Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

An introduction to the practical and ethical perspectives on the need to advance and standardize the intracoelomic surgical implantation of electronic tags in fish

  • Richard S. Brown
  • M. Brad Eppard
  • Karen J. Murchie
  • Jennifer L. Nielsen
  • Steven J. Cooke
Research Paper

Abstract

The intracoelomic surgical implantation of electronic tags (including radio and acoustic telemetry transmitters, passive integrated transponders and archival biologgers) is frequently used for conducting studies on fish. Electronic tagging studies provide information on the spatial ecology, behavior and survival of fish in marine and freshwater systems. However, any surgical procedure, particularly one where a laparotomy is performed and the coelomic cavity is opened, has the potential to alter the survival, behavior or condition of the animal which can impair welfare and introduce bias. Given that management, regulatory and conservation decisions are based on the assumption that fish implanted with electronic tags have similar fates and behavior relative to untagged conspecifics, it is critical to ensure that best surgical practices are being used. Also, the current lack of standardized surgical procedures and reporting of specific methodological details precludes cross-study and cross-year analyses which would further progress the field of fisheries science. This compilation of papers seeks to identify the best practices for the entire intracoelomic tagging procedure including pre- and post-operative care, anesthesia, wound closure, and use of antibiotics. Although there is a particular focus on salmonid smolts given the large body of literature available on that group, other life-stages and species of fish are discussed where there is sufficient knowledge. Additional papers explore the role of the veterinarian in fish surgeries, the need for minimal standards in the training of fish surgeons, providing a call for more complete and transparent procedures, and identifying trends in procedures and research needs. Collectively, this body of knowledge should help to improve data quality (including comparability and repeatability), enhance management and conservation strategies, and maintain the welfare status of tagged fish.

Keywords

Surgery Tagging Transmitter Telemetry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Alison Colotelo for kindly providing comments on this introductory paper. The following referees kindly evaluated the papers considered for this special issue: Tim Clark, Thomas Grothues, Erica Eliason, Jesse Trushenski, Tom Binder, Sarah McConnachie, Daniel Mulcahy, Chris Vandergoot, Martyn Lucas, Craig Bihun, Tony Goldberg, Cory Suski, Greg Gaulke, Eric Hockersmith, Caleb Hasler, Edd Brooks, Alison Collins, Chris Holbrook, Brendan Ebner, Katrina Cook, Craig Harms, Marie-Laure Acolas, Katherine Deters, Adam Daniel, Jim Boyd, Brian Graeb and Brenton Zampatti.

References

  1. Arnold G, Dewar H (2001) Electronic tags in marine fisheries: a 30-year perspective. In: Sibert JR, Nielsen JL (eds) Eletronic Tagging and Tracking in Marine Fishes. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 7–64Google Scholar
  2. Block BA (2005) Physiological ecology in the 21st century: Advancements in biologging science. Integr Comp Biol 45:305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bridger CJ, Booth RK (2003) The effects of biotelemetry transmitter presence and attachment procedures on fish physiology and behavior. Rev Fish Sci 11:13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown RS, Carlson TJ, Welch AE, Stephenson JR, Abernathy CS (2009) Assessment of barotraumas from rapid decompression of depth-acclimated juvenile Chinook salmon bearing radiotelemetry transmitters. Trans Am Fish Soc 138:1285–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter KM, Woodley CM, Brown RS (2011) A review of tricaine methanesulfonate for anesthesia of fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9188-0
  6. Chomyshyn L, McConnachie SH, Cooke SJ (2011) Evaluation of water entry into the coelom and different levels of aseptic technique during surgical implantation of electronic tags in freshwater fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9189-z
  7. Cooke SJ (2008) Biotelemetry and biologging in endangered species research and animal conservation: relevance to regional, national, and IUCN Red List threat assessments. Endanger Species Res 4:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke SJ, Wagner GN (2004) Training, experience, and opinions of researchers who use surgical techniques to implant telemetry devices into fish. Fisheries 29(12):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke SJ, Wagner GN, Brown RS, Deters KA (2011a) Training considerations for the intracoelomic implantation of electronic tags in fish with a summary of common surgical errors. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9184-4
  10. Cooke SJ, Woodley CM, Eppard MB, Brown RS, Nielsen JL (2011b) Advancing the surgical implantation of electronic tags in fish: a gap analysis and research agenda based on a review of trends in intracoelomic tagging effects studies. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9193-3
  11. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Wikelski M, Andrews RD, Wolcott TG, Butler PJ (2004) Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19:334–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harmon TS (2009) Methods for reducing stressors and maintaining water quality associated with live fish transport in tanks: a review of the basics. Rev Aqua 1:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harms CA, Lewbart GA (2011) The veterinarian’s role in surgical implantation of electronic tags in fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9185-3
  14. Harms CA, Lewbart GA (2000) Surgery in fish. In: Bennett RA (ed) Veterinary clinics of North America: exotic animal practice. Saunders, New York, pp 759–774Google Scholar
  15. Harnish RA, Colotelo AH, Brown RS (2011) A review of polymer-based water conditioners for reduction of handling-related injury. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9187-1
  16. Hart LG, Summerfelt RC (1975) Surgical procedures for implanting ultrasonic transmitters into flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Trans Am Fish Soc 104:56–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jepsen N, Koed A, Thorstad EB, Baras E (2002) Surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish: how much have we learned? Hydrobiologia 483:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loher T, Rensmeyer R (2011) Physiological responses of Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis, to intracoelomic implantation of electronic archival tags, with a review of tag implantation techniques employed in flatfishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9192-4
  19. Lucas MC, Baras E (2000) Methods for studying spatial behavior of freshwater fishes in the natural environment. Fish Fish 1:283–316Google Scholar
  20. Mellas EJ, Haynes JM (1985) Swimming performance and behavior of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and white perch (Morone americana): Effects of attaching telemetry transmitters. Can J Fish Aquatic Sci 42:488–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulcahy DM (2003) Surgical implantation of transmitters into fish. ILAR Journal 44:295–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mulcahy DM (2011) Antibiotic use during the intracoelomic implantation of electronic tags into fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9190-6
  23. Oldenburg EW, Colotelo AH, Brown RS, Eppard MB (2011) Holding of juvenile salmonids for surgical implantation of electronic tags: a review and recommendations. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9186-2
  24. Portz DE, Woodley CM, Cech JJ Jr (2006) Stress-associated impacts of short-term holding on fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 16:125–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramstad K, Woody CA (2003) Radio tag retention and tag-related mortality among adult sockeye salmon. N Am J Fish Manage 23:978–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ross LG, Ross B (2008) Anesthetic and Sedative Techniques for Aquatic Animals. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, p 222Google Scholar
  27. Sibert JR, Nielsen JL (2001) Electronic tagging and tracking in marine fisheries. Proc Symp Tagging and Tracking Marine Fish Electronic Devices, Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  28. Summerfelt RC, Smith L (1990) Anesthesia, surgery, and related techniques. In: Schreck CB, Moyle PB (eds) Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp 213–272Google Scholar
  29. Thiem JD, Taylor MK, McConnachie SH, Binder TR, Cooke SJ (2011) Trends in the reporting of tagging procedures for fish telemetry studies that have used surgical implantation of transmitters: a call for more complete reporting. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9194-2
  30. Thorstad EB, Økland F, Heggberget TG (2001) Are long term negative effects from external tags underestimated? Fouling of an externally attached telemetry transmitter. J Fish Biol 59:1092–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wagner GN, Cooke SJ (2005) Methodological approaches and opinions of researchers involved in the surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish. J Aquat Anim Health 17:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wagner GN, Stevens D, Harvey-Clark C (1999) Wound healing in rainbow trout following surgical site preparation with a povidone-iodine antiseptic. J Aquat Anim Health 11:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagner GN, Cooke SJ, Brown RS, Deters KA (2011) Surgical implantation techniques for electronic tags in fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9191-5
  34. Winger PD, Walsh SJ (2001) Tagging of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) with intragastric transmitters: effects of forced insertion and voluntary ingestion on retention, food consumption and survival. J Appl Ichthyol 17:234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard S. Brown
    • 1
  • M. Brad Eppard
    • 2
  • Karen J. Murchie
    • 3
  • Jennifer L. Nielsen
    • 4
  • Steven J. Cooke
    • 3
  1. 1.Ecology GroupPacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  2. 2.United States Army Corps of Engineers, Portland DistrictPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  4. 4.United States Geological SurveyAlaska Science CenterAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations