1. Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook: Relative Reproductive Success in Captive Chinook Salmon Melissa Baird 1, Ewann Berntson 1, Timothy Hoffnagle 2, Steve Boe 3, Jim Harbeck 4, Richard Carmichael 2, Paul Moran 1 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 4 Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

2. Catherine Creek

3. Project Design Goal is to sample 100% of returning adults Representative sampling of parr, smolts Genotyped for 10 microsatellites Pedigrees reconstructed by exclusion Relative Reproductive Success (RRS) calculated, normalized to wild

4. 204 21 2 1 000 2000 3000 32720-021 32720-0 2 3 224 2 1 2 1000 2000 204 212 1000 2000 32721-013 500 1000 1500 2000 32721-023 500 1000 1500 2000 32721-036 196 2 00 20 0 224 Pedigree analysis match-up

5. Catherine Creek and Lostine River Returning adults are progeny of captive brood fish, plus conventional supplementation programs Early in the program—1.5 generations

6. Lostine River YearLife Stage# 2001Adults533 2002WC Parr192 2002Adults586 2003WC Parr192 2003Adults435 2004WC Parr192 2005Smolts192 2004Adults879 2005WC Parr192 2005Adults481 2006WC Parr191 Catherine Creek YearLife Stage# 2002Adults244 2003WC Parr192 2003Adults431 2004WC Parr192 2005Smolts159 2004Adults190 2005WC Parr192 2005Adults141 2006WC Parr192 Number of Samples Run by Location

7. Hatchery/Wild returns

12. p < 0.05

14. Jacks Jacks found in relatively low numbers They do contribute Lower RS than expected, but some individuals have higher RS Suggests a large variance in RS for jacks compared to adults

15. Precocial parr Approximately 150 caught in traps in 2006 Most were BY 2005, 5-10% were BY 2004 Found their parents, but unable to detect any of their offspring Low likelihood of sampling offspring of PP though Would like to make note of families producing PP

16. Results of Chinook pedigree studies Approximately equal RRS seen across years between hatchery and wild fish in both rivers Jacks do contribute, but less than expected by number over the weir Precocial parr gave no sampled offspring, but not surprising

17. Comparison to O. mykiss Little Sheep Creek, Imnaha Little Sheep is older supplementation program (est. 1982, ~5 generations) Large resident population O. mykiss hatchery rearing is accelerated Chinook are (in part) progeny of captive brood

19. p = 0.0009 p = 0.0001 p = 0.0206 p = 0.0000

20. p = 0.0014 p = 0.0001 p = 0.0000 p = 0.0152

21. Conclusions from Little Sheep Hatchery steelhead have significantly lower RRS than wild counterparts in Little Sheep Creek. Little difference between hatchery males and hatchery females in performance.

22. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0123456 Hatchery Generations Relative Fitness Hood R. Sthd (Cww x Cww) Hood R. Sthd (Cww x Ccw) Wenatchee Chinook Little Sheep Cr. Sthd Deschutes Sthd Supplementation programs in the Columbia River basin Triangles = egg-to-parr/smolt, Diamonds = adult-to-parr/smolt, Squares = lifetime Species: Dark blue = steelhead, yellow = Chinook Catherine Cr. Chinook Lostine R. Chinook

23. Conclusions Chinook show equal fitness for hatchery vs. wild in Grande Ronde Different results for other species in the Columbia basin Difficult to generalize—species, location may have effect

24. And the million-dollar question… WHY do we see such big differences between species and systems? What factors are involved?

25. Acknowledgements This project was funded through BPA contract # 198909600 Samples provided by ODFW, Nez Perce, and CTUIR