A brief discussion on the 2% tag/bodymass rule of thumb

By N. Jepsen, C. Schreck, S. Clements, E. Thorstad. 2005

149 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Effects of surgically implanted acoustic transmitters >2% of body mass on the swimming performance, survival and growth of juvenile sockeye and Chinook salmon (2006, background): “To determine the influence of transmitter implantation on fishes, a suite of tests should be conducted as suggested by Jepsen et al. (2004).”
An Evaluation of the Maximum Tag Burden for Implantation of Acoustic Transmitters in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (2010, background): “swimming ability, predator avoidance, and buoyancy) to determine the effects of acoustic microtransmitter and PIT-tag implantation on fishes (Brown et al. 1999; Jepsen et al. 2002; Jepsen et al. 2004).”
The Use of Electronic Tags in Fish Research - An Overview of Fish Telemetry Methods (2013, background): “Tag effect studies indicate that this is not a valid argument; in some cases tag effects are demonstrated when using smaller tags, and in other cases larger tags can be used without any significant tagging effects (Jepsen et al., 2005).”
Enhancing catch‐and‐release science with biotelemetry (2008, background): “…The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, F I S H and F I S H E R I E S , 9, 79–105 97 and it has been suggested that the lowest possible weight be used, depending on the objectives of the study and the life stages and species used (Brown et al. 1999; Jepsen et al. 2005).”