Age of maturation is influenced by both genetic (G) and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Age of maturation is influenced by both genetic (G) and environmental (E) factors (G x E)

Model for Annual Critical Periods when Growth Affects Onset of Maturation in Yearling Chinook Salmon Metabolic Onset of meiosis Onset of meiosis Assessment Age 3 maturation Age 2 maturation photoperiod Critical period Critical period Critical period Age 3 Age 4 Age 2 maturation maturation maturation S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M Spawning Spawning Age 2 Age 3 eyed-eggs alevin fry smolt mini nijack jack ck Silverstein et al. 1998, CJFAS Shearer and Swanson 2000, Aquaculture Campbell et al. 2003, Biol. Repro. Larsen et al. 2004 TAFS Shearer et al. 2006 Aquaculture . Adapted from P. Swanson Swanson et al. unpublished.

Examples of the effect of hatchery culture (E) on age of maturation • Winter water temperature and age at maturity in yearling summer Chinook • An “un-common garden” study with Hood River spring Chinook • The effect of altering juvenile growth and dietary fat on age at maturation in yearling Umatilla Fall Chinook

Example 1 Upper Columbia River Yearling Summer Chinook salmon

Carlton Pond Dryden Pond Chelan Falls Harsted et al. in prep

Age at return to Bonneville Dam of yearling summer Chinook salmon is strongly influenced by growth in the hatchery (bigger = earlier) Harsted et al. in prep

Example 2 Yearling Umatilla River URB Fall Chinook salmon

McNary Dam River Umat atilla H Hat atch chery Acclimation River McKay Dam Meacham Creek Birch Creek D 9 Bonneville n  Upriver Bright stock harvest Program Hatchery b  Current Yearling Production = 900,000 smolts d  Initial Rearing at Bonneville Hatchery, followed by 1 Oregon month acclimation period

Umatilla R. Fall Chinook Returns

Umatilla R. Fall Chinook Adults: Minijack Jack

Design: 2 X 2 Factorial, 4 replicate years DIET TYPE* High Fat : Low Fat : 18% Bio-Clark 12% Rangen High High-High Ration : FEEDING RATE Low-High (STANDARD) 7 x week Low Ration : High-Low Low-Low 4 x week *All fish were put on Standard Feeding (High-High) at the beginning of December

100 mm 50 mm 150 mm High Fat Standard High Ration High Fat Low Ration November 2011 Low Fat Low Ration Low Fat High Ration After a year of differential rearing at Bonneville Hatchery

Minijack Rates (among males) High Fat, Low Fat, High Fat, Low Fat, High Ration High Ration Low Ration Low Ration 4 replicate years combined

Brood Year 2010 Age At Return MINIJACK JACK AGE 4 AGE 5 120 Returns / 10,000 Smolts 100 80 60 40 20 0 High Fat, Low Fat, High Fat, Low Fat, High Ration High Ration Low Ration Low Ration Date provided by Lance Clarke, ODFW

Total Adults by Experimental Group (3,857 CWT Recoveries) BY 2011 (only Age 4) BY 2010 120 BY Adults / 10,000 Smolts 2011 100 BY BY BY BY 2010 2010 2011 2010 BY BY 80 2011 2011 60 40 Date provided by Lance 20 Clarke, ODFW 0 High Fat, Low Fat, High Fat, Low Fat, High Ration High Ration Low Ration Low Ration

2002 -2009 Yearling Fall Chinook salmon Releases throughout the Columbia/Snake  10,996,006 fish released = Avg. 1,374,501/year  258,595 PIT-tags Implanted  6,478 PIT-tags detected in Bonneville Dam adult ladder 2.5% SAR Passive integrated transponder tag = PIT tag

The Sub-yearling vs. Yearling rearing strategy PIT-tag returns to Bonneville Sub-yearling Yearling 1% SAR 2.5% SAR 0.5% SAR

The larger the yearling fish at tagging (~ 12 mos.), the earlier the age at maturity *

Example 3 Hood River, OR spring Chinook salmon

One Stock-three very different hatchery facilities an “Uncommon garden” (same G different E) Carson Parkdale Pelton

Growth rate and size at release varied among Hood River rearing groups October April a a a b a b Spangenberg et al. 2014

Minijack rates before release varied 3-fold among rearing groups Spangenberg et al. 2014

Adult age structure varied significantly among rearing groups Age 5 Age 4 Age 3 (jacks) HR Pelt (N=240) HR Park (N=49) HR Car (N=50) Data provided by Ryan Gerstenberger (CTWSR)

SAR’s for HR Pelton was 2-5 fold higher than HR Parkdale and HR Carson HR Pelton HR Parkdale HR Carson HR Pelton SAR’s HR Parkdale HR Carson BY 2008 BY 2009 BY 2010

Even when jacks are removed from the analysis, HR Pelton has 2-6 fold higher SAR’s than Parkdale and Pelton HR Pelton HR Parkdale HR Carson SAR’s BY 2008 BY 2009 BY 2010

Conclusions Spawning is certainly not random and mating that more closely • approximates natural proportions seems reasonable • Using only large fish might reduce some genetic diversity that may be important for a diverse life-history portfolio. • Don’t underestimate the environmental (E) effect in the GXE equation affecting adult size and age-phenotypic plasticity Big smolts that gain size in late fall-winter will likely mature earlier- • especially for males. Each program must fine tune the calculus between sufficient size • for survival and undesirable shifts in age or return and SAR’s • It’s not the size at release that is most important, its how the fish got there. The “wild fish template” may provide the best blue print