Open Access

In situ measurement of salinity during seaward migration of Atlantic salmon post-smolts using acoustic transmitters with data-storage capabilities and conventional acoustic transmitters

  • Hiromichi Mitamura1, 2Email author,
  • Eva B. Thorstad2,
  • Ingebrigt Uglem2 and
  • Finn Økland2
Animal Biotelemetry20175:5

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-017-0120-4

Received: 10 October 2016

Accepted: 17 February 2017

Published: 3 March 2017

Abstract

Background

Development of miniature acoustic transmitters and data-storage tags has provided new insights into ecology of free-ranging aquatic animals. In this study, we used a data-storage-type and a conventional acoustic transmitter, both equipped with a salinity sensor, to measure the in situ salinity experienced by Atlantic salmon post-smolts during the first phase of their marine migration in a Norwegian fjord. The data-storage transmitter conveyed stored salinity data accumulated over a period of up to 27 h prior to moving within the range of a receiver, while the conventional transmitter conveyed only real-time salinity data. Five post-smolts tagged with a conventional transmitter were manually tracked from a boat, and 15 post-smolts tagged with the data-storage transmitter were monitored by six transects consisting of 29 stationary receivers deployed from the river and throughout the fjord.

Results

All tagged post-smolts primarily showed rapid seaward movements. They occasionally stayed in water with salinity below 20.0 psu in the inner part of the fjord, most likely because they were swimming close to the surface, where the salinity was low due to freshwater supply from the river. In the outer fjord, where full-salinity sea water (26.0–32.0 psu) was recorded in the entire water column, half (3 of 6) of the recorded fish still experienced low salinities (<20.0 psu) for periods between 2.25 and 54 h.

Conclusion

Both types of salinity transmitters provided data on ambient salinity of the post-smolts during the seaward movement. In the outer fjord, the post-smolts likely visited one or several river mouths. It is not known whether this behaviour is normal for Atlantic salmon post-smolts during migration, but it might be advantageous in terms of reducing infestation risk from salmon lice, which have low survival in low salinities. The data-storage transmitters provided data on the ambient salinity history of the tagged fish, even when the fish were outside the detection range of receivers. By using this type of transmitters, we were able to collect salinity data during a four times longer period than with conventional transmitters.

Keywords

Smolts Post-smolts Seaward migration Fjord Salmon lice

Background

Biotelemetry, including the use of small acoustic transmitters, has frequently been applied to provide insight into the ecology of free-ranging aquatic animals, like fishes and sea turtles [14]. The tagged animals may be tracked either manually or by using stationary receivers that record presence when within the detection range of a receiver [57]. When multiple receivers are deployed in an array, either at locations of particular interest, or across a river or a narrow bay or fjord, the obtained data may be used for investigating fish movements and migration patterns [5]. Furthermore, by using transmitters equipped with a sensor, it is possible to explore how animals move and respond to variation in environmental conditions. Such sensors may, for instance, allow measurements of swim depth (e.g. [8]), dissolved oxygen [9] and acceleration [10, 11].

The Atlantic salmon Salmo salar is an anadromous fish species, of which juveniles (smolt) migrate from the rivers to the ocean for feeding, before they return to the natal river to spawn as adults [12]. During the last century, Atlantic salmon populations have declined [13, 14]. In order to support the wild stocks, hatchery-reared smolts are released into the rivers, where they migrate to the sea more or less simultaneously with their wild conspecifics [15, 16]. During the seaward migration, especially in the estuaries, they are exposed to a considerable predation pressure by larger fishes, such as the gadoids Atlantic cod Gadus morhua and saithe Pollachius virens, and by birds [1720]. In addition, the migrating post-smolts are highly susceptible to infections by salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) during the early part of the marine phase in areas with intensive Atlantic salmon farming [21, 22].

Atlantic salmon post-smolts normally swim in the upper few metres of the water column, most likely to reduce the risk of being preyed upon, as potential predators usually inhabit deeper waters [12]. This behaviour may also reduce the salmon lice infection risk, because salmon lice survive more poorly in the upper usually less saline part of the water column [12, 22]. It has been shown that survival and host infectivity of salmon lice are affected by even short-term exposure to reduced salinity [22, 23]. A preference for low salinities in the first phase of the marine migration may furthermore be related to acclimatization to sea water, because the transfer from freshwater to sea water involves considerable osmoregulatory stress [24]. Although several studies have shown that post-smolts migrate in the upper few metres of the water column [6, 25, 26], little is known about the salinity they actually experience in situ, and how they respond to variation in salinity.

In the current study, our aim was to record the salinity experienced during the early part of the seaward migration of salmon post-smolts, by using two types of transmitters with a conductivity sensor, allowing estimation of in situ salinity. One of the transmitter types was designed for manual tracking and provided real-time data during short-term tracking. The other was a combined data-storage tag and transmitter that was designed to store the in situ salinity for a longer period when the tagged fish were beyond the detection range of receivers. When in range of a receiver, the second tag type allowed transfer of salinity data. More specifically, our aims were to (1) examine the movements of post-smolts in relation to variation in experienced salinity in an estuary by manual tracking and (2) assess to what extent post-smolts stay in low salinity water during the first phase of the marine migration.

Methods

Transmitters

Two types of acoustic transmitters with a conductivity sensor (diameter 9 mm, length 37 mm, mass 7 g in air, output 147 dB, accuracy ± 1470 uS/cm, code set: S256, Thelma Biotel AS, Trondheim, Norway) were designed for this study. One was used for manual tracking (V9-CondTag, battery life: 5 days), and measured conductivity (uS/cm) at a constant time interval (5 s), which subsequently was converted into salinity by using a known linear-conversion formula.

The second type of transmitter also measured conductivity (V9-CondTag, 69 kHz, battery life: 90 days, Table 1) and was used for long-term monitoring with stationary receivers (VR2W, Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). In this study, the transmitter recorded a total of 27 h of data per series of signals, including 12 recordings of the average salinity value per 2.25 h. The salinity data were accumulated for a constant scheduled period, and an average value calculated from the data accumulated during this period. The average value was converted to one of eight predefined salinity ranges (salinity-range value 0–7: 0.0–3.9, 4.0–7.9, 8.0–11.9, 12.0–15.9, 16.0–19.9, 20.0–23.9, 24.0–27.9 and 28.0–46.0 psu.). The salinity-range values were stored in cyclic buffer with 12 cells. At the end of the first scheduled period, new salinity data were accumulated during the next scheduled period and then stored in the next cell. After 12 periods, the first/oldest value in the first cell was replaced with the latest value. The latest value was indicated by the write-pointer. The 12 values and the write-pointer were conveyed by the S256 code as a 16-bit payload with an 8-bit ID and a data value in 8 bits. Five S256 codes were implemented in the transmitter, which were able to send five IDs (40 bits) and five data values (40 bits). As a single salinity-range value occupied 3 bits, the cyclic buffer including 12 cells needed 36 bits for transmission. The write-pointer data were assigned to the remaining 4 bits. Conductivity was measured every 45 s. The period during which data were accumulated was set to 2.25 h, which means that the total monitoring period was 27 h. This period was set on the basis of movement speeds of post-smolts documented in a previous study in the same area with the same receiver array [15, 27]. The transmit interval for a series of signals was on average 150 s (range 100–200 s). This means that the same data were transmitted on average 54 times during every 2.25 h.
Table 1

Information of the Atlantic salmon smolts tagged with conventional sensor Transmitters (ID 1-5) and data-storage transmitters (ID 6-20)

Fish ID

Total length (mm)

Body mass (g)

Tagging date

Release date

Last detection date

Last detection site

Tag freq. (kHz)

1

328

330

9 May

11 May

60

2

303

277

9 May

12 May

72

3

297

234

9 May

12 May

75

4

301

267

9 May

13 May

66

5

312

276

9 May

13 May

63

6

264

183

10 May

11 May

N

N

69

7

294

218

10 May

11 May

18 May

6

69

8

272

201

10 May

12 May

17 May

6

69

9

286

229

10 May

12 May

14 May

4

69

10

290

239

10 May

12 May

13 May

5

69

11

294

227

10 May

12 May

13 May

2

69

12

292

236

10 May

12 May

13 May

6

69

13

285

213

10 May

12 May

13 May

5

69

14

292

246

10 May

13 May

N

N

69

15

275

229

10 May

13 May

18 May

6

69

16

280

214

10 May

13 May

14 May

2

69

17

287

220

10 May

13 May

15 May

6

69

18

296

228

10 May

13 May

N

N

69

19

302

262

10 May

13 May

16 May

6

69

20

287

241

10 May

13 May

14 May

1

69

N no detection after release

Detection sites refer to sites shown in Fig. 1

Study site and sea water environment

The study was carried out in the River Eira (mean annual water discharge of 17 m3 s−1) and in the fjords Eresfjord and Langfjord in western Norway (62° 41′ N, 8° 8′ E, Fig. 1). Both Atlantic salmon and anadromous brown trout Salmo trutta occur in this river. The annual smolt run of Atlantic salmon has been estimated to 9500–31,500 individuals during 2001–2015. In addition, the power company releases 50,000 hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts annually from the Statkraft Energy AS hatchery in Eresfjord. The wild smolts usually migrate from the River Eira during May, most years with a median migration date between 11 and 17 May.
Fig. 1

Eresfjord in western Norway. The smolts tagged with data-storage transmitter were released in the river (filled triangle). Stationary receivers were deployed in arrays across the river and fjord, indicated as sites 1–6 (filled square: site 1 in the river Eira, open circle: site 2 at the river mouth, filled circles: site 3 consisting of three arrays in the inner Eresfjord, lines in the fjord: site 4–6 named the middle Eresfjord, the outer Eresfjord and the Langfjord, where several receivers were deployed)

Fish tagging and release

Twenty hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts from the Statkraft Energy AS hatchery were tagged. Total body length of the fish ranged from 264 to 328 mm (mean ± SD 292 ± 14 mm) and the body mass from 183 to 330 g (mean ± SD 239 ± 32 g) (Table 1). The transmitter was attached externally as described by Økland et al. [28], under anaesthesia induced with 2-phenoxy-ethanol (Sigma Chemical Co., St Louis, MO, USA, 1 ml per 1 l sea water). The fish were then returned to a holding tank with freshwater for recovery for 1–4 days before release. All handling and tagging was conducted according to the Norwegian regulations for treatment and welfare of animals (permit ID 2569).

The five fish that were manually tracked were released individually in the fjord close to the river mouth between 11 and 13 May 2010 (Table 1; Fig. 1). Before release, each tagged fish was held in a small net-pen (1 m3) together with 20 untagged smolts for acclimation to sea water for 2 h at 0.5 m depth. The salinity in the net-pen was on average 22.9 psu (range 16.2–27.5). After acclimation, the net-pen was opened and all fish released. The remaining 15 fish used for long-term monitoring were released in the river 1.1 km upstream from the river mouth between 11 and 13 May (Table 1; Fig. 1).

Manual tracking and long-term monitoring system

Two types of receivers (VR28 and VR100, Vemco) were used from a boat for the manual tracking. The VR28 has four directional hydrophones that detect fish swimming direction by measuring the relative receiving strengths at the four hydrophones. The VR100 was equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) and an omnidirectional hydrophone, and was used to record the ID, salinity, date, time and the boat position. Using these two receivers in combination allowed individual tracking with a precision of approximately 10–20 m. Each fish was tracked for 67–206 min (mean ± SD 135 + 63 min) (Fig. 1). During manual tracking, the vertical salinity distribution at 0–3 m (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 3 m depth) was measured every 30 min by using a conductivity meter (WTW, KS COND 3).

For the long-term monitoring, 15 fish tagged with the data-storage transmitter were monitored by 29 stationary receivers (VR2W, Vemco), which recorded the five consecutive IDs and data values for the 12 salinity-range values, as well as date and time when the tagged fish were within the detection range. The receivers were deployed at six sites from the river to outermost part of the Langfjord (Fig. 1). At sites 1 and 2, a receiver was deployed at the bottom of the river and the river mouth, respectively. The distance between sites 1 and 2 was 0.4 km. At the remaining sites, the receivers were attached to anchored ropes at 3–5 m depth. At site 3 (inner Eresfjord, 2 km from site 1 in the river mouth), a grid of nine receivers was deployed. At site 4 (middle Eresfjord, 3.5 km from the river mouth), four receivers were distributed evenly in a line across the fjord. At site 5 (outer Eresfjord, 9.9 km from the river mouth), five receivers were distributed in a line across the fjord. The fjord is 1.5 km wide at both sites 4 and 5. At site 6 (Langfjord, 37.4 km from the river mouth), eight receivers were distributed evenly in a line across the fjord (2.6 km wide). The distance between receivers was approximately 300 m at sites 3, 4, 5 and 6. The detection ranges varied between 200 and 450 m in radius at 0.5–3.0 m depth. Data were downloaded on 27 July 2010.

Vertical profiles of salinity and water temperature in Eresfjord were measured using a conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) probe (Valeport, mini-CTD) at 0.5-m intervals from the sea surface to 5 m depth and at 1-m intervals between 5 and 25 m depth. A total of 45 profiles at five monitoring transects were obtained. Three profiles at each transect across the fjord were made at sites 3, 4 and 5 on 6, 8 and 11 May 2010 (Fig. 1).

Evaluation of salinity measurements

The precision of salinity transmitters used for the manual tracking was evaluated in a tank experiment, where the transmitters were placed in five different salinities (0.0, 10.1, 20.1, 29.9 and 39.4 psu) with and without water circulation. Signals were transmitted and detected every 5 s, and both ID and salinity data from the transmitters were recorded by a VR100 receiver. Salinity data for 1 min in each solution were used to evaluate precision, and the relationship between salinity and transmitter data investigated with a general linear model. The slopes of the linear relationship with an intercept fixed at 0 were close to 1 (range 0.93–1.23 in circulating water, range 0.85–1.21 in non-circulating water, Table 2). The results indicate that the salinity transmitters provided reliable salinity estimates. Data from the manual tracking were calibrated according to these results.
Table 2

Relation between data from conductivity transmitters and salinity with and without circular flow in a laboratory evaluation of the transmitters

Tag

With flow

Without flow

ID

a

2.5%

97.5%

a

2.5%

97.5%

1

1.15

1.135

1.169

1.13

1.110

1.142

2

1.06

1.053

1.063

1.05

1.044

1.056

3

0.93

0.769

1.090

0.85

0.793

0.898

4

1.02

1.008

1.023

1.02

1.011

1.019

5

1.23

1.205

1.262

1.21

1.185

1.244

a and a′ are slope estimated by general linear model from calibration data with an intercept fixed at 0

2.5% and 97.5% mean 95% confidence interval

Data analyses

Atlantic salmon post-smolts normally exhibit a distinct and rapid directional outward migration from the river outlets and throughout fjords [15]. Thus, if the tagged fish (1) disappeared between two receiver sites, (2) was detected only at one receiver site without any change in salinity, (3) showed long-term residency or (4) exhibited back-and-forth movements within the fjord, they were characterized as being dead or predated [29]. Only data for fish defined as being alive were used for further analyses. For fish tagged with transmitters that allowed long-term tracking, we defined an individual as being resident at a site if the time lapse between consecutive data was less than 30 min. Movement speeds between monitoring sites were calculated based on first recording at each monitoring site. Statistical analyses were carried out using R (ver. 3.2.1, Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). A linear mixed model was fitted to explore the effect of distance from the river on swimming speeds of individuals using the lmer function in the lme4 package with individuals as a random effect. The swimming speed was treated as a response variable, and the distance from the river was an explanatory variable. Confidence interval (95%) was calculated for the slope.

Results

Manual tracking

Three tagged fish (IDs 1, 2, 5) showed rapid, directional outward movement from the river mouth, with an average speed of 1.4 body length s−1 (±0.4 SD) (Fig. 2). The other two fish (IDs 3, 4) remained near the river mouth during the tracking period (Fig. 2). The fish experienced salinities from 0.0 to 36.0 (psu) during the tracking period (Fig. 2). There was a salinity stratification at the river mouth, with lower salinity water in the upper metres of the water column, and a tendency towards a less clear stratification further away from the river mouth (Fig. 3). The salinities experienced by these five fish showed that they were sometimes swimming in the brackish water (less than 20.0 psu) close to the surface during the first part of their outward migration, but also that they predominantly stayed in sea water (full-salinity around 30.0 psu) (Figs. 2, 3).
Fig. 2

Left and right panels show movement paths and salinity (open circles) of individual fish in Eresfjord by manual tracking. The fish were released in the river mouth and then tracked by boat. Arrows indicate locations where the vertical distributions of salinity (bars in the right panels) were measured using the salinity meter every 30 min. Bars indicate salinity values at every recording. The top to the bottom bars sequentially show the salinity at the depths of 0–3 m (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 3 m depth) although several bars overlap due to similar measured values

Fig. 3

Vertical distribution of salinity and temperature recorded at five different locations in the fjord, with three locations at site 3 (one at each receiver line, inner Eresfjord), one location at site 4 (middle Eresfjord) and one location at site 5 (outer Eresfjord). At each location, the salinity and temperature were measured at 0.5-m intervals between the sea surface and 5 m depth and at 1-m intervals between 5 and 25 m depth by use of the conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) probe on 6, 8 and 11 May 2010. The horizontal bars indicate the standard deviations

Long-term monitoring with data-storage transmitter

Six (40%) of 15 tagged fish were detected at the outermost receiver site (site 6) within 6 days after release (Fig. 4). The remaining nine fish were likely eaten by predators or died due to other reasons. Seven fish disappeared before reaching the outermost receiver site, and the movement patterns of two fish differed from the normal patterns of post-smolts. Hence, the mortality was large during the first phase of the migration in the river, river mouth and inner fjord (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

Proportion of the tagged fish recorded alive at the six different sites with stationary receivers (shown in Fig. 1). N indicates the number of tagged fish recorded at each site

The movement speeds at sea during the first 3.5 km (river to site 4), 9.9 km (river to site 5) and 37.4 km (river mouth to site 6) were 1.6 ± 0.86 (n = 9), 1.2 ± 0.87 (n = 8) and 0.8 ± 0.56 body length s−1 (n = 6), respectively. The swimming speeds were negatively affected by the distances between the river and each monitoring site (LMM, slope mean = −0.019, 95% CI = −0.0017 to −0.037), indicating that the post-smolts had a slower progression as they moved from the river.

The data-storage transmitters continuously recorded and stored ambient salinity of the tagged fish even when the fish were outside the detection ranges of receivers. The transmitters provided average 46.2 ± 50.7 h (range 0150.8, n = 15 individuals) of consecutive salinity data during the early stage of the marine migration, although the tagged fish spent only 11.6 ± 32.2 h (range 0127.1) within the detection ranges of receivers.

The ambient salinity experienced by the tagged fish increased during the outward migration, from salinity-range value 0 (0.03.9 psu, n = 12) to value 6 (24.027.9 psu, n = 8) and 7 (>28.0 psu, n = 6) (Figs. 5, 6). In the inner fjord, mainly low salinities were recorded; salinity-range value 2 (8.011.9 psu) was recorded for 173.3 h, and salinity-range value 3 (12.015.9 psu) was recorded for 103.5 h (Fig. 6). During the outward migration between the outer Eresfjord (site 5) and Langfjord (site 6), 135 h at salinities above 28.0 psu was recorded by five of the six fish that migrated to site 6. However, three of the six fish experienced relatively low salinities (ID 8, 15 and 19 spent 54, 4.5 and 2.25 h in salinities <20.0 psu, respectively, Figs. 5, 6). The CTD data showed that the salinity was not this low in the sea in the outer Eresfjord, with 23.8 psu even in the surface layer (Fig. 3). These results may indicate that the tagged fish not exclusively showed a continuous rapid outward movement, but also that they occasionally stayed in water with low salinities, most likely in rivers or close to river mouths since the freshwater influx to the outer fjord area is much lower than in the inner part of the fjord.
Fig. 5

Typical outward movement patterns of tagged fish with recordings of ambient salinity. Open circles indicate the detection at sites 1–6. Open squares indicate the salinity range in a 2.25-h period during the outward movement. Salinity-range values used in the figure are average values. For example, salinity data from salinity-range value 2 (8.0–11.9 psu) are shown as 10.0 psu

Fig. 6

Number of recordings for each salinity-range value (0–7) of the tagged fish between the release site and the outermost monitoring site (site 6, Langfjord). Release site and sites 1–6 are shown in Fig. 1. The smallest bubble represents one data point (2.25 h), while the largest at the site 3 represents 77 data points (173 h)

Discussion

The salinity transmitters used in this study provided data on ambient salinity of Atlantic salmon post-smolts during the seaward movement. The manual tracking demonstrated that three tagged fish showed rapid directed seaward movement, while two remained at the river mouth during the first hours after release. The ambient salinity of the migrating post-smolt ranged from 0.0 to 36.0 psu and tended to be higher furthest away from the river mouth. This was also found during the long-term monitoring of 15 smolts by automatic receivers. Comparison of salinity profiles in the water column and the salinity experienced by the fish indicated that the post-smolt migrated in the upper few metres of the water column during the first part of the marine migration. These results concur with previous studies, showing that Atlantic salmon post-smolts display rapid directed seaward movement, swimming close to the surface [15, 25]. The swimming speeds recorded both during manual tracking and by stationary receivers did not differ from those of a previous study in the fjord [30], and were within the range of swimming speeds recorded in earlier studies, although some studies have also shown slower migration speeds [12]. The relatively fast migration of the Atlantic salmon smolts in the present study could be related to their larger size compared to wild smolts [12]. Rapid movements through a fjord would be advantageous for migrating post-smolts, by reducing the possibility of being eaten by predators, such as Atlantic cod and saithe [19]. There is a general tendency for post-smolts to increase their feeding intensity when migrating away from the estuary and in the direction of the open ocean [12]. Hence, it might be that the post-smolts in the present study reduced the migration speeds in the outer parts of the study area because of foraging. The two types of transmitters used in this study complement each other to provide new insight in salmon post-smolt ecology. The conventional transmitter provided real-time data with high time resolution (every few seconds) although the fish were tracked for a short period, while the data-storage transmitter provided long-term data even if the tagged fish were beyond the detection range of receivers, although the time resolution was lower (every 2.25 h).

Previous studies have attempted to reveal how post-smolts find the seaward direction, and a variety of mechanisms have been proposed, including using water currents [12]. However, other studies have demonstrated that water currents are not systematically used as an orientation cue, because smolts often show random movements compared to the water current direction [27, 31]. It has also been suggested that positive salinity gradients may be one of the key factors for seaward movements [6, 26]. Our results support that post-smolts may exploit variation in salinity cues for navigation purposes.

The data-storage transmitters provided ambient salinity histories of the tagged fish, even when the fish were beyond the detection ranges of receivers. Hence, these transmitters provided data for much longer periods than conventional sensor transmitters would have done. Data-storage tags (also termed archival tags), which store data in a memory, are widely used to understand behaviour and movement of aquatic animals, for example sea turtles [32] and penguins [33]. However, the tag must normally be recovered for data retrieval, which often may be difficult for free-swimming fish [34], especially at sea and in other large water bodies. A data-storage transmitter that does not require recovery for data retrieval may therefore be more useful in studies of fish. It is, nevertheless, essential to design such transmitters with an adequate sampling period for the actual study. In this study, the period during which data were accumulated by the transmitters (2.25 h) was decided on the basis of previous knowledge about post-smolt movement speeds in the relevant area. Thus, the salinity history of the tagged fish between release and last detections was obtained for most of the migration period. Furthermore, other sensors (e.g. depth) could also be implemented in such transmitters. The concept of such transmitters, in which the sensor data are measured, stored, compiled and conveyed, could provide new information on many fish species, both in marine and in freshwater systems.

The salinity history of the tagged fish indicated that the post-smolts occasionally spent time in sea water with lower salinity than 20.0 psu, especially in the inner part of the fjord. The utilization of salinities below 20.0 psu may reduce infestation risk by salmon lice [22, 23], and the probability of infestation is generally shown to decrease with increasing freshwater influence [35]. Salmon louse is a marine parasite, which can severely reduce Atlantic salmon populations in farm-intensive areas [36, 37]. Whether the fish actively preferred lower salinity waters or unintentionally experienced low salinity because they were swimming close to the surface for other reasons (for instance, avoiding predation) is not known, but nevertheless, this behaviour might reduce the salmon lice infestation risk. In the outer fjord, the ambient salinity of the tagged fish was basically stable within the higher salinity range recorded by the transmitter, which indicate that the fish would be exposed to salmon lice. However, the higher salinity recordings in this area do not reflect a larger swimming depth, because the salinity was high in the entire water column.

Unexpectedly, the recorded salinity history showed that half of the tagged fish (3 of 6) detected at the outermost site occasionally had stayed in lower salinity waters in this area (<20.0 psu). Two fish spent several hours in low salinity waters (<20.0 psu), whereas one fish stayed for more than 2 days (54 h). This was not expected, because such low salinities were not recorded in this area of the fjord either in this study or in previous years (own unpublished data). The most probable explanation is that the fish visited one or several river mouths in the outer part of the fjord. The smolts normally show rapid and directed seaward movements in a fjord system, and during the seaward movements little is known about visits to freshwaters and brackish waters. Swimming speeds normally increase with the distance from the natal river [6, 12]. However, in the present study, the swimming speeds became slower as the post-smolts moved further away from their home river. This could be related to visits to freshwater and brackish water by half of the fish.

Especially for sea trout, premature return to freshwater of individuals carrying large numbers of salmon lice has been interpreted as an adaptive behavioural response to salmon lice-induced osmoregulatory dysfunction [3840]. Even short-term exposure to reduced salinity levels severely compromises survival and host infectivity of salmon lice [22, 23]. The fish in the present study had been too short time in the sea for development of adult salmon lice [41], but high levels of copepodids alone also caused premature freshwater return of sea trout [39]. We do not know the salmon lice infestation pressure in the study area at the time the study was performed, but it has earlier been characterized as moderate [42]. Hence, we do not know whether the unexpected visits by Atlantic salmon post-smolts to lower salinity waters in this study were linked to salmon lice infestations and osmoregulatory dysfunction or whether it reflects a behaviour normally performed by migrating post-smolts.

Hatchery-reared fish were tagged in the present study instead of wild fish, because they were easily accessible, and larger than wild smolts in this area, which reduced the likelihood of any negative impact by being tagged with acoustic transmitters. Previous studies have shown that the total sea survival of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon, from the pre-smolt stage to return as adults, is lower than that of wild Atlantic salmon from this river [17]. However, the difference seems to occur in later stages of the migration, because the survival and behaviour of wild and hatchery-reared post-smolts did not differ in the first phase of the marine migration in previous studies in the same study area [27, 30, 31]. Hence, we suggest that the behaviour of the hatchery-reared post-smolts in the present study was representative for that of wild post-smolts, but direct comparisons are missing.

Conclusion

Our results showed that the use of salinity sensor transmitters provided new insights regarding the early seaward migration of Atlantic salmon post-smolts, despite this being a well-studied life stage due to the development and use of small conventional acoustic transmitters during the last two decades. As expected, the post-smolts experienced lower salinities in the inner part of the fjord, close to their home river. However, some of the fish also stayed in low salinity waters in the outer part of fjord during their seaward migration. This finding was unexpected and may indicate that some post-smolts actually visit river mouths also in outer fjord areas. Thus, our study illustrate that data-storage transmitters have a substantial potential as a means to better understand movements and behaviour of free-swimming fish. Biotelemetry has been a powerful tool in studies of aquatic animals, including fish, and has provided substantial insights into their ecology and behaviour [1, 3, 4].

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors designed the experiment and performed field work. HM analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors completed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff at the Statkraft hatchery in Eresfjord for extensive help during the field work. The study was supported by the Norwegian Research Council Project Number 183992/S30 and Statkraft Energy AS.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact the corresponding author for data requests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All handling and tagging was conducted according to the Norwegian regulations for treatment and welfare of animals (permit ID 2569).

Funding

The study was supported by the Norwegian Research Council Project Number 183992/S30.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University
(2)
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research

References

  1. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Wikelski M, Andrews RD, Kuchel LJ, Wolcott TG, Butler PJ. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19(6):334–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Thorstad EB, Rikardsen AH, Alp A, Økland F. The use of electronic tags in fish research—an overview of fish telemetry methods. Turk J Fish Aquat SC. 2013;13:881–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v13_5_13.Google Scholar
  3. Hussey NE, Kessel ST, Aarestrup K, Cooke SJ, Cowley PD, Fisk AT, Harcourt RG, Holland KN, Iverson SJ, Kocik JF, Flemming JEM, Whoriskey FG. Aquatic animal telemetry: a panoramic window into the underwater world. Science. 2015;348(6240):1255642. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255642.pmid%3A26068859.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hays GC, Ferreira LC, Sequeira AM, Meekan MG, Duarte CM, Bailey H, Bailleul F, Bowen WD, Caley MJ, Costa DP, Eguíluz VM, Fossette S, Friedlaender AS, Gales N, Gleiss AC, Gunn J, Harcourt R, Hazen EL, Heithaus MR, Heupel M, Holland K, Horning M, Jonsen I, Kooyman GL, Lowe CG, Madsen PT, Marsh H, Phillips RA, Righton D, Ropert-Coudert Y, Sato K, Shaffer SA, Simpfendorfer CA, Sims DW, Skomal G, Takahashi A, Trathan PN, Wikelski M, Womble JN, Thums M. Key questions in marine megafauna movement ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.015.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Heupel MR, Semmens JM, Hobday AJ. Automated acoustic tracking of aquatic animals: scales, design and deployment of listening station arrays. Mar Freshw Res. 2006;57:1–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Hedger RD, Martin F, Hatin D, Caron F, Whoriskey FG, Dodson JJ. Active migration of wild Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolt through a coastal embayment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2008;355:235–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Mitamura H, Thorstad EB, Uglem I, Bjørn PA, Økland F, Næsje TF, Dempster T, Arai N. Movements of lumpsucker females in a northern Norwegian fjord during the spawning season. Environ Biol Fish. 2012;93:475–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Gjelland KØ, Serra-Llinares RM, Hedger RD, Arechavala-Lopez P, Nilsen R, Finstad B, Uglem I, Skilbrei OT, Bjørn PA. How does salmon lice affect the marine phase of sea trout behaviour? Aquacult Environ Interact. 2014;5:221–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Svendsen JC, Aarestrup K, Steffensen JF, Herskin J. A novel acoustic dissolved oxygen transmitter for fish telemetry. Mar Technol Sci J. 2006;40:103–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Payne NL, Gillanders BM, Seymour RS, Webber DM, Snelling EP, Semmens JM. Accelerometry estimates field metabolic rate in giant Australian cuttlefish Sepia apama during breeding. J Anim Ecol. 2011;80:422–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01758.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Payne NL, van der Meulen DE, Gannon R, Semmens JM, Suthers IM, Gray CA, Taylor MD. Rain reverses diel activity rhythms in an estuarine teleost. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2363.Google Scholar
  12. Thorstad EB, Whoriskey F, Uglem I, Moore A, Rikardsen AH, Finstad B. A critical life stage of the Atlantic salmon Salmo salar: behaviour and survival during the smolt and initial post-smolt migration. J Fish Biol. 2012;81:500–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Parrish DL, Behnke RJ, Gephard SR, McCormick SD, Reeves GH. Why aren’t there more Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)? Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1998;55:281–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. ICES. Report of the Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS). 30 March-8 April 2016. Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM: 2016;10:1–323.Google Scholar
  15. Finstad B, Økland F, Thorstad EB, Bjørn PA, McKinley RS. Migration of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon and wild anadromous brown trout post-smolt in a Norwegian fjord system. J Fish Biol. 2005;66:86–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen AJ, Berg M, Bremset G, Finstad B, Hvidsten NA, Jensås JG, Johnsen BO, Lund E. Passing a seawater challenge test is not indicative of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts performing as well at sea as their naturally produced conspecifics. J Fish Biol. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hvidsten NA, Møkkelgjerd PI. Predation on salmon smolts, Salmo salar L., in the estuary of the River Surna. J Fish Biol. 1987;30:273–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Hvidsten NA, Lund RA. Predation on hatchery-reared and wild smolts of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in the estuary of River Orkla. J Fish Biol. 1988;33:121–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Jepsen N, Holthe E, Økland F. Observations of predation on salmon and trout smolt in a river mouth. Fish Mon Ecol. 2006;13:341–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Dieperink C, Bak BD, Pedersen L-F, Pedersen MI, Pedersen S. Predation on Atlantic salmon and sea trout during their first days as postsmolts. J Fish Biol. 2002;61:848–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Heuch PA, Bjørn PA, Finstad B, Holst JC, Asplin L, Nilsen F. A review of the Norwegian ‘National Action Plan Against Salmon Lice on Salmonids’: the effect on wild smolts. Aquaculture. 2005;246:79–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Bricknell IR, Dalesman SJ, O’Shea B, Pert CC, Mordue-Luntz AJ. The effect of environmental salinity on sea lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis settlement success. Dis Aquat Org. 2006;71:201–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wright DW, Oppedal F, Dempster T. Early-stage sea lice recruits on Atlantic salmon are freshwater sensitive. J Fish Dis. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McCormick SD, Hansen LP, Quinn TP, Saunders RL. Movement, migration, and smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1998;55:77–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Plantalech MN, Thorstad EB, Davidsen JG, Økland F, Sivertsgård R, McKinley RS, Finstad B. Vertical movements of Atlantic salmon post-smolts relative to measures of salinity and water temperature during the first phase of the marine migration. Fish Manag Ecol. 2009;16(2). ISSN 0969-997X.s 147-154.s. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00658.x.
  26. Martin F, Hedger RD, Dodson JJ, Fernandes L, Hatin D, Caron F, Whoriskey FG. Behavioural transition during the estuarine migration of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) smolt. Ecol Freshw Fish. 2009;18:406–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Thorstad E, Økland F, Finstad B, Sivertsgård R, Bjørn PL, McKinley RS. Migration speeds and orientation of Atlantic salmon and sea trout post-smolts in a Norwegian fjord system. Environ Biol Fish. 2004;71:305–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Økland F, Erkinaro J, Moen K, Niemelö E, Fiske P, McKinley RS, Thorstad EB. Return migration of Atlantic salmon in the River Tana: phases of migratory behaviour. J Fish Biol. 2001;59(4):862–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Thorstad EB, Uglem I, Finstad B, Chittenden CM, Nilsen R, Økland F, Bjørn PA. Stocking location and predation by marine fishes affect survival of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts. Fish Manag Ecol. 2012;19:400–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Thorstad EB, Økland F, Finstad B, Sivertsgård R, Plantalech N, Bjørn PA, McKinley RS. Fjord migration and survival of wild and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon and wild brown trout post-smolts. Hydrobiologia. 2007;582:99–107.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Økland F, Thorstad EB, Finstad B, Sivertsgård R, Plantalech N, Jepsen N, McKinley RS. Swimming speeds and orientation of wild Atlantic salmon post-smolts during the first stage of the marine migration: management and ecological notes. Fish Manag Ecol. 2006;13(4):271–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Okuyama J, Tabata R, Nakajima K, Arai N, Kobayashi M, Kagawa S. Surfacers change their dive tactics depending on the aim of the dive: evidence from simultaneous measurements of breaths and energy expenditure. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2014;281(1795):20140040.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Sato K, Naito Y, Kato A, Niizuma Y, Watanuki Y, Charrassin JB, Bost CA, Handrich Y, Le Maho Y. Buoyancy and maximal diving depth in penguins: do they control inhaling air volume? J Exp Biol. 2002;205:1189–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tanaka H, Naito Y, Davis ND, Urawa S, Ueda H, Fukuwaka M. First record of the at-sea swimming speed of a Pacific salmon during its oceanic migrations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;291:307–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Helland IP, Uglem I, Jansen PA, Diserud OH, Bjørn PA, Finstad B. Statistical and ecological challenges of monitoring parasitic salmon lice infestations in wild salmonid fish stocks. Aquacult Environ Interact. 2015;7(267):280.Google Scholar
  36. Gargan PG, Forde G, Hazon N, Russell DJF, Todd CD. Evidence for sea lice induced marine mortality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in western Ireland from experimental releases of ranched smolts treated with emamectin benzoate. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2012;69:343–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Vollset KW, Krontveit RI, Jansen PA, Finstad B, Barlaup BT, Skilbrei OT, Krkošek M, Romundstad P, Aunsmo A, Jensen AJ, Dohoo I. Impacts of parasites on marine survival of Atlantic salmon: a meta-analysis. Fish Fish. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12141.Google Scholar
  38. Birkeland K. Consequences of premature return by sea trout (Salmo trutta) infested with the salmon louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis Krøyer): migration, growth, and mortality. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1996;53:2808–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Birkeland K, Jakobsen PJ. Salmon lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, infestation as a causal agent of premature return to rivers and estuaries by sea trout, Salmo trutta, juveniles. Environ Biol Fishes. 1997;49:129–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Wells A, Grierson CE, Marshall L, MacKenzie M, et al. Physiological consequences of ‘premature freshwater return’ for wild sea-run brown trout (Salmo trutta) postsmolts infested with sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2007;64:1360–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Sivertsgard R, Thorstad EB, Okland F, Finstad B, Bjorn PA, Jepsen N, Nordal T, McKinley RC. Effects of salmon lice infection and salmon lice protection on fjord migrating Atlantic salmon and brown trout post-smolts. Hydrobiologia. 2007;582:35–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Bjørn PA, Sivertsgård R, Finstad B, Nilsen R, Serra-Llinares RM, Kristoffersen R. Area protection may reduce salmon louse infection risk to wild salmonids. Aquacult Environ Interact. 2011;1:233–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement