Lake Ontario and Great Lakes kiyi COSEWIC assessment and status report: chapter 12

Technical Summary: Coregonus kiyi kiyi

Coregonus kiyi kiyi (C. k. kiyi)

Upper Great Lakes Kiyi – kiyi du secteur supérieur des Grands Lacs

Range of Occurrence in Canada:

ON - Lakes Superior.and Huron (and Michigan), extirpated in lakes Huron (and Michigan)

Extent and Area information

extent of occurrence (EO) (km²)

  • Huron – 59,596
  • Superior – 82,414
  • Total – 142,010
  • Measured as combined total areas of lakes Huron, Ontario and Superior.

specify trend (decline, stable, increasing, unknown)

Decline

are there extreme fluctuations in EO (> 1 order of magnitude)?

No

area of occupancy (AO) (km²)

  • Huron – 10,013
  • Superior – 57,742
  • Total – 67,755
  • Measured as combined areas of depths >100m for lakes Huron and Superior.

specify trend (decline, stable, increasing, unknown)

Decline

are there extreme fluctuations in AO (> 1 order magnitude)?

No

number of extant locations

1

specify trend in # locations (decline, stable, increasing, unknown)

Decline

are there extreme fluctuations in # locations (>1 order of magnitude)?

No

habitat trend:  specify declining, stable, increasing or unknown trend in area, extent or quality of habitat

Stable?

Population information

generation time (average age of parents in the population) (indicate years, months, days, etc.)

5 years?

number of mature individuals (capable of reproduction) in the Canadian population (See Population sizes and trends)

Superior: 129,412 to ~2,000,000 based on average weight of 170g, and 22-330t

total population trend

  • Superior – stable
  • Huron – decline, probably extirpated
  • Probably extirpated in lake Michigan as well

if decline, % decline over the last/next 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is greater

  • Huron – 0% over last 15 years, last found in 1973
  • The decline was probably rapid as it was in Lake Ontario where C. k. orientalis virtually disappeared from the lake within 15 years (1927-1942).
  • The situation in Lake Michigan was also probably similar.

are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals (>1 order of magnitude)?

No

is the total population severely fragmented (most individuals found within small and relatively isolated (geographically or otherwise) populations between which there is little exchange, i.e., <1 successful migrant / year)?

  • Both lakes: Yes
  • Superior only: No

list each population and the number of mature individuals in each

  • Superior: 129,412 to ~2,000,000 based on average weight of 170g, and 22-330t
  • Huron: 0
  • (Michigan 0)

specify trend in number of  populations

  • Superior: stable
  • Huron (Michigan): decline

are there extreme fluctuations in number of populations (>1 order of magnitude)?

No

Threats

  • commercial overexploitation, introduced species?

Rescue Effect (immigration from an outside source)

  • Superior – Nil (Unless one considers American waters of the same lake as a source, but population structure in the lake is unkown.)
  • Huron: Low

does species exist elsewhere (in Canada or outside)?

American waters of Superior

status of the outside population(s)?

S2S3 (WI), S3 (MN), S3 (MI)

is immigration known or possible?

Yes?

would immigrants be adapted to survive here?

Yes?

is there sufficient habitat for immigrants here?

Yes?

Quantitative Analysis

Data not available

Existing Status – C. kiyi kiyi

  • Nature Conservancy Ranks (NatureServe 2005)
    • GlobalG3
    • National
      • USN3
      • Canada N3?
    • Regional
      • US: INS1, MI – S3, MN – S3, NYSX, WI – S2S3
      • Canada: ON – S3
  • Other
    • IUCNVU
    • AFS – T
    • Wild Species 2000 (Canadian Endangered Species Council 2001)
      • Canada – 1
      • Ontario – 1
    • COSEWIC– Special Concern (May 2005)

Status and Reasons for Designation

Status:  Special Concern

Alpha-numeric Code: Not Applicable

Reasons for Designation: Currently found only in Lake Superior, the subspecies has been extirpated from lakes Huron and Michigan, as the result of a complex of factors, which included exploitation and introduced exotic species. The extirpation in lake Huron’s and Michigan occurred more than three generations in the past. The remaining population in Lake Superior appears to be stable, and supports a small, regulated fishery. Other threats, such as the introduction of exotic species, which impacted populations in the lower lakes do not appear to be important in Lake Superior.

Applicability of Criteria

  • Criterion A (Declining Total Population):  Not applicable - The subspecies has been extirpated from over 50% of its former extent of occurrence in Canada (as well as from Lake Michigan, the last recorded occurrences in lakes Huron, and Michigan were in 1973 and 1974 respectively). However, the decline in area of occupancy and extent of occurrence did not occur within the last 3 generations or 10 years. The subspecies persists in Lake Superior; however, trends are not known. Overfishing, and competition with exotic species, which are thought to have caused the demise of the subspecies in lakes Huron and Michigan, are unlikely to have as marked an impact in Lake Superior. However, one must keep in mind the rapid declines in the other lakes, which occurred over a short period of time (~ 15 years in Lake Ontario) and that this subspecies could precipitously decline to extinction (as have others of the Great Lakes ciscos) based on unknown concerns.
  • Criterion B (Small Distribution, and Decline or Fluctuation): Not applicable - The present extent of occurrence (82,000 km²) and area of occupancy (58,000 km²) are well above the threshold for Endangered or Threatened (B1 or B2). There is no evidence to suggest that the subspecies is severely fragmented, and the number of locations within Lake Superior is unknown, but certainly greater than the minimal threshold of 10 for Threatened. Similarly, there are no data to indicate extreme fluctuations or continuing decline in number or extent and quality of habitat.
  • Criterion C (Small Total Population Size and Decline): Not Applicable - Estimates from eastern Lake Superior in 2000-2001 indicate between 22 and 330 tonnes of the species in the deepest parts of Canadian waters. At an average size of 0.17kg (Scott and Crossman 1998) this equates to 130,000 to 2,000,000 individuals, which exceeds the threshold of 10,000 individuals (which is meaningless for such a species at any rate).  However, this is based on an average size and provides no information about what proportion comprise mature individuals, but it would be considerably less. Data are simply not available to provide any information on population trends in Lake Superior despite the fact that recent levels of harvest are about 10% of the estimated biomass.
  • Criterion D (Very Small Population or Restricted Distribution): Not Applicable - The subspecies exceeds the threshold values of 1000 mature individuals, 20 km² for area of occupancy, and 5 sites or locations.
  • Criterion E (Quantitative Analysis): Data are not available.

Page details

Date modified: