Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No long-term effect of intracoelomic acoustic transmitter implantation on survival, growth, and body condition of a long-lived stenotherm in the wild Journal: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Manuscript ID cjfas-2020-0106.R1 Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the 17-Sep-2020 Author: Complete List of Authors: Hubbard, Justin; University of Toronto, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; University of Toronto at Scarborough, Department of Biological Sciences Hickie, Brendan;Draft Environmental and Resource Studies Program, Trent University Bowman, Jeff; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Wildlife Research and Monitoring Section Hrenchuk, Lee; International Institute for Sustainable Development, Blanchfield, Paul; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Freshwater Institute Rennie, Michael; Lakehead University, Biology acoustic telemetry, surgical implantation, long-term, survivorship, Keyword: growth and condition Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special Not applicable (regular submission) Issue? : © The Author(s) or their Institution(s) Page 1 of 52 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1 No long-term effect of intracoelomic acoustic transmitter implantation on survival, growth, 2 and body condition of a long-lived stenotherm in the wild 3 Justin A. G. Hubbard1,2,6,7*, Brendan E. Hickie1, Jeff Bowman3, Lee E. Hrenchuk2,5, Paul J. 4 Blanchfield2,5, Michael D. Rennie2,4 5 *Corresponding author: Justin A. G. Hubbard1 (email: [email protected]; 6 phone: 416-280-2248; Fax: 416-978-5878) 7 8 1Trent University, School of the Environment, 1600 West Bank Drive. Peterborough, ON Canada 9 K9L 0G2. Brendan E. Hickie (email: [email protected]) 10 2IISD Experimental Lakes Area, 111 LombardDraft Avenue, Suite 325. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 11 R3B 0T4. Lee E. Hrenchuk ([email protected]), Michael D. Rennie ([email protected]) 12 3Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Wildlife Research and Monitoring Section, 13 Trent University DNA Building, 1600 West Bank Drive. Peterborough, ON, K9J 7B8. 14 Jeff Bowman (email: [email protected]) 15 4Lakehead University, Department of Biology, 955 Oliver Rd. Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5E1 16 5Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Freshwater Institute, 501 University Crescent. Winnipeg, MB, 17 R3T 2N6. Paul J. Blanchfield (email: [email protected]) 18 1 Present Affiliations: 6University of Toronto, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 25 Willcocks Street, Room 3055, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3B2 7University of Toronto Scarborough, Department of Biological Sciences, 1265 Military Trail Toronto, Ontario. M1C 1A4 1 © The Author(s) or their Institution(s) Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Page 2 of 52 19 Abstract 20 A fundamental assumption of biotelemetry studies is that there are no adverse 21 consequences from the surgical implantation or presence of the acoustic transmitter. In 22 fisheries, most studies have evaluated this assumption over only short time periods (<2 y) in a 23 laboratory setting. Here we compared the survival, growth, and body condition of populations 24 of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in three lakes containing tagged and untagged individuals 25 over a 12-year period (2002-2013). We found no significant negative effects of acoustic 26 telemetry tagging on the long-term survival of fish (estimates of combined annual survival 27 ranged from 67% to 91%), and no negative effect of surgical implantation on growth or body 28 condition for fish of either sex. Additionally,Draft we found no significant effect of transmitter:fish 29 mass ratio on fish survival, growth (with the exception of smaller-bodied fish in one lake), or 30 condition. All implanted fish received tags weighing <1.25% of their mass (in water), indicating 31 that this criterion is desirable for larger-bodied adult Lake Trout. Our findings support the 32 assumption that long-lived fish species tagged with acoustic transmitters via intracoelomic 33 surgery survive, grow, and maintain body condition similar to un-tagged conspecifics over the 34 long-term in the wild. 35 36 Keywords: acoustic telemetry, surgical implantation, long-term, survivorship, growth and 37 condition 2 © The Author(s) or their Institution(s) Page 3 of 52 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38 Introduction 39 Biotelemetry can provide novel insights into the spatial ecology and survival rates of 40 aquatic animal populations that were previously impossible to observe in the wild (Hussey et al. 41 2015). Biotelemetry has many uses in fisheries research including applications in studies of fish 42 movement and migration (Keefer et al. 2008; Fielder et al. 2020), anthropogenic impacts on 43 survival and mortality rates in exploited stocks (Donaldson et al. 2008), spatial and temporal 44 habitat use (Charles et al. 2017), and fish behaviour (Johnson et al. 2010). Application of 45 biotelemetry to fisheries research has been occurring for more than half a century (Baras 1991; 46 Cooke et al. 2013), but in recent decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of 47 acoustic telemetry in fisheries researchDraft due to the technological advancements (e.g., increased 48 battery life, signal strength and miniaturization) and increasing affordability of the equipment 49 (Kessel et al. 2014). Acoustic telemetry transmitters (hereafter tags) are typically externally 50 attached or internally implanted, although intracoelomic surgical implantation is the most 51 common approach (Jepsen et al. 2002; Bridger and Booth 2003; Brown et al. 2011). 52 A critical assumption of biotelemetry studies is that tagged (i.e., fish implanted with an 53 acoustic tag in the coelom) fish are representative of their populations (Rogers and White 54 2007). Violations of this assumption could lead to spurious findings that are not representative 55 of the studied fish populations but rather associated with the impacts of tagging. Documented 56 negative impacts of capture, handling, and surgical implantation of tags include inflammation 57 (Thorstad et al. 2000), reduced growth over short periods (ca. 5 mo.; Jepsen et al. 2008), 58 decreased swimming ability, altered behaviour (Zale et al. 2005), and increased mortality rates 59 (Brown et al. 2013; Jepsen et al. 2015). Larger tag:fish mass ratios have been shown to amplify 3 © The Author(s) or their Institution(s) Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Page 4 of 52 60 the effects of tagging (Jepsen et al. 2005). The general rule of using a tag weight no larger than 61 1.25% of the fish weight in water (or 2% for tag weight in air; Winter 1983) was largely accepted 62 among researchers, but recent studies have indicated more species- and context-specific 63 approaches to tag size should be considered (Brown et al. 1999; Jepsen et al. 2002; McCabe et 64 al. 2019). By tailoring the most suitable procedures to the specific fish species and research 65 project objectives, many of these impacts can be mitigated over short time scales (Jepsen et al. 66 2002). 67 A challenge for fisheries research remains in understanding the long-term effects of 68 intracoelomic tag implantation (Cooke et al. 2011). Tags are routinely surgically implanted in 69 species known to live for years (e.g., SmallmouthDraft Bass Micropterus dolomieu), decades (e.g., 70 Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush) or more than a century (e.g. Lake Sturgeon Acipenser 71 fulvescens). Thus, the lifespan of many freshwater fishes is well beyond the battery life of a tag 72 or the duration of a given telemetry study, yet an implanted tag will remain with a fish for its 73 entire life. Lake Trout are a long-lived (50+ y; Schram and Fabrizio 1998), cold-water species 74 that is sensitive to human disturbances for which telemetry studies have played an important 75 role in conservation efforts for decades, especially in the Laurentian Great Lakes (Riley et al. 76 2014; Binder et al. 2017, 2018). As for other fish species, acoustic telemetry studies have been 77 instrumental in improving our understanding of the ecology, life history and habitat use of Lake 78 Trout (Guzzo et al. 2016; Gallagher et al. 2019; Klinard et al. 2019), and in some smaller inland 79 lakes, monitoring of telemetry-tagged Lake Trout has been ongoing for almost two decades 80 (Blanchfield et al. 2005; Guzzo et al. 2017). However, more important than study duration (i.e. 81 period when tags are active) is the consideration of long-term fish welfare, given that fish will 4 © The Author(s) or their Institution(s) Page 5 of 52 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 82 carry implanted tags for the rest of their lives. Despite this, most tagging effects studies occur in 83 laboratory settings and last for short durations of several weeks to months (e.g. Thorstad et al. 84 2000; Berejikian et al. 2007; Darcy et al. 2019). Potential long-term effects of tags could 85 negatively impact estimates growth, survival, movement, and behaviour from study 86 populations and are thus important to quantify but are currently unknown. 87 The objective of our study was to assess the long-term lethal or sub-lethal effects of 88 surgically implanted acoustic telemetry tags on adult Lake Trout within their natural habitat. 89 Here we compare data from two complementary long-term studies of Lake Trout populations 90 ongoing in several small boreal lakes. Data from an annual population monitoring program 91 were used to compare survival, growthDraft and condition of Lake Trout that only experienced 92 handling in this standard mark-recapture program to Lake Trout that were acoustically tagged 93 in these same lakes (Guzzo et al. 2017). We also examined the effects of tag:fish mass ratio on 94 growth and body condition. Given the documented potential for negative effects of acoustic 95 telemetry tagging on fish survival (Brown et al. 2013) and growth (Jepsen et al.