Acoustic tagging and monitoring of cultured and wild juvenile crimson jobfish (Pristipomoides filamentosus) in a nursery habitat

Abstract

Abstract-The movements of cultured (n=18) and wild (n=28) juvenile crimson jobfish (Pristipomoides filamentosus) are reported for a known nursery off windward Oahu, Hawaii. The 2 batches of fish were tagged with acoustic transmitters in separate years (2006, 2007) and monitored with a receiver array for up to 10 weeks. Of the cultured fish, 75% left the nursery within 3 days, more than twice the exit rate for wild fish tagged the following year. The number of wild fish detected peaked during daylight hours, indicating that the fish were diurnally active. Tidally driven changes in bottom temperature did not explain the behavioral patterns of the wild fish that remained in the nursery for multiple weeks. Additional receivers deployed on the slope adjacent to the nursery detected that twothirds of the wild fish departed from the nursery after a short period (mean: 1.2 days [SD 1.69]), by crossing areas with soft substrate similar to that of the nursery. In contrast, the fish that exited by rock ledges stayed near the rock ledges longer (mean: 13.3 days [SD 20.9]). These movement patterns provide insight into the early life history of this deepwater snapper and a glimpse at some of the challenges for future stock enhancement efforts.

The aggregation effect of offshore mussel farming on pelagic fishes

“…Max N is used in the vast majority of studies (e.g. Bicknell et al., 2019; Cappo et al., 2003; Ellis & DeMartini, 1995; Willis & Babcock, 2000) and is considered to be a conservative measure of abundance (Bicknell et al., 2019), as there may be individuals that do not enter the field of view (Whitmarsh et al., 2018).…”

Toward a decade of ocean science for sustainable development through acoustic animal tracking

“…Captive bred fish can behave unnaturally in the wild due to genetic differences (local adaptation of stocks), domestication (rearing environments influencing development and learning), and acclimation to the new environment. Consequently, stocked fish movements have frequently been compared with wild fish movements using AT such as for seaward migrating anadromous salmonids (Aarestrup et al, 2014; Chittenden et al, 2008; Flávio et al, 2019; Urke et al, 2013) and marine fish (Kawabata et al, 2007; Parrish et al, 2015), including sharks (Lee et al, 2015).…”

Depth- and range-dependent variation in the performance of aquatic telemetry systems: understanding and predicting the susceptibility of acoustic tag–receiver pairs to close proximity detection interference

“…A 2013 meta-analysis of 321 acoustic tracking studies called for more comprehensive detection range testing and reporting in acoustic tagging studies, finding that only 48.6% of studies reviewed included results from equipment ranging experiments ( Kessel et al, 2013 ). Some of the ways a receiver’s effective detection range has been determined include citing previously published studies ( Kessel et al, 2013 ), modeling the effects of environmental parameters based on the study site using tools provided by the manufacturer ( Parrish et al, 2015 ), and empirical range testing involving measurement of tag detections at receivers in conditions similar to the proposed study site ( Simpfendorfer, Heupel & Collins, 2008 ).…”