Dietary Calcein Marking of Brook Trout, Atlantic Salmon, Yellow Perch, and

• Main Authors: Coho Salmon Scales, Dale C. Honeyfield, Christian S. Ostrowski, John W. Fletcher, Jerre, W. Mohler
• Other Authors: The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Subjects: Atlantic salmon; Salmo salar
• Online Access: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.571.906; http://www.fws.gov/northeast/fisherycenter/pdfs/Honeyfieldetal2006.pdf

Abstract.—Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch, and yellow perch Perca flavescens fed calcein for 5 d showed characteristic calcein scale marks 7–10 d postmarking. In fish fed 0.75 or 1.25 g of calcein per kilogram of feed, the percentage of fish that exhibited a calcein mark was 100 % in brook trout, 93–98 % in Atlantic salmon, 60 % in yellow perch, and 0 % in coho salmon. However, when coho salmon were fed 5.25 g calcein/kg feed, 100 % marking was observed 7–10 d postmarking. Brook trout were successfully marked twice with distinct bands when fed calcein 5 months apart. Brook trout scale pixel luminosity increased as dietary calcein increased in experiment 2. For the second calcein mark, scale pixel luminosity from brook trout fed 1.25 g calcein/kg feed was numerically higher (P, 0.08) than scales from fish fed 0.75 g calcein/kg feed. Mean pixel luminosity of calcein-marked Atlantic salmon scales was 57.7 for fish fed 0.75 g calcein/kg feed and 55.2 for fish fed 1.25 g calcein/kg feed. Although feed acceptance presented a problem in yellow perch, these experiments provide evidence that dietary calcein is a viable tool for marking fish for stock identification. Tagging or marking fish is an important fishery management tool employed for stock assessment, estimating recruitment or mortality, and surveying genetic contributions to a fish population. Izaak Walton in 1635 was among the first to tag Atlantic salmon Salmo salar with ribbon or thread inserted through the caudal fin to track the fish to their natal streams (Moring 2002). Today, fishery biologists and managers continue to rely on marked fish in their work. There are a variety of marking techniques employed; presently, these include external and internal tags, chemical marking of tissue, and the use of genetic markers. Each tag or marking process has advantages and disadvantages and has been described by Parker et al.