• Banggai Cardinals- Pterapogon kauderni debates

    by
    Adam Blundell
    Published on 09-14-2010 10:57 PM
    5 Comments Comments
    Introduction
    Banggai Cardinals. Just saying that stirs up the images, thoughts, and debate found regarding these beautiful fish. When these fish first entered the aquarium trade (over a decade ago) they made a huge splash. They have always been a favorite of mine due to their unusual larval development and breeding strategies. These items are of interest to me and have been a large area of study for my body of work. I’ve been dealing with Banggai concepts and thoughts since my days in high school, and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down.

    This article isn’t intended to bring any new information to the front of the Banggai talk, but rather to state what has already been said in other sources. I see glimpses and snippets of chatter, which always seems to be biased. Thankfully, I don’t know who to believe and therefore feel comfortable in writing what I think will be a balanced viewpoint. At this time there is a debate in the hobby/industry. There is not a debate in the scientific world. For all scientific efforts, studies, and data that exist the outlook bad. It is an acknowledgment that the Banggai Cardinal are in dire need of help. However, outside of the scientific world there is a debate as many would argue that the Banggai Cardinal are in better shape now than ever before.

    Heads
    The Inevitable Decline and Extinction of the Banggai Cardinal
    Banggai Cardinals may serve as the “poster-child” for how destructive this hobby can be. Their numbers are about two million worldwide, and half of them are removed each year for the aquarium trade. That statement didn’t mean much to me until friend (and well-known fish expert) Dr. Frank Marini said it to me in a solemn tone ‘half of their population is wiped out every year.’

    The works of several scientists (most notably Dr. Vagelli) have shown that their numbers are dropping, make that plummeting, in nearly all of their reported sites. In fact they have gone extinct in some locations. According to Dr. Vagelli “the non-regulated capture of selected species for the international aquarium fish trade is so severe that it is threatening at least one species with extinction - the endemic apogonid Pterapogon kauderni, the Banggai cardinalfish.” This sentiment resonates in the aquarium hobby where many people have voiced similar concerns. Eric Borneman has been just one of the major key players in proposing an ethical ban on Banggai Cardinals (at a time when he was a newly residing president of the Marine Aquarium Societies of North America). He may or may not promote a forced legislative ban, but at least an ethical oath to not purchase these fish.

    Although this may all be for naught. It is possible these fish will be extinct in the next 10 years regardless of what steps are taken to protect them today.


    Tails
    The Prosperity and Profusion of the Banggai Cardinal
    On the other end of the spectrum from the doom and gloom (and possibly in response to them) are some very compelling arguments from people like Bob Fenner. One of the most respected and knowledgeable people in the hobby, Bob is known for his real life accounts. In a widely read and disseminated letter to Microcosm, Bob stated “this fish is more than plentiful in its previous limited range.” In fact Bob’s personal accounts and photographs show Banggai Cardinals in high numbers in their transplanted locations.

    I remember when these fish first started making their way to the U.S., to Puerto Rico in particular. They were unusual to say the least. Striking patterns, odd swimming movements, very rare, and early reports showed that they may in fact be candidates for tank-raised aquaculture projects. Wholesale cost per fish was several hundred dollars! That quickly plummeted to under a hundred dollars. Today the cost is under a dollar (US$) oversees and around $3 each wholesale out of Los Angeles. So what?

    There is great reason to believe that the cost of a fish is directly related to the supply and demand. There is a demand for Banggai Cardinals. They sell well. Yet, their price is not just low, but is one of the lowest priced fish available. Similarly priced animals are Lawnmower blennies, snowflake eels, firefish gobies, camel shrimp, anemonefishes, etc. How can a fish in such demand sell for such a low price? Supply. These fish may not only be easy to catch but they are easy to find. Abundant and plentiful? According to Fenner these fish sell for 10-25 cents each (Indonesia) priced by a 600-Lot.

    And A Coin That Just Spins
    Some people just don’t know what to believe.
    And the final example here is in regards to a conversation I had with my good friend and ichthyophile Scott Michael. When pressed on the question “should people be buying wild caught Banggai” Scott was able to create a most vague answer. Is their population at risk? Are they well suited for home aquaria? Well after several minutes Scott came to the same conclusion that many hobbyists find… he just doesn’t know. Like me, Scott finds the conclusion elusive.

    In Scott’s book “Reef Aquarium Fishes” he gives Banggai Cardinals his yellow/red heading which means “Most of these species do not acclimate to the home aquarium, often refusing to feed and wasting away in captivity.” However, Scott then goes on to say “easily bred in the home reef, this is a hardy and commendable species.” This may sound confusing to readers, but the reason for this is an oversight on the book editing (personal communication with Scott Michael just prior to this publication). Scott has informed me that while writing “Reef Aquarium Fishes” he made updates to the information found in “Marine Fishes” (Michael 1999). One major update is that the Banggai Cardinals of today are not nearly as aquarium friendly as they were in the late '90s. I completely agree with that assessment. In the late '90s these fishes were very hardy and well-suited for aquarium life. However, the survivability of these wild caught fishes today is pitiful at best. Please note, the captive raised Banggai Cardinals are still very well-suited for the reef aquarium, and are highly recommended. Anyway, while updating the information for Reef Aquarium Fishes, some of the older information regarding their ease of care was not removed (Michael 2009, personal communication).

    Making Sense of Numbers
     This is the most difficult part of science. Hypothesis is easy, setting up an experiment takes time, recording results takes patience, and figuring out what it means can take a lifetime. To me, this is where nerdy talk becomes fun. I’m personally engrossed by discussions on population biology, and all things ecology-related. Here are some examples I see frequently discussed with Banggai Cardinals.

    Let's start with Population Numbers. One of the most cited statistics I see is the near two million Banggai Cardinals alive in the wild today. That number comes from “10 Years After Rediscovering the Banggai Cardinalfish” (Bruins et al, 2004). In that study the authors estimate 1.7 million Banggai in existence. That same article also provides data showing that about 50,000-60,000 Banggai are removed each month for the aquarium trade. Keep in mind that is one Banggai every MINUTE! Population numbers are just that, numbers. They are a way of quantifying countable data.

    Now let's look at the principles of Static Populations. Example: if a rabbit has five kittens(1) each year and reproduces for five total years, it has the ability to produce 25 living offspring. However Static Populations tells us that only two of those 25 will survive (one replacing mom, and one replacing dad). Otherwise this world would be overrun with rabbits.

    Following the rabbit example we’ll turn to Sustainable Harvest. Sustainable harvest would say that we could probably take away one of the baby rabbits and keep it for a pet, and not impact the rabbits population. Simply put, another one of the babies would grow up to fill that void in the habitat. However if we took all five of the babies each year, all five years, then after mom and dad rabbit die there wouldn’t be any rabbits.

    This is where the debate begins. If we remove 100,000 Banggai per year will they simply repopulate? Or will we slowly push them towards extinction?

    Recruitment to Replenishment (static population dynamic) is another interesting topic. This theory states that a population will stay static because the number of new births will equal the number of deaths. (Within a community it refers to the number moving into a community will equal the number moving out.) Using this to look at Banggai Cardinals we can see why it is possible to remove one million of them per year and not push them to extinction in two years (given that there are two million of them worldwide). This is explained by saying that on average one Banggai Cardinal is removed from the wild every minute, while one viable Banggai baby may be born every minute. So the total population number would remain unchanged. The real problem is when you are removing something at a rate faster than it can reproduce. Is that what is currently happening to Banggai Cardinals? It depends on whom you ask.

    Conclusion (for now)
     They are all honest. That is the best part of this article. I learned early in life that the best thing you can do is to be honest, and surround yourself with honest people. From my vantage point all the people involved with Heads and Tails are trying to honestly convey their findings. I don’t feel comfortable telling the readers what to believe, but I do hope this article will at least help them to consider all possibilities.

    Gratitude
     This article wouldn't have been possible without the kind and generous help of Bob Fenner, Alex Vagelli, Dion Richins and Scott Michael. I thank you all very much for your willingness to share, your photos, your work, and more importantly your friendship.

    References and Suggested Readings
    • Buins, E., Moreau, M., Lunn, K., Vagelli, A., Hall, H., (2004), “10 Years After Rediscovering the Banggai Cardinalfish”, de l’Institut Oceanographique, Monaco.
    • CITES Report (2007), “Additional Information on Biological and Trade Criteria in Support of An Appendix-II Listing for the Banggai Cardinalfish, Pterapogon Kauderni” CoP14 Inf. 37. The Hague, Netherlands.
    • Fenner, R., (2008), “Boycott? Bah.” Microcosm Aquarium Explorer, Letters. USA.
    • Michael, S., (1999), “Marine Fishes”, Microcosm Ltd and T.F.H. Publications, USA.
    • Michael, S., (2005), “Reef Aquarium Fishes”, Microcosm Ltd and T.F.H. Publications, USA.
    • Phillips, F., (2009), “Cardinals Rule”, 2009 Annual Marine Fish & Reef USA, Bowtie Publications. Mission Viejo, California, USA.
    • Rogner, M., (2008), “The Banggai Cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni)”, Koralle V.5 N.5, (Coral V.5 N.5 USA edition), Germany.
    • Vagelli, A., (2008), “The unfortunate journey of Pterapogon kauderni:
    • A remarkable apogonid endangered by the international ornamental fish trade, and its case in CITES”, SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin #18, New Jersey Academy for Aquatic Sciences, USA.
    • Vagelli, A., Erdmann, M., (2002), “First comprehensive ecological survey of the Banggai cardinalfish, Pterapogon kauderni”, Environmental Biology of Fishes, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
    • (1) Rabbits having kittens: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...abbit_has.html
    Comments 5 Comments
    1. MarcG's Avatar
      MarcG - 09-15-2010, 12:09 AM
      Great article! I'll admit that I tried one once and it ended up "wasting away." Then I saw a fellow reefer raising banggai cardinals! Definitely a cool fish, but I don't think I'll be getting any anytime soon
      Reply
    1. fishtal's Avatar
      fishtal - 09-15-2010, 12:29 AM
      Nice article. From a breeders standpoint, I hear a lot of talk about WC specimens not doing well after transport. CB specimens seem to have a much better survival rate.
      Reply
    1. agsansoo's Avatar
      agsansoo - 09-15-2010, 11:08 AM
      I'm also a (hobbyist) breeder of maroon clownfish and banggai cardinals. I have found these guys a challenge to raise. Once a pair is established in an aquarium, they are quite hardy and easy to care for. Trust me, nobody raising banggai's is getting rich.
      Reply
    1. Jessy's Avatar
      Jessy - 09-15-2010, 03:58 PM
      Great article to start with here at ReefAddicts Adam! I like that you've presented both sides to the argument.

      Is it odd, that I've never once had a desire for a banggai in my tanks? They just hover... kinda why I'll never put another clown in my tank. Give me a wrasse any day.
      Reply
    1. mpedersen's Avatar
      mpedersen - 09-22-2010, 03:31 AM
      Interesting, but in truth if you delve into the hard numbers and data further you'll realize that the answers were already there. You omitted that the US Government actually felt that the data was compelling enough to propose listing this species on CITES despite it not being native fauna (normally, it is a native country that proposes such a listing). You also failed to bring to the table that this was withdrawn due to political reasons and pressures (that had nothing to do with the fate of the fish itself). Furthermore, you failed to mention the ongoing truth that this species is listed on the IUCN Red List as Endangered. Yes ,it is still considered "endangered".

      Regarding your harvest numbers, while you making an interesting example, the truth is that harvest numbers lower than the largest reported (a few years old now) were already having documented negative effects, to the extent of localized population extinctions as you reported (it's also been shown that these localized populations may be genetically distinct as well).

      While I respect Bob's observations, I think you may have inadvertently misquoted or mis-stated something. Has Bob been to the Banggai Islands themselves in the last few years, or is this personal assessment of numbers taken from the introduced populations in places like the Lembah Straits? Regardless, the allusion to non-native populations is a very poor justification on the "everything is OK" standpoint. Let me explain the disconnect.

      Lets talk about the Lionfish in the Atlantic, and lets hypothetically say we were overharvesting them in the Indo-Pacific. The argument that an introduced population that is doing well is really inappropriate...it would be like saying it's OK to wipe out all the Lionfish in the Indo-Pacific because they're all doing great in the Caribbean, the Gulf, and the Eastern US Coast from Florida up to New Jersey. I don't think I need to explain further just how wrong this line of logic is.

      This is entirely flawed thinking. We don't know what problems extripating the Banggai from it's native endemic habitat will create, as well as the problems that it's introduction into places it didn't belong creates. The chain of cause and effect isn't something we can anticipate, only something we can document. To point to burgeoning "exotic" populations of Banggais as a sign that "all is well" or "it's OK to wipe them out of the Banggai Islands" totally dismisses the fact that the exotic population could wipe out a half dozen native goby species and two other cardinalfish species.

      I am all for sustainable wild harvest where appropriate. It would seem though that based on the information at hand, our wild caught Banggais should be coming from the introduced populations where they don't belong (and are quite possibly causing population problems for native / endemic species), and local populations in the Banggai Islands should be allowed to recover from the documented problems.

      I need to remind everyone that the fecundity of a Banggai Cardinalfish is VERY low, which is extremely Atypical for a Marine Fish. Recruitment to Replenishment theory may be a far more applicable justification for sustainable harvest in a marine fish that produces thousands or hundreds of thousands of viable offspring in a lifetime. Optimistically, looking at a Banggai Cardinalfish, a 2 year lifespan (generous in the wild), monthly reproductive cycle, and average brood of 25 fish, yields only 600 offspring in a lifetime. Compare that to something like a Bluestreak Cardinalfish (Apogon leptacanthus) which spawns twice as frequently and might produce 500 offspring per batch. That means one pair produced 48,000 babies in a lifespan. 600 offspring, or 48,000 offspring. Given that the end goal is to simply get 2 to live to live a full reproductive lifespan, in BOTH scenarios, which species has more "wiggle room" when we apply an additional "predatory pressure" that is not part of the natural food web (because technically, that's what we are). How much worse does it all become when we realize that we are not targeting the "babies" that so often never make it, but that our harvest targets the ADULTS? The question really isn't how many babies you can harvest along their way to adulthood, it's how many reproductively active adults you can take away before things go bad. That's when things should really become clear.

      Of course, all of this could be pointless to debate - it is possible that the global economic problems of the last few years may have reduced the harvest levels of Banggais. However, we do not know that, it is purely speculation. But it may have bought us enough of a reprieve. What we really need is someone like Vagelli to go back and do a new population survey using the same methodologies as prior.

      Still, your supply and demand argument fails to acknowledge the truth that it is far more difficult for anyone to RAISE a price than to lower it. To simply say "they're cheap, so they must be plentiful" is very flawed thinking again. The other thing we do not know is what the fishers were paid for Banggais when they retailed at $300...it in fact could have been the same $0.25 per fish 15 years ago as it is today. In other words, the "wiggle room" in price may never have been at the source, but in the markups applied afterwards. Thus, ss local populations wane, fishers might very well simply move on to others. It is interesting to think about WHY Scott Michael's observed shift in hardiness happened...afterall, these fish are now crammed together and shipped in much poorer conditions because they became "cheap" fish. It isn't the fisherman who are packing these fish for shipments...it's an exporter middleman who might still pay the same price to a fisher that he always did, but now can't expect nearly the same amount of income because the importers won't pay for it, because the end consumers aren't paying for it either. Still, it's nice to see that overall, I think Banggai Cardinalfish prices have gone up a bit on WC fish...maybe as much as 50% in from $20 to $30 a head in the last 2-3 years.

      Still, I have to ask why the size of wild caught banggais has become smaller? I think it is likely they are being harvested ever younger because fish of size may not be around. You either have smaller adult fish when harvest pressures are high, or populations are overcrowded. We have documentation already proving that overcrowding was not occuring, but overharvest was.

      Just more fuel for the fire Adam

      Matt
      Reply