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 4 4 4
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 lalandi is a highly valuable species for aquaculture but only superficially studied. It has been under strong focus from the industry, but some welfare issues arise in current farming conditions. It is a long distance ocean cruiser that migrates and requires more space than that offered by present methods to fulfil its swimming needs. Usual net cages do not provide enough depth for its natural range, although some farmers do use 50 m deep cages that are within values found in the wild. Aggression occurs in the wild and may be of concern in farms, as well as the amount of fish meal and fish oil used in feeds. Further research is needed on rates of malformations in the wild and on how this species responds to stressful conditions from aquaculture procedures.


1. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the home range of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
L
Potential
H
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: planktonic [1] [2] [3]. FARM: tanks: 1.2 m diameter (1600 L) cone-bottom tanks [4].

JUVENILES: WILD: pelagic [5]: Inhabit the water column, independent of bottom and shore; usually in high oceanic currents [6]. Fast swimming [7], long distance ocean cruisers [8] [9]. FARM: cages: 4 x 4 x 4 m [10]-[11], 8-25 m diameter x 4-15 m depth [12] [11], max 50 x 50 x 50 m [10]-[11] [13].

ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: pelagic [5]; pelagic spawning area: >10,000 m2 [6]. FARM: spawning cages: 50 x 50 x 50 m [13], spawning pools: 140 m3 (9.1 m diameter x 2.4 m depth) [4]LAB: spawning tanks: 70 m3 [14].


2. Are minimal farming conditions likely to provide the depth range of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
M
Potential
H
Certainty

Eggs: WILD: floating [1] [2] [3] [14].  FARM: 1.6 m cone-bottom tanks [4].

LARVAE: WILD: planktonic [15] [2] [3] [1]. FARM:  Eggs.

JUVENILES: WILD: 0-50 m [16] [17]. FARM: cages usually 4-15 m [10]-[11] [18] [12], max 50 m [10]-[11] [13].

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERSWILD: 0-50 m [16] [17]. FARM: spawning cages: 50 x 50 x 50 m [13];  spawning tanks: 140 m3 (9.1 m diameter x 2.4 m depth) [4].


3. Are minimal farming conditions compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
L
Potential
H
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: develop in the open ocean [1]FARM: 1600 L cone-bottom tanks [4]. For details of holding systems ➝ crit 1 and 2.  

JUVENILES: WILD: Migrate large distances [19] [20], from ca 40 km [9] to over 500 km [8] [9]FARM: sea cages  [10]-[11] [12] [13]. For details of holding systems ➝ crit 1 and 2.  

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: migrate [20] sometimes >500 km [8] from the open ocean to coastal or shallower habitats to spawn [5]FARM: spawning cages [13], pools [4] and tanks [14]. For details of holding systems ➝ crit 1 and 2.  


4. Is the species likely to reproduce in captivity without manipulation? Is there potential to allow for it under farming conditions? How certain are these findings?

H
Likelihood
H
Potential
M
Certainty

WILD: spawning occurs in spring and summer [1][16][15]. FARM: Parents kept in 70-140 m3 circular tanks with a depth of 2.5 m in 1:1 sex ratio [2][4], in temperatures 13-23 ºC [4] but spawning occurs only above 17 ºC [2]. Males court females by swimming underneath them, touching their gonoduct and pursuing them. Females then release eggs and males release sperm into the water. Opportunistic males may try to spawn parasitically [2]. Reproduce spontaneously and naturally [2] [4]. The author of this profile is not aware of any species that shows a spontaneous type of reproductive behaviour in captivity that majorly differs from the wild.


5. Is the aggregation imposed by minimal farming conditions likely to be compatible with the natural behaviour of the species? Is there potential to allow for it under farming conditions? How certain are these findings?

H
Likelihood
H
Potential
M
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: occur naturally in large numbers sharing the same space, usually thousands of individuals [15]. FARMno data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: Large schools of undescribed size [6] [21] including for feeding purposes [22]. FARM: Net cages: 100-200 ind/m3 [11].

ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERSWILD: Form spawning aggregations [5] [21] [23]. FARM: spawning pools: 21-35 individuals of 8.2-19.0 kg in 140 m3 fibreglass pool (ca 2-4 kg/m3) [4]LAB: Experimental spawning tanks: 14 individuals of 17 kg each in 70 m3 tank (ca 3.4 kg/m3[2].


6. Is the species likely to be non-aggressive and non-territorial? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
M
Potential
L
Certainty

LARVAE: WILDno data found yet. FARM: aggressive [4] from19 days post hatching onwards [24] [14].

JUVENILES:  WILDno data found yet. FARM: aggressive [24] [14] [25].

ADULTSno data found yet.

SPAWNERSno data found yet.


7. Are minimal farming conditions likely to match the natural substrate and shelter needs of the species? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

H
Likelihood
H
Potential
H
Certainty

Eggs: WILDPELAGIC [15] [2] [3]FARM: cone-bottom tanks [4].

LARVAEWILD and  FARM: ➝ Eggs.

JUVENILES: WILDPELAGIC [26] [17] [6] [24]FARM: sea cages [11] [12] [13]. For details of holding systems  crit 1 and 2.

ADULTS:  WILD and  FARM ➝ JUVENILES

SPAWNERS:  WILDPELAGIC [19] [20] [2]FARM: spawning cages [13] and pools [4]. 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? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

?
Likelihood
M
Potential
L
Certainty

Eggs: no data found yet.

LARVAEno data found yet.

JUVENILES: No apparent stress from handling [27] but mild acute transitory stress from transport [28]. Sensitive to pH <7.16, but overall tolerant to farming conditions [29].

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERSno data found yet.


9. Are malformations of this species likely to be rare under farming conditions? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

L
Likelihood
M
Potential
M
Certainty

Eggs: abnormalities in morphometrics in 6-69% [2].

LARVAE: malformations of the jaw [30] [14] [31] [32] [33], operculum [14] [33], spine [31] [14], and nasal erosion [33]. Overall rate 7-75%.

JUVENILES: skeletal deformities [11]

ADULTS: no data found yet.

Overall malformation rate higher than other species such as sea bream (>10 %) [34], sea bass (<30 %) [35], catfish (5 %) or tilapia (<3 %) [36].


10. Is a humane slaughter protocol likely to be applied under minimal farming conditions? Is there potential for improvement? How certain are these findings?

H
Likelihood
H
Potential
M
Certainty

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 [37].


Side note: Domestication

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 [38], level 5 being fully domesticated.


Side note: Feeding without components of forage fishery

All age classes: WILD: carnivorous [11] [39] [40] [41]. FARM: for JUVENILES fish meal may be partly* replaced by soy protein [42] [43]; fish oil may be completely* replaced by poultry [44] and partly* replaced by canola oil [44].

*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 [38]
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
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild


Bibliography

[1] Sumida, B. Y., H. G. Moser, and E. H. Ahlstrom. 1985. Descriptions of larvae of California yellowtail, Seriola lalandi, and three other carangids from the eastern tropical Pacific: Chloroscombrus orqueta, Caranx caballus, and Caranx sexfasciatus. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep 26: 139–159.
[2] Moran, Damian, Cea K. Smith, Brendan Gara, and Carolyn W. Poortenaar. 2007. Reproductive behaviour and early development in yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi Valenciennes 1833). Aquaculture 262: 95–104. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.10.005.
[3] Hilton, Zoë, Carolyn W. Poortenaar, and Mary A. Sewell. 2008. Lipid and protein utilisation during early development of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi). Marine Biology 154: 855–865. doi:10.1007/s00227-008-0978-z.
[4] Stuart, Kevin R., and Mark A. Drawbridge. 2013. Captive spawning and larval rearing of California yellowtail (Seriola lalandi). Aquaculture Research 44: 728–737. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.03077.x.
[5] Sala, Enric, Octavio Aburto-Oropeza, Gustavo Paredes, and Glenn Thompson. 2003. Spawning aggregations and reproductive behavior of reef fishes in the Gulf of California. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 103–121.
[6] Heagney, Ec, Tp Lynch, Rc Babcock, and Im Suthers. 2007. Pelagic fish assemblages assessed using mid-water baited video: standardising fish counts using bait plume size. Marine Ecology Progress Series 350: 255–266. doi:10.3354/meps07193.
[7] Yanase, K., N. A. Herbert, and J. C. Montgomery. 2012. Disrupted flow sensing impairs hydrodynamic performance and increases the metabolic cost of swimming in the yellowtail kingfish, Seriola lalandi. Journal of Experimental Biology 215: 4231–4231. doi:10.1242/jeb.082107.
[8] Gillanders, Bronwyn M., Douglas J. Ferrell, and Neil L. Andrew. 2001. Estimates of movement and life-history parameters of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi): how useful are data from a cooperative tagging programme? Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 179–192. doi:10.1071/MF99153.
[9] Holdsworth, J.C., and P.J. Saul. 2014. New Zealand Billfish and Gamefish Tagging, 2012–13.
[10] Honma, A. 1993. Aquaculture in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Japan FAO Association,.
[11] Kolkovski, S., and Y Sakakura. 2004. Yellowtail kingfish, from larvae  to mature fish – problems  and opportunities. In Avances en Nutrición  Acuícola VII. Memorias del VII Simpos ium Internacional de Nutrición Acuícola. 16-19 Noviembre, 2004.
[12] Quevedo, Araceli Avilés, and Francesc Castelló Orvay. 2004. Manual para el cultivo de Seriola lalandi (pisces: carangidae): en Baja California Sur, México. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca.
[13] Nakada, Makoto. 2000. YELLOWTAIL AND RELATED SPECIES CULTURE. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. Robert R. Stickney, 1007–1036. New York: John Wiley Sons, Inc.
[14] Moran, D, Ck Smith, Ps Lee, and Sj Pether. 2011. Mortality structures population size characteristics of juvenile yellowtail kingfish Seriola lalandi reared at different densities. Aquatic Biology 11: 229–238. doi:10.3354/ab00314.
[15] Poortenaar, C.W., S.H. Hooker, and N. Sharp. 2001. Assessment of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi lalandi) reproductive physiology, as a basis for aquaculture development. Aquaculture 201: 271–286. doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00549-X.
[16] Gillanders, B. M., D. J. Ferrell, and N. L. Andrew. 1999. Size at maturity and seasonal changes in gonad activity of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi; Carangidae) in New South Wales, Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33: 457–468. doi:10.1080/00288330.1999.9516891.
[17] Dempster, T. 2005. Temporal variability of pelagic fish assemblages around fish aggregation devices: biological and physical influences. Journal of Fish Biology 66: 1237–1260. doi:10.1111/j.0022-1112.2005.00674.x.
[18] Tanner, Jason E., and Milena Fernandes. 2010. Environmental effects of yellowtail kingfish aquaculture in South Australia. Aquacult Environ Interact 1: 155–165.
[19] Garratt, P. A. 1988. Notes on seasonal abundance and spawning of some important offshore linefish in Natal and Transkei waters, southern Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 7: 1–8. doi:10.2989/025776188784379161.
[20] Silvano, R. A. M., P. F. L. MacCord, R. V. Lima, and A. Begossi. 2006. When Does this Fish Spawn? Fishermen’s Local Knowledge of Migration and Reproduction of Brazilian Coastal Fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76: 371–386. doi:10.1007/s10641-006-9043-2.
[21] Hutson, K. S., B. P. Smith, R. T. Godfrey, I. D. Whittington, C. B. Chambers, I. Ernst, and B. M. Gillanders. 2007. A Tagging Study on Yellowtail Kingfish (Seriola Lalandi) and Samson Fish (S. Hippos) in South Australian Waters. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 131: 128–134. doi:10.1080/03721426.2007.10887075.
[22] Schmitt, Russell J., and Steven W. Strand. 1982. Cooperative Foraging by Yellowtail, Seriola lalandei (Carangidae), on Two Species of Fish Prey. Copeia 1982: 714. doi:10.2307/1444679.
[23] Erisman, Brad, Ismael Mascarenas, Gustavo Paredes, Yvonne Sadovy de Mitcheson, Octavio Aburto-Oropeza, and Philip Hastings. 2010. Seasonal, annual, and long-term trends in commercial fisheries for aggregating reef fishes in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Fisheries Research 106: 279–288. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2010.08.007.
[24] Moran, Damian. 2007. Size heterogeneity, growth potential and aggression in juvenile yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi Valenciennes). Aquaculture Research 38: 1254–1264. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01769.x.
[25] Sakakura, Yoshitaka, and Katsumi Tsukamoto. 1997. Effects of Water Temperature and Light Intensity on Aggressive Behavior in the Juvenile Yellowtails. Fisheries science 63: 42–45. doi:10.2331/fishsci.63.42.
[26] Klimely, A. P., and S. B. Butler. 1988. Immigration and emigration of a pelagic fish assemblage to seamounts  in in the Gulf of California related to water mass movements using satelite imagery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 49: 11–20.
[27] Booth, M.A., M.D. Moses, and G.L. Allan. 2013. Utilisation of carbohydrate by yellowtail kingfish Seriola lalandi. Aquaculture 376–379: 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.11.024.
[28] Moran, Damian, Rufus M G Wells, and Stephen J Pether. 2008. Low stress response exhibited by juvenile yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi Valenciennes) exposed to hypercapnic conditions associated with transportation. Aquaculture Research 39: 1399–1407. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02009.x.
[29] Abbink, Wout, Ainhoa Blanco Garcia, Jonathan A.C. Roques, Gavin J. Partridge, Kees Kloet, and Oliver Schneider. 2012. The effect of temperature and pH on the growth and physiological response of juvenile yellowtail kingfish Seriola lalandi in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 330–333: 130–135. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.11.043.
[30] Cobcroft, Jennifer M., Patricia M. Pankhurst, Carolyn Poortenaar, Bob Hickman, and Mike Tait. 2004. Jaw malformation in cultured yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi) larvae. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 67–71. doi:10.1080/00288330.2004.9517218.
[31] Cobcroft, Jennifer M., and Stephen C. Battaglene. 2013. Skeletal malformations in Australian marine finfish hatcheries. Aquaculture 396–399: 51–58. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.02.027.
[32] Ma, Zhenhua, Daniel Aik Yang Tan, and Jian G Qin. 2014. Jaw deformities in the larvae of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi Valenciennes, 1833) from two groups of broodstock. Indian Journal of Fisheries 61.
[33] Nguyen, N H, P Whatmore, A Miller, and W Knibb. 2016. Quantitative genetic properties of four measures of deformity in yellowtail kingfish Seriola lalandi Valenciennes, 1833. Journal of Fish Diseases 39: 217–228. doi:10.1111/jfd.12348.
[34] Can, Erkan. 2013. Effects of Intensive and Semi-Intensive Rearing on Growth, Survival, and V-Shaped (Lordotic) Skeletal Deformities in Juvenile Gilthead Sea Bream (Sparus aurata).
[35] Abdel, I., E. Abellán, O. López-Albors, P. Valdés, M.J. Nortes, and A. García-Alcázar. 2004. Abnormalities in the juvenile stage of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) reared at different temperatures: types, prevalence and effect on growth. Aquaculture International 12: 523–538. doi:10.1007/s10499-004-0349-9.
[36] Eissa, A.E., M. Moustafa, I.N. El-Husseiny, S. Saeid, O. Saleh, and T. Borhan. 2009. Identification of some skeletal deformities in freshwater teleosts raised in Egyptian aquaculture. Chemosphere 77: 419–425. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.06.050.
[37] 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. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.08.015.
[38] Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. doi:10.1111/faf.12006.
[39] Carton, Alexander G. 2005. The impact of light intensity and algal-induced turbidity on first-feeding Seriola lalandi larvae. Aquaculture Research 36: 1588–1594. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2005.01383.x.
[40] Orellana, J., U. Waller, and B. Wecker. 2014. Culture of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi) in a marine recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with artificial seawater. Aquacultural Engineering 58: 20–28. doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2013.09.004.
[41] Dunn, K. 2014. The diet, reproductive biology, age and growth of yellowtail, Seriola lalandi. Master, Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
[42] Jirsa, D., A. Davis, K. Stuart, and M. Drawbridge. 2011. Development of a practical soy-based diet for California yellowtail, Seriola lalandi: Soy-based diet for California yellowtail. Aquaculture Nutrition 17: e869–e874. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2095.2011.00856.x.
[43] Bansemer, M.S., R.E.A. Forder, G.S. Howarth, G.M. Suitor, J. Bowyer, and D.A.J. Stone. 2015. The effect of dietary soybean meal and soy protein concentrate on the intestinal mucus layer and development of subacute enteritis in Yellowtail Kingfish (Seriola lalandi) at suboptimal water temperature. Aquaculture Nutrition 21: 300–310. doi:10.1111/anu.12160.
[44] Bowyer, J.N., J.G. Qin, R.P. Smullen, and D.A.J. Stone. 2012. Replacement of fish oil by poultry oil and canola oil in yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi) at optimal and suboptimal temperatures. Aquaculture 356–357: 211–222. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.05.014.