4.1 Article

Postrelease Performance of Acclimated and Directly Released Hatchery Summer Steelhead into Oregon Tributaries of the Snake River

期刊

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1098-1109

出版社

AMER FISHERIES SOC
DOI: 10.1577/M09-161.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a study using 14 paired-release groups over 10 release years, we compared the performance of hatchery summer steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss that were acclimated as smolts (AC) for 16-57 d before release into ponds supplied with ambient stream water with that of fish trucked from the hatchery and directly released (DR) into Spring, Deer, and Little Sheep creeks in northeastern Oregon. After releasing the fish into streams, we monitored out-migration travel times and survival to Lower Granite Dam (LGD) on the Snake River using freeze brand marks or implanted passive integrated transponder tags in a subsample of each release group. Across all release groups, travel time was significantly slower for AC fish (34.7 d) than for DR fish (31.8 d), though there was no significant difference in survival probability to LGD. We used recoveries of coded wire tags to estimate smolt-to-adult survival (SAS) and a stray rate index (SRI) for the AC and DR strategies. Across all release groups, SAS was 33% higher and SRI 42% lower for AC steelhead. At each release site acclimation increased average SAS by at least 11% and decreased SRI by at least 16.5%. We found a significant, negative linear relationship between travel time to LGD and SAS; however, there was no significant relationship between survival to LGD and SAS, which implies that judgments about the success or failure of a novel rearing or release strategy should not be made based on out-migration survival. Acclimating juvenile steelhead produced significantly higher SAS and lower SRI in the hatchery program we evaluated; however, our results are not consistent with those of other steelhead acclimation studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据