Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />