Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,226 views
Short talk on my work developing novel tagging methods in Pinto abalone at the National Shellfisheries Association Annual Meeting this year (March 2012) in Seattle.
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone
- 1. Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) Jessica Hale, Josh Bouma, Brent Vadopalas, Carolyn Friedman University of Washington, SAFS NOAA, Mukilteo Field Station
- 2. Previous Abalone Tagging Methods • Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs) Puget Sound Restoration Fund
- 3. Previous Abalone Tagging Methods • Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs) • Through respiratory pores (washers and rivets)
- 4. Previous Abalone Tagging Methods • Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs) • Through respiratory pores (washers and rivets) • Unsatisfactory due to: - Tag loss - Encrustation - Shell erosion Janna Nichols - Difficulty for divers to visualize when cryptic
- 5. Successful Tagging Method • Needs: High retention Low impact to animal Detectable under field conditions
- 6. Passive Integrated Transponders (PITs) • Individual IDs • Can be read without being visualized • Behind substrate • In aggregates
- 7. 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
- 8. Trial 1: Late Juveniles • 60 mm (range 40.1-75.5 mm) • Outside shell • Inside shell • Injection into foot
- 9. Trial 2: Juveniles • 20 mm (range 17.5 – 32.1 mm) • Tagged inside shell
- 10. Trial 3: Broodstock • Average 115 mm • Tagged inside shell
- 11. 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
- 12. 100 Percent Tag Loss/Mortality 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Tag Loss 40 Percent Mortality 30 20 10 0 control injected outside inside Tagging Method Trial 1: Late Juveniles
- 13. 100 Percent Tag Loss/Mortality 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Tag Loss 40 P=0.109 Percent Mortality 30 20 10 0 control injected outside inside Tagging Method Trial 1: Late Juveniles
- 14. 100 * Percent Tag Loss/Mortality P<0.001 90 80 70 60 50 Percent Tag Loss 40 P=0.109 Percent Mortality 30 20 10 0 control injected outside inside Tagging Method Trial 1: Late Juveniles
- 17. 2.5 2 Net Growth (mm) 1.5 1 0.5 0 Tagged Control Trial 2: Juveniles
- 18. 2.5 * P=0.006 2 Net Growth (mm) 1.5 1 0.5 0 Tagged Control Trial 2: Juveniles
- 19. 97 96 95 94 Percent Tag Retention 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 Broodstock Late Juveniles Juveniles Age Group Summary for PIT tags attached inside
- 20. 97 96 t= 168 days 95 94 Percent Tag Retention 93 92 91 t= 84 days 90 t= 252 days 89 88 87 Broodstock Late Juveniles Juveniles Age Group Summary for PIT tags attached inside
- 21. • Survival Results – 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)
- 22. • Survival Results – 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
- 23. • Survival Results – 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
- 24. Conclusions • PITs viable tagging method for adult and late juveniles (possible size minimum) • Possible uses with other shelled gastropods, possibly shellfish
- 25. Future Goals • Finish development of reader, test in field • Evaluation of smaller Biomark tag (8.4mm) and Nonatec tags (UK based, 6mm tags)
- 26. Reader • Underwater PIT reader exists • Deep water reader under development (wand or sweeper) • Testing: Biomark – Read range – Readability in aggregates – Under substrate
- 27. Thank you! Funding: Contributions: NOAA (SOC) Friedman Lab Mukilteo Field Station Glenn VanBlaricom WDFW Shewmaker Todd Bennett PSRF Kristi Straus Paul Plesha SAFS Jordan Watson
- 28. Questions?
Editor's Notes
- Previous tagging methods in abalone generally fall into two categories: tags adhered to the shell with adhesives or attached through respiratory pores. This photo illustrates the placement of bee tags on juvenile abalone.
- This photo illustrates placement of a washer attached through the respiratory pores. Both of these tagging methods have been employed as part of the Pinto Abalone Restoration Project.
- These tagging methods are unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, including tag loss, encrustation of the shell by epibionts, shell erosion and the difficulty of divers to visualize tags while underwater and when abalone are cryptic as they often are
- Despite the fact that shelled gastropods can be tagged with limited invasiveness, a universal and validated tagging technique is lacking. A successful tagging method must have high retention rates, low to no impact on the animal including growth and tags must be detectable under field conditions
- For this study, we used Passive Integrated Transponder tags, also known as PITs,to tag abalone. PITs are small, biocompatible glass-encapsulated integrated circuits. PITs are activated by a tag reader to relay a unique identifier number sequence. PITs could be a viable alternative to traditional tagging methods because each animal has a unique number sequence and tags can be read without being visualized, which is ideal for surveys by managers. Ideally, PITs would be readable behind substrate and in aggregates. We are currently exploring these questions.
- We completed three trials in our experiment. All animals were tagged with 9mm biomark PIT tags and tags were secured with cyanoacrylate glue. Late juveniles were tagged in trial one, and juveniles were tagged in trial 2, and broodstockabalone were tagged in trial 3. Growth, survival and tag retention were tracked during the experiment. We are currently developing a fully submersible PIT tag reader. For this experiment, we used a Biomarkhandheld reader.
- In trial 1, late juveniles ranging from 40.1 to 75.5 mm with an average shell length of 60 mm, were tagged with one of three methods. Prior to PIT tagging, abalone were tagged with bee tags at the apex of the shell. 10 animals were tagged in the outside of the shell, in the groove formed by the respiratory pores. 10 animals were tagged inside the shell, under the mantle tissue. 10 animals were tagged by injection of a PIT tag into the foot muscle using a 12 gauge needle. 10 animals were left as controls. The arrow in each photo illustrates tag placement.
- Juvenile abalone, ranging from 17.5 to 32.1 mm with an average size of 20mm , were first bee tagged on the shell apex. 22 abalone were tagged on the inside of the shell, after the mantle tissue had been gently lifted. 20 animals were left as controls.
- 33 broodstock abalone were also tagged on the inside of the shell under the mantle tissue.
- We hypothesized that there would be low survival and growth in the injected treatment due to the fact that abalone are hemophiliacs. We also hypothesized that abalone tagged inside the shell would deposit nacre over the PIT tag, as in pearl formation, and that nacre development would increase tag retention.
- This graph illustrates the results of late juvenile tagging in trial 1. The y axis shows percent tag loss and percent mortality. The X axis shows the tagging method.
- This graph illustrates that animalsin the injected treatment had the highest mortality. However, the percent mortality was not significantly higher than the other treatments.
- This graph illustrates that injected individuals had a significantly higher percent tag loss than other treatment groups. 9 out of 10 injected animals rejected their tag, and only 1 animal retained its tag, and later died.
- During trial 1 (late juveniles), we observed nacre deposition over PIT tags in abalone tagged inside the shell. Nacre deposition was first observed 37 days after tagging. The arrow illustrates tag placement, and subsequent nacre deposition.
- In the injected treatment in trial 1, we observed one animal with a large lesion protruding from the injection site. The arrow illustrates healthy tissue coloration, and the red circle surrounds the injection site. The white tissue surrounding the injection site is unhealthy tissue.
- This graph shows the net growth in millimeters, of juveniles in trial 2. The y axis shows growth in mm, and the x axis shows the treatment group.
- This graph illustrates that control juveniles who were not tagged with a PIT tag had significantly higher net growth than tagged juveniles.
- This graph shows the percent tag retention in each age group for tags attached inside.
- Broodstock had a 96% retention rate over 168 days. Late juveniles had a 90% tag retention rate over 252 days, and juveniles had a 91% tag retention rate over 84 days.
- In summary, in trial 1, abalone tagged inside had the highest survival rate, but there was no significant difference in survival among age groups.
- Abalone tagged inside had the highest tag retention rate. There was no significant difference in tag retention among different age groups.
- There was no significant difference in growth between tagged an untagged late juveniles in trial 1. However, tagged juveniles in trial 2 had significantly lower growth.
- In conclusion, PITs may be a viable tagging method for adult and late juvenile abalone, but there may be a size minimum as evidenced by the decreased growth in tagged juveniles in trial 2. PITs could also have uses in other shelled gastropods and possibly shellfish.
- In the future, we hope to finish the development of the underwater PIT tag reader, and test it in the field. We also hope to continue exploring new tagging methods, such as the 8.4mm Biomark tags or the 6mm Nonatec tags.
- We are currently developing a fully submersible PIT tag reader, in which the reader board and reader will be fully encased. We are testing a few designs, including a wand and sweeper construction. We will be testing read range, readability in aggregates and under substrate of PITs in the field.