Mexican four-eyed octopus

Octopus maya

Taxonomy
    • Cephalopoda
      • Octopoda
        • Octopodidae
          • Octopus maya

Information


Author: Pablo Arechavala-Lopez
Version: 2.0 (2022-02-21)

Cite

Reviewers: Jenny Volstorf, João L. Saraiva, Maria Filipa Castanheira
Editor: Billo Heinzpeter Studer

Cite as: »Arechavala-Lopez, Pablo. 2022. Octopus maya (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2019-12-17. Version 2.0. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Octopus maya
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

Octopus maya is an endemic species of Yucatán Peninsula (México) and highly appreciated by local fisheries and aquaculture. Though it is already cultured for the complete life cycle in consecutively bred generations and many efforts have been applied to reproductive aspects for farming purpose, wild individuals are still being introduced to improve genetic pools. Unfortunately, little is still known about its natural behaviour and spatial ecology, and there are other additional aspects to be solved from a welfare perspective. For instance, the current farming systems result in high stress for O. maya due to high densities and aggregation, which consequently increases aggression at different life stages. In addition, octopus skin is particularly sensitive and can be easily damaged during handling, transportation or stressful conditions due to confinement. A humane slaughtering protocol is not yet established since the nature and degree of any suffering during current practices are unknown. Octopuses appear capable of experiencing pain and suffering, exhibit cognitive complexity and sophisticated behavioural patterns which can be interpreted and serve as indicators of the welfare status.




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

LARVAE: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: tanks: 7.5 m2 (5.0 × 1.5 m) 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: outdoor tanks: 5 m2 (6 m diameter) 2 3.

ADULTSWILD: no data found yetFARM  JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: females and males in outdoor tanks for fecundation: 5 m2 (6 m diameter) 2 3, fecundated females in 320 L tanks 4.




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 high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: BENTHIC, mostly 2-9 m, up to 50-60 m 5 6. FARM: tanks: 0.4 m 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: LARVAE. FARM: outdoor tanks: 0.5 m 2 3.

ADULTS: WILD: LARVAE. FARM: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: LARVAE. FARM: females and males in outdoor tanks for fecundation: 0.5 m 2 3, fecundated females in tanks: >0.5 m 4.




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: WILD: distribution limited to Yucatán Peninsula (México), 11-13 h PHOTOPERIOD, 23-30 °C, seawater 7 8. FARM: 10 h PHOTOPERIOD red light, 25 °C, 32 psu 1. For details of holding systems crit. 1 and 2. 

JUVENILES: WILD: LARVAE. FARM: 25-29 °C 1, 35.4-36 psu 2. For details of holding systems crit. 1 and 2. 

ADULTS: WILD: LARVAE. FARM: JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: LARVAE. FARM: females and males in outdoor tanks for fecundation: 25-29 °C 1, 35.4-36 psu 2, fecundated females in indoor tanks: PHOTOPERIOD 10 h red light, 25 °C, 32 psu 1. For details of holding systems crit. 1 and 2. 




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: semelparous: females reproduce once and then die 9 10. Different reproduction patterns according to its distribution area, very possibly determined by oceanographic conditions of the continental shelf of the Yucatan Peninsula. Central and eastern populations reproduce throughout the year with a maximum in the coldest months, the western population exclusively in the coldest months (22-24 °C) 11. FARM: cultured for the complete life cycle in consecutively bred generations. Females and males are separated until one week before mating when they are placed together in outdoor tanks to ensure maximum fecundity of oocytes 1. Then, fecundated females of about 500 g are individually placed in a 320 L dark tank 4. For details of substrate for nest  crit. 7. Copulation and vitellogenesis process sensible to temperature (22-28 °C), changes in light intensity and PHOTOPERIOD 1.




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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: usually solitary 10. FARM: 50 IND/m2 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: ➝ LARVAE. FARM: 25-140 IND/m2, higher survival rates with lower densities 3. Decreased growth at 280 IND/m2, probably due to stress 3.

ADULTSWILD LARVAEFARM: JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: early reproductive aggregations 10. FARM: females and males are placed together in outdoor tanks for copulation. After copulation, females are placed solitary to deposit and take care of eggs 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?

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: aggression and cannibalism 9 12 13 2 14. High densities lead to higher cannibalism 3. Cannibalism and aggression can be reduced via separating by size regularly and with individual shelters 1. For details of shelter ➝ crit. 7.

JUVENILES: LARVAE.

ADULTS: LARVAE.

SPAWNERS: LARVAE.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: BENTHIC, occupy muddy or calcareous bottoms, with occasional hiding places, and can also be found in seagrass meadows formed mainly by Thalassia testudinum, in empty shells of gastropod mollusks (Strombus gigas, S. costatus and Pleuroploca gigantea), and existing caves in the karstic earthenware of the bottom or among coral rocks 6 15. FARM/LAB: erratic swimming during their first 10 days post hatching next to the bottom (necto-benthic behaviour), artificial grasses offered as refuge 4 16. Dark tanks recommended 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: ➝ LARVAE. FARM/LAB: dark outdoor tanks with greenhouse meshes that reduce the direct sunlight by 70% 17 1. Stress, cannibalism, and aggression can be reduced by providing shelter and hiding places, which can be PVC tubes or conch shells (e.g. Megalongena corona bispinosa) 18 17. Three shelters per octopus recommended 17.

ADULTS: WILD: ➝ LARVAE. FARM: ➝ JUVENILES.

SPAWNERS: WILD: BENTHIC, incirrate octopus (females) lay their eggs in dens, blocking up the opening with stones to reduce vulnerability and avoid predation of the embryos 19 20. FARM: fibreglass box is offered as a refuge and posterior spawning nest 4.




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: a container method has been developed for transfer of O. maya individuals within a facility 21. To avoid skin damage, an aeration system based on airlift pump supply is recommended 1. For stress and density crit. 5.

JUVENILES: ➝ LARVAE.

ADULTS: ➝ LARVAE.

SPAWNERS: ➝ LARVAE.




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?

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

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?

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

Common slaughter method: cooling by immersion in seawater at 2-8 °C, as recommended for sub-tropical cephalopod species 22, to induce loss of sensation and enable humane killing 23. High-standard slaughter method: indications that stunning by immersion in MgCl2, followed by spiking of the brain is most effective in other octopus species (O. vulgaris) 24. Further research needed to confirm for farming conditions and to determine whether this applies to O. maya 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 4 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: carnivorous; prey on crustaceans, bivalves, fish, gastropods, other octopuses, and even birds 14FARM: accepts artificial diets immediately 27. Fish meal may be completely* replaced by non-forage fishery components 28.

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




Glossary


LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
WILD = setting in the wild
FARM = setting in farm 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
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
IND = individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 26



Bibliography


[1] Rosas, Carlos, Pedro Gallardo, Maite Mascaró, Claudia Caamal-Monsreal, and Cristina Pascual. 2014. Octopus maya. In Cephalopod Culture, ed. José Iglesias, Lidia Fuentes, and Roger Villanueva, 383–396. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8648-5_20.
[2] Domingues, Pedro, Nelda López, and Carlos Rosas. 2012. Preliminary trials on the use of large outdoor tanks for the ongrowing of Octopus maya juveniles: Ongrowing of Octopus maya in large outdoor tanks. Aquaculture Research 43: 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.02797.x.
[3] Mascaro, Maite, and Carlos Rosas. 2014. Effects of Different Prey and Rearing Densities on Growth and Survival of Octopus Maya Hatchlings. Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal 05. https://doi.org/10.4172/2150-3508.10000108.
[4] Rosas, Carlos, Julia Tut, Julieta Baeza, Ariadna Sánchez, Vianey Sosa, Cristina Pascual, Leticia Arena, Pedro Domingues, and Gerard Cuzon. 2008. Effect of type of binder on growth, digestibility, and energetic balance of Octopus maya. Aquaculture 275: 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.01.015.
[5] González y de la Rosa, María Elena, Josefina Santos Valencia, and Manuel Solís Ramírez. 1998. Evaluacion del Pulpo (Octopus maya) de la Costa Norte de Campeche, Mexico. Proceedings of the 50th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.
[6] Villanueva, Roger, and Mark Norman. 2008. Biology Of The Planktonic Stages Of Benthic Octopuses. In Oceanography and Marine Biology, ed. R. Gibson, R. Atkinson, and J. Gordon, 20081322:105–202. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420065756.ch4.
[7] Voss, Gilbert L, and Manuel Solís Ramírez. 1966. Octopus maya, a new species from the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 16: 615–625.
[8] Arreguín-Sánchez, Francisco, Manuel Solís, Julio A. Sánchez, Elizabeth Valero, and Maria Elena González. 1996. Age and growth of the octopus (Octopus maya) from the continental shelf of Yucatan, Mexico. Proceedings of the 44th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.
[9] van Heukelem, William F. 1976. Growth, Bioenergetics and Life-Span of Octopus cyanea and Octopus maya. University of Hawaii.
[10] Arreguín-Sánchez, Francisco, Manuel J. Solís -Ramírez, and María E. González de la Rosa. 2000. Population dynamics and stock assessment for Octopus maya (Cephalopoda:Octopodidae) fishery in the Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico. Revista de Biología Tropical 48: 323–331.
[11] Rosas, Carlos, Ana Valero, Claudia Caamal-Monsreal, Iker Uriarte, Ana Farias, Pedro Gallardo, Ariadna Sánchez, and Pedro Domingues. 2013. Effects of dietary protein sources on growth, survival and digestive capacity of Octopus maya juveniles (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Aquaculture Research 44: 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2012.03107.x.
[12] Martínez, R., R. Sántos, A. Álvarez, G. Cuzón, L. Arena, M. Mascaró, C. Pascual, and C. Rosas. 2011. Partial characterization of hepatopancreatic and extracellular digestive proteinases of wild and cultivated Octopus maya. Aquaculture International 19: 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-010-9360-5.
[13] Quintana, D., C. Rosas, and E. Moreno-Villegas. 2011. Relationship between nutritional and rearing parameters of Octopus maya juveniles fed with different rations of crab paste: Relationship between nutritional and rearing parameters. Aquaculture Nutrition 17: e379–e388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2010.00772.x.
[14] Pech-Puch, Dawrin, Honorio Cruz-López, Cindy Canche-Ek, Gabriela Campos-Espinosa, Elpidio García, Maite Mascaro, Carlos Rosas, Daniel Chávez-Velasco, and Sergio Rodríguez-Morales. 2016. Chemical Tools of Octopus maya during Crab Predation Are Also Active on Conspecifics. Edited by Erik V. Thuesen. PLOS ONE 11: e0148922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148922.
[15] Gamboa-Álvarez, Miguel Ángel, Jorge Alberto López-Rocha, and Gaspar Román Poot-López. 2015. Spatial Analysis of the Abundance and Catchability of the Red Octopus Octopus maya (Voss and Solís-Ramírez, 1966) on the Continental Shelf of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Journal of Shellfish Research 34: 481–492. https://doi.org/10.2983/035.034.0232.
[16] Moguel, C, M Mascaró, Oh Avila-Poveda, C Caamal-Monsreal, A Sanchez, C Pascual, and C Rosas. 2010. Morphological, physiological and behavioral changes during post-hatching development of Octopus maya (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) with special focus on the digestive system. Aquatic Biology 9: 35–48. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00234.
[17] Baeza-Rojano, Elena, Pedro Domingues, José M Guerra-García, Santiago Capella, Elsa Noreña-Barroso, Claudia Caamal-Monsreal, and Carlos Rosas. 2013. Marine gammarids (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a new live prey to culture Octopus maya hatchlings. Aquaculture Research 44: 1602–1612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2012.03169.x.
[18] Briceño, Felipe, Maite Mascaró, and Carlos Rosas. 2010. GLMM-based modelling of growth in juvenile Octopus maya siblings: does growth depend on initial size? ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 1509–1516. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsq038.
[19] Rocha, Francisco, Ángel Guerra, and Ángel F. González. 2001. A review of reproductive strategies in cephalopods. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 76: 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793101005681.
[20] Garci, Manuel E., Jorge Hernández-Urcera, Miguel Gilcoto, Raquel Fernández-Gago, Ángel F. González, and Ángel Guerra. 2016. From brooding to hatching: new insights from a female Octopus vulgaris in the wild. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 96: 1341–1346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415001800.
[21] Walker, Joseph J., Nicholas Longo, and M. E. Bitterman. 1970. The octopus in the laboratory. Handling, maintenance, training. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation 2: 15–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205718.
[22] Roper, Clyde F. E., and Michael J. Sweeney. 1983. Techniques for fixation, preservation, and curation of cephalopods. Memoirs of the National Museum Victoria.
[23] Andrews, Paul L. R., Anne-Sophie Darmaillacq, Ngaire Dennison, Ian G. Gleadall, Penny Hawkins, John B. Messenger, Daniel Osorio, Valerie J. Smith, and Jane A. Smith. 2013. The identification and management of pain, suffering and distress in cephalopods, including anaesthesia, analgesia and humane killing. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 447. Cephalopod Biology a Special Issue Compiled under the Auspices of No-Profit Research Organization CephRes: 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.02.010.
[24] Fiorito, Graziano, Andrea Affuso, Jennifer Basil, Alison Cole, Paolo de Girolamo, Livia D’Angelo, Ludovic Dickel, et al. 2015. Guidelines for the Care and Welfare of Cephalopods in Research –A consensus based on an initiative by CephRes, FELASA and the Boyd Group. Laboratory Animals 49: 1–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677215580006.
[25] Teletchea, Fabrice. 2015. Domestication of Marine Fish Species: Update and Perspectives. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 3: 1227–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse3041227.
[26] 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.
[27] Rosas, Carlos, Gerard Cuzon, Cristina Pascual, Gabriela Gaxiola, Darwin Chay, Nelda López, Teresita Maldonado, and Pedro M. Domingues. 2007. Energy balance of Octopus maya fed crab or an artificial diet. Marine Biology 152: 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-007-0692-2.
[28] Méndez Aguilar, Francisco Daniel, Miguel Ángel Olvera Novoa, Sergio Rodríguez Morales, and Carlos Rosas Vázquez. 2014. Nutritive value of four by-product meals as potential protein sources in diets for Octopus maya. Hidrobiológica 24: 69–77.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy