New study on steelhead genes - "...up to 40% come from wild trout..."

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Luke77, Feb 1, 2011.

  1. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,492
    Media:
    13
    Likes Received:
    656
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    What would be a bitch is if someone actually asked the question whether our hatcheries actually resulted in more total fish, or if they actually had to answer the questions as to how much they cost and whether they are worth it.

    Yuppie blogs?

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  2. Richard Torres

    Richard Torres Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,384
    Media:
    11
    Likes Received:
    86
    Excellent article and follow-ups ladies and gents..

    Now if we could just get our policymakers to make positive change with these issues instead of the "we need more research data" repeat. :beathead:
     
  3. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Media:
    607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    I just glimpse through the original paper. below is my quick thoughts.


    1) Hatchery fish is BAD.
    This study was carried out in the Hood River, Oregon. Same research group found the hatchery fish decrease the wild run's fitness (life reproductive success) by more than 50% (Science paper, 2007?). Same river, same population. so what is the message? Gene exchange with hatchery fish is low (it depends on the hatchery program in the future), BUT gene exchange with hatchery fish still will cause the damage of 50% fitness loss on those hatchery offspring and also other unseen competition issues with the wild offspring.

    2) 40% gene exchange (gene flow) with wild rainbow trout is the natural phenomenon of evolutionary consequence and processing. This is nothing new to biologists as Curt mentioned it earlier. The neat thing about this study is that they are the first time to quantify how many fish are doing it. Because of the location in the Hood river,they can capture every returning fish (below the dam) and do the grandparents pedigree analysis, that mean they can pin point their parents ID, grandparents ID by using the genetic markers (every individual has different genetic profile - just like fingerprints), and also this technique allow them to assign the unknown resources to the rainbow population (which they don't need to capture those fish).

    3) 40% gene exchange with another residential trout could provide another buffer mechanism for steelhead, compare to other salmonoids (king salmon), those other species don't have this kind of luxury "buffering mechanism". This is the authors want to indicate, if everything being equal, Chinook and Coho will have more trouble than Steelhead, because they don't have residential population like those rainbows. So if some thing bad happen in their genetic property, steelhead "should" have better resistance because of those wild rainbows genes. What is a message? We got to take care of those rainbows too, they are a whole package deal.

    4) For the genetic integrity point of view, I am not that worry about angling pressure on the residential trout. Instead, I will be more concern about how the hatchery program practice, and if there are any stocking rainbow/ cutthorat trout issues in this river.

    Mark
     
  4. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    955
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Richard -
    ]I agree that it would great to see more management changes/regulations responding to the importance of the resident trout.

    However it may well be the largest obstacle to those changes continue to the apathy of the users - us. Over the last several decades there have several attempts to put in place regulations to accomplish more holistic management and in every case those attempts have been met with either yawns or opposition from the anglers of this State. While a few anglers are willing to lobby for spedific changes those efforts are typically limited to only those changes that directly effect their passionate interests - CnR of wild steelhead is about the only example.

    I see no evidence that apathy is going to change. The only changes we are likely to see will probably be piece meal and will come from the efforts of a very small handful of individuals or the State (without much encouragement from the users).

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  5. Leroy Laviolet

    Leroy Laviolet Aint no nookie like chinookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Media:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    do'n it 4 the chinookie
    I would agree they are not the answer, I also have my doubts they are half the problem many say they are- I love seeing the same guys who constantly jeer hatchery fish and hatchery programs, plaster the pictures with themselves and those same fish all over the web boards, Grip and grin,
    "look at me and what i did , I hate these fish" should be the captions ... go figure -:rofl:

    Do you have the source of this? different study correct, could you post it?
     
  6. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Media:
    607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    Dramatic drops in the reproduction rates of released hatchery fish were previously reported in a 2007 issue of the journal Science. The study noted the effects could be explained by a natural selection that favors characteristics useful in a sheltered, predator-free artificial environment over those necessary in the more hostile natural world. Of the large numbers of eggs laid by the released mothers during spawning, only a small fraction ever reached adulthood—the few that were best suited for survival in wild conditions.

    An article talk about those series of research: LINK

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fish-hatchery-silverhead-salmon-genetics

    Araki and his colleagues looked at the Hood River steelhead supplementation program in Oregon and found that trout fry raised by two hatchery-reared parents had just 37 percent of the reproductive success of those with two wild-born parents, even though both sets of offspring were born in wild waters.

    Science abstract: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5847/100.abstract
     
  7. Don Barton

    Don Barton Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    215
    Media:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    Does anyone have a link to the original study referred to in the first post?
     
  8. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    seattle,wa


    Leroy- The study's authors say in their discussion section that the contribution of genetic material by wild resident fish to steelhead populations may dilute the negative effects of anadromous hatchery fish spawning in the wild (i.e. if there are anadromous wild and hatchery fish, and you add more wild resident fish, the total % of wild goes up)...their results DO NOT say anything about hatchery fish being more fit than previously thought at reproducing in the wild. In fact, the same group used the same dataset to analyze the fitness of hatchery fish and their descendants spawning in the wild, and found that they have much lower fitness than wild fish...see this link

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5847/100.full

    I have no idea where or how you arrived at the conclusions you did above, but they are way off base. The article says nothing about dams, and their research program reinforces what we already know about the poor fitness of hatchery fish spawning in the wild. You might be well-served by actually reading such articles before deciding what their conclusions and implications are. Either that or risk sounding misinformed or biased.
     
  9. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Media:
    607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    This article is not free, you need to have access to get them either through research institute or subscription. sorry...
     
  10. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    361
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    " The contribution of genetic material by wild resident fish to wild steelhead populations MAY dilute the negative effects of anadromous hatchery fish spawing in the wild"

    "MAY" being the definative word in that sentence.
     
  11. Bruce Baker

    Bruce Baker Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    I have a pdf copy of the article. Send me a pm with your email address and I'll be happy to send you a copy of the article.
     
  12. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Media:
    607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    Just to be clear,

    the 1% of "residualized" hatchery fish is the fish stay in the stream (river dwelling fish from hatchery program). This 1% did not includ other hatchery fish that went to the ocean ( hatchery steelhead).

    If you included all hatchery genes that flow into anadromous Hood River steelhead, that would be 19% (18% hatchery anadromous + 1% hachery resident).
     
  13. Leroy Laviolet

    Leroy Laviolet Aint no nookie like chinookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Media:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    do'n it 4 the chinookie
    Nothing above supports this:

    "This study was carried out in the Hood River, Oregon. Same research group found the hatchery fish decrease the wild run's fitness (life reproductive success) by more than 50%"

    are you sure this is accurate Yuhina? Did I miss something ?
     
  14. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Media:
    607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    quote:

    Tom B:

    Leroy- The study's authors say in their discussion section that the contribution of genetic material by wild resident fish to steelhead populations may dilute the negative effects of anadromous hatchery fish spawning in the wild (i.e. if there are anadromous wild and hatchery fish, and you add more wild resident fish, the total % of wild goes up)...their results DO NOT say anything about hatchery fish being more fit than previously thought at reproducing in the wild. In fact, the same group used the same dataset to analyze the fitness of hatchery fish and their descendants spawning in the wild, and found that they have much lower fitness than wild fish...see this link

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5847/100.full


    I have no idea where or how you arrived at the conclusions you did above, but they are way off base. The article says nothing about dams, and their research program reinforces what we already know about the poor fitness of hatchery fish spawning in the wild. You might be well-served by actually reading such articles before deciding what their conclusions and implications are. Either that or risk sounding misinformed or biased.
     
  15. Leroy Laviolet

    Leroy Laviolet Aint no nookie like chinookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Media:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    do'n it 4 the chinookie
    Read the first line in YOUR post, that's where i got it , I checked all your links, none of which supports YOUR original statement.... Misinformed, Are you misinforming us?
    Biased you say? Might you be biased?? My question was not about Dams to you , re-read above if you need to re -focus on the topic.
    Maybe you should read a little before you cut copy and paste the gospel .... I asked you to back up your statement with a link to support the statement you made:
    "This study was carried out in the Hood River, Oregon. Same research group found the hatchery fish decrease the wild run's fitness (life reproductive success) by more than 50% " You bailed on the topic, accused ME OF BEING BIASED AND UN INFORMED . Looks like factual clarity is something you are not privy to on this one ... Others ??
    That's all we needed to know-
     
  16. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Media:
    607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    For those who interested ...

    a paragraph from the original paper - Abstract " ...additionally, we documented that resident hatchery males produced more offspring with wild anadromous females than with hatchery anadromous females. One explanation is the high fitness cost associated with matings between two hatchery fish..."
     
  17. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Media:
    607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    Leroy,

    Please reread what TomB said.

    Tom.
    Nice lay out!
     
  18. Leroy Laviolet

    Leroy Laviolet Aint no nookie like chinookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Media:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    do'n it 4 the chinookie
    Nope, doesn't answer the simple question i asked, tom didn't even see that my info was a Paste from YOUR POST !!!
    Priceless!
    You read toms post again if you like , I'm gonna go look for facts, not agenda driven opinions-:thumb:
     
  19. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,492
    Media:
    13
    Likes Received:
    656
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    Leroy,

    Are you questioning the 50% figure?

    Go Sox,
    cds
     
  20. Rich Simms

    Rich Simms Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    234
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    54
    Location:
    Occupy Hearings!
    The WSC has been submittting regulation calling for increased protection of resident rainbow trout, provided is the our testimony to the Commission in '09. We urge others to do the same.


    Good afternoon, The Wild Steelhead Coalition would like to thank the commission and WDFW the opportunity to provide testimony. We would also like to commend the department for putting forth some good proposals that will benefit wild steelhead.

    However we would like you to pay particular attention to the WSC comment regarding proposal #23 and take this opportunity to bring focus to the importance to protect wild riverine rainbow trout, the resident form of wild steelhead and the importance to protect this vital element.

    The WSC has provided each Commission member a copy of John McMillian’s article published by the American Fisheries Society on resident rainbow trout and wild steelhead interactions.

    Research is showing that resident rainbow trout in our anadromous highways and by-ways plays a significant role in the diverse life histories of wild steelhead. Resident rainbow trout, through participation in the late winter/spring spawning interactions of wild steelhead improve the success of fertilization of female steelhead, especially during April, May and June. During this period, male wild steelhead become depleted and the steelhead population is in part reliant on rainbow trout to provide the male partner for spawning.

    Steelhead and resident rainbow trout can produce independently the opposite form and resident rainbow trout can be the leading or single source of anadromous smolt production when the abundance of steelhead is depleted or extinct.

    The WSC finds it scientifically enigmatic to understand why the WDFW can protect one form of steelhead trout, the anadromous steelhead, but continues to allow harvest and/or gear methods that induce high mortalities of the other form, the resident rainbow trout. Both forms, by definition and taxonomy are classified as the same species, steelhead trout, and are genetically the same in each watershed. Each form contributes to the abundance and productivity of the other form.

    Rainbow trout can be an important component in the recovery of wild steelhead stocks and the rebuilding of declining stocks. Improved regulations are needed to protect resident rainbow trout

    We encourage the WDFW to pursue stream management strategies that protect all juvenile wild salmonids and rainbow trout while continuing to allow selective fisheries for adult salmon and hatchery steelhead. Aside from being confusing proposal #23 needs to be simplified and provide stronger regulations to further protect resident rainbow trout.

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Wild Steelhead Coalition
     

Share This Page