Short profile


FishEthoScore of the species

Abbreviated assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Criteria Li Po Ce
1 Home range
2 Depth range
3 Migration
4 Reproduction
5 Aggregation
6 Aggression ? ?
7 Substrate
8 Stress
9 Malformation ? ?
10 Slaughter
FishEthoScore 1 3 2
Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential overall potential of the individuals of the species to experience welfare under improved farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential
 
                    ?     /  
  High    Medium     Low     Unclear  No findings
 
FishEthoScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)



General remarks

Seriola diumerili is a valuable species for aquaculture due to its high commercial value and depleting stocks in the wild. However its welfare in aquaculture is hindered by its spatial needs, since it is a pelagic open water cruiser. In addition, its spawning under farming conditions is majorly induced and invasive, and survival rates of early life stages are very low. Several aspects that are important for farming remain unknown, such as aggression in juveniles and adults, stress, malformation rates and an established humane slaughter protocol. Solving these issues may provide solutions for farming under better welfare conditions.


1. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the home range of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
L
Potential
H
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: pelagic, develop offshore [1]. FARM: circular tanks: ca 20 m3 [2]; mesocosm 40 m3 [3].

JUVENILES: WILD: pelagic [4] [5] [6]. Swim ca 3.7 nautical miles per day [7]. FARM: net cages: 7 m3 (diameter 4.5 m) [8], 5-10 x 5-10 m [9]

ADULTS:  JUVENILES

SPAWNERSWILD: pelagic [10] [6], approach shore when spawning [11]. Swim ca 3.7 nautical miles per day [7]FARM: natural spawning tanks: 500 m3 [12]; maturation tanks for induced spawning 30 – 40 m3 [13] [13], 70 m3 [14]LAB:  maturation tanks 10 m3 (3 x 3 x 1.5 m) [15].


2. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the depth range of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
L
Potential
H
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: pelagic, develop in the open ocean [1]. FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: 20 - 70 m, occasionally down to 360 m [16] [2]. FARM: net cages: 5-15 m [8] [9]

ADULTS JUVENILES

SPAWNERSWILD: 20 - 70 m, occasionally down to 360 m [16] [2]. FARM: maturation tanks 10 m3 (3 x 3 x 1.5 m) [15].


3. Are minimal farming conditions compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
L
Potential
M
Certainty

OCEANODROMOUS [17].

LARVAE: WILD: pelagic, develop offshore [1]FARM: saltwater [2] [3]. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILESWILD: pelagic [4] [5] [6], swim large distances in the open ocean [7]. Sometimes epibenthic feeding [5]FARM: sea cages  [8] [9]. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS JUVENILES

SPAWNERSWILD: pelagic [10] [6] [5], approach shore when spawning [11]FARM: saltwater tanks [15]. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.


4. Is the species likely to reproduce in captivity without manipulation? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
H
Potential
M
Certainty

WILD: spawn in spring-summer [11] [1]. Pair spawners, male courts and pursues female, pair may be followed by 1-10 indviduals [18]FARM: reproduction dysfunctions occur in captivity [19], spawning is often hormonally induced [20] [13] [15] [2] but can occur naturally without manipulation [12]. A large part of production comes from wildcaught juveniles [2].


5. Is the aggregation imposed by minimal farming conditions likely to be compatible with the natural behaviour of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

H
Likelihood
H
Potential
M
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: planktonic, occur naturally in large numbers [21]. FARM: tanks: 5 - 12 larvae/L [2] [22] [9]; mesocosm 0.25 larvae/L [3].

JUVENILES: WILD: aggregate [1] [23], display schooling behaviour [24] [18]. FARM: net cages: ca 1 ind/m3 [8].

ADULTS JUVENILES.

SPAWNERSWILD: Form spawning aggregations [25]. FARM: maturation tanks for induced spawning: ca 1 ind/m3 (4.14 kg/m3[15]; tanks for natural spawning: ca 0.16 ind/m3 (0.2 kg/m3) [12].


6. Is the species likely to be non-aggressive and non-territorial? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: aggressive [3] [26], cannibalism [26]. Size grading decreases aggression [27].

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yetFARM: aggressive in early stages, size grading and unrestricted feeding reduce aggression [26].

ADULTS: WILD and FARMno data found yet.

SPAWNERSWILD and FARM: no data found yet.


7. Are minimal farming conditions likely to match the natural substrate and shelter needs of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
M
Potential
M
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: seek shelter under sargassum weed [1]. FARM: no reports of shelter structures found in the literature.

JUVENILES: WILD: pelagic [1] [4] [6] [5] open water swimmers [7]. Epibenthic for feeding purposes [5]FARM:  sea cages  [8] [9]. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERSWILD: pelagic [1] [4] [6] [5] open water swimmers [7]. Epibenthic for feeding purposes [5]FARM: saltwater tanks [15]. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

 

8. Are minimal farming conditions (handling, confinement etc.) likely not to stress the individuals of the species? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
M
Potential
M
Certainty

LARVAE: aggressive [3] [26], cannibalism [26]. Size grading decreases aggression [27].

JUVENILES: stressed by conspecific attacks in normal rearing conditions [26].

ADULTS JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: natural reproduction is impaired in most farming conditions [20] [15] [19], although it is possibe to achieve [12].


9. Are malformations of this species likely to be rare under farming conditions? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
?
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE: mesocosm: 3.5% survival rate, <1% abnormalities [3].

JUVENILESno data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.


10. Is a humane slaughter protocol likely to be applied under minimal farming conditions? What overall welfare potential can be achieved? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
H
Potential
L
Certainty

Common and high-standard slaughter method: for congener Seriola lalandi, a protocol for electrical stunning and killing by immersion in icewater is available: most effective when stunned for 5 s (124 V dc and 11 Vrms ac 100 Hz) and placed in icewater for 10 min [28]. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to S. dumerili as well.


Side note: Domestication

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 [29], level 5 being fully domesticated.


Side note: Feeding without components of forage fishery

All age classes: WILD: carnivorous [4] [2] [30] [11]. FARM: for juveniles, fish meal may be partially* [31] or completely* replaced by sustainable sources [32].

*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%


Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture [29]
FARM = setting in farm environment
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
OCEANODROMOUS = living and migrating in the sea
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild


Bibliography

[1] Wells, R. J. David, and Jay R. Rooker. 2004. Distribution, age, and growth of young-of-the year greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) associated with pelagic Sargassum. Fishery Bulletin 102: 545–554.
[2] Jerez Herrera, S., and R Vassalo Agius. 2016. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Seriola dumerili. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
[3] Papandroulakis, N., C. C. Mylonas, E. Maingot, and P. Divanach. 2005. First results of greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) larval rearing in mesocosm. Aquaculture 250: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.02.036.
[4] Pipitone, C, and Franco Andaloro. 1995. Food and feeding habits of juvenile greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili (Osteichthyes, Carangidae) in inshore waters of the central Mediterranean Sea. Cybium 19: 305–310.
[5] Manooch, Charles S., and Jennifer C. Potts. 1997. Age, growth and mortality of greater amberjack from the southeastern United States. Fisheries Research 30: 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(96)00554-1.
[6] Saldanha, L. 1995. Fauna Submarina Atlântica. Publicações Europa-América.
[7] McClellan, David B., and Nancie J. Cummings. 1997. Preliminary analysis of tag recapture data of Greater Amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southeastern United States.
[8] Mazzola, Antonio, Eugenia Favaloro, and Gianluca Sarà. 2000. Cultivation of the Mediterranean amberjack, Seriola dumerili (Risso, 1810), in submerged cages in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Aquaculture 181: 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00243-4.
[9] Hamasaki, Katsuyuki, Koya Tsuruoka, Kazuhisa Teruya, Hiroshi Hashimoto, Kazuhisa Hamada, Takuro Hotta, and Keiichi Mushiake. 2009. Feeding habits of hatchery-reared larvae of greater amberjack Seriola dumerili. Aquaculture 288: 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.11.032.
[10] Marino, G., A. Mandich, A. Massari, F. Andaloro, S. Porrello, M. G. Finoia, and F. Cevasco. 1995. Aspects of reproductive biology of the Mediterranean amberjack (Seriola dumerilii Risso) during the spawning period. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 11: 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1995.tb00002.x.
[11] Andaloro, Franco, and Carlo Pipitone. 1997. Food and feeding habits of the amberjack, Seriola dumerili in the Central Mediterranean Sea during the spawning season. Cahiers de biologie marine 38: 91–96.
[12] Jerez, S., M. Samper, F. J. Santamaría, J. E. Villamandos, J. R. Cejas, and B. C. Felipe. 2006. Natural spawning of greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) kept in captivity in the Canary Islands. Aquaculture 252: 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.06.031.
[13] Mylonas, Constantinos C, Nikos Papandroulakis, Andreas Smboukis, Maria Papadaki, and Pascal Divanach. 2004. Induction of spawning of cultured greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) using GnRHa implants. Aquaculture 237: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.04.015.
[14] Kozul, V., B. Skaramuca, B. Glamuzina, N. Glavic, and P. Tutman. 2001. Comparative gonadogenesis and hormonal induction of spawning of cultured and wild mediterranean amberjack ( Seriola dumerili , Risso 1810). Scientia Marina 65: 215–220. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2001.65n3215.
[15] Fernández‐Palacios, Hipólito, Dominique Schuchardt, Javier Roo, Carmen María Hernández‐Cruz, and Marisol Izquierdo. 2015. Multiple GnRHa injections to induce successful spawning of wild caught greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) matured in captivity. Aquaculture Research 46: 1748–1759. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12330.
[16] Randall, John E. 1995. Coastal fishes of Oman. University of Hawaii Press.
[17] Monteiro, Pedro, Daniel Ribeiro, José A. Silva, João Bispo, and Jorge M. S. Gonçalves. 2008. Ichthyofauna assemblages from two unexplored Atlantic seamounts: Northwest Bank and João Valente Bank (Cape Verde archipelago). Scientia Marina 72: 133–143. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2008.72n1133.
[18] Graham, Rachel T, and Daniel W Castellanos. 2005. Courtship and spawning behaviors of carangid species in Belize. Fishery Bulletin 103: 426–432.
[19] Zupa, Rosa, Covadonga Rodríguez, Constantinos C. Mylonas, Hanna Rosenfeld, Ioannis Fakriadis, Maria Papadaki, José A. Pérez, Chrysovalentinos Pousis, Gualtiero Basilone, and Aldo Corriero. 2017. Comparative study of reproductive development in wild and captive-reared greater amberjack Seriola dumerili (Risso, 1810). Edited by Gao-Feng Qiu. PLOS ONE 12: e0169645. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169645.
[20] Mylonas, Constantinos C., and Yonathan Zohar. 2000. Use of GnRHa-delivery systems for the control of reproduction in fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10: 463–491. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012279814708.
[21] Mundy, Bruce C. 1990. Identification of fish larvae from plankton samples collected by the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources.
[22] Yamamoto, Takeshi, Kazuhisa Teruya, Takashi Hara, Hiroto Hokazono, Isao Kai, Hiroshi Hashimoto, Hirofumi Furuita, Hiroyuki Matsunari, and Keiichi Mushiake. 2009. Nutritional evaluation of rotifers in rearing tanks without water exchange during seed production of amberjack Seriola dumerili. Fisheries Science 75: 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-009-0084-2.
[23] Sinopoli, M., G. D’Anna, F. Badalamenti, and F. Andaloro. 2007. FADs influence on settlement and dispersal of the young-of-the-year greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili). Marine Biology 150: 985–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0368-3.
[24] Smith-Vaniz, W. F. 1986. Carangidae. In Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and  the Mediterranean (ed. P.H.J. Whitehead et al), 2:815–844. Paris: UNESCO.
[25] Heyman, William D., and Björn Kjerfve. 2008. Characterization of transient multi-species reef fish spawning aggregations at Gladden Spit, Belize. Bulletin of Marine Science 83: 531–551.
[26] Miki, Takahisa, Hiromu Nakatsukasa, Norihide Takahashi, Osamu Murata, and Yasunori Ishibashi. 2011. Aggressive behaviour and cannibalism in greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili : effects of stocking density, feeding conditions and size differences. Aquaculture Research 42: 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02722.x.
[27] Shiozawa, S, H Takeuchi, and J Hirokawa. 2003. Improved seed production techniques for the amberjack, Seriola dumerili. Saibai Gyogyo Gijutsu Kaihatsu Kenkyu (Japan).
[28] Llonch, P., E. Lambooij, H.G.M. Reimert, and J.W. van de Vis. 2012. Assessing effectiveness of electrical stunning and chilling in ice water of farmed yellowtail kingfish, common sole and pike-perch. Aquaculture 364–365: 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.08.015.
[29] Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
[30] Badalamenti, F, G D’anna, L Lopiano, D Scilipoti, and A Mazzola. 1995. Feeding habits of young-of-the-year greater amberjack Seriola dumerili (Risso, 1810) along the N/W Sicilian Coast. Scientia Marina 59: 317–323.
[31] Tomás, A., F. De La Gándara, A. García-Gomez, L. Pérez, and M. Jover. 2005. Utilization of soybean meal as an alternative protein source in the Mediterranean yellowtail, Seriola dumerili. Aquaculture Nutrition 11: 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2005.00365.x.
[32] Uyan, O., S. Koshio, M. Ishikawa, S. Yokoyama, S. Uyan, T. Ren, and L.h.h. Hernandez. 2009. The influence of dietary phospholipid level on the performances of juvenile amberjack, Seriola dumerili, fed non-fishmeal diets. Aquaculture Nutrition 15: 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2008.00621.x.