Development and testing of attachment methods for pop-up satellite archival transmitters in European eel

Animal Biotelemetry

Finn Økland⁴  Eva B Thorstad⁴  Håkan Westerberg³  Kim Aarestrup¹  Julian D Metcalfe² 

[1] Technical University of Denmark, Section for Freshwater Fisheries and Ecology, Silkeborg, DK-8600, Denmark

[2] Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft Laboratory, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK

[3] Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm, 178 93, Sweden

[4] Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, NO-7485, Norway

关键词: Telemetry;    Tagging effect;    External tagging;    Satellite tag;    Data storage tag;   

Others  :  791280
DOI  :  10.1186/2050-3385-1-3

 received in 2012-10-29, accepted in 2013-02-07,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Four methods for attaching pop-up satellite transmitters to European eel were tested in the laboratory by recording long-term tag retention, growth and survival; short-term behavioral responses; and physical damage from attachments.

Results

All eels survived until they lost their tag, or until end of the six-month study. Specific growth rate did not differ between tagged fish and controls. Tag retention varied from 0% to 100% among attachment methods. A tagging method that uses the strength of the eel skin by attaching the tag to the skin at three points is recommended for ocean migration studies based on a long tag retention time, minimal behavioral reactions, negligible damage to the swimming muscle, and minimal physical damage both for fish retaining and losing the tag. Although tag retention was 50% over six months, those losing their tags still retained them for 114 to 134 days. Another method had higher tag retention (100%), but required the use of steel wires that moved upwards through the muscle over time. This method was regarded as less suitable because of a strong behavioral reaction in the first two days after tagging and damage to the swimming muscle. Results from 275 silver eels released on European coasts equipped with pop-up satellite transmitters or similarly sized pop-up data storage tags to study the ocean spawning migration indicated a large premature tag release. This was partly related to mechanical tag loss, but probably mainly to a high predation rate (>20% confirmed predations of eels with pop-up satellite transmitters). Mean time to premature tag release was 14 to 21 days (maximum nine months).

Conclusions

Laboratory and field data showed that pop-up satellite transmitters attached to eels can remain attached for six to nine months, but that tag retention is a challenge. Hiding behavior in a structured habitat increased the risk of entanglement and tag loss. In ocean migration studies, consideration should be given to transportation and release off shore instead of in shallower areas where they are more likely to seek the seabed and hide in structured habitats. Behavioral reactions indicate that data recorded during the first two to three days after tagging may not reflect natural behavior.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Økland et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Aarestrup K, Økland F, Hansen MM, Righton D, Gargan P, Castonguay M, Bernatchez L, Howey P, Sparholt H, Pedersen MI, McKinley RS: Oceanic spawning migration of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Science 2009, 325:1660.
• [2]Tesch FW: The Eel. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2003.
• [3]Bridger CJ, Booth RJ: The effects of biotelemetry transmitter presence and attachment procedures on fish physiology and behaviour. Rev Fish Sci 2003, 11:13-34.
• [4]Thorstad EB, Økland F, Finstad B: Effects of telemetry transmitters on swimming performance of adult Atlantic salmon. J Fish Biol 2000, 57:531-535.
• [5]Thorstad EB, Økland F, Heggberget TG: Are long term negative effects from external tags underestimated? - Fouling of an externally attached telemetry transmitter. J Fish Biol 2001, 59:1092-1094.
• [6]Cottrill A, Økland F, Aarestrup K, Jepsen N, Koed A, Hunter KJ, Butterworth KG, McKinley RS: Evaluation of three telemetry transmitter attachment methods for female silver-phase American eels (Anguilla rostrata Leseur). J Great Lakes Res 2006, 32:502-511.
• [7]Broadhurst BT, Ebner BC, Clear RC: Radio-tagging flexible-bodied fish: temporary confinement enhances radio-tag retention. Marine Freshw Res 2009, 60:356-360.
• [8]Burgerhout E, Manabe R, Brittijn SA, Aoyama J, Tsukamoto K, van den Thillart GE: Dramatic effect of pop-up satellite tags on eel swimming. Naturwissenschaften 2011, 98:631-634.
• [9]Methling C, Tudorache C, Skov PV, Steffensen JF: Pop up satellite tags impair swimming performance and energetics of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). PLoS One 2011, 6:e20797.
• [10]Deelder CL: Synopsis of biological data on the eel Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758). In FAO Fisheries Synopsis no. 80, revision 1,1984. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1984.
• [11]Jellyman D, Tsukamoto K: First use of archival transmitters to track migrating freshwater eels Anguilla dieffenbachii at sea. MEPS 2002, 233:207-215.
• [12]Jellyman D, Tsukamoto K: Swimming depths of offshore migrating longfin eels Anguilla dieffenbachii. MEPS 2005, 286:261-267.
• [13]Jellyman D, Tsukamoto K: Vertical migrations may control maturation in migrating female Anguilla dieffenbachii. MEPS 2010, 404:241-247.
• [14]Winter HV, Jansen HM, Adam B, Schwevers U: Behavioural effects of surgically implanting transponders in European eel, Anguilla anguilla. In Aquatic Telemetry: Advances and Applications: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held in Europe. Edited by Spedicato MT, Lembo G, Marmulla G. Rome: FAO/COISPA; 2005.
• [15]Holliday FGT, Tytler P, Young AH: Activity levels of trout (Salmo trutta) in Airthrey Loch, Stirkling, and Loch Leven, Kinross. Proc R Soc Edinb (B) 1972, 74:315-331.
• [16]Hart LG, Summerfelt RC: Surgical procedures for implanting ultrasonic transmitters into flathead catfish (Polydictis olivaris). Trans Am Fish Soc Symp 1975, 104:56-59.
• [17]Beaumont WRC, Clough S, Ladle M, Welton JS: A method for the attachment of miniature radio tags to small fish. Fish Man Ecol 1996, 3:201-207.
• [18]Baras E, Jeandrain D: Evaluation of surgery procedures for tagging eel Anguilla anguilla (L.) with biotelemetry transmitters. Hydrobiologia 1998, 372:107-111.
• [19]Davidsen JG, Finstad B, Økland F, Thorstad EB, Mo TA, Rikardsen AH: Early marine migration of European silver eel (Anguilla anguilla) in Northern Norway. J Fish Biol 2011, 78:1390-1404.
• [20]The eeliad project http://www.eeliad.com webcite
• [21]GALATHEA 3 project http://www.galathea3.dk webcite
• [22]Durif C, Dufour S, Elie P: The silvering process of Anguilla anguilla: a new classification from the yellow resident to the silver migrating stage. J Fish Biol 2005, 66:1025-1043.
• [23]Durif C, Guibert A, Elie P: Morphological discrimination of the silvering stages of the European eel. In Eels at The Edge: Science, Status, and Conservation Concerns. Volume 58 of American Fisheries Association. Edited by Casselman JM, Cairns DK. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Association; 2009:103-111.
• [24]Iversen MH, Økland F, Thorstad EB, Finstad B: The efficacy of Aqui-S vet. (iso-eugenol) and metomidate as anaesthetics in European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.), and their effects on animal welfare and primary and secondary stress responses. Aquacult Res 2012. in press
• [25]Wootton RJ: Ecology of Teleost Fishes. London: Chapman and Hall; 1990.