PIT tag retention and tag induced mortality injuvenile bonytail and Gila chub

D. L. WARD, M. R. CHILDS & W. R. PERSONS

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Abstract

Juvenile bonytail,

Gila elegans

Baird and Girard, 68–143 mm total length (TL) and Gila chub,

Gilaintermedia

(Girard), 75–152 mm TL were tagged with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and held inlaboratory tanks for 30 days to evaluate survival and tag retention. Tag retention was >97% and survival was>98% for both species tagged in the abdominal cavity. Needle orientation and insertion location (either anterioror posterior to the pelvic girdle) were both equally eﬀective for tagging Gila Chub. Survival of bonytail tagged inthe abdominal cavity after

ad libitum

feeding, to simulate tagging of fish caught in baited hoopnets (85%), waslower than unfed bonytail (99%). Tag retention of Gila chub tagged in the dorsal musculature (93%) was less thanfor abdominal tagging (97%) but no mortality was observed. PIT tagging in the dorsal musculature may be a goodalternative to abdominal tagging for fish captured in baited hoopnets. Tag retention and tagging-related mortalitywere not significantly different for tags implanted by researchers with or without prior tagging experience.

KEYWORDS:

Gila elegans

Gila intermedia

, mortality, passive integrated transponder, PIT tag, retention.

Introduction

Endangered species of the genus

Gila

are commonlytagged with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagsto evaluate growth and movement (Paukert, Coggins& Flaccus 2006) or for mark-recapture populationassessments (Coggins, Pine, Walters, Van Haverbeke,Ward & Johnstone 2006). Delayed mortality as a resultof capture and tagging is often not seen by researchersand can occur hours or days later (Stickney 1983) andhave negative impacts on the populations beingstudied. This is especially critical in populations of rare or endangered species (Rahel, Muth & Carlson1999). Mortality and loss of PIT tags can also violateassumptions of mark-recapture population assess-ments (Burnham, Anderson, White, Brownie & Pol-lock 1987), causing biased estimates that may lead topoor management decisions. Although PIT tags arecommonly used to uniquely mark endangered cyprinidfishes, little information is available on tagging meth-ods or tag retention in these species. Extensive researchhas been conducted on PIT tagging methodology andtagging locations for salmonids (reviewed in Prentice,Flagg & McCutcheon 1990), but it is unknownwhether results from these studies are applicable toendangered cyprinid fishes. The objectives of this studywere to evaluate the effectiveness of several tagginglocations and methods, and to estimate the amount of tag loss and mortality that is likely to occur whenperforming typical mark-recapture population studiesusing PIT tags to mark bonytail,

Gila elegans

Bairdand Girard, and Gila chub,

Gila intermedia

(Girard).

Methods

One hundred and eighty bonytail (84–132 mm TL)were injected in the abdominal cavity with a 12 mm,400 kHz full duplex PIT tag. To simulate ﬁeld condi-tions where ﬁsh are collected in baited hoop nets, anadditional 121 bonytail (68–143 mm TL) were taggedin the abdominal cavity after being allowed access toabundant prepared feed (Aquamax 600

) for 12 h.Each ﬁsh was weighed, measured, PIT tagged andplaced into a circular 1900 L outdoor holding tank atBubbling Ponds Fish Hatchery, Arizona, USA. Thistank received a continuous ﬂow of water from anartesian spring at 18.5

C. All tags injected intobonytail were inserted into the abdominal cavity inan anterior direction with the insertion site immedi-ately posterior to the pelvic girdle. Mortality wasmonitored daily, and PIT tag retention was evaluatedafter 30 days. All nine people injecting tags in this

F M E5 9 5

Dispatch: 29.1.08 Journal: FME

CE: Senthil

Journal Name Manuscript No.

Author Received: No. of pages: 3 PE: Padmapriya

Correspondence: David L. Ward, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, 2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023, USA(e-mail: dwardagf@cableone.net)

Fisheries Management and Ecology

, 2008

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation

2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

study had multiple years of experience implanting PITtags in fish.In a second study, 210 laboratory-reared Gila chub(75–129 mm TL) were tagged in the abdominal cavitywith a 12 mm, 134.2 kHz PIT tag by 21 differentresearchers. Each researcher tagged five fish in theabdominal cavity posterior to the pelvic girdle with theneedle inserted in an anterior direction and five fishanterior to the pelvic girdle with the needle inserted ina posterior direction (105 total fish for each needleorientation). Eleven of the 21 researchers in thisportion of the study had little or no prior experienceof PIT tagging fish but received instructions fromexperienced personnel on the day of tagging. Forty-two Gila chub (87–152 mm TL) were also tagged in thedorsal musculature by the same group of researchers.Dorsal musculature tags were inserted between theinsertion point of the dorsal fin and the lateral line withthe needle inserted in an anterior direction. Each fishwas weighed, measured for TL, PIT tagged and thenheld for 30 days at the Arizona Game and Fishresearch facility in Flagstaff, Arizona, USA in two,568 L recirculating tanks at 20

C. Tanks werechecked daily for ﬁsh mortalities and PIT tag retentionwas evaluated after 30 days. Differences in tagging-related mortality and retention were evaluated usingcontingency tables and Chi-square tests.

Results and discussion

Tag retention was high (>97%) for both unfedbonytail and Gila chub tagged in the abdominal cavitywith 98.9 and 98.1% survival, respectively (Tables 1and 2). These results are similar to PIT tag retentionand survival rates for salmonids PIT tagged in theabdominal cavity (Prentice

et al.

1990; Dare 2003).Survival of bonytail fed prior to tagging wassigniﬁcantly lower (85.1%) than that of unfed bonytail(98.9%) (

= 19.9,

< 0.0001) and tag loss washigher (Table 1) although not signiﬁcantly diﬀerent(

= 2.6,

= 0.108). Dissections of dead bonytailtagged after feeding revealed that in 13 of 18 cases thetagging needle had visibly perforated the intestine of the ﬁsh. Baited hoopnets are commonly used toincrease captures of

Gila

species and stomachs areoften full at the time of PIT tagging (Stone 2005).Other conditions, such as infestation with Asiantapeworm,

Bothriocephalus acheilognathi

Yamaguti,which can cause intestines to be full and stomachs tobe distended (Brouder 1999), could also lead to higherthan normal tagging-related mortality and warrantsfurther investigation.Tag retention for Gila chub tagged in the dorsalmusculature was lower than that for fish tagged in theabdominal cavity but was still very high (92.9%) withzero mortality (Table 2). This suggests that dorsaltagging may be a good alternative to abdominaltagging for fish over 120 mm TL, especially for rarefish, captured in baited hoopnets. Burdick & Hamman(1993) suggested that tag loss in the dorsal musculaturemay be high for small fish (<75 mm FL), especially inspecies with a fusiform body shape such as bonytail.Navarro, Oliva, Zmorano, Gines, Izquierdo, Astorga& Afonso (2006) observed 40% tag loss in fingerlinggilthead seabream,

Sparus auratus

L., tagged in thedorsal musculature, also indicating that dorsal muscu-lature tagging may be less effective in small ﬁsh.Needle orientation and insertion location (eitheranterior or posterior to the pelvic girdle) were bothequally effective for tagging ﬁsh with little mortality(<2%) and equal numbers of shed tags (2.9%).Biologists with a wide range of PIT tagging experience

Table 1.

Survival and tag retention of bonytail 30 days after PIT tags were injected into the abdominal cavityTreatment NumberTotal length, mmNumber of deaths(survival %)Number of shed tags(retained %)Mean RangeNot fed 180 104 84–132 2 (98.9) 4 (97.8)Fed 121 110 68–143 18 (85.1) 8 (93.4)

Table 2.

Survival and tag retention of Gila chub 30 days after PIT tags were injected into the abdominal cavity or dorsal musculatureTagging location NumberTotal length, mmNumber of deaths(survival %)Number of shed tags(retained %)Mean RangeAbdominal, anterior of pelvic ﬁns 105 93 79–129 2 (98.1) 3 (97.1)Abdominal, posterior of pelvic ﬁns 105 92 75–126 1 (99.0) 3 (97.1)Dorsal musculature 42 123 87–152 0 (100.0) 3 (92.9)

D. L. WARD

ET AL.

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation

2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd