Evaluation of Fish Movements, Migration Patterns, and Population Abundance with Streamwidth PIT Tag Interrogation Systems, Final Report 2002.

Abstract

Executive SummaryTwo remote Streamwidth PIT tag Interrogation systems (SPIs) were operated continuously for over one year to test the feasibility of these systems for generating movement, migration, survival and smolt production estimates for salmonids. A total of 1,588 juvenile (< 100 mm FL) naturally produced salmonids (7 coho salmon, 482 cutthroat trout, and 1,099 steelhead) were PIT tagged above the upstream-most SPI (9 sites approximately 1 linear km each) in Fall 2001. Age at tagging for wild caught cutthroat and steelhead was 1 year. SPIs were operating before any PIT tagged fish were released in the creek. Over 390,000 detections were recorded from October 2001 to 31 July 2002. Efficiencies were site dependent, but overall detection efficiency for the creek was 97% with 95% confidence intervals of 91 -100%. PIT tag detection efficiency ranged from 55-100 % depending on the SPI and varied throughout the year with average efficiencies of 73 % and 89 %. SPI efficiency of PIT tag detection was not completely dependent on electronics noise levels or environmental conditions. Fish from all tagging locations were detected at the SPIs. Steelhead and cutthroat trout were primarily detected moving in the Spring (April -June) coincident with the anticipated smolt migration. Steelhead were also detected moving past SPIs at lower numbers in the Fall and Winter. Travel time between SPIs (downstream movement) was highly dependent on time of year. Travel time in the Spring was significantly faster (34.4 ± 7.0 hours) for all species than during any other time of year (763.1 ± 267.0 hours). Steelhead and cutthroat migrating in the Spring were the same age as those that did not migrate in the Spring. Peak of steelhead migration recorded at the two SPIs was 5/11 and 5/12 and the peak in the screw trap was recorded on 5/17. Steelhead smolt production estimates using SPIs (3,802 with 95% confidence intervals of 3,440 -4,245) was similar to those using more standard screw trap methods (approximately 5,400). All species used the fastermoving/deeper section of the creek at both SPIs. A backpack PIT tag detector was also developed and used as another remote "recapture" for additional accuracy in estimating population survival and recapture probability. This unit was used at an approximate efficiency of 24% to survey the creek after the Spring migration. Twenty-five individual fish were re-located. All PIT tag data were used to calculate survival and recapture probabilities using the Cormack-Jolly-Seber population model. Survival for steelhead was high and recapture probability depended greatly on season. Probability of recapture was highest in Spring (29.5%) and relatively low in all other seasons (< 7% in Fall, Winter, and Summer). Wild steelhead PIT tagged in the field and returned to the laboratory had a tag retention rate of 97.6%. A laboratory study was designed to determine the effects of 3-sized PIT tags (12 mm, 20 mm, and 23 mm) on survival and growth of individuals. Survival from surgical implantation of 23 mm PIT tags w...

Effects of passive integrated transponder tags on survival and growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

“…Such a high tag loss rate is greater than the accepted value for juvenile salmonids, which is usually below 10% [3,14,19,20,22,23]. The majority of 32 mm tag loss occurred among smaller individuals and was most likely caused by limited body cavity capacity.…”

“…In juvenile salmonids, the impact of smaller PIT tags (11 to 12 mm) on growth and mortality have generally been negligible (for example, brown trout Salmo trutta [3]; Atlantic salmon Salmo salar [19]) and tag retention rates are usually high (that is, 97% to 100% [3,19,20], see [21] for an exception). The efficacy of 23 mm PIT tags has also been tested among different species of juvenile salmonids (Atlantic salmon S. salar [10,22]; coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch [20]; steelhead O. mykiss [14,20,23]). For instance, Bateman and Gresswell [14] examined growth and survival of steelhead (73 to 97 mm FL) following intracoelomic surgical implantation of 23 mm tags.…”

Development and evaluation of portable PIT tag detection units: PITpacks

“…Traditional antennas are stationary and are used to monitor fish passage through hydroelectric facilities (Prentice et al, 1990), fishways (Castro-Santos et al, 1996) and small streams (Zydlewski et al, 2001(Zydlewski et al, , 2002. Portable PIT tag detection systems were also developed to allow operators to scan wadable waters in search of fish (Morhardt et al, 2000;Roussel et al, 2000;Zydlewski et al, 2001;Cucherousset et al, 2005;Quintella et al, 2005).…”

“…PIT tag detection systems, both stationary and portable, have been used extensively in Abernathy Creek, Longview, WA (Zydlewski et al, 2002). The size of Abernathy Creek (a third order tributary of the Columbia River) and the technology used in the construction of the portable backpack PIT units, PITpacks, differ markedly from those in previous studies utilizing portable PIT tag detection systems.…”

“…Full duplex transceivers send and receive signals (from the tag) at the same time, while half duplex transceivers send a signal and shut off to receive the return signal, making half duplex an inherently slower system. Twenty-three millimeter PIT tags can be detected from farther distances with the same equipment, but there use is restricted to fish larger than 100 mm (Zydlewski et al, 2002).…”