DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia River Food Web Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia River Food Web Report Columbia River Food Webs: Developing a Broader Scientific Foundation for Fish and Wildlife Restoration Independent Scientific Advisory Board Document ISAB 2011-1 January 7, 2011 Cover image: The Big Fish Eat the Small Ones, Peter Brueghel the Elder, 1556 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bigfishlittlefish.JPG Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and NOAA Fisheries 851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 [email protected] Contributors ISAB and Ad Hoc Members J. Richard Alldredge, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics at Washington State University David Beauchamp, Ph.D., Professor of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at University of Washington, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Cooperative Fish Research Unit (ad hoc member) Peter A. Bisson, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at the Olympia (Washington) Forestry Sciences Laboratory of the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station (ad hoc member) James Congleton, Ph.D., Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and Professor, University of Idaho (retired) Charles Henny, Ph.D., Emeritus Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (ad hoc member) Nancy Huntly, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor of Biological Sciences at Idaho State University and Adjunct Professor of Biology at Utah State University Roland Lamberson, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Director of Environmental Systems Graduate Program at Humboldt State University Colin Levings, Ph.D., Scientist Emeritus at Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, West Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Robert J. Naiman, Ph.D., Professor of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at University of Washington William Pearcy, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University Bruce Rieman, Ph.D., Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Greg Ruggerone, Ph.D., Fisheries Scientist for Natural Resources Consultants, Affiliated Research Scientist Alaska Salmon Program, University of Washington Dennis Scarnecchia, Ph. D., Professor of Fish and Wildlife Resources at University of Idaho Peter Smouse, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University Chris C. Wood, Ph.D., Conservation Biology Section, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Support ISAB Ex Officios and Coordinators Michael Ford, Ph.D., Director of the Conservation Biology Program at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center Erik Merrill, J.D., Independent Science Program Manager, Northwest Power and Conservation Council William Muir, M.S., Research Fishery Biologist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center Phil Roger, Ph.D., Fisheries Science Manager at the Columbia River Inter‐Tribal Fish Commission James Ruff, M.S., P.H., Manager, Mainstem Passage and River Operations, Northwest Power and Conservation Council Staff Laura Robinson, ISAB and Northwest Power and Conservation Council Intern Eric Schrepel, Technical and Web Data Specialist, Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia River Food Webs: Developing a Broader Scientific Foundation for Fish and Wildlife Restoration List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................................... iv Unit Conversion Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Food Webs: Concepts and Applications ............................................................................................................................. 8 A.1. Food Webs and Restoration of Columbia River Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................... 8 A.2. Why Understanding Food Webs is Important ...................................................................................................... 16 B. The Physical Setting .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 B.1. The Columbia River Ecosystem: Characterization of Pre‐Development Food Webs ............................................ 23 B.2. Contemporary Flow Characteristics – the Hydrosystem ...................................................................................... 31 C. Environmental Processes Affecting Food Web Characteristics ........................................................................................ 39 C.1. Importance of Marine‐Derived Nutrients ............................................................................................................. 39 C.2. Effects of Seabird and Marine Mammal Predation on Food Webs and Salmonids .............................................. 47 C.3. Food Web Consequences of Fish Predation ......................................................................................................... 55 C.4. Hatchery Releases and Food Webs ....................................................................................................................... 76 C.5. Non‐Native Species ............................................................................................................................................... 92 C.6. Food Web Processes – Bioenergetics and Fish Growth ...................................................................................... 107 C.7. Toxics and Biomagnification ............................................................................................................................... 115 D. Food Webs in Typical Habitats ....................................................................................................................................... 129 D.1. Small Tributaries ................................................................................................................................................. 129 D.2. Large Tributaries ................................................................................................................................................. 136 D.3. Free‐flowing Reaches of the Columbia River ...................................................................................................... 149 D.4. Lakes .................................................................................................................................................................... 157 D.5. Water Storage Impoundments ........................................................................................................................... 170 D.6. Run‐of‐River Reservoirs ...................................................................................................................................... 176 D.7. The Estuary and Plume ....................................................................................................................................... 183 D.8. Riparian Habitats ................................................................................................................................................. 192 E. A Systems Perspective .................................................................................................................................................... 199 E.1. Future Vulnerabilities: Climate, Land Use and Population Growth .................................................................... 199 E.2. Comparisons with the Fraser River, British Columbia ........................................................................................ 204 E.3. Restoration Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 210 E.4. A Total System Perspective: Phenology .............................................................................................................. 218 E.5. Threats, Knowledge Gaps, and a Strategy for Columbia River Food Webs ........................................................ 226 F. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................................... 239 F.1. Appendix A. Tools for Investigating Food Webs ................................................................................................ 239 F.2. Appendix B. The Legal and Policy Foundations for Fish and Wildlife Program Projects and Management Actions that Specifically Address Food Webs ..................................................................................................... 246 F.3. Appendix C. Pesticides Used in the Columbia River Basin .................................................................................. 253 F.4. Appendix
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks Bioblitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 ON THIS PAGE Photograph of BioBlitz participants conducting data entry into iNaturalist. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. ON THE COVER Photograph of BioBlitz participants collecting aquatic species data in the Presidio of San Francisco. Photograph courtesy of National Park Service. The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 Elizabeth Edson1, Michelle O’Herron1, Alison Forrestel2, Daniel George3 1Golden Gate Parks Conservancy Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94129 2National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1061 Sausalito, CA 94965 3National Park Service. San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Manager Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1063 Sausalito, CA 94965 March 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • FISH LIST WISH LIST: a Case for Updating the Canadian Government’S Guidance for Common Names on Seafood
    FISH LIST WISH LIST: A case for updating the Canadian government’s guidance for common names on seafood Authors: Christina Callegari, Scott Wallace, Sarah Foster and Liane Arness ISBN: 978-1-988424-60-6 © SeaChoice November 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY . 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 4 Findings . 5 Recommendations . 6 INTRODUCTION . 7 APPROACH . 8 Identification of Canadian-caught species . 9 Data processing . 9 REPORT STRUCTURE . 10 SECTION A: COMMON AND OVERLAPPING NAMES . 10 Introduction . 10 Methodology . 10 Results . 11 Snapper/rockfish/Pacific snapper/rosefish/redfish . 12 Sole/flounder . 14 Shrimp/prawn . 15 Shark/dogfish . 15 Why it matters . 15 Recommendations . 16 SECTION B: CANADIAN-CAUGHT SPECIES OF HIGHEST CONCERN . 17 Introduction . 17 Methodology . 18 Results . 20 Commonly mislabelled species . 20 Species with sustainability concerns . 21 Species linked to human health concerns . 23 Species listed under the U .S . Seafood Import Monitoring Program . 25 Combined impact assessment . 26 Why it matters . 28 Recommendations . 28 SECTION C: MISSING SPECIES, MISSING ENGLISH AND FRENCH COMMON NAMES AND GENUS-LEVEL ENTRIES . 31 Introduction . 31 Missing species and outdated scientific names . 31 Scientific names without English or French CFIA common names . 32 Genus-level entries . 33 Why it matters . 34 Recommendations . 34 CONCLUSION . 35 REFERENCES . 36 APPENDIX . 39 Appendix A . 39 Appendix B . 39 FISH LIST WISH LIST: A case for updating the Canadian government’s guidance for common names on seafood 2 GLOSSARY The terms below are defined to aid in comprehension of this report. Common name — Although species are given a standard Scientific name — The taxonomic (Latin) name for a species. common name that is readily used by the scientific In nomenclature, every scientific name consists of two parts, community, industry has adopted other widely used names the genus and the specific epithet, which is used to identify for species sold in the marketplace.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Selected California Fisheries for 2013
    FISHERIES REVIEW CalCOFI Rep., Vol. 55, 2014 REVIEW OF SELECTED CALIFORNIA FISHERIES FOR 2013: COASTAL PELAGIC FINFISH, MARKET SQUID, GROUNDFISH, HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES, DUNGENESS CRAB, BASSES, SURFPERCH, ABALONE, KELP AND EDIBLE ALGAE, AND MARINE AQUACULTURE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Marine Region 4665 Lampson Ave. Suite C Los Alamitos, CA 90720 [email protected] SUMMARY ings of northern anchovy were 6,005 t with an ex-vessel In 2013, commercial fisheries landed an estimated revenue of greater than $1.0 million. When compared 165,072 metric tons (t) of fish and invertebrates from to landings in 2012, this represents a 141% and 191% California ocean waters (fig. 1). This represents an increase in volume and value, respectively. Nearly all increase of almost 2% from the 162,290 t landed in 2012, (93.6%; 5,621.5 t) of California’s 2013 northern anchovy but still an 11% decrease from the 184,825 t landed catch was landed in the Monterey port area. Landings of in 2011, and a 35% decline from the peak landings of jack mackerel remained relatively low with 892 t landed; 252,568 t observed in 2000. The preliminary ex-vessel however, this represents a 515% increase over 2012 land- economic value of commercial landings in 2013 was ings of 145 t. $254.7 million, increasing once again from the $236 mil- Dungeness crab ranked as California’s second largest lion generated in 2012 (8%), and the $198 million in volume fishery with 14,066 t landed, an increase from 2011 (29%). 11,696 t landed in 2012, and it continued to dominate as Coastal pelagic species (CPS) made up four of the the highest valued fishery in the state with an ex-vessel top five volume fisheries in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • BIG RIVER ECOSYSTEM: Program 2
    BIG RIVER ECOSYSTEM: A Question of Net Worth PURPOSE To explore biodiversity at the ecosystem level. KERA CONNECTIONS to Life Science Program 2 Core Content: Structure and Function in Living Systems Academic Expectations: 2.2 Patterns, 2.3 Systems, 2.4 Models & Scale ANSWERS TO Process Skills: Observation, Modeling aFIELD NOTES OBJECTIVES 1. In a hot and hostile environment, Students should be able to: the evaporated water cannot be 1.identify five “big river” organisms incorporated into living cells (as 2.construct a diagram showing interactions between living and we know them). nonliving parts of an ecosystem 2. An extremely cold environment, 3. discuss factors that affect the level of biodiversity in their river basin. or frozen desert, does not allow cells to utilize water. VOCABULARY 3. Answers will vary but should Teachers may wish to discuss the following terms: display logical flow of water and aquatic, commercial, ecosystem, water cycle and watershed. allow for recirculation in a loop. 4. Arteries and veins. aFIELD NOTEBOOK 5. A pumping heart. Ideas for Teachers 6. Diagram A shows many different A. Develop a concept map for the water cycle. Include these items in types of ecosystems in close the concept map: clouds, groundwater, apple tree, stream, precipita- proximity. tion, condensation, evaporation, harvest mouse, snowflakes, sun and 7. Add a watering hole, plant a humans. What other cycles are needed to maintain an ecosystem? miniature forest, create a B. Biospheres, containing algae, brine shrimp and water, are often meadow of wildflowers. Most shown in advertisements. Analyze how the biosphere is self-main- importantly, break up a monocul- taining.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Eutrophication on Stream Ecosystems
    EFFECTS OF EUTROPHICATION ON STREAM ECOSYSTEMS Lei Zheng, PhD and Michael J. Paul, PhD Tetra Tech, Inc. Abstract This paper describes the effects of nutrient enrichment on the structure and function of stream ecosystems. It starts with the currently well documented direct effects of nutrient enrichment on algal biomass and the resulting impacts on stream chemistry. The paper continues with an explanation of the less well documented indirect ecological effects of nutrient enrichment on stream structure and function, including effects of excess growth on physical habitat, and alterations to aquatic life community structure from the microbial assemblage to fish and mammals. The paper also dicusses effects on the ecosystem level including changes to productivity, respiration, decomposition, carbon and other geochemical cycles. The paper ends by discussing the significance of these direct and indirect effects of nutrient enrichment on designated uses - especially recreational, aquatic life, and drinking water. 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Stream processes Streams are all flowing natural waters, regardless of size. To understand the processes that influence the pattern and character of streams and reduce natural variation of different streams, several stream classification systems (including ecoregional, fluvial geomorphological, and stream order classification) have been adopted by state and national programs. Ecoregional classification is based on geology, soils, geomorphology, dominant land uses, and natural vegetation (Omernik 1987). Fluvial geomorphological classification explains stream and slope processes through the application of physical principles. Rosgen (1994) classified stream channels in the United States into seven major stream types based on morphological characteristics, including entrenchment, gradient, width/depth ratio, and sinuosity in various land forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Redacted for Privacy Ivan Pratt
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarsArchive@OSU AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Alfred Warren Hanson for the Doctor of Philosophy (Name) (Degree) in Zoology presented on/8 1q72 (Major) /71date Title:LIFE CYCLE AND HOST SPECIFICITY OF DICLIDOPHORA sp. (MONOGENEA-DICLIDOPHORIDAE),A PARASITE OF EMBIOTOCID FISHES Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Ivan Pratt The life cycle of a monogenean, Diclidophora sp. , was studied with special attention to the time required for developmental stages to occur.Eggs are produced by adult worms at the rate of one every 13. 5 minutes and require 32 days tohatchwhen incubated at 12. 5°C and 30.90/00salinity.Rate of development and hatching success are strongly dependent on incubation temperature and salinity. Growth and development of the larval stages are similar to other known species of the family 1T)c1idophoridae.The presence in the oncomiracidium of a precocious set of attachment clampsand the premature loss of larval hooks distinguish it from related species. Oncorniracidia survive approximately 36 hours if no host fish is reached. Larvae attach to the inner lateral borders of primary lamellae of the host fish gill.A second set of clamps is added before the 36th day, the third set soon after the 44th day, and the last pair by the 58th day.Sexual maturity is reached by the 153rd day after hatching. Experimental infections were maintained on redtail surfperch for 203 days. Naturally infected redtail surfperch, silver surfperch and walleye surfperch were collected.Rates of infection with Di clidoph- ora were 38.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental DNA Reveals the Fine-Grained and Hierarchical
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Environmental DNA reveals the fne‑grained and hierarchical spatial structure of kelp forest fsh communities Thomas Lamy 1,2*, Kathleen J. Pitz 3, Francisco P. Chavez3, Christie E. Yorke1 & Robert J. Miller1 Biodiversity is changing at an accelerating rate at both local and regional scales. Beta diversity, which quantifes species turnover between these two scales, is emerging as a key driver of ecosystem function that can inform spatial conservation. Yet measuring biodiversity remains a major challenge, especially in aquatic ecosystems. Decoding environmental DNA (eDNA) left behind by organisms ofers the possibility of detecting species sans direct observation, a Rosetta Stone for biodiversity. While eDNA has proven useful to illuminate diversity in aquatic ecosystems, its utility for measuring beta diversity over spatial scales small enough to be relevant to conservation purposes is poorly known. Here we tested how eDNA performs relative to underwater visual census (UVC) to evaluate beta diversity of marine communities. We paired UVC with 12S eDNA metabarcoding and used a spatially structured hierarchical sampling design to assess key spatial metrics of fsh communities on temperate rocky reefs in southern California. eDNA provided a more‑detailed picture of the main sources of spatial variation in both taxonomic richness and community turnover, which primarily arose due to strong species fltering within and among rocky reefs. As expected, eDNA detected more taxa at the regional scale (69 vs. 38) which accumulated quickly with space and plateaued at only ~ 11 samples. Conversely, the discovery rate of new taxa was slower with no sign of saturation for UVC.
    [Show full text]
  • Debris the Science and Changing Perceptions of Dead Trees by Alexander Evans and Robert Perschel
    An Appreciation of Debris The Science and Changing Perceptions of Dead Trees By Alexander Evans and Robert Perschel oarse woody debris. To most people, two Coarse woody debris (CWD) is wood in the forest that’s no of the three words in that phrase have longer part of a living tree. Rather than being dead, this wood negative connotations. Debris is the worst is an important source of life in the forest. Foresters who value offender, suggesting random junk strewn it for its ecological functions have been searching for new terms about. When the debris is coarse, it’s even for CWD, and you’ll hear it referred to as biomass, dead wood, worse – it’s unrefined, it’s big. coarse woody material, and even retained organic matter. VIRGINIA BARLOW 44 Northern Woodlands / Winter 2008 Harry Dwyer, a forester in Fayette, Maine, likens the lan- as a seed bed for trees and plants, a mulch layer, and a slow- guage predicament to that of another formerly maligned mate- release fertilizer. Decomposing fungi depend on dead wood for rial: garden waste. He said, “You could look at a pile of rotting nutrients and moisture, and in turn many trees rely on mutu- vegetables as garbage, or you could note its value and call it alistic relationships with mycorrhizal fungi. Nitrogen fixation compost.” Digging into a rotten log in his woodlot, Dwyer in CWM by microbes (both anaerobic and microaerophyllic displays some of the dark, wet material in his hand. “It doesn’t bacteria) provides this important element in both terrestrial matter what you call this – coarse woody debris, coarse woody and aquatic ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • AN ABSTRACT of the THESIS of Douglas William Havlina for The
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Douglas William Havlina for the degree of Master of Science in Rangeland Resources presented on January 27, 1995 Title: Fire Effects on Vegetation Diversity, Structure, and Successional Dynamics in Shrub-Steppe and Mixed Conifer Environments of the Hells Canyon, Idaho. Abstract approved: The effects of fire severity on post-fire succession and shrub demography were quantified in shrub-steppe grasslands and subalpine forests in the Hells Canyon of the Payette National Forest, Idaho. Following the 1988 Eagle Bar Fire, species frequency, community diversity, fire adaptations, and stand ages were quantified at 12 plots in burned and unburned forests. Pre-fire composition was dominated by Pseudotsuga menziesii, Pinus contorta, Abies grandis, and Abies lasiocarpa in the overstory. Pre- fire basal area ranged from 41 to 80 m 2 ha-1 . Pre-fire stand ages ranged from 71 years in Abies lasiocarpa forests to > 200 years in Pseudotsuga menziesii stands. Fire scenarios which were sampled consisted of: (1) complete stand-replacement fires; (2) partial stand- replacement fires; and (3) unburned forests (control). Partial stand-replacement forests were characterized by significantly higher mean species diversity and richness (H'=3.16, S=36) than complete stand-replacement (H'=2.78, S=27) or unburned forests (H=2.26, S=15). Vegetation preferentially established in burned areas along a gradient of fire severity according to adapted fire guilds. Single-storied forests dominated by Pinus contorta and Abies lasiocarpa typified stand-replacement fire scenarios, with mean ages ranging from 99 to 159 years corresponding to fire return intervals common in this type.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Coarse Woody Debris on Seedlings and Saplings in A
    INFLUENCE OF COARSE WOODY DEBRIS ON SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS IN A PINUS PALUSTRIS WOODLAND by ALEXANDRA LOGAN JUSTIN L. HART, COMMITTEE CHAIR MATTHEW C. LAFEVOR ARVIND A.R. BHUTA A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Geography in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2020 Copyright Alexandra Logan 2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2 ABSTRACT Coarse woody debris (CWD) has beneficial effects on plant growth and establishment. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) stands support relatively low amounts of CWD — 2 to 30 m3 ha-1. In April 2011, an EF3 tornado passed through the Oakmulgee Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest in the Fall Line Hills of Alabama. This disturbance resulted in the large addition of CWD to a longleaf pine woodland, and a rare opportunity to analyze how CWD can influence a managed, pine woodland. The goal of this study was to examine the effect of CWD on woody plant richness, density, and growth rate (quantified by height) in a longleaf pine woodland that experienced a catastrophic wind disturbance. A total of three 1 m2 quadrats were established against either side of a piece of CWD (> 3 m in length and ≥ 10 cm in diameter). Another quadrat was established at least 3 m away from the focal CWD piece. For each plot, the presence and height of every woody plant (< 5 cm dbh) were recorded. Sapling density, oak and hickory density, and organic matter were all found to be significantly higher in quadrats adjacent to CWD than away (all p < 0.05).
    [Show full text]
  • ISAB Food Web Review: Fish Production & Restoration
    ISAB – Presentation to Columbia River Estuary Conference, Astoria, Oregon May 26, 2010 Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and National Marine Fisheries Service 851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 J. Richard Alldredge, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics at Washington State University. *David Beauchamp, Ph.D, Cooperative Fish Research Unit at U of Washington James Congleton, Ph.D., Emeritus Fisheries Professor, University of Idaho *Charles Henny, Ph.D., Emeritus Scientist, USGS Nancy Huntly, Ph.D., Professor of Wildlife Biology at Idaho State University. Roland Lamberson, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics and Director of Environmental Systems Graduate Program at Humboldt State University. Colin Levings, Ph.D., Scientist Emeritus and Sessional Researcher at Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Robert J. Naiman, Ph.D., Professor of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at U of Washington William Pearcy, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Oceanography at Oregon State University. Bruce Rieman, PhD, Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station *Greg Ruggerone, Ph.D., Fisheries Scientist for Natural Resources Consultants, Affiliated Research Scientist Alaska Salmon Program, U of Washington Dennis Scarnecchia, Ph. D., Professor of Fish and Wildlife Resources at University of Idaho. Peter Smouse, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers
    [Show full text]