Cited by 106Marine and fisheries researchFish Ecology and Management StudiesOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 56 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Worldwide distributions of tuna larvae: revisiting hypotheses on environmental requirements for spawning habitats

Open access
Reglero, P, Tittensor, DP, Álvarez-Berastegui, D, Aparicio-González, A, Worm, B·2014·Marine Ecology Progress Series

Abstract

Tuna are among the most ubiquitous oceanic predators, and range globally from the equator to temperate regions (0 to 55° latitude).While the distribution of adult fish has been mapped from fishing records, the extent of tuna spawning and larval habitats is less well understood.We compiled and analyzed data on the global distributions of larval occurrence for 7 major oceanic tuna species to investigate environmental predictors of larval habitat.Our results showed that tuna larvae occur within the adults' distributional range, but were restricted to lower latitudes and higher water temperatures than adults, largely consistent with Schaefer's 'temperature hypothesis'.Temperature requirements explained much of the variation in larval occurrence, though temperature by itself tended to over-predict the extent of larval habitats.We also demonstrate that tuna larvae have an elevated probability of occurrence at intermediate values of eddy kinetic energy, generally supporting Bakun's 'ocean triad hypothesis', which relates tuna larval habitats to mesoscale oceanographic activity.However, some deviations in this pattern were also observed, such as for albacore.Regions of suitable larval habitats were most commonly found in western boundary currents, where warm water masses coincide with intermediate eddy kinetic energy.Bluefin tuna species are exceptional though, in that their spawning habitats tended to be much more confined than predicted from oceanographic conditions.Our results provide support for a combination of the 2 hypotheses to explain global environmental requirements for tuna larvae.We have identified oceanographic parameters that can easily be measured by remote sensing and features that should be considered when determining areas of critical habitat for tuna larvae.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study compiled global larval occurrence records for 7 tuna species and modeled presence/absence against sea-surface temperature (SST) and eddy kinetic energy (EKE). It found support for a combination of the temperature and ocean triad hypotheses, with larvae restricted to warmer, lower-latitude waters than adults and generally peaking at intermediate EKE, except for bluefin tunas and albacore.

Key findings

  • Tuna larvae occupied a much narrower range than adults: generally 30°S–30°N, except Mediterranean larvae above 35°N, whereas adults ranged from 60°S to 60°N. Larvae preferred warmer waters, with maximum temperature tolerances ≥28.5°C for all species; minima were <22°C for skipjack, yellowfin, albacore, bigeye and Pacific bluefin, but >24°C for Atlantic and southern bluefin. Maximum larval occurrence probabilities were mostly at SSTs of 27.4–27.8°C, except Atlantic bluefin (26.5°C) and Pacific bluefin (25.3°C).
  • Temperature was positively related to larval occurrence in all species analyzed, with a lower tolerance around 20°C, lower than Schaefer’s 24°C spawning boundary; however, temperature alone over-predicted plausible larval habitats for all species, especially bluefin tunas.
  • EKE effects varied: skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye larvae had highest occurrence at intermediate EKE of 0.01–0.06 m² s⁻²; Atlantic bluefin showed a linear positive relationship; albacore showed a negative linear relationship; southern bluefin EKE was not significant. Model deviance explained was 39.6% for skipjack, 38.9% for yellowfin, 32% for bigeye and 29.3% for albacore.
  • Suitable larval habitats were most common in western boundary currents where warm water masses coincide with intermediate EKE; bluefin tuna spawning habitats were much more spatially confined than predicted from oceanographic conditions.

Methods

  • The authors reviewed scientific and grey literature on tuna larval surveys, retaining 150 articles, of which 92 reported georeferenced tuna larval catches. They mapped presence/absence for 7 oceanic tuna species in 1678 5° × 5° grid cells between 70°S and 70°N, excluding land; absence data came from geo-referenced absences in targeted cruises and historical ichthyoplankton surveys.
  • Seasonal SST from satellite remote sensing and EKE calculated from satellite-altimetry-derived geostrophic velocity components were averaged to 5° cells. Larval presence/absence was modeled with binomial generalized additive models (GAMs) using smoothing splines for SST and EKE, with an area term added for wide-ranging species; stepwise backwards selection chose best models.
  • Larval temperature tolerances were estimated from probability density histograms of observed occurrences by SST; adult temperature tolerances were taken from Boyce et al. (2008). Adult ranges for comparison came from Worm & Tittensor (2011).

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the combined database had good spatial coverage but individual surveys were spatially and temporally fragmented, not internationally coordinated, and often covered only restricted areas within main spawning grounds; presence-absence data provide occurrence but not relative abundance or density; larval species identification from morphology can be problematic, especially in the Gulf of Mexico; sampling years ranged from the 1920s to the 2000s; EKE values were missing for the Mediterranean, so no predictions were obtained there; bigeye tuna data are few and interpretations should be cautious.
  • Evident from the text: the GAMs are correlative and cannot establish the mechanisms linking SST/EKE to larval survival; EKE is used as a proxy for mesoscale activity and frontal density; the 5° grid may miss smaller-scale or topographically induced mesoscale structures in confined seas; adult range comparisons rely on contemporary ranges from Worm & Tittensor (2011), which may not match the temporal coverage of larval surveys.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3354/meps10666

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

39 Own result · 16 Own interpretation · 14 No full text of the sources · 9 No basis given · 7 Sources not found · 6 Partly supported · 4 Supported · 3 Not checked yet · 3 Own method · 2 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 48 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 37
55 of 55
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Seasonal SST and EKE averaged over 5° × 5° grid cells represent the environmental conditions relevant to tuna larval occurrence.

    “Both monthly EKE and SST values were averaged at each 5° × 5° cell of the analysis grid to obtain seasonal (3 mo) data.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Larval presence/absence records compiled from different years and sources are comparable enough to model global environmental relationships.

    “Standardized data on larval densities were not available for comparison across studies and oceans; hence, we were forced to focus on larval presence records only.”
    “Furthermore, larval sampling cruises were not routinely recorded over the years in different areas, so we have combined different sampling years, with the earliest cruises dating from the 1920s and the latest from the 2000s.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Species-level morphological identifications in the source articles are accurate enough for the analyses.

    “Larval tuna identification at species level can be problematic when based on morphological descriptions, especially in the Gulf of Mexico (Richards et al. 1990).”
    “We have carefully reviewed the basis for taxonomical descriptions in the articles used as data sources for our analyses.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Sampled cells where no tuna larvae were caught represent true absence of tuna larvae.

    “Sampled cells where no tuna larvae were obtained from geo-referenced icthyoplankton surveys are shown in dark orange.Areas with missing data are shown in white”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The compiled larval data from different sources and time periods are comparable and can be combined into a single global analysis.

    “A total of 1678 grid cells, excluding land cells, between 70°S and 70°N were mapped according to the available information on the presence or absence of tuna larvae for every species.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The generalized additive models with SST and EKE capture the main environmental drivers of larval occurrence.

    “predicted values were derived from a generalized additive model including SST and EKE as predictor variables when significant.”
6 of 6

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Show all 87 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Alemany F (1997) Ictioplancton del Mar Balear. PhD thesis, University of Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca
  2. 10.3989/scimar03759.28A · DOI
  3. UNEP-WCMC (2008) National and regional networks of marine protected areas: a review of progress. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Reglero, P., Tittensor, D., Álvarez-Berastegui, D., Aparicio-González, A., & Worm, B.
Venue
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Published
2014-03-31
Volume
501
Pages
207-224
ISSN
  • 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1616-1599
OpenAlex
W2312411547
Cited by
106
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • California Institute of Technology
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Keywords
tuna larvae, spawning grounds, larval distribution, eddy kinetic energy, western boundary currents, bluefin tuna, albacore tuna, critical habitat, water temperature, remote sensing

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-16, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-16 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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