Skip to main content

Table 2 Tag metadata for all billfish pop-up satellite tagging studies

From: Satellite telemetry reveals physical processes driving billfish behavior

 

Study

Species

No. of tags deployed

No. of tags reported

Days at liberty (DAL)

MSLD (km)

No. of tracks Figure 1

Tag/pop estimated

ATLANTIC

        
 

Graves et al. 2002 [21]

BUM

9

8

5 (5)

167 (72–248)

8

Y/Y

 

Matsumoto et al. 2002 [33]

BUM

2

1

18

462

1

N/N

 

Graves et al. 2003 [23]

BUM

2

2

30

1,124, 2,245

2

N/N

 

Kerstetter et al. 2003a [34]

BUM

7 [9]

5 [7]

5 (5)

193 (144–243)

5

N/N

 

Matsumoto et al. 2003 [35]

BUM

5

3

41 (31–50)

NR, 431, 810

2

N/N

 

Matsumoto et al. 2004 [36]

BUM

4

1

59

1,165

1

N/N

 

Saito et al. 2004 [37]

BUM

12

6

45 (8–180)

365 (107–793)

6

N/N

 

Prince et al. 2005 [38]

BUM

1

1

40

406

1

N/N

 

Saito and Yokawa 2006b [39]

BUM

0 [18]

0 [8]

NA

NA

0

NA

 

Kraus and Rooker 2007 [40]

BUM

21

18

82 (10–183)

754 (42–2,722)

18

N/N

 

Goodyear et al. 2008c [41]

BUM

76 [79]

48 [51]

44 (4–124)

912 (27–3,978)

48

N/N

 

Hoolihan et al. 2009 [42]

BUM

2

2

61, 82

451, 645

2

N/Y

 

Graves and Horodysky 2010 [14]

BUM

61

61

9.7 (1–10)

220 (10–943)

0d

NA

 

Prince et al. 2010e [43]

BUM

1 [46]

1 [46]

39

2,737

1

N/N

 

Kraus et al. 2011f [44]

BUM

24 [42]

24 [42]

83 (4–334)

463 (61–1,348)

24

N/N

 

Kerstetter and Graves 2008 [45]

SAI

17

15

10 (10)

346 (67–717)

15

Y/Y

 

Hoolihan et al. 2009 [42]

SAI

2

2

120, 135

265, 340

2

N/Y

 

Richardson et al. 2009a [46]

SAI

21

9

115 (62–135)

706 (228–1,611)

9

N/N

 

Kerstetter et al. 2010g [47]

SAI

2 [19]

1 [16]

10

217

1

Y/Y

 

Prince et al. 2010h [43]

SAI

23 [79]

23 [32]

44 (3–145)

169 (2–1,050)

23

N/N

 

Hoolihan et al. 2011i [48]

SAI

0 [29]

0 [29]

NA

NA

0

NA

 

Kerstetter et al. 2011j [49]

SAI

0 [19]

0 [16]

NA

NA

0

NA

 

Kerstetter et al. 2009 [50]

SPF

2

2

11, 45

168, 914

2

N/N

 

Sedberry and Loefer 2001 [51]

SWO

29

21

65 (29–100)

914 (6–3,046)

21

N/N

 

Matsumoto et al. 2003 [35]

SWO

2

1

30

1,050

1

N/N

 

Loefer et al. 2007 [52]

SWO

15

14

42 (5–123)

254 (21–894)

14

N/N

 

Neilson et al. 2009 [53]

SWO

25

22

231 (77–411)

1,423 (198–3,471)

16k

Y/Y

 

Dewar et al. 2011 [54]

SWO

9

7

59 (15–120)

749 (56–2,653)

7

N/N

 

Lerner et al. 2013 [55]

SWO

10

10

87 (1–133)

610 (5–1,884)

10

N/N

 

Horodysky and Graves 2005 [56]

WHM

41

40

NR (5–10)

173 (30–782)

30l

Y/Y

 

Prince et al. 2005 [38]

WHM

7

6

26.7 (0–37)

212 (59–498)

6

N/N

 

Kerstetter and Graves 2006 [57]

WHM

28

17

12 (5–43)

471 (48–1,493)

10m

Y/Y

 

Horodysky et al. 2007n [58]

WHM

0 [47]

0 [46]

NR (5–10)

NA

0

NA

 

Graves and Horodysky 2008o [59]

WHM

40 [60]

40 [60]

10 (1–10)

285 (22–864)

0d

NA

 

Hoolihan et al. 2009 [42]

WHM

2

2

37, 60

580, 856

2

N/Y

PACIFIC

        
 

Gunn et al. 2003 [60]

BLM

7

5

43 (4–114)

549 (250–1,284)

5

N/N

 

Domeier and Speare 2012 [61]

BLM

67

42

NR (8–180)

2,146 (822–5,780)

0d,p

NA

 

Prince et al. 2006 [62]

SAI

41

37

40 (5–120)

497 (39–1,059)

36

N/Nq

 

Chiang et al. 2011 [63]

SAI

3

3

30 (27–32)

828 (501–1,112)

3

Y/Y

 

Hoolihan et al. 2011r [48]

SAI

5 [34]

5 [34]

59 (22–109)

497 (153–1,238)

5

N/N

 

Chiang et al. 2013 [64]

SAI

1

1

160

550

1

N/N

 

Domeier et al. 2003 [65]

MLS

80

61

0–93

NR

0d

NA

 

Domeier 2006s [7]

MLS

168 [248]

107 [125]

85 (1–259)

1,040 (NR–5,970)

0d,p

NA

 

Sippel et al. 2007 [66]

MLS

6

5

40 (22–60)

907 (96–2,257)

5

N/N

 

Sippel et al. 2011 [67]

MLS

21

15

65 (15–133)

1,052 (94–2,584)

15

N/N

 

Abascal et al. 2010 [68]

SWO

21

19

35 (3–166)

813 (39–2,985)

19

N/N

 

Dewar et al. 2011 [54]

SWO

53

24

63 (5–245)

877 (10–2,528)

22

Y/Yt

 

Evans et al. 2011 [69]

SWO

10

10

39 (4–57)

686 (85–1,245)

10

N/N

 

Abecassis et al. 2012u [70]

SWO

36 [43]

21 [28]

113 (10–180)

1,500 (28–4,651)

21

N/N

 

Evans et al. 2014v [71]

SWO

43 [117]

43 [53+]w

166 (40–362)

815 (129–2,922)

43

N/N

INDIAN

        
 

Hoolihan 2005 [72]

SAI

2

2

58, 66

150, 543

2

N/N

 

Hoolihan and Luo 2007 [73]

SAI

16 [18]

11 [13]

66 (3–128)

254 (11–521)

11

N/N

  1. All studies containing published pop-up satellite archival tag data for billfish arranged by ocean basin, species, and publication date. Species codes indicate black marlin (BLM), blue marlin (BUM), sailfish (SAI), longbill spearfish (SPF), striped marlin (MLS), swordfish (SWO), and white marlin (WHM) (Table 1). Several individual tag datasets were published multiple times. Thus, for calculated metrics, a tagged individual was allocated to the first study it was published in. The columns for number of tags deployed and number of tags reported indicate number of unique tags [total number of tags] described in study. Days at liberty and MSLD columns report mean (range) for the unique tags reported in a study. NR = not reported. MSLD = mean straight-line distance from tag to pop-up location. Final column indicates whether tag and/or pop-up location was estimated from published figures or site description.
  2. aTwo are duplicated from Graves et al. 2003 [23].
  3. bAll tags duplicated from Matsumoto et al. 2003 [35], 2004 [36] and Saito et al. 2004 [37].
  4. cOne duplicated from Prince et al. 2005 [38] and two from Hoolihan et al. 2009 [42].
  5. dNot enough information published to plot any tracks in Figure 2.
  6. eForty-five are reported from Goodyear et al. 2008 [41].
  7. fEighteen are duplicated from Kraus and Rooker 2007 [40].
  8. gSeventeen are duplicated from Kerstetter and Graves 2008 [45].
  9. hNine reported from Richardson et al. 2009 [46].
  10. iAll reported Atlantic tags were previously reported in Richardson et al. 2009 [46] and Prince et al. 2010 [43].
  11. jAll are duplicated from Kerstetter et al. 2010 [47] and Kerstetter and Graves 2008 [45].
  12. kSixteen of twenty-two tracks with enough information to plot in Figure 2.
  13. lOnly one published track. The remaining 29 tracks in Figure 2 (this study) were plotted using additional information for the same individuals found in Horodysky et al. 2007 [58].
  14. mTracks could only be estimated for those 10 individuals that were duplicated in Horodysky et al. 2007 [58].
  15. nTags deployed in 2002–2003 reproduced from Horodysky and Graves 2005 [56] and those deployed in 2004 duplicated in Kerstetter and Graves 2008 [45].
  16. oTwenty individuals previously reported in Horodysky and Graves 2005 [56].
  17. pPolygon drawn on Figure 2 to indicate tagging and dispersal region due to large number of reported tags that could not be plotted.
  18. qSeven of the plotted tracks were estimated from a published figure.
  19. rAll tags deployed in Panama, Guatemala, and Costa Rica and some from Mexico were reproduced from Prince et al. 2006 [62].
  20. sAll tracks from Domeier 2003 [65] reported here but without sufficient information to determine which. Thus, we did not consolidate number of reported tracks between the two studies.
  21. tTag and pop-up positions were not estimated for 6 tracks when reported with more information in Abecassis et al. 2012 [70].
  22. uSeven tags reported from Dewar et al. 2011 [54].
  23. vSix tags reported from Abascal et al. 2010 [68] and four from Evans et al. 2011 [69].
  24. wOnly reported tags at liberty for >30 days.
Back to article page

Animal Biotelemetry

ISSN: 2050-3385