Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 343–352 | Cite as

Impacts of fish aggregation devices on size structures of skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis

  • Xuefang Wang
  • Liuxiong Xu
  • Yong Chen
  • Guoping Zhu
  • Siquan Tian
  • Jiangfeng Zhu
Article

Abstract

Tuna purse seine fisheries target fish aggregated in schools, including free schools that are formed naturally based on fish biology and aggregations associated with natural and/or artificial drifting objects. Using data collected from skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) fisheries, we evaluated differences in size structures between drifting-floating-object-associated schools and unassociated schools. We developed a generalized linear model to remove impacts of environmental variables on skipjack size composition. This study indicates that the drifting-floating-object-associated schools tended to have significantly wider size ranges than the unassociated schools. This suggests that unassociated schools were likely formed based on similarity in sizes among individuals within a school while drifting-floating-object-associated schools were probably composed of individuals of large size ranges and their formation was not based on the “size selection” rule. We concluded that the unassociated schools and the drifting-floating-object-associated schools were formed through different mechanisms, and drifting floating objects could aggregate unassociated schools of different size structures. Thus, a large scale of deployment of man-made floating objects might disrupt the spatial aggregation pattern of fish that otherwise tended to school based on their sizes in the absence of floating objects.

Keywords

Skipjack tuna Aggregation Drifting-floating-object-associated school Unassociated school Size selection Coefficient of variation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The present study was partially sponsored by the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (No. 2012AA092302), National Science Foundation of China (No. 41006016), Shanghai Rising-Star Program grant (No. 11QA1403000), and Maine Sea Grant College Program. We would like to thank the captains and crews of tuna purse seiners “JINHUI 2,” “JINHUI 3,” “JINHUI 6,” “JINHUI 7,” and “PHONAPEI 1” for their help during the survey period. We also give our thanks to Chinese observers, including Mr. Song Yang, Mr. Zhentai Li, Mr. Xuchang Ye, Mr. Chunlei Wang, Mr. Cheng Zhou, and Mr. Hao Tan for providing the biological data of skipjack tuna. The involvement of Y Chen in this project is supported by the Dongfang Scholar Program.

References

  1. Ariz J, Delgado A, Fonteneau A, Gonzalez Costas F, Pallares P (1993) Logs and tunas in the Eastern Tropical Atlantic. A review of present knowledge and uncertainties. ICCAT Collect Vol Sci Pap 40:421–446Google Scholar
  2. Batts BS (1972) Age and Growth of the skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis (Linnaeus), in North Carolina Waters. Chesapeake Sci 13:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brock VE (1954) Some aspects of the biology of the aku, Katsuwonus pelamis, in the Hawaiian Islands. Pac Sci 8:94–104Google Scholar
  4. Bromhead D, Foster J, Attard R, Findlay J, Kalish J (2000) A review of the impact of fish aggregating devices (FADs) on tuna fisheries. Final report to Fisheries Resources Research Fund. Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckley RM, Itano DG, Buckley TW (1989) Fish aggregation device (FAD) enhancement of offshore fisheries in American Samoa. Bull Mar Sci 44:942–949Google Scholar
  6. Castro JJ, Santiago JA, Santana-Ortega AT (2002) A general theory on fish aggregation to floating objects: an alternative to the meeting point hypothesis. Rev Fish Biol Fish 11:255–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chassot E, Floch L, Dewals P, Fonteneau A, Pianet R (2010) Statistics of the French purse seine fleet targeting tropical tunas in the Indian Ocean (1991–2009). Indian Ocean Tuna Commission working document No. IOTC-2010-WPTT-12Google Scholar
  8. Chur VN, Zharov VL (1983) Determination of age and growth of the skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis (Scombridae), from the southern part of the Gulf of Guinea. J Ichthyol 23:53–67Google Scholar
  9. Fonteneau A (1993) Pêche thonière et objets flottants: situation mondiale et perspectives. Rec Doc Scient ICCAT 40:459–472Google Scholar
  10. Fonteneau A, Ariz J, Gaertner D, Nordstrom V, Pallares P (2000) Observed changes in the species composition of tuna schools in the Gulf of Guinea between 1981 and 1999, in relation with Fish Aggregating Devices fishery. Aquat Living Resour 13:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fréon P, Dagorn L (2000) Review of fish associative behaviour: toward a generalisation of the meeting point hypothesis. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:183–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fréon P, Misund OA (1999) Dynamics of pelagic fish distribution and behaviour: effects on fisheries and stock assessment. Blackwell, Fishing New Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Girard C, Benhamou S, Dagorn L (2004) FAD: fish aggregating device or fish attracting device? A new analysis of yellowfin tuna movements around floating objects. Anim Behav 67:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall M, García M, Lennert-Coddy C, Arenas P, Miller F (1999a) The association of tunas with floating objects and dolphins in the eastern Pacific Ocean: A review of the current purse-seine fishery. In: Scott DM, Bayliff WH, Lennert-Cody CE, Schaefer KM (eds) Proceedings of the international workshop on the ecology and fisheries for tunas associated with floating objects. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, La Jolla, California, pp 459–479Google Scholar
  15. Hall M, Lennert-Cody C, García M, Arenas P (1999b) Characteristics of floating objects and their attractiveness for tunas. In: Scott MD, Bayliff WH, Lennert-Cody CE, Schaefer KM (eds) Proceedings of the international workshop on the ecology and fisheries for tunas associated with floating objects. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, La Jolla, California, pp 396–446Google Scholar
  16. Hallier JP, Gaertner D (2008) Drifting fish aggregation devices could act as an ecological trap for tropical tuna species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 353:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hilborn R (1991) Modeling the stability of fish schools: exchange of individual fish between schools of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1081–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Itano D, Fukofuka S, Brogan D (2004) The development, design and recent status of anchored and drifting FADs in the WCPO. Information Paper INF-FTWG-3-17TH, Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall IslandsGoogle Scholar
  19. Josse E, Dagorn L, Bertrand A (2000) Typology and behaviour of tuna aggregations around fish aggregating devices from acoustic surveys in French Polynesia. Aquat Living Resour 13:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kawasaki T (1964) Population structure and dynamics of skipjack in the North Pacific and its adjacent waters. Bull Tohoku Reg Fish Res Lab 24:28–47 [In Japanese, English abstract]Google Scholar
  21. Kingsford MJ (1999) Fish attraction devices (FADs) and experimental designs. Sci Mar 63:181–190Google Scholar
  22. Koopmans LH, Owen DB, Rosenblatt JI (1964) Confidence intervals for the coefficient of variation for the normal and lognormal distributions. Biometrika 51:25–32Google Scholar
  23. Langley A, Hampton J, Ogura M (2005) Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. First Regular Session of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, WCPFC-SC1 SA WP-4, Noumea, New CaledoniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Marsac F, Cayré P (1998) Telemetry applied to behaviour of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) movements in a network of fish aggregating devices. Hydrobiologia 371(372):155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsac F, Fonteneau A, Ménard F (2000) Drifting FADs used in tuna fisheries: an ecological trap? In: Le Gall JY, Cayré P, Taquet M (eds) Pêche thonière et dispositifs de concentration de poisons. Ifremer Actes Colloq, 28:537–552Google Scholar
  26. Matsumoto WM, Skillman RA, Dizon AE (1984) Synopsis of biological data on skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis. US. Dep Commer, NOAA Tech Rep NMFS Circ 451:1–92Google Scholar
  27. Ménard F, Stequert B, Rubin A, Herrera M, Marchal E (2000) Food consumption of tuna in the Equatorial Atlantic ocean: FAD-associated versus unassociated schools. Aquat Living Resour 13:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moreno G, Dagorn L, Sancho G, Itano D (2007) Fish behaviour from fishers’ knowledge: the case study of tropical tuna around drifting fish aggregating devices (DFADs). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64:1517–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pallarés P, Petit C (1998) Tropical tunas: new sampling and data processing strategy for estimating the composition of catches by species and sizes. ICCAT Collect Vol Sci Pap 48:230–246Google Scholar
  30. Pang WK, Leung PK, Huang WK, Liu W (2005) On interval estimation of the coefficient of variation for the three-parameter Weibull, lognormal, and gamma distribution: a simulation-based approach. Eur J Oper Res 164:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pianet R, Pallarés P, Petit C (2000) New sampling and data processing strategy for estimating the composition of catches by species and sizes in the European purse seine tropical tuna fisheries. IOTC Proceedings no. 3, WPDCS00-10:104–139Google Scholar
  32. Pitcher TJ, Parrish JK (1993) Functions of shoaling behavior in teleosts. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 363–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prairie J, Rajagopalan B, Fulp T, Zagona E (2005) Statistical nonparametric model for natural salt estimation. J Environ Eng 131:130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaefer KM, Fuller DW (2005) Behavior of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) tunas within aggregations associated with floating objects in the equatorial eastern Pacific. Mar Biol 146:781–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stöcker S (1999) Models for tuna school formation. Math Biosci 156:167–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Uchiyama JH, Struhsaker P (1981) Age and growth of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, and yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares, as indicated by daily growth increments of sagittae. Fish Bull 79:151–162Google Scholar
  37. Williams PG (2003) Overview of skipjack fisheries in the western and central pacific ocean-2002. Working Paper SKJ-2-16TH, Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, Mooloolaba, Qld, AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuefang Wang
    • 1
    • 4
  • Liuxiong Xu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yong Chen
    • 4
    • 3
  • Guoping Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Siquan Tian
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jiangfeng Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Marine SciencesShanghai Ocean UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.National Engineering Research Center for Oceanic FisheriesShanghaiChina
  3. 3.The Key Laboratory of Sustainable Exploitation of Oceanic Fisheries ResourcesMinistry of EducationShanghaiChina
  4. 4.School of Marine SciencesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations