Posted on

Sex-specific changes in walleye abundance, size structure and crop following execution of regulation

Game Fishing

The prevalence of walleye Sander vitreus fishing has resulted in the creation of specialised regulations which were created to shield these fisheries. In case of Sherman Reservoir, Sherman County, Nebraska, the walleye population gives a sportfishing chance and functions as broodstock for the state.

In 2009, for the principal goal of shielding female broodstock, the regulation transformed from a crop limit of four walleye with 457-mm minimum length to permitting a decreased harvest limit of two walleye in a crop time slot (381-508 millimeters) and one walleye more than 711 mm. This study analyzed existing data sets to measure the portion of spawning walleye shielded with each regulation, sex-specific differences in relative abundance and size structure during broodstock collection and angler effort, total catch, and harvest of walleye.

The brand new regulation has raised protection of female walleye by more than 90%, but reduced protection of male walleye by more than 60%. The comparative prosperity of female walleye captured per web during broodstock collection has more than doubled since the regulation was transformed, but the size construction of female walleye gathered during broodstock operations was similar.

Correspondingly, the relative wealth of male walleye has decreased since altering the regulation, but size construction remained similar. Attempt and total catch of walleye by anglers were similar before and following the regulation was enacted, but crop has grown by 130%. This regulation seems to shield female broodstock walleye, but it makes male walleye more exposed to angler harvest.

Shop for Minn Kota
Shop for Minn Kota

Walleye Sander vitreus is a well-known sport-fish that frequently requires prohibitive direction to keep fish-able populations (Isermann 2007) as anglers that target walleye have a tendency to be crop oriented (Fayram 2003). Walleye exploitation was reported to vary between 3 and 55% (Baccante and Colby 1996). In inhabitants on the southern border of walleye distribution, higher rates of exploitation have been reported and supported.

Crop of walleye was reported to reduce relative wealth, production, and biomass, despite advancements in body condition and fecundity (Colby and Baccante 1996). Supervisors fight to get a suitable equilibrium between sociological, environmental, and crop-oriented targets while striving to prevent unwanted effects, for example low abundance and size structure.

Three common techniques used to handle for high exploitation rates are carrying, daily harvest limits, and span established regulations. Walleye broodstock are accustomed to create and carry more than 1 billion walleye per annum in America (Halverson 2008). The requirement to shield these broodstock for the ongoing establishment as well as upkeep of populations has complicated the equilibrium of handling walleye angling and harvesting chances.

Traditionally, decrease in creel limitations has presented limited success in shielding walleye populations because most walleye harvest appears from anglers who reap fewer walleye than permitted in daily creel limits (Munger and Kraai 1997; Cook et al. 2001). Duration-established regulations are related to varying changes in walleye populations. For instance, minimal length limitations (MLLs) reduced walleye harvesting (Fayram et al. 2001; Sullivan 2003) and improved prosperity and size structure (Flagstone and Lott 2002), whereas a decrease in wealth and increase was reported in other waters with this regulation.

Reporting of walleye length limitation regulation case studies is needed to comprehend population-level answers and angler dynamics. Traditionally, duration-established regulations are categorized as minimum, maximum, safe slot, or harvesting time slot (Aristocrat and Jones 1999). Isermann and Parsons (2011) allude to combining these conventional span-limitation strategies for walleye, with a “one over” chance enabling anglers to harvest one fish greater when compared to a designated size.

Shop for Minn Kota
Shop for Minn Kota

Hypothetical modeling of varied life history strategies found that harvesting time slot regulations created a more advantageous compromise between harvesting and conservation goals than minimal length limitations, but case study assessments are needed to substantiate the result of walleye populations (Gwinn et al. 2013). The growth of hybrid vehicle duration regulation strategies that combine conventional kinds of spawn protection is getting more prevalent.

Sharing experiences of particular regulations, particularly case studies that evaluate sex-specific, population-level results on species that exhibit varying male and female growth rates (Henderson et al. 2003), is significant to the comprehension and use of these management tools.

Data encompassing walleye broodstock operations ran at Sherman Reservoir, Sherman County, Nebraska, offer a chance to assess several walleye people metrics from a reservoir which has a history of a MLL and a joined regulation that included a harvesting time slot along with a one through part (HSO). The data supply sex-specific answers subsequent to the execution of the regulation which can be helpful to fishery managers.

Our aims were to describe changes in 1) the sex-specific protection afforded to walleye broodstock accessible to be picked under MLL and HSO regulations; 2) mature, sex-special walleye abundance and size structure; and 3) angler effort and harvest following the execution of the HSO.

Study Website

Sherman Reservoir is situated near Loup City, Nebraska, and is an off-stream irrigation reservoir of the Middle Loup River. At conservation pool, the reservoir covers 1,151 ha, with a maximum depth of 20 m. Main species in the Sherman Reservoir fish community include walleye, crappie Pomoxis spp., white bass Morone chrysops, channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum, and common carp Cyprinus carpio.

From 1992 to 2008 walleye at Sherman Reservoir were controlled, with a 457-mm MLL as well as a four-walleye daily harvest limit. On January 1, 2009, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission altered the walleye harvest regulation to permit the day-to-day crop of two walleye between 381 and 508 millimeters and one walleye greater than 711 mm (HSO). The brand new regulation was meant to protect female walleye broodstock within the reservoir.


Female comparative abundance and size structure

Female walleye were accumulated with monofilament gill nets that quantified 1.8 m in depth, 7.6-cm net (bar measure) and were 61.0 m in length. Nets were set in March and April (2000 2014) along the dam as well as on mudflats adjacent to the dam as these areas are found to get the greatest egg deposit and capture rates of mature female walleye (Katt et al. 2010, 2011).

Gill nets were set at sundown and permitted to fish for 1-2 h, which was considered a net set, with numerous sets run during each night (CPUE = number of mature females per net set). All mature female walleye accumulated for egg propagation were measured for total length (centimeters).

Shop for Minn Kota
Shop for Minn Kota

Yearly span frequency histograms were used to figure out the portion of measured mature female walleye accumulated during broodstock procedures which were shielded by the MLL (2000 2008) and HSO (2009-2014) regulations. Mean percent of mature females shielded was reported with the associated standard error for the MLL (n = 9) and HSO (n = 6) regulations.

The mean CPUEs of mature female walleye caught under the MLL (2000 2008) as well as the HSO (2009 2014) were compared with a Mann-Whitney U test because data weren’t normally distributed. Size construction was compared using a Kolmogorov Smirnov test by pooling the spans of measured mature female walleye accumulated under the MLL (2000-2008) as well as the HSO (2009 2014) into 1-cm length bins and standardizing by the total amount tried.

Male comparative abundance and size structure

Electrofishing in March and April (2000 2014) was used to gather mature male walleye due to sex-specific tools prejudices (Koupal et al. 1997). We used a Smith-Root GPP version 5 boat electrofisher unit to attain a goal output signal of 5-8 amps of pulsed direct current. Electrofishing started about 30 minutes after sundown and was focused along the dam where the greatest densities of male walleye have been located.

Initially, male walleye were accumulated without recording attempt (2000-2006) or from just some of the dam (2000-2009) and continued until enough people were collected for propagation functions. During 2010 2014, a standardized approach was created that electro-fished 12 defined stations (whole span of the dam) each sampling nighttime and recorded complete attempt (seconds) and variety of male walleye caught per website. All male walleye were measured for total length (centimeters) in 2000-2014. Thus, male relative prosperity was evaluated with data from 2010 to 2014, and size structure investigation used data from 2000 to 2014 for comparison of MLL and HSO male walleye broodstock people.

Yearly span frequency histograms were used to figure out the portion of measured mature male walleye accumulated during broodstock procedures which were shielded by the MLL (2000 2008) and HSO (2009-2014) regulations. Mean percent of mature males shielded was reported with the associated standard error for the MLL (n = 9) and HSO (n = 6) regulations. Comparative wealth of mature male walleye (2010-2014) was compared with Kruskal Wallis (KW) evaluation. Size construction of mature male walleye during the MLL (2000 2008) and HSO (2009 2014) were pooled by regulation into 1-cm length bins, standardized, and compared using a Kolmogorov Smirnov test.

Angler effort and harvest

Creel surveys were conducted on Sherman Reservoir per annum from 1996 to 2001, in odd years from 2003 to 2007, and annually from 2009 to 2013 during April 1-September 30. A roving creel layout was used, with 10 randomly chosen days per month (four weekend days, six weekdays). A randomly chosen time period (dawn-azimuth or azimuth-sundown) was surveyed on each chosen date.

Anglers were surveyed during and following their excursions, and yearly estimates for complete angler effort (hours), angler effort seeking walleye (hours), complete angler catch of walleye (amount), and complete angler harvest of walleye (amount) were computed. The mean approximation ([ or -]SE) of each angler parameter was computed under the MLL (1996-2007) and HSO (2009-2013) regulations and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test as data weren’t normally distributed. SYSTAT version 11 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for all evaluations, with a = 0.10.

Shop for Minn Kota


The HSO regulation shielded a higher percentage (92 [ or -] 2%) of mature female walleye in comparison with the MLL (0 [ or -] 0%; Figure 1; Data S1). Mature female walleye comparative wealth has more than doubled (U = 8.50, P = 0.07) from 2.6 [ or -] 0.3 fish per net set under the MLL regulation to 5.3 [ or -] 1.1 fish per net set under the HSO regulation (Table 1). The length frequency distributions of mature female walleye didn’t differ under both harvesting regulations (D = 0.12, P =0.89; Figure 2; Data S1).

The HSO regulation shielded a lower percent (9 [ or -] 2%) of mature male walleye in comparison with the MLL (71 [ or -] 5% per annum; Figure 1; Data S2). Following the enactment of the HSO, the comparative wealth of mature male walleye stayed similar through 2012, but it’s significantly decreased in both 2013 and 2014 (KW = 71.64, P 0.0001; Table 2; Data S3). The size structure of mature male walleye has remained similar (D = 0.16, P = 0.78) under both regulations (Figure 2; Data S2).

No changes in total angler effort (U = 10.00, P = 0.11) and angler effort seeking walleye (U = 16.00, P = 0.44) were seen following the enactment of the HSO. The amount of walleye captured by anglers didn’t transform (U = 18.00, P = 0.61). On the other hand, the amount of walleye harvested by anglers rose by 130% (U = 8.00, P = 0.06) under the HSO (Table 3; Data S4).


Execution of the HSO regulation resulted in greater protection and relative prosperity of mature female walleye, but no difference in size construction. The safe span range contained at least 85% of all mature females accumulated yearly since 2009, which has resulted in gathering more female broodstock per the netting attempt from Sherman Reservoir. Moreover, increased relative prosperity of female broodstock walleye allows for the possibility of improving egg production later on.

Even though the size construction is comparable, the span variety of female walleye has become more extensive and contains more people of shorter total span. The existence of smaller mature female walleye during the HSO regulation might be a result to higher exploitation of male and immature female walleye, resulting in earlier maturation of females as was found in a Kansas reservoir (Quist et al. 2010).

The escalation in relative wealth of female walleye, together with a greater portion of spawning female walleye being shielded by the HSO than were traditionally viewed under the MLL, would imply the HSO regulation has initially been successful at protecting female walleye.

Male walleye were less shielded from crop together with the HSO compared with the MLL, which might be related to the observed decline in relative prosperity, but the size arrangement didn’t change. Although there’s a deficiency of comparative abundance data for male walleye under the MLL, the recent down trend in relative prosperity below the HSO suggests there are fewer male walleye in Sherman Reservoir. Whether this is directly linked to the HSO is unknown, but slower growth rates for male walleye (Halverson 2008) would expose them to pick for a longer time and could result in greater angler harvest.

Moreover, walleye of shorter spans and younger ages are reported as more vulnerable to angling , which would imply an increase in male harvesting may have been responsible for the increase in total walleye harvest and the decreasing man wealth found under the HSO. Exploitation of walleye was reported as similar between males and females , but these studies were conducted on more northern waters that generally have lower exploitation rates than Great Plains reservoirs (Quist et al. 2010).

Similar male size arrangement with the MLL and HSO regulations isn’t surprising as a connection between density and increase wasn’t detected in Wisconsin (Sass et al. 2004) or seen in age-4 men following the enactment of the regulation permitting crop of one walleye greater than 356 mm.

Shop for Minn Kota

A matter is the fact that male walleye wealth will not become reduced to the stage that man-made expansion of male gametes would be required to finish broodstock group procedures, as was reported in Colorado reservoirs (Satterfield and Flickinger 1995). Wealth of male walleye and following genetic consequences ought to be tracked later on to make sure sufficient amounts for broodstock operations.

Angler effort and total catch have been consistent, but crop of walleye has improved since the HSO was created despite the lower crop limitations. In Wisconsin lakes, Beard et al. (2003) predicted that a decrease in walleye harvest limitations would lead to decreased angler effort and greater catch speeds. Traditionally, crop limitations never have been as capable of shielding walleye people from exploitation.

Angler attempt, mortality related to catch and release , or exposure of particular walleye spans to angler get. A modeling attempt by Myers et al. (2014) found increased susceptibility to pick for the 381-456-millimeter lengths of walleye that were opened up to harvesting. Our data support the decrease in minimal crop span from 457 to 381 millimeters had more of an impact on angler harvest in relation to the decreased creel limit.

Span-established regulations are frequently used to limit the harvest of specific size groups of fish no matter sex. Nevertheless, genders aren’t likely to react likewise to span-established regulations when populations show sexual size dimorphism. A MLL could lead to female-established crop in populations that show female-biased sexual size dimorphism, as females show more rapid development and reach greater spans than males . The HSO regulation was made to shield female walleye broodstock, also it’s been successful in doing this, but as the population shows female-biased sexual size dimorphism males weren’t afforded the same protection.

Under the HSO, most mature males were exposed to angler harvest due to their slower growth and reduced maximum spans, which might have led to the upsurge in walleye harvesting as well as the following decline in male wealth. Sexual size dimorphism along with the inability of anglers to recognize sex can allow it to be almost impossible to structure regulations; yet, the HSO signifies an instance of a regulation that requires sexual size dimorphism into accounts to guard female broodstock and doesn’t require anglers to recognize sex. So, sex-specific impacts of this and other span-established regulations stress the relevance of sex-specific factors in fisheries management .

Regulation assessments are helpful as fisheries managers effort to keep up the equilibrium between an acceptable public for broodstock demands and angler satisfaction as was called for by Gwinn et al. (2013). This case study represents the first HSO assessment and offers insight into the sex-specific responses of a unique span-based regulation. We propose future assessments include sex- and size-specific development and angler catch and harvest advice to additional elucidate regulation impacts.

This study has followed the HSO regulation for 6 y, and additional observation will be required to ascertain whether female walleye may continue to recruit to the safe slot and male walleye can keep satisfactory wealth for broodstock operations because population replies to a regulation may require more. All in all, the HSO regulation has achieved the goal of shielding female broodstock without negatively affecting angling contribution.

Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management isn’t accountable for the content or functionality of any supplementary material. Queries ought to be directed to the corresponding author for the post.