Evaluation of visible implant elastomer (vie) for marking fingerling blue catfish

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 254-258

  Zeller, Megan M ^a   Cairns, Stefan H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014970407     PISSN: 02755947     EISSN: 15488675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1577/M09-073.1     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Buckmeier, D. L., and R. L. Irwin. 2000. An evaluation of soft visual implant tag retention compared with anchor tag retention in channel catfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:296-298.
2. Bushon, A. M., G. W. Stunz, and M. M. Reese. 2007. Evaluation of visible implant elastomer for marking juvenile red drum. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:460-464.
3. Daugherty, D. J., and D. L. Buckmeier. 2009. Retention of passive integrated transponder tags in flathead catfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:343-345.
4. Dewey, M. R., and S. J. Zigler. 1996. An evaluation of fluorescent elastomer for marking bluegill sunfish in experimental studies. Progressive Fish-Culturist 58:219-220.
5. Frederick, J. L. 1997. Evaluation of fluorescent elastomer injection as a method for marking small fish. Bulletin of Marine Science 61(2):399-408.
6. Fuselier, L. F., and D. Edds. 1994. Seasonal variation in habitat use by the Neosho madtom (Teleostei: Ictalur-idae:Noturus placidus).Southwestern Naturalist 39(3):217-223.
7. Haines, B. G., and T. Modde. 1996. Evaluation of marking techniques to estimate population size and first-year survival of Colorado squawfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:905-912.
8. Jones, G. 1998. Tongue tagged. Northwest Marine Technology, Tumwater, Washington. Available:www.nmt.us/support/downloads/newsletters/. (September 2003.)
9. Morgan, C. E., and M. A. Farooqi. 1995. A preliminary investigation of visible implant (VIE) tag retention rates and the effect of tagging on the growth and survival of barbel(Barbus barbusL.). National Rivers Authority, Warrington, UK.
10. Nielsen, L. A. 1992. Methods of marking fish and shellfish. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
11. Nielsen, L. A., and D. L. Johnson. 1983. Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
12. NMT (Northwest Marine Technology). 2008. Visible implant elastomer tags (VIE). NMT, Tumwater, Washington. Available:www.nmt.us/products/vie/vie.htm. (July 2008.)
13. NMT (Northwest Marine Technology). 2009. Visible implant elastomer tags (VIE). NMT, Tumwater, Washington. Available:www.nmt.us/products/vie/vie.htm. (September 2009.)
14. Olsen, E. M., J. Gjpstter, and N. C. Stenseth. 2004. Evaluation of the use of visible implant tags in age-0 Atlantic cod. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:282-286.
15. Olsen, E. M., and L. A. Vpllestad. 2001. An evaluation of visible implant elastomer for marking age-0 brown trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:967-970.
16. Phillips, C. T., and J. N. Fries. 2009. An evaluation of visible implant elastomer for marking the federally listed fountain darter and the San Marcos salamander. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:529-532.
17. Reeves, K. S., and D. L. Buckmeier. 2009. Mortality, predation, and tag visibility of fish marked with visible implant elastomer tags. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:323-329.