Geology topics

Daniel Bishop

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel Bishop.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2015

Reconstruction of late Holocene climate based on tree growth and mechanistic hierarchical models

Reconstruction of pre-instrumental, late Holocene climate is important for understanding how climate has changed in the past and how climate might change in the future. Statistical prediction of paleoclimate from tree ring widths is challenging because tree ring widths are a one-dimensional summary of annual growth that represents a multi-dimensional set of climatic and biotic influences. We develop a Bayesian hierarchical framework using a nonlinear, biologically motivated tree ring growth model to jointly reconstruct temperature and precipitation in the Hudson Valley, New York. Using a common growth function to describe the response of a tree to climate, we allow for species-specific parameterizations of the growth response. To enable predictive backcasts, we model the climate variables with a vector autoregressive process on an annual timescale coupled with a multivariate conditional autoregressive process that accounts for temporal correlation and cross-correlation between temperature and precipitation on a monthly scale. Our multi-scale temporal model allows for flexibility in the climate response through time at different temporal scales and predicts reasonable climate scenarios given tree ring width data.

Environmetrics↗

USGS2015

Sea lamprey mark type, marking rate, and parasite-host relationships for lake trout and other species in Lake Ontario

We examined how attack frequency by sea lampreys on fishes in Lake Ontario varied in response to sea lamprey abundance and preferred host abundance (lake trout > 433 mm). For this analysis we used two gill net assessment surveys, one angler creel survey, three salmonid spawning run datasets, one adult sea lamprey assessment, and a bottom trawl assessment of dead lake trout. The frequency of fresh sea lamprey marks observed on lake trout from assessment surveys was strongly related to the frequency of sea lamprey attacks observed on salmon and trout from the creel survey and spawning migrations. Attack frequencies on all salmonids examined were related to the ratio between the abundances of adult sea lampreys and lake trout. Reanalysis of the susceptibility to sea lamprey attack for lake trout strains stocked into Lake Ontario reaffirmed that Lake Superior strain lake trout were among the most and Seneca Lake strain among the least susceptible and that Lewis Lake strain lake trout were even more susceptible than the Superior strain. Seasonal attack frequencies indicated that as the number of observed sea lamprey attacks decreased during June–September, the ratio of healing to fresh marks also decreased. Simulation of the ratios of healing to fresh marks indicated that increased lethality of attacks by growing sea lampreys contributed to the decline in the ratios and supported laboratory studies about wound healing duration.

Lake Ontario↗

USGS2015

Sea lamprey mark type, wounding rate, and parasite-host preference and abundance relationships for lake trout and other species in Lake Ontario

We examined how the frequency of attacks by Sea Lamprey on fishes in Lake Ontario varied in response to Sea Lamprey abundance and preferred host abundance (Lake Trout >432mm). For this analysis we assembled seven data sets. Two fishery independent surveys for Lake Trout: US Geological Survey (USGS)/New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) south shore September gillnet assessment of adult Lake Trout (USGS/NYSDEC SGNS)( Lantry and Lantry 2011); and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) monthly June-November community index gillnetting in northeastern Lake Ontario (OMNR CIS) (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2011). One angler survey: NYSDEC April-September Fishing Boat Survey data collected along the south shore for Chinook and Coho salmon, and Rainbow and Brown trout (NYSDEC FBS) ( Lantry and Eckert 2012). Two spawning run datasets: OMNR north shore data including spring spawning runs of Rainbow Trout in the Ganaraska River and electroshocking data for fall spawning runs of Chinook and Coho salmon in the Credit River (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2011); and NYSDEC data from the Salmon River on the southeastern shore including October spawning runs of Chinook and Coho salmon. One Sea Lamprey spawning survey: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)/US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) data for spawning-phase Sea Lamprey abundance collected from known spawning streams distributed throughout the Lake Ontario drainage basin (Mullet et al. 2003). One assessment of the abundance of dead Lake Trout: USGS/NYSDEC October-November bottom trawl collection of Lake Trout carcasses (Schneider et al. 1996). Annual patterns in A1, A2 and A3 wound stages did not track well in plots of wounding rates for the USGS/NYSDEC SGNS and correlations between A1 and later stages did not exist. A1 rates were not correlated to either Lake Trout abundance or Sea Lamprey numbers when considered alone, but were strongly correlated to the ratio between Sea Lamprey numbers and Lake Trout abundance (parasite/host ratio). While A2 and A3 rates were correlated to each other, neither was consistently correlated to any of the Lake Trout abundance or Sea Lamprey abundance parameters and sums of A1 to A3 rates did not improve correlations over those for A1 rates considered alone. Our analysis of the strain-specific susceptibility of Lake Trout to attack by Sea Lampreys extended the previous Schneider et al. (1996) analysis of three strains (SUP, CWL, and SEN) and 11 years of data 1982-1992 to an analysis of seven strains (SUP, CWL, SEN, JEN, LEW, ONT, and OXS) and two groups of unmarked fish (1983-1995 and 1996-2010) and included 18 more years of data through 2010. The susceptibility to attack for CWLs and SENs were below SUPs and nearly identical to the earlier values, new values for LEWs were greater than SUPS and values of unmarked Lake Trout prior to 1996 were unexpectedly greater than SUPs. By reexamining the Schneider et al. (1996) regression relationship between A1 wounding on Lake Trout and the incidence of Lake Trout carcasses recovered in fall bottom trawls (including three additional years of data), and substituting A1 wounding rate for total numbers of A1s observed which was used as the independent variable in the previous version, we were able to increase the variance explained by the relationship from an r2 of 0.60 to 0.88. Healing rate of wounds was explored by examining the monthly incidence of A1 and A2 wounds on Lake Trout from the OMNR CIS. Because wounding intensity varied between years and monthly sample size was frequently low, the ratio of A2 to A1s wounds was used to index how wounds accumulated or disappeared from the Lake Trout populations across seasons. The A2/A1 ratio decreased between June/July and October. A simple wounding model for Lake Trout was constructed to simulate the pattern of ratios by inflicting wounds on the population each month according to a predetermined distribution and including parameters for lethality (fixed distribution) and healing rate of A1 and A2 wounds (discretely varied between simulations). The best simulated representation (ratio size and monthly pattern) of the OMNR CIS data came from an A1 healing rate of 0.5 months and an A2 rate of 2 months. To examine whether alternate hosts provided reliable data to index damage caused by Sea Lampreys we compared September values of abundance and A1 wounding rates on Lake Trout, Sea Lamprey abundance, and the parasite/host ratio with NYSDEC Creel data for observations of Sea lampreys attached to sport-caught salmonids and to wounding observations for salmonids sampled in OMNR and NYSDEC spawning run assessments. Attachment frequency on NYSDEC Creel Chinook Salmon, Brown Trout, and Rainbow Trout were strongly correlated to all measures of Lake Trout abundance and wounding and to the parasite/host ratio. Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon wounding observations for the NYSDEC Salmon River spawning run assessments and Rainbow Trout from the OMNR Ganaraska River spawning run assessment were strongly correlated to wounding measures for nearly all salmonids and to the parasite/host ratio.

Lake Ontario↗

USGS2014

Offshore pelagic fish community

Lake Ontario’s offshore zone, as defined by Stewart et al. (2013), comprises all waters of the lake where the bottom depth is greater than 15 m excluding those in embayments. When the lake is thermally stratified during June-October, the offshore pelagic zone includes the upper-warm and middle-cool layers of water which serve as important habitat for Alewife and other prey fishes, and for predators like salmon and trout. Early changes in the fish community of the offshore pelagic zone are well documented elsewhere (e.g., Smith 1972; Christie 1973) as are more recent changes (e.g., Owens et al. 2003; Mills et al. 2003). Currently the offshore fish community consists of a mix of native and non-native species. Native species are those that were present prior to European colonization and for the offshore pelagic zone, include predators like Atlantic Salmon and prey fish like Cisco, Emerald Shiner, and Threespine Stickleback. Non-native species are those that were introduced unintentionally like Alewife and Rainbow Smelt, or that were introduced intentionally like Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Rainbow Trout, and Brown Trout. Non-native salmon and trout were introduced originally by fisheries managers to provide fishing opportunities and later to reduce an overabundance of Alewife. Alewife is the most abundant prey fish in the offshore pelagic zone and it dominates the diets of native and introduced predators (Brandt 1986; Lantry 2001). Alewife can have direct and indirect negative effects on other fishes through competition for food and/or predation on their larvae (Madenjian et al. 2008). Alewife also contain thiaminase, an enzyme that catalyzes the breakdown of thiamine, and fish that eat mainly Alewife can become thiamine deficient which impairs their reproduction (Honeyfield et al. 2005). Except for that of the Alewife, prey fish populations in the offshore pelagic zone are depressed, and not large enough to sustain the zone’s predators. Alewife remain necessary for a functional ecosystem that is required to sustain a highly-valued, trophy sport fishery (Stewart et al. 2013). Wild production of trout and salmon occurs in Lake Ontario tributaries, contributing to in-lake populations (Rand et al. 1993; Connerton et al. 2009; Connerton et al. 2014c). Stocking hatchery-reared fish (Fig. 1), however, remains an essential tool for managing Lake Ontario’s diverse trout and salmon fisheries and achieving the Offshore Pelagic Zone Goal (Stewart et al. 2013): Maintain the offshore pelagic fish community, that is characterized by a diversity of trout and salmon species including Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Atlantic Salmon, in balance with prey-fish populations and lower trophic levels. Here we review the fish-community objectives (FCOs) for Lake Ontario’s offshore pelagic zone (Stewart et al. 2013) and evaluate whether those objectives were met during this reporting period (2008-2013) by assessing the status of the objectives’ indicators. We also compare the status of indicators in this reporting period with those in the previous reporting period (2003-2007) (Connerton et al. 2014b). Specific objectives are in italics at the start of each major section and associated indicators of progress are given in Progress and Outlook subsections.

Lake Ontario↗