To better understand the reliability of fin clipping as an external mark for early‐summer (<100 mm TL) age‐0 Northern Pike Esox lucius, we experimentally evaluated fin regeneration following complete excision of a pelvic fin over 98 d. The Northern Pike were also marked with a unique visible implant elastomer tag to allow for repeated measures of individuals. Survival, growth, and fin regeneration were evaluated among three treatment groups to determine whether the fish that received a fin clip following anesthetic (n = 17) differed from those that were fin‐clipped without anesthetic (n = 17) and unclipped control fish (n = 10). The fish were distributed proportionally by treatment group between two outdoor rearing tanks, but one of the rearing tanks experienced a mortality event from an unknown source. Consequently, the evaluations were based on the 25 surviving Northern Pike, with treatment‐specific sample sizes of seven fish for both the control and nonanesthetic treatments and 11 fish from the anesthetized treatment group. Despite the mortality event in one of the two rearing tanks, survival was similar among the three treatment groups when the rearing tanks were evaluated independently and pooled rearing‐tank data revealed no difference in growth rates between fin‐clipped and unclipped control fish for TL and weight. By day 46, the clipped fin had regenerated to approximately 80% the length of the unclipped counterpart and by the end of the study many of the clipped fins were nearly indistinguishable from the unclipped fins. This represents the fastest age‐0 esocid fin regeneration reported. The results from this study demonstrate that marking early‐summer age‐0 Northern Pike during the growing season with pelvic fin clips is likely inappropriate for mark–recapture studies that span beyond 3 months. The use of fin clips on age‐0 Northern Pike should be restricted to shorter‐term studies, or an alternative marking technique should be adopted for the reliable identification of the fish.

中文翻译：

---

0岁北部派克的快速鳍更新和鳍夹作为标记协议的含义

为了更好地理解鳍片剪裁作为早期（<100 mm TL）年龄-0北部派克Esox lucius的外部标记的可靠性，我们在完全切除骨盆鳍片超过98 d后，通过实验评估了鳍片的再生。Northern Pike还标有独特的可见植入物弹性体标签，以便对个人进行重复测量。在三个治疗组中评估了存活，生长和鳍的再生，以确定麻醉后接受鳍夹的鱼（n  = 17）与不使用麻醉剂 去鳍的鱼（n = 17）和未修剪的对照鱼（n = 17）是否不同。ñ = 10）。鱼类按治疗组按比例分配在两个室外饲养池之间，但是其中一个饲养池的死亡事件来自未知来源。因此，评估是基于25个尚存的北部派克鱼进行的，针对控制和非麻醉处理的治疗特定样本量为7条鱼，麻醉处理组为11条鱼。尽管在两个饲养池之一中发生了死亡事件，但当对三个独立的饲养池进行独立评估并且合并的饲养池数据显示，有鳍和无鳍对照鱼的生长速度没有差异时，三个处理组的存活率相似。重量。到第46天，夹住的鳍片已再生到未夹住的鳍片长度的大约80％，并且到研究结束时，许多夹住的鳍片几乎与未夹住的鳍片难以区分。这代表了最快的0岁后鳍鳍再生。这项研究的结果表明，在生长季节中用骨盆鳍夹标记0岁以下的北派克初夏可能不适合进行超过3个月的标记回收研究。应将针对0岁北派克鱼的鳍夹的使用仅限于短期研究，或者应采用替代标记技术来可靠地鉴定鱼。这项研究的结果表明，在生长季节中用骨盆鳍夹标记0岁以下的北派克初夏可能不适合进行超过3个月的标记回收研究。应将针对0岁北派克鱼的鳍夹的使用仅限于短期研究，或者应采用替代标记技术来可靠地鉴定鱼。这项研究的结果表明，在生长季节中用骨盆鳍夹标记0岁以下的北派克初夏可能不适合进行超过3个月的标记回收研究。应将针对0岁北派克鱼的鳍夹的使用仅限于短期研究，或者应采用替代标记技术来可靠地鉴定鱼。