Kagley et al.: Residency, partial migration, and late egress of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and O. kisutch 
549 
Vancouver ■ 
_San 
Diagram indicating the network of major basins within Puget Sound (gray rectan¬ 
gles), Washington, basins outside of Puget Sound (black rectangles), and individually 
tagged Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) that remained resident within 
Puget Sound (gray circles) and those that left Puget Sound (black circles). Numbers in 
the circles identify individual fish. Arrows indicate movement between basins by indi¬ 
vidual fish. For example, fish 1-10 were detected only where tagged in central Puget 
Sound, but fish 26 was detected in Admiralty Inlet and Hood Canal. 
Puget Sound used offshore-deep, onshore-deep sites and 
onshore-shallow sites differently (ANOVA: F 2 51 =4.11, 
P=0.02). A Tukey’s HSD post-hoc multiple comparison 
test indicated that site use was greater at offshore-deep 
sites (mean: 120.27) and onshore-deep sites (mean: 
126.67) than at onshore-shallow sites (mean: 85.17). 
Fish presence at receivers showed a 24h periodicity 
only at onshore-shallow receiver locations (mean: 08:40 
h, z=0.12, P=0.047, Fig. 4). Offshore-deep and onshore- 
deep sites showed no peak in the hour of presence of 
tagged fish. Fish movement was distributed uniformly 
among hours regardless of receiver type (Fig. 4). 
The total distance moved per day (an indicator of 
gross movement and not necessarily directionality) 
was farther for fish that left Puget Sound than for fish 
that remained as residents (mean: 6.09 vs. 2.69 km/d, 
£=-2.19, P=0.05). For Chinook salmon within Puget 
Sound, the total distance moved provided only a lim¬ 
ited picture of fish behavior, and fish showed a range of 
patterns. For example, one fish was tagged in central 
Puget Sound on 1 November 2006, detected leaving 
Puget Sound through the Strait of Juan de Fuca on 
16 November, and detected along the coast of Wash¬ 
ington on 3 December, having moved about 280 km in 
17 d or 16.5 km/d (Fig. 5A). This fish continued along 
the coast west of Willapa Bay through 1 January 2007 
but was detected again at the Strait of Juan de Fuca 
on 14 March 2007. Therefore, had it been caught, on 
the basis of its locations, it would have been consid¬ 
ered a resident in November, a migrant to the coast 
in December, and a resident in March. In contrast, a 
resident fish was tagged in central Puget Sound on 7 
June 2007 and then detected repeatedly over 8 months 
moving between 14 nearby receivers (within an extent 
of only 45 km N to S and 21 km E to W; Fig. 5B). Other 
individuals fell within this range of movement; most 
were detected moving among receivers within central 
Puget Sound. 
Comparison with coho salmon movements 
To compare the behavior of Chinook and coho salmon, 
receivers were identified that detected the 37 Chinook 
salmon from this study and the 35 coho salmon reported 
by Rohde et al. (2013). Seventy-four receivers throughout 
all basins detected both species, of which 30 receivers 
