Effects of Surgically Implanted Acoustic Tags on Body Condition, Growth, and Survival in a Small, Laterally Compressed Forage Fish

Abstract

Telemetry studies often assume a lack of adverse effects caused by tag attachment and presence in various species and size‐classes, which may lead to inaccurate conclusions about fish behavior in field studies. Studies that examine the effects of tagging are typically performed on salmonids and adult fishes rather than on the small fishes that are increasingly becoming the focus of telemetry studies. The objectives of this study were to assess the effects of intracoelomic acoustic tagging on growth, condition, survival, and tag retention in subadult hatchery Bloaters Coregonus hoyi (a focal species for restoration efforts in the Laurentian Great Lakes) and to determine the maximum tag burden below which tag effects are reduced. Fish were either tagged with one of three dummy acoustic transmitters (Vemco V6: n = 50; V7: n = 50; V9: n = 50) or were followed as controls (n = 50; anesthesia, PIT‐tagging, and handling only) or sham individuals (n = 49; anesthesia, surgery, suturing, and PIT‐tagging but no acoustic tag implanted). Tags represented 1.3–9.0% of body mass. All fish received a PIT tag for individual identification throughout the 6‐month monitoring period (November 2014–May 2015). Survival exceeded 90% in all treatment groups, and the tag retention rate was 100%. All surviving fish appeared healthy and in excellent condition at the conclusion of the experiment. The results of this study suggest that acoustic transmitters with a tag mass : body mass ratio of 9% or less can be successfully implanted intracoelomically into subadult Bloaters—small, laterally compressed pelagic fish—with no adverse effects.

Long‐term retention of acoustic telemetry transmitters in temperate predators revealed by predation tags implanted in wild prey fish

“…Fish were anesthetised in a buffered solution of 400 mg l −1 MS‐222 and a V9DT‐2X tag (31.5 mm length × 9 mm diameter; 3.0 g weight in water; nominal delay 210 s; estimated battery life 360 days; Vemco Inc.) designed to detect predation events was surgically implanted following methods described in Klinard et al . (). Surgery lasted c .…”

“…(), 13.5 × 6.1 mm, may have presented difficulties for the predator passing the tag through the GI tract. However, it should be noted that the ratios of tag mass: body mass did not exceed 5% and were within acceptable limits for this species (Klinard et al ., ).…”

Under Pressure: Comparing Fish Survivorship Between in Situ and Boat Tagging Methods Using Internal Acoustic Tags

“…While there are likely species-speci c differences (e.g, body type, stress tolerance) that in uence survival of different sized sh, in our study sh size did not signi cantly affect survival. Also, sh less than 20 cm FL have been shown to have high survival from internal tagging (Klinard et al 2018), suggesting that surgery and implantation of appropriately sized tags for the body size of the sh may not impair survival, regardless of sh size.…”

Post‐stocking movement and survival of hatchery‐reared bloater (Coregonus hoyi) reintroduced to Lake Ontario

“…Black triangles signify receivers deployed as part of a separate telemetry project during the study period. The white star indicates the release location of all stocked bloater from 2016 to 2017 and the red stars indicate the release locations in 2018 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] findings of Klinard et al (2018). Tagged fish were hand netted into a stocking truck equipped with an oxygenated tank along with c.…”