12.07.2015 Views

Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Peterman <strong>and</strong> Dorner (2011) have three key findings regarding the patterns of change in <strong>sockeye</strong>productivity:1. Life history stages of <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>sockeye</strong> showing declining productivity. Of the nine<strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>sockeye</strong> stocks with <strong>data</strong> on juvenile abundance (Figure 13 in Peterman <strong>and</strong>Dorner 2011), only Gates <strong>sockeye</strong> have showed declines in juvenile productivity (i.e.,from spawners to juveniles) but 7 of the 9 stocks showed consistent reductions in postjuvenileproductivity (i.e., from juveniles to returning adult recruits). These resultsindicate that either: 1) the primary mortality agents causing the decline in <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong><strong>sockeye</strong> occurred in the post-juvenile stage (i.e. after fry or smolts were enumerated), or2) that certain stressors that affected juveniles were non-lethal in fresh water but causedmortality later in the marine <strong>sockeye</strong> life stage. Note that mortality during over-winteringin nursery lakes (for most stocks), or during pre-smolt <strong>and</strong> smolt downstream migrationwould be ascribed to the post-juvenile stage. Unfortunately, juvenile <strong>data</strong> series for non-<strong>Fraser</strong> stocks are either very short or not available at all, making it difficult to judge towhat degree similarities in juvenile-to-adult survival rates are shared among B.C. stocksoutside the <strong>Fraser</strong> (Appendix P3 in Peterman <strong>and</strong> Dorner 2011).2. Stocks showing declining productivity. Within the <strong>Fraser</strong> watershed, 17 of 19 <strong>sockeye</strong>stocks have shown declines in productivity over the last two decades. Both <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>and</strong>many non-<strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>sockeye</strong> stocks, in Canada <strong>and</strong> the U.S.A., show a similar recentdecrease in productivity. Thus, this trend has occurred over a much larger area than justthe <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong> system <strong>and</strong> is not unique to it. This is a very important new finding.Specifically, based on smoothed estimates of productivity trends via a Kalman filter (thethird productivity measure described above), there have been relatively large, rapid, <strong>and</strong>consistent decreases in <strong>sockeye</strong> productivity starting in the late 1990s in many areasalong the west coast of North America including the following stocks (from south tonorth): Puget Sound (Lake Washington), <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong>, Barkley Sound on the West Coastof Vancouver Isl<strong>and</strong> (Great Central <strong>and</strong> Sproat Lakes), Central Coast of B.C. (LongLake, Owikeno Lake, South Atnarko Lakes), North Coast of B.C. (Nass <strong>and</strong> Skeena),Southeast Alaska (McDonald, Redoubt, Chilkat), Yakutat (northern part of SoutheastAlaska; East Alsek, Klukshu, Italio). These patterns are illustrated in Figures 4.1-3 <strong>and</strong>4.1-4.3. The timing of productivity declines. There have been three separate phases of decline inproductivity since 1950. The first started in the 1970s, the second in the mid-1980s, <strong>and</strong>then the most recent one in the late 1990s or early 2000s, with individual stocks showingthese trends to various extents. Furthermore, periods of low productivity in southern31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!