Version: B | 1.4 (2022-07-20)
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)
Dentex dentex is a sparid commonly found on the Mediterranean coast. Due to its higher growth rate in captivity compared to the existing cultured Mediterranean species it is considered a great potential for the diversification of the European aquaculture industry. Nevertheless, there are several biological aspects, such as high mortality levels due to sensitivity to handling and aggressive behaviour in early life stages, that need urgent attention. This may be related to the rearing protocols and techniques for the cultivation of this species. Normally, the same protocols are used as in Sparus aurata and Dicentrarchus labrax. Thus, the limited information about this species on wild and farming conditions are serious bottlenecks to optimising fish welfare in rearing conditions, in particular related to stress susceptibility and aggressive behaviour.
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.
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 and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
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 farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
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 medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.
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.
LARVAE: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: tanks: 40-50 IND/L 10.
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 and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
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 medium amount of evidence.
LARVAE: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: for details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2. Tanks usually without substrate.
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.
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 high amount of evidence.
LARVAE: WILD: no skeletal deformations 18. FARM: semi-extensive: skeletal deformations in 4-15%; extensive: skeletal deformations in 25-26% 18. Intensive rearing: skeletal deformations in 82%, mesocosmos: skeletal deformations in 45% 8.
JUVENILES: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.
ADULTS: WILD and FARM: no data found.
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.
Common slaughter method: for the related Sparus aurata, immersion in ice-water 19. High-standard slaughter method: for Dicentrarchus labrax and S. aurata, other popular Mediterranean aquaculture species, humane slaughter protocol available 20. Further research needed to determine whether these apply to D. dentex as well.
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 21, level 5 being fully domesticated.
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)?
*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 21
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
2 Yıldırım, Şükrü, Deniz Çoban, H. Okan Kamacı, Cüneyt Süzer, Şahin Saka, and Kürşat Fırat. 2015. Skeletal Formation of the Fins in the Common Dentex (Dentex dentex L., 1758) Under Intensive Culture Condition. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 26: 165–170.
3 Glamuzina, Branko, Jurica Jug-Dujaković, and Ivan Katavić. 1989. Preliminary studies on reproduction and larval rearing of common dentex, Dentex dentex (Linnaeus 1758). Aquaculture 77: 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(89)90023-9.
4 Loir, M., Gac F. Le, S. Somarakis, and M. Pavlidis. 2001. Sexuality and gonadal cycle of the common dentex (Dentex dentex) in intensive culture. Aquaculture 194: 363–381.
5 Aspillaga, Eneko, Frederic Bartumeus, Richard M. Starr, Àngel López-Sanz, Cristina Linares, David Díaz, Joaquim Garrabou, Mikel Zabala, and Bernat Hereu. 2017. Thermal stratification drives movement of a coastal apex predator. Scientific Reports 7: 526. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00576-z.
6 Marengo, Michel, Eric D. H. Durieux, Bernard Marchand, and Patrice Francour. 2014. A review of biology, fisheries and population structure of Dentex dentex (Sparidae). Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24: 1065–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-014-9363-9.
7 Morales-Nin, Beatriz, and Joan Moranta. 1997. Life history and fishery of the common dentex (Dentex dentex) in Mallorca (Balearic Islands, western Mediterranean). Fisheries Research 30: 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(96)00560-7.
8 Giménez, Gemma, and Alicia Estévez. 2008. Effects of two culturing techniques on the growth, survival and larval quality of Dentex dentex Linnaeus, 1758. Aquaculture Research 39: 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01726.x.
9 Bayle-Sempere, Just T., Alfonso A. Ramos-Espla, and Julio Mas Hernandez. 1991. Observations on Dentex dentex (L., 1758) in the Spanish Mediterranean. In Les espèces marines à progresser en Méditerranée, by Charles-Francois Boudouresque, Michel Avon, Vincent Gravez (Eds.), 245–253. France: GIS Posidonie publ.
10 Sweetman, John W. 1992. Larviculture of Mediterranean Marine Fish Species: Current Status and Future Trends. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 23: 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1992.tb00796.x.
11 Rueda, F. M., and F. M. Martínez. 2001. A review on the biology and potential aquaculture of
12 Franicevic, V. 1991. Preliminary results on the larval rearing of common dentex, Dentex dentex (Linnaeus, 1758). In In de Pauw,N. and Joyce, J. (Compilers) Aquaculture and Environment.Aquaculture Europe ’91, 14:106–107. Dublin: EASSpecial Publ.
13 Araújo, Ana. 2011. O Concheiro de Toledo no contexto do Mesolítico Inicial do Litoral da Estremadura.
14 Marengo, M., J.-M. Culioli, M.-C. Santoni, B. Marchand, and E. D. H. Durieux. 2015. Comparative analysis of artisanal and recreational fisheries for Dentex dentex in a Marine Protected Area. Fisheries Management and Ecology 22: 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12110.
15 Efthimiou, Stefan, Pascal Divanach, and Harald Rosenthal. 1994. Growth, food conversion and agonistic behaviour in common dentex (Dentex dentex) juveniles fed on pelleted moist and dry diets. Aquatic Living Resources 7: 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:1994029.
16 Tibaldi, E., P. Beraldo, L. A. Volpelli, and M. Pinosa. 1996. Growth response of juvenile dentex (Dentex dentex L.) to varying protein level and protein to lipid ratio in practical diets. Aquaculture 139: 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(95)01150-1.
17 Rigos, G., K. Grigorakis, I. Nengas, P. Christophilogiannis, M. Yiagnisi, M. Koutsodimou, A. Andriopoulou, and M. (Fish Pathology and Nutrition Laboratory Alexis. 1998. Stress-related pathology seems a significant obstacle for the intensive farming of common dentex, Dentex dentex (Linnaeus 1758). Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists (United Kingdom).
18 Koumoundouros, G, P Divanach, and M Kentouri. 2001. The effect of rearing conditions on development of saddleback syndrome and caudal fin deformities in Dentex dentex (L.). Aquaculture 200: 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00552-X.
19 Castanheira, Maria Filipa. 2017. Personal communication.
20 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Seabass and Seabream. EFSA Journal 1010: 1–52. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1010.
21 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.
22 Abdelkader, B., and M.H. Ktari. 1985. Régime alimentaire desdentés (Genre Dentex), poissons sparidés de Tunisie. Bull. Soc.nat. 17: 19–25.
23 Chatzifotis, Stavros, Irene Polemitou, Pascal Divanach, and Efthimia Antonopoulou. 2008. Effect of dietary taurine supplementation on growth performance and bile salt activated lipase activity of common dentex, Dentex dentex, fed a fish meal/soy protein concentrate-based diet. Aquaculture 275: 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.12.013.
24 Tomas, A., S. Martinez-Llorens, and M. Jover. 2009. The effect of dietary soybean meal on growth, nutrient utilization efficiency, and digestibility of juvenile common dentex, Dentex dentex (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Sparidae). Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria (Poland).
25 Antonopoulou, Efthimia, Eleni Chouri, Konstantinos Feidantsis, Antigone Lazou, and Stavros Chatzifotis. 2017. Effects of partial dietary supplementation of fish meal with soymeal on the stress and apoptosis response in the digestive system of common dentex (Dentex dentex). Journal of Biological Research 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40709-017-0071-1.