Life History Characteristics and Vital Rates of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Two Headwater Basins

Abstract

The Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri is native to the Rocky Mountains and has declined in abundance and distribution as a result of habitat degradation and introduced salmonid species. Many of its remaining strongholds are in headwater basins with minimal human disturbances. Understanding the life histories, vital rates, and behaviors of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout within headwater stream networks remains limited yet is critical for effective management and conservation. We estimated annual relative growth in length and weight, annual survival rates, and movement patterns of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout from three tributaries of Spread Creek, Wyoming, and two tributaries of Shields River, Montana, from 2011 through 2013 using PIT tag antennas within a mark–recapture framework. Mean annual growth rates varied among tributaries and size‐classes, but were slow compared with populations of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout from large, low‐elevation streams. Survival rates were relatively high compared with those of other Cutthroat Trout subspecies, but we found an inverse relationship between survival and size, a pattern contrary to what has been reported for Cutthroat Trout in large streams. Mean annual survival rates ranged from 0.32 (SE = 0.04) to 0.68 (SE = 0.05) in the Spread Creek basin and from 0.30 (SE = 0.07) to 0.69 (SE = 0.10) in the Shields River basin. Downstream movements from tributaries were substantial, with as much as 26.5% of a tagging cohort leaving over the course of the study. Integrating our growth, survival, and movement results demonstrates the importance of considering strategies to enhance headwater stream habitats and highlights the importance of connectivity with larger stream networks.Received February 17, 2016; accepted June 18, 2016 Published online September 30, 2016

Impacts of Nonnative Brown Trout on Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in a Tributary Stream

“…Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout survival in allopatry was similar to other headwater populations (Uthe et al. ), with reduced survival for larger Cutthroat Trout. The negative relationship between size and survival is likely due to the lack of refugia and habitat limitations for larger fish in smaller streams (Xu et al.…”

Proactive Rainbow Trout Suppression Reduces Threat of Hybridization in the Upper Snake River Basin

“…; Uthe et al. ). Climate change notwithstanding, targeted suppression efforts like those reported herein offer a little‐used means to effectively mediate the threat of invasive species while maintaining the suite of environmental and biological (life history variation and genetic variation) diversity necessary for long‐term persistence.…”

Compensatory growth offsets poor condition in native trout populations

“…However, larger size also has its costs (Blanckenhorn, 2000). Recent studies of headwater populations indicate that larger trout have lower survival than smaller individuals (Al-Chokhachy & Sepulveda, 2019;Carlson, Olsen, & Vøllestad, 2008;Uthe et al, 2016). This pattern is contrary to the relatively higher survival of larger trout in larger streams (Budy, Thiede, & Mchugh, 2007;Howell, Colvin, Sankovich, Buchanan, & Hemmingsen, 2016), presumably owing to the harsh conditions and reduced opportunities of refugia from conspecific and avian and terrestrial predation in smaller, headwater streams (Harvey & Stewart, 1991).…”

“…Given the influence of length on cutthroat trout growth (Uthe et al, 2016), we included size at time of marking (length or mass) as a covariate. Given the influence of length on cutthroat trout growth (Uthe et al, 2016), we included size at time of marking (length or mass) as a covariate.…”

“…We followed a similar linear modelling approach to evaluate compensatory growth across seasons, where seasonal growth was the response variable, relative condition was a fixed effect, and stream was a random effect. Given the influence of length on cutthroat trout growth (Uthe et al, 2016), we included size at time of marking (length or mass) as a covariate. For each season, we ran separate models with residual at time of tagging as a fixed effect and stream as a random effect (intercept and slope).…”