Retention of Passive Integrated Transponder Tags in a Small‐Bodied Catfish

D’Amico, Timothy W.; Winkelman, Dana L.; Swarr, Tyler R.; Myrick, Christopher A.

doi:10.1002/nafm.10550

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, D'Amico et al . ( 2021 ) used sutures to close PIT tagging incisions in the Stonecat Noturus flavus (Rafinesque 1818) and had survival rates of 89% over 840 days for regular 12 mm PIT tags and survival rates of 99% over 751 days for fish tagged with polymer‐coated 12 mm tags (Table 2 ). The results from the sutured vs .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study on blackspotted topminnow Fundulus olivaceus (Storer 1845) reported similar findings, and also found PIT tags impacted neither gonadal development nor swimming kinematics (Clark, 2016 ). The authors successfully applied the same tagging technique to other small‐bodied fishes including flathead chub Platygobio gracilis (Richardson 1836) and Noturus flavus with success, supporting the view that the technique is applicable to other taxa (D'Amico et al ., 2021 ; Swarr, 2018 ). More broadly, the results of the studies included in Table 2 and the meta‐analysis suggest that the use of 12 mm or smaller PIT tags is appropriate for a number of small‐bodied species, provided that the PIT tags selected for use are no more than 17% of the fish's total length.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Large fishes (> 200 mm) can be tagged externally (Castro‐Santos et al ., 1996 ; Haro et al ., 2004 ), or internally (Lee et al ., 2009 ). Smaller fishes are generally tagged intraperitoneally to reduce impacts on swimming ability caused by external tags or tags in the axial swimming muscles (Clark, 2016 ; D'Amico et al ., 2021 ; Ficke et al ., 2012 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tag retention in and effects of passive integrated transponder tagging on survival and swimming performance of a small‐bodied darter

Swarr

Myrick

Fitzpatrick

2022

Journal of Fish Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fisheries biologists have been hesitant to use passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in small‐bodied fishes (40–200 mm TL) such as darters (Percidae: Etheostomatinae) because of the fishes' size and potential effect on swimming performance. The authors used constant acceleration trials to evaluate the swimming performance of Arkansas darters Etheostoma cragini in control (no incision or tag), sham (incision and suture) or PIT tagged (surgically implanted 8 × 1.4 mm intra‐peritoneal PIT tag) treatments. Tag retention and fish survival were monitored for up to 199 days post‐tagging. Maximum swimming velocity did not differ between control, sham and PIT tag treatments, nor was maximum swimming velocity affected by the tagging procedure. Tag retention was 100%, and the overall survival of tagged fish was 88% in the swimming study, and 100% in the long‐term study, suggesting that small PIT tags are suitable for use in darters. The authors include a brief meta‐analysis on the results reported by 20 studies that PIT tagged small‐bodied fishes, representing 38 species and nine families of freshwater fish.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tag retention in and effects of passive integrated transponder tagging on survival and swimming performance of a small‐bodied darter

Swarr

Myrick

Fitzpatrick

2022

Journal of Fish Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Very recently, guidance for tagging madtoms has also become available (D’Amico et al. 2021; Schumann et al. 2021).…”

Section: Summary Of Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This marking and tagging information for the three largest North American ictalurids (Blue, Flathead, and Channel catfish) was well summarized at Catfish 2020 in a review by Neely et al (2021a), which provides useful guidance on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method as it relates to various objectives in catfish science. Very recently, guidance for tagging madtoms has also become available (D'Amico et al 2021;Schumann et al 2021).…”

Section: Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Catfish 2020, A Clear Vision of the Future

Porath

Kwak

Neely

et al. 2021

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Third International Catfish Symposium was held in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 2020 and provided another milestone to gauge advances in knowledge related to conservation and management of these valuable fishes. Attendees from 29 states and 4 countries gathered to communicate research and information on the conservation, ecology, and management of the world’s catfishes. During 3 d of technical sessions and workshops, 74 oral presentations and 17 posters were shared with 198 attending fisheries professionals. Plenary and oral presentations were recorded and are available online (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHNt7ZV05DLWoe4qJO798Pw/videos), aligning with the symposium theme of “Communicating Catfish Science.” Technical sessions explored current research and management issues that included population demographics, introduced catfish populations, sampling methods, harvest management, human dimensions, conservation, habitat use and movement, biology, and aging methods. Ultimately, 38 manuscripts were peer reviewed and published as this special issue of the North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Interest in catfish science, as gauged by publications in six peer‐reviewed fisheries journals, has grown steadily since a 1910 catfish aquaculture article appeared in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Biology and ecology topics became prominent in the 1970s and 1980s, while articles on techniques and fisheries management have grown steadily through 2020. Ecology, fisheries management, and techniques were the most published topics in the three international catfish symposia. Future research and management efforts will continue similar work but also seek to address the expanding role of catfish as invasive species and a better understanding of the ecology and conservation of small‐bodied native catfish. Among the greatest challenges will be adapting current tools and identifying future knowledge gaps as we experience a changing climate. This will require an enhanced understanding of transforming ecosystems and advanced adaptive management applications. The decadal occurrence of a dedicated symposium has served to summarize progress and focus future efforts to advance catfish science.

show abstract

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

Durhack,

Simpson,

Watkinson

et al. 2024

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Retention of Passive Integrated Transponder Tags in a Small‐Bodied Catfish

Cited by 6 publications

References 52 publications

Tag retention in and effects of passive integrated transponder tagging on survival and swimming performance of a small‐bodied darter

Tag retention in and effects of passive integrated transponder tagging on survival and swimming performance of a small‐bodied darter

Catfish 2020, A Clear Vision of the Future

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About