Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 651–664 | Cite as

A suite of standard post-tagging evaluation metrics can help assess tag retention for field-based fish telemetry research

  • Kayla M. Gerber
  • Martha E. Mather
  • Joseph M. Smith
Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Telemetry can inform many scientific and research questions if a context exists for integrating individual studies into the larger body of literature. Creating cumulative distributions of post-tagging evaluation metrics would allow individual researchers to relate their telemetry data to other studies. Widespread reporting of standard metrics is a precursor to the calculation of benchmarks for these distributions (e.g., mean, SD, 95% CI). Here we illustrate five types of standard post-tagging evaluation metrics using acoustically tagged Blue Catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) released into a Kansas reservoir. These metrics included: (1) percent of tagged fish detected overall, (2) percent of tagged fish detected daily using abacus plot data, (3) average number of (and percent of available) receiver sites visited, (4) date of last movement between receiver sites (and percent of tagged fish moving during that time period), and (5) number (and percent) of fish that egressed through exit gates. These metrics were calculated for one to three time periods: early (<10 d), during (weekly), and at the end of the study (5 months). Over three-quarters of our tagged fish were detected early (85%) and at the end (85%) of the study. Using abacus plot data, all tagged fish (100%) were detected at least one day and 96% were detected for > 5 days early in the study. On average, tagged Blue Catfish visited 9 (50%) and 13 (72%) of 18 within-reservoir receivers early and at the end of the study, respectively. At the end of the study, 73% of all tagged fish were detected moving between receivers. Creating statistical benchmarks for individual metrics can provide useful reference points. In addition, combining multiple metrics can inform ecology and research design. Consequently, individual researchers and the field of telemetry research can benefit from widespread, detailed, and standard reporting of post-tagging detection metrics.

Keywords

Acoustic tag Evaluation metrics Post tagging evaluation metrics Statistical benchmarks Tag retention Telemetry 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded with Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act monies processed through the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. This research was administered through the Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit [a cooperation between Kansas State University, the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (KDWPT), and the Wildlife Management Institute]. We are grateful to everyone from KDWPT who made this project possible. Kristen Ferry, Sarah Pautzke, Cristina Kennedy, and Zach Peterson contributed earlier insights into the tagging process. We thank the Kansas State University Aquatic Group for support and feedback. Tom Mosher, Phil Bettoli, and Hal Schramm commented on previous drafts. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. This research was conducted under the auspices of Kansas State University IACUC Protocols #3151 and 3151.1.

Supplementary material

11160_2017_9484_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 18 kb)

References

  1. Acolas ML, Rochard E, Le Pichon C, Rouleau E (2012) Downstream migration patterns of one-year-old hatchery-reared European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 430:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albanese B, Angermeier PL, Peterson JT (2009) Does mobility explain variation in colonisation and population recovery among stream fishes? Freshw Biol 54(7):1444–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alldredge P, Gutierrez M, Duvernell D, Schaefer J, Brunkow P, Matamoros W (2011) Variability in movement dynamics of topminnow (Fundulus notatus and F. olivaceus) populations. Ecol Freshw Fish 20(4):513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attwood CG, Cowley PD, Kerwath SE, Naesje TF, Okland F, Thorstad EB (2007) First tracking of white stumpnose Rhabdosargus globiceps (Sparidae) in a South African marine protected area. Afr J Mar Sci 29(1):147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baras E, Westerloppe L, Melard C, Philippart JC, Benech V (1999) Evaluation of implantation procedures for PIT-tagging juvenile Nile tilapia. N Am J Aquacult 61(3):246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellquist LF, Lowe CG, Caselle JE (2008) Fine-scale movement patterns, site fidelity, and habitat selection of ocean whitefish (Caulolatilus princeps). Fish Res 91(2–3):325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodine KA, Shoup DE (2010) Capture efficiency of Blue Catfish electrofishing and the effects of temperature, habitat, and reservoir location on electrofishing-derived length structure indices and relative abundance. N Am J Fish Manag 30(2):613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boone SS, Divers SJ, Camus AC, Peterson DL, Jennings CA, Shelton JL, Hernandez SM (2013) Pathologic and physiologic effects associated with long-term intracoelomic transmitters in captive Siberian sturgeon. N Am J Fish Manag 33(5):869–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bridger CJ, Booth RK (2003) The effects of biotelemetry transmitter presence and attachment procedures on fish physiology and behavior. Rev Fish Sci 11(1):13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broadhurst BT, Ebner BC, Clear RC (2009) Effects of radio-tagging on two-year-old, endangered Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica: Percichthyidae). Mar Freshw Res 60(4):341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown RS, Deng ZD, Cook KV, Pflugrath BD, Li X, Fu T, Martinez JJ, Li H, Trumbo BA, Ahmann ML, Seaburg AG (2013) A field evaluation of an external and neutrally buoyant acoustic transmitter for juvenile salmon: implications for estimating hydroturbine passage survival. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077744 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Caputo M, O’Connor CM, Hasler CT, Hanson KC, Cooke SJ (2009) Long-term effects of surgically implanted telemetry tags on the nutritional physiology and condition of wild freshwater fish. Dis Aquat Organ 84(1):35–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlson TJ, Brown RS, Stephenson JR, Pflugrath BD, Colotelo AH, Gingerich AJ, Benjamin PL, Langeslay MJ, Ahmann ML, Johnson RL, Skalski JR, Seaburg AG, Townsend RL (2012) The influence of tag presence on the mortality of juvenile Chinook Salmon exposed to simulated hydroturbine passage: implications for survival estimates and management of hydroelectric facilities. N Am J Fish Manag 32(2):249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Childs AR, Naesje TF, Cowley PD (2011) Long-term effects of different-sized surgically implanted acoustic transmitters on the sciaenid Arygyrosomus japonicus: breaking the 2% tag-to-body mass rule. Mar Freshw Res 62(5):432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crossman JA, Hammell KL, Litvak MK (2013) Experimental examination of surgical procedures for implanting sonic transmitters in juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon. N Am J Fish Manag 33(3):549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Danek T, Kalous L, Petrtyl M, Horky P (2014) Move or die: change in European Catfish (Silurus glanis L.) behaviour caused by oxygen deficiency. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 414:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donaldson MR, Hinch SG, Suski CD, Fisk AT, Heupel MR, Cooke SR (2014) Making connections in aquatic ecosystems with acoustic telemetry monitoring. Fr Ecol Environ 12(10):565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dresser BK, Kneib RT (2007) Site fidelity and movement patterns of wild subadult Red Drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus), within a salt marsh-dominated estuarine landscape. Fish Manag Ecol 14(3):183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ebner BC, Lintermans M, Jekabsons M, Dunford M, Andrews W (2009) A cautionary tale: surrogates for radio tagging practice do not always simulate the responses of closely related species. Mar Freshw Res 60(4):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Espeland SH, Gundersen AF, Olsen EM, Knutsen H, Gjosaeter J, Stenseth NC (2007) Home range and elevated egg densities within an inshore spawning ground of coastal Cod. ICES J Mar Sci 64(5):920–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferter K, Hartmann K, Kleiven AR, Moland E, Olsen EM (2015) Catch-and-release of Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua): post-release behaviour of acoustically pretagged fish in a natural marine environment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72(2):252–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Francis MP (2013) Temporal and spatial patterns of habitat use by juveniles of a small coastal shark (Mustelus lenticulatus) in an estuarine nursery. PLoS ONE 8(2):e57021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Gardner CJ, Deeming DC, Wellby I, Soulsbury CD, Eady PE (2015) Effects of surgically implanted tags and translocation on the movements of Common Bream Abramis brama (L.). Fish Res 167:252–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrett DL, Rabeni CF (2011) Intra-annual movement and migration of Flathead Catfish and Blue Catfish in the lower Missouri River and tributaries. In: Michaletz PH, Travnichek VH (eds) Conservation, ecology, and management of catfish: the second international symposium, American Fisheries Society, Symposium 77, Maryland, pp 459–509Google Scholar
  25. Gerber K (2015) Tracking Blue Catfish: quantifying system-wide distribution of a mobile fish predator throughout a large heterogeneous reservoir. MS Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KSGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilroy DJ, Jensen OP, Allen BC, Chandra S, Ganzorig B, Hogan Z, Maxted JT, Vander Zanden MJ (2010) Home range and seasonal movement of Taimen, Hucho taimen, in Mongolia. Ecol Freshw Fish 19(4):545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goyer K, Bertolo A, Pepino M, Magnan P (2014) Effects of lake warming on behavioural thermoregulatory tactics in a cold-water stenothermic fish. PLoS ONE 9(3):e92514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092514 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanson KC, Ostrand KG (2013) Evaluation of transmitter application techniques for use in research of adult Eulachon. N Am J Fish Manag 33(6):1119–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hitt NP, Angermeier PL (2008) Evidence for fish dispersal from spatial analysis of stream network topology. J N Am Benthol Soc 27(2):304–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holbrook SC, Byars WD, Lamprecht SD, Leitner JK (2012) Retention and physiological effects of surgically implanted telemetry transmitters in Blue Catfish. N Am J Fish Manage 32(2):276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hubert WA (1999) Biology and management of Channel Catfish. In: Irwin ER, Hubert WA, Rabeni CF, Schramm HL, Coon T (eds) Catfish 2000: proceedings of the international ictalurid symposium, American Fisheries Society, Symposium 24, Maryland, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  32. Humston R, Ault JS, Larkin MF, Luo J (2005) Movements and site fidelity of the bonefish Albula vulpes in the northern Florida Keys determined by acoustic telemetry. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 291:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hussey NE, Kessel ST, Aarestrup K, Cooke SJ, Cowley PD, Fisk AT, Harcourt RG, Holland KN, Iverson SJ, Kocik JF, Mills Flemming JE, Whoriskey FG (2015) Aquatic animal telemetry: a panoramic window into the underwater world. Science 348:1255642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ivasauskas TJ, Bettoli PW, Holt T (2012) Effects of suture material and ultrasonic transmitter size on survival, growth, wound healing, and tag expulsion in Rainbow Trout. T Am Fish Soc 141(1):100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jadot C, Donnay A, Ylieff M, Poncin P (2005) Impact implantation of a transmitter on Sarpa salpa behaviour: study with a computerized video tracking system. J Fish Biol 67(2):589–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jepsen N, Koed A, Thorstad EB, Baras E (2002) Surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish: how much have we learned? Hydrobiologia 483(1–3):239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jepsen N, Christofferson M, Munksgaard T (2008) The level of predation used as an indicator of tagging/handling effects. Fish Manag Ecol 15(5–6):365–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson JL, Hintz WD, Garvey JF, Phelps QE, Tripp SJ (2014) Evaluating growth, survival and swimming performance to determine the feasibility of telemetry for age-0 Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). Am Midl Nat 171(1):68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koeck B, Gudefin A, Romans P, Loubet J, Lenfant P (2013) Effects of intracoelomic tagging procedure on White Seabream (Diplodus sargus) behavior and survival. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 440:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koster WM, Dawson DR, Crook DA (2013) Downstream spawning migration by the amphidromous Australian Grayling (Prototroctes maraena) in a coastal river in south-eastern Australia. Mar Freshw Res 64(1):31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee C (2009) Annual movement patterns of adult blue catfish in a large reservoir using ultrasonic telemetry. MS Thesis, University of OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindberg M, Rivinoja P, Eriksson LO, Alanara A (2009) Post-release and pre-spawning behaviour of simulated escaped adult Rainbow Trout Oncorhynhus mykiss in Lake Ovre Fryken. Sweden. J Fish Biol 74(3):691–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Luo H, Duan X, Liu S, Chen D (2014) Effects of surgically implanted dummy ultrasonic transmitters on physiological response of Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis. Fish Physiol Biochem 40(5):1521–1532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Luo HW, Duan XB, Wang S, Liu SP, Chen DQ (2015) Effects of surgically implanted dummy ultrasonic transmitters on growth, survival and transmitter retention of Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis. Environ Biol Fish 98(4):1131–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K (2015) cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.0.3Google Scholar
  46. Makiguchi Y, Ueda H (2009) Effects of external and surgically implanted dummy radio transmitters on mortality, swimming performance and physiological status of juvenile Masu Salmon Oncorhynchus masou. J Fish Biol 74(1):304–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Marty GD, Summerfelt RC (1986) Pathways and mechanisms for expulsion of surgically implanted dummy transmitters from Channel Catfish. Trans Am Fish Soc 115(4):577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marty GD, Summerfelt RC (1990) Wound-healing in Channel Catfish by epithelialization and contraction of granulation-tissue. Trans Am Fish Soc 119(1):145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mather ME, Finn JT, Pautzke SM, Fox D, Savoy T, Brundage HM III, Deegan LA, Muth RM (2010) Diversity in destinations, routes and timing of small adult and sub-adult Striped Bass Morone saxatilis on their southward autumn migration. J Fish Biol 77(10):2326–2337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mather ME, Finn JT, Kennedy CG, Deegan LA, Smith JM (2013) What happens in an estuary doesn’t stay there: patterns of biotic connectivity resulting from long term ecological research. Oceanography 26(3):168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Metcalfe JD (2006) Fish population structuring in the North Sea: understanding processes and mechanisms from studies of the movements of adults. J Fish Biol 69:48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer CG, Honebrink RR (2005) Transintestinal expulsion of surgically implanted dummy transmitters by Bluefin Trevally: implications for long-term movement studies. Trans Am Fish Soc 134(3):602–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM (eds) (2001) Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  54. Montoya A, Lopez-Olmeda JF, Lopez-Capel A, Sanchez-Vazquez FJ, Perez-Ruzafa A (2012) Impact of a telemetry-transmitter implant on daily behavioral rhythms and physiological stress indicators in Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata). Mar Environ Res 79:48–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ng CL, Able KW, Grothues TM (2007) Habitat use, site fidelity, and movement of adult Striped Bass in a southern New Jersey estuary based on mobile acoustic telemetry. Trans Am Fish Soc 136(5):1344–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pautzke SM, Mather ME, Finn JT, Deegan LA, Muth RM (2010) Seasonal use of a New England estuary by foraging contingents of migratory Striped Bass. Ttans Am Fish Soc 139(1):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pepino M, Rodriguez MA, Magnan P (2015) Shifts in movement behavior of spawning fish under risk of predation by land-based consumers. Behav Ecol 26(4):996–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robillard MMR, Payne LM, Vega RR, Stunz GW (2015) Best practices for surgically implanting acoustic transmitters in Spotted Seatrout. Trans Am Fish Soc 144(1):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rudd MB, Aherns RNM, Pine WE III, Bolden SK (2014) Empirical, spatially explicit natural mortality and movement rate estimates for the threatened Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 71(9):1407–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. R Development Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  61. Sandstrom P, Ammann AJ, Michel C, Singer G, Chapman ED, Lindley S, MacFarlane RB, Klimley AP (2013) Growth, survival, and tag retention of Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and its application to survival estimates. Environ Biol Fish 96(2–3):145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schroepfer RL, Szedlmayer ST (2006) Estimates of residence and site fidelity for Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanhus on artificial reefs in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Bull Mar Sci 78(1):93–101Google Scholar
  63. Semmens BX (2008) Acoustically derived fine-scale behaviors of juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) associated with intertidal benthic habitats in an estuary. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65(9):2053–2062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sippel T, Eveson JP, Galuardi B, Lam C, Hoyle S, Maunder M, Kleiber P, Carvalho F, Tsontos V, Teo SLH, Aires-da-Silva A, Nicol S (2015) Using movement data from electronic tags in fisheries stock assessment: a review of models, technology and experimental design. Fish Res 163(SI):152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Summerfelt RC, Mosier D (1984) Transintestinal expulsion of surgically implanted dummy transmitters by Channel Catfish. Tran Am Fish Soc 113(6):760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor MK, Cook KV, Lewis B, Schmidt D, Cooke SJ (2011) Effects of intracoelomic radio transmitter implantation on Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). Northwest Sci 85(4):542–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 21(1):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thorstad EB, Kerwath SE, Attwood CG, Okland F, Wilke CG, Cowley PD, Naesje TF (2009) Long-term effects of two sizes of surgically implanted acoustic transmitters on a predatory marine fish (Pomatomus saltatrix). Mar Freshw Res 60(2):183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tuohy E, Nemeth MI, Bejarano I, Scharer MT, Appeldoorn RS (2015) In situ tagging of Nassau Grouper Epinephelus striatus using closed-circuit rebreathers at a spawning aggregation in Puerto Rico. Mar Technol Soc J 49(1):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wagner KA, Woodley CM, Seaburg AG, Skalski JR, Eppard MB (2014) Physiological stress responses to prolonged exposure to MS-222 and surgical implantation in juvenile Chinook Salmon. N Am J Fish Manag 34(4):863–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yoon JD, Kim JH, Jo HB, Yeom MA, Heo WM, Joo GJ, Jang MH (2015) Seasonal habitat utilization and movement patterns of the threatened Brachymystax lenok tsinlingensis in a Korean river. Environ Biol Fish 98(1):225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kayla M. Gerber
    • 1
    • 4
  • Martha E. Mather
    • 2
  • Joseph M. Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.U. S. Geological Survey, Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  3. 3.ICFSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife ResourcesBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations