A comparison of tag retention and mortality from two tagging methods for internal tag placement in Channel Catfish

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q3 FISHERIES
Travis C. Durhack, Holly A. Simpson, Douglas A. Watkinson, Mark A. Pegg, Eva C. Enders
{"title":"A comparison of tag retention and mortality from two tagging methods for internal tag placement in Channel Catfish","authors":"Travis C. Durhack, Holly A. Simpson, Douglas A. Watkinson, Mark A. Pegg, Eva C. Enders","doi":"10.1002/nafm.10991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveDocumenting the movement of Channel Catfish <jats:italic>Ictalurus punctatu</jats:italic>s through telemetry, where a transmitter tag is surgically implanted in the fish, can provide valuable insight into the species' spatial ecology and habitat use. However, since fish in the order Siluriformes can expel foreign objects such as tags from their body cavity, the utility of telemetry technology may be limited for Channel Catfish. This study aimed to determine (1) how quickly Channel Catfish reject tags that were surgically implanted into the body cavity, (2) if surgical implantation of transmitter tags causes mortality, and (3) what surgical method is best to minimize tag rejection and/or mortality.MethodsThree surgical trials were conducted on Channel Catfish (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 24) using two tag implantation methods: a nontethered method, in which the tag was freely implanted into the body cavity, and a tethered method, where the tag was attached to the pectoral girdle. Fish were observed in the lab for 30 days for trials 1 and 2 and 225 days for trial 3 following tag implantation.ResultNo complete tag rejections occurred during any of the three experimental trials. However, all five tethered fish experienced mortality during trial 3 (58–221 days postsurgery). Necropsies indicated that the tethered tagging method led to septicaemia infections and internal lacerations from the tether, which were not observed in the nontethered fish. Tags in the nontethered fish were in the process of being absorbed into the intestinal tract, which over time might have led to tag rejection.ConclusionWhile rejection is possibly the end point of the nontethered tagging method, our results suggest it is nevertheless the better tagging method for Channel Catfish given higher survival.","PeriodicalId":19263,"journal":{"name":"North American Journal of Fisheries Management","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North American Journal of Fisheries Management","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10991","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveDocumenting the movement of Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus through telemetry, where a transmitter tag is surgically implanted in the fish, can provide valuable insight into the species' spatial ecology and habitat use. However, since fish in the order Siluriformes can expel foreign objects such as tags from their body cavity, the utility of telemetry technology may be limited for Channel Catfish. This study aimed to determine (1) how quickly Channel Catfish reject tags that were surgically implanted into the body cavity, (2) if surgical implantation of transmitter tags causes mortality, and (3) what surgical method is best to minimize tag rejection and/or mortality.MethodsThree surgical trials were conducted on Channel Catfish (n = 24) using two tag implantation methods: a nontethered method, in which the tag was freely implanted into the body cavity, and a tethered method, where the tag was attached to the pectoral girdle. Fish were observed in the lab for 30 days for trials 1 and 2 and 225 days for trial 3 following tag implantation.ResultNo complete tag rejections occurred during any of the three experimental trials. However, all five tethered fish experienced mortality during trial 3 (58–221 days postsurgery). Necropsies indicated that the tethered tagging method led to septicaemia infections and internal lacerations from the tether, which were not observed in the nontethered fish. Tags in the nontethered fish were in the process of being absorbed into the intestinal tract, which over time might have led to tag rejection.ConclusionWhile rejection is possibly the end point of the nontethered tagging method, our results suggest it is nevertheless the better tagging method for Channel Catfish given higher survival.
比较在鲶鱼体内放置标签的两种方法的标签保留率和死亡率
目的通过遥测技术(即通过外科手术将发射器标签植入鱼体)记录海峡鲇鱼(Ictalurus punctatus)的活动情况,可以为了解该物种的空间生态学和栖息地利用情况提供有价值的信息。然而,由于丝形目鱼类能将标签等异物排出体腔,遥测技术对海峡鲶鱼的实用性可能有限。本研究旨在确定:(1) 通过手术将标签植入体腔后,海峡鲶鱼排斥标签的速度有多快;(2) 通过手术植入发射器标签是否会导致死亡;(3) 采用哪种手术方法可最大程度地降低标签排斥和/或死亡率。方法:采用两种标签植入方法对海峡鲶鱼(n = 24)进行了三次手术试验:一种是非系留法,即将标签自由植入体腔;另一种是系留法,将标签固定在胸腰上。实验 1 和实验 2 的鱼在实验室观察了 30 天,实验 3 的鱼在植入标签后观察了 225 天。但是,在试验 3(术后 58-221 天)期间,所有五条被拴住的鱼都死亡了。尸体解剖结果表明,系留标签法导致败血症感染和系留造成的内部撕裂伤,而未系留标签的鱼没有出现这种情况。结论虽然排斥反应可能是非系留标签法的终点,但我们的结果表明,由于存活率较高,这种方法对鲶鱼来说是更好的标签法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
118
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The North American Journal of Fisheries Management promotes communication among fishery managers with an emphasis on North America, and addresses the maintenance, enhancement, and allocation of fisheries resources. It chronicles the development of practical monitoring and management programs for finfish and exploitable shellfish in marine and freshwater environments. Contributions relate to the management of fish populations, habitats, and users to protect and enhance fish and fishery resources for societal benefits. Case histories of successes, failures, and effects of fisheries programs help convey practical management experience to others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信