Open Access

Interpreting vertical movement behavior with holistic examination of depth distribution: a novel method reveals cryptic diel activity patterns of Chinook salmon in the Salish Sea

Animal Biotelemetry20175:2

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-016-0116-5

Received: 22 September 2016

Accepted: 15 December 2016

Published: 13 January 2017

Abstract

Aquatic organisms exhibit a variety of diel changes in vertical movement that are investigable through the use of biotelemetry. While certain species do not change their movements between day and night, others exhibit diel vertical migration (DVM) or a diverse range of diel activity patterns (DAPs). Consequently, day–night differences in depth distribution may be stark and easily detectable, or more subtle and difficult to identify. To augment the discovery and classification of cryptic diel vertical movement behavior, we developed and utilized a novel method that analyzed entire depth distributions while comparing diel period, season, and season/diel period models. This analysis revealed a seasonally variable DAP previously unreported in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In summer and fall, Chinook salmon in the Salish Sea juxtaposed shallow and confined daytime movements with nighttime bounce diving. This DAP was reversed in winter, when they occupied deeper sections of the water column during the day, resulting in a substantially overlapping, but more even depth distribution than at night. These results demonstrate the analytical utility of accompanying other metrics with holistic examination and visualization of the entire distribution of depth data. Additionally, we highlight the need to use a framework that answers all of the following questions: (1) does the target species exhibit seasonal variation in depth, (2) does it undergo DVM, (3) if it does not undergo DVM, does it follow a DAP, and (4) if it follows a DAP, what is the difference in vertical movement behavior between diel periods?

Keywords

Telemetry Depth distribution Diel activity pattern Chinook salmon

Background

Biotelemetry is a powerful tool for investigating the movements of aquatic organisms that would otherwise be inaccessible to researchers. Transmitters and data loggers can provide data on the horizontal movements of animals, and also their depth distributions and vertical movements, yielding many insights into their behavior. Analysis of vertical movement data may reveal that a species’ depth distribution is influenced by factors including temperature [1, 2], oxygen [3], the former two in concert [4], light level [5, 6], predation risk [7], prey movements [8, 9], and foraging efficiency [10, 11]. Consequently, vertical distributions often vary with the seasons and diel periods [12, 13]. Thus, telemetry studies yield valuable information on the behavior and ecology of the target species in relation to its biotic and abiotic environment.

While certain organisms show no day–night differences in depth distribution, others exhibit behavior that can be categorized as diel vertical migration (DVM) or a diel activity pattern (DAP). DVM occurs when an organism occupies deeper water during the day and shallower water at night, or (less commonly) vice versa [8]. This behavior has been documented in numerous forage species, such as mesopelagic myctophid fish that reside at deeper depths (200–2000 m) during the day to avoid predation and migrate closer to the surface at night (10–100 m) to forage when predation risk is reduced [14, 15]. Large predators including bluntnose sixgill [16] and bigeye thresher sharks [17] also undergo DVM, often foraging deeper during the day than at night. The diel separation of modal depths that defines DVM, where distributions are not significantly overlapping and are of a similar variance (see Fig. 2 of [16]), does not necessarily occur under a DAP. For example, blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) may repeatedly dive from the surface to waters 100 m deep or more and back during the day, whereas at night they stay almost exclusively at the surface (see Fig. 4 of [18]). In this case, the blue marlin nighttime distribution is a different shape than and entirely overlapped by the daytime distribution due to the stark difference in variance between diel periods. Such diving behavior differs from the disparate modal depths in day and night typical of DVM and therefore must be analyzed differently to be recognized as a DAP. It is important to note that DVM is a single specialized paradigm, whereas DAP represents a wide range of diel movement behaviors. This distinction is relevant because some authors, after finding no evidence of DVM and then not investigating further for any DAPs, may prematurely conclude that a species does not exhibit diel movement behavior.

A recent acoustic telemetry study employed a linear statistical model to assess seasonal and diel depth patterns of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Puget Sound, WA [13]. They found that Chinook salmon showed seasonal changes in depth distribution but did not exhibit DVM. However, because their model predicted average depths derived from hourly means of the depth detections per fish to explore diel movement patterns, they could not fully evaluate changes in variability in depths associated with DAPs.

Here, we illustrate the importance of holistic examination of diel depth distribution data applied to Puget Sound Chinook salmon data described above. We develop and apply a novel analytical method enabling researchers to assess whether the organisms exhibit seasonal changes in depth distribution, DVM, and DAPs. Utilizing acoustic telemetry data from Smith et al. [13] and more recently collected data, we demonstrate that subadult Chinook salmon in marine waters exhibit a seasonally variable DAP consisting of shallow, vertically confined movements during the day in summer/fall and at night in winter, and deeper, more variable movements during the night in summer/fall and day in winter. The novelty of this work is highlighted by the rarity of long-term acoustic telemetry studies on the vertical movements of immature anadromous salmonids in the marine environment [19, 20]. The method described in this paper provides both analytical flexibility and resolution by using the entire distribution of depth data, making it applicable to other species with cryptic patterns of vertical movement.

Methods

Receiver deployment and fish tagging

Acoustic receivers were deployed in five regions of the Salish Sea in waters of the USA and Canada: the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the San Juan Islands, Whidbey Basin, Admiralty Inlet, and central Puget Sound (Fig. 1; see [13, 21] for more details). Immature (i.e., subadult) Chinook salmon (n = 28; Table 1) were captured and surgically implanted with depth recording acoustic tags (Vemco: Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada) following the methods of Smith et al. [13] and Arostegui et al. [21]. The tags accurately recorded depths up to 110 m from the surface, but deeper detections had questionable precision and were subsequently classified solely as >110 m for analysis.
Fig. 1

Study region. Map of all acoustic receivers that detected Chinook salmon and recorded their depth. Receivers and their detections were defined as being in one of five areas designated by the ellipses: Strait of Juan de Fuca, San Juan Islands, Whidbey Basin, Admiralty Inlet, and central Puget Sound. Each area has both the number of receivers that detected fish and the number of detections listed

Table 1

Tagged Chinook salmon information

Serial #

Fork length (mm)

Tagging date

# of detections

3134

276

11/1/06

798

4996

330

6/7/07

1246

4997

370

6/7/07

3760

5033

401

11/2/06

3024

5035

296

11/1/06

567

6038

260

11/1/06

151

1040674

266

6/7/07

853

1040676

280

6/7/07

217

1040678

316

6/7/07

533

1055541

275

12/11/08

359

1082468

430

5/13/12

2058

1082477

425

4/12/12

1574

3130

342

6/7/07

81

3131

254

11/1/06

70

3133

369

6/7/07

354

4998

255

6/7/07

24

5034

505

11/1/06

23

1040675

346

6/8/07

354

1040677

330

6/7/07

18

1045449

260

12/12/07

29

1055537

273

12/11/08

64

1082469

400

6/24/12

401

1082470

400

6/24/12

14

1082471

450

5/13/12

10

1082472

400

6/24/12

162

1082473

425

5/13/12

2

1082474

430

4/22/12

35

1082476

440

4/5/12

1

Serial number, fork length (mm), tagging date, and total number of detections for the 28 subadult Chinook salmon tagged in this study. The bold values were utilized in the quantitative analyses and the 16 below were not

Data classification

For each Chinook salmon, detections were classified by season, diel period, and depth bin. The seasons were defined as: summer (July–September), fall (October–December), winter (January–March), and spring (April–June). Day and night were defined as the time between sunrise and sunset, and sunset and sunrise, respectively, obtained from the Astronomical Applications Department of the US Naval Observatory [22] (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php, accessed October 2015). Ten-meter depth bins from 0 to 110 m were utilized plus one bin summing all detections >110 m, for a total of 12 bins.

Data selection

The four individual Chinook salmon with the most detections in a given season and diel period (i.e., summer day, summer night, fall day, etc.) were chosen to test the method (Table 2). The number of detections is equivalent to the amount of time a fish’s depth was observed over a season within a specific diel period. This metric was utilized because fish that accumulate more detections are more likely to provide data that accurately represent the true depth distribution in a given season and diel period. The number of fish informing a specific estimated distribution was kept consistent to maintain the level of individual variability incorporated into each maximum likelihood estimated model.
Table 2

Detection data

Serial #

Season

Diel

Depth bin (m)

Total

0–10

10–20

20–30

30–40

40–50

50–60

60–70

70–80

80–90

90–100

100–110

110+

4996

Summer

Day

57

88

85

66

15

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

312

4997

Summer

Day

52

78

44

95

173

92

79

51

17

1

3

0

685

1082468

Summer

Day

73

135

198

261

111

74

34

29

21

18

16

68

1038

1082477

Summer

Day

12

19

63

83

99

68

48

48

27

37

51

222

777

4996

Summer

Night

4

24

11

14

7

4

1

4

10

17

23

192

311

4997

Summer

Night

44

84

66

57

127

93

49

38

21

1

1

0

581

1082468

Summer

Night

101

180

134

129

74

59

40

35

28

11

17

54

862

1082477

Summer

Night

11

17

41

38

37

48

47

36

58

67

91

265

756

3134

Fall

Day

0

63

80

55

43

19

21

17

2

0

0

16

316

4997

Fall

Day

4

1

18

29

58

111

85

95

74

12

1

1

489

5033

Fall

Day

13

104

359

124

66

10

2

0

0

0

0

0

678

5035

Fall

Day

7

41

33

6

9

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

104

3134

Fall

Night

10

145

145

63

52

10

11

37

15

0

2

2

492

4997

Fall

Night

1

16

71

106

119

220

206

189

110

29

13

84

1164

6038

Fall

Night

22

3

1

1

0

0

0

7

35

10

8

27

114

1040674

Fall

Night

1

7

0

5

7

40

0

1

1

0

8

27

97

4997

Winter

Day

0

1

0

5

11

61

37

37

37

40

0

14

243

5033

Winter

Day

25

146

315

408

404

168

27

16

2

0

1

0

1512

5035

Winter

Day

22

6

10

24

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

76

1055541

Winter

Day

4

6

3

3

1

4

12

10

0

0

0

0

43

4997

Winter

Night

1

3

10

4

41

102

87

40

20

10

2

55

375

5033

Winter

Night

99

163

193

134

87

38

16

18

5

7

2

0

762

5035

Winter

Night

33

164

102

19

12

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

333

1055541

Winter

Night

28

38

38

32

42

51

20

6

5

1

3

1

265

4997

Spring

Day

94

51

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

149

1040674

Spring

Day

56

118

46

1

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

228

4996

Spring

Day

339

176

55

3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

576

1040678

Spring

Day

122

68

13

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

206

4997

Spring

Night

54

14

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

74

1040674

Spring

Night

13

71

5

2

0

1

8

4

1

0

0

0

105

1040676

Spring

Night

72

13

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

86

1082468

Spring

Night

18

13

0

0

4

1

5

2

6

7

11

64

131

Detections per depth bin by the four individual Chinook salmon with the most detections in each of eight season and diel period combinations. Note that the 32 observed distributions displayed here come from 12 different Chinook salmon

Model data treatment

The data consist of proportions of detections in each depth bin for each fish, across day and night diel periods and seasons. A natural probability density function for these data is the Dirichlet. Here, the likelihood (L) for each vector of proportions (x i ) is:
$$L(x_{i} ) = \frac{1}{B(\alpha )}\prod\limits_{k = 1}^{K} {x_{k,i}^{{\alpha_{k} - 1}} }$$
(1a)
$$\beta (\alpha ) = \frac{{\prod\nolimits_{k = 1}^{K} {\varGamma \alpha_{k} } }}{{\varGamma \left( {\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{K} {\alpha_{k} } } \right)}}$$
(1b)
where x i is the vector of proportions of time spent at K depth bins for fish i, α k are the parameters of the Dirichlet distribution, so that the mean proportion in any bin equals \(\frac{{\alpha_{k} }}{{\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{K} {\alpha_{k} } }}\).

We have four alternative models to test: The vector α k is (1) the same for all diel periods and seasons; (2) different between diel periods but the same for seasons; (3) the same for diel periods but different between seasons; (4) different between diel periods and seasons.

As we have 12 depth bins, there are 12 different values of α k to be estimated. However, there are two related issues with parameter estimation of the vector α. The first is that our data consist of proportions in discretized depth bins that have a natural ordering to them (e.g., 1–10 and 10–20 m), so that a priori, we anticipate that the α 1 should be more similar to α 2 than it is to α 3, and so on. Two, we wish to test different models that suppose different vectors α for diel periods and seasons. If the α k are all estimated as free parameters, each distinct vector consists of 12 additional parameters that have to be estimated, which in model selection penalizes models that presume distributions are different across times or seasons.

To address both of these problems, we fit a parametric function to describe how the estimated mean proportion of observation varies with depth. Specifically, we fit the following functional form:
$$\hat{p}(k) = \int_{{y_{{\rm min} ,k} }}^{{y_{{\rm max} ,k} }} {f(y){\text{d}}y}$$
(2)
where f(y) is a gamma probability density function with shape parameter θ and scale parameter k g, y is depth, and y min,k and y max,k are the upper and lower bounds of the depth bin k. In other words, the estimated probability of being in depth bin k is the integral of a gamma probability density function over the depth range that bin k represents.
Given the vector \(\hat{p}(k)\), and a multiplier α mult, we can then obtain the vector α for the Dirichlet probability density function and thereby calculate the likelihood for each observation:
$$\alpha_{k} = \hat{p}(k)\alpha_{\text{mult}}$$

Thus, the parametric model only required that we estimate three parameters, θ, k g, and α mult, rather than 12 distinct parameters in the vector α k .

Occasionally, the \(\hat{p}(k)\) would become too small, resulting in near-zero estimated probabilities so that some likelihoods could not be computed. To remedy this problem, we added a final variable, termed p floor, which was the smallest value that \(\hat{p}(k)\) could take. This was done by adding a constant small probability ε to Eq. 2 above and constraining \(\hat{p}(k)\) such that the sum over all k = 1:
$$\varepsilon = \frac{{p_{\text{floor}} - \min_{k} \left( {\int_{{y_{{\rm min} ,k} }}^{{y_{{\rm max} ,k} }} {f(y){\text{d}}y} } \right)}}{{1 - K_{{p_{\text{floor}} }} }}$$
(3a)
$$\hat{p}(k) = \frac{{\hat{p}(k) = \int_{{y_{{\rm min} ,k} }}^{{y_{{\rm max} ,k} }} {f(y){\text{d}}y} + \varepsilon }}{{K\varepsilon + \sum\nolimits_{k} {\int_{{y_{{\rm min} ,k} }}^{{y_{{\rm max} ,k} }} {f(y){\text{d}}y} } }}$$
(3b)

We set p floor to 0.0001.

Depth distribution models

Four different models (null, diel period, season, and season/diel period) were fitted to test for their ability to describe the Chinook depth distribution proportions. The null model was fit to data consisting of 32 individual distributions from the four seasons and two diel periods (Table 2). The “diel period” model presumed that depth distributions varied by diel period only. The “season” model presumed that depth distributions varied by seasons only, and the “season/diel period” model presumed that depth distributions were different for each season and diel period. Thus, the null model estimated a single vector of parameters, the diel model estimated two vectors of parameters (for day and night), the season model estimated four vectors of parameters, and the season/diel period model estimated eight vectors of parameters (24 parameters total).

Parameter estimation and model comparison

Maximum likelihood estimates of the θ, k g, and α mult parameters were calculated with the “mle2” function of the “bbmle” package in R [23], using the L-BFGS-B method with bounded parameters [24]. We used a modified version of the “ddirichlet” function (modified to calculate log-likelihoods) of the “gtools” package in R [25]. All computation was conducted in R (version 3.2.2) [26], the code and data for which is provided [see Additional files 1, 2].

Results

The 28 Chinook salmon were detected 16,791 times at 65 different acoustic receivers from November 1, 2006, to December 23, 2012 (Table 1; Fig. 1). In a given season/diel period, individual fish were detected 0–1512 times. Among the 32 distributions from the top four individuals with the most detections in each of the eight season/diel periods, the mean number of total detections was 435.63 ± 363.56 (Table 2). The 32 season/diel period distributions came from 12 of the 28 Chinook salmon (Table 2). These 12 fish exhibited no significant difference in fork length (mm) from the 16 fish that did not contribute to the models (Student’s t test: P = 0.1422), indicating no size-related bias in the likelihood of detection.

The median of the individual mean depths of the four distributions in each season/diel period was greater at night than during the day in all seasons except winter (Fig. 2). The variation in depth tended to be greater at night than during the day in all four seasons; however, in the winter the interquartile ranges were fully overlapping (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2

Individual mean depth. Box plots of the individual mean depth for the Chinook salmon distributions (n = 4) in each season/diel period. These calculations are based off of all the raw depth detections for each individual fish in the corresponding season/diel period. Daytime and nighttime boxes are white and gray, respectively. Detections from >110 m were changed to exactly 110 m due to the depth limitation of the acoustic tags, making these calculations conservative

Fig. 3

Individual standard deviation in depth. Box plots of the individual standard deviation in depth for the Chinook salmon distributions (n = 4) in each season/diel period. These calculations are based off of all the raw depth detections for each individual fish in the corresponding season/diel period. Daytime and nighttime boxes are white and gray, respectively. Detections from >110 m were changed to exactly 110 m due to the depth limitation of the acoustic tags, making these calculations conservative

The season/diel period model had the lowest Akaike information criterion (Table 3). Independently, the diel period and season significantly improved fitting to the Chinook depth data (compared to the null model), but season more substantially improved the model than diel period (Fig. 4). However, the interaction of season and diel period significantly improved the model more than either of the factors alone (Table 3). The season/diel period model output exhibited greater 50, 70, and 90% occupancy depths at night than during the day in all seasons except winter (Table 4). This represents a deeper and more variable depth distribution at night than day in summer, fall, and spring (Fig. 4).
Table 3

Model comparison

Model

AIC

# of parameters

ΔAIC

Season/diel period

−6709.52

24

0.00

Season

−6662.46

12

47.06

Diel period

−6521.04

6

188.48

Null

−6511.91

3

197.61

Akaike information criterion (AIC), number of parameters, and ΔAIC for each of the four models tested

Fig. 4

Modeled depth distributions. Modeled depth distributions by bin under the best fitting model (season/diel period). Numbers on the x-axis refer to the deep end of a depth bin (i.e., 10 represents 0–10 m) except for the last bin, which covers all depths greater than 110 m. Empty black circles mark the actual observed values in each bin from the individual distributions (n = 4) contributing to each subdivision of the model

Table 4

Model predicted depth occupancy

50%

Spring

Summer

Fall

Winter

Day

5.1

28.0

34.5

37.8

Night

12.2

39.0

56.8

29.0

70%

    

Day

15.0

41.1

46.8

53.7

Night

31.1

54.8

100.4

42.6

90%

    

Day

45.5

66.2

69.1

83.6

Night

83.3

84.3

>110

68.6

Season/diel period model predicted depths (m) of 50, 70, and 90% occupancy. Depth of percent occupancy is defined as the depth above which the specified cumulative percentage of the distribution occurs. Note that if the predicted depth occurred deeper than 110 m, it was reported here conservatively as “>110” due to the depth limitation of the acoustic tags

The more even (i.e., variable) depth distributions in one diel period versus the other indicated DAPs (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 4). Daytime distributions with a shallow mode were fish confining their movements to a small depth range closer to the surface than the bottom (Figs. 4, 5). In contrast, nighttime distributions with more equal proportions across all depth bins represent bounce diving (repeated, brief vertical movements) by Chinook salmon (Figs. 4, 5). While the frequency and amplitude of these dives varied, both the preliminary analyses and the model indicated that this behavior primarily occurred at night (Figs. 3, 4). The juxtaposition of shallow and confined daytime movements with nighttime bounce diving, particularly in summer and fall (Fig. 4), revealed a DAP in the Chinook salmon depth distributions. In the model, this DAP was reversed in winter; during the daytime, they occupied deeper sections of the water column, resulting in a more even distribution than at night (Fig. 4). The preliminary analysis exhibited a shallower median nighttime than daytime mean depth in the winter (Fig. 2); however, it did not detect a difference in depth variation between day and night (Fig. 3). Regardless, both methods demonstrated a reverse in the DAP during the winter; Chinook salmon shifted their depth distribution higher in the water column at night (Figs. 2, 4).
Fig. 5

Day and night depth tracks. Representative daytime and nighttime depth tracks with detections (empty black circles) spaced in time over a 3-h period. Straight lines are drawn between all detections regardless of the time gap between them. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of depth of the given tracks are reported. The two tracks are a part of the datasets for Chinook 5033 of fall day and Chinook 1082468 of summer night, respectively. Both of these contributed to the Gamma-Dirichlet models. Note that the reverse DAP occurs in winter

Discussion

The depth distribution of subadult Chinook salmon varied seasonally and revealed diel activity patterns. Conventional methods demonstrated that median mean and standard deviation of depth were higher at night in all seasons, except winter, and the Gamma-Dirichlet method linked the underlying cryptic differences in depth distributions to DAPs. The contrast of a more variable and deeper depth distribution at night strongly overlapping with a less variable and shallower depth distribution during the day, and the reverse in winter, shows that Chinook salmon do not exhibit classically defined DVM, confirming the conclusions of Smith et al. [13]. Consistent with our DAP findings, Candy and Quinn [27] found that during the summer in Johnstone Strait, British Columbia, Canada, Chinook salmon swam deeper and had greater rates of vertical movement during the night than day. The notable nighttime bounce diving by Chinook salmon in summer and fall may result from them ascending to feed on prey that undergo nighttime DVM toward the surface [28, 29] and then descending to avoid marine mammal predators including harbor seals [30, 31] and southern resident killer whales [32, 33]. However, we did not test any behavioral hypotheses to explain the DAPs, and their ecological purpose requires further examination.

The Chinook salmon DAPs found in this study, conducted in interior marine areas, exhibit both similarities and differences to vertical movement patterns documented in earlier studies of Chinook salmon and other Pacific salmonids. Walker and Myers [34] observed an immature aged 1.2 (1 freshwater and 2 ocean winters) Chinook salmon rearing in the Bering Sea that similarly exhibited seasonally variable vertical movement behavior. In the summer, this fish was surface-oriented at night and underwent vertical movements into deeper water during the day [34]. It then reversed its pattern in the winter by becoming surface-oriented during the day and undergoing deeper movement at night [34]. These intra-seasonal movement patterns in the Bering Sea are opposite of the DAPs we observed in Puget Sound in the summer and winter. However, both the fish in Walker and Myers’ study [34] and the ones in this work reversed their movement pattern between these two seasons, suggesting that this inter-seasonal reversal in vertical movement behavior may be a characteristic trait of Chinook salmon. Steelhead, coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon in the North Pacific Ocean in spring and summer were surface-oriented at night and deeper during the day [35, 36], contrasting with the DAPs by subadult Chinook salmon we documented in those seasons. In interior marine waters between Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland, adult sockeye salmon homing to the Fraser River in summer were documented swimming in shallower water at night and deeper water during the day [37]. A subsequent study on sockeye salmon in that same area reported different diel patterns in the two study years [38], revealing the need to continue investigating the complexities of movement behavior. Further interspecific comparisons of seasonal and diel vertical movement patterns in the marine environment would be enabled by the collection of more long-term data on all of the Pacific salmonids [19, 20].

The cryptic day–night differences, consistent with DAPs, of Chinook salmon vertical movements highlight the necessity of analyzing the entire distribution of depth data. Smith et al. [13] reduced variation in the dataset by calculating model predicted average depths derived from hourly means and detected the strong seasonal variation but not the subtle diel variation in depth distribution for Chinook salmon in Puget Sound, WA. Additionally, the framework employed by Smith et al. [13] addressed seasonal variation in depth and DVM, but not DAPs. The 12 Chinook salmon we incorporated into the model were the same fish used in Smith et al. [13], but some of which had generated additional detection data between the end of their study and the beginning of ours. However, the addition of more recent data is not responsible for our supplementary conclusions. Instead, our framework and method inclusive of and capable of differentiating diverse DAPs enabled us to provide more information on Chinook salmon vertical movement behavior.

When changes in depth distribution are particularly pronounced, standard metrics may reveal significant differences across seasons and/or diel periods. For example, the calculation of mean depths (seasonally, diurnally, hourly, etc.) is a common analysis in telemetry studies, but it can oversimplify vertical movement behavior, and its visual representation does not provide the actual shape of the depth distributions. While mean depths and other metrics can and have revealed much about various species [3945], they should be accompanied by the analysis and display of full depth distributions that will augment discovery and proper classification of cryptic vertical movement behavior. The Gamma-Dirichlet method employed in this paper utilizes a holistic analysis and presentation of entire depth distributions, thereby enabling detection of particularly fine differences that may otherwise be lost if investigated solely with a standard metric.

Modeling depth distribution data with the Gamma-Dirichlet combination provides substantial benefits in terms of design flexibility and analytical resolution. First, the Dirichlet can estimate proportions over an infinite number of components [46], meaning that few or many depth bins may be used when fitting the gamma. By calculating the α k of each bin from the α mult and \(\hat{p}(k)\), parameterization in each model subdivision is minimized and kept constant. Second, the depth bins may be of any width and need not all be the same width as each other. Bin width can be expanded or reduced depending upon the depth recorder’s resolution and accuracy, and the degree of data coverage. Tags that either record data in bins of varying sizes or that have depth-related limitations are also accommodated by the distribution combination demonstrated here. In conjunction, these flexible aspects of the Gamma-Dirichlet method not only allow the researcher to analyze depth distributions with as much or as little resolution as is desired (and appropriate), but also support the application of this approach to species in different vertical habitats.

For many aquatic species, telemetry studies are ideal for answering questions related to seasonal and diel depth patterns. The primary questions must include: (1) is the depth distribution seasonally variable, (2) does the organism undergo DVM, (3) if it does not undergo DVM, does it follow a DAP, and (4) if it follows a DAP, what is the difference in day–night vertical movement behavior? The framework employed in this paper and the method that assesses the whole depth distribution allow all of these questions to be answered and thoroughly describe the vertical movements of the target species. Future studies should consider using such a framework to describe the seasonal and diel variability in vertical depth distribution and relate it to horizontal movements when appropriate.

Abbreviations

AIC: 

Akaike information criterion

DVM: 

diel vertical migration

DAP: 

diel activity pattern

SD: 

standard deviation

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

MCA developed the Gamma-Dirichlet method, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. TEE helped develop the Gamma-Dirichlet method and contributed to manuscript preparation. TPQ obtained funding for the project, coordinated fieldwork and data management, and contributed to manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Kurt Fresh, Anna Kagley, Dawn Spilsbury-Pucci, Scott Veirs, and Fred Goetz for receiver deployment and retrieval, fish tagging, and data management. We also thank the Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking (POST) Project, the Ocean Tracking Network (OTN), Beam Reach, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) for receiver deployment, retrieval, and maintenance. We thank Joe Smith for data maintenance, analytical insight, and figure design assistance. We also thank Trevor Branch, Curry Cunningham, and Rachel Hovel for useful discussions regarding model design and comparison, Kelly Andrews for reviewing the manuscript prior to submission, and Tim Walsworth, Christine Stawitz, Pamela Moriarty, Laura Koehn, and particularly Michael Vlah for helpful comments on various facets of the work.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Permits for the deployment of receivers were obtained from NOAA-Fisheries, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and San Juan County. Permits for the capture and handling of fish were obtained from NOAA-Fisheries, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the University of Washington’s IACUC.

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, NOAA-Fisheries, the Clarence H. Campbell Endowed Lauren Donaldson Scholarship in Ocean and Fishery Sciences, the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists (ARCS) Foundation Seattle Chapter via the Barton family, and the H. Mason Keeler and Richard and Lois Worthington endowments.

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)
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington

References

  1. Brill RW, Block BA, Boggs CH, Bigelow KA, Freund EV, Marcinek DJ. Horizontal movements and depth distribution of large adult yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) near the Hawaiian Islands, recorded using ultrasonic telemetry: implications for the physiological ecology of pelagic fishes. Mar Biol. 1999;133:395–408.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Gorsky D, Zydlewski J, Basley D. Characterizing seasonal habitat use and diel vertical activity of lake whitefish in Clear Lake, Maine, as determined with acoustic telemetry. Trans Am Fish Soc. 2012;141:761–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Kraus RT, Secor DH, Wingate RL. Testing the thermal-niche oxygen-squeeze hypothesis for estuarine striped bass. Environ Biol Fish. 2015;98:2083–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlisle AB, Kochevar RE, Arostegui MC, Ganong JE, Castleton M, Schratwieser J, Block BA. Influence of temperature and oxygen on the distribution of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) in the Central Pacific. Fish Oceanogr. 2017;26:34-48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Nelson DR, McKibben JN, Strong WR Jr, Lowe CG, Sisneros JA, Schroeder DM, Lavenberg RJ. An acoustic tracking of a megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios: a crepuscular vertical migrator. Environ Biol Fish. 1997;49:389–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Kamimura H, Mitsunaga Y. Temporal and spatial distributions of Biwa salmon Oncorhynchus masou subsp. by ultrasonic telemetry in Lake Biwa. Japan. Fisheries Sci. 2014;80:951–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Humston R, Ault JS, Larkin MF, Luo J. Movements and site fidelity of the bonefish Albula vulpes in the northern Florida Keys determined by acoustic telemetry. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;291:237–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Sims DW, Southall EJ, Tarling GA, Metcalfe JD. Habitat-specific normal and reverse diel vertical migration in the plankton-feeding basking shark. J Anim Ecol. 2005;74:755–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Gleiss AC, Wright S, Liebsch N, Wilson RP, Norman B. Contrasting diel patterns in vertical movement and locomotor activity of whale sharks at Ningaloo Reef. Mar Biol. 2013;160:2981–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ishida Y, Yano A, Ban M, Ogura M. Vertical movement of a chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta in the western North Pacific Ocean a determined by a depth-recording archival tag. Fish Sci. 2001;67:1030–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Sims DW, Wearmouth VJ, Southall EJ, Hill JM, Moore P, Rawlinson K, Hutchinson N, Budd GC, Righton D, Metcalfe JD, Nash JP, Morritt D. Hunt warm, rest cool: bioenergetics strategy underlying diel vertical migration of a benthic shark. J Anim Ecol. 2006;75:176–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison PM, Gutowsky LFG, Martins EG, Patterson DA, Leake A, Cooke SJ, Power M. Diel vertical migration of adult burbot: a dynamic trade-off among feeding opportunity, predation avoidance, and bioenergetic gain. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2013;70:1765–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith JM, Fresh KL, Kagley AN, Quinn TP. Ultrasonic telemetry reveals seasonal variation in depth distribution and diel vertical migrations of sub-adult Chinook and coho salmon in Puget Sound. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2015;532:227–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Morrison JM, Codispoti LA, Smith SL, Wishner K, Flagg C, Gardner WD, Gaurin S, Naqvi SWA, Manghnani V, Prospoerie L, Gundersen JS. The oxygen minimum zone in the Arabian Sea during 1995. Deep-Sea Res II. 1999;46:1903–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Catul V, Gauns M, Karuppasamy PK. A review on mesopelagic fishes belonging to family Myctophidae. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2011;21:339–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Comfort CM, Weng KC. Vertical habitat and behavior of the bluntnose sixgill shark in Hawaii. Deep-Sea Res II. 2015;115:116–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Weng KC, Block BA. Diel vertical migration of the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus), a species possessing orbital retia mirabilia. Fish Bull. 2004;102:221–9.Google Scholar
  18. Goodyear CP, Luo J, Prince ED, Hoolihan JP, Snodgrass D, Orbesen ES, Serafy JE. Vertical habitat use of Atlantic blue marlin Makaira nigricans: interaction with pelagic longline gear. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2008;365:233–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Drenner SM, Clark TD, Whitney CK, Martins EG, Cooke SJ, Hinch SG. A synthesis of tagging studies examining the behavior and survival of anadromous salmonids in marine environments. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e31311.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Walker RV, Sviridov VV, Urawa S, Azumaya T. Spatio-temporal variation in vertical distributions of Pacific salmon in the ocean. N Pac Anadr Fish Comm Bull. 2007;4:193–201.Google Scholar
  21. Arostegui MC, Smith JM, Kagley AN, Spilsbury-Pucci D, Fresh KL, Quinn TP. Spatially clustered movement patterns and segregation of sub-adult Chinook salmon within Puget Sound, Washington and the Salish Sea. Mar Coast Fish. 2016 (in press).Google Scholar
  22. Rise/Set/Transit/Twilight Data. Astronomical Applications Department of the US Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C. 2015. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php. Accessed Oct 2015.
  23. Bolker B. bbmle: tools for general maximum likelihood estimation. R package version 1.0.18. 2016. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bbmle/bbmle.pdf.
  24. Byrd RH, Lu P, Nocedal J, Zhu C. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM J Sci Comput. 1995;16:1190–208.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Warnes GR, Bolker B, Lumley T. gtools: Various R programming tools. R package version 3.5.0. 2015. https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/gtools/index.html.
  26. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Candy JR, Quinn TP. Behavior of adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in British Columbia coastal waters determined from ultrasonic telemetry. Can J Zool. 1999;77:1161–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Thorne RE, Thomas GL. Acoustic observations of gas bubble release by Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1990;47:1920–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Dagg MJ, Frost BW, Newton J. Diel vertical migration and feeding in adult female Calanus pacificus, Metridia lucens, and Pseudocalanus newmani during a spring bloom in Dabob Bay, a fjord in Washington USA. J Marine Syst. 1998;15:503–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright BE, Riemer SD, Brown RF, Ougzin AM, Bucklin KA. Assessment of harbor seal predation on adult salmonids in a Pacific Northwest estuary. Ecol Appl. 2007;17:338–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bromaghin JF, Lance MM, Elliott EW, Jeffries SJ, Acevedo-Gutiérrez A, Kennish JM. New insights into the diets of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Salish Sea revealed by analysis of fatty acid signatures. Fish Bull. 2013;111:13–26.Google Scholar
  32. Ford JKB, Ellis GM. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in British Columbia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006;316:185–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanson MB, Baird RW, Ford JKB, Hempelmann-Halos J, Van Doornik DM, Candy JR, Emmons CK, Schorr GS, Gisborne B, Ayres KL, Wasser SK, Balcomb KC, Balcomb-Bartok K, Sneva JG, Ford MJ. Species and stock identification of prey consumed by endangered southern resident killer whales in their summer range. Endanger Species Res. 2010;11:69–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Walker RV, Myers KW. Behavior of Yukon River Chinook salmon in the Bering Sea as inferred from archival tag data. N Pac Anadr Fish Comm Bull. 2009;5:121–30.Google Scholar
  35. Manzer JI. Preliminary observations on the vertical distribution of Pacific salmon (Genus Oncorhynchus) in the Gulf of Alaska. J Fish Res Board Can. 1964;21:891–903.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker RV, Myers KW, Davis ND, Aydin KY, Friedland KD, Carlson HR, Boehlert GW, Urawa S, Ueno Y, Anma G. Diurnal variation in thermal environment experienced by salmonids in the North Pacific as indicated by data storage tags. Fish Oceanogr. 2000;9:171–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Quinn TP, Terhart BA, Groot C. Migratory orientation and vertical movements of homing adult sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, in coastal waters. Anim Behav. 1989;37:587–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Drenner SM, Hinch SG, Martins EG, Robichaud D, Clark TD, Thompson LA, Patterson DA, Cooke SJ, Thomson RE. Variable thermal experience and diel thermal patterns of homing sockeye salmon in coastal marine waters. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;496:109–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Watkins WA, Daher MA, DiMarzio NA. Sperm whale dives tracked by radio tag telemetry. Mar Mamm Sci. 2002;18:55–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitamura H, Mitsunaga Y, Arai N, Yamagishi Y, Khachaphichat M, Viputhanumas T. Horizontal and vertical movement of Mekong giant catfish Pangasianodon gigas measured using acoustic telemetry in Mae Peum Reservoir, Thailand. Fish Sci. 2008;74:787–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Polovina JJ, Hawn D, Abecassis M. Vertical movement and habitat of opah (Lampris guttatus) in the central North Pacific recorded with pop-up archival tags. Mar Biol. 2008;153:257–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Dunstan AJ, Ward PD, Marshall NJ. Vertical distribution and migration patterns of Nautilus pompilius. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e16311.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Potter IF, Howell WH. Vertical movement and behavior of the ocean sunfish, Mola mola, in the northwest Atlantic. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2011;396:138–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Andrews KS, Quinn TP. Combining fishing and acoustic monitoring data to evaluate the distribution and movements of spotted ratfish Hydrolagus colliei. Mar Biol. 2012;159:769–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Carlson AE, Hoffmayer ER, Tribuzio CA, Sulikowski JA. The use of satellite tags to redefine movement patterns of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) along the U.S. east coast: implications for fisheries management. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e103384.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Frigyik BA, Kapila A, Gupta MR. Introduction to the Dirichlet distribution and related processes. UWEE Technical Report Number UWEETR-2010-0006 University of Washington Department of Electrical Engineering. 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement