Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Fleischer. 2005a. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production in 2003 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Fleischer. 2005b. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production in 2004 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Smith, I.M., B.P. Smith, and D.R. Cook. 2001. Water mites (Hydrachnida) and other arachnids. Pages 551-659 in J.H. Thorp and A.P. Covich, editors. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Sommer, T.P., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrel, W. Batham. And W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. Floodplain rearing of juvenile chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:325-333. Tabor, R.A., M.T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R.M. Piaskowski, D.L. Low, B. Footen, and L. Park. 2004a. Predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington basin. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Tabor, R.A. and R.M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Tabor, R.A., J.A. Schuerer, H.A. Gearns, and E.P. Bixler. 2004b. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Tabor, R.A. and W.A. Wurtsbaugh. 1991. Predation risk and the importance of cover for juvenile rainbow trout in lentic systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:728-738. Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Report SAFS-UW 0106, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Webb, P.W. 1976. The effect of size on the fast-start performance of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, and a consideration of piscivorous predator-prey interactions. Journal of Experimental Biology 65:157-177. Weitkamp, D. and G. Ruggerone. 2000. Factors affecting Chinook populations. Report to the City of Seattle, Seattle, Washington. 93
Werner, E.E., and D.J. Hall. 1988. The foraging rate-predation risk tradeoff and ontogenetic habitat shifts in the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 69: 1352-1366. Zaret, T.M. and A.S. Rand. 1971. Competition in tropical stream fishes: support for the competitive exclusion principle. Ecology 52:336-342. 94
Page 1 and 2:
U.S. Fish and IU.S. Wildlife FishSe
Page 3 and 4:
SUMMARY In 2003 and 2004, we contin
Page 5 and 6:
An overhanging vegetation/small woo
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Contents Page SUMMARY ....
Page 9 and 10:
List of Figures Figure Page FIGURE
Page 11 and 12:
FIGURE 37.—Water column depth (m)
Page 13 and 14:
The major tributary to Lake Washing
Page 15 and 16:
Fry emerge from their redds from Ja
Page 17 and 18:
FIGURE 2.—Location of index sites
Page 19 and 20:
most dates (Figure 4). Unlike 2002,
Page 21 and 22:
Chinook/m 2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Wes
Page 23 and 24:
0.3 Mercer Island Chinook/m 2 0.2 0
Page 25 and 26:
particularly valuable. Shoreline im
Page 27 and 28:
FIGURE 8.—Map of south Lake Washi
Page 29 and 30:
FIGURE 10—Map of south Lake Washi
Page 31 and 32:
# of marked Chinook 40 30 20 10 0 A
Page 33 and 34:
CHAPTER 3. RESTORATION SITES Introd
Page 35 and 36:
Beer Sheva Park.—At Beer Sheva Pa
Page 37 and 38:
Results Seward Park, 2003.—In 200
Page 39 and 40:
4 3.5 Chinook/100 m 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0
Page 41 and 42:
Martha Washington Park, 2003.—In
Page 43 and 44:
120 Chinook/100 m 100 80 60 40 20 s
Page 45 and 46:
snorkeling and scuba diving were co
Page 47 and 48:
Water column depth (m) . 0.80 0.60
Page 49 and 50:
CHAPTER 5. FEEDING AT TRIBUTARY MOU
Page 51 and 52:
FIGURE 28.—Location of four south
Page 53 and 54: FIGURE 29.—Photos of sites used t
Page 55 and 56: sampling. At night, Chinook salmon
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 5.—Diet overlap indices (C)
Page 59 and 60: TABLE 7.—Diet overlap indices (C)
Page 61 and 62: TABLE 10.—Diet composition of juv
Page 63 and 64: The lack of a large difference betw
Page 65 and 66: CHAPTER 6. USE OF NONNATAL TRIBUTAR
Page 67 and 68: shallow to snorkel were surveyed th
Page 69 and 70: Number of Chinook ff 700 600 500 40
Page 71 and 72: column depth used by Chinook salmon
Page 73 and 74: Chinook / m . 5 4 3 2 1 2003 - upst
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 13.—Diet overlap index (C)
Page 77 and 78: (P. Castle, WDFW, unpublished data)
Page 79 and 80: FIGURE 41.—Placement of Scotch br
Page 81 and 82: FIGURE 43.—Photo of a group of ju
Page 83 and 84: CHAPTER 8. LAKE QUINAULT SURVEYS In
Page 85 and 86: FIGURE 45.—Photos of large woody
Page 87 and 88: Similar to April surveys, the nears
Page 89 and 90: Chinook / 100m . 500 400 300 200 10
Page 91 and 92: Tabor and Wurtsbaugh (1991) conclud
Page 93 and 94: FIGURE 48.—Location of south Lake
Page 95 and 96: FIGURE 49.—Conducting visual obse
Page 97 and 98: FIGURE 52.—Photo of a group of ju
Page 99 and 100: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank He
Page 101 and 102: workshop, Shoreline, Washington, No
Page 103: Paron, D.G., and E. Nelson. 2001. S
show all

Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?