Jessica Hale, Josh Bouma, Brent Vadopalas, Carolyn Friedman

University of Washington, SAFSNOAA, Mukilteo Field Station

Novel Tagging Methods in Pinto Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana)

Previous Abalone Tagging Methods

• Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs)

Puget Sound Restoration Fund

Previous Abalone Tagging Methods

• Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs)

• Through respiratory pores (washers and rivets)

Previous Abalone Tagging Methods• Adhered with adhesives (bee tags, plastic discs)

• Through respiratory pores (washers and rivets)

• Unsatisfactory due to:

Ja

nna

Nic

hols

- Tag loss

- Encrustation

- Shell erosion

- Difficulty for divers tovisualize when cryptic

Successful Tagging Method

• Needs:

High retention

Low impact to animal

Detectable under field conditions

Passive Integrated Transponders (PITs)

• Individual IDs• Can be read without being visualized

• Behind substrate

• In aggregates

Methods• Biomark 9mm tags

• Trial 1: Late juveniles (n=40) age 3.5 years

• Trial 2: Juveniles (n=42) age 2 years

• Trial 3: Broodstock (n=33)

• Tracked:- Growth- Survival- Tag Retention

Trial 1: Late Juveniles

• 60 mm (range 40.1-75.5 mm)

• Outside shell

• Inside shell

• Injection into foot

Trial 2: Juveniles

• 20 mm (range 17.5 – 32.1 mm)

• Tagged inside shell

Trial 3: Broodstock

• Average 115 mm

• Tagged inside shell

Hypotheses

• Low survival in injected group due to hemophilia

• Low growth in injected group

• Abalone will deposit nacre over tag, as in pearls

• Nacre development will increase tag retention

controlinjectedoutside inside0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent Tag LossPercent Mortality

Tagging Method

Perc

en

t T

ag L

oss

/Mort

al-

ity

Trial 1: Late Juveniles

controlinjectedoutside inside0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent Tag LossPercent Mortality

Tagging Method

Perc

en

t T

ag L

oss

/Mort

al-

ity

Trial 1: Late Juveniles

P=0.109

controlinjectedoutside inside0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent Tag LossPercent Mortality

Tagging Method

Perc

en

t T

ag L

oss

/Mort

al-

ity

*P<0.001

P=0.109

Trial 1: Late Juveniles

Tagged Control0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Net

Gro

wth

(mm

)

Trial 2: Juveniles

Tagged Control0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Net

Gro

wth

(mm

)

*P=0.006

Trial 2: Juveniles

Broodstock Late Juveniles Juveniles87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97Pe

rcen

t Tag

Ret

entio

n

Age Group Summary for PIT tags attached inside

Broodstock Late Juveniles Juveniles87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97Pe

rcen

t Tag

Ret

entio

nt= 168 days

t= 252 days

t= 84 days

Age Group Summary for PIT tags attached inside

Results• Survival

– Attaching PITs inside had the highest survival rate compared to injection and

application outside the shell in Trial 1

– No significant difference in survival among treatment groups (injected, inside,

outside) or between trials (juveniles vs late juveniles)

Results• Survival

– Attaching PITs inside had the highest survival rate compared to injection and

application outside the shell in Trial 1

– No significant difference in survival among treatment groups (injected, inside,

outside) or between trials (juveniles vs late juveniles)

• Tag Retention

– Attaching PITs inside had highest tag retention in Trial 1 (90%, n=9)

– Trial 2 had 91% tag retention, Trial 3 96%

– No significant difference in tag retention between Trial 1 and 2

Results• Survival

– Attaching PITs inside had the highest survival rate compared to injection and

application outside the shell in Trial 1

– No significant difference in survival among treatment groups (injected, inside,

outside) or between trials (juveniles vs late juveniles)

• Tag Retention

– Attaching PITs inside had highest tag retention in Trial 1 (90%, n=9)

– Trial 2 had 91% tag retention, Trial 3 96%

– No significant difference in tag retention between Trial 1 and 2

• Growth

– No significant difference in growth in tagged individuals in Trial 1

– Significantly lower growth in tagged individuals in Trial 2

Conclusions• PITs viable tagging method for adult and

late juveniles (possible size minimum)

• Possible uses with other shelled gastropods, possibly shellfish

Future Goals

• Finish development of reader, test in field• Evaluation of smaller Biomark tag (8.4mm) and

Nonatec tags (UK based, 6mm tags)

Reader• Underwater PIT reader exists

• Fully submersible reader under development

• Testing:– Read range

– Readability in aggregates & under substrate

Biomark

Thank you!

Funding: NOAA (SOC)Mukilteo Field StationWDFW ShewmakerPSRFSAFS

Contributions:

Friedman LabGlenn VanBlaricomTodd BennettKristi StrausPaul PleshaJordan Watson

Questions?