Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 2;15(12):e0239919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239919

The recurring impact of storm disturbance on black sea bass (Centropristis striata) movement behaviors in the Mid-Atlantic Bight

Caroline J Wiernicki 1,*,#, Michael H P O’Brien 1,, Fan Zhang 2,3,, Vyacheslav Lyubchich 1,, Ming Li 2,, David H Secor 1,#
Editor: Vanesa Magar4
PMCID: PMC7710083  PMID: 33264326

Abstract

Storm events are a significant source of disturbance in the Middle Atlantic Bight, in the Northwest Atlantic, that cause rapid destratification of the water column during the late summer and early fall. Storm-driven mixing can be considered as a seasonal disturbance regime to demersal communities, characterized by the recurrence of large changes in bottom water temperatures. Black sea bass are a model ubiquitous demersal species in the Middle Atlantic Bight, as their predominantly sedentary behavior makes them ideal for tagging studies while also regularly exposing them to summer storm disturbances and the physiological stresses associated with thermal destratification. To better understand the responsiveness of black sea bass to storm impacts, we coupled biotelemetry with a high-resolution Finite Volume Community Ocean Model (FVCOM). During the summers of 2016–2018, 8–15 black sea bass were released each year with acoustic transponders at three reef sites, which were surrounded by data-logging receivers. Data were analyzed for activity levels and reef departures of black sea bass, and fluctuations in temperature, current velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy. Movement rates were depressed with each consecutive passing storm, and late-season storms were associated with permanent evacuations by a subset of tagged fish. Serial increases in bottom temperature associated with repeated storm events were identified as the primary depressor of local movement. Storm-driven increases in turbulent kinetic energy and current velocity had comparatively smaller, albeit significant, effects. Black sea bass represents both an important fishery resource and an indicator species for the impact of offshore wind development in the United States. Their availability to fisheries surveys and sensitivity to wind turbine impacts will be biased during periods of high storm activity, which is likely to increase with regional climate change.

Introduction

Storm disturbance is a key structuring force in coastal marine ecosystems, affecting population and community dynamics, as well as the habitats upon which they depend [1, 2]. For example, storms caused significant shifts in species composition and abundance for fish communities inhabiting shallow mangrove habitats [3], and increased frequency of high-intensity storms has been linked to decreased fish abundance and changes in trophic structure in kelp forests [4, 5]. However, impacts of storm disturbance on fish communities in deeper offshore marine ecosystems has not received as much attention, as impacts are more difficult to observe and presumably because such systems may be better buffered owing to their depth and volume.

A small but growing pool of research has emerged emphasizing the role of storms as singular, extreme disturbances driving changes in movement behaviors by marine fishes. Biotelemetry studies off the coasts of Florida and North Carolina observed storm-driven evacuation by tagged juvenile blacktip sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus, associated with decreased barometric pressure [6] and gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus, associated with increased wave orbital velocity [7]. Storm-driven decreases in temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity were observed to drive emigration of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, from the Hudson River Estuary to coastal habitats [8]. Summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus [9], and black sea bass, Centropristis striata [10], evacuations occurred following severe storm events in the United States mid-Atlantic. Hurricane disturbance on reef communities has also driven decreased movement and tighter coupling of fish to structured habitat [1113]. Marine community responses to episoidic storm events represents challenging field science, perhaps contributing to a lack of studies on multiple storm events as a recurring source of natural disturbance. The vast majority of storm impacts on marine communities focus on the effects of storms as a singular, passing stochastic event. There is a critical gap in the literature regarding the potential of repeated storm events to serve as a natural, recurring disturbance regime, driving acute shifts in marine habitat conditions and incurring subsequent behavioral changes in habitat use and movement patterns from the affected fish communities.

The Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB)—the continental shelf extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank offshore of Massachusetts, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina—is a region regularly susceptible to significant storm disturbance during the summer and fall months. Storms can drive a number of changes in the physical environment on the shelf, such as changes in sea surface temperature due to vertical mixing [1417]; increased turbulence at surface and bottom-boundary layers, either due to wind-driven shear or stirring [14, 16, 17]; and increased current velocity gradients in the oceanic surface and mixed layers [14, 15]. The MAB is also vulnerable to storm-driven temperature disturbance due to the presence of an oceanographic feature known as the “cold pool.” The cold pool is an isolated layer of relatively colder, saltier bottom water within the MAB, receiving winter waters formed at the Nantucket Shoals [18, 19]. It forms seasonally with the vernal heating of surface waters (May-July), resulting in the stratification of the water column [18, 20]. This stratification and associated bottom-layer cold pool can be rapidly “destroyed” through the wind-driven fall overturn [2123] commonly precipitated by late summer (mid- to late-August) and fall (September-October) storms [2325].

Summer and fall storm events, such as tropical cyclones, contribute to the seasonal deterioration of the cold pool through wind-driven mixing and advection; storm-driven destratification events can create bottom temperature increases as high as 10°C over 24 hrs during a single hurricane event [10]. In this capacity, summer (June-August) and fall (September-October) storms in the MAB act as a significant source of natural disturbance by driving rapid partial-to-total destratification of the cold pool. Partial destratification occurs when mixing is transitory and the water column restratifies, typically within days, whereas total destratification, a.k.a. cold pool destruction, is permanent [10].

Storm events in the MAB expose demersal fish communities to multiple physical and physiological stressors. For many fish species, chronic increases in temperature have been linked to behavioral impacts such as delayed reaction speed [26] and decreased movement related to energy and ventilation demands under thermal stress [27]. Acute increases in temperature have also been linked to increased discrete physiological impacts for a variety of species, such as rapidly increased cardiac output and decreased blood-oxygen binding in cod [28], reduced cardiac action potentials in carp [29], and upregulated gene expression of heat-shock and cell-cycle arrest proteins in gobies [30]. For black sea bass (300 g), increases in temperature from 12 to 24°C, resulted in a 2-fold increase in standard metabolism and a 33% decline in aerobic scope [31]. Therefore, the rapid changes in bottom water temperature in the MAB are likely a significant source of disturbance and physiological stress to demersal fishes.

The rapid increase in bottom water temperatures owing to storm mixing co-occurs with rapid changes in current velocity, turbulent kinetic energy, and noise. Increased storm-related flow and turbulence have been demonstrated to elicit elevated movement responses in an oceanic fish species [7] and various coastal sharks [32]. Storm-generated noise has been demonstrated to occur within low-range frequency bands [33, 34] that also overlap with the majority of fish hearing detection ranges [35]. Several storm systems within a year can cause repeated thermal destratification events, as well as simultaneously increasing current and turbulent flow within the water column. As such, the cumulative impacts caused by these storm-driven stressors—seasonal storm-driven fluctuations in temperature and flow—could represent a dynamic disturbance regime within the MAB, influencing its demersal fish communities.

Here, we investigate the effect of storm events as a recurring source of disturbance to a common member of the demersal MAB shelf assemblage: black sea bass. Black sea bass are a mostly sedentary, reef-associated species [3639] that exhibit an affinity for both artificial and natural structure [40], making them an ideal candidate for biotelemetry studies on potential shifts in fish movement behaviors. Black sea bass and other demersal fish assemblages in the MAB characteristically occupy nearshore shelf habitats from late spring through fall; during the late fall, they then undertake cross-shelf migrations to deeper waters, typically throughout mid-September to late October [37, 38, 41, 42]. This transit to off-shelf water succeeds the arrival of late summer and early fall hurricanes and tropical storms in the western Atlantic. Secor et al. [10] hypothesized that cumulative storm impacts during this late summer and early fall period could cue offshore seasonal migration. The potential role of late summer-fall storm disturbances in the MAB to serve as a migratory cue emphasizes the need to understand repeated storms as an ecologically-significant disturbance regime.

Comprehensive understanding of this natural disturbance regime shaped by storms is both timely and relevant to the MAB, as the region is currently undergoing evaluation by industry and policy stakeholders for offshore wind energy development [43]. Black sea bass is a model species for understanding wind energy impacts because they are ubiquitous and commercially important within the > 7·103 km2 of leased USA federal waters (https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities). To best utilize this and similar demersal species in understanding both negative and positive impacts of offshore wind energy development, baseline information is needed on storm impacts to black sea bass. Storm effects on fish behavior are a pervasive recurrent natural disturbance in the MAB, which if not understood and accounted for, will likely bias wind turbine impact studies.

The goal of this study was to better characterize the recurring impact of seasonal storms on the local oceanography in the MAB, and their subsequent recurring impact on movement and evacuations by black sea bass. We hypothesized that: (1) storm events are a recurring feature that impact black sea bass habitat through changes in temperature, bottom current velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy; (2) changes in movement behavior are caused by both individual and cumulative storm-driven environmental changes; and (3) storm-related movement behaviors are driven chiefly by rapid (<1 d) mixing and increased bottom temperature. During three summer-fall seasons (2016–2018), we measured evacuation and movement behaviors through biotelemetry, coupling these behaviors with predicted storm-driven changes in water column conditions provided by a coastal ocean model. In particular, the year 2017 provided a unique opportunity to model cumulative storm impact, as multiple storm events occurred with sequential impacts on the water column during a single season.

Materials and methods

This study was approved by University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) (Protocol Number F-CBL-16-10), under UMCES IACUC Chair Dr. Christopher L. Rowe. All surgery was performed under Aqui-S anesthetic (20 mg/L, active ingredient clove oil) to minimize suffering and injury to fish.

Study site

This project included three study reefs located 16–46 km east and southeast of Ocean City, Maryland, USA (Fig 1, Table 1), which were respectively identified as the Northern, Middle, and Southern sites. All study reefs overlapped with the presence of the cold pool for approximately 4–5 months each year (spring-late summer) and ranged in depth from 20 m to 27 m (Table 1).

Fig 1. Experimental reef sites, east of the Maryland coast, for the 2016–2018 study seasons.

Fig 1

* Colored points refer to receiver deployment locations, while black points refer to approximate tagging locations. The black line depicts the selected 38.73 km transect for cross-sectional FVCOM estimates. * Inset map provides location of study site, given as a red square, within the broader Maryland-Delaware coast.

Table 1. Summary of tagging location, quantity and condition characteristics of fish tagged, and receiver location and average depth.

Tagging Location Fish Tagged Receiver Summary
Site Year Latitude Longitude N Size (mm) Weight (g) Date Deployed Date Retrieved Average Depth (m)
Northern 2016 38.4309 -74.7680 15 260 ± 25 200 ± 90 Jun 10 Nov 2 26.07
2017 38.4307 -74.7677 15 262 ± 28 250 ± 70 Jun 22 Oct 26 25.27
2018 38.4309 -74.7680 27 251 ± 38 240 ± 70 Jun 19 Oct 23 25.82
Middle 2016 38.2237 -74.7562 15 232 ± 30 260 ± 100 Jun 12 Nov 1 26.66
2017 38.2234 -74.7558 15 283 ± 17 320 ± 60 Jun 22 Oct 26 26.71
2018 38.2237 -74.7562 16 271 ± 37 280 ± 110 Jul 15 Oct 23 26.48
Southern 2016 38.1480 -74.9472 15 267 ± 24 270 ± 80 Jun 9 Nov 1 20.95
2017 38.1589 -74.9439 8 256 ± 20 240 ± 50 Jun 29 Oct 26 22.54
2018 38.1481 -74.9472 17 241 ± 30 190 ± 60 Jul 31 Oct 26 21.05

*Only two receivers were recovered in 2017.

Acoustic telemetry data collection

A total of nine VEMCO VR2AR (VEMCO Ltd.) acoustic-release receivers were deployed across study sites during June-October, 2016–2018 (Table 1). Three receivers at each site were positioned to capture movement behaviors. Receivers were deployed at an 800 m distance and at 0°, 120°, and 240° angles from capture and tagging locations at each reef. The 800 m distance was set based on detection ranges observed in a range test study under similar conditions off the coast of New Jersey [40]. Receivers were moored to the seabed with two 20.4 kg weight plates and positioned in the water column with one 10.8 kg-buoyant buoy each. Receivers continuously recorded data on unique transmitter detections, while recording bottom water temperature (°C), and ambient noise at 69 kHz (mV) every 600 seconds.

Animal collection, surgical, anesthetic, and release procedures were approved by the UMCES Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC-Secor-F-CBL-160-10). During June 2016–2018, 8–17 black sea bass at each site were surgically implanted with VEMCO V9-2H acoustic transmitters, which emitted a 69 kHz signal at randomized 90-second intervals (Table 1). Fish were captured at reef sites using rod-and-reel on a chartered recreational fishing boat and immediately placed in a 57-liter tank containing ambient seawater until surgery. Water within the tank was partially replaced at approximately 10-minute intervals to avoid deoxygenation. Sublegal (≤32 cm) individuals were selected for tagging in an effort to reduce transmitter loss from fishing mortality, as the reef sites are heavily fished by recreational anglers. Fish selected for surgery were transferred to a surgery tank containing a mixture of sea water and Aqui-S 20E anesthetic (AquaTactics; 20 mg L-1; active ingredient clove oil). Once anesthetized, individuals were weighed using a spring-scale, measured for total length, and sexed. Sex was determined by the visual inspection and identification of gonads, which were visible during surgery through the incision (see below) [44]. Individuals for which sex could not be visually determined were recorded as of unidentified sex. Following the recording of body measurements, individuals were transferred to a sling lined with synthetic foam to minimize damage to fins and epithelium, and, while the head and gills remained immersed, a 1-cm incision was made lateral to the midline, preceding the vent. The transmitter was inserted through the incision and was closed with 1–2 single surgical-knot sutures. Post-surgery, fish were transferred back to the holding tank to monitor for recovery. At the Middle and Northern sites, barotrauma was observed owing to greater depths. Incisions alleviated internal pressure although barotrauma symptoms were likely not fully abated [42]. To promote recovery and reduce the risk of surface depredation by birds and large fishes, recovered fish were descended to half depth (~15 m) using a pressure-release device (Seaqualizer ©, http://seaqualizer.com/) at the site of their capture.

Oceanographic model outputs

A Finite Volume Community Ocean Model (FVCOM) was used to evaluate mesoscale oceanographic forcing on black sea bass movement. FVCOM is a three-dimensional unstructured-grid hydrodynamic model that consists of momentum, continuity, temperature, salinity, and density equations [45, 46] and adopts Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 turbulent closure scheme. The model utilizes sigma-coordinate transformations and unstructured triangular cells to simulate flows along irregular coastlines, such as those prevalent in coastal shelf or estuarine systems like the MAB [4547]. The model was configured for the MAB region, with the eastern boundary located approximately at 70° W, and the northern and southern boundaries located at approximately 42° N and 34° N, respectively. Initial conditions of salinity and temperature for the FVCOM were based on predictions from the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) Experimental System for Predicting Shelf and Slope Optics (ESPreSSO) model [48]. The FVCOM was run from January 1 to December 31 for each year. The open boundary conditions were prescribed using the temperature, salinity, and subtidal sea level from Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model and Navy Coupled Ocean Data Assimilation systems (HYCOM-NCODA, http://hycom.org), and five major tidal constitutes (M2, S2, K1, O1, and N2) from the Oregon State University TOPEX/Poseidon Global Inverse Solution TPXO 7.1 [49, 50]. The surface heat and momentum fluxes were prescribed using the North American Mesoscale (NAM) forecast system.

Time series data on modeled bottom water temperature, current velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) were extracted at hourly intervals, for each receiver, for the duration of receiver deployment during each year of study for each site. Bottom water temperature was selected as an indicator of cold pool destruction/recovery and potential physiological stress; current velocity was selected as an indicator of physical forcing and potential physical stress owing to the need for increased energy devoted to maintaining position at reef habitat home ranges [7, 32]; and TKE was selected as an indicator of both destratification and vertical shear between water parcels, as well as an additional potential physical stress [7]. Time series of all three variables were averaged across receivers to yield averaged hourly predictions per site. Time series data on observed wind speed and direction were extracted from the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) products (https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.narr.html) at 3-hr intervals.

A cross section of triangulated grid-point estimates of bottom water temperature, current velocity, and TKE was also obtained to investigate the response of the cold pool presence to identified storms. Estimated lateral outputs extended across the shelf in the Delaware-Maryland-Virginia peninsula region of the MAB; estimated cross-sectional measurements were taken along a 39 km bisection of the Middle study site (Fig 1). The model results were compared with observed bottom water temperatures obtained at this study’s acoustic receiver array (S1 Appendix) (S3A–S3C Fig).

Storm identification

Observed peak winds, which are often used in storm warnings, varied substantially and did not convey information on storm duration. Therefore, storm presence and duration threshold were defined as the number of hours during which observed sustained wind speeds were > 5 m s-1, although burst wind gusts identified during storm periods were considerably higher. The lower limit of 5 m s-1 was selected to provide a conservative definition for potentially disruptive storm activity (3 or greater on the Beaufort Wind Scale [51]). Storms above this limit were further categorized and compared according to the Beaufort Wind Scale. Both named and unnamed events were considered. Following identification of storm presence and duration, modeled cross-shelf distributions of bottom water temperature, current velocity, and TKE were plotted and compared across the days before, during, and after each storm event.

Data analysis: Movement behavior

Telemetry data were analyzed for changes in local and broad-scale movement behaviors relative to storm events. A movement index was estimated as the average number of movements detected by consecutive unique receivers per hr [40]. Hourly movement indices were aggregated across tagged fish within each site to provide a site activity index. Activity indices across sites were evaluated for each year, using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test comparing activity indices across storm periods and nested by site. Each year an initial baseline period (no storm) was compared to subsequent storm periods; storm periods were defined as the period between onset of a particular storm and the onset of any ensuing storm. Post hoc multiple comparisons of activity indices across storm periods were conducted using Tukey contrasts. ANOVA tests and multiple comparisons were accomplished using the car [52], lme4 [53], and multcomp [54] packages in R.

Broad-scale movements and subsequent departures from study sites (aka evacuations) were evaluated by calculating instantaneous and percent relative (the back-transformed rate of the instantaneous) tag loss rates, and by modeling the number of transmitters recorded per day using an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) intervention analysis [10]. Strong coastal storm events are capable of generating substantial noise owing to wind, wave action, or cavitation [33], which can diminish reception of transmitter signals and create “false” evacuations caused by acoustic interference. ARIMA intervention analysis facilitates the identification of false evacuations, identified as single points within the recorded time series that temporarily, but significantly, alter the behavior of the rest of the series. Significant outliers, data points that prevent the modeled time series from attaining stationarity, are identified through sequential t-tests. For this study, intervention analysis was applied to a time series of the number of unique transmitters recorded each day. The analysis tested for the presence of two types of interventions: (1) temporary shifts and (2) permanent level shifts. Permanent level shifts (stepped declines) are indicative of fish evacuation—interventions that fundamentally and permanently changed the remaining time series. Temporary shifts are those interventions that altered the time series temporarily and appear as nonlinear returns to the previous detection level (see Fig 9). When the ARIMA model did not converge on stationarity, departures owing to permanent or temporary shifts could not be accurately discriminated. This analysis was performed in R, using the tsoutliers package [55].

Fig 9. ARIMA intervention analysis for 2016–2018 study sites.

Fig 9

* The black and blue lines in the upper pane refer to the observed time series of number of fish recorded and modeled ARIMA time series with the influence of identified interventions removed, respectively. The solid red lines in the lower panes depict the influence of identified interventions, where step-wise declines indicate permanent level shifts (true loss) and sharp curvatures that dip and recover indicate temporary shifts (false loss). Location of permanent level and temporary shifts in the fish detection time series are given by small red circles. The vertical dashed black lines refer to the date of maximum wind speed associated with storm events.

The relationship between local activity levels and individual storm variables (Table 2) was explored using a Generalized Additive Model for Location, Scale, and Shape (GAMLSS). Telemetry data and predicted FVCOM output supported analysis of the effects of multiple storm events and their cumulative impact as consecutive events for 2017 alone, as only a single storm event was identified in 2016 and 2018. The predictors were tested for their influence on the response variable, daily average movement index, and included daily average TKE, observed daily average bottom water temperature, differenced modeled daily average current velocity, accumulated number of storm days (ANSD: the time series of total storm days throughout the study period), the sex of the tagged individual, and the length of the tagged individual. Unique transmitter code (individual fish) was incorporated as a random intercept, and lagged response variables were incorporated to account for temporal autocorrelation of the response. Site effects were tested separately in a nested ANOVA.

Table 2. Variables in black sea bass movement GAMLSS.
Variable Type Units Source
Movement index Numerical response Average number of movements per unique receiver per hr VEMCO VR2AR receiver array
Turbulent kinetic energy Numerical predictor Square meters per square second (m2 s-2) FVCOM prediction
Bottom water temperature Numerical predictor Degrees Celsius (°C) VEMCO VR2AR receiver array
Current velocity, differenced Numerical predictor Meters per second (m s-1) FVCOM prediction
Accumulated number of storm days within a calendar year Numerical predictor Total number of days FVCOM prediction
Tagged individual, length Numerical predictor Millimeters (mm) Tagged black sea bass measurement
Tagged individual, sex Categorical predictor Male (M), Female (F), Unidentified (U) Tagged black sea bass measurement
Transmitter Random effect No units VEMCO V9-2x acoustic transmitter ID

Prior to fitting the model, numerical variables were iteratively incorporated and compared in various model structures containing, raw, lagged, or differenced forms (i.e., TKE, bottom temperature, and current velocity) to assist with the detection and minimization of collinearity. Collinearity was identified based on calculation and comparison of variance inflation factors (VIF); variables with VIF > 10 were discarded. Although model parameters are necessarily related—particularly the FVCOM-derived current velocity and TKE variables—substituting and comparing lagged, differenced, and raw forms allowed greater differentiation of independence across these processes. All remaining, non-collinear numerical predictor variables were centered and scaled prior to incorporation in the model. Various models were constructed with different distributions and combinations of lagged response variables, and the final model was selected based on lowest Akaike information criterion (AIC).

In the GAMLSS, daily average movement index, Yt,j, for day t and fish j was specified using a generalized gamma distribution, with the distribution mean, μt,j, modeled as a linear combination of k predictors using a logarithmic link function:

Yt,jgeneralizedgamma(μt,j,σt,j,νt,j)
ln(μt,j)=β0+i1kβkXt,j,k+αt,j,

where βi (i = 0, 1, …, k) are the fixed effects coefficients for the mean function, αt,j is the random intercept for jth transmitter. No dependence on the predictors was specified for the scale parameter σ and shape parameter ν. Up to 400 iterations of the Rigby and Stasinopoulos algorithm were used to estimate the model parameters. All analysis for model development was completed in R, using the car [52], lme4 [53], gamlss [56], and forecast [57, 58] packages.

Results

Storm events and destratification

Six storm events varying in timing (July-September), duration (33–87 hr), and intensity (maximum wind speed 13.4–16.6 m s-1; Beaufort Wind Scale 6–7) occurred between the observed June-October study period of 2016–2018 (Table 3). The six storms were identified as (1) Tropical Storm Hermine, with peak wind speeds on September 3, 2016; (2) a nor’easter, with peak wind speeds on July 29, 2017; (3) Potential Tropical Cyclone 10 (PTC10), with peak wind speeds on August 30, 2017; (4) Tropical Storm Jose, with peak wind speeds on September 19, 2017; (5) Tropical Storm Maria, with peak wind speeds on September 27, 2017; and (6) an unnamed wind event, with peak wind speeds on September 9, 2018. Observed bottom water temperature showed rapid increases over the course of the first several hours following storm arrivals, indicative of wind-driven mixing, offshore advection, and destratification of the water column (Fig 2).

Table 3. Mid-Atlantic Bight storm events, June-October 2016–2018.

All date-times are UTC.

Year Name Arrival Date Departure Date Maximum Wind speed Date Duration (hr) Maximum Wind speed (m s-1) Mean Wind speed (m s-1 ± SD) Minimum Wind speed (m s-1) Beaufort Wind Scale
2016 Tropical Storm Hermine Sep 2 09:00 Sep 5 18:00 Sep 3 21:00 81 15.25 8.28 ± 3.02 5.02 7
2017 Nor’easter (unnamed) Jul 29 15:00 Jul 31 00:00 Jul 29 18:00 33 14.79 10.25 ± 2.88 5.57 7
Potential Tropical Cyclone 10 Aug 26 15:00 Aug 30 12:00 Aug 30 00:00 81 16.28 8.9 ± 2.75 5.1 7
Tropical Storm Jose Sep 17 12:00 Sep 20 15:00 Sep 19 12:00 75 16.6 9.0 ± 3.36 5.23 7
Tropical Storm Maria Sep 25 15:00 Sep 29 06:00 Sep 27 18:00 87 13.44 8.93 ± 1.96 5.23 6
2018 Wind event (unnamed) Sep 8 15:00 Sep 10 12:00 Sep 9 18:00 45 14.3 8.18 ± 3.06 5.05 7

Fig 2. Observed hourly bottom water temperature (°C), averaged across each study site for each year.

Fig 2

* Black dashed lines refer to dates of observed maximum wind speed for identified storm events (see Table 3).

Patterns in observed bottom water temperatures showed a differential impact of storm-driven destratification across years and sites. In each 2016 and 2018, one significant storm disturbance was identified; TS Hermine in 2016 and an unnamed wind event in 2018 (Fig 2). During both years, cold pool temperatures remained relatively stable at 12.5–16.9°C with a gradual rise during August. Though moderate increases in temperature occurred prior to the large destratification events, the onset of storms caused permanent destratification and increases in temperatures that ranged from 5.7 to 10.9°C (8.9 [mean] ± 1.6°C [standard deviation]) between sites and years. During 2017, however, multiple storm events were identified: a destratification event at the end of July, recovery of stratification at two sites, then subsequent cycles of destratification and restratification through September. This pattern of decreasing bottom water temperature and restratification of the water column did not occur at the Southern site, which was also the shallowest (c. 21 m across years) and warmest site. Here, following August destratification, water temperatures remained elevated and the cold pool did not recover.

Storm characterization: Modeled variables

Observed storms were categorized in terms of wind speed and duration of average wind speed, yielding two classes of comparatively stronger storms and more moderate storms. The stronger storms (longer duration, Beaufort Wind Scales mostly at 7) occurred in 2016 and 2017, while 2018 experienced a comparatively moderate storm event, at nearly half the duration time and just barely clearing the wind speed necessary to reach Beaufort Wind Scale 7. In 2016 and 2017, TS Jose, PTC10, and TS Hermine brought in the highest wind speeds (16.6, 16.3, and 15.3 m s-1, respectively; all Beaufort Wind Scale 7), while TS Maria, PTC10, and TS Hermine exhibited the longest duration (87, 81, and 81 hr, respectively) (Fig 3; Table 3). Conversely, the July nor’easter that occurred in 2017 reached a maximum wind speed of 14.8 m s-1 (Beaufort Wind Scale 6) and lasted for only 33 hr; similarly, in 2018, the unnamed wind event reached peak wind speeds of 14.3 m s-1 (low Beaufort Wind Scale 7) and continued 45 hr (Fig 3; Table 3). Across all years, however, modeled storm wind vectors indicated a predominance of northeasterly winds directed along shore.

Fig 3. Time series of hourly wind vectors (m s-1) for 2016, 2017, and 2018.

Fig 3

* Red lines refer to the date and time (month-day hour) of peak wind speeds for each storm event (see Table 3).

The FVCOM predictions of hourly bottom water temperature, current velocity, and TKE peaked rapidly around periods of storm arrival and maximum wind speed (Fig 4; S1 and S2 Figs). The model successfully captured permanent destratification owing to storm events in 2016 and 2018, as well as the recovery and gradual increase in temperatures following repeated storm events in 2017 (Fig 4). Storm-driven increases in current velocity and TKE, on the other hand, were relatively high (velocity: 0.1–0.2 m s-1; TKE: 0.0005–0.003 m2 s-2) and short-lived (10–25 hr), across all years, with little difference in baseline levels before and after storm events.

Fig 4. The FVCOM estimates of hourly bottom water temperature (°C), current velocity (m s-1), and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE; m2 s-2), averaged for the Middle site for August-September 2016 and June-October 2017–2018.

Fig 4

* Dashed red lines refer to modeled maximum wind speeds occurring during each of the six identified storm events (see Table 3).

Storm-induced destratification events encompassed major portions of the shelf environment and spatial depictions of FVCOM outputs captured a range of destratification responses to storms across the shelf’s spatial extent and depth range (Figs 57). In years when single events caused permanent destratification (2016 and 2018), the nearshore water column became well-mixed after 1–2 days of the observed maximum wind speeds (Fig 5); the cold pool remained intact farther offshore, with inshore bottom waters increased by 10–15°C for days after the storm passed. Modeled bottom temperature for these single-storm years showed warmer temperatures extending towards mid-shelf waters (~30–35 m depth; Fig 6), corresponding to an offshore shift of the cold pool. The cold pool remained offshore for the rest of the late summer-fall season.

Fig 5. Modeled bottom water temperature cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events, delineated by column, in 2016 and 2018.

Fig 5

* Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). ** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site (Fig 1), and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. *** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

Fig 7. Modeled bottom water temperature cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for the first three storm events in 2017, delineated by column (see Table 3).

Fig 7

* Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, increasing depth and distance from coastline). ** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site (Fig 1), and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. *** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

Fig 6. Modeled bottom water temperature in the southern MAB predicted by the FVCOM for 2016 and 2018 storm events, as well as the first three storm events of 2017, delineated by column.

Fig 6

The fourth storm of 2017 was not included as the thermal structure of the water column did not change following the third storm. * Black asterisks refer to the location of transmitter release, central to each study site.

Summer 2017 exhibited a complex cycle of restratification (Fig 7). After the July nor’easter, stratification associated with the cold pool recovered to pre-storm levels; following PTC10, the cold pool recovered more slowly and to a lesser extent; the third storm—TS Jose—caused permanent destratification and destruction of the cold pool in waters < 60 km from shore. Similarly, bottom water temperatures for 2017 reflected a gradual retreat by the cold pool from shore (Fig 6), with permanent destratification occurring after TS Jose (Fig 7). Storm-driven current velocity and TKE decayed shortly after the passage of the storms (S4S8 Figs).

Movement analysis: Observed activity and evacuation behavior

During all years, significant changes in local activity and evacuation rates from reef sites were observed in the wake of storms. Local activity indices were significantly different across each site before and after single storm events for each year (Fig 8). In 2016 and 2018, activity at all sites decreased by approximately 50%, following TS Hermine and the unnamed wind event, respectively, compared to the periods before these storms (ANOVA, p <0.001; Tukey, p < 0.001). Across all sites in 2017, activity indices were reduced by 50% between combined periods before and after PTC10 (ANOVA, p < 0.001; Tukey, p <0.001), with no other significant differences detected before and after the other storm events that year.

Fig 8. Hourly black sea bass activity index across study sites for each year.

Fig 8

Boxes are grouped to show activity before and after storm events noted in Table 3.

Transmitter loss over time indicated a steady decline in the number of unique tags present at each site over each year of study, which could be modeled through exponential decay (Table 4), ranging between <0.004% and 0.021% d-1 across years and sites.

Table 4. Black sea bass transmitter loss rates.

Transmitter loss rates
Instantaneous loss rate Relative loss rate (%/day)
Year Site Slope R2
2016 Northern -0.013 0.811 1.196
Middle -0.021 0.822 2.093
Southern -0.005 0.870 0.490
2017 Northern -0.015 0.771 1.331
Middle -0.015 0.965 1.390
Southern -0.021 0.793 1.198
2018 Northern -0.011 0.919 1.089
Middle -0.012 0.773 1.178
Southern -0.004 0.843 0.453

* Relative loss rate was calculated as the average percent decrease in transmitter presence per day.

Significant increases in the number of fish evacuating reef sites were identified during days of peak wind speed for storm events during all years. Though we did observed instances of fish returning days to weeks following some storm events, evacuations from reef habitats were defined operationally as departures exceeding one week. ARIMA intervention analysis indicated permanent event-driven declines in fish presence at all sites during all years (Fig 9). Permanent level shifts were identified at the Northern and Middle sites during 2016, with the numbers changing considerably the day after TS Hermine’s wind speeds peaked. In 2017, permanent level shifts were also identified during the July nor’easter (at the Middle and Southern sites), the PTC10 (at all sites), and immediately before peak winds arrived for TS Jose (at the Northern site). Lastly, a permanent level shift at the Southern site was identified during the date of maximum wind speed associated with 2018’s unnamed wind event. The ARIMA intervention analysis was unable to converge for the time series of transmitters recorded in the Southern site during 2016 and the Northern and Middles site during 2018; inferences related to evacuation were thus not possible for these events (Fig 9). Still, in the case of the 2016 Southern site and the 2018 Middle site, large decreases in the raw time series coincided with storm events.

Movement analysis: Coupled telemetry-FVCOM mixed effects model

The AIC-selected model indicated that changes in bottom water temperature had the greatest and most significant negative impact on movement index (β^ = -0.217; p <0.001), but, contrary to expectations the model failed to detect a significant effect of consecutive cumulative storm impacts, ANSD (β^ = 0.002; p = 0.84) (Table 5). Modeled TKE (β^ = -0.168; p<0.001) was also influential in the model, with modeled current velocity showing a modest influence (β^ = -0.099; p = 0.0014). A significant negative effect was also identified for fish length (β^ = -0.19; p<0.001). Both males (β^ = 0.617; p <0.001) and individuals of unidentified sex (β^ = 0.683; p<0.001) were predicted by the model to have higher movement indices than females. While the presence and magnitude of interactions between sex and size were not directly tested, the distributions of movement indices across tagged individuals suggested an interaction where all small individuals had similar movement rates, while bigger males moved more than bigger females (S9 Fig). The selection of sublegal individuals for tagging likely introduced a bias of a higher proportion of females to males, based on the influence of size on sex change for the species [44]. Still, an overall negative effect of length on movement held across the entire sample of tagged individuals included in the model.

Table 5. Results from the GAMLSS for black sea bass movements.

Model term Coefficient estimate (β^) Standard error t-statistic p value
Intercept -0.4966 0.0601 -8.259 <0.001
TKE -0.1680 0.0314 -5.328 <0.001
Temperature -0.2173 0.0413 -5.260 <0.001
Current velocity, differenced -0.0992 0.0309 -3.208 0.0014
ln(Movement indext-1) 0.2110 0.0165 12.767 <0.001
ln(Movement indext-2) 0.0780 0.0146 5.335 <0.001
ANSD 0.0016 0.0081 0.200 0.8413
Sex, male 0.6170 0.0692 8.913 <0.001
Sex, unidentified 0.6832 0.0662 10.321 <0.001
Length -0.1904 0.0295 -6.459 <0.001

*All numerical predictors were standardized (centered and scaled) prior to incorporation in the model, allowing direct comparisons of the estimated coefficients.

Temporal autocorrelation of the response variable was modeled using the autoregressive terms with lags of 1 and 2 days. These components were incorporated as additional numerical predictors, and both were found to be statistically significant (Table 5).

Movement index significantly differed between sites (ANOVA; p<0.001), with the Middle site exhibiting lower movement indices than the other sites (Tukey contrasts; p<0.001). Movement indices did not differ significantly between the Northern and Southern sites (p = 0.97).

Discussion

By coupling fine-scale telemetry and oceanography, this study demonstrated that storm disturbance was a key driver of seasonal movement behaviors by black sea bass in the shelf waters of the MAB during the late summer and early fall. This study’s results indicate that summer-fall storms observed in 2016–2018 varied in intensity, duration, and timing; and had significant, recurring effects on black sea bass habitat conditions that caused large changes in their movement ecology. The initial hypotheses that storms impact black sea bass habitat through rapid changes in temperature, current velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy were supported; furthermore, these storm-driven environmental changes were associated with decreases in movement behavior. In a multi-storm year, 2017, we failed to detect a relationship between cumulative consecutive storm days (ANSD) and depressed movements, but rather observed that depressed movement occurred as a threshold response to a late-season storm, similar to what occurred in other study years. This effect of late-season storm disturbance occurred across all the three sites and resulted in an approximately 50% decreased activity level, which in most instances was also associated with incomplete evacuations. Movement patterns also covaried with length and sex, with males exhibiting higher movement levels (independent to storm effects), a result previously reported in the New York Bight by Fabrizio et al. [40].

Local- and broad-scale movement behavior depended on the timing of seasonal storms and the relative stability of the cold pool. Mid-summer storms (such as the July nor’easter of 2017) did not incur permanent destratification, nor were they associated with changes in movement metrics or evacuations across sites. Storms that occurred later in the year (TS Hermine in 2016, PTC10 in 2017, and the unnamed wind event in 2018), however, triggered permanent breakdowns of the cold pool and destratification of the water column in waters less than 30 meters. As such, these storms caused significant declines in activity levels as well as higher numbers of fish evacuating reef habitats across sites. The mechanism driving the impact of these late-season storms on stratification—and subsequently fish movement—was not identified during this study; however higher degrees of surface heating, and thus higher magnitudes of temperature difference at the surface vs. base of water column might occur during late summer and early fall, preconditioning cold pool destruction through storm-driven turnover [24, 25].

Evacuations are a faunal response to catastrophic environmental change [8, 5961], and, although their occurrence overlapped with the fall migration period, they also occurred in each year of our study during and immediately after storm events. Furthermore, analysis of storm-driven environmental variables during the multiple-storm year, 2017, indicated storm-driven destratification was the primary catalyst for evacuations. In 2017, when multiple storm disturbances occurred, no evacuations were observed during storms that followed the ultimate destruction of the cold pool. The number of evacuations across sites peaked with PTC10 in August (when permanent destratification occurred), with a smaller level of evacuations associated with TS Jose in early September (when destratified bottom water temperatures increased and plateaued). Evacuations were not observed during storm activity following cold pool destratification with the passage of TS Maria, a storm that did not instigate as rapid a change in bottom temperature as did its predecessor. This suggests rapid changes in temperature associated with destratification is the major driver of changes in movement behavior. The observed patterns in evacuation rates and the 2017 ARIMA intervention analysis complement the results of the explanatory GAMLSS analysis, which also identified temperature as the dominant variable negatively impacting local movements.

Site differences in water column stability were apparent and related to depth and proximity to the cold pool front, similar to findings by Lentz et al. [25], who examined cold pool thermal structure in the MAB over repeated wind stress events. The cold pool front, which separates offshore-stratified water from inshore-mixed water, extends along the continental shelf in waters ranging between 30 m and 100 m deep [18, 19]. The front is bound in the north by the Nantucket Shoals and the southern perimeter of Georges Bank, and meets mixed inner shelf waters at the 40 m isobath; the front is bound in the south towards the mouth of Chesapeake Bay and Cape Hatteras at the 30 m isobath [18, 62]. The Southern site was located in the shallowest waters and on the fringe of the front, and thus showed the highest level of bottom water temperature variance and associated water column instability. The Middle site was located in the deepest waters; the Northern site was also located in deeper water, and showed temperature changes more similar to the Middle site in comparison to the Southern site. In accordance with proximity to the cold pool front, we observed the smallest storm-driven change in bottom water temperatures at the Southern site, and the greatest change at the Middle site. The shallower Southern site experienced greater short-term variability across a smaller range of bottom temperatures, and was more prone to permanent destratification; in contrast, the deeper Middle site experienced fluctuations across a broader range of magnitude in bottom temperature, and did not destratify as quickly.

Our findings suggest that fish inhabiting reefs with more stable temperature dynamics are less likely to change residency time or local movement patterns than fish inhabiting reefs with less stable temperature dynamics. The lowest number of evacuations occurred at the Southern site across all years. We argue that the Southern site demonstrated a less severe temperature gradient and subsequent lower magnitude of destratification than that occurring at the deeper Northern and Middle sites. Similarly, the ANOVA results comparing the multi-storm year (2017) movement indices across sites identified the greatest difference in movement between the deepest Middle vs. slightly shallower Northern and substantially shallower Southern sites. Again, this difference is likely related to the interaction of depth with cold pool presence.

The two behavioral responses measured in this study—evacuations or decreased movement in the face of acute disturbance to habitat conditions—are distinct modes, which may have carryover effects to feeding, reproduction, and predator evasion. Black sea bass occupy small home ranges on structured habitats (0.14–7.4 km2) [40], where they feed on reef and adjacent seabed prey items [38, 63, 64]. Reproduction has been observed to occur primarily during June-September [38] and occurs frequently with spawning intervals for females estimated to be 2.7 to 4.6 days [65]. Thus late-summer and early-fall storms, which caused depressed movements away from structure likely interfere with feeding and courtship, which occurs in regions adjacent to the reef. The alternate behavior, evacuation, likely disrupts mating systems and feeding territories and incurs greater predation risk. Additional research is called for on changed feeding and reproductive states before and after storms, the fate of evacuees, and whether evacuations contribute to the greater fall seasonal migration to deeper shelf habitats.

Only a single other study on fish movements during MAB storm mixing occurs, albeit no inferences on movement behaviors were directly linked to storm effects. Fabrizio et al. [40, 66], during which Hurricane Isabel passed through the receiver array on September 19, 2003. Hurricane Isabel triggered permanent destratification and increased bottom water temperatures (approximately 13°C in 12 hrs) [67, 68]. Loss rates of black sea bass estimated from data in Fabrizio et al. [67] did not exhibit the same strong episodic losses associated with storm events as we detected. In contrast, summer flounder did show evidence of a particularly strong loss in tagged fish from the site coincident with Isabel. Differences in loss rates between studies may be related to the location and depth of the cold pool off the coast of New Jersey vs. off the coast of Maryland.

Key limitations to our findings related to study design include assumptions that (1) the three-receiver array sufficiently overlapped with the distribution of black sea bass at each reef site; (2) that movement rates were realistically indexed as unique movements between receivers; and (3) that daily synchrony between peaks in storm winds and tag losses were evidence for storm-driven evacuations, while slower decays in tag presence resulted from seasonal departures or predation. The study design did not adjust for site differences in reef dimensions or differential usages as sites of refuge, forage, and reproduction [40, 64, 69]. Where fish were caught and released may have also caused differences in how well their home ranges were represented across sites and years. Importantly, this study did not account for changes in vertical movement behaviors in response to storm disturbances; a strong expectation in the literature is that disturbed reef fishes become more tightly coupled to structure [1113]. Unpublished data from a 2019 biotelemetry study at the Northern site did indeed show that black sea bass used deeper habitats and showed less vertical movement immediately following an August storm-destratification event (D. Secor, CBL, pers. obs.). Furthermore, despite the episodic losses associated with storm events, this study cannot definitively distinguish evacuation from seasonal emigration into deeper shelf habitat. Additional sources of uncertainty surrounding evacuation behaviors include tag loss unrelated to storm-driven evacuation, such as tag shedding, predation, or capture of tagged individuals by anglers.

Longer-term carryover effects owing to disruptions in activity and site fidelity by storm-induced destratification include alterations in the timing of fall-winter migrations and regional shifts in summer habitats. These consequences are relevant in the context of a changing climate, which predicts an increased frequency of high-energy storm events in the NW Atlantic Ocean [7073]. An increase in high-energy storms within the MAB, depending on timing and track, could produce changes to the location, timing of destruction, and stability of the cold pool [18, 19]. This in turn could induce alterations to the seasonal timing of offshore migrations of black sea bass and other demersal species in the MAB.

Black sea bass support key commercial and recreational fisheries in the MAB shelf system and in regions slated for aggressive wind energy development. Indeed, black sea bass have been established as a model species for understanding wind energy impacts [74, 75], and as a priority species, wind farm and fishing impacts must be assessed against natural storm disturbances. Wind tower construction and maintenance will occur during periods and in regions influenced by natural storm disturbances. Stresses related to wind tower construction include sound caused by piledriving or vessel operation [7579], alterations to local electromagnetic fields [80, 81]; or, altered distribution of local benthic and demersal species through the emplacement of additional structured habitat [8284]. Each of these stresses can interact with storm disturbance, obscuring or enhancing impacts associated with wind tower construction alone. Refuge-seeking behaviors associated with pile-driving or vessel noise may be similar in kind to depressed movements associated with storms. Storm-induced evacuations could obscure departures associated with wind turbine construction. Similarly, reduced catchability could be erroneously associated with wind turbine impacts following a period of high storm activity.

The nature of the potential interaction of natural storm disturbance with wind farm construction disturbance is not well known, and future research on whether this interaction is beneficial or detrimental to fish abundance in affected regions is critical for future management. Furthermore, collective impacts from wind farm construction coupled with impacts from natural storm disturbance could lead to altered fish abundances in regions along the cold pool front. Anecdotal reports from charter fishers suggest greatly reduced catch rates following major storms (D. Zemeckis, Rutgers University, pers. comm.). Storms may also catalyze fall departures to deeper shelf environments shifting fisheries and influencing their accessibility to bottom trawl surveys [85]. The need for storm disturbance to be incorporated in baseline and impact monitoring is heightened by the prediction of higher occurrence of higher intensity storms related to climate change.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The FVCOM estimates of hourly bottom water temperature (°C), offshore current velocity (m s-1), and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE; m2 s-2), averaged for the Northern site for August-September 2016 and June-October 2017–2018.

*Dashed red lines refer to modeled maximum wind speeds occurring during each of the six identified storm events (see Table 3).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. The FVCOM estimates of hourly bottom water temperature (°C), offshore current velocity (m s-1), and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE; m2 s-2), averaged for the Southern site for August-September 2016 and June-October 2017–2018.

*Dashed red lines refer to modeled maximum wind speeds occurring during each of the six identified storm events (see Table 3).

(TIF)

S3 Fig

(a-c) Modeled and observed hourly bottom water temperature values across sites for 2016–2018, respectively. Vertical black dashed lines refer to maximum wind speed dates for identified storm events.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Modeled current velocity cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2016 and 2018.

* Red colors refer to offshore current movement, and blue colors refer to inshore current movement. ** Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). *** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. **** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Modeled current velocity cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2017.

* Red colors refer to offshore current movement, and blue colors refer to inshore current movement. ** Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). *** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. **** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Modeled turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2016 and 2018.

* Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). ** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. *** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Modeled turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2016 and 2018.

* Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). ** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. *** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Modeled bottom water turbulent kinetic energy in the southern MAB predicted by the FVCOM for 2016 and 2018 storm events, as well as the first three storm events of 2017, delineated by column.

* Black asterisks refer to the location of transmitter release, central to each study site.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Distributions of log-transformed movement index across individual tagged fish in 2017, ordered by increasing length and color-coded by sex; F, M, and U refer to female, male, and unidentified fish, respectively.

X-axis labels refer to the tag number, as well as the length of the individual (mm).

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Helen Bailey (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science) for providing valuable insights and careful review during the development of this manuscript. We are also grateful to Cpt. Dan Stauffer and the crew of the F/V Fin Chaser for their cooperation in identifying reef habitats, catching and tagging black sea bass, and deploying and retrieving acoustic receivers. Ella Rothermel, Ben Frey, Reed Brodnik, Carlos Lozano, Nicole Barbour, and Teddy Secor also assisted with tagging fish as well as deploying and recovering receivers. Lastly, we are grateful to Catherine McCall for her insights to the study design of this project.

Data Availability

All .csv and .mat files are available from the Dryad database (https://datadryad.org/stash/share/OztyXXL-NTblWF5i3FmdNLPNoreIwnZnDRQYgTnHJX8). Note this is a temporary, private URL and a permanent, publicly accessible DOI will be generated pending potential manuscript acceptance.

Funding Statement

Funding was provided to D. H. Secor by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) and the Maryland Energy Administration under grant 14-16-2151 MEA, grant 14-17-2661 MEA, and grant 14-18-2415. The funding agency MD DNR advised on study design prior to data collection.

References

  • 1.Sousa WP. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1984; 15: 353–391. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.White PS, Jentsch A. The search for generality in studies of disturbance and ecosystem dynamics. Prog Bot. 2001; 62: 399–450. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bouchon C, Bouchon-Navaro Y, Max L. Changes in the coastal fish communities following Hurricane Hugo in Guadeloupe Island (French West Indies). Atoll Res Bull. 1994; 422: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ebeling AW, Laur DR, Rowley RJ. Severe storm disturbances and reversal of community structure in a southern California kelp forest. Mar Biol. 1985; 84(3): 287–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Byrnes JE, Reed DC, Cardinale BJ, Cavanaugh KC, Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ. Climate-driven increases in storm frequency simplify kelp forest food webs. Glob Chang Biol. 2011; 17(8): 2513–2524. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Hueter RE. Running before the storm: Blacktip sharks respond to falling barometric pressure associated with Tropical Storm Gabrielle. J Fish Biol. 2003; 63(5):1357–1363. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bacheler NM, Shertzer KW, Cheshire RT, MacMahan JH. Tropical storms influence the movement behavior of a demersal oceanic fish species. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1481): 1–13. 10.1038/s41598-018-37527-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bailey H, Secor DH. Coastal evacuations by fish during extreme weather events. Sci Rep. 2016; 6(30280): 1–9. 10.1038/srep30280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sackett DK, Able KW, Grothues TM. Dynamics of summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, seasonal migrations based on ultrasonic telemetry. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2007; 74:119–130. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Secor DH, Zhang F, O’Brien MHP, Li M. Ocean destratification and fish evacuation caused by a Mid-Atlantic tropical storm. ICES J Mar Sci. 2019; 76(2): 573–584. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lassig BR. The effects of a cyclonic storm on coral reef fish assemblages. Environ Biol Fish. 1983; 9(1): 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Williams AH. The effects of Hurricane Allen on Back Reef Populations of Discovery Bay, Jamaica. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 1984; 75: 233–243. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Syms C, Jones GP. Disturbance, habitat structure, and the dynamics of a coral reef fish community. Ecology. 2000; 81(10): 2714–2729. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ginis I. Tropical cyclone-ocean interactions. Atm Ocean Int Adv Fluid Mech Ser. 2002; 33: 83–114. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li Y, Xue H, Bane JM. Air-sea interactions during the passage of a winter storm over the Gulf Stream: A three-dimensional coupled atmosphere-ocean model study. J Geophys Res. 2002; 107(C11): 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Huang P, Sanford TB, Imberger J. Heat and turbulent kinetic energy budgets for surface layer cooling induced by the passage of Hurricane Frances. J Geophys Res. 2009; 114(C12): 1–1 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.McPhaden MJ, Foltz GR, Lee T, Murty VSN, Ravichandran M, Vecchi GA, et al. Ocean-atmosphere Interactions during Cyclone Nargis. Eos Trans AGU. 2009; 90(7): 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Houghton RW, Schlitz R, Beardsley RC, Butman B, Chamberlin JL. The Middle Atlantic Bight cold pool: Evolution of the temperature structure during summer 1979. J Phys Oceanogr. 1982; 12: 1019–2029. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chen Z, Curchitser E, Chant R, Kang D. Seasonal variability of the cold pool over the Mid-Atlantic Bight continental shelf. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2018; 123(11): 8203–8226. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bigelow HB. Studies of the waters on the continental shelf, Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay. Pap Phys Ocean Met. 1933; 11(4): 1–134. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rasmussen LL, Gawarkiewicz G, Owens WB, Lozier MS. Slope water, Gulf Stream, and seasonal influences on southern Mid-Atlantic Bight circulation during the fall-winter transition. J Geophys Res. 2005; 110(C2): 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lentz SJ. Seasonal variations in the circulation over the Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf. J Phys Oceanogr. 2008; 38(7): 1486–1500. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Glenn SM, Miles TN, Seroka GN, Xu Y, Forney RK, Yu F, et al. Stratified coastal ocean interactions with tropical cyclones. Nat Comm. 2016; 7(1):1–10. 10.1038/ncomms10887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Beardsley RC, Chapman DC, Brink KH, Ramp SR, Schlitz R. The Nantucket Shoals flux experiment (NSFE79). Part 1: A basic description of the current and temperature variability. J Phys Oceanogr. 1985; 15: 713–748. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lentz S, Shearman K, Anderson S, Pluddemann A, Edson J. Evolution of stratification over the New England shelf during the coastal mixing and optics study, August 1996–June 1997. J Geophys Res. 2003; 108(C1): 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Allan BMJ, Domenici P, Munday PL, McCormick MI. Feeing the heat: The effect of acute temperature changes on predator-prey interactions in coral reef fish. Conserv Physiol. 2015; 3: 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Johnston IA, Dunn J. Temperature acclimation and metabolism in ectotherms with particular reference to teleost fish. Soc Exp Biol. 1987; 67–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gollock MJ, Currie S, Petersen LH, Gamperl AK. Cardiovascular and haematological responses of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) to acute temperature increase. J Exp Bio. 2006; 209:2961–2970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Paajanen V, Vornanen M. Regulation of action potential duration under acute heat stress by IK,ATP and IKI in fish cardiac myocytes. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2003; 286: R405–R415. 10.1152/ajpregu.00500.2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Logan CA, Somero GN. Effects of thermal acclimation on transcriptional responses to acute heat stress in the eurythermal fish Gillichthys mirabilis (Cooper). Am J Physiol Regul integr Comp Physiol. 2011; 300(6): R1373–R1383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Slesinger E, Andres A, Young R, Seibel B, Saba V, Phelan B, et al. The effect of ocean warming on black sea bass (Centropristis striata) aerobic scope and hypoxia tolerance. PLoS One. 2019; 14(6): 1–22. 10.1371/journal.pone.0218390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Udyawer V, Chin A, Knip DM, Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR. Variable response of coastal sharks to severe tropical storms: Environmental cues and changes in space use. Mar Prog Ser. 2013; 480:171–183. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wenz GM. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources. J Acoust Soc Am. 1962; 34(12):1936–1956. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wilson JD, Makris NC. Ocean acoustic hurricane classification. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119(1): 168–181. 10.1121/1.2130961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Popper AN, Hawkins AD. An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. J Fish Biol. 2019; 94:692–713. 10.1111/jfb.13948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cullen DW, Stevens BG. Use of an underwater video system to record observations of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in waters off the coast of Maryland. Fish Bull. 2017; 115(3): 408–418. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Musick JA, Mercer LP. Seasonal distribution of black sea bass, Centropristis striata, in the Mid-Atlantic Bight with comments on the ecology and fisheries of the species. Trans Am Fish Soc. 1977; 106(1): 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Berrien P, Sibunka J. Distribution patterns of fish eggs in the U.S. northeast continental shelf ecosystem, 1977–1987. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS. 1999; 145: 1–310. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Moser J, Shepherd GR. Seasonal distribution and movement of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in the Northwest Atlantic as determined from a mark-recapture experiment. J Northw Atl Fish Sci. 2009; 40: 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fabrizio M, Manderson JP, Pessutti JP. Home range and seasonal movements of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) during their inshore residency at a reef in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Fish Bull. 2014; 112(1): 82–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Colvocoresses JA, Musick JA. Species associations and community composition of Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf demersal fishes. Fish Bull. 1984; 82(2): 295–314. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zemeckis DR, Kneebone J, Capizzano CW, Bochenek EA, Hoffman WS, Grothues TM, et al. Discard mortality of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in a deepwater recreational fishery off New Jersey: role of swim bladder venting in reducing mortality. Fish Bull. 2020; 118(2): 105–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Studies Development Plan FYs 2017–2019. Environmental Studies Program. 1–291. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Provost MM, Jensen OP, Berlinsky DL. Influence of size, age, and spawning season on sex change in black sea bass. Mar Coast Fish. 2017; 9(1): 126–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chen C, Liu H, Beardsley RC. An Unstructured Grid, Finite-Volume, Three-Dimensional, Primitive Equations Ocean Model: Application to Coastal Ocean and Estuaries. J Atmos Ocean Technol. 2003; 20: 159–186. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lee SB, Li M, Zhang F. Impact of sea level rise on tidal range in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2017; 22(5): 3917–3938. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhang F, Li M, Ross AC, Lee SB, Zhang D. Sensitivity Analysis of Hurricane Arthur (2014) Storm Surge Forecasts to WRF Physics Parameterizations and Model Configurations. Wea Forecasting. 2017; 32(5): 1745–1764. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Haidvogel DB, Arango H, Budgell WP, Cornuelle BD, Curchitser E, Di Lorenzo E, et al. Ocean forecasting in terrain-following coordinates: Formulation and skill assessment of the Regional Ocean Modeling System. J Comp Phys. 2008; 227:3595–3624. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Egbert GD, Bennett AF, Foreman MGG. TOPEX/POSEIDON tides estimated using a global inverse model. J Geophys Res. 1994; 99(C12): 24821–24852. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Egbert GD, Erofeeva SY. Efficient inverse modeling of barotropic ocean tides. J Atmos Ocean Tech. 2002; 19: 183–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.World Meteorological Organization. The Beaufort Scale of wind force. WMO Commission for Maritime Meteorology Marine Sciences Affairs Report. 1970; 3:1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Fox J, Weisberg S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, Third Edition Thousand Oaks C: Sage; 2019. Available from: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jafox/Books/Companion/ [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Software. 2015; 67(1): 1–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hothorn T, Bretz F, and Westfall P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometric J. 2008; 50(3): 346–363. 10.1002/bimj.200810425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.López de Lacalle J. tsoutliers: Detection of outliers in time series. R package version 0.6–8. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/packages=tsoutliers
  • 56.Rigby RA, Stasinopoulos DM. Generalized additive models for location, scale, and shape, (with discussion). Applied Stat. 2005; 54: 507–554. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hyndman RJ, Khandakar Y. Automatic time series forecasting: the forecast package for R. J Stat Software. 2008; 26(3): 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hyndman RJ, Athanasopoulos G, Bergmeir C, Caceres G, Chhay L, O’Hara-Wild M, et al. forecast: Forecasting Functions for Time Series and Linear Models. R package version 8.9. 2019. Available from: http://pkg.robjhydnman.com/forecast [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gunn WWH, Crocker AM. Analysis of Unusual Bird Migration in North America during the Storm of April 4–7, 1947. The Auk. 195; 68(2):139–163. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Waide RB. Summary of the Response of Animal Populations to Hurricanes in the Caribbean. Biotropica. 1991; 23(4): 508–512. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Wauer RH, Wunderle JM Jr. The effect of Hurricane Hugo on bird populations on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Wilson Ornith Soc. 1992; 104(4): 656–673. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lentz SJ. Seasonal warming of the Middle Atlantic Bight Cold Pool. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2017;122(2): 941–954. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sedberry GR, Van Dolah RF. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the U.S.A. Environ Biol Fish. 1988; 11(4): 241–258 [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Steimle FW, Figley W. The importance of artificial reef epifauna to black sea bass diets in the Middle Atlantic Bight. N Am J Fish Mngment. 1996; 16(2): 433–439. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.McGovern JC, Collins MR, Pashuk O, Meister HS. Temporal and spatial differences in life history parameters of black sea bass in the southeastern United States. N Am J Fish Manag. 2002; 22:1151–1163. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Fabrizio M, Manderson J, Pessutti J. Habitat associations and dispersal of black sea bass from a Mid-Atlantic Bight reef. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2013; 482: 241–253. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fabrizio MC, Pessutti JP, Manderson JP, Drohan AF, and Phelan BA. Use of the Historic Area Remediation Site by black sea bass and summer flounder. US Dep Commerc Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 2005; 05–06:0–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Beven J, Cobb H. Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Isabel. National Hurricane Center; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Steimle FW, Zetlin C. Reef habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Abundance, distribution, associated biological communities, and fishery resource use. Mar Fish Rev. 2000; 19: 24–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Knutson TR, Tuleya RW, Kurihara Y. Simulated Increase of Hurricane Intensities in a CO2-Warmed Climate. Science. 1998; 279(13):1018–1021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Lin N, Emanuel K, Oppenheimer M, Vanmarcke E. Physically based assessment of hurricane surge threat under climate change. Nature Clim Change. 2012; 2(6): 462–467. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Vermaire JC, Pisaric MFJ, Thienpont JR, Mustaphi CJC, Kokelj SV, Smol JP. Arctic climate warming and sea ice declines lead to increased storm surge activity. Geophys Res Lett. 2013; 40(7): 1386–1390. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Holland G, Bruyère CL. Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change. Clim Dyn. 2014; 42: 617–627. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Acoustics at BOEM. BOEM Ocean Sci. 2019; 16(1): 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Stanley JA, Caiger PE, Phelan B, Shelledy K, Mooney TA, Van Parijs SM. Ontogenetic variation in the hearing sensitivity of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) and the implications of anthropogenic sound on behavior and communication. J Exp Biol. 2020; 1–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wahlberg M, Westerberg H. Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005; 288: 295–309. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Thomsen F, Lüdemann K, Kafemann R, Piper W. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. COWRIE. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Casper BM, Smith ME, Halvorsen MB, Sun H, Carlson TJ, Popper AN. Effects of exposure to pile driving sounds on fish inner ear tissues. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integ Physiol. 2013; 166(2): 352–360. 10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.07.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Popper AN, Hastings MC. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integ Zool. 2009; 4(1): 43–52. 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00134.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Öhman MC, Sigray P, Westerberg H. Offshore windmills and the effects of electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio. 2007; 36(8): 630–633. 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[630:owateo]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Gill AB, Huang Y, Spencer J, Gloyne-Philips I. Electromagnetic fields emitted by high voltage alternating current offshore wind power cables and interactions with marine organisms Electromagnetics in Current and Emerging Energy Power Systems Seminar. London, UK: COWRIE; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Andersson MH, Öhman MC. Fish and sessile assemblages associated with wind-turbine constructions in the Baltic Sea. Mar Freshwater Res. 2010; 61(6): 642–650. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Bergström L, Sundqvist F, Bergström U. Effects of an offshore wind farm on temporal and spatial patterns in the demersal fish community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2013; 485: 199–210. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Stenberg C, Støttrup JG, van Deurs M, Berg CW, Dinesen Ge, Mosegaard H, et al. Long-term effects of an offshore wind farm in the North Sea on fish communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2015; 528: 257–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Bell RJ, Richardson DE, Hare JA, Lynch PD, Fratantoni PS. Disentangling the effects of climate, abundance, and size on the distribution of marine fish: an example based on four stocks from the Northeast US shelf.–ICES J Mar Sci. 2015; 72: 1311–1322. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vanesa Magar

27 May 2020

PONE-D-20-11553

The recurring role of storm disturbance on black sea bass (Centropristis striata) movement behaviors in the Mid-Atlantic Bight.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wiernicki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process, in particular, the cooments and issues taht Reveiwer #2 highlighted about content and structure. Also, the reviewers also highlight that the paper is not directly relevant for offshore wind or fisheries management, as the methods and results are unrelated to that. So either more detailed information on  offshore wind and fisheries management needs to be included in the paper, or they should not be mentioned at all, or only be mentioned in passing in the introduction without further details. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vanesa Magar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study investigates the impacts of storm events on black sea bass movement behavior. The authors clearly identify other literature on the topic and how their research relates. The authors hypothesize that (1) storm events are a recurring feature that impact black sea bass habitat through changes in temperature, bottom current velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy; (2) changes in movement behavior are caused by both individual and cumulative storm-driven environmental changes; and (3) storm-related movement behaviors are driven chiefly by rapid (<1 d) mixing and increased bottom temperature. The methodology is appropriate and sufficiently presented to allow experiments to be reproduced. The data demonstrate that storm disturbance is a key driver of seasonal black sea bass movement behavior. Importantly, the authors clearly define the limitations of this study in the discussion. They also make a compelling argument for the importance of this research in the context of both climate change and offshore wind energy development. There was a reference to the importance of this type of research to future fisheries management in the abstract, but this was not elaborated on in the discussion, which could have been useful.

Overall this article is organized, clear, and concisely written. It satisfies all of PLOS ONE’s criteria.

Reviewer #2: Overall comments:

While this study, data, and results are important (and exciting!) for both understanding the impacts of storms on fish and for management of black sea bass, the manuscript needs to be improved substantially. Specifically, major edits are needed for:

1) Distinguishing the difference between low and high storm intensities: much of the literature is focused on the effects of hurricanes or large tropical storms. The MAB region receives many storms throughout the summer and fall months but only 6 storms are recorded in this study. While this is fine, the authors should distinguish between background levels of storms vs. the more severe storms focused on in this study;

2) The physiological effects of storms on fish: authors used minimal evidence to argue negative effects of storms and the links between stressors and physiology are not well developed here. Are the authors just arguing that warmer bottom temperatures cause black sea bass to reduce movement to conserve energy? Much of the issues related to this point can be found in the specific comments;

3) Placing the study into context with variability of fall overturn in this region: these storms are important for fall overturn and their variability likely leads to variability in fall overturn. This is important and should be developed more;

4) Distinguishing between the behavioral responses of decreased movement vs. evacuation: these are very different responses, having varying impacts on the population and should be discussed more. Especially as much of the literature used in this manuscript only focuses on evacuations of fish;

5) Distinguishing which months the authors specify as summer and fall months which likely should reference seasons based on the literature focused on fall overturn in the MAB. The authors refer to many of the storms as summer storms when they are actually occurring during the beginning of fall overturn. This is important because stratification during summer is very strong and summer storms do not typically break up stratification. Fall storms will break down stratification and is already known to be a time of significant change in the system and well documented movements of fish species;

6) Explaining if there were any occurrences of fish returning after a storm event. This has been seen in some papers and would be interesting if this happened to black sea bass, especially during the earlier storms of 2017. If there is no evidence the fish returned or fish returns were not detected, that is fine but should be explained;

7) The text overall should be edited to improve clarity and readability. Some cases of this are specified in my specific comments and edits.

General Comments:

Introduction

I would advise the introduction to be reorganized so that the reader is not switching back and forth between reading about storm impacts and the MAB. Perhaps addressing the storm disturbance and impacts on fish first and then introducing the MAB system, the effects of storms on the MAB and potential impacts on black sea bass would flow better. Also, the introduction is a great place to distinguish which months of the year are classified as summer and fall. Finally, in the description of the MAB, the variability of the fall overturn should be explained, perhaps also in reference to changing phenology of the system, so that the storm events measured can be placed into context of interannual differences in the MAB.

Methods

The authors did a good job explaining the tagging, telemetry, ocean modelling and data analysis. I had a couple of concerns with the statistical analyses. There is no discussion about sample size in the GAMLSS. For example, there was a positive influence of being male on movement behavior (in results section) yet there are only 7 males included in this analysis. There should be some test or analysis to show that the sample sizes used in this model are adequate. Also, for the daily movement index, how does the data maintain independence if the daily movement can include movement of one fish over multiple days? If this is incorrect, then please clarify this in the methods. Besides overall text editing (the authors switch between present and past tense), the rest of my comments are specific, see below.

Results

Once the determination of summer and fall is better described, the authors should edit the respective statements accordingly. This applies to the entire results section.

Discussion

What seems to be an important and exciting result is that it appears the evacuation of black sea bass really only occurs in full when the storms are in the fall (September months) and this is not affected by prior storms in the late summer (in 2017). The author’s mention the hypothesis that Secor et al. pose (fall storms are the trigger for offshore migration) and these results in my opinion add supporting evidence of this. However, this result is never fully developed nor placed into context with the hypothesis above. I suggest revisiting it. Also, the authors need to place their results in context with other fish studies in the end to compare how these results may be different or similar to other study systems. Finally, the last paragraph on offshore wind energy seemed very out of place, and definitely not a good conclusion to the paper. There are many more important aspects that the results of this research can be placed into context of (i.e. climate change and increasing storm frequency, shifting fall phenology in the MAB, etc.). The effect of noise, electromagnetic fields, and prey fields was never analyzed in this paper and the relation to storms and development of offshore wind farms seems out of place and a stretch to make. If this is actually a main theme of the paper, then I highly suggest the authors edit and introduce the impacts of wind energy in the introduction when describing the MAB system. But my suggestion is to not include this information. Wind energy is definitely an important and timely study area, but this study did not really address wind energy in the analyses and the results of this study are important enough to stand without tying them into wind energy.

Specific comments are in attached review document.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of Wiernicki et al.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 2;15(12):e0239919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239919.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Jul 2020

Dear Dr. Magar:

Thank you for your very thorough review. We know that this takes a great deal of time and care on your part to ours and the manuscript’s benefit and improvement. We have addressed all general and specific comments below, referencing line numbers for more substantive changes in the clean/marked copy.

Sincerely Yours,

Caroline Wiernicki, NOAA Knauss Fellow

cc: M O’Brien

F Zhang

V Lyubchich

M Li

D Secor

Review of Wiernicki et al. THE RECURRING IMPACT OF STORM DISTURBANCE ON BLACK SEA BASS (CENTROPRISTIS STRIATA) MOVEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT. Submitted to PLoS ONE. Research Article

General Comments/summary:

Summary: The authors’ aim was to describe and analyze the impact of storms in the MAB in association with the physical breakdown of the cold pool and the effect on fish movement, specifically of black sea bass. This was achieved by using telemetry data and modeling the oceanography of the system using FVCOM. By using data from multiple years, the authors were able to show destratification of the MAB after significant storm events and evidence of changing movement behaviors of black sea bass after storms, which they likened to the rapid increase of bottom temperature and to a lesser degree of increased turbulence and current velocity. By chance, one of the study years (2017) included multiple storm events which allowed the authors to assess the effect of multiple storms on the system. Here they showed earlier storms did not have the same effect as later storms, but did gradually breakdown the cold pool.

Thanks for this very succinct summary of the paper.

Major comments: While this study, data, and results are important (and exciting!) for both understanding the impacts of storms on fish and for management of black sea bass, the manuscript needs to be improved substantially. Specifically, major edits are needed for:

1) Distinguishing the difference between low and high storm intensities: much of the literature is focused on the effects of hurricanes or large tropical storms. The MAB region receives many storms throughout the summer and fall months but only 6 storms are recorded in this study. While this is fine, the authors should distinguish between background levels of storms vs. the more severe storms focused on in this study;

Thanks for this request for greater specificity. We have used the Beaufort Wind Scale and more careful reporting of wind speeds to distinguish higher intensity storm and wind events throughout the paper. Of course, it’s not just about wind speed – pre-existing ocean state, direction, and other aspects will impact the intensity of a given storm, but we do agree some criteria are needed here.

2) The physiological effects of storms on fish: authors used minimal evidence to argue negative effects of storms and the links between stressors and physiology are not well developed here. Are the authors just arguing that warmer bottom temperatures cause black sea bass to reduce movement to conserve energy? Much of the issues related to this point can be found in the specific comments;

A valid point. We have addressed this below, but were aided by discovering a recent paper specific to black sea bass that allowed us to estimate reduced aerobic scope associated with a change from 12 to 24 C, which was fairly typical for destratification events. Other more general literature has also been added on likely physiological effects.

3) Placing the study into context with variability of fall overturn in this region: these storms are important for fall overturn and their variability likely leads to variability in fall overturn. This is important and should be developed more;

We agree that the role of storms in driving fall overturn in this region is important. However, while the three-year stimulation discussed in our study has shed some light on how storms affect the fall transition process in the water column from highly stratified to well mixed, we believe it is far from sufficient to explain the interannual variability of fall overturn in this region. For inter-annual variability studies, at least a decade-long simulation is typically needed to provide a reliable assessment of how different storm characteristics affect the timing of fall overturn. We believe this is beyond the scope of this paper.

4) Distinguishing between the behavioral responses of decreased movement vs. evacuation: these are very different responses, having varying impacts on the population and should be discussed more. Especially as much of the literature used in this manuscript only focuses on evacuations of fish;

We have sought to make this distinction between these two behavioral responses, as well as their implications, greater throughout the manuscript and primarily in the discussion. The binary response of some individuals to evacuate vs. some to hunker down likely reflects some biological or physiological distinction that in turn influences behavior. We see some support for this in the characteristics of the tagged fish whose movement declines were influenced by sex and length. There are likely carryover effects in population structure based on who stays and who goes.

5) Distinguishing which months the authors specify as summer and fall months which likely should reference seasons based on the literature focused on fall overturn in the MAB. The authors refer to many of the storms as summer storms when they are actually occurring during the beginning of fall overturn. This is important because stratification during summer is very strong and summer storms do not typically break up stratification. Fall storms will break down stratification and is already known to be a time of significant change in the system and well documented movements of fish species;

The study period corresponds to the transitional period between summer and fall, and subsequently seasonal influences are not so easily attributed to one or the other. From a temperature point of view September is summer, but we realize this is unconventional. We have addressed this by avoiding seasonal terms in places and where we reference seasons, use conventional month intervals.

6) Explaining if there were any occurrences of fish returning after a storm event. This has been seen in some papers and would be interesting if this happened to black sea bass, especially during the earlier storms of 2017. If there is no evidence the fish returned or fish returns were not detected, that is fine but should be explained;

Yes, we did see instances of return following several days to several weeks’ time. We now report on these, but please note evacuations are analyzed by ARIMA and operationally defined as permanent evacuations. Another related aspect that in 2017, two fish returned to the same site where they were initially tagged the previous summer (Secor et al. 2019).

7) The text overall should be edited to improve clarity and readability. Some cases of this are specified in my specific comments and edits.

We are grateful for the attention paid to the readability and flow of the text. Adjustments were made throughout the document to improve its clarity, both in direct response to reviewer comments and elsewhere.

Thank you once again for the attention our manuscript. We have endeavored to match this in our revisions. For brevity, our responses to specific comments are fairly direct.

Author response to specific comments/edits on text, tables, and figures:

Title

The phrase “recurring role of storm disturbance” in the title is ambiguous. Are the authors referring to recurring storms and their impact or that there is continued evidence of impacts of storms on black sea bass?

- Line 3: Title was changed to The recurring impact of storm disturbance on black sea bass (Centropristis striata) movement behaviors in the Mid-Atlantic Bight

Abstract

Line 25: Summer storms do not cause rapid destratification in the MAB. Fall storms yes, but not summer. Please revisit classification of what is considered a summer or fall storm. I have multiple comments about this in the rest of the specific comments.

- Line 24-25: “Summer” was removed in the initial description of storm events, and events were clarified as occurring during the late summer and early fall.

Line 28: “model ubiquitous demersal” – while black sea bass relatively stationary behavior makes them ideal for telemetry studies, it is not clear why the reader should care about depressed movements of an already stationary fish. Perhaps rephrase to emphasize “model” organism relates to their use in tagging studies but not as much on the potential impact of storms.

- Lines 27-30: Sentence was restructured to emphasize black sea bass as a model species for the ease of which they can be tagged and also in how their sedentary, demersal life history exposes theme regularly to storm disturbance.

Line 33: is this 8-15 black sea bass per year or over the entire 2016-2018 time frame? Please specify.

- Line 33: Clarification was included that 8-15 black sea bass were released “each year”.

Line 33: “at each of three reef sites” – this is confusing as the authors have not introduced the three reef sites yet in the abstract. I suggest rephrasing this statement.

- Line 33: “each” was removed so as to avoid confusion regarding the reef sites.

Lines 34-35: “…activity levels and reef departures of black sea bass, and fluctuations in modeled temperature …”

- Lines 34-36: Sentence was formatted following reviewer suggestion: “Data were analyzed for activity levels and reef departures of black sea bass, and fluctuations in modeled temperature, current velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy.

Lines 36-37: How do the authors reconcile differing behaviors of low activity vs. evacuation? Is this an artifact of the methodology or truly binary responses to the storm events? How do the authors know if late season departures are not associated with offshore migration?

- Lines 36-37: Methodology is discussed in greater detail further in the paper; no adjustments made here in the abstract other than to specify that not all fish evacuated.

Lines 40-42: The conclusion of the abstract feels like a stretch. Where are anthropogenic impacts measured in this study? What are the anthropogenic impacts (i.e. fishing? Climate change? Pollution?). Perhaps a stronger conclusion is to place these results in context with climate change and the predicted increase of storm frequency and intensity along the MAB in the future.

- Lines 41-44: Conclusion was edited to emphasize how black sea bass assessments of fishing and wind farm development impacts should be performed in the context of storm disturbance.

Introduction

- General: Introduction was restructured to reflect the following: first describing the impacts of storms as a disturbance on fish; second describing the MAB and how storms may disturb the region; third, discussing potential impacts on black sea bass in the MAB and leading into hypotheses.

Line 50: “less physical structure” – This is intriguing but what might be the potential difference or concern between a region with varying degrees of physical structure?; “subject to hurricane-forcing” – this statement feels out of place because some of the other regions referenced above are not subject to hurricane forcing. Is this insinuating that we are only concerned about regions with hurricane-forcing and those with lesser storms are not as important? *This is an area where the authors could develop their ideas further. For example, what makes the MAB unique compared to these other systems is the cold pool and the ability for it to breakdown during storms. Placing this into context with the other systems referenced, especially in relation to rapid temperature changes, would provide a stronger argument to why the MAB system is important to study.

- Line 51-53: Rephrased to shift emphasis on presumption that deeper waters would be less impacted by storms and that such systems are difficult to study.

Line 87: Rewrite as - “Thus, the literature supports that severe storms can disrupt demersal fish communities”. – along these lines, the examples from the literature only provide evidence of fish evacuations not reduced movement behavior…is there evidence for this in other fish species? It would be useful to provide a variety of responses of fish to storms especially because the authors found depressed movement. If this study is the first to show depressed movement, then this should be explained later in the discussion.

- Lines 63-64: Examples of severe storms driving depressed movement in reef fish provided.

- Line 64: Inclusion of term “severe”.

Line 87-89: “Still, the concept … been fully explored” – this statement needs to be developed more. Do all studies above represent singular extreme events? Why is it important to study if storms occur each year in comparison to the other studies?

- Lines 66-71: Additional description of the unexplored potential for storms to serve as a disturbance regime.

Line 53: “…Cape Hatteras, North Carolina,…”

- Line 73: “North Carolina” included to specify location of Cape Hatteras.

Line 58: “…MAB is also vulnerable to storm-driven temperature disturbances …”

- Line 79: “temperature” added to clarify the nature of the storm-driven disturbance.

Line 59: Remove “overlapping”.

- Line 80: “overlapping” removed.

Line 61: “…at the Nantucket Shoals.”

- Line 81: “the” added prior to “Nantucket Shoals”.

Line 64: References 13-16 mostly focus on fall overturn. This is fine but the seasonality of the cold pool destruction should be clearly stated. If there is more evidence of summer storms impacting the cold pool (besides this study), I would also add those and again be clear about what part of the year this is occurring.

- Lines 83-86: Terms included to directly identify the seasonality of storm-driven overturn, beginning in the late-summer (mid-late August) and peaking in the fall (September-October). Additional reference including documenting overturn related to a late August storm.

Line 66: How common are nor’easters in the summer?

- Line 87: Terms “and fall storm events” added for completion; term “nor’easter” removed.

Line 68: “summer storms” – again, this should be clarified in terms of what months “summer” refers to

- Lines 90-91: Seasonal definitions of summer and fall included.

Line 69: “rapid partial destratification” – partial vs. full destratification should be explained

- Lines 92-94: Definitions of partial and total destratification included.

Line 70: The values of temperature change are based on a hurricane event. This should be clarified as an extreme event in the system.

- Line 89: Specification of the 10 degree increase in bottom water temperature as related to a single extreme event is provided.

Lines 70-71: Refs 18 is focused on juvenile black sea bass not adults and also gradually increased temperatures after acclimation; and refs 19-20 are on temperature tolerance not so much acclimation and very acute exposures. The impact of rapid temperature change on fish physiology is extremely important but this section needs work. Can the authors find studies of acute vs chronic exposure of increasing temperature? Studies on heat shock proteins? Also, there needs to be a link between how the physiological stress of increased temperature will affect fish behavior (i.e. movement). Is there a threshold where a fish cannot move and will not evacuate? Did any of the other papers on fish responses to storms report physiological stress? Here is also where there should be some distinguishing between behaviors of avoidance or mitigation? For example, are the fish leaving the system before the storm or compensating during and after?

- Lines 96-104: Greater specifications on behavioral and physiological descriptions of acute and chronic heat responses across a variety of fish species provided. Also included are results form a recent publication specific to black sea bass that shows diminished metabolic scope as temperatures increase from 12 to 24 C.

Lines 73-75: I am intrigued about potential issues related to changes in current velocity, TKE and noise but the authors do not provide further evidence that these are stressors to fish, and as such do not provide a potential hypothesis as to how these physical effects from storms could affect fish.

- Lines 107-112: Greater specification and citation of storm generated flow disturbing fish movement, and the potential for storm-generated noise to act as a stressor to fish communities.

Lines 75-76: “Because several storm systems …destratification each year” – this statement is awkward, rewrite.

- Lines 112-116: Original sentence broken into two clauses for increased clarity/readability.

Line 77: “disturbance regime” – this seems to be an important concept… the authors should explain this further and show an example of other disturbance regimes to provide evidence to why this should be unique on the MAB

- Lines 114-115: Additional description of disturbance regime as “seasonal fluctuations in temperature and flow” included.

Line 92: “range behaviors” – this is awkward, please rephrase.

- Line 119-120: “range behavior” removed and replaced with “an affinity for both natural and artificial structured habitats”.

Lines 92-94: Re-write as “…centered on artificial and natural structure [25] and are mostly sedentary and reef-associated [26-29], making them amenable to biotelemetry studies on their movement behaviors.”

- Lines 120-121: Rephrased: “which makes them an ideal candidate for biotelemetry studies on potential shifts to their movement behaviors”.

Lines 94-97: “Black sea bass and … late October [26,27,30]” – this sentence is awkward, please rewrite this sentence

- Lines 121-124: Sentence broken into two clauses for clarity.

Line 95: “…occur inshore throughout the spring, summer and early fall months,…”

- Line 123-124: Clauses rephrased.

Lines 96-100: So here the authors explain black sea bass movements in relation to their fall migration…so are the storms analyzed in this paper not fall storms? Again, clarifying summer and fall months early on in the paper should help reduce confusion surrounding this issue.

- Lines 127-128: Arriving storms clarified as occurring in late summer and early fall.

Lines 99-100: The hypothesis from ref 17 ends the paragraph without any additional follow up from the authors. Is this also hypothesized for this paper? If not, how are the hypotheses and results of this paper placed into context with this hypothesis?

- Lines 127-129: Clause added to provide context for the hypothesis in the previous sentence: “The potential role of late summer-fall storm disturbance in MAB to serve as a migratory cue emphasizes the need to understand repeated storms as an ecologically- significant disturbance regime.”

Line 101: Replace “is” with “was”

- Line 130: “is” replaced with “was”.

Line 103: Remove “More specifically” and capitalize “We..”

- Line 132: “More specifically” removed; “we” capitalized.

Lines 103-108: Are there any hypotheses related to differences in movement behavior (i.e. depressed movement vs. evacuation)?

- Lines 132-136: Left unchanged, as hypothesis-specific delineations between evacuations and movements are described further in Methods section.

Materials and Methods

General comments: Section reviewed and corrected for consistent verb tense.

Line 115: Rewrite: “This project included three study reef sites located …”

- Line 144: Rewritten as: “This project included three study reefs located…”

Line 116: “…Ocean City, Maryland, USA, …”

- Line 145: “USA” included.

Line 118: “were exposed to” – rephrase this statement; exposed to sinuates some experimental manipulation not that these sites regularly are part of the cold pool

- Line 146: Rewritten as: “All study reefs overlapped with the presence of the cold pool…”

Line 147: Was the tank a flow-through tank? If so, this should be mentioned. If not, were there airstones?

-Lines 173-174: Sentence “Water within the tank was partially replaced at approximately 10-minute intervals to avoid deoxygenation.” included for clarification on oxygen replenishment of holding tank.

Line 151: After anesthetizing, the authors should include weighing, measuring and sexing the fish. How the authors sexed the fish is very important because they do not explain how they arrived to Unknown statuses for some of the fish in the study and this is important, especially for black sea bass.

- Lines 178-181: Additional text included to describe the weighing, measuring, and sexing of fish prior to surgery.

Lines 153-154: “…was made cranial to the vent, and lateral to the midline.” This phrase is confusing, please rewrite.

- Line 184: Rewritten for clarity of incision location: “a 1-cm incision was made lateral to the midline, preceding the vent”.

Lines 157-159: Did tagging the fish not help reduce some barotrauma? If the fish were fully recovered in the tanks post tagging, then how did some of them need help equalizing in the water? Were the fish vented at all? Did the fish get external tags so that if they were accidentally caught fishermen could notify the researchers?

- Lines 187-188: Statement on barotrauma observations and procedures included for clarity: “Incisions alleviated internal pressure although barotrauma symptoms were likely not fully abated.” We included a relevant paper on barotrauma in black sea bass and its symptoms. We did not add additional stress by placement of external tags, but rather tagged sublegal fish to reduce fishing takes, described earlier in the same paragraph.

Line 166: Change “Mid-Atlantic Bight” to MAB

- Line 199: “Mid-Atlantic Bight” replaced with “MAB”.

Lines 170-171: Are there citations for the ROMS ESPreSSO model?

- Line 204: Citation for ROMS provided.

Lines 177-178: The authors mention potential stress from current velocity but there is not cited evidence of this for fish nor is this idea developed in the introduction. Also what do the authors mean by “station-keeping”?

- Lines 215-218: Additional discussion of the potential effects of current velocity included in introduction, with references included again here; “station-keeping” replaced with “maintaining position at reef habitat home ranges”.

Line 185: “Delmarva” – this needs to be explained; most readers not from the US East Coast will not know what Delmarva means

- Lines 225-226: “Delmarva” replaced with “Delaware-Maryland-Virginia”.

Line 187: How exactly were the model results evaluated with the observed bottom water temperature? See my comments for figure SI3a-c.

- Line 227: Phrase “evaluated through comparisons with” replaced with “compared with”.

Line 191: How and where did the authors measure peak wind speed?

- Lines 219-222: Description of how observed wind speeds were obtained.

Line 193: How was the threshold of >5m/s chosen? This seems to have filtered out less severe summer and fall storms that occur in the region. In my opinion this is fine, but the presence of only severe storms in the analysis should be explained here and in the discussion.

- Lines 234-237: Rationale for the 5 m s-1 wind speed cutoff provided: “The lower limit of 5 m s-1 was selected to provide a conservative definition for potentially disruptive storm activity (3 or greater on the Beaufort Wind Scale [49]). Storms above this limit were further categorized and compared according to the Beaufort Wind Scale.”

Line 195: Change “evens” to “events”.

- Line 238: “evens” replaced with “events”.

Lines 216-217: “This approach allows discrimination … caused by storms.” – How is this interpreted to distinguish between fish leaving and coming back vs. false detections of a fish not actually leaving?

- Lines 259-269: Section of paragraph rewritten for clarity: “ARIMA intervention analysis facilitates the identification of false evacuations, identified as single points within the recorded time series that temporarily, but significantly, alter the behavior of the rest of the series.” … “The analysis tested for the presence of two types of interventions: (1) temporary shifts and (2) permanent level shifts. Permanent level shifts (stepped declines) are indicative of fish evacuation—interventions that fundamentally and permanently changed the remaining time series. Temporary shifts are those interventions that altered the time series temporarily and appear as nonlinear returns to the previous detection level (see Figure 9).”

Lines 233-235: Did the authors only run one model of 2017? If so, why did they not run models for 2016 and 2018 and remove the ANSD term? This sentence is a bit ambiguous to the reader.

- Lines 274-276: Sentence rewritten for clarity. Note that discussion of 2017 as an optimal modeling year based on the repeated occurrence of storm events provided in existing text.

Line 259: How were the different models constructed, considering the authors picked the best fit model based on AIC scores?

- Lines 292-294: Moved statement on AIC selection and incorporated additional criteria for how compared models were constructed.

Results

Line 280: Rephrase to clarify that the storms occurred between the measured time period of June to October (because the storms did not occur in June or October)

- Line 310-312: Rephrased clarify that storms occurred during measure period of time June-October.

Lines 282-286: The storms in September to me are early fall storms and the only true summer storm was the one at the very end of July; the August storm is also pretty late for summer. So the storms assessed are really more focused on late summer-fall storms and not “summer storms”. But if during editing this is clarified prior, then please disregard this comment.

- Lines 312-317: Text incorporated throughout Introduction and Methods sections to clarify that storms are occurring the during the late summer and early fall.

Line 301: The relatively stable range of 12.5-16.9�C is still a significant change in bottom temperature (and significant for biology).

- Line 333-334: This observation now noted in terms of gradual rise in August; sentence also has been simplified.

Line 305: What values are in the parentheses? Mean and SD? If so, this should be clarified.

- Line 336: Parenthesis values clarified as mean and standard deviation.

Line 306: Rewrite – “…a destratification event at the end of July,…”

- Line 338: Rewritten “event at the end of July”.

Line 314: “stronger storms and more moderate storms”. This seems subjective; was there a way to classify storms as “strong” vs. “moderate”?

- Line 346: Strength of storms now additionally categorized according to Beaufort Wind Scale.

Line 322: In looking at Figure 3, the winds appear to be northeasterly not northwesterly.

- Line 356: Corrected to match patterns in Figure 3 of “northeasterly” winds.

Line 381: Replace “all” with “each”

- Line 420: “all sites” replaced with “each site”.

Line 384: Replace “lowered” with “decreased”

- Line 421: “lowered” replaced with “decreased”.

Line 385: Replace “than during” with “compared to”

- Line 422: “than during” replaced with “compared to”.

Line 385: What pairwise comparisons were significant? Is this between site? Or between years?

- No adjustment made; text indicates significance across years between given storm events at Lines 423-425.

Lines 385-386: I am confused why the results for 2017 are only in reference to PCT10. Did the authors group together data before and after PCT10? What about the other storm systems? Again, for the Tukey contrasts, is this across sites? It would be nice to know which sites were significantly different from each other.

- Lines 424-425: Text added: “with no other significant differences detected before and after the other storm events that year.”

Lines 394-396: Does this mean that when there are more frequent storms there is more evacuation from the shallow site compared to when there are less frequent storms?

- No adjustment made; text confirms this within Lines 452-456.

Lines 396-398: I am confused. The authors state that the instantaneous loss rates at the Middle site were the highest during all years except for 2017 and mention that this occurred when the Middle and Northern evacuation rates were similar, but really this was when the Southern site evacuation rate was higher (i.e. Middle and Northern were similar but NOT higher than Southern).

- Lines 430-432: Comparison between sites and years is not too important to the paper’s thesis, but rather the episodic loss rates owing to storms – the point here is to quantify baseline loss rates, which were similar across sits. This section has been reduced.

Lines 397-398: For readers unfamiliar with telemetry studies, it would be nice to put into context the difference in instantaneous loss rates across the years. There are only slight increases in rates; is this still significant? Or does it mean that there is not much interannual variability in evacuation rates all things considered?

- Line 430-432: Discussion of comparisons and role of loss rates streamlined; calculations were also re-evaluated and corrected accordingly.

Line 437: Is this from the results of the best fit model? If the authors went through model selection it would be nice to have a clear indication of which model performed the best

- Lines 473-476: Specification that the model discussed is the best fit model (lowest AIC; Table 5).

Line 439: So along the lines of my comment above, the best fit model still included the non-significant ANSD term?

- Yes, with mention of best fit (lowest AIC) model containing ANSD in Lines 473-476.

Lines 442-443: Remove “although it did not directly relate to storm influence on movement”. This is not quite known and it is obvious there is other biological information included in the model.

- Line 478: Removed “although it did not directly relate to storm influence on movement”.

Line 445: If there might be an interaction between sex and length, why was this not included as an interaction? I agree that there likely is an effect of sex on length. If this is not to be used as an interaction, it would be worthwhile for the authors to provide a preliminary test showing there is or is not a relationship between sex and length.

- Relationship of sex and length likely present and detected by model, and is discussed further in lines 484-485. Exploration of relationship relative to movement (in light of selection bias of sample for sub-legal individuals and therefore likely females) exceeds scope of study.

Line 449: “…entire sample.” – what do the authors mean by “sample”? I am confused by this statement

- Lines 486-487: Added “of tagged individuals”.

Line 460: Remove “the” after exhibiting.

- Line 498: “the” removed.

Discussion

Line 472: “…changes in temperature,…”

- Line 509: “in” added.

Line 483: “Early summer storms” – Not trying to beat a dead horse, but a storm occurring at the end of July does not seem “early” to me.

- Line 521: “Early summer” replaced with “Mid-summer”.

Line 494-495: It seems misleading to mention that evacuations are an extreme response yet they happened every year in the study without including information that these are also occurring during the time that we expect to see black sea bass start to move offshore.

- Lines 533-535: Sentence restructured: Evacuations are a faunal response to catastrophic environmental change [8, 58, 59, 60], and, although their occurrence overlapped with the fall migration period, they also occurred in each year of our study during and immediately after storm events.

Line 504-506: Does this sentence thus indicate that the influence of Maria on water temperature did not instigate as rapid of a temperature change as the other storms? If so, this should be clarified.

- Lines 543-545: Text added: “a storm that did not instigate as rapid a change in temperature as its predecessor.”

Lines 516-518 and 521-522: These seem to contradict each other. Do these sentences indicate that the Southern site temperature varies more in frequency than in magnitude when compared to the Middle and Northern sites? If so, please clarify.

- Lines 563-567: Text added to clarify relationship of site depth and stability: “The shallower Southern site experienced greater short-term variability across a smaller range of magnitude in bottom temperature, and was more prone to permanent destratification; in contrast, the deeper Middle site experienced fluctuations across a broader range of magnitude in bottom temperature, and did not destratify as quickly”

Lines 525-526: “The lowest rates of transmitter loss and the lowest number of evacuations occurred at the Southern site for all years” – But the authors found higher rates of instantaneous loss rates in the Southern Site in 2017…? I am confused.

- Lines 570-571: Calculations of daily transmitter loss rate were re-evaluated and corrected. Section on comparisons and role of transmitter loss rates was reduced.

Line 530: “…relatively shallower Northern” – on the previous page the authors mention that the Northern site is deeper and similar to the Middle site. Please correct and clarify this.

- Line 575-576: Text to clarify depth relationships across sites included: “deepest Middle vs. the slightly shallower Northern and substantially shallower”.

Lines 581-584: This paragraph is a good section to include other studies and place the results of this study into context with other fish responses to storms.

- Lines 588-590: We would prefer to retain focus on shelf systems where fish are exposed destratification events rather than the mix of storm influences, principally in shallower coastal systems introduced in Introduction. Only the Fabrizio study bears on such storm impacts. We have focused the section to highlight the contrast between these two comparable telemetry studies.

Lines 538-539: If the results from Fabrizio et al do not have the same results as the results for this study, what potential reasons can explain this? Perhaps this can shed more insight into the results found in this study (i.e. comparing the storm system of that study to the ones in this study).

- See above comments

Line 561: Refs 55-57 discuss reduced movement in relation to predatory prey experiments and indirect effects found in communities so I am confused how this can be related to reduced movement from storm impacts (these are very different mechanisms)

- We accept this point – we were using theoretical literature to support link between movement and foraging habitat, but it was tenuous. Rather, we move directly to how movement relates to ecological functions in black sea bass

Line 565: Ref 27 describes the biology of the South Atlantic stock of black sea bass. Please reference a paper for the northern stock of black sea bass, the species that was used in this study. Also, the September-October is towards the end of the spawning season in this region so I don’t quite know how much of an effect there would be. To me, a more important and concerning aspect is the effect of storm systems on recruitment and the ability for recently spawned gametes and larval fish to ingress during these events. Also occurring at this time is the potential for black sea bass to change sex and this should at least be addressed here as the authors found important differences between the sexes and movement behavior.

- Lines 618-619: Reference switched to Drohan et al. 2007, here and elsewhere. Discussion of timing of individuals to change sex briefly discussed earlier in Results (impacts beyond scope of study, as selected a biased pool towards greater proportion of females).

Line 573: “…induce range shifts…” – what do the authors mean by this? In what way do they expect range shifts to occur (i.e. latitudinally? Cross shelf?)

- Line 627: “latitudinal” included to describe range shifts.

Line 575-588: Refer to my comment in the general comment about this paragraph.

Lines 629-648: Similar to the Abstract, this paragraph was changed to first emphasize that black sea bass is a key species for fisheries and understanding wind energy impacts. Greater balance is then given to both of these sectors in the context of storms and increased storminess.

References

Some of the references were not inputted correctly (e.g. Ref 16, 32). Please review all references and make sure the citations are accurate.

Corrections made to references:

3. Bouchon C, Bouchon-Navaro Y, Max L. Changes in the coastal fish communities following Hurricane Hugo in Guadeloupe Island (French West Indies). Atoll Res Bull. 1994; 422: 1-19.

15. Li Y, Xue H, Bane JM. Air-sea interactions during the passage of a winter storm over the Gulf Stream: A three-dimensional coupled atmosphere-ocean model study. J Geophys Res. 2002; 107(C11): 1-13.

21. Rasmussen LL, Gawarkiewicz G, Owens WB, Lozier MS. Slope water, Gulf Stream, and seasonal influences on southern Mid-Atlantic Bight circulation during the fall-winter transition. J Geophys Res. 2005; 110(C2): 1-16.

24. Beardsley RC, Chapman DC, Brink KH, Ramp SR, Schlitz R. The Nantucket Shoals flux experiment (NSFE79). Part 1: A basic description of the current and temperature variability. J Phys Oceanogr. 1985; 15: 713-748.

25. Lentz S, Shearman K, Anderson S, Pluddemann A, Edson J. Evolution of stratification over the New England shelf during the coastal mixing and optics study, August 1996–June 1997. J Geophys Res. 2003; 108(C1): 1-14.

45. Zhang F, Li M, Ross AC, Lee SB, Zhang D. Sensitivity Analysis of Hurricane Arthur (2014) Storm Surge Forecasts to WRF Physics Parameterizations and Model Configurations. Wea Forecasting. 2017; 32(5): 1745–1764.

67. Sedberry GR, Van Dolah RF. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the U.S.A. Environ Biol Fish. 1988; 11(4): 241–258.

70. Vermaire JC, Pisaric MFJ, Thienpont JR, Mustaphi CJC, Kokelj SV, Smol JP. Arctic climate warming and sea ice declines lead to increased storm surge activity. Geophys Res Lett. 2013; 40(7): 1386–1390.

77. Öhman MC, Sigray P, Westerberg H. Offshore windmills and the effects of electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio. 2007; 36(8): 630–633.

78. Gill AB, Huang Y, Spencer J, Gloyne-Philips I. Electromagnetic fields emitted by high voltage alternating current offshore wind power cables and interactions with marine organisms. Electromagnetics in Current and Emerging Energy Power Systems Seminar. London, UK. COWRIE. 2012.

81. Stenberg C, Støttrup JG, van Deurs M, Berg CW, Dinesen Ge, Mosegaard H, et al. Long-term effects of an offshore wind farm in the North Sea on fish communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2015; 528: 257–65.

Tables

Table 3: I suggest reformatting so that the respective data for each storm is easier to follow (i.e. the “Name” column looks like a string of words in a column, it took me a bit to figure out which events related to which values in the rest of the table).

Table 3: Additional lines added to clarify data across storms and rows.

Figures

General: There are many figures that do not have the “�” before C for temperature. Please incorporate this where it is missing.

- “�” before C added to Figures 2, S1.3.a, S1.3.b, and S1.3.c.

Figure 1: Why is the buoy indicated in the map but the data from it never used? Or if the data from it was used, then this was not clear in the manuscript. Also, there should be an inset map showing this region across the broader US East Coast for readers unfamiliar with this region.

- Buoy demarcation removed, and subset map included.

Figure 3: There should be a note about the different x-axes. I suggest instead replotting 2016 to be on the time scale as 2017 and 2018 and just begin the data for where its available.

- Replotted for consistent x-axis.

Figure 4: Similar comment to above, the x-axes should all be the same. Also the difference in the y-axes should be mentioned in the figure caption. Also the figure caption only includes a description about temperature but needs to also include it for velocity and TKE.

- Replotted for consistent x-axis; differing y-axes indicated in caption.

Figure 5: I suggest placing a box around the panel for each event that indicates when the peak winds for the storm occur. This will make it easier for the reader to view the results (which look really nice!) without flipping back and forth between the table with the dates of the storms.

- Boxed included.

Figure 6: If the authors are including three events from 2017, why not include all four? It is a bit confusing why one is not included.

- Rationale for only included first 3 storms included in caption.

Figure 8: I suggest replotting to have all graphs have the same y-axis so they can be compared across the years. Also, the date ranges are confusing for the 2017 panel. It is unclear which dates (and associated box plots) indicate before or after a storm. Also, some of the years have a lot of variance. Is there a reason for this?

- Replotted for consistent y-axis range. Figure caption altered to explicitly note grouping of boxes.

Figure 9: The red circles and the mean behind red dashed and solid lines are not included in the figure caption. Please include this. Also, where is the data for the Northern Site 2018? I realize the model did not converge but it did not for other regions and years yet they have all the data plotted.

- Red lines corrected for consistency, and description of circles included. Northern 2018 data included (observed time series); absence of model estimates caused by inability of model to successfully converge (described in Results).

SI1-2: Same comments as for Figure 4

- Replotted for consistent x-axis.

SI3a-c: It appears there is some model bias with FVCOM on average underestimating the observed temperatures yet this is never addressed in the manuscript. How was this dealt with? In some cases the bias was almost on the order of 5�C which is very significant for fish (e.g. Southern Site 2017).

- Bias noted and compared; further elaboration of bias beyond scope of study; note that observed temperature was used for all modeling (not FVCOM-derived temperature).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Vanesa Magar

5 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-11553R1

The recurring impact of storm disturbance on black sea bass (Centropristis striata) movement behaviors in the Mid-Atlantic Bight.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wiernicki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As well as the recommendations on the content, it is important to address all the minor edits recommended by the reviewer and any additional ones the authors find when going over the manuscript, as PLOS ONE has no in-house editing services. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vanesa Magar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: General Comments/summary:

Major comments: It is clear that the authors put time, effort, and thought into their manuscript edits and this revised manuscript is much improved when compared to the first version. Especially in the introduction, methods and results, the messages are much clearer and easier to follow than before. One issue I continue to have is that the authors have chosen to still discuss wind energy in the context of storm disturbance but do not full develop the argument as to why and how we should be concerned about wind energy and storms. The major issue is that in the abstract and in the discussion the authors are vague as to whether the impacts of recurring storms will act synergistically with impacts of offshore wind development or if the information gained from studies like this will provide information as to how black sea bass will respond to the disturbance from offshore wind. I tried to provide edits throughout that may guide the authors as the mentions of wind energy still read as a tangential issue to the concerns in this study. The discussion still needs some considerable editing (see in specific comments). Finally, especially in the newly revised sections, there are still areas that need general editing, mostly for grammar. I tried to point this out where it occurred but I suggest all authors re-read and edit the manuscript before resubmission.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2nd Review of Wiernicki et al.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 2;15(12):e0239919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239919.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Sep 2020

Dear Dr. Magar:

Thank you for your very thorough second review. We greatly appreciate your commitment to improving this manuscript. Again, we have addressed all general and specific comments below, referencing line numbers for more substantive changes in the clean/marked copy.

Sincerely Yours,

Caroline Wiernicki, NOAA Knauss Fellow

cc: M O’Brien

F Zhang

V Lyubchich

M Li

D Secor

Review of Wiernicki et al. THE RECURRING IMPACT OF STORM DISTURBANCE ON BLACK SEA BASS (CENTROPRISTIS STRIATA) MOVEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT. Submitted to PLoS ONE. Research Article

General Comments/summary:

Major comments: It is clear that the authors put time, effort, and thought into their manuscript edits and this revised manuscript is much improved when compared to the first version. Especially in the introduction, methods and results, the messages are much clearer and easier to follow than before. One issue I continue to have is that the authors have chosen to still discuss wind energy in the context of storm disturbance but do not full develop the argument as to why and how we should be concerned about wind energy and storms. The major issue is that in the abstract and in the discussion the authors are vague as to whether the impacts of recurring storms will act synergistically with impacts of offshore wind development or if the information gained from studies like this will provide information as to how black sea bass will respond to the disturbance from offshore wind. I tried to provide edits throughout that may guide the authors as the mentions of wind energy still read as a tangential issue to the concerns in this study. The discussion still needs some considerable editing (see in specific comments). Finally, especially in the newly revised sections, there are still areas that need general editing, mostly for grammar. I tried to point this out where it occurred but I suggest all authors re-read and edit the manuscript before resubmission.

Thank you for your careful review. Regarding major comments on the argument on wind energy concerns: we have followed your guidance and incorporated more specific dialogue linking uncertainties from wind farm construction disturbance relative to storm disturbance, and how the interaction may impact local abundance for Mid-Atlantic fisheries. Regarding concerns over general edits to grammar and flow, all authors have re-read the manuscript and provided edits.

Thank you once again for the attention to our manuscript. We have endeavored to match this in our revisions. For brevity, our responses to specific comments are fairly direct.

Author response to specific comments/edits on text, tables, and figures:

Abstract

Line 24: I suggest adding some statement after Middle Atlantic Bight such as “along the U.S. Northeast” or “in the Northwest Atlantic” so that readers outside of the U.S will know where this study takes place. Finally, remove the abbreviation because the MAB abbreviation is used only one other time (Line 28).

- Lines 24-25: Phase “in the Northwest Atlantic” added to clarify broader geographic area of interest.

- Lines 28-29: Abbreviation “MAB” replaced with “Middle Atlantic Bight”.

Line 40: “…, effects.”

- Line 41: “effect” pluralized.

Line 42: “US”. The authors have not defined the abbreviation of “US”, which may be obvious to some, but should be avoided for readers outside of the United States.

- Line 43: “US” replaced with “United States”.

Lines 42-44: This sentence is vague and not well written, so I am unsure what message it is trying to convey. What do the authors mean “in context of storm as a recurring natural disturbance”? This is where a distinction between understanding natural disturbances to aid in predictions of future anthropogenic disturbances vs. concerns with confounding effects of storms and wind energy should be made.

- Lines 43-45: Sentence rephrased, “Their availability to fisheries surveys and sensitivity to wind turbine impacts will be biased during periods of high storm activity, which is likely to increase with regional climate change.”

Line 64: “…tighter coupling of fish to structured habitat.”

- Line 73: Term “habitat” added.

Line 64-65: Remove “Thus, the literature supports that severe storms can be disruptive events to fish communities” and insert the sentence beginning with, “Thus, the vast majority of storm impacts on marine communities…” and remove “Still,” and replace with “and” to combine these sentences.

- Lines 73-75: Sentence rephrased: “Marine community responses to even single storm events represents challenging field science, perhaps contributing to a lack of studies on multiple storm events as a recurring source of natural disturbance.”

Lines 105-106: Remove “, including black sea bass” as black sea bass as a focal study species has not been introduced yet.

- Line 121: Removed “, including black sea bass”.

Line 114: Perhaps at the end of this sentence the authors can include some information about offshore wind development and the impacts it can have on fish. Here the authors can introduce for the first time whether they are discussing offshore wind as an additive effect to storms or that storm disturbance studies can be used to understand the impacts of offshore wind development.

- Line 146-177-131: Sentences added, “Comprehensive understanding of this natural disturbance regime shaped by storms is both timely and relevant to the MAB, as the region is currently undergoing evaluation by industry and policy stakeholders for offshore wind energy development [43]. Black sea bass is a model species for understanding wind energy impacts because they are ubiquitous and commercially important within the > 7 103 km2 of leased US Federal waters (https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities).. To best utilize this and similar demersal species in understanding both negative and positive impacts of offshore wind energy development, baseline information is needed on storm impacts to black sea bass. Storm effects on fish behavior are a pervasive recurrent natural disturbance in the MAB, which if not understood and accounted for, will likely bias wind turbine impact studies.”

Line 122-123: “…characteristically occupy shelf natural …to late October”. This phrase is redundant from the one above in Line 120. Consider editing.

- Line 138: Sentence rephrased, “…nearshore shelf habitats…”

Materials and Methods

Line 179-180: The information about how to sex black sea bass needs to be cited. Also it is unclear if the authors are visually inspecting after they make an incision for the tag, if they are sexing via a cannula, or if they are merely using abdominal pressure to expel milt or eggs (especially as they seemed to have issues with sexing a good amount of fish and I am curious as to why). Finally, the authors should make a reference that their collection period overlaps with around the peak spawning time.

Line 230-232: Additional text added to clarify procedure for determining sex, “Sex was determined by the visual inspection and identification of gonads, which were visible during surgery through the incision (see below) [44].”

- Line 232: Citation added for sex determination methodology.

Lines 262: Remove “those” and add “data” before “points”

- Line 325: Removed “those” and added term “data”.

Lines 270-271: “This analysis was performed in R, …”

- Line 340: Removed “carried out” and replaced with “performed”.

Lines 276-277: “The predictors were tested for their influence on the response variable, daily average movement, and included daily average TKE, …”

- Lines 345-346: Terms added for clarification: “The predictors were tested for their influence on the response variable, daily average movement index, and included daily average TKE, observed…”

Discussion

Line 509 and 520: These paragraphs are slightly redundant; consider combining.

- Lines 589-595: Paragraphs combined; sentence removed as it was redundant, “Results also indicated that multiple storm events in a given year may precondition the impacts of subsequent storms on water column stratification, though we failed to detect a cumulative impact of repeated storms on black sea bass movement.”

Line 535-539: “Biotelemetry detections … permanent evacuations.” Either remove this information or add it to the limitations paragraph.

- Line 620: Sentence removed, “Biotelemetry detections can be biased low during storm events when ambient noise interferes with detection of transmitted signals; we conducted analyses robust to this source of bias through an ARIMA intervention analysis, and observed that, in all years, late-season storms were associated with permanent evacuations.”

Line 539: Remove “where” and replace with “when”

- Line 620: Replaced “where” with when”.

Line 545-547: “This suggestions … in movement behavior.” This is an important result and is buried in text within the paragraph. I suggest moving this information to the beginning of the paragraph to highlight the authors important findings.

- Lines 618-620: Information moved earlier in paragraph, “Furthermore, analysis of storm-driven environmental variables during the multiple-storm year, 2017, indicated storm-driven destratification was the primary catalyst for evacuations.”

Line 551: Remove “of” and replace with “to”.

- Line 645: Replaced “of” with “to”.

Line 564 and Line 566: Remove “magnitude in” and make temperature plural

- Lines 658-659: Removed “magnitude in” and made “temperature” plural.

Line 568: “Our findings …”

- Line 662: “Our” added.

Line 577: This paragraph needs editing. The impacts on population dynamics and what the authors mean by population dynamics is vague. Perhaps the other paragraph later in the discussion about black sea bass reproduction can be incorporated into this paragraph.

- Line 675-686: Sentences rephrased/added, “The two behavioral responses measured in this study—evacuations or decreased movement in the face of acute disturbance to habitat conditions—are distinct modes, which may have carryover effects to feeding, reproduction, and predator evasion. Black sea bass occupy small home ranges on structured habitats (0.14-7.4 km2) [40], where they feed on reef and adjacent seabed prey items [38, 63, 64]. Reproduction has been observed to occur primarily during June- September [38] and occurs frequently with spawning intervals for females estimated to be 2.7 to 4.6 days [65] . Thus late-summer and early-fall storms, which caused depressed movements away from structure likely interfere with feeding and courtship, which occurs in regions adjacent to the reef. The alternate behavior, evacuation, likely disrupts mating systems and feeding territories and incurs greater predation risk. Additional research is called for on changed feeding and reproductive states before and after storms, the fate of evacuees, and whether evacuations contribute to the greater fall seasonal migration to deeper shelf habitats.”

Line 578: “..are distinct”. Distinct responses? Behaviors?

- Line 676: Term “modes” added.

Lines 582-583: Edit to “late-summer fall, may impact habitat use…”

- Lines 675-686: Original phrase removed.

Line 587: Change “don’t” to “do not”.

- Line 675-686: Original phrase removed

Lines 588-589: This topic sentence needs editing. What do the authors mean by inferences?

- Line 688: Phrase included for clarification, “…on movement behaviors…”

Line 597: Edit to “…relate to study design include assumptions…”

- Line 761: Sentence edited, “Key limitations to our findings related to study design include…”

Line 615: This paragraph either needs to be developed more or incorporated with another paragraph (see above).

- Lines 675-686: Paragraph edited and features incorporated into earlier discussion on differential impacts to population dynamics.

Line 619: The Drohan et al 2007 citation is wrong; the studies that show late season spawning are included within the Drohan paper.

-Line 680: Drohan citation switched with Berrien and Sibunka 1999.

Line 620: The potential impacts on black sea bass spawning are a stretch and need to be clarified that this late season spawning is rare and the typical spawning season is earlier in the summer and would not necessarily be affected (but maybe during years like 2017). The papers within the Drohan paper that claim late season spawning are old papers and estimate black sea bass spawning through egg and larval black sea bass surveys.

- Line 679-681: Additional information on spawning included, particularly that black sea bass are frequent spawners so events that cause several d periods of depressed activity likely impact courtship and reproduction, “Reproduction has been observed to occur primarily during June-September [38] and occurs frequently with spawning intervals for females estimated to be 2.7 to 4.6 days [65] .”

Line 627: It is unclear why storms would lead to latitudinal range shifts. Either develop this concept more or remove it.

- Line 793: “latitudinal range shifts” removed.

Line 631: “erected” is an awkward word choice.

- Line 797: Replaced “erected” with “established”.

Line 632: I suggest reordering fishing and wind farm impacts to reflect the order in which these are discussed in the paragraph

- Line 798: Order of wind farm and fishing impacts switched to reflect discussion in paragraph.

Line 631-636: Here is where the authors need to clarify because section is vague as to whether lessons from this study can aid in predictions of construction impacts or if we need to think about storms and construction impacts together. If I understand correctly, wind farm development and increasing storm impacts could lead to lower abundances of fish in those regions and this needs to be considered in the context of fisheries.

- Lines 865-866: Sentence added, “Furthermore, collective impacts from wind farm construction coupled with impacts from natural storm disturbance could lead to altered fish abundances in regions along the cold pool front.”

Line 633: Edit to “…will occur during periods and in regions…”

- Line 799: Terms “during” and “in” added accordingly.

Line 637-639: “Each of these stresses can…construction alone.” How? Are there examples? Is this speculation? Obscuring and enhancing impacts are opposite effects, so is there a potential storms interacting with wind farms is beneficial?

- Lines 805-861: Additional sentence added to paragraph for clarification, ““Refuge- seeking behaviors associated with pile-driving or vessel noise may be similar in kind to depressed movements associated with storms. Storm-induced evacuations could obscure departures associated with wind turbine construction. Similarly, reduced catchability could be erroneously associated with wind turbine impacts following a period of high storm activity.”

Line 640: “…catchability in particular.” The authors after here transition to anecdotal information about how storms can reduce catchability yet the above sentence is in reference to pile driving. So now it would appear the authors are using the impacts of storms as a way to understand the impacts of offshore wind development, where before they were discussing the effects acting in concert with one another.

- Lines 862-872: Thanks, we have altered text so reduced catchability is not linked to pile driving but rather use the last paragraph to speculate how wind farm and storm impacts could jointly impact distributional changes. “The nature of the potential interaction of natural storm disturbance with wind farm construction disturbance is not well known, and future research on whether this interaction is beneficial or detrimental to fish abundance in affected regions is critical for future management. Furthermore, collective impacts from wind farm construction coupled with impacts from natural storm disturbance could lead to altered fish abundances in regions along the cold pool front. Anecdotal reports from charter fishers suggest greatly reduced catch rates following major storms (D. Zemeckis, Rutgers University, pers. comm.). Storms may also catalyze fall departures to deeper shelf environments shifting fisheries and influencing their accessibility to bottom trawl surveys [85]. The need for storm disturbance to be incorporated in baseline and impact monitoring is heightened by the prediction of higher occurrence of higher intensity storms related to climate change.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Vanesa Magar

17 Sep 2020

The recurring impact of storm disturbance on black sea bass (Centropristis striata) movement behaviors in the Mid-Atlantic Bight.

PONE-D-20-11553R2

Dear Dr. Wiernicki,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vanesa Magar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Vanesa Magar

25 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-11553R2

The recurring impact of storm disturbance on black sea bass (Centropristis striata) movement behaviors in the Mid-Atlantic Bight

Dear Dr. Wiernicki:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vanesa Magar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The FVCOM estimates of hourly bottom water temperature (°C), offshore current velocity (m s-1), and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE; m2 s-2), averaged for the Northern site for August-September 2016 and June-October 2017–2018.

    *Dashed red lines refer to modeled maximum wind speeds occurring during each of the six identified storm events (see Table 3).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. The FVCOM estimates of hourly bottom water temperature (°C), offshore current velocity (m s-1), and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE; m2 s-2), averaged for the Southern site for August-September 2016 and June-October 2017–2018.

    *Dashed red lines refer to modeled maximum wind speeds occurring during each of the six identified storm events (see Table 3).

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig

    (a-c) Modeled and observed hourly bottom water temperature values across sites for 2016–2018, respectively. Vertical black dashed lines refer to maximum wind speed dates for identified storm events.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Modeled current velocity cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2016 and 2018.

    * Red colors refer to offshore current movement, and blue colors refer to inshore current movement. ** Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). *** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. **** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Modeled current velocity cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2017.

    * Red colors refer to offshore current movement, and blue colors refer to inshore current movement. ** Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). *** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. **** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Modeled turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2016 and 2018.

    * Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). ** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. *** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Modeled turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) cross-sectional profiles predicted by the FVCOM for storm events in 2016 and 2018.

    * Vertical black dashed lines in each pane refer to the transmitter release locations central to each study site (Southern, Northern, and Middle, for both years in increasing depth and distance from coastline). ** Cross sections are taken along a transect spanning the Middle site, and depict predictions at 00:00 for each given day. *** Panes boxed in black refer to dates of maximum wind speed for the given storm event.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Modeled bottom water turbulent kinetic energy in the southern MAB predicted by the FVCOM for 2016 and 2018 storm events, as well as the first three storm events of 2017, delineated by column.

    * Black asterisks refer to the location of transmitter release, central to each study site.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Distributions of log-transformed movement index across individual tagged fish in 2017, ordered by increasing length and color-coded by sex; F, M, and U refer to female, male, and unidentified fish, respectively.

    X-axis labels refer to the tag number, as well as the length of the individual (mm).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review of Wiernicki et al.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2nd Review of Wiernicki et al.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All .csv and .mat files are available from the Dryad database (https://datadryad.org/stash/share/OztyXXL-NTblWF5i3FmdNLPNoreIwnZnDRQYgTnHJX8). Note this is a temporary, private URL and a permanent, publicly accessible DOI will be generated pending potential manuscript acceptance.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES