Kaslo Bull Trout Productivity 2021

The suggested citation for this analytic appendix is:

Thorley, J.L. and Amies-Galonski, E. (2022) Kaslo Bull Trout Productivity 2021. A Poisson Consulting Analysis Appendix. URL: https://www.poissonconsulting.ca/f/433821282.

Background

The Kaslo River and Keen Creek, which is a tributary of the Kaslo River, are important Bull Trout spawning and rearing tributaries on Kootenay Lake. From 2012 to 2021, field crews have night-snorkeled these systems in the fall and recorded all Bull Trout less than 350 mm in length. Keen Creek was not snorkelled in 2020 or 2021 due to visibility issues. Snorkel and electrofishing marking crews have also captured and tagged juvenile Bull Trout for the snorkel crews to resight. Redd counts have been conducted in both systems since 2006, with the exception of 2020 and 2021, when Keen Creek was not surveyed. The primary goal of the current analyses is to answer the following questions:

What is the observer efficiency when night-snorkeling for juvenile Bull Trout in the Kaslo River and Keen Creek?

What are the numbers of age-1 Bull Trout in the Kaslo River and Keen Creek?

What is the relationship between the stock (number of redds and eggs) and the resultant numbers of age-1 Bull Trout two years later?

Data Preparation

The data were cleaned, tidied and databased using R version 4.2.1 (R Core Team 2015).

Statistical Analysis

Model parameters were estimated using Bayesian methods. The Bayesian estimates were produced using JAGS (Plummer 2015). For additional information on Bayesian estimation the reader is referred to McElreath (2016).

Unless indicated otherwise, the Bayesian analyses used weakly informative normal or truncated half normal prior distributions (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.

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 can be considered a test of directionality. More specifically it indicates how surprising (in bits) it would be to discover that the true value of the parameter is in the opposite direction to the estimate. An s-value of 4.3 bits, which is equivalent to a p-value (Kery and Schaub 2011; Greenland and Poole 2013) of 0.05, indicates that the surprise would be equivalent to throwing 4.3 heads in a row.

Where relevant, model adequacy was confirmed by examination of residual plots for the full model(s).

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). When informative the influence of particular variables is expressed in terms of the effect size (i.e., percent change in the response variable) with 95% confidence/credible intervals (CIs, Bradford, Korman, and Higgins 2005).

The analyses were implemented using R version 4.2.1 (R Core Team 2015) and the mbr family of packages.

Model Descriptions

Length Correction

The annual bias (inaccuracy) and error (imprecision) in observer’s fish length estimates when spotlighting (standing) and snorkeling were quantified from the divergence of their length distribution from the length distribution for JLT and SH (the two most experience snorkelers) in that year. More specifically, the length correction that minimised the Jensen-Shannon divergence (Lin 1991) provided a measure of the inaccuracy while the minimum divergence (the Jensen-Shannon divergence was calculated with log to base 2 which means it lies between 0 and 1) provided a measure of the imprecision.

Observer Efficiency

All resighted fish with a tag were allocated to the closest unallocated marked fish (with the same colour tag) by fork length and distance. The marked fish were analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression model. The key assumption of the logistic regression model is that:

  • The observer efficiency varies by the fork length.

The preliminary analysis for observer efficiency indicated that system, observer, gradient, sinuosity, and river kilometre were not informative predictors.

Lineal Density

Both systems were broken into 100 m sites by bank. The lineal density at each site was estimated using an over-dispersed Poisson Generalized Linear Mixed Model.

Key assumptions of the Bayesian GLMM include:

  • The lineal density varies between systems and years.
  • The lineal density varies randomly by site.
  • The observer efficiency for each system is as estimated by the observer efficiency model.

The preliminary analysis for density indicated that site sinuosity, gradient, and river kilometre were not informative predictors.

Redds Stock-Recruitment

The stock-recruitment relationship was estimated using a Bayesian Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment curve. Key assumptions of the final BH SR model include:

  • The strength of density-dependence varies between systems.
  • The residual variation is log normally distributed.

The \(E_{K/2}\) Limit Reference Point (Mace 1994) (\(E_{0.5 R_{max}}\)) was calculated, corresponding to the stock (number of redds per kilometer) that produce 50% of the maximum recruitment (\(K\)).

Condition

The condition of adults was estimated using an allometric weight-length relationship. Key assumptions of the condition model include:

  • Condition varies randomly by year.
  • The residual variation in weight is log normally distributed.

Fecundity

Female spawner fecundity was estimated using an allometric egg-weight relationship. The key assumption of the fecundity model is that:

  • The residual variation in fecundity is log normally distributed.

Spawner Length

The average length of spawners in each system and year was estimated using a linear regression. Key assumptions of the spawner length model include:

  • Length varies randomly with system, year, and system within year.
  • The residual variation is normally distributed.

Egg Deposition

The total egg deposition in each year was estimated by

  • Converting the average spawner length to the average weight using the condition relationship for a typical year.
  • Adjusting the average weight by the annual condition effect (interpolating where unavailable)
  • Converting the average weight to the average fecundity using the fecundity relationship
  • Multiplying the average fecundity by the number of females (assuming 1 female per redd)

Eggs Stock-Recruitment

The stock-recruitment relationship between the total number eggs and the abundance of age-1 individuals was estimated using a Bayesian Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment curve. Key assumptions of the final BH SR model include:

  • The prior uncertainty in the egg to age-1 survival is described by a Beta distribution with an alpha of 4 and beta of 49 which has a mean of 0.075 and a standard deviation of 0.036. This is based off the assumption that a recruit has a ~50% chance of surviving through each summer or winter and must pass through two winters and two summers to survive to age-1.
  • The carrying capacity varies between systems.
  • The residual variation in the recruits is log normally distributed.

The \(E_{K/2}\) Limit Reference Point (Mace 1994) (\(E_{0.5 R_{max}}\)) was calculated, corresponding to the stock (number of eggs per 100 meters) that produce 50% of the maximum recruitment (\(K\)).

Model Templates

Observer Efficiency

.model{
  bIntercept ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bLength ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)

  for(i in 1:length(Observed)){
    logit(eObserved[i]) <-  bIntercept + bLength * Length[i]
    Observed[i] ~ dbern(eObserved[i])
  }

Block 1. Final model.

Lineal Density

.model{
  bEfficiency ~ dnorm(Efficiency[1], EfficiencySD[1]^-2) T(0, 1)

  b0 ~ dnorm(0, 5^-2)
  bRkm ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bSystem[1] <- 0
  for(i in 2:nSystem) {
    bSystem[i] ~ dnorm(0, 2^2)
  }

  sSystemYear ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2) T(0,)
  for(i in 1:nSystem) {
    for(j in 1:nYear) {
      bSystemYear[i,j] ~ dnorm(0, sSystemYear^-2)
    }
  }

  sSite ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2) T(0,)
  for(i in 1:nSite) {
    bSite[i] ~ dnorm(0, sSite^-2)
  }

  sDispersion ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2) T(0,)
  for(i in 1:length(Count)) {
    log(eDensity[i]) <- b0 + bSystem[System[i]] + bRkm * Rkm[i] + bSite[Site[i]] + bSystemYear[System[i],Year[i]]
    eDispersion[i] ~ dgamma(sDispersion^-2, sDispersion^-2)
    Count[i] ~ dpois(eDensity[i] * Length[i] * Coverage[i] * bEfficiency * eDispersion[i])
  }

Block 2. The final model.

Redds Stock-Recruiment

.model {
  log_bAlpha ~ dnorm(5, 5^-2)
  log(bAlpha) <- log_bAlpha

  for(i in 1:nSystem) {
    log_bBeta[i] ~ dnorm(0, 5^-2)
    log(bBeta[i]) <- log_bBeta[i]
  }

  log_sRecruits ~ dnorm(0, 5^-2)
  log(sRecruits) <- log_sRecruits

  for(i in 1:length(Recruits)){
    eRecruits[i] <- bAlpha * Stock[i] / (1 + bBeta[System[i]] * Stock[i])
    Recruits[i] ~ dlnorm(log(eRecruits[i]), sRecruits^-2)
  }
  bCarryingCapacity <- bAlpha / bBeta

Block 3. Final model.

Condition

.model{
  b0 ~ dnorm(6, 2^-2)
  bLength ~ dnorm(3, 1^-2)
  sWeight ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2) T(0,)
  sYear ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2) T(0,)

  for (i in 1:nYear) {
    bYear[i] ~ dnorm(0, sYear^-2)
  }

  for (i in 1:nObs) {
    log(eWeight[i]) <- b0 + (log(Length[i]) - log(500)) * bLength + bYear[Year[i]]
    Weight[i] ~ dlnorm(log(eWeight[i]), sWeight^-2)
  }

Block 4. Model description.

Fecundity

.model{
  b0 ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bWeight ~ dnorm(1, 2^-2)
  sFecundity ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2) T(0,)

  for (i in 1:nObs) {
    log(eFecundity[i]) <- b0 + (log(Weight[i]) - log(2300)) * bWeight
    Fecundity[i] ~ dlnorm(log(eFecundity[i]), sFecundity^-2)
  }

Block 5. Model description.

Spawner Length

.model{
  bLength ~ dnorm(650, 100^-2)
  sLength ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2) T(0,)
  sYear ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2) T(0,)
  sSystem ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2) T(0,)
  sYearSystem ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2) T(0,)
  bSex ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bFemale ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2)
  bBias ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2)

  for (i in 1:nYear) {
    bYear[i] ~ dnorm(0, sYear^-2)
  }

  for (i in 1:nSystem) {
    bSystem[i] ~ dnorm(0, sSystem^-2)
  }

  for (i in 1:nYear) {
    for (j in 1:nSystem) {
        bYearSystem[i, j] ~ dnorm(0, sYearSystem^-2)
    }
  }

  bCatchType[1] <- 0
  for(i in 2:nCatchType) {
    bCatchType[i] ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2)
  }

  for (i in 1:nObs) {
    Female[i] ~ dbern(bSex)
    eLength[i] <- bLength + bSystem[System[i]] + bFemale * Female[i] + bCatchType[CatchType[i]] + bYear[Year[i]] + bYearSystem[Year[i], System[i]] + bBias * Bias[i]
    Length[i] ~ dnorm(eLength[i], sLength^-2)
  }

Block 6. Model description.

Eggs Stock-Recruiment

.model {
  bAlpha ~ dbeta(4, 49)

  bK ~ dnorm(3, 1^-2)
  bKPopulation ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2)
  sRecruits ~ dexp(1)

  for(i in 1:nObs){
    log(eK[i]) <- bK + (Kaslo[i] * bKPopulation - (1-Kaslo[i]) * bKPopulation)
    eBeta[i] <-  bAlpha/eK[i]
    eRecruits[i] <- bAlpha * Stock[i] / (1 + eBeta[i] * Stock[i])
    Recruits[i] ~ dlnorm(log(eRecruits[i]), sRecruits^-2)
  }

Block 7. Final model.

Results

Tables

Coverage

Table 1. Total length of river bank counted (including replicates) by system and year.

System Year Length (km)
Kaslo River 2012 10.57 [km]
Kaslo River 2013 13.43 [km]
Kaslo River 2014 11.45 [km]
Kaslo River 2015 7.32 [km]
Kaslo River 2016 11.59 [km]
Kaslo River 2017 9.79 [km]
Kaslo River 2018 8.44 [km]
Kaslo River 2019 7.19 [km]
Kaslo River 2020 10.42 [km]
Kaslo River 2021 11.08 [km]
Keen Creek 2012 1.44 [km]
Keen Creek 2013 0.95 [km]
Keen Creek 2014 0.67 [km]
Keen Creek 2015 0.72 [km]
Keen Creek 2016 0.85 [km]
Keen Creek 2017 1.68 [km]
Keen Creek 2018 3.37 [km]
Keen Creek 2019 1.48 [km]

Observer Efficiency

Table 2. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bIntercept The intercept for logit(eObserved)
bLength The effect of Length on bIntercept
bLength2 The effect of Length on the effect of Length on bIntercept
eObserved The expected probability of observing an individual
Length The standardized fork length
Observed The number of individuals observed (0 or 1)
Tagged The number of tagged individuals (1)

Table 3. Final parameter estimates.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bIntercept -1.4487570 -1.8123174 -1.126471 10.55171
bLength 0.6744263 0.3223635 1.047922 10.55171

Table 4. Observer Efficiency estimates for a 123 mm Bull Trout.

System Efficiency EfficiencyLower EfficiencyUpper EfficiencySD
Kaslo River 0.1517101 0.1021055 0.2103352 0.0276096

Table 5. Final model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
220 2 3 500 1 656 1 TRUE

Lineal Density

Table 6. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bDispersion The random effect of overdispersion
bSite The random effect of Site on bSystemYear
bSystemYear The effect of System and Year on log(eDensity)
Count Number of fish counted
Coverage Proportion of site surveyed
Dispersion Factor for random effect of overdispersion
eCount The expected Count
eDensity The expected lineal density
Efficiency The observer efficiency from the observer efficiency model
Length Length of site (m)
log_sDispersion log(sDispersion)
log_sSite log(sSite)
sDispersion The SD of bDispersion
Site The site
sSite The SD of bSite
System The system
Year The year

Table 7. Parameter estimates.

term estimate lower upper svalue
b0 -2.5782529 -3.0153014 -2.0765395 10.55171
bEfficiency 0.1501718 0.0964656 0.2044709 10.55171
bRkm 0.4303969 0.3320728 0.5315148 10.55171
bSystem[1] 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00000
bSystem[2] 0.9893620 0.4743176 1.4096555 10.55171
sSystemYear 0.3905191 0.2415141 0.6489998 10.55171

Table 8. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
1221 5 3 500 50 302 1.006 TRUE

Redds Stock-Recruiment

Table 9. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
Recruits Age-1 Bull Trout density
Stock Bull Trout redd density
bBeta Density-dependence
eRecruits Expected density of Recruits
bAlpha Recruits per stock per kilometer at low stock density
sRecruits SD of residual variation in Recruits

Table 10. Final parameter estimates.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bAlpha 198.2745112 64.2477732 25986.3439344 10.5517083
bBeta[1] 1.1486360 0.2806631 162.3587450 10.5517083
bBeta[2] 0.6243653 0.1160571 95.7042676 10.5517083
bCarryingCapacity[1] 176.3135299 136.6966818 242.0315986 10.5517083
bCarryingCapacity[2] 318.7745433 227.8991514 553.8778991 10.5517083
log_bAlpha 5.2896523 4.1627380 10.1638304 10.5517083
log_bBeta[1] 0.1385749 -1.2706013 5.0890772 0.1583178
log_bBeta[2] -0.4710197 -2.1537069 4.5604112 0.5531178
log_sRecruits -1.1799035 -1.5082235 -0.7629883 10.5517083
sRecruits 0.3073084 0.2213028 0.4662715 10.5517083

Table 11. Final model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
18 10 3 500 100 174 1.029 TRUE

Table 12. Ek/2 Limit Reference Point estimates.

System estimate lower upper svalue
Kaslo River 0.8705982 0.0061682 3.562998 10.55171
Keen Creek 1.6016265 0.0104667 8.617035 10.55171

Condition

Table 13. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
b0 Intercept for eLength
bLength The effect of Length on eWeight
bYear[i] The effect of year on eWeight
eWeight[i] Expected value of Weight[i]
Length[i] The ith Length value
sWeight SD of residual variation in Weight
sYear SD of Year
Weight[i] The ith Weight value
Year[i] The ith Year value

Table 14. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
b0 7.0915667 6.9948741 7.1891419 10.55171
bLength 2.9162213 2.8563706 2.9762244 10.55171
sWeight 0.1287059 0.1224407 0.1352182 10.55171
sYear 0.1067360 0.0622920 0.2333023 10.55171

Table 15. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
795 4 3 500 50 180 1.021 TRUE

Table 16. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros NA NA NA NA NA
mean -0.0007750 0.0006637 -0.0694989 0.0687595 0.0468893
variance 0.9884704 0.9971119 0.9001576 1.1057903 0.2018742
skewness -0.4451947 0.0024868 -0.1747122 0.1788297 10.5517083
kurtosis 1.7347196 -0.0124641 -0.3155986 0.3739763 10.5517083

Table 17. Model sensitivity.

n K nchains niters rhat_1 rhat_2 rhat_all converged
795 4 3 500 1.021 1.005 1.014 TRUE

Fecundity

Table 18. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
b0 Intercept for eFecundity
bWeight Effect of Weight on b0
eFecundity[i] Expected value of Fecundity[i]
Fecundity[i] The ith Fecundity value
sFecundity SD of residual variation in Fecundity

Table 19. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
b0 8.487022 8.4379818 8.5346888 10.55171
bWeight 1.035013 0.9150085 1.1569982 10.55171
sFecundity 0.121464 0.0944576 0.1654873 10.55171

Table 20. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
28 3 3 500 1 765 1.004 TRUE

Table 21. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros NA NA NA NA NA
mean 0.0112282 0.0046277 -0.3658965 0.3472634 0.0548545
variance 0.9113417 0.9807956 0.5612649 1.5924744 0.2954996
skewness 0.3453533 -0.0090913 -0.8785410 0.8687712 1.3495844
kurtosis -0.5635928 -0.3537228 -1.1572274 1.7776706 0.4576306

Table 22. Model sensitivity.

n K nchains niters rhat_1 rhat_2 rhat_all converged
28 3 3 500 1.004 1.004 1.004 TRUE

Spawner Length

Table 23. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bBias The effect of Bias on bLength
bCatchType Effect of CatchType on bLength
Bias[i] The ith Bias Value
bLength Intercept for eLength
bSex Effect of Sex on bLength
bSystem Effect of System on bLength
bYear Effect of Year on bLength
CatchType[i] The ith CatchType value
eLength[i] Expected value of Length[i]
Length[i] The ith Length value
Sex[i] The ith Sex value
sLength SD of residual variation in Length
System[i] The ith System value
Year[i] The ith Year value

Table 24. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bBias 84.6269278 30.3343259 126.5734940 7.381783
bCatchType[2] -32.9132484 -56.6393464 -10.6089239 6.851268
bFemale -83.0724598 -92.5386599 -73.7447041 10.551708
bLength 649.1962002 604.3224802 695.1990887 10.551708
bSex 0.3626661 0.3390499 0.3876562 10.551708
sLength 84.3078697 81.1364578 87.8540091 10.551708
sSystem 60.1692376 37.1440499 95.0074650 10.551708
sYear 52.5084855 31.4555377 81.0751486 10.551708
sYearSystem 17.1294020 1.7003290 39.4953104 10.551708

Table 25. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
1379 9 3 500 50 387 1.006 TRUE

Table 26. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros NA NA NA NA NA
mean 0.0081918 0.0004888 -0.0528534 0.0515220 0.3532632
variance 0.9493922 0.9990546 0.9252715 1.0796329 2.2433692
skewness -0.3182236 -0.0027257 -0.1299649 0.1257595 10.5517083
kurtosis 2.5266668 -0.0158094 -0.2387917 0.2926359 10.5517083

Table 27. Model sensitivity.

n K nchains niters rhat_1 rhat_2 rhat_all converged
1379 9 3 500 1.006 1.006 1.007 TRUE

Egg Deposition

Table 28. The estimated total egg deposition by system and year.

Year System Length Condition Weight Fecundity Redds Eggs
2012 Kaslo River 627.9484 1.1026438 2576.919 5458.596 433 2363571.99
2012 Keen Creek 661.5258 1.1026438 2999.226 6385.462 80 510836.92
2013 Kaslo River 671.0605 1.0788412 3059.181 6517.146 305 1987729.42
2013 Keen Creek 720.7605 1.0788412 3769.457 8096.504 50 404825.20
2014 Kaslo River 579.6657 1.0550385 1951.332 4094.051 113 462627.77
2014 Keen Creek 625.7864 1.0550385 2441.007 5161.522 17 87745.87
2015 Kaslo River 545.3199 1.0312359 1595.754 3323.185 135 448630.00
2015 Keen Creek 563.9325 1.0312359 1760.159 3678.322 80 294265.74
2016 Kaslo River 552.8313 1.0114682 1628.463 3394.612 340 1154168.21
2016 Keen Creek 589.7834 1.0114682 1967.489 4130.154 34 140425.24
2017 Kaslo River 561.0225 1.0123899 1701.940 3553.230 360 1279162.63
2017 Keen Creek 595.5326 1.0123899 2026.089 4257.299 113 481074.79
2018 Kaslo River 534.6854 0.9582575 1400.024 2902.057 267 774849.29
2018 Keen Creek 576.8606 0.9582575 1747.431 3651.156 51 186208.96
2019 Kaslo River 569.6355 0.8487415 1491.843 3100.320 131 406141.91
2019 Keen Creek 606.4766 0.8487415 1791.560 3747.391 33 123663.90
2020 Kaslo River 543.4666 0.9325874 1428.794 2963.793 111 328981.00
2020 Keen Creek 581.6197 0.9325874 1741.670 3638.665 NA NA
2021 Kaslo River 493.3756 0.9325874 1078.071 2213.742 180 398473.52
2021 Keen Creek 536.8167 0.9325874 1378.463 2856.201 23 65692.61

Eggs Stock-Recruiment

Table 29. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
Recruits Age-1 Bull Trout density
Stock Bull Trout egg density
bK Density Carrying Capacity
eBeta[i] Density-dependence for the ith population
eRecruits Expected density of Recruits
bKPopulation Population effect on bK
bAlpha Recruits per stock per 100 meters at low stock density
sRecruits SD of residual variation in Recruits

Table 30. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bAlpha 0.0555420 0.0194115 0.1369449 10.551708
bK 3.1601523 2.9230682 3.4895720 10.551708
bKPopulation -0.2459042 -0.4851139 -0.0245107 4.879283
sRecruits 0.3450785 0.2354491 0.5451018 10.551708

Table 31. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
14 4 3 500 100 1330 1.003 TRUE

Table 32. Ek/2 Limit Reference Point estimates.

Kaslo Recruits Stock estimate lower upper svalue
TRUE 1 1 330.9228 119.4965 1198.647 10.55171
FALSE 1 1 542.1507 184.1733 2129.448 10.55171

Table 33. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros NA NA NA NA NA
mean -0.0051722 -0.0033964 -0.5247584 0.5221694 0.0154610
variance 0.8168162 0.9501666 0.3973109 1.8590071 0.5032214
skewness 0.2671759 0.0070644 -1.0782522 0.9887461 0.7395310
kurtosis -0.4875166 -0.5711872 -1.3731077 1.6991296 0.1647680

Table 34. Model sensitivity.

n K nchains niters rhat_1 rhat_2 rhat_all converged
14 4 3 500 1.003 1 1.001 TRUE

Figures

Systems

figures/rkm/map.png

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of fish-bearing channel.

figures/rkm/elevation.png

Figure 2. Channel elevation by river kilometre and system.

figures/rkm/area.png

Figure 3. Catchment area by river kilometre and system.

Sites

figures/site/gradient.png

Figure 4. Site gradient by river kilometre and system.

figures/site/sinuosity.png

Figure 5. Site sinuosity by river kilometre and system.

Coverage

figures/visit/count.png

Figure 6. Snorkel count coverage by year and bank.

Length Correction

figures/length/corrected.png

Figure 7. Corrected length-frequency histogram by year and observation type.

Fish

figures/fish/capture.png

Figure 8. Length-frequency plot of marked Bull Trout by year and system.

figures/fish/freq.png

Figure 9. Length-frequency plot of observed Bull Trout by year.

Observer Efficiency

figures/observer/capture.png

Figure 10. Distribution of marked juvenile Bull Trout by year and tag color.

figures/observer/length.png

Figure 11. Estimated observer efficiency by fork length and system (with 95% CIs).

Lineal Density

figures/density/coverage.png

Figure 12. Percent coverage by year and system.

figures/density/year.png

Figure 13. Estimated density by year and system (with 95% CIs).

figures/density/abundance.png

Figure 14. The estimated abundance by year and system (with 95% CIs).

figures/density/site.png

Figure 15. The estimated density by site and system (with 95% CIs).

Redds Stock-Recruiment

figures/sr-redds/redds.png

Figure 16. Complete redds by system and spawn year.

figures/sr-redds/stock.png

Figure 17. Estimated stock-recruitment relationship (with 95% CIs). The points are labelled by spawn year.

Condition

figures/condition/weight-length.png

Figure 18. The weight-length relationship (with 95% CIs).

figures/condition/condition-year.png

Figure 19. The percent change in the body condition for an average length fish relative to a typical year by year (with 95% CIs).

Fecundity

figures/fecundity/fecundity.png

Figure 20. The predicted relationship between Fecundity and Weight for Bull Trout (with 95% CIs), data from Brunson (1952).

Spawner Length

figures/spawner-length/spawners.png

Figure 21. Length frequency of Bull Trout spawners by sex.

figures/spawner-length/spawners 2018-19.png

Figure 22. Length frequency of Bull Trout spawners by catch type in 2018 and 2019.

figures/spawner-length/spawners-average.png

Figure 23. Average Length of Bull Trout spawners in Keen Creek compared to all other surveyed tributaries.

figures/spawner-length/system_year.png

Figure 24. The expected length of female spawners by year for Kaslo River and Keen Creek (with 95% CIs).

Egg Deposition

figures/eggs/eggs-fecundity-uncorrected.png

Figure 25. The estimated spawner fecundity by year uncorrected for condition (with 95% CIs).

figures/eggs/eggs-fecundity-corrected.png

Figure 26. The estimated spawner fecundity by year corrected for condition.

figures/eggs/eggs-eggs.png

Figure 27. The estimated total egg deposition by system and year.

Eggs Stock-Recruiment

figures/sr-eggs/stock.png

Figure 28. Estimated stock-recruitment relationship (with 95% CIs). The points are labelled by spawn year.

figures/sr-eggs/recruits-per-spawner.png

Figure 29. Predicted egg survival to age-1 by egg deposition (with 95% CRIs).

Conclusions

  • Observer efficiency is approximately 17% for age-1 Bull Trout.
  • Age-1 Bull Trout are relatively evenly distributed with respect to mesohabitat.
  • Lineal densities of age-1 Bull Trout increase with river kilometre in both systems.
  • The age-1 carrying capacity is estimated to be around 170 fish per km in Kaslo River and around 310 fish per km in Keen Creek.

Acknowledgements

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

  • Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation
  • Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
    • Greg Andrusak
    • Emmanuel Abecia
  • Ministry of Environment
    • Jen Sarchuk
  • BC Fish and Wildlife
    • Trina Radford
  • Stephan Himmer
  • Gillian Sanders
  • Jeff Berdusco
  • Vicky Lipinski
  • Jimmy Robbins
  • Jason Bowers
  • Seb Dalgarno

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.
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.
Lin, J. 1991. “Divergence Measures Based on the Shannon Entropy.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37 (1): 145–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/18.61115.
Mace, Pamela M. 1994. “Relationships Between Common Biological Reference Points Used as Thresholds and Targets of Fisheries Management Strategies.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 (1): 110–22. https://doi.org/10.1139/f94-013.
McElreath, Richard. 2016. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science Series 122. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.
Plummer, Martyn. 2015. JAGS Version 4.0.1 User Manual.” http://sourceforge.net/projects/mcmc-jags/files/Manuals/4.x/.
R Core Team. 2015. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.