Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 Craig D. Rabe 1 Doug Nelson 1 Kenneth F. Tiffan 2 Russell W. Perry 2 William P. Connor 3 Frank L. Mullins Survival, Growth, and Tag Retention in Age-0 Chinook Salmon Implanted with 8-mm, 9-mm, and 12-mm PIT Tags

2 Presentation Overview: Introduction Methods (differences between studies) Results (Ken) Discussion (Ken)

3 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

4

5 Introduction Advent of smaller tags Primary Study Objective: Evaluate size-related effects of PIT tagging Age-0 Chinook Salmon

6 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

7 Tags Used Study Tag type Model Manufacturer Weight in air (g) Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Volume (mm 3 ) I 9-mmTXP1485BDigital Angel II 8-mm Oregon RFID II 9-mmTXP148511BBiomark II 12-mmTXP1411SSTDigital Angel mm

8 Methods – Study I (9-mm Tags) (46-50 mm) N=390 n=130 (51-55 mm) N=390 n=130 (56-60 mm) N=390 n=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 h Long term = 30 d Short term = 24 h Long term = 30 d Short term = 24 h Long term = 30 d

9 Methods – Study II (8-, 9-, and 12-mm Tags) (40-49 mm) N=180 n=60 (50-59 mm) N=240 n=60 (60-69 mm) N=240 n=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 3Interval 4

10 Survival Study 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

11 Tag retention – Study II Size groupTag typeNRetention rateDays 40–49 mm8-mm1195.0±3.65.7±0.5 9-mm597.3±2.51.7±0.5 50–59 mm8-mm895.7±1.27.1±1.1 9-mm696.7±3.55.5± mm1393.0±2.62.4±0.9 60–69 mm8-mm398.3±1.57.3±2.3 9-mm199.3± mm298.7±1.27.0±0.0

12 Growth – Study I

13 Growth – Study II

14

15 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 usefulness of 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 of a juvenile fish population.


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google