Methods for tagging an ectoparasite, the salmon louse *Lepeophtheirus salmonis*use asterix (*) to get italics

Alexius Folk, Adele MenneratPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2023

<p style="text-align: justify;">Monitoring individuals within populations is a cornerstone in evolutionary ecology, yet individual tracking of invertebrates and particularly parasitic organisms remains rare. To address this gap, we describe here a method for attaching radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to individual adult females of a marine ectoparasite, the salmon louse <em>Lepeophtheirus salmonis</em>. Comparing two alternative types of glue, we found that one of them (2-octyl cyanoacrylate, 2oc) gave a significantly higher tag retention rate than the other (ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate, e2c). This glue comparison test also resulted in a higher loss rate of adult ectoparasites from the population where tagging was done using 2oc, but this included males not tagged and thus could also suggest a mere tank effect. Corroborating this, a more extensive analysis using data collected over two years showed no significant difference in mortality after repeated exposure to the 2oc glue, nor did it show any significant effect of the tagging procedure on the reproduction of female salmon lice. The proportion of RFID-tagged individuals followed a negative exponential decline, with tag retention among the living female population generally high. The projected retention was found to be about 88% after 30 days or 80% after 60 days, although one of the four batches of glue used, purchased from a different supplier, appeared to give significantly lower tag retention and with greater initial loss (74% and 60% respectively). Overall, we find that RFID tagging is a simple and effective technology that enables documenting individual life histories for invertebrates of a suitable size, including marine and parasitic species, and that it can be used over long periods of study.</p>

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8304838You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8304838You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

RFID tags; monitoring; individual identification; tagging effects; ectoparasite; parasite; Lepeophtheirus salmonis

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Dispersal & Migration, Evolutionary ecology, Host-parasite interactions, Marine ecology, Parasitology, Terrestrial ecology, Zoology

Karen McCoy (karen.mccoy@ird.fr), Sandra Binning (sandra.ann.binning@umontreal.ca), Jan Hrcek (janhrcek@gmail.com), Thierry Lefevre (thierry.lefevre@ird.fr), Ana Rivero (ana.rivero@montp.cnrs.fr), Frederic Thomas (frederic.thomas2@ird.fr), Stephanie Carlson [smcarlson@berkeley.edu] suggested: Martin Krkošek, martin.krkosek@utoronto.caa, Karen D McCoy suggested: Charles D. Criscione (Texas A&M): ccriscione@bio.tamu.edu, Karen D McCoy suggested: Simon Blanchet (CNRS, Moulis): simon.blanchet@sete.cnrs.fr, Martin Krkošek [martin.krkosek@utoronto.ca] suggested: Knut Vollset, Martin Krkošek [martin.krkosek@utoronto.ca] suggested: Crawford Revie, Martin Krkošek [martin.krkosek@utoronto.ca] suggested: Simon Jones, Martin Krkošek [martin.krkosek@utoronto.ca] suggested: Mark Fast, Jerome Mallefet [jerome.mallefet@uclouvain.be] suggested: sorry I am too busy reviewing already two papers , I have one congress coming and 2 PhD manuscript corrections... , Jerome Mallefet [jerome.mallefet@uclouvain.be] suggested: Henrik.glenner@uib.no , Jerome Mallefet [jerome.mallefet@uclouvain.be] suggested: Laurent.duchatelet@uclouvain.be No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-09-04 15:25:08

Nicolas Schtickzelle