Transcript Environmental enrichment in steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss

Supplementation using steelhead fry:
performance, interactions with natural
steelhead, & effect of enriched hatchery
environments
Christopher P. Tatara
NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Stephen C. Riley
USGS, Great Lakes Science Center
Julie A. Scheurer
NOAA Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries Division
Barry A. Berejikian
NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Overview
 Current status of
steelhead under
ESA
 Role of hatcheries
in steelhead
management
 2 potential pre-release
techniques for steelhead
conservation hatcheries
 Environmental enrichment
 Stocking fry
 Field evaluation of these
two conservation
hatchery techniques
ESA Status of Steelhead
DPS
ESA Status
1
Puget Sound
Threatened
2
Olympic Peninsula
Not Warranted
3
Southwest Washington
Not Warranted
4
Lower Columbia River
Threatened
5
Upper Willamette River
Threatened
6
Oregon Coast
Species of Concern
7
Klamath Mountain Province
Not Warranted
8
Northern California
Threatened
9
Central California Coast
Threatened
10
South Central CA Coast
Threatened
11
Southern California
Endangered
12
Central Valley
Threatened
13
Middle Columbia River
Threatened
14
Upper Columbia River
Endangered
15
Snake River Basin
Threatened
Hatcheries in steelhead management
• Historic and current - Stock Enhancement
– Provide fish for harvest and recreational angling
• More recent – Restocking and Conservation
– Restore spawning biomass/population to
sustainable/stable level
• Controversy over the use of hatchery fish for
rebuilding imperiled natural populations
– Changes to minimize genetic and environmental
influences of hatcheries
Conservation hatchery techniques
Conventional
Hatchery Enrichment
Stream
Photo: DIPAC
Photo: NWPCC
Smolt release – 1 year
190 mm
Fry release – 4-5 months
90 mm
Rearing Environments
Photo: USFWS
Photo: Scotty Corp
.
Photo: USFWS
Evaluating conservation hatchery
techniques: Experimental Design
Upstream
C+N
Stocked: 31 July 2003
Observed: 5 occasions between
6 August and 11 Sept 2003
E+N
E+N
C+N
C+N
11
Creek
Upstream
12
Creek
E+N
E+N
C+N
C+N
E+N
C+N
E+N
Downstream
Final sampling:
16-17 September 2003
Downstream
Evaluating conservation hatchery
techniques: Responses and Hypotheses
Upstream
C+N
Response Variables:
Behavior, Territory size,
Habitat use, Spatial distribution,
Growth, and Survival
E+N
C+N
11
Creek
E+N
C+N
E+N
Upstream
E+N
C+N
H1: How do conventional and
enriched hatchery fry
compare to natural fry?
C=E=N
H2: Are natural fry differentially
affected by type of
hatchery fry stocked?
12
Creek
E+N
C+N
E+N
C+N
NCON = NENR
Downstream
Downstream
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
Observation week
Hatchery type (F1,79 = 5.01, p = 0.028)
Week (F3,79 = 4.34, p = 0.007)
5
Aggression rate ((threats + attacks) · fish -1 · min -1)
Foraging rate (feeding strikes * min-1)
Results: Foraging and aggressive
behavior – natural fry
1.4
natural fry with conventional hatchery fry
natural fry with enriched hatchery fry
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
1
2
3
4
Observation week
Hatchery type x Week interaction
(F3,79 = 3.97, p = 0.011)
5
Results: Territory size
• H1: C = E = N
0.0
-0.2
– (F2,135 = 0.043, p = 0.653)
– (F1,45 = 0.45, p = 0.504)
• Additional analyses
– Fork length
(F1, 132 = 9.40, p = 0.003)
– Spatial use
(T-value = 4.37, p < 0.001)
• C=E=N
(F2,133 = 0.66, p = 0.520)
– Local density (p = 0.129)
Log10 territory size (m2)
• H2: NCON= NENR
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2.0
0.68
0.70
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
Log10 length (cm)
Enriched Hatchery Fry
Conventional Hatchery Fry
Natural Fry
Regression Relationship This Study
Regression Relationship Grant & Kramer (1990)
0.90
Results: habitat use
Pool Use Index = (# frypool/# fryencl)/(Areapool/Areaencl)
d
4
Natural fry
Conventional hatchery fry
Enriched hatchery fry
3.0
bc
ac
a
a
a
Natural with Conventional
Natural with Enriched
a
2.5
Pool Use Index
Pool Use Index
3
2
b
3.5
a
2.0
a
1.5
1.0
1
0.5
0.0
0
Eleven Creek
Twelve Creek
Stream x type interaction
F2,74 = 11.68, p<0.001
Eleven Creek
Twelve Creek
Stream x hatchery type stocked interaction
F1,36 = 14.40, p = 0.001
Results: spatial distribution
Standardized Morisita Index
• = 0 indicates randomness
• > 0 indicates clumping (+)
• < 0 indicates uniformity (-)
Standardized Morisita index of dispersion
1.0
Natural fry
Conventional hatchery fry
Enriched hatchery fry
0.8
b
b
bc
0.6
cd
0.4
0.2
ad
ad
0.0
Eleven Creek
Twelve Creek
Stream x fish type, F2,76 = 6.42, p = 0.04
Standardized Morisita index of dispersion
B
A
0.6
Natural with Conventional
Natural with Enriched
a
0.4
a
0.2
a
a
0.0
Eleven Creek
Twelve Creek
Hatchery type, F1,33 = 3.51, p = 0.07
Instantaneous growth rate (ln grams/day)
Results: Growth
0.012
Natural fry
Conventional fry
Enriched fry
0.014
b
0.012
a
0.010
a
0.010
a
0.008
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
k
ree
C
n
ve
Ele
(ANOVA, F1,18 = 7.23, p = 0.02)
n=6 for natural
n=3 for hatchery
l
na
k
ree
C
e
elv
Tw
o
nti
tu
Na
ra
ve
on
C
/
lw
/
lw
a
r
tu
Na
ed
ch
ri
En
Mann-Whitney, n=6
Results: Survival after 6 weeks
a
a
100
100
80
80
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
20
20
100
80
b
b
ke
l
H
at
ch
er
y
y
re
sn
m
or
l
sn
al
ur
N
at
re
al
ur
N
at
er
Natural + Enriched
ov
al
0
Natural + Conventional
ch
Enriched
ke
Conventional
m
Natural
or
0
0
b
H
at
b
a
ov
al
Survival (percent)
a
a
(ANOVA, F2,18 = 27.57, p < 0.001)
n=12 for natural
n=6 for hatchery
Mann-Whitney, n=6
Paired t-test, n=16
Results: Estimated survival over the
course of the experiment
Stocking
Removal
Estimated
survival
(proportion)
observed
population
of initial
Proportion
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
8/4/03
8/11/03
8/18/03
8/25/03
9/1/03
9/8/03
9/15/03
Sampling occasion
mean hatchery fry survival
mean natural fry survival
Sheirer-Ray-Hare,
F1,95 = 45.2, p < 0.001
Density
(fry/sq. meter)
Effectiveness of steelhead fry
supplementation
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
HATCHERY
NATURAL
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
ENR6
ENR5
ENR4
ENR3
ENR2
ENR1
CON6
CON5
CON4
CON3
CON2
CON1
Enclosure
Supporting research evaluating
effectiveness of fry stocking
• Hatchery program established 2002
– Featured fry stocking (after complete yolk absorbance)
– Extensive genetic monitoring & adult & outmigrant traps
• Used genetic monitoring to compare # age-2
smolts produced by female steelhead
– Spawning naturally in the river
– Spawned artificially in hatchery with their offspring released as fry
Year
Class
Comparison
Relative
smolt
production
2002
H2:NS
6.2**
2003
H1:NS
2.1**
2003
H2:NS
1.3*
Carrofino et al. 2008.
Can J Fish Aquat Sci :
65: 309-318
Conclusions
• Fry from conventional and enriched hatchery
environments develop natural social behaviors
shortly after release
• Individual hatchery fry establish and use
territories like natural fry
• Hatchery fry use pools like natural fry, but have
a more clumped spatial distribution
• Stocking enriched hatchery fry altered the
foraging and aggressive behavior of natural fry
– No effect on growth or survival of natural fry
Conclusions
• Conventional and enriched hatchery fry grow as
well as natural fry
• Natural fry have higher survival than hatchery fry
– most mortality of hatchery fry occurred within 2 weeks of stocking
• Growth and survival of natural fry was similar when
stocked with conventional or enriched hatchery fry
• Supplementation with hatchery fry increased
steelhead populations over the short-term (density
increase of 2.9X)
– no differences using conventional or enriched fry
– Fry supplementation increases relative production of age-2 smolts
• Longer studies of fry supplementation are needed
to fully evaluate effectiveness
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rob Endicott
Jeff Atkins
Skip Tezak
Eric Kummerow
Rudy Wynn
Brandon Nickerson
Weyerhaeuser Corporation
WDFW, Bingham Creek Hatchery