Tag retention in and effects of passive integrated transponder tagging on survival and swimming performance of a small‐bodied darter

Abstract

Fisheries biologists have been hesitant to use passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in small‐bodied fishes (40–200 mm TL) such as darters (Percidae: Etheostomatinae) because of the fishes' size and potential effect on swimming performance. The authors used constant acceleration trials to evaluate the swimming performance of Arkansas darters Etheostoma cragini in control (no incision or tag), sham (incision and suture) or PIT tagged (surgically implanted 8 × 1.4 mm intra‐peritoneal PIT tag) treatments. Tag retention and fish survival were monitored for up to 199 days post‐tagging. Maximum swimming velocity did not differ between control, sham and PIT tag treatments, nor was maximum swimming velocity affected by the tagging procedure. Tag retention was 100%, and the overall survival of tagged fish was 88% in the swimming study, and 100% in the long‐term study, suggesting that small PIT tags are suitable for use in darters. The authors include a brief meta‐analysis on the results reported by 20 studies that PIT tagged small‐bodied fishes, representing 38 species and nine families of freshwater fish.

Survival and swimming performance of a small-sized Cypriniformes (<em>Telestes muticellus</em>) tagged with passive integrated transponders

“…The PIT tagged fish showed a substantially lower prolonged swimming performance compared to the control fish, constituting a warning that tagging is not without cost for the tagged fish. Previous studies on salmonids (Newby et al, 2007) and non-salmonid species (Ficke et al, 2012;Clark, 2016;Swarr et al, 2022) did not detect any tagging effects on prolonged swimming performance. No difference between tagged and control fish was also observed among species of the Leuciscidae family, although in fish with a relatively large size range and associated increased variance in swimming performance (Ficke et al, 2012).…”

“…Here, swimming performance represents an important ecological trait involving both physical and behavioural components that can be quantified in the laboratory (Tudorache et al, 2013). The effects of PIT tagging on the swimming performance of small-bodied fish have been studied in only a handful of species, where tagging has not been shown to affect either prolonged swimming performance (Newby et al, 2007;Ficke et al, 2012) or maximum swimming speeds (Nyqvist et al, 2022;Swarr et al, 2022). Not only the tag but also the tagging procedure (i.e., handling and tagging technique) can have potential effects on the tagged animal (Brown et al, 2011).…”

A controlled experimental assessment of intraperitoneal PIT tag injection on survival of Blueback Herring

“…Previous studies have investigated the effects of PIT tag injection on several (nonalosid) species and reported variable effects on fish survival (for reviews that consider tag injection, see Vollset et al 2020;Musselman et al 2017). For example, negligible effects of injection have been shown for Brown Trout Salmo trutta (Richard et al 2013), Lumpfish (D'Arcy et al 2020, Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Cooke et al 2014), Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini (Swarr et al 2021), Bonytail Gila elegans and Gila Chub G. intermedia (Ward et al 2008), which align with our observations in Blueback Herring. Alternatively, negative effects of tag injection have been shown in Silvery Minnow Hybognathus amarus (Archdeacon et al 2009), Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Baras et al 1999) Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus, and White Sucker Catostomus commersonii (Ficke et al 2012).…”

Design, construction, and preliminary hydraulic evaluation of a model rock ramp fishway

“…The FDX tags had a shorter read range than the HDX tags because FDX tags are much more impacted by EMI and vibration (Warren Leach, Oregon RFID, personal communication). Small‐bodied fishes, such as Arkansas Darters, can be safely tagged with 8‐mm PIT tags, which were only available in FDX at the time of this study (Swarr et al 2021), but 8‐mm and larger FDX tags are more susceptible to EMI. However, the read ranges of the larger (12–23‐mm) HDX tags were less affected by EMI caused by the VFD, so we recommend using larger tags when possible and when EMI is an issue, provided that they do not adversely affect survival or swimming performance (Swarr et al 2021).…”

“…Small‐bodied fishes, such as Arkansas Darters, can be safely tagged with 8‐mm PIT tags, which were only available in FDX at the time of this study (Swarr et al 2021), but 8‐mm and larger FDX tags are more susceptible to EMI. However, the read ranges of the larger (12–23‐mm) HDX tags were less affected by EMI caused by the VFD, so we recommend using larger tags when possible and when EMI is an issue, provided that they do not adversely affect survival or swimming performance (Swarr et al 2021). The PIT tag antenna read ranges were determined by orienting the tag perpendicular to each antenna's field.…”