See the published version of this preprint at Animal Biotelemetry.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Telemetry case report
Jessica A. Keller
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6782-1917
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
With the increase in telemetry studies over the past decade, improving understanding of how different tagging methods influence fish survivorship is critical. By examining the effects of tagging methods, we can maximize the information gained from telemetry studies. Mortality resulting from internally tagging fish on a boat may be due to barotrauma injuries, increased stress from prolonged handling times, or predation after fish have been released back into the water. Conducting in situ internal acoustic tagging at depth of capture completely removes barotrauma stresses and simplifies the release method, which may improve fish survival. In this study, we used 8 years of acoustic tagging data to determine if the tagging method ( in situ versus on the boat) influenced fish survivorship and evaluated the role of other tagging variables.
Results
At 6 days after tagging, Kaplan–Meier survival curves revealed that the survival probability of fish tagged on the boat was 66% while survival probability of fish tagged in situ was 90%. Tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival probability based on Cox proportional hazards models, with fish tagged in situ ~75% less likely to have an “event” (mortality, tag loss, or emigration) compared to fish tagged on the boat at both 4 and 6 days after tagging. Examining tagging methods separately, handling time only marginally influenced survival probability of boat-tagged fish and no variables had a significant effect on survival of in situ tagged fish.
Conclusions
In this study, tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival of internally tagged fish. Implanting internal acoustic tags in situ is not a practical method for every species and for every environment, but given the increased fish survivorship demonstrated here, we strongly suggest it be considered as the preferred tagging methodology where applicable.
Keywords
In situ tagging, acoustic telemetry, survival analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Animal Biotelemetry.
Version 2
Posted 07 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #3 received
Received 03 Jan, 2021
Editorial decision: Accept
On 03 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 26 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Dec, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 21 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 18 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 04 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 07 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Aug, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Marine and Freshwater Ecology
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at Animal Biotelemetry.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Telemetry case report
Jessica A. Keller
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6782-1917
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Animal Biotelemetry.
Version 2
Posted 07 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #3 received
Received 03 Jan, 2021
Editorial decision: Accept
On 03 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 26 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Dec, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 21 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 18 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 04 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 07 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Aug, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Marine and Freshwater Ecology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Animal Biotelemetry.
Background
With the increase in telemetry studies over the past decade, improving understanding of how different tagging methods influence fish survivorship is critical. By examining the effects of tagging methods, we can maximize the information gained from telemetry studies. Mortality resulting from internally tagging fish on a boat may be due to barotrauma injuries, increased stress from prolonged handling times, or predation after fish have been released back into the water. Conducting in situ internal acoustic tagging at depth of capture completely removes barotrauma stresses and simplifies the release method, which may improve fish survival. In this study, we used 8 years of acoustic tagging data to determine if the tagging method ( in situ versus on the boat) influenced fish survivorship and evaluated the role of other tagging variables.
Results
At 6 days after tagging, Kaplan–Meier survival curves revealed that the survival probability of fish tagged on the boat was 66% while survival probability of fish tagged in situ was 90%. Tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival probability based on Cox proportional hazards models, with fish tagged in situ ~75% less likely to have an “event” (mortality, tag loss, or emigration) compared to fish tagged on the boat at both 4 and 6 days after tagging. Examining tagging methods separately, handling time only marginally influenced survival probability of boat-tagged fish and no variables had a significant effect on survival of in situ tagged fish.
Conclusions
In this study, tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival of internally tagged fish. Implanting internal acoustic tags in situ is not a practical method for every species and for every environment, but given the increased fish survivorship demonstrated here, we strongly suggest it be considered as the preferred tagging methodology where applicable.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...