Physical and chemical tagging methods for the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea)

The sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) is an important economic resource in Europe, but intense harvesting has led to the collapse of several natural populations. Echinoculture, associated with restocking and stock enhancement practices, is an alternative to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientia marina 2022-09, Vol.86 (3), p.e038
Hauptverfasser: Santos, Pedro M., Ruivo Quintella, Bernardo, Jacinto, David, Gomes, Ana, Saldanha, Carolina, Lourenço, Sílvia, Mega Lopes, Patrícia, Correia, Maria João, Mateus, David, Cruz, Teresa, Pombo, Ana, Lino Costa, José
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) is an important economic resource in Europe, but intense harvesting has led to the collapse of several natural populations. Echinoculture, associated with restocking and stock enhancement practices, is an alternative to this problem. In these procedures, reliable individual identification through tagging is a valuable source of information. However, very few studies address the effect of tagging methods on P. lividus and the tagging of marine invertebrates still presents several challenges: decreased growth, high mortality rates and low tag retention rates. Under laboratory conditions, the present study evaluated the effectiveness of three tagging methods (passive integrated transponders [PIT-tags], coded wire tags [CWTs] and calcein) on wild P. lividus for 60 days in terms of total wet weight, total weight gain (mg ind.−1 day−1), survival and tag retention. The final total wet weight was significantly higher in the untagged (control) group than in the PIT-tagged group. Survival rate was 100% for the PIT-tag, calcein and control groups, and 97% for the CWT group. Tag retention differed significantly according to the tagging method: 100% in the calcein group, 76.7% in the PIT-tag group and 38.0% in the CWT group.
ISSN:0214-8358
1886-8134
DOI:10.3989/scimar.05259.038