Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />r <br />Pj <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />11 <br />3 <br />4 <br />evaluated. The results will be included in a tagging study in progress at <br />Dexter NFH. <br />The number of fish recovered from the control and test groups from all of the <br />study ponds was low. Although the exact fate of the control and test fish in <br />the study ponds are unknown, we believe that the low number of recaptures <br />was not related to our inability to catch fish. The initial (48 h) mortality for <br />the control and test group fish was low. However, because fish were held for <br />only up to 48 h and then released, we were unable to further observe fish on a <br />routine basis and determine the extent of the delayed mortality that may have <br />been associated with the capture, handling, and tagging. The roundtail chub <br />used were wild riverine fish and their low survival may have been attributed to <br />their inability to adapt to a pond environment. The long-term mortality of <br />roundtail chub, razorback sucker, and Colorado squawfish in the control and <br />test groups in the pond studies was similar. Therefore, the factor(s) that <br />contributed to the demise of these fish probably affected all groups similarly. <br />This further leads us to believe that the capture and handling alone may have <br />contributed to the high long-term mortality. <br />In the field studies, the short-term performance of PIT tags was evaluated for <br />up to about 14 months. Because of the low number of fish recovered, only <br />limited data were obtained on PIT-tag retention, verification, placement, and <br />wound healing. Retention and verification of the presence and detection of <br />the tag was 100% for the two test groups. <br />24 <br />