Use of longitudinal acoustic arrays to detect catchment-scale and ...

Use of longitudinal acoustic arrays todetect catchment-scale and reachscalemovements of riverine fishPaul Brown a , John Douglas aand Daniel Stoessel aba Fisheries Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, Private Bag 20 Alexandra VIC 3714 (Email:paul.brown@dpi.vic.gov.au); b Current address: Arthur Rylah Institute, Department of Sustainabilityand Environment, 123 Brown Street, Heidleberg VIC 3084

Riverine studies: Outline of three studies1. Movement of Australian bass in the SnowyRiver2. Movement of carp in the Murray-DarlingBasin3. Brown trout residence in response toriparian habitat manipulation

Riverine studies: Utility of acoustic tag studiesCatchment scale– linear movement (up- & down-stream,between tributaries)Reach scale– linear movement– residence, detection frequencyHabitat-unit scale– residence, detection frequency, habitat choicebehaviour

Snowy River: Australian bass aimsImprove understanding about thescale, timing, and triggermechanisms of bass movementsin VictoriaFocus on Snowy River, an “Aussieicon” where flow & habitat,management & rehabilitation arecurrent issues“Australian Bass Movement and Migration in the SnowyRiver” Draft in review Fisheries Victoria Research Series

The ‘sand-slug’ – movement through a degradedhabitat reachMean daily distancefrom Ocean (km)908070605040302010Bass #228250002000015000100005000Mean daily flows (ML)Mean daily distancefrom Ocean (km)908070605040302010Bass #223250002000015000100005000Mean daily flows (ML)014-Jan 23-Apr 1-Aug 9-Nov 17-Feb 28-MayDate5-Sep014-Dec014-Jan 23-Apr 1-Aug 9-Nov 17-Feb 28-MayDate5-Sep014-Dec

Bass movement & location: Relationship with Flows &temperatures• Fish Movement is the natural Log of absolute movement (km) of bass since last known location,and Temperature (°C) is mean daily water temperature in the Snowy River at Sandy Track– a significant proportion of the variation in fish movement was explained by temperature (F=8.34,p=0.004), but not by flow (F=0.83, p=0.37)• Fish Location is the natural Log of distance (km) from the Ocean (i.e. distance upstream)– Seasonal regression models of temperature and flow explained a significant proportion of thevariation in bass location for spring, summer and winter, but not for autumn.– Bass were significantly lower in the catchment in winter and spring, than in summer and autumn(p

Bass location: Flows & temperatures1002500020000Distance from ocean (km) &Flows ML day -1101500010000500010Nov‐03Dec‐03Jan‐04Feb‐04Mar‐04Apr‐04May‐04Jun‐04Jul‐04Aug‐04Sep‐04Oct‐04Nov‐04Dec‐04Jan‐05Feb‐05Mar‐05Apr‐05May‐05Jun‐05Jul‐05Aug‐05Sep‐05Oct‐05Nov‐05Dec‐05Jan‐06Feb‐06DateLog (mean daily distance from Ocean) kmMean daily flow at Jarrahmond (ML)100101Nov‐03Dec‐03Jan‐04Feb‐04Mar‐04Apr‐04May‐04Jun‐04Jul‐04Aug‐04Sep‐04Oct‐04Nov‐04Dec‐04Jan‐05Feb‐05Mar‐05Apr‐05May‐05Log (mean daily distance from Ocean) kmJun‐05Jul‐05Aug‐05Sep‐05Oct‐05Nov‐05Dec‐05Jan‐06Feb‐06Date30Mean daily stream temperature at Sandy Track (oC)Distance from ocean (km) &Ave. daily temperature (°C)2520151050

Bass movement & location: Flows & temperaturesGeneral Linear Modelling: Location=ƒ( flow & temperature)• In winter increasing temperatures and flows: bring bassdownstream– temperature (F=16.8, p

Diel cycle in detection frequencyDoes this directly indicate‘bass activity pattern’?Theoretically:increased detection frequency=Slow-fish occasionally indetection-range of VR2AlsoMean detection frequency (n= 14 VR2s)700600500400300200100increased detection frequency=Fast-fish often in detectionrange of VR2Total detection Frequency0600050004000300020007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Hour of the dayBrodribb boat rampJacksons CrossingSandy PointU/S Wall CrkD/S Wall CrkWood PointU/S Butter factoryOrbost BridgeFloodgatesLochendU/S Second IslandU/S Lit tle SnowyMarlo JettyBrodribb Cabbage Tree Ck100007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Hour of the day

Diel cycle in detection frequencyDoes this directly indicate‘bass activity pattern’?Probably. Data (not shown 1 )from estuary perch shows asimilar pattern.Real-time tracking of someof these estuary perchshows nocturnal increase inactivity2520151050DayNightTotal detection FrequencyMean detection frequency (n= 14 VR2s)70060050040030020010006000500040003000200010007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Hour of the dayBrodribb boat rampJacksons CrossingSandy PointU/S Wall CrkD/S Wall CrkWood PointU/S Butter factoryOrbost BridgeFloodgatesLochendU/S Second IslandU/S Little SnowyMarlo JettyBrodribb Cabbage Tree Ck1Douglas, J. in review, Estuary perch movement and habitat use in the SnowyRiver, Fisheries Victoria Research Report Series07 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Hour of the day

2. Common carp: Murray-Darling Basin acoustic array

Riverine studies: Utility of acoustic tag studiesCatchment scale– linear movement (up- & down-stream,between tributaries)Reach scale– linear movement– residence, detection frequencyHabitat-unit scale– residence, detection frequency, habitat choicebehaviour

Common carp: Murray-Darling Basin acoustic arrayStudy Outline:•100 carp tagged @ 7release sites– V13T, V13 & V16– PIT,dart•46 VR2 receivers (in 23pairs)– ½ with temperature loggers•Fisheries Victoria (SnobsCk) and NSW DPI(Narrandera)•Invasive AnimalsCooperative Research Centreprojectbar=1000 km

Common carp: Murray-Darling BasinAims– temporal and spatial movement patterns: when, where, andwhy carp move around the MDB over time scales relevant totheir life-history– stock-structure: movement of adults among stocks, andbiological and environmental 'triggers' for such movement– vulnerability from movement behaviour ? E.g. aggregation,passage through fishways, etc.

Common carp: Preliminary data1 carp detected onCampaspe River VR2 May,20071 carp stayed up CampaspeRiver (March-May), 20072 carp moved back intoMurray River May, 200725 carp tagged andreleased at Barmah inMurray River Feb, 20074 carp detected on GoulburnRiver VR2 March & April,20071 carp moved and remainedup Goulburn River June,2007

Common carp: Preliminary dataFirst download after 4 months: Original batch of 25 carptagged and released in the Murray at BarmahMurray River: 24 (3 visited 2 other sub-catchments)Goulburn River: 1Campaspe River: 0

Common carp: Challenges ahead1. Tag & release another 150 carp2. Extend array to S.A and Qld (another 12 VR2s)3. Regular data-downloads (next one due now)– Massive database expected– VUE• Export and query with MSAccess/SAS foranalyses?• integrate acoustic detections with fish-way PITdetectors (MDBC database in development)4. Secure funding to match tag lifeexpectancy• V16 ~9-years

3. Brown trout: Goulburn River• Aim: Monitor the habitat preferences andresidence pattern of brown trout in thestudy area containing a reach withestablished, riparian exotic woodyvegetation, and a cleared reach with newnative re-vegetationDaniel Stoessel and John Douglas (2007) Brown trout residence in response to riparian habitatmanipulation. Fisheries Victoria Research Report Series No. 35

Riverine studies: Utility of acoustic tag studiesCatchment scale– linear movement (up- & down-stream,between tributaries)Reach scale– linear movement– residence, detection frequencyHabitat-unit scale– residence, detection frequency, habitat choicebehaviour

Brown trout: Goulburn River study location

Goulburn River: Study site schematicReceiver 3120010008006004002000Stream flowdirectionWillowed section Cleared section260112001000Receiver 48006004002603Receiver 220001200Receiver 5Residence time (hrs)10008006004002000120010008002607Receiver 16004002002608012001000800Residence plot of all brown trout thatresided within the study reaches >100hrs60040020001200100080026096004002610200Daniel Stoessel and John Douglas (2007) Brown trout residence in response toriparian habitat manipulation. Fisheries Victoria Research Report Series No. 3501 2 3 4 5Reciever

Brown trout: Goulburn RiverConclusions:1. Stocked brown trout did reside in areas where exotic riparian vegetationremoval had occurred.2. Exotic riparian vegetation removal may not impact on trout residencepatterns if sufficient and suitable in-stream cover is present.3. At the reach scale, tall, shading riparian vegetation may not be as importanta component in trout residence selection as in-stream habitat variables.A further study is in progress to repeat this work in a small stream where therelative importance of riparian shading vegetation may be greater.Daniel Stoessel and John Douglas (2007) Brown trout residence in response to riparian habitatmanipulation. Fisheries Victoria Research Report Series No. 35