Population dynamics of muskellunge in Wisconsin waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan, 1989–2005

  • Kevin L. KapuscinskiEmail author
  • Brian J. Belonger
  • Steven Fajfer
  • Terrence J. Lychwick
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes 26 book series (DEBF, volume 26)


Muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, were an important component of the Green Bay ecosystem prior to mid 1900s, but were extirpated by over-fishing, pollution, habitat degradation, and the introduction of exotic species. The Green Bay ecosystem improved after the passage of the Clean Water Act, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) started a muskellunge reintroduction program in 1989. Monitoring the results of reintroduction efforts is necessary to achieve the program goal of establishing a self-sustaining population. We used available data to provide a 2005 spawner abundance estimate for a Green Bay tributary, estimates of contributions to that spawning stock from fall fingerling and yearling stocking, a weight–length relationship, a growth analysis, and a description of size and age at maturity. Our results indicate that stocking efforts have been successful in producing an adult population, with yearlings contributing to the spawning stock at a higher proportion than fingerlings (14.69:1). Our weight–length and growth analyses suggest that Green Bay muskellunge are unlikely to reach record length, but that it is possible for females to achieve record weight. The rapid growth of Green Bay muskellunge results in their maturing at larger sizes than other stocks, but the relationship between age and maturity is not well understood. Reintroduction efforts in Green Bay have created stocked populations capable of supporting trophy fisheries, but evidence of successful natural reproduction has not been observed. Future research should focus on the reproductive requirements of muskellunge reintroduced into altered habitats.


Growth Maturity Native species Rehabilitation Stocking 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson RO, Neumann RM (1996) Length, weight, and structural indices. In: Murphy BR, Willis DW (eds) Fisheries techniques, 2nd edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 447–482Google Scholar
  2. Becker GC (1983) Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyerle GB (1981) Comparative survival and growth of 8.9- and 17.8-cm (3.5- and 7.0-inch) tiger muskellunge planted in a small lake with forage fishes. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Fisheries Research Report No. 1894, p 7Google Scholar
  4. Casselman JM, Crossman EJ (1986) Size, age, and growth of trophy muskellunge and muskellunge-northern pike hybrids—the cleithrum project, 1979–1983. In: Hall GE (ed) Managing muskies, a treatise on the biology and propagation of muskellunge in North America. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, pp 93–110Google Scholar
  5. Casselman JM, Robinson CJ, Crossman EJ (1999) Growth and ultimate length of muskellunge from Ontario water bodies. North Am J Fish Manage 19:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farrell JM, Werner RG (1999) Distribution, abundance, and survival of age-0 muskellunge in upper St. Lawrence River nursery bays. North Am J Fish Manage 19:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greene CW (1935) The distribution of Wisconsin fishes. Wisconsin Conservation Commissio, WI, USA, p 235Google Scholar
  8. Haas RC (1978) The muskellunge in Lake St. Clair. Am Fish Soc Special Publ 11:334–339Google Scholar
  9. Johnson LD (1971) Growth of known-age muskellunge in Wisconsin: and validation of age and growth determination methods. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 49, Madison, WI, p 22Google Scholar
  10. Johnson LD (1982) Factors affecting short-term survival of stocked muskellunge fingerlings in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Report No. 117, Madison, WI, p 24Google Scholar
  11. Jude DJ, Leach J (1993) The Great Lakes fisheries. In: Kohler CC, Hubert WA (eds) Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. pp 517–551Google Scholar
  12. Lake Michigan Fisheries Team (2004) Lake Michigan integrated fisheries management plan 2003–2013. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, Administrative Report No. 56, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  13. Larson TR, Blankenheim JE, Fuller DB (2006) An evaluation comparing survival of fall fingerling versus spring yearling stocked musky in southern Wisconsin lakes. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  14. Margenau TL (1992) Survival and cost-effectiveness of stocked fall fingerling and spring yearling muskellunge in Wisconsin. North Am J Fish Manage 12:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Margenau TL (1999) Muskellunge stocking strategies in Wisconsin: the first century and beyond. North Am J Fish Manage 19:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Quinn TJ II, Deriso RB (1999) Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Quist MC, Guy CS, Schultz RD, Stephen JL (2003) Latitudinal comparisons of walleye growth in North America and factors influencing growth of walleyes in Kansas Reservoirs. North Am J Fish Manag 23:677–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ricker WE (1975) Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Department of the Environment Fisheries and Marine Service, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith HH, Snell M (1891) Review of the fisheries of the Great Lakes in 1885, with introduction and description of fishing vessels and boats by J. W. Collins. Report of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1887, US Commission of Fish and Fisheries, p 333Google Scholar
  20. Van Den Avyle MJ (1993) Dynamics of exploited fish populations. In: Kohler CC, Hubert WA (eds) Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 105–135Google Scholar
  21. Wahl DH (1999) An ecological context for evaluating the factors influencing muskellunge stocking success. North Am J Fish Manage 19:238–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1986) Lower Green Bay remedial action plan. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  23. Younk JA, Strand RF (1992) Performance evaluation of four muskellunge Esox masquinongy strains in two Minnesota lakes. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Investigational Report 418, St. Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin L. Kapuscinski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian J. Belonger
    • 2
  • Steven Fajfer
    • 3
  • Terrence J. Lychwick
    • 4
  1. 1.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesGreen BayUSA
  2. 2.PeshtigoUSA
  3. 3.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wild Rose Fish HatcheryWild RoseUSA
  4. 4.CascoUSA

Personalised recommendations