Fidelity and Survival of Juvenile Coho Salmon in Response to a Flood

Bell, Ethan; Duffy, Walt G.; Roelofs, Terry D.

doi:10.1577/1548-8659(2001)130<0450:fasojc>2.0.co;2

Cited by 44 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This test verifies that laboratory and field applications using 23 mm PIT tags are relatively reliable. The rate of tag loss we observed is similar to others who have reported PIT tag retention/loss rates, primarily for 12 mm PIT tags, 2.3 -5% loss (Ombredane et al 1998, Juanes et al 2000, Bell et al 2001, Gries and Letcher 2002. Survival for the naturally produced fish returned to the laboratory was relatively low, in fact even lower for untagged fish than tagged fish.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…In most instances fish are PIT tagged and physically recaptured to gain individual information on life history characteristics (e.g. Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000), for use in individually-based models of population dynamics (van Winkle et al 1993;Juanes et al 2000), or to gain insight concerning variability in individual behaviors (Bell et al 2001). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Zydlewski¹,

Winter²,

McClanahan³

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zydlewski¹,

Winter²,

McClanahan³

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fish assemblages were more resistant to erosive floods in complex reaches with boulders and woody debris than in more uniform reaches (PEARSONS et al, 1992). Finally, at a larger scale, backwater habitats outside the main channel are refuges for fish during floods (JOWETT and RICHARDSON, 1994;ALLOUCHE et al, 1999;BELL et al, 2001), revealing the interest to maintain lateral connectivity of streams.…”

Section: Floodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature and Functions of Cover for Riverine Fish.

Allouche¹

2002

Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review attempts to assess the nature and the role of cover for riverine fish assemblages. Although early identified as a key factor for fish distribution, especially for salmonids, cover (i.e. woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, turbidity...) still remains the variable least considered in the studies of fish habitat relationships. This is mainly due to the diversity of ecological functions of cover structures in fish assemblages. Cover structures are structuring components of fish habitat and contribute to the biological productivity of streams. But, at the individual scale, cover fulfils three main functions: protection against predators, visual isolation reducing competition, and hydraulic shelter. In fact, the use of cover by fish results from a trade-off between the costs and the benefits associated with its use. Although the relationships between fish and cover appear extremely complex and context-specific, a growing body of evidence highlights the potential role of cover for management purposes.Key-words : cover, shelter, riverine fish, fish habitat. NATURE ET FONCTIONS DU COUVERT POUR LES POISSONS LOTIQUES. RÉSUMÉCet article décrit la typologie ainsi que les fonctions du couvert pour les poissons lotiques. Identifié très tôt comme un facteur explicatif de la distribution des poissons, principalement chez les salmonidés, le couvert (i.e. débris ligneux, sous-berges, blocs, turbidité...) demeure néanmoins la variable la moins considérée dans l'étude des relations habitat-poissons. Ceci s'explique notamment par les fonctions écologiques très diverses que le couvert remplit vis-à-vis des assemblages piscicoles. Les structures pourvoyeuses de couvert sont des agents structurants de l'habitat piscicole et contribuent à la productivité biologique des cours d'eau. Au niveau du microhabitat du poisson, le couvert remplit trois fonctions majeures : anti-prédation, isolation visuelle limitant la compétition, et abri hydraulique. En fait, l'utilisation du couvert par les poissons résulte d'un compromis entre les coûts et les bénéfices associés d'où l'extrême complexité de cette relation qui semble plutôt spécifique à un contexte donné. Malgré les difficultés d'extrapolation, de nombreux travaux mettent en évidence la signification écologique ainsi que l'utilisation potentielle du couvert pour une gestion optimale des ressources piscicoles.Mots-clés : couvert, abri, poissons lotiques, habitat piscicole.

show abstract

“…The BPA suggests McKinley Creek juvenile coho use an average of three habitats before final seaward migration. Previous work has indicated that coastal coho are fairly stationary during the juvenile life stage (Bell et ai, 2001;Roni and Quinn, 2001b) and it is often assumed that deviations from strict site-fidelity in juvenile coho are caused by forced migration (Chapman, 1962;Bell et al, 2001;Roni and Quinn, 2001b;Minakawa and Kraft, 2005). The results of my study indicate that emigration may be a normal characteristic of interior Fraser coho life history.…”

Section: Habitat Use In the Horsefly Watershedsupporting

confidence: 48%

Factors influencing habitat use by juvenile interior Fraser coho.

Warren¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fidelity and Survival of Juvenile Coho Salmon in Response to a Flood

Cited by 44 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Nature and Functions of Cover for Riverine Fish.

Factors influencing habitat use by juvenile interior Fraser coho.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About