Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 96, Issue 2–3, pp 381–392 | Cite as

Sensitivity of survival to migration routes used by juvenile Chinook salmon to negotiate the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

  • Russell W. Perry
  • Patricia L. Brandes
  • Jon R. Burau
  • A. Peter Klimley
  • Bruce MacFarlane
  • Cyril Michel
  • John R. Skalski
Article

Abstract

Populations of juvenile salmon emigrating from natal rivers to the ocean must often traverse different migratory pathways that may influence survival. In regulated rivers, migration routes may consist of a network of channels such as in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, or of different passage structures at hydroelectric dams (e.g., turbines or spillways). To increase overall survival, management actions in such systems often focus on altering the migration routing of fish to divert them away from low-survival routes and towards high-survival routes. Here, we use a 3-year data set of route-specific survival and movement of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to quantify the sensitivity of survival to changes in migration routing at two major river junctions in the Sacramento River. Our analysis revealed that changes in overall survival in response to migration routing at one river junction depended not only differences in survival among alternative routes, but also on migration routing at the other river junction. Diverting fish away from a low-survival route at the downstream river junction increased population survival by less than expected, given the difference in survival among routes, because part of the population used an alternative migration route at the upstream river junction. We also show that management actions that influence only migration routing will likely increase survival by less than actions that alter both migration routing and route-specific survival. Our analysis provides an analytical framework to help fisheries managers quantify the suite of management actions likely to maximize increases in population level survival.

Keywords

Migration Telemetry Juvenile salmon Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Survival 

References

  1. Adams NS, Rondorf DW, Evans SD, Kelly JE, Perry RW (1998) Effects of surgically and gastrically implanted radio transmitters on swimming performance and predator avoidance of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:781–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bracis C (2010) A model of the ocean migration of Pacific salmon. Thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandes PL, McLain JS (2001) Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance, distribution, and survival in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. In: Brown RL (ed) Contributions to the biology of Central Valley salmonids, volume 2, Fish Bulletin 179. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, pp 39–138Google Scholar
  4. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  5. Coutant CC (2001) Behavioral technologies for fish guidance. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Newman KB, Brandes PL (2010) Hierarchical modeling of juvenile Chinook salmon survival as a function of Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta water exports. N Am J Fish Manage 30:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Newman KB, Rice J (2002) Modeling the survival of Chinook salmon smolts outmigrating through the lower Sacramento River system. J Am Stat Assoc 97:983–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Perry RW (2010) Survival and migration dynamics of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Dissertation, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Perry RW, Brandes PL, Sandstrom PT, Ammann A, MacFarlane B, Klimley AP, Skalski JR (2010) Estimating survival and migration route probabilities of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. N Am J Fish Manage 30:142–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Reisenbichler RR, McIntyre JD (1977) Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. J Fish Res B Can 34:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Skalski JR, Townsend R, Lady J, Giorgi AE, Stevenson JR, McDonald RD (2002) Estimating route-specific passage and survival probabilities at a hydroelectric project from smolt radiotelemetry studies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1385–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Skalski JR, Buchanan RA, Townsend RL, Steig TW, Hemstrom S (2009) A multiple-release model to estimate route-specific and dam passage survival at a hydroelectric project. N Am J Fish Manage 29:670–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell W. Perry
    • 1
    • 6
  • Patricia L. Brandes
    • 2
  • Jon R. Burau
    • 3
  • A. Peter Klimley
    • 4
  • Bruce MacFarlane
    • 5
  • Cyril Michel
    • 5
  • John R. Skalski
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.US Fish and Wildlife ServiceStocktonUSA
  3. 3.US Geological SurveyCalifornia Water Sciences CenterSacramentoUSA
  4. 4.Biotelemetry Laboratory, Department of Wildlife Fish & Conservation BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  5. 5.NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science CenterFisheries Ecology DivisionSanta CruzUSA
  6. 6.US Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research CenterColumbia River Research LaboratoryCookUSA

Personalised recommendations