Mangrove red snapper

Lutjanus argentimaculatus

Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Mangrove red snapper)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Perciformes
        • Lutjanidae
          • Lutjanus argentimaculatus
Distribution
Distribution map: Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Mangrove red snapper)

Information


Author: María J. Cabrera-Álvarez
Version: 2.0 (2022-05-21) - Revision 1 (2022-07-20)

Cite

Reviewers: Jenny Volstorf, Pablo Arechavala-Lopez
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Cite as: »Cabrera-Álvarez, María J.. 2022. Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2020-11-10. Version 2.0 Revision 1. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Lutjanus argentimaculatus
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 argentimaculatus is a snapper species native to the tropical and subtropical Indo-West Pacific from Samoa to East Africa and from Ryukyu Island (Japan) to Australia. It has been introduced in the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez canal (although it is not established there yet) and is found in the Aegean sea (Turkey) and near Lebanon and Greece. It is commercially demanded in Asia for its food quality and popular in Australia for recreational fishing. L. argentimaculatus is a long-lived species of up to 57+ years migrating to estuaries and freshwater habitats as juveniles and returning offshore to mature, spawn, and spend the rest of its life (except occasional visits to estuaries). There is high variability in depth range and life history (migration, reproduction) depending on latitude/climate. Most research has focused on migrations, natural and induced reproduction, and dietary needs. Further research is needed to determine natural behaviours (such as social and sexual behaviour), natural home range, aggression/territoriality in the wild, effects of handling and confinement on health and welfare, malformation rates, and slaughter protocols. In farms, L. argentimaculatus is usually cultured for 7-13 months. Therefore, due to late maturity in this species, most individuals are juveniles at harvesting time. Larvae are either collected from the wild or purchased from stocks. Due to the adults’ need to migrate for spawning, rearing individuals to become spawners is not recommended unless migration options are available.

Note: The age class "Adults" for farming conditions refers to large juveniles and young adults due to farmers estimating age class by size rather than by maturity 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?

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

LARVAEWILD: no data found yet. FARM: larval tanks: 2-5 t in 1,000 m2 hatchery area 1; fibreglass tanks: 400-500 L 2 3; conical concrete tanks: 3 t 2 3.

JUVENILES: WILD: site fidelity in estuaries 4 5. FARM: net cages in ponds: 25 m2 or 100 m2 (5 x 5 m or 10 x 10 m) 1, 24 m2 (4 x 6 m) 6, 6.3 m2  (2.5 x 2.5 m) 7.

ADULTSWILD: mostly offshore 8 4 9, but also found in estuaries 10. Further research needed for specific ranges. FARM: flow-through concrete tanks: 150 t or 60.8 m2 (7.8 x 7.8 m) 2; concrete ponds: 3,000 t 11.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: circular concrete tanks: 4 m diameter 2; floating net cages: 6 m diameter 12.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: WILD: 1.5-6 m, mainly 5-6 m in Australia 5 or <1.5 m in South Africa 13. FARM: net cages of 1 m depth 6 in ≥1.0 m 1 or of 2 m depth in ≥2.5 m ponds 7; flow-through concrete tanks: 2.0 m 2 (for JUVENILES to become SPAWNERS).

ADULTS: WILD: 40-260 m 14 15 16, but also at 5-8 m 17 or 9-13 m 18. FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: relatively deep offshore waters 4 and in reef lagoons and outer reef slopes (in Palau) 8. Further research needed for specific depths. FARM: circular concrete tanks: 1.5 m 2; concrete ponds: 3 m 11; floating net cages: ≥5 m 12.




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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

CATADROMOUS 5.

LARVAEWILD: offshore 4. FARM: 0-21 days old: higher survival at 16 ppt salinity 19, but also reared at 32 20 and 35 ppt 3; >21 days old: 16-40 ppt 19. For details of holding systems  crit. 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: migration from offshore towards the coast and into estuaries and freshwater habitats in spring-summer depending on latitude 21-4 22. Mainly site fidelity 4 23 or moving within 1 km in estuaries and freshwater habitats 4; some move mean 4.3-10 km 5 24; rarely: inter-riverine (up to 85 km) 4. Overnight migration to mangrove habitat during high tides for foraging purposes 24. Migrate offshore to mature, the timing dependent on latitude or ecological conditions 21-4 4 23 25. FARM: salinity: 16-40 ppt [22]. For details of holding systems  crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTSWILD: offshore, occasional trips to the coast and into estuaries at 324-430 mm or 3-11 years of age 4. FARM: for details of holding systems  crit. 1.

SPAWNERS: WILD: 40-50 km offshore 4. FARM: 100 m from the shore 12; salinity: 25-36 12, 30-32 ppt 2. 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: mature from 7-8+ years on 25 4, but also 1-3+ years depending on latitude 23. Spawn in spring-autumn with peak in summer or year round depending on latitude and ecological conditions 21-4 26 4 23. Sex ratio: average 1 male:1.2 females (monthly variations) 9. Spawning activity peaks at 14-18 days into the lunar month (in Palau) 8. FARM: spawn at 5-7 years 12. Natural spawning usually occurred 23:00-00:00 11 or 02:00-04:00, 3 days before or after the last quarter and newmoon phases with a sex ratio of 1 female:1.1 males 12. Successful induced spawning using luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogue or human chorionic gonadotropin 12. Sex ratio for induced spawning: 1 female:2 males 12. Higher hatching, percentage of normal larvae, and cumulative egg-to-larval survival rate in natural spawning compared to induced spawing 12. Monthly rematuration of cage-reared broodstock during 5-6 consecutive months 27.




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: no data found yet. FARM: LARVAE: 5-16.4 11 or 30 3 IND/L; FRY (2.5-12 cm): 40-48 7, 100-150 or 150-200 IND/m3 1 28.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: FINGERLINGS (≥20 g): ponds: 5,000 IND/ha; net cages: 5 IND/m3 1 29, but also 29 IND/m3 6.

ADULTS: WILD: at 9-13 m depth, shoals of 5-30 individuals 18 or more 4; solitary 18 or in groups around coral reef 4. FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: 12-22 IND/cage (85 m3) 12; 50-150 individuals in hatchery area of 1,000 m2 with several tanks 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: cannibalistic behaviour (chasing and biting other's eyes and fins) from about 26 days of hatching, when over 25 mm 3 11 1.

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

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: WILD: PELAGIC 4, offshore 4 and in coastal lagoons and estuaries 30. FARM: PELAGIC 2. For details of holding systems crit. 1.

JUVENILES: WILD: mostly rocks (<10 cm), snags (>10 cm) 4 22, indurated sand 5, sandy habitats 22, but also rock reefs, soft sediments in estuaries 5, seagrasses 5 22, mangroves 4 23 22, coral reefs and seaweed beds 23, bivalve shelves 22, tree roots 4 22, aquatic macrophytes, artificial rock structures, under undercut banks or overhanging vegetation 4, or in pneumatophores of the mangrove Sonneratia griffithii and prop roots 31FARM: featureless tanks 30, coastal net cages, and ponds 3 1. The use of shelters and size grading are important to prevent sibling cannibalism and to produce uniformly-sized fingerlings 1. Black net ribbons over cages and piled PVC pipes at the bottom of the cage as shelter for the fish 28. Cages covered with old or used nets, coconut fronds or nipa shingles to protect the stock from direct sunlight and predator birds 28. Light at night in cages and pens attracts zooplanktons 32. LAB: tanks with rocks or snags increased growth and weight compared to featureless tanks and tanks with plastic strings simulating seagrass 30.

ADULTS: WILD: reef habitat and deeper offshore waters 4. FARM: for details of holding systems crit. 1.

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

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: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: stressed by repeated handling 30.

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?

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

LARVAE: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: lordosis (3.8%) and brachyospondyliosis (1.1%) 11. 60 mg AMP (L-ascorbyl-2-monophosphate-Mg) per kg of dry diet is recommended, otherwise soft body (AMP-free diet) or kidney and liver degeneration and low hematocrite levels (AMP > 180 mg/kg of dry diet) 20.

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 low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common slaughter method: no stunning method available 33 34. High-standard slaughter method: ikijime recommended in recreational fishing 35. Further research needed to confirm for farming conditions.




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 36, 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 37 24 22FARM: no data found yet.




Glossary


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
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
CATADROMOUS = migrating from fresh water into the sea to spawn
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
FINGERLINGS = fry with fully developed scales and working fins, the size of a finger; for details Findings 10.1 Ontogentic development
PELAGIC = living independent of bottom and shore of a body of water
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 3 = entire life cycle closed in captivity with wild inputs 36



Bibliography


[1] Cruz, Joesyl Marie de la. 2012. AQD recommends pompano and mangrove red snapper. SEAFDEC/AQD.
[2] Emata, Arnil C., Bernadita Eullaran, and Teodora U. Bagarinao. 1994. Induced spawning and early life description of the mangrove red snapper, Lutjanus argentimaculatus. Aquaculture 121: 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)90272-0.
[3] Castaños, Milagros T. 1997. A hatchery rearing method for the mangrove red snapper. SEAFDEC Asian Aquaculture.
[4] Russell, D. J., A. J. McDougall, A. S. Fletcher, J. R. Ovenden, and R. Street. 2003. Biology, management and genetic stock structure of mangrove jack, (Lutjanus aregentimaculatus) in Australia. FRDC Report 1999/22. Australia: Fisheries Research & Development Corporation.
[5] Piddocke, Toby P. 2015. Fisheries biology and movements of mangrove red snapper, Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskål 1775), in New South Wales. PhD thesis, Southern Cross University.
[6] Tacio, Henrylito D. 2009. Cultivating Mangrove Snappers Averts Destruction of Mangroves. Gaia Discovery.
[7] Thomas, Sujitha. 2013. Capture based aquaculture of red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus in cages. CMFRI Manuel Customized Training Book. Mangalore: Mangalore Research Centre of CMFRI.
[8] Johannes, Robert E. 1978. Reproductive strategies of coastal marine fishes in the tropics. Environmental Biology of Fishes 3: 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00006309.
[9] Russell, D. J., and A. J. McDougall. 2008. Reproductive biology of mangrove jack (Lutjanus argentimacuiatus) in northeastern Queensland, Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330809509950.
[10] NOT FOUND
[11] Leu, Ming-Yih, I-Hui Chen, and Lee-Shing Fang. 2003. Natural spawning and rearing of mangrove red snapper, Lutjanus argentimaculatus, larvae in captivity. The Open Access Israeli Journal of Aquaculture – Bamidgeh: 10.
[12] Emata, Arnil C. 2003. Reproductive performance in induced and spontaneous spawning of the mangrove red snapper, Lutjanus argentimaculatus: a potential candidate species for sustainable aquaculture. Aquaculture Research 34: 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00892.x.
[13] Harrison, T. D., and A. K. Whitfield. 2006. Temperature and salinity as primary determinants influencing the biogeography of fishes in South African estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66: 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.09.010.
[14] Brouard, F., and R. Grandperrin. 1984. Les poissons profonds de la pente récifale externe à Vanuatu. Notes et documents d’oceanographie 11: 132.
[15] Pradella, N., A. M. Fowler, D. J. Booth, and P. I. Macreadie. 2014. Fish assemblages associated with oil industry structures on the continental shelf of north-western Australia. Journal of Fish Biology 84: 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12274.
[16] Sundaram, Sujit, Punam Khandagale, and Vaibhav Mhatre. 2011. Heavy landings of snappers at Mumbai with notes on the biology of Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskal, 1975) and Lutjanus johnii (Bloch,1792). Marine Fisheries Information Sercive T&E Ser 209.
[17] Tiralongo, Francesco, Ioannis Giovos, Nikos Doumpas, Joachim Langeneck, Periklis Kleitou, and Fabio Crocetta. 2019. Is the mangrove red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskål, 1775) established in the eastern Mediterranean Sea? First records from Greece through a citizen science project. BioInvasions Records 8: 911–916. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2019.8.4.19.
[18] Talbot, F.H. 1960. The fishes of the genus Lutianus of the East African coast. University of Cape Town.
[19] Estudillo, Chona B., Marietta N. Duray, Evelyn T. Marasigan, and Arnil C. Emata. 2000. Salinity tolerance of larvae of the mangrove red snapper (Lutjanus argentimaculatus) during ontogeny. Aquaculture 190: 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00390-2.
[20] Catacutan, Mae R, Gregoria E Pagador, Ellen Doyola-Solis, Shinichi Teshima, and Manabu Ishikawa. 2011. Growth and Feed Efficiency in Mangrove Red Snapper, (Lutjanus argentimaculatus Forsskal 1775) Fed Practical Diets Supplemented with L-ascorbyl-2-monophosphate-Mg. The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh 63(IIC:63.2011.606): 1–7.
[21] Doi, Masanori, and Tanin Singhagraiwan. 1993. Biology and culture of the red snapper, Lutjanus argentimaculatus. Research Project of Fishery Resource Development in the Kingdom of Thailand. Thailand: Eastern Marine Fisheries Development Center.
[22] Chi, Vo V., and James D. True. 2017. Recruitment and habitat ecology of juvenile mangrove red snapper (Lutjanus argentimaculatusForsskal, 1775) in central Vietnam. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 5: 103–107.
[23] Yamada, Hideaki. 2010. Age and growth during immature stages of the mangrove red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus in waters around Ishigaki Island, southern Japan. Fisheries Science 76: 445–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-010-0238-2.
[24] Zagars, Matiss, Kou Ikejima, Nobuaki Arai, Hiromichi Mitamura, Kotaro Ichikawa, Takashi Yokota, and Prasert Tongnunui. 2012. Migration patterns of juvenile Lutjanus argentimaculatus in a mangrove estuary in Trang province, Thailand, as revealed by ultrasonic telemetry. Environmental Biology of Fishes 94: 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9954-4.
[25] Sheaves, M. 1995. Large lutjanid and serranid fishes in tropical estuaries:Are they adults or juveniles? Marine Ecology Progress Series 129: 31–41. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps129031.
[26] Anderson, W. D., and G. R. Allen. 2001. Lutjanidae - snappers (jobfish). In The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific, 5:2791–3380. Bony Fishes 3. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[27] Emata, Arnil C. 1994. Research on Marine and Freshwater Fishes. ADSEA Proceedings. Philippines.
[28] Tigbauan, Iloilo. 2018. Mangrove red snapper nursery and grow-out. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.
[29] Coniza, Eliseo B., Mae R. Catacutan, and Pedrita A. Caballero. 2012. Grow-out culture of mangrove red snapper (Lutjanus argentimaculatus Forsskal, 1775) in ponds. Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.
[30] Chi, Vo V., and James D. True. 2018. Effects of habitat structure and salinity on growth and survival of juvenile mangrove red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskal, 1775). Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol.
[31] Primavera, J. H. 1997. Fish predation on mangrove-associated penaeids The role of structures and substrate. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.: 12.
[32] Emata, Arnil. 2003. Aquaculture of the mangrove red snapper. SEAFDEC Asian Aquaculture 25. Business Opportunities in Aquaculture, Part 1 of 2: 24.
[33] Humane Slaughter Association. 2018. Humane slaughter of finfish farmed around the world. Humane Slaughter Association.
[34] Bowan, Jennifer, and Albin Gräns. 2019. Stunning and Killing of Tropical and Subtropical Finfish in Aquaculture during Slaughter.
[35] Recreational Fishing Trust. 2020. Mangrove Jack, Humane killing of fish. Iki Jime, Humane killing of fish. September 29.
[36] 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.
[37] Robertson, Alistar I., and Norman C. Duke. 1990. Recruitment, growth and residence time of fishes in a tropical Australian mangrove system. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 31: 723–743. https://doi.org/0272-7714/90/110723.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy