b I. 9.3: 5.0:. Irl‘hufn .\ . ,‘ g! E 43w ml... 53 t. .- THESIS IIHIIUUINHIIIUlJlHllHHllllWlHllllfllllUllilllHUl 31293 10410 5345 ABSTRACT LIFE HISTORIES OF FIVE SPECIES OF MICHIGAN SUCKERS AND INDICATIONS OF THEIR ABUNDANCE AS RELATED TO POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL HARVEST By Jim Edward Galloway Concurrent with recent increases in protein demand, the yield of traditionally high value species of Great Lakes fish has declined. Filling the void left by this decline makes harvest of new species desirable. Before the harvest of additional species is implemented, it is advisable to compile relevant information concerning their life history and abundance in the region. Life history data on white suckers (Cgtostomus commersoni), longnose suckers (Qatostomus catostomus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), northern redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum), and golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum) are compiled from the available literature. Data on the past commercial catch of suckers from Michigan waters of the Great Lakes are compiled, and records of catch from Michigan Department of Natural Resources index stations are presented. Indications of natural fluctuations in spawning run intensity, and correlations between time of spawning and water temperature were obtained from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service lamprey assessment weir records. $2? I A Jim Edward Galloway Growth rates for the species studied are dependent upon the richness of the environment. Sufficient data are not available to predict growth rates in the Great Lakes, but rates are expected to vary significantly. Lamprey weir data indicate maximum spawning migrations for large white suckers when temperatures are about ll-l5 C, with smaller fish being less selective. Longnose suckers showed maximum migrations at temperatures of about l2-lS C. Weir records show no definite trends in annual numbers of spawning suckers over the years of weir operation. These records are not useful in determining the total number of migrating fish entering a stream. Commercial catch records reveal an erratic decreasing trend in annual yield beginning as early as the late l9th century. Some fluctuations in catch correlate with shifts in fishing pressure due to gear changes and the invasion of the sea lamprey. Accurate assessment of stocks is not possible from commercial records as suckers were not actively pursued in most areas. Limited data from Michigan Department of Natural Resources index stations indicate white suckers are the most abundant sucker species.in Michigan waters, and in some regions of the Great Lakes are one of the most abundant of all fish species. Commercial harvesting of these species is desirable but government aid may be necessary to initiate such a fishery. After inception of a fishery, careful regulation will be required to obtain maximum sustainable yields. LIFE HISTORIES OF FIVE SPECIES OF MICHIGAN SUCKERS AND INDICATIONS OF THEIR ABUNDANCE AS RELATED TO POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL HARVEST By Jim Edward Galloway A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisneries and Wildlife l976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Niles Kevern, Dr. Eugene Roelofs, and Dr. Estes Reynolds, for the time they Spent advising me and reviewing this work. I am indebted to Asa Wright, Myrl Keller, Ned Fogel, and Mercer Patriarche of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for the extensive information they provided. I would also like to express my appreciation to Mr. Bernie Smith and Mr. Harry Moore of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Mr. Howard Buettner of the National Marine Fisheries Service for their cooperation in obtaining records for the lamprey assessment weirs and the commercial fisheries reSpectively. Mr. Buck LaVallee and Mr. Roy Jenson provided personal accounts of the history of the sucker fishery in the Bay De Noc area, and Vern Applegate commented upon the effect of the sea lamprey on the relative abundance of the sucker Species. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION LIFE HISTORIES White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Reproduction Food . . Age and Growth Mortality Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus) Reproduction Food . . Age and Growth Redhorses (Moxostoma spp.). Habitat Ecology Reproduction Food . . Age and Growth Silver redhorse Northern redhorse Golden redhorse HISTORY OF THE COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE OF SUCKERS IN MICHIGAN Lake Erie Lake Huron Lake Michigan Lake Superior LAMPREY WEIR DATA 41 43 44 47 49 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INDEX STATION CATCHES . . . . . . . DISCUSSION Abundance and Stability of Stocks Management Considerations Conclusions APPENDICES Appendix A: Commercial Fishery Statistics for Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan and Superior l879-l974 Appendix B: Numbers of Fish Handled Annually at Lamprey Assessment Weirs . . Appendix C: Catches of White and Longnose Suckers at Index Stations in the Great Lakes LIST OF REFERENCES iv 57 60 GT 64 65 67 67 83 95 102 Number Al A2 A3 A4 A5 Bl 82 83 LIST OF TABLES Percent volume of stomach contents from white suckers of various sizes. Average calculated total length (mm) of white suckers at each annulus. Percent volume of the stomach contents of longnose suckers from Pyramid Lake. Total lengths (mm) of longnose suckers. Calculated and observed total lengths (mm) of silver redhorse at each annulus. Average calculated total length (mm) of northern redhorse at each annulus. Average calculated total length (mm) of golden redhorse at each annulus. Annual catch of fish (thousands of pounds) from Great Lakes waters. Lake Erie production in thousands of pounds and average price in cents. Lake Huron production in thousands of pounds and average price in cents. Lake Michigan production in thousands of pounds and average price in cents. Lake Superior production in thousands of pounds and average price in cents. Numbers of fish handled yearly at Lake Michigan lamprey assessment weirs. Numbers of fish handled yearly at Lake Superior lamprey assessment weirs. Numbers of redhorse suckers handled yearly at Lake Superior lamprey assessment weirs. 22 25 34 38 69 7l 74 77 8O 85 89 94 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Number Cl C2 C3 C4 Index station catches of white sucker from Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, l970-l974. Index station catches of white and longnose suckers from Saginaw Bay, l970-l974. Gill net catches of white and longnose suckers from Lake Huron, l97l-l974. Gill net catches of white and longnose suckers from Lake Michigan, l97l-1974. vi 98 lOO INTRODUCTION Selective exploitation of fish in the Great Lakes has in part been responsible for the wide fluctuation in abundance of preferred Species. It is reasonable to assume that the maximum sustained yield of both preferred species and all fish can only be achieved if exploitation is balanced so all niches are maintained at high levels of productivity, and preferred species are never placed at a competitive disadvan- tage. Both these criteria require the management of more species of fish than those presently considered preferred. Historically, the most economical means of management of a species has been controlled harvest. The exploitation of currently underutilized species would therefore not only immediately increase the productivity of the lakes, but would provide an additional tool for the management of the fishery resource as a whole. In an industry such as the commercial fisheries of the United States, where exploitation of a species is entirely dependent upon the economic advantage involved, the only way to create a fishery for a species is to increase the profit margin. This is most easily done by creating demand in the form of a desirable product. Frozen fish patties, where the identity of the fish need not be Prominently displayed, may be the product required to maintain a stable, profitable market for Species generally unaccepted by the public. However, it is necessary to estimate future production before processing plants for such a product can be developed. The purpose of this study was to gather the available information on the life history, abundance, and commercial exploitation of some of the common members of the sucker family in Michigan. Hopefully this will provide useful background information on which future decisions concerning the commercial exploitation of the several species can be based. The life history information was gathered by reviewing and compiling the available literature on the species in question. Records of the commercial catch of Great Lakes suckers dating from before l900 to the present were reviewed and are presented in an effort to gain some idea of the productive capacity of Michigan waters for these Species. Data from lamprey assessment weirs were inspected to examine current trends in population size in Lake Superior and to establish the validity of some of the spawning habits set forth in the literature on life histories. Data from all sources were converted to metric units with the exception of commercial catch records which are presented as found in the original publications. From the data compiled from all of these sources, preliminary conclusions were drawn on the feasibility of commercial exploitation of the species. LIFE HISTORIES White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni) The white sucker is fairly common throughout most of the United States and Canada, with the Great Lakes region being nearly centrally located within its distribution. Scott and Crossman (l973) describe it as an extremely 'plastic' species with drastically varying characteristics according to its habitat. The Species is known to show a slight north-south cline in its meristic characters, and a tendency to evolve dwarf p0pulations. Metcalfe (l966) suggests that this combination of plasticity, varying meristics, and dwarf populations, may be responsible for the single species being given a variety of names across its range. The white sucker is usually found in warm shallow lakes or bays, or in the tributary rivers of larger lakes. They are generally taken in water with depths up to 7 or l0 m, showing some tendency to move offshore with increased size and age. BecaUse adults of the species tend to avoid light, individuals are most active in shallow water in the evening, tending to move inshore during the afternoon, and offshore in early morning (Lawler, l969). The importance of this species in the biological community depends upon its interaction with the other species present. In most situations, this species does not constitute serious competition in terms of food or Space for other browsing species (Scott and Crossman, l973). Evidence that white suckers do extensive damage on the spawning grounds of other Species is inconclusive, and in all probability less damage is done than is usually supposed. The common use of young suckers as baitfish suggests that the species is probably important as forage in many areas. In some situations, however, the sucker does seem to compete with more desirable species, and is not used extensively as forage. This type of situation was reported by Burrows (T969) in regards to the walleye and white sucker in infertile northern lakes. Stewart (l926) suggests that the white sucker may be a host for numerous parasites; Hoffman (1967) confirms this, listing 94 Species which infect this fish (others have since been added to the list by Dechtiar, 1969). This species is used in some localities as a baitfish, and as a food for humans and other animals. It is not considered a prime commercial species, but has been harvested when more desirable species were scarce. When marketed in the Great Lakes region, it is often labeled as 'mullet' and not distinguished from other suckers. Reproduction Age at sexual maturity varies greatly with location. Campbell (l935) found Waskesiu Lake, Saskatchewan males maturing at ages VI and VII, and females maturing at ages VI to IX. Hayes (l956) reported that in Colorado male Q. g. suckleyi matured at age 11, and females at age IV. Spoor (l938) found females in Wisconsin spawning younger than males at ages III and IV respectively, but most authors agree that males generally spawn earlier than females. Size at first Spawning is small in some areas. Hayes found males spawning at l50 mm total length (T.L.) and females at 267 mm T.L., while Stewart (1926) referred to spawners as small as l52 mm to l78 mm in New York. Spawning generally occurs in shallow streams with gravel bottoms, but white suckers will sometimes Spawn in the shallow areas along the margin of a lake. Much of the research on this species has been conducted in conjunction with the upstream Spawning run due to the ease with which Specimens can be obtained at this time. Various sources report the onset of spawning by the white sucker to occur from early May (Scott and Crossman, l973) to mid June (Spoor, l938), depending upon water temperatures. Geen et al. (l966) report Spawning runs begin when stream temperatures reach l0 C, which seems to correlate well with the description of breeding activities given by Stewart (l926). Spawning is reported by Trautman (l957) at temperatures as high as 20 C. The early segment of the upstream run is composed PVHHarily of males in most years, with females following slightiy later (Geen et al., l966). The daily magnitude of a run in a particular stream seems to be linked to the increase in stream temperature above what it was on the previous day, with larger temperature rises provoking greater run intensities (Geen et al., l966). Geen et al. also report that yearly run magnitude may be affected by stream levels, as only the largest individuals seem to migrate in years when stream flow is minimal. Data from Sixteenmile Lake, British Columbia, suggest that only 25-50% of the adult population spawns in any one year (Geen et al., l966). What factors, other than stream level, affect the number of Spawners was not discussed, but Geen et al. did show that some individuals Spawn in successive years, while others skip years in their Spawning activities. Over the six year period of the study, they found 50-80% of those fish marked in a year returned to spawn one additional year, l0-30% two additional years, and less than 3% three additional years. From this, it can be seen that even though individuals may spawn over a period of several years, it is unusual for an individual to spawn more than four times (lake spawning was not considered as a possibility in these conclusions by Geen et al. apparently because it was felt there was no suitable substrate on which this could occur). They also found that roughly 20—40% of the fish Spawned two successive years, and less than l0% three successive years. Some fish were recovered as long as seven years after being marked, indicating a rather low mortality for adult white suckers. Dence (l948) reported similar first year return rates for the dwarf sucker, g. commersonnii utawana, but found second year rates to be much lower, indicating perhaps higher mortality rates for this subspecies. Olson and Scidmore (l963) investigated repeat Spawning in terms of homing tendency and concluded that in Many Point Lake, Minnesota, there was a lake-wide tendency for individuals to return to the spawning stream in which they were originally marked deSpite being randomly distributed throughout the lake at other times of the year. Scott and Crossman (l973), and Stewart (l926) report that on the spawning grounds two to four males often crowd around one female during spawning acts which lasts only 3-4 seconds and may occur as often as 40 times in an hour. Egg number has been reported as high as l40,000 (Slastenenko, ,l958) with Scott and Crossman (1973) suggesting the usual number is 20,000-50,000. Campbell (l935) calculated that there were approximately 24,604 eggs per kilogram of body weight in individuals from Waskesiu Lake, Saskatchewan. Eggs are simply scattered and adhere to gravel or drift downstream and adhere to substrates in quieter areas. Adult spawning mortality is low as would be expected from the high number of repeat Spawners. Geen et al. (l966) estimated that mortality at most was l6-20%, and attributed this low figure to the lack of aggressiveness displayed by males during Spawning. Scott and Crossman (l973) indicate Geen's figures are typical for the north and west, but are high for the eastern portion of the species' range. The downstream migration of adults commences about 10-14 days after the onset of the upstream migration, with females generally returning to the lake prior to males (Geen et al., 1966). Geen's data also indicate that the earlier an individual fish migrated upstream, the more variable its time of return. He found in some cases a fish marked on the first day of the upstream run would be recovered on the last day of the return migration, while individuals migrating upstream late returned more immediately, many without spawning. Scott and Crossman (1973) indicate that in some populations migration without Spawning followed by lake Spawning is common. Downstream migration of spent suckers showed a daily peak during or shortly after the period of highest water temperature, and ceased when stream temperature fell to the daily minimum (Geen et al., 1966). Egg incubation periods have been reported from 4 to 15 days under various conditions (Slastenenko, 1958; Geen et al., 1966; Hale, 1970; Oseid and Smith, 1971). Geen et al., report the young remain in the gravel for 1 to 2 weeks after hatching, and they and Hale (1970) both record the fry as being 12~14 mm after this period. According to Clifford (1972), down- stream movement of the fry in a brown water stream of Alberta occurs almost entirely at night, their nocturnal drift pattern being more pronounced than any of the drifting invertebrates. Clifford (1972) notes that as the fry become larger they move closer to the stream surface. This behavior suggested to Clifford that the smaller fry move passively while the older ones move more actively. Geen et a1. (1966) reported most movement occurred between dusk and dawn. They hypothesize this migration pattern to be due to loss of orientation in the dark which results in drifting, or to a light avoidance response which causes fry to hide in the gravel during daylight and avoid the current. Their findings, that increased water level and turbidity also resulted in more downstream movement, seem to agree with this hypothesis. Using data from both longnose and white suckers, Geen et al. (1966) roughly estimated the Survival rate of eggs to migrant fry to be only 0.3%. Food Stewart (1926) provided a detailed account of the feeding habits of white suckers throughout their life cycle. The initial stage, the 'yolk—food period', ends with the beginning of what Stewart calls the 'top feeding period' when the fish are approximately 12 mm long and 9 days old. During this period, the mouth is terminal, but is in the process of becoming inferior, and the fish feeds close to the surface on floating organisms as shown in Table 1. Following the 'top feeding period' is the 'critical period' when the transition from t0p to bottom feeding takes place. This period covers about 9 days during which the fry make occasional trips to the bottom and take mouthfuls of sand. The 'fingerling period' (18-75 mm) which follows may last a period of years over which the fish is limited by the size .mNmF .pemzmum mo cunt Lmu$000 0000000_00 00 00 0 00 0 0000 00 .02 newewomamc: 0000000000: 0:00 Emmcpm 0:00 cowpmuOA +00 00 as 00 - 00 00 00 - 0_ as 00 - 0F 0000 0000< 00_.000000 .0000000 0000000-000 00e000 0000000 m .00000 maowcm> $0 mcmxoam 000:: 200% 00:09:00 somEOpm mo 050Po> “smegma .F mFQMH ll and position of its mouth to consuming small bOttom organisms. During this stage the fish is not capable of separating these organisms from the sand and must consume both. Beyond 75 mm in length, Stewart considered the fish to be in the 'adult feeding period'. During this period, the fish are characteristically shy, avoiding most light, and feeding most actively at dusk and dawn. The major differences between the diet of the adult and fingerling are due to the increased mouth size, and the ability of the fish to separate food from sand. Carlander (1969) cited several authors who listed the following foods for young white suckers: entomostracans, small insects, rotifers, and algae. Larger and adult suckers were said to feed on chironomids, entomostraca, amphipods, fingernail clams, snails, and detritus. Campbell (1935) examined the food of adults of this species (217-244 mm) and cited the following ranges for percentage composition of gut contents: Chironomidae 5-90%, Trichoptera 2-70%, Mollusca 5-85%, Entomostraca 5-98%, Chaoborus, 0-50%. Reports of the white sucker being a threatto other ‘species through egg predation are largely unsubstantiated. Ellis and Roe (1917) reported that individuals may consume as many as 500 109 perch eggs per day, but Campbell (1935) found no eggs in 100 white sucker stomachs taken on whitefish Spawning grounds, and Stewart (1926) found no eggs in the stomachs of suckers he found in brook trout spawning grounds. l2 Age and Growth Reliable age-growth data are scarce, as most of the authors who dealt with this relationship determined age by counting scale annuli, and this process is now considered unreliable for fish over five years old (Beamish and Harvey, 1969). From the data available, it is apparent that large variations in annual rates of growth do occur in different locations (Table 2). These variations may be due to genetic differences among populations, but are more likely due to the length of the growing season and level of enrichment of the body of water which the fish inhabit. Roland and Cumming (1969) reported that an increase in the hardness of the water of an impoundment significantly increased the growth rates of white suckers in the southeastern United States. Eddy and Carlander (1940) found that growth in Minnesota was correlated with total dissolved Solids, total carbohydrates, pH, plankton abundance, bottom fauna and length of growing season. Parker (1958) found thinning of all of the fish populations in Flora Lake, Wisconsin increased the growth of the white sucker. Growth rates for adult suckers have been calculated by three authors using methods other than scale reading. The results of Beamish (1970), using pectoral fin ray sections, Coble (1967) using tags, and Geen et al. (1966) using length frequency distribution, were similar. In Ontario, Beamish found an average annual growth rate of 20 mm at age VI and Slower growth at ages of more than VI (Table 2). The work of l3 .m:owpomm 00: :04 An 00< .00.? mo Logos» 0 0:00: :00:m_ 0:00:000 Eo:0 uwpgm>cou 00000 .00.0 00 000000 0 0:00: :00:0_ 0000 50:0 umpgm>:ou name a .Ammmpv 000:0PE00 soc; :mxmw mm mpmu 00:002o00 omm >x mmm >Hx 00m HHHx 000 HHx 0pm Hx 000 000 ¢0m x 00¢ m¢m ¢m¢ 000 00¢ x0 00¢ 000 000 00¢ mmm 00¢ 00¢ HHH> 00¢ 000 000 000 000 00¢ 00¢ 00> 00¢ 0¢m 000 000 000 ¢0¢ ¢0¢ H> ¢0¢ 000 "m0 00m 000 000 00¢ > 000 000 000 000 ¢m0 000 P00 >0 000 000 mm? 000 000 000 000 HHH ¢m0 000 00— 0¢F mm— 000 000 00 000 00 00 mm mm ¢0 000 H .mm« 000 000.0 000 00— 000.0 00000 :000 00 .oz 00:0»:0 0:00 :wm:oo 00x04 mammgpm 00000::02 00000::02 mumpm 1:02 13.3 mcmpcoz 10000_V 00000.0 00000_0 :000_0 .0000 0:00:00 0 0_00: 00: 0 00_00 0000000 0A000PV :00: ofimm0pv 0500 0 0A0¢0PV 00_0000 -0000 00000 0000 000000: 0:000_0 00000 L0000200 0 0000 .m:F:::0 :omm p0 000x030 000:: we AEEV :pm:m_ pmpop 0000030000 mmogm>< .0 00:0» 14 Cable (1967) in South Bay, Lake Huron showed tagged adult fish recaptured later in the same year having an average growth of 7-12 mm for the summer, but fish captured up to 5 years later showed an average annual growth rate of only 7.6 mm. Geen et al. (1966) obtained an estimated annual growth of only 10-20 mm for the population they studied in Sixteenmile Lake. The drastic difference between these estimates and those of Beamish for fish under 6 or 7 years of age exemplify the variance of growth rates possible by this species at different ages. Differences in growth rates for younger individuals at different locations can be seen in Table 2. Preliminary results of student studies on white suckers from Lake Michigan, near Ludington, Michigan, show calculated total lengths similar to the Minnesota studies (Table 2) at ages I and II, similar to Beamish’s study at age III, and slightly larger than Beamish's study at ages V-VII (Tack, personal communication). The work of Beamish (1973) suggests in some studies errors in age and growth determinations may have resulted from interpreting a false annulus as the first true annulus. Growth rate differences also appear between males and females. Spoor (1938) found for the first 4 or 5 years of life both sexes increase in length at about the same rate, but from then on the females increase more rapidly than the males. He also reported that although the average annual increment in length decreases with age, the average annual increment in weight increases, the rate being the same per unit of length for males and females. 15 Carlander (1969) lists numerous length-weight relation- ships for this Species in various conditions of sexual develOpment. The only Great Lakes population studied was in South Bay, Lake Huron where Coble (1967) determined a relation- ship of log W = -4.67943 + 2.92262 log L (W is weight in grams and L is fork length in millimeters) from individuals between 229 and 457 mm. Spoor (1938) and Bassett (1957) found no evidence of a sexual difference in length-weight relation or condition factor. Spoor and others also noted that no change in condition factor with age or length was discernible. The extremes of coefficients of condition (K) based on total length listed by Carlander (1942) were 1.02 and 1.27. These were used as Minnesota standards for fish in poor and excellent conditions. The maximum length reported for white suckers is 635 mm (2.35 kg) by Trautman (1957) and the maximum weight 3.18 kg (579 mm) by Chambers (1963). Mortality Low natural mortality rates for adult white suckers have been reported by several authors. Olson and Scidmore (1963) estimated an annual mortality of l3.l% for adult white suckers in Many Point Lake, Minnesota. Geen et al. (1966) noted the longevity of the adult population as indicated by the high number of repeat Spawners, but also pointed out the relatively high mortality of young indicated by the low annual recruitment into the spawning p0pulation. Coble (1967) l6 considered the question in more detail and determined a mean annual mortality of 25.7% for the South Bay population. Coble's data also indicate the rate of mortality of fish larger than 380 mm increased with size. Maximum age of this species is about 17 years. Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus) The distribution of the longnose sucker is somewhat more northern than that of the white sucker. It lives throughout most of the mainland of Canada, and is present in at least parts of all of the states of the United States which border upon Canada. This species is one of the most common in the northwest sections of Canada, and is the only North American sucker which appears in Asia. Scott and Crossman (1973) call it the most successful and widespread cypriniform in the north, stating that it occurs almost everywhere in clear cold water. In general, it is restricted to freshwater lakes or tributary streams, and has been reported to depths of about 200 m (Scott and Crossman, 1973). As with the white sucker, the longnose does compete to some extent with more favored species for limited food supplies, but this competition in most instances is not considered extensive. Longnose were once thought to be serious egg predators, but evidence of this appears to be scarce and possibly the reputation is unjustified. Like the white sucker, this species is a common host for many parasites. l7 Hoffman (1967) listed 32 commonly occurring parasites, and others have been added by Dechtiar (1969). The longnose is seldom sought by man commercially, but is sometimes locally sought as a game fish. Its flesh is considered more palatable than that of the white sucker, but is still primarily used only as dog food. The limited amount which is marketed for human consumption is usually labeled as 'mullet'. Reproduction As judged from samples taken during spawning runs, size at first sexual maturity varies from area to area. It appears that this difference cannot be entirely attributed to differen- tial growth rates. Harris (1962) reports spawning by fish which averaged from 127 to 132 mm in Great Slave Lake, but Bailey (1969) reports that the minimum length at first spawning in Lake Superior was 267 mm for males and 292 mm for females. Apparently age and size at maturity are population dependent phenomenon. The reproductive activities of the longnose sucker are Similar to those of the previously discussed white sucker. The longnose Sucker Spawns primarily in streams or on the shallow reefs of lakes. The onset of the spawning run is influenced by water temperature, the critical temperature for the beginning of the run being reported as 5 C by Geen et al. (1966) with the peak being between 12.2 C and l5.0 C 18 (Brown and Graham, 1954; Harris, 1962). The majority of Spawners move upstream between noon and midnight, with maximum movement during the evening hours. The composition of the spawning run has been reported for several streams by various authors. Geen et al. (1966) noted that the longnose suckers appeared to be smaller than the white suckers during the spawning migration in Frye Creek, and that the males were smaller than the females. Their data, which show lengths ranging from 130-400 mm fork length (F.L.) and estimated ages from 5 to 15 years, also reveal that a large percentage of the migrating longnose suckers were immature whereas almost no immature white suckers were present in the streams during their spawning runs. Brown and Graham (1954) reported that the males sampled from a spawning run near Yellowstone Lake had total lengths ranging from 269 to 455 mm, while the females ranged from 345 to 510 mm. The youngest mature male found was age IV, and the youngest mature female age VI, with over 51% of the males being age V and 45% of the females age VI. These data indicate a slightly earlier maturation than was found by Bailey (1969), who reported average lengths and ages for the spawning Population of the Brule River (Lake Superior) as 386 mm (7.2 years) for males and 422 mm (8.0 years) for females. Bailey also estimated over 91% of the males were from age QVOUpS VI-VIII, and over 75% of the females were from age groups VII-IX. The ages of the spawning populations reported by thelpreviously mentioned authors is in sharp contrast with l9 those reported by Harris (1962) and Hayes (1956). Harris (1962) found the greatest number of fish to be 11 years old and all fish examined to be between 9 and 15 years of age in Great Slave Lake. Hayes (1956) reported males of 2 years (100-125 mm) and females of 3 years (203 mm) spawning in a Colorado reservoir. The large differences may be due to local differences in maturation rates or to errors in scale reading, as Geen et al. (1966) found that the scales were not reliable for aging mature longnose suckers. Repeat Spawning of longnose suckers is common. Geen et al. (1966) reported 30-60% of those fish marked in one year would spawn again, with 12—24% spawning two additional years, and less than 3% three additional years. They also found 17-48% Spawned in successive years. These first-year return figures are higher than those reported by Bailey (1969) for the Brule River (Lake Superior). He found that only 7-18% of the Spawners returned in successive years, but did mention that his estimates may have been in error due to escapement, spawning in other streams, or lake spawning. Geen et al. (1966) observed longnose spawning in a stream 15-30 cm deep with a bottom composed of gravel 0.5 cm in diameter, and a current of 30-45 cm/sec. They reported that during the day males rested upon the bottom and females remained along the banks in areas of still water. To initiate spawning, a female would move out among the males and generally two to four males would crowed around her. The group would thrash about for 3 or 4 seconds during egg 20 deposition. Following this, each of the individuals returned to their previously held position in the stream. Geen et al. also noted that spawning occurred from 6 to 40 times per hour and usually took place between 0600 and 2130 hours. The total number of eggs laid by a female in one season has been reported to be between 14,000 and 35,000 (averaging 26,000) for the Lake Superior population studied by Bailey (1969), and between 17,000 and 60,000 (averaging 35,000) for the Great Slave Lake p0pu1ation studied by Harris (1962). No aggressive behavior was reported among the male Spawners by any of the authors. This seems to be reflected in the low spawning mortality rate (11-28%) for the species reported by Geen et al. (1966) in his studies of Sixteenmile Lake, British Columbia. The downstream migration of adults follows a daily pattern similar to that of the white sucker, showing a maximum at about the time of highest water temperature and ceasing when stream temperatures fall to the daily minimum (Geen et al., 1966). Geen et al. report that the main downstream movement begins about 5 days after the Spawning migration begins, with the females generally leaving the stream first. They estimate the suckers are present in the stream approximately one month, with the first individuals entering the stream being the last to leave. The length of time longnose were present in the stream is consistent with that reported by Brown and Graham (1954), who found individual males present in the tributaries of Yellowstone Lake for 5-39 days (average 17) 21 and individual females present for l4-25 days (average 19) during a single year. Geen et a1. (1966) report that under laboratory conditions longnose eggs require 8 days to hatch at 15 C and 11 days at 10 C. They estimate from these figures that under the natural conditions prevalent in Frye Creek, eggs probably required 2 weeks to hatch. Because fry were not sighted until one month after spawning, Geen et al. also suggest that the larvae remained in the gravel 1-2 weeks prior to their downstream migration. The downstream migration of fry is poorly documented, being studied by only Geen et al. (1966). They found fry first migrating at 10 to 12 mm in total length, and established these to be longnose sucker by comparison to known specimens. This migration preceded that of white sucker fry, presumably because of an earlier date of spawning. The effect of day- light and turbidity upon migration was the same as that previously described for the white sucker. Food The food of this species appears to be highly variable with respect to age and locality. Scott and Crossman (1973) list typical foods in order of frequency of occurrence as amphipods, Trichoptera, chironomid larvae and pupae, EphemerOptera, ostracods, gastrOpods, Coleoptera, pelecypods, coDepods, cladocerans, and plants. The limited results rePorted by Rawson and Elsey (1950) indicate some change in diet resulting from growth as shown in Table 3. 22 .0000 .000—0 0:0 :00300 00 0000 L000<0 ¢.0 11 00:00 11 m0 . 0000000 000:0000000 0. 11 0000:m 11 00 000000000 - ¢ 00000000 0— 0 000050:0:0:u 00 _ . 00000:0s< 0000 00:00 000 0000 00000 00 0000 0000 0.0000 0050000 50:» 0000000 000:0:00 00 00:00:00 :005000 0:0 00 msapo> 0:00:00 .0 00000 23 Inspection of these data suggests a possible change in feeding habit from midwater to bottom feeding, as occurs in the white sucker. The data of Rawson and Elsey (1950) varies considerably from that of Brown and Graham (l954) at Yellowstone Lake. The latter investigators found that 69% of the fish containing food had algae in their stomachs, and the algae composed about 33% of the stomach volume. Higher plants were found in 40% of the individuals and composed 10% of the stomach volume, their frequency of occurrence exceeding all other stomach contents except algae (69%) and Diptera (55%). Aquatic insects appeared to be much more important to the fish studied by Brown and Graham (l954) than to those studied by Rawson and Elsey (1950). Perhaps this is because the fish examined by Brown and Graham were captured in stream environments, while those studied by Rawson and Elsey were from a lake. As with the white sucker, the label of egg predator seems to be erroneous. The only report of longnose suckers consuming eggs of a valuable species was by Stenton.(l95l) who found 6 of the 9 fish he examined had consumed brook trout eggs. He presumed, however, that the consumption was not willful, and that the eggs were probably dead prior to being taken. Age and Growth Age and growth determinations have been carried out by nUmerous investigators. Although the validity of these studies 24 is in question due to the use of the scale method for aging, the results of some studies are shown in Table 4. Preliminary results from student studies of longnose suckers near Ludington, Michigan indicate growth which is much faster than any presented in Table 4. Calculated total lengths at the first four annuli from these studies are roughly comparable to the lengths observed in the northern population of Great Slave Lake (Table 4) at ages II, IV, VII, and IX (Tack, personal communication). The study by Harris (l962) was not the only work showing differential growth rates between subp0pulations in the same body of water. Bailey (l969) noted that growth rates varied in different localities in western Lake Superior and attri- buted this variance to differences in the richness of the habitat. Neither Bailey nor Harris reported significant differences between the growth rates of males and females within the populations they studied, but Brown and Graham (l954) found Yellowstone Lake females grew significantly faster than males. This was particularly evident after the first four years of life. Growth in weight was not reported as being related to any factor other than length by any of the investigators. Length—weight relationships were calculated by several authors including Harris (l962), Bailey (l969) and Hayes (1956). Their results were: Harris (l962) Great Slave Lake Log w = -3.599 + 2.88 Log 5 L Weight in grams - Standard length in millimeters. .0>0=0 000000050 5000 00:000000 .:000000000 000000 00 00000000000 .Ammmpv 000000000 >0 :0>0m 0000000 0:00: 000000 0:00 5000 00000>:00 00000 25 000 000 000 000 00 000 000 000 000 , . x 000 000 000 000 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000> 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00> 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0> 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 > 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 >0 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 000 000 000 000 00 --- --- 00 :0 00 00 00 0 00000 00000 000 000 0000 00 00:00 00002 00000—0 0000000 000 000000 000000 005000 00:00: .0 -00 .000300 000000 00—000 :0000000 0 020:0 .0000 0>000 00000 .0 0000000 00000000 0000 .0 00000002 0:00030_P0> 00>00000 00:00:00 0000 000 0000000000 .0000000 000:0:00 00 0000 0:00:00 00000 .0 00000 26 Bailey (l969) Western Lake Superior Log H = —2.54l3 + 2.8499 Log T L Height in grams — Total length in millimeters. Hayes (l956) Shadow Mountain Lake Log w = -5.0685 + 3.0225 Log T L Weight in grams - Total length in millimeters. Bailey noted that fish of particular ages and fish caught in certain areas showed consistent deviations either above or below the values predicted by the length-weight relation- ship he derived. The only calculation of coefficient of condition found which was based on over lOO fish was that of Harris (l952), who reported a mean KSL of 1.90 with a range of l.73 to 2.04. Mortality rates for this Species were revealed to be low by Geen et al. (l966) in their study on longnose and white suckers, but the only quantitative estimate found in the literature was by Harris (l962) who calculated a 55% annual mortality for suckers over 14 years of age. Scott and Crossman (l973) state individuals may be as old as 22-24 years but Keleher (l96l) estimated the largest fish on record (642 mm fork length, 3.3 kg) to be only l9 years. Redhorses (Moxostoma spp.) The group of suckers generally called redhorses consists 0f the genus Moxostoma which have been referred to as one 0f the most perplexing groups of fishes encountered by American ichthyologists. Because of the uncertain systematic 27 position of the group, little reliable information is avail- able on their life histories (Robins and Raney, l956). Both the silver redhorse (M. anisurum), and the northern or shorthead redhorse (M. macrolepidotum) are known to inhabit some streams on the United States shore of Lake Superior (Moore and Braem, l965), and the golden redhorse (fl. erythrurum) is common in some sections of Lake Huron. Each of these species occupies a range significantly smaller than white or longnose suckers. The southern shore of Lake Superior lies on the extreme northern edge of the distribution of silver redhorse with the drainage of the other Great Lakes forming the northeast portion of its boundary. The golden redhorse range borders on the Upper Great Lakes. This species being more commonly reported south from the Lake Erie drainage. The northern redhorse lives as far north as Hudson Bay with the Upper Great Lakes falling in about the center of its range. More detailed definitions of these ranges are avail- able in Scott and Crossman (l973). Habitat The habitat requirements for each of these species are somewhat dependent on the population being considered. Meyer (l962) described the northern redhorse as having the strictest habitat requirements of the three. In the DesMoines River he found this species only in fast moving water, usually over rock, gravel, and rubble bOttoms, but occasionally over thick layers of silt behind 28 eroded bank vegetation. Scott and Crossman (l973) note that prior to l970, when Jenkins (l970) combined four conspecific forms (M. breuiceps, M. coregonus, M. lachrymale, M. macro- lepidotum) into one, this Species was considered more of a lake than a river form. However, the species must now be said to inhabit the shallow clear waters of lakes or rivers. Cross (1967) found M. macrolepidotum to be highly tolerant of high temperatures (up to 37 C), but relatively intolerant of chemical pollution and silting. The silver redhorse was found by Meyer (l962) to frequent slower movingwaters in the DesMoines River than the northern redhorse. He reported young silver redhorse congregated over areas with a soft-bottom, but adults showed little preference for bottom types. Scott_and Crossman (l973) accept this description of the silver redhorse habitat, and add that the species is more common in streams than in lakes. However, Hackney, Hooper and Webb (l970) found that the fish of the population they studied remained in a reservoir except during spawning, suggesting they preferred the lentic to the lotic environment. Meyer (l962) found golden redhorse to inhabit areas similar to those inhabited by the silver redhorse, but Martin and Campbell (1953) found them in deeper, faster waters near riffle areas in Missouri. Hall and Jenkins (l953) indicate the golden redhorse is better adapted to river than to lake habitats, but from statements presented by Carlander (3969) it appears that growth increases progressively in more 29 lentic environments, being faster in larger rivers than in headwater streams. Cross (l967) describes the species as sedentary in streams when stream conditions are relatively constant; however, during extended periods of highwater or drought, populations move to areas with more favorable stream conditions. Scott and Crossman (l973) note that the golden redhorse is one of the few species of suckers whose range has not been recently diminished by habitat changes. This suggests that the golden redhorse may be more tolerant of man-induced environmental changes than other related species. Ecology The Species of redhorse being considered here interact with their biologic community in much the same way. All are probably highly subject to predation when young, but as adults are only preyed upon by the largest of the piscivorous species. Direct competition for each of the species is limited to other bottom feeding fishes, particularly other suckers, but indirect competition must include to a limited extent all Species which depend upon invertebrates spending Part of their life cycles on or in the bottom. This would l'flclude such high value fishes as the trouts, sunfish, and basses. The incidence of parasites in these Species is not as well documented as for the white and longnose suckers, but it appears that the redhorses are a common host. Hoffman (l967) 30 found only five Species of parasites for the Silver redhorse and northern redhorse and thirteen species for the golden redhorse, but Dechtiar (l972) reports that by examining only six silver redhorse he found fifteen species of parasites. Fredrickson and Ulmer (l965) found that the northern redhorse along the Iowa, South Dakota border were subject to seasonal infestations of tapeworm which infected as much as 38% of the population. Reproduction The spawning activities of the silver, northern, and golden redhorse are similar with the exception of stream type. Scott and Crossman (l973) report that silver redhorse spawning takes place in the main channel of turbid rivers in 0.38-l.0 m of water, over gravel or rubble bottoms, and that the northern redhorse migrates from larger bodies of water into smaller rivers or streams to spawn on gravelly riffles. Gerking (1953) found that the golden redhorse in Indiana preferred to spawn in the riffles of main streams, like the silver redhorse, but would ascend small streams near their home territory. (The onset of the spawning run for each of the Species is highly dependent upon water temperatures. Both Meyer (1962) in Iowa, and Hackney et al. (l970) in Alabama, found 13.3 C to be a good estimate of the water temperature at the bEginning of the silver redhorse Spawning run. The northern redhorse spawns slightly earlier when the water temperature 31 reaches ll.l C and the golden redhorse slightly later when the stream temperature is l5.0 C (Meyer, l962). Males of all species congregate on spawning grounds before the females, apparently to defend home territories. Sex ratios (males: females) on the Spawning grounds during spawning have been reported for the three species combined as about 2:l (Meyer, l962), and for silver redhorse alone as about 4:l (Hackney et al., l970). No nest is built by any of the species, and all of the species show highest spawning intensity in early morning and evening. Meyer (l962) found female silver redhorse carrying from l4,9l0 to 36,340 eggs, female northern redhorse carrying from l3,500 to 27,l50 eggs, and female golden redhorse carrying from 6,l00 to 23,350 eggs. From a limited number of samples, Meyer arrived at regression equations for the number of eggs per female as (-l9.7 + 0.l0l TL) 1000 for northern redhorse, (l8.8 + 0.l03 TL) lOOO for silver redhorse, and (~33.l + .l36 TL) lOOO for golden redhorse, where total length was measured in millimeters. The size of the fish involved in the Spawning runs has been reported only by Hackney et al. (l970) from Alabama. They found female silver redhorse ranging from 548 mm upward (with most between 548 mm and 600 mm), and males ranging from 507 mm upward (with most between 5l0 mm and 530 mm). Their data showed most fish of both sexes becoming mature at age VII with a very few spawners being ages V and VI. Meyer (1962) showed similar results for the silver redhorse in his study in Iowa, and also found that male northern 32 redhorse commonly mature at age III. His data were not sufficient to show the age at which females mature. Scott C and Crossman (1973) report ages at maturity of II for female northern redhorse in South Dakota, IV or V for both sexes in Saskatchewan, and III or IV for both sexes in the Great Lakes. Meyer (l962) reported golden redhorse to first mature at age III, with most being mature at age IV. Food Each of these redhorse species obtain food exclusively by sucking up bottom material and straining from it a random variety of invertebrates (Scott and Crossman, l973). Due to this habit, the diet of these species probably varies greatly with habitat. Meyer (l962) reports each of the three species utilized the same foods in the streams he studied. By frequency of occurrence these foods were: immature chironomids (91%), immature Ephemeroptera (62%), immature Trichoptera (l8%), and a few small molluscs. Northern redhorse food habits in Lake Nipigon were reported by Clemens, Dymond, and Bigelow (l924) as consisting of immature forms of Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Chironomidae, Tipulidae, Stratiomyidae,'Dstracoda, molluscs, Oligochaeta, various crustaceans, Hydracarina, and diatoms. Age and Growth Silver redhorse: Few age and growth studies have been conducted on this sPecies. The results of those which have been published are 33 presented in Table 5. Meyer (1962) noted that for this species annual gains in weight continue to increase throughout the life of the fish despite decreases in annual length gains. Sexual dimorphism in growth, with the female becoming larger after sexual maturity (age VI), was reported by Hackney et al. (1970), but was not noted by Meyer (I962). The longest fish recorded of this species may be the Specimen listed by Trautman (l957) as 635 mm in length and weighing 3.74 kg, however he noted Specimens of 4.54 km have been reported from the Ohio River. Length-weight relationships for this species were calculated by Meyer (l962) using first-degree, second-degree, third-degree, and logarithmic regressions. He found the logarithmic relationship LOg w = ~4.236 + 3.l243 log TL (H = weight in grams, TL = total length in millimeters) to be the most accurate in describing the length-weight relation- ship. Meyer also found that the coefficient of condition fluctuated between a high of l.43 in May prior to spawning, to a low of l.08 in June. Northern redhorse: Age and growth records are more numerous for the northern redhorse than for most of the other redhorse species. Results of those studies using more than lOD fish are presented in Table 6. Meyer (l962) found that annual weight gains for this species increase through age VI but then decline. It should 34 1- -- ~00 1- -- 0N0 11- x -- -- mm0 N00 m0m mom 00m 00 -- -- 0m0 000 000 0mm 000 HHH> 000 000 000 000 000 mom 000 00> 000 mmq 00m 0mm Nm0 00m mmq 0> 000 mom 0mm mom 00m 000 Nam 0 mmm 00m 00m 000 mmm -- 00m >0 mom 000 mom 00m 00m -- mom 000 000 00— 00N 00m 000 mom 000 00 00 00 000 000 000 -- 000 H 000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 000000: 0000: 00:0001 0000: 00000002 00000002 00000002 .0 0500000 0300 .0 020000< 0300 .0 .0 000:00000 .0 00050002 000:000.0m .0 0:000 000002000 .0 00000 000002000 l- 000:00 00000 :00E 0000—00000 0000000 00 000000 00000 :00E 00>00000 .0000::0 :000 00 00000000 00>000 00 0550 0:00:00 00000 00>00000 0:0 0000000000 .0 00000 35 m00 x0 mmm 00m 000> 00m mm0 00> 0mm 0mm mmm 0N0 0> 000 mmm 000 000 > m0m mom 0mm 0mm >0 mom 000 000 000 000 000 m00 000 000 00 000 000 mm 000 0 MWWWfiv 0%meyw 0:00mmwmwv000: 000:00mmwmwvx000 00000 00< 0300 00000002 05000000 00000000: .0 000002000 00030000m .0 00000000 00030000m .0000000 0000 00 00000000 00000000 00 0550 000000 00000 0000000000 00000>< .0 00000 36 be noted however, that very few specimens above age VI were used for this determination. Scott and Crossman (l973) state that growth in Saskatchewan is much slower than in Minnesota. This statement, along with the data presented in Table 6 implies that growth is faster in the southern part of the Species' range. No sexual dimorphism in growth was reported by any of the investigators cited. The largest specimen noted by Trautman (l957) was 620 mm in length and l.87 kg in weight, but Meyer (l962) found one age VIII fish of 655 mm, and 3.06 kg. Length-weight relationships for this Species were calcu— lated by several investigators including Greenbank (l950), Purkett (l958), and Meyer (l962). Their results were as follows: Greenbank - upper Mississippi River log w = -3.20 + 2.83 log TL Purkett — Missouri log N = -4.887 + 2.958 log TL Meyer - Iowa log N = ~4.042 + 3.02l lOg TL where weight (N) is in grams and total length (TL) in milli- meters. Meyer reported the average condition factor of the northern redhorse to have an annual fluctuation less than that of the silver redhorse. In Iowa, the northern redhorse reached its highest coefficient of condition in October (KTL = l.ll) and its lowest in mid June (KTL = 0.9l). 37 Fogle (l96l, l963) reported condition factors (KTL) as high as l.35 in South Dakota during parts of the annual fluctuation, but noted a condition decrease during the first few years of impoundment of the reservoir he was studying. Golden redhorse: The results of the most extensive age and growth studies published concerning golden redhorse are presented in Table 7. From Table 7 no definite north south growth gradient can be determined. Faster growth in slower flowing waters seems evident,but this may reflect stream richness more than the velocity of flow. Sexual dimorphism in growth was not noted in any of the studies cited. Trautman (l957) listed maximum size in Lake Erie as 660 mm and 2.04 kg, with females tending to be slightly heavier. Length-weight relationships have been reported from Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa as follows (in millimeters and grams): Lewis and Elder (l953) - Illinois log N = ~4.85 + 3.07 l0g SL Purkett (l958) - Missouri log N = 44.881 + 2.975 log TL Meyer (l962) — Iowa l0g w = -4.202 + 3.098 log TL Condition factors for this species, as for the other redhorse species, vary greatly throughout the year. Roach (l948) recorded an average KTL of l.39 in Ohio, while Meyers 38 mom 0mm in- In- .u. u.. 0x 000 mmm -u- .u. u.. u.. x 00m mmm -I- -u- I.. -l- x0 0m0 mom sun in: nu- -u- 000> m: 000 1. 3:. --- --- .0; 0m0 000 00m omm mom mmm 0> 000 mmw 00m mom 000 00m > 00m 000 mmm 000 0mm ~00 >0 mmm mo0 New 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 om0 00 mm 00 00 00 on 00 0 000000m 000m 000000m 00003 00300 000002 00003000: .00030000m mmm0u 0 < 005000Mmmmww0wwmw0wm0omm02 .0000000 0000 00 00000000 000000 00 0250 000000 00000 0000000000 00000>< .0 00000 39 III 1.... I... III I...- x --- --- -- --- --- 00 --- --- -- 000 --- 0000 000 --- -- 00m --- 00> N00 --- -- 0mm --- 00 000 000 000 000 000 0 000 000 000 00m 000 >0 00m 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00m 000 000 00 000 000 000 00 00 0 000000 000000 =0m0000 000000 000: 0 000000 00000 00000 0000: 0000000 .0000000 0m< 0300 .0 00000000 00000000 00000000 0000 m00000000 .0 3000>00m 00000 .0 .0 m0oc0000 0000000: 00000000mc00 00.00000 0 00000 40 (l962) recorded monthly mean condition factors (KTL) of from l.02 in June to l.l9 in May, in Iowa. Mortality rates for these three Species of redhorse were not discovered in the literature, but very few silver redhorse beyond 8 years, and very few golden or nothern redhorse beyond 5 years were reported. However, Scott and Crossman (l973) did report northern redhorse from slow growing Canadian populations survived to 12 or l4 years of age. HISTORY OF THE COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE OF SUCKERS IN MICHIGAN The Great Lakes have always provided the major portion of the freshwater fish produced in the United States. The traditionally high value of many of the species resulted in the fishing industry being important to the economy of the Great Lakes States. Unfortunately, the total United States production from the Great Lakes is gradually declining as can be seen from Table Al. Total international production from the Great Lakes does not appear to have decreased much since l920 because of increasing Canadian exploitation through— out this period. The decline of the United States fishery can be traced to problems originating on the watershed as well as in the waters themselves. The increasing population of the United States shores has resulted in areas receiving large quantities of domestic and industrial wastes. Farming practices have led to increased soil erosion and the introduction of fertilizers and pesticides to the lakes. Although these problems may not have drastically altered the main body of water in the lakes, they have degraded many spawning grounds. Catastrophes occurring within the lakes themselves include the collapse of some stocks,presumably due to overfishing (particularly in Lake Erie), the mass mortality of smelt in 4T 42 Lakes Huron and Michigan_in l942-l943, and most importantly, the invasion of the alewife and sea lamprey into the upper Great Lakes (Buettner, l968). The species of suckers considered here have been affected by some of these changes as have most other species. Despite their known tolerance to high water temperatures and relatively low oxygen concentrations, most Species of suckers are also known to be relatively intolerant to chemical pollutants. This fact would suggest they are sensitive to industrial wastes and pesticide runoff. Most suckers also have highly specific Spawning requirements which make them sensitive to the increased Silting in streams affected by the erosion of agricultural lands. The sea lamprey is known to have affected the populations of suckers in some areas of the upper Great Lakes (Buettner, l968). This is particularly true of the white sucker, which is more vulnerable to predation by the sea lamprey than is the longnose sucker. In some areas sea lamprey predation possibly caused a temporary change in the population composition from mostly white to mostly longnose suckers (Applegate, personal communication). One factor which probably has not affected these species is overfishing. Although suckers, or 'mullet' as they are referred to commercially, have been locally popular as human or animal food, and some are occasionally sought as sport fish, they have never been a widely successful item on the freshwater fish market. Historically the only substantial market for these fish was in the New York area where they were used in 43 'gefilte fish', but this market was seasonal, and has been gradually decreasing with changes in religious traditions. The loss of this eastern market is probably the major cause for the decrease in the price of suckers relative to other Species. As the relative price of suckers decreased, those few fishermen who actively sought them gradually went out of business, and those fishermen who landed suckers as incidental catch, found it unprofitable to continue doing so. Thus suckers, which Buettner (l968) reported as being important in the early Shallow water fisheries, have faded from commercial importance. Lake Erie Lake Erie is the shallowest and warmest of the Great Lakes. Due to the limited Lake Erie shoreline in Michigan, it is also the least important lake to this state in terms of commercial production. Buettner (l968) reported the early fishery of the lake consisted largely of blue pike, lake herring, sauger, yellow perch, and walleye; with carp, sheepshead and suckers being abundant but little used. A succession of collapses of the most favored Species which seriously affected the fishing industry in this lake are discussed by Buettner (l968). Lake herring was the first major Species to Show a drastic decline, with the population collapsing in l925. This decline was followed by the collapse of the sauger stocks in the early l950's, the blue pike and whitefish in the late l950's, and 44 the walleye in the mid l960's. These decreases in catch have greatly affected the total United States production from the lake. In the period l874-l908 the average annual production was 46.0 million pounds. This declined to 37.7 million in l9l4-l929, 30.6 million in 1930-1939, 26.3 million in 1940— l949, 25.2 million in 1950-l959, l5.2 million in l960-l969, and all the way to 8.9 million in the period from 1970 to l974. The total sucker production from the lake was fairly steady prior to l940, with the annual catch ranging between 0.9 and l.4 million pounds in all but 7 years. Since that year, however, the United States catch has shown a steady decline and has been below 200,000 pounds since l965. Michigan's portion of the catch has always been small, but has shown an erratic decreasing trend, seldom being above 50,000 pounds since l935. The decline in the catches of the favored species was probably caused by a combination of changing environmental conditions and overfishing, but the latter of these two factors probably has not affected the sucker. The decreasing sucker catch can probably be attributed to pollution and the blocking of spawning streams, but an additional factor could possibly be a decrease in fishing effort, particularly in Shallow waters with seineS and trap nets. Lake Huron The U. S. Department of Interior report, published in l969, noted that from l897-l909, the annual production of six 45 Species of Lake Huron fish averaged over 1 million pounds each. These Species included lake herring, whitefish, lake trout, suckers, yellow perch, and walleye. No major changes in the production of these Species occurred until the late 1930's when the lake trout and whitefish populations began to show the effects of sea lamprey predation. These two Species were severely depleted by the mid to late 1940's. The walleye population also began to decline in the Saginaw Bay area after 1943. This decline was probably the result of a combination of changing environmental conditions and sea lamprey predation. In addition to these declines, decreases appeared in the catch of lake herring, yellow perch and suckers in Saginaw Bay. These trends were attributed by the Department of Interior to decreasing fishing effort rather than a 1eSSer abundance of fish. but Buettner (1968) reported that the sea lamprey Significantly reduced the sucker population, and the lake herring population fell due to a failure to reproduce successfully. Inspection of Table A3 reveals that the commercial production of suckers from Lake Huron was Significant in all years prior to 1956, only once dipping below one million pounds during this period. The report of Koelz (1926) reveals that in the years from 1893-1922 'mullet' commonly ranked in the tap three species in annual U. 5. production. Inspection of records extending into the mid 1960's reveal that this ranking was maintained despite falling sucker catches. Histori~ cally the majority of the suckers harvested were captured by 46 trap and pound nets in Saginaw Bay. Other areas of significant catch were north of Cheboygan, where trap nets were commonly used, and in the North Channel, where pound nets were employed. The effect of the sea lamprey, pollution, and declining numbers of fishermen upon the catch of suckers has been mentioned earlier in this section, but it is difficult to determine the impact of each factor. Throughout the earlier years of the fishery (prior to 1930) the records reveal the sucker catch to be cyclic, reaching a peak about every 12 years (1895, 1906, 1919, 1931). The first two peaks in this cycle are of approximately equal magnitude suggesting the population was fairly stable during this periOd. The large drop in catch which occurred between 1906 and 1919 was primarily due to decreases in the Saginaw Bay landings. During this period, the total lakewide production of all Species remained fairly stable and no clearcut reason for this decline is apparent. Possible factors influencing this decline may have been competition with carp in Saginaw Bay, and the pollution of spawning streams by expanded agricultural and industrial efforts. 1 The next major dr0p in production occurred after 1931 and was probably due to three factors. The first of these to occur was the introduction of the deep trap net in 1929. This probably resulted in a shifting of fishing effort from shallow areas heavily_populated by suckers, to deeper offshore areas. The sea lamprey also established itself in the lake during this period and presumably caused a decline in the stocks of 47 suckers in some areas. The third factor, a reduced number of fishermen, is a direct result of the declining stocks of high value Species caused by the first two factors mentioned. Continuing decreases in catch are most likely the result of the decreasing effort caused by low prices. Lake Michigan The records reported by Buettner (1968) reveal that the early fishery of Lake Michigan was largely supported by yellow perch, chubs, lake herring, lake trout, whitefish, and probably suckers. Buettner (1968) provides fairly complete records for all of these species except the sucker. These records Show that the fishery of the lake as a whole for these species was relatively stable prior to the establishment of the sea lamprey. The lake trout catch was first to be affected, declining in 1945 and being almost completely destroyed by 1952. The whitefish catch increased briefly when the lake trout catch first began their decline, but they too began to decline after 1952. The lake herring followed a pattern similar to the whitefish, but did not decline greatly until the late 1950's. Chubs responded to the absence of lake trout predation, and increased fishing pressure by yielding larger catches beginning in the early 1950's. Yellow perch catches have fluctuated widely since 1889, but no definite trend is evident. Sucker records, incomplete on a lakewide basis until 1929, showed a fairly stable catch of close to two million pounds annually until they began to decline in the mid 1940's. 48 Koelz (1926) reported that in 1925 the catch of suckers ranked 4th in annual poundage, being slightly less than that of whitefish. Suckers were also reported as ranking no lower than 5th in every survey taken since 1890, but fishermen were noted as saying sucker abundance was beginning to decline. The report recorded the largest portion of the catch from Green Bay, while Grand Traverse Bay was noted as supplying the next largest number of fish. The most successful gear used was trap nets. Inspection of catch records for the state of Michigan (Table A4) from the lake reveal a gradually increasing catch through 1907, followed by about a 20-year period of wide fluctuations. This ended with a catch of only about 456,000 pounds in 1928. The annual yield then rapidly increased to over two million pounds in 1935, but this increase was followed by an irregular decrease to only 21,000 pounds in 1968. Since then, the catch has fluctuated between 120,000 and 522,000 pounds annually. The fluctuations which occurred in the sucker fishery in Lake Michigan are difficult to explain for the years prior to the establishment of the sea lamprey in the area. Declines which occurred after this time can probably be attributed to a combination of decreasing populations, the withdrawal of fishermen from the industry, and the shifting of fishing effort in the Bay DeNoc area to whitefish, which were more valuable and becoming increasingly plentiful (LaValle, personal communication). 49 Lake Superior The records of Buettner (1968) reveal that historically, Lake Superior has produced only lake trout, lake herring, and whitefish in large quantities. Whitefish showed signifi- cant declines in catch between 1908 and 1913 and have remained at these depressed levels, except for a brief increase from the mid 1940's to mid 1950's. Catches of lake herring showed increases from the turn of the century to the early 1940's. Since then, the catch of this species also has slowly decreased. Lake trout catches were fairly stable and usually in excess of two million pounds until the establishment of the sea lamprey in the lake during the 1950's. The commercial catch steadily declined after that, but never collapsed as entirely as in the other lakes. Suckers were never extremely abundant in Lake Superior due to the lack of shallow water. Commercial records for these Species are incomplete on a lakewide basis until 1929 (Table A5), with the highest recorded catch being 447,000 pounds in 1937. In 1947 the catch dropped to 71,000 pounds and has exceeded that value only six times since then. Michigan's harvest had a high of 378,000 pounds in 1937, and was above 100,000 pounds for most years prior to 1947. In that year it fell to 38,000 pounds, and Since then has exceeded 50,000 pounds only three times. The decline of this fishery is believed to be largely the result of declining fishing effort. 50 Careful inspection of the data in Appendix A reveals simultaneous variations in catch occurring in at least the three upper lakes. This could suggest simultaneous changes in fishing effort in these lakes as a result of changing economic conditions. Or, these changes could reflect Simultaneous changes in spawning success in each of the lakes due to favorable or unfavorable spring weather conditions. The first of the two explanations seems most probable. LAMPREY WEIR DATA In the early 1950's electric barriers were installed across many of the streams of the upper Great Lakes in an effort to assess the abundance of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), and to block this species from entering streams to Spawn. In order to avoid blocking the spawning runs of indigenous species of fish, traps were incorporated into the barriers. Fish accumulating in these traps during their upstream migration were manually removed, with daily records being kept of the numbers of each species handled, and the physical characteristics of the stream. These records provide information on the run intensity of many fish Species in Great Lakes streams, but because they were not designed for this purpose, they have serious limitations. Four such limitations affect this study. The first is due to the common practice of releasing captured suckers downstream from the barrier rather than upstream. This practice would effectively reduce the available spawning grounds for suckers, as well as make the recapture of individual fish possible. Secondly, the efficiency of the traps would certainly vary over the years studied as the result of changes in the pattern of sedimentation caused by the presence of the weirs. The third factor which may have 51 52 resulted in some changes in apparent run intensity is the filling of the traps during certain periods by other migrating species (most notably smelt). When the traps are filled, they become inaccessible to suckers, and give the appearance that no migration is occurring. Although this situation was noted in the data, and may have affected the total numbers of fish caught, it is not believed to have affected interpretations concerning the effects of temperature upon spawning. ‘The Single factor which probably most influenced the number of fish captured is the tendency for the fish to congregate below the weirs rather than trying to go around them and being captured. This behavior is especially common in the Species of the sucker family (Moore, personal communication), and resulted in total sucker captures well below the true number of spawners present. Appendix B shows the number of fish handled (trapped or killed) annually at each of the stream barriers monitored by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These figures Show large annual fluctuations in run intensity, with changes as large as 153,000 fish (2300%) occurring in one year (Table Bl, Pensaukee River, l956-57). .These large fluctuations reveal no well defined patterns in run intensity over the period of years monitored, but several streams have shown periods when the catch was unusually high or low for successive years. Although in most cases all streams did not fluctuate in the same direction during the same years, the eight barriers still in Operation on Lake sucke L. (1' al.-L11 yeal are can few TQC Ju< ca- Be In su nu pa me t( f a 53 Lake Superior did show totals of both white and longnose suckers decreasing sharply during the early 1970's. The number of fish handled in 1974 showed a definite increase over those of the earlier 1970's, but totals have not yet reached the former high levels. Annual totals for each year and stream suggest that there may be large differences in the number of fish entering a stream during successive years, and that extensive fluctuations in run intensities are not unusual for these Species. Although sudden decreases in the number of fish caught between two successive years cannot be completely explained by the data available, in a few instances low or highly variable stream flows may have reduced the number of fish caught in a particular year. Judging from flow data gathered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service at weir sites, this could be a possible cause for the low numbers of white suckers captured in the Betsy River, 1963, and the Sturgeon River, 1965 (Table 82). In most cases, large increases in the number of large white suckers captured followed years in which there were large numbers of small white suckers reported from the weirs. This pattern suggests that the increases are the result of the maturation of large year classes rather than differences due to mature individuals spawning only in years with the most favorable conditions. Despite the previously mentioned limitations on the weir data, which greatly restrict their usefulness in relation to the total number of Spawners in a stream, reliable data 54 concerning the preferred temperature at spawning can be obtained. The annual Spawning runs of both white and long- nose suckers for Six streams (34 stream-year combinations) were examined according to the date and water temperature at which 10%, 50% and 90% of the total fish handledwere recorded. These data reveal that in each situation involving an annual capture of over 100 9-inch or larger white suckers, 10% of them had been captured by the time the stream temperature was 4.4-10.0 C (April 21 - May 25), 50% by the time the tempera- ture was 7.8-17.2 C (May 2 - June 1), and 90% by the time the temperature was 9.4-22.2 C (May 9 - June 17). Smaller white suckers showed wider ranges of temperature for each division, suggesting they may not be as temperature sensitive as larger individuals. Longnose suckers appeared to be slightly more sensitive than either size group of white suckers, 10% being captured by the time the water temperature reached 6.7-15.0 C (April 25 - May 15), 50% by the time the temperature was 8.9-17.8 C (May 4 - May 21), and 90% by the time the temperature was 14.4-20.0 C (May 8 - June 10). Both the 10 C requirement for the onset of spawning of white suckers, and the 12.2-15.0 C optimum spawning range for long— nose suckers described in the life history section seem reasonable according to these calculations. However, the wide ranges of temperatures involved, which are the result of rapid irregular fluctuations in stream temperature, limit the usefulness of the data. 55 In order to reduce the problems caused by high fluctua- tions in temperature, the average temperature for 5-day periods was calculated, and compiled along with the number of fish handled during that period. Examination of the data for large white suckers reveals that the average temperature for the 5-day period during which the largest number of fish were caught varied from 6.4 C to 16.1 C. The smaller white suckers again displayed less selectivity, with maximum captures being recorded when average temperatures ranged from 3.0 C to 24.4 C. Average temperatures for the 5-day periods in which the largest numbers of longnose were captured ranged between 8.4 C and 16.4 C. Even the ranges arrived at by using this method were rather wide so a qualitative inspec- tion of the original data was used to identify key temperatures. InSpection of the data for large white suckers indicated most maximum daily catches occurred when water temperatures were between 10.0 C and 14.4 C. It also appeared that consistent temperatures around 7.0 C to 10.0 C induced upstream movement, but rapid rises in temperature usually resulted in readings well above 10 C before movement was recorded. When temperatures were consistently above 15.5 C, movement appeared to cease. This information agrees well with that cited earlier from Geen et al. (1966). Optimal tempera- ture appears to be around 11 — 15 C for large white suckers, but is less consistent and appears slightly higher for smaller individuals. Longnose suckers exhibit temperature preferences very Similar to those of the larger white suckers with Optimum 56 temperatures appearing tO be around 12 - 15 C. This correlates well with the Optimum temperatures noted by Brown and Graham (1954) and Harris (1962) Of 12.2 - 15 C, however, the tempera— ture first inducing movement is Often significantly higher (at 10 - 11 C) than the 5 C noted by Geen et al. (1966). That this Species spawns earlier than the white sucker, as reported by other authors (Scott and Crossman, 1973), was not confirmed by this data. Temperature preferences more specific than those given are not possible to determine due to the rapid changes in temperature exhibited by the streams examined. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INDEX STATION CATCHES As well as being a low—value commercial fish, suckers bring a relatively Small amount Of money intO the economy Of the state as a Sport fish. According to the Michigan DNR Management Report NO. 5 (1973) an estimated 2,616,360 suckers were caught by 86,720 fishermen in 1971. Only one Of the other 14 species listed had fewer fishermen pursuing them than did the suckers. Due to this low economic value in both the commercial and Sport fields, little research has been done by any government agency on the abundance Of these fish. The Michigan Department Of Natural Resources has collected data from index stations throughout the Michigan waters Of Lakes St. Clair, Erie, Huron and Michigan since 1970. Catch per unit effort (CPE), where unit effort is one trap net lift or 304.8 m of gill nets (graded 63.5 — 152.4 mm mesh), is listed for white and longnose suckers at these stations in Appendix C. Because such a small amount Of data exists, only general comparative statements can be made concerning abundance. The data from Lakes St. Clair and Erie indicate that only white suckers are present at the index stations, and they are present in low to moderate numbers. Catches Of white suckers 57 58 in Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay were, at most stations, significantly higher than those in Lakes St. Clair and Erie. Catches per unit effort at Pinconning and Sand Point in Saginaw Bay were consistently high. In the lake proper, the highest concentrations appeared to be along the southern shore Of the Upper Penninsula with moderate catches noted in areas close to Saginaw Bay and along the northern shore Of the Lower Penninsula. In Lake Michigan, the greatest concentration Of white suckers is noted around Little Traverse Bay and Beaver Island. Some other stations Show high catches per unit effort for single dates, but these were Offset by extremely low catches for other dates, or were the result Of very small amounts Of effort. Moderate catches were recorded for a large number of stations, but little consistency was apparent at those stations sampled in more than one year. Surprisingly few white suckers were taken in Green Bay despite historically high commercial catches Of 'mullet' from that area. In Lake Huron, longnose suckers do not appear in the index records for most Of the stations in the southern portion Of the lake. Some longnose are recorded for stations at the northern tip Of the thumb region, and a few were listed at stations along the eastern shore of the Lower Penninsula, but the highest catches per unit effort appeared along the northern shore Of the Lower Penninsula at Hammond Bay and Cheyboygan Point. Longnose suckers were conspicuously absent from the catches Of some of the index stations along the southern shore Of the Upper Penninsula in this lake. 59 Lake Michigan catches per unit effort Of longnose suckers are not very high for any station where fishing effort was above minimal. The only areas where longnose appeared tO be more important than white suckers was northern Green Bay and along the southern shore Of the Upper Penninsula. Other areas where moderate catches have been made are scattered along the eastern shore Of the lake, but these catches seem to be inconsistent from year to year and season tO season. In general, the records in Appendix C show white suckers . being the predominant sucker in the lakes surveyed. Longnose suckers, when present, were more common in the northern regions Of the lakes. The available data show higher catches per unit effort for Spring periods than for other times of the year. This presumably is due to these Species congregating near shore prior to spawning. DISCUSSION Close investigation would certainly reveal that the recent decline in the United States Great Lakes fishery is even more serious than indicated by the decrease in weight of the annual catch alone. Many Of the high value Species have been all but eliminated from the fishery either by a sheer decrease in their numbers, or by legal restrictions designed to protect them. In many areas, only one or two Species commonly used for human consumption are still avail- able for commercial harvest. If the Great Lakes commercial fishery is to survive it will be necessary to harvest species which are now relatively unexploited. Increasing the number Of Species harvested would not only increase total yield, but also provide for better overall management by allowing biologists to control the populations Of low value fish which are competing directly, or indirectly, with higher value Species. Although the biology Of the species considered in this paper suggests that they probably do not compete with high value fish to a large extent under most conditions, their numbers and palatability may make them economically feasible to harvest. 60 61 Abundance and Stability Of Stocks The commercial catch records of the Great Lakes bordering upon Michigan Show that at least Lakes Huron and Michigan have supported substantial fisheries for 'mullet' in the past. The decline in these fisheries after the invasion Of the sea lamprey seems to be due more to an alteration in fishing effort than tO the effects Of predation, although the sea lamprey did affect sucker stocks. If this iS true, it seems reaSonable to conclude that in those areas where no large scale environmental changes have occurred (particu- larly with respect to chemical pollutants and stream alterations), significant populations may still exist. Some evidence is available which suggests this is true. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1974) reports that the Lake Huron catch Of suckers reflects demand rather than abundance, suggesting increased effort could substantially increase yield if the demand were there. In Lake Michigan it was reported that longnose and white sucker could be excellent commercial species and that their abundance, as indicated by the catch at index stations, is high relative to other species (Keller, personal communication). In Lake Superior, suckers are reported as being less abundant and more scattered than in the other lakes (Wright, personal communication). This situation would be anticipated from the morphology Of the lake basin and the early commercial records. 62 The biology of the suckers suggests that the areas Of most importance to a commercial fishery for them would be the bays and Shallow inshore areas Of the lakes. Examination of the commercial records Show this to have been true in the past with major areas Of production being Green Bay, Grand Traverse Bay, and Saginaw Bay. Index station catches Show other small bays and river mouths to have abundances equal to these areas at the present time, but estimates Of maximum commercial yield from any Of the areas are little more than guesses. In terms Of environmental changes, it seems that the area most likely to be able to reach former high levels Of production would be the Michigan portion Of Green Bay, but even here the estimated annual yields made by biologists familiar with the area ranged anywhere from 250,000 to 1,000,000 pounds. This suggests accurate estimates Of sucker pOpulations are not available for important areas Of potential production. The available evidence indicates that commercial catches Of 'mullet' would consist mostly Of white sucker, with significant numbers Of longnose being included, but very few redhorse. The biology Of all Of these Species suggests that their contribution to the overall commercial fishery would depend, to a large extent, upon their environment. The literature Shows a rather wide variance Of growth rates, ages, and sizes at maturity for both the white and longnose suckers. These variances seem tO be largely dependent upon the richness of the environment as discussed in the life history section. 63 The most discouraging factors found in the literature are the apparent low annual recruitment and the slow growth rates Of adult white suckers, but this would be expected tO improve when the adult population was thinned by exploitation. A situation paralleling commercial exploitation has been Observed in South Bay, Lake Huron, during the late 1950‘s where COble (1967) studied the effect Of sea lamprey predation on white suckers. He found that the white sucker population decreased Sharply about the time that the sea lamprey destroyed the lake trout population. The sucker population began to rebound after about five years, but the average Size Of individuals caught continued tO decline from a high Of about 39 cm tO a low Of about 32 cm over the period Of study which ended in the mid 1960's. During this period, Coble estimated the total annual mortality Of white suckers to be only 25 — 30%, and because Of this suggested that even without lamprey predation the pOpulation Of larger suckers could not have been sustained under moderate fishing pressure. Rawson and Elsey (1950) also found that the removal Of larger fish resulted inlarger numbers of small individuals appearing in the popualtion. However, commercial catch records support the idea that Sucker stocks can be successfully exploited. These records show that under favorable conditions populations Of white and longnose suckers have been sustained during long periods Of steady commercial exploitation. It seems that the final determination on the feasibility of commercially harvesting suckers must await some sort Of trial fishing period. 64 Management Considerations Because of current fishery restrictions designed to protect high value species, it is likely that the Michigan sucker fishery would be limited to the use Of shallow water impoundment gear as a capture method. This type Of gear has not been widely used in recent years, and is fairly expensive. Due to this expense, and the question Of market popularity and profit which accompanies any enterprise, there is some question as tO the number Of fishermen who might be drawn into the fishery. The suggestion has been made by some fishermen that a government agency Should initiate the fishing effort in order to estimate stocks Of fish and market price, thus giving commercial fishermen something on which to base an investment. Such an approach seems reasonable since a large percentage of the catch will come from small areas of water, and it would allow an accurate stock assessment. In view Of the collapse Of the fishery for SO many species Of Great Lakes fish, such an assessment would appear to be desirable as a management tool in future years. Once economic feasibility was established, commercial fishermen could take over under some management scheme. A limited access fishery based on gear and area restrictions, or a quota system would seem to be a reasonable approach to take in managing these species. The quota system would be most likely to protect fish stocks without forcing the industry to become inefficient. Spawning run intensity in key streams 65 could possibly be used as a guide for the establishment Of annual quotas, but the high fluctuations in annual run intensities recorded at weir stations suggest this may not be acceptable. If mature fish returning from Spawning migrations are found to be in good condition, the quota system could result in a seasonal fishery Of high efficiency in some areas. Conclusions The literature on the biology Of suckers reveals that in most situations the mortality and growth rates Of adults of these species are low. It also appears that these Species are not Often important in the food chain, and do not pose serious competition for more favorable Species. Such conditions would suggest that the sucker population is relatively static and that establishment Of a fishery for these Species would not greatly affect the ecosystem as a whole. Unfortunately, not enough information is available tO determine if such conditions actually dO exist in the Great Lakes. Commercial catch records, data from lamprey weirs, and index station records all reveal that suckers are widespread in the upper three Great Lakes. The lack Of information concerning abundance on a commercial scale arises from the low value Of the species and subsequent lack Of fishing effort. Substantial data concerning abundance and the effect Of fishing upon sucker stocks iS likely to be gathered only by the establishment Of a fishery. 66 Because of the lack of solid information about the species, a fishing industry Should be established on a small scale and then gradually expanded if it becomes evident that the stocks can support the fishing pressure. Judging from the problems arising in the past in fisheries governed by economics alone,such an approach would probably require a quota system or a limited access fishery. APPENDICES listed below. APPENDIX A COMMERCIAL FISHERY STATISTICS FOR LAKES ERIE, HURON,_ MICHIGAN, AND SUPERIOR, 1879-1974 Data for Tables Al-A5 were compiled from the sources weight landed and total value. Table A1 Grand total (all species) United States total (all species) United States total suckers Michigan total (all species) After Buettner, 1968 Michigan total suckers After Baldwin and Saalfeld, 1962 All statistics After Baldwin and Saalfeld, 1970 All statistics After National Marine Fisheries Service, 1971, 1973, 1974 All statistics *Howard Buettner, personal 'communication Tables A2, A3, A4, A5 All statistics (other than price) After Baldwin and Saalfeld, 1962, 1970 Average price of suckers After data from Bureau Of Fisheries, 1928-1941 Average price Of combined species *Howard Buettner, personal communication Average price After data from Fish and Wildlife Service, 1943-1971 67 Average prices were calculated using total 1879-1966 1979-1966 1879-1966 1879—1966 1889-1966 1966-1968 1969,1971,1972 1970,1973,1974 Before 1968 1926—1939 Before 1939 1940~1968 68 All statistics 1969,197l,1972 After data from National Marine Fisheries Service 1971, 1973, 1974 Saginaw Bay and Green Bay production l969-l974 All statistics l970,l973,l974 *Howard Buettner, personal communication *Howard Buettner, National Marine Fisheries Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Annual catch Of fish (thousands Of pounds) from Table A1. Great Lakes waters. Grand U. S. Michigan Total Total U. S. Total Michigan All All Total All Total Year Species Species Suckers Species Suckers 1879 76,238 66,891 1885 121,290 97,623 1889 143,937 115,575 3,883 1,048 1890 140,196 111,550 1892 2,145 1893 134,211 107,582 3,107 1894 4,437 1895 1896 1,858 1897 115,470 94,930 1899 145,530 119,424 2,108 1903 113,024 94,185 7,911 5,329 1908 137,789 113,315 6,901 4,152 1911 1912 2,835 1913 2,647 1914 135,138 103,407 4,972 1915 149,865 111,587 3,590 1916 121,987 89,085 3,715 1917 135,237 97,439 6,918 4,776 1918 145,367 106,181 2,708 1919 115,947 85,400 4,230 1920 104,848 73,168 3,063 1921 117,625 87,741 2,691 1922 113,127 81,107 4,793 2,937 1923 112,433 78,285 2,255 1924 112,461 77,969 1,926 .1925 100,050 73,586 2,497 1926 97,900 73,182 2,994 1927 107,354 79,508 3,491 1928 89,040 62,027 2,516 1929 98,388 71,174 5,866 2,410 1930 115,765 87,412 6,687 3,675 1931 114,431 87,341 6,529 3,480 1932 104,313 79,370 6,195 3,810 1933 94,454 70,751 5,532 3,267 1934 116,149 90,880 5,563 3,665 1935 116,143 87,011 5,826 30,621 4,016 1936 118,363 90,570 5,675 28,972 3,904 1937 111,099 81,001 5,707 28,409 3,900 1938 108,228 79,299 4,820 28,682 3,343 1939 110,229 82,720 4,457 28,898 2,703 Table A1 (Cont'd) Grand U. S. Michigan Total Total U. S. Total Michigan A11 A11 Total All Total Year Species Species Suckers Species Suckers 1940 98,358 76,588 4,267 26,044 2,709 1941 97,365 76,429 4,135 28,132 2,492 1942 94,228 73,563 4,312 26,279 2,427 1943 101,227 76,667 4,439 25,700 2,747 1944 99,312 74,167 4,114 22,111 2,552 1945 105,541 77,413 4,658 23,960 3,025 1946 104,301 77,192 4,215 24,159 2,835 1947 87,466 68,261 3,565 25,545 2,270 1948 105,108 81,968 3,681 30,136 2,646 1949 111,144 83,483 3,557 25,534 2,274 1950 95,408 68,906 2,963 23,153 1,921 1951 92,771 68,623 2,912 25,020 2,072 1952 110,017 79,663 2,679 29,232 1,758 1953 112,473 75,525 2,370 25,013 1,636 1954 119,614 79,748 2,224 27,231 1,514 1955 113,778 75,207 2,027 25,438 1,379 1956 131,165 78,948 1,555 24,636 899 1957 117,783 74,041 1,507 22,477 773 1958 107,303 68,897 1,441 25,487 822 1959 103,562 63,464 1,389 22,323 756 1960 103,854 65,936 1,551 25,021 794 1961 112,508 67,140 1,441 24,535 761 1962 115,384 61,850 1,292 22,121 836 1963 98,617 55,823 1,096 20,326 672 1964 87,604 53,559 951 19,761 549 1965 97,735 54,156 794 19,748 500 1966 120,464 69,450 1,170 21,284 393 1967 126,783 81,957 859 29,221 346 1968 114,543 67,324 835 23,962 227 1969 122,548 66,969 1,168 21,948 336 1970 110,556 70,389 1,324 21,169 722 1971 100,930 62,824 1,708 15,592 592 1972 97,210 58,428 743 16,051 310 1973 114,543 66,657 1,054 15,880 434 1974 76,989 888 15,341 324 71 mmm mmo.P meo.~¢ mN¢.Po upm— mPN me. mmH.P¢ mpm.mm o—m~ «NP._ mmm.mm mFm.om mpmp omp omm.~ q¢_.¢m GNN.FN cfimF mm_ mpm— “my Nrmp Prop ormr mom~ mqm opw._ omenmc Nfim.mm mom_ on Romp mmm oom_ NNN momp mmm Vamp mom nmm nmm.m~ oem.mm momF me Nomfi omm Pomp Nam . comp mam wNm.— Npm.mm mum.mo mmmF ¢NN wow? mm, emm.mm moo.¢¢ Nam? me 0mm? NNN mmmp «RN «mmfi mom Pom.~ omp.m¢ mem.~m mmmfi Rm waF «NF Fam— ¢NN.mm www.mm comp mm mmo.F www.mm mw_.m~ mmm_ women cmxuzm mowca Punch mgmxuzm Pmpo cowuuzvoca me> mmmgm>< :wmwgowz mmwcm>< cmmwgu?z .m .2 .m .2 Peach .mpcmu cw woven mmmcm>m vcm mncsoa $0 mncmmzogp c? compuawoca mvcm mxm; .N< mpnok 72 n m om N.NF mm¢.~ qu Fm_.mm oeo.w¢ memF m.m mm N.__ mmp._ omq Fmo.mm 22m.~¢ mqmr m.m em m.m wm~.F mmv “mm.w~ Nmo.¢¢ ¢¢mP 2.“ me «.2 FmN.F cum m__.um mom.P¢ mvmp m.N mm 2.2 ”mm.” mam Fm_.qm mm_.¢m qup o.m mm 2.2 ¢N_._ mam moo.mm mpo.~m FemF o.m Fm m.n Nqo._ qr“ ¢¢2.NN FPN.Nm oemfi o.m we 2.2 FmN.F moo.~ mo©.mm uwm.m¢ mmmfi o.m on m.q mFN._ 2m“ arm.nm om_.m¢ wmmfi o.m em m.¢ mom NoP.~ mmm.om omm._¢ nmmp ~.N ow m.¢ wfio._ mqm m¢N.om Non.m¢ ommr mm_ 2.2 omp.~ mmo.— mm~.om omn.¢¢ mmm_ o.~ we? m.~ mmm «No.F mmo.mm wmm.m¢ 2mmp our 2.N NN¢._ mmm.~ om_.mm me.mm mmm» o.m MNF m.m mom.F me.F PmN.mm ¢m¢.2¢ Nmmfi m.m N©~ 2.8 mqm.p 2_¢._ oow.¢m 222.22 _mmF ¢.m um 2.2 “mm ¢N2.N vwm.m~ d©~.~¢ ommfi m.N we w.m mmm mom.~ 222.22 mom.mm mmm_ 2.2 Pu n.m men mpm.~ No“.m_ mmo.om wmmp m.m mm 2.2 m~¢.P N¢P.P mom.mm www.mm “mmfi o.¢ ow meo.~ “mo.mm Now.mm mmmp mm mom 222.2N cam.mm mwmfi «mp 222 mmm.o¢ m¢N.mm «NmF Po? mmo.~ Num.¢¢ m¢_.mo mam— mm Pom 222.22 mwm.wm mmmr mo om¢._ NPN.22 oNF.mo FNmF NNN Foo.F mmm.mm 222.22 2N2? mm mmo mop.mm mmm.m¢ mpmp we? pro 252.22 enm.o~ mFmF muvca meusm muwga Pouch mcmxozm _mpo cowpoauoca me> mmmgm>< cmmwcuwz mmmcm>< cmmwguvz .m .2 .m .2 pupae A2.ucouv N< upon» 73 2 2 2 2 2 222 222 222.2 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222 222 222.2 222.22 2222 2.2 2 2.22 222 222 222.2 222.22 2222 --- 1- 2.22 222 222 222.2 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222 222 222.2 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.22 222 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.22 222 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.22 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 ,222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.22 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.22 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 222— 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.2 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.22 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 2.2 22 2.22 222.2 222 222.22 222.22 2222 20222 222622 20222 22202 2222022 22222 2022022222 me> m2mgm>< 22222u2z o2222>< 22222022 .2 .2 .2 .2 22222 22.2coov 22 @2222 74 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 2222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 . 2222 2222 2222 222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222M22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222. 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 V222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 2222222 2222222222 22222 2222222 22222 2222222222 2222222222 222> 222 222 22222>< 22222222 22222>< 2222222: 22222 3222222 2222222 22222 .22222 :2 22222 22222>2 222 222222 20 222222222 :2 2222222222 2222: 2222 .2< 22222 75 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.22 222.2 222.22 2222 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.22 222.2 222.2 222— 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.22 222.2 222.22 2222 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.22 222.2 222.22 2222 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 222.22 2222 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 222.22 2222 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 222— 222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 222. 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 222.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.2 222.22 2222 222 2.2 222.2 2.22 222.2 222.22 2222 222.2 2.2 222.2 2.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 2.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 222.2 222.2 222.22 2222 222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.2 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222.2 222.2 222W22 222.22 2222 222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 222 222.2 222.22 222.22 2222 2222222 2222222222 22222 2222222 22222 2222222222 2222222222 222> 222 222 22222>< 2222222: 22222>< 22222222 22222 3222222 3222222 22222 22.2couv 22 22222 76 FFF No¢._ m.o NFP o.mm wFN._ cum? mwF mmu._ ¢.m qu _.mm qu.P Nw¢.¢ mxmp Fm ook._ _.o Fm F._N ¢mm.P me.¢ mum? NmF «Fo.m P.m vmr N.NF mpm.m Nmm.m Pump mm? NNN.N m.o ow? m.m_ ~P¢.N omm.w ONmF mmp n_¢.N m.¢ mm? o.N~ Nam.~ omm.m mom, m¢P ¢mm._ m.m moF «.0? mum.m mo_.m womp mPN NF¢.N w.m m¢~ m.q_ ~_N.m wNm.m NomF mom mmm.m m.¢ mpm o.vp mmmnm owo.o momP mmm mwm.m o.¢ mmm o.ofi «No.¢ oqwaw momF omm wvm.m w.¢ mmq 0.0? mmo.¢ moo.w vomF mmv mPN.N m.¢ mom ”.mp oom.m me.m mom~ moo mom.~ m.m Non m.mP omm.m mmo.ow Nom_ me me.m N.¢ Pmm N.m_ wpm.o www.mp Pomp mum mom.m 0.0 5mm xwm mmmgm>< cmmw50wz mmmgm>< cmmwcuwz Pouch zucwmmm zucwmmm . Fmpo» Au.pcouv m< mFQMF 77 mmm.m mmo.¢ . ¢nw.—m firm? mom ¢mm.P~ o—mh «mm Nvo._m mpmy mmo.m Pom.mm «Fmfi oom Foo.mm m—mp m~—._ ¢_m.¢m NFmF m~o.P mm¢.om P—mP o—mP mom_ mmm.~ mownm mmm.m¢ moor mwmnm NomF mm©.P womfi mmm.~ momp mom.F . woo? mm¢.P mnm.m mmooom moor omm Nom— wmm pom? omo oom— mFm m-.~ qunmm mmwp Nwm mmmfi “mm #mm.mm NmmF Nm_ woo.~¢ mom, mmm Npm.mm mom? mmF mmu.m¢ «mmr omc ~m©.~ mmk.o¢ mmmF NNN mmo.wm Now? mv Fam— qu Fow.F ¢m¢.om omwy m . mNN.F moo.om amm— mgmxusm cowpozuoga muwgm mgmxuzm mgmxoam mow»; :owuuauoga cowpuzuogm me> xmm mom mmmgm>< cmmvsuvz Fmpoh momgm>< cmmvzuwz Fm“0k cmmgw cmmgw .mpcmu cw muWLa mmmgm>m ncm mvcaon we mchmzocu cw :owpusooga :mm_;uwz mxmg .¢< whack 78 m.q #mm Pmm“ m.mp Nm¢.o_ mmm.¢m nqmF ¢.m Noo.~ mom.~ m.m~ mvo.m mmm.mm ovo— N.o mom,_ mnm.~ m.om omo.m omo.m~ mqm_ w.m mmp.— mmm.~ N.mw mmw.o www.mp qqmp n.m mm~.P oomam w.o~ mo~.m mnr.mm mqmp m.m ooP.F me.m o.mp mmn.w m~¢.PN Nwm— o.m ¢¢O.F mmm._ 0.0? mqm.m me.mm F¢mp o.m NNN._ mFo.N N.w _om.m Foo.~N ovmr o.m NmF.F mmm.F m.m_ mmq.m m¢¢.mm mmmp o.m Pom.” wmm.F ¢.m oom.op _oF.¢N wmofi o.m owm._ Nmm.m m.m ommfim Noo.mm “may o.m mam.” mmm.m w.m NPm.w wN¢.qN ommfi mooam mwo.m o.m mmo.m Nm¢.¢m mmmr m.F mmm.r mur.m m.N mmm.w mmo.om «mm_ mo_.F Fwwafi N.m opm.o Noo._m mmmfi m.m mmm.~ mom.m ¢.~ mom.m mom.m_ Nmm_ m.m NNN.— Nou.m ¢.o_ omm.m v~m.¢m ”may ¢.N mmm._ mmw.m F.m NN®.MP mmm.om omm_ m.m mam mom.m P._~ Nm©.~F owp.om mmmr o.m om¢ m.m~ Nwm.o wmm.NP mmmr m.m me N.m mmm.- Nmo.m~ “Nap ~.m mom ¢m¢.om ommp mom —¢m.flm mwmfi «No o_m.w_ qmmr oxm owm.m_ mmmp owe omm.~ ¢mm.m_ mmmp mmo wmm.rm Pmmfi um www.mp cum? moo._ www.mw mfimp mow wom.NN wrap mgmxuzm cowuosuogm mowga mgmxoam mgmxozm mu?gm :o?pu:uoga covposuoga me> ham ham mmmgm>< :mmwguwz Papa» mmmgm>< commcuwz Papok :mmLo cmmgu “a.“couv «q mpnmh 79 on n.~ amp mom m.¢~ mo—.PF mam,mm «nap mm? m._ mqm ops m.mm o¢m.- wo~.om mxmp cm o.~ mm? va F.0N «wo._F me.m¢ NNap omm o.m mmv nwm.— o.o~ mFP.o~ ome.¢¢ anp mm¢ o.m mmm mmm N.m_ ~m_.mF omo.mm osm— mm m.m om? mm“ _.m o_q.mp mm¢.m¢ momP FF .mmm.n o.¢ _N mm¢ N.m NF¢.NF oFm.m¢ mmm_ c mm_.p~ m.m ¢m Pom m.m oom.om me.wm Romp ¢ mmm.¢ 0.“ mm mow w.op mmm.~_ «mu.mq mmm_ om mmm._ m.¢ ¢q mop P.¢F 5mm.w cam.om mom? om NmN.N o.¢ mm mPN N.m_ mam.w _om.om «mop om omN.N o.¢ mm mom «.pr mmm.o Fmo._m mom_ om mN®.N o.¢ N¢ mom m.o~ «mm.m mudnmm mom, mo? mom.m N.m mNF mac o.- ¢¢m.n mmm.mm Pomfi mmm Now.¢ o.¢ mmm “mu m.m mm~.m me.¢m comp NmN oo_.m ¢.¢ mmm «Po ¢.m ¢m_.w wow.om mmmp omm oFo.m m.¢ Rom mwo N.m NNP.NP . FNN.NN mmmp mmm ONP.N q.¢ N¢m F¢o _.op mm©._F mmm.mm 5mm— wmm wom.m N.¢ “mm oeo P._— nom.¢~ mmu.om 0mm? «mm _qr.m o.¢ mmm . Vmo N.op ¢om.m~ omo.om mmmF «mm omo.op m.m owm moo m.m mm~.¢~ PmN.Om qmmF mmm mmm.@ ¢.m o¢¢ omw m._P moo.m_ wmw.wm mmmr m.o wmw wen m.mP mnm.mp Foo.mm Nmm_ o.m Pom moo._ m.mp wmm.m_ wdo.NN mep ©.¢ me mmm.fi m.m_ mmm.mp mNo.NN ommr m.¢ om~.P opm.~ o.o~ oom.~_ mum.mm acm— m.m m¢m._ oom.F m.mp mmm.- mmo.~m .wqmF mgmxuzm corpuauoga muwgm mgmxozm mmeuam muwga corpuauoga corpusuoga me> xmm kmm mmmgm>< :mmwsuwz quoh mmmgm>< cmmwguvz Papok :mme cmmgu Au.pcoov ¢< m_amF 80 om~ nmm.o~ mmm.vp mFmF Rom nwm PFm.m qom.m~ upm— vmm omm.m me.mp m_m_ cum mvm.m oon.NF mfimp mmm mueamfi mwm.mF vpmp ovm m-.o~ wpm.m_ mpmh mom «Fm— oo_ firm? opmfi moor «or mwm _oo.m umwamfi womfi OF Romp my oom_ mm mom? mm . #omp m ¢o~ www.mr mom.o_ mom” mp Nomr mF Pom” mp oomr NF mmm.o ovm.m mmw_ mam? mmo.o orq.m Nom— mr ommF mow» m ¢mm_ m_ mmm.n ¢Pw.o_ mom? FF Now? Pom? mPP.o omo.m oom— vmm.n noo.o~ mmmr muwga mgmxusm muwga FmpOH mgmxuam comuusvoga coruuzuoga me> mmmgm>< :mmwcuwz mmmgm>< cmmwcowz .m .2 .m .3 FmpOF .mgcmo cw muwga mmmgm>m new muczoa mo mucmmzogu cw covuozuoga Lowgmasm axe; .m< mpnmk 8] o.m om m.m~ mm~.m mm me.o— Nam.mm mqmfi _.m mm w.¢_ mow.m "N “mm.vF NFm.N~ quF F.m mm? m.m~ mmm.o mum mew.np Nm¢.~m mva m.~ om_ m.mm wqm.o oNN mmn.mp “mm.mm m¢mp m.m mm m.mP Pam.“ mop www.mp moo.mm ¢¢m_ o.m Fm m.mF Poo.“ mom mxm.wp mF~.PN memp m.m om m.m #mm.~ m¢_ www.my oom.mm N¢mp o.m mo_ 5.“ wm¢.m mm_ FFFaNN N¢m.mm qufi o.m mrp m.o mm~.o mmp Nxo“om Pom.mm ova? o.m mFP m.m “mm.m amp mwm.mr omo.om mmm~ o.m NFN N.m Nm_.m mwm omm.¢P m_m.m_ mmmfi o.m mum m.w mmwnm ~¢¢ wro.m_ me.om “mop o.m NF? ¢.N wqm.o ”mp moo.oF owm.om 0mm” FoP ¢.m mm~.© NNN unw.nF om¢.pm mmmp m.m mm m.m mmP.m mop omonxp woo.FN «mm? ¢NP m.~ mm¢.m «om Pmm.o_ mmm.m~ mmm— N.N mm P.“ mwm.m ”pm mom.op “mmfimy mmmr m.m mm ¢.oF o¢¢.m cor wmm.__ NN¢.¢P meF N.N mm m.“ omm.¢ «m mownvy “No.m_ ommF o.¢ mm m.m mom.¢ omm mom.mp FN¢.PN mmmp m.q ¢¢P m.oF omm.m om¢.mp omw.mP mmmp m.¢ nvr m.PF Pm¢.m ome.m~ Pwn.ow mNmF N.m FFP m—NJMP mmo.mF omm~ o¢_ mmm.mp mp_.m_ mmmr qm— opm.m omu.mp ¢Nm~ mop mmm.N mN_.N~ mmmp ¢o~ com Pum.m Nw_.m N~m_ ¢mF mmm.u omm.m ”mm, mN— moo.m www.mp ommP mm? “mm.o~ mmw.¢— mFm_ muwga mgmxuzm muwga rope» mgmxuam cowposvogm covpuauoga Lmo> mmmgm>< :mmwcuwz mmmgm>< cmmwcowz .m .3 .m .2 ranch Au.pcouv m< mpnmk 82 m.m mm ¢.m¢ ¢¢_.N mqp ¢¢F.N cumF n.— mm . m.mm mNo.N mo n~¢.m mmm.m mmmF o.m mm ¢.mN uro.m No ~m¢.¢ ~N_.m NNmF ¢.N 3m o.¢m Nm¢.N om Nw—.m m¢m.m pump ¢.m om o.m~ P¢_.N om moo.m Pom.m onmr F.¢ «m m.m~ me.m ¢o mmm.m om~.m momp o.m «m o.mm wmo.m do ¢mmwm mmm.m mom» m.m ow 3.5? Fmo.m mm mow.“ mm¢.op momF m.¢ NF o.¢_ woo.¢ RN mm~.w «39.3, mom” 3.3 m N.NF Fm¢.m ¢m w¢~.m wpo._P . mom” ¢.¢ m_ v.3 omo.m mq N¢o.m cmm.mp «om? m.¢ mm —.m «33.5 mm mNF.N~ woo.mp mom? w.m Fm m.m m_m.o m¢ moo.mp m¢N.mF NmmF m.¢ mm 3.3 mmm.w n3 o¢n.¢_ moP.N_ pom” N.m mm ¢.m N33.“ 33 FNN.mP mom.o_ oom— o.m o_ m.- 3mm.m om omo.¢~ oom.wp mmmF o.m 3N o.¢_ mm¢.m mw wmp.m— moo.mF mmmp o.m mm F.m_ NNN.© mg www.mp Fem.m_ “map —.m FF 0.3? Nm¢.m 3N Pmm.mr mm~.m~ ommp m.m mr o.mp moq.m Rm —mm.m_ PNF.3P mmmfl m.m mm «.mp Pom.m ¢m . mwm.mr mmm.wp #mmp N.o ¢N ¢.~N m¢o.¢ mm omo.mp om¢.m— mmmp 3.3 ¢¢ n.m~ ¢¢m.m . om mo¢.m~ Nam.mp Nmmp m.m mm m.om mfiq.m “NF mmo.¢_ 333.3, mep 3.3 33 m.mm FN~.¢ cor www.mp omN.mP ommp ~.¢ cm 3.5P 353.3 we omn.- mpm.o~ mqmp mowga mgmxuam muwga FmpOH mgmxozm coruusuogm cowpuauoga me> mmmgm>< cmmwguwz mmmgm>< :mmwnuwz .m .3 .m .3 . quo» Au.ucouv m< whack APPENDIX B NUMBERS OF FISH HANDLED ANNUALLY AT LAMPREY ASSESSMENT HEIRS Table Bl contains the numbers of large white suckers, small white suckers and longnose suckers handled annually at Lake Michigan Lamprey Assessment weirs. Streams were omitted if they were monitored only one year, or if they were monitored three or less years and never showed over 300 fish in any one classification. Only the Pensaukee River and the East Twin River yielded annual captures of redhorse (all species combined) which exceeded 5 fish in more than one year during the period of weir operation. From l955 through l960 annual cap- tures of redhorse from the Pensaukee were 90, 403, 200, 0, 27, and 34. During the same period, data from the East Twin River were 39, 22, 28, l5, 5 and 0. In several other streams, the number of fish handled the first year of weir operation was significant (over lOO), but few redhorse were captured in later years. The records reveal that most fish handled the first year were dead. Perhaps the relatively small populations which were pre— sent initially were destroyed by stream blockage. Table 82 illustrates the number of white suckers 83 84 (sizes combined) and longnose suckers handled at Lake Superior weir stations. Some streams were excluded which had weirs in operation two or less years or which never yielded over 500 fish of either species. Table 83 reports redhorse suckers handled each year at Lake Superior weirs. Streams in which redhorse were not recorded for more than three years were omitted. The only weir records obtained from Lake Huron were for the Oqueoc River. In the years l965, l966, and 1974 the numbers of fish handled at this weir were: large white suckers l,258, l,624, and 3,746; small white suckers 57, 23, and l2; longnose suckers 0, 0, and 2,788. 85 Table Bl. Numbers of fish handled yearly at Lake Michigan lamprey assessment weirs. Large White Suckers (3 12"[30.5cm]) ( ) Small White Suckers (< 12"[30.5cm]) * Longnose Suckers m C 'S m u g C’ 4.) 01-- .CQ) :3 4.) O U .32 (11> O S. 0 rd 0 'r-‘I- (D OS- JS- (DS- S— S—S- ..¥.¥ LLCfi 035- 5- >01 00) P0) 30., €00 060) L0 16 41> CU> r—> O> 44> r—OJ 05E 3> CJ S—‘c- l—‘°l"' °r- 'l'" S—‘I- ‘6'!" 0r- $- 'f" M -l-"r" >- me: mo: 20: 00: QC! EU CO‘U me: 1954 441 793 (0) (0) *248. *613. 1955 322 81 (80) (2) *0 *03 1956 2350 35 (754) (18) *1 *n 1957 2065 159 1553 19 (161) (35) (577) (36) *3 *32 *3 *n 1958 335 281 297 830 293 49 1307 514 (288) (13) (100) (793) (165) (268) (709) (36) *l *2905 *6 *1309 *170_ *0 *0 *n 1959 2079 205 385 2004 1492 1361 2795 2170 (388) (19) (116) (245) (34) (248)(2538) (89) *1 *515 *1 *461 *27 *3_ *3 *8. 1960 2343 2331 (1273) (145) *0 *0 1961 2139 (130) *25 1962 624 (119) *3 1963 1174 (128) *8 1964 3653 (298) .*2 1965 652 (170) .111 1966 1259 (107) .*1 Table Bl (Cont'd) 86 .C .2 .c N '+- m PS- 35— 019- ‘OS— 0&- U'DS— $- $- S— :0) (00) PG) "—0) 00) - Q) '00) Add.) f0 O> 23> °I-> Q.> U> >3> $-> S-> OJ 05°:- C'°r- .C'I- It! :- IU'r- m-:— 0'!" (Un- >- 00: COCK 30: are: I—a: on: LL05 one: 1954 19 121 402 439 273 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) *1 *0 *29 *7 *12 1955 23 51 79 39 357 66 (41) (227) (112) (140) (52) (329) *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *35 1956 28 57 633 26 275 229 406 (217) (143) (289) (227) (123) (88) (1149) *0 *0 *0 *0, *0 *26 *7 1957 50 318 197 83 207 42 264 (195) (176) (163) (68) (75) (135) (472) *0 *0 *5 *5 *3 *4 *4 1958 2115 21 2832 489 145 169 169 520 (3454) (1214) (150) (502) (85) (98) (761) (1955) *0 *1 *1 *0 *0 *0 *0 *14 1959 5756 35 3549 473 231 1781 326 322 (593) (403) (335) (471) (168) (562) (655) (561) '*4 *2 *1 *0 *0 *0 *0 *1 1960 37 1083 296 179 494 231 480 (293) (276) (312) (111) (102) (417) (7045) *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *2 *1 1961 96 (778) *25 1962 150 (1712) *6 1963 253 (1081) *22 1964 168 (820) *13 1965 526 (577) *8 1966 ‘604 (1474) *216 Table B1 (Cont'd) 87 + Most of these fish were dead and may have been forced into the trap by other migrating species (Moore, personal communication). G) (D m (D x O E 'U S: ’f- G) 3 U ‘f— $- S-S- OS- 44.: PS- COL '0-5— (5.3-! «3.32 $- ldd) +40) #0.) PO) mo) Ed) 3.0.) .00 M 'U> l—‘> (CG) +-’> C> ¢U> £0) .DO.) 0) (D'r- car- 0&- w—r- GJ'I- D'F' Q-S- 'r-S- >- 00: 3C! coo .101 CLOC mo: LL10 IL) 1954 T955 130 924 14427 46 U (699) (8) (12) (0) (0) *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 1956 Z133 2963 6965 23 T (807) (18) (122) (0) (0) *1226 *0 *0 *0 *0 T957 56 89 134 3083' 60595+ 1D 45 (233) (319) (25) (55) (99) (0) (9) *2 *0 *1 *0 *0 *0 *0 1958 7127 143 970 4795 ’11263 2910' 79 0 (841) (1123) (113)(176) (298)(847) (0) (64) *8 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *3 1959 395 12 164(4681 6748 883 137 563 (667) (530) (294(475) (619) (122) (4) (17) *17 *0 *0 *0 *o *o *0 *o 1960 806 162 ~68? 1430 39727 985 53 (773) (7668) (727) (63) (468) (114) (132) *32 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 1961 519 (385) *59 1962 355 (410) *6 1963 433 (698) *18 1964 102/ (563) *400 1965 300 (376) *71 1966 499 (523) Table Bl (Cont'd) 88 .x m m com >: F- c m :3- ‘U .l— a) 0r- 44 0P4.) CD 0) Z G) 3 C 44 L m c F- r‘ 0 arm >gz a3. ch as. L oz. 3 L >13 r-m 0:» 01m mt» +44) L)w we: m *= r“ =? *2 5: 2: 5: z; :3 5L3 :fi: 1:8; 15¢: sza: uJa: .Ja: nu: 1954 1955 93 17 116 233 (0) (107) (73) (10) *0 *0 *1 *16 1956 T62 54 19 115 39 (3) (13) (34) (16) (6) *0 *0 *4 *0 *0 1957 18 27’ 71 240 111 (285) (31) (15) (88) (18) *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 1958 161 76 1035 10 80 99 (56) (104) (36) (3) (102) (110) *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 1959 329 151 277 89 97 22 (l) .(3) (52) (20) (94) (104) *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 1960 53 97 52 (38) (46) (30) *0 *0 *0 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 926 12858 (153) (1949) *0 *28 1966 89 Numbers of fish handled yearly at Lake Superior lamprey assessment weirs. White Suckers (all sizes) *_ Table 82. Longnose Suckers (all sizes) ‘3’ if *‘n —o 8 (U r- QJQJ OJ S— m C x; -.-.x >3L r—P P (DS- S-S- (Ox 5- U10) '00) m0) 445-- S- x0) 00) :0) f0 'l"> C0) 44> +30 CCU U> 53> S-OJ a: I'Uw- (DS— cu-r- n-CD Rm :3:- °I-r- :35- >- 30: ELL) can: _I:E l—I mo: 20: LLQ 1953 16 734 307 645 45 186 *1334 *2658 *229 *23 *24 *280 1954 1715 9 502 1375 468 176 177 *6 *414 *1562 *1860 *36 *265 *129 1955 635 59 294 831 1247 156 163 *12 *268 *1602 *527 *86 *790 *875 1956 2473 1591 476 3705 1258 135 1112 *3 *762 *2387 *2128 *179 *419 *103 1957 736 19 346 1793 2245 291 343 424 *2 *136 *4736 *3641 *2076 *217 *581 *64 1958 1578 20 328 1840 2336 1474 79 157 *1 *11 *2366 *2169 *2641 *276 *7 *11 1959 1446 64 268 263 2341 2302 942 142 *1 *332 *3420 *1521 *2366 *222 *486 *15 1960 3928 52 1271 258 718 2776 592 564 40 *839 *3288 *374 *934 *548 *517 *42 1961 2694 24 2163 275 1620 1486 1716 115 *34 *1372 *3260 *724 *1880 *530 *394 *7 1962 5773 27 2380 101 1686 131 853 430 *0 *115 *7053 *624 *270 *618 *949 *0 1963 1201 21 1381 1782 364 501 241 ' *4391 *603 *756 *1353 1964 4055 1974 2134 661 1031 152 *4910 *86 *832 *2685 1965 1090 1688 853 484 392 *8157 *87 *90 *1354 1966 344 789 1733 979 511 *1368 *586 *398 *1105 1967 650 2274 1017* 2663 626 *1234 *1824 *287 *2615 1968 644 1928 2796 2669 701 *4367 *995 *189 1969 838 1726 2780 1389 884 *5186 *3253 *448 1970 ' 610 1053 2600 1524 1503 *2017 *5256 *96 1971 520 593 3050 *2917 *1777 *233 g_ 1972 325 1360 3175 *3222 *4543 *113 1973 161 7332 1781 *944 *3700 *241 1974 358 3118 2191 *1208 *5072 *70 Table 82 (Cont'd) 90 Q; U .c .,.. C Chm >5 r-- ... :3... rd s. (U "-9- r- 3 (U L3- 3. £0) CL S- 0.52 (5&- S— S- F—CD .5201 03-1-3 00) 0.0) PO) 0) CG) ("3 > U> :3"- O> S-> LG) 01> O> OJ 3"" O'r- (6.: .C°r- ro-r- (U S. 'r— °r- S-‘r- >- (CK 0101 .43 QC! 00: IL) (1305 Hm 1953 (T27 62 *9 *62 1954 128 265 3126 77 160 248 175 *4 *1333 *26023 *58 *98 *778 *2875 1955 166 80 152 694' 592 164 352 311 *1 *0 *446 *4034 *3136 *26 *734 1956 62 80 489 2080 91 611 252 *3 *1 *4695 *5389 *901 *48 *857 *4272 1957 559 10 146 1934 184 142 403 193 *66 *0 *3517 *4943 *1457 *817 *4356 1958 102 15 591 3076 65 166 216 164 *83 *0 *3456 *3812 *586 *31 *371 *2166 1959 246 712 452 3165 157 151 914 302 *175 *0 *834 *5611 *202 *111 *1017 *1060 1960 176 30 262 1845 260 79 354 183 *7 *0 *1710 *2712 *215 *23 626 *6403 1961 52 144 264 1402 70 634 *0 *115 *3663 *6984 *9 *5647 1962 66 44 254 2506 142 1135 *0 *0 *2478 *6470 *34 *5237 1963 94 46 1573 238 379 *9069 *551 1964 107 3077 1142 *8010 *49 1965 1542 501 *3707 *9782 1966 2911 1185 *9016 *8499 1967 2299 383 *8146 *8253 1968 1516 139 *4594 *7402 1969 2087 625 *2195 *421 1970 2205 - 315 *1246 *4450. 1971 2906 548 *495 *4761 1972 1755 ' 351 *401 *749 1973 656 64 *1476 *397 1974 1825 534 *1936 *2810 Table B2 (Cont'd) 91 62 o C G) a: o m 44 C Q) S— Q’ 5- mo 044 s. ch. c:L a2L an oiL Fur S- E: 00) CC) ’I-GJ >0) S—QJ >0) 444-, ('5 F0 C) S-> >> r.) :> f5> 44rd Q) (US- r-°l- :1- 0!" "-1- 44"" L-r- "‘5- >' UH— O—CK IO: OCCZ WC}: (no: 1"“ .40 1953 1954 327 151 285 224 6420 40 139 948 *1861 *609 *3098 *497 *143 *17 *754 *268 1955 69 163 546 346 3349 144 134 893 *1067 *2275 *993 *136 *37 *815 *862 1956 111 479 697 281 4981 35 141 3387 *576 *3400 *5669 *682 *77 *0 *306 *1999 1957 194 1185 118 3172 86 532 687 *1126 *8269 *658 *135 *8 *185 *630 1958 199 3272 119 5770 232 115 82 *1008'q0164 *2 *150 *918 *232 *0 1959 83 141 3915 154 4778 3484 285 196 *0 *418 *9276 *78 *43 *2101 *119 *594 1960 73 197 71803 398 3748 1232 *1908 *226 *5992 *924 *71 *605 1961 37 220 1958 175 3028 3700 *502. *572 *5864 *344 *74 *4343 1962 179 260 1645 167 5240 3126 *1548 *422 *2837 *147 *264 *3322 1963 327 12202 470 5126 5089 *1119 *4190 *358 7*61 *4519 1964 2105 3724 6902 *2158 *3460 *250 *3605 1965 1405 1689 440 *6453 '*66 *117 1966 982 2304 7698 *6193 *131 *2765 1967 2428 3172 6845 *8198 ”*14 *3506 1968 2332 3086 5468 *4320 *17 *2747 1969 1502 2854 816 *4332 *25 *2031 1970 469 2579 2387 *2454 *36 *3600 1971 1186 *36 1972 412 *13 1973 450 *3 1974 554 Tab1e B2 (Cont'd) 92 .— 23 >, (I) Q) L (1) +3 L >5 +-> m (D LL mL PL L QJL .2 .DL GJL L (DC) 0(1) C0) (1) +30) £0) CCU I—OJ ('6 03> L> -r-> 'U> ‘I-> m0) fU> 3> Q) '0- W“ -r- -r- r—'I— m‘r- .C‘r- :- L L 'r- L l— >- ED: LLD: LLCZ COD: 3C! LLU 00: COO! 1953 1954 642 236 *1525 *534 1955 82 1273 204 20143 2950 *6 *1944 *115 *6666 *1416 1956 206 1439 1410 3638 1729 4658 *6 *3624 *69 *867 *298 *2 1957 402 . 2028 344 1356 1532 2873 406 *8 *3873 *0 *1143 *19 *11 *2499 1958 180 3737 499 4549 681 9179 1149 1953 *13 *2826 *69 *3381 *55 *42 *8700 *8696 1959 203 4776 255 162 5872 252 1767 *6 *6733 *196 *15 *43 *519 *15171 1960 116 3567 1976 42 2124 *2 *3432 *180 *3766 *11186 1961 64 3202 T74 1306 *0 *5682 *1663 *10613 1962 121 3628 37 1088 *12 *4939 *1510 *7331 1963 71 4873 273 486' *12 *11330 *1773 *3036 1964 190 2008 1960 *3560 *975 1965 16 1273 2029 *1 *5304 *3067 1966 176 1876 “5137 *35 *7447 *7977 1967 325 1425 2595 *9 *8697 *3052 1968 267 3476 3838* *19 *6238 *11981 1969 459 1540 2567 *12 *2860 *2326 1970 420 1529 2764 *11 *4378 *8644 -1971 3922 *3212 1972 2340 *429 1973 1410 *755 1974 807 *536 93 Tab1e 82 (Cont'd) c ~r- S_ (D O '1') ML FL US- US- L r-(IJ '00) "-0) (00) rd D..> 13> C> E> m o"— .,.... Er- (vu— >- 0.x Zn: <13: 20: T953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1857 1988 461 *265 *516 *819 1958 887 1626 126 1071 *546 *210 *279 *3460 1959 1823 2509 220 87 *617 *790 *473 *19 1960 576 2161 98 64 *168 *567 *709 *17 1961 382 1120 116 *768 *1613 *1137 1962 769 768 207 *151 *546 *491 1963 423 829 249 *72 *255 _3 1964 1333 235 *782 1965 5410 250 *1490 *147 1966 796 526 _ *83 *106 1967 948 433 *156 *99 1968 737 365 *448 *108 1969 166 65 *78 *617 1970 1467 91 *198 *102 1971 242 *33 1972 131 *128 1973 145 *177 1974 3622 *51 Table 83. 94 Lake Superior lamprey assessment weirs. Numbers of redhorse suckers handled year1y at Streams reporting redhorse suckers 1ess than 4 years omitted. c: '75 0 OJ C OJ 4) L OJ 0 DS— UIL (US- OJL FL US- $- OJL $- LOJ OJOJ r—OJ r—OJ 'UOJ °l-OJ OJ “OJ (U 3) L> D.) :> 'U> C) 'U> 'l-> OJ 44'1- °r--I- 0':— LF "-1- EF (0'!— .Cl— >' MD: LLM 0.0!. C005 20: (CI mo: 30: 1953 1954 9 34 1955 64 1956 46 7 1853 317 1957 “— 68 15 5 262 26 250 405 878 1958 97 30 116 5 5 82 571 1959 1183 24 1 41 1O 7 31 150 1960 2642 23 3 13 4 12 62 1961 1213 5 2 4 10 2 1962 689 5 5 6 3 6 1963 1091 56 2 12 1964 '2052 3 3 1965 468 10 10 1966 1680 7 1 1967 1034 2 1968 0 1969 ' 0 1970 108 1971 1972 1973 APPENDIX C CATCHES 0F WHITE AND LONGNOSE SUCKERS AT INDEX STATIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES This data was provided by Mercer Patriarche, Institute for Fisheries Research, Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan. Included in the tables are catch per unit effort (CPE) data for longnose and white suckers from Lakes Erie, St. Clair, Huron and Michigan, and station locations and dates when available. Effort for trap nets is defined as l lift. Effort for gill nets is measured by 304.8 m of 63.5 - 152.4 mm graded mesh. Catch data which appears in parenthesis represents actual numbers of fish caught rather than catch per unit effort. Lake Michigan stations followed by the initials GT8 indicate locations along Grand Traverse Bay. (EGTB and WGTB refer to the East and West areas respectively). 95 96 Table C1. Index station catches of white sucker from Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, 1970-1974. LAKE ERIE Station Date Gear QB; Effort All 1970 Gill 0 All ll/7l Gill 1.25 5.4 All 8/72 Trap (2) 36 All 11/72 Gill 3.13 3.2 Swan Creek Sp.73 Gill 2.19 6.4 Monroe Sp.73 Gill 3.39 19.2 All Fa.73 Gill 1.00 16.0 Balles Harbor 1974 Gill 5.20 15.0 Balles Harbor 5/74 Trap 10.50 8 Balles Harbor Su.74 Trap 1.00 22 LAKE ST. CLAIR Unspecified 1970 0 All 11/71 Gill (4) 2.4 Unspecified 9/71 Trap 1.92 12 Unspecified 5-6/72 6' Trap (6) 23 Unspecified 5-6/72 10' Trap 0 22 Unspecified 8/72 GT1] (7) .90 Unspecified 5—6/73 Gill (7) 8.0 Unspecified 5-6/73 6' Trap .27 51 Unspecifiec 5-6I73 10' Trap (1) 21 Unspecified 10/73 Gill 1.41 7.8 Unspecified 5-6/74 6' Trap .38 66 Unspecified 5-6/74 10' Trap 0 19 Anchor Bay 5-6/74 Gill 10.50 2 0 Middle Channel 5—6/74 Gill 3.50 2.0 Grosse Pointe 5—6/74 Gill 4.00 2.0 Unspecified 10/74 6' Trap (1 70 Tab1e CZ. 97 suckers from Saginaw Bay, 1970-l974. Station Unspecified Sand Point Fish Point Pinconning Tawas Bay North Island 2299 5/71 8/71 8/71 10/71 8/73 10/73 8/74 10/74 1970 10/72 1970 10/72 1970 10/72 1970 10/72 1970 10/72 CPE 11.50 .75 18.12 (6) 14.29 (1) (5) 17.50 36.56 11.67 4.38 61.67 27.50 (5) 6.88 9.25 18.44 Longnose 7.29 000000 (1) OOOOOOO (1) Index station catches of white and longnose 4. 14. 17. 8. 43. 22. 27. u N to N 0.) N (.40 C C 9 O O N 0.) o o 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 .4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 0 Effort 8 .2 98 Table C3. Gillnet catches of white and longnose suckers from Lake Huron, 1971—1974. CPE Station Date White Longnose Effort Port Huron 1971 0 0 3.2 Lake Port 1971 0 0 3.2 5/72 0 0 1.6 6-7/72 20.31 0 9.6 9-11/72 (4) 0 4.1 Port Sanilac 1971 0 0 3.2 5/72 0 0 1.6 6—7/72 1.25 0 25.6 9-11/72 1.58 0 24.0 7-8/74 3.44 0 3.2 Port Hope 1971 0 0 1.6 5/72 7.92 0 2.4 6—7/72 10.86 0 12.8 9-11/72 9.48 0 9.6 Harbor Beach 1971 (l) 0 1.6 5/72 (5) 0 1.6 6-7/72 1.29 0 25.6 Forestville 1971 31.90 0 1.6 Port Austin 1971 4.38 O 1.6 5/72 12.50 0 3.2 6-7/72 10.47 1.09 6.4 9—11/72 22.81 0 ‘3.2 Mouth AuSable 8/72 1.85 (5) 27.5 River 9-10/74 0 0 7.2 Harrisville 6-7/72 9.56 3.19 9.1 7-8/74 3.74 3.74 9.9 9-10/74 8.33 0 3.6 Sturgeon Pt. 6-7/72 2.77 7.86 22.0 1973 1.72 2.20 39.6 7—8/74 0 0.57 29.9 AuSable Pt. 6-7/72 7.67 1.87 24.0 1973 6.13 1.37 50.4 7-8/74 15.20 0.51 19.8 Thompson Harbor 6-7/72 2.35 15.85 20.0 Rockport 6-7/72 3.10 28.30 10.0 North Pt. 4-6/74 0 2.80 10.0 (Thunder Bay) 9-10/74 1.25 13.13 8.0 Thunder Bay Mouth 6-7/72 5.59 0 5.9 9-10/74 2.81 0 3.2 Partridge Pt. 1973 0 (4) 2.0 4-6/74 4.00 4.00 2.0 99 Table 03 (Cont'd) CPE Station Date White Longnose Effort Munuscong Bay 9-11/72 8.50 0 4.0 1973 (3) 5.0 4.0 Raber Bay 9-11/72 3.83 0 6.0 1973 9.00 0 6.0 Maud Bay 9-11/72 3.17 0 6.0 1973 8.17 0 6.0 9-10/74 8.23 (3) 13.0 PotagannissingBay 9—11/72 12.00 0 2.0 Hessel Bay 9-11/72 23.50 0 2.0 9-10/74 (7) 0 2.0 Muscallonge Bay 9-11/72 3.00 0 4.0 9-10/74 (6) 0 2.0 GovernmentBay 9-11/72 (3) 0 1.0 Carp R.(Mouth) 4-6/72 58.41 12.88 13.2 Rabbits Back Pk. 1971 (4) 5.76 14.4 4-6/72 .97 3.71 34.0 1973 (1) .80 20.0 4-6/74 .33 .60 30.0 Cedarville Wreck 1971 (1) .63 14.4 Mackinaw City 1971 8.17 12.50 12.0 Cordwood Pt. 4-6/72 13.40 24.90 10.0 Cheboygan Pt. 4-6/72 10.10 42.40 10.0 Bois Blanc Is. 4-6/72 10.80 3.00 10.0 Cheboygan R. 1973 5.50 (l) 2.0 (Mouth) 9-10/74 6.50 (3) 4.0 Hammond Bay 1971 11.35 82.05 19.2 Nine Mile Pt. 1973 .75 2.20 20.0 4v6/74 .73 1.37 30.0 Tab1e C4. Station MidGreen Bay M. Green Bay Big Bay DeNoc Pt. Aux Barques Seu1 Choix Pt. Litt1e Traverse Bay Nine Mi1e Pt. North Point South Point Northport (GTB) 01d Mission (GTB) E1d Rapids (EGTB) Wi11ow Pt. (EGTB) Bowers Harbor(WGTB) Suttons Bay (WGTB) Northport Bay(GTB) Good Harbor Bay Frankfort Portage Lake Manistee 100 CPE White Longnose 0 1.92 0 0 0 0 (2) 11.31 0.73 1.61 0 3.49 0 1.04 16.41 5.06 1.87 44.58 0 0 (2) 28.40 0 5.90 5.52 20.83 60.42 1.92 24.42 0.77 98.54 3.02 7.22 0.83 0 0 0 (1) 6.50 2.33 0 0 0 1.67 6.36 4.24 4.55 14.24 28.54 0 12.12 3.33 7.88 4.55 20.00 7.08 4.85 (3) 16.82 0 0.36 0.47 (2) 1.43 0 0.28 (2) 0.98 0. 01de U'I-b (I) ON \1 96.67 (6) A U1 V w 0 ONO‘ON-DOWO Q Q I O C O O \1 N Gi11net catches of white and 1ongnose suckers from Lake Michigan, 1971-1974. NN gamma—.1 ONObNLO-D-bm-bmKOO‘w-wa-hww-fi-fi-D-‘NVOWNQ O O O O O O O O O O C . C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C d d hmwbmmabbmoommwoowwoowwooooommmmmom-nm-nmmammmoomo Tab1e C4 (Cont'd) Station Pentwater Litt1e Sab1e Pt. White Lake Muskegan Grand Haven Ho11and South Haven Benton Harbor N. of Beaver Is. W. of Beaver Is. Omena Bay (018) Yuma (EGTB) Simmons Reef Fagans Reef 101 CPE White Longnose 0 0 0 0 22.92 6.25 0 0 (5) 1.94 0 0 18.12 20.21 38.14 1.36 13.19 5.00 3.33 4.10 0 (3) 0 0 8.33 2.71 12.29 (2) (8) 0 22.08 7.36 56.94 5.97 23.94 (4) 68.18 13.94 0 0 0 0 Effort -l-—l d—J—l—Ju-J b-bwwNNwLOKD-bto-DN-d-b-h-bb-b-bb o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o O —l oooowwmmoososoombmoobooh-hhb LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES App1egate, V. C. Former bio1ogist, U. S. Fish and Wi1d1ife Service, Hammond Bay, Mich. Ba1dwin, N. S., and R. W. Saa1fe1d. 1962. Commercia1 fish production in the Great Lakes, 1867-1960. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Tech. Rept. No. 3, 166 p. 1970. Supp1ement to technica1 report No. 3. Commercia1 fish production in the Great Lakes, 1867- 1960. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. n.p. Bai1ey, M. M. 1969. Age, growth, and maturity of the 1ong- nose sucker Catostomus catostomus, of western Lake Superior. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 26: 1289-1299. Bassett, H. M. 1957. Further 1ife history studies of two species of suckers in Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Grand County, Co1orado. M.S. Thesis, 0010. St. Univ., 112 p. (From Car1ander, 1969). Beamish, R. J. MS 1970. Factors affecting the age and size of the white sucker, Catostomus commersoni, at maturity. Ph.D. Thesis, Dep. Zoo1., Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (From Scott and Crossman, 1973). . 1973. Determination of age and growth of popu1a- tions of the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) exhibiting a wide range in size at maturity. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 30: 607-616. , and H. H. Harvey. 1969. Age determination in the white sucker. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 26(3): 633-638. Brown, C. J. 0., and R. J. Graham. 1954. Observations on the 1ongnose sucker in Ye11owstone Lake. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 83: 38-46. Buettner, H. J. Area Coordinator, Nationa1 Marine Fisheries Service, U. S. Dep. of Comm., Ann Arbor, Mich. . 1968. Commercia1 fisheries of the Great Lakes, 1879-1966. Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1966. Bureau of Comm. Fish., Stat. Digest No. 60: 557- 576. 102 103 Bureau of Fisheries. 1928-1941. Fishery industries of the United States. U. S. Dep. of Commerce (data for 1926- 1939). Burrows, C. R. 1969. Our wa11eyes and the sucker game. Conservation Vo1unteer, V01. 32, No. 186, pp. 17-20. Campbe11, R. 5. MS 1935. A study of the common sucker, Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede), of Waskieu Lake. MA Thesis, Dept. Bio1., Univ. Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask., 48 p. Car1ander, K. D. 1942. An investigation of Lake of the Woods, Minnesota, with particu1ar reference to the commercia1 fisheries. Minn. Bur. Fish. Res. Invest. Rep. 42: 1-534. Typewritten. (From Car1ander, 1969). . 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery bio1ogy. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa. 752 p. Chambers, K. J. 1963. Lake of the Woods survey. Northern sector — 1963. (Pre1iminary report). Ont. Dep. Lands Forests, Map1e, Ont. 65 p. (From Scott and Crossman, 1973 . C1emens, W. A., J. R. Dymond, and N. K. Bige1ow. 1924. Food studies of Lake Nipigon fishes. Univ. Toronto Stud. 8101. Ser. 25, Pub1. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 25: 101-165. (From Scott and Crossman, 1973). C1ifford, H. F. 1972. Downstream movements of white sucker Catostomus commersoni, fry in a brown water stream of AIberta. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 29; 1091r1093. Cob1e, D. W. 1967. The white sucker popu1ation of South Bay, Lake Huron, and effects of the sea 1amprey on it. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 24(10): 2117-2136. Cross, F. B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. Univer— sity of Kanses, Lawrence, Kansas, 357 p. Dechtiar, A. 0. 1969. Two new species of monogenetic trematodes (Trematoda: Monogenea) from nasa1 cavities of catostomid fishes. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 26(4): 865-869. 1972. 'Parasites of fish from Lake of the Woods, Ontario. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 29: 275-283. Dence, W. A. 1948. Life history, eco1ogy, and habits of the dwarf sucker Catostomus commersoni utawana (Mather), at the Huntington Wi1d1ife Station. Rooseve1t Wi1d1ife Bu11. 8(4): 81-150. 104 Eddy, S., and K. D. Car1ander. 1940. The effect of environ- menta1 factors upon the growth rates of Minnesota fishes. Proc. Minn. Acad. Sci. 8: 14-19. (From Car1ander, 1969). . 1942. Growth rates studies of Minnesota fish. Minn. Dept. Conserv. Fish. Res. Invest. Rep. 28, 64 p. Mimeo. (From Car1ander, 1969). E11is, M. M., and G. C. Roe. 1917. Destruction of 109 perch eggs by suckers. Copeia 1917 (47): 69-71. Fish and Wi1d1ife Service, U. S. Dep. of Interior. 1943-1971. Fishery statistics of the United States, Stat. Digest Nos. 4, 7,11,14,16,18,19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 30, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 44, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62. Fog1e, N. E. 1961. Report of fisheries investigations during the second year of impoundment of Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota, 1959. S. 0. Dept. Game Fish Parks D—J Proj., F-1—R-9 (Jobs 12—14): 43 p. (From Car1ander, 1969). . 1961. Report of fisheries investigations during the third year of impoundment of Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota, 1960. S. 0. Dept. Game Fish Parks D-J Proj., F-1-R—10 (Jobs 9-12): 57 p. Mimeo. (From Car1ander, 1969 . 1963. Report of fisheries investigations during the fourth year of impoundment of Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota, 1961. S. D. Dinge11-Johnson Proj., F-1-R-11 (Jobs 10-12): 43 p. (From Car1ander, 1969). 1963. Report of fisheries investigations during the fourth year of impoundment of Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota, 1962. S. D. D-J Proj., F-1-R-12 (Jobs 10-12): 43 p. (The tit1e is "fourth year," but the report apparent1y refers to the fifth year of impoundment). (From Car1ander, 1969). Fredrickson, L. H., and M. J. U1mer. 1965. Caryophy11aeid Cestodes from two species of redhorse (Moxostoma). ' Iowa Acad. of Science 72: 444-461. Geen, G. H., T. G. Northcote, G. E. Hartman, and C. C. Lindsey. 1966. Life histories of two species of catostomid fishes in Sixteenmi1e Lake, British Co1umbia, with particu1ar reference to in1et spawning. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 26(11): 1761—1788. Gerking, S. D. 1953. Evidence for the concepts of home range and territory in stream fishes. Eco1ogy 34: 347- 365. 105 Greenbank, J. 1950. The 1ength-weight re1ationship of some upper Mississippi River fishes. Upp. Miss. R. Conserv. Commit. 12 p. ms. (From Car1ander, 1969). Hackney, P. A., G. R. Hooper, and J. F. Webb. 1970. Spawning behavior, age and growth, and sport fishery for the si1ver redhorse, Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque), in the F1int River, A1abama. Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. Stheast Assoc. of Game and Fish Commrs: 569-676. Ha1e, J. G. 1970. White sucker spawning and cu1ture of the young in the 1aboratory. Prog. Fish. Cu1t. 32(3): 169. Ha11, G. E., and R. M. Jenkins. 1953. Continued fisheries investigation of Tenki11er Reservoir, 0k1ahoma, during its first year of impoundment, 1953. 0k1a. Fish. Res. Lab. Rep. 33: 1—54. (From Car1ander, 1969). Harris, R. H. D. 1952. A study of the sturgeon sucker in Great S1ave Lake, 1950-51. M.S. Thesis, Univ. A1ta. 44 p. (From Car1ander, 1969). 1962. Growth and reproduction of the 1ongnose. sucker Catostomus catostomus (Forster) in Great S1ave Lake. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 19: 113—126. Hayes, M. L. 1956. Life history studies of two species of suckers in Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Grand County, Co1orado. M.S. Thesis, Co1o. A.M. C011. 126 p.- (From Car1ander, 1969). Hoffman, G. L. 1967. Parasites of North American freshwater fishes. Univ. Ca1if. Press, Los Ange1es, Ca1if. 486 p. Jackson, S. W., Jr. 1966. Summary of fishery management activities on Lakes Eucha and Spavinaw, 0k1ahoma, 1951- 1964. Proc. Stheast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 19: 315-343. Jenkins, R. E. MS 1970. Systematic studies of the catostomid fish tribe Moxostomatini. Ph.D. Thesis, Corne11 Univ., Ithaca, N. Y. 800 p. (From Scott and Crossman, 1973). Jenkins, R. M., E. M. Leonard, and G. E. Ha11. 1952. An investigation of the fisheries resources of the I11inois River and pre-impoundment study of Tenki11er Reservoir, 0k1ahoma. 0k1a. Fish. Res. Lab. Rep. 26: 136 p. Mimeo. (From Car1ander, 1969). Kathrein, J. W. 1951. Growth rate of four species of fish in a section of the Missouri River between Ho1ster Dam and Cascade, Montana. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 80: 93- 98. 106 Ke1eher, J. J. 1961. Comparison of 1argest Great S1ave Lake fish with North American records. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada MS Rep. Bio1. Sta. 557: 9 + 12 tab1es. Ke11er, M. Supervisor, Char1evoix Great Lakes Station, Mich. Dep. Nat. Res., Char1evoix, Mich. Koe1z, Wa1ter. 1926. Fishing industry of the Great Lakes. U. S. Dep. of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Doc. No. 1001: 553-617. Kuehn, J. H. 1949. Statewide average tota1 1ength in inches at each year. Minn. Fish. Res. Lab. Invest. Rep. 51 (Supp1., 2nd rev.). (From Car1ander, 1969). Law1er, G. H. 1969. Activity periods of some fishes in Hemming Lake, Canada. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 26: 3266-3267. LaVa11ee, B. Retired commercia1 fisherman. Garden, Mich. Lewis, W. M., and D. E1der. 1953. The fish popu1ation of the headwaters of a spotted bass stream in southern. I11inois. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 82: 193-202. Martin, Robert 0., and Robert S. Campbe11. 1953. The sma11 fishes of B1ack River and C1earWater Lake, Missouri. Univ. Missouri Studies 26: 45-66. (From Meyer, 1962). Metca1f, A. L. 1966. Fishes of the Kanses River System in re1ation to zoogeography of the Great P1ains. Univ. Kansas Pub1. Mus. Natur. Hist. 17(3): 23—189, 4 fig., 51 maps. Meyer, W. H. 1962. Life history of three Species of redhorse (Moxostoma) in the Des Moines River, Iowa. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91(4): 412-419. Michigan Department of Natura1 Resources. 1973. Michigan's Great Lakes trout and sa1mon fishery 1969-1972. Fisheries Management Report No. 5: 105 p. 1974. Status of se1ected fish stocks in Michigan Great Lakes waters and recommendations for commercia1 harvest. 239 pp. Montana Fish and Game Department. 1964. Age and growth studies. D-J Comp1etion Rep., F-23-R-7 (Jobs 1, II): 6 p. Mimeo. (From Car1ander, 1969). Montana Fish and Game Dept. Fisheries Division, ed. Peters, J. C. 1964. Summary of ca1cu1ated growth data on Montana fishes, 1948-61. D-J Job Comp1etion Rep., F-23-R-6 (Jobs I-II: 76 p. Mimeo. (From Car1ander, 1969). 107 Moore, H. H. Supv., Fishery Bio1ogist (Res.), Fish and Wi1d1ife Service, U. S. Dep. of Interior, Marquette, Mich. , and R. A. Braem. 1965. Distribution of fishes in U. S. streams tributary to Lake Superior. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wi1d1. Service, Bur. Comm. Fish. Specia1 Scientific Report - Fisheries No. 516: 41-43. Moy1e, J. 8., and C. R. Burrows. 1954. Manua1 of instructions for 1ake survey. Minn. Bur. Fish. Fish Res. Unit Spec. Pub1. 1: 70 p. (From Car1ander, 1969). Nationa1 Marine Fisheries Service. 1971. Great Lakes fisheries 1969. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Current Fishery Statistics No. 5474. 9 p. . 1973. Great Lakes fisheries 1971. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Current Fishery Statistics No. 6234. 11 p. 1974. Great Lakes fisheries, annua1 summary 1972. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Current Fishery Statistics No. 6571. 11 p. O1son, D. E., and W. J. Scidmore. 1963. Homing tendency of Spawning white suckers in Many Point Lake, Minnesota. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 92: 13-16. Oseid, D. M., and L. L. Smith, Jr. 1971. Surviva1 and hatching of white sucker eggs at various disso1ved oxygen 1eve1s. Prog. Fish. Cu1t. 33(3): 158-159. Parker, R. A. 1958. Some effects of thinning on a popu1ation fiSheS. Eco1ogy 39(2): 304-317. Patriarche, M. H. Bio1ogist in Charge, Great Lakes Research Unit, Mich. Dep. Nat. Res., Ann Arbor, Mich. Purkett, C. A., Jr. 1958. Growth rates of Missouri stream fishes. Missouri Dinge11—Johnson Ser. 1:46 p. (From Car1ander, 1969). - Rawson, D. S., and C. A. E1sey. 1950. Reduction in the 1ongnose sucker popu1ation of Pyramid Lake, A1berta, in an attempt to improve ang1ing. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 78: 13-31. Roach, L. S. 1948. GoIden mu11et. Ohio Conserv. Bu11. 12(2): 13. (From Car1ander, 1969). Robins, C. R., and E. C. Raney. 1956. Studies of the catostomid fishes of the genus Moxostoma, with descriptions of two new Species. Mem. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ithaca 343: 56 p. (From Scott and Crossman, 1973). 108 Ro1and, J. V., and K. B. Cumming. 1969. The effect of water qua1ity a1teration on the growth rate of white sucker. Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. Stheast Assoc. of Game and Fish Commrs., Oct. 19-22, 1969, pp. 332-352. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bu11etin 184, Fish. Res. Board Canada, Ottawa. 966 p. ' S1astenenko, E. P. 1958. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Kiev Printers, Toronto, Canada. 283 p. Smith, L. L., Jr., and N. L. Moe (compi1ers). 1944. Minnesota fish facts. Minn. Dept. Conserv. Bu11. 7: 1-31. (From Car1ander, 1969). Smith, M. W. 1952. Limno1ogy and trout ang1ing in Char1otte County Lakes, New Brunswick. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 8(6): 383-452. Spoor, W. A. 1938. Age and growth of the sucker, Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede), in Muske11unge Lake, Vi1as County, Wisconsin. Trans. Wisc. Acad. Sci. Arts and Lett. 31: 475-505. Stenton, J. E. 1951. Eastern brook trout eggs taken by 1ongnose suckers in the Bauff Nationa1 Park, Canada. Copeia 1951(2): 171-173. Stewart, N. H. 1926. Deve1opment, growth, and food habits of the white sucker, Catostomus commersonii Lesueur. Bu11. of the Bureau of Fisheries, V01. XLII: 147-184. Tack, P. 1. Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wi1d1ife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Trautman, M. B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio with i11ustrated keys. .Ohio State Univ. Press, Co1umbus, Ohio. 683 p. United States Department of Interior. 1969. Fish and wi1d- . 1ife as re1ated to water qua1ity of the Lake Huron Basin. 134 p. Wright, A. Bio1ogist, Region I Headquarters, Mich. Dep. Nat. Resources, Marquette, Mich. HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES 31293104105345