DOCSLIB.ORG

Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida estuaries T.C. MacDonald; E. Weather; P.W., Stevens; R.H. McMichael, Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 Prepared for Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 200W Sarasota, Florida 34236 Draft, July 21, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. i LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ vii SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Sampling Design ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Gear Specifications and Deployment ....................................................................................................... 6 Sample Processing ................................................................................................................................... 7 Nekton Community Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9 Bray-Curtis similarity calculation ........................................................................................................ 10 Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) and Similarity Percentage Analysis (SIMPER) ............ 10 Mercury Content Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 13 RESULTS and DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 15 Physiochemical conditions ...................................................................................................................... 15 Composition of overall nekton community .............................................................................................. 20 Shallow water habitats sampled with 21.3-m seines .......................................................................... 21 Nearshore habitats sampled with 183-m seines ................................................................................ 26 Nearshore habitats sampled with 183-m seines ................................................................................ 26 Deeper-water habitats sampled with 6.1-m trawls ............................................................................. 29 Species Profiles ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum ........................................................................................... 35 Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus ........................................................................................................... 39 Ladyfish, Elops saurus ....................................................................................................................... 41 Bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli ............................................................................................................ 43 Common snook, Centropomus undecimalis ...................................................................................... 45 Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis ............................................................................................................ 47 Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus ......................................................................................................... 49 Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides ............................................................................................................. 53 Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus ..................................................................................... 59 Spotted Seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus ............................................................................................ 63 Striped mullet, Mugil cephalus ........................................................................................................... 65 Nekton Community Structure .................................................................................................................. 69 Intrabay Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 69 Interbay Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 76 i Mercury Content Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 85 Ladyfish, Elops saurus ....................................................................................................................... 87 Common Snook, Centropomus undecimalis ...................................................................................... 89 Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus ..................................................................................... 91 Gray Snapper, Lutjanus griseus ......................................................................................................... 93 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 95 Physiochemical conditions ...................................................................................................................... 95 Composition of overall nekton community .............................................................................................. 95 Nekton Community Structure .................................................................................................................. 96 Mercury Content Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 97 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................................. 99 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 109 Appendix A. Animals designated as Selected Taxa because of their commercial or recreational importance. ........................................................................................................................................... 111 Appendix B. Summary of species collected, by sampling event (bi-monthly), during Sarasota Bay stratified-random sampling, June 2009 to April 2010 ........................................................................... 113 Appendix C. Summary of species collected, by gear and stratum, during Sarasota Bay stratified- random sampling, June 2009 to April 2010. ......................................................................................... 119 Appendix D. Summary of species collected, by embayment, during Sarasota Bay stratified-random sampling, June 2009 to April 2010. ...................................................................................................... 125 Appendix E. Catch overview plots for dominant taxa (≥40 animals collected and ≥10 occurrence in a gear type) collected with 21.3-m seines. .............................................................................................. 131 Appendix F. Species overview plots for dominant taxa (≥40 animals collected and ≥10 occurrence in a gear type) collected with183-m seines. ................................................................................................ 155 Appendix G. Species overview plots for dominant taxa (≥40 animals collected and ≥10 occurrence in a gear type) collected with 6.1-m trawls. ................................................................................................. 173 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.Sampling sites by gear, and zone boundaries for Sarasota Bay .................................................... 5 Figure 2.Sampling areas and sample sites along Florida‘s southwest coast. ............................................ 12 Figure 3. Temperature and total rainfall during the study period (May 2009 to April 2010) and during a longer-term reference period (January 1990 to April 2010) ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries
    Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries T.C. MacDonald; E. Weather; R.F. Jones; R.H. McMichael, Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 Prepared for Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 200W Sarasota, Florida 34236 June 4, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ vii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Ecology of Dolphinfish in the Western Gulf of Mexico
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:839–853, 2016 © American Fisheries Society 2016 ISSN: 0002-8487 print / 1548-8659 online DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2016.1159614 ARTICLE Feeding Ecology of Dolphinfish in the Western Gulf of Mexico Rachel A. Brewton Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412, USA Matthew J. Ajemian Florida Atlantic University, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, 5600 U.S. Highway 1 North, Fort Pierce, Florida 34946, USA Peter C. Young and Gregory W. Stunz* Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412, USA Abstract Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus support important commercial and recreational fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Understanding the feeding ecology of this economically important pelagic fish is key to its sustainable management; however, dietary data from this region are sparse. We conducted a comprehensive diet study to develop new trophic baselines and investigate potential ontogenetic and sex-related shifts in Dolphinfish feeding ecology. The stomach contents of 357 Dolphinfish (27.6–148.5 cm TL) were visually examined from fishery-dependent sources off Port Aransas, Texas. Our analyses revealed a highly piscivorous diet with Actinopterygii comprising 70.44% of the stomach contents by number. The most commonly observed taxa were carangid (12.45%N) and tetraodontiform (12.08%N; families Balistidae, Monacanthidae, and Tetraodontidae) fishes. Malacostracans were also common (24.83%N), mostly in the form of pelagic megalopae. Other prey categories included squid and the critically endangered Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles Lepidochelys kempii.
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update
    Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update Submitted to: Florida Department of Transportation District One Scenic Highways Coordinator 1840 61st St. Sarasota, Florida 34243 941.359.7311 Submitted by: The Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Entity Seth Kohn, Chairperson Molly McCartney, Vice Chairperson ‘c/o City of Bradenton 1411 9th Street West Bradenton, FL 34205 941.708.6300 Prepared by: Keep Manatee Beautiful, Inc. P.O. Box 14426 Bradenton, Florida 34280 941.795-8272 July 2009 Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................... 1 Corridor Management Entity Member List.......................................................................... 2 Bylaws .................................................................................. 3 Agreements .......................................................................... 9 Corridor Conditions ....................................................................... 11 Corridor Vision .............................................................................. 16 Goals, Objectives and Strategies.................................................. 17 Protection Techniques .................................................................. 22 The Corridor Story.......................................................................... 22 Community Participation Program ................................................ 23 Local Support ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rob Patten: Creating a Legacy for Coastal Island Sanctuaries
    SUMMER 2011 2011 Audubon Assembly: Take Action for Florida’s Special Places October 14-15 Connect to Florida’s Special Places Guarding the Everglades Treasure 2011 Florida Audubon Society John Elting, Chairman, Leadership Florida Audubon Society Eric Draper Executive Director, Audubon of Florida President, Florida Audubon Our April board of directors meeting was a pivotal point for Florida Audubon Society (FAS). It was at that moment in time, surrounded by a chorus of birds at the Chinsegut Nature Center near Board of Directors FAS-owned Ahhochee Hill, that I think we all realized how far we had come this fiscal year. Our John W. Elting, Chairman Executive Director Eric Draper, our committed board and tireless staff had a lot to celebrate. Joe Ambrozy, Vice Chairman Sheri Ford Lewin, Board Secretary Even during tough economic times, we were ending the year in a positive financial position, Doug Santoni, Treasurer something other environmental groups are struggling with this year. We have achieved 100 per- Sandy Batchelor, Esq. cent board giving, both financially and in terms of gifts of time and talent. Our marketing efforts, Jim Brady particularly the expanded focus on social media, have resulted in a strong online community that Henry Dean, Esq. helped protect Florida’s state parks on three different occasions this year. Improved outreach and John Flanigan, Esq. regional events are building engagement in Audubon throughout Florida. The board’s science Charles Geanangel committee is taking our applied science work to new levels including accelerated involvement John Hood of citizen scientists. Lastly, we are beginning to work at the local, state and national level as One Reid Hughes Audubon.
    [Show full text]
  • Currently the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
    CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES IN FLORIDA Updated, June 2009 BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE OF FLORIDA Foreword This report provides an inventory of Florida's erosion problem areas fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, Straits of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and the roughly seventy coastal barrier tidal inlets. The erosion problem areas are classified as either critical or noncritical and county maps and tables are provided to depict the areas designated critically and noncritically eroded. This report is periodically updated to include additions and deletions. A county index is provided on page 13, which includes the date of the last revision. All information is provided for planning purposes only and the user is cautioned to obtain the most recent erosion areas listing available. This report is also available on the following web site: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/uublications/tech-rut.htm APPROVED BY Michael R. Barnett, P.E., Bureau Chief Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems June, 2009 Introduction In 1986, pursuant to Sections 161.101 and 161.161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (now the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems) was charged with the responsibility to identify those beaches of the state which are critically eroding and to develop and maintain a comprehensive long-term management plan for their restoration. In 1989, a first list of erosion areas was developed based upon an abbreviated definition of critical erosion. That list included 217.6 miles of critical erosion and another 114.8 miles of noncritical erosion statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Large-Scale Spatial and Temporal Variability of Larval Fish Assemblages in the Tropical Atlantic Ocean
    Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2019) 91(1): e20170567 (Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences) Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170567 www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal Large-Scale Spatial and Temporal Variability of Larval Fish Assemblages in the Tropical Atlantic Ocean CHRISTIANE S. DE SOUZA and PAULO O. MAFALDA JUNIOR Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Biologia, Laboratório de Plâncton, Rua Ademar de Barros, s/n, Ondina, 40210-020 Salvador, BA, Brazil Manuscript received on July 28, 2017; accepted for publication on April 30, 2018 How to cite: SOUZA CS AND JUNIOR POM. 2019. Large-Scale Spatial and Temporal Variability of Larval Fish Assemblages in the Tropical Atlantic Ocean. An Acad Bras Cienc 91: e20170567. DOI 10.1590/0001- 3765201820170567. Abstract: This study investigated the large-scale spatial and temporal variability of larval fish assemblages in the west tropical Atlantic Ocean. The sampling was performed during four expeditions. Identification resulted in 100 taxa (64 families, 19 orders and 17 suborders). During the four periods, 80% of the total larvae taken represented eight characteristics families (Scombridae, Carangidae, Paralepididae, Bothidae, Gonostomatidae, Scaridae, Gobiidae and Myctophidae). Fish larvae showed a rather heterogeneous distribution with density at each station ranging from 0.5 to 2000 larvae per 100m3. A general trend was observed, lower densities at oceanic area and higher densities in the seamounts and islands. A gradient in temperature, salinity, phytoplankton biomass, zooplankton biomass and station depth was strongly correlated with changes in ichthyoplankton structure. Myctophidae, and Paralepididae presented increased abundance at high salinities and temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COLA
    Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1: HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING ..................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION ............................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities .....................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere .............................................................................2.4.1-3 2.4.1.3 References .............................................................................2.4.1-12 2.4.1-i Revision 6 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1 LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.4.1-201 East Miami-Dade County Drainage Subbasin Areas and Outfall Structures 2.4.1-202 Summary of Data Records for Gage Stations at S-197, S-20, S-21A, and S-21 Flow Control Structures 2.4.1-203 Monthly Mean Flows at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 2.4.1-204 Monthly Mean Water Level at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 (Headwater) 2.4.1-205 Monthly Mean Flows in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 2.4.1-206 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 (Headwaters) 2.4.1-207 Monthly Mean Flows in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A 2.4.1-208 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A (Headwaters) 2.4.1-209 Monthly Mean Flows in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-210 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-211 NOAA
    [Show full text]
  • 2006-SBEP-Stateofthebay.Pdf
    he Sarasota Bay Estuary Program would like to thank the Tmany citizens, technical advisors, elected officials and government agency staff who have participated in the process of protecting and revitalizing Sarasota Bay. The work of our small team of five can realize comprehensive achievements when our efforts are supported by partner funds, agency staff and an active and committed Board of Directors. We offer special thanks to the partners to the 2004 Interlocal Agreement, which established the Program as a special district in Florida: Sarasota County, Manatee County, City of Sarasota, City of Bradenton, Town of Longboat Key, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program • State of the Bay 006 4 Preface Sarasota Bay: Our Greatest Natural Asset 6 Setting the Stage Sarasota Bay: Our Economic and Ecological Treasure 8 Executive Summary Sarasota Bay Shows Significant Improvements 10 Water Quality Nitrogen Wastewater Pollution Air Pollution Stormwater Pollution Bacteria Contamination Tributary Action Plans Red Tide 14 Hydrology Preserving Balance in the Ecosystem and Maintaining Natural Flow 16 Bay Habitat Wetlands Wetland Restoration Monitoring Wetland Restoration Projects Seagrasses Hard Bottom Habitat Oysters Artificial Reefs Monitoring Reefs 24 Public Involvement in Restoring the Bay Community Recreation, Stewardship and Citizen Action Outreach—How the Community is Involved Sarasota County Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Manatee County Rebate Program Southwest
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal
    FINAL REPORT LITTLE SARASOTA BAY CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal Zone Management Division Environmental Services Department 9250-110-RT Contract No. C82-66 Prepared by Stergios A. Dendrou Charles I. Moore Raymond Walton CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE 7630 Little River Turnpike Annandale, Virginia 22003 August 1983 Suggested reference Camp Dresser & McKee and Mote Marine Laboratory. 1983. Little Sarasota Bay circulation study. Sarasota County. Contract no C82-66. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report no 57. 175 p. Available from: Mote Marine Laboratory Library. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. LIST OF FIGURES . iii LIST OF TABLES . ix I INTRODUCTION ........................................... I-1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .......................... I-1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................... I-3 REPORT OUTLINE ......................................... I-4 II RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . II-1 III LITTLE SARASOTA BAY MODEL .............................. III-1 DYNAMIC ESTUARY MODEL .................................. III-1 MODEL THEORY ........................................... III-1 Basic Hydrodynamic Equations ...................... III-4 Numerical Solution-Stability ...................... III-5 Boundary Conditions ............................... III-6 LITTLE SARASOTA BAY GRID NETWORK ....................... III-7 Geometric Input Data .............................. III-7 IV PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ................................... IV-1 TIDES AND TIDAL PHASING ................................ IV-1 WIND
    [Show full text]
  • Of 6 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of The
    FAC 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion Effective Date: 12/20/2012 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion. (1) Estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., are in the table below. The concentration-based estuary interpretations are open water, area-wide averages. The interpretations expressed as load per million cubic meters of freshwater inflow are the total load of that nutrient to the estuary divided by the total volume of freshwater inflow to that estuary. Page 1 of 6 FAC 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion Effective Date: 12/20/2012 Estuary Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Chlorophyll a (a) Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound Annual geometric mean values not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period. Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions. 1. St.Joseph Sound 0.05 mg/L 0.66 mg/L 3.1 µg/L 2. Clearwater North 0.05 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 5.4 µg/L 3. Clearwater South 0.06 mg/L 0.58 mg/L 7.6 µg/L (b) Tampa Bay Annual totals for nutrients and annual arithmetic means for chlorophyll a, not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period. Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Caranx Latus Agassiz in Spix and Agassiz, 1831 NXL Frequent Synonyms / Misidentifications: None / Caranx Hippos (Linnaeus, 1766)
    click for previous page Perciformes: Percoidei: Carangidae 1441 Caranx latus Agassiz in Spix and Agassiz, 1831 NXL Frequent synonyms / misidentifications: None / Caranx hippos (Linnaeus, 1766). FAO names: En - Horse-eye jack; Fr - Carangue mayole; Sp - Jurel ojón. Diagnostic characters: Body elongate, deep, and moderately compressed. Eye large (diameter contained about 3.8 to 4.2 times in head length) with strong adipose eyelid.Upper jaw extending to posterior eye mar- gin.Upper jaw with an outer row of strong canines flanked by an inner band; lower jaw teeth in a single row.Gill rakers 6 or 7 upper, 16 to 18 lower. Dorsal fin with 8 spines followed by 1 spine and 19 to 22 soft rays; anal fin with 2 spines followed by 1 spine and 16 to 18 soft rays; dorsal- and anal-fin lobes elongate (dorsal lobe con- tained about 5.6 to 6.0 times in fork length); pectoral fins falcate, longer than head. Lateral line with a strong, moderately long anterior arch; straight part with 32 to 39 scutes; scales small and cycloid (smooth to touch); chest completely scaly. Bilateral paired caudal keels present. Vertebrae 10 precaudal and 14 caudal; no hyperostosis. Colour: body dark blue to bluish grey above, silvery white or golden below, with dorsal-fin lobe and sometimes posterior scutes black or dark, and no oval black spot on pectoral fins;juveniles with about 5 dark bars on body. Size: Maximum size is uncertain, at least to 80 cm total length, possibly to 16 kg; common to 50 cm fork length. All-tackle IGFA world angling record 13.38 kg.
    [Show full text]
  • Rookery at Perico Seagrass Advance Mitigation
    ROOKERY AT PERICO SEAGRASS ADVANCE MITIGATION Mitigation Establishment Criteria Report May 17, 2013 ROOKERY AT PERICO SEAGRASS ADVANCE MITIGATION Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1.1 2.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION (DIRECT IMPACTS) ................................................. 2.2 2.1 MANGROVE FOREST DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 2.2 2.2 MONITORING METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2.2 2.3 SUCCESS CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 2.4 2.4 LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................... 2.5 3.0 HABITAT CREATION MITIGATION CREDITS .............................................................. 3.5 3.1 SEAGRASS HABITAT CREATION .................................................................................... 3.5 3.1.1 Design Details ...................................................................................................... 3.5 3.1.2 Implementation Options ....................................................................................... 3.7 3.1.3 Mitigation Credit Assessment (UMAM) ...............................................................
    [Show full text]