Yellowtail amberjack

Seriola lalandi

Seriola lalandi (Yellowtail amberjack)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Carangiformes
        • Carangidae
          • Seriola lalandi
Distribution
Distribution map: Seriola lalandi (Yellowtail amberjack)

Information


Author: João L. Saraiva
Version: 2.0 (2021-12-21)

Cite

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

Cite as: »Saraiva, João L.. 2021. Seriola lalandi (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2017-03-04. Version 2.0. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Seriola lalandi
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

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  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 high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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) 4LAB: spawning tanks: 70 m3 14.




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?

There are unclear findings 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

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  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 high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: develop in the open ocean 1FARM: 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 9FARM: 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 5FARM: spawning cages 13, pools 4 and tanks 14. 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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: spawning occurs in spring and summer 11615. FARM: Parents kept in 70-140 m3 circular tanks with a depth of 2.5 m in 1:1 sex ratio 24, 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  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 high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
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) 4LAB: Experimental spawning tanks: 14 individuals of 17 kg each in 70 m3 tank (ca 3.4 kg/m32.




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: aggressive 4 from19 days post hatching onwards 24 14.

JUVENILES: aggressive 24 14 25.

ADULTSno data found yet.

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

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

LARVAEWILD and  FARM: ➝ Eggs.

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

ADULTS:  WILD and  FARM ➝ JUVENILES

SPAWNERS:  WILDPELAGIC 19 20 2FARM: spawning cages 13 and pools 4. For details of holding systems  crit 1 and 2. 




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

Likelihood
Potential
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.

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

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common and high-standard slaughter method: 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.




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 38, 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 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


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
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 38



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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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 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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.05.014.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy