Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 233–246 | Cite as

Hatchery practices may result in replacement of wild salmonids: adult trends in the Klamath basin, California

  • Rebecca M. Quiñones
  • Michael L. Johnson
  • Peter B. Moyle
Article

Abstract

Appraisal of hatchery-related effects on Pacific salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) is a necessary component of species conservation. For example, hatchery supplementation can influence species viability by changing genetic, phenotypic and life-history diversity. We analyzed time series data for seven salmonid taxa from the Klamath River basin, California, to investigate trajectories of wild and hatchery adult populations. Linear regression coupled with randomized permutations (n = 99,999), two- tailed t tests, and Bayesian change point analysis were used to detect trends over time. Cross correlation was also used to evaluate relationships between wild and hatchery populations. The taxa of interest were spring, fall, and late-fall Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha); Coho Salmon (O. kisutch); Coastal Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki clarki); and summer and hybrid Steelhead Trout (O. mykiss). Significant decreases were detected for summer and hybrid Steelhead Trout. The proportion of wild fall Chinook has also significantly decreased concurrently with increases in hatchery returns. In comparison, returns of most Chinook and coho runs to the hatcheries, and fall Chinook strays to wild spawning areas from Iron Gate Hatchery have significantly increased since the 1970s. Increases were also detected for wild late-fall Chinook and spring Chinook adults. However, both of these were significantly correlated with Chinook Salmon returns to Trinity River Hatchery, suggesting augmentation by hatchery strays. Changes in abundances appeared related to changing ocean habitat conditions and hatchery practices. Our results suggest that anadromous salmonid populations in the Klamath River basin are becoming increasingly dependent on hatchery propagation, a pattern that can threaten population persistence.

Keywords

Hatchery effects Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Steelhead trout Salmon conservation Bayesian change point analysis 

References

  1. Anderson MJ (2001) Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:626–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JT, Legendre P (1999) An empirical comparison of permutation methods for tests of partial regression coefficients in a linear model. J Stat Comput Simul 62:271–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2001) Permutation tests for linear models. Aust NZ J Stat 43:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2007) Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318:100–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS (2008) Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol Appl 1:342–355PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2009) Carry-over effect of captive breeding reduces reproductive fitness of wild-born descendants in the wild. Biol Lett 5:621–624PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett-Johnson R, Grimes CB, Royer CF, Donohoe CJ (2007) Identifying the contribution of wild and hatchery Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to the ocean fishery using otolith microstructure as natural tags. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64:1683–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Battin J, Wiley MW, Ruckelshaus MH, Palmer RN, Korb E, Bartz KK, Imaki H (2007) Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. PNAS 104:6720–6725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Beamish RJ, Mahnken C (2001) A critical size and period hypothesis to explain natural regulation of salmon abundance and the linkage to climate and climate change. Prog Oceanogr 49:423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berejikian BA, Tezak EP, Schroder SL (2001) Reproductive behavior and breeding success of captively reared Chinook salmon. N Am J Fish Manag 21:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bisson PA, Coutant CC, Goodman D, Gramling R, Lettenmaier D, Lichatowich J, Liss W, Loudenslager E, McDonald L, Philipp D, Riddell B (2002) Hatchery surpluses in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 27:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Box GEP, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC (2008) Time series analysis - forecasting and control. Wiley and Sons Inc., HobokenGoogle Scholar
  13. Brannon EL, Amend DF, Cronin MA, Lannan JE, LaPatra S, McNeil WJ, Noble RE, Smith CE, Talbot AJ, Wedemeyer GA, Westers H (2004) The controversy about salmon hatcheries. Fisheries 29:12–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brauner CJ, Iwama GK, Randall DJ (1994) The effect sf short-duration seawater exposure on the swimming performance of wild and hatchery-reared juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) during smoltification. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:2188–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown LR, Moyle PB, Yoshiyama RM (1994) Historical decline and current status of coho salmon in California. N Am J Fish Manag 14:237–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buhle ER, Holsman KK, Scheuerell MD, Albaugh A (2009) Using an unplanned experiment to evaluate the effects of hatcheries and environmental variation on threatened populations of wild salmon. Biol Conserv 142:2449–2455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Busby PJ, Wainwright TC, Waples RS (1994) Status review for Klamath Mountains Province steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  18. Carmona-Catot G, Moyle PB, Simmons RE (2012) Long-term captive breeding does not necessarily prevent reestablishment: lessons learned from Eagle Lake rainbow trout. Rev Fish Biol Fish 22:325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. CDFG (2002) Status review of California Coho salmon north of San Francisco. California Fish and Game Commission, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  20. CDFG (2010) Final hatchery and stocking program Environmental Impact Statement. Fisheries Management Branch, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  21. Chittenden CW, Sura S, Butterworth KG, Cubitt KF, Plantalech Manel-la N, Balfry S, Okland F, McKinley RS (2008) Riverine, estuarine and marine migratory behavior and physiology of wild and hatchery-reared coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum) smolts descending the Campbell River, BC, Canada. J Fish Biol 72:614–628Google Scholar
  22. Chittenden CM, Biagi CA, Davidsen JG, Davidsen AG, Kondo H, McKnight A, Pedersen O-P, Raven PA, Rikardsen AH, Shrimpton JM, Zuehlke B, McKinley RS, Devlin RH (2010) Genetic versus rearing-environment effects on phenotype: hatchery and natural rearing effects on hatchery- and wild-born coho salmon. PLoS One 5:12261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chu P, Zhao X (2004) Bayesian change-point analysis of tropical cyclone activity: the Central North Pacific case. J Climate 17:4893–4901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Denison DGT, Mallick BK, Smith AFM (1998) Automatic Bayesian curve fitting. J R Stat Soc Ser B 60:333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dittman AH, May D, Larsen DA, Moser ML, Johnston M, Fast D (2010) Homing and spawning site selection by supplemented hatchery- and natural-origin Yakima River spring Chinook Salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 139:1014–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ebersole JL, Liss WJ, Frissell CA (2001) Relationship between stream temperature, thermal refugia and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid-land streams in the northwestern United States. Ecol Freshw Fish 10:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eldridge W, Killebrew K (2008) Genetic diversity over multiple generations of supplementation: an example from Chinook salmon using microsatellite and demographic data. Conserv Genet 9:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gresh T, Lichatowich J, Schoonmaker P (2000) An estimation of historic and current levels of salmon production in the northeast Pacific ecosystem: evidence of a nutrient deficit in the freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 25:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gutierrez CM (2006) Declaration concerning the Klamath River fall Chinook salmon fishery. Department of Commerce, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamilton J, Rondorf D, Hampton M, Quiñones RM, Simondet J, Smith T (2011) Synthesis of the effects to fish species of two management scenarios for the Secretarial Determination on removal of the lower four dams on the Klamath River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, YrekaGoogle Scholar
  31. Hard JJ, Gross MR, Heino M, Hilborn R, Kope RG, Law R, Reynolds JD (2008) Evolutionary consequences of fishing and their implications for salmon. Evol Appl 1:388–408PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heard WR (1998) Do hatchery salmon affect the North Pacific Ocean ecosystem? NPAFC Bull 1:405–411Google Scholar
  33. Hilborn R (1992) Hatcheries and the future of salmon in the Northwest. Fisheries 17:5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill RA, Irvine JR (2001) Standardizing spawner escapement data: a case study of the Nechako River Chinook salmon. N Am J Fish Manag 21:651–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hjort RC, Schreck CB (1982) Phenotypic differences among stocks of hatchery and wild coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, in Oregon, Washington and California. Fish B-NOAA 80:105–119Google Scholar
  36. Kaeriyama M (2004) Evaluation of carrying capacity of Pacific salmon in the North Pacific Ocean for ecosystem-based sustainable conservation management. NPAFC Bull 5:1–4Google Scholar
  37. Katz J, Moyle PB, Quiñones RM, Israel J, Purdy S (2012) Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environ Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s10641-012-9974-8 Google Scholar
  38. Knudsen CM, Shroder SL, Busack CA, Johnston MV, Pearsons TN, Bosch WJ, Fast DE (2006) Comparison of life history traits between first-generation hatchery and wild upper Yakima River spring Chinook salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:1130–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kope R (2006) Cumulative effects of multiple sources of bias in estimating spawner-recruit parameters with application to harvested stocks of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fish Res 82:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Korman J, Higgins PS (1997) Utility of escapement time series data for monitoring the response of salmon populations to habitat alteration. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:2058–2067Google Scholar
  41. Kostow KE (2004) Differences in juvenile phenotypes and survival between hatchery stocks and a natural population provide evidence for modified selection due to captive breeding. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kostow K (2009) Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies. Rev Fish Biol Fish 19:9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kostow KE, Marshall AR, Phelps SR (2003) Naturally spawning hatchery steelhead contribute to smolt production but experience low reproductive success. Trans Am Fish Soc 132:780–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lackey RT, Lach DH, Duncan SL (2006) Salmon 2100: The future of wild pacific salmon. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  45. Legendre P (1999) Program for multiple linear regression with permutation test. Available at: http://adn.biol.umontreal.ca/numericalecology/old/regression.html. Accessed 22 Mar 2011
  46. Levin PS, Williams JG (2002) Interspecific effects of artificially propagated fish: an additional conservation risk for salmon. Conserv Biol 16:1581–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levin PS, Zabel RW, Williams JG (2001) The road to extinction is paved with good intentions: negative association of fish hatcheries with threatened salmon. Proc R Soc B Biol 268:1153–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lichatowich JA (1999) Salmon without rivers: A history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Island Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  49. Lindley ST, Grimes CB, Mohr MS, Peterson W, Stein J, Anderson JT, Botsford LW, Bottom DL, Busack CA, Collier TK, Ferguson J, Garza JC, Grover AM, Hankin DG, Kope RG, Lawson PW, Low A, MacFarlane RB, Moore K, Palmer-Zwahlen M, Schwing FB, Smith J, Tracy C, Webb R, Wells BK, Williams TH (2009) What caused the Sacramento River fall Chinook stock collapse? National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  50. Lynch M, O’Hely M (2001) Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations. Conserv Genet 2:363–378Google Scholar
  51. Mantua NJ, Hare SR (2002) The Pacific Decadal oscillation. J Oceanogr 58:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mantua NJ, Hare SR, Zhang Y, Wallace JM, Francis RC (1997) A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 78:1069–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McClure MM, Utter FM, Baldwin C, Carmichael RW, Hassemer PF, Howell PJ, Spruell P, Cooney TD, Schaller HA, Petrosky CE (2008) Evolutionary effects of alternative artificial propagation programs: implications for viability of endangered anadromous salmonids. Evol Appl 1:356–375PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McLean JE, Bentzen P, Quinn TP (2003) Differential reproductive success of sympatric, naturally spawning hatchery and wild steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) through the adult stage. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60(4):433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Melnychuk MC, Welch DW, Walters CJ (2010) Spatio-temporal migration patterns of Pacific salmon smolts in rivers and coastal marine waters. PLoS One 5:e12916PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore JW, McClure M, Rogers LA, Schindler DE (2010) Synchronization and portfolio performance of threatened salmon. Conserv Lett 3:340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  58. Moyle PB, Israel JA, Purdy SE (2008) Salmon, steelhead, and trout in California: status of an emblematic fauna. CalTrout Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  59. Murdoch AR, Pearsons TN, Maitland TW (2010) Estimating the spawning escapement of hatchery- and natural-origin spring Chinook salmon using redd and carcass data. N Am J Fish Manag 30:361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Myers JM, Kope RG, Bryant GJ, Teel D, Lierheimer LJ, Wainwright TC, Grant WS, Waknitz FW, Neely K, Lindley ST, Waples RS (1998) Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Long Beach, Newport and TiburonGoogle Scholar
  61. Myers RA, Levin SA, Lande R, James FC, Murdoch WW, Paine RT (2004) Hatcheries and endangered salmon. Science 303:1980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Nehlsen W, Williams JE, Lichatowich JA (1991) Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nickelson T (2003) The influence of hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the productivity of wild coho salmon populations in Oregon coastal basins. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1050–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. NMFS (2010) Operation of the Klamath Project between 2010 and 2018, Biological Opinion 151422SWR2008AR00148. National Marine Fisheries Service, Long BeachGoogle Scholar
  65. Noakes DJ, Beamish RJ, Sweeting RM, King J (2000) Changing the balance: interactions between hatchery and wild Pacific coho salmon in the presence of regime shifts. NPAFC Bull 2:155–164Google Scholar
  66. NRC (2004) Endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River basin: causes of decline and strategies for recovery. The National Academies Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  67. Pearse DE, Donohoe CJ, Garza JC (2007) Population genetics of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Klamath River. Environ Biol Fish 80:377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reisenbichler RR, Rubin SP (1999) Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES J Mar Sci 56:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Routledge RD, Irvine JR (1999) Chance fluctuations and the survival of small salmon stocks. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:1512–1519Google Scholar
  71. Shrimpton JM, Bernier NJ, Randall DJ (1994) Changes in cortisol dynamics in wild and hatchery-reared juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) during smoltification. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:2179–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sinnen W, Kier MC, Hill A, Hileman J, Borok S (2010) Annual report - Trinity River basin salmon and steelehad monitoring project, 2007–2008 season. California Department of Fish and Game, ReddingGoogle Scholar
  73. Spence BC, Wainwright TC, Bjorkstedt EP (2005) In: Good TP, Waples RS, Adams P (eds) Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West coast salmon and steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, pp 339–362Google Scholar
  74. Sweeting RM, Beamish RJ, Noakes DJ, Neville CM (2003) Replacement of wild coho salmon by hatchery-reared coho salmon in the Strait of Georgia over the past three decades. N Am J Fish Manag 23:492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thomson JR, Kimmerer WJ, Brown LR, Newman KB, Nally RM, Bennett WA, Feyrer F, Fleishman E (2010) Bayesian change point analysis of abundance trends for pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Ecol Appl 20:1431–1448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Tymchuk WE, Sundström LF, Devlin RH, Hughes K (2007) Growth and survival trade-offs and outbreeding depression in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Evolution 61:1225–1237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Doornik DM, Berejikian BA, Campbell L, Volk EC (2010) The effect of a supplementation program on the genetic and life history characteristics of an Oncorhynchus mykiss population. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67:1449–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wainwright TC, Kope RG (1999) Methods of extinction risk assessment developed for US West Coast salmon. ICES J Mar Sci 56:444–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weitkamp LA, Wainwright TC, Bryant GJ, Milner GB, Teel DJ, Kope RG, Waples RS (1995) Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  80. Williams JG (2006) Central Valley salmon: a perspective on Chinook and steelhead in the Central Valley of California. San Francisco Estuary Watershed Sci 4:1–398Google Scholar
  81. Zaporozhets OM, Zaporozhets GV (2004) Interaction between hatchery and wild Pacific salmon in the far east of Russia: a review. Rev Fish Biol Fish 14:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca M. Quiñones
    • 1
  • Michael L. Johnson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter B. Moyle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Watershed SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Michael L. Johnson, LLCDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations