Human Influence on the Spatial Structure of Threatened Pacific Salmon Metapopulations

Conservation Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 932-944

  Fullerton, Aimee H ^a   Lindley, Steven T ^b   Pess, George R ^a   Feist, Blake E ^a   Steel, E Ashley ^c   Mcelhany, Paul ^a  

^a NORTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^b SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^c USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

An lisis espacial; Anthropogenic; Antropog nico; Conectividad; Connectivity; Network; Red; Spatial analysis; Viabilidad; Viability

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; CONNECTIVITY; ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCE; HUMAN ACTIVITY; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; METAPOPULATION; POPULATION SIZE; SALMONID; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HUMAN; HUMAN ACTIVITIES; METHODOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; RAINBOW TROUT; RIVER; SALMON; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; HUMAN ACTIVITIES; HUMANS; ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS; OREGON; POPULATION DENSITY; RIVERS; SALMON;

UNITED STATES;

ONCORHYNCHUS; ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS; ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA;

EID: 80052577701     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01718.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Barnett-Johnson, R., D. J. Teel, and E. Casillas 2010. Genetic and otolith isotopic markers identify salmon populations in the Columbia River at broad and fine geographic scales. Environmental Biology of Fishes 89:533-546.
2. Brooks, C. 2006. Quantifying population substructure: extending the graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 87:864-872.
3. Brown, B. L., and C. M. Swan 2010. Dendritic network structure constrains metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems. Journal of Animal Ecology 79:571-580.
4. Bulman, C. R., R. J. Wilson, A. R. Holt, L. G. Bravo, R. I. Early, M. S. Warren, and C. D. Thomas 2007. Minimum viable metapopulation size, extinction debt, and the conservation of a declining species. Ecological Applications 17:1460-1473.
5. Burnett, K. M., G. H. Reeves, D. J. Miller, S. Clarke, K. Vance-Borland, and K. Christiansen 2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation. Ecological Applications 17:66-80.
6. Cooper, A. B., and M. Mangel 1999. The dangers of ignoring metapopulation structure for the conservation of salmonids. Fishery Bulletin 97:213-226.
7. Crooks, K. R., and M. Sanjayan 2006. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
8. Dunham, J. B., and B. E. Rieman 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout: influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. Ecological Applications 9:642-655.
9. Erös, T., D. Schmera, and R. S. Schick 2010. Network thinking in riverscape conservation-a graph-based approach. Biological Conservation DOI:.
10. Fagan, W. F. 2002. Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology 83:3243-3249.
11. Fausch, K. D., B. E. Rieman, J. B. Dunham, M. K. Young, and D. P. Peterson 2009. Invasion versus isolation: trade-offs in managing native salmonids with barriers to upstream movement. Conservation Biology 23:859-870.
12. Fox, G. A. 2005. Extinction risk of heterogeneous populations. Ecology 86:1191-1198.
13. Good, T. P., J. Davies, B. J. Burke, and M. H. Ruckelshaus 2008. Incorporating catastrophic risk assessments into setting conservation goals for threatened Pacific Salmon. Ecological Applications 18:246-257.
14. Grant, E. H. C., W. H. Lowe, and W. F. Fagan 2007. Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks. Ecology Letters 10:165-175.
15. Greene, C. M., J. E. Hall, K. R. Guilbault, and T. P. Quinn 2010. Improved viability of populations with diverse life-history portfolios. Biology Letters 6:382-386.
16. Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41-49.
17. Harrison, S., and A. D. Taylor 1997. Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. Pages 27-42 in I. A. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, editors. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
18. Harveson, P. M., W. E. Grant, R. R. Lopez, N. J. Silvy, and P. A. Frank 2006. The role of dispersal in Florida Key deer metapopulation dynamics. Ecological Modelling 195:393-401.
19. Hendry, A. P., V. Castric, M. T. Kinnison, and T. P. Quinn 2004. The evolution of philopatry and dispersal. Pages 52-91 in A. P. Hendry and S. S. Stearns, editors. Evolution illiminated. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
20. ICBTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Appendix B. Dispersal rate and distance assessment for population delineation. ICBTRT, Seattle. Available from (accessed April 2011).
21. Isaak, D. J., R. F. Thurow, B. E. Rieman, and J. B. Dunham 2007. Chinook salmon use of spawning patches: relative roles of habitat quality, size, and connectivity. Ecological Applications 17:352-364.
22. Kallimanis, A. S., W. E. Kunin, J. M. Halley, and S. P. Sgardelis 2005. Metapopulation extinction risk under spatially autocorrelated disturbance. Conservation Biology 19:534-546.
23. Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, J. Firehammer, and M. L. Moser 2005. Straying rates of known-origin adult Chinook salmon and steelhead within the Columbia River basin, 2000-2003. Technical report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon Available from (accessed April 2011).
24. Moilanen, A., and I. Hanski 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503-2515.
25. Moore, J. W., M. McClure, L. A. Rogers, and D. E Schindler 2010. Synchronization and portfolio performance of threatened salmon. Conservation Letters 3:340-348.
26. Myers, J. M., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. R. Marshall, D. J. Teel, D. M. Van Doornik, and M. T. Maher 2006. Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette River and lower Columbia River basins. Technical memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-73. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington.
27. Neville, H., J. Dunham, and M. Peacock 2006. Assessing connectivity in salmonids fishes with DNA microsatellite markers. Pages 318-342 in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
28. ODFW (Oregon Department of Fisheries & Wildlife). 2004. Anadromous fish distributions. ODFW, Salem. Available from (accessed April 2011).
29. Pess, G. R. 2009. Patterns and processes of salmon colonization. PhD dissertation. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
30. Poissant, J., T. W. Knight, and M. M. Ferguson 2005. Nonequilibrium conditions following landscape rearrangement: the relative contribution of past and current hydrological landscapes on the genetic structure of a stream-dwelling fish. Molecular Ecology 14:1321-1331.
31. Quinn, T. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
32. Rahel, F. J. 2007. Biogeographic barriers, connectivity and homogenization of freshwater faunas: it's a small world after all. Freshwater Biology 52:696-710.
33. Schick, R. S., and S. T. Lindley 2007. Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:1116-1126.
34. Schindler, D. E., R. Hilborn, B. Chasco, C. P. Boatright, T. P. Quinn, L. A. Rogers, and M. S. Webster 2010. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature 465:609-613.
35. Schtickzelle, N., and T. P. Quinn 2007. A metapopulation perspective for salmon and other anadromous fish. Fish and Fisheries 8:297-314.
36. Spens, J., G. Englund, and H. Lundqvist 2007. Network connectivity and dispersal barriers: using geographical information system (GIS) tools to predict landscape scale distribution of a key predator (Esox lucius) among lakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:1127-1137.
37. Treml, E. A., P. N. Halpin, D. L. Urban, and L. F. Pratson 2008. Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents, a graph-theoretic approach for marine conservation. Landscape Ecology 23:19-36.
38. Urban, D., and T. Keitt 2001. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:205-1218.
39. Urban, D. L., E. S. Minor, E. A. Treml, and R. S. Schick 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecology Letters 12:260-273.
40. Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.
41. Waits, E. R., M. J. Bagley, M. J. Blum, F. H. McCormick, and J. M. Lazorchak 2008. Source-sink dynamics sustain central stonerollers (Campostoma anomalum) in a heavily urbanized catchment. Freshwater Biology 53:2061-2075.
42. Waples, R. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. and the definition of 'species' under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53:11-22.
43. Waples, R. S., T. Beechie, and G. R. Pess 2009. Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance regimes, and anthropogenic changes: what do these mean for resilience of Pacific salmon populations? Ecology and Society 14:3.
44. WDFW (Washington Department of Fisheries & Wildlife). 2007. Anadromous fish distributions. WDFW, Olympia Available from (accessed April 2011).
45. Wiens, J. A. 2002. Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshwater Biology 47:501-515.
46. With, K. A., G. R. Schrott, and A. W. King 2006. The implications of metalandscape connectivity for population viability in migratory songbirds. Landscape Ecology 21:157-167.
47. Woodford, D. J., and A. R. McIntosh 2010. Location of demographic sources affects the distributions of a vulnerable native fish in invaded river networks. Freshwater Biology DOI:.