ArticlePloS one2020
Pushing the envelope: Micro-transmitter effects on small juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant effort has been invested in downsizing telemetry transmitters so they can be used to monitor survival and behavior in a variety of fish species and life stages. Commercially available "micro" transmitters in particular have presented researchers with the opportunity to tag very small fish (< 250 mm fork length). We conducted a release/recapture study in tandem with a laboratory study of tag effects on juvenile yearling spring and subyearling fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fish surgically implanted with both a micro-acoustic transmitter and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags were compared with fish injected with only a PIT tag. Detections from both tag types showed that during the downstream migration, fish surgically implanted with both a micro-acoustic transmitter and PIT tag did not survive at the same rate or behave in the same manner as those injected with only a PIT tag. Differences in survival were more pronounced in subyearlings than in yearlings. This was likely due to warmer temperatures experienced by migrating subyearlings, their higher metabolic rate, and their smaller size and consequently higher tag-burden. To identify the mechanisms driving these differences, we necropsied migrating study fish recaptured at locations 225-460 km downstream from the release site. Results revealed that compared with PIT-tagged fish, micro-acoustic-tagged fish had heightened inflammatory responses within the body cavity, delayed healing of surgical incision sites, and poor body-condition. For study fish tagged along with those released to the river but held in the laboratory for observation, outcomes revealed that tag effects were similar in direction, but not as pronounced under artificial conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.