Difference between revisions of "Bioenergetics Studies"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 17: Line 17:
 
</table>
 
</table>
  
 +
[[Image:NOcrew.jpg|center|400px]]
  
 
<!--
 
<!--
Line 37: Line 38:
 
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
 
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
 
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Updates</h2>
 
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Updates</h2>
|}
 
  
 +
[[Image:BoomBust.jpg|center|500px]]
 +
[[Image:TroutDecline.jpg|center|500px]]
 +
[[Image:HFEsTroutCondition.jpg|center|500px]]
 +
[[Image:BottomUpContol.jpg|center|500px]]
 +
 +
 +
|}
  
 
<!--
 
<!--
Line 85: Line 92:
 
'''2011'''
 
'''2011'''
 
*[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T04-090.1?src=recsys&journalCode=utaf20 Petersen and Paukert. 2011. Development of a Bioenergetics Model for Humpback Chub and Evaluation of Water Temperature Changes in the Grand Canyon, Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 134, 2005 - Issue 4.]
 
*[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T04-090.1?src=recsys&journalCode=utaf20 Petersen and Paukert. 2011. Development of a Bioenergetics Model for Humpback Chub and Evaluation of Water Temperature Changes in the Grand Canyon, Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 134, 2005 - Issue 4.]
 +
 +
|-
 +
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Potential Policy Implications [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/17jan26/AR15_Korman.pdf]</h2>
 +
|-
 +
|style="color:#000;"|
 +
 +
Avoid boom-and-bust cycles to reduce trout export to LCR and maintain consistent catch rates and larger trout in the fishery:
 +
*Enhance food supply via ‘bug flows’ or fertilization (add liquid nitrogen & phosphorous) as a mitigation for fluctuating flows and low reservoir elevation
 +
*Limit recruitment via Trout Management Flows (TMFs)
 +
*Do not implement fall HFEs in years when trout are in poor condition
 +
*Fertilize prior to conducting an HFE to mitigate negative effects
 +
 +
Critical uncertainties:
 +
*Will TMFs be implemented & work? What years to implement (e.g., 2016)?
 +
*Will bug flows or fertilization increase food supply?
 +
*Does enhanced food supply increase or decrease extent of trout export?
 +
 +
|-
 +
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Monitoring Needs [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/17jan26/AR15_Korman.pdf]</h2>
 +
|-
 +
|style="color:#000;"|
 +
 +
STAY ON THE ROAD TO LEARNING: Estimate growth, survival, recruitment, and abundance by mark-recapture at time- scale that is fine enough to address GCD AMP questions.
 +
*Response of recruitment to a particular flow in one year (e.g. spring HFE, 2011 equalization)
 +
*Seasonal effects of fall HFEs on growth
 +
*“Identify approaches to determine the root cause(s) of the unstable trout population in Lees Ferry” (#1 question)
 +
*Measure export of trout from Glen Canyon to upper Marble Canyon (tagging not needed)
 +
 +
The current Catch-Per-Effort survey provides imprecise indices of recruitment and abundance.
 +
*Useful for assessing trends in population over longer blocks of time (e.g. 5 yrs), but not for tracking annual changes needed to address management questions.
 +
*Growth is not estimated from CPE surveys but is needed to understand why recruitment and abundance are changing, and effects of fall HFEs.
 +
 +
Two choices for TWG:
 +
*Keep asking current management questions and therefore continue with mark-recapture program that can address these questions.
 +
*Ask much simpler questions restricted to long-term trends in status which can be addressed from current CPE program.
  
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 16:19, 28 April 2017


NOcrew.jpg


--
--
--

Updates

BoomBust.jpg
TroutDecline.jpg
HFEsTroutCondition.jpg
BottomUpContol.jpg


Links and Information

Projects

Presentations and Papers

2017

2016

2015

2013

2011

Potential Policy Implications [1]

Avoid boom-and-bust cycles to reduce trout export to LCR and maintain consistent catch rates and larger trout in the fishery:

  • Enhance food supply via ‘bug flows’ or fertilization (add liquid nitrogen & phosphorous) as a mitigation for fluctuating flows and low reservoir elevation
  • Limit recruitment via Trout Management Flows (TMFs)
  • Do not implement fall HFEs in years when trout are in poor condition
  • Fertilize prior to conducting an HFE to mitigate negative effects

Critical uncertainties:

  • Will TMFs be implemented & work? What years to implement (e.g., 2016)?
  • Will bug flows or fertilization increase food supply?
  • Does enhanced food supply increase or decrease extent of trout export?

Monitoring Needs [2]

STAY ON THE ROAD TO LEARNING: Estimate growth, survival, recruitment, and abundance by mark-recapture at time- scale that is fine enough to address GCD AMP questions.

  • Response of recruitment to a particular flow in one year (e.g. spring HFE, 2011 equalization)
  • Seasonal effects of fall HFEs on growth
  • “Identify approaches to determine the root cause(s) of the unstable trout population in Lees Ferry” (#1 question)
  • Measure export of trout from Glen Canyon to upper Marble Canyon (tagging not needed)

The current Catch-Per-Effort survey provides imprecise indices of recruitment and abundance.

  • Useful for assessing trends in population over longer blocks of time (e.g. 5 yrs), but not for tracking annual changes needed to address management questions.
  • Growth is not estimated from CPE surveys but is needed to understand why recruitment and abundance are changing, and effects of fall HFEs.

Two choices for TWG:

  • Keep asking current management questions and therefore continue with mark-recapture program that can address these questions.
  • Ask much simpler questions restricted to long-term trends in status which can be addressed from current CPE program.

Other Stuff