Advertisement

Coral Reefs

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 589–600 | Cite as

Hydroacoustics for the discovery and quantification of Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) spawning aggregations

  • J. P. Egerton
  • A. F. Johnson
  • L. Le Vay
  • C. M. McCoy
  • B. X. Semmens
  • S. A. Heppell
  • J. R. Turner
Report

Abstract

Fish spawning aggregations (FSAs) are vital life-history events that need to be monitored to determine the health of aggregating populations; this is especially true of the endangered Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus). Hydroacoustics were used to locate Nassau grouper FSAs at sites on the west end of Little Cayman (LCW), and east ends of Grand Cayman (GCE) and Cayman Brac (CBE). Fish abundance and biomass at each FSA were estimated via echo integration and FSA extent. Acoustic mean fish abundance estimates (±SE) on the FSA at LCW (893 ± 459) did not differ significantly from concurrent SCUBA estimates (1150 ± 75). Mean fish densities (number 1000 m−3) were significantly higher at LCW (33.13 ± 5.62) than at the other sites (GCE: 7.01 ± 2.1, CBE: 4.61 ± 1.16). We investigate different acoustic post-processing options to obtain target strength (TS), and we examine the different TS to total length (TL) formulas available. The SCUBA surveys also provided measures of TL through the use of laser callipers allowing development of an in situ TS to TL formula for Nassau grouper at the LCW FSA. Application of this formula revealed mean fish TL was significantly higher at LCW (65.4 ± 0.7 cm) than GCE (60.7 ± 0.4 cm), but not CBE (61.1 ± 2.5 cm). Use of the empirical TS to TL formula resulted in underestimation of fish length in comparison with diver measurements, highlighting the benefits of secondary length data and deriving specific TS to TL formulas for each population. FSA location examined with reference to seasonal marine protected areas (Designated Grouper Spawning Areas) showed FSAs were partially outside these areas at GCE and very close to the boundary at CBE. As FSAs often occur at the limits of safe diving operations, hydroacoustic technology provides an alternative method to monitor and inform future management of aggregating fish species.

Keywords

Hydroacoustics Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatusFish spawning aggregations (FSAs) Echo integration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the staff of the Cayman Islands DoE for their assistance and making me so welcome and in particular, Bradley Johnson and Phillipe Bush, whose local knowledge resulted in the success of this research and also Laura Richardson and Jeremy Olynik for much general help. Thanks to the Reef Environmental Education Foundation and researchers associated with the Grouper Moon project for providing diver census data. Further, we thank Dr Helge Balk for advice on the data processing in Sonar5 and the comments of two anonymous reviewers whose input greatly increased the strength of the manuscript. The funding for the surveys was provided by The Darwin Initiative (UK Government) EIDPO045 (Assessing engagement in Cayman’s enhanced marine protected area system).

Supplementary material

338_2017_1542_MOESM1_ESM.tif (383 kb)
Fig. S1 Shadow effect analysis of echoes from within FSAs. a Four vertical analysis cells were defined in each FSA (indicated by the stack of rectangles). The x-axis shows depth (R(m)) and strength of signal return (dB), ping number is shown on the y-axis. b Mean Sv was calculated for each cell and compared for 15 separate acoustic detections of FSAs along the survey track from the top (1) to the bottom (4) of the FSAs. The lack of attenuation of echoes from deeper cells indicates absence of acoustic shadowing (TIFF 383 kb)
338_2017_1542_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (522 kb)
Fig. S2 Mean TS measurements from tracked fish scaled by the length data from divers resulting in a TS–length (L) equation for the LCW FSA of \( {\text{TS}} = 27.6{ \log }10\left( L \right) - 147.32 \) (R2 = 0.98) (TIFF 521 kb)

References

  1. Archer SK, Heppell SA, Semmens BX, Pattengill-Semmens CV, Bush PG, McCoy CM, Johnson BC (2012) Patterns of color phase indicate spawn timing at a Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus spawning aggregation. Curr Zool 58:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balk H, Lindem T (2006) Sonar 4, Sonar 5, Sonar 6 e post-processing systems. Operator manual. Lindem Data Acquisition, OsloGoogle Scholar
  3. Biosonics (2004) Calibration of Biosonics Digital Scientific Echosounder using T/C calibration spheres. www.biosonicsinc.com/doc_library/docs/DTXcalibration2e.pdf
  4. Bush PG, Lane ED, Ebanks-Petrie GC, Luke K, Johnson B, McCoy C, Bothwell J, Parsons E (2006) The Nassau grouper spawning aggregation fishery of the Cayman Islands—an historical and management perspective. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 57:515–524Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter KE, Claro R, Cowan J, Sedberry G, Zapp-Sluis M (2015) Epinephelus striatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T7862A70324790Google Scholar
  6. Cayman Islands Government (2016) The National Conservation (General) Regulations Part 2.6. http://www.gov.ky/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/12326595.PDF
  7. Colin PL (1992) Reproduction of the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Pisces: Serranidae) and its relationship to environmental conditions. Environ Biol Fish 34:357–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demer DA, Berger L, Bernasconi M, Bethke E, Boswell K, Chu D, Domokos R et al (2015) Calibration of acoustic instruments. Cooperative Research Report 326, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 133 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Domeier ML, Colin P (1997) Tropical reef fish spawning aggregations defined and reviewed. Bull Mar Sci 60:698–726Google Scholar
  10. Doonan I, Bull B, Coombs R (2003) Star acoustic surveys of localized fish aggregations. ICES J Mar Sci 60:132–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doray M, Josse E, Gervain P, Reynal L, Chantrel J (2007) Joint use of echosounding, fishing and video techniques to assess the structure of fish aggregations around moored fish aggregating devices in Martinique (Lesser Antilles). Aquat Living Resour 20:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrhardt NM, Deleveaux VKW (2007) The Bahamas’ Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) fishery—two assessment methods applied to a data-deficient coastal population. Fish Res 87:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foote KG, Knudsen HP, Vestnes G, MacLennan DN, Simmonds EJ (1987) Calibration of acoustic instruments for fish-density estimation: a practical guide. Cooperative Research Report 144, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 57 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Froese R, Pauly D (2016) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (10/2016)
  15. Gascoigne J (2002) Nassau grouper and queen conch in the Bahamas: status and management options. Report to the Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation. Nassau, The BahamasGoogle Scholar
  16. Gauthier S, Horne JK (2004) Potential acoustic discrimination within boreal fish assemblages. ICES J Mar Sci 61:836–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson J (2007) Managing a Nassau grouper fishery—a case study from Belize. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 60:1–2Google Scholar
  18. Gledhill CT, Lyczkowski-Shultz J, Rademacher K, Kargard E, Crist G, Grace MA (1996) Evaluation of video and acoustic index methods for assessing reef-fish populations. ICES J Mar Sci 53:483–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillard J, Lebourges-Dhaussy A, Brehmer P (2004) Simultaneous Sv and TS measurements on young-of-the-year (YOY) freshwater fish using three frequencies. ICES J Mar Sci 61:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heppell SA, Semmens BX, Archer SK, Pattengill-Semmens CV, Bush PG, McCoy CM, Heppell SS, Johnson BC (2012) Documenting recovery of a spawning aggregation through size frequency analysis from underwater laser calipers measurements. Biol Conserv 155:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johannes RE (1978) Reproductive strategies of coastal marine fishes in the tropics. Environ Biol Fish 3:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johannes RE, Squire L, Granam T, Sadovy Y, Renguul H (1999) Spawning aggregations of groupers (Serranidae) in Palau. Marine Conservation Research Series Publication 1, The Nature Conservancy, 144 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston SV, Rivera JA, Rosario A, Timko MA, Nealson PA, Kumagai KK (2006) Hydroacoustic evaluation of spawning red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) aggregations along the coast of Puerto Rico in 2002 and 2003. Emerging technologies for reef fisheries research and management, National Marine Fisheries Service Professional Paper 5. NOAA, Seattle, WA, pp 10–17Google Scholar
  24. Jones DT, Wilson CD, Robertis AD, Rooper CN, Weber TC, Butler JL (2012) Evaluation of rockfish abundance in untrawlable habitat: combining acoustic and complementary sampling tools. Fish Buletinl 110:332–343Google Scholar
  25. Kadison E, Nemeth RS, Blondeau J, Smith T, Calnan J (2010) Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, with evidence for a spawning aggregation site recovery. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 62:273–279Google Scholar
  26. Kellner JB, Tetreault I, Gaines SD, Nisbet RM (2007) Fishing the line near marine reserves in single and multispecies fisheries. Ecol Appl 17:1039–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Knudsen FR, Hawkins AD, McAllen R, Sand O (2009) Diel interactions between sprat and mackerel in a marine lough and their effects upon acoustic measurements of fish abundance. Fish Res 100:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kobara S, Heyman WD (2008) Geomorphometric patterns of Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) spawning aggregation sites in the Cayman Islands. Marine Geodesy 31:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kracker L (2007) Hydroacoustic surveys: a non-destructive approach to monitoring fish distributions at National Marine Sanctuaries. Technical Memorandum 66, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, NOAA, Charlston, SCGoogle Scholar
  30. Lilja J, Marjomäki TJ, Jurvelius J, Rossi T, Heikkola E (2004) Simulation and experimental measurement of side-aspect target strength of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) at high frequency. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:2227–2236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Løland A, Aldrin M, Ona E, Hjellvik V, Holst JC (2007) Estimating and decomposing total uncertainty for survey based abundance estimates of Norwegian spring spawning herring. ICES J Mar Sci 64:1302–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Love RH (1971) Measurements of fish target strength: a review. Fishery Bulletin 69:703–715Google Scholar
  33. Machias A, Tsimenidis N (1995) Biological factors affecting the swimbladder volume of sardine (Sardina pilchardus). Mar Biol 23:859–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy HM, Jenkins GP (2010) Observational methods used in marine spatial monitoring of fishes and associated habitats: a review. Mar Freshw Res 61:236–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nemeth RS (2005) Population characteristics of a recovering US Virgin Islands red hind spawning aggregation following protection. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 286:81–97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Nielsen JR, Lundgren B (1999) Hydroacoustic ex situ target strength measurements on juvenile cod (Gadus morhua L.). ICES J Mar Sci 56:627–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ona E, Mitson RB (1996) Acoustic sampling and signal processing near the seabed: the deadzone revisited. ICES J Mar Sci 53:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parker-Stetter SL, Rudstam LG, Sullivan PJ, Warner DM (2009) Standard operating procedures for fisheries acoustic surveys in the Great Lakes. Special Publication 09-01, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  39. Reid DG (2000) Report on echo trace classification. Cooperative Research Report No. 238, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark, 107 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Rivera J, Kellison T, Appeldoorn RS, Schärer M, Nemeth M, Rowell T, Mateos D, Nealson P (2010) Detection of Mona Island and Abrir La Sierra, Puerto Rico red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) 1 m off the bottom with hydroacoustic techniques. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 63:143–148Google Scholar
  41. Rose GA (2009) Variations in the target strength of Atlantic cod during vertical migration. ICES J Mar Sci 66:1205–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rudstam LG, Parker SL, Einhouse DW, Witzel LD, Warner DM, Stritzel JL, Parrish DL, Sullivan PJ (2003) Application of in situ target-strength estimations in lakes: examples from rainbow-smelt surveys in Lakes Erie and Champlain. ICES J Mar Sci 60:500–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryan TE, Kloser RJ, Macaulay GJ (2009) Measurement and visual verification of fish target strength using an acoustic-optical system attached to a trawlnet. ICES J Mar Sci 66:238–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sadovy de Mitcheson Y (2016) Mainstreaming fish spawning aggregations into fishery management calls for a precautionary approach. BioScience 66:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sadovy Y, Domeier M (2005) Are aggregation fisheries sustainable? Reef fish fisheries as a case study. Coral Reefs 24:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sadovy Y, Colin PL (eds) (2012) Reef fish spawning aggregations: biology, research and management. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  47. Sadovy de Mitcheson Y, Erisman B (2012) Fishery and biological implications of fishing spawning aggregations, and the social and economic importance of aggregating fishes. In: Sadovy Y, Colin PL (eds) Reef fish spawning aggregations: biology, research and management. Springer, Berlin, pp 225–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadovy de Mitcheson Y, Cornish A, Domeier M, Colin P, Russell M, Lindeman K (2008) A global baseline for spawning aggregations of reef fishes. Conserv Biol 22:1233–1244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sala E, Ballesteros E, Starr RM (2001) Rapid decline of Nassau grouper spawning aggregations in Belize: fishery management and conservation needs. Fisheries 26:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sawada K, Furusawa M, Williamson NJ (1993) Conditions for the precise measurement of fish target strength in situ. J Mar Acoust Soc Japan 20:73–79Google Scholar
  51. Semmens BX, Bush P, Heppell S, Johnson B, McCoy C, Pattengill-Semmens C, Whaylen L (2007) Charting a course for Nassau grouper recovery in the Caribbean: what we’ve learned and what we still need to know. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 60:607–609Google Scholar
  52. Simmonds EJ, MacLennan DN (2005) Fisheries acoustics: theory and practice, 2nd ed. Fish and Fisheries Series, Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith CL (1972) A spawning aggregation of Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Bloch). Trans Am Fish Soc 101:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soule M, Hampton I, Barange M (1995) Evidence of bias in estimates of target strength obtained with a split-beam echo-sounder. ICES J Mar Sci 52:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stallings CD (2008) Indirect effects of an exploited predator on recruitment of coral reef fishes. Ecology 89:2090–2095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Stallings CD (2009) Predator identity and recruitment of coral-reef fishes: indirect effects of fishing. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 383:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Starr RM, Sala E, Ballesteros E, Zabala M (2007) Spatial dynamics of the Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus in a Caribbean atoll. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 343:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Starr RM, Fox DS, Hixon MA, Tissot BN, Johnson GE, Barss WH (1995) Comparison of submersible-survey and hydroacoustic-survey estimates of fish density on a rocky bank. Fishery Bulletin 94:113–123Google Scholar
  59. Taylor CJ, Eggleston DB, Rand PS (2006) Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) spawning aggregations: hydroacoustic surveys and geostatistical analysis. Emerging technologies for reef fisheries research and management, National Marine Fisheries Service Professional Paper 5. NOAA, Seattle, WA, pp 18–25Google Scholar
  60. Thomas GL, Thorne RE (2003) Acoustical-optical assessment of Pacific herring and their predator assemblage in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Aquat Living Resour 16:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trenkel VM, Ressler PH, Jech M, Giannoulaki M, Taylor C (2011) Underwater acoustics for ecosystem-based management: state of the science and proposals for ecosystem indicators. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 442:285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Utne KR, Ona E (2006) Acoustic extinction in dense herring layers, measured from a bottom-mounted transducer. Document CM/2006/I: 10, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  63. Whaylen L, Pattengill-Semmens CV, Semmens BX, Bush PG, Boardman MR (2004) Observations of a Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) spawning aggregation site in Little Cayman, including multi-species spawning information. Environ Biol Fish 70:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Whaylen L, Bush PG, Johnson BC, Luke KE, McCoy CMR, Heppell S, Semmens BX, Boardman M (2006) Aggregation dynamics and lessons learned from five years of monitoring at a Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) spawning aggregation in Little Cayman, Cayman Islands, BWI. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 57:1–14Google Scholar
  65. Winfield IJ, Emmrich M, Guillard J, Mehner T, Rustadbakken A (2011) Guidelines for standardisation of hydroacoustic methods. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Project Number C03630, European Commission, 30 ppGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhao X, Ona E (2003) Estimation and compensation models for the shadowing effect in dense fish aggregations. ICES J Mar Sci 60:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Egerton
    • 1
  • A. F. Johnson
    • 2
  • L. Le Vay
    • 1
  • C. M. McCoy
    • 3
  • B. X. Semmens
    • 2
  • S. A. Heppell
    • 4
  • J. R. Turner
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Ocean SciencesBangor UniversityMenai BridgeWales, UK
  2. 2.Marine Biology Research DivisionScripps Institute of OceanographyCaliforniaUSA
  3. 3.Department of EnvironmentCayman Islands GovernmentGrand CaymanCayman Islands
  4. 4.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations