Mortality, Predation, and Tag Visibility of Fish Marked with Visible Implant Elastomer Tags

Reeves, Kerry S.; Buckmeier, David L.

doi:10.1577/m08-086.1

Cited by 32 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No significant differences in predation between marked and unmarked small bodied or juvenile fish have been reported [1,19,35,36]. However, juvenile bluegill marked with highly visible fluorescent photonic dyes had significantly higher susceptibility to predation by largemouth bass than cryptically marked fish in a controlled laboratory environment [31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…However, success with VIE tags appears to vary with body location and species. For example, barbel Barbus barbus tagged at the base of the anal fin had high retention (82.6%) over two months [17], yet retention rates were low in the anal fin of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, blacktail shiner Cyprinella venusta, channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus [19], Colorado squawfish Ptycholcheilus lucius, and razorback suckers Xyrauchen texanus [1]. In Oregon chub, the tissue around the base of the anal fin is relatively thick, unpigmented, and translucent, with little chance of damaging organs by overinserting the tagging needle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These tags have a number of benefits for marking small-bodied fish, as their application is not limited to fish of a certain size [11,12], retention is often high, up to 99% in small bodied fish after four months [13,14], and individuals can be identified by application of different colors at different places on the body [15,16]. However, the suitability of marking locations on the body and availability of colors limits the number of unique identifiers, and retention rate is influenced by the location of the tag on the body and varies among different fish species (e.g., [17][18][19]). Therefore, group marks at a single suitable location may be the only acceptable application of the VIE mark for some species or for studies requiring the tagging of large numbers of individual fish.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of three methods for marking a small floodplain minnow

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evaluation of the movement patterns of small-bodied fish is often hindered by the lack of a suitable long-term mark. We evaluated several techniques for long-term group and individual identification of adult (40-70 mm total length [TL]) Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri). We marked Oregon chub with one of two different sized passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags (a 9 × 2.12 mm, 0.067 g PIT tag [PIT-tag] or a 8.4 × 1.4 mm, 0.033 g PIT tag [PICO-tag]), a red visible implant elastomer (VIE) tag, or a freeze brand. We monitored survival, tag retention, and mark quality over 150 days. In addition, we assessed the minimum length and weight thresholds to achieve 80% and 90% survival of PIT-tagged fish. Results: Marking with a freeze brand, PICO-tag, or VIE tag had no effect on survival (P >0.05). In contrast, marking with a PIT-tag was associated with significantly lower (P <0.05) survival than in the control group. Survival was significantly higher (P = 0.002) for fish implanted with a PICO-tag than with the larger PIT-tag. The initial minimum TL for 80% and 90% survival was 54 mm and 64 mm TL, respectively, for the PIT-tag treatment. The 90% survival threshold for PICO-tagged fish was 44 mm TL. The 80% survival threshold was outside the range of sizes used in our experiment (<40 mm TL). Similarly, the 80% and 90% survival weight thresholds for the PIT-tag treatment were 1.5 g and 2.4 g, respectively, and the 90% survival threshold for PICO-tagged fish was 0.9 g. Tag retention was 94% and 95% in the PIT-tag and PICO-tag treatments, respectively; 80% of the freeze branded fish had easily recognizable tags after 150 days and 88% of the fish marked with VIE had easily recognizable tags after 150 days.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of three methods for marking a small floodplain minnow

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although tags can be observed in some fish for as long as after 6 months (Dewey and Zigler 1996;Summers et al 2006;Brennan et al 2007) or even after more than 3 years (Willis et al 2001), in general, it is after 3 months (long-term tagging) that the tag loss rate increases (Doupé et al 2003;Goldsmith et al 2003;Fryda et al 2007;Josephson and Robinson 2008;Zeller and Cairns 2010). Also the fish species and the placement of the tag determine the tag loss rate (Close and Jones 2002;Brennan et al 2007;Bolland et al 2009;Reeves and Buckmeier 2009). Other factors, such as the pigmentation of the tagging area, the handling during the tagging process and the technique used, also appear to affect tag retention (Close and Jones 2002;Fryda et al 2007;Josephson and Robinson 2008;Bolland et al 2009).…”

Section: Visible Implant Elastomermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in gilthead seabream (Astorga et al 2005) and snapper (Willis and Babcock 1998), red seems to be the best colour for tagging, whereas in red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), red and orange are alike (Brennan et al 2007). This variation in visibility is caused by the different pigmentation of the skin at the tag placement of each species (Frederick 1997;Close and Jones 2002;Reeves and Buckmeier 2009). Differences in the number of tag fragments among colours seem to be related to slight differences in the VIE mix preparation process, taking into account that all tags were implanted at the same body placement and with the same orientation and there was no interaction between colour and experiment (size) effect.…”

Section: Visible Implant Elastomermentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of VIE (Visible Implant Elastomer) and PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) physical tagging systems for the identification of red porgy fingerlings (Pagrus pagrus)

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of two physical tagging systems, Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) and Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT), was evaluated in red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) fingerlings, at different sizes. For VIE tagging, the weight classes were \1 and 1-5 g and no tag effect was detected on fish growth. There was a significant difference in mortality between tagged and untagged \1 g fish, but not for the 1-5 g fish. The tag loss rate was null for all sizes, however, tags showed fragmentation. This partial tag loss was evaluated and quantified. Seven VIE colours were compared and arranged from best to worst visibility: green, red, pink, orange, yellow, white and blue. For PIT tagging, 2-6 g, 5-10 g and 10-20 g weight classes were analysed. There was no significant tag effect on fish growth, for any size, nor on mortality from 10 g. Tag loss rate ranged from 2.9 to 5.9%. These results demonstrate that, in red porgy, VIE is a successful tagging system from 2 g onwards whereas PIT system is successful from 10 g onwards. The combination of both systems allows traceability of fish from a very small size on, which is necessary for the implementation of genetic breeding programmes.

show abstract

Under‐Ice Population Density Estimation of Alaska Blackfish

Fraley

Haynes

López³

2018

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Alaska Blackfish Dallia pectoralis is an understudied but ecologically important mudminnow occurring in lentic ecosystems of subarctic and Arctic Alaska. We sampled a population of Alaska Blackfish during the winter months in an upland pond near Fairbanks, Alaska, and we used a simple mark–recapture estimator to provide the first population estimate for this species. We found that Alaska Blackfish density in the pond was approximately 0.27 individuals/m2, equating to an estimated biomass of 15 g/m2 of pond surface area, which is similar to density estimates reported for other mudminnow species. We tested capture methods and found that under‐ice minnow trapping was a poor method during early winter (September–December) but was highly effective near methane sumps and areas of high muskrat Ondatra zibethicus activity in late winter (March–April). Qualitatively, nearshore minnow trapping, seining, and kicknetting during the ice‐free season were less effective than under‐ice trapping. Cursorily, pelvic fin clips were more effective for batch marking of Alaska Blackfish than two types of subcutaneous tags, given the high numbers of individuals we captured and the species’ relatively small body size and dark skin, which hindered tag visualization. We demonstrated that Alaska Blackfish can occur at high densities in their typical habitat, underscoring their importance as forage fish in Alaskan freshwater ecosystems that support subsistence and sport fisheries for piscivorous fishes. Extending this approach across the geographic range of Alaska Blackfish will improve understanding of the ecological role of this species in the varying aquatic ecosystems where it occurs.

show abstract

Mortality, Predation, and Tag Visibility of Fish Marked with Visible Implant Elastomer Tags

Cited by 32 publications

References 22 publications

Comparison of three methods for marking a small floodplain minnow

Comparison of three methods for marking a small floodplain minnow

Evaluation of VIE (Visible Implant Elastomer) and PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) physical tagging systems for the identification of red porgy fingerlings (Pagrus pagrus)

Under‐Ice Population Density Estimation of Alaska Blackfish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About