Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-06-06

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

 A Pilot Study of Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus

Walbaum 1792) Movement in the Conch Reef 

Research Only Area (Northern Florida Keys)

National Marine Sanctuary Program August 2006 
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS)

administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP). 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. 
A Pilot Study of Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus

Walbaum 1792) Movement in the Conch Reef 

Research Only Area (Northern Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary)

James Lindholm1,2

, Ashley Knight2, Les Kaufman3 and Steven Miller4

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 2006

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 

John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator 

National Marine Sanctuary Program

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 Sanctuary 

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

the following address:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 National Marine Sanctuary Program

 SSMC4, N/ORM62 

 1305 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

COVER 

A tagged hogfish forages on the coral rubble adjacent to the Aquarius Undersea Habitat. 

Photo Credit: Rick Riera-Gomez, RSMAS/University of Miami 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Lindholm, J., A. Knight, L. Kaufman, and S. Miller. 2006. A pilot study of hogfish 

(Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) movement at the Conch Reef Research Only 

Area (northern Florida Keys). National Marine Sanctuary Program NMSP-06-06. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 14 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 

The largely sedentary behavior of many fishes on coral reefs is well established. 

Information on the movement behavior of individual fish, over fine temporal and spatial 

scales, however, continues to be limited. It is precisely this type of information that is 

critical for evaluating the success of marine reserves designed for the conservation and/or 

management of vagile fishes. In this pilot study we surgically-tagged eight hogfish 

(Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) with coded-acoustic transmitters inside the 

Conch Reef Research Only Area (a no-take marine reserve) in the northern Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary. Our primary objective was to characterize the movement of 

L. maximus across Conch Reef in the vicinity of the reserve. All fish were captured, 

surgically-tagged and released in situ during a saturation mission to the Aquarius

Undersea Laboratory, which is located in the center of the reserve. Movement of tagged 

L. maximus was recorded for up to 95 days by three acoustic receivers deployed on the 

seafloor. Results showed clear diel patterns in L. maximus activity and regular movement 

among the receivers was recorded for seven of the eight tagged fish. Fidelity of tagged 

fish to the area of release was high when calculated at the scale of days, while within-day 

fidelity was comparatively low when calculated at the scale of hours. While the number 

of fish departures from the array also varied, the majority of departures for seven of the 

eight fish did not exceed 1-hr (with the exception of one 47-day departure), suggesting

that when departures occurred, the fish did not travel far. Future efforts will significantly 

expand the number of receivers at Conch Reef such that fish movement behavior relative 

to the reserve boundaries can be quantified with increased temporal and spatial 

resolution. 

KEY WORDS 

Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus, acoustic telemetry, fish 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..................................................................................................................... 3

Discussion............................................................................................................... 9 

Acknowledgements................................................................................................. 11 

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 11 

ii 
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure/Table Number and Title Page

Figure 1 

Map of Study Area in the Northern FKNMS.......................................................... 2 

Table 1 

Summary data for acoustically-tagged L. maximus................................................ 4 

Figure 2 

Recorded Time At-Liberty for Tagged L. maximus................................................ 4 

Figure 3 

Diel patterns in the detections of Tagged L. maximus............................................ 6 

Table 2 

Detections for tagged L. maximus at each receiver................................................. 8 

Table 3 

Frequency of consecutive 1-hr time bins in which no receivers recorded signals from

tagged L. maximus during daylight hours................................................... 8 

iii 

INTRODUCTION

Hogfish (Labridae: Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) are dichromatic, 

protogynous hermaphrodites (Colin 1982; McBride et al. 2001). They are found in subtropical 

and tropical waters from South Carolina to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico, in between 

three to 30 m water depth (Lieske and Meyers1999). L. maximus are opportunistic, non-specific 

predators on a wide variety of benthic invertebrates (Randall and Warmke 1967; Davis 1976), 

and are common in low-relief hard-bottom, seagrass and patch reef habitats. Though information 

on the early life history of L. maximus is limited (Colin 1982), observations suggest there may be 

an ontogenetic shift in habitat from coastal embayments and seagrass beds as juveniles to coral 

reefs and low-relief hard-bottom habitats as adults (see Davis 1976; Ault et al. 2003). 

L. maximus are highly esteemed food fish (Randall and Warmke 1967), and are actively 

sought in the Florida Keys (McBride et al. 2001). Little is known about the fine-scale movement 

patterns of individual L. maximus within the geographical range in which they occur (Tupper and 

Rudd 2002). However, it is precisely this information that will be vital for the conservation and 

management of this 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; Chapman and Kramer 2000). 

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). Thus with respect to many species, even those for which a great deal of 

biological data are available, fundamental questions remain as to the fine-scale movement 

patterns of individuals of all size classes. 

 

The use of fixed acoustic receiver arrays to record the movements of tropical fishes is 

increasingly common (Chapman et al. 2005; Heupel and Simpfendorfer 2005; Humston et al. 

2005; Lindholm et al. 2005a, b, 2006), making it possible to monitor fish movements at timescales ranging from minutes to years. Specifically, telemetry has been used to track the 

movements of other Labrids, including Tautogolabrus adspersus (Bradbury et al. 1995), Tautoga 

onitis (Arendt et al. 2001a, b) and Semicossyphus pulcher (Topping et al. 2005; In press). In this 

pilot study, we tagged a small number of L. maximus with acoustic transmitters and monitored 

their movements at the Conch Reef Research Only Area, a no-take marine reserve located in the 

northern FKNMS. To our knowledge, this is the first use of acoustic telemetry to track the 

movements of L. maximus. Our goal was to characterize the movements of tagged fish in the 

vicinity of Conch Reef in anticipation of a larger project to be conducted at a future date. We

report the results of the pilot study and suggest questions for future studies. 

1
METHODS 

L. maximus were caught, surgically-tagged with coded-acoustic transmitters and released 

within the Conch Reef Research Only Area (a no-take marine reserve) in August 2002 (Figure 

1). All project elements were conducted in situ during a 10-day saturation diving mission to the 

Aquarius Undersea Laboratory (please see Lindholm et al. 2005a for a complete description of 

the field protocols). Using diver’s mesh bags, saturation divers caught all L. maximus on the 

seafloor. The diver placed the open mesh bag in front of the foraging fish while the diver waved 

the fish into the bag. Each fish was surgically-tagged with a V8SC-1H (69 kHz) coded-acoustic 

transmitter (VEMCO, Ltd., Shad Bay, Nova Scotia). A spaghetti tag bearing contact information 

and an ID code was also attached externally at the base of the dorsal fin. Following surgery, each 

fish was swum around by a diver in the vicinity of its capture until revived. It was then released 

on the seafloor. 

Figure 1. Bathymetric map of the Conch Reef study area, including the location of each acoustic receiver, an

estimated 300 m radius of detection around each receiver, the location of the Aquarius Undersea Laboratory, and the

boundaries of the Conch Reef Research Only Area and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Inset). 

Movement was recorded by three omni-directional, single-channel (69 kHz) VR2 

acoustic receivers (VEMCO, Ltd., Shad Bay, Nova Scotia) deployed at Conch Reef (Figure 1) at 

25 m (Site 1), 20 m (Site 2), and 25 m (Site 3). Preliminary tests indicated that the range of 

2
detection for a V8SC-1H transmitter at each VR2 receiver at Conch Reef had a radius of 

approximately 300 m. This range was considered an estimate and was likely to change somewhat 

over the course of the study with fluctuating water conditions. The projected battery life for the 

V8SC-1H transmitter was 95 days. In fact, data were collected for three of the eight fish for up to 

210 days. However, due to the uncertainty in the quality of the data following the end of a 

transmitter’s estimated battery life, those data were not included in this paper. Data are reported 

for each tagged fish from 29 August 2002 through 01 December 2002. 

The recorded time at-liberty (calculated as the first recorded signal detection to the last 

signal detection for each fish at any of the three receivers) was quantified at the scale of

individual 24-hr periods for each tagged L. maximus. We used a least squares linear regression 

to test for any effect of fish fork length (FL) on recorded time at-liberty. Fish fidelity to the area 

encompassed by the array was first calculated as the total number of days a fish was detected 

divided by the 95 days for which detection was possible. Further analyses were conducted to 

compare usage of receiver sites by tagged fish in hour-scale intervals throughout the study. 

Recorded signals were grouped into 1-hr time bins standardized for all receivers. There were a 

total of 24 1-hr time bins per day. Each bin was assigned a number with bin number 1 

corresponding to 00:00:00 to 00:59:59. Analysis of diurnal fish movement behavior for each 24-

hr period was conducted on the binned 1-hr data. The proportion of 1-hr bins recorded for each 

fish during daylight and night hours was weighted to account for the variable length of each 

period and for changes in the length of each period over the course of the study. All proportion 

data were arcsine transformed prior to analysis. A one-tailed t-test was used to examine the 

hypothesis that tagged L. maximus would be recorded more frequently during daylight hours 

when compared to the night hours (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). Daily fidelity of tagged fish to the 

area encompassed by the three receivers was investigated by quantifying 1) the proportion of 1-

hr bins recorded for each fish within the array and at each receiver and 2) the number and 

duration of fish departures from the array for each tagged fish. A least squares linear regression 

was used to examine the relationship between the proportion of 1-hr time bins recorded per fish 

and the total number of departures per fish. 

RESULTS 

Eight L. maximus (mean FL = 175.6 mm SD = 3.2) were tracked for up to 95 days 

(Table 1). All fish were considered to be either late-juvenile or initial phase females based on 

coloration. No terminal phase male L. maximus were observed in the area during the study. We

encountered L. maximus both as solitary individuals and as members of small aggregations of 

con-specifics. Where aggregations occurred all individuals were of a similar size class. 

Saturation divers observed each of the tagged fish for up to nine days post-release. All eight fish 

were observed to return to foraging along the seafloor following surgical tag implantation. 

3
Table 1. Summary data for acoustically-tagged L. maximus released at Conch Reef in August 2002. Iph = initial 

phase female. 

Life Recorded LocationNumber 

FL History Days At- of Receivers 

 Fish # (mm) Phase Liberty Release Visited 

 

1 170 Iph 83 Receiver 2 3 

2 175 Iph 95 Receiver 2 3 

3 175 Iph 76 Receiver 2 1 

4 180 Iph 95 Receiver 2 3 

5 175 Iph 95 Receiver 2 3 

6 180 Iph 56 Receiver 2 2 

7 175 Iph 55 Receiver 2 2 

8 175 Iph 17 Receiver 2 3 

A 

The total time at-liberty (Figure 2) varied widely among tagged L. maximus (mean = 71.5 

days; SD = 25.7). Three fish (Tags 2, 4 and 5) were recorded at least once daily for each day of 

the 95-day study period, while Tag 8 was recorded for only the first 17 days. Tag 1 was the only 

fish to return to the array following a 57 day departure. A least-squares linear regression of total 

days at-liberty on fish fork length was not significant (ANOVA, P > 0.947) with a correlation 

coefficient of 0.0 percent. 

August-02 September-02 October-02 November-02

reciever 1 reciever 2 reciever 3

2

8

7

6

5

4

3

1

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Figure 2. Recorded time at-liberty for eight tagged L. maximus released at Conch Reef. Each fish was monitored 

from 29 August through 01 December 2002 by three acoustic receivers deployed on the seafloor. Each circle 

represents a day on which a fish was detected by a receiver, with circles color-coded to represent each of the three 

receivers. 

4
Tagged L. maximus showed clear diurnal behavior (Figure 3). A one-tailed t-test used to 

test the hypothesis that detections for tagged L. maximus would be higher during daylight hours 

when compared to night was highly significant (t = 4.07, df = 14, p < 0.0006). Tagged fish were 

recorded more frequently during daylight hours (mean = 621 1-hr bins, SD = 317) than at night 

(mean = 226, SD = 147). All fish were recorded at night, though only Tag 8 was recorded more 

frequently at night. As no fish movement among receivers was recorded during the night hours, 

all subsequent analyses were conducted using detections recorded during the daylight hours.

The fidelity of tagged L. maximus to the area of Conch Reef encompassed by the receiver 

array, measured at the scale of 24-hr bins, was quantified for each individual at each receiver 

(Table 2). A fish was considered present at a receiver on a given day if a minimum of one signal 

detection was recorded during daylight hours. At this temporal scale, fidelity was high (mean = 

67%, SD = 34%). All L. maximus were recorded most frequently at receiver 2 where they were 

tagged and released. Three of the eight fish (Tags 2, 4 and 5) were recorded for 100 percent of 

the 95 days possible by at least one of the three receivers. In addition to being recorded at 

receiver 2, Tag 2 was also recorded at both receivers 1 and 3 for more than 35 percent of the 

study, Tag 4 rarely left receiver 2 and Tag 5 was also recorded for 81 percent of the study at 

receiver 3. Three fish (Tags 3, 6 and 7) were recorded for more than 50 percent of the study 

period at receiver 2, while Tags 1 and 8 were recorded for less than 25 percent of the study. The 

within-day fidelity of L. maximus was also investigated by calculating the weighted proportion of 

1-hr daylight time bins in which a tagged fish was recorded (Table 2). Here a minimum of one 

signal detection was required per 1-hr bin for a fish to be considered present. At this temporal 

scale, the site fidelity of tagged L. maximus was comparatively low (mean = 37%, SD = 18%). 

Again, all fish were recorded most frequently at receiver 2. Only two fish (Tags 3 and 4) were 

each present for more than 50 percent of the 1-hr time bins over the course of the 95-day study, 

while the remaining four fish were recorded between 14 and 47 percent. When compared to fish 

fidelity at the scale of 24-hr bins, the mean percent-recorded for tagged L. maximus declined by 

3.8 to 69.6 percent (mean = -30%, SD = 21.5%). 

Within-day fish fidelity was further investigated by calculating the number of fish 

departures from the receiver array and the duration of each departure during daylight hours 

(Table 3). A departure was defined as the lack of detection at any receiver in the array for one or 

more consecutive 1-hr daylight time bins. The absence of a fish from the array during the night 

hours was not considered a departure based on the results of the diel pattern analysis described 

above. All tagged L. maximus made multiple departures from the receiver array during their time 

at-liberty. The total number of departures per tagged fish varied considerably (mean = 92, SD = 

68). With the exception of Tag 7, the majority of departures for each fish did not exceed 1-hr. A 

least-squares linear regression of total departures per fish on percent 1-hr bins recorded per fish 

was not significant (ANOVA, P > 0.082) with a correlation coefficient of 32.5 percent. 

5
Figure 3. Diel patterns in the detections of eight L. maximus tagged at Conch Reef from 29 August 2002

to 01 December 2002. Areas of shading represent darkness. 

6
Figure 3, continued. 

7
Table 2. Detections for tagged L. maximus at each receiver expressed as a percentage of 24-hr time bins 

and 1-hr daylight time bins recorded from 29 August through 01 December, 2002. None = the percentage 

of time bins in which no signal was recorded. The percent change describes the difference between 24-hr 

and 1-hr bin data. 

 Acoustic Receiver 

___________________________________ 

Fish 1 2 3 None Percent 

Number (24-hr / 1-hr) (24-hr / 1-hr) (24-hr / 1-hr) (24-hr / 1-hr) Change 

1 3.2 / 0.2 22.1 / 15.7 1.1 / 0.0 77.9 / 84.2 -6.3 

2 36.8 / 3.0 100 / 26.2 37.9 / 3.2 0.0 / 69.6 -69.6 

3 0.0 / 0.0 80 / 52.1 0.0 / 0.0 20 / 47.9 -27.9 

4 1.1 / 0.04 100 / 67.5 9.5 / 0.4 0.0 / 32.5 -32.5 

5 1.1 / 0.04 100 / 47.3 81.1 / 9.0 0.0 / 48.8 -48.8 

6 2.1 / 0.01 58.9 / 30.4 0.0 / 0.0 41.1 / 69.6 -28.5 

7 2.1 / 0.01 57.9 / 35.4 0.0 / 0.0 42.1 / 64.6 -22.5 

8 1.1 / 0.01 17.9 / 14.1 1.1 / 0.04 82.1 / 85.9 -3.8 

Table 3. Frequency of consecutive 1-hr time bins in which no receivers recorded signals from tagged L.

maximus during daylight hours. 

 Consecutive Hours

Fish ______________________________

Number 1 2 3 4 5 

1 15 5 2 1 0 

2 111 46 27 11 5

3 73 19 11 7 4

4 110 34 21 13 3 

5 58 21 3 5 3 

6 30 13 6 1 1 

7 22 19 8 8 1 

8 16 4 2 0 0

 

8
DISCUSSION 

We used acoustic telemetry to collect preliminary data on the movement of tagged 

L. maximus inside a marine reserve in the northern Florida Keys. Movement among 

receivers was recorded for seven of eight tagged fish, and diel patterns in fish movement 

conformed to our a priori hypothesis that tagged L. maximus would be recorded more 

frequently during daylight hours. The small number of receivers deployed in this 

preliminary effort did not allow for the precise quantification of home range for L. 

maximus, which has been estimated to be 600 m2

 for small (< 250 mm TL) individuals 

(Tupper and Rudd 2002). Our results do not preclude a home range of this size and 

suggest that at Conch Reef the home range of some individuals may be much greater than 

600 m2

. 

Davis (1976) suggested that sandy areas adjacent to hard bottom reef are common 

habitats for L. maximus. While diving during this and previous Aquarius missions, we 

observed L. maximus to be present in the vicinity of Aquarius in moderate numbers (10 to 

20 individuals) sporadically throughout the daylight hours on a sand flat adjacent to spur 

and groove topography. Receiver 2 was sited on a small reef patch in the center of this 

sand flat. Seven of the eight fish made multiple movements away from receiver 2, with 

three fish recorded at other receivers frequently over their respective times at-liberty 

(Figure 2). In the case of Tag 2, daily movements occurred to both the north and the 

south of its release point indicating a wide individual ambit. The behavior of Tag 2 also 

suggests that movement behavior may change over time, as the movement away from 

receiver 2 ceased in mid-October and did not resume again during the course of the study. 

For the purpose of this project, we chose not to focus on site fidelity per se, but 

rather we focused on quantifying the repeated returns of individual L. maximus to a 

particular receiver, an area of up to 282,743 m2

 per receiver. We investigated fidelity in a 

temporal context at two scales, that of individual 24-hr time bins and that of 1-hr time 

bins. At the scale of 24-hr bins, the fidelity of tagged L. maximus to their release location 

was very high. Each fish was recorded by receiver 2 at least once for every day that it 

was recorded by the receiver array, whether the fish was present within the array for 17 

days (Tag 8) or 95 days (Tags 2, 4 and 5). In the case of Tag 1, after departing the array 

on September 17th, it was absent for nearly 2 months before returning to receiver 2 on

November 14th. At the scale of 1-hr time bins, the fidelity of the tagged L. maximus was 

comparatively low. Interestingly, at this scale, fish such as Tag 2, which was present 

every day of the 95-day study (Figure 2), was actually only recorded by the receivers for 

26.2 percent of the total 1-hr daylight time bins possible during that period. 

Our experience suggests that the comparatively small number of 1-hr time bins in 

which fish were recorded, when compared to the 24-hr bins, was likely a result of the 

interaction of seafloor topographic complexity at Conch Reef, fish behavior and 

limitations of the acoustic receivers. The topography at Conch Reef is diverse, including 

walls and extensive spur and groove formations, which creates a number of acoustic 

shadows (areas where acoustic receivers are blocked from recording a transmission). 

Tagged L. maximus were rarely observed more than three body lengths away from the 

seafloor, either over hard bottom or adjacent sand areas. This behavior would likely have 

placed the fish frequently in these shadows and out of range of the receivers. Support for 

9
this explanation comes from the data on the number and duration of fish departures from 

the array (Table 3). The fact that the majority of departures for seven of the eight tagged 

L. maximus did not exceed 1 hour suggests that rather than leaving the array entirely, 

these fish were simply dropping in and out of the shadows created by the reef. 

Subsequent studies will attempt to minimize the presence of acoustic shadows to more

accurately characterize fish movement close to the reef. 

Where individual tagged L. maximus were not present for the entire 95-day study, 

it is possible that they were caught by fishing activity in adjacent areas. L. maximus are 

highly sought animals by the recreational fishing industry in Florida where reef habitats 

occur (McBride et al. 2001) and are currently classified as over-fished (Ault et al. 2003). 

While conducting research adjacent to Aquarius we have often observed multiple fishing 

boats moored to the buoys immediately adjacent to the no-take reserve at Conch Reef. In 

fact, on numerous occasions we have observed fishing boats stray within the boundaries 

of the no-take reserve, including potential spear fishing operations. Absence from the 

acoustic receiver array is also potentially explained by movements away from Conch 

Reef for spawning purposes given that in Florida L. maximus spawning occurs from

September to April (Davis 1976); however, the size of the fish tagged (< 180 mm FL)

make this unlikely, and it is not clear that L. maximus move very far for spawning (Colin 

1982). 

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. While we 

recorded high fidelity of L. maximus to the area of Conch reef encompassed by the 

receivers, the distribution of receivers was insufficient to characterize the fine-scale 

movement of those fish. Given the relatively small-scale of the reserve at Conch Reef 

(less than 0.23 km2

) and the fishing activity around the perimeter of those reserves, this 

fine-scale movement will be important. 

The differences we recorded in fish fidelity at the scale of 24-hr and 1-hr time

bins have obvious consequences for conservation and management. Key questions 

include whether this difference was ecological, or simply a result of the limits of acoustic 

telemetry technology. Assuming that the topographic complexity of Conch Reef was 

largely responsible for the lack of more signal detections, a greater number of receivers, 

deployed up in the water column rather than down on the reef, should allow us to 

characterize the movements of these and other species more accurately. The greater 

number of receivers should improve our ability to triangulate the position of a particular 

fish that is recorded by more than a single receiver. An increase in the resolution of

movement data for this species relative to the boundaries of the no-take reserve should 

provide important information on the efficacy of small reserves for the conservation and 

management of vagile species. 

10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Support for the project was provided by NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, NOAA Fisheries’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and private grants to S. 

Miller. The views expressed herein represent those of the authors and do not necessarily 

reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies. We are grateful to S. Fangman, K. 

Benson and W. Ojwang for assistance throughout the Aquarius mission. We would also 

like to thank T. Dunmire of NURC-UNCW for key assistance in catching fish, and the 

rest of the NURC-UNCW staff for assistance at all stages of the project. The comments 

of five anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript. 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). 

LITERATURE CITED 

Arendt, M.D., J. A. Lucy, and D.A. Evans. 2001a. Diel and seasonal activity patterns of 

adult tautog, Tautoga onitis, in lower Chesapeake Bay, inferred from ultrasonic 

telemetry. Env. Biol. Fish. 62: 379-391. 

Arendt, M.D., J. A. Lucy, and T.A. Munroe. 2001b. Seasonal occurrence and siteutilization patterns of adult tautog, Tautoga onitis (Labridae), at manmade and natural 

structures in lower Chesapeake Bay. Fish. Bull. 99: 519-527. 

Ault, J.S., S. G. Smith, G.A. Diaz and E. Franklin. 2003. Florida hogfish fishery stock 

assessment. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL. 68 pp. 

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

146. 

Bradbury, C., J.M. Green and M. Bruce-Lockhart. 1995. Home ranges of female cunner, 

Tautogolabrus adspersus (Labridae), as determined by acoustic telemetry. Can. J. Zool. 

73: 1268-1279. 

Chapman, D.D., E. K. Pikitch, E. Babcock, and M.S. Shivji. 2005. Marine reserve design 

and evaluation using automated acoustic telemetry: a case-study involving coral reefassociated sharks in the Mesoamerican Caribbean. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 39: 42-55. 

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

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

Colin, P.L. 1982. Spawning and larval development of the hogfish, Lachnolaimus 

maximus (Pisces: Labridae). Fish. Bull. 80: 853-862. 

Davis, J.C. 1976. Biology of the hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus (Walbaum), in the 

Florida Keys. M.S. Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables FL. 86 pp. 

11
Heupel, M.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2005. Using acoustic monitoring to evaluate 

MPAs for shark nursery areas: the importance of long-term data. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 

39: 10-18. 

Humston, R., J.S. Ault, M.F. Larkin and J. Luo. 2005. Movements and site fidelity of the 

bonefish Albula vulpes in the northern Florida Keys determined by acoustic telemetry. 

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 291: 237-248. 

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. 

Lieske, E., and R. Myers. 1999. Coral Reef Fishes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

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

of coral reef fishes from the Aquarius undersea laboratory. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 39:68-

73. 

Lindholm, J., L. Kaufman, S. Miller, A. Wagschal & M. Newville. 2005b. 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. 25 pp. 

Lindholm, J., A. Knight, L. Kaufman and S. Miller. 2006. Site fidelity and movement of 

the parrotfishes Scarus coeruleus and Scarus taeniopterus at Conch Reef (northern 

Florida Keys). Caribb. J. Sci. 42: 138-144. 

McBride, R., M. Johnson, L. Bullock and F. Stengard. 2001. Preliminary observations on 

the sexual development of hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus (Pisces: Labridae). Gulf

Caribb. Fish. Inst. 52: 98-102. 

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

Inst. 14:201-241. 

Randall, J. E. and G. L. Warmke. 1967. The food habits of the hogfish (Lachnolaimus 

maximus), a Labrid from the western Atlantic. Caribb. J. Sci. 7: 141-144. 

Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, 

New York. 887 pp. 

Topping, D.T., C.G. Lowe, and J.E. Caselle. 2005. Home range and habitat utilization of 

adult California sheephead, Semicossyphus pulcher (Labridae), in a temperate no-take 

marine reserve. Mar. Biol. 147:301-311. 

Topping, D.T., C.G. Lowe, and J.E. Caselle. In press. Site fidelity and seasonal 

movement patterns of adult California sheephead, Semicossyphus pulcher (Labridae), 

ascertained via long-term acoustic monitoring. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

12
Tupper, M. and M. A. Rudd. 2002. Species-specific impacts of a small marine reserve on 

reef fish production and fishing productivity n the Turks and Caicos Islands. Env. Cons. 

29: 484-492. 

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. 

13
ONMS CONSERVATION SERIES PUBLICATIONS 

To date, the following reports have been published in the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. All

publications are available on the National Marine Sanctuary Program website

(http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/). 

Comments on Hydrographic and Topographic LIDAR Acquisition and Merging with Multibeam Sounding

Data Acquired in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-05)

Conservation Science in NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries: Description and Recent Accomplishments 

(ONMS-06-04)

Normalization and characterization of multibeam backscatter: Koitlah Point to Point of the Arches, 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Survey HMPR-115-2004-03 (ONMS-06-03)

Developing Alternatives for Optimal Representation of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Communities in

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-02) 

Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-01) 

Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development Workshop Report (ONMS-05-05) 

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 (MSD-05-4) 

The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

(MSD-05-3) 

An annotated bibliography of diet studies of fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-05-2) 

Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence 

River Estuary (MSD-05-1) 

Biogeographic Analysis of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (MSD-04-1) 

A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of Subtidal Marine Reserves in Central California (MSD-04-

2, MSD-04-3) 

Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site (MSD-03-1) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, 

Washington (MSD-01-04) 

Workshop on Marine Mammal Research & Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-01-

03) 

A Review of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-2) 

Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

(MSD-01-1) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A Rapid Assessment of Coral, Fish, and Algae 

Using the AGRRA Protocol (MSD-00-3) 

The Economic Contribution of Whalewatching to Regional Economies: Perspectives From Two 

National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-00-2) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided Education and Monitoring Program

(MSD-00-1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo

opalescens) Harvest in California (MSD-99-1)