Horse Lake Exploitation Analysis 2018

The suggested citation for this analytic report is:

Dalgarno, S. and Thorley, J.L. (2019) Horse Lake Exploitation Analysis 2018. A Poisson Consulting Analysis Report. URL: https://www.poissonconsulting.ca/f/1976213372.

Background

Horse Lake supports a recreational fishery for Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush). To estimate their natural and fishing mortality, individuals were caught by angling and tagged with acoustic transmitters and/or external reward tags. Seven receivers were maintained throughout the lake. Acoustically tagged fish were detected by a series of seven receivers distributed through the lake as well as annual mobile receiver surveys. The external reward tags included a phone number for anglers to report their recaptures.

All the data were provided by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) Cariboo Region.

Methods

Data Preparation

The data were prepared for analysis using R version 3.5.2 (R Core Team 2018). Receivers were assumed to have a detection range of 500 m. Detections were aggregated daily, where for each transmitter the receiver with the most number of detections was chosen. In the case of a tie, the receiver with the greatest coverage area was chosen.

The Seasons were Winter (December - February), Spring (March - May), Summer (June - August) and Autumn (September - November).

Data Analysis

Hierarchical Bayesian models were fitted to the data using R version 3.5.2 (R Core Team 2018) and JAGS 4.2.0 (Plummer 2015) which interfaced with each other via the jmbr package. For additional information on hierarchical Bayesian modelling in the BUGS language, of which JAGS uses a dialect, the reader is referred to Kery and Schaub (2011, 41–44).

Unless indicated otherwise, the Bayesian analyses used normal and half-normal prior distributions that were vague in the sense that they did not constrain the posteriors (Kery and Schaub 2011, 36). 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 \(\hat{R} \leq 1.05\) (Kery and Schaub 2011, 40) and \(\textrm{ESS} \geq 150\) for each of the monitored parameters (Kery and Schaub 2011, 61). Where \(\hat{R}\) is the potential scale reduction factor and \(\textrm{ESS}\) is the effective sample size (Brooks et al. 2011).

The posterior distributions of the fixed (Kery and Schaub 2011, 75) parameters are summarised in terms of the point estimate, standard deviation (sd), the z-score, lower and upper 95% confidence/credible limits (CLs) and the p-value (Kery and Schaub 2011, 37, 42). The estimate is the median (50th percentile) of the MCMC samples, the z-score is \(\mathrm{mean}/\mathrm{sd}\) and the 95% CLs are the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. A p-value of 0.05 indicates that the lower or upper 95% CL is 0.

The results are displayed graphically by plotting the modeled relationships between particular variables and the response 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). Where informative the influence of particular variables is expressed in terms of the effect size (i.e., percent change in the response variable) with 95% CIs (Bradford, Korman, and Higgins 2005).

Model Descriptions

Condition

The expected weight of a fish of a given length was estimated from the data using a allometric mass-length model (He et al. 2008)

\[ L = \alpha W^\beta\]

Key assumptions of the condition model include:

  • The prior distribution on the power term (\(\beta\)) is a normal distribution with a mean of 3.18 and a standard deviation of 0.19 (McDermid, Shuter, and Lester 2010).
  • The residual variation in weight is log-normally distributed.

Growth

Growth was estimated from length and scale age data for Horse Lake using a Von Bertalanffy growth curve model (von Bertalanffy 1938).

\[ L = L_\infty \cdot (1 - \exp(-k \cdot (A - t_0) ))\]

where \(A\) is the scale age in years and \(t_0\) is the extrapolated age at zero length.

Key assumptions of the growth model include:

  • The residual variation in length is normally distributed.

1 fish with a fork length \(\geq\) 500 mm was excluded from the analysis.

Survival

The natural mortality and capture probability for individuals \(\geq\) 300 mm was 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 detection, movement, T-bar tag loss, recapture and reporting. Key assumptions of the survival model include:

  • The tagged individuals are a random sample from the population.
  • The only effects of tagging are change in the natural mortality for three months following acoustic tagging.
  • The prior probability on the annual interval individual external tag loss rate is a uniform distribution between 1 and 30% (Fabrizio et al. 1996).
  • All individuals are correctly identified.
  • There is no emigration out of the lake.
  • There are no unmodelled individual differences in the probability of recapture in each time interval.
  • There are no unmodelled individual differences in the probability of survival in each time interval.
  • There are no unmodelled individual differences in the probability of a living individual with an active acoustic transmitter being detected moving among sections in each time period.
  • The fate of each individual is independent of the fate of any other individual.
  • The sampling periods are instantaneous and all individuals are immediately released.

The survival model treats all recaptured fish as if they had been retained. Only individuals with a fork length (FL) \(\geq\) 300 mm that were tagged with an acoustic tag and/or $100 and $10 reward tags were included in the survival analysis. Preliminary analysis indicated that the difference between the natural mortality and fishing mortality rates for individuals \(\geq\) 500 mm were not sigificant.

Yield-Per-Recruit

The optimal capture rate (to maximize number of individuals harvested assuming 100% retention) was calculated using yield-per-recruit analysis (Walters and Martell 2004). A separate yield-per-recruit analysis was performed for the two different Lake Trout ecotypes in Horse Lake.

Results

Templates

Condition

.model {
  bWeight ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2) 
  bWeightLength ~ dnorm(3.18, 0.19^-2)

  sWeight ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2) T(0,) 
  for(i in 1:length(LogLength)) {
    eWeight[i] <- bWeight + bWeightLength * LogLength[i]
    Weight[i] ~ dlnorm(eWeight[i], exp(sWeight)^-2)
  }
..

Block 1. Condition model description.

Growth

.model {
  bLInf ~ dnorm(500, 100^-2) T(0, )
  bK ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2) T(0, )
  bT0 ~ dnorm(0, 1^-1)

  sLength ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2) T(0, )
  for (i in 1:length(Length)) {
    eLength[i] <- bLInf * (1 - exp(-bK * (Age[i] - bT0))) 
    Length[i] ~ dnorm(eLength[i], sLength^-2) T(0, )
  }
..

Block 2. Growth model description.

Survival

.model{
  bMortality ~ dnorm(-3, 3^-2)
  bMortalityHandling ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bTagLoss ~ dunif(1 - (1 - 0.01)^(1/12), 1 - (1 - 0.30)^(1/12))
  bDetected ~ dunif(0, 1)
  bMoved ~ dunif(0, 1)
  bRecaptured ~ dunif(0, 1 - (1 - 0.50)^(1/12))
  bReported ~ dunif(0.9, 1.00)

  for (i in 1:nCapture){
    logit(eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bMortality + bMortalityHandling
    eTagLoss[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bTagLoss
    eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bDetected
    eMoved[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bMoved
    eRecaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bRecaptured
    eReported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bReported
    InLake[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- 1
    Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    TBarTag100[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-eTagLoss[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    TBarTag10[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-eTagLoss[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    Detected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Monitored[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    Moved[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * Monitored[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eMoved[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]] * step(TBarTag100[i,PeriodCapture[i]] + TBarTag10[i,PeriodCapture[i]] - 1))
  for(j in (PeriodCapture[i]+1):nPeriod) {
    logit(eMortality[i,j]) <- bMortality + bMortalityHandling * step(PeriodCapture[i] - j + 2)
    eTagLoss[i,j] <- bTagLoss
    eDetected[i,j] <- bDetected
    eMoved[i,j] <- bMoved
    eRecaptured[i,j] <- bRecaptured
    eReported[i,j] <- bReported
    InLake[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]))
    Alive[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-eMortality[i,j-1]))
    TBarTag100[i,j] ~ dbern(TBarTag100[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-eTagLoss[i,j]))
    TBarTag10[i,j] ~ dbern(TBarTag10[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-eTagLoss[i,j]))
    Detected[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j] * Monitored[i,j] * eDetected[i,j])
    Moved[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * Monitored[i,j] * eMoved[i,j])
    Recaptured[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * eRecaptured[i,j])
    Reported[i,j] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,j] * eReported[i,j] * step(TBarTag100[i,j] + TBarTag10[i,j] - 1))}}
  }

Block 3. Survival model description.

Tables

Captures

Table 1. Number of fish captured by year, species and size class.

Year Species < 300 mm 300 - 500 mm >= 500 mm Total
2017 Kokanee 3 20 0 23
2017 Lake Trout 1 153 7 161
2017 Rainbow Trout 0 3 0 3
2018 Kokanee 0 2 0 2
2018 Lake Trout 4 176 19 199
Total 8 354 26 388

Table 2. Number of Lake Trout captured by size class, and tag class. Any fish > 500mm is classified as ‘large’.

Year Size Acoustic and T-Bar T-Bar Only No Tag Total
2017 < 300 mm 0 1 0 1
2017 300 - 500 mm 30 113 10 153
2017 >= 500 mm 4 2 1 7
2018 < 300 mm 0 2 2 4
2018 300 - 500 mm 43 103 30 176
2018 >= 500 mm 11 4 4 19
Total 88 225 47 360

Recaptures

Table 3. All Lake Trout recaptures to date. Recaptures with natural mortality were tags found in the stomach of another fish!.

Date Capture Fork Length (mm) Date Recapture External Tag Number 1 External Tag Number 2 Harvested Natural Mortality
2017-06-06 445 [mm] 20 17-07-07 278 544 Ye s No
2017-05-20 405 [mm] 20 17-09-08 86 337 Ye s No
2017-06-01 441 [mm] 20 18-01-29 289 532 Ye s No
2017-05-31 385 [mm] 20 18-02-02 441 NA Ye s No
2017-06-07 439 [mm] 20 18-02-08 413 258 Ye s No
2018-05-25 400 [mm] 20 18-05-28 1390 2315 Ye s No
2017-05-18 360 [mm] 20 18-05-29 326 76 No No
2018-05-29 379 [mm] 20 18-05-29 151 445 No No
2017-05-31 357 [mm] 20 18-05-29 151 445 No No
2018-05-25 436 [mm] 20 18-06-28 1391 2316 Ye s No
2018-05-30 341 [mm] 20 18-07-03 2370 NA Ye s Ye s
2018-06-11 406 [mm] 20 18-07-03 136 552 Ye s Ye s
2017-05-21 370 [mm] 20 18-07-05 340 89 Ye s No
2017-06-07 416 [mm] 20 18-07-16 404 251 Ye s No
2018-05-25 334 [mm] 20 18-07-18 2320 1395 Ye s No
2018-05-30 416 [mm] 20 18-07-24 2368 1335 No No
2017-06-02 360 [mm] 20 18-09-10 538 NA No No
2018-05-31 411 [mm] 20 19-01-15 2386 362 Ye s No
2018-06-08 382 [mm] 20 19-01-25 2340 377 Ye s No

Condition

Table 4. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bWeight Intercept of eWeight
bWeightLength Intercept of effect of Length on bWeight
eWeight Log expected Weight
LogLength Log-transformed and centered fork length
sWeight Log standard deviation of residual variation in log Weight
Weight Mass (kg)

Table 5. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bWeight -0.0058588 0.1694069 -0.0760792 -0.3530246 0.3110998 0.9720
bWeightLength 3.1669358 0.1809701 17.5129159 2.8139993 3.5310454 0.0007
sWeight 0.0185038 0.0281089 0.9619560 0.0007899 0.1044444 0.0007

Table 6. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
38 3 3 500 10 1311 1.001 TRUE

Growth

Table 7. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
Age[i] Scale age at capture (yr)
bK Growth coefficient (mm/yr)
bLinf Mean maximum length (mm)
bT0 Age at zero length (yr)
Length[i] Fork length at capture (mm)
sLength SD of residual variation in Length

Table 8. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bK 0.2179888 0.0474600 4.7130102 0.1455223 0.3291771 0.0007
bLInf 451.4293144 15.9830498 28.3097393 425.4774426 486.9088885 0.0007
bT0 -0.2984629 0.8595128 -0.4307305 -2.2519351 1.0621740 0.7160
sLength 22.4961218 3.0919034 7.3728722 17.6427462 29.4803938 0.0007

Table 9. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
32 4 3 500 100 927 1 TRUE

Survival

Table 10. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bDetected Monthly probability of detection if inlake
bMortality Log odds monthly probability of dying of natural causes
bMortalityHandling Effect of capture and handling on bMortality
bMoved Monthly probability of being detected moving between sections if alive
bRecaptured Monthly probability of being recaptured if alive
bReported Monthly probability of being reported if recaptured with one or more T-bar tags
bTagLoss Monthly probability of loss for a single T-bar tag

Table 11. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bDetected 0.9128664 0.0098725 92.431850 0.8925280 0.9309755 0.0007
bMortality -4.8126230 0.5685799 -8.563650 -6.0680868 -3.8665386 0.0007
bMortalityHandling 0.3796679 0.7293184 0.530041 -0.9830940 1.7961582 0.5960
bMoved 0.8830517 0.0118163 74.740671 0.8587939 0.9049953 0.0007
bRecaptured 0.0058202 0.0013952 4.245198 0.0035505 0.0090031 0.0007
bReported 0.9668803 0.0275840 34.863537 0.9045845 0.9990443 0.0007
bTagLoss 0.0147859 0.0063638 2.419412 0.0048622 0.0279907 0.0007

Table 12. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
5472 7 3 500 500 328 1.009 TRUE

Yield-per-Recruit

Table 13. Summary of parameters in yield-per-recruit model.

Parameter Ecotype Estimate Description Source
tmax Small 30.00000 The maximum age (yr). Current Study
k Small 0.21800 The VB growth coefficient (per yr). Current Study
Linf Large 75.00000 The VB mean maximum length (cm). Professional Judgement
Linf Small 45.10000 The VB mean maximum length (cm). Current Study
t0 Small -0.29800 The (theoretical) age at zero length (yr). Current Study
Wb Small 3.17000 The weight (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Current Study
Ls Large 50.00000 The length at which 50% mature (cm). Professional Judgement
Ls Small 37.50000 The length at which 50% mature (cm). Spin Gillnetting
Sp Small 100.00000 The maturity (as a function of length) power. Default
es Small 1.00000 The annual probability of a mature fish spawning. Default
Sm Small 0.00000 The spawning mortality probability. Default
fb Small 1.00000 The fecundity (as a function of weight) scaling exponent. Default
tR Small 1.00000 The age from which survival is density-independent (yr). Default
BH Small 1.00000 Recruitment follows a Beverton-Holt (1) or Ricker (0) relationship. Default
Rk Small 25.00000 The lifetime spawners per spawner at low density. Myers et al. 1999
M Small 0.09710 The instantaneous mortality rate (per yr). Current Study
Mb Small 0.00000 The instantaneous mortality rate (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Default
Lv Small 35.00000 The length at which 50% vulnerable to harvest (cm). Professional Judgement
Vp Small 25.00000 The vulnerability to harvest (as a function of length) power. Professional Judgement
Llo Small 0.00000 The lower harvest slot length (cm). Default
Lup Large 75.00000 The upper harvest slot length (cm). Professional Judgement
Lup Small 45.10000 The upper harvest slot length (cm). Default
Nc Small 0.00000 The slot limits non-compliance probability. Default
pi Small 0.06760 The annual capture probability. Current Study
rho Small 0.00000 The release probability. Default
Hm Small 0.00000 The hooking mortality probability. Default
Rmax Small 1.00000 The number of recruits at the carrying capacity (ind). Default
A0 Small 0.00000 The initial post age tR density independent mortality probability. Default
Wa Small 0.00576 The (extrapolated) weight of a 1 cm individual (g). Current Study
fa Small 1.00000 The (theoretical) fecundity of a 1 g female (eggs). Default
q Small 0.10000 The catchability (annual probability of capture) for a unit of effort. Default

Table 14. Lake Trout large ecotype yield-per-recruit calculations including the capture probability (pi), exploitation rate (u) and average age, length and weight of fish harvested.

Type pi u Yield Age Length Weight Effort
actual 0.0676489 0.0676489 0.3272945 8.295250 57.44391 2456.098 0.6648208
optimal 0.1840010 0.1840010 0.4574874 5.910601 51.82708 1783.069 1.9299651

Table 15. Lake Trout small ecotype yield-per-recruit calculations including the capture probability (pi), exploitation rate (u) and average age, length and weight of fish harvested.

Type pi u Yield Age Length Weight Effort
actual 0.0676489 0.0676489 0.2209367 12.104424 40.54878 728.3830 0.6648208
optimal 0.2553584 0.2553584 0.3487855 9.086409 38.43478 613.8154 2.7985082

Figures

Captures

figures/capture/CaptureHistogram.png
Figure 1. Lake Trout captures by fork length, year and tag type.
figures/capture/CaptureMap.png
Figure 2. Lake Trout capture location by tagging.
figures/capture/CaptureRate.png
Figure 3. Capture rate by species and date for fish with fork length > 300 mm.

Coverage

figures/receiver/ReceiverMap.png
Figure 4. Location of sites with deployed receivers and estimated coverage (500m radius). Although receivers move slightly over time and after being redeployed, the centroid of all known locations for each receiver is shown.

Detections

figures/detection/DetectionMap.png
Figure 5. Percent of Lake Trout detections by receiver group and season.
figures/detection/DetectionOverview.png
Figure 6. Date of detections by species for each acoustically tagged fish. Grey segments indicate estimated tag life from capture date. Detections have been aggregate daily. Three acoustically tagged fish were recaptured.

Mobile Receiver Deployment

figures/mobile/DetectionSummary.png
Figure 7. Number of Lake Trout individuals detected at each survey location by year. Colour indicates date surveyed. Each location was surveyed for approximately 12 minutes.

Condition

figures/condition/condition.png
Figure 8. Estimated weight by length (with 95% CIs).

Growth

figures/growth/growth.png
Figure 9. Estimated length by age (with 95% CIs).

Survival

figures/survival/annual.png
Figure 10. The estimated annual interval probabilities (with 95% CIs).

Yield-per-Recruit

figures/yield/AgeLength.png
Figure 11. Lake Trout assumed age by length and ecotype.
figures/yield/AgeWeight.png
Figure 12. Lake Trout assumed length by weight and ecotype.
figures/yield/LengthSpawning.png
Figure 13. Lake Trout assumed length by spawning and ecotype.
figures/yield/LengthVulnerability.png
Figure 14. Lake Trout assumed length by vulnerability to capture and ecotype.
figures/yield/WeightFecundity.png
Figure 15. Lake Trout assumed weight by fecundity and ecotype.
figures/yield/Yield.png
Figure 16. Lake Trout calculated yield as percent of total unfished population by annual interval fishing mortality rate and ecotype.

Recommendations

Recommendations include:

  • Obtain additional weight, length, age and fecundity data for Lake Trout in Horse Lake.
  • Acoustically tag more individuals to reduce the uncertainty in the natural mortality.
  • Continue annual mobile receiver surveys.

Acknowledgements

The organisations and individuals whose contributions have made this analysis report possible include:

  • MFLNRO - Cariboo Region
    • Russ Bobrowski
    • Scott Horley

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.

Fabrizio, Mary C., Bruce L. Swanson, Stephen T. Schram, and Michael H. Hoff. 1996. “Comparison of Three Nonlinear Models to Describe Long-Term Tag Shedding by Lake Trout.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125 (2): 261–73. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1996)125<0261:COTNMT>2.3.CO;2.

He, Ji X., James R. Bence, James E. Johnson, David F. Clapp, and Mark P. Ebener. 2008. “Modeling Variation in Mass-Length Relations and Condition Indices of Lake Trout and Chinook Salmon in Lake Huron: A Hierarchical Bayesian Approach.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137 (3): 801–17. https://doi.org/10.1577/T07-012.1.

Kery, Marc, and Michael Schaub. 2011. Bayesian Population Analysis Using WinBUGS : A Hierarchical Perspective. Boston: Academic Press. http://www.vogelwarte.ch/bpa.html.

McDermid, Jenni L., Brian J. Shuter, and Nigel P. Lester. 2010. “Life History Differences Parallel Environmental Differences Among North American Lake Trout (Salvelinus Namaycush) Populations.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67 (2): 314–25. https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-183.

Plummer, Martyn. 2015. “JAGS Version 4.0.1 User Manual.” http://sourceforge.net/projects/mcmc-jags/files/Manuals/4.x/.

R Core Team. 2018. 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.

von Bertalanffy, L. 1938. “A Quantitative Theory of Organic Growth (Inquiries on Growth Laws Ii).” Human Biology 10: 181–213.

Walters, Carl J., and Steven J. D. Martell. 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.