The Diversity of Movement Behavior in Individual Brook Trout

[afishinado]

Zoom Meeting tonight with Valley Forge TU.

Open to everyone.

Very interesting subject to many on PAFF


VFTU General Meeting
TONIGHT at 7:30 pm will be held online!
Zoom Meeting Link

Web address: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87677542018

Join by phone

Dial in the US: 1 + (929) 436-2866 or 1 + (669) 900-6833
(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location)

Webinar ID: 876 7754 2018

The Diversity of Movement
Behavior in Individual Brook Trout

Shannon is a postdoctoral scholar at the United States Geological Survey’s Leetown Science Center where she broadly works on topics related to the use of population genetics in the conservation of threatened and endangered species, including brook trout Prior to staring at USGS, she received a PhD in Ecology from Penn State, a Master of Science in Fisheries and Wildlife from Virginia Tech, and a Bachelor’s of Science in Biology from Randolph-Macon College. Her talk will highlight some of the research she did at Penn State, which showcases the diversity of movement behavior in individual fish, and why this variation is important when considering management of brook trout populations.

 

[turkey]

Very interesting Afish. Thank you for sharing the link. I attended my first virtual TU meeting on Monday. It was very enjoyable. Hopefully I can find time to log in later tonight. Cheers.

 

[Dave_W]

Thanks - sounds interesting.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Great stuff. Awesome to talk and learn about brook trout movement.
A few places in the state it is happening for sure.

Absolutely zero percent chance of the PFBC considering this when "managing" a fishery for brook trout though .

 

[lestrout]

Yo Tom - thanks for posting this.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Thanks for posting this, tonight was the first time I heard this portion of her study on the Loyalsock Watershed presented although I have seen summarized reports. I would like to track down the published work, but the take away remains the same. Brook trout (small numbers) are moving out of tributaries and into larger systems immediately post spawn. These fish had higher survival rates through the study period (May to November) and genetics study shows significant connection amongst many of the tributaries. Shannon highlighted the notion that Loyalsock Creek served as a highway for brook trout.

My takeaway continues to be the importance of maintaining connectivity throughout our river systems, and right many barriers are attributed to road stream crossings. Her study did not identify when fish were moving back into tributaries and while that answer is probably highly variable based on specific annual conditions, I think the answer would provide input on whether any fisheries regulations could further protect those fish.

 

[Dave_W]

Excellent presentation - thanks again for linking us to this.

 

[silverfox]

This presentation was excellent! I agree with lyco that a 12 month study would be extremely beneficial. I have all of the telemetry data from this survey and I've mapped the movement of all of the fish that were tagged. It's absolutely remarkable seeing it overlaid on a map. I've also poured over every word of the final published paper itself and there's a lot more there than what was covered. Too much to get into really.

As I've said before, the importance here is that these mainstem corridors are crucial to the population resiliency of an entire watershed. Those mainstem corridors also happen to be mostly stocked trout streams. That small percentage of "movers" are the most important fish in the entire watershed. They're also the ones at greatest risk of harvest in April because they're almost certainly still in stocked trout waters in the spring when the season opens.

I really liked that she touched on how streams are currently managed in PA. We manage by stream and by sections of stream. These studies prove over and over again that species conservation needs to be at the watershed or even statewide species level. How do you protect a fish that travels from one tributary to another via a large connected river if you manage by stream or even by stream section?

I also really liked the point about connectivity in that beyond physical barriers to movement, the individuals themselves are key in the connectivity and genetic diversity equation.

One other big takeaway from the presentation is the diversity in populations in regard to movement. Shannon mentioned Big Run and Monroe Run and how the genetic diversity didn't match that of the Loyalsock study. There are no barriers between Big Run and Monroe, yet the genetic makeup didn't indicate that there is a lot of gene flow between the two. I think that highlights how different watersheds behave and illuminates the dangers of managing by interpretation of results from one watershed or even one region to another.

My question is how does this new-found knowledge impact management? Does it at all? There are clearly some takeaways here that should influence decisions.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

"One other big takeaway from the presentation is the diversity in populations in regard to movement. Shannon mentioned Big Run and Monroe Run and how the genetic diversity didn't match that of the Loyalsock study. There are no barriers between Big Run and Monroe, yet the genetic makeup didn't indicate that there is a lot of gene flow between the two. I think that highlights how different watersheds behave and illuminates the dangers of managing by interpretation of results from one watershed or even one region to another."


This point is of the most importance, how do we as anglers encourage the PFBC take this data and relate it to other parts of the state? IMO what occurs on the Loyalsock is probably similar to other NCPA watersheds ie Pine Creek, Lycoming Creek, Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning, West Branch Susquehanna above Williamsport etc, that have brook trout streams directly tributary to a larger system.

I think her genetic work is key, and if perhaps that sets an example that could be replicated throughout the state at a relatively low cost to determine which streams are showing genetic connectivity and thus movement. Once movement corridors are identified, then becomes the challenge of determining whether fishing regulations can be used to further protect or enhance the "movers" in a watershed.

One key factor not discussed in her presentation is the presence of a substantial barrier in the dam at Worlds End SP. I would find it difficult for fish to even make it down over this dam without injury and any upriver migration would be entirely impossible.

 

[troutbert]

Stocking over native brook trout in the small and medium sized streams that are on the wild trout list is still very common.

As long as that is the case, I don't think they will change the management to protect the "runners" in the big streams that are not even on the wild trout list.

Ending stocking over brook trout in the streams that are on the wild trout list would increase the total populations of brook trout.

That would increase the number of runners, and also benefit the genetic integrity through sheer numbers.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
"One other big takeaway from the presentation is the diversity in populations in regard to movement. Shannon mentioned Big Run and Monroe Run and how the genetic diversity didn't match that of the Loyalsock study. There are no barriers between Big Run and Monroe, yet the genetic makeup didn't indicate that there is a lot of gene flow between the two. I think that highlights how different watersheds behave and illuminates the dangers of managing by interpretation of results from one watershed or even one region to another."


This point is of the most importance, how do we as anglers encourage the PFBC take this data and relate it to other parts of the state? IMO what occurs on the Loyalsock is probably similar to other NCPA watersheds ie Pine Creek, Lycoming Creek, Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning, West Branch Susquehanna above Williamsport etc, that have brook trout streams directly tributary to a larger system.

I think her genetic work is key, and if perhaps that sets an example that could be replicated throughout the state at a relatively low cost to determine which streams are showing genetic connectivity and thus movement. Once movement corridors are identified, then becomes the challenge of determining whether fishing regulations can be used to further protect or enhance the "movers" in a watershed.

One key factor not discussed in her presentation is the presence of a substantial barrier in the dam at Worlds End SP. I would find it difficult for fish to even make it down over this dam without injury and any upriver migration would be entirely impossible.

The genetic studies indicate they do move over the dam in at least one direction. I wonder what purpose the dam serves? Bridge stability? I'm no engineer but I would think the geology there already provides sufficient anchorage for the abutments? The dam certainly can't help matters.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
Stocking over native brook trout in the small and medium sized streams that are on the wild trout list is still very common.

As long as that is the case, I don't think they will change the management to protect the "runners" in the big streams that are not even on the wild trout list.

Ending stocking over brook trout in the streams that are on the wild trout list would increase the total populations of brook trout.

That would increase the number of runners, and also benefit the genetic integrity through sheer numbers.

I don't believe this is as complicated as it sounds.

The solution for the movers is exactly what MD just did. C&R in all stocked waters. Problem solved.

Stocking over those smaller populations in smaller streams needs to end. I agree. Eliminating stocked brook trout in those streams is a good first step and that's happening. That at least eliminates the potential for disease introduction, genetic introgression/dilution, and competition. The stocked brook trout are being replaced with stocked rainbows though and that does nothing to solve the incidental morality issue.

 

[Dave_W]

For those who didn't see the presentation a few other points that are also worth noting from White's presentation:

- Of the 205 STs in the study, most (roughly 4 out of 5) made little or no movement and many never left their original pool.

- Why some fish moved and what made them move is unknown. Movement was in the fall after spawning and was downstream, generally.

- Fish that moved may have a slightly higher survival rate due, perhaps White surmised, to being more robust or better able to find food.

- Stocked ST had no genetic affect on the wild population and no other documented affects - White surmised that stocked STs may have some other affects such as predation or competition.

- Angling impact was little to non-existent with possibly one fish in the study impacted by angling. I think White said she saw no fishermen and emphasized that angling pressure on the streams in the study was negligible (my word).

- White did not mention how large or old the fish in here study were, but did mention that her study revealed that STs max lifespan was about 4- 5 years and that fish of that max age were typically about 7" in length.

 

[silverfox]

Dave_W wrote:
For those who didn't see the presentation a few other points that are also worth noting from White's presentation:

- Of the 205 STs in the study, most (roughly 4 out of 5) made little or no movement and many never left their original pool.

True, but again, the point Shannon is trying to make is that even though few move, the ones that do are the most important.

- Stocked ST had no genetic affect on the wild population and no other documented affects - White surmised that stocked STs may have some other affects such as predation or competition.

"Even with reoccurring stocking at most sites, over 93% of wild?caught individuals probabilistically assigned to wild origin, and only 5.6% of wild?caught fish assigned to introgressed." The effect is not zero. It's low, but not nonexistent.

- Angling impact was little to non-existent with possibly one fish in the study impacted by angling. I think White said she saw no fishermen and emphasized that angling pressure on the streams in the study was negligible (my word).

It's also important to note that angling was not the focus of the survey and so not really fair to use in relation to the focus of the study.

- White did not mention how large or old the fish in here study were, but did mention that her study revealed that STs max lifespan was about 4- 5 years and that fish of that max age were typically about 7" in length.

I'm personally not sure what the point of that is. Size is highly dependant on a number of factors. Mostly availability of winter habitat in large streams. That's not from Shannon's study, but from MD DNR (Kazyak, D.C., and R.H. Hilderbrand. 2014).

 

[salmonoid]

silverfox wrote:

lycoflyfisher wrote:
"One other big takeaway from the presentation is the diversity in populations in regard to movement. Shannon mentioned Big Run and Monroe Run and how the genetic diversity didn't match that of the Loyalsock study. There are no barriers between Big Run and Monroe, yet the genetic makeup didn't indicate that there is a lot of gene flow between the two. I think that highlights how different watersheds behave and illuminates the dangers of managing by interpretation of results from one watershed or even one region to another."


This point is of the most importance, how do we as anglers encourage the PFBC take this data and relate it to other parts of the state? IMO what occurs on the Loyalsock is probably similar to other NCPA watersheds ie Pine Creek, Lycoming Creek, Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning, West Branch Susquehanna above Williamsport etc, that have brook trout streams directly tributary to a larger system.

I think her genetic work is key, and if perhaps that sets an example that could be replicated throughout the state at a relatively low cost to determine which streams are showing genetic connectivity and thus movement. Once movement corridors are identified, then becomes the challenge of determining whether fishing regulations can be used to further protect or enhance the "movers" in a watershed.

One key factor not discussed in her presentation is the presence of a substantial barrier in the dam at Worlds End SP. I would find it difficult for fish to even make it down over this dam without injury and any upriver migration would be entirely impossible.

The genetic studies indicate they do move over the dam in at least one direction. I wonder what purpose the dam serves? Bridge stability? I'm no engineer but I would think the geology there already provides sufficient anchorage for the abutments? The dam certainly can't help matters.

The Worlds End dam was built during the CCC days, presumably to enhance the swimming in the Loyalsock. That is still what it is used for today. When we were there a few years ago in the summer, there was a large wild brown hanging out under the road bridge (large - 18"+ and wild based on the proliferation of red on his body). When I was a young teen, I was hiking the Loyalsock Trail with a group. We came down to the swimming area and I observed a beautiful wild brookie hanging out in the swimming area. On a later trip in a later year, I observed another obviously wild brookie just below Haystacks. Both fish were in the 10-12" range. It as probably July in both cases.

 

[Swattie87]

Wish I caught this last night.

One thing I’d be interested to know, though it doesn’t sound like it was confirmed in the presentation, is whether there was any correlation between fish size AND whether they moved.

There is a prevailing thought among the big Brookie crowd around here that the large (12” or so and bigger) wild Brookies caught are often migratory fish. Not saying I buy it, or I don’t, but it’d be interesting to know whether the data from the study supports a correlation between a fish’s propensity to migrate and its size.

 

[silverfox]

Swattie87 wrote:
Wish I caught this last night.

One thing I’d be interested to know, though it doesn’t sound like it was confirmed in the presentation, is whether there was any correlation between fish size AND whether they moved.

There is a prevailing thought among the big Brookie crowd around here that the large (12” or so and bigger) wild Brookies caught are often migratory fish. Not saying I buy it, or I don’t, but it’d be interesting to know whether the data from the study supports a correlation between a fish’s propensity to migrate and its size.

I think it's ok that I post this. You have to have access to the scientific paper that Shannon's talk was based on to read this and I can't copy/paste from there.

Larger fish tended to move more, on average, compared to smaller fish. However, the effect of the fish size on log-total distance moved was relatively small and the correlation was very low. Followed by the formula to back that up.

 

[silverfox]

Swattie87 wrote:
Wish I caught this last night.

One thing I’d be interested to know, though it doesn’t sound like it was confirmed in the presentation, is whether there was any correlation between fish size AND whether they moved.

There is a prevailing thought among the big Brookie crowd around here that the large (12” or so and bigger) wild Brookies caught are often migratory fish. Not saying I buy it, or I don’t, but it’d be interesting to know whether the data from the study supports a correlation between a fish’s propensity to migrate and its size.

One other important point about these fish that move that was mentioned last night is that they were more likely to survive.

Shannon did speculate on why that is. Basically that they have more access to food compared to the sedentary population. The example Shannon used was that you have more energy when you've eaten in the last day than if you haven't eaten in 10 days. I'm paraphrasing here. You get the idea.

 

[troutbert]

salmonoid wrote:

silverfox wrote:

lycoflyfisher wrote:
"One other big takeaway from the presentation is the diversity in populations in regard to movement. Shannon mentioned Big Run and Monroe Run and how the genetic diversity didn't match that of the Loyalsock study. There are no barriers between Big Run and Monroe, yet the genetic makeup didn't indicate that there is a lot of gene flow between the two. I think that highlights how different watersheds behave and illuminates the dangers of managing by interpretation of results from one watershed or even one region to another."


This point is of the most importance, how do we as anglers encourage the PFBC take this data and relate it to other parts of the state? IMO what occurs on the Loyalsock is probably similar to other NCPA watersheds ie Pine Creek, Lycoming Creek, Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning, West Branch Susquehanna above Williamsport etc, that have brook trout streams directly tributary to a larger system.

I think her genetic work is key, and if perhaps that sets an example that could be replicated throughout the state at a relatively low cost to determine which streams are showing genetic connectivity and thus movement. Once movement corridors are identified, then becomes the challenge of determining whether fishing regulations can be used to further protect or enhance the "movers" in a watershed.

One key factor not discussed in her presentation is the presence of a substantial barrier in the dam at Worlds End SP. I would find it difficult for fish to even make it down over this dam without injury and any upriver migration would be entirely impossible.

The genetic studies indicate they do move over the dam in at least one direction. I wonder what purpose the dam serves? Bridge stability? I'm no engineer but I would think the geology there already provides sufficient anchorage for the abutments? The dam certainly can't help matters.

The Worlds End dam was built during the CCC days, presumably to enhance the swimming in the Loyalsock. That is still what it is used for today. When we were there a few years ago in the summer, there was a large wild brown hanging out under the road bridge (large - 18"+ and wild based on the proliferation of red on his body). When I was a young teen, I was hiking the Loyalsock Trail with a group. We came down to the swimming area and I observed a beautiful wild brookie hanging out in the swimming area. On a later trip in a later year, I observed another obviously wild brookie just below Haystacks. Both fish were in the 10-12" range. It as probably July in both cases.

The dam on Kettle Creek at Ole Bull State Park is a barrier to brookie movement also.

With all the dams being removed, it's interesting that these dams impacting our native fish are still there.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Im one that buys into it simply because of a few things pointed out.
Availability of food and likeliness to survive.

More food and longer life = bigger fish.