DOCSLIB.ORG

Feeding Ecology of Delta Smelt During a Seasonal Pulse of Turbidity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feeding Ecology of Delta Smelt During a Seasonal Pulse of Turbidity Feeding Ecology of Delta Smelt During a Seasonal Pulse of Turbidity William Hilton1,2, Aaron Johnson2, Wim Kimmerer2 1California State University Stanislaus, Turlock Ca. 2Romberg Tiburon Center For Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University, Tiburon Ca. Background and Introduction Sample Analysis Winter 2012 Preliminary Results The delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) is a small pelagic fish that is • Delta smelt were dissected at the UC Davis Aquatic Health Program Lab Relative Abundance of Prey Species •Gut contents and prey samples were counted and identified to the lowest endemic to the San Francisco Estuary (SFE). Once abundant in the SFE, Caught Using Different Sampling Methods dramatic declines in delta smelt abundance have prompted their protection possible taxon under the federal and state endangered species acts. • Prey was grouped into larger taxonomic groups (e.g., calanoid, cyclopoid, or harpacticoid copepods, cladocerans, amphipods, and mysids ) Delta Smelt Abundance by Year • Total weights of prey in guts were estimated from published length-to-weight ratios Daphnia spp. Pseudodiaptomus forbesi Photo: Department of Water Resources This project is part of the Delta Smelt Turbidity Study (DSTS), an intensive Photo: Tony Ignoffo four-year monitoring effort to determine the extent to which changes in Photo: Lindsay Sullivan freshwater flow, salinity, and turbidity trigger the spawning migration of delta Photo: Anne Slaughter smelt. Although delta smelt migration is thought to be associated with turbid Winter 2010 Results water, migration patterns may also vary with other environmental conditions such as prey availability. The goal of this portion of the DSTS is to evaluate Gut Contents by Number Importance of the role of prey availability in the timing of the delta smelt migration. To this Gut Contents by weight end, we examined the feeding ecology of adult delta smelt during their Amphipods spawning migration in the winters of 2010 and 2012. Amphipod Field Sampling Methods Cladoceran Calanoid Copepod • We sampled delta smelt with hourly Kodiak trawls for several days before Cyclopoid Copepod Other and several days after the first seasonal pulse of turbidity in the winters 2010 Discussion/Conclusion and 2012 •Delta smelt prey were sampled at same time and location as smelt sampling Previous studies of delta smelt feeding at earlier life stages have emphasized calanoid copepods as their main food source, whereas the most frequent prey •Prey samples were immediately concentrated and preserved in 10% organisms ingested by delta smelt sampled in this study (in 2010) were buffered formalin Prey Sampling Methods cladocerans and epibenthic amphipods. This implies a very different foraging strategy and foraging habitat for adult delta smelt than for earlier life stages. 2010 Relative Abundance of Amphipod To identify the foraging habitat utilized by migrating adults, prey sampling in 2012 2012 was modified to adequately sample the entire water column including Species in Gut Samples benthic habitats. Preliminary data from 2012 prey samples indicates that only mysids and one species of amphipod (Gammarus daberi) are adequately sampled by the new sampling methods. This means that other amphipods in the delta smelt diet (Hyallela azteca, Crangoyx floridanus, Americorophrium spinicorne) must be coming from other habitats (likely submerged and floating aquatic vegetation). Future field sampling will be modified to sample these habitats to give a Sampling Sites complete picture of prey availability for the delta smelt during migration. California Suisun Bay Cache Slough San Francisco Estuary Acknowledgements Sacramento RiverRi We thank the Kimmerer Lab, Romberg Tiburon Center, and Decker Island San Francisco State University. We thank UC Davis for the San Joaquin RiRiver preparation of delta smelt gut samples. We thank all those from the USGS Seattle office for assistance in the field. This work is part of the Delta Smelt Turbidity Study funded by an Interagency Ecological Program grant. (Cooperative agreement # G11AC20206) This material is based upon work supported by the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and/or the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 0952013 and 0833353. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders. The STAR program is administered by the Cal Poly Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education (CESaME) on behalf of the California State University. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites
    Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes 1 S1 2 S4 3 S7 4 S9 5 S11 Port of Sacramento S12 (Department of 6 1,710,000 3, 5 South Island Prospect Island Interior Bureau of Land Management?) 7 S13 S14 8 USACE N/A 3 Grand Island Placement Site S16 9 USACE 3,000,000 3 Rio Vista Placement Site DWR, Mega S19 10 Sands, Port of 20,000,000 3 Decker Island Placement Site Sacramento S20 Port of Sacramento 11 1,000,000 3, 5 Augusta Pit Placement Site (DWR?) S31 12 Port of Sacramento Placement Port of Sacramento Site Reclamation S32 13 Districts 999 and (six segments) 900 S35 DOW Chemical 14 Montezuma Hills Placement 890,000 3 Company Site 15 SX Sacramento Muni 1 Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes Utility District Sherman Lake (Sherman 16 USACE 3,000,000 3 Island?) 17 Montezuma Wetlands Project Montezuma LLC Montezuma Wetlands 18 Montezuma LLC Rehandling Site Expanded Scour Pond Dredge material 19 Placement Site (also called Yes DWR according to WDR #R5- 250,000 1, 2, 3,4 Sherman Island?) 2004-0061 Port of Stockton McCormack Pit Placement maintenance material 20 Site (also called Sherman Yes DWR only 250,000 3,4 Island?) WDR R5-2003-0145 Proposed Iron House Levy repair and 21 Jersey Island Placement Site Restoration 3 Sanitation District maintenance
    [Show full text]
  • 2010-2011 California Regulations for Waterfowl and Upland Game Hunting, Public Lands
    Table of Contents CALIFORNIA General Information Contacting DFG ....................................... 2 10-11 Licenses, Stamps, & Permits................... 3 Waterfowl & Upland Shoot Time Tables ................................... 4 Game Hunting and Unlawful Activities .......................... 6 Hunting & Other Public Uses on State & Federal Waterfowl Hunting Lands Regulations Summary of Changes for 10-11 ............... 7 Seasons and Limits ................................. 9 Effective July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 Waterfowl Consumption Health except as noted. Warnings ............................................. 12 State of California Special Goose Hunt Area Maps ............ 14 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Waterfowl Zone Map ....Inside Back Cover Natural Resources Agency Upland Game Bird, Small Game Secretary Lester A. Snow Mammal, and Crow Hunting Regulation Summary ............................. 16 Fish and Game Commission President Jim Kellogg Seasons & Limits Table ......................... 17 Vice President Richard B. Rogers Hunt Zones ............................................ 18 Commissioner Michael Sutton Hunting and Other Public Uses on Commissioner Daniel W. Richards State and Federal Areas Acting Executive Director Jon Fischer Reservation System .............................. 20 General Public Use Activities on Department of Fish and Game Director John McCamman All State Wildlife Areas ....................... 23 Hunting, Firearms, and Archery Alternate communication formats are available upon request. If reasonable
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh Iii Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SHILOH III WIND PLANT PROJECT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN P REPARED BY: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2650 Sacramento, CA 95825 Contact: Mike Thomas, Chief Habitat Conservation Planning Branch W ITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Schafer 916.737.3000 February 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shiloh III Wind Plant Project Habitat Conservation Plan. February. (ICF 00263.09). Sacramento, CA. With technical assistance from ICF International, Sacramento, CA. Contents Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Species Covered by the HCP ...................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Proposed Action Addressed in this EA ....................................................................................... 1‐2 1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 1‐2 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................. 2‐1 2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project
    Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project Prepared for CSAMP/CAMT Project funded by State and Federal Water Contractors Prepared by Graham Long and Sally Rudd Compass Resource Management Ltd. 604.641.2875 Suite 210- 111 Water Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6B 1A7 www.compassrm.com Date May 4, 2018 April 13th – reviewed by TWG and comments incorporated Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................... 4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation of Trade-offs ................................................................................................. 17 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed
    550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed Below. (a) State Wildlife Areas: (1) Antelope Valley Wildlife Area (Sierra County) (Type C); (2) Ash Creek Wildlife Area (Lassen and Modoc counties) (Type B); (3) Bass Hill Wildlife Area (Lassen County), including the Egan Management Unit (Type C); (4) Battle Creek Wildlife Area (Shasta and Tehama counties); (5) Big Lagoon Wildlife Area (Humboldt County) (Type C); (6) Big Sandy Wildlife Area (Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties) (Type C); (7) Biscar Wildlife Area (Lassen County) (Type C); (8) Buttermilk Country Wildlife Area (Inyo County) (Type C); (9) Butte Valley Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type B); (10) Cache Creek Wildlife Area (Colusa and Lake counties), including the Destanella Flat and Harley Gulch management units (Type C); (11) Camp Cady Wildlife Area (San Bernadino County) (Type C); (12) Cantara/Ney Springs Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type C); (13) Cedar Roughs Wildlife Area (Napa County) (Type C); (14) Cinder Flats Wildlife Area (Shasta County) (Type C); (15) Collins Eddy Wildlife Area (Sutter and Yolo counties) (Type C); (16) Colusa Bypass Wildlife Area (Colusa County) (Type C); (17) Coon Hollow Wildlife Area (Butte County) (Type C); (18) Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area (Merced County), including the Upper Cottonwood and Lower Cottonwood management units (Type C); (19) Crescent City Marsh Wildlife Area (Del Norte County); (20) Crocker Meadow Wildlife Area (Plumas County) (Type C); (21) Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area (Yuba County)
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Community Ecology in an Altered River Delta: Spatial Patterns in Species Composition, Life History Strategies, and Biomass
    Estuaries Vol. 28, No. 5, p. 776–785 October 2005 Fish Community Ecology in an Altered River Delta: Spatial Patterns in Species Composition, Life History Strategies, and Biomass MATTHEW L. NOBRIGA1,*, FREDERICK FEYRER1,RANDALL D. BAXTER2, and MICHAEL CHOTKOWSKI3 1 California Department of Water Resources, Ecological Studies Branch, 3251 S Street, Sacramento, California 95816 2 California Department of Fish and Game, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch, 4001 North Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205 3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825 ABSTRACT: We sampled nearshore fishes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, United States, during 2001 and 2003 with beach seines and gill nets. We addressed three questions. How and why did fish assemblages vary, and what local habitat features best explained the variation? Did spatial variation in assemblages reflect greater success of particular life history strategies? Did fish biomass vary among years or across habitats? Nonmetric multidimensional scaling showed that habitat variables had more influence on fish assemblages than temporal variables. Results from both gear types indicated fish assemblages varied between Sacramento and San Joaquin River sampling sites. Results from gill net sampling were less pronounced than those from beach seine sampling. The Sacramento and San Joaquin river sites differed most notably in terms of water clarity and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), suggesting a link between these habitat characteristics and
    [Show full text]
  • The Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. Educate ~ Entertain ~ Enhance
    The Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. Educate ~ Entertain ~ Enhance Volume 7, Issue 6 — June 2017 Rooster Tails Fishing Club of Northern California, Inc. PO Box 7441 Fishing the Klamath River with Jerry Lampkin Auburn, CA 95604 The multi-talented Rooster Tail Fishing Club The Klamath is special among many rivers in 530-887-0479 member and Pro River Guide, Jerry Lampkin California. It is only second by out-flow to the www.roostertailsfishingclub.org invites all members and their guests to a spe- Sacramento River and flows 263 miles cial presentation at the third Friday breakfast through Oregon and northern California emp- Fishing the meeting on June 16th to share his experi- tying into the Pacific Ocean. It drains an ex- Klamath River for ences on the Klamath River. Jerry has been tensive watershed of almost 16,000 square fishing the Klamath for salmon and steel- miles from both states. salmon and head for over 25 years and brings with him a steelhead unique perspective about the river you will Unlike most rivers, the Klamath begins in the want to hear. Jerry and his wife Sherry will be high desert and flows toward the mountains July 12th— available to fisher men and women inter- carving a path through the rugged Cascade ested in fishing the ‘Springer Salmon Run’ and Klamath mountains before reaching the Rooster Tail Day during the week of July 10 – 14. Jerry has sea. The scenery and wild life are varied and spectacular. The area is a nature lover’s on the Klamath set aside Wednesday, July 12th, as Rooster dream and a panacea for photographers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 FMR.Indb
    Stockton and Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel Maintenance Dredging and Dredge Material Placement Projects 2012 Fish Community, Entrainment and Water Quality Monitoring Report Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 Prepared by Mari-Gold Environmental Consulting, Inc. 25385 South Hughes Lane Canby, Oregon 97013 and Novo Aquatic Sciences, Inc. 716 SE Malden Street Portland, Oregon 97202 March 2013 Contents 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4 3 Methods .................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Monitoring Methods Overview ....................................................................................... 9 3.2 Monitoring Effort, Timing, and Locations ...................................................................... 10 3.3 Entrainment Monitoring ................................................................................................ 13 3.3.1 Mobile Entrainment Screen ............................................................................... 13 3.4 Fish Community Monitoring ......................................................................................... 19 3.5 Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]