Fabrizio et al.: Home range and seasonal movements of Centropristis striata 
91 
May Jun Jul Aug Sep 
Dec 
o 
E 
o 
> 
-O 
-Q 
o 
May 
Jun 
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 
Figure 5 
Effect of release group on mean predicted probability of moving for 3 
groups of Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata) tagged and released 
at a reef in the mid-Atlantic Bight in early June (solid line), late June 
(dashed line), and July (dotted and dashed line) 2003 for (A) males 
(«=34) and (B) fish of unknown sex (n= 87). Movement was indexed 
as either 0 (no movement) or 1 (movement) and was observed from 
30 May to 19 November 2003; predicted means are from a binomial 
repeated-measures model. 
Farmer and Ault (2011) support our notion that the use 
of appropriate temporal and spatial domains of study 
is critical for estimation of home ranges of fishes. 
Studies that incorporate large numbers of fish can 
elucidate the degree of variation in home-range sizes 
and may be helpful in clarifying habitat use among 
groups of conspecifics. We found an order of magni- 
tude difference in home-range sizes among 109 Black 
Sea Bass at our study site (13.7-736.4 ha). However, 
the magnitude of this variation was not unusual, as 
Spot-tail Shark (Carcharhinus sorrah ) in Australia 
used areas varying between 1 and 7802 ha as home 
ranges (Knip et al., 2012), and home ranges of Califor- 
nia Sheephead ( Semicossyphus pulcher), another pro- 
togynous hermaphrodite, spanned 2 or- 
ders of magnitude (Topping et al., 2005). 
The large variation in home-range size 
among Black Sea Bass may reflect the 
distribution of prey resources at the 
study site or the extent of competitive 
interactions among fish for prey and 
shelter. Population density at the reef 
also may play a role in structuring space 
use among conspecifics. Our study was 
conducted during the inshore residency 
period of Black Sea Bass in a single year, 
and, as such, the specific home-range 
sizes we report here may be indicative of 
conditions in 2003. However, the relative 
home-range size and order-of-magnitude 
variation in home ranges in this popula- 
tion are likely to be independent of year 
of observation. 
Home ranges of adult Black Sea Bass 
were fish-size invariant. Theory indi- 
cates that larger fish may require larger 
areas for feeding and that larger fish are 
able to patrol and defend larger areas 
with less metabolic cost than smaller 
fish are able to do (Kramer and Chap- 
man, 1999). Although such relationships 
have been observed in some marine 
fishes (e.g., Jones, 2007; Taylor et al., 
2007; Marshell et al., 2011), others have 
reported no effect of fish size on home- 
range size (e.g., Lowe et al., 2003; Afonso 
et al., 2008; Bellquist et al., 2008; Farm- 
er and Ault, 2011; this study). Apparent 
inconsistencies with theoretical expec- 
tations may arise because the relation- 
ship between body size and home-range 
size applies only to comparisons among 
species or among life stages of a given 
species (e.g., Jones, 2007). For example, 
juvenile Black Sea Bass displayed re- 
stricted use of estuarine habitats in New 
Jersey, rarely moving more than 120 m 
(Able and Hales, 1997); this geographic 
scale of habitat use contrasts markedly 
with the extent of the area used by adults during their 
inshore residency (this study) or throughout their life 
(Moser and Shepherd, 2009). However, within a given 
life stage of a single species, home range appears to be 
less affected by fish size. 
Home ranges of Black Sea Bass of unknown sex 
(females, subordinate males, and transitional males) 
were smaller among individuals with longer inshore 
residency times, indicating that fish of unknown sex 
that occupied smaller home ranges (<137.2 ha) exhib- 
ited higher site affinities. These tendencies may reflect 
the reproductive strategy of females and small males 
in this group. For example, females that occupied the 
site for only short periods (<50 d) may move freely 
