Coastal cutthroat trout in the Lower Columbia River ... · Coastal cutthroat trout in the Lower...
Transcript of Coastal cutthroat trout in the Lower Columbia River ... · Coastal cutthroat trout in the Lower...
Coastal cutthroat trout in the Coastal cutthroat trout in the Lower Columbia River: Lower Columbia River:
migration and residency in two tributariesmigration and residency in two tributaries
Joseph ZydlewskiJoseph Zydlewski11Jeffrey JohnsonJeffrey JohnsonGayle Gayle BarbinBarbin ZydlewskiZydlewski22
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia Fisheries Program US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia Fisheries Program Office, 1211 SE Cardinal Court, Suite 100, Vancouver, WA Office, 1211 SE Cardinal Court, Suite 100, Vancouver, WA
9868398683
11Currently: US Geological Survey Currently: US Geological Survey –– Biological Resources Division, Maine Biological Resources Division, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, OronoOrono, ME 04469, ME 04469
22Currently: University of Maine, School of Marine Sciences, Currently: University of Maine, School of Marine Sciences, OronoOrono, ME 04469, ME 04469
ObjectiveObjective
Describe tributary use and migration Describe tributary use and migration timing using PIT tag technologytiming using PIT tag technology
Describe of migrant and resident Describe of migrant and resident behaviorsbehaviorsCompare migrant and resident growthCompare migrant and resident growth
Chinook River
Abernathy Creek
Lower Columbia River
Collection and TaggingCollection and Tagging
Migration detectionMigration detection
Migration/RecaptureMigration/Recapture
Recapturing Recapturing Electrofishing/PITpackingElectrofishing/PITpacking
Abernathy Creek
Screwtrap
Upper PIT tag arrayLower PIT tag array
Summer PITpack
Recaptures and Detections2001 - 2005
Fall Electrofishing200120022003
Chinook River Recaptures and Detections2003 - 2005
Fall Electrofishing20022003
Hatchery Screwtrap
Mouth Screwtrap
Upper PIT tag array
Lower PIT tag array
Classifying migrants and residentsClassifying migrants and residents
Migrants:detected at array
Note: those detected within 30 d of tagging and not observed again = unknown (particularly Chinook River)
captured in screwtrap
Residents:recaptured electrofishingdetected with PITpack
Abernathy Creek
MigrantsMigrants123 detections at Upper array123 detections at Upper array110 detections at Lower array110 detections at Lower array33 recaptures at Screw Trap33 recaptures at Screw Trap
Upper Array
0
10
20
30
Tagged in 2001Tagged in 2002Tagged in 2003
Lower Array
Num
ber
0
10
20
30
Screw Trap
Oct 01 Apr 02 Oct 02 Apr 03 Oct 03 Apr 04 Oct 04 Apr 05
0
10
20
30
Chinook River
Residents:Residents:
39 Electrofishing recaps39 Electrofishing recaps
MigrantsMigrants343 detections at Upper array343 detections at Upper array132 detections at Lower array132 detections at Lower array83 recaptures at Screw Traps83 recaptures at Screw Traps
U pper a rray
0
20
40
60
80
100
T agged in 2002T agged in 2003
Low er a rray
0
20
40
60
80
H atche ry S crew T rap
05
101520
M ou th S crew T rap
O ct 01 A pr 02 O ct 02 A pr 03 O ct 03 A pr 04 O ct 04 A pr 05
0
5
10
15
20
Chinook AbernathyChinook Abernathy9%
19%
72%
44%
4%
52%52%
4%
44%
72%
19%
9%
Number tagged1,496
Fall 2001: 4692002: 4942003: 533
Number tagged754
Fall 2002: 4442003: 310
Unknown
Unknown
Migrant
Migrant
Resident
Resident
Abernathy Creek:
Higher proportion of residents observed
upstream
2001
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.05 21 89
2002
Prop
ortio
n
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.04 19 110
2003
R hLower Middle Upper
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.011 33 111
MigrantResident
Chinook River:
Higher proportion of residents observed
upstream
2002
X Data
l m u0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Col 29 Col 30
2003
Reach
Lower Middle Upper
Prop
ortio
n
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
MigrantResident
51 109
31 40 68
61
Age 1+
Tagging
Migrant (1 or Migrant (1 or 2 years later)2 years later)
PIT antennaPIT antennaScrew trapScrew trap
No observationsNo observations
ResidentResidentEE--fishingfishingPIT packPIT pack
Abernathy Creek
MIG1 MIG2 RES
Fork
Len
gth
- mm
0
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
n = 42
n = 8
n = 42
a
a,b
b
Abernathy Chinook River
MIG1 MIG2 RES
Fork
Len
gth
- mm
0
100
105
110
115
120
125
130n = 157
n = 13
n = 11
aa,b
b
RetroRetro--Analysis: Analysis: Length at Length at ageage--11
Abernathy Abernathy -- Migrant and Resident Migrant and Resident Growth Rates Growth Rates -- WeightWeight
Classifying age 1 Migrants by year of Classifying age 1 Migrants by year of movement movement
MIG1: 0.335 ± 0.034 (n = 7)*MIG1: 0.335 ± 0.034 (n = 7)*MIG2: 0.262 ± 0.065 (n = 2)MIG2: 0.262 ± 0.065 (n = 2)RES: 0.222 ± 0.014 (n = 45)RES: 0.222 ± 0.014 (n = 45)
CHINOOK CHINOOK -- Migrant and Resident Migrant and Resident Growth Rates Growth Rates -- WeightWeight
Classifying Migrants by year of movementClassifying Migrants by year of movementMIG1: 0.447 ± 0.020 (n = 35)*MIG1: 0.447 ± 0.020 (n = 35)*MIG2: 0.276 ± 0.049 (n = 14)MIG2: 0.276 ± 0.049 (n = 14)RES: 0.339 ± 0.041 (n = 11)RES: 0.339 ± 0.041 (n = 11)
SummarySummary
Evidence of both residence and migratory life Evidence of both residence and migratory life history strategieshistory strategies
Proportion of residents increases in upper reachesProportion of residents increases in upper reaches
Fish that will migrate at age 1+ are larger at Fish that will migrate at age 1+ are larger at tagging and have faster growth rates than those tagging and have faster growth rates than those that will remain another year or remain as that will remain another year or remain as residentsresidents
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsUS Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power US Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power AdministrationAdministrationUSFWS CRFPO; John USFWS CRFPO; John BrunzellBrunzell, Jeff , Jeff HogleHogleWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Pat Pat HanrattyHanratty, Steve , Steve WolthausenWolthausen, Bryan Blazer, Bryan BlazerSea Resources; Robert Warren, Garth GaleSea Resources; Robert Warren, Garth GaleUSFWS Abernathy Behavioral Physiology USFWS Abernathy Behavioral Physiology Crew; Dee McClanahan, Crew; Dee McClanahan, ChristianeChristiane Winter, Winter, Megan Hill, Bill Gale, Ben Kennedy, Casey Megan Hill, Bill Gale, Ben Kennedy, Casey Jackson, Jim Jackson, Jim GasvodaGasvodaLandowner: Robert DavisLandowner: Robert Davis
The EndThe End
2001
X Data
0 1 2 3 40.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2migrant resident
2002
0 1 2 3 4
Prop
ortio
n
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2003
l m u0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
4 18 55
4 15 77
9 20 62
Abernathy Creekmay want to use for discussion purposes
Mover dataWithout PITpack:
10% migrants8% residents
82% unknown
RetroRetro--Analysis: Length at ageAnalysis: Length at age--11
p > 0.05117 – MIG2(±3.7) n = 13
125 – RES(±3.6) n = 11
p > 0.05125 – RES(±3.6) n = 11
129 - MIG 1(±1.0) n = 157
p < 0.05117 – MIG2(±3.7) n = 13
129 - MIG 1(±1.0) n = 157
Chinook River
p > 0.05111 – MIG2(±7.3) n = 8
120 – RES(±4.8) n = 42
p > 0.05120 – RES(±4.8) n = 42
127 – MIG1(±4.3) n = 42
p < 0.05111 – MIG2(±7.3) n = 8
127 – MIG1(±4.3) n = 42
Abernathy Creek
pFork LengthMedian (25%, 75%)
Fork LengthMedian (25%, 75%)
Tributary
Length at AgeLength at Age
Age
no age 0+ 1+ 2+ 3+
Fork
Len
gth
- mm
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2001 2002 2003
Age
no age 0+ 1+ 2+ 3+
Fork
Len
gth
- mm
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2001 20022003
Abernathy Creek Chinook River