My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9710
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
9710
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:28:21 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 5:13:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9710
Author
Connolly, P.J., I.G. Jezorek, K.D. Martens and E.F. Prentice.
Title
Measuring the performance of two stationary interrogation systems for detecting downstream and upstream movement of PIT-tagged salmonids.
USFW Year
2008.
USFW - Doc Type
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />4]0 <br /> <br />CONNOLLY ET AL. <br /> <br />2.2 <br />2.1 <br />2.D <br />1.9 <br />18 <br />1.7 <br />1.6 <br />1.5 <br />1.4 <br />1.3 <br />1.2 <br /> <br />Rattlesnake Creek <br /> <br /> <br />........ <br />E <br />-- <br />- <br />.c. <br />C> <br />'cu <br />.c. <br />Q) <br />C> <br />CO <br />Ci5 <br /> <br />2.2 <br />2.1 <br />2.0 <br />1.9 <br />1.8 <br />1.7 <br />1.6 <br />1.5 <br />1.4 <br />1.3 <br />1.2 <br /> <br />System not installed <br /> <br />- S1age height <br />_ Number of events per day <br /> <br />High flow <br />------------------ <br /> <br />16 <br />14 <br />_12 <br />10 <br />8 <br />6 <br />4 <br />2 <br />o <br /> <br />(/) <br />- <br />c:: <br />Q) <br />> <br />Q) <br />Q) <br />C> <br />CO <br />(/) <br />(/) <br />CO <br />a. <br />.c. <br />(/) <br />1+= <br /> <br />Low flow <br /> <br />End of analysis <br /> <br />4 <br />2 <br />o <br /> <br />Beaver Creek <br /> <br /> <br />High flow <br /> <br />Low flow <br /> <br />- <br />o <br />..... <br />Q) <br />.0 <br />16 E <br />::l <br />14 Z <br />12 <br />10 <br />8 <br />6 <br />4 <br />2 <br />o <br /> <br />Upstream 4 <br />2 <br />o <br />Nov 03 Feb 04 May 04 Aug 04 Nov 04 Feb 05 May 05 Aug 05 Nov 05 Feb D6 May 06 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />FIGURE 5.-Downstream and upstream fish passage events detected by the PIT tag interrogation system and the stage height in <br />Rattlesnake and Beaver creeks. The distinction between low and high flows is based on the minimum read distance of PIT tags <br />from the top of the lowest instream antenna for each site. The dotted horizontal lines correspond to mean daily stage heights of <br />1.48 m (flow, 0.38 m3{s) in Rattlesnake Creek and 1.69 m (0.57 m:1{s) in Beaver Creek. The maximum values for fish passage <br />events were 1.94 m (6.31 m3fs) and 2.03 m (4.23 mJfs), respectively. The stage-discharge relationship for Rattlesnake Creek is <br />from the authors' Wlpublished data and that tor Beaver Creek from RUllenberg (2007). <br /> <br />for downstream-moving fish (n = 4, mean = 89%, SD = <br />0.10, CV = 11 %) and upstream-moving fish (n = 4, <br />mean = 77%, SD = 0.19, CV = 24%) was higher and <br />counter gradient to that of the pass-by arrays <br />(downstream: II = 8, mean = 80%, SD = 0.14, CV = <br />18%; upstream: n = 8, mean = 87%, SD = 0.08, CV = <br />10%). To explore differences in the detection efficien- <br />cies of the antenna types, we tested individual <br />combinations of flow level and fish direction. The <br />arrays with hybrid antennas outperformed those with <br />pass-by antennas for detecting fish moving down- <br />stream during high flow (ANOV A: P = 0.023), but the <br />hybrid arrays were less efficient than pass-by arrays for <br /> <br />detecting fish moving upstream during high flow <br />(ANOV A: P = 0.018). No other combinations of <br />direction and flow level contributed significantly to <br />detection efficiency (ANOV A: P > 0.05). Some <br />substantial differences in detection efficiency for <br />downstream- and upstream-moving fish were found <br />between our full 3 x 2 design and the reduced designs <br />(Figure 8). For downstreanl-moving fish, the 3 X 2 <br />design had a significantly higher detection efficiency <br />than the 2 X 1 design (Tukey's test: P < 0.05). but no <br />distinction was evident between these and the other <br />designs we tested (Tukey's test: P > 0.05). For <br />detection of upstream moving fish, the differences in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.