Implications of tagging effects for interpreting the performance of sea lamprey traps in a large river |
| |
| Authors: | Jessica Nelson Andrew M. Rous Adrienne R. McLean Jessica Barber Gale A. Bravener Christopher M. Holbrook Robert L. McLaughlin |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada;2. Carleton University, Carleton Technology and Training Centre, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada;3. Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada;4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marquette Biological Station, 3090 Wright Street, Marquette, MI 49855, USA;5. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sea Lamprey Control Centre, 1219 Queen Street East, Sault Ste., Marie, ON P6A 2E5, Canada;6. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Hammond Bay Biological Station, 11188 Ray Road, Millersburg, MI 49759, USA;1. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA;2. Department of Environmental Science, University of Toledo, 2801 West Bancroft Street, Toledo, OH 43606, USA;3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, MN, USA;4. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA;1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 1101 Casey Road, Basom, NY 14013, United States;2. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 17 Lake St, Oswego, NY 13126, United States;3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Lake Ontario Unit, 541 Broadway St., Cape Vincent, NY 13618, United States;4. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Picton, Ontario, Canada;5. Cornell University, Cornell Biological Field Station at Shackleton Point, 900 Shackelton Point Rd, Bridgeport, NY 13030, United States;1. Central Michigan University, Department of Biology, Biosciences 2100, Mount Pleasant, MI, 48859, United States;2. Illinois Natural History Survey, 1816 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, United States;3. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Drinking Water and Environmental Health Division, 525 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933, United States;4. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Oden State Fish Hatchery, 8258 S. Ayr Road, Alanson, MI 49706, United States;5. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station, 96 Grant Street, Charlevoix, MI 49720, United States;6. The Nature Conservancy, 721 Flanner Hall, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, United States;7. The Nature Conservancy, 101 E. César E. Chávez Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906, United States;1. Loyola University Chicago, School of Environmental Sustainability, 1032 W. Sheridan Rd, Chicago, IL 60660, USA;2. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 2661 Scott Tower Drive, New Franken, WI 52229, USA;1. Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, 116 Barrie St., Queen’s University, Kingston K7L 3J9, Ontario, Canada;2. St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences, 2 St. Lawrence Drive, Cornwall K6H 4Z1, Ontario, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | Abundance estimates can be crucial for managing species of economic concern. The accuracy of these estimates can depend on the methods used to track animals and to estimate abundance from tracking data. We tested experimentally if disparate estimates of trapping efficiency calculated for sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the St. Marys River near Sault Ste. Marie, Canada could be explained by effects related to the invasiveness and handling involved in tagging or the tag size used in the marking procedures. Trapping is used to gauge adult abundance, trapping efficiency, and success of a binational sea lamprey control program in the Laurentian Great Lakes, North America. Our experiment compared nightly catches of sea lamprey marked with external fin clips, surgically-implanted passive integrated transponder tags (PIT-only), and surgically-implanted PIT and acoustic tags (PIT+acoustic). We found no evidence that the probability of being trapped was affected by the added invasiveness and handling of internal tagging. Nightly recaptures of PIT-only tagged sea lamprey, relative to fin-clipped sea lamprey, were not different from expectations based on the numbers of individuals released from each treatment group. Conversely, there was evidence of effects related to tag size. Nightly recaptures of PIT+acoustic tagged sea lamprey, relative to PIT-only tagged sea lamprey, were lower than expected based on numbers of individuals released from each treatment group. Effects related to tag size partially explain the disparate estimates in trapping efficiency observed for sea lamprey. |
| |
| Keywords: | Invasive species Population control Mark-recapture St. Marys River Tag effects Trapping |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
