Brown Trout Growth: Growing, Growing, or Gone

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Investigate the Life History of Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead in the Grande Ronde River Basin Project Brian Jonasson Oregon Department.
Advertisements

Workshop: Monitoring and Evaluation of Harvest on Columbia River Salmonids July 31- August 1, 2007.
Bull Trout Population and Habitat Surveys in the McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette Presented by: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife February 22,
Assessment of Bull Trout Populations in the Yakima River Watershed.
Middle Fork Project AQ 6 – Fish Passage Technical Study February 3, 2009.
Supplementation with local, natural-origin broodstock may minimize negative fitness impacts in the wild Initial results of this study were published in.
NWHA- Panel Discussion “Spawning Better Ideas for Fish Passage”
Daily Patterns of Aquatic Insect Activity at the Surface of a Northeastern Iowa Trout Stream Katie J. Hopp and Kirk J. Larsen Luther College, Department.
Adult Steelhead Monitoring Challenges in Cedar Creek, WA Josua Holowatz & Dan Rawding.
Long-distance movements by flannelmouth sucker in big river habitats Matthew J. Breen & Trina N. Hedrick, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
Apparent over-winter survival of juvenile coho in three tributaries to the lower Columbia River Trevor Johnson, Mara Zimmerman, Matthew Sturza, Patrick.
In-Stream PIT-Tag Detection of Resident Salmonids in Washington's White Salmon River Watershed: One System ’ s Saga. Ian G. Jezorek 1, Patrick J. Connolly.
Kathryn Kostow Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife A Demonstration of Modified Selection Pressures in a Steelhead Hatchery Program on the Hood River,
Resident Fish Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project No Kalispel Tribe of Indians Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Spokane.
Variation in Straying Patterns and Rates of Snake River Hatchery Steelhead Stocks in the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon Richard W. Carmichael and Tim Hoffnagle.
Emigration behavior of resident and anadromous juvenile O. mykiss: exploring the interaction among genetics, physiology and habitat Sean Hayes, Chad Hanson,
Watershed assessment, management and restoration of Little Kern golden trout in the Little Kern River, California Acknowledgements Assess the current status.
Documenting O. mykiss life histories in the White Salmon River prior to the reintroduction of anadromous fish above Condit Dam. Brady Allen and Patrick.
Population Dynamics Mortality, Growth, and More. Fish Growth Growth of fish is indeterminate Affected by: –Food abundance –Weather –Competition –Other.
Monitor and Evaluate Salmonid Production in the Asotin Creek Subbasin - LSRCP (ID #200116)
Growth Trajectories of Wild California Steelhead Parr David Swank 1,2, Will Satterthwaite 1, Michael Beakes 1, Susan Sogard 2, Marc Mangel 1, Rob Titus.
Life History of Western Washington Winter Steelhead, a 30 Year Perspective Hal Michael Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Lewis River Fish Passage Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (draft)
Created by: Jordan Bauer, Andrew Dumask and Aaron Johnson Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Michael Bessert University of Wisconsin-Stout Introduction Surveying fishermen.
Large Rivers Less physical stability Difficult to sample Highly modified Commercial fishing on large rivers.
Is there evidence for stock segregation in Chinook salmon during ocean residence? Indicators of survival: reconstruction of juvenile size-at-emigration.
Effectiveness of alternative broodstock, rearing and release practices at Winthrop NFH William Gale and Matt Cooper -USFWS, Mid-Columbia River Fishery.
Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Imnaha River Basin- A Comparative Look at Changes in Abundance and Productivity Chinook Salmon Supplementation in.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Bee Lake Water Quality Monitor Data Summary Period of record: to 2/19/07.
Overview of the Alligator Gar Conservation Management Plan for Alabama Dave Armstrong Alabama Division of Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Spanish Fort,
John Lake – Marine Biologist RIDFW-Marine Fisheries Section 3 Ft. Wetherill Road Jamestown, RI Young-of-the-Year Survey in RI.
Supplementation using steelhead fry: performance, interactions with natural steelhead, & effect of enriched hatchery environments Christopher P. Tatara.
FWCO FALL2013/SPRING2014 MMRPM Summary of Effort and Catch River Resources Action Team 2014.
Brown Trout Program in Ohio: Assessing Survival, Growth, and Movement Ethan Simmons Fisheries Biologist Division of Wildlife-District 1.
Hypothesis Testing Introduction to Statistics Chapter 8 Feb 24-26, 2009 Classes #12-13.
1 Federal Research Centre for Fisheries Institute for Sea Fisheries, Hamburg Hans-Joachim Rätz Josep Lloret Institut de Ciències del Mar, Barcelona Long-term.
Middle Fork Project AQ 3 – Macroinvertebrate and Aquatic Mollusk Technical Study Report Overview May 5, 2008.
Lower Truckee River Bioassessment Symposium January 5 & 6, 2009 Desert Research Institute Status Report on Fish Populations in the Truckee River Matt Maples.
OUR Ecological Footprint …. Fall 2008 IB Workshop Series sponsored by IB academic advisors Study Abroad for IB Majors Thursday, October 30 4:00-5:00PM.
Initial Assessment of Habitat Use by Stocked Lake Sturgeon in the Genesee River D. E. DITTMAN 1 and E. C. ZOLLWEG 2 1 Tunison Laboratory of Aquatic Science,
INTRODUCTION TO STATISTICS
A Lifetime Price Tag on Smoking
Wild Trout in an English Chalk stream: Modelling Habitat Juxtaposition as an Aid to Watershed Rehabilitation A.Burrows, S.Kett and M.A.House Flood.
David A. Dippold1, Robert T. Leaf1, and J. Read Hendon2
DRAFT revised Goal = 990,000 (Final Restoration Plan) Average
14.3 Climatic Changes.
Habitat Use of Yearling Blue Catfish Stocked in Hoover Reservoir, Ohio
Age at ocean entry of Snake River Basin fall Chinook and its significance to adult returns prior to summer spill at LGR, LGS, and LMN dams.
Middle Fork Project Entrainment Direct Sampling Approach (Contingency Study) September 8, 2008.
Section 2.1 Review and Preview.
6 Normal Curves and Sampling Distributions
Morgan M. Corey1, Nancy J. Brown-Peterson2, Robert T. Leaf1, Samuel D
Introduction to Summary Statistics
Introduction to Summary Statistics
Introduction to Summary Statistics
Agenda Item D.1.a Supplemental NMFS Presentation 1 November 2018
Introduction to Summary Statistics
Agenda Item D.1.a Supplemental NMFS Presentation 2 November 2018
Analysis of the South Fork Walla Walla River, Oregon
Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage Assessment
Introduction to Summary Statistics
On Recruitment of Steelhead in Mid Columbia Subbasins
Introduction to Summary Statistics
The Normal Curve Section 7.1 & 7.2.
Introduction to Summary Statistics
YIELD CURVES.
Biodiversity, Species Interactions, and Population Control
Introduction to Summary Statistics
Culture of Hybrid Striped Bass In the U. S.
Egg Deposition, Development, and Survival
Presentation transcript:

Brown Trout Growth: Growing, Growing, or Gone Anthony R. Sindt and Joseph D. Conroy Inland Fisheries Research Unit, Division of Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Introduction Results Each fall, the Ohio Division of Wildlife stocks approximately 25,000 brown trout Salmo trutta into three program streams (Clear Creek, Clear Fork of the Mohican, and Mad River) to provide put-grow-take fisheries. Brown trout spend about 315 days at London State Fish Hatchery and grow to an average total length of 190 mm prior to stocking; trout are not legal for harvest until reaching a length of 305 mm (12 inches). Differences in abiotic (e.g., temperature, refuge) and biotic (e.g., prey availability) conditions among program streams and years may result in variable growth rates which affect the duration stocked trout must survive before they reach harvestable size and, consequently, brown trout fisheries success. Objectives Compare stocked trout growth rates among streams and years. Determine the number of days trout must survive to reach legal harvestable length (305 mm) in each program stream. Quantify the proportion of each trout population larger than the legal harvestable length (305 mm) as an indicator of program success. Figure 1. Mean length of brown trout stocked in four program stream reaches during October 2011, and mean lengths of the same cohorts collected during subsequent population assessments. Figure 2. Mean length of brown trout stocked in four program stream reaches during October 2012, and mean lengths of the same cohorts collected during subsequent population assessments. Figure 3. Mean length of brown trout stocked into Mad River during October 2011 and 2012 and the mean lengths of the same cohorts collected during subsequent population assessments. Table 1. Mean length of brown trout at time of stocking (approximately 315 days old) in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Table 2. Number of days after stocking when mean brown trout length reaches the 305mm minimum harvestable length for the 2011 and 2012 cohorts stocked in Mad River and Clear Fork above Pleasant Hill Reservoir. Number of days to 305 mm were calculated from linear regression models. Year Stream 2011 2012 2013 Mean Mad River 199 198 193 196 Clear Creek 177 197 186 187 Clear Fork above 170 203 190 188 Clear Fork below   191 Days to 305 mm (years) Stream 2011 2012 Mean Mad River 614 (1.7) 498 (1.4) 556 (1.5) Clear Fork above 841 (2.3) 557 (1.5) 669 (1.8) Methods Trout were tagged with magnetized coded-wire (NMT, Inc., Shaw Island, WA, USA) in specific body locations prior to stocking during fall 2011, 2012, and 2013 to distinguish cohorts and stocking locations. Subsamples of trout were measured for total length to provide mean length and length frequency distributions of trout prior to stocking into each program stream. During subsequent electrofishing assessments, trout ages were determined based on coded-wire tag location and measured for total length. Mean lengths of each cohort were monitored over time and used to calculate stream-specific and year-class-specific growth rates. Clear Fork of the Mohican River is divided into two very different reaches; one reach above and one reach below Pleasant Hill Reservoir. As such, growth was evaluated for each reach separately. At the time of this evaluation, the 2013 cohorts of trout had been stocked but subsequent capture events had only occurred in Mad River. Stocked trout length averaged 190 mm during 2011–2013 but individual fish lengths varied 94–337 mm (Table 1; Fig. 4). 2011 trout cohorts did not survive to summer 2012 in Clear Creek or Clear Fork below Pleasant Hill Reservoir and thus were excluded from further comparisons (Fig. 1). Trout stocked in fall 2012 survived to summer 2013 in all program stream reaches (Fig. 2). Among streams, growth rates did not differ for trout stocked during fall 2011 in the Mad River and Clear Fork above Pleasant Hill Reservoir (Fig. 1; ANCOVA P = 0.48). Growth rates did not differ among all four stream reaches for trout stocked in fall 2012 (Fig. 2; ANCOVA P = 0.72). Among years, growth rates did not differ between 2011 and 2012 cohorts in Mad River (Figure 3; ANCOVA P = 0.30) and Clear Fork above Pleasant Hill Reservoir (ANCOVA P = 0.28). During this study, trout only survived long enough to achieve harvestable length in Mad River and Clear Fork above Pleasant Hill Reservoir. On average, trout needed a minimum of 498 days (the 2012 Mad River cohort) to a maximum of 841 days (the 2011 Clear Fork above cohort) post-stocking to reach harvestable length (Table 2). Differences in survival among streams is evident by the fact that the average proportion of trout that are of harvestable length varies from 32.3% in Mad River to 0.3% in Clear Fork below Pleasant Hill Reservoir (Table 3). Figure 4. Length frequency of sub-sampled brown trout (n = 7274) immediately prior to stocking into three program streams during October 2011, 2012, and 2013. Tag Stock Evaluate Table 3. Proportion of brown trout collected during winter and summer assessments (2011–2013) that were of harvestable length (≥305 mm) in each program stream. For this table, the Mad River is divided into an upper (upstream of rivermile 45) and lower (downstream of rivermile 45) reach to exhibit differences in brown trout population characteristics. *Includes spring assessments   2011 2012 2013 Stream  Summer Winter Mean Mad River 31% 23% 40% 27% 32% Upper 11% 22% 19% Lower 44% 47% 29% 54% 41% Clear Fork 4% 15% 6% 7% 13% Above 9% 19%* 16% 18% Below — 0.0% 1% 0.3% Clear Creek 3% 2% Discussion Individual trout lengths at time of stocking were variable and resulted in size differences, post-stocking, within individual cohorts. Trout rarely survive long enough in Clear Creek or Clear Fork below Pleasant Hill Reservoir to reach harvestable length. Despite abiotic and biotic differences among program streams, growth rates were similar and fit a linear model during the course of this study. In Mad River and Clear Fork above Pleasant Hill Reservoir, trout reach harvestable length within 2 years of being stocked on average. Based on these findings, recommendations will be made to eliminate the minimum length limit regulation since trout rarely survive to 305 mm in Clear Creek and Clear Fork below Pleasant Hill Reservoir. Acknowledgements Project funding came from the Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration program, administered jointly by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Many Division of Wildlife Fish Section staff contributed to this effort.