Cited by 12Fish Ecology and Management StudiesMarine and fisheries researchFish Biology and Ecology Studies

Comparative Use of Shallow and Deepwater Habitats by Juvenile Pacific Salmon in the Columbia River Estuary Prior to Ocean Entry

Open access
Roegner, G. Curtis, Weitkamp, Laurie A., Teel, David J.·2016·Marine and Coastal Fisheries

Abstract

The degree to which fine-scale habitat use by salmonid species and stocks varies within habitat types such as estuaries is not fully resolved. We sampled shallow shoreline and deeper main-stem channel habitats in the Columbia River estuary over 3 years to compare salmon species composition, migration timing, density, size, and production type (hatchery or natural). Results indicated a high degree of spatial heterogeneity in habitat occupancy by the five salmonid species that are native to the basin. Salmonid communities at two channel habitat sites were much more similar to each other than to the community at a shoreline site. Salmonids sampled at the shoreline site were primarily subyearling Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and Chum Salmon O. keta and yearling Coho Salmon O. kisutch, with few other salmonids present. In contrast, channel habitat contained a higher diversity of salmon species, with samples representing all species of anadromous salmonids, including Sockeye Salmon O. nerka and steelhead O. mykiss. Salmonids in deeper channel habitat were generally larger than salmonids found along the shore, and the proportion of hatchery-origin salmon was also higher in deep channel habitats. On a per-area basis, we also found much higher densities of salmon along the shoreline than in channel habitats. For Chinook Salmon, habitat use also differed by genetic stock of origin: upper-river stocks primarily used deeper channels, while lower-river populations used both channel and shoreline areas. We concluded that sampling at both habitat types is required to fully encompass the migration patterns of all salmon evolutionarily significant units in the Columbia River basin. These spatial and temporal variations in salmon timing and density have ramifications for feeding, growth, and competitive interactions. This study provides information that is relevant for conservation efforts targeting specific fish populations and efforts to evaluate the potential impacts of in-water activities in the Columbia River estuary. Received May 12, 2016; accepted August 19, 2016

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19425120.2016.1227889

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SWHA is important to the survival of juvenile salmonids migrating seaward, because they use this habitat to rest, feed, and undergo smoltification.

    “SWHA is important to the survival of juvenile salmonids migrating seaward, because they use this habitat to rest, feed, and undergo smoltification (Johnson et al. 2015;Roegner et al. 2016;Sather et al. 2016).”

    From Shallow-Water Habitat in the Lower Columbia River Estuary: A Highly Altered System (2024) · cites this paper as Roegner et al. 2016

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes shallow estuarine habitat as nursery or refuge habitat for small juvenile salmonids, and the Conclusions (page unavailable) describe shallow wetlands and shorelines as sources of insect prey. These passages support refuge and food benefits, but the paper does not establish that salmonids use this habitat to rest or undergo smoltification, or directly demonstrate a survival benefit from those uses. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Yearling smolts from interior stocks of steelhead and Chinook Salmon rapidly move through the Columbia River estuary in deep waters of the main channel and are rarely encountered close to shore.

    “In the Columbia River basin, yearling smolts from interior stocks of steelhead and Chinook Salmon (those originating above Bonneville Dam, located at river kilometer [rkm] 234; rkm 0 = Columbia River mouth) rapidly move through the Columbia River estuary (CRE; defined as tidal waters below Bonneville Dam) in deep waters of the main channel and are rarely encountered close to shore”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Bayley, P. B., and R. A. Herendeen. 2000. The efficiency of a seine net. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:901-923.
  2. Bradford, M. J. 1995. Comparative review of Pacific salmon survival rates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1327-1338.
  3. Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-27.
  4. Charles-Dominique, E. 1989. Catch efficiencies of purse and beach seines in Ivory Coast lagoons. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin 87:911-921.
  5. Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in assemblage structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117-143.
  6. Cross, A. D., D. A. Beauchamp, K. W. Myers, and J. H. Moss. 2008. Early marine growth of Pink Salmon in Prince William Sound and the coastal Gulf of Alaska during years of low and high survival. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:927-939.
  7. ROEGNER ET AL. 19425120, 2016, 1, Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science [online serial] 6:62-80. · DOI
  8. Ford, M. J., editor. 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steel- head listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-113.
  9. Fresh, K. L. 1997. The role of competition and predation in the decline of Pacific salmon and steelhead. Pages 245-275 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman and Hall, New York.
  10. Hayes, D. B., C. P. Ferreri, and W. W. Taylor. 2013. Active fish capture methods. Pages 193-220 in A. V. Zale, D. L. Parrish, and T. M. Sutton, editors. Fisheries techniques, 3rd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
  11. Johnson, L., B. Anulacion, M. Arkoosh, O. P. Olson, C. Sloan, S. Y. Sol, J. Spromberg, D. J. Teel, G. Yanagida, and G. Ylitalo. 2013. Persistent organic pollutants in juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Columbia basin: implications for stock recovery. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142:21-40.
  12. Legendre, P., and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical ecology, second English edition. Developments in environmental modeling 20. Elsevier Sciences, Amsterdam.
  13. Miller, J. A., V. L. Butler, C. A. Simenstad, D. H. Backus, and A. J. R. Kent. 2011. Life history variation in upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): a comparison using modern and ~500-year- old archaeological otoliths. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:603-617.
  14. Paquet, P. J., T. A. Flagg, A. Appleby, J. Barr, H. L. Blankenship, D. E. Campton, M. R. Delarm, T. T. Evelyn, D. E. Fast, J. C. Gislason, P. Kline, D. J. Maynard, L. E. Mobrand, G. Nandor, P. R. Seidel, and S. Smith. 2011. Hatcheries, conservation, and sustainable fisheries-achieving mul- tiple goals: results of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group's Columbia River basin review. Fisheries 36:547-561.
  15. Rannala, B., and J. L. Mountain. 1997. Detecting immigration by using multilocus genotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:9197-9201.
  16. Ryan, B. A., S. G. Smith, J. M. Butzerin, and J. W. Ferguson. 2003. Relative vulnerability to avian predation of juvenile salmonids tagged with passive integrated transponders in the Columbia River estuary, 1998-2000. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:275-288.
  17. Sather, N. K., G. E. Johnson, D. J. Teel, A. J. Storch, J. R. Skalski, and V. I. Cullinan. 2016. Shallow tidal freshwater habitats of the Columbia River: spatial and temporal variability of the fish communities and density, size, and genetic stock composition of juvenile Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:734-753.
  18. Sebring, S. H., M. C. Carper, R. D. Ledgerwood, B. P. Sandford, G. M. Matthews, and A. F. Evans. 2013. Relative vulnerability of PIT-tagged subyearling fall Chinook Salmon to predation by Caspian terns and dou- ble-crested cormorants in the Columbia River estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142:1321-1334.
  19. Teel, D. J., D. M. Van Doornik, D. R. Kuligowski, and W. S. Grant. 2003. Genetic analysis of juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) off Oregon and Washington reveals few Columbia River wild fish. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin 101:640-652.
  20. Van Doornik, D. M., D. J. Teel, D. R. Kuligowski, C. A. Morgan, and E. Casillas. 2007. Genetic analyses provide insight into the early ocean stock distribution and survival of juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) off the coasts of Washington and Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:220-237.
  21. Weitkamp, L. A., P. J. Bentley, and M. N. Litz. 2012. Seasonal and interannual variation in juvenile salmonids and associated fish assemblage in open waters of the lower Columbia River estuary, USA. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin 110:426-450.
  22. Weitkamp, L. A., G. Goulette, J. Hawkes, M. O'Malley, and C. Lipsky. 2014. Juvenile salmon in estuaries: comparisons between North American Atlantic and Pacific salmon populations. Review in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24:713-736.
  23. Williams, R. N., editor. 2006. Return to the river. Elsevier Press, New York. 552
  24. ROEGNER ET AL. 19425120, 2016, 1, · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roegner, G. C., Weitkamp, L. A., & Teel, D. J.
Affiliations
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Roegner, G. Curtis
Venue
Marine and Coastal Fisheries
Published
2016-01-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
536-552
ISSN
1942-5120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2546568460
Cited by
12
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marine and Coastal Fisheries (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  • National Marine Fisheries Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
habitat use, Columbia River estuary, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, chum salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead, migration timing, evolutionarily significant units, salmon conservation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review