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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 3.—Streamflow conditions (cfs) at six tributaries used to determine the abundance and diet of Chinook salmon at the tributary mouths in south Lake Washington and south Lake Sammamish. Streamflow was measured shortly after fish were sampled. Fish were sampled once during base flow conditions and again under high flow conditions if possible. Lake Streamflow (cfs) Tributary Year Base flow High flow Lake Washington Kennydale Cr. 2003 0.51 4.80 2004 0.47 ND Kennydale Beach trib. 2003 0.01 ND May Cr. 2003 30.43 ND 2004 12.86 39.20 Taylor Cr. 2003 2.12 ND 2004 0.94 4.58 Lake Sammamish Laughing Jacobs Cr. 2003 8.27 ND Tibbetts Cr. 2003 19.24 ND Chinook salmon were collected primarily with beach seines (Figure 29). At the small tributaries, Kennydale Beach tributary and Kennydale Creek (Figure 29), one beach seine set was conducted, whereas at the other larger tributaries, 3 to 4 sets were usually done to cover the entire delta area. In 2003, we used two seines depending on the size of the fish. When Chinook salmon were less than 60 mm FL, we used a small seine that was 5.7 m long and 1.2 m deep with a 2-mm stretch mesh and had no bag in the middle. The larger net, used when Chinook salmon were > 60 mm FL, was 9.1 m long and 1.6 m deep and a 1.5-m deep by 1.8-m long bag in the middle. The entire net had 6-mm stretch mesh. In 2004, only one seine was used because it was effective in sampling various sizes of Chinook salmon. The net was 9.1 m long and 1.8 m deep with a 1.8- m deep by 1.8- m long bag in the middle. The mesh size in the wings was 6-mm stretch mesh while the bag was 2-mm stretch mesh. In the event that few Chinook salmon could be collected at a particular site, we collected additional Chinook salmon for diet analysis with small dip nets while snorkeling at night. Captured fish were identified and counted and 10 Chinook salmon were randomly-selected for diet analysis. The 10 Chinook salmon were anaesthetized with MS-222, the fork length was measured, and their stomach contents were removed through gastric lavage. Stomach contents were put in plastic bags, placed on ice, and later froze. In the laboratory, stomach samples were thawed, examined under a dissecting scope, and divided into major prey taxa. Aquatic insects and crustaceans were identified to family, while other prey items were identified to major taxonomic groups. Prey groups were counted and then the wet weight was measured. Each group was blotted by placing the sample on tissue paper for approximately 10 seconds and weighed to the nearest 0.0001 g. 41
FIGURE 29.—Photos of sites used to collect juvenile Chinook salmon to examine the diet at tributary mouths and lakeshore sites. The upper photo is of the mouth of Kennydale Creek and the lower photo is of the beach seine being deployed at the lakeshore reference site for Kennydale Creek. At the mouth of Kennydale Creek, a small delta was present, which was used to seine juvenile Chinook salmon. 42
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: FIGURE 28.—Location of four south
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?