4.1 Editorial Material

Effects of Ingestion of Soft Plastic Fishing Lures on Largemouth Bass

Journal

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 718-724

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10067

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Project [F-135-R]
  2. Illinois Natural History Survey
  3. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois
  4. University of Illinois Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol [14077]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soft plastic lures (SPLs) may comprise a significant amount of fishing gear pollution, yet little is known about their environmental impacts in aquatic systems or their ingestion by fish. We tested whether shape and material composition of ingested SPLs influenced subsequent prey consumption by Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides after SPL ingestion. We also quantified the occurrence of SPL ingestion by Largemouth Bass in reservoirs. Biodegradable and nonbiodegradable versions of shad, ribbon-tail worm, and finesse worm SPLs were fed to Largemouth Bass, and consumption of natural prey was quantified 1 d and 1week postingestion. Shape and material composition altered prey consumption by Largemouth Bass. Fish that ingested the shad SPL, the largest lure by volume, consumed the fewest number of prey 1 d postingestion. Ingestion of biodegradable SPLs resulted in lower prey consumption rates than ingestion of nonbiodegradable SPLs. Largemouth Bass typically expelled the SPL within 9 d of ingestion; all lures were either regurgitated or egested. Less than 1% of Largemouth Bass sampled in two Illinois reservoirs had SPLs in their stomachs. Our results suggest that discarded SPLs do not pose a significant long-term threat to the health of individual Largemouth Bass. However, SPLs should still be discarded in a responsible manner.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available