Predator Feeding Preferences for a Benthic Stream Fish: Effects of Visible Injected Marks

Roberts, James H.; Kilpatrick, John M.

doi:10.1080/02705060.2004.9664732

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 28 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%

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%

Comparison of three methods for marking a small floodplain minnow

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Haines and Modde (1996) found no significant increase in LMB predation on Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius tagged with VIE. Roberts and Kilpatrick (2004) also found no significant increase in predation by smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu or rock bass Ambloplites rupestris on fantail darters Etheostoma flabellare tagged with VIE, but those authors suggested the possibility of differences between diurnal and nocturnal predators.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Reeves¹,

Buckmeier²

2009

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated tag‐induced mortality (7 d), predation, and tag visibility (365 d) for age‐0 largemouth bass (LMB) Micropterus salmoides (27–112 mm total length [TL]), age‐0 channel catfish (CCF) Ictalurus punctatus (42–101 mm TL), and adult blacktail shiners (BTS) Cyprinella venusta (34–98 mm TL) tagged with three visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags. Tagging mortality after 7 d was 14.7% for age‐0 LMB and 29.5% for BTS, whereas there was almost no mortality for CCF. Mortality for tagged age‐0 LMB and BTS was size dependent; the smallest size‐groups exhibited the greatest mortality rates. Visible implant elastomer tags did not significantly increase predation of recently tagged fish by adult LMB, flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris, or white bass Morone chrysops. Tag visibility (which reflects tag shedding and loss of visibility due to tissue thickening over the tag) varied greatly by species and tag location. In LMB, tag visibility decreased to 5% or less within 90 d for VIE tags in the dorsal head area and along the base of the anal fin, whereas visibility decreased gradually to 63% after 365 d for tags in the operculum. In CCF, tag visibility decreased to 5% or less within 90 d for tags in the dorsal head area and along the jaw, whereas visibility decreased to 46% after 365 d for tags along the base of the anal fin. Tags in BTS had the highest visibility: 100% visibility was recorded at all three tagging locations after 30 d, then visibility gradually decreased to 56% along the base of the anal fin, 72% in the dorsal portion of the caudal peduncle, and 78% in the ventral portion of the caudal peduncle after 365 d. Visible implant elastomer tags can be used without increasing risk of predation for tagged fish; however, VIE tag utility may be limited due to increased mortality for small age‐0 fish and variable tag visibility among anatomical locations.

show abstract

“…Although tag loss through differential mortality of tagged fish has been noted elsewhere (Catalano et al 2001), it seems uncommon in mature fish and any effect would likely be minimal (e.g. Roberts & Kilpatrick 2004 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%