Otolith mass marking techniques for aquaculture and restocking: benefits and limitations
The use of farmed and restocked fish to supplement the worldwide human consumption of fish, recreational fishing stocks, and conservation efforts, is growing at a rapid rate. Yet, monitoring the benefits of using hatchery-raised fish for supplementation is lacking, often due to hatcheries not marking or tagging all fish prior to release, despite a range of easy to apply, cost effective and accurate mass-marking methods being available to mark farmed and restocked fish en masse. Here we review otolith marking techniques that have the capability of mass marking millions of hatchery-reared fish that are, or could be, used for monitoring and compliance purposes. The otolith mass marking methods consist of otolith thermal marking and a range of otolith chemical marking methods (tetracyclines, alizarin compounds, calcein, strontium chloride, stable isotopes of Ba and Sr, and rare earth elements). We assessed and compared marking technique in terms of (1) ease of application, (2) cost of application, (3) mark retention and detectability, and (4) fish welfare. In addition, we determine the suitability of different otolith marking techniques for mass marking entire hatchery populations whether it be for restocking purposes, or for identifying and tracing escapees from aquaculture facilities. We conclude that although some techniques have restricted use due to regulations, the majority of otolith mass marking techniques are simple, easy to apply, cost effective and highly suitable for long term monitoring of hatchery produced fish.
KeywordsCost effectiveness Detection accuracy Marking efficiency Mark retention Mark longevity
Albert Shimmins Postgraduate Writing-up Award, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Australian Postgraduate Award, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Norwegian Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Fund (project #900710).
- Beacham TD, Wallace C, MacConnachie C, Jonsen K, McIntosh B, Candy JR, Devlin RH, Withler RE (2017) Population and individual identification of coho salmon in British Columbia through parentage-based tagging and genetic stock identification: an alternative to coded-wire tags. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 74:1391–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Crook DA, Gillanders BM, Sanger AC, Munro AR, O’Mahony DJ, Woodcock SH, Stephen T, Baumgartner LJ (2010) Methods for discriminating hatchery fish and outcomes of stocking in the Murray–Darling Basin. Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Native Fish Strategy Project MD741, Canberra, ACTGoogle Scholar
- Crook DA, O’Mahony DJ, Gillanders BM, Munro AR, Sanger AC (2012) Quantitative measurement of calcein fluorescence for non-lethal, field based discrimination of hatchery and wild fish. Am Fish Soc Symp 76:389–396Google Scholar
- Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) (2005) Protocols for the translocation of fish in Victorian inland public waters. Fisheries Victoria Management Report Series No. 24Google Scholar
- FAO (2016) The state of world fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome. 200 ppGoogle Scholar
- Gillanders BM, Elsdon TS, Munro AR (2006) Impacts of native fish stocking on fish within the Murray–Darling Basin. University of Adelaide, Murray–Darling Basin Commission Contract Number MD239, Murray–Darling Basin Commission Contract Number MD239, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
- Hagen P, Munk K, Van Alen B, White B (1995) Thermal mark technology for inseason fisheries management: a case study. Alask Fish Res Bull 2:143–155Google Scholar
- McGinnity P, Prodohl P, Ferguson A, Hynes R, Maoileidigh N, Baker N, Cotter D, O’Hea B, Cooke D, Rogan G, Taggart J, Cross T (2003) Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 270:2443–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Munk KM (1999) Discrimination of multi-country thermal mark codes by augmentation of coding schemes or marking mechanisms. (NPAFC Doc. 396). Alaska Department of Fish and Game CWT and Otolith Processing Lab, Box 25526, Juneau, Alaska, 99802, p 14Google Scholar
- Sanger AC, Crook DA (2007) Chemical marker registration: final report. Murray–Darling Basin Authority, Canberra, ACTGoogle Scholar
- Trefethen PS, Novotny AJ (1963) Marking fingerling salmon with trace elements and non-radioactive isotopes. In: North Atlantic fish marking symposium special publication No. 4, vol 11, pp 64–65Google Scholar
- Warren-Myers FW (2015) Enriched stable isotope mass marking techniques for aquaculture and fisheries. Doctoral dissertationGoogle Scholar