the estuary vs. the watershed: which matters more for anadromous salmonids? blake feist (nwfsc)...
TRANSCRIPT
The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids?
Blake Feist (NWFSC)
Richard Hicks (NWFSC)
Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC)
Charles Simenstad (UW Fisheries)
Question
Which is more “important” to Pacific salmon, estuarine or terrestrial habitat?
Both?
Objective
Compare the “condition” of various chinook and coho populations as a function of the “condition” of their associated estuarine and terrestrial habitats
Approach
Assess population “condition” at a local scale Annual population growth rates (Lambda)
Assess habitat “condition” at a landscape scale Estuarine: loss or gain of estuarine salt marsh
vegetation Terrestrial: loss or gain of various land cover and
land use types
Population Condition
Population Time Series
1978 – 2000 By age structure: adult, jack, sub-adult Chinook Coho Lambda
Mean yearly growth rate of a population If > 1, reproducing faster than dying If < 1, dying faster than reproducing
More on Lambda
Dennis-Holmes method based on Holmes 2001 and Dennis et al. 1991
“Markedly robust to severe sampling error” “Allows estimates of rates and risks of
population decline with a well established tool (diffusion approximations) by using age- or stage-specific censuses that are corrupted with sampling error”
Estuarine Habitat
Definition & Sources
Salt Marsh: percent habitat remaining on grassland areas bordering estuaries to landward extent of salt marsh vegetation National Wetland Inventory - estuarine vegetation classifications; Collins and Sheikh Report 2003 for NWFSC; Topographic & Hydrographic Sheets (t-sheets, h-sheets)
Intertidal: percent estuarine habitat remaining from ~EHW to ~ELW for any given delta Simenstad et al. 1982 (synthesis of several older sources); Simenstad unpubl; Bortleson et al. 1980; Good 2000 (unpubl. Estuarine Ecosystem Health Summary Report); Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2003 (synthesis); Topographic & Hydrographic Sheets (t-sheets, h-sheets)
Why salt marsh & not intertidal? Intertidal describes area
of MLLW to MHHW, and accuracy of assessment was poor;
In many places true loss of vegetation is masked;
Don’t need all those damn h-sheets!
Comparison of Marsh & Intertidal Methods
Average % Loss Marsh = 70.8 ± 31.8 (n = 14) Average % Loss Intertidal = 50.5 ± 33.3 (n = 14) Relationship with methods?
r2 = 0.58
Everett Harbor
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)
Everett Harbor
Current Conditions
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)- National Wetland Inventory shapefiles- System: Estuarine- Subsystem: Intertidal- Class: Emergent, Scrub-shrub, Forested
Everett Harbor
Current Conditions
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)- New shapefile delineating NWI classes
Everett Harbor
Historical Conditions
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)- T-sheet georeferenced to DOQs
Everett Harbor
Historical Conditions
- T-sheet- Best available historical information- In this case, figure from Collins Report 2003 for NWFSC
Everett Harbor
Historical Conditions
- T-sheet- Best available historical information- New shapefile delineating historical conditions
Everett Harbor
Determining Percent Habitat Change
Percent Change = current area – historical area / historical area * 100 %
= 58.6 ac – 385.2 ac/385.2 ac* 100 %
~ 85 %
Terrestrial Habitat
Definition
Percent change in given habitat category over the catchment draining into a given estuary *
Based on Northwest Habitat Institute Wildlife-Habitat Types
* By 6-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC6) that stream flows through
Washington Northwest Habitat Institute Wildlife Types
Northwest Habitat Institute (NWHI)Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed EnvironsAlpine Grasslands & ShrublandsBays & EstuariesCeanothus-Manzanita ShrublandsCoastal Dunes and BeachesCoastal Headlands and IsletsEastside (Interior) GrasslandsEastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer ForestEastside (Interior) Riparian WetlandsHerbaceous WetlandsLakes, Rivers, Ponds, and ReservoirsLodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands
Marine NearshoreMontane Coniferous WetlandsMontane Mixed Conifer ForestPonderosa Pine & Eastside White Oak Forest & WoodlandsSouthwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood ForestSubalpine ParklandUrban and Mixed EnvironsShrub-SteppeWestside GrasslandsWestside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood ForestWestside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & WoodlandsWestside Riparian Wetlands
Historic and Current – Snohomish
HUC6 for Chinook PopulationsMontane Mixed Conifer ForestAgriculture, Pasture, & Mixed EnvironsLakes, Rivers, Ponds, & ReservoirsWestside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood ForestUrban & Mixed EnvironsAlpine Grasslands & ShrublandsWestside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & WoodlandsHerbaceous WetlandsBays & EstuariesWestside Riparian-WetlandsSubalpine Parkland
““Pre-Settlement”Pre-Settlement” ““Current”Current”
Historic and Current – Everett Harbor
Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, Pilchuck, & Wallace Rivers
Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed EnvironsAgriculture, Pasture, & Mixed Environs 65.9%
Urban & Mixed EnvironsUrban & Mixed Environs 33.0%33.0%
Montane Mixed Conifer ForestMontane Mixed Conifer Forest 29.5%
Subalpine ParklandSubalpine Parkland 2.4%
Montane Coniferous WetlandsMontane Coniferous Wetlands 1.0%
Bays & EstuariesBays & Estuaries 0.3%
Westside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & WoodlandsWestside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & Woodlands 0.0%
Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, & ReservoirsLakes, Rivers, Ponds, & Reservoirs -2.2%
Alpine Grasslands & ShrublandsAlpine Grasslands & Shrublands -5.4%
Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood ForestWestside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest -22.1%
Herbaceous WetlandsHerbaceous Wetlands -49.8%
Westside Riparian-WetlandsWestside Riparian-Wetlands -53.4%
Results:Terrestrial Habitat
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Wests ideLowlandsConifer-
HardwoodFores t
Wests ideOak & Dry
Douglas-firFores t &
Woodlands
MontaneMixed
ConiferFores t
LodgepolePine Fores t
&Woodlands
SubalpineParklands
AlpineGrass lands
&Shrublands
Wests ideGrass lands
Agriculture,Pasture, &
MixedEnvirons
Urban &Mixed
Environs
Lakes,Rivers ,
Ponds, &Reservoirs
HerbaceousWetlands
Wests ideRiparian-Wetlands
MontaneConiferousWetlands
NWHI Wildlife Category
Me
an
Ch
an
ge
Change in Wildlife-Habitat Types
All Chinook Populations in Washington
Chinook & Coho Lambda vs. Change in Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed Environs
R2 = 0.001
R2 = 0.0077
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed Environs Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Change in Herbaceous Wetlands
R2 = 0.0129
R2 = 0.0371
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10%
Herbaceous Wetlands Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Change in Urban & Mixed Environs
R2 = 0.007
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Urban & Mixed Environs Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1
Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1
Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda< 1)
Chinook & Coho Lambda vs. Change in Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest
R2 = 0.0666
R2 = 9E-05
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Change in Westside Riparian Wetlands
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
Westside Riparian Wetland Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1
Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1
Results: Estuarine Habitat
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Estuarine Habitat Loss
R2 = 0.0472
R2 = 0.0887
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estuarine Habitat Loss
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
Estuarine Habitat Loss and Lambda
R2 = 0.0438
0
1
2
3
4
5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estuarine Habitat Loss (%)
Lam
bd
a
Conclusions
Amount of remaining estuarine habitat seems important
Terrestrial habitat does not appear to be as important
Next Steps
Finish estuarine habitat loss assessment Finish assessing terrestrial habitat “condition”
at local scale Assess terrestrial habitat “condition” using
static categories Run appropriate statistical tests for
significance