Habitat and Ecology of Large Medusa in the Northern California Current: An Overview of Recent Studies Richard Brodeur NOAA Fisheries, Newport, OR Cynthia Suchman Virginia Sea Grant, UVA Elizabeth Daly and Lanaya Fitzgerald HMSC, OSU, Newport, OR
Sampling Locations 128 W 127 W 126 W 125 W 124 W 123 W 122 W 121 W 49 N 49 N Latitude 48 N 48 N 47 N 47 N 46 N 45 N 46 N 44 N La Push Queets River Grays Harbor Willapa Bay Columbia River Cape Meares 45 N Cascade Head 43 N 42 N U.S.-Vancouver Columbia Eureka Triennial Survey (1992-2001) Newport Plume Survey (1998-2005) LaPush GLOBEC Survey (2000, 2002) Predator Survey (1998-2005) La Push Washington 200 m 100 m Grays Harbor Astoria Oregon Tillamook Newport Willapa Bay Oregon Canada Washington Astoria Columbia River Newport Coos Bay Cape Blanco 125 W 124 WCrescent City 123 W California 48 N 47 N 46 N 45 N 44 N 43 N 42 N 128 W 127 W 126 W 125 W 124 W 123 W 122 W 121 W Longitude
Sampling Methods 127 0'0"W 126 0'0"W Tatoosh Island (TI) Father and Son (FS) 48 0'0"N La Push (LP) 125 0'0"W 24 19 14 9753 37 29 22 17 12 97 4 27 22 17 12 9 6 4 124 0'0"W 123 0'0"W 4 Queets River (QR) 34 29 24 19 14 10 6 3 47 0'0"N Grays Harbor (GH) 36 31 26 21 16 10 6 3 4 Willapa Bay (WB) 30 23 19 14 9 5 depth 18 m 46 0'0"N Columbia River (CR) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 7 4 4 Cape Falcon (CF) 30 25 20 15 10 7 31 Mesoscale 10-day cruises (trawls=1102): May, June, Sept. 2000-2008 8 cross-shelf transects (1-40 nm from shore) surface trawls, CTD, zooplankton tow, chl a 45 0'0"N 25 20 15 10 531 Cape Meares (CM) 25 20 15 10 521 Cascade Head (CH) 25 20 15 10 53 Newport Hydro Line (NH) 25 20 15 10 31 Cape Perpetua (CP) 126 0'0"W 125 0'0"W 124 0'0"W Station Location Current 100 Fathom Regular 100 fathom/ end Discontinued Regular 100 Fathom 123 0'0"W 4 Biweekly 2-night cruises (trawls=882): April-August 2000-2008 2 cross-shelf transects (Columbia River and Willapa Bay) surface trawls and CTD
Vertical Distribution from ROV Surveys Chrysaora fuscescens: Depth Distributions 0 5 10 15 DIVE 199 off Central Oregon August 7, 2008 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 n=11 Temperature ( o C) Oxygen (ml/l) DEPTH (m) 20 25 30 35 40 45 TEMPERATURE DENSITY OXYGEN 50 Water Density 25.4 25.6 25.8 26.0 26.2 26.4 26.6 Medusae Prop. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Phantom ROV
Catch Summary: Mesoscale Cruises 2000-2007 2007 Medusa FO (%±sd) # /km -2 (±sd) Max (per 1000 m 3 ) C. fuscescens 42 ± 15 2930 ± 1417 140 (Sept 2000)* Aequorea sp. 40 ± 21 217 ± 177 3.5 (June 2002) Aurelia labiata 19 ± 18 20 ± 33 2.5 (June 2004) Phacellophora/ 10 ± 11 2 ± 13 0.01 (June 2002) Cyanea All medusae 66 ± 19 * Twice the maximum caught in previous surveys off Central OR, August 2000 (Suchman and Brodeur DSR 2005); approx 120 mg C/m 3
Seasonal Patterns Chrysaora fuscescens Abundance by Month, 2000-2005 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 April May June July August Sept 0 Aequorea sp. Abundance by Month, 2000-2005 April May June July August Sept 200 150 100 50 Chrysaora per 1000 m 3 Aequorea per 1000 m 3 0
Length Distributions by Month
General Additive Modeling of Environmental Variables Chrysaora fuscescens Deviance explained:47.7% Significant: latitude (+/-) temperature (-) distance (-) salinity (-) 48 N 47 N 46 N September 2001 LaPush Washington Astoria Oregon Chryaora fuscescens 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 500 to 1000 1000 to 5000 5000 to 10000 10000 to 50000 48 N 47 N 46 N September 2004 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 500 to 1000 LaPush 1000 to 5000 Washington Astoria Chryaora fuscescens Oregon Tillamook Tillamook 45 N 45 N Newport Newport 125 W 124 W 123 W 125 W 124 W 123 W
General Additive Modeling of Environmental Variables Aequorea sp.: Deviance explained: = 33.6% Significant: latitude (+) chlorophyll (+) salinity (+) distance (-) 48 N 47 N 46 N 45 N June 2001 Aequorea sp. 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 LaPush Washington Astoria Oregon Tillamook 48 N 47 N 46 N 45 N June 2004 Aequorea sp. 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 LaPush 500 to 1000 Washington Astoria Oregon Tillamook Newport Newport 125 W 124 W 123 W 125 W 124 W 123 W
Correlation with Climate: Pacific Decadal Oscillation Jellyfish Anomaly (km -1 ) PDO anomaly PDO Anomaly (May-Aug) average per km towed 80 602 40 1 20-20-1-40 -2-60 6 4 March-September PDO Anomaly by Month and Year 3 00 2200 0150-2100 -4 50-6 0 Jellyfish Catch cold warm 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Pacific Decadal Oscillation (May-August) Jellyfish Catch 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 # jellyfish per total km towed 300 250 200 150 100 50 0-50 -100 PDO (May-August) and jellyfish per km towed 2008 r 2 =0.735-6 -4-2 0 2 4 6 PDO http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/pdo.latest (Suchman et al. In prep.)
Correlation with Columbia River Flow Streamflow Anomaly (cubic feet) 6e+5 4e+5 2e+5 0-2e+5-4e+5-6e+5-8e+5 discharge ft 3 /s 400000 Columbia River Flow Columbia River Streamflow (Jan.-August) 300000 200000 100000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 USGS, Columbia River at Beaver Army Terminal # Jellyfish per total Km towed 300 250 200 150 100 50 0-50 River flow (Jan-Aug.) and Jellyfish per km towed 2001 r 2 =0.494-100 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 River flow (million cubic feet) (Suchman et al. In prep.)
Multiple Linear Regression catch/km = 7.64 - (0.0001 * annual flow ft 3 /s) - (9.86 * summer PDO anomaly) r 2 adj = 0.927 p < 0.001 180 160 140 R 2 adjusted 0.764 0.927 p=0.01 p<0.001 r 2 adj = 0.764 p = 0.013 # Jellyfish per km towed # Jellyfish per km towed 120 100 80 60 40 20 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 River flow (10 6 ft 3 ) River flow (10 6 ft 3 ) 2.0 2.2 2.4-6 -4-2 0 PDO PDO 2 4
Interactions with Fish? Total number caught in August 2002 Large Medusae: 17,937 Pacific herring, sardine, anchovies: 9,997 All other fishes (34 species): 1,923
Summary Chrysaora fuscescens dominated the biomass Mesoscale distribution characterized largely by latitude, depth, chlorophyll and salinity highest abundances along inner shelf Annual abundance of large medusae in the region correlates (negatively) with spring-summer PDO (SST anomalies) and Columbia River flow Contrary to hypothesis of warm conditions leading to jelly blooms
Acknowledgements Bonneville Power Administration National Research Council U.S. GLOBEC Program (NOAA/NSF) NOAA Fisheries Cheryl Morgan, Jim Ruzicka (OSU) Ed Casillas, Bob Emmett (NOAA NWFSC) Bill Miller, Dave Fox (ODFW) Captains and crew of FV Frosti, FV Sea Eagle, RV Miller Freeman, RV Ricker, and the many seagoing scientists participating in the fieldwork component of this project
Can Jellyfish Blooms Have an Impact on Pelagic Fishes? 1. Do pelagic fish and jellies have similar diets? 2. Do they overlap in distribution?
Pelagic Fishes Examined Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) Jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) Pacific saury (Cololabis saira) Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) Juvenile coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) Whitebait smelt (Allosmerus elongatus) Juvenile chinook (O. tshawytscha)
Comparison of Fish and Jellyfish Diets: August 2002 Sardinops sagax, Pacific sardine 49 fish, mean length = 234 mm 52,200 prey Chrysaora fuscescens, Sea nettle 17 medusae 26,040 prey 73.8% Aurelia labiata, Moon Jelly 11 medusae 8055 prey calanoid copepods euphausiid eggs euphausiid nauplii-calyptopes larvaceans pteropods other 72.8%
Major Prey by Species Chinook yearling Coho yearling Chinook subyearling Surf smelt Gelatinous zooplankton Larvacean Pteropod Calanoid copepod Euphausiid eggs Euphausiid (naup.-calypt.) Euphausiid (furcilia-adults) Osteicthyes (egg-juvenile) Other N = 10 Jack mackerel Chrysaora N = 31 N = 33 Aurelia N = 59 Pacific sardine N = 160 Whitebait smelt N = 17 N = 11 N = 49 Northern anchovy Pacific saury Pacific herring N = 41 N = 63 N = 114 N = 145 (Brodeur et al., 2008. Mar. Biol.)
Spatial Overlap with Sardines percent catch: Aurelia labiata 0.01 to < 10 10 to < 30 30 to < 100 45 N 44 N June2002 August 2002 OREGON Chrysaora fuscescens 0.01 to < 10 10 to < 30 30 to < 100 43 N Cape Blanco Sardinops sagax 0.01 to < 10 10 to < 30 30 to < 100 42 N CALIFORNIA 125 W 124 W 125 W 124 W sardines vs Chrysaora: 21.2 27.3 sardines vs. Aurelia: < 1 < 1
Index of Potential Overlap of Nekton with Jellyfish Nekton Chrysaora Aurelia Juvenile Chinook salmon 0.24 0.08 Juvenile coho salmon 0.18 0.04 Jack mackerel 0.17 0.02 Whitebait smelt 0.36 0.07 Surf smelt 0.19 0.47 Pacific herring 0.41 0.50 Pacific saury 0.34 0.38 Northern anchovy 0.46 0.35 Pacific sardine 0.51 0.36 (Brodeur et al., 2008. Mar. Biol.)
Biomass of Pelagic Fish vs. Jellyfish Chysaora fuscescens Small forage Pelagic fishes Fishes spring summer spring summer Chrysaora fuscescens (Ruzick et al. 2007. CalCOFI Rep.)
Biomass of Pelagic Fish vs. Jellyfish Tons/km 2 4 3 2 1 Spring Washington/Columbia River All jellyfish Pelagic fish Fish:Jellyfish = 1.86 Tons/km 2 7 6 5 4 3 2 Spring 10.52 Northern Oregon All jellyfish Pelagic fish 1 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Tons/km 2 10 Summer Summer 8 6 4 0.14 15 0.07 Tons/km 2 20 10 2 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ECOPATH Ecosystem Model - Spring (Ruzicka et al. 2007. CalCOFI Rep.)
Estimated Food Consumption during Different Seasons Spring model model (April-June) (April June) (July Sept.) large jellyfishes cephalopods forage fishes juvenile salmon juvenile rockfishes juvenile fishes (misc.) salmon pelagic (adult) piscivores mesopelagic fishes demersal fishes flatfishes rockfishes seabi rdsmammals Summer model (July-Sept.) large jellyfishes cephalopods forage fishes juvenile salmon juvenile rockfishes juvenile fishes (misc.) salmon (adult) pelagic piscivores mesopelagic fishes demersal fishes (misc) flatfishes rockfishes seabirds mammals (Ruzicka et al. 2007. CalCOFI Rep.)
Conclusions In spring, jellyfish are a modest consumer of zooplankton production and small pelagic forage fishes are much more important consumers. By late summer, however, jellyfish are the major consumers of zooplankton.
Conclusions As they are preyed upon by few species, jellyfish become an important pathway that diverts lower trophic level production away from upper trophic levels. In summer < 1% of consumption of large jellyfish is passed on to higher trophic levels while > 20% of the energy consumed by forage fish is passed upwards.