R. Al-Chokhachy | Search USGS

USGS2009

Detecting declines in the abundance of a bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) population: Understanding the accuracy, precision, and costs of our efforts

Using empirical field data for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), we evaluated the trade-off between power and sampling effort-cost using Monte Carlo simulations of commonly collected mark-recapture-resight and count data, and we estimated the power to detect changes in abundance across different time intervals. We also evaluated the effects of monitoring different components of a population and stratification methods on the precision of each method. Our results illustrate substantial variability in the relative precision, cost, and information gained from each approach. While grouping estimates by age or stage class substantially increased the precision of estimates, spatial stratification of sampling units resulted in limited increases in precision. Although mark-resight methods allowed for estimates of abundance versus indices of abundance, our results suggest snorkel surveys may be a more affordable monitoring approach across large spatial scales. Detecting a 25% decline in abundance after 5 years was not possible, regardless of technique (power = 0.80), without high sampling effort (48% of study site). Detecting a 25% decline was possible after 15 years, but still required high sampling efforts. Our results suggest detecting moderate changes in abundance of freshwater salmonids requires considerable resource and temporal commitments and highlight the difficulties of using abundance measures for monitoring bull trout populations.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences↗

USGS2007

Summer microhabitat use of fluvial bull trout in Eastern Oregon streams

The management and recovery of populations of bull trout Salvelinus confluentus requires a comprehensive understanding of habitat use across different systems, life stages, and life history forms. To address these needs, we collected microhabitat use and availability data in three fluvial populations of bull trout in eastern Oregon. We evaluated diel differences in microhabitat use, the consistency of microhabitat use across systems and size-classes based on preference, and our ability to predict bull trout microhabitat use. Diel comparisons suggested bull trout continue to use deeper microhabitats with cover but shift into significantly slower habitats during nighttime periods; however, we observed no discrete differences in substrate use patterns across diel periods. Across life stages, we found that both juvenile and adult bull trout used slow-velocity microhabitats with cover, but the use of specific types varied. Both logistic regression and habitat preference analyses suggested that adult bull trout used deeper habitats than juveniles. Habitat preference analyses suggested that bull trout habitat use was consistent across all three systems, as chi-square tests rejected the null hypotheses that microhabitats were used in proportion to those available (P < 0.0001). Validation analyses indicated that the logistic regression models (juvenile and adult) were effective at predicting bull trout absence across all tests (specificity values = 100%); however, our ability to accurately predict bull trout absence was limited (sensitivity values = 0% across all tests). Our results highlight the limitations of the models used to predict microhabitat use for fish species like bull trout, which occur at naturally low densities. However, our results also demonstrate that bull trout microhabitat use patterns are generally consistent across systems, a pattern that parallels observations at both similar and larger scales and across life history forms. Thus, our results, in combination with previous bull trout habitat studies, provide managers with benchmarks for restoration in highly degraded systems.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management↗