Survival of seaward-migrating PIT and acoustic-tagged juvenile Chinook salmon in the Snake and Columbia Rivers: an evaluation of length-specific tagging effects

Animal Biotelemetry

Richard S Brown³  Eric W Oldenburg³  Adam G Seaburg²  Katrina V Cook³  John R Skalski²  M Brad Eppard¹  Katherine A Deters³ 

[1] US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Post Office Box 2946, Portland, OR 97208-2946, USA

[2] School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1820, Seattle, WA 98112, USA

[3] Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Ecology Group, Post Office Box 999, Richland, WA 99352, USA

关键词: Columbia river;    Dams;    Juvenile Chinook salmon;    Tag burden;    Telemetry;    Tag effect;   

Others  :  791183
DOI  :  10.1186/2050-3385-1-8

 received in 2013-03-29, accepted in 2013-04-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Acoustic telemetry is a widely used tool for evaluating the behavior and survival of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River basin. Thus, it is important to understand how the surgical tagging process and the presence of a transmitter affect survival. This study evaluated the effect of fish length on the survival of yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon during their seaward migrations through the Snake and Columbia Rivers during 2006, 2007, and 2008. Fish were collected at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River (695 river km from the mouth of the Columbia) and implanted with either only a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag (PIT fish) or both a PIT tag and an acoustic transmitter (AT fish).

Results

Across the 3 years, a total of 157,000 yearling and subyearling fish were tagged and designated as PIT fish and 18,500 as AT fish. Survival was estimated from release at Lower Granite Dam to multiple downstream dams using the Cormack–Jolly–Seber single release model, and analysis of variance was used to test for differences among length classes for both tag types. No length-specific tag effect was detected between PIT and AT fish (that is, length affected the survival of PIT fish and AT fish in a similar manner). Fish length was positively correlated with the survival of both PIT and AT fish. Survival was markedly low among the smallest length class (that is, 80 mm to 89 mm) of both PIT and AT subyearling Chinook salmon and the survival of PIT fish was generally greater than that of AT fish.

Conclusions

The lack of a length-specific tag effect suggests that under the conditions used in this study, differences in survival between PIT and AT fish may be due to the process of surgically implanting the transmitter rather than the presence of the transmitter.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Brown et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jepsen N, Aarestrup K, Okland F, Rasmussen G: Survival of radio-tagged Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) smolts passing a reservoir during seaward migration. Hydrobiologia 1998, 371(372):347-353.
• [2]Lucas MC, Baras E: Methods for studying spatial behavior of freshwater fishes in the natural environment. Fish Fish 2000, 1:283-316.
• [3]Peven C, Giorgi A, Skalski JR, Langeslay M, Grassell A, Smith S, Counihan T, Perry R, Bickford S: Guidelines and Suggested Protocols for Conducting, Analyzing, and Reporting Juvenile Salmonid Survival Studies in the Columbia River Basin. Columbia Basin Research, Seattle, WA: University of Washington School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences; 2005.
• [4]Peake S, McKinley RS, Scruton DA, Moccia R: Influence of transmitter attachment procedures on swimming performance of wild and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts. Trans Am Fish Soc 1997, 126:707-714.
• [5]Jepsen N, Davis LE, Schreck CB, Siddens B: The physiological response of Chinook salmon smolts to two methods of radio-tagging. Trans Am Fish Soc 2001, 130:495-500.
• [6]Anglea SM, Geist DR, Brown RS, Deters KA, McDonald RD: Effects of acoustic transmitters on swimming performance and predator avoidance of juvenile Chinook salmon. North American J Fisheries Manage 2004, 24:162-170.
• [7]Lacroix GL, Knox D, McCurdy P: Effects of implanted dummy acoustic transmitters on juvenile Atlantic salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 2004, 133:211-220.
• [8]Brown RS, Geist DR, Deters KA, Grassell A: Effects of surgically implanted acoustic transmitters >2% of body mass on the swimming performance, survival and growth of juvenile sockeye and Chinook salmon. J Fish Biol 2006, 69:1626-1638.
• [9]Welch DW, Batten SD, Ward BR: Growth, survival, and tag retention of steelhead trout (O. mykiss) surgically implanted with dummy acoustic tags. Hydrobiologia 2007, 582:289-299.
• [10]Hall JE, Chamberlin J, Kagley AN, Greene C, Fresh KL: Effects of gastric and surgical insertions of dummy ultrasonic transmitters on juvenile Chinook salmon in seawater. Trans Am Fish Soc 2009, 138:52-57.
• [11]Brown RS, Harnish RA, Carter KM, Boyd JW, Deters KA: An evaluation of the maximum tag burden for implantation of acoustic transmitters in juvenile Chinook salmon. North American J Fisheries Manage 2010, 30:499-505.
• [12]Hockersmith EE, Muir WD, Smith SG, Sandford BP, Perry RW, Adams NS, Rondorf DW: Comparison of migration rate and survival between radio-tagged and PIT-tagged migrant yearling Chinook salmon in the Snake and Columbia rivers. North American J Fisheries Manage 2003, 23:404-413.
• [13]Knudsen CM, Johnston MV, Schroder SL, Bosch WJ, Fast DE, Strom CR: Effects of passive integrated transponder tags on smolt-to-adult recruit survival, growth, and behavior of hatchery spring Chinook salmon. North American J Fisheries Manage 2009, 29:658-669.
• [14]Hockersmith EE, Brown RS, Liedtke TL: Comparative Performance of Acoustic Tagged and Passive Integrated Transponder-Tagged Juvenile Salmonids, Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Science Center; 2008.
• [15]Wargo-Rub AM, Brown RS, Sanford BP, Deters KA, Gilbreath LG, Myers MS, Peterson ME, Harnish RA, Oldenburg EW, Carter JA, Welch IW, McMichael GA, Boyd JA, Hockersmith EE, Matthews GM: Comparative Performance of Acoustic Tagged and Passive Integrate Transponder-Tagged Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, 2007, Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Science Center; 2009.
• [16]Wargo Rub AM, Sanford BP, Gilbreath LG, Myers MS, Peterson ME, Charlton LL, Smith SG, Matthews GM: Comparative Performance of Acoustic Tagged and Passive Integrate Transponder-Tagged Juvenile Chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, 2008, Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Science Center; 2011.
• [17]Skalski JR, Townsend RL, Steig TW, Horchik JW, Tritt GW, Grassell A: Estimation of Rock Island Project Passage Survival of Yearling Chinook Salmon Smolts in 2003 Using Acoustic and PIT Tag Release-Recapture Methods. Wenatchee, WA: Report by Columbia Basin Research and Hydroacoustic Technology, Incorporated; 2003.
• [18]Skalski JR, Townsend RL, Steig TW, Nealson PA, Kumagai KK, Grassell A: Estimation of Survival of Yearling and Subyearling Chinook, and Sockeye Salmon Smolts, and Steelhead at Rocky Reach and Rock Island Projects in 2004 Using Acoustic and PIT Tag Release-Recapture Methods. Wenatchee, WA: Report by Columbia Basin Research and Hydroacoustic Technology, Incorporated; 2005.
• [19]Skalski JR, Townsend RL, Steig TW, Nealson PA, Grassell A: Survival of yearling Chinook, Sockeye Salmon, and Steelhead Smolts Through Rocky Reach and Rock Island Projects in 2005. Wenatchee, WA: Report by Columbia Basin Research and Hydroacoustic Technology, Incorporated; 2006.
• [20]Faulkner JR, Smith SG, Muir WD, Marsh DM, Williams JG: Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids Through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs. Portland, OR: Report by National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish Ecology Division; 2009.
• [21]Adams NS, Rondorf DW, Evans SD, Kelly JE, Perry RW: Effects of surgically and gastrically implanted radio transmitters on swimming performance and predator avoidance of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian J Fisheries Aquatic Sci 1998, 55:781-787.
• [22]Zale AV, Brooke C, Fraser WC: Effects of surgically implanted transmitter weights on growth and swimming stamina of small adult westslope cutthroat trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 2005, 134:653-660.
• [23]Connor WP, Smith SG, Andersen T, Bradbury SM, Burum DC, Hockersmith EE, Schuck ML, Mendel GW, Bugert RM: Post-release performance of hatchery yearling and subyearling fall Chinook salmon released into the Snake River. North American J Fisheries Manage 2004, 24:545-560.
• [24]Connor WP, Tiffan KF: Evidence for parr growth as a factor affecting parr-to-smolt survival. Trans Am Fish Soc 2012, 141:1207-1218.
• [25]Connor WP, Burge HL, Waitt R: Juvenile life history of wild fall Chinook salmon in the Snake and Clearwater rivers. North American J Fisheries Manage 2002, 22:703-712.
• [26]Connor WP, Sneva JG, Tiffan KF, Steinhorst RK, Ross D: Two alternative juvenile life history types for fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin. Trans Am Fish Soc 2005, 134:291-304.
• [27]Buchanan RA, Skalski JR, McMichael GA: Differentiating mortality from delayed migration in subyearling fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian J Fisheries Aquatic Sci 2009, 66:2243-2255.
• [28]Wedemeyer GA, Saunders RL, Clarke WC: Environmental factors affecting smoltification and early marine survival of anadromous salmonids. US National Marine Fisheries Serv Marine Fisheries Rev 1980, 42:1-14.
• [29]Connor WP, Steinhorst RK, Burge HL: Forecasting survival and passage of migratory juvenile salmonids. North American J Fisheries Manage 2000, 20:651-660.
• [30]Connor WP, Steinhorst RK, Burge HL: Migrational behavior and seaward movement of wild subyearling fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River. North American J Fisheries Manage 2003, 23:414-430.
• [31]Carlson TJ, Brown RS, Stephenson JR, Pflugrath BD, Colotelo AH, Gingerich AJ, Benjamin PL, Langeslay MJ, Ahmann ML, Johnson RL, Skalski JR, Seaburg AG, Townsend RL: The influence of tag presence on the mortality of juvenile Chinook salmon exposed to simulated hydroturbine passage: implications for survival estimates and management of hydroelectric facilities. North American J Fisheries Manage 2012, 32:249-261.
• [32]Tatara CP: Size at implantation affects growth of juvenile steelhead implanted with 12-mm passive integrated transponders. North American J Fisheries Manage 2009, 29:417-422.
• [33]Zabel RW, Achord S: Relating size of juveniles to survival within and among populations of Chinook salmon. Ecology 2004, 85:795-806.
• [34]Monzyk FR, Jonasson BC, Hoffnagle TL, Keniry PJ, Carmichael RW, Cleary PJ: Migration characteristics of hatchery and natural spring Chinook salmon smolts from the Grande Ronde River basin, Oregon, to Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River. Trans Am Fish Soc 2009, 138:1093-1108.
• [35]Zabel RW, Wagner T, Congleton JL, Smith SG, Williams JG: Survival and selection of migrating salmon from capture-recapture models with individual traits. Ecol Appl 2005, 15:1427-1439.
• [36]Welch DW, Melnychuk MC, Payne JC, Rechisky EL, Porter AD, Jackson GD, Ward BR, Vincent SP, Wood CC, Semmens J: In situ measurement of coastal ocean movements and survival of juvenile Pacific salmon. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:8708-8713.
• [37]Brakensiek KE, Hankin DG: Estimating overwinter survival of juvenile coho salmon in a northern California stream: accounting for effects of passive integrated transponder tagging mortality and size-dependent survival. Trans Am Fish Soc 2007, 136:1423-1437.
• [38]Rechisky EL, Welch DW, Porter AD, Jacobs MC, Ladouceur A: Experimental measurement of hydrosystem-induced delayed mortality in juvenile Snake River spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) using a large-scale acoustic array. Canadian J Fisheries Aquatic Sci 2009, 66:1010-1024.
• [39]Dempson JB, Robertson MJ, Pennell CJ, Furey G, Bloom M, Shears M, Ollerhead LMN, Clarke KD, Hinks R, Robertson GJ: Residency time, migration route and survival of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts in a Canadian fjord. J Fish Biol 2011, 78:1976-1992.
• [40]Oldenburg EW, Colotelo AH, Brown RS, Eppard MB: Holding of juvenile salmonids for surgical implantation of electronic tags: a review and recommendations. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 2011, 21:35-42.
• [41]Wagner GN, Cooke SJ, Brown RS, Deters KA: Surgical implantation techniques for electronic tags in fish. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 2011, 21:71-81.
• [42]Panther JL, Brown RS, Gaulke GL, Deters KA, Woodley CM, Eppard MB: Influence of incision location on transmitter loss, healing, incision length, and suture retention of juvenile Chinook salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 2011, 140:1492-1503.
• [43]Deters KA, Brown RS, Boyd JW, Eppard MB, Seaburg AG: Optimal suturing technique and number of sutures for surgical implantation of acoustic transmitters in juvenile salmonids. Trans Am Fish Soc 2012, 141:1-10.
• [44]McMichael GA, Eppard MB, Carlson TJ, Carter JA, Ebberts BD, Brown RS, Weiland M, Ploskey GR, Harnish RA, Deng ZD: The juvenile salmon acoustic telemetry system: a new tool. Fisheries 2010, 35:9-22.
• [45]Marsh DM, Harmon JR, McIntyre KW, Thomas KL, Paasch NN, Sandford BP, Kamikawa DJ, Matthews GM: Research Related to Transportation of Juvenile Salmonids on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, 1995. Walla Walla, WA: Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service; 1996.
• [46]Marsh DM, Harmon JR, Paasch NN, Thomas KL, McIntyre KW, Sandford BP, Matthews GM: Research Related to Transportation of Juvenile Salmonids on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, 2000. Walla Walla, WA: Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service; 2001.
• [47]Prentice EF, Flagg TA, McCutcheon SC: Feasibility of using implantable passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in salmonids. Am Fish Soc Symp 1990, 7:317-322.
• [48]Prentice EF, Flagg TA, McCutcheon CS, Brastow DF: PIT tag monitoring systems for hydroelectric dams and fish hatcheries. Am Fish Soc Symp 1990, 7:323-334.
• [49]Summerfelt RC, Smith LS: Anesthesia, surgery, and related techniques. In Methods for Fish Biology. Edited by Schreck CB, Moyle PB. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society; 1990:213-272.
• [50]Deters KA, Brown RS, Carter KM, Boyd JW, Eppard MB, Seaburg AG: Performance assessment of suture type, water temperature, and surgeon skill in juvenile Chinook salmon surgically implanted with acoustic transmitters. Trans Am Fish Soc 2010, 139:888-899.
• [51]Axel GA, Prentice EF, Sandford BP: PIT tag detection system for large-diameter juvenile fish bypass pipes at Columbia River Basin hydroelectric dams. North American J Fisheries Manage 2005, 25:646-651.
• [52]Titzler PS, McMichael GA, Carter JA: Autonomous acoustic receiver deployment and mooring techniques for use in large rivers and estuaries. North American J Fisheries Manage 2010, 30(4):853-859.
• [53]Winter J: Advances in underwater biotelemetry. In Fisheries Techniques. 2nd edition. Edited by Murphy BR, Willis DW. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society; 1996:555-590.
• [54]Brown RS, Cooke SJ, Anderson WG, McKinley RS: Evidence to challenge the ‘2% rule’ for biotelemetry. North American J Fisheries Manage 1999, 19:867-71.
• [55]Cormack RM: Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals. Biometrika 1964, 51:429-438.
• [56]Jolly GM: Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration–stochastic model. Biometrika 1965, 52:225-247.
• [57]Seber GAF: A note on the multiple recapture census. Biometrika 1965, 52:249-259.
• [58]McCullagh P, Nelder JA: Generalized Linear Models. 2nd edition. London: Chapman & Hall; 1989.