Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 95, Issue 4, pp 463–468 | Cite as

Tagging the next generation: validation of trans-generational chemical tagging for an endangered fish

  • James A. Hobbs
  • Gonzalo Castillo
  • Galen Tigan
  • Joan Lindberg
  • Naoaki Ikemiyagi
  • Georgia Ramos
Article

Abstract

In this study we validated marking offspring through peritoneal injection of ripe females using two concentrations of strontium (strontium chloride hexahydrate). Larvae from treatments were monitored for condition morphometrics and tested for chemical mark incorporation in their otoliths via laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) to quantify the strontium concentration (Sr/Ca) and laser ablation multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-MC-ICPMS) to measure the strontium isotope ratios (87Sr:86Sr) of otoliths. Otolith strontium concentrations and strontium isotopes ratios were elevated in the high-concentration treatment, while the low-concentration and control treatments were not significantly different from each other. Larval size and eye diameter at hatch were similar among treatments; however, yolk and oil globule diameters were significantly reduced in the high-concentration treatment. Moreover, growth rates after 60 days post-hatch were significantly reduced in the high-concentration treatment relative to the low-concentration and control treatments, suggesting trans-generational tagging can have deleterious effects on offspring. Our study provides evidence for the efficacy of artificially marking offspring via injection of strontium into ripe females and could provide new tools for managing endangered fish populations; however, careful consideration of chemical concentrations and dosages may be required prior to its application in a fisheries management experiment.

Keywords

Otolith Microchemistry Trans-generational chemical tag Delta smelt Laser ablation 

References

  1. Almany GR, Berumen ML, Thorrold SR, Planes S, Jones GP (2007) Local replenishment of coral reef fish populations in a marine reserve. Science 316:742–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergenius MA, Meekan MG, Robertson DR, McCormick MI (2002) Larval growth predicts the recruitment success of coral reef fish. Oecologia 131:521–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brothers EB (1990) Otolith Marking. Pages 182–202 in Parker NC, Giorgi AE, Heidinger RC, Jester Jr DB, Prince ED Winans GA Editors. Fish-marking techniques. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 7, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  4. Campana SE, Chouinard GA, Hanson JM, Fréchet BJ (2000) Otolith elemental fingerprints as biological tracers of fish stocks. Fish Res 46:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elsdon TS, Gillanders BM (2003) Reconstructing migratory patterns of fish based on environmental influences on otolith chemistry. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 13:219–235Google Scholar
  6. Hare JA, Cowen RK (1997) Size, growth, development and survival of the planktonic larvae of Pomatomus saltatrix (Pisces: Pomatomidae). Ecology 78:2415–2431Google Scholar
  7. Hobbs JA, Yin QZ, Burton J, Bennett WA (2005) Retrospective determination of natal habitat for an estuarine fish with otolith strontium isotope ratios. Mar Freshw Res 56:655–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hobbs JA, Bennett WA, Burton JE, Gras MA (2007) Classification of larval and adult delta smelt to nursery areas by use of trace elemental fingerprinting. Trans Am Fish Soc 136:518–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Houde ED (1987) Fish early life dynamics and recruitment variability. Am Fish Soc Symp 2:17–29Google Scholar
  10. Jones GP, Milicich MJ, Emslie MJ, Lunow C (1999) Self-recruitment in a coral reef fish population. Nature 402:802–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones GP, Planes S, Thorrold SR (2005) Coral reef fish larvae settle close to home. Curr Biol 15:1314–1318. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.06.061 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuroki M, Buckley RM, LeClair LL, Hauser L (2010) Validation and efficacy of transgenerational mass marking of otoliths in viviparous fish larvae. J Fish Biol 77:292–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meekan MG, Fortier L (1996) Selection for fast growth during the larval life of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua on the Scotia Shelf. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 137:25–37Google Scholar
  14. Munro AR, Gillanders BM, Elsdon TS, Crook DA, Sanger AC (2008) Enriched stable isotope marking of juvenile golden perch (Macquaria ambigua) otoliths. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:276–285. doi:10.1139/F08-010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Munro AR, Gillanders BM, Thurstan S, Crook DA, Sanger AC (2009) Transgenerational marking of freshwater fishes with enriched stable isotopes: a tool for fisheries management. J Fish Biol 75:668–684. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02352.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nielsen LA (1992) Methods of marking fish and shellfish. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 23, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  17. Schroeder SL, Knudsen CM, Volk EC (1995) Marking salmon fry with strontium chloride solutions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1141–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Secor DH, White MG, Dean JM (1991) Immersion marking of larval and juvenile hatchery-produced striped bass with oxytetracycline. Trans Am Fish Soc 120:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Secor DH, Henderson-Arzapalo A, Piccoli PM (1995) Can otolith microchemistry chart patterns of migration and habitat utilization in anadromous fishes? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 192:15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Secor DH, Rooker JA, Zlokovitz E, Zdanowicz VS (2001) Identification of riverine, estuarine, and coastal contingents of Hudson River striped bass based upon otolith elemental fingerprints. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 211:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shippentower GE, Schreck CB, Heppell SA (2011) Who’s your momma? Recognizing maternal origin of juvenile steelhead using injections of strontium chloride to create transgenerational marks. Tran Am Fish Soc 140:1330–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swearer SE, Shima JS, Hellberg ME, Thorrold, SR, Jones GP, Robertson DR, Morgan SG, Selkoe KA, Ruiz GM (2002) Evidence of self-recruitment in demersal marine populations. Bull Mar Sci 70(suppl 1):251–271Google Scholar
  23. Thorrold SR, Jones GP, Hellberg ME, Burton RS, Swearer SE, Neigel JE, Morgan SG, Warner RR (2002) Quantifying larval retention and connectivity in marine populations with artificial and natural markers. Bull Mar Sci 70(suppl 1):291–308Google Scholar
  24. Thorrold SR, Jones GP, Planes S, Hare JA (2006) Transgenerational marking of embryonic otoliths in marine fishes using barium stable isotopes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:1193–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsukamoto K (1985) Mass marking of ayu plecoglossus-altivelis eggs and larvae by tetracycline-tagging of otoliths. Nip Suis Gak 51(6):903–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsukamoto K, Kuwada H, Hirokawa J, Oya M, Sekiya S, Fujimoto H, Imaizumi K (1989) Size-dependent mortality of red sea bream, pagarus major, juveniles released with fluorescent otolith-tags in News Bay, Japan. J Fish Biol 35:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williamson DH, Jones GP, Thorrold SR, Frisch AJ (2009) Transgenerational marking of marine fish larvae: stable isotope retention, physiological effects and health issues. J Fish Biol 74:891–905. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02176.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • James A. Hobbs
    • 1
  • Gonzalo Castillo
    • 2
  • Galen Tigan
    • 3
  • Joan Lindberg
    • 3
  • Naoaki Ikemiyagi
    • 4
  • Georgia Ramos
    • 1
  1. 1.Wildlife, Fish & Conservation Biology DepartmentUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceStocktonUSA
  3. 3.Fish Conservation and Culture LaboratoryUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  4. 4.Interdisciplinary Center for Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass SpectrometryUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations