Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
Appendix S3. Watercourse Distances and Estimates of Stray Rates
Inter-population watercourse distances
We used ArcInfo 9.3 Network Analyst (ESRI, Redlands CA) to calculate the distance along the midline of a
stream network (1:100,000 National Hydrography Dataset; http://nhd.usgs.gov/) between a
population’s location (geographic coordinate) and each other populations in the metapopulation. Here,
we provide pairwise distances between populations for both historical (Tables 1, 3, 5, and 6) and current
fish distributions (Tables 2, 4, 5 and 7).
Estimation of stray rates
We parameterized our dispersal model using inter-population stray rates of 2% and 5% for Chinook
salmon and steelhead, respectively. Stray rates are notoriously difficult to measure, and estimates vary
considerably (Table 8). The stray rates we used were chosen primarily from the study by Keefer et al.
(2005) for Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River. Their radiotelemetry study focused on
the same species and river basin as our study, and was able to parse different stray rates for fish that
were either fin-clipped at hatcheries or not, and whether fish were transported over hydropower dams.
Although their study focused on the upper Columbia and Snake Rivers, these values were within the
range of values found by Hendry et al. (2004) in their review of published studies, which included Lower
Columbia populations (see Table 8).
Because both of these papers and other studies (Quinn 1993; Pess 2009) suggested that hatchery fish
may stray at higher rates than wild fish, we increased stray rates by 3% for each species to 5% for
Chinook salmon and 8% for steelhead for scenarios having hatchery fish.
These values were arbitrary and we recognize that this is a simplification. Stray rates likely differ
between individual population pairs, and values may be influenced by factors not considered in our
modeling. To acknowledge this uncertainty, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effect of
these parameter values on model results. We tested values ranging from 0.5% to 15%.
Hendry, A.P., V. Castric, M.T. Kinnison, and T.P. Quinn. 2004. The evolution of philopatry and dispersal.
Pages 52-91 and Appendix 1 in A.P. Hendry and S.S. Stearns, editors. Evolution Illiminated.
Oxford University Press.
Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, J. Firehammer, and M. L. Moser. 2005. Straying rates of known-origin adult
Chinook salmon and steelhead within the Columbia River basin, 2000–2003. Idaho Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Technical Report 2005–5 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Portland, Oregon. http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/uiferl/pdf%20reports/055%20Straying%20AMS%2025Aug05.pdf (accessed February 2011).
Pess, G.R. 2009. Patterns and processes of salmon colonization. PhD dissertation, School of Aquatic and
Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.
Quinn, T.P. 1993. A review of homing and straying of wild and hatchery-produced salmon. Fisheries
Research 18:29-44.
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 2
Table 1. Distance matrix for spring Chinook salmon, where. dij = distance (km) between population nodes. Here, node locations were calculated
using historical fish distributions.
Big White Salmon (BWS)
Calapooia (CAL)
Cispus River (CIS)
Clackamas River (CLA)
Hood River (HOO)
Kalama River (KAL)
McKenzie (MCK)
MF Willamette (MFW)
Molalla (MOL)
NF Lewis River (NFL)
North Santiam (NSA)
Sandy River (SAN)
South Santiam (SSA)
Tilton River (TIL)
Toutle River (TOU)
Upper Cowlitz (UCO)
BWS
CAL
CIS
CLA
HOO
KAL
MCK
MFW
MOL
NFL
NSA
SAN
SSA
TIL
TOU
UCO
0
410
338
241
41
210
477
496
240
226
367
146
386
291
256
325
0
501
322
426
374
240
259
276
390
168
377
187
454
419
489
0
332
354
214
569
588
332
277
458
304
477
89
174
137
0
257
205
390
408
152
221
278
208
297
286
250
320
0
226
493
512
256
243
383
162
402
307
272
342
0
441
460
204
149
331
177
350
168
133
202
0
148
344
458
236
444
255
523
487
557
0
362
476
255
463
274
541
506
575
0
221
232
207
251
285
249
319
0
347
193
366
230
195
265
0
333
143
411
376
446
0
351
258
223
292
0
430
395
465
0
128
91
0
162
0
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 3
Table 2. Distance matrix for spring Chinook salmon, where. dij = distance (km) between population nodes. Here, node locations were calculated
using current fish distributions.
Big White Salmon (BWS)
Calapooia (CAL)
Cispus River (CIS)
Clackamas River (CLA)
Hood River (HOO)
Kalama River (KAL)
McKenzie (MCK)
MF Willamette (MFW)
Molalla (MOL)
NF Lewis River (NFL)
North Santiam (NSA)
Sandy River (SAN)
South Santiam (SSA)
Tilton River (TIL)
Toutle River (TOU)
Upper Cowlitz (UCO)
BWS
CAL
CIS
CLA
HOO
KAL
MCK
MFW
MOL
NFL
NSA
SAN
SSA
TIL
TOU
UCO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
322
426
374
240
210
276
354
168
377
187
0
419
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
257
205
390
359
152
185
278
208
297
0
250
0
0
226
493
463
256
206
383
162
402
0
272
0
0
441
411
204
113
331
177
350
0
133
0
0
99
344
421
236
444
255
0
487
0
0
313
391
205
414
224
0
456
0
0
184
232
207
251
0
249
0
0
310
157
329
0
158
0
0
333
143
0
376
0
0
351
0
223
0
0
0
395
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 4
Table 3. Distance matrix for fall Chinook salmon, where. dij = distance (km) between population nodes. Here, node locations were calculated
using historical fish distributions.
Big Creek (BIG)
Big White Salmon (BWS)
Chinook River (CHI)
Clackamas River (CLA)
Clatskanie River (CLT)
Coweeman River (COW)
Elochoman River (ELO)
Grays River (GRA)
Hood River (HOO)
Kalama River (KAL)
Lewis River (LEW)
Lower Cowlitz (LCO)
Lower Gorge (LGO)
Mill Creek (MAG)
Salmon Creek (SAL)
Sandy River (SAN)
Scappoose River (SCA)
Toutle River (TOU)
Upper Cowlitz (UCO)
Upper Gorge (UGO)
Washougal R (WAS)
Youngs Bay (YOU)
BIG
BWS
CHI
CLA
CLT COW ELO
GRA HOO
KAL
LEW
LCO
LGO MAG
SAL
SAN
SCA
TOU UCO UGO WAS YOU
0
268
40
216
83
128
56
44
281
115
155
145
202
83
158
211
140
160
250
243
202
37
0
284
184
214
200
243
275
30
170
164
184
66
184
284
112
156
233
195
25
102
281
0
231
98
143
72
60
296
131
170
231
218
231
174
227
156
176
138
258
218
30
0
162
147
191
223
197
116
110
164
113
146
113
125
100
268
268
154
113
229
0
74
58
90
227
61
100
91
148
29
104
157
86
106
196
189
148
96
0
287
122
161
152
209
90
165
218
147
167
256
250
209
57
0
55
63
103
45
59
111
41
78
167
143
103
128
0
102
96
85
52
105
42
118
207
137
96
168
0
150
76
106
159
88
40
105
191
150
158
0
132
100
46
90
165
255
41
36
215
0
109
46
121
147
141
100
171
0
99
174
263
86
46
225
0
103
193
131
90
153
0
144 0
206 295 0
165 255 77
0
174 263 256 215
0
103
134
204
46
85
76
132
58
88
141
70
83
172
173
132
141
0
63
256
74
129
120
177
58
133
186
115
135
225
218
177
69
0
183
176
230
79
211
178
124
168
245
335
38
115
294
0
88
142
71
91
180
173
132
96
0
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 5
Table 4. Distance matrix for fall Chinook salmon, where. dij = distance (km) between population nodes. Here, node locations were calculated
using current fish distributions.
Big Creek (BIG)
Big White Salmon (BWS)
Chinook River (CHI)
Clackamas River (CLA)
Clatskanie River (CLT)
Coweeman River (COW)
Elochoman River (ELO)
Grays River (GRA)
Hood River (HOO)
Kalama River (KAL)
Lewis River (LEW)
Lower Cowlitz (LCO)
Lower Gorge (LGO)
Mill Creek (MAG)
Salmon Creek (SAL)
Sandy River (SAN)
Scappoose River (SCA)
Toutle River (TOU)
Upper Cowlitz (UCO)
Upper Gorge (UGO)
Washougal R (WAS)
Youngs Bay (YOU)
BIG
BWS
CHI
CLA
CLT COW ELO
GRA HOO
KAL
LEW
LCO
LGO MAG
SAL
SAN
SCA
0
0
40
216
83
128
56
44
281
115
146
145
202
83
158
211
140
160
0
243
202
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
231
98
143
72
60
296
131
162
231
218
231
174
227
156
176
0
258
218
30
0
162
147
191
223
197
116
102
164
113
146
113
125
100
205
0
154
113
229
0
74
58
90
227
61
92
91
148
29
104
157
86
106
0
189
148
96
0
287
122
153
152
209
90
165
218
147
167
0
250
209
57
0
47
63
103
45
59
111
41
78
0
143
103
128
0
94
88
77
44
97
34
109
0
129
88
160
0
150
76
106
159
88
40
0
191
150
158
0
132
100
46
90
165
0
41
36
215
0
109
46
121
0
141
100
171
0
99
174
0
86
46
225
0
103 0
0
0
131 206
90 165
153 174
0
103
134
204
46
77
76
132
58
88
141
70
83
0
173
132
141
0
63
256
74
121
120
177
58
133
186
115
135
0
218
177
69
0
183
168
230
79
211
178
124
168
245
0
38
115
294
0
88
142
71
91
0
173
132
96
TOU UCO UGO WAS YOU
0
0
0
0
0
77
0
256 215
0
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 6
Table 5. Distance matrix for summer steelhead, where. dij = distance (km) between population nodes. Here, node locations were calculated
using historical fish distributions*.
EF Lewis River (EFL)
Hood River (HOO)
Kalama River (KAL)
NF Lewis River (NFL)*
Washougal River (WAS)
Wind River (WIN)
ELF
0
187
95
82
118
173
HOO
KAL
NFL
WAS
WIN
0
201
201
116
91
0
109
132
187
0
132
187
0
63
0
*For current fish distributions, the distances between the North Fork Lewis population and each of the other populations were: 44, 163, 71, 94,
and 149 km due to habitat blocked by dams.
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 7
Table 6. Distance matrix for winter steelhead, where. dij = distance (km) between population nodes. Here, node locations were calculated using
historical fish distributions.
Calapooia (CAL)
Cispus River (CIS)
Clackamas River (CLA)
Coweeman River (COW)
EF Lewis River (EFL)
Hood River (HOO)
Kalama River (KAL)
Lower Cowlitz (LCO)
Lower Gorge (LGO)
Molalla (MOL)
NF Lewis River (NFL)
NF Toutle River (NFT)
North Santiam (NSA)
Salmon Creek (SAL)
Sandy River (SAN)
SF Toutle River (SFT)
South Santiam (SSA)
Tilton River (TIL)
Upper Cowlitz (UCO)
Upper Gorge (UGO)
Washougal R (WAS)
West Side Tribs (WST)
CAL
CIS
CLA
COW
EFL
HOO
KAL
LCO
LGO
MOL
NFL
NFT
NSA
SAL
SAN
SFT
SSA
TIL
UCO
UGO
0
474
276
340
309
401
333
357
306
230
333
386
135
308
335
411
144
426
461
353
303
221
0
317
193
226
359
203
117
267
316
250
317
456
317
293
196
464
90
40
314
264
368
0
183
152
244
176
200
150
118
176
229
258
151
178
254
267
304
304
196
146
171
0
91
216
70
76
133
182
115
97
321
90
159
122
331
145
172
180
129
235
0
194
85
108
102
151
73
138
291
60
128
163
299
178
213
149
99
204
0
218
242
90
243
218
271
383
191
153
296
392
311
346
93
123
296
0
86
126
175
109
116
315
84
152
141
323
156
191
173
123
228
0
150
198
132
54
339
107
176
23
348
69
105
197
146
252
0
148
126
179
288
101
63
204
296
219
255
47
33
201
0
175
227
211
150
177
252
220
268
303
195
144
124
0
161
314
83
152
187
323
202
237
173
122
227
0
358
136
205
52
376
123
158
226
175
281
0
289
317
125
87
407
443
334
284
202
0
128
96
298
177
149
148
97
202
0
110
325
245
281
110
59
230
0
402
148
183
251
201
306
0
416 0
451 78
0
343 266 301 0
293 216 251 79
211 320 356 248
WAS
WST
0
0
0
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 8
Table 7. Distance matrix for winter steelhead, where. dij = distance (km) between population nodes. Here, node locations were calculated using
current fish distributions.
Calapooia (CAL)
Cispus River (CIS)
Clackamas River (CLA)
Coweeman River (COW)
EF Lewis River (EFL)
Hood River (HOO)
Kalama River (KAL)
Lower Cowlitz (LCO)
Lower Gorge (LGO)
Molalla (MOL)
NF Lewis River (NFL)
NF Toutle River (NFT)
North Santiam (NSA)
Salmon Creek (SAL)
Sandy River (SAN)
SF Toutle River (SFT)
South Santiam (SSA)
Tilton River (TIL)
Upper Cowlitz (UCO)
Upper Gorge (UGO)
Washougal R (WAS)
West Side Tribs (WST)
CAL
CIS
CLA
COW
EFL
HOO
KAL
LCO
LGO
MOL
NFL
NFT
NSA
SAL
SAN
SFT
SSA
TIL
UCO
UGO
WAS
0
447
276
340
309
401
308
352
306
230
295
386
123
308
335
411
144
404
397
332
303
221
0
291
167
199
333
152
95
241
290
185
291
417
291
267
170
438
43
-50
266
237
342
0
183
152
244
151
196
150
118
138
229
246
151
178
254
267
241
241
175
146
171
0
91
216
45
71
133
182
77
97
309
90
159
122
331
124
109
158
129
235
0
194
60
104
102
151
35
138
279
60
128
163
299
157
150
128
99
204
0
193
237
90
243
180
271
371
191
153
296
392
290
283
72
123
296
0
57
102
150
46
91
278
59
128
116
299
110
103
127
98
203
0
145
194
90
49
322
103
172
18
343
53
46
171
142
247
0
148
88
179
276
101
63
204
296
198
191
25
33
201
0
137
227
199
150
177
252
220
247
240
173
144
124
0
123
264
45
114
149
285
142
135
113
84
189
0
346
136
205
52
376
102
95
204
175
281
0
277
305
113
75
374
367
301
272
190
0
128
96
298
155
85
126
97
202
0
110
325
224
217
88
59
230
0
402
127
120
230
201
306
0
395 0
388 -7
0
322 223 216 0
293 194 187 58
0
211 299 292 226 197
WST
0
Fullerton et al., Human influence on the spatial structure of threatened Pacific salmon metapopulations
Conservation Biology Supporting Information Appendix S3
page 9
Table 8. Summary of published stray rates for Pacific salmon, from Keefer et al. (2005) and Appendix 1 in Hendry et al. (2004) (see references
therein). Records are ordered by their relevance to inter-population straying among Columbia River populations. Stray rate refers to the number
of known-origin adults collected at non-natal sites divided by the total number of tagged adults collected at all sites (i.e., straying from a site). It
is possible that adults would not have spawned at the site at which they were collected. Each study is also challenged by differing amounts of
hatchery-origin fish present, and on conditions during the period in which juveniles would imprint on cues for accurate homing. For example,
Keefer et al. (2005) found higher stray rates for fish that had been fin-clipped at hatcheries, and also for fish that had transported downstream
through hydropower systems as juveniles.
Study
Stray rate
Spatial extent
Method
Chinook salmon
Keefer et al. 2005
Pascual et al. 1995
Quinn and Fresh 1984
Quinn et al. 1991
Sholes and Hallock 1979
Candy & Beacham 2000
Hard and Heard 1999
Unwin and Quinn 1993
0.4-9.7
19.5-63.6
1.4
9.9-27.5
10
1.2
1.2
12.1
Tributaries to river (Columbia and Snake rivers)
Tributaries to river (lower Columbia River basin)
Tributaries to river (lower Columbia River basin)
Tributaries to river (lower Columbia River basin)
Tributaries to river (Sacramento, CA)
Rivers (with tributaries) into ocean; WA and BC
Rivers into ocean (southeast AK)
Rivers into ocean (New Zealand)
Radiotelemetry
Coded wire tags
Coded wire tags
Coded wire tags
Coded wire tags and fin clips
Coded wire tags
Coded wire tags
Coded wire tags
5.6-7.0
2.4
4-26
2-3
Tributaries to river (Columbia and Snake rivers)
Tributaries to river (Siuslaw, OR)
Rivers into ocean (OR)
Rivers into ocean (northern CA)
Radiotelemetry
Fin clips
Fin clips
Fin clips
Steelhead
Keefer et al. 2005
Kenaston et al. 2001
Schroeder et al. 2001
Shapovalov and Taft 1954