Structural differences alter residency and depth activity of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) at two artificial reefs

2021 ◽  
Vol 242 ◽  
pp. 106043
Author(s):  
Catheline Y.M. Froehlich ◽  
Andres Garcia ◽  
Carlos E. Cintra-Buenrostro ◽  
David W. Hicks ◽  
Richard J. Kline
Keyword(s):  
Red Snapper ◽  
Artificial Reefs ◽  
Lutjanus Campechanus ◽  
Structural Differences

Marine Artificial Reef Research and Development: Integrating Fisheries Management Objectives

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Reef Fish ◽  
Fish Assemblages ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Construction Materials ◽  
Artificial Reef ◽  
Red Snapper ◽  
Artificial Reefs ◽  
Lutjanus Campechanus ◽  
The Status ◽  
Vermilion Snapper

<em>Abstract</em>.—Reef-fish assemblage structure was compared among multiple artificial and geologic (i.e., naturally occurring hard bottom) habitats in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico during 2014–2016 as part of a larger fishery-independent survey. Baited remote underwater video systems equipped with stereo cameras were deployed (<em>n </em>= 348) on 11 habitat types, classified through interpretation of side-scan sonar imagery. In the video samples, 11,801 fish were enumerated. Nonparametric analysis of reef-fish assemblages detected four clusters related to habitat; assemblages associated with geologic habitats were distinct, whereas the remaining three clusters represented groupings of artificial habitats of different size, scale, and complexity. While many species, including Vermilion Snapper <em>Rhomboplites aurorubens </em>and Red Snapper <em>Lutjanus campechanus</em>, were observed in greater numbers on artificial reef habitats, most species were observed in all habitats sampled. Among artificial reef habitats, the habitat cluster consisting of unidentified depressions, unidentified artificial reefs, construction materials, and reef modules was similar to geologic habitats in supporting larger individuals, specifically Gray Triggerfish <em>Balistes capriscus </em>and Red Snapper. In contrast, the habitat cluster consisting of smaller, generally solitary chicken-transport cages was inhabited by smaller individuals, including smaller Red Snapper. Although geologic reefs are the predominant reef habitat throughout much of the eastern Gulf, artificial reefs are important locally, especially in the Florida Panhandle. Accordingly, continued incorporation of artificial reef habitats within large-scale fishery-independent monitoring efforts is critical to the accurate assessment of the status of reef-fish stocks on broad spatial scales.

Red Snapper: Ecology and Fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico

2007 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Gulf Of Mexico ◽  
Stomach Content Analysis ◽  
Red Snapper ◽  
Artificial Reefs ◽  
Order Estimate ◽  
Lutjanus Campechanus ◽  
North Central ◽  
The North ◽  
Specific Diet ◽  
The U.S

<em>Abstract.</em>—Red snapper, <em>Lutjanus campechanus</em>, is a heavily exploited reef fish that is harvested in the Gulf of Mexico from both natural and artificial reefs. Since regulations were imposed in 1990, the stock has begun to recover; this recovery has also been attributed in part to an increase in artificial habitats/reefs. However, little is known about the role artificial reefs play in the trophic dynamics of the species. To this end, the seasonal and size-specific diet of red snapper was examined through stomach content analysis of individuals collected from artificial reefs in the north-central Gulf of Mexico off Alabama between May 1999 and April 2000. Diet information was subsequently combined with data from the literature to obtain a first-order estimate of prey demand of the red snapper population on artificial reefs off Alabama. Results indicate both that diet varied with season and red snapper size and that the overall diet was comprised primarily of demersal crustaceans, fish, and pelagic zooplankton. Annual prey demand of the red snapper population on Alabama artificial reefs was estimated to be over 31 million kg. Red snapper derived most of their nutrition from sand/mud- and water column-associated organisms, not from organisms associated with reefs. Based on these results, and the results from other red snapper studies off Alabama, Alabama artificial reefs may be attracting, not producing red snapper.

Red Snapper: Ecology and Fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico

2007 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Reef Fish ◽  
Growth Rates ◽  
Site Fidelity ◽  
Standing Stock ◽  
Artificial Reef ◽  
Red Snapper ◽  
Artificial Reefs ◽  
Suitable Habitat ◽  
Fish Biomass ◽  
Lutjanus Campechanus

<em>Abstract.</em>—Red snapper, <em>Lutjanus campechanus</em>, (<em>n </em>= 4,317) were captured and tagged at 14 experimental artificial reefs of two designs during quarterly research cruises (<em>n </em>= 17) off coastal Alabama between January 1999 and October 2002. Six-hundred and twenty nine recaptures were reported, representing 578 tagged red snapper. Sixty-five percent of recaptures (<em>n </em>= 412) were made at the site of release on subsequent research cruises, while 217 recaptures were reported by fishers. Eighty-six percent of individuals with known recapture locations moved 2 km or less from the site of release; mean and maximum distances moved were 2.1 km and 201 km, respectively. Nine red snapper moved greater than 80 km. Mean dispersion rate from release sites was 8.6 m d<sup>⁻1</sup>. Annual site fidelity of tagged fish was estimated using nonlinear decay models. Estimated annual site fidelity ranged from 48% to 52% year<sup>⁻1</sup> and was not significantly affected by artificial reef design, reef fish biomass at the site of release, or artificial reef densities surrounding each tagging site. Growth rates were estimated by regressing the change in red snapper total length versus the days a fish was at liberty. Mean growth rate for all recaptured fish was 0.206 mm d<sup>⁻1</sup>. Growth rates were significantly affected by reef size (faster at larger experimental reefs) and reef fish biomass (slower at tagging sites supporting low reef fish biomass), but were not affected by artificial reef density. Moderate site fidelity and low dispersion rates during our study provide support for the hypothesis that artificial reefs off Alabama are suitable habitat for adult red snapper. However, characteristics of artificial reefs, such as reef size and standing stock biomass, may affect red snapper growth. Furthermore, ratios of instantaneous growth in weight to total mortality (<EM>G/Z</EM>) suggest artificial reefs off Alabama serve as net sinks (i.e., <EM>G/Z </EM>< 1) of red snapper biomass under current fishing mortality rates.

Trophic ecology of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus on natural and artificial reefs: interactions between annual variability, habitat, and ontogeny

2020 ◽  
Vol 635 ◽  
pp. 105-122
Author(s):  
RA Brewton ◽  
CH Downey ◽  
MK Streich ◽  
JJ Wetz ◽  
MJ Ajemian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stable Isotope ◽  
Trophic Ecology ◽  
Size Class ◽  
Red Snapper ◽  
Artificial Reefs ◽  
Medium Size ◽  
Lutjanus Campechanus ◽  
Annual Variability ◽  
Total Length ◽  
Natural Reefs

In the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), oil and gas platforms have created an expansive network of artificial reefs. Generally, policies mandate removal of these structures post-production; however, many enter ‘Rigs-to-Reefs’ (RTR) programs that convert the rig materials into artificial reefs (‘reefing’). Despite the growth of RTR programs worldwide, the functionality of the resulting habitats remains uncertain, particularly due to the lack of comparative studies with natural systems. To address this data gap as it relates to trophic ecology, we compared annual, ontogenetic, and habitat-specific diet and stable isotope signatures (δ13C and δ15N) of adult red snapper Lutjanus campechanus (n = 1585) from relic coralgal natural reefs to those of fish from standing and reefed platforms located in similar depth strata of the northwestern GOM. Stomach content analyses revealed significant effects of year, habitat, and total length on prey composition. Subsequent analyses of stable isotope values by size class identified a non-linear relationship with ontogeny. δ13C and δ15N values at reefed platforms and natural reefs decreased in the medium size class (401-600 mm total length), whereas fish from standing platforms exhibited more consistent feeding patterns across ontogeny. Annual variability was also observed in δ13C and δ15N values, with 2013 and 2014 significantly different from 2015. These findings suggest that the trophic impacts of habitat type on reef fishes are more complex than previously considered in the GOM and that reefed platforms provide foraging opportunities more similar to natural reefs than standing platforms.

scholarly journals Reproductive characteristics of Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus on artificial reefs in different jurisdictions

2021 ◽  
pp. 101936
Author(s):  
Catheline Y.M. Froehlich ◽  
Adam M. Lee ◽  
Ramiro Oquita ◽  
Carlos E. Cintra-Buenrostro ◽  
J. Dale Shively
Keyword(s):  
Red Snapper ◽  
Artificial Reefs ◽  
Lutjanus Campechanus ◽  
Reproductive Characteristics
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document