Craig D. Rabe 1 Doug Nelson 1 Kenneth F. Tiffan 2 Russell W. Perry 2 William P. Connor 3 Frank L....
15
Craig D. Rabe 1 Doug Nelson 1 Kenneth F. Tiffan 2 Russell W. Perry 2 William P. Connor 3 Frank L. Mullins 3 2 1 3 Survival, Growth, and Tag Retention in Age-0 Chinook Salmon Implanted with 8-mm, 9-mm, and 12-mm PIT Tags
-
Upload
blaise-mance -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Craig D. Rabe 1 Doug Nelson 1 Kenneth F. Tiffan 2 Russell W. Perry 2 William P. Connor 3 Frank L....
Craig D. Rabe1
Doug Nelson1
Kenneth F. Tiffan2
Russell W. Perry2
William P. Connor3
Frank L. Mullins3
2
13
Survival, Growth, and Tag Retention in Age-0 Chinook Salmon Implanted with
8-mm, 9-mm, and 12-mm PIT Tags
Presentation Overview:
• Introduction• Methods (differences between studies)• Results (Ken)• Discussion (Ken)
Introduction
• Use of PIT tags and PIT tag detection systems in salmonid-based research in the CRB
• Limitations of the 12-mm PIT tag– Tag size vs. fish size
Natural Origin Abundance
Broodyear
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Abu
ndan
ce
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
Fry/Parr (mean FKL 42 mm)Presmolt (mean FKL 66 mm)Smolt (mean FKL 85 mm)
Introduction
• Advent of smaller tags
• Primary Study Objective: Evaluate size-related effects of PIT tagging Age-0 Chinook Salmon
Study Objectives
• Study I Objectives:– Compare survival, growth, and tag retention within
three size groups of fish implanted with 9-mm tags
• Study II Objectives:– Test for tagging effects on survival, temporal changes
in growth, and tag retention in one size group (40–49 mm) of fish tagged with either the 8-mm or 9-mm tags , and in two size groups (50–59 mm, 60–69 mm) of fish tagged with 8-mm, 9-mm, or 12-mm tags
Tags Used
Study
Tag type
Model
Manufacturer
Weight
in air (g)
Length
(mm)
Diameter
(mm)
Volume
(mm3)
I 9-mm TXP1485B Digital Angel 0.062 8.87 2.12 31.38
II 8-mm 684293-003 Oregon RFID 0.030 8.24 1.40 11.98
II 9-mm TXP148511B Biomark 0.066 8.91 2.10 28.38
II 12-mm TXP1411SST Digital Angel 0.104 12.37 2.02 37.33
60 mm
Methods – Study I (9-mm Tags)
(46-50 mm)N=390n=130
(51-55 mm)N=390n=130
(56-60 mm)N=390n=130
Group I Group II Group III
• 130 PIT tagged• 130 “incised” • 130 Handled only
• 130 PIT tagged• 130 “incised” • 130 Handled only
• 130 PIT tagged• 130 “incised” • 130 Handled only
Short term = 24 hLong term = 30 d
Short term = 24 hLong term = 30 d
Short term = 24 hLong term = 30 d
Methods – Study II (8-, 9-, and 12-mm Tags)
0 7 14 21 28
(40-49 mm)N=180n=60
(50-59 mm)N=240n=60
(60-69 mm)N=240n=60
Group I Group II Group III
• 60 control• 60 PIT tagged (8-mm)• 60 PIT tagged (9-mm)
• 60 control• 60 PIT tagged (8-mm)• 60 PIT tagged (9-mm)• 60 PIT tagged (12-mm)
• 60 control• 60 PIT tagged (8-mm)• 60 PIT tagged (9-mm)• 60 PIT tagged (12-mm)
Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4
SurvivalStudy I: 100% (all size groups)
Study II: 99.4% (40-49 mm); 1 fish 9-mm tag 97.8% (50-59 mm); 3 fish 12-mm tag, 1 fish ? 100% (60-69 mm)
Study I: 94.6% (46-50 mm); 6 in 48 h, 1 in 12 d 96.9% (51-55 mm); 4 in 72 h 100% (56-60 mm)
Tag retention
Results
Tag retention – Study II
Size group Tag type N Retention rate Days
40–49 mm 8-mm 11 95.0±3.6 5.7±0.5 9-mm 5 97.3±2.5 1.7±0.5
50–59 mm 8-mm 8 95.7±1.2 7.1±1.1 9-mm 6 96.7±3.5 5.5±0.5 12-mm 13 93.0±2.6 2.4±0.9
60–69 mm 8-mm 3 98.3±1.5 7.3±2.3 9-mm 1 99.3±1.2 5.0 12-mm 2 98.7±1.2 7.0±0.0
Fo
rk leng
th (m
m)
45
50
55
60
65
70
ControlIncisedTagged 0.25-0.27 mm/d
0.28-0.30 mm/d
0.30-0.31 mm/d
Trial 3
Trial 2
Trial 1
Growth
Day
0 30
Weig
ht (g
)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
ControlIncisedTagged
Trial 3
Trial 2
Trial 1
Growth
0.036-0.039 g/d
0.035-0.036 g/d
0.031-0.034 g/d
Growth – Study I
Fo
rk len
gth
(mm
)
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control8 mm Tag9 mm Tag12 mm Tag
0.67-0.69 mm/d
0.55-0.59 mm/d
0.63-0.67 mm/d
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Growth
Day
0 7 14 21 28
We
igh
t (g)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Control8 mm Tag9 mm Tag12 mm Tag
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Growth
0.076-0.082 g/d
0.085-0.091 g/d
0.136-0.140 g/d
Growth – Study II
Growth – Study II
Discussion and Conclusions
No differences in growth or survival that we consider biologically significant
Not withholding feed in Study II probably affected tag retention
Lab results may not indicate fish performance in the field Field considerations: varying temperatures, velocity, predation, greater capture and handling stress
Detectability in the field and at dams will ultimately determine the usefulnessof smaller tags
Growth rate of tagged fish slightly lower than controls for first 7 days in Study II,but no differences thereafter.
Smaller tags hold promise for being useful in representing a greater portion ofa juvenile fish population.
