Use of PIT tag and underwater video recording in assessing estuarine fish movement in a high intertidal mangrove and salt marsh creek

Meynecke, Jan‐Olaf; Poole, Geoffrey C.; Werry, Jonathan M.; Lee, Joe

doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2008.03.019

Cited by 63 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yellowfin bream Acanthopagrus australis and black rabbitfish Siganus fuscescens recruit to seagrass, move to reefs (and other structurally complex habitat) as sub-adults (e.g. Griffiths 2001, Mellin et al 2007, Meynecke et al 2008a) and migrate tidally to feed in mangroves in Moreton Bay (Olds et al 2012). Common hardyhead Atherinomorus vaigiensis and common silverbiddy Gerres subfasciatus also migrate tidally into mangroves to feed and seek refuge from predators (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Blackspot snapper Lutjanus fulviflamma, moses snapper L. russelli and goldspotted rockcod Epinephelus coioides recruit to mangrove-lined creeks and shallow reefs as juveniles and migrate tidally to feed in mangroves before moving to offshore reefs at larger body sizes (e.g. Blaber 2000, Sheaves & Molony 2000, Newman 2002, Meynecke et al 2008a). Juvenile L. fulviflamma are also common in seagrass (Igulu et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Primacy of seascape connectivity effects in structuring coral reef fish assemblages

Olds¹,

Connolly²,

Pitt³

et al. 2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primacy of seascape connectivity effects in structuring coral reef fish assemblages

Olds¹,

Connolly²,

Pitt³

et al. 2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The potential impact of fringing mangroves is illustrated by comparing the density of juvenile sharks from seagrass and unvegetated nursery areas that are either close or far from the Guichenault site; nurseries close to mangroves had 2-to 10-fold more sharks (White & Potter 2004). Protective benefits were observed for fish moving in and out of mangrove creeks in Queensland, Australia (Meynecke et al 2008), and for Acanthopagrus latus in Shark Bay, Australia (Platell et al 2007). These observations support additional studies on differences in predation rates among habitats.…”

Section: Mangrove Contributions To Fish Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distance of 1 km was selected to encompass habitats that would be reasonably encountered by fish moving with tides be tween mangrove and deeper habitats. Daily movements with tides are documented in Caribbean and Australian systems, even though precise pathways are difficult to quantify (Meynecke et al 2008, Luo et al 2009, Mendoza-Carranza et al 2010, Sakabe & Lyle 2010 The 'shortest path' was a straight line except when land projected into the area. Areas for habitat patches of each type were then summed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trophic dynamics in a relatively pristine subtropical fringing mangrove community

Heithaus¹,

Heithaus²,

Heithaus³

et al. 2011

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

13C and δ 15 N stable isotope values occurred over spatial scales of hundreds of meters. Some of this variation is consistent with the spatial mosaics of seagrass, sand flat and mangrove habitats available to fish. In a nearly pristine system, fish captured in mangrove systems show fine scale variability in stable isotope values, but we found no indication that mangrove productivity directly supported local fish populations through the trophic web.

show abstract

“…Detection range is dependent on tag size, operation frequency, antenna power, tag orientation and interference from other devices (Lucas and Baras, 2000). Detection range is reduced in saline waters, but stationary PIT-tag systems have also been used in marine environments (Meynecke et al, 2008).…”

Section: Passive Integrated Transponder Tags (Pit-tags)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

Thorstad¹,

Rikardsen²,

Alp³

et al. 2014

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An overview of electronic tags that can be used in fish research is given, including radio and acoustic transmitters, data storage tags (DST, also termed archival tags), pop-up satellite archival tags (PSAT) and passive integrated transponder tags (PIT-tag). Fish telemetry is a term used to describe the application of these methods. Typically, an electronic tag is attached to a free-swimming fish, and information on position, movements and/or measurements of environmental and physiological parameters can be recorded wirelessly by use of a mobile receiver or stationary loggers. For most methods, the fish need not to be recaptured to achieve data. However, DSTs record and store information on environmental and/or physiological parameters in the tag, and therefore need to be retrieved for downloading data. In the case of PSATs, stored data is transferred to satellites when the tag loosens from the fish and pops up to the surface, and in addition, the pop up position is recorded. The developments of telemetry methods have provided opportunities to reveal previously unknown information on fish behavior, habitat use and migrations in fresh water, estuaries, near-coastal areas and oceans, especially since extensive longterm data can be collected repeatedly from individual fish. Detailed information on fish behaviour and migrations is needed to better understand, protect and manage fishes in freshwater and marine systems. The development of successful management measures depends on knowledge of where fish reside and migrate during the day, season and year. There has been a tremendous increase in the use of electronic tagging methods, especially during the last 10-20 years. In addition to descriptive and ecological studies, the methods have been used to assess effects of for instance hydropower production, other river regulations, migration barriers, protected areas, fishing regulations, catch-and-release angling, hatchery-rearing, fish aggregating devices (FADs), water pollution and aquaculture. The main methods for attaching electronic tags to fish are 1) surgical implantation in the body cavity, 2) external attachment, and 3) gastric insertion via the mouth. Potential negative handling effects are inflammations, infections, tag expulsion, altered behavior, decreased swimming performance, reduced feeding, reduced growth and increased mortality. The catch, handling and tagging procedures should have minimal effects on the fish. If not, an anomalous behaviour caused by the tagging may be recorded instead of the natural behaviour, and the study is a failure from a scientific point of view. Furthermore, optimal anaesthetic and tagging methods are required to meet the ethical standards for use of experimental animals, and to ensure fish survival and welfare.

show abstract

Use of PIT tag and underwater video recording in assessing estuarine fish movement in a high intertidal mangrove and salt marsh creek

Cited by 63 publications

References 45 publications

Primacy of seascape connectivity effects in structuring coral reef fish assemblages

Primacy of seascape connectivity effects in structuring coral reef fish assemblages

Trophic dynamics in a relatively pristine subtropical fringing mangrove community

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About