Cited by 149Marine and fisheries researchOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFish Ecology and Management Studies

Habitat characteristics of skipjack tuna ( Katsuwonus pelamis ) in the western North Pacific: a remote sensing perspective

MUGO, ROBINSON, SAITOH, SEI‐ICHI, NIHIRA, AKIRA, KUROYAMA, TADAAKI·2010·Fisheries Oceanography

Abstract

Skipjack tuna habitat in the western North Pacific was studied from satellite remotely sensed environment and catch data, using generalized additive models and geographic information systems. Weekly resolved remotely sensed sea surface temperature, surface chlorophyll, sea surface height anomalies and eddy kinetic energy data were used for the year 2004. Fifteen generalized additive models were constructed with skipjack catch per unit effort as a response variable, and sea surface temperature, sea surface height anomalies and eddy kinetic energy as model covariates to assess the effect of environment on catch per unit effort (skipjack tuna abundance). Model selection was based on significance of model terms, reduction in Akaike’s Information Criterion, and increase in cumulative deviance explained. The model selected was used to predict skipjack tuna catch per unit effort using monthly resolved environmental data for assessing model performance and to visualize the basin scale distribution of skipjack tuna habitat. Predicted values were validated using a linear model. Based on the four‐parameter model, skipjack tuna habitat selection was significantly ( P < 0.01) influenced by sea surface temperatures ranging from 20.5 to 26°C, relatively oligotrophic waters (surface chlorophyll 0.08–0.18, 0.22–0.27 and 0.3–0.37 mg m −3 ), zero to positive anomalies (surface height anomalies 0–50 cm), and low to moderate eddy kinetic energy (0–200 and 700–2500 cm 2 s –2 ). Predicted catch per unit effort showed a trend consistent with the north–south migration of skipjack tuna. Validation of predicted catch per unit effort with that observed, pooled monthly, was significant ( P < 0.01, r 2 = 0.64). Sea surface temperature explained the highest deviance in generalized additive models and was therefore considered the best habitat predictor.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2419.2010.00552.x

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Skipjack tuna habitat selection is significantly influenced by SST ranging from 20.5 to 26°C in the Pacific Ocean.

    “Based on the oceanic parameter model, skipjack tuna habitat selection was significantly (p < 0.01) influenced by SST ranging from 20.5 to 26°C in the Pacific Ocean (Mugo et al. 2010).”

    From El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) impact on tuna fisheries in Indian Ocean (2014) · cites this paper as Mugo et al. 2010

  • GAMs have been previously used to study habitat preferences of many tuna species using fishery data, larval survey data, and electronic tagging data.

    “GAMs have been previously used to study habitat preferences of many tuna species using fishery data (Lan et al., 2013;Maury et al., 2001;Mugo et al., 2010;Sagarminaga and Arrizabalaga 2010), larval survey data (Rooker et al., 2013) as well as electronic tagging data (Hazen et al., 2013).”

    From Global habitat preferences of commercially valuable tuna (2015) · cites this paper as Mugo et al., 2010

  • Some environmental variables (e.g., temperature, DCHL) have been used in previous studies, but description of habitat preferences based on other variables (e.g., MLD, ZOO) is rarely found in the literature.

    “Some of these variables (e.g.temperature, DCHL) have been used in previous studies (e.g.Sagarminaga and Arrizabalaga 2010;Mugo et al., 2010), but description of the habitat preferences based on other variables (e.g.MLD, ZOO) is rarely found in the literature.”

    From Global habitat preferences of commercially valuable tuna (2015) · cites this paper as Mugo et al., 2010

  • Skipjack tuna prefer zero to positive SSH anomalies.

    “skipjack preference for zero to positive anomalies (Mugo et al., 2010).”

    From Global habitat preferences of commercially valuable tuna (2015) · cites this paper as Mugo et al., 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MUGO, R., SAITOH, S., NIHIRA, A., & KUROYAMA, T.
Affiliations
Hokkaido University (JP)
Corresponding author
MUGO, ROBINSON
Venue
Fisheries Oceanography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-04
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
382-396
ISSN
  • 1054-6006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2419
OpenAlex
W2163333500
Cited by
149
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Fisheries Oceanography (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Keywords
skipjack tuna, fish habitat, western North Pacific, sea surface temperature, surface chlorophyll, sea level anomalies, eddy kinetic energy, catch per unit effort, habitat selection, tuna migration, satellite remote sensing, generalized additive models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review