Effects of surgically implanted dummy ultrasonic transmitters on growth, survival and transmitter retention of bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis

Abstract

The effects of surgically implanted dummy ultrasonic transmitters on growth, survival and transmitter retention of bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis were investigated from October to November 2010. Before the surgery, 162 bighead carps were divided into three groups: 1) control group: handling but no tagging; 2) sham group: surgical procedure without implantation of dummy ultrasonic transmitter; 3) surgery group: surgical implantation of dummy ultrasonic transmitters. Growth, survival, incision healing, suture loss and transmitter retention of bighead carp were recorded and analyzed respectively at 14, 28 and 56 days after surgery. The results showed that surgical implantation of dummy ultrasonic transmitters had a significantly negative influence on growth of bighead carp, however, the negative influence was negligible 28 days after surgery. No fish died during the experimental period. All incisions had completely healed 56 days after surgery, but sutures remained in 21 fish, and the suture loss rate was 70.8 %. All fish with suture retention had suffered light infection over the incision sites. No dummy ultrasonic transmitters were expelled 56 days after the surgery. Except for three transmitters, all the remaining transmitters were completely encapsulated in a fibrous capsule and adhered to the body wall, intestinal tract or viscera 56 days after surgery. The above results suggested that telemetry research could be conducted on bighead carp within 56 days after surgical implantation of ultrasonic transmitters.

Tag retention and survival of juvenile bighead carp implanted with a dummy acoustic tag at three temperatures

“…Surgery error, however, was a factor in survival when implanting tags into juvenile bighead carp. Though the methods used for surgical implantation in our experiment were similar to the methods used for implanting juvenile salmonids (Wagner, Cooke, Brown, & Deters, 2011) and for adult bighead carp (Luo et al, 2015), the morphology of small bighead carp posed challenges that likely led to surgery errors. Juvenile bighead carp in the size range used for our experiment are laterally compressed and have a thin body wall in the area where the incision was made.…”

“…Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (together, bigheaded carps) are invasive fishes in North America that have resulted in substantial negative effects on native fish communities and aquatic ecosystems (Kolar et al, ). The range expansion, movement, and behavior of adult bigheaded carps have been studied previously using telemetry (Coulter & Goforth, ; DeGrandchampGarvey & Colombo, ; Peters, Pegg, & Reinhardt, ) and the effects of the surgical implantation have been documented (Luo, Duan, & Wang, ; Luo, Duan, Liu, & Chen, ). However, similar studies with juvenile bigheaded carps have yet to be attempted.…”

“…However, the effects of surgical implantation of telemetry tags on small bigheaded carps have not previously been evaluated. This knowledge is critical for the interpretation of data received from studies using telemetry tags (Luo et al, ).…”

Fin‐spines attachment, a novel external attachment method for the ultrasonic transmitters on hard fin‐spines fish (Sparidae)

“…Luo et al. (2015) showed the growth effects of bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson, 1845) disappeared gradually until 28 days after tagging. Another bluegill study (Knights & Lasee, 1996) also showed the same situation for up to 4 weeks.…”

Effect of anesthetic, tag size, and surgeon experience on postsurgical recovering after implantation of electronic tags in a neotropical fish: Prochilodus lineatus (Valenciennes, 1837) (Characiformes: Prochilodontidae)

“…This encapsulation protected the transmitter, preventing tag expulsion through the incision site or transintestinal expulsion. In fact, the rapid encapsulation of the transmitter has been shown to play a role in retention by limiting its mobility and minimizing the risk of organ damage (Thoreau & Baras, 1997;Penne et al, 2007;Luo et al, 2015). Additionally, the effect of encapsulation processes and incision site on wound healing and tag retention should also be investigated in future studies.…”