Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2008

1
2 PIT tag retention and tag induced mortality in
3
4 juvenile bonytail and Gila chub
5
6 D. L. WARD, M. R. CHILDS & W. R. PERSONS
7
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, Phoenix, AZ, USA
8
9
10
11
Abstract Juvenile bonytail, Gila elegans Baird and Girard, 68–143 mm total length (TL) and Gila chub, Gila
12
intermedia (Girard), 75–152 mm TL were tagged with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and held in
13
laboratory tanks for 30 days to evaluate survival and tag retention. Tag retention was >97% and survival was
14
>98% for both species tagged in the abdominal cavity. Needle orientation and insertion location (either anterior
15
or posterior to the pelvic girdle) were both equally effective for tagging Gila Chub. Survival of bonytail tagged in
16
the abdominal cavity after ad libitum feeding, to simulate tagging of fish caught in baited hoopnets (85%), was
17
lower than unfed bonytail (99%). Tag retention of Gila chub tagged in the dorsal musculature (93%) was less than
18
for abdominal tagging (97%) but no mortality was observed. PIT tagging in the dorsal musculature may be a good
19
alternative to abdominal tagging for fish captured in baited hoopnets. Tag retention and tagging-related mortality
20
were not significantly different for tags implanted by researchers with or without prior tagging experience.
21
22 KEYWORDS: Gila elegans, Gila intermedia, mortality, passive integrated transponder, PIT tag, retention.
23
24
25
26 were to evaluate the effectiveness of several tagging
Introduction
27 locations and methods, and to estimate the amount of
28 Endangered species of the genus Gila are commonly tag loss and mortality that is likely to occur when
29 tagged with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags performing typical mark-recapture population studies
30 to evaluate growth and movement (Paukert, Coggins using PIT tags to mark bonytail, Gila elegans Baird
31 & Flaccus 2006) or for mark-recapture population and Girard, and Gila chub, Gila intermedia (Girard).
32 assessments (Coggins, Pine, Walters, Van Haverbeke,
33 Ward & Johnstone 2006). Delayed mortality as a result
Methods
34 of capture and tagging is often not seen by researchers
35 and can occur hours or days later (Stickney 1983) and One hundred and eighty bonytail (84–132 mm TL)
36 have negative impacts on the populations being were injected in the abdominal cavity with a 12 mm,
37 studied. This is especially critical in populations of 400 kHz full duplex PIT tag. To simulate field condi-
38 rare or endangered species (Rahel, Muth & Carlson tions where fish are collected in baited hoop nets, an
39 1999). Mortality and loss of PIT tags can also violate additional 121 bonytail (68–143 mm TL) were tagged
40 assumptions of mark-recapture population assess- in the abdominal cavity after being allowed access to
41 ments (Burnham, Anderson, White, Brownie & Pol- abundant prepared feed (Aquamax 600Ò) for 12 h.
42 lock 1987), causing biased estimates that may lead to Each fish was weighed, measured, PIT tagged and
43 poor management decisions. Although PIT tags are placed into a circular 1900 L outdoor holding tank at
44 commonly used to uniquely mark endangered cyprinid Bubbling Ponds Fish Hatchery, Arizona, USA. This
45 fishes, little information is available on tagging meth- tank received a continuous flow of water from an
46 ods or tag retention in these species. Extensive research artesian spring at 18.5 °C. All tags injected into
47 has been conducted on PIT tagging methodology and bonytail were inserted into the abdominal cavity in
48 tagging locations for salmonids (reviewed in Prentice, an anterior direction with the insertion site immedi-
49 Flagg & McCutcheon 1990), but it is unknown ately posterior to the pelvic girdle. Mortality was
50 whether results from these studies are applicable to monitored daily, and PIT tag retention was evaluated
51 endangered cyprinid fishes. The objectives of this study after 30 days. All nine people injecting tags in this
52 Correspondence: David L. Ward, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, 2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023, USA
53 (e-mail: dwardagf@cableone.net)

Ó 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1

F M E
Journal Name
5
Manuscript No.
9 5
B Dispatch: 29.1.08
Author Received:
Journal: FME CE: Senthil
No. of pages: 3 PE: Padmapriya
 2 D. L. WARD ET AL.

1 study had multiple years of experience implanting PIT Survival of bonytail fed prior to tagging was
2 tags in fish. significantly lower (85.1%) than that of unfed bonytail
3 In a second study, 210 laboratory-reared Gila chub (98.9%) (v2 = 19.9, P < 0.0001) and tag loss was
4 (75–129 mm TL) were tagged in the abdominal cavity higher (Table 1) although not significantly different
5 with a 12 mm, 134.2 kHz PIT tag by 21 different (v2 = 2.6, P = 0.108). Dissections of dead bonytail
6 researchers. Each researcher tagged five fish in the tagged after feeding revealed that in 13 of 18 cases the
7 abdominal cavity posterior to the pelvic girdle with the tagging needle had visibly perforated the intestine of
8 needle inserted in an anterior direction and five fish the fish. Baited hoopnets are commonly used to
9 anterior to the pelvic girdle with the needle inserted in increase captures of Gila species and stomachs are
10 a posterior direction (105 total fish for each needle often full at the time of PIT tagging (Stone 2005).
11 orientation). Eleven of the 21 researchers in this Other conditions, such as infestation with Asian
12 portion of the study had little or no prior experience tapeworm, Bothriocephalus acheilognathi Yamaguti,
13 of PIT tagging fish but received instructions from which can cause intestines to be full and stomachs to
14 experienced personnel on the day of tagging. Forty- be distended (Brouder 1999), could also lead to higher
15 two Gila chub (87–152 mm TL) were also tagged in the than normal tagging-related mortality and warrants
16 dorsal musculature by the same group of researchers. further investigation.
17 Dorsal musculature tags were inserted between the Tag retention for Gila chub tagged in the dorsal
18 insertion point of the dorsal fin and the lateral line with musculature was lower than that for fish tagged in the
19 the needle inserted in an anterior direction. Each fish abdominal cavity but was still very high (92.9%) with
20 was weighed, measured for TL, PIT tagged and then zero mortality (Table 2). This suggests that dorsal
21 held for 30 days at the Arizona Game and Fish tagging may be a good alternative to abdominal
22 research facility in Flagstaff, Arizona, USA in two, tagging for fish over 120 mm TL, especially for rare
23 568 L recirculating tanks at 20 °C. Tanks were fish, captured in baited hoopnets. Burdick & Hamman
24 checked daily for fish mortalities and PIT tag retention (1993) suggested that tag loss in the dorsal musculature
25 was evaluated after 30 days. Differences in tagging- may be high for small fish (<75 mm FL), especially in
26 related mortality and retention were evaluated using species with a fusiform body shape such as bonytail.
27 contingency tables and Chi-square tests. Navarro, Oliva, Zmorano, Gines, Izquierdo, Astorga
28 & Afonso (2006) observed 40% tag loss in fingerling
29 gilthead seabream, Sparus auratus L., tagged in the
Results and discussion
30 dorsal musculature, also indicating that dorsal muscu-
31 Tag retention was high (>97%) for both unfed lature tagging may be less effective in small fish.
32 bonytail and Gila chub tagged in the abdominal cavity Needle orientation and insertion location (either
33 with 98.9 and 98.1% survival, respectively (Tables 1 anterior or posterior to the pelvic girdle) were both
34 and 2). These results are similar to PIT tag retention equally effective for tagging fish with little mortality
35 and survival rates for salmonids PIT tagged in the (<2%) and equal numbers of shed tags (2.9%).
36 abdominal cavity (Prentice et al. 1990; Dare 2003). Biologists with a wide range of PIT tagging experience
37
38 Table 1. Survival and tag retention of bonytail 30 days after PIT tags were injected into the abdominal cavity
39
Total length, mm
40 Number of deaths Number of shed tags
41 Treatment Number Mean Range (survival %) (retained %)
42
Not fed 180 104 84–132 2 (98.9) 4 (97.8)
43
Fed 121 110 68–143 18 (85.1) 8 (93.4)
44
45
46 Table 2. Survival and tag retention of Gila chub 30 days after PIT tags were injected into the abdominal cavity or dorsal musculature
47
48 Total length, mm
Number of deaths Number of shed tags
49 Tagging location Number Mean Range (survival %) (retained %)
50
51 Abdominal, 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)
52
Dorsal musculature 42 123 87–152 0 (100.0) 3 (92.9)
53

Ó 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

 PIT TAG RETENTION AND MORTALITY 3

1 participated in the study using Gila chub with 11 of the Survival Experiments Based on Release-Recapture. Beth-
2 21 individuals having little or no prior tagging expe- esda, MD: American Fisheries Society, 437 pp.
3 rience. Tag retention (97.1%) and tagging-related Coggins L.G, Pine W.E., Walters C.J., Van Haverbeke D.R.,
4 mortality (1.9%) in the Gila chub study were not Ward D.L. & Johnstone H.C. (2006) Abundance trends
5 significantly different from tag retention (97.8%) and status of the Little Colorado River population of
6 (v2 = 0.768, P = 0.38) and mortality (1.1%) (v2 = humpback chub. North American Journal of Fisheries
7 0.093, P = 0.761) in the bonytail study, where all Management 26, 233–245.
8 researchers had extensive tagging experience. This Dare M.R. (2003) Mortality and long-term retention of
9 suggests that inexperienced researchers can safely PIT passive integrated transponder tags by spring Chinook
10 tag fish provided they have adequate instruction. salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
11 23, 1015–1019.
12 Navarro A., Oliva V., Zmorano M.J., Gines R., Izquierdo
Acknowledgments
13 M.S., Astorga N. & Afonso J.M. (2006) Evaluation of PIT
14 We thank the many biologists from the Grand Canyon system as a method to tag fingerlings of gilthead seabream
15 Monitoring and Research Center, SWCA Environ- (Sparus auratus L.): effects on growth, mortality and tag
16 mental Consultants, US Fish and Wildlife Service loss. Aquaculture 257, 309–315.
17 Arizona Fishery Resources Office, and the Arizona Paukert C.P, Coggins Jr. L.G. & Flaccus C.E. (2006) Dis-
18 Game and Fish Department who participated in these tribution and movement of humpback chub in the Colo-
19 studies. Andrew Makinster provided valuable com- rado River, Grand Canyon, based on recaptures.
20 ments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We thank Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135, 539–
21 Bubbling Ponds Fish Hatchery and Andrew Schultz at 544.
22 the University of Arizona for providing research Prentice E.F., Flagg T.A. & McCutcheon C.S. (1990) Fea-
23 specimens. This work was conducted under Federal sibility of using implantable passive integrated transponder
24 Endangered Species permit number TE821577-2. (PIT) tags in salmonids. In: N.C. Parker, A.E. Giorgi,
25 R.C. Heidinger, D.B. Jester, Jr, E.D. Prince & G.A.
26 Winans (eds) Fish-Marking Techniques. Bethesda, MD:
References
27 American Fisheries Society, pp. 317–322.
28 Brouder M.J. (1999) Relationship between length of round- Rahel F.J., Muth R.T. & Carlson C.A. (1999) Endangered
29 tail chub and infection intensity of Asian fish tapeworm species management. In: C.C. Kohler & W.A. Hubert (eds)
30 Bothriocephalus acheilognathi. Journal of Aquatic Animal Inland Fisheries Management in North America, 2nd edn.
31 Health 11, 302–304. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, pp. 431–454.
32 Burdick B.D. & Hamman R.L. (1993) A Study to Evaluate Stickney R.R. (1983) Care and handling of live fish. In: L.A
33 Several Tagging and Marking Systems for Colorado Neilson & D.L Johnson (eds) Fisheries Techniques. Beth-
34 Squawfish, Razorback Sucker, and Bonytail. Denver, CO: esda, MD: American Fisheries Society, pp. 85–94.
35 Fish and Wildlife Service, 66 pp. Stone D.M. (2005) Effect of baiting on hoop net catch rates
36 Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R, White G.C., Brownie C. & of humpback chub. North American Journal of Fisheries
37 Pollock K.H. (1987) Design and Analysis Methods for Fish Management 25, 640–645.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

Ó 2008 The Authors. Journal compilationÓ 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd