A method for tracking the behaviour of mature and immature salmon parr around nests during spawning
A remote monitoring system was developed to provide information on the behaviour of mature and immature Atlantic salmon Salmo salar parr at nests during the spawning season. An octagonal passive integrated transponder (PIT) detector (0·865 m maximum diameter) designed to surround nests of Atlantic s...
| Published in: | Journal of Fish Biology |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2001
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb00169.x http://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1095-8649.2001.tb00169.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb00169.x |
| Summary: | A remote monitoring system was developed to provide information on the behaviour of mature and immature Atlantic salmon Salmo salar parr at nests during the spawning season. An octagonal passive integrated transponder (PIT) detector (0·865 m maximum diameter) designed to surround nests of Atlantic salmon was used to identify individual salmon parr present at 38 spawning events in three circular spawning channels. The range of the detector for PIT tags presented in the optimum orientation was 2·4 cm (range between tags 1·7–3·0 cm). Using a sub‐sample of 20 spawnings, the mean efficiency of the detector (number of fish passes registered relative to number of passes observed on video) was 70·5% (range 32‐100%). There were no significant effects of time from spawning, total number of registrations, body size or maturity status (mature or immature) on efficiency. However, fish were more likely to be detected entering nests than leaving, as departures were more rapid and higher in the water column. The PIT detector did not affect the numbers of parr at spawnings or between spawning intervals of females, and allowed for the individual identification of 65 of the 72 parr observed in nests during spawning. In all cases where certain identifications were not possible and the video was of satisfactory quality, this was due to obstruction of the camera view by anadromous fish. The remote monitoring system was thus effective in identifying behavioural differences, and only one of 20 immature parr was ever detected during the period encompassing 10 min before and after spawning compared with 30 or 40 mature parr. |
|---|