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

Chinook / 100m .
500
400
300
200
100
0
Beach (8)
Bedrock (3)
Emergent (4)
LWD (5)
Trib mouth (6)
Chinook / m 2 .
1.5
1
0.5
a
b
ab
ab
c
0
Beach (8)
Bedrock (3)
Emergent (4)
LWD (5)
Trib mouth (6)
FIGURE 47.—June nighttime nearshore abundance to 1 m depth (mean ± 2SE; top panel) and shoreline density
(mean ± 2SE; lower panel) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault, 2004. Bars with different letters are
significantly diferent (ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD; P < 0.05). The ANOVA test was not significant for the
nearshore abundance (top panel). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of replicates.
Discussion
Except for tributary mouths, few significant differences were observed in the use of
different habitat types in Lake Quinault. Lack of pronounced differences may have been due to
small sample sizes and high variability in Chinook salmon abundance between sites. There is
little bedrock shoreline in Lake Quinault and only three bedrock sites were established. The
abundance of Chinook salmon at bedrock sites was substantially lower than other habitat types,
yet we detected few significant differences between bedrock sites and other habitat types.
78