Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone
28
Jessica Hale, Josh Bouma, Brent Vadopalas, Carolyn Friedman University of Washington, SAFS NOAA, Mukilteo Field Station Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana)
-
Upload
jessie-hale -
Category
Technology
-
view
1.632 -
download
0
Transcript of Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone
Jessica Hale, Josh Bouma, Brent Vadopalas, Carolyn Friedman
University of Washington, SAFSNOAA, Mukilteo Field Station
Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana)
Previous Abalone Tagging Methods
• Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs)
Puget Sound Restoration Fund
Previous Abalone Tagging Methods
• Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs)
• Through respiratory pores (washers and rivets)
Previous Abalone Tagging Methods• Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs)
• Through respiratory pores (washers and rivets)
• Unsatisfactory due to:
Ja
nna
Nic
hols
- Tag loss
- Encrustation
- Shell erosion
- Difficulty for divers tovisualize when cryptic
Successful Tagging Method
• Needs:
High retention
Low impact to animal
Detectable under field conditions
Passive Integrated Transponders (PITs)
• Individual IDs• Can be read without being visualized
• Behind substrate
• In aggregates
Methods• Biomark 9mm tags
• Trial 1: Late juveniles (n=40) age 3.5 years
• Trial 2: Juveniles (n=42) age 2 years
• Trial 3: Broodstock (n=33)
• Tracked:- Growth- Survival- Tag Retention
Trial 1: Late Juveniles
• 60 mm (range 40.1-75.5 mm)
• Outside shell
• Inside shell
• Injection into foot
Trial 2: Juveniles
• 20 mm (range 17.5 – 32.1 mm)
• Tagged inside shell
Trial 3: Broodstock
• Average 115 mm
• Tagged inside shell
Hypotheses
• Low survival in injected group due to hemophilia
• Low growth in injected group
• Abalone will deposit nacre over tag, as in pearls
• Nacre development will increase tag retention
controlinjectedoutside inside0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent Tag LossPercent Mortality
Tagging Method
Perc
en
t T
ag L
oss
/Mort
al-
ity
Trial 1: Late Juveniles
controlinjectedoutside inside0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent Tag LossPercent Mortality
Tagging Method
Perc
en
t T
ag L
oss
/Mort
al-
ity
Trial 1: Late Juveniles
P=0.109
controlinjectedoutside inside0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent Tag LossPercent Mortality
Tagging Method
Perc
en
t T
ag L
oss
/Mort
al-
ity
*P<0.001
P=0.109
Trial 1: Late Juveniles
Tagged Control0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Net
Gro
wth
(mm
)
Trial 2: Juveniles
Tagged Control0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Net
Gro
wth
(mm
)
*P=0.006
Trial 2: Juveniles
Broodstock Late Juveniles Juveniles87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97Pe
rcen
t Tag
Ret
entio
n
Age Group Summary for PIT tags attached inside
Broodstock Late Juveniles Juveniles87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97Pe
rcen
t Tag
Ret
entio
nt= 168 days
t= 252 days
t= 84 days
Age Group Summary for PIT tags attached inside
Results• Survival
– Attaching PITs inside had the highest survival rate compared to injection and
application outside the shell in Trial 1
– No significant difference in survival among treatment groups (injected, inside,
outside) or between trials (juveniles vs late juveniles)
Results• Survival
– Attaching PITs inside had the highest survival rate compared to injection and
application outside the shell in Trial 1
– No significant difference in survival among treatment groups (injected, inside,
outside) or between trials (juveniles vs late juveniles)
• Tag Retention
– Attaching PITs inside had highest tag retention in Trial 1 (90%, n=9)
– Trial 2 had 91% tag retention, Trial 3 96%
– No significant difference in tag retention between Trial 1 and 2
Results• Survival
– Attaching PITs inside had the highest survival rate compared to injection and
application outside the shell in Trial 1
– No significant difference in survival among treatment groups (injected, inside,
outside) or between trials (juveniles vs late juveniles)
• Tag Retention
– Attaching PITs inside had highest tag retention in Trial 1 (90%, n=9)
– Trial 2 had 91% tag retention, Trial 3 96%
– No significant difference in tag retention between Trial 1 and 2
• Growth
– No significant difference in growth in tagged individuals in Trial 1
– Significantly lower growth in tagged individuals in Trial 2
Conclusions• PITs viable tagging method for adult and
late juveniles (possible size minimum)
• Possible uses with other shelled gastropods, possibly shellfish
Future Goals
• Finish development of reader, test in field• Evaluation of smaller Biomark tag (8.4mm) and
Nonatec tags (UK based, 6mm tags)
Reader• Underwater PIT reader exists
• Fully submersible reader under development
• Testing:– Read range
– Readability in aggregates & under substrate
Biomark
Thank you!
Funding: NOAA (SOC)Mukilteo Field StationWDFW ShewmakerPSRFSAFS
Contributions:
Friedman LabGlenn VanBlaricomTodd BennettKristi StrausPaul PleshaJordan Watson
Questions?
