Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 96, Issue 2–3, pp 393–403 | Cite as

Effects of predator and flow manipulation on Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) survival in an imperiled estuary

  • Bradley Cavallo
  • Joseph Merz
  • Jose Setka
Article

Abstract

We evaluated the effects of non-native, piscivorous fish removal and artificial flow manipulation on survival and migration speed of juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, emigrating through the eastern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California (Delta) using a Before-After-Control-Impact study design. Acoustically-tagged salmon survival increased significantly after the first predator reduction in the impact reach. However, survival estimates returned to pre-impact levels after the second predator removal. When an upstream control gate opened (increasing flow and decreasing tidal effect) juvenile salmon emigration time decreased and survival increased significantly through the impact reach. Though a short-term, single season experiment, our results demonstrate that predator control and habitat manipulation in the Delta tidal transition zone can be effective management strategies to enhance salmon survival in this highly altered system.

Keywords

Predation Telemetry Tidal Flows Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this work was provided by the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency. We gratefully acknowledge the East Bay Municipal Utility District Fisheries and Wildlife Office and all field staff that helped develop and collect data for this study, and the collaborative support of the California Department of Fish and Game staff of the Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery. N. Christensen and P. Kuechle offered valuable input on data filtering. K. Jones and C. Watry provided significant project management and data analysis support. R. Sitts, P. Brandes, L. Fryer, and two anonymous reviewers provided constructive comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Anderson J, Gurarie E, Zabel R (2005) Mean free-path length theory of predator–prey interactions: application to juvenile salmon migration. Ecol Model 186:196–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beamesderfer R, Ward D, Nigro A (1996) Evaluation of the biological basis for a predator control program on northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in the Columbia and Snake rivers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:2898–2908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham K, Anderson D (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandes P, McLain J (2001) Juvenile Chinook Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Survival in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Intranet, Series: California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin, Vol. 179, Page(s): 39–136Google Scholar
  5. Case T, Gilpin M (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci 71:3073–3077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CDFA [California Department of Food and Agriculture] (2006) California agricultural resource directory. California Department of Food and Agriculture, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen A, Carlton J (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EIFAC [European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission] (1991) Report of the international seminar on mass removal of unwanted fish in large inland water bodies. Occasional paper No. 26. European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  9. Foerster R, Ricker W (1941) The effect of reduction of predaceous fish on survival of young sockeye salmon at Cultus Lake. J Fish Res Board Can 5:315–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritts A, Pearsons T (2004) Smallmouth bass predation on hatchery and wild salmonids in the Yakima River, Washington. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:880–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goeman T, Spencer P (1992) Fish community responses to manipulation of northern pike and yellow perch densities in a Minnesota centrarchid lake. Minn Dep Nat Resour Sect Fish Invest Rep, No, 416Google Scholar
  12. Hankin D, Dauble D, Pizzimenti J, Smith P (2010) The Vernails adaptive management program (VAMP): report of the 2010 review panel. http://www.sjrg.org/peerreview/review_vamp_panel_report_final_051110.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2011
  13. Hubbs C (1940) Predator control in relation to fish management in Alaska. Trans N Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 5:153–162Google Scholar
  14. Jacobsen W (1945) The Bounty system and predator control. Calif Fish Game 31:53–63Google Scholar
  15. Kimmerer W, Nobriga M (2008) Investigating particle transport and fate in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta using a particle tracking model. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 6(1) http://escholarship.org/uc/item/547917gn. Accessed 16 September 2011
  16. Koonce J, Eshenroder R, Christie G (1993) An economic injury level approach to establishing the intensity of sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. N Am J Fish Manage 13:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Korman J, Yard M, Walters C, Coggins L (2009) Effects of fish size, habitat, flow, and density on capture probabilities of age-0 rainbow trout estimated from electrofishing at discrete sites in a large river. Trans Am Fish Soc 138:58–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. LaCroix G (2008) Influence of origin on migration and survival of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:2063–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindley S, Mohr M (2003) Modeling the effect of striped bass on the population viability of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon. Fishery Bulletin, 321–331Google Scholar
  20. Lindley, S, Schick T, May B, Anderson J, Greene S, Hanson C, Low A, McEwan D, MacFarlane R, Swanson C, Williams J (2004) Population structure of threatened and endangered Chinook salmon ESUs in California's Central Valley Basin. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-360Google Scholar
  21. Maceina M, Wren B, Lower D (1995) Estimating harvestable largemouth bass abundance in a reservoir with an electrofishing catch depletion technique. N Am J Fish Manag 15:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McLain J, Castillo G (2009) Nearshore areas used by fry Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the northwestern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 7(2). Accessed July 15 2011 http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4f4582tb
  23. McMichael G et al (2010) The juvenile salmon acoustic telemetry system: a new tool. Fisheries 35:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meachum C, Clark J (1979) Management to increase anadromous salmon production. In: Clepper H (ed) Predator–prey systems in fisheries management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, pp 377–386Google Scholar
  25. Meador M, Cuffney T, Gurtz M (1993) Methods for sampling fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey. Raleigh, North Carolina. Open-File Report 93–104Google Scholar
  26. Miller J, Gray A, Merz J (2010) Quantifying the contribution of juvenile migratory phenotypes in a population of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 408:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moser M, Olson A, Quinn T (1990). Effects of dummy ultrasonictransmitters on juvenile coho salmon. In N. C. Parker et al. (editors), Fish-marking techniques, p. 353–356. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 7Google Scholar
  28. Moyle P (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Moyle P, Marchetti M (2006) Predicting invasion success: freshwater fishes in California as a model. Bioscience 56:515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moyle PB, Lund JR, Bennett WA, Fleenor WE (2010) Habitat variability and complexity in the upper San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(3). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kf0d32x. Accessed 15 September 2011
  31. NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service] (2009) Public draft Recovery Plan for the evolutionarily significant units (ESU) of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon and spring-run Chinook salmon and the distinct population segment of Central Valley steelhead. October 2009Google Scholar
  32. Nobriga M, Feyrer F (2007) Shallow-water piscivore-prey dynamics in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 5(2). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/387603c0. Accessed 15 September 2011
  33. Otis K (1988) Effects of freshwater drum removal in Lake Winnebago, 1967–1981. Wis Dep Nat Resour Rep, No, 145Google Scholar
  34. Perry R (2010) Survival and Migration Dynamics of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Doctoral dissertation. University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. Perry R, Brandes P, Sandstrom P, 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 Manag 30:142–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raleigh R, Short C (1981) Depletion sampling in stream ecosystems: assumptions and techniques. Progressive Fish-Culturist 43:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sall J, Lehman A, Creighton L (2001) JMP start statistics: a guide to statistics and data analysis. Duxbury, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  38. Sanderson B, Barnas K, Wargo Rub A (2009) Nonindigenous species of the Pacific Northwest: an overlooked risk to endangered salmon? Bioscience 59:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skalski JR, Lady J, Townsend R, Giorgi A, Stevenson J, Peven C, McDonald R (2001) Estimating in-river survival of migrating salmonid smolts using radiotelemetry. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:1987–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith B, Tibbles J (1980) Sea lamprey (Petromyzon manrimus) in lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior: history of invasion and control, 1936–78. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:1780–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sommer T, Nobriga M, Harrell W, Batham W, Kimmer W (2001) Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stewart-Oaten A, Murdoch W, Parker K (1986) Environmental impact assessment: pseudoreplication in time? Ecology 67:305–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stuehrenberg L, Giorgi A, Bartlett C (1990) Pulse-coded radio tags for fish identification. In N. C. Parker et al. (editors), Fish-marking techniques, p. 370–374. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 7.Google Scholar
  44. White G, Burnham K (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 Supplement: 120–138.Google Scholar
  45. Zale A, Brooke C, Fraser W (2005) Effects of surgically implanted transmitter weights on growth and swimming stamina of small adult westslope cutthroat trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 134:653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zimmerman M, Ward D (1999) Index of predation on juvenile salmonids by Northern Pikeminnow in the Lower Columbia River Basin, 1994–1996. Trans Am Fish Soc 128:995–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cramer Fish SciencesAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Marine SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA
  3. 3.East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictLodiUSA

Personalised recommendations