A comparison of survival and behavior of lake whitefish following transmitter implantation using electro- or chemical immobilization
Background The number of telemetry studies focused on lake whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ) in the Laurentian Great Lakes has steadily increased over the last decade, but field tests of immobilization methods used for tag implantation, which have the potential to affect survival and behavior of fish after release, are lacking. We compared post-tagging survival and behavior of lake whitefish that were immobilized for tag implantation using electroimmobilization via a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit or by chemical immobilization via exposure to 10% eugenol. Results Acoustic tags were implanted into 126 adult lake whitefish ( N = 126; N = 67 TENS treatment group, N = 59 eugenol treatment group) collected from the Fox River, Wisconsin, during the spawning period in November 2021. We found no significant differences between treatments in the number of days that lake whitefish spent in the Fox River following tagging (TENS mean = 13.4 days, eugenol mean = 14.7), and also found that the proportions of fish within each treatment group that returned to the Fox River during fall 2022 (51% from TENS treatment group, 49% from eugenol treatment group) did not differ from the proportions for all fish that were confirmed to be alive at that time. The best Cormack–Jolly–Seber model indicated no differences in survival between the two treatment groups (monthly survival = 0.980, 95% CI 0.970–0.987). Fish immobilized using TENS underwent almost immediate induction and recovery from surgeries, while fish immobilized using eugenol had induction times that ranged 167–487 s (mean = 347 s) and recovery times that ranged 51–2358 s (mean = 1242 s). Conclusions Short- and long-term behavior (time to exit of Fox River, return to Fox River in the next spawning season) and monthly survival estimates of lake whitefish did not differ between the immobilization treatments. Either method may be suitable for immobilization during tag implantation, but the additional time needed for induction and recovery of fish when using eugenol may be a limiting factor in some field-based tagging situations.