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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 2. RESIDENCE TIME AND MOVEMENTS Introduction and Methods Little is known about the residence time and movement patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon in south Lake Washington. In 2003, we undertook a study to test the feasibility of conducting a mark-recapture study and collecting initial data on Chinook salmon movements. Preliminary testing of the marking technique was conducted on juvenile coho salmon at the USFWS Quilcene National Fish Hatchery in February 2004. We tested different methods of marking including syringes and needless injectors (Microjet and Panjet). Also the dye was placed in diferent locations of the fishes’ body including the caudal fin, dorsal fin, and other locations. Overall, syringes appeared to provide the best mark. They took longer to apply than injectors but the mark was more visible. Placing the mark in the caudal peduncle area appeared to be the best location. Collection of Chinook salmon in south Lake Washington was done with a beach seine on March 25 at two Gene Coulon Park sites: the swim beach and the north experimental site (Figure 8). We marked approximately 100 fish at each site. The caudal peduncle of each Chinook salmon was marked with a photonic dye that was injected with a syringe. The swim beach fish were dyed yellow and the north Gene Coulon fish were dyed red. After release, locations of marked fish were determined through nighttime snorkeling. To maximize the number of fish observed over a large distance, we conducted nighttime snorkeling transects along one depth contour at 0.4 m. Except for a few inaccessible locations, we snorkeled the entire Gene Coulon Park, a shoreline length of approximately 1,700 m. The shoreline was divided in 100-m transects that were established in 2001 as part of our random transect survey to determine substrate use by Chinook salmon (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). Residence-time snorkel surveys were conducted 1, 7, 15, and 21 days after marking. The location where each marked fish was found was flagged and the shoreline distance to the release site was determined. The number of unmarked Chinook salmon was also counted within each 100-m transect. Results A total of 210 juvenile Chinook salmon were marked and released on March 24. One hundred and eight were marked yellow (mean, 46.0 mm FL; range, 40-60 mm FL) and 102 were marked red (mean, 43.9 mm FL; range, 38-57 mm FL). A total of 113 marked Chinook salmon observations (65 yellow and 48 red) were made for the four snorkel surveys. Twenty-nine percent of the all marked fish released were observed one day after release. For both groups, the number of marked Chinook salmon we observed progressively declined from the first survey (1 day after release) to the fourth survey (day 21 after release) (Figure 9). For the four survey dates, 60 of the 113 (53%) total marked fish observations were made on March 25, one day after release. 15
FIGURE 8.—Map of south Lake Washington displaying the shoreline of Gene Coulon Park surveyed (bolded line) to determine movements of juvenile Chinook salmon, March to April 2003. The release site (open circles) of each group of dye-marked fish is also shown. 16
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: particularly valuable. Shoreline im
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 and 104:
Paron, D.G., and E. Nelson. 2001. S
Page 105 and 106:
Werner, E.E., and D.J. Hall. 1988.
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?