Comentarios en: ¿Qué son las agregaciones reproductivas? / What are spawning aggregations? http://amp-pr.org/spag/2005/10/%c2%bfque-son-las-agregaciones-reproductivas-what-are-spawning-aggregations/ Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:42:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Por: Agregaciones Reproductivas de Peces: Caribe y Golfo de México » Blog Archive » ¿Cuántas especies de peces forman agregaciones reproductivas? / How many fish species form spawning aggregations? http://amp-pr.org/spag/2005/10/%c2%bfque-son-las-agregaciones-reproductivas-what-are-spawning-aggregations/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Agregaciones Reproductivas de Peces: Caribe y Golfo de México » Blog Archive » ¿Cuántas especies de peces forman agregaciones reproductivas? / How many fish species form spawning aggregations? Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:19:20 +0000 http://amp-pr.org/spag/?p=6#comment-5 [...] De acuerdo con Claydon (2004), al menos 164 especies de 24 familias de peces arrecifales forman agregaciones reproductivas alrededor del mundo; no obstante, este número puede ser mucho mayor a medida que hay más investigación. Las familias más representativas que exhiben este tipo de agregaciones son Labridae, Acanthuridae, Serranidae, Lutjanidae y Scaridae. Claydon (2004) analizó y discutió las características más sobresalientes de los peces gregarios y destacó que el manejo, legislación y apoyo son necesarios para proteger los abastos de especies comerciales y entender la dinámica de las agregaciones reproductivas de peces. John Claydon asertadamente hizo comentarios en este weblog sobre lo que son las agregaciones reproductivas de peces destacando hasta que número de individuos agregados para reproducción puede considerarse una agregación reproductiva formal. [...] [...] De acuerdo con Claydon (2004), al menos 164 especies de 24 familias de peces arrecifales forman agregaciones reproductivas alrededor del mundo; no obstante, este número puede ser mucho mayor a medida que hay más investigación. Las familias más representativas que exhiben este tipo de agregaciones son Labridae, Acanthuridae, Serranidae, Lutjanidae y Scaridae. Claydon (2004) analizó y discutió las características más sobresalientes de los peces gregarios y destacó que el manejo, legislación y apoyo son necesarios para proteger los abastos de especies comerciales y entender la dinámica de las agregaciones reproductivas de peces. John Claydon asertadamente hizo comentarios en este weblog sobre lo que son las agregaciones reproductivas de peces destacando hasta que número de individuos agregados para reproducción puede considerarse una agregación reproductiva formal. [...]

]]> Por: John Claydon http://amp-pr.org/spag/2005/10/%c2%bfque-son-las-agregaciones-reproductivas-what-are-spawning-aggregations/comment-page-1/#comment-4 John Claydon Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:40:57 +0000 http://amp-pr.org/spag/?p=6#comment-4 I strongly believe that a group of 3 individuals can represent a spawning aggregation. I give a hypothetical example to illustrate why: a spawning aggregation of 10,000 Nassau grouper is found one year, but is then fished heavily over successive years. The aggregation declines in size until one year no fish migrate to the aggregation site. At what number of individuals should one declare that an aggregation is no longer being formed? Is a group of 3 individuals still a spawning aggregation? The aggregation may appear to be very different during its decline from 1000's of individuals, and the way in which individuals behave at the aggregation may differ at lower number of individuals, but essentially the same phenomenon is occurring regardless of the number of individuals involved. Because the word "aggregation" means a group of 3 or more elements, any temporary aggregation formed by fishes that have migrated for the specific purpose of spawning, whether that be a group of 3 individuals or a group of more than 100,000, should be referred to as a spawning aggregation. Spawning aggregations are found along a continuum that represents the number of individuals that migrate to spawn together: at the lower end you have 2 individuals, and above this you find spawning aggregations. Any other lower limit to aggregation size is purely arbitrary and therefore inappropriate. However, I understand that there may be a number of reasons why researchers may be reluctant to acknowledge this, not least of which because it appears to "devalue" spawning aggregations. It may also allow species whose behaviours do not fit the traditional perception of that which constitutes a spawning aggregation to be classified as such. However, in order to try to understand spawning aggregations it is counterproductive to ignore many species that form aggregations at the lower end of the continuum. Without also considering these, you cannot hope to put the enormous aggregations formed by some species in their proper context. I strongly believe that a group of 3 individuals can represent a spawning aggregation. I give a hypothetical example to illustrate why: a spawning aggregation of 10,000 Nassau grouper is found one year, but is then fished heavily over successive years. The aggregation declines in size until one year no fish migrate to the aggregation site. At what number of individuals should one declare that an aggregation is no longer being formed? Is a group of 3 individuals still a spawning aggregation? The aggregation may appear to be very different during its decline from 1000’s of individuals, and the way in which individuals behave at the aggregation may differ at lower number of individuals, but essentially the same phenomenon is occurring regardless of the number of individuals involved. Because the word “aggregation” means a group of 3 or more elements, any temporary aggregation formed by fishes that have migrated for the specific purpose of spawning, whether that be a group of 3 individuals or a group of more than 100,000, should be referred to as a spawning aggregation. Spawning aggregations are found along a continuum that represents the number of individuals that migrate to spawn together: at the lower end you have 2 individuals, and above this you find spawning aggregations. Any other lower limit to aggregation size is purely arbitrary and therefore inappropriate.

However, I understand that there may be a number of reasons why researchers may be reluctant to acknowledge this, not least of which because it appears to “devalue” spawning aggregations. It may also allow species whose behaviours do not fit the traditional perception of that which constitutes a spawning aggregation to be classified as such. However, in order to try to understand spawning aggregations it is counterproductive to ignore many species that form aggregations at the lower end of the continuum. Without also considering these, you cannot hope to put the enormous aggregations formed by some species in their proper context.

]]>