A field evaluation of the growth and survival of age-0 Oncorhynchus mykiss tagged with 8-mm passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags

Table 1 Mean ± SD length and weight of age-0 Oncorhynchus mykiss used to evaluate 8-mm PIT tags in the Wind River, 2017

Site	Group	Size	Tagging			Recapture			Growth (mm/d)	Growth (g/g/d)
Site	Group	Size	N	FL (mm)	WT (g)	N	FL (mm)	WT (g)	Growth (mm/d)	Growth (g/g/d)
Layout	Tag	Small	53	44 ± 2.2	0.9 ± 0.2	11	54 ± 4.9	1.8 ± 0.5^a	0.16 ± 0.012	0.012 ± 0.006
Layout	Control	Small	53	44 ± 2.2	0.9 ± 0.2	2	58 ± 7.1	2.2 ± 1.1	0.24 ± 0.126	0.016 ± 0.012
Trapper	Tag	Small	70	48 ± 3.0	1.2 ± 0.3	20	61 ± 4.3	2.9 ± 0.6	0.21 ± 0.062	0.018 ± 0.005
	Control	Small	69	47 ± 3.5	1.2 ± 0.3	2	60 ± 1.4	2.7 ± 0.2	0.22 ± 0.025	0.017 ± 0.002
	Tag	Large	32	59 ± 2.7	2.3 ± 0.4	5	71 ± 3.8	3.8 ± 0.8	0.19 ± 0.082	0.010 ± 0.007
	Control	Large	30	59 ± 3.2	2.2 ± 0.3	3	63 ± 4.6	3.6 ± 1.3	0.07 ± 0.081	0.012 ± 0.010
Wind	Tag	Small	74	48 ± 3.0	1.1 ± 0.2	11	59 ± 5.1	2.6 ± 0.6	0.22 ± 0.059	0.020 ± 0.008
	Control	Small	72	49 ± 3.0	1.2 ± 0.2	0	0	0
	Tag	Large	7	56 ± 1.4	1.6 ± 0.2	1	66	3.2	0.20	0.019
	Control	Large	6	55 ± 0.8	1.5 ± 0.2	1	55	1.9	− 0.006	0.006
Paradise	Tag	Small	74	49 ± 3.8	1.2 ± 0.4	22	61 ± 5.3	2.9 ± 0.6	0.20 ± 0.085	0.017 ± 0.006
	Control	Small	71	49 ± 3.8	1.3 ± 0.4	7	58 ± 4.7	2.2 ± 0.6	0.17 ± 0.083	0.011 ± 0.006
	Tag	Large	41	57 ± 1.7	1.8 ± 0.2	13	67 ± 5.7	3.5 ± 0.8	0.19 ± 0.087	0.016 ± 0.006
	Control	Large	39	57 ± 1.5	1.9 ± 0.3	2	66 ± 1.4	3.3 ± 0.1	0.16 ± 0.025	0.013 ± 0.006
All	Tag	Small	271	47 ± 3.5	1.1 ± 0.3	64^b	59 ± 5.3	2.7 ± 0.7	0.20 ± 0.073x	0.017 ± 0.006x
	Control	Small	265	47 ± 3.6	1.2 ± 0.3	11	58 ± 4.3	2.3 ± 0.6	0.19 ± 0.083	0.013 ± 0.007
	Tag	Large	80	58 ± 2.5	1.9 ± 0.4	19	68 ± 5.2	3.5 ± 0.8	0.19 ± 0.081x	0.015 ± 0.007x

Small (42–54 mm) and large (55–64 mm) control fish had their right or left pelvic fin clipped, respectively. Growth was calculated over 57 d. Growth in weight was mass standardized. Although not statistically analyzed, growth metrics of small and large control fish are shown for comparison. Means with the same letter are not significantly different
^aThe sample size for calculating mean weight was 9
^bThe sample size for calculating mean growth (g/g/d) was 62

ISSN: 2050-3385