Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 96, Issue 2–3, pp 245–256 | Cite as

Holding behavior of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss) smolts, as influenced by habitat features of levee banks, in the highly modified lower Sacramento River, California

  • David Zajanc
  • Sharon H. Kramer
  • Nadav Nur
  • Peter A. Nelson
Article

Abstract

Using acoustic telemetry methods on large numbers of tagged fish, we studied how the holding behavior of Chinook salmon and steelhead smolts could be related to habitat features and spatial and temporal variables on a highly altered section of the Sacramento River. We viewed downstream migration as a process in which fish transition between moving and holding states, and used a binomial and negative binomial Generalized Linear Model to analyze two aspects of holding: 1) probability of holding, and 2) holding time. For Chinook salmon, the probability of holding increased as wood size and fine substrates increased; holding time increased as overhead shade increased. For steelhead, holding behavior was only weakly related to habitat variables, in contrast to the strong relationships with spatial and temporal variables. For both species, the probability of holding increased when distance from the release location decreased and instream flows decreased. We found support for three main findings: 1) spatial and temporal factors have considerably greater influence on Chinook salmon and steelhead smolt holding behavior than nearshore habitat features; 2) holding behaviors of Chinook salmon smolts are influenced more strongly by habitat features than steelhead smolts; and 3) incorporation of habitat features such as large woody material and overhead shade should be considered when conducting nearshore bank rehabilitation projects to increase cover from predators and provide velocity refuge, improving holding habitat during downstream migration.

Keywords

Acoustic telemetry Chinook salmon Downstream migration Holding Steelhead 

References

  1. Beamer EM, Henderson RA (1998) Juvenile salmonid use of natural and hydromodified stream bank habitat in the mainstem Skagit River, northwest Washington. United States Army Corps of Engineers, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake A, Horn MJ (2003) Acoustic tracking of juvenile chinook salmon movement in the vicinity of Georgiana Slough, Sacramento River, California - 2003 study results - Draft report. United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  3. Burau J, Blake A, Perry R (2007) Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta - Regional salmon outmigration study plan: Developing understanding for management and restoration. http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/ndelta/salmon/documents/RegionalSalmonStudyPlan_2008.01.07.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2011
  4. Cavallo B, Kurth R, Kindopp J, Seesholtz A, Perrone M (2003) Distribution and habitat use of steelhead and other fishes in the lower Feather River, 1999–2001. California Department of Water Resources, Division of Environmental Services, Interim Report SP-F10Google Scholar
  5. Chapman ED, Hearn AR, Michel CJ, Ammann AJ, Lindley ST, Thomas MJ, Sandstrom PT, Singer GP, Peterson ML, MacFarlane RB, Klimley AP (2012) Diel movements of out-migrating Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Watershed. Environ Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s10642-012-0001-x
  6. Friesen TA, Vile JS, Pribyl AL (2007) Outmigration of juvenile chinook salmon in the lower Willamette River, Oregon. Northwest Sci 81(3):173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giorgi AE, Hillman TW, Stevenson JR, Hays SG, Peven CM (1997) Factors that influence the downstream migration rates of juvenile salmon and steelhead through the hydroelectric system in the Mid-Columbia River Basin. N Am J Fish Manag 17:268–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall JE, Chamberlin J, Kagley AN, Greene C, Fresh KL (2009) Effects of gastric and surgical insertions of dummy ultrasonic transmitters on juvenile chinook salmon in seawater. Trans Am Fish Soc 138:52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. H. T. Harvey & Associates, PRBO Conservation Science (2010) Final interim (year-2) critical erosion levee repair sites fish and habitat monitoring report. Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  10. H. T. Harvey & Associates, PRBO Conservation Science (2011) Draft critical erosion levee repair sites fish and habitat monitoring – Year-3 (2010) monitoring report. Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  11. McLain J, Castillo G (2010) Nearshore areas used by fry chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the northwestern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. San Franc Estuary Watershed Sci 7(2):1–12, http://deltarevision.com/2010%20docs/eScholarship%20UC%20item%204f4582tb.pdf. Accessed 24 January 2011Google Scholar
  12. McMichael GA, Eppard MB, Carlson TJ, Carter JA, Ebberts BD, Brown RS, Weiland M, Ploskey GR, Harnish RA, Deng ZD (2010) The juvenile salmon acoustic telemetry system: a new tool. Fisheries 35(1):9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Michel C (2010) River and estuarine survival and migration of yearling Sacramento River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) smolts and the influence of environment. Master’s thesis, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Mount J (1995) California rivers and streams: The conflict between fluvial process and land use. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Perry RW, Skalski JR, Brandes PL, Sandstrom PT, Klimley AP, Ammann A, MacFarlane B (2010) Estimating survival and migration route probabilities of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. N Am J Fish Manag 30:142–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. RDCT (R Development Core Team) (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  17. Shahcheraghi R, Chu A (2011) Status and trends—Delta water project operations. IEP Newsl 24(1):6–9Google Scholar
  18. Smith DL, Nestler JM, Johnson GE, Goodwin RA (2010) Species-specific spatial and temporal distribution patterns of emigrating juvenile salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Reviews Fish Sci 18(1):40–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Southard SL, Thom RM, Williams GD, Toft JD, May CW, McMichael GA, Vucelick JA, Newell JT, Southard JA (2006) Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon movement along Puget Sound shorelines. Washington State Department of Transportation, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Steel EA, Guttorp P, Anderson JJ, Caccia DC (2001) Modeling juvenile salmon migration using a simple Markov chain. J Agric Biol Environ Statistics 6(1):80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stillwater Sciences, Dean Ryan Consultants (2004) Standard assessment methodology for the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project. United States Army Corps of Engineers, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  22. Williams JG (2006) Chapter 5: juvenile migration. San Franc Estuary Watershed Sci 4(3):69–109Google Scholar
  23. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Zajanc
    • 1
  • Sharon H. Kramer
    • 1
  • Nadav Nur
    • 2
  • Peter A. Nelson
    • 3
  1. 1.H. T. Harvey & AssociatesArcataUSA
  2. 2.PRBO Conservation SciencePetalumaUSA
  3. 3.Collaborative Fisheries Research WestSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations