Trends in the reporting of tagging procedures for fish telemetry studies that have used surgical implantation of transmitters: a call for more complete reporting

Trends in the reporting of tagging procedures for fish telemetry studies that have used surgical... The intracoelomic surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish is becoming the “standard” tagging approach for most field telemetry studies. Subsequently, efforts must be made to ensure the welfare of the fish are maintained and that fish do not experience significant mortality or sublethal impairments in health, behavior or physiology as a result of surgical procedures. Therefore, it is essential to adequately report information relating to all aspects of the surgical procedure to enable the reader to make an accurate interpretation of study results. We conducted a quantitative literature review aimed at characterizing trends in data reporting by examining a sample of fish telemetry studies published in peer-reviewed outlets during the last 20 years. We used a repeatability score, based on 16 predetermined criteria, to evaluate the reporting of surgical procedures in telemetry studies. The majority of studies failed to report basic information relating to the surgical procedures used. Repeatability scores were highly variable between studies and ranged from 0–93.8%. No single study provided complete information (mean repeatability score = 50.7%) and repeatability showed no trend over time. Some study information was consistently well reported (e.g. tag size and dimensions, the type of anaesthetic used and the location of incision). In contrast, the type of suture knots, duration or level of anaesthesia and precautions taken to minimize infection were consistently left out of the methods section of most telemetry studies. Our review was confounded by the large proportion of studies that cited other sources for their surgical methods, many of which themselves lacked complete information. We recommend that future electronic tagging studies that involve intracoelomic implantation include the minimum reporting standards presented in this paper. Increasing the detail of reporting will improve the quality of data presented, minimize welfare and ethical concerns and allow transparency for study repeatability. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries Springer Journals

Trends in the reporting of tagging procedures for fish telemetry studies that have used surgical implantation of transmitters: a call for more complete reporting

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/trends-in-the-reporting-of-tagging-procedures-for-fish-telemetry-9x0jrLaD89
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Life Sciences; Zoology ; Freshwater & Marine Ecology
ISSN
0960-3166
eISSN
1573-5184
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11160-010-9194-2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The intracoelomic surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish is becoming the “standard” tagging approach for most field telemetry studies. Subsequently, efforts must be made to ensure the welfare of the fish are maintained and that fish do not experience significant mortality or sublethal impairments in health, behavior or physiology as a result of surgical procedures. Therefore, it is essential to adequately report information relating to all aspects of the surgical procedure to enable the reader to make an accurate interpretation of study results. We conducted a quantitative literature review aimed at characterizing trends in data reporting by examining a sample of fish telemetry studies published in peer-reviewed outlets during the last 20 years. We used a repeatability score, based on 16 predetermined criteria, to evaluate the reporting of surgical procedures in telemetry studies. The majority of studies failed to report basic information relating to the surgical procedures used. Repeatability scores were highly variable between studies and ranged from 0–93.8%. No single study provided complete information (mean repeatability score = 50.7%) and repeatability showed no trend over time. Some study information was consistently well reported (e.g. tag size and dimensions, the type of anaesthetic used and the location of incision). In contrast, the type of suture knots, duration or level of anaesthesia and precautions taken to minimize infection were consistently left out of the methods section of most telemetry studies. Our review was confounded by the large proportion of studies that cited other sources for their surgical methods, many of which themselves lacked complete information. We recommend that future electronic tagging studies that involve intracoelomic implantation include the minimum reporting standards presented in this paper. Increasing the detail of reporting will improve the quality of data presented, minimize welfare and ethical concerns and allow transparency for study repeatability.

Journal

Reviews in Fish Biology and FisheriesSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 21, 2010

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off