Retention of p‐Chip microtransponders and posttagging survival of small‐bodied stream fishes

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveObtaining demographic rates often requires complex open‐population capture–mark–recapture (CMR) study designs. Conducting such studies for small‐bodied fishes has been limited in part by excessive mortality after tagging procedures and poor tag retention. As new tag types emerge, information regarding fish survival and tag retention over varying time scales may benefit resource managers to effectively plan future CMR studies. The p‐Chip microtransponder is a 500‐ × 500‐ × 100‐μm tag that is inserted subcutaneously and is read with a handheld laser. Each tag contains a nine‐digit unique identification number. P‐Chip microtransponder tags have been used on a limited number of small‐bodied fishes, with relatively high rates observed for fish survival and tag retention. Information on posttagging survival and retention of p‐Chip microtransponder tags across a range of small‐bodied fish species and tagging locations is needed to inform their effectiveness in future CMR studies.MethodsWe quantified survival and tag retention after p‐Chip microtransponder implantation in Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus and Northern Pearl Dace Margariscus nachtriebi in a laboratory environment, and retention of p‐Chip microtransponder tags in Northern Pearl Dace was also quantified over a year‐long field study. We marked 56 Creek Chub and 9 Northern Pearl Dace in the laboratory with p‐Chip microtransponder tags and compared them to an equal number of unmarked individuals over 90 days. We marked 1990 Northern Pearl Dace and conducted recapture events through four seasons (June, September, and October 2022 and June 2023) in four headwater streams of Nebraska.ResultSurvival for Creek Chub was 85% (standard error [SE] = 5.9) and did not differ from control fish survival (95%; SE = 3.2) in the 90‐day laboratory experiment. Survival for Northern Pearl Dace was 89% (SE = 11.0) and did not differ from that of control fish (100%) in the laboratory experiment. Tag retention was 89% (SE = 4.6) for Creek Chub and 100% for Northern Pearl Dace in the laboratory. The p‐Chip microtransponder performed well during the CMR field study, with tag retention for Northern Pearl Dace at 94% across 374 days.ConclusionOur results suggest that the p‐Chip microtransponder minimally affected small‐bodied fish survival and had high tag retention in both the laboratory and field studies. Thus, the p‐Chip microtransponder tag may be appropriate for use in small‐bodied fishes when individual identification is needed in a CMR study.