Mark–recapture surveys affect nest site fidelity but not reproductive timing of male Smallmouth Bass

• Published in: North American journal of fisheries management Vol. 44; no. 1; pp. 132 - 144
• Main Authors: Stegens, Erica, Wiegmann, Daniel D., Angeloni, Lisa M., Baylis, Jeffrey R., Laroche, Robert A. S., Newman, Steven P., Egan, Scott P., Sass, Greg G., Weinersmith, Kelly L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01-02-2024
• Subjects: behavior; ecology; fisheries management; lake and reservoir ecology; management; reproduction; survey methods
• ISSN: 0275-5947; 1548-8675
• DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10964

Objective
Fish population surveys in north‐temperate lakes are often conducted in the fall or spring when individuals are easy to capture with traditional fisheries techniques. Because some fishes are preparing to spawn or are spawning during these seasons, there is a critical need to better understand the potential influences of these surveys on decisions that are related to fish reproduction.
Methods
We tested whether spring mark–recapture surveys using fyke nets followed by electrofishing affect the reproductive behaviors of male Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu in a northern Wisconsin lake. Fyke netting, electrofishing, and whole‐lake nest snorkeling surveys were conducted during 2001–2008, and Floy‐tagged males were tracked across years to test whether capture in the fyke nets only or capture in the electrofishing survey influenced interyear nest site fidelity and reproductive timing.
Result
The mark–recapture surveys were conducted preceding the spawning of Smallmouth Bass, and returning males that were caught in the electrofishing survey nested ~50 m farther from their prior year's nest than both males that were captured only in fyke nets and males that were captured by neither method. Average interyear nest distances were ~200 m, and median interyear nest distances were ~90 m for males that were not captured in the electrofishing survey. Electrofishing and fyke netting did not influence the timing of reproduction.
Conclusion
Spring electrofishing surveys for Smallmouth Bass have the potential to displace breeding males from preferred nesting habitats. If displacement negatively influences fitness (i.e., age‐0 survivorship to maturation), spring electrofishing surveys would not be recommended for assessing Smallmouth Bass populations. However, spring population surveys often occur soon after ice off, and surveys that are conducted at these colder temperatures are typically less stressful and less likely to result in mortality. Future research should test for fitness implications of reduced nest site fidelity following electrofishing in Smallmouth Bass while considering potential fitness trade‐offs if surveys are moved later in the year.
Impact statement
Fish populations are often surveyed in the spring because many species move to the shoreline to spawn at this time. Being near the shoreline makes fish easier to catch, but we do not understand well how electrofishing surveys impact reproduction. This study helps address this gap to allow better management of Smallmouth Bass populations.