A comparison of Floy and soft VIalpha tags on hatchery Arctic charr, with emphasis on tag retention, growth and survival

  • Audun H. Rikardsen
  • Mary Woodgate
  • Daniel A. Thompson
Chapter
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes book series (DEBF, volume 22)

Synopsis

The Roy PIP-69 ‘fingerling’ tag and the soft VIalpha tag are designed to be used on small salmonid fishes (> 100 and > 150 mm, respectively). The two tags were compared for 160 days on hatchery-reared Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, (170–209 mm). Tag retention and effects on growth rate and survival were analysed. VIalpha-tagged and untagged control fish had similar growth rates and grew significantly faster than Roy-tagged fish during the experiment. Tag retention was significantly higher for Floy tags (94%) than for Vlalpha tags (78%). Most VIalpha tag loss (11%) took place within the first 10 days of tagging while there were no Floy tags lost during this period. Survival rates were about equal for all three groups (96–98%), and thus the tags did not seem to affect the survival of charr under hatchery conditions.

Key words

Salvelinus alpinus Salmonidae tagging tag loss fingerling tag 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Berg, O.K. and M. Berg. 1987. Effects of Carlin tagging on the mortality and growth of sea trout Salmo trim L. Fauna Norv. Ser. A 8: 15–20.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, O.K. and M. Berg. 1990. Effects of Carlin tagging on the mortality and growth of anadromous Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (L.). Aquacult. Fish. Manage. 21: 221–227.Google Scholar
  3. Bergman, P.K., E Haw, H.L. Blankenship and R.M. Buckley. 1992. Perspectives on design, use, and misuse of fish tags. Fisheries 17 (4): 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan, R. and J. Ney. 1994. Visible implant tag retention by and effects on condition of a stream population of brook trout. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 14: 216–219.Google Scholar
  5. Dussault, C. and M.A. Rodriguez. 1997. Field trials of marking stream salmonids by dye injection and coded-wire-tagging. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 17: 451–456.Google Scholar
  6. Farooqi, M.A., S.A. Nicholson and M.W. Aprahamian. 1995. Visible implant (VI) tag retention in Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.). Fish. Manage. Ecol 2–243–245.Google Scholar
  7. Hansen, L.P. 1988. Effects of Carlin tagging and fin clipping on survival of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) released as smolts. Aquaculture 70: 391–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haw, F., P.K. Bergman, R.A. Fralick, R M Buckley and H.L. Blankenship. 1990. Visible implanted fish tag. Amer. Fish. Soc, Symp. 7: 311–315.Google Scholar
  9. Isaksson, A. and P.K. Bergman. 1978. An evaluation of two tagging methods and survival rates of different age and treatment groups of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts. J. Agr. Res. Icel. 10: 74–99.Google Scholar
  10. Jobling, M. 1994. Fish bioenergetics. Chapman and Hall, London. 326 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Jobling, M., E.H. Jorgensen, A.M. Arnesen and E. Ringo. 1993. Effects of stocking density on food intake, growth performance and oxygen consumption in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Aquaculture 110: 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kincaid, H.L. and G.T. Calkins. 1992. Retention of visible implant tags in lake trout and Atlantic salmon. Prog. Fish-Cult. 54: 163–170.Google Scholar
  13. Liljedal, S., I. Folstad and F. Skarstein. 1999. Secondary sex traits, parasites, immunity and ejaculate quality in the Arctic charr. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biol. Sci. 266: 1893–1898.Google Scholar
  14. McFarlane, GA., R.S. Wydoski and E.D. Prince. 1990. Historical review of the development of external tags and marks. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 7: 9–29.Google Scholar
  15. McMahon, TX., S.R. Dalbey, S.C. Ireland, J.P. Magee and P.A. Byorth. 1996. Field evaluation of visible implant tag retention by brook trout, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and Arctic grayling. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 16: 921–925.Google Scholar
  16. Moffett, I.J.J., W.W. Crozier and G.J.A. Kennedy. 1997. A comparison of five external marks for Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Fish. Manage. Ecol, 4: 49–53.Google Scholar
  17. Mourning, T.E., K.D. Fausch and C. Gowan. 1994. Comparison of visible implant tags and Floy anchor tags on hatchery rainbow trout. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 14: 636–642.Google Scholar
  18. Nielsen, L.A. 1992. Methods of marking fish and shellfish. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 23, Bethesda. 208 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Niva, T. 1995. Retention of visible implant tags by juvenile brown trout. J. Fish Biol. 46: 997–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rikardsen, A.H. 2000. Effects of Floy and soft Vlalpha tags on growth and survival of Arctic charr. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mariage. 20: 719–728.Google Scholar
  21. Rikardsen, andH., P.-A. Amundsen, P.A. Bjorn and M. Johansen. 2000. Comparison of growth, diet and food consumption of sea-run and lake-dwelling Arctic chart J. Fish Biol. 57: 1172–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rikardsen, A.H. and J.M. Elliott. 2000. Variations in juvenile growth, energy allocation and life-history strategies of two populations of Arctic chart in north Norway. J. Fish Biol. 56: 328— 346.Google Scholar
  23. Rikardsen, andH., M.-A. Svenning and A. Klemetsen. 1997. The relationships between anadromy, sex ratio and parr growth of Arctic chart in a lake in north Norway. J. Fish Biol. 51: 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siikavuopio, S.I. and M. Jobling. 1995. The effects of stocking density on survival and growth of wild-caught Arctic chair. Nord. J. Freshwat. Res. 71: 419–423.Google Scholar
  25. Sæther, B.-S., H.K. Johnsen and M. Jobling. 1996. Seasonal changes in food consumption and growth of Arctic chart exposed to either simulated natural or a 12:12 LD photoperiod at constant water temperature. J. Fish Biol. 48: 1113–1122.Google Scholar
  26. Zerrenner, A., D.C. Josephson and C.C. Krueger. 1997. Growth, mortality, and mark retention of hatchery brook trout marked with visible implant tags, jaw tags, and adipose fin clips. Prog. Fish-Cult. 59: 241–245.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audun H. Rikardsen
    • 1
  • Mary Woodgate
    • 2
  • Daniel A. Thompson
    • 3
  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Northwest Marine TechnologyOlympiaUSA
  3. 3.Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations