Evaluation of a field protocol for internally-tagging fish predators using difficult-to-tag ictalurid catfish as examples

Gerber, Kayla M.; Mather, Martha E.; Smith, Joseph M.; Peterson, Zachary J.

doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.09.003

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, retention of up to 100% in Blue Catfish over 5 months has been observed (Gerber 2015). These confounding results suggest that unaffixed transmitters in the peritoneal cavity may be suitable for the study of catfish if proper pretagging preparation and preventative measures are taken during the tagging process (Gerber et al 2017(Gerber et al , 2019a. To reduce expulsion, researchers experimented with implanting transmitters in the peritoneal cavity similar to the unaffixed method but using wire or suture material to affix the transmitter to the pectoral or pelvic girdle (Lee 2009;Huck 2014;Hansen 2019).…”

Section: Telemetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although it is a powerful data collection tool, widespread use of telemetry is often constrained by financial and temporal limitations. There has been considerable research to evaluate transmitter retention and associated mortality in catfish, but many researchers continue to use seminal methodology that was first presented in 1973 with relative success (Hart and Summerfelt 1973;Gerber et al 2019a). Rather than focusing efforts on refining implantation methodology, researchers might be better suited to focus on development of novel techniques to maximize the efficiency of telemetry data collection routines.…”

Section: Telemetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, marking of catfish presents unique challenges commonly associated with tag retention or mortality (Bodine and Fleming 2014; Gerber et al. 2019a; Spurgeon et al. 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several texts have summarized fish marking and tagging techniques (Wydoski and Emery 1983;Nielsen 1992;Guy et al 1996;Pine et al 2012). However, marking of catfish presents unique challenges commonly associated with tag retention or mortality (Bodine and Fleming 2014;Gerber et al 2019a;Spurgeon et al 2020). The challenges have resulted in an abundance of methodology-based literature designed to better understand the intricacies of marking and tagging catfish, but those works remain unconsolidated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Review of Marking and Tagging Methods for Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Flathead Catfish

Neely

Koch

Kramer

2021

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Catfishes (Ictaluridae) are among North America’s most important ichthyofauna for human consumption and recreation. As such, research on Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus, Channel Catfish I. punctatus, and Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris has been abundant in historic and contemporary literature. A common technique for studying catfish involves marking or tagging fish to understand behavior, sampling efficiency, and population dynamics. Marking and tagging methods used in these studies may be divided into eight primary types, including fin clips, strap tags, anchor tags, transbody tags, injectable tags, skin alterations, origin markers, and telemetry. Each of these methods is appropriate for specific objectives and characterized by varying retention rates and data resolution (i.e., batch or individual identification) that warrant consideration when designing projects. For example, fin clips may be most appropriate as a short‐term mark requiring batch identification (e.g., stocking evaluation), whereas telemetry might be most appropriate as a long‐term tag requiring individual identification (e.g., habitat selection). This review summarizes marking and tagging methods used for evaluation of Blue, Channel, and Flathead catfish and synthesizes results using examples from previously conducted catfish research. Further discussion is included on information gaps, emerging trends, and guidance for scientists planning and conducting studies that require marking of catfish.

show abstract

Section: Telemetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Telemetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, marking of catfish presents unique challenges commonly associated with tag retention or mortality (Bodine and Fleming 2014; Gerber et al. 2019a; Spurgeon et al. 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Marking and Tagging Methods for Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Flathead Catfish

Neely

Koch

Kramer

2021

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although movement studies within the species' native range and invaded lentic and lotic systems have been conducted (Garrett and Rabeni 2011;Tripp et al 2011;Gerber et al 2019), with exception of Tuckey et al (2017), there are no other published studies on blue catfish movement in coastal systems. Furthermore, the effects of flow on blue catfish movement in tidal rivers have not been investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bayesian multistate approach to evaluate movements of an invasive freshwater estuarine-opportunist

Bunch

Hershey

Reger

et al. 2022

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal rivers and estuaries provide habitat and migratory corridors for freshwater estuarine-opportunists. We evaluated movement patterns of 61 blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus in the tidal York and Rappahannock rivers in Virginia, USA with acoustic telemetry from July 2015 to June 2016. To evaluate river-specific movements, we utilized a multistate Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) model within a Bayesian framework to estimate probabilities of detection and transition (movement) among established salinity zones (i.e., tidal-fresh [0-0.5 ‰], oligohaline [>0.5-5 ‰], mesohaline [>5-18 ‰]). We considered flow as an environmental covariate. Despite high site fidelity in tidal-fresh zones, some individuals displayed movements into oligohaline and mesohaline habitats indicative of partial migration. Once downstream movement occurred, the probability of staying in the new salinity zone was higher than the probability of movements to other salinity zones. In the Rappahannock River only, movement upstream from mesohaline habitats was associated with below average flow. As flow increased, the probability of remaining in oligohaline and mesohaline zones increased. Our study shows blue catfish can move into downstream areas of tidal rivers with elevated salinities and that increased freshwater flow may allow them to remain in these habitats for extended durations.

show abstract

Estimating internal transmitter and external tag retention by Walleye in the Laurentian Great Lakes over multiple years

Colborne,

Faust,

Brenden

et al. 2024

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveBoth electronic tags (e.g., acoustic and radio transmitters) and conventional external tags are used to evaluate movement and population dynamics of fish. External tags are also sometimes used to facilitate the recovery of internal electronic tags or other instrumentation because healing can make it difficult to identify fish with internal tags based on appearance alone. With both tag types, tag shedding and failure of electronic tags can affect accuracy and precision of study results.MethodsWe used a decade (2011–2021) of recapture data for Walleye Sander vitreus tagged in the Laurentian Great Lakes, where fish were double‐ or triple‐tagged with external tags (T‐bar, loop, or internal anchor tags) and internal acoustic transmitters, to quantify external tag and internal transmitter shedding and transmitter failure rates.ResultIn total, 1125 (33%) Walleye were recovered that had retained at least one external tag or internal transmitter. No confirmed cases of transmitter shedding were observed; 15 of 899 transmitters (2%) that were checked for functionality failed prior to the expected battery expiration. The retention of external T‐bar tags 1 year after release differed depending on whether the tag was placed anterior or posterior to the secondary dorsal fin (anterior, fish length = 420 mm: 73% retention; anterior, fish length = 700 mm: 73%, posterior: 63%) but was <26% after 4 years for both tag positions and fish sizes. Internal anchor tags had an 88% 1‐year retention probability and 81% 4‐year retention probability. Loop tags had the highest 1‐year retention (89%) but after 4 years retention (28–34% depending on agency) was comparable to that of T‐bar tags.ConclusionBetter understanding of tag retention characteristics through long‐term tagging studies such as this can inform study design, be considered in model design, and ultimately improve inferences from mark–recapture studies.

show abstract

Evaluation of a field protocol for internally-tagging fish predators using difficult-to-tag ictalurid catfish as examples

Cited by 10 publications

References 49 publications

A Review of Marking and Tagging Methods for Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Flathead Catfish

A Review of Marking and Tagging Methods for Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Flathead Catfish

A Bayesian multistate approach to evaluate movements of an invasive freshwater estuarine-opportunist

Estimating internal transmitter and external tag retention by Walleye in the Laurentian Great Lakes over multiple years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About