Empirical Results of Salmon Supplementation in the Northeast Pacific: A Preliminary Assessment

  • Robin S. Waples
  • Michael J. Ford
  • Dietrich Schmitt

For over a century, aquaculture of Pacific salmon has been used to provide increased harvest opportunities and to mitigate reductions in natural populations due to factors such as habitat destruction, overharvest, and blockage of migratory routes. More recently, attention has focused on the potential of hatchery propagation to reduce risks to and speed recovery of depleted natural populations. A large number of these “supplementation” programs have already been initiated and many more are planned, in spite of the fact that there is almost no empirical information on their long-term effects. Here we present preliminary results of a survey of 22 salmon supplementation programs in northwestern North America. Rather than using a single measure of “success,” we evaluated programs according to how well they have accomplished a series of specific objectives. Some major conclusions emerge from the review: (1) many supplementation programs have achieved a measure of success in the aspects of fish culture traditionally associated with salmon hatcheries (e.g., high egg-to-smolt survival; adult-to-adult replacement rates in excess of 1.0); (2) to date, however, little information is available about the performance of hatchery fish and their progeny in the natural environment. Therefore, the premise that hatchery supplementation can provide a net long-term benefit to a natural population is a hypothesis that has not yet been tested. This fact should be kept in mind in evaluating the appropriate use of supplementation programs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ames, J., and K. Adicks. 2003. Chum Salmon Supplementation: Bane or Boon? Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. 20 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Bowles, E., and E. Leitzinger, 1991. Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (Idaho Supplementation Studies): Experimental Design. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy,Google Scholar
  3. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon for Project Number 89-098. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho, USA. 167 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Bugert, R., K. Petersen, G. Mendel, L. Ross, D. Milks, J. Dedloff, and M. Alexandersdottir. 1992. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Plan. Annual Report for 1991 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Busack, C.A., and K.P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations: fundamental concepts and issues. In: H.L. Schramm, Jr., and R.G. Piper (eds.), Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
  6. Fleming, I.A., and M.R. Gross. 1993. Breeding success of hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in competition. Ecological Applications 3: 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hindar, K., and I.A. Fleming. 2007. Behavioral and genetic interactions between escaped farm and wild Atlantic salmon. In: T.M. Bert (ed.), Ecological and Genetic Implications of Aquaculture Activities. Springer Publications, New York City, New York, USA. Chapter 7.Google Scholar
  8. Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis. Island Press, Covelo, California, USA. 317 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Miller, W.H., T.C. Coley, H.L. Burge, and T.T. Kisanuki. 1990. Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation. Part I: Emphasis on Unpublished Reports and Present Programs. Technical Report, Project 88–100 to the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, USA. 46 pp. þ appendices.Google Scholar
  10. National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 452 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Peterman, R.M. 1981. Form of random variation in salmon smolt-to-adult relations and its influence on production estimates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 1113–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reisenbichler, R.R., and J.D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34: 123–128.Google Scholar
  13. Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. P. Rubin. 1999. Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Waples, R.S. 1995. Evolutionarily significant units and the conservation of biological diversity under the Endangered Species Act. In: J.L. Nielsen (ed.), Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Pp. 8–27.Google Scholar
  15. Waples, R.S. 1999. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. Fisheries 24(2): 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin S. Waples
    • 1
  • Michael J. Ford
    • 1
  • Dietrich Schmitt
    • 2
  1. 1.Conservation Biology Division, National Marine Fisheries ServiceNorthwest Fisheries Science CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Northwest Indian Fisheries CommissionEast OlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations