Balazik: First occurrence of Adpenser brevirostrum in the James River, Virginia 
199 
as Atlantic sturgeon and that commercial fishermen 
did not recognize the difference between the 2 sturgeon 
species. Evermann and Hildebrand (1910) and Hildeb¬ 
rand and Schroeder (1927) did not collect any short- 
nose sturgeon during their studies of the fish of the 
Chesapeake Bay drainage. Since records were begun in 
the late 1800s, shortnose sturgeon have seemed to be 
rare in the upper Chesapeake Bay and nonexistent in 
the lower Chesapeake Bay, until the capture in 2016 of 
the individual described here. 
There is debate whether the shortnose sturgeon in 
the Chesapeake Bay are a remnant of a native pop¬ 
ulation that was almost extirpated or are fish from 
the Delaware River that entered the Chesapeake Bay 
through the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (Welsh 
et al., 2002; Kynard et ah, 2009). The Chesapeake and 
Delaware Canal was completed in 1829; therefore, it 
is plausible that the shortnose sturgeon described by 
Milner in 1876 was a colonizing fish from the Delaware 
River. Welsh et al. (2002) documented shortnose stur¬ 
geon traversing the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. 
Genetic results support the hypothesis that shortnose 
sturgeon have strong, distinct genetic lineages that are 
river dependent (Grunwald et al., 2002; Wirgin et al., 
2005, 2010; King et al., 2014), and because shortnose 
sturgeon rarely leave their natal drainage (Dadswell 
et al., 1984; Kynard, 1997), one would expect strong 
genetic diversity for these fish among rivers. Therefore, 
if shortnose sturgeon captured in the upper Chesa¬ 
peake Bay are a remnant of a historical population, 
one would conclude that there would be strong genetic 
differentiation from shortnose sturgeon in the Dela¬ 
ware River. Considering the extensive sampling efforts 
by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Virginia 
Commonwealth University, and researchers working 
with commercial fishermen in all areas of the James 
River and the lack of any evidence that they have ever 
documented the occurrence of a shortnose sturgeon 
in the James River, the one fish described here is not 
likely to be a member of a remnant population in the 
James River. The shortnose sturgeon captured in the 
James River is probably a colonizing or roaming fish 
from either the Potomac River, about 120 km away, or 
from the Delaware River, 340 km away, that entered 
the area through the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 
(Fig. 2). 
Whether it was a remnant of the Chesapeake Bay 
or a colonizer from the Delaware River, Kynard et al. 
(2009) documented a female shortnose sturgeon that 
exhibited a spawning migration pattern in the Potomac 
River (Kynard, 1997; Kynard et al., 2009), and it is log¬ 
ical to conclude that shortnose sturgeon are expanding 
their range into the rivers of the lower Chesapeake Bay. 
More research is needed to monitor the status and life 
history of shortnose sturgeon that inhabit all reaches 
of the Chesapeake Bay. Specifically, the sex of short¬ 
nose sturgeon captured in the Chesapeake Bay should 
be determined, and the fish should be tagged and 
tracked electronically. The resulting telemetric data 
will provide managers with the data required to make 
informed decisions about the current status of this fish 
in the Chesapeake Bay. Genetic samples should also be 
taken from every shortnose sturgeon captured in the 
Chesapeake Bay to help answer the question of wheth¬ 
er they are Delaware fish expanding their range or fish 
from a historical remnant population. 
Acknowledgments 
I would like to thank G. Garman and S. Mclninch at 
the Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Com¬ 
monwealth University; A. Spells at the Harrison Lake 
National Fish Hatchery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 
T. King and workers at the Leetown Science Center, U.S. 
Geological Survey; and commercial fishermen G. Trice, 
C. Fredrickson, M. Balazik, and K. Place for assisting 
with research. This short contribution was greatly im¬ 
proved by 3 anonymous reviewers. The research was 
fund by NOAA section 6 grant no. NA13NMF4720037. 
This article is contribution number 73 from the Rice 
River Center, Virginia Commonwealth University 
Literature cited 
Bain, M. B. 
1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson Riv¬ 
er: common and divergent life history attributes. Envi¬ 
ron. Biol. Fish. 48:347-358. 
Balazik, M. T, G. C. Garman, M. L. Fine, C. H. Hager, and S. 
P. Mclninch. 
2010. Changes in age composition and growth character¬ 
istics of Atlantic sturgeon [Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrin- 
chus) over 400 years. Biol. Lett. 6:708-710. 
Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, 
and J. Buckley. 
1984. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose sturgeon, 
Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NOAA Tech Rep. 
NMFS14, 45 p. 
Dadswell, M. J., G. Nau, and M. J. W. Stokesbury. 
2013. First verified record for shortnose sturgeon, 
Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur, 1818, in Minas Basin, 
Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Canada. Proc. Nova Scotian 
Inst. Sci. 47:273-279. 
Evermann, B. W., and S. F. Hildebrand. 
1910. On a collection of fishes from the lower Potomac, 
the entrance of Chesapeake Bay, and from streams flow¬ 
ing into these waters. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 23:157-164. 
Gorham, S. W., and D. E. McAllister. 
1974. The shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in 
the Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada, a rare 
and possibly endangered species, 18 p. National Mu¬ 
seum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada. 
Gruchy, C. G., and B. Parker. 
1980. Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur, shortnose stur¬ 
geon. In, Atlas of North American freshwater fishes 
(D. S. Lee, C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E.Jenkins, D. 
E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer Jr., eds.), p. 38. North 
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. 
Grunwald, C., J. Stabile, J. R. Waldman, R. Gross, and 1. Wirgin. 
2002. Population genetics of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser 
