Steve Haeseker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia ... Annual Meeting/Mar 15... · Basin-wide...

Basin-wide patterns in age-at-maturity

Steve Haeseker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Columbia River Fisheries Program Office

Comparative Survival Study Oversight Committee

Age at maturity

Why is maturity important? 1) forecasting models 2) population productivity 3) fisheries

Age composition of returning adults (by brood or smolt migration year)

Can vary across populations and over time

Where? When? Why

Age at maturity data Requires adult sampling Scales Coded wire tags

PIT tags - negligible aging error - known population and individual ID - high sampling rates - consistent sampling effort across stocks - near real-time observations, non-lethal - coverage of some wild stocks

Potential issues Aging error, source population Expansion factors, reading tags, high sampling effort, little coverage of wild stocks

Summarizing age at maturity data

Mean age (at maturity): 10% age-3, 70% age-4, 20% age-5 = 4.1 years

Proportions at age: age-3 returns / total BY returns

Sibling relationships: age-3 v. age-4 and age-4 v. age-5 regressions

Comparative Survival Study PIT-tag analyses

11 stocks, juvenile outmigration years 1997-2011

Hatchery spring Chinook: Carson, Leavenworth, Cle Elum, Dworshak, Catherine Creek, Rapid River Hatchery summer Chinook: McCall, Imnaha Wild spring Chinook: John Day River, Snake River, Yakima River

Longer-term data: Columbia returns, juvenile migration years 1980-2013

Questions about age at maturity

Is age-at-maturity similar across stocks? Do overall survival rates (SARs) affect age at maturity? Does outmigration route affect age at maturity? What are the patterns of variation? - Within and across stocks - Over time

Mean age

SNAKE.W LEAV JDAR.W CARS DWOR YAK.W RAPH MCCA CLEE CATH IMNA

Mean proportion age-3

CARS SNAKE.W JDAR.W YAK.W LEAV DWOR RAPH CATH CLEE MCCA IMNA

CARS YAK.W JDAR.W CATH LEAV RAPH CLEE DWOR SNAKE.W MCCA IMNA

Mean age and proportion-at-age varies by stock

SNAKE.W LEAV DWOR JDAR.W RAPH CARS MCCA YAK.W IMNA CLEE CATH

Mean age related to SAR?

No relationship between SAR and mean age

Analysis of covariance Mean age ~ stock + SAR

P = 0.48

Mean age versus outmigration route?

Stock P -valueSnake River wild 0.43

Catherine Creek AP 0.98Dworshak 0.76

Rapid River 0.97McCall 0.47

Imnaha River AP 0.82

Paired t-test of transported versus in-river outmigration routes

No relationship between outmigration route and mean age

Temporal trends in mean age?

Wild fish older

Analysis of covariance Mean age ~ rear type + migration year Rear type: P < 0.001

Declining trend in mean age Year: P < 0.001

Similar trends among H & W Rear * Year: P = 0.35

Similar trends among stocks Stock * Year: P = 0.50

Standardizing mean age over time and across stocks

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Mean age Standardized mean age

Standardized mean age over time and across stocks

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011SNAKE

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Shared temporal patterns in mean age across stocks

stockyearresidual

Variation in mean age

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Snake Wild

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Carson

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Catherine Creek

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Cle Elum

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Dworshak

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Imnaha

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8John Day Wild

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Leavenworth

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8McCall

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8Rapid River

Log (Age-4)

Log (Age-3)

Sibling models

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Snake Wild

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Carson

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Catherine Creek

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Cle Elum

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Dworshak

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Imnaha

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6John Day Wild

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Leavenworth

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6McCall

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6Rapid River

Log (Age-5)

Log (Age-4)

Sibling relationships vary by stock

Sibling relationships

Kalman Filter sibling models

Standard sibling model: Log (Age-4) = a + b * Log (Age-3)

Kalman Filter sibling model: Log (Age-4) = at + b * Log (Age-3) at = at-1 + ei

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Kalman Filter sibling models

Age-4 ~ Age-3

Age-5 ~ Age-4

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

-100,000

-50,000

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

- 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Forecast error

Age-3 proportion

Effects of variable jacking rates

Longer-term trends

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Longer-term trends

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Out-of-basin factors? Ruggerone et al. 2010

Conclusions and future directions…

Understanding age at mature is critically important

Large stock effects and shared temporal effects

Consider stock-specific forecasts

Investigate shared temporal effects (time & place)

Evaluate hypotheses against empirical data

Interested in collaborating! (long-term time series of similar data)

Steve Haeseker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia ... Annual Meeting/Mar 15... · Basin-wide...

Documents

2004 Oregon Steelhead Status Update Steve Jacobs Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Section I FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Notice of ...€¦ · Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries

Spring 2015 Fish & Wildlife NewsU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service . Spring 2015 . Fish & Wildlife . News. #savethemonarch . spotlight . Saving the Monarch 10 . Nature, Heal Thyself . 24

2013 Annual Report - Iowa Cooperative Fish & Wildlife ... Annual Report.… · Iowa State University U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Management Institute Iowa Cooperative Fish

FiSh AND WilDliFE - Elsinga and Wildlife... · Possibly the experiences you gain from earning the Fish and Wildlife Management merit badge will encourage you to ... Fish and Fish

Items Taxed to Support Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration ...wsfrprograms.fws.gov/ItemsTaxedJan2011.pdf · Support Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration in America. U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Fish & wildlife habitat and harvest - Alaska …dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/yakataga/pdf/ch2_fish.pdf · Fish & wildlife habitat and harvest Fish & wildlife habitat A. Mitigation

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife .... Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System ... Chapter 1: Conserving the ... Executive Summary the only path

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish ......U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office Jurisdictional Boundary and Legal

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE WILDLIFE

KENTUCKY FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSIONER’S KENTUCKY FISH ... · Field 4 to Fork Greenwing 5 Adventure KENTUCKY FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSIONER’S KENTUCKY FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSIONER’S

GOAL 1: CONSERVE AND PROTECT NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE · GOAL 1: CONSERVE AND PROTECT NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE Wildlife Areas ... CONSERVE AND PROTECT NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE Agency

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fish Wildlife News · 2 / Fish & Wildlife News Winter 2014 the Banking on Nature report used 92 national wildlife refuges for its economic sampling. Researchers

Fish and Wildlife Work Group - United States Army Corps of ... · Fish and Wildlife Work Group Meeting Notes Chair: Steve Clark Page 1 of 2 22 October 2015; 9:30 a.m. at USFWS FWCO

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Creston · U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Creston National Fish Hatchery Region 6 MountainPrairie Region

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Tishomingo Folded Fish...U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge Fishing Regulations 2020–2021 Welcome Tishomingo National Wildlife

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Steve Hillebrand/USFWS Role of Volunteers in the Wildlife Science Program at Kodiak National

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan · 2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation