Upstream migration rates of radio‐tagged adult Chinook salmon in riverine habitats of the Columbia River basin

Abstract

Upstream migration rates were assessed for 1801 radio-tagged adult spring-summer Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha through 12 unimpounded river reaches in the Columbia River basin from 1997 to 2002. Reaches were 36 to 241 km long (mean ¼ 130 km) and included sections of the large Columbia and Snake Rivers and smaller free-flowing tributaries. Median Chinook salmon migration rates ranged from <10 km day À1 in the Deschutes and Clearwater Rivers to >35 km day À1 in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Using multivariate analyses, migration date explained the most variance in Chinook salmon migration rates while river discharge, migration year and migration reach were secondary. Both within and between years, Chinook salmon migrated more rapidly as migration date increased and more slowly when discharge was high. Arrival at high elevation spawning grounds at appropriate times and increased metabolic activity and reproductive maturation may explain the greater power of migration date, relative to river discharge, in predicting migration rates of Columbia basin spring-summer Chinook salmon. # 2004 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles

Late-season mortality during migration of radio-tagged adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Columbia River

“…Rates for the Hanford Reach in this study were higher than those of sockeye salmon in the Karluk (Gard 1973) and Copper rivers (Merritt and Roberson 1986) and of chinook salmon in the Kenai River (Bernard et al 1999) but lower than those of chinook salmon and fall-run steelhead in the Hanford Reach in 1997 (Keefer et al 2004b). Slower passage through the Hanford Reach by sockeye salmon, as compared with Columbia River chinook salmon or steelhead, may be related to smaller body size (Brett 1965;Weihs 1973).…”

What is “fallback”?: metrics needed to assess telemetry tag effects on anadromous fish behavior

“…However, the criterion of limited upstream movement following tagging has also been used to exclude fish from analyses (Sprankle, 2005) and to identify altered migratory behavior (Olney et al, 2006). Researchers should report whether the entirety of the telemetry record is used, or if data are only collected once a fish resumes migration or moves a specified distance upstream (Bernard et al, 1999;Beasley & Hightower, 2000;Keefer et al, 2004). If researchers provide information on all of these parameters in future telemetry field studies, a body of literature will emerge on which to base tagging protocols, and from which much can be learned about spawning behavior in the field.…”

Physiological Condition Differentially Affects the Behavior and Survival of Two Populations of Sockeye Salmon during Their Freshwater Spawning Migration

“…These population-specific differences in migration rate were likely further differentiated because the early-entry AdamsShuswap fish encountered higher river temperatures than those that they are historically adapted for, a finding consistent with interpopulation and interspecies comparisons among swimming performance and migration rates in Fraser River salmon Hanson et al 2008). If this slowed migration results in delayed arrival at spawning grounds, it could ultimately affect reproductive success by reducing longevity on the spawning grounds and by reducing the number of spawning opportunities (Smoker et al 1998;Keefer et al 2006). Concomitant with delayed arrival at spawning grounds, slower migration rates result in a longer duration spent migrating through regions with high water temperatures (e.g., Mission to Thompson; Patterson et al 2007;Donaldson et al 2009).…”

“…The onset of the freshwater phase of the sockeye salmon migration and the rate of travel to spawning areas are critical because as a consequence of having a fixed energy budget, sockeye salmon have a limited window of opportunity to reach spawning grounds, secure a mate, and spawn before death by senescence (Brett 1995). Delayed arrival at spawning grounds could result in fewer opportunities for reproduction (Smoker et al 1998;Keefer et al 2006).…”