Regional-scale variability in the movement ecology of marine fishes revealed by an integrative acoustic tracking network

Claudia Friess; Susan K. Lowerre-Barbieri; Gregg R. Poulakis; Neil Hammerschlag; Jayne M. Gardiner; Andrea M. Kroetz; Kim Bassos-Hull; Joel Bickford; Erin C. Bohaboy; Robert D. Ellis; Hayden Menendez; William F. Patterson III; Melissa E. Price; Jennifer S. Rehage; Colin P. Shea; Matthew J. Smukall; Sarah Walters Burnsed; Krystan A. Wilkinson; Joy Young; Angela B. Collins; Breanna C. DeGroot; Cheston T. Peterson; Caleb Purtlebaugh; Michael Randall; Rachel M. Scharer; Ryan W. Schloesser; Tonya R. Wiley; Gina A. Alvarez; Andy J. Danylchuk; Adam G. Fox; R. Dean Grubbs; Ashley Hill; James V. Locascio; Patrick M. ODonnell; Gregory B. Skomal; Fred G. Whoriskey; Lucas P. Griffin

doi:10.3354/meps13637

MEPS

Marine Ecology Progress Series

via Mailchimp

MEPS 663:157-177 (2021) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13637

Regional-scale variability in the movement ecology of marine fishes revealed by an integrative acoustic tracking network

Claudia Friess^1,*,#, Susan K. Lowerre-Barbieri^1,2,#, Gregg R. Poulakis³, Neil Hammerschlag⁴, Jayne M. Gardiner⁵, Andrea M. Kroetz⁶, Kim Bassos-Hull⁷, Joel Bickford¹, Erin C. Bohaboy⁸, Robert D. Ellis¹, Hayden Menendez¹, William F. Patterson III², Melissa E. Price⁹, Jennifer S. Rehage¹⁰, Colin P. Shea¹, Matthew J. Smukall¹¹, Sarah Walters Burnsed¹, Krystan A. Wilkinson^7,12, Joy Young¹³, Angela B. Collins^1,14, Breanna C. DeGroot¹⁵, Cheston T. Peterson¹⁶, Caleb Purtlebaugh¹⁷, Michael Randall⁹, Rachel M. Scharer³, Ryan W. Schloesser⁷, Tonya R. Wiley¹⁸, Gina A. Alvarez¹⁹, Andy J. Danylchuk²⁰, Adam G. Fox¹⁹, R. Dean Grubbs²¹, Ashley Hill²², James V. Locascio⁷, Patrick M. O’Donnell²³, Gregory B. Skomal²⁴, Fred G. Whoriskey²⁵, Lucas P. Griffin²⁰

¹Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA
²Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32653, USA
³Charlotte Harbor Field Laboratory, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Port Charlotte, FL 33954, USA
⁴Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149, USA
⁵Division of Natural Sciences, New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA
⁶Riverside Technology, Inc. for NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL 32408, USA
⁷Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL 34236, USA
^8National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, HI 96818, USA
⁹U.S. Geological Survey Wetland and Aquatic Research Center (USGS-WARC), Gainesville, FL 32653, USA
¹⁰Institute of Environment, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
¹¹Bimini Biological Field Station Foundation, South Bimini, Bahamas
¹²Chicago Zoological Society’s Sarasota Dolphin Research Program c/o Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL 34236, USA
¹³Tequesta Field Laboratory, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tequesta, FL 33469, USA
¹⁴University of Florida IFAS Extension, Florida Sea Grant, Palmetto, FL 34221, USA
¹⁵Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Pierce, FL 34946, USA
¹⁶Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
¹⁷Senator George Kirkpatrick Marine Laboratory, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Cedar Key, FL 32625, USA
¹⁸Havenworth Coastal Conservation, Palmetto, FL 34221, USA
¹⁹Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
²⁰Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
²¹Florida State University Coastal and Marine Laboratory, St. Teresa, FL 32358, USA
²²Lynker Technologies for NOAA, National Ocean Services, Office of Response and Restoration, Marine Debris Division, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
²³Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Naples, FL 34113, USA
²⁴Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, New Bedford, MA 02744, USA
²⁵Ocean Tracking Network, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada

*Corresponding author: elasmophile@gmail.com
#These authors contributed equally to this work

ABSTRACT: Marine fish movement plays a critical role in ecosystem functioning and is increasingly studied with acoustic telemetry. Traditionally, this research has focused on single species and small spatial scales. However, integrated tracking networks, such as the Integrated Tracking of Aquatic Animals in the Gulf of Mexico (iTAG) network, are building the capacity to monitor multiple species over larger spatial scales. We conducted a synthesis of passive acoustic monitoring data for 29 species (889 transmitters), ranging from large top predators to small consumers, monitored along the west coast of Florida, USA, over 3 yr (2016-2018). Space use was highly variable, with some groups using all monitored areas and others using only the area where they were tagged. The most extensive space use was found for Atlantic tarpon Megalops atlanticus and bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas. Individual detection patterns clustered into 4 groups, ranging from occasionally detected long-distance movers to frequently detected juvenile or adult residents. Synchronized, alongshore, long-distance movements were found for Atlantic tarpon, cobia Rachycentron canadum, and several elasmobranch species. These movements were predominantly northbound in spring and southbound in fall. Detections of top predators were highest in summer, except for nearshore Tampa Bay where the most detections occurred in fall, coinciding with large red drum Sciaenops ocellatus spawning aggregations. We discuss the future of collaborative telemetry research, including current limitations and potential solutions to maximize its impact for understanding movement ecology, conducting ecosystem monitoring, and supporting fisheries management.

KEY WORDS: Acoustic monitoring · Movement ecology · Ecosystem monitoring · Integrated Tracking of Aquatic Animals in the Gulf of Mexico · iTAG · Collaboration

Full text in pdf format
Supplementary material

Cite this article as: Friess C, Lowerre-Barbieri SK, Poulakis GR, Hammerschlag N and others (2021) Regional-scale variability in the movement ecology of marine fishes revealed by an integrative acoustic tracking network. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 663:157-177. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13637

Export citation
Share: Facebook - - linkedIn

Cited by

Previous article Next article