Rebecca A. Buchanan Columbia Basin Research School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle, WA INVESTIGATING MIGRATORY PROCESSES USING PROGRAM ROSTER

 Revolutionized salmon marking studies  Extensive data on salmon migration  Minimal degree of fish handling, tag failure, cost  Extensive network for tagging and detection through river systems in Pacific Northwest  Focus is typically restricted to single life stage:  Juvenile migration  Adult migration  Juvenile-to-adult connection:  Tag juveniles  detect both juveniles and adults  Learn about SAR, ocean survival, adult survival, adult age structure  Relate to juvenile experiences PASSIVE INTEGRATED TRANSPONDER TAGS

 River-Ocean Survival and Transportation Effects Routine  Combines juvenile and adult PIT-tag detections  Estimates:  Inriver survival (juvenile, adult)  Detection probabilities  Ocean return probability (BON to BON)  SAR  Transportation Effects  Transport/Inriver Ratio  ‘D’ (differential mortality) PROGRAM ROSTER: MULTISTATE MARK-RECAPTURE MODEL 3

 Use output of ROSTER model to address questions such as:  Are ocean return probability and adult passage success related to juvenile migration method (non-transported vs. transported)?  Does the age structure of returning adults differ for fish that were transported as smolts?  Do transported smolts produce more jacks? EXPLORE MIGRATORY PROCESSES

 PIT-tag detection data from PTAGIS database (  Snake River hatchery fish  Tagged, released upstream of Lower Granite Dam  Spring Chinook salmon  Migration years 1996 – 2007  Annual release groups  Juvenile detections  LGR, LGS, LMN, IH, MCN, JD, BON  Adult detections  BON, MCN, IHA, LGR  Includes age-1-ocean fish SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION

 Fit ROSTER model for each annual release group  Estimate transportation effects for transport groups ≥ 5000  Estimate ocean return probability, adult passage success, adult age distribution for  Non-transported  LGR transports  LGS transports  Test significance of transportation  LGR and LGS transport groups separately  Analysis of Variance  If significant: orthogonal regression   >1: Estimates higher for transport groups than for non-transport groups   <1: Estimates lower for transport groups than for non-transport groups  Accounts for uncertainty in both dependent and independent variables STATISTICAL METHODS

 Includes survival between BON and ocean  Estimate for non- transported and transported groups  Assumes barge survival (0.98) OCEAN RETURN PROBABILITY

 Passage success from Bonneville to Lower Granite  Weighted by adult age distribution  Not adjusted for straying, harvest  Classified by release year ADULT PASSAGE SUCCESS 10

ADULT PASSAGE SUCCESS

 Proportion of returning adults that returned to LGR after 1, 2, or 3 winters in ocean  Estimate separately for transported, non- transported groups ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION 13

ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION

ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION: JACKS

ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION: AGE-2 OCEAN

ADULT AGE DISTRIBUTION: AGE-3 OCEAN

 Use PIT-tag data from Snake River Hatchery-reared Spring Chinook with Program ROSTER  Results:  Ocean Return Probability  Higher for LGR-transported fish than for non-transported fish  No significant difference between LGS-transported fish and non- transported fish  Adult Passage Success  Lower for both LGR- and LGS-transported fish than for non-transported fish  Adult Age Structure  No significant difference between transported fish and non-transported fish SUMMARY