potential for hatchery-wild reproductive interaction from a segregated steelhead hatchery in...
TRANSCRIPT
Potential for hatchery-wild reproductive interaction from a
segregated steelhead hatchery in Washington State
Michael Dauer
Todd Seamons, Lorenz Hauser, Tom Quinn, Kerry Naish
Presented at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 10th West Coast Steelhead Meeting
March 7-9, 2006
Hatchery Scientific Review Group
Hatchery Reform ModelsHatchery Reform Models
Wild
Hatchery
Wild fish in Wild fish in broodstockbroodstock
Hatchery fish on Hatchery fish on spawning groundsspawning grounds
Wild
Hatchery
Wild fish in Wild fish in broodstockbroodstock
Hatchery fish on Hatchery fish on spawning groundsspawning grounds
Wild
Hatchery
Wild
Hatchery
`
Question
• What risk is involved in the ‘segregated’ hatchery model?• Does the mode of segregation
(return timing) keep hatchery and wild stocks temporally segregated?
• Are the hatchery fish reproducing in the wild?
Hatchery
Wild
Forks Creek HatcheryForks Creek Hatchery
Forks Creek HatcheryForks Creek Hatchery
• Segregated by return timing
• Adipose fins clipped to differentiate pops
• Performed parentage 1996-2005
• Scales analyzed 1996-2001
Separation by Adipose Fin Clipping
Animalpicturesarchive.com
Water Flow
Hatchery
Willapa River
Forks Creek
Wate
r
Flo
w
Animalpicturesarchive.com
Water Flow
Willapa River
Forks Creek
Wate
r
Flo
w
Separation by Adipose Fin Clipping
Hatchery
Animalpicturesarchive.com
Water Flow
Willapa River
Forks Creek
Wate
r
Flo
w
Separation by Adipose Fin Clipping
Hatchery
X
Animalpicturesarchive.com
Water Flow
Willapa River
Forks Creek
Wate
r
Flo
w
Separation by Adipose Fin Clipping
Hatchery
XX
Separation by Spawn Timing
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Return Date
Percent of Returning
Adults (96-01)
Hatchery
Wild
Separation by Spawn Timing
Todd Seamons, unpublished data
Snow Creek Wild Steelhead
0
30
60
90
120
77 78 79 80 81 82 89 01 02 03 04
Year Sampled
Number of Days on
Spawning Ground
♀ (avg = 49.3)
♂ (avg = 48.0)
Separation by Spawn Timing
0
100
200
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au
Return Date
Number of Returning
Adults (96-01)
Hatchery
Wild
`
Question
• What risk is involved in the ‘segregated’ hatchery model?• Does the mode of segregation
(return timing) keep hatchery and wild stocks temporally segregated?
• Are the hatchery fish reproducing in the wild? • <5% breeders in wild
Hatchery
Wild
Ford, 2002; Ford, 2002;
Mobrand et al, 2005Mobrand et al, 2005
Scale Analysis
Do these stocks differ at age of return?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4
Saltwater Age
Perc
ent o
f Adu
lts
Hatchery (n=712)Wild (n=114)
• Ocean Scale Analysis
T-test p=0.013; df=88
Do these stocks differ at age of return?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 Unreadable
Freshwater Age
Per
cen
t o
f A
du
lts
Hatchery (n=712)Wild (n=114)
T-test p<0.001; df=88
• Freshwater Scale Analysis
Photo Courtesy of Tom Quinn
Do these stocks differ at age of return?
0%
50%
100%
Hatchery(n=712)
Wild (n=114)
Perc
en
t o
f A
du
lts
First Time Spawner
Repeat Spawner
• Rate of Iteroparity (Repeat Spawning)
NNWild, tWild, t
NNHatchery, tHatchery, t
Iteroparity in time=t Iteroparity in time=t tells us tells us
about about NNHatchery fish in wild, t-1Hatchery fish in wild, t-1
NNHatchery fish in wild, Hatchery fish in wild, tt
NNtotal fish in wild, total fish in wild, tt Goal: <5%Goal: <5%
Ford, 2002; Ford, 2002;
Mobrand et al, 2005Mobrand et al, 2005
Predicting H/W ratio in the wild environment
Predicting H/W ratio in the wild environment
NHatchery fish in wild, t
NTotal fish in wild, t
Goal: <5%
1996_,___
______________________________13
1996_,___
1997_,__
1,______,___
13
wildinfishhatchery
wildinfishhatchery
sampledhatcherysiteroparou
Survivaltsampledhatcherysiteroparou
N
twildinfishhatchery
N
N
N
N
10%130
Predicting H/W ratio in the wild environment
Goal: <5%
1996_,_
%100_%0______________________________
321996_,_
1996_,_
__,_
____,_
32
populationwild
successsampling
populationwild
sampledwild
SuccessSamplingtsampledwild
tpopulationwild
N
N
N
NN
20%
160
NHatchery fish in wild, t
NTotal fish in wild, t
0
100
200
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Return Date
Number of Returning
Adults (96-01)
Hatchery
Wild
Predicting H/W ratio in the wild environment
Redd Counts (WDFW in Mackey et al. 2001)
Predicting H/W ratio in the wild environment
Goal: <5%
1996_,_
100_0______________________________
321996_,_
1996_,_
__,_
____,_
32
populationwild
successsampling
populationwild
sampledwild
SuccessSamplingtsampledwild
tpopulationwild
N
N
N
NN
20%
160%
NHatchery fish in wild, t
NTotal fish in wild, t
44.8%
Predicting H/W ratio in the wild environment
160130
130
1996_,___
1996_,___
wildinfishtotal
wildinfishhatcheryN
N
Conservative estimates: Repeat spawner success = 10%Wild Sampling Success = 20%
NHatchery fish in wild, t
NWild population, t
Goal: <5%
1% 7% 13% 19% 25%0.1%
1.2%
2.3%
3.4%
4.5%
5.6%
6.7%
7.8%
8.9%
10.0%
Hatchery Repeat Spawner Survival
Wild Sampling Success
45%-50%
40%-45%
35%-40%
30%-35%
25%-30%
20%-25%
15%-20%
10%-15%
5%-10%
0%-5%
H/W ratio
Predicting H/W ratio in the wild environment
1% 7% 13% 19% 25%53,333
4,444
2,319
1,569
1,185
952
796
684
599
533
Hatchery Repeat Spawner Survival
Wild Pop Size
45%-50%
40%-45%
35%-40%
30%-35%
25%-30%
20%-25%
15%-20%
10%-15%
5%-10%
0%-5%
H/W ratio
Bottom Line:
Unlikely that we are meeting the <5% goal of the segregated hatchery model
ConclusionsConclusions
Wild
Hatchery
StrayingStrayingRiskRisk
Wild
Hatchery
StrayingStrayingRiskRisk
• Segregated Segregated hatchery model hatchery model requires minimal requires minimal reproductive reproductive interactioninteraction
• There is potential for There is potential for considerable considerable interaction due to interaction due to iteroparity in iteroparity in hatchery fishhatchery fish
ConclusionsConclusions
Wild
Hatchery
StrayingStrayingRiskRisk
Wild
Hatchery
StrayingStrayingRiskRisk
• However – These ratios However – These ratios do not elucidate the do not elucidate the true ecological or true ecological or evolutionary impactevolutionary impact
• Mackey et al. 2001 Mackey et al. 2001 showed little spatial showed little spatial overlapoverlap
• Not NNot Nee, just census , just census estimateestimate
• Only provide us an upper Only provide us an upper estimate of the potential estimate of the potential impactimpact
Future DirectionsFuture Directions
• Reproductive success Reproductive success of hatchery fish in of hatchery fish in wildwild• Smolt samplesSmolt samples
• Rate of evolution in Rate of evolution in hatcheryhatchery
• Examine life history of Examine life history of putative hybridsputative hybrids
Wild
Hatchery
StrayingStrayingRiskRisk
Wild
Hatchery
StrayingStrayingRiskRisk
Acknowledgments
• Committee – Kerry Naish, Tom Quinn, Lorenz Hauser
• Peer Support – Todd Seamons, Jason Cope, Jim Franks, fishMMBL, Quinn Group
• Scale Reading – Kate Myers, Jan Armstrong, Nancy Davis, and Trey Walker (High Seas Salmon Program)
• Hatchery Staff – Rob Allen, Kevin Flowers, Dave Shores, Merle Hash, Jenny Allen
• Lab Help – Lyndsay Newton, Duy Mai, Louise Baxter
• Funding – BPA, Wild Steelhead Coalition
Do these stocks differ at age of return?
Jack/Jills 0 1 2 Total
Males 1% 97% 2% 0% 405
Females 1% 90% 8% 1% 308
% females 40% 42% 75% 100% --
Males 3% 89% 6% 2% 64
Females 0% 82% 14% 4% 51
% females 0% 42% 64% 67% --
Hat
cher
yW
ild
Spawning Age
Do these stocks differ at fitness related traits?
0%
50%
100%
2 3 4 5 6Total Age
Per
cen
t o
f A
du
lts
Hatchery
Wild
400
650
900L
en
gth
(m
m)
** ** *
400
650
900L
en
gth
(m
m)
** ** *T-test
** p<0.001
* p<0.05
`
Question
• What reproductive risk is involved in the ‘segregated’ hatchery model?• Do segregated hatcheries keep
hatchery and wild stocks reproductively isolated?
• Less than 5% wild spawners Hatchery
Wild
Ford, 2002; Ford, 2002;
Mobrand et al, 2005Mobrand et al, 2005