The Pipefishes of Southern California- A Review
Cristy A. Rice
9 May 2014
English 363- Dr. Leslie Bruce
Portfolio- Review Final Edit
Abstract
In the early 1940’s, pipefish species were accepted as separate species and
diagnosed as separate and distinct species. Miller and Lea (1972) had
characterized four pipefish species: kelp pipefish (Syngnathus californiensis), bay
pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus), snubnose pipefish (Cosmocampus arctus),
and the barred pipefish (Syngnathus auliscus). In addition to the four commonly
observed pipefishes, two additional species have been reported along the
California coast in recent years (chocolate pipefish, Syngnathus euchrous, and
barcheek pipefish, Syngnathus exilis). Unfortunately, the key characteristic in
identifying each species, counting body ring and tail rings, also makes it difficult
to identify them in the field. Extensive genetic work has been done with the bay
pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) relative to the other species because it is not
only the most prevalent, but has the most substantial range. Although, multiple
studies have looked at individual species of the local pipefishes, a complete
phylogeny of the local species has not been determined. There is a high demand
for an updated dichotomous key that includes all locally observed/known pipefish
species that can be utilized by fisheries and field biologists. Making an easy to use
and efficient dichotomous key would be of great use especially since the previous
method is time consuming and has issues with overlapping body and tail rings
between species.
Introduction
Only a few animals utilize seagrass habitats exclusively for their entire life
cycle. Syngnathids (Family Syngnathidae), a group of fishes that includes
seahorses and pipefishes, are dependent upon seagrass environments. The
pipefishes found in California from this habitat rely upon the crustacean larvae
living among the eelgrass for food and utilize the protection of the dense
seagrasses throughout their lives. Along the southern California coastline,
syngnathids predominantly live among eelgrass, Zostera marina, due to its
prevalence along the coast (Kuiter, 2000).
Previous Work with California Pipefishes
Morphology
In the early 1940s, pipefish species were accepted as separate species and
diagnosed as distinct and separate species instead of only being one larger species
with two smaller ones. Herald (1941) notated the occurrence of the California or
kelp pipefish (Syngnathus californiensis) along the California coast. Later, the bay
pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) was accepted as a different species because
of the different habitats they were found in (Miller and Lea 1972). In California,
pipefishes have historically been recorded in only the warmer climates south of
Santa Barbara, with the exception of the bay pipefish, which has been found as far
north as Alaska (Love, 2011; Miller and Lea, 1972). Miller and Lea (1972)
characterized four pipefish species: kelp pipefish (Syngnathus californiensis), bay
pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus), snubnose pipefish (Cosmocampus arctus),
and the barred pipefish (Syngnathus auliscus). Recently, in addition to the four
commonly observed pipefishes, two additional species have also been reported
along the California coast that were previously only observed south of San Diego
(Fritzsche,1980). These two additional pipefish species (chocolate pipefish,
Syngnathus euchrous, and barcheek pipefish, Syngnathus exilis) are frequently
caught in survey trawls and do not fit into the popularly used Miller and Lea
(1972) dichotomous key. It has been hypothesized that due to climate change and
warming surface water temperature, pipefishes may be expanding their habitat
range further north (M. Horn, personal comm.; Flisik, 2012). Additionally, given
their similarities in appearance, conclusively identifying pipefish is time
consuming and difficult given their cryptic nature and ability to change color.
Much work has been done with the bay pipefish due to its large range
along the coast (Wilson and Orr, 2011). Unfortunately, the key characteristic in
identifying each species from each other also makes it difficult to identify them
from each other. First, the body and tail ring counts each overlap between each
other the similar species (kelp pipefish vs. bay pipefish vs. chocolate pipefish vs.
barcheek pipefish and the snubnose pipefish vs. barred pipefish; Frizsche 1980).
For example, the bay pipefish has 16-20 body rings and the kelp pipefish has 1722 body rings. The only identifying difference between these two species is the
location where they are found, which can be problematic when pipefish are found
floating on drifting kelp patties in the open ocean (Julianne Passarelli and Chris
Lowe pers. comm.).
Genetics
Extensive genetic work has been done with the bay pipefish (Syngnathus
leptorhynchus) more than any of the other species because it is not only the most
prevalent of the species, but it was also known to have the most significant range
(Miller and Lea, 1972). Louie (2003), Mobley et al. (2011), and Wilson et al.
(2001) performed genetic analysis of the bay pipefish to determine if there was a
significant difference in species assemblages and genetic drift below Point
Conception, CA or above, up to Alaska. The goals of these studies were to
determine if there were two subspecies of the bay pipefish and determine where
that break would be. They only found population variances of the bay pipefish
above and below Point Conception, CA, though the genetics was not looked at
further than this speciation. Louie (2003) and Flisik (2011) did both of their work
on a specific species pipefish, but maintained that there was too much overlap in
identification features to be accurate in identification. Although, multiple studies
have been done to look at individual species of the local pipefishes, a phylogeny
of the local species has not been completed.
The future of pipefish study
There has been much speculation and argument over how to identify each
of these species, and if these species were actually separate. There is a high
demand for an updated dichotomous key including all locally observed/known
pipefish species that can be utilized by fisheries and field biologists (J. Pasarelli,
pers. comm.). However, there is some discrepancies in the species identification
of pipefishes found in southern California and the exact number of species.
Future work should look at 1) establishing reliable morphological characters that
will aid in quicker and more accurate identification of fishes and 2) completing a
phylogenetic tree of the west coast pipefish species of North America.
References
Flisik, T.J., Horn, M.H. (2012). Effects of a partial diet of pipefish, a low-quality
prey, on the growth of captive elegant tern chicks. Masters Thesis,
California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA.
Fritzsche, R.A. 1980. A revisionary study of the eastern Pacific Syngnathidae
(Pisces: Syngnathiformes), including both recent and fossil forms.
Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 42: 181-227.
Herald, E. S. (1941). A systematic analysis of variation in the western American
Pipefish, Syngnathus californiensis. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 2,
49–73.
Kuiter, R.H. (2000). Seahorses, Pipefishes and their relatives: A Comprehensive
Guide to Syngnathiformes. TMC Publishing, Chorleywood, Herts, United
Kingdom: 4-22.
Louie, K. D. (2003). Genetic structure and phylogeography of four eastern
Pacific estuarine species, with an emphasis on eelgrass dependent taxa.
PhD Thesis, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA,
USA.
Love, M.S. (2011). Certainly more than you want to know about the fishes of the
Pacific Coast: A postmodern experience. Santa Barbara, CA: Really Big
Publishing, 2011. pp. 213-214.
Miller, J. D., & Lea, R. N. (1972). Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of
California. [Sacramento]: State of California, Dept. of Fish and Game, 89.
Mobley, K.B., Small, C.M., and Jones, A.G. (2011). The genetics and genomics
of Syngnathidae: pipefishes, seahorses and seadragons. Journal of Fish
Biology 78: 1624-1646.
Wilson, A.B. and Orr, J.W. (2011). The evolutionary origins of Syngnathidae:
pipefishes and seahorses. Journal of Fish Biology 78: 1603-1623.
Wilson, A. B., Vincent, A., Ahnesjö, I., & Meyer, A. (2001). Male pregnancy in
seahorses and pipefishes (family Syngnathidae): rapid diversification of
paternal brood pouch morphology inferred from a molecular phylogeny.
Journal of Heredity 92: 159-166.
Link to SCAS Paper submission guidelines
http://scholar.oxy.edu/scas/styleguide.html