using moored passive acoustic recorders to assess seasonal occurrence and movements of southern...
TRANSCRIPT
Using moored passive acoustic recorders to assess Using moored passive acoustic recorders to assess seasonal occurrence and movements of seasonal occurrence and movements of Southern Resident Killer Whales in US coastal watersSouthern Resident Killer Whales in US coastal waters
Brad HansonBrad Hanson
Candice EmmonsCandice Emmons
Jeffrey NystuenJeffrey Nystuen
Marc LammersMarc Lammers
Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat designation
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonth
Me
an
(S
D)
Pe
rc
en
t D
ay
s P
re
se
nt
At least 1 of the 3 pods are typically “resident’ in inland waters of Washington and British Columbia during the summer months
In November-January SRKWs leave inland waters and only return infrequently until May
In 2005 SRKW range was based on 19 sightings collected 30 years
6 locations off Washington coast
3 locations off Oregon
2 locations off California
Washington
Known Range of Southern Resident Killer Whales
Recorders were deployed at up to 7 sites
Operational deployment 4 -11 months
Years deployed 2006 – 2011
Passive Acoustic Recorders were used to assess the occurrence of Southern Resident Killer Whales off the US west coast
Offshore
Moored Passive Acoustic Recorders - PALs
Jeff Nystuen’s Acoustic Rain Gauges were modified to become Passive Acoustic ListenerS (PALS)
Used a decision algorithm to record “unique” sound events
Stored a 4.5 second sound clip
Daily allocation of 220 sound clips
Estimated service life - 6 months
(A) A shallow EAR showing (1) the hydrophone and (2) housing attached to a concrete anchor. (B) A deep EAR showing (1) the hydrophone, (2) aluminum housing, (3) syntactic foam collar, and (4) two acoustic releases
Marc Lammer’s Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR)
Duty cycled to record all sounds during 30 seconds ON and then turn OFF for 300 seconds
Estimated service life - 4 -11 months
Moored Passive Acoustic Recorders - EARs
Recorders were initially deployed at Cape Flattery and Westport with other sites to the south added annually
Total effort January – Junen=2972 days
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployment effort
Offshore
Cape Flattery Offshore and Westport had the most consistent and greatest total effort
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployment effort
0.5 1 s
2
4
6
8
10
kHz
0.5 1 s
2
4
6
8
10
kHz
0.5 1 s
2
4
6
8
10
kHz
S1
S6
S2iii
Southern Resident callsWest Coast Transient call
Killer whale stereotypic calls were used to classify detections to ecotype and for SRKWs to pod (J,K,L) when possible
From Ford et al. 1987
SRKWs were detected a on a total of 129 days at all recorder locations – nearly half of these occurred in 2011
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployment detections
SRKWs were detected more often than expected in 2009 and 2011
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployments
SRKWs were detected more often than expected off the Columbia River
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployments
SRKWs were detected more often than expected in January, February, and March
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployments
SRKWs calls (except Js) were detected on 11 days during 157 days in 2006
First detection was not until 37 days after deployment
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployments
Cape FlatteryOffshore
Inshore
Westport
Cape Flattery Offshore
Cape Flattery Onshore
Westport
SRKWs calls (not including Js) were detected on only 4 days during 156 days in 2007
No Ls were detected, only Ks
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployments
Cape FlatteryOffshore
Inshore
Westport
Westport
Latitude
Cape Flattery Offshore
SRKWs (except Js) were detected on 57 of 180 days in 2011
There were 9 periods that exceeded a week (max 14 days) that there were no detections of SRKWs
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployments
Cape Flattery Onshore
Cape Flattery Offshore
Westport
Columbia River
Newport, OR
Ft Bragg
Pt Reyes
SRKWs were detected more often than expected in January, February, and March
SRKWs were detected more often than expected in 2009 and 2011 and less than expected in 2006-2008 - inter annual variability in occurrence
SRKWs were detected more often than expected off the Columbia River
Passive Acoustic Recorder deployment effort
Estimated monthly SRKW Chinook stock specific consumption versus estimated monthly availability of Fraser River Chinook stocks
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Estimated Minimum number of Chinook consumed Estimated monthly Chinook availability
Spring 42 - North, South and Lower Thompson
Spring 52 - Upper, Mid- and lower Fraser, North and South Thompson
Summer 52 - Mid-Fraser and North Thompson
Summer 41 - South Thompson and Lower and Fraser (English et al. 2007)
# o
f C
hin
oo
k
SRKW may be consuming a substantial portion of
Spring Fraser River Chinook even assuming
average run sizes
2008 Total Chinook Daily Index vs. 1981-2006 Average (8" Net)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Date
Ind
ex
2008
1981-2006
Returns of some stocks of Fraser River Spring and Summer Chinook began declining in 2003
Albion test fishery data
“Over the past seven years, Fraser River stream-type Chinook escapements have declined, in some cases steeply, especially the 5sub2 spring and 5sub 2 summer aggregates. Combined, the escapements of those aggregates have declined from almost 92,000 in 2003 to a low of just under 23,000 in 2007. Escapement numbers improved marginally in 2010. However, they continued to be less than those of the parent generations for the 5sub2 spring aggregate and approximately at parental levels for the 4sub2 spring and 5sub2 summer aggregates. Fraser River 4sub2 spring Chinook continue to be a stock of concern in 2011.”“The combination of very low parental escapements combined with continuing unfavourable marine conditions may result in very low pre-fishery abundances in 2011.” Information Document to Assist Development of the Fraser Chinook Management Plan , DFO, 2011
Returns of some stocks of Fraser River Spring and Summer Chinook began declining in 2003
2003-2011 CPUE Albion test fishery data versus 2007-2011 CPUE Albion test fishery data
By 2007 April –June returns of Chinook are greatly reduced
“Over the past seven years, Fraser River stream-type Chinook escapements have declined, in some cases steeply, especially the 5sub2 spring and 5sub 2 summer aggregates. Combined, the escapements of those aggregates have declined from almost 92,000 in 2003 to a low of just under 23,000 in 2007. Escapement numbers improved marginally in 2010. However, they continued to be less than those of the parent generations for the 52 spring aggregate and approximately at parental levels for the 4sub2 spring and 5sub2 summer aggregates. Fraser River 4sub2 spring Chinook continue to be a stock of concern in 2011.”“The combination of very low parental escapements combined with continuing unfavourable marine conditions may result in very low pre-fishery abundances in 2011.” Information Document to Assist Development of the Fraser Chinook Management Plan , DFO, 2011
April May June July Aug Sept April May June July Aug Sept
2003-2011 Albion test fishery data 2007-2011 Albion test fishery data
Returns of some stocks of Fraser River Spring and Summer Chinook began declining in 2003
April May June July Aug Sept April May June July Aug Sept
Since 2003 SRKWs:
1)Arrive in San Juans later2)Are present a lower proportion of days3)during 2009 and 2010 pods were subdivided or only a portion of the pod was present
Dive Profile & Vocal Behavior
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x 104
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Time since tag on, seconds
Dep
th, m
dive profileprey sampleslow clicksfast clicksbuzzesS6S8S10S16S17S33S36S37variable callwhistlesother
Dive Profile & Vocal Behavior
1.8 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9
x 104
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Time since tag on, seconds
Dep
th, m
dive profileprey sampleslow clicksfast clicksbuzzesS6S8S10S16S17S33S36S37variable callwhistlesother
Track of Foraging Dive
-40-20
020
4060
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Dep
th, m
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160