Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />t <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />e <br />l <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />times that we sampled this pond after the fish were released (days 133, 343, 351, and <br />430), we did not recapture any of these 10 razorback sucker (Table 1). Therefore, no <br />data on the performance of PIT tags for juvenile razorback sucker were obtained from <br />this study site. <br />Humphrey Pond. Three razorback sucker were PIT tagged (dorsal musculature <br />only) 30 March 1989 and returned to Humphrey Pond. PIT tags were verified in all <br />three fish on day 163. <br />General <br />Recovery of fish from the pond study sites was extremely poor and samples sizes of <br />recaptured fish were small. This precluded performing statistical tests to determine <br />differences in tag retention and wound healing between the two test groups, and of <br />survival and growth between the control and test groups. <br />Tag retention and verification were 100% for the few fish that were recovered <br />from all pond study sites (Table 1). The scanner/decoder unit usually read the tag with <br />only one pass. Only in those instances where the insertion of the tag was unknown was <br />more than one pass required for tag detection and verification of tag code identity. <br />Minimal information was obtained regarding the biological compatibility of PIT <br />tags with the subject fish. Visual observation of the wound condition over time revealed <br />that healing had begun by day 2 (Table 2). At the termination of the study, the wound <br />on all PIT-tagged fish had healed and only a small scar was barely noticeable with the <br />naked eye. The wounds on fish PIT tagged in the body cavity were less noticeable than <br />those PIT tagged in the dorsal musculature. <br />17 <br />11