Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Some basic tools for using population ecology as a management tool – A Primer • GROWTH • RECRUITMENT • MORTALITY • COMPENSATION Lake Pend Oreille An On-the-Ground Application of Population Ecology LPO Fishery - Desired Outcomes • Ross Hall photos Adult Kokanee Abundance in Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee abundance 8 Drawdowns to 2051 ft became routine beginning in 1966 7 6 5 Shrimp established in 1975 4 3 2 1 Albeni Falls Dam Built 96 92 88 84 2000 Year 80 76 72 68 64 60 56 52 0 KOKANEE SURVIVAL • Declined in 2007; low for all ages • Survival less than 50% is a concern • Predation limiting survival to spawning Indices of LT Abundance, Lake Pend Oreille 19 53 19 85 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Harvest Est. Pop. Estimate LPO Kokanee • Primarily lake spawners, some tributary spawners, hatchery supplementation • Longevity – 4 to 5 years (die after spawning) • Relatively low fecundity, but high plasticity (compensatory ability) • Planktivores • Key prey item for BLT, RBT, LT as well as avian and terrestrial predators • Principle threats: – Predation – Habitat impacts LPO Lake trout • • • • • Lake spawners (fall) Longevity – 30+ years, mature at 7 years Highly piscivorous, but can survive on Mysis Slow growth Relatively low fecundity • Principle threat: – Directed harvest Lake Trout Fishery Management • Lake trout are late maturing and long lived, so are vulnerable to over-fishing. • The largest lake trout populations were overfished in the Great Lakes before sea lamprey became a problem. • Most lake trout populations in Ontario inland lakes are considered over-fished. • Lake Pend Oreille is a field test of overfishing of lake trout! Lake Trout Size Structure 15% Gillnets Trapnets Angling Percent 10% 5% 0% 20 IDFG 2007 40 60 Length (cm) 80 100 Lake Trout Growth 100 Superior, MI Michigan, WI Pend Oreille, ID Length (cm) 80 60 40 20 0 0 McKee et al. 2004 Burnham-Curtis and Bronte 1996 5 10 15 Age (years) 20 25 Lake Trout Maturity 100% Maturity (%) 80% 60% Males (6.5 years) Females (7.3 years) 40% 20% 0% 450 500 550 600 650 700 Length Class (mm) IDFG 2007 750 800 Lake Trout Future Prognosis? 100,000 Observed Predicted 90,000 This? 80,000 Abundance 70,000 60,000 Which is better for Lake Pend Oreille? 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Or, this? 10,000 0 1999 IDFG 2007 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year 2009 2011 2013 2015 400 350 Biomass Kokanee Biomass, Production and Yield Production Yield This 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140 2160 2180 2200 Year 400 350 Biomass Production Yield 300 Or This Kokanee (mt) Kokanee (mt) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140 2160 2180 2200 Year Lake Trout Fishery Management 3,500 40,000 3,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 Angling 2,000 Trap Nets 20,000 Gill Nets 1,500 Natural 15,000 Abundance 1,000 10,000 500 5,000 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun IDFG 2007 Jul Month Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Abundance Number Killed 2,500 Lake Trout Mortality • Natural (LPO2006 = 15.1% estimate): – Average = 18% (much higher if lampreys). – Range = 10–36% (much higher if lampreys). • Fishing (LPO2006 > 44.5%; 0.58kg/ha): – Highest = 45% (Superior prior to lamprey). – Populations decline if harvest > 0.50 kg/ha. • Total (LPO2006 > 59.6%): – Populations are sustainable if A < 50%. – Most populations decline if A > 50%! Healey 1978 Can it work? Kilograms (millions) • Lake trout exploitation (angling & commercial nets) ~50% – Exploitation rates of ~ 40% collapsed Great Lakes fisheries 5 • Rainbow trout exploitation still 4 3 low 2 • Predation still Lake Michigan lake trout too high 1 0 1879 1889 1899 1909 1919 Year 1929 1939 1949 1959 Lake Trout Distribution Great Bear Lake (31,153 km2) (452 m) Lake Pend Oreille (383 km2) (351 m) Great Slave Lake (27,195 km2) (625 m) Lake Superior (82,414 km2) (405 m) Lake Michigan (58,016 km2) (285 m) Lake Huron (59,596 km2) (220 m) Lake Ontario (19,529 km2) (237 m) Lake Erie (25,745 km2) (64 m) Probability of Kokanee Collapse With Different Mortality Rates for RBT and LT Likelihood of Kokanee Collapse 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Change in Mortality Bottom Line for Success on LPO: • We need to reduce predation on kokanee by 50 tons annually to begin kokanee recovery • RBT and LT are the two primary predators • Current needs – harvest LT and RBT to reduce predation and slow growth of LT population • LT will need to be managed at a suppressed level for the long term • The public will need to support programs Some Take-Away Points For F&W Population Management: • If R>M populations grow, and vice versa • More fecund animal populations apt to grow more rapidly in good, unoccupied habitat • Many species “compensate” at low densities by increasing growth rates, lowering age of reproduction & increasing fecundity • Late maturing, lower fecundity populations more susceptible to mortality agents • “Predator pits” more likely to occur when predator species has abundant supply of alternative prey • Habitat conditions affect R & M, but so also can external forces (Exploitation, Predation, Competition, Disease, etc) Information and slides for this presentation were contributed by Melo Maiolie, Mike Hansen and Ned Horner.