Swimming performance of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Annual Report FY 2002
Matthew G. Mesa
Lisa K. Weiland
U.S. Geological Survey
Western Fisheries Research Center
Columbia River Research Laboratory
5501A Cook-Underwood Rd.
Cook, WA 98605
Gayle Barbin Zydlewski
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Abernathy Fish Technology Center
1440 Abernathy Creek Road
Longview, WA 98632
Submitted to:
USDA Forest Service
San Dimas Technology and Development Center
Los Angeles, CA
Date submitted: 28 March 2003
1
Abstract
We attempted to estimate the critical swimming speeds (Ucrit) of wild juvenile and adult
bull trout Salvelinus confluentus at 6, 11, and 15°C in laboratory experiments. At 11°C, fish
ranging from 11 to 19 cm fork length (FL) had a mean (+SE) Ucrit of 48.24 + 13.65 cm/s or 3.22
+ 0.45 BL/s (N = 5). Also at 11°C , fish ranging from 32 to 42 cm FL had a mean Ucrit of 73.99
+ 4.10 cm/s or 2.05 + 0.14 BL/s (N = 6). At 15°C, fish ranging from 14 to 23 cm FL had a mean
Ucrit of 54.66 + 5.27 cm/s or 2.88 + 0.39 BL/s (N = 5). No fish successfully swam at 6°C.
Although swim speed was significantly influenced by fish length, data were insufficient to
validly test for temperature effects. Many bull trout performed poorly in our enclosed Blazkastyle respirometers: of 71 Ucrit tests we attempted, only the 16 described above were successful.
Bull trout that refused to swim held station within tunnels by using their pectoral fins as
depressors, or they rested and later became impinged against a downstream screen. Visual cues,
electrical stimuli, repeated efforts, or other techniques did not stimulate consistent swimming
activity in these fish. Our estimates of Ucrit for bull trout represent an important benchmark
towards understanding their performance capacity and should serve as a good starting point for
modeling efforts aimed at designing or improving passage structures for these fish. Until more
information is available, we recommend that fishway or culvert designers concerned with bull
trout passage work to maintain velocities within their structures at or below our estimates of
Ucrit, thus taking a conservative approach to ensuring that these imperiled fish can ascend
migratory obstacles safely.
2
Introduction
Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in the western United States are currently listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Because of this, concerns about bull trout passage
at dams, culverts, and other diversion structures have surfaced. Concern is warranted because
little information exists on the performance of bull trout that may provide insight into their
ability to pass through culverts or fishways. Specifically, no information is available on the
swimming performance or exercise physiology of bull trout, which is prerequisite to addressing
questions concerning their passage at various structures. In addition, bull trout have very
specific habitat requirements, preferring cold water temperatures, complex forms of cover, high
channel stability, and loose clean gravel for rearing substrates (Fraley & Shepard 1989; Rieman
& McIntyre 1993). Their habitat preferences (e.g., temperature) and biological characteristics
(e.g., presence of resident and fluvial forms) may influence their performance at fish passage
structures, but this notion has not been studied.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is currently developing national protocols for adequate
passage of aquatic organisms through culverts. As part of this effort, the Six Rivers Watershed
Interactions Team has developed an analytical model that evaluates different culvert designs for
fish passage. Based on swimming ability of various North American fish species (determined
previously in laboratory and field studies), their potential performance in different culvert types
can be estimated using the model. For species in which there are no swimming performance data
(such as bull trout), this model cannot be applied or must be applied using data from a similar
species. However, because of species and life stage-specific differences that determine the
3
swimming performance of fish, using data from one species to predict the capabilities of an
unstudied species is ill advised (Berry and Pimentel 1985; Mesa and Olson 1993). For this
reason, the USFS is trying to compile data on the swimming performance of various species of
fishes, particularly those listed as imperiled, threatened, or endangered.
To design culverts and fish passage structures that minimize impacts to bull trout,
information on their swimming performance is needed. In our original proposal to the USFS, we
intended to provide information on the prolonged and burst swimming performance, and the
physiology of adult and juvenile bull trout relative to life history type (i.e., resident vs. fluvial),
size, and water temperature. However, some of our preliminary work on the performance of bull
trout indicated that this research would be more difficult than expected and our original
objectives proved untenable, particularly given the time frame for this study. Thus, for this
report, we addressed the single objective of determining the critical swimming speed (Ucrit) of
juvenile and adult bull trout at three temperatures. Even with this reduced scope of work, our
results provide not only some basic biological information on bull trout but also preliminary
performance metrics needed for modeling and establishing guidelines for their passage through
culverts and other structures.
Methods
Test fish.—Juvenile bull trout were collected from a screw trap on the Metolius River,
OR, from 28 March to 2 May 2002 by personnel from the USGS Western Fisheries Research
Center and the Portland General Electric Company (PGE) during their ongoing fish trapping
operations. In August 2002, PGE personnel collected adult bull trout by angling in the Metolius
4
River arm of Lake Billy Chinook. This lake was formed by Pelton Dam, a project that impounds
three rivers in central Oregon, the Crooked, Deschutes, and Metolius. Fish from the screw trap
were held initially in floating cages within the river and transferred once per week to the PGE
owned and operated Round Butte Hatchery at Pelton Dam. Fish captured by angling were
transported every day to the hatchery. When sufficient numbers of bull trout had been captured,
we transported them to the Columbia River Research Laboratory (CRRL) using a truck equipped
with an insulated tank and aerated water. Pond Polyaqua was added to the water (about 6 ppm)
to minimize physiological stress during transport and dissolved oxygen levels and temperature
were checked routinely during the 4 h trip.
Upon arrival, fish were separated into 5-cm size classes and held indoors under a
simulated ambient photoperiod in circular tanks (0.76 m in diameter, 0.76 m deep) receiving well
water. Separating fish into 5-cm size classes was necessary to minimize cannabalism, which
occurred during some of our early holding. Larger, adult fish were held outside in 1.5-mdiameter tanks. Initially, water temperature in all tanks was the same as that of water during
transport, about 9-11°C. Thereafter, water temperature was adjusted at a rate of 2°C/d to within
+ 1°C of the selected experimental temperature. The water was heated using single-pass electric
heaters, and packed columns dissipated excess dissolved gases generated by heating. All fish
were acclimated for at least 2 weeks to the experimental temperature prior to testing. Small fish
(about 10 cm) were fed two earthworms or several salmon eggs (obtained from a local hatchery)
2-3 times each week. Larger fish were fed 1-2 live fish (goldfish or, more commonly, subyearling hatchery salmonids) 2-3 times each week. Selected characteristics of our well water
5
were measured hourly with an automated meter (Yellow Springs Instruments Sonde 6920; Table
1).
Critical swimming speed tests.— Critical swimming speed (Ucrit ) tests on bull trout were
conducted from early May to late September 2002 at 6, 11 and 15°C. These temperatures
represent a range of water temperatures naturally encountered by bull trout in the wild (Ratliff
1992; Buchanan and Gregory 1997). Swimming tests were conducted in three sizes of Blazkatype respirometers (Table 2). Water velocities in the respirometers were created by a propeller
driven by a variable-speed electric motor. We used linear regression to describe the relation
between motor speed and water velocity (measured with a flow meter inside the tunnel). The
resulting regression equations were used to calculate the motor speed necessary for each
respirometer to achieve a desired velocity. All relations between motor speed and water velocity
had r2 values > 0.95.
One or two days before a Ucrit test, a fish was netted from a holding tank and transferred
to an isolation container. Fish < 30 cm were place in a 50.8-cm-long, 26.7-cm-wide, 31.7-cmdeep aquarium and larger fish were placed in a 0.76-m-diameter, 0.76-m-deep circular tank.
Fish showing signs of disease, injury, or other abnormalities were not tested. Food was withheld
from isolated fish to ensure a post-absorptive state (Beamish 1964; Bernachetz and Dodson
1985). On the morning of a test, a respirometer was filled with water of the appropriate
temperature. A fish was netted from an isolation aquarium or tank, lightly anesthetized by
placing it in a 19-L bucket containing 50 mg/L of buffered tricaine (MS-222), rapidly weighed
and measured, and placed into the respirometer. The fish was allowed to adjust for 2 h at a water
6
velocity of about 1.0 body length/s (BL/s).
Following adjustment at 1 BL/s, we subjected fish to a brief “practice” swim test. Based
on preliminary work, we noted that fish performed somewhat better in the swim tunnels if they
had prior experience with Ucrit procedures. For this practice swim, water velocity was increased
by 10 cm/s and the fish was required to swim for a maximum of 2 min (normally 30 min in our
standard Ucrit protocol). The water velocity was then increased by 10 cm/s every 2 min until the
fish stopped swimming. The velocity was returned to 1.0 BL/s and the fish was allowed to
recover for 3 h, after which time we started the actual Ucrit test. For our tests, we modified the
ramped Ucrit protocol described by Jain et al. (1997). Water velocity was increased to 20 cm/s
above the velocity at 1 BL/s and the fish was required to swim for 30 min. Thereafter, the
velocity was increased by 10 cm/s every 30 min until the fish fatigued. Fatigue was confirmed
when a fish stopped swimming and fell back on a downstream screen within the tunnel three
times. Rapid changes in water velocity (i.e., quickly turning the motor off and on) were used to
encourage fish to leave the downstream screen. Following a test, fish were removed, lightly
anesthetized with buffered MS-222, tagged with a small passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag
to facilitate individual identification, and placed in a holding tank for future testing.
Critical swimming speed was calculated in body lengths per second (BL/s) and absolute
speed (cm/s) using the formula described by Beamish (1978). To assess the influence of fish
length on swim performance, we plotted Ucrit against fish length at each water temperature.
Within each temperature, we calculated mean values for Ucrit using pooled data from similar
sized individuals.
7
Results
Collection and holding.—In total, one hundred sixty bull trout were collected from the
Metolius River and Lake Billy Chinook (Table 3). All bull trout survived the stress associated
with capture, handling, and transportation and arrived in good condition at our laboratory.
Within a couple of days, bull trout were feeding aggressively. Our feeding regime was
successful in producing growth in many fish. We measured PIT-tagged individuals from midMay to early August and again in early November (N = 29). On average, fish gained 69 g in
weight (range 0-246 g) and 4 cm in length (range 0.2-7.3 cm).
Little is known about the long-term maintenance of wild bull trout in laboratory facilities
and we encountered two general problems. First, early in the study we observed cannibalism
and agonistic behavior that was stressful to subordinate fish and led to a few mortalities. To
minimize the effects of these behaviors, we separated fish into 5-cm size intervals, held similar
sized fish together, and placed several 15 to 30-cm-long pieces of PVC pipe (5, 7.5, and 10-cmdiameter) in each tank to provide cover. Second, several fish showed signs of disease or injury
during the study (e.g., overtly lethargic behavior, unusually dark coloration, damaged snouts,
frayed fins, cloudy eyes, external pustules or sores, or bleeding). These fish were euthanized and
given a complete bacterial, viral, and parasitic screening by personnel from the USFWS Lower
Columbia River Fish Health Center. Results from the fish health examinations are presented in
Appendix A.
Critical swimming speed tests.—We attempted to swim five fish at 6°C, 46 fish at 11°C,
8
and 20 fish at 15°C. Of these 71 fish, 16 of them successfully completed a Ucrit test (Table 4); no
tests were successful at 6°C. Because swim speed was significantly influenced by fish length
(Figure 1), we pooled data from similar sized fish for summary. At 11°C, fish 11-19 cm had a
mean (+SE) Ucrit of 48.24 + 13.65 cm/s or 3.22 + 0.45 BL/s (Table 5). Also at 11°C , fish 32-42
cm had a mean Ucrit of 73.99 + 4.10 cm/s or 2.05 + 0.14 BL/s (Table 5). At 15°C, fish 14-23 cm
had a mean Ucrit of 54.66 + 5.27 cm/s or 2.88 + 0.39 BL/s.
The behavior of bull trout in the enclosed swim tunnels was problematic, as only 22.5%
of our fish completed the Ucrit test. We defined a test as successful if the fish showed steady
swimming with minimal erratic behavior and provided the data needed to calculate a valid
estimate of Ucrit. Specifically, fish had to swim for 30 min for two velocity steps above the
initial adjustment velocity (i.e., 1 BL/s). All 16 of the successful fish did this, and some also
swam during a third or fourth velocity increment. The behavior of bull trout resulting in a failed
Ucrit test typically consisted of fish flaring out their pectoral fins and maintaining position on the
bottom of the tunnel or resting against the downstream screen instead of swimming. As velocity
was increased, fish showing this type of behavior would usually maintain position on the bottom
of the tunnel until the velocity was too high, at which point they began to behave erratically and
soon became impinged on the back screen.
Discussion
The critical swimming speed of fish is an important measure of their biological and
physiological performance because Ucrit is thought to be a close measure of the maximum
9
aerobic capacity of fish (Hammer 1995). Thus, at speeds near and above Ucrit, swimming
involves increased recruitment of white muscle fibers and energetically costly anaerobic
pathways for metabolism (Burgetz et al. 1998). A knowledge of Ucrit indicates water velocities
where fish may have difficulty swimming for long periods of time. This information is useful
for designing new, or modifying existing, fish passage structures. Our estimates of Ucrit for wild
bull trout represent the first laboratory-based swimming performance metrics for these fish and a
good first step toward understanding their capacity for exercise and ability to negotiate fish
passage structures.
Our estimates of Ucrit for wild bull trout compare favorably with those from rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss, but only for fish of about 30 cm or greater (Webb 1971; Pearson and
Stevens 1991; Jain et al. 1997; Burgetz et al 1998). Because of the different protocols used to
estimate Ucrit and the numerous factors that can influence the swimming performance of fishes, it
is difficult to compare estimates of Ucrit between or within species. Indeed, we were unable to
find many results from other studies on salmonids that we could validly compare to the
swimming performance of our smaller sized fish, from about 12 to 20 cm in length. Petersen
(1974) reported that brook trout S. fontinalis of about 11-12 cm FL had Ucrit estimates from 4.63
to 4.86 BL/s at 15°C, which is much higher than our estimates for smaller bull trout. Also, Brett
and Glass (1973) estimated the Ucrit of sockeye salmon O. nerka 9-16 cm in length to be 3.3-4.4
BL/s at 10-15°C, which is also higher than our estimates for smaller bull trout. Critical
swimming speed is influenced by the velocity increments and the time between increments used
in a study (see Hammer 1995 for a review). Further, the swimming performance of fish is
10
dependent on numerous other factors, including species, life history type, temperature, body size,
fish training, and metabolic condition. For example, differences in stamina between coho
salmon O. kisutch from different streams was shown to have a genetic basis (Taylor and McPhail
1985). Also, anadromous sockeye salmon were shown to have a greater mean Ucrit than nonanadromous forms raised under identical conditions (Taylor and Foote 1991). As alluded to by
Hammer (1995), a standardization of protocols for critical swimming speed tests, and more
understanding of the factors that influence these tests, would facilitate comparisons between
species and help make Ucrit a more complete measure of fish performance.
The refusal of many bull trout to show steady swimming in Blazka respirometers may be
in part due to constraints of the tunnels. The wild bull trout we used in our study may have
found the tunnels too confining, perhaps eliciting a behavioral stress reaction leading to poor
performance. Despite the fact that we had three different sizes of swim tunnels, and always used
one appropriate for the size of fish tested (see Cech 1990), fish were nevertheless constrained by
the diameter and length of the tunnel. Salmonids are known for their ability to hold station
within tunnels by using their pectoral fins as depressors (as many of our fish did), but initiating
tests at higher swim speeds or rapidly alternating velocity usually suffices to minimize this
behavior (see Beamish 1978 and references therein). According to Beamish (1978), only
occasionally do individual fish not perform well in swimming chambers despite the presence of
visual cues, electrical stimuli, repeated efforts, or other techniques. During our preliminary tests,
we tried several techniques to induce fish to swim steadily, including long adjustment periods in
the tunnel, practice swims, rapid changes in velocity, electrical stimuli, visual cues (bright lights
11
and a partially covered swim tube), and swimming fish at night. Eventually, we decided to use a
combination of a partially covered swim tube, rapid changes in velocity, a short practice swim,
and an initial ramped velocity as standard protocol for our Ucrit tests. However, as our results
indicate, even these measures were insufficient to elicit consistent performance from our wild
bull trout.
Much of the poor performance we observed in our bull trout may also be due to their life
history. For example, juvenile bull trout are known to be closely associated with stream
substrates and extensive in-stream cover, and show a preference for low velocity areas (Fraley
and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1997; Dambacher and Jones 1997; Earle and McKenzie 2001). Goetz
(1997) reported that 63-84% of juvenile bull trout observed in different seasons and diel periods
were resting near the bottom, with only 6-18% of the fish actively swimming and feeding. This
cryptic, relatively inactive, life style of bull trout may make them less inclined to perform
adequately in confined tunnels under a forced swimming regime, at least relative to other
salmonids. On the other hand, bull trout are known to make long distance migrations for
spawning and rearing (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Swanberg 1997; Burrows et al. 2001),
indicating that their capacity for swimming can be substantial. For example, bull trout in
Flathead Lake, Montana, traveled more than 250 km to spawn in British Columbia tributaries
(Fraley and Shepard 1989). In addition, recent work by Darin Jones and Christine Moffitt at the
University of Idaho has shown that several hatchery-reared bull trout ranging from 12 to 23 cm
in length were capable of swimming for 35 min at 5 to 6 BL/s in water temperatures of 9 or 15°C
(D. Jones and C. Moffitt, personal communication). Differences between the study of Jones and
12
Moffitt and ours are probably best explained by differences in methodology. Nevertheless, such
evidence, coupled with the extensive literature on swimming performance of salmonids, suggests
that bull trout may be better swimmers than our tests indicate. Further research will be
necessary, however, before a more complete understanding of bull trout swimming performance
becomes available.
Estimates of Ucrit have been used previously to assess the potential of fish to pass through
fishways, culverts, or other migratory obstacles (Jones et al. 1974; Peake et al. 1996, 1997,
2000). Basically, data from these studies, which used an increasing velocity protocol with short
time intervals, are used to estimate fishway or culvert velocities that would allow passage of
different species of fish within a certain period of time. For example, Jones et al. (1974)
estimated the Ucrit10 (derived from Ucrit tests with 10-min time intervals) of several species of fish
from the McKenzie River to describe speeds that these fish could maintain for 10 min. Thus,
assuming a 10-min transit time through a culvert with velocities similar to the Ucrit10, one could
calculate the maximum length of culvert that fish could realistically pass. Peake et al. (1997)
took this analysis to a more refined level by deriving models from Ucrit2, Ucrit5, and Ucrit10 tests
for various species of Newfoundland salmonids, thus providing more flexibility in determining
culvert lengths and velocities that allow adequate passage of fish. Using our Ucrit30 model for
fish at 11°C (Figure 1) would yield conservative estimates of water velocities in culverts of
different lengths that bull trout could pass. Such an analysis, based on that of Peake et al.
(2000), is shown in Figure 2. For example, at 11°C, a 25-cm bull trout could pass a 60-m culvert
if water velocities were kept below 57 cm/s. Taking the most conservative approach, the models
13
in Figure 2 would predict that bull trout from 15 to 40 cm FL could pass culverts up to 100-m in
length provided water velocities were below 42 cm/s at 11°C. Further research would be needed
to include the influence of different water temperatures, fish sizes, and swim speeds on our
models of bull trout passage through culverts.
We believe our estimates of Ucrit for bull trout represent an important benchmark towards
understanding their capacity for exercise. As such, our estimates of Ucrit for bull trout should
serve as a good starting point for modeling efforts aimed at designing or improving passage
structures for these fish. Until more information becomes available, we recommend that fishway
or culvert designers concerned with bull trout passage work to maintain velocities within their
structures at or below our estimates of Ucrit , thus taking a conservative approach to ensuring that
these imperiled fish can ascend migratory obstacles safely.
Acknowledgments
We thank Chris Allen, Jarvis Gust, and Kathleen Moynan of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for their assistance in obtaining ESA permits and administration; Scott Lewis and
personnel from Portland General Electric for their constant willingness to help and their
expertise in the field; Mike Hayes and personnel from the USGS Western Fisheries Research
Center for kindly collecting fish from the screw trap; Chris Brun and Patty O’Toole of the Warm
Springs Tribe, Mike Riehle of the U.S. Forest Service, and Steve Marx of the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife for advice on obtaining bull trout; Susan Gutenberger, Ken
Lujan, and Mary Peters of the Lower Columbia Fish Health Center for their fish health
14
screenings; Brady Allen, Amy Arbeit, Susie Imholt, Ian Jezorek, Becky Reiche, Brian Sharpe,
and Joe Warren of the CRRL for angling, field, and laboratory assistance; and Kim Clarkin of
the USFS for providing funding and administrative guidance. Mention of trade names does not
constitute endorsement by the federal government.
References
Beamish, F. W. H. 1964. Respiration of fishes with special emphasis on standard oxygen
consumption. II. Influence of weight and temperature on respiration of several species.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 42:177-188.
Beamish, F. W. H. 1978. Swimming capacity. Pages 101-175 in W. S. Hoar and D. J. Randall,
editors. Fish physiology. Academic Press, New York.
Bernatchez, L., and J. J. Dodson. 1985. Influence of temperature and current speed on the
swimming capacity of lake whitefish and cisco. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 42:1522-1529.
Berry, C. R., Jr., and R. Pimentel. 1985. Swimming performances of three rare Colorado River
fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:397-402.
Brett, J. R., and N. R. Glass. 1973. Metabolic rates and critical swimming speeds of sockeye
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in relation to fatigue time and temperature. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30:379-387.
Buchanan, D. V., and S. V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards to
15
protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon. Pages
119-126 in Mackay, W. C, M. K. Brewin, and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the bull
trout conference proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited
Canada, Calgary.
Burgetz, I. J., A. Rojas-Vargas, S. G. Hinch, and D. J. Randall. 1998. Initial recruitment of
anaerobic metabolism during sub-maximal swimming in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss). Journal of Experimental Biology 201:2711-2721.
Burrows, J., T. Euchner, and N. Baccante. 2001. Bull trout movement patterns: Halfway River
and Peace River progress. Pages 153-158 in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul, and M. Monita,
editors. Bull trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Canada.
Cech, J. J. 1990. Respirometry. Pages 335-362 in C. B. Schreck and P. B. Moyle, editors.
Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Dambacher, J. M., and K. Jones. 1997. Stream habitat of juvenile bull trout populations in
Oregon and benchmarks for habitat quality. Pages 353-360 in Mackay, W. C, M. K.
Brewin, and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the bull trout conference proceedings. Bull
Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary.
Earle, J. E., and J. S. McKenzie. 2001. Microhabitat use by juvenile bull trout in mountain
streams in the Copton Creek system, Alberta, and its relation to mining activity. Pages
121-128 in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull trout II conference
16
proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Canada.
Fraley, J. J., and B. B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory
bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana.
Northwest Science 63:133-143.
Goetz, F. A. 1997. Habitat use of juvenile bull trout in Cascade mountain streams of Oregon
and Washington. Pages 339-352 in Mackay, W. C, M. K. Brewin, and M. Monita,
editors. Friends of the bull trout conference proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force
(Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary.
Hammer, C. 1995. Fatigue and exercise tests with fish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology 112A (1):1-20.
Jain, K. E., J. C. Hamilton, and A. P. Farrell. 1997. Use of a ramp velocity test to measure
critical swimming speed in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology 117A:441-444.
Jones, D. R., J. W. Kiceniuk, and O. S. Bamford. 1974. Evaluation of the swimming
performance of several fish species from the McKenzie River. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 31:1641-1647.
Mesa, M. G., and T. M. Olson. 1993. Prolonged swimming performance of northern squawfish.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:1104-1110.
17
Peake, S., F. W. H. Beamish, R. S. McKinley, D. A. Scruton, and C. Katopodis. 1996. Relating
swimming performance of lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, to fishway design.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1361-1366.
Peake, S., R. S. McKinley, and D. A. Scruton. 1997. Swimming performance of various
freshwater Newfoundland salmonids relative to habitat selection and fishway design.
Journal of Fish Biology 51:710-723.
Peake, S., R. S. McKinley, and D. A. Scruton. 2000. Swimming performance of walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum). Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1686-1690.
Pearson, M. P., and E. D. Stevens. 1991. Splenectomy impairs aerobic swim performance in
trout. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:2089-2092.
Petersen, R. H. 1974. Influence of Fenitrothion on swimming velocities of brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31:17571762.
Ratliff, D. E. 1992. Bull trout investigations in the Metolius River-Lake Billy Chinook system.
Pages 37-44 in P. J. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart
Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for
conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. United States Forest
18
Service, Intermountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho.
Swanberg, T. R. 1997. Movements of and habitat use by fluvial bull trout in the Blackfoot
River, Montana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:735-746.
Taylor, E. B., and J. D. McPhail. 1985. Variation in burst and prolonged swimming
performance among British Columbia populations of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus
kisutch. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:2029-2933.
Taylor, E. B., and C. J. Foote. 1991. Critical swimming velocities of juvenile sockeye salmon
and kokanee, the anadromous and non anadromous forms of Oncorhynchus nerka
(Walbaum). Journal of Fish Biology 38:407-419.
Webb, P. W. 1971. The swimming energetics of trout. II. Oxygen consumption and swimming
efficiency. Journal of Experimental Biology 55:521-540.
19
TABLE 1. Mean (+ SD), minimum, and maximum water quality variables measured hourly
during the study period, 1April –30 September 2002. For each variable, sample size was about
4,300 measurements.
Mean (+ SD)
Minimum
Maximum
Temperature (C)
6.49 + 0.35
5.87
9.02
pH
6.93 + 0.05
6.73
7.73
Conductivity (mS/cm)
0.02 + 0.0005
0.02
0.02
Specific conductivity (mS/cm)
0.03 + 0.0008
0.03
0.03
Dissolved oxygen (%)
145.18 + 1.60
135.30
149.10
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
18.21 + 0.20
16.97
18.71
Resistivity (KOhm.cm)
54.27 + 1.70
47.78
59.11
0.01 + 0
0.01
0.01
0.17 + 0.56
0.00
28.9
0.02 + 0.0005
0.02
0.02
Salinity (ppt)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total dissolved solids (g/L)
20
TABLE 2. Dimensions and specifications for the Blazka-style swim tunnels used in bull trout
performance studies.
Size
Total
Length
(cm)
Working
section length
(cm)
Inner
diameter
(mm)
Volume
(L)
Velocity Range
(cm/s)
Motor
(hp)
Small
47
30.5
89
6.53
0 - 59.4
0.5
Medium
121
91
165
55.2
0 - 100.7
1
Large
124
90
203
84.0
0 - 86.9
2
Tunnel
21
TABLE 3. Bull trout collection dates, sites, methods, sizes, and total number of fish collected
during 2002.
Date
Site
Size (cm)
Method
< 20
> 20
Total
collected
5 Apr
Metolius River
Screw trap
45
0
45
19 Apr
Metolius River
Screw trap
55
0
55
3 May
Metolius River
Screw trap
27
0
27
5 Jun
Lake Billy Chinook
Angling
0
1
1
31 Jul
Metolius River
Fyke net
0
1
1
16 Aug
Lake Billy Chinook
Angling
0
31
31
22
TABLE 4. Water temperature, date of test, length, weight, and estimates of Ucrit for the 16 fish
that successfully performed in 2002.
Temperature
Date
11ºC
15ºC
Length (cm)
Weight (g)
Ucrit (BL/s)
Ucrit (cm/s)
Jun 11
10.9
18.8
2.50
27.23
Jun 14
14.3
36.4
3.56
50.97
Jun 17
12.9
23.8
3.35
43.23
Jun 28
16.7
52.9
3.57
59.70
Jul 3
19.4
85.0
3.10
60.07
Sep 4
42.5
810.4
1.78
75.83
Sep 5
34.2
379.2
2.17
74.20
Sep 11
32.5
366.8
2.15
69.83
Sep 12
37.6
528.4
2.13
79.93
Sep 13
33.2
364.2
2.07
68.87
Sep 16
37.3
517.1
2.02
75.30
Jul 25
23.0
146.0
2.65
61.00
Aug 1
17.1
53.7
3.40
58.10
Aug 5
22.0
123.6
2.44
53.67
Aug 6
14.8
37.3
3.18
47.13
Aug 6
19.4
76.3
2.75
53.40
TABLE 5. Mean (SD) fork length and estimates of Ucrit for three groups of bull trout at two
23
temperatures.
Ucrit (cm/s)
Ucrit (BL/s)
14.8 (3.3)
48.24 (13.65)
3.22 (0.45)
6
36.2 (3.7)
73.99 (4.10)
2.05 (0.14)
5
19.3 (3.4)
54.66 (5.27)
2.89 (0.39)
Size range
Temper-
Sample
Mean length
(cm)
ature (°C)
size
(cm)
11-19
11
5
32-42
11
14-23
15
24
Figure 1. Linear regressions of Ucrit (top panel = BL/s; bottom panel = cm/s) as a function of
length for eleven fish swam at 11°C (black circles) and five fish at 15°C (open circles).
4
y = -0.05x + 3.90
r2 = 0.73
Ucrit (BL/s)
3
y = -0.10x + 4.78
2
r = 0.72
2
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
40
45
Fork Length (cm)
90
y = 1.26 x + 28.78
r2 = 0.82
80
y = 1.02 x + 35.02
r2 = 0.43
Ucrit (cm/s)
70
60
50
40
30
20
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fork Length (cm)
25
Figure 2. Maximum water velocities that will allow bull trout of three sizes to pass culverts of
various lengths in 11°C water. The lines were determined as follows: maximum water velocity
within a culvert equals the highest speed a fish can maintain for 30 min (Ucrit30) minus the
minimum ground speed required to pass the culvert in 30 min (culvert length/1,800 s). The
Ucrit30 values were calculated by substituting length values into the appropriate equation from
Figure 1.
Maximum water velocity (cm/s)
90
80
40 cm
70
60
25 cm
50
15 cm
40
0
20
40
60
Culvert length (m)
26
80
100
120
APPENDIX A
BULL TROUT HEALTH SCREENINGS
27
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER FISH HEALTH CENTER
61552 S.R. 14
Underwood, WA 98651
Phone: 509-493-3156
Fax: 509-493-2748
FISH HEALTH REPORT 2002
FISH SOURCE
Location: Metolius River (via CRRL)
County: Jefferson
Contact Person: Matt Mesa
Affiliation: USGS CRRL
Phone: (509) 538-2299 ext. 246
FISH EXAMINED
Species: Bull trout
Age: Juveniles
CHN: 02-180
Number of fish: 39
Date Sampled: 04-19-02 to present
SAMPLE
SIZE
RESULTS
IPNV
39
negative
Negative by EPC and CHSE-214 cells
IHNV
39
negative
Negative by EPC and CHSE-214 cells
VHS
39
negative
Negative by EPC and CHSE-214 cells
AS
39
negative
Negative by BHIA medium
YR
39
negative
Negative by BHIA medium
RS
39
Positive
+20/39 fish detected by ELISA (5 moderate levels), 2 fish confirmed by
PCR
BCD
39
Positive
+10/39 fish positive by TYES medium, confirmed by Gram stain
CD
39
negative
Negative by TYES medium
ESC
39
negative
Negative by BHIA medium
WD
39
negative
Not detected by Pepsin/Trypsin Digest
CS
39
negative
microscopic examination
DISEASE
AGENT 1
Comments
COMMENTS
Most of the fish were thin, no food in the gut or hind-gut, frayed fins, and eroded caudal fins. A couple of
fish had a blackened caudal peduncle with lesions beginning to form.
1
IPNV Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus, IHNV Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus, VHS Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus, AS Furunculosis (Aeromonas salmonicida) , YR Enteric Redmouth (Yersinia
ruckeri), RS BKD (Renibacterium salmoninarum), BCD Coldwater Disease (Flexibacter psychrophilum), CD
Columnaris (Flexibacter columnaris), ESC Emphysematous Putrefactive Disease (Edwardsiella ictaluri), WD
Whirling Disease (Myxobolus cerebralis), CS Salmonid Ceratomyxosis (Ceratomyxa shasta).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER FISH HEALTH CENTER
61552 S.R. 14
28
Underwood, WA 98651
Phone: 509-493-3156
Fax: 509-493-2748
FISH HEALTH REPORT 2002
FISH SOURCE
Location: Metolius River (via CRRL)
County: Jefferson
Contact Person: Matt Mesa
Affiliation: USGS CRRL
Phone: (509) 538-2299 ext. 246
FISH EXAMINED
Species: Bull trout
Age: Adults
CHN: 02-182
Number of fish: 25
Date Sampled: 04-19-02 to present
SAMPLE
SIZE
RESULTS
IPNV
25
negative
Negative by EPC and CHSE-214 cells
IHNV
25
negative
Negative by EPC and CHSE-214 cells
VHS
25
negative
Negative by EPC and CHSE-214 cells
AS
25
negative
Negative by BHIA medium
YR
25
negative
Negative by BHIA medium
RS
25
Positive
+19/25 fish detected by ELISA (1 moderate level), PCR pending.
However, 2 fish detected by DFAT (high levels).
BCD
25
Positive
+1/25 fish positive by TYES medium, confirmed by Gram stain
CD
25
negative
Negative by TYES medium
ESC
25
negative
Negative by BHIA medium
WD
25
negative
Not detected by Pepsin/Trypsin Digest
CS
25
negative
microscopic examination
DISEASE
AGENT 1
Comments
COMMENTS
Two fish with abnormal growth on operculum and along dorsal surface, possible injury. Took tissue sample
for histology.
1
IPNV Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus, IHNV Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus, VHS Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus, AS Furunculosis (Aeromonas salmonicida) , YR Enteric Redmouth (Yersinia
ruckeri), RS BKD (Renibacterium salmoninarum), BCD Coldwater Disease (Flexibacter psychrophilum), CD
Columnaris (Flexibacter columnaris), ESC Emphysematous Putrefactive Disease (Edwardsiella ictaluri), WD
Whirling Disease (Myxobolus cerebralis), CS Salmonid Ceratomyxosis (Ceratomyxa shasta).
29