Salmon Ocean Ecology:

Distribution, Growth, and Survival Trends

Brian Burke NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC

Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council September 20th, 2018

Supported by:

• Summary of research projects

• Recent ocean conditions

• Salmon distribution and trophic interactions

• Addressing survival (3 examples)

Understanding complex ecosystems requires Research and Monitoring

NH Line

Washington

Oregon

Columbia River

Cape Blanco

Newport Hydrographic Line • Sampled biweekly for 20+ years (1996 – present)

– 7 stations

– 1 – 25 nm, seasonally out to 200 nm

• CTD, nutrients, chl-a, phytoplankton and HABs, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton

Juvenile Salmon and Ocean Ecosystem Survey (JSOES)

Photo credit: Pacific Drone

Objective: Examine abundance and distribution patterns of age-0 fish including rockfish, hake, and flatfishes in relation to ocean conditions Sampling: May-June (2011, 2013-2018); night trawls at 30 m depth, plankton, CTD, acoustic, seabird and mammal surveys

Pre-recruit survey and ecosystem assessment project

• Summary of research projects

• Recent ocean conditions

• Salmon distribution and trophic interactions

• Addressing survival (3 examples)

September 2014 September 2013

September 2016 September 2015

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.shtml

Pacific Basin-Scale Dynamics

September 2017

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.shtml

September 2018

Pacific Basin-Scale Dynamics

Zooplankton The blob came onshore

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

5

5

6

7

7 8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Pyrosoms 2018

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

8.5

9

9.5

10

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Pyrosoms 2017

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

1

2

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

8

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Pyrosoms 2016

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

0.5

0.5

1

1

1.5

1.5

1.5

2

2

2.5

2.5

3

3

3.5

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Pyrosoms 2015

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Pyrosoms 2014

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Pyrosoms 2013

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Pyrosoms 2011

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pyrosome Catch in Trawls

9.2

344.9

1.2

0.0

0.0

Scale bar = log (abundance) Number = Geometric mean abundance Brodeur et al. (MS)

11,752.9

8,585.9

2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

7

7

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Euphausiidae 2018

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

1

2 3

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

10

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Euphausiidae 2017

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

6

7

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Euphausiidae 2016

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Euphausiidae 2015

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

2

2

2

3

3

4

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

8

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

11

11

12

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Euphausiidae 2014

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

8 8

8

8

9

9

10

10

11

11

11

11

12

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Euphausiidae 2013

-126.0 -125.0 -124.0

40

42

44

46

48

3

3

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

7 7

7

7

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

11

WA

OR

Cape Flattery

Columbia R.

New port

Florence

Coos Bay

Brookings

Cape Mendocino

Euphausiidae 2011

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Euphausiid Catch in Trawls

Scale bar = log (abundance) Number = Geometric mean abundance x 10-4 Brodeur et al. (MS)

0.3

0.2

175.3

41.0

178.1

2.8

0.4

2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Systemic Biological Response to the Blob

• Summary of research projects

• Recent ocean conditions

• Salmon distribution and trophic interactions

• Addressing survival (3 examples)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

1.0

Yearling Chinook Stock Composition in June 26 180 80 37 122 127 77 19 88 118 422 157 155 92 197 214 140 94 62 16 Total catch

Spatial distribution is stock-specific

Upper Columbia River Summer/fall Subyearling Chinook

Teel, et al. 2015. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 7:274-300.

Image by DFO Canada

Subadult and Adult Distributions are Less Clear

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Me

an

Bio

ma

ss (

mg C

10

-3 m

-3 )

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Pacific Sandlance Rockfish Smelt Cottids Northern anchovy Flatfish Stichaeids Hexagrammids Pacific sardine Other

Annual mean biomass of larval fish taxa collected during winter (January-March in 1998-2018) along the Newport Hydrographic Line

Potential Prey Resources

Prey abundance and estimated growth have been high

Prey Index and Juvenile Salmon Growth are Related

Year

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ju

ne B

on

go

Net

Bio

mass

(mg

carb

on

m-3

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Mean

Ju

ne IG

F-I

(n

g/m

l) o

fY

earl

ing

Co

ho

40

50

60

70

80

90

Prey IndexGrowth Index

Predation impacts remain a data gap

Phillips et al. 2018

Predation impact depends on alternative prey

Wells et al. 2017

• Summary of research projects

• Recent ocean conditions

• Salmon distribution and trophic interactions

• Addressing survival (3 examples)

Surv

ival

(B

on

n t

o B

on

n)

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/oceanconditions

Early Warning: Stoplight Chart

Early Warning: Extremely Low Salmon Abundance in 2017

Chinook at Bonneville Dam Dynamic Linear Models

Sibling Regression and the first Principal Component of the stoplight chart

Outlook for 2018: 96K (55-168)

Spring Chinook March 15 – May 31

Return data from Columbia Basin Research, DART

Outlook for 2019: 109K (52 – 230)

(no jack data used)

(Observed for 2018: 88K)

Life Cycle Modeling

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

Johnstone and Mantua. 2014

Local summer SST Large-scale winter SST Recreated using ERSST v5 data

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v5

From Buoys

Best Set of Covariates*

* These should be thought of as indices of the (unmeasured) ecological processes

Thank you!

• 3 ocean projects to cover the various aspects of

ocean ecology

• Anomalous physical conditions can be strong

drivers of biological response

• Predator and prey data can be used directly in

management tools (e.g., Life Cycle Modeling)