Cowichan Lake Cuththroat Trout Exploitation Analysis 2022

The suggested citation for this analytic appendix is:

Dalgarno, S. & Thorley, J.L. (2023) Cowichan Lake Cuththroat Trout Exploitation Analysis 2022. A Poisson Consulting Analysis Appendix. URL: https://www.poissonconsulting.ca/f/86098464.

Background

Cowichan Lake supports an important Cutthroat Trout fishery. To provide information on the natural and fishing mortality, Cutthroat Trout were caught by angling and tagged with acoustic transmitters and/or a $100 reward tag. Some acoustic transmitters were equipped with depth and temperature sensors.

A fixed receiver array was deployed in the lake to monitor fish movements and location year-round. Additional fixed receivers were deployed during the spawning season at known spawning tributaries. A lake census was completed 4 times per year using mobile receivers.

The objectives of this analysis are to:

  • Estimate fishing and natural mortality.
  • Estimate annual variation in fishing and natural mortality.
  • Estimate seasonal variation in fishing and natural mortality.
  • Estimate effect of handling on natural mortality.
  • Estimate variation in fishing and natural mortality by fork length.

Data Preparation

The data were provided to Poisson Consulting Ltd. by Aswea Porter following extensive data screening.

Statistical Analysis

Model parameters were estimated using Bayesian methods. The estimates were produced using JAGS (Plummer 2003). For additional information on Bayesian estimation the reader is referred to McElreath (2020).

Unless stated otherwise, the Bayesian analyses used weakly informative normal and half-normal prior distributions (Gelman, Simpson, and Betancourt 2017). The posterior distributions were estimated from 1500 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) samples thinned from the second halves of 3 chains (Kery and Schaub 2011, 38–40). Model convergence was confirmed by ensuring that the potential scale reduction factor \(\hat{R} \leq 1.05\) (Kery and Schaub 2011, 40) and the effective sample size (Brooks et al. 2011) \(\textrm{ESS} \geq 150\) for each of the monitored parameters (Kery and Schaub 2011, 61).

The parameters are summarised in terms of the point estimate, lower and upper 95% credible limits (CLs) and the surprisal s-value (Greenland 2019). The estimate is the median (50th percentile) of the MCMC samples while the 95% CLs are the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. The s-value indicates how surprising it would be to discover that the true value of the parameter is in the opposite direction to the estimate (Greenland 2019). An s-value of \(>\) 4.3 bits, which is equivalent to a significant p-value \(<\) 0.05 (Kery and Schaub 2011; Greenland and Poole 2013), indicates that the surprise would be equivalent to throwing at least 4.3 heads in a row.

The condition that parameters describing the effects of secondary (nuisance) explanatory variable(s) have significant p-values was used as a model selection heuristic (Kery and Schaub 2011). Based on a similar argument, the condition that random effects have a standard deviation with a lower 95% CL \(>\) 5% of the estimate was used as an additional model selection heuristic. Primary explanatory variables are evaluated based on their estimated effect sizes with 95% CLs (Bradford, Korman, and Higgins 2005)

Model adequacy was assessed via posterior predictive checks (Kery and Schaub 2011). More specifically, the number of zeros and the first four central moments (mean, variance, skewness and kurtosis) for the deviance residuals were compared to the expected values by simulating new residuals. In this context the s-value indicates how surprising each observed metric is given the estimated posterior probability distribution for the residual variation.

The results are displayed graphically by plotting the modeled relationships between particular variables and the response(s) with the remaining variables held constant. In general, continuous and discrete fixed variables are held constant at their mean and first level values, respectively, while random variables are held constant at their typical values (expected values of the underlying hyperdistributions) (Kery and Schaub 2011, 77–82).

The analyses were implemented using R version 4.2.2 (R Core Team 2021) and the mbr family of packages.

Model Descriptions

Survival

The natural mortality and recapture probability were estimated using a Bayesian individual state-space survival model (Thorley and Andrusak 2017) with monthly intervals. The survival model incorporated natural and handling mortality, acoustic detections and movements from a fixed receiver array and quarterly lake census, vertical movements from acoustic tags equipped with depth sensors, FLOY tag loss, recapture, reporting and release.

The expected fork length at monthly period \(t\) was estimated from length at capture (\(L_{i,fi}\)) plus the length increment expected under a Von Bertalanffy Growth Curve (Walters and Martell 2004) \[L_{i,t} = L_{i,fi} + (L_{∞} − L_{i,fi} )(1 − e^{(−\frac{1}{12} \cdot k(t −fi))})\] where \(fi\) is the period at capture and \(\frac{1}{12}\) in the exponent adjusts for the fact that there are 12 periods per year.Linf was fixed to a biologically plausible value of 775 mm based on prior information (personal communication, R. Ptolemy); k of 0.23 was estimated from 88 aged Cutthroat Trout in Cowichan Lake (personal communication, Brendan Andersen).

In addition to assumptions 1, 4 to 10, and 13 in Thorley and Andrusak (2017), the survival model assumes that:

  • The effect of handling mortality is restricted to the first two monthly periods after initial capture or recapture.
  • Recapture probability varies by bi-monthly period and fork length.
  • Natural mortality varies by season, study year and size class.
  • The probability of detection depends on whether a fish is alive or has died near or far from a receiver and whether a census has occurred.
  • The monthly interval probability of FLOY tag loss is 0.001.
  • All recaptured fish that are released have their FLOY tags removed.
  • Reporting of a recaptured fish with a FLOY tag is likely greater than 90%.
  • Survival of fish tagged with a FLOY tag only is the same as those tagged with acoustic tags and a FLOY tag.
  • Acoustic tags are functional over their estimated battery lifespan and are not shed.

Seasons are defined as winter (December-February), spring (March-May), summer (June-August), and fall (September-November).

Study years span from October 01 to September 30 of the following year (i.e., study year 1 is 2019-10-01 to 2020-09-30). This was used instead of calendar year to ensure that each year group includes all months.

Size classes are defined as small (\(\le\) 350 mm), medium (350 \(-\) 500 mm) and large (> 500 mm).

Preliminary analyses indicated lack of support for variation in recapture probability by study year.

We assumed that the monthly interval probability of FLOY tag loss was 0.001 (0.012 annual probability) based on tag loss estimates from double-tagged Lake Trout in Horse Lake.

Preliminary attempts to estimate tag loss in the model using an uninformative prior confirmed that this assumption was consistent with the available information, although we had to fix tag loss in the model to avoid poor convergence.

Model Templates

Survival

.model{
  bMortality ~ dnorm(-3, 3^-2)
  bMortalityHandling ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bMonthsHandling <- 2

  bDetectedAlive ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bDetectedAliveCensus ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bDieNear ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bDetectedDeadNear ~ dnorm(1, 1^-2)
  bDetectedDeadNearCensus ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bDetectedDeadFar ~ dnorm(-1, 1^-2)
  bDetectedDeadFarCensus ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bMovedH ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bMovedV ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bRecaptured ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bReported ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bReleased ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  # mode of 0.001
  bTagLoss <- 0.001
  bRecapturedLength ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)

  sMortalitySizeSeason ~ dexp(1)
  for (i in 1:nSize){
    for(j in 1:nSeason){
      bMortalitySizeSeason[i,j] ~ dnorm(0, sMortalitySizeSeason^-2)
    }
  } 
  bMortalitySeason[1] <- 0
  for (i in 2:nSeason) {
    bMortalitySeason[i] ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  }
  bMortalitySize[1] <- 0
  for (i in 2:nSize) {
    bMortalitySize[i] ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  }
  bMortalityAnnual[1] <- 0
  for (i in 2:nAnnual) {
    bMortalityAnnual[i] ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  }
  bRecapturedBiMonth[1] <- 0
  for (i in 2:nBiMonth) {
    bRecapturedBiMonth[i] ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  }
  for (i in 1:nCapture){
    eMortalityHandling[i, PeriodCapture[i]] <- ilogit(bMortalityHandling)
    eMonthsSinceCapture[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- 1-Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]]
    
    logit(eDetectedAlive[i, PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bDetectedAlive 
    eDieNear[i] ~ dbern(bDieNear)
    logit(eDetectedDeadNear[i, PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bDetectedDeadNear 
    logit(eDetectedDeadFar[i, PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bDetectedDeadFar 
    eDetectedDead[i, PeriodCapture[i]] <- eDieNear[i] * eDetectedDeadNear[i, PeriodCapture[i]] + 
      (1 - eDieNear[i]) * eDetectedDeadFar[i, PeriodCapture[i]]
    
    logit(eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bMortality + bMortalitySeason[Season[PeriodCapture[i]]] + bMortalityAnnual[Annual[PeriodCapture[i]]] + bMortalityHandling + bMortalitySize[Size[i, PeriodCapture[i]]] + bMortalitySizeSeason[Size[i, PeriodCapture[i]], Season[PeriodCapture[i]]]

    eMovedH[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bMovedH
    eMovedV[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bMovedV
    eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eDetectedAlive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] +
      (1-Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) * eDetectedDead[i,PeriodCapture[i]]
      
    logit(eRecaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bRecaptured + bRecapturedBiMonth[BiMonth[PeriodCapture[i]]] + bRecapturedLength * Length[i, PeriodCapture[i]] 
    eReported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bReported
    eReleased[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bReleased

    InLake[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- 1
    Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern((1-eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) * (1-eMortalityHandling[i,PeriodCapture[i]]))
    TBarTag[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-bTagLoss)

    Detected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Monitored[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    MovedH[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * Detected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eMovedH[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    MovedV[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * Sensor[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * Detected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eMovedV[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    
    Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eRecaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    Reported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eReported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * TBarTag[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    Released[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eReleased[i,PeriodCapture[i]])

  for(j in (PeriodCapture[i]+1):nPeriod) {
    
    eMortalityHandling[i,j] <- ilogit(bMortalityHandling) * step(bMonthsHandling - eMonthsSinceCapture[i,j-1] - 1)
    eMonthsSinceCapture[i,j] <- (1-Recaptured[i,j]) * (eMonthsSinceCapture[i,j-1] + 1)
    
    logit(eDetectedAlive[i,j]) <- bDetectedAlive + bDetectedAliveCensus * Census[j]
    logit(eDetectedDeadNear[i,j]) <- bDetectedDeadNear + bDetectedDeadNearCensus * Census[j]
    logit(eDetectedDeadFar[i,j]) <- bDetectedDeadFar + bDetectedDeadFarCensus * Census[j]
    eDetectedDead[i,j] <- eDieNear[i] * eDetectedDeadNear[i,j] + (1 - eDieNear[i]) * eDetectedDeadFar[i,j]
    eDetected[i,j] <- Alive[i,j] * eDetectedAlive[i,j] + (1-Alive[i,j]) * eDetectedDead[i,j]

    logit(eMortality[i,j]) <- bMortality + bMortalityAnnual[Annual[j]] + bMortalitySize[Size[i,j]] + bMortalitySeason[Season[j]] + bMortalitySizeSeason[Size[i, j], Season[j]]

    eMovedH[i,j] <- bMovedH
    eMovedV[i,j] <- bMovedV
    logit(eRecaptured[i,j]) <-  bRecaptured + bRecapturedBiMonth[BiMonth[j]] + bRecapturedLength * Length[i,j]  
    eReported[i,j] <- bReported
    eReleased[i,j] <- bReleased

    InLake[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j-1] * ((1 - (Recaptured[i,j-1])) + Recaptured[i,j-1] * Released[i,j-1])) 
    Alive[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j] * Alive[i,j-1] * (1-eMortality[i,j]) * (1-eMortalityHandling[i,j])) 
    TBarTag[i,j] ~ dbern(TBarTag[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-bTagLoss))

    Detected[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j] * Monitored[i,j] * eDetected[i,j])
    MovedH[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j-1] * Detected[i,j] * eMovedH[i,j])
    MovedV[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * Sensor[i,j] * Detected[i,j] * eMovedV[i,j])
    
    Recaptured[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * eRecaptured[i,j])
    Reported[i,j] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,j] * eReported[i,j] * TBarTag[i,j])
    Released[i,j] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,j] * eReleased[i,j])
  }
  }

Block 1. Survival model description.

Results

Tables

Survival

Table 1. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bDetectedAliveCensus Effect of a census on bDetectedAliveCensus
bDetectedAlive Log odds probability of being detected if alive
bDetectedDeadFarCensus Effect of a census on bDetectedDeadFar
bDetectedDeadFar Log odds probability of being detected if dead far from a fixed receiver
bDetectedDeadNearCensus Effect of a census on bDetectedDeadNear
bDetectedDeadNear Log odds probability of being detected if dead near to a fixed receiver
bDieNear Probability of dying near to (vs far from) a fixed receiver
bMonthsHandling The number of months for which handling affects mortality.
bMortalityAnnual[i] Effect of ith study year on bMortality
bMortalityHandling Log odds probability of dying after (re)capture in a monthly period.
bMortalitySeason[i] Effect of ith season on bMortality
bMortalitySizeSeason[i, j] Effect of the ith size class in the jth season on bMortality
bMortalitySize[i] Effect of ith size class on bMortality
bMortality Log odds probability of dying of natural causes in a monthly period in the 1st season of the 1st study year
bMovedH Probability of moving horizontally if alive and detected in a monthly period
bMovedV Probability of moving vertically if alive and detected in a monthly period
bRecapturedBiMonth[i] Effect of ith bi-monthly period on bRecaptured
bRecapturedLength Effect of standardized fork length on bRecaptured
bRecaptured Log odds probability of being recaptured if alive in a monthly period
bReleased Probability of being released if recaptured
bReported Probability of being reported if recaptured with a FLOY tag
bTagLoss Probability of shedding a FLOY tag in a monthly period
sMortalitySizeSeason SD of bMortalitySizeSeason

Table 2. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bDetectedAlive 1.5124443 1.3521088 1.6879880 10.5517083
bDetectedAliveCensus 0.5267324 0.1684182 0.9184323 7.7443533
bDetectedDeadFar -4.7349605 -5.5433535 -4.0601915 10.5517083
bDetectedDeadFarCensus 1.4358142 0.4359574 2.4678576 6.8512685
bDetectedDeadNear 3.4446875 2.6664792 4.3794141 10.5517083
bDetectedDeadNearCensus 0.4517294 -1.2867801 2.7216166 0.6194935
bDieNear 0.1597343 0.0912128 0.2425454 10.5517083
bMortality -2.7279720 -3.6951785 -1.8489400 10.5517083
bMortalityAnnual[2] -0.5207410 -1.1007187 0.0692804 3.6328450
bMortalityAnnual[3] -0.0110849 -0.5288290 0.5469936 0.0350233
bMortalityHandling -3.6260900 -4.8068634 -2.8680559 10.5517083
bMortalitySeason[2] 0.8397951 -0.0422713 1.9211833 4.0439136
bMortalitySeason[3] 0.6079954 -0.4287597 1.6583177 2.1551035
bMortalitySeason[4] -1.1790925 -3.2256364 0.2205870 3.2943204
bMortalitySize[2] -0.4083766 -1.3649302 0.5383783 1.5321175
bMortalitySize[3] 0.5538940 -0.6143962 1.5153268 1.8478047
bMovedH 0.7187808 0.6927041 0.7433001 10.5517083
bMovedV 0.5615130 0.4975645 0.6260394 10.5517083
bRecaptured -4.9210918 -5.9278402 -4.0624138 10.5517083
bRecapturedBiMonth[2] 0.5784220 -0.6884153 1.8078003 1.5100491
bRecapturedBiMonth[3] 1.1962917 0.0821370 2.3686239 4.7188182
bRecapturedBiMonth[4] 0.9908608 -0.3021691 2.1797669 3.1170800
bRecapturedBiMonth[5] -0.0224748 -1.4487265 1.3648077 0.0330551
bRecapturedBiMonth[6] 1.6573679 0.6525127 2.8024925 10.5517083
bRecapturedLength 0.7445511 0.3506431 1.1605587 10.5517083
bReleased 0.4485633 0.3019657 0.6059783 10.5517083
bReported 0.9820359 0.9118694 0.9992893 10.5517083
sMortalitySizeSeason 0.3510984 0.0238554 1.1781297 10.5517083

Table 3. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
8917 28 3 500 75 433 1.051 FALSE

Table 4. The estimated annual interval probabilities (with 95% CIs). Natural mortalities for each size class are the average across study year. Handling mortality is the probability of mortality from handling, assuming that the effect of handling lasts for two months and occurs once in a year. Harvest mortality is the recapture probability multiplied by the probability of being harvested if recaptured, assuming that recapture can only occur once in a year. Release is the probability of being released if recaptured.

derived quantity estimate lower upper
Natural Mortality Small 0.5780 0.4060 0.735
Natural Mortality Medium 0.4700 0.3700 0.570
Natural Mortality Large 0.7900 0.6370 0.893
Recapture 0.2050 0.1460 0.270
Release 0.6100 0.5750 0.647
Harvest Mortality 0.0797 0.0561 0.107
Handling Mortality 0.0512 0.0161 0.105

Figures

Growth

figures/growth/growth.png

Figure 1. Estimated fork length for each fish by date. Points represent recapture and harvest.

Survival

figures/survival/annual_probability.png

Figure 2. The estimated annual interval probabilities (with 95% CIs). Natural mortalities for each size class are the average across study year. Handling mortality is the probability of mortality from handling, assuming that the effect of handling lasts for two months and occurs once in a year. Harvest mortality is the recapture probability multiplied by the probability of being harvested if recaptured, assuming that recapture can only occur once in a year. Release is the probability of being released if recaptured.

figures/survival/natural_annual.png

Figure 3. The estimated annual natural mortality by study year for a medium-sized fish (with 95% CIs).

figures/survival/natural_season.png

Figure 4. The estimated seasonal natural mortality by season and size, averaged across study year (with 95% CIs).

figures/survival/recapture_annual.png

Figure 5. The estimated effect of bi-monthly period on recapture probability for an average length fish (with 95% CIs).

figures/survival/recapture_length.png

Figure 6. The estimated effect of fork length on recapture probability (with 95% CIs) in the first bi-monthly period (Jan - Feb).

Recommendations

  • Data manipulation
    • Separate detected into detected_fixed and detected_census to allow the model to handle these separately.
    • Separate moved_h into moved_h_fixed and moved_h_census to allow the model to handle these separately.
    • Assign movement to the period in which the movement began.
    • Add a column indicating which receiver the tag was detected at (with a set of rules to decide which receiver ‘wins’ if detected at multiple receivers in a month).
    • Add a column indicating whether the fish was detected passing through the PIT tag array in the Cowichan River.
  • Analyses
    • Assess validity of the assumption of no migration out of the lake (i.e., from PIT tags or detection at receivers near or in Cowichan River).
    • Estimate tag loss from double-tagged individuals.
    • Estimate probability of tag removal following recapture and release.
    • Incorporate seasonal variation in growth into the model.
    • Estimate effect of fork length on natural mortality using a mechanistic relationship if possible.
    • Estimate probability of spawning as function of fork length.
    • Estimate effect of spawning on natural mortality.

Acknowledgements

The organisations and individuals whose contributions have made this analytic appendix possible include:

  • Kintama Research Services
    • David Welch
    • Aswea Porter
    • Paul Winchell
  • DFO
    • Erin Rechisky
  • MFLNRORD
    • Brendan Andersen
    • Mike McCulloch
    • Jennifer Sibbald
    • Scott Silvestri
    • Jaro Szczot

References

Bradford, Michael J, Josh Korman, and Paul S Higgins. 2005. “Using Confidence Intervals to Estimate the Response of Salmon Populations (Oncorhynchus Spp.) to Experimental Habitat Alterations.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62 (12): 2716–26. https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-179.
Brooks, Steve, Andrew Gelman, Galin L. Jones, and Xiao-Li Meng, eds. 2011. Handbook for Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.
Gelman, Andrew, Daniel Simpson, and Michael Betancourt. 2017. “The Prior Can Often Only Be Understood in the Context of the Likelihood.” Entropy 19 (10): 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19100555.
Greenland, Sander. 2019. “Valid p -Values Behave Exactly as They Should: Some Misleading Criticisms of p -Values and Their Resolution With s -Values.” The American Statistician 73 (sup1): 106–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1529625.
Greenland, Sander, and Charles Poole. 2013. “Living with p Values: Resurrecting a Bayesian Perspective on Frequentist Statistics.” Epidemiology 24 (1): 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182785741.
Kery, Marc, and Michael Schaub. 2011. Bayesian Population Analysis Using WinBUGS : A Hierarchical Perspective. Boston: Academic Press. http://www.vogelwarte.ch/bpa.html.
McElreath, Richard. 2020. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. 2nd ed. CRC Texts in Statistical Science. Boca Raton: Taylor; Francis, CRC Press.
Plummer, Martyn. 2003. JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical Models Using Gibbs Sampling.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003), edited by Kurt Hornik, Friedrich Leisch, and Achim Zeileis. Vienna, Austria.
R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Thorley, Joseph L., and Greg F. Andrusak. 2017. “The Fishing and Natural Mortality of Large, Piscivorous Bull Trout and Rainbow Trout in Kootenay Lake, British Columbia (2008–2013).” PeerJ 5 (January): e2874. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2874.
Walters, Carl J., and Steven J. D. Martell. 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.