South Florida
Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project
Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project
NSF/USDA NIFA Supported
| |
| Home |
Metadata: Common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) movements from the South Florida Water, Sustainability and Climate Project Study Area, within the Shark River estuary, South Florida from February 2012 to May 2014
|
Return to the Data Set Summary Table Search for SFWSC Data Sets |
View
this metadata as: HTML Text XML |
Dataset title
Common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) movements from the South Florida Water, Sustainability and Climate Project Study Area, within the Shark River estuary, South Florida from February 2012 to May 2014
Dataset ID
Dataset Creator
Metadata Provider
Dataset Abstract
Dataset Keywords
Intellectual Rights
Geographic Coverage
Temporal Coverage
Maintenance
Dataset Contact
Methods
Data Table
Data Format
Attributes
SFWSC_002
Dataset Creator
| Name: | Dr. Jennifer Rehage |
| Position: | Principle investigator |
| Organization: | South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project |
| Address: | Florida International University University Park ECS 119 Miami, FL 33199 USA |
| Phone: | 305-348-0181 |
| Fax: | 305-348-6137 |
| Email: | rehagej@fiu.edu |
| URL: | http://www2.fiu.edu/~rehagej/ |
Metadata Provider
| Organization: | Florida Coastal Everglades LTER Program |
| Address: | Florida International University University Park OE 148 Miami, FL 33199 USA |
| Phone: | 305-348-6054 |
| Email: | fcelter@fiu.edu |
| URL: | http://fcelter.fiu.edu |
Dataset Abstract
Movements of common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) in the Shark River estuary were measured using passive acoustic telemetry. Snook were fitted with a V-16 acoustic transmitters, transmitters emit an ultrasonic pulse at random every 60 – 180 seconds that can be interpreted by autonomous listening stations dispersed throughout the Shark River estuary. Once a listening station detects a transmitter, it records a time of detection and a unique tag ID.
Dataset Keywords
SFWSC
South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project
ecological research
water
sustainability
climate
South Florida
hydro-economic models
management schemes
impact
economic value
ecosystem services
climate variability
climate change
sea level rise
adaptive water management
economic productivity
South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project
ecological research
water
sustainability
climate
South Florida
hydro-economic models
management schemes
impact
economic value
ecosystem services
climate variability
climate change
sea level rise
adaptive water management
economic productivity
Intellectual Rights
These data are classified as 'Type II' whereby original SFWSC experimental data collected by individual SFWSC researchers are to be released to restricted audiences according to terms specified by the owners of the data. Type II data are considered to be exceptional and should be rare in occurrence. The justification for exceptions must be well documented and approved by the lead PI and Site Data Manager. Some examples of Type II data restrictions may include: locations of rare or endangered species, data that are covered under prior licensing or copyright (e.g., SPOT satellite data), or covered by the Human Subjects Act, Student Dissertation data and those data related to the SFWSC project but not funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) WSC program (EAR-1204762) and the NIFA Award Number 2012-67003-19862. Researchers that make use of Type II Data may be subject to additional restrictions to protect any applicable commercial or confidentiality interests. For a complete description of the SFWSC Data Distribution and Data User Agreement, please go to SFWSC Data Management Policy: http://eimc.fiu.edu/projects/SFWSC/SFWSC_DataManagementPolicy.pdf. Additionally, two copies of the manuscript must be submitted to the South Florida Water, Sustainability and Climate Project, c/o Dr. Mike Sukop, Department of Earth & Environment, Florida International University, ECS 347, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199.
Geographic Coverage
Study Extent Description
Shark River Estuary, SFWSC Study Area
Bounding Coordinates
| Geographic description | West bounding coordinate | East bounding coordinate | North bounding coordinate | South bounding coordinate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project Study Area | -81.078 | -81.078 | 25.365 | 25.365 |
All Sites
| Geographic Description | Longitude | Latitude |
|---|---|---|
| Shark River Estuary, Everglades National Park, FL US. | -81.078 | 25.365 |
| Shark River Estuary, Everglades National Park, FL US. | -80.490 | 24.913 |
Temporal Coverage
Start Date:
2012-02-02
End Date: 2014-05-03
End Date: 2014-05-03
Maintenance
Database is updated every 4 months, and is ongoing
Dataset Contact
Methods
Sampling Description
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Method Step
Description
Citation
Protocol
Description
Fish were fitted with a V-16 acoustic transmitters. Transmitters were implanted surgically into the body cavity of fishes following IACUC Protocol #200135. Transmitters emit an ultrasonic pulse at random every 60 – 180 seconds that can be interpreted by autonomous listening stations dispersed throughout the Shark River estuary. Once a listening station detects a transmitter, it records a time of detection and a unique tag ID. Data were downloaded off of receivers every two months
Citation
Matich, Philip 2014-01-01. Multi-tissue stable isotope analysis and acoustic
telemetry reveal seasonal variability in the trophic
interactions of juvenile bull sharks in a coastal
estuary. Journal of Animal Ecology, 83(1): 199-213.
Protocol
Protocol Title: Tagging fish
Protocol Creator(s)
Publication Date: 2014-01-01
Abstract
Keywords
Procedural Steps
Protocol Creator(s)
| Name: | Dr. Philip Matich |
| Position: | Graduate Student |
| Organization: | Florida International University |
| Address: | 3000 NE 151st North Miami, Florida 33181 USA |
| Email: | pmati001@fiu.edu |
Publication Date: 2014-01-01
Abstract
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Passive acoustic tracking was used to quantify the movement patterns of individual snook. to assess their use of upstream areas of the estuary in response to the marsh prey pulse. Snook were surgically fitted with a Vemco V16 transmitter (Vemco, Halifax, NS, Canada). Transmitters were set to emit a unique series of pulses for each shark at a random interval between 60 and 180 s (mean emission interval = 120 s). Movements of acoustically tagged sharks were tracked within an array of 43 Vemco VR2 and VR2W acoustic receivers. In situ measurements revealed mean detection ranges of receivers were c. 500 m. Each receiver was attached to a PVC pipe set in a 10-kg cement anchor. Data from receivers were downloaded every 3–4 months for the duration of the study, and batteries were replaced as needed.
Keywords
Acoustic tracking
Snook
VEMCO
Snook
VEMCO
Procedural Steps
Immobilize fish with anesthetic
create a 20 mm incision on ventral side of body cavity
insert tag into body cavity
close wound with 2 stiches
waterproof wound with super glue
create a 20 mm incision on ventral side of body cavity
insert tag into body cavity
close wound with 2 stiches
waterproof wound with super glue
Instrumentation
V 16 transmitters are 16 x 68 mm in a cylinder shape, addtional information can be found http://vemco.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/v16-coded.pdf VR2W Listening devices are cylindrical 308 mm long x 73 mm diameter and are anchored to the benthos additional information can be found http://vemco.com/products/vr2w-180khz/?product-specifications
Method Step
Description
Citation
Protocol
Description
Fish were collected via electrofishing methods,
Citation
Boucek, Ross E 2013-10-01. No free lunch: displaced marsh consumers regulate a prey subsidy to an estuarine consumer.. Oikos, 122(10): 1453-1464.
Protocol
Protocol Title: Catching fish
Protocol Creator(s)
Publication Date: 2013-10-01
Abstract
Keywords
Procedural Steps
Protocol Creator(s)
| Name: | Ross Boucek |
| Position: | Graduate Researcher |
| Organization: | Florida International University |
| Address: | Florida International University University Park ECS 119 Miami, FL 33199 USA |
| Phone: | 305-348-0181 |
Publication Date: 2013-10-01
Abstract
We captured snook using a boat-mounted, generator-powered electrofisher (two-anode, one cathode Smith-Root 9.0 unit) . Boat electrofishing is an effective sampling technique in freshwater habitats, including the Everglades, and has been used successfully to sample upper estuarine fish communities (Rehage and Loftus 2007). We conducted three replicate electrofishing bouts (timed sampling transects) at fixed locations in each site, each 200 m apart. For each bout, we ran the boat at idle speed at a randomly-selected creek shoreline and applied power for 5 min of time, during which two netters captured all immobilized fishes. We standardize power output to 1500 Watts, given temperature and conductance conditions measured at the beginning of each bout.
We captured snook using a boat-mounted, generator-powered electrofisher (two-anode, one cathode Smith-Root 9.0 unit) . Boat electrofishing is an effective sampling technique in freshwater habitats, including the Everglades, and has been used successfully to sample upper estuarine fish communities (Rehage and Loftus 2007). We conducted three replicate electrofishing bouts (timed sampling transects) at fixed locations in each site, each 200 m apart. For each bout, we ran the boat at idle speed at a randomly-selected creek shoreline and applied power for 5 min of time, during which two netters captured all immobilized fishes. We standardize power output to 1500 Watts, given temperature and conductance conditions measured at the beginning of each bout.
We captured snook using a boat-mounted, generator-powered electrofisher (two-anode, one cathode Smith-Root 9.0 unit) . Boat electrofishing is an effective sampling technique in freshwater habitats, including the Everglades, and has been used successfully to sample upper estuarine fish communities (Rehage and Loftus 2007). We conducted three replicate electrofishing bouts (timed sampling transects) at fixed locations in each site, each 200 m apart. For each bout, we ran the boat at idle speed at a randomly-selected creek shoreline and applied power for 5 min of time, during which two netters captured all immobilized fishes. We standardize power output to 1500 Watts, given temperature and conductance conditions measured at the beginning of each bout.
We captured snook using a boat-mounted, generator-powered electrofisher (two-anode, one cathode Smith-Root 9.0 unit) . Boat electrofishing is an effective sampling technique in freshwater habitats, including the Everglades, and has been used successfully to sample upper estuarine fish communities (Rehage and Loftus 2007). We conducted three replicate electrofishing bouts (timed sampling transects) at fixed locations in each site, each 200 m apart. For each bout, we ran the boat at idle speed at a randomly-selected creek shoreline and applied power for 5 min of time, during which two netters captured all immobilized fishes. We standardize power output to 1500 Watts, given temperature and conductance conditions measured at the beginning of each bout.
We captured snook using a boat-mounted, generator-powered electrofisher (two-anode, one cathode Smith-Root 9.0 unit) . Boat electrofishing is an effective sampling technique in freshwater habitats, including the Everglades, and has been used successfully to sample upper estuarine fish communities (Rehage and Loftus 2007). We conducted three replicate electrofishing bouts (timed sampling transects) at fixed locations in each site, each 200 m apart. For each bout, we ran the boat at idle speed at a randomly-selected creek shoreline and applied power for 5 min of time, during which two netters captured all immobilized fishes. We standardize power output to 1500 Watts, given temperature and conductance conditions measured at the beginning of each bout.
Keywords
Electrofishing
fish capture
fish capture
Procedural Steps
Apply electric current to sampling area
net immobilized fish
place fish into a water tank on boat
net immobilized fish
place fish into a water tank on boat
Instrumentation
21 foot Aluminum boat fitted with a generator and other electrofishing equipment (see citation 28)
Method Step
Description
Citation
Protocol
Description
Data Checking protocols
Citation
Young, Joy Spatiotemporal dynamics of spawning aggregations of common snook on the east coast of Florida.. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 505: 227-240.
Protocol
Protocol Title: Checking data
Protocol Creator(s)
Publication Date: 2014-05-01
Abstract
Keywords
Procedural Steps
Protocol Creator(s)
| Name: | Joy Young |
| Position: | Junior Scientist |
| Organization: | Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Tequesta Field Laboratory, |
| Address: | 19100 Southeast Federal Highway Tequesta , Florida 33469 USA |
| Email: | joy.young@myfwc.com |
Publication Date: 2014-05-01
Abstract
Telemetry data normally contain a certain amount of erroneous detections which can increase in number due to code collisions from the detection of other tags, and abiotic (e.g. boat) and biotic (e.g. snapping shrimp) noise. Prior to analyses, ‘false’ detections and were removed from the dataset.
Keywords
False detections
Data checking
Data checking
Procedural Steps
identify distance and time between fish detections
determine if that distance is feasible for fish to travel in the duration between detections
If impossible, false detection is deleted
determine if that distance is feasible for fish to travel in the duration between detections
If impossible, false detection is deleted
Instrumentation
None
Quality Control
Detection data are managed and checked through software provided by VEMCO. See http://vemco.com/products/vue-software/?product-software
Data Table
Entity Name: SFWSC_002
Entity Description: Common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) movements from the South Florida Water, Sustainability and Climate Project Study Area, within the Shark River estuary, South Florida
Object Name: SFWSC_002
Entity Description: Common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) movements from the South Florida Water, Sustainability and Climate Project Study Area, within the Shark River estuary, South Florida
Object Name: SFWSC_002
Data Format
Number of Header Lines: 1
Attribute Orientation: column
Field Delimiter: ,
Number of Records: 68012
Attribute Orientation: column
Field Delimiter: ,
Number of Records: 68012
Attributes
| Attribute Name | Attribute Label | Attribute Definition | Storage Type | Measurement Scale | Missing Value Code |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transmitter_ID | Individual snook fitted with a transmitter | The tag identification code of individual tags | The tag identification code of individual tags | ||
| Date | date | Collection date | datetime | ||
| Time | Tagging Time | Tagging Time | datetime | ||
| Latitude | latitude in decimal degrees of a single detection | coordinate | coordinate | coordinate | |
| Longitude | Longitude in decimal degrees of a single detection | coordinate | coordinate | coordinate |