Suitability of Jaw and Atkins Streamer Tags for Marking Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieui

MacCrimmon, Hugh R.; Robbins, W. H.

doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1979)108<499:sojaas>2.0.co;2

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar phenomenon has been observed in the coastal cod commercial fishery in Iceland, where Björnsson et al (2011) reported 20% of the tag returns were from fish processors and improved detection and reporting rates for double-tagged than for single-tagged fish; they recommended that future tagging studies adopt a strategy of double-tagging all fish to increase tag detection. Although double tagging may seem a logical strategy to incorporate into the LEW tagging program, several studies have demonstrated reduced growth and survival rates in fish tagged with single jaw tags (DeRoche and Bond 1955;MacCrimmon and Robbins 1979;Zerrenner et al 1997); so while double jaw tagging may improve detection rates, tagging mortality could also increase.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of Tag Shedding and Reporting Rates for Lake Erie Jaw-Tagged Walleyes

Vandergoot

Brenden

Thomas

et al. 2012

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1990, walleyes Sander vitreus in Lake Erie have been tagged annually with jaw tags to better understand the population dynamics and ecological characteristics of individual spawning populations. Although the data collected from this tagging program have been used for a variety of management purposes (e.g., estimating migration patterns, stock intermixing, and mortality rates), there has been only cursory examination of the shedding and reporting rates associated with the program. We used double tagging and high-reward tagging experiments to estimate tag shedding and reporting rates for jaw-tagged walleyes in Lake Erie. Double tagging of walleyes with jaw and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags suggested that the tagging method and tagging agency contributed to the observed variability in both immediate (within 21 d of tagging) retention and chronic jaw tag shedding rates. Agency-specific model-averaged estimates of immediate tag retention ranged from 95% to 99%. For chronic shedding, model-averaged instantaneous rates (annual) ranged from 0.07 to 0.28. Jaw tag reporting rates, estimated via releases of high-reward tags in 1990 and 2000, varied among tagging years, tagging basins, and commercial and recreational fisheries. In general, tag reporting rates were higher for the recreational fishery (range, 33-55%) than for the commercial fishery (10-17%),

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of Tag Shedding and Reporting Rates for Lake Erie Jaw-Tagged Walleyes

Vandergoot

Brenden

Thomas

et al. 2012

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The bands did cause tissue erosion in some cases but did not wear through the jaw, and in other cases, tissue had grown around a portion of the tag but the tag could be located and read. MacCrimmon and Robbins (1979) working with smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieui , observed that the streamer tags caused physical damage to the fish but jaw tags did not. Isermann and Knight (2005) found that walleye that had lost jaw tags frequently had jaws with eroded areas, holes or other deformities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of tag type on red snapper Lutjanus campechanus tag retention, growth and survival under hatchery conditions

Phelps

Rodríguez

2011

Journal of Applied Ichthyology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of red snapper stocks is one of the most controversial issues in the Gulf of Mexico fisheries. Fish tagging programs can help to address many management issues if an appropriate tag is selected. In the study three types of tags were tested to determine tag retention and effects on red snapper growth and survival. Hatchery-produced juveniles (43.7 ± 5.6 g) were either not tagged or given: internal anchor tags anchored in the abdominal cavity; passive integrated transponders (PIT) tags injected into the body cavity; or metal self-piercing fish tags clamped around the dentary bone. Fish were stocked at 25 m )3 in three replicate circular tanks ⁄ tag type, and fed a commercial feed for a 150 days period. Fish survival did not differ by treatment. Average weight gains after 150 days were similar. Tag retention differed by treatment (P = 0.0002), with 100% retention of PIT tags, 98.4 ± 2.8% retention of jaw tags, and 90.4 ± 1.6% retention of internal anchor tags. Loss of internal anchor tags occurred primarily within the first month. Inflammation was frequently observed at the internal anchor tag insertion site. Irritation and cell proliferation was sometimes observed in areas around the jaw tags.

show abstract

“…The nature of these wounds suggests that tag loss is due to tag abrasion, which may be exacerbated during activities such as feeding and spawning. Additionally, some studies have demonstrated that attachment of jaw tags reduces growth (DeRoche and Bond 1955;Shetter 1967;MacCrimmon and Robbins 1979;Zerrenner at al. 1997) or survival (Shetter 1967;Zerrenner et al 1997) of tagged fish relative to untagged fish or fish tagged with other tag types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Effects of Jaw Tag Loss on Exploitation Estimates for Lake Erie Walleyes

Isermann

Knight

2005

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used mark-recapture data collected from 1992 to 1995 to evaluate the potential effects of jaw tag loss on exploitation (u) estimates for walleyes Sander vitreus migrating from Lake Erie into the Grand River, Ohio. Loss of small jaw tags (size 10) detected during tagging periods was less than 17%. The annual loss rate of small tags exceeded 49% during each of the 2 years in which they were used. We detected no loss of large tags (size 12) during tagging periods, and annual rates of large-tag loss ranged from 23% to 50%. Exploitation rates adjusted for tag loss ranged from 14% to 39%, and unadjusted estimates ranged from 7% to 20%. Failure to adjust for annual tag loss rates resulted in 25-59% underestimation of u; however, error rates may be inflated due to a lack of knowledge concerning temporal patterns in tag loss. Our findings indicate that jaw tag loss rates must be accounted for when estimating population parameters such as u from mark-recapture studies. Furthermore, if agency personnel are able to analyze large samples of harvested fish for tags, the use of internal tag types that typically exhibit higher retention rates than jaw tags could reduce tag loss and eliminate biases due to nonreporting.

show abstract

Suitability of Jaw and Atkins Streamer Tags for Marking Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieui

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Estimation of Tag Shedding and Reporting Rates for Lake Erie Jaw-Tagged Walleyes

Estimation of Tag Shedding and Reporting Rates for Lake Erie Jaw-Tagged Walleyes

Effects of tag type on red snapper Lutjanus campechanus tag retention, growth and survival under hatchery conditions

Potential Effects of Jaw Tag Loss on Exploitation Estimates for Lake Erie Walleyes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About