Spine punching: An effective way of marking spiny-rayed fish
Anthony Bruno1, John R. Foster2 and Joe C. Lydon3
Abstract: The effectiveness of spine punching as a technique for marking spiny
rayed fish was examined using Otsego Lake walleye tagged with a variety of
methods beginning in 2008. Spine punching proved to be cheap and easy to apply.
Spine punches were retained extremely well and were easy to detect 4 years later.
No negative impacts on survival and condition were found. Utilizing different
spines to punch provided a system for unique identification. Spine punching
appears to be one of the most effective techniques for marking spiny rayed fish.
INTRODUCTION
To be effective, fish tagging methods must be cheap, long lasting, easy to identify, easy
to apply and have little negative effects on fish. One of the most common ways to mark fish is
fin clipping. It has proven to be effective and cheap (Zerrenner et al. 1997, Thompson et. al.
2005), but has negative impacts on fish growth and survival (Bumgarner et al. 2009, Coble 1971,
Shetter 1967). Numbered jaw tags have the advantage of allowing the fish to have a unique
identification number, but they hinder the growth (Deroche 1963, Shetter 1967, Zerrenner et al.
1997), survival (Zerrenner et al 1997) and are frequently lost (Newman & Hoff 1998, Crawley
2009). Visual implant elastomer (VIE) tags have a low mortality rate (Close 2000, Zerrenner et
al. 1997, Thompson et al. 2005) and a long retention time (Close 2000, FitzGerald et al. 2004).
However, recently tagged fish can lose VIE tags at a high rate (Bailey et al. 1998) and while VIE
tags can be quickly applied to fish (Close 2000), they are relatively expensive (Thompson et al
2005). Unfortunately all existing tagging and marking methods have problems that limit their
usefulness.
The utilization of a hole punch to mark soft rayed fins has been used for short-term
identification in studies determining population size (Guy et al. 1996). Hole punching is fast and
cheap, but the limited number of fins provide limited opportunities to vary the punches. Further,
while hole punches are easy to detect over the short term, fins must be closely examined for long
term detection of this mark (Crawley 2009). A modification of the fin punching technique
whereby the dorsal fin spines are punched has the potential of overcoming some of the
limitations of soft fin punches. Spine punching is expected to retain the advantages of low cost
and ease of application, but may have the distinct advantage of ease of long term detection.
Additionally, fish can be given a unique identifying mark by punching different spines or spine
combinations.
The goal of this study was to determine if spine punching is an effective way of marking
spiny-rayed fish. The objective was to determine the ease of detection years after its application,
and determine if spine punching reduces survival and condition.
1
Fisheries & Aquaculture Student, Fisheries & Wildlife Dept., SUNY Cobleskill.
BFS Visiting Researcher, Fisheries & Wildlife Dept., SUNY Cobleskill.
3
R. C. MacWatters Intern in Aquatic Sciences, 2007. Fisheries & Wildlife Dept., SUNY Cobleskill.
2
MATERIALS & METHODS
Walleye were collected and examined from Shadow Brook, Hayden Creek and Cripple
Creek, Otsego County, New York (Figure 1). Fish were captured 12, 14, 15 April 2011, from
2100 to 2300 hours. Follow-up sampling was carried out in April 2012.
Figure 1. Otsego Lake and its main tributaries, with arrows showing the walleye collection sites
utilized in this study.
Walleye were collected by night electrofishing, with a Haltech (HT-2000) electro-fisher.
Stunned fish were placed in totes, individually measured, sexed, and checked for ripeness. Then
they were examined for third and fifth dorsal spine punches, anal fin punches, fin clips, jaw tags,
and VIE tags posterior to left eye and on the isthmus. Tagging locations examined corresponded
to those utilized in previous studies (Table 1).
Table 1. Number of walleye marked each year with each marking technique.
Number of
Marking
Fish Marked Year
Source
3rd Dorsal Spine Punch
628
2008
Lydon et al. 2009
Jaw Tag
490
2008
Lydon et al. 2009
VIE Tag Posterior Left Eye 628
2008
Lydon et al. 2009
Anal Fin Hole Punch
320
2009
Peck et al. 2010
VIE Tag Isthmus
320
2009
Peck et al. 2010
5th Dorsal Spine Punch
588
2010
Crawley et al. 2010
Marking
A short term (81 day) study was conducted to determine the impact of spine punching on
condition and survivability. In the aquaponics greenhouse at the State University of New York at
Cobleskill, six, 500 gallon closed recirculation tanks were stocked with 235 tilapia ranging from
120-350 grams. A random sample of fifty fish from each tank was measured, weighed and then
given a spine punch in their dorsal fin corresponding to their tank number. Fish from tank one
were given a spine punch in the third dorsal spine, fish from tank two received a spine punch in
the fourth dorsal spine and so on. Fish were again weighed and measured after 81 days and the
condition and mortalities of marked and unmarked fish were recorded.
RESULTS
Of the 462 walleye examined in 2011, 154 had one or more tags (Table 2). All walleye
receiving a 3rd spine hole punch retained the mark. Since the fish receiving a 5th spine punch had
not received a second mark there was no way of determining if this punch was missed or lost.
Spine punch retention was higher than VIE, jaw tagging and soft fin punching (Table 2).
Spine punched tilapia did not have a higher mortality (.005% N=600) over 81 days than
did tilapia that did not receive a spine punch (.009% N= 1110). The condition of tilapia receiving
a spine punch (K = 1.99) did not differ from tilapia that did not receive a spine punch (K = 1.96).
Walleye marked with an anal fin punch were difficult to detect visually. Often the anal
fin had to be felt to find the scar from the healed hole. VIE tags also require a fairly extensive
search with a black light, since the VIE tag had a tendency to fragment, fade or become lost. Jaw
tags were easily detected.
Spine punches were remarkably easy to detect even after two (Figure 2) and four (Figure
3) years. Spines either reconnected at an oblique angle, or there was a gap in the spine where the
punch had occurred. The dorsal fin had to be erected during the examination, but the time of
detection occurred faster than with the VIE tags and the anal fin punch (Figure 3).
Table 2. The 2011 recapture data showing mark retention in walleye marked during a particular
year.
# Recaptured Per Cent
With Marks Retained
Marking
Year
3rd Dorsal Spine Punch
27
100%
2008
Jaw Tag
14
93%
2008
VIE Tag Posterior Left Eye 24
88%
2008
Anal Fin Hole Punch
46
98%
2009
VIE Tag Isthmus
32
56%
2009
5th Dorsal Spine Punch
102
-
2010
Marking
Figure 2. Two years after the 5th dorsal spine was punched it was easy to detect.
Figure 3. Four years after the 3rd dorsal spine was punched it was easily detectable.
DISCUSSION
An effective method of marking and tagging fish is critical for fisheries research and
management (Hilborn et al. 1990). Fish marking is used to determine population abundance, year
class strength, harvest rates, growth, survival, homing and migrations (Hilborn et al. 1990, Guy
et al. 1996). Tag retention, impact on growth and survival and the ease and cost of application
and detection are critical considerations in evaluating marking and tagging methods.
One hundred percent of the walleye retained the 3rd spine dorsal punch after three years.
Even after four years the spine punch in the 3rd dorsal spine was easily visible. In contrast, the
three-year retention of the VIE tag posterior to the left eye was retained only 88% of the time.
Further, there was some difficulty distinguishing between the green and yellow VIE tags under
the ultraviolet light. The VIE tag on the isthmus was even harder to detect and it’s retention after
two years was only 56%. Inexperience in tagging fish with VIE tags may have explain these
lower rates of tag detention (FitzGerald et al. 2004, Olsen et al. 2001, Close 2000). Similarly,
after two years the anal ray punch needed to be viewed more closely than the spine punches in
order to detect it, even though it was retained 98% of the time. Like VIE tags, jaw tags took a
long time to apply, but had a 93% retention rate over 3 years. These three year retention rates
were higher than reported for the same fish after one year (Crawley et al. 2009).
In this first study to test spine punching as marking technique for spiny rayed fish, spine
punching proved to be cheap and easy to apply. Further, after four years spine punches were
retained extremely well, and had no negative impact on condition or survival. The choice of
spines to punch also provided a system for unique identification. For these reasons, spine
punching appears to be one of the most effective techniques for marking spiny rayed fish.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SUNY Cobleskill fisheries students volunteered many hours to help complete this study.
Equipment for this study was supplied by the Fisheries & Wildlife Department of SUNY
Cobleskill.
LITERATURE CITED
Bailey, R. E., J. R. Irvine, F. C. Dalziel, and T. C. Nelson.1998. Evaluations of visible implant
fluorescent tags for marking Coho salmon smolts. North Am. J. of Fish. Manage. 18:191–
196.
Bumgarner, J.D., M.L. Schuck, and H.L. Blankenship. 2009. Returns of hatchery steelhead with
different fin clips and coded wire tag lengths. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. North Am. J. of Fish. Manage. 29:903-913.
Churchill, W.S. 1963. The effect of fin removal on survival, growth, and vulnerability to capture
of stocked walleye fingerlings. Transactions of the Am. Fish. Soc. 92:298–300.
Close, T.L. 2000. Detection and retention of postocular visible implant elastomer in fingerling
rainbow trout. North Am. J. of Fish. Manage. 20:542–545.
Coble, D.W. 1971. Effects of fin clipping and other factors on survival and growth of
smallmouth bass. Transactions of the Am. Fish. Soc. 3:460-473.
Crawley, W.T., J.C. Lydon, J.R. Foster, D. Johns, K.J. Poole and M.D. Cornwell. 2010. The
Efficacy of Jaw tag, visual implant elastomer, fin clip, and fin punch in Otsego Lake, NY
walleye (Sander vitreus) studies. In 42nd Ann. Rept. (2009). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld.
Sta., SUNY Oneonta.
DeRoche. S.E. 1963. Slowed growth of lake trout following tagging. Transactions of the Am.
Fish. Soc. Vol. 92:185-186.
Fitzgerald, J.L., T.F. Sheehan, and J.F. Kocik. 2004. Visibility of visual implant elastomer tags
in Atlantic salmon reared for two years in marine net-pens. North Am. J. of Fish.
Manage. 24:1,222-227.
Hilborn. R., C.J. Walters, and D.B. Jester, Jr. 1990. Value of fish marking in fisheries
management. In N. C. Parker and five coeditors. Fishmarking techniques. Am. Fish. Soc.
Symposium 7. Bethesda. Maryland.
Guy, C.S., H.L. Blankenship and L.A. Nielsen. 1996. Tagging and marking. In B. R. Murphy
and D.W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda,
Maryland.
Lydon, J.C., M.D. Cornwell, J.R. Foster, T.E. Brooking and S. Cavaliere. 2009. Mark-recapture
and catch per unit effort measures of walleye (Sander vitreus) abundance in Otsego Lake,
NY. In 41st Ann. Rept. (2008). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Stat., SUNY Oneonta.
Newman, S.P. and M.H. Hoff. 1998. Estimates of loss rates of jaw tags on walleyes. Am. Fish.
Soc. 18:202-205.
Olsen, E.M. and L.A. Vollestad. 2001. An evaluation of visible implant elastomer for marking
age-0 brown trout. North Am. J. of Fish. Manage. 21: 967-970.
Peck, D. J., J.R. Foster, J.C. Lydon, K.J Poole and M.D. Cornwell. 2010. The effectiveness of
spring stream electro-fishing, trap netting and lake electro-fishing for determining
walleye (Sander vitreus) abundance in Otsego Lake, NY. In 42nd Ann. Rept. (2009).
SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.
Shetter, D.S. 1967. Effects of jaw tags and fin excision upon the growth, survival, and exploition
of hatchery rainbow trout fingerlings in Michigan. Transaction of the Am. Fish. Soc. 94:
394-399.
Thompson, J. M., P.S. Hirethota, and B.T. Eggold. 2005. A comparison of elastomer marks and
fin clips as marking techniques for walleye. North Am. J. of Fish. Manage. 25:308–315.
Zerrenner, A., D.C. Josephson, and C.C. Krueger. 1997. Growth, mortality, and mark retention
of hatchery brook trout marked with visible implant tags, jaw tags, and adipose fin clips.
The Progressive Fish-Culturist 59: 241-245.