Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does broodstock source affect post-release survival of steelhead? Implications of replacing a non-native hatchery stock for recovery

  • Published:
Environmental Biology of Fishes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) reared at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery (NFH) and released into the Lower American River (LAR) in California are not part of the native California Central Valley Distinct Population Segment (CCVDPS); listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and therefore cannot contribute to recovery. In response to this situation, we evaluated the potential of using a CCVDPS stock from the Coleman National Fish Hatchery (CNFH) to aid in recovery. Steelhead from the CNFH were reared in 2015 at NFH along with NFH-origin steelhead. Smolts from both stocks were implanted with acoustic transmitters and released into the LAR. This study assessed: 1) reach-specific, post-release survival of each stock from release to the ocean; 2) the degree to which either stock residualized; and 3) the spatial distribution of post-release mortality in the LAR. Multistate mark-recapture models were constructed to estimate reach-specific survival and entrainment into alternate migration routes. Four models were constructed to test hypothesized relationships between survival and covariates. Covariates included: 1) broodstock origin; 2) release date; 3) fork length; and 4) no covariates. Fork length was the best predictor of reach-specific survival and exhibited a positive relationship with survival in each reach. Juveniles from both stocks emigrated quickly, did not residualize, and exhibited similar survival while emigrating to the ocean. Results suggested the need for additional research to further evaluate CNFH-origin steelhead performance at NFH-origin during additional life stages to support recovery of CCVDPS Steelhead.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altukhov YP, Salmenova EA (1986) Stock transfer relative to natural organization, management, and conservation of fish populations. In: Ryman N, Utter F (eds) Population genetics and fisheries management, University of Washington Press, Seattle

  • Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS (2008) Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol Appl 1(2):342–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker PF, Morhardt JE (2001) Survival of Chinook salmon smolts in the Sacramento-san Joaquin Delta and Pacific Ocean. In: Brown RL (ed) Contributions to the biology of Central Valley Salmonids, Fish bulletin 179, vol 2. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, pp 163–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeman J, Juhnke S, Wright K (2012) Effects of Iron Gate Dam discharge and other factors on the survival and migration of juvenile coho salmon in the Lower Klamath River, Northern California, 2006-2009. United States Geological Survey open-file report 2012–1067. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1067/. Accessed 28 November 2018

  • California Hatchery Scientific Review Group (CHSRG) (2012a) California hatchery review project, Nimbus Steelhead Program Report June 2012 http://cahatcheryreviewcom/reports/ Accessed 20 November 2018

  • California Hatchery Scientific Review Group (CHSRG) (2012b) California hatchery review project, Coleman Steelhead Program Report June 2012 http://cahatcheryreviewcom/reports/ Accessed 20 November 2018

  • Cucherousset J, Olden JD (2011) Ecological impacts of non-native freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunham JB, Pilliod DS, Young MK (2004) Assessing the consequences of nonnative trout in headwater ecosystems in western North America. Fisheries 29:18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESA (1976) US Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Pub. L. No. 93–205, 87 Stat. 884 (Dec. 28, 1973). http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESAall.pdf

  • Ferguson MM (1990) The genetic impact of introduced fishes on native species. Can J Zool 68(5):1053–1057. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-153 Accessed 20 November 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser D, Weir L, Bernatchez L, Hansen M, Taylor E (2011) Extent and scale of local adaptation in salmonid fishes: review and meta-analysis. Heredity 106:404–420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garza JC, Pearse DE (2008) Population genetic structure of Oncorhynchus mykiss in the California Central Valley. Final report for California Department of Fish and Game contract #PO485303. Santa Cruz (CA): NOAA Southwest Science Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. 54 p. http://gvl.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Genetic-considerations-for-sourcing-steelhead-reintroductions.pdf

  • Kapuscinski AR (1984) Genetics concerns in salmon and steelhead conservation and enhancement genetics workshop for enhancement planning team. Oregon State University, Newport

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawecki T, Ebert J (2004) Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol Lett 7(12):1225–1124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00684.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Luyer J, Laporte M, Beacham TD, Kaukinen KH, Withler RE, Leong JS, Rondeau EB, Koop BF, Bernatchez L (2017) Hatchery-induced epigenetic modification in salmon. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(49):12964–12969. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711229114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leittritz E, Lewis RC (1980) Trout and salmon culture (hatchery methods). California Fish Bulletin 164. UC San Diego: Library – Scripps Collection. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6xh0k539

  • Marine KR, Cech JJ Jr (2004) Effects of high water temperature on growth, smoltification, and predator avoidance in juvenile Sacramento River Chinook salmon. N Am J Fish Manag 24(1):198–210. https://doi.org/10.1577/M02-142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann J, Chockley B, Cooper E, Hsu B, Schaller H, Haeseker S, Lessard R, Petrosky C, Copeland T, Tinus E, Van Dyke E, Storch A, Rawding D (2017) Comparative Survival Study (CSS) of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer/Fall Chinook, Summer Steelhead, and Sockeye. 2017 Annual Report. Project No 19960200. 835 pp.

  • 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 App Special Issue: Evolutionary perspectives on salmonid conservation and management 1(2):356–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00034.x Accessed 20 November 2018

  • Michel CJ, Ammann AJ, Lindley ST, Sandstrom PT, Chapman ED, Thomas MJ, Singer GP, Klimley AP, MacFarlane RB (2015) Chinook salmon outmigration survival in wet and dry years in California’s Sacramento River. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72:1749–1759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel CJ, Smith JM, Demetras NJ, Huff DD, Hayes SA (2018) Non-native fish predator density and molecular-based diet estimates suggest differing impacts of predator species on juvenile salmon in the San Joaquin River, California. San Franc. Estuary and Watershed Science 16(4):3

  • Moyle PB (1976) Fish introductions in California: history and impact on native fishes. Biol Conserv 9(2):101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(76)90043-4 Accessed 20 November 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2009, amended 2011) NMFS Final 2009 biological opinion on the long-term central valley project and state water project operation, criteria, and plan. June 4, 2009. "https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/biological-opinions". Accessed November 2018

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2016) 5-year review: summary and evaluation of California Central Valley steelhead distinct population segment. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/status_reviews/salmon_steelhead/2016/2016_cv-steelhead.pdf Accessed November 28 2018

  • Newman KB (2008) An evaluation of four Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta juvenile salmon survival studies. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Stockton California. http://www.science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/psp/PSP_2004_final/PSP_CalFed_FWS_salmon_studies_final_033108.pdf Accessed 20 November 2018

  • Perry RW (2010) Survival and migration dynamics of juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington

  • 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 Manag 30:142–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosky CE, Schaller HA (2010) Influence of river conditions during seaward migration and ocean conditions on survival rates of Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead. Ecol Freshw Fish 19:520–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Riggs, L. 1990. Principles for genetic conservation and production quality. Northwest Power Planning Council contract no. C90–005. Portland, OR

  • Schley B (1971) A century of fish conservation (1871-1971). US Fish and Wildlife Service. https://nctc.fws.gov/History/Articles/FisheriesHistory.html Accessed 20 November 2018

  • Simon KS, Townsend CR (2003) Impacts of freshwater invaders at different levels of ecological organization, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem consequences. Freshw Biol 48:982–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor EB (1991) A review of local adaptation in Salmonidae with particular reference to Pacific and Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 98:185–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waples RS, Do C (1994) Genetic risk associated with supplementation of Pacific salmonids – captive Broodstock programs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:310–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigel DE, Peterson JT, Spruell P (2003) Introgressive hybridization between native cutthroat trout and introduced rainbow trout. Ecol Appl 13:38–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch DW, Rechisky EL, Melnychuk MC, Porter AD, Walters CJ, Clements S, Clemens BJ, McKinley RS, Schreck C (2008) Survival of migrating salmon smolts in large rivers with and without dams. PLoS Biol 6(10):e265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wootton RJ (1998) Ecology of teleost fishes, 2nd edn. Fish and fisheries series 24. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, 392 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabel RW, Achord S (2004) Relating size of juveniles to survival within and among populations of Chinook salmon. Ecology 85:795–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabel RW, Williams JG (2002) Selective mortality in Chinook salmon: what is the role of human disturbance. Ecol Appl 12:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeug SC, Sellheim K, Watry C, Wikert JD, Merz J (2014) Response of juvenile Chinook salmon to managed flow: lessons learned from a population at the southern extent of their range in North America. Fish Manag Ecol 21:155–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff at Nimbus Fish Hatchery for their extensive assistance in providing information, support, and fish for this study. Staff from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Branch provided crucial support during tagging and deployed and retrieved acoustic monitors in the Lower American River. Additionally, equipment and expertise provided by California Department of Fish and Wildlife made mobile monitoring possible. Monitors deployed and maintained by the California Fish Tracking Consortium allowed survival to be estimated outside of the Lower American River. Volunteers and multiple staff members from Cramer Fish Sciences provided support for tagging and performed mobile surveys. Funding for this study was provided by the United States Bureau of Reclamation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cramer Fish Sciences, 13300 New Airport Road Suite 103, Auburn, CA, 95602, USA

    Annie Brodsky, Steven C. Zeug & Bradley J. Cavallo

  2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Branch, 830 S Street, Sacramento, CA, 95811, USA

    Jonathan Nelson

  3. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 801 J Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, USA

    John Hannon

  4. Cramer Fish Sciences, 121 S Jackson Street, Moscow, ID, 83843, USA

    Paul J. Anders

Authors
  1. Annie Brodsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven C. Zeug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Hannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul J. Anders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bradley J. Cavallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annie Brodsky.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brodsky, A., Zeug, S.C., Nelson, J. et al. Does broodstock source affect post-release survival of steelhead? Implications of replacing a non-native hatchery stock for recovery. Environ Biol Fish 103, 437–453 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-020-00951-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-020-00951-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation