slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Evaluating natural productivity and genetic interaction

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Evaluating natural productivity and genetic interaction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 117 Views
  • Uploaded on

Evaluating natural productivity and genetic interaction between a segregated hatchery stock and a wild population of steelhead trout in Eagle Creek, OR. Andrew Matala, Maureen Kavanagh, Doug Olson, William Ardren, and Bill Brignon, and Jeff Hogle.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Evaluating natural productivity and genetic interaction' - cally-rosales


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Evaluating natural productivity and genetic interaction

between a segregated hatchery stock and a

wild population of steelhead trout in Eagle Creek, OR

Andrew Matala, Maureen Kavanagh, Doug Olson, William Ardren,

and Bill Brignon, and Jeff Hogle

slide2

Background: Eagle Creek-NFH steelhead program

  • Mitigate for resource loss: Bonneville Dam
    • Provide commercial, sport, and tribal harvest
  • Broodstock origin:
    • Big Creek Hatchery broodstock,
    • local population (native Eagle Creek, Skamania Hatchery)
  • Return-time distribution:
    • HAT – generally December through March
    • NOR – generally February through June
  • Wild winter steelhead considered unique run
    • North Fork Eagle Creek is major spawning area.
  • USFWS commenced M&E in 2003:
    • Ecological Interaction Study: review 2005-08
    • Effects on ESA listed NOR population
slide3

Eagle Cr. HAT

Big Cr. HAT

Clackamas R. NOR

Eagle Cr. NOR

99

100

0.005

-Campton 2001

slide4

Ecological Interaction studies at Eagle Creek

“Impact of segregated hatchery program on ESA listed wild population?”

“How to manage the hatchery program at optimal benefit?”

  • Rearing Density Study
      • Optimize release number/return number
  • Behavioral and Habitat Study
      • Competitive interactions, residualism, outmigration
  • Radio-telemetry project
      • Adults- distribution, straying,

migration timing

  • Genetics Study
      • Hat vs. Wild: distribution and productivity.
slide5

Outline of Objectives: Genetics Analysis

  • Evaluate Population Structure:
    • Relative productivity between NOR and HAT?
    • If so, where does HAT natural spawning occur?
  • Collection locations (sample reaches):
    • Based on distribution, utilizing available capture sites
    • Target was 50 smolts per reach per year
  • Analytical Methods
    • Genetic distance
    • Likelihood based population assignment
    • Population “membership” proportions
    • Among-group variation (Fst)
  • Explore biological relevance or significance:
    • Explain results in the context of general ecological interaction?
    • Evaluate risks to NOR – fitness, distinctiveness?
slide6

Lower Reach

N. Fork Reach

Upper Reach

Ecological Interaction studies at Eagle Creek

Eagle Creek-NFH

Study Site

slide7

Outline of Objectives: Genetics Analysis

  • Evaluate Population Structure:
    • Relative productivity between NOR and HAT?
    • If so, where does HAT natural spawning occur?
  • Collection locations (sample reaches):
    • Based on distribution, utilizing available capture sites
    • Target was 50 smolt per reach per year
  • Analytical Methods
    • Genetic distance
    • Likelihood based population assignment
    • Population “membership” proportions
    • Among-group variation (Fst)
  • Explore biological relevance or significance:
    • Explain results in the context of general ecological interaction?
    • Evaluate risks to NOR – fitness, distinctiveness?
slide8

Neighbor-Joining Dendrogram Topology -

temporal replicate collections: 3 years

NOR adult

2007

NOR adult

2006

Upper EC

2005

Lower EC

2005

ECNF

2007

Lower EC

2006

ECNF

2006

56.2

76.8

90.4

90.4

ECNF

2005

Upper EC

2006

100

100

57.5

Upper EC

2007

NOR adult

2005

N. Fork EC

2006

N. Fork EC

2007

0.002

CSE

N. Fork EC

2005

Lower EC

2007

slide9

2005

2006

2007

Estimated Population Assignment Likelihood

Lower Eagle Creek

Hatchery

Equal likelihood

slide10

2005

2006

2007

Estimated Population Assignment Likelihood

North Fork Eagle Creek

Hatchery

Equal likelihood

slide11

2005

2006

2007

Estimated Population Assignment Likelihood

Upper Eagle Creek

Hatchery

Equal likelihood

slide12

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

membership

Upper Eagle Creek

Eagle Creek-NFH

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

Eagle Creek-NFH

N. Fork Eagle Creek

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

Lower Eagle Creek

Eagle Creek-NFH

STRUCTURE version 2.0

Population Membership Plots: K= 3 inferred populations

slide13

Evaluating among-group variation:

pairwise comparisons: NOR perspective

= temporal replicate collections (by NOR collection)

Pairwise Fst

Upper Eagle

N. Fork Eagle

Lower Eagle

NOR adults

slide14

Evaluating among-group variation:

pairwise comparisons: NOR perspective

= temporal replicate collections Vs. 2005Hatchery

Pairwise Fst

Upper Eagle

N. Fork Eagle

Lower Eagle

NOR adults

slide15

Evaluating among-group variation:

pairwise comparisons: NOR perspective

= temporal replicate collections Vs. 2006 Hatchery

Pairwise Fst

Upper Eagle

N. Fork Eagle

Lower Eagle

NOR adults

slide16

Evaluating among-group variation:

pairwise comparisons: NOR perspective

= temporal replicate collections Vs. 2007 Hatchery

Pairwise Fst

Upper Eagle

N. Fork Eagle

Lower Eagle

NOR adults

slide17

NOR

2007

NOR

NOR

Upper EC

Upper EC

Upper EC

Evaluating among-group variation:

Summary: Hatchery Perspective

0.0400

2005

2006

0.0350

0.0300

0.0250

0.0200

0.0150

0.0100

0.0050

0.0000

’05 hatchery

’06 hatchery

’07 hatchery

Vs. Hatchery 2005

Vs. Hatchery 2006

Vs. Hatchery 2007

-0.0050

slide18

Outline of Objectives: Genetics Analysis

  • Evaluate Population Structure:
    • Relative productivitybetween NOR and HAT?
    • If so, where does HAT natural spawning occur?
  • Collection locations (sample reaches):
    • Based on distribution, utilizing available capture sites
    • Target was 50 smolt per reach per year
  • Analytical Methods
    • Genetic distance
    • Likelihood based population assignment
    • Population “membership” proportions
    • Among-group variation (Fst)
  • Explore biological relevance or significance:
    • Explain results in the context of general ecological interaction?
    • Evaluate risks to NOR – fitness, distinctiveness?
slide20

31%

10%

1%

38%

17%

17%

33%

29%

16%

Adult: Distribution, Movement

Mouth

2005 & 2006

Lower

Ladder

Eagle Creek

North Fork Eagle Creek

Middle

Ladder

NF Hatchery

Last Known Location of

Radio-tagged Steelhead

Hatchery: N=87

Delph Creek

Wild: N=52

slide21

Bi-weekly catch of adult winter steelhead

~ captures at the lower ladder

Wild (n=31)

Hatchery (n=182)

Wild (n=30)

Hatchery (n=144)

Wild (n=42)

Hatchery (n=53)

50

40

30

20

10

0

% Captured

Feb 1-15

Feb 1-15

Jan 1- 15

Jan 1- 15

Jan 16-30

Jan 16-30

May 1-15

May 1-15

Feb 16-28

Feb 16-28

April 1-15

April 1-15

May 16-31

May 16-31

March 1-15

March 1-15

April 16- 30

April 16- 30

March 16- 31

March 16- 31

Feb 1-15

Jan 1- 15

Jan 16-30

May 1-15

June 1-10

Feb 16-28

April 1-15

May 16-31

March 1-15

April 16- 30

March 16- 31

2005

2006

2007

slide22

Conclusions/Management Implications:

Geneflow is restricted – variable by year

Behaviors are different – variable by year

How much gene flow is too much gene flow?

Generational Scale?

Currently: continue segregated broodstock collection

150,000 yearling smolt 100,000 smolts

trapping and removal

Three additional years, continued monitoring

slide23

Thanks!

Any Questions?

Acknowledgements: Co-authors,

especially Maureen Kavanagh,

USFWS and USFS field crews

The findings, conclusions and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

TM

RIVERFISH.net