The effects of intraperitoneally implanted dummy acoustic transmitters on the behaviour and physiology of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L

Abstract

The behavioural and physiological effects of surgical implantation of dummy miniature acoustic transmitters into the peritonealcavities ofjuvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., were assessed. lntraperitoneal implantations had no significant effect on growth, feeding or swimming behaviour in either parr or smolts. Recovery from the surgical implantation was both rapid and total; infection was absent; and physiological processes such as smoltification and maturation of testes in precocious parr were unaffected. Expulsion of the transmitter through the body wall, not through the implantation wound, occurred in a number of fish but without adversely affecting the animals. The intraperitoneal implantation technique is discussed in relation to its use during biotelemetry studies.

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

“…These results are consistent with those obtained in the framework of fish research (Moore et al, 1990;Newby et al, 2007) and sea urchins (Lauzon-Guay & Scheibling, 2008). Another essential behavioral pattern, courtship, occurred frequently during our experiment.…”

“…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).…”

Acoustic Transmitters Impact Rainbow Trout Growth in a Competitive Environment

“…Similarly, no negative effects of acoustic transmitter implantation on the growth sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka have been observed [6]. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar that were implanted with acoustic transmitters, underwent surgery with no transmitter insertion (sham-tagged), or served as controls also showed no significant differences in growth [7].…”

Untitled

“…For some fish species, such as Atlantic salmon, the negative effects of transmitters have been studied in juveniles, smolts and adults. The results showed that intraperitoneal implantations had no significant effect on growth, feeding or swimming behaviour in either parr or smolts (Moore et al, 1990;Peake et al, 1997), and swimming performance and blood physiology of adult Atlantic salmon were not affected when equipped with external or body-implanted telemetry transmitters . But the size of dummy ultrasonic transmitters would affect the swimming performance of the Atlantic salmon (McCleave and Stred, 1975).…”

“…The transmitter's weight in air represented 0.05% of the mean body weight of the test fish. The surgical implantation of ultrasonic transmitters referred to the methods proposed by Moore et al (1990), with the following modification: 1） Silver carps were anesthetized in 100 mg/L aerated buffered tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222, Hangzhou animal medicine factory, Cen's Inc., China, Hangzhou) for about 5 min, then put them on V-shape operation platform, supplied with a maintenance anesthesia dose of MS-222 (40 mg/L). 2) After the routine measurement, a small incision (15-20 mm) was made parallel to the ventral midline, 10 mm off the trailing edge of pelvic fins and 20 cm away from the Celiac center.…”