Quantitative Food Webs to Estimate Carrying Capacity and Guide RestorationJohn Jorgensen School of the Environment Washington State University

Is Restoration Working?

Difficulties correlating treatments with success• Lack of monitoring, incorrect design, incorrect metrics

(Photo Credit Slide 3)(Photo Credit Slide 3)

(ISAB 2015-1; Naiman et al. 2012; ISAB 2011-1; ISAB 2008-4; Sanderson et al. 2009)

(Roni et al. 2019; Rubin et al. 2017; Stewart et al. 2009; Thompson et al. 2006; Katz et al. 2007; Bernhardt et al. 2005; Paulson and Fisher 2005)

Are we actually diagnosing and treating primary limiting factors?

• Decreased Carrying Capacity • Reduced MDN • Non-Native Species

Ecological Effects of a Broken Salmon Cycle

(Photo Credit Slide 3)

Note: Table adapted from Gresch et al.(2000)

Impacts of Invasive Fish Species

(Figure 1. Taken from Sanderson et al. 2009)

• Major causal factor in most ESA listings and extinctions of North American fish species(Lassuy 1995; Miller et al. 1989)

• Further evaluation is needed quantifying competition of space and food with ESA listed species (ISAB 2009; Sanderson et al. 2009; )

Research Questions

1) Does habitat restoration increase the energetic carrying capacity of a stream reach (available food)?

2) What are the energetic consequences of non-native fish in restored habitats?

3) How do we use estimates of carrying capacity to inform restoration prescriptions?

(Photo Credit Slide 5)

Ener

getic

Cap

acity

Food ProductionFISH

PRODUCTION

FOOD PRODUCTION

(Figure 2)

Stream Habitat Carrying Capacity (K)

Controls

Fluvial Processes

Food Availability

Bioenergetic Function

(Figure 3)

Non-Native Competition

Nutrient Reduction

Habitat Complexity

Reductions

Example of a Quantitative Energy Flow Web

• Prey production (aquatic and terrestrial)

• Fish Production • Flux of energy flow

• Diet overlap

• Magnitude of competition

<.005 0.0250.01 0.10.05 10.5

Organic Matter Flow g DM m-2 year-1

2

60%10%

2%

20%

8%

• Fish diets, Who is eating who

(Benke et al. 2011; Bellmore et al. 2013)

Methods for Estimating Trophic Production

Measuring Secondary Production of Insects and Fish

(Figure 4)

Methods for Estimating Trophic Production

Measuring Secondary Production of Insects and Fish

(Figure 4)

Invertebrate Food Base Production

Methods for Estimating Trophic Production

Measuring Secondary Production of Insects and Fish

Invertebrate Food Base Production

Fish Production

(Figure 4)

Methods for Estimating Trophic Production

Measuring Secondary Production of Insects and Fish

Invertebrate Food Base Production

Fish Production

Biomass = Single point in time = (g DM m-2)

PRODUCTION = Biomass * Growth = (g DM m-2 y-1)

(Figure 4)

• Assimilation & ProductionEfficiencies

• Demand for each prey item by each fish species

+

Bioenergetics

• Dietary Preference

• How much energy is required to fuel fish production

• How much energy is left in the system

• Energetic Carrying Capacity K(E)

(Figure 7)

Study Area:Hancock Spring Creek

• First order spring creek • Methow River Sub-Basin• Allows for precision level sampling

(Figure 8)

Study Design

Reach 1Restored

Reach 2Un-Restored

Reach 1 Reach 2

Entire Fish Assemblage

• Length and Area (g-DM/m/yr-1 and g-DM/m2/yr-1 • Error bars display 95% CI

Reach 2, 2013 Fish Production g-DM/m2/yr-1

Reach 1, 2013 Fish Production g-DM/m2/yr-1

Total Community Production, Benthic Macroinvertebrates

• Error bars display 95% CI

Energy Flows to Fish Consumers <.005 0.0250.01 0.10.05 10.5

Organic Matter Flow g DM m-2 year-1

2

56%24%

4%

16%

LIMNEPHILIDAETERRESTRIAL

HEPTAGENIDAE

BAETIDAE CHIRONOMIDAE

MUSCIDAE SIMULIDAE

EPHEMERELLIDAE

HYDROPTILIDAE

PERLIDAEDYTISCIDAE

HYDROPSYCHIDAE GAMMARIDAE

TIPULIDAE

Energy Flows to Fish Consumers <.005 0.0250.01 0.10.05 10.5

Organic Matter Flow g DM m-2 year-1

2

50%10%

20%

LIMNEPHILIDAETERRESTRIAL

HEPTAGENIDAE

BAETIDAE CHIRONOMIDAE

MUSCIDAE SIMULIDAE

EPHEMERELLIDAE

HYDROPTILIDAE

PERLIDAEDYTISCIDAE

HYDROPSYCHIDAE GAMMARIDAE

TIPULIDAE

20%

Potential Carrying Capacity = 𝑃𝑃𝑖 − 𝐹𝐶𝑖ℎ ∗ 𝐴𝐸𝑖𝑗 ∗ 𝑁𝑃𝐸𝑗 ∗ 𝑃𝐹𝑖𝑗

PPi = Annual production of prey type i

FCih = Annual consumption of prey type i by the entire fish assemblage except for the species of interest j

PFij = Proportion of fish production attributed to each prey type

Reach 1, Potential Carrying Capacity Reach 1, Current Production

.864 .389.103-.049

(Benke et al. 2011; Bellmore et al. 2013)

Restoration Applications

• Diagnose primary limitations

• Can prey availability support an increase in fish populations?

• Prescribe chronological treatments

• Non-native removal

• Nutrient additions

• Channel Complexity

• Quantify separate and additive effects of multiple treatments

Food Web Analysis Tools

• Aquatic Insect Production

• Fish Production

• Prey Consumption

• Bioenergetic

Questions

https://labs.wsu.edu/ecology/the-group/john-jorgensen/

References Benke, A. C. (2011). "Secondary Production, Quantitative Food Webs, and Trophic Position." Nature Education Knowledge3(10): 26-35.

Benke, A. C. and A. D. Huryn (2006). Chapter 29: Secondary production of macroinvertebrates. Methods in Stream Ecology, 2nd Edition. F. R. Hauer and G. A. Lamberti. Burlington, MA, Academic Press: 691-710.

Deslauriers, D., Chipps, S. R., Breck, J. E., Rice, J. A., & Madenjian, C. P. (2017). Fish Bioenergetics 4.0: An R-Based Modeling Application. Fisheries, 42(11), 586-596.

Gresh, T., Lichatowich, J., & Schoonmaker, P. (2000). An estimation of historic and current levels of salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem: Evidence of a nutrient deficit in the freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries, 25(1), 15-21.

ISAB (2015). "Density Dependence and its Implications for Fish Management and Restoration Programs in the Columbia River Basin." Independent Scientific Advisory Board(ISAB-2015-1).

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board) (2011) Columbia River Food-Webs: Developing a Broader Scientific Foundation for Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) Report ISAB 2011-1, Portland, Oregon.

ISAB (2008). "Non-native Species Impacts on Native Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin " Independent ScienttificAdvisory Board (ISAB 2008-4).

Naiman, R. J., J. R. Alldredge, D. A. Beauchamp, P. A. Bisson, J. Congleton, C. J. Henny, N. Huntly, R. Lamberson, C. Levings and E. N. Merrill (2012). "Developing a broader scientific foundation for river restoration: Columbia River food webs." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(52): 21201-21207.

Roni, P. (2019). "Does river restoration increase fish abundance and survival or concentrate fish? The effects of project scale,location, and fish life history." Fisheries.

Sanderson, B. L., Barnas, K. A., & Michelle Wargo Rub, A. (2009). Nonindigenous species of the Pacific Northwest: An overlooked risk to endangered salmon? BioScience, 59(3), 245-256.

Stewart, G. B., H. R. Bayliss, D. A. Showler, W. J. Sutherland and A. S. Pullin (2009). "Effectiveness of Engineered In-Stream Structure Mitigation Measures to Increase Salmonid

Thompson, D. (2006). Did the Pre-1980 Use of In-Stream Structures Improve Streams? A Reanalysis of Historical Data. Ecological Applications, 16(2), 784-796.

Wipfli MS, Baxter CV (2010) Linking ecosystems, food webs, and fish production: Subsidies in salmonid watersheds. Fisheries (Bethesda, Md) 35:373–387.

Image Credits

• http://www.methowsalmon.org/currentprojects.html

• Small, stable,

• Higher precision estimates

• Track fish movement

• Large differences between reaches

Pre- Restoration Conditions

Natural Stream Lab

• 1km long, first order spring creek

• Tributary to the Methow River

• Highly degraded, uncontrolled livestock use

• No natives (Brook Trout)