Surprise Finding Shows Coho Surviving Even in Temperatures Much Warmer Than Optimum
Press release from the Eel River Recovery Project:
The Eel River Recovery Project (ERRP) has monitored water temperature throughout the Eel River watershed, checked flow conditions and also documented fish life since 2012. The group’s temperature monitoring program is driven by volunteer interest and energy, and streams surveyed include the South Fork Eel River and selected tributaries in southern Humboldt and northern Mendocino County.
In southern Humboldt, we have partnered with retired California Department of Fish and Game warden Larry Bruckenstein to monitor lower Sproul Creek where he and his wife Darcy reside, and the South Fork Eel downstream of Sproul Creek. Bob and Barbara Froelich own land in Little Sproul Creek just upstream and are also ERRP monitoring partners. In 2021, Sproul Creek lost surface flow in extensive reaches, and remained dry above the convergence with Little Sproul Creek as late as October 20, when water temperature gauges were retrieved.
In 2022, it was a completely different story. In early July when temperature gauges were placed, the flow of Sproul Creek was robust and there were numerous coho salmon juveniles feeding there. No coho had been seen in lower Sproul Creek otherwise since 2012. Little Sproul Creek is in late recovery from past logging and flood events and maintains cool water temperatures and flow throughout summer. Coho had been documented there previously in several years, but not since 2018. There were numerous coho juveniles in good condition present during an October 2 survey when gauges were being collected. The most surprising find was that coho salmon were still present in main Sproul Creek at the mouth of Little Sproul, and further downstream at the Bruckenstein’s. The maximum of lower Sproul Creek water temperature during summer was 73.9 F, which is near clinical lethal temperatures for coho and well above their recognized optimum of 62.2 F. Natural selection is always at work, and survivors exhibited temperature tolerance that will likely be necessary for the species to adapt to climate change.
Unfortunately, the fish community of lower Sproul Creek when probes were retrieved also included many small pikeminnow juveniles and California roach that outnumbered salmonids, representing another selective pressure. Steelhead were present at all Sproul Creek locations during this year’s surveys, but few in number because record low rainfall from January to March prevented adult spawning migrations into tributaries.
Further up the South Fork watershed, ERRP has many monitoring partners and is sharing data with the newly formed Northern Mendocino Ecosystem Recovery Alliance. Volunteer Phil Petrovich helped place and retrieve temperature probes in tributaries from Rattlesnake Creek to Red Mountain Creek, and main South Fork locations in this reach. Cedar and Red Mountain creeks are monitored because they are cold-water refugia for salmon and steelhead juveniles. Both have their headwaters in the critically important Red Mountain Wilderness.
Data show that South Fork water temperatures drop substantially below Cedar Creek, and its flow is nearly equal that of the river during critical drought conditions. In addition to steelhead, Chinook salmon juveniles were seen at the mouth of Cedar Creek, when temperature gauges were placed in late May.
Where as upper Rattlesnake Creek at Area 101 dried up in 2021, flows were sufficient to maintain connection in 2022 and to provide cool water temperatures for rearing juvenile steelhead and trout. Rainbow trout and steelhead are the same species, with some adopting a sea-run life history and other’s remaining as residents, migrating opportunistically up and down tributaries and into main river channels with fluxes in flow. Where steelhead could not have taken advantage of this year’s April rains because they were not staged to spawn, conditions would have been optimal for resident trout.
Twin Rock Creek joins Rattlesnake Creek from the east, and it is like a hidden jewel. The watershed view from Highway 101 is of steep chaparral terrain, and does not suggest a cold trout stream ecosystem. But its headwaters receive high rainfall and most of its course follows a steep shady canyon that helps keep its waters cool. Holly Ferreta participates in monitoring at her place on Twin Rock Creek, and her pool had at least four dozen steelhead and native trout juveniles, ranging in size from two to 12 inches long. Given two years of drought preceding, it was reassuring to see that these fish had survived. Twin Rock is an example of why the Eel River is so resilient. While main branches experience ecological stress during seasonal droughts, hidden refugia allow cold-water fish to persist. The continuing function of Twin Rock Creek, which maintained flow in 2021, is also in part owing to good stewardship of watershed residents.
See www.eelriverrecovery.org to view the temperature report, https://vimeo.com/763220280 to see a video of Sproul Creek and www.facebook.com/EelRiverRecovery/ to see photos.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Proof that science is never settled and the doomsayers of climate change caused by man have not a clue as to what they espouse. Got Tonga?
Dang, That’s what I was going the say, but I intended to say it much nicer. Yes, Tonga is going to be a major factor. Yet, most people don’t even know about it. Ignorance is bliss.
That is incorrect because science leads to theories which sometimes lead to laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics which is undisputed. The more data that all points in the same direction the more likely the theories are. As far as climate change, the predictions based on data from 20 years ago are bearing out. You’re welcome to stick your head in the sand and say “volcanos, see it’s natural” but it’s not. I don’t care to explain to you why you’re wrong but seem uninformed.
there are exceptions, or anomalies to every law, even thermodynamics.
There may be new observations that cannot be explained under current scientific principles, but that does not mean the principles are wrong in regard to the observations they were built on. There is no observation that suggests that CO2 does not trap heat in the atmosphere. There is no explanation from the anti-science crowd of why pumping billions of tons of heat trapping gas into the atmosphere does not trap heat in the atmosphere.
I agree that it is all scientifically important, however, you need to have your scientists look at percentages of damage caused by Mother Nature compared to humans.
I find man caused pollution in all forms to be offensive. However scientist don’t get paid to tell us that everything is the best it can be. They get paid to tell us the sky is falling and it’s all our fault. I question the validity of the research without allowing peer review, because it is unfunded by those that say it’s a waste of funding.
My scientists? That’s odd. You need to look into the data about the cycle of glaciation. Any published paper is peer reviewed. Why would you be reading unpublished work? It seems like you and Al L aren’t digging into the science but rather listening to biased media.
I share your concern for the Earth, and the critters, and us. However, I have dug plenty into science. I learned that there have been many ice-ages and many warm periods and many different CO2 levels. There has been a ‘General Warming Period’ through many minor fluctuations for the past 200,000 years. I remember the fear for my offspring back in the coming Ice-Age in the ’70’s.
I believed in Mickey Mouse until I was 8 yrs old. Imagine my shock when told that he wasn’t real, just a great story. So, I think most of the things that I hear anymore as just a fairy tale, until I find the truth. Truth is difficult to ferret out between all the agendas out there.
I know you have an opinion, and no one’s opinion has ever been swayed by a comment on a blog. But I like good quotes, and I keep them stored on my phone. Here’s one that fits this story well, I think.
‘There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; The other is to refuse to accept what is true.’ -Soren Kierkegaard
Thank you creeker. Your quote makes my whole point.
Whatever causes these drastic fluctuations in climate, whether “natural” or “human-caused,” by continuing heedlessly to pour various greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while simultaneously destroying carbon-sequesterings forests worldwide, we — that is, humankind — are making the situation WORSE. So let’s say the volcano on Tonga is the root cause of another jump in worldwide average temperations: Not our fault, right? Does it then make sense to complacently continue to pour on more carbon dioxide and methane from our vehicles and industry? Also, I don’t know much about Kierkegaard, and have never read his works, but I always thought he was a more profound thinker than that quote suggests. Duh.
I, of course, meant “temperatures,” not “temperations.” Guess I’m losing my temper at this nonsense.
I like will Roger’s quote. “An expert is someone from out of town”
We have been coming out of the last ice age for 10000 years. It has nothing to do with man. There have been many hot and cold cycles before him. Man just likes to think of himself as having the ability to control it. He cant. Man is merely transitory on this planet, and there is little he can do about it in the grand scope of the universe.
Not all published papers are ‘Peer-reviewed.” Some journals publish anything they like without further review.
Papers that are not peer-reviewed and published in an accredited journal do not become part of the body of science. Any conclusions are considered anecdotal evidence until such time as proper scientific research is conducted and published following peer review.
Ask any scientist up at Cal Poly Humboldt if you don’t believe me.
Scientists get paid to do research and get the results of their research published in a scientific journal. Before their work can be published it is subjected to a rigorous review process where every step in the methodology, every calculation, every statistical test, and every conclusion drawn from these are challenged by experts in the field. It’s like the process of defending your PhD dissertation before your graduate committee, but on steroids.
Well in the 1970s and the 1930s we had worse droughts and that’s way more than twenty years ago.
The science as to the exact causes (combination of human and natural) of climate change may not be settled, but the effects that populations and landscapes are experiencing are real and undeniable. We can’t do anything about the natural events’ (e.g., Tonga) contributions to climate change, but we can do something about the human contributions. The more people argue about the unsettled science, the longer it will take for us to do anything significant. That is exactly what climate deniers and many large companies (e.g., oil and coal industries) want to happen; keep people arguing.
Regarding the juvenile coho in warmer waters. I am a privately employed fisheries biologist with over 30 years of experience on the north coast. I have seen juvenile coho salmon in our mainstem rivers many times. During the hot summer months, they typically hang out in locations that have cool water upwelling from the bottom, in alcoves fed by cool water seeping through gravel bars, in areas of streambank seeps, at confluences of cool water tributaries, and the like. However, I have not seen them hanging out in the warm mainstem flow, which would have highly stressful or lethal temperature conditions. The ability of these fish to move and seek out cooler micro-habitat locations allows them to survive in watercourses that have generally undesirable conditions.
The warming trend has been going on long before the Tonga eruption. The folks watching this believe the effect of increased water vapor will be months not decades. In the long run whether warming is man or nature caused why the resistance to taking action to try and mitigate it. When I was a kid in the 50s the smog in the San Gabriel Valley was so bad that any real physical exertion made it painful to take a deep breath. Regulations regarding vehicle emissions and the use of home incinerators improved air quality and it was never that bad again.
Kirby
What you are talking about WAS man caused pollution, scientifically proven and not speculation in any form. It was identified and mostly solved. We had local control.
The reason that we are not making headway on world-wide pollution is that Americans take great pride in ridding ourselves of polluting industries by sending them to China. I.E. the relatively clean pulp mill that we closed and sent to China where they use chlorine bleach and don’t concern themselves at all about pollution.
Where is your toilet paper from? Not from Humboldt county.
Tonga was unique in that it blew chlorine clear through the stratosphere. Salt water chlorine is a major contributor to Ozone destruction. So scientist say. The long term effects of the chlorine is yet to be determined.
P.S I always appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Conservatives of the day claimed that smog regulations would destroy California’s economy, now poised to become the world’s 4th largest.
So you’re saying that because data can vary, climate change must not be real. (Sigh). For some there is no help.
Tonga does not prove anything that is contradictory to well-established climate science. The water vapor and SO2 pushed into the stratosphere will likely cool earth’s temperature, temporarily, by 0.004 degrees according to a recently published scientific study, as reported on scitechdaily.com
https://scitechdaily.com/tonga-volcano-eruption-to-have-smaller-cooling-impact-on-climate-change-than-first-thought/
Some juvenile coho survive warmer temps, but the species thrives in cold temps. I want to see coho thrive as a species, not just barely hang on. Paradise is a clean cold flowing river with hundreds of thousands of big salmon during spawning season. What we have now is a unhappy shadow of a healthy river.
I agree. Survival is hanging on. We want them to thrive.
the water in the gravel pack is generally 10 degrees cooler. there is a reason the fish are glued to the bottom during the dry season. i have seen groups of large summer run steelhead sitting in a tight pack where seeps enter on the bottom. I have not spent any time on this creek but I would assume that is the answer here as i have found that most hobo meters are not set on the bottom and/or adjacent to seeps.
True that. The standard protocol for water temperature monitoring is to put the thermister in a shaded well-mixed flow location. This way the temperature is not stratified (i.e., cool on bottom and warm on top) or subject to substrate heating. This gives a general idea of the mainstem water temperature profile. However, one can also place temp monitors in specific locations to record data in seeps, alcoves, in the middle of holding summer steelhead, etc. I have deployed thermisters to collect general temp data and cool water refuge data. Sometimes only a few degrees can mean the difference between survival and mortality.
Scientific measurements prove beyond a doubt that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 412 ppm since 1955, an increase of 47%. CO2 is proven beyond a doubt to trap heat in the atmosphere. It’s a result of the physical properties of the CO2 molecule. Average temperature of earth’s oceans and atmosphere have increased over the past 130 years, also no doubt about it, as these numbers are from measurements, not modeling. What the anti-science crowd cannot explain is how can it be that increasing the concentration of heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere by 47% does NOT result in warming. The answer, of course, is that it does and it did. We are living in a warmer world because of fossil fuel emissions. This is just the scientific reality; plain and simple. As long as we continue increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the hotter this planet will become, barring some unforeseeable and extremely rare event.
They have been surviving for a very long time in less than optimum conditions. But not very well since squawfish were introduced to the system and the green rush sucked the watershed dry in the summer.