Fisheries Society Research Articles

American Fisheries Society: Annual Meeting 2017 Plenary Speakers

American Fisheries Society: Annual Meeting 2017 Plenary Speakers

Shaping AFS Advocacy Based on History and Need

We discuss the need for the American Fisheries Society (AFS) to be involved in advocacy efforts. In doing so, we summarize our history, offer examples of past endeavors, capture the challenges of representing the views of a complex membership, and explain the opportunities awaiting AFS and its members. Our conclusion is that the Society must become more active in advocacy efforts as it seeks to make best use of its members' knowledge and experience, their ability to inform others about fisheries science and management, and our collective ability to influence outcomes relevant to fish and fisheries.

Science and Advocacy in the American Fisheries Society: Seeking the Same Side of the Fence

FisheriesVolume 42, Issue 7 p. 361-365 Column: Perspective Science and Advocacy in the American Fisheries Society: Seeking the Same Side of the Fence Correction(s) for this article Correction Volume 42Issue 9Fisheries pages: 490-490 First Published online: September 12, 2017 Dudley W. Reiser, Dudley W. Reiser dreiser@r2usa.com R2 Resource Consultants Inc., 15250 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA, 98052Search for more papers by this author Dudley W. Reiser, Dudley W. Reiser dreiser@r2usa.com R2 Resource Consultants Inc., 15250 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA, 98052Search for more papers by this author First published: 06 July 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1330057Citations: 2Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume42, Issue7Special Issue: Shall We Advocate?July 2017Pages 361-365 RelatedInformation

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 146, Number 2, March 2017

FisheriesVolume 42, Issue 6 p. 341-341 Journal Highlight Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 146, Number 2, March 2017 First published: 30 May 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1323529Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume42, Issue6June 2017Pages 341-341 RelatedInformation

Comparing Efficiency of American Fisheries Society Standard Snorkeling Techniques to Environmental DNA Sampling Techniques

AbstractAnalysis of environmental DNA (eDNA) is an emerging technique used to detect aquatic species through water sampling and the extraction of biological material for amplification. Our study compared the efficacy of eDNA methodology to American Fisheries Society (AFS) standard snorkeling surveys with regard to detecting the presence of rare fish species. Knowing which method is more efficient at detecting target species will help managers to determine the best way to sample when both traditional sampling methods and eDNA sampling are available. Our study site included three Navajo Nation streams that contained Navajo Nation Genetic Subunit Bluehead Suckers Catostomus discobolus and Zuni Bluehead Suckers C. discobolus yarrowi. We first divided the entire wetted area of streams into consecutive 100‐m reaches and then systematically selected 10 reaches/stream for snorkel and eDNA surveys. Surface water samples were taken in 10‐m sections within each 100‐m reach, while fish presence was noted via snorkeling in each 10‐m section. Quantitative PCR was run on each individual water sample in quadruplicate to test for the presence or absence of the target species. With eDNA sampling techniques, we were able to positively detect both species in two out of the three streams. Snorkeling resulted in positive detection of both species in all three streams. In streams where the target species were detected with eDNA sampling, snorkeling detected fish at 11–29 sites/stream, whereas eDNA detected fish at 3–12 sites/stream. Our results suggest that AFS standard snorkeling is more effective than eDNA for detecting target fish species. To improve our eDNA procedures, the amount of water collected and tested should be increased. Additionally, filtering water on‐site may improve eDNA techniques for detecting fish. Future research should focus on standardization of eDNA sampling to provide a widely operational sampling tool.Received July 27, 2016; accepted March 8, 2017 Published online May 4, 2017

American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting 2017 Continuing Education Schedule

FisheriesVolume 42, Issue 5 p. 288-290 2017 AFS Annual Meeting American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting 2017 Continuing Education Schedule First published: 05 May 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1305209Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume42, Issue5May 2017Pages 288-290 RelatedInformation

Adding Ecosystems to Fisheries Management

FisheriesVolume 42, Issue 4 p. 184-184 Column: Policy Adding Ecosystems to Fisheries Management Thomas E. Bigford, Thomas E. Bigford Policy Director tbigford@fisheries.org Search for more papers by this author Thomas E. Bigford, Thomas E. Bigford Policy Director tbigford@fisheries.org Search for more papers by this author First published: 27 March 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1294901 Note: This column represents my personal opinions. They do not necessarily represent those of the American Fisheries Society. Comments are invited at tbigford@fisheries.org. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume42, Issue4Special Issue: Annual Meeting Preview IssueApril 2017Pages 184-184 RelatedInformation

Standard Methods for Sampling Freshwater Fishes: Opportunities for International Collaboration

With publication of Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fishes in 2009, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) recommended standard procedures for North America. To explore interest in standardizing at intercontinental scales, a symposium attended by international specialists in freshwater fish sampling was convened at the 145th Annual AFS Meeting in Portland, Oregon, in August 2015. Participants represented all continents except Australia and Antarctica and were employed by state and federal agencies, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and consulting businesses. Currently, standardization is practiced mostly in North America and Europe. Participants described how standardization has been important for management of long‐term data sets, promoting fundamental scientific understanding, and assessing efficacy of large spatial scale management strategies. Academics indicated that standardization has been useful in fisheries education because time previously used to teach how sampling methods are developed is now more devoted to diagnosis and treatment of problem fish communities. Researchers reported that standardization allowed increased sample size for method validation and calibration. Group consensus was to retain continental standards where they currently exist but to further explore international and intercontinental standardization, specifically identifying where synergies and bridges exist, and identify means to collaborate with scientists where standardization is limited but interest and need occur.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 146, Issue 1, January 2017

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 146, Issue 1, January 2017

Contact Selectivity for Four Fish Species Sampled with North American Standard Gill Nets

AbstractThe American Fisheries Society (AFS) has recommended standard gears and methods for collecting North American freshwater fish data, but selectivity of these gears, including gill nets, is poorly described for most species. We calculated contact selectivity for species commonly collected with AFS standard gill nets in lakes and reservoirs of North America, including Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas, Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus, Walleye Sander vitreus, and Yellow Perch Perca flavescens. The normal selectivity curve provided the best fit to empirical catch data for all species. Inclusion of a tangle factor improved model fit for Black Bullhead, Channel Catfish, and Walleye, indicating that tangling is an important means of capture for these species. Channel Catfish were more susceptible to tangling than the closely related Black Bullhead, likely because larger Channel Catfish are more vulnerable to tangling by spines in the smallest meshes, whereas Black Bullhead in the same meshes were wedged. Failure to include a tangle factor for Channel Catfish and Walleye would have underestimated peak length of captured fish by 80 and 40 mm, respectively. Tangling was not an important factor in Yellow Perch capture. Total selectivity curves for each species captured with the AFS standard gill net were calculated, and relative selectivity values are provided as correction factors for size‐selectivity bias. Our correction factors and modeled selectivity curves for Channel Catfish, Walleye, and Yellow Perch corroborate previous studies that modeled selectivity of the AFS standard gill net for Channel Catfish, Walleye, and Yellow Perch, but our study provided novel information on Black Bullhead. Improved selectivity information for the AFS standard gill net may help to promote further voluntary adoption of AFS standard gears and methods.Received July 15, 2016; accepted October 24, 2016 Published online January 3, 2017

147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society August 20–24, 2017

FisheriesVolume 42, Issue 1 p. 67-67 2017 AFS Annual Meeting 147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society August 20–24, 2017 Tampa Welcomes You! First published: 25 January 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1259937Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume42, Issue1January 2017Pages 67-67 RelatedInformation

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Guide for Authors

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Guide for Authors

Four Easy Ways to Support the American Fisheries Society

Four Easy Ways to Support the American Fisheries Society

American Fisheries Society Awards for 2016

FisheriesVolume 41, Issue 12 p. 785-792 2016 AFS Award American Fisheries Society Awards for 2016 First published: 06 December 2016 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2016.1245974Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume41, Issue12December 2016Pages 785-792 RelatedInformation

147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society: Final Call for Papers

FisheriesVolume 41, Issue 12 p. 767-768 2017 AFS Annual Meeting 147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society: Final Call for Papers First published: 06 December 2016 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2016.1245986Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume41, Issue12December 2016Pages 767-768 RelatedInformation

American Fisheries Society Western Division Meeting: Call for Papers

American Fisheries Society Western Division Meeting: Call for Papers

147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society: Third Call for Papers

147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society: Third Call for Papers

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 145, Number 4, July 2016

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 145, Number 4, July 2016

American Fisheries Society 147th Annual Meeting Tampa, Florida August 20–24, 2017: Second Call for Papers

American Fisheries Society 147th Annual Meeting Tampa, Florida August 20–24, 2017: Second Call for Papers

Managing the Impacts of Human Activities on Fish Habitat: The Governance, Practices, and Science. Based on a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 21 August 2008. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Volume 78. Edited by Neil Fisher, Patrice LeBlanc, C. Alwyn Rose, and Barry Sadler. Bethesda (Maryland): American Fisheries Society. $79.00 (paper). x + 264 p.; ill.; no index. ISBN: 978-1-934874-41-7. 2015.

Managing the Impacts of Human Activities on Fish Habitat: The Governance, Practices, and Science. Based on a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 21 August 2008. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Volume 78. Edited by Neil Fisher, Patrice LeBlanc, C. Alwyn Rose, and Barry Sadler. Bethesda (Maryland): American Fisheries Society. $79.00 (paper). x + 264 p.; ill.; no index. ISBN: 978-1-934874-41-7. 2015.