Sustainable Fisheries Management 1999
DOI: 10.1201/9781439822678.ch10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Review of the Status of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
42
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This produced an equilibrium spawning abundance of approximately 3300 age 3 adults. This value falls within the range of documented abundances for small catchments in the Puget Sound region (Weitkamp et al 1995). Natural variability was incorporated by randomly selecting each vital rate value in the projection matrix for each year from a normal distribution within the reported means and SD (Knudson et al 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This produced an equilibrium spawning abundance of approximately 3300 age 3 adults. This value falls within the range of documented abundances for small catchments in the Puget Sound region (Weitkamp et al 1995). Natural variability was incorporated by randomly selecting each vital rate value in the projection matrix for each year from a normal distribution within the reported means and SD (Knudson et al 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Records indicate that peak river entry of coho salmon to this creek occurs from late-October to mid-November [55]. The brood class of this species returns on average at 3 years, but early maturing males return at 2 years; therefore, sampling provided 2 full cohorts, for parental brood years 2006 and 2007 and their adult offspring returning in 2008 to 2010.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By the early 2000s, many wild Chinook and coho salmon populations in the lower Columbia were considered to be extirpated (Good et al 2005) and the remaining wild fish were listed under the ESA, along with the steelhead and chum populations in the same geographic area. Although the specific mechanisms of hatchery-wild fish interactions were not assessed, the large numbers of hatchery fish released and the high harvest rates in fisheries targeting the hatchery fish were among the factors found to contribute to the poor status of these populations in the reviews leading to the final ESA listing decisions (Flagg et al 1995;Weitkamp et al 1995;Myers et al 1998;Good et al 2005).…”
Section: Factors That Contribute To Ecological Hatchery Risksmentioning
confidence: 98%