Alabama's Artificial Reef Program: Building Oases in the Desert

Minton, Richard; Heath, Stevens R.

doi:10.18785/goms.1601.14

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results have some obvious applications, as the building of artificial reefs is a common fisheries management tactic used to increase fisheries production in most parts of the world in both freshwater and marine environments (Chou 1988, Gregg 1995, Minton & Heath 1998, Sinis et al 2000, Freitas & Petere 2001, Lok et al 2002. A range of potential management uses for artificial reefs have been developed since their first documented accounts in Japan in the late 1700s (Meier et al 1989).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Effects of habitat complexity on Caribbean marine fish assemblages

Gratwicke¹,

Speight²

2005

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

215

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sets of artificial reefs were replicated in 5 bays off Tortola in the British Virgin Islands to investigate the effects of habitat complexity on fish assemblages. Increasing percentage hard substrate and the number of small reef holes increased fish abundance on reefs. The observed number of species (S obs ) occurring on each reef increased with increasing rugosity, variety of growth forms, percentage hard substrate, and variety of refuge hole sizes. A rarefied or abundance-corrected species richness measure (S rare ) was calculated to take the varying fish abundances into account. After this correction, rugosity was the only variable that significantly increased fish species-richness. Experimental reefs of different height (20 and 60 cm) did not have significantly different fish abundance or species richness. The presence of long-spined sea urchins Diadema antillarum increased S obs and total fish abundance on artificial rock-reefs and in seagrass beds, but the effect was most pronounced in seagrass beds where shelter was a strongly limiting factor. These results indicate that complex habitats or animals such as D. antillarum that provide shelter to fish are essential for maintaining fish biodiversity at local scales. The most important aspects of complexity are rugosity, hard substrate and small refuge holes. Artificial reefs may be used to mitigate habitat damage in impacted areas, and if management objectives are to increase local fish abundance and species richness, the reefs should provide a stable substrate where this is unavailable, have a rugose surface with many small refuge holes, and have a variety of growth forms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Effects of habitat complexity on Caribbean marine fish assemblages

Gratwicke¹,

Speight²

2005

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

215

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study sites were located 20 to 30 km south of Mobile Bay, Alabama, USA, an area that includes numerous artificial habitats (>10 000) and a few natural rock-reef habitats (Schroeder et al 1988, Minton & Heath 1998. Red snapper were tagged on 1 natural and 5 artificial habitats.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although approximately 10 000 to 20 000 artificial habitats have been deployed in the northern GOM, which may provide benefits of increased food and shelter to red snapper, stocks are still considered overfished (Minton & Heath 1998, Schirripa & Legault 1999, SEDAR 2005, Shipp & Bortone 2009). In contrast, smaller red snapper (< 400 mm total length [TL]) were the most numerically abundant fish species on both natural and artificial habitats off Alabama, and occur in high numbers at GOM oil rigs (Gitschlag et al 2003, Lingo & Szedlmayer 2006, Wells & Cowan 2007, Gallaway et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Site fidelity, residence time and movements of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus estimated with long-term acoustic monitoring

Topping¹,

Szedlmayer²

2011

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residence time, site fidelity and movements for red snapper Lutjanus campechanus (Lutjanidae) were estimated from long-term telemetry monitoring (December 2005 to June 2010) at 6 sites (1 natural and 5 artificial reefs) in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Each site consisted of an array of 5 receivers, with 1 at the center reef site and 4 receivers placed 1100 m north, south, east and west of center (2 km radius detection area). Throughout the study, a stationary control transmitter was located 400 m south of the center receiver at each site to estimate changes in detection rates from environmental factors. These receiver arrays enabled fishery independent estimations of fishing mortality, natural mortality and emigration. Event analysis was used to estimate site fidelity and residence, based on right-censoring fishing and natural mortality. Median residence time was 542 d, ranging from 1 to 1099 d, with 72% of fish staying at least 1 yr at the site. Some fish (n = 12) showed seasonal and directed movements to other sites (up to 8 km away) and returned to original sites up to 7 mo later. Diel movements away from the structure tended to occur at night. Site fidelity and residence times of red snapper in the present study were greater than in any previous study and show the importance of artificial reefs for this species. KEY WORDS: Site fidelity · Acoustic telemetry · Seasonal movements · Red snapper · Artificial reefs Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherMar Ecol Prog Ser 437: [183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200] 2011 residence times and movement patterns around natural and artificial structures.The residency of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus on natural and artificial structures has been examined by several methods, with varying results. Early studies examined the distribution of red snapper catches relative to habitat type, depth and season (Camber 1955, Moseley 1966, Bradley & Bryan 1975, and more recent studies have used mark-recapture (Beaumariage 1969, Fable 1980, Szedlmayer & Shipp 1994, Watterson et al. 1998, Patterson et al. 2001, Patterson & Cowan 2003, Diamond et al. 2007, Strelcheck et al. 2007) and ultrasonic telemetry (Szedlmayer 1997, Peabody 2004, Szedlmayer & Schroepfer 2005, Schroepfer & Szedlmayer 2006 to estimate site fidelity and movements. For the most part, these studies indicate red snapper show some affinity to both natural and artificial structures, but estimates of site fidelity and residence times seem to vary by methods (mark-recapture vs. telemetry), habitat type (e.g. small artificial reefs, oil-gas platforms and natural reefs), hurricanes, transmitter detection range, fish size and study length (Diamond et al. 2007, Gallaway et al. 2009).Recent mark-recapture studies of relatively small red snapper (mean: < 400 mm TL) off Alabama obtained different results even with similar methods (Patterson & Cowan 2003, Strelcheck et al. 2007. Patterson & Cowan (2003) estimated site fid...

show abstract

“…Natural reef habitat is relatively rare in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Parker et al, 1983;Schroeder et al, 1988); however, approximately 10,000-20,000 artificial habitats have been deployed off coastal Alabama and Mississippi to enhance available reef habitat (Minton and Heath, 1998;Szedlmayer, 2007;Gallaway et al, 2009;Shipp and Bortone, 2009). Estimates of red snapper site fidelity to these artificial habitats from mark-recapture and acoustic telemetry methods have differed in previous studies, but in general red snapper showed a close association with these structures (Beaumariage, 1969;Fable, 1980;Szedlmayer and Shipp, 1994;Szedlmayer, 1997;Westmeyer et al, 2007;Szedlmayer and Schroepfer, 2005;Topping and Szedlmayer, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%