lake michigan 2011 status and trends of prey fish populations chuck madenjian , bo bunnell ,
DESCRIPTION
Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell , Tim Desorcie , Margi Chriscinske , Melissa Kostich , and Jean Adams USGS Great Lakes Science Center Ann Arbor, MI. Historical backdrop. sea lamprey control; salmonine stocking. Round goby - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Lake Michigan 2011Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations
Chuck Madenjian, Bo Bunnell, Tim Desorcie, Margi Chriscinske,Melissa Kostich, and Jean Adams
USGS Great Lakes Science CenterAnn Arbor, MI
![Page 2: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Lake
Mic
higa
nSp
ring
TP (u
g/L)
0
2
4
6
Lake
Mic
higa
nSa
lmon
ine
biom
ass
(kt)
05
101520253035 Historical backdrop
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
sea lamprey control;salmonine stocking
Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement
Madenjian et al. 2002; Bunnell et al. 2006; US-EPA
dreissenidinvasion
Round gobyinvasionBythotrephes
invasion
![Page 3: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1 9 7 3 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 7 2 0 0 50
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
Nu
me
ric
de
ns
ity
(n
um
be
r/h
a)
1 9 7 3 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 7 2 0 0 5
Ye a r
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
Bio
ma
ss
de
ns
ity
(k
g/h
a)
Ad u l t a l ewi fe
![Page 6: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100
10000
20000
30000
40000
Year
Bio
mas
s (g
/ha)
Lake Huron
![Page 7: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Concern that salmonine consumption is exceeding alewife production
Alewife energy density has declined (need to eat 22% more alewife to maintain constant growth)- Madenjian et al. 2006.
Chinook salmon have increased their reliance on alewife as a prey (maybe not the case for lake trout?).
![Page 8: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Year1994-1996 2009-2010
Proportion
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0AlewifeBloaterSmeltRound gobyDiporeia
Lake Michigan Chinook salmon diet… further alewife domination
<500 mm
Jacobs et al. in review
![Page 9: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Lake Michigan Chinook salmon diet
Year1994-1996 2009-2010
Proportion
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0AlewifeBloaterSmeltStickleback
… further alewife domination
>500 mm
Jacobs et al. in review
![Page 10: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Concern that salmonine consumption is exceeding alewife production
Alewife energy density has declined (need to eat x% more alewife to maintain constant growth)- Madenjian et al. 200x.
Chinook salmon have increased their reliance on alewife as a prey (maybe not the case for lake trout?).
Alewife age-class distribution is more truncated (similar to Lake Huron pre-2003). 2011: up to 80% age-1.
![Page 11: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
1 5 3 5 5 5 7 5 9 5 11 5 1 3 5 1 5 5 1 7 5 1 9 5 2 1 5
Total length (mm)
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
Perc
ent
Age 3
Age 0
Age 5Age 6
Age 8
Age 2Age 1
Age 4
Age 7
2006
![Page 12: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
1 5 3 5 5 5 7 5 9 5 11 5 1 3 5 1 5 5 1 7 5 1 9 5 2 1 5
Total length (mm)
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
Perc
ent
Ag e 3
Age 0
Ag e 5Ag e 6
Ag e 2Ag e 1
Ag e 4
Ale wi fe le n g th -ag e d is trib u tio n , 2 0 0 9
![Page 13: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
15 35 55 75 95 115 135 155 175 195 215
Total length (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Perc
ent
Ag e-0Ag e-1Ag e-2Ag e-3Ag e-4Ag e-5Ag e-6
Age 0Age 1Age 2Age 3Age 4Age 5Age 6
Ale wife le ngth-age dis tribution, 2 0 1 0
![Page 14: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
15 35 55 75 95 115 135 155 175 195 215
Total length (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Perc
ent
Ag e-0Ag e-1Ag e-2Ag e-3Ag e-4Ag e-5Ag e-6
Age 0Age 1Age 2Age 3Age 4Age 5Age 6
Ale wife le ngth-age dis tribution, 2 0 1 1
![Page 15: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1 9 7 3 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 7 2 0 0 50
5 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 5 0 0
2 0 0 0
2 5 0 0
Nu
me
ric
de
ns
ity
(n
um
be
r/h
a)
1 9 7 3 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 7 2 0 0 5
Ye a r
0
3 0
6 0
9 0
Bio
ma
ss
de
ns
ity
(k
g/h
a)
Ad u l t b loa te r
![Page 16: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
1 9 7 3 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 7 2 0 0 50
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
Nu
me
ric
de
ns
ity
(n
um
be
r/h
a)
1 9 7 3 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 7 2 0 0 5
Ye a r
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bio
ma
ss
de
ns
ity
(k
g/h
a)
Ad u l t ra in b o w s me l t
![Page 17: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Deepwater s culpin1.86 kt
Slimy s culpin1.93 kt
Bloater3.70 k t
Rainbow s melt0.47 kt
Ninespine s tick leback0.04 k t
Alewife7.64 k t
Round goby1.83 k t
Lake Michigan, 2011
![Page 18: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
1 9 7 3 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 4 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 8
Year
0
5 0
1 0 0
1 5 0
2 0 0
2 5 0
3 0 0
3 5 0
4 0 0
4 5 0
5 0 0
Lake
-wid
e bi
omas
s (k
t) Bloater
Sl imy sculpin
Deepwater sculpinRainbow smel t
Ro u n d g o b y
Ni nespine sti ckleback
Alewi fe
![Page 19: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Conclusions and prognosis• Total prey fish biomass, as estimated by the bottom
trawl, in 2011 was 17.47 kt, the lowest value in the time series
• Total prey fish biomass has remained below 30 kt since 2007
• Two factors contributing to low prey fish biomass:
prolonged period of low bloater recruitment and intensified predation by Chinook salmon on alewives
• Adult alewife biomass density has remained low for an eight-year period and age distribution has been truncated during the past three years; characteristics similar to Lake Huron alewife population prior to collapse during 2003-2004
![Page 20: Lake Michigan 2011 Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations Chuck Madenjian , Bo Bunnell ,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062323/5681653b550346895dd7bc33/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Conclusions and prognosis (continued)
• Whether or not alewife population collapses in Lake Michigan depends on several factors: Chinook salmon abundance, alewife year-class strength in 2012, environmental effects on alewife survival
• To quantify bottom-up effects, additional years of surveillance and additional analyses needed
• Prey fish biomass in 2011 was far below FCO
• Whether prey fish biomass will ever exceed 100 kt in the near future will depend on the ability of the bloater population to recover