beach, the Hudson River, and coastal North Carolina (Table 1). In 1999 

193 (age 5) there were still at least 24 individuals surviving out of the 4,927 fish originally stocked, 

194 therefore we calculated the minimum survival to age 5 at 0.49% for the hatchery-origin sturgeon. 

195 We calculated the alternative minimum survival to age 5 at 0.66 % based on the proportion of 

196 25.9% fish in the fin clip study that had fully regenerated the pelvic fin. 

197 

198 Condition and growth comparisons 

199 There was no difference in condition (weight at a given length) among individuals reported by 

200 Dovel and Berggren (1983), Van Eenaennaam, et al. (1996) and the hatchery recaptures reported in 

201 the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database (P = 0.81). Therefore we combined data for a single 

weight-length regression line (W = 1.50-9*TL3.18 202 ) (Figure 2). Though not compared statistically, we 

203 also found stocked fish length-at-age and weight-at-age values were within the range of those 

204 reported for wild fish (Table 2; Figure 3). The raw data used in growth comparisons can be found 

205 in the Supplemental Material (Data S1, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/012011-JFWM-005.S1). 

206 
207 It is important to note that we captured a spermiating male hatchery fish in 2009 at 15 years of age. 

208 This individual was captured along with wild spermiating males during spawning season (June 17) 

209 at a well-documented spawning area in the proximity of Esopus Island in the Hudson River (rkm 

210 135). This was the same area where the parents of the hatchery fish were captured during the 1994 

211 spawning season. The individual had a cleanly-clipped area at the original location of the left pelvic 

212 fin and also tested positive for a CWT under the first dorsal scute confirming it was one of the 

213 hatchery fish released in 1994 (Figure 4). 

214 

215 Discussion 

216 The number of recaptures of hatchery fish was likely greater than actually reported in the Atlantic 

217 Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database considering results of the pelvic fin clip trial that showed only 

218 36% of individuals exhibited a cleanly clipped fin location after 49 d. The pelvic fin clip served as 

219 an external identifier that was easily determined by Atlantic coastal researchers once they had been 

220 informed of its use. A fin clip mark must be used carefully and with full disclosure to the 

221 applicable research community to avoid removal of the same fin for different studies, thereby 

222 confounding study results. This is especially important for long-lived and highly migratory species 

223 such as Atlantic sturgeon. There are many other types of external tags available to sturgeon 

224 researchers but due to the inherent retention longevity needed for a long-lived species such as 

225 sturgeon, we do not know of any commercially available external tags that will yield acceptable 

226 results. We found our secondary mark of CWTs in the hatchery fish to be inadequate for this type 

227 of study for two reasons: (1) handheld CWT detectors are expensive and not commonly used by 

228 sampling crews, and (2) due to the large amount of fish growth, the presence of the CWT is difficult 

229 to detect based on our observations with the 15-year-old hatchery recapture fish landed in 2009. 
230 

231 Even though it represents only a single observation, the capture of a ripe hatchery male during 

232 spawning season along with other spermiating wild males at a known spawning area suggests that 

233 hatchery fish are capable of reproductive behavior similar to their wild counterparts. In addition, 

234 the capture of this particular fish shows that despite being reared for nearly four months in a 

235 hatchery located in Lamar PA (Susquehanna River basin, Chesapeake Bay drainage), the individual 

236 was participating in a Hudson River spawning migration and returned to spawn where its parents 

237 had been captured 15 years prior. 

238 

239 Cornell University (1998) found that stocked Atlantic sturgeon exhibited slower growth, poorer 

240 condition, and had higher rates of physical deformity than their wild counterparts during their first 

241 three years of release, but we found overall growth of fish recaptured from 1999-2011 within the 

242 range of values reported for wild fish. This is similar to findings of Ireland et al. (2002) with white 

243 sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus where growth rates and condition factors within 3 years after 

244 release were often poor but increased as hatchery fish adapted to natural conditions. 

245 

246 Dovel and Berggren (1983) and Van Eenennaam et al. (1996) used pectoral spine section analysis 

247 to estimate age for wild Atlantic sturgeon used in our study and the true ages were known for all 

248 hatchery recaptures. Accuracy and precision of age estimates for sturgeon is low (Hurley et al. 

249 2004; Paragamian and Beamesderfer 2003; Rossiter et al. 1995), therefore ages assigned to wild 

250 fish in our comparison are likely approximations. Using three independent readers, Van 

251 Eenennaam et al. (1996) estimated a potential error of 1 to 2 years for fish ranging in age from 15-

252 30 years while aging for younger individuals was more accurate. Though ages for wild Atlantic 
253 sturgeon used in our analysis are considered approximations, they represent the best available data 

254 for comparison to the hatchery recaptures. 

255 

256 Unless a captured individual was missing a left pelvic fin, it was not reported as a hatchery fish, but 

257 results showed that about 64% of the clipped individuals regenerated a clipped fin to some degree, 

258 and therefore even our alternative minimum survival rate to age 5 (0.66%) is likely conservative. 

259 

260 In summary, we found that the minimum survival rate to age 5 for hatchery-produced Atlantic 

261 sturgeon was in the range of 0.49-0.66%. Recaptured hatchery Atlantic sturgeon also exhibited 

262 growth within ranges reported for wild Atlantic sturgeon. Even though only 36% of fish tested in 

263 the hatchery retained a clean pelvic fin clip, it proved to be a valuable external mark for 

264 identification of stocked Atlantic sturgeon and allowed us to make minimum survival calculations. 

265 We believe the results of our analysis show that the use of stocked Atlantic sturgeon can be a viable 

266 population recovery tool for future recovery programs for the species as long as recommended 

267 breeding and stocking protocols (ASMFC 2006) are followed as closely as possible. Even though a 

268 spermiating, hatchery-origin male was captured on its parental spawning area 15 years post-release, 

269 it may be preliminary to suggest that the stocked Atlantic sturgeon imprinted to the Hudson River 

270 and will contribute to the target population as spawning adults like their wild Hudson River 

271 counterparts. 

272 

273 Acknowledgements 

274 The authors wish to thank all the researchers who willingly participated in reporting sturgeon 

275 captures to the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database from the following organizations: U.S. 
276 Fish & Wildlife Service, Delaware Fish and Wildlife, New York Department of Environmental 

277 Conservation, Delaware State University (DESU), and especially Tom Savoy - Connecticut 

278 Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries Division who captured and reported the 

279 majority of the pelvic-clipped sturgeon. Much gratitude goes to Sheila Eyler - USFWS for 

280 maintaining the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database that continues to be a valuable tool for 

281 Atlantic sturgeon restoration efforts. Thank you Joel Van Eenennaam - University of California at 

282 Davis for providing individual sturgeon measurements used in this comparison. A debt of gratitude 

283 is also given to Mike Hendrix, former Director of the USFWS Northeast Fishery Center - Lamar, 

284 PA who took on the daunting task of positioning us to pioneer Atlantic sturgeon culture research 

285 that ultimately resulted in fingerlings available for this study. Many thanks also to Richard St. 

286 Pierre, retired USFWS biologist who was very instrumental in coordinating with the State of New 

287 York to release the fingerling sturgeon in 1994. This manuscript was greatly improved by 

288 suggestions from the subject editor as well as those from Joseph E. Hightower and two anonymous 

289 reviewers. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not 

290 necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

291 

292 Supplemental Material 

293 Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or 

294 functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author 

295 for the article.

296 Data S1. Total length (mm), weight (kg), and age of individual wild and hatchery-recaptured 

297 Atlantic sturgeons. 

298 Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/012011-JFWM-005.S1 (13 KB XLSX). 
299 Literature cited

300 ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2006. Guidelines for Stocking 

301 Cultured Atlantic Sturgeon for Supplementation or Reintroduction. Special Report Number 87, 

302 February, 2006. 39 p. Available: 

303 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/sr87AtlanticSturgeonStockingGuidelines.pdf 

304 (August 2011) 

305 

306 Atlantic sturgeon status review team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon 

307 (Acipenseroxyrinchus oxyrinchus). February 23, 2007. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

308 Gloucester, Massachusetts. 174 p. Available: 

309 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf (August 2011) 

310 

311 Conte, F. S., S. I. Doroshov, P. B. Lutes, and E. M. Strange. 1988. Hatchery manual for the white 

312 sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Richardson with application to other North American 

313 Acipenseridae. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 

314 Cooperative Extension Publication 3322, Oakland. Available: 

315 http://www.fishsciences.net/projects/columbia_sturgeon/_pdfs/18-Hatchey_manul_wh-sturg.pdf 

316 (August 2011) 

317 

318 Cornell University. 1998. Ecology of wild and stocked Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River. 

319 Sturgeon Notes 5:7-8. 

320 
321 Dovel, W.J. and T.J. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson Estuary, New York. New 

322 York Fish and Game Journal 30(2): 140-172. 

323 

324 Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes 

325 and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)-Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. United States Fish and 

326 Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.122). United States Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-

327 4. 28 p. Available: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-122.pdf (August 

328 2011) 

329 

330 Henderson, A.P., A.P. Spidle, and T. King. 2004. Genetic diversity, kinship analysis, and 

331 broodstock management of captive Atlantic sturgeon for population restoration. Pages 621-633 in: 

332 Propagated Fish in Resource Management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 44:621-633. 

333 

334 Hilborn, R. and D.Eggers. 2000. A Review of the Hatchery Programs for Pink Salmon 

335 in Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

336 Society 129:333–350.

337 

338 Hurley, K.L., R.J. Sheehan, and R.C.Heidinger. 2004. Accuracy and precision of age estimates for 

339 pallid sturgeon from pectoral fin rays. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:715-

340 718. 

341 
342 Ireland, S. C., R. C. P. Beamesderfer, V. L. Paragamian, V. D. Wakkinen, and J. T. Siple. 2002. 

343 Success of hatchery-reared juvenile white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus following release in 

344 the Kootenai River, Idaho, USA.Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:642–650. 

345 

346 Jennings, M.J. and seven co-authors. 2010. Implementation of Genetic Conservation Practices in a 

347 Muskellunge Propagation and Stocking Program. Fisheries, 35:388-395. 

348 

349 Mohler, J.W. 2004. Culture Manual for the Atlantic Sturgeon. Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus. 

350 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 70 p. Available: 

351 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/fisherycenter/pdfs/ASTCultureManual.pdf (August 2011) 

352 

353 Paragamian, V.L. and R.C.P. Beamesderfer. 2003. Growth estimates from tagged white sturgeon 

354 suggest that ages from fin rays underestimate true age in the Kootenai River, USA and Canada. 

355 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:895-903. 

356 

357 Peterson, D.L., M.B. Bain, and N. Haley.2000. Evidence of declining recruitment of Atlantic 

358 sturgeon in the Hudson River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:231-238. 

359 

360 Rossiter, D.L, G. Noakes, and F.W.H. Beamish. 1995. Validation of age estimation for the lake 

361 sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:777-781. 

362 

363 Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and 

364 Aquatic Sciences 219:731 p. 

365 
366 Smith, T.I.J. 1985. The fishery, biology, and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 

367 oxyrhynchus in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14 (1):61-72. 

368 

369 St. Pierre, R.A. 1999. Restoration of Atlantic sturgeon in the northeastern USA with special 

370 emphasis on culture and restocking. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15:180-182 

371 

372 Van Eenennaam, J.P. and five co-authors. 1996. Reproductive conditions of the Atlantic sturgeon 

373 Acipenser oxyrinchus in the Hudson River. Estuaries 19 (4):769-777.

374 

375 Waples, R. S. 1999. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. Fisheries (24): 12-21 

376 

377 

378 

379 

380 List of Figures 

381 

382 Figure 1. Location of Atlantic sturgeon broodstock capture (Esopus Island) and hatchery fingerling 

383 release (Newburg Bay) sites on the Hudson River, New York. 

384 

385 

386 Figure 2. Total length (TL)-weight (W) regression model using combined data from age 5-17 

387 hatchery Atlantic sturgeon reported in the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database and 

388 wild Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Hudson River, New York of similar ages reported 

in Dovel and Berggren (1983), and Van Eenaennaam, et al. (1996). W = 1.50E-9*TL3.18 389 
390 

391 

392 Figure 3. Total length (a) and weight (b) at age 5-17 years for hatchery-recaptured Atlantic sturgeon 

393 reported in the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database and wild Atlantic sturgeon 

394 captured in the Hudson River, New York of similar ages reported in Dovel and Berggren 

395 (1983), and Van Eenaennaam, et al. (1996). Data were log10 transformed. 

396 

397 Figure 4. An Atlantic sturgeon with a missing left pelvic fin captured on June 17, 2009 near Esopus 

398 Island in the Hudson River, New York. The individual tested positive for a coded-wire 

399 tag under the first dorsal scute confirming it was one of the fish released as a fingerling in 

400 1994.

401 

402 

403 

404 List of Tables 

405 

406 Table 1. Total lengths (TL; mm), fork lengths (FL; mm), weights (Wt; kg), capture date, age, and 

407 capture locations for hatchery recaptured Atlantic sturgeon reported to the Atlantic Coast 

408 Sturgeon Tagging Database from 1999-2011. Repeat recaptures are not included. 

409 

410 Table 2. Mean total lengths (TL; mm), weights (Wt; kg), range of measurements, and standard 

deviations (SD) for hatchery recaptured2 411 Atlantic sturgeon as reported in the Atlantic Coast 

Sturgeon Tagging Database and wild1 412 Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Hudson River, New 

413 York from Dovel and Berggren (1983), and Van Eenaennaam, et al. (1996). 
Figure 1

Massachusetts

New York10 Km Connecticut

New York

New Jersey
Fi 2

50

Figure 2

3035404550

)

HatcheryDovel & Berggren (1983)Van Eenennaam et al. (1996)

15202530

Weight (kg W = 1.50E-9*TL3.18

05

10

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Total length (mm) Total length (mm)
Figure 3

3.33.4

Van Eenennaam et al. (1996)

(a)

3.13.13.23.23.3

ngth mm)

Van Eenennaam et al. (1996)HatcheryDovel & Berggren (1983)

2.92.93.03.03.1

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

log (Total len

1.8

Van Eenennaam (1996)

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Age

(b)

0 81.01.21.41.6

ght Kg)

Van Eenennaam (1996)HatcheryDovel & Berggren (1983)

0.00.20.40.60.8

log (Weig

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

Age

Table 1 

Database ID 

number 

Capture 

TL(mm) FL(mm) Wt(kg) date Age Capture location 

352940001 

352940190 

857 

920 

725 

795 

2.8 

4.8 

9/18/99 

8/18/00 

5 

6 

Long Island Sound, CT 

Virginia Beach, VA 

352940203 1165 940 8.1 6/13/01 7 Delaware Bay, DE 

352940204 1060 910 8.4 9/07/01 7 Delaware Bay, DE 

352940202 1050 900 2.8 2/27/03 9 Pocomoke Sound, MD 

352940196 1240 1060 8.7 11/8/05 11 Hudson River, NY 

352940206 1530 1430 --- 6/22/07 13 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940207 1620 1590 --- 6/28/07 13 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940208 1760 1570 23.8 7/17/07 13 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940209 1550 1430 21.1 8/07/07 13 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940210 1290 1140 11.6 6/27/08 14 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940211 1195 1040 11.3 7/09/08 14 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940212 1830 1620 33.8 7/10/08 14 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940213 1540 1360 19.6 7/17/08 14 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940218 1950 1730 45.0 6/17/09 15 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940057 1873 --- 45.5 6/17/09 15 Hudson River, NY 

352940216 1835 1530 38.0 4/07/09 15 Bethany Beach, DE 

352940219 1925 1730 --- 7/15/09 15 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940220 1085 940 7.4 7/15/09 15 Long Island Sound, CT 

352940221 1980 1770 43.0 4/20/11 17 Bethany Beach, DE 

352940222 1810 1710 40.0 4/21/11 17 Bethany Beach, DE 

352940223 1820 1620 36.0 5/02/11 17 Bethany Beach, DE 

325940224 1840 1600 37.0 5/03/11 17 Bethany Beach, DE 

325940226 1890 1640 37.0 5/09/11 17 Bethany Beach, DE 
Table 2

Age Mean TL Range SD Age Mean TL Range SD Age Mean TL Range SD

5 ...  ...  ...  5 857 857-857 0 5 799 760-864 45

6 1270 1244-1295 21 6 920 920 -920 0 6 ...  ...  ... 

7 1270 1219-1320 46 7 1113 1060-1165 74 7 ...  ...  ... 

8 1245 1219-1295 27 8 ...  ...  ...  8 ...  ...  ... 

9 1298 1219-1520 98 9 1050 1050-1050 0 9 ...  ...  ... 

10 1410 1219-1651 160 10 ...  ...  ...  10 ...  ...  ... 

11 1568 1244-1800 175 11 1208 1175-1240 46 11 ...  ...  ... 

12 1680 1320-1960 188 12 ...  ...  ...  12 1343 1181-1480 211

13 1767 1327-2057 167 13 1615 1530-1760 104 13 1448 1153-1616 180

14 1785 1560-2057 121 14 1463 1195-1830 284 14 1555 1218-1714 165

15 1871 1651-2057 102 15 1912 1873-1950 54 15 1619 1516-1651 45

16 1804 1727-1880 77 16 ...  ...  ...  16 1555 1555-1555 0

17 1803 1727-1880 62 17 1868 1810-1980 62 17 1858 1858-1858 0

Mean wt Mean wt Mean wt

5 3.4 3.0-4.1 0.6 5 2.8 2.8-2.8 ...  5 2.4 2.1-2.9 0.4

6 5.0 4.8-5.0 0.1 6 4.8 4.8-4.8 ...  6 ...  ...  ... 

7 4.7 4.6-4.8 0.1 7 8.2 8.0-8.3 0.2 7 ...  ...  ... 

8 ...  ...  ...  8 ...  ...  ...  8 ...  ...  ... 

9 ...  ...  ...  9 2.8 2.8-2.8  ... 9 ...  ...  ... 

10 ...  ...  ...  10 ...  ...  ...  10 ...  ...  ... 

11 ...  ...  ...  11 9.4 8.7-10.1 1.0 11 ...  ...  ... 

12 30.8 27.2-35.8 4.5 12 ...  ...  ...  12 17.4 10.1-24.7 10.3

13 30.7 26.8-39.0 2.7 13 22.5 21.1-23.8 1.9 13 17.5 7.4-25.0 7.3

14 33.7 27.2-39.9 4.5 14 18.9 11.3-33.8 11.0 14 20.9 10.1-27.2 6.6

15 33.5 28.1-38.6 5.1 15 42.3 45.0-45.5 0.4 15 26.6 22.7-32.1 4.9

16 37.0 36.3-37.7 0.7 16 ...  ...  ...  16 24.8 24.8-24.8 0.0

17 36.8 33.1-38.6 2.6 17 38.6 36.0-43.0 2.6 17 38.1 38.1-38.1 0.0

(1996) N=30 1(2011) N=24 2(1983) N=21 1

Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging 

Van Eenennaam et al. Database (hatchery fish) Dovel and Berggren