Effect of Passive Integrated Transponder Tag Implantation Site on Tag Retention, Growth, and Survival of Two Sizes of Juvenile Bluegills and Yellow Perch

Abstract

Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags are commonly used to monitor growth, habitat use, activity rates, and survival of individual fish. However, for successful completion of research objectives, the tags must be retained and must not affect fish growth or survival. We compared the effects of PIT tagging location on tag retention, growth, and survival of juvenile bluegills Lepomis macrochirus and yellow perch Perca flavescens. In total, 80 bluegills and 80 yellow perch from two size‐classes (75–101 and 128–162 mm total length) were randomly assigned to a control or to one of three tagging location treatments: isthmus, body cavity, or dorsal musculature. Fish received daily ad libitum rations and were monitored for survival. On days 14, 28, and 42, the fish were measured, weighed, and checked for tag retention. Use of the isthmus as a tagging location resulted in lower tag retention for both species and both size‐classes relative to the body cavity and dorsal musculature locations. Tagging location had no detectable effect on growth or survival responses for either species or either size‐class. Thus, PIT tags that are implanted in the dorsal musculature of large juvenile bluegills and yellow perch and in the body cavity of small juvenile bluegills and yellow perch can have high retention with minimal adverse effects. Received May 4, 2011; accepted June 2, 2011

Classification of hatchery and wild fish using natural geochemical signatures in otoliths, fin rays, and scales of an endangered catostomid

“…PIT tag retention in juveniles (61-85 mm) of the closely related Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) was 98% after 34 days (Burdick 2011). Retention of PIT tags improves with larger fish (Kaemingk et al 2011). Since JS are typically tagged when ≥150 mm TL, retention rates are expected to be comparable to or higher than the previously mentioned studies.…”

Potential Impacts of PIT Tagging on a Critically Endangered Small‐Bodied Fish: A Trial on the Surrogate Mountain Galaxias

“…, ; Kaemingk et al. ; Clark ). Our results are consistent with findings for other fish exhibiting morphology similar to that of the Mountain Galaxias (Clark ), with 95% or greater tag retention and survival reported for 56–106 mm TL sculpins and Bullheads Cottus gobio (family Cottidae) and 65–92 mm TL Burbot Lota lota after 28 d (Bruyndoncx et al.…”

Evaluation of four surgical implantation techniques for age‐0 white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus Richardson, 1836) with a new acoustic transmitter

“…This AT allows researchers to implant a smaller size class of sturgeon, track them for an extended period (with the basic telemetry research assumption that implanted fish are representative of the overall population; Peven et al, 2005), and minimize potential negative effects caused by transmitter burden. However, adverse effects of ATs may be caused by surgical procedures (Wagner, Cooke, Brown, & Deters, 2011) or implantation locations (Kaemingk, Weber, McKenna, & Brown, 2011), including decreased survival, or impaired growth and wound healing (Brown, Geist, Deters, & Grassell, 2006;Brown et al, 2010;Deters et al, 2010). Therefore, research on surgical techniques is needed to assess the effects of this AT on small sturgeon and determine its suitability in field studies.…”

“…Studies of transmitter effects often evaluate retention (Miller et al, 2014), fish survival and growth, and postsurgical wound healing (incision openness and inflammation, ulcers associated with sutures; Deters et al, 2010), all of which can be affected by incision location and suturing (Deters, Brown, Boyd, Eppard, & Seaburg, 2012;Kaemingk et al, 2011;Skov et al, 2005). Two incision locations have been documented for juvenile sturgeon surgically implanted with acoustic transmitters in field studies: (i) through the ventral musculature between the pectoral and pelvic girdles parallel (offset) to the linea alba (midline; Parsley, Popoff, Van der Leeuw, & Wright, 2008;Boone et al, 2013;Miller et al, 2014), and (ii) through the lateral musculature between the pectoral and pelvic fins immediately dorsal to the gap between ventral scutes (flank; Neufeld & Rust, 2009;Howell & McLellan, 2013;Robichaud, Wright, & Beveridge, 2014).…”