Brevetoxin in two planktivorous fishes after exposure to Karenia brevis: implications for food-web transfer to bottlenose dolphins

Brevetoxin uptake was analyzed in 2 common planktivorous fish that are likely foodweb vectors for dolphin mortality events associated with brevetoxin-producing red tides. Fish were exposed to brevetoxin-producing Karenia brevis for 10 h under conditions previously reported to produce optimal uptake of toxin in blood after oral exposure. Striped mullet Mugil cephalus were exposed to a low dose of brevetoxin, and uptake and depuration by specific organs were evaluated over a 2 mo period. Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus specimens were used to characterize a higher brevetoxin dose uptake into whole body components and evaluate depuration over 1 mo. We found a high uptake of toxin by menhaden, with a body to water ratio of 57 after a 10 h exposure and a slow elimination with a half life (t1/2) of 24 d. Elimination occurred rapidly from the intestine (t1/2 < 1 wk) and muscle (t1/2 ≈ 1 wk) compartments and redistributed to liver which continued to accumulate body stores of toxin for 4 wk. The accumulation and elimination characteristics of the vectoring capacity of these 2 fish species are interpreted in relation to data from the Florida Panhandle dolphin mortality event of 2004. We show that due to slow elimination rate of brevetoxin in planktivorous fish, brevetoxin-related dolphin mortality events may occur without evidence of a concurrent harmful algal bloom event.

Dynamics of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin (T. albacares) tuna in Hawaii’s pelagic fisheries: analysis of tagging data with a bulk transfer model incorporating size-specific attrition

Tag release and recapture data of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin tuna (T. albacares) from the Hawaii Tuna Tagging Project (HTTP) were analyzed with a bulk transfer model incorporating size-specific attrition to infer population dynamics and transfer rates between various fishery components. For both species, the transfer rate estimates from the offshore handline fishery areas to the longline fishery area were higher than the estimates of transfer from those same areas into the inshore fishery areas. Natural and fishing mortality rates were estimated over three size classes: yellowfin 20–45, 46–55, and ≥56 cm and bigeye 29–55, 56–70, and ≥71 cm. For both species, the estimates of natural mortality were highest in the smallest size class. For bigeye tuna, the estimates decreased with increasing size and for yellowfin tuna there was a slight increase in the largest size class. In the Cross Seamount fishery, the fishing mortality rate of bigeye tuna was similar for all three size classes and represented roughly 12% of the gross attrition rate (includes fishing and natural mortality and emigration rates). For yellowfin tuna, fishing mortality ranged between 7% and 30%, the highest being in the medium size class. For both species, the overall attrition rate from the entire fishery area was nearly the same. However, in the specific case of the Cross Seamount fishery, the attrition rate for yellowfin tuna was roughly twice that for bigeye. This result indicates that bigeye tuna are more resident at the Seamount than yellowfin tuna, and larger bigeye tunas tend to reside longer than smaller individuals. This may result in larger fish being more vulnerable to capture in the Seamount fishery. The relatively low level of exchange between the Sea-mount and the inshore and longline fisheries suggests that the fishing activity at the Seamount need not be of great management concern for either species. However, given that the current exploitation rates are considered moderate (10–30%), and that Seamount aggregations of yellowfin and bigeye tuna are highly vulnerable to low-cost gear types, it is recommended that further increases in fishing effort for these species be monitored at Cross Seamount.

Marine Vertebrates and Low Frequency Sound: Technical Report for LFA EIS

Over the past 50 years, economic and technological developments have dramatically increased the human contribution to ambient noise in the ocean. The dominant frequencies of most human-made noise in the ocean is in the low-frequency range (defined as sound energy below 1000Hz), and low-frequency sound (LFS) may travel great distances in the ocean due to the unique propagation characteristics of the deep ocean (Munk et al. 1989). For example, in the Northern Hemisphere oceans low-frequency ambient noise levels have increased by as much as 10 dB during the period from 1950 to 1975 (Urick 1986; review by NRC 1994). Shipping is the overwhelmingly dominant source of low-frequency manmade noise in the ocean, but other sources of manmade LFS including sounds from oil and gas industrial development and production activities (seismic exploration, construction work, drilling, production platforms), and scientific research (e.g., acoustic tomography and thermography, underwater communication). The SURTASS LFA system is an additional source of human-produced LFS in the ocean, contributing sound energy in the 100-500 Hz band. When considering a document that addresses the potential effects of a low-frequency sound source on the marine environment, it is important to focus upon those species that are the most likely to be affected. Important criteria are: 1) the physics of sound as it relates to biological organisms; 2) the nature of the exposure (i.e. duration, frequency, and intensity); and 3) the geographic region in which the sound source will be operated (which, when considered with the distribution of the organisms will determine which species will be exposed). The goal in this section of the LFA/EIS is to examine the status, distribution, abundance, reproduction, foraging behavior, vocal behavior, and known impacts of human activity of those species may be impacted by LFA operations. To focus our efforts, we have examined species that may be physically affected and are found in the region where the LFA source will be operated. The large-scale geographic location of species in relation to the sound source can be determined from the distribution of each species. However, the physical ability for the organism to be impacted depends upon the nature of the sound source (i.e. explosive, impulsive, or non-impulsive); and the acoustic properties of the medium (i.e. seawater) and the organism. Non-impulsive sound is comprised of the movement of particles in a medium. Motion is imparted by a vibrating object (diaphragm of a speaker, vocal chords, etc.). Due to the proximity of the particles in the medium, this motion is transmitted from particle to particle in waves away from the sound source. Because the particle motion is along the same axis as the propagating wave, the waves are longitudinal. Particles move away from then back towards the vibrating source, creating areas of compression (high pressure) and areas of rarefaction (low pressure). As the motion is transferred from one particle to the next, the sound propagates away from the sound source. Wavelength is the distance from one pressure peak to the next. Frequency is the number of waves passing per unit time (Hz). Sound velocity (not to be confused with particle velocity) is the impedance is loosely equivalent to the resistance of a medium to the passage of sound waves (technically it is the ratio of acoustic pressure to particle velocity). A high impedance means that acoustic particle velocity is small for a given pressure (low impedance the opposite). When a sound strikes a boundary between media of different impedances, both reflection and refraction, and a transfer of energy can occur. The intensity of the reflection is a function of the intensity of the sound wave and the impedances of the two media. Two key factors in determining the potential for damage due to a sound source are the intensity of the sound wave and the impedance difference between the two media (impedance mis-match). The bodies of the vast majority of organisms in the ocean (particularly phytoplankton and zooplankton) have similar sound impedence values to that of seawater. As a result, the potential for sound damage is low; organisms are effectively transparent to the sound – it passes through them without transferring damage-causing energy. Due to the considerations above, we have undertaken a detailed analysis of species which met the following criteria: 1) Is the species capable of being physically affected by LFS? Are acoustic impedence mis-matches large enough to enable LFS to have a physical affect or allow the species to sense LFS? 2) Does the proposed SURTASS LFA geographical sphere of acoustic influence overlap the distribution of the species? Species that did not meet the above criteria were excluded from consideration. For example, phytoplankton and zooplankton species lack acoustic impedance mis-matches at low frequencies to expect them to be physically affected SURTASS LFA. Vertebrates are the organisms that fit these criteria and we have accordingly focused our analysis of the affected environment on these vertebrate groups in the world’s oceans: fishes, reptiles, seabirds, pinnipeds, cetaceans, pinnipeds, mustelids, sirenians (Table 1).