Advertisement

Comparing Default Movement Algorithms for Individual Fish Avoidance of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico

  • Elizabeth LaBone
  • Dubravko Justic
  • Kenneth A. Rose
  • Lixia Wang
  • Haosheng Huang
Chapter

Abstract

The northern Gulf of Mexico is the site of one of the largest areas of seasonal, coastal hypoxia (up to 22,000 km\(^{2}\)). Hypoxia can have both direct and indirect effects on fish. Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) is a good model organism for studying the effects of hypoxia on fish in the Gulf of Mexico because it is a demersal species that lives in the area where hypoxia occurs and has been studied extensively. Virtual croaker movement was examined for three algorithm groups on a two-dimensional grid encompassing the Gulf hypoxia region. The model was run for seven days using four static dissolved oxygen maps reflecting progressively increasing hypoxia severity. Individual fish movement was modeled using a particle-tracking module with outputs from a three-dimensional hydrodynamic-water quality model for the 2002 hypoxia season. The three algorithm groups included the neighborhood search for hypoxia avoidance and the random walk, Cauchy correlated random walk, or kinesis for the default behavior. The results show that the default algorithms have little effect on hypoxia exposure of individual fish, but affect sinuosity (wiggle in fish path). The variables to consider when choosing between the three default algorithms are time step, dispersal, and the effects of stressors other than hypoxia. This study emphasizes the need to acquire suitable data for calibration of fish movement models that are presently not available for the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Keywords

Atlantic croaker Fish movement Avoidance behavior Hypoxia Numerical modeling Gulf of Mexico 

Notes

Acknowledgements

E.D. LaBone was supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Program and the Louisiana Board of Regents 8g Fellowship. The project was also funded in part by the NOAA/CSCOR Northern Gulf of Mexico Ecosystems and Hypoxia Assessment Program under award NA09NOS4780230 to Louisiana State University. This is publication number 221 of the NOAA’s CSCOR NGOMEX and CHRP programs. I am grateful to Damian Brady, Kevin Craig, and Thomas Grothues for providing fish movement data for Pepper Creek, Neuse River, and the GOM, respectively. I also am thankful to Sean Creekmore for providing advice and the values for the croaker growth calculation. I would also like to thank Thomas LaBone for advice on statistics.

References

  1. Anderson JJ (2002) An agent-based event driven foraging model. Nat Resour Model 15(1):55–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barger LE (1985) Age and growth of Atlantic croakers in the northern Gulf of Mexico, based on otolith sections. Trans Am Fish Soc 114(6):847–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batschelet E (1981) Circular statistics in biology. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Baustian MM, Craig JK, Rabalais NN (2009) Effects of summer 2003 hypoxia on macrobenthos and Atlantic croaker foraging selectivity in the northern Gulf of Mexico. J Exper Mar Biol Ecol 381:S31–S37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady DC, Targett TE (2013) Movement of juvenile weakfish Cynoscion regalis and spot Leiostomus xanthurus in relation to diel-cycling hypoxia in an estuarine tidal tributary. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 491:199–219. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v491/p199-219/
  6. Breitburg D (2002) Effects of hypoxia, and the balance between hypoxia and enrichment, on coastal fishes and fisheries. Estuaries Coasts 25(4):767–781. doi: 10.1007/BF02804904. http://www.springerlink.com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/content/p2306p145n4765l1/abstract/
  7. Chen C, Beardsley RC, Cowles G (2006) An unstructured grid, finite-volume coastal ocean model: FVCOM user manual, 2nd edn. Marine ecosystem dynamic modeling laboratory. http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/staffpages/rsignell/rps/share/FVCOM_Manual.pdf
  8. Craig JK (2012) Aggregation on the edge: effects of hypoxia avoidance on the spatial distribution of brown shrimp and demersal fishes in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 445:75–95. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v445/p75-95/
  9. Craig JK, Bosman SH (2012) Small spatial scale variation in fish assemblage structure in the vicinity of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic zone. Estuaries Coasts 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s12237-012-9577-9
  10. Creekmore SB (2011) Modeling the population effects of Hypoxia on Atlantic croaker (micropogonias undulatus) in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Master of Science, Louisiana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Eby LA, Crowder LB (2002) Hypoxia-based habitat compression in the Neuse River Estuary: context-dependent shifts in behavioral avoidance thresholds. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59(6):952–965. doi: 10.1139/f02-067
  12. Fennel K, Hu J, Laurent A, Marta-Almeida M, Hetland R (2013) Sensitivity of hypoxia predictions for the northern Gulf of Mexico to sediment oxygen consumption and model nesting. J Geophys Res Oceans 118(2):990–1002. doi: 10.1002/jgrc.20077
  13. Fraenkel GS, Gunn DL (1961) The orientation of animals: kineses, taxes and compass reactionsGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin RA, Nestler JM, Anderson JJ, Weber LJ, Loucks DP (2006) Forecasting 3-D fish movement behavior using a Eulerian-Lagrangian-agent method (ELAM). Ecol Model 192(1–2):197–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grothues TM, Davis WC, Kraft C (2013) Sound pressure level weighting of the center of activity method to approximate sequential fish positions from acoustic telemetry. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 70(9):1359–1371. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2013-0056
  16. Hetland RD, DiMarco SF (2008) How does the character of oxygen demand control the structure of hypoxia on the Texas–Louisiana continental shelf? J Mar Syst 70(1):49–62. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924796307000711
  17. Humston R, Olson DB, Ault JS (2004) Behavioral assumptions in models of fish movement and their influence on population dynamics. Trans Am Fish Soc 133(6):1304–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Justić D, Wang L (2014) Assessing temporal and spatial variability of hypoxia over the inner Louisiana–upper Texas shelf: application of an unstructured-grid three-dimensional coupled hydrodynamic-water quality model. Cont Shelf Res 72:163–179. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278434313002665
  19. Justic D, Rabalais NN, Eugene Turner R, Wiseman WJ Jr (1993) Seasonal coupling between riverborne nutrients, net productivity and hypoxia. Mar Pollut Bull 26(4):184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Justic D, Rabalais NN, Turner RE (1996) Effects of climate change on hypoxia in coastal waters: a doubled CO2 scenario for the northern Gulf of Mexico. Limnol Oceanogr 992–1003Google Scholar
  21. Justic D, Rabalais NN, Turner RE (2002) Modeling the impacts of decadal changes in riverine nutrient fluxes on coastal eutrophication near the Mississippi River Delta. Ecol Model 152(1):33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Justic D, Bierman VJ, Scavia D, Hetland RD (2007) Forecasting Gulf’s hypoxia: the next 50 years? Estuaries Coasts 30(5):791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kareiva PM, Shigesada N (1983) Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56(2-3):234–238. doi: 10.1007/BF00379695
  24. Landau R, Kang N, Mulder G, Holmes R, Panoff B, Borinskaya S, Bordeianu C, Paez M (2013) Random walks. http://www.science.oregonstate.edu/~rubin/INSTANCES/WebModules/5_RandomWalk/RandomWalkFiles/Pdfs/RandomWalk.pdf
  25. Ludsin SA, Zhang X, Brandt SB, Roman MR, Boicourt WC, Mason DM, Costantini M (2009) Hypoxia-avoidance by planktivorous fish in Chesapeake Bay: Implications for food web interactions and fish recruitment. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 381(Supplement):S121–S131. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098109002846
  26. Marsh LM, Jones RE (1988) The form and consequences of random walk movement models. J Theoret Biol 133(1):113–131. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519388800286
  27. Miller Neilan R, Rose K (2014) Simulating the effects of fluctuating dissolved oxygen on growth, reproduction, and survival of fish and shrimp. J Theoret Biol 343:54–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.11.004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519313005298
  28. Obenour DR, Scavia D, Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Michalak AM (2013) Retrospective analysis of midsummer hypoxic area and volume in the northern Gulf of Mexico, 1985–2011. Environ Sci Technol 47(17):9808–9815. doi: 10.1021/es400983g
  29. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  30. Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Wiseman WJ Jr (2001) Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. J Environ Qual 30(2):320–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Wiseman WJ Jr (2002) Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia, aka “The Dead Zone”. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 33:235–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Sen Gupta BK, Boesch DF, Chapman P, Murrell MC (2007) Hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Does the science support the plan to reduce, mitigate, and control hypoxia? Estuaries Coasts 30(5):753–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose KA, Adamack AT, Murphy CA, Sable SE, Kolesar SE, Craig JK, Breitburg DL, Thomas P, Brouwer MH, Cerco CF et al (2009) Does hypoxia have population-level effects on coastal fish? Musings from the virtual world. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 381:S188–S203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rose KA, Huang H, Justic D, de Mutsert K (2014) Simulating fish movement responses to and potential salinity stress from large-scale river diversions. Mar Coast Fish 6(1):43–61. doi: 10.1080/19425120.2013.866999
  35. Scavia D, Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Justić D, Wiseman WJ Jr (2003) Predicting the response of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia to variations in Mississippi River nitrogen load. Limnol Oceanogr 48(3):951–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scavia D, Justic D, Bierman VJ (2004) Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: advice from three models. Estuaries Coasts 27(3):419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas P, Rahman MS (2009) Chronic hypoxia impairs gamete maturation in Atlantic croaker induced by progestins through nongenomic mechanisms resulting in reduced reproductive success. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4175–4180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Turner RE, Rabalais NN (1991) Changes in Mississippi River water quality this century. BioScience 140–147Google Scholar
  39. Wang L, Justic D (2009) A modeling study of the physical processes affecting the development of seasonal hypoxia over the inner Louisiana-Texas shelf: Circulation and stratification. Cont Shelf Res 29(11–12):1464–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watkins KS, Rose KA (2013) Evaluating the performance of individual-based animal movement models in novel environments. Ecol Model 250:214–234. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380012005480
  41. White JW, Rassweiler A, Samhouri JF, Stier AC, White C (2014) Ecologists should not use statistical significance tests to interpret simulation model results. Oikos 123(4):385–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.01073.x/full
  42. Wool TA, Ambrose RB, Martin JL, Comer EA, Tech T (2006) Water quality analysis simulation program (WASP). User’s manual, Version 6. http://env1.kangwon.ac.kr/CyberClass/grad/grese/2012/models/wasp/wasp6/WASP6_Manual.pdf
  43. Wu Hi, Li BL, Springer TA, Neill WH (2000) Modelling animal movement as a persistent random walk in two dimensions: expected magnitude of net displacement. Ecol Model 132(1):115–124. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380000003094

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth LaBone
    • 1
  • Dubravko Justic
    • 1
  • Kenneth A. Rose
    • 1
  • Lixia Wang
    • 1
  • Haosheng Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oceanography & Coastal SciencesCollege of the Coast & Environment, Louisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations