Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:03:47.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of three tagging methods in the sea urchin Diadema antillarum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

Ruber Rodríguez-Barreras  and
Alberto M. Sabat
Ruber Rodríguez-Barreras*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 23360, San Juan, PR 00931-3360, Puerto Rico
Alberto M. Sabat
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 23360, San Juan, PR 00931-3360, Puerto Rico
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: R. Rodríguez-Barreras, Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 23360, San Juan, PR 00931-3360 email: ruber.rodriguez@outlook.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multiple tagging devices have been developed for long-term studies and estimating demographic parameters in sea urchins. In this study, we evaluated the use of passive integrated transponders (PIT-tag), and two types of nylon tags (T-bar and S-tag) in the sea urchin Diadema antillarum by measuring retention rate and apparent survival. The PIT-tags exhibited the highest retention, followed by T-bars, and lastly the S-tags. Differences in recapture were detected among the three types of tags (H = 6.99, P = 0.030). An a posteriori pairwise comparison test found significant differences between PIT-tags and each of the other two types (P < 0.05), whereas T-bar and S-tag did not exhibit significant differences between them (P > 0.05). The semi-captivity experiment exhibited similar results to the field experiment in terms of retention. This experiment also found higher mortality with T-bars. Differences between previous studies conducted under controlled conditions and experiments carried out in the field reflect high variability and the necessity of testing tagging procedures under both settings. The S-tag induced high spine autotomy and low retention; whereas the T-bar demonstrated low retention and low survival. Although the retention rate of PIT-tags was significantly higher than the other two, retention rates were still too low for practical utility in long-term field experiments. In conclusion, the present study does not support the use of any of these tags for long-term studies in D. antillarum.

Keywords

Diadema antillarumPIT-tagsea urchindemographyCaribbean Sea
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 95 , Issue 6 , September 2015 , pp. 1255 - 1260
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agatsuma, Y., Nakata, A. and Matsuyama, K. (2000) Seasonal foraging activity of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus nudus on coralline flats in Oshoro Bay in south-western Hokkaido. Japan Fisheries Science 66, 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amstrup, S., Macdonald, L. and Manly, B. (2006) Handbook of capture-recapture analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 296 pp.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R.C. (1984) Predator and population density control of homing behavior in the Caribbean echinoid Diadema antillarum. Marine Biology 82, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, H. (2001) Matrix population models. 2nd edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 722 pp.Google Scholar
Cipriano, A., Burnell, G., Culloty, S. and Long, S. (2014) Evaluation of 3 tagging methods in marking sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus, populations under both laboratory and field conditions. Journal of Aquatic Research Development 5. doi: 10.4172/2155-9546.1000276.Google Scholar
Clemente, S., Hernández, J.C. and Brito, A. (2007) An external tagging technique for the long-spined sea urchin Diadema antillarum. Journal of the Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom 87, 777–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dix, T.G. (1970) Biology of Evechinus chloroticus (Echinodermata: Echinometridae) from different localities. New Zealand Journal of Marine Freshwater Research 4, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggan, R.E. and Miller, R.J. (2001) External and internal tags for the green sea urchin. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 258, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebert, T.A. and Russel, M.P. (1992) Growth and mortality estimates for red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus from San Nicolas Island, California. Marine Ecology Progress Series 81, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, N.T. (1996) Tagging sea urchins: a new technique for individual identification. Aquaculture 139, 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, Y., Wangensteen, O.S. and Fine, M. (2014) Tough as a rock-boring urchin: adult Echinometra sp. EE from the Red Sea show high resistance to ocean acidification over long-term exposures. Marine Biology 161, 2531–2545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, D.W. (2000) Diet, movement, and covering behavior of the sea urchin Toxopneustesroseus in rhodolith beds in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine Biology 137, 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalvas, P.E., Henrix, J.M. and Law, P.M. (1998) Experimental analysis of 3 internal marking methods for red sea urchins. California Fish and Game 84, 88–99.Google Scholar
Lauzon-Guay, J.S. and Scheibling, R.E. (2008) Evaluation of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in studies of sea urchins: caution advised. Aquatic Biology 2, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessios, H.A. (2013) «Natural» population density fluctuations of echinoids. Do they help predict the future? In Fernández-Palacios, J.M., De Nascimento, L., Hernández, J.C., Clemente, S., González, A. and Díaz-González, J.P. (eds) Climate change perspectives from the Atlantic: past, present and future. Servicios de Publicaciones, Universidad de La Laguna, pp. 341–359.Google Scholar
Mowat, G. and Strobeck, C. (2000) Estimating population size of grizzly bears using hair capture, DNA profiling, and mark-recapture analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 64, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaus, M., Bouwman, K.M. and Dingemanse, N.J. (2008) Effect of PIT tags on the survival and recruitment of Great Tits Parus major. Ardea 96, 286–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. and Newton, G. (1979) A simple, rapid method for marking individual sea urchins. California Fish and Game 65, 58–62.Google Scholar
Palleiro-Nayar, J., Sosa-Nishizaki, O. and Montaño-Moctezuma, G. (2009) Estimación de la tasa de crecimiento corporal del erizo rojo Strongylocentrotus franciscanus en cautiverio y en el Arrecife Sacramento en la Bahía El Rosario, Baja California, México. Ciencia Pesquera 17, 21–28.Google Scholar
Pollock, K.H., Nichols, J.D., Brownie, C. and Hines, J.E. (1990) Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107, 1–97.Google Scholar
Pradel, R. (1996) Utilization of capture-mark-recapture for the study of recruitment and population growth rate. Biometrics 52, 703–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, E.F., Flagg, T.A. and Mccutcheon, C.S. (1990) Feasibility of using implantable passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7, 317–322.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Barreras, R., Pérez, M.E., Williams, S.M., Mercado-Molina, A.E. and Sabat, A.M. (2014a) Higher population densities of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum linked to wave sheltered areas in north Puerto Rico Archipelago. Journal of the Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom 94, 1661–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Barreras, R., Serrano-Torres, S. and Macías-Reyes, D. (2014b) A study of two tagging methods in the sea cucumber Holothuria mexicana. Marine Biodiversity Records 7(e118), doi: 10.1017/S1755267214001171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Barreras, R. and Sonnenholzner, J. (2015) Effect of implanted PIT-tags on growth, survival, and tag retention in the sea urchin Tripneustes ventricosus. Caribbean Journal of Science (in press).Google Scholar
Schooley, R.L., Van Horne, B. and Burnham, K.P. (1993) Passive integrated transponders for marking free-ranging Townsend's ground squirrels. Journal of Mammalogy 74, 480–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnernholzner, J.I., Montaño-Moctezuma, G. and Searcy-Bernal, R. (2010) Effect of three tagging methods on the growth and survival of the purple sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 5, 414–420.Google Scholar
Steyermark, A.C., Williams, K., Spotila, J.R., Paladino, F.V., Rostal, D.C., Morreale, S.J., Koberg, M.T. and Arauz-Vargas, R. (1996) Nesting leatherback turtles at Las Baulas National Park, Costa Rica. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2), 173–183.Google Scholar
Tuya, F., Martin, J.A. and Luque, A. (2003) A novel technique for tagging the long-spined sea urchin Diadema antillarum. Sarsia 88, 365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M.M. (1981) Influence of season on growth of the sea urchin Evechinus chloroticus. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 15, 201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, K., Nichols, J. and Conroy, M. (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zar, J.H. (2010) Biostatistical analysis. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar