Network-scale spatial and temporal variation in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd distributions: Patterns inferred from spatially continuous replicate surveys

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 285-296

  Isaak, Daniel J ^a,b   Thurow, Russell F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

^b USDA Forest Service Boise Aquatic Sciences Lab   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEST SITE; NETWORK ANALYSIS; POPULATION DENSITY; SALMONID; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TEMPORAL VARIATION;

IDAHO; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA; SALMONIDAE;

EID: 33645124723     PISSN: 0706652X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/f05-214     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Baxter, C.V., and Hauer, F.R. 2000. Geomorphology, hyporheic exchange, and selection of spawning habitat by bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 1470-1481.
2. Beamish, R.J., Sweeting, R.M., and Neville, C.M. 2004. Improvement of juvenile Pacific salmon production in a regional ecosystem after the 1998 climatic regime shift. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 133: 1163-1175.
3. Berry, O., Tocher, M.D., and Sarre, S.D. 2004. Can assignment tests measure dispersal? Mol. Ecol. 13: 551-561.
4. Bjornn, T.C. 1971. Trout and salmon movements in two Idaho streams as related to temperature, food, stream flow, cover, and population density. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100: 423-438.
5. Bond, J.G., and Wood, C.H. 1978. Geologic map of Idaho, 1:500 000 scale. Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow, Idaho.
6. Brown, E.M. 2002. 2000 salmon spawning ground surveys. Pacific Salmon Treaty Program, Award Number NA77FP0445. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Rep. 02-33.
7. Brunke, M., and Gonser, T. 1997. The ecological significance of exchange processes between rivers and groundwater. Freshw. Biol. 37: 1-33.
8. Buffington, J.M., Montgomery, D.R., and Greenburg, H.M. 2004. Basin-scale availability of salmonid spawning gravel as influenced by channel type and hydraulic roughness in mountain catchments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 2085-2096.
9. Burnett, K.M. 2001. Relationships among juvenile anadromous salmonids, their freshwater habitat, and landscape characteristics over multiple years and spatial scales in the Elk River, Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.
10. Burnham, K.P., and Anderson, D.R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York.
11. Channell, R., and Lomolino, M.V. 2000. Trajectories to extinction: spatial dynamics of the contraction of geographical ranges. J. Biogeogr. 27: 169-179.
12. Cooper, A.B., and Mangel, M. 1998. The dangers of ignoring metapopulation structure for the conservation of salmonids. Fish. Bull. 97: 213-226.
13. Costello, A.B., Down, T.E., Pollard, S.M., Pacas, C.J., and Taylor, E.B. 2003. The influence of history and contemporary stream hydrology on the evolution of genetic diversity within species: an examination of microsatellite DNA variation in bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Pisces: Salmonidae). Evolution, 57: 328-344.
14. Clinchy, M., Haydon, D.T., and Smith, A.T. 2002. Pattern does not equal process: What does patch occupancy really tell us about metapopulation dynamics? Am. Nat. 159: 351-362.
15. Dunham, J.B., Rieman, B.E., and Davis, K. 2001. Sources and magnitude of sampling error in redd counts of bull trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 21: 343-352.
16. Dunham, J.B., Young, M.K., Gresswell, R., and Rieman, B.E. 2003. Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspective on persistence of native fishes and non-native invasions. Forest Ecol. Manag. 178: 183-196.
17. Epifanio, J., Haas, G., Pratt, K., Rieman, B., Spruell, P., Stockwell, C., Utter, F., and Young, W. 2003. Integrating conservation genetic considerations into conservation planning: a case study of bull trout in the Lake Pend Oreille - lower Clark Fork River system. Fisheries, 28(8): 10-24.
18. Fausch, K.D., Torgersen, C.E., Baxter, C.V., and Li, H.W. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. Bioscience, 52: 483-498.
19. Fisher, W.L., and Rahel, F.J. 2004. Geographic information systems in fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.
20. Fish Passage Center. 2003. Annual report. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Contract No. 94-033. Fish Passage Center, Portland, Oregon.
21. Gebhards, S.V. 1959. Columbia River fisheries development program. Salmon River planning report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.
22. Groves, C.R. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner's guide to planning for biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
23. Gundersen, G., Johannesen, E., Andreassen, H.P., and Ims, R.A. 2001. Source-sink dynamics: how sinks affect demography of sources. Ecol. Lett. 4: 14-21.
24. Hanski, I., and Gilpin, M.E. 1997. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, New York.
25. Hartman, G.F., and Brown, T.G. 1987. Use of small, temporary, floodplain tributaries by juvenile salmonids in a west coast rainforest drainage basin, Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44: 262-270.
26. Harvey, J.W., and Bencala, K.E. 1993. The effect of streambed topography on surface-subsurface water exchange in mountain catchments. Water Resour. Res. 29: 89-98.
27. Hauck, F.R. 1953. A survey of the spring chinook salmon spawning and utilization of Idaho streams. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Job Completion Report, Project F-1R2.
28. Hilborn, R., Quinn, T.P., Schindler, D.E., and Rogers, D.E. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100: 6564-6568.
29. Independent Scientific Group. 1999. Return to the river: scientific issues in the restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River. Fisheries, 24(3): 10-19.
30. Isaak, D.J., Thurow, R.F., Rieman, B.E., and Dunham, J.B. 2003. Temporal variation in synchrony among Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd counts from a wilderness area in central Idaho. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 840-848.
31. Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., and McClure, M. 2000. Recovery and management options for spring/summer chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Science (Washingon, D.C.), 290: 977-979.
32. Kiefer, R.B., Bunn, P.R., and Johnson, J. 2002. Natural production monitoring and evaluation: aging structures. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Rep. 02-24.
33. Kocik, J.F., and Ferreri, C.P. 1998. Juvenile production variation in salmonids: population dynamics, habitat, and the role of spatial relationships. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 191-200.
34. Kratz, T.K. 1995. Temporal and spatial variability as neglected ecosystem properties: lessons learned from 12 North American ecosystems. In Evaluating and monitoring the health of large-scale ecosystems. Edited by D.J. Rapport, C.L. Gaudet, and P. Calow. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 359-383.
35. Larsen, D.P., Kincaid, T.M., Jacobs, S.E., and Urquhart, N.S. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. BioScience, 51: 1069-1078.
36. Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology, 74: 1659-1673.
37. Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., and Wolfinger, R.D. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.
38. Magee, J.P., McMahon, T.E., and Thurow, R.F. 1996. Spatial variation in spawning habitat of cutthroat trout in a sediment-rich basin. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 125: 768-779.
39. Matthews, G.M., and Waples, R.S. 1991. Status review for Snake River spring and summer Chinook salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Wash. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-200.
40. McClure, M.M., Holmes, E.E., Sanderson, B.L., and Jordan, C.E. 2003. A large-scale, multi-species assessment: anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River basin. Ecol. Appl. 13: 964-989.
41. Meyer, G.A., and Leidecker, M.E. 1999. Fluvial terraces along the Middle Fork Salmon River, Idaho, and their relation to glaciation, landslide dams, and incision rates: a preliminary analysis and river-mile guide. In Guidebook to the geology of eastern Idaho. Edited by S.S. Hughes and G.D. Thackray. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, Idaho, pp. 219-235.
42. Miller, D., Luce, C., and Benda, L. 2003. Time, space, and episodicity of physical disturbance in streams. For. Ecol. Manag. 178: 121-140.
43. Montgomery, D.R., and Buffington, J.M. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 109: 596-611.
44. Montgomery, D.R., Beamer, E.M., Pess, G.R., and Quinn, T.P. 1999. Channel type and salmonid spawning distribution and abundance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 377-387.
45. Nehlsen, W., Williams, J.E., and Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries, 16(2): 4-21.
46. Paulsen, C.M., and Fisher, T.R. 2005. Do habitat actions affect juvenile survival? An information-theoretic approach applied to endangered Snake River Chinook salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134: 68-85.
47. Pess, G.R., Montgomery, D.R., Steel, E.A., Bilby, R.E., Feist, B.E., and Greenberg, H.M. 2002. Landscape characteristics, land use, and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) abundance, Snohomish River, Wash., U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59: 613-623.
48. Pulliam, H.R., and Danielson, B.J. 1991. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am. Nat. 137(Suppl.): 50-66.
49. Rieman, B.R., and Dunham, J.B. 2000. Metapopulations and salmonids: a synthesis of life history patterns and empirical observations. Ecol. Freshw. Fish, 9: 51-64.
50. Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., and Ott, L. 1990. Elementary survey sampling. 4th ed. Duxbury Press, Belmont, Calif.
51. Schlosser, I.J., and Angermeier, P.L. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes of lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for conservation. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 17: 392-401.
52. Thurow, R.F. 1985. Middle Fork Salmon River fisheries investigations. Job Completion Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Fed. Aid Fish Restor. Proj. F-73-R-6.
53. Thurow, R.F., Lee, D.C., and Rieman, B.E. 2000. Status and distribution of Chinook salmon and steelhead in the interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath River basin. In Sustainable fisheries management: Pacific salmon. Edited by E. Knudsen, C. Steward, D. MacDonald, J. Williams, and D. Reiser. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. pp. 133-160.
54. von Ende, C.N. 2001. Repeated-measures analysis: growth and other time-dependent measures. In Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Edited by S.M. Scheiner and J. Gurevitch. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 134-157.
55. Vronskiy, B.B. 1972. Reproductive biology of the Kamchatka River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). J. Ichthyol. 12: 259-273.
56. Walters, C.J., and Cahoon, P. 1985. Evidence of decreasing spatial diversity in British Columbia salmon stocks. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 1033-1037.
57. Watkinson, A.R., and Sutherland, W.J. 1995. Sources, sinks, and pseudo-sinks. J. Animal Ecol. 64: 126-130.
58. Wiley, M.J., Kohler, S.L., and Seelbach, P.W. 1997. Reconciling landscape and local views of aquatic communities: lessons from Michigan trout streams. Freshw. Biol. 37: 133-148.
59. Wilson, P.H. 2003. Using population projection matrices to evaluate recovery strategies for Snake River spring and summer Chinook salmon. Conserv. Biol. 17: 782-794.
60. Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.