.....-... v.». .221. .. ‘3 "5.1.2:: ~ 4 '3: '35-} A.” w, ".' A , ' “WW-Mi Jr‘s”'”"-""“~ —. «‘- use??? i; --,~ ‘fa. w". . ‘15 .. 5' ‘ 4*?sz ‘ x. V ”sh-‘2 {1 4%“: M233» is i ii "Li E331! . s"? 5231 ‘1”: "i‘ agtgtg‘r ,5 ..n '3 1.. gigs.iéizisijaiii‘igsif xiii: iii? iiriiiiggirii’iiisgiim" # :vtv igyfflififi'za“ 5- ’zi‘m ‘i‘f‘fl‘ " I}; I; Ia" r . I .3353! ‘9‘! 5‘ {i I $4.35}? 3 ‘ I.» 5 fl}. Ii"; "‘ I b : . r,‘ A , ¥ ‘ ‘. it ,: . '5' “alga"! 32;. v V‘ {L ‘4: M t J Vv ”iiiii‘fis? M iii ' t a” '19 13:»? fit ‘ '5’ ‘ I .hn'. IVSER SITY LIBRARIES ll; .9lll99 H9 9|lll ITTTT" TTITITTTTTLT 1293 0139 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Influ ice of I mperature and Discharge on Movement Patterns of Brook Trout, Salvelinus Fontinalis, in the Ford River, Dickinson County, Michigan presented by Steven M. Marod has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science degree in Fisheries & Wildlife Major professor V Date July 12, 1995 0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution lefifififiy Michigan State University .v' u PLACE DI RETURN BOXto macaw. chockoutfrom ywrrocord. TOAVOID FlNESnttmonorbdonddoduo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU I. An Afflmatlvo Action/Equal Opportunny Intuition W m1 THE INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE AND DISCHARGE ON MOVEMENT PATTERNS OF BROOK TROUT, SALVELINQS EONTINALIS, IN THE FORD RIVER, DICKINSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY Steven M. Marod A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1995 THT temper evalue Brook using of st: movene Summer age 5: trout daily Mile c began SUstai durati discha; behavii manage: ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE AND DISCHARGE ON MOVEMENT PATTERNS OF BROOK TROUT, SALVLEINUS FONTINALIS, IN THE FORD RIVER, DICKINSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY Steven M. Marod The influence of late spring and summer water temperatures and discharge on brook trout movement was evaluated from 1984 to 1991 in the Ford River, Michigan. Brook trout were sampled from late May through September using fyke nets and weirs at four locations within 25.8 km of stream. Brook trout were tagged at two sites and their movement monitored through two sites upstream. Spring and summer water temperature, discharge, population abundance, age structure, and beaver dams affected movement. Brook trout greater than 200 mm vacated the Ford River when mean daily water temperatures approached 2Ukrand entered Two Mile Creek, a cold water tributary. Brook trout movement began and peaked earlier with rapid warming in spring. Sustained temperatures above 20°C shortened movement period duration. Brook trout catch was higher during high discharge events. Trout managers must consider the mobile behavior of this brook trout pOpulation when setting management goals. 5 Elect: Resear resear elect: 1 the £1 ESpec: (Tremj for g stude9 to my adVic PUtti prOCr ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Support for this research was provided by the Naval Electronics Systems Command through subcontract to IIT Research Institute under contract N00039-88-C-0065. This research was part of a study to determine effect of electromagnetic fields on aquatic organisms. I would like to thank all of the people who worked on the ELF project during the past nine years. I would especially like to recognize Dennis Mullen and Melissa (Treml) Drake for their professional advice and friendship. I would also like to thank Dr. Taylor and Dr. Kevern for giving me the opportunity to prove myself as a graduate student despite my undergraduate shortcomings. Thanks also to my committee members Dr. Burton and Dr. Coon for their advice and guidance. A special thank you to Dr. Taylor for putting up with my lack of correspondence and my procrastinating. Much appreciation goes to John Kocik, Russ Brown, Mark Turner, and Dan Hayes for their professional advice and help with field work. My deepest appreciation goes to my parents (Rich and Mary) and my fiance (Bonnie) who kept pushing me when I wanted to give up. ii List List List Int: Stud Metl TABLE OF List of Tables .............. List of Figures ............. List of Appendices .......... CONTENTS Introduction . ................... Page ..OCOOOOOOOOV Study Area ............................ . ......... ..... Methods Brook Trout Movement ...... Fyke Nets and Weirs ................... .. Radiotelemetry ....... ........... Ambient Monitoring ........ Statistical Analysis ...... Results Fish Collection ............ Tagging OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Movement .................. Temperature ........ .............. . ........ . ..viii ....ll ....13 ....13 ....16 ....20 ....23 Relationship between Catch and Mean Daily Temperature ..25 Discharge ................ OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ....... 37 Relationship between Catch and Mean Daily Discharge ....37 Movement Rates .......................................... 41 Radiotelemetry ....................................... ..48 iii 9.. Discus Fish Move Manage Sunnal Refer Appen Discussion ............. Fish Collection ...... Movement ............. Management Implications Summary ................ References ............. Appendices ............. iv .53 .53 .54 .61 .64 .67 .70 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Page Total net days at all sites from 1984 through 1991 000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000014 Total annual catch at Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 from 1984 to 1991 ................................... 15 Total catch moving upstream and downstream at Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 from 1984 to 1991 .........17 Mean length (std. dev.) of brook trout caught at Sites 2 and 3 from 1984 through 1991 ...........18 Brook trout marking summary at Sites 2 and 3 from 1984 through 1991 00000000000000000000000000000019 Brook trout recapture summary for Sites 2 and 3 combined from 1984 through 1991 ................ 21 Brook trout site to site recapture and movement rate summary for 1984 through 1991 ............. 22 Mean temperature (standard deviation) from May 1 through July 31 at Sites 2 and 3 from 1984 to 1991 000000000000000000000000000000000000 ..... 000000024 Results of paired t-test between mean daily temperatures from May 1 through July 31 at Sites 2 andBin all years 00000000000000.0000000000000026 Results of Tukey's HSD multiple range test on mean daily temperature during summer at all sites on the Ford River in 1988 .........................27 Results of Tukey’s HSD multiple range test on mean daily temperature during summer at all sites on the Ford River in 1990 ... .................... ..28 Results of Tukey's HSD multiple range test on mean daily temperature during summer at all sites on the Ford River in 1991 ............... ...... ....29 I" Tab: Tab Tab Tal Ta Ta Te Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 130 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Days from May 1 to the first brook trout catch, days to the peak catch and duration of movement period at Site 2 on the Ford River from 1984 through 1991 ........................ ........... 31 Days from May 1 to the first brook trout catch, days to the peak catch and duration of movement period at Site 3 on the Ford River from 1984 through 1991 ...................................32 Days temperature exceeded 16°C and 20°C during May, June, July, May-June and May-July at Site 2 in the Ford River study area from 1984 through 1991 0000000000 0 0000000000000000000000 000000000033 Days temperature exceeded 16°C and 20°C during May, June, July, May-June and May-July at Site 3 in the Ford River study area from 1984 through 1991 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000034 Spearman Rank Correlation coefficients from associations between days to first recorded catch, days to the peak catch, and duration of movement period with days temperature exceeded 16°C and 20°C in May, June, July, May-June, and May-July at Site 2 . ..... ........ ......... ..................35 Spearman Rank Correlation coefficients from associations between days to first recorded catch, days to the peak catch, and duration of movement period with days temperature exceeded 16°C and 20°C in May, June, July, May-June, and May-July at Site 3 ....................... .. .......... ......36 Results of 2 sample t-test (p<0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 at Sites 2 and 3 for all years combined on the Ford River .......................................... 40 Results of 2 sample t-test (p < 0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when catch was 0 over the entire year at Site 2 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991 ...................................42 Results of 2 sample t-test (p < 0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when catch was 0 over the entire year at Site 3 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991 ................................ ...43 vi I"? Table Tabll Tabl Tab' Tab Table Table Table Table Table 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Results of 2 sample t-test (p < 0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 at Sites 2 and 3 from May 1 through July 31 for all years combined on the Ford River .......... .....44 Results of 2 sample t-test (p < 0.05) comparing discharge when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 from May 1 through July 31 at Site 2 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991 ..............................45 Results of 2 sample t-test (p < 0.05) comparing discharge when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 from May 1 through July 31 at Site 3 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991 ............. ............ .....46 Movement rates of brook trout from Sites 2 and 3 to Site 4 for 1984 through 1991 ................47 List of brook trout surgically implanted with radiotelemetry transmitters in 1990 and 1991 ...50 vii l' Fir Fi Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 90 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of fyke nets and weirs in the study section of the Ford River and Two Mile Creek ....5 Mean daily discharge calculated on a weekly basis at Site 2 in the Ford River from 1984 through 1987 00000000000000000 000000000000000 00000000000 38 Mean daily discharge calculated on a weekly basis at Site 2 in the Ford River from 1988 through 1991000000000000000000000000000000000000000000039 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 2 in 1984 ........................................... 70 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 2 in 1985 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000071 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 2 in 1986 00000000000 00000 0000000000 00000 0000000000072 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 2 in 1987 000 000000 0 0000000000000000 00 00000000000 00073 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 2 in 1988 0000000 000000000000000000000.000000000000074 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 2 in 1989 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000075 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 2 in 1990 ....................................... 76 Site 2 ..77 Number of brook trout in 1991 caught each day at Site 3 00078 Number of brook trout in 1985 .... Number of brook trout in 1986 ... caught each day at Site 3 000 000000000000000 79 viii Fl Fi Kt Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 200 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 3 in 1987 00000000000000000000000000000000000000080 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 3 in 1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 081 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 3 in 1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 082 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 3 in 1990 00000000000000000000000000000000000000083 Number of brook trout caught each day at Site 3 in199100000000000000000000000000000000000000084 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1984 .......... ..... ...... .......85 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1985 ......................... ...86 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1986 000000000000000000000000000087 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1987 000000000000000000000000000088 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1988 000000000000 0000000 00000000089 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1989 ...... .... .......... ........90 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1990 000000000000000000000000000091 Mean daily temperatures at Sites 2 and 3 in the Ford River in 1991 0000 0000000 00 00000 000000000092 Mean daily temperatures calculated on a weekly basis at Sites 1 and 4 in the Ford River in 1988 0000000000000000 0000000000000000000093 Mean daily temperatures calculated on a weekly basis at Sites 1 and 4 in the Ford River in 1990 ................................ ....94 Mean daily temperatures calculated on a weekly basis at Sites 1 and 4 in the Ford River in 1991 ........................... .........95 ix Append Appenc Appens LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix I ... ............... ......... .................. ..70 Appendix II . .......................... I ................... 85 Appendix III .............. ........... ...... ......... .....93 l are' (he? and expe fist by ; Dut tro be lit ten SUE Slc f0] 191 1‘9; INTRODUCTION Brook trout are an important sport fish in Michigan inland waters. Stream brook trout in northern Michigan obtain maximum lengths of 500 mm, however, fish of this size are rare. Most brook trout are less than 3 years of age (McFadden 1961, Brasch et a1. 1973, McCrimmon 1960, Wydoski and Cooper 1966, Cooper 1967, and Bridges 1958) as they experience high natural mortality or exploitation. These fish are relatively slow growing with most females maturing by age 2 and some males as early as age 1 (McFadden 1961, Dutil 1976, Cooper 1967). In thermally marginal streams trout densities are low due to low survival and growth can be fast (Treml 1992); especially where food is not a limiting factor. Growth of brook trout is highly dependent on water temperature with young-of—the-year and yearling brook trout sustaining maximum growth between 12.4 and 15.4° C. (McCormick et a1. 1972). Above these temperatures growth slows and mortality increases. Optimum growth temperature for adults was 169 C. (Hokanson et a1. 1973) with the upper lethal temperature being 25.3° C. (Fry et al. 1946). In order to optimize their growth, survival and reproduction, populations of stream dwelling fish often l 2 exhibit mobility. In studying migration patterns of the fish community in a North Carolina stream, Hall (1975) suggested that fish migration and reproduction were coupled to optimize the use of energy resources. Heape (1931) defined movement patterns in three basic categories: 1. alimental, or migrations to more abundant food areas, 2. climatic, where fish seek refuge from unfavorable environmental conditions, and 3. gametic, or spawning migrations. Annual movement patterns of brook trout in Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin were composed of a downstream dispersal of young-of—the-year, an upstream movement of adults for spawning, and a postspawn downstream movement of adults to wintering areas (Hunt 1975). These movements were of a small scale nature as the different habitat components were closely juxtaposed. A study on Long Pond Outlet in the northern Adirondack Mountains (Flick and Webster 1975) of New York revealed an upstream directed movement of brook trout in spring. Movements of at least 6.6 km (between site distance) were observed. These movements were attributed to competition with abundant non—trout species such as white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), common shiner (Notropis cornutus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), pearl dace (Semotilus margarita), cutlips minnow (Exoglossum maxillingua), and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae). I’llllr ' illill .IJI ‘1 h 3 Shetter (1968) observed movement tendencies of tagged wild brook trout caught by anglers on the Au Sable River and Hunt Creek in northern lower Michigan. Few fish moved more than 1.6 km from their tagging site. Shetter suggested that this limited movement was probably typical of "good" trout streams in Michigan where temperatures remain ideal during warm weather periods. In designing an environmental impact study to observe effects of the U. S. Navy's ELF Communications System on fish populations, researchers from Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife noted high spring movement of brook trout in the Ford River in the central Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Results obtained from net and weir operation and angler recapture of marked fish indicated that brook trout movement was directed upstream toward Two Mile Creek, a cold-water tributary (Whelan and Taylor 1984). Mean daily summer temperatures in the mainstream of the Ford River typically remained above the range where positive growth can be Sustained (5 - 20°<:., Power 1980). Additionally, there appeared to be an association of brook trout movement with discharge events in the Ford River (Marod and Taylor 1990). This research was undertaken to examine the movement patterns of brook trout in the upper Ford River watershed and further analyze the roles that temperature and discharge play in directing their movement. STUDY AREA The Ford River is a fourth order stream with its headwaters in northern Dickinson and southern Marquette Counties, Michigan. Its source is in the northwest corner of the county near Sagola. Two Mile Creek is a major tributary flowing from southern Marquette County into the Ford River from the north. The Ford River empties into northern Green Bay south of Escanaba, Michigan. The study area flows through forested lands with occasional open meadow and urban areas. Uplands were dominated by sugar maple, white birch, quaking and bigtooth aspen, and white and red pine while lowlands were primarily white cedar, black and white spruce and balsam fir. Much of the study area riparian zone was lined with tag alder. Four study sites were established on the upper Ford River watershed to monitor trout movement (Figure 1). Sites 1, 2, and 3 were on the Ford River mainstream while Site 4 was located on a cold water tributary, Two Mile Creek. Site 3 was approximately 1.62 river km upstream of Ralph, Michigan. This portion of the river was characterized by sand and silt substrate in low gradient areas and sand, pebble and gravel substrate in riffle areas. Site 2 was approximately 14.7 river km upstream of Site 3. This area .mmgm 62¢. .62”. Bo". co no.2 é 9:9". mEm 52 51>”. .u :2 FEE”...— mtm m_m>> 0 a... «may. 96... m 2% F 95 I m _ N 95 v 5 xmmmo «Emu; xmmmo $sz xwwmu m.___)_ 03... 2‘— 6 was typified by woody debris on a pebble, gravel substrate with occasional small boulders. Site 1 was approximately 11.1 river km upstream of Site 2 and substrate in this area were predominately of pebbles and cobble. Beaver dams existed upstream of this study area. The other upstream site (Site 4) was located on Two Mile Creek approximately 11.5 river km upstream of Site 2. Downstream of the study site Two Mile Creek was characterized by pebble, gravel, rubble and boulder substrate with abundant woody debris. Upstream of the site the creek meanders through a grassy meadow with tag alder along the stream corridor, and was typified by deep pools with short stretches of riffle. Beaver dams existed and woody debris was abundant in this section of the stream. METHODS Brook Trout Movement Brook trout movement in the Ford River was evaluated using fyke nets and weirs at four sites (Figure 1) throughout the upper watershed to recapture tagged trout and by using radiotelemetry techniques. Fyke Nets and Weirs Fyke nets of 1/2 inch bar mesh were implemented at Sites 2 and 3 on the Ford River mainstream. Nets were fished in tandem, one facing upstream and the other downstream so that movement in both directions was observed. Leads stretched across the entire stream section and were supported by 1 inch hexagonal stock rerod for maximum strength. The bottom of each lead was held down by rocks. Due to lower discharge and more stable substrate at Sites 1 and 4, weirs were constructed of 1/2 inch mesh hardware cloth in a configuration similar to Hall's (1975). The walls of the weirs were supported by 1 inch hexagonal stock rerod and were angled to each stream bank to direct fish toward the traps. The bottom of the walls were held in place with rocks. 8 In 1984 gear was fished for 44 days at Site 1, 78 days at Site 2, 86 days at Site 3 and 121 days at Site 4 between May 15 and September 22. From 1985 through 1989 all gear was fished 5 days/week. In 1990 and 1991, all gear was fished 7 days/week until the mean daily catch of brook trout fell below 1 fish/day after which all gear was fished from Monday through Friday only. All gear was checked for fish once every 24 hours during all years. Brook trout captured were anesthetized with MS-222 at a 50 mg/l of water dosage as recommended by Meister and Ritzi (1958) and Schoettger and Julin (1967) to reduce handling stress. Fish were then measured for total length to the nearest 1 mm and weighed on a calibrated Ohaus Port-O-Gram scale to the nearest 0.1 gram. Fish were then scale sampled and each given a site specific fin clip according to the following scheme: Site 1 - left pectoral Site 2 - right pelvic Site 3 - left pelvic Site 4 - right pectoral Movements of trout were observed through recapture at other sites and by angler recapture. In addition to fin clipping, brook trout were tagged using various methods throughout the study. In 1984 and 1985 brook trout were marked using disk or streamer tags. Strap tags applied to the adipose fin or opercle were used in 1986 and 1987. In 1988 brook trout were given a site specific fin clip while from 1989 through 1991 trout greater 9 than 140 mm were tagged with a V. I. (Visible Implant) Tag manufactured by Northwest Marine Technologies. After recovery in fresh water all fish were released in the direction of travel. Recaptured fish were anesthetized with MS-222, measured, weighed, allowed to recover in fresh water and released. Tag number, initial tagging site and recapture site were noted. Radiotelemetry In 1990 and 1991, 25 upstream migrating brook trout greater than 200 mm captured at Sites 2 and 3 were implanted with radiotelemetry transmitters manufactured by L and L Electronics of Mohomet, Illinois. Each transmitter was equipped with a 30 day battery and an internal loop antenna. Transmitter frequencies ranged from 49 MHz to 50 MHz and were separated by 10 KHz. Each transmitter unit was approximately 2.7 cm long, 1 cm wide and high, and weighed 2.8 to 3.0 grams. The receiver was a scanning type manufactured by Advanced Telemetry Systems (ATS) of Isanti, Minnesota and covered a 2 MHz range (48 - 50 MHz). Anesthetic and surgical techniques defined by Summerfelt and Smith (1990) were used on fish to be implanted with transmitters. After placement with transmitters, fish were followed entirely by foot as logjams and beaver dams made navigation by canoe difficult. Several fish could be tracked at a time due to the scanning 10 capability of the receiver. When a fish was located it was pinpointed by a unique landmark and then plotted on a United States Geological Survey map. One observation per fish was attempted on an every other day basis with fish tagged at Site 2 being followed one day and those tagged at Site 3 the next day. Ambient Monitoring Late spring and summer water temperatures were monitored (half hour intervals) with Omnidata data pods using thermistors at Sites 2 and 3 from mid-April to October (Burton 1991). At Sites 1 and 4 in 1988, Ryan Thermographs were deployed to monitor temperature at 30 minute intervals from late June to mid-September. In 1990 and 1991 Ryan Tempmentors were used to collect temperature data at 30 minute intervals. Tempmentors were deployed from early May to mid-August in 1990 and from late June to mid-September in 1991. In addition, Wecksler max-min thermometers calibrated daily with a laboratory thermometer were used to monitor maximum and minimum temperature at Sites 2, 3, and 4 for all net days in all years. Mean daily discharge measurements were available for 1986 through 1991. Flow data from a Pygmy Gurley flow meter was combined with gage height readings to establish a stage/flow relationship so that daily discharge could be determined. Mean weekly discharge values were calculated 11 from daily means at Sites 2 and 3. Statistical Analysis All statistical analysis was done using Statistix Analytical Software, version 4.0. Spearman Rank Correlation was used to associate various movement parameters with different cumulative stream temperature strata. Movement parameters used were: Days from May 1 to the first trout catch, days from May 1 to the peak of the trout movement, and movement duration. The peak of the trout movement was determined to be the date of the highest catch or the mean date if several consecutive high catches were recorded. Movement duration was from the first recorded catch to when catches fell to 1 trout or less per day. Cumulative stream temperature strata used were: Number of days mean daily water temperatures exceeded 16%: and 20°C during May, June, July, May through June, and May through July. I selected 16°C and 20°C since they define brook trout upper limits for optimum growth (Raleigh 1982) and positive growth (Fry et. al. 1946) respectively. Associations of flow patterns between Sites 2 and 3 were determined using Pearson Correlation analysis. Two sample t-tests (p < 0.05) were used to determine the effects of discharge on trout catch. Unequal variances were assumed. I tested the discharge when trout catch was one or more versus discharge when trout catch was zero. These tests noveme betwe site discl date earl rate 12 tests were done over the entire study season and for the movement period May 1 through July 31. Pearson Correlation was used to define relationships between brook trout movement rates (km/day to move from one site to a site further upstream) and mean temperature, mean discharge, and the number of days from May 1 to the tagging date. The latter correlation defined whether fish tagged early or late during the movement period moved at different rates. Fish < subst varia patte (78) from at S; WhiL 381 to RESULTS Fish Collection Efforts in total fyke net days at all sites varied substantially from year to year (Table 1) due largely to variable start times and the duration of high stream flow patterns. Net days at Site 2 ranged from a high in 1984 (78) to lows in 1985 and 1986 (42). Effort at Site 3 ranged from 86 net days in 1984 to 52 net days in 1986. Weir days at Site 1 ranged from 69 in 1990 and 1991 to 39 in 1987 while Site 4 weir operation days ranged from 121 in 1984 to 38 in 1987. Brook trout catch was highly variable between sites and between years (Table 2). Annual catch varied from 288 trout in 1989 to 1186 trout in 1984. Mean annual catch was 537.6 trout. The annual catch was highest at Site 4 on Two Mile Creek in all years except 1987 when Site 2 had the highest catch. This is probably due to the fact that Site 4 was characterized by water temperatures during the hottest periods in the summer that were 3-59C cooler than the other sites. Brook trout catches at Sites 2 and 3 peaked in late May to early July depending on weather patterns during the year 13 J! Tabl 19 19 19 1E 14 Table 1. Total net days at all Sites from 1984 through 1991. Year Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 1984 44 78 86 121 1985 53 42 58 61 1986 52 42 52 51 1987 39 57 59 38 1988 56 55 53 54 1989 52 69 7O 71 1990 69 69 68 69 1991 69 60 55 72 1" Table Site 15 Table 2. Total annual catch at Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 from 1984 to 1991. Year Site 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1 180 56 33 16 28 O 102 74 2 170 79 69 291 43 47 59 99 3 313 138 82 140 66 78 33 119 4 523 273 120 150 178 163 127 452 (APP day ear] Octc mov. For stu- sit COT Si YE YEa 16 (Appendix I). Summer catches then dropped to < 1 fish per day and this condition persisted through late August to early September. In years (1987-1989) gear was fished into October trout catch increased in September and October with movements toward spawning areas in the upper portion of the Ford River study area and Two Mile Creek. The upstream component of the catch throughout each study season was higher than the downstream component at all sites in all years (Table 3). The total number of trout caught moving upstream in all years at all sites was 3694 while 607 were captured moving downstream. The upstream component of the catch averaged 65.6 % at Site 1, 84.4 % at Site 2, 89.7 % at Site 3, and 90.1 % at Site 4 over all years. Mean lengths of brook trout captured at Sites 2 and 3 (Table 4) varied between years. Mean length of brook trout captured at Site 3 were significantly larger than those caught at Site 2 (2 sample t-test, p<0.05). Brook trout mean lengths at Site 2 ranged from 172.3 mm (s.d.=79.6) in 1988 to 236.2 mm (s.d.=66.4) in 1985. Mean lengths recorded at Site 3 ranged from 205.0 mm (s.d.=78.0) in 1988 to 245.8 mm (s.d.=48.7) in 1989. Tagging Numbers of fish tagged at Sites 2 and 3 varied between years depending on catch (Table 5). Numbers of fish marked a a- 17 Table 3. Total catch moving upstream and downstream at Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 from 1984 to 1991. Year Site Dir 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1 Up 100 42 26 12 16 65 40 Down 80 14 7 4 12 37 34 2 Up 477 269 112 137 150 133 106 441 Down 46 4 8 13 28 30 21 11 3 Up 115 66 43 227 39 47 56 97 Down 55 13 26 64 4 0 3 2 4 Up 285 122 71 137 57 60 31 115 Down 28 16 ll 3 9 18 2 4 I 18 Table 4. Mean length (std. dev.) of brook trout caught at Sites 2 and 3 from 1984 through 1991. Year Site 2 Site 3 1984 191.1 (64.7) 231.5 (53.8) 1985 236.2 (66.4) 229.5 (54.2) 1986 175.3 (44.2) 217.4 (53.1) 1987 190.3 (50.1) 212.3 (40.8) 1988 172.3 (79.6) 205.0 (78.0) 1989 228.9 (61.2) 245.8 (48.7) 1990 205.6 (75.7) 230.3 (65.0) 1991 213.0 (66.2) 232.9 (44.1) 19 Table 5. Brook trout marking summary at Sites 2 and 3 from 1984 through 1991. Year Mark Site 2 Site 3 1984 Floy Tagged 71 243 Pin Clipped 48 37 1985 Ploy/Disk Tagged 45 81 Pin Clipped 38 53 1986 Strap Tagged 15 40 Freeze Branded 19 8 Fin Clipped 58 32 1987 Strap Tagged 97 73 Fin Clipped 127 41 1988 Fin Clipped 57 85 1989 V. I. Tagged 49 86 Pin Clipped 12 11 1990 V. I. Tagged 46 28 Fin Clipped 12 5 1991 v. I. Tagged ' 78 109 Fin Clipped 36 21 20 at Site 2 ranged from 57 in 1988 to 224 in 1987. At Site 3, numbers of tagged fish ranged from 33 in 1990 to 280 in 1984. ' The number of tagged brook trout recaptured was variable over the course of the study (Table 6). In 1984 18.2% (57) of tagged fish were recaptured. This dropped to 12.7% (26) in 1985 and 0.0% in 1986 through 1988. Brook trout recapture percentage then increased to 6.7% (7) in 1989, 9.7% (2) in 1990 and 34.2% (74) in 1991. Movement In 1984, 1985, and 1991 site to site recapture patterns were similar (Table 7). In 1984, 39 of 57 (68.4%) recaptures were from Site 3 to Site 4. In 1985 and 1991 movement from Site 3 to Site 4 was 37.5% (9 of 26) and 44.6% (33 of 74) respectively. Movement from Site 2 to Site 4 made up 19.3% of total recaptures in 1984, 37.5% in 1985 and 31.1% in 1991. Movement from Site 3 to Site 2 was observed for 12.5% of total recaptures in 1984, 15.4% in 1985 and 8.1% in 1991. The fact that Site 2 is between Sites 3 and 4 demonstrates that significant escapement occurred at Site 2. Escapement may have occurred due to high water undermining fyke net wings, removal of gear during high water or on weekends, or muskrat or beaver damage. Little downstream movement of tagged brook trout occurred over the course of the study. One fish in both 21 Table 6. Brook trout recapture summary for Sites 2 and 3 combined from 1984 through 1991. Year % Tag Recapture 1984 18.2% 1985 12.7% 1986 0.0% 1987 0.1% 1988 0.0% 1989 6.7% 1990 9.7% 1991 34.2% Table 7. Brook trout site to site recapture and movement rate summary for 1984 through 1991. Site Marked Distance Mean Rate Year Site Recaptured (km) N (km/day + 18D) 1984 Site 2 Site 4 12.7 11 1.4 i 0.9 Site 3 Site 4 26.8 39 2.9 i 1.7 site 3 site 2 14.1 7 2.7 i 1.6 1985 Site 2 Site 4 12.7 7 1.6 i 0.9 Site 3 Site 4 26.8 6 5.0 i 3.2 Site 3 Site 2 14.1 3 1.2 i 0.3 1986 1987 Site 2 Site 4 12.7 1 1.8 1988 Site 3 Site 2 14.1 2 2.3 i 0.7 1989 Site 2 Site 4 12.7 2 0.7 Site 3 Site 4 26.8 1 4.5 Site 3 Site 2 14.1 1 2.8 Site 2 Site 3 14.1 2 1.9 Site 4 Site 3 26.8 1 6.7 1990 Site 3 Site 2 14.1 2 2.2 1991 Site 3 Site 2 14.1 9 2.3 Site 2 Site 4 12.7 23 1.6 Site 3 Site 4 26.8 33 3.5 Site 1 . Site 4 3.0 9 0.7 Site 2 Site 3 14.1 1 3.5 Site 4 Site 3 26.8 1 1.0 Site 4 Site 2 12.7 1 12.7 23 1989 and 1991 moved from Site 4 in Two Mile Creek to Site 3 on the Ford River near Ralph, Michigan. Also in 1991 a tagged trout from Site 4 was recaptured at Site 2. Movement from Site 2 to Site 3 occurred for one fish in 1985, two in 1989, and 1 in 1991. Two fish in 1985 and 9 in 1991 were observed moving downstream from Site 1 and then ascending Two Mile Creek to Site 4. Movement from Sites 2 and 3 to Site 4 was undertaken mainly by trout greater than 200 mm. Brook trout recaptured at Site 4 were significantly larger than trout tagged at Sites 2 and 3 (2 sample t-test, p<0.05) in 1991. Temperature Mean daily temperatures during the run (May 1 through July 31) at Sites 2 and 3 were variable from year to year (Table 8). The average temperature for this time period at Site 2 for all years was 16.819C and ranged from 15.16%: in 1985 to 19.17°c in 1988 (Table 8). Spearman Rank Correlation suggested that total annual brook trout catch was not strongly associated with mean temperature from May 1 to July 31 (r=-0.0183) for 1984 through 1991. Total annual brook trout catch was not associated with mean temperatures at Site 3 from May through July 31 (Pearson Correlation, r=-0.0838) for 1984 through 1991. Annual brook trout catch at Site 3, however, was negatively associated with mean temperatures at Site 2 24 Table 8. Mean temperature (standard deviation) from May 1 through July 31 at Sites 2 and 3 from 1984 to 1991. Year Site Mean 1984 site 2 15.24 (4.13) Site 3 15.88 (4.28) 1985 Site 2 15.16 (3.13) site 3 15.38 (3.11) 1986 site 2 16.99 (3.48) Site 3 17.14 (3.30) 1987 Site 2 17.66 (4.02) Site 3 17.33 (3.96) 1988 Site 2 19.17 (4.23) Site 3 18.23 (4.09) 1989 Site 2 17.99 (4.74) Site 3 15.65 (4.50) 1990 Site 2 15.33 (4.52) Site 3 14.85 (4.43) 1991 site 2 16.91 (4.25) Site 3 16.97 (4.31) 25 (Pearson Correlation, r=-0.4178). This suggests that higher temperatures upstream corresponded to reduced catches at Site 3. Temperature patterns from May 1 through July 31 at Sites 2 and 3 changed somewhat over the course of the study (Appendix II). Significant differences in mean temperatures were seen between Sites 2 and 3 in 1984, 1985 and 1988 through 1990 (paired t-test, p<0.05). No differences were seen in 1986, 1987 and 1991 (Table 9). Thermal recorders provided mean daily temperature information at Sites 1 and 4 in 1988, 1990 and 1991 (Appendix III). One way analysis of variance of mean daily temperatures at all sites during these years detected significant differences between the means. Tukey's pairwise comparison of means test (P < 0.05) identified three different temperature patterns in 1988 (Table 10). Site 2 was significantly warmer than Sites 1, 3 and 4. Mean temperatures at Sites 1 and 3 were similar while Site 4 was significantly cooler than all other sites. In 1990 (Table 11) and 1991 (Table 12), no differences in mean temperatures at Sites 1, 2 and 3 were identified. Site 4 was significantly cooler than all other sites. 1Relationship between Catch and Mean Daily Temperature Spearman Rank Correlations were used to test the Inelationship between catch and temperature. Different 26 Table 9. Results of paired t-test between mean daily temperatures from May 1 through July 31 at Sites 2 and 3 in all years. Year P value Significant 1984 0.0000 Y 1985 0.0000 Y 1986 0.1995 N 1987 0.0525 N 1988 0.0000 Y 1989 0.0000 Y 1990 0.0000 Y 1991 0.1105 N 27 Table 10. Results of Tukey’s HSD multiple range test on mean daily temperature during summer at all sites on the Ford River in 1988. Site Mean Homogeneous Groups Site 2 22.60 I Site 3 21.30 I Site 1 20.48 I Site 4 17.73 I 28 Table 11. Results of Tukey's HSD multiple range test on mean daily temperature during summer at all sites on the Ford River in 1990. Site Mean Homogeneous Groups Site 2 18.77 I Site 3 18.30 I Site 1 18.05 I Site 4 16.85 I 29 Table 12. Results of Tukey's HSD multiple range test on mean daily temperature during summer at all sites on the Ford River in 1991. Site Mean Homogeneous Groups Site 3 19.15 I Site 2 18.79 I Site 1 18.28 I Site 4 17.22 I 30 characteristics of movement; days to the first recorded catch, days to the peak catch, and duration of movement (Tables 13 and 14); were correlated with various temperature strata (Tables 15 and 16). Spearman Rank Correlation suggested a strong negative relationship (r=-0.762) at Site 2 between days to the first recorded catch and number of days mean daily temperatures exceeded 169: in June (Table 17). The number of days to the peak of the movement was negatively associated with days mean daily water temperatures exceeded 20°C in May (r=-0.507) (Table 17) . Strong negative associations existed between movement duration and days mean temperature exceeded 209: in May (- 0.756) and May through July (r=-0.6112) (Table 17). Positive relationships existed between movement duration and days temperature surpassed 16W: in June (r=0.2304) and May through June (r=0.1320) (Table 17). Spearman Rank Correlations also defined associations between movement and temperature at Site 3 (Table 18). The number of days to the first recorded catch at Site 3 was negatively correlated to the number of days mean temperature exceeded 169: in June (r=-0.595), May through June (r=- 0.714), and May through July (r=-0.643). The number of days from May 1 to the peak catch also showed a strong negative association with the number of days over 16%: in May (r=- 0.727), June (r=—0.701), May through June (r=-0.952), and May through July (r=—0.952). The number of days from May 1 Ill 31 Table 13. Days from May 1 to the first brook trout catch, days to the peak catch and duration of movement period at Site 2 on the Ford River from 1984 through 1991. Year Parameter 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 First Catch 15 48 22 41 19 23 31 17 Peak Catch 39 54 80 47 45 59 67 59 Duration 72 37 70 30 28 38 49 75 32 Table 14. Days from May 1 to the first brook trout catch, days to the peak catch and duration of movement period at Site 3 on the Ford River from 1984 through 1991. Year Parameter 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 First Catch 15 22 21 40 19 23 31 17 Peak Catch 35 65 35 48 33 65 54 25 Duration 72 31 65 30 33 37 41 75 33 Table 15. Days temperature exceeded 16° C and 20° C during May, June, July, May-June and May-July at Site 2 in the Ford River study area from 1984 through 1991. Year Parameter 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 >16° May 0 0 6 6 9 13 0 13 >16° June 26 7 20 22 30 23 17 29 >16° July 28 31 31 31 31 31 30 28 >16° May-June 26 7 26 28 39 36 17 42 >16° May-July 54 38 57 59 70 67 47 70 >20° May 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 >20° June 1 0 1 13 15 11 4 7 >20° July 1 3 18 18 28 29 12 9 >20° May-June 1 O 1 16 18 11 4 7 >20° May-July 2 3 19 34 46 40 16 16 34 Table 16. Days temperature exceeded 16° C and 20° C during May, June, July, May-June and May-July at Site 3 in the Ford River study area from 1984 through 1991. Year Parameter 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 >16° May 0 0 6 3 6 2 0 13 >16° June 28 10 21 22 29 12 13 30 >16° July 29 31 31 31 31 31 30 3O >16° May-June 28 10 27 25 35 14 13 43 >16° May-July 57 41 58 56 66 45 43 73 >20° May 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 >20° June 3 0 2 13 12 0 2 7 >20° July 4 5 19 14 22 16 7 9 >20° May-June 3 0 2 13 14 O 2 7 >20° May-July 7 5 21 27 36 16 9 16 35 Table 17. Spearman Rank Correlation coefficients from associations between days to first recorded catch, days to the peak catch, and duration of movement period with days temperature exceeded 16° C and 20° C in May, June, July, May-June and May-July at Site 2. Temperature First Peak Duration Parameter Catch Catch of Movement >16° May -0.297 0.149 0.000 >16° June -0.762 -0.479 0.071 >16° May-June -0.539 -0.157 0.036 >16° May-July -0.491 -0.115 —0.060 >20° May 0.126 -0.507 -0.756 >20° June -0.108 -0.241 -0.491 >20° May-June -0.108 -0.241 -0.491 >20° May-July 0.095 0.078 -0.611 36 Table 18. Spearman Rank Correlation coefficients from associations between days to first recorded catch, days to the peak catch, and duration of movement period with days temperature exceeded 16° C and 20° C in May, June, July, May-June and May-July at Site 3. Temperature First Peak Duration Parameter Catch Catch of Movement >16° May -0.258 -0.727 0.233 >16° June -0.595 -0.701 -0.060 >16° May-June -0.714 -0.952 0.547 >16° May-July -0.643 -0.952 0.524 >20° May -0.247 -0.417 -0.247 >20° June -0.120 -0.701 -0.060 >20° May-June -0.241 -0.774 -0.012 >20° May-July 0.347 -0.467 -0.240 37 to the peak catch was also associated with the number of days over 20°C in June and May through June (Table 18) . The duration of movement showed positive relationships with the number of days temperatures surpassed 16%: in May through June (r=0.547) and May through July (r=0.524). Discharge Flow patterns during the entire study season (May 1 through September 6) between 1984 and 1991 were variable (Figures 2 and 3). Generally, flows were high in spring and lower in summer with occasional increased discharge events during summer. Mean weekly discharge values at Sites 2 and 3 from 1986 through 1991 were highly correlated in all years (Pearson’s correlation; minimum r=0.946, maximum r=0.997) therefore only Site 2 data are shown (Figures 2 and 3). Relationship between Catch and Mean Daily Discharge Associating brook trout movement with discharge was difficult as the majority of the brook trout movement occurred during spring when high flows were the norm. Mean discharge when catch was 1 trout or more (Site 2=0.882 nP/s, s.d.=.602; Site 3=1.088 nF/s, s.d.=0.599) was significantly greater than mean discharge when catch was 0 (Site 2=0.685 nP/s, s.d.=.466; Site 3=0.711.nP/s, s.d.=0.517) for all years combined (study period May 18-September 6) at Sites 2 and 3 (2 sample t-test, p<0.05) (Table 19). Mean discharge .31.: 81615 32 5611162”. 66.1 as =6 m 616.6 mag 11.13; a .6 8128.8 6928.6 11.86 522 .N 81am m < < < < < =. =. =. =.. ... a a. _>_ _>_ .2 — 1 _ _ ._... _ _ _ 1 _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ I I ... .. ..... a ...... .....ss ....... \ I I I I .. .... \ n...‘ l . l . I I | \ . a ....I.\.l. ..... . \ . 1’. I \ I I 1 ...... 1.... - . - .... . - - .- .. ... . ..... z . . . . 1 l .. / \... \ ... x a x a. \ o. I o. I I a. I .| ... ... ... \ I x .. ....... ./.. I —. .6. so a I on. \ a \ \ l . l m 1,51 11 1 1 I. 1 - - S 1 1 y 1 O 1 1 w x w .. v 9 8 .. 1 .. \ I 3 . . 1 N m ... 1 1 ..., \ x . 3 .. 1 ..r \ ... 1 .. 1 \.I . 1 . . 0 ... .1 1 .. .. .n 1 .. 1 a. 1 .... .... m w .- ... ... I 1 11 . 1 S ... .... .1. a ... .... mJ ..... .... L V ( ..... hwow owe mwmv vwmw !‘ 39 .52 1161615 82 5611 191m 26". as :6 a 21m .6 name 11:66; a .5 88.8.8 696.16% 11.86 :85. .m 816m . , . ....1 I I ‘ no. a \ / a. o \ I Q on i N I ‘ one. o \ o. I no. / .Q I ~§ 0. 0. ‘ on... coo/O out. \ a. u] 1 J ‘ \ . We 0 a... \ .0 ~ I I o. \ s ’ ~ 0 I a o 9 L m , 1 . . . ’ s o .o g ,1 . l ‘- ('oaslw 'n0) afimqosga 59 came mm? mm? 1 L0 Table 19. 40 Results of two sample t-test (p<0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 at Sites 2 and 3 for all years combined on the Ford River. Site Mean Q Mean Q p Value Significant Catchzl Catch=0 0.882 0.685 0.0007 Y 1.088 0.711 0.0000 Y 41 when trout catch was 1 or more was greater than when catch was 0 in all years except at Site 2 in 1986. These tests were not always significant, however (2 sample t-test, p<0.05) (Tables 20 and 21). Confining analysis to the period of the brook trout run (May 1 through July 31) did not significantly alter results. Mean discharge when catch was 1 trout or more (Site 2=0.897 nP/s, s.d.=.605; Site 3=1.098 n9/s, s.d.=0.631) was still significantly greater than mean discharge when catch was 0 (Site 2=0.717 m3/s, s.d.=.520; Site 3=0.740 m3/s, s.d.=0.574) for all years combined at Sites 2 and 3 (2 sample t-test, p<0.05) (Table 22). When examining all years individually at Sites 2 and 3, mean discharge was greater when trout were caught except at Site 2 in 1986 and 1990. Results of these tests were not always significant (2 sample t-test, p<0.05) (Tables 23 and 24). Movement Rates A distinct trend was observed for movement rates of fish traveling from Sites 2 and 3 to Site 4. Brook trout tagged at Site 3 consistently had faster movement rates to Site 4 than fish tagged at Site 2 (Table 25). Mean annual movement rates from Site 3 to Site 4 ranged from 2.9 km/day in 1984 to 5.0 km/day in 1985. From Site 2 to Site 4, mean annual movement rates ranged from 0.67 km/day in 1989 to 1.6 km/day in 1985 and 1991. 42 Table 20. Results of two sample t-test (p<0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 over the entire year at Site 2 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991. Year Mean Q Mean Q p Value Significant Catchzl Catch=0 1986 0.578 0.714 0.1062 no 1987 0.777 0.633 0.2386 no 1988 0.876 0.666 0.2803 no 1989 0.897 0.543 0.0033 yes 1990 0.970 0.829 0.4274 no 1991 1.114 0.739 0.0159 yes 43 Table 21. Results of two sample t-test (p<0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 over the entire year at Site 3 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991. Year Mean Q Mean Q p Value Significant Catchzl Catch=0 1986 0.912 0.690 0.0030 yes 1987 1.031 0.833 0.1503 no 1988 0.744 0.642 0.4558 no 1989 1.014 0.595 0.0003 yes 1990 1.275 0.870 0.0882 no 1991 1.439 0.686 0.0000 yes 3"" 44 Table 22. Results of two sample t-test (p<0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 at Sites 2 and 3 from May 1 through July 31 for all years combined on the Ford River. Site Mean Q Mean Q p Value Significant Catchzl Catch=0 2 0.897 0.717 0.0154 Y 3 1.098 0.740 0.0000 Y Table 23. Results of two sample t-test (p<0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 from May 1 through July 31 at Site 2 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991. Year Mean Q Mean Q p Value Significant Catchgl Catch=0 1986 0.542 0.693 0.1074 no 1987 0.763 0.646 0.5483 no 1988 0.468 0.354 0.0066 yes 1989 0.994 0.664 0.0323 yes 1990 1.042 1.053 0.9609 no 1991 1.205 1.004 0.2978 no ‘1 Table 24. Results of two sample t-test (p<0.05) comparing discharge (cms) when the brook trout catch was 1 or more versus discharge when the catch was 0 from May 1 through July 31 at Site 3 on the Ford River from 1986 through 1991. Year Mean Q Mean Q p Value Significant Catchzl Catch=0 1986 0.819 0.721 0.2045 no 1987 1.075 0.667 0.0506 no 1988 0.437 0.252 0.0009 yes 1989 1.132 0.761 0.0203 yes 1990 1.259 1.136 0.6442 no 1991 1.442 0.923 0.0032 yes 47 Table 25. Movement rates of brook trout from Sites 2 and 3 to Site 4 for 1984 through 1991. Year Site Site Dist N Mean Mark Recap (km) (km/day) 1984 2 4 12.7 11 1.4 3 4 26.8 39 2.9 1985 2 4 12.7 7 1.6 3 4 26.8 6 5.0 1986 No Recaptures 1987 2 4 12.7 1 1.8 1988 No Recaptures 1989 2 4 12.7 2 0.7 3 4 26.8 1 4.5 1990 No Recaptures 1991 2 4 12.7 23 1.6 3 4 26.8 33 3.5 48 Fish tagged later during the movement period travelled at a faster rate than fish tagged earlier in the season. Movement rates from all sites in 1991 were positively correlated with the number of days from May 1 to the tagging date. Correlation coefficients ranged from r = 0.351 for fish moving from Site 3 to Site 4 to r = 0.536 for fish moving from Site 2 to Site 4. No definable relationship was found between mean daily temperature and movement rates. Movement rates of fish from Site 2 to Site 4 were weakly positively correlated (Pearson’s Correlation, r=0.164) to discharge. Rates observed for fish moving from Site 3 to Site 4 and Site 3 to Site 2 were negatively correlated (r=-0.567 and r=-0.484 respectively) to discharge. Larger fish took more time to move between sites. In 1991 a weak positive correlation was observed between brook trout total length and days it took to move from Sites 2 (r=0.108) and 3 (r=0.268) to site 4. Radio Telemetry Efforts to follow individual brook trout through radio 'telemetry provided marginal results. Twenty-five upstream rmoving trout ranging from 254 mm to 338 mm were radio-tagged in 1990 and 1991. In 1990, eight fish were implanted with radio-transmitters, 4 at Site 2 and 4 at Site 3. Seventeen brook trout were radio-tagged in 1991, 2 at Site 2 and 15 at 49 Site 3. Tagging site, length, weight and transmitter frequency for implanted fish in 1990 and 1991 were noted (Table 26). In 1990, brook trout implanted with transmitters were followed between 6 and 13 days. Mortality or premature transmitter failure determined the length of time individual fish could be followed. In 1991, implanted trout were rarely found due to long range initial movements or transmitter failure. Three fish radio-tagged at Sites 2 and 3 were contacted or recaptured at Site 4. Two of these fish provided information for 12 days, the other for 24 days. Four of 8 fish tagged in 1990 provided movement information. Upstream movement distances between contacts ranged from 0 km to 3.7 km and averaged 1.2 km. Three of the four trout that moved were last received below beaver dams. Brook trout 48.106, tagged at Site 2, moved upstream approximately 3.8 km in 2 days to the base of a large beaver dam. Contacts made from 12 July through 18 July found the fish staging below the dam. The trout was last received on 20 July and had moved approximately 400 m downstream of the 50 trout/day) during low flows prompted by high temperatures in June. Brook trout did move during low flows. At Site 2 in 1987, the brook trout catch between 16 June and 19 June arveraged 55.8 trout per day when mean daily discharge was (3.42 nP/s, well below average (1.23 nF/day) for that time period. A similar event occurred at Site 3 at the same time. Sustained water temperatures near 24°C were present 60 during this time period. This suggests that trout will not wait for a rise in flow to move if temperature conditions become suboptimal. Increases in flow due to precipitation events were often associated with an increase in the brook trout catch. Trout catches often remained higher for one or two days after an increase in discharge, especially if flows remained higher for a few days after a precipitation occurred. Radiotelemetry Following radio-tagged brook trout revealed that beaver dams located between Sites 2 and 3 and Sites 2 and 4 were effective barriers to movement. Treml (1992) found that by age 2 high summer water temperatures had detrimental effects on Ford River brook trout growth and length at age. She hypothesized that by the end of their second growing season, Ford River brook trout had reached a size where the increase in basal metabolism due to high temperatures could not be completely offset by increased feeding activity (Treml 1992). Beaver dams which exclude trout from thermal refuge, then, could have severe physiological impacts including retarded somatic growth and gametic development, or death. In addition, anglers often targeted brook trout below beaver dams. Many tags returned by anglers were caught below beaver dams. This suggests that blocked trout may be more 'vulnerable to anglers. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS The Ford River is a marginal brook trout stream due to temperatures that annually exceed the range where positive growth can occur. Brook trout are able to inhabit this environment by moving from high temperatures in the mainstream to thermal refuge areas in Two Mile Creek. In order to sustain this population I believe management strategies should focus on preserving genetic integrity and habitat. Logging is extremely important to the Upper Peninsula economy. Improper logging practices are probably the biggest threat to the brook trout population in the Ford River watershed. It is vital that foresters work closely with fisheries managers to protect riparian corridors along the river and its tributaries. Logging removed riparian cover and increased siltation on Two Mile Creek near its coanuence with the Ford River. The area logged was an established electrofishing site used in 1988 through 1990. This area consistently had high young-of-the-year and yearling brook trout populations. Damaging logging practices such as this should not be allowed. Thermal refuge areas are extremely important, 61 62 especially to larger brook trout unable to metabolize efficiently in warm water. Preserving these areas in Two Mile Creek and other tributaries is vital to maintaining habitat capable of supporting brook trout. Maintenance of riparian buffer areas along both the Ford River and its tributaries is extremely important. Educating landowners of the importance of healthy riparian buffer areas would also be valuable. Current brook trout stocking programs should be evaluated. Brook trout stocked in the Ford River during the study behaved differently than natural fish. Stocked trout often congregated at the mouth of fyke nets, behavior similar to what I had observed in hatchery raceways. In addition, hatchery trout did not show movement behavior characteristic of wild trout. Only two hatchery fish moved between sites during the entire study period. Hatchery trout probably survived poorly when summer water temperatures increased due to the lack of movement behavior. Stocked fish may also compete with wild fish for food and vital habitat. Genetic studies should be initiated to evaluate the potential uniqueness of the brook trout population in the Ford River. If Brook trout in the Ford River represent a unique strain, stocking could contaminate the population. Interbreeding between wild and hatchery trout may suppress adapted behaviors in the population resulting in lower 63 survival. Beaver dams have the potential to limit brook trout populations in the Ford River. Because of the necessity of trout to move to thermal refuge when temperatures increase in the spring and summer, barriers excluding trout from these areas could have deleterious impacts to the population. Removal of beaver dams allowing trout to move freely could lower mortality and increase reproductive success. If budgetary constraints prohibit dam removal by DNR personnel, a private group of volunteers could be recruited to do the work. SUMMARY The upper Ford River is classified as a blue ribbon trout stream. From a temperature standpoint, however, the Ford River is a marginal brook trout stream. Summer water temperatures exceeded the range (5°C to 20°C) where brook trout can maintain positive growth in all years (1984 - 1991) of the study. In order to inhabit this environment, brook trout have adapted mobile behavior. When temperatures become suboptimal in late spring/early summer, trout vacate the mainstream of the Ford River and move into Two Mile Creek, a major cold water tributary in the watershed. These movements were observed in 1984, 1985, and 1991. Little site to site movement occurred from 1986 through 1990. Movement patterns were controlled mainly by the rate of water warming in the spring/early summer. In years where water temperatures rose rapidly past 20°C, movements began and peaked early. Additionally, rapid warming during spring caused the duration of the movement period to be shorter. This was especially evident in the drought years of 1987 and 1988. Stream discharge also had an impact on catch rates of brook trout. Catches in passive gear were higher at higher 64 65 discharge rates suggesting that trout reacted favorably to rises in flow. Correlations between extremely high flows and trout catch could not be made as gear was not fished in high discharge events. Trout, however, did not wait for optimum flow patterns to begin movements. In 1987, catch rates were very high (< 50/day) during extremely low flow conditions. Water temperatures exceeding 239C for several days in a row may have been responsible for these high catch rates. Brook trout moving from the mainstream of the Ford River into Two Mile Creek were predominately adults (age 2+). In years age 2 and older trout were low in abundance, little site to site movement was observed. This was especially evident during drought years when high temperatures may have increased mortality of adult brook trout. In addition, large beaver dams constructed between mainstream sites and Two Mile Creek may have excluded brook trout from reaching thermal refugia, lending to higher mortality rates. Low population abundance observed in 1989 and 1990 support this hypothesis. Fisheries management in the Ford River should take into consideration the uniqueness of the brook trout population. This population has developed distinct survival strategies to inhabit a marginal environment. Priority should be placed on preserving thermal refuge areas in Two Mile Creek. Stocking strategies should be assessed and necessity 66 determined. Beaver dams excluding trout from thermal refuge areas should be removed. List of References REFERENCES Brasch, J., J. McFadden and S. Kmiotek. 1973. Brook trout life history, ecology and management. Revised edition by R. L. Hunt. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res. Publ. 226: 1-15. Bridges, C. M. 1958. A compendium of the life history and ecology of eastern brook trout. Mass. Div. Fish. Game. Fish. Bull. 23: 1-37. Burton, T. M. 1991. ELF Communications System Ecological Monitoring Program Annual Report for Aquatic Ecosystems. Task 5.1. National Technical Information Service. U. 8. Dept of Commerce. Springfield, Virginia. Cooper, E. L. 1967. Growth and longevity of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in populations subjected to light exploitation. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 96: 383- 386. Dutil, J-D. 1976. L’omble de fontaine (Salvelinus fontinalis) du Golfe Guillaume—Delisle, Nouveau Quebec. M. Sc. thesis, Laval Univ. 71 pp. Flick, W. A. and D. A. Webster. 1975. Movement, growth, and survival in a stream population of wild brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) during a period of removal of non-trout species. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32: 1359- 1367. Fry, F. E. J., J. 8. Hart and K. F. Walker. 1946. Lethal temperature relations for a sample of young speckled trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Univ. of Toronto Studies, Biological Series, No. 54. Publ. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. No. 66. Hall, C. A. S. 1975. Migration and metabolism in a temperate stream ecosystem. Ecology. Vol. 53. 4: 585-604. Heape, W. 1931. Emigration, Migration and Nomadism. Heffer, Cambridge. 67 68 Henderson, N. E. 1963. Influence of light and temperature on the reproductive cycle of the eastern brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 20: 859-897. Hokanson, K. E. F., J. H. McCormick, B. R. Jones and J. H. Tucker. 1973. Thermal requirements for maturation, spawning and embryo survival of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30: 975-984. Hunt, R. L. 1975. Annual production by brook trout in Lawrence Creek during eleven successive years. Wisc. Dept. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. No. 82. Marod, S. M. and W. W. Taylor. 1990. ELF Communications System Ecological Monitoring Program Annual Report for Aquatic Ecosystems. Tasks 5.8, 5.9, 5.10. National Technical Information Service. U. 8. Dept. of Commerce. Springfield, Virginia. McCormic, J. H., K. E. F. Hokanson, and B. R. Jones. 1972. Effects of temperature on growth and survival of young brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29: 1107-1112. McCrimmon, H. R. 1960. Observations on the standing trout populations and experimental plantings in two Ontario streams. Can. Fish. Cult. 28: 45-55. McFadden, J. T. 1961. A population study of the brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Wildlife Monographs 7. 73 pp. Meister, A.L. and C.F. Ritzi. 1958. Effects of chloretone and M.S. 222 on eastern brook trout. Progressive Fish Culturist 20:104-110. Schoettger, R.A. and A.M. Julin. 1967. Efficacy of MS-222 as an anesthetic on four salmonids. United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Investigations in Fish Control, No. 13, Washington, D.C. Shetter, D. S. 1968. Observations on movements of wild trout in two Michigan stream drainages. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 4: 472-480. Summerfelt, R. C. and L. S. Smith. 1990. Anesthesia, surgery, and related techniques. In: Methods :9; Fish Biology. Am. Fish. Soc. Special Publication. C. B. Schreck and P. B. Moyle, eds. Chapter 8, pp. 213-272. 69 Treml, M. K. 1992. An evaluation of temperature on the growth of brook trout in the Ford River, Dickinson County, Michigan from 1984 to 1991. M.S. Thesis. Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Whelan, G. and W. W. Taylor. 1984. ELF Communications System Ecological Monitoring Program Annual Report for Aquatic Ecosystems. Tasks 5.8, 5.9, 5.10. National Technical Information Service. U. S. Dept. of Commerce. Springfield, Virginia. Wydowski, R. S. and E. L. Cooper. 1966. Maturation and fecundity of brook trout from infertile streams. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23: 623-649. Appendix I 70 Appendix I .vmow 11. N 2% «a >26 some fiasco 5011x853 coo—:32 .v 02:91 1 6% 1 18631 11.2. 1 95.. 61.6.2 0 N é. iqfineo JaqwnN 1 O ‘— 1 N 1. 3. 71 1 .68 .361 s m 25 1a 186 1.681.198 11611 1.8516 18:11.2 .... 6591 1 $393 441—114—1ddfidqd—ddd—udd—8 .168 11.98 52118516 18:52 .1 659“. 1 .80 1 6% 1 199.11 11.2. 01 912. o .3 s. V N iqfineg JaqumN 1 O (.0 om 74 .wme E N ogm 1m >21 comm fiasco So: 1.099 1o 12.1152 .w 2:9“. 1 .60 1 .696. 118.631 111.2. 1 6:2. 1 (I) iqfineo .IaqumN 1 O ‘— 1 N ‘— E. 75 1 .80 1 6% «dd—«dqq—uuq-l—dqdfi—q00 1100011338 1:011 1.00510 100532 .m 01:9“. 1 $3031. 1 11.2. 0 0:2. 0 1 1 N N 1 m 1 m a. 9 1 J O 1 B V n 1 5 ..u.. 1 m 1 m 76 1 6% .861 s N 91.0. a 11% 88111981161118.1116 185:2 .61 2:01 quad—dd. —qd44—dd-d.—dd-u—udqq— 1 $1631. 111.2. 1 0:2. 2.1.2.1312... 11:21 111 O N 1 N n v w 0.. a 1 la .0 1. m n 6 U. 1 1.. 1 w 01 77 .181 e_ N 6110 1a 11% 11681119856111.8516 18:52 .11 65am 1 .50m 1 103013 111.31. 1 0:2. 11110.2 0 1 m N n 1 01 w an a J m 01 n 6 u- 1? 1 ON mm 78 .mom1 c_ m 0.5 10 >00 3000 1:950 130.111.00.510 10015.2 .N 1 01:9“. om .1660 1 .660 1 83631 11.2. 1 0:2. .6 iqfineg .IaqumN 4 L0 ‘— 0N 79 .0001 :_ m 011010 >00 11000 50:00 So: 11001010 100111112 .101 050i om .560 1 .660 1 13911 111% 1 61.2. N 1 n 1a w 1 .11.. 1mm 1 5 N 101 1N1 141 80 .5001 E 0 0am 10 >00 5000 11.0300 130110.005 10 1100832 .01 0139.... om .160 1 .160 1 .660 1 53031 111.2. a 6151. o m 101 m w a. 101m 0 1 e n 6 1omm 1 mm on 81 .861 111 n 21016 118 5.8 1.198561111811116 18:52 ....1 use: . 1 .160 1 .180 1 199,1 111:; 1 6:2 01.812 0 d—qqddudquqddflddq#d—dd1d4_—~dd1d‘.duudu—ddn44—nqq<1_«quad—dqqquflfi—8 .186 1.19.8 11611 1.8516 18:52 .01 650: 1 .160 1 .660 118631 1151. 1 91% é iufineo JaqwnN 1 L0 ‘— ON 83 .861 s n 210111 .36 .168 1.198 11611 1.8516 1851.2 .11 2:01 1 .660 1 1.5911 1.1.2. 16151. q—ddu—dudflqdd—dflui—dd-—udu‘qqq—d#q—1-u-—qq~—uud—dqd—#AJ .1 1'. a iufineg JaqwnN 1 L0 1 (.0 84 .181 s a 21016 11% 1191.21.98 1.611 1.8516 181152 .61 8:6: 1 .180 1 18631 11.2. 1 615.. 11.8.2 0 mfineo JaqwnN 1 O ‘— 1 N 1.. v F Appendix II 85 Appendix II 16151 125% .1601 S .102”. 0.10“. 05 :o n 0:0 N m0gw10 0120100501300 1100—2 .01 0.59”. 1 0:2. 1122 qu+quqq—4q4fi444—q-q—duqfiq—u—qqq—.dq—qqd—qqu—q-q—qdu—«nu—«fid—fid1—444—41——J104—111—d—11—1q-—1udd O mmxmwmumzm l l l U? CD U3 \— ‘— C3 C0 (3) aJnieJadwal M180 ueew U) C“ 86 0001 5 102m 010". 05 :o m 0:0 N mogw 10 0130100501300 1100.2 .ON 011:9“. 1m 1.2. 1 11.2. 1 91% 1 as. d4—ddfi1—dfld—dddfiuuq—u—q-fifiq—‘4fiqdufifi1—dj—11441—Jdd—qua—qqqfidfidlfiuqqud-u—qqddu14.—~11—1—-—_«4.—qqq— w m 015 N 02m .1 O ‘— 1 N F 0‘ 1 <1- F 1 (D \- «03312211222 1 l 00 V- (3) aimeiadwal M180 ueaw 1 O N N N 87 .081 11:20 ea... 65116 n 6:6 N 81016 61388.59 .118 118.2 .10 650“. 1m 1.2. 1 1.2. 1 615.. 1 as. _«__ufifi—fi14Addu—fidlfi—ddddqud—1qdq—uqu—fi¢u—-qudfi—Juq—u-qudedqdq—qq1—qfififidqd—ddq—qudfidqq—uddfi m m 021w N 0am 1 1 LO Q \— \- 1 O N LO N (o) almmadwal Auea ueaw O (‘0 88 .1001 5101,51 010“. 0:1 :0 0 0:0 N 0011010 01201091101 11:00 :00: .NN 050E 1m 1.1% 1 11.3 1 611% 1 as. fifidqfidfidjdfifild—qq41—NJ4flqqq—uqd—qdfi—dfifififiqd—qqq—«ad—«qq—«q—fldufid1441—dqu—~qd—-_1—111—u—q—qqu— m m 015 N 031w 1 O 1.. O.” .J 1 L0 \— .... . ..... v. on 0.. o .... o... 5 oft. od- . a... 00. .0. on ‘ 0.. 0. d In N (3) aimeJadwal Kuea ueaw O CO 89 1m%% .2161 1.1 161,1: ea“. 65.6 m 98 ~ 81101.1 6128856111118 cams. .8 6501 1 0:2. meamea 0.... 0.. ~. fa: «fifi—u—u—441—1dqu%dqq‘uqfidqdu—«dd‘qfid—qqd—ddd—q-u—ddu_11fiJdAddq—dqqdqdu—<4qdqu—qfii444—_«d—dqq m a :2 9 (3) BJHIBJedeL M180 ueaw LO N O (‘0 90 .0001 S .103". 0.10.... 05 :o m 0:0 N m0gw10 01301091101200 c005. .VN 050$ 1m 22. 1 1.1% 1 6151. 1 as. 1qd—uuq—d1q—ddq_qd#1_1##«—qqq—«du—qqd—«Ju—qd‘dfiJJ—d—dHJWJq—ddq——1«—dqq——qu_qua—qdjduq—uqqflquu— O m 0am N 0am 1. L0 1 O ‘— 8 8 (3) aJmeJadwal KHEG ueaw 1 L0 N O O") 91 .0001 11.10111”. Rom 0:1 :0 0 0:0 N 001010 0120101.:10111100 :0012 .00 050E 1m 1.2. 1 11.2. 1 6:2. 1 as. «fififiqqq—ddu—dqqflq44—fl41—_.q—qqq—qfidfidqqd41d1—d-q—quuqfifid—duu—~d4+qdqfl4j1fidfid1—fifijddq—«4__111— O m 90 N 90 .. 1 L0 1 O \— (3) aJnlBJdeel M180 ueaw LO N 92 11” 1.2. 1 1.2. .181 1.. 191: 26.1 91:6 n Ea m 81.016 6518852 11.18 .1812 .8 6501 1 0:2. 1 as. N 0am N 9% JNu—«q———qqqquq—qdd—qdq—u«d—udq—uqd—-—fi4qq—dqd—|flqJ—quq—144—411—1q1‘111—q44—41qfl«-_—_dd—«dufl o ' 1 L0 1 O ‘— 1 O N L0 (3) aJmBJadulal Anna ueaw 1 L0 N O 0') Appendix III .wmmw 5 .1021 Bot 05“ :0 V Dew —. mmgw «w mmmmn >300; m :0 810.328 Oezwmuma—tmw ZED :00: .NN 0.59...— 0100 N1m mom vow 1mm th mNm m1w 010 110 new mom on» 0N5 NN> 015 v1» 01> 00» Non 0N0 fidqdfiqd—lqfiqquqfidq—«dq—4J4fi4fi41flJlfljddi—qqu—duq—dqu—ddd—fi4dfidl—qua—«dqfiuqq—104d m 93 Appendix III L l l V N O V- '0' V— , I 1 1 00 «D F F 1 CD CV .1, £9 .7: (3) aJmeJadlual ueaw 1 cu CV I <- Cd “3 CV 94 Now vow 1cm mNN 0N5 mNh CNN N15 0100 v; 11» won 00> Non mNm 0N0 1mNm 0N0 N10 #10 - — u q — 1 ‘. q——q‘dq_qdflqd1—1d—«q—d1fiquAq—qq—q-—~1—«d—«-—4J11_111— v 95 1 01.15 .0001 $1021 010“. 0:1 :0 1. 0:0 1 001.010 .0000 11.010015 0 :o 0010.30.00 01201001110111.1011 :00: .00 0501“. V N v- \— CD \- 8 $9. (3) aJnieJadwal ueaw N N V N .1001 5102”. Eon. 05 :0 1. 0:0 1 001010 0103 11.1.00; 0 :0 0010.30.00 0120100511 11.100 :005. .mm 01:9”. 95 0100 N16 666 «ca 166 1N5 «N8 610 116 11m 166 new omN 6N1 NN1 e11 411 611 661 N61 6N6 ..1.4.111.11:1_1.._1.1114401.._.q._:1_111_1.._1:_1.....1_._.__..__+1_1111.j1_ NF .3. Q18 u m. w1w d 1.1." ON 8 1’ m 16 NN) 3 ( VN 00151015 1 0N "1111111111111111“