Difference between revisions of "Near Shore Ecology (NSE) Study"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
| − | == Background== | + | == Background== |
| + | |||
Glen Canyon Dam is operated primarily as a load-following hydropower facility, increasing and decreasing dam discharge to match power demand. This periodic “flushing” of the river reduces the residence time of water as well as the availability of certain shoreline habitat types. In contrast, steady flows can increase the retention time of water in littoral areas such as backwaters and low-angle shorelines, and if discharge volume and ambient temperature are appropriate, can locally increase water temperatures. The NSE project evaluated experimental steady flows that occurred from 1 September- 31 October in each year 2009-2011. This study took place between river km 102-106 just downstream of the confluence of the mainstem Colorado and Little Colorado rivers where most prior research on humpback chub in Grand Canyon has occurred. The timing and magnitude of the steady flow experiment was developed by resource managers independent of the NSE team. Experimental flow regimes were about 10% of the unregulated (pre-Glen Canyon Dam) annual fluctuations. | Glen Canyon Dam is operated primarily as a load-following hydropower facility, increasing and decreasing dam discharge to match power demand. This periodic “flushing” of the river reduces the residence time of water as well as the availability of certain shoreline habitat types. In contrast, steady flows can increase the retention time of water in littoral areas such as backwaters and low-angle shorelines, and if discharge volume and ambient temperature are appropriate, can locally increase water temperatures. The NSE project evaluated experimental steady flows that occurred from 1 September- 31 October in each year 2009-2011. This study took place between river km 102-106 just downstream of the confluence of the mainstem Colorado and Little Colorado rivers where most prior research on humpback chub in Grand Canyon has occurred. The timing and magnitude of the steady flow experiment was developed by resource managers independent of the NSE team. Experimental flow regimes were about 10% of the unregulated (pre-Glen Canyon Dam) annual fluctuations. | ||
| − | Prior to the NSE project, our understanding of juvenile humpback chub ecology in the mainstem Colorado River was deficient compared with our knowledge of adult humpback chub primarily because of limited sampling of mainstem habitat for juvenile life stages. The NSE project developed a sampling and analytical framework to directly assess juvenile humpback chub survival, abundance, individual growth, and habitat use. These analyses used spatially referenced mark-recapture experiments with multiple gear types and determined provenance (birth river) through otolith microchemistry. This direct assessment of key vital rates complements indirect approaches used to estimate survival through population modeling efforts. For example, age-structured-mark-recapture (ASMR, Coggins et al. 2006) reconstructs juvenile abundance and survival through time from adult population numbers (estimated from mark-recapture) and assumes survival relationships based on life-history characteristics and growth rates. In contrast, the NSE project directly estimates juvenile fish population metrics in terms of abundance, survival, growth, or habitat use, which is useful for rapidly assessing how juvenile humpback chub respond to management actions such as experimental flows. | + | Prior to the NSE project, our understanding of juvenile humpback chub ecology in the mainstem Colorado River was deficient compared with our knowledge of adult humpback chub primarily because of limited sampling of mainstem habitat for juvenile life stages. The NSE project developed a sampling and analytical framework to directly assess juvenile humpback chub survival, abundance, individual growth, and habitat use. These analyses used spatially referenced mark-recapture experiments with multiple gear types and determined provenance (birth river) through otolith microchemistry. This direct assessment of key vital rates complements indirect approaches used to estimate survival through population modeling efforts. For example, age-structured-mark-recapture (ASMR, Coggins et al. 2006) reconstructs juvenile abundance and survival through time from adult population numbers (estimated from mark-recapture) and assumes survival relationships based on life-history characteristics and growth rates. In contrast, the NSE project directly estimates juvenile fish population metrics in terms of abundance, survival, growth, or habitat use, which is useful for rapidly assessing how juvenile humpback chub respond to management actions such as experimental flows. [http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE.htm] |
| − | ==Results and Discussion== | + | ==Results and Discussion== |
The NSE project found that annual apparent '''survival of juvenile humpback chub (size at tagging < 100-mm total length, TL) did not differ significantly between the extant fluctuating flows and the experimental steady flow treatments''' (Finch et al. in-review A). The NSE project also documented that '''juvenile humpback chub were able to survive and rear in the mainstem Colorado River even at small sizes of 40-100 mm TL''' (Finch et al. in-review B). A somewhat surprising finding was that '''growth in juvenile humpback chub declined during these short-term steady flows versus fluctuating flows''' even though water temperatures were generally similar (Finch et al. in-review B). Reasons for this counterintuitive growth response are not known, but Finch (et al. in-review B) hypothesizes that food availability in the drift (primarily aquatic insects) is higher in fluctuating flows than in steady flows. | The NSE project found that annual apparent '''survival of juvenile humpback chub (size at tagging < 100-mm total length, TL) did not differ significantly between the extant fluctuating flows and the experimental steady flow treatments''' (Finch et al. in-review A). The NSE project also documented that '''juvenile humpback chub were able to survive and rear in the mainstem Colorado River even at small sizes of 40-100 mm TL''' (Finch et al. in-review B). A somewhat surprising finding was that '''growth in juvenile humpback chub declined during these short-term steady flows versus fluctuating flows''' even though water temperatures were generally similar (Finch et al. in-review B). Reasons for this counterintuitive growth response are not known, but Finch (et al. in-review B) hypothesizes that food availability in the drift (primarily aquatic insects) is higher in fluctuating flows than in steady flows. | ||
| Line 67: | Line 68: | ||
We measured lapillar otoliths of humpback chub and derived a relationship between otolith size and fish total length. Using this relationship, we back-estimated the size, as well as age (in days) when humpback chub egressed from the Little Colorado to the mainstem (Limburg et al., in-review). In addition to this evidence from changes in otolith chemistry we discovered changes in the otolith microstructure itself. Daily growth increments of otoliths reduced in width markedly upon fish entry into the mainstem due to the temperature differential which strongly affects otolith growth. We determined a range of sizes and ages at egress amongst juvenile humpback chub captured in the mainstem. However, this range was reduced in adult chub, suggesting that successful recruitment (i.e. survival) is favored by remaining longer in the Little Colorado. We also found that '''fish captured in the Little Colorado tended to be larger on their first birthdays (determined retrospectively by otolith analysis) than fish in the mainstem'''. These fish also showed a bimodal distribution of size at age-1 suggesting differential growth within the birth cohort. | We measured lapillar otoliths of humpback chub and derived a relationship between otolith size and fish total length. Using this relationship, we back-estimated the size, as well as age (in days) when humpback chub egressed from the Little Colorado to the mainstem (Limburg et al., in-review). In addition to this evidence from changes in otolith chemistry we discovered changes in the otolith microstructure itself. Daily growth increments of otoliths reduced in width markedly upon fish entry into the mainstem due to the temperature differential which strongly affects otolith growth. We determined a range of sizes and ages at egress amongst juvenile humpback chub captured in the mainstem. However, this range was reduced in adult chub, suggesting that successful recruitment (i.e. survival) is favored by remaining longer in the Little Colorado. We also found that '''fish captured in the Little Colorado tended to be larger on their first birthdays (determined retrospectively by otolith analysis) than fish in the mainstem'''. These fish also showed a bimodal distribution of size at age-1 suggesting differential growth within the birth cohort. | ||
| − | We analyzed a small number of juvenile humpback chub that had been captured many kilometers upstream of the Little Colorado confluence with the Colorado mainstem. These individuals turned out to be much older than comparably sized juveniles collected in the Little Colorado River. Chemical analysis of their otoliths suggested a different natal source; one source appears to be in the 30-Mile Spring reach and another may have been an unidentified spring or tributary (Hayden et al. 2012). Such small fish (20-25 mm) for their age (e.g., 70-80 days old) are unlikely to survive and recruit to adulthood in the mainstem Colorado River. | + | We analyzed a small number of juvenile humpback chub that had been captured many kilometers upstream of the Little Colorado confluence with the Colorado mainstem. These individuals turned out to be much older than comparably sized juveniles collected in the Little Colorado River. Chemical analysis of their otoliths suggested a different natal source; one source appears to be in the 30-Mile Spring reach and another may have been an unidentified spring or tributary (Hayden et al. 2012). Such small fish (20-25 mm) for their age (e.g., 70-80 days old) are unlikely to survive and recruit to adulthood in the mainstem Colorado River. [http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE.htm] |
| − | ==Conclusions== | + | ==Conclusions== |
The NSE project developed a sampling and analytical framework to directly assess juvenile humpback chub population responses to management actions at smaller fish sizes than were previously possible. This framework is important, as the key outcome from many different types of management actions in the Colorado River is to improve survival of juvenile humpback chub, increasing overall abundance and accelerating the population to recovery. The NSE project also documented that '''small juvenile humpback chub can survive and rear in the mainstem Colorado River'''. This information is important because adult humpback chub numbers (age 4+) have increased over the past decade, possibly due to improved survival in the mainstem Colorado River (Coggins and Walters 2009). | The NSE project developed a sampling and analytical framework to directly assess juvenile humpback chub population responses to management actions at smaller fish sizes than were previously possible. This framework is important, as the key outcome from many different types of management actions in the Colorado River is to improve survival of juvenile humpback chub, increasing overall abundance and accelerating the population to recovery. The NSE project also documented that '''small juvenile humpback chub can survive and rear in the mainstem Colorado River'''. This information is important because adult humpback chub numbers (age 4+) have increased over the past decade, possibly due to improved survival in the mainstem Colorado River (Coggins and Walters 2009). | ||
We identified '''chemical markers that can distinguish fish use of Little Colorado River''' from mainstem use. Humpback chub in this reach of Grand Canyon originate overwhelmingly from the Little Colorado. Mainstem adult otoliths showed evidence that longer rearing in the Little Colorado promotes better growth and recruitment. The combination of otolith chemistry and growth increment analysis together produced a good natural marker that could be used as a tag to follow fish movements between the mainstem and Little Colorado River. Further work will be needed to extend this methodology to other humpback chub aggregations within Grand Canyon and possibly to other native fish species assessments. | We identified '''chemical markers that can distinguish fish use of Little Colorado River''' from mainstem use. Humpback chub in this reach of Grand Canyon originate overwhelmingly from the Little Colorado. Mainstem adult otoliths showed evidence that longer rearing in the Little Colorado promotes better growth and recruitment. The combination of otolith chemistry and growth increment analysis together produced a good natural marker that could be used as a tag to follow fish movements between the mainstem and Little Colorado River. Further work will be needed to extend this methodology to other humpback chub aggregations within Grand Canyon and possibly to other native fish species assessments. | ||
| − | The results of the NSE project suggest that '''juvenile humpback chub survival, growth, abundance, and habitat use are robust (did not change) to the fall steady flows observed during 2009-2011'''. It is likely that more extreme flow treatments (e.g. higher or lower discharges, longer duration) are required before changes in these metrics would be observed. This research demonstrates the apparent flexibility of juvenile humpback chub in habitat selection regardless of fluctuating or steady river flows. Our development and application of methods to assess the growth, survival, and persistence of juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River are key new additions to the body of knowledge available for managing the Colorado River and understanding how juvenile fish populations respond to hydropower operations in regulated rivers globally. | + | The results of the NSE project suggest that '''juvenile humpback chub survival, growth, abundance, and habitat use are robust (did not change) to the fall steady flows observed during 2009-2011'''. It is likely that more extreme flow treatments (e.g. higher or lower discharges, longer duration) are required before changes in these metrics would be observed. This research demonstrates the apparent flexibility of juvenile humpback chub in habitat selection regardless of fluctuating or steady river flows. Our development and application of methods to assess the growth, survival, and persistence of juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River are key new additions to the body of knowledge available for managing the Colorado River and understanding how juvenile fish populations respond to hydropower operations in regulated rivers globally. [http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE.htm] |
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 17:37, 31 January 2017
|
|
Introduction- Management actions in aquatic ecosystems are frequently directed at restoring or improving specific habitats to improve fish growth and survival. In the Grand Canyon reach of the Colorado River experimental flow operations as part of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program impact the creation of habitat types (i.e., sandbars and associated backwaters), water temperatures, or flow fluctuations and magnitude which are critical for juvenile native fish conservation. One of the objectives of a recent experiment evaluating steady flow operations from Glen Canyon Dam was to understand how river discharge, through its interaction with physical habitat structure, influences the growth, survival rates, and habitat use of juvenile native fish in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. The key fish species of interest was humpback chub Gila cypha, currently listed as “Endangered” under the US Endangered Species Act. Population recovery of humpback chub is of keen interest to numerous federal, state, and tribal entities. The “Nearshore Ecology” (NSE) project was designed to address key fundamental research questions to improve our knowledge of humpback chub population ecology.
|
| -- | -- | -- |
|---|
|
|
