Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-05-4 

U.S. Department of Commerce August 2005 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

Marine Sanctuaries Division 

Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus 

Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci

Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic telemetry
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Sanctuary Division (MSD)

administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Its mission is to identify, designate, 

protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic 

resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and marine areas. The existing marine 

sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and historical resources and include nearshore and 

open ocean areas ranging in size from less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected 

habitats include rocky coasts, kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard 

and soft bottom habitats, segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks. 

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine sanctuary 

has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and 

enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these programs is fundamental to 

marine protected area management. The Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and 

supports this integration by providing a forum for publication and discussion of the complex 

issues currently facing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Topics of published reports 

vary substantially and may include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on 

resource management issues, and results of scientific research and monitoring projects. The 

series facilitates integration of natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, 

education, and policy development to accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource 

protection mandate. 
Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus 

Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci

Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic telemetry

James Lindholm1,2

, Les Kaufman3, Steven Miller4, Adam Wagschal2 and Melinda Newville3 

1) Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

2) Corresponding Author’s Present Affiliation: Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research 

3) Boston University Marine Program 

4) National Undersea Research Center at the University of North Carolina 

 

Silver Spring, Maryland

August 2005

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (USN-ret.) 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service 

Richard W. Spinrad, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator 

Marine Sanctuaries Division

Daniel J. Basta, Director 
DISCLAIMER 

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, nor does the 

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

use. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Program web site at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be available from the 

following address: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 Marine Sanctuaries Division

 SSMC4, N/ORM62 

 1305 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

COVER 

Top: Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus Bloch 1790. Photo Credit: Virginia O. Skinner 

Bottom: Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci Poey 1860. Photo Credit: University of 

Massachusetts. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Lindholm, J., L. Kaufman, S. Miller, A. Wagschal & M. Newville. 2005. Movement of 

yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci

Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic 

telemetry. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-05-4. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine Sanctuaries Division, Silver Spring, 

MD. 17 pp. 

CONTACT

James Lindholm, Ph.D. 

Senior Research Biologist 

Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research (PIER) 

901-B Pier View Way 

Oceanside, CA 92054 

Phone: (760) 721-1441 

Email: james@pier.org
ABSTRACT 

We tagged a total of 14 yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Bloch 1790) and black grouper 

(Mycteroperca bonaci Poey 1860) inside the Conch Reef Research Only Area (a no-take marine 

reserve) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in November 2001. Both 

species are heavily exploited in the region. Our objective was to characterize site fidelity and 

movement behavior along the reef tract to the north and south of the release point. Fishes were 

collected by baited hook and line from the surface, surgically-tagged with coded-acoustic 

transmitters, and returned to the reef by snorkelers. Tracking of fish movement behavior was 

conducted by five acoustic receivers deployed on the seafloor from Davis Reef in the south to 

Pickles Reef in the north. Fishes were tracked for up to eight months. Results indicated that the 

majority of signal detections for individual fish from both species were recorded at the two 

Conch Reef receivers. Limited movement from Conch Reef to Davis Reef was recorded, but no 

signal detections were recorded at the two sites to the north of Conch Reef. These results suggest 

that both species show site fidelity to Conch Reef. Future studies will seek to characterize this 

site fidelity with increased temporal and spatial resolution at Conch Reef. 

KEY WORDS 

Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus, black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci, acoustic telemetry, 

marine reserves, site fidelity, movement patterns, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Topic Page

Abstract................................................................................................................... i 

Table of Contents.................................................................................................... ii 

List of Figures......................................................................................................... iii 

Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 

Methods................................................................................................................... 2 

Results..................................................................................................................... 4

Discussion............................................................................................................... 11 

Acknowledgements................................................................................................. 13 

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 14 

ii 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Number and Title Page

Figure 1 

Map of Study Area in the Northern FKNMS ............................................................... 3 

Figure 2 

Recorded Time At-Liberty for Tagged O. chrysurus .................................................... 4 

Figure 3 

Recorded Time At-Liberty for Tagged M. bonaci.................................................. 5 

Figure 4 

Movement of Tagged O. chrysurus Fish 1-3 in 15- and 30-Minute Bins........................ 8 

Figure 5 

Movement of Tagged O. chrysurus Fish 7-9 in 15- and 30-Minute Bins............... 9 

Figure 6 

Movement of Tagged M. bonaci Fish 1, 3, 4 and 5 in 15- and 30-Minute Bins............... 10 

iii 

INTRODUCTION 

Members of the grouper-snapper complex are mostly long-lived and like many other 

species in the Florida Keys have been the focus of high-intensity commercial and recreational 

fishing pressure for more than 40 years (Thompson and Munro, 1978; Bohnsack et al., 1994: 

Sadovy, 1994; McClellan and Cummings, 1998; Ault et al., 1998, 2005; Coleman et al., 2000). 

As a result of this fishing effort, the biomass and abundance of black grouper (Serranidae: 

Mycteroperca bonaci Poey 1860) in the Florida Keys have declined substantially (Chiappone et 

al., 2000; Ault et al., 2002). Yellowtail snapper (Lutjanidae: Ocyurus chrysurus Bloch 1790), 

though still exploited, are no longer considered over-fished in the Keys (Muller et al. 2003). 

 

The ecological requirements and geographic distributions of each species are well known. 

O. chrysurus prey on a diverse array of taxa in coastal waters from Massachusetts to Brazil 

(Thompson and Munro, 1983; Acosta and Beaver, 1998; McClellan and Cummings, 1998) 

taking prey opportunistically both in the water column and on the benthos. In the Florida Keys 

O. chrysurus occurs year round (McClelland and Cummings, 1998). M. bonaci inhabit coral reef

habitat and rock ledges from North Carolina to southern Brazil (Smith, 1971; Bullock and Smith, 

1991; Sullivan and Sluka, 1996) and prey principally on fishes and crustaceans (Thompson and 

Munro, 1978). 

Though coral reef fish are generally considered to be highly sedentary (Sale, 1991; 

Chapman and Kramer, 2000), little is known about the fine-scale movement patterns of 

individual fish, such as O. chrysurus and M. bonaci, within the geographical range in which they 

occur. However, it is precisely this information that will be vital for the conservation and 

management of both of these exploited species, particularly where spatial management measures 

are under consideration. For example, in 1997 a total of 23 no-take reserves were zoned and 

designated in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS; U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1996). The Tortugas Ecological Reserve was added in 2001 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2000). The zones, designated primarily to protect the biological diversity and 

ecological integrity of heavily used reefs, as well as to reduce user conflicts, exclude all 

extractive activities from inside their boundaries (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996). 

Understanding how particular fishes move relative to the boundaries of these reserves will be 

critical to successful management. 

Data from traditional tag and recapture studies suggest that post-settlement movement of 

many tropical reef fishes is limited (Bardach 1958; Randall 1961). These data provide insight 

into the large-scale (one to 1000s of kilometers) movement of fishes, but generally cannot 

resolve fine scale movements (one to 1000s of meters) of fish within a particular reef complex. 

Until recently, the difficulties in following individual fish for extended periods of time made 

precise quantification of fish movement rates one of the most difficult demographic parameters 

to assess (Jones 1991). As such, important questions remain regarding the movements of 

individual fish at these smaller spatial scales. 

The site fidelity of coral reef fishes has been demonstrated using acoustic telemetry for a 

number of species worldwide (Zeller 1997, Zeller and Russ 1998; Bolden 2002; Meyer et al. 

2003). Where fish were once tracked primarily by receivers from the surface, advances in 

1 
acoustic technology have made possible field deployments of acoustic receivers that record data 

continuously for months to years (Klimley et al., 1998; Heupel and Hueter, 2001; Starr et al. 

2001; Lindholm et al. 2005). 

 

In the present study we surgically tagged a small number of O. chrysurus and M. bonaci

inside the Conch Reef Research Only Area in the northern FKNMS. Movements of individual 

fish from both species were tracked using five acoustic receivers deployed along the reef tract. 

Our objectives in this initial effort were to characterize site fidelity of tagged fish from each 

species to the location where they were caught and released and to record any movement to the 

north or south of Conch Reef along the reef tract. 

METHODS 

Fish were collected and tagged from 8 - 14 November 2001 inside the southeast corner of 

the Conch Reef Research Only Area, one of two no-take marine reserves designated at Conch 

Reef by the FKNMS (Figure 1). All fish collection and tagging operations were conducted 

aboard a chartered fishing vessel. Each fish was caught by hook and line from the surface using 

small, baited “J” hooks. Following capture and stabilization in the live-well (15 – 30 min), each 

fish was briefly submerged in an anesthetic bath containing buffered MS-222 (100 mg l-1

; 

Summerfelt and Smith, 1990). Stage IV anesthesia was achieved in 1-3 minutes depending on 

species and fish size. Once anesthetized, each fish was removed from the anesthetic bath and 

placed upside-down in a padded V-shaped container for tag insertion (Winter 1996). A damp

towel was placed over the fish, with only the intended tag insertion point exposed. A 20 mm

incision was made just above the ventral midline on the left side of the fish, forward of the vent. 

All fish were tagged with V8SC-6L coded-acoustic transmitters (VEMCO Ltd., Shad Bay, Nova 

Scotia) measuring 20 mm dia x 9 mm. Each transmitter was pre-programmed to emit a unique 

ID code randomly between 30 – 90 seconds. Each transmitter was coated with triple-antibiotic 

ointment and inserted into the peritoneal cavity with transmitter head facing forward. The 

incision was closed using 2 -3 black monofilament sutures (5-0 Ethilon) and coated with tripleantibiotic ointment. 

Following tagging, each fish was handed to a snorkeler in the water. The snorkeler 

revived the fish by swimming it slowly around the boat just below the surface. As the fish 

recovered from the anesthetic (3-15 minutes), the snorkeler swam the fish down toward the 

bottom for release. Each fish was observed for 15-20 minutes, or until the fish swam out of 

visual range. 

Movement of tagged fishes were recorded by single-channel VR2 acoustic receivers 

(VEMCO Ltd., Shad Bay, Nova Scotia) deployed at five locations (Figure 1) extending from

Davis Reef (one receiver), to Conch Reef (two receivers), to Pickles Reef (two receivers, 

including a location midway between Conch and Pickles Reefs). Each receiver continuously 

recorded the simple presence/absence of tagged fish within approximately 300 m, or an area of 

intersection with the seafloor equal to approximately 0.2826 km2

. Data were downloaded from

each receiver at 2-3 month intervals throughout the study period. 

2 
Figure 1 Map of study area in northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, including the locations of each 

receiver, a 300 m site buffer around each site depicting the estimated range of detection for each receiver, 

as well as the boundaries of the FKNMS, Conch Reef Research Only Area, and the Davis and Conch 

Reef SPAs. 

The time at-liberty (a record of the time period from the first record to the last record) 

was quantified at the scale of individual 24 hr periods for each tagged fish. Further analyses were 

conducted to compare usage of receiver sites by tagged fish in minute-scale intervals throughout 

the study. Recorded signals were grouped into 15-minute and 30-minute time bins standardized 

for all receivers, to allow direct comparison between signals logged by different receivers and 

ultimately describe a set of average behaviors during a period of 24 hours. There were a total of 

96 15-minute time bins and 48 30-minute time bins. For example, each bin was assigned a 

number, with bin number 1 corresponding to 00:00:00 – 00:15:00 for the 15-minute analysis and 

00:00:00 – 00:30:00 for the 30-minute analysis. Each signal detection was assigned a rank 

depending on the time bin to which it belonged, based upon time of reception (as per Starr et al. 

3 
2001). A sum for the number of signals per time bin, per receiver was calculated for each fish to 

identify the predominant receiver sites occupied in cases where sums for one time bin included 

more than one receiver. The resulting data were plotted as the average number of detections per 

fish per bin at each receiver from which records were collected. The number of signal detections 

per diel period—sunrise, daylight, sunset, night—was also quantified for each tagged fish. 

RESULTS 

We collected records for a total of nine O. chrysurus measuring 215 to 265 mm FL (mean 

= 231.6 mm, SD = 15.39 mm) and five M. bonaci measuring 380 to 740 mm SL (mean = 630 

mm, SD = 137.1 mm) over the course of eight months (Table 1). Tagged fish from each species 

were recorded at the two Conch Reef sites (NE Waystation and Pinnacle Site) and at Davis Reef 

located approximately 4 km to the south. No records were collected at either the Pickles Reef 

site or at the site located midway between Pickles and Conch reefs. 

The recorded fish movement behavior varied widely among species and between 

individual fish from each species. The time at-liberty for tagged O. chrysurus (Figure 2) ranged 

from two days (Fish 8) to 237 days (Fish 6), with six fish recorded by at least one of the Conch 

Reef receivers for more than five months. Signal detections for eight of the nine tagged fish 

were recorded at both the NE Waystation and the Pinnacle site for nearly all of the detections 

(Table 1). Five of the nine tagged O. chrysurus made visits to Davis Reef immediately 

following release. In each case the visit was brief based on the number of signal detections and 

the fish returned to Conch Reef within the same 24-hour period. Only O. chrysurus Fish 6 made 

return visits to Davis Reef over the course of the study. Each of the three return visits occurred 

seven months into the study and each visit consisted of single signal detections. 

11/1/2001 12/1/2001 1/1/2002 2/1/2002 3/1/2002 4/1/2002 5/1/2002 6/1/2002 7/1/2002

Conch NE

Conch Pinnacle

Davis Reef

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

 Individual Tagged O. chrysurus 

Time at Liberty

Figure 2 Recorded time at-liberty for tagged O. chrysurus at Conch Reef (NE Waystation and Pinnacle site) and 

Davis Reef from November 2001 to July 2002. 

4 
Figure 3 Recorded time at-liberty for tagged M. bonaci at Conch Reef (NE Waystation and Pinnacle site) and

Davis Reef from November 2001 to April 2002.

Figure 3 Recorded time at-liberty for tagged M. bonaci at Conch Reef (NE Waystation and Pinnacle site) and

Davis Reef from November 2001 to April 2002.

The time at-liberty for tagged M. bonaci (Figure 3) ranged from approximately one month

following release (Fish 4 and 5) to more than five months (Fish 1). The vast majority of signal 

detections for each fish (> 90%) were recorded at the NE Waystation where the fish were caught 

and released (Table 1). The signal detections per fish numbered in the hundreds (Fish 2) to 

thousands (Fish 1, 3 and 5), with the exception of Fish 4 (11 pings). Movement to the southern 

portion of Conch Reef (Pinnacle site) was recorded for four of the five M. bonaci. Further, all 

fish movements to the Pinnacle site were brief, with each fish returning to the northern portion of 

the reef within the same 24-hour period. Only M. bonaci Fish 1 made brief visits to Davis Reef 

4 km to the south of Conch Reef immediately following release (Figure 3). The fish returned to

the NE Waystation at Conch Reef within the same day.

he time at-liberty for tagged M. bonaci (Figure 3) ranged from approximately one month

following release (Fish 4 and 5) to more than five months (Fish 1). The vast majority of signal 

detections for each fish (> 90%) were recorded at the NE Waystation where the fish were caught 

and released (Table 1). The signal detections per fish numbered in the hundreds (Fish 2) to 

thousands (Fish 1, 3 and 5), with the exception of Fish 4 (11 pings). Movement to the southern 

portion of Conch Reef (Pinnacle site) was recorded for four of the five M. bonaci. Further, all 

fish movements to the Pinnacle site were brief, with each fish returning to the northern portion of 

the reef within the same 24-hour period. Only M. bonaci Fish 1 made brief visits to Davis Reef 

4 km to the south of Conch Reef immediately following release (Figure 3). The fish returned to

the NE Waystation at Conch Reef within the same day.

11/1/2001 12/1/2001 1/1/2002 2/1/2002 3/1/2002 4/1/2002

Conch NE

Conch Pinnacle

Davis Reef

1

2

3

4

5

Individual Tagged 

M. bonaci 

Time at Liberty

5 
Table 1 Number of signal detections for each tagged O. chrysurus and M. bonaci at each receiver site. The number of detections per 

parentheses as a percentage of the total detections for each fish. 

Between 

Pickles Conch Conch Reef Conch Reef Davis 

Species Fish # Reef and Pickles NE Waystation Pinnacle Reef 

O. chrysurus 1 ------- ------ 7948 (67.1) 3891 (32.9) -------  2 ------- ------- 15221 (58.5) 10798 (41.5) 4 (0.02)  3 ------- ------- 9229 (49.1) 9583 (50.9) -------  4 ------- ------- 27361 (94.4) 1621 (5.6) 9 (0.03)  5 ------- ------- 45892 (96.5) 1669 (3.5) -------  6 ------- ------- 11277 (74.1) 3940 (25.9) 4 (0.03)  7 ------- ------- 6402 (68.6) 2928 (31.4) 4 (0.04)  8 ------- ------- 26 (100) ------- -------  9 ------- ------- 6451 (66.7) 3222 (33.3) 2 (0.02)  Total: M. bonaci 1 ------- ------- 7656 (94.1) 9 (0.11) 469 (5.8)  2 ------- ------- 592 (99.3) 4 (0.67) -------  3 ------- ------- 2150 (95.9) 93 (4.1) -------  4 ------- ------- 10 (91) 1 (9.0) -------  5 ------- ------- 1250 (100) ------- -------  Total: 

 6 
The mean number of signal detections for tagged O. chrysurus and M. bonaci for each 

diel period is shown in Table 2. A total of 58% of signal detections for O. chrysurus were 

recorded during daylight hours, with 25% recorded during the night. The number of detections 

during the two crepuscular periods was similar, with 9% during sunrise and 8% during sunset. 

No differences were recorded among the tagged O. chrysurus (F8,27 = 1.36, p-value = 0.257) with 

respect to the total number of signal detections per diel period. The distribution of signal 

detections for M. bonaci was more uniform between day and night hours, with 44% and 42%, 

respectively. The distribution of signal detections for the two crepuscular periods was also 

uniform for M. bonaci (6% sunrise and 8% sunset). However, differences were recorded among 

individual tagged M. bonaci with respect to detections per period (F4,15 = 3.19, p-value = 0.04). 

Fish 1 (with 66.5% of the total signal detections for all tagged M. bonaci) was recorded more 

than 1.5 times more often at night (4247 signal detections) than during the day (2896 signal 

detections). 

Analysis of tagged O. chrysurus at the scale of 15- and 30-minute time intervals (Figures 

4 and 5) indicated that tagged fishes traveled between the NE Waystation (Receiver 1) and the 

Pinnacle site (Receiver 2) during the day, with nocturnal behavior recorded primarily at the NE 

Waystation. Only one visit was made to Davis Reef (Receiver 3), by Fish 8 during the night. The 

30-minute time bins lacked much of the detail provided by 15-minute groupings. For example, in 

the case of Fish 1, only one visit to the Pinnacle site is depicted in the 30-minute bin, whereas the 

15-minute bins show four such visits. 

Table 2 Number of signal detections for tagged O. chrysurus and M. bonaci across the diel cycle. Sunrise and 

Sunset are defined as the event ± 1 hr. The mean and standard deviation are reported for each species. 

 Sunrise Day Sunset Night 

Species Mean / SD Mean / SD Mean / SD Mean / SD 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

O. chrysurus 1765 / 1162 10808 / 6162 1405 / 1140 4631 / 8133

M. bonaci 164 / 110 1115 / 1129 200 / 250 1052 / 1801

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Signal detections for four of the five tagged M. bonaci (Fish 1, 2, 3, and 5; Figure 6) 

indicated continual residence at NE Waystation during the time at-liberty, with brief peaks in the

number of detections occurring at dawn and dusk. Fish 4, the smallest in the study (SL = 380 

mm) showed little site fidelity to the NE Waystation. 

7 
3 

Receiver

2 

Fish 1 

1 

3 

Receiver

Fish 2 2 

1 

3 

Rece

Fish 3 

iver

2 

1 

1 24 48 72 96 1 12 24 36 48 

Time Bin (15-minute intervals) Time Bin (30-minute intervals) 

Figure 4 Recorded movement of tagged O. chrysurus Fish 1-3 among receiver sites in 15- and 30-minute time

bins. The average number of signal detections per bin is shown for each individual fish for which 

movement among receivers was recorded. Receiver 1 = NE Waystation, Receiver 2 = Pinnacle, Receiver 

3 = Davis Reef. 

8 
3 

Receiver

Fish 7 2 

1 

3 

Receiver

Fish 8 2 

1 

3 

Receiver

Fish 9 2 

1 

1 

Figure 5 Recorded movement of tagged O. chrysurus Fish 7-9 among receiver sites in 15- and 30-minute time

bins. The average number of signal detections per bin is shown for each individual fish for which 

movement among receivers was recorded. Receiver 1 = NE Waystation, Receiver 2 = Pinnacle, Receiver 

3 = Davis Reef.

1 24 48 72 96 

Time Bin (15-minute intervals) Time Bin (30-minute intervals) 

12 24 36 48 

9 
3 

Receiver 

Fish 1 

2 

1 

3 

Receiver 

Fish 3 

2 

1 

3 

Receiver 

Fish 4 

2 

1 

3 

Receiver 

Fish 5 

2 

1 

1 24 48 72 96 1 12 24 36 48

Time Bin (15-minute intervals) Time Bin (30-minute intervals) 

Figure 6 Recorded movement of tagged M. bonaci Fish 1, 3, 4 and 5 among receiver sites in 15- and 30-minute 

time bins. The average number of signal detections per bin is shown for each individual fish for which 

movement among receivers was recorded. Receiver 1 = NE Waystation, Receiver 2 = Pinnacle, Receiver 

3 = Davis Reef. 

 10 
DISCUSSION 

Despite the small amount of data obtained in this preliminary effort, the recorded patterns 

of movement for both O. chrysurus and M. bonaci provide insight into the behavior of both 

species and can lead to further study. Our first objective was to identify site fidelity to the 

location where the fish were caught and released at Conch Reef. Among the nine tagged O. 

chrysurus, Fish 1-6 were each recorded during their time at-liberty at either one or both of the 

Conch Reef receivers in excess of five months, through the winter and into the spring (Figure 2). 

Fish 6 was recorded at the Pinnacle site well into the middle of summer. 

These results did not conform to our a priori expectations. We expected less site fidelity 

for O. chrysurus, which we have observed forming transient aggregations in the water column at 

Conch Reef, often moving out of visual range. Site fidelity in this species is also suggested by 

data from elsewhere in the Keys. In the four years following designation of the small no-take 

marine reserves throughout the Keys by the FKNMS, densities of O. chrysurus within the 

reserves increased fifteen-fold (Bohnsack and Ault, 2002). This increase suggests high site 

fidelity to the areas encompassed by the reserves.

Fewer M. bonaci were tagged, but the results were similar. Three of five individual fish 

(Fish 1-3) were recorded at Conch Reef longer than three months, with Fish 1 recorded over a 

period of approximately 5.5 months (Figure 3). These results are also supported by data 

elsewhere in the Keys, where the density of groupers within no-take reserves increased by an 

order of magnitude over the four years following closure (Bohnsack and Ault, 2002). This 

apparent site fidelity to Conch Reef is notable given the knowledge of grouper spawning 

behavior. M. bonaci (mean TL = 640 mm) have been observed to form reproductive 

aggregations to the north of our study sites beginning annually in January (Ecklund et al., 2000). 

In this context, the presence of Fish 1 (740 mm TL) and Fish 3 (630 mm TL) at Conch Reef 

throughout this period is particularly interesting. Additional tagging will be necessary to more 

completely investigate M. bonaci movement during spawning periods. 

Our second objective was to capture any movement of tagged fishes up and down the reef 

tract. Though movement of individuals of both O. chrysurus and M. bonaci was recorded at 

Davis Reef, 4 km to the south of their point of release, no movement was recorded to the north of 

Conch Reef and the majority of records in the study were collected at the two Conch Reef 

receivers (Table 1). The movement of individuals of both species between Conch Reef and 

Davis Reef to the south is notable given the distance covered and the habitats occurring between 

the two sites. For instance, the distribution of serranids within their larger assemblage boundaries 

has been shown to vary with seafloor habitats (Sluka and Sullivan, 1996, 1998; Sluka et al., 

2001). The journey from Conch Reef to Davis Reef would have involved swimming more than 4 

km over relatively featureless sand habitats, depending upon the water depth at which the trip 

was made. Also interesting is the relative brevity of the visits each fish made to Davis Reef 

(with visits not exceeding four days for either species) and the fact that only one O. chrysurus

(Fish 6) made more than a single visit to Davis Reef over the course of the study (Figures 2 and 

3). 

11 
The high relative abundance of signal detections for O. chrysurus in daylight hours when 

compared to night is not surprising, and is likely attributable to actual fish behavior. During the 

daylight hours, O. chrysurus were often observed in the water column at Conch Reef, which 

would place them in direct line of sight with the receivers on the seafloor. At night, the limited 

number of direct observations of O. chrysurus was as solitary individuals foraging close to the 

reef, where reception by the receiver would probably be limited by topographic complexity of 

the reef. Tagged M. bonaci were observed diurnally (no nocturnal observations were made) 

swimming within the spur and groove formations that characterize Conch Reef, which would 

also limit their detectability by the receivers. The uniform distribution of signal detections 

between day (44%) and night (42%) suggests that the behavior of M. bonaci is similar 

nocturnally, though a more explicit study would be necessary to characterize this behavior. 

 While the fate of tagged fish outside the receiver array was not addressed in this study, 

the loss of tagged fish from the study area is likely attributable to two primary factors: receiver 

coverage and exploitation. Each acoustic receiver recorded the presence of tagged fish within 

approximately 300 m, or an area of intersection with the seafloor equal to approximately 0.2826 

km2

. The small areas of the reef tract included in this study occur within a much larger coral reef 

sea landscape that extends 10’s of kilometers to the north and south of the study area. It is 

possible that those fish that did not remain within the study area throughout the study were in 

fact still utilizing coral reef habitats in adjacent areas beyond the range of the receiver array, 

either to the north and south or onshore and offshore. 

It is likely that the topographic complexity at Conch Reef limited the number of signal 

detections we recorded there, particularly for tagged M. bonaci. As mentioned above, any 

movement by tagged fishes close to the reef, even if adjacent to a receiver, may have placed 

them in an acoustic shadow where signal detections were not recorded. The relative differences 

in signal detections per fish for O. chrysurus and M. bonaci were likely the result of this 

interaction between fish behavior and the limits of the acoustic telemetry. O. chrysurus were 

observed at Conch Reef on multiple occasions both foraging along the reef as solitary

individuals, as well as in transient aggregations in the water column (Lindholm et al., 

unpublished). M. bonaci, on the other hand, were observed primarily as solitary individuals 

close to the reef. Subsequent studies will attempt to minimize the presence of acoustic shadows 

to more accurately characterize fish movement close to the reef. 

It is also possible that tagged fish were caught by fishing in adjacent areas. Both species 

are heavily exploited in the Florida Keys (Thompson and Munro, 1978; Bohnsack et al., 1994; 

Sadovy, 1994; Ault et al., 2002, 2005; McClellan and Cummings, 1998). Each day during our 

tagging operations we observed multiple fishing boats moored to the buoys immediately adjacent 

to the no-take reserve at Conch Reef. Because all tagged fish for which records were collected 

made daily movements out of the range of the receiver array, all were subject to capture by these 

and other boats further up and down the reef tract. Indeed, we recaptured two of our tagged 

fishes during the course of the study, and later a third was terminally recaptured (and eaten) by 

the very fisherman we hired to help us with this study. 

Clearly, there are limits to what can be extrapolated from this study alone, particularly 

with respect to the implications for the design of marine reserves. A more comprehensive 

 12 
investigation, involving greater numbers of fish and other fish species, other sites along the reef 

tract, and greater temporal coverage, will be required to more fully understand the movement 

behavior of fishes in the Florida Keys generally, and specifically within the no-take marine 

reserves. While we recorded high site fidelity to Conch Reef, the distribution of receivers was 

insufficient to characterize the fine-scale movement of those fish. Given the relatively smallscale of the reserves at Conch, this fine-scale movement will be important. We do not yet know 

to which specific features of Conch Reef the fish tagged in this study responded. Future efforts 

will expand both the spatial and temporal scale of the acoustic receiver array at Conch Reef and 

will include fishes from a variety of functional groups, including algal grazers, benthic 

invertebrate feeders, and additional benthic piscivores. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to thank J. Hopper of the F/V Fantastic II for vital assistance in the 

collection of fishes for this study. We would also like to thank G. Stone, K. Mallory, B. Skerry, 

C. Taylor, M. Sisak, as well as K. Boyken, M. Birns, P. Masaki and the rest of NOAA’s National 

Undersea Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (NURC/UNCW) 

staff for assistance with fish tagging operations and receiver deployments. L.M. Rutten and A. 

Knight assisted in the preparation of all figures. The recommendations of three anonymous 

reviewers helped to improve the manuscript. J. Lindholm was supported by Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary and the NURC/UNCW. L. Kaufman was supported in part by a grant 

from the Packard Foundation. S. Miller was supported by the NURC/UNCW. This work was 

conducted under permit by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS-2002-053) and 

was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Boston University 

(Protocol # 02-020). 

13 
LITERATURE CITED 

Acosta, A. and R. Beaver. 1998. Fisheries, growth, and mortality of yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus 

chrysurus, in the Florida Keys, U.S.A. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 50: 851-870. 

Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack and G.A. Meester. 1998. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies 

assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fish. Bull. U.S. 96: 395-414. 

Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, G.A. Meester, J. Lou, J.A. Bohnsack and S.L. Miller. 2002. Baseline 

multispecies coral reef fish stock assessment for the Dry Tortugas. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-487. 117 pp. 

Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack, S.G. Smith, and J. Lew. 2005. Towards sustainable multispecies 

fisheries in the Florida, USA, coral reef ecosystem. Bull. Mar. Sci. 76: 595-622. 

Bardach, J.E. 1958. On the movements of certain Bermuda reef fishes. Ecology 39: 139-146. 

Bohnsack, J.A. and J. Ault. 2002. Reef fish community dynamics and linkages with Florida Bay. 

2002 Annual Progress Report for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program. 

NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC/Protected Resources Division PRD/01/02-06. 

Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper and D.B. McClellan. 1994. Fisheries trends from Monroe County, 

Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54: 982-1018. 

Bolden, S.K. 2002. Using ultrasonic telemetry to determine home range of a coral-reef fish. 

Pages 167-188 in J. Silbert and J.L. Nielsen , eds. Proceedings of the symposium on tagging and

tracking marine fish with electronic devices. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. 

Bullock, L.H. and G.B. Smith. 1991. Seabasses (Pisces: Serranidae). Mem. Hourglass Cruises, 

Volume 8, no. 2, Florida Mar Res Inst., Dep. Nat. Resour., St Petersburg, FL. 

Chapman, M.R. & D.L. Kramer. 2000. Movements of fishes within and among fringing coral 

reefs in Barbados. Environ. Biol. Fish. 57: 11-24. 

Chiappone, M., R. Sluka and K.S. Sealey. 2000. Groupers (Pisces: Serranidae) in fished and 

protected areas of the Florida Keys, Bahamas and northern Caribbean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 198: 

261-272. 

Coleman, F.C., C.C. Koenig, G.R. Huntsman, J.A. Musick, A-M. Eklund, J.C. McGovern, R.W.

Chapman, G.R. Sedberry, and C.B. Grimes. 2000. Long-lived reef fishes: the grouper-snapper 

complex. Fisheries 25: 14-21. 

Eklund, A-M, D.B. McClellan, and D.E. Harper. 2000. Black grouper aggregations in relation to 

protected areas within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66: 721-728. 

 14 
Heupel, M.R. and R.E. Hueter. 2001. Use of an automated acoustic telemetry system to passively 

track juvenile blacktip shark movements. Pages 217-236 in Sibert, J.R. and J.L. Nielsen,eds. 

Electronic Tagging and Tracking in Marine Fisheries. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

Netherlands. 

Holland, K.N., J. D. Peterson, C.G. Lowe and B.M. Wetherbee. 1993. Movements, distribution 

and growth rates of the white goatfish Mulloides flavolineatus in a fisheries conservation zone. 

Bull Mare Sci 52: 982-992. 

Jones, G.P. 1991. Postrecruitment processes in the ecology of coral reef fish populations: a 

multifactorial perspective. Pages 294-328 in Sale P.F. (ed) The Ecology of Fishes on Coral 

Reefs. Academic Press, San Diego, California. 

Klimley, A.P., F.Voegli, S.C.Beavers, and BJ. Le Boeuf. 1998. Automated listening stations for 

tagged marine fishes. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 32: 94-101. 

Lindholm, J., S. Fangman, L. Kaufman and S. Miller. 2005. In situ tagging and tracking of coral 

reef fishes from the Aquarius undersea laboratory. MTS Journal 39: 68-73. 

McClellan, D.B. and N.J. Cummings. 1998. Fishery and biology of the yellowtail snapper, 

Ocyurus chrysurus, from the southeastern United States, 1962 through 1996. Proc. Gulf Caribb. 

Fish. Inst. 49: 25-45. 

Meyer, C.G., K. N. Holland, B.M. Wetherbee, and C.G. Lowe. 2000. Movement patterns, habitat 

utilization, home range size and site fidelity of whitesaddle goatfish, Parupeneus porphyreus, in 

a marine reserve. Env. Bio. Fishes 59: 235-242. 

Muller, R.G., M.D. Murphy, K deSilva, L.R. Barbieri. 2003. A stock assessment of yellowtail 

snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus, in the Southeast United States. Final report submitted to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council as part of Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 

(SEDAR) III. FWC-FMRI Report: IHR 2003-10. 

Randall, J.E. 1961. Tagging reef fishes in the Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 14: 

201-241. 

Sadovy, Y. 1994. Grouper stocks of the western central Atlantic: the need for management and 

management needs. Proc. Gulf. Caribb. Fish. Inst. 43: 43-64. 

Sluka, R. and K.M. Sullivan. 1996. The influence of habitat on the size distribution of groupers 

in the upper Florida Keys. Environ. Biol. Fish. 47: 177-189. 

Sluka, R.D. and K.M. Sullivan. 1998. The influence of spear fishing on species composition and 

size of groupers on patch reefs in the upper Florida Keys. Fish. Bull. 96: 388-392. 

15 
Sluka, R.D., M. Chiappone, and K.M. Sullivan Sealy. 2001. Influence of habitat on grouper 

abundance in the Florida Keys, U.S.A. J. Fish Biol. 58: 682-700. 

Smith, C.L. 1971. A revision of the American Groupers: Epinephalus and allied genera. Bull. 

Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 146: 67-242. 

Starr, R.M., Heine, J.N., Felton, J.M., and Cailliet, G.M. 2001. Movements of bocaccio (Sebastes 

paucispinis) and greenspotted (S. chlorostictus) rockfishes in a Monterey submarine canyon: 

implications for the design of marine reserves. Fish. Bull. 100: 324-337. 

Sullivan, K.M. and R. Sluka. 1996. The ecology of shallow-water groupers (Pisces: Serranidae) 

in the upper Florida Keys, USA. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 48: 74-84. 

Summerfelt, R.C. and L.S. Smith. 1990. Anesthesia, surgery, and related techniques. Pages 213-

272 in C.B. Schreck and P.B. Moyle, eds. Methods for Fish Biology. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda. 

Szedlmayer, S.T. 1997. Ultrasonic telemetry of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, at artificial 

reef sites in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Copeia 4: 846-850. 

Thompson, R. and J.L. Munro. 1978. Aspects of the biology and ecology of Caribbean reef 

fishes: Serranidae (hinds and groupers). J. Fish. Biol. 12: 115-146. 

Thompson, R. and J.L. Munro. 1983. The biology, ecology, and bionomics of Caribbean reef 

fishes: Lutjanidae (snappers). Pages 94-109 in J.L. Munro, ed. Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery 

Resources. ICLARM Studies Rev. 7. Manila, Philippines. 

Tulevech, S.M. and C.W. Recksiek. 1994. Acoustic tracking of adult white grunt, Haemulon 

plumieri, in Puerto Rico and Florida. Fish Res 19: 301-319. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996. Strategy for Stewardship: Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I-II. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service/Sanctuaries and Reserves 

Division, Silver Spring, MD, USA. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Strategy for Stewardship: Tortugas Ecological reserve 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Final Supplemental Management Plan. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service/Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD, USA. 

Winter, J. 1996. Advances in underwater biotelemetry. Pages 555-585 in Murphy, B.R. and D. 

W. Willis (eds) Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Zeller, D.C. 1997. Home range and activity patterns of the coral trout Plectropomus leapardus

(Serranidae). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 154: 65-77. 

 16 
Zeller, D.C. and G.R. Russ. 1998. Marine reserves: patterns of adult movement of the coral trout 

(Plectropomus leopardus (Serranidae)). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55: 917-924. 

17