Short Communication |
Corresponding author: Rosalía Aguilar-Medrano ( liabiol@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Adnan Tokaç
© 2023 Rosalía Aguilar-Medrano, María Eugenia Vega-Cendejas, Ariel A. Chi Espínola.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Aguilar-Medrano R, Vega-Cendejas ME, Chi Espínola AA (2023) A checklist of dead fishes (Actinopterygii and Elasmobranchii) associated with the algal bloom event of the summer of 2022 on the Yucatan coasts, southern Gulf of Mexico. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 53: 263-270. https://doi.org/10.3897/aiep.53.112253
|
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are natural phenomena that occur when colonies of microalgae grow out of control and produce toxic or harmful effects on the surrounding fauna. In August 2022, an HAB, dominated by the diatom, Cylindrotheca closterium (Ehrenberg) Reimann et J.C. Lewin, 1964, occurred on the Yucatan coast, southern Gulf of Mexico. In the presently reported study, two photo transects were established along the coastline, one at the onset of the bloom, at Telchac port, and the other at the final phase of the event, at Chixchulub port. The affected fish species were documented photographically and a taxonomic list, with their abundance, density, and biomass is presented, as well as a summary of the affected ecosystems according to the affinity of these species. A total of 54 species were recorded; 48 in Telchac and 21 in Chicxulub, with 15 species occurring at both sites. The affected species have a greater affinity to reef systems, beaches, and estuaries, in that order, between 3 m and 113 m depth. In the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) nomenclature, the majority of the species are in the “least concern” category, however, species were also recorded in the “near threatened”, “vulnerable”, and “endangered” categories. Therefore, it is extremely important to monitor these events and report the affected species, since the increase in the frequency of these phenomena due to local and global factors can have significant repercussions on species endemic to the coastal zone.
Cylindrotheca closterium, dead fishes, harmful algal bloom, red tide, Yucatan Peninsula
Harmful algal blooms (HABs), colloquially known as red tides, are a natural phenomenon that occurs when colonies of microalgae (in the sea or in freshwater) grow out of control and produce toxic or harmful effects on the surrounding fauna (
When HABs appear on the coasts, they cause not only ecological impacts but also strong economic impacts on the local community, directly affecting fishing, as well as the restaurant and tourist industry. On 3 August 2022, fishermen noticed occurrence of live octopuses on the shore, and on 4 August dead and intoxicated fish started to deposit on the beach due to the HAB effects, dominated by Cylindrotheca closterium (Ehrenberg) Reimann et J.C. Lewin, 1964, a non-toxic diatom species (
The shore was monitored based on two photo transects, the first, at the early site of the stranding, on 5 August, covering 1 km of the shore (Telchac) and the second one at the final phase of the event, on 12 August, covering 10 m (Chixchulub) (Fig.
Diagrams showing the study area on the Yucatan coast, Mexico. (A) map of the study area (Sampling sites: 1 = Chicxulub, 2 = Telchac port). The green line marks the stretch of the shore affected by the harmful algal bloom in summer 2022. (B) Diagrammatic representation of a photo transect on the coastline. (C) Diagrammatic representation of the habitats where the affected species have been recorded.
The stranded organisms were identified up to the species level based on photographs. The identification was facilitated by the relatively fresh coloration of the specimens. Once we had a list of species, using FishBase (
Species richness was determined as the number of species recorded on both photo transects, abundance as the total number of individuals recorded per species, density as the number of organisms per species per 1 m2, and biomass as the weight [g] per species per 1 m2.
Because the photo transect in Telchac was established at the beginning of the HAB, the beach cleaning campaigns had not started and a greater number of species could be observed, while in Chicxulub the photo transect was smaller and recorded less extensive diversity because the cleaning campaigns were already ongoing, however, it was possible to list species not recorded in Telchac.
Richness. A total of 54 species were recorded (Table
Abundance. Telchac presented the mean abundance” of 6.4 individuals per species (range 1–36 ind./spec.) and Chicxulub 16.95 individuals per species (range 1–245 ind./spec.), the overall mean value was 12.4 ind./spec. (range 1–281 ind./spec.) (Table
Density. In Telchac a mean density of 0.2142 ind. · m–2 (range 0.03–1.2 ind. · m–2) was recorded, while in Chicxulub 0.4241 ind. · m–2 (range 0.025–6.13 ind. · m–2), the overall mean value was 0.25 ind. · m–2 (range 0.025–3.66 ind. · m–2) (Table
Biomass. In Telchac the mean biomass was 593.69 g · m–2 and the total biomass (range 0.39–20 000 g · m–2) and in Chicxulub it was 3750.46 g · m–2 (range 35.4–55 370 g · m–2), the overall mean value was 1249.51 g · m–2 (range 0.39–27 820.6 g · m–2) (Table
Habitat. The species affected by the HAB presented a range of sizes between 8 and 300 cm, the majority, 42 species, with sizes between 8 and 62 cm and an overall mean value of 47.69 cm (Table
Fish species affected by the harmful algal bloom off the coast of Yucatan, Mexico in summer 2022.
Species | Family |
---|---|
Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) | Pomacentridae |
Achirus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) | Achiridae |
Opsanus beta (Goode et Bean, 1880) | Batrachoididae |
Sanopus reticulatus Collette, 1983 | Batrachoididae |
Strongylura marina (Walbaum, 1792) | Belonidae |
Strongylura notata (Poey, 1860) | Belonidae |
Oligoplites saurus (Bloch et Schneider, 1801) | Carangidae |
Caranx hippos (Linnaeus, 1766) | Carangidae |
Chaetodon ocellatus Bloch, 1787 | Chaetodontidae |
Harengula jaguana Poey, 1865 | Clupeidae |
Dactylopterus volitans (Linnaeus, 1758) | Dactylopteridae |
Hypanus say (Lesueur, 1817) | Dasyatidae |
Chilomycterus schoepfii (Walbaum, 1792) | Diodontidae |
Diodon holocanthus Linnaeus, 1758 | Diodontidae |
Anchoa hepsetus (Linnaeus, 1758) | Engraulidae |
Eucinostomus gula (Quoy et Gaimard, 1824) | Gerreidae |
Eugerres plumieri (Cuvier in Cuvier et Valenciennes, 1830) | Gerreidae |
Ginglymostoma cirratum (Bonnaterre, 1788) | Ginglymostomatidae |
Haemulon aurolineatum Cuvier in Cuvier et Valenciennes, 1830 | Haemulidae |
Haemulon plumieri (Lacepede, 1801) | Haemulidae |
Orthopristis chrysoptera (Linnaeus, 1766) | Haemulidae |
Chriodorus atherinoides Goode et Bean, 1882 | Hemiramphidae |
Hemiramphus brasiliensis (Linnaeus, 1758) | Hemiramphidae |
Neoniphon marianus (Cuvier in Cuvier et Valenciennes, 1829) | Holocentridae |
Lachnolaimus maximus (Walbaum, 1792) | Labridae |
Lutjanus campechanus (Poey, 1860) | Lutjanidae |
Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch, 1791) | Lutjanidae |
Gymnothorax saxicola Jordan et Davis, 1891 | Muraenidae |
Narcine bancroftii (Griffith et Smith, 1834) | Narcinidae |
Ogcocephalus parvus Longley et Hildebrand, 1940 | Ogcocephalidae |
Ogcocephalus cubifrons (Richardson, 1836) | Ogcocephalidae |
Lepophidium jeannae Fowler, 1941 | Ophidiidae |
Acanthostracion quadricornis (Linnaeus, 1758) | Ostraciidae |
Pomacanthus arcuatus (Linnaeus, 1758) | Pomacanthidae |
Holacanthus ciliaris (Linnaeus, 1758) | Pomacanthidae |
Pseudobatos lentiginosus Garman, 1880 | Rhinobatidae |
Scarus coeruleus (Bloch, 1786) | Scaridae |
Nicholsina usta (Valenciennes in Cuvier et Valenciennes, 1840) | Scaridae |
Pareques acuminatus (Bloch et Schneider, 1801) | Sciaenidae |
Pareques umbrosus (Jordan et Eigenmann, 1889) | Sciaenidae |
Eques lanceolatus (Linnaeus, 1758) | Sciaenidae |
Scorpaena brasiliensis Cuvier in Cuvier et Valenciennes, 1829 | Scorpaenidae |
Scorpaena plumieri Bloch, 1789 | Scorpaenidae |
Diplectrum formosum (Linnaeus, 1766) | Serranidae |
Hypoplectrus puella (Cuvier in Cuvier et Valenciennes, 1828) | Serranidae |
Serranus subligarius (Cope, 1870) | Serranidae |
Calamus calamus (Valenciennes, 1830) | Sparidae |
Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus, 1766) | Sparidae |
Synodus foetens (Linnaeus, 1766) | Synodontidae |
Sphoeroides spengleri (Bloch, 1785) | Tetraodontidae |
Sphoeroides testudineus (Linnaeus, 1758) | Tetraodontidae |
Prionotus alatus Goode et Bean, 1883 | Triglidae |
Prionotus longispinosus Teague, 1951 | Triglidae |
Urobatis jamaicensis (Cuvier, 1816) | Urotrygonidae |
Ecological variables associated with the fish species affected by the harmful algal bloom, Yucatan, Mexico, in summer 2022.
Species | N | ML [cm] | Weight [g] | Depth [m] | Habitat | IUCN category | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min | Max | Re | Fs | Es | Sv | Be | Wc | Fw | DD | LC | NT | V | E | ||||
Abudefduf saxatilis | 1 | 23.0 | 90.6 | 0 | 41 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Achirus lineatus | 1 | 23.0 | 101.4 | 1 | 110 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Opsanus beta | 281 | 38.0 | 226.0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sanopus reticulatus | 3 | 42.0 | 226.0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Strongylura marina | 1 | 73.0 | 370.0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Strongylura notata | 1 | 45.0 | 71.8 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Oligoplites saurus | 2 | 35.0 | 118.1 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Caranx hippos | 1 | 124.0 | 21019.4 | 0 | 350 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chaetodon ocellatus | 1 | 20.0 | 285.0 | 0 | 91 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Harengula jaguana | 26 | 27.5 | 45.1 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Dactylopterus volitans | 2 | 45.0 | 92.3 | 1 | 150 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hypanus say | 9 | 78.0 | 19490.0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chilomycterus schoepfii | 9 | 33.0 | 550.0 | 0 | 77 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Diodon holocanthus | 4 | 60.0 | 942.0 | 0 | 104 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Anchoa hepsetus | 1 | 8.0 | 11.8 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Eucinostomus gula | 5 | 22.7 | 35.4 | 0 | 71 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Eugerres plumieri | 3 | 40.0 | 347.0 | 0 | 30 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ginglymostoma cirratum | 1 | 300.0 | 60000.0 | 0 | 130 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Haemulon aurolineatum | 2 | 25.0 | 799.2 | 1 | 103 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Haemulon plumieri | 16 | 53.0 | 101.7 | 1 | 74 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Orthopristis chrysoptera | 3 | 46.0 | 108.0 | 5 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chriodorus atherinoides | 3 | 20.6 | 73.6 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hemiramphus brasiliensis | 16 | 41.0 | 73.1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Neoniphon marianus | 3 | 22.0 | 336.0 | 15 | 151 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Lachnolaimus maximus | 5 | 91.0 | 119.0 | 0 | 91 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Lutjanus campechanus | 1 | 100.0 | 619.0 | 10 | 190 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ocyurus chrysurus | 1 | 86.3 | 1005.0 | 0 | 180 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Gymnothorax saxicola | 1 | 62.0 | 129.2 | 2 | 213 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Narcine bancroftii | 4 | 65.0 | 85.0 | 0 | 189 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ogcocephalus parvus | 11 | 10.0 | 34.0 | 29 | 360 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ogcocephalus cubifrons | 7 | 38.0 | 34.0 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Lepophidium jeannae | 1 | 30.5 | 308.0 | 26 | 280 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Acanthostracion quadricornis | 61 | 55.0 | 215.0 | 2 | 90 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pomacanthus arcuatus | 12 | 60.0 | 2775.0 | 1 | 101 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Holacanthus ciliaris | 2 | 45.0 | 1487.0 | 1 | 125 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pseudobatos lentiginosus | 4 | 76.0 | 696.6 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Scarus coeruleus | 3 | 120.0 | 488.0 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Nicholsina usta | 8 | 30.0 | 303.0 | 1 | 73 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pareques acuminatus | 19 | 25.0 | 91.0 | 3 | 113 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pareques umbrosus | 4 | 20.0 | 91.0 | 4 | 110 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Eques lanceolatus | 25 | 30.0 | 36.5 | 2 | 230 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Scorpaena brasiliensis | 4 | 35.0 | 552.0 | 1 | 204 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Scorpaena plumieri | 7 | 45.0 | 552.0 | 1 | 80 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Diplectrum formosum | 14 | 30.0 | 48.3 | 1 | 132 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hypoplectrus puella | 27 | 16.7 | 42.8 | 3 | 90 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Serranus subligarius | 1 | 10.0 | 393.0 | 3 | 80 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Calamus calamus | 10 | 56.0 | 433.0 | 1 | 75 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Lagodon rhomboides | 1 | 40.0 | 114.2 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Synodus foetens | 4 | 43.0 | 97.0 | 1 | 200 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sphoeroides spengleri | 17 | 16.0 | 25.0 | 2 | 74 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sphoeroides testudineus | 14 | 30.0 | 57.3 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Prionotus alatus | 1 | 20.0 | 75.4 | 35 | 611 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Prionotus longispinosus | 1 | 35.0 | 75.4 | 9 | 219 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Urobatis jamaicensis | 5 | 70.0 | 5003.0 | 1 | 160 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 670 | 38 | 2 | 25 | 14 | 35 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 46 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
Mean | 12.41 | 48.80 | 2250.0 | 3.09 | 113 | ||||||||||||
Min | 1.0 | 8.0 | 11.8 | 0 | 5 | ||||||||||||
Max | 281.0 | 300.0 | 60000.0 | 35.0 | 611 |
Ecological affinity, depth, and conservation status of species affected by the harmful algal bloom off the coast of Yucatan, Mexico in summer 2022; (A) percentage of species with affinity to the recorded habitats; (B) distribution in the water column, minimum and maximum depth; (C) number of species in the Red List categories. Abbreviations: Min = minimum, Max = maximum, LC = “least concern”, DD = “data deficient”, NT = “near threatened”, V = “vulnerable”, E = “endangered”.
Different authors recorded between 14 and 94 fish species on the Yucatan coast (
In total, 680 organisms were recorded, 281 representing Opsanus beta. This type of phenomenon occurs mainly in the coastal zone and Opsanus beta is a coastal species, distributed between 0 m and 5 m of depth, which is why it was highly affected, recording the highest abundance, density, and biomass. However, since this species is in the category of “least concern” and it is distributed from the east coast of Florida to Belize, we can assume that the HAB did not cause significant damage to its populations. However, a species with similar habits is Sanopus reticulatus, which is microendemic to the west coast of the Yucatan Peninsula and is in the “endangered” category. Although only three individuals of this species were recorded, these were recorded at the beginning of the HAB, so we can assume that more organisms were affected during the course of the HAB, and thus this could have affected their populations.
Among the species with the highest abundance and density were Acanthostracion quadricornis, Hypoplectrus puella, Eques lanceolatus, and Harengula jaguana. These species have a wide distribution in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean; they are coastal inhabitants of beaches, reefs, and submerged vegetation, except for Harengula jaguana which is found in coastal schools in the water column, all of these species are in the conservation category “least concern”. Lachnolaimus maximus is also widely distributed in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, it is a coastal inhabitant of beaches, reefs, and submerged vegetation; however, it is in the “vulnerable” category. Only five individuals of this species were recorded, four at the beginning of the HAB and one at the end, so we assume a low impact of the HAB on the species population.
Four cartilaginous species stand out among the species with the highest biomass, Ginglymostoma cirratum, which reaches 60 kg and 300 cm of total length (TL), of which only one individual was recorded, Hypanus say with 19.5 kg and 78 cm of TL, of which nine individuals were recorded, Urobatis jamaicensis with 5 kg and 76 cm TL of which six individuals were recorded, and Pseudobatos lentiginosus with 700 g and 76 cm of TL of which four individuals were recorded. The species Hypanus say and Urobatis jamaicensis are in the conservation category “least concern”, Ginglymostoma cirratum in “data deficient” and Pseudobatos lentiginosus “near threatened.” The latter species is distributed in South and North Carolina, the coast of Florida, and the whole Gulf of Mexico; however, it is an uncommon species (
On the coast of Yucatan, tourism, urbanization, sewage discharges, livestock, agriculture, shrimp farming, and atmospheric deposition have been implicated as the most important continental sources of nutrient inputs into the coastal ecosystem (
All the authors are recipients of the National System of Researchers grant (CONAHCYT-SNI).