Use of transponders for individual marking of Unio crassus Philipsson, 1788 (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in mountain rivers

Katarzyna Zając, e-mail: kzajac@iop.krakow.pl

Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Mickiewicza 33, 31-120 Kraków, Poland
Abstract

Usefulness of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT tag) technology for observation of behaviour and life history of endangered Unio crassus was tested in two Polish mountain rivers. Dispersion of PIT marked individuals from the place of release did not exceed 3 m. The detection of marked individuals on the rocky bottom was very low (13–39%) and decreasing with time. Ca. 1/3 of implanted PIT tags were rejected, usually within two weeks after implanting; later the rejection did not occur as the PIT tag became fixed in the nacre (very thin on the PIT tag surface adjacent to the flesh, thick with additional fixing structures adjacent to the shell). Nevertheless, 33 tags were detected after three years, some in live individuals which were more numerous on the soft sediment bank (n=12) than on the rocky bottom (n=6). The influence of electromagnetic field on the detection of PIT tags, the possible causes of the tag rejection and mechanisms of tag retention are discussed. It is suggested that PIT tags could be useful as a method of durable individual marking but less suitable for detecting and/or locating the mussels. Controlling of possible tags rejection is indispensable

Key words
RIFD chip; PIT tags; individual marking; individual identification; mussels
References

Clutton-Brock T., Sheldon B. C. 2010. Individuals and population: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 562–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.002
Fischer J. R., Neebling T. E., Quist M. C. 2012. Development and evolution of a boat-mounted RFID antenna for monitoring freshwater mussels. Freshwater Sci. 31: 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1899/11-045.1
Gibbons J. W., Andrews K. M. 2004. PIT tagging: simple technology at its best. BioScience 54: 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0447:PTSTAI]2.0.CO;2
Gough H. M., Gascho Landis A. M., Stoeckel J. A. 2012. Behaviour and physiology are linked in the responses of freshwater mussels to drought. Freshwater Biol. 57: 2356–2366. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12015
Hamilton S., Connel L. 2009. Improved methodology for tracking and genetically identifying the Softshell Clam Mya arenaria. J. Shellfish Res. 28: 747–750. https://doi.org/10.2983/035.028.0402
Hartman J. T., Beggel S., Auerswald K., Geist J. 2016. Determination of the most suitable adhesive for tagging freshwater mussels and its use in an experimental study of filtration and biological rhythm. J. Mollus. Stud. 82: 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyw003
Hua D., Jiao Y., Neves R., Jones J. 2015. Use of PIT tags to assess individual heterogeneity of laboratory-reared juveniles of endangered Cumberlandian combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) in a mark-recapture study. Ecol. Evol. 5: 1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1348
Kurth J., Loftin C., Zydlewski J., Rhymer J. 2007. PIT tags increase effectiveness of freshwater mussel recaptures. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 26: 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[253:PTIEOF]2.0.CO;2
Lopes-Lima M., Sousa R., Geist J., Aldridge D., Araujo R., Bergengren J., Bespalaja Y., Bódis E., Burlakova L., Van Damme D., Douda K., Froufe E., Georgiev D., Gumpinger C., Karatayev A., Kebapçi Ü., Killeen I., Lajtner J., Larsen B., Lauceri R., Legakis A., Lois S., Lundberg S., Moorkens E., Motte G., Nagel K.-O., Ondina P., Outeiro A., Paunovic M., Prié V., Proschwitz T. von, Riccardi N., Rudzīte M., Rudzītis M., Scheder Ch., Seddon M., Şereflişan H., Simić V., Sokolova S., Stoeckl K., Taskinen J., Teixeira A., Thielen F., Trichkova T., Varandas S., Vicentini H., Zając K., Zając T., Zogaris S. 2017. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in Europe: State of the art and future challenges. Biol. Rev 92: 572–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12244
Newton T. J., Zigler S. J., Gray B. R. 2015. Mortality, movement and behaviour of native mussels during a planned water-level drawdown in the Upper Mississippi River. Freshwater Biol. 60: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12461
Nussey D. H., Coulson T., Festa-Bianchet M., Gaillard J.-M. 2008. Measuring senescence in wild animal populations: towards a longitudinal approach. Funct. Ecol. 22: 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01408.x
Wilson C. D., Arnott G., Reid N., Roberts D. 2011. The pitfall with PIT tags: marking freshwater bivalves for translocation induces short-term behavioural costs. Anim. Behav. 81: 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.10.003
Zając K. 2014. Size-dependent predation by otter Lutra lutra on swan mussels Anodonta cygnea (Linnaeus 1758) – observations and radiotelemetry experiment. J. Conchol. 41: 559–563.
Zając T., Zając K. 2011. The role of active individual movement in habitat selection in the endangered freshwater mussel Unio crassus Philipson 1788. J. Conchol. 40: 446–461.

Folia Malacologica (2017) 25: 117-124
First published on-line: 2017-06-08 00:00:00
https://doi.org/10.12657/folmal.025.010
Full text (.PDF) BibTeX Mendeley Back to list