Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

The Korean Society of Fisheries and Aquatic Science (한국수산과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of a Visible Implant Fluorescent Elastomer Tag in the Soft-shelled Turtle, Pelodiscus sinensis

  • Park, Min-Ouk (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, College of Ocean Science and Technology, Korea Maritime University) ;
  • Seol, Dong-Won (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, College of Ocean Science and Technology, Korea Maritime University) ;
  • Im, Soo-Yeon (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, College of Ocean Science and Technology, Korea Maritime University) ;
  • Hur, Woo-June (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, College of Ocean Science and Technology, Korea Maritime University) ;
  • Park, In-Seok (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, College of Ocean Science and Technology, Korea Maritime University)
  • Published : 2007.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Survival, tag retention and tag readability were compared among the control and three treatment groups of soft-shelled turtles, Pelodiscus sinensis Crother, 2000 (mean body $weight{\pm}SD$: $182.6{\pm}13.7\;g$), marked with visible implant fluorescent elastomer (VIFE) tags for 16 months. Mortality 4 to 16 months after tagging was attributed to collection and handling stress rather than to the tagging itself. Tags applied to the web surface between the fourth and fifth dactyl of the hindfoot appeared to have the highest retention rates, while adipose eyelid tagging had high tag readability but a high loss rate. We conclude that in soft-shelled turtles, the most suitable region for VIFE tagging is on the web surface between the fourth and fifth dactyls of the hindfoot.

Keywords

References

  1. Anholt, B.R., S. Negovetic and C. Som. 1998. Methods for anaesthizing and marking larval anurans. Herpetol. Rev., 29,153-154
  2. Bailey, L.L. 2004. Evaluating elastomer marking and photo identification methods for terrestrial salamanders: marking effects and observer bias. Herpeto. Rev., 35, 38-41
  3. Buckley, R.M., J.E. West and D.D. Doty. 1994. Internal micro-tag systems for marking juvenile reef fishes. Bull. Mar. Sci., 55, 850-895
  4. Dewey, M.R. and S.J. Zigler. 1996. An evaluation of fluorescent elastomer for marking bluegills in experimental studies. Prog. Fish-Cult., 58, 219-220 https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1996)058<0219:AEOFEF>2.3.CO;2
  5. Duncan. 1995. Multiple-range and multiple F test. Biometrics, 11, 1-42
  6. Godin, D.M., W.H. Carr, G. Hagino, F. Segura, J.N. Sweeney and L. Blankenship. 1995. Evaluation of a fluorescent elastomer internal tag in juvenile and adult shrimp, Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture, 139, 243248
  7. Jerry, D.R., T. Stewart, I.w. Purvis and L.R. Piper. 2001. Evaluation of visible implant elastomer and alphanumeric internal tags as a method to identify juveniles of the freshwater crayfish, Cherax destructor. Aquaculture, 193, 149-154 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00477-4
  8. Jung, R.E., S. Droege, J.R. Sauer and R.B. Landy. 2000. Evaluatoin of terrestrial and streamside salamander monitoring techniques at Shenandoah National Park. Environ. Monitor. Assess, 63, 65-79 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006413603057
  9. Jung, S.-O., Y-M. Lee, Y. Kartavtsev, I.-S. Park, D.S. Kim and J.-S. Lee. 2006. The complete mitochondrial genome of the Korean soft-shelled turtle Pelodiscus sinensis (Testudines, Trionychidae). DNA Sequence, 17, 471-483 https://doi.org/10.1080/10425170600760091
  10. Kincaid, H.L. and G.T. Calkins. 1992. Retention of visible implant tags in lake trout and Atlantic salmon. Prog. Fish-Cult., 54,163-170
  11. Konstantinov, K.G. 1978. Modem methods offish tagging. J. Ichthyol., 17,924-938
  12. McFarlane, G.A., R.S. Wydoski and E.D. Prince. 1990. Historical review of the development of external tags and marks. In: Parker, N.C. et al. eds. Fish-Marking Techniques. Amer. Fish..Soc., Bethesda, Maryland, 929
  13. Mouring, T.E., K.D. Fausch and C. Gowan. 1994. Comparison of visible implant tags and floy anchor tags on hatchery rainbow trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 14, 636-642 https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8675(1994)014<0636:COVITA>2.3.CO;2
  14. Park, I.-S. and K.-K. Lee. 2001. The effective location of visible implant tags for short-term marking in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus: Cichlidae). J. Fish. Sci. Tech., 4, 159-161
  15. Park, I.-S., S.H. Cho, J.W Hur, G.-C. Choi, S.-Y. Oh, D.S. Kim and J.-S. Lee. 2006. Lidocaine hydrochloridesodium bicarbonate as an anesthetic for soft-shelled turtle, Pelodiscus sinensis. Fish. Sci., 72, 115-118 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2006.01124.x
  16. Uglem, I., H. Ncess, E. Farestveit and K.E. Jorstad. 1996. Tagging of juvenile lobsters (Homarus gammarus (L.)) with visible implant fluorescent elastomer tags. Aquacult. Eng., 15,499-501 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(96)01005-9
  17. Willis, T.J..and R.C. Babcock. 1998. Retention and in situ detectability of visible implant fluorescent elastomer (VIFE) tags in Pagrus auratus (Sparidae). New Zeal. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 32, 247-254 https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1998.9516823
  18. Zerrener, A., D.C. Josephson and C.C. Krueger. 1997. Growth, mortality, and mark retention of hatchery brook trout marked with visible implant tags, jaw tags, and adipose fin clips. Prog. Fish-Cult., 59, 241-245