Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook: Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook: Relative Reproductive Success in Relative Reproductive Success in

Captive Chinook SalmonCaptive Chinook Salmon

Melissa Baird1, Ewann Berntson1, Timothy Hoffnagle2, Steve Boe3,

Jim Harbeck4, Richard Carmichael2, Paul Moran1

1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center2 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife3 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation4 Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Catherine Creek

Project Design

• Goal is to sample 100% of returning adults

• Representative sampling of parr, smolts

• Genotyped for 10 microsatellites

• Pedigrees reconstructed by exclusion

• Relative Reproductive Success (RRS) calculated, normalized to wild

204 212

1000

2000

3000

32720-02132720-023

224212

1000

2000

204 212

1000

200032721-013

500100015002000

32721-023500100015002000

32721-036

196 200 200 224

Pedigree analysis match-up

Catherine Creek and Lostine River

• Returning adults are progeny of captive brood fish, plus conventional supplementation programs

• Early in the program—1.5 generations

Lostine River

Year Life Stage #

2001 Adults 533

2002 WC Parr 192

2002 Adults 586

2003 WC Parr 192

2003 Adults 435

2004 WC Parr 192

2005 Smolts 192

2004 Adults 879

2005 WC Parr 192

2005 Adults 481

2006 WC Parr 191

Catherine Creek

Year Life Stage #

2002 Adults 244

2003 WC Parr 192

2003 Adults 431

2004 WC Parr 192

2005 Smolts 159

2004 Adults 190

2005 WC Parr 192

2005 Adults 141

2006 WC Parr 192

Number of Samples Run by Location

Hatchery/Wild returns

Lostine River Adult Returns

0100200300400500600700

W H W H W H W H W H

BY 2001 BY 2002 BY 2003 BY 2004 BY 2005

M

F

Catherine Creek Adult Returns

0

50

100

150

200

250

W H W H W H W H

BY 2002 BY 2003 BY 2004 BY 2005

M

F

Catherine Creek RRS (by Origin)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

W H W H W H W H W H

BY 2002 Parr BY 2003 Parr BY 2003 Smolts BY 2004 Parr BY 2005 Parr

Catherine Creek RRS (by Sex/Origin)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM

BY 2002 Parr BY 2003 Parr BY 2003 Smolts BY 2004 Parr BY 2005 Parr

Catherine Creek RRS (by Matings)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH

BY 2002 Parr BY 2003 Parr BY 2003 Smolts BY 2004 Parr BY 2005 Parr

Lostine River RRS (by Origin)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

W H W H W H W H W H W H

BY 2001 Parr BY 2002 Parr BY 2003 Parr BY 2003Smolts

BY 2004 Parr BY 2005 Parr

Lostine River RRS (by Sex/Origin)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM

BY 2001 Parr BY 2002 Parr BY 2003 Parr BY 2003 Smolts BY 2004 Parr BY 2005 Parr

p < 0.05

Lostine River RRS (by Matings)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH

BY 2001 Parr BY 2002 Parr BY 2003 Parr BY 2003 Smolts BY 2004 Parr

Jacks

• Jacks found in relatively low numbers

• They do contribute

• Lower RS than expected, but some individuals have higher RS

• Suggests a large variance in RS for jacks compared to adults

Precocial parr

• Approximately 150 caught in traps in 2006

• Most were BY 2005, 5-10% were BY 2004

• Found their parents, but unable to detect any of their offspring

• Low likelihood of sampling offspring of PP though

• Would like to make note of families producing PP

Results of Chinook pedigree studies

• Approximately equal RRS seen across years between hatchery and wild fish in both rivers

• Jacks do contribute, but less than expected by number over the weir

• Precocial parr gave no sampled offspring, but not surprising

Comparison to O. mykissLittle Sheep Creek, Imnaha

• Little Sheep is older supplementation program (est. 1982, ~5 generations)

• Large resident population

• O. mykiss hatchery rearing is accelerated

• Chinook are (in part) progeny of captive brood

Little Sheep RRS (by Origin)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

W H W H W H W H

2000 2001 2002 2003

Little Sheep RRS (by Sex/Origin)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM WF HF WM HM

2000 2001 2002 2003

p = 0.0009 p = 0.0001 p = 0.0206p = 0.0000

Little Sheep RRS (by Matings)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH WW WH HW HH

2000 2001 2002 2003

p = 0.0014 p = 0.0001 p = 0.0000 p = 0.0152

Conclusions from Little Sheep

• Hatchery steelhead have significantly lower RRS than wild counterparts in Little Sheep Creek.

• Little difference between hatchery males and hatchery females in performance.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Hatchery Generations

Rel

ati

ve

Fit

ne

ss

Hood R. Sthd (Cww x Cww)

Hood R. Sthd (Cww x Ccw)

Wenatchee Chinook

Little Sheep Cr. Sthd

Deschutes Sthd

Supplementation programs in the Columbia River basin

Triangles = egg-to-parr/smolt, Diamonds = adult-to-parr/smolt, Squares = lifetime

Species: Dark blue = steelhead, yellow = Chinook

Catherine Cr. Chinook

Lostine R. Chinook

Conclusions

• Chinook show equal fitness for hatchery vs. wild in Grande Ronde

• Different results for other species in the Columbia basin

• Difficult to generalize—species, location may have effect

And the million-dollar question…

WHY do we see such big differences between species and systems?

What factors are involved?

Acknowledgements

• This project was funded through BPA contract # 198909600

• Samples provided by ODFW, Nez Perce, and CTUIR