Feeding ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in a northeast Pacific fjord: diet, availability of zooplankton, selectivity for prey, and potential competition for prey resources

We investigated the feeding ecology of juvenile salmon during the critical early life-history stage of transition from shallow to deep marine waters by sampling two stations (190 m and 60 m deep) in a northeast Pacific fjord (Dabob Bay, WA) between May 1985 and October 1987. Four species of Pacific salmon—Oncorhynchus keta (chum) , O. tshawytscha (Chinook), O. gorbuscha (pink), and O. kisutch (coho)—were examined for stomach contents. Diets of these fishes varied temporally, spatially, and between species, but were dominated by insects, euphausiids, and decapod larvae. Zooplankton assemblages and dry weights differed between stations, and less so between years. Salmon often demonstrated strongly positive or negative selection for specific prey types: copepods were far more abundant in the zooplankton than in the diet, whereas Insecta, Araneae, Cephalapoda, Teleostei, and Ctenophora were more abundant in the diet than in the plankton. Overall diet overlap was highest for Chinook and coho salmon (mean=77.9%)—species that seldom were found together. Chum and Chinook salmon were found together the most frequently, but diet overlap was lower (38.8%) and zooplankton biomass was not correlated with their gut fullness (%body weight). Thus, despite occasional occurrences of significant diet overlap between salmon species, our results indicate that interspecific competition among juvenile salmon does not occur in Dabob Bay

Environment and shipping drive environmental DNA beta-diversity among commercial ports

The spread of nonindigenous species by shipping is a large and growing global problem that harms coastal ecosystems and economies and may blur coastal biogeographical patterns. This study coupled eukaryotic environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding with dissimilarity regression to test the hypothesis that ship-borne species spread homogenizes port communities. We first collected and metabarcoded water samples from ports in Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas. We then calculated community dissimilarities between port pairs and tested for effects of environmental dissimilarity, biogeographical region and four alternative measures of ship-borne species transport risk. We predicted that higher shipping between ports would decrease community dissimilarity, that the effect of shipping would be small compared to that of environment dissimilarity and shared biogeography, and that more complex shipping risk metrics (which account for ballast water and stepping-stone spread) would perform better. Consistent with our hypotheses, community dissimilarities increased significantly with environmental dissimilarity and, to a lesser extent, decreased with ship-borne species transport risks, particularly if the ports had similar environments and stepping-stone risks were considered. Unexpectedly, we found no clear effect of shared biogeography, and that risk metrics incorporating estimates of ballast discharge did not offer more explanatory power than simpler traffic-based risks. Overall, we found that shipping homogenizes eukaryotic communities between ports in predictable ways, which could inform improvements in invasive species policy and management. We demonstrated the usefulness of eDNA metabarcoding and dissimilarity regression for disentangling the drivers of large-scale biodiversity patterns. We conclude by outlining logistical considerations and recommendations for future studies using this approach.Fil: Andrés, Jose. Cornell University. Department Of Ecology And Evolutionary Biology;Fil: Czechowski, Paul. Cornell University. Department Of Ecology And Evolutionary Biology; . University of Otago; Nueva Zelanda. Helmholtz Institute for Metabolic, Obesity and Vascular Research; AlemaniaFil: Grey, Erin. University of Maine; Estados Unidos. Governors State University; Estados UnidosFil: Saebi, Mandana. University of Notre Dame; Estados UnidosFil: Andres, Kara. Cornell University. Department Of Ecology And Evolutionary Biology;Fil: Brown, Christopher. California State University Maritime Academy; Estados UnidosFil: Chawla, Nitesh. University of Notre Dame; Estados UnidosFil: Corbett, James J.. University of Delaware; Estados UnidosFil: Brys, Rein. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; BélgicaFil: Cassey, Phillip. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Correa, Nancy. Ministerio de Defensa. Armada Argentina. Instituto Universitario Naval de la Ara. Escuela de Ciencias del Mar; Argentina. Ministerio de Defensa. Armada Argentina. Servicio de Hidrografía Naval; ArgentinaFil: Deveney, Marty R.. South Australian Research And Development Institute; AustraliaFil: Egan, Scott P.. Rice University; Estados UnidosFil: Fisher, Joshua P.. United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Estados UnidosFil: vanden Hooff, Rian. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Estados UnidosFil: Knapp, Charles R.. Daniel P. Haerther Center for Conservation and Research; Estados UnidosFil: Leong, Sandric Chee Yew. National University of Singapore; SingapurFil: Neilson, Brian J.. State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources; Estados UnidosFil: Paolucci, Esteban Marcelo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; ArgentinaFil: Pfrender, Michael E.. University of Notre Dame; Estados UnidosFil: Pochardt, Meredith R.. M. Rose Consulting; Estados UnidosFil: Prowse, Thomas A. A.. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Rumrill, Steven S.. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Estados UnidosFil: Scianni, Chris. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales. Instituto para el Estudio de la Biodiversidad de Invertebrados; Argentina. Marine Invasive Species Program; Estados UnidosFil: Sylvester, Francisco. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales. Instituto para el Estudio de la Biodiversidad de Invertebrados; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Salta; ArgentinaFil: Tamburri, Mario N.. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Therriault, Thomas W.. Pacific Biological Station; CanadáFil: Yeo, Darren C. J.. National University of Singapore; SingapurFil: Lodge, David M.. Cornell University. Department Of Ecology And Evolutionary Biology

A Decision Tree Analysis of Nonindigenous Species Risk from Ballast Water to the Lower Columbia River and Oregon coast, USA

Hazard characterization and risk assessment are commonly used to prioritize vectors of nonindigenous species (NIS) for inspection or other prevention opportunities. Commercial shipping vessels are a target of such vector-based management since ballast water has been known to transport NIS between aquatic ecosystems globally. Here we used a risk-based screening protocol to prioritize vessels discharging ballast water to the lower Columbia River and Oregon coast. We began by adapting established methods of assessing risk factors that influence the initial stages of the invasion process (arrival and survival). We created relative risk scales for each factor using data collected from vessels that discharged ballast water in three unique zones within our study area. We then organized a decision tree based on the confidence level of the proxies used for each risk factor to create a tool that prioritizes vessels with high risk ballast water for attention from regulatory personnel. In order of consideration, decision tree factors included: intent to discharge ballast water, reported adherence to required management practices, environmental distance between source and discharge locations (habitat suitability), ballast water discharge volume (propagule pressure number and frequency), and ballast water age (organism viability). As a result, vessels were prioritized on a scale of low, medium, medium-high, or high. We applied the decision tree to a 2016 dataset of vessel arrivals and found that 173 of 1,592 arrivals were deemed high priority, with most occurring at ports in the freshwater zone of the Columbia River (158), followed by fewer in the estuarine zone of the Columbia River (4) and in Coos Bay (11). The decision tree is transferable to NIS prevention and regulatory efforts in other port systems. The vessel prioritizations are adaptable for managers using risk assessment strategies to allocate limited regulatory program resources for vector screening