Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 305–311 | Cite as

Migration speeds and orientation of Atlantic salmon and sea trout post-smolts in a Norwegian fjord system

  • Eva Thorstad
  • Finn kland
  • Bengt Finstad
  • Rolf Sivertsgrd
  • Pl Bjorn
  • R. McKinleyd
Article

Abstract

We recorded the observed and actual swimming speeds of Atlantic salmon and sea trout post-smolts in a Norwegian fjord system, and initiated studies on the orientation mechanisms of the post-smolts. We tracked Atlantic salmon and sea trout with acoustic transmitters for up to 14 h after release. The actual swimming speed and direction of a fish relative to the ground is the vector sum of the observed movements of the fish and the movements of the water. We determined actual swimming speeds and directions of the post-smolts, which reflect their real swimming capacities and orientation, by corrections for the speed and direction of the water current. The post-smolts were actively swimming. The observed direction of movement was dependent on the actual movement of the fish and not the water current. Water currents were not systematically used as an orientation cue either in Atlantic salmon or sea trout, as the actual movements were random compared to the direction of the water current. The actual movement of sea trout were in all compass directions, with no systematic pattern. The Atlantic salmon also moved in all compass directions, but with the lowest frequency of actual movement towards the fjord.

Salmo salar Salmo trutta telemetry swimming speed salmon lice aquaculture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asplin, L.,A.G.V. Salvanes & J.B. Kristoffersen. 1999. Non-local wind driven fjord-coast advection and its potential effect on plankton and fish recruitment. Fish. Oceanography 8: 255–263.Google Scholar
  2. Bjørn, P.A.,B. Finstad & R. Kristoffersen. 2001. Salmon lice infection of wild sea trout and Arctic char in marine and freshwaters: The effects of salmon farms. Aquacult. Res. 32: 947–962.Google Scholar
  3. Blackburn, J. & W.C. Clarke. 1987. Revised procedure for the 24 hour seawater challenge test to measure seawater adaptability of juvenile salmonids. Can. Tech. Report Fish. Aquatic Sci. 1515: 1–39.Google Scholar
  4. Fried, S.M., J.D. McCleave & G.W. LaBar. 1978. Seaward migration of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, smolts in the Penobscot River estuary, Maine: Riverine movements. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35: 76–87.Google Scholar
  5. Groot, C. 1965. On the orientation of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) during their seaward migration out of lakes. Behaviour (Suppl.) 14: 1–198.Google Scholar
  6. Hansen, L.P.,M. Holm, J.C. Holst & J.A. Jacobsen. 2003. The Ecology of post-smolts of Atlantic salmon. pp.25–39. In: D. Mills (ed.), Salmon at the edge, Blackwell ScienceGoogle Scholar
  7. Heuch, P.A. & T.A. Mo. 2001. A model of salmon louse production in Norway: Effects of increasing salmon production and public management measures. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 45: 145–152.Google Scholar
  8. Holm, M.,J.C. Holst, L.P. Hansen, J.A. Jacobsen, N. O'Maoiléidigh & A. Moore. 2003. Migration and distribution of Atlantic salmon post-smolts in the North Sea and North-East Atlantic. pp.7–23. In: D. Mills (ed.), Salmon at the edge, Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
  9. Hvidsten, N.A.,T. Heggberget & A.J. Jensen. 1998. Sea water temperature at Atlantic salmon smolt entrance. Nordic J. Freshwater Res. 74: 79–86.Google Scholar
  10. Jonsson, B. 1985. Life history patterns of freshwater resident and sea-run migrant brown trout in Norway. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 114: 182–194.Google Scholar
  11. Knutsen, J.A.,H. Knutsen, J. Gjøsæter & B. Jonsson. 2001. Food of anadromous brown trout at sea. J. Fish Biol. 59: 533–543.Google Scholar
  12. LaBar, G.W., D. McCleave & S.M. Fried. 1978. Seaward migration of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts in the Penobscot River estuary, Maine: Open water movements. Journal du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 38: 257–269.Google Scholar
  13. Lacroix, G.L. & P. McCurdy. 1996. Migratory behaviour of post-smolt Atlantic salmon during initial stages of seaward migration. J. Fish Biol. 49: 1086–1101.Google Scholar
  14. Lacroix, G.L. & F.A. Voegeli. 2000. Development of automated monitoring systems for ultrasonic transmitters. pp. 37–50. In: A. Moore & I. Russell (eds.),Advances in fish telemetry, Proceedings of the third conference on fish telemetry in Europe, CEFAS, Lowestoft.Google Scholar
  15. Lucas, M. & E. Baras. 2001. Migration of Freshwater Fishes, Blackwell Science, Oxford.420 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Moore, A. & E.C.E. Potter. 1994. The movement of wild sea trout, Salmo trutta L., smolts through a river estuary. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 1: 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, A.,G.L. Lacroix & J. Sturlaugsson. 2000. Tracking Atlantic salmon post-smolts in the sea. pp.49–64. In: D. Mills (ed.), The ocean life of Atlantic salmon –environmental and biological factors influencing survival, Fishing News Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, A.,M. Ives, M. Scott & S. Bamber. 1998. The migratory behaviour of wild sea trout (Salmo trutta L.) smolts in the estuary of the River Conwy, North Wales. Aquaculture 168: 57–68.Google Scholar
  19. Moser, M.L.,A.F. Olson & T.P. Quinn. 1991. Riverine and estuarine migratory behaviour of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 48: 1670–1678.Google Scholar
  20. Potter, T. & A. Moore. 1991. Salmon migration mystery: Scientists magnetic navigation theory. Fish. News 40 30: 6.Google Scholar
  21. Quinn, T.P. & E.L. Brannon. 1982. The use of celestial and magnetic cues by orienting sockeye salmon smolts. J. Comp. Physiol. A 147: 547–552.Google Scholar
  22. Sigholt, T. & B. Finstad. 1990. Effect of low temperature on sea-water tolerance in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. Aquaculture 84: 167–172.Google Scholar
  23. Stasko A.B.,A.M. Sutterlin, S.A. Rommel Jr.& P.F. Elson. 1973. Migration-orientation of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). pp.119–137. In: M.W. Smith & W.M. Carter (eds.), International Atlantic Salmon Symposium Special Publication Series 4.Google Scholar
  24. Thorpe, J.E.,L.G. Ross, G. Struthers & W. Watts. 1981. Tracking Atlantic salmon smolts, Salmo salar L., through Loch Voil, Scotland. J. Fish Biol. 19: 519–537.Google Scholar
  25. Tully, O. & D. Nolan. 2002. A review of the population biology and host-parasite interactions of the sea louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Copepoda: Caligidae). Parasitology 124: 165–182.Google Scholar
  26. Tully, O.,P. Gargan, W.R. Poole & K.F. Whelan. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation in the infestation of sea trout (Salmo trutta L.) by the caligid copepod Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) in relation to sources of infection in Ireland. Parasitology 119: 41–51.Google Scholar
  27. Voegeli, F.A.,G.L. Lacroix & J.M. Anderson. 1998. Development of miniature pingers for tracking Atlantic salmon smolts at sea. Hydrobiologia 371/372: 35–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Thorstad
    • 1
  • Finn kland
    • 1
  • Bengt Finstad
    • 1
  • Rolf Sivertsgrd
    • 2
  • Pl Bjorn
    • 3
  • R. McKinleyd
    • 4
  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)Norway
  2. 2.Norwegian College of Fishery ScienceUniversity of TromsoNorway
  3. 3.Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture ResearchBreivikaNorway
  4. 4.West Vancouver LaboratoryUniversity of British ColumbiaBCCanada

Personalised recommendations