Comparative Performance of Acoustic-tagged and PIT-tagged Juvenile Salmonids

Abstract

PREFACENumerous research tools and technologies are currently being used to evaluate fish passage and survival to determine the impacts of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) on endangered and threatened juvenile salmonids. Among these are the PIT tag, balloon tag, hydroacoustic evaluation, radio telemetry, and acoustic telemetry. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but options are restricted in some situations because of limited capabilities of a specific technology, lack of detection capability downstream, or availability of adequate numbers of fish. In these situations, alternative telemetry technologies have been used to evaluate passage behavior and estimate survival. However, there remains concern about the effects of different tags or tagging procedures on fish performance.The recently developed Juvenile Salmonid Acoustic Telemetry System (JSATS) transmitter is approximately 40% smaller than transmitters previously available to researchers throughout the Columbia River Basin. The JSATS acoustic transmitter measures 13-17 mm long × 5-6 mm wide and tapers from 4 to 2 mm high. The tag weighs 0.60-0.66 g, and its coding method provides over 65,000 individual tag codes.In addition to its small size, the acoustic tag does not require the trailing antenna associated with radio transmitters, which may affect swimming performance and survival. Determining whether fish tagged with a JSATS acoustic tag can provide unbiased estimates of passage behavior and survival within the performance life of the tag is important to regional managers.Studies conducted in 2002 and 2003 evaluated the effects of the JSATS acoustic tag on predator avoidance, growth, mortality, and tag expulsion in a laboratory setting for up to a 30-d period (McComas et al. 2007). These studies found that growth and survival were similar between JSATS acoustic-tagged juvenile Chinook salmon and controls. However, effects of the JSATS tag on fish performance have not been evaluated in the field, and tag effects have not been evaluated for periods longer than 30 d.To provide additional insight on potential JSATS tag effects, a multi-agency collaborative study involving both field and laboratory evaluations was undertaken during 2006. Field work was headed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and laboratory evaluations by Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The NMFS and PNNL compared survival and behavior of acoustic-tagged yearling Chinook salmon to those tagged with PIT tags as they migrated through the FCRPS. Separate laboratory studies by PNNL and USGS were conducted concurrently with the field work to evaluate the effects of acoustic tags on tissue response and tag loss for periods of up to 90 d. In addition, the USGS conducted iv laboratory evaluations of predator avoidance, and PNNL evaluated tag effects on growth and mortality and the minimal fish sizes appropriate for implantation of the JSATS tag.This document contains four individual reports detailing each of these s...

Pushing the envelope: Micro-transmitter effects on small juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

“…Fish were maintained in the artificial seawater system through the remainder of the holding period. Timing of transfer to seawater was based primarily on yearling travel time to ocean entry [41]. For subyearlings, travel time during the summer migration varies considerably [42]; nevertheless, we transferred these groups to seawater at holding day 15 for comparison purposes.…”

Ecology of Juvenile Salmon in Shallow Tidal Freshwater Habitats of the Lower Columbia River, 2007?2010

“…We do not know how the implanted tag may have affected its behavior. Hockersmith et al (2008), researching tag effects studies for the same types of transmitters and species of fish we studied, reported that travel times in most reaches were not significantly different between fish tagged with JSATS transmitters and fish tagged with PIT tags. Furthermore, laboratory experiments by Hockersmith et al (2008) showed low mortalities (<4.5%) of yearling Chinook salmon for both tag types.…”

“…Hockersmith et al (2008), researching tag effects studies for the same types of transmitters and species of fish we studied, reported that travel times in most reaches were not significantly different between fish tagged with JSATS transmitters and fish tagged with PIT tags. Furthermore, laboratory experiments by Hockersmith et al (2008) showed low mortalities (<4.5%) of yearling Chinook salmon for both tag types. For subyearling Chinook salmon, mortality among control and PIT-tag treatments ranged up to 7.7%, while integrated and nonintegrated treatments had slightly higher rates (up to 8.3% and 7.9%, respectively).…”

Evaluation of healing progression at surgical incision sites and the use of antiseptics for enhancing post-operative survival in subyearling Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

“…PLOS ONE Marking recovery tank additive Subyearling Chinook salmon [63] Surgical work surface coating Juvenile pacific lamprey [64], juvenile salmonids [65] https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288056.t002…”