Study

Assessment of fat reserves adequacy in the first migrant silver American eels of a large‐scale stocking experiment

  • Published source details Couillard C.M., Verreault G., Dumont P., Stanley D. & Threader R.W. (2014) Assessment of fat reserves adequacy in the first migrant silver American eels of a large‐scale stocking experiment. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34, 802-813.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Translocate wild eels to re-establish or boost native populations (‘stocking’ or ‘restocking’)

Action Link
Eel Conservation in Inland Habitats
  1. Translocate wild eels to re-establish or boost native populations (‘stocking’ or ‘restocking’)

    A study in 1997–2010 in a river system and estuary in Ontario, Canada (Couillard et al. 2014) found that translocated wild American eels Anguilla rostrata were smaller in size and had smaller egg cells (oocytes) than naturally occurring eels. Translocated wild eels had lower body mass (313–752 g) and length (531–781 mm) than naturally occurring eels (1,163–3,276 g, 824–1,173 mm). Additionally, translocated wild eels had smaller oocytes (diameter 0.21–0.29 mm) than naturally occurring eels (0.22–0.35 mm). Eye size, pectoral fin size and muscle lipid content were lower in translocated eels compared to naturally occurring eels, but digestive tract mass and water content were higher (see paper for details). In 2005–2010, approximately 6.8 million glass eels purchased from commercial fisheries on the coast were tagged and translocated 900–1,100 km to either Richelieu River or St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. In 1997–2001, wild juvenile eels (319–582 mm) captured on eel ladders on two dams in the St. Lawrence River were tagged and released upstream of the dams. In SeptemberNovember 2010, translocated wild eels and naturally occurring eels were recaptured at the St. Lawrence Estuary by commercial fishers (using weirs at angles to the shoreline) during their seaward migration. Measurements from 51 translocated and 51 naturally occurring eels were compared.

    (Summarised by: Vanessa Cutts)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 22

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the Evidence Champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust