**The title, authors, and abstract for this completion
report are provided below. For a copy of
the completion report, please contact the GLFC via e-mail or via telephone at 734-662-3209**
Standardized
surgical procedure for the implantation of electronic tags in key Great Lakes
fishes – Version 1.0.
1 Carleton University, Ottawa, ON
2 College of The Bahamas, The Bahamas
3 University of Prince Edward Island, PEI
4 University of
Wisconsin-Madison, WI
September 2012
ABSTRACT:
Critical aspects of our
knowledge of fish behavior, ecology, and physiology rely upon our ability to study
free-swimming fish in their natural environment (Claireaux
et al. 1995). Without this information, the management and conservation of
fish, other aquatic organisms, and environments is very difficult. One suite of
methods that enable us to acquire this knowledge is collectively referred to as
biotelemetry and biologging (Cooke et al. 2004; Block
2005). The characteristics of biotelemetry and biologging
are similar; both involve the monitoring behavioural,
physiological, or environmental information or combination of these from an
animal remotely. Common techniques in biotelemetry include radio technology,
acoustic technology and passive integrated transponder (PIT) technology whereas
biologging includes archival loggers. Relative to
many other fisheries techniques, these tools are recent (i.e., 1950s). Because
of the immense power of this technology to elucidate fundamental and applied
aspects of fish ecology, biotelemetry and biologging
techniques are becoming common (Lucas and Baras 2000;
Cooke et al. 2004; Block 2005). As a result, state, provincial, federal, and
tribal biologists and managers, academics, and even fish culturists are
adopting these techniques widely.
In recent years there has been
an apparent increase in the use of these technologies, and in particular
telemetry, to study the spatial ecology and mortality of fish in the Laurentian
Great Lakes. In fact, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission has recently
received funds enabling the acquisition of significant telemetry infrastructure
that could be used by researchers to generate data in support of Great Lakes
management. The installation of telemetry arrays in the Great Lakes is similar
to several other initiatives in the Pacific Ocean (Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking
program) and globally (the Ocean Tracking Network) where multiple users
collaborate on different projects, each user depending upon telemetry
technology as the backbone for their project. Data on fish detections are
typically stored in a common database with appropriate meta-data. One of the
main benefits of a common database is that it enables comparative analyses to
occur. In the Columbia Basin, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has
recently recognized the power in conducting such broad-scale comparative
analyses of telemetry data; they also realized that such comparisons are not
yet possible given that the studies in the basin utilize different handling and
tagging techniques (Brown et al. 2010). Given that there is wide body of
literature documenting negative impacts of tagging (Bridger and Booth 2003),
and given the many different ways in which animals can be tagged, there is a
need to develop and validate standard techniques for tagging to enable
comparisons among and between studies conducted by different researchers (Cooke
and Wagner 2004; Wagner and Cooke 2005).
Beyond the benefits of
comparative analyses, any attempts to refine tagging techniques will also
improve the quality of the data being collected. A tenet of all tagging studies
is that the presence of the tag or the tagging procedure do
not significantly alter the behaviour, survival,
physiology, growth, health or fitness of tagged fish relative to untagged conspecifics (Bridger and Booth 2003). Management decisions
based on unreliable mortality estimates or habitat associations could lead to
costly mistakes. Increasingly, researchers are also required to demonstrate to
independent bodies (in the US called Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committees and in Canada called Animal Care Committees) that the techniques
used in the study of fish and other vertebrates are not only needed, but also
maintain the welfare status of the animals in the study (Mulcahy
2003). When it comes to tagging fish, the most common approach for long-term
studies is the use of intraperitoneal surgical
implantation (Bridger and Booth 2003). Given that the procedure involves laparotomy (cutting open the coelom),
animal care committees have been particularly critical when reviewing
proposals. Researchers must justify their use of different techniques for all
phases of the surgery (e.g., incision location, suture material, type of knot),
usually borrowing data from other species. Accountability and transparency in
the use of animals in research is becoming the norm, so being proactive in the
improvement
of fish welfare in research is one of the best ways to ensure public and
institutional support.
Recently, the USACE funded a
research project to provide background and methodologies on the surgical
implantation of acoustic transmitters into juvenile salmonids
so that one standard protocol would be available for use on all future USACE
telemetry studies (i.e., Brown et al. 2010). To our knowledge, that was the
first attempt to generate a standard suite of methods for surgical implantation
of tags in fish. Thus far, the work in the Columbia Basin has served to
identify knowledge gaps and also elevate the surgical techniques that are used.
Similar approaches are needed in other jurisdictions where large-scale tagging
studies are conducted by different research groups and where there is potential
for comparative studies.
The purpose of this document is
to provide a suite of best practices for the surgical tagging of key Great
Lakes fish. Given that most projects on the Great Lakes will involve tagging
fish in the field (e.g., on a boat, dock, or shoreline), rather than in the
laboratory, special consideration was made to develop protocols with this in
mind. Use of the standardized techniques provided in this document will ensure
that data obtained are reliable and comparable, and collected in a way that
maintains the welfare status of the tagged individuals. This document is not
intended to be static and should be updated at regular intervals to reflect new
science. In addition, because a document alone cannot adequately convey all
necessary aspects of the electronic tagging process we have developed several
videos (posted on the internet) that will serve as a further resource for those
embarking on tagging studies. We note that in all cases it is important to
adhere to appropriate state/provincial and federal laws with respect to animal
handling, surgery and use of anesthetics on animals that will be released in
the wild.