Literature Review on Lake Sturgeon Life History and Suggested
Rehabilitation Strategies in the Great Lakes Basin
Review written by Lori Kindsvatter
The Lake Sturgeon population in both Mullet and Burt Lake have been reported to be a mere
shadow of their earlier population sizes since the early 1900s, whereas the Black Lake sturgeon
have been reported to have a higher rate of reproduction. To understand the issues surrounding
the Lake Sturgeon populations, the following article is a compilation of several different research
articles and reports. The main questions voiced have been:
What may be causing the low reproductive rates of the Burt and Mullet Lake sturgeon
populations?
• Lack of natural spawning habitat
• Spawning site fidelity (natal homing) movement or inability to move freely
• Presence of dams preventing site fidelity movement or causing varying water levels that may not
be conducive to spawning.
• Are Burt and Mullet Lake sturgeon a remnant population or has the genetics of the population
been altered due to fishery implants?
Studies were done all the way back to the mid-1950s, showing that Mullett and Burt Lake had
few young sturgeon and much lower numbers of adult sturgeon compared to the original
population size. Black Lake was found to have much higher numbers, and had an availability of
age groups from young, through adult sturgeon. The study stated that sturgeon prefer spawning
in approximately 10 feet of water over stony or gravelly lake bottom near rapids or waterfalls,
however, sturgeon may also spawn occasionally in shallow water along lake shores. In the study,
residents along the eastern shore of Burt Lake reported the rolling and jumping of sturgeon along
that shore in the spring, which would indicate that this area might be the spawning ground of the
Burt Lake population. However, since the lake shore sites are probably not a preferred type of
spawning area, this may be a factor causing the apparent wide difference in numbers of sturgeon
in Black Lake as compared to Burt and Mullett lakes (Vondett and Williams, 1957-58).
In a Great Lakes Fish Communication publication in 2010, researchers also found that sturgeon
populations throughout the Great Lakes basin are remnants of their historical numbers. They go
on to suggest that the reduced numbers are due to overfishing, habitat deterioration (including
the construction and operation of dams), and that poor water quality contributed to lake sturgeon
extirpation in many Great Lakes locations and drastically reduced the size of the remaining
populations (Smith 1972). Lake sturgeon may also have suffered some level of mortality from
sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) predation (Patrick 2007). Although conditions for lake
sturgeon have improved in many ways, recovery has been slow or absent, and few efforts havebeen directed specifically towards sturgeon recovery. Lake sturgeon do not reach sexual maturity
until 14-33 years of age (Harkness and Dymond 1961), and evidence exists for spawning-site
fidelity (Auer 1999; DeHaan et al. 2006). Therefore, because lake sturgeon take a long time to
mature, recovery in population size and natural recolonization of vacant spawning sites by lake
sturgeon often may not meet the recovery time frame desired by the public, fisheries
stakeholders, and management agencies.
Fish-management agencies use stocking (placement of artificially propagated fish or naturally
developing eggs or the translocation of post-larval fish into water bodies) to accomplish a variety
of purposes. Stocked fish or fertilized eggs can be used to supplement and rehabilitate existing
marginal populations, develop new populations, or reintroduce fish to a location where they have
been extirpated. Stocking can potentially speed the recovery of lake sturgeon populations by
reducing the dependency on the slow process of natural recolonization. Hatchery-reared fish also
have been used by state natural-resource agencies to supplement naturally reproducing lake
sturgeon populations in Black Lake. Rearing facilities also have been employed to improve
survival by bringing larval fish collected from the wild into a culture facility for several months
before releasing them back into the wild. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and
Environment and Michigan State University have employed this technique on the Black River
using a streamside facility and a traditional off-site hatchery (Crossman 2008). Although
stocking and artificial rearing can be an important part of sturgeon management, it was suggested
that caution must always be exercised to avoid potential negative genetic consequences on both
reintroduced and persisting lake sturgeon populations.
The 2012 Michigan’s Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Strategy Report states that the primary goals
for lake sturgeon management are to:
(1) develop self-sustaining populations across Michigan’s jurisdictional waters of the Great
Lakes and its tributaries to a level which would allow lake sturgeon to be removed from the list
of state threatened species, and (2) maintain some populations of sufficient size to provide
fisheries that support the recreational and cultural desires of state and tribal fishers.
Although lake sturgeon are listed as threatened statewide, the status of each individual
population varies widely. As a result of this, the strategy report states the overall goal of
developing self-sustaining populations can be broken down into three subgoals, which are to:
(1) conserve and maintain populations that are currently self-sustaining, (2) rehabilitate
depressed populations so they become self-sustaining at a higher abundance, and (3) reintroduce
lake sturgeon to suitable, vacant habitat.
The strategy report continues to state that whenever possible, rehabilitation strategies to increase
sturgeon populations and move them towards self-sufficiency should be implemented. Candidate
waters for reintroduction include those where appropriate habitat exists for self-sustaining or
artificially-supported populations. Rationales for reintroductions include but are not limited to,
native species rehabilitation, gene banking, fishery creation, and establishment of populations forsocial and cultural reasons. The goals and subgoals presented above provide a long-term vision
for guiding lake sturgeon management. However, given the species’ life history attributes,
realizing these goals will take decades (Hayes and Caroffino, 2012).
The status and trajectory of all known lake sturgeon populations in Michigan were compiled for
a starting reference (Table 1)(Hayes and Caroffino, 2012). (TABLE ONE AT BOTTOM)
Major obstacles to achieving a self-sustaining sturgeon population include excess mortality rates
caused by fishing or other sources, reduced spawning habitat as a result of physical barriers, and
general degradation of habitat required by each life stage (Rochard et al. 1990). The following
discusses the effects of these and other threats to the sturgeon populations.
Lake sturgeon populations are highly sensitive to changes in rates of adult mortality (Velez-
Espino and Koops 2009; Schueller and Hayes 2010).Fishery regulation - The MDNR works cooperatively with tribes signatory to the 1836 Treaty of Washington Consent Decree regarding lake sturgeon harvest opportunities; however, the state
does not regulate tribal fishing of lake sturgeon, and individual tribes throughout the 1836 and
1842 Treaty-ceded waters set regulations for their members.
Catch and release fisheries allow anglers to target a specific species of fish, then upon landing
the fish it must be immediately released back into the water unharmed. Direct estimates of
hooking and handling mortality are unavailable for lake sturgeon. Even though sturgeon are a
hardy fish, evidence for white sturgeon suggests that hooking mortality may range between 2 and
4% (Jager et al 2002; Jager 2005).
Illegal harvest can rapidly reduce sturgeon populations, and can seriously undermine
rehabilitation efforts. Illegal harvest is of particular concern for sturgeon populations that visibly
spawn in shallow water, but it can negatively affect any population. Success has been shown
with MDNR and citizens reporting any illegal harvest activity.
Degradation of spawning and nursery habitat, as well as barriers reducing access to these habitats
are the primary causes of recruitment limitations leading to population decline (Auer 1999).
Thus, protecting currently occupied lake sturgeon habitats and providing access to previously
inaccessible habitats through enhanced fish passage is crucial to maintaining the status of healthy
sturgeon populations.
Some strategic solutions to achieve sturgeon sustainability:
Stocking - Stocking is one of the key tools of fisheries management and has a role in lake
sturgeon rehabilitation. Stocking is an appropriate management tool for increasing abundance
because of lake sturgeon’s naturally slow life cycle.
Education – Education is key to increasing interest in lake sturgeon and will promote the species,
encourage wise use of the resource, and discourage illegal harvest. Fisheries professionals and
the general public alike are fascinated by lake sturgeon because of their longevity, size,
prehistoric nature, and historical and cultural significance throughout Michigan and the Great
Lakes. As more people become aware of the species and the threats it continually faces, they will
be more likely to join the rehabilitation efforts or report those who attempt to stall them.
References
Auer, N. 1999. Lake sturgeon: a unique and imperiled species in the Great Lakes. Pages 515–536
in W. W. Taylor, and C. P. Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes fisheries policy and management: a
binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.
Auer, N.A. 1999. Population characteristics and movements of lake sturgeon in the Sturgeon
River and Lake Superior. J. Great Lakes Res. 25: 282-293.
Crossman, J. 2008. Evaluating collection, rearing, and stocking methods for lake sturgeon
(Acipenser fulvescens) restoration programs in the Great Lakes. Ph.D. dissertation, Mich. State
Univ., East Lansing, MI.DeHaan, P.W., Libants, S.T., Elliott, R.F., and Scribner, K.T. 2006. Genetic population structure
of remnant lake sturgeon populations in the upper Great Lakes basin. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 135:
1478-1492.
Hayes, D. B., and D. C. Caroffino, editors. 2012. Michigan’s lake sturgeon rehabilitation
strategy. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 62, Lansing.
Harkness, W.J.K., and Dymond, J.R. 1961. The lake sturgeon: the history of its fishery and
problems of conservation. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ont. Dep. Lands Forests, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
Jager, H., W. Van Winkle, K. Lepla, J. Chandler, and P. Bates. 2002. Factors controlling white
sturgeon recruitment in the Snake River. Pages 127–150 in W. Van Winkle, P. Anders, D. Secor,
and D. Dixon, editors. Biology, Management, and Protection of Sturgeon. American Fisheries
Society, symposium 28, Bethesda, MD.
Jager, H. 2005. Genetic and demographic implications of aquaculture in white sturgeon
(Acipenser transmontanus) conservation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
62:1733-1745.
Patrick, H.K. 2007. Host-size selection and lethality of sea lamprey on lake sturgeon. M.Sc.
thesis, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN.
Rochard, E., G. Castelnaud, and M. Lepage. 1990. Sturgeons (Pisces: Acipenseridae); threats and
prospects. Journal of Fish Biology 37(Supplement A):123-132.
Schueller, A., and D. Hayes. 2010. Sensitivity of lake sturgeon population dynamics and genetics
to demographic parameters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:521-534.
Velez-Espino, L., and M. Koops. 2009. Recovery potential assessment for lake sturgeon in
Canadian Designatable Units. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:1065-1090.
Vondett, H. J., and J. E. Williams.The sturgeon fishery of Black, Burt, and Mullett lakes,
Cheboygan County, 1957-1958 (Fisheries research report: 1616)
Welsh, A.B., Elliott, R.F., Scribner, K.T., Quinlan, H.R., Baker, E.A., Eggold, B.T., Holtgren,
J.M., Krueger, C.C., May, B. Genetic guidelines for the stocking of lake sturgeon (Acipenser
fulvescens) in the Great Lakes basin. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. M
