4.4 Article

Summer temperature regimes in southcentral Alaska streams: watershed drivers of variation and potential implications for Pacific salmon

期刊

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2016-0076

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
  2. US Fish and Wildlife Service through the Alaska Coastal Program
  3. Kenai Peninsula Fish Habitat Partnership
  4. Mat-Su Basin Salmon Habitat Partnership
  5. Alaska EPSCoR NSF award [OIA-1208927]
  6. state of Alaska
  7. Alaska Conservation Foundation
  8. George H. & Jane A. Mifflin Memorial Fund
  9. True North Foundation
  10. Patagonia
  11. Office Of The Director
  12. Office of Integrative Activities [1208927] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate is changing fastest in high-latitude regions, focusing our research on understanding rates and drivers of changing temperature regimes in southcentral Alaska streams and implications for salmon populations. We collected continuous water and air temperature data during open-water periods from 2008 to 2012 in 48 nonglacial salmon streams across the Cook Inlet basin spanning a range of watershed characteristics. The most important predictors of maximum temperatures, expressed as mean July temperature, maximum weekly average temperature, and maximum weekly maximum temperature (MWMT), were mean elevation and wetland cover, while thermal sensitivity (slope of the stream-air temperature relationship) was best explained by mean elevation and area. Although maximum stream temperatures varied widely between years and across sites (8.4 to 23.7 degrees C), MWMT at most sites exceeded established criterion for spawning and incubation (13 degrees C), above which chronic and sublethal effects become likely, every year of the study, which suggests salmon are already experiencing thermal stress. Projections of MWMT over the next similar to 50 years suggest these criteria will be exceeded at more sites and by increasing margins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据