ArticleJournal of fish biology2022
Does tagging transparent fish increase predation risk? A laboratory study with glass eel (Anguilla anguilla) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax).
Article in Journal of fish biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glass eel migration in an urbanized catchment: an integral bottleneck assessment using mark-recapture.Movement ecology · 2024Article
- Survival, growth and tag retention of juvenile European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.) with implanted 12 mm passive integrated transponder tags and acoustic tags.Journal of fish biology · 2022Article
- Does tagging transparent fish increase predation risk? A laboratory study with glass eel (Anguilla anguilla) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax).Journal of fish biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Barriers in the estuaries of the rivers prevent the immigration of glass eels (Anguilla anguilla) arriving on the European coast every spring. This leads to an unnatural accumulation of migrating glass eels below the barriers, and this may lead to additional losses in glass eels by piscivorous fish. The proportion of predation losses can be estimated using mark-recapture techniques and abundance estimates in combination with stomach content analysis of piscivorous fish. Nonetheless, whether tagging transparent glass eels increases predation risk and what the digestion rate of glass eel is in piscivorous fish are unknown. This study aimed to determine whether there is an increased predation risk for tagged glass eel; it also studies glass eel digestion status in piscivorous fish after appointed time frames. A laboratory experiment with 48 trials was conducted. Tagged (visible implanted elastomer, VIE) and untagged glass eels were exposed to small (19.1-24.4 cm) and large (31.9-43.5 cm) sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) during a 2 h trial. In 48% of the trials, successful predation was present and 13% showed clear predation attempts in which bass did not capture glass eels. No significant difference was found in predation rate between tagged and untagged glass eels and between red and blue tagged glass eels. Large sea bass predated more, but all sizes consumed glass eel under laboratory conditions. Stomach content analysis showed intact glass eel bodies 4-6 h after ending the 2 h trial and parts of glass eel bodies up to 16-18 h. This study showed that tagging does not increase predation in mark-recapture studies using VIE-tags in transparent glass eel. It also shows that the proportion of predation in relation to local glass eel abundance can be estimated if stomach content analysis is conducted within 4-6 h after predation.
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.