Estimating migration timing and abundance in partial migratory systems by integrating continuous antenna detections with physical captures

Abstract

Many populations migrate between two different habitats (e.g. wintering/foraging to breeding area, mainstem–tributary, river–lake, river–ocean, river–side channel) as part of their life history. Detection technologies, such as passive integrated transponder (PIT) antennas or sonic receivers, can be placed at boundaries between habitats (e.g. near the confluence of rivers) to detect migratory movements of marked animals. Often, these detection systems have high detection probabilities and detect many individuals but are limited in their ability to make inferences about abundance because only marked individuals can be detected. Here, we introduce a mark–recapture modelling approach that uses detections from a double‐array PIT antenna system to imply movement directionality from arrays and estimate migration timing. Additionally, when combined with physical captures, the model can be used to estimate abundances for both migratory and non‐migratory groups and help quantify partial migration. We first test our approach using simulation, and results indicate our approach displayed negligible bias for total abundance (less than ±1%) and slight biases for state‐specific abundance estimates (±1%–6%). We fit our model to array detections and physical captures of three native fishes (humpback chub [Gila cypha], flannelmouth sucker [Catostomus latipinnis] and bluehead sucker [Catostomus discobolus]) in the Little Colorado River (LCR) in Grand Canyon, AZ, a system that exhibits partial migration (i.e. includes residents and migrants). Abundance estimates from our model confirm that, for all three species, migratory individuals are much more numerous than residents. There was little difference in movement timing between 2021 (a year without preceding winter/spring floods) and 2022 (a year with a small flood occurring in early April). In both years, flannelmouth sucker arrived in mid‐March whereas humpback chub and bluehead sucker arrivals occurred early‐ to mid‐April. With humpback chub and flannelmouth sucker, movement timing was influenced by body size so that large individuals were more likely to arrive early compared to smaller individuals. With more years of data, this model framework could be used to evaluate ecological questions pertaining to flow cues and movement timing or intensity, relative trends in migrants versus residents and ecological drivers of skipped spawning.