Transcript Berejikian (RF Yakim..

Review of relative fitness (RF)
of hatchery- and natural-origin
salmon and steelhead
Barry Berejikian
NOAA Fisheries
Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Resource Enhancement and Utilization Technologies Division
Manchester Research Station
Previous reviews
• Berejikian, B.A., and M.J. Ford. 2004. Review of relative
fitness of hatchery and natural salmon. U.S. Dept.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-61, 28 p
• Araki, H., B. A. Berejikian, M. J. Ford, and M. S. Blouin.
2008. Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild.
Evolutionary Applications 1:342-355.
Objectives
• Provide an overview of RF from published
and on-going studies
• Focus in on effects in supplementation
programs
• Identify some important variables that may
influence the outcome of RF studies
• Recommendations regarding future RF
studies
Definitions
• Relative fitness: (R/Sh) /(R/Sw)
• Hatchery fish: born in the hatchery
• Wild or natural-origin fish: born in the natural
environment
• Hatchery generations: number of generations
the hatchery had been operating
Potential causes of differential
fitness of hatchery and wild salmon
• Environmental: Incubation and juvenile rearing
environment
–
–
–
–
age-at-maturity
spawn timing
size-at-age
spawning location
• Genetic
– Domestication selection (adaptation to the hatchery)
– Intentional artificial selection
– Other genetic mechanisms (inbreeding, founder
effects, etc)
Re-visiting Araki et al. 2007: The
Hood River Study
Ford et al. (2006)
Relative Fitness
Araki et al. (2006)
Cww vs
Www
o
Ccw vs
Www
Fleming et al.
(2000)
Kalama R
Hansen
et al.
(2002)
From Araki et al. 2007. Science 318:100-103 (Figure 2b)
Revisiting Araki et al. 2007
o
o
o
o
From Araki et al. 2007. Science 318:100-103 (Figure 2b)
Relative fitness of anadromous salmonids
1.4
L
L
1.2
L
Relative Fitness
L
1
L
L/NL
L
L
0.8
NL
L
L
0.6
L
0.4
NL
L
NL
0.2
NL
NL
0
0
5
10
15
Hatchery Generations
RF: Circles = breeding success based on behavior and egg survival estimates, Triangles = egg-to-parr,
Diamonds = adult to parr/smolt, Squares = lifetime
Species: Dark blue = steelhead, green = Atlantic salmon, red = coho salmon, light blue = brown trout,
yellow = Chinook, Pink = summer chum salmon
20
Locally-derived hatchery broodstocks
1.4
Relative Fitness
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Hatchery Generations
RF: Circles = breeding success based on behavior and egg survival estimates, Triangles = egg-to-parr,
Diamonds = adult to parr/smolt, Squares = lifetime
Species: Dark blue = steelhead, green = Atlantic salmon, red = coho salmon, light blue = brown trout,
yellow = Chinook, pink = summer chum salmon
Supplementation programs
1.4
Catherine Cr
1.2
Pahsimeroi R.
Relative fitness
1
Hood R.
(Cww)
0.8
Quilcene chum
Deschutes
0.6
Wenatchee
0.4
Little Sheep Cr.
(W cc) Hood R.
0.2
(Ccw)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Generations
Triangles = egg-to-parr/smolt, Diamonds = adult-to-parr/smolt, Squares = lifetime
8
• Hatchery male coho
salmon competitively
inferior to wild males
• Hatchery females
spawned later, but
suffered higher levels of
nest superimposition
• Relative breeding
success lower at higher
density
Relative breeding success (%)
Density-dependent relative
breeding success
100
Female
Male
Combined
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: Fleming et al. 1993. Ecol. Appl. Table 5.
Low
Med
Spawner density
High
Density dependent relative
breeding success
• 1st generation hatchery
fish (Cww vs Www)
• Relative breeding
success lower at higher
density
80
Relative breeding success (%)
• Male Atlantic salmon
competitively inferior to
wild males
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3.9
3.6
2.6
2
Spaw ner density (m ales/m )
Source: Fleming et al. 1997. Behav. Ecol.
Gender effects?
Species
RF
male
RF
female
Comments
Reference
Coho salmon
0.97
>
0.74
Lifetime
Ford et al.
2006
Coho salmon
0.62
<
0.82
Breeding success
Fleming and
Gross 1993
Chum salmon
0.99
>
0.73
Adult-to-fry
Berejikian et
al. In press
Atlantic salmon
0.51
<
~1.0
Breeding success
Fleming et al.
1997
Steelhead
0.60
=
0.63
Lifetime Ccw v. Cww
Araki et al.
2007
Conclusions
– Non-local stocks perform poorly
– Single generation effects on RF appear to be
fairly small (except for Araki et al. 2007, 2009)
– Very little data on lifetime RF
– Varying intensity of competition may influence
relative breeding success
– Gender effects are inconsistent
– Future studies should focus on genetic fitness
(e.g., Schroder et al. in the Yakima R)
Supplementation programs
1.4
Relative fitness
1.2
Catherine Cr
Pahsimeroi
1
Quilcene SC
Hood River
0.8
Deschutes R.
Little Sheep Cr.
0.6
Lostine R
Wenatchee
Hood River
Steelhead (Www v Cwc )
0.4
0.2
0
0
1
2
3
4
Generations
5
6
7
8