Crimson snapper

Lutjanus erythropterus

Lutjanus erythropterus (Crimson snapper)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Perciformes
        • Lutjanidae
          • Lutjanus erythropterus
Distribution
Distribution map: Lutjanus erythropterus (Crimson snapper)

Information


Author: Jenny Volstorf
Version: 2.0 (2022-01-22) - Revision 1 (2022-07-20)

Cite

Reviewer: Pablo Arechavala-Lopez
Editor: Billo Heinzpeter Studer

Cite as: »Volstorf, Jenny. 2022. Lutjanus erythropterus (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2020-07-28. Version 2.0 Revision 1. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Lutjanus erythropterus
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

Lutjanus erythropterus is native to (and reared in) the Indo-Pacific region from northern Australia to the Gulf of Oman and to the south of Japan. The species of the family Lutjanidae (snappers) inhabits reefs at depths of 1-300 m. It is mainly caught by commercial, artisanal, and recreational fishery, but despite its slow growth, cage culture is performed. For L. erythropterus to increase its FishEthoScore, more research is needed on the biology and on natural conditions of home range, depth, migration, reproduction, aggregation, aggression, substrate, as well as on farming conditions, stress, and stunning.




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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: caught within 1 km of release site 1. FARM: floating net cages: 3 x 3 m or 6 x 6 m, wooden frame cages: 3 x 3 m or 5 x 5 m 2.

ADULTS: JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.




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 and FRY: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: on average in 15-24 m 3-4, at 2.5 cm size in shallow waters 4, occasionally >15 m, up to 55 m 5, 200-300 m 6, up to 25 m 7, 1-70 m, mostly >40 m 8, 3-75 m 9. FARM: wooden frame cages: 3 m or 5 m 2.

ADULTSWILD: occasionally >15 m, up to 55 m 5, 200-300 m 6, up to 25 m 7, 1-70 m, mostly >40 m 8, 3-75 m 9. FARM:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.




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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: based on distribution (Indo-Pacific), estimated 11-13 h PHOTOPERIOD, seawater. FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD:  LARVAE. FARM: for details of holding systems crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS: WILD:  LARVAE. FARM:  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD:  LARVAE. FARM: no data found yet.




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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: spawn in July-December 10. FARM: in Vietnam, seed taken from the wild 2.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: large aggregations 11, 5 IND/km2 for age-0 individuals in sandy coastal habitats 10. FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: large aggregations 11, 456 IND/km2 on average, 5 IND/km2 for age-0 individuals in sandy coastal habitats, 26 IND/km2 offshore 10, school with Lutjanus malabaricus 8. FARM: no data found yet.

ADULTS: WILD: large aggregations 11, 456 IND/km2 on average, 26 IND/km2 offshore 10. FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.




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?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: 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 low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

FRY: WILD: sand or silt, coarse sand or coral rubble 6 10. FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: sand or silt 3-4 6 10, coarse sand or coral rubble 6 10, rocky shores 5. FARM: for details of holding systems crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS: WILD: rocky shores 5. FARM JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.




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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by barotrauma, but venting and shot lining (i.e., attached with barbless hook that the individual may get rid of at an appropriate depth where the swim bladder may repressurise) may be beneficial 8.

ADULTS:  JUVENILES.

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 low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

FRY: 39.5% with malformations of which malformed haemal spine in 32%, malformed neural spine in 32%, lordosis in 10.5%, supernumerary neural spine in 6% 12.

JUVENILES:  FRY.

ADULTS: no data found yet.




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?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common and high-standard slaughter method: no data found yet.




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 3 13, 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: carnivorous 7. FARM: most farms in Southeast Asia feed trash fish 2 - no data found yet on replacement studies.




Glossary


LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, 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
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
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
IND = individuals
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs 13



Bibliography


[1] Sumpton, Wayne, David Mayer, Ian Brown, Bill Sawynok, Mark McLennan, Adam Butcher, and John Kirkwood. 2008. Investigation of movement and factors influencing post-release survival of line-caught coral reef fish using recreational tag-recapture data. Fisheries Research 92: 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.01.019.
[2] De Silva, Sena S., and Michael J. Phillips. 2007. A review of cage aquaculture: Asia (excluding China). In Cage aquaculture - Regional reviews and global overview, ed. M. Halwart, D. Soto, and J. R. Arthur, 18–48. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 498. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[3] Jones, Clive M., and Kurt Derbyshire. 1988. Sampling the demersal fauna from a commercial penaeid prawn fishery off the central Queensland coast. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 25: 403–415.
[4] Williams, David McBeath, and Garry R. Russ. 1994. Review of data on fishes of commercial and recreational fishing interest in the Great Barrier Reef Vol. 1. Report. Townsville, Queensland: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
[5] Newman, Stephen J., and David McB Williams. 1996. Variation in reef associated assemblages of the Lutjanidae and Lethrinidae at different distances offshore in the central Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Biology of Fishes 46: 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005214.
[6] Badrudin, Badrudin, and Aisyah Aisyah. 2009. Separate stocks of red snapper exploitation and management in the Indonesian sector of the Arafura Sea. Indonesian Fisheries Research Journal 15: 81–88. https://doi.org/10.15578/ifrj.15.1.2009.81-88.
[7] Hajisamae, Sukree. 2009. Trophic ecology of bottom fishes assemblage along coastal areas of Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 82: 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2009.02.010.
[8] Sumpton, W. D., I. W. Brown, D. G. Mayer, M. F. McLennan, A. Mapleston, A. R. Butcher, D. J. Welch, J. M. Kirkwood, B. Sawynok, and G. A. Begg. 2010. Assessing the effects of line capture and barotrauma relief procedures on post-release survival of key tropical reef fish species in Australia using recreational tagging clubs. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17: 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00722.x.
[9] Murugan, A., K. Vinod, K. R. Saravanan, T. Anbalagan, R. Saravanan, S. V. Sanaye, S. K. Mojjada, S. Rajagopal, and T. Balasubramanian. 2014. Diversity, occurrence and socio-economic aspects of snappers and job fish (Family: Lutjanidae) fisheries from Gulf of Mannar region, south-east coast of India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 43: 618–633.
[10] Fry, Gary, David A. Milton, Tonya Van Der Velde, Ilona Stobutzki, Retno Andamari, Badrudin, and Bambang Sumiono. 2009. Reproductive dynamics and nursery habitat preferences of two commercially important Indo-Pacific red snappers Lutjanus erythropterus and L. malabaricus. Fisheries Science 75: 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-008-0034-4.
[11] Newman, Stephen J, Michael Cappo, and David McB Williams. 2000. Age, growth, mortality rates and corresponding yield estimates using otoliths of the tropical red snappers, Lutjanus erythropterus, L. malabaricus and L. sebae, from the central Great Barrier Reef. Fisheries Research 48: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(00)00115-6.
[12] Cheng, Dachuan, Md Mahbubul Hassan, Zhenhua Ma, Qibin Yang, and Jianguang Qin. 2018. Skeletal Ontogeny and Anomalies in Larval and Juvenile Crimson Snapper, Lutjanus erythropterus Bloch, 1790. Pakistan J. Zool. 50: 799–807. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.3.799.807.
[13] 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.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy