A suite of standard post-tagging evaluation metrics can help assess tag retention for field-based fish telemetry research
- 274 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAcoustic tag Evaluation metrics Post tagging evaluation metrics Statistical benchmarks Tag retention Telemetry
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Lee C (2009) Annual movement patterns of adult blue catfish in a large reservoir using ultrasonic telemetry. MS Thesis, University of OklahomaGoogle Scholar
- Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K (2015) cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.0.3Google Scholar
- Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM (eds) (2001) Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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