<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY

Lynne Jane Shannon,
University of Cape Town, South Africa

REVIEWED BY

Cristina López-Pérez,
Spanish National Research Council
(CSIC), Spain
Tracey T. Sutton,
Nova Southeastern University,
United States

*CORRESPONDENCE

Leandro Nolé Eduardo
leandronole@hotmail.com

SPECIALTY SECTION

This article was submitted to
Marine Conservation and
Sustainability,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Marine Science

RECEIVED 05 May 2022

ACCEPTED 25 July 2022

PUBLISHED 30 August 2022

CITATION

Eduardo LN, Bertrand A,
Lucena-Frédou F, Villarins BT,
Martins JR, Afonso GVF, Pietsch TW,
Frédou T, Di Dario F and
Mincarone MM (2022) Rich and
underreported: First integrated
assessment of the diversity of
mesopelagic fishes in the
Southwestern Tropical Atlantic.
*Front. Mar. Sci.* 9:937154
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.937154

COPYRIGHT

© 2022 Eduardo, Bertrand,
Lucena-Frédou, Villarins, Martins,
Afonso, Pietsch, Frédou, Di Dario and
Mincarone. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution
or reproduction in other forums is
permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s)
are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does
not comply with these terms.

Rich and underreported: First
integrated assessment of the
diversity of mesopelagic fishes
in the Southwestern
Tropical Atlantic

Leandro Nolé Eduardo¹,²*, Arnaud Bertrand¹,²,³,
Flávia Lucena-Frédou¹, Bárbara Teixeira Villarins⁴,
Júlia Rodrigues Martins⁴, Gabriel Vinícius Felix Afonso⁵,
Theodore Wells Pietsch⁶, Thierry Frédou¹, Fabio Di Dario⁷
and Michael Maia Mincarone⁷

¹Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Departamento de Pesca e Aquicultura, Recife, PE, Brazil, ²MARBEC, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD, Sète, France, ³Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Departamento de Oceanografia, Recife, PE, Brazil, ⁴Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Ambientais e Conservação, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Macaé, RJ, Brazil, ⁵Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Comparada, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, ⁶School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States, ⁷Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Instituto de Biodiversidade e Sustentabilidade, Macaé, RJ, Brazil

Mesopelagic fishes play critical ecological roles by sequestering carbon, recycling nutrients, and acting as a key trophic link between primary consumers and higher trophic levels. They are also an important food source for harvestable economically valuable fish stocks and a key link between shallow and deep-sea ecosystems. Despite their relevance, mesopelagic ecosystems are increasingly threatened by direct and indirect human activities while representing some of the largest and least understood environments on Earth. The composition, diversity, and other aspects of the most basic biological features of numerous mesopelagic groups of fishes are still poorly known. Here, we provide the first integrative study of the biodiversity of mesopelagic fishes of the southwestern Tropical Atlantic (SWTA), based on two expeditions in northeastern Brazil in 2015 and 2017. A full list of mesopelagic fishes of the region is provided, including rare species and new records for the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone and the indication of potentially new species in groups such as the Stomiiformes and Beryciformes. Key aspects of the diversity of mesopelagic fishes of the region were also assessed, considering different depth strata and diel periods. At least 200 species, 130 genera, 56 families, and 22 orders of the Teleostei and one shark (Isistius brasiliensis, Dalatiidae, Squaliformes) were recorded, including potentially eight new species (4%) and 50 (25%) new records for Brazilian waters. Five families accounted for 52% of the diversity, 88% of specimens collected, and 66% of the total biomass: Stomiidae (38 spp., 8% of specimens,
21% of biomass), Myctophidae (34 spp., 36%, 24%), Melamphaidae (11 spp., 2%, 7%), Sternoptychidae (9 spp., 26%, 10%), and Gonostomatidae (7 spp., 16%, 4%). During the day, richness and diversity were higher at lower mesopelagic depths (500–1000 m), with contributions of typically bathypelagic species likely associated with seamounts and oceanic islands. At night, richness and diversity increased at epipelagic depths, indicating the diel ascension of several species (e.g., myctophids and sternnoptychids) that can endure temperature ranges of up to 25°C. Information on the geographic distribution of several rare species worldwide is also provided.

KEYWORDS

deep-sea, oceanic islands, seamounts, biodiversity, Brazil, Fernando de Noronha Ridge

Introduction

Mesopelagic fishes (200–1,000 m depth) are among the most
abundant vertebrates in the biosphere (Gjøsaeter and Kawaguchi,
1980; Irigoien et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2016). They often have a
global distribution, vertical migratory behavior, and several
adaptations to overcome challenges imposed by the deep-sea
environment (Gjøsaeter and Kawaguchi, 1980; Sutton, 2013;
Priede, 2017). Some of these adaptations include low metabolic
rates, high tolerance to environmental changes, and complex
visual and bioluminescence systems (Priede, 2017).
Consequently, the mesopelagic zone holds one of the most
diverse fish communities of the ocean, contributing to several
ecosystem processes (Gjøsaeter and Kawaguchi, 1980; St. John et
al., 2016). Mesopelagic fishes play critical roles by sequestering
carbon, recycling nutrients, and acting as key trophic links
between primary consumers and higher trophic levels (e.g.,
larger fishes, mammals, and seabirds) (e.g., Ariza et al., 2015;
Cavan et al., 2019; Eduardo et al., 2020a; Eduardo et al., 2020b;
Eduardo et al., 2021). They are also an important food source for
harvestable fish stocks and a key link between shallow and deep-
sea ecosystems (e.g., Cherel et al., 2010; Eduardo et al., 2020b;
Eduardo et al., 2021).

Despite their importance, mesopelagic communities are
increasingly threatened by climate change (Levin et al., 2019),
plastic pollution (Ferreira et al., 2022; Justino et al., 2022), and
exploitation of deep-sea resources (Hidalgo and Browman, 2019;
Drazen et al., 2020). There is also a major lack of knowledge of
the biology, ecology, distribution, and diversity of mesopelagic
species, which are typically under-sampled and sparse in data
(Glover et al., 2018; Hidalgo and Browman, 2019; Martin
et al., 2020).

The southwestern Tropical Atlantic (SWTA) encompasses
oceanic islands, underwater canyons, and several seamounts
(Travassos et al., 1999; Tchamabi et al., 2017). This region

holds distinct biodiversity and includes several Marine
Protected Areas and Ecologically or Biologically Significant
Marine Areas (EBSAs) that, by definition, are special places of
fundamental importance for biodiversity and life cycles of
marine species (CBD, 2014). Moreover, the SWTA includes
different biogeographic provinces with contrasting
thermodynamic features, current systems, and water-mass
properties, leading to shifts in biodiversity and ecosystems
(Bourlès et al., 1999; Pinheiro et al., 2018; Assunção et al.,
2020; Costa da Silva et al., 2021; Dossa et al., 2021; Tosetto
et al., 2021; Silva et al., 2022).

The first collection of deep-sea fishes in the SWTA was carried
out by the HMS Challenger (1872–1876; Günther, 1887). Since
then, mesopelagic fishes have been sporadically collected by
different vessels, such as the RV Akademik Kurchatov (1971–
1972; Parin et al., 1974), RV Walther Herwig (1966–1971; many
authors), RV Marion Dufresne (1987; Séret and Andreata, 1992),
RV Atlântico Sul (1996–1999; Figueiredo et al., 2002; Bernardes
et al., 2005), RV Thalassa (1999–2000; Costa et al., 2007), RV Astro
Garoupa (2003; Costa and Mincarone, 2010), RV Gyre (2008; Costa
et al., 2015; Mincarone et al., 2017), and the RV Luke Thomas and
RV Seward Johnson (2009, 2011; Lins Oliveira et al., 2015).
Although these expeditions substantially contributed to
understanding the diversity and ecology of several groups, they
were sparse and focused mostly on demersal species (Melo et al.,
2020). Only a few studies focused on the mesopelagic communities
of the SWTA, with most of them being restricted to the
composition and taxonomy of specific groups (e.g., Lima et al.,
2011; Mincarone et al., 2014). Consequently, an integrative
overview of the mesopelagic fish community of the region is still
lacking, leaving a “dark hole” in our understanding of their
diversity, ecology, and function in marine ecosystems.

Two recent expeditions focused on mesopelagic fauna were made
aboard the RV Antea, as part of the project ABRACOS (Acoustics
along the BRAzilian COaSt; Bertrand, 2015; Bertrand, 2017). For the
first time, the mesopelagic zone of the SWTA was extensively surveyed, resulting in collections of thousands of deep-sea invertebrates and fishes. Based on these collections, various studies have been published addressing the diversity and ecology of several fish groups, such as Argentiniformes (Mincarone et al., 2021a), Aulopiformes (Mincarone et al., 2022), Myctophiformes (Eduardo et al., 2021), Beryciformes (Afonso et al., 2021), Stomiiformes (Eduardo et al., 2020a; Eduardo et al., 2020b; Villarins et al., 2022), Ceratioidei (Mincarone et al., 2021a), Caristiidae (Mincarone et al., 2019), Howelidae (Eduardo et al., 2019), and Trichiuridae (Eduardo et al., 2018). However, most of the results of these cruises remains unpublished. Here, we present an integrative study of the biodiversity of mesopelagic fishes from the SWTA. A full list of mesopelagic species collected during the ABRACOS expeditions, including a compilation of published new records and the indication of

potentially new species, is provided. Key aspects of the mesopelagic fish diversity of the region were also addressed, considering different depth strata and diel periods.

# Methodology

## Study area

The study area comprised the northeastern Brazilian coast, from Rio Grande do Norte to Alagoas states (5°-9°S), and the seamounts and oceanic islands of the Fernando de Noronha Ridge, including the Rocas Atoll (3°52'S, 33°49'W) and the Fernando de Noronha Archipelago (3°50'S, 32°25'W) (Figure 1). The main oceanographic physico-chemical features

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1
Study area with CTDO profile (cross) and trawl samples (dots). Black and white symbols for ABRACOS 1 and ABRACOS 2, respectively.</figcaption></figure>
of the region were recently described by Assunção et al. (2020); Costa da Silva et al. (2021), and Dossa et al. (2021). Overall, the SWTA is considered oligotrophic. However, locally the banks and islands act as topographic obstacles to currents, driving subsurface enriched waters to the surface (Travassos et al., 1999; Tchamabi et al., 2017; Costa da Silva et al., 2021; Silva et al., 2022). This process increases primary production and enhances the mass and energy fluxes throughout the food web (Travassos et al., 1999; Tchamabi et al., 2017).

## Data and specimen collection

Data and specimens were collected during the Acoustics along the BRAzilian COaSt (ABRACOS) surveys, carried out from 29 August to 21 September 2015 (AB1) and from 9 April to 10 May 2017 (AB2), aboard the French RV *Antea* (Bertrand, 2015; Bertrand, 2017). Temperature profiles were collected using a CTDO SeaBird911+. Mesopelagic fishes were collected day and night at 80 trawl stations by using mesopelagic (AB1; body mesh 30 mm, cod-end mesh 4 mm, size of the net mouth: 16.6 x 8.4 m; Bertrand, 2015) and micronekton (AB2; body mesh 40 mm, cod-end mesh 10 mm, size of the net mouth: 24 x 24 m; Bertrand, 2017) nets (Figure 1; Supplementary Material 1 and 2). Targeted depth ranged from 10 to 1,113 m and was defined by the presence of acoustic scattered layers or patches detected by a Simrad EK60 (Kongsberg Simrad AS) split-beam scientific echosounder, operating at 38, 70, 120, and 200 kHz. Except for the layers 200–300 and 700–800 at night, where no aggregation of organisms were observed through acoustics, all depth strata were sampled at least once (Supplementary Material 1). The net geometry was monitored using SCANMAR sensors, to give headline height, depth, and distance of wings and doors to ensure the net was fishing correctly. Based on SCANMAR the estimated opening area of the micronekton trawl was 120 m². For the mesopelagic trawl, however, the opening resembled an ellipse of 65 m². As the trawl was not fitted with an opening and closing mechanism, the collection of specimens during the lowering or hoisting of the net was reduced as much as possible by decreasing ship velocity and increasing winch speed. At the target depths, trawling activity lasted for about 30 minutes at 2–3 kt. Therefore, collection of specimens most likely occurred at target depths, which are indicated as capture depths in the species accounts.

Specimens were sorted to the lowest taxonomic level and frozen or, in the case of rare species or taxonomic uncertainty, fixed in 4% formalin and then preserved in a 70% alcohol solution (Eduardo et al., 2020a). In the laboratory, specimens were identified, measured (nearest 0.1 cm of standard length, SL), and weighed (nearest 0.01 g of total weight, TW). Excluding a few specimens of the Stomiidae, Sternoptychidae, and Myctophidae used for biological analyses (Eduardo et al., 2020a; Eduardo et al., 2020b; Eduardo et al., 2021), all specimens were deposited in the NPM - Fish Collection of the

"Instituto de Biodiversidade e Sustentabilidade, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro" (NUPEM/UFRJ). Taxonomic classification follows Nelson et al. (2016), with exceptions noted in Villarins et al. (2022) for the Stomiiformes.

## Richness estimators and biodiversity indexes

We first computed a randomised species accumulation curve to assess whether the fish community was exhaustively sampled with the gears employed (Gotelli and Colwell, 2001). This enables calculating a mean number of species for a given number of samples within a 95% confidence interval. The Chao1 index, which extrapolates the total expected number of species in the area for a given sampling gear, was subsequently calculated (Magurran, 2004).

Other aspects of the biodiversity were assessed based on the sample-size-based rarefaction and extrapolation sampling curves, calculated for the species richness, Shannon diversity, and Simpson dominance, the three most widely used species diversity indexes (Magurran, 2004). For that, we used Hill's numbers, which integrate species richness and relative abundance to propose a more intuitive and statistically rigorous alternative to calculate diversity measures (Chao et al., 2014). Statistical significance was evaluated based on the confidence interval overlapping of the curves.

Sample-size-based rarefaction and extrapolation sampling curves (Hsieh et al., 2016) were also constructed to test for differences in diversity indexes when considering depth strata (epipelagic 0–200 m; upper mesopelagic 200–500 m; lower mesopelagic 500–1000 m) and the diel period (day and night). As the sampling strategy employed in the AB2 expedition was much more efficient in collecting mesopelagic fishes (see Discussion), comparisons using diversity indexes were only made for this survey. Statistical analyses and the calculation of diversity indices were performed using the software R version 4.0.3 through the packages "iNext" (Hsieh et al., 2016) and "vegan" (Oksanen et al., 2017). Fish larvae and species traditionally classified as epipelagic were excluded from the species list, and they were not considered for the diversity assessments. Specimens identified at the genus level only (small-sized and/or damaged specimens), which might represent more than one species, were also excluded from the analyses (Supplementary Material 3).

## Results

### Biodiversity

Considering our two surveys, 7,119 specimens of mesopelagic fishes, representing 200 species in 130 genera, 56 families, and 22 orders of the Teleostei and one shark (Isistius brasiliensis: Dalatiidae, Squaliformes), were collected and identified (Table 1). The species accumulation curve was steep,
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Species recorded, survey (S) (1: ABRACOS 1; 2: ABRACOS 2), number of specimens (N), frequency of occurrence to overall samples (FO %), standard length (SL, mean and range), total wet weight (TW, mean and range), collection locality (PE, Pernambuco; PB, Paraíba; RN, Rio Grande do Norte; FNR, Fernando de Noronha Ridge), depth range (based on the target depth of each trawl), temperature range (T), and new records in the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>S</th><th>N</th><th>FO%</th><th>SL (mm)</th><th>TW (g)</th><th>Locality</th><th>Depth (m)</th><th>T (°C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>SQUALIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Dalatiidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Isistius brasiliensis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>172 (TL)</td><td>20.0</td><td>PB</td><td>100</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>NOTACANTHIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Halosauridae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aldrovandia sp.*</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>167</td><td>3.4</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>ANGUILLIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Eurypharyngidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eurypharynx pelecanoides Vaillant, 1882</td><td>2</td><td>13</td><td>4.9</td><td>287 (99-524)</td><td>6.5 (1.0-33.9)</td><td>FNR</td><td>780-900</td><td>4.3-4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Nemichthyidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Avocettina infans (Günther, 1878)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>502</td><td>2.2</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Labichthys carinatus Gill & Ryder, 1883</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>397 (227-568)</td><td>7.0 (0.5-13.5)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>680-720</td><td>4.9-5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Nemichthys scolopaceus Richardson, 1848</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>3.7</td><td>290 (235-330)</td><td>2.9 (2.0-4.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>105-525</td><td>6.8-24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Serrivomeridae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Serrivomer beanii Gill & Ryder, 1883</td><td>2</td><td>49</td><td>13.4</td><td>422 (60-592)</td><td>14.5 (0.5-65.4)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>90-900</td><td>4.3-25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Serrivomer lanceolatoides (Schmidt, 1916)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>413</td><td>4.6</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Stemonidium hypomelas Gilbert, 1905</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>256</td><td>6.2 (3.4-9.0)</td><td>FNR</td><td>800-900</td><td>4.3-4.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>ALEPOCEPHALIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Platytroctidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Platytroctidae sp.*</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>55</td><td>0.8</td><td>FNR</td><td>610</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Alepocephalidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Alepocephalidae sp.*</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>45</td><td>0.7</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Photostylus pycnopterus Beebe, 1933<sup>1</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>85 (75-95)</td><td>4.1 (2.7-5.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>800-900</td><td>4.3-4.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>ARGENTINIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Opisthoproctidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Opisthoproctus soleatus Vaillant, 1888<sup>2</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>49</td><td>1.0</td><td>FNR</td><td>385</td><td>9.2</td></tr><tr><td>Rhynchohyalus natalensis (Gilchrist & von Bonde, 1924)<sup>2</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>109</td><td>12.3</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Winteria telescopa Brauer, 1901</td><td>2</td><td>31</td><td>9.8</td><td>95 (51-118)</td><td>6.7 (1.3-10.6)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>440-900</td><td>4.3-8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Microstomatidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Xenophthalmichthys danae Regan, 1925<sup>2</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>87 (60-114)</td><td>3.2 (2.1-4.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>385-505</td><td>7.0-9.2</td></tr><tr><td>Bathylagidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dolicholagus longirostris (Maul, 1948)</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>7.3</td><td>79 (41-100)</td><td>3.3 (1.3-4.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430-900</td><td>4.3-8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Melanolagus bericoides (Borodin, 1929)</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>3.7</td><td>148 (128-167)</td><td>17.8 (11.7-25.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430-900</td><td>4.3-8.54</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>STOMIIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Diplophidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Diplophos australis Ozawa, Oda & Ida, 1990</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2.4</td><td>81 (71-99)</td><td>0.8 (0.5-1.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>780-800</td><td>4.6-4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Diplophos taenia Günther, 1873</td><td>1-2</td><td>25</td><td>12.2</td><td>71 (42-129)</td><td>1.9 (0.6-4.3)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>25-800</td><td>4.7-28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Manducus maderensis (Johnson, 1890)</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3.7</td><td>56 (42-65)</td><td>1.3 (0.7-1.4)</td><td>FNR</td><td>90-615</td><td>5.6-25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Triplophos hemingi (McArdle, 1901)<sup>3</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>196</td><td>13.5</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Gonostomatidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cyclothone spp.*</td><td>1-2</td><td>874</td><td>28.0</td><td>33 (12-45)</td><td>1.4 (0.2-7.4)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>350-1000</td><td>4.3-27.6</td></tr><tr><td>Gonostoma atlanticum Norman, 1930</td><td>1-2</td><td>67</td><td>18.3</td><td>51 (19-68)</td><td>1.8 (0.13-7.8)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>100-900</td><td>4.3-24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Gonostoma denudatum Rafinesque, 1810<sup>3</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>122</td><td>7.8</td><td>FNR</td><td>440</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Margrethia obtusirostra Jespersen & Täning, 1919</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>27</td><td>3.2</td><td>FNR</td><td>525</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>Sigmops bathyphilus (Vaillant, 1884)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>155</td><td>17.3</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Sigmops elongatus (Günther, 1878)</td><td>1-2</td><td>41</td><td>14.6</td><td>145 (45-250)</td><td>13.1 (0.5-26.8)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>100-1000</td><td>4.3-24.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Continued</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>S</th><th>N</th><th>FO%</th><th>SL (mm)</th><th>TW (g)</th><th>Locality</th><th>Depth (m)</th><th>T (°C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Zaphotias pedaliotus (Goode & Bean, 1896)</td><td>2</td><td>184</td><td>15.9</td><td>57 (37–81)</td><td>1.2 (0.5–4.7)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>130–900</td><td>4.3–22.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Sternoptychidae</td></tr><tr><td>Argyropelecus aculeatus Valenciennes, 1850</td><td>2</td><td>51</td><td>12.2</td><td>56 (30–82)</td><td>6.1 (0.8–20.9)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>100–900</td><td>4.3–24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Argyropelecus affinis Garman, 1899</td><td>2</td><td>439</td><td>14.6</td><td>52 (27–82)</td><td>2.7 (0.5–6.9)</td><td>FNR-PB-RN</td><td>30–800</td><td>4.6–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Argyropelecus gigas Norman, 1930</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>2.4</td><td>86 (78–91)</td><td>14.2 (10.4–17.0)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>610–700</td><td>5.2–5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Argyropelecus hemigymnus Cocco, 1829</td><td>1-2</td><td>80</td><td>22.0</td><td>24 (8–36)</td><td>2.4 (0.2–4.9)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>260–900</td><td>4.3–13.7</td></tr><tr><td>Argyropelecus sladeni Regan, 1908</td><td>2</td><td>27</td><td>11.0</td><td>57 (32–94)</td><td>4.1 (0.7–14.2)</td><td>FNR</td><td>30–800</td><td>4.6–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Sternoptyx diaphana Hermann, 1781</td><td>2</td><td>1091</td><td>20.7</td><td>24 (11–43)</td><td>2.0 (0.4–4.9)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>65–900</td><td>4.3–26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Sternoptyx pseudobscura Baird, 1971</td><td>2</td><td>123</td><td>12.2</td><td>35 (13–59)</td><td>2.9 (0.5–9.9)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE</td><td>520–900</td><td>4.3–6.3</td></tr><tr><td>Sternoptyx pseudodiaphana Borodulina, 1977</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2.4</td><td>49 (42–59)</td><td>6.9 (5.2–9.9)</td><td>FNR</td><td>800–900</td><td>4.4–4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Valenciennellus tripunctulatus (Esmark, 1871)</td><td>1-2</td><td>19</td><td>8.5</td><td>24 (23–32)</td><td>1.6 (1.0–2.3)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>360–1000</td><td>4.3–10.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Phosichthyidae</td></tr><tr><td>Ichthyococcus polli Blache, 1964</td><td>1-2</td><td>14</td><td>9.8</td><td>52 (41–72)</td><td>2.5 (1.1–8.4)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>385–900</td><td>4.3–9.2</td></tr><tr><td>Phosichthys argenteus Hutton, 1872</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>64</td><td>8.1</td><td>RN</td><td>630</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Pollichthys mauli (Poll, 1953)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>38</td><td>1.5</td><td>RN</td><td>75</td><td>25.7</td></tr><tr><td>Vinciguerria nimbaria (Jordan & Williams, 1895)</td><td>1-2</td><td>24</td><td>11.0</td><td>26 (17–49)</td><td>2.0 (0.4–6.5)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>50–780</td><td>4.6–26.6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Stomiidae</td></tr><tr><td>Aristostomias grimaldii Zugmayer, 1913³</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>2.4</td><td>74 (65–86)</td><td>3.1 (1.8–5.0)</td><td>FNR</td><td>700–800</td><td>4.7–5.26</td></tr><tr><td>Aristostomias tittmanni Welsh, 1923</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3.7</td><td>43 (32–76)</td><td>2.5 (2.0–3.5)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>30–800</td><td>4.6–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Astronesthes atlantica Parin & Borodulina, 1996</td><td>1-2</td><td>3</td><td>3.7</td><td>38 (31–51)</td><td>1.2 (0.62–2.0)</td><td>FNR</td><td>90–525</td><td>6.8–25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Astronesthes gemmifer Goode & Bean, 1896</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>146</td><td>21.6</td><td>FNR</td><td>430</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Astronesthes gudrunae Parin & Borodulina, 2002³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>111</td><td>11.1</td><td>FNR</td><td>610</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Astronesthes richardsoni (Poey, 1852)</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>6.1</td><td>71 (22–132)</td><td>5.7 (1.1–13.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>25–780</td><td>4.6–28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Astronesthes similus Parr, 1927</td><td>1-2</td><td>10</td><td>3.7</td><td>43 (36–75)</td><td>2.9 (0.5–4.9)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>100–800</td><td>4.7–24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Bathophilus nigerrimus Giglioli, 1882³</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>89 (84–95)</td><td>6.1 (5.1–7.2)</td><td>FNR</td><td>90–610</td><td>5.6–25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Bathophilus pawneeii Parr, 1927</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>66 (30–124)</td><td>3.2 (1.2–8.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>65–440</td><td>8.5–26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Borostomias elucens (Brauer, 1906)³</td><td>2</td><td>55</td><td>8.5</td><td>168 (46–299)</td><td>48.2 (0.5–218.9)</td><td>FNR</td><td>610–900</td><td>4.3–5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Chauliodorus sloani Bloch & Schneider, 1801</td><td>1-2</td><td>348</td><td>22.0</td><td>162 (55–270)</td><td>9.6 (0.3–53.9)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias bibulbosus Parr, 1927³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>87</td><td>0.6</td><td>PE</td><td>680</td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias braueri Zugmayer, 1911³</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.2</td><td>69 (56–82)</td><td>1.6(0.6–2.6)</td><td>PE</td><td>680</td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias brevibarbatus Parr, 1927</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>7.3</td><td>97 (85–128)</td><td>1.8 (0.5–4.6)</td><td>FNR</td><td>90–900</td><td>4.3–25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias enbarbatus Welsh, 1923</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>54 (54–55)</td><td>2.1 (2.1–2.1)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>680–780</td><td>4.6–5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias minimus Clarke, 1999³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>69</td><td>3.2</td><td>FNR</td><td>780</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias schmidtii Regan & Trewavas, 1930³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>68</td><td>4.9</td><td>FNR</td><td>780</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias sp. 1**³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>168</td><td>8.2</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias sp. 2**³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>120</td><td>2.3</td><td>FNR</td><td>430</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias sp. 3**³</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2.4</td><td>68 (49–78)</td><td>2.4 (1.6–2.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>90–720</td><td>4.9–25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias sp. 4**³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>122</td><td>2.1</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eustomias sp. 5**³</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>54 (28–98)</td><td>0.5 (0.4–0.6)</td><td>FNR</td><td>780</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Grammatostomias dentatus Goode & Bean, 1896³</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>114</td><td>3.5</td><td>PE</td><td>1000</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Grammatostomias ovatus Prokofiev, 2014³</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>67</td><td>1.5</td><td>PE</td><td>1000</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Heterophotus ophistoma Regan & Trewavas, 1929</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>6.1</td><td>205 (96–253)</td><td>57.9 (0.7–107.6)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Leptostomias gladiator (Zugmayer, 1911)³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>83</td><td>0.9</td><td>FNR</td><td>780</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Malacosteus niger Ayres, 1848</td><td>2</td><td>46</td><td>9.8</td><td>107 (633–181)</td><td>8.3 (1.4–34.4)</td><td>FNR</td><td>610–900</td><td>4.3–5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Melanostomias bartonbeanis Parr, 1927³</td><td>1-2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>117 (50–185)</td><td>10.9 (2.3–19.6)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>100–780</td><td>4.6–24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Melanostomias biseriatus Regan & Trewavas, 1930³</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>103 (29–177)</td><td>11.1 (4.9–17.2)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>610–680</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Melanostomias tentaculatus (Regan & Trewavas, 1930)</td><td>1-2</td><td>5</td><td>4.9</td><td>162 (48–201)</td><td>15.7 (2.6–20.7)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE</td><td>430–1000</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Melanostomias sp.**³</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>180</td><td>11.4</td><td>FNR</td><td>440</td><td>8.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Continued</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>S</th><th>N</th><th>FO%</th><th>SL (mm)</th><th>TW (g)</th><th>Locality</th><th>Depth (m)</th><th>T (°C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pachystomias microdon (Günther, 1878)<sup>3</sup></td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>8.5</td><td>137 (39–181)</td><td>23.2 (2.3–42.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Photonectes achirus Regan &amp; Trewavas, 1930<sup>3</sup></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2.4</td><td>56 (33–79)</td><td>3.4 (1.2–3.4)</td><td>PB-RN</td><td>100–800</td><td>4.7–24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Photostomias atrox (Alcock, 1890)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>118</td><td>1.0</td><td>PE</td><td>680</td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Photostomias goodyeari Kenaley &amp; Hartel, 2005<sup>3</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>64</td><td>0.7</td><td>FNR</td><td>720</td><td>4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Stomias danae Ege, 1933</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>95</td><td>1.8</td><td>PB</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Stomias longibarbatus (Brauer, 1902)</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>6.1</td><td>281 (173–390)</td><td>9.7 (1.4–25.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>260–800</td><td>4.7–13.7</td></tr><tr><td>Thysanactis dentex Regan &amp; Trewavas, 1930</td><td>1-2</td><td>41</td><td>19.5</td><td>90 (43–150)</td><td>3.1 (0.5–10.6)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>90–900</td><td>4.3–25.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>ATELEOPODIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Ateleopodidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ateleopodidae sp.*</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>122</td><td>0.6</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>AULOPIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Anotopteridae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Anotopterus pharao Zugmayer, 1911</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>27</td><td>1.0</td><td>RN</td><td>20</td><td>26.7</td></tr><tr><td>Giganturidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gigantura chuni Brauer, 1901<sup>1</sup></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2.4</td><td>111 (42–181)</td><td>19.4 (4.9–33.9)</td><td>FNR</td><td>610–800</td><td>4.7–5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Gigantura indica Brauer, 1901</td><td>1-2</td><td>31</td><td>22.0</td><td>102 (16–190)</td><td>3.9 (0.6–11.7)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE</td><td>50–900</td><td>4.3–27.6</td></tr><tr><td>Chlorophthalmidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Parasudis truculenta (Goode &amp; Bean, 1896)</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1.2</td><td>31 (30–33)</td><td>3.8 (3.2–4.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>105</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Notosudidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ahliessaurus berryi Bertelsen, Krefft &amp; Marshall, 1976<sup>1</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>198</td><td>17.8</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Scopelosaurus smithii Bean, 1925</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>177</td><td>22.4</td><td>PE</td><td>680</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Scopelarchidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Benthabella infans Zugmayer, 1911<sup>1</sup></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>57</td><td>4.0</td><td>RN</td><td>560</td><td>5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Rosenblattichthys hubbsi Johnson, 1974<sup>1</sup></td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1.2</td><td>79 (40–100)</td><td>4.5 (0.5–6.9)</td><td>PB</td><td>800–800</td><td>4.7–4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Scopelarchoides danae Johnson, 1974<sup>1</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>80</td><td>2.3</td><td>FNR</td><td>780</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Scopelarchus analis (Brauer, 1902)</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>103 (91–115)</td><td>7.9 (4.7–11.2)</td><td>FNR</td><td>510–525</td><td>6.0–6.8</td></tr><tr><td>Scopelarchus guentheri Alcock, 1896</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>6.0</td><td>79 (38–113)</td><td>4.9 (0.5–12.2)</td><td>FNR-PB-RN</td><td>385–900</td><td>4.3–9.2</td></tr><tr><td>Evermannellidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Odontostomops normalops (Parr, 1928)</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>134 (121–166)</td><td>11.9 (9.9–17.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>610–900</td><td>4.3–5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Paralepididae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lestidiops affinis (Ege, 1930)</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>80 (58–102)</td><td>1.6 (1.6–1.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>110–430</td><td>8.5–24.1</td></tr><tr><td>Lestrolepis intermedia (Poey, 1868)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>-</td><td>5.7</td><td>FNR</td><td>90</td><td>25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Stemonosudis gracilis (Ege, 1933)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>217</td><td>3.9</td><td>FNR</td><td>100</td><td>24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Stemonosudis intermedia (Ege, 1933)</td><td>1-2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>130 (71–205)</td><td>1.1 (0.5–2.26)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>50–900</td><td>4.3–27.6</td></tr><tr><td>Stemonosudis siliquiventer Post, 1970</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>102</td><td></td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Alepisauridae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Omosudis lowii Günther, 1887</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>7.3</td><td>82 (39–212)</td><td>7.2 (0.5–38.6)</td><td>FNR</td><td>385–900</td><td>4.3–9.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>MYCTOPHIFORMES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Neoscopelidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Scopelengys tristis Alcock, 1890<sup>1</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>121 (98–145)</td><td>12.5 (5.34–19.71)</td><td>FNR</td><td>780–800</td><td>4.6–4.71</td></tr><tr><td>Myctophidae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Benthosema suborbitale (Gilbert, 1913)</td><td>1-2</td><td>20</td><td>8.5</td><td>24 (13–31)</td><td>1.7 (0.21–3.3)</td><td>FNR-PB-RN</td><td>30–440</td><td>8.5–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Bolinichthys distofax Johnson, 1975</td><td>2</td><td>85</td><td>11.0</td><td>62 (32–91)</td><td>6.4 (0.5–23.8)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Bolinichthys photothorax (Parr, 1928)</td><td>1-2</td><td>55</td><td>13.4</td><td>53 (22–67)</td><td>5.8 (0.51–27.8)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>510–900</td><td>4.3–6.0</td></tr><tr><td>Bolinichthys supralateralis (Parr, 1928)</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>75 (50–92)</td><td>10.2 (6.6–16.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>720–900</td><td>4.3–4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Ceratoscopelus warmingii (Lütken, 1892)</td><td>1-2</td><td>41</td><td>20.7</td><td>50 (18–74)</td><td>2.6 (0.5–6.2)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>30–900</td><td>4.3–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Dasyscopelus asper (Richardson, 1845)</td><td>1-2</td><td>53</td><td>13.4</td><td>58 (14–75)</td><td>3.8 (0.9–7.1)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>25–900</td><td>4.3–28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Dasyscopelus obtusirostre (Täning, 1928)</td><td>1-2</td><td>17</td><td>9.8</td><td>66 (25–84)</td><td>5.0 (0.6–7.8)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>30–800</td><td>4.7–28.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Continued</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>S</th><th>N</th><th>FO%</th><th>SL (mm)</th><th>TW (g)</th><th>Locality</th><th>Depth (m)</th><th>T (°C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dasyscopelus selenops (Täning, 1928)</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3.7</td><td>45 (27–59)</td><td>2.5 (2.2–2.8)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus bertelseni Nafpaktitis, 1966</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>84 (74–94)</td><td>8.0 (6.8–9.3)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>100–385</td><td>9.2–24.7</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus brachycephalus Täning, 1928</td><td>1-2</td><td>470</td><td>29.3</td><td>38 (09–58)</td><td>1.5 (0.5–17)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>30–1000</td><td>4.3–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus dumerilii (Bleeker, 1856)</td><td>1-2</td><td>114</td><td>24.4</td><td>45 (26–59)</td><td>2.4 (0.5–11)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>65–900</td><td>4.3–26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus fragilis Täning, 1928</td><td>1-2</td><td>147</td><td>24.4</td><td>49 (14–86)</td><td>2.6 (0.4–11.7)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>65–900</td><td>4.3–26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus garmani Gilbert, 1906</td><td>1-2</td><td>137</td><td>11.0</td><td>41 (25–51)</td><td>2.6 (0.5–9.9)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>65–900</td><td>4.3–26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus lucidus (Goode & Bean, 1896)</td><td>2</td><td>43</td><td>11.0</td><td>76 (31–96)</td><td>5.3 (1.3–9.7)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>25–800</td><td>4.7–28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus mollis Täning, 1928</td><td>1-2</td><td>52</td><td>20.7</td><td>48 (15–59)</td><td>1.9 (0.2–4.0)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>105–900</td><td>4.3–24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus perspicillatus (Ogilby, 1898)</td><td>1-2</td><td>279</td><td>20.7</td><td>49 (18–69)</td><td>2.1 (0.5–4.9)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>65–900</td><td>4.3–26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus problematicus Parr, 1928</td><td>1-2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>69 (52–77)</td><td>4.1 (1.7–5.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430–720</td><td>4.9–8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Diaphus splendidus (Brauer, 1904)</td><td>1-2</td><td>241</td><td>18.3</td><td>53 (20–85)</td><td>2.3 (0.5–6.6)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>100–900</td><td>4.3–24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Diogenichthys atlanticus (Täning, 1928)</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>3.7</td><td>18 (15–23)</td><td>0.5 (0.2–1.0)</td><td>FNR</td><td>60–525</td><td>6.0–26.6</td></tr><tr><td>Electrona risso (Cocco, 1829)</td><td>2</td><td>76</td><td>17.1</td><td>66 (50–81)</td><td>7.4 (3.2–12.4)</td><td>FNR-PB-RN</td><td>385–900</td><td>4.3–9.2</td></tr><tr><td>Hygophum hygomii (Lütken, 1892)</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.2</td><td>53 (52–54)</td><td>2.2 (1.9–2.4)</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Hygophum macrochir (Günther, 1864)</td><td>1-2</td><td>28</td><td>8.5</td><td>50 (34–60)</td><td>1.9 (0.5–8.0)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>30–800</td><td>4.6–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Hygophum reinhardtii (Lütken, 1892)</td><td>1-2</td><td>5</td><td>3.7</td><td>51 (24–76)</td><td>2.5 (1.2–6.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>30–150</td><td>20.0–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Hygophum taaningi Becker, 1965</td><td>1-2</td><td>108</td><td>12.2</td><td>51 (26–66)</td><td>1.9 (0.9–3.1)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>90–900</td><td>4.3–25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Lampadena luminosa (Garman, 1899)</td><td>1-2</td><td>29</td><td>4.9</td><td>28 (19–51)</td><td>2.2 (0.5–5.4)</td><td>FNR-PB-RN</td><td>100–900</td><td>4.3–24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Lampanyctus alatus Goode & Bean, 1896</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.2</td><td>37 (37–38)</td><td>3.5 (2.9–4.2)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Lampanyctus lineatus (Täning, 1928)</td><td>1-2</td><td>5</td><td>4.9</td><td>137 (26–178)</td><td>19.0 (0.63–29.46)</td><td>FNR-PB</td><td>50–900</td><td>4.3–26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Lampanyctus festivus Täning, 1928</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1.2</td><td>87 (56–120)</td><td>6.8 (1.3–13.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Lampanyctus nobilis Täning, 1928</td><td>1-2</td><td>285</td><td>29.3</td><td>19 (57–120)</td><td>2.6 (0.4–14)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>25–900</td><td>4.3–28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Lampanyctus tenuiformis (Brauer, 1906)</td><td>2</td><td>26</td><td>9.8</td><td>111 (44–149)</td><td>16.0 (0.7–46.4)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>25–900</td><td>4.3–28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Lepidophanes guentheri (Goode & Bean, 1896)</td><td>1-2</td><td>219</td><td>29.3</td><td>48 (22–62)</td><td>3.6 (0.5–9.9)</td><td>FNR-PB-PE-RN</td><td>25–1000</td><td>4.3–28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Myctophum nitidulum Garman, 1899</td><td>1-2</td><td>12</td><td>11.0</td><td>59 (38–70)</td><td>3.6 (1.8–5.1)</td><td>FNR-PB-RN</td><td>30–800</td><td>4.7–28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Notoscopelus resplendens (Richardson, 1845)</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>75 (67–84)</td><td>3.1 (2.7–3.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430–780</td><td>4.6–8.54</td></tr><tr><td>Taaningichthys bathyphilus (Täning, 1928)</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>4.9</td><td>62 (54–71)</td><td>1.7 (1.1–2.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>720–900</td><td>4.3–4.98</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">LAMPRIFORMES</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Lophotidae</td></tr><tr><td>Eumecichthys fiski (Günther, 1890)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>1880</td><td>2190.0</td><td>FNR</td><td>780</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Trachipteridae</td></tr><tr><td>Desmodema polystictum (Ogilby, 1898)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>74</td><td>1.0</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Trachipterus sp. (Ramsay, 1881)</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>6.1</td><td>36 (18–55)</td><td>3.1 (0.1–7.0)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>100–510</td><td>6.0–24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Zu cristatus (Bonelli, 1819)<sup>1</sup></td><td>1-2</td><td>9</td><td>11.0</td><td>57 (10–89)</td><td>14.7 (0.1–93.1)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>20–720</td><td>4.9–26.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">STYLEPHORIFORMES</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Stylephoridae</td></tr><tr><td>Stylephorus chordatus Shaw, 1791<sup>1</sup></td><td>1-2</td><td>64</td><td>18.3</td><td>176 (59–279)</td><td>3.7 (0.5–11.0)</td><td>FNR-PB-RN</td><td>25–900</td><td>4.3–28.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">GADIFORMES</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Melanonidae</td></tr><tr><td>Melanonus zugmayeri Norman, 1930</td><td>2</td><td>21</td><td>11.0</td><td>115 (64–265)</td><td>11.6 (1.0–11.9)</td><td>FNR</td><td>95–900</td><td>4.3–24.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Macrouridae</td></tr><tr><td>Bathygadus sp.*</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.2</td><td>76 (72–81)</td><td>1.3 (1.0–1.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Macrouroides inflaticeps Smith & Radcliffe, 1912</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>197 (179–215)</td><td>91.4 (67.4–115.4)</td><td>FNR</td><td>800–900</td><td>4.3–4.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Bregmacerotidae</td></tr><tr><td>Bregmaceros cf. atlanticus Goode & Bean, 1886</td><td>1-2</td><td>20</td><td>7.3</td><td>65 (32–85)</td><td>1.9 (0.5–4.4)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>90–800</td><td>4.7–25.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">TRACHICHTHYIFORMES</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Anoplogastridae</td></tr><tr><td>Anoplogaster cornuta (Valenciennes, 1833)</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>100 (85–107)</td><td>31.2 (18.3–43.4)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>610–800</td><td>4.7–5.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Continued</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>S</th><th>N</th><th>FO%</th><th>SL (mm)</th><th>TW (g)</th><th>Locality</th><th>Depth (m)</th><th>T (°C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Diretmidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Diretmoides pauciradiatus</em> (Woods, 1973)</td><td>1-2</td><td>23</td><td>8.5</td><td>26 (4–62)</td><td>3.4 (0.5–8.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>85–900</td><td>4.3–25.4</td></tr><tr><td><em>Diretmus argenteus</em> Johnson, 1864</td><td>2</td><td>116</td><td>13.4</td><td>53 (14–75)</td><td>8.1 (0.6–67.4)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Trachichthyidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Aulotrachichthys argyrophanus</em> (Woods, 1961)</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>3.7</td><td>28 (24–34)</td><td>1.2 (0.7–1.5)</td><td>FNR</td><td>230–780</td><td>4.6–12.4</td></tr><tr><td><strong>BERYCIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Rondeletiidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Rondeletia loricata</em> Abe & Hotta, 1963</td><td>1-2</td><td>3</td><td>3.7</td><td>55 (32–78)</td><td>4.8 (1.2–10.4)</td><td>FNR</td><td>525–900</td><td>4.3–6.8</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cetomimidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Cetomimus</em> sp.*<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>64 (39–65)</td><td>1.8 (1.5–2.1)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>680–780</td><td>4.6–5.2</td></tr><tr><td><em>Cetostoma regani</em> Zugmayer, 1914</td><td>1-2</td><td>5</td><td>4.9</td><td>98 (81–114)</td><td>5.8 (1.6–18.4)</td><td>FNR</td><td>525–900</td><td>4.3–6.8</td></tr><tr><td><em>Ditropichthys storei</em> (Goode & Bean, 1895)<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>49</td><td>1.5</td><td>FNR</td><td>610</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td><em>Gyrinomimus bruuni</em> Rofen, 1959<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.2</td><td>63 (60–66)</td><td>8.6 (1.2–16.1)</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3–4.3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Melamphaidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Melamphaes eulepis</em> Ebeling, 1962<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>4.9</td><td>43 (35–47)</td><td>20.3 (10.8–24.6)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td><em>Melamphaes leprus</em> Ebeling, 1962<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>80</td><td>14.0</td><td>FNR</td><td>430</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td><em>Melamphaes longivelis</em> Parr, 1933<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>75 (74–75)</td><td>46.8 (8.0–85.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>630–780</td><td>4.6–5.6</td></tr><tr><td><em>Melamphaes polylepis</em> Ebeling, 1962</td><td>2</td><td>37</td><td>9.8</td><td>53 (36–70)</td><td>34.1 (2.0–60.0)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>610–900</td><td>4.3–5.6</td></tr><tr><td><em>Melamphaes typhlops</em> (Lowe, 1843)</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>7.3</td><td>54 (37–71)</td><td>31.6 (1.0–60.8)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td><em>Melamphaes</em> sp.*<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>62</td><td>43.9</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td><em>Poromitra megalops</em> (Lütken, 1878)</td><td>1-2</td><td>27</td><td>9.8</td><td>46 (25–59)</td><td>1.8 (0.5–4.2)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>525–900</td><td>4.3–6.8</td></tr><tr><td><em>Poromitra</em> sp.*<sup>4</sup></td><td>1-2</td><td>28</td><td>11.0</td><td>85 (48–121)</td><td>10.6 (1.3–37.3)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>45–1000</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td><em>Scopeloberyx opercularis</em> Zugmayer, 1911</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>32</td><td>3.9</td><td>FNR</td><td>780</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td><em>Scopeloberyx opisthopterus</em> (Parr, 1933)</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>29 (25–32)</td><td>2.7 (1.9–3.6)</td><td>FNR</td><td>720–900</td><td>4.7–4.9</td></tr><tr><td><em>Scopelogadus mizolepis</em> (Günther, 1878)</td><td>1-2</td><td>19</td><td>9.8</td><td>54 (37–70)</td><td>9.8 (0.8–39.1)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430–900</td><td>4.3–8.5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>OPHIDIIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bythitidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Bythitidae</em> sp.*</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>87 (86–89)</td><td>2.7 (2.6–2.8)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>680–900</td><td>4.3–5.26</td></tr><tr><td><strong>KURTIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Apogonidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Paroncheilus affinis</em> (Poey, 1875)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>28</td><td>4.2</td><td>RN</td><td>75</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td><strong>PERCIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Howellidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Bathysphyraenops simplex</em> Parr, 1933<sup>5</sup></td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3.7</td><td>65 (41–78)</td><td>7.5 (5.0–9.0)</td><td>FNR</td><td>525–900</td><td>4.3–6.8</td></tr><tr><td><em>Howella atlantica</em> Post & Quéro, 1991</td><td>2</td><td>25</td><td>8.5</td><td>58 (52–69)</td><td>4.0 (2.6–6.5)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>680–900</td><td>4.3–5.2</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bramidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Brama brama</em> (Bonaterre, 1788)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>28</td><td>1.0</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td><em>Brama caribbea</em> Mead, 1972</td><td>1-2</td><td>64</td><td>15.9</td><td>25 (12–55)</td><td>2.0 (0.4–9.8)</td><td>FNR-PE-RN</td><td>58–900</td><td>4.3–26.6</td></tr><tr><td><em>Taractichthys longipinnis</em> (Lowe, 1843)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>32</td><td>1.3</td><td>PE</td><td>240</td><td>14.8</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Caristiidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Paracaristius nudarcus</em> Stevenson & Kenaley, 2011<sup>6</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>175</td><td>181</td><td>FNR</td><td>430</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td><em>Platyberyx andriashevi</em> (Kukuev, Parin & Trunov, 2012)<sup>6</sup></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2.4</td><td>68 (24–149)</td><td>31.2 (1.1–87.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>230–800</td><td>4.7–12.4</td></tr><tr><td><em>Platyberyx paucus</em> Stevenson & Kenaley, 2013<sup>6</sup></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3.7</td><td>95 (92–98)</td><td>33.4 (31.1–36.7)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>630–800</td><td>4.7–5.6</td></tr><tr><td><em>Platyberyx pietschi</em> Stevenson & Kenaley, 2013<sup>6</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>74</td><td>9.2</td><td>RN</td><td>630</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td><strong>SCOMBROLABRACIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Scombrolabracidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Scombrolabrax heterolepis</em> Roule, 1921</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>76</td><td>6.1</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Continued</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>S</th><th>N</th><th>FO%</th><th>SL (mm)</th><th>TW (g)</th><th>Locality</th><th>Depth (m)</th><th>T (°C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Gempylidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gempylus serpens Cuvier, 1829</td><td>1-2</td><td>3</td><td>3.7</td><td>68 (44-112)</td><td>1.1 (0.9-1.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>70-900</td><td>4.3-25.8</td></tr><tr><td>Lepidocybium flavobrunneum (Smith, 1843)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>36</td><td>4.1</td><td>FNR</td><td>110</td><td>24.0</td></tr><tr><td>Nesiarchus nasutus Johnson, 1862</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>107 (85-145)</td><td>1.7 (0.7-2.8)</td><td>FNR</td><td>90-800</td><td>4.7-25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Promethichthys prometheus (Cuvier, 1832)</td><td>1</td><td>15</td><td>1.2</td><td>154 (112-191)</td><td>20.2 (15.0-34.0)</td><td>FNR</td><td>150</td><td>20.6</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Nomeidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cubiceps pauciradiatus Günther, 1872</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>7.3</td><td>91 (75-129)</td><td>13.2 (6.7-30.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>65-720</td><td>4.9-26.5</td></tr><tr><td>Psenes cyanophrys Valenciennes, 1833</td><td>1-2</td><td>5</td><td>3.7</td><td>86 (14-133)</td><td>38.9 (8.9-70.2)</td><td>FNR</td><td>25-570</td><td>6.3-28.8</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Trichiuridae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aphanopus intermedius Paris, 1983<sup>7</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>720</td><td>550</td><td>FNR</td><td>610</td><td>5.7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>TRACHINIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Chiasmodontidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chiasmodon braueri Weber, 1913</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.2</td><td>82 (70-95)</td><td>2.9 (2.2-3.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Chiasmodon niger Johnson, 1864</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>90</td><td>7.9</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Kali kerberti (Weber, 1913)</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>4.9</td><td>127 (69-170)</td><td>11.8 (1.1-29.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>720-800</td><td>4.6-4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudoscopelus cordilluminatus Melo, 2010<sup>1</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>44 (31-57)</td><td>3.3 (2.2-4.3)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>240-800</td><td>4.7-14.8</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudoscopelus scutatus Krefft, 1971</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>71 (67-75)</td><td>2.3 (2.0-2.7)</td><td>FNR</td><td>430-900</td><td>4.3-8.5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>SCORPAENIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Setarchidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Octreposebastes imus Garman, 1899</td><td>2</td><td>27</td><td>4.9</td><td>167 (29-234)</td><td>144.0 (0.8-290.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>90-800</td><td>4.7-25.1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>CAPROIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Caproidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Antigonia capros Lowe, 1843</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>29</td><td>1.9</td><td>FNR</td><td>440</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Antigonia combatia Berry & Rathjen, 1959</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>38</td><td>2.7</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>LOPHIIFORMES</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ceratiidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ceratias uranoscopus Murray, 1877</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>76</td><td>8.1</td><td>FNR</td><td>800</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Himantolophidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Himantolophus spp.*</td><td>1-2</td><td>13</td><td>12.2</td><td>30 (9-50)</td><td>1.6 (0.5-5.3)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>35-900</td><td>4.6-27.4</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Melanocetidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Melanocetus johnsonii Günther, 1864</td><td>1-2</td><td>5</td><td>4.9</td><td>16 (14-19)</td><td>1.6 (0.7-3.3)</td><td>FNR</td><td>58-900</td><td>4.3-26.6</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Thaumatichthyidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thaumatichthys sp.*<sup>8</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>32</td><td>0.3</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Oneirodidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chaenophryne draco Beebe, 1932</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>72 (55-90)</td><td>60.3 (12.0-108.7)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>680-900</td><td>4.3-5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Chaenophryne ramifera Regan & Trewavas, 1932<sup>8</sup></td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>4.9</td><td>41 (32-50)</td><td>3.6 (2.5-6.2)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>505-800</td><td>4.7-7.0</td></tr><tr><td>Dolopichthys sp.*<sup>8</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>35</td><td>0.7</td><td>FNR</td><td>900-900</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Oneirodes anisacanthus (Regan, 1925)<sup>8</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>39 (30-48)</td><td>3.0 (1.1-4.9)</td><td>FNR</td><td>505-900</td><td>4.3-7.0</td></tr><tr><td>Oneirodes carlsbergi (Regan & Trewavas, 1932)<sup>8</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>59 (19-98)</td><td>32.6 (0.4-64.8)</td><td>FNR-PE</td><td>680-720</td><td>4.9-5.2</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Caulophrynidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Caulophryne sp.*<sup>8</sup></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>6</td><td>0.2</td><td>FNR</td><td>68</td><td>24.5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gigantactinidae</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gigantactis watermani Bertelsen, Pietsch & Lavenberg, 1981<sup>8</sup></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1.2</td><td>170</td><td>45.1</td><td>FNR</td><td>900</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Rhynchactis sp.*<sup>8</sup></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2.4</td><td>78 (42-113)</td><td>6.7 (4.0-9.4)</td><td>FNR-RN</td><td>720-780</td><td>4.6-4.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*Specimen(s) damaged. **Potential new species. ¹Mincarone et al. (2022), ²Mincarone et al. (2021a), ³Villarins et al. (2022), ⁴Afonso et al. (2021), ⁵Eduardo et al. (2019), ⁶Mincarone et al. (2019), ⁷Eduardo et al. (2018b), ⁸Mincarone et al. (2021b).</footnote>

<footnote>Classification follows Nelson et al. (2016), with exceptions noted in Villarins et al. (2022) for the Stomiiformes. Superscript numbers indicate species recorded for the first time in the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone and their respective references.</footnote>
indicating that more species would be recorded with additional
sampling using the same gears (Figure 2). Indeed, richness
estimators indicated that about 100 (50%) additional
mesopelagic species of fishes are expected to occur in the area
(Figure 2). Additionally, 759 specimens representing about 40
fish taxa were sampled. However, they could not be identified to
species level given their small size and/or poor condition. As it
was not possible to determine whether these specimens belong to
species not listed in Table 1, they were placed in a separate list to
ensure a more robust assessment of species diversity
(Supplementary Material 3).

Ranges of standard length (SL) and wet weight for all species
collected on the two surveys are provided in Table 1. Overall, a
wide size range was sampled, from 4 mm (*Diretmoides
pauciradiatus*) to 1,880 mm SL (*Eumecichthys fiski*,
Lophotidae). However, 90% of the specimens measured
between 30 and 200 mm SL (Supplementary Material 4)

The five orders with the highest number of species were the Stomiiformes (at least 62 species, four families), Myctophiformes (35 spp., two families), Aulopiformes (18 spp., seven families), Beryciformes (16 spp., three families), and Lophiiformes (12 spp., seven families), accounting for 70% of the total number of species recorded on the two surveys. Thirteen orders included less than five species each. Considering families, the most representative were the Stomiidae (38 spp.), Myctophidae (34 spp.), Melamphaidae (11 spp.), Sternoptychidae (10 spp.), and Gonostomatidae (7 spp.) (Figure 3). Half of the families (28) were represented by a single species.

In terms of abundance, the most representative families when considering the two surveys were the Myctophidae (Myctophiformes; 36%), Sternoptychidae (Stomiiformes; 26%), Gonostomatidae (Stomiiformes; 16%), Stomiidae (Stomiiformes; 8%), and Melamphaidae (Beryciformes; 2%) (Figure 3). These families together accounted for 88% of all specimens collected. The remaining families represented individually no more than

2% of the total number of specimens collected. At the alpha
taxonomic level, the following taxa represented almost 50% of all
specimens collected: *Sternoptyx diaphana* (14%), *Cyclothone
spp.* (11%; see Discussion), *Diaphus brachycephalus* (6%),
*Argyropelecus affinis* (6%), *Chauliodus sloani* (5%),
*Lampanyctus nobilis* (4%), and *Diaphus perspicillatus* (4%).
About 126 species were represented by five specimens or less,
of which 62 were represented by a single specimen.

Considering biomass, the most representative families were the Myctophidae (24%), Stomiidae (21%), Setarchidae (Scorpaeniformes, 11%), Sternoptychidae (10%), and Melamphaidae (7%) (Figure 3). These families together accounted for 73% of the biomass of all fishes collected. The remaining families individually accounted for less than 4% of the total weight. At the specific level, the following species represented 42% of the biomass: *Ectreposebastes imus* (11%), *Chauliodus sloani* (9%), *Borostomias elucens* (6%), *Eumecichthys fiski* (6%, a single specimen), *Sternoptyx diaphana* (4%), *Melamphaes polylepis* (3%), and *Argyropelecus affinis* (3%).

Distribution, vertical migration,
biodiversity indexes, and size

Based on the two campaigns, 60 species (29%) were recorded
in a wide longitudinal distribution (Table 1). In contrast, 133
species (64%) were collected only in a few localities, with 116
being restricted to the Fernando de Noronha Ridge area, which
aggregates most specimens collected (Table 1). Considering
depth and period, the highest diversity, abundance, and
biomass were found between depths of 700 and 1,000 m
during the day (Figure 4). At night, the highest number of
species was recorded at lower mesopelagic depths (500–1,000
m). However, much larger values of number of species,
abundance, and biomass were detected in shallow waters (0–

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2
Species accumulation (S) and Chao1 estimator for ABRACOS 1 and 2 together. Dashed lines represent the confidence interval of 95%.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3</figcaption></figure>

Main mesopelagic fish families collected on the surveys ABRACOS 1 and ABRACOS 2 when considering diversity, abundance, and biomass. Fish images represent only examples of species included in the group.

200 m), likely reflecting the ascent in the water column of several species at night. At least 50 species seem to have a wide range of depth distribution and tolerance to variations in water temperature (up to 800 m and 25°C; e.g., species of Sternoptychidae and Myctophidae). However, 66 species seem to be restricted to deeper (> 600 m) and colder waters (< 6° C) regardless of the time period (e.g., Lophiiformes and Beryciformes; Table 1).

Significant differences in biodiversity indexes (calculated only for ABS2, see methodology) were found when considering diel periods and depth. Higher values of richness and diversity were found in lower mesopelagic waters and during the daytime. However, dominance values were significantly higher in epipelagic waters and also during daytime (Figure 5). Detailed values for the calculated indexes are given in the Supplementary Material 5.

# Discussion

## Diversity and distribution

Based on our two campaigns, at least 201 species of mesopelagic fishes occur in the SWTA. Results also indicate that about 100 additional species could have been collected if sampling efforts were increased. The taxonomically diverse pool of mesopelagic species recorded in our surveys also reveals a vast array of diversity not only in terms of the number of species but also in terms of size, anatomy, and behaviour. In a recent global

biogeographic classification of the mesopelagic zone (Sutton et al., 2017), the Tropical and western Equatorial Atlantic, which is the larger area encompassing the SWTA, was not considered a region particularly diverse in terms of mesopelagic fishes. However, the mesopelagic species richness revealed by our two campaigns is higher than those reported for other parts of the world, such as the Mediterranean (25 spp.; Olivar et al., 2012), central Equatorial Pacific (113 spp.; Barnett, 1984), southwestern Indian Ocean (121 spp.; Cherel et al., 2020), eastern Equatorial Atlantic (132 spp.; Olivar et al., 2017), and South China Sea (169 spp.; Wang et al., 2019). The species richness of mesopelagic fishes in the SWTA is actually more similar to that reported for the North Pacific (228 spp.; Barnett, 1984) and the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 300 spp.; Sutton et al., 2020), which are considered as comprising some of the most speciose deep-sea ichthyofaunas of the world (Sutton et al., 2017). Major factors driving deep-sea biodiversity, such as climate, seabed structure, water masses, and phylogenetic history, are likely responsible for the variation in species richness of different parts of the world. However, an asymmetry in collecting effort is certainly affecting the values recorded so far. In the Gulf of Mexico, a much higher sampling effort has been deployed to assess the deep-sea diversity compared with most regions of the world, with several expeditions conducted only in the last decade (Sutton et al., 2020). That situation is in striking contrast with the SWTA, where just a handful of expeditions to assess deep-sea diversity have been conducted in the last centuries.

The relatively high number of mesopelagic species of fishes recorded in our two campaigns is likely related to the diversity of
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4
Sample-size-based rarefaction (solid line segment) and extrapolation (dotted line segments) sampling curves for species richness, diversity, and dominance of mesopelagic fish data at different depth categories and diel periods. Curves include the confidence intervals of 95% (shaded areas). For this analysis, only species recorded in the ABRACOS 2 survey were considered.</figcaption></figure>

habitats and the high variability of oceanographic processes of the SWTA. Despite being located in an oligotrophic portion of the ocean, this region is also characterized by the presence of underwater canyons, oceanic islands, and several seamounts that interact with local currents and enhance marine productivity (Travassos et al., 1999; Tchamabi et al., 2017; Costa da Silva et al., 2021). As an example, small uplifting processes have been reported along the shelf-break and oceanic islands of the region (Travassos et al., 1999; MMA, 2006; Tchamabi et al., 2017; Silva et al., 2022), a situation that has been directly associated with the occurrence of hotspots of fish biodiversity (Hazin, 1993; Eduardo et al., 2018; Eduardo et al., 2020a). Distinct biogeographic provinces, with different thermodynamic features, current systems and water mass properties, are also

present in the SWTA (Bourlès et al., 1999; Assunção et al., 2020; Costa da Silva et al., 2021; Dossa et al., 2021; Tosetto et al., 2021). This results in a high complexity of habitats and oceanographic conditions that likely contribute to higher levels of species diversity (Levin et al., 2001).

The highest levels of richness and diversity (considering only specimens collected during AB2, see methodology) were found at lower mesopelagic depths (500–1,000 m), with several species collected only at these depths (e.g., species of the Beryciformes and Lophiiformes). Interestingly, many of these species are considered bathypelagic and/or benthopelagic (Priede, 2017; Melo et al., 2020). The collection of those species in mesopelagic waters is likely related to the presence of seamounts and oceanic islands. In addition to being related to
Diversity

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Abundance

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Biomass

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5
Number of species and average values of abundance (individuals hour⁻¹) and biomass (kg hour⁻¹ x 10²) of mesopelagic species of fishes collected on the survey ABRACOS 2. *Depth strata not sampled.</figcaption></figure>
an increase in habitat complexity, seamounts may increase the occurrence of pelagic and benthic predators that actively seek these areas to hunt for prey trapped by flow-topographic processes (Cascão et al., 2019). For instance, in the Azorean seamounts plateau, the micronekton community is dominated by non- or weakly migratory benthopelagic fishes (Cascão et al., 2019). In summary, our results also seem to indicate that seamounts play a significant role in the biodiversity structuring and ecology of mesopelagic fishes in the SWTA.

The two surveys conducted during this study resulted in different patterns of species richness. For example, 17 species were exclusively recorded in AB1 (mesopelagic trawl), whereas 136 species were recorded only in AB2 (micronekton trawl). The two campaigns were conducted in different seasons. However, since the study area is located in a tropical region, few oceanographic differences were noted in the mesopelagic zone (for further info refer to Assunção et al., 2020; Costa da Silva et al., 2021; Dossa et al., 2021). Therefore, the significant disparity in species richness between the two expeditions is clearly related to differences in sampling strategies. The use of multiple sampling gears is vital to maximizing the representation of fish diversity (Magurran, 2004), especially in the deep-sea. However, the sampling strategy used in AB2, which included the use of larger gear, with greater mesh sizes, deeper hauls, and broader sampling area, resulted in the collection of a higher number of specimens of different species in a broader size range (Supplementary Material 2 and 3).

In terms of taxonomic composition, five families of the Teleostei accounted for 52% of the species richness, 88% of the specimens, and 66% of the total biomass collected on the two surveys: the Stomiidae (38 spp., 8% of the specimens, 21% of the biomass), Myctophidae (34 spp., 36%, 24%), Melamphaidae (11 spp., 2%, 7%), Sternoptychidae (9 spp., 26%, 10%), and Gonostomatidae (7 spp., 16%, 4%). These families, therefore, seem to be the most represented in the mesopelagic fish fauna of the SWTA. The dominance of these families in mesopelagic waters has also been reported in other parts of the world (e.g., Gjøsaeter and Kawaguchi, 1980; Olivar et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019; Cherel et al., 2020). A strong pattern of dominance was also observed within these families, with few species accounting for 50% of the total number of specimens: *Sternoptyx diaphana* (14%), *Cyclothone* spp. (11%), *Argyropelecus affinis* (6%), *Diaphus brachycephalus* (6%), *Chauliodus sloani* (5%), *Diaphus perspicillatus* (4%), and *Lampanyctus nobilis* (4%). The pattern of dominance at the species level detected in the SWTA was, however, distinct from other parts of the world. In the Eastern Tropical Atlantic, for instance, the lanternfishes *B. suborbitale*, *C. warmingii*, and *H. macrochir* were dominant (Olivar et al., 2017), whereas these same species were considered rare in our study. The viperfish *C. sloani* is usually globally recorded in low abundances (e.g., Olivar et al., 2017;

Wang et al., 2019; Cherel et al., 2020), whereas the species is among the most relevant mesopelagic species in the SWTA considering the abundance and total weight (Eduardo et al., 2020c). These differences in the pattern of dominance at the species level in different parts of the world are likely associated with different sampling strategies employed and differences in oceanographic and biogeographic features (e.g., seabed structure, water masses, and hydrographic fronts), which are major factors driving the structure and composition of mesopelagic assemblages (Hulley and Krefft, 1985; Olivar et al., 2017; Cascão et al., 2019). *Cyclotone* is another seemingly abundant genus of mesopelagic fish in the SWTA (Olivar et al., 2017). Eight species of the genus were reported for the SWTA: *C. acclinidens*, *C. alba*, *C. braueri*, *C. microdon*, *C. obscura*, *C. pallida*, *C. parapallida*, and *C. pseudopallida* (Villarins et al., 2022). The sampling gears employed in the study, however, seemed to be only partially adequate to collect specimens of the genus. In several trawls we observed onboard that a substantial number of specimens of *Cyclothone* escaped back into the sea during the hoisting of the net. Additionally, given their poor condition of preservation, specimens of the genus could not be identified at species level. Therefore, the abundance of species of *Cyclothone* presented here is underestimated.

## Notable records

Among the 201 species of mesopelagic fishes recorded during the ABRACOS expeditions, 50 (25%) represent new records for Brazilian waters, all of which have been dealt with in a series of recent papers (Table 1). In addition to these new records, eight species (five *Eustomias*, one *Melanostomias*, one *Melamphaes*, and one *Poromitra*) are potentially new and will be formally described later. Several species recorded here are also rare worldwide, and their occurrence in the SWTA adds new information on their global distribution. For instance, three specimens of *Platyberyx paucus* and one of *Platyberyx pietschi* were collected during the AB2. Before these records, only four specimens of *P. paucus* were known, from the central North Pacific and western Central Atlantic. *Platyberyx pietschi*, in turn, was known from just two specimens collected in the western Central Atlantic, one specimen collected in the central Pacific, and another from the western South Pacific (Stevenson and Kenaley, 2013; Mincarone et al., 2019). Other species considered rare worldwide that were collected in the ABRACOS expeditions are *Aulotrachichthys argyrophanus*, *Rhynchohyalus natalensis*, *Eumecichthys fiski*, *Macrouroides inflaticeps*, *Pseudoscopelus cordilluminatus*, *Melamphaes leprus*, and *Gigantactis watermani* (Pimentel et al., 2020; Afonso et al., 2021; Mincarone et al., 2021b; Mincarone et al., 2022).
## Role of international cooperation for the decade of deep ocean science

The high number of new records made during the ABRACOS expeditions reflects not only the high diversity of the SWTA, but also the overall lack of scientific information on deep-sea diversity in the region, as noted previously (e.g., Reis et al., 2016; Mincarone et al., 2022). The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science roadmap recognizes the deep-sea as a frontier of science and discovery (Ryabinin et al., 2019). There is an unequal capacity to conduct science among nations, with developing economies facing substantial barriers to participating in deep-sea research. Consequently, the least-studied parts of the deep-sea are located off the least economically developed countries (Howell et al., 2020). These biases are highlighted by the fact that a French research institution financed the surveys described here, and that those expeditions are among the very few that have addressed the mesopelagic ichthyofauna of Brazil. To achieve sustainability, we need a well-known and predictable ocean. Only by thinking globally and strengthening international cooperation we will develop an ocean research that corrects asymmetry in funding and knowledge among countries, meeting the crucial need for a more encompassing deep-sea knowledge aimed at the conservation and sustainable use of its unique habitats.

## Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

## Ethics statement

All collecting methods and specimen handling procedures were approved and carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (SISBIO; authorization number: 47270-5).

## Author contributions

All co-authors declare no competing interests and agree with the submission of this manuscript. All authors significantly contributed to the development of the article.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the French oceanographic fleet for funding the at-sea survey ABRACOS, and the officers and crew of the RV Antea for their contribution to the success of the operations. Thanks also to the BIOIMPACT (UFRPE) and LIZ (UFRJ) students for

their support. For providing literature we thank Alexei Orlov (P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology), Artem Prokofiev (A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution), Jørgen Nielsen (Natural History Museum of Denmark), Ron Fricke (State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart), Sergei Evseenko (in memorian, P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology), and Thomas Munroe (National Systematics Laboratory, NOAA). This study is part of the PhD thesis conducted by the first author, who is especially grateful to members of the examination committee, Anne Lebourges-Dhaussy, Emmanuel Paradis, Heino Fock, Juan Carlos Molinero, Luiz A. Rocha, Paulo Travassos, Rosângela Lessa, and Yves Cherel, for their critical reviews and constructive comments. CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) provided a student scholarship to Leandro Eduardo, who is also supported by FUNBIO and Humanize under the grant "Programa Bolsas Funbio - Conservando o Futuro 2018" (011/2019). We thank CNPq (Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) for providing research grants to Flávia Lucena-Frédou, Thierry Frédou, and Michael Mincarone (grants 308554/2019-1, 307422/2020-8, and 314644/2020-2, respectively). Gabriel Afonso was supported by PIBIC/CNPq, Bárbara Villarins was supported by PIBIC/CNPq and PROTAX/CNPq (443302/2020), and Júlia Martins was supported by CAPES, FUNBIO, and PROTAX/CNPq (443302/2020). This study is a contribution to the LMI TAPIOCA, program CAPES/COFECUB (88881.142689/2017-01), EU H2020 TRIATLAS project (grant agreement 817578). The NPM Fish Collection is supported by the Project MULTIPESCA (FUNBIO) under the grant 'Pesquisa Marinha e Pesqueira' and FAPERJ (grant E-26/210.290/2021).

## Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

## Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.937154/full#supplementary-material
## References

Afonso, G. V. F., Di Dario, F., Eduardo, L. N., Lucena-Frédou, F., Bertrand, A., and Mincarone, M. M. (2021). Taxonomy and distribution of deep-sea bigscales and whalefishes (Teleostei: Stephanoberycoidae) collected off northeastern Brazil, including seamounts and oceanic islands. *Ichthyol. Herpetol.* 109 (2), 467–488. doi: 10.1643/i2020069

Ariza, A., Garijo, J. C., Landeira, J. M., Bordes, F., and Hernández-León, S. (2015). Migrant biomass and respiratory carbon flux by zooplankton and micronekton in the subtropical northeast Atlantic ocean (Canary islands). *Prog. Oceanogr.* 134, 330–342. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2015.03.003

Assunção, R. V., Silva, A. C., Roy, A., Bourlès, B., Silva, C., Ternon, J.-F., et al. (2020). 3D characterisation of the thermohaline structure in the southwestern tropical Atlantic derived from functional data analysis of *in situ* profiles. *Prog. Oceanogr.* 187, 102399. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2020.102399

Barnett, M. A. (1984). Mesopelagic fish zoogeography in the central tropical and subtropical pacific ocean: species composition and structure at representative locations in three ecosystems. *Mar. Biol.* 82, 199–208. doi: 10.1007/BF00394103

Bernardes, R. A., Rossi-Wongtschowski, C. L. D. B., Wahrlich, R., and Vieira, R. C. (2005). Prospecção pesqueira de recursos demersais com armadilhas e pargueiras na zona económica exclusiva da região sudeste-sul do Brasil. *Serie Documentos REVIZEZ/Score-Sul*.

Bertrand, A. (2015) *ABRACOS cruise, R/V antea*. 10.17600/15005600

Bertrand, A. (2017) *ABRACOS 2 cruise, R/V antea*. 10.17600/17004100

Bourlès, B., Gouriou, Y., and Chuchla, R. (1999). On the circulation in the upper layer of the western equatorial Atlantic. *J. Geophys. Res. Ocean.* 104, 21151–21170. doi: 10.1029/1999jc900058

Cascão, I., Domokos, R., Lammers, M. O., Santos, R. S., and Silva, M. A. (2019). Seamount effects on the diel vertical migration and spatial structure of micronekton. *Prog. Oceanogr.* 175, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.POCEAN.2019.03.008

Cavan, E. L., Laurenceau-Cornec, E. C., Bressac, M., and Boyd, P. W. (2019). Exploring the ecology of the mesopelagic biological pump. *Prog. Oceanogr.* 176, 102–125. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2019.102125

CBD (2014). "Ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBAS)," in *Special places in the world's oceans, 2nd ed* (Recife: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity).

Chao, A., Gotelli, N. J., Hsieh, T. C., Sander, E. L., Ma, K. H., Colwell, R. K., et al. (2014). Rarefaction and extrapolation with hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. *Ecol. Monogr.* 84, 45–67. doi: 10.1890/13-0133.1

Cherel, Y., Fontaine, C., Richard, P., and Labat, J. P. (2010). Isotopic niches and trophic levels of myctophid fishes and their predators in the southern ocean. *Limnol. Oceanogr.* 55, 324–332. doi: 10.4319/lo.2010.55.1.0324

Cherel, Y., Romanov, E. V., Annasawmy, P., Thibault, D., and Ménard, F. (2020). Micronektonic fish species over three seamounts in the southwestern Indian ocean. *Deep. Res. Part II* 176, 102161. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104777

Costa, P., Olavo, G., and Martins, A (2007). *Biodiversidade da fauna marinha profunda na costa central brasileira*. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional

Costa da Silva, A., Chaigneau, A., Dossa, A. N., Eldin, G., Araujo, M., and Bertrand, A. (2021). Surface circulation and vertical structure of upper ocean variability around Fernando de Noronha Archipelago and rocas atoll during spring 2015 and fall 2017. *Front. Mar. Sci.* 8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.598101

Costa, P. A. S., and Mincarone, M. M. (2010). Biodiversidade da região océanica profunda da Bacia de Campos: Megafauna e ictiofauna demersal. *SAG Serv Rio Janeiro* pp, 295–373.

Costa, P. A. S., Mincarone, M. M., Braga, A. C., Martins, A. S., Lavrado, H. P., Haimovici, M., et al. (2015). Megafaunal communities along a depth gradient on the tropical Brazilian continental margin. *Mar. Biol. Res.* 11, 1053–1064. doi: 10.1080/17451000.2015.1062521

Dossa, A. N., Costa da Silva, A., Chaigneau, A., Eldin, G., Araujo, M., and Bertrand, A. (2021). Near-surface western boundary circulation off northeast Brazil. *Prog. Oceanogr.* 190, 102475. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2020.102475

Drazen, J. C., Smith, C. R., Gjerde, K. M., Haddock, S. H. D., Carter, G. S., Choy, C. A., et al. (2020). Midwater ecosystems must be considered when evaluating environmental risks of deep-sea mining. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.* 117, 17455–17460. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2011914117

Eduardo, L., Frédou, T., Lira, A. S., Ferreira, B. P., Bertrand, A., Ménard, F., et al. (2018). Identifying key habitat and spatial patterns of fish biodiversity in the tropical Brazilian continental shelf. *Cont. Shelf Res.* 166, 108–118. doi: 10.1016/j.csr.2018.07.002

Eduardo, L. N., Villarins, B. T., Lucena-Frédou, F., Frédou, T., Lira, A. S., Bertrand, A., et al. (2018b). First record of the intermediate scabbardfish *Aphanopus intermedius* (Scombriformes: Trichiuridae) in the western South Atlantic Ocean. *J. Fish Biol.* 93, 992–5. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13796

Eduardo, L. N., Villarins, B. T., Martins, J. R., Lucena-Frédou, F., Frédou, T., Lira, A. S., et al. (2019). Deep-sea oceanic basslets (Perciformes, Howellidae) from Brazil: New records and range extensions. *Check List* 15, 965–971. doi: 10.15560/15.6.965

Eduardo, L. N., Bertrand, A., Frédou, T., Lira, A. S., Lima, R. S., Ferreira, B. P., et al. (2020a). Biodiversity, ecology, fisheries, and use and trade of tetraodontiformes fishes reveal their socio-ecological significance along the tropical Brazilian continental shelf. *Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.* 30, 761–774. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3278

Eduardo, L. N., Bertrand, A., Mincarone, M. M., Santos Silva, L. V., Frédou, T., Assunção, R. V., et al. (2020b). Hatchetfishes (Stomiiformes: Sternoptychidae) biodiversity, trophic ecology, vertical niche partitioning and functional roles in the western tropical Atlantic. *Prog. Oceanogr.* 186, 102389. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2020.102389

Eduardo, L. N., Mincarone, M. M., Lucena-Frédou, F., Martins, J. R., Afonso, G. V. F., Villarins, B. T., et al. (2020c). Length-weight relationship of twelve mesopelagic fishes from the western tropical Atlantic. *J. Appl. Ichthyol.* 36, 845–848. doi: 10.1111/jai.14084

Eduardo, L. N., Bertrand, A., Mincarone, M. M., Martins, J. R., Frédou, T., Assunção, R. V., et al. (2021). Distribution, vertical migration, and trophic ecology of lanternfishes (Myctophidae) in the southwestern tropical Atlantic. *Prog. Oceanogr.* 199, 102695. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2021.102695

Ferreira, G. V. B., Justino, A. K. S., Eduardo, L. N., Lenoble, V., Fauvelle, V., Schmidt, N., et al. (2022). Plastic in the inferno: Microplastic contamination in deep-sea cephalopods (*Vampyroteuthis infernalis* and *Abralia veranyi*) from the southwestern Atlantic. *Mar. Pollut. Bull.* 174. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113309

Figueiredo, J., Santos, A., Yamaguti, N., Bernardes, R., and Rossi-Wongtschowski, C. L. D. (2002). *Peixes da zona económica exclusiva da região sudeste-sul do Brasil: levantamento com rede de meia-água* (São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo).

Gjosaeter, J., and Kawaguchi, K. (1980). A review of the world resources of mesopelagic fish. *FAO Fish. Tech. Pap.* 193, 123–134.

Glover, A. G., Wiklund, H., Chen, C., and Dahlgren, T. G. (2018). Point of view: Managing a sustainable deep-sea 'blue economy' requires knowledge of what actually lives there. *Elife* 7. doi: 10.7554/eLife.41319

Gotelli, N. J., and Colwell, R. K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. *Ecol. Lett.* 4, 379–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x

Günther, A. (1887). Report on the deep-sea fishes collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76, in: Thomson C.W. (Ed.), Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873-76. *Zoology* 22 (57), i-lxv + 1–268, Pls. 1–66.

Hazin, F. V. (1993). *Fisheries – oceanographical study of tunas, billfishes and sharks in the southwestern equatorial Atlantic Ocean. (Thesis)* (Tokyo: Tokyo University of Fisheries).

Hidalgo, M., and Browman, H. I. (2019). Developing the knowledge base needed to sustainably manage mesopelagic resources. *ICES J. Mar. Sci.* 76, 609–615. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsz067

Howell, K. L., Hilário, A., Allcock, A. L., Bailey, D., Baker, M., Clark, M. R., et al. (2020). A decade to study deep-sea life. *Nat. Ecol. Evol.* 6, 470. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01352-5

Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H., and Chao, A. (2016). iNEXT: an r package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). *Methods Ecol. Evol.* 7, 1451–1456. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12613

Hulley, P. A., and Kreff, G. (1985). A zoogeographic analysis of the fishes of the family Myctophidae (Osteichthyes, Myctophiformes) from the 1979-Sargasso Sea expedition of RV *Anton Dohrn*. *Ann. S. Afr. Mus.* 96 (2), 19–53.

Irigoien, X., Klevjer, T. A., Røstad, A., Martinez, U., Boyra, G., Acuña, J. L., et al. (2014). Large Mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. *Nat. Commun.* 5, 3271. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4271

Justino, A. K. S., Ferreira, G. V. B., Schmidt, N., Eduardo, L. N., Fauvelle, V., Lenoble, V., et al. (2022). The role of mesopelagic fishes as microplastics vectors across the deep-sea layers from the southwestern tropical Atlantic. *Environ. Pollut.* 300, 118988. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118988

Levin, L., Baker, M., and Thomson, A. (2019). *Deep-ocean climate change impacts on habitat, fish and fisheries* (Rome: FAO).

Levin, L. A., Etter, R. J., Rex, M. A., Gooday, A. J., Smith, C. R., Pineda, J., et al. (2001). Environmental influences on regional deep-sea species diversity. *Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.* 32, 51–93. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114002
Lins Oliveira, J. E., Nóbrega, M. F., Garcia Júnior, J., Sampaio, C. L. S., Di Dario, F., Fischer, L. G., et al. (2015). *Biodiversidade marinha da bacia Potiguar/RN: Peixes do talude continental* (Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional).

Lima, A. T., Costa, P. A. S., Braga, A. C., Nunan, G. W. A., and Mincarone, M. M. (2011). Fishes of the family Sternoptychidae (Stomiiformes) collected on the Brazilian continental slope between 11° and 23°S. *Zootaxa* 2742, 34–48. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.2742.1.2

Magurran, A. E. (2004). *Measuring biological diversity* (Malden: Blackwell Pub).

Martin, A., Boyd, P., Buesseler, K., Cetinic, I., Claustre, H., Giering, S., et al. (2020). The oceans' twilight zone must be studied now, before it is too late. *Nature* 580, 26–28. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00915-7

Melo, M. R. S., Caires, R. A., and Sutton, T. T. (2020). “The scientific explorations for deep-sea fishes in Brazil: The known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns” in *Brazilian Deep-sea biodiversity*. Eds. P. Y. G. Sumida, A. F. Bernardino and F. C. Léo (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Netherlands), 153–216.

Mincarone, M. M., Afonso, G. V. F., Di Dario, F., Eduardo, L. N., Frédou, T., Lucena-Frédou, F., et al. (2021b). Deep-sea anglerfishes (Lophiiformes: Ceratioidae) from off northeastern Brazil, with remarks on the ceratioids reported from the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone. *Neotrop. Ichthyol.* 19 (2), 1–28. doi: 10.1590/1982-0224-2020-0151

Mincarone, M. M., Di Dario, F., and Costa, P. A. S. (2014). Deep-sea bigscales, pricklefishes, gibberfishes and whalefishes (Teleostei: Stephanoberycoidei) off Brazil: New records, range extensions for the south-western Atlantic ocean and remarks on the taxonomy of *Poromitra*. *J. Fish Biol.* 85, 1546–1570. doi: 10.1111/jfb.12515

Mincarone, M. M., Eduardo, L. N., Di Dario, F., Frédou, T., Bertrand, A., and Lucena-Frédou, F. (2022). New records of rare deep-sea fishes (Teleostei) collected from off northeastern Brazil, including seamounts and islands of the Fernando de Noronha Ridge. *J. Fish Biol.* 100. doi: 10.1111/jfb.15155

Mincarone, M. M., Martins, A. S., Costa, P. A. S., Braga, A. C., and Haimovici, M. (2017). “Peixes marinhos da bacia de Campos: uma revisão da diversidade,” in *Comunidades demersais e bioconstrutores: caracterização ambiental regional da bacia de Campos, Atlântico Sudoeste*. Eds. M. P. Curbelo-Fernandez and A. C. Braga (Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier), 187–216.

Mincarone, M. M., Martins, J. R., Di Dario, F., Eduardo, L. N., Frédou, T., Lucena-Frédou, F., et al. (2021a). Deep-sea smelts, pencil smelts, and barreleyes (Teleostei: Argentiniformes) from oceanic islands and seamounts off northeastern Brazil. *Mar. Biol. Res.* 16 (10), 762–773. doi: 10.1080/17451000.2021.1891806

Mincarone, M. M., Villarins, B. T., Eduardo, L. N., Caires, R. A., Lucena-Frédou, F., Frédou, T., et al. (2019). Deep-sea manefishes (Perciformes: Caristiidae) from oceanic islands and seamounts off northeastern Brazil, with comments on the caristiids previously reported in Brazilian waters. *Mar. Biol. Res.* 15 (3), 297–304. doi: 10.1080/17451000.2019.1636281

MMA (2006). *Programa REVIZEE: avaliação do potencial sustentável de recursos vivos da Zona Econômica Exclusiva do Brasil - relatório executivo* (Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente).

Nelson, J. S., Grande, T. C., and Wilson, M. V. H. (2016). *Fish of the world, 5th ed* (John. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons).

Oksanen, J., Guillaume Blanchet, F., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Dan McGlinn, P. R. M., Simpson, L., et al. (2017). *Vegan: Community ecology package*.

Olivar, M. P., Bernal, A., Molí, B., Peña, M., Balbin, R., Castellón, A., et al. (2012). Vertical distribution, diversity and assemblages of mesopelagic fishes in the western Mediterranean. *Deep. Res. Part I* 62, 53–69. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2011.12.014

Olivar, M. P., Hulley, P. A., Castellón, A., Emelianov, M., López, C., Tuset, V. M., et al. (2017). Mesopelagic fishes across the tropical and equatorial Atlantic: Biogeographical and vertical patterns. *Prog. Oceanogr.* 151, 116–137. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2016.12.001

Parin, N. V., Andriashev, A. P., Borodulina, O. D., and Tchuvasov, V. M. (1974). Midwater fishes of the southwestern Atlantic ocean. *Tr. Inst. Okeanol. Akad. Nauk. SSSR* 98, 70–140.

Pimentel, C. R., Rocha, L. A., Shepherd, B., Phelps, T. A. Y., Joyeux, J.-C., Martins, A. S., et al. (2020). Mesophotic ecosystems at Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, Brazil (South-western Atlantic), reveal unique ichthyofauna and need for conservation. *Neotrop. Ichthyol.* 18. doi: 10.1590/1982-0224-2020-0050

Pinheiro, H. T., Rocha, L. A., Macieira, R. M., Carvalho-Filho, A., Anderson, A. B., Bender, M. G., et al. (2018). South-western Atlantic reef fishes: Zoogeographical patterns and ecological drivers reveal a secondary biodiversity centre in the Atlantic ocean. *Divers. Distrib.* 24, 951–965. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12729

Priede, I. G. (2017). *Deep-sea fishes: Biology, diversity, ecology and fisheries* (New York: Cambridge University Press). doi: 10.1017/9781316018330

Reis, R. E., Albert, J. S., Di Dario, F., Mincarone, M. M., Petry, P., and Rocha, L. (2016). Fish biodiversity and conservation in South America. *J. Fish Biol.* 89, 12–47. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13016

Ryabinin, V., Barbière, J., Haugan, P., Kullenberg, G., Smith, N., McLean, C., et al. (2019). The UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development. *Front. Mar. Sci.* 6. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00470

Séret, B., and Andreata, J. (1992). Deep-sea fishes collected during cruise MD-55 off Brazil. *Cybium* 16, 81–100.

Silva, M. V. B., Ferreira, B., Maida, M., Queiroz, S., Silva, M., Varona, H. L., et al. (2022). Flow-topography interactions in the western tropical Atlantic boundary off northeast Brazil. *J. Mar. Syst.* 227, 103690. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2021.103690

Stevenson, D. E., and Kenaley, C. P. (2013). Revision of the manefish genera *Caristius* and *Platyberyx* (Teleostei: Percomorpha: Caristiidae), with descriptions of five new species. *Copeia* 2013(3):415–434. doi: 10.1643/CI-12-086

St. John, M. A. S., Borja, A., Chust, G., Heath, M., Grigorov, I., Mariani, P., et al. (2016). A dark hole in our understanding of marine ecosystems and their services: Perspectives from the mesopelagic community. *Front. Mar. Sci.* 3. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00031

Sutton, T. T. (2013). Vertical ecology of the pelagic ocean: Classical patterns and new perspectives. *J. Fish Biol.* 83, 1508–1527. doi: 10.1111/jfb.12263

Sutton, T. T., Clark, M. R., Dunn, D. C., Halpin, P. N., Rogers, A. D., Guinotte, J., et al. (2017). A global biogeographic classification of the mesopelagic zone. *Deep. Res. Part I* 126, 85–102. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2017.05.006

Sutton, T., Frank, T., Judkins, H., and Romero, I. C. (2020). “As gulf oil extraction goes deeper, who is at risk? community structure, distribution, and connectivity of the deep-pelagic fauna,” in *Scenarios and responses to future deep oil spills*. Eds. S. Murawski, C. Ainsworth, S. Gilbert, D. Hollander, C. Paris, M. Schlüter and D. Wetzel (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland), 403–418. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12963-7

Tchamabi, C. C., Araujo, M., Silva, M., and Bourlés, B. (2017). A study of the Brazilian Fernando de Noronha island and Rocas Atoll wakes in the tropical Atlantic. *Ocean Model.* 111, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2016.12.009

Tosetto, E. G., Bertrand, A., Neumann-Leitão, S. A. C., and Nogueira Júnior, M. (2021). Spatial patterns in planktonic cnidarian distribution in the western boundary current system of the tropical South Atlantic Ocean. *J. Plankton Res.* 43 (2), 270–287. doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbaa066

Travassos, P., Hazin, F. V., and Zagaglia, J. R. (1999). Thermohaline structure around seamounts and islands off north-eastern Brazil. *Arch. Fish. Mar. Res.* 47, 211–222.

Villarins, B. T., Di Dario, F., Eduardo, L. N., Lucena-Frédou, F., Bertrand, A., Prokofiev, A. M., et al. (2022). Deep-sea dragonfishes (Teleostei: Stomiiformes) collected from off northeastern Brazil, with a review of the species reported from the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone. *Neotrop. Ichthyol.* 20 (2). doi: 10.1590/1982-0224-2022-0004

Wang, X., Zhang, J., Zhao, X., Chen, Z., Ying, Y., Li, Z., et al. (2019). Vertical distribution and diel migration of mesopelagic fishes on the northern slope of the south China sea. *Deep. Res. Part II* 167, 128–141. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2019.05.009