EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ANESTHETIC AQUI-S® 20E IN MARINE FINFISH AND ELASMOBRANCHS
Abstract Immersion anesthetics are used in hatchery settings by veterinarians, field biologists, and laboratory researchers to aid in handling finfish for medical procedures, research purposes, and moderating perceived stress responses. The only Food and Drug Administration– (FDA) approved anesthetic for food fish, tricaine methanesulfonate, requires a 21-d withdrawal period prior to harvest. Ten percent eugenol (AQUI-S® 20E) has been gaining momentum for FDA approval because of its 0-d withdrawal time if fish are not of harvestable size within 72 h of exposure. We performed two trials to determine appropriate anesthetic doses for two cultured marine finfish: Atractoscion nobilis (white seabass, WSB) and Seriola lalandi (California yellowtail, YT). Fish were held in a treated water bath for 10 min or until opercular beat rate slowed to a rate of <2 beats/min. Based on these results, we conducted a field trial with wild Paralabrax maculatofasciatus (spotted bay bass), Paralabrax nebulifer (barred sand bass), Paralichthys californicus (California halibut), Triakis semifasciata (leopard shark), and Mustelus californicus (grey smooth-hound) at a single dosing regime, with animals held 5–10 min in anesthetic baths. Anesthetic dosing of 35–55 mg L−1 provided relatively fast induction and good anesthetic maintenance in cultured and wild finfish. Anesthetic induction times were comparable among S. lalandi and A. nobilis at 35–mg L−1 to 75–mg L−1 doses, but recovery times were variable. Mortality rates of 20-90% were observed at higher doses (75 mg L−1 and 100 mg L−1, A. nobilis; 55 mg L−1 and 75 mg L−1, S. lalandi). The apparent increase in sensitivity of S. lalandi may have been associated with nutritional stress in the fish tested. There were no differences in time to anesthesia or recovery among wild finfish species tested at a single dose. Anesthetic induction, maintenance, and recovery were less predictable in the elasmobranch species tested and additional trials are needed to determine optimal dosing.
The Evidence for Pain in Fish: The Use of Morphine as an Analgesic
Abstract This paper discusses the evidence for pain perception in fish and presents new data on morphine analgesia in fish. Recent anatomical and electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that fish are capable of nociception, the simple detection of a noxious, potentially painful stimulus and the reflex response to this. To prove pain perception, it must be demonstrated that an animal's behaviour is adversely affected by a potentially painful event and this must not be a reflex response. The present study examined the acute effects of administering a noxious chemical to the lips of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) to assess what changes occurred in behaviour and physiology. There was no difference in swimming activity or use of cover when comparing the noxiously stimulated individuals with the controls. The noxiously treated individuals performed anomalous behaviours where they rocked on either pectoral fin from side to side and they also rubbed their lips into the gravel and against the sides of the tank. Opercular beat rate (gill or ventilation rate) increased almost double fold after the noxious treatment whereas the controls only showed a 30% increase. Administering morphine significantly reduced the pain-related behaviours and opercular beat rate and thus morphine appears to act as an analgesic in the rainbow trout. It is concluded that these pain-related behaviours are not simple reflexes and therefore there is the potential for pain perception in fish.
Evidence of spurious results along with spatially autocorrelated errors in the context of geographically weighted regression for two independent SAR(1) processes
AbstractThe aim of this paper is to examine the performance of the geographically weighted regression (GWR) technique in terms of recognizing linear relationships at the local level. Using a Monte Carlo analysis with two independent spatially autocorrelated SAR(1) processes, this study finds that spurious behavior exists at the local level along with spatially autocorrelated errors. Therefore, GWR estimation results must be interpreted with caution.
