[BlueChip]

The Sound School Inter-District Marine Education Program Newsletter
Habitat Information for Fishers and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science Through History

Connecticut Alewife Catch Surpasses 2 Million in 1950
IMEP #17
A Sound School Capstone Project
SAE Non Experimental Research Catalog
Did a Sulfide Block Disappear as Waters Turned Colder?
Did We Miss Climate Conditions for Declines of Connecticut Alewives?
Is Organic Matter Naturally Cleared from Streams by Storms and Ice?
September 2011
Revised April 2014 – Tim Visel

The strong return of the Alewife in 1948 shocked state officials --even Douglas Moss then Division Chief of Fisheries of the CT Board of Fisheries and Game. He was just amazed at the Alewife quantities being reported at Connecticut’s canneries – one million alewife to one cannery alone. After two decades of low to poor catches how could this increase be explained? Large scale fishery restoration efforts were still three decades away and follows unprecedented pollution levels attributed to the industrial war effort. The increase was so large and so quick he made special mention of it almost two decades later.

The huge increase was so noticeable that Chief Moss came to the conclusion that fishers were perhaps under reporting previous catches but in all likelihood what state officials were watching was an increase in habitat quality brought about by the end of The Great Heat. The catches of Alewife and shad declined greatly during the very hot 1880-1920 period. At the turn of the century alewife catches dropped quickly between 1903 and 1916, 250,000 to 1,000,000 lbs were caught yearly declining to almost nothing after 1937. (The CT Board of Fisheries and Game 1965 report and has section devoted to alewife1). In 1948 the catch apparently soared perplexing Chief Moss and on page 9 in the section titled the alewife fishery is his explanation.

“The Alewife Fishery”

“The alewife fishery in the Connecticut appears to come into prominence periodically. There is no indication of the reason for this cyclic behavior. It may indicate scarcity and abundance of this species, an increased demand for alewives specifically or an increased demand for cheap food. A perusal of catch records and value of catches from 1892 to 1916 does not indicate an extreme fluctuation in total yearly catch or value. That the total abundance of such a species should vary but little in the span of years seems to violate the rules of nature. Thus, it would seem that either these records derive from unreliable reports or that the fishery was under fished with only enough of its production being taken each year to supply the demand for that year. Commercial fishing for alewives on the Connecticut {River{ was discontinued about the time of the United States’ entrance into World War I. It was profitably resumed in 1948 when two canneries reported receiving from Connecticut a total of a little more than a million pounds of alewives. This is believed to be practically the entire catch from Connecticut. It seems odd that from 1903 through 1916 the reported catch of the fishermen of the river seldom dropped appreciably below three-quarters of a million pounds or rose over on and one-quarter millions pounds and that, after a lapse of thirty years when little or no alewife fishing occurred, this figure of one million pounds should be reported from accurate cannery records.” Pages 9 to 10, A History of The Connecticut River and its Fishers – CT Board of Fishery and Game 1965.

Climate Patterns and Alewife Landings – A Possible Connection to Stream Energy – A Capstone Question

When looking at fishery landings I always like to examine trends not only in Connecticut but across the northeast region. What was so shocking to Director Moss (1948 catch) was in 1944 and 1945 alewife catches in Connecticut had dropped to almost nothing, under 10,000 lbs. But I follow the trends – Rhode Island Alewife catches surged two years later in 1950 and Massachusetts in 1952. But also the opposite had happened decades before Connecticut’s alewife collapsed in first 1908, Rhode Island 1928 and Massachusetts in 1930s. Maine’s catch remained steady from 1887 to 1957 appearing fairly constant between 2 to 3 million pounds. The greatest fluctuation was by far Connecticut. Catches of 2 million pounds had not been seen since the 1.6 million pound catch in 1902. Mid- point of the 1880 – 1920 The Great Heat – the next highest catch was mid-point of the 1931 – 1971 New England Oscillation. After 1950 it became much colder and stormier – a negative NAO. If habitat quality is governed by climate extremes the catches from extremely hot (thought to be very damaging to fry) and extremely cold (thought to release a sulfide block harmful for adults) will correspond to catches. That is low catches will be observed during periods of heat and cold with habitat/climate transitions showing the best catches. For alewife in Connecticut that appears to be correct from an examination of landings, alewife seems to like habitat transitions.

Connecticut Alewife Landings (from United States Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Statistics)

1880- 1887 – Returning fish from a very cold period about 500,000 lbs/year
Transition to Heat 1896 – 1905 about 1,000,000 lbs/year
Transition from heat 1931 – 1945 about 250,000 lbs/year
Transition to cold 1947 to 1955 about 1,000,000 lbs/year

As with returning anadromous fish what was a good “fry” year 3 to 5 years later is measured by returning adults. It seems that the climate transitions are good for alewife – cooler and energy filled. I like to look 3 years before a good catch (landing statistic) for example the shocking catch in 1948 (to Director Moss) was there anything unusual about the spring of 1945 that could have helped the fry survive (the under reporting aspect promoted by Director Mass does not explain the similar surges in alewife catches regionally). Price does not seem to be a factor in 1956 fishers obtained about a penny a pound for alewife in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Connecticut was about the same. But if fish return in three years and in 1948 catches in Connecticut surged to 675,000 lbs was the spring of 1945 very different? Yes, it was, it was a classic “split year” the first part extreme cold – a pattern that produced record snows that broke in February then followed by record warmth in March and cooler and wetter for the remainder of the year. There was no Lion in the March 1945, a warm spring thought to be a strong positive NAO that kept “all the real arctic cold bottled up in Canada – this was due to a strong west – southwesterly flow across the US from the Pacific” (William Deedler Weather Historian*). This is what happens when the Icelandic low is deep and tends to draw cold air across Canada. Cooler summers would help keep oxygen levels higher in shallow ponds – helping the fry survive. Extremely hot summers can cause low oxygen fish kills – extreme cold seems to impair returning fish – ice dams/or floods. That is why we should be looking at habitat quality for the fry as well as the adults over stream barriers. We may need to look at fry habitat quality just as we look to returning adults. It may be natural to see alewife catches fall and rise in response to climate patterns such as the NAO. What Director Moss did not have in the 1960s was access to long term climate records available to us now. Several researchers are currently looking at the NAO influence over finfish and shellfish abundance for many species in New England. Other researchers are looking at the remains of Native American fisheries (middens) for population and habitat range relationships between members in the herring family2.

Without a long term perspective it is possible to miss habitat quality trends. From the Alewife landings data a surge in the 1948-1952 landings can be attributed to habitat quality – similar surges also occurred in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Although large changes in abundance are usually described from fishing effort, the sudden spike in CT landings do not follow that pattern, instead habitat quality, stream energy and temperature may have larger roles than coastal fishing and the confusion from fishery managers when fisheries suddenly “boom.” This appears to be the case with the Douglas Moss account.

It may also be possible that periods of low alewife abundance can also indicate poor habitat quality conditions. It appears that after examining Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut landings that long periods of heat and little storm activity are not the best habitats for the cooler preferring alewife. In fact a return of Connecticut’s forest canopy may have also impacted alewife stream habitat quality by creating a high heat low-energy sulfide chemical “block.” Streams filled with forest debris and residential leaves it may be natural to have lower alewife populations. Rotting leaves in high summer temperatures could set the stage for winter levels of stream sulfide to rise. Studies that focus upon the diminished landings during the extreme heat and ignore the cooler periods of abundance may not accurately reflect natural alewife cycles of abundance or for that matter correctly assess the decline.

Climate Conditions May Influence Habitat Quality -

High quality stream habitats may have chemical and temperature indicators and one of those indicators may include winter sulfide residues, the other may indicate organic levels that cause low or contribute to low summer oxygen levels. The Saprobien system commonly referred to as the Sabrobic method defined the negative impacts of such organic “pollution” to European streams (Kolkuitz and Marsson 1909) at a time of high heat and prevalent dumping of organic wastes into streams. Although the Saprobien system defined negative organic waste impacts to stream life it did not in many respects reflect changing climate patterns or natural organic loadings to “pristine” conditions. (Rolauffs et al University of Essen Germany Hydrobiogia 516-285-298-2004). One of the features of this paper is the different approaches of European countries to high energy “mountain streams” (stream energy as to the ability to self clear organic matter) or those in low energy “low land” streams (pg 288). This raises similar concerns expressed on some Cape Cod alewife runs – the short runs or long runs and the problem of stream energy (velocity or drop in elevation) in relation to clearing natural accumulations of leaves. This self cleaning aspect appears to be enhanced with ice cover, a further complicating habitat factor.

Streams may need a further classification based upon elevation and drop, in fact this has already occurred in Europe yielding different Saprobic indices based upon altitude (Rolauffs et al 2004 pg 291). Stream energy (distance and drops) tends to re oxygenate improvised streams while also providing the mechanical energy to dissipate organic loadings and minimize sulfide levels.

Therefore stream flows, stream elevation (drop) length of run to the ocean and organic loadings all should be examined for alewife restoration potential. A high energy (short run large drop) stream would be able to clear organic faster than a long run low energy stream. In fact those very situations I did experience on Cape Cod, a long run “low energy” stream was much more susceptible to organic matter blockages than short runs of the same energy. The best returns it seemed to me on the Cape were short runs and long runs – high energy streams. I did observe at any time chemical analysis of the stream water but pH and sulfide should be reviewed in addition to Saprobic conditions during stream walk (surveys). Chemical “blocks” may be directly related to organic loadings in New England streams as oak leaves often a primary leaf constituent with a pH of under 4 is suspected also to increase stream acidity – and absence of oxygen in high heat able to change aerobic reduction to sulfur anaerobic reduction and the creation of sulfides. Cold water and ice may therefore act to naturally clear streams of organic matter. The absence or presence of chemical blocks should be also be a part of the first steps in assessing the capacity for a stream to be restored for alewife.

What Happened in 1948?

In all likelihood the alewife runs in the early 1940s were cleared by years of winter ice and spring thaws flushing out built up organic matter that had accumulated for decades. Chief Moss didn’t have long time climate records available to him. The return of cold water fish was not due to decreasing pollution (pg 13) but quite simply it was just getting colder, a yet to be recorded negative NAO would return the lobster and quahog to New England but vanquish oysters and blue crabs. It would also assist in higher returns of shad and alewife – in fact returns for these cold water species improved when it got colder – part of a long term fluctuating climate cycle were are not just beginning to understand. The coldest winter in a century 1874-75 saw record Connecticut bay scallop and shad fisheries, however blue crabs and striped bass were scarce.

When it came to improving alewife runs we may have missed the forest, not for the trees but for the leaves. Leaves and temperature may be more responsible for alewife returns that only fishing effort cannot explain and one that has plagued fishery managers for over a century, the boom and the bust of so many coastal fisheries – including alewife.

Alewife catches would remain relatively high for the negative NAO period and slowly decline in the later 1970s. Most published indices for shad, river herring and alewife show the late 1940s and 1950s as high catch periods and post 1998 - a hot and relatively storm free period relatively as low. This corresponds to colder/stormier period of a negative NAO and warmer and low storm frequency now associated with a positive NAO cycle.

Many fishers have asked what happened to the alewife which now is a closed fishery in Connecticut as of 2002- and now with more information about high heat and winter sulfide formation we need to look at an old chemical block that occurred here a century ago – sulfide toxic events – referred to as a “sulfide block.” We also need to look at the impacts of decades of application of winter sand on roads.

Many alewife restoration projects have been completed in Connecticut and we may need to take look at some of them for the presence of a “sulfide block” warm or cold water containing toxic sulfides. Coastal energy and stream flow energy weigh in also and this 2011 fact sheet was first written to look at Alewife Habitat quality/quantity and highlighting some attributes that need exploration/explanation so there we may one day have “healthy” alewife returns to Connecticut.

We may learn by close examination of streams which now contain fish ladders that natural conditions (high heat, ample organic matter) reflect the diminished alewife returns or degraded habitat quality as described in a century ago by the Saprobien system designation (1909).

As we investigate weather patterns and for the east coast such as the NAO we may answer many habitat questions such as those asked in the preceding proposal description.

For more information about The Sound School Capstone proposal process contact your aquaculture or agriculture teacher.

Students interested in Life Science/Habitat Capstone projects should contact Taylor Samuels for the complete Capstone catalog.

For more information about test for sulfide blocks and residue organic matter degradation of habitat quality check a 2000 paper titled “A Simple Field Test for Acid Volatile Sulfide In Sediments “by Eric F. Anderson and David J. Wilson developed at Martin Luther King Magnet High School, Nashville, T. N.

For information about The Sound School website, publications, and / or alumni contacts, please contact Taylor Samuels at taylor.samuels@new-haven.k12.ct.us
The Sound School is a Regional High School Agriculture Science and Technology Center enrolling students from 23 participating Connecticut communities.

Program reports are available upon request. For more information about New Haven Environmental Monitoring Initiative for IMEP reports, please contact Susan Weber, The Sound School Adult Education and Outreach Program Coordinator, at susan.weber@nhboe.net