Menhaden Deserve Their Own Voice

Photo: J. Gao

If you caught the conversations in Episode 212 of “The Guide Post Podcast” and our previous blog “Striper Fishing is Incredible!” Says Menhaden Advocates, this follow-up post breaks down the perversive and baseless “stripers are dependent on menhaden” talking point.

In serious fishery management conversations, there’s no room for fantasy victims, villains, and pipe-dream solutions. They hope you’ll conflate the mismanagement of menhaden with the mismanagement of striped bass.

Two simple questions clear that up.

First, are menhaden significant prey for striped bass? Absolutely yes. It’s undeniable. Menhaden have crucial ecological value and an important role in striper diets. They influence regional striper migrations and localized behavior, and everyone remembers their first bunker blitz. They are one of the most important forage fish in the sea. ASGA’s position on that will never change. An addendum is being prepped for a public comment period to address the issues in the menhaden stock assessment. The incorrect number for natural mortality was used several years ago. When that issue was corrected, there should have been a 50% reduction in menhaden harvest. We only took a 20% reduction. On top of that, the menhaden overall harvest only hit 77% of the quota. Clearly, the incorrect number for natural mortality caused half a decade of massive overfishing. This must be addressed because reduction on paper only is not adequate. To further complicate the issue, the Atlantic herring stock assessment is showing horrible numbers for the species which is relied upon for lobster bait. We are in a bad place with Atlantic herring, river herring, shad, and menhaden. ASGA will fight all of these fronts. You need to realize how the condition of these species will complicate our efforts for conservation. 

Second, and just as important, could menhaden magically rebuild the striped bass population? Unfortunately, no. You could fill the Chesapeake Bay with bunker, but only striped bass recruitment and mortality determine striped bass abundance.

The Striper’s Diet

If pogie-dependent stripers exist, they’ve done a damn good job of hiding from every diet-composition analysis for the last hundred years.  The earliest U.S. Bureau of Fisheries reports and latest DNA metabarcoding methods agree, if a striper thinks it can fit a fish, or a crustacean, or some other invertebrate in its mouth, it’s striper food. Few predators in the Atlantic can rival the striper’s menu. A quick compilation of 4 studies produced at least 110 distinct prey species documented in stripers’ stomachs, so the true number is surely higher.^(1,2,3,4) From barnacle larvae to other striped bass, the list reads like a field guide to the inshore trophic levels of the Atlantic.

When you look at all that research, you find what menhaden campaigns don’t mention: menhaden’s share of stripers’ diet varies drastically by the age of the fish, season and geography, and longer-term fluctuations in bait populations.

Juvenile striped bass aren’t capable of eating the youngest menhaden until they’re 2 years old, but they still focus on other prey until they’re roughly 18 inches and 3 years old. The shift from bay anchovy and invertebrate-eating juveniles to adults capable of inhaling menhaden is the most consistent finding across the stomach-content research. ^(5,6,7,8)

Regional habitat and seasonal migrations drive prey substitutions as dramatically as the age/size effect. As stripers migrate, menhaden’s role in the striped bass diet ebbs and flows. As adult striped bass enter the Chesapeake, menhaden sometimes makes up 60% of their diet by weight, but as these fish move into the bay and its tributaries, menhaden drops to 1% — replaced almost entirely by gizzard shad at nearly 90%. ⁹ Moving up the coast to NJ, crustaceans, silversides, bay anchovies, and even summer flounder can dominate the striped bass diet outside “sporadic occurrences of Atlantic menhaden”.¹⁰ In New England coastal waters, stripers might eat zero pogies all summer, relying on Atlantic herring, sand eels, squid, lobster, and crabs. ^11,12,13 In reality, menhaden’s dietary importance for adult striped bass peaks in the fall run and for offshore over-wintering fish. ^14,15 When they’re available in shared habitat, striped bass feed heavily on menhaden. Outside those conditions, they substitute readily.

Evolutionarily, the striper’s greatest strength is its ability to capitalize on a diverse prey portfolio. In New England, in the 1990s, Atlantic herring were a significant component of their diet, but around the 2000s they substituted menhaden as herring declined. ^16,17  When the Atlantic mackerel population spiked, the mackerel found in striped bass stomachs increased ten-fold. ¹⁸ The menhaden-dependency advocates love to point to studies from the early 1990s that put menhaden at 66% of Chesapeake bass diets by weight, ¹⁹ but when the striper population was the best it’s ever been, that share fell to 23%. ²⁰

There’s a big caveat hanging over all these studies: stomach content analysis by weight systematically underestimates soft-bodied prey and overestimates large bony prey like menhaden. ^21,22,23 Their scales, tissue, bones, and otoliths persist in the gut long after digestion.  A soft-tissue meal like squid digests much faster, reducing its contribution to diet by weight. Smaller prey–like bay anchovies or shrimp consumed after a bunker–can become unidentifiable or even vanish while a half-digested menhaden remains in the sample. ^24,25  Any estimates of menhaden’s share of diet by weight should be treated as the ceiling, not the floor.

Predator-Prey Analysis

Beyond the dietary evidence, the menhaden-dependency advocates enjoy cherry-picking arguments from Jim Uphoff’s decades-old, predator-prey analysis.  His early studies investigated whether a forage imbalance was a plausible explanation for fish condition and mycobacteriosis. ^26,27 The theory is supported by a single controlled experiment with fingerling stripers held in tanks at an aquaculture facility. It demonstrated poor diet leads to faster, more severe mycobacteriosis progression. Fingerlings fed low rations developed severe systemic infections and progressed to mortality within six weeks. Fingerlings fed adequate rations developed manageable infections. ²⁸

How about in the real world? Well, Jim Uphoff went on to build the most detailed bay-specific, menhaden-striper monitoring tool out there. He puts it frankly: “are there enough Menhaden for resident Striped Bass? It appears that there are enough for Striped Bass. Menhaden per Striped Bass and condition indices are within their good boundaries… All indicators have been green since 2018.”²⁹ A study of 298,232 Chesapeake stripers’ nutritional state and condition from 1990-2024 concluded the same. Across 3 decades, annual condition scores consistently exceeded the “normal’ threshold and trended upward, exceeding the “very healthy” threshold in all but the hottest season. The authors concluded “the fish are not starving and would be considered healthy.” ³⁰

A 2025 growth analysis of Chesapeake Bay striped bass adds further context that some menhaden advocates don’t acknowledge. From 1998 to 2019, striped bass length and weight-at-age increased for all adult striped bass. Notably, stripers 10-14 years old increased by an average of 6.6 pounds.  The study identified density-dependent effects on growth directly: individual fish grew approximately 16.5% heavier at low SSB and 3.8% lighter at high SSB. The paper’s authors put it bluntly: “It remains unclear what aspect of the Striped Bass diet may be limiting. Biomass of Bay Anchovy, benthic invertebrates, and other forage for Striped Bass has been relatively stable or increasing in the Chesapeake Bay during our study period… Stable or increasing biomass of prey and potentially wider spatial overlap of Atlantic Menhaden and Striped Bass in the ocean, coupled with a declining biomass of Striped Bass could have created conditions that led to an increase in Striped Bass weight-at-age.” ³¹

Mycobacteriosis’s role in the Chesapeake’s natural mortality was underestimated: disease prevalence roughly doubled over two decades, peaking at 67%. ^32,33  

Today, that has nothing to do with menhaden abundance. If their diet is restricted, how are they packing on the pounds?

The Numbers Don’t Track

Some argue menhaden and striped bass populations are “inextricably linked” through ASMFC’s Ecological Reference Points (ERPs), but a serious conversation requires looking at what the ecosystem-based fisheries management models and the scientists who built them say about that link. From all the simulation modeling, three main studies inform our understanding of a serious policy question: would more menhaden rebuild striped bass?

The first, Buchheister et al. 2017, used a full NWACS Ecopath-with-Ecosim model, essentially a “foraging arena” food web of 61 trophic groups along the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. In this simulation, striped bass were the most menhaden-sensitive predator in the system. When advocates want the most dramatic version of the menhaden-striper story, they reach for this finding and the associated tables.  When they do, they ignore the authors’ own caveat: “the strong relationship between Striped Bass and Atlantic Menhaden populations was heavily influenced by the high modeled vulnerability values, which were required to replicate the dramatic recovery of Striped Bass in the late 1980s.” ³⁸  In other words, they had to crank up the menhaden-striper relationship sensitivity dial until the model fit the post-moratorium striped bass population boom. That’s why the authors state: “Strong evidence for a tight coupling of dynamics between Atlantic Menhaden and Striped Bass populations at broad regional or temporal scales is lacking.” ³⁹ They tell us they cranked up the dial to make the simulation model work, then they tell us not to mistake the cranked-up dial’s findings for real-world empirical results.

The second, Chagaris et al. 2020, inherited Buchheister et al.’s a foraging arena model, stripped it down to 17 trophic groups, and softened its striper-menhaden calibration to population trends (removing the forced fit of Buchheister et al.’s striper-menhaden relationship). This leaner and more refined NWACS-MICE framework now sets ASMFC’s menhaden ERPs. Their simulation also showed that striped bass were more sensitive to menhaden fishing mortality (F) scenarios than bluefish, weakfish, and dogfish, but when the study ran combinations of menhaden F (0-10x the 2017 F rate) against the striped bass F rate, they found the striped bass “biomass was below the threshold across all menhaden F rates.” ⁴⁰  When the model reduced striped bass F to its own target, the stock reached its biomass target at menhaden F rates up to four times higher than the 2017 F rate.

Instead of relying on the problematic striper-menhaden calibration assumption, the third study, Schiano et al. 2024, stress tested the menhaden-striper population dynamics across a wide range of scenarios and harvest control rules (HCRs). They ran menhaden at 30 to 70 percent of the striped bass diet across 27 HCR scenarios, and eight separate categories of static backup prey.  Unlike the previous models, the prey options for striped bass would not be reduced as the striped bass population expanded.  They found the striped bass biomass was even less sensitive to menhaden biomass, essentially flat beyond a certain point, because striped bass are generalist predators.  They conclude “the most influential factor determining performance of striped bass HCRs was striped bass fishing mortality… even reducing Atlantic menhaden F to [ZERO] would not rebuild striped bass to its SSB target without a reduction in striped bass F as well.” ⁴¹  

The proof-of-concept model, the most scrutinized official model, and the best-available stress test all agree striped bass fishing mortality is the only lever that will rebuild the striped bass population.  If you want to claim more menhaden will save striped bass, you have to cherry-pick numbers from the outer unrealistic limits of exploratory simulations.

It’s All on The Public Record

So why do we keep hearing about needing menhaden to save striped bass?  Like most disinformation, bad actors twisted the message and hijacked the cause. 

Conservation advocates rightfully championed menhaden’s vital ecological role, especially in the Chesapeake. Their narratives fostered public support for key wins like 2006’s Chesapeake Bay cap, 2012’s coastwide TAC, 2020’s SEDAR 69 ERPs, and removing industrial purse-seine operations from all but one state’s waters. That real work built the foundation for today’s public awareness across angling modes. “Access”-oriented anglers and abundance advocates should still stand with all stakeholders against the industrial reduction fleet.

The menhaden narrative wasn’t weaponized against striped bass until striped bass needed rebuilding.  Recreational fishing and boating industry lobbyists, who opposed nearly every management action to rebuild striped bass, marked a new scapegoat.  They don’t care about best-available-science conversations. They only jumped on the menhaden bandwagon to sell striped bass down the river. For them, menhaden is a fundraising opportunity that provides conservation cover for undermining striper management. If they cared about an honest, science-based management conversation, they’d participate in one. 

Look at their campaign materials and public comments: the same industry advocacy groups peddle the same disinformation. These aren’t independent organizations arriving at the same conclusions after processing the science, evidence, and solutions to management problems; these are the same talking points, cooked up for the same purpose, for the same old boys’ clubs and their new media proxies…

• “The recreational sector has recognized the need for increasingly stringent striped bass regulations—reducing size limits, bag limits, and overall fishing mortality to a 30-year low… The recovery of striped bass—and the livelihoods it sustains—depends directly on adequate menhaden forage.” (ASA)
• “Striped bass fishing mortality is at an all-time low. It is clear that environmental variables… are primarily driving the depleted spawning stock biomass condition… Managing menhaden to the ERP targets is essential to ensuring striped bass have sufficient prey and the best opportunity to rebuild to a healthy population abundance” (CSF)
• “Measures seeking to rebuild striped bass have already reduced recreational fishing mortality to a 30-year low. To rebuild the striped bass population, menhaden availability and abundance must be increased.” (IGFA/BTT) 
• “Recreational anglers and conservationists have sacrificed to support striped bass rebuilding. It is now time for the menhaden industry to share that responsibility… Menhaden, the dominant prey species for striped bass and other predators, are now the limiting factor in their recovery.” (Menhaden Defenders)
• “The Atlantic Striped Bass Board has already acted, implementing new regulations that reduced striped bass fishing mortality to a 30-year low. In other words, anglers have already made sacrifices toward a solution. Reduce menhaden fishing mortality. This is now the only key lever left for fisheries managers to support striped bass recovery.” (TRCP)

Their disinformation was echoed across hundreds of individual public comments. We gotta call a spade a spade here. For these rec-fishing-industry advocates, menhaden is an excuse to dismiss the only lever managers have to save striped bass: fishing mortality.

It’s not rocket science. All these folks had to do was read ASMFC’s Atlantic Menhaden FAQs:

“if all menhaden fishing suddenly ended, this action alone would not rebuild striped bass to their biomass target. Instead, the important factor for striped bass management is ensuring a sustainable level of recreational and commercial striped bass fishing.” ³⁷

---

1. Pagenkopp Lohan, E.K., L.A. Havel, E.F. Estrada, M.E. Mather, T.R. Gould, and C.M. Hollenbeck. 2023. Juvenile striped bass consume diverse prey in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 15:e10259. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10259
2. Walter, J.F., and H.M. Austin. 2003. Diet composition of large striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 101(2):414–423. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/content/diet-composition-large-striped-bass-morone-saxatilis-chesapeake-bay
3. Nelson, G.A., B.C. Chase, and J. Stockwell. 2003. Food habits of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in coastal waters of Massachusetts. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 32:1–25. https://doi.org/10.2960/J.v32.a1
4. Murphy, R.J., Jr., D.H. Secor, E.J. Hilton, and B.H. Carson. 2022. The feeding ecology of striped bass and the role of ontogeny. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 53. https://journal.nafo.int/Portals/0/vol53-2022/J53-MurphyJr-MS737/J53-Murphy-ms737.pdf
5. Pagenkopp Lohan, E.K., L.A. Havel, E.F. Estrada, M.E. Mather, T.R. Gould, and C.M. Hollenbeck. 2023. Juvenile striped bass consume diverse prey in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 15:e10259. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10259
6. Walter, J.F., and H.M. Austin. 2003. Diet composition of large striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 101(2):414–423. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/content/diet-composition-large-striped-bass-morone-saxatilis-chesapeake-bay
7. Griffin, J.C., and F.J. Margraf. 2003. The diet of Chesapeake Bay striped bass in the late 1950s. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10(5):323–328. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2003.00367.x
8. Uphoff, J.H., Jr., and A. Sharov. 2018. Striped bass and Atlantic menhaden predator–prey dynamics: model choice makes the difference. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 10(4):370–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10030
9. Walter, J.F., and H.M. Austin. 2003. Diet composition of large striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 101(2):414–423. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/content/diet-composition-large-striped-bass-morone-saxatilis-chesapeake-bay
10. Walter, J.F., and H.M. Austin. 2003. Diet composition of large striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 101(2):414–423. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/content/diet-composition-large-striped-bass-morone-saxatilis-chesapeake-bay
11. Nelson, G.A., B.C. Chase, and J. Stockwell. 2003. Food habits of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in coastal waters of Massachusetts. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 32:1–25. https://doi.org/10.2960/J.v32.a1
12. Nelson, G.A., B.C. Chase, and J. Stockwell. 2006. Population consumption of fish and invertebrate prey by striped bass (Morone saxatilis) from coastal waters of Northern Massachusetts, USA. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 36:111–126. https://doi.org/10.2960/J.v36.m576
13. Ferry, K.H., and M.E. Mather. 2012. Spatial and temporal diet patterns of subadult and small adult striped bass in Massachusetts estuaries: data, a synthesis, and trends across scales. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 4(1):30–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2011.642747
14. Rudershausen, P.J., J.E. Tuomikoski, J.A. Buckel, and J.E. Hightower. 2005. Prey selectivity and diet of striped bass in western Albemarle Sound, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134(5):1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1577/t04-115.1
15. Walter, J.F., A.S. Overton, K.H. Ferry, and M.E. Mather. 2003. Atlantic coast feeding habits of striped bass: a synthesis supporting a coast-wide understanding of trophic biology. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10(5):349–360. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2003.00373.x
16. Nelson, G.A., B.C. Chase, and J. Stockwell. 2003. Food habits of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in coastal waters of Massachusetts. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 32:1–25. https://doi.org/10.2960/J.v32.a1
17. Nelson, G.A., B.C. Chase, and J. Stockwell. 2006. Population consumption of fish and invertebrate prey by striped bass (Morone saxatilis) from coastal waters of Northern Massachusetts, USA. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 36:111–126. https://doi.org/10.2960/J.v36.m576
18. Murphy, R.J., Jr., D.H. Secor, E.J. Hilton, and B.H. Carson. 2022. The feeding ecology of striped bass and the role of ontogeny. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 53. https://journal.nafo.int/Portals/0/vol53-2022/J53-MurphyJr-MS737/J53-Murphy-ms737.pdf
19. Hartman, K.J., and S.B. Brandt. 1995. Trophic resource partitioning, diets, and growth of sympatric estuarine predators. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(4):520–537. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1995)124<0520:TRPDAG>2.3.CO;2
20. Overton, A.S. 2003. The role of Atlantic menhaden in the diets of striped bass in Chesapeake Bay: a bioenergetics approach. MS thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
21. Brodeur, R.D. 1984. Gastric evacuation rates for two foods in the black rockfish, Sebastes melanops Girard. Journal of Fish Biology 24(4):449–456. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/dj52w695k?locale=zh
22. Amundsen, P.A., and A. Sánchez-Hernández. 2019. Feeding studies take guts—critical review and recommendations of methods for stomach contents analysis in fish. Journal of Fish Biology 95(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14151
23. Buckland, Amanda & Baker, Ronald & Loneragan, N. & Sheaves, Marcus. (2017). Standardising fish stomach content analysis: The importance of prey condition. Fisheries Research. 196. 126-140. 10.1016/j.fishres.2017.08.003 
24. Pagenkopp Lohan, E.K., L.A. Havel, E.F. Estrada, M.E. Mather, T.R. Gould, and C.M. Hollenbeck. 2023. Juvenile striped bass consume diverse prey in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 15:e10259. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10259
25. Walter, J.F., and H.M. Austin. 2003. Diet composition of large striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 101(2):414–423. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/content/diet-composition-large-striped-bass-morone-saxatilis-chesapeake-bay
26. Uphoff, J.H., Jr., and A. Sharov. 2018. Striped bass and Atlantic menhaden predator–prey dynamics: model choice makes the difference. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 10(4):370–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10030
27. Uphoff, J.H., Jr. 2003. Predator-prey analysis of striped bass and Atlantic menhaden in upper Chesapeake Bay. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10(5):313–322. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2003.00366.x
28. Jacobs, J.M., M.R. Rhodes, A. Baya, R. Reimschuessel, H. Townsend, and R.M. Harrell. 2009. Influence of nutritional state on the progression and severity of mycobacteriosis in striped bass Morone saxatilis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 87(3):183–197. https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/dao/v87/n3/p183-197/
29. Uphoff, J.H., S. Fegley, K. Rickabaugh, and A. Sharov. 2024. A traffic light index for communicating forage fish status for Chesapeake Bay striped bass. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service, Annapolis, MD. https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/TLI%20Final%20single%20space%20.pdf
30. ASMFC. 2025. Atlantic Menhaden Work Group Report: Precautionary Management of Chesapeake Bay. Atlantic Menhaden Management Board. April 23, 2025. https://asmfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AtlMenhadenWGReport_ChesapeakeBayPrecautionaryMgmt_April2025.pdf
31. Schiano, S., G.M. Nesslage, J. Collie, N.L. Lengyel Costa, K. Drew, R.J. Latour, J. McNamee, A. Schueller, and M.J. Wilberg. 2025. Trends in Atlantic Striped Bass growth in the mid-Atlantic, USA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 154(3):262–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/tafafs/vnaf006
32. Hoenig, J.M., M.L. Groner, M.W. Smith, W.K. Vogelbein, D.M. Taylor, D.F. Landers Jr., J.T. Swenarton, D.T. Gauthier, P. Sadler, M.A. Matsche, A.N. Haines, H.J. Small, R. Pradel, R. Choquet, and J.D. Shields. 2017. Impact of disease on the survival of three commercially fished species. Ecological Applications 27:2116–2137. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1595
33. Jesse, J., G. Nesslage, M. Matsche, H. Townsend, C. Shen, J.M. Testa, and M.J. Wilberg. 2025. Quantifying trends in and potential drivers of mycobacteriosis in Atlantic Striped Bass in Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 154:35–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/tafafs/vnae003
34. Wood, R.J., and H.M. Austin. 2009. Synchronous multidecadal fish recruitment patterns in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66(3):496–508. https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-013
35. Chagaris, D., K. Drew, A. Schueller, M. Cieri, J. Brito, and A. Buchheister. 2020. Ecological reference points for Atlantic menhaden established using an ecosystem model of intermediate complexity. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:606417. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.606417  | Full text: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/27643/noaa_27643_DS1.pdf
36. Schiano, S., G.M. Nesslage, K. Drew, A.M. Schueller, R.J. Woodland, and M.J. Wilberg. 2024. Evaluation of alternative harvest policies for striped bass and their prey, Atlantic menhaden. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 81:1081–1103. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2023-0089
37. ASMFC. Atlantic Menhaden FAQs. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. https://asmfc.org/news/fact-check/atlantic-menhaden-faqs/
38. Buchheister, A., Miller, T.J. and Houde, E.D. (2017), Evaluating Ecosystem-Based Reference Points for Atlantic Menhaden. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 9: 457-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2017.1360420
39. Buchheister, A., Miller, T.J. and Houde, E.D. (2017), Evaluating Ecosystem-Based Reference Points for Atlantic Menhaden. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 9: 457-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2017.1360420
40. Chagaris, D., K. Drew, A. Schueller, M. Cieri, J. Brito, and A. Buchheister. 2020. Ecological reference points for Atlantic menhaden established using an ecosystem model of intermediate complexity. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:606417. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.606417  | Full text:https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/27643/noaa_27643_DS1.pdf
41. Schiano, S., G.M. Nesslage, K. Drew, A.M. Schueller, R.J. Woodland, and M.J. Wilberg. 2024. Evaluation of alternative harvest policies for striped bass and their prey, Atlantic menhaden. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 81:1081–1103.https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2023-0089