Survival, Tag Retention, and Growth of Spot and Mummichog following PIT Tag Implantation

Abstract

We conducted three laboratory studies to determine the effects of surgically implanted, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags on survival, tag retention, and growth in two abundant estuarine fishes. The effects of the 12.5‐mm PIT tags were examined in Spot Leiostomus xanthurus, and the effects of the 12.5‐mm and 8.4‐mm tags were examined in Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus. For each experiment, Spot and Mummichogs were divided into three size‐groups: small, medium, and large. Tagged Spot had lower survival rates than the untagged conspecifics with the exception of the larger Spot, where there was no difference in survival rates. Large Spot also had the highest tag retention (86%) and tagging “success” (i.e., 80% survived and retained their tag). There was no significant difference in the survival rate between the 12.5‐mm tagged and untagged Mummichogs; there was no significant effect of Mummichog size on survival, tag retention, or success; and success for all 12.5‐mm tagged Mummichogs was 87%. Survival estimates were 90%, 95%, and 100% for the small, medium, and large 8.4‐mm tagged Mummichogs; and tag retention was 100% for the survivors. Within the medium and large sized Spot and Mummichogs (for both 8.4‐mm and 12.5‐mm tags), there was no effect of PIT tag presence on growth (length or weight). Spot should be >68 mm TL to obtain a tag success of >90% using 12.5‐mm PIT tags. Tagging was successful for Mummichogs in the smallest sized groups examined but there was also an indication of lower growth rates for Mummichogs <50 mm marked with 12.5‐mm PIT tags. Mummichogs should thereby be >50 mm when initially tagged with 12.5‐mm PIT tags and more than ~36 mm TL when tagged with 8.4‐mm PIT tags. PIT tags can be used to successfully mark relatively small Spot and Mummichogs, potentially allowing for robust estimates of their demographic rates. Received April 2, 2015; accepted December 16, 2015 Published online May 31, 2016

Retention of Passive Integrated Transponder Tags in a Small‐Bodied Catfish

“…Stonecat size was an important predictor of tag loss in our study, with the likelihood of tag loss decreasing as fish TL increased. Similar to our study, PIT tag retention increased with fish length for Southern Redbelly Dace Chrosomus erythrogaster (Pennock et al 2016), Brown Trout Salmo trutta (Richard et al 2013), Humpback Chub Gila cypha (Ward et al 2015), and Spot Leiostomus xanthurus (Brewer et al 2016). However, some studies report little to no relationship between fish length and tag loss, including studies on members of families Salmonidae (Dare 2003;Dieterman and Hoxmeier 2009), Cyprinidae (Archdeacon et al 2009), Fundulidae (Clark 2016), and Sparidae (Navarro et al 2006).…”

Quantifying Within‐Season Repeat Spawning by Rainbow Smelt with Implications for Comparing Sex Ratios and Survey Catches among Runs

“…), others have found that mortality differed by species and body shape (Brewer et al. ); therefore, species‐specific mortality and retention studies should be performed before relying on tag return data in wild populations. We performed parallel laboratory tag retention and mortality studies to determine whether mortality due to tagging influenced the conclusions that were drawn from the results of the field study.…”

Effects of passive integrated transponder tagging on cortisol release, aerobic metabolism and growth of the Gulf killifish Fundulus grandis

“…In the closely related F. heteroclitus , Brewer et al . () demonstrated that surgical implantation of 12.5 mm PIT tags into small fish (<50 mm total length) depressed growth over a 163 day laboratory experiment. Similarly, Clark () found that injecting large PIT tags (12 mm), but not small PIT tags (8 mm), into the freshwater F. olivaceous reduced growth rates over 184 days in a mesocosm setting.…”

“…Their broad environmental tolerance, abundance and ease of laboratory maintenance have made them and their sister species Fundulus heteroclitus (L. 1766) useful model species for a variety of investigations (Burnett et al, ). The effects of PIT tagging on survival and growth have been assessed in F. heteroclitus (Brewer et al, ) and the freshwater Fundulus olivaceus (Storer 1845) (Clark, ), with small negative effects that depend upon fish size or tag size. Here, we test the following hypotheses.…”

“…The effects of PIT tagging on survival and growth have been assessed in F. heteroclitus (Brewer et al, 2016) and the freshwater Fundulus olivaceus (Storer 1845) (Clark, 2016), with small negative effects that depend upon fish size or tag size. Here, we test the following hypotheses.…”