Dec 29, 1988 - arranged for office space, equipment, and computer use through the ..... studies examining brown trout habitat use and activity patterns.
Movement, Habitat Use, and Daily Activity Patterns of Trophy Brown Trout in the South Branch of the Au Sable River, Michigan
David F. Clapp
Fisheries Research Report No. 1907 December 29, 1988
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISHERIES DIVISION
Fisheries Research Report No, 1907 December 29, 1988
MOVEMENT, HABITAT USE, AND DAILY ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF TROPHY BROWN TROUT IN THE SOUTH BRANCH OF THE AU SABLE RIVER, MICHIGAN1
David F. Clapp
'This is a reprint of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fisheries, in the School of Natural Resources, The University of Michigan, 1988.
MOVEMENT, HABITAT USE, AND DAILY ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF TROPHY BROWN TROUT
IN THE SOUTH BRANCH OF THE AU SABLE RIVER, MICHIGAN
David F. Clapp
A
Thesis
Submittedin
Partial
Fulfillment
Requirements f o r the degree o f Master of Science
School of Natural Resources The University of Michigan 1988
Committee members
Associate Professor James S. Diana, Chairman Adjunct Professor William C. Latta Ex-officio examiner Richard D. Clark, J r . , Ph.D.
of
the
Acknowledaments
I would like first to express my sincere appreciation to the
members of my committee; without their work and
this
project
arranged
would
for
have #been possible.
not
office
space, equipment,
advice
Dr.
and
Latta
computer
use
through the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, as well as the
providing constructive comments and criticisms throughout course
funding
for
direction practice my
of the study. this
Dr.
project,
whenever
needed.
Diana arranged all
and
provided
of
the
criticism
Additionally,
Dr.
and
Diana's
of treating his students as friends and peers
made
studies at the University of Michigan truly enjoyable and
rewarding.
Dr.
aspects
this project;
of
Clark
was
the driving
force
behind
all
help
and
without his continued
encouragement during my undergraduate and graduate work, this study would numerous
not have been completed.
His
discussions
ideas added considerably to the following document.
Major Michigan
funding
Fly
for
this study was
Fishing Club, based in
Livonia.
project;
they
a
fishing
organizations can and must play in the
example of the
of this valuable resource. Bill and Fran Merrill.
drafts
the
positive
role
that
this
trout
conservation
I would especially like to thank
Bill provided a great deal of help to
the field, and made constructive comments of
the club
provide
in
interest in
by The
showed good
tremendous
provided
members
me
of
thesis.
Both
Fran
and
Bill
on
early
showed
me
tremendous hospitality during my two summers in Grayling.
I received technical advice and support from a number of people. thank
From
the University of Michigan, I would iike
Professors Gary Fowler and Charles Olsen.
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Everyone at
Institute for
Fisheries Research in Ann Arbor was extremely helpful. would especially like to thank James ~apczynski, who with much
of
the field work, made
to
I
helped
slides for numerous
presentations, and constructed necessary equipment for work in the field.
Roger L O C ~ W O O ~ A1 , Sutton, Barbara Lowell,
Barbara Gould, and Grace Zurek all helped immeasureably.
I would
like to thank the Michigan
State University
Fisheries Department and Land Management Office for providing lodging at
their Wa
Grayling, Michigan. this
Wa Sum
Lodge Research Facility
in
Kevin Gardiner, the resident manager at
facility, helped on numerous occasions with field work
and was a valuable friend during my two summers in Grayling. A to me
number of friends provided support and during my
years in Ann Arbor.
encouragement
I would
like
to
especially thank Steve Dater, Dave Lucchesi, Shelly Gray, Lynn Jolicouer, and Jill Ciolli. Finally, I would like most of all to thank my parents, Richard and Martha, and my sister, Anne, done.
for all they have
I owe them a debt of love and support that is
impossible to repay.
iii
Table fo
Contents
..................................... List of Figures ..................................... List of Tables ...................................... Abstract ............................................ Introduction ........................................
Acknowledgments
Methods
..................................... Implant of Transmitters ........................ Location of Fish ............................... Movement ....................................... Habitat Use .................................... Study Area
Daily Activity Patterns ........................ Results Implant of Transmitters.,. .....................
........................................ Habitat Use .................................... Daily Activity Patterns ........................ Discussion .......................................... Management Implications ............................. Literature Cited., ................................... Movement
viii
List of Figures -
Figure
Page
South Branch of the Au Sable River, showing various landmarks in the study area........... Range of movement by eight bkown trout tracked
during the present study .............
Frequency of use for 57 quadrats occupied by brown trout in the South Branch of the AU Sable River
................................
Summer site use by fish #6, tracked from June to December, 1987 ........................ Site use by fish # I , tracked during summer
Site use by fish #2, tracked during summer
Summer site use by fish #7, tracked from June 1987 to May 1988....
.....................
Comparison of available mean water velocity to that used by three brown trout tracked during summer 1987......................
.............
Comparison of available bottom water velocity to that used by three brown trout tracked during summer 1987 ............................
10. Comparison of available cover to that used
by three brown trout tracked during summer 1987 11.
.........................................
Comparison of available substrate to that used by three brown trout tracked during summer 1987
12.
.........................................
Comparison of available water depth to that used by three brown trout tracked during summer 1987
.........................................
13. Local activity pattern for brown trout tracked
during June 14.
..................................
Local activity pattern for brown trout tracked during July ..................................
15,
Local activity pattern for brown trout tracked during August ................................
16.
Distributions of upstream ( - 1 long-range activity
(+)
and downstream
......................
37
List
of Tables
Page
Table
1.
Summary of brown trout transmitter implants performed between May 1986 and June 1987.,,..,
2.
Range of movement and home site use by fish tracked between May 1986 and May 1988
3.
.........
Mean monthly local activity for brown trout tracked in summer...........................,.
4.
Mean and maximum long-range activity for fish tracked between May 1986 and May 1988...
vii
......
Abstract
Most previous
studies of
brown
Salmo
trout
trutta
ecology and behavior have focused on smaller fish, or fish in lakes or under controlled conditions. been
done
in investigating the
Very little work
ecology
ranging, stream-resident brown trout. undertaken
of
has
large, free-
The present study was
to monitor the movement, habitat use, and daily
activity patterns of these fish, Radio transmitters were implanted in eight brown trout between
437 mm and 635 mm from the South Branch of
Sable River, Michigan over a two year period. during
summer
-
(May
August), and
Daily tracking
tracking
-
intervals during fall and winter (September
the Au
at
two-week
April) was used
to determine movement, habitat use, and 3ctivity patterns of these
fish.
Range
of
movement
and home
site
defined, and measured for each fish tracked. habitat fish
use
was
I evaluated
use by comparing habitat in stream quadrats used
to
that
throughout
available in quadrats chosen at
the river.
random
Two measures of brown trout
local activity and long-range activity.
activity was
measured
fluctuations
signal strength over a 24-h period, and long-range
from
activity
were defined;
by counting
by
Local
in radio activity
was measured as the linear distance covered by a fish between consecutive daytime resting locations. Range
of
movement for eight fish tracked varied
370 m to 33.4 km. was
approximately
from
The average range of movement in summer 5,000 m, while viii
the
average
range
of
movement
in winter was
approximately
12
km.
Movement
appeared to be nonrandom; that is, fish used a few locations often and were seen to return to these sites after movement to other
areas of the river.
periods used
as many as
Fish tracked during
four home
sites; the
summer average
separation between these sites was 386 m. Brown trout chose deep, slow areas with heavy log cover. Significant positive electivity was seen for mean and bottom water velocities less than 10 cm/sec, depths between 46 and 60
cm,
areas of
cover including overhanging branches,
vegetation, and logs, and areas with silt substrate. Distinct peaks two summer months.
in local activity were observed during
A major activity peak in June occurred at
2200 h , but in July this major peak shifted to 0500
distinct activity peaks
were apparent
No
h.
in August.
Light
accounted for almost 29% of the variance in local
intensity
activity levels.
Seasonal differences in local activity may
also have been related to changes in
food availability or
temperature. Long-range activity observed in summer was significantly less than that seen during winter. Average summer long-range activity was less than 300 m, while average winter was
greater
than 3000 m.
"foraging" activity reported
activity
However, extensive nighttime
in summer was much
greater
than
any
in previous studies. No significant upstream or
downstream
trends in long-range activity were observed once
fish took up residence in an area; however, many of the fish tracked made a long movement to upstream areas in fall, then
remained
in these upstream areas over winter.
Significant
positive correlations were seen for long-range activity with volume
discharge
and
average daily
air
temperature.
Significant negative correlation was seen between long-range activity and groundwater levels. During
the present study, six of eight
fish tracked
moved out of a catch-and-release section of the South Branch, making
them vulnerable to harvest in sections of the river
not covered by special regulations.
However, four of
five
fish tracked during the period of peak fishing pressure (MayAugust)
remained
in
this
catch-and-release
section.
Possibly, increased harvest of trophy fish in areas adjacent to regulated areas could be counted as an additional benefit of these quality fishing regulations.
Introduction
Studies of have
stream-resident brown trout
Salmo trutta
traditionally focused on movement, habitat use, and
activity patterns.
The results of this research have
many instances been disparate.
Some researchers have
that brown trout move very little.
in
shown
Cobb (1933) found
that
fish tagged in a number of Connecticut streams showed greater displacement from the
site of initial release than brook
trout Salvelinus fontinalis,
but
that
the majority
of
recaptures still tended to occur close to the areas in which brown trout had been tagged initially. Allen (1951) reported similar findings from a mark-and-recapture study of Zealand brown trout population.
a New
Bachman (19841, using visual
observations, found that brown trout in Pennsylvania streams remained close to a single location throughout their entire lives. Other
studies, however, suggest that trout may
extensively, especially during
fall and
winter.
move Schuck
(19431, using data from fish caught in weirs in combination with tagging, found that brown trout showed little movement during spring and summer, but could be seen to move several miles upstream to spawn during October and November, and then return to
their original locations sometime during
winter.
Jenkins
(1969) observed both
the
a resident and
transient segment of brown trout populations in the mountain streams of long-term
California.
Resident fish generally displayed
(50 days) position stability while
the
transient
segment
of
the
aggressive
population was
displays
and
characterized
the absence of
a
by
frequent
settled
social
structure. Similar studies
disparities
examining
patterns. habitat
The have
1980), but depending 1980),
be
trout
seen in habitat
the
use
results
and
been defined (White 1975,
Raleigh
trout
and
Duff
use of this habitat by trout in streams may vary on
factors such as lifestage
activity
(Raleigh and
(Gosse and Helm 1981),
or threat (Bachman 1984).
that activity may occur in distinct bouts, bouts may vary considerably.
Duff
competition (Fausch Many studies on
behavior and feeding patterns of brown trout have
these
of
activity
variables thought to constitute ideal
and White 19811, the
brown
can
shown
but the timing of
Oswald (1978) recorded
three daily peaks in trout feeding activity using an analysis of electromyogram rhythms. evening
peaks
in
Elliott (1970) found midday
feeding activity through an
brown
trout
stomach contents.
brown
trout
were
most
and
analysis
Chaston (1969) found
active between
dusk
and
of that
dawn
in
laboratory experiments, Disparities between the findings of these studies result in the used
part from differences in the methodologies used size of fish being studied. to
investigate
information. accurately distances reported.
movement
Recapture
and
Mark-and-recapture studies can
only
locations
provide
are
limited
sometimes
known
only to within one or two miles (Cobb 19331, moved by fish may be greater than The
activities
of
in
fish
those
between
so
actually
marking
and
recapture are not known, and dependence on angler efforts for tag returns may bias results to include a relatively large proportion of returns from popular during peak movements
fishing periods. may
be
missed.
fishing sections and
Important fall and winter Weir
captures can
provide
additional data, but an investigator using weir data still has no
information
(other than direction) on where
fish
originated, or what conditions at these original sites may have
triggered
observations,
the movements observed. while valuable, place
temporal limits on
the study of a
Direct
visual
strict spatial and
fish population.
For
example, fixed shore stations can only be employed in cases where
fish are readily visible from above the surface of the
water.
For
this reason, fish which are often under heavy
cover may not be observed using this method Underwater
( SCUBA)
observations have added tremendously
our knowledge of trout behavior and habitat use (Fausch and White 1981, Cunjak and Power 19861, but may still introduce bias
by
displacing fish from
areas
actually
chosen.
Obviously, visual observations cannot be used to investigate nighttime behavior
without the aid of
specialized optical
equipment.
The size of individual brown trout in the studies cited above varied, but few studies specifically included larger stream-resident fish as a investigation
(
part of
the population under
the average size of fish in these studies was
approximately 250 mm 1 .
However, most recounted isolated
incidents in which larger brown trout exhibited behavior that
was
strikingly different from that observed in the rest of
the fish population under study. brown
Cobb (1933) reported on a
trout that may have moved 80 km downstream.
(1967)
0330mm) brown
described movements by some large
trout of
up
to 65 km from the site of
(1969) gave examples of
large brown
Shetter
tagging.
Jenkins
trout periodically
leaving areas of cover to roam through a stream section under investigation; at trout.
times making attempts to forage on
small
This roaming behavior, while limited to movements of
less than 100 m, was not observed among brown
trout of
Bachman (1984) found that the size of
smaller size classes.
a brown trout's "home range" may decrease between age I and age V;
after
this point, fish may adopt
a roaming or
migratory lifestyle (Bachman 1982). Large,
stream-resident brown
trout appear
to
show
patterns of behavior distinct from smaller fish, and some of the
common methods
of study may
elucidating these behaviors.
not be
appropriate for
The use of radio
telemetry
overcomes many problems related to the study of brown ecology.
Telemetry observations allow precise location of
fish for documentation of habitat use (Diana et and
trout
al.
19771,
allow movement and activity to be monitored continually
(Diana 1980,
Mesing
and
Wicker
1986).
Information on
location and behavior of trout at night and in heavy can also be obtained. large
fish
(which
cover
Telemetry is ideal for the study are rarely
studied
using
methodologies), as large fish are capable of carrying lived transmitters without impaired swimming ability
of
other long(Winter
The present study was undertaken to increase the current base
of
knowledge
concerning
and daily activity of large, brown trout. to
the
movement,
free-ranging,
habitat use,
stream
resident
The specific objectives of this study were:
1)
monitor seasonal movement and habitat use by trophy brown
trout
in
Roscommon, patterns August).
the
South
Michigan;
Branch of and
2)
the to
Au
Sable
evaluate
River
daily
activity
of these fish during the main fishing season In
this study,
a trophy fish was defined as
brown trout over 432 mm in length.
near
(Mayany
Methods
Studv Area
This study was conducted on the South Branch of the Au Sable River, near Roscommon, Michigan. The South Branch is a coldwater river extending from Lake St. Helen in Roscornmon County to its confluence with the Mainstream of the Au Sable River in Crawtord County, approximately 25 km east of Grayling, Michigan.
Six dams along the length of the
Au
Sable Mainstream prevent migration of brown trout from Lake Huron. The South Branch recieves a stable groundwater input. and is supplemented by inputs from a number of feeder creeks: most notably Robinson Creek, just upstream from the town of Roscommon.
The upper reaches of the river flow through low
lying swampy areas and the primary fish present are northern pike Esox lucius, yellow perch Perca flavescens, suckers
m,
Catostomus
and minnows (Cyprinidae) (Shatter 1967).
Quick discharge of rainwater through these low areas into the river causes increased section of
flow fluctuations in this upper
the river (Bosserman and Higgins 1969).
Roscomon, the river cools, the gradient becomes steeper. and
Below
somewhat
trout species. usually brown trout and brook
trout, dominate (Shetter 1967).
1 worked primarily on the
area of the South Branch between Roscommon and Smith Bridge (Figure 1 )
.
Mean annual flow on the South Branch, measured at Smith
Deerheart Valley Rd.
KILOMETERS
Figure various
1.
South Branch of the Au Sable
landmarks in the study area.
River, showing
Fish for
implant
of
transmitters were taken between Chase Bridge and the Castle. Statewide trout regulations were in effect upstream of Bridge.
From
Castle, a effect.
Chase
Bridge downstream to one km below
flies-only, Downstream
Chase
zero creel limit regulation was
from
this point to the
the in
Mainstream, a
flies-only, 5 fish creel limit regulation was in effect.
3
Bridge, is approximately width
of
gradient
the
Roscommon,
in
July
is
Average
20 m , and
Average
approximately
21
average
minimum C
water
temperature 26
in
these
same
C ind 24 C , respectivply
temperature distribution is
somewhat
water
upstream
and approximately 18 C at Smith Bridge.
approximately This
is approximately
is 0.09% (Shetter 1967).
temperature
maximum
river
6.5 m /sec (Coopes 1974).
of
Average areas
is
(Coopes 1974) . unusual.
Many
streams, particularly those in mountainous areas, have cool upstream reaches and warmer downstream reaches.
Transmitters
Transmitters trout
between
were successfully implanted in eight brown
May
1986 and
June
1987.
implants were unsuccessful (Table 1 ) . implants
were
incision was the
taken
using
D.C.
Another
Fish for
sixteen
transmitter
electrofishing
gear.
made into the abdominal cavity either
through
lateral body wall or ventrally, anterior to the
girdle.
A
and
incision was
the
sutures.
transmitter was inserted through this closed
using
An
pelvic
incision,
non-dissolving
nylon
Fish were released into the river near the site of
capture. Transmitters used (from Custom Telemetry and Consulting; Athens, Georgia) diameter, and
were
weighed
(1987). Transmitter than
approximately
4 cm long, 2
approximately 12 g (1986) or
batteries
used in 1986 failed
expected, and were replaced with larger
cm 20
in g
earlier
batteries
in
Table
Summary
1.
of brown trout
transmitter
performed between May 1986 and June 1987. NS
indicates
weeks,
and
0
fish
For Days tracked,
tracked successfully for less
indicates
implants
fish dying immediately
than
two
following
surgery.
Date
Temper-
implanted
ature ( C )
May 5, 1986
Jul 8, 1986
Oct 23, 1986
--
21
10
Length
Weight
Days
Implant
(mm)
(9)
tracked
site
488
102
Lateral
NS
Lateral
NS
Lateral
NS
Lateral
0
Lateral
NS
Lateral
52
Lateral
0
Lateral
0
Lateral
0
Lateral
0
Lateral
80
Lateral
114
Lateral
0
Lateral
93
Lateral
NS
Lateral
...
Table 1 (continued)
Date
Temper-
implanted
May 5, 1987
ature ( C )
Length
Weight
#(mm)
(a)
Days tracked
11
Implant site
Lateral Lateral Lateral Lateral
Jun 3, 1987
18
Ventral Ventral Ventral
Aug 8, 1987
20
556
0
Ventral
Each transmitter was encased in surgical wax and bore
1987.
identifying contacted
information, including a telephone number to be
in
the
event one of the fish was found
captured by an angler.
dead, or
Each fish was tracked on a different
frequency between 49 and 50 MHz.
Location
Fish
During locate
the summer months (May
every fish on each day.
separate areas usually given
this was not
-
August) I attempted
When fish moved always
possible.
to
widely
I
However,
did not go more than two days between locations of a fish.
During the winter months (September
- April),
fish were located at approximately two-week intervals. collected of
to
Data
during the two weeks immediately following implant
transmitters were discarded,
since fish
often
exhibit
erratic behavior during this time (Mesing and Wicker 1986).
I initially located
fish by floating the
canoe, using a scanning receiver (Model 60 cm
loop antenna (both from Advanced
Isanti, Minnesota). at
a
-
river
in
a
Challenger 200) and Telemetry
Systems;
Using this system, I could detect fish
distance of approximately 2QQ meters.
If a fish had
been located recently, I began searching at the site where I had last found that fish.
After a radio signal was detected,
I took bearings from a number of positions on the river bank, upstream
and
downstream of the estimated
position
of
fish, in order to more accurately determine that position. smaller
( 1 5 cm) loop antenna was often used for
the
A
close-range
When I had determined a fish's location, I waded into
work.
I could generally approach
the river to verify the position.
to within five meters (sometimes to within one meter) fish before it was disturbed, so that verification
of was
sight
of the fish, by maximum signal strength, or in
cases
by
maximum
signal
strength followed by
a by
some
a drop
in
strength (indicating rapid movement by the fish).
Fish were
only
and
generally
in cover at the position of
location,
disturbed to make habitat measurements,
they remained near or even
as
these
I assumed
habitat measurements were taken.
disturbances
did
not
significantly
that
influence
the
movement and activity patterns observed. The
locations
constructed
of
all
fish
were
plotted
on
maps
from aerial photographs and topographic maps
of
On these maps, the river was divided into quadrats
the area. 10 meters
long
(
thalweg distance
)
with a width
equal
to
either 1/2 the width of the river, or equal to 10 m (if the river
was
represents portion
of
than 20 m 1 .
wider an
area
the
The size
large enough to
river
of
include
in use by a trout
at
this that the
quadrat entire time
of
location, and small enough to allow for accurate location and habitat data collection. In analyzing movement and activity, the data I collected were
separated
into two groups.
summer
data, collected
second
group included fall/winter
August 16 and April 30. referred
to
as
winter
The first group
between May 1 and data,
August collected
included 15:
the
between
This second group will hereaftsr be data.
Two
fish
were
tracked
exclusively during a summer period (May
-
August 19861, three
fish were tracked exclusively during a winter period (October 1986
-
February 19871, and three fish were tracked
both summer and winter periods (June 1987
-
through This
May 1988).
division into summer and winter was not an arbitrary one, but rather based on observations made in the field. during
this
study
tended to exhibit
much
Fish tracked
more
extensive
movements beginning in mid-August.
Movement
Range distance
of
of each fish.
identified
for
defined in this
study
as
Home sites within this range
fish tracked during summ2r
A home site was defined
as:
the
telemetric
periods,
were and
the average separation between home sites for
of these fish. that
is
between extreme upstream and downstream
locations
compared
movement
1)
a
each
quadrat
was used five or more times by a given fish, or 2 )
quadrat
which a fish returned to after moving to a
I
a
separate
quadrat in the river (thus exhibiting a homing tendency). Two adjacent
quadrats which both fulfilled the requirements of a
home site were considered to be a single home site.
I also
plotted
tracked
during days
distributions of
quadrat use for each fish
a summer period, and compared the average number that
each
fish remained at a quadrat
before
of
moving.
Habitat U s
for
~uantitativehabitat data was collected exclusively fish located during summer tracking. in
and
1986
measured cover
three fish in 1987.
During
summer
depth, mean water velocity, substrate at a single point that I took to
type
location of
the fish being tracked.
problems
associated
locations
were
with
focal
There were two
major
this methodology;
at
representative problems,
of
radio
as
precise
single
habitat
point
being
fish),
not
totally
were
used.
were
smaller
To
correct
these
I made some modifications for work during
Results
1987.
a
1)
2 ) because large brown trout
and
I
the
to move a great deal (as compared to
measurements
1986,
type, and
be
not accurate enough to be taken
focal point values, found
This included two fish
reported in this study reflect only
summer habitat
data collected in sites used by fish tracked during 1987. After encompassed
locating a fish and identifying which map quadrat its
position,
I completely
habitat present in that quadrat. fish were characterized. once;
multiple
edge, middle, determined
and
water
substrate, and
of
Eighteen quadrats used
by
were
taken on six
of
these
I established transects at the upstream downstream
edge of
depth, mean and cover
each
quadrat,
and
bottom
water
velocity,
type present at one
meter
intervals
along each of these transects. review
the
Fish often used a quadrat more than
measurements
eighteen quadrats.
characterized
These were assumed, from a
the available literature, to be
the
five
most
importan t
habitat
variables.
Approximately
thirty
measurements were made in each quadrat, depending on bank
morphometry ( 3 transects x 7-10 m per
water
stream
transect).
Mean
velocity (at 0.6 of the depth of the water column) and
bottom water velocity (from 1-5 cm above the substrate) measured
using
Predominant estimated
a Swoffer 2000-1 Open Stream current
substrate
0
10
interval was
-
categories open.
at
each
meter
meter.
interval
was
by sight as belonging to one of five categories
silt, sand, gravel cobble
type
were
(
