CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Fish Ecology and Management StudiesHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesMarine and fisheries research

Large river habitat complexity and productivity of Puget Sound Chinook salmon

Open access
Hall, Jason E., Greene, Correigh M., Stefankiv, Oleksandr, Anderson, Joseph H., Timpane-Padgham, Britta, Beechie, Timothy J., Pess, George R.·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0205127PMC PMC6211665
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While numerous studies have shown that floodplain habitat complexity can be important to fish ecology, few quantify how watershed-scale complexity influences productivity. This scale mismatch complicates population conservation and recovery strategies that evaluate recovery at regional or multi-basin scales. We used outputs from a habitat status and trends monitoring program for ten of Puget Sound's large river systems to examine whether juvenile Chinook salmon productivity relates to watershed-scale habitat complexity. We derived habitat complexity metrics that quantified wood jam densities, side and braid to main channel ratios, and node densities from a remote sensing census of Puget Sound's large river systems. Principal component analysis revealed that 91% of variance in these metrics could be explained by two principal components. These metrics revealed gradients in habitat complexity across Puget Sound which were sensitive to changes in complexity as a result of restoration actions in one watershed. Mixed effects models revealed that the second principle component term (PC2) describing habitat complexity was positively related to log transformed subyearling Chinook per spawner productivity rates from 6-18 cohorts per watershed. Total subyearling productivity (subyearlings per spawner) and fry productivity (subyearling fry per spawner) rates were best described by models that included a positive effect of habitat complexity (PC2) and negative relationships with log transformed peak flow recurrence interval, suggestive of reduced survival due to egg destruction during floods. Total subyearling productivity (subyearlings per spawner) and parr productivity (subyearling parr per spawner) rates were best described by models that included a positive effect of habitat complexity (PC2) and negative relationships with log transformed spawner density, suggestive of density dependent limits on juvenile rearing habitat. We also found that coefficient of variation for log transformed subyearling productivity and subyearling fry productivity rates declined with increasing habitat complexity, supporting the idea that habitat complexity buffers populations from annual variation in environmental conditions. Therefore, we conclude that our watershed-scale census-based approach provided habitat complexity metrics that explained some of the variability in productivity of subyearling juveniles among Chinook salmon populations. Furthermore, this approach may provide a useful means to track and evaluate aggregate effects of habitat changes on the productivity of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Chinook salmon populations over time.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0205127

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Habitat restoration in a Puget Sound watershed measurably increased habitat complexity, which in turn was positively associated with Chinook salmon productivity.

    “For instance, habitat restoration in a Puget Sound watershed measurably increased habitat complexity, which in turn was positively associated with Chinook salmon productivity (Hall et al. 2018)”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Hall et al. 2018

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: 46

  1. [1]Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, et al Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr. 2004; 31: 79– 92.
  2. [2]MacArthur RH, MacArthur JW. On Bird Species Diversity. Ecology. 1961; 42: 594– 598.
  3. [3]Beck MW. Size-Specific Shelter Limitation in Stone Crabs: A Test of The Demographic Bottleneck Hypothesis. Ecology. 1995; 76: 968– 980.
  4. [4]Höjesjö J, Johnsson J, Bohlin T. Habitat complexity reduces the growth of aggressive and dominant brown trout (Salmo trutta) relative to subordinates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2004; 56: 286– 289.
  5. [5]Beukers JS, Jones GP. Habitat complexity modifies the impact of piscivores on a coral reef fish population. Oecologia. 1998; 114: 50– 59. 10.1007/s004420050419 28307557 · DOI
  6. [6]Almany GR. Does increased habitat complexity reduce predation and competition in coral reef fish assemblages? Oikos. 2004; 106: 275– 284.
  7. [7]Schindler DE, Armstrong JB, Reed TE. The portfolio concept in ecology and evolution. Front Ecol Environ. 2015; 13: 257– 263.
  8. [8]Amoros C, Bornette G. Connectivity and biocomplexity in waterbodies of riverine floodplains. Freshw Biol. 2002; 47: 761– 776.
  9. [9]Whited D, Stanford JA, Kimball JS. Application of airborne multispectral digital imagery to quantify riverine habitats at different base flows. River Res Appl. 2002; 18: 583– 594.
  10. [10]Fullerton AH, Burnett KM, Steel EA, Flitcroft RL, Pess GR, Feist BE, et al Hydrological connectivity for riverine fish: measurement challenges and research opportunities. Freshw Biol. 2010; 55: 2215– 2237.
  11. [11]Quinn TP, Peterson NP. The influence of habitat complexity and fish size on over-winter survival and growth of individually marked juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Big Beef Creek, Washington. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1996; 53: 1555– 1564.
  12. [14]Roni P, Pess G, Beechie T, Morley S. Estimating changes in coho salmon and steelhead abundance from watershed restoration: how much restoration is needed to measurably increase smolt production? N Am J Fish Manag. 2010; 30: 1469– 1484.
  13. [15]Anlauf-Dunn KJ, Ward EJ, Strickland M, Jones K. Habitat connectivity, complexity, and quality: predicting adult coho salmon occupancy and abundance. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2014; 71: 1864– 1876.
  14. [16]Sommer TR, Nobriga ML, Harrell WC, Batham W, Kimmerer WJ. Floodplain rearing of juvenile chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2001; 58: 325– 333.
  15. [17]Rosenfeld JS, Raeburn E, Carrier PC, Johnson R. Effects of side channel structure on productivity of floodplain habitats for juvenile coho salmon. N Am J Fish Manag. 2008; 28: 1108– 1119.
  16. [18]Pess GR, Montgomery DR, Steel EA, Bilby RE, Feist BE, Greenberg HM. Landscape characteristics, land use, and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) abundance, Snohomish River, Wash., USA. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2002; 59: 613– 623.
  17. [19]Flitcroft RL, Burnett KM, Reeves GH, Ganio LM. Do network relationships matter? Comparing network and instream habitat variables to explain densities of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in mid‐coastal Oregon, USA. Aquat Conserv. 2012; 22: 288– 302.
  18. [20]Steel EA, Jensen DW, Burnett KM, Christiansen K, Firman JC, Feist BE, et al Landscape characteristics and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) distributions: explaining abundance versus occupancy. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2012; 69: 457– 468.
  19. [21]Ward EJ, Anderson JH, Beechie TJ, Pess GR, Ford MJ. Increasing hydrologic variability threatens depleted anadromous fish populations. Glob Chang Biol. 2015; 21: 2500– 2509. 10.1111/gcb.12847 25644185 · DOI
  20. [22]Zimmerman MS, Kinsel C, Beamer E, Connor EJ, Pflug DE. Abundance, Survival, and Life History Strategies of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Skagit River, Washington. Trans Am Fish Soc. 2015; 144: 627– 641.
  21. [23]Collins BD, Montgomery DR. Forest development, wood jams, and restoration of floodplain rivers in the Puget Lowland, Washington. Restor Ecol. 2002; 10: 237– 247.
  22. [24]Beechie T, Imaki H, Greene J, Wade A, Wu H, Pess G, et al Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. River Res Appl. 2013; 29: 939– 960.
  23. [25]Ogston L, Gidora S, Foy M, Rosenfeld J. Watershed-scale effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration for juvenile coho salmon in the Chilliwack River, British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2014; 72: 479– 490.
  24. [26]Martens KD, Connolly PJ. Juvenile Anadromous Salmonid Production in Upper Columbia River Side Channels with Different Levels of Hydrological Connection. Trans Am Fish Soc. 2014; 143: 757– 767.
  25. [27]Pess GR, Morley SA, Hall JL, Timm RK. Monitoring floodplain restoration In: Roni P editor. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 2005 pp. 127– 166.
  26. [29]Whited DC, Kimball JS, Lucotch JA, Maumenee NK, Wu H, Chilcote SD, et al A Riverscape Analysis Tool Developed to Assist Wild Salmon Conservation Across the North Pacific Rim. Fisheries. 2012; 37: 305– 314.
  27. [30]Beechie TJ, Liermann M, Pollock MM, Baker S, Davies J. Channel pattern and river-floodplain dynamics in forested mountain river systems. Geomorphology. 2006; 78: 124– 141.
  28. [31]Beechie T, Beamer E, Wasserman L. Estimating Coho Salmon Rearing Habitat and Smolt Production Losses in a Large River Basin, and Implications for Habitat Restoration. N Am J Fish Mana. 1994; 14: 797– 811.
  29. [32]Abbe TB, Montgomery DR. Large woody debris jams, channel hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers. River Res Appl. 1996; 12: 201– 221.
  30. [33]Beechie TJ, Pess GR, Imaki H, Martin A, Alvarez J, Goodman DH. Comparison of potential increases in juvenile salmonid rearing habitat capacity among alternative restoration scenarios, Trinity River, California. Restor Ecol. 2015; 23: 75– 84.
  31. [35]Benda L, Poff NL, Miller D, Dunne T, Reeves G, Pess G, et al The network dynamics hypothesis: How channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience. 2004; 54: 413– 427.
  32. [38]Simenstad CA, Fresh KL, Salo EO. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function In: Kennedy VS editor. Estuarine comparisons. Waltham: Academic Press; 1982 pp. 343– 364.
  33. [40]Seber GAF. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. New Jersey: The Blackburn Press; 1982.
  34. [41]Carlson SR, Coggins LG Jr, Swanton CO. A simple stratified design for mark-recapture estimation of salmon smolt abundance. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin. 1998; 5(2): 88– 102.
  35. [43]Healey M. The ecology of juvenile salmon in Georgia Strait, British Columbia. Corvallis; Oregon State University Press, 1980.
  36. [44]Ellings CS, Davis MJ, Grossman EE, Woo I, Hodgson S, Turner KL, et al Changes in habitat availability for outmigrating juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) following estuary restoration. Restor Ecol. 2016; 24: 415– 427.
  37. [49]O’brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & quantity. 2007; 41(5): 673– 90.
  38. [50]Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. 2014 Jun 23 [cited 2015 Jan]. Available from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.5823.pdf. · arXiv
  39. [53]Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New Yord; Springer Science & Business Media, 2003
  40. [57]Bartz KK, Ford MJ, Beechie TJ, Fresh KL, Pess GR, Kennedy RE, et al Trends in developed land cover adjacent to habitat for threatened salmon in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0124415 10.1371/journal.pone.0124415 25923327 PMC4414273 · DOI
  41. [60]Montgomery DR, Buffington JM, Peterson NP, Schuett-Hames D, Quinn TP. Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1996; 53: 1061– 1070.
  42. [61]Roni P, Johnson C, De Boer T, Pess G, Dittman A, Sear D. Interannual variability in the effects of physical habitat and parentage on Chinook salmon egg-to-fry survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2015; 73: 1047– 1059.
  43. [62]Mantua N, Tohver I, Hamlet A. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Clim Change. 2010; 102: 187– 223.
  44. [63]Hamman JJ, Hamlet AF, Lee S-Y, Fuller R, Grossman EE. Combined Effects of Projected Sea Level Rise, Storm Surge, and Peak River Flows on Water Levels in the Skagit Floodplain. Northwest Sci. 2016; 90: 57– 78.
  45. [64]Luck M, Maumenee N, Whited D, Lucotch J, Chilcote S, Lorang M, et al Remote sensing analysis of physical complexity of North Pacific Rim rivers to assist wild salmon conservation. Earth Surf Process Landf. 2010; 35: 1330– 1343.
  46. [65]Myers JM, Kope RG, Bryant GJ, Teel D, Lierheimer LJ, Wainwright TC, et al. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Seattle (WA); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Fisheries Science Center; 1998. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hall, J. E., Greene, C. M., Stefankiv, O., Anderson, J. H., Timpane-Padgham, B., Beechie, T. J., & Pess, G. R.
Affiliations
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (US)
Corresponding author
Hall, Jason E.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-11-01
Volume
13
Issue
11
Pages
e0205127
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0205127
PMC
PMC6211665
OpenAlex
W2899092184
Cited by
33
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
Keywords
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, habitat complexity, floodplain habitats, channel complexity, density dependence, endangered species recovery, Puget Sound, habitat restoration
MeSH terms
Animals, Reproduction, Salmon, Ecosystem, Rivers, Floods, Endangered Species

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