Balazik: First occurrence of Acipenser brevirostrum in the James River, Virginia 
197 
1 cm = 15 km 
Chesapeake and 
Delaware Canal 
39“0'0"N- 
38°0'0"N- 
37°0'0"N- 
77°0’0"W 
76°0'0"W 
75°0'0’’W 
Figure 1 
Map of the Chesapeake Bay showing, to our knowledge, all known fresh¬ 
water locations where shortnose sturgeon {Acipenser brevirostrum) were 
captured in the Chesapeake Bay. The black dot marks the location where 
the shortnose sturgeon was captured on the James River in this study. 
The 2 triangles are the capture locations on the Potomac River for the 
2 gravid female shortnose sturgeon documented by Kynard et al. (2009). 
nose sturgeon captured during the 
programs. 
Only 2 studies (Welsh et al., 
2002; Kynard et al., 2009) were fo¬ 
cused specifically on the life his¬ 
tory of shortnose sturgeon in the 
Chesapeake Bay. Welsh et al. (2002) 
telemetered 13 shortnose sturgeon, 
which were initially captured and 
tagged in the marine part of the es¬ 
tuary. Of these 13 fish, 3 shortnose 
sturgeon were later detected in the 
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal or 
in the Delaware River (Welsh et ai., 
2002). Kynard et al. (2009) focused 
their research on the life history of 
shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac 
River. After extensive sampling and 
work with commercial fishermen, 
they captured 2 shortnose sturgeon. 
Both fish were gravid females, and 
telemetric and recapture data indi¬ 
cated that one fish spawned in the 
Potomac River (Kynard et al., 2009). 
As with the genetic samples collected 
during the Chesapeake Bay reward 
program, the 2 gravid females could 
not be genetically differentiated from 
Delaware River shortnose sturgeon 
(King et al., 2014). As of this writ¬ 
ing, the only documented occurrence 
of a shortnose sturgeon has been the 
sole occurrence of this species in the 
freshwater portion of a river in the 
Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al., 2002; 
Kynard et al., 2009). 
Materials and methods 
gram, 72 shortnose sturgeon were documented during 
1996-2006; however, because of problems with obtain¬ 
ing collection permits, Maryland scientists were not 
allowed to tag 26 shortnose sturgeon collected after 
May of 2002 (Mangold et al.^). There is a chance that 
some of the 26 shortnose sturgeon were unknowing¬ 
ly recaptured during the reward program. Results of 
analysis of the genetic samples taken from shortnose 
sturgeon as part of the reward program indicated no 
distinct difference between fish from the Chesapeake 
Bay and from the Delaware River and Bay; there¬ 
fore, the 2 groups were assigned to the same popu¬ 
lation segment (Grunwald et al., 2002; Wirgin et al., 
2010; King et al., 2014). Researchers did not mention 
milt production or egg release for any of the short- 
On 13 March 2016, a gill net was set 
at river kilometer 48 of the James 
River (Fig. 1), Virginia, in an at¬ 
tempt to collect juvenile Atlantic 
sturgeon (under NOAA Endangered 
Species Permit no. 16547, VCU IACUC#AD20127). The 
gill net that captured the shortnose sturgeon was 8.3- 
cm stretch mesh and had a stretched height of 1.8 m. 
The net was set parallel to the water current and de¬ 
ployed at a depth of 3.2 m. Water quality data at the 
capture location was determined by using a calibrated 
YSI Model 85^ hydrometer (YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, 
OH). At the sampling location, the temperature was 
12°C, dissolved oxygen was 9.89 mg/L, and salinity was 
0.04. The net was set for 2 h and pulled during ebb cur¬ 
rent just before slack water. 
^ Mention of trade names or commercial companies is for iden¬ 
tification purposes only and does not imply endorsement by 
the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 
