, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 64–71 | Cite as

An assessment of biases associated with caging, tethering, and trawl sampling of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)

  • G. T. Kellison
  • D. B. Eggleston
  • J. C. Taylor
  • J. S. Burke


We provide an example of the type of bias assessment that should, but often is not, used in ecological studies using techniques such as caging, tethering, and trawl sampling. Growth rates of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) from cage enclosures were compared to those from mark-recapture trials, and prey types (identified through stomach content analysis) compared between caged fish and wild fish collected from nursery sites over a 2-yr period. Site-specific growth rates estimated from the caging method were similar (± 15%) to those estimated from the mark-recapture trials. Prey types were nearly identical between caged and wild fish, although selectivity may have varied quantitatively. Caging summer flounder will generally be an appropriate tool with which to measure growth rates in the wild, but comparisons with an independent measurement method are necessary for validation. In tethering trials, predation was significantly greater on tethered than on untethered fish, indicating that tethering is not an appropriate tool with which to measure absolute rates of predation on juvenile summer flounder. The lack of effects of substrate (sand versus mud) and fish origin (hatchery-reared versus wild) on predation of tethered versus untethered fish indicates that tethering trials will not indicate treatment-specific differences when none exist. Tethering may be an acceptable method for comparing relative rates of predation on different substrates and between hatchery-reared and wild juvenile summer flounder in the field, although true differences in treatment levels could be masked by tethering. Beam trawl efficiency estimates for juvenile summer flounder were similar between beach and marsh habitats, but differed significantly between marsh sites, indicating that site-specific trawl efficiency estimates may be critical to accurately assess juvenile flounder the appropriateness of comparisons of size-frequency information between the sites and habitats used in this study. Caging, tethering, and beam trawl sampling are appropriate tools for measuring ecological parameters of juvenile summer flounder, but only if possible biases of each method are identified and compensated for when interpreting data collected using these methods.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Able, K. W., J. P. Manderson, andA. L. Studholme. 1999. Habitat quality for shallow water fishes in an urban estuary: The effects of man-made structures on growth.Marine Ecology Progress Series 187:227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell, A. D. andR. N. Gibson. 1993. The effect of sand and light on predation of juvenile plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) by fishes and crustaceans.Journal of Fish Biology 43:837–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, R. B., K. L. Heck, Jr., andJ. F. Valentine. 2001. Measuring predation with tethering experiments.Marine Ecology Progress Series 214:311–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke, J. S., T. Seikai, Y. Tanaka, andM. Tanaka. 1999. Experimental intensive culture of summer flounder,Paralichthys dentatus.Aquaculture 176:135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins,M. R., S. B. Van Sant, and G. R. Sedberry. 1996. Age validation, movements and growth rates of tagged gag (Mycteroperca microlepis), black sea bass (Centropristis striata) and red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), p. 158–162. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) conference proceedings, Manila, no. 48, Makati City, Philippines.Google Scholar
  6. Connell, S. D. 1997. Exclusion of predatory fish on a coral reef: The anticipation, pre-emption and evaluation of some caging artifacts.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 213:181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cortes, E. 1997. A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: Application to elasmobranch fishes.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:726–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curran, M. C. andK. W. Able. 1998. The value of tethering fishes (winter flounder and tautog) as a tool for assessing predation rates.Marine Ecology Progress Series 163:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danilowicz, B. S. andP. F. Sale. 1999. Relative intensity of predation on the French grunt,Haemulon flavolineatum, during diurnal, dusk, and nocturnal periods on a coral reef.Marine Biology 133:337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuffy-Anderson, J. T. andK. W. Able. 1999. Effects of municipal piers on the growth of juvenile fishes in the Hudson River estuary: A study across a pier edge.Marine Biology 133:409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, R. C. andJ. H. Steele. 1968. The ecology of 0-group plaice and common dabs at Loch Ewe. I. Population and food.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 2:215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furuta, S. 1996. Predation on juvenile Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus) by diurnal piscivorous fish: Field observations and laboratory experiments, p. 285–296.In Y. Watanabe, Y. Yamashita, and Y. Oozeki (eds.), Proceedings of an International Workshop: Survival Strategies in Early Life Stages of Marine Resources. A. A. Balkema Publishers, Brookfield, Vermont.Google Scholar
  13. Goto, A. 1998. Life-history variations in the fluvial sculpin,Cottus nozawe (Cottidae), along the course of a small mountain stream.Environmental Biology of Fishes 52:203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillanders, B. M., D. J. Ferrell, andN. L. Andrew. 1999. Aging methods for yellowtail kingfish,Seriola lalandi, and results from age- and size-based growth models.Fishery Bulletin 97:812–827.Google Scholar
  15. Howell, P. T., D. R. Molnar, andR. B. Harris. 1999. Juvenile winter flounder distribution by habitat type.Estuaries 22:1090–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howson, U. A. 2000. Nursery habitat quality for juvenile Paralichthyid flounders: Experimental analysis of the effects of physicochemical parameters. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.Google Scholar
  17. Jepsen, N. andK. Aarestrup. 1999. A comparison of the growth of radio-tagged and dye-marked pike.Journal of Fish Biology 55:880–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kellison, G. T. 2000. Evaluation of stock enhancement potential for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus): An integrated laboratory, field and modeling study. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleight, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  19. Kellison, G. T., D. B. Eggleston, J. C. Taylor, and J. S. Burke. In press. Pilot evaluation of summer flounder stock enhancement potential using experimental ecology.Marine Ecology Progress Series.Google Scholar
  20. Kneib, R. T. andC. E. H. Scheele. 2000. Does tethering of mobile prey measure relative predation potential? An empirical test using mummichogs and grass shrimp.Marine Ecology Progress Series 198:181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuipers, B. 1975. On the efficiency of a two-metre beam trawl for juvenile plaice (Pleuronectes platessa).Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 9:69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malone, J. C., G. E. Forrester, andM. A. Steele. 1999. Effects of subcutaneous microtags on the growth, survival, and vulnerability to predation of small reef fishes.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 237:243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meng, L., C. Gray, B. Taplin, andE. Kupcha. 2000. Using winter flounder growth rates to assess habitat quality in Rhode Island's coastal lagoons.Marine Ecology Progress Series 201:287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson, C. H. andR. Black. 1994. An experimentalist's challenge: When artifacts of intervention interact with treatments.Marine Ecology Progress Series 111:289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phelan, B. A., R. Goldberg, A. J. Bejda, J. Pereira, S. Hagan, P. Clark, A. L. Studholme, A. Calabrese, andK. W. Able. 2000 Estuarine and habitat-related differences in growth rates of young-of-the-year winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and tautog (Tautoga onitis) in three northeastern US estuaries.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 147:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pinkas, L., M. S. Oliphant, andI. L. K. Iverson. 1971. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito in California waters.California Department of Fish and Game Fishery Bulletin 152:1–105.Google Scholar
  27. Shackell, N. L., W. T. Stobo, K. T. Frank, andD.Brickman. 1997. Growth of cod (Gadhus morhua) estimated from markrecapture programs on the Scotian Shelf and adjacent areas.ICES Journal of Marine Science 54:383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steele, M. A. 1996. Effects of predators on reef fishes: Separating cage artifacts from effects of predation.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 198:249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stutter, III,F. C., R. O. Williams, andM. F. Godcharles. 1991. Growth and mortality of king mackerelScomberomorus cavalla tagged in the southeastern United States.Fishery Bulletin 89:733–737.Google Scholar
  30. Szedlmayer, S. T. andK. W. Able. 1992. Validation studies of daily increment formation for larval and juvenile summer flounder,Paralichthys dentatus.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1856–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson, B. A., M. Beasley, andC. A. Wilson. 1999. Age distribution and growth of greater amberjack,Seriola dumerili, from the north-central Gulf of Mexico.Fishery Bulletin 97:362–371.Google Scholar
  32. Tupen, J. W. 1990. Movement and growth of tagged California halibut,Paralichthys californicus, off the central coast of California. The California halibut resource and fisheries.Fishery Bulletin of the California Department of Fish and Game 174:199–206.Google Scholar
  33. Wennhage, H., R. N. Gibson, andL. Robb. 1997. The use of drop traps to estimate the efficiency of two beam trawls commonly used for sampling juvenile flatfishes.Journal of Fish Biology 51:441–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zimmer-Faust, R. K., D. R. Fielder, K. L. Heck, Jr.,L. D. Coen, andS. G. Morgan. 1994. Effects of tethering on predatory escape by juvenile blue crabs.Marine Ecology Progress Series 111:299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. T. Kellison
    • 1
  • D. B. Eggleston
    • 1
  • J. C. Taylor
    • 2
  • J. S. Burke
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  3. 3.National Ocean Service/National Marine Fisheries ServiceBeaufort LaboratoryBeaufort

Personalised recommendations