Tagging Juvenile Pacific Lamprey with Passive Integrated Transponders: Methodology, Short‐Term Mortality, and Influence on Swimming Performance

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the feasibility (i.e., efficiency and nonintrusiveness) of tagging juvenile Pacific lampreys Lampetra tridentata with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and to determine any associated impacts on survivorship and swimming ability. Juvenile Pacific lampreys were obtained from the John Day Dam fish collection facility and tests were conducted at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in 2001 and 2002. A new PIT‐tagging procedure was used to inject 12‐mm tags 5 mm posterior to the gill openings. Lampreys were allowed to recover for 3–4 d following surgery before postmortality and swimming tests were conducted. The PIT tagging procedure during 2001 did not include a suture, and 2.6% of the tags were shed after 40 d. During 2002 a single suture was used to close the opening after inserting a tag, and no tag shedding was observed. Overall short‐term mortality rates for lampreys 120–155 mm (total length) held for 40 d at 8°C was 2.2% for tagged and 2.7% for untagged fish. Mortality increased significantly when tagged and untagged groups were held in warmer (19–23°C) river water: 50% for tagged and 60% for untagged animals. Lengths did not significantly affect survival for either the tagged or untagged group held in warm water. A fungal infection was observed to be the cause of death when water temperature increased. Swimming tests to determine any adverse effects due to tag insertion showed no significant difference (P = 0.12) between tagged and untagged lampreys for mean burst speed; however, maximum burst speeds were significantly lower for the PIT‐tagged group.

Tag attachment success can be temperature dependent: a case study of the chub mackerel Scomber japonicus

“…Conversely, when healthy fish are reared at high temperature, a rapid increase in bacterial growth may overwhelm the faster response of the immune system [6]. Previous studies reported that significant irritation, infection, and mortality occurred when water temperature increased [7,8]. These results agree with those of the present study.…”

“…The untagged groups did not receive electronic tags but had PIT tags inserted into their muscle. This suggests that thermal conditions affect research performance of not only electronic tagging but also conventional tagging [8]. In the East China Sea, releaserecapture studies using conventional tags were conducted during the 1960s and 1970s, and tagged chub mackerel was released during all seasons [23].…”

“…However, the behaviour and physiology of fish are affected not only by the attachment of electronic tags but also by environmental variables such as water temperature [3,4]. Because the immune systems of fish may respond strongly at high temperatures, leading to more rapid healing [5,6], water temperatures could be an important factor affecting consequences of electronic tagging [e.g., [7][8][9]. While a number of studies have shown effects of electronic tags on fish health and behaviour, few have examined how these effects are altered by thermal conditions [3,4].…”

Capture and collection of lampreys: the state of the science

“…While lamprey are hardy and can be subjected to extended holding without significant mortality, they are also quite susceptible to physical injury. This is particularly true of juveniles, where loss of mucous can result in subsequent fungal infection, particularly in warm water temperature (Mueller et al 2006 been widely used at concentrations of 30-70 ppm (e.g., Stier and Kynard 1986b;Weise and Pajos 1998;Moser and Close 2003). Quintella et al (2004) used 1 ml l -1 2-phenoxyethanol with no mortality of ammocoetes and transforming juveniles.…”

The use of visual and automatized behavioral markers to assess methodologies: a study case on PIT-tagging in the Alpine newt

“…No detrimental effect has been found on survival (Bolland, Cowx, & Lucas, 2009;Navarro et al, 2006;Ombredane, Baglinière, & Marchand, 1998), growth (Acolas, Roussel, Lebel, & Baglinière, 2007;Knaepkens, Maerten, Tudorache, De Boeck, & Eens, 2007;Lee, Park, & Cho, 2009), reproduction (Baras, Malbrouck, Houbart, Kestemont, & Mélard, 2000;Mahapatra et al, 2001), feeding behavior (Newby, Binder, & Stevens, 2007;, and swimming ability (Moore, Russell, & Potter, 1990;Mueller, Moursund, & Bleich, 2006;). The few studies on snakes have shown that PIT-tagging does not affect growth, movement, and speed (Keck, 1994;Jemison et al, 1995).…”