Assessment page for species/group
MEASO Biota Assessment pages should be titled: MEASO Biota: Species name/group
The purpose of these assessment pages is to summarise basic information for a species or taxonomic group and how the status and ecology of the group may be changing over time (link here to the framework for assessing biota within the MEASO framework):
- General Description
- Autecology (species' ecology: life history, phenology, food, energetics, movement, rate processes)
- Habitat (physical environment, biological dependencies,Relationships, thresholds and limits )
- Population (distribution, status and trends in abundance)
- Synecology (species interactions: food webs, competitors)
- Assessments of status (critical state of population e.g. IUCN Red List)
- Contributing authors and experts
- References
Authors are encouraged to use the spatial partitioning of the marine ecosystem assessment (sectors etc - link here), as well as circumpolar information where available. Assessments of change can include, where possible, historical change, current trends and prognoses for future change. Generalities should be avoided and, instead, replaced with specific quantities of change and parameters, including error/uncertainty. Qualitative statements are acceptable provided the reasons for the qualitative conclusions are given, along with the scope for the application of the statements, and the uncertainty surrounding them.
In the case of Parameter Tables, authors are asked to include estimates of parameters and their error, wherever possible. Delete parameters that are not relevant. Add parameters that are relevant but not included in the tables. The reference/s estimating the parameters should be cited, along with any statements as to the maturity of the estimates if known (e.g. under development, personal communications, future work is examining.....). For some species, life history information and parameters are co-opted from areas outside of the subject area, e.g. from outside the Southern Ocean. This proxy information is reasonable to include. Please include also the rationale for co-opting these data, and citations.
Biota pages need to be written concisely, well-referenced, and using the uncertainty language of the IPCC. In the first instance, references can be from peer-reviewed literature, reports that are publicly available or references in the grey literature that could be obtained from repositories. If the information is known but the references cannot be sourced in the first instance that put a placeholder for filling in the citation. This is useful for translating common ideas into this assessment without worrying about the pedigree of the idea in the first instance.
Under each heading is a list of information (in red italics) that is desirable for that section. Please do not change these main headings. If needed, a section can be further subdivided. Please delete the red italics and the instructions window from the page when it is completed (when the page is in edit mode you can select it for deletion).
On photographs, figures and tables:
If these are taken from publications or libraries that require recognition of copyright then we need to secure the necessary permissions to include them on these pages. Put a placeholder with a reference to the material and then seek permission for use. Or contact us and we will undertake this process.
All materials taken from libraries or references need to be cited appropriately, including photographs and text from web sites. See citation instructions (link here)
Other finalised MEASO Biota pages provide good examples of how to populate these assessments.
MEASO Assessment pages should be titled: MEASO Biota: Species name/group
The purpose of these assessment pages is to summarise basic information for a species or taxonomic group and how the status and ecology of the group may be changing over time (link here to the framework for assessing biota within the MEASO framework). Authors are encouraged to use the partitioning of the marine ecosystem assessment (sectors etc - link here) as well as circumpolar information. Assessments of change can include historical change, current trends and/or prognoses for future change. Ideally, assessments will be quantitative but can include qualitative statements as well. Estimates of error and points of critical uncertainty need to be identified where possible.
Final assessments need to be written concisely, well-referenced, and using the uncertainty language of the IPCC. In the first instance, references can be from peer-reviewed literature, reports that are publicly available or references in the grey literature that could be obtained from repositories.
Under each heading is a list of information (in red italics) that is desirable for that section. Please do not change these main headings. If needed, a section can be further subdivided. Please delete the red italics and this window from the page when you have completed it (when the page is in edit mode you can select it for deletion).
Other finalised MEASO Biota pages provide good examples of how to populate these assessments.
IN REVIEW
Description
The fish family Myctophidae (or lanternfish, due to the presence of ventral and lateral photophores or light organs; Paxton 1972) are found worldwide with abundance estimates suggesting they comprise at least 20% of the oceanic ichthyofauna (Catul et al. 2011). In the Southern Ocean, they dominant the mesopelagic (200-1000 m) and bathypelagic (>1000 m) zones in terms of diversity and biomass (Duhamel et al. 2014 and refs there in). Sixty-eight species of myctophid have been recorded south of the Sub-Tropical Front (STF; Hulley, 1981) with 35 species occurring south of the Antarctic convergence (Sabourenkov, 1991). Circumpolar in their distribution, myctophids show a high degree of correlation with oceanographic features resulting in temporally and spatially patchy distribution patterns (Hulley, 1981; Koubbi et al. 2010). Second to krill, myctophids represent the most widely distributed biological resource in Antarctic waters by biomass (Sabourenkov, 1991). They are recognized as important tertiary level consumers linking secondary productivity to a range of higher trophic level marine predators (Collins et al. 2007; Gaskett et al., 2001; Schaafsma et al. 2018). Their mid-trophic position in the food web means myctophids exert 'wasp-waist' control on the marine ecosystem through their predation on lower trophic levels; and variations in their biomass, affecting the prey available to top predators (Griffiths et al. 2013). Myctophids are considered to have an important ecological role in alternative pathways for energy flow, to that of the simple trophic pathway dominated by Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba; McCormack et al. 2019; Murphy et al. 2007), acting as mediators for energy transfer in both krill-independent and krill-dependent pathways (Saunders et al. 2019 and refs there in). The ecological importance of myctophids is further highlighted by the diurnal vertical migrations of some species, in which they ascend to surface waters at night in order to feed, before descending back to the depths at dawn (Drazen & Sutton, 2017). Subsequently, lanternfish contribute significantly to global biogeochemical cycles in which their feeding, respiration and excretion actively transports carbon to mesopelagic and bathypelagic depths (Hulley & Duhamel, 2011; Irigoien et al. 2014).
Classification: Animalia, Chordata, Actinopterygii, Myctophiformes, Myctophidae.
Small myctophids
Electrona antarctica, E. carlsbergi, Kreffitchthys anderssoni are the most common/abundant species with the majority of data associated with them.
Other small genera are Protomyctophum, Hintonia, Diaphus, Metelectrona.
Large myctophids
Typical genera include Gymnoscopelus and Lamanyctus, which mostly attain 150mm length as adults
G. bolini can attain 300mm.
Gymnoscopelus nicholsi, Image from: Duhamel et al. 2014.
Kreffitchthys anderssoni, image from: Duhamel et al. 2014.
Summary role in ecosystem
Given their high biomass and DVM behaviour, myctophids contribute significantly to the flux of carbon from the epipelagic zone to the deep ocean (Hulley & Duhamel, 2011; Irigoien et al. 2014).
Considered to have an important ecological role as a potential krill-alternative pathway in the Antarctic foodweb (Murphy et al. 2007), myctophids may be an important food source to many species of fish, birds and seals which feed on on them opportunistically. The king penguin in the Antarctic Polar Front area of the Indian Ocean is a specialist predator on myctophids (Sabourenkov, 1991).
The distribution of myctophid species are coupled to different water masses and temporal changes in myctophids may reflect oceanographic and climatic changes in the Southern Ocean, thus they may be a potential indicator species of change (Iwami et al. 2011).
Autecology
As a group myctophids can also be described as 'midwater' fish as different species are epipelagic (0-200 m), mesopelagic (200 - 1000 m) and bathypelagic (>1000 m), in addition some species are found in different zones depending on location. For example Krefftichthys anderssoni is an epipelagic (50-100 m) fish south of the Antarctic polar front, mesopelagic (500-600 m) to the north of the Antarctic polar front and bathypelagic at the subtropical convergence (Hulley, 2010). Depth zones shown in the figure below (Encyclopedia Brittanica)
Myctophids are a central group within the foodweb with most species being general plankton feeders and an important prey species for penguins, seals and flying birds (Hulley, 2010).
The diel vertical migration of many myctophid species contributes to the export of carbon from the surface to mesopelagic depths (Shreeve et al. 2009).
Life history
Parameters | Small myctophids | Large myctophis |
|---|---|---|
Maximum age | E. antarctica & E. carlsbergi: 4-5 years (Saunders et al., 2019; Williams 2004) K. anderssoni: 3 years; P. bolini & P. tenisoni: 2 years; P. choriodon: 4 years; G. fraseri: 3 years (Saunders et al., 2019). | G. nicholsi: 5-7 years (Saunders et al., 2019; Williams 2004) G. braueri: 4 years; G. opisthopterus: 5 years; N. achirus: 4 years (Saunders et al., 2019). |
Approximate adult size (standard length, mm) | E. antarctica: 115 E. carlsbergi: 93 K. anderssoni: 75 P. bolini: 78 P. tenisoni: 58 P. choriodon: 85 G. fraseri: 115 (Saunders et al., 2019 and refs there in) | G. nicholsi: 165 G. braueri: 162 G. opisthopterus: 187 N. achirus: 167 (Saunders et al., 2019 and refs there in) |
Age at maturity | 2-3 years E. antarctica & E. carlsbergi (Williams 2004) | |
Size at maturity | 51mm SL (K. anderssoni) 78 mm SL (E. Carlsbergi) (Williams 2004) | 114 mm (G. braueri), 180 mm (G. nicholsi) (Williams 2004) |
Spawning/breeding area | Different species spawn in different locations: Some spawn in the region of and south of the Polar Front; some have spawning confined to region between the Subtropical Convergence and Polar Front, and to some extent north and south of these structures respectively; and some spawn around the Subtropical Convergence, close to the Polar front in the Indian Ocean sector. e.g. E. antarctica south of PF; E. carlsbergi spawns in the region between the STC and PF, any fish encountered in feeding aggregations in the polar front and to the south are non-spawners (Williams 2004). K. anderssoni: In the Scotia Sea spawning and recruitment occurs around the APF in oceanic waters and the South Georgia shelf (Lourenco et al., 2017). | Different species spawn in different locations: Some spawn in the region of and south of the Polar Front; some have spawning confined to region between the Subtropical Convergence and Polar Front, and to some extent north and south of these structures respectively; and some spawn around the Subtropical Convergence, close to the Polar front in the Indian Ocean sector (Williams 2004) |
Spawning/breeding season | E. antarctica batch spawner, peak in autumn/winter; E. carlsbergi serial spawner late winter/early spring OR summer/autumn to north of Polar Front; K. anderssoni April-June (Kock 1992, Williams 2004). K. anderssoni: winter spawner (Lourenco et al., 2017). | April-June (G. nicholsi) (Williams 2004) |
Larval/gestation period | ||
Location of recruits | ||
Size of recruits | ||
| Overall natural mortality rate | ||
Non-predation natural mortality rates | 0.86 for E. carlsbergi (see Kock 1992 p126) | Mortality rate estimate seems to be too high for a species attaining the same max age as E. carlsbergi (Kock 1992 p. 126). |
Migration, movement
Distributional studies have indicate there is evidence for seasonal migration, for example Protomyctophum choriodon, P. bolini, Gymnoscopelus fraseri and Electrona carlsbergi probably migrate into north in Autumn (Collins et al. 2008).
Length-frequency studies suggest that populations in the Scotia-Weddell sea area are not self sustaining but maintained by recruitment from northern areas (Saunders et al. 2017). Larval studies have also suggested that spawning and recruitment of most myctophid species occurs mostly in waters around the APF and not farther south (Efremenko 1980, 1981, 1991).
DVM
Many mycotphids undergo diel vertical migration (DVM), they are found at depth during the day, shallower at night, this may be driven by predator avoidance as well as subtle changes in temperature regimes and prey distribution (Robinson 2003, Collins et al. 2008). For example Gymnoscopelus nicholsi 50-90m at night ,350-700m during day; G. braueri upper 200m at night, 200-500m during day (Williams 2004).
The display of this behaviour appears to be dependent on gender, location and size. For example, around Kerguelen, smaller specimens of E. antarctica undertake DVM (0-50m night, 300-400+m day), however larger specimens >90 mm SL are found >800m at night (and don't appear to be found at shallower depths during the day) - see Hulley & Duhamel 2011.
In addition vertical distribution can change with season e.g. from Collins et al. (2008) "At the APF, north of South Georgia Kozlov et al. (1991) found aggregations at 150–350 m (day and night) in the austral spring, with diurnal vertical migration detected during the summer (160–200 m (day) to the upper 100 m (night)) and, as in this study, at 200–400 m in the autumn. During the austral summer, P. bolini was the most abundant mesopelagic fish in the upper 200 m during day and night near South Georgia (Piatkowski et al. 1994), also indicative of seasonal changes in vertical distribution."
Diet (foraging and consumption)
As a group myctophids are known to consume herbivorous and omnivorous zooplankton (e.g. copepods and amphipods) (Pakhomov et al. 1996, Williams et al. 2001, Pusch et al. 2004).
The trophic level of myctophids has been estimated at 3.8-4.2 (Cherel et al. 2008, 2010, 2011).
Small myctophids
Small myctophids feed principally on copepods, euphausids and smaller crustaceans; proportion of euphausids increases with fish size (Williams 2004).
Large myctophids
Euphausids and larger crustaceans are a primary component of the diet of larger myctophids; some exclusively feed on krill (Williams 2004).
Energetics
Parameters | Small myctophids | Large myctophids |
|---|---|---|
| Ingestion rate | E. carlsbergi: zooplankton consumption 157-364 million tonnes/yr (Kozlov 1995 and refs there in). E. antarctica: daily ration (% body dry weight) was 0.59-1.41 in the slope waters of King George Island (Pusch et al., 2004). P. bolini: daily ration (% body dry weight) was 1.38-3.3 in the slope waters of King George Island (Pusch et al., 2004). | G. braueri: daily ration (% body dry weight) was 0.28-0.66 in the slope waters of King George Island (Pusch et al., 2004). G. nicholsi: daily ration (% body dry weight) was 0.36-0.87 in the slope waters of King George Island (Pusch et al., 2004). |
| Metabolism | ||
| Energy | E. antarctica (post-larval): mean energy density in the upper 200 m of the Lazarev Sea was 2.723 kJ m-2 (Flores et al., 2008). | G. braueri (post-larval): mean energy density in the upper 200 m of the Lazarev Sea was 1.534 kJ m-2 (Flores et al., 2008). |
Fecundity | 12000-25000 E. carlsbergi (Williams 2004) | |
Length-weight relationships | The growth model most commonly applied to Antarctic fish has been the von Bertalanffy growth formula (Kock 1992 - see page 121 for a discussion of the suitability of using von Bertalanffy growth models for Antarctic fish). | The growth model most commonly applied to Antarctic fish has been the von Bertalanffy growth formula (Kock 1992 - see page 121 for a discussion of the suitability of using von Bertalanffy growth models for Antarctic fish). |
Growth rate | 30-36 mm per year(E. carlsbergi, Williams 2004) | 27-34 mm per year G. nicholsi (Williams 2004) |
Size at age | 67mm SL (K. anderssoni); 103 mm SL (E. antarctica) (Williams 2004) 4 grams (K.anderssoni); 15 grams (E.antarctica) (Williams 2004) | 132mm SL (G. braueri), 161 mm SL (G. nicholsi) (Williams 2004) 21 grams (G. braueri), 51 grams (G. nicholsi) (Williams 2004) |
| Population Productivity (average life time) |
Habitat
Myctophids are oceanic and some have distinct distribution patterns in relation to temperature especially northern sub-antarctic/temperate species such as Protomyctophum choriodon, which remains above the temperature minima in the Scotia Sea (Collins et al. 2008). Many species are thought to be circumpolar but their distribution may be patchy due to hydrography and physical conditions (normally temperature) or primary production influencing food availability.
Relationships, thresholds and limits
In the Southern Ocean, the distribution and the community composition of myctophids is highly influenced by the physical properties of different water masses (Duhamel et al., 2014; Hulley 1981; Sutton et al., 2017). The sharp transition in environmental conditions at the major oceanographic fronts is subsequently reflected in the different communities, shaping the boundaries for their distribution (Koubbi et al., 2011).
Species distributions have previously been described as falling into three distinct categories based on the environmental preferences of each species (Duhamel et al., 2014). Categories and species associated with these categories are as follows:
- Antarctic (south of the APF) – E. antarctica, G. opisthopterus;
- Broadly Antarctic (between the ASF and the STF) – G. nicholsi, G. braueri, K. anderssoni, P. bolini, P. tenisoni;
- Sub-Antarctic (between the PF and STF) – G. bolini, G. fraseri, G. hintonoides, G. microlampas, E. carlsbergi, E. subaspera, P. andriashevi, P. choriodon, P. gemmatum, P. parallelum.
Observed or expected functional responses to different drivers
| Variable | Taxon size/stage impacted | Functional response (icon) | Parameters and uncertainties | Risk areas/regions impacted | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Temperature | Electrona antarctica | Paste icon here | Upper limiting temperature 3oC Avoid temperatures -1oC | Andriashev 1962; Hulley 1981 | |
| Temperature | Gymnoscopelus braueri | Optimal range between 0 - 1oC | Hulley 1981 | ||
| Temperature | Gymnoscopelus nicholsi | Optimal range between 3 - 9oC at 200 m | Hulley 1981 | ||
| Temperature | Krefftichthys anderssoni | Limiting temperature 0oC | Duhamel et al. 2014 | ||
| Temperature | Protomyctophum bolini | Optimal range between 1 - 7oC | Hulley 1981 | ||
| Temperature | Protomyctophum tenisoni | Temperature preference <5oc | Hulley 1981 | ||
| Temperature | Electrona carlsbergi | Optimal range between 2 - 5oC | Hulley 1981 | ||
| Chlorophyll a | Electrona carlsbergi | >0.3 mg.m-3 |
Population
There are few studies investigating the long-term trends of mesopelagic fish abundance, biomass and distribution. Subsequently, we have a poor understanding of how myctophid species will respond to environmental change. A recent study by Freer et al. (2019) has shown that myctophid species will migrate poleward tracking their environmental preferences, of which temperature is most important. It is predicted that there will be an average range shift of 24.9 +/- 13.6 km/decade under the emissions scenario RCP 8.5 (Freer et al., 2019).
Electrona antarctica, G. braueri, G. fraseri, G. nicholsi and G. opisthopterus are expected to be the "losers" under different climate change scenarios with a high probability of losing suitable habitat (Freer et al., 2019).
Electrona carlsbergi, G. bolini, K. anderssoni, P. bolini and P. tenisoni are expected to be the "winners" under different climate change scenarios with a high probability of gaining suitable habitat (Freer et al., 2019).
Range and Structure
Hydrodynamics of the Southern Ocean may result in temporal and spatial patchiness in myctophids, however amongst the species examined, there is evidence for both large, diverse but not genetically differentiated populations and potential cryptic species (see references in Duhamel et al. 2014). Many species distribution patterns are linked to temperature tolerance/optimum range and oxygen.
Brief distribution of most abundant species:
Based on descriptions and data presented in the Biogeographic Atlas for the Southern Ocean unless stated otherwise. The recorded extent of distributions are shown but species may exhibit patchy distributions within this range. Most of the diel depth information is derived from studies at Kerguelen.
Water masses and fronts mentioned in this section:
AAIW: Antarctic Intermediate Waters - cold, relatively low salinity water mass found mostly at intermediate depths in the Southern Ocean.
AASW: Antarctic Surface Water - surface water mass derived from North Atlantic Deep Water and ice melt.
APF: Antarctic Polar Front - where northward-flowing Antarctic waters meet the relatively warmer waters of the subantarctic
ASF: Antarctic Slope Front - semi-permanent front situated above or near long sections of the shelf break.
SACCF: Southern Antarctic Circumpolar Current Front
SAF: Sub-Antarctic Front - front at the northern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
SAMW: Subantarctic Mode Water - homogenous layer that forms north of the Subantarctic Front
STF: Sub-Tropical Front - where warm, salty subtropical waters and Antarctic waters
Figure from Hindell et al. 2016.
Antarctic
Electrona antarctica - Circumpolar distribution between the ASF and the APF. Northern most samples beyond the APF were associated with cold water intrusions. Southern Most record at 74.67o S, avoid zones of sea-ice cover. Present in the upper water column at night (top 50 m) and lower during the day (>250 m), deepest samples from 2000 m by the STF.
Gymnoscopelus braueri - Recorded between 75oS and 34oS in the Polar Frontal, subantarctic and Antarctic zones. Distribution correlated with AASW and AAIW. Observed depth range from <50m at night to 2700 m.
Gymnoscopelus nicholsi - Recorded between 75oS and 38oS, found mainly to the north of the SACCF and STF, maybe found south of the SACCF where the front approaches the continent, associated with the AAIW and SAMW. Migrates to <50 m during at night and deeper than 200 m during the day. Larvae and juveniles are mesopelagic but adults are typically benthopelagic.
Krefftichthys anderssoni - Circumpolar distribution between 70oS and 34-38oS, centered around the APF between the SACCF and SAF. Found in the upper 200 m. From Hulley and Duhamel 2011: "Krefftichthys anderssoni is broadly distributed in the Antarctic, ranging from the Antarctic Divergence/Weddell-Scotia Confluence to the northern boundary limits (usually considered to coincide with the geographic location of the Subtropical Convergence), and further north in meridional currents: to 32°-33°S in Peruvian Current and to 34°S in Falkland Current. Krefftichthys anderssoni has also been reported from the Falkland Islands (Hulley 1990) and New Zealand (Paulin et al. 1989)."
Protomyctophum bolini - Circumpolar distribution between 70 oS and 48 oS, centered around the APF between the SACCF and SAF. Absent inshore of the shelf break and ridge systems. Distribution related to the AAIW, observed depth distribution between 608-728 m during the day and 364-426 m (night).
Protomyctophum tenisoni - Circumpolar distribution between 66 oS and 38-40oS between the APF and SAF, species distribution may be related to the AAIW. Found <50 m at night and between 150-300 m during the day.
Subantarctic
Electrona carlsbergi - Recorded between 68 oS and 38 oS, occurs mainly alongside the APF but may be double bounded by the APF and SAF. Extremely gregarious and patchy, distribution may be related to productive regions within frontal systems. Habitat linked to the SAMW and AAIW.
Gymnoscopelus bolini - Circumpolar species recorded between 67 oS and 34oS. Distribution linked to AAIW between the STF and APF. Abundant at night below 100 m but rarely between 300-450 m during the day.
Gymnoscopelus fraseri - Recorded distribution between 66 oS and 38 oS but with isolated captures north to ~34oS, distribution associated with SAMW and AAIW. Occurs in the upper 10 m at night and generally below 300 m during the day.
Gymnoscopelus piabilis - Recorded between 67 oS and 49 oS with isolated captures north to ~34oS. Occurs mainly between the APF and STF. Upper 10 m at night and below 250 m at night.
Metelectrona vantralis - Apparent circumpolar species recorded between 52 oS and 49 oS between the APF and STF, isolated captures north to ~35oS in the eastern South Atlantic. Upper 10 m at night and never shallower than 400 m during the day.
Protomyctophum gemmatum - Circumpolar species between 57 oS and 49 oS but with isolated populations north to ~38oS in the Western South Atlantic. Occurs mainly between the APF and the STF. Caught at night at depths <200m.
Latest static map of distribution if available
Relative abundance in different sectors (importance of different sectors to the group)
Placeholder for map
Dynamics
Placeholder for content, pleasecontact usif you have data or information you would like to contribute to Soki. Any details of new analyses or trends welcome.
Examples of occurrence data and predicted distribution using Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) analyses for details see Duhamel et al. (2014).
From Duhamel et al. 2014: Fish Maps 44a and b Gymnoscopelus nicholsi (Gilbert, 1911). Plots of (a) occurrence; (b) predicted distribution from BRT-analysis (total deviance explained = 29%; AUC = 0.8) using the following environmental variables (individual contribution in parentheses): summer salinity (PPS) at 200 m (42.1%); summer chlorophyll-a (mg.m-3) (30.8%); summer oxygen (ml.l-1) at 200 m (27.1%).
From Duhamel et al. 2014: Fish Maps 45a and b Krefftichthys anderssoni (Lönnberg, 1905). Plots of (a) occurrence; (b) predicted distribution from BRT-analysis (total deviance explained = 38%; AUC = 0.83) using the following environmental variables (individual contribution in parentheses): summer salinity (PPS) at 200 m (69.9%); summer mixed layer depth (m) (14.5%); summer salinity (PPS) at 50 m (9.5%); bathymetry (m) (6.2%).
Synecology
Key role in the Antarctic foodweb, myctophids link secondary productivity to higher predators in both the krill-dependent and krill-independent pathways (Saunders et al. 2015).
Balanced models have indicated that a reduction in Antarctic krill might result in a foodweb dominated by fish and squid (McCormack et al. 2019), thus understanding how myctophids interact with other species is important for understanding the vulnerability of higher predators to ecosystem change.
Consumers (predators)
Consumed by higher predators including fish, cephalopods, seals and birds, which may vary regionally and seasonally.
King penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) are the most specialised myctophid predators. At Crozet Islands myctophids are an important food source in autumn and spring with Krefftichthys anderssoni, Electrona carlsbergi and Protomyctophum tenisoni making up the bulk of myctophids consumed (Cherel et al. 1993), with P. tenisoni dominating in spring and E. carlsbergi in autumn. In winter, P. tenisoni was the main species consumed. At Heard Island K. anderssoni made up 48% of the total biomass consumed by king penguins over two seasons (Moore et al. 1998). Myctophid fish, including K. anderssoni, E. carlsbergi and Protomyctophum choriodon, also dominate the diet of King Penguins rearing chicks at South Georgia during summer (Olsson & North, 1997).
Other predators include elephant seals (Cherel et al. 2008), squid Martialia hyadesi (Rodhouse et al. 1992), Patagonian toothfish (Gaskett et al. 2011) and fur seals (Guinet et al. 2001, Reid et al. 2006). For example, 93.4% of the fish component in the diet of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) at Laurie Island, South Orkney Islands from mid January to April 1988 was myctophid fish, mainly Electrona antarctica and Gymnoscopelus nicholsi (Daneri and Coria 1993). Further, myctophids, predominantly Gymnoscopelus nicholsi, G. piabilis and Electrona subaspera, are the main prey items for Antarctic fur seals foraging in the Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone (PFZ) at the Kerguelen Archipelago (Lea et al.,2002). Additionally, Antarctic fur seals at South Georgia have also been reported to switch to myctophid prey during years of low krill abundance (Croxall et al. 1999).
Competitors
Potential that if resources are limited myctophids species may compete with one another or other consumers of the same prey. Small myctophids may compete with other copepod, euphasisd and amphipod consumers and large myctophids with other euphasiid consumers.
According to Suanders et al. (2015) from studies in the Scotia Sea 'Myctophid predation impacted daily copepod production by between 0.01 and 5%, with Calanus simillimus being most impacted. Total annual consumption of copepods was around 1.5 million t (Mt) per year. All myctophids preyed upon the euphausiid Thysanoessa spp., consuming ~12% of its daily productivity and around 4 Mt per year. However, only larger myctophid species preyed upon Antarctic krill Euphausia superba, consuming 2% of its daily productivity, which could amount to as much as 17 Mt per year. Themisto gaudichaudii was also an important dietary component, with 4% of its daily productivity being consumed, amounting to around 2 Mt per year."
Other interactions e.g. disease
Placeholder for content, please contact us if you have data or information you would like to contribute to Soki.
Human Impacts
"Krefftichthys anderssoni is taken as by-catch in krill fisheries. However, this species is one of the most abundant midwater species in the Southern Ocean and is likely to have a rapid population doubling time thereby making it more resilient to harvesting" Hulley, 2010.
10 myctophid species have been identified in krill bycatch around South Georgia the most abundant species were: Krefftichthys anderssoni, Gymnoscopelus nicholsi, Protomyctophum choriodon (Iwami, 2011).
Commercial fisheries for myctophids have existed at South Georgia, harvesting mostly Electronica carlsbergi but also Krefftichthys anderssoni.
Assessments of Status
IUCN Red List
Add the following table or simply say 'None of these species has been assessed for the Red List'
Most Antarctic myctophids have not been assessed for Red List, those that have are listed below.
| Species: | Krefftichthys anderssoni |
| Year of classification: | 2010 |
| Trend: | Unknown |
| Red List Category & Criteria: | Least concern |
| Assessment Justification: | Krefftichthys anderssoni has been assessed as Least Concern. Although this species is taken as by-catch in krill fisheries, this species has a broad range across the Southern Ocean. It is also one of the most abundant mid-water species in parts of its range. This species is likely to have a rapid population doubling time, thereby making it more resilient to harvesting. Further research on the harvest levels and biology of this species is needed to determine vulnerability to harvesting and current extent and levels of harvest. |
| Citation: | Hulley, P.A. 2010. Krefftichthys anderssoni (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T154789A115235665. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T154789A4633821.en. Downloaded on 08 July 2019. |
Other
Include assessments from other bodies if available.
FishBase:
Krefftichthys anderssoni https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Krefftichthys-anderssoni.html
Gymnoscopelus nicholsi http://fishbase.sinica.edu.tw/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=6990
References
A list of references referred to on this page.
Please use Ecology style, for more information and examples see:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/13652745/author-guidelines
Andriashev, A.P. (1962). Batipelagicheskie ryby Antarktiki. I. Sem. Myctophidae. [Biological results of the Soviet Antarctic Expedition (1955–1958). I. Bathypelagic fishes of the Antarctic. 1. Family Myctophidae]. Issledovaniya Fauny Morei, 1, 216–292.
Catul, V., Gauns, M., & Karuppasamy, P. K. (2011). A review on mesopelagic fishes belonging to family Myctophidae. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 21(3), 339-354. doi:10.1007/s11160-010-9176-4
Cherel, Y., & Ridoux, V. (1992). Prey species and nutritive value of food fed during summer to king penguin Aptenodytes patagonica chicks at Possession Island, Crozet Archipelago. Ibis, 134, 118-127. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1992.tb08388.x
Cherel, Y., Ducatez, S., Fontaine, C., Richard, P., & Guinet, C. (2008). Stable isotopes reveal the trophic position and mesopelagic fish diet of female southern elephant seals breeding on the Kerguelen Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 370, 239–247. doi: 10.3354/meps07673
Cherel, Y., Fontaine, C., Richard, P. & Labatc, J.P. (2010). Isotopic niches and trophic levels of myctophid fishes and their predators in the Southern Ocean. Limnology and Oceanography, 55(1), 324-332. doi: 10.4319/lo.2010.55.1.0324
Cherel, Y., Koubbi, P., Giraldo, C., Penot, F., Tavernier, E., Moteki, M., ... Hosie, G. (2011). Isotopic niches of fishes in coastal, neritic and oceanic waters off Adélie Land, Antarctica. Polar Science, 5(2), 286-297. doi: 10.1016/j.polar.2010.12.004
Collins, M.A., Ross, K.A., Belchier, M., & Reid, K. (2007). Distribution and diet of juvenile Patagonian toothfish on the South Georgia and Shag Rocks shelves (Southern Ocean). Marine Biology. 152, 135–147. doi: 10.1007/s00227-007-0667-3
Collins, M.A., Xavier, J.C., Johnston, N.M., North, A.W., Enderlein, P., Tarling, G.A., ... Cunningham, N.J. (2008). Patterns in the distribution of myctophid fish in the northern Scotia Sea ecosystem. Polar Biology, 31, 837–851. doi: 10.1007/s00300-008-0423-2
Croxall, J.P., Reid, K., & Prince, P.A. (1999). Diet, provisioning and productivity responses of marine predators to differences in availability of Antarctic krill. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 177, 115-131. doi: 10.3354/meps177115
Daneri, G.A., & Coria, N.R. (1993). Fish prey of Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, during the summer-autumn period at Laurie Island, South Orkney Islands. Polar Biology, 13, 287-289. doi: 10.1007/BF00238354
Drazen, J.C., & Sutton, T.T. (2017). Dining in the Deep: The feeding ecology of deep-sea fishes. Annual Review of Marine Science, 9, 337-366. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-010816-060543
Duhamel, G., Hulley, P-A., Causse, R., Koubbi, P., Vacchi, M., Pruvost, P., ... Van de Putte A.P. (2014). Part 7 Biogeographic Patterns of Fish. In C. De Broyer & P. Koubbi (Eds.) The SCAR Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean (pp. 328-362). Cambridge, UK: Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.
Efremenko, V.N. (1980). On results of ichthyoplankton studies in the Scotia Sea. In Ecological and biological features of the abundant commercial Antarctic and notalian fishes (pp. 29-23). VNIRO: Moscow.
Efremenko, V.N. (1986). Distribution of eggs and larvae of Myctophidae in the southern Atlantic. Journal of Ichthyology, 26, 141−147.
Efremenko, V.N. (1991). Ichthyoplankton researches in the autumn-winter season of 1989 in the southwest Atlantic. In V.V. Maslennikov (Ed.) Electrona carlsberga in the Southern Polar frontal zone, Vol 2: Biological aspects of existence and distribution (pp. 101–108). VNIRO: Moscow.
Flores, H., de Putte, A. P. V., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E. A., Van Franeker, J. A., Meesters, H. W. G., & Volckaert, F. A. M. (2008). Distribution, abundance and ecological relevance of pelagic fishes in the Lazarev Sea, Southern Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 367, 271-282. doi:10.3354/meps07530
Gaskett, A.C. Bulman, C., He, X., & Goldsworthy, S.D. (2001). Diet composition and guild structure of mesopelagic and bathypelagic fishes near Macquarie Island, Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35 (3), 469-476. doi: 10.1080/00288330.2001.9517016
Griffiths, S. P., Olson, R. J., & Watters, G. M. (2013). Complex wasp-waist regulation of pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 23(4), 459-475. doi:10.1007/s11160-012-9301-7
Guinet, C., Dubroca, L., Lea, M-A, Goldsworthy, S., Cherel, Y., Duhamel, G., ... Donnay, J.P. (2001). Spatial distribution of foraging in female Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella in relation to oceanographic variables: a scale-dependent approach using geographic information systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 219, 251–264. doi: 10.3354/meps219251
Hindell, M.A., McMahon, C.R., Bester, M.N., Boehme, L., Costa, D., Fedak, M.A., ... Kovacs, K.M. (2016). Circumpolar habitat use in the southern elephant seal: implications for foraging success and population trajectories. Ecosphere, 7(5), e01213. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1213
Hulley, P.A. (1981). Results of the cruises of FRV “Walther Herwig” to South America. LVIII Family Myctophidae (Osteichtyes, Myctophiformes). Archiv für Fischereiwissenschaft, 31(1), 1–300.
Hulley, P.A. 2010. Krefftichthys anderssoni (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T154789A115235665. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T154789A4633821.en. Downloaded on 08 July 2019.
Hulley, P.A,. & Duhamel, G. (2011). Aspects of Lanternfish distribution in the Kerguelen Plateau region. In G. Duhamel & D.C. Welsford (Eds.) The Kerguelen Plateau: Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries. Paris: Société française d’ichtyologie. doi: 10.13140/2.1.3870.1765
Irigoien, X., Klevjer, T.A., Rostad, A., Martinez, U., Boyra, G., Acuna, J.L., . . . Kaartvedt, S. (2014). Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nature Communications, 5 (10). doi: 10.1038/ncomms4271
Iwami, T., Naganobu, M., Taki, K., & Kiyota, M. (2011). Annual changes in species composition and abundance of myctophid fish in the north of South Georgia (subarea 48.3), Antarctica, during austral winters from 2002 to 2008. CCAMLR Science, 18, 155-165.
Kock, K-H, (1992). Antarctic fish and fisheries. Studies in Polar Research. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/S0025315400070168
Koubbi, P., Moteki, M., Duhamel, G., Goarant, A., Hulley, P. A., O'Driscoll, R., . . . Hosie, G. (2011). Ecoregionalization of myctophid fish in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean: Results from generalized dissimilarity models. Deep-Sea Research Part Ii-Topical Studies in Oceanography, 58(1-2), 170-180. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.09.007
Kozlov, A. (1995). A review of the trophic role of mesopelagic fish of the family Myctophidae in the Southern Ocean ecosystem. CCAMLR Science, 2, 71-77.
Lea, M.A., Cherel, Y., Guinet, C., & Nichols, P.D. (2002). Antarctic fur seals foraging in the Polar Frontal Zone: inter-annual shifts in diet as shown from fecal and fatty acid analyses. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 245, 281-297. doi: 10.3354/meps245281
Lourenco, S., Saunders, R. A., Collins, M., Shreeve, R., Assis, C. A., Belchier, M., . . . Xavier, J. C. (2017). Life cycle, distribution and trophodynamics of the lanternfish Krefftichthys anderssoni (Lonnberg, 1905) in the Scotia Sea. Polar Biology, 40(6), 1229-1245. doi:10.1007/s00300-016-2046-3
McCormack, S.A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Trebilco, R., Blanchard, J.L., & Constable, A. (2019). Alternative energy pathways in Southern Ocean food webs: Insights from a balanced model of Prydz Bay, Antarctica. Deep-Sea Research Part II. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2019.07.001
Moore, G.J., Robertson, G., & Wienecke, B. (1998). Food requirements of breeding king penguins at Heard Island and potential overlap with commercial fisheries. Polar Biology, 20(5), 293-302. doi: 10.1007/s003000050306
Murphy, E.J., Watkins, J.L., Trathan, P.N., Reid, K., Meredith, M.P., Thorpe, S.E., ... Forcada, J. (2006). Spatial and temporal operation of the Scotia Sea ecosystem: a review of large-scale links in a krill centred food web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1477), 113-148. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1957
Olsson, O., & North, A.W. (1997). Diet of the King Penguin Aptenodytes patagonicus during three summers at South Georgia. Ibis, 139(3), 504-512. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1997.tb04666.x
Pakhomov, E.A., Perissinotto, R., & McQuaid, C.D. (1996). Prey composition and daily rations of myctophid fishes in the Southern Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 134, 1-14. Doi: 10.3354/meps134001
Paulin, C., Stewart, A., Roberts, C., & McMillan, P. (1989). New Zealand fish: a complete guide. Wellington, New Zealand: Te Papa Press.
Paxton, J.R. (1972). Osteology and relationships of the lanternfishes (Family Myctophidae). Science Bulletin of Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, 13, 1-81.
Pusch, C., Schiel, S., Mizdalski, E., & von Westernhagen, H. (2004). Feeding of three myctophid species at Great Meteor Seamount (NE Atlantic). Archive of fishery and marine research, 51(1), 251-271. doi: 10013/epic.19950
Reid, K., Davis, D., & Staniland, I.J. (2006). Spatial and temporal variability in the fish diet of Antarctic fur seal in the Atlantic Sector of the Southern Ocean. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84, 1025–1037. doi: 10.1139/z06-071
Robison, B.H. (2003). What drives the diel vertical migrations of Antarctic midwater fish? Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 83(3), 639-642. doi: 10.1017/S0025315403007586h
Rodhouse, P.G., White, M.G., & Jones, M.R.R. (1992). Trophic relations of the cephalopod Martialia hyadesi (Teuthoidea, Ommastrephidae) at the Antarctic Polar Front, Scotia Sea. Marine Biology, 114, 415–421. doi: 10.1007/BF00350032
Sabourenkov, E. (1991). Myctophids in the diet of Antarctic predators.SC-CAMLR-SSP/8, 335–368
Saunders, R.A., Collins, M.A., Ward, P., Stowasser, G., Hill, S.L., Shreeve, R., & Tarling, G.A. (2015). Predatory impact of the myctophid fish community on zooplankton in the Scotia Sea (Southern Ocean). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 541, 45-64. doi: 10.3354/meps11527
Saunders, R.A., Collins, M.A., Stowasser, G., & Tarling, G.A. (2017). Southern Ocean mesopelagic fish communities in the Scotia Sea are sustained by mass immigration. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 569, 173-185. doi: 10.3354/meps12093
Saunders, R. A., Hill, S. L., Tailing, G. A., & Murphy, E. J. (2019). Myctophid Fish (Family Myctophidae) Are Central Consumers in the Food Web of the Scotia Sea (Southern Ocean). Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 22. doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00530
Schaafsma, F. L., Cherel, Y., Flores, H., van Franeker, J. A., Lea, M. A., Raymond, B., & van de Putte, A. P. (2018). Review: the energetic value of zooplankton and nekton species of the Southern Ocean. Marine Biology, 165(8), 35. doi:10.1007/s00227-018-3386-z
Shreeve, R.S., Collins, M.A., Tarling, G.A., Main, C.E., Ward, P., & Johnston, N.M. (2009). Feeding ecology of myctophid fishes in the northern Scotia Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 386, 221-236. doi: 10.3354/meps08064
Sutton, T. T., Clark, M. R., Dunn, D. C., Halpin, P. N., Rogers, A. D., Guinotte, J., . . . Heino, M. (2017). A global biogeographic classification of the mesopelagic zone. Deep-Sea Research Part I-Oceanographic Research Papers, 126, 85-102. doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2017.05.006
Williams, A., Koslow, J., Terauds, A., & Haskard, K. (2001). Feeding ecology of five fishes from the mid-slope micronekton community off southern Tasmania, Australia. Marine Biology, 139(6), pp.1177-1192. doi: 10.1007/s002270100671
Williams, R. (2004). Conceptual model of Antarctic epi- and mesopelagic fish. CCAMLR WG-EMM-04-58.
People
Contributing authors
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Cath Frampton | |
| Madeleine Brasier | ACE CRC/IMAS |
Version history
Version number | Date of creation * | Expert reviewers | Peer reviewers | Date of completion* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2019.04.30 | @Bree Woods | ||
* Date format is YYYY.MM.DD
Citation
SOKI Wiki (2014) Thursday 26 Sep 2019.
1 Comment
Maddie Brasier
New paper:
Saunders et al. In press. Myctophid fish (Family Myctophidae) are central consumers in the food web of the Scotia Sea (Southern Ocean)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00530/abstract