2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2011.08.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Home range and movement patterns of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) on artificial reefs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
45
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
7
45
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This space use is consistent with that reported by Currey et al [8]. These core areas along the reef were smaller in size than for hours of twilight or darkness, which corresponds with other studies in which less movement occurred during the day than in other periods, e.g., mullids, haemulids, and lutjanids [14,24,25]. Daytime horizontal core areas for L. miniatus were generally located within the areas used during other periods, like that for Kyphosus sectatrix [26].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This space use is consistent with that reported by Currey et al [8]. These core areas along the reef were smaller in size than for hours of twilight or darkness, which corresponds with other studies in which less movement occurred during the day than in other periods, e.g., mullids, haemulids, and lutjanids [14,24,25]. Daytime horizontal core areas for L. miniatus were generally located within the areas used during other periods, like that for Kyphosus sectatrix [26].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Certainly some disadvantages are associated with the detection limits of acoustic receivers and the variability in detection efficiency because of environmental fluctuation, and these should be accounted for through rigorous range testing (How and de Lestang 2012;Kessel et al 2014). However, using reef fish that exhibit high site fidelity, such as Red Snapper (Szedlmayer and Schroepfer 2005;Westmeyer et al 2007;Topping and Szedlmayer 2011b), increases the likelihood of detection as they typically remain within the range of receivers positioned on the structure.…”
Section: Limitations Of Acoustic Telemetrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results also suggest that pairing video cameras to trawls, fisheries acoustics, or nets allows for the estimation of detection probabilities. be appropriate for rare or elusive species (Thompson 2004). Moreover, capture probability is nearly always assumed to be constant across space, time, habitat types, or environmental conditions, an assumption that is often unverified or incorrect (Hangsleben et al 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%