Research article

How diverse is the toolbox? A review of management actions to conserve or restore coregonines

¹ U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
² Université Savoie Mont Blanc, INRAE, CARRTEL, Thonon-les-Bains, France
³ Fisheries Research Station Baden-Württemberg, Langenargen, Germany
⁴ Scottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK
⁵ Lammi Biological Station, University of Helsinki, Finland
⁶ Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm, Sweden
⁷ Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland
⁸ Aquabios GmbH, Cordast, Switzerland
⁹ University of Innsbruck, Research Department for Limnology, Mondsee, Austria
¹⁰ U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, Oswego, New York, United States

^* Corresponding author: dbunnell@usgs.gov

Received: 27 November 2023
Accepted: 7 February 2024

Abstract

Over the past centuries, coregonines have been exposed to a range of stressors that have led to extinctions, extirpations, and speciation reversals. Given that some populations remain at risk and fishery managers have begun restoring coregonines where they have been extirpated, we reviewed the primary and gray literature to describe the diversity of coregonine restoration or conservation actions that have been previously used. Although stocking of hatchery-reared fish has been commonly used for supplementing existing coregonine fisheries, we considered stocking efforts only with specifically conservation or restoration goals. Likewise, conservation-driven efforts of translocation were not widespread, except in the United Kingdom for the creation of refuge populations to supplement the distribution of declining stocks. Habitat restoration efforts have occurred more broadly and have included improving spawning habitat, connectivity, or nutrient concentrations. Although harvest regulations are commonly used to regulate coregonine fisheries, we found fewer examples of the creation of protected areas or outright closures. Finally, interactions with invasive species can be a considerable stressor, yet we found relatively few examples of invasive species control undertaken for the direct benefit of coregonines. In conclusion, our review of the literature and prior Coregonid symposia revealed relatively limited direct emphasis on coregonine conservation or restoration relative to more traditional fishery approaches (e.g., supplementation of fisheries, stock assessment) or studying life history and genetics. Ideally, by providing this broad review of conservation and restoration strategies, future management efforts will benefit from learning about a greater diversity of potential actions that could be locally applied.