apparent over-winter survival of juvenile coho in three tributaries to the lower columbia river...
TRANSCRIPT
Apparent over-winter survival of juvenile coho in three tributaries to the lower Columbia River
Trevor Johnson, Mara Zimmerman, Matthew Sturza, Patrick HanrattyWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Fish Ecology Life Cycle Monitoring Unit
PIT Tag Workshop, Stevenson, WashingtonJanuary 27-29, 2015
AcknowledgementsIntensively Monitored Watershed Committee• Joseph H. Anderson - WDFW• Eric Beamer – SRSC• Robert E. Bilby – Weyco• William J. Ehinger – WA ECY• Correigh Greene – NOAA• Kirk Krueger – WDFW• Mike McHenry – LEKT• Timothy Quinn – WDFW• Phil Roni – NOAA
Collaboration and Funding• Jason Walter & crew – Weyco• Abernathy Fish Technology Center (USFWS)• Jamie Lamperth – GIS• Salmon Recovery Funding Board (funding)
WDFW Data Collection• Brad Allen• Samantha Coty• Kelly Kiyohara• Nathan Miller• Steve Wolthausen
Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) program in western Washington (Bilby et al. 2005)
• Four complexes (3 stream, 1 estuary) with paired reference and treatment watersheds
• Baseline monitoring began in 2005 (pre-restoration)
• Goal is to document and explain fish responses to restoration.
• Small streams• Stay cool through summer• Low gradient• Active logging in headwaters of
all 3 watersheds
• Mill, Abernathy and Germany Creeks
• Tributaries to Columbia River
Apparent Overwinter Survival
Spring smolt estimateSummer Parr estimate
Focus on juvenile coho salmon apparent overwinter survival and movement
• Compare apparent overwinter survival among watersheds
• Identify factors contributing to apparent overwinter survival– Population level (parr density)– Individual level (summer fork length, summer
location)• Compare fall versus spring movement
Focus on juvenile coho salmon apparent overwinter survival and movement
• Compare apparent overwinter survival among watersheds
• Identify factors contributing to apparent overwinter survival– Population level (parr density)– Individual level (summer fork length, summer
location)• Compare fall versus spring movement
Apparent overwinter survival methods
• Petersen mark-recapture estimator for both estimates
• Smolt estimate (spring)• Parr estimate (summer)• Apparent overwinter survival =
spring smolt estimate/summer parr estimate
Apparent overwinter survival among watersheds
Focus on juvenile coho salmon apparent overwinter survival and movement
• Compare apparent overwinter survival among watersheds
• Identify factors contributing to apparent overwinter survival– Population level (parr density)– Individual level (summer fork length, summer
location)• Compare fall versus spring movement
Density dependence in apparent overwinter survival
Focus on juvenile coho salmon apparent overwinter survival and movement
• Compare apparent overwinter survival among watersheds
• Identify factors contributing to apparent overwinter survival– Population level (parr density)– Individual level (summer fork length, summer
location)• Compare fall versus spring movement
What factors contribute to apparent overwinter survival?(AIC model selection)
HA: Survival & detection probability differ among yearsHA: Survival & detection probability differ among watershedsHA: Survival depends on fish length.
HA: Survival depends on summer rearing distance from the estuaryHA: Relationship of length to survival differs among watershedsHA: Relationship between rearing location and survival differs among watersheds.
Detections(Y/N) ~ Year + Watershed + Fork Length + Distance + Watershed*Fork Length + Watershed*Distance
Detections(Y/N) ~ Year + Watershed + Fork Length + Distance + Watershed*Fork Length + Watershed*Distance
HA: Survival & detection probability differ among yearsHA: Survival & detection probability differ among watershedsHA: Survival depends on fish length.
HA: Survival depends on summer rearing distance from the estuaryHA: Relationship of length to survival differs among watershedsHA: Relationship between rearing location and survival differs among watersheds.
What factors contribute to apparent overwinter survival?(AIC model selection)
Summer fork length and apparent overwinter survival
300% 125% 500%
Detections(Y/N) ~ Year + Watershed + Fork Length + Distance + Watershed*Fork Length + Watershed*Distance
HA: Survival & detection probability differ among yearsHA: Survival & detection probability differ among watershedsHA: Survival depends on fish length.
HA: Survival depends on summer rearing distance from the creek mouthHA: Relationship of length to survival differs among watershedsHA: Relationship between rearing location and survival differs among watersheds.
What factors contribute to apparent overwinter survival?(AIC model selection)
Summer rearing location and apparent overwinter survival
75% 30% 400%
The smaller the creek the higher the survival
0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00%
Mill Creek
Prop
ortio
n of
tag
grou
p de
tect
ed
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
Abernathy Creek
Prop
ortio
n of
tag
grou
p de
tect
ed
0.00%0.50%1.00%1.50%2.00%2.50%3.00%3.50%4.00%
Germany Creek
Prop
ortio
n of
tag
grou
p de
tect
ed
Tagging sites from lowest to highest in watershed
Main stem sites
Tributary sites
Focus on juvenile coho salmon apparent overwinter survival and movement
• Compare apparent overwinter survival among watersheds
• Identify factors contributing to apparent overwinter survival– Population level (parr density)– Individual level (summer fork length, summer
location)• Compare fall versus spring movement
Could fall migration contribute to apparent overwinter survival in Abernathy Creek?
Year round
Spring
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
50
100
150
200
250
300
Month
Co
un
tFall versus spring movement at Abernathy Creek
array (rkm 3)
Tagging
Fall Spring
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
50
100
150
200
250
300
Upstream Movements
Month
Coun
t
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
50
100
150
200
250
300
Downstream Movements
Month
Coun
t
Which direction are juvenile coho moving in the fall?
Factors contributing to spring versus fall downstream movement in Abernathy Creek
Larger fish were more likely to be detected
Spring movers more likelyto be detected coming fromHigher in the watershed andTributaries
Fall movers more likelyto be detected coming from Lower main stem
Summary
• Apparent overwinter survival is a combined measure of survival and fish overwintering in their natal tributary
• Larger fish survive better than smaller fish (fall & spring migrants)
• Fall migrants come from lower in the watershed and spring migrants come from headwaters & tributaries
Discussion• Fall coho movement
also reported on Strait of Juan De Fuca IMW
• Longer fish (summer) have higher survival
• Further distance from estuary and smaller streams have higher survival
Discussion continued
• What happens to fall migrants?
• Implications for restoration activities– Summer growth
(structural complexity?)
– Overwinter habitat (tributaries)
Extra slides
Annual tagging effort in each watershed
Year Abernathy Germany Mill
2005 559 550 141
2006 444 853 333
2007 1075 1040 330
2008 1111 1001 367
2009 509 447 386
2010 906 997 371
2011 939 1060 270
2012 643 861 368
2013 1149 992 474
TOTAL 7335 7801 3040