Electrofishing Unit Designed Specifically to Remove Large Numbers of Fish from Waterbodies
Project number
25035
Organization
UA School of Natural Resources & the Environment
Offering
ENGR498-F2024-S2025
Nonnative fishes threaten the existence of endemic fishes of the Southwest. Nonnative fishes have been extensively stocked throughout the United States. Fuller, Nico and Williams (1999) relate that over 536 nonnative fish taxa have been introduced outside their native range in U.S. waters. As of 2005, in the western United States alone, one in four fish is nonnative and 50.1% of the total length of Western streams contained nonnative fishes (Schade and Bonar 2005).
Nonnative fishes substantially impact native fishes through competition and predation. A study of North American fish extinctions during a 100-year period (1889-1989) indicates that 40 taxa, including 27 species, 13 subspecies and 3 genera were lost (Miller et al. 1989). A study of endangered species listings found nonnative fish species were implicated in 49% of listings, second only to habitat loss (Magnusson et al. 1998; Wilcove et al. 1998). Clarkson et al. (2005) suggested that nonnative fish presence is the primary factor preventing recovery of native fishes. However, introduced species also provide benefits. They comprise the majority of western U.S. sportfishes. In Arizona approximately $1 billion per year is spent angling for sportfishes. Sportfish movement among areas can affect both nonnative and native fish species (Stewart and Burrell 2013).
Clearly, targeted means to remove aggregations of nonnative fishes where they become pests are warranted. Chemical, biological and mechanical/physical means have been used to eradicate or control nonnative fishes (Meronek et al. 1996; Schill et al. 2016; Teal et al. 2024). Chemical control is effective, but controversial and nonselective within a waterbody and are not possible in specific applications (McClay 1997; Finlayson et al. 2000). Biological control is much less common. Promising methods exist such as genetic techniques and predator stocking, but approval of genetic techniques, which are often still at the experimental stage, or predator stockings, which are difficult to use to achieve specified levels of control, can also be controversial. Furthermore, biological techniques are often integrated with mechanical removal to achieve full effectiveness (Meronek et al. 1996; Schill et al. 2016; Teal et al. 2024). Mechanical control used by itself is typically much less controversial than other fish control methods and can be targeted. However, cost-effectiveness of this method has been low and success often elusive without substantial effort (e.g. Mueller 2005; Franssen et al. 2014).
Although mechanical techniques are ineffective in many situations, mechanical techniques, i.e., commercial fishing, have decimated fish populations throughout huge swaths of oceans and large lakes. We would not need to manage commercial fisheries if mechanical techniques were ineffective at removing large amounts of fishes from huge waterbodies. Therefore, the question is not whether mechanical techniques work to remove fish in large numbers – they do. The relevant question is “can the effectiveness of such techniques be maximized to control of nuisance nonnative freshwater fish populations by fisheries managers cost-effectively.”
A common mechanical means of removing nonnative freshwater fishes by fisheries managers is electrofishing. Most electrofishing efforts to remove fish have been based on use of standard fish management survey electrofishers and techniques, such as electrofishing boats or backpack electrofishers, applied across multiple passes or transects in a waterbody. Electricity has also been applied for fisheries management effectively as fish barriers (Reynolds and Dean 2020), and by electric seines (Angermeier 1991) to collect biological data from streams. With one exception, that of a gar fishing boat, (Burr 1931; Reynolds and Dean 2020), we found almost no information on designing electrofishers specifically for nuisance fish removal. An electrofisher designed specifically to remove fish from a waterbody may increase the cost-effectiveness of mechanical means for nonnative fish control, thus providing a less controversial, perhaps more selective, control method. Ideally, this method could be used by itself or in combination with other methods in integrated pest control programs.
This project will develop electrofishing equipment and methods designed specifically for nuisance fish removal. Such systems, if effective, would complement the suite of fish control options currently available, with much less controversy for its use. The objectives of our project are to collaborate with UA College of Engineering to design and develop an electrofishing system that falls outside the designs of the currently available standard survey electrofishers, maximizing the effectiveness of electricity for mechanical fish removal and 2) test the effectiveness of such a system in a waterbodie(s) containing nonnative fish.
Bibliography:
Angermeier, P. L., R. A. Smogor and S. D. Steele. 1991. An electric seine for collecting fish in streams, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:352-357.
Burr, J. G. 1931. Electricity as a means of garfish and carp control. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 61:174-182.
Clarkson, R. W., P. C. Marsh, S. E. Stefferud and J. A. Stefferud. 2005. Conflicts between native fish and nonnative sport fish management in the southwestern United States. Fisheries 30:20-27.
Finlayson, B. J., R. A. Schnick, R. L. Cailteux, L. DeMong, W. D. Horton, W. McClay, C. W. Thompson, and G. J. Tichacek. 2000. Rotenone use in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Franssen, N. R., J. E. Davis, D. W. Ryden and K. B. Gido. 2014. Fisheries 39:352-363.
Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 27. Bethesda, Maryland.
McClay, W. 2000. Rotenone use in North America (1988-1997). Fisheries 25:15-21.
Magnusson, J. J., W. M. Tonn, A. Banerjee, J. Toivonen, O. Sanchez, and M. Rask. 1998. Isolation vs. extinction in the assembly of fishes in small northern lakes. Ecology 79:2941-2956.
Meronek, T. G., P. M. Bouchard, E. R. Buckner, T. M. Burri, K. K. Demmerly, D. C. Hatleli, … D. W. Coble. 1996. A review of fish control projects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:63–74.
Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North-American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22-48.
Mueller, G. A. 2005. Predatory fish removal and native fish recovery in the Colorado River Mainstem. Fisheries 30:10-19.
Reynolds, J. B., and J. C. Dean. 2020. Development of electrofishing for fisheries management. Fisheries 45:229-237.
Schade, C. B., and S. A. Bonar. 2005. Distribution and abundance of nonnative fishes in streams of the western United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25:1386-1394.
Schill, D. J., J. A. Heindel, M. R. Campbell, K. A. Meyer and E. R. J. M. Mamer. 2016. Production of a YY male brook trout broodstock for potential eradication of undesired Brook Trout populations. North American Journal of Aquaculture 78:72-83.
Stewart, W. T., and M. Burrell. 2013. Striped bass dispersion and effects on fisheries management in Lakes Mohave and Pleasant, Colorado River Basin. American Fisheries Society Symposium 80:431-448.
Teal, C. N., D. J. Schill, J. M. Bauder, S. B. Fogelson, K. Fitzsimmons, W. T. Stewart, ... & S. A. Bonar. 2024. The effects of estradiol‐17β on the sex reversal, survival, and growth of Red Shiner and its use in the development of YY individuals. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 86:110-129.
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607-615.
Nonnative fishes substantially impact native fishes through competition and predation. A study of North American fish extinctions during a 100-year period (1889-1989) indicates that 40 taxa, including 27 species, 13 subspecies and 3 genera were lost (Miller et al. 1989). A study of endangered species listings found nonnative fish species were implicated in 49% of listings, second only to habitat loss (Magnusson et al. 1998; Wilcove et al. 1998). Clarkson et al. (2005) suggested that nonnative fish presence is the primary factor preventing recovery of native fishes. However, introduced species also provide benefits. They comprise the majority of western U.S. sportfishes. In Arizona approximately $1 billion per year is spent angling for sportfishes. Sportfish movement among areas can affect both nonnative and native fish species (Stewart and Burrell 2013).
Clearly, targeted means to remove aggregations of nonnative fishes where they become pests are warranted. Chemical, biological and mechanical/physical means have been used to eradicate or control nonnative fishes (Meronek et al. 1996; Schill et al. 2016; Teal et al. 2024). Chemical control is effective, but controversial and nonselective within a waterbody and are not possible in specific applications (McClay 1997; Finlayson et al. 2000). Biological control is much less common. Promising methods exist such as genetic techniques and predator stocking, but approval of genetic techniques, which are often still at the experimental stage, or predator stockings, which are difficult to use to achieve specified levels of control, can also be controversial. Furthermore, biological techniques are often integrated with mechanical removal to achieve full effectiveness (Meronek et al. 1996; Schill et al. 2016; Teal et al. 2024). Mechanical control used by itself is typically much less controversial than other fish control methods and can be targeted. However, cost-effectiveness of this method has been low and success often elusive without substantial effort (e.g. Mueller 2005; Franssen et al. 2014).
Although mechanical techniques are ineffective in many situations, mechanical techniques, i.e., commercial fishing, have decimated fish populations throughout huge swaths of oceans and large lakes. We would not need to manage commercial fisheries if mechanical techniques were ineffective at removing large amounts of fishes from huge waterbodies. Therefore, the question is not whether mechanical techniques work to remove fish in large numbers – they do. The relevant question is “can the effectiveness of such techniques be maximized to control of nuisance nonnative freshwater fish populations by fisheries managers cost-effectively.”
A common mechanical means of removing nonnative freshwater fishes by fisheries managers is electrofishing. Most electrofishing efforts to remove fish have been based on use of standard fish management survey electrofishers and techniques, such as electrofishing boats or backpack electrofishers, applied across multiple passes or transects in a waterbody. Electricity has also been applied for fisheries management effectively as fish barriers (Reynolds and Dean 2020), and by electric seines (Angermeier 1991) to collect biological data from streams. With one exception, that of a gar fishing boat, (Burr 1931; Reynolds and Dean 2020), we found almost no information on designing electrofishers specifically for nuisance fish removal. An electrofisher designed specifically to remove fish from a waterbody may increase the cost-effectiveness of mechanical means for nonnative fish control, thus providing a less controversial, perhaps more selective, control method. Ideally, this method could be used by itself or in combination with other methods in integrated pest control programs.
This project will develop electrofishing equipment and methods designed specifically for nuisance fish removal. Such systems, if effective, would complement the suite of fish control options currently available, with much less controversy for its use. The objectives of our project are to collaborate with UA College of Engineering to design and develop an electrofishing system that falls outside the designs of the currently available standard survey electrofishers, maximizing the effectiveness of electricity for mechanical fish removal and 2) test the effectiveness of such a system in a waterbodie(s) containing nonnative fish.
Bibliography:
Angermeier, P. L., R. A. Smogor and S. D. Steele. 1991. An electric seine for collecting fish in streams, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:352-357.
Burr, J. G. 1931. Electricity as a means of garfish and carp control. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 61:174-182.
Clarkson, R. W., P. C. Marsh, S. E. Stefferud and J. A. Stefferud. 2005. Conflicts between native fish and nonnative sport fish management in the southwestern United States. Fisheries 30:20-27.
Finlayson, B. J., R. A. Schnick, R. L. Cailteux, L. DeMong, W. D. Horton, W. McClay, C. W. Thompson, and G. J. Tichacek. 2000. Rotenone use in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Franssen, N. R., J. E. Davis, D. W. Ryden and K. B. Gido. 2014. Fisheries 39:352-363.
Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 27. Bethesda, Maryland.
McClay, W. 2000. Rotenone use in North America (1988-1997). Fisheries 25:15-21.
Magnusson, J. J., W. M. Tonn, A. Banerjee, J. Toivonen, O. Sanchez, and M. Rask. 1998. Isolation vs. extinction in the assembly of fishes in small northern lakes. Ecology 79:2941-2956.
Meronek, T. G., P. M. Bouchard, E. R. Buckner, T. M. Burri, K. K. Demmerly, D. C. Hatleli, … D. W. Coble. 1996. A review of fish control projects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:63–74.
Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North-American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22-48.
Mueller, G. A. 2005. Predatory fish removal and native fish recovery in the Colorado River Mainstem. Fisheries 30:10-19.
Reynolds, J. B., and J. C. Dean. 2020. Development of electrofishing for fisheries management. Fisheries 45:229-237.
Schade, C. B., and S. A. Bonar. 2005. Distribution and abundance of nonnative fishes in streams of the western United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25:1386-1394.
Schill, D. J., J. A. Heindel, M. R. Campbell, K. A. Meyer and E. R. J. M. Mamer. 2016. Production of a YY male brook trout broodstock for potential eradication of undesired Brook Trout populations. North American Journal of Aquaculture 78:72-83.
Stewart, W. T., and M. Burrell. 2013. Striped bass dispersion and effects on fisheries management in Lakes Mohave and Pleasant, Colorado River Basin. American Fisheries Society Symposium 80:431-448.
Teal, C. N., D. J. Schill, J. M. Bauder, S. B. Fogelson, K. Fitzsimmons, W. T. Stewart, ... & S. A. Bonar. 2024. The effects of estradiol‐17β on the sex reversal, survival, and growth of Red Shiner and its use in the development of YY individuals. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 86:110-129.
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607-615.