Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the Columbia Basin
description
Transcript of Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the Columbia Basin
Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the
Columbia BasinChris CaudillUniversity of Idaho
Fish Ecology Research LabDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Sciences
Moscow, Idaho [email protected]
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, …
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 TagsHabitat Radio Telemetry Acoustic Telemetry
Shallow Excellent (km’s) Poor to Good (meters to 100s m)
Deep (>10 m) Poor Good (~ km)
Saline Poor Good
Turbulent Good Fair to Poor
Large Mainstem Rivers Poor to Excellent (Fish depth) Good to Excellent
Tailrace V. good Fair
Spillway V. good Fair to Poor (Entrained air)
Fishways Excellent “Poor”
Reservoirs Poor to Excellent (Fish depth) Good to Excellent
Tributaries Excellent Fair to Poor (Entrained air)
Factor Radio Telemetry Acoustic Telemetry
Tag life days to years days to years
Cost per tag $200-300 $200-300
External antenna Yes No
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 ValleyFall Creek (Columbia R. rkm 503)
Year Group # released # recovered
% recovered
%PSM
2008 PIT 195 32 29.0 9.4
2009 PIT 175 33 16.5 84.8Double 25 21 84.0 90.5
2010 PIT 125 62 31 41.9Double 75 54 72 63.0
2011 PIT 125 27 21.6 14.8Double 75 22 29.3 18.2Unmarked 128 24 18.8 33.3
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
BO-TD TD-JD JD-MN MN-IH/PR IH-LM LM-GO GO-GR
Esc
apem
ent
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Spring-Summer Chinook
Fall Chinook
Steelhead
Esc1Esc2Esc3
Reach
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
Telemetry Approaches
Bonneville Dam Chinook Salmon Tagging 2010
04/10 04/26 05/12 05/28 06/13 06/29Date
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
5
10
15
20Radio-tags Chinook Counted
Chino
oksa
lmon
radio
-tagg
ed
Chino
ok co
unt a
t Bon
nevil
le Da
m (t
hous
ands
)Spring Run Summer Run n = 153n = 447
Tagging early in run, in contrast to Corbett et al. 2012
Monitoring arrays
4 Lower Columbia dams
4 Lower Snake dams
Priest Rapids, Wanapum
Monitoring arrays
4 Lower Columbia dams
4 Lower Snake dams
Priest Rapids, Wanapum
Major tributaries
≥ 147 Receiver Sites / yrMobile Tracking
Multi-antenna rec’vs at dams
Single antenna rec’vs at other sites
Bonneville Dam Chinook Salmon Tagging
04/10 04/26 05/12 05/28 06/13 06/29Date
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
5
10
15
20Radio-tags Chinook Counted
Chino
oksa
lmon
radio
-tagg
ed
Chino
ok co
unt a
t Bon
nevil
le Da
m (t
hous
ands
)Spring Run Summer Run n = 153n = 447
Proportional tagging useful for expansions, sampling all stocks
Radio-tagged Adult Salmon & Steelhead Bonneville Dam
Spring Chinook
SummerChinook
FallChinook Steelhead Sockeye Total
1996 703 150 — 765 — 1,6181997 680 335 55 975 577 2,6221998 693 264 1,032 — — 1,9892000 801 331 1,117 1,160 — 3,4092001 899 366 992 1,151 — 3,4082002 913 304 1,066 1,273 — 3,5562003 806 378 666 642 — 2,4922004 356 201 606 300 — 1,4632005 — 143 605 — — 7482006 358 22 — — — 3802007 300 200 — — — 5002009 376 223 — — — 5992010 447 153 — — — 600Total 7,332 3,070 6,139 6,266 577 23,384
Bonneville Dam HD PIT Radio Total1997 — 197 1971998 — 255 2551999 — 350 3502000 — 298 2982001 — 201 2012002 — 398 3982005 841 — 8412006 2,000 — 2,0002007 757 — 7572008 609 595 1,2042009 368 596 9642010 13 312 325Total 4,588 1,503 6,091
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
LPSVariable width weir
Manipulated Spill at Bonneville Dam
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2003
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
2000
Dis
char
ge (k
cfs)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
2002
BON PH2 LFS
Example Passage MetricsBefore-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 Chinook Range (2002-2007)Metric n Estimate n Estimate
1 Entrance efficiency 116 0.90 39-167
0.74-0.98
2 Exit ratio 104 0.00 29-139
0.00-0.38
3 Median approach to entry
85 42 min 20-138
5.6-46.0 min
4 Median entry to ladder 78 13 min 11-132
7.4-11.8 min
5 Approach-entry > 1 h 85 36% 20-138
13.9-25.8%
6 Entry-ladder > 1 h 78 1% 11-132
5.5-12.9%
0 50 100 150 200 2500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70M
edia
n Ca
scad
es Is
land
app
roac
h to
ent
ry ti
me
(min
)
2007
2009
2010
Median Bradford Island approach to entry time (min)
Cascades Island vs. Bradford IslandSpring 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 ScaleLinking environmental experience to movement
Temperature effects: Individual to Population ScaleLinking 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
Tailrace Forebay
Fishway
Exit Temperature
Junction Pool Temperature
Seasonal Patterns of Δ TLower Granite Dam
2001
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Tem
pera
ture
(deg
C)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Forebay Temperature
Exit Pool - Junction Pool
Ladder Passage Time
column vs f1a1 column vs f1a1
LGr FPLT
Run and Category
SPCK 0 SPCK 1 SPCK 2 SUCK 0 SUCK 1 SUCK 2 FC 0 FC 1 FC 2 SH 0 SH 1 SH 2
Mea
n P
assa
ge T
ime
(hou
rs +
/- 95
% C
I)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
N = 537 82 16 55 83 37 88 30 7195 152 49
A B BA A BA A A
Different letters indicate contrast P < 0.025
A B B
Population Effects: Sockeye Salmon 1997
Tagging Date at Bonneville
0
20
40
60
80N
umbe
r of s
ocke
ye sa
lmon
1 June 15 June 1 July 15 July 1 Aug 15 Aug10
15
20
25
Tem
pera
ture
at B
onne
ville
(ºC)
Pfate<0.001Successful (n=388)
Unaccounted (n=100)
Late Entry
Early Entry
Willamette Valley PSM
Keefer et al. 2010
Environmental Factors
Energetic Status/Timing
Condition/Disease Status
PSMSite
> NF Dam
< Fara
day
< Rive
r Mill
> Ben
nett
< Ben
nett
Little
NF
> Leb
anon
> Lea
burg
< Lea
burg
> Fall
Creek MF
Mea
n pr
espa
wn
mor
talit
y (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Clackamas N. Santiam S. McKenzie MF WillametteSantiam
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
Date at Bonneville Dam
3 Aug
13 A
ug
23 A
ug2 S
ep
12 S
ep
22 S
ep
30 S
ep2 O
ct
Per
cent
0
20
40
60
80
100
Hanford
MCB-BPH
Deschutes
Yakima
> Priest Rapids Dam
Snake
Date
1 Apr 20 Apr 10 May 30 May 19 Jun 9 Jul 29 Jul 18 Aug
Little SalmonSF Clearwater
Lolo CreekIcicle
TucannonUmatillaLochsa
NF ClearwaterSalmon
Clear CreekClearwater
John DayEntiatWind
Grande RondeYakima
Warm Springs H.Dworshak H.
L. White SalmonRingold H.
MF SalmonPelton Dam T.
DeschutesWhite Salmon
HoodUpper Salmon
KlickitatSF Salmon
ImnahaWenatchee
MethowWells Dam
SimilkameenOkanogan
SF ClearwaterSalmonLochsa
Grande RondeLittle SalmonClear Creek
NF ClearwaterClearwaterLolo CreekMF Salmon
Dworshak H.Imnaha
Upper SalmonSF Salmon
IcicleEntiat
WenatcheeMethow
Wells DamSimilkameen
Okanogan
Keefer et al. 2004 (NAJFM) Jepson et al. 2004 (NAJFM)
Back assignment of unmarked adults using final locations
Date at Bonneville Dam
Escapement data
BO-TD TD-JD JD-MN MN-IH/PR IH-LM LM-GO GO-GR
Esc
apem
ent
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Spring-Summer Chinook
Fall Chinook
Steelhead
Esc1Esc2Esc3
Reach
Fisheries in lower reservoirs
Increase for upstream Reaches
Esc1 uncorrected for fisheries take
Esc2 Fisheries take in tribs considered successful
Esc3 All fisheries take considered successful
Keefer et al. 2005
Across scales: Delayed effectsSpring Chinook at Bonneville Dam 2002
Caudill et al. 2007
Dam Passage Time & Fate
Dam Passage Time & Fate
Mechanism remain uninvestigated
Barging and straying
• Does barging juveniles affect adult behavior?
HOME
?
Juvenile migration “route” and adult migration
SpawningMarineGrowth
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
Homed Strayed Unknown Fell back Homed Strayed Unknown Fell back
Mea
n pe
rcen
t (%
+/-
1 SE
)
0
10
20
3060
70
80
90
100
In-riverBarged
A) Chinook Salmon B) Steelhead
*
*
*
*
*
* ***
Keefer et al. 2008 (EA)
Barging and straying
Stray location
Eagle
Cr.
Herman
Cr.
Wind R.
L. Wh. S
almon R
.
Wh. Salm
on R.
Klickit
at R.
Desch
utes R
.
John D
ay R
.
Umatilla
R.
Tucannon R
.
Upper Columbia
R.
Perc
ent (
%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Perc
ent (
%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
In-riverBarged
A) Chinook salmon
B) Steelhead
“Early right turn” suggestseffect of barging on the recallrate or timing of imprintedcues near tributary-mainstemconfluence
Stra
ys /
(Stra
ys +
Nat
ives
)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Donor population size (1,000s)
0 50 100 150 2000.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 50 100 150 200
Recipient population = 500 Recipient population = 1000
Recipient population = 5000 Recipient population = 10000
1% Stray
3%
5%
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
Hour0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0
Diff
eren
ce (f
t)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0Tr
eatm
ent
"Con
trol
"Jul 26Jul 23Jul 22 Jul 24 Jul 25
Treatment Treatment Control Treatment Control
Trea
tmen
t
Trea
tmen
t
Con
trol
Velo
city
DamBON TDA JDA MCN IHR PRD
Perc
ent p
ast (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
20052006200720082009
HDX only: from release
All radios: from release
DamBON TDA JDA MCN IHR PRD
Perc
ent p
ast (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
200720082009
Relatively consistentpatterns among years
Upstream escapement: among-year comparison
BON
TDA
JDA MCN
PRD
John Day RDeschutes R
Klickitat R
3%
Tributaries = 13%
IHD
31%
Main stem sites = 87%Reservoirs= 41%Tailrace and fishway= 46%
5%
2%
2%
1%
15%
15%14%
1%
Distribution: 185 radio-tagged lampreys that passed BONLast detections: 2009
Weight (g)
200-2
50
250-3
00
300-3
50
350-4
00
400-4
50
450-5
00
500-5
50
550-6
00
600-6
50
650-7
00>7
00
Perc
ent (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
100Double tagRadio onlyHD only
Escapement: Release to Bonneville exit (2009)
Weighted regressions
r2 = 0.47
r2 = 0.08
r2 = 0.54
Small nSmall n
Upstream escapement: size effects by tag type
Similar resultsin 2007-2008
Radio tag effectacross 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 ReferencesClose, 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.