Kaslo Bull Trout Productivity 2022

The suggested citation for this analytic appendix is:

Amies-Galonski, E. and Thorley, J.L. (2023) Kaslo Bull Trout Productivity 2022. A Poisson Consulting Analysis Appendix. URL: https://www.poissonconsulting.ca/f/798364147.

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 2022, 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, 2021, or 2022 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, 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 4.3.0 (R Core Team 2022).

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% compatibility limits (Rafi and Greenland 2020) 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.

Variable selection was based on the heuristic of directional certainty (Kery and Schaub 2011). Fixed effects were included if their s-value was \(>\) 4.32 bits (Kery and Schaub 2011). Based on a similar argument, random effects were included if their standard deviation had lower 95% CLs \(>\) 5% of the median estimate.

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.

Where computationally practical, the sensitivity of the parameters to the choice of prior distributions was evaluated by increasing the standard deviations of all normal, half-normal and log-normal priors by an order of magnitude and then using \(\hat{R}\) to evaluate whether the samples were drawn from the same posterior distribution (Thorley and Andrusak 2017).

The results are displayed graphically by plotting the modeled relationships between individual 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 average 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 4.3.0 (R Core Team 2022) 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 by system and stream distance.
  • The lineal density varies randomly by site and system within year.
  • The observer efficiency for each system is as estimated by the observer efficiency model.

The preliminary analysis for density indicated that site sinuosity and gradient were not informative predictors of lineal density.

Condition

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

  • Weight varies by length.
  • Weight 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 assumptions of the fecundity model include:

  • Fecundity varies with weight.
  • 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.
  • Length varies with sex and catch type.
  • 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.

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 3. 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 4. 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 5. Model description.

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 6. 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 9.56 [km]
Kaslo River 2022 8.05 [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
Length The standardized fork length
Observed The number of individuals observed (0 or 1)
Tagged The number of tagged individuals (1)
bIntercept The intercept for logit(eObserved)
bLength2 The effect of Length on the effect of Length on bIntercept
bLength The effect of Length on bIntercept
eObserved The expected probability of observing an individual

Table 3. Final parameter estimates.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bIntercept -1.6658088 -2.0536553 -1.311882 10.55171
bLength 0.7290748 0.3666931 1.119661 10.55171

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

System Efficiency EfficiencyLower EfficiencyUpper EfficiencySD
Kaslo River 0.1248111 0.0796234 0.1774935 0.0249669

Table 5. Final model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
256 2 3 500 1 554 1.003 TRUE

Table 6. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros 0.8164062 0.8164062 0.7460938 0.8789062 0.0409441
mean -0.1648526 -0.1641625 -0.2750668 -0.0430340 0.0057785
variance 0.8619843 0.8557727 0.6207338 1.0613685 0.0608574
skewness 1.5615010 1.5597321 1.0895702 2.2111012 0.0135193
kurtosis 0.7988234 0.8219999 -0.5282195 3.5177447 0.0213019

Table 7. Model sensitivity.

all analysis sensitivity bound
all 1.003 1.005 1.003

Lineal Density

Table 8. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
Count Number of fish counted
Coverage Proportion of site surveyed
Dispersion Factor for random effect of overdispersion
Efficiency The observer efficiency from the observer efficiency model
Length Length of site (m)
Site The site
System The system
Year The year
b0 Intercept of log(eDensity)
bDispersion The random effect of overdispersion
bEfficiency
bSite The random effect of Site on bSystemYear
bSystemYear The effect of System and Year on log(eDensity)
bSystem The effect of System on log(eDensity)
eCount The expected Count
eDensity The expected lineal density
log_sDispersion log(sDispersion)
log_sSite log(sSite)
sDispersion The SD of bDispersion
sSite The SD of bSite
sSystemYear The SD of bSystemYear

Table 9. Parameter estimates.

term estimate lower upper svalue
b0 -2.4738446 -2.9648525 -1.7767605 10.551708
bEfficiency 0.1240374 0.0703511 0.1748241 10.551708
bRkm 0.4456673 0.3508408 0.5397803 10.551708
bSystem[1] 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000
bSystem[2] 1.0692784 0.5273687 1.5287126 8.966746
sDispersion 0.5417775 0.4441352 0.6387831 10.551708
sSystemYear 0.4487018 0.2846204 0.7200574 10.551708

Table 10. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
1295 6 3 500 50 216 1.018 TRUE

Table 11. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros 0.4239382 0.4548263 0.4223938 0.4857143 4.092277
mean -0.2613550 -0.2959537 -0.3486514 -0.2445796 2.299043
variance 0.7388195 0.9107643 0.8484822 0.9776519 10.551708
skewness 0.3276331 0.5445753 0.4236996 0.6679827 10.551708
kurtosis -0.7229660 -0.3879293 -0.6289873 -0.0472131 8.229780

Table 12. Model sensitivity.

all analysis sensitivity bound
all 1.018 1.009 1.013

Condition

Table 13. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
Length[i] The ith Length value
Weight[i] The ith Weight value
Year[i] The ith Year value
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]
sWeight SD of residual variation in Weight
sYear SD of Year

Table 14. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
b0 7.0908427 6.9843972 7.1702566 10.55171
bLength 2.9169114 2.8592542 2.9753611 10.55171
sWeight 0.1287263 0.1226121 0.1352580 10.55171
sYear 0.1075035 0.0633133 0.2307799 10.55171

Table 15. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
795 4 3 500 50 236 1.009 TRUE

Table 16. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000
mean -0.0004476 0.0002064 -0.0705615 0.0672957 0.0350233
variance 0.9883079 1.0013822 0.9061050 1.1032157 0.3483603
skewness -0.4436651 -0.0000260 -0.1722547 0.1665849 10.5517083
kurtosis 1.7350490 -0.0175825 -0.3051569 0.3830626 10.5517083

Table 17. Model sensitivity.

all analysis sensitivity bound
all 1.009 1.028 1.017

Fecundity

Table 18. Parameter descriptions.

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

Table 19. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
b0 8.4865471 8.4361069 8.540152 10.55171
bWeight 1.0353648 0.9154408 1.155619 10.55171
sFecundity 0.1222765 0.0919066 0.171978 10.55171

Table 20. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
28 3 3 500 1 718 1.006 TRUE

Table 21. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000
mean 0.0109091 -0.0008000 -0.3508327 0.3817987 0.0588536
variance 0.9014474 0.9753021 0.5335099 1.6020362 0.3581829
skewness 0.3395831 0.0024970 -0.7783873 0.8028030 1.3398200
kurtosis -0.5677115 -0.3245532 -1.1359166 1.6072526 0.6106607

Table 22. Model sensitivity.

all analysis sensitivity bound
all 1.006 1.001 1.004

Spawner Length

Table 23. Parameter descriptions.

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

Table 24. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bBias 85.1474062 28.0404411 131.5031725 6.851268
bCatchType[2] -32.4961719 -56.8785455 -7.9729875 6.644818
bFemale -82.5287978 -92.7655264 -72.9287353 10.551708
bLength 644.7371241 591.0138818 692.2094625 10.551708
bSex 0.3688462 0.3429386 0.3955583 10.551708
sLength 83.7530927 80.7409272 87.0345789 10.551708
sSystem 60.8708995 36.3204960 94.5656038 10.551708
sYear 54.5167351 32.9082313 87.7340891 10.551708
sYearSystem 17.9002560 2.0329852 41.9829273 10.551708

Table 25. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
1423 9 3 500 50 369 1.007 TRUE

Table 26. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000
mean 0.0079779 -0.0011206 -0.0498701 0.0505297 0.345915
variance 0.9485976 1.0005454 0.9251700 1.0724468 2.546084
skewness -0.3025628 0.0046228 -0.1250822 0.1296527 10.551708
kurtosis 2.5073545 -0.0147488 -0.2430001 0.2711679 10.551708

Table 27. Model sensitivity.

all analysis sensitivity bound
all 1.007 1.007 1.004

Egg Deposition

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

Year System Length Condition Weight Fecundity Redds Eggs
2012 Kaslo River 627.8450 1.1050547 2575.078 5453.752 433 2361474.79
2012 Keen Creek 661.9578 1.1050547 3004.671 6399.570 80 511965.63
2013 Kaslo River 670.6432 1.0819725 3055.623 6512.430 305 1986291.11
2013 Keen Creek 720.6144 1.0819725 3770.185 8091.041 50 404552.06
2014 Kaslo River 579.7287 1.0588902 1956.015 4101.159 113 463430.96
2014 Keen Creek 625.3021 1.0588902 2438.532 5153.111 17 87602.89
2015 Kaslo River 546.0136 1.0358079 1607.037 3350.012 135 452251.68
2015 Keen Creek 563.0800 1.0358079 1757.923 3673.386 80 293870.86
2016 Kaslo River 549.8609 1.0159445 1608.864 3353.936 340 1140338.10
2016 Keen Creek 588.9884 1.0159445 1965.087 4120.446 34 140095.17
2017 Kaslo River 561.9084 1.0149568 1712.189 3574.516 360 1286825.60
2017 Keen Creek 594.7727 1.0149568 2020.177 4240.097 113 479130.96
2018 Kaslo River 534.6373 0.9586071 1398.646 2900.493 267 774431.74
2018 Keen Creek 574.9807 0.9586071 1728.693 3610.353 51 184127.99
2019 Kaslo River 569.4663 0.8503298 1491.077 3099.131 131 405986.20
2019 Keen Creek 605.7864 0.8503298 1784.946 3731.536 33 123140.69
2020 Kaslo River 542.4144 0.9346675 1422.369 2952.108 111 327683.99
2020 Keen Creek 580.8238 0.9346675 1736.034 3625.971 NA NA
2021 Kaslo River 490.5934 0.9346675 1061.906 2180.495 180 392489.05
2021 Keen Creek 534.7120 0.9346675 1364.274 2827.593 23 65034.65
2022 Kaslo River 507.3020 0.9346675 1170.917 2411.344 290 699289.84
2022 Keen Creek 549.7956 0.9346675 1479.643 3074.458 44 135276.15

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. Density Carrying Capacity (K).

System estimate upper lower svalue
Kaslo River 22.09028 34.95172 15.84668 10.55171
Keen Creek 40.38173 70.47400 26.21022 10.55171

Table 31. Model coefficients.

term estimate lower upper svalue
bAlpha 0.0456208 0.0176069 0.1243621 10.551708
bK 3.3885488 3.0988822 3.8125180 10.551708
bKPopulation -0.3056275 -0.5562366 -0.0446364 5.125444
sRecruits 0.3822650 0.2667180 0.5897838 10.551708

Table 32. Model convergence.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
15 4 3 500 100 1292 1.001 TRUE

Table 33. Ek/2 Limit Reference Point estimates.

Kaslo Recruits Stock estimate lower upper svalue
TRUE 1 1 474.0307 145.9616 1775.006 10.55171
FALSE 1 1 870.4489 257.5997 3571.140 10.55171

Table 34. Model posterior predictive checks.

moment observed median lower upper svalue
zeros 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000
mean -0.0222671 -0.0007621 -0.5017827 0.5116441 0.0851219
variance 0.7990110 0.9581722 0.4059042 1.8775531 0.6048020
skewness 0.2337462 0.0044709 -1.0808559 1.0521947 0.6283808
kurtosis -0.6650047 -0.5111128 -1.3849358 1.9097934 0.3361753

Table 35. Model sensitivity.

all analysis sensitivity bound
all 1.001 1.001 1.002

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.

Coverage

figures/coverage/count.png

Figure 4. Snorkel count coverage by year and bank.

Sites

figures/site/gradient.png

Figure 5. Site gradient by river kilometre and system.

figures/site/sinuosity.png

Figure 6. Site sinuosity by river kilometre and system.

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, coloured by tag colour.

figures/fish/freq.png

Figure 9. Corrected length-frequency plot of observed Bull Trout by year and age class.

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

figures/redds/redds.png

Figure 16. Complete redds by system and spawn year.

Condition

figures/condition/weight-length.png

Figure 17. The weight-length relationship (with 95% CIs).

figures/condition/condition-year.png

Figure 18. 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 19. 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 20. Length frequency of Bull Trout spawners by sex.

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

Figure 21. Length frequency of Bull Trout spawners by catch type in 2018 and 2019.

figures/spawner-length/spawners-average.png

Figure 22. Average Length of Bull Trout spawners in Keen Creek compared to all other surveyed tributaries.

figures/spawner-length/system_year.png

Figure 23. 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 24. The estimated spawner fecundity by year uncorrected for condition (with 95% CIs).

figures/eggs/eggs-fecundity-corrected.png

Figure 25. The estimated spawner fecundity by year corrected for condition.

figures/eggs/eggs-eggs.png

Figure 26. The estimated total egg deposition by system and year.

Stock-Recruiment

figures/sr/stock.png

Figure 27. Estimated stock-recruitment relationship (with 95% CIs). Additional modeled relationships (grey lines) derived from randomly sampled parameter values are also displayed. The points are labelled by spawn year.

figures/sr/recruits-per-spawner.png

Figure 28. 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.
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.
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. 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. 2022. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rafi, Zad, and Sander Greenland. 2020. “Semantic and Cognitive Tools to Aid Statistical Science: Replace Confidence and Significance by Compatibility and Surprise.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 20 (1): 244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01105-9.
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.