Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Development And Application Of A Bioenergetics Model For Lake Washington Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper)
by
Jamal Hasan Henry Moss
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
University of Washington
2001
Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
University of Washington Graduate School
This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a master’s thesis by
Jamal Hasan Henry Moss
and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining committee have been made.
___________________________________________________ Dave Beauchamp
___________________________________________________ Reginald Reisenbichler
___________________________________________________
Walton Dickhoff
Date: ______________________
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master’s degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with "fair use" as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any purposes or by any means shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Signature___________________________________________________
Date_______________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures..........................................................................................…. iiList of Tables............................................................................................... iiiAcknowledgements..................................................................................…. ivDedication…............................................................................................…. v Chapter I: Model Development..................................................……… 1 Introduction………………………………… 1 Methods....................................................................…………... 4 Model Development.............................................................… 7 Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................…. 13 Results..............................................................………………... 13 Discussion..............................................................……………. 15 Figures.....................................................................………………………. 19Tables.....................................................................……………………….. 27 Chapter II: Model Application..........................................................…… 31 Introduction...........................................................…………… 31Study Area.............................................................………… 34Methods....................................................…………………...... 35Results.............................................................……………… 40 Discussion............................................................…………….. 43 References.............................................................................. 47 Figures.....................................................................……………………… 55Tables.....................................................................……………………….. 59
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page1. Consumption (weighted and unweighted)………………19
2. Temperature Dependence on Consumption…………….20
3. Specific Consumption…………………………………...21
4. Specific Consumption at 18ºC…………………………..22
5. Specific Respiration……………………………………..23
6. Specific Consumption for Two Species of Sculpin……..24
7. Proportion of Cmax for Two Species of Sculpin…………25
8. Specific Respiration for Two Species of Sculpin……….26
9. Individual Daily Ration…………………………………55
10. Growth Trajectories for Age 1-6 Sculpin……………….56
11. Growth Efficiency………………………………………57
12. Annual Consumption…………………………………...58
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1. Energy Densities…………………………………………...27
2. Temperature Used In Sensitivity Analysis.………………...27
3. Proportion of Prey In Diet…………………………………28
4. Parameter Values…………………………………………..29
5. Parameter Sensitivity………………………………………30
6. Age Specific Abundance.…………………………………..59
7. Thermal Experience.……………………………………….59
8. Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Predation Limitations.………….60
9. Juvenile Chinook Salmon Predation Limitations.………….60
10. Prey Biomass Consumed…………………………………..61
11. Numerical Estimates of Predation……………...…………..62
iv
Acknowledgements
Laboratory space required for this work was made available through Reg Reisenbichler
and Jim Winton, U.S.G.S. Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle, Washington. The
Washington State Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit provided laboratory
equipment and King County Water Quality provided funds for additional materials. I
offer my sincere gratitude to Jeffrey Elisoff and Jennifer McIntyre for assisting with
laboratory work, and to Mike Mazur for providing insight. The guidance provided by
Walt Dickhoff and Reg Reisenbichler was of paramount importance in the development
and organization of this thesis, and I thank both of them for their efforts. I thank Tom
Sibley for giving me an opportunity to study at this institution, and praise Dave
Beauchamp for his tireless patience and selfless devotion to education.
v
Dedication
To my grandfather, Henry Lee Moss Sr.
Chapter I
Model Development Introduction
Bioenergetics modeling is based on the laws of thermal dynamics where the
energy consumed by a fish must balance the energy lost through physiological processes
and growth. The terms of the energy budget can be measured directly in laboratory
experiments designed to characterize metabolism, maximum consumption rate, and
energy lost through waste. This modeling approach allows the user to account for energy
costs experienced by the fish and solve for the level of consumption consistent with the
observed growth which integrates the array of environmental conditions experienced by
the fish. Estimates of prey consumption are generated using estimates of predator
growth, diet composition, thermal experience, predator energy density, and prey energy
density. Estimated consumption can then be used to quantify important temporal, spatial,
and size-specific interactions within an aquatic community. Consumption requirements
and growth efficiency relative to ingested material can be simulated to determine
bottlenecks in growth due to prey availability or quality and thermal regime. The
bioenergetics modeling method is based on rates of energy intake, transformation, loss,
and use by the species of interest (Brett and Groves 1979), and provides a theoretical
framework for relating growth and feeding rates to ontogeny and environmental
conditions (Allen and Wootton 1982).
2
The Wisconsin bioenergetics model (Hanson et al. 1997) is based on a mass-
balance equation where consumption (C) equals the net gain or loss of weight (G), plus
metabolic costs (M), plus waste loss (W) accrued over a particular period. For each term
of this equation there are formulae that describe these processes in units of energy
(Joules/day), with the form and parameterization of each term specific to the physiology
or ontogenetic stage of a species. Previous analyses have indicated that functions
describing the effect of body mass and temperature on maximum consumption and
respiration contain the most sensitive parameters (Bartell et al. 1986). Lab experiments
should be designed to measure rates of consumption and respiration for various sizes of
fish at different temperatures to parameterize the size and temperature-dependant
functions. However, parameters are often borrowed from other species resulting in
reduced accuracy and confidence in this approach. It is important that parameters be
developed for a wide range of fish with careful attention to the experimental design of
maximum feeding and respiration experiments to increase the accuracy of bioenergetics
models.
Bioenergetics models have been constructed for aquatic organisms ranging from
omnivorous minnows (Schindler et al. 1993) to hyper-predaceous sea lampreys (Kitchell
1990). These models are commonly used to estimate consumption rates or growth (Rice
and Cochran 1984, Stewart and Ibarra 1991). Model predictions of consumption have
agreed with independent field estimates of consumption (estimates within +/- 10%) for
largemouth bass (Rice and Cochran 1984) and salmonids (Beauchamp et al. 1989,
3
Brodeur et al. 1992); however, bioenergetics models have not performed as well for
species modeled with parameters borrowed from other species (often from different
orders or families) (Post 1990, Boisclair and Leggett 1989, Wahl and Stein 1988).
Sculpin (Cottidae spp.) are commonly abundant in many freshwater, estuarine,
and marine assemblages, occupy multiple trophic levels, and represent important
components of many food webs. Prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) are known to feed on
other sculpins, juvenile salmonids, and aquatic invertebrates (Tabor et al. 1998, Jones
1986, Rickard 1980, Ikusemiju 1975), and are an important food source for some
piscivorous fish (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Prickly sculpin in Lake Washington have
been suspected of limiting the abundance of sockeye salmon (Tabor et al. 1998), a
commercially, recreationally, and culturally important species.
The objectives of this study were to parameterize a bioenergetics model for
prickly sculpin within the framework of the Wisconsin Bioenergetics Model 3.0 (Hanson
et al. 1997), evaluate the sensitivity of the parameters with individual parameter
perturbations of (+/-) 10% (Kitchell et al. 1977, Bartell et al. 1986), and evaluate the
generality of this model by comparing maximum consumption and respiration of prickly
sculpin to that of coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus) over a limited range of
temperatures and body sizes.
4
Methods
Prickly sculpins were collected from Lake Washington and transported to USGS
Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle, Washington, where their identification was
confirmed (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). The fish were sorted into six size classes: 2-
3g, 4-5g, 8-9g, 11-13g, 15-18g, and 20-30g. Prickly sculpin were acclimated to one of
the nine temperatures used for feeding and respiration experiments: 6º, 9º, 10º, 12º, 15º,
16.5º, 18º, 21º, and 24ºC. A natural photoperiod was provided with a skylight to avoid
stress associated with abrupt changes in light level from artificial lights.
Consumption Experiments
Feeding and respiration experiments were performed on prickly sculpins to
estimate key parameters used in the Wisconsin bioenergetics model 3.0 (Hanson et al.
1997). Preliminary maximum consumption (Cmax) experiments revealed the importance
of feeding live prey, thus prickly sculpins were fed a diet of white clouds (Tanichthys
albonubes), guppies (Lebistes reticulata), goldfish (Carassius auratus), or a combination
of the three. The smallest size class was fed white clouds exclusively, and the largest size
class was fed a combination of guppies and goldfish. Two prickly sculpins from each size
class were weighed and placed in a 2-liter non-toxic plastic feeding chamber immersed in
a temperature-controlled water bath. Prickly sculpins were held without food at each
experimental temperature for 72h before a 24h feeding trial. Fish were fed four pre-
weighed offerings of excess food over the 24h feeding trials. Unused prey were removed
and reweighed after each trial. Identical experiments were performed on a subset of
5
coastrange sculpin so that a comparison in feeding response between the two species
could be made. No aggressive interactions between paired fish were observed, and both
were examined for bulging stomachs after feeding trials to ensure that each sculpin had
eaten. Cmax was expressed as g food/(g body weight*day).
Respiration Experiments
Standard metabolism, the metabolism of a fasting fish at rest, defines the baseline
or lower bound for metabolic costs (Cech et al. 1985), and is therefore an important
variable in the bioenergetics budget. Standard metabolism is measured by converting the
amount of oxygen consumed over a particular period into calories or Joules with the
oxycaloric average of 3.24 cal/mg O2 (Elliott and Davidson 1975). Routine metabolism
was measured for six size classes of prickly sculpin at nine temperatures. Closed, static,
respirometers were constructed from canning jars, aquarium tubing, stopcock valves and
a YSI-52 dissolved oxygen (DO) meter (Edwards and Cech 1990). The YSI-52 DO
probe was fit into the center of a canning jar lid and made watertight with O-rings and
aquarium seal. Two smaller holes were drilled into the lid, and stopcock valves were
sealed in place and attached to a temperature-controlled water supply. A rubber gasket
was added to the respirometer lid to ensure water tightness.
The DO probe required flow across the membrane for proper operation, so a
magnetic stir bar was added to gently circulate water throughout the chamber. Since the
magnetic stir bar could potentially increase stress and elevate respiration rate, a cover was
6
designed to minimize this effect. I accounted for the oxygen depleted by microbes in the
chamber by subtracting the amount of oxygen lost in trials without fish (blanks), from the
amount of oxygen lost during trials with fish. Oxygen loss as a result of bacteria on the
fish was considered trivial and was ignored.
Prickly sculpins were held at the experimental temperature for a minimum of 3
days before respiration trials. The respirometers were submerged in a temperature-
controlled water bath, and prickly sculpins were allowed to adjust to the respiration
chamber during a 30-minute acclimation period prior to a trial. Oxygenated water was
circulated through the chamber via aquarium tubing and stopcock valves during the
acclimation period. The valves were closed after 30 minutes, and measurements of
dissolved oxygen and temperature were recorded every 5 minutes for 30 minutes. DO
was not allowed to fall below 3mg/l during a trial to ensure that oxygen levels were
measured accurately and that DO did not decline to levels that would stress the fish.
Bomb Calorimetry
Energy densities (Joules/g wet weight) for prickly sculpin and prey fish (0.5-2.5g)
were determined with bomb calorimetric methods. Live sculpins and prey fish were
transported from the USGS Western Fisheries Research Center (Seattle, WA) to the
University of Washington, pithed, blotted, weighed, dried in an oven, reweighed, ground
in a blender, pelletized, and combusted in a Parr 1425 semi-micro bomb calorimeter.
7
Model Development
The Wisconsin bioenergetics model (Hanson et al. 1997) is an energy balance
equation wherein consumption C must equal metabolic costs M, waste W, and growth
(somatic and gonadal) G.
C = M + W + G
Consumption and metabolism vary as functions of body mass and temperature,
and waste varies as a function of consumption. In the most common application, the
model estimates consumption (C) by iteratively fitting the proportion (P) of maximum
consumption (Cmax) required to satisfy the change in body mass observed over a specified
time interval for fish of a given size under a specified temperature regime (Hanson et al.
1997).
C = Cmax * P * F(T)
A series of feeding-to-satiation experiments over a range of temperatures and
body masses were used to parameterize the equations for Cmax. Maximum consumption
is typically a power function of body mass and has a dome-shaped response to
temperature (Hanson et al. 1997). These different response curves complicate the
parameterization of Cmax to body mass and temperature. To simplify the
parameterization, I first identified the temperatures where Cmax was highest for most sizes
8
of prickly sculpin, and then parameterized the weight-dependence function for
consumption at that temperature. For any other temperature, the weight-dependent Cmax
would be reduced by the temperature-dependant function of consumption that varies from
0.0 to 1.0
Because of the important relationship between the mass of prey consumed and the
total energy consumed, it was important to determine whether the consumption functions
in the Wisconsin bioenergetics model should be parameterized using prey mass or total
energy as the response variable. The Wisconsin model uses the mass of food, but
accounts for total energy contained in a given mass of food via the energy density, and
proportional contribution of each prey category in the diet. If consumption is limited by
energy rather than the mass of food consumed, then the model parameterization would be
affected by the quality of food (energy density) used for consumption experiments to
establish Cmax. This evaluation was based on the fit and shape of Cmax functions for
weight and temperature-dependence.
Cmax = CA * W CB
C specific consumption rate (g*g-1*d-1)
Cmax maximum specific feeding rate (g*g-1*d-1)
P proportion of maximum consumption
9
F(T) temperature dependence function
T water temperature (ºC)
W fish mass (g)
CA intercept of the allometric mass function (g*g-1*d-1)
CB slope of the allometric mass function
Absolute consumption (g*d-1) increased with increasing body size at all
temperatures (Figure 1a). This relationship deteriorated when consumption was adjusted
to the mass of prey at a standardized energy density of 4185 J/g (Figure 1b), thus
establishing that prey mass, rather than energy, is the proper currency for developing the
consumption functions.
The response of specific consumption to temperature was characteristic of a
response for cool- and cold-water species (Thornton and Lessem 1978) (Figure 2). The
Thornton-Lessem curve is the combination of two sigmoid curves, with one curve fit to
the portion of the data where consumption increases with temperature, and the other
curve where consumption decreases with temperature. Temperature dependence of Cmax
was estimated over seven temperatures using 7g prickly sculpins. The 7g prickly
sculpins were used to estimate temperature-dependent consumption parameters because
they were just large enough to be relatively insensitive to the body-size effect on
consumption. The temperature at which 98% of maximum consumption occurred (CTO
10
& CTM) was estimated to be 18ºC. We designated CQ = 6º as the temperature at which
consumption was a small fraction (CK1 = 0.1075) of peak consumption. Our warmest
experimental temperature was designated as CTL = 24ºC, a temperature warmer than
CTO and CTM where consumption was some reduced fraction (CK4 = 0.8129) of peak
consumption. The effect of weight on specific consumption (g prey consumed/(g
sculpin*day)) at 6º, 12º, 18º, and 21 ºC suggested a decreasing power function (Figures 3
and 4). Since peak consumption occurred at 18ºC, the weight-dependence at 18ºC was
used for estimating the final values of the intercept CA = 0.2324 and CB = -0.514 of the
decaying power function (r2 = 0.8702, p = 0.004)
Cmax = 0.2324 * W –0.514
Respiration
Respiration was used to describe metabolic costs as a function of body mass and
temperature. Metabolism is influenced by activity rate and specific dynamic action
(SDA). The total metabolic rate of a fish is estimated by adding SDA to respiration costs
(R).
R = RA * W RB * e RQ*T
S = SDA * (C-F)
11
R specific rate of respiration (gO2*g-1*d-1)
W fish mass (g)
RA intercept of the allometric mass function (g*g-1*d-1)
RB slope of the allometric mass function
RQ rate at which function increases over low temperatures
T water temperature (Cº)
S assimilated energy lost to specific dynamic action
SDA specific dynamic action (proportion of assimilated energy lost to digestion)
C specific consumption rate (g*g-1*d-1)
F specific egestion rate (g*g-1*d-1)
Specific respiration (gO2*g-1*d-1) declined as a decaying power function of body
mass, but increased exponentially as a function of temperature (Figure 5). A multiple
regression was performed on the natural log of specific respiration versus the natural log
of weight, and of temperature to obtain parameters RA, RB, and RQ (R2 = 0.7730, p <
0.001)
.
R = 0.0021 * W(-0.124) * e(0.0616) * T
The proportion of energy lost to SDA generally ranges between 0.17 and 0.18 (Hanson et
al. 1997), so I used an average of 0.175 in this model.
12
Egestion and Excretion
From average rates of waste losses W in the literature (Hanson et al. 1997), I
assumed that egestion F was as a constant portion of consumption (FA = 0.16), and
excretion computed as a constant proportion (UA = 0.10) of assimilated energy
(consumption – egestion).
W = 0.16 * C + 0.10 (C - 0.16 * C)
W = F + U
F = FA * C
U = UA * (C - F)
F specific egestion rate (g*g-1*d-1)
FA a constant proportion of consumption lost as feces
U specific excretion (g*g-1*d-1)
UA a constant proportion of assimilated energy lost as urine
Calorimetry
Calometric estimations of prey fish indicated that goldfish contained the highest
water content and lowest energy density, whereas guppies had the lowest water content
and highest energy density (Table 1). The energy density was 4151 Joules/g for age 1
prickly sculpin, and 4532 Joules/g for age 2-6 (Table 1). The mean energy density for
13
age 1 prickly sculpin was 4317 Joules/g, age 2-6 prickly sculpin 4532, white clouds 4014
J/g, guppies 6430 J/g, and goldfish 2679 J/g (Table 1).
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity of prickly sculpin physiological parameters to estimates of annual
consumption was evaluated by changing parameters +/-10% or +/- 1 ºC for temperature
parameters. One parameter was changed during each simulation, while the others were
maintained at their nominal values (Bartell et al. 1986). The model was then allowed to
estimate the proportion of maximum consumption (P-value), and calculate the weight (g)
of prey consumed over a 1-year simulation for a 3 year-old sculpin with an initial weight
of 15.7g and final weight of 26.1g. The seasonal thermal experience (Table 2) and diet
(Table 3) used in the simulation reflected conditions believed to be experienced by the
age 3 cohort in Lake Washington based on life history information from Rickard (1980).
Results
Sensitivity Analysis
The nominal values for all physiological parameters (Table 4) fell within the
range of values reported for other species (Hanson et al. 1997). The most sensitive
parameters in the model were those associated with the weight and temperature
dependence of respiration (Table 5). A 10% parameter perturbation of RA yielded a
change of 9.26% or -9.06% in annual consumption and a 10% perturbation of RB yielded
14
a change of 4.04% or -3.82% in annual consumption (Table 5). A 10% perturbation in
RQ yielded a change of 5.19% or -4.87% in annual prey consumption (Table 5).
Parameters associated with the effect of size and temperature on consumption were
relatively insensitive, with changes in annual prey consumption ranging from 0 to 2.86%.
CQ was the most sensitive of the parameters associated with consumption, with annual
prey consumption ranging from 2.86 to -1.84% (Table 5). P-values were very high, often
exceeding 1.0 (Table 5).
Energy Budget
The annual energy budget for prickly sculpin (Joules/year) allocated more energy
to respiration costs and less to waste and growth when compared to fishes growing at a
“typical” rate (Brett and Groves 1979).
Consumption = Respiration + Waste + Growth
General Carnivore: 100 = 44 + 27 + 29
Prickly Sculpin: 100 = 59 + 24 + 17
The growth efficiency (mass assimilated in growth/mass consumed) for age 1 prickly
sculpin experiencing a diet and thermal experience typical for Lake Washington, and
growing from 1.0g to 7.2g was 17.2%. The resulting annual energy budget (Joules) for
age 1 prickly was as follows:
15
Consumption = Respiration + Waste + Growth
49743 = 29038 + 12137 + 8567
Physiological Comparisons Between Prickly and Coastrange Sculpin
When comparisons were possible, maximum consumption was higher for
coastrange sculpin than for prickly sculpin of the same size at 6ºC, but was very similar at
higher temperatures (Figure 6). Coastrange sculpin had a higher tolerance to temperature
than did prickly sculpin, and consumed more food than did prickly sculpin at cooler
temperatures. Coastrange sculpin consumed the largest proportion of food at the highest
experimental temperature (24ºC), therefore, the temperature at which maximum
consumption occurs for coastrange sculpin could not be estimated (Figure 7). Specific
respiration values for coastrange sculpin were also higher than those for prickly sculpin
(Figure 8).
Discussion
The characteristic relationship for consumption in relation to weight and
temperature deteriorated when prey was standardized to 4185 J/g, indicating that weight
of food consumed has a more dominant effect than does quality of food when
constructing the model. This suggests that stretch receptors play the most important role
in prickly sculpin feeding, and that food mass, and not energy consumed is the correct
currency for constructing the model. This highlights the importance of using accurate
estimates of prey energy density when applying the model to a population in order to
16
predict consumption. Proportions of maximum consumption (P-values) can fluctuate for
the same mass of food consumed if energy densities differ significantly. The wide
variety of prey found in Lake Washington prickly sculpin diet is characteristic of an
opportunistic feeder, and suggests the need for additional work to determine these
relationships.
Resting metabolism was substituted for routine metabolism in the model because
prickly sculpins were generally observed lying motionless on substrate in their natural
environment and in holding tanks. However, previous studies have shown that sculpins
migrate to regions where food is more abundant on a seasonal basis (Ruzycki and
Wurtzbaugh 1999), and various life stages of some sculpin species undergo diel vertical
migration (Ikusemiju 1975, Neverman and Wurtzbaugh 1994). Further studies describing
sculpin activity are needed in order to include this component in the model. Standard
error associated with respiration and consumption increased with fish size because of
greater differences in body weight within the larger size classes. Oxygen consumption
was most variable at 24°C for all size classes, and is probably an effect of holding prickly
sculpins at a near fatal temperature.
After comparing empirically estimated prickly sculpin energetic values to values
estimated for other sculpin species, prickly sculpin appeared to be less energy dense than
other sculpin. Energy density values reported in the literature for other Cottids ranged
from 5,209 Joules/g (Cottus perplexus; Brocksen et al. 1968) to 5,736 J/g (Cottus
17
cognatus; Rottiers and Tucker 1982). We found the energy density of prickly sculpin to
vary with body weight, with an average energy density of 4151 J/g for age 1 fish, and
4532 J/g for age 2-6 fish.
Similarities in responses of prickly sculpin and coastrange sculpin suggest that
our model may be used for other Cottids, however, there were differences between the
two species that should be considered when making parameter substitutions. Coastrange
sculpin had higher metabolic costs than did prickly sculpin, which may be somewhat
compensated for by a higher temperature dependence, especially at low temperatures.
These differences can be explained by differences in the life history and the preferred
habitat of the two species. Both coastrange and prickly sculpin are found in the coastal
region from California to Alaska, however, the two species are usually ecologically
separated, with the coastrange sculpin more commonly occupying streams with moderate
current and the prickly sculpin preferring lakes or slow moving stream habitats (Wydoski
and Whitney 1979). An ability to consume more prey over a wider range of temperatures
would be consistent with the relatively higher currents and wider temperature fluctuations
expected in habitats occupied by coastrange sculpin.
Responses of consumption and respiration to changes in body mass and
temperature were similar to those for other cool and cold-water species, with all
estimated parameter values falling within the range of values reported for other fishes
(Hanson et al. 1997). This consistency suggests that the parameters for prickly sculpin
18
are reasonable. My experimentally derived physiological parameters for consumption
and respiration of prickly sculpin consumption provide an initial template for
characterizing the physiology of a widely abundant and important genus of fish in
northern temperate waters.
19
Figures
W eight (g )
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Con
sum
ptio
n (g
/d)
0
1
2
3
6 (C ) 9 (C ) 12 (C ) 15 (C ) 18 (C ) 21 (C ) 24 (C )
A
W eight (g)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Con
sum
ptio
n (g
/d)
0 .0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
6 (C ) 9 (C ) 12 (C ) 15 (C ) 18 (C ) 21 (C ) 24 (C )
B
Figure 1. Absolute consumption (g prey consumed/day) by prickly sculpins (a). Absolute consumption (g prey consumed/day) weighted by caloric content to 4185 J/g (b).
20
Temperature (C)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Prop
ortio
n of
Cm
ax
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure 2. Proportion of maximum consumption in relation to temperature (ºC) for 7g prickly sculpin.
21
Weight (g)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spec
ific
Con
sum
ptio
n (g
/(g*d
))
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
18ºC
21ºC
12ºC
6ºC
Figure 3. Specific consumption (g prey consumed/(g sculpin*day)) as a function of weight (g) at 12, 15, 16.5, and 18ºC.
22
Weight (g)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spec
ific
Con
sum
ptio
n (g
/(g*d
))
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Figure 4. Specific consumption (g prey consumed/(g sculpin*day)) in relation to body weight (g) for prickly sculpin at 18ºC (r2 = 0.8702).
23
Temperature (C)
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Spec
ific
Res
pira
tion
g O
xyge
n/(g
*d)
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
2.73 (g) 4.62 (g) 6.48 (g) 12.82 (g) 15.88 (g) 25.77 (g)
Figure 5. Specific respiration (g O2 consumed/(g sculpin*day)) vs. Temperature (ºC) for six size classes of prickly sculpin (multiple regression r2 = 0.7730).
24
W e ig h t (g )
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
Spe
cific
Con
sum
ptio
n g/
(g*d
)
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4 6 ºC
1 8 ºC
2 4 ºC
c oas tran g ep ric k ly
Figure 6. Specific consumption (g/(g*d)) coastrange sculpin and prickly sculpin at 6º, 18º, and 24ºC. Error bars represent 1 standard error.
25
Temperature (C)
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Prop
ortio
n of
Cm
ax
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Coastrange Prickly
Figure 7. Proportion of maximum consumption for 4.5g coastrange sculpins and prickly sculpins relative to temperature (ºC). Error bars represent 1 standard error.
26
Weight (g)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Spec
ific
Res
pira
tion
(g O
2 /(g*
d))
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
Coastrange 10ºC Prickly 9ºC Coastrange 22ºC Prickly 21ºC
Figure 8. Specific respiration (gO2/(g*d)) for coastrange and prickly sculpin at 9-10º and 20-21º C.
27
Tables Table 1. Mean energy density (J/g) and dry/wet ratio of prickly sculpin and prey fish used in feeding experiments. Because of their small size, multiple guppies and white clouds were homogenized and analyzed as composite samples in the bomb calorimeter (**).
Fish Wet body mass (g)
Dry/wet ratio
N Wet wt. energy density (J/g)
Prickly (age 1) 3.31 0.22 32 4317 Prickly (age 2-6) 18.9 0.22 32 4532 Goldfish 0.96 0.17 6 2679 Guppy 0.14 0.27 ** 6430 W. Cloud 0.03 0.20 ** 4014
Table 2. Temperature values for age 3 prickly sculpin used in sensitivity analysis.
Month Temperature (ºC) January 8.25 February 7.00 March 7.00 April 8.25 May 11.00 June 13.75 July 7.50
August 7.50 September 7.50
October 7.50 November 8.00 December 9.00
28
Table 3. Proportion of prey in Lake Washington prickly sculpin diet categorized by sculpin age and season (Rickard 1980). Miscellaneous invertebrate category includes Amphipoda, Isopoda, Decapoda, and Diptera pupae.
Age Season Fish 4500 J/g
Neomysis 3642 J/g
Chironomid 4428 J/g
Trichoptera 4429 J/g
Mollusca 2500 J/g
M. Invert. 4428 J/g
1 Winter 0.00 0.23 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.08 Spring 0.00 0.04 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.09 Summer 0.00 0.06 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.06 Autumn 0.00 0.13 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.10
2-3 Winter 0.05 0.34 0.30 0.05 0.08 0.08 Spring 0.03 0.06 0.38 0.28 0.07 0.18 Summer 0.05 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.03 0.16 Autumn 0.03 0.18 0.31 0.03 0.15 0.20
4-6 Winter 0.23 0.34 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.29 Spring 0.20 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.40 Summer 0.29 0.15 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.32 Autumn 0.46 0.14 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.25
29
Table 4. Parameter values for prickly sculpin estimated from consumption and respiration experiments.
Functions used in Wisconsin Model
Parameter description
Nominal value
Consumption
CA Intercept: Cmax (g · g-1 · d-1) 0.2325 CB Coefficient: Cmax versus weight -0.514 CQ Temperature for K1 (°C) 6
CTO Temperature for K2 (°C) 18 CTM Temperature for K3 (°C) 18 CTL Temperature for K4 (°C) 24 CK1 Proportion of peak Cmax at CQ 0.1075 CK4 Proportion of peak Cmax at CTL 0.8129
Respiration
RA Intercept: R (g O2/d) 0.0021 RB Coefficient: R versus weight -0.1240 RQ Coefficient: R versus temperature 0.0616
SDA Proportion: assimilated energy lost to digestion 0.175 Egestion and Excretion
FA Constant proportion of consumption 0.16 UA Constant proportion of assimilated energy 0.10
30
Table 5. Sensitivity analysis of the prickly sculpin model for annual consumption of an age 3 sculpin growing from 15.7g to 26.1g with the thermal experience presented in Table 2. For the nominal run, total consumption was 113.98g and P-value = 0.95017. % Difference in consumption Parameter Pertubation (+) Pertubation (-) Pertubation (+) P-value (-) P-value
CA +/- 10% 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.19 CB +/- 10% 0.52 -0.54 1.26 0.91 CQ +/- 1ºC 2.86 -1.84 1.39 0.86
CTO +/- 1ºC -0.01 -0.11 1.14 1.00 CTM +/- 1ºC 0.01 -0.01 1.07 1.07 CTL +/- 1ºC -0.01 0.01 1.07 1.07 CK1 +/- 10% -0.48 0.55 1.02 1.13 CK4 +/- 10% -0.01 0.00 1.07 1.07 RA +/- 10% 9.26 -9.06 1.16 0.98 RB +/- 10% -3.82 4.04 1.03 1.11 RQ +/- 10% 5.19 -4.87 1.12 1.02
SDA +/- 10% 2.47 -4.10 1.09 1.02
31
Chapter II
Model Application
Introduction
Sculpins (Cottidae spp.) represent a significant component of freshwater fish
fauna in the Pacific Northwest (Bond 1963), and feed at multiple trophic levels (Rickard
1980, Jones 1986, Tabor et al. 1998). In Lake Washington, prickly sculpin (Cottus
asper) represent approximately 80% of the total fish biomass, and are both predators and
prey (Eggers et al. 1978, Rickard 1980, Tabor et al. 1998). Therefore, prickly sculpins
should influence trophic interactions in the lake. Prickly sculpins cannibalize smaller
prickly sculpins and feed on other fishes, insects, crustaceans, and other invertebrates
(Rickard 1980). Consumption of juvenile sockeye salmon by prickly sculpins has been
observed in the Cedar River and throughout Lake Washington (Eric Warner,
Muckleshoot Tribe and Roger Tabor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, personal communication),
and is a topic of special concern to fisheries managers.
Predation plays an important role in regulating prey populations in aquatic
systems (Post et al. 1998, Elser et al. 1995). In Lake Washington predation was
implicated as a possible cause for reduced survival of juvenile sockeye salmon and
longfin smelt during the 1970s and 1980s (Eggers et al. 1978, Swartzman and
32
Beauchamp 1990, Beauchamp 1994). Although sculpin are primarily benthic, predation
on mobile prey may occur during various seasons and times of day. Sockeye salmon fry
enter Lake Washington as early as January and generally migrate to sea in May of the
following year. After sockeye salmon fry leave the Cedar River, they are present in
nearshore areas for a short time before moving offshore. Martz et al. (1996) reported that
some fry remain in littoral areas during winter and spring. Sockeye salmon presmolts
congregate along the shore before leaving the lake in spring (Martz et al. 1996) and could
be vulnerable to large prickly sculpin. Juvenile and larval fish in benthic regions could
also be particularly vulnerable to prickly sculpin predation. Age 3-6 (total length (TL) =
110-165mm, weight = 15.7-59.7g) prickly sculpin display a seasonal offshore migration
during the summer and fall (Rickard 1980), which should increase the amount of
predation on organisms inhabiting the profundal zone. Juvenile sockeye salmon move
offshore after entering the lake during May-July (Martz et al. 1996), and exhibit diel
vertical migrations throughout the year (Woodey 1972, Eggers et al. 1978). Prickly
sculpin predation may significantly affect the survival of juvenile sockeye in the
profundal and slope zones throughout the year, and fry and presmolts in nearshore
regions during winter and spring.
Juvenile chinook salmon use the lake as a migratory corridor to Puget Sound, and
rear in the littoral zone of Lake Washington for up to 6 months (Tabor and Piaskowski
2001). Even though juvenile chinook salmon spend less time in Lake Washington than
juvenile sockeye salmon, predation by prickly sculpin may have detrimental effects on
33
their population because of their closer association with littoral regions in spring and
summer. Bioenergetically based food web models coupled with direct sampling for diet,
growth, size structure, thermal experience, and abundance can be used to quantify
temporal and size-specific consumption (Ney 1990). The bioenergetics modeling
approach quantifies trophic interactions by estimating the biomass of prey consumed by
individuals or populations of predators (Ney 1993). If the size structure of prey in the
diet is known, then the biomass of prey consumed can be converted into numerical losses
of prey. Bioenergetically based studies have proven useful for quantifying the
consumption demand of specific populations of fish (Stewart et al. 1981, Brandt and
Hartman 1993, Ney 1993). Specific applications have been used to predict the effect of
increased predation (LaBar 1993, Negus 1995), decreased predation (Rand and Stewart
1998), and energy conversion and gross production rates (Rand and Stewart 1998).
Bioenergetics modeling based on existing information for diet, distribution, and growth
of prickly sculpin in Lake Washington can provide estimates of predation rates on
juvenile sockeye salmon and other important prey species.
The primary objective of this study was to apply a bioenergetics model to
estimate consumption rates by prickly sculpin for their major prey in Lake Washington.
The second objective was to investigate the amount of juvenile salmon that might be
consumed by prickly sculpin by combining literature information with model results.
These simulations will provide an exploratory examination into whether prickly sculpins
are capable of imposing significant mortality on juvenile salmon or on other key species
34
in Lake Washington (e.g. Neomysis, larval fishes, and self regulation through
cannibalism). The third objective was to use this model to contrast simulated growth
under epilimnetic conditions, hypolimnetic conditions, and a thermal experience inferred
from onshore and offshore migrations to investigate the effects of spatial and temporal
distribution on growth.
Study Area
With a total surface area of 54.4 square kilometers, Lake Washington is the
second largest lake in Washington State (Comita and Anderson 1959). The lake is 32.2
km in length with an average width of 2.5 kilometers. Lake Washington is an oligo-
mesotrophic, monomictic lake with a mean depth of 33 m and a maximum depth of 66 m.
The shallowest regions are located at the north, south, and southeastern ends, with the
deepest regions located in the center. The Vashon ice sheet formed the steep marginal
slopes (Gould and Budinger 1958) that run longitudinally along the narrow body of
water. Water temperatures drop to 7°C in winter, and full water column mixing occurs
from December through April. Temperatures range from 7-22ºC in the epilimnion and 7-
9ºC in the hypoliminon (King County unpublished data). The lake has four primary
benthic habitat types: mud, sand, gravel, and silt.
35
Methods
Consumption and growth efficiencies for prickly sculpin were estimated with a
bioenergetics model (version 3.0 Hanson et al. 1997) parameterized for prickly sculpin.
Diet, growth, and distribution data were obtained from a life history study of Lake
Washington prickly sculpin (Rickard 1980). Physiological parameters used in the
bioenergetics model were derived from experiments performed on prickly sculpins from
Lake Washington (Chapter I). Consumption was fitted to annual growth estimates (Table
6) using seasonal and size specific proportions of prey in the diet (Table 3) from Rickard
(1980). Simulations began with January 1 and continued for 365 days for each size/age
class. Spawning losses of 1.7% (age 1), 5.0% (age 2), and 5.4% (age 3-6) of total body
weight were simulated as a single step occurring on June 1. Age-0 prickly sculpin were
not modeled because of insufficient data. Simulations were run with the proportion of
maximum daily consumption (P-value) fitted to annual growth increments for prickly
sculpin by the model. The biomass of each prey consumed was reported in the model
output.
I applied the bioenergetics model to life history and diet information from the mid
1970s (Rickard 1980) and to more recent diet information from the southern region of
Lake Washington (Tabor et al. 1998), where most sockeye salmon fry enter the lake
during winter and spring. Thermal experience was inferred from depth distributions of
prickly sculpin and thermal profiles from the lake. I conservatively assumed that prickly
sculpins did not prey on juvenile salmon larger than 50% of their body length (Juanes
36
1994, Persson 2000, Jones 1986). The potential magnitude of losses on prey items of
particular interest (sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, sculpin, mysids, and chironomid
pupae) were estimated per 1000 prickly sculpins, which incorporates the size structure of
the population reported by Rickard (1980). Annual survival rate for sculpin was assumed
to be 24% or 34% (Rickard 1980). Annual growth estimates were entered into the model,
and seasonal growth was interpolated by the Wisconsin Model version 3.0 (Hanson et al.
1997).
Rickard (1980) collected prickly sculpins from each of four major bottom habitats
from December 4, 1974 to December 5, 1975 with baited minnow traps. Smaller prickly
sculpins (ages 1-2, TL 40-100mm) remained in littoral habitats throughout the year,
whereas larger (TL >100mm) individuals moved into profundal habitats after spawning
in spring, and remained there until thermal destratification in November. Prickly sculpins
spawned in littoral regions during April-July, with peak spawning during the first week of
June. Most ripe prickly sculpins were found in the littoral zone, while only a small
fraction with a high gonad index (g gonad/g body weight) were found in the profundal
zone. Fifty percent of females and 12.5% of males were sexually mature by age 1, and
94.3% of females and 19.2% of males were sexually mature by age 2. All prickly
sculpins were sexually mature by age 3. The reported percent of body weight allocated to
gonadal material was 7.8% for females, 3.1% for males, and the average percentage of
body mass lost due to spawning for both sexes was 5.4%.
37
Thermal experience of prickly sculpins was inferred from temporal and spatial
movements (Rickard 1980) and monthly thermal profiles in Lake Washington. Each age
cohort was modeled with epilimnetic temperatures, hypolimnetic temperatures, and a
thermal experience inferred from seasonal onshore and offshore migrations. For age 3-6
prickly sculpins, thermal experience was modeled using epilimnetic temperatures from
November-June and hypolimnetic temperatures from July-October. Age 1-2 prickly
sculpins remained in the littoral zone and experienced epilimnetic temperatures
throughout the year (Table 7).
Rickard (1980) provided size-specific diet information and seasonal diet
information pooled over all sizes of prickly sculpin. Seasonal proportions of prey pooled
over all age classes were multiplied by size-specific proportions of prey. The resulting
values were scaled such that seasonal and size-specific proportions of prey in diet
summed to one (Table 3). Sculpin became piscivorous at age 2-3 (4% diet) and by age 4-
6, fish composed 30% of their diet. Out of 348 prickly sculpin stomachs, all but one of
the fish prey were prickly sculpins (Rickard 1980). Tabor et al. (1998) found five
sockeye salmon fry in the stomach contents of 262 prickly sculpin ≥50mm from littoral
samples collected in ≤10m of water along the southern end of Lake Washington during
peak fry migration in March-April. Juvenile sockeye salmon fry composed less than 5%
of the fish fraction of the diet reported by Tabor et al. (1998), and composed 0% of the
fish fraction of the diet by Rickard (1980). I assumed that juvenile sockeye salmon
composed 1% of the fish fraction of prickly sculpin diet based on this evidence.
38
Energy densities for prickly sculpin were measured using a Parr 1425 Semi-micro
Calorimeter, and values for prey items were obtained from Cummins and Wuycheck
(1971). Energetic values (J/g wet weight) for prickly sculpin used in the model were
4151 J/g for age 1 (1-7.1g), and 4532 J/g for age 2-6 (7.2-59.7g) prickly sculpin. Prey
energy densities (J/g wet weight) used in the model are as follows: Neomysis (3642 J/g),
Mollusca (2500 J/g), Chironomidae pupae (4428 J/g), Trichoptera (4429 J/g), fish (4500
J/g), and miscellaneous invertebrates (4428 J/g).
Rickard (1980) determined size at age by examining 1,108 otoliths (Table 6).
Weight (W) was calculated from total length (TL)(mm) by the equation (n = 2,156; r2 =
0.967) (Rickard 1980):
W = 2.63*10-6*TL 3.3185
I used seasonal growth increments generated by the model to estimate seasonal lengths
because Rickard (1980) only provided annual weight by age. Seasonal lengths were then
used to determine which age classes of prickly sculpin were capable of preying upon
juvenile salmon on a seasonal basis by conservatively assuming that prickly sculpin could
consume salmonid prey up to 50% of their own body length. If a sculpin lost weight
during a season, the length estimate from the previous season was substituted.
39
To determine seasonal susceptibility to predation, seasonal changes in size of
juvenile sockeye salmon (Woodey 1972, Chigbu and Sibley 1994) and chinook salmon
(M. Koehler, University of Washington, unpublished data), were compared to the
seasonal length of each age class of prickly sculpin. In functional response experiments
(Jones 1986), prickly sculpin 120-190mm TL each consumed 2-10 chum salmon fry 35-
44mm FL, and prickly sculpins ≥50mm consumed sockeye salmon fry ≥20mm FL in the
Cedar River (Tabor et al. 1998). I determined that age 2-6 prickly sculpins could prey
upon juvenile sockeye salmon during spring, and age 5-6 could effectively prey upon
juvenile sockeye salmon during the fall (Table 8). Age 4-6 prickly sculpins were able to
prey upon juvenile chinook salmon in the spring (Table 9). Seasonal weights for juvenile
sockeye and geometric mean weights for Neomysis were calculated from seasonal
weights reported in Chigbu and Sibley (1994) and Chigbu et al. (1998).
Initial body weights (g) (Rickard 1980) and P-values generated from runs using
nominal observed thermal experience for age 1-6 prickly sculpins were used to estimate
monthly and final weight for individuals experiencing epilimnetic temperatures and
hypolimnetic temperatures. Prey energy density and percent composition in the diet
remained the same in these simulations. Growth efficiency (g prey consumed/g change
in body weight) and percent body weight consumed daily (g consumed/g body weight)
was examined using prey consumption estimated by the model, and body weight
estimates provided by Rickard (1980).
40
Results
Consumption Rate Simulations
Individual daily ration of prey ranged from 0.04 g/day (age 1) in winter (January-
March) to 0.96 g/day (age 6) in autumn (October-December) (Figure 9). Daily ration
increased with age and increased seasonally from winter through autumn. Similarly,
piscivory increased seasonally from winter through autumn for age 2 and older prickly
sculpin. Age 1 prickly sculpins primarily ate chironomids, Neomysis, and miscellaneous
invertebrates, but not fish (Figure 9). The model estimated annual consumption per 1,000
age 1-6 prickly sculpin based on annual survival rates of 24% and 34%; these simulations
resulted in estimates of 2.88-5.16 kg of fish, 7.14-8.75 kg of Neomysis, 36.37-36.71 kg of
chironomid pupae, 2.90-4.04 kg of Trichoptera, 2.45-3.51 kg of mollusca, and 8.46-11.14
kg of miscellaneous invertebrates being consumed annually per 1,000 prickly sculpin
(Table 10).
Numerical predation losses of juvenile sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, prickly
sculpin, and Neomysis, were simulated per 1,000 prickly sculpin. The estimates of
sockeye salmon losses were based on the assumption that juvenile sockeye salmon
represented 1% of the fish in the diet (most realistic scenario) (Tabor et al. 1998, Rickard
1980). The model estimated 1,000 prickly sculpin (>47mm TL, age 1-6) could
potentially consume 34-17 juvenile sockeye salmon (25-45 mm) in the spring, and 0-1
juvenile sockeye salmon in the summer if they composed 1% of the fish fraction of the
41
diet (Table 11). If juvenile chinook salmon represented 1% of fish in the diet during
periods when they were vulnerable to predation in spring, 1-2 juvenile chinook salmon
would be consumed per 1,000 prickly sculpin annually (Table 11). If other sculpin
composed 99% (most realistic scenario) of the fish in the diet, then 5,764-10,310 sculpin
(0.5g) would be consumed annually per 1,000 prickly sculpin. The model predicted that
4.4-5.3 million Neomysis are consumed per 1,000 prickly sculpin annually (Table 11).
Annual juvenile sockeye salmon consumption estimates for 1,000 age 1 and older
prickly sculpin were expanded to the entire population (94-250 million) of prickly sculpin
in Lake Washington (Rickard 1980). These estimates expanded to 1.60-8.75 million
juvenile sockeye salmon being consumed annually, and accounted for 10.8-59.1% of the
fry population (0.73-27.1 million) (Seiler and Kishimoto 1997; Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data). Annual juvenile chinook salmon consumption
estimates for a sub-population of 1,000 prickly sculpin were expanded to the entire
population of prickly sculpin in Lake Washington. These estimates expanded to 94-500
thousand juvenile chinook salmon consumed annually, and accounted for 4.9-26.3% of
the population (1.9 million) (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife unpublished
data). If 99% of the fish consumed by age 1-6 prickly sculpin were other age 1-6 prickly
sculpin, the model predicted that they would consume 88-107% of their own biomass.
42
Simulations of Seasonal, Depth-Specific Growth and Efficiency
Thermal experience provided an explanation for seasonal offshore and onshore
migrations by age 3-6 prickly sculpins. When modeled with their observed thermal
experience (nominal simulations) and a P-value (constant ration) from the nominal
observed thermal experience, age 3-6 prickly sculpins achieved greater weight by the end
of the year than they would have by remaining in the epilimnion or hypolimnion
throughout the year. Age 1-2 prickly sculpin had larger final weights when modeled with
a hypolimnetic thermal experience and a P-value (constant ration) from nominal observed
temperatures (Figure 10). Age 1-2 prickly sculpins lost weight in July and August, and
age 4-5 lost weight in May when modeled with a nominal observed thermal experience.
Growth efficiency, and consumption rate (Figures 11 and 12) were modeled for
each age class using epilimnetic temperatures, hypolimnetic temperatures, and a thermal
experience inferred from seasonal onshore-offshore migrations. Annual growth
efficiency declined markedly with age for ages 1-3, and gradually for ages 3-6 (Figure
11). Prickly sculpin modeled with hypolimnetic temperatures grew most efficiently
(Figure 11). Size dependent growth efficiency ranged from 53% (age 1) to 26% (age 6)
when modeled with hypolimnetic temperatures, and from 15% (age 1) to 5% (age 6)
when modeled with epilimnetic temperatures (Figure 11). When prickly sculpin were
modeled with temperatures inferred from onshore and offshore migrations, growth
efficiency was lowest for age 2 fish. Size dependent estimates of daily consumption
ranged from 12.1% (age 1) to 1.9% (age 6) of body weight per day for fish experiencing
43
epilimnetic temperatures, and from 3.4% to 0.4% for fish experiencing hypolimnetic
temperatures. When prickly sculpin were modeled with temperatures inferred from
onshore and offshore migrations, average daily consumption ranged from 12.1% (age 1)
to 1.4% (age 6). For all ages of prickly sculpin, the least amount of prey biomass was
consumed when they were modeled with hypolimnetic temperatures, and the greatest
amount when they were modeled with epilimnetic temperatures (Figure 12).
Discussion
Although juvenile salmon were not a major prey item for prickly sculpin (less
than 0.03% of the diet overall), predation losses imposed by prickly sculpin could be
potentially large (4.9-26.3% of juvenile chinook population and 10.8-59.1% of juvenile
sockeye population). Juvenile salmon are likely to compose less than 1% of the fish
fraction of prickly sculpin diet in Lake Washington; however, this is speculation, and
their dietary contribution needs to be investigated further. Consumption of juvenile
sockeye salmon by prickly sculpin was not reported by Rickard (1980); however,
significant levels of predation is thought to occur in the lower Cedar River and southern
end of Lake Washington (Tabor et al. 1998). If juvenile salmon are closely associated
with the bottom of the lake, either along the littoral region or along deeper slopes, their
risk of being eaten will be higher, and effective predator avoidance will be important for
survival.
44
Prickly sculpin should feed most heavily on juvenile salmon when they are
present in high densities relative to alternate prey (Jones 1986). As alternative prey were
experimentally added to a feeding area, predation was significantly reduced, suggesting
that salmon fry were either not a preferred prey of prickly sculpin or that alternative prey
effectively inhibited feeding rates on fry. Large aggregations of presmolts could trigger
an accelerated feeding response; however, size dependent relationships will limit prickly
sculpin predation on juvenile salmon.
Fish predation is a major factor controlling Neomysis abundance in aquatic
systems (Chigbu et al. 1998, McDonald et al. 1990, Kjelberg et al. 1991). Chigbu et al.
(1998) examined the spatial and temporal movements of Neomysis mercedis in Lake
Washington, where Neomysis occupy shallower areas during winter and early spring, and
move into deeper waters during summer as water temperature increases. A similar
pattern of migration to deeper waters was noted for older prickly sculpin (Rickard 1980).
Neomysis mercedis represented the largest proportion of prickly sculpin diet by weight
during the winter, and model simulations indicate that between 3.9-4.5 million Neomysis
mercedis were consumed annually per 1,000 prickly sculpin. Neomysis prey upon
Daphnia (Murtaugh 1981), which are a staple prey of sockeye salmon fry. Predation on
Neomysis by prickly sculpin may relieve some predation on Daphina and thus indirectly
improve the food supply for juvenile sockeye salmon
45
Seasonal onshore and offshore movements by prickly sculpin have been linked to
spawning and water temperature (Rickard 1980). Between December and June, the
coolest bottom temperatures in the littoral and profundal zones were 7°C, and
temperatures were warmest in the summer when littoral bottom temperatures increased to
19.5°C. As littoral temperature increased in July, abundance of older prickly sculpin
increased in the profundal zone. Bottom temperature and catch per unit effort (CPUE)
were negatively correlated between December and March. Sand and silt habitats, which
were mostly associated with nearshore regions, were most populated during the winter
months.
An ontogenetic habitat shift for age-0 sculpin (Cottus extensus) from the
profundal zone to the littoral zone in Bear Lake, Utah was attributed to the energetic
benefit from behavioral thermoregulation (Wurtsbaugh and Neverman 1988, Ruzycki and
Wurtsbaugh 1999). The profundal zone in Bear Lake was the less energetically favorable
habitat because of limited food availability and cooler temperatures. As shown through
otolith analysis, juvenile Bear Lake sculpin increased their growth rate in warmer water.
It has been suggested that juvenile Bear Lake sculpin inhabiting the cool profundal zone
migrate into the water column during the night to take advantage of the relatively warmer
metalimnion. Applying the model to Lake Washington prickly sculpin life history data
provided insight into the energetic advantage of habitat selection and migration.
Consumption (% body weight) was lowest, and growth efficiency greatest, for
individuals occupying cooler hypolimnetic waters.
46
Growth simulations modeled with P-values from nominal observed thermal
experience, and epilimnetic thermal experience or hypolimnetic thermal experience
showed that age 3-6 prickly sculpins would lose large amounts of weight if they were to
remained in the epilimnion during the summer and autumn. These results, combined
with onshore and offshore movements by prickly sculpins, suggest that temperature
inluenced distribution. Large fluctuations in the habitat occupied during fall months may
have been due to the redistribution of larger individuals into littoral regions, or may be
related to prickly sculpins switching prey type. The primary prey in summer was
chironomid pupae, and was fish in the fall. Prickly sculpin were the predominant fish
found in prickly sculpin diet, suggesting that cannibalism may be an important self-
regulating mechanism for this population.
Model simulations are only as accurate as the information used to construct them,
and can be useful tools for exploring the potential importance of various trophic
interactions. These simulations place bounds around the potential magnitude of
interactions and can identify important sources of uncertainty. More accurate estimates
of Lake Washington prickly sculpin thermal experience and proportion of juvenile
salmon in diet is needed to minimize extrapolation error in this model and gain better
resolution in consumption estimates.
47
References
Allen, J.R.M. and R.J. Wootton. 1982. Age, growth, and rate of food consumption in an
upland population of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus).
Journal of Fish Biology 21:95-106.
Bartell, S.M., J.E. Breck, and R.H. Gardner. 1986. Individual parameter pertubation
and error analysis of fish bioenergetics models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 43:10-168.
Beauchamp, D.A. 1994. Spatial and temporal dynamics of piscivory: Implications for
food web stability and the transparency of Lake Washington. Lake and Reservoir
Management 9:151-154.
Beauchamp, D.A., D.J. Stewart, and G.L. Thomas. 1989. Corroboration of a
bioenergetics model for sockeye salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 118:597-607.
Bond, C.E. 1963. Distribution and ecology of freshwater sculpins, genus Cottus, in
Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Boisclair, D. and W.C. Leggett. 1989. The importance of activity in bioenergetics
models applied to actively foraging fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 46:1859-1867.
Brandt, S.B. and K.J. Hartman. 1993. Innovative approaches with bioenergetics models:
Future applications to fish ecology and management. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 122:731-735.
48
Brett, J.R. and T.D.D. Groves. 1979. Physiological energetics. In Fish Physiology,
volume 8 pages 279-352. Edited by W.S. Hoar, D.J. Randall, and J. R. Brett.
Academic press, New York.
Brocksen, R.W, G.E. Davis, and C.E. Warren. 1968. Competition, food consumption,
and production of sculpins and trout in laboratory stream communities. Journal of
Wildlife Management 32(1): 51-75.
Brodeur, R.D., R.C. Frances, and W.G. Pearcy. 1992. Food-consumption of juvenile
coho (Oncorhyncus kisutch) and chinook salmon (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha) on
the continental shelf off Washington and Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 49:1670-1685.
Cech, J.J., Jr., M.J. Massingill, B. Vondrscek, and A.L. Linden. 1985. Respiratory
metabolism of mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis: Effects of temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and sex difference. Environmental Biology of Fishes 13:297-307.
Chigbu, P., T.H. Sibley, and D.A. Beauchamp. 1998. Abundance and distribution of
Neomysis mercedis and a major predator, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)
in Lake Washington. Hydrobiologia 386:167-182.
Chigbu, P. and T.H. Sibley. 1994. Feeding behavior of longfin smelt (Spirinchus
thaleichthys) may affect water quality and salmon production in Lake
Washington. Lake and Reservoir Management 9:145-148.
Comita, G.W. and G.C. Anderson. 1959. The seasonal development of a population of
Diaptomous ashlandi and related phytoplankton cycles in Lake Washington.
Limnology and Oceanography 4:37-52.
49
Cummins, K.W. and J.C. Wuycheck. 1971. Caloric equivalents for investigations in
ecological energetics. Mitteilungen Internationale Vereeinigung Für Theoretische
und Angewandte Limnologie 18.
Edwards, D.G. and J.J. Cech Jr. 1990. Aquatic and aerial metabolism of juvenile
monkeyface prickleback (Cebidichthys violaceus) an intertidal fish of California.
Journal of Comparative Physiology 96:61-65.
Eggers, D.M., N.W. Bartoo, N.A. Rickard, R.E. Nelson, R.C. Wissmar, R.L. Burgner,
and A.H. Devol. 1978. The Lake Washington ecosystem: The perspective from
the fish community production and forage base. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 35:1553-1571.
Elliott, J.M. and W. Davidson. 1975. Energy equivalents of oxygen consumption in
animal energetics. Oecologia (Berlin) 19:195-201.
Elser, J.J., C. Luecke, M.T. Brett, and C.R. Goldman. 1995. Effects of food web
compensation after manipulation of rainbow trout in an oligotrophic lake.
Ecology 76:52-69.
Gould, H.R. and R.F. Budinger. 1958. Control of sediments and bottom configuration
by convection currents, Lake Washington, Washington. Journal of Marine
Research 17:183-198.
Hanson, P.C., T.B. Johnson, D.E. Schindler, and J.K. Kitchell. 1997. Fish Bioenergetics
3.0. University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Limnology and University of
Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.
Ikusemiju, K. 1975. Aspects of the ecology and life history of the sculpin Cottus
50
aleuticus (Gilbert) in Lake Washington. Journal of Fish Biology 7:235-245.
Jones, M.L. 1986. The influence of natural predation on the population dynamics of
pacific salmon. PhD Dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Juanes, F. 1994. What determines prey size selectivity in piscivorous fishes? In Theory
and Application In Fish Feeding Ecology pp. 79-100. Edited by D.J. Stouder,
K.L. Fresh, and R.J. Feller. Belle W. Baruch Library In Marine Science number
18, University of South Carolina. Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Kitchell, J.F., 1990. The scope for mortality caused by sea lamprey. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 119:642-648.
Kitchell, J.F., D.J. Stewart, and D. Weininger. 1977. Applications of a bioenergetics
model to perch (Perca flavescens) and walleye (Sitzostedion vitreum). Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 34:1922-1935
Kjellberg, G., D.O. Hessen and J.P. Nilssen. 1991. Life history, growth, and production
of Mysis relicta in Lake Michigan: Abundances and relationships with their
potential prey. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:977-983.
Labar, G.W. 1993. Use of bioenergetics models to predict the effect of increased lake
trout predation on rainbow smelt following sea lamprey control. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 122:942-950.
Martz, M., F. Goetz, J. Dillon, and T. Shaw. 1996. Lake Washington ecological studies.
Study element II: Early lake life history of sockeye salmon (Onchorynchus nerka)
in Lake Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle District 21 p and
App. Septenmber 1996.
51
McDonald, M.E., L.B. Crowder, and S.B. Brandt. 1990. Changes in Mysis and
Pontoporeia populations in southern Lake Michigan: A response to shifts in the
fish community. Limnology and Oceanography 35:220-227.
Murtaugh, P.A. 1981. Selective predation by Neomysis mercedis in Lake Washington.
Limnology and Oceanography 26:445-453.
Negus, M.T. 1995. Bioenergetics modeling as a salmonine management tool applied
to Minnesota waters of Lake Superior. American Journal of Fisheries
Management 15:60-78.
Neverman, D. and W.A. Wurtzbaugh. 1994. The thermoregulatory function of diel
vertical migration for a juvenile fish, Cottus extensus. Oecologia 98:247-25.
Ney, J.J. 1990. Trophic economics in fisheries: Assessment of demand-supply
relationships between predators and prey. Reviews in Aquatic Science 2:55-81.
Ney, J.J. 1993. Bioenergetics modeling today: Growing pains on the cutting edge.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:736-748.
Persson, L., P. Byström, and E. Wahlström. 2000. Cannibalism and competition in
eurasion perch: Population dynamics of an ontogenetic omnivore. Ecology
81(4):1058-1071.
Post, D.M., J.F. Kitchell, and J.R. Hodgson. 1998. Interactions among adult
demography, spawning date, growth rate, predation, overwinter mortality, and the
recruitment of largemouth bass in a northern lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 55:2588-2600.
52
Post, J.R. 1990. Metabolic allometry of larval and juvenile yellow perch (Perca
Flavescens) – Insitu estimates and bioenergetic models. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:554-560.
Rand, P.S. and D.J. Stewart. 1998. Prey fish exploitation, salmonine production, and
pelagic food web efficiency in Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 55:318-327.
Rand, P.S. and D.J. Stewart. 1998. Dynamics of salmonine diets and foraging in
Lake Ontario, 1983-1993: A test of a bioenergetics model prediction. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:307-317.
Rice, J.A., and P.A. Cochran. 1984. Independent evaluation of a bioenergetics model for
largemouth bass. Ecology 63:732-739.
Rickard, N.A. 1980. Life history and population characteristics of the prickly sculpin
(Cottus asper Richardson) in Lake Washington. Master of Science thesis,
University of Washington.
Rottiers, D.V. and R.M. Tucker. 1982. Proximate composition and caloric content of
eight Lake Michigan fishes. U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Technical Papers
108:1-8.
Ruzycki, J.R. and W.A. Wurtsbaugh. 1999. Ontogenetic habitat shifts of Bear Lake
sculpin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Soceity 128:1201-1212.
Schindler, D.E., J.F. Kitchell, X. He, S.R. Carpenter, J.R. Hodgeson and K.L.
53
Cottingham. 1993. Food web structure and phosphorus cycling in lakes.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 122:756-772
Seiler, D. and L. Kishimoto. 1997. 1997 Cedar River sockeye salmon fry production
evaluation. Annual report to King County Water and Land Resources Division.
Stewart, D.J., J.F. Kitchell, and L.B. Crowder. 1981. Fishes and their salmonid
predators in Lake Michigan. American Fisheries Society 110:751-763.
Stewart, D.J. and M. Ibarra. 1991. Predation and production by salmonine fishes in
Lake Michigan, 1978-88. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
48:909-922.
Swartzman, G.L. and D.A. Beauchamp. 1990. Simulation of the effect of rainbow
trout introduction in Lake Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 119:122-134.
Tabor, R., J. Chan, and S. Hager. 1998. Predation of sockeye salmon fry by Cottids and
other predatory fishes in the Cedar River and Southern Lake Washington. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Aquatic Resources
Division.
Tabor, R.J. and R.M. Piaskowski. 2001. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook
salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual report 2001.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Thornton, K.W. and A.S. Lessem. 1978. A temperature algorithm for modifying
biological rates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107:284-287.
54
Wahl, D.H. and R.A. Stein. 1988. Selective predation by three escocids: The role of
prey behavior and morphology. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
117:142-151.
Woodey, J.C. 1972. Distribution, feeding, and growth of juvenile sockeye salmon in
Lake Washington. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington.
Wurtsbaugh, W.A. and D. Neverman. 1998. Post-feeding thermotaxis and daily vertical
migration in a larval fish. Nature (London) 333:846-848.
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, WA.
55
Figures
Season
Win Spr Sum Aut Win Spr Sum Aut Win Spr Sum Aut Win Spr Sum Aut Win Spr Sum Aut Win Spr Sum Aut
Indi
vidu
al D
aily
Rat
ion
(g/d
ay)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0Fish Neomysis Chironomid Misc. Invertebrates
Age 5
Age 6
Age 4
Age 3
Age 2
Age 1
Figure 9. Individual daily ration for Lake Washington prickly sculpin partitioned by major prey groups. Ration is reported by age and season.
56
Month
Jan Feb Mar AprMayJun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec15
18
21
24
27
Wei
ght (
g)
6
9
12
15
18
0
2
4
6
8
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Epilimnetic TemperatureNominal TemperatureHypolimnetic Temperature
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
Age 4
Age 6Age 3
Age 5
Age 1
Age 2
Figure 10. Growth trajectories for age 1-6 prickly sculpin experiencing epilimnetic temperatures, nominal observed temperatures, and hypolimnetic temperatures. Hypolimnetic and epilimnetic growth trajectories are modeled with fixed P-values from nominal observed simulations.
57
Age
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gro
wth
effi
cenc
y
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Epilimnetic TemperatureNominal TemperaturesHypolimnetic Temperatures
Figure 11. Growth efficiencies (growth/consumption) for prickly sculpin modeled with epilimnetic temperatures, hypolimnetic temperatures, and nominal observed temperatures.
58
Age
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Annu
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(g)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400Epilimnetic TemperaturesNominal TemperaturesHypolimnetic Temperatures
Figure 12. Annual consumption (g) for prickly sculpin modeled with nominal observed P-values and epilimnetic temperatures, hypolimnetic temperatures, and nominal observed temperatures.
59
Tables Table 6. Length/weight and age class abundance for 1,000 age 1-6 prickly sculpin in (Rickard 1980). Model 1 had an annual survival rate of 34% (Z = 1.0788) and model 2 had an annual survival rate of 24% (Z = 1.4271).
Sculpin abundance
Age Length (mm) Weight (g) Model 1 Model 2 1 47.4 1.0 661 7602 86.6 7.2 225 1823 110.0 15.7 76 434 128.4 26.1 26 115 146.9 40.7 9 36 165.2 59.7 3 1
Total 1000 1000 Table 7. Average monthly epilimnetic and hypolimnetic temperatures (C°) for Lake Washington. Age 1-2 prickly sculpin experience epilimnetic temperatures throughout the year, and age 3-6 prickly sculpin experience epilimnetic and hypolimnetic temperatures.
Average Temperature °C
Month
Epilimnion Age 3-6 Thermal
Experience
Hypolimnion January 8.3 = 8.3 7.8 February 7.0 = 7.0 6.8 March 7.0 = 7.0 6.8 April 8.3 = 8.3 6.8 May 11.0 = 11.0 7.0 June 13.8 = 13.8 7.3 July 17.0 7.5 = 7.5
August 21.5 7.5 = 7.5 September 20.5 7.5 = 7.5
October 17.5 7.5 = 7.5 November 13.0 8.0 = 8.0 December 9.0 9.0 = 8.8
60
Table 8. Seasonal size relationships between juvenile sockeye salmon and each age class of prickly sculpin. Predation capability was determined by 50% prey/predator length ratios based on seasonal lengths of juvenile sockeye salmon (Woody 1972, Chigbu and Sibley 1994) and prickly sculpin (1980). Asterisks denote seasons and ages when prickly sculpin were capable of preying upon juvenile sockeye salmon.
Total length Fork length
Prickly sculpin age class juvenile Season 1 2 3 4 5 6 sockeye Spring 60.2 *96.2 *115.6 *133.4 *151.6 *168.8 35.2 Summer 58.6 83.4 95.4 108.8 *123.0 *135.8 74.7 Autumn 75.4 102.6 124.8 142.2 160.0 176.0 93.6 Winter 84.6 107.4 125.6 143.8 161.8 177.4 107.0
Table 9. Seasonal size relationships between juvenile sockeye salmon and each age class of prickly sculpin. Predation capability was determined by 50% prey/predator length ratios based on seasonal lengths of juvenile Chinook salmon (Koehler unpublished data) and prickly sculpin (Rickard 1980). Asterisks denote seasons and ages when prickly sculpin were capable of preying upon juvenile chinook salmon.
Total length Fork length
Prickly sculpin age class Juvenile Season 1 2 3 4 5 6 chinook Spring 60.2 96.2 115.6 133.4 *151.6 *168.8 54.3 Summer 58.6 83.4 95.4 108.8 123.0 135.8 101.9
61
Table 10. Annual consumption of Neomysis mercedis, Trichoptera, Chironomidae pupae, and fish by prickly sculpin. Consumption estimates are based on age-specific abundance per 1000 fish (g consumed/1000 prickly sculpin).
Annual Consumption (g) estimated by model 1 (34% survival) Age Fish Neomysis Chironomid Trichoptera Mollusca Misc. Inverts
1 0 2,644 23,136 0 0 2,644 2 2,023 3,596 9,215 2,697 2,247 4,495 3 688 1,375 3,439 1,070 841 1,681 4 1,455 676 546 156 260 1,377 5 689 318 256 80 115 654 6 300 138 114 36 51 285
Total 5,155 8,747 36,706 4,039 3,514 11,136
Annual Consumption (g) estimated by model 2 (24% survival) Age Fish Neomysis Chironomid Trichoptera Mollusca Misc. Inverts
1 0 3,041 26,605 0 0 3,041 2 1,642 2,919 7,480 2,189 1,824 3,649 3 394 788 1,970 613 482 963 4 588 273 221 63 105 557 5 197 91 73 23 33 187 6 61 28 23 7 10 58
Total 2,882 7,140 36,372 2,895 2,454 8,455
62
Table 11. Number of prey consumed annually by prickly sculpin using two selectivity models. Consumption estimates are based on age class abundance per 1,000 fish (Table 6). Seasonal juvenile sockeye salmon and juvenile chinook salmon fork lengths were compared to seasonal sculpin total lengths to determine which sculpin age classes were able to prey upon them using a 50% prey/predator length ratio (Table 8 and 9). Consumption of other prickly sculpins is modeled using a 0.5g prickly sculpin as prey. Predation rates on juvenile sockeye salmon and juvenile chinook salmon are reported assuming that they represent 1% of the fish fraction of diet reported in Rickard (1980), and prickly sculpin cannibalism reported assuming that they consume 99% of the fish fraction of diet reported by Rickard (1980).
Annual survival rate of 34% (Selectivity Model 1) Age Class
Sockeye (1%)
Spring
Sockeye (1%)
Summer
Chinook (1%)
Spring
P. Sculpin (99%)
All Seasons
Neomysis
All Seasons 1 0 0 NA 0 1,612,247
2–3 14 0 NA 5,422 3,031,346 4-6 20 1 2 4,888 690,037
Total 34 1 2 10,310 5,333,630
Annual survival rate of 24% (Selectivity Model 2)
Age Class
Sockeye (1%)
Spring
Sockeye (1%)
Summer
Chinook (1%)
Spring
P. Sculpin (99%)
All Seasons
Neomysis
All Seasons 1 0 0 NA 0 1,854,031
2–3 10 0 NA 4,072 2,260,412 4-6 7 0 1 1,692 238,932
Total 17 0 1 5,764 4,353,375