Laserfiche WebLink
<br />908 <br /> <br />HAINES AND MODDE <br /> <br />TABLE I.-Mean (SD) observed mortality and mark re- <br />tention after 21 and 142 d and final total length (TL) after <br />142 d for young Colorado squawfish marked by different <br />procedures. For each period, means within a column with- <br />out a letter in common are significantly different (P < <br />0.05). <br /> <br />Mark <br /> <br />Final <br />TL <br />(mm) <br /> <br />Observed <br />mortality <br />(%) <br /> <br />Mark <br />retention <br />(%) <br /> <br />Tattoo ink <br />Fin clip <br />Elastic polymer <br /> <br />21 d after marking <br />10.0 (2.5) z <br />0.0 (0.0) Y <br />0.8 (104) y <br /> <br />142 d after marking <br />92.6 (13.3) z 22.5 (13.9) z <br />8904 (5.5) z 14.2 (2004) z <br />89.7 (4.7) z 12.5 (13.9) z <br /> <br />25.7 (4.7) z <br />33.7 (12.5) z <br />85.0 (10.6) y <br /> <br />97.8 (3.9) z <br />100.0 (0.0) z <br />97.8 (3.8) z <br /> <br />Tattoo ink <br />Fin clip <br />Elastic polymer <br /> <br />4 August). On 4 August, 96 fish had recognizable <br />marks, 8 had marks that were difficult to recognize, <br />and 3 had no recognizable marks; no fish died <br />during the period. <br /> <br />Vulnerability of Marked Fish to Predation <br /> <br />The results of the predation study showed no <br />significant differences among mortality rates from <br /> <br />Trial 1 - 15 min. <br />1.0 <br /> <br />0.8 <br /> <br /> <br /> 0.6 <br /> 0.4 <br />CD <br />~ 0.2 <br />>. <br />"" <br />(ij <br />t:: 0 <br />0 Tatoo-ink Polymer <br />E <br />., <br />::I Trial 2 -15 min. <br />0 <br />CD 1.0 <br />c: <br />a:J <br />'E <br />a:J <br />ii) 0.8 <br />~ <br /> 0.6 <br /> 0.4 <br /> 0.2 <br /> 0 <br /> Tatoo-ink Polymer <br /> <br />Fin Clip <br /> <br />Control <br /> <br /> <br />Fin Clip <br /> <br />Control <br /> <br />predation for the differently marked fish (P = 0.20; <br />Figure 1). However, fish with the 120-min recov- <br />ery period had slightly lower mortality than fish <br />with l5-min recovery (P = 0.028). Significant dif- <br />ferences were also recorded for mortality rates <br />among tanks (P < 0.01) and between trials (P = <br />0.02). <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Field-Marking Evaluation <br /> <br />We marked 480 Colorado squawfish with the <br />elastic polymer and released them. We examined <br />1,027 Colorado squawfish for marks, and recap- <br />tured 45 marked Colorado squawfish, including 5 <br />fish marked in the autumn and recaptured the fol- <br />lowing spring (Table 2). One person was able to <br />mark 25 fish in 10 min; most of this time was spent <br />transferring fish from the holding buckets into <br />MS-222 and then into recovery buckets. On re- <br />capture, the marks were bright and easily detected, <br />including those on the 5 fish marked in the autumn <br />and caught the following spring. <br />Fish survival was comparatively low between <br />mark and release for the first 3 d (22-24 Septem- <br />ber), averaging only 68% (157 of 230 from five <br />backwaters). For the remainder of the study, sur- <br /> <br />Trial 1 -120 min. <br />1.0 <br /> <br />0.8 <br /> <br /> <br />0.6 <br /> <br />0.4 <br /> <br />0.2 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Tatoo-ink Polymer <br />Trial 2 -120 min. <br />1.0 <br /> <br />Fin Clip <br /> <br />Control <br /> <br />0.8 <br /> <br /> <br />0.6 <br /> <br />0.4 <br /> <br />0.2 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Tatoo-ink <br /> <br />Polymer <br /> <br />Fin Clip <br /> <br />Control <br /> <br />FIGURE I.-Mean instantaneous mortality rates for juvenile Colorado squawfish marked with one of three marks <br />and an unmarked control that were subjected to largemouth bass predation. Error bars represent + I SD. <br />