1. An Ongoing Study of the Relationship between Net Type and
the Size and Physical Condition of Captured Cnidarian Specimens
1, 2,
Hurley
1,
Ph.D.
1
Ph.D.
Alexander
Kelly Robinson,
Monty Graham,
1Department of Marine Science, University of Southern Mississippi
2National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Introduction
Results
While in-depth scientific studies of jellyfish and fellow members of the Cnidarian phylum are lacking
relative to other areas of marine research, these creatures are still widely viewed as important components
of marine ecosystems for a variety of reasons. One reason for their ecological importance is the role they
play in marine food webs - cnidarians often compete directly with fish and other organisms for
zooplankton as a source of food. This, coupled with the propensity of Cnidarian populations to periodically
form blooms (a rapid increase in population size) makes this a group worthy of regular ecological surveys.
Data collection on these gelatinous creatures is not always an easy task though, as there is not a reliable
way to capture them on a broad-scale that also ensures that they will be physically intact upon completion
of their capture. Nets designed for fish and plankton are the current standard used to complete the
task, but the specimens that ultimately make it into the boat are often physically compromised in one or
more ways. This study sought to collect data on cnidarian specimens caught in the Gulf of Mexico in
different fishing and plankton nets in order to demonstrate whether or not there is a relationship between
the type of nets used and the size and/or physical condition of the cnidarian specimens.
8
8
7
7
5
Number of Individuals
Number of Individuals
6
4
3
2
1
0
3
90 To 100
More
100 To 110 To 120 To 130 To 140 To 150
110
120
130
140
1
Up To 10 10 To 20 20 To 30 30 To 40 40 To 50 50 To 60 60 To 70 70 To 80 80 To 90
Figure 1. Cnidarian size distribution in mm for 19 specimens captured
in the Bongo net. Average size is 36mm. Without the two largest data
points, the average comes to 25mm.
Figure 2. Cnidarian size distribution in mm for 24 specimens captured in the
Neuston net. Average size is 73mm.
4
Number of Individuals
1
0
3
2
1
Figure 3. Cnidarian Size distribution in mm for 2 specimens captured in the
trawl net. Average size is 65mm.
More
70 To 80
65 To 70
60 To 65
55 To 60
50 To 55
45 To 50
40 To 45
35 To 40
30 To 35
25 To 30
20 To 25
15 To 20
10 To 15
5 To 10
Up To 0
More
140 To 150
130 To 140
120 To 130
110 To 120
100 To 110
90 To 100
80 To 90
70 To 80
60 To 70
50 To 60
40 To 50
30 To 40
20 To 30
10 To 20
0
0 To 5
Number of Individuals
90 To 100
More
100 To 110 To 120 To 130 To 140 To 150
110
120
130
140
5
Up To 10
Collecting Data:
Once aboard the ship, the cnidarian specimens
underwent a multi-step data collection process.
For the purposes of this study though, only size
and physical condition data were utilized. The
tool used to measure specimen size was an
electronic measuring board that rounded to the
nearest millimeter. The technique for measuring
the size of the cnidarian depended on the
organism in question. For those cnidarians with
“traditional” jellyfish bells, the bell diameter was
used to measure size. For those cnidarians which
fell into the cubozoan class (e.g. Tamoya
haplonema), then oral-aboral length was utilized
for the size measurement. In order to collect
data on the physical condition of the
specimens, a digital camera was utilized to
photograph the specimen on a work bench.
Again, the technique for collecting this data
depended on the organism in question. Those
specimens with traditional jellyfish bells were
splayed out with both their tentacles (or what
was left of the tentacles) facing up and facing
down in order to gather multiple views of the
condition of the organism (see Image 7). For
those specimens in the cubozoan class, the
organism was laid so that the side of its bell was
flat on the bench, with tentacles facing one way
and the top of the bell facing in the other
direction (see Image 8).
Figure 4. Cubozoan size distribution in mm for 15 specimens captured in the
bongo net. Average size is 33mm.
Discussion
Image 5. Bongo nets.
Image 6. Neuston net.
Image 3. Map of the western Gulf of Mexico. Pins identify the stations where gelatinous zooplankton specimens were
gathered. The numbers indicate the station number of each of these fishing stations. Note Galveston in the upper left
and New Orleans in the upper right as reference points.
Too few cnidarians were captured in the standard trawls to use for analytical purposes, so those data points will be omitted from this
discussion (see Figure 1). A comparison of the cnidarians captured in bongo and neuston nets appears to be worthwhile for this qualitative
discussion because the number of data points are relatively similar, being 19 and 24, respectively (see Figures 2 and 3). The average size of
the cnidarian specimen caught in the neuston net was 37mm larger than the average cnidarian specimen caught in the bongo net. If the two
potential outlier points (145mm and 110mm) for the cnidarian-bongo data are removed from the averaging process, then the disparity
between the average cnidarian size caught in the neuston versus the bongo increases to 48mm. There are several explanations for why the
neuston net may tend to capture larger cnidarian specimens than the bongo net. The first being the depth at which these two nets operate.
The neuston nets stay on the surface for the duration of their deployment, whereas the bongo nets dive to within two meters of the bottom
with a max depth of 200 meters. For one reason or another, larger cnidarians may tend to be located closer to the surface whereas smaller
cnidarians may tend to be located deeper in the water column. This could take place for a variety of reasons, including water
currents, locomotion, salinity, time of day, etc. Another explanation for this disparity could be related to characteristics of the nets themselves.
It could be that the neuston nets do a better job of maintaining the physical condition of larger specimens, and so there was an increased
probability that if the neuston net caught a large specimen that that individual would be in good enough physical condition to successfully
record its size. Vice versa, the bongo net could have simply done a better job of collecting and maintaining smaller specimens up until their
measurement.
From the analysis of the initial data, cubozoans were only captured in the bongo net (see Figure 4). This can be explained for several reasons.
First, because only 15 data points were recorded, it could be that too few data points were collected to show a normal representation of the
capturing rate of the different nets (this argument can be applied to the cnidarian data too). Second, the bongo net could have more effectively
captured cubozoans than the other two nets. The argument was made above that the bongo net could have the unique ability to capture
smaller gelatinous zooplankton, and because the average size of the cubozoans in the bongo was similar to the average size of the cnidarians
in the bongo, this could support that argument. It could also be that cubozoans are only found at lower depths than at which the neuston net
operates. The gaps in the standard trawl net are almost certainly the reason that no cubozoans were found in that net type.
Conclusions and Future Work
From a qualitative analysis perspective, the neuston net tends to capture larger gelatinous zooplankton specimens than the bongo net. This
could be do to the variables of depth, net characteristics, or to others. This argument is tenuously supported by the fact that the recorded
average size for the cubozoans was similar to the recorded average size for cnidarians. There is simply not enough data on the standard trawl
net to make any speculations about a relationship between this net and specimen size.
Question
Does the type of fishing/plankton net relate to the size and/or physical condition of the cnidarian
specimen captured by that net?
Future work includes working with larger data sets that are available from NOAA research labs, which will allow for a robust quantitative
analysis of the relationship between specimen size and net type. Additionally, a physical condition index could be created in order to give
each of the photographed specimens a physical “score” after being removed from the net. From there, an analysis of the relationship between
the physical condition score and the net type could be conducted.
Materials and Methods
Collecting Specimens:
The sea vessel used to navigate the Gulf and to capture the specimens via the different fishing and plankton
nets was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Oregon II (see Image 2). This study was
conducted during the second leg of the Oregon II’s Summer Groundfish Survey, which spanned the
northern Gulf from Galveston, TX to Tampa Bay, FL. Stations (locations to cast out fishing or plankton nets)
are randomly chosen throughout the Gulf prior to the trip, with depth ranging from 5-60 fathoms (see
Image 3). The standard trawling net was conducted from one of two rear outriggers with a 40 foot shrimp
trawl. The trawl is towed for no less than 10 but not more than 50 minutes (see Image 4). The plankton
nets included bongo and neuston samplers. The bongo samplers are cone shaped nets of 0.333 micron
mesh webbing attached to two circular 61 centimeter diameter frames that are designed to capture
plankton throughout the water column. Bongo casts are done off the J-frame on the port side of the
forward deck of the ship. They are lowered through the water column at an angle of 45 degrees to a depth
within 2 meters of the bottom (see Image 5). Neuston tows collect plankton on the surface in a net with an
opening of 1x2 meters. This net is deployed off of the starboard side of the forward deck with the forward
crane of the ship (see Image 6).
4
0
Image 4. Standard trawling net off the starboard side of the boat.
Image 2. NOAA Ship Oregon II anchored in Galveston, TX.
5
2
Up To 1010 To 2020 To 3030 To 4040 To 5050 To 6060 To 7070 To 8080 To 90
2
Image 1. On the deck of the Oregon II.
6
Image 7. Cnidarian specimen.
Image 8. Cubozoan specimen.
Processing Data:
Data processing took place at the Department of Marine Science at the University of Southern Mississippi.
The first step of this process was to identify the specimens based off of the digital photographs collected.
Unfortunately, many of the specimens were in such poor physical condition or were otherwise difficult to
discern at the species or genus level. Therefore, the label of cnidaria (taxonomic level of phylum) was
assumed for all those specimens with the traditional jellyfish bell structure in order to catch all of the
species present. For those species that did not have the traditional bell structure, the label of cubozoan
(taxonomic level of class) was given. Histograms containing size data points for a given net type were
created for these two categories (cnidaria and cubozoa) in order to qualitatively analyze the relationship
between size and net type, if any. A quantitative analysis of this relationship between size and net type
has yet to be performed, as more data need to be added to the analysis before proceeding. The
relationship between the physical condition of the specimens and the net type has yet to be analyzed as
well.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Dr. Matthew Klooster for his networking assistance, Dr. Graham and Dr. Robinson for hosting me at the University of Southern
Mississippi and for mentoring me throughout the summer, the Oregon II crew for their patience and diligence at sea, the NOAA scientists
aboard the Oregon II for their encouragement, and James Graham Brown Foundation for their financial support and continuous vote of
confidence in me.
References
Graham, W.M. (2001). “Evidence for numerical and distributional changes of jellyfish populations in the northern Gulf of Mexico.” In J.
Purcell, W. Graham and H. Dumont (eds.) Jellyfish Populations: Ecological and Economic Effects. Kluwer Academic. Submitted.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Mississippi Laboratory. “Resource Assessment
Surveys Cooperator Information.” Pascagoula, MS.