2000 First Quarter Report
Ohio River Largemouth Bass Studies:
Task 1: Adult Radio Telemetry

Submitted to:
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Division of Wildlife

Submitted by:
Jason G. Freund and Kyle J. Hartman
West Virginia University
College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences
Division of Forestry
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
322 Percival Hall, Box 6125
Morgantown WV 26506-6125
(304) 293-2941

Objectives:

1. Determine largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) overwintering habitat selection and movements within the Belleville Pool of the Ohio River.
2. Determine seasonal water quality differences between major Ohio River habitat types (embayments, tributaries, and main channel). We will attempt to correlate water quality information to fish habitat preferences.
3. Determine pre- and post-spawn movements of largemouth bass and determine spawning habitat preferences.

First Quarter Summary
This report summarizes Ohio River largemouth bass research conducted between 01 January 2000 and 31 March 2000. Research conducted during the first quarter of 2000 largely consisted of the tracking of largemouth bass previously implanted with radio-transmitters. Of the forty-three (43) largemouth bass (thirty-seven wild-caught and six hatchery-reared) fish that have been implanted with radio transmitters, twenty-five (25) transmitters should have been active during the first quarter of 2000. Of the twenty-five transmitters expected to be active during the time period, twenty (20) transmitters are expected to expire during the first quarter of 2000 (Table 1). However, it should be noted that expected life guaranteed by the manufacturer is a conservative estimate of when the transmitter battery will fail. Actual expected lives of the batteries are generally one and a half to two times as long as the manufacturer's guaranteed expected life.

Fifteen (15) different largemouth bass were located a total of seventy (70) times during the first quarter of 2000 (Table 2). Fish were successfully tracked on eleven (11) days. The remaining ten fish were not located. This may possibly be due to fish moving out of the search area; using deep water, making them near undetectable or tag failure among other plausible reasons. Research efforts were hindered in January and February due to ice that covered the entire main stem of the Belleville Pool, tributaries, and embayments and obstructed boat access. Equipment problems (March) and flood conditions (February and March) were also factors that limited sampling during the first quarter of 2000.

First Quarter Activities

A.) Radio Telemetry Searching
Different antennae were used for searching different areas of the river depending upon accessibility. The main river and the Little Kanawha River are searched with a 3.0 x 3.7-m (10 x 12 foot) antenna. The Little Hocking and Hocking Rivers and the embayments cannot be entered with the large antenna and are generally searched with a handheld loop antenna the day before or after the large antennae is used.

Twenty-five (25) largemouth bass had active transmitters during the first quarter of 2000. Fifteen (15) of these fish were located at least once during the search efforts. Data are presented that depict the number of days between successful radio telemetry locations and the distance moved during this time (Table 2). Movement of a fish from a tributary or embayment to another habitat type was calculated as the distance (in river miles and river kilometers) from the mouth of the embayment or tributary to the next location moved. It should be noted that fish that were not seen to have moved under this large scale might have moved a considerable distance, but less than the 0.81-km scale used. Upon the completion of data collection, this scale will be greatly reduced. Fish locations are depicted in figure 1.

The movement of fish 48.011 was particularly interesting (Figure 2). After being located in the Little Hocking River on 6 January it was located on 17 February some 8.9 kilometers downstream of the Little Hocking River near Mustapha Island. Nine days later the fish was located 1.6 km downstream in Swan Run, an embayment on the Ohio side of the river. It then moved 11.3-km upstream from Swan Run to a location in the main river slightly upstream from the Little Hocking River where it was located twenty-nine (29) days later. Four (4) days later, tracking efforts in the main river did not locate the fish leading to the assumption that the fish was in deep water (see section in this report on signal attenuation) or it had moved to a location within a tributary or embayment which was not navigable.

The movement of fish 48.082 was also noteworthy due to the large movement the fish had made between 26 February and 26 March (Figure 2). All previous locations of the fish were within or near Sand Creek (Ohio River Mile 194). During the twenty-nine days between tracking attempts, the fish moved from the back of Sand Creek to a location within the Little Kanawha River, a movement of at least 15.3-km. The estimate of 15.3-km is likely an underestimate since the fish was located at least 2-km from the mouth of Sand Creek and moved more than 1-km inside of the Little Kanawha River. Once in the Little Kanawha River, the fish moved at least 2-km within 4 days.
Another fish, implanted with a transmitter frequency of 48.071 MHz, spent a majority of the winter within a small area in the Little Kanawha River (Figure 2). However, between 28 February and 30 March, the fish moved more than 3-km to the mouth of the Little Kanawha River and then approximately 2.4-km to a location near the head of back channel created by Blennerhasset Island in the main channel.

Estimates of first quarter 2000 fish locations are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 using ArcView GIS software. The fish that are not located within the channel of the Ohio River are in off-channel embayments and tributaries that are not depicted in the currently available GIS coverages. A more detailed graph depicts the movements of the fish with the frequencies 48.011, 48.071, and 48.082 (Figure 2). Estimates of the distance moved (in river miles and river kilometers) between telemetry locations for fish during January through March 2000 are found in Table 2. As noted previously, the scale is large (0.81-km) and the distance traveled within embayments and tributaries are not included. Additionally, the distances moved are likely to be very conservative estimates of the total distance the fish moved between dates. Reported distances are measured as the minimum river channel distance moved between the two dates and does not account for other movements that may have occurred within the time frame.
During the first quarter of 2000, many fish showed movements among macro-scale habitat types. Fish 49.194, for example, moved between Swan Run, an embayment in Ohio, and the main channel. Fish 49.514 moved from within the Little Hocking River, a tributary in Ohio, to a location within the main channel downstream of the Little Kanawha River along the Ohio shore. Fish 48.011 utilized embayment (Swan Run), tributaries (Little Hocking River), and two locations within the main channel with no two locations within 1 km of another. These movements are likely due to the drastic weather changes that occurred during the time period or to responses to pre-spawning cues. The main river temperature increased from an average of 2.8°C on 12 February to an average of 6.5°C on 26 February. In addition to the warming trend, ice coverage was greater than normal during February and several significant flood events occurred within the first quarter.

B.) Water Quality Monitoring
Temperature and conductivity data were collected at embayments and tributaries in the lower half of the Belleville Pool. Data were also collected at corresponding main river locations and these data are summarized in Table 3. As noted previously, data were not collected when ice cover or high water prevented river access.

Water temperature was significantly different between macro-scale habitat types (p = 0.0135, ANOVA). Mean temperatures were 9.0°C in embayments, 6.6°C in tributaries, and 5.6°C in main river locations. Upon a significant ANOVA result, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (Tukey HSD) test was used to compare mean water temperature as it is the most conservative post-hoc multiple comparison test. Tukey's HSD concluded that embayments were significantly warmer than the main river. However, main river and tributaries and tributaries and embayment temperatures were not significantly different. Mean conductivity was significantly different between habitat types (p = 0.0282, ANOVA). However, the conservative Tukey's HSD test was unable to detect differences in mean conductivity, possibly due to low sample size (low power). However, t-tests performed in PROC GLM (SAS) on least square means concluded that embayments and tributaries were statistically similar and significantly lower than the mean main river conductivity.

C.) Seasonal Habitat Use
There was substantial movement between macro-scale habitat types throughout the first quarter of 2000. At least two large scale movements of greater than 10-km occurred, leading to the assumption that fish were actively searching for suitable habitat. Fish appeared to be more scattered and less reliant on embayment habitats compared to the previous winter. Two tributaries, the Little Kanawha River and the Little Hocking River, were used by eight (8) of the fifteen (15) fish located during radio telemetry searches during the first quarter of 2000. Additionally, many movements between habitat types were evident (Table 2).

D.) Signal Attenuation
An experiment to determine signal attenuation at various depths was conducted on 6 February and 10 February 2000. This research was conducted to help explain a large number of instances where telemetered fish were not located and it was assumed they were using deep-water habitats. A repeated measures ANOVA concluded that the mean distance of detection varied as a function of depth (p = 0.0020, df = 3, n = 256). This relationship is explained by a simple non-linear model (y = 0.9891e-0.2004x, R2 = 0.7988, Figure 5) describing the inverse exponential relationship between distance of signal detection and the depth of the transmitter within the water column. This experiment confirmed that fish using deep water are less likely to be detected. Fish using shallow-water habitats such as embayments, tributaries, and main channel borders are more likely to be detected. Consequently, these shallow-water habitats may appear to be used more in comparison to deeper areas.

Acknowledgments
Scott Morrison, WVDNR District VI Fisheries Biologist, has been instrumental to this project with his help in the field and with project advice. Gary Batton's (WVDNR District VI Wildlife Technician) assistance in the field and with maintenance of equipment is also greatly appreciated.

Table 1: Summary of active frequencies, expected tag life (based on manufacturer's minimum life guarantee), and fish information. Shaded entries indicate transmitters that are expected to expire within the first quarter of 2000. Periods within columns indicate missing data.


Table 2: Macro-scale habitat use and movement of radio tagged largemouth bass. See text for notes regarding to data presented in this table.


Table 3: Explanation of abbreviations used in Table 2, depicting areas telemetered fish used within the Belleville Pool of the Ohio River.







Figure 3: Water temperature recorded for the Belleville Pool during the first quarter of 2000. Embayment habitats are: Rock Run, Lee Creek, Sugar Camp Run, Swan Run, and Creek, and Indian Run. Tributary habitats are the Hocking River, Little Hocking River, and the Little Kanawha River. Main channel water quality was taken in area upstream and adjacent to embayment and tributary mouths.


Figure 4: Specific conductance recorded for the Belleville Pool during the first quarter of 2000. Embayment habitats are: Rock Run, Lee Creek, Sugar Camp Run, Swan Run, Sand Creek, and Indian Run. Tributary habitats are the Hocking River, Little Hocking River, and the Little Kanawha River. Main channel water quality was taken in area upstream and adjacent to embayment and tributary mouths.


Figure 5: Non-linear model describing maximum signal detection as a function of the transmitter depth in the water column. Experiments were conducted over 3 days, mean water temperature was 2.2°C and specific conductance was 411.4mS.