Description
Other Taxonomic Groupings - Land-locked populations (the 'Sebago Salmon' , also called 'Schoodic Salmon', from large ME lakes) were frequently treated as a separate subspecies (Salmo salar sebago). However, morphological studies indicate that these populations are probably not taxonomically distinct (Scott and Crossman 1973).
Common Names - Life stages are known as alevins (fry or larvae), parr (stream-dwelling juvenile), smolt (sea-running juvenile), grilse (juveniles ~1 year at sea) (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).
Taxonomy
| Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animalia | Chordata | Osteichthyes | Salmoniformes | Salmonidae | Salmo |
Synonyms
Invasion History
Chesapeake Bay Status
| First Record | Population | Range | Introduction | Residency | Source Region | Native Region | Vectors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1874 | Failed | Contracting | Introduced | Regular Resident | North America | North America-Europe | Fisheries(Fisheries Intentional) |
History of Spread
Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon) are native to: 'coastal waters of both sides of the North Atlantic, entering rivers to spawn. On the European side, its range extends northward well within the Arctic Circle, southward to the Mino River, at the boundary between Spain and Portugal. On the American side, salmon ran up all suitable rivers, formerly from northeastern Labrador to the Housatonic emptying into Long Island Sound, perhaps the Hudson also' (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). They were native to Lake Ontario, but were extirpated there (Page and Burr 1991).
The United States Fish Commission (USFC) reared 4,210,303 anadromousSalmo salar (which the USFC called 'Penobscot Salmon') at a hatchery in ME and shipped them to 24 states in 1873-1880, including 18 well outside the native range of S. salar (CA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, VA, WV, WI). At least 3,543,416 fish from land-locked populations, (which the USFC called ''Schoodic' Salmon, or 'ssp. sebago') were shipped to 17 states, including 13 of the extralimital states listed above. Extensive unsuccessful introductions of sea-run S. salar outside their range continued to about 1900. Landlocked S. salar ('Schoodic' or 'Sebago' Salmon) are still widely stocked in deep cold lakes, but seldom successfully (Page and Burr 1991). Landlocked or anadromous Salmo salar have been stocked outside their native range in 42 U.S. states (Fuller et al. 1999) and at least 12 countries in Europe, Asia, South America, Australia, and New Zealand. Most of these stockings have been unsuccessful (Lever 1996). However, increasing use of this species in aquaculture has led to many escapes and possible establishment in British Columbia (Volpe et al. 2000) and Chile (Soto et al. 2001).
In 1873-1880, 195,000 sea-running and 102,494 land-locked S. salar were stocked in PA. In MD, the totals were 131,529 sea-run and 83,481 land-locked fish in MD, and in VA, 104,150 land-locked fish (Smiley 1884a). An additional batch of 2,300 land-locked S. salar were shipped to MD in 1894 (Bean 1896). State agencies in MD and PA planted 58,000 sea-run and 16,000 land-locked fish in 1879 (Creveling 1881; Ferguson 1880). A few returned adult fish were seen or caught in the upper Chesapeake Bay, and more in the Delaware River (Creveling 1881), but because of the low survival rate, and the absence of natural reproduction, stocking in the region was abandoned by 1906 (Smith 1907; Raasch and Altemus 1991). Summer temperatures in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, and probably also turbidity and oxygen conditions, are outside the range of tolerance of this northern coldwater fish.
James River - One thousand land-locked S. salar were stocked in the Appomatox River in 1877 (Smiley 1884a).
Potomac River- A total of 46,729 sea-run S. salar were planted in Potomac tributaries (Hunting Creek, Monocacy River, North Branch) in 1875-1880 (Smiley 1884a). In the Shenandoah River, 12,997 land-locked fish were released (Smiley 1884a).
Patuxent River - 18,900 sea-run S. salar were released in 1875 (Smiley 1884a).
Susquehanna River - 23,000 sea-run S. salar were released in Deer Creek MD, in 1875 (Smiley 1884a); and 23,000 more in PA (Trout Run, Juniata River) waters in 1880 (Creveling 1881). 43,000 land-locked S. salar were planted in lakes and streams in the Susquehanna drainage (Creveling 1881). Land-locked salmon have been planted more recently in Laurel Lake, central PA, Susquehanna drainage, in 1975 (Denoncourt et al. 1975b).
Upper Bay and Tributaries - 18,900 sea-run S. salar were planted in the Gunpowder River in 1875 (Smiley 1884a). An adult fish (19lbs) was taken at Sesputie Island, in the upper Chesapeake Bay, near Havre de Grace in 1879 (Creveling 1881). 4,000 land-locked fish were released in Principio and Perch Creeks in 1882 (Smiley 1884a).
Delaware River - During 1872-1882, 906,822 sea-run fish and 176,819 land-locked fish were stocked by the United States Fish Commission. In 1889-1891, 460,000 fry, of sea-running stock, were planted in Delaware River headwaters by state agencies. Some adults returned (1896-1906) but stocking was abandoned due to lack of reproduction (Raasch and Altemus 1991). Two fish netted in Delaware Bay in 1965 and the 1970's (Raasch and Altemus 1991) were probably strays from northern sea-running populations.
History References - Bean 1896; Creveling 1881; Denoncourt et al. 1975b; Ferguson 1880; Fuller et al. 1999; Lever 1996; Page and Burr 1991; Raasch and Altemus 1991; Smiley 1884a; Soto et al. 2001; Volpe et al. 2000
Invasion Comments
Invasion Status - Two fish netted in Delaware Bay in 1965 and and the 1970's (Raasch and Altemus 1991), were probably strays from northern populations. Murdy et al. (1997) mention the occurrence of a few valid records near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, possibly representing strays from northern native populations. Straying fish from land-locked populations in the upper Susquehanna drainage (Denoncourt et al. 1975) are also possible.
Ecology
Environmental Tolerances
| For Survival | For Reproduction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Temperature (ºC) | 0.0 | 27.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 |
| Salinity (‰) | 0.0 | 35.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Oxygen | ||||
| pH | ||||
| Salinity Range | fresh-poly |
Age and Growth
| Male | Female | |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum Adult Size (mm) | ||
| Typical Adult Size (mm) | ||
| Maximum Adult Size (mm) | ||
| Maximum Longevity (yrs) | ||
| Typical Longevity (yrs |
Reproduction
| Start | Peak | End | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reproductive Season | |||
| Typical Number of Young Per Reproductive Event |
|||
| Sexuality Mode(s) | |||
| Mode(s) of Asexual Reproduction |
|||
| Fertilization Type(s) | |||
| More than One Reproduction Event per Year |
|||
| Reproductive Startegy | |||
| Egg/Seed Form |
Impacts
Economic Impacts in Chesapeake Bay
Except for the considerable money and effort expended on its failed introduction, Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon) had no economic impact on Chesapeake Bay.
Economic Impacts Outside of Chesapeake Bay
Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon) is perhaps the most highly prized food and gamefish in the world (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). At the time of the first introduction attempts, it sold for 'seventy-five cents to a dollar a pound' in the New York market (Baird 1880), a very high price at that time. It is now a major aquaculture fish in cool North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific coastal waters. Introductions of anadromous or landlocked S. salar have taken place in 40 states, but most of these have been unsuccessful (Fuller et al. 1999). Similarly, many introductions have been attempted worldwide, but only a very few landlocked populations have become established, in Australia, New Zeland, and possibly South America (Lever 1996). However, reproduction of Salmo salar, escaped from aquaculture operations, has been reported in British Columbia (Volpe 2000) and Chile (Soto et al. 2001).
References - Baird 1880; Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Fuller et al. 1999; Lever 1996; Soto et al. 2001; Volpe 2000
Ecological Impacts on Chesapeake Native Species
Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon) is a failed introduction, which probably had few effects on Chesapeake Bay native biota.
Ecological Impacts on Other Chesapeake Non-Native Species
Salmo salar (Atlanbtic Salmon) is a failed introduction, which probably had few effects on Chesapeake Bay's exotic biota.
References
Baird, Spencer F. (1880) Part IV. A. Inquiry into the decrease of food-fishes., In: (Eds.) Report of the Commissioner, United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries for 1878. , Washington, D.C.. Pp. 45-57Bean, Tarleton H. (1893) The fishes of Pennsylvania, In: (Eds.) . , Harrisburg PA. Pp.
Bean, Tarleton H. (1896) Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes, In: (Eds.) Report of the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries for 1894. , Washington, D.C.. Pp.
Bigelow, Henry B.; Schroeder, William C. (1953) Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service 53: 1-577
Carlander, Kenneth D. (1969) Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Vol. 1., In: (Eds.) . , Ames. Pp.
Cope, Edward Drinker (1879) The Fishes of Pennsylvania, In: (Eds.) Report of the State Commisioners of Fisheries. , Harrisburg. Pp.
Creveling, John P. (1881) Report of the State Commisioners of Fisheries., In: (Eds.) . , Harrisburg, PA. Pp.
Denoncourt, Robert F.; Robbins, Timothy W.; Hesser, Robert (1975) Recent introductions and reintroductions to the Pennsylvania fish fauna of the Susquehanna River drainage above Conowingo Dam, Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 49: 57-58
Denoncourt, Robert F.; Cooper, Edwin L. (1975) A review of the literature and checklist of fishes of the Susquehanna River drainage above Conowingo Dam, Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 49: 121-125
Ferguson, T. B. (1880) Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries of Maryland, January 1880, In: (Eds.) . , Annapolis. Pp.
Fuller, Pam. L.; Nico, Leo; Williams, J. D. (1999) Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States, , Bethesda MD. Pp.
Jenkins, Robert E.; Burkhead, Noel M. (1993) Freshwater fishes of Virginia., , Bethesda, MD. Pp.
Lee, David S.; Platania, S. P.; Gilbert, Carter R.; Franz, Richard; Norden, Arnold (1981) A revised list of the freshwater fishes of Maryland and Delaware, Proceedings of the Southeastern Fishes Council 3: 1-9
Lever, Christopher (1996) Naturalized fishes of the world., , London, England. Pp.
Murdy, Edward O.; Birdsong, Ray S.; Musick, John A. (1997) Fishes of Chesapeake Bay, , Washington, D.C.. Pp. 57-289
Musick, J. A.; Wiley, Martin L. (1972) Fishes of Chesapeake Bay and the adjacent coastal plain, Special Scientific Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science 65: 175-212
Page, Lawrence M.; Burr, Brooks M. (1991) Freshwater Fishes., , Boston. Pp.
Raasch, Maynard S.; Altemus, Vaughn L., Sr. (1991) Delaware's freshwater and brackish water fishes: a popular account, , Wilmingotn, Delaware. Pp.
Scott, W. B.; Crossman, E. J. (1973) Freshwater fishes of Canada, , Ottawa. Pp.
Smiley, Charles W. (1884) A statistical review of the production and distribution to public waters of young fish, by the United States Fish Commission, from its organization, to the close of 1880., Report of the United States Commission on Fish and Fisheries for 1881 :
Soto, Doris; Fernando, Jara; Carlos, Moreno (2001) Escaped salmon in the inner seas, southern Chile: facing ecological and social conflicts, Ecological Applications 11: 1750-1762
Volpe, John P.; Taylor, Eric B.; Rimmer, David W.; Glickman, Barry. (2000) Evidence of natural reproduction of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in a coastal British Columbia river., Conservation Biology 14: 899-903