Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 165:134 | Cite as

Behavioral responses by migrating juvenile salmonids to a subsea high-voltage DC power cable

  • Megan T. Wyman
  • A. Peter Klimley
  • Ryan D. Battleson
  • Thomas V. Agosta
  • Eric D. Chapman
  • Paul J. Haverkamp
  • Matthew D. Pagel
  • Robert Kavet
Original paper

Abstract

Currently, there is large-scale interest in developing marine-based energy sources and extensive subsea power cable networks. Despite growing concern that local perturbations in the magnetic field produced by current passing through these cables may negatively affect electromagnetically sensitive marine species, e.g., disrupted migration; few studies have examined free-living animals. We used acoustic biotelemetry tracking data to examine movement behaviors and migration success of a magneto-sensitive fish, late-fall run Chinook (LFC) salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), in relation to the energization of a magnetic field-producing subsea power cable, as well as other potentially influential environmental parameters. We analyzed detection records of tagged LFC salmon smolts during their out-migration through the San Francisco Bay before and after the installation of an 85-km high-voltage direct-current transmission cable. Cable energization did not significantly impact the proportion of fish that successfully migrated through the bay or the probability of successful migration. However, after cable energization, higher proportions of fish crossed the cable location and fish were more likely to be detected south of their normal migration route. Transit times through some regions were reduced during cable activity, but other environmental factors were more influential. Resource selection models indicated that proximity to the active cable varied by location: migration paths moved closer to the cable at some locations, but further away at others. Overall, cable activity appeared to have mixed, but limited effects on movements and migration success of smolts. Additional studies are recommended to further investigate impacts of subsea cables on fish migrations, including potential long-term consequences.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to kindly thank Trans Bay Cable LLC for providing cable load data for this study. We also thank the staff at Geometrics for their training and support (especially Mikhail Tchernychev, Ross Johnson, Randl Rivera, and Naiema Jackson) and the University of California, Davis, Biotelemetry Lab for their help and support (particularly Michael Thomas, Gabriel Singer, and Jamilynn Poletto). We would also like to thank Ximena Vergara of the Electric Power Research Institute for her help and support with the grant administration. The scope of this project would not be possible without the generous permission to use fish detection data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Bruce MacFarlane, Cyril Michel), US Fish and Wildlife (Robert Null, Pat Brandes), US Army Corps of Engineers (Peter LaCivita), and East Bay Municipal Utility District (Casey Del Real, James Smith, Michelle Workman). We also thank A. Gill and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful and constructive comments which improved the quality of the manuscript. This study was funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, award no. DE-EE0006382 and by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, through Interagency Agreement Number M14PG00012. It was funded through a cost share agreement with the Electric Power Research Institute (Project 1–105902).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed, including University of California, Davis, Animal Care Protocol (#15486).

Supplementary material

227_2018_3385_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (270 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 269 kb)

References

  1. Barton K (2016) MuMIn: multi-model inference. In: R package version 1.15.6. The comprehensive R archive network (CRAN), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bevelhimer MS, Cada GF, Fortner AM, Schweizer PE, Riemer K (2013) Behavioral responses of representative freshwater fish species to electromagnetic fields. Trans Am Fish Soc 142:802–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boehlert G, Gill A (2010) Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: a current synthesis. Oceanography 23:68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Carignan KS, Taylor LA, Eakins BW, Caldwell RJ, Friday DZ, Grothe PR, Lim E (2011) Digital elevation models of central California and San Francisco Bay: procedures, data sources, and analysis. In: NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-52. US Department of Commerce, Boulder, p 49Google Scholar
  7. Chapman ED, Hearn AR, Michel CJ, Ammann AJ, Lindley ST, Thomas MJ, Sandstrom PT, Singer GP, Peterson ML, MacFarlane RB, Klimley AP (2013) Diel movements of out-migrating Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts in the Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed. Environ Biol Fishes 96:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cormack RM (1964) Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals. Biometrika 51:429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunlop ES, Reid SM, Murrant M (2016) Limited influence of a wind power project submarine cable on a Laurentian Great Lakes fish community. J Appl Ichthyol 32:18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Register (2004) Endangered and threatened species; establishment of species of concern list, addition of species to species of concern list, description of factors for identifying species of concern, and revision of candidate species list under the Endangered Species Act. 69:19975–19979Google Scholar
  11. Fortin D, Fortin M-E, Beyer HL, Duchesne T, Courant S, Dancose K (2009) Group-size-mediated habitat selection and group fusion–fission dynamics of bison under predation risk. Ecology 90:2480–2490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fulton T (1902) Rate of growth of sea-fishes. Scotl Sci Investig Rep Scotl 20:226–334Google Scholar
  13. Gill AB, Huang Y, Gloyne-Philips I, Metcalfe J, Quayle V, Spencer J, Wearmouth V (2009) COWRIE 2.0 electromagnetic fields (EMF) phase 2: EMF-sensitive fish response to EM emissions from subsea electricity cables of the type used by the offshore renewable energy industry. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference COWRIE-EMF-1-06). https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Sensitive_Fish_Response_to_EM_Emissions_from_Offshore_Renewable.pdf
  14. Gill AB, Gloyne-Philips I, Kimber J, Sigray P (2014) Marine renewable energy, electromagnetic (EM) fields and EM-sensitive animals. In: Shields M, Payne A (eds) Marine renewable energy technology and environmental interactions, humanity and the sea. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grueber CE, Nakagawa S, Laws RJ, Jamieson IG (2011) Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions. J Evol Biol 24:699–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haugh CV, Walker MM (1998) Magnetic discrimination learning in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). J Navig 51:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hearn AR, Chapman ED, Singer GP, Brostoff WN, LaCivita PE, Klimley AP (2014) Movements of out-migrating late-fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) smolts through the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Environ Biol Fishes 97:851–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture–recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kavet R, Wyman MT, Klimley AP (2016) Modeling magnetic fields from a DC power cable buried beneath San Francisco Bay based on empirical measurements. PLoS One 11:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly JT, Klimley AP, Crocker CE (2007) Movements of green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in the San Francisco Bay estuary, California. Environ Biol Fishes 79:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kimber JA, Sims DW, Bellamy PH, Gill AB (2011) The ability of a benthic elasmobranch to discriminate between biological and artificial electric fields. Mar Biol 158:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kimmerer W (2004) Open water processes of the San Francisco Estuary: from physical forcing to biological responses. In: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. John Muir Institute of the Environment, DavisGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirschvink JL, Dizon AE, Westphal JA (1986) Evidence from strandings for geomagnetic sensitivity in cetaceans. J Exp Biol 120:1–24Google Scholar
  24. Klimley AP, Wyman MT, Kavet R (2017) Chinook salmon and green sturgeon migrate through San Francisco Estuary despite large distortions in the local magnetic field produced by bridges. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169031 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klinowska M (1985) Cetacean live stranding sites relate to geomagnetic topography. Aquat Mamm 1:27–32Google Scholar
  26. Mazerolle MJ (2016) AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). In: R package version 2.0-4. The comprehensive R archive network (CRAN), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  27. McCulloch D, Peterson D, Carlson P, Conomos T (1970) Some effects of fresh-water inflow on the flushing of south San Francisco Bay: a preliminary report. US Geol Surv Circ 637-A:19Google Scholar
  28. Michel CJ, Ammann AJ, Chapman ED, Sandstrom PT, Fish HE, Thomas MJ, Singer GP, Lindley ST, Klimley AP, MacFarlane RB (2013) The effects of environmental factors on the migratory movement patterns of Sacramento river yearling late-fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Environ Biol Fishes 96:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michel CJ, Ammann AJ, Lindley ST, Sandstrom PT, Chapman ED, Thomas MJ, Singer GP, Klimley AP, MacFarlane RB (2015) Chinook salmon outmigration survival in wet and dry years in California’s Sacramento river. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72:1749–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moyle P (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  31. Normandeau Associates Inc., Exponent Inc., Tricas T, Gill A (2011) Effects of EMFs from undersea power cables on elasmobranchs and other marine species. OCS study BOEMRE 2011-09. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region, CamarilloGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connell CP, He P (2014) A large scale field analysis examining the effect of magnetically treated baits and barriers on teleost and elasmobranch behavior. Ocean Coast Manag 96:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Connell CP, Abel DC, Gruber SH, Stroud EM, Rice PH (2011) Response of juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris, to a magnetic barrier simulating a beach net. Ocean Coast Manag 54:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perry R, Castro-Santos T, Holbrook C, Sandford B (2012) Using mark-recapture models to estimate survival from telemetry data. In: Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Perry RW, Brandes PL, Burau JR, Klimley AP, MacFarlane B, Michel C, Skalski JR (2013) Sensitivity of survival to migration routes used by juvenile Chinook salmon to negotiate the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. Environ Biol Fishes 96:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Putman NF, Lohmann KJ, Putman EM, Quinn TP, Klimley AP, Noakes DLG (2013) Evidence for geomagnetic imprinting as a homing mechanism in Pacific salmon. Curr Biol 23:312–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Putman NF, Scanlan MM, Billman EJ, O’Neil JP, Couture RB, Quinn TP, Lohmann KJ, Noakes DLG (2014) An inherited magnetic map guides ocean navigation in juvenile Pacific salmon. Curr Biol 24:446–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Quinn TP, Brannon EL (1982) The use of celestial and magnetic cues by orienting sockeye salmon smolts. J Comp Physiol 147:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quinn TP, Groot C (1983) Orientation of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) after internal and external magnetic field alteration. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:1598–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  41. Seber GAF (1965) A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52:249–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Singer GP, Hearn AR, Chapman ED, Peterson ML, LaCivita PE, Brostoff WN, Bremner A, Klimley AP (2013) Interannual variation of reach specific migratory success for Sacramento river hatchery yearling late-fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Biol Fishes 96:363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor PB (1986) Experimental evidence for geomagnetic orientation in juvenile salmon, Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Walbaum. J Fish Biol 28:607–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Therneau T (2015) A package for survival analysis in S. In: R package version 2.38. The comprehensive R archive network (CRAN), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  45. Westerberg H, Begout-Anras ML (2000) Orientation of silver eel (Anguilla anguilla) in a disturbed geomagnetic field. In: Moore A, Russell I (eds) Advances in fish telemetry. CFAS, Norwich, pp 149–375Google Scholar
  46. Westerberg H, Lagenfelt I (2008) Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel. Fish Manag Ecol 15:369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan T. Wyman
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Peter Klimley
    • 1
  • Ryan D. Battleson
    • 1
  • Thomas V. Agosta
    • 1
  • Eric D. Chapman
    • 1
  • Paul J. Haverkamp
    • 2
  • Matthew D. Pagel
    • 1
  • Robert Kavet
    • 3
  1. 1.Biotelemetry Laboratory, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Environmental SectorElectric Power Research InstitutePalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations