new collections and new insight for pacific lamprey in ......new collections and new insight for...
TRANSCRIPT
New collections and new insight for Pacific lamprey in marine waters
Laurie WeitkampNWFSC-Newport, NOAA Fisheries
and Sam GrafMiddlebury College
Today’s talk• Quick summary of NOAA Fishery/NWFSC lamprey results
• NWFSC surveys that catch lamprey• Fish species with lamprey wounds
• New marine collections of Pacific lamprey• Methods• Size and growth• Distribution• Gut fullness
• Summary and conclusions• Next steps
Photo Credit: West Coast Observer Program
NWFSC marine fish surveys
Hake survey- Big surveys in odd years - 2019: 65 days sea time- 50-110 midwater trawlsGroundfish survey- US-Canada to US-Mexico- Two passes every year - 600-700 bottom trawlsPelagic (juv. Salmon) surveys- May, June- Newport to C. Flattery - On shelf (<300 m depth)- 100 Surface trawls
Catches the most Pacific lamprey
Highest diversity of lamprey wounds
Catches the most western river lamprey
Hake survey < i ---
Grou dfis su vey <~--
• Hake survey was able to PIT tag single lamprey in 2017 and 2018 • (no subsequent detections yet)
• Will send out more PIT tags during 2019 survey (65 sea days!)
Hake survey provides opportunity to tag lamprey
with PIT tags
Lamprey wounds from Groundfish survey
New Pacific lamprey collections
Source Year Number of lamprey
At-sea commercial hake observer program (ASHOP)
20172018
670Lots*
Commercial shrimp fishery 20172018
162
Groundfish survey 2017 4Total >700
* Not processed yet (more to come)
Caveat: Some patterns likely reflect the influence of fishing
effort /IND lamprey biology
Methods• Lamprey were measured for:
• Length (mm) & weight (g)• Intestine weight (g)• Oral disc diameter*• Distance between dorsal fins*• Moisture content (proxy for lipids)*• No. of gill openings (L, R)
• Samples collected/retained: • fin clips• Intestines• Bodies and heads (for statoliths)
• Catch information • date of capture• latitude/longitude • fishing & bottom depth
*Subsampled
Methods• Lamprey were measured for:
• Length (mm) & weight (g)• Intestine weight (g)• Oral disc diameter*• Distance between dorsal fins*• Moisture content (proxy for lipids)*• No. of gill openings (L, R)
• Samples collected/retained: • fin clips• Intestines• Bodies and heads (for statoliths)
• Catch information • date of capture• latitude/longitude• fishing & bottom depth
*Subsampled
Today’s [preliminary]
results:• size and
growth• distribution• gut fullness
Size of lamprey by
date and source Total length (mm
)
Total weight (g)
Date
Date
I-' N w .i,,. \.11 CTI -.J
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 8 0
0
1-May
1 I 11-May -- .. ~ ~ -
21-May l t,. • I•• • I
• · I-J .. ~ ..
'• I ' 31-May •
I .. i• - .>.
r t
10-Jun ~ • 1- . ~ • I • ' a . , t
20-Jun • <>- + • ~ • • I I
30-Jun ; ~ ' t· I
10-Jul • ~ ~
t> □ • 20-Jul I "- ~ ,~~iiTI
::!. 0 ~ 3 C (1)
30-Jul I ::i ...... . ~ ~ l~Q:;;:;;·I
- - - - -::r 1/) 1/) (1)
9-Aug I .. ~- + lj ; -< I ~
19-Aug __,.
□ I ~ I 29-Aug ~ ♦ .. ,
f I
8-Sep •- ... .. I I I i t l 18-Sep • .. - ... ' • I l 28-Sep ! L l
j ' I
I
8-0ct I- 1· -r - ... - t L • • • 18-Oct I • - .. -r ·•· ... ~- i ~ t I
. •-: f I
28-Oct 1 • ~ ~ I
7-Nov l
n
1-May
11-May
21-May
31-May
10-Jun
20-Jun
30-Jun
10-Jul
20-Jul
30-Jul
9-Aug
19-Aug
29-Aug
8-Sep
18-Sep
28-Sep
8-Oct
18-Oct
28-Oct
7-Nov
f-" N W .i,,. \.11 CTI -.J 00
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
, -. I • . t · . •-• : ! f • I :.
~ - • 1 •
• • • t> □ • V> G) I -:::s- -, 0.)
:l. 0 ~ 3 § ...,
--0 Q:; ;;;· ~ -- -:::s-1/) 1/) (1) -:::s- -:::s- -, (1) 1/) -< -< C ..,
< (D
-<
□
• •••
-.•
I>
•
• • • • ~ 1
•
Size of lamprey by
date and source Total length (mm
)
Total weight (g)
Date
Date
.... N VJ .j::,, V, en "-.J
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 8 0
0
1-May
1
1-May I
11-May · - - -~ -~ I ! r-~ 11-May t. . I·. • 21May ~ • • ; •:•i t I
I e-
28-Sep
' 8-0ct ' _ , __ - t------- t ~ 8-0ct
-- • i. 1 I 18-0ct . ~ ----- -r · • · - • -• ! 18-0ct
28-0ct • . ~ ~- . ~- .. 28-0 ct I I
I L__ 7-Nov ,. 7-Nov
I-" N VJ
0 0 0 o,-.e 0
0
ll \.-.j::,, V, en "-.J 00 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
I
' •• r • • t - +-
• • •
• •
•
• • •
•
□
•
• •
□ • u, G) I ;:r -, Ill
-, 0 " ~f § ~ -0 S; iii. ~ -· ::r V, (I) (II
ff ~-< -< ~
< (II
-<
Size and grow
thTotal length (m
m)
Big (headed home?)
Medium
(spent a winter
in marine w
aters?)
Smalls=recent arrivals?
Three sizes of lamprey in spring?
Date
I-" N VJ .i,. U1 en --..J 00
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1-May
11-May
21-May
31-May
10-Jun
20-Jun
30-Jun I ~-"1 ' ..... c □ • 10-Jul
,_ V'l_ G) :c
-, Q)
0 7'
20-Jul r • i ~ C (!) 1. J ::I .....
I Q.. -• - ..... (/) -- , -· ::,
30-Jul I t t- I Vl (/) (!) ::r ::T -, (I) (/) -< ;J C
9-Aug ~ ~ ~
I ~ 19-Aug t t D
- -29-Aug -~ • • 8-Sep I
ii► •
18-Sep I
• 28-Sep
8-Qct I - ,.- -1 ~ • I • • I
18-Oct I t· -- I ·•- • 1-. - t-
28-Oct I ;. ... i I i .•
7-Nov
Size and grow
thTotal length (m
m)
Date
Two sizes of lam
prey in fall?
Larges (getting ready to home?)
Smalls: spent the sum
mer in
the ocean1-May
11-May
21-May
31-May
10-Jun
20-Jun
30-Jun
10-Jul
20-Jul
30-Jul
9-Aug
19-Aug
29-Aug
8-Sep
18-Sep
28-Sep
8-0ct
18-0ct
28-0ct
7-Nov
0
I-" N
8 8
• • •
• •
~ • •
{],
en --..i 00
8 8 8
•• I O ;
•
: t • •
'°'
t> □ • V'l G) :c :::r -, Q) -, 0 7' -· (1) 3 § ....,
"O a. jj;' ~ ::!'? ::r ..,, (/) (1) :::r :::r -, (1) (/) -< -< ~
< (1)
-<
Size and grow
thTotal length (m
m)
Date
Assumed grow
th over time …
.
I-" N VJ .i,. U1 en --..J 00
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1-May
11-May
21-May
31-May
10-Jun
20-Jun
30-Jun I - -- I -
■ • • I □ • 10-Jul ,. I ■ IV>G):c
.... Q) 0 7'
20-Jul r • ■ • t• l • 1.g g_ ~ .......... (/) -· -· ::, 30-Jul I t ••· l. I. I~~~ (1) (/) -<
9-Aug t ~ ~ ~ t~ l< l 19-Aug
29-Aug I • - ... -
8-Sep 1 I I .. " • I l •
18-Sep I • I I I • I
28-Sep
a-oct I - ,- \-'.• · I\I• I • • I • 18-Oct
28-Oct
7-Nov
Hypothesized seasonal grow
th of Pacific lam
prey in marine w
aters (assum
es repeatedly sampling the sam
e population)
1stsum
mer
1stw
inter2nd sum
mer
2nd winter
3rd sum
mer
Date
Total length (mm)~ N w .i::,. tn O') ...... co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1-May
-31-May -- - _I_ - . - -------- ~ VI rt
30-Jun - -- - - - _I. -- ____._ ___ V,
- L - -'~ -C
30-Jul - -• - - . 3 29-Aug ~ .0 . 3
m 28-Sep ~ r - .
' 28-Oct
27-Nov ~
27-Dec ~ F -· f - - ~ · ' i 26-Jan
25-Feb . - 1 -- - - ~- - r - ""----' - -- -'" - ---- ~
27-Mar ' 26-Apr
26-May - J _j \& - -r - - - ___.._ ___ N ::J
2 5-J un ... r
t a.
25-Jul V,
... r r . C
24-Aug - - 0 3 l o o o 3 23-Sep - - L- - - --.- 0 m -l J_ -- 0 6>o'o ' 23-Oct
22-Nov ·---· - ' - ---r --~ - - ---- 1 N
22-Dec ~ - _ _,___ --- - ~- - r - ""----"- -- -'" - ---- I g_ 21-Jan _ T _ 1 _ . -1" - - . -~-- :E 20-Feb ::J
~ -: ~ ~ ~ -J ~ ~ _- _-'" ~ ~: ~ - r-t-m
22-Mar ' 21-Apr
l I I ~o V, w
21-May
i- -- r C ' a O o o ,§ a.
20-Jun - - r - --
m '
Hypothesized seasonal grow
th of Pacific lam
prey in marine w
aters (assum
es repeatedly sampling the sam
e population)
1stsum
mer
1stw
inter2nd sum
mer
2nd winter
3rd sum
mer
Date
0.44 mm
/d0.15 g/d
0.33%BW
/d
0.32 mm
/d0.14 g/d
0.13%BW
/d
1.7 mm
/d2.3 g/d
0.57%BW
/d
0.37 mm
/d0.46 g/d
0.05%BW
/d
Total length (mm)~ N w .i::,. tn O') ...... co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1-May
31-May - _I_ - . - -------- ~ VI rt
30-Jun - - - _I. -- ____._ ___ V,
C 30-Jul -- - - -• - - . 3
29-Aug . 3 0 m
28-Sep r - . '
28-Oct
27-Nov ~
27-Dec ·· ~.·. F \' ·. f ~ ~ ~ - . - - -- ' i 26-Jan
25-Feb . - 1 -- - - ~- - r - ""----' - -- -'" - ---- ~
27-Mar ' 26-Apr
26-May - J -1 ~ - r ~-- N ::J
2 5-J un ... r a.. 25-Jul
V, ... r . C
24-Aug - - L- - [ - --.- 0
0 3 3
23-Sep _ l -1 ___ o m
0 'o ' 23-Oct
22-Nov ·---· - ' - ----r --~ - - ---- 1 N
22-Dec ~ - --=--- ---4- - ~- - r - ""----" -\•- -'" - ---- I g_ 21-Jan -T-I -. -1" - \ " -~-- :E 20-Feb ::J
~ -~ ~ ~ ~ -J ~ ~ - -'" ~ ~:~- r-t-m
22-Mar ' 21-Apr
l I I ~ o V, w
21-May
i- -- r C ' a O o o ,§ a..
20-Jun - - r - --
m '
Hypothesized seasonal grow
th of Pacific lam
prey in marine w
aters (assum
es repeatedly sampling the sam
e population)
1stsum
mer
1stw
inter2nd sum
mer
2nd winter
3rd sum
mer
Date
Total length (mm)
0.59 mm
/d0.62 g/d
0.21%BW
/d
Sea lamprey growth rates
0.65-0.79 g/d W A
tlantic0.89 g/d Great Lakes
First ever estimate of m
arine growth rate for Pacific lam
prey and
independent confirmation that 2-3 years in
marine waters is reasonable (Beam
ish 1990)
~ N w .i::,. tn O') ...... co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1-May
31-May ~ VI rt
30-Jun V,
C 30-Jul 3
29-Aug 3 m
28-Sep ' 28-Oct
27-Nov ~
27-Dec VI rt
26-Jan ~ :::J
25-Feb ,-+
m 27-Mar ' 26-Apr
26-May N :::J
2 5-J un a. 25-Jul
V,
C
24-Aug 3 3
23-Sep m ' 23-Oct
22-Nov 1 I N
22-Dec I I g_ 21-Jan ~
20-Feb :::J ,-+
m 22-Mar ' 21-Apr
V, w 21-May C ' 3 a. 20-Jun 3
m '
Distribution of lampreyGiven likely freshwater sources of Pacific lamprey, I expected that:• Lamprey would be clustered around major river mouths
(Chehalis, Columbia, Umpqua, Rogue, Klamath), especially:• shortly after ocean entry in spring• immediately before re-entry to freshwater in fall
• Higher densities around biggest rivers (Columbia)• Dispersed at other times of year
Map by C. Morgan, OSU
Distribution of lamprey: expectationsSmall lamprey
springSmall lamprey
fallBig lamprey
springBig lamprey
fall
Clumped at river mouths
Dispersed Dispersed Clumped at river mouths
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
0 ,,,
47° N
46° N
45° N Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon
California California California California
12s· w 124• w 123• w 122· w12s· w 124• w 123• w 122° w12s· w 124° w 123° w 122° w12s· w 124° w 123° w 122° v
Map by C. Morgan, OSU
Distribution of lamprey: reality
Clumped at river mouths
Dispersed Dispersed Clumped at river mouths
Small lampreyspring
Small lampreyfall
Big lampreyspring
Big lampreyfall
Maybe?! Kinda Yes!No!!!
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
Umpqua
Rogue
Klamath
Complication: Observed distributions are influenced by fishing (=sampling) effort
which affects observations
Complication
43° N
42° N {\t \1
41 ° N1-+---'-........L!-....,___ _____ --1- --''---L------.-~-------+- +-----.-'-....i,...--r------r------,.----I- --l--'------.-.....l!....,___ _____ -+-
California California California California
1250 W 124° W 123° W 122° W125° W 124° W 123° W 122° W125° W 124° W 123° W 122°W 125° W 124° W 123° W 122° v
Expectations for feeding success and gut fullness
Expect that feeding success and therefore gut fullness would be in order of:
1. Lamprey caught with hake (preferred host)2. Lamprey caught by the groundfish survey
(lots of likely hosts)3. Lamprey caught by the shrimp fishery (not
parasitizing shrimp)
High
Low
Gut fullness (%BW) = 100x Gut wt (g)
Fish wt (g)- gut wt (g)
Gut fullness by fishery didn’t match expectations
Lamprey length vs. gut fullness Gut fullness by fishery
Fishery
Gut f
ulln
ess (
% B
W)
Lamprey caught by shrimp fishery fat and happy after a
big meal on hake?
30 10.0 • 9.0
25 8.0
! 7.0
6.0 -V'l V'l (lJ C
5.0
::J 4.0 LL
•• • 3.0
5 • 2.0 • .:::1, 1.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 U") 0 U") 0 U") 0 U") 0 U") 0 U") 0 Hake Groundfish Shrimp .-I .-I N N (Y) (Y) ,;:f" ,;:f" U") U") l.D l.D r--,..
Length (mm)
Summary and conclusions
• New marine collections provide new insight on Pacific lamprey marine ecology, such as ….
• Provide first estimates of ocean growth rates
• 2-3 years in the ocean is probably correct
• Lamprey aren’t clumped in front of major river mouths but widely dispersed in ocean
• Lamprey caught by shrimp fishery didn’t have low gut fullness
• resting on bottom after gorging on hosts?
Photo Credit: West Coast Observer Program
Next steps• See if patterns repeated with extensive 2018 collections
(not processed yet)• Determining host preferences
• eDNA of gut contents (Hampton University)• Pilot project: use trophic biomarkers (fatty acids and stable
isotopes) to determine feeding histories
• Compile data on fish with lamprey wounds• Put this data in the context of the whole life cycle
Comparisons with lamprey before ocean entryComparison with lamprey after freshwater re-enty
Acknowledgements
• West Coast Fishery Observer Program• Vanessa Tuttle, Ryan Shama, Jen Cramer• Many fishery observers who collected and recorded lamprey for us
• NWFSC Groundfish and Hake survey staff• Dan Kamikawa, Alicia Billings
• AFSC Groundfish survey staff• Nancy Robertson
• Sam Graf (Middlebury College)• Did all the lamprey necrospies
• Sam G af
Questions?
Photo Credit: West Coast Observer Program
Still life with lamprey
Fishing depth is less variable than bottom depth
Fishing depth (m)
Bottom depth (m)
Small Lamprey Large Lamprey
Lamprey length (mm) Lamprey length (mm)
600 600 • Spring
■ • Fall 500
■ Spring 500 ■
~ Fall .. • 400 • 400 0
• • 0
300 300 ■ ■ Oo 0 t 0 ■
0 o•■ ■ ■ 200 200 ■ ■
■ 'I. 0
100 ...... 100 •• ~•. ~ • • 0 0
100 150 200 250 300 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1,400 1,400 • Spring
1,200 • • • • Fall 1,200 ■ Spring
• ..... o Fall 1,000 • ~~· 1,000 ..... =•• .. . ,.
■
800 • ~!:t •_r 800 ■ ■
600 ••• :;,t .. - ••• 600 ■ • • ■ ■ • •• 111111 ■
■ ■ I 400 400 oO~ 0 0 ■
■ 0
200 200 , • ■
0 0 100 150 200 250 300 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Timing of lamprey in the Columbia
River estuary(Weitkamp et al. 2015)
• Highest adultdensities in late winter (=timing of freshwater re-entry
• Highest juveniledensities in mid winter (=timing of ocean entry)
Pacific lamprey juveniles
Pacific lamprey adults
....._ N
E 0.20 0 0 0 0-
0.15 ..... --ci 5 .c 0.10 '1ii C Q) -0 C 0.05 C1l Q)
2
0.00
....._ 3.00 N
E 0 0 0
0.50 0-..... --0 0.40 5 £ 0.30 CJ) C 0.20 Q) -0 C 0.10 C1l Q)
2 0.00
....._ 1.20 N
River lamprey E 0 0
1.00 0 0-
0.80 ..... --0 5 0.60 £ CJ) 0.40 C Q) -0 C 0.20 C1l Q)
2 0.00 C .D
,._ ,._ >,
C1l Q) C1l 0.. C1l --, LL ~ <l'. ~
I. I \ \ \
C :i ::J --, --,
Month
o..c:515~ ~ 0 z o
-o-CREDDP Trawl
-o-- CREDDP Purse seine
- -• - EPS Purse seine
Alaska Fishery Science Center surveys that catch Pacific lamprey
Bering Sea slope survey discontinued in 2017
(Pacific lamprey = Orange circles and green triangles)
Bering slope survey
Gulf of Alaska survey
UNITED STAT~S r.