Two series of tagging evaluations were conducted to address the efficacy of tagging juvenile shad - preliminary trials in 2020 and a long-term holding study in 2021. Preliminary laboratory evaluations were conducted at PNNL in November 2020 to determine a preferred method for implanting American shad with a novel acoustic microtransmitter. Prototype transmitter designs (n = 4, P1-P4) were paired with different tagging locations (gastric, pectoral, pelvic, and dorsal) for a combined total of 4 unique acoustic transmitter-tagging location treatments (n = 40 fish per treatment, Table 1). All test fish were randomly assigned to a treatment and holding tank. Test fish were held in 2 holding tanks with equal numbers of fish from each treatment (i.e., 20 fish per treatment) per tank for 14 days. For the first 2 days of the evaluation, shad were held in brackish saltwater (7.5 ppt) and allowed to recover from tagging and handling. Then the tanks were switched to flow-through fresh water for the remainder of the evaluation period.
For the preliminary evaluation, tagged fish and fin-clipped controls ranged in size from 50-80 mm in fork length. Juvenile shad survival and tag retention were highest for fish implanted via a pectoral incision compared to the other tagging techniques (Figure 3). Additional pilot evaluations also demonstrated that handling techniques such as water-to-water transfers and holding fish in brackish saltwater before and after stressful events, such as tagging, were critical to increasing survival rates.
Using the successful tagging and handling protocols from the preliminary evaluation, a laboratory study was conducted at PNNL in 2021 to evaluate the long-term 60 d survival and tag retention of juvenile American shad implanted with an acoustic transmitter using the pectoral incision tagging method. The long-term evaluation used the dummy transmitter P5 (Figure 4), an improved prototype design similar in form and size to the P1 design used in the preliminary evaluation. The average dimensions and weight of the dummy P5 tag were 7.6 mm long × 2.3 mm in diameter and a weight in air of 0.058 g (standard deviation 0.002 g), which resulted in a tag burden of <1%. The prototype acoustic transmitter with functional components (Figure 4) has dimensions of 7.6 mm long x 2.0 mm in diameter and a weight in air of 0.050 g.
Juvenile American shad used in the long-term evaluation had been held in captivity for 4 months at the time of testing. While the experiment was designed to have equal numbers of treatment and control fish held in two tanks for a 60 day period, the remaining shad numbers at the time of tagging were low. Therefore, more shad were randomly assigned to the tagged treatment group than the control group to get a better understanding of the long-term efficacy of the tagging technique on shad. Each of the two tanks held 27 treatment fish and 9 or 10 control fish. However, since survival from Tank A (13.8%) was significantly worse than Tank B (78.4%; Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001) and there was no difference in survival between the tagged and control groups within each tank, only the results for tank B are included here.
Shad (fork length 69-105 mm; weight 3.9-11.7 g) were either tagged with the P5 transmitter using the pectoral incision (n = 27) or assigned to the control group (n = 10). Control fish were handled using the same procedures, including being placed on the surgical pad for ~20 s, but they did not receive a fin clip or an incision nor were they implanted with a transmitter. After tagging, both treatment groups were held in brackish saltwater (7.5 ppt) for 1 day and then switched to flow-through river water for the remainder of the study. Survival at 60 days was 81.5% for the tagged group and 70% for the untagged controls (Figure 5). Survival for tagged fish in this evaluation was defined as both survival and tag retention because tag expulsion cannot be differentiated from a mortality event in a telemetry study. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.884); however, the power to detect a difference was 38.4% due to the small sample sizes. Although the power to detect a difference between the treatments was low, the results of the long-term evaluation show that this handling and tagging protocol can be used with moderate success to implant American shad with acoustic transmitters.

Figure 1: Post-tagging recovery tank filled with brackish saltwater. An airlift system supplies oxygen to the static tank. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Acoustic transmitter implantation of a Juvenile American shad. Juvenile American shad (A) with a pectoral incision and (B) with the dummy P5 transmitter inserted into the incision. Note, the mouth of the shad is partially submerged in water flowing from the blue tubing. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Survival percentage over a preliminary 14 d evaluation with one group of untagged controls and four tagged groups of juvenile American shad. The tagged treatments consisted of four tagging locations (gastric, pectoral, pelvic, and dorsal) each paired with a unique transmitter prototype (P1-P4). Survival of the tagged fish was defined as both survival and tag retention. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Acoustic and dummy transmitters for tagging juvenile American shad. (A) Functional acoustic microtransmitter and (B) the dummy P5 prototype transmitter, that was used in the 60 d laboratory survival study. Note the numbers 4-7 on the ruler represent centimeters. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Survival percentage of American shad over a long-term 60 d holding study. Juvenile shad were either untagged (Untagged Controls; solid line) or tagged (Tagged [Pectoral P5]; dashed line) with a dummy transmitter. Survival of the tagged group was defined as both survival and tag retention. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Tag Type | Tag Location | N | Fork Length (mm) | Mean Tag Weight (SD; g) | Tag Burden (%) | Survival (%) | Mean Time to Tag/Clip (s) |
| Range | Mean (SD) |
| P1 | Gastric | 40 | 50 - 76 | 60 (6.0) | 0.058 (0.003) | 1.5 - 5.2 | 45 | 12 |
| P2 | Pectoral | 40 | 50 - 78 | 60 (7.3) | 0.039 (0.001) | 1.0 - 3.2 | 80 | 23 |
| P3 | Pelvic | 40 | 50 - 70 | 58 (5.3) | 0.039 (0.001) | 1.0 - 4.1 | 55 | 26 |
| P4 | Dorsal | 40 | 50 - 80 | 61 (6.8) | 0.088 (0.004) | 0 | 60 | 57 |
| Control | NA (Clip) | 40 | 50 - 80 | 59 (5.7) | NA | 0 | 92.5 | 14 |
Table 1:Tagging and survival information for American shad implanted with prototype transmitters (P1-P4) or marked with upper caudal and lower caudal fin clips (Control) as part of the preliminary evaluation. Tag location for the control group is Not Applicable (NA) as these fish only received fin clips (Clip). Note, that the tag type P4 was a neutrally buoyant design. The standard deviation (SD) of the mean is listed in parentheses.