EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues No 421 (2020) Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst., 421 (2020) 14 References
Issue
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 421, 2020
Topical Issue on Fish Ecology
Article Number 14
Number of page(s) 5
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2020006
Published online 03 April 2020
  • Adair R, Sullivan P. 2013. Sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes 2012, Great Lake Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI USA, Available from http://www.glfc.org/pubs/slcp/annual_reports/ANNUAL_REPORT_2012.pdf (Accessed January 2020) [Google Scholar]
  • Birceanu O, Sorensen LA, Henry M, McClelland GB, Wang YS, Wilkie MP. 2014. The effects of the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) on fuel stores and ion balance in a non-target fish, the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Comp Biochem Physiol Part C Toxicol Pharmcol 160: 30–41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bjerselius R, Weiming L, Teeter JH, et al. 2000. Direct behavioral evidence that unique bile acids released by larval sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) function as a migratory pheromone. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57: 557–569. [Google Scholar]
  • Boogaard MA, Bills TD, Johnson DA. 2003. Acute toxicity of TFM and a TFM/Niclosamide mixture to selected species of fish, including lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and mudpuppies (Necturus maculosus), in laboratory and field exposures. J Great Lakes Res 29: 529–541. [Google Scholar]
  • Bracken FSA, Rooney SM, Kelly-Quinn M, King JJ, Carlsson J. 2019. Identifying spawning sites and other critical habitat in lotic systems using eDNA “snapshots”: a case study using the sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus L. Ecol Evol 9: 553–567. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Brege DC, Davis DM, Genovese JH, McAuley TC, Stephens BE, Westman WR. 2003. Factors responsible for the reduction in quantity of the lampricide, TFM, applied annually in streams tributary to the Great Lakes from 1979 to 1999. J Great Lakes Res 29: 500–509. [Google Scholar]
  • Cannon MV, Craine J, Hester J, et al. 2017. Dynamic microbial populations along the Cuyahoga River. PLoS ONE 12: e0186290. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Christie GC, Goddard CI. 2003. Sea Lamprey International Symposium (SLIS II): advances in the integrated management of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 29: 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • Clifford AM, Henry M, Bergstedt R, McDonald DG, Smits AS, Wilkie MP. 2012. Recovery of larval sea lampreys from short-term exposure to the pesticide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol: implications for sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 141: 1697–1710. [Google Scholar]
  • Dawson HA, Quintella BR, Almeida PR, Treble AJ, Jolley JC. 2015. Ecology of larval and metamorphosing lampreys. In Docker MF, ed. Lampreys: Biology, Conservation and Control, Springer, Dordrecht, 75–137. [Google Scholar]
  • Dougherty MM, Larson ER, Renshaw MA, et al. 2016. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus at low abundances. J Appl Ecol 53: 722–732. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fetterolf CM. 1980. Why a Great Lakes Fishery Commission and why a Sea Lamprey International Symposium. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37: 1588–1593. [Google Scholar]
  • Gingera TD, Steeves TB, Boguski DA, Whyard S, Li W, Docker MF. 2016. Detection and identification of lampreys in Great Lakes streams using environmental DNA. J Great Lakes Res 42: 649–659. [Google Scholar]
  • Hansen MJ, Madenjian CP, Slade WJ, Steeves TB, Almeida PR, Quintella BR. 2016. Population ecology of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) as an invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes and an imperiled species in Europe. Rev Fish Biol Fish 26: 509–535. [Google Scholar]
  • Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM. 2011. “Sight-unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA: eDNA surveillance of rare aquatic species. Conserv Lett 4: 150–157. [Google Scholar]
  • Larson GL, Christie GC, Johnson DA, Koonce JF, Mullett KM, Sullivan WP. 2003. The history of sea lamprey control in Lake Ontario and updated estimates of suppression targets. J Great Lakes Res 29: 637–654. [Google Scholar]
  • Longmire JL, Maltbie M, Baker, RJ. 1997. Use of “lysis buffer” in DNA isolation and its implication for museum collections. Spec Publ Mus Tex Tech Univ 163: 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  • Mullett K, Sullivan P. 2017. Sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes 2016, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI USA, Available from http://www.glfc.org/pubs/slcp/annual_reports/ANNUAL_REPORT_2016.pdf (accessed January 2020). [Google Scholar]
  • Potter IC, Gill HS, Renaud CB, Haoucher D. 2015. The taxonomy, phylogeny, and distribution of lampreys. In: Docker M (Ed.), Lampreys: Biology, Conservation and Control. Dordrecht: Springer, 35–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schloesser NA, Merkes CM, Rees CB, Amberg JJ, Steeves TB, Docker MF. 2018. Correlating sea lamprey density with environmental DNA detections in the lab. Manag Biol Invasions 9: 483–95. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Slade JW, Adams JV, Christie GC, et al. 2003. Techniques and methods for estimating abundance of larval and metamorphosed sea lampreys in Great Lakes tributaries, 1995 to 2001. J Great Lakes Res 29: 137–151. [Google Scholar]
  • Steeves TB, Slade JW, Fodale MF, Cuddy DW, Jones ML. 2003. Effectiveness of using backpack electrofishing gear for collecting sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) larvae in Great Lakes tributaries. J Great Lakes Res 29: 161–173. [Google Scholar]
  • Sullivan P, Mullett K. 2018. Sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes 2017, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI USA, Available from http://www.glfc.org/pubs/slcp/annual_reports/ANNUAL_REPORT_2017.pdf (accessed January 2020) [Google Scholar]
  • Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C, et al. 2015. Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol 25: 929–942. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.