Articles 1
2 Growth and Survival of Hatchery-Produced At lantic Sturgeon Released as Young-of-Year 3 into the Hudson River, New York 4 5 Jerre W. Mohler,* John A. Sweka, Andrew Kahnle, Kathryn Hattala, Amanda Higgs, Mark 6 DuFour, Matthew W. Breece, and Dewayne A. Fox 7 8 J.W. Mohler, J.A. Sweka 9 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 75, Lamar, Pennsylvania 16848 10 A. Kahnle, K. Hattala, A. Higgs, M. DuFour 11 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , Hudson River Fisheries Unit, 21 12 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561-1696 13 M.W. Breece, D.A. Fox 14 Delaware State University, 1200 N. Du Pont Highway, Dover, Delaware 19901 15
16 Abstract 17 In 2007, a team of United States scientists perf ormed a status review of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser 18 oxyrinchus oxyrinchus and concluded that the species w ould likely become endangered in the 19 foreseeable future over much of its range, includ ing populations of the New York Bight which is 20 comprised of the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. Ther efore, we evaluated an experimental release of 21 hatchery-produced Atlantic sturge on that took place in 1994 to determ ine the value of using stocked 22 fish as a population recovery tool. We obtained r ecapture data on hatchery fish from the Atlantic 23 Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database. Hatchery fish were identified by presence of a pelvic fin 24removal. A hatchery evaluation of the fin removal showed that 36% of cli pped individuals retained 25 a clean fin clip after 49 d. The mini mum survival rate for hatchery fi sh to age 5 was estimated to be 26 in the range of 0.49-0.66% using documented recap tures (N=24), known number of fish stocked, 27 and results of the pelvic fin removal evaluation. Length and weight-at-age for recaptured hatchery 28 fish at known ages 5-17 were with in the range of values reported for wild fish whose ages were 29 estimated by pectoral spine analysis. We also report that one ripe male hatc hery fish at age 15 was 30 captured along with other spermia ting males at its pare ntal spawning area in the Hudson River in 31 2009. 32 Keywords: Atlantic, sturgeon, survival, hatchery, growth, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 33 Received: January 14, 2011; Accepted: Septembe r 16, 2011; Published Online Early: December 34 2011; Published: xxx 35 Citation: Mohler JW, Sweka JA, Kahnle A, Hatt ala K, Higgs A, DuFour M, Breece MW, Fox DA. 36 2012. Growth and survival of hatchery-produced A tlantic sturgeon released as young-of-year into 37 the Hudson River, New York. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management x(x):xx-xx; e1944-687X. 38 doi: 10.3996/012011-JFWM-005 39 * Corresponding author: jerre_mohler@fws.gov 40
41 Short title: Growth and Survival of Hatchery-Produced Atlantic Sturgeon 42
43 Introduction 44 A major fishery for Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus began in the late 1800s 45 when a caviar market was established. Record landings were reported in 1890, when over 3350 46 metric tons of Atlantic sturge on was landed from coastal rivers along the Atlantic Coast. The 47fishery collapsed in 1901 with less than 10 per cent of the peak landings reported. Landings 48 continued to decline to about 5% of the peak until 1920 and have remained between 1-5% until a 49 complete moratorium on harvest was initiated in 1998. A t eam of United States scientists performed 50 a status review of Atlantic sturgeon and conclude d that the species would likely become endangered 51 in the foreseeable future over much of its ra nge, including populations of the New York Bight 52 which is comprised of the Hudson and Delaware Rivers (ASSRT 2007). By-catch mortality, water 53 quality, lack of adequate state and/or Federal regulatory mechan isms, dredging activities, habitat 54 impediment, and boat strikes were among the stresso rs identified as signif icant threats to the 55 viability of Atlantic sturgeon populations. 56
57 In order to provide information pe rtinent to recovery efforts for A tlantic sturgeon, we evaluated an 58 experimental release of hatchery -produced Atlantic sturgeon that took place in 1994 to determine 59 the value of using stocked fish as a population recovery tool. When using fish stocking as a 60 management option for population recovery, the general goal of fi shery managers is to build 61 depleted or extirpated fish popul ations to self-sustaining levels . There has been considerable 62 controversy over fish hatchery prog rams, with some stating that oppor tunistic stocking of Atlantic 63 sturgeon without regard to protocols for maintena nce of appropriate effective population size can 64 contribute to population declin es (St. Pierre 1999). Others believe that distribution of hatchery fish 65 could result in outbreeding depres sion, loss of fitness, negative impacts on wild fish production 66 (Hilborn and Eggers 2000; Henders on et al. 2004; Jennings et al. 2010) and that fish hatcheries 67 have been used as a substitute for addressing root causes of declines in abundance (Waples 1999). 68
69Short-term evaluations of Atlantic sturgeon surviv al and growth are helpful but not conclusive in 70 determining the value of using ha tchery-produced fish to help ach ieve self-sustaining population 71 goals due to the biology of the species . A major factor to be considered is that this group of fishes 72 generally displays a long period of immaturity. With Atlantic sturgeon, the age to reach sexual 73 maturity of females varies with latitude and range s from seven years in South Carolina, USA rivers 74 (Smith 1985) to 27 years in the St. Lawrence River, Canada (Scott and Scott 1988). On average, 75 individuals from more southerly areas mature s ooner (Gilbert 1989). Evalua ting the contribution of 76 hatchery Atlantic sturgeon to th e target population requires a long-te rm project with the ability to 77 discriminate hatchery fish from wild fish for a decade or more after stocking. 78
79 The objectives of this paper are: (1) to evaluate an experimental pelvic fin clip as a long-term 80 identifying mark for hatchery-produced fish and (2 ) to evaluate survival and growth of hatchery81 produced Atlantic sturgeon using data reported to the Atlantic Sturgeon Coastal Tagging Database 82 over a 17-yr period and similar data reported for wild Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Hudson 83 River. 84
85
Methods 86 Producing, tagging, and stocking fish 87 A female Atlantic sturgeon (2200 mm total lengt h; 67 kg) was captured via gill net on June 26, 88 1994 in the Hudson River at a well-documented spawning reach near Es opus Island at river 89 kilometer (rkm) 135 in the vicinity of Hyde Park, NY. The female was transported to the U.S. Fish 90 & Wildlife Service’s Northeast Fishery Center in Lamar, Pennsylvania and given hormone 91 injections of common carp pituitary extract accordi ng to techniques described in Conte et al. (1988) 92and Mohler (2004). Eggs were ex tracted and fertilized on June 30 using milt from two males that 93 had been captured previously in the same river reach as the female. The milt was stored in a 94 refrigerated, oxygen-enriched environment and was co mposited just prior to fe rtilization. Offspring 95 resulting from this spawning hatched on July 3 a nd were reared in indoor raceways and circular 96 tanks using techniques describe d by Mohler (2004). Approxi mately 4,966 individuals were 97 anesthetized on day 108 post-hatc h (October 20, 1994) with 50 mg/L tricaine methane-sulfonate 98 (MS-222), tagged with a coded wire tag (CWT) (Northwest Marine Technologies, Shaw Island, 99 Washington, USA) under the first dorsal scute, and th e left pelvic fin was severed as close to the 100 body as possible with surgical scissors. The fi sh were an average of 4.1 g (1.8–8.3 g) and 10.3 cm 101 (7.8–13.7 cm total length). The fish were maintained in indoor raceways and given a daily salt 102 treatment of 1 ppt for 10 d. There were 39 mortal ities during this 10-d period that were likely due 103 to tagging and handling. On October 30, 1994, the survivors (N=4,927) were transported from the 104 Northeast Fishery Center at Lamar, Pennsylva nia to Newburgh, New York and released in 105 Newburgh Bay (rkm 90-99) of the Hudson River a bout 40 rkm downriver fr om where the parents 106 had been captured (Figure 1). Temperature of the transport water was approximately 16° C and 107 mean water temperature in Newburgh Bay was 15.5° C. 108 109 Pelvic fin removal trial 110 The method of pelvic fin removal described above was untested as a long-term identifying mark for 111 Atlantic sturgeon, therefore a pr e-stocking trial was performed on 120 fish produced from the same 112 spawning episode described above. On day 67 post- hatch, 120 fish (average weight = 1.9 grams) 113 were randomly selected from the production lot and were anesthetized as described above. Sixty 114 individuals received a pelvic fin removal using surgical scissors by severing the fin as close as 115possible to the body. Sixty individu als were also used as controls and treated similarly with the 116 exception of fin removal. For each treatment, equal numbers of fish (n=20) were then placed into 117 each of three circular 54-L tanks and offered a closed formula dry diet (Fry Feed Kyowa, Type C118 200, Biokyowa, Inc., Chesterfield, Mi ssouri) at a rate of four perc ent initial tank biomass daily. 119 About 50 g of non-iodized salt was placed into e ach tank daily for a few days to promote fin 120 healing. Tanks were maintained on flow-through c onditions (flow rate not measured) at 17-19°C. 121 An inventory for feed adjustment was performed af ter 19 d for all tanks and feed rate was changed 122 to five percent tank biomass daily. Final morta lity, growth, and condition of the amputated area 123 were recorded after 49 d for fish in each study treatment group. Growth of clipped vs. control 124 sturgeon was then compared via t-tests using Sigma Stat Version 2.0 with an alpha level of 0.05. 125
126 Evaluation of released sturgeon 127 We evaluated growth and survival for stocked fi sh using data from bot h direct and indirect 128 sampling sources. The first direct sampling took place beginning on May 31, 1995, approximately 129 6 months after release of the hatchery fish and continued until December 15, 1995. Fish were 130 captured using various-sized mesh gill nets vi a stratified random sampling at 57 locations 131 distributed from the Tappan Zee Bridge (rkm 43) to Staatsburg, New York (rkm 194) (Peterson et 132 al., 2000). Another sampling study occurred fr om 1995 to 1997 through targeted gill netting in 133 North Haverstraw Bay of the Hudson River (rkm 60- 65) where previous acoustic tagging had been 134 used to locate Atlantic sturgeon congregations (Cor nell University, 1998). 135
136 Indirect sampling by researchers fr om various agencies ranging fr om New York to North Carolina 137 also resulted in recapture of hatchery-relea sed Atlantic sturgeon. Data documenting these 138recaptures were reported to the U.S. Fish & Wild life Service’s Maryland Fishery Resource Office 139 that coordinates the Atlantic Sturgeon Coastal Tagging Database. We obt ained length and weight 140 data from the database for all fish reporte d from 1999 through 2011 (known ages = 5 through 17 141 years) with a missing left pelvic fi n (Table 1). We considered hatc hery-released fish to be age 1 on 142 January 1, 1995. Since many researchers did not verify the presence of a CWT, we assumed all fish 143 with missing left pelvic fins were of hatchery origin. 144
145 Minimum survival rate to age 5 was calculated by the expression: 146
S m = (n / N) 100 147 Where n is the number of Atlantic sturgeon that were reported to the Atlantic Sturgeon Coastal 148 Tagging Database from 1999-2011 with a missing left pelvic fin and N is the number of fish 149 released in 1994 (4,927). An alternative me thod for calculating minimum survival was also 150 performed based on results from the pelvic fin rem oval trial that showed a proportion of fish had 151 fully regenerated the clipped fin, rendering them visually unrecognizable as hatchery fish to 152 researchers conducting indirect sa mpling. We calculated the altern ative minimum survival rate 153 using the expression: 154
S ma = [n / {N – N(rf)}] 100 155 Where rf is the proportion of sturgeon in the fi n removal trial which fully regenerated the clipped 156 fin. 157
158 We obtained length and weight da ta for wild Atlantic sturgeon from Dovel and Berggren (1983) 159 and Van Eenennaam et al. (1996) where sturgeon ages were determined via an alysis of pectoral fin 160 ray sections (i.e., pectoral fin ray analysis = pectoral spine analysis ). Length and weight data for 161fish from all sources were log 10 transformed and analysis of covariance was used to compare 162 condition (weight at a given length). An alpha level of 0.05 was used in hypothesis testing. Due to 163 imprecision in aging sturgeon by spine analysis (R ossiter et al. 1995; Paragamian and Beamesderfer 164 2003; Hurley et al. 2004), length and weight data were not compared statistically between wild and 165 hatchery fish, but simply plotted agai nst age to construct a scatter plot. 166
167
Results 168 Pelvic fin removal trial 169 Post-clipping mortality over the first 19 d totale d only one Atlantic sturgeon from the clipped 170 treatment and final mortality after 49 d was simila r between clipped and cont rol treatment at 2 and 3 171 individuals, respectively. Weights of clipped and cont rol fish were similar (P = 0.541) after 49 d 172 with mean weights (SD) at 19.6 (7.3) g and 18.8 (7.2) g. Mean lengths (SD) of clipped and control 173 Atlantic sturgeon were also similar (P = 0.322) at 16.7 (2.6) cm and 16.2 (2.7) cm, respectively. 174 Evaluation of the clipped fish after 49 d showed that 36.2% of the individuals had no sign of a left 175 pelvic fin, 37.9% had partial fin regeneration, and 25.9% had fully regene rated pelvic fins. 176
177 Recaptured hatchery sturgeon 178 From 1995 to 1997, 110 stocked fish were recaptured through directed gill netting in Haverstraw 179 Bay, Hudson River (Cornell University 1998). Ha tchery fish comprise d 35-53% of the total 180 juvenile catch during that time period. Recaptured Atlantic sturgeon were reported to have slower 181 growth, poorer condition, and highe r rates of physical deformity than their wild counterparts. 182 Fifteen hatchery fish and 14 of their wild ag e-1 counterparts were ca ptured during a 6.5 month 183 sampling period in 1995 at 15 locations in the H udson River from the Tappan Zee bridge (rkm, 43) 184to Staatsburg, New York (rkm 194). Both fin clips and CWTs were found on all hatchery fish 185 captured, indicating minimal tag loss duri ng the study (Peterson et al. 2000). 186
187 Indirect sampling from 1999 to 2011 resulted in reports of 24 differe nt Atlantic sturgeons with a 188 missing left pelvic fin in the Atlantic Coast St urgeon Tagging Database by numerous researchers 189 from Long Island Sound to North Carolina waters (T able 1). One-half of the hatchery recaptures 190 (12 of 24) were captured in Long Island Sound but others were captured in Delaware Bay, coastal 191 Delaware off Bethany Beach, the Hudson River, a nd coastal North Carolina (Table 1). In 1999 192 (age 5) there were still at l east 24 individuals surviving out of the 4,927 fish originally stocked, 193 therefore we calculated the minimum survival to age 5 at 0.49% for the hatchery-origin sturgeon. 194 We calculated the alternative minimum survival to age 5 at 0.66 % based on the proportion of 195 25.9% fish in the fin clip study that ha d fully regenerated the pelvic fin. 196 197 Condition and growth comparisons 198 There was no difference in condi tion (weight at a given length ) among individuals reported by 199 Dovel and Berggren (1983), Van Eenaennaam, et al . (1996) and the hatchery recaptures reported in 200 the Atlantic Coast Sturge on Tagging Database (P = 0.81). Therefore we combined data for a single 201 weight-length regression line (W = 1.50 -9 *TL 3.18 ) (Figure 2). Though not co mpared statistically, we 202 also found stocked fish length-at-a ge and weight-at-age values we re within the range of those 203 reported for wild fish (Table 2; Figure 3). The raw data used in growth comparisons can be found 204 in the Supplemental Material (Data S1, http://dx.doi .org/10.3996/012011-JFWM-005.S1). 205
206It is important to note that we cap tured a spermiating male hatchery fi sh in 2009 at 15 years of age. 207 This individual was captured along with wild sp ermiating males during spawning season (June 17) 208 at a well-documented spawning area in the proxim ity of Esopus Island in the Hudson River (rkm 209 135). This was the same area wher e the parents of the hatchery fi sh were captured during the 1994 210 spawning season. The individual had a cleanly-clipped area at the original location of the left pelvic 211 fin and also tested positive for a CWT under the first dorsal scute confirming it was one of the 212 hatchery fish released in 1994 (Figure 4). 213
214 Discussion 215 The number of recaptures of hatchery fish was likely greater than actually reported in the Atlantic 216 Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database considering results of the pelvic fin clip trial that showed only 217 36% of individuals exhibited a clean ly clipped fin location after 49 d. The pelvic fin clip served as 218 an external identifier that was easily determined by Atlantic coastal resear chers once they had been 219 informed of its use. A fin clip mark must be used carefully and with full disclosure to the 220 applicable research community to avoid removal of the same fin for different studies, thereby 221 confounding study results. This is especially important for long-liv ed and highly migratory species 222 such as Atlantic sturgeon. Ther e are many other types of extern al tags available to sturgeon 223 researchers but due to the inhere nt retention longevity needed fo r a long-lived species such as 224 sturgeon, we do not know of any co mmercially available external ta gs that will yield acceptable 225 results. We found our secondary mark of CWTs in th e hatchery fish to be inadequate for this type 226 of study for two reasons: (1) handheld CWT detectors are expensive and not commonly used by 227 sampling crews, and (2) due to the large amount of fish growth, the presence of the CWT is difficult 228 to detect based on our observations with the 15-ye ar-old hatchery recapture fish landed in 2009. 229230 Even though it represents only a single observation, the capture of a ripe hatchery male during 231 spawning season along with other spermiating wild males at a known spawning area suggests that 232 hatchery fish are capable of reproductive behavior similar to their wild c ounterparts. In addition, 233 the capture of this particular fish shows that de spite being reared for nearly four months in a 234 hatchery located in Lamar PA (Susquehanna River basin, Chesapeake Bay drai nage), the individual 235 was participating in a Hudson Ri ver spawning migration and return ed to spawn where its parents 236 had been captured 15 years prior. 237
238 Cornell University (1998) found that stocked At lantic sturgeon exhibite d slower growth, poorer 239 condition, and had higher rates of physical deformity than their wi ld counterparts during their first 240 three years of release, but we found overall growth of fish recaptured from 1999-2011 within the 241 range of values reported for wild fish. This is similar to findi ngs of Ireland et al. (2002) with white 242 sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus where growth rates and conditi on factors within 3 years after 243 release were often poor but increased as hatc hery fish adapted to natural conditions. 244
245 Dovel and Berggren (1983) and Van Eenennaam et al . (1996) used pectoral spine section analysis 246 to estimate age for wild Atlantic sturgeon used in our study and the true ages were known for all 247 hatchery recaptures. Accuracy and precision of ag e estimates for sturgeon is low (Hurley et al. 248 2004; Paragamian and Beamesderfer 2003; Rossiter et al. 1995), therefore ages assigned to wild 249 fish in our comparison are likely approximati ons. Using three inde pendent readers, Van 250 Eenennaam et al. (1996) estimated a potential error of 1 to 2 years for fish ranging in age from 15- 251 30 years while aging for younger individuals was mo re accurate. Though ages for wild Atlantic 252sturgeon used in our analysis are considered approximations, they re present the best available data 253 for comparison to the hatchery recaptures. 254
255 Unless a captured individual was missing a left pelvic fin, it was not reported as a hatchery fish, but 256 results showed that about 64% of the clipped individuals regenerate d a clipped fin to some degree, 257 and therefore even our alternative minimum survival rate to age 5 ( 0.66%) is likely conservative. 258 259 In summary, we found that the minimum survival rate to age 5 for hatchery-produced Atlantic 260 sturgeon was in the range of 0.49-0.66%. Recapture d hatchery Atlantic sturgeon also exhibited 261 growth within ranges reported for wild Atlantic sturgeon. Even t hough only 36% of fish tested in 262 the hatchery retained a clean pelvic fin clip, it proved to be a valuable external mark for 263 identification of stocked Atlantic sturgeon and allo wed us to make minimum survival calculations. 264 We believe the results of our analysis show that th e use of stocked Atlantic sturgeon can be a viable 265 population recovery tool for future recovery pr ograms for the species as long as recommended 266 breeding and stocking protocols (A SMFC 2006) are followed as closel y as possible. Even though a 267 spermiating, hatchery-origin male was captured on its parental sp awning area 15 year s post-release, 268 it may be preliminary to suggest that the stocke d Atlantic sturgeon imprin ted to the Hudson River 269 and will contribute to the target population as spawning adults like their wild Hudson River 270 counterparts. 271
272 Acknowledgements 273 The authors wish to thank all the researchers who willingly participated in reporting sturgeon 274 captures to the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database from the following organizations: U.S. 275Fish & Wildlife Service, Delaware Fish and W ildlife, New York Department of Environmental 276 Conservation, Delaware State University (D ESU), and especially Tom Savoy - Connecticut 277 Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries Division who ca ptured and reported the 278 majority of the pelvic-clipped sturgeon. Much gratitude goes to Sheila Eyler - USFWS for 279 maintaining the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Data base that continues to be a valuable tool for 280 Atlantic sturgeon restoration effo rts. Thank you Joel Van Eenennaam - University of California at 281 Davis for providing individual sturgeon measurements used in this comparison. A debt of gratitude 282 is also given to Mike Hendrix, former Director of the USFWS Northeast Fishery Center - Lamar, 283 PA who took on the daunting task of positioning us to pioneer Atlantic sturgeon culture research 284 that ultimately resulted in fingerlings available for this study. Many thanks also to Richard St. 285 Pierre, retired USFWS biologist w ho was very instrumental in coor dinating with the State of New 286 York to release the fingerling sturgeon in 1994. This manuscript was greatly improved by 287 suggestions from the subject editor as well as those from Joseph E. Hightower and two anonymous 288 reviewers. The findings and conclusions in th is article are those of the authors and do not 289 necessarily represent the views of th e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 290 291 Supplemental Material 292 Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or 293 functionality of any supplemental material. Querie s should be directed to the corresponding author 294 for the article. 295 Data S1. Total length (mm), weight (kg), and age of individual wild and hatchery-recaptured 296 Atlantic sturgeons. 297 Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/ 012011-JFWM-005.S1 (13 KB XLSX). 298Literature cited 299
ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2006. Guidelines for Stocking 300 Cultured Atlantic Sturgeon for Supplementation or Reintroduction. Special Report Number 87, 301 February, 2006. 39 p. Available: 302 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturge on/sr87AtlanticSturgeonStockingGuidelines.pdf 303 (August 2011) 304
305 Atlantic sturgeon status review team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon 306 ( Acipenseroxyrinchus oxyrinchus ). February 23, 2007. National Ma rine Fisheries Service, 307 Gloucester, Massachusetts. 174 p. Available: 308 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusre views/atlanticstur geon2007.pdf (August 2011) 309
310 Conte, F. S., S. I. Doroshov, P. B. Lutes, and E. M. Strange. 1988. Hatchery manual for the white 311 sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Richardson with application to other North American 312 Acipenseridae. University of California, Divi sion of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 313 Cooperative Extension Publication 3322, Oakland. Available: 314 http://www.fishsciences.net/projects/columb ia_sturgeon/_pdfs/18-Hatchey_manul_wh-sturg.pdf 315 (August 2011) 316
317 Cornell University. 1998. Ecology of wild and stoc ked Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River. 318 Sturgeon Notes 5:7-8. 319
320Dovel, W.J. and T.J. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson Estuary, New York. New 321 York Fish and Game Journal 30(2): 140-172. 322
323 Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes 324 and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)-Atlantic a nd shortnose sturgeons. United States Fish and 325 Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.122). Un ited States Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82- 326 4. 28 p. Available: http://www.nwrc.usgs .gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-122.pdf (August 327 2011) 328 329 Henderson, A.P., A.P. Spidle, and T. King. 2004. Genetic diversity, ki nship analysis, and 330 broodstock management of captive Atlantic st urgeon for population restoration. Pages 621-633 in : 331 Propagated Fish in Resource Management. Amer ican Fisheries Society Symposium 44:621-633. 332
333 Hilborn, R. and D.Eggers. 2000. A Review of the Hatchery Programs for Pink Salmon 334 in Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island, Alas ka. Transactions of the American Fisheries 335 Society 129:333–350. 336
337 Hurley, K.L., R.J. Sheehan, and R.C.Heidinger. 2 004. Accuracy and precision of age estimates for 338 pallid sturgeon from pectoral fin rays. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:715- 339
718. 340
341Ireland, S. C., R. C. P. Beamesderfer, V. L. Pa ragamian, V. D. Wakkinen, and J. T. Siple. 2002. 342 Success of hatchery-reared juvenile white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus following release in 343 the Kootenai River, Idaho, USA. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:642–650. 344
345 Jennings, M.J. and seven co-authors. 2010. Implemen tation of Genetic Conservation Practices in a 346 Muskellunge Propagation and Stocki ng Program. Fisheries, 35:388-395. 347 348 Mohler, J.W. 2004. Culture Manual for the Atlantic Sturgeon. Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus

. 349 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 70 p. Available: 350 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/fisherycenter/ pdfs/ASTCultureManual.pdf (August 2011) 351
352 Paragamian, V.L. and R.C.P. Beamesderfer. 2003. Growth estimates from tagged white sturgeon 353 suggest that ages from fin rays underestimate tr ue age in the Kootenai River, USA and Canada. 354 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:895-903. 355 356 Peterson, D.L., M.B. Bain, and N. Haley.2000. Evid ence of declining recr uitment of Atlantic 357 sturgeon in the Hudson River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:231-238. 358 359 Rossiter, D.L, G. Noakes, and F.W.H. Beamis h. 1995. Validation of age estimation for the lake 360 sturgeon. Transactions of the Amer ican Fisheries Society 124:777-781. 361
362 Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and 363 Aquatic Sciences 219:731 p. 364
365Smith, T.I.J. 1985. The fishery, biology, a nd management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 366 oxyrhynchus in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14 (1):61-72. 367
368 St. Pierre, R.A. 1999. Restoration of Atlantic sturgeon in the northeastern USA with special 369 emphasis on culture and restocking. Jour nal of Applied Ichthyology 15:180-182 370
371 Van Eenennaam, J.P. and five co-authors. 1996. Re productive conditions of the Atlantic sturgeon 372 Acipenser oxyrinchus in the Hudson River. Estuaries 19 (4):769-777. 373
374 Waples, R. S. 1999. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. Fisheries (24): 12-21 375
376
377
378 379 List of Figures 380
381 Figure 1. Location of Atlantic st urgeon broodstock capture (Esopus Island) and hatchery fingerling 382 release (Newburg Bay) sites on the Hudson River, New York. 383
384
385 Figure 2. Total length (TL)-weight (W) regression model using combined data from age 5-17 386 hatchery Atlantic sturgeon reported in the A tlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging Database and 387 wild Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Hudson River, New York of similar ages reported 388 in Dovel and Berggren (1983), and Van Eenaennaam, et al. (1996). W = 1.50E-9*TL 3.18 389390 391 Figure 3. Total length (a) and weight (b) at age 5-17 years for hatche ry-recaptured Atlantic sturgeon 392 reported in the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Taggi ng Database and wild Atlantic sturgeon 393 captured in the Hudson River, New York of si milar ages reported in Dovel and Berggren 394 (1983), and Van Eenaennaam, et al. (1996). Data were log 10 transformed. 395 396 Figure 4. An Atlantic sturgeon with a missing left pelvic fin captured on June 17, 2009 near Esopus 397 Island in the Hudson River, New York. The individual tested positive for a coded-wire 398 tag under the first dorsal scute confirming it was one of the fish released as a fingerling in 399 1994. 400 401 402 403 List of Tables 404
405 Table 1. Total lengths (TL; mm), fork lengths (F L; mm), weights (Wt; kg), capture date, age, and 406 capture locations for hatchery recaptured Atlantic sturgeon reported to the Atlantic Coast 407 Sturgeon Tagging Database from 1999-2011. Repeat recaptures are not included. 408 409 Table 2. Mean total lengths (TL; mm), weights (Wt; kg), range of measurements, and standard 410 deviations (SD) for hatchery recaptured 2 Atlantic sturgeon as reporte d in the Atlantic Coast 411 Sturgeon Tagging Database and wild 1 Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Hudson River, New 412 York from Dovel and Berggren (1983), and Van Eenaennaam, et al. (1996). 413Figure 1MassachusettsNew YorkConnecticut10 KmNew YorkNewJerseyFi 250Figure23035404550 )HatcheryDovel & Berggren (1983)Van Eenennaam et al. (1996)15202530 Weight (kgW = 1.50E-9*TL3.1805100 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Total length (mm)Totallength(mm)Figure 33.33.4Van Eenennaam et al. (1996)(a)3.13.13.23.23.3

n gth mm)VanEenennaametal.(1996)HatcheryDovel & Berggren (1983)2.92.93.03.03.14681012141618

log (Total le n1.8Van Eenennaam (1996)4681012141618Age(b)0 81.01.21.41.6 g ht Kg)VanEenennaam(1996)HatcheryDovel & Berggren (1983)0.00.20.40.60.8 log (Wei g4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18AgeTable 1

Database ID

number Capture date TL(mm) FL(mm) Wt(kg) 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, DETable 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