INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LAKE TROUT AND BULL TROUT IN …...Special thanks to Joe Cronrath, Sam...

Eastern Washington UniversityEWU Digital Commons

EWU Masters Thesis Collection Student Research and Creative Works

Spring 2017

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LAKE TROUTAND BULL TROUT IN THE PRIEST LAKESYSTEM, IDAHODerek C. EntzEastern Washington University

Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.ewu.edu/theses

Part of the Biology Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research and Creative Works at EWU Digital Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in EWU Masters Thesis Collection by an authorized administrator of EWU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended CitationEntz, Derek C., "INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LAKE TROUT AND BULL TROUT IN THE PRIEST LAKE SYSTEM, IDAHO"(2017). EWU Masters Thesis Collection. 457.http://dc.ewu.edu/theses/457

http://dc.ewu.edu?utm_source=dc.ewu.edu%2Ftheses%2F457&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://dc.ewu.edu/theses?utm_source=dc.ewu.edu%2Ftheses%2F457&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://dc.ewu.edu/student_research?utm_source=dc.ewu.edu%2Ftheses%2F457&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://dc.ewu.edu/theses?utm_source=dc.ewu.edu%2Ftheses%2F457&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/41?utm_source=dc.ewu.edu%2Ftheses%2F457&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://dc.ewu.edu/theses/457?utm_source=dc.ewu.edu%2Ftheses%2F457&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LAKE TROUT AND BULL TROUT IN THE PRIEST

LAKE SYSTEM, IDAHO

________________________________________________________________________

A Thesis

Presented To

Eastern Washington University

Cheney, Washington

________________________________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree

Master of Science

________________________________________________________________________

By

Derek C. Entz

Spring 2017

ii

THESIS OF DEREK C. ENTZ APPROVED BY

__________________________________________ DATE______

Paul Spruell, GRADUATE STUDY COMMITTEE

__________________________________________ DATE______

Margaret O’Connell, GRADUATE STUDY COMMITTEE

__________________________________________ DATE______

Jacqueline Coomes, GRADUATE STUDY COMMITTEE

iii

MASTER’S THESIS

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at

Eastern Washington University, I agree that the JFK Library shall make copies freely

available for inspection. I further agree that copying of this project in whole or in part is

allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or

publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be

allowed without my written permission.

Signature______________________

Date__________________________

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Paul Spruell for giving me the opportunity to study

under his tutelage to work with Lake Trout and Bull Trout in the Priest Lake system. All

of the advice he has given me over these past three years has helped shape my thoughts

and experiences in order to excel in my future endeavors. I would like to thank Dr.

Margaret O’Connell for her guidance, advice and helping me complete the family cycle

during my time at Eastern Washington University. I would also like to thank Dr.

Jacqueline Coomes for her editorial help.

I would also like to thank Mark Paluch for all of his help throughout every step of

this thesis project. I would like to thank Dr. Krisztian Magori for his help with statistics.

Special thanks to Joe Cronrath, Sam Gunselman, Andrew Huddleston, Tyler Janasz, Coty

Jasper, Ana Karolina, Neville Magone, Raymond Ostlie, Ryan Reihart, Javier Ochoa-

Reparaz, John Sheilds, Mike Tresko, Jessica Walston, Shawna Warehime, and Bryan

Witte for their help on the field and laboratory aspects of this thesis.

Thanks are given to Jason Connor, Jason Olson, Kevin Lyons, Deane Osterman,

and the Kalispel Tribe of Indians for all of their help during fish collection. Thanks are

given to Rob Ryan, Andy Dux, Jim Fredericks, and the Idaho Department of Fish and

Game for their help in the field and their guidance during this thesis. Thanks are given to

Tyler Long and Hickey Brothers Research, LLC for their help with fish collection.

Thanks are given to Brian Bellgraph, Daniel Deng, and the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory for their help with statistics. Thanks are also given to Scott Deeds and the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service for their help in the field and for their guidance

during this thesis.

v

I would like to extend a huge thank you to my fiancé Anna for all of her advice

and support during this thesis and tolerance of my adventures. I would also like to give a

special thanks to my parents, Ray and Jean, and my brother, Justin for their support and

guidance throughout this thesis. Specifically, my father, who has helped show me the

ropes of this industry since I was a young tyke.

This thesis was supported by the Kalispel Tribe of Indians Project Number ;

Contract Number . Fish were collected under a Idaho State scientific collector permit

(No. F-04-03-16), a USFWS Recovery Permit (No. TE-068143-04), issued to Dr. Paul

Spruell, and under IACUC approval from Eastern Washington University (Permit No.

2015-04.01).

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. viii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................x

CHAPTER 1. Directional and Seasonal Movements of Lake Trout and Bull

Trout between Two Northern Idaho Lakes

Abstract .........................................................................................................2

Introduction ...................................................................................................2

Methods.........................................................................................................7

Results .........................................................................................................10

Discussion ...................................................................................................12

Literature Cited ...........................................................................................15

CHAPTER 2. Diets of Lake Trout in Upper Priest Lake, Idaho

Abstract .......................................................................................................31

Introduction .................................................................................................31

Methods.......................................................................................................34

Results .........................................................................................................36

Discussion ...................................................................................................37

Literature Cited ...........................................................................................39

VITA ......................................................................................................................46

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Summary of Bull Trout and Lake Trout tagged and released within

Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL). Means of total

length (mm) and weight (g) of all fish tagged with SD ........................19

Table 1.2. Summary of seasonal and directional movements of Bull Trout and

Lake Trout between Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL) ...20

Table 2.1. Summary of Upper Priest Lake (UPL) Lake Trout stomach

contents from 2015 and 2016. Frequency of Occurrence (F.O.),

percent by number, and percent by weight were calculated from

stomach contents ...................................................................................43

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Study area including Priest Lake, Upper Priest Lake, and the

Thorofare which connects the two lakes ............................................21

Figure 1.2. Locations of Lotek JSATS WHS4000L acoustic receivers in Priest

Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake) at either end of the Thorofare.

Detection ranges of each array is shown by hashed circles ................22

Figure 1.3. Telemetry grid for Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL)

with sites marked by (triangles) ..........................................................23

Figure 1.4. Temperatures recorded in the Thorofare from 4 August, 2015 to

15 April, 2017. Vertical lines indicate when Thorofare temperatures

reach 15oC. Dates of Lake Trout (LKT) from UPL and PL, and

Bull Trout (BLT) movements are shown using colored arrows

explained by direction .........................................................................24

Figure 1.5. The mean and standard error of days Lake Trout spent within

detection range of Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL)

acoustic arrays based on seasons. Seasons are denoted by number,

1=Spring, 2=Summer, 3=Fall, and 4=Winter and * signifies

significance at an alpha of 0.05 ..........................................................25

Figure 1.6. The mean and standard error of days Bull Trout spent within detection

range of Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL) acoustic

arrays based on seasons. Seasons are denoted by number, 1=Spring,

2=Summer, 3=Fall, and 4=Winter and * signifies significance at

an alpha of 0.05 ...................................................................................26

Figure 1.7. The mean and standard error of days Lake Trout from the northern and

southern tagging regions spent within detection range of Priest Lake

(PL) acoustic array based on seasons. Seasons are denoted by

number, 1=Spring, 2=Summer, 3=Fall, and 4=Winter. ......................27

Figure 1.8. Seasonal heat maps of Lake Trout (LKT) distribution histories in

Upper Priest Lake (UPL). Number of detections in each site are

indicated by color; 1: Green, 2: Yellow, 4: Orange. No LKT were

detected in the Spring and Summer due to inaccessibility to UPL .....28


Upper Priest Lake (UPL). A) Spring UPL LKT distributions,

b) Summer UPL LKT distributions, and c) Fall UPL LKT

distributions. There are no data during the winter season due to

inaccessibility .....................................................................................29

ix


Priest Lake (PL) A) Spring PL LKT distributions, b) Summer PL

LKT distributions, c) Fall PL LKT distributions, and d) winter PL

LKT distributions ................................................................................30

Figure 2.1. Von Bertalanffy Growth Model of Lake Trout in Upper Priest

Lake (UPL) aged using scales. R2=0.88721 ......................................44

Figure 2.2. Proportion of Upper Priest Lake (UPL) Lake Trout diet items

based on size. >500 mm (blue), <500 mm (grey) ...............................45

x

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Introduced species are recognized as one of the biggest threats to world-wide

biodiversity (Simberloff 2001). Aquatic systems in particular are susceptible to invasions

by the introduction of non-native fishes and the interactions with native species can have

detrimental consequences and cause changes in ecosystem functions (Kohler and

Courtenay 1986; Vitousek et al. 1997; Thurow et al. 1997; Dunham et al. 2004). In the

U.S. alone, fish introductions have increased dramatically, growing from 67 species

(1850-1900) to 488 species (1951-1996; Nico and Fuller 1999). These introductions have

been so widespread that Ricciardi and Rasmussen (1999) indicated that temperate North

American freshwater fauna have extinction rates (0.037; percent loss per decade)

comparable to that of tropical rainforests.

Invasions of aquatic systems by novel predators can be devastating due to the lack of

competition, and exploitable prey species that evolved without predators (Kiesecker and

Blaustein 1997; Craig et al. 2000). For example, introductions of trout significantly alter

vertebrate and invertebrate communities, often causing extirpations of native fish,

amphibians, and benthic macroinvertebrates (Bradford et al. 1998; Carlisle and Hawkins

1998; Tyler et al. 1998; Knapp and Matthews 2000). Despite providing successful

recreational fisheries, the introduction of trout species to Chile has had detrimental

impacts on native fish fauna, including an absence of native fish in 40% of surveyed

streams (Soto et al. 2006). Following Brown and Rainbow Trout (Salmo trutta and

Onchorynchus mykiss, respectively) introductions to Chile in the early 1900's these

species represent 95% of total fish biomass in streams and rivers (Soto et al. 2006).

xi

In addition to Chile, nonnative trout have been introduced extensively on every

continent except Antarctica (Moyle 1986) in efforts to provide commercial fisheries

(Soto et al. 2001) or recreational fisheries (Donald 1987; Bahls 1992; Townsend 1996).

Historically fishless water bodies and even "protected" areas have been subject to

nonnative trout introductions (Donald 1987; Bahls 1992; Knapp et al. 2001). Nonnative

trout species can successfully colonize new habitats because trout are highly effective

predators (Flecker and Townsend 1994) and are able to readily establish self-sustaining

populations (Fausch et al. 2001). In order to conserve native species, managers have had

to enact conservation efforts to eliminate or control introduced species (Kaiser 2001).

The introduction of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush), a salmonid native to the

Great Lakes, to western U.S. lakes, has negatively impacted native species and in

extreme cases has caused extirpations (e.g., Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Bow

Lake, Alberta, Canada; Donald and Alger 1993). A well-known example of Lake Trout

predation on a native species is from Yellowstone Lake where Yellowstone Cutthroat

Trout (Onchorynchus clarki bouvieri) have experienced a severe decline in population

size since the introduction of Lake Trout (Ruzycki et al. 2003). Ruzycki et al. (2003)

found that a single Lake Trout consumed on average 41 Cutthroat Trout annually that

averaged 27-33% of their total body length.

Another species that has been negatively impacted by introductions of Lake Trout is

Bull Trout, which is listed as a threatened species by the Endangered Species Act

(USFWS 1998). Bull Trout and Lake Trout have similar ecological roles (growth rates,

food habits, and life histories) and competition is likely (Donald and Alger 1993; Guy et

al. 2011). Due to competition, Lake Trout can cause displacement of Bull Trout as well

xii

as preventing Bull Trout from reestablishing populations (Donald and Alger 1993). This

displacement is due to the fact that Lake Trout and Bull Trout prey on similar species at

similar life stages (Guy et al. 2011). Juveniles of both species prey on Mysis diluviana, a

freshwater shrimp that inhabits western U.S. lakes (Martin and Olver 1980). When both

species reach adult stages they become piscivorous, feeding on Kokanee Salmon

(Oncorhynchus nerka; Jeppson and Platts 1959) and other similar species (Beauchamp

and Van Tassell 2001).

In addition, Bull Trout could also be subject to predation by Lake Trout due to niche

overlap between the two species (Guy et al. 2011; Donald and Alger 1993). Lake Trout

become primarily piscivorous at approximately 500mm or at approximately age-class 6

(Ruzycki et al. 2003).

Lake Trout introduced to the Priest Lake system, which is within the Selkirk

Mountains of northern Idaho, has coincided with a decrease in the Bull Trout population.

The Priest Lake system includes Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL) which are

connected via a river channel known as the Thorofare. Lake Trout were originally

introduced to the Priest Lake system in 1925 to create a sport fishery (Bjornn 1961) and

their population remained relatively stable (5,700 fish harvested annually) until the

1970’s, then started to increase (30,000 fish harvested in 2003; Davis et al. 1997). It was

believed that no Lake Trout inhabited UPL until immigration through the Thorofare was

seen in the 1990’s. Lake Trout subsequently became established in UPL (IDFG 2013b).

A sharp decline in native Bull Trout populations occurred concurrently with the Lake

Trout increase in PL (Reiman and Lukens 1979), and Bull Trout reproduction is currently

functionally restricted to UPL with an estimated population between 100-150 adults

xiii

(Fredericks 1999; IDFG 2013b). Due to the possibility of the extirpation of Bull Trout in

the Priest Lake system, the effects of competition between Bull Trout and Lake Trout are

of particular concern (Fredericks 1999). The Priest Lake system is predicted to be a cold-

water stronghold under most climate change models (Reiman et al. 1997) increasing the

importance of conserving native species in this system.

Lake trout suppression using sinking gillnets has become an increasingly common

management practice for the conservation of native fishes and ecosystems throughout the

western USA (Martinez et al. 2009) as seen in Yellowstone Lake, Wyoming, Pend

Oreille Lake, Idaho, and Flathead Lake, Montana. Population models suggest that in

order to see a successful decline in Lake Trout populations, an annual mortality rate of

0.45-0.50 is needed (Healy 1978). Some large lake systems including Lake Pend Oreille,

Idaho have had some success in reducing Lake Trout populations by 67% by 2015 via

suppression efforts (Hansen et al. 2010).

To reduce the potential impacts on Bull Trout and other native species, annual

removal efforts of Lake Trout in UPL have occurred since 1998 (Fredericks et al. 2013).

Recent depletion estimates (2007-2013) of the UPL Lake Trout population range from

0.59-1.0, which is more than the necessary rate needed in order to see a successful

decline of lake trout within large lake systems (Hansen et al. 2013; IDFG 2013b).

Despite Lake Trout depletion estimates above the necessary rate needed (0.45-0.50)

within UPL, the population has stayed constant but simultaneously a reduced catch per

unit effort has been seen (IDFG 2013a). This is possibly due to immigration of Lake

Trout from Priest Lake via the Thorofare or recruitment of Lake Trout from within UPL.

Venard and Scarnecchia (2005) documented that Lake Trout move through the Thorofare

xiv

frequently during the spring (March-June) and fall (September-November) months when

surface water temperatures are below 15oC.

Within both chapters of this thesis I aim to better understand Lake Trout and Bull

Trout movement patterns both between and within Priest and Upper Priest lakes, and

characterize the potential impacts of Lake Trout feeding within UPL. The objectives of

this study are to 1) characterize the frequency, timing, and direction of Lake Trout

movements between UPL and PL, 2) Evaluate seasonal distribution of Lake Trout within

PL and UPL, 3) Characterize upstream/downstream movements of Bull Trout, originating

in UPL, between UPL and PL, and 4) Describe feeding habits of Lake Trout in UPL.

xv

REFERENCES

Bahls, P. 1992. The status of fish populations and management of high mountain lakes in

the western United States. Northwest Science. 66(3): 183-193.

Beauchamp, D. A., and J. J. Van Tassell. 2001. Modeling seasonal trophic interactions of

adfluvial bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society. 130(2):204-216.

Bjornn, T. C. 1961. Harvest, age structure, and growth of game fish populations from

Priest and Upper Priest Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.

90(1): 27-31.

Bradford, D. F., S. D. Cooper, T. M., Jenkins, K. Kratz, O. Sarnelle, and A. D. Brown.

1998. Influences of natural acidity and introduced fish on faunal assemblages in

California alpine lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

55(11):2478-2491.

Carlisle, D. M., and C. P. Hawkins. 1998. Relationships between invertebrate assemblage

structure, two trout species, and habitat structure in Utah mountain lakes. Journal of

the North American Benthological Society. 17(3):286-300.

Craig, J., S. Anderson, M. Clout, B. Creese, N. Mitchell, J. Ogden, M. Roberts, and G.

Ussher. 2000. Conservation issues in New Zealand. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics. 31(1):61-78.

Davis, J. A., N. J., Horner, and V. L., Nelson. 1997. Regional fisheries management

investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1994 Job Performance Report.

Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration, F-71-R19. Boise.

Donald, D. 1987. Assessment of the outcome of eight decades of trout stocking in the

mountain national parks, Canada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

7(4):545-553.

Donald, D. B., and D. J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and

niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of

Zoology. 71(2):238-247.

Dunham, J. B., D. S. Pilliod, and M. K. Young. 2004. Assessing the consequences of

nonnative trout in headwater ecosystems in western North America. Fisheries.

29(6):18-26.

Fausch, K. D., Y. Taniguchi, S. Nakano, G. D. Grossman, and C. R. Townsend. 2001.

Flood disturbance regimes influence rainbow trout invasion success among five

holarctic regions. Ecological Applications. 11(5):1438-1455.

xvi

Flecker, A. S., and C. R. Townsend. 1994. Community-wide consequences of trout

introduction in New Zealand streams. Pages 203-215 in Community-wide

consequences of trout introduction in New Zealand streams. Ecosystem

management. Springer.

Fredericks, J. 1999. Exotic fish species removal: Upper Priest and Lightning Creek

drainages. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Grant no.E-20, Segment (1).

Fredericks, J., M. Maiolie, R. Hardy, R. Ryan, and M. Liter. 2013. Fisheries management

annual report for 2011. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, IDFG #12-110, Boise.

Guy, C. S., T. E. McMahon, W. A. Fredenberg, C. J. Smith, D. W. Garfield, and B. S.

Cox. 2011. Diet overlap of top-level predators in recent sympatry: Bull trout and

nonnative lake trout. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 2(2):183-189.

Hansen, M. J., D. Schill, J. Fredericks, and A. Dux. 2010. Salmonid predator-prey

dynamics in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, USA. Hydrobiologia. 650(1):85-100.

Healey, M. 1978. The dynamics of exploited lake trout populations and implications for

management. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 307-328.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013a. Fishery Management Annual Report.

Chapter 3:31-40. Chapter 10:75-79.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013b. 2013-2018 Fisheries Management Plan.

Pg:23.

Jeppson, P. W., and W. S. Platts. 1959. Ecology and control of the Columbia squawfish

in northern Idaho lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 88(3):197-

202.

Kaiser, J. 2001. Ecology. Galapagos takes aim at alien invaders. Science (New York,

N.Y.) 293(5530):590-592.

Kiesecker, J. M., and A. R. Blaustein. 1997. Population differences in responses of red‐legged frogs (Rana aurora) to introduced bullfrogs. Ecology. 78(6):1752-1760.

Knapp, R. A., P. S. Corn, and D. E. Schindler. 2001. The introduction of nonnative fish

into wilderness lakes: Good intentions, conflicting mandates, and unintended

consequences. Ecosystems. 4(4):275-278.

Knapp, R. A., and K. R. Matthews. 2000. Non‐native fish introductions and the decline of

the mountain Yellow‐Legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation

Biology. 14(2):428-438

xvii

Kohler, C., and W. Courtenay. 1986. American Fisheries Society position on

introductions of aquatic species. Fisheries. 11(2):39-42.

Martinez, P. J., P. E. Bigelow, M. A. Deleray, W. A. Fredenberg, B. S. Hansen, N. J.

Horner, S. K. Lehr, R. W. Schneidervin, S. A. Tolentino, and A. E. Viola. 2009.

Western lake trout woes. Fisheries. 34(9):424-442.

Martin, N. V., and C. H. Olver. 1980. The lake charr, Salvelinus namaycush. In Balon, E.

(ed.) Charrs: Salmonid Fishes of the Genus Salvelinus. Junk Publishers, The Hague,

The Netherlands. 205-277.

Moyle, P. 1986. Fish introductions into North America: Patterns and ecological impact.

Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer. pp. 27-43.

Nico, L. G., and P. L. Fuller. 1999. Spatial and temporal patterns of nonindigenous fish

introductions in the United States. Fisheries. 24(1):16-27.

Reiman, B., and J. Lukens. 1979. Priest Lake creel census. Lake and Reservoir

Investigations. Job Completion Report F-73-R-1. Idaho Fish and Game, Boise.

Reiman, B.E., Lee, D.C., and Thurow R.F. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future

trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River Basins. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17(4): 1111-1125.

Ricciardi, A., and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater

fauna. Conservation Biology. 13(5):1220-1222.

Ruzycki, J. R., D. A. Beauchamp, and D. L. Yule. 2003. Effects of introduced lake trout

on native cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake. Ecological Applications. 13(1):23-37.

Simberloff, D. 2001. Biological invasions--how are they affecting us, and what can we do

about them? Western North American Naturalist. 61(3):308-315.

Soto, D., I. Arismendi, J. Gonzalez, J. Sanzana, F. Jara, C. Jara, E. Guzman, and A. Lara.

2006. Southern Chile, trout and salmon country: Invasion patterns and threats for

native species. Revista Chilena De Historia Natural. 79(1):97-117.

Thurow, R. F., D. C. Lee, and B. E. Rieman. 1997. Distribution and status of seven native

salmonids in the interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath River

and Great Basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17(4):1094-

1110.

Townsend, C. R. 1996. Invasion biology and ecological impacts of brown trout Salmo

trutta in New Zealand. Biological Conservation. 78(1):13-22.

xviii

Tyler, T., W. J. Liss, L. M. Ganio, G. L. Larson, R. Hoffman, E. Deimling, and G.

Lomnicky. 1998. Interaction between introduced trout and larval salamanders

(Ambystoma macrodactylum) in high‐elevation lakes. Conservation Biology.

12(1):94-105.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

determination of threatened status for the Klamath River and Columbia River

distinct population segments of bull trout final rule. Federal Register.

63(111):31647-31674.

Venard, J. A., and D. L. Scarnecchia. 2005. Seasonally dependent movement of lake trout

between two northern Idaho lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 25(2):635-639.

Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D'Antonio, L. L. Loope, M. Rejmanek, and R. Westbrooks. 1997.

Introduced species: A significant component of human-caused global change. New

Zealand Journal of Ecology. 21(1):1-16.

CHAPTER 1. Directional and Seasonal Movements of Lake Trout and Bull Trout

between Two Northern Idaho Lakes

Derek C. Entz1,2, Mark C. Paluch2, Jason Connor3, & Paul Spruell2

1 Corresponding author, Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Biology

Department, SCI #258 Cheney, Washington 99004, USA

2 Eastern Washington University, Department of Biology, SCI #258 Cheney, Washington

99004, USA

3 Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Natural Resource Department, PO Box 39, Usk, Washington,

99180, USA

Article in Preparation for Submittal for Publication in North American Journal of

Fisheries Management

2

ABSTRACT

Seasonal and directional movements, and distributions of Bull Trout and Lake Trout

between Priest Lake and Upper Priest Lake, Idaho, were studied from May 2015 to April

2017. Lake Trout (n=220) and Bull Trout (n=40) movements were monitored using Lotek

JSATS transmitters and hydrophones both passively, using gate formations at either end

of the Thorofare, and actively in both lakes. No significant difference was found between

directional or seasonal movements of either species (P>0.05) and all movements were

observed when water surface temperatures were below 15oC. Poisson regression analysis

indicated that there were significantly more detections by the Upper Priest Lake array

than the Priest Lake array (P<0.01). Bull Trout distributions in Upper Priest Lake varied

significantly between near shore and open water detections, with a higher use of near

shore sites (P<0.05). Lake Trout tagged in two locations within Priest Lake were not

more likely to migrate towards the Priest Lake acoustic array (P>0.05). Lake Trout

distributions in Priest Lake varied insignificantly from their original capture and release

points (P>0.05). These results indicate that Lake Trout have use the southern portion of

Priest Lake at high rates and movement to Upper Priest Lake is random.

INTRODUCTION

Introduced species are recognized as one of the biggest threats to world-wide

biodiversity (Simberloff 2001) and not only have the capability to alter competitive

interactions and reduce native populations but can also cause extinctions (Wilcove et al.

1998). For example, nonnative trout have been successfully introduced into various

freshwater ecosystems (Lever 1996, Lowe et al. 2000). The intention for most trout

3

introductions was to create recreational fisheries (Dunham et al. 2004). But there is a

growing body of evidence to suggest that nonnative trout can substantially change the

aquatic ecosystems where they have been introduced (Simon and Townsend 2003).

Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were widely introduced to many western United

States lakes and reservoirs during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s (Crossman 1995) in

order to create a trophy fishery (Healy 1978). Despite creating successful Lake Trout

trophy fisheries, effects of competition with and predation by Lake Trout have proven

problematic for native fishes (Martinez et al. 2009). For instance, Bull Trout (Salvelinus

confluentus) populations have declined and in some cases become extirpated (Bow Lake,

Alberta, Canada) since the introduction of Lake Trout (Donald and Alger 1993; Guy et al.

2011).

Competition between Lake Trout and Bull Trout can cause displacement, as well as

preventing Bull Trout from reestablishing populations after local extirpation (Donald and

Alger 1993). Bull Trout, which are a “threatened species” under the United States

Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1998) share similar ecological roles with Lake Trout

(Donald and Alger 1993; Guy et al. 2011). Both species are top piscivores with a

potential for overlapping food habits, growth rates (Donald and Alger 1993) and have

been known to switch from invertebrates to fish prey at similar life stages (Guy et al.

2011). Lake Trout predation on Bull Trout is not well documented but is possible due to

niche overlap of the two salmonids (Donald and Alger 1993).

Among systems where Lake Trout and Bull Trout interactions are of concern is

Priest Lake, Idaho. The Priest Lake system consists of Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest

Lake (UPL) which are connected by a river channel known as the Thorofare (Figure 1.1).

4

Lake Trout were introduced to PL in 1925 (Bjornn 1961) but maintained a relatively

small population until the 1970’s due to low juvenile survival (Mauser et al. 1988).

Shortly after Mysis shrimp (Mysida diluviana) were introduced in 1965, juvenile Lake

Trout survival increased and resulted in a significant increase of the Lake Trout

population (Mauser et al. 1988). Historically, Bull Trout were abundant throughout the

Priest Lake system and in the 1950’s supported an annual catch of 1,800 fish (Bjornn

1961). In 1978, the native Bull Trout population experienced a sharp decline which

ultimately led to a closure of the fishery in 1984 in an attempt to preserve the remaining

individuals. The decline of PL Bull Trout was concurrent with an increase in Lake Trout

(Rieman and Lukens 1979; Mauser et al. 1988). Currently, the Bull Trout population in

UPL is estimated between 100-150 adults (Fredericks 1999; IDFG 2013a). Following the

decline of the Bull Trout fishery, very few individuals remain in Priest Lake and

population estimates have remained low. Recently the number of observed Bull Trout

redds within index reaches of the Upper Priest River drainage has increased to 52 and 53

in 2012 and 2013, respectively (IDFG 2013b). Furthermore, the number of Bull Trout

redds in 2012 and 2013 in the Upper Priest River drainage is above the previous 10-year

average of 28 redds (IDFG 2013b).

Prior to the 1980’s it was thought that Lake Trout did not inhabit UPL until

immigration through the Thorofare was documented in the 1990’s (IDFG 2013a). By

1998, the Lake Trout population in UPL was estimated at 859 fish (Fredericks and

Venard 2001) and in 2013 was estimated to be above 6,500 fish using the Leslie

Depletion Model (Ricker 1975; IDFG 2013b).

5

Lake Trout can be susceptible to over-fishing due to the slow growth rate and late

maturing (Martin and Olver 1980; Healey 1978). Healy (1978) found that in order to

cause a decrease in Lake Trout populations within large lake systems, an annual mortality

rate of 0.45-0.50 is needed. Annual suppression efforts in UPL have occurred since 1998

using gillnets and have removed between 150 and 5,355 fish annually. Since 2007,

removal efforts by IDFG have averaged 3,184 (SE = 1,559) been above the

aforementioned threshold (0.59-1.0; IDFG 2013a).

Despite Lake Trout depletion estimates above the necessary rate needed (0.45-0.50)

within UPL, Lake Trout have annually repopulated to or near pre-removal efforts. This is

possibly due to immigration of Lake Trout from Priest Lake via Thorofare or recruitment

of Lake Trout from within UPL. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) has used

trap nets intermittently in the Thorofare to remove Lake Trout and in 2013, 305 Lake

Trout were captured migrating to UPL; the majority of fish removed were sexually

mature (>400mm TL; IDFG 2013a). The immigration of adult Lake Trout to UPL is

potentially preventing the positive effects on native species expected to be seen with

Lake Trout removal efforts.

Previous studies to understand Lake Trout movements included floy tagging,

gillnetting, and trap netting. For instance, using gillnets Venard and Scarnecchia (2005)

found that Lake Trout move frequently during the spring (March-June) and fall

(September-November) months when surface water temperatures are below 15oC. These

techniques provide valuable data but have limitations on determining when Lake Trout

are moving or the direction of such movements, and only provide a snapshot of

movements. For example, at least 11 floy tagged Lake Trout migrated to UPL from PL

6

during 2013-2016 but it is not known when these fish moved during the three-year span

(R. Ryan, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, personal communication).

Acoustic monitoring of large numbers of animals has become a more widely used

research tool (Standora and Nelson 1977). To gather directional movements of

individuals, acoustic receivers can be set up in an acoustic curtain/gate system to monitor

when a fish passes or approaches each series of acoustic curtains (Comeau et al. 2002;

Welch et al. 2003). In this case all acoustic receivers within each curtain would have

overlapping detection ranges (Comeau et al. 2002; Welch et al. 2004). The advantages of

acoustic telemetry setups such as curtains/gates is increased coverage, and an opportunity

to better monitor individual’s precise movements and behaviors for a larger subset of the

population (Heupel et al. 2006).

Acoustic telemetry can be used to further understand fish distributions within large

lake systems. Most knowledge on Lake Trout movements is within their native range,

and there is a limited amount of information for Lake Trout within their introduced range

(Dux et al. 2005). Understanding areas of utilization of Lake Trout using acoustic

telemetry is important in order to facilitate appropriate management strategies.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the rate of and document the timing of

Lake Trout and Bull Trout movements between UPL and PL continually throughout the

course of two years. A better understanding of Lake Trout and Bull Trout movement

patterns both between and within Priest and Upper Priest lakes would help evaluate the

efficacy of the current suppression strategy in UPL and help aid future management

goals. The objectives of this study were to 1) Evaluate movements of Lake Trout through

the Thorofare, 2) Evaluate seasonal distributions of Lake Trout in PL and UPL 3)

7

Evaluate the movements of Bull Trout, captured in UPL, through the Thorofare 4)

Evaluate seasonal distributions of Bull Trout in UPL and PL.

METHODS

Equipment. -WHS4000L series hydrophones (Lotek Ltd.) were used to establish a

gate in order to identify Bull Trout and Lake Trout directional movements. WHS4250L

series hydrophones (Lotek, Ltd.) were used to identify Bull Trout and Lake Trout fish

distributions throughout both lakes. JSATS L-AMT-8.2 acoustic transmitter (3.5 g in air,

417 kHz, 5-s pulse rate, ~508-d battery life) and a PIT tag (DF TX 1400BE, 12 mm long,

134 kHz; CBFWA 1999) were surgically implanted into the body cavity as described

below.

Fish Collection. -In 2015, 20 Bull Trout and 40 Lake Trout were collected in UPL

using angling methods and gillnets. In 2015, 60 Lake Trout were collected in PL using

angling methods, two main areas were targeted during this effort, one in the northern half

of PL and one in the southern basin of PL (Figure 1.1). Lake Trout collected in PL during

the spring of 2015 were held in 20’x20’x100’ deep net pen for three weeks as a part of an

IDFG barotrauma study. In 2016, 20 Bull Trout and 20 Lake Trout were collected in UPL

using angling methods and gillnets. In 2016, 100 Lake Trout were collected in PL using

angling methods within the two aforementioned areas of PL (Table 1.1).

Anesthesia and Tagging. -In 2015, Bull Trout were anesthetized using 70-100 mg/L

tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222) following the methods by Muhlfeld et al. (2002) and

in 2016, Bull Trout were anesthetized using Low-volt Electroanesthesia (LVEA)

following methods described by Hudson et al. (2005). During both years, Lake Trout

8

were anesthetized using LVEA. LVEA is a common anesthetic used in fisheries due to

very short take down and recovery times (Barbara et al. 1998; Tesch et al. 1999; Hudson

and Johnson 2011; Gunstrom & Bethers 2011; Redman et al. 2011). All Bull Trout and

Lake Trout were surgically implanted with JSATS acoustic and passive integrated

transmitters following the methods described by Brown et al. (1999).

Identifying Thorofare Movement. -Three stationary receivers, attached to anchored

buoys, were situated in curtain formats, at each end of the Thorofare and operated year-

round (Figure 1.2). Three temperature gauges were placed in the Thorofare in order to

measure temperature. These loggers recorded temperature every 30 minutes. To observe

Bull Trout spawning migrations a receiver was placed in Upper Priest River

approximately 1 km upstream from the inlet to UPL. Stationary receivers were

downloaded monthly and batteries were changed if necessary, when weather and water

levels permitted.

Identifying Fish Distributions. -Identifying fish distributions was done using a grid

of 400m2 cells placed over both lakes in ArcMap (Figure 1.3). This grid size was chosen

based on the maximum range of the receivers found via range testing. The grid was split

into three equal sections (130 sites each). The center of each grid cell was numbered in

order to keep track of sites visited. In order to cover a maximum amount of distance, each

grid section was split into odd/even groups and in consecutive weeks an entire section

(odds/evens) would be tracked. One section was surveyed each week when weather

permitted. With the motor turned off, the boat was positioned at the center of each grid

cell and the receiver was lowered underwater at a depth of 2.5 m for 2 minutes. When

UPL was inaccessible due to low water levels in the Thorofare or ice was present

9

(November-April), identifying fish distributions occurred exclusively in Priest Lake.

During the 2016 winter no tracking occurred from December to March due to both lakes

being completely iced over.

Data Management and Processing. - Data files downloaded from receivers contained

fish detection information. Detections were downloaded from the internal SD card to a

computer as a “.csv” file. Raw “.csv” files were formatted from decimal time to standard

24-hour format using “RStudio” with an individual tag code (Tag ID), time stamp,

receive signal strength indicator (RSSI; McMichael et al. 2010) and then saved as a text

file. Due to high frequency of false detections the JSATS Autonomous Receiver Data

Filtering Software developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,

Washington (PNNL) was used. This software compared known deployed Tag ID’s to the

text file and removed all false Tag ID’s that do not meet the criterion (false detections;

Deng et al. 2017).

The three criteria used were, 1) Detections were from known deployed tags, 2) A

minimum of 3 detections in 12 seconds was required, and 3) Time between detections

had to match the 5-second pulse rate expected. This approach is also used by PNNL,

studying juvenile salmon emigration movements through the Columbia River system

(Deng et al. 2017).

Data Analysis. – To analyze objectives 1, 3, data gathered identifying seasonal

Thorofare movements between UPL and PL a Fischer’s Exact test was used. When

testing for seasonal difference of days spent at the acoustic arrays by Lake Trout and Bull

Trout a Poisson regression was used. To test objectives 2, 4 data gathered identifying fish

10

distributions between tagging areas in PL and differences of near shore preference of Bull

Trout and Lake Trout a Fisher’s Exact test was used in “R”.

RESULTS

Identifying Thorofare Movement. From May 22, 2015 to April 21, 2017, a total of 93

fish was detected by at least one of the acoustic gate arrays on either end of the

Thorofare, 23 of which were Bull Trout and 70 were Lake Trout. Of the 93 fish detected

by at least one array, 13 were observed moving through the Thorofare to the lake

opposite of their original tagging origin. These movements between UPL and PL

included three Bull Trout, all of which were tagged in UPL and detected moving to PL

but were not observed returning to UPL. Also, six Lake Trout originally tagged and

released in UPL were detected traveling downstream to PL, three of the six UPL Lake

Trout returned back to UPL. One Lake Trout originally tagged in PL was detected

moving upstream on the UPL array and again repeating the upstream and downstream

movements twice more from 4 May, 2016 to 28 May, 2016. No significant differences

were found between seasonal or directional movements (P>0.05; Table 1.2). Two Bull

Trout were detected within Upper Priest River upstream of the inlet to UPL. Six Lake

Trout were harvested by anglers, four were mortalities during the 2016 UPL suppression

effort, and three were caught and released by anglers, one of which was caught

approximately 117 km away from UPL in the Pend Oreille River near Newport,

Washington.

There were more detections of both Bull Trout and Lake Trout on the UPL array

than the PL array (Poisson regression; P<0.01; Figure 1.5 & 1.6). Seasonal variation of

detections at both arrays by both species were also observed. The number of detections of

11

Bull Trout at the PL acoustic array were significantly higher in autumn than all other

seasons (P<0.01) and the number of Bull Trout detections at the UPL acoustic array were

significantly higher in the summer and winter (P<0.01; Figure 1.5). Seasonal variations

of Lake Trout detections on the PL array were not significantly different (P>0.05).

Additionally, Lake Trout detections on the UPL acoustic array were significantly higher

during the summer and winter seasons (P<0.01). There were fewer detections of Lake

Trout at the UPL array in the autumn than during the spring and winter seasons (P<0.01;

Figure 1.6). Lake Trout tagged in the two tagging areas of PL showed no difference in

time spent at the PL acoustic array (P>0.05). Also, no seasonal variation of Lake Trout

tagged within the two tagging locations of PL was seen (P>0.05; Figure 1.7).

Identifying Fish Distributions. -From June 21, 2015 to December 3, 2016 a total of

107 telemetry detections was obtained from 69 Lake Trout within PL and UPL. During

that same period, a total of 18 telemetry detections was obtained from 11 Bull Trout

within UPL and one Bull Trout was observed once in PL. Bull Trout were observed

(n=15) in near shore sites more than open water sites (Χ2=8, df=1, P<0.01; Figure 1.5).

Conversely, 30 Lake Trout were detected in near shore sites while 18 were detected in

open water sites. Lake Trout did not show a significant preference to near shore sites in

UPL (Χ2=3, df=1, P>0.05; Figure 1.6). When testing for location fidelity of Lake Trout

in the north and south tagging areas of PL 11 of 27 Lake Trout released in the north area

were detected at sites in the southern tagging area and only 2 of 18 Lake Trout released in

the south tagging area were detected in the northern tagging area. Location fidelity was

seen with Lake Trout captured and released in the southern area of PL (Fisher’s Exact

12

test; P<0.05) but not with Lake Trout captured and released in the northern area of PL

(Fisher’s Exact Test; P>0.05).

DISCUSSION

We observed an unexpected amount of downstream movements through the

Thorofare which prior to this study were not seen due to the focus on upstream

movements using trap nets and gillnets. Movements between UPL and PL occurred when

surface temperatures within the Thorofare were below 15o C, which coincided with

previous work done in the Thorofare (Figure 1.4; Venard and Scarrnechia 2005). The

data collected during this study showed that there is a considerable amount of

downstream movement by Lake Trout from UPL. Although Lake Trout were captured,

tagged and released in UPL during this study we do not know whether these individual

fish originated from UPL or were existing migrants from a prior upstream movement

from PL when water temperatures were below 15oC. It is unknown whether Lake Trout

migrate to UPL from PL stay within UPL for an extended period of time or return to PL

at some point. Although we lack information of repetitive upstream movements

throughout the life span of Lake Trout our results may give some insight into that

possibility due to the high percentage of downstream movement by Lake Trout.

Furthermore, downstream movements by Bull Trout give insight that Bull Trout may

use PL as a rearing ground due to the fact that we have not observed these fish returning

to UPL. However, the lack of detections after their original downstream movement leaves

room for speculation. Conversely, the upstream movement of two Bull Trout in the

Upper Priest River is helpful in estimating times of movements for spawning. Although

13

the end destination is unknown of those two Bull Trout they were observed returning to

UPL in October. These movements support prior data that Bull Trout within the Priest

Lake system spawn during September within the Upper Priest River drainage (Bjornn

1961).

Movements of Lake Trout originally tagged within the southern tagging area in PL

showed little movement away from their original capture and release points. A trend seen

was that Lake Trout tagged within the main southern body of PL stayed within that same

area and the same was not seen with Lake Trout tagged in the northern end of PL. Lake

Trout tagged in the northern end of PL showed a higher rate of detection by the PL

acoustic array than Lake Trout tagged in the southern body of the lake.

Lake Trout originally tagged within UPL were seen moving outside of the detection

range of the UPL acoustic array during the fall season which could be related to Lake

Trout moving to spawning areas. Lack of detection and movement to UPL by Lake Trout

tagged in PL could have been influenced by the high area fidelity seen from Lake Trout

that were captured and released in the southern area of PL.

Lake Trout have shown an ability to establish populations beyond the introduction

site if suitable conditions exist (Crossman 1995). Evidence from invasions of

Yellowstone Lake, Wyoming and Lake McDonald, Montana help with understanding

movements of Lake Trout within a system (Crossman 1995; Ruzycki et al. 2003). The

Priest Lake system is another example of Lake Trout establishment outside of their

originally transplanted locations. With a growing body of evidence within the Priest Lake

system of Lake Trout reestablishing a healthy population within UPL yearly it is

14

important to provide information that will aid management decisions regarding the future

of the Priest Lake system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Rob Ryan, Andy Dux, Jim Fredericks, and the Idaho Department of

Fish and Game, Scott Deeds and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as

Hickey Brothers Limited Liability Company for working cohesively with me. I thank our

peers in the Fisheries Lab at Eastern Washington University for their advice and support.

This work was funded by the Kalispel Tribe of Indians.

15

REFERENCES

Barbara J. A., J. R. Post, and A. J. Paul. 1998. Effects if pulsed and continuous DC

electrofishing on juvenile rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 18(4):905-918.

Bjornn, T. C. 1961. Harvest, age structure, and growth of game fish populations from

Priest and Upper Priest lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.

90(1):27-31.

Brown, R. S., S. J. Cooke, W. G. Anderson, and R. S. McKinley. 1999. Evidence to

challenge the “2% rule” for biotelemetry. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 19:867-871.

Crossman, E. 1995. Introduction of the lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in areas outside

its native distribution: A review. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 21:17-29.

Comeau, L. A., S. E. Campana, and M. Castonguay. 2002. Automated monitoring of a

large-scale cod (Gadus morhua) migration in the open sea. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 59(12): 1845-1850.

Deng, Z. D., J. J., Martinez, H., Li, R. A., Harnish, C. M., Woodley, J. A., Hughes, X.,

Li, T., Fu, J., Lu, G. A., McMichael, and M. A., Weiland. 2017. Comparing the

survival rate of juvenile Chinook Salmon migrating through hydropower systems

using injectable and surgical acoustic transmitters. Scientific Reports, 7. Article

number: 42999, doi: 10.1038/srep42999.



Zoology. 71(2):238-247.



7(4):545-553.

Dunham, J. B., D. S. Pilliod, and M. K. Young. 2004. Assessing the consequences of

nonnative trout in headwater ecosystems in western North America. Fisheries.

29(6):18-26.

Dux, A. M., C. S. Guy, and W. A. Fredenberg. 2011. Spatiotemporal distribution and

population characteristics of a nonnative lake trout population, with implications for

suppression. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 31(2):187-196.

Fredericks, J. 1999. Exotic fish species removal: Upper Priest and Lightning Creek

drainages. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Grant no.E-20, Segment (1).

16

Fredericks, J. and J. Vernard. 2001 Bull Trout Exotic Fish Removal Project Completion

Report. Threatened and Endangered Species Report, Project E-20, Segments 1-3.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Gunstrom, G. K., and M. Bethers. 2011. Electrical anesthesia for handling large

salmonids. The Progressive Fish-Culturist. 47(1):67-69.

Guy, C. S., T. E. McMahon, W. A. Fredenberg, C. J. Smith, D. W. Garfield, and B. S.

Cox. 2011. Diet overlap of top-level predators in recent sympatry: Bull trout and

nonnative lake trout. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 2(2):183-189.

Healey, M. 1978. The dynamics of exploited lake trout populations and implications for

management. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 42:307-328.

Heupel, M., J. Semmens, and A. Hobday. 2006. Automated acoustic tracking of aquatic

animals: Scales, design and deployment of listening station arrays. Marine and

Freshwater Research. 57(1):1-13.

Hudson, J. M., J. R. Johnson, and K. Boyd. 2005. A portable eletcroanesthesia system for

anesthetizing salmonids and other fish. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 31(2):335-339.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013a. Fishery Management Annual Report.

Chapter 3:31-40. Chapter 10:75-79

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013b. 2013-2018 Fisheries Management Plan. 23

Lever, C. 1996. Naturalized fishes of the world. Academic Press.

Lowe, S., M. Browne, S. Boudjelas, and M. De Poorter. 2000. 100 of the world's worst

invasive alien species: A selection from the global invasive species database. The

Invasive Species Specialist Group. 1-12.

Martin, N. V., and C. H. Olver. 1980. The lake charr, Salvelinus namaycush. In Balon, E.

(ed.) Charrs: Salmonid Fishes of the Genus Salvelinus. Junk Publishers, The Hague,

The Netherlands. 205-277.




Mauser, G., R. Vogelsang, and C. Smith. 1988. Lake and Reservoir Investigations:

Enhancement of Trout in Large North Idaho Lakes. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration;

Job Performance Report.

17

McMichael, G. A., M. B. Eppard, T. J. Carlson, J. A. Carter, B. D. Ebberts, R. S. Brown,

M. Weiland, G. R. Ploskey, R. A. Harnish, and Z. D. Deng. 2010. The juvenile

salmon acoustic telemetry system: A new tool. Fisheries. 35(1):9-22

Muhlfeld, C. C., J. J. Giersch, and B. Marotz. 2012. Seasonal movements of non-native

lake trout in a connected lake and river system. Fisheries Management and Ecology.

19(3):224-232.

Redman S. D., J. R. Meinertz, and M. P. Gaikowski. 2011. Effects of immobilization by

electricity and MS-222 on brown trout broodstock and their progeny. The

Progressive Fish-Culturist. 60(1):44-49.

Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish

populations. Bulletin 191 of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Rieman, B., and J. Lukens. 1979. Priest Lake creel census. Lake and Reservoir

Investigations. Job Completion Report F-73-R-1. Idaho Fish and Game, Boise.


on native cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake. Ecological Applications 13(1):23-37.

Simberloff, D. 2001. Biological invasions--how are they affecting us, and what can we do

about them? Western North American Naturalist. 61(3):308-315.

Simon, K. S., and C. R. Townsend. 2003. Impacts of freshwater invaders at different

levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem

consequences. Freshwater Biology. 48(6):982-994.

Standora, E. A., and D. R. Nelson. 1977. A telemetric study of the behavior of free-

swimming pacific angel sharks, Squatina californica. Bulletin of the Southern

California Academy of Sciences. 76(3):193-201.

Tesch, A. H., D. Aro, G. Clark, D. Kucipeck, and J. D. Mahan. 1999. Effects of varying

voltage and pulse pattern during electrical immobilization of adult chum salmon on

egg survival to the eyed egg stage. North American Journal of Aquaculture. 61(4):

355-358.



distinct population segments of bull trout final rule. Federal Register. 63(111):

31647-31674.

Venard, J. A., and D. L. Scarnecchia. 2005. Seasonally dependent movement of lake trout

between two northern Idaho lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 25(2):635-639.

18

Welch, D. W., G. W. Boehlert, and B. R. Ward. 2003. POST–the Pacific Ocean salmon

tracking project. Oceanologica Acta. 25(5):243-253.

Welch, D. W., B. R. Ward, and S. D. Batten. 2004. Early ocean survival and marine

movements of hatchery and wild steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) determined

by an acoustic array: Queen Charlotte Strait, British Columbia. Deep Sea Research

Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 51(6):897-909.

Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying

threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience. 48(8): 607-615.

19

Species Total Length (mm) Weight (g) Location

Bull Trout (n=40) 449(115.8) 989.6(733.1) UPL

Lake Trout (n=60) 493.9(53.6) 998.8(332.6) UPL

Lake Trout (n=160) 447.3(51.7) 728.3(248.3) PL

Table 1.1. Summary of Bull Trout and Lake Trout tagged and released within Priest

Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL). Means of total length (mm) and weight (g)

of all fish tagged with standard deviation (SD).

20

Direction of Season

Movement Spring Summer Fall Winter

PL-UPL

Lake Trout 3 0 1 1

Bull Trout 0 0 0 0

UPL-PL

Lake Trout 2 0 4 4

Bull Trout 2 1 0 1

Table 1.2. Summary of seasonal and directional movements of Bull Trout and

Lake Trout between Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL).

21

Figure 1.1. Study area including Priest Lake, Upper Priest Lake, and the

Thorofare which connects the two lakes.

22

Figure 1.2. Locations of Lotek JSATS WHS4000L acoustic receivers

in Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake) at either end of the

Thorofare. Detection ranges of each array is shown by hashed

circles.

23

Figure 1.3. Telemetry grid for Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake

(UPL) with sites marked by (triangles).

24

Figure 1.4. Temperatures recorded in the Thorofare from 4 August, 2015 to

15 April, 2017. Dashed vertical lines indicate when Thorofare temperatures

reach 15oC. Dates of Lake Trout (LKT) from UPL and PL, and Bull Trout

(BLT) movements are shown using colored arrows explained by direction.

25

* Figure 1.5. The mean and standard error of days Bull Trout spent within detection

range of Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL) acoustic arrays during each

season. Seasons are denoted by number, 1=Spring, 2=Summer, 3=Fall, and 4=Winter

and * signifies significance at an alpha of 0.05.

*

*

*

26

Figure 1.6. The mean and standard error of days Lake Trout spent within detection

range of Priest Lake (PL) and Upper Priest Lake (UPL) acoustic arrays during

each season. Seasons are denoted by number, 1=Spring, 2=Summer, 3=Fall, and

4=Winter and * signifies significance at an alpha of 0.05.

*

*

*

27

Figure 1.7. The mean and standard error of days Lake Trout from the northern and

southern tagging regions spent within detection range of Priest Lake (PL) acoustic

array during each season. Seasons are denoted by number, 1=Spring, 2=Summer,

3=Fall, and 4=Winter.

28

Figure 1

.8. Seaso

nal h

eat map

s of Lake Tro

ut (LK

T) distrib

utio

n h

istories in

Up

per P

riest Lake (UP

L).

Nu

mb

er of d

etection

s in each

site are ind

icated b

y colo

r; 1: G

reen, 2

: Yello

w, 4

: Oran

ge. No

LKT w

ere

dete

cted in

the Sp

ring an

d Su

mm

er du

e to in

accessib

ility to U

PL.

29


Upper Priest Lake (UPL). A) Spring UPL LKT distributions, b) Summer UPL

LKT distributions, and c) Fall UPL LKT distributions. There is no data during

the winter season due to inaccessibility.

30

Figure 1.10. Seasonal heat maps of Lake Trout (LKT) distribution histories in Priest Lake (PL)

A) Spring PL LKT distributions, b) Summer PL LKT distributions, c) Fall PL LKT distributions,

and d) winter PL LKT distributions.

a) b)

c) d)

Diets of Lake Trout in Upper Priest Lake, Idaho

Derek C. Entz1,2, Andrew Huddleston3, Tyler A. Janasz4, Coty W. Jasper2, and Paul

Spruell2

1 Corresponding author, Eastern Washington University, Department of Biology, 258

Science Building Room 190, Cheney, Washington 99004 USA

2 Eastern Washington University, Department of Biology, 258 Science Building Room

190, Cheney, Washington 99004 USA

3 United States Army Corps of Engineers, Albeni Falls Dam, Oldtown, Idaho, 83822,

USA

4 United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Granite Dam, Washington, 99113,

USA

Article in Preparation for Submittal for Publication in Journal of Ecological Applications

31

ABSTRACT

The effects and impacts introduced species have on native species is well known in some

cases and less well for others. The introduction and success of Lake Trout in the Priest

Lake system, in Idaho, poses a threat to native fish populations. In an effort to further

understand the potential competition and predation on native species in Upper Priest

Lake, 283 stomachs were collected from Lake Trout in 2015 and 2016. Small Lake Trout

(<500 mm total length (TL)) fed at a significantly higher rate on Mysis shrimp (Mysis

diluviana) than larger Lake Trout (>500 mm TL; P<0.001). Larger Lake Trout (>500 mm

TL) fed at a significantly higher rate on fish than small Lake Trout (P<0.001).

Additionally, large Lake Trout had a significantly higher proportion of empty stomachs

suggesting that large Lake Trout do not supplement their diet with Mysis shrimp

(P<0.001). Based on the diet items of Lake Trout at different lengths suggest that

competition between Lake Trout and Bull Trout in UPL is possible and predation was not

seen.

INTRODUCTION

The threats of introduced species can vary widely from undetectable to dramatic, and

can affect every level of ecosystems (Simon and Townsend 2003). Reductions and

extirpations of native species due to introduced species are common but they can also

have effects on a multitude of ecological levels (Mack et al. 2000). For instance,

introduced species can alter behaviors, abundance or distributions, direct and indirect

interactions with native species, and cause trophic cascades (Simon and Townsend 2003).

Invasions of aquatic systems by novel predators can be devastating due to the lack of

competition, and exploitable prey species that evolved without predators (Kiesecker and

Blaustein 1997; Craig et al. 2000).

32

Nonnative trout have been introduced extensively on every continent except

Antarctica (Moyle 1986) in efforts to provide commercial fisheries (Soto et al. 2001) as

well as recreational fisheries (Donald 1987; Bahls 1992; Townsend 1996). Historically

fishless water bodies and even "protected" areas have been subject to nonnative trout

introductions (Donald 1987; Bahls 1992; Knapp et al. 2001). Nonnative trout species can

successfully colonize new habitats because trout are highly effective predators (Flecker

and Townsend 1994) and are able to readily establish self-sustaining populations (Fausch

et al. 2001).

At the individual and population levels, introductions of trout can significantly alter

vertebrate and invertebrate communities, often causing extirpations of native fish,

amphibians, and benthic macroinvertebrates (Bradford et al. 1998; Carlisle and Hawkins

1998; Tyler et al. 1998; Knapp and Matthews 2000;). Introduced predators can also alter

the behavior of native species, mainly through predation or competition (Simon and

Townsend 2003). Native species have been observed shifting their diel patterns and

distributions (McIntosh and Townsend 1996) due to exposure to novel predators such as

introduced fish species. Native invertebrate species and been observed shifting size class

structure in response to introduced fish species (Simon and Townsend 2003).

At the community and ecosystem levels, introduced trout species can reduce native

fish populations and cause trophic cascades (Simon and Townsend 2003). For instance,

Brown and Rainbow Trout (Salmo trutta and Onchorynchus mykiss, respectively) were

introduced to Chile in the early 1900's and they now represent 95% of total fish biomass

in streams and rivers (Soto et al. 2006). These introductions have caused detrimental

33

impacts on native fish fauna, including an absence of native fish in 40% of surveyed

streamed (Soto et al. 2006).

Similar to other introductions of trout, Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush), were

introduced widely to the western United States in the late 1890's and early 1900’s in

order to create recreational trophy fisheries (Crossman 1995; Martinez et al. 2009). With

the success of some of these introductions, Lake Trout have become problematic

predators and potential competitors with native trout species (Donald and Alger 1993;

Martinez et al. 2009). Lake Trout have fared well in western oligotrophic mountain lakes

with extensive hypolimnia (Ruzycki et al. 2003; Dux et al. 2011). Their success in some

lakes where they have been introduced has been aided by the presence of sympatric prey

such as Mysis shrimp (Mysida diluviana; Scott and Crossman 1973; Johnson 1976).

Interactions between Lake Trout and native species are well known in some systems

and rather unknown in others. For instance, in Yellowstone Lake, Wyoming, the Lake

Trout population consumed an estimated 15 metric tons of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout

(Onchorynchus clarkii bouveri) in 1996 (Ruzycki et al. 2003). Lake Trout require a

massive prey demand (Martinez et al. 2009) and are capable of consuming fusiform prey,

such as Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, 50% of their own body length (Ruzycki et al.

2003). Ruzycki et al. (2003) documented that Lake Trout became exclusively

piscivorous at lengths >500 mm.

Lake Trout were introduced to the Priest Lake system in 1925 (Bjornn 1957) but

maintained a relatively low population until the introduction of Mysis shrimp caused an

increase in juvenile survival (Mauser et al. 1988).

34

Current management of UPL aims to preserve native populations of Bull Trout, a

threatened species, Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Onchorynchus clarkii lewisi), and Pygmy

Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii; USFWS 1998; IDFG 2013). The interactions between

Lake Trout and the native species in UPL are not well known and are of interest.

The objective of this study was to identify and quantify UPL Lake Trout diets and

potential predation on native fish species. Describing diets of Lake Trout in UPL will

help understand the impacts on native species, including Bull Trout and Westslope

Cutthroat Trout, and Pygmy Whitefish populations.

METHODS

Study Area. - The Priest Lake system, within the Selkirk Mountains of northern Idaho,

contains Priest Lake (9,545 ha) and Upper Priest Lake (567 ha) which are connected via a

river channel known as the Thorofare. Priest Lake has a mean depth of 38 m, and a

maximum depth of 112 m, while Upper Priest Lake has a mean depth of 18 m, and a

maximum depth of 32 m. The Thorofare is 2.5 km long, 70 m wide and generally 2-3 m

deep.

Fish Capture.- In 2015 and 2016, monofilament sinking gill nets were used for 10 days

each year to capture Lake Trout from UPL. Individual gill nets were 91 m long x 2.7 m

high and were strung together end to end to form a single long net string. Each long net

string contained a standardized range of mesh sizes including 45 mm, 51 mm, 57 mm, 64

mm, 76 mm, 89 mm, 102 mm, 114 mm, and 127 mm stretched mesh. Daily effort

consisted of 30 boxes set each day, a box is the equivalent of three 91 m long nets.

Specifically, 18 boxes were set in the morning and 12 boxes were set in the evening,

35

except on initial and final days when only the morning and evening sets, respectively,

were deployed. Typically, all nets were deployed for between 2-5 hours.

Stomach Collection. - All Lake Trout captured during gill netting efforts were measured

(total length; mm). Stomachs were collected from 25 Lake Trout per every 50 mm size

class from 200-500 mm (Table 2.1; n=150). Stomachs were taken from every Lake Trout

with a total length >500 (n=133) due to the small proportion of large fish removed. All

stomachs were stored in Whirl-Pak bags with 70% Ethanol and kept in a freezer to reduce

decomposition rates of prey items.

Age and Growth of Lake Trout. - Growth histories of individual fish were determined by

aging scales and then back-calculating lengths at previous ages from scales (Busacker et

al. 1990; Francis 1990). Five or more scales were cleaned and mounted between glass

slides following methods described by Pierce et al. (1996) and viewed using a Microfiche

reader on high resolution setting. All scales were viewed and aged by a single person.

Five scales total from each 50-mm size class were aged by a second person without

knowledge of previous age assignments and both age assignments were in 100%

agreement. For Lake Trout, the Von Bertalanffy growth model fit to the scale size-to-age

data was r2=0.88721.

Prey Item Identification. - Stomachs were cut open and all contents were placed in a petri

dish by flushing 70% ethanol through the stomach. Stomach contents were keyed down

to order for all invertebrates, Arthropods, and Mollusks and sorted into individual

containers. Lake Trout diets were quantified using percent composition by weight,

percent composition by number, and frequency of occurrence (Chipps and Garvey 2007).

36

Fish prey items were keyed to species when possible and all insects other than Mysida

were grouped into one category (Table 2.2).

Data Analysis. - Lake Trout age-length relationship was analyzed using the “FSA” and

“nlstools” packages in “RStudio” (Ogle 2013; Baty et al. 2015). When analyzing

differences in proportions of prey items found in Lake Trout stomachs Fisher’s Exact

Tests were used.

RESULTS

Age and growth of Lake Trout. - The oldest Lake Trout aged (9 yr) measured 912 mm

TL, and the youngest (2 yr) measured 207 mm TL. The analyses were restricted to the

size and age range of fish sampled (ages 2-9). Ages assigned by reading scales matched

well with previous length-frequency distributions of Priest Lake (Bjornn 1957).

Diets of Lake Trout. - In 2015, 221 stomach were collected from Lake Trout during the

annual suppression effort. In 2016, 61 stomachs were taken from Lake Trout >500 mm in

order to increase our sample size of larger fish. Lake Trout were placed into two size

categories (<500 mm, >500 mm) based on shifts in proportion of prey fish in their diets.

Young Lake Trout diets were dominated by Mysis shrimp, but reliance of fish prey items

increased as Lake Trout grew (Figure 2.2). Proportions of fish prey items in the diet

differed significantly among age groups of Lake Trout (Fischer’s Exact Test P<0.001).

Mysis shrimp accounted for 87% of Lake Trout <500 mm diets and 12% of the diet for

Lake Trout >500 mm (P<0.001). Fish prey items represented 47% of the diet for Lake

Trout >500 mm (P<0.001). Most fish eaten were unable to be identified due to high rates

of decomposition at the time of stomach removal. There was a significant difference

observed with Lake Trout stomachs having no diet items at all (P<0.001). No prey items

37

were found in 41% of Lake Trout >500 mm and only 3% of <500 mm had empty

stomachs (Figure 2.2).

Lake Trout >500 mm TL had a low rate of feeding on Mysis diluviana and most

often were seen feeding on fish or had no stomach contents at all. Other invertebrates

including Diptera, Ephemeroptera were found in stomachs at low densities.

DISCUSSION

Lake Trout in systems within the western United States have been observed

competing with and predating on native species (Ruzycki et al. 2003; Donald and Alger

1993). During this study, we found that smaller Lake Trout (<500 mm) supplemented

their diet with fish while mainly feeding on Mysis shrimp whereas large Lake Trout

(>500 mm) feed primarily on other fish but do not supplement their diet with Mysis

shrimp. Since the introduction of Lake Trout to the Priest Lake system in 1925, native

species have been adversely impacted and prompted yearly removal efforts in UPL to

help preserve native species since 1998. Bull Trout which were abundant prior to the

1950's have experienced a population decline which was concurrent with the population

increase of Lake Trout (IDFG 2013). The number of Bull Trout redds declined from 80 in

1985 to 28 per year from 2002-2011. Recently the number of observed Bull Trout redds

within index reaches of the Upper Priest River drainage increased to 52 and 53 in 2012

and 2013, respectively (IDFG 2013), possibly owing to gillnetting efforts to remove Lake

Trout from UPL from 1998-2016. For example, from 2007 to 2013 it was estimated that

the Lake Trout population was depleted by an average of 0.73-1.0 per year (IDFG 2013).

Despite underestimation of aging mature Lake Trout when using scales as the

principle measurement (Schram and Fabrizio 1998) these data were similar to previous

38

studies using scales when aging Lake Trout in Priest Lake, UPL, and Lake Pend Oreille

(Bjornn 1957; Scholz and McLellan 2010). Although scales can be inaccurate when

aging juvenile Lake Trout, there is agreement with aging juvenile Lake Trout using

sagittal otoliths and scales (Schram and Fabrizio 1998). Age of fish is another metric

used when identifying shifts to piscivory, for instance, Lake Trout >5 years old are

generally piscivorous (Ruzycki et al. 2003). Recent work in Priest Lake aging Lake Trout

using sagittal otoliths found maximum ages up to 35 (Ng et al. 2016).

The analysis of 2015 and 2016 Lake Trout stomachs from UPL found results that

were comparable to those of Yellowstone Lake where Lake Trout had a diet of 81-98%

fish (Ruzycki et al. 2003). Ruzycki et al. (2003) found Lake Trout becoming

predominately piscivorous at an approximate length of 500 mm. A similar shift to

piscivory was seen in Lake Trout in UPL with diets of >500 mm Lake Trout consisting of

fish prey. Furthermore, 41% of Lake Trout >500mm TL collected were absent of any

prey items suggesting that Lake Trout >500mm TL in UPL feed primarily on fish and do

not supplement their diet with Mysis shrimp.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Rob Ryan and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game as well as

Hickey Brothers, Limited Liability Company for working cohesively with us during this

study. I would like to thank Krisztian Magori for help with statistical analyses, and our

peers in the Fisheries Lab at Eastern Washington University for their assistance and

editorial comments regarding this manuscript. This work was funded by the Kalispel

Tribe of Indians.

39

REFERENCES

Bahls, P. 1992. The status of fish populations and management of high mountain lakes in

the western United States. Northwest Science. 66(3):183-193.

Baty. F., C., Ritz, S., Charles, M., Brutsche, J. P., Flandrois, M. L., Delignette-Muller.

2015. A Toolbox for Nonlinear Regression in R: The Package nlstools. Journal of

Statistical Software. 66(5):1-21.

Bjornn, T. C. 1957. A survey of the fishery resources of Priest and Upper Priest Lakes

and their tributaries. Idaho Department of Fish & Game.

Bradford, D. F., S. D. Cooper, J. Jenkins Thomas M, K. Kratz, O. Sarnelle, and A. D.

Brown. 1998. Influences of natural acidity and introduced fish on faunal

assemblages in California alpine lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences. 55(11):2478-2491.

Busacker, G. P., I. A., Adelman, and E. M. Goolish. 1990. Growth. In C. B. Schreck and

P. B. Moyle, editors. Methods for Fish Biology. American Fisheries Society. 363-

377.

Carlisle, D. M., and C. P. Hawkins. 1998. Relationships between invertebrate assemblage

structure, 2 trout species, and habitat structure in Utah mountain lakes. Journal of the

North American Benthological Society. 17(3):286-300.

Chipps, S. R., and J. E., Garvey. 2007. Quantitative assessment of food habits and

feeding patterns. In: Guy C, Brown M (eds) Analysis and interpretation of

freshwater fisheries data. American Fisheries Society. 473-514.

Craig, J., S. Anderson, M. Clout, B. Creese, N. Mitchell, J. Ogden, M. Roberts, and G.

Ussher. 2000. Conservation issues in New Zealand. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics. 31(1):61-78.

Crossman, E. 1995. Introduction of the lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in areas outside

its native distribution: A review. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 21:17-29.



7(4):545-553.



Zoology. 71(2):238-247.

40

Dux, A. M., C. S. Guy, and W. A. Fredenberg. 2011. Spatiotemporal distribution and

population characteristics of a nonnative lake trout population, with implications for

suppression. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 31(2):187-196.

Fausch, K. D., Y. Taniguchi, S. Nakano, G. D. Grossman, and C. R. Townsend. 2001.

Flood disturbance regimes influence rainbow trout invasion success among five

holarctic regions. Ecological Applications. 11(5):1438-1455.

Flecker, A. S., and C. R. Townsend. 1994. Community-wide consequences of trout

introduction in New Zealand streams. Pages 203-215 in Community-wide

consequences of trout introduction in New Zealand streams. Ecosystem

Management. Springer.

Francis, R. I. 1990. Back-calculation of fish length: a critical review. Journal of Fish

Biology. 36:883-902.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013. 2013-2018 Fisheries Management Plan. Pg:

23

Johnson, L. 1976. Ecology of arctic populations of lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, lake

whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis, arctic char, S. alpinus, and associated species in

unexploited lakes of the Canadian Northwest Territories. Journal of the Fisheries

Board of Canada. 33(11):2459-2488.

Kiesecker, J. M., and A. R. Blaustein. 1997. Population differences in responses of red

legged frogs (Rana aurora) to introduced bullfrogs. Ecology. 78(6):1752-1760.

Knapp, R. A., P. S. Corn, and D. E. Schindler. 2001. The introduction of nonnative fish

into wilderness lakes: Good intentions, conflicting mandates, and unintended

consequences. Ecosystems. 4(4):275-278.

Knapp, R. A., and K. R. Matthews. 2000. Non native fish introductions and the decline of

the mountain yellow legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology.

14(2):428-438.

Mack, R. N., D., Simberloff, W. M., Lonsdale H., Evans, M., Clout, and F. A., Bazzaz.

2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control.

Ecological Applications. 10:689-710.




41

Mauser, G., R. Vogelsang, and C. Smith. 1988. Lake and Reservoir Investigations:

Enhancement of Trout in Large North Idaho Lakes. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration;

Job Performance Report.

McIntosh, A. R., and Townsend, C. R. 1996. Interactions between fish, grazing

invertebrates and algae in a New Zealand stream: a trophic cascade mediated by fish-

induced changes to grazer behavior. Oecologia. 108(1):174-181

Moyle, P. 1986. Fish introductions into North America: Patterns and ecological impact.

Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer. 27-43.

Ng, E. L., J. P. Fredericks, and M. C. Quist. 2016. Stable isotope evaluation of

population‐and individual‐level diet variability in a large, oligotrophic lake with non‐native lake trout. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 26(2):271-279.

Ogle, D.H. 2017. FSA: Fisheries Stock Analysis. R package version 0.8.13.

Pierce, C. L., Rasmussen, J. B., and Legget W. C. 1996. Back calculation of fish length

from scales: Empirical comparison of proportional methods. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society. 125(6): 889-898.


on native cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake. Ecological Applications. 13(1):23-37.

Scholz, A. T. and McLellan, H. J. 2010. Fishes of the Columbia and Snake River Basins.

Eagle Printing.

Schram, S. T., and Fabrizio M. C. 1998. Longevity of Lake Superior lake trout. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 18(3):700-703.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research

Board of Canada Bulletin. 184.

Simon, K. S., and C. R. Townsend. 2003. Impacts of freshwater invaders at different

levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem

consequences. Freshwater Biology. 48(6):982-994.

Soto, D., I. Arismendi, J. Gonzalez, J. Sanzana, F. Jara, C. Jara, E. Guzman, and A. Lara.

2006. Southern Chile, trout and salmon country: Invasion patterns and threats for

native species. Revista Chilena De Historia Natural. 79(1):97-117.

Townsend, C. R. 1996. Invasion biology and ecological impacts of brown trout Salmo

trutta in New Zealand. Biological Conservation. 78(1):13-22.

42

Tyler, T., W. J. Liss, L. M. Ganio, G. L. Larson, R. Hoffman, E. Deimling, and G.

Lomnicky. 1998. Interaction between introduced trout and larval salamanders

(Ambystoma macrodactylum) in high elevation lakes. Conservation Biology.

12(1):94-105.



distinct population segments of bull trout final rule. Federal Register. 63(111):

31647-31674.

43

Taxon F.O. % by Number % by Weight

Mysida 69.20 98.57 33.38

Unknown fish 17.19 0.77 42.10

O. nerka 2.26 0.04 17.00

Prosopium spp. 0.45 0.01 0.42

Other invertebrates 14.91 0.64 0.13

Table 2.1. Summary of Upper Priest Lake (UPL) Lake Trout stomach contents

from 2015 and 2016. Frequency of Occurrence (F.O.), percent by number, and

percent by weight were calculated from stomach contents.

44

Figure 2.1. Von Bertalanffy Growth Model of Lake Trout in Upper Priest Lake

(UPL) aged using scales. R2=0.88721.

45

Figure 2.2. Proportion of Upper Priest Lake (UPL) Lake Trout diet items based

on size. >500 mm (blue), <500 mm (grey).

46

VITA

Author: Derek C. Entz

Place of Birth: Spokane, Washington

Undergraduate Schools Attended: Simpson College, Iowa

Degrees Awarded: BA, Environmental Science, 2014, Simpson College, IA

MS, Biology, 2017, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA

Honors and Awards: Graduate Assistantship, Biology Department, 2014-2016, Eastern

Washington University

American Fisheries Society Travel Grant, for presentation at

Washington – British Columbia American Fisheries Society

Conference, Chelan, Washington, 2016

Biology Department Mini Grant, Eastern Washington University,

2016

Outstanding Senior in Environmental Science, Biology

Department, Simpson College, Iowa, 2014

Professional

Experience: Natural Resources Technician, Pend Oreille Public Utility District

#1, Newport, Washington, 2011-2013

Internship, AmeriCorps/Student Conservation Service, Turnbull

National Wildlife Refuge, Cheney, Washington, 2014

Fisheries Research Assistant, Eastern Washington University,

Cheney, Washington, 2014-2017

Date post:	13-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LAKE TROUT AND BULL TROUT IN …...Special thanks to Joe Cronrath, Sam...

Documents