Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 102, Issue 8, pp 1069–1095 | Cite as

Insights from an individual based model of a fish population on a large regulated river

  • Peter N. DudleyEmail author
Article

Abstract

On regulated rivers, managers must understand how drivers they can influence interact with the system to affect the health of resident fish populations. One potential way to gain insight into how these drivers interact or act in insolation is with individual based models (IBM), which can take numerous environmental drivers as inputs and mechanistically simulate their effects on the individuals in the system. This paper uses inSALMO, a spatially explicit IBM for salmon freshwater life stages, to examine how eight different drivers affect nine response variables for winter run Chinook salmon on the Sacramento River, CA. This paper examines the effects spawner numbers, spawner timing, water temperature, flow rate, turbidity, habitat cover, gravel area, and food concentration on superimposition, temperature induced egg mortality, predation, stranding, poor condition mortality, age at out-migration, length at out-migration, number of out-migrants, and juvenile size distribution. Notable results included: flow’s lack of effect on juvenile stranding and small effect on final out-migrant count, the degree to which flow affects superimposition risk, temperature having the largest effect on final juvenile out-migrant count, the interaction between predation and temperature induced egg mortality which produces a constantly decreasing out-migration count with temperature, and the level at which gravel additions would not have added benefits for superimposition mortality. While this method uses simulations, and thus will not have perfectly fidelity to the system, it is a cost-effective and quick method for gaining a mechanistically derived understanding of the complex relationships between numerous drivers and response variables.

Keywords

Chinook salmon IBM Modeling River Behavior Physiology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Shawn Mayr and Todd Hillarie of CDWR for providing Sacramento River bathymetry, Andrew Pike for use of RAFT hindcasts, Benjamin T. Martin for comments on this manuscript, Eric Danner and Nathan Mantua for guidance in research and reviewing this manuscript, two anonymous reviewers for providing comments and the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation for funding.

Supplementary material

10641_2019_891_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 35829 kb)

References

  1. Bilski R, Rible E (2010) Lower Mokelumne River salmonid redd survey report: October 2009 through March 2010. East Bay Municipal Utility District, LodiGoogle Scholar
  2. Dudley PN (2018) A salmonid individual-based model as a proposed decision support tool for management of a large regulated river. Ecosphere 9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2074
  3. Dunn OJ (1961) Multiple comparisons among means. J Am Stat Assoc 56:52–64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1961.10482090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dynesius M, Nilsson C (1994) Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern 3rd of the world. Science (80- ) 266: 753–762 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.266.5186.753
  5. Google (2016) Google, DigitalGlobeGoogle Scholar
  6. Gregory RS, Levings CD (1998) Turbidity Reduces Predation on Migrating Juvenile Pacific Salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 127:275–285.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1998)127<0275:TRPOMJ>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hydrologic Engineering Center (2016) Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis SystemGoogle Scholar
  8. Krause CW, Newcomb TJ, Orth DJ (2005) Thermal habitat assessment of alternative flow scenarios in a tailwater fishery. River Res Appl 21:581–593.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mason JC (1976) Response of underyearling coho salmon to supplemental feeding in a natural stream. J Wildl Manag 40:775–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Murchie KJ, Hair KPE, Pullen CE, Redpath TD, Stephens HR, Cooke SJ (2008) Fish response to modified flow regimes in regulated rivers: research methods, effects and opportunities. River Res Appl 24:197–217.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Murphy ML (1985) Die-offs of pre-spawn adult pink salmon and chum salmon in southeastern Alaska. North Am J Fish Manag 5:302–308.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1985)5<302:DOPAPS>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NOAA (2010) Land Area Affected by Endangered Species Act Listings of Salmon & SteelheadGoogle Scholar
  13. North Stare Resources (2012) Sacramento River spawning gravel restoration and monitoring program, ReddingGoogle Scholar
  14. Power ME, Matthews WJ, Stewart AJ (1985) Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and stream algae: dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecology 66:1448–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  16. Railsback SF, Gard M, Harvey BC, White JL, Zimmerman JKH (2013) Contrast of degraded and restored stream habitat using an individual-based salmon model. North Am J Fish Manag 33:384–399.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2013.765527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schlosser IJ (2017) Stream fish ecology : a landscape perspective, vol 41, pp 704–712Google Scholar
  18. Stillwater Sciences (2007) Sacramento River Ecological Flow Study: Gravel Study Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) HEC-HMS for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins comprehensive study, pp 1–240Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cooperative Institute for Marine Ecosystems and Climate (CIMEC), Award number: NA15OAR4320071University of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations