My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7937
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7937
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/24/2009 7:16:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7937
Author
Chart, T. E. and E. P. Bergerson.
Title
Methods for Long-term Identification of Salmonids
USFW Year
1988.
USFW - Doc Type
A Review.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
experimented with various vital stains in bait as a means <br />to mazk fish in situ. Their results indicated that only one <br />dye, reactive red 8, was detectable in the stomach <br />mucosa after 11 weeks. <br />Unfortunately, tissue growth obscures injected dyes <br />or latex, precluding long-term visual detection. If <br />expected growth exceeds 1000% of initial weight, it is <br />likely the mark will no longer be visible (Kelly 19676; <br />Loeb 1968). Therefore, injectable dyes or liquid latex <br />provide the experimenter with greater utility when older <br />fish are used. <br />Ronald Williams (Oregon Depaztment of Fish and <br />Wildlife, personal communication) reported using an <br />air-powered, needleless injector (Panjet, manufactured <br />in the United Kingdom) to mark sahnonids with various <br />dyes. He found, however, that only two materials (India <br />Ink, and Alcian blue -also known as National Fast <br />Blue) were retained for acceptable lengths of time (up <br />to 1 yr for Alcian blue) in sahnonids longer than 90 mm. <br />The use of microtaggants is relatively new, which <br />explains the paucity of information on their efficiency. <br />As in the application of dyes and liquid latex, the use of <br />a jet inoculator greatly increases tagging rate. Two <br />recent studies dealing with the Microtaggant system <br />employed a needleless hypodermic injector <br />manufactured by the Vernitron Medical Products Inc., <br />Carlstadt, NJ. In the first of these studies (Klaz and <br />Pazker 1986), the microtaggant system was compared <br />and contrasted to the coded wire tagging system in <br />fmgerling striped bass and blue tilapia (Tilapia aurea). <br />Fish were injected with microtaggants behind the <br />pectoral fm or below the dorsal. Tag retention was 98% <br />at 270 d; however, the microtaggant system was <br />completely unsatisfactory in compazison to the coded <br />wire tags for periods longer than 1 yeaz. <br />In another study, Thompson et al. (1986) compared <br />microtaggants with fluorescent pigment injections in <br />Yazoo darters (Etheostoma sp.) and fingerling striped <br />bass. Initial mortality was low for both techniques. <br />Microtaggants were detectable in 96% of the surviving <br />darters after 6 mo, in 88% after 12 mo, and in 75% after <br />24 mo; results for striped bass were similar. The only <br />advantage of using the microtaggants in this study <br />seemed to be their greater number of permutations. <br />Further research is needed if the full potential of this <br />tagging method is to be realized. Moring and Fay (1984) <br />listed the advantages and disadvantages of dyes and <br />liquid latex, and of microtaggants as follows. <br />Advantages of dyes and liquid latex: <br />1. Excellent short-term retention (less than 1 yr). <br />2. With appropriate substances and techniques there is <br />potential for longer term retention. <br />3. No appazent effect on long-term survival, growth, <br />and behavior (Chapman 1957; Kelly and Loeb 1964; <br />Kelly 1967a, b). <br />4. Permutations aze possible if several colors and <br />locations are used. <br />Disadvantages of dyes and liquid latex: <br />1. Potential diffusion of the mazk. <br />2. Necessity for trained observers to identify marks <br />(Gerking 1963; Arnold 1966; Kelly 1967). <br />3. Training experience necessary to apply the marks <br />(Kelly 1967b; Loeb and Kelly 1969). <br />4. Anesthetic required (Smith 1970). <br />Advantages and disadvantages of microtaggants: <br />1. Advantages of using microtaggants over other <br />injected compounds: permutations are greater; <br />magnetically detectable; mark does not diffuse; <br />consistent from tag to tag. <br />2. Disadvantages: more costly; not as readily available; <br />requires an external mazker (could confuse CWT <br />tagging effort in the azea). <br />Meristics and Morphometrics <br />Meristic chazacters in fish can be influenced by <br />environmental vaziables (Gabriel 1944; Lindsey 1954; <br />Bazlow 1961) and genetic variation among stocks <br />(Vernon 1957; Bazlow 1961; McPhail 1984). This <br />difference in meristic chazacters has been used for stock <br />identification (Dempson and Misra 1984; Meng and <br />Stocker 1984). Meristic and morphometric counts are <br />made from actual specimens or radiographs. The results <br />aze typically tested for groupings or similazities by using <br />such statistical techniques as cluster, discriminant, or <br />multivaziate analyses. <br />Seven river stocks of juvenile Baltic-Atlantic salmon <br />were subjected to biometric analysis by MacCrimmon <br />and Clayton (1985); before their study, geographical <br />variation in Baltic salmon morphology had been based <br />on egg size (Larsson and Pickova 1978). MacCrimmon <br />and Clayton (1985) were able to separate these seven <br />stocks on the basis of morphometric characters, but <br />meristics did not prove as useful. In the same study, a <br />dichotomy in morphometric characters (different from <br />those used to delineate the adult stocks) was also found <br />between immature and mature parr. <br />Sockeye salmon have been identified to their country <br />of origin by biometrical analysis (Fukhara et al. 1962; <br />Landrum and Dark 1968). Concern over stock <br />identification in high seas fisheries prompted the <br />initiation of a long-term survey of meristic characters of <br />stocks on the spawning grounds. Between 1956 and <br />1984, more than 23,000 sockeye salmon from 17 <br />geographical locations ranging from the Columbia <br />River to the Nome River in northwestern Alaska were <br />sampled (Beacham 1985). This enormous sample was <br />analyzed for number of gill rakers and vertebrae and <br />various measurements. Beacham reported that sockeye <br />salmon could be traced to their broad respective <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.