6.3 growth and survival of columbia river chinook salmon ... › uploadedfiles › events ›...

6.3 Growth and survival of Columbia River Chinook salmon in the Northern

California Current

Brian Beckman1, Larissa Rohrbach2, Shel Nance2, Cheryl Morgan3, David Teel4, Kurt Fresh5

Environmental and Fisheries Sciences Division1, Conservation Biology Division4, Fish Ecology Division5

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WASAFS, University of Washington2; CIMRS, Oregon State University3

NWFSCEFS Division

May 5, 2015Protected Fish Species Review

Funding from: Bonneville PowerNWR NMFS BiopNMFS FATE Pacific Salmon Commission, Southern Fund

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries |

“Despite the importance of density dependence, very few studies have directly tested or even hypothesized density dependence during the ocean stage of Columbia River Basin salmonid populations (Table V.1).”

Arm wave

Carrying capacity, competition (indirect), size dependent


Hypothesis:marine survival of juvenile

salmon is directly related to early growth in the ocean

(Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon, Pearcy 1992)

1. How can growth in the ocean be measured?Or, why does a physiologist go to sea?

2. How can fish from different populations be distinguished(Sacramento, Columbia, Fraser)?


The hormone IGF1 is a growth index

5

attgactg = populationIGF1 = growth

Technological advances have made it possible to assess growth rate and population of origin

from individual fish caught at sea


NOAA Juvenile Salmon Ocean Survey


Columbia River

Canada

Alaska

US

Seattle

BPA Plume Survey May

2006 – 2011 June

2000 - 2014


0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

CP

UE

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Wes

tCS

p

Will

RS

p

MU

CR

Sp

Snk

Sp

Snk

Fa

UC

RS

uFa

CP

UE

May June

Yearling Columbia River Chinook salmon* abundance in the survey varies by month, stock and year

Wes

tCS

p

Will

RS

p

MU

CR

Sp

Snk

Sp

Snk

Fa

UC

RS

uFa

2006-2011*6 major stocks of Chinook salmon with yearling migrants5 are listed under the Endangered Species Act

Death orMigration?


Columbia River

Canada

Alaska

US

Seattle

June*

July**

August

*Marc Trudel, DFO, Nanaimo

**Jamal Moss, Joe Orsi, NMFS, Juneau

May

UCR/Snake spring Chinook salmonquickly migrate north

10

Study of the marine ecology ofColumbia River Chinook salmon

needs to be spatially and temporally explicit


1. Do growth & survival vary? Correlated?2. Do larger fish grow faster than smaller fish?3. Do smolts from hatchery stocks vary in size?4. Some data on biomass5. Implications of the present state of the NCC6. Summary

Outline


Growth varies inter-annually

Snake River spring Chinook

June

IGF1

13

Growth varies inter-annuallyand by stock

IGF1

June

Snake R spring Chinook

Mid/Up Col R spring Chinook

Snake R fall Chinook

Up Col R summer/fall Chinook

14


needs to be stock-specific


needs to be spatially and temporally explicit


50000

75000

100000

125000

150000

175000

200000

225000

250000

275000

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

June SpChin IGF2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

20072006200520042003200220012000

2010

2012

2011

2013

TAC preseason estimate 2015 adults (jacks)

Growth is related to survival of spring Chinook (most years)

Spring ChinookCount @

Bonneville

r2=0.72p<0.01

No spring phytoplanktonbloom GOA

Current in-seasonestimate


Low growth = low survival (always)High growth = high survival (usually)

=> Pearcy was right (usually)

Growth varies (it’s not about temperature)

=> Food is limited in some years

If food is limited

=> there is competition for foodin some years

17

June IGF1

IGF1 is correlated with an index of salmon prey(food)



Outline


Length (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Yearling Columbia R Chinook salmon:marine growth varies with size

IGF1

p<0.001, r2=0.202006 - 2011, May, all stocks


IGF1 - size relationships vary between years in May(slope of regression line)

Snake River spring Chinook salmon


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

40 45 50 55 60 65

2011

20102009200820072006

Snake R spring ChinookIGF vs length slope varies with

ocean conditions

slope

Ocean conditionsCoho salmon IGF1(PDO also works)

Good ocean

~

>>>

Bad ocean

10

20

30

40

50

slope IGF vs LEN

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

MayCPUE

30

40

50

60

Snake sp IGF

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

MayCPUE

2011

20102009200820072006

Neither IGF nor slope IGF vs Length are related to CPUE


Larger fish grow fasterthan smaller fish

in“bad” ocean years

& it’s not related to abundance



Outline


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

51 4

231 2

5

46 4

0

Wei

ght

(g)

ReleaseSize

Wes

tCS

p

Will

RS

p

MU

CR

Sp

Snk

Sp

Snk

Fa

UC

RS

uFa

Fish PassageCenter

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 Fish Released (millions)

Wes

tCS

p

Will

RS

p

MU

CR

Sp

Snk

Sp

Snk

Fa

UC

RS

uFa

Release size of yearling Chinook salmon varies 2-foldby stock

2006 - 2011

Mean (g)

*6 major stocks of Chinook salmon with yearling migrants5 are listed under the Endangered Species Act


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Wes

tCS

p

Will

RS

p

MU

CR

Sp

Snk

Sp

Snk

Fa

UC

RS

uFa

Wes

tCS

p

Will

RS

p

MU

CR

Sp

Snk

Sp

Snk

Fa

UC

RS

uFa

JuneMay

wei

ght (

g)

wei

ght (

g)

Weight of fish caught in the ocean varies > 2-fold by stock

2006-2011

Is there a potential for biased individual competition between fish fromdifferent stocks based on hatchery release size?


Abundance x Weight = biomass

CPUE

Weight

Biomass ~ bioenergetic “load”on ecosystem


Willamette Sp

W Cascade Sp

Snake Sp

Mid&Up Col Sp

Upper Col Su/Fa

Snake Fa

MAY

JUNE

2010

2011

2009

2008

2007

2006

2010

2011

2009

2008

2007

2006

Biomass (abundance x weight) varies by stock, month and year

Ocean entry year

Is there a potential for interactions between different stocks based on ocean biomass?


Different stocks have different values:Legal

EconomicCultural

Recreational

Low survival year

High survival year

biomass

Density dependence: California Current“bottom up” ?

~ constant hatchery production

Varying prey base



Outline


year

1900

2015

month

A century of the PDO

California sardine fishery collapses (early 40’s)

Snake River coho extinct

Multiple ESA listings West Coast Salmonids

Record returns Col R Chinook & Sockeye

Dec 14, Jan/Feb 15 – most positive PDO for those months in the record

76/77 regime shift


What’s happening now (2015)?

Carrying capacity may be significantly reduced

Density dependent processes may be magnified

Size-biased interactions intensify (stock, hatchery vs wild)?

Survival is likely to be low?

NWFSC - 4 day May survey (1st May survey since 2012)- 10 day June survey- AFSC survey in Gulf of Alaska (July)

A natural experiment is occurring: how do we take advantage?


Growth and survival vary- Correlated in many years

Data suggest it might be worth thinking about density dependence (in some years)

Many management, political and scientific issues to consider along with density dependence

Summary


Acknowledgements

Physiology group NWFSCDeb Harstad

Kathy CooperDina Spangenberg

Dave MetzgerDon Larsen

Meredith JourneyPenny Swanson

Walt Dickhoff

Captains & CrewF/V Frosti

Ocean Salmon Ecology group NOAA NWFSC

Suz HintonCindy BucherBill PetersonBob EmmettPaul Bentley

Kym JacobsonJoe Fisher

Laurie Weitkamp

6.3 growth and survival of columbia river chinook salmon ... › uploadedfiles › events ›...

Documents