Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus Walbaum) burial in estuaries: Acoustic telemetry triumph and tribulation

Grothues, Thomas M.; Able, Kenneth W.; Pravatiner, Joan H.

doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2012.09.006

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…as these may represent less of an obstacle to acoustic signals. Future range testing studies should also consider the effect of a fish's behaviour on the performance of acoustic telemetry in other habitat types, such as fish sheltering within reef crevasses or being buried within soft sediments [47].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seagrass canopies and the performance of acoustic telemetry: implications for the interpretation of fish movements

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Acoustic telemetry has been used with great success to quantify the movements of marine fishes in open habitats, however research has begun to focus on patterns of movement and habitat usage within more structurally complex habitats. To date, there has been no detailed assessment of the performance of acoustic telemetry within seagrass, which forms a crucial nursery and foraging habitat for many fish species globally. Information on the detection range of acoustic receivers within seagrass is essential to guide receiver array design, particularly positioning systems. Here, we compare detection ranges for transmitters (Vemco V7) within and above the seagrass to determine impacts on the performance of a Vemco Positioning System (VPS). We also investigate the influence of environmental conditions (i.e. wind, time of day, background noise, atmospheric pressure and depth) on detection probability. Results: The performance of the VPS declined dramatically when the transmitters were positioned within the seagrass (positional accuracy = 2.69 m, precision = 0.9 m, system efficiency (i.e. the proportion of successful positions) = 5.9%) compared to above the canopy (positional accuracy = 2.21 m, precision = 0.45 m, system efficiency = 30.9%). The reduction in VPS efficiency when transmitters were within seagrass was caused by a decline in the detection range of receivers (range of 50% detections) from 85 to 40 m, as this limited the ability of the three receivers to simultaneously detect transmissions. Additionally, no detections were recorded for the transmitters within seagrass at a distance greater than 150 m from the receiver. Increasing wind speed from 0 to 50 km h −1 correlated with a 15% reduction in detections while detection probability decreased from 0.8 during the day to 0.55 at night, due to higher in-band noise (69 kHz). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that tagged fish ensconced within seagrass are unlikely to be detected by receivers or positioned by a VPS. Further, we demonstrate that wind conditions and the time of day create temporal variation in detection probability. These findings highlight the need for telemetry studies to perform in situ range testing and consider how fish use vegetated habitats such as seagrasses when positioning receivers and interpreting data.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seagrass canopies and the performance of acoustic telemetry: implications for the interpretation of fish movements

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These 7 recorded transmissions from sharks approaching the cleaning stations from within 1.5 km (from the ocean side). Our general range estimates for detecting whether or not tagged sharks were in the study area were based on a collection of previous tests from similar tags in various environments (Grothues et al, 2012;Grothues and Davis, 2013). These demonstrated that the chance of detection (expressed as a percentage of tag transmissions recorded) is strongly correlated with SPL, and with the distance between the tag and the receiver because the number of transmissions that are recorded decay exponentially with distance (Grothues et al, 2012;Grothues and Davis, 2013).…”

Section: Passive Monitoring Of Thresher Shark Visits To Cleaning Statmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and resilience: High stakes for sharks making transjurisdictional movements to use a conservation area

Oliver

Grothues

Williams

et al. 2019

Biological Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oceanic sharks are vulnerable to overexploitation due to their life-history strategies, and efforts to protect them in the wild have been stalled by transjurisdictional conflicts of interest. The pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) is one such species that visits a seamount in the Philippines where its dependable presence has catalysed a burgeoning dive tourism industry and the designation of a conservation area. Nothing is known of the range and turnover of this population, but the regularity with which these sharks interact with cleaner wrasse on the seamount provides important stability for regional businesses that lack empirical knowledge of their vulnerability. We fitted 14 pelagic thresher sharks with acoustic tags and monitored their fine scale movements for 66 days (June to mid-August 2014). Individuals were present at the seamount for 32% of their days at liberty, and 42% of the tagged sharks were still being detected there at the end of the study. Thresher sharks showed preferences for visiting specific locations on the seamount where they interact with cleaner fish, and estimates of their fidelity to these sites provided scalars for visual census. Pelagic thresher sharks moved away from the seamount after early morning visits to cleaning stations using swim speeds of 3.79 km h-1 (± SD 1.43). These movements demonstrated that they have access to the jurisdictional waters of five provincial territories when dispersing from and returning to the seamount on a diurnal basis. While the seamount offers cleaner-associated services and refuge provision for pelagic thresher sharks, their scale of movement leaves them vulnerable to fisheries that operate in the region. Natural history observations provide context and reveal bias for their application in the management and conservation of this rare and vulnerable shark species.

show abstract

“…Both fish lie on rhodoliths and initiate displacement with quick body undulations that often produce clouds of sediments uplifted from the bed. They also frequently dig in sedimentary bottoms (Grothues et al 2012). An unknown proportion of the variation in RSL was therefore attributable to bioturbation by both fish and perhaps also by other fish species that spawn their eggs within hollow rhodoliths (Gagnon et al 2012).…”

Section: Bioturbationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of stability of rhodolith beds: sedimentological aspects

Millar¹,

Gagnon²

2018

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rhodolith beds are highly diverse benthic communities organized around the physical structure and primary productivity of red coralline algae. Despite a worldwide distribution and growing recognition that rhodolith beds are important calcium carbonate (CaCO3) biofactories, little is known of the factors and processes that regulate their structure, function, and stability. One prevalent and largely untested paradigm is that beds develop in environments where water motion is strong enough to prevent burial by sediments.Observations over seven months and three weeks in the centre and near the upper and lower margins of a Newfoundland rhodolith (Lithothamnion glaciale) bed, as well as a laboratory mesocosm experiment with rhodoliths and dominant macrofauna from the bed, were used to characterize, parse, and model spatial and temporal variation in rhodolith sediment load (RSL) and movement among presumably important abiotic and biotic factors. RSL and movement were largely mediated by a few dominant benthic invertebrates. Hydrodynamic forces were insufficient to displace rhodoliths. Daisy brittle stars (Ophiopholis aculeata) and small common sea stars (Asterias rubens) contributed to dislodgement of sediment from rhodoliths. Large green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) easily displaced rhodoliths in mesocosms. Results provide the first quantitative demonstration that rhodolith beds need not be exposed to threshold hydrodynamic conditions to avoid burial. Beds can simply occur in areas where burial is unlikely because of low sedimentation rates. In such cases, select resident bioturbators operating simultaneously at different spatial scales (within and outside rhodoliths) appear to suffice to maintain RSL below lethal quantities, contributing to stability of beds.iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

show abstract

Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus Walbaum) burial in estuaries: Acoustic telemetry triumph and tribulation

Cited by 24 publications

References 36 publications

Seagrass canopies and the performance of acoustic telemetry: implications for the interpretation of fish movements

Seagrass canopies and the performance of acoustic telemetry: implications for the interpretation of fish movements

Risk and resilience: High stakes for sharks making transjurisdictional movements to use a conservation area

Mechanisms of stability of rhodolith beds: sedimentological aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About