Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byTroy Poppleton Modified over 10 years ago
1
Rebecca A. Buchanan Columbia Basin Research School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle, WA INVESTIGATING MIGRATORY PROCESSES USING PROGRAM ROSTER
2
Revolutionized salmon marking studies Extensive data on salmon migration Minimal degree of fish handling, tag failure, cost Extensive network for tagging and detection through river systems in Pacific Northwest Focus is typically restricted to single life stage: Juvenile migration Adult migration Juvenile-to-adult connection: Tag juveniles detect both juveniles and adults Learn about SAR, ocean survival, adult survival, adult age structure Relate to juvenile experiences PASSIVE INTEGRATED TRANSPONDER TAGS
3
River-Ocean Survival and Transportation Effects Routine Combines juvenile and adult PIT-tag detections Estimates: Inriver survival (juvenile, adult) Detection probabilities Ocean return probability (BON to BON) SAR Transportation Effects Transport/Inriver Ratio ‘D’ (differential mortality) PROGRAM ROSTER: MULTISTATE MARK-RECAPTURE MODEL 3
4
Use output of ROSTER model to address questions such as: Are ocean return probability and adult passage success related to juvenile migration method (non-transported vs. transported)? Does the age structure of returning adults differ for fish that were transported as smolts? Do transported smolts produce more jacks? EXPLORE MIGRATORY PROCESSES
5
PIT-tag detection data from PTAGIS database (www.ptagis.org) Snake River hatchery fish Tagged, released upstream of Lower Granite Dam Spring Chinook salmon Migration years 1996 – 2007 Annual release groups Juvenile detections LGR, LGS, LMN, IH, MCN, JD, BON Adult detections BON, MCN, IHA, LGR Includes age-1-ocean fish SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
6
Fit ROSTER model for each annual release group Estimate transportation effects for transport groups ≥ 5000 Estimate ocean return probability, adult passage success, adult age distribution for Non-transported LGR transports LGS transports Test significance of transportation LGR and LGS transport groups separately Analysis of Variance If significant: orthogonal regression >1: Estimates higher for transport groups than for non-transport groups <1: Estimates lower for transport groups than for non-transport groups Accounts for uncertainty in both dependent and independent variables STATISTICAL METHODS
7
Includes survival between BON and ocean Estimate for non- transported and transported groups Assumes barge survival (0.98) OCEAN RETURN PROBABILITY
10
Passage success from Bonneville to Lower Granite Weighted by adult age distribution Not adjusted for straying, harvest Classified by release year ADULT PASSAGE SUCCESS 10
11
ADULT PASSAGE SUCCESS
13
Proportion of returning adults that returned to LGR after 1, 2, or 3 winters in ocean Estimate separately for transported, non- transported groups ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION 13
14
ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION
17
ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION: JACKS
18
ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION: AGE-2 OCEAN
19
ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION: AGE-3 OCEAN
20
Use PIT-tag data from Snake River Hatchery-reared Spring Chinook with Program ROSTER Results: Ocean Return Probability Higher for LGR-transported fish than for non-transported fish No significant difference between LGS-transported fish and non- transported fish Adult Passage Success Lower for both LGR- and LGS-transported fish than for non-transported fish Adult Age Structure No significant difference between transported fish and non-transported fish SUMMARY
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.