Fisheries Science

, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp 383–400 | Cite as

Estimating the origins of adult chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta in the Okhotsk and Sea of Japan regions using discriminant analysis of scale characteristics

Original Article Biology
  • 176 Downloads

Abstract

Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) based on scale patterns was used to develop a methodology of estimating regional origins of chum salmon. Age-4 fish were sampled in 2004–2006 from 12 river stocks of the Okhotsk and Sea of Japan (SJ) regions from Hokkaido to Honshu. The scale radius at the first annulus of each fish was separated into i intervals and the radius of each interval was divided by the number of scale circuli within the interval to quantify scale patterns. The i variables and five other morphometric measurements were used in a stepwise LDA to classify the following regional groups: Hokkaido and Honshu (I), Okhotsk and SJ (II), Okhotsk, Hokkaido SJ and Honshu SJ (III). Percentages of correctly classified fish (hit rates) improved with increased i but tended to be close to asymptotic values in all cases. Hit rates for each river stock in case (I) ranged from 74.3% to 100% (mean 97.2%), estimated by direct maximum likelihood methods using predictor variable sets from the best models for LDAs. Hit rates were lower in cases (II) and (III). This study demonstrated that scale patterns are useful for classifying the origins of chum salmon, at least between Hokkaido and Honshu.

Keywords

Direct maximum likelihood method Linear discriminant analysis Regional stock classification Scale patterns 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the staff of the National Salmon Resources Center (currently, the Hokkaido National Fisheries Research Institute; HNFS) for collecting chum salmon scales and fish measurements. Scale measurements were assisted by Kaoru Kaneko and Yuko Fudezome. Discussion with my colleagues in the Stock Assessment Group of HNFS (Kengo Suzuki, Kyuji Watanabe, Yukihiro Hirabayashi, Kei Sasaki, Fumihisa Takahashi and Narito Kogarumai) was valuable for developing the methodology and for preparing the manuscript. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments to improve the earlier drafts.

References

  1. 1.
    Kobayashi T (2009) History of propagation for salmon in Japan. Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morita K, Takahashi S, Ohkuma K, Nagasawa T (2013) Estimation of the proportion of wild chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta in Japanese hatchery rivers. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 79:206–213 (in Japanese with English abstract) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morita K (2014) Japanese wild salmon research: toward a reconciliation between hatchery and wild salmon management. NPAFC Newslett 35:4–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saito T, Nagasawa K (2009) Regional synchrony in return rates of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in Japan in relation to coastal temperature and size at release. Fish Res 95:14–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ogawa G, Shimizu Y (2012) Rehabilitation of artificial hatchery program of chum salmon in Iwate Prefecture after the Great East Japan Earthquake and stock recovery-related problems. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 78:1040–1043 (in Japanese) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Watanabe K, Sasaki K, Saito T, Ogawa G (2015) Scenario analysis of the effects of the Great East Japan Earthquake on the chum salmon population-enhancement system. Fish Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12562-015-0896-1 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saito T, Okamoto Y, Sasaki K (2015) Biological characteristics of chum salmon in Japan. Bull Fish Res Agen 39:85–120 (in Japanese with English abstract) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saito T, Kaga T, Hasegawa E, Nagasawa K (2011) Effects of juvenile size at release and early marine growth on adult return rates for Hokkaido chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in relation to sea surface temperature. Fish Oceanogr 20:278–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasegawa E, Nara K, Hiroi O (2004) A consideration about estimating method for the effect of restricted set netting on migration of chum salmon by using mark-recapture results. Natl Salmon Resour Center Tech Rep 170:17–49 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Takahashi F (2009) Knowledge at present, obtained from recaptures of otolith thermal marked chum salmon. FRA Salmon Res Rep 3:6–7 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolf KS, Waste SM (2010) Introduction: tagging, telemetry, and marking compendium project. In: Wolf KS, O’Neal JS (eds) PNAMP special publication: tagging, telemetry and marking measures for monitoring fish populations—a compendium of new and recent science for use in informing technique and decision modalities: Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership special publication 2010-002, chap. 1, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Augerot X (2007) Introduction. In: Johnson DH et al (eds) Salmonid field protocols handbook. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sato S, Ando J, Ando H, Urawa S, Urano A, Abe S (2001) Genetic variation among Japanese populations of chum salmon inferred from the nucleotide sequences of the mitochondrial DNA control region. Zool Sci 18:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sato S, Kojima H, Ando J, Ando H, Wilmot RL, Seeb LW, Efremov V, LeClair L, Buchholz W, Jin DH, Urawa S, Kaeriyama M, Urano A, Abe S (2004) Genetic population structure of chum salmon in the Pacific Rim inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. Environ Biol Fishes 69:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sato S, Templin WD, Seeb LW, Seeb JE, Urawa S (2014) Genetic structure and diversity of Japanese chum salmon populations inferred from single-nucleotide polymorphism markers. Trans Am Fish Soc 143:1231–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoon M, Sato S, Seeb JE, Brykov V, Seeb LW, Varnavskaya NV, Wilmot RL, Jin DH, Urawa S, Urano A, Abe S (2008) Mitochondrial DNA variation and genetic population structure of chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta around the Pacific Rim. J Fish Biol 73:1256–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beacham TD, Sato S, Urawa S, Le KD, Wetklo M (2008) Population structure and stock identification of chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta from Japan determined by microsatellite DNA variation. Fish Sci 74:983–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beacham TD, Candy JR, Le KD, Wetklo M (2009) Population structure of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) across the Pacific Rim, determined from microsatellite analysis. Fish Bull 107:244–260Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beacham TD, Candy JR, Wallace C, Urawa S, Sato S, Varnavskaya NV, Le KD, Wetklo M (2009) Microsatellite stock identification of Chum Salmon on a Pacific Rim basis. N AM J Fish Manage 29:1757–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedland KD, Cadrin SX (2005) Analyses of calcified structures-texture and spacing patterns. In: Cadrin X et al. (eds) Stock identification methods: applications in fishery science. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, pp 185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pella J, Masuda M (2005) Classical discriminant analysis, classification of individuals, and source population composition of mixtures. In: Cadrin X et al. (eds) Stock identification methods: applications in fishery science. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, pp 517–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bugaev AV, Zavolokina EA, Zavarina LO, Shubin AO, Zolotukhin SF, Kaplanova NF, Volobuev MV, Kireev IN, Myers KW (2009) Stock-specific distribution and abundance of immature chum salmon in the western Bering Sea in summer and fall 2002–2003. N Pac Anadr Fish Comm Bull 5:105–120Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cook RC, Guthrie I (1987) In-season stock identification of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) using scale pattern recognition. In: Smith HD et al. (eds) Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population biology and future management. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 96:327–334Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gable J, Cox-Rogers S (1993) Stock identification of Fraser River sockeye salmon: methodology and management application. Pacific Salmon Commission Tech Rep 5Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tanaka S, Shepard MP, Bilton HT (1969) Origin of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in offshore waters of the North Pacific in 1956–1958 as determined from scale studies. Int North Pac Fish Comm Bull 26:57–155Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishida Y, Ito S, Takagi K (1989) Stock identification of chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta from their maturity and scale characters. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 55:651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Watarai O, Igarashi M (1992) A chum scale pattern analyzer and stock identification based on scale patterns by discriminant function and power spectrum analysis. IEEE J Ocean Eng 17:280–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saito T (2015) Biological monitoring of key salmon populations: Japanese chum salmon. NPAFC Newslett 37:11–19Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Newman RM, Weisberg S (1987) Among- and within-fish variation of scale growth increments in brown trout. In: Summerfelt RC, Hall GE (eds) Age and growth of fish. Iowa State University Press, Ames, pp 159–166Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rooper CN, Bryant MD, McCurdy SJ (2000) Use of scales to assess summer growth of resident cutthroat trout in Margaret Lake, Alaska. N AM J Fish Manage 20:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ito S, Ishida Y (1998) Species identification and age determination of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) by scale patterns. Bull Nat Res Inst Far Seas Fish 35:131–154 (in Japanese with English abstract) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amos MH, Anas RE, Pearson RE (1963) Use of a discriminant function in the morphological separation of Asian and north American races of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (WALBAUM). Int North Pac Fish Comm Bull 11:73–100Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anas RE (1964) Sockeye salmon scale studies. Int North Pac Fish Comm Annual Rep 1963:158–162Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pearson RE (1964) Use of a discriminant function to classify north American and Asian pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (WALBAUM), collected in 1959. Int North Pac Fish Comm Bull 14:67–90Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mason JE (1966) Sockeye salmon scale studies. Int North Pac Fish Comm Annu Rep 1964:117–118Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Anas RE, Murai S (1969) Use of scale characters and a discriminant function for classifying sockeye salmon (Oncohynchus nerka) by continent of origin. Int North Pac Fish Comm Bull 26:157–192Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bilton HT, Messinger HB (1975) Identification of major British Columbia and Alasaka runs of age 1.2 and 1.3 sockeye from their scale characters. Int North Pac Fish Comm Bull 32:109–129Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Major RL, Murai S, Lyons J (1975) Scale studies to identify Asian and western Alasakan chinook salmon. Int North Pac Fish Comm Annu Rep 1973:80–97Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Major RL, Murai S, Lyons JT (1977) Scale studies to identify Asian and western Alasakan chinook salmon: the 1969 and 1970 Japanese mothership samples. Int North Pac Fish Comm Annu Rep 1974:78–81Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Major RL, Murai S, Lyons J (1977) Scale studies to identify Asian and western Alasakan chinook salmon. Int North Pac Fish Comm Annu Rep 1975:68–71Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cook RC, Lord GE (1978) Identification of stocks of Bristol Bay sokeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, by evaluating scale patterns with a polynominal discriminant method. Fish Bull 76:415–423Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Myers KW, Harris CK, Knudsen CM, Walker RV, Davis ND, Rogers DE (1987) Stock origins of chinook salmon in the area of the Japanese mothership salmon fishery. N AM J Fish Manage 7:459–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Unwin MJ, Lucas DH (1993) Scale characteristics of wild and hatchery chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Rakaia River, New Zealand, and their use in stock identification. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:2475–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tattan IA, Whitesel TA, Pan Y (2003) Scale pattern analysis of selected scale characteristics and the first annulus for distinguishing wild and hatchery steelhead in the Hood River, Oregon. N AM J Fish Manage 23:856–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Prager MH, Shertzer KW (2005) An introduction to statistical algorithms useful in stock composition analysis. In: Cadrin X et al. (eds) Stock identification methods: applications in fishery science. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, pp 499–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Millar RB (1990) Comparison of methods for estimating mixed stock fishery composition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:2235–2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Millar RB (1990b) A versatile computer program for mixed stock fishery composition estimation. Can Tech Rep Fish Aquat Sci No 1753Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Urawa S, Sato S, Crane PA, Agler B, Josephson R, Azumaya T (2009) Stock-specific ocean distribution and migration of chum salmon in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. N Pac Anadr Fish Comm Bull 5:131–146Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saito T (2002) Factors affecting survival of hatchery-reared chum salmon in Japan. N Pac Anadr Fish Comm Tech Rep 4:37–38Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fisher JP, Pearcy WG (2005) Seasonal changes in growth of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) off Oregon and Washington and concurrent changes in the spacing of scale circuli. Fish Bull 103:34–51Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hirai Yuzo (2012) Introduction of pattern recognition. Morikita, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Fisheries Science 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hokkaido National Fisheries Research InstituteJapan Fisheries Research and Education AgencySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations