CSIRO Publishing Books Journals About Us Shopping Cart You are here: Journals > Wildlife Research   
Wildlife Research
  Ecology, Management and Conservation in Natural and Modified Habitats
 
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Contacts
Content
Online Early
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Notice to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
General Information
Review Article
Annual Referee Index
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 Connect with us
facebook   youtube

 CSIRO Wildlife Research
All volumes of CSIRO Wildlife Research are online and available to subscribers of Wildlife Research.

 

Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 35(8)

Visible Implant Alphanumeric tags as an alternative to toe-clipping for marking amphibians – a case study

Geoffrey W. Heard A C, Michael P. Scroggie B, Brian Malone A

A Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic. 3086, Australia.
B Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, PO Box 137, Heidelberg, Vic. 3084, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: gwheard@students.latrobe.edu.au
 
PDF (396 KB) $25
 Export Citation
 Print
  


Abstract

The removal of toes in unique combinations (‘toe-clipping’) has historically been the most popular technique for individually marking amphibians. However, recent studies have questioned the utility and ethics of this technique, and provided impetus for research on the efficacy of alternative methods. In this study, the efficacy of Visible Implant Alphanumeric (VIA) tags for marking juvenile growling grass frogs (Litoria raniformis) was assessed with reference to the fundamental assumptions of the mark–recapture approach. Three questions were investigated: (1) What is the probability of tag loss? (2) What is the probability of tag misidentification, and does it vary between frogs or observers, or with observer experience? and (3) To what extent does tagging influence survival or growth? Laboratory and field trials demonstrated that the probability of tag loss for juvenile L. raniformis was ~0.07 (95% CI: 0.03–0.13) when tags where implanted on the dorsolateral region of the thorax, eight times lower than that estimated for tags implanted on the thigh (mean 0.59; 95% CI: 0.29–0.86). Tags were rarely misidentified by naïve observers (mean probability of tag misidentification <0.01), but tag read accuracy varied amongst observers. In the laboratory, tagging did not adversely influence survival or growth of L. raniformis during the 12-week study period. Given that modification of the techniques used here may eliminate tag loss, and that variation in tag read accuracy between observers may be easily avoided, it is concluded that VIA tags represent a promising alternative to toe-clipping for marking L. raniformis and other amphibians.

   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

    


 
Top  Email this page
 
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2012