Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 582, Issue 1, pp 171–185 | Cite as

PIT telemetry as a method to study the habitat requirements of fish populations: application to native and stocked trout movements

  • Amílcar Teixeira
  • Rui M. V. Cortes
Fish Telemetry

Abstract

Passive integrated transponder (PIT) technology was used to study the behaviour of fishes during the summer season in two headwater streams of northeastern Portugal. A total of 71 PIT tags (12 mm long × 2.1 mm diameter) were surgically implanted in 1+ stocked (39) and native (32) brown trout of two size classes (<20.0 and ≥20.0 cm). Eight independent antennae, connected to a multi-point decoder (MPD reader) unit, were placed in different microhabitats, selected randomly every 3 days during the observation period (29 August–9 September in Baceiro stream and 19 September–4 October in Sabor stream). The results confirmed this method as a suitable, labour efficient tool to assess the movement and habitat use of sympatric stocked and native trout populations. About 76.9% of stocked and 59.4% of native PIT tagged trouts were detected. Multivariate techniques (CCA, DFA and classification tree) showed a separation in habitat use between the two sympatric populations. Stocked trout mainly used the microhabitats located in the middle of the channel with higher depths and without cover. Furthermore, these fishes displayed a greater mobility and a diel activity pattern different to native trout populations.

Keywords

PIT tag Brown trout Stocking Habitat use Movement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jorge Bochechas (Direcção Geral de Recursos Florestais), who made possible this collaboration, Vitor Rego, Julieta Sampaio (Circunscrição Florestal do Norte) and Graça Barreira (Serviços Florestais-Núcleo de Bragança) who provided all the conditions in the fishfarms, and Tiago Martins and Paula Escalda for their assistance on field work. Ray Vogensen provided helpful suggestions, which led to linguistic improvements of this manuscript.

References

  1. Barbin-Zydlewski, G., A. Haro, K. G. Whalen & S. D. McCormick, 2001. Performance of stationary and portable passive transponder detection systems for monitoring of fish movements. Journal of Fish Biology 58: 1471–1475.Google Scholar
  2. Belanger, G. & M. A. Rodriguez, 2001. Homing behaviour of stream-dwelling brook charr following experimental displacement. Journal of Fish Biology 59: 987–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breiman, L., J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen & C. J. Stone, 1984. Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software. Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Bridger, C. J. & R. K. Booth, 2003. The effects of biotelemetry transmitter. Presence and attachment procedures on fish physiology and behavior. Reviews in Fisheries Science 11: 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bubb, D. H., M. C. Lucas, T. J. Thom & P. Rycroft, 2002. The potential use of PIT telemetry for identifying and tracking crayfish in their natural environment. Hydrobiologia 483: 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunt, C. M., S. J. Cooke, C. Katopodis & R. S. McKinley, 1999. Movement and summer habitat of brown trout (Salmo trutta) below a pulsed discharge hydroelectric generating station. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burrell, K. H., J. J. Isely, D. B. Bunnell Jr, D. H. Van Lear & C. A. Dolloff, 2000. Seasonal movement of brown trout in a Southern Appalachian River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 1373–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro-Santos, T., A. Haro & S. Walk, 1996. A passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag system for monitoring fishways. Fisheries Research 28: 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowx, I. G., 1999. An appraisal of stocking strategies in the light of developing country constraints. Fisheries Management and Ecology 6: 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cucherousset, J., J. M. Roussel, R. Keeler, R. A. Cunjak & R. Stump, 2005. The use of two new portable 12-mm PIT tag detectors to track small fish in shallow streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deverill, J. E., C. E. Adams & C. W. Bean, 1999. Prior residence, aggression and territory acquisition in hatchery-reared and wild brown trout. Journal of Fish Biology 55: 868–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolloff, C. A., J. Kershner & R. Thurow, 1996. Underwater observations. In Murphy, B. R. & D. W. Willis (eds), Fisheries Techniques, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 533–554.Google Scholar
  13. Fausch, K. D., 1984. Profitable stream positions for salmonids: relating specific growth rate to net energy gain. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heggenes, J., 1988. Physical habitat selection by brown trout (Salmo trutta) in riverine systems. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 64: 74–90.Google Scholar
  15. Heggenes, J., A. Brabrand & S. J. Saltveit, 1990. Comparison of three methods for studies of stream habitat use by young brown trout and Atlantic salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horton, W. D. & T. Cochnauer, 1978. Instream flow methodology evaluation, biological criteria determination, and water quality needs for selected Idaho streams. Report 14–16-0001-77090. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Jerome, IA.Google Scholar
  17. Joyce, M. P. & W. A. Hubert, 2003. Snorkeling as an alternative to depletion electrofishing for assessing Cutthroat and brown trout in stream pools. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 18: 215–222.Google Scholar
  18. Lucas, M. C. & E. Baras, 2000. Methods for studying spatial behaviour of freshwater fishes in natural environment. Fish and Fisheries 1: 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maki-Petays, A., A. Huusko, J. Erkinaro & T. Muotka, 2002. Transferability of habitat suitability criteria of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McMichael, G. A., T. N. Pearsons & S. A. Leider, 1999. Behavioral interactions among hatchery-reared steelhead smolts and wild Onchorhynchus mykiss in natural streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 948–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mesa, M. G., 1991. Variation in feeding, aggression and position choice between hatchery and wild cutthroat trout in an artificial stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 723–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ombredane, D., J. L. Baglinière & F. Marchand, 1998. The effects of Passive Integrated Transponder tags on survival and growth of juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) and their use for studying movement in a small river. Hydrobiologia 371: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ovidio, M., E. Baras, D. Goffaux, C. Birtles & J. C. Philippart, 1998. Environmental unpredictability rules the autumn migration of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in the Belgian Ardennes. Hydrobiologia 371/372: 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pearsons, T. N. & C. W. Hopley, 1999. A practical approach for assessing ecological risks associated with fish stocking programs. Fisheries 24: 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prentice, E. F., T. A. Flagg & C. S. McCutcheon, 1990a. Feasibility of using implantable passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7: 317–322.Google Scholar
  26. Prentice, E. F., T. A. Flagg, C. S. McCutcheon & D. F. Brastow, 1990b. PIT-Tag monitoring systems for hydroelectric dams and fish hatcheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7: 323–334.Google Scholar
  27. Quintella, B. R., N. O. Andrade, R. Espanhol & P. R. Almeida, 2005. The use of PIT telemetry to study movements of ammocoetes and metamorphosing sea lampreys in river beds. Journal of Fish Biology 66: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Riley, W. D., M. O. Eagle, M. J. Ives, P. Rycroft & A. Wilkinson, 2003. A portable passive integrated transponder multi-point decoder system for monitoring habitat use and behaviour of freshwater fish in small streams. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10: 265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rincón, P. A. & J. Lobón-Cerviá, 1993. Microhabitat use by stream-resident brown trout: bioenergetic consequences. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122: 575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roussel, J. M., A. Bardonnet & A. Claude, 1999. Microhabitats of brown trout when feeding on drift and when resting in a lowland salmonid brook: effects on Weighted Usable Area. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 146: 413–429.Google Scholar
  31. Roussel, J. M., A. Haro & R. A. Cunjak, 2000. Field test of a new method for tracking small fishes in shallow rivers using passive integrated transponder PIT technology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 1326–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roussel, J. M., R. A. Cunjak, R. Newbury, D. Caissie & A. Haro, 2004. Movements and habitat use by PIT-tagged Atlantic salmon parr in early winter: the influence of anchor ice. Freshwater Biology 49: 1026–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scruton, D. A., R. S. McKinley, N. Kouwen, W. Eddy & R. K. Booth, 2002. Use of telemetry and hidraulic modelling to evaluate and improve fish guidance efficiency at a louve rand bypass system for downstream-migration Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts and kelts. Hydrobiologia 483: 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. STATSOFT, Inc. 2004. STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System). Version 7. www.statsoft.com. Tulsa, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Steward, C. R. & T. C. Bjornn, 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery fish: a synthesis of published literature. Technical Report n° 90-1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bonneville Power Administration.Google Scholar
  36. Ter Braak, C. J. F., 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ter Braak, C. J. F. & P. Smilauer, 1998. CANOCO. Reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Thurow, R. F. & D. J. Schill, 1996. Comparison of day snorkeling, night snorkeling, and electrofishing to estimate bull trout abundance and size structure in a second-order Idaho stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 314–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vismara, R., A. Azzellino, R. Bosi, G. Crosa & G. Gentili, 2001. Habitat suitability curves for brown trout (Salmo trutta fario L.) in the river Arda, Northern Italy: comparing univariate and multivariate approaches. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber, E. D. & K. D. Fausch, 2003. Interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids in streams: differences in biology and evidence for competition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1018–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weber, E. D. & K. D. Fausch, 2005. Competition between hatchery-reared and wild juvenile Chinook salmon in enclosures in the Sacramento River, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White, R. J., J. R. Karr & W. Nehlsen, 1995. Better roles for fish stocking in aquatic resource management. In Schramm, H. L. Jr. & R. G. Piper (eds), Uses and Effects of Cultured Fish in Aquatic Ecosystems, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 527–547.Google Scholar
  43. Young, M., 1999. Summer diel activity and movement of adult brown trout in high-elevation streams in Wyoming, U.S.A. Journal of Fish Biology 54: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIMO-Escola Superior Agrária Bragança, Campus Sta ApolóniaBragançaPortugal
  2. 2.Dep. FlorestalUniversidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto DouroVila-RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations