Fish and Fish Prey Variability Analysis for the Ecosystem Monitoring Project
Lyndal Johnson, Paul Chittaro, Dan Lomax, Kate Macneale, O. Paul Olson, Sean Sol, David Tee, Gina
Ylitalo
NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA, USA
Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership Science Workgroup Meeting
January 28, 2014
Parameters measured • Fish community
– Species richness
– Species divesity
– % non-native species
– % fis that could be salmon predators
• Salmon species composition and habitat occurrence
– % of salmon soecies in catches
– Density of salmon species
– Chinook salmon stock composition
• Salmon condition
– Length, weight, condition factor, size ranges
– Lipid content
– Growth rate (otoliths)
– Contaminants
Selmon Prey
– Prey composition and abundance in open water and emergent vegetation
– Chinook salmon diets and prey preference
Fish communities
and Salmon
habitat occurrence
and health
Sources of variability
• High variability among beach seine sets, tows
• Variabiity among individual fish
• Sampling site or reach
• Sampling month
• Sampling year
• Marked (hatchery) vs. unmarked (presumably wild) origin
• Stock origin
• Habitat type (emergent vegetation vs. open water) for prey
Fish Communities - % non-native species
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
% n
on
-nati
ves in
catc
h
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Reach A(n=75)
Reach B(n=80)
Reach C(n=141)
Reach E(n=65)
Reach F(n=98)
Reach G(n=35)
Reach H(n=103)
% n
on
-nati
ves in
catc
h
35% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 83
N = 597
11% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 149
N = 597
% non-native species – temporal trends
0
20
40
60
80
100
2007(n=26)
2008(n=12)
2009(n=12)
2010(n=11)
2011(n=12)
2012(n=12)
2013(n=13)
% n
on
-na
tiv
e
Campbell Slough
0
20
40
60
80
100
2008(n=12)
2009(n=11)
2011(n=16)
2012(n=18)
2013(n=9)
% n
on
-nati
ve
Franz Lake
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009(n=16)
2010(n=13)
2011(n=24)
2012(n=25)
2013(n=19)
% n
on
-nati
ve
Whites Island
P=0.0894, LSN=113, n=98
Range – 22-57%
P=0.3647, LSN=144, n=65
Range - 15-36%
P=0.2729, LSN=171, n=91
Range - 0.1-1%
0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 (n=27) 2012 (n=29) 2013 (n=19)%
no
n-n
ati
ve
Ilwaco Slough
P=0.1198, LSN=106, n=75
Range – 0-3.6%
Fish Densities – unmarked Chinook salmon
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140D
en
sit
y o
f u
nm
ark
ed
ch
ino
ok
0
50
100
150
200
250
Den
sit
y o
f u
nm
ark
ed
cch
ino
ok
16% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 100
N = 597
15% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 160
N = 597
Unmarked chinook density- temporal trends
P=0.4280, LSN=180, n=72
Range – 0.7-10.6 fish/1000 m2
P=0.3814, LSN=150, n=66
Range - 0-4.2 fish/1000 m2
P=0.1043, LSN=120, n=97
Range – 8.7-25.5 fish/1000 m2
P=0.1198, LSN=256 n=75
Range – 0-0.62 fish/1000 m2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2008(n=12)
2009(n=11)
2010(n=11)
2011(n=12)
2012(n=12)
2013(n=13)
Sp
ecie
s r
ich
ness
Campbell Slough
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009(n=16)
2010(n=13)
2011(n=24)
2012(n=25)
2013(n=19)
Whites Island
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2008(n=12)
2009(n=11)
2011(n=16)
2012(n=18)
2013(n=9)
Franz Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2011 (n=27) 2012 (n=29) 2013 (n=19)
Ilwaco Slough
Lower Columbia/Willamette Stocks:
• West Cascade Range Falls
• West Cascade Range Springs
• Spring Creek Group Falls
• Upper Willamette Springs
Interior Columbia Stocks:
• Upper and Middle Columbia Springs
• Snake River Spring/Summers
• Snake River Falls
• Deschutes River Summer/Falls
Chinook Salmon Genetic Groups
Stock Distribution - % non-LCR stocks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% n
on
-LC
R s
tocks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Reach A(n=2)
Reach B(n=13)
Reach C(n=37)
Reach E(n=6)
Reach F(n=16)
Reach G(n=11)
Reach H(n=6)
% n
on
-LcR
E s
tocks
18% of variabiity
P = 0.0079
LSN = 65
N = 91
9% of variabiity
P = 0.49
LSN = 136
N = 91
Chinook salmon size
35% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 10
N = 1196
24% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 46
N = 1196
0
20
40
60
80
100
unmarked (n=757) marked (n=437)
Marked vs. unmarked
020406080
100120140
Month
unmarked
marked
Chinook salmon size
7% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 48
N = 1196
2% of variabiity
P < 0.0001
LSN = 78
N = 1196
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Reach A(1,0)
Reach B(125,26)
Reach C(341,64)
Reach E(44, 48)
Reach F(117,192)
Reach G(103,50)
Reach H(26,57)
Reach
unmarked
marked
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rogue (5,0) WestCascadesfall (446,
123)
SpringCreek Group
fall(125,281)
Deschutesfall (16,0)
UpperColumbia
Summer/fall(129,15)
WestCascades
spring (11,5)
Snake fall(10, 2)
WillametteRiver Spring
(15,11)
Stock
Unmarked chinook size - temporal trends
P=0.0636, LSN=165, n=156
Range – 57-71 mm
P=0.1281, LSN=37, n=27
Range - 45-68 mm
P=0.0001, LSN=50, n=348
Range – 51-63 mm
P=0.0001, LSN=29 n=123
Range – 49-59 mm
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009(n=37)
2010(n=110)
2011(n=55)
2012(n=83)
2013(n=64)
Len
gth
(m
m)
Whites Island
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2012 (n=86) 2013 (n=37)L
en
gth
(m
m)
Secret River
0
20
40
60
80
100
2008(n=24)
2009(n=15)
2010(n=42)
2011(n=4)
2012(n=41)
2013(n=30)
Sp
ecie
s r
ich
ness
Campbell Slough
0
20
40
60
80
2008 (n=11) 2009 (n=13) 2011 (n=1) 2012 (n=2) 2013 (n=0)
Franz Lake
Chinook lipid content
39% for marked
LSN = 20
N = 110
NS for unmarked
LSN = 290
N = 111
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
% l
ipid
Month
unmarked
marked
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
unmarked (n=111) marked (n=110)
% l
ipid
Marked vs. unmarked
NS
P = 0.44
Chinook lipid content
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
SnakeRiver fall(n=0,1)
Deschutesfall (n=1,0)
SpringCreek
Group fall(n=28,79)
UppercolumbiaSummer
fall(n=15,1)
WestCascade
fall(n=61,22)
WestCascadeSpring(n=4,4)
WillametteSpring(n=2,3)
% l
ipid
Stock
unmarked
marked
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Reach A(n=0)
Reach B(n=0)
Reach C(n=80,19)
Reach E(n=8,21)
Reach F(n=20,53)
Reach G(n=0,0)
Reach H(n=3,17)
% l
ipid
Reach
unmarked
marked
30% for marked
LSN = 23
N = 110
11% for unmarked
LSN = 69
N=11
4% for marked
LSN = 73
N=110
NS for unmarked
LSN = 255
N = 111
Fish Prey
Parameters measured • Fish community
– Species richness
– Species divesity
– % non-native species
– % fis that could be salmon predators
• Salmon species composition and habitat occurrence
– % of x in catches
– Density of
– Chinook salmon stock composition
• Salmon condition
– Length, weight, condition factor, size ranges
– Lipid content
– Growth rate (otoliths)
– Contaminants
Selmon Prey
– Prey composition and abundance in open water and emergent vegetation
– Chinook salmon diets and prey preference
Composition of available prey
emergent
vegetation open water
Number of prey by site, year, and habitat type
Habitat type: 49%
Site: 9%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Ilwaco 2011
Secret River 2012
Secret River 2013
Welch Island 2012
Welch Island 2013
Ryan Island 2009
Bradwood Slough 2010
Jackson Island 2010
Whites Island 2009
Whites Island 2010
Whites Island 2011
Whites Island 2012
Whites Island 2013
Wallace Island 2010
Lord/Walker Island 2009
Burke Island 2011
Goat Island 2011
Deer Island 2011
Campbell Slough 2008
Campbell Slough 2009
Campbell Slough 2010
Campbell Slough 2011
Campbell Slough 2012
Campbell Slough 2013
Lemon Island 2012
Washougal 2012
Sand Island 2008
Franz Lake 2008
Franz Lake 2009
Franz Lake 2011
Hardy Slough 2008
mean (SD) number per m towed
open water tows
Number of prey by month
1% of variation after site and habitat type taken into account
Prey availability - trends
No consistent
differences
Not significantt in
explaining variability
Diet composition
Electivity – what they love
Electivity – what they hate
Temporal Trends in Diet Composition
Year of sampling did not contribute significantly to variability
Summary of Findings
• Significant spatial and seasonal patterns for many factors
• Differences between marked and unmarked fish
• Influence of stock less clear
• Some temporal variation at trend sites but less evidence of increasing or decreasing trends
• Variety of prey but consistent preference by Chinook for Dipteran prey; found at highest densities in nearshore emergent vegetation
• Habitat type, month, site, contribute to variation in prey
But . . .
Spatial, seasonal, stock and temporal data gaps
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Reach A(n=2)
Reach B(n=13)
Reach C(n=37)
Reach E(n=6)
Reach F(n=16)
Reach G(n=11)
Reach H(n=6)
% n
on
-LcR
E s
tocks
Spatial and Seasonal Gaps
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reach A Reach B Reach C Reach D Reach E Reach F Reach G Reach H
Sites Sampled Per Reach
Status sites
Trend sites
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Beach Seine Sets per Month
Temporal and Seasonal Gaps at Trend Sites
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ilwaco Slough Secret River Welch Island Whites Island CampbellSlough
Franz Lake
Years sampled by month
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ilwaco Slough Secret River Welch Island Whites Island CampbellSlough
Franz Lake
Years Sampled
Limited samples from non-LCR ESU stocks
050
100150200250300350400450500
Unmarked
Marked
Implications for Future Sampling
• Spatial patterns well-described, although some reaches represented by just one site
• Seasonal sampling schedule could be modified to focus on months when data are most needed
• Trends monitoring still needed - but consider frequency, suitability of some sites
• Could focus lipid and genetic analyses unmarked fish, stocks with less data
