Version: B | 1.1 (2021-12-21)
Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.
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)
Seriola diumerili is a valuable species for aquaculture due to its high commercial value and depleting stocks in the wild. However its welfare in aquaculture is hindered by its spatial needs, since it is a pelagic open water cruiser. In addition, its spawning under farming conditions is majorly induced and invasive, and survival rates of early life stages are very low. Several aspects that are important for farming remain unknown, such as aggression in juveniles and adults, stress, malformation rates and an established humane slaughter protocol. Solving these issues may provide solutions for farming under better welfare conditions.
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.
LARVAE: WILD: pelagic, develop offshore 1. FARM: circular tanks: ca 20 m3 2; mesocosm 40 m3 3.
JUVENILES: WILD: pelagic 4 5 6. Swim ca 3.7 nautical miles per day 7. FARM: net cages: 7 m3 (diameter 4.5 m) 8, 5-10 x 5-10 m 9.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES
SPAWNERS: WILD: pelagic 10 6, approach shore when spawning 11. Swim ca 3.7 nautical miles per day 7. FARM: natural spawning tanks: 500 m3 12; maturation tanks for induced spawning 30 – 40 m3 13 13, 70 m3 14. LAB: maturation tanks 10 m3 (3 x 3 x 1.5 m) 15.
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.
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 medium amount of evidence.
LARVAE: WILD: pelagic, develop offshore 1. FARM: saltwater 2 3. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.
JUVENILES: WILD: pelagic 4 5 6, swim large distances in the open ocean 7. Sometimes epibenthic feeding 5. FARM: sea cages 8 9. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES
SPAWNERS: WILD: pelagic 10 6 5, approach shore when spawning 11. FARM: saltwater tanks 15. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.
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 of theses circumstances?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.
WILD: spawn in spring-summer 11 1. Pair spawners, male courts and pursues female, pair may be followed by 1-10 indviduals 18. FARM: natural reproduction is impaired in most farming conditions 19 15 20, although it is possibe to achieve 12. Reproduction dysfunctions occur in captivity 20, spawning is often hormonally induced 19 13 15 2. A large part of production comes from wild-caught juveniles 2.
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.
LARVAE: WILD: planktonic, occur naturally in large numbers 21. FARM: tanks: 5 - 12 larvae/L 2 22 9; mesocosm 0.25 larvae/L 3.
JUVENILES: WILD: aggregate 1 23, display schooling behaviour 24 18. FARM: net cages: ca 1 ind/m3 8.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
SPAWNERS: WILD: Form spawning aggregations 25. FARM: maturation tanks for induced spawning: ca 1 ind/m3 (4.14 kg/m3) 15; tanks for natural spawning: ca 0.16 ind/m3 (0.2 kg/m3) 12.
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.
LARVAE: aggressive 3 26, cannibalism 26. Size grading decreases aggression 27.
JUVENILES: aggressive in early stages, which may be reduced by size grading and unrestricted feeding 26. Stressed by conspecific attacks in normal rearing conditions 26.
ADULTS: no data found yet.
SPAWNERS: no data found yet.
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: seek shelter under sargassum weed 1. FARM: no reports of shelter structures found in the literature.
JUVENILES: WILD: pelagic 1 4 6 5 open water swimmers 7. Epibenthic for feeding purposes 5. FARM: sea cages 8 9. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.
ADULTS: ➝ JUVENILES.
SPAWNERS: WILD: pelagic 1 4 6 5 open water swimmers 7. Epibenthic for feeding purposes 5. FARM: saltwater tanks 15. For details of holding systems ➝ crit. 1 and 2.
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?There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
LARVAE: mesocosm: 3.5% survival rate, <1% abnormalities 3.
JUVENILES: no data found yet.
ADULTS: no data found yet.
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 high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
Common and high-standard slaughter method: for congener Seriola lalandi, 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 28. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to S. dumerili 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 2 29, 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)?
All age classes: WILD: carnivorous 4 2 30 11. FARM: for juveniles, fish meal may be partially* 31 or completely* replaced by sustainable sources 32.
*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 29
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
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
OCEANODROMOUS = living and migrating in the sea
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
2 Jerez Herrera, S., and R Vassalo Agius. 2016. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Seriola dumerili. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
3 Papandroulakis, N., C. C. Mylonas, E. Maingot, and P. Divanach. 2005. First results of greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) larval rearing in mesocosm. Aquaculture 250: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.02.036.
4 Pipitone, C, and Franco Andaloro. 1995. Food and feeding habits of juvenile greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili (Osteichthyes, Carangidae) in inshore waters of the central Mediterranean Sea. Cybium 19: 305–310.
5 Manooch, Charles S., and Jennifer C. Potts. 1997. Age, growth and mortality of greater amberjack from the southeastern United States. Fisheries Research 30: 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(96)00554-1.
6 Saldanha, L. 1995. Fauna Submarina Atlântica. Publicações Europa-América.
7 McClellan, David B., and Nancie J. Cummings. 1997. Preliminary analysis of tag recapture data of Greater Amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southeastern United States.
8 Mazzola, Antonio, Eugenia Favaloro, and Gianluca Sarà. 2000. Cultivation of the Mediterranean amberjack, Seriola dumerili (Risso, 1810), in submerged cages in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Aquaculture 181: 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00243-4.
9 Hamasaki, Katsuyuki, Koya Tsuruoka, Kazuhisa Teruya, Hiroshi Hashimoto, Kazuhisa Hamada, Takuro Hotta, and Keiichi Mushiake. 2009. Feeding habits of hatchery-reared larvae of greater amberjack Seriola dumerili. Aquaculture 288: 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.11.032.
10 Marino, G., A. Mandich, A. Massari, F. Andaloro, S. Porrello, M. G. Finoia, and F. Cevasco. 1995. Aspects of reproductive biology of the Mediterranean amberjack (Seriola dumerilii Risso) during the spawning period. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 11: 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1995.tb00002.x.
11 Andaloro, Franco, and Carlo Pipitone. 1997. Food and feeding habits of the amberjack, Seriola dumerili in the Central Mediterranean Sea during the spawning season. Cahiers de biologie marine 38: 91–96.
12 Jerez, S., M. Samper, F. J. Santamaría, J. E. Villamandos, J. R. Cejas, and B. C. Felipe. 2006. Natural spawning of greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) kept in captivity in the Canary Islands. Aquaculture 252: 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.06.031.
13 Mylonas, Constantinos C, Nikos Papandroulakis, Andreas Smboukis, Maria Papadaki, and Pascal Divanach. 2004. Induction of spawning of cultured greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) using GnRHa implants. Aquaculture 237: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.04.015.
14 Kozul, V., B. Skaramuca, B. Glamuzina, N. Glavic, and P. Tutman. 2001. Comparative gonadogenesis and hormonal induction of spawning of cultured and wild mediterranean amberjack ( Seriola dumerili , Risso 1810). Scientia Marina 65: 215–220. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2001.65n3215.
15 Fernández‐Palacios, Hipólito, Dominique Schuchardt, Javier Roo, Carmen María Hernández‐Cruz, and Marisol Izquierdo. 2015. Multiple GnRHa injections to induce successful spawning of wild caught greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) matured in captivity. Aquaculture Research 46: 1748–1759. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12330.
16 Randall, John E. 1995. Coastal fishes of Oman. University of Hawaii Press.
17 Monteiro, Pedro, Daniel Ribeiro, José A. Silva, João Bispo, and Jorge M. S. Gonçalves. 2008. Ichthyofauna assemblages from two unexplored Atlantic seamounts: Northwest Bank and João Valente Bank (Cape Verde archipelago). Scientia Marina 72: 133–143. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2008.72n1133.
18 Graham, Rachel T, and Daniel W Castellanos. 2005. Courtship and spawning behaviors of carangid species in Belize. Fishery Bulletin 103: 426–432.
19 Mylonas, Constantinos C., and Yonathan Zohar. 2000. Use of GnRHa-delivery systems for the control of reproduction in fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10: 463–491. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012279814708.
20 Zupa, Rosa, Covadonga Rodríguez, Constantinos C. Mylonas, Hanna Rosenfeld, Ioannis Fakriadis, Maria Papadaki, José A. Pérez, Chrysovalentinos Pousis, Gualtiero Basilone, and Aldo Corriero. 2017. Comparative study of reproductive development in wild and captive-reared greater amberjack Seriola dumerili (Risso, 1810). Edited by Gao-Feng Qiu. PLOS ONE 12: e0169645. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169645.
21 Mundy, Bruce C. 1990. Identification of fish larvae from plankton samples collected by the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources.
22 Yamamoto, Takeshi, Kazuhisa Teruya, Takashi Hara, Hiroto Hokazono, Isao Kai, Hiroshi Hashimoto, Hirofumi Furuita, Hiroyuki Matsunari, and Keiichi Mushiake. 2009. Nutritional evaluation of rotifers in rearing tanks without water exchange during seed production of amberjack Seriola dumerili. Fisheries Science 75: 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-009-0084-2.
23 Sinopoli, M., G. D’Anna, F. Badalamenti, and F. Andaloro. 2007. FADs influence on settlement and dispersal of the young-of-the-year greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili). Marine Biology 150: 985–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0368-3.
24 Smith-Vaniz, W. F. 1986. Carangidae. In Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean (ed. P.H.J. Whitehead et al), 2:815–844. Paris: UNESCO.
25 Heyman, William D., and Björn Kjerfve. 2008. Characterization of transient multi-species reef fish spawning aggregations at Gladden Spit, Belize. Bulletin of Marine Science 83: 531–551.
26 Miki, Takahisa, Hiromu Nakatsukasa, Norihide Takahashi, Osamu Murata, and Yasunori Ishibashi. 2011. Aggressive behaviour and cannibalism in greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili : effects of stocking density, feeding conditions and size differences. Aquaculture Research 42: 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02722.x.
27 Shiozawa, S, H Takeuchi, and J Hirokawa. 2003. Improved seed production techniques for the amberjack, Seriola dumerili. Saibai Gyogyo Gijutsu Kaihatsu Kenkyu (Japan).
28 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.
29 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.
30 Badalamenti, F, G D’anna, L Lopiano, D Scilipoti, and A Mazzola. 1995. Feeding habits of young-of-the-year greater amberjack Seriola dumerili (Risso, 1810) along the N/W Sicilian Coast. Scientia Marina 59: 317–323.
31 Tomás, A., F. De La Gándara, A. García-Gomez, L. Pérez, and M. Jover. 2005. Utilization of soybean meal as an alternative protein source in the Mediterranean yellowtail, Seriola dumerili. Aquaculture Nutrition 11: 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2005.00365.x.
32 Uyan, O., S. Koshio, M. Ishikawa, S. Yokoyama, S. Uyan, T. Ren, and L.h.h. Hernandez. 2009. The influence of dietary phospholipid level on the performances of juvenile amberjack, Seriola dumerili, fed non-fishmeal diets. Aquaculture Nutrition 15: 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2008.00621.x.