|Scientific Name:||Oncorhynchus nerka (ANADYR RIVER)|
|Taxonomic Notes:||A total of 93 extant and five extinct subpopulations were identified across the natural range of O. nerka. The assessors used a combination of ecoregional information (i.e., based on differences in marine and freshwater habitat) and the degree of genetic divergence between known spawning locations, using an Fst value of 0.04, representing a threshold level of gene flow between putative subpopulations of less than or equal to one effective migrant per year. The five extinct subpopulations were based on Gustafson et al. 2007. While the assessors acknowledge that it is not straightforward to ascribe demographic or geographic distinctness to a subpopulation based on observed genetic distances, they feel it is the most appropriate methodology given the scale of the assessment and the paucity of observations of stray rates among the spawning locations considered in this assessment. For the amendment completed in 2011, we split a number of British Columbia subpopulations described in the original 2008 assessment based on additional input from experts. For a complete description of the approach and methods used for identifying units and the underlying assumptions, please refer to the supporting documentation.
Follow the link below for a PDF of the supporting documentation.
Subpopulation naming convention:
Subpopulation names consist of an ecoregion name in upper case with any subdivision of the ecoregion by other criteria (e.g. genetic divergence) indicated in proper case after a colon.
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Data Deficient ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Ruggerone, G. & English, K.|
The species is known to exist here, but currently there are no abundance or range data that exist to evaluate its status, or data are of insufficient quality or continuity for the purpose of evaluation.
|Range Description:||The current distribution of Oncorhynchus nerka extends from approximately 45-70°N to 140°E-125°W longitude. The species has been recorded from Russia, United States, Canada, and Japan, although the Japanese populations are likely to have resulted from introductions; Japan is therefore not considered to be part of this species' natural range.
See the additional supporting documentation (particularly Figures 1 & 2, and Appendices 1 & 2) for details on the range of this species and of each of the 98 subpopulations identified. Follow the link below for a PDF of the additional supporting documentation.
|FAO Marine Fishing Areas:||
Pacific – northwest
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||At the species level, the population is believed to be stable; however, some subpopulations are declining. For more details on subpopulaiton size estimates and trends, see the additional supporting documentation (particularly Appendix 2). Follow the link below for a PDF of the additional supporting documentation.|
|Habitat and Ecology:||The species exhibits a great variety of life history patterns. It has a genetically diverged life history form called “kokanee” that lives its entire life within freshwater, but this assessment includes only anadromous populations commonly referred to as “sockeye” or “red salmon”. Sockeye are born in gravel nests in rivers or lakes and the majority of life history forms rear as juveniles for one to three years in freshwater before migrating to the ocean. Some sockeye assume a river-type life history and rear in a river channel, while others are lake-type and rear in a lake environment. Primary prey during this life history stage include zooplankton and stream invertebrates. Some sea-type populations migrate within one to three months following emergence, and these make extensive use of estuaries. Most populations spend one to three years in offshore feeding areas where they grow to maturity (ca. 50-60 cm total length, 2.5-3.0 kg weight). Diet in the ocean consists primarily of zooplankton (copepods and euphausiids), but their diet also includes squids and fishes. Natural predators during this period in their life history include salmon sharks (Lamna ditropis) and Daggertooth (Anotopterus nikparini). Foraging individuals mix among populations both within and between Asia and North America, but at maturity they all migrate back toward their natal freshwater habitat where they spawn and die. The return to natal habitat and the isolation of spawning populations results in considerable genetic differentiation and adaptation to local conditions. Many fish are intercepted by fishers during the homeward, spawning migration, and natural predators include seals, sea lions and bears. Spawning occurs in late summer and autumn, in lake outlet or lake tributary streams or along lake beaches in finer sediments where subterranean upwelling occurs or among boulders on wave-aerated shores. River-type sockeye spawn in river channels not associated with lakes. Adults display bright red bodies and green heads. Males compete with each other for access to females. Females compete with each other for gravel sites where they build nests, deposit eggs (fecundity typically ranges from 2,000-5,000 eggs), and briefly guard the redd. Median population size for the species is ca. 6,000 individuals. Reviews of life history and ecology of the species appear in Smith et al. (1987), Burgner (1991), Wood (1995) and Quinn (2005).|
|Use and Trade:||A certain percentage of sockeye are captured and killed exclusively for their roe (eggs, caviar). This occurs primarily in the Russian portion of their natural range, and the fishery is illegal and the take is unreported.|
General threats to O. nerka
The key threats to the species identified by the IUCN SSC Salmon Specialist Group were:
a) Mixed stock fishing leading to over fishing small, less productive populations
b) Changing river and ocean conditions that are likely linked to global climate change, expressed in poor marine survival rates and increased incidence of disease in adult spawners
c) Negative effects of hatcheries and construction of artificial spawning habitat
It is important to note that in many cases, the causes for declines in some specific sockeye salmon subpopulations remain unknown.
1. Many subpopulations of sockeye in
2. We considered
3. Most of the data used in our assessment, particularly in
4. Mixed-stock fishing is likely to be a key factor in the decline observed at many sites and subpopulations in our assessment. We feel a key priority is filling a gap in knowledge about composition of mixed-stock harvest in coastal sockeye salmon fisheries. While a great deal of resources has been invested in developing weak-stock management for Fraser River sockeye salmon through the Pacific Salmon Commission and DFO, there has been much less attention placed in other regions along the west coast of North America, particularly in the regions where we found the greatest diversity of subpopulations. We encourage continued investment in developing methods and protocols to account for subpopulation composition of coastal fisheries targeting sockeye salmon to help track harvest pressure at a biologically and ecologically meaningful scale. Further, we encourage fisheries management agencies to explore restructuring fisheries in a way that would result in shifting fishing pressure from coastal regions to more terminal locations, thus providing a more effective means of controlling fishing pressure at the scale of individual subpopulations.
5. Another leading factor threatening sockeye salmon are poor marine survival rates. This has been documented in cases where smolt-to-adult survival rates are estimated through intensive monitoring programs. This appears to be a significant factor explaining declines in adult abundance across many locations in the southern range of the species in
6. Many previous attempts at re-introductions of sockeye salmon have been unsuccessful, and we feel any effort at captive breeding or inter-basin transfers for re-introduction purposes should proceed with great caution. These efforts, to the extent that they exist, are at best stop-gap measures and are in no way a substitute for conserving the species in the wild. The lack of success from the captive breeding of endangered Sakinaw sockeye salmon by DFO, and endangered
7. Enhancement activities (particularly hatchery releases and spawning channel construction) is likely to be a key factor in reducing abundance in neighboring, small wild populations. In our assessment, we were unable to functionally track both wild and enhanced sockeye salmon where they intermingle. We strongly recommend adoption of integrated monitoring programs that includes a robust marking program and monitoring efforts targeted toward wild sockeye salmon populations that would provide the data necessary to address the degree to which enhancement practices threaten wild sockeye salmon. It is important to note that two large basins in our assessment (Fraser and
8. While not addressed in the present assessment due to lack of data, we feel there should be more focused research attention on sea-and river-type sockeye that may serve as colonizers in the future. This line of research is particularly important given expected habitat alterations from climate change.
9. Very few data were available to assess population viability of sockeye salmon in the Russian Far East, and we document a significant reduction in escapement in recent years at a site within the
Beacham, T.D., McIntosh, B., MacConnachie, C., Miller, K.M., Withler, R.E. and Varavskaya, N.V. 2006. Pacific Rim population structure of sockeye salmon as determined from microsatellite analysis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 174-187.
Burgner, R.L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In: C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds), Pacific Salmon Lifehistories, pp. 2-117. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2005. Canada’s policy for conservation of wild Pacific salmon. Available at: http://www¬comm.pac.dfo¬mpo.gc.ca/publications/wsp/default_e.htm. Vancouver, British Columbia.
Eggers, D.M., Irvine, J., Fukawaki, M. and Karpenko, V. 2003. Catch trends and status of North Pacific salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.
Gustfson, R.G., Waples, R.S., Myers, J.M., Weitkamp, L.A., Bryant, G.J., Johnson, O.W. and Hard, J.J. 2007. Pacific salmon extinctions: Quantifying lost and remaining diversity. Conservation Biology 21(4): 1009-1020.
Habicht, C., Seeb, L.W. and Seeb, J.E. 2007. Genetic and ecological divergence defines population structure of sockeye salmon populations returning to Bristol Bay, Alaska, and provides a tool for admixture analysis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(1): 82-94.
Hilborn, R., Quinn, T.P., Schindler, D.E. and Rogers, D.E. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 6564-6568.
Irvine, J.R., and Fraser, G.A. 2008. Canada’s Wild Pacific Salmon Policy (WSP) and the Maintenance of Diversity. In: J.L. Nielsen (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth World Fisheries Congress: reconciling fisheries with conservation. Symposium 49, pp. 1946. Bethesda, Maryland..
Irvine, J.R., Gross, M.R., Wood, C.C., Holtby, L.B., Schubert, N.D. and Amiro, P.G. 2005. Canada's Species At Risk Act: An opportunity to protect "endangered" salmon. Fisheries 30(12): 11-19.
IUCN. 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2011.2). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 10 November 2011).
Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Ruggerone, G.T. 2006. Abundances of wild and hatchery salmon by region of the Pacific Rim. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc.
Smith, H.D., Margolis, L. and Wood, C.C. (eds). 1987. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population biology and future management. Canadian Special Publications in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, pp. 486 pp.
Wood, C.C. 1995. Life history variation and population structure in sockeye salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17: 195-216.
|Citation:||Rand, P.S. 2011. Oncorhynchus nerka (ANADYR RIVER). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 22 December 2014.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|