DOCSLIB.ORG

Ranching of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar L.) to the Rod from a Native and Non-Native System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ranching of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar L.) to the Rod from a Native and Non-Native System CM 2002/T:05 Ranching of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) to the rod from a native and non-native system. G. Rogan, R. Poole, N. O' Maoileidigh and K. Whelan. Marine Institute, Salmon Management Service Division, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland. ABSTRACT The behaviour of the Burrishoole salmon ranch strain, released from a non-native system, was compared with behaviour in its native system. The study showed that the juvenile Burrishoole salmon required a period of acclimation at the remote site prior to release due to the elevated stress levels associated with the transfer. Underwater observations showed that some of the reared smolts also required a period of acclimation after release. Results from the Irish coded wire tagging programme show the exploitation of Burrishoole fish, released at the remote site, in the Irish coastal drift net fishery occurred over a wide area along the Irish coast. Burrishoole adults returned to the location of release rather than their native system. The number of Burrishoole adults recaptured in freshwater from other systems was low and was dependent on local environmental conditions. A greater rod catch of Burrishoole fish was recorded in the non- native system. INTRODUCTION Went (1955) referred to the salmon, as the most valuable fish in the Irish economy. In recent years there has been increased awareness of the potential value of the recreational fishery in Ireland. Several studies have been carried out to calculate a value to the Irish economy in terms of income and employment from salmon angling (O’Connor, 1984; Whelan and Whelan, 1986; Whelan and Marsh, 1988). The sea trout decline on the Irish West Coast (Whelan, 1991) has shown how vulnerable recreational fisheries can be. If a similar decline were to happen with salmon could donor salmon stocks be ranched to give sufficient returns to a rod fishery? The ability to predict the behavioural patterns of introduced stocks is a useful tool in relation to management decisions for ranching to the rod. This study was carried out to determine if the Burrishoole salmon ranched strain showed similar patterns of behaviour, at the smolt and adult stages, in a non-native system compared to it’s native system. This could provide valuable information for management decisions in relation to ranching of Atlantic salmon from non-native systems in Ireland. The Burrishoole ranch strain was derived from wild Burrishoole fish in 1964. The progeny were artificially reared at Burrishoole and used to establish a self sustaining ranch stock. Full trapping facilities and a rod fishery at Burrishoole, together with data from the Irish coded wire tag recovery programme, provides a unique set of data for the Burrishoole ranch strain. this includs marine survival, coastal exploitation, return rate to freshwater and angling exploitation rates. Juvenile Burrishoole salmon were transferred in two successive years from Burrishoole to the 1 remote site. The transfer took place three months prior to release and growth rates monitored against a control group at Burrishoole. Following release post smolt behaviour was observed by scuba diving at both sites. Rod catch, rod effort and location of capture were compared between fisheries. In addition environmental conditions, inshore netting and straying were also examined. Materials and Methods Study Sites Burrishoole System The Burrishoole system (Fig. 1.) flows into the north east corner of Clew Bay on the west coast of Ireland near Newport (53 57 N; 9 35 W). It is an oligotrophic system with a catchment of 109 square kilometres and consists of two main lakes, Lough Feeagh 410 ha and Lough Furnace a brackish lake of 172 ha which is connected to the sea by the Burrishoole River (3.5km). Lough Feeagh is a freshwater lake and is discharged through two channels, the Salmon Leap and the Mill Race into Lough Furnace. Permanent fish traps are situated on both discharge channels and trap all fish moving upstream or downstream between the two lakes. Rearing facilities for the ranched salmon stock is situated between the two Loughs on the Mill Race discharge channel and water supply is gravity fed from Lough Feeagh. Angling at Burrishoole is restricted to fly-fishing from boats on both Lough Feeagh and Lough Furnace. Remote site (Delphi) The remote system (Fig. 1.) is situated 60 kilometers south of Burrishoole between the Mweelrea Mountains to the west and the Sheffry Hills to the east. The system consists of three lakes, Glencullin 54 ha, at the top of the system, Doo Lough 250 ha, and Finlough 20 ha. The system drains into Killary Harbour through the Bundorragha River, which is 2.5km long and drains a total catchment of 52 square kilometres. Killary Harbour is a fjord like inlet, which is 13km long, and 700m wide (Keegan and Mercer, 1986). Along with Delphi the other main river which drains into Killary is the Erriff which has a catchment of 166.3 square km2 (O'Farrell et al., 1989). The rearing facilities are situated between Doo Lough and Finlough. Angling is carried out on the three lakes and on the river. Boat fishing only is carried out on the lakes with a maximum of 2 rods per boat. A maximum of 3 boats are permitted on Doo Lough, 2 on Finlough and 1 on Glencullin. A maximum of 4 rods is permitted on the Bundorragha river. The majority of angling is by artificial fly but a limited amount of trolling for salmon is permitted on Doolough up to July. 2 Fig. 1. Location of Burrishoole and Delphi systems The salmon stock used in this study were line bred Burrishoole ranched grilse. In both years a control group of 10,000 juvenile salmon were reared at the Burrishoole rearing unit until release as smolts. A second group of 10,000 juvenile salmon were transferred 60km by truck in an oxygenated transporter tank to a rearing unit at the remote location. These fish were on-reared for three months prior to release as smolts. Both smolt groups were coded wire tagged according to the methods of Browne (1982). Water temperatures were taken at both rearing sites. Length and weight measurements of smolts were taken at Burrishoole prior to the transfer and then monthly at both sites prior to release. In both years the Burrishoole fish were transferred to the remote site during February and released in the following April. At Burrishoole the control group was released into Lough Furnace and at the remote site smolts were released into Finlough. Underwater observations by SCUBA diving were also carried out at both sites for several days after the releases. Details of the experimental groups in Irish coastal waters were gathered as part of the Irish national coded wire tag recovery programme. Adult return rates to freshwater at Burrishoole were calculated from returns to the trapping facilities and rod fishery. Adult reared salmon captured in both rod fisheries, identified by an adipose finclip, were sampled and cored to remove the microtag and the microtags read by Department of Marine staff. Capture date, time, location weight (kg), length (cm) and sex were recorded. Fishing effort at both sites was measured in rod days based on an eight-hour day. A proportion of the fin clipped salmon catch from a draft net fishery adjacent to the remote site was purchased and sampled using the same procedure used in the rod fisheries. 3 Results In year 1 the group of juvenile salmon transferred to the remote site had an average weight of 35.7g at the time of transfer in February and were released at an average weight of 42.8g. The control group at Burrishoole had an average weight of 37.3g in February and 49.3g at the time of release. In year 2 the transferred group had an average weight of 35.7g at the time of transfer in February and were released at an average weight of 41.1g. The control group at Burrishoole had an average weight of 34.7g in February and 45.1g at the time of release. There was no significant difference in mean weight between the two groups of pre-smolts at Burrishoole prior to the transfer of one of the groups to the remote site in either year, Year 1 (p = 0.98), Year 2 (p=0.27). At the time of release the control group was significantly heavier in both years, (p>0.0001). The specific growth rates were higher for the Burrishoole smolts reared at Burrishoole than those transferred to remote site during the three-month period in both years. A negative specific growth rate was recorded in February at the remote site in Year 1 (-0.04) and March in Year 2 (- 0.1). A negative specific growth rate was not recorded in either year at Burrishoole. Rearing densities at the remote site ranged from 12.9-14.7kgm-3 in both years and 12.4 - 27.4kgm-3 in year 2. Rearing densities at Burrishoole ranged from 12.4-27.4 kgm-3 in year 1 and 18.3-40.5 kgm-3 in year 2. The water temperatures in year 1 at the time of transfer were 3.9 0C at Burrishoole and 4.00C at the remote site. The water temperatures at the time of release were 8.5 0C at Burrishoole and 8.00C at the remote site. In year 2 water temperatures at the time of transfer were 6.0 0C at Burrishoole and 5.50C at the remote site. The water temperatures at the time of release were 7.5 0C at Burrishoole and 5.00C at the remote site. Underwater observations during the smolt releases at both sites showed that when smolts were released away from a water current they formed a shoal and moved away from the release site slower than when released close to a current.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2012 PSMFC Annual Report
    Golden Gate Bridge, California 65th AnnuAl RepoRt of the pAcific StAteS MARine fiSheRieS coMMiSSion To the Congress of the United States, and to the Governors and Legislatures of the Five Compacting States — Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska and Idaho — 2012 Presented by the Commissioners of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in compliance with the State enabling acts creating the Commission and Public Laws 232; 766; and 315 of the 80th; 87th; and 91st Congresses of the United States assenting thereto. Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION Randy Fisher, Executive Director Headquarters 205 SE Spokane Street, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97202-6413 2 | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2012 Annual Report coMMiSSioneRS, ADViSoRS AnD cooRDinAtoRS 2012 State Commissioners Advisors Coordinator Alaska Bryce Edgmon Terry L. Johnson Karla Bush (ADFG) Eric A. Olson Don Lane Sue Aspelund Matthew Moir Gabe Sam Herman Savikko c California Charlton H. Bonham Jim Caito Marija Vojkovich (CDFG) o Thomas Harman Robert Fletcher MM Barbara Emley Donald K. Hansen i Mike McCorkle SS Aaron Newman ione Roger Thomas Kate Wing RS , A Idaho Virgil Moore Sharon Kiefer Pete Hassemer (IDFG) DV Eric Anderson Ed Schriever i S Fred Trevey Joe Stegner o RS Oregon Ed Bowles Wayne Butler Gway Kirchner (ODFW) A n Betsy Johnson Steve Fick D Jeff Feldner Liz Hamilton c Paul Heikkila oo Rod Moore RD Brad Pettinger Frank Warrens in A to Washington Phil Anderson Robert Alverson Heather Reed (WDFW) RS Brian Blake Mark Cedergreen Harriet A. Spanel Robert Jones Marion Larkin Irene Martin Bill Robinson Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2012 Annual Report | 3 MeSSAGe fRoM the eXecutiVe DiRectoR Randy Fisher, Executive Director It is a pleasure to provide the 2012 Annual Report of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Intensively Monitored Watersheds: 2008 Fish Population Studies in the Hood Canal and Lower Columbia Stream Complexes
    STATE OF WASHINGTON December 2009 Intensively Monitored Watersheds: 2008 Fish Population Studies in the Hood Canal and Lower Columbia Stream Complexes by Clayton Kinsel, Pat Hanratty, Mara Zimmerman, and Bryce Glaser, Steven Gray, Todd Hillson, Dan Rawding, Steven VanderPloeg Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Fish Program Science Division FPA 09-12 Intensively Monitored Watersheds: 2008 Fish Population Studies in the Hood Canal and Lower Columbia Stream Complexes Clayton Kinsel, Pat Hanratty, Mara Zimmerman and Bryce Glaser, Steven Gray, Todd Hillson, Dan Rawding, Steven VanderPloeg Fish Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife December 2009 Acknowledgements This work was funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Hood Canal Data for the Hood Canal IMW project were collected by an experienced crew of technicians led by Mat Gillum. Eric Kummerow, Scott Walker, and Karen Shields each brought their individual expertise, commitment, and enthusiasm to this project. They responded to the whim of the weather, tides, and fishing schedules and have intimate knowledge of the watersheds, the fish, and fishing seasons. All field staff put in long hours, often at night during inclement weather, to ensure that traps continued to fish and that fish were handled and sampled in a gentle and timely fashion. Pete Topping and Mike Ackley provided logistical support related to trap installation and removal and expertise in trap design and function. Kelly Kiyohara edited earlier versions of this report. Biologists from Weyerhauser and Washington Department of Ecology worked collaboratively to sample and mark coho parr. University of Washington has continuously provided access to the Big Beef property and research station since our long-term monitoring project began in 1978.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series 548:181
    Vol. 548: 181–196, 2016 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published April 21 doi: 10.3354/meps11623 Mar Ecol Prog Ser OPEN ACCESS Isotopes and genes reveal freshwater origins of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha aggregations in California’s coastal ocean Rachel C. Johnson1,2,*, John Carlos Garza1,3, R. Bruce MacFarlane1,4, Churchill B. Grimes1,4, Corey C. Phillis5,8, Paul L. Koch6, Peter K. Weber7, Mark H. Carr2 1Fisheries Ecology Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 3Department of Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 4Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 5Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, 307 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 6Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 7Glenn T. Seaborg Institute, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550, USA 8Present address: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1121 L St. Suite 900, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA ABSTRACT: The ability of salmon to navigate from the ocean back to their river of origin to spawn acts to reinforce local adaptation and maintenance of unique and heritable traits among salmon populations. Here, the extent to which Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha from the same freshwater breeding groups associate together in the ocean at regional and smaller-scale aggre- gations prior to homeward migration is evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • Hatchery Update
    Hatchery Update Carson National Fish Hatchery Spring Chinook salmon production began to take precedence over other production until 1976, when the last fall Chinook salmon were released into the Wind River. Carson NFH currently produces spring Chinook salmon exclusively. Support for the hatchery is through Mitchell Act funds, which are administered by the Department of Commerce. Facilities at Carson NFH include 46 raceways, two earthen rearing ponds, two adult holding ponds, an egg incubation building, and several administrative and support buildings. Four residences provide on station housing for staff. Staff residence provides for emergency and security support for the fish resources and physical facility. The primary water supply at CNFH is Tyee Springs, and secondarily the Wind River. Introduction Hatchery Purpose / Goal Carson National Fish Hatchery (CNFH) is one of CNFH operates as part of the Columbia River 12 National Fish Hatcheries operated by the U.S. Fish Fisheries Development Program under the 2008–2017 and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the Columbia River United States v Oregon Management agreement. The basin. CNFH works closely with a USFWS Fish Health primary purpose of CNFH under this agreement is to Center (FHC) Fish Technology release 1.14 million healthy spring Chinook salmon Center (FTC) and Fisheries Program Office (FPO) smolts directly into the Wind River from the hatchery also located within the Columbia River basin. site. These releases help mitigate for fish losses in the The Columbia River Fisheries Program Office (CRFPO) Columbia River basin due to the impacts of main stem works with 6 of these hatcheries as part of a Hatchery hydropower, and other basin development.
    [Show full text]
  • Residency, Partial Migration, and Late Egress of Subadult Chinook Salmon
    544 Abstract—Migratory behavior af- fects growth, survival, and fitness Residency, partial migration, and late egress of individual fish, the dynamics and resilience of populations, and the of subadult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus ecosystems that fish occupy. Many tshawytscha) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) in salmonids are anadromous but in- dividuals vary in the duration and Puget Sound, Washington spatial extent of marine migrations. We used telemetry to investigate Anna N. Kagley (contact author)1 movements of Chinook salmon (On- 2 corhynchus tshawytscha) that re- Joseph M. Smith mained in Puget Sound (residents) Kurt L. Fresh1 rather than migrated to the Pacific Kinsey E. Frick1 Ocean. Most tagged Chinook salmon 2 (26 of 37=70%) remained in Puget Thomas P. Quinn Sound for a substantial period, stay- ing in the region where captured. Email address for contact author: [email protected] However, 30% of tagged individuals, termed “transients,” subsequently 1 Northwest Fisheries Science Center left Puget Sound. Residents and National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA transients did not differ in tagging 2725 Montlake Boulevard East date, body size, or origin (hatchery Seattle, Washington 98112 or wild). Compared with sympatric 2 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences coho salmon (O. kisutch) where 80% University of Washington remained as residents according to Box 355020 similar data, Chinook salmon tend- Seattle, Washington 98195 ed to be detected closer to shore, in shallower water, and on fewer dif- ferent receivers. For both species, residents showed limited movement within Puget Sound. We conclude that Chinook and coho salmon dis- play resident and transient move- Many of the world’s most abundant and Myers, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Power and Conservation Council Decision Memo
    Bill Bradbury Jennifer Anders Chair Vice Chair Oregon Montana Henry Lorenzen Pat Smith Oregon Montana W. Bill Booth Tom Karier Idaho Washington James A. Yost Phil Rockefeller Idaho Washington August 20, 2013 Mr. William C. Maslen Manager, Fish and Wildlife Division Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208 Dear Mr. Maslen: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the Council’s decisions and recommendations to Bonneville in response to the Fish Tagging Forum’s recommendations to the Council. These recommendations were made by the Council at its meeting on August 7, 2013. The following is a summary of the actions taken by the Council at the meeting in August. Fish Tagging Forum process and recommendations The Fish Tagging Forum (Forum) was chartered by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council) in July 2011. The Forum was directed to evaluate the fish tagging activities and their cost-effectiveness and program effectiveness under the Fish and Wildlife Program (Program), as well as other issues identified in the March 2009 ISAB/ISRP report (ISAB/ISRP document 2009-1) regarding fish tagging technologies and programs. The Forum held fifteen in person all-day meetings of the full Forum as well as numerous subgroup meetings and conference calls between November 2011 and April 2013. The meetings have been regularly attended by 15 to 30 subject matter experts from the following entities: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Ocean and Aeronautics Administration (NOAA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), the Mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts (PUDs), and BPA customer groups (Public Power Council, Northwest River Partners).
    [Show full text]
  • 1989 by Earl F. Prentice Desmond J. Maynar
    A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE BIOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY OF A NEW FISH-TAGGING SYSTEM--1989 by Earl F. Prentice Desmond J. Maynard Pamela Sparks-McConkey C. Scott McCutcheon Daniel Neff Wayne Steffens F. William Waknitz Alvin L. Jensen Lowell C. Stuehrenberg Sandra L. Downing Benjamin Sandford and Timothy W. Newcomb Funded by Bonneville Power Administration Department of Energy Division of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 Contract DE-AI79-84BP11982 and Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112-2097 February 1993 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii INTRODUCTION 1 LABORATORY STUDIES 2 Experimental Design Caveat 2 The Effects of PIT Tags on Cultured Sockeye Salmon 4 Introduction . 4 Methods and Materials 4 Results and Discussion 7 The Effects of PIT Tags on Cultured Chinook Salmon 19 Introduction . 19 Methods and Materials 20 Results 21 Discussion 32 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for the Laboratory Studies 35 Experimental Design Caveat 35 The Effects of PIT Tags on Cultured Sockeye Salmon . 35 The Effects of PIT Tags on Cultured Chinook Salmon 36 FIELD STUDIES . 37 The Effects of the Geometric, Electromagnetic, and Light Properties of PIT-Tag Passageways on Chinook Salmon Smolt Movement . 37 Introduction . 37 Methods and Materials 38 Results 41 Discussion 46 Page A Comparison of the Marine Survival, Maturation Strategies, Growth, and Tag Retention of Coho Salmon Tagged with PIT or Coded-Wire Tags 50 Introduction . 50 Methods and Materials 51 Results 55 Discussion 58 Juvenile PIT-Tag Monitors at Lower Granite, Little Goose, and McNary Dams: Systems Description and Reliability .
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 PSMFC Annual Report
    PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION 2019 ANNUAL REPORT PUBLISHED FOR THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATURES OF 1 | Pacific States Marine FisheriesALASKA Commission • CALIFORNIA • IDAHO • OREGON • WASHINGTON 72ND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION — Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington — 2019 Presented by the Commissioners of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in compliance with the State enabling acts creating the Commission and Public Laws 232; 766; and 315 of the 80th; 87th; and 91st Congresses of the United States. Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION Randy Fisher, Executive Director Headquarters 205 SE Spokane Street, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97202-6413 2 | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Commissioners, Advisors, and Coordinators............................................................................................ 4 Executive Director’s Message ...................................................................................................................... 5 72nd Annual Business Meeting Summary ................................................................................................... 9 Annual Award Recipient ............................................................................................................................. 13 Alaska Fisheries Information Network ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery of Coded Wire Tags on a Caspian Tern Colony in San Francisco Bay: a Technique to Evaluate Impacts of Avian Predation on Juvenile Salmonids
    Evans et al. 2010 In-review NAJFM Recovery of coded wire tags on a Caspian tern colony in San Francisco Bay: A technique to evaluate impacts of avian predation on juvenile salmonids by Allen F. Evans1, Daniel D. Roby2, Ken Collis1, Bradley M. Cramer1, John A. Sheggeby1, Lindsay J. Adrean2, Daniel S. Battaglia2, and Donald E. Lyons2 1Real Time Research, Inc., 52 Southwest Roosevelt Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97702, USA [email protected] 2 U.S. Geological Survey - Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA Abstract We recovered coded wire tags (CWTs) from a Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia) colony on Brooks Island in San Francisco Bay, California to evaluate predation on juvenile salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) originating from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Subsamples of colony substrate representing 11.7% of the nesting habitat used by terns yielded 2,079 salmonid CWTs from fish released and subsequently consumed by terns in 2008. The estimated number of CWTs deposited on the entire tern colony was 40,143 (ranging from 26,763 to 80,288), once adjustments are made to account for tag loss and the total amount of nesting habitat used by terns. Tags ingested by terns and then egested on the colony were undamaged, with the tags' complete numeric code still identifiable. The CWTs found on the tern colony indicated that hatchery Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) trucked to and released in San Pablo Bay, located roughly 25 km from Brooks Island, were 313 times more likely to be consumed by Brooks Island Caspian terns than Chinook salmon that migrated in-river to the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Coded Wire Tag Project Manual
    Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. Planning and Conducting Projects Using Coded Wire Tags Compiled by D. J. Solomon & G. E. Vander Haegen 1 Nov-17 GEV 1 Contents 2 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Overview of the CWT System ..................................................................................................................................4 2.3 A Little History ...............................................................................................................................................................2 2.4 Advantages and Limitations of CWT ....................................................................................................................2 3 Details of the CWT System .......................................................................................................................................4 3.1 Tag Formats and Coding ............................................................................................................................................4 3.1.1 Standard CWT ..............................................................................................................................................2 3.1.2 Half-length CWT..........................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • EVOS Trustee Council Herring Tagging Workshop Workshop
    EVOS Trustee Council Herring Tagging Workshop Workshop proceedings: tagging and marking techniques applicable to the restoration of herring in Prince William Sound December 11 and 12, 2008 EVOSTC Office – Anchorage, Alaska Final Report - July 2009 EVOSTC Herring Tagging Workshop Table of Contents Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................7 Perspectives on herring tagging and the workshop..................................................................... 7 Conclusions and recommendations from the workshop ............................................................. 9 Chapter One - Workshop Overview and Report Goals .......................................................................10 Content and organization of the report ..................................................................................... 10 Limitations and potential applications of the report ................................................................. 10 Workshop Agenda .................................................................................................................... 11 Report Goals ............................................................................................................................. 12 Strengths and weaknesses of the workshop .............................................................................. 12 Definitions and concepts ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Special Publication No. 18-12
    Special Publication No. 18-12 Salmon Hatcheries in Alaska – A Review of the Implementation of Plans, Permits, and Policies Designed to Provide Protection for Wild Stocks by Danielle F. Evenson Christopher Habicht Mark Stopha Andrew R. Munro Theodore R. Meyers and William D. Templin October 2018 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative all standard mathematical deciliter dL Code AAC signs, symbols and gram g all commonly accepted abbreviations hectare ha abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., alternate hypothesis HA kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. base of natural logarithm e kilometer km all commonly accepted catch per unit effort CPUE liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., coefficient of variation CV meter m R.N., etc. common test statistics (F, t, χ2, etc.) milliliter mL at @ confidence interval CI millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient east E (multiple) R Weights and measures (English) north N correlation coefficient cubic feet per second ft3/s south S (simple) r foot ft west W covariance cov gallon gal copyright degree (angular ) ° inch in corporate suffixes: degrees of freedom df mile mi Company Co.
    [Show full text]