2015
DOI: 10.4039/tce.2015.43
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the use of coded-wire tags in individually marking Odonata larvae

Abstract: We tested a potential new tool for marking Odonata larvae internally, evaluating the retention rates of injected coded-wire tags (CWT) and the effects of these tags on larval performance. Two species of dragonfly larvae (Epitheca canis McLachlan (Odonata: Corduliidae) and Leucorrhinia intacta Hagen (Odonata: Libellulidae)) were injected with CWT. Tag loss rates were assayed over experimental periods of 22 and 60 days, respectively for the two species. To assess whether tagging had negative effects on larvae, m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 13 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We kept larvae in opaque plastic cups filled with 473 mL of dechlorinated water at a 15 h light : 9 h dark photoperiod prior to the experiment. We uniquely marked larvae with coded wire tags (CWT; Northwest Marine Technology, Shaw Island, Washington, USA; Catania and McCauley ). We measured head width, a proxy for body size (Corbett ), to the nearest 0.16 mm, and mass to the nearest 0.0001 g. We scored body condition with the residuals from a log e −log e regression of body mass on head width.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We kept larvae in opaque plastic cups filled with 473 mL of dechlorinated water at a 15 h light : 9 h dark photoperiod prior to the experiment. We uniquely marked larvae with coded wire tags (CWT; Northwest Marine Technology, Shaw Island, Washington, USA; Catania and McCauley ). We measured head width, a proxy for body size (Corbett ), to the nearest 0.16 mm, and mass to the nearest 0.0001 g. We scored body condition with the residuals from a log e −log e regression of body mass on head width.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%