Home range and spawning migration patterns of queen triggerfish Balistes vetula in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands

Bryan, David R.; Feeley, Michael W.; Nemeth, Richard S.; Pollock, Clayton G.; Ault, Jerald S.

doi:10.3354/meps12944

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A passive acoustic receiver array, designed to study multiple species [53,61,[65][66][67][68], at BIRNM was expanded from six to 141 Vemco VR2W receivers (Vemco Amirix Systems, NS, Canada) between 2011 and 2018. Receivers were strategically placed on sand screws and some on cement block anchors around the island and its various habitats with the majority being deployed in < 15 m. Receiver data downloads and maintenance were performed twice a year.…”

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Space use and relative habitat selection for immature green turtles within a Caribbean marine protected area

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A better understanding of sea turtle spatial ecology is critical for the continued conservation of imperiled sea turtles and their habitats. For resource managers to develop the most effective conservation strategies, it is especially important to examine how turtles use and select for habitats within their developmental foraging grounds. Here, we examine the space use and relative habitat selection of immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) using acoustic telemetry within the marine protected area, Buck Island Reef National Monument (BIRNM), St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. Results: Space use by turtles was concentrated on the southern side of Buck Island, but also extended to the northeast and northwest areas of the island, as indicated by minimum convex polygons (MCPs) and 99%, 95%, and 50% kernel density estimations (KDEs). On average space use for all categories was < 3 km 2 with mean KDE area overlap ranging from 41.9 to 67.7%. Cumulative monthly MCPs and their proportions to full MCPs began to stabilize 3 to 6 detection months after release, respectively. Resource selection functions (RSFs) were implemented using a generalized linear mixed effects model with turtle ID as the random effect. After model selection, the accuracy of the top model was 77.3% and showed relative habitat selection values were highest at shallow depths, for areas in close proximity to seagrass, and in reef zones for both day and night, and within lagoon zones at night. The top model was also extended to predict across BIRNM at both day and night. Conclusion: More traditional acoustic telemetry analyses in combination with RSFs provide novel insights into animal space use and relative resource selection. Here, we demonstrated immature green turtles within the BIRNM have small, specific home ranges and core use areas with temporally varying relative selection strengths across habitat types. We conclude the BIRNM marine protected area is providing sufficient protection for immature green turtles, however, habitat protection could be focused in both areas of high space use and in locations where high relative selection values were determined. Ultimately, the methodologies and results presented here may help to design strategies to expand habitat protection for immature green turtles across their greater distribution.

show abstract

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Space use and relative habitat selection for immature green turtles within a Caribbean marine protected area

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, there were several variables that could not be included in the initial hazards model because of correlation, but their inclusion and limited in uence in the subsequent boat tagged and in situ tagged models reinforced that the tagging method was the most important factor in risk of disappearance from the array. Acoustic tracking data of in situ surgically tagged sh from two other telemetry studies also demonstrate the bene t of tagging method, indicated by high survival rates (97%-100%) post-surgery (Tuohy et al 2015, Bryan et al 2019. The decrease in probability of presence of boat-tagged sh could be due to several factors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Under pressure: Comparing in situ and boat tagging methods using time-to-event analyses

Keller

Morley

Herbig

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With the increase in telemetry studies over the past decade, improving understanding of how different tagging methods influence fish survivorship is critical. By examining the effects of tagging methods, we can maximize the information gained from telemetry studies. Mortality resulting from internally tagging fish on a boat may be due to barotrauma injuries, increased stress from prolonged handling times, or predation after fish have been released back into the water. Conducting in situ internal acoustic tagging at depth of capture completely removes barotrauma stresses and simplifies the release method, which may improve fish survival. In this study, we used 8 years of acoustic tagging data to determine if the tagging method ( in situ versus on the boat) influenced fish survivorship and evaluated the role of other tagging variables. Results At 6 days after tagging, Kaplan–Meier survival curves revealed that the survival probability of fish tagged on the boat was 66% while survival probability of fish tagged in situ was 90%. Tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival probability based on Cox proportional hazards models, with fish tagged in situ ~75% less likely to have an “event” (mortality, tag loss, or emigration) compared to fish tagged on the boat at both 4 and 6 days after tagging. Examining tagging methods separately, handling time only marginally influenced survival probability of boat-tagged fish and no variables had a significant effect on survival of in situ tagged fish. Conclusions In this study, tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival of internally tagged fish. Implanting internal acoustic tags in situ is not a practical method for every species and for every environment, but given the increased fish survivorship demonstrated here, we strongly suggest it be considered as the preferred tagging methodology where applicable.

show abstract

“…In this study, there were several variables that could not be included in the initial hazards model because of correlation, but their inclusion and limited in uence in the two subsequent models assessing hazards to the boat-tagged and in situ tagged sh independently reinforced that the tagging method was the most important factor for survivorship. Acoustic tracking data of in situ surgically tagged sh from two other studies also indicated high survival rates (97-100%) post-surgery (Tuohy et al 2015, Bryan et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Under Pressure: Comparing Fish Survivorship Between in Situ and Boat Tagging Methods Using Internal Acoustic Tags

Keller

Morley

Herbig

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With the increase in telemetry studies over the past decade, improving understanding of how different tagging methods influence fish survivorship is critical. By examining the effects of tagging methods, we can maximize the information gained from telemetry studies. Mortality resulting from internally tagging fish on a boat may be due to barotrauma injuries, increased stress from prolonged handling times, or predation after fish have been released back into the water. Conducting in situ internal acoustic tagging at depth of capture completely removes barotrauma stresses and simplifies the release method, which may improve fish survival. In this study, we used 8 years of acoustic tagging data to determine if the tagging method (in situ versus on the boat) influenced fish survivorship and evaluated the role of other tagging variables.Results: At 6 days after tagging, Kaplan–Meier survival curves revealed that the survival probability of fish tagged on the boat was 66% while survival probability of fish tagged in situ was 90%. Tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival probability based on Cox proportional hazards models, with fish tagged in situ ~75% less likely to have an “event” (mortality, tag loss, or emigration) compared to fish tagged on the boat at both 4 and 6 days after tagging. Examining tagging methods separately, handling time only marginally influenced survival probability of boat-tagged fish and no variables had a significant effect on survival of in situ tagged fish. Conclusions: In this study, tagging method was the only variable to significantly affect survival of internally tagged fish. Implanting internal acoustic tags in situ is not a practical method for every species and for every environment, but given the increased fish survivorship demonstrated here, we strongly suggest it be considered as the preferred tagging methodology where applicable.

show abstract

Home range and spawning migration patterns of queen triggerfish Balistes vetula in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands

Cited by 12 publications

References 77 publications

Space use and relative habitat selection for immature green turtles within a Caribbean marine protected area

Space use and relative habitat selection for immature green turtles within a Caribbean marine protected area

Under pressure: Comparing in situ and boat tagging methods using time-to-event analyses

Under Pressure: Comparing Fish Survivorship Between in Situ and Boat Tagging Methods Using Internal Acoustic Tags

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Home range and spawning migration patterns of queen triggerfish Balistes vetula in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands

Cited by 12 publications

References 77 publications

Space use and relative habitat selection for immature green turtles within a Caribbean marine protected area

Space use and relative habitat selection for immature green turtles within a Caribbean marine protected area

Under pressure: Comparing in situ and boat tagging methods using&nbsp;time-to-event analyses

Under Pressure: Comparing Fish Survivorship Between in Situ and Boat Tagging Methods Using Internal Acoustic Tags

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Under pressure: Comparing in situ and boat tagging methods using time-to-event analyses