1 / 25

Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook: Relative Reproductive Success in Captive Chinook Salmon

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

zivanka
Download Presentation

Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook: Relative Reproductive Success in Captive Chinook Salmon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook: Relative Reproductive Success in Captive Chinook Salmon Melissa Baird1, Ewann Berntson1, Timothy Hoffnagle2, Steve Boe3, Jim Harbeck4, Richard Carmichael2, Paul Moran1 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. 3 0 0 0 3 2 7 2 0 - 0 3 2 3 2 7 2 0 - 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 7 2 1 - 0 3 6 3 2 7 2 1 - 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 7 2 1 - 0 2 3 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 4 2 0 0 1 9 6 2 0 4 2 1 2 2 0 0 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. Number of Samples Run by Location

  7. Hatchery/Wild returns

  8. p < 0.05

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Comparison to O. mykissLittle 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

  13. p = 0.0009 p = 0.0001 p = 0.0206 p = 0.0000

  14. p = 0.0014 p = 0.0152 p = 0.0001 p = 0.0000

  15. 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.

  16. Lostine R. Chinook Little Sheep Cr. Sthd Supplementation programs in the Columbia River basin 1.2 Catherine Cr. Chinook 1 0.8 Hood R. Sthd Deschutes (Cww x Cww) Relative Fitness Sthd 0.6 Wenatchee 0.4 Chinook 0.2 Hood R. Sthd (Cww x Ccw) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hatchery Generations

  17. 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

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

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

More Related