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 Greenling Hexagrammos otakii

  • Park, In-Seok (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, Korea Maritime University) ;
  • Kim, Young Ju (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, Korea Maritime University) ;
  • Gil, Hyun Woo (Division of Marine Environment and Bioscience, Korea Maritime University) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Soo (Institute of Marine Living Modified Organism (iMLMO), Pukyung National University)
  • Received : 2012.05.07
  • Accepted : 2012.12.20
  • Published : 2013.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess visible implant fluorescent elastomer (VIE) tagging in greenling Hexagrammos otakii. The experiental fish were anesthetized individually and marked with orange, yellow, red, and green elastomer at the following five body locations, respectively: the adipose eyelid, the surface of the dorsal fin base, the inside surface of the pectoral fin base, the inside surface of the pelvic fin base, and the surface of the anal fin base. Control fish were anesthetized but not marked. During the 20-month trial, fish growth and retention, underwater visibility, and readability of the tags were determined. After 20 months, body length of marked greenling ($43.2{\pm}3.5cm$, mean ${\pm}$ standard deviation [SD]) did not differ from that of the control ($41.4{\pm}3.7cm$). Additionally, the body weight of marked greenling ($527.4{\pm}39.8g$, mean ${\pm}$ SD) did not differ from that of the controls ($505.9{\pm}31.7g$). Greenling retained >90% of the tags at the surface of the dorsal fin base. The anal fin base showed a higher tag retention rate than the inside surfaces of the pectoral fin and the pelvic fin bases (P < 0.05). Red and orange tags were identified more easily underwater than green and yellow tags. Green and yellow tags emitted fluorescence in response to a narrower range of light wavelengths. Thus, the VIE mark was easy to apply to greenling (< 1 min per fish) and was readily visible when viewed under an ultraviolet lamp.

Keywords

References

  1. Barrett NS. 1995. Short- and long-term movement patterns of six temperate reef fishes (Families Labridae and Monacanthidae). Mar Freshw Res 46, 853-860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF9950853.
  2. Bergman PK, Haw F, Blankenship HL and Buckley RM. 1992. Perspectives on design, use, and misuse of fish tags. Fisheries 17, 20-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1992)017<0020:PODUAM>2.0.CO;2.
  3. Buckley RM, West JE and Doty DC. 1994. Internal micro-tag systems for marking juvenile reef fishes. Bull Mar Sci 55, 848-857.
  4. Cody RP and Smith JK. 1991. Applied Statistics and the SAS Programming Language. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US, pp. 122-135.
  5. Crossland J. 1976. Snapper tagging in north-east New Zealand, 1974: analysis of methods, return rates, and movements. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 10, 675-686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1976.9515648.
  6. Crossland J. 1980. Population size and exploitation rate of snapper, Chrysophrys auratus, in the Hauraki Gulf from tagging experiments, 1975-1976. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 14, 255-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1980.9515868
  7. Dewey MR and Zigler SJ. 1996. An evaluation of fluorescent elastomer for marking bluegills in experimental studies. Prog Fish-Cult 58, 219-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1996)058<0219:AEOFEF>2.3.CO;2.
  8. Duncan DB. 1955. Multiple-range and multiple F tests. Biomentrics 11, 1-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3001478.
  9. Frederick JL. 1997. Evaluation of fluorescent elastomer injection as a method for marking small fish. Bull Mar Sci 61, 399-408.
  10. Jang MH, Yoon JD, Do Y and Joo GJ. 2007. Survival rate on the small cyprinidae by PIT tagging application. Korean J Ichthyol 19, 371-377.
  11. Jones GP. 1987. Competitive interactions among adults and juveniles in a coral reef fish. Ecology 68, 1534-1547. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1939237.
  12. McFarlane GA and Beamish RJ. 1990. Effect of an external tag on growth of sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), and consequences to mortality and age at maturity. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47, 1551-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f90-175.
  13. Park IS, Jo JH, Lee SJ, Kim YA, Park KE, Hur JW, Yoo JS and Song YC. 2003. Anaesthetic effect of lidocaine hydrochloride-sodium bicarbonate and MS-222 on the greenling (Hexagrammos otakii). J Korean Fish Soc 36, 449-453. https://doi.org/10.5657/kfas.2003.36.5.449
  14. Parker RO Jr. 1990. Tagging studies and diver observations of fish populations on live-bottom reefs of the U.S. Southeastern coast. Bull Mar Sci 46, 749-760.
  15. Serafy JE, Lutz SJ, Capo TR, Ortner PB and Lutz PL. 1995. Anchor tags affect swimming performance and growth of juvenile red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 27, 29-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10236249509378951.
  16. Tong LJ. 1978. Tagging snapper Chrysophrys auratus by scuba divers. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 12, 73-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1978.9515725
  17. Willis TJ and Babcock RC. 1998. Retention and in situ detectability of visible implant fluorescent elastomer (VIFE) tags in Pagrus auratus (Sparidae). N Z J Mar Freshw Res 32, 247-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1998.9516823
  18. Zerrenner A, Josephson DC and Krueger CC. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1997)059<0241:GMAMRO>2.3.CO;2.