Supplementation using steelhead fry: performance, interactions with

natural steelhead, & effect of enriched hatchery environments

Christopher P. Tatara NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Stephen C. Riley USGS, Great Lakes Science Center

Julie A. ScheurerNOAA Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries Division

Barry A. BerejikianNOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Overview

Current status of steelhead under ESA

Role of hatcheries in steelhead management

2 potential pre-release techniques for steelhead conservation hatcheriesEnvironmental

enrichmentStocking fry

Field evaluation of these two conservation hatchery techniques

ESA Status of SteelheadDPS ESA Status

1 Puget Sound Threatened

2 Olympic Peninsula Not Warranted

3 Southwest Washington Not Warranted

4 Lower Columbia River Threatened

5 Upper Willamette River Threatened

6 Oregon Coast Species of Concern

7 Klamath Mountain Province

Not Warranted

8 Northern California Threatened

9 Central California Coast Threatened

10 South Central CA Coast Threatened

11 Southern California Endangered

12 Central Valley Threatened

13 Middle Columbia River Threatened

14 Upper Columbia River Endangered

15 Snake River Basin Threatened

Hatcheries in steelhead management

• Historic and current - Stock Enhancement– Provide fish for harvest and recreational

angling

• More recent – Restocking and Conservation– Restore spawning biomass/population to

sustainable/stable level

• Controversy over the use of hatchery fish for rebuilding imperiled natural populations– Changes to minimize genetic and

environmental influences of hatcheries

Photo: NWPCC

Photo: DIPAC

Conservation hatchery techniques

190 mm 90 mm

Conventional Hatchery Enrichment Stream

Smolt release – 1 year Fry release – 4-5 months

Rearing Environments

Enriched

Photo: Scotty Corp.Photo: USFWS

Photo: USFWS

Natural

Conventional

Upstream

Downstream

11 Creek

12 Creek

Upstream

Downstream

E + N

E + N

E + N

E + N

E + N

E + NC + N

C + N

C + N

C + N

C + N

C + N

Stocked: 31 July 2003

Final sampling: 16-17 September 2003

Observed: 5 occasions between6 August and 11 Sept 2003

Evaluating conservation hatchery techniques: Experimental Design

Evaluating conservation hatchery techniques: Responses and

HypothesesUpstream

Downstream

11 Creek

12 Creek

Upstream

Downstream

E + N

E + N

E + N

E + N

E + N

E + NC + N

C + N

C + N

C + N

C + N

C + N

Response Variables:Behavior, Territory size,

Habitat use, Spatial distribution,Growth, and Survival

H1: How do conventional and

enriched hatchery frycompare to natural fry?

C = E = NH2: Are natural fry differentially

affected by type of hatchery fry stocked?

NCON = NENR

Results: Foraging and aggressive behavior – natural

fry

Observation week

0 1 2 3 4 5

Agg

ress

ion

rate

((t

hrea

ts +

atta

cks)

· fis

h -1

· m

in -

1 )

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Hatchery type x Week interaction (F3,79 = 3.97, p = 0.011)

Observation week

0 1 2 3 4 5

Fora

ging

rate

(fee

ding

stri

kes

* min

-1)

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Hatchery type (F1,79 = 5.01, p = 0.028)Week (F3,79 = 4.34, p = 0.007)

natural fry with conventional hatchery frynatural fry with enriched hatchery fry

Results: Territory size

• H1: C = E = N– (F2,135 = 0.043, p = 0.653)

• H2: NCON= NENR

– (F1,45 = 0.45, p = 0.504)

• Additional analyses– Fork length (F1,

132 = 9.40, p = 0.003)

– Spatial use (T-value = 4.37, p < 0.001)

• C = E = N (F2,133 = 0.66, p = 0.520)

– Local density (p = 0.129)

Log10 length (cm)

0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90

Lo

g 10

terr

itory

siz

e (

m2 )

-2.0

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

Enriched Hatchery FryConventional Hatchery FryNatural FryRegression Relationship This StudyRegression Relationship Grant & Kramer (1990)

Results: habitat use

Eleven Creek Twelve Creek

Poo

l Use

Ind

ex

0

1

2

3

4

Natural fry Conventional hatchery fry Enriched hatchery fry

a a a

bc

d

ac

Eleven Creek Twelve Creek

Poo

l Use

Ind

ex

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Natural with Conventional Natural with Enriched

a

a

b

a

Pool Use Index = (# frypool/# fryencl)/(Areapool/Areaencl)

Stream x type interactionF2,74 = 11.68, p<0.001

Stream x hatchery type stocked interactionF1,36 = 14.40, p = 0.001

Results: spatial distribution

Eleven Creek Twelve Creek

Sta

ndar

dize

d M

oris

ita in

dex

of d

ispe

rsio

n

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 Natural fryConventional hatchery fryEnriched hatchery fry

ad

cd

b

ad

bbc

A

Eleven Creek Twelve Creek

Sta

ndar

dize

d M

oris

ita in

dex

of d

ispe

rsio

n0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6 Natural with Conventional Natural with Enriched

a

a

a

a

B

Standardized Morisita Index• = 0 indicates randomness• > 0 indicates clumping (+)• < 0 indicates uniformity (-)

Hatchery type, F1,33 = 3.51, p = 0.07Stream x fish type, F2,76 = 6.42, p = 0.04

Results: Growth

Natural w/ C

onventional

Natural w/ E

nriched0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

Eleven Creek

Twelve Creek

Inst

anta

neou

s gr

owth

rat

e (ln

gra

ms/

day)

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014Natural fry Conventional fry Enriched fry

a

b

a

a

(ANOVA, F1,18 = 7.23, p = 0.02)

n=6 for natural n=3 for hatchery

Mann-Whitney, n=6

Natural Conventional Enriched

Sur

viva

l (pe

rcen

t)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Natural + Conventional Natural + Enriched0

20

40

60

80

100

Natur

al re

mov

al

Natur

al sn

orke

l

Hatch

ery r

emov

al

Hatch

ery s

nork

el0

20

40

60

80

100a a

a

b

a

b

b

b

a

Results: Survival after 6 weeks

(ANOVA, F2,18 = 27.57, p < 0.001)n=12 for natural n=6 for hatchery Paired t-test, n=16Mann-Whitney, n=6

Results: Estimated survival over the course of the experiment

Sampling occasion

8/4/03 8/11/03 8/18/03 8/25/03 9/1/03 9/8/03 9/15/03

Est

imat

ed

sur

viva

l (pr

opo

rtio

n)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

mean hatchery fry survivalmean natural fry survival

Removal

Stocking

Sheirer-Ray-Hare,F1,95 = 45.2, p < 0.001

Pro

port

ion o

f in

itia

l popula

tion

obse

rved

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

CO

N1

CO

N2

CO

N3

CO

N4

CO

N5

CO

N6

EN

R1

EN

R2

EN

R3

EN

R4

EN

R5

EN

R6

Enclosure

Densi

ty

(fry

/sq

. m

ete

r)

HATCHERYNATURAL

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

CO

N1

CO

N2

CO

N3

CO

N4

CO

N5

CO

N6

EN

R1

EN

R2

EN

R3

EN

R4

EN

R5

EN

R6

Enclosure

Densi

ty

(fry

/sq

. m

ete

r)

HATCHERYNATURAL

Effectiveness of steelhead fry supplementation

Supporting research evaluating effectiveness of fry stocking

• Hatchery program established 2002– Featured fry stocking (after complete yolk absorbance)– Extensive genetic monitoring & adult & outmigrant traps

• Used genetic monitoring to compare # age-2 smolts produced by female steelhead– Spawning naturally in the river– Spawned artificially in hatchery with their offspring

released as fryYearClass

Comparison

Relative smolt

production

2002 H2:NS 6.2**

2003 H1:NS 2.1**

2003 H2:NS 1.3*

Carrofino et al. 2008. Can J Fish Aquat Sci : 65: 309-318

Conclusions

• Fry from conventional and enriched hatchery environments develop natural social behaviors shortly after release

• Individual hatchery fry establish and use territories like natural fry

• Hatchery fry use pools like natural fry, but have a more clumped spatial distribution

• Stocking enriched hatchery fry altered the foraging and aggressive behavior of natural fry– No effect on growth or survival of natural fry

Conclusions• Conventional and enriched hatchery fry grow as well

as natural fry• Natural fry have higher survival than hatchery fry

– most mortality of hatchery fry occurred within 2 weeks of stocking

• Growth and survival of natural fry was similar when stocked with conventional or enriched hatchery fry

• Supplementation with hatchery fry increased steelhead populations over the short-term (density increase of 2.9X) – no differences using conventional or enriched fry– Fry supplementation increases relative production of age-2 smolts

• Longer studies of fry supplementation are needed to fully evaluate effectiveness

Acknowledgements

• Rob Endicott • Jeff Atkins• Skip Tezak • Eric Kummerow • Rudy Wynn• Brandon Nickerson• Weyerhaeuser Corporation • WDFW, Bingham Creek Hatchery