Cited by 11Fish Ecology and Management StudiesFish Biology and Ecology StudiesMarine and fisheries research

Status of the Shortnose Sturgeon Population in the Savannah River, Georgia

Bahr, Derek L., Peterson, Douglas L.·2017·Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

Abstract

The federally endangered Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum was once abundant in all major coastal river systems from the Saint John River, Canada, to the St. Johns River, Florida. During much of the 20th century, however, populations suffered major declines throughout their range from the combined effects of overfishing, pollution, and habitat loss. Although the species was a charter member of the Endangered Species Act, quantified population assessments are still lacking for many river systems throughout their range. Because river‐specific assessments are critical for evaluating species recovery, the objective of this study was to quantify abundance and annual recruitment of Shortnose Sturgeon occupying the Savannah River, Georgia. Anchored gill nets and trammel nets fished during slack tides were used to sample juvenile and adult Shortnose Sturgeon in their summer holding areas during 2013–2015. Huggins closed‐capture models in RMark were used to derive abundance estimates for each demographic group. The best models estimated that the Savannah River contained 81 (95% CI = 27–264) age‐1 juveniles in 2013, 270 (162–468) in 2014, and 245 (104–691) in 2015. The models also estimated the river to contain 486 (198–1,273) age‐2+ juveniles in 2013, 123 (69–235) in 2014, and 187 (81–526) in 2015. Similarly, the adult population was estimated to be 1,865 (784–4,694) individuals in 2013, 1,564 (1,005–2,513) in 2014, and 940 (535–1,753) in 2015. The results of this study provide the first population estimates available for Shortnose Sturgeon in the Savannah River. Additionally, the results suggest that the Savannah River likely contains the second largest population of Shortnose Sturgeon in Georgia. Future studies are needed in the Savannah River and other South Atlantic river systems to better evaluate Shortnose Sturgeon recovery status and the effects of river‐specific anthropogenic modifications. Received June 27, 2016; accepted September 29, 2016 Published online December 2, 2016

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00028487.2016.1245215

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bahr, D. L., & Peterson, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Peterson, Douglas L.
Venue
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Published
2016-12-02
Volume
146
Issue
1
Pages
92-98
ISSN
  • 0002-8487 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-8659
OpenAlex
W2557901534
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  • National Marine Fisheries Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
Keywords
shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, population abundance, recruitment (biology), threatened species, Savannah River, juvenile sturgeon, species recovery, overfishing, habitat loss, anthropogenic impacts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review