Biology and Management of Inland Striped Bass and Hybrid Striped Bass

<em>Abstract</em>.—The striped bass <em>Morone saxatilis </em>was introduced into the lower Colorado River in the late 1950s and into Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona, in the late 1960s. The unintended immigration of striped bass into Lake Mohave, Nevada and Arizona, on the main stem, and Lake Pleasant, a tributary reservoir in central Arizona, has resulted in changing management practices. Striped bass entered Lake Mohave via downstream emigration from Lake Mead through Hoover Dam at various life stages, and the newly established population quickly became the primary sport fish in the reservoir. Predation from the striped bass population in Lake Mohave coincided with elimination of threadfin shad <em>Dorosoma petenense </em>and a rapid decline in the survival of stocked rainbow trout <em>Oncorhynchus mykiss</em>. Striped bass are also believed to be hindering ongoing efforts to reestablish the native endangered species razorback sucker <em>Xyrauchen texanus </em>and bonytail chub <em>Gila elegans</em>. Striped bass gained access to Lake Pleasant via Lake Havasu, California and Arizona, by way of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. Operation of the CAP Canal began in 1985 and the canal was fully connected to Lake Pleasant in 1992. In 1986 and 1989, striped bass population densities in the CAP Canal were estimated at 70 ± 37 fish/ha and 3 ± 1 fish/ha, respectively. Striped bass were first captured in Lake Pleasant in 1998 during a gill-netting survey. Catch per unit effort increased almost yearly from 0.13 fish/net-night in 1998 to 6.74 fish/net-night in 2005. Since their unintended introduction into both reservoirs, striped bass have established viable reproducing populations. Management efforts have emphasized promoting harvest and minimizing the impacts of striped bass on existing fisheries. These experiences provide guidance for evaluating unintended dispersion of striped bass elsewhere.

Trophic ecology of two non-native hydrozoan medusae in the upper San Francisco Estuary

Blooms of some gelatinous zooplankton are increasing worldwide, often disrupting foodwebs. Invasions of non-native jellyfish are a growing problem in many estuaries, including the San Francisco Estuary, where at least two species of Ponto-Caspian hydrozoans, Maeotias marginata Modeer, 1791 and Moerisia sp., are abundant. The present study investigated their trophic ecology, testing the following hypotheses: (1) diets over the bloom and at the diel scale are comprised of a variety of prey items; (2) hydrozoans are generalist feeders; (3) hydrozoans feed on the larvae of declining fish species; and (4) the potential for prey competition exists between the hydrozoans and two declining planktivorous fishes, striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense). Both hydrozoans ate a variety of crustaceans, most notably calanoid copepods, which were found in greater proportion in the guts than in the environment. The only fish larvae consumed were gobies. Density of Moerisia sp., was negatively correlated with gut fullness for both fishes, and diet overlap was high between shad and hydrozoans, but low for bass. Because of strong spatial and temporal overlap between hydrozoans and shad, competition for zooplankton may be occurring. These hydrozoans have invaded other systems, and should be monitored to assess potential ecological interactions in these locations.

Predicting the invasion success of an introduced omnivore in a large, heterogeneous reservoir

We demonstrate that invasion success, through the introduction and establishment stages, can generally be predicted based on biological characteristics of the organisms and physical aspects of the environment; however, predicting subsequent effects during integration is more challenging, especially for omnivorous fish species in large, heterogeneous systems. When gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were incidentally introduced into Lake Powell, Utah–Arizona (2000), we predicted they would be successful invaders and would have food-web effects ranging from neutral to negative. As predicted, gizzard shad successfully established and dispersed throughout this large reservoir (300 km) within just 4 years, and their density was positively correlated with productivity. Also as predicted, gizzard shad exhibited fast growth rates, and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) predators were thus gape-limited, obtaining little gizzard shad forage. Contrary to our predictions, however, competition over zooplankton resources between gizzard shad and both threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and juvenile striped bass appeared limited because of spatial segregation and diet preference. In sum, gizzard shad will continue to be successful invaders, but with limited effects on the established predator–prey cycle.