Progress Report: Analysis of spatial recruitment dynamics in Pacific halibut using otolith elemental fingerprints: Phase I

last update : January  29th, 2003

The 2002 summer field season proved to be even more productive than we had anticipated.  This project was initially funded at a modest level meant to support a simple “test of concept”: we hoped to compare otolith elemental compositions (OEFs) of age-1 halibut at 3-4 sites in order to assess site-specific variability.  That is, we initially wanted to test whether fish at different sites had different OEFs, but had little hope of going much farther than that.  Ultimately, we'll need to know more than just whether or not different sites generate different OEFs; we'll need to determine whether the variability that we observe along the coastline is predictable enough for those OEFs to be useful as nursery tags.  In order for the technique to be useful, the numerous bays and bits of coastline within larger geographic regions must generate OEFs that are similar to one another in ways that tell us that fish came from that region, and not from any another.  Given a number of collaborations and the cooperation of numerous outside research programs, we have a sufficient number of fish to conduct elemental analysis and comparison of OEFs from numerous locations in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, and also compare between different age-classes (i.e., fish born in different years) at specific sites.  These samples should allow to begin looking at whether OEFs change predictably along a stretches of coastline.
We have obtained samples from the Bristol Bay region from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) annual Bering Sea groundfish survey, and during late June and early July we were allowed to “ride along” on a vessel conducting research along the southern Alaska Peninsula, as part of a joint project (“EMAP”) conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.  From this latter vessel we obtained samples from Morzhovoi, Chignik and Alitak Bays.  Later in July we participated in a NMFS fish collection program that allowed us to obtain numerous age-1 and age-0 halibut from Chiniak Bay.  Further halibut samples were obtained from Kamishak and Kachemak Bays during Alaska Department of Fish and Game's shrimp surveys, and researchers from the University of North Carolina have been kind enough to provide us with fish captured at the Copper River Delta on the eastern edge Prince William Sound.  Additional fish were collected during an IPHC charter in southeast Alaska, at Shelikof Bay on the western coast of Kruzof Island during late September, and we also obtained fish from Hecate Strait, courtesy of the Department of Fish and Oceans, Canada.

Finally, we have fish from the Aleutian Islands (courtesy of the NMFS Aleutian groundfish survey), the Shumagin Islands, and northern Cook Inlet (courtesy of EMAP), but the usefulness of this latter group of sites is questionable.  We encountered some handling problems with the Aleutian fish, and sample sizes from the Shumagins and northern Cook Inlet are very small.

The F/V Ocean Cape, a 100' Bering Sea crabber specifically converted to trawling for research purposes, was used for the EMAP sampling conducted along the southern Alaska Peninsula and in Cook Inlet. Above: The Ocean Cape sits in Chignik Bay.  Below: Retrieving the trawl net, while fishing in Alitak Bay on the southern tip of Kodiak Island.  (Photos by Sue Saupe, CIRCAC.)

Biologists (from the left in front: Sue Saupe, Paul Olsen, Kirsten Rogers; myself astern with the shovel) sort through a rather large pile of kelp in Morzhovoi Bay, hunting for baby halibut.  This tow proved that we still  have a lot to learn about halibut early life history and habitat requirements.  The best available published information suggests that early juvenile halibut prefer sandy to slightly muddy bottom near the mouths of bays.  The kelp found in this tow were mostly attached to large pieces of cobble, and the site was near the head of  the Bay .... the tow also contained more age-1 halibut than found at any other station visited during the EMAP surveys.  (Photo by Allan Fukuyama, who was also sporting enough to help sort this mess.)

During summer and fall of 2002 we completed the process of removing the otoliths from the fish, determining individual fish ages, and preparing the structures for chemical analysis.  This was a relatively long process, since the way in which the fish and their otoliths are handled can influence the results of the subsequent chemical analyses.  It was important that all samples were treated identically from the time the fish were captured until their otoliths were removed and cleaned.  All fish were held in a freezer for a period of 11-12 weeks before otolith removal, and otoliths were extracted using clean techniques.  No metal implements could be used for the extractions because most of the trace elements we are attempting to detect are metals, and use of metal knives and tweezers can bias results.  Now that the otoliths are removed we are essentially ready to conduct the chemical analyses, but these cannot be completed until July or August of 2003.  All of the chemical analyses must be run together on the same mass spectrometer and we have no such instrument at IPHC.  We will be using a brand new state-of-the-art machine located at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, and the researchers at that institution anticipate that the machine will be running and calibrated by mid-summer.

Collection sites of juvenile halibut during summer of 2002.


Given the fact that most of our samples were opportunistic (i.e., that we did not conduct the sampling ourselves) we do have a slight problem in that the age-composition of our samples are not consistent from region to region.  In other words, we do not have age-1 fish from all of the sites, but rather, have are-1 fish from a few sites, age-2s from many others, and age-3s from even more.  Ideally we would have liked to see all sites represented by at least 10 age-1 fish, but even though we do not have that sort of coverage, we still have much to look at.  We will be able to compare OEFs from fish of the same age captured in different nursery bays and in different tows within some of those nurseries to compare changes in OEF over distance.  We will be able to assess signature variation in age-1 fish between sites that are located tens to hundreds of miles apart by comparing Kruzof Island to the Copper River Delta and Kodiak, in age-2 halibut by comparing fish from Hecate Strait, the Copper River Delta, Kamishak Bay, Kodiak, and the Bering Sea, and age-3 fish from many of the same sites and also from Kachemak and Kamishak Bays.  We will be able to examine OEF variation over short distances using age-2 fish from neighboring sampling stations in the Copper River Delta, Bristol Bay, and on opposites sides of Morzhovoi Bay.  In general, these analyses will allow us to examine differences between major water masses (the eastern and Western Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea), adjacent bays within the same large estuary (Kamishak vs. Kachemak Bay, in Lower Cook Inlet), different bays found on the same large island (Chiniak vs. Alitak Bay, on Kodiak Island), and site-to-site variation within bays.

We will also have the chance to take a preliminary look at OEFs from different age-classes of fish found at the same location.  We have enough fish to compare age-0 to age-1 fish from Kruzof Island and the Copper River Delta, can compare age-1 to age-2 fish from the Copper River Delta, and age-2 to age-3 from 8 sites.
 

Stay tuned for more updates after the chemical analyses have been conducted, and be sure to look for a charter bid announcement  that will be released this spring to secure vessel(s) for trawl sampling for early juveniles in southeast Alaska during the summer of 2003.
 


Return to Main Page

Return to IPHC Home