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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

0.8 Depth (m) 0.6 0.4 0.2 Pool A - max. depth Pool A - Chinook Pool B - max. depth Pool B - Chinook 0 2/1 Feb 3/2 Mar 4/1 Apr 5/1 May 5/31 FIGURE 37.—Water column depth (m) where juvenile Chinook salmon were located and maximum depth of two scour pools in the index reach of Johns Creek, February–May, 2004. max. depth = maximum depth. 0.6 Mean depth (m) . 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1 Feb 3/2 Mar 4/1 Apr 5/1 May 5/31 Chinook Environment FIGURE 38.—Mean water column depth (m) in scour pools and glides (environment) and the mean water column depth where juvenile Chinook salmon were located in those habitats, lower Johns Creek, February- May, 2004. Figure only includes dates when at least 10 Chinook salmon were observed. 61
Chinook / m . 5 4 3 2 1 2003 - upstream reach 2004 - upstream reach 2003 - convergence pool 2004 - convergence pool 0 2/1 Feb 3/2 Mar 4/1 Apr 5/1 May 5/31 Jun 6/30 FIGURE 39.—Number of juvenile Chinook salmon in Johns Creek per stream length in the convergence pool and the stream reach immediately upstream of the convergence pool. The length of the convergence pool and upstream reach varied depending on lake level. The entire stream reach was 260 m. The upstream reach included riffles, glides, and scour pools. Other salmonids in Johns Creek consisted primarily of sockeye salmon fry. Other fish observed in Johns Creek included trout, prickly sculpin, coastrange sculpin (C. aleuticus), threespine stickleback, juvenile brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), juvenile suckers (Catostomus sp.), juvenile sunfish (Lepomis sp.), juvenile peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), and largemouth bass. Salmonids and sculpins were found throughout the index reach and throughout the study period; whereas, the other fish species were observed primarily in the convergence pool in May and June. In general, the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon in Johns Creek was similar to the diet from Lake Washington. Chironomid pupae and adults had the highest %IRI on each sampling date in both Johns Creek and the lakeshore (Table 12). However, on two of the four dates (March 20 and April 22), the diet in Johns Creek was substantially different than the lake shore at north Gene Coulon Park (Table 12). In Johns Creek, chironomid pupae and adult made up less than 30% of the diet by weight on both dates, whereas they made up over 80% of the diet from the lake shore during that time period. On March 20, oligochaetes were the most important prey item by weight and on April 22 other terrestrial invertebrates (centipedes, isopods, and gastropods) made up over half of the diet by weight. The diet breadth index was also much higher for Johns Creek fish than the lakeshore fish on these two dates (Table 13). 62
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: column depth used by Chinook salmon
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?