Sharpsnout Seabream

Diplodus puntazzo

Diplodus puntazzo (Sharpsnout Seabream)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Perciformes
        • Sparidae
          • Diplodus puntazzo
Distribution
Distribution map: Diplodus puntazzo (Sharpsnout Seabream)

Information


Author: Maria Filipa Castanheira
Version: 2.0 (2021-12-22) - Revision 2 (2022-07-20)

Cite

Reviewers: Pablo Arechavala-Lopez, Jenny Volstorf
Editor: Billo Heinzpeter Studer

Cite as: »Castanheira, Maria Filipa. 2022. Diplodus puntazzo (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2018-07-16. Version 2.0 Revision 2. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Diplodus puntazzo
LiPoCe
Criteria
Home range
Depth range
Migration
Reproduction
Aggregation
Aggression
Substrate
Stress
Malformations
Slaughter


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

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

FishEthoScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

Legend

High
Medium
Low
Unclear
No findings



General remarks

Diplodus puntazzo is a DEMERSAL marine fish distributed in the eastern Atlantic, from the Gulf of Biscay to Sierra Leone, as well as in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Sea. Considered an important fishery resource along coasts, there is a lack of data on the biology and ecology of the species.
Although it is considered a great potential for the diversification of the European aquaculture industry, there are no FAO aquaculture statistics referring to Diplodus puntazzo, and in general there is limited information on current farming conditions. Several biological aspects such as sensitivity to handling, aggressive behaviour, malformations, and humane slaughter need urgent attention.




1  Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to. What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAEWILD: no data found yet. FARM: tanks: 10 m3 1. LAB: 1 m3 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: tanks: 10-80 m3 1.

ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: tanks: 18-20 m3 1. LAB: 5 m3 3.




2  Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range. What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: no data found yetFARM: tanks: 1.5-3 m 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: 1-50 m (occasionally over 50 m) 4 5 6. FARM: tanks: 1.5-2 m 1; cages: 8-17 m 1.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILDno data found yet. FARM: tanks: 1.5-2 m 1.




3  Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.) and with them, environmental parameters (photoperiod, temperature, salinity) may change, too. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

OCEANODROMOUS 7EURYHALINE 8.

LARVAE: WILD: PELAGIC, settlement after 15-30 days 9FARM: saltwater 34.5-38.2‰ 1. Stressed by light intensity of 450 lux 10. For details of holding systems   crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: migrate into lagoons until 4.5-5.5 cm and then disperse to several habitats to join shoals of adults 11, temperature-related migration into lagoons during December-March and move to the sea in October-November 12, salt and brackish waters near the coast, littoral pools and shallow depth water 13 5. FARM:  LARVAE.

ADULTSWILD: salt and brackish waters near the coast, littoral pools and shallow depth water 13 5FARM:  LARVAE.

SPAWNERS: deep habitats 9. FARM:  LARVAE.




4  Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals. What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: 50% of the population mature at 281 mm (males) or 292 mm (females) 14. Hermaphrodite 14 15. Spawn summer-autumn 6 or 18-20 °C for Canary Islands 14. Male:female ratio during reproductive period 1:1.9 14FARM: spontaneous spawning in wild broodstock whereas spawning not synchronised in reared broodstock 6 15.




5  Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: tanks: 70-100 IND/L 2 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: gregarious 13, 14.4-39.6 IND/100 m 9FARM: tanks: 4.5-5 kg/m3 2; cages: up to 200 g: 40-50 kg/m3, above 200 g: 10-20 kg/m3 1.

ADULTSWILD: gregarious 13. Further research needed on extent of groups. FARM: tanks: 10-20 kg/m3 1.

SPAWNERS: WILD:  ADULTS. FARM: 10-12 kg/m3 1.




6  Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents. What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: FARM: no data found yet

JUVENILES: FARM: no data found yet. LAB: aggressive 16, but aggression may be suppressed in polyculture with Sparus aurata 17.

ADULTS: FARM: no data found yet. LAB JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: FARM: no data found yet.




7  Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud). What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: PELAGIC 18. FARM: no substrate and shelters 1

JUVENILES: WILD: prefer rocky bottoms and seaweed substrate 18FARM: no substrate and shelters 1

ADULTS: JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: PELAGIC 18. FARM: no substrate and shelters 1




8  Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading). What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: for stress and light intensity crit. 3.

JUVENILES: stressed by 5-6 minutes chasing and 1-1.5 minutes air exposure 19

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.




9  Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed. What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAEWILD and FARM: no data found yet. LAB: skeletal deformations in 21.2% 20

JUVENILES: WILD: skeletal deformations in 33% 21. FARM: skeletal deformations in 67% 21. Distinct osteological development from wild type 22

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.




10  Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress. What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common slaughter method: for the related Sparus aurata, immersion in ice-water 23. High-standard slaughter method: for S. aurata , humane slaughter protocol available 24. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to D. puntazzo as well.




11  Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place. What is the species’ domestication level?

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 25, level 5 being fully domesticated.




12  Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity. To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes: WILD: omnivorous 13 26. FARM: fish meal and fish oil may be partly* replaced by non-forage fishery components 27 28 29.

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




Glossary


DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
WILD = setting in the wild
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults that are kept as broodstock
OCEANODROMOUS = living and migrating in the sea
EURYHALINE = tolerant of a wide range of salinities
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
IND = individuals
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 25



Bibliography


[1] NOT FOUND
[2] Abellan, E., and A. Garcia-Alcazar. 1995. Pre-grow out and growout experiences with  white seabream (Diplodus sargus sargus,  Linnaeus, 1758)  and sharp snout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo, Cetti, 1977) . Chaiers Options Mediterranees. Zaragoza : CIHEAM, 16: 57–63.
[3] Papadaki, Maria, Mihaela Papadopoulou, Irini Siggelaki, and Constantinos C. Mylonas. 2008. Egg and sperm production and quality of sharpsnout sea bream (Diplodus puntazzo) in captivity. Aquaculture 276: 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.01.033.
[4] Bauchot, M.-L., J.-C. Hureau, and J. C. Miguel. 1981. Sparidae. In FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Eastern Central Atlantic., ed. W. Fischer, G. Bianchi, and W. B. Scott. Vol. 4. Rome: FAO.
[5] Tunesi, L., M. Vacchi, and M. Mori. 1996. Osservazioni suglista di giovanili del genere Diplodus nelle acque del Golfo Tigullio (Mar Ligure). In , 213–214. Genova.
[6] Pavlidis, Michalis A., and Constantinos C. Mylonas. 2011. Sparidae: Biology and aquaculture of gilthead sea bream and other species. John Wiley & Sons.
[7] Bat, L., Y. Erdem, S. Ustaoğlu, O Yardım, and H.H. Satılmış. 2005. A study on the fishes of the Central Black Sea coast of Turkey. Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 1: 287–302.
[8] Rigos, George, Athanasios E. Tyrpenou, Ioannis Nengas, Maria Alexis, and Gera M. Troisi. 2004. The kinetic profile of oxolinic acid in sharpsnout sea bream, Diplodus puntazzo (Cetti 1777). Aquaculture Research 35: 1299–1304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2004.01127.x.
[9] Cheminee, A., P. Francour, and M. Harmelin-Vivien. 2011. Assessment of Diplodus spp. (Sparidae) nursery grounds along the rocky shore of Marseilles (France, NW Mediterranean). Scientia Marina 75: 181–188.
[10] Korkut, A.Y., S. Saka, and K. Fırat. 2006. The effects of different light intensities on early life development of Sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo, Cetti, 1777) larvae. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 30: 381–387.
[11] Macpherson, E. 1998. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat use and aggregation in juvenile sparid fishes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 220: 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(97)00086-5.
[12] Mariani, Stefano. 2006. Life-history- and ecosystem-driven variation in composition and residence pattern of seabream species (Perciformes: Sparidae) in two Mediterranean coastal lagoons. Marine Pollution Bulletin 53. Recent Developments in Estuarine Ecology and Management: 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.09.019.
[13] Bauchot, M.-L., and J.-C. Hureau. 1986. Sparidae. In Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean (FNAM). P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds)., 2:883–907. Unesco, Paris.
[14] Pajuelo, J. G., J. M. Lorenzo, and R. Domínguez‐Seoane. 2008. Gonadal development and spawning cycle in the digynic hermaphrodite sharpsnout seabream Diplodus puntazzo (Sparidae) off the Canary Islands, northwest of Africa. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 24: 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2007.01010.x.
[15] Papadaki, Maria, Davide Mazzella, Veronica Santinelli, Ioannis Fakriadis, Irini Sigelaki, and Constantinos C. Mylonas. 2018. Hermaphroditism and reproductive function of hatchery-produced sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo) under attenuated annual thermal cycles. Aquaculture 482: 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.09.028.
[16] Karakatsouli, N., N. Kassianos, and E.P. Sofronios. 2015. Effects of rearing density and tank colour on juvenile sharpsnout seabream ( Diplodus puntazzo) growth performance. Aquaculture International 23: 943–953.
[17] Karakatsouli, Nafsika, Panagiotis Papafotiou, and Sofronios E. Papoutsoglou. 2006. Mono- and duoculture of juvenile sharpsnout seabream Diplodus puntazzo (Cetti) and gilthead seabream Sparus aurata L. in a recirculated water system. Aquaculture Research 37: 1654–1661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01612.x.
[18] Harmelin-Vivien, M. L., J. G. Harmelin, and V. Leboulleux. 1995. Microhabitat requirements for settlement of juvenile sparid fishes on Mediterranean rocky shores. Hydrobiologia 300–301: 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00024471.
[19] Fanouraki, E., P. Divanach, and M. Pavlidis. 2007. Baseline values for acute and chronic stress indicators in sexually immature red porgy (Pagrus pagrus). Aquaculture 265: 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.01.006.
[20] Şükrü, Y., Ç Deniz, S. Cüneyt, F. Kürşat, and S. Şahin. 2014. Skeletal deformities of cultured sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo) larvae during early life development. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Derg 61: 267–273.
[21] Favaloro, Eugenia, and Antonio Mazzola. 2003. Meristic variation and skeletal anomalies of wild and reared sharpsnout seabream juveniles (Diplodus puntazzo, Cetti 1777) off coastal Sicily, Mediterranean Sea. Aquaculture Research 34: 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00857.x.
[22] Sfakianakis, D. G., C. K. Doxa, S. Kouttouki, G. Koumoundouros, E. Maingot, P. Divanach, and M. Kentouri. 2005. Osteological development of the vertebral column and of the fins in Diplodus puntazzo (Cetti, 1777). Aquaculture 250: 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.03.042.
[23] Castanheira, Maria Filipa. 2017. Personal communication.
[24] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Seabass and Seabream. EFSA Journal 1010: 1–52. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1010.
[25] 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.
[26] Sala, E., and E. Ballesteros. 1997. Partitioning of space andf ood resources by three fish of the genus Diplodus(Sparidae) in a Mediterranean rocky infralittoral ecosystem. Mar. Ecol. Prog.Ser. 152: 273–283.
[27] Hernández, M. D., F. J. Martínez, M. Jover, and B. García García. 2007. Effects of partial replacement of fish meal by soybean meal in sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo) diet. Aquaculture 263: 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.07.040.
[28] Piccolo, Giovanni, Gerardo Centoducati, Stefania Marono, Fulvia Bovera, Raffaella Tudisco, and Antonino Nizza. 2011. Effects of the partial substitution of fish meal by soy bean meal with or without mannanoligosaccharide and fructooligosaccharide on the growth and feed utilization of sharpsnout seabream, Diplodus puntazzo (Cetti, 1777): preliminary results. Italian Journal of Animal Science.
[29] Nogales-Merida, S., S. Martínez-Llorens, A.V. Moñino, J.C. Cerdá, and A. Tomás-Vidal. 2017. Fish oil substitution by soybean oil in Sharpsnout seabream Diplodus puntazzo : Performance, fatty acid profile, and liver histology. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 29: 1–16.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy