Short snouted seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus)

Distribution data supplied by the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS). To interrogate UK data visit the NBN Atlas.Map Help

Summary

Description

The seahorse has a very distinctive shape with the head set at an angle to the body. The trunk of the body is short and rather fat whilst the tail is tapering, curled and prehensile. Hippocampus hippocampus can be up to 15 cm in length. The snout is short and upturned, and less than one third the length of the head. There is a prominent spine above each eye. The dorsal fin has 16-18 rays, usually with a dark stripe running parallel to the margin. The pectoral fins have 13-15 rays. Body rings carry bony tubercles, giving a knobbly, angular appearance. The body is variable in colour: brown, orange, purple or black, sometimes with pale blotches.

Recorded distribution in Britain and Ireland

Distributed along the south coast of England, with substantial populations around the Channel Islands and Ireland (Garrick-Maidment & Jones, 2004).

Global distribution

Reported from the Netherlands, Belgium, the east Atlantic coast of Europe, Algeria, Italy, Malta and Greece.

Habitat

Found in shallow muddy waters, in estuaries or inshore amongst seaweed and seagrasses, clinging by the tail or swimming upright. Hippocampus hippocampus can also be found in rocky areas.

Depth range

77 m

Identifying features

  • Body up to 15 cm in length.
  • Short, upturned snout.
  • Prominent spine above each eye.
  • Dorsal fin has 16-18 rays with a submarginal stripe.
  • Pectoral fin has 13-15 rays.
  • Lacks a mane
  • Bony tubercles on body.

Additional information

Hippocampus hippocampus is one of two species of seahorses found in the British Isles, the other is Hippocampus guttulatus, which has a longer snout and elongated protuberances along the back of the neck, giving the impression of a 'horses mane'. The exact size and distribution of the population of seahorses around the British Isles are not known at present. The British Seahorse survey is collating records currently and can be found at the Seahorse Trust. The biology of seahorses is poorly known and little information on Hippocampus hippocampus was found. Therefore, the following review is based in part on reviews of the biology of seahorses by Vincent (1996), Garrick-Maidment (1997) and Lourie et al., (1999). See also the British Seahorse Survey Report 2004 (Garrick-Maidment & Jones, 2004).

Listed by

Further information sources

Search on:

Biology review

Taxonomy

LevelScientific nameCommon name
PhylumChordata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderSyngnathiformes
FamilySyngnathidae
GenusHippocampus
Authority(Linnaeus, 1758)
Recent Synonyms

Biology

ParameterData
Typical abundanceLow density
Male size range15 cm
Male size at maturity
Female size rangeMedium(11-20 cm)
Female size at maturity
Growth formSee additional information
Growth rateSee additional information
Body flexibilitySee additional information
MobilitySwimmer
Characteristic feeding methodPredator
Diet/food sourceCarnivore
Typically feeds onOrganic debris, plankton, brine shrimp, small crustaceans and small fish
SociabilityNo information
Environmental positionDemersal
DependencyNo information found.
SupportsNo information
Is the species harmful?No

Biology information

Growth form. All seahorses have the same basic body shape, that is, a horse-like head held at right angles to an erect body.

Body flexibility. The tail is highly flexible although it cannot bend directly backwards very far (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.).

Abundance. Seahorse population density tends to be low (Vincent, 1996). However, there are no published data about population trends or total numbers of mature animals for this species.

Camouflage. Hippocampus hippocampus has the potential (like all seahorses) to grow appendages on its body for camouflage and protection. However, none have ever been identified (Garrick-Maidment, 1998).

Mobility. Hippocampus hippocampus is better suited to manoeuvrability than speed (Blake, 1976). Only the dorsal fin on their back provides propulsion, while the 'ear-like' pectoral fins below the gill openings are used for stability and steering. Hippocampus hippocampus is able to use its prehensile tail as an anchor, wrapping it around the stems of seagrass, coral heads or any suitable object. It uses its tail to hold on in strong currents (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.) and the tail is used by both sexes to grasp a partner in mating and greeting rituals. The tail is also used a great deal for climbing and is used as a hand when grasping for climbing (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.).

Growth rates. Growth rates have not been investigated in any detail but the young fry are known to exhibit growth inflexion points as they switch between prey types (Boisseau, 1967; cited in Vincent, 1996). Adults are known to grow more slowly as they grow larger (Vincent & Sadler unpublished; cited in Vincent, 1996).

Feeding. On average, an adult seahorse will eat between 30-50 mysid shrimp a day (Garrick-Maidment, 1997). Hippocampus hippocampus is an ambush predator that feeds on live, moving food. Hippocampus hippocampus will remain motionless until a small animal such as a mysid shrimp passes within reach. Within a second, the seahorse will flick its head and suck its prey out of the water column through its long tubular snout. Hippocampus hippocampus has no teeth or stomach, therefore, prey is swallowed whole and passes rapidly through the digestive system.

Predators. Few predators appear to target adult seahorses. Lourie et al. (1999) suggested that this could be due to camouflage and immobility that make the seahorse difficult to detect. They are, however, taken by crabs, and large pelagic fish (Lourie et al., 1999). There are also records of gulls and penguins eating seahorses of which the former appear to eat them commonly (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.).

Habitat preferences

ParameterData
Physiographic preferencesEstuary, Offshore seabed, Strait or Sound
Biological zone preferencesLower eulittoral, Mid eulittoral, Sublittoral fringe, Upper eulittoral
Substratum / habitat preferencesBedrock, Macroalgae, Mud, Seagrass
Tidal strength preferencesVery weak (negligible), Weak < 1 knot (<0.5 m/sec.)
Wave exposure preferencesExtremely sheltered, Moderately exposed, Sheltered, Ultra sheltered, Very sheltered
Salinity preferencesVariable (18-40 psu)
Depth range77 m
Other preferences

None found

Migration PatternNon-migratory or resident

Habitat Information

Seahorses are often found in water less than one metre deep. Most species of seahorse live at depths between 1-15 metres and as deep as 77 m when they move out into deeper waters over winter (Garrick-Maidment, 1998) but the depth varies throughout its range according to habitat (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.). In the Channel Islands, they are found in much deeper water because here they have a wide tidal range and deep gullies (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.). On the whole, Hippocampus hippocampus is found below 5 m whereas Hippocampus guttulatus is found in shallower depths (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.). They occupy only certain parts of seemingly suitable habitats, for example sticking to the edge of seagrass beds leaving large areas unoccupied. These microhabitats have not been investigated but it has been suggested that seahorses find more food in areas of good water exchange (Vincent, 1996). Habitat/substratum preferences may be seasonal and related to seasonal migration (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.).

Adults may disperse during short-range migrations but most movement to new areas happens when adults are cast adrift by storms or carried away while grasping floating debris (Vincent, 1999). They can cope with strong tidal strength for varying periods of time (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.).

Life history

Adult characteristics

ParameterData
Reproductive typeGonochoristic (dioecious)
Reproductive frequency Annual episodic
Fecundity (number of eggs)See additional information
Generation timeInsufficient information
Age at maturity6-12 months
SeasonApril to November
Life spanSee additional information

Larval characteristics

ParameterData
Larval/propagule type-
Larval/juvenile development Viviparous (Parental Care)
Duration of larval stageNot relevant
Larval dispersal potential See additional information
Larval settlement periodNot relevant

Life history information

Sexual maturity. Hippocampus hippocampus becomes sexually mature during the first reproductive season after birth i.e. at age six to twelve months (Lourie et al., 1999). Sexual maturity in males can be recognized by the presence of a brood pouch, although the size of the pouch will vary with its reproductive state. Any physical manifestation of sexual maturity is less obvious in females (Vincent, 1996). The length and timing of the reproductive season vary with location and are influenced by light, temperature and water turbulence. It was originally thought that Hippocampus hippocampus and Hippocampus guttulatus only bred from Spring (April) to Autumn (October) (Lourie et al., 1999) but recent work (Garrick-Maidment, British Seahorse Survey 2004) has found juveniles in February that would have been born in November (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.).

Pair bonding. Hippocampus hippocampus, like all seahorses, is monogamous and forms faithful pair bonds. Male seahorses are the predominant competitors for access to mates as they compete more to get pregnant than females do to give their eggs away (Vincent, 1994a). In courtship, males exhibit higher levels of aggressive competitive behaviour patterns (wrestling and snapping) than females. Competitive wrestling and snapping are described below.

  • Snapping occurs when a male aims his snout at his competitor's opercular flap before flicking his snout hard in order to propel the rival male away. A well-aimed powerful snap could propel a seahorse as much as 10 cm and lead to the recipient darkening and flattening in a submissive posture (Vincent et al., 1994a).
  • When two seahorses are wrestling, one male will refuse to release his competitor from his grasp. Both males may then tumble with locked tails. Eventually, the submissive male will darken and flatten in a submissive posture until it is released by the dominant male (Vincent et al., 1994a).

Tail wrestling and snapping with the snout are confined to males (Vincent et al., 1992). Although females do compete for access to males (in the sense that they exhibit higher levels of courtship when in the presence of another member of the same sex than when courting alone) but to a far lesser extent than males (Vincent, 1994a). Courtship included the following behaviour.

  • Both seahorses may grasp a common holdfast with their tails and rotate around it.
  • Male and female may promenade together often holding tails.
  • Head tilting and quivering (Vincent, 1994a).

Hippocampus hippocampus forms sexually faithful pairs that endure through multiple mating and breeding seasons. Pair bonding is more on a seasonal basis in temperate species and there is no evidence from the wild to prove that they pair for life (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.). The male and female reproductive state changes are always synchronized within a pair and only within a pair, confirming that they are faithful to each other (Vincent, 1996). Pair bonding is reinforced by daily greetings performed only with an individual's partner. These greetings commonly last six to eight minutes (Vincent et al., 1992).

Reproduction. The seahorse has a unique method of reproduction in which the male plays the dominant role. It is the male rather than the female that becomes pregnant (Vincent, 1994a). At the beginning of the mating season, the males prepare their brood pouches. The eggs ripen in an assembly line ovary, throughout the reproductive season. In order to mate males must eliminate the previous brood from the pouch and females must hydrate their eggs. Each sex provides a signal of readiness to mate, males pump water in and out of their pouch and females point their head towards the water surface (Fiedler, 1954; cited in Vincent, 1994b). Females also have a trunk that is visibly distended with hydrated eggs, which becomes concave after the egg transfer (Vincent, 1994b). The female aligns the base of her trunk with the male's pouch opening and inserts her ovipositor into the pouch. The female then deposits her eggs into the brood pouch where they are fertilized (Dipper, 2001). Egg transfer takes about 6-10 seconds (Vincent, 1994a).

Once the eggs are fertilized the brood pouch then seals up. The pear-shaped eggs become embedded into the pouch wall and enveloped by tissues. Oxygen is provided via capillaries in the pouch wall (Carcupino et al., 2002; Dipper, 2001). The pouch acts as the womb of a female mammal, complete with a placental fluid that bathes the eggs and provides nutrients and oxygen to the developing embryos while removing waste products. Nevertheless, most of the nutrition comes from the mother. The egg yolk provides nutrients, while the male secretes a hormone called prolactin (Boisseau, 1967b; cited in Lourie et al., 1999; Dipper, 2001). Prolactin induces enzymatic breakdown of the outer part of the egg (chorion) to produce a placental fluid (Boisseau, 1967b; cited in Lourie et al., 1999). The pouch fluid is altered during pregnancy from being similar to body fluids to being more like the surrounding seawater. This helps reduce the stress on the offspring at birth (Dipper, 2001).

Pregnancy in male Hippocampus hippocampus can last for about 20-21 days (Garrick-Maidment, 1998). At the end of this period, the male goes into labour (usually at night), which can last for hours. The brood pouch opens and fully formed young are pushed out by vigorous pumping movements. Male seahorses have relatively small broods (TRAFFIC, 2002). Brood size depends largely but not entirely on the size of the adults (Lourie et al., 2002). The number of young produced by Hippocampus hippocampus can range from 50-100 (Garrick-Maidment, 1998) although recent information shows that the number can be as high as 250 (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.). Fecundity depends on the age of the male, older males producing a larger number of offspring (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.). In pairs that are familiar with each other, the male is able to mate again within a few hours of emptying his brood pouch without any decline in his physical condition (Carcupino et al., 2002).  

Dispersal potential. It has been suggested that young fry are more likely to colonize new or depleted areas because they are often carried away from natal habitats despite attempts to settle into the substrata (Vincent, 1996). The extent of dispersal by this mechanism is unknown (Vincent et al., 1999).

Longevity. The natural lifespan and mortality rates of seahorses and the parameters that define them are virtually unknown and in need of research (Anon, 1990a; cited in Vincent, 1996). It has been suggested that the lifespan is only about 1 year in very small species such as Hippocampus zosterae (~ 2.5 cm) (Strawn 1953; cited in Vincent, 1996) whereas larger seahorses, such as Hippocampus hippocampus, have a lifespan of 1-5 years (Lourie et al., 1999). Hippocampus hippocampus has been regularly recorded living up to 5-6 years in captivity (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm.). Natural adult mortality rates are likely to be low but the data on mortality rates are very limited (Vincent, 1996). Fry are released at an advanced stage of development, which probably gives them a higher chance of survival than many other species (TRAFFIC, 2002). However, it has been suggested that mortality is probably highest in young fry, as they are highly vulnerable to piscivorous fish (Vincent, 1996).

Sensitivity reviewHow is sensitivity assessed?

Resilience and recovery rates

Hippocampus hippocampus are benthic and spend most of their time ‘holding onto’ a variety of substrata such as seaweeds, plants, hard rock and artificial surfaces (Garrick-Maidment, 2007). They anchor themselves via their tails and, although able to swim, locomotion is relatively weak (Palma et al., 2019). The species’ distribution is somewhat dependent on indirect movement, due to adults having weak mobility and small home ranges. Dispersal is sporadic and unpredictable as adults may distribute during short-range migrations but most movement to new areas occurs when adults are cast adrift by storms or carried away while grasping floating debris. It is suggested that young fry are more likely to colonize new or depleted areas compared to adults because they are often carried away from their natal habitats (Vincent, 1996). Therefore, it is probable that water flow and wave action may be important for dispersal although no evidence was found.

Hippocampus hippocampus is dioecious but unusual in that the males carry the eggs in a brood pouch until they hatch and 50-100 (up to 250) live fry are released. Pregnancy lasts 20-21 days after which mated pairs can mate again so that they might have more than one broad per year if conditions allow. The mortality of fry is probably higher than adults, depending on the availability of refuges from predators within the substratum (e.g. macroalgae, seagrass). However, there is little information on natural mortality (Vincent, 1996).

Pair bonding between individuals is also seen. Male and female reproductive states change so they become synchronized, reinforcements of bonds are seen through daily greetings (Vincent, 1996). If one half of a bonded pair is separated, reproduction will be reduced, as partners are not quickly replaced and this species if found in low densities (Lourie et al., 1999; Curtis & Vincent, 2005).

Resilience assessment. Hippocampus hippocampus is an annual episodic breeder with limited mobility and a short home range.  Adults pair bond and produce a small number (50-250) of fry at a time, although they may be able to have more than one brood per year. Brooding of eggs and the release of a small number of developed fry may reduce their mortality compared to the spawning of eggs and larvae. The mortality of fry is probably higher than adults, depending on the availability of refuges from predators within the substratum (e.g. macroalgae, seagrass). However, there is little information on natural mortality (Vincent, 1996).

Overall, they have the potential for good local recruitment and recovery due to their short generation time, rapid growth rate, and early maturity (with one year) (Woodall, 2017.) However, their small home range, limited mobility, and poor dispersal limit their ability to colonize new areas, recolonize existing areas or move out of areas that become unfavourable (Woodall, 2017). Therefore, where the population is reduced and adults survive (resistance is ‘Medium’) resilience is probably ‘High’ (within 2 years) but where the population is significantly reduced (resistance is ‘Low’ or ‘None’) and recovery is dependent of recruitment from outside the area, resilience is probably ‘Moderate’ (2-10 years). However, recovery may be dependent on stochastic events such as storms and could take longer.

The resilience assessment is based on evidence on Hippocampus hippocampus as a whole, but a scarcity of information on the ecology of this species, and a scarcity of any direct evidence of recovery in the field. Therefore, the confidence in the assessment is 'Low'.

Hydrological Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Temperature increase (local) [Show more]

Temperature increase (local)

Benchmark. A 5°C increase in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence on the temperature tolerance of Hippocampus hippocampus was found. However, it is a predominantly southern species in British waters and is recorded from a temperature range of 10-30°C. It is recorded in the North Atlantic Ocean and ranges from the North Sea, the Mediterranean and West Africa (Pinnegar et al., 2008; Lourie 2016; OBIS 2017). Therefore, it is likely to resist a 2 °C change in temperature for a year in UK waters.

Its European relative, Hippocampus guttulatus is reported to withstand short-term acute temperature change of 5°C with minor physiological impairment (metabolic and ventilation rate) and no change in behaviour (swimming, foraging and activity) (Aurélio et al., 2013). Therefore, inferences can be made on the effect of short-term acute temperature change for Hippocampus hippocampus although at low confidence.

Sensitivity assessment. Therefore, Hippocampus hippocampus is probably resistant to a 2°C change in temperature for a year in UK waters or a 5°C increase for a month and a resistance of 'High' is recorded, albeit with 'Low' confidence. Hence, resilience is assessed as 'High' and the species is recorded as 'Not sensitive' at the benchmark level.

High
Low
NR
NR
Help		High
High
High
High
Help		Not sensitive
Low
NR
NR
Help
Temperature decrease (local) [Show more]

Temperature decrease (local)

Benchmark. A 5°C decrease in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence on the temperature tolerance of Hippocampus hippocampus was found.  However, it is recorded in British waters as low as 5°C or 6°C in the winter, and ranges from the North Sea to the Mediterranean and West Africa (Pinnegar et al., 2008; Lourie, 2016; OBIS 2017). Therefore, it is likely to resist a 2°C change in temperature for a year in UK waters.

No information was found on the effect, if any, of short-term acute temperature change (e.g. by 5°C).  However, it is considered a southern species within the UK suggesting that Northern populations may see a population decline with temperature decrease.

Sensitivity assessment. Therefore, it is probably resistant to a 2°C change in temperature for a year in UK waters but a short-term temperature decrease of 5°C may impact population abundance at its northern range.  Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘Low’ is recorded, albeit with 'Low' confidence. Hence, resilience is assessed as ‘Medium’ and sensitivity is assessed as ’Medium’ at the benchmark level.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Salinity increase (local) [Show more]

Salinity increase (local)

Benchmark. A increase in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

Evidence

Hippocampus hippocampus is recorded from variable salinity conditions. It is generally associated with areas of oceanic influences such as tidal inlets which may experience temporary localised increases in salinity (Curtis & Vincent, 2005). It is unlikely to be exposed to hypersaline (>40) conditions but hypersaline effluents are probably detrimental. It is also mobile species and may, therefore, move to other areas to avoid localized hypersaline conditions. However, no evidence was found on which to base an assessment.

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Salinity decrease (local) [Show more]

Salinity decrease (local)

Benchmark. A decrease in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

Evidence

Hippocampus hippocampus is recorded from variable salinity conditions. It has been recorded in estuarine waters within the UK such as that in the river Thames, Tamar and Dart (Garrick-Maidment, 2020; NBN, 2017). It is also recorded in brackish Tunisian waters (Ben Amor et al., 2011) and brackish lakes such as Lake Faro in Italy (Spinelli et al., 2020).

The gill structure of Hippocampus hippocampus allows them to cope with brackish waters, showing a tolerance for a slight decrease in salinity (Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm., February 2004). It is also mobile species and may therefore move to other areas of ideal habitat. Decreased salinity may become detrimental when it occurs over large scales as its poor swimming ability is a restriction to its recoverability. However, no evidence of salinity tolerance of the adult or other life stages was found.

Its recorded presence in estuarine and brackish waters suggests that it could tolerate an occasional salinity decrease in UK waters. But a change from ‘variable’ salinity to ‘low’ could be detrimental. Therefore, a resistance of 'Low' is suggested, with 'Low' confidence. Resilience is probably 'Medium' so sensitivity is assessed as 'Medium'.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Water flow (tidal current) changes (local) [Show more]

Water flow (tidal current) changes (local)

Benchmark. A change in peak mean spring bed flow velocity of between 0.1 m/s to 0.2 m/s for more than one year. Further detail

Evidence

Hippocampus hippocampus is generally found in sheltered to moderately exposed areas with weak flow and an incoming oceanic influence (Curtis & Vincent, 2005).  A change in water flow may be detrimental to the maintenance of local population structure as it is vital in aiding the distribution of seahorse fry (N. Garrick-Maidment, pers. comm). For example, Correia et al. (2013) reported that young Hippocampus guttulatus juveniles had a low tolerance to an increased current regime from 0.1 m/s to 1 m/s and showed a decrease in holdfast grasping. This may carry young juveniles away from their home ranges and disrupt synchronized pair bonds. However, Qin et al. (2014) recorded different results in Hippocampus erectus, which was more likely to attach themselves to holdfasts or objects in response to an increased current regime reaching 0.2 m/s. Negative impacts were also seen for ventilation, feeding and growth rates.  

Little evidence was found for the effects of a decrease in water flow.  Caldwell & Vincent (2012) reported a population decline in Hippocampus hippocampus in Ria Formosa lagoon, Portugal resurveyed after seven years.  They reported a weak relationship between a decrease in current speed and population decline.  They suggested, with low confidence, that decreased current speed may have been associated with prey availability.  However, Kitsos et al. (2008) reported that the ambush feeding seahorse has a diverse and flexible diet due to its mobility.  However, a decrease in water flow would also reduce the risk of young fry or one individual from a bonded pair being carried away to another home range.  

Sensitivity assessment.  Hippocampus hippocampus is a mobile species and may, therefore, move to other areas of ideal habitat when exposed to local increased or decreased water flow depending on the scale of the change.  Large scale change, increase water flow, coupled with this species' poor swimming ability may interfere with mating and/or remove individuals, especially juveniles from the site. Quin et al. (2014) suggested that holdfast grasping increased in Hippocampus erectus as current speed reached 0.2 m/s but that Hippocampus guttulatus was unable to maintain grasping as the current increased by an order of magnitude from 0.1 to 1 m/s.  Although no clear information on Hippocampus hippocampus was found, the evidence suggests that seahorses are probably sensitive to small changes in water flow, depending on location.  Therefore, resistance is assessed as 'Medium' to represent to possible loss of some individuals in the population due to an increase in current flow at the benchmark level, albeit with 'Low' confidence.  Hence, resilience is assessed as 'High' and sensitivity as 'Low'. 

Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		High
Low
NR
NR
Help		Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
Emergence regime changes [Show more]

Emergence regime changes

Benchmark.  1) A change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of ≥1 year or 2) an increase in relative sea level or decrease in high water level for ≥1 year. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant. This pressure is considered applicable to species that are only found in habitats at the littoral and shallow sublittoral fringe. Hippocampus hippocampus is found in the sublittoral and will, therefore, not be affected by a change in emergence and is also mobile enough to swim to deeper waters.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Wave exposure changes (local) [Show more]

Wave exposure changes (local)

Benchmark. A change in near shore significant wave height of >3% but <5% for more than one year. Further detail

Evidence

Hippocampus hippocampus is recorded within sheltered and moderately exposed areas attached to seaweed, seagrass and other floating debris. Therefore, a significant change in wave action (e.g. to very exposed) may be detrimental as species could be removed from their habitat and ideal substrata for tail anchoring could be reduced or lost.

However, a 3-5% change in significant wave height (the benchmark) is not likely to be significant. Therefore, a resistance of 'High' is recorded so that resilience is 'High' and the species is probably 'Not sensitive' at the benchmark level.

High
Low
NR
NR
Help		High
High
High
High
Help		Not sensitive
Low
NR
NR
Help

Chemical Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Transition elements & organo-metal contamination [Show more]

Transition elements & organo-metal contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination [Show more]

Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Synthetic compound contamination [Show more]

Synthetic compound contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Radionuclide contamination [Show more]

Radionuclide contamination

Benchmark. An increase in 10µGy/h above background levels. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence was found to base an assessment.

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Introduction of other substances [Show more]

Introduction of other substances

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
De-oxygenation [Show more]

De-oxygenation

Benchmark. Exposure to dissolved oxygen concentration of less than or equal to 2 mg/l for one week (a change from WFD poor status to bad status). Further detail

Evidence

No evidence of hypoxia tolerance for Hippocampus hippocampus was found but evidence has been reported for other benthic macrofauna. For example, in a systematic review by Diaz & Rosenberg (1995) it was reported that when exposed to low oxygen most fish first experience an increase in respiration rate, some then show avoidance behaviour and move to other areas of ideal habitat whilst, others which are immobile begin to suppress metabolic demands.  Migration and spawning play a large role in the recoverability of a population and as Hippocampus hippocampus is a poor swimmer with a small home range hypoxia is probably detrimental to the species.

Sensitivity assessment. Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘Low’ albeit with ‘Low’ confidence. Hence, resilience is assessed as 'Medium' and sensitivity as ‘Medium’.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Nutrient enrichment [Show more]

Nutrient enrichment

Benchmark. Compliance with WFD criteria for good status. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence for Hippocampus hippocampus was found. 

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Organic enrichment [Show more]

Organic enrichment

Benchmark. A deposit of 100 gC/m2/yr. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence for Hippocampus hippocampus was found. 

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help

Physical Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) [Show more]

Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat)

Benchmark. A permanent loss of existing saline habitat within the site. Further detail

Evidence

All marine habitats and benthic species are considered to have a resistance of ‘None’ to this pressure and to be unable to recover from a permanent loss of habitat (resilience is ‘Very low’). Sensitivity within the direct spatial footprint of this pressure is, therefore ‘High’. Although no specific evidence is described, confidence in this assessment is ‘High’ due to the incontrovertible nature of this pressure.

None
High
High
High
Help		Very Low
High
High
High
Help		High
High
High
High
Help
Physical change (to another seabed type) [Show more]

Physical change (to another seabed type)

Benchmark. Permanent change from sedimentary or soft rock substrata to hard rock or artificial substrata or vice-versa. Further detail

Evidence

Hippocampus hippocampus is commonly found on the sandy bottom in the British Isles; however, it has been recorded in variety habitats including in sea grass, on rocky surfaces, on mud and on artificial material (Garrick-Maidment, 2007). A change to the seabed type from sedimentary to hard rock may decrease the levels of some available habitat and be unsuitable for seahorse colonization. It may decrease its ability to avoid a predator and/or decrease the relative availability of food. However, Hippocampus hippocampus is mobile and potentially able to relocate and find another substratum to recolonize. In addition, other habitats such as rocky surfaces and artificial surfaces would increase. Woodall et al. (2018) found that artificial holdfast such as rope, tyres, pier supports and fishing gear were the most commonly occupied holdfast when presented.

Sensitivity review. Therefore, it is probably resistant to a change from sedimentary to artificial substrata so resistance is assessed as 'High', albeit with 'Low' confidence. Hence, resilience is assessed as 'High' and the species is recorded as 'Not sensitive' at the benchmark level.

High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Help		High
High
High
High
Help		Not sensitive
Medium
Medium
Medium
Help
Physical change (to another sediment type) [Show more]

Physical change (to another sediment type)

Benchmark. Permanent change in one Folk class (based on UK SeaMap simplified classification). Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is not 'Not relevant' where Hippocampus hippocampus occurs on hard rock habitats.  This species is also found on a variety of habitat types such as eelgrass, micro- and macro-algae to silt, mud and rocky substrata including artificial substrata (Garrick-Maidment & Jones, 2004; Garrick-Maidment, 2007). Therefore, it is probably ‘Not sensitive’ to a change in the sediment type. 

High
Low
NR
NR
Help		High
High
High
High
Help		Not sensitive
Low
NR
NR
Help
Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction) [Show more]

Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction)

Benchmark. The extraction of substratum to 30 cm (where substratum includes sediments and soft rock but excludes hard bedrock). Further detail

Evidence

Hippocampus hippocampus is found on a variety of habitat types such as eelgrass, micro- and macro-algae to silt, mud and rocky substrata including artificial substrata (Garrick-Maidment & Jones, 2004; Garrick-Maidment, 2007). It is also mobile species and may be able to avoid the area impacted by the pressure. The pressure will become detrimental when it occurs over larger scales as its poor swimming ability is a restriction to its recoverability.

Therefore, it is probably ‘Not sensitive’ to the extraction of substratum due to its mobility and ability to utilize a variety of substrata. This pressure is not 'Not relevant' where Hippocampus hippocampus occurs on hard rock substratum.  

High
Low
NR
NR
Help		High
High
High
High
Help		Not sensitive
Low
NR
NR
Help
Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed [Show more]

Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed

Benchmark. Damage to surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

Evidence

No evidence on the effects of abrasion on this species was found. However, it is associated with eelgrass and seagrass beds that are likely to be damaged or removed by abrasion and which may cause a decrease in local abundance of the resident seahorse populations. For example, these habitats are reported to be sensitive to abrasion due to the dropping of pots or creels, cables and chains associated with fixed gears, mooring and the anchoring of recreational vessels (Collins et al., 2010). A reduction in the abundance of eelgrass and seagrass may result in the loss of available substratum for this species. However, as Hippocampus hippocampus is mobile it may move to other areas of ideal habitat within the site of interest. However, abrasion may be detrimental if it occurs over large areas as its poor swimming ability will restrict recoverability. 

Furthermore, individual seahorses or their habitats were reported to be damaged by trawling particularly by the prawn trawling industry and as bycatch in gillnets, beach seines and traps (Hiscock et al., 2005; Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2016; Lawson et al., 2017). The numbers of individuals taken can accumulate quickly due to industry demand and may impact population structure. For example, there may be shifts in reproduction due to pair bond disruption, imbalances in sex ratio and the removal of fertile males.

Sensitivity assessment. The sensitivity of Hippocampus hippocampus to abrasion can be linked to the sensitivity of its preferred substratum and the impact of anthropogenic exploitation. Therefore, abrasion may cause a significant reduction in the abundance of the seahorse population or its habitat of available substratum and resistance is assessed as ‘Low’. A resilience of ‘Medium’ (2-10 years) is suggested to account for the return of suitable substratum and subsequent recovery of the relevantly poor swimming resident population from the surrounding area.  Hence, sensitivity is assessed as ‘Medium’.

Low
High
Medium
Medium
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface [Show more]

Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface

Benchmark. Damage to sub-surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

Evidence

Hard rock is resistant to sub-surface penetration. Therefore, where this species' preferred substratum is hard rock the pressure is recorded as 'Not relevant'.  In sedimentary habitats penetrative gear are likely to cause more damage than abrasion (see above). For example, seagrass shoots and rhizomes may be removed from the impacted area (see SS.SMp.SSgr.Zmar).

Therefore, penetrating gears may cause a significant reduction in the abundance of the seahorse population or its habitat of available substratum and resistance is assessed as ‘Low’. A resilience of ‘Medium’ (2-10 years) is suggested to account for the return of suitable substratum and subsequent recovery of the relevantly poor swimming resident population from the surrounding area. Hence, sensitivity is assessed as ‘Medium’.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) [Show more]

Changes in suspended solids (water clarity)

Benchmark. A change in one rank on the WFD (Water Framework Directive) scale e.g. from clear to intermediate for one year. Further detail

Evidence

Hippocampus hippocampus can be associated with seagrass and are commonly found near tidal inlets on substrata including silt and mud where some sediment may accumulate (Curtis & Vincent, 2005; Garrick-Maidment & Jones, 2004). But, no evidence on the direct effects of suspended sediments on the seahorse was found.

However, evidence in syngnathids has shown that reduced light intensity, which is a consequence of high turbidity as suspended particles scatter and absorb light (Voichick et al., 2018), can impact prey capture rates. For example, James & Heck (1994) reported that a visual predator such as Hippocampus erectus uses ambient light to feed. When ambient light was reduced via increased shading prey capture rates decreased. Furthermore, in fish, high turbidity levels were reported to reduce mate choice for those who use visual cues in sexual signalling (Candolin et al., 2007; Seehausen et al., 1997). As seahorses have been seen to use visual cues in clear water (Felício et al., 2006) and evidence into other sensory pathways is limited it suggests that an increase in turbidity may be detrimental to mate reinforcement and reproduction. 

Sensitivity assessment. Therefore, a resistance of ‘Medium’ is recorded, albeit with 'Low' confidence. Hence, resilience is assessed as ‘High’ and the species is recorded with ‘Low’’ sensitivity at the benchmark level.

Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		High
Low
NR
NR
Help		Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
Smothering and siltation rate changes (light) [Show more]

Smothering and siltation rate changes (light)

Benchmark. ‘Light’ deposition of up to 5 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

Evidence

‘Light’ deposition of fine material to the seabed is unlikely to impact Hippocampus hippocampus as it is a mobile species and is able to swim away to avoid deposition. Therefore, the pressure is considered ‘Not relevant’ to this species at the benchmark level.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy) [Show more]

Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy)

Benchmark. ‘Heavy’ deposition of up to 30 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence into the impact of ‘heavy’ deposition of fine material to the seabed for Hippocampus hippocampus was found. However, as it is up to 15 cm in length, and can swim away it would probably avoid localized deposition. However, some adults and smaller juveniles may be trapped by deposition.

Therefore, a resistance of ‘Medium’ is recorded, albeit with 'Low' confidence. Hence, resilience is assessed as ‘High’ and sensitivity assessed as Low’ at the benchmark level but with ‘Low’ confidence.

Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		High
Low
NR
NR
Help		Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
Litter [Show more]

Litter

Benchmark. The introduction of man-made objects able to cause physical harm (surface, water column, seafloor or strandline). Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Electromagnetic changes [Show more]

Electromagnetic changes

Benchmark. A local electric field of 1 V/m or a local magnetic field of 10 µT. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence was found on which to base an assessment.

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Underwater noise changes [Show more]

Underwater noise changes

Benchmark. MSFD indicator levels (SEL or peak SPL) exceeded for 20% of days in a calendar year. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence of underwater noise tolerance for Hippocampus hippocampus was found but evidence has been reported for other Hippocampus species.

Palma et al. (2019) found that when Hippocampus guttulatus was subjected to short-term (63.4–127.6 dB) and constant (up to 137.1 dB) motorboat noise there was an immediate physiological and behavioural response. Opercular movements increased and seahorses were much more likely to abandon their holdfasts. Abandonment can be detrimental to a cryptic species like Hippocampus hippocampus that have a poor swimming ability (Garrick-Maidment, 2007) and may lead to increased predation, poor local l recruitment and fragmentation in the population at a larger scale. Research into Hippocampus erectus (Anderson, 2009; Anderson et al., 2011) and Hippocampus capensis (Classens & Hodgson, 2018) also recorded similar findings in response to noise exposure.

Sensitivity assessment. As Hippocampus hippocampus inhabits shallow coastal habitats underwater noise especially from anthropogenic sources such as dredging, fishing activity and boat traffic is likely to have a significant effect on physiology and behaviour like that seen in Hippocampus sp. Therefore, a resistance of 'Medium' is recorded to represent the possible alteration in recruitment and predation.  Resilience is assessed as 'High' and sensitivity as ‘Low’ sensitivity at the benchmark level.

Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Help		High
Low
NR
NR
Help		Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
Introduction of light or shading [Show more]

Introduction of light or shading

Benchmark. A change in incident light via anthropogenic means. Further detail

Evidence

Palnas et al. (2013) reported that female Hippocampus hippocampus responded to different photothermic conditions. For example, low photoperiods (10L:14D) and a low temperature increase from 15-18°C decreased egg production (total eggs, clutch size and clutches per female). However, under high photoperiods (16L:8D) with the same low temperature egg production increased. Therefore, it was established that light regime was the initial controlling factor for female maturation and that temperature had a later influence. These results imply that shading, which has the potential to lower photoperiods, may have a detrimental effect of recruitment however, as it is a mobile species Hippocampus hippocampus would most likely be able to move away from shaded areas, and could, therefore, be seen as resistant.

Other research into Hippocampus sp. has shown similar results. For example, increasing light intensity from 500-3000 lx decreased the survival rate of juvenile Hippocampus erectus. Explanations include detrimental energy expenditure due to the high activity of the seahorse and its prey Artemia (Lin et al., 2009). In addition, Sheng et al (2006) recorded significant relations between different aged Hippocampus trimaculatus juvenile groups, light intensity and feeding time throughout the day. As feeding can be associated with growth an absence of this light intensity may cause a stunt in growth, which can impact sexual maturity and later reproduction for the species (Curtis et al., 2017). However, Wong & Benzie (2003) showed no impact of light intensity on growth in juvenile Hippocampus whitei. More research is needed to understand the effect of anthropogenic sources or light.

In addition, as Hippocampus hippocampus occupies areas of seagrass especially Zostera marina within the UK (Garrick-Maidment and Jones, 2004). Changes to light can impact the flowering plant density. For example, Zostera marina beds are seen to reduce growth rates under shading conditions (Ochieng et al., 2010). A decrease in habitat availability may influence the degree of crypsis, the ability to attach for stabilisation and the harbouring of food sources such as small crustaceans (Howard & Koehn 1985; Tipton & Bell 1988; Foster & Vincent 2004).

Nevertheless, resistance is assessed as ‘High’ as the seahorse could avoid areas of localized shading. Therefore, resilience is 'High' and the species is probably 'Not sensitive' at the benchmark level.

High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Help		High
High
High
High
Help		Not sensitive
Medium
Medium
Medium
Help
Barrier to species movement [Show more]

Barrier to species movement

Benchmark. A permanent or temporary barrier to species movement over ≥50% of water body width or a 10% change in tidal excursion. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence was found on which to base an assessment.

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Death or injury by collision [Show more]

Death or injury by collision

Benchmark. Injury or mortality from collisions of biota with both static or moving structures due to 0.1% of tidal volume on an average tide, passing through an artificial structure. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant to Hippocampus hippocampus due to their anchoring and close proximity to the seabed. Collision by interaction with bottom towed fishing gears and moorings are addressed under ‘surface abrasion’.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Visual disturbance [Show more]

Visual disturbance

Benchmark. The daily duration of transient visual cues exceeds 10% of the period of site occupancy by the feature. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence was found on the impact of visual disturbance on Hippocampus hippocampus specifically. However, evidence for Hippocampus sp. suggests that visual cues such as flash photography have no significant impact on retinal anatomy, feeding, or behaviour (Harasti & Gladstone, 2013; De Brauwer et al., 2019). Therefore, a resistance of 'High' is recorded, albeit with 'Low' confidence. Hence, resilience is assessed as 'High' and the species is recorded as 'Not sensitive'.

High
High
Medium
Medium
Help		High
High
High
High
Help		Not sensitive
High
Medium
Medium
Help

Biological Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species [Show more]

Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species

Benchmark. Translocation of indigenous species or the introduction of genetically modified or genetically different populations of indigenous species that may result in changes in the genetic structure of local populations, hybridization, or change in community structure. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence of translocation, breeding or species hybridization in Hippocampus hippocampus was found so an assessment could not be made. 

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species [Show more]

Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species

Benchmark. The introduction of one or more invasive non-indigenous species (INIS). Further detail

Evidence

No evidence was found to suggest a positive or negative interaction between non-indigenous invasive species and Hippocampus hippocampus.

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help		Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help		No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Introduction of microbial pathogens [Show more]

Introduction of microbial pathogens

Benchmark. The introduction of relevant microbial pathogens or metazoan disease vectors to an area where they are currently not present (e.g. Martelia refringens and Bonamia, Avian influenza virus, viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia virus). Further detail

Evidence

Diseases in Hippocampus sp. are associated with breeding, captivity and aquaculture (Vincent & Clifton-Hadley, 1989; Koldewey & Martin-Smith, 2010; Sanaye et al., 2013). Diseases such as ectoparasites, endoparasites, exophthalmia, pouch emphysema and flesh-erosion disease are all associated with seahorses in home aquaria and are treatable or preventable (Wooten, 2004; Seahorse Savvy, 2019). Some diseases such as those caused by Vibrio sp. can be detrimental to species survival with nearly 90% mortality for captive bred Hippocampus sp. (Alcaide et al., 2001).

In captivity, seahorses are prone to gas bubble disease which can manifest itself in two forms. The first form can be caused by stress and bacteria. Visible symptoms include:

  • Gas bubbles under the skin of the tail.

  • Gas bubbles under the skin on the snout.

This type of gas bubble disease is very destructive. It may be accompanied by fungus and will eventually cause death (Garrick-Maidment, 1997). The second type of gas bubble disease may be caused by decaying embryos but there is a suggestion that high levels of dissolved oxygen from protein skimmers can cause similar problems in aquaria (Garrick-Maidment pers. comm., February 2004). An internal injury in the pouch may also be responsible (Garrick-Maidment, 1997). Gaseous build can see seahorses lose control of their buoyancy and hang upside down in the water and not be able to anchor themselves (Garrick-Maidment, 1997). This form of the disease can be cured (Garrick-Maidment, 1997).

No specific effects of microbial pathogens or parasites could be found for Hippocampus hippocampus, however, inference may be drawn from other species of Hippocampus sp. For example:

  • An abundant growth of parasitic hydroids (believed to be Serialia lendigera) on the head, neck, and anterior body parts in an aquarium held Hippocampus ramulosus was reported but no specific effects were observed (Newman, 1873; cited in Lauckner, 1984), and

  • In a New York aquarium, the ciliate Uronema marinum was found in the musculature and skin in seahorses. The ciliates also invaded the kidneys, urinary bladder, neural canal, blood vessels and gills and was highly destructive to the host's tissues, ingesting blood cells and tissue debris (Cheung et al., 1980).

Evidence of diseases in the wild is scarce. However, during census dives, divers recorded white spots on the body of Hippocampus hippocampus and recorded it as the onset of disease (Curtis et al., 2017).

Sensitivity assessment. Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘None’ to represent a potential loss of species abundance like that caused by Vibrio sp, while resilience is assessed as ‘Medium’. Hence, sensitivity is assessed as ‘Medium’ albeit with ‘Low’ confidence.

None
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Removal of target species [Show more]

Removal of target species

Benchmark. Removal of species targeted by fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

Evidence

Seahorses including Hippocampus hippocampus are targeted for trade worldwide. The main reasons for their trade are for traditional medicines and for aquariums. It is estimated that one million seahorses worldwide are taken each year for the purpose of the aquaria trade with records in 1994 suggesting that the UK imported 4000 live seahorses for distribution into aquariums (Wilson, 1995; cited in Vincent, 1996). Predictions for seahorse extraction from UK waters is said to be of increasing interest with a small but significant number of animals being taken in Weymouth Bay in Dorset commercially (price reported as £65 per fish) and a handful of animals being taken by divers and fishermen particularly around the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey (JNCC, 2002; Garrick-Maidment & Jones, 2004).

Specifically, the targeting of Hippocampus hippocampus may have detrimental impacts on population abundance and structure as they are commonly found in low densities compared to other Hippocampus sp. (Curtis & Vincent, 2005; Gristina et al., 2015). Therefore, the loss of a small proportion of the population could be enough to dislodge sexual relations and alter community structure.

Sensitivity assessment. Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘Low’. Hence, resilience is assessed as 'Medium' and sensitivity as 'Medium'.

Low
High
High
High
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Removal of non-target species [Show more]

Removal of non-target species

Benchmark. Removal of features or incidental non-targeted catch (by-catch) through targeted fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

Evidence

Individual seahorses or their habitats are reported to be damaged by trawling particularly by the prawn trawling industry and as bycatch in gillnets, beach seines and traps (Hiscock et al., 2005; Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2016; Lawson et al., 2017). The numbers of individuals taken can accumulate quickly due to industry demand and may impact population structure. For example, there may be shifts in reproduction due to pair bond disruption, imbalances in sex ratio and the removal of fertile males.

Sensitivity assessment. Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘Low’. Hence, resilience is assessed as 'Medium' and sensitivity as 'Medium'.

Low
High
Medium
Medium
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help		Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help

Importance review

Policy/legislation

DesignationSupport
Berne ConventionAppendix II
CITESAppendix B
Wildlife & Countryside ActSchedule 5, section 9
UK Biodiversity Action Plan PriorityYes
Species of principal importance (England)Yes
OSPAR Annex VYes
IUCN Red ListData Deficient (DD)
Features of Conservation Importance (England & Wales)Yes

Status

Non-native

ParameterData
NativeNative
Origin-
Date Arrived-

Importance information

Conservation. To date, few conservation strategies have been implemented for Hippocampus hippocampus. However, seahorses are listed for protection under UK statutes, EU directives and international conventions.

  • The entire genus Hippocampus was listed in Appendix II of the IUCN Red List in November 2002 but the implementation of the listing was delayed until 2004.
  • Hippocampus hippocampus was previously listed in 1996 as vulnerable (VU A2cd) under the 1994 criteria. This assessment was based on suspected past declines in occupancy, occurrence and habitat, as well as on potential levels of exploitation. The IUCN reported that there is no appropriate data on the biology and ecology, habitat, abundance or distribution of Hippocampus hippocampus. As a result, Hippocampus hippocampus has been reassessed as 'data deficient' under new criteria (Marsden et al., 2003).
  • The European Union regulate and/or monitor the use of dried and live syngnathids but without management requirements (TRAFFIC, 2002).
  • In the UK, the Seahorse Trust submitted Hippocampus hippocampus and Hippocampus guttulatus for full protection under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in February 2000 (Garrick-Maidment & Jones, 2004). This proposal is still under review and is awaiting consultation by the Government with a wide range of organisations and individuals concerned with the review process.
  • In 2002, JNCC supported this proposal and recommended that both species be given full legal protection under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

The seahorse trade. Seahorses of Hippocampus spp. are globally exploited for use as medicines, aquarium fishes, curios and even foods. The majority of seahorses go to traditional Chinese medicine and its derivatives (e.g. Japanese and Korean traditional medicines) (Vincent, 1996). Treatments including seahorses are believed to benefit a range of conditions including respiratory disorders such as asthma, sexual dysfunctions, general lethargy and pain (Lourie et al., 1999). The statistics on the seahorse trade are limited and the few that have been published suggest that the annual consumption within the Asian nations alone may amount to 45 t of dried seahorse (about 16 million individuals). The largest users appear to be the Chinese (estimated 20 t), Taiwan (11.2 t), and Hong Kong (10 t) (Vincent, 1996). These figures are underestimates as they include only the trade that passed through China, Hong Kong and Singapore. Therefore, the total global consumption of seahorses will be much greater, and as of yet, no statistics are available (Vincent, 1996). The British Isles is now being targeted for collection for the aquarium trade, with a small but significant number of animals being taken in Weymouth Bay in Dorset commercially (price reported as £65 per fish) and a handful of animals being taken by divers and fishermen, particularly around the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey (JNCC, 2002). It has been suggested that as stocks of Hippocampus hippocampus diminish in other countries and as more unusual species of seahorse are sought after, then this lucrative trade is bound to increase in UK waters, which could lead to a larger-scale fishery (JNCC, 2002).

Bibliography

  1. Alcaide, E., Gil-Sanz, C., Sanjuán, E., Esteve, D., Amaro, C. & Silveira, L., 2001. Vibrio harveyi causes disease in seahorse, Hippocampus sp. Journal of Fish Diseases, 24 (5), 311-313. DOI https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2761.2001.00297.x

  2. Anderson, P.A., 2009. The functions of sound production in the lined seahorse, Hippocampus erectus, and effects of loud ambient noise on its behavior and physiology in captive environments. Thesis, pp. Available from https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhDT.......175A

  3. Anderson, P.A., Berzins, I.K., Fogarty, F., Hamlin, H.J. & Guillette, L.J., 2011. Sound, stress, and seahorses: The consequences of a noisy environment to animal health. Aquaculture, 311 (1), 129-138. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.11.013

  4. Aurélio, M., Faleiro, F., Lopes, V.M., Pires, V., Lopes, A.R., Pimentel, M.S., Repolho, T., Baptista, M., Narciso, L. & Rosa, R., 2013. Physiological and behavioral responses of temperate seahorses (Hippocampus guttulatus) to environmental warming. Marine Biology, 160 (10), 2663-2670. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-013-2259-8

  5. Ben Amor, M.M., Ben Salem, M., Reynaud, C. & Capapé, C., 2011. Length–weight relationships in syngnathid species from Tunisian waters (central Mediterranean). Marine Biodiversity Records, 4, e44. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755267211000303

  6. Blake, R.W., 1976. On seahorse locomotion. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56, 939-949,

  7. Caldwell, I.R. & Vincent, A.C.J., 2012. Revisiting two sympatric European seahorse species: apparent decline in the absence of exploitation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22 (4), 427-435. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2238

  8. Candolin, U., Salesto, T. & Evers, M., 2007. Changed environmental conditions weaken sexual selection in sticklebacks. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20 (1), 233-239. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01207.x

  9. Carcupino, M., Baldacci, A., Mazzini, M. & Franzoi, P., 2002. Functional significance of the male brood pouch in the reproductive strategies of pipefishes and seahorses: a morphological and ultrastructural comparative study in three anatomically different pouches. Journal of Fish Biology, 61, 1465-1480.

  10. Cheung, P.J., Nigrelli, R.F. & Ruggieri, G.D., 1980. Studies on the morphology of Uronema marinum Dujardin (ciliatea: Uronematidae) with a description of the histpathology of the infection of marine fishes. Journal of Fish Disease, 3, 295-303.

  11. Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., West, K., Boiro, I.S. & Vincent, A.C.J., 2016. An assessment of West African seahorses in fisheries catch and trade. Journal of Fish Biology, 88 (2), 751-759. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12818

  12. Claassens, L. & Hodgson, A.N., 2018. Gaining insights into in situ behaviour of an endangered seahorse using action cameras. Journal of Zoology, 304 (2), 98-108. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12509

  13. Collins, K.J., Suonpää, A.M. & Mallinson, J.J., 2010. The impacts of anchoring and mooring in seagrass, Studland Bay, Dorset, UK. Underwater Technology, 29 (3), 117-123. DOI https://doi.org/10.3723/ut.29.117

  14. Correia, M., Palma, J., Koldewey, H. & Andrade, J.P., 2013. Can artificial holdfast units work as a habitat restoration tool for long-snouted seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier)? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 448, 258-264. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.08.001

  15. Curtis, J.M.R. & Vincent, A.C.J., 2005. Distribution of sympatric seahorse species along a gradient of habitat complexity in a seagrass dominated community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 291, 81-91. DOI https://doi.org/10.3354/meps291081

  16. Curtis, J.M.R., Santos, S.V., Nadeau, J.L., Gunn, B., Bigney Wilner, K., Balasubramanian, H., Overington, S., Lesage, C.-M., D'entremont, J. & Wieckowski, K., 2017. Life history and ecology of the elusive European short-snouted seahorse Hippocampus hippocampus. Journal of Fish Biology, 91 (6), 1603-1622. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13473

  17. Davison, D.M. & Hughes, D.J., 1998. Zostera biotopes: An overview of dynamics and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs, Vol. 1. Scottish Association for Marine Science, (UK Marine SACs Project)., Scottish Association for Marine Science, (UK Marine SACs Project),Vol. 1. Available from: http://ukmpa.marinebiodiversity.org/uk_sacs/pdfs/zostera.pdf

  18. De Brauwer, M., Gordon, L.M., Shalders, T.C., Saunders, B.J., Archer, M., Harvey, E.S., Collin, S.P., Partridge, J.C. & McIlwain, J.L., 2019. Behavioural and pathomorphological impacts of flash photography on benthic fishes. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 748. DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37356-2

  19. Diaz, R.J. & Rosenberg, R., 1995. Marine benthic hypoxia: a review of its ecological effects and the behavioural responses of benthic macrofauna. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 33, 245-303.

  20. Dipper, F., 2001. British sea fishes (2nd edn). Teddington: Underwater World Publications Ltd.

  21. Felício, A.K.C., Rosa, I.L., Souto, A. & Freitas, R.H.A., 2006. Feeding behavior of the longsnout seahorse Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933. Journal of Ethology, 24 (3), 219-225. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-005-0189-8

  22. FishBase, 2000. FishBase. A global information system on fishes. [On-line] http://www.fishbase.org, 2001-05-03

  23. Fonseca, M.S., 1992. Restoring seagrass systems in the United States. In Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment (ed. G.W. Thayer), pp. 79 -110. Maryland: Maryland Sea Grant College.

  24. Froese, R. & Pauly, D., 2004. Fishbase. A global information system on fishes. [On-line] http://www.fishbase.org, 2004-10-18

  25. Garrick-Maidment, N. & Jones, L., 2004. British seahorse survey report 2004. Report by the Seahorse Trust, Devon, England.

  26. Garrick-Maidment, N. 2020. Seahorse numbers from 1821 to 2019 from the British Seahorse Survey (BSS) for Hippocampus hippocampus and Hippocampus guttulatus and their context to global warming. Report by the Seahorse Trust, Devon, England.

  27. Garrick-Maidment, N., 1997. Seahorses conservation and care. England: Kingdom Books.

  28. Garrick-Maidment, N., 1998. A note on the status of indigenous species of seahorse. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 78, 691-692.

  29. Garrick-Maidment, N., 2007. British seahorse survey report 2007. Seahorse Trust, Devon, England. https://www.theseahorsetrust.org/pdf/British_Seahorse_Survey_Report_2007.pdf

  30. Giesen, W.B.J.T., Katwijk van, M.M., Hartog den, C., 1990a. Eelgrass condition and turbidity in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Aquatic Botany, 37, 71-95. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(90)90065-S

  31. Gristina, M., Cardone, F., Carlucci, R., Castellano, L., Passarelli, S. & Corriero, G., 2015. Abundance, distribution and habitat preference of Hippocampus guttulatus and Hippocampus hippocampus in a semi-enclosed central Mediterranean marine area. Marine Ecology, 36 (1), 57-66. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12116

  32. Harasti, D. & Gladstone, W., 2013. Does underwater flash photography affect the behaviour, movement and site persistence of seahorses? Journal of Fish Biology, 83 (5), 1344-1353. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12237

  33. Hayward, P., Nelson-Smith, T. & Shields, C. 1996. Collins pocket guide. Sea shore of Britain and northern Europe. London: HarperCollins.

  34. Hiscock, K., Sewell, J. & Oakley, J., 2005. Marine Health Check 2005. A report to guage the health of the UK’s sea-life. Godalming, WWF-UK.

  35. Howard, R. & Koehn, J., 1985. Population dynamics and feeding ecology of pipefish (Syngnathidae) associated with eelgrass beds of Western Port, Victoria. Marine and Freshwater Research, 36 (3), 361-370. DOI https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9850361

  36. Howson, C.M. & Picton, B.E., 1997. The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. Belfast: Ulster Museum. [Ulster Museum publication, no. 276.]

  37. James, P. & Heck, K.,1994. The effects of habitat complexity and light intensity on ambush predation within a simulated seagrass habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 176 (2), 187-200. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(94)90184-8

  38. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 2002. Fourth Quinquennial Review of Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. [On-line] http://www.jncc.gov.uk/species/4qreview/4qr.pdf, 2004-02-24

  39. Kitsos, M. S., Tzomos, T., Anagnostopoulou, L. & Koukouras, A., 2008. Diet composition of the seahorses, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier, 1829 and Hippocampus hippocampus (L., 1758) (Teleostei, Syngnathidae) in the Aegean Sea. Journal of Fish Biology, 72 (6), 1259-1267. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01789.x

  40. Koldewey, H. & Martin-Smith, K., 2010. A global review of seahorse aquaculture. Aquaculture, 302, 131-152. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2009.11.010

  41. Lauckner, G., 1984. Diseases caused by Metazoans: Cnidarians. In Diseases of Marine Animals. Vol. IV, Part 1. Introduction, Pisces (ed. O. Kinne), pp 180-192. Hamburg: Biologische Anstalt Helgoland.

  42. Lawson, J.M., Foster, S.J. & Vincent, A.C.J., 2017. Low Bycatch Rates Add Up to Big Numbers for a Genus of Small Fishes. Fisheries, 42 (1), 19-33. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1259944

  43. Lin, Q., Lin, J. & Huang, L., 2009. Effects of substrate color, light intensity and temperature on survival and skin color change of juvenile seahorses, Hippocampus erectus Perry, 1810. Aquaculture, 298 (1), 157-161. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.10.015

  44. Lourie S. A., 2016. Seahorses: a life-size guide to every species. Ivy Press, UK. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226338552.001.0001 

  45. Lourie, S.A., Vincent, A.C.J. & Hall, H.J., 1999. Seahorses: an identification guide to the world's species and their conservation. London: Project Seahorse.

  46. Marsden, A.D., Foster, S.J. & Vincent, A.C.J., 2003. Hippocampus hippocampus,[On-line] www.redlist.org, 2004-02-18

  47. Ochieng, C.A., Short, F.T. & Walker, D.I., 2010. Photosynthetic and morphological responses of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) to a gradient of light conditions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 382 (2), 117-124. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2009.11.007

  48. Palma, J., Magalhães, M., Correia, M. & Andrade, J.P., 2019. Effects of anthropogenic noise as a source of acoustic stress in wild populations of Hippocampus guttulatus in the Ria Formosa, south Portugal. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29 (5), 751-759. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3056

  49. Pinnegar, J.K., StelzenmÜller, V., Van Der KooiJ, J., Engelhard, G.H., Garrick-Maidment, N. and Righton, D.A., 2008. Occurrence of the short-snouted seahorse Hippocampus hippocampus in the central North Sea. Cybium, 32 (4), 343-346.

  50. Planas, M., Quintas, P. & Chamorro, A., 2013. Maturation of Hippocampus guttulatus and Hippocampus hippocampus females by manipulation of temperature and photoperiod regimes. Aquaculture, 388-391, 147-152. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.01.030

  51. Qin, G., Zhang, Y., Huang, L. & Lin, Q., 2014. Effects of water current on swimming performance, ventilation frequency, and feeding behavior of young seahorses (Hippocampus erectus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 461, 337-343. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2014.09.001

  52. Sanaye, S., Pawar, H.B., Murugan, A., Sreepada, R., Singh, T. & Ansari, Z.A., 2013. Diseases and parasites in cultured yellow seahorse, Hippocampus kuda (Bleeker, 1852).

  53. Seahorse Savvy. 2019. Understanding Gas Bubble Disease in Seahorses-How to Treat and Prevent [Online]. Seahorse Savvy. [cited 10/06/2021]. Available from: https://seahorsesavvy.com/blogs/news/understanding-causes-of-gas-bubble-disease-how-to-treat-and-prevent

  54. Seehausen, O., Alphen, J.J.M.v. & Witte, F., 1997. Cichlid Fish Diversity Threatened by Eutrophication That Curbs Sexual Selection. Science, 277 (5333), 1808-1811. DOI https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5333.1808

  55. Sheng, J., Lin, Q., Chen, Q., Gao, Y., Shen, L. & Lu, J., 2006. Effects of food, temperature and light intensity on the feeding behavior of three-spot juvenile seahorses, Hippocampus trimaculatus Leach. Aquaculture, 256 (1), 596-607. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.02.026

  56. Spinelli, A., Capillo, G., Faggio, C., Vitale, D. & Spanò, N., 2020. Returning of Hippocampus hippocampus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syngnathidae) in the Faro Lake – oriented Natural Reserve of Capo Peloro, Italy. Natural Product Research, 34 (4), 595-598. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2018.1490909

  57. Tipton, K. and Bell, S.S., 1988. Foraging patterns of two syngnathid fishes: importance of harpacticoid copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 47, 31-43.

  58. TRAFFIC International, 2002. TRAFFIC and Project Seahorse briefing document, October 2002, [On-line] http://www.traffic.org/cop12/seahorses.pdf, 2004-02-23

  59. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. Trade in seahorses and other members of the family Syngnathidae. [On-line] http://international.fws.gov/cop11/seahorse.html, 2004-02-23

  60. Vincent, A., Ahnesjö, I., Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G., 1992. Pipefishes and Seahorses: are they all sex role reversed? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 237-241.

  61. Vincent, A.C. & Clifton-Hadley, R.S., 1989. Parasitic infection of the seahorse (Hippocampus erectus)--a case report. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 25 (3), 404-406. DOI https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-25.3.404

  62. Vincent, A.C.J. & Sadler L.M., 1995. Faithful pair bonds in wild seahorses, Hippocampus whitei. Animal Behaviour, 50,1557-1569.

  63. Vincent, A.C.J., 1994a. Seahorses exhibit conventional sex ratios in mating competition, despite male pregnancy. Behaviour, 128, 135-151.

  64. Vincent, A.C.J., 1994b. Operational sex ratios in seahorses. Behaviour, 128, 152-167.

  65. Vincent, A.C.J., 1996. The International trade in seahorses. Cambridge: TRAFFIC International

  66. Voichick, N., Topping, D.J. & Griffiths, R.E., 2018. Technical note: False low turbidity readings from optical probes during high suspended-sediment concentrations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22 (3), 1767-1773. DOI https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1767-2018

  67. Wheeler, A., 1969. The fishes of the British Isles and north-west Europe. London: Macmillan.

  68. Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.-L., Hureau, J.-C., Nielson, J. & Tortonese, E. 1986. Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Vol. I, II & III. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

  69. Wong, J.M. & Benzie, J.A.H., 2003. The effects of temperature, Artemia enrichment, stocking density and light on the growth of juvenile seahorses, Hippocampus whitei (Bleeker, 1855), from Australia. Aquaculture, 228 (1), 107-121. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00320-X

  70. Woodall, L. 2017. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T10069A67618259. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T10069A67618259.en

  71. Woodall, L.C., Otero-Ferrer, F., Correia, M., Curtis, J.M.R., Garrick-Maidment, N., Shaw, P.W. & Koldewey, H.J., 2018. A synthesis of European seahorse taxonomy, population structure, and habitat use as a basis for assessment, monitoring and conservation. Marine Biology, 165 (1), 19-19. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-017-3274-y

  72. Wooten, W. 2004. A Guide To The Most Common Seahorse Diseases and Medical Conditions [Online]. Seahorse.org. [cited 10/06/2021]. Available from: http://www.seahorse.org/library/articles/diseaseguide.shtml

Datasets

  1. Kent & Medway Biological Records Centre, 2017. Fish: Records for Kent. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/kd1utk accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-09-27.

  2. National Trust, 2017. National Trust Species Records. Occurrence dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/opc6g1 accessed via GBIF.org on 2018-10-01.

  3. NBN (National Biodiversity Network) Atlas. Available from: https://www.nbnatlas.org.

  4. OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System),  2024. Global map of species distribution using gridded data. Available from: Ocean Biogeographic Information System. www.iobis.org. Accessed: 2024-11-21

Citation

This review can be cited as:

Nash, R.A.,, Sabatini, M. & Ballerstedt, S. 2021. Hippocampus hippocampus Short snouted seahorse. In Tyler-Walters H. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 21-11-2024]. Available from: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1788

 Download PDF version

Last Updated: 16/06/2021

  1. sea horse