4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Growth, survival, and tag retention of steelhead trout (O-mykiss) surgically implanted with dummy acoustic tags

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 582, 期 -, 页码 289-299

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-006-0553-x

关键词

tagging; tag shedding; surgical implantation; growth; survival; telemetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in micro-electronics make the study of the migration of even small marine animals (> 12 cm) over many 1000s of kilometres a serious possibility. Important assumptions in long-term studies are that rates of tag loss caused by mortality or tag shedding are low, and that the tagging procedure does not have an unacceptable negative effect on the animal. This paper reports results from a study to examine the retention of relatively large (24 x 8 mm) surgically-implanted dummy acoustic tags over a 7-month period in steelhead pre-smolts (O. mykiss), and the effects of implantation on growth and survival. Although there was some influence on growth to week 12, survival was high for animals > 13 cm FL. In the following 16-week period, growth of surgically implanted pre-smolts was the same as the control population and there was little tag loss from mortality or shedding. Currently available acoustic tags can be implanted in salmonid fish >= 12 cm FL, although combined losses from mortality and tag shedding were 33-40% for animals in the 12 and 13 cm FL size classes. By 14 cm FL, combined rates of tag loss (mortality plus tag shedding) for surgically implanted tags dropped to < 15% and growth following surgery was close to that of the controls. Our results suggest that studies of ocean migration and survival over periods of many months are now feasible even for animals as small as salmon smolts. Surgically implanted salmon smolts are therefore good candidates for freshwater and coastal ocean-tracking studies on relatively long time scales (months). On such time scales, even relatively small salmon smolts may move thousands of kilometers in the ocean.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据