Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 120–128 | Cite as

Modeling the Effects of Future Outflow on the Abiotic Habitat of an Imperiled Estuarine Fish

  • Frederick Feyrer
  • Ken Newman
  • Matthew Nobriga
  • Ted Sommer
Article

Abstract

Future development and climate change pose potentially serious threats to estuarine fish populations around the world. We examined how habitat suitability for delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), a state and federally protected species, might be affected by changes in outflow in the San Francisco Estuary due to future development and climate change. Forty years of sampling data collected during fall from 1967 to 2008 were examined to define abiotic habitat suitability for delta smelt as a function of salinity and water transparency, and to describe long-term trends in habitat conditions. The annual habitat index we developed, which incorporated both quantity and quality of habitat, decreased by 78% over the study period. Future habitat index values under seven different development and climate change scenarios, representing a range of drier and wetter possibilities, were predicted using a model which related estuarine outflow to the habitat index. The results suggested that each of the scenarios would generally lead to further declines in delta smelt habitat across all water year types. Recovery targets for delta smelt will be difficult to attain if the modeled habitat conditions are realized.

Keywords

Delta smelt Native fish Annual species Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta San Francisco Estuary Climate change Abiotic habitat Future development Generalized additive model 

References

  1. Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 16: 6720–6725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. A. 2005. Critical assessment of the delta smelt population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss2/art1.
  3. Brekke, L. 2008. Sensitivity of future Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operations to potential climate change and associated sea level rise. US Bureau of Reclamation, Final Report. Appendix R of OCAP Biological Assessment on the continued long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/ocapBA_2008.html
  4. Brooks, T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, A.B. Rylands, W.R. Konstant, P. Flick, J. Pilgrim, S. Oldfield, G. Magin, and C. Hilton-Taylor. 2002. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16: 909–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dettinger, M. 2005. From climate change spaghetti to climate-change distributions for the 21st century. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Vol. 3, Issue 1 (March 2005), Article 4. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss1/art4.
  6. Dobson, A., D. Lodge, J. Alder, G.S. Cumming, J. Keymer, J. McGlade, H. Mooney, J. Rusak, O. Salva, V. Woltors, D. Wall, R. Winfree, and M.A. Xenopoulos. 2006. Habitat loss, trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services. Ecology 87: 1915–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Draper, A.J., A. Munevar, S.K. Arora, E. Reyes, N.L. Parker, F.I. Chung, and L.E. Peterson. 2004. CalSim: Generalized model for reservoir system analysis. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 130: 480–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feyrer, F., M. Nobriga, and T. Sommer. 2007. Multi-decadal trends for three declining fish species: Habitat patterns and mechanisms in the San Francisco Estuary, California, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64: 723–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman, M.C., Z.H. Bowen, K.D. Bovee, and E.R. Irwin. 2001. Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecological Applications 11: 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Good, T.P., J. Davies, B.J. Burke, and M.H. Ruckelshaus. 2008. Incorproating catstrophic rick assessments into setting conservation goals for threatened Pacific salmon. Ecological Applications 18: 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guisan, A., T.C. Edwards, and T. Hastie. 2002. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: Setting the scene. Ecological Modeling 157: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoekstra, J.M., T.M. Boucher, T.H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecological Letters 8: 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jassby, A.D., W.J. Kimmerer, S.G. Monismith, C. Armor, J.E. Cloern, T.M. Powell, J.R. Schubel, and T.J. Vendlinski. 1995. Isohaline position as a habitat indicator for estuarine populations. Ecological Applications 5: 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, M.A., B.J. Shuter, Y. Zhao, and J.D. Stockwell. 2006. Forecasting effects of climate change on Great Lakes fisheries: Models that link habitat supply to population dynamics can help. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimmerer, W.J., E.S. Gross, and M.L. MacWilliams. 2009. Is the response of estuarine nekton to freshwater flow in the San Francisco Estuary explained by variation in habitat volume? Estuaries and Coasts. doi:10.1007/s12237-008-9124-x.Google Scholar
  16. Kimmerer, W.J. 2002. Physical, biological, and management responses to variable freshwater flow into the San Francisco estuary. Estuaries 25: 1275–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levin, P.S., and G.W. Stunz. 2005. Habitat triage for exploited fishes: Can we identify essential “essential fish habitat?”. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liermann, M., and R. Hilborn. 2001. Depensation: Evidence, model and implications. Fish and Fisheries 2: 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacKenzie, D.I. 2005. What are the issues with presence–absence data for wildlife managers? Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer, J.L., M.J. Sale, P.J. Mulholland, and N.L. Poff. 1999. Impacts of climate change on aquatic ecosystem functioning and health. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1373–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mount, J. and R. Twiss. 2005. Subsidence, sea level rise, and seismicity in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. Vol. 3, Issue 1 (March), Article 5. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss1/art5
  22. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D.E. Stevens, and L.W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status of delta smelt in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman, K. 2008. Sample design-based methodology for estimating delta smelt abundance. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol6/iss3/art3/
  25. Nobriga, M., T. Sommer, F. Feyrer, and K. Fleming. 2008. Long-term trends in summertime habitat suitability for delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol6/iss1/art1/
  26. Perry, A.L., P.J. Low, J.R. Ellis, and J.D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308: 1912–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rose, K.A., J.H. Cowan, K.O. Winemiller, R.A. Myers, and R. Hilborn. 2001. Compensatory density dependence in fish populations: Importance, controversy, understanding and prognosis. Fish and Fisheries 2: 293–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schindler, D.W. 2001. The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Service, R.F. 2007. Delta blues, California style. Science 317: 442–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skreslet, S. 1986. The role of freshwater outflow in coastal marine ecosystems, NATO ASI Series G ed. Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  31. Sommer, T., C. Armor, R. Baxter, R. Breuer, L. Brown, M. Chotkowski, S. Culberson, F. Feyrer, M. Gingras, B. Herbold, W. Kimmerer, A. Mueller-Solger, M. Nobriga, and K. Souza. 2007. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Fisheries 32: 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevens, D.E., and L.W. Miller. 1983. Effects of river flow on abundance of young chinook salmon, American shad, longfin smelt, and delta smelt in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 3: 425–437.Google Scholar
  33. Trexler, J.C., and J. Travis. 1993. Nontraditional regression analyses. Ecology 74: 1629–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner, I.M. 1996. Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: A review of the evidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Philips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48: 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood, C.M., and D.G. McDonald (eds.). 1997. Global warming: implications for freshwater and marine fish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Xenopoulos, M.A., D.M. Lodge, J. Alcamo, M. Marker, K. Schulze, and D. Van Vuuren. 2005. Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climate change and water withdrawal. Global Change Biology 11: 1557–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (outside the USA) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick Feyrer
    • 1
  • Ken Newman
    • 2
  • Matthew Nobriga
    • 3
  • Ted Sommer
    • 4
  1. 1.Applied Science BranchUS Bureau of ReclamationSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.US Fish and Wildlife ServiceStocktonUSA
  3. 3.US Fish and Wildlife ServiceBay Delta Fish and Wildlife OfficeSacramentoUSA
  4. 4.DavisUSA

Personalised recommendations