Cited by 59Fish Ecology and Management StudiesMarine and fisheries researchFish Biology and Ecology Studies

Effect of Stock Size, Climate, Predation, and Trophic Status on Recruitment of Alewives in Lake Ontario, 1978–2000

O'Gorman, Robert, Lantry, Brian F., Schneider, Clifford P.·2004·Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

Abstract

The population of alewives Alosa pseudoharengus in Lake Ontario is of great concern to fishery managers because alewives are the principal prey of introduced salmonines and because alewives negatively influence many endemic fishes. We used spring bottom trawl catches of alewives to investigate the roles of stock size, climate, predation, and lake trophic status on recruitment of alewives to age 2 in Lake Ontario during 1978–2000. Climate was indexed from the temperature of water entering a south‐shore municipal treatment plant, lake trophic status was indexed by the mean concentration of total phosphorus (TP) in surface water in spring, and predation was indexed by the product of the number of salmonines stocked and relative, first‐year survival of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. A Ricker‐type parent–progeny model suggested that peak production of age‐1 alewives could occur over a broad range of spawning stock sizes, and the fit of the model was improved most by the addition of terms for spring water temperature and winter duration. With the addition of the two climate terms, the Ricker model indicated that when water was relatively warm in spring and the winter was relatively short, peak potential production of young was nine times higher than when water temperature and winters were average, and 73 times higher than when water was cold in spring and winters were long. Relative survival from age 1 to recruitment at age 2 was best described by a multiple linear regression with terms for adult abundance, TP, and predation. Mean recruitment of age‐2 fish in the 1978–1998 year‐classes predicted by using the two models in sequence was only about 20% greater than the observed mean recruitment. Model estimates fit the measured data exceptionally well for all but the largest four year‐classes, which suggests that the models will facilitate improvement in estimates of trophic transfer due to alewives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1577/t03-016.1

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
O'Gorman, R., Lantry, B. F., & Schneider, C. P.
Affiliations
  • U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center Lake Ontario Biological Station 17 Lake Street Oswego New York 13126 USA
  • Great Lakes Science Center (US)
  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (US)
Venue
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Published
2004-07
Volume
133
Issue
4
Pages
855-867
ISSN
  • 0002-8487 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-8659
OpenAlex
W2077377260
Cited by
59
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
alewife, recruitment (biology), spawning stock size, climate effects, spring water temperature, predation, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, lake trophic status, total phosphorus, Ricker model, trophic transfer, Lake Ontario

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