Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:55:12.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mark–recapture investigation on Octopus vulgaris specimens in an area of the central western Mediterranean Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2014

Marco Mereu ,
Blondine Agus ,
Rita Cannas ,
Alessandro Cau ,
Elisabetta Coluccia  and
Danila Cuccu
Marco Mereu
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli, 1 - 09126 Cagliari, Italy
Blondine Agus
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli, 1 - 09126 Cagliari, Italy
Rita Cannas
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli, 1 - 09126 Cagliari, Italy
Alessandro Cau
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli, 1 - 09126 Cagliari, Italy
Elisabetta Coluccia
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli, 1 - 09126 Cagliari, Italy
Danila Cuccu*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli, 1 - 09126 Cagliari, Italy
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: D. Cuccu, Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente, Università di Cagliari, Via T. Fiorelli, 1 - 09126 Cagliari, Italy email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

T-bar anchor tags and Petersen discs were used during a preliminary mark–recapture experiment in the wild on 268 Octopus vulgaris. Discs, despite causing some injuries, were characterized by a quicker healing (within 5 days) and a higher retention rate than T-bar tags (about 97% versus 22%, respectively), therefore they were considered the best technique for tagging the animals in the subsequent growth studies. From 2010 to 2013, a total of 1604 O. vulgaris (74.4% with a total weight <300 g) were tagged with discs and released in an area of the central western Sardinian Sea (western Mediterranean Sea). Ninety-one specimens were recaptured after 4–63 days of freedom, 59 of which (31 males and 28 females) showed positive growth increments after a minimum time of 8 days at liberty. In general, a high individual variability (0.96–9.09 g day−1) and higher mean daily growth rates in females (3.07–3.65 g day−1) than in males (2.08–2.98 g day−1) were recorded, but this difference was not statistically significant. Using tag–recapture data, the first exponential growth curves for both sexes of Octopus vulgaris of small–medium size from the Mediterranean Sea were obtained, and compared with those available in the literature for the species.

Keywords

Octopus vulgaristagginggrowthgrowth curvesMediterranean Sea
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 131 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aguado Giménez, F. and García García, B. (2002) Growth and food intake in Octopus vulgaris Cuvier (1797): influence of body weight, temperature, sex and diet. Aquaculture International 20, 472–487.Google Scholar
Barratt, I.M. and Allcock, A.L. (2010) Ageing octopods from stylets: development of a technique for permanent preparations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67, 1452–1457.Google Scholar
Canali, E., Ponte, G., Belcari, P., Rocha, F. and Fiorito, G. (2011) Evaluating age in Octopus vulgaris: estimation, validation and seasonal differences. Marine Ecology Progress Series 441, 141–149.Google Scholar
Chapela, A., González, A.F., Dawe, E.G., Rocha, F.J. and Guerra, A. (2006) Growth of common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) in cages suspended from rafts. Scientia Marina 70, 121–129.Google Scholar
Cuccu, D., Mereu, M., Cau, Al., Pesci, P. and Cau, A. (2013a) Reproductive development versus estimated age and size in a wild Mediterranean population of Octopus vulgaris (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93, 843–849.Google Scholar
Cuccu, D., Mereu, M., Porcu, C., Follesa, M.C., Cau, Al. and Cau, A. (2013b) Development of sexual organs and fecundity in Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 from the Sardinian waters (Mediterranean Sea). Mediterranean Marine Science 14, 270–277.Google Scholar
Domain, F., Jouffré, D. and Caverivière, A. (2000) Growth of Octopus vulgaris from tagging in Senegalese waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 80, 699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzedine-Najai, S. (1997) Tagging of the cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis L. (Cephalopoda: Decapoda), in the Gulf of Tunis. Scientia Marina 61, 59–65.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (2006) Cephalopods commodity update. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (2013) Global production statistics 1950–2011. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome: FAO. http://firms.fao.org/gfcm/topic/17105/en (accessed 18 April 2014).Google Scholar
Fuentes, L., Otero, J.J., Moxica, C., Sánchez, F.J. and Iglesias, J. (2006) Application of different external tagging methods to Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797, with special reference to T-bar anchor tags and Petersen disks. Boletin del Instituto Español de Oceanografia 22, 3–11.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, J.M. (1993) Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 (polvo-comum): sinopse da biologia e exploração . PhD thesis, Universidade dos Açores, Horta, Portugal.Google Scholar
Guerra, A. (1979) Fitting a von Bertalanffy expression to Octopus vulgaris growth. Investigacíon Pesquera 43, 319–327.Google Scholar
Guerra, A. (1997) Octopus vulgaris: review of the world fishery. In Lang, M.A. and Hochberg, F.G. (eds) Proceeding of the Workshop on The Fishery and Market Potential of Octopus in California. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 91–97.Google Scholar
Hanlon, R.T. and Messenger, J.B. (1996) Cephalopod behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, H. (1979) Studies on the fisheries biology of common octopus off the northwest coast of Africa. Bulletin Far Seas Fishery Research Laboratory, Shimizu 17, 13–124.Google Scholar
Hermosilla, C.A., Rocha, F., Fiorito, G., González, A.F. and Guerra, A. (2010) Age validation in common octopus Octopus vulgaris using stylet increment analysis. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67, 1458–1463.Google Scholar
Inoue, K., Hamaguchi, A. and Li, A. (1953) Preliminary mark and release experiment of common octopus. Hyogo Prefectural Fisheries Experimental Station (HPFES), HPFES Annual report 1952, 123 pp [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Itami, K. (1964) Marks for common octopus and results of marking experiments. Suisanzoshoku 12, 119–125 [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Katayama, K. and Morita, S. (1960) Preliminary survey of common octopus. Okayama Prefectural Fisheries Experimental Station (OPFES), OPFES Annual report, 32 pp [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Kaufmann, K.W. (1981) Fitting and using growth curves. Oecologica 49, 293–299.Google Scholar
Lipinski, M.R., Hampton, I., Sauer, W.H.H. and Augustyn, C.J. (1998) Daily net emigration from a spawning concentration of chokka squid (Loligo vulgaris reynaudii d'Orbigny, 1845) in Kromme Bay, South Africa. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55, 258–270.Google Scholar
Mangold, K. and Boletzky, S. (1973) New data on the reproductive biology and growth of Octopus vulgaris . Marine Biology 19, 7–12.Google Scholar
Mereu, M., Masala, P., Maccioni, A., Stacca, D., Cau, Al. and Cuccu, D. (2010) Tagging Octopus vulgaris (Octopoda: Octopodidae) in an area of central western Sardinian waters. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 17, 306–307.Google Scholar
Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., Hall, K., Lipinski, M.R., Marian, J.E.A.R., Nishiguchi, M., Sakai, M., Shulman, D.J., Sinclair, B., Sinn, D.L., Staudinger, M., Van Gelderen, R., Villanueva, R. and Warnke, K. (2007) Ethical and welfare considerations when using cephalopods as experimental animals. Review Fish Biology Fisheries 17, 455–476.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, K., Takayanagi, S. and Takami, T. (1993) Cephalopod tagging and marking in Japan: a review. In Okutani, T., O'Dor, R.K. and Kubodera, T. (eds) Recent advances in fisheries biology. Tokyo: Tokai University Press, pp. 313–329.Google Scholar
Nixon, M. (1966) Changes in body weight and intake of food by Octopus vulgaris . Journal of Zoology, London 150, 1–9.Google Scholar
Perales-Raya, C., Jurado-Ruzafa, A., Bartolomé, A., Duque, V., Nazaret Carrasco, M. and Fraile-Nuez, E. (2014) Age of spent Octopus vulgaris and stress mark analysis using beaks of wild individuals. Hydrobiologia 725, 105–114.Google Scholar
Prato, E., Portacci, G. and Biandolino, F. (2010) Effect of diet on growth performance, feed efficiency and nutritional composition of Octopus vulgaris . Aquaculture 309, 203–211.Google Scholar
Robinson, S.M.C. and Hartwick, E.B. (1986) Analysis of growth based on tag recapture of the giant pacific Octopus dofleini martini . Journal of the Zoological Society of London 209, 559–572.Google Scholar
Sauer, W.H.H., Lipinski, M.R. and Augustyn, C.J. (2000) Tag recapture studies of the chokka squid Loligo vulgaris reynaudii d'Orbigny, 1845 on inshore spawning grounds on the south-east coast of South Africa. Fisheries Research 45, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semmens, J.M., Pecl, G.T., Villanueva, R., Jouffre, D., Sobrino, I., Wood, J.W. and Rigby, P.R. (2004) Understanding octopus growth: patterns, variability and physiology. Marine Freshwater Research 55, 367–377.Google Scholar
Smale, M.J. and Buchan, P.R. (1981) Biology of Octopus vulgaris off the east coast of South Africa. Marine Biology 65, 1–12.Google Scholar
Tait, R.W. (1986) Aspects physiologiques de la sénescence post-reproductive chez Octopus vulgaris. PhD thesis, Université Paris VI, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Takeda, R., Karata, S., Nakamoto, K., Nakano, T., Sakai, T., Itami, K., Sano, Y., Nose, S., Mitsuo, N., Yahashi, T., Nakamura, K., Sakai, N., Hamano, N., Doi, T. and Kawakami, T. (1981) Survey of large-scale propagation area in 1980 (Meitan area: common octopus). Hyogo Prefectural Fisheries Experimental Station (HPFES), HPFES Annual report 1980, pp. 359–369 [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Taki, I. (1941) On keeping octopods in an aquarium for physiological experiments, with remarks on some operative techniques. Venus 10, 140–156.Google Scholar
Tsuchiya, H., Ikeda, F. and Shimizu, T. (1986) The study on octopus (Octopus vulgaris Cuvier) resource in Tokyo Bay–III. Experiment of marking methods for octopus. Bulletin Kanagawa Prefectural Fisheries Experimental Station 7, 45–53 [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Villanueva, R. (1995) Experimental rearing and growth of planktonic Octopus vulgaris from hatching to settlement. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52, 2639–2650.Google Scholar