1 3 R O S'I'IIDY
Tn PETF:TIMTNE TlIF,
BUFGT SWIMMING SPEED OF SPAWNING-PUN
SEA LAMPREYS
(PETROMYZC*I MAR1NIJ.S)
by
L e e H . Hanson
~ntroduction
Sea lamprey control i n the Great Lnkes has been h i g h l y s u c c e ~ s f u l . The
p e r i o d i c treatment of sea lamprey producing s t r e a m with s e l e c t i v e toxicants
(Applegate et a l . 1961; H o w e l l e t a l . 19647 Manion 1969) has reduced the
number of lanpreys by approximately 90%.
Natural o r man-made b a r r i e r s prevent spawning-run lanpreys from entering
c e r t a i n s t r e a m , o r portions thereof, and thus reduce the number9 of streams
t h a t have t o be treated.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) has,
therefore, endorsed the i n s t a l l a t i o n of h a r r i e r s
a5
p a r t of an integrated
l w r e y control program, and an assessment o f the environmental impact of a
barrier-dam program i s being made.
I f the program i s a ~ p r o v e d ,barriers w i l l
be constructed on many sea lamprey producinq streams t r i b u t a w to t h e Great
Lakes.
Although t h e precise desiqn of these harriers has y e t to he
determined, most will be low-head
dm3 constructed of concrete or metal.
General design c r i t e r i a are available f o r lm-head b a r r i e r dams t h a t
w i l l prevent the upstream movement of sea lampreys.
According t o S t a u f f e r
(1964), sea lampreys were able t o surmount a dam (with a curved o r s t r a i g h t
lip) when n head o f 20 inches o r l e s s was maintained, but were unable to pass
over the dam when t h e head w a s increased t o 26 i n c h e s .
More recently,
W. D. Youngs has shown that under c e r t a i n conditions a drop of 1 2 inches (weir
'
c r e s t to pool aurface) c o n s t i t u t e s an e f f e c t i v e h a r r i e r ( H u m and Younqs 1980)
.
Although low-head dam; con formirrq t o thc!w c r i t o r i a can b c e f f e c t i v e
b a r r i e r s t o sea l a m p r e y s d u r i n g p e r i o d s of low o r normal stream flow, they
may p e r m i t lamprey passage i f the head i s reduced d u r i n g p e r i o d s of h i g h
stream flow.
Because high stream flows are common i n the spring during the
s p m n i n q m i q r a t i o n o f t h e lamprey, c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s b e i n g given by t h e GLFC
t o the d e s i g n o f low-head h a r r i e r dams that w o u l d maintain t h e n e c e s s a r y
head d u r i n g lw and normal c o n d i t i o n s of s t r e a m flow, and t h a t would a l s o
c r e a t e a v e l o c i t y b a r r i e r ta t h e upstream movement of spawning-run lampreys
when high stream f l w and f l o o d i n g r e d u c e t h e head.
The development of r e l i a b l e e n g i n e e r i n g d e s i g n c r i t e r i a f o r v e l o c i t y
barriers t o spawning-run s e a lampreys i s d i f f i c u l t because f e w o b s e r v a t i o n s
are available o n their burst swimming speed.
Davis and S h e r a (1971) observed
m i g r a t i n g lampreys a t Denny's Dam on t h e Saugeen R i v e r and found sea lamareys
mu18 not move upstream p a s t the dam when t h e w a t e r v e l o c i t y exceeded
12.3 f t / s (375 c m / s )
a t 75.5
OF
(24.2
"C)
.
Experiments at t h e Great Lakes
Fishery Laboratory ( B e r g s t e d t et a l . 1977) indicated t h a t the burst swimmina
s p e e d of sea lampreys appears t o l i e within t h e range of 150-170 cm/s
(4.9-5.6
f t / s ) a t 6 or 10
OC.
T h e i r r e p o r t s t a t e s , however, t h a t the swimming
danker used ( a 16-cm d i a m e t e r t u n n e l r e s p i r o m a t e r ) may have restricted t h e
swinunins movements o f the Lampreys.
Hanson (1978) designed and m n s t r u c t e d
a t e s t a p p a r a t u s t o determine the b u r s t s w i m i n g speed of lampreys i n a
flume 30.5 cm wide.
Tkelve tests were conducted d u r i n g J u n e 1978 a t w a t e r
%
t e m p e r a t u r e s r a n g i n g from 1 6 . 5 t o 25.0
13.6 ft/s.
OC
and a t w a t e r v e l o c i t i e s o f 4 . 5 t o
The study demonstrated t h a t spawning-run s e a lampreys have a
b u r s t swimming s p e e a o f o v e r 1 3 f t / s .
This s t u d y d i d n o t d e t e r m i n e the
duration o f e a & swimming e f f o r t or t h e distance covered during each attempt
by each animal.
I n order t o determine t h e d u r a t i o n nf and d i s t a n c e swum
during each swimming e f f o r t by i n d i v i d u a l lampreys, 19 tests were conducted
i n 1980.
Materials and Methods
T e s t Apparatus
A flw-through
t e s t a p p a r a t u s , c o n s i s t i n g of a head box (300-gal metal
t a n k ) , f l u m e (10 x 1 x 1 E t )
,
and f o o t box ( 4 x 4 x 3 f t ) , was c o n s t r u c t e d
and placed i n t o operation at t h e lamprey weir site on the Ocqueoc River,
Presque Isle County* Midigan ( F i g . 1 ) .
River water was pumped t h r o u g h an
e-inch diameter pipe i n t o t h e head box using a Model 55-B, Goman ~ u p p l /
i r r i g a t i o n pump pcwsred by a Cumnins V-6 diesel engine ( ~ i g .2 ) .
Water left
the head box and e n t e r e d the flume through an opening 6 i n c h e s high and 1 2
inches wide.
A
f u n n e l made of 1/2-inch harcfware cloth, with an apening
4 inches high and 6 inches wide, was placed over the opening i n o r d e r t o
hinder the l a m p r e y s that e n t e r e d the head box from going back into t h e f l u m e .
Water v e l o c i t y i n the flume w a s c o n t r o l l e d by i n c r e a s i n g o r decreasing t h e
velocity head i n the head box by changing t h e speed of t h e pump.
The flume, made of 3/4-inch
the head box and foot box.
6 inches.
opening.
plywood, wag a t t a c h e d t o the openings i n
Water depth i n t h e f l u m e ranged between 5 and
Water f l w e d from the f l u m e i n t o the f o o t box through a 1 - f t square
Water depth in t h e foot box. was 2 1/2 f t .
A screen, made of
1/4-inch hardware cloth, extended all the way t o the bottom on one s i d e of
t h e foot box.
~
.
Water passed through the s c r e e n and o u t the o v e r f l m , and was
-
.
-
J
l Mention of a t r a d e name does n o t cxlnstitute recommendation o r
endorsamentby the U.S. Government.
-.
carried back to the river throuqh wnodcn t r o u q h s .
~ e s t i n gP r o c e d u r e
Each of the 19 t e s t s w a s started between 1600 and 1700 and t e r m i n a t e d
a t 2400 h.
A f t e r the d e s i r e d v e l o c i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e flume, lampreys
t h a t had been c a ~ t u r e di n t h e Ocqueoc R i v e r w e i r , o r i n traps f i s h e d i n t h e
Cheboygan R i v e r , were removed from a 1Svehox and p l a c e d i n the f o o t h x .
The numher t e s t e d depended an how m m v were a v a i l a b l e .
Some were used i n
as many as s i x t e s t s i n o r d e r t o g i v e us s u f f i c i e n t numbers t o t e s t .
All
lampreys wexe s e x e d , weighed t o the n e a r e s t nrm, and measured t o the nearest
nun
.
(Table 1)
When a lamprey e n t e r e d the flume, a n e t was placed o v e r the opening
into the foot box t a p r e v e n t o t h e r lampreys from e n t e r i n g the flume and t o
capture t h e t e s t lamprey i f i t failed i n its attempt t o s w i m the flume.
The
t i m e the lamprey entered t h e flume, t h e d u r a t i o n of e a c h s w i d n q e f f o r t ,
t h e distance swum d u r i n g each swirming e f f o r t , and the t i m e spent attached to
the s i d e o r bottom of the flume beween swimming e f f o r t s was r e c o r d e d .
Lampreys t h a t swam t h e flume o r f a i l e d and were c a o t u r e d i n the n e t a t t h e
downstream end o f the f l u m e were removed, weiqhed, measured, and s e x e d
(Table 2 ) .
Lanpreys a t t a c h e d to t h e s i d e s or bottom of the flume hetween t h e
9- a n d 1 0 - f t i n t e r v a l s were c o n s i d e r e d t o have swum t h e f l u m e .
Those that
t r i e d t o s w i m t h e flume ( w i t h o u t success) for one hour were removed and
c o n s i d e r e d t o have f a i l e d .
A f t e r dark, o b s e r v a t i o n s were made w i t h the a i d
of h l a c k l i g h t s suspended above t h e flume.
Measurements of t h e w a t e r v e l o c i t y i n t h e flume were t a k e n w i t h a c u r r e n t
meter (Price Type
\
AA)
a t 3- and 7 - f t i n t e r v a l s ( F i g . 3)
.
Measurements were
made a t l e a s t every hour i n order t o detect any changes i n v e l o c i t v .
The
height of the head i n the head box and the s p e e d of the diesel e n q i n e ( a s
indicated a n a n rpm qauge) were checked at least e v a r y 1 5 min during t h e
t e s t s , s i n c e any changes i n these readings i n d i c a t e d t h a t
a change i n the
water velocity i n the flume had occurred.
Results
The swimminq a b i l i t i e s of the t e s t animals a t various water v e l o c i t i e s
and tsmperatures are summaxized i n Table 3.
a water velocity of 5 f t / s .
Three t e s t s wexe conducted a t
Only one lamprey attempted t o s w i m the flume
and i t swam the e n t i r e length of the flume i n one attempt.
No other t e s t s
were conducted at this velocity a f t e r I had observed lampreys swimming the
flume in one attempt a t 9 f t / s .
Six
tats were conducted a t water v e l o c i t i e s of 9 f t / s .
O f the 5 3
lampreys t h a t attenpted t o s w i m the f l u m e a t this v e l o c i t y , 49 succeeded.
O f these, 5 swam t h e e n t i r e lenqth of the f l u m e i n one attempt.
The
swimning time f o r each attempt ranged from 0 . 3 to 6.0 s and averaged from
1.5 to 2.8 s for each test.
The distance swam f o r each attempt xanged f r o m
-5.3 t o 10.0 f t and averaged from 0 . 9 t o 4 . 2 f t f o r each t e s t .
The r e s t
period between swimming e f f o r t s ranged from 0 . 3 t o 7 . 3 min a n d averaged from
2.9 t o 3 . 2 min for ea&
test.
One t e s t was run at 10 ft/s and o n l y one lamprey attempted t o swim t h e
flume.
I t succeeded i n swimming the f l u m e a f t e r s i x attempts.
Two t e s t s were r u n a t 11 ft/s.
O f the 10 lampreys that attempted t o
swim the flume, 6 were successful, although none swam t h e e n t i r e length
of the flume i n one attempt.
£ran 0.5 t o 5.0
s and
The swimming time f o r each attempt ransed
averaged 1 . 6 and 2 . 3
6
f o r each t e s t .
The distance
swam for each attompt rangod from - 3 . 0 t n 4 . 3 ft and averaged 0.1 and 1.0 ft
f o r each test.
The x e s t p e r i o d between swimming efforts ranged from 0 . 3 t o
6 . 5 d n and averaged 3.9 and 3.5 min for each t e s t .
Two t e s t s were r u n a t 1 2 ft/s.
O f t h e 2 5 lampreys t h a t attempted to
s w i m the flume, 19 were s u c c e s s f u l , althouqh none swam t h e e n t i r e l e n q t h of
t h e flume i n one attempt.
The swimming time f o r each attempt ranaed from
0 . 3 t o 4.0 s and averaged 2 . 0 and 2 . 1 s f o r each test.
The d i s t a n c e swum
f o r each attempt ranged from -4.5 t o 6.0 f t and averaged Q.7 and 1.8 ft for
ea&
test.
The rerrt p e r i o d between swimming e f f o r t a ranged f r o m 0 . 5 to
13.5 min and\averaged 3 . 3 and 4 . 1 min for each test.
Five tests were conducted a t 1 3 f t / s j t h e maximum v e l o c i t y produced by
t h e test apparatus.
O f t h e 1 2 lampreya t h a t attampted t o swim the flume,
none were success full although a l l were able t o s w i m t h e f l u m e for various
distances.
Turbulence a t the head of the flume at this v e l o c i t y appeared t o
p r e v e n t t h e m from swimming i t s entire length.
atteupt at this v e l o c i t y rmqed from 0.5 t o 5.0
and 1 . 7 s for each t e s t .
-3.0
The s w i m i n g t i m e f o r each
9
and averaged between 0 . 8
The d i s t a n c a swum f o r each a t t e m p t ranged from
ta 4.5 t t and averaged between 0 . 2 and 0 . 6 f t f o r each t e s t .
The r e s t
p e r i o d between swimming e f f o r t s ranged from 0 . 5 t o 14.5 min and averased
belween 3.3 and 6.0 rnln f o r each t e s t .
Conclusions
The test animals made relatively f e w a t t e m p t s t o swim the flume when
water temperatures were belm 60
OF.
Because of t h i s , we still know
r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e about t h e i r swimaclng a b i l i t y i n c o l d e r w a t e r .
As t h e water
temperature i n c r e a s e d , swinuning a c t i v i t y a l s o i n c r e a s e d .
I
Moat lampreys that a t t e m p t e d t o swim the flume had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y
u n t i l the v e l o c i t y was i n c r e a s e d to approxfmately 10 f t / s .
As the
velocity
w a s i n c r e a s e d above this speed, swimminq t h e flume became i n c r e a s i n g l y
d i f f i c u l t f o r them.
A t
t h e higher v e l o c i t i e s , they u s u a l l y d i d n o t s w i m as
far d u r i n g an a t t e m p t , a l t h o u g h , i n a few instances, they literally "flaw"
up the flume.
I n these p a r t i c u l a r cases, t h e y swam a t the s u r f a c e of the
w a t e r w i t h only a b o u t the ventral t h i r d of their bodies submersed i n the
water.
I n this manner, they were able to a v o i d much o f the onrushing water.
B u r s t speeds r e p r e s e n t the h i g h e s t v e l o c i t i e s which f i e h can a t t a i n
and can be maintained f o r p e r i o h of only a few seconds ( F a r l i n g e r and
Beamish 1 9 7 7 ) .
6 s duration.
A l l attempts t o s w i m the flume were f o r periods of less t h a n
A t
v e l o c i t i e s o f 5 and 9 f t / s , some lampreys were able t o
swim the flume i n 4-6 s w i t h o u t a t t a c h i n g .
Aa the v e l o c i t y was increased,
the lampreys a t t a c h e d more often, made less p r o q r e s s up t h e flume d u r i n g each
attenpt, and the t i m e of e a c h attempt g e n e r a l l y was of a shorter d u r a t i o n .
From these a t u d i e s , I concluded that spawning-run sea lampreys o f
e i t h e r s a x are extremely good swimmers and t h a t t h e i r burst swimming speed
can exceed 1 3 f t / s .
Not o n l y were they a b l e t o m a i n t a i n their p o s i t i o n i n
the f l u m e f o r s h o r t periods of t l m e a t this v e l o c i t y , but, i n some i n s t a n c e s ,
were o b s e r v e d moving upstream against t h i s current a t approximately 1-2 ft/s
t
t h u s their a c t u a l b u r s t speed i s o v e r 14-15 f t / s .
I t has b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t i f sea lampreys a r e not able t o a t t a c h t o t h e
side of a v e l o c i t y barrier o f s u f f i c i e n t l e n g t h , they may n o t be a b l e t o move
upstream, even though their b u r s t swinnning speed i s very h i g h .
However, t h e
f a c t t h a t some lampreys i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y were a b l e to s w i m 10 f t a g a i n s t
a w a t e r v e l o c i t y o f 9 f t / s suggests t h a t it would be very d i f f i c u l t t o c r e a t e
a velocity barrier on most streams.
Moreover, s i n c e a velocity head of
1.25 ft is necessary to create a water v e l o c i t v of 9 f t / s , and since a
v e r t i c a l drop of 1.25 ft may, by itself , be a barrier to spawning-run
lanpxey, it seems u n l i k e l y t h a t a v e l o c i t y b a r r i e r would be of any b e n e f i t .
References
Applegate, V . C . ,
J . H . H o w e l l , J . W . M n f f e t t , B. G . FI. J o h n s o n , and
M. A . Smith.
1961.
Use of 3-trifluomethyl-4-nitrophenol as a
s e l e c t i v e s e a lamprey l a r v i c i d e .
Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech.
Rep. 1, 35 p .
B e r g s t e d t , R. A . ,
D. V. Rottiers, and
N.
R.
Foster.
1977.
Laboratow
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of maximum swimming speed of migratory sea l a n p r e y s :
a feasibility study.
Lab.
,
Research completion Report, Great Lakes Fish.
Ann Arbor, 4 p.
Davis, W. A . ,
and W. P. Shera.
run sea lamprey.
Maximum swimming speed of spawning
1971.
R e p o r t of R n n w l M e e t i n g , J u n e 1971.
Great Lakes
F i s h . C o m m . , Ann A r b o r , Appendix Y , p. 1 2 7 .
F a r l i n g e r , S . , a n d F. W . H . Beamish.
1977.
Effects o f time and v e l o c i t y
i n c r e m e n t s on the c r i t i c a l swimming speed of l a r g e m o u t h bass
(Micropterus s a l m o i d e s )
Hanson, L. H.
.
T r a m . Am. Fish. S o c . 106 : 436-439.
1978. B u r s t s w i m i n g speed of spawning-run sea lampreys
(Petromyzon m a r i n u s ) .
R e s e a r c h Completion R e p o r t , Great Lakes Fish.
l a b . , Ann Arbor, 1 4 p .
H o w e l l , J. H . , E . L. King, Jr,, A . J. Smith, a n d L. H . Hanson.
Synergism of 5 , 2 ' - d i c h l o r o - 4 ' - n i t r o
1964.
salicy l a n i l i d e and
3-trif homethy 1-4-nit r o p h e n o l in a s e l e c t i v e l a m p r e y l a r v i c i d e .
Great Lakes F i s h . Comm. Tech. R e p . 8 , 2 1 p.
Hunn, J. B . , and W
.
D. Youngs.
1980.
Role o f physical b a r r i e r s i n t h e
c o n t r o l of Atlantic sea lamprey (Petromyzon m a r i n u s )
Aquat.
Sci. 37: ( i n press).
.
Can. J. F i s h .
Manion, P. J.
1969.
Evalllation of lamprey l a r v i c i . d c s in the R i q G a r l i c
River and Saux Head Lake.
Stauffer, T. M.
J. F i s h . ROH. Board Can. 26: 3 0 7 7 - 3 O A 2 .
1964. An experimental sea lamprey b a r r i e r .
C u l t . 26: 811-83.
Prog. Fish-
3.
Test
46
5
51
M a y 22
7
64-67
13
14
2
37
M a y 29
9
63-64
13
40
11
4
--
78
87
49
13
61-63
13
15
10
of
Average
0.6
(-1.0-3.51
(1.0-5.0)
(-0.5-1.8)
4.9
(2.0-14.5)
4.7
(2.5-9.3)
(0.5-9.0)
(-3.0-4.5)
0.3
6.0
(2.0-10.0)
3.3
-(-0.3-1.5)
0.2
0.4
--
1.8
(0.0-6.0)
(-4.5-3.8)
4.1
(0.5-13.5)
3.3
(0.8-8.5)
rest
pericd Cninl
(range in
parenthesis)
0.7
Aver age
Averace
distance
swam (ft)
Crange in
parenthesis)
1.4
1 . 4 .
1.3
(0.5-2.0)
0.8
(0.5-1.0)
1.7
--
(0.3-4.0)
2.1
(0.5-4.6)
2.0
in sec
(range in
parenthesis)
.mimdnq
attespts
tire
Umber
Jurte 16
11
59-61
49
52
H-er
lampreys
atterrpting
to swim
f l m
0
1
Yay 15
June 3
4
52-53
13
13
N m h r
lampreys
in
f o o t box
34
37
Z u n e 25
19
72- 75
12
Zune 23
Date
17
nmber
65-68
Water
temp.
(TI
(mtirued)
12
n f l m
(ft/s)
elocity
;'ater
-
*le
M m r
4
0
0
0
0
--
---
----
0
0
5
14
atteqt
swidnq
fl m e
s u c ~ s s f u l sucessf.
Fn
in one
Num$.er
I