Presentation on theme: "Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the Columbia Basin Chris Caudill University of Idaho Fish Ecology Research Lab Department."— Presentation transcript:
Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the Columbia Basin Chris Caudill University of Idaho Fish Ecology Research Lab Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences Moscow, Idaho firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/uiferl/Archives.htm
Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the Columbia Basin Chris Peery, Ted Bjornn, Matt Keefer, Charles Boggs, Bill Daigle, Tami Clabough, Megan Heinrich, Mike Jepson, Steve Lee, George Naughton, Rudy Ringe, Ken Tolotti, Lowell Struenberg, Mary Moser, Ben Ho, Brian McIlraith, Dan Joosten, Karen Johnson, Ryan Mann, Eric Johnson, Mark Morasch, Travis Dick, Rose Poulin Brian Burke, … Chris Peery, Ted Bjornn, Matt Keefer, Charles Boggs, Bill Daigle, Tami Clabough, Megan Heinrich, Mike Jepson, Steve Lee, George Naughton, Rudy Ringe, Ken Tolotti, Lowell Struenberg, Mary Moser, Ben Ho, Brian McIlraith, Dan Joosten, Karen Johnson, Ryan Mann, Eric Johnson, Mark Morasch, Travis Dick, Rose Poulin Brian Burke, …
Talk outline Radio telemetry background: RT in the multi- scale toolbox Specific case studies – General approach – Adult salmonids – Adult Pacific lamprey
Spatial Scale of Investigation Short scale/local (specific structures, behavior; 1-10 m spatial scales) – Optical video – DIDSON Video – PIT evaluation (specific antennas) – Acoustic telemetry w/ 3D receiver array Meso-scale (fishways, habitat use, individual dams; 10m - km spatial scales) – Radio or Acoustic – (PIT) Large-scale evaluations (escapement, distribution, straying, etc. 10-1000s km) – Radio or Acoustic – (PIT)
Active Transmitting Tags HabitatRadio TelemetryAcoustic Telemetry ShallowExcellent (km’s)Poor to Good (meters to 100s m) Deep (>10 m)PoorGood (~ km) SalinePoorGood TurbulentGoodFair to Poor Large Mainstem RiversPoor to Excellent (Fish depth)Good to Excellent TailraceV. goodFair SpillwayV. goodFair to Poor (Entrained air) FishwaysExcellent“Poor” ReservoirsPoor to Excellent (Fish depth)Good to Excellent TributariesExcellentFair to Poor (Entrained air) FactorRadio TelemetryAcoustic Telemetry Tag lifedays to years Cost per tag$200-300 External antennaYesNo
Tag effects Corbett et al. 2012 NAJFM http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2012.700902
Tag effects Corbett et al. (2012). Tagged spring Chinook salmon in upper Yakima River (Roza Dam, Yakima rkm 208; Columbia rkm 745), held in raceways.
Willamette Valley Fall Creek (Columbia R. rkm 503) YearGroup# released# recovered % recovered %PSM 2008PIT1953229.09.4 2009PIT1753316.584.8 Double252184.090.5 2010PIT125623141.9 Double75547263.0 2011PIT1252721.614.8 Double752229.318.2 Unmarked1282418.833.3 Table 7. Final estimated fates of Chinook salmon that were PIT-tagged or double-tagged (PIT and radio-tagged) in Fall Creek, 2008-2011. Double-tagged fish were only included in the PIT-tagged numbers if the whole carcass was recovered, and not just the radio tag in 2008-2010. Double-tagged and radio-tagged fish were enumerated separately in 2011. From Naughton et al. 2012.
Columbia River tag effects Mainstem unaccounted for losses ~ 12% ~ upper limit -unreported harvest -death (including tag effects) -tag failure / loss -does not account for delayed effects in tribs (Keefer et al. 2005) Known tag loss ~2.2-4.0% (Keefer et al. 2004) Travel rates similar between RT and unhandled PIT tagged adults (Matter and Sanford 2003). Keefer et al. 2005
Radio Telemetry Summary Medium to large spatial scales Tracking individuals through acoustically noisy environments (e.g., spillways, fishways) Single receiver gates External antenna Tag life ~ battery size ~ tag size ~ tag effect Spatial resolution to ~ 10 m Tag effects important in some systems, particularly when tagging late in migration
Case Examples: Adult salmonids General approach Local scale questions – Behavior – Evaluations of fishway improvements – Temperature effects – Spawning success in tributaries Reach scale questions – Run-timing – Conversion rates – Temperature effects – Post-project passage migration – Transport and straying
Bonneville Dam Chinook Salmon Tagging 2010 Tagging early in run, in contrast to Corbett et al. 2012
Monitoring arrays 4 Lower Columbia dams 4 Lower Snake dams Priest Rapids, Wanapum Major tributaries ≥ 147 Receiver Sites / yr Mobile Tracking Multi-antenna rec’vs at dams Single antenna rec’vs at other sites
Bonneville Dam Chinook Salmon Tagging Proportional tagging useful for expansions, sampling all stocks
Bonneville DamHD PITRadioTotal 1997 —197 1998 —255 1999 —350 2000 —298 2001 —201 2002 —398 2005 841— 2006 2,000— 2007 757— 2008 6095951,204 2009 368596964 2010 13312325 Total 4,5881,5036,091 Pacific Lamprey Sample sizes driven by balance of precision needed for question(s), costs, and potential negative impacts on resource.
Data Management and Availability Generates very large datasets (millions of records) Data processing, filtering, and coding of behaviors (SQL server, custom scripts) Long term database stored at UI and NMFS Challenging to convert to a (useful) open source database – Code definitions and interpretations of detections – Interannual comparisons complicated by changes in site locations, etc. – Most use of coded database by researchers
Local scale questions Do modifications negatively affect adult salmonid passage? – Dam structures – Dam operations (tailrace conditions, fishway operations), or – Fishway improvements
Monitoring modifications and improvements (Local to Mesoscale)
Monitoring modifications and improvements for Pacific lamprey LPS Variable width weir
Manipulated Spill at Bonneville Dam
BON PH2 LFS
Example Passage Metrics Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) Design PASSAGE RATE/NUMBERS 1) Entrance Efficiency = the proportion of fish entering of those that approached (Entrances/approaches) 2) Exit Ratio = the proportion of fish exiting to the tailrace of those that entered (Exits/entrances) PASS BEHAVIOR (DELAYS ~ energetic cost; sea lion predation) 3) Entrance Time = Time from first fishway approach to first entrance 4) Entrance to Base of Ladder = Passage time from first entrance to the transition pool 5) Extended passage time = Percentage of adults with passage time > 1 hour
Spring Chinook Salmon CI Entrance Metrics Spring ChinookRange (2002-2007) Metric nEstimate n 1 Entrance efficiency1160.9039-1670.74-0.98 2 Exit ratio1040.0029-1390.00-0.38 3 Median approach to entry8542 min20-1385.6-46.0 min 4 Median entry to ladder7813 min11-1327.4-11.8 min 5 Approach-entry > 1 h8536%20-13813.9-25.8% 6 Entry-ladder > 1 h781%11-1325.5-12.9%
Cascades Island vs. Bradford Island Spring Chinook Conclusion: Short-term effect in year after installation, diminished in second year (“seasoning” effect?)
What is the thermal experience of adults How does temperature affect behavior? – Behavioral thermoregulation at tributaries – At dams? Temperature and survival – Climate change? Temperature and energetics and prespawn mortality Temperature effects: Individual to Population Scale Linking environmental experience to movement
Steelhead body temperatures reflect extensive holding in cool- water tributaries with large diel fluctuations in temperature Behavioral thermoregulation and flexible migration rate Increased vulnerability to fisheries take in tributaries (High et al. 2006).
Summer Stratification and Ladder Temperatures Dam TailraceForebay Fishway Exit Temperature Junction Pool Temperature
Seasonal Patterns of Δ T
Ladder Passage Time A B BA A B A AA Different letters indicate contrast P < 0.025 A B B
Population Effects: Sockeye Salmon 1997 Late Entry Early Entry
Willamette Valley PSM Keefer et al. 2010 Environmental Factors Energetic Status/Timing Condition/ Disease Status PSM
Adult salmonid reach-scale questions: Run-timing Escapement rates Post-project passage migration success Delayed effects of transport on migration success, behavior and straying
Chinook salmon migration timing and stock composition Keefer et al. 2004 (NAJFM) Jepson et al. 2004 (NAJFM) Back assignment of unmarked adults using final locations Date at Bonneville Dam
Escapement data Fisheries in lower reservoirs Increase for upstream Reaches Esc 1 uncorrected for fisheries take Esc 2 Fisheries take in tribs considered successful Esc 3 All fisheries take considered successful Keefer et al. 2005
Across scales: Delayed effects Spring Chinook at Bonneville Dam 2002 Caudill et al. 2007
Dam Passage Time & Fate
Mechanism remain uninvestigated
Barging and straying Does barging juveniles affect adult behavior? HOME ?
Juvenile migration “route” and adult migration Spawning Marine Growth Sequential imprinting during juvenile outmigration Adults use reverse sequence Barge In-river
Metrics Migration timing and rate Route, especially fallback Fate – Successful (reached spawning trib) – Unaccounted – Fisheries returns (reward program) Known-source groups: – Stray? – Barged as juveniles or in-river outmigration?
Barging and straying Keefer et al. 2008 (EA)
Barging and straying “Early right turn” suggests effect of barging on the recall rate or timing of imprinted cues near tributary-mainstem confluence
Figure 14. Examples of the proportions of adult strays that spawn with a local recipient population (strays/(strays+natives) as estimated using four recipient population sizes (four panels: 500, 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 fish), a range of donor population size (0-200,000), and three donor stray rates: 1% (solid line), 3% (dotted line), and 5% (dashed line). Small recipient populations can be numerically dominated by strays when the donor population is large, even when stray rates are low. (Note: same as Figure 1). From Keefer and Caudill 2012. Why it matters: Straying effects on small wild populations
Adult Pacific lamprey General passage behavior and patterns – Dam passage – Hydrosystem passage Local-scale evaluations – Identifying bottlenecks – Evaluating structural and operational modifications Tag effects Cautionary note
Modifications for Pacific lamprey Velocity
HDX only: from release All radios: from release Relatively consistent patterns among years Upstream escapement: among-year comparison
BON TDA JDA MCN PRD John Day R Deschutes R Klickitat R 3% Tributaries = 13% IHD 31% Main stem sites = 87% Reservoirs= 41% Tailrace and fishway= 46% 5% 2% 1% 15% 14% 1% Distribution: 185 radio-tagged lampreys that passed BON Last detections: 2009
Escapement: Release to Bonneville exit (2009) Weighted regressions r 2 = 0.47 r 2 = 0.08 r 2 = 0.54 Small n Upstream escapement: size effects by tag type Similar results in 2007-2008 Radio tag effect across size classes Radio tag effect depends
Tag effect depends on relative tag size
“Motivation” and interpreting results Current evidence suggests adult lamprey home at very coarse scales or not at all (use other cues for breeding site selection) Challenging to interpret “failed” passage attempts – Successful downstream spawning? Using multiple lines of inquiry (including multiple tag types)
How to prioritize improvements at a dam? Keefer et al 2012
Or across all dams
Prioritization among dams:
Spatial Scale of Investigation Short scale/local (specific structures, behavior; 1-10 m spatial scales) – Optical video – DIDSON Video – PIT evaluation (specific antennas) – Acoustic telemetry w/ 3D receiver array Meso-scale (fishways, habitat use, individual dams; 10- 1000 m spatial scales) – Radio or Acoustic – PIT Large-scale evaluations (escapement, distribution, straying, etc. 10-1000s km) – Radio or Acoustic – PIT
Telemetry tool box “…if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”
Telemetry tool box “…if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”
Selected References Close, D. A., M. S. Fitzpatrick, C. M. Lorion, H. W. Li and C. B. Schreck. 2003. Effects of intraperitoneally implanted radio transmitters on the swimming performance and physiology of Pacific lamprey. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23(4): 1184-1192. Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, R. R. Ringe and I. C. Bjornn. 2004. Regurgitation rates of intragastric radio transmitters by adult Chinook salmon and steelhead during upstream migration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24(1): 47-54. Matter, A. L. and B. P. Sandford. 2003. A comparison of migration rates of radio- and PIT-tagged adult Snake River chinook salmon through the Columbia River hydropower system. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 967-973. Moser, M. L., D. A. Ogden and B. P. Sandford. 2007. Effects of surgically implanted transmitters on anguilliform fishes: lessons from lamprey. Journal of Fish Biology 71(6): 1847-1852. Caudill, C. C., W. R. Daigle, M. L. Keefer, C. T. Boggs, M. A. Jepson, B. J. Burke, R. W. Zabel, T. C. Bjornn and C. A. Peery. 2007. Slow dam passage in adult Columbia River salmonids associated with unsuccessful migration: delayed negative effects of passage obstacles or condition-dependent mortality? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64(7): 979-995. High, B., C. A. Peery and D. H. Bennett. 2006. Temporary staging of Columbia River summer steelhead in coolwater areas and its effect on migration rates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135(2): 519-528. Keefer, M. L., C. C. Caudill, C. A. Peery and S. R. Lee. 2008. Transporting Juvenile salmonids around dams impairs adult migration. Ecological Applications 18(8): 1888-1900. Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, W. R. Daigle, M. A. Jepson, S. R. Lee, C. T. Boggs, K. R. Tolotti and B. J. Burke. 2005. Escapement, harvest, and unknown loss of radio-tagged adult salmonids in the Columbia River - Snake River hydrosystem. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(4): 930-949. Keefer, M. L., G. A. Taylor, D. F. Garletts, G. A. Gauthier, T. M. Pierce and C. C. Caudill. 2010. Prespawn mortality in adult spring Chinook salmon outplanted above barrier dams. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19(3): 361-372. Naughton, G. P., C. C. Caudill, M. L. Keefer, T. C. Bjornn, L. C. Stuehrenberg and C. A. Peery. 2005. Late-season mortality during migration of radio- tagged adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Columbia River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(1): 30-47.