NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-216

The Trophic Dynamics of 50 Finfish and 2 Squid Species on the Northeast US Continental Shelf

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts May 2010

Recent Issues in This Series:

197.Withdrawn from series.

198. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Jon K.T. Brodziak. December 2005. vi + 89 p., 48 figs., 5 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-103439. [Online publication only.]

199. Distribution and Abundance of Fish Eggs Collected during the GLOBEC Broad-Scale Georges Bank Surveys, 1995-1999. By John D. Sibunka, Donna L. Johnson, and Peter L. Berrien. August 2006. iv + 72 p., 28 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2008- 107379. [Online publication only.]

200. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Black Sea Bass, Centropristis striata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics (2nd ed. By Amy F. Drohan, John P. Manderson, and David B. Packer. February 2007. vi + 68 p., 33 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access No. PB2008-107378. [Online publication only.]

201. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2006. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds. Dana Belden, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Keith D. Mullin, Christopher Orphanides, Richard M. Pace III, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, and Fredrick W. Wenzel, contribs. March 2007. vi + 378 p., 92 figs, 84 tables, 5 app., index. NTIS Access No. PB2007-112570.

202. Evaluation of Northern Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Measures in the Great South Channel of Massachusetts. By RL Merrick and TVN Cole. March 2007. NTIS Access No. PB 2008-107377.

203. Essential fish habitat source document: Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, life history and habitat characteristics, 2nd edition. By LL Stehlik. December 2007. NTIS Access No. PB2008-107376.

204. An Evaluation of the Northeast Region’s Study Fleet pilot program and Electronic Logbook System: Phases I and II. By Michael C. Palmer, Susan E. Wigley, John J. Hoey, and Joan E. Palmer. December 2007. NTIS Access No PB2008-107374.

205. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2007. By GT Waring, E Josephson, CP Fairfield, and K Maze-Foley, Editors. November 2007. NTIS Access No ______.

206. Growth of Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata) in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. By Dean M. Perry, David A. Nelson, Dylan H. Redman, Stephan Metzler, and Robin Katersky. October 2007. NTIS Access No. PB2008-107374.

207. Analysis of Atlantic Sea Scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) Fishery Impacts on the North Atlantic Population of Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta). By Richard Merrick and Heather Haas. February 2008. NTIS Access No PB2008-107373.

208. Global Applications of the Large Marine Ecosystem Concept 2007-2010. By Kenneth Sherman, Marie-Chirstine Aquarone, and Sally Adams. June 2007. NTIS Access No. PB______-______.

209. Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States. By Michael R. Johnson, Christopher Boelke, Louis A. Chiarella, Peter D. Colosi, Karen Greene, Kimberly Lellis-Dibble, Heather Ludemann, Michael Ludwig, Sean McDermott, Jill Ortiz, Diane Rusanowsky, Marcy Scott, and Jeff Smith February 2008. NTIS Access No. PB______-______.

210. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2008. By GT Waring, E Josephson, CP Fairfield, and K Maze-Foley, Editors. February 2009. NTIS Access No ______.

211. Trends in Selected Northeast Region Marine Industries. By Eric M. Thunberg. July 2008. NTIS Access No.

212. Summary of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) bycatch and levels of compliance in the northeast and mid–Atlantic gillnet fisheries after the implementation of the Take Reduction Plan: 1 January 1999 – 31 May 2007. By Debra Palka, Christopher D. Orphanides, and Melissa L. Warden. August 2008. NTIS Access No.

213. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2009. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, Katherine Maze-Foley, and Patricia E. Rosel. December 2009. NTIS Access No.

214. Mortality and Serious Injury Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the United States and Canadian Eastern Seaboards, 2004-2008. By Allison H. Glass, Timothy V.N. Cole, and Mendy Garron. May 2010.NTIS Access No.

215. Atlantic Sturgeon Research Techniques. By Kimberly Damon-Randall, Russell Bohl, Stephania Bolden, Dewayne Fox, Christian Hager, Brian Hickson, Eric Hilton, Jerre Mohler, Erika Robbins, Tom Savoy, Albert Spells. May 2010. NTIS Access No.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-216

This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing. All issues employ thorough internal scientific review; some issues employ external scientific review. Reviews are transparent collegial reviews, not anonymous peer reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

The Trophic Dynamics of 50 Finfish and 2 Squid Species on the Northeast US Continental Shelf

Brian E. Smith and Jason S. Link

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center 166 Water St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Gary Locke, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Eric C. Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts

May 2010

Editorial Notes

Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-554, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed both technical and policy reviews for this report. These predissemination reviews are on file at the NEFSC Editorial Office.

Species Names: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is generally to follow the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and common names for fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans and to follow the Society for Marine Mammalogy's guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals. Exceptions to this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting in changes in the names of species.

Statistical Terms: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of statistical terms in all technical communications is generally to follow the International Standards Organization’s handbook of statistical methods.

Internet Availability: This issue of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series is being as a Web document in HTML (and thus searchable) and PDF formats and can be accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... 1 ABSTRACT ...... 2 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 Uses of the Data ...... 3 METHODS ...... 5 Databases ...... 5 Data Collection ...... 5 Prey Taxonomic Resolution ...... 6 Data Analyses: Diet Summaries and Overlap ...... 6 RESULTS ...... 7 Food Habits Database Metadata ...... 7 Prey ...... 7 Diets of Major Species Grouped by Taxonomic Classification ...... 8 Order Squaliformes ...... 8 Order Carcharhiniformes ...... 8 Order Rajiformes ...... 8 Order Clupeiformes ...... 9 Order Ophidiiformes ...... 10 Order Gadiformes ...... 10 Order Lophiiformes ...... 11 Order Scorpaeniformes ...... 11 Order Perciformes ...... 12 Order Pleuronectiformes ...... 13 Order Teuthida ...... 14 Dietary Overlap ...... 14 DISCUSSION ...... 14 Food Habits Summary ...... 14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 16 REFERENCES CITED ...... 17

1

ABSTRACT This document describes the feeding habits of 50 fish and 2 squid species inhabiting the Northeast US (NEUS) continental shelf ecosystem and provides a current context for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Food Web Dynamics Program (FWDP). These descriptions are based on the examination of over 510,000 stomachs from over 150 predators since 1973. Trophic dynamics were examined with respect to decadal, spatial, seasonal, and ontogenetic variations in feeding habits. Most species are opportunistic, generalist feeders exhibiting broad diets, but feeding patterns were identified over broad temporal and spatial scales and in relation to ontogenetic stages. Dietary overlap among numerous fish species within this ecosystem was moderate, although for the entire shelf community, diet overlap was generally low among all species, suggesting relatively minimal competition. Given the wide range of feeding habits of most species in this ecosystem, changes in prey or predator abundance are less likely to impact populations and the community compared to ecosystems with a high number of specialists. The recognition of patterns and processes in the NEUS continental shelf fish community over large temporal and spatial scales has remained a key objective for the FWDP given ongoing efforts with food habits sampling, particularly during periods of intense fishing pressure.

2

INTRODUCTION The examination of fish feeding habits across the Northeast US (NEUS) continental shelf has remained an interest to fisheries science for over a century. Since the decline of fish populations was formally acknowledged in the late 1800s, ecological interactions (e.g., fish trophic dynamics) were considered a potential cause for those declines (Baird 1873). This interest and those considerations have remained in many of the present issues facing the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS; Fogarty and Murawski 1998; Link et al. 2002b) such that trophic ecology has continued to be an important consideration. Prior to the 1960s, fish stomach sampling in conjunction with surveys (to monitor trends in NEUS shelf fish populations) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service Woods Hole Laboratory (currently NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center) explored the mechanisms behind individual species decline and their relationships to prey availability (e.g., gadids and benthic macrofauna). Ad hoc diet studies were initiated as part of a standardized bottom trawl survey to track trends in fish populations beginning in 1963, with a general emphasis on sampling commercially important groundfish. However, it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s when multispecies considerations for fish stomach sampling were first applied with a systematic sampling of food habits initiated in 1973. The inception of the Feeding Ecology Project (FEP), followed by the formation of the Food Chain Dynamics Investigation (FCDI; predecessor to the Food Web Dynamics Program [FWDP]) occurred at that time. A programmatic history of the FWDP, including descriptions of the many precursory programs leading up to its current development, was provided in Link and Almeida (2000). Here we aim to extend the documentation of fish trophic ecology for the NEUS in general and the FWDP in particular. The major objectives of this work were to describe the diets of 50 major fish and 2 squid species occurring on the NEUS continental shelf and to examine feeding trends over broad temporal (i.e., decadal and seasonal) and spatial sampling scales and ontogeny (i.e., size class). Diet overlaps among the 52 major predator species for the entire NEUS shelf were also evaluated with the Bray-Curtis similarity index. A current description of FWDP stomach sampling requests, priorities, and methodology from 2000-2008 have also been provided to update previous documentation.

Uses of the Data There have been numerous summaries of the diets of these species which use these and associated data such as for haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus (Wigley 1956), yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea (Langton 1983), and silver hake Merluccius bilinearis (Bowman 1984). More comprehensive diet summaries for various fishes and squids of this region have also been provided as single documents (e.g., Bowman 1981; Langton 1982; Bowman and Michaels 1984; Bowman et al. 2000; Link and Almeida 2000). Here we build upon these previous works and focus on a presentation of the basic diet descriptions by using the sampling factors: decade, geographic area, season, and size class. For more detailed diet analyses of many of these species, the reader is directed to the following literature: the common hake species (Order Gadiformes; Garrison and Link 2000b), flatfishes (Order Pleuronectiformes; Link et al. 2002a), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua; Link and Garrison 2002b; Smith et al. 2007), and the “lesser-appreciated” fishes (e.g., goosefish Lophius americanus; Link 2007). Additionally, the consumptive demands for many species of this shelf region have been reported, for example, six major piscivores of Georges Bank (Link and Garrison 2002a), pollock (Pollachius virens; Tyrrell

3

et al. 2007), and skates (Family Rajidae; Link and Sosebee 2008). Furthermore, fish trophic guild analysis (Garrison and Link 2000a), major feeding-reproductive patterns (Link and Burnett 2001), and the use of these fishes as “samplers” of invertebrates which are otherwise difficult to sample (Link 2006; Link and Ford 2006) have been examined. More recently the FWDP has emphasized evaluation of and explored the feasibility of incorporating ecological interactions (namely predation) directly into models to support fisheries science and management. The integration of ecological considerations into standard stock assessments and associated multispecies models is one approach to implementing ecosystem- based fisheries management (EBFM). Additions such as the predatory removal of commercially valuable forage species via a large predator complex (i.e., combined skate biomass for the NEUS continental shelf; 10-15% of total finfish biomass surveyed [Link 2007]) have shown the combined consumptive demands of seven skate species (Link and Sosebee 2008) and separately, various demersals (Overholtz and Link 2007) to be comparable or higher than the magnitude of commercial fisheries. Accordingly, predation mortality has been shown to exceed fishing mortality rates for various commercial fishes and invertebrates within this continental shelf region (e.g., age-1 and age-2 Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus; Moustahfid et al. 2009), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus; Overholtz et al. 2008), and northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis; NEFSC 2007)). Furthermore, these studies highlight the critical need to incorporate fish food habits data into fisheries models such that the miscalculation of magnitude and model uncertainty for various biological reference points and indices has been shown in a fisheries-only model (Hollowed et al. 2000; Tjelmeland and Lindstrøm 2005; Overholtz et al. 2008; Moustahfid et al. 2009). The FWDP data have also been used to initialize, parameterize, and calibrate a wide range of multispecies and ecosystem models. The expansion of traditional multispecies virtual population analysis (MSVPA; Garrison and Link 2004) has been applied to forage species population dynamics within the NEUS continental shelf community, revealing the importance of predation mortality rates which exceed 0.2 for juvenile Atlantic herring, and Atlantic mackerel (Tyrrell et al. 2008). In general, the inclusion of predation into fisheries science, albeit well- accepted conceptually for over a century, has not become operationally routine in fisheries management despite focused efforts and evidence of its appropriateness (e.g., Christensen 1996; NMFS 1999; NRC 1999; Hollowed et al. 2000; Link 2002; Tjelmeland and Lindstrøm 2005; Overholtz and Link 2007; Overholtz et al. 2008; Moustahfid et al. 2009). Further examples demonstrating the use of FWDP data in a modeling context include the development of multispecies production models (e.g., MS-PROD; Gamble and Link 2009) as extensions of the Graham-Schaefer production model (Quinn and Deriso 1999) which simulate the relative importance of predation, competition within and between functional feeding groups (see also Garrison and Link 2000a), and fisheries removals. The Energy Modeling and Analysis eXercise (EMAX) created an ecological network model (i.e., energy budget) for the entire NEUS food web (Link et al. 2006, 2008). Other ecosystem models have involved specific regions of the NEUS shelf (e.g., Gulf of Maine; Ecosystem Gulf of Maine Aggregate (ECOGOMAGG; Overholtz and Link 2009) and have included numerous ecological processes spanning multiple trophic levels (i.e., primary production to seabirds and marine mammals). In addition, models have also incorporated suites of ecological and bio-physical processes for the entire NEUS shelf though this approach can be quite exhausting given the complexity and parameterization requirements of these factors (e.g., Atlantis; Gamble et al. in prep.). These examples represent a wide range of uses of the food habits data that will continue to be implemented as we move

4 towards EBFM and the specific application of integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs; Levin et al. 2009). Ultimately, the underlying goals of the FWDP are to examine trophic interactions within the NEUS continental shelf ecosystem with an emphasis on demersal and pelagic finfish including various elasmobranchs and commercially important invertebrates. The FWDP research objectives are to quantify predation mortality relative to fishing mortality for commercially important species; model species interactions that influence the status of these stocks; relate diet variability to changes in population level processes; and advance our understanding of the NEUS continental shelf ecosystem.

METHODS Databases The food habits data maintained by the FWDP are generated from multiple sources that provide stomach content information in the form of: total and individual prey weights (0.01 g) or volumes (0.1 cm3), diet composition, prey abundance, and prey length (1.0 mm). A major source of this information is the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) standardized bottom trawl survey, and these food habits data are what we will focus upon in this document. These seasonal surveys were implemented to monitor the distribution and abundance of the fishes and invertebrates inhabiting the NEUS continental shelf ecosystem as well as to investigate biological and ecological interests (e.g., fish maturity, competition). Stomach sampling is currently a standard protocol for more than 60 species during these surveys (Appendix). Additional data sources include process-oriented cruises and cooperative projects with industry partners that address specific questions pertaining to the feeding ecology of the fishes on the continental shelf. Recent projects have focused on such topics as spatial variations in benthivorous fish diet as a function of benthic disturbance (i.e., bottom fishing and invasive benthos; Link et al. 2005; Smith 2009), predation on larval fishes (Garrison et al. 2000, 2002; Almeida et al. 1999), and localized (~800 km2) fish feeding effects for selected predators (e.g., Atlantic cod; Smith et al. 2007). The data from these studies, while an important research element in terms of fish trophic dynamics, were not included in this document.

Data Collection Food habits data have been collected from the NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras, NC (~293,000 km2 or 85,300 nm2; Figure 1). Seasonal surveys have been conducted regularly in the fall since 1963, in the spring since 1968, and less frequently in the winter and summer. Sampling has occurred south of Cape Hatteras, NC, (i.e., South Atlantic Bight) although minimally in those southern locales with regard to fish feeding ecology. Sampling locations were selected by using a stratified random design with strata defined by depth and latitude. Approximately 350-400 stations per fall and spring season were sampled in depths ranging between 8-400 m across the NEUS continental shelf. One station per approximately 690 km2 or 200 nm2 was employed such that the number of stations randomly assigned was proportional to the stratum area. A minimum of two stations were sampled per stratum to permit statistical inference. The catch was sorted by species and weighed (0.001 kg); individuals were measured (1.0 cm) and classified by sex and maturity stage, and a subset of species were sampled for food habits and age data. A detailed description of the survey design and protocols are available in Azarovitz (1981), NEFC (1988), and Reid et al. (1999).

5

Quantitative food habits sampling by the NEFSC has been conducted since 1973 to the present, and the data for the current study were restricted to this time series. From 1973-1981, stomachs were preserved and brought back to the laboratory for prey identification. Total stomach content and individual prey mass were measured to the nearest 0.01g. After 1981, food habits data were primarily collected at sea. The total volume (0.1 cm3) of stomach contents (i.e., an entire bolus) was measured and the proportion of each prey item estimated. A complete description of the history of NEFSC stomach content sampling through 2000 has been provided by Link and Almeida (2000), including conversion methods for stomach content volume (X, cm3) to mass (Y, g) using the formula: Y = a + bX with a = 0 and b = 1.1 (N = 10,806, r2 > 0.90, p = 0.0001). Although the species sampling requests for food habits have fluctuated over the 35+ year time series (Table 1), the general at-sea procedures for examining stomach content since 1981 have remained effectively the same for all sampled species. Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and silver hake were consistently the most highly sampled species for each decade (Figures 2-5). Since 1999 the emphasis has been placed not only on historically prioritized species but also has expanded to ecologically important species that appeared to be undersampled. In more recent years, the FWDP has also directed efforts to collect fewer stomachs per species to allow for an increased number of species sampled within the NEUS continental shelf ecosystem. Tables describing species, length ranges, and species priorities for collecting food habits data throughout the time series have been provided in the Appendix. Since 2004 through the present, at approximately every 25th station, stomach contents that regularly would be processed at sea were preserved and then processed in the laboratory. This was done as an additional form of data quality control.

Prey Taxonomic Resolution The taxonomic resolution of invertebrate prey species prior to 1981 was greater than that of more recent decades. To correct for possible differences in prey taxonomic resolution between laboratory and at-sea processed stomach samples, four major prey categories were established. These categories span the lowest taxonomic levels feasible (i.e., occasionally genus and species) to a more broad phylum- or class-level category (Table 2). For the diet summaries discussed in this report, the lowest appropriate taxonomic grouping category (i.e., collection category) was used to describe the diets. It was not thought that the differences in sampling protocols over time would interfere, given a broad range of taxonomic resolution.

Data Analyses: Diet Summaries and Overlap The 52 predator species selected for diet description across decadal, spatial, and seasonal scales and ontogeny were based on a minimum of 200 stomachs (Table 3). The predator species and their respective diet summaries were grouped by taxonomic order according to Nelson et al. (2004); Order Teuthida (i.e., two squid species) was placed at the end. To minimize redundancy, predators with similar feeding habits per taxonomic order were grouped when appropriate. To begin, the general feeding habits across all factors have been provided for each predator. The factors used to describe diet variability included decade: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s; geographic area: Mid-Atlantic Bight, Southern New England, Georges Bank, Gulf of Maine, and Scotian Shelf; season: fall, spring, winter, and summer; and size class: extra-small, small, medium, large, and extra-large. Size class definitions by species are listed in Table 3. For each factor considered per species, only those treatments (e.g. 1970s and 1980s) with a minimum of 200 stomachs were reported to facilitate comparisons. The prey categories shown for each

6

species-group represented approximately 85% or more of the diet by mass. The trophic guild classifications (e.g., planktivorous or benthivorous) when specified were adopted from Garrison and Link (2000a) which examined an earlier version of the Food Habits Database (FHDBS). Specific trophic guilds reported by the current study (e.g., echinoderm specialist) followed the criteria of having more than 30 – 50% of the diet by mass composed of the indicated taxon across all sampling factors. To assess dietary overlap, the Bray-Curtis index of similarity was used as a diet similarity measure whereby values ranged from 0-100% (i.e., no similarity to identical diets). Prey taxonomic resolution was limited to the analytical category (Table 2; e.g., invertebrates grouped by taxonomic order and fishes grouped by taxonomic family) with the understanding that dissimilarities among these broader taxonomic groupings were sufficient.

RESULTS Food Habits Database Metadata Currently there are over 510,000 stomach records in the FHDBS. Predator sizes range from 1 cm to over 2.4 m (Table 4). More than 150 species have been sampled, with 39 species having more than 1,000 stomachs sampled, and 52 species having more than 200 stomachs sampled. Approximately 30-40% of the stomachs examined by species were empty. The elasmobranchs were generally the largest fishes sampled and were highly piscivorous; thus, they had the largest mean total stomach contents. Some of the skates and rays were notable exceptions, feeding primarily on benthic macroinvertebrates. Other large mean total stomach contents were observed with goosefish, white hake (Urophycis tenuis), Atlantic cod, striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) which were also highly piscivorous and had large mean lengths. Planktivorous species (e.g., herrings, mackerels, and northern sand lance [Ammodytes dubious]) and to a lesser degree small benthivores (e.g., fawn cusk-eel [Lepophidium profundorum]) had the smallest total mean stomach masses, reflecting a smaller mean fish size, and small crustacean (e.g., various zooplankton and gammarids respectively) diet.

Prey There are over 630,000 individual prey records in FHDBS for the 510,000 stomachs previously described. Prey sizes range from 0.1 mm to 1 m. There are 1,376 unique prey items composing 10 major taxa: arthropods, fishes, molluscs, polychaetes, ctenophores, echinoderms, cnidarians, urochordates, chaetognaths, and bryozoans. The top 10 prey items by percent frequency of occurrence for all predators include: unidentified and miscellaneous fishes, gammarids and other amphipods, various crustacean shrimps (i.e., euphausiids, Crangon, and pandalids), Cancer crabs and other decapod crabs, polychaetes, ctenophores, bivalves, and copepods. Other major prey items include sand lance (Ammodytes sp.), cephalopods (primarily squids), mysids, and ophiuroids (Figure 6). There are a large number of empty stomachs (N = 169,774) in the database, and unidentified fishes and well-digested prey (i.e., unidentifiable animal remains) were observed most frequently, suggesting most individual prey items are difficult to identify macroscopically when highly digested.

7

Diets of Major Species Grouped by Taxonomic Classification Order Squaliformes The diet of the squalid shark spiny dogfish had a large proportion of fishes (clupeids (e.g., Atlantic herring), scombrids (e.g., Atlantic mackerel), and various other fishes including unidentified fish; Figure 7). Ctenophores, Loligo squid, and bivalves were additional prey items to note by mass. The prey composition of spiny dogfish has varied over the past 40 years and in general parallels the population dynamics of commercially important forage species (e.g., herring, Overholtz 2002; Overholtz and Friedland 2002) (Figures 8A-D). In the 1970s, squids and unidentified cephalopods (i.e., Loligo sp. and Illex sp.) composed a substantial percentage of the diet (combined by mass; ~20%) although decreased to less than 10% throughout the remaining three decades. In contrast, clupeids, including Atlantic herring, increased in the diet composition of spiny dogfish from the 1970s and 1980s (~4%) to the 1990s and 2000s (~18%). Accordingly, the unidentified fish component has remained remarkably consistent over the entire time span (~20-25%). Unidentified fishes were a large dietary component for spiny dogfish across geographic area (Figures 9A-E). Spiny dogfish diet on Georges Bank was dominated by ctenophores as well as unidentified fish with Atlantic herring and various clupeids occupying the largest percentages of identified fish. Within the Gulf of Maine, ctenophores and unidentified fish were also major prey items, but larger percentages of clupeids in comparison to Georges Bank were observed. The Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic Bight regions revealed lesser ctenophore and clupeid diet components respectively, although greater percentages of squid and unidentified cephalopods (i.e., Loligo sp. or Illex sp.), scombrids (i.e., Atlantic mackerel), and bivalves were present. Seasonal differences in diet for spiny dogfish were minor (Figures 10A-D); however, slight ontogenetic shifts in diet were suggested over the three size classes (Figures 11A-C). In general, medium and to a lesser extent small spiny dogfish ate larger proportions of ctenophores (~10-18%) in comparison with the large size class (~5%). This prey item may also contribute to increased amounts of well-digested prey for appropriate size classes given the relatively immediate gastric evacuation of ctenophores (Arai et al. 2003). Large spiny dogfish were predominantly piscivorous (e.g., clupeids, scombrids, and unidentified fishes).

Order Carcharhiniformes The two ground sharks (smooth dogfish [Mustelus canis] and Atlantic sharpnose shark [Rhizoprionodon terraenovae]) exhibited distinct diets across broad temporal and spatial scales and ontogeny. Smooth dogfish fed predominantly on benthic macroinvertebrates, with Cancer crabs (Cancer borealis and Cancer irroratus) and other decapod crabs dominating the diet throughout the four decades of sampling (Figures 12 and 13A-D). Similar diet preferences were observed over spatial area, season, and size category (large and medium categories only; Figures 14A-C, 15A-D, and 16A-B). Conversely, the Atlantic sharpnose shark was a bentho-pelagic feeder, consuming various fishes distributed throughout the bentho-pelagic environment (e.g., pleuronectids, sciaenids, and engraulids), Loligo squid, and decapod crabs (Figure 17).

Order Rajiformes The skates within the NEUS shelf system are primarily benthic invertebrate feeders, yet barndoor (Dipturus laevis) and winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) were also piscivorous. 8

Barndoor skates consume various decapods, including Cancer crabs, pandalid and Crangon shrimps, and fishes such as Atlantic herring, silver hake, and other unidentified fish species (Figure 18). Barndoor diet also remained relatively constant across spatial and seasonal scales (Figures 19A-B and 20A-B). Additionally, winter skate fed on Ammodytes sp., their presence dominating the diets of the 1970s and 1980s (Figures 21 and 22A-B). Notable increases in diet composition of polychaetes, gammarids, and bivalves were observed in the 1990s and 2000s, but the presence of Ammodytes sp. remained, albeit in lesser amounts (Figures 22C-D). The diet variability of winter skate across the four geographic regions and seasons was generally minor (Figures 23A-D, 24A-D). Nonetheless, increases in percent diet composition of gammarids for Southern New England and bivalves in the Mid-Atlantic Bight were apparent. In general, no major ontogenetic shifts in diet for winter skate were observed with most size classes consuming gammarids, polychaetes, other benthos, and small fishes (i.e., Ammodytes sp.) (Figures 25A-D). Clearnose (Raja eglanteria) and thorny skate (Amblyraja radiate) generally followed a bentho-piscivorous diet, consuming approximately equal proportions of benthic invertebrates and fish. Clearnose fed on decapod and Cancer crabs, Loligo squid, and unidentified fish (Figure 26). Although few diet differences were detected across seasons (Figure 27A-C), a slight diet shift from predominantly benthic macroinvertebrates to approximately equal proportions of invertebrate benthos, various benthic fishes, and Loligo squid occurred between medium and large size classes (Figures 28A-B). Thorny skate diet primarily consisted of polychaetes and unidentified fish including Atlantic herring (Figure 29). These major components persisted throughout the four decades of sampling with the exception of the 1970s when a substantial proportion of squid (Loligo sp., Illex sp., and unidentified cephalopods) was present (Figures 30A-D). Spatial, seasonal, and ontogenetic diet variations of thorny skate were generally minor with piscivory and invertebrate benthivory continuous throughout all factors (Figures 31A-C, 32A-C, and 33A-C). The remaining three skates—rosette (Leucoraja garmani), little (Leucoraja erinacea), and smooth (Malacoraja senta)-- are principally benthivorous. Their feeding habits consist of decapods, including Cancer crabs, Crangon and pandalid shrimps, along with polychaetes and gammarids (Figures 34, 35, and 40). Smooth skate will also feed on pelagic organisms with a diet that includes euphausiids and a small proportion of various fishes. Because of the benthivory throughout the life histories of little and smooth skates, decadal, spatial, seasonal and ontogenetic diet trends were essentially absent (Figures 36A-D, 37A-E, 38A-D, 39A-B, 41A-B, 42A-B, 43A-B).

Order Clupeiformes The clupeids (i.e., Atlantic herring, alewife [Alosa pseudoharengus], blueback herring [Alosa aestivalis], and American shad [Alosa sapidissima]) were planktivorous, feeding mostly on pelagic organisms such as copepods, euphausiids, amphipods (i.e., hyperiids and gammarids), and various shrimp-like organisms (e.g., mysids) (Figures 44, 49, 50, and 53). The common occurrence of well-digested prey (i.e., unidentifiable animal material) was also seen with these species because of difficulties in identifying small prey at sea and the rapid digestion of small individuals. The general diet of Atlantic herring remained consistent over the decadal time series, although a large proportion of amphipods and lesser amounts of mysids, various other crustaceans, Ammodytes sp., and well-digested prey were observed in the 1980s (Figure 45A). In the later decades, copepods, euphausiids, and well-digested prey were the predominant food items (Figures 45B-C). Euphausiids composed approximately 6% of the diet by mass for

9

Atlantic herring collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and Southern New England (Figures 46A- B). In contrast, individuals sampled from Georges Bank to the Scotian Shelf had approximately 18-60% euphausiids in their diet (Figures 46C-E). Furthermore, within these two southern regions, copepods were proportionally large diet components, although the presence of well- digested prey was noteworthy as well. A seasonal trend in Atlantic herring diet was observed across the NEUS continental shelf with a large proportion of euphausiids consumed in the fall, whereas the spring revealed greater amounts of copepods and well-digested prey (Figures 47A- B). Similar feeding patterns by Atlantic herring on copepods and euphausiids were seen in the winter and summer seasons respectively (Figures 47C-D). These results parallel the diets of the northern and southern regions previously described, and were believed to be an artifact of Atlantic herring’s seasonal migration patterns as demonstrated by Overholtz (2002) and Overholtz and Friedland (2002). In general, no major ontogenetic shifts were observed for Atlantic herring diet (Figures 48A-C). The differences in blueback herring and American shad diets across the geographic areas and size categories sampled were minor (Figures 51A-C, 52A-C, 54A-B, 55A-C). For both species, well-digested prey and copepods composed large proportions of the diet categories and additionally, various crustacean shrimps (e.g., euphausiids, mysids, and pandalids) in the feeding habits of American shad.

Order Ophidiiformes The benthic macroinvertebrate feeder, fawn cusk-eel, ate gammarids, polychaetes, and other small benthos, including a substantial amount of well-digested prey (Figure 56). The stomach sampling of fawn cusk-eel did not begin until after 2000; thus the ability to detect change was limited, and only minor variations in diet were observed for the geographic areas, seasons, and size categories adequately sampled (Figures 57A-B, 58A-C, and 59A-B).

Order Gadiformes The larger gadoid species-- Atlantic cod, haddock, and pollock-- have broad, extensive diets comprising benthic and pelagic prey. In general, these predators occupy three relatively distinct feeding niches with haddock’s principal prey being benthic invertebrates (i.e., ophiuroids, gammarids, and polychaetes), cod with its generalist feeding habits in between, and pollock having a more pelagic diet consisting of various fish and crustacean shrimps (i.e., silver hake, Ammodytes sp., clupeids, and euphausiids) (Figures 60, 65, and 70). The diet of haddock showed no major variations across decadal and seasonal scales, or ontogeny (Figures 61A-D, 63A-D, and 64A-C). However, diet shifts were apparent across geographic area in which haddock primarily ate ophiuroids or fish eggs in the Gulf of Maine and Scotian Shelf, a more general benthic invertebrate diet of gammarids, polychaetes, and ophiuroids on Georges Bank, and similarly amphipods and polychaetes in Southern New England (Figures 62A-D). In comparison, cod are more of a mixture of bentho-pelagic feeders, with the diet including large proportions of fish (i.e., clupeids, Ammodytes sp., silver hake, and unidentified individuals), and benthic macroinvertebrates (i.e., Cancer crabs, various crustacean shrimps, bivalves, gastropods, ophiuroids, and other benthos) in their diet (Figure 65). A general increase in clupeids (primarily Atlantic herring) was observed over the decadal time series with the percent diet composition equal to approximately 12%, 6%, 24%, and 20% from the 1970s through the 2000s (Figures 66A-D). The broad diet of cod remained relatively constant across the geographic and seasonal scales sampled although an ontogenetic shift in diet from benthivory (i.e., macroinvertebrates)

10

towards piscivory was identified throughout the size classes (Figures 67A-D, 68A-D, and 69A- D). Smaller cod appear to prefer small benthic macroinvertebrates (i.e., gammarids, shrimps, ophiuroids, and polychaetes) whereas an increase in fish particularly clupeids and silver hake made up greater proportions of medium to extra-large cod diet; a confirmed occurrence across multiple sampling scales in the northwest Atlantic Ocean (Link and Garrison 2002b; Smith et al. 2007). Similarly, the diet of pollock remained fairly constant and mainly focused on pelagic prey over the decadal, spatial, and seasonal sampling scales (Figures 71A-D, 72A-C, and 73A- C). Furthermore, a dietary shift from euphausiids and other shrimp-like crustaceans to silver hake, Ammodytes sp., and other fishes occurred throughout the general life history of pollock (i.e., medium through extra-large size classes; Figures 74A-D). The hakes within this ecosystem (offshore hake [Merluccius albidus], silver hake, white hake, red hake [Urophycis chuss], and spotted hake [Urophycis regia]) are generally piscivorous (i.e., feeding on silver hake, Atlantic herring, and unidentified fish) but also feed on pelagic invertebrates such as euphausiids and various other crustacean shrimps and squid (Figures 75, 77, 82, 87, and 92). The general diet composition of these predators experienced only minor variations over decadal, spatial, and seasonal sampling scales (Figures 76A-B, 79A-E, 80A-D, 83A-D, 84A-D, 85A-D, 88A-D, 89A-E, 90A-D, 93A-D, 94A-C, and 95A-C). Noteworthy exceptions to this include the increase in Atlantic herring and unidentified clupeids in the diet of silver hake over the decades sampled (Figures 78A-D) as well as increased piscivory across size class for those hakes with adequate sample sizes (i.e., silver hake, white hake, red hake, and spotted hake; Figures 81A-C, 86A-C, 91A-C, and 96A-B).

Order Lophiiformes Goosefish was a piscivorous specialist with various demersal fishes (e.g., pleuronectids, skates, and gadiformes), clupeids (e.g., Atlantic herring), scombrids (e.g., Atlantic mackerel), and a large proportion of unidentified individuals in the diet (Figure 97). The percent diet composition of clupeids increased over the time series (i.e., ~4% clupeid taxa combined for each decade: 1970s and 1980s; ~10-15% for each decade 1990s and 2000s; Figures 98A-D). For the other factors examined, no major shifts in feeding habits were observed as the prey categories previously described remained relatively constant (Figures 99A-D, 100A-D, and 101A-C).

Order Scorpaeniformes The two scorpaenids-- Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) and blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus)-- can be classified as shrimp-fish feeders with euphausiids, pandalids, silver hake, and various other fishes composing their diets (Figures 102 and 107). The proportions of these major prey items were variable across the broad sampling scales and ontogeny although the general diet remained consistent (Figures 103A-D, 104A-B, 108A-B, 109A-B, and 110A-B). In contrast to the fall diet of Acadian redfish dominated by various shrimps and few fishes (~80% combined shrimp taxa; ~8% combined fish taxa), larger proportions of fishes (e.g., silver hake and unidentified fish) were observed in the spring diet (~30% combined fish taxa) (Figures 105A-B). Likewise for Acadian redfish diet, a slight increase in the amount of fish was apparent from small to medium size classes (Figures 106A-B). Longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) and sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) were predominantly benthic predators. Longhorn sculpin feed on decapods, including Cancer crabs, shrimps (i.e., Crangon and pandalids), gammarids, as well as some fishes (Figure 111). In comparison, sea raven was a benthic piscivore, eating ocean pout

11

(Zoarces americanus), pleuronectiformes, silver hake, longhorn sculpin, and other gadiformes, along with some Cancer crabs (Figure 116). The general feeding patterns of these species did not vary drastically over time, space, or life history (Figures 112A-D, 113A-D, 114A-D, 115A- B, 117A-C, 118A-D, 120A-C). Nonetheless, a seasonal variation in benthic invertebrates was observed for sea raven (i.e., a greater proportion of Cancer crabs in the fall diet, and the spring, summer, and winter diets with greater proportions of various fishes as previously described; Figures 119A-D). The two Prionotus searobins (i.e., northern [Prionotus carolinus] and striped [Prionotus evolans]) were primarily benthivorous, eating decapod crabs (e.g., Cancer crabs), Crangon shrimp, polychaetes, and gammarids (Figures 121 and 125). The food habits sampling of these species was sporadic in the 1970s through the 1990s and did not become routine until the early 2000s; thus, limited feeding inferences are reported (i.e., minor feeding variations for northern searobin over geographic area, season, and size class; Figures 122A-B, 123A-C, and 124A-B). Nonetheless, the general diet of striped searobin can be distinguished from the principally macroinvertebrate diet of northern searobin by the presence of various fish species in its diet (e.g., engraulids, scup [Stenotomus chrysops], and unidentified individuals; Figure 125).

Order Perciformes Planktivorous feeding habits were predominant for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), and northern sand lance. The diet comprised copepods, euphausiids, various crustacean shrimps, and ctenophores as primary prey items for these fishes (Figures 126, 131, and 136). Similar to the diets of the clupeids sampled, well-digested prey accounted for a substantial proportion of the diet of butterfish and Atlantic mackerel because of the sampling limitations previously described and was probably one of several zooplankton or crustacean shrimp species. The diets of these predators did not vary markedly across decadal, spatial, and seasonal scales, or ontogeny (Figures 127A-C, 129A-C, 130A-C, 132A-D, 133A-C, 134A-D, 135A-B, 137A-B, 138A-C, 139A-C). In the case of Atlantic mackerel, a larger proportion of euphausiids were seen in Gulf of Maine diets in contrast to the southern regions (e.g., Mid- Atlantic Bight) which had greater amounts of copepods (Figures 128A-D). Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and to a lesser degree striped bass were piscivorous specialists with their diets composed of Atlantic herring, other clupeids, engraulids, silver hake, various other fishes, and squids (Figures 140, 145, and 150). Variations in these predators’ diets reflected prey availability and distribution across temporal and geographic scales, including fluctuations in the diet composition of Atlantic herring over the time series, spatial regions, and seasons similar to the diets of other piscivores previously described (Figures 141A-D, 142A-C, 143A-B, 146A-D, 147A-B, 148A-B, 151A-B, 152A-B, and 153A-B). In general, no major shifts in diet were observed with ontogeny for these three species except for the medium size class of striped bass which consumed benthic macroinvertebrates (i.e., bivalves, Crangon shrimp, gammarids, isopods, and polychaetes) in addition to the piscivorous diet already discussed (Figures 144A-B, 149A-C, and 154A-B). Weakfish, along with being highly piscivorous, had a relatively unique diet targeting engraulids (all engraulids combined were greater than 35% of diet by mass; Figure 145). The two sciaenids regularly sampled (i.e., Atlantic croaker [Micropogonias undulates] and spot [Leiostomus xanthurus]) were mainly benthivorous with polychaetes, bivalves, gammarids, other small benthic crustaceans, well-digested prey, and small proportions of fishes occupying their diets (Figures 155 and 158). Although recent efforts to characterize Atlantic

12

croaker and spot diet within the past decade have been attempted, generally no major trends were observed across decade and size class for Atlantic croaker (Figures 156A-B and 157A-B). Similarly, only minor dietary variations were seen for spot across decade and season (Figures 159A-B and 160A-B). The broad benthic diets of scup and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) included gammarids, polychaetes, Cancer and unidentified decapod crabs, and small fishes; the later three taxa (particularly Cancer and decapod crabs) were primarily eaten by black sea bass (Figures 161 and 166). Diet variations across decadal, spatial, and seasonal scales, and ontogeny were relatively minor given the consistently benthivorous feeding habits of these predators (Figures 162A-C, 165A-B, 167A-C, 168A-B, 169A-C, and 170A-B). However, scup diet in the fall showed approximately equal proportions of polychaetes and gammarids (~18% and ~20% respectively), whereas in the spring a minimal amount of gammarids (<2%) was found in the diet, possibly because of subtle differences in regional growth of the benthos (Figures 163A-B and 164A-C; Theroux and Wigley 1998). Ocean pout can be considered an echinoderm specialist much the same as American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides; discussed below) and to a lesser degree haddock with echinoids (e.g., sand dollars and sea urchins), ophiuroids, and asteroids being major diet components (Figure 171). Other prey taxa included Cancer crabs, gammarids, and polychaetes. The marked presence of these prey items in the diet of ocean pout remained relatively constant over the time series (Figures 172A-C). However, the amounts of these prey did vary spatially with a larger proportion of ophiuroids and lesser proportion of echinoids in ocean pout stomachs collected in the Gulf of Maine (Figures 173A-D). Few diet differences were observed across seasons; nonetheless, the percent compositions by mass of ophiuroids and echinoids were variable as fall diets had ~20% ophiuroids and ~5% echinoids, and the spring and winter diets each had less than 5% ophiuroids and greater than 40% echinoids (Figures 174A-C). Diet variability with size class was present as smaller individuals tended to consume greater amounts of smaller benthos (i.e., gammarids and other amphipods) while larger ocean pout fed primarily on echinoids and asteroids (Figures 175A-C).

Order Pleuronectiformes Flatfish diet can be categorized into one of four general feeding groups: piscivores (i.e., Atlantic halibut, summer flounder [Paralichthys dentatus], and fourspot flounder [Hippoglossina oblonga] that eat mainly fish and squids; Figures 176, 178, and 183), polychaete-gammarid predators (i.e., yellowtail flounder [Limanda ferruginea], winter flounder [Pseudopleuronectes americanus], witch flounder [Glyptocephalus cynoglossus], and Gulf Stream flounder [Citharichthys arctifrons]; Figures 188, 193, 198, and 203), shrimp-fish predator (i.e., windowpane flounder [Scophthalmus aquosus]; Figure 206), or echinoderm specialist (i.e., ophiuroids and echinoids; American plaice; Figure 211). In general, no major diet variations were exhibited across decade, spatial area, season, and size class as most flatfish diets per sampling factor did not deviate from the feeding classifications previously described (Figures 177A-B, 179A-D, 181A-C, 182A-C, 184A-D, 186A-D, 189A-D, 190A-C, 191A-D, 192A-C, 194A-D, 195A-E, 196A-D, 197A-C, 199A-C, 200A-E, 201A-D, 202A-C, 204A-B, 205A-C, 207A-D, 208A-D, 209A-D, 210A-B, 212A-D, 214A-C, and 215A-C). Noteworthy exceptions included increased percent diet compositions of cephalopods and Loligo squid within the Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic Bight regions for summer and fourspot flounders (Figures 180A-C and 185A-D respectively); a similar shift was seen between small and medium

13

fourspot flounder size classes (Figures 187A-B). A slight increase in the percent diet composition of ophiuroids (by mass) for American plaice in the Gulf of Maine was evident as shown for the other echinoderm specialists (i.e., haddock and ocean pout) (Figures 213A-C).

Order Teuthida The two squids (northern shortfin [Illex illecebrosus] and longfin inshore squid [Loligo pealeii]) had large amounts of well-digested prey in their diets which can be attributed to the high degree of prey mastication associated with these predators (Figures 216 and 221). Cannibalism, as seen by unidentified cephalopods (i.e., well-digested squid material) in the diet, along with unidentified fish were the largest dietary components. Only minor variations in feeding were observed across the broad sampling scales of decade, region, and season, and ontogenetic stages (Figures 217A-B, 218A-E, 219A-C, 220A-B, 222A-B, 223A-C, 224A-C, and 225A-B).

Dietary Overlap The average diet similarity for the 52 predators examined was generally low (Bray-Curtis Index (BCI) average = 31.5%), suggesting relatively minimal potential for competition within this NEUS shelf community (Figure 226). However, greater dietary overlap (BCI greater than 40%, occasionally BCI greater than 60%) was observed among the seven skate species (barndoor, winter, clearnose, rosette, little, smooth, and thorny skate), and additionally between skates and separate pairings with searobins, longhorn sculpin, Acadian redfish, blackbelly rosefish, scup, black sea bass, some gadiformes, and flatfish (primarily fourspot and windowpane flounders). High overlap was also seen for some but not all of the planktivorous feeders (i.e., Atlantic herring, blueback herring, and Atlantic mackerel), among the gadiformes, and between various gadiformes and longhorn sculpin, sea raven, blackbelly rosefish, and the searobins. Nonetheless, a moderate similarity in the feeding habits of benthivorous flatfish (i.e., yellowtail, winter, witch, and Gulf Stream flounders; BCI = 40-60%), and to a higher degree, the pairing of longhorn sculpin and northern searobin (BCI greater than 60%) was observed.

DISCUSSION Food Habits Summary The summary of food habits for 52 species provided here expands and updates previous diet descriptions for the major fish and squid species of the NEUS continental shelf (e.g., Sherman et al. 1978; Bowman 1981, 1984; Langton 1982, 1983; Durbin et al. 1983; Bowman and Michaels 1984; Bowman et al. 1984; Bowman et al. 2000; Link and Almeida 2000). Diet variability over decade, geographic area, season, and ontogeny for greater than 60% of the species reported here was, generally speaking, relatively minor. Major patterns in feeding habits were observed for approximately 20 predator species. For instance, the increase in diet proportion of principal pelagic species (e.g., Atlantic herring, mackerel, etc.) over the decadal time series was observed in the diets of spiny dogfish, Atlantic cod, many of the hakes (e.g., silver, white, and red hake), and other major piscivores (i.e., bluefish and goosefish). This observation most likely reflected the availability of major pelagic prey in response to variations in fishing intensity over the time series (Fogarty and Murawski 1998; Overholtz 2002; Overholtz and Friedland 2002). Spatial variations in prey availability across the broad geographic sampling scale were apparent for some fishes feeding on benthic macroinvertebrates (e.g., ophiuroids for

14

haddock, American plaice, and ocean pout) as well as pelagic crustaceans (e.g., euphausiids and copepods for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel). An increased proportion of ophiuroids was observed in the diets of haddock, ocean pout, and to a lesser extent American plaice in the Gulf of Maine than in the more southern regions of the Mid-Atlantic Bight, Southern New England, and Georges Bank; a similar result was shown by Link (2006). Atlantic herring diet revealed an equivalent latitudinal shift in major prey taxa such that euphausiid percent diet composition was markedly greater for the northern regions: Scotian Shelf, Gulf of Maine, and Georges Bank, whereas copepods and well-digested prey (primarily digested zooplankton) were the dominant prey taxa in the southern regions (i.e., Mid-Atlantic Bight and Southern New England). Similar dietary trends for these prey, albeit less dramatic, were seen with Atlantic mackerel. In general, few seasonal diet variations were identified particularly for those predators consuming pelagic taxa (namely euphausiids and various fishes) such as with Atlantic herring and Acadian redfish. Additionally, seasonal differences in feeding were suggested for ocean pout with variable proportions of echinoderm taxa (i.e., echinoids and ophiuroids), further highlighting the interplay among the broad-scale factors examined by this work. Increased piscivory with increased size was the most common ontogenetic diet shift observed. This was evident for both demersal and pelagic fishes: spiny dogfish, Atlantic cod, pollock, most hakes (i.e., silver, white, red, and spotted hake), striped bass, and Acadian redfish. Whether these fishes ate benthic macroinvertebrates or pelagic crustaceans during small or medium size classes, there was a shift to piscivory with larger size classes. The fish community of the NEUS shelf is primarily composed of generalist feeders. Given the wide range of feeding habits and generally low dietary overlap for the entire shelf community, changes in prey or predator abundance are less likely to impact populations and the community compared to ecosystems with a high number of specialists. In some limited instances there was evidence of dietary specialization (e.g., echinoderm feeders: haddock, American plaice, and ocean pout; or decapod crab feeders: smooth dogfish and black sea bass). Garrison and Link (2000a) noted the generalized feeding preferences for many major fish and squid predators of the NEUS continental shelf, grouping species into trophic guilds that accounted for ontogenetic diet shifts (i.e., crab eaters, planktivores, amphipod/shrimp eaters, shrimp/small fish eaters, benthivores, and piscivores). The diet summaries presented here support the feeding guilds proposed by Garrison and Link (2000a). Some species still remain relatively undersampled, particularly over the broad temporal, spatial, and seasonal scales examined. Sampling requests and species priorities are regularly modified as appropriate every two or three years to address modeling needs and research interests. It is difficult to predict which species of low commercial value will gain importance, yet the multispecies food habits sampling currently used has provided reasonable coverage over such variability. Nonetheless, sampling the feeding habits of the entire NEUS continental shelf fish community remains a major challenge. An important component of understanding fish community structure and function is knowledge of fish feeding ecology through a continuous diet monitoring program such as that described in this report. We assert that these data constitute the preliminary information necessary for implementing EBFM. Thus, the requisite monitoring and modeling of such ecological interactions for the NEUS continental shelf ecosystem will continue to remain a priority for the FWDP and the NEFSC in the near future.

15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the many individuals who have collected the food habits data used in this report over the 35+ years of sampling on NEFSC Bottom Trawl Surveys. We thank the previous staff of the FWDP for their efforts on the development and management of the FHDBS. We thank H. Blossom for her assistance with the production of numerous graphics throughout this document. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments.

16

REFERENCES CITED

Almeida F, Fogarty M, Grosslein M, Kaminer B, Link J, Michaels W, Roundtree R. 1999. Georges Bank predation study: report of the 1994-96 field seasons. US Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 99-06; 58 p.

Arai MN, Welch DW, Dunsmuir AL, Jacobs MC, Ladouceur AR. 2003. Digestion of pelagic Ctenophora and Cnidaria by fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:825-829.

Azarovitz TR. 1981. A brief historical review of the Woods Hole laboratory trawl survey time series. In: Doubleday WG, Rivard D, editors. Bottom trawl surveys. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:62-67.

Baird, SF. 1873. Report on the condition of the sea fisheries of the south coast of New England in 1871 and 1872. Part I. Washington, DC: US Commission of Fish and Fisheries; 852p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA 02543.

Bowman RE. 1981. Food of ten species of northwest Atlantic juvenile groundfish. Fish Bull. 79:220-226.

Bowman RE. 1984. Food of silver hake, Merluccius bilinearis. Fish. Bull. 82:21-35.

Bowman RE, Micheals WL. 1984. Food of seventeen species of northwest Atlantic fish. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-28; 183 p.

Bowman RE, Eppi R, Grosslein M. 1984. Diet and consumption of spiny dogfish in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES CM 1984/G:27; 16 p.

Bowman RE, Stillwell CE, Michaels WL, Grosslein MD. 2000. Food of northwest Atlantic Fishes and Two Common Species of Squid. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-155; 138 p.

Christensen V. 1996. Managing fisheries involving predator and prey species. Rev. Fish Bio. Fish. 6:417-442.

Durbin ER, Durbin AG, Langton RW, Bowman RE. 1983. Analysis of stomach contents of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) for the estimation of daily rations. Fish. Bull. 81:437-454.

Fogarty MJ, Murawski SA. 1998. Large-scale disturbance and the structure of marine systems: fishery impacts on Georges Bank. Ecol. Appl. 8:S6-S22.

Gamble RJ, Link JS. 2009. Analyzing the tradeoffs among ecological and fishing effects on an example fish community: a multispecies (fisheries) production model. Ecol. Model. 220:2570-2582.

17

Gamble RJ, Link JS, Fulton E. (in preparation). NEUS – ATLANTIS: Construction, calibration, and application of an ecosystem model with ecological interactions, physiographic conditions, and fleet behavior. US Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc.

Garrison LP, Link JS. 2000a. Dietary guild structure of the fish community in the northeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 202:231-240.

Garrison LP, Link JS. 2000b. Diets of five hake species in the northeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Mar. Eco. Prog. Ser. 204:243-255.

Garrison L, Link J. 2004. An expanded multispecies virtual population analysis approach (MSVPA-X) to evaluate predator-prey interactions in exploited fish ecosystems. Version 1.1, Users Manual and Model Description. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 17 April 2004. 90 p.

Garrison LP, Michaels W, Link JS, Fogarty MJ. 2000. Predation risk on larval gadids by pelagic fish in the Georges Bank ecosystem. I. Spatial overlap associated with hydrographic features. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:2455-2469.

Garrison LP, Michaels W, Link JS, Fogarty MJ. 2002. Spatial distribution and overlap between ichthyoplankton and pelagic fish and squids on the southern flank of Georges Bank. Fish. Oceanogr. 11:267-285.

Hollowed AB, Ianelli JN, Livingston PA. 2000. Including predation mortality in stock assessments: a case study for Gulf of Alaska walleye pollock. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57:279- 293.

Langton RW. 1982. Diet overlap between Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, silver hake, Merluccius bilinearis, and fifteen other northwest Atlantic finfish. Fish. Bull. 80:745-759.

Langton RW. 1983. Food of yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea (Storer), from off the northeastern United States. Fish. Bull. 81:15-22.

Levin PS, Fogarty MJ, Murawski SA, Fluharty D. 2009. Integrated ecosystem assessments: developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based management of the ocean. PLoS Biol. 7:23-28.

Link JS. 2002. Ecological considerations in fisheries management: when does it matter? Fisheries 27:10-17.

Link JS. 2006. Using fish stomachs as samplers of the benthos: integrating long-term and broad scales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 269:265-275.

Link JS. 2007. Underappreciated species in ecology: the role and dynamics of “ugly fish” in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Ecol. Appl. 17:2037-2060.

18

Link JS, Almeida FP. 2000. An overview and history of the food web dynamics program of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-159; 60p.

Link JS, Burnett J. 2001. The relationship between stomach contents and maturity state for major northwest Atlantic fishes: new paradigms? J. Fish Bio. 59:783-794.

Link JS, Ford MD. 2006. Widespread and persistent increase of Ctenophora in the continental shelf ecosystem off NE USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 320:153-159.

Link JS, Garrison LP. 2002a. Changes in piscivory associated with fishing induced changes to the finfish community on Georges Bank. Fish. Res. 55:71-86.

Link JS, Garrison LP. 2002b. The trophic ecology of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua on the northeast US continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 227:109-123.

Link JS, Sosebee K. 2008. Estimates and Implications of Skate Consumption in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Ecosystem. N. Amer. J. Fish. Man. 28:649-662.

Link J, Almeida F, Valentine P, Auster P, Reid R, Vitaliano J. 2005. The effects of area closures on Georges Bank. In: Barnes PW and Thomas JP, editors. Benthic habitats and the effects of fishing. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 41, Bethesda, MD. p. 345-369.

Link JS, Bolles K, Milliken CG. 2002a. The feeding ecology of flatfish in the northwest Atlantic. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 30:1-17.

Link JS, Garrison LP, Almeida FP. 2002b. Ecological interactions between elasmobranchs and groundfish species on the northeastern US continental shelf. I. Evaluating predation. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 22:550-562.

Link JS, Griswold CA, Methratta ET, Gunnard J, (editors.). 2006. Documentation for the Energy Modeling and Analysis eXercise (EMAX). US Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-15; 166p.

Link J, Overholtz W, O’Reilly J, Green J, Dow D, Palka D, Legault C, Vitaliano J, Guida V, Fogarty M, Brodziak J, Methratta L, Stockhausen W, Col L, Griswold C. 2008. The northeast US continental shelf Energy Modeling and Analysis exercise (EMAX): ecological network model development and basic ecosystem metrics. J. Mar. Sys. 74:453-474.

Moustahfid H, Link JS, Overholtz WJ, Tyrrell MC. 2009. The advantage of explicitly incorporating predation mortality into age-structured stock assessment models: an application for Atlantic mackerel. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66:445-454.

NEFC (Northeast Fisheries Center). 1988. An evaluation of the bottom trawl survey program of the Northeast Fisheries Center. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-52; 83 p.

19

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2007. 45th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (45th SAW): 45th SAW assessment report. US Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 07-16; 370p.

Nelson JS, Crossman EJ, Espinosa-Pérez, Findley LT, Gilbert CR, Lea RN, Williams JD. 2004. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 6th ed. Bethesda (MD): American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management. A report to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel. US Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD.

NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Overholtz WJ. 2002. The Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus): spatial pattern analysis of the collapse and recovery of a large marine fish complex. Fish. Res. 57:237-254.

Overholtz WJ, Friedland KD. 2002. Recovery of the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) complex: perspectives based on bottom trawl survey data. Fish. Bull. 100:593-608.

Overholtz WJ, Jacobson LD, Link JS. 2008. An ecosystem approach for assessment advice and biological reference points for the Gulf of Maine – Georges Bank herring complex. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 28:247-257.

Overholtz WJ, Link JS. 2007. Consumption impacts by marine mammals, fish, and seabirds on the Gulf of Maine – Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) complex during the years 1977 – 2002. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64:83-96.

Overholtz WJ, Link JS. 2009. A simulation model to explore the response of the Gulf of Maine food web to large-scale environmental and ecological changes. Ecol. Model. 220:2491- 2502.

Quinn TJ, Deriso RB. 1999. Quantitative fish dynamics. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

Reid RN, Almeida FP, Zetlin CA. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: fishery- independent surveys, data sources, and methods. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-122; 39.

Sherman K, Cohen E, Sissenwine M, Grosslein M, Langton R, Greene J. 1978. Food requirements of fish stocks of the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and adjacent waters. ICES CM 1978/Gen:8; 14 p.

20

Smith BE. 2009. The effects of bottom fishing on the benthic macrofauna, demersal fishes, and fish feeding habits of Georges Bank (M.Sc Thesis). Kingston, RI. University of Rhode Island; 237 p.

Smith BE, Ligenza TJ, Almeida FP, Link JS. 2007. The trophic ecology of Atlantic cod: insights from tri-monthly, localized scales of sampling. J. Fish Biol. 71:749-762.

Theroux RB, Wigley RL. 1998. Quantitative composition and distribution of the macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the continental shelf ecosystems of the northeastern United States. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 140; 240 p.

Tjelmeland S, Lindstrøm U. 2005. An ecosystem element added to the assessment of Norwegian spring-spawning herring: implementing predation by minke whales. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62:285-294.

Tyrrell MC, Link JS, Moustahfid H, Overholtz WJ. 2008. Evaluating the effect of predation mortality on forage species population dynamics in the northwest US continental shelf ecosystem using multispecies virtual population analysis. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65:1689- 1700.

Tyrrell MC, Link JS, Moustahfid H, Smith BE. 2007. The dynamic role of pollock (Pollachius virens) as a predator in the northeast US continental shelf ecosystem: a multi-decadal perspective. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 38:53-65.

Wigley RL. 1956. Food habits of Georges Bank haddock. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 165; 26 p.

21

TABLES

Table 1a. Stomach sampling requests used by the NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey during 1973-86 (Sp = spring; Fa = fall; 1 = priority species; 2 = secondary species collected as time allowed).

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 19801981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Common Name Scientific Name Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus ------22222222------2222 Argentines Argentinidae ------22222222------Bass, Black sea Centropristis striata ------11111111------Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis ------22222222------2222 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix ------22222222------2222 Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 1111111122222222------Cod, Atlantic Gadus morhua 1111111111111111111111111111 Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus ------22222222------Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus ------22222222------Cusk Brosme brosme ------22222222------Cusk-eel, Fawn Lepophidium profundorum ------22222222------Dogfish, Smooth Mustelus canis ------11111111------2222 Dogfish, Spiny Squalus acanthias ------11111111111111111111 Dory, Buckler Zenopsis conchifera ------22222222------Eel, American Anguilla rostrata ------22222222------Eel, Conger Conger oceanicus ------22222222------Flounder, American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides 1111111122222222------Flounder, Fourspot Hippoglossina oblonga 1111111122222222------2222 Flounder, Gulf Stream Citharichthys arctifrons ------22222222------Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus ------22222222------2222 Flounder, Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus ------11111111------2222 Flounder, Winter Pseudopleuronectes americanus ------1111111111111111---- Flounder, Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 1111111122222222------Flounder, Yellowtail Limanda ferruginea 11111111------11111111---- Fourbeard Rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius ------Goosefish Lophius americanus ------11111111111111112222 Grenadier Macrouridae ------22222222------Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 111111111111111111111111---- Hake, Longfin Phycis chesteri ------22222222------Hake, Offshore Merluccius albidus ------22222222------Hake, Red Urophycis chuss 1111111111111111111111111111 Hake, Silver Merluccius bilinearis 1111111111111111111111111111 Hake, Spotted Urophycis regia 11111111------2222 Hake, White Urophycis tenuis 1111111122222222111111111111 Halibut, Atlantic Hippoglossus hippoglossus ------22222222------2222 Herring, Atlantic Clupea harengus ------11111111111111111111 Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis ------Herring, Round Etrumeus teres ------22222222------Kingfish, Northern Menticirrhus saxatilis ------22222222------Kingfish, Southern Menticirrhus americanus ------22222222------Lanternfish Myctophidae ------Mackerel, Atlantic Scomber scombrus ------11111111111111111111 Mackerel, Snake Gempylus serpens ------22222222------Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus ------Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina ------22222222------Ocean Pout Zoarces americanus 11111111------Pollock Pollachius virens 11111111------111111111111 Rays Myliobatiformes ------22222222------Table 1a. (Cont.)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 19801981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Common Name Scientific Name Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Redfish, Acadian Sebastes fasciatus 1 111111111111111------2222 Rosefish, Blackbelly Helicolenus dactylopterus ------Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar ------Sand Lance, Northern Ammodytes dubius ------22222222------Sculpin, Longhorn Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus 1 1111111------2222 Scup Stenotomus chrysops 1 111111122222222------2222 Sea Raven Hemitripterus americanus ------22222222------2222 Searobin, Armored Peristedion miniatum ------22222222------Searobin, Northern Prionotus carolinus ------22222222------Searobin, Striped Prionotus evolans ------22222222------Shad, American Alosa sapidissima ------22222222------Shad, Hickory Alosa mediocris ------Sharks Elasmobranchii ------22222222------Skate, Barndoor Dipturus laevis ------Skate, Clearnose Raja eglanteria ------Skate, Little Leucoraja erinacea ------2222 Skate, Rosette Leucoraja garmani ------Skate, Smooth Malacoraja senta ------Skate, Thorny Amblyraja radiata ------22222222------2222 Skate, Winter Leucoraja ocellata ------11111111------2222 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ------22222222------Squid, Northern Shortfin Illex illecebrosus ------11111111------Squid, Longfin Inshore Loligo pealeii ------11111111------Tautog Tautoga onitis ------Tilefish Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps ------22222222------Weakfish Cynoscion regalis ------22222222------2222 Wolffish, Atlantic Anarhichas lupus ------22222222------Wrymouth Cryptacanthodes maculatus ------22222222------Table 1b. Stomach sampling requests used by the NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey during 1987-2000 (Sp = spring; Fa = fall; 1 = priority species; 2 = secondary species collected as time allowed).

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Common Name Scientific Name Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 2222222222------Argentines Argentinidae ------Bass, Black sea Centropristis striata ------2222 Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis 2222222222222222222222222222 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 2222222222222222222222222222 Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus ------2222 Cod, Atlantic Gadus morhua 1111111111111111111111112222 Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus ------Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus ------2222 Cusk Brosme brosme ------2222 Cusk-eel, Fawn Lepophidium profundorum ------2222 Dogfish, Smooth Mustelus canis 2222222222222222222222222222 Dogfish, Spiny Squalus acanthias 1111111111111111111111112222 Dory, Buckler Zenopsis conchifera ------Eel, American Anguilla rostrata ------Eel, Conger Conger oceanicus ------Flounder, American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides ------2222 Flounder, Fourspot Hippoglossina oblonga 2222222222222222111111112222 Flounder, Gulf Stream Citharichthys arctifrons ------Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus 2222222222222222222222221122 Flounder, Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 2222222222222222222222222222 Flounder, Winter Pseudopleuronectes americanus ------2211 Flounder, Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus ------2222 Flounder, Yellowtail Limanda ferruginea ------1111 Fourbeard Rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius ------Goosefish Lophius americanus 2222222222222222222222222222 Grenadier Macrouridae ------Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus ------1111 Hake, Longfin Phycis chesteri ------Hake, Offshore Merluccius albidus ------2222 Hake, Red Urophycis chuss 1111111111222222222222222222 Hake, Silver Merluccius bilinearis 1111111111111111111111112222 Hake, Spotted Urophycis regia 2222222222222222222222222222 Hake, White Urophycis tenuis 1111111111222222222222222222 Halibut, Atlantic Hippoglossus hippoglossus 2222222222222222222222222222 Herring, Atlantic Clupea harengus 1111111111222222112121211111 Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis ------2222 Herring, Round Etrumeus teres ------Kingfish, Northern Menticirrhus saxatilis ------Kingfish, Southern Menticirrhus americanus ------Lanternfish Myctophidae ------Mackerel, Atlantic Scomber scombrus 1111111111222222222222211111 Mackerels, Snake Gempylus serpens ------Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus ------Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina ------Ocean Pout Zoarces americanus ------1111 Pollock Pollachius virens 1111111111222222222222222222 Rays Myliobatiformes ------Table 1b. (Cont.)

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Common Name Scientific Name Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Redfish, Acadian Sebastes fasciatus 2222222222------2222 Rosefish, Blackbelly Helicolenus dactylopterus ------2222 Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar ------2222 Sand Lance, Northern Ammodytes dubius ------Sculpin, Longhorn Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus 2222222222222222221212121111 Scup Stenotomus chrysops 2222222222------2222 Sea Raven Hemitripterus americanus 2222222222222222221212122222 Searobin, Armored Peristedion miniatum ------Searobin, Northern Prionotus carolinus ------Searobin, Striped Prionotus evolans ------Shad, American Alosa sapidissima ------2222 Shad, Hickory Alosa mediocris ------2222 Sharks Elasmobranchii ------Skate, Barndoor Dipturus laevis ------Skate, Clearnose Raja eglanteria ------Skate, Little Leucoraja erinacea 2222222222111122221212122222 Skate, Rosette Leucoraja garmani ------2222 Skate, Smooth Malacoraja senta ------2222 Skate, Thorny Amblyraja radiata 2222222222111122222222222222 Skate, Winter Leucoraja ocellata 2222222222111122221212122222 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ------2222 Squid, Northern Shortfin Illex illecebrosus ------Squid, Longfin Inshore Loligo pealeii ------Tautog Tautoga onitis ------2222 Tilefish Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps ------Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 2222222222222222222222222222 Wolffish, Atlantic Anarhichas lupus ------1111 Wrymouth Cryptacanthodes maculatus ------Table 1c. Stomach sampling requests used by the NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey during 2001-08 (Sp = spring; Fa = fall; 1 = priority species; 2 = secondary species collected as time allowed)

2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Common Name Scientific Name Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus ------Argentines Argentinidae ------Bass, Black sea Centropristis striata 2222222222222222 Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis 2222222222222222 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 2222222222222222 Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 2222222222222222 Cod, Atlantic Gadus morhua 2222111111111111 Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus ----222222222222 Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus 2222222222222222 Cusk Brosme brosme 2222222222111111 Cusk-eel, Fawn Lepophidium profundorum 2222222222222222 Dogfish, Smooth Mustelus canis 2222222222222222 Dogfish, Spiny Squalus acanthias 2222222222222222 Dory, Buckler Zenopsis conchifera ----222222222222 Eel, American Anguilla rostrata ------Eel, Conger Conger oceanicus ----222222222222 Flounder, American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides 2222222222222222 Flounder, Fourspot Hippoglossina oblonga 2222111111111111 Flounder, Gulf Stream Citharichthys arctifrons ----222222222222 Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus 2222111111111111 Flounder, Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 2222222222222222 Flounder, Winter Pseudopleuronectes americanus 1111111111111111 Flounder, Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 2222222222222222 Flounder, Yellowtail Limanda ferruginea 1111111111111111 Fourbeard Rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius ------222222 Goosefish Lophius americanus 2222111111222222 Grenadier Macrouridae ------Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 1111111111111111 Hake, Longfin Phycis chesteri ------Hake, Offshore Merluccius albidus 2222111111111111 Hake, Red Urophycis chuss 2222222222222222 Hake, Silver Merluccius bilinearis 2222111111111111 Hake, Spotted Urophycis regia 2222222222222222 Hake, White Urophycis tenuis 2222222222222222 Halibut, Atlantic Hippoglossus hippoglossus 2222222222222222 Herring, Atlantic Clupea harengus 1111111111111111 Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis 2222222222222222 Herring, Round Etrumeus teres ------Kingfish, Northern Menticirrhus saxatilis ------222222 Kingfish, Southern Menticirrhus americanus ------Lanternfish Myctophidae ----222222222222 Mackerel, Atlantic Scomber scombrus 1111111111111111 Mackerels, Snake Gempylus serpens ------Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus ------222222 Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina ------Ocean Pout Zoarces americanus 1111222222222222 Pollock Pollachius virens 2222111111111111 Table 1c. (Cont.)

2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Common Name Scientific Name Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Sp Fa Rays Myliobatiformes ------Redfish, Acadian Sebastes fasciatus 2222222222222222 Rosefish, Blackbelly Helicolenus dactylopterus 2222222222222222 Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar 2222222222222222 Sand Lance, Northern Ammodytes dubius ------Sculpin, Longhorn Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus 1111111111222222 Scup Stenotomus chrysops 2222222222222222 Sea Raven Hemitripterus americanus 2222111111222222 Searobin, Armored Peristedion miniatum ----222222222222 Searobin, Northern Prionotus carolinus ----222222222222 Searobin, Striped Prionotus evolans ----222222222222 Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 2222222222222222 Shad, Hickory Alosa mediocris 2222222222222222 Sharks Elasmobranchii ------Skate, Barndoor Dipturus laevis ------111111 Skate, Clearnose Raja eglanteria ------222222 Skate, Little Leucoraja erinacea 2222222222222222 Skate, Rosette Leucoraja garmani 2222222222222222 Skate, Smooth Malacoraja senta 2222222222222222 Skate, Thorny Amblyraja radiata 2222222222222222 Skate, Winter Leucoraja ocellata 2222222222222222 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 2222222222222222 Squid, Northern Shortfin Illex illecebrosus ------Squid, Longfin Inshore Loligo pealeii ------Tautog Tautoga onitis 2222222222222222 Tilefish Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps ----222222222222 Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 2222222222222222 Wolffish, Atlantic Anarhichas lupus 1111222222222222 Wrymouth Cryptacanthodes maculatus ------Table 2. Levels of taxonomic resolution for selected prey items used in FWDP analyses and summaries. (“Collection Category” is the lowest level of taxonomic resolution, with most fish and some invertebrates retaining species-level identification where applicable. This category and the actual prey name are used in analyses for specific prey taxa or a single or small group of predators. “Analytical Category” is a broader taxonomic level that groups fishes to family and invertebrates to a higher level. This category is used for multispecies analyses and less detailed diet summaries. “General Category” groups prey at the phylum or class level, and is used for more cursory diet summaries. “Modeling category” uses a species-level classification for major fishes and invertebrates of interest and ecological groupings for invertebrate taxa of lesser concern such as benthic or pelagic invertebrates.).

Category Common Name Scientific Name Collection Analytical General Modeling

Atlantic cod Gadus morhua GADMOR Gadid fam. Fish GADMOR Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus PLEAME Pleuronectid fam. Fish PLEAME Atlantic herring Clupea harengus CLUHAR Clupeid fam. Fish CLUHAR Atlantic herring eggs Clupea harengus eggs CLUHAR Clupeid fam. Fish FISEGG Atlantic herring larvae Clupea harengus larvae Fish Larvae Fish larvae Fish FISLAR Longfin squid Loligo pealeii LOLPEA Cephalapod Mollusc LOLIGO Northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus ILLILL Cephalapod Mollusc ILLEX Sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus Pectinid fam. Bivavle Mollusc BENINV Naked sea butterfly Clione limacina Pteropod Gastropod Mollusc BENINV Brittle stars & basket stars Ophiuroidea OPHIU1 OPHIU1 Echinoderm BENINV Comb jellies or sea walnuts Ctenophora CTENOP CTENOP CTENOP PELINV Atlantic rock crab Cancer irroratus Cancer fam. Decapod Arthropod BENINV Northern shrimp Pandalus borealis Pandalid fam. Decapod Arthropod PELINV Mysids Mysidacea Mysida Mysida Arthropod PELINV Krill Euphausiidae Euphausiid fam. Euphausiid fam. Arthropod PELINV Calanoid copepods Calanoida Copepod Copepod Arthropod PELINV Gammarid Gammaridea Gammar Amphipod Arthropod BENINV Table 3. Common and scientific names, and size category definitions for 52 predators within the Food Habits Database with ≥ 200 stomachs. Groupings are by taxonomic order.

Size Categories (cm) Order/Common Name Species Name Extra-Small Small Medium Large Extra-Large

Squaliformes Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias - <36 36-80 >80 -

Carcharhiniformes Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis - <36 36-80 >80 - Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae - ≤20 21-50 >50 -

Rajiformes Barndoor skate Dipturus laevis - ≤30 31-60 61-80 >80 Winter skate Leucoraja ocellata - ≤30 31-60 61-80 >80 Clearnose skate Raja eglanteria - ≤30 31-60 61-80 >80 Thorny skate Amblyraja radiata - ≤30 31-60 61-80 >80 Rosette skate Leucoraja garmani - ≤30 31-60 61-80 >80 Little skate Leucoraja erinacea - ≤30 31-60 61-80 >80 Smooth skate Malacoraja senta - ≤30 31-60 61-80 >80

Clupeiformes Atlantic herring Clupea harengus ≤10 11-20 21-30 >30 - Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus ≤10 11-20 21-30 >30 - Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis ≤10 11-20 21-30 >30 - American shad Alosa sapidissima ≤10 11-20 21-30 >30 -

Ophidiiformes Fawn cusk-eel Lepophidium profundorum - ≤20 21-50 - -

Gadiformes Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus - ≤20 21-50 51-80 >80 Atlantic cod Gadus morhua - ≤20 21-50 51-80 >80 Pollock Pollachius virens - ≤20 21-50 51-80 >80 Offshore hake Merluccius albidus - ≤20 21-40 >40 - Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis - ≤20 21-40 >40 - White hake Urophycis tenuis - ≤20 21-40 >40 - Red hake Urophycis chuss - ≤20 21-40 >40 - Spotted hake Urophycis regia - ≤20 21-40 >40 -

Lophiiformes Goosefish Lophius americanus - ≤30 31-60 61-90 >90

Scorpaeniformes Acadian redfish Sebastes fasciatus - ≤25 26-50 >50 - Blackbelly rosefish Helicolenus dactylopterus - ≤20 21-50 >50 - Longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus - ≤25 26-50 >50 - Sea raven Hemitripterus americanus - ≤25 26-50 >50 - Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus - ≤20 21-30 >30 - Striped searobin Prionotus evolans - ≤20 21-30 >30 - Table 3. (Cont.)

Size Categories (cm) Order/Common Name Species Name Extra-Small Small Medium Large Extra-Large

Perciformes Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus ≤10 11-20 21-35 >35 - Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus ≤10 11-20 21-30 >30 - Northern sand lance Ammodytes dubius - ≤10 11-25 >25 - Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix - ≤30 31-70 >70 - Weakfish Cynoscion regalis - ≤25 26-50 >50 - Striped bass Morone saxatilis - ≤30 31-70 >70 - Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus - ≤25 26-50 >50 - Spot Leiostomus xanthurus - ≤20 21-50 >50 - Scup Stenotomus chrysops - ≤20 21-50 >50 - Black sea bass Centropristis striata - ≤25 26-50 >50 - Ocean pout Zoarces americanus - ≤30 31-60 >60 -

Pleuronectiformes Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus - ≤30 31-60 61-90 >90 Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70 Fourspot flounder Hippoglossina oblonga - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70 Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70 Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70 Witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70 Gulf Stream flounder Citharichthys arctifrons - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70 Windowpane flounder Scophthalmus aquosus - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70 American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides - ≤20 21-40 41-70 >70

Teuthida Northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus - ≤15 16-30 >30 - Longfin inshore squid Loligo pealeii - ≤15 16-30 >30 - Table 4. Descriptive statistics for predators examined by the FWDP during 1973-2008 (units of weight = g; units of length = cm; SE = standard error of the mean of stomach weight). Groupings are by taxonomic order.

Stomach Weights Predator Length Predator Weights Order/Common Name Scientific Name Number Mean SE Mean Min. Max. Number Mean

Myxiniformes

Atlantic Hagfish Myxine glutinosa 4 <0.01 0.005 42.75 33 55 0 -

Squaliformes

Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias 65,825 15.03 0.176 69.20 3 114 38,024 1,516

Squatiniformes

Atlantic Angel Shark Squatina dumeril 158 30.83 4.534 77.89 26 128 0 -

Lamniformes

Sand Tiger Carcharias taurus 7 224.29 149.086 196.29 105 246 0 - Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus 1 141.10 - 146.00 146 146 0 - Thresher Shark Alopias vulpinus 1 33.00 - 169.00 169 169 0 -

Carcharhiniformes

Smooth Dogfish Mustelus canis 7,603 41.62 0.658 84.36 14 150 4,928 2,299 Atlantic Sharpnose Shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae 217 18.11 2.193 81.62 34 154 25 2,706 Dusky Shark Carcharhinus obscurus 71 41.51 9.281 98.65 49 212 0 - Sandbar Shark Carcharhinus plumbeus 68 95.99 34.037 112.28 60 240 2 2,209 Chain Dogfish Scyliorhinus retifer 40 2.03 0.693 29.35 15 45 4 324 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark Sphyrna lewini 5 60.25 41.207 75.60 41 112 0 - Blacknose Shark Carcharhinus acronotus 1 8.80 - 104.00 104 104 0 - Smooth Hammerhead Shark Sphyrna zygaena 1 2.09 - 92.00 92 92 0 - Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus limbatus 1 - - 138.00 138 138 0 -

Torpediniformes

Atlantic Torpedo Torpedo nobiliana 15 17.96 13.012 70.60 25 125 1 17,500 Table 4. (Cont.)

Stomach Weights Predator Length Predator Weights Order/Common Name Scientific Name Number Mean SE Mean Min. Max. Number Mean

Rajiformes

Little Skate Leucoraja erinacea 27,507 4.06 0.034 39.44 6 63 20,006 432 Winter Skate Leucoraja ocellata 17,143 11.08 0.192 60.45 12 111 11,341 1,834 Thorny Skate Amblyraja radiata 3,435 11.73 0.512 48.97 10 107 1,888 1,656 Smooth Skate Malacoraja senta 1,056 4.27 0.172 43.15 9 73 848 441 Clearnose Skate Raja eglanteria 960 9.44 0.748 58.22 22 93 779 1,200 Rosette Skate Leucoraja garmani 700 1.44 0.074 35.76 9 47 674 226 Barndoor Skate Dipturus laevis 655 20.46 1.542 66.37 19 163 647 2,501

Myliobatiformes

Bullnose Ray Myliobatis freminvillii 88 19.69 4.452 58.05 26 123 7 1,108 Bluntnose Stingray Dasyatis say 83 29.48 5.415 57.25 21 128 3 1,928 Spiny Butterfly Ray Gymnura altavela 55 2.43 1.119 92.39 52 199 0 - Roughtail Stingray Dasyatis centroura 13 84.01 31.269 98.62 74 129 0 - Cownose Ray Rhinoptera bonasus 13 1.24 1.005 48.38 40 53 0 - Southern Stingray Dasyatis americana 1 17.22 - 84.00 84 84 0 - Atlantic Stingray Dasyatis sabina 1 - - 77.00 77 77 0 -

Acipenseriformes

Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus 3 119.17 9.167 97.00 84 120 0 -

Anguilliformes

Conger Eel Conger oceanicus 15 10.28 4.429 64.27 39 109 2 1,725 Margined Snake Eel Ophichthus cruentifer 3 0.12 0.055 39.00 36 42 0 - Snubnose Eel Simenchelys parasitica 1 - - 11.00 11 11 0 -

Clupeiformes

Atlantic Herring Clupea harengus 17,910 0.59 0.014 23.33 4 46 16,486 121 Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis 1,347 0.39 0.021 17.17 7 29 1,261 63 American Shad Alosa sapidissima 874 2.10 0.236 25.38 8 58 832 305 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 404 0.89 0.070 23.23 7 41 32 126 Round Herring Etrumeus teres 104 0.28 0.061 12.05 10 18 0 - Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 76 0.15 0.042 21.03 6 32 41 209 Striped Anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 15 0.07 0.036 11.87 10 13 0 - Spanish Sardine Sardinella aurita 8 <0.01 0.000 5.25 5 6 0 - Hickory Shad Alosa mediocris 6 2.64 1.752 32.00 24 46 6 467 Table 4. (Cont.)

Stomach Weights Predator Length Predator Weights Order/Common Name Scientific Name Number Mean SE Mean Min. Max. Number Mean

Argentiniformes

Atlantic Argentine Argentina silus 191 0.17 0.054 31.05 9 44 0 - Striated Argentine Argentina striata 1 - - 8.00 8 8 0 -

Salmoniformes

Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar 1 2.61 - 34.00 34 34 0 -

Aulopiformes

Inshore Lizardfish Synodus foetens 42 2.13 0.571 24.10 16 35 1 87 Snakefish Trachinocephalus myops 25 1.66 0.757 17.84 13 23 0 - Offshore Lizardfish Synodus poeyi 9 0.98 0.560 14.22 7 23 3 79 Shortnose Greeneye Chlorophthalmus agassizi 6 0.04 0.020 12.50 11 14 0 -

Myctophiformes

Lanternfish Unclassified Myctophidae 20 0.04 0.015 7.05 4 10 10 2 Hygophum taaningi Hygophum taaningi 9 0.02 0.007 6.67 6 7 0 -

Polymixiiformes

Beardfish Polymixia lowei 1 - - 16.00 16 16 0 -

Ophidiiformes

Fawn Cusk-eel Lepophidium profundorum 1,023 0.07 0.005 21.28 7 30 873 23 Striped Cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum 11 0.03 0.017 20.91 16 30 0 -

Gadiformes

Silver Hake Merluccius bilinearis 47,837 2.71 0.053 25.30 3 76 26,496 127 Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua 19,645 30.06 0.603 53.53 1 150 9,106 2,109 Red Hake Urophycis chuss 17,840 3.27 0.087 30.06 4 73 9,793 202 White Hake Urophycis tenuis 14,348 17.54 0.461 43.54 3 136 7,316 855 Spotted Hake Urophycis regia 13,278 2.18 0.055 23.49 4 46 10,497 131 Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 9,488 4.36 0.109 42.00 8 88 5,951 901 Pollock Pollachius virens 5,820 17.59 0.711 49.94 10 120 3,112 1,503 Table 4. (Cont.)

Stomach Weights Predator Length Predator Weights Order/Common Name Scientific Name Number Mean SE Mean Min. Max. Number Mean

Gadiformes (Cont.)

Offshore Hake Merluccius albidus 800 2.19 0.462 29.98 6 56 714 226 Cusk Brosme brosme 222 2.41 0.815 60.19 14 104 96 1,757 Fourbeard Rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius 131 0.19 0.025 21.01 12 33 121 43 Longfin Hake Phycis chesteri 25 0.62 0.259 21.26 16 35 0 - Longnose Grenadier Caelorinchus caelorhincus 18 0.20 0.056 15.78 10 23 0 - Marlin-Spike Nezumia bairdii 10 0.26 0.052 20.10 15 26 0 - Ling Unclassified Urophycis sp. 5 0.18 0.096 13.00 13 13 1 12 Grenadier Unclassified Macrouridae 3 0.14 0.031 26.00 26 26 0 - Carolina Hake Urophycis earllii 1 11.00 - 28.00 28 28 0 -

Batrachoidiformes

Atlantic Midshipman Porichthys plectrodon 10 0.11 0.050 14.00 14 14 0 -

Lophiiformes

Goosefish Lophius americanus 10,188 35.49 1.471 43.35 6 124 7,563 1,622

Beloniformes

Atlantic Saury Scomberesox saurus 1 - - 32.00 32 32 0 -

Zeiformes

Buckler Dory Zenopsis conchifera 197 9.24 1.786 25.87 8 66 86 601 Deepbody Boarfish Antigonia capros 15 1.08 0.194 15.40 12 19 0 -

Gasterosteiformes

Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 38 <0.01 0.001 18.87 14 24 0 - Red Cornetfish Fistularia petimba 8 10.30 6.233 78.75 43 115 0 - Cornetfish Unclassified Fistulariidae 1 0.02 - 32.00 32 32 0 - Longspine Snipefish Macroramphosus scolopax 2 - - 12.50 12 13 0 -

Scorpaeniformes

Longhorn Sculpin Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus 12,188 2.80 0.061 24.97 3 45 9,205 182 Table 4. (Cont.)

Stomach Weights Predator Length Predator Weights Order/Common Name Scientific Name Number Mean SE Mean Min. Max. Number Mean

Scorpaeniformes (Cont.)

Sea Raven Hemitripterus americanus 7,472 15.37 0.582 31.73 4 68 5,505 838 Acadian Redfish Sebastes fasciatus 3,904 1.28 0.073 27.28 5 47 2,640 336 Blackbelly Rosefish Helicolenus dactylopterus 957 0.39 0.039 17.14 3 51 855 136 Northern Searobin Prionotus carolinus 727 0.54 0.044 19.99 4 49 632 93 Striped Searobin Prionotus evolans 362 2.82 0.425 24.89 3 44 339 264 Armored Searobin Peristedion miniatum 41 0.12 0.046 25.54 7 32 8 111 Moustache Sculpin Triglops murrayi 28 0.07 0.021 10.57 7 15 0 - Hookear Sculpin Unclassified Artediellus sp. 23 0.01 0.007 6.43 4 8 1 4 Searobin Unclassified Triglidae 8 <0.01 0.001 8.63 5 11 0 - Spiny Searobin Prionotus alatus 3 0.19 0.093 12.33 10 14 2 20 Scorpionfish and Rockfish Unclassified Scorpaenidae 2 0.24 0.234 12.00 4 20 1 1 Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus 2 27.87 7.386 35.50 31 40 0 - Shorthorn Sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius 2 0.29 0.257 39.50 33 46 1 1,360 Alligatorfish Aspidophoroides monopterygius 1 0.01 - 9.00 9 9 0 - Horned Searobin Bellator militaris 1 - - 5.00 5 5 0 - Bluespotted Searobin Prionotus roseus 1 - - 16.00 16 16 0 - Bighead Searobin Prionotus tribulus 1 - - 20.00 20 20 0 -

Perciformes

Atlantic Mackerel Scomber scombrus 6,874 1.37 0.039 27.49 12 47 6,039 216 Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 6,098 0.27 0.011 12.92 2 32 4,058 50 Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 5,117 3.44 0.170 26.27 7 85 3,746 260 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 4,826 20.35 0.948 35.73 3 118 2,409 1,047 Scup Stenotomus chrysops 3,890 0.44 0.023 15.39 4 38 2,374 109 Ocean Pout Zoarces americanus 3,478 8.28 0.303 47.26 5 98 2,816 633 Black Sea Bass Centropristis striata 2,400 2.20 0.141 25.40 5 62 1,559 366 Northern Sand Lance Ammodytes dubius 1,357 0.07 0.005 14.34 2 27 0 - Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 1,156 0.16 0.011 17.38 10 74 676 96 Striped Bass Morone saxatilis 1,089 72.91 4.837 64.56 23 118 1,070 3,954 Atlantic Croaker Micropogonias undulatus 924 1.57 0.142 25.21 9 82 553 257 Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus 169 1.32 0.243 26.55 5 47 108 416 Atlantic Wolffish Anarhichas lupus 156 15.41 3.357 52.83 3 137 78 3,185 Northern Kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis 139 0.71 0.118 23.77 9 37 63 181 Southern Kingfish Menticirrhus americanus 119 1.43 0.316 23.84 15 32 12 163 Tautog Tautoga onitis 52 7.75 1.686 34.87 9 64 47 1,053 Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 44 3.48 1.301 34.68 16 62 4 866 Chub Mackerel Scomber japonicus 35 0.44 0.123 19.31 14 23 0 - Cobia Rachycentron canadum 26 152.97 33.860 94.36 58 125 16 12,542 Whitebone Porgy Calamus leucosteus 24 1.03 0.656 27.79 20 34 0 - Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 23 0.07 0.050 15.83 11 19 0 - Tilefish Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps 19 0.80 0.327 41.53 19 64 9 1,330 Table 4. (Cont.)

Stomach Weights Predator Length Predator Weights Order/Common Name Scientific Name Number Mean SE Mean Min. Max. Number Mean

Perciformes (Cont.)

King Mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla 17 17.20 5.667 81.94 56 117 2 8,710 Round Scad Decapterus punctatus 15 <0.01 0.001 16.33 14 18 0 - Vermilion Snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 15 0.69 0.436 19.07 12 24 0 - Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 15 13.64 3.435 46.87 31 55 0 - White Grunt Haemulon plumierii 14 1.54 0.437 30.36 24 45 0 - Banded Rudderfish Seriola zonata 13 1.44 0.478 23.23 18 27 0 - Saucereye Porgy Calamus calamus 12 0.92 0.354 21.50 12 30 0 - Rough Scad Trachurus lathami 11 0.03 0.003 13.64 12 15 0 - Atlantic Bonito Sarda sarda 11 29.31 24.674 50.36 23 57 3 2,018 Banded Drum Larimus fasciatus 11 0.02 0.006 15.09 14 20 0 - Atlantic Cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus 11 0.08 0.033 48.36 44 53 0 - Bigeye Scad Selar crumenophthalmus 10 0.02 0.004 13.70 13 15 0 - Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 10 0.40 0.193 18.40 16 24 0 - Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 9 105.65 83.863 59.00 21 114 0 - Sea Bass Unclassified Serranidae 9 4.22 2.315 63.00 58 71 9 4,540 Spottail Pinfish Diplodus holbrookii 9 0.25 0.124 20.44 12 29 0 - Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 9 0.17 0.076 16.44 15 18 0 - Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 9 1.47 0.750 29.89 21 40 0 - Bigeye Priacanthus arenatus 9 1.64 0.604 27.67 15 39 0 - Snowy Grouper Epinephelus niveatus 8 23.24 13.444 69.38 46 90 0 - Yellowfin Bass Anthias nicholsi 7 0.27 0.150 23.57 20 27 0 - Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 6 7.10 6.745 68.17 51 99 0 - Silver Perch Bairdiella chrysoura 5 <0.01 0.001 19.00 18 20 0 - Atlantic Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 4 2.75 0.710 41.50 38 45 0 - Sand Perch Diplectrum formosum 3 0.41 0.399 20.33 18 24 0 - Daubed Shanny Leptoclinus maculatus 3 0.01 0.002 11.67 11 13 0 - Radiated Shanny Ulvaria subbifurcata 3 0.04 0.019 13.00 12 14 0 - Wrymouth Cryptacanthodes maculatus 3 0.40 0.202 34.67 23 41 0 - Atlantic Soft Pout Melanostigma atlanticum 3 <0.01 0.001 11.00 11 11 0 - Blue Runner Caranx crysos 2 0.06 0.055 15.00 15 15 0 - Striped Bonito Sarda orientalis 2 35.75 8.250 56.00 55 57 2 3,130 Warsaw Grouper Epinephelus nigritus 2 203.50 126.500 104.50 84 125 0 - Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus 2 4.49 1.186 57.00 55 59 0 - Black Drum Pogonias cromis 2 82.50 82.500 111.50 108 115 1 23,440 Blueline Tilefish Caulolatilus microps 2 6.60 6.600 58.00 58 58 1 2,750 Northern Stargazer Astroscopus guttatus 2 10.45 1.650 21.00 19 23 0 - Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates 1 6.60 - 43.00 43 43 0 - Almaco Jack Seriola rivoliana 1 209.00 - 94.00 94 94 0 - Red Drum Sciaenops ocellatus 1 110.00 - 100.00 100 100 1 12,100 Conejo Promethichthys prometheus 1 - - 25.00 25 25 0 - Wolf Eelpout Lycenchelys verrillii 1 - - 12.00 12 12 0 - Southern Stargazer Astroscopus y-graecum 1 2.12 - 22.00 22 22 0 - Yellowmouth Grouper Mycteroperca interstitialis 1 - - 76.00 76 76 0 - Gag Mycteroperca microlepis 1 - - 108.00 108 108 0 - Table 4. (Cont.)

Stomach Weights Predator Length Predator Weights Order/Common Name Scientific Name Number Mean SE Mean Min. Max. Number Mean

Perciformes (Cont.)

Atlantic Bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus 1 - - 16.00 16 16 0 - Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus 1 - - 56.00 56 56 0 -

Pleuronectiformes

Summer Flounder Paralichthys dentatus 17,386 3.20 0.102 39.53 13 82 14,440 818 Fourspot Flounder Hippoglossina oblonga 16,689 1.25 0.035 27.43 2 49 13,415 175 Windowpane Flounder Scophthalmus aquosus 14,599 1.53 0.038 25.82 3 69 11,029 216 Winter Flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus 9,278 2.34 0.056 31.55 8 76 6,559 486 American Plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides 7,201 0.81 0.035 29.94 4 70 5,372 285 Yellowtail Flounder Limanda ferruginea 7,052 1.06 0.027 32.42 3 58 5,081 357 Witch Flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 5,031 0.68 0.021 35.48 5 65 4,078 268 Gulf Stream Flounder Citharichthys arctifrons 996 0.09 0.005 10.92 2 19 771 14 Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus 445 23.04 4.564 54.71 13 134 239 2,252 Southern Flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 5 3.30 3.300 26.00 21 33 0 - Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 5 2.24 2.189 23.40 17 28 0 - Dusky Flounder Syacium papillosum 4 0.32 0.263 22.25 17 27 3 118 Greenland Halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides 3 4.51 2.446 26.33 15 36 3 191

Tetraodontiformes

Planehead Filefish Stephanolepis hispidus 7 <0.01 0.001 6.43 5 8 0 - Gray Triggerfish Balistes capriscus 2 - - 33.50 10 57 0 - Striped Burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfii 1 - - 14.00 14 14 0 -

Teuthida

Longfin Inshore Squid Loligo pealeii 3,078 0.54 0.027 13.29 1 39 0 - Northern Shortfin Squid Illex illecebrosus 3,056 1.58 0.160 20.04 3 32 1 99

FIGURES

45.0 NS

43.0 Gulf of Maine Georges Bank 41.0 Scotian Shelf Southern 39.0 New England

LatitudeLatitude (Degrees (Degrees N) N) 37.0 Mid-Atlantic Bight

35.0 Cape Hatteras, NC

33.0 80.0 78.0 76.0 74.0 72.0 70.0 68.0 66.0 Longitude (Degrees W) Figure 1. Map of the Northeast U.S. continental shelf illustrating the primary sampling regions covered by the NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey. NS = Nova Scotia Stomachs Examined (1970s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) Red hake (Urophycis chuss) Longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealeii) American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) Northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) Longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) White hake (Urophycis tenuis) Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) Pollock (Pollachius virens) Goosefish (Lophius americanus) Smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) Fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) Black sea bass (Centropristis striata) Spotted hake (Urophycis regia) Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) Gulf stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) Fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) Blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) Cusk (Brosme brosme) Clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) Northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) Smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) American shad (Alosa sapidissima) Offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) 11 Striped searobin (Prionotus evolans) 7 Rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani) 6 Barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) 2 Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 1

Figure 2. The number of stomachs examined by species in the 1970s. Stomachs Examined (1980s)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Red hake (Urophycis chuss) White hake (Urophycis tenuis) Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) Smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Pollock (Pollachius virens) Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealeii) Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) Goosefish (Lophius americanus) Longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) Spotted hake (Urophycis regia) Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Black sea bass (Centropristis striata) Northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) Smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) Clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) Gulf stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) Offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) Cusk (Brosme brosme) 55 Northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) 54 Blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) 37 American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 22 Fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) 21 Rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani) 18 Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 16 Striped searobin (Prionotus evolans) 16 Barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) 5

Figure 3. The number of stomachs examined by species in the 1980s. Stomachs Examined (1990s)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) Fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Red hake (Urophycis chuss) White hake (Urophycis tenuis) Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) Spotted hake (Urophycis regia) Longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) Goosefish (Lophius americanus) Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) Smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) Pollock (Pollachius virens) Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) Smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) Clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) American shad (Alosa sapidissima) Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) 101 Black sea bass (Centropristis striata) 94 Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) 87 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 76 Fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) 62 Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) 35 Rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani) 34 Cusk (Brosme brosme) 30 Blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) 30 Offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) 28 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) 19 Northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) 17 Barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) 10 Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) 10

Figure 4. The number of stomachs examined by species in the 1990s. Stomachs Examined (2000s) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) Fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) Spotted hake (Urophycis regia) Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) Goosefish (Lophius americanus) Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) Longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) Red hake (Urophycis chuss) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) White hake (Urophycis tenuis) Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) Black sea bass (Centropristis striata) Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Pollock (Pollachius virens) Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) Blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) Fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) Gulf stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) American shad (Alosa sapidissima) Smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) Offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) Clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) Rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani) Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) Barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) Northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) Striped searobin (Prionotus evolans) Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) Cusk (Brosme brosme) Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) 15 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) 13 Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) 1 Figure 5. The number of stomachs examined by species in the 2000s. Major Prey Taxa From All Stomachs

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%

Misc. and Unid. Fishes

Gammarids

Crustacea Shrimp

Euphausiids

CrangonCrangon ShrimpShrimp Cancer Crabs

Decapod Crabs

Polychaetes

Pandalid Shrimp

Amphipods

Ctenophores

Bivalves

Copepods Other Crustaceans

Sand Lance (AmmodytesAmmodytes sp) sp Cephalopods

Mysids

Decapod Shrimp

Silver hake (MerlucciusSilver bilinearis Hake)

Ophiuroids Loligo Squid

Isopods

Figure 6. Percent frequency of occurrence of major prey taxa, excluding well- digested prey and empty stomachs for all predators in the database. Misc. and Unid. Fishes = Miscellaneous and Unidentified Fishes. Spiny Dogfish

25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s) ns) sg) s s st) e) s s ) ) ) uife ue ds u e bs id u is p s s s g n o ids gin a id u n akr sc fuish ru p nw nad e nr or aPou a lu llo th rmes b Scupso e WDP a op eer Cr Sq c eH l a tern o ckerely r r al lup Hr ph d ausi o ani inr at am r aAle Bivalvesenhy er Crabsh C a g eer il Sc c ti o h h t c p h eno ph li blve Mo Bua c sc c o aM n e a t apo u o Ocm ri Scombridsc M s Unid. Fish d ti a e C c E a Sis t fne eir u u r C C plantic e L s iu s o b m Tonguefishes e Ammodytes sp o ut D e c lu o ps o A c c i m t v Cl ar lu r Atlanto o a Atlanticre ( o r p Pleur c n s B g Z e e (S te lo ( n ( (P l S A n ri t (M e ( ( e r u e sh er p e d e o k i k u if a H P a rf c c h c n H e a S ew n ti a tt l e n e er M A M a c v Bu c tl O il ti ic A S n t la an t tl A A Figure 7. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias; n = 65,825). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s) s s l) ) ngis ds ds u d id p es ss il ging ui u erru u a po nr rme q llo kb h iv WDP vavle o pei eer Sq a c c hycids Herrst i l u Hr am id. Fish s p e B er Crabsha Cl a difo ex S Sc co i a c p ich l ligo sM yRedc Hake n e at Il o rc Un h Uro sa a en Ga ei p o C C lpa L b Tonguefishes o l Ammodytes sp u lmant r (A ClAt o U Blueback ( Atc ( g g (S e in n l k rr ri e a e r er H H e k d k H c c ic a Re a t M eb an c u tl ti Bl A an tl A

Figure 8A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the 1970s (n = 2,020). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) i) s sn) sg) s s s d st) s)t e) s s ) s) uife ll ue ds u e b u id u is p s u g i n o ids gin id ui r u n r sc fuish r nw h nad e nr or ra q uSpo a Pou a lu trh b e tc WDPvalvea lop up eer ph C h Sq c eHak l ten m r i i r a l Hr d ausi t rian inr at o aAle Anchovym B tyenh er Crabsh C a ex S n ee ivel Mo Scalloc c h M c p h eno ph l xa ligo bl iBua s Unid. Fish o a ia an e a t apo u Il o Ocm sSi r Scombridsr d o t C e C c E s L a u t e u cBayh r C plantic u s i s b Tonguefishes se Ammodytesn sp o ut De m e c lu p o A o rc c i m (A v Cl st a lu r cAtlantico Mackerel a rAtlantice ( o o r p S s y B g i Z e e ( lo v ( n e ( (P l A o ri (L t (M e ( h en r t u h r e c d e o o e is e f n a H p P ak f ck i A h er a w y n ic S n H t le e t ea r t M Ba an c e c A M tl O lv Bu ti ic i n t A S la an t tl A A

Figure 8B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the 1980s (n = 19,104). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fishes. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) st) s) ) ) ) ug s s id u ie s s us s ds ids ing e abs d u n r p uish r p o e nr or sii a eaak thf rids b o WDP op ere h u Sq c n H allo n aetes b m Scups l lup r a ri lir atter h m oackerel ry er Crabsa Ha op d Cr o eean Poui Sc c o c h Bivalvesc h C h n ph g m bve iBua s c a te apo li a sil tr Sc rc M s Unid. Fish e C c Eu o Oc iuS Polyc ei u Can Cep p e L es c s b m Tonguefishes u D c c lu m o ClAtlantic r lu ri o t ( a r p cAtlant o g o e e (S en n (Z M P l t ri t ( ( e (S r u e h er e o k is k p H P a f c u c n H er a c ti a tt S n e er M a c v c tl O il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 8C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the 1990s (n = 34,082). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) gs s d id ise s s s s a ds ids inu e bs ui u r sc p ish u p i o e rg or a aak f br o eg WDP en h Cr Sq Sq eH llu llo Scups r lop up rer irn a amckerel ry s er Crabs a l aH op d x o il Flat o h i Bivalvesc h C h n le g bve Mo Sc sc c tcted Hake te Il li il s Unid. Fishy ea apo o Ss eirc M u h Can Cep p C ec L iu b Spop utlantic c ant m ro A D c ml to U Cl lu co o ( ( r SAt n e g e ( te k in M l S a r ( e ( r e er p H e k k u d H a c c te c H a S t ti o n er M p a v c S tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 8D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the 2000s (n = 10,619). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s) i) s sn) gs s s s s s s) s) ifeu ll ue ds ds u re b id p u p g i n ei rgin o ra id u sc r o nw ch WDP nad po n ul lu llo b sScup e t valve a lo up ere ph C a Sq l a mckerel y Aler i i r a l Hr d gr oa r a mAnchovy B tyenh cer Crabsh C a n Mo Sc c h h a M n p ich eno ligo Scombridss c Unid. Fish o o ia a e at apo E o ric M s d h rt C e Ct c L e u Tonguefishes eu cBay o C tlanp b m s Ammodytesn sp o u De m o p A v A o t ( e (Cl cAtlant o sa y rAtlantic S en o v B g ( t l o ( in l S A h n r re ( ( c e er e p fe n ad H k cu i A h ac S w y n ic le e t M Ba an c A M tl ti ic A n t la an t tl A A

Figure 9A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 19,395). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s)t s) s) s) ug es d u i e s u u ods ids ing ui n rak p h ish ish r e nr or a ea llo t f f b WDP op ere h Sq ic n H a nter m l lup Hr o ran Pou li r cat Flat o Bivalves ha C a op g ee i Sc a c h en li m bve iBu s a t aOc s il tr Scombridsr Unid. Fish e C uS s e Cep lanticp Lo es ci u b tu c c il m ClA r lu r o ( a r p cAtlantic Mackerel g o e e (S n (Z M (P l ri t ( e r u e sh er e o k fi k H P a r c c n H e a ti a tt n e er M a c v Bu c tl O il ti A S an tl A

Figure 9B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in Southern New England (n = 14,353). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) gs s s s d st ies sn s ds ids u e b id id u r su u o e rgin or ra ui u n a o br WDP en si q ca e n lop up rer ph C au Sq i in iculpi m a l aH o d ran Pou il pS o cer Crabsh C h n ph lex S e b ns Scallopssc ep a te apo u Il ligo m s em r Unid. Fish e C c E o aOc uSilver Hakcor e Can C lanticp L s i eh b Ammodytes sp tu De ce cc d m ClA r u to o ( a rl cLong cAtlantic Mackerel g o e o (S n (Z M s l ri t ( lu e r u e a er e o k h k H P a p c c n H e a ti a c n e er o M a c v x c tl O il yo ti A S an (M tl in A lp cu S rn o h g n o L

Figure 9C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected on Georges Bank (n = 13,932). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s) s s) st) s) s) ds ug uth s uer u i ds u o ids gin mp t re id nst n r i r e nr ri la o si ab a ea b WDP lop up reer h u ph u ioc ic in m a l aH S c o a rL anr Pou il o h C h a n ph ne ee b sc p ea mWrymou e u m m Pandal Unid. Fish Anthozoans e ea c s aca Oca sSilver Hake er C p a e Ct E sri s iu b Ammodytes sp utlantic d u e c rust o r rc c m ClA th a a lu co ( C n mAme o r S Atlantic Mackerel g a o Z e ( in c H ( M l r ta ( t ( e r p r u e er e y te o k k H s P a c c Cr b n H a ti ( o a n h L e er M a t c v ic tl u an O il t A o c S n m ri la ry e t m A W A

Figure 9D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 14,474). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. E Scotian Shelf 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) s s sk) ds ds u re uc o ei ring o id n WDP n si fdoi lop up rere ph au led a l Ha o g h C h n ph eHa ep tic e u a Scombrids Unid. Fish Anthozoans ea Ct E s C lanp u tu m ClA m ( ra g g n o ri n er la H e c M i ( t k an c tl o A d ad H

Figure 9E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 3,036). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

sg) s s s s d s)t ) s) s) ds u e b id u is u u o eids rgin mp or ra id ui u n r h r WDP n ri si rme q a ea t b lop up eer h ph C au fo Sq c n n m a l Hr S o d i rani Pouli ca o Bivalvescer Crabsh C a n ph d lex S ee i Scallopsa c n p h ea e u Il m b iButterfishs Unid. Fish a e a ac capo E Ga aOc sSilver Hake tr r C C e Ct Loligo iu s e Ammodytes sp tplantic es c u b Au rust De c c il m Cl C r lu r o ( a r p cAtlantic Mackerel g o e e (S n (Z (P l ri t (M e r u e sh er e o k fi k H P a r c c n H e a ti a tt n e er M a c v Bu c tl O il ti A S an tl A

Figure 10A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the fall (n = 17,488). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) s li s sn sg s s st id s t se s s s s ifeu il ue ds ds inu e b ids u u u i sc p ishu u wg h n ei gr or ra r n r hf r n c WDP nad po n ul uSpo Sq a Pou ea llu t b re it ivalve a lo up reer ph C a th ic nr Hak ttern m aAle yenhr a l aH d gr n ran li a ombridso h mAnchovy B t cer Crabsh C h n a ee ive Mo Scalloc c o a aM n p tic eno E x ligo m bl iBua Sc s Unid. Fish d o i a e a apo s o aOc sSi tr r u h rt C C e Ct c u L u e Tonguefishes e cBay o tplan es i s b s Ammodytesn sp o u De m c cc lu m p A v ClA to r u ri o a ( re ( s a rl p cAtlantic Mackerel s y Atlantic g io o e e (S lo v (B n e (Z P l A o ri L t (M ( e ( h en r ( u h r e c d e t o e is e f n a H o P k f k i A h p a r ac w y n ic S n H te le e t ea r t M Ba an c e c A M tl lv Bu ti ic O i n t A S la an t tl A A

Figure 10B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the spring (n = 32,929). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) gu s ise s s s s) ds ids g e id r p u p o e rnin or u aak rids r o WDP e eH llo rme b b Scups lop up err ph Sq inr a o m mckerel ry a l Ha o o il o oa h Bivalves h C h n g bve Sc ctif sc c a te li s il Sc rc M s Unid. Fish e C o uS ne ei u Cep lanticp L i o b t u cc ur ant m A u e ml to (Cl l co o r Pl SAt n g e ( te in M l S r ( e ( er e er p H ak k u c ac c ti H S n er M a v c tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 10C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the winter (n = 11,266). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s) gu s s rei ids ing mp re id a ids e r n ri o si e WDP erre h u n lup a ph a li C Hh S o i ea en ph b Pandal ea c u s Unid. Fish Anthozoans p a Ct E iSilveru Hak tlanticu cc ACl rust u ( C rl g e in M r ( er e H ak c ti H n er a v tl il A S

Figure 10D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) collected in the summer (n = 4,142). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s st) ) ug p e s ds id u s ia ods ids ing m id u n ids p g e nr ri or si po a llo re WDP op up rere h ph u Sq ic dal a al l Ha o a tro ran Pou n is Bivalvesh C h a S n ph s ee Sc tedc Hake e e u ligo m Pa ScombridsUnid. Fishyt ea c t Ga o aOc Polychaetes h Cep p a C E L s p u e rSpoo rust c U ClAtlantic ar ( ( C o e g Z k in ( a r t H er u o ed H P tt ic n o t ea p an c S tl O A

Figure 11A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in the small size class (n = 6,489). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) s ug es b s id ies s s s ds ids gin mp ra id u akr sc p ids ru o e nr ri or si a b WDP op ere h C u Sq He llu ivavle l lup r ph d a irn m a aH S o il Scallo o B h C h n ph lbve Mo Sombr sc ep a cea e apo u ligo s r Unid. Fish e a Ct c E o uSi Polychaetes e C lanticp L i b Ammodytes sp ut ust De cc m ClA r u o ( C rl cAtlantic Mackerel g e (S n l ri (M e r e er e k k H a c c H a ti n er M a v c tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 11B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in the medium size class (n = 42,364). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) sn) sg) s d st) s)t e) s s ) ) ) uife ue ds u e bs uo id u is p s s s g n o ids gin a ids ui rp u n akr sc fuish ru p nw nad e nr or ul uS aPou a lu llo trh rmes b sScupo e WDP a op eer Cr a Sq h Sq c eH l a nte o ckerely r r al lup Hr ph d t ian inr at ma r aAle Bivalvesyenh er Crabsh C a gr ex n ere il Sc c tif o h h t c p h eno n l a ligo bive Mo Bua c sc c o aM n e a t apo E Il x o mOc ri Scombridsc M s Unid. Fish d ti a e C c s a Sls t ne eri u u r C C plantic e u L s iu s o b m Tonguefishes se Ammodytes sp o ut D m e c lu o p vo A to rc c i m t e (Cl s a lu r Pleur cAtlanto o sa rAtlantic o o r ep S n o B g i Z e ( te l ( in e ( M (P l S A n r (L t ( e ( ( e r t u e sh er p e d e o o k i k u if a H p P a rf c c h c S n H e a S ew n ti a tt l e n e er M A M a c v Bu c tl O il ti ic A S n t la an t tl A A

Figure 11C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in the large size class (n = 16,972). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Smooth Dogfish

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s s P ds ds u D ves o m scs al po e u W v o eh Crab ll i r Crabs op o B e hal ly M nc p pod Crab astrop o ligo Squid Unid. Fish a e a G spesh C C s Lo lu Dec uHor im L ( b ra C e o h es rs o H

Figure 12. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis; n = 7,697). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. 1970s A

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) ) s s s s s b ea d b eg u ods c rn ra a ra te em WDP C lop apo C s h a rust c d u p Bivalves cer h e ly n p C De ndm Herri oshoe Crab Paguridae Unid. Fish a e apo uu pe C C c tr s Loligo Squid RoE u De ( Horsl g u n im ri L r ( e b H ra d C n e u o Ro h es rs o H

Figure 13A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the 1970s (n = 573). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. 1980s B

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) ds ea b ub id cs c ra ma u po a C e lus WDP lo d h Sq l a rust p Bivalves cer Crabs h ly Mo n p C apo oshoe Cr Unid. Fish a e c pe Polychaetes C C s Loligo De lu uHors im L ( b ra C e o h es rs o H

Figure 13B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,579). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. 1990s C

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s id b d b u scs ra po ra WDP C o C al d Bivalves er Mollu c ligo Sq Unid. Fish an eph apo o Polychaetes C C c L De

Figure 13C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the 1990s (n = 2,157). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. 2000s D 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s b s b id d ods u ra po ra p WDP C o C al d tro Bivalves er s Molluscs c Unid. Fish an eph apo Ga C C c Loligo Sq De

Figure 13D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the 2000s (n = 2,491). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Mid-Atlantic Bight A 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s sb) s d b ua id c ra u po em lus WDP lo C h Sq l er Crabs a d p Bivalves c ly Mo n oshoe Cr Unid. Fish a eph capo pe C C s Loligo De lu uHors im L ( b ra C e o h es rs o H

Figure 14A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 4,416). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Southern New England B 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s b s b d ods ra po ra p WDP C o C ivalve l tro B er a d s c Unid. Fish an eph apo Ga C C c Loligo Squid De

Figure 14B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in Southern New England (n = 1,648). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Georges Bank C 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s b b e ra ra ida WDP C C ur er d g c Pa Unid. Fish an apo C c De

Figure 14C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected on Georges Bank (n = 220). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Fall A 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s) s ab ds uab id c m u WDP Cr po e Sq llus d tro h Bivalves er Crabs s p c shoely Cr Mo n capo Ga eo Unid. Fish a e p C D s Loligo lu uHors im L ( b ra C e o h es rs o H

Figure 15A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the fall (n = 4,316). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Spring B 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s r) ) n bs id es s ods a ids u ktu ia ea si la aetes th WDP op c Cr a Sq ruoa h n l a d d a Bivalves er Crabs ha ph nC cDogfish c p rust u ligo icu a Unid. Fish e C apo E o s Polyc s Can C ec L antia lu nl Spinya D o u Mantis Shrimp gAt q o S p ( ro sh c fi i g (M o r D e y ak in o p Cr S c ti an tl A

Figure 15B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the spring (n = 1,419). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter

30 25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0

s s) s) b ds bs eg id u h a rn u n ra po te aefis WDP C o Cr s cs al d u rio Bivalves cer h e e n p md Herri ligo Sq mGo Unid. Fish a e capo unu o a Polychaetes C C e tr L s D ERo iu ( h g p n o ri L r ( e h H is d f n se u o o Ro G

Figure 15C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected collected in the winter (n = 812). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s b ds n d b id ra ra u WDP po C C lo acea capo d er a Bivalves c h ust De Paguridae n ep capo Unid. Fish a C Cr C De Loligo Sq

Figure 15D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) collected in the summer (n = 253). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Medium

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

bs d b id cs e o a ds u s da ra op po i WDP C l d Cr ur ha tro o Sq g Bivalves cer p s g Mollu n e apo li Pa Unid. Fish a C c Ga o Polychaetes C e L D Mantis Shrimp

Figure 16A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) in the medium size class (n = 2,581). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Large

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) bs id s ds abs ds au u c po po em lus WDP o Cr h Sq l al d tro p Bivalves cer Crabs h s ly Mo n p oshoe Cr Unid. Fish a e apo Ga pe C C ec s Loligo D lu uHors im L ( b ra C e o h es rs o H

Figure 16B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) in the large size class (n = 4,251). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Atlantic Sharpnose Shark

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) ts) s s) s s) s) n bs ou d l u ds u p o a r ui e fishh i t o fr Spu e r t rme la Scups WDP ti th Sq ten o aen Pufferu ry robins c n o sk- tca i c h halopods r a a tif rna c a pod Cr x lig Cu Bui c Sc em s Sea s a Engraulidss tr u Unid. Fish amy Flounder u s ne reths Cep eh Lo u o d m t Dec m il ur i to ch to r le Noo o fi Str s p P er n lr io e o e a e P h t Guth L ( p (S ( h S Ci t is ( p ( o f r cu er p r e d S te ff S n t u u P lo Bu n F er h m rt ea o tr N S lf u G Figure 17. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae; n = 217). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Barndoor Skate

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) gs s ns ies ss u b u r ids u g imp mp ra n aak h WDP en r ri ca He rmes c rerrin h h C iRave rin dal o d. Fish s er Crabs Ha S S d er il n tif i i c h n ea lbve Pa c yc a ea Sm s Un hRed Hake e go ac capo a uSi ne p Can p n s ci o o u ra ust De ru c r ClAtlantic C r te lu U ( C p r Pleur ( g ri e e n it M ak ri ( er em e H H H ak d c ( H Re ti n n e er a v v tl a il A R S ea S

Figure 18. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis; n = 655). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Southern New England A 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) p bs es ds mel id rie ds m a i ru u a i rimp ri m o -e e WDP h d Sq in d Cr nusk il er Crabs n Sh a S difor mmar fuC b c e a o ligo s Pandal Unid. Fish go capo G Ga r o uSilver Hak Can n e awnp L ci ustac D mF c Cra r iu lu C id er Pleuronectiformes h p M o ( p e e ak (L l H e er -e v k il s S Cu n aw F

Figure 19A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) collected in Southern New England (n = 326). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Georges Bank B 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) s s es s a s ug bs un ri un ds g s g imp mp a n aak s i n u n r ri a He o lo ch WDP rerrine h h Cr ic n culpiin dal b Ha S d r Rave lri Sp n loounder id. Fish is er Crabs h n a s eae vei s F c c e m ilb mn Pa a Un Redy Hake a go c apo aS Ss ore otin h e n a c s iu hc ps p Can p a e u c e s o u r rust D r c ngd lo r ClAtlantic C te lu too g U ( C p r Lc Fourso ( g ri e o p e n it M s ip ak ri ( lu r m e a (H H e e k h d H H a p er c ( H e d Re ti n c n n e er o u a v v x lo tl a il yo F R S t A a M o e ( p S in rs p u l o cu F S rn o h g n o L

Figure 19B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) collected collected on Georges Bank (n = 277). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Spring A 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ug s p id ies g mp b m u r ids n rimp ri ra i ea WDP rerrine h h C Sq in er Crabs Ha S S d Shr il c h n d b Pandal a ea s Unid. Fish e go ac capo uSilver Hak Can p n capo Loligo i u ra ust De cc ClAtlantic C r De lu ( C r g e n M ri ( er e H ak c H ti n er a v tl il A S

Figure 20A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) collected in the spring (n = 200). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Winter B 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) bs es ds elm ie ds a ri ue r i fish rimp m a r ea WDP o n Hak usk-d ir Flat er Crabs Sh od Cr difor mm Cn il c n p a f u lbve Pandal a Ga o s Unid. Fish ngo c G r uSi Can e awnp ci D mF c Cra iu lu id er h p M o ( p e e ak (L l H e er -e v k il s S Cu n aw F

Figure 20B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) collected collected in the winter (n = 291). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Winter Skate

20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s gs p s s s m is s e ds u b d u id r c v ring im ri od r u a es sp ei en ra a p o e lus t WDP val up err C d Sq in l i l Ha Shr d Iso n il B er CrabsC h mm fu b Mo c aic on o s Unid. Fish Amphipods an et g apo Ga rn Cusk-eel Silveru Hake Polychaetes C p n c wp Loligo i tlanu a cc Ammody De Fam u (ACl Cr iu l id er g h in p M r o ( er p e H e ak c (L H ti l n e er a -e v tl k il A s S Cu n aw F

Figure 21. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata; n = 17,143). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) s s s d ise b d es id r es sp ra tti m ar ea t C o in C il Bivalves cer difor mm b n s Unid. Fish a Ga Ga Illex Squi uSilver Hak Polychaetes C i Ammody cc lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 22A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the 1970s (n = 479). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s es b s s id v ab id od u es sp r ra ar p t WDP val C C i r d Iso B mm Molluscs Unid. Fish Amphipods ance apo Ga Polychaetes C c Loligo Sq Ammody De

Figure 22B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the 1980s (n = 3,225). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. 1990s C 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s s s s s es s e ds ug p b d m ri c ds v ing m ri od ru a i es sp ei rn i ra a p o e lus t WDP val up erre C d in l i l Ha Shr d Iso n il B cer CrabsC h mm fu b Mo n taic on no Cusk-eels Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods a e g apo Ga r Silveru Hak Polychaetes C p n c wp i Ammody tlanu a Fa cc A De m u (Cl Cr iu l id er g h in p M r o ( er p e H e ak c (L H ti l n e er a -e v tl k il A s S Cu n aw F

Figure 22C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the 1990s (n = 9,708). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s

20 n 15

10

5 % Compositio 0 ) l p s s gs p s ) d s) s s s) s) d u elm i l u kes i g im od -eu r sc erer a u alves pe n r p r ea u aetes b . Fish h ytes s WDP v u e h sko r nHake h ackm d Hc d r u d li oll o i s o Bi er CrabCl a od Crab Iso C n i M lyc Mc i c h on S p fu ilveb Cusk-ee s Un Redyc a g Gammarids o Ss rc h lantice Herrin r Loligo Squiu Po ntie p Can p awnp ci ab o Amm Atu Deca Fm c lm r Cl Cran u u o U ( i l Atc ( id er S e g h ( k in p M l a rr o ( e e p e er H H e ak k d c (L ac ti l H Re n e er M a -e v c tl k il ti A s S n la Cu t n A aw F

Figure 22D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the 2000s (n = 3,731). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s p s s s s rs ids m b ids sc detu e i ra r od na WDP r C a p llu -eel t ivalve up h sk en er Crabs l S d Iso d B c C n mm Mo Cu n ys Unid. Fish a go capo Ga h Polychaetes C an t Tonguefishes Ammodytes sp r De ch C li Summerra Flou a P ( er d n u lo F er m m u S

Figure 23A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 1,970). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s gs p b s s m s s e u d u id c u v ring im ra ri od -reel u br n C a p o lus WDP val erre d d Sq l m i Ha Shr Iso uskn o B cer Crabs h n mm Cfu Mo sc n a apo no r Unid. Fish Amphipods a e go c Ga wr Polychaetese C lanticp n p Loligo b Ammodytes sp tu ra De Fam m ACl C u o ( i Atlanticc Mackerel g id (S n h l ri p e r o er e ep k H L ac ic ( t el M n e c la - ti t sk n A la Cu t n A aw F

Figure 23B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected collected in Southern New England (n = 4,574). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s gs p s s s s s e u b d m id ri c v ing im ri od ru u a es sp nr ra a p o e lus t WDP val rere C d Sq n l i Ha Shr d Iso nusk-eel li B cer Crabsh n mm Cu i Mo n n f b Unid. Fish Amphipods a ea go apo Ga ro Silvers Hake Polychaetes C p n c pw Loligo iu Ammody tulantic ra Fa c A De m c (Cl C iu lu id er g h in p M rr o ( e p e H e ak c (L ti l H n e er a -e v tl k il A s S Cu n aw F

Figure 23C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected on Georges Bank (n = 10,011). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s gs p s es s u d ri ds eids rgin mp im ri a sc i WDP en ri a e lu valve up rer h irn Hak l i l aH S Shr il B C h d mm lbve Mo Pandal a ea s Unid. Fish e ac Ga uSi Polychaetes lanticp capo i Ammodytes sp tu ust cc ClA r De u ( C rl g e in M r ( er e H ak c ti H n er a v tl il A S

Figure 23D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 522). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s gs p s s s s s e ds u b d id ri c v ei rgin im ra od u a tes sp WDP en ari p Sq e llus ival up rer C in l aH Shr d Iso il B cer CrabsC h mm b Mo n atic on s Unid. Fish Amphipods a e g capo Ga uSilver Hake Polychaetes C lanp an Loligo i Ammody ut De cc ClA Cr lu ( r g e n ri (M r e e k H a ic H t er an v tl il A S

Figure 24A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the fall (n = 5,786). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s es bs ug p b s s cs v a ds ing m d od es sp ei nr i ra ari p lus t WDP val up rere C l i r Cr l Ha Shr d Iso B ce C h mm Mo n taic on Unid. Fish Amphipods a e g capo Ga Polychaetes C lanp n Tonguefishes Ammody tu a De ClA Cr ( g n ri er H c ti an tl A

Figure 24B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the spring (n = 7,741). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) ) ) s gu p b s elm ies s s rs s ds ing m a ids d u r sc detu ru o rn i r -er aak na b WDP e r Cr a po o He llu -eel t ivalve lop err h d d irn sk en m er Crabs a Ha S Iso nusk il d co B c h h n mm fCu lbve Mo Cu s n p a apo o s ys r Unid. Fish a e e go ec Ga r uSi h Polychaetese C C lanticp an awnp ci t b Ammodytes sp tu r D mF c ch m ACl C u u li o ( i rl Summera Flou Atlanticc Mackerel g id e r (S n h M a l ri p ( (P e r o e er e p k er k H e a d c (L n a ic H u t el r o M an e e l c tl - lv F ti sk i r n A S e la Cu m t m A n u aw S F

Figure 24C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the winter (n = 3,074). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s) s s u s ug s d ei pish e ids gin ui r ids u v e nr q ea l re rme nHak solff ival up a er lri a l h H i hW B C difo lex S lveb Pandal ic atic Il s Unid. Fish h e Ga Siu Polychaetes r p ci Ammodytes spa utlan c n ClA u AtlanticA ( rl ( g e sh in M fi rr ( lf e e o H ak c W ti H ic n er t la v an t il tl A S A

Figure 24D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) collected in the summer (n = 542). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s s s s s e bs ug b d id p v a ing ra ri u sc es sp rn C a lu t WDP val rere Sq l i r Cr Ha d B h mm Mo Scallo ce ic apo ligo Unid. Fish Amphipods an eta c Ga o Polychaetes C p L Ammody tulan De ACl ( g n ri er H c ti an tl A

Figure 25A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) in the small size class (n = 1,207). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s e bs p b d v a im ra od tes sp WDP C ari p ival r Cr Shr d B mm Iso on apo Unid. Fish Amphipods ance g c Ga Polychaetes C n Ammody a De Cr

Figure 25B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) in the medium size class (n = 8,538). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) ) s s) s es s ug p bs ds d elm ri ring im a ri reu a sc tes sp WDP n r a po o e lu -eels valve rere h Cr d ri nHak l i Ha S d Iso usk-n il sk B cer Crabs h n mm Cfu veb Mo n o sl Cu Unid. Fish a ea go capo Ga r Siu Polychaetes C lanticp an e awnp ci Tonguefishes Ammody tu r D Fm c ClA C iu lu ( id er g h n p M ri o ( er p e e ak H (L ic l H t e er an -e v tl k il A s S Cu n aw F

Figure 25C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) in the large size class (n = 4,333). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Extra Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) ) ) s ug b elm id ies s s sr s ids ing a u u r sc detu ids ru e nr -er aak eel na b WDP e Cr o Sq He llu t ivalve up rer d uskd irn sk- en m er Crabs l Ha n o il d co B c C h fCu g bve Mo Cu Flou Sciaen s n a apo o li sil ys r Unid. Fish a e ec r o uS h Polychaetes e C lanticp awnp L ci t b Ammodytes sp tu D Fm c ch m ClA u u li o ( i rl aSummer Atlanticc Mackerel g id e r (S n h M a l ri p ( (P e r o e er e p k er k H e a d c (L n a ic H u t el r o M an e e l c tl - lv F ti sk i r n A S e la Cu m t m A n u aw S F

Figure 25D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) in the extra-large size class (n = 3,065). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Clearnose Skate

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

l s) s) a) p bs e d u s s pp p i m a -e ui kert sc ou g ri la lu eel Scs re WDP h sk Sq roau l ry hrim d Cr o d sk- h S is er Crabs o g Cn c s c c p li u Mo Cu s i y a tsic u Unid. Fish h Lo ina p Can lna m Tonguefishes rSpottedo Hake Dec Fawn Cu o to Mant Atg o (U Crustacea S o n p te e o S ak r ( ic p H M u ed ( c tt r S o e p ak S o Cr c ti an tl A

Figure 26. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria; n = 960). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s) s id uer s abs u tk c la lus WDP valve Cr Sq uroa l i d d B er Crabs n C Mo c ligo uic Unid. Fish an apo o s c L ia C e nlant D o gAt o p ro ic M ( er ak o Cr c ti an tl A

Figure 27A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria; n = 960). collected in the fall (n = 215). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) li p is s s p il shl b id eelm tes h m fia ra r-u e c ri kg ul o a it WDP h rae C a d h hrim m e d gr nusk S cer Crabs a S n n uC s a n e iWo E nf i Unid. Fish o a c c apo ro Polyc Baych Anchovy C a s c pw Tonguefishes n o Fa Mant A rust n De m ( C iu y (Cy d v i o sh h h fi p c k o n a ep A e L y W ( el Ba -e sk Cu n aw F

Figure 27B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) collected in the spring (n = 277). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

l) s) ) p me id s un ia m bs u u n g a r-e eel lobii e WDP ri o or Scup r h dsk Sq sk- r d. Fish s er Crabs d Cr n o a i ci c a S o f uCu g Cu cSea y e ap o li s Un h c r o turn p Can e p L oe Spottedo Hake D mFawn n r u o U Crustac i ri ( id North e h (P k p a o in H p b e o ed L r tt ( ea o el S p -e n S k er s h rt Cu n n o aw N F

Figure 27C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) collected in the winter (n = 434). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Medium

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) p l es s ps p bs em ri tes up m a -eru aak eel e o ri o He a Scys WDP h dsk n h r hrim d Cr n lri sk- h S Bivalves er Crabs a S Cuu vei c c e f ilb Cu s Unid. Fish apo ro Ss Polyc u Can ec p iu m Tonguefishes Fawn cc to Mantis rustac D m u o C iu rl n id e te h S p (M ( o p p e u e ak c (L S l H e er e v - il sk S Cu n aw F

Figure 28A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) in the medium size class (n = 445). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

l) s) a) bs me d u s s p i a rue ui kert sc g o laa lu eel re WDP dsk- Sq rou l hrim n o d sk- S efishes id. Fish is er Crabs od Cr u g nC u c c p f i u Mo Cu is y a ro stic Un h p Lol ia p Can nlan Tong rSpottedo Hake Dec mFawn Cu ot Mant U iu gA ( id o e h p k p ro a o c H p i e M ed L ( tt ( r o el e p e ak S k- o s Cr c Cu ti n n w a a tl F A

Figure 28B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) in the large size class (n = 489). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Thorny Skate

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) ) ts) s) ta ug p ths p s s u ei es a ids ing m tu abs m id id n r ids st e nr ri la i si ar a ea sh a WDP up rere h mouu Cr u ic r Hakn fi topods h l Ha yc d Shr a anr Pou li g a er CrabsC h a S ra d mm ee vei it c e m ph m l b Ha Oc Pandal Unid. Fish Sead Mouse a c W apo u Ga Oca Sis Polychaetes o e a es c apo E iu r Can p d e c s c h u ust o D ce c p ClAtlantic r h De r lu A ( C t a r ( g n o e e n ca (Z s i a t (M u rr t u o e p o e M H y P ak a c H e i (Cr an S t e er an th c v tl u O il o S A m ry W

Figure 29. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata; n = 3,435). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) es ug s d id ys s ing id ui u tu ids su thy nr annla ndero WDP h rere Sq Sq hu dal uu alopods c Ha ausi c n q h ri h ex go a a p d ph l li m Pa sFlo Unid. Fish e a u Il o sbed s eu C on e E u Polychaetesm h lanticp L n l Ammodytes sp C tu Dali a ClA c th ( to h g p p n e co ri L WindowpanS er ( ( y er H n d c n n ti a u n h o la S l t ed F A b e u an a p D w o d in W

Figure 30A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the 1970s (n = 231). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) a gs p s) s rs ts es s s s t u uth bs eu u ri e ds s ta g m ut a id dss n aka i u s n ri loa si o a He sh ch a WDP rerrine h mu Cr u unl ic n fi topod h Ha yc d a log anr Pou lri g is a Clupeidsh a S ra Fo ee vei c it e m ph n m lb Ha Oc Pandal Unid. FishRedy Hake dSea Mouse a W apo u y Oca Sis Polychaetes h o e es c E chc iu p r p d e s es c o h u ustac o D Witlu c c r p ClAtlantic r h a r lu U A ( C t h a r ( ( g n p o e e e n ca e (Z k s ri a c t (M a u r t to u e H o e p p o k d M H y ly P a Re ea ic (Cr (G an H S t r e er an th e c v tl u d O il o n S A m u y lo r F W ch it W Figure 30B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the 1980s (n = 796). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) s) s) ta ug tuh bs s s ei es a ids ing t a id id akr ids st e nr la si ar ea sh a WDP ere mouu Cr u nH fi opods h lup r yc a lri g t er Crabs C Ha ra d mm i ta c h m ph lveb Ha Oc Pandal Seai Mouse a W apo u Ga s Unid. Fish d e es c E Siu Polychaetes ro Can lanticp d e ci h tu o D c p ACl th lu A ( n r ( g a e se in c M u r ta ( o er p e M H y ak a c Cr H e ti ( r S n th e la u v t o il A m S ry W

Figure 30C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the 1990s (n = 1,768). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) s s ts es s s id u p thu bs p uu ri ds s u g m ut a m on aka od i u q n ri ola i a e shes p aetes h S WDP erringe h mu ic nH fi o dal h c r c anr P lri g t n is Bobtailil er Crabs Ha a d Cr ee i c ta c h ea S m d Shr m veb Ha Oc Pa y b a Wry apo Oca ils h Unid. Fish e es c Su Polyc dianp Redfish Can p d e capo s i ao Bo u o D e ce cc r AtlanticCl h D r lu AcU ( Crustac t a r ( g n o e h n ca (Z is ri a t (M f r t u e ed e yp o k H P a R c Cr n H n ti ( a r ia n th e e d la u c v a t o O il c A m S A ry W

Figure 30D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the 2000s (n = 640). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Georges Bank 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s) s s s) s) ta ug b s shu ie un a ing mp id n akr s ids ids st nr ri ra si afi a o a WDP ere h C u c He in hMouse r a rosei irn pculpi er Crabs Ha S d e il s S Pagur ta c h ea ph mGo lbve mn Pandal Seai n a c apo u a s ore Unid. Fish d a e a c E uSi hc Polychaetes ro C lanticp s i e Ammodytesh sp tu ust De iu cc d p ClA r h lu to A ( C p r Longc ( g o e o e n (L s s ri (M lu u r sh a o e i e h M H ef ak p a c s H e e ti o c S n o er o a G v x tl il yo S A (M in lp cu S rn o h g n o L

Figure 31A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected on Georges Bank (n = 610). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Gulf of Maine 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) ) s st) ) s) ta ug p ths b s u eis es s s a ids gin m tu id n akr ids u st e nr ri la ra si a ea sh h a WDP ere h mouu C u c nH fi opod c h lup Hr yc d a anri Pou rli g t s er CrabsC a a S ra e vei ci ta c h e m ph m l b Ha Oc Pandal Redy Hake Seai Mouse a c W apo u Oca s Unid. Fishh d e a es c E Siu Polychaetes p ro Can p d s i o h u ust o De ce cc r p ClAtlantic r h r u U A ( C t a rl ( ( g n o e e e n ca (Z k s ri a t (M a u r t u e H o e yp o k d M H P a a c Cr n H Re e ti ( a r S n th e e la u c v t o O il A m S ry W

Figure 31B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 2,383). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Scotian Shelf 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s a s s) s ta ds p bs p ud d uh e ds a o m a m id ho n h i st ri i si Cr ari eafis a WDP lop h u ico isc fis h a d Cr Shr a tm or g a er Crabs h a S d ph sn mm e it c p e u lua Gom Ha Pandal Unid. Fish dSea Mouse e c apo E d Ga a Polychaetes o Can C a ec apo Ata s r ec G iu h rust D ( h p D d p (A C o Co L se ( u ic h o t is an f M tl se ea A o S o G

Figure 31C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 417). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) ) ) ta ug p ths s s ies s s a ids ing m tu b id r e ids t e nr a ra aak sh s WDP e ri l C usi He fi a up rer h moucu a ri n g topod h l Ha rya d il ta C h a S ph lbve Ha Oc Pandal Seai Mouse a ce Wm apo u s Unid. Fish d e a es c E uSi Polychaetes ro p d ci h u ust o De c p ClAtlantic r h u A ( C t rl ( g n e e n ca s ri a (M u r t e o e yp k M H a a c Cr H e ti ( r S n th e la u v t o il A m S ry W

Figure 32A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the fall (n = 1,500). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) ts) s) s) s) ta p thu bs p s u ei es s s s a ids m ut a m id ids n akr ids u u st e ri ola i si ar a ea sh h h a WDP h mu u ic nH fi opod c c h lup yc d Cr Shr a anr Pou rli g t is is a er CrabsC a S ra mm ee vei c c it c e m d ph m l b Ha Oc Pandal y Redy Hake Sead Mouse sW apo u Ga Oca s h Unid. Fishh o e c apo E s iSiu Polychaetesdianp Redfish p r Can d e c e c rao ro h rustac o D e c c p th D ar lu (AcU (U (A C n o r a e sh h e c (Z M i e s a t ( f ak u t u e ed o yp o k H M P a R d a Cr n H n e ( a r ia Re S th e e d u c v a o O il c m S A ry W

Figure 32B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the spring (n = 1,508). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Summer 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) a gs hs s d yis ies t u ttu b id r ds ta ring a ra ui u m a i es sp s n l q lennr e t a WDP rere mouu C Sq fo n hMouse Ha yc d Be li a er Crabs h ra ex S a i it c m l ligo et b Pandal Unid. Fish dSea an a sW apo Il o r Silvers Hak Polychaetes o e e c L p iu r C lanticp d mSnake c Ammody h tu o De a c p ClA h l lu A ( t s r ( g n u e e n ca n s ri a e (M u r t p e o e yp m k M H u a a c Cr (L H e ti ( S n h y er a t n v tl u n il o e S A m Bl ry e ak W n S

Figure 32C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) collected in the summer (n = 393). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) st) u p ths p s s u g m tuu m id ids n ids n lao i si r od a WDP eerring hri u u a p c r cm a ri aH a mm Iso eean Pou h ea S m d Shr ph m Pandal a Wry u aOc Unid. Fish e es apo E Ga Polychaetes p d c s u o e ce ClAtlantic h D r ( Crustac t a g n o n ca (Z i a t rr t u e yp o H P c Cr n ti ( a n th e la u c t o O A m ry W

Figure 33A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) in the small size class (n = 1,006). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s s s ta ds p bs p d ds a o m a im id ri od i st ri si a p a WDP op h u opod h l d Cr Shr a Iso t ha mm ta ea S d ph Oc Pandal Seai Mouse apo u Ga Unid. Fish d Cep c apo E Polychaetes ro e c h ustac D e p r D A C ( se u o M ea S

Figure 33B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) in the medium size class (n = 1,509). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ta gs s s s ies s s a ids u tthu b id r e ids ids t e rgin mp a ra aak sh s WDP n ri l si He fi Mousea up rere h u C au ri n g topod h l aH S c d il ta C h a ph lbve Oc Pagur Pandal Seai ea Wrymoum u s Ha Unid. Fish d ea ac s capo E uSi Polychaetes o p e i Ammodytesr sp utlantic d c h A rust o De c p Cl th lu (A ( C n r g a e se n c M u i a ( o rr t e e yp k M H a ea ic (Cr H S t er an th v tl u il o S A m ry W

Figure 33C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) in the large size class (n = 587). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Rosette Skate

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s s s s ) ds n b id d eelm ids o imp m ra -ru r ri cea si ari o WDP lop h h a C u d a S d a n cer Crabs h n a S ph mm u e rust u n fCusk Pandal Unid. Fish go c C apo E Ga ro Polychaetes Can Cep n a c wp ra ust De Fa C r m C iu id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F

Figure 34. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani; n = 700). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Little Skate

20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s s p b s s cs m mp d od ri ri ra ari p lus WDP valve h h C l i S S d Iso B cer Crabs n mm Mo n ea Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac capo Ga Polychaetes C an r rust De C C

Figure 35. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea; n = 27,507). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) a s s s s t e bs p n b p d ds ds ta v a m m i i es sp s i ra i ari t a WDP val acea C hMouse i r Cr Shr d Shr ta B ce n ust d mm Pagur Pandal Seai n Unid. Fish d a go Cr capo Ga Polychaetes ro C n capo Ammody h ra De p C A De ( se u o M ea S

Figure 36A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,406). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s es bs p b s s s v a m d od sc i rimp ra ari p lu WDP val h C l i r Cr Shr S d Iso B n mm Mo Pagurids ce Unid. Fish Amphipods an go apo Ga Polychaetes C n acea c Ammodytes sp ra ust De C Cr

Figure 36B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the 1980s (n = 2,893). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s s s s p b d s ds m mp ri od sc i ri ri ra a p lu WDP valve h h C l i S S d Iso B cer Crabs n mm Mo n ea Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac capo Ga Polychaetes C an r rust De C C

Figure 36C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the 1990s (n = 16,697). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s p s s s ) s b id eelm c im mp ra r od r-u r ri a p o lus WDP valve h h C d l i S S d Iso n B cer Crabs n mm u Mo n ea nf Cusk Unid. Fish Amphipods a go c apo Ga ro Polychaetes C n a c pw ra ust De Fa C r m C iu id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F

Figure 36D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the 2000s (n = 6,511). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s s p b s s cs m mp d od ri ri ra ari p lus WDP valve h h C l i S S d Iso B cer Crabs n mm Mo n ea Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac capo Ga Polychaetes C an r rust De C C

Figure 37A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 7,621). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s ) e bs p b d m v a im ra ri od ru WDP C a p o ival r Cr Shr d d B mm Iso n ce n apo fu Amphipods n c Ga on Cusk-eel Unid. Fish a ngo wr Polychaetes C a De p r mFa C iu id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F Figure 37B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in Southern New England (n = 10,499). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) a s p s s s t e bs b d ids ta v a im imp ra od s WDP hr C ari p Mousea ival r Cr Shr h B S d mm Iso Pagur ta ce n Amphipods Seai n apo Ga Unid. Fish d a ngo acea c Polychaetes ro C a h r ust De p C A Cr ( se u o M ea S

Figure 37C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected on Georges Bank (n = 7,831). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s ) p bs p s ds ers ies ds m a m id ri stu od r i rimp ri i si a bn p ea WDP h u coa a Li in er Crabs Sh od Cr mm r Iso il c n ea S p d Shr ph e b Pandal a u Ga cman s Unid. Fish ngo c apo E a uSilver Hak Polychaetes Can e c sri ci rustac D e ru c Cra D a lu C mAme r o e M (H ( e er k st a b H o r L e lv an i ic S er m A

Figure 37D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 1,334). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. E Scotian Shelf

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) a P p s p s s t D abs m b m d ids otusea i imp ra i od s W hr C ari p Ma r Cr Shr Shr h S d mm Iso ta ce n d Pandal AmphipodsSeai n apo Ga Unid. Fish d a ngo acea c apo Polychaetes ro C a c Ammodytes sp h r ust De p C De A Cr ( se u o M ea S

Figure 37E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 220). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s s p b s s m mp id od ids ids ri ri ra ar p ur WDP valve h h C g i S S d Iso B cer Crabs n mm Pa n ea Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac capo Ga Polychaetes C an r rust De C C

Figure 38A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the fall (n = 7,403). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s s p b s s cs m mp d od ri ri ra ari p lus WDP valve h h C l i S S d Iso B cer Crabs n mm Mo n ea Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac capo Ga Polychaetes C an r rust De C C

Figure 38B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the spring (n = 13,394). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) a s p s s s ) t e bs m b d eelm ta v a i imp ra od r-u s WDP hr C ari p o Mousea ival r Cr Shr d h B S d mm Iso n ta ce n fu Amphipods Seai n apo Ga o Unid. Fish d a ngo acea c r Polychaetes ro C a p h r ust De Fawn Cusk p C m A Cr iu ( id e h s p u o o p M e (L ea l S e -e sk Cu n aw F Figure 38C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the winter (n = 6,120). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) ) s p s) es ta bs ds tuer ri ds ds a imp a im ri ns a i i st r a ab e ur a WDP valve h Cr co rn Hak g h i S d Shr rLi li B er Crabs n d mm e vei Pa ta c an lb Pandal Unid. Fish Seai Mouse an go apo Ga cm Sis Polychaetes d n c apo ria iu ro C a e c s c h r D ru c p C De a lu A mAme r ( o e e M s (H ( u e o er k M st a b H ea o r S L e lv an i ic S er m A

Figure 38D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) collected in the summer (n = 590). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s p b s s cs m mp d od ri ri ra ari p lus WDP valve h h C l i S S d Iso B cer Crabs n mm Mo n ea Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac capo Ga Polychaetes C an r rust De C C

Figure 39A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) in the small size class (n = 6,194). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s p s s s ) b id eelm ids im mp ra r od -ru WDP r ri a p o valve h h C d i S S d Iso n B cer Crabs n mm u n ea n fCusk Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods a go c apo Ga ro Polychaetes C n a c wp ra ust De Fa C r m C iu id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F Figure 39B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) in the medium size class (n = 21,311). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Smooth Skate

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s e ) p n b p ds ss m m id i u rimp ri ea ra i si h WDP h ac C u r Hak c Sh d Shr a id. Fish s er Crabs n a S d ph ve i c e rust u l Pandal Un yRedc Hake go C capo E Si h Can n capo p ustac De o Cra r r C De (U e ak H d Re

Figure 40. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth skate (Malacoraja senta; n = 1,056). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) p sg s s ise ss m abs iinu id id r ids u ri rl ea h WDP h b n Hak c d Cr im ausi lir id. Fish is er Crabs a S o c mmar vei c c e p s ph bl Pandal yRed Hake a ud Rock u s Un h c pr E Ga uSi p Can e o i o D ybea cc r el u U Crustac hur rl ( Foc e e n M ak (E ( H g e n k d li a k H Re c er v Ro il rd S ea rb u o F

Figure 41A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) collected in the 1990s (n = 221). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 2000s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s p n b p ds imp m ra m iids i WDP r ri ri h h acea C aus er Crabs S d Sh c n a S ust d Pandal ce apo Unid. Fish go a Cr c apo Euph Can an c r rust De C C De

Figure 41B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) collected in the 2000s (n = 709). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) p p s se bs ri ds imp m a im id a i WDP r ri si e h au irn Hak d Cr Shr il a S d ph blve Pandal e apo u s Unid. Fish gon Sh c apo E uSi n e c ci rustac D c Cra C De lu er (M e ak H er v il S Figure 42A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) collected in the fall (n = 446). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s) p n bs p s ds s m a im id i u WDP ri cea si aetes ch h a Cr au dal h d. Fish er Crabs d Shr n i is c a S ust d ph Pa yRedc Hake e r apo u Un h C c E Polyc p Can e capo o D r Crustac De (U e ak H d Re

Figure 42B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) collected in the spring (n = 558). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) p s p s es bs ds ri ds m an a im id ri aka sids i WDP ri e si a He h au ri n d Cr il My ustac o d Shr ph mm lveb Pandal r p u s Unid. Fish C ca E Ga uSi Polychaetes e capo i D e cc Crustacea S D lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 43A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) in the small size class (n = 236). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p p s se) s) bs ri ds s imp m a im id a i u WDP r ri si e ch h Cr au inr Hak d. Fish er Crabs Sh d Shr il i is c n a S d ph blve Pandal yRedc Hake ce apo u s Un h ngo a c apo E uSi p Can e c ci o rust D c r Cra C De lu (U r e e k (M a e H ak d H Re er v il S

Figure 43B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) in the medium size class (n = 790). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Atlantic Herring

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) s s s s ll ds n s d n i mp id iid sids ch ri si ari ea it WDP h acea u er ac pepo S a p My Anchovym o ph mm rv a C ea ust u Hy Pandalids Amphipods o ac Cr E Ga La cBayh n ust A r ( C y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 44. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus; n = 17,910). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1980s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p ths od imp m iids sids na r ri WDP h aceans us og pep S t Sh a My s d aet Co u Unid. Fish Amphipods h acea Cr Euph C capo Ammodytes sp ust Cr De

Figure 45A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the 1980s (n = 564). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) li s p s e s s s il d m d va id id n ids h ri sii r r i ea s tc WDP h u a er c i pepo a La p a My m o a S mm rv a C e ph ish Hy Pandalids o ac Eu F Ga La cBayh Anchovy n ust A r ( C y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 45B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the 1990s (n = 12,553). WDP = well-digested prey. C 2000s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s s e s m n id d ids ids imp ea si rva i s WDP r hri c u ari er a a La p My Sh a S mm Copepods n e rust ph ish Hy Pandalids c u Ga ngo a C E F rust Cra C

Figure 45C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the 2000s (n = 4,697). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) ll s p p s e s i d m m id va d ch i i si r it WDP u eriids pepo Shr Shr a La mari p Mysids Anchovym o n d ph m a C u sh Hy Amphipods o go E Fi Ga Baych n apo n ra c A C ( De y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 46A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 4,003). WDP = well-digested prey. B Southern New England 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s ds p s d n ths m id iids es sp a i si ari t WDP aceans u er pepo Shr t a p Mysids togn o s ph mm ae C on u u Hy Amphipods h g Cr E Ga Larvacea C n Ammody a Cr

Figure 46B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected collected in Southern New England (n = 4,653). WDP = well-digested prey. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p s e s s s d m d a id id an ids ids sii rv r i e s WDP hri u a er c pepo a La p a My o a S mm rv C e ph ish Hy Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods ac Eu F Ga La rust C

Figure 46C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 2,500). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) p p s s s se d ri m im id ri iid a sids WDP ri si a er e h au p in il My a S d Shr ph mm Hy b Pandalids Copepods e u s apo E Ga uSilver Hak c ci rustac e c C D lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 46D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 6,224). WDP = well-digested prey. E Scotian Shelf 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s p p s s d m m id d ids ids i si i WDP hri u ari er pepo Shr a p o a S d ph mm C e u Hy Pandal ac E Ga capo rust e C D

Figure 46E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 515). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) p s s s ies d ids id r ids m r i ean a s WDP ri sii a r e h au pe in h il My a S mm Hy arvac b Pandalids Copepods e s Eup Ga L uSilver Hak ci rustac c C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 47A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the fall (n = 4,496). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) li s s s e s s il ths d mp n id va d ids n h a ri si r i tc WDP h acea u er acea i pepo S t a La mari p v Mysids Anchovym togn o s ph m a ae C ea u u sh Hy Amphipodso h ac Cr E Fi Ga Lar cBayh C n ust A r ( C y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 47B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the spring (n = 9,765). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s s s m id id id ids ids rimp ri si r i s WDP h h u a er S a p My mm Copepods n ea S ph Hy Pandal c u Ga ngo a E a Thecosomates r rust C C

Figure 47C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the winter (n = 2,441). WDP = well-digested prey. D Summer

80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

s s s d re ids ds mp o id s i WDP ri si h ph au opepo S o My C n ph Pandal cea e u a Ct E rust C

Figure 47D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) collected in the summer (n = 1,208). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s s s s s m n id id id n ids ea si r i ea s WDP hri c u a er c a a p a My a S ph mm rv Copepods e rust u Hy Pandalids C E Ga La rustac C

Figure 48A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) in the small size class (n = 4,413). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s s li ds s d n il mp id i iid ids h ri si ar ea s tc WDP h u er ac i pepo S a p My Anchovym o ph mm rv a C ea u Hy Pandalids Amphipods o ac E Ga La cBayh n ust A r ( C y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 48B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) in the medium size class (n = 13,142). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) li s p s p s s il d n d ri h aths im im iids iids a tes sp tc WDP us er e i pepo Shr tacea Shr a mari p in Mysids m togn o s m il a Anchovy e C n u d Hy b o a s h h go Cr Euph Ga Silveru Hake Bayc C n capo i Ammody n ra cc A C u ( De l y er v M o ( ch e n ak A y H er Ba v il S

Figure 48C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) in the large size class (n = 255). WDP = well-digested prey. Alewife

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s ds p s im imp id iid od sids WDP r r si er p h h aceans au p opepo S S st Iso My C n u ph Hy Amphipods u Unid. Fish ngo acea Cr E Ammodytes sp ra ust C Cr

Figure 49. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus; n = 404). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Blueback Herring

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s ds n s d mp id iid ids ri si ari s WDP h acea u er pepo S a p My o ph mm C ea ust u Hy Amphipods ac Cr E Ga Thecosomates rust C

Figure 50. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis; n = 1,347). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

ds rimp WDP h aceans opepo S st C u Amphipods acea Cr Euphausiids ust Thecosomates Cr

Figure 51A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 552). WDP = well-digested prey. B Southern New England 50

40

30

20

% Composition % 10

0

s s d ds rids iid WDP a pepo Mysids o mm C Hyper Amphipo Ga

Figure 51B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) collected in Southern New England (n = 362). WDP = well-digested prey. C Gulf of Maine 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s p n e s d m id iid ids ri ea or si ari s WDP h ac ph u er o a p My a S n ph mm Copepods e rust e u Hy Pandalids C Ct E Ga rustac C

Figure 51C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 372). WDP = well-digested prey. A Extra Small

80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

s s s d mp n id ids ids ri si s WDP h acea u pepo S t a My o s ph C ea u u Pandal ac Cr E rust C

Figure 52A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) in the extra-small size class (n = 206). WDP = well-digested prey. B Small 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s s d mp n id d ri si WDP h acea u eriids pepo S t a mari p Mysids o s ph m C ea u u Hy Amphipods ac Cr E Ga rust C

Figure 52B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) in the small size class (n = 740). WDP = well-digested prey. C Medium 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s ds n s d mp id iid ids ri si ari s WDP h acea u er pepo S a p My o ph mm C ea ust u Hy Amphipods ac Cr E Ga Thecosomates rust C

Figure 52C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) in the medium size class (n = 401). WDP = well-digested prey. American Shad

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s s d mp id d ids ids si s WDP hri u ari pepo S a My o ph mm C ea u Pandal ac E Ga rust C

Figure 53. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American shad (Alosa sapidissima; n = 874). WDP = well-digested prey. A Southern New England 100 80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0 ) s s s ies tha d mp n id r ids ids a si aak s WDP hri u He pepo acea a rin My togn o S il e C ust ph lbve Pandal ea u s ac Cr E uSi Invertebrata Cha ci rust c C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 54A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) collected in Southern New England (n = 288). WDP = well-digested prey. B Gulf of Maine

80 60 40 20 % Composition Composition Composition % % % 0

s ds s d ds mp id ri sids i WDP hri pepo S ausi My o ph mma C ea u Pandal ac E Ga rust C

Figure 54B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 304). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s d mp id d ids ids rimp ri si s WDP h h u ari pepo S S a My o n ph mm C ea u Pandal go ac E Ga an r rust C C

Figure 55A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the small size class (n = 238). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s d mp n id ids ids ri si s WDP h acea u pepo S t a My o s ph C ea u u Pandal ac Cr E rust C

Figure 55B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the medium size class (n = 404). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

ds aths imp iids WDP r pepo h aus togn o S ae C h acea Euph Gammarids C st u Cr

Figure 55C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the large size class (n = 213). WDP = well-digested prey. Fawn Cusk-eel

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s p s s s s ) s d n id id eelm d imp m r od r-u oi WDP r ri cea si a p o r h h a u d iu pepo S a Iso n h Bivalves o n a S ph mm u C e rust u nf Cusk Unid. Fish go c C E Ga ro Op Polychaetes n a pw ra ust Fa C r m C iu id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F

Figure 56. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum; n = 1,023). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

p s s ) s n bs ids id eelm d m a r i r-u oi WDP ri cea a r o r h a Cr pe d d nusk iu a S mm uC h Copepods e rust Hy nf Unid. Fish C apo Ga ro Op Polychaetes ec pw D mFa Crustac iu id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F

Figure 57A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 422). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s p n s d imp m id od WDP r ri si ari p h h acea u iuroids S a Iso h Bivalves n a S ph mm e ust u go ac Cr E Ga Op Polychaetes an r rust C C

Figure 57B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) collected in Southern New England (n = 457). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s ) s n abs ids id eelm d rimp ea ri od -ru oi WDP h c p o r rmes S a pe uskd iu o Bivalves d Cr mmar Iso n h tif Copepods n ust Hy Cu c r apo n f Op Unid. Fish go C c Ga wro ne Polychaetes n e p o ra D Fa C m iu Pleur id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F Figure 58A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) collected in the fall (n = 467). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 70 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s e n s d d ds v imp mp id oi i WDP r ri si ari r val h h acea u iu i S S t a h B n s ph mm ea u u Pandal Amphipods go ac Cr E Ga Op Polychaetes an r rust C C

Figure 58B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) collected in the spring (n = 272). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s p n s d d imp m id oi WDP r ri si ari r h acea au iu Sh mm h n ea S ust ph c u Ga Op ngo a Cr E Polychaetes rust Cra C

Figure 58C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) collected in the winter (n = 284). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

p s s s s s bs ids id d ds m an a id r i od oi i WDP ri ce si a er p r h a u p iu d Cr a Iso h a S ph mm Copepods e rust u Hy Pandal C apo E Ga Op Polychaetes ec D Crustac

Figure 59A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) in the small size class (n = 422). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s ) s d n ids eelm d imp mp r od -ru oi WDP r ri a p o r h h acea d iu opepo S S Iso n h Bivalves n ust mm fu C ea no Cusk Op Unid. Fish go ac Cr Ga wr Polychaetes an p r rust Fam C C iu id h p o ep L ( el -e sk Cu n aw F Figure 59B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum) in the medium size class (n = 601). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Haddock

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s sg) p p s s s s s s inu m abs m d id g d u d ids rg i oi rms si g eo oi WDP ern hri n e u E ari n r ivalve re Shr od a iu B aH d Cr chi n sh mm h h ea S d E ph Fi Pandal a c apo u scella Op Unid. Fish AmphipodsAnthozoans e a c apo chi E Ga Polychaetes p e c E Mi u rust D e ClAtlantic D ( C g n ri er H c ti an tl A

Figure 60. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus; n = 9,488). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s es p s s s s an v ds m d m ids d u es sp o po i oi r i t WDP val lo n de us i a Shr o a mari iuroids B h d chi n m h p E cellaneo e chi Ga s Op Polychaetes Anthoz C apo E Euph Ammody ec Mi D

Figure 61A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,972). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1980s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p p s s s ids m abs m id gg d ids e ri i erms si E s WDP up h Cr u l d Shr od a sh mari My C a S d n ph m e u Fi Amphipods ac capo chi E Ga OphiuroidsPolychaetes e capo E Ammodytes sp rust D C De

Figure 61B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected collected in the 1980s (n = 1,461). WDP = well-digested prey. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s s s s s e s gs d u cs d v rab id ri s oi WDP si Eg a eo r val C u n iu i r a h B ce ph ish mm Mollu n u F cella Unid. Fish AmphipodsAnthozoans a E Ga s Op Polychaetes C Mi

Figure 61C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in the 1990s (n = 1,279). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s gs p s s s ies s s s u bs d id id r u d ids u ring m a oi r aka oi br WDP en ri n si a He eo r ivalve rer h Cr au ri n n iu m Ha d chi il h co B h a S ph mm lbve Pandal s a e E u s cella r Unid. Fish AmphipodsAnthozoans e ac capo E Ga uSi s Op Polychaetese lanticp e i b tu ust D cc Mi m ClA r lu o ( C r Atlanticc Mackerel g e (S n l ri (M e r e r e k e H a ck c H a ti n er M a v c tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 61D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in the 2000s (n = 4,776). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Southern New England

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

p s s s s s s s d id id id d p m an oi r s oi WDP ri ce n si a r h a u iu a My h a S ph mm Scallo e rust Echi u Unid. Fish Amphipods C E Ga Op Polychaetes

Crustac

Figure 62A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in Southern New England (n = 249). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Georges Bank 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) ) s s gs s s s s s s s s e u b d id g d u d u an v ring mp ra oi g oi br o WDP en ri n si E ari eo r val rer h C u n iu m i Ha S d a sh h o B h chi ph mm sc a ea E u Fi cella r Unid. Fish AmphipodsAnthoz e ac capo E Ga s Op Polychaetese lanticp b Ammodytes sp tu ust De Mi m ClA r o ( C Atlanticc Mackerel g (S n l ri e r er e k H c ic a t M an c tl ti A an tl A

Figure 62B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 4,324). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Gulf of Maine 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) s ug p s s s s e ids g id d u d ids v e nrin mp im rms oi WDP e ri e si ari eo r val up rer h u n iu i l aH S Shr od a h B C h d n ph mm a ea u cella Pandal Unid. Fish AmphipodsAnthozoans e ac chi E Ga s Op Polychaetes lanticp capo E tu ust Mi ClA r De ( C g n ri er H c ti an tl A

Figure 62C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in Gulf of Maine (n = 2,833). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Scotian Shelf 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p s s s s s s abs d id gg d id u oi erms si E ari o WDP valve n u ur i d Cr od a sh h iuroids B o d Shrim n ph mm ot h p o Echi u Fi l cellaneo Amphipods a p chi E Ga s Op Polychaetes ca E Ho Dec e Mi D

Figure 62D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 1,973). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s gs s s ise s s u bs gs id r u d ds eids rgin mp a id g r a oi i WDP en ri si a e eo r ivalve up rer h Cr au irn Hak n iu l aH S d ish E il h B C h ph F mm blve Pandal a ea u s cella Unid. Fish Anthozoans e ac capo E Ga uSi s Op Polychaetes lanticp e i tu ust D cc Mi ClA r u ( C rl g e in M r ( er e H ak c ti H n er a v tl il A S

Figure 63A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in the fall (n = 4,385). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s p s s s s s s s) bs d id ids id u d u a oi rms r o sc oi r WDP n e si a eo lu r b valve u ur n l iu m i d Cr od a h h o B o d Shrim n ph mm ot Mo c p o Echi u l cella s Unid. Fish Amphipods a p E Ga s Op Polychaeteser ca Echi Ho b Dec e Mi m D co SAtlantic Mackerel ( el er k ac M c ti an tl A

Figure 63B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in the spring (n = 4,176). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

p s s s s s s m abs d d d sc d ids p ri oi sii po oi WDP h n u llu r dal d Cr a Iso iu n o h Mo h Scallo p Echi Pa Unid. Fish a Eup Op Polychaetes Dec Crustacea S

Figure 63C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in the winter (n = 219). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s s s s d ms id d u an rab oi tes sp o WDP n er si ari eo C u n iuroids r od a h ce chi n ph mm n E u cella Anthoz a chi E Ga s Op Polychaetes C E Ammody Mi

Figure 63D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) collected in the summer (n = 708). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p s b s s s s ids m od id d id d ids ri ra si ari o oi WDP ell h ap C u ur r r c a h iu ap e d mm h C ea S D ph lot Pandal Amphipods c apo u Ga Op Polychaetes a c E Ho rust De C

Figure 64A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in the small size class (n = 1,196). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s es s p s s s s an v mp b m id g d u ids o ra i si g eo WDP hri C u E ari n ival Shr a iuroids B S d sh mm h ea d ph Fi Pandal c apo u scella Op AmphipodsAnthoz a c apo E Ga Polychaetes c Mi Ammodytes sp rust De C De

Figure 64B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in the medium size class (n = 5,154). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s gs) p s s s s s s s) u bs d id g d u d u rgin a im oi rms g oi r WDP n n e si E ari eo r b valve rere u n iu m i aH d Cr od a sh h o B h d Shr chi n ph mm c E u Fi cella s Unid. Fish AmphipodsAnthozoans ea capo chi E Ga s Op Polychaeteser lanticp e capo E b ut D e Mi m ClA D o ( Atlanticc Mackerel g (S n l ri e r er e k H c ic a t M an c tl ti A an tl A

Figure 64C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in the large size class (n = 3,108). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Atlantic Cod

20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) a s g) p s st) ks) e ) s n) s ) ) t s bs gs ds u cu is s d ds ds s s a ids inu mp a m g n n akr sc su i i ru s st e rg ri i rme po aPou dofi a lu o roi rmesb u a WDPvalve eren h c de He l nculpi gur o ch hMouse i lup r d Cr Shr ro ani l rin Si iu m B er CrabsC aH S ish Edifo st er g il p h Pa Scallops o is ta c h ea d F Hae lbve Mo sn Pandal sc Redc Hake AmphipodsSeai n c apo Ga Ocm a s orm Op Unid.y Fish d a ea a c apo Ga a s uSi he er h ro C lanticp e c s u i c b p Ammodytesh sp ut ust D e e m c nge o p A r c c od m r Cl C D ar m lu Lto Atlantico MackerelU (A ( o ra r c Pleuronectifc ( e g Z g e o (S e s n ( o M s l k u ri t n ( lu e a o r u a e a er H e o el k h k d M H P a p c a c n (M H e a Re e ti a r c M S n e ck e o a c o v x ic tl O d il yo t A d S an a (M tl H in A lp cu S rn o h g n o L Figure 65. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua; n = 19,645). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

) s) ) ) ) ) ) s) ) a ug bs p a cse d id sk ies s ix u s t ods ids gin a m uod ds e ui u uc r ids ids p r r tu ta e nr i Ch po ildai q in a t b a s WDP op ere r o Sq fdo Hake ur dal rmes ta i Mousea l lup r tico ro s led rin g n o l m c h er Crabsa aH d Cr m st s g il Scallotif Bluefishsa co s a c h C h d Shrs tean P lex S eHa lveb Pa Pa c s fa iSeat ep a apo tulan Ga ac Il ligo a s s r s Unid. Fish d e c d pl o s uSi ne u e e o Can C lanticp e capo aA eri L u i o m b st Ammodytesr sp ut D e es m c to m a h A (G dAm c eur a o b p (Cl D i m lu c eAcadian Redfish A d o ra r Pl m SAtlanticS Mackerel ( g ss g e o ( ( e in Co o o M P l h s r c l n ( ( e s u r ti g a e h er fi o e n o l k is k d M H a p e a f c e c tl ip M H e a R ea ti ( u S n A (H k er Bl M an la e c v ic i t c o il t ad A ai d S an c l ad tl A P H A an ic er m A

Figure 66A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,940). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) t) ) ) ) a s gs bs p s s s ks es s s s s s) t ids inu mp a m id ds u cu akri sc d ids ids p s akei ta e rg ri i si po Poun in a oi u u s WDP ern h u rme a dof He llu r ur rmes ch n Mousea ivalve lup re a ro ic lde rn iu g ndal o te h er Crabs aH S d Cr Shr st ran g li h Scallo is a B c C h d ph difo e Hae lvei Mo Pa Pa Redc Hakeis Seait n cea apo u m a b Op ScombridsUnid.y Fish c Amphipodsd a ea a c E Ga Ga aOc s Sis h Whitey H o C p e apo s u iu p h Ammodytesr sp utlantic ec e c o p h A rust D c m c r ro p Cl C D r m lu (U (A ( a ra r Pleuronectif (U g o g e e e n (Z o k e s ri t n (M a ak u r u a H o e o l e d H M H P e ak e a c M Re it e ti an ( H h S n e k er a c c v W tl O o il A d S ad H

Figure 66B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in the 1980s (n = 6,389). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

) s s) s ) ) s ta e ds ug b gs ds ise s ns d ds a v ing g akr sc su i st ei nr ra po a o oi a WDP ere C eH llu culpin r hMouse ival lup r ro inr Si iu B er CrabsC Ha d ish E st il p h Scallops ta c ich F blve Mo ns Pandal Seai n ta apo Ga s orm Op Unid. Fish d a e c uSi he ro C lanp i ec Ammodytesh sp tu De cc d p ClA u to A ( l cLong ( g er o se in M s u r ( lu o r e a e k h M H a p a c e e ti H c S n er o la v x t il yo A S (M in lp cu S rn o h g n o L

Figure 66C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in the 1990s (n = 8,252). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) s) ) s s) ) ) ug bs es ds ecse uk ies ds p u s ss ids gin mp a d nc akr i r tu u e nr ri m po liai dofi a llo b a h WDP eer h Cr so de He dal a mckerel ci c lup Hr d ro s l irn n oa s id. Fish s Bivalveser CrabsC a S difor st e Hag il Sc c a i hycis sp c h ea ctan P e lbve Pa s f Redyc Hakep n a c apo Ga la a s cr M s Un h a e a c Ga pri s uSi ei diante Redfish p C plantic e s u i b as o Uro Ammodytes sp ut ust D e m c mant a r A r dAme m c ol Acb (Cl C i a lu Atc e (U so r r S (S e g s g e ( k in lo o M l h a rr g n ( re is e o la e e f H p e k k d d H p a c e c i M H a R Re ti H ( r M n n ( ck e c ia la e o lv ti d t ic d i n a A la d S a c P a tl A H A an ic er m A Figure 66D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected collected in the 2000s (n = 3,064). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Southern New England 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

) ) s ) ) t) e) s ) s ) ) ) a sg ab p a s s ds p s s s ss t a ids inu m uod u aki i u ru ia u a ic e rg Cr i Ch Poun r ndern rme berel h h st d eern r a e Ha dal allo cua o ck t c Mousea n ivalve lup r d Shr tico anc nr n i am n h Quahoga B er Crabs aH nm eri li Sc erlo tif o a is nsl c C h d as e ive Pa F c sc c Redc Hake Seata ai n apo ul bil m Scombridsrc M a Unid. Fishy i a a ea ec d Ocm sS a ne ei s h d c C plantic apo aAt a u s o b lu p Ammodytesro spOceti ut D ec s i e ur aSpiny Dogfisho h c A (G e cc ct e m u r p r Cl D rc u eWinter o q U A ( d a l n Pl Atlantc S ( (A ( g o r o (S ( e g n Co Z e r l h k se o i ( M u e s a u h rr ic t ( le r fi H o a e t u e p e g u H an o k o ck o d M l P a d a a Q ic t n H u D Re e n t A a r e M y S a n e e s c in ce la c v (P ti p t O il n S O A S er a d tl n u A lo F r te in W Figure 67A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in Southern New England (n = 1,226). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Georges Bank 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

) s s) s ) e) s ) s) ta e ug b gs ds csk is sn ds ds u a v ids gin mp g u akr sc su i i r st e nr ri ra po idon a lu o b a WDP eer h C fd eH l nculpi m h Mouse ival lup r ro le nr Si o B er CrabsC aH S d ish E st g li p Pagur Scallopsc ta c h ea F eHa live Mo ns Pandal s Seai n a c apo Ga a b orm r Unid. Fish Amphipodsd a e a c s sSi he e ro C lanticp u iu ec b Ammodytes sph ut ust De m c d m p A r c o o A (Cl C m lu Longt cAtlantic Mackerel ( ra r c S e g g e o ( s in o s el u r n (M lu r o r a a e e l e h k M H e ak p c a c M e a e ti ( H c M S n k er o c la c v x ti t o il yo n A d S a ad (M tl H in A lp cu S rn o h g n o L

Figure 67B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected on Georges Bank (n = 8,041). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Gulf of Maine 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s ) )t ) s ) ) ug p bs p cse d id s ise d ds s s ids gin m a m id e ui u u r i tu s e nr ri i si liaid q Poun a oi rmes a u WDP eer h u o Sq a e Hak r o i ch lup r Shr a s ic nr iu c er Crabs aH d Cr s eran li h s is c C h a S d ph tane P lex S e live Pandal fa Redc Hake a ce apo u ac Il ligo m b Op s Unid. Fishy e a c E pl o aOc sSi e h Can p e capo eri L s iu st p Ammodytes sp u ust D e es e c a ro ClAtlanticr D Amd rc c Acadianb RedfishU ( C i a lu Pleuronectife ( g so o r (S e n s Z e k i lo ( M h a rr g t ( is e o u e f H H p o k d d p P a e ic i n H R Re t H a r n n ( e e ia la e c v d t ic O il a A la S c P A an ic er m A

Figure 67C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in Gulf of Maine (n = 7,882). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Scotian Shelf 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) gs p p s s d) st) sk se) s s) ids u bs id oa u uc ri als ids u u e rgin m a im Cu n in a i r t WDP en ri si rme r h a fdo e b ia up rer h u ioc c led rn Hak ckerelm c l aH d Cr a t rani Pou g li ater oa s Bivalvescer CrabsC h a S d Shr ph difo nm e eHa vei M c fa e u las m a lb Pandal s Unid. Fish ea apo Ga u aOc s Sis c. icr M s p c apo E Atd u u s e te Can u e c a es ci b s rustac D e G c m c Mi m a ClAtlantic D ( r m u o eAcadianb Redfish ( C d a a rl Atlantc S g o r e (S ( in Co (Z g l h r t o (M e s r ic u n r fi e t o la e e d H an P e k ck e c l M a a R ti t n ( H n A a r M n a e ck e c ia tl c o v i d O d il t a A d S an c a tl A H A

Figure 67D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 2,417). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) gs e) s ) ) u bs gs d id is d ds us s ids rgin mp a g ui u akr i r tu e n ri Ha roi b a WDP up rere h Cr Sq Sq e dal mckerel i l aH d irn iu n oa sc er CrabsC h S ish E ex veil h c a c ea F l ligo bl Pa Scombridss f Unid. Fish ea c apo Il o Sis Op ric M s Can p a ec L u e te utlantic ci b s Ammodytes sp rust D c m a ClA u o eAcadianb Redfish ( C rl cAtlant S g e (S ( in l h r (M e is er er f e k d H ak c e ic a R t H n n er M a la v ic i t il t ad A S an c tl A A

Figure 68A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in the fall (n = 7,170). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) a s gs) p es) ts) k) e) s n) s ) ) t u bs es ds ce u cs is s d ds ds s s ta ids gin mp a im d n u akr sc lpisu i i ru s s e nr ri m po laii Poua doin a lu o roi rmes b u a WDPvalve ere h o c df eH l ncu o ch Mouseh i lup Hr d Cr Shr ro ss ani le inr Si iu m B er CrabsC a S difor st ane P eer Hag veil p h Pagur Scallops o is ta c h ea d ct e bl Mo ns Pandal sc cRed Hake AmphipodsSeai n a c apo Ga la Ocm a orm Op Unid.y Fish d a e a c apo Ga pri a s Sis he er h ro C lanticp e c s s u iu ec b p Ammodytesh sp tu ust D e e e m c dng o p A r D Amed rc c o m r A (Cl C i a m lu Lt PleuronectifcAtlantico Mackerel(U ( so o ra r c S e g s Z g e o ( e s in lo ( o M s l k u r g t n ( lu e a o er o u a e a er H p o l k h k d M H p P e a p c a c i n M e a e ti H a ( H c Re S n ( e k er o M la e c c v x c t c O o il yo ti A ai d n l d S M la P a ( t n H in A a lp ic u er c m S A rn o h g n o L

Figure 68B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected collected in the spring (n = 10,114). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s) ) s s ug s p ies s e ds g b r ids e v ei nrin ra im ods a t WDP ere C p Hake rmes y ival lup r ro irn o d er Crabs aH d Shr st il o B c C h d lbve Pandal m n atic apo Ga s ScombridsUnid. Fish mSand LanceAphroditids a e c uSi C lanp capo i A tu De cc ClA De u ( l Pleuronectif g er n ri (M er e H ak c ti H n er la v t il A S

Figure 68C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in the winter (n = 1,389). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer

40

nn 30

20

10 %% Compositio Compositio

0 ) p s sg) d se s) s bs u i rki n a od eids g a e tes p p n Squ e ir Cr lo u re Crabs in vollock dy a ex il sP ha Cl h od l lbver Ha Pandalids iu ncer Il s h Unid. Fish a ea ap Euphausiids uSi c C Cep p ci la Ammo Atlanticu HerrinDec c l Cl lu o ( r (P g e n M ck ri ( o r e ll e k o H a P ic H t er an v tl il A S

Figure 68D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collected in the summer (n = 972). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) s ) s s s es s) s s u ta ug b gs ds ri un d ds n g ta ids rgin mp g aak s i e n s e n ri ra po He o roi ir re a valve rere h C n culpin v a hMouse i lup aH d ro lir Si iu sPollock hAlewife B er CrabsC h S ish E st i s p h Scallopsu o ta c ea F lbve n Pandal i d Seai n a c apo Ga s orm Op h Unid. Fish u Amphipodsd a e a c uSi hce c e ro C lanticp ci e la s h tu ust De c ngd l p p ClA r u oo o a A ( C rl Lct (P s ( g e o lo e n s ck A s ri (M u o ( u r e l ll e o e k a o if M H a h P c H ep w ea ti c le S n er o A a v x tl il o A S y (M in lp cu S rn o h g n o L Figure 69A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the small size class (n = 1,827). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) s sg p s s se) s s ids u bs id gs d ri d ids ids e rgin mp a im g aak sc oi WDP n ri si ari eH lu r valve up reer h Cr u nr l iu i l aH S d Shr a li h B cer CrabsC h d ph ish E mm vei Mo Pagur Scallops n ea u F bl Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods a ea ac capo E Ga sSi Op Polychaetes C lanticp e capo iu Ammodytes sp ut ust D cc ClA r De u ( C rl g e in M r ( er e H ak c ti H n er a v tl il A S

Figure 69B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the medium size class (n = 7,749). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) ) s s s s) s) ta ug bs p gs ie s s ds u a ids ing mp a m g ods akr sc d i ids r st e nr ri i p ea oi b a WDP ere h Cr rme n H llu r hMouse ivalve lup r fo ro ri iu m er Crabs Ha S d Shr ish E i st il h Scallopsco ta B c C h d F d lbve Mo PagurPandal s iSea n a cea apo Ga s Op r Unid. Fish d a e a c apo Ga uSi e ro C lanticp e c ci b Ammodytesh sp tu ust D c m p ClA r De u o ( C rl Atlanticc Mackerel (A g e S e n ( s ri (M el u r e r o e k e M H a k c ac ea ti H n er M S a v c tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 69C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the large size class (n = 8,223). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Extra Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) a s gs ) d st sk) es) n) s s) ) ) ) t u bs es oda ds id u uc i s u s ss kes ta ids gin a u ui u n n r su r tu u ai s e nr m rhC po aPou fido a o rme b a h u a WDPvalve ere o Sq Sq ic ed Hake culpin o mckerel i c en hMouse i lup r tic ro o ran l irn Si oa sc t a B er CrabsC aH d Cr difor m st ex g e g il p tif c a is s it c h a s l m eHa lbve ns c s f Redc Hakei dSea n a apo utlan Ga Il li a a s m Scombridsrc M s Unid.y Fish yc o a e c G d o Oc s uSi eor ne ei diane Redfishh hWhite H r C lanticp e aA L s u i ch o b ast p p Ammodytesh sp tu D G ce m c e ur ant a o o p A ( r c d e m Acb r r A (Cl d a m lu to co e U ( o ra r cLong Pl SAtl S ( (U e g Z g e o ( ( e e s in Co ( o M s l h k k u rr ic t n ( lu re is a a o e t u a e a e f H M n o el k h k d d H H la P a p c e te ea ic t n (M H e a R Re i S t A ea r c M n h an c ck e o ia W l o lv x ic d t O d i yo t a A d S an c a (M tl A H in A lp cu S rn o h g n o L Figure 69D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the extra-large size class (n = 1,846). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Pollock

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p s e) s) u is ds u eids rgin mp im id r i h WDP n ri si ea t up rere h au rn Hak n l aH S Shr li ca C h d ph lvei Pandal a ea u b rButterfishi Unid. Fish ea ac E Sis t p apo iu s Ammodytes sp utlantic c c u A rust c il Cl C De lu r ( r ep g e P in M ( rr ( h e e is H ak rf c e ti H tt n er la v Bu t il A S

Figure 70. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens; n = 5,820). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s s ) s) ds p d id ri e ds s u o ids u aak i en r e sii eH ir b WDP lop up u Sq inr dal v mckerel a l a o il n sPollock oa h C d Shrim ph g bve u sc o li s il Pa i Unid. Fish p Eu o uS ch eirc M Cep ca L ci a b e c ll m D lu o o r (P Atlantc e (S M ck l ( o e e ll er k o k a P c H a er M v c il ti S an tl A

Figure 71A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected in the 1970s (n = 630). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p s e) s) u is ds u eids ring mp im id r i h WDP n ri si ea t up rere h au rn Hak n l Ha S Shr li ca C h d ph lvei Pandal a ea u b rButterfishi Unid. Fish ea ac E Sis t p apo iu s Ammodytes sp tulantic c c u A rust c il Cl C De lu r ( r ep g e P in M ( rr ( h e e is H ak rf c e ti H tt n er la v Bu t il A S

Figure 71B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected in the 1980s (n = 1,579). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) gs p p s se) s) s u m m id aki ids uish ru g ri i si r hf b WDP errinn h u eHa dal t re a nr n tnter amckerel aH Shr i ca o Clupeids h a S d ph ivel Pa a sc e u ilb iBu c M Unid. Fish a ac E sS tr eri e apo u s b p ec ci u Atlanticu rust c il m Cl C D u r o ( l p cAtlant g er e (S n P l ri M ( e r ( h er e e is k H ak rf c c e a ti H tt M n er c la v Bu ti t il n A S a tl A

Figure 71C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected in the 1990s (n = 2,413). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) s sg p p s d se ds s u u m m id ui ri i ru g g ri i si q a b n WDP errinn h u eHak ckerel re re Shr a nr ma aAlewife aH li o h h a S d ph lex S live Pandal sc o e u Il b c M Unid. Fish d a ac E sSi eri u e apo u b e p ec ci s Atlanticu rust c m p Cl C D u co a ( rl S Atlant s g e ( lo n l A ri (M re ( r e e e e k k if H a ac c H ew ti M l n er c A la v ti t il n A S a tl A

Figure 71D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected in the 2000s (n = 1,198). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Georges Bank 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) gs p s s se) s) s inu m d id akri ids uish ru rg ri sii ri a hf b WDP ern h u eH dal t re a pe nr n tnter mackerel aH li ca o h a S ph Hy vei Pa a sc e ilb i Bu c M Unid. Fish a ac Eu Ss tr eri e u s b Ammodytes sp p ci u Atlanticu rust c il m Cl C u r o ( l p cAtlant g er e (S n P l ri M ( e r ( h er e e is k H ak rf c c e a ti H tt M n er a v Bu ic tl il t A S an tl A

Figure 72A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected on Georges Bank (n = 1,568). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Gulf of Maine 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s) s s) ug p p s rie ds n ring m im id aak i e n ri si He ir WDP rere h u irn dal v Ha Shr a il n sPollock Clupeids h a S d ph lbve Pa iu a ce u s h Unid. Fish e a E iuSi c p capo c la u ust e c l ClAtlantic r D lu o ( C r (P g e n M ck ri ( o r e ll e k o H a P ic H t er an v tl il A S

Figure 72B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 3,132). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Scotian Shelf 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) gs p p s id ise s s u m m id u akr ids ishu ru g ri i si a thf b WDP errinn h u Sq eH dal n re a irn n atter amckerel aH o il c o Clupeids h a S d Shr ph g blve Pa a sc e u li iBu c M Unid. Fish a E o Sis tr eir e apo L iu s b p ec c u Atlanticu rustac c il m Cl C D lu r o ( r p cAtlant g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti r tt n e M a v ic tl il Bu t A S an tl A

Figure 72C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 1,045). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) gs p s id ies s ids inu mp m id u r ids u e rg i a th WDP n ri si Sq e n up rere h au irn Hak a l Ha S Shr il c C h d ph lbve Pandal a ea u ligo s rButterfishi Unid. Fish ea ac E o uSi t p apo L i s Ammodytes sp tulantic c c u A rust c il Cl C De lu r ( er ep g P in (M ( rr e h e k is H a rf H e ic tt t er an v tl il Bu A S

Figure 73A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected in the fall (n = 2,551). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p s s se) u ri ds rgin mp im id iid a i WDP n ri usi er e rere h a p in aH S Shr il h d ph Hy b Pandal a cea u s Unid. Fish e a apo E uSilver Hak p c ci Ammodytes sp u rust c ClAtlantic De lu ( C r g e n ri (M r e e k H a ic H t er an v tl il A S

Figure 73B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected in the spring (n = 2,980). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Summer 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s) ) ug s s id is g d u r n sii rme ea eerrin u Sq n r a li Clupeids aH h difo i h ligo b Unid. Fish ea Eup Ga o Silvers Hake p L iu u cc ClAtlantic lu ( r g e n M ri ( er e H ak c H ti n er a v tl il A S

Figure 73C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens)collected in the summer (n = 263). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

s) ) ug p s s s ies ing m d id r ids ids nr ri sii rme ar ea s WDP rere h u rn Hak Ha a li My h a S difo mm vei e ph lb Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods ea c Eu Ga Ga Sis p a iu u ust cc ClAtlantic r lu ( C r g e n M ri ( er e H ak c H ti n er a v tl il A S

Figure 74A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens) in the small size class (n = 772). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) gs p p s s es s) u ds ri ds u g m im id ri iid a i fhish n ri si a er e t WDP rerrine h u p rn Hak dal tern Ha a li n ta h a S d Shr mm vei c e ph Hy lb Pa Buia Unid. Fish a c u Ga Sis tr Scombrids e a apo E iu s p c c u Ammodytes sp u ust e c il ClAtlantic r D lu r ( C r p g e e n P ri (M ( r e h e k is H a rf c H e ti tt n er a v tl il Bu A S

Figure 74B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens) in the medium size class (n = 2,503). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) gs p s d se u ri ds eids rgin mp im id a i WDP n ri si e up rere h au in l aH S Shr il C h d ph b Pandal a ea u Illex Squi s Unid. Fish e ac E uSilver Hak lanticp capo i Ammodytes sp ut ust cc ClA r De lu ( C r g e n M ri ( er e H ak c H ti n er a v tl il A S

Figure 74C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens) in the large size class (n = 1,918). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Extra-large 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) s gs p p s id ise s s s u inu m m id u akr ids ishu n ru g rg ri i si a hf re b n ern h u Sq eH dal t i re re a irn n ttern v m aAlewife aH o l ca Pollocks o h Clupeids h a S d Shr ph g vei Pa a u c o e u li ilb iBu i s Unid. Fish d a ac E o Ss tr ch er u e apo L iu s a b e Ammodytes sp p ec c u ll s Atlanticu rust c il o m p Cl C D lu r o a ( r p (P Atlanticc Mackerel s g e e (S lo n M P ck l ri ( ( o e (A r e h ll er e e k is o k f H a rf P c i H e a w ic tt le t er M an v c A tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 74D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for pollock (Pollachius virens) in the extra-large size class (n = 627). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Offshore Hake

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) s s) p ds d id ue ie ods m ui u idk r ri sii b ea WDP op h u Sq Sq lHa n al a x o rea li h a S h e g os i e l li iu b Unid. Fish Il o c Silvers Hak Myctophids Cep Eup L c iu lOffshu c rustac er c C lu (M er e k (M a e H ak re o H h er s v ff il O S

Figure 75. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for offshore hake (Merluccius albidus; n = 800). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 70 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) p s d id se m d i u uk ids ids ri sii id WDP h u Squ Sq lbHa ph a x o are o h e g so ll li u Pandal Unid. Fish I o i Myct Eup L cc uOffsh rl Crustacea S e (M e ak H re o sh ff O

Figure 76A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 404). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) ) p p s d id id ies s ods m d ui u u r u ri sii ea th WDP lop h u Sq Sq Sq in n a a l ca h a S d Shrim ex fin i a e o ph l ligo b Butterfishi Unid. Fish p Il o ng Silvers Hak tr Cep a Eu L o iu s ec L cc lu u i Crustac D l r er ep P (M ( e h k is a rf H e tt er v il Bu S

Figure 76B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) collected in Southern New England (n = 345). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Silver Hake

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) s es) ) ) u id i ds s us ids rgin mp id u akr i fishu r e n ri si Hea th b WDP up ere h u Sq rn dal tern m l Hr S a o li n ta o C a ph g vei c c h ea u li ilb Pa Buia Scombrids s Unid. Fish a c E o Ss tr r e a L iu s e Ammodytes sp tlanticp c u b u rust c il m ClA lu r o ( C r p cAtlantic Mackerel g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 77. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis; n = 47,837). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) sg s id ies s s inu d u akr ids uish u rg rimp sii a thf r eern h u Sq He dal n b r a rin n atter amckerel aH S o il c o Clupeids h n ph g bve Pa a c li il iBu cs M Unid. Fish ea go Eu o Ss tr ri p n L iu s e Ammodytes sp u ra c u b c il m ClAtlantic C lu r o ( r p cAtlant g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 78A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the 1970s (n = 4,277). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p p s es) ) ) u id i ds s us g m im id u akr i fishu r n ri si Hea th b errine h u Sq n dal tern m Hr a o lri n ta o Clupeids a a S d Shr ph g vei c c h e u li ilb Pa Buia Scombrids s Unid. Fish a c E o Ss tr r e a apo L iu s e Ammodytes sp p c c u b u rust e c il m ClAtlantic D lu r o ( C r p cAtlantic Mackerel g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a i tt t er M an v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 78B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the 1980s (n = 12,679). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) gs p s id ise s s u m d u akr ids uish u g ri sii a thf r WDP errinen h u Sq eH dal n b r a inr n atter mackerel aH h o il c o Clupeids h a S g bve Pa a c e li il iBu Scombrids cs M Unid. Fish ea Eup o sS tr ri p L iu s e u c u b rustac c il m ClAtlantic lu r o ( C r p cAtlant g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 78C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the 1990s (n = 22,779). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p s es) ) ds u id i ds us o ids ing im mp id u r i r e nr r ri si ea b WDP lop up ere h h u Sq rn Hak mckerel a l Hr S S a li oa h C a n vei c h ea ph ligo lb Pandal s Unid. Fish a go c u o s ric M Cep e n a E L uSi e tlanticp a ci b u r rust c m ClA C lu o ( C r cAtlant g e (S n l ri (M e r e r e k e H a ck c H a ti n er M a v c tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 78D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the 2000s (n = 8,102). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) p s id ie s ia ods ids mp m ids id u r ids uish g e rimp ri i ul si ea thf e WDP op h h a u Sq nHak dal tern r l lup S Shr a lri n at s ha C S gr i c ctedi Hake n ea d n ph ligo lveb Pa iBua yt c E u o s r ScombridsUnid. Fishh go a apo E uSi t p Cep an c L i s oSpo Ammodytes sp r ust e cc lu r C r u i U C D l r ( er ep e M P ak ( ( e sh H ak fi ed er tt H tt o er p v S il Bu S

Figure 79A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 5,007). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p s se) ) ) ds u id i ds s us o ids rgin im mp id u akr i fishu r e n r ri si eHa th b WDP lop up eer h h u Sq nr dal tern m a l Hr S S a li n at o h C a n ph vei c c p h ea u ligo bl Pa iBua Scombridss Unid. Fish e a go c E o sSi tr r C e n a L iu s e Ammodytes sp tlanticp ra c u b u rust c il m ClA C lu r o ( C r p cAtlantic Mackerel g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 79B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in Southern New England (n = 10,624). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) gs p s ise s s ids inu m id rak ids uish u e rg ri rimp si a thf r WDP eren h h u e H dal n b lup r a inr n atter mackerel aH S S il c o C h n ph blve Pa a c u i Bu cs M Unid. Fish ea go acea E sSi tr ri p n iu s e Ammodytes sp utlantic ra c u b ust c il m ClA C lu r o ( Cr r p cAtlant g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 79C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected on Georges Bank (n = 8,670). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) gs p p s ies s u m m id akr ids u g ri i si a rids r WDP errinn h u He dal b b re a irn n m amckerel aH Shr il o o Clupeids h a S d ph bve Pa sc a ce u sil Sc c M Unid. Fish e a apo E uS eir p c ci b u rust e c m ClAtlantic D lu o ( C r Atlantc g e (S n l ri (M e r e r e k e H a ck c H a ti n er M a v c tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 79D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 21,204). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. E Scotian Shelf 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s p s d ies s u d r ids ru g m ui aka u WDP n ri sii He a rerringe h au Sq ri n dal s Ha il n xic Saury h a S ph lex lveb Pa o e Il s Unid. Fish ea Eu Sis e p iu er u c bAtlant Atlantic rustac c Cl C lu m ( r co g e S in (M ( rr ry e e u H ak a c H S ti c n er ti a v n tl il a S tl A A

Figure 79E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 2,290). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) sg s ise s s ids inu mp id akr ids uish u e rg ri si a thf r WDP eern h u eH dal n b lup r a inr n atter amckerel aH S il c o C h ph bve Pa a c ea u il iBu Scombrids cs M Unid. Fish ea ac E Ss tr ri p iu s e Ammodytes sp utlantic c u b rust c il m ClA lu r o ( C r p cAtlant g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a i tt t er M an v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 80A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the fall (n = 21,465). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p s se) ) ) u id i ds s us ids rgin imp mp im id u akr i fishu r e n r ri si eHa th b WDP up eer h h u Sq rn dal tern m l Hr S S Shr a li n ta o C a n d ph vei c c h ea u ligo bl Pa Buia Scombridss Unid. Fish ea go ac E o Sis tr r p n apo L iu s e Ammodytes sp u ra c c u b rust e c il m ClAtlantic C D lu r o ( C r p cAtlantic Mackerel g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 80B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the spring (n = 18,894). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

sg) p s es) ) ) ds u id i ds s us o ids rgin im id u akr i fishu r e n si Hea th b op up eer u Sq n dal tern m al l Hr a o lir n ta o h C a d Shr ph g vei c c h u li ilb Pa iBua Scombrids s Unid. Fish a E o Ss tr r Cep e apo L iu s e Ammodytes sp tlanticp c c u b u e c il m ClA D lu r o ( r p Atlanticc Mackerel g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 80C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the winter (n = 3,826). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ug s id ies ods ids ing mp id u r ids e nr ri si ea lop up rere h au Sq in a l Ha S il h C h ph b Pandal a ea u ligo s Unid. Fish e ac E o uSilver Hak Cep lanticp L i Ammodytes sp tu ust cc ACl r lu ( C r g e n M ri ( er e H ak c H ti n er a v tl il A S

Figure 80D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) collected in the summer (n = 3,652). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s) ) ug p s s ie s g mp m id d r ids ru n rimp ri i si a b WDP errine h h u ari Hake ckerel r S Shr a irn ma aH S mm il co Clupeids h n ea d ph blve Pandal s a c u Ga s rc M Unid. Fish e ngo a apo E uSi e i p a c ci b u r ust e c m ClAtlantic C r D lu o ( C r cAtlant g e (S n M l ri ( e r e er e k k H a c ic H a t er M an v c tl il ti A S an tl A

Figure 81A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) in the small size class (n = 14,059). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

gs) p s se) ) ) u id i ds s us ids ing mp im id u r i fishu r e nr ri si ea th b WDP up ere h u Sq rn Hak dal tern m l Hr S Shr a li n at o C a d ph vei c c h ea u ligo lb Pa iBua s Unid. Fish a c E o Sis tr r e a apo L iu s e Ammodytes sp tlanticp c c u b u rust e c il m ClA D lu r o ( C r p Atlanticc Mackerel g e e (S n M P l ri ( ( e r e h er e k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 81B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) in the medium size class (n = 32,446). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) e) ) ) ug d is s s ids gin ui akr fuish rids u e nr a th b br eer Sq eH nter ckerel lup Hr o irn at m ma C a g veil c o co h li ilb iaBu s Unid. Fish a s r Sc rc M e Lo uS t e i tplantic ci s b Ammodytes sp u c lu m ClA u ri o ( rl p cAtlant g e e (S in M P l r ( ( e er e h er k is k H a rf c c H e a ti tt n er M a v c tl il Bu ti A S an tl A

Figure 81C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) in the large size class (n = 1,332). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. White Hake

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) s ug p s d ies s ids ing mp m id ui r ids i e rn i si q a u WDP ere hri u Hake en lup r a rin d. Fish t Ha S Shr il i s C h d ph lex S lbve Pandal ci Argentine a cea u Il s Un y e a apo E uSi Whiteh Hake lanticp c ci p tu ust e c ro ACl r D u ( C rl (U g e n e ri (M ak r e e k H H a te c i ti H h n er a v W tl il A S

Figure 82. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis; n = 14,348). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s ) s) ) ) p d es d ies ds u ss is ui akr i n ish u u sii m ea ander F h n WDP u Sq H dal cu c te a x irn n rloi id. s Clupeids h difor e il eF i is d Shrim a l bve Pa yRedc Hake c o Il sil m Un h y p Eup G uS a p Whiteh Hake a i s o p cc te r o Dec u cWinter U r l e ( (U er n e ro k e (M u a ak le H e p H k o d e a d it H u Re h er se W v P il ( S er d n u lo F r te in W

Figure 83A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the 1970s (n = 682). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) s ug p s s d is ids ing mp m id r ids e nr i si a WDP ere hri u rme e lup r a fo in Ha S Shr i il C h d ph d b Pandal Argentine a cea u Illex Squi s Unid. Fish e a E Ga uSilver Hake lanticp capo i tu ust e cc ClA r D u ( C rl g e in M r ( er e H ak c ti H n er a v tl il A S

Figure 83B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the 1980s (n = 4,177). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) gs s d ise inu mp id ui r ids rg q a WDP en ri usi e rer h a irn Hak Ha S il Clupeids h ph lex S lbve Pandal ea u Il Unid. Fish ea c E Sis p a iu u ust cc ClAtlantic r u ( C rl g e in M r ( er e H ak c ti H n er a v tl il A S

Figure 83C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the 1990s (n = 7,617). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s) ) s) ) e ug ths uk ise ds n ids gin mp tu nc r i e nr ri la dofi ea WDP up rere h u de rn Hak l aH S c l li id. Fish C h a Haeg vei Argenti ea mWrymou a lb Pandal Un ea c s s Sis p a e u iu Urophycis sp tulantic d m c A rust o c Cl C th m lu ( n ra r g a g e in c o M rr ta n ( e p la e H y e ak c M ti (Cr ( H n k er a th c v tl u o il A o d S m ad ry H W

Figure 83D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the 2000s (n = 1,872). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Southern New England 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

) s ) ) ) ds sg p ab d id ise s s o ids inu m ui u r fuish u e rg ri Cr rme q a th in WDP op eern h Sq e nter l al lup Hr d in at ro h C a a S difo lex S il c a h e apo Il ligo b iaBu c Unid. Fish a ac ec Ga o Silvers Hak tr s Cep e L iu s tu p ust D c u o Atlanticu r c il n Cl C lu r io ( r p rNorthern Searobin g e e P n P ( ri (M ( n r e h i e k is b H a rf ro c H e a ti tt e n er S la lv Bu n t i er A S h rt o N

Figure 84A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in Southern New England (n = 533). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Georges Bank 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) s ) ) ug p es sk eis e ds ss is gin m uc akr i ish u auke nr ri m ino a sh F h n ere h ddf He fi dal c e r le rin g n id. s t aH difor g il i is Clupeids h a S a eHa veb Ha Pa Redyc Hake c a ce a sil Un h y e a G s Su p Whiteh H p u ci o p Ammodytes sp u ust m c r ro ClAtlantic r m u U ( C a rl ( (U g r e e n g k e ri o (M a ak r n e H e la k d H H e a te c M H Re i ti ( h n k er a c v W tl o il A d S ad H

Figure 84B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected on Georges Bank (n = 1,575). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Gulf of Maine 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) s ug p s d ise s ids ing mp m id ui r ids i e nr i si q a u WDP ere hri u eHak en lup r a inr d. Fish t Ha S Shr il i s C h d ph lex S blve Pandal ci Argentine a cea u Il s Un y e a apo E uSi Whiteh Hake lanticp c ci p tu ust e c ro ClA r D u ( C rl (U g e n e ri (M ak r e e k H H a te c i ti H h n er a v W tl il A S

Figure 84C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 10,683). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Scotian Shelf 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s p p s s ks) se) s u d uc ri ids u g m n a r n ri sii rme fdoi e b reerring h au ed rn Hak mckerel aH l li oa Clupeids h a S d Shrim ph difo eHag lvei Pandal sc e o a b rc M Unid. Fish ea p Eu Ga s Sis e i p ca u iu b u e m cc m ClAtlantic D m u o ( Crustac a rl cAtlant g r e (S n g l ri o (M re r n e e e la k k H e a c c M H a ti ( M n er a ck v ic tl o il t A d S an ad tl H A

Figure 84D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 1,467). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s ) ) ) ug p p d ise ds s is g m m id ui akr i tu u n ri i si a a n WDP errine h u Sq He dal ci e r a irn n s id. Fish t Ha ex il a is Clupeids h ea S d Shr ph l lbve Pa f c a u Il s isan Redfish Un y e apo E uSi tde Whiteh Hake p c ci as p u ustac e c a ro ClAtlantic r D u eAcb ( C rl S (U g e ( e n h k ri (M is a r e f e k d H H a e te c R i ti H n h n er a a v i W tl il ad A S c A

Figure 85A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected collected in the fall (n = 7,766). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) es p p s s ise ss n m m id akr ids u ri i si a h WDP h u rme eH dal c a ifo irn n id. Fish s d il i a S d Shr ph blve Pa yRedc Hake Argenti e u s Un h apo E Ga uSi p c ci o rustac e c r C D lu (U r e e k (M a H e d ak H Re er v il S

Figure 85B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the spring (n = 4,388). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s p ) sk) se s n es shs id uc ri u o ids ru u n a h fr e m e fido e t ti t Sq ed n n c lup osefip l li ca r C difor Rlo go Hag i a a d Shrim a y li e b iButterfish s o ryct o a s tr Unid. Fish amy Flounder ap G ar s uSilver Hak s Cephalopodsthe c d L u ci u h e be m c il c D cks u r ri au m l p alf Str en ra r e h Bll g e P Gut co o (M ( Ci i n h el la e is er e k f d (H a er n (M H tt u sh r lo fi ck e Bu e o lv F s d i d S am Ro a e y H tr ll S e lf b u ck G a Bl

Figure 85C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the winter (n = 236). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) u p s d ise ss g m d ui akr ids u n ri sii a h erringe h u Sq eH dal c r a irn n id. Fish s Clupeids Ha ex il i h ea S ph l blve Pa yRedc Hake a Il s Un h e Eu uSi p p i o u ustac cc r AtlanticCl r u U ( C l ( g er e n k ri (M a er e H H ak d c ti H Re n er la v t il A S

Figure 85D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) collected in the summer (n = 1,958). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ug p s ise ing m id r ids nr i imp si a WDP e r r u Hake rer h h a irn Ha S S il Clupeids h n ph lbve Pandal a u s Unid. Fish e go acea E uSi p an i u r ust cc ClAtlantic C u ( Cr l g er n ri (M er e H ak c ti H n er la v t il A S

Figure 86A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) in the small size class (n = 1,700). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) p p s s ies m m id r ids rimp ri i si a WDP h h u rme e S Shr a ifo in Clupeids d il n ea S d ph b Pandal c u s Unid. Fish ngo a apo E Ga uSilver Hak a c ci r rust e c C C D lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 86B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) in the medium size class (n = 5,617). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) ) ) s ug p s d ise s ss s ids ing m d ui akr ids tu ish u kei e nr ri sii a a F h au WDP ere h u Sq eH dal i c en lup r a inr n sc d. s t Ha il a i i s C h a S ph lex bve Pa f Redyc Hake ci Argentine a ce Il sil san Redfish Un h y e a Eu uS tdei p Whiteh H p ci sa o p u ust c a r ro ClAtlantic r u eAcb U ( C rl S ( (U g e ( e e n h k k ri (M is a a r e f H e k d d H H a e te c R Re i ti H n h n er a a v i W tl il ad A S c A

Figure 86C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for white hake (Urophycis tenuis) in the large size class (n = 7,031). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Red Hake

20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s) s ) s ug p b p s id is ods ds ing m m ids d u r ids ei nr i rimp ra ri i a WDP op ere h C us Sq e ivalve l lup r aceans a mari in er Crabsa Ha Shr S st d Sh il B c h C h n u d m b Pandal n ep taic apo s Unid. Fish Amphipods a e go acea Cr c apo Euph Ga uSilver Hake Polychaetes C C lanp an c Loligo i Ammodytes sp tu r ust De cc ClA C De u ( Cr rl g e in M r ( er e H ak c ti H n er a v tl il A S

Figure 87. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss; n = 17,841). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p n p s s ds ods m m id d i ids ri ea i si ari ur WDP lop h ac u g a S Shr a Bivalves er Crabs h n d ph mm Pa c p rust u Pandal Unid. Fish e go C E Ga Polychaetes Can C n apo ra c C De

Figure 88A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,662). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s p s p s ks) s) e ds b id cu i ds v im mp ra im id u n r i po ri si doi ea WDP val lo h C u Sq def n i a Shr S d Shr a l i B er Crabsh n d Hag il c p ea ph e b Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods an e go c apo u a s C n a c apo E Loligo s uSilver Hake Polychaetes C a c u ci Ammodytes sp r rust De m c C C De m lu ra r g e o M n ( la e e ak M H ( k er c v o il d S ad H

Figure 88B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the 1980s (n = 4,765). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) s) s ) ug bs p u s s id ies ids gin mp a m ringi id d u r ids e nr rimp ri i bl ri a WDP ere h h Cr k Sq e -eels lup r S Shr imc ausi in sk Bivalveser CrabsC aH S d c mma go il c h n ea d s ph i b Cu Pandal a c apo du Ro u s Unid. Fish e go a c apo pr E Ga uSilver Hak Polychaetes Can p an e c eoa Lol i u r ust D bly cc ClAtlantic C r De ure u ( C oh rl g c e n Fn ri (E (M r g e e n k H li a c k ti c H n er a Ro v tl il A rd S ea rb u o F

Figure 88C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the 1990s (n = 7,906). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s) s s s s ) ) u p bs ug ds id rie d shsa ds s g m a rini id i u aak i oi i u n rimp ri bl e s n llops th WDP erringe h Sq n H atigf n r im ausi lir My u a Ha Sh od Cr c mmar go i Hl Sca c h n ea S p s ph li lbve icg Pandal iaButterfish a a ud Rock u Ga o s e r Unid. Fish e ngo c pr E iuSi n t Cancer Crabsp e o L c lxanti s u ustac D lbeay c y lu ClAtlantic Cra r ure lu At ri ( C h r (M p g Foc e e n n M sh P ri (E ( fi ( r g e g h e n k a is H li a H rf c k H c e ti c r ti tt n e n a lv a tl Ro i tl Bu A rd S A ea rb u o F Figure 88D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the 2000s (n = 3,508). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s s ds bs p s d d s ds ds p o imp mp a im id ri ui sc i i so WDP r ri si a q lu ur Scupy lop h h Cr au l g r er Crabsa S S d Shr h c h n d ph mm lex S Mo Pa Pandal Scallops c n p ea u Il s Unid. Fish Amphipods a e go ac capo E Ga Polychaetesu C C n e capo m Ammodytes sp ra to rust D o C C De n te S ( p cu S

Figure 89A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 1,106). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New Enlgand 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s s) n b p s s id u ods mp m id d od u ids h rimp ri ra i si ari p t WDP op h h C u Sq n l S acea d Shr a Iso a er Crabsha S mm c c p n ea ust d ph Pandal iButterfisha Amphipods n e go c apo u Ga tr Unid. Fish a C n a Cr c apo E s Polychaetes C a c Loligo u Ammodytes sp r rust De il C C De r ep P ( sh fi er tt Bu

Figure 89B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in Southern New England (n = 4,649). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s) ) s ug p s s s ise s e ds g b id d r e ids ids v rnin im imp ra a sh WDP po e r si ari e fi ival lo err h C au irn Hak g er Crabs a Ha Shr S d il Scallops B c h h n ph mm lbve Ha Pagur Pandal n p a apo u s Unid. Fish Amphipods a e e go acea c E Ga uSi C C lanticp an i Ammodytes sp tu r ust De cc ACl C u ( Cr l g r n e ri (M er e H k c a ti H n er la v t il A S

Figure 89C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected on Georges Bank (n = 4,022). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) ) s) s s ug p bs p u s s ie g m a m iing id d r ids n rimp ri i lr ri ea WDP errine h h Cr kb nHak -eels r S Shr imc ausi lri sk er Crabs Ha d c mma i c Clupeids h n a S d s ph lbve Cu Pandal a ce apo ud Ro u s Unid. Fish e go a c apo pr E Ga uSi Polychaetes Can p an e c eoa ci u r ust D lby c ClAtlantic C r De ure lu ( C oh r g Fc e n n M ri (E ( r g e e n k H li a ic k H t c er an v tl Ro il A rd S ea rb u o F

Figure 89D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 7,383). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. E Scotian Shelf 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s) ) ds p bs p d uck is ds o m a im id n r i ri si rme ari fdoi ea WDP lop h u led n a d Cr Shr a ifo g li er Crabs h a S d ph d mm eHa i c e u a b Pandal Unid. Fish capo E Ga Ga s Silvers Hake Can Cep e capo u iu ustac D e m cc r D m u C ra rl g e o n (M a e el k M a ( H k er c v o il d S ad H

Figure 89E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 681). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) s ug p s p s s ks is ds ids g b id d id uc r ids o e nrin im imp ra im u in a WDP e r si ari Sq fdo e -eels ivalve lop up rer h C au led in k er Crabsa l Ha Shr S d Shr g il B c h C h n d ph mm eHa b Pandal n p a u a s Cus Unid. Fish Amphipods a e e go acea capo E Ga s uSilver Hake Polychaetes C C lanticp n capo Loligou i Ammodytes sp tu ra ust De m cc (ClA C De m lu Cr ra r g g e in o M rr n ( e la e H e ak c M ti ( H n k er a c v tl o il A d S ad H

Figure 90A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the fall (n = 8,399). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) s p s s es bs d id ri ds imp mp a im id u a i WDP r ri si ari Sq e ivalve h h Cr au in er Crabs S S d Shr il B c n d ph mm b Pandal n ea u s Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac capo E Ga uSilver Hak Polychaetes C n e capo Loligo i ra cc rust D u C C De l er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 90B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the spring (n = 6,437). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s es s) s) ds bs id ids id ri ids ishu p o Eels imp a r u a thf o WDP r si a Sq e n Scups lop h au irn Hak dal tater ry er Crabs a S d Cr il n c h c h nger n ph mm lbve Pa iBua c o u ligo s r s Unid. Fish C go capo E Ga o uSi t u Can Cep an e L i s m r D cc lu o C u ri t l p o er e n P te M ( S ( h ( e is p ak f cu er S H tt er v Bu il S

Figure 90C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the winter (n = 1,270). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) s) s) p ths p u s s ie m utu m iing id d r ids rimp ri oa i lr ri ea lops WDP h h l kb n Hak dal l S cmu Shr imc ausi lir n er Crabs ary c mma i Sca c Clupeids n a S d s ph lbve Pa e Wm ud Ro u s Unid. Fish go ac s pr E Ga uSi Polychaetes Can n e apo oa i ra d ec ye cc rust o lb u C C th D ure l n coh r a nF e c E M ta ( ( p g e y n k li a (Cr k H c er th v u Ro il o d S m ar ry e rb W u o F

Figure 90D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the summer (n = 1,735). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s) s) s s e ug bs p ngu d ds gin imp mp a im rlii id ri i rm nr r ri bk WDP rere h h Cr c topods aH S S d Shr im ausi h n d c ph mma Oc Pandal ea ds Ro u Unid. Fish Amphipods ea go ac capo ru E Ga Polychaetes p n e capo eap Anguillifo u ra ust D byo Atlantic C r l (Cl C De ure coh g nF in E rr ( e g H n c li ti ck an tl Ro A rd ea rb u o F

Figure 91A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the small size class (n = 3,493). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s s s ) e ds p b p s d id is ds v im mp im id u r i po ri ra si ari ea WDP val lo h C u Sq n i a Shr S d Shr a li B er Crabsh n d mm i c p ea ph b Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods an e go c apo u Ga s C n a c apo E Loligo uSilver Hake Polychaetes C a c ci Ammodytes sp r rust De c C C De lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 91B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the medium size class (n = 12,273). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) gs p s p s s id k) s ids inu m mp b m iingu id u cs ri es ids e rg i ra i lr u a h WDP n ri bk Sq idon e up rere h C mc ausi df n er Crabsalopodsl aH Shr S d Shr i le li Bivalvesc h C h n d c ph igo gHa i Pandal n p ea ds Ro u e b Hagfis olychaetesUnid. Fish a e ea go ac capo ru E a sSilver Hake P C C lanticp n capo eap Lol s iu Ammodytes sp ut ra ust De bo u c A C r ly m c (Cl C De ure m lu coh a r g nF r e in E g M rr ( o ( e g n e H n la k c li e a ti ck (M H n er la Ro ck v t o il A rd d S ea ad rb H u o F

Figure 91C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for red hake (Urophycis chuss) collected in the large size class (n = 2,075). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Spotted Hake

30

20

10

% Composition % 0 ) s s s d s ) se) s) s) ) n bs d ids id meel id i ids ids u p ia oder imp mp a i ui od u- u r s lops h o g frn r ri r q p r ea l t sScup e WDP ti h h pe o Sq rn Hak n y r alopodsclou S S ausii Iso dusk li My ndal a r s Bivalvescer Crabsh rF n od Crph mmar lex S nC go vei Sca c ch i p a ea Hy fnu li bl Pa iButterfisha Unid. yFishc e sm go c ap Eu Ga Il o o Sis tr s h Can C y n a ec rw L u s u Spottedp Hake thea ra p ci u m o Ammodytes sp h rust D mFa c l to r cStr C u u ri o U rlfi C i rl p n ( a id e e te e tGuh h M (P S k p ( ( a Ci o e sh p H ( ep k fi u d er L a r c e d ( H e S tt n l tt o u e er p o -e v Bu S l k il F s S am Cu e n tr w S a lf F u G Figure 92. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia; n = 13,297). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s s s ds n b s d ds o id iid i rimp ea ra si ari -eels WDP lop h ac C u er a S d a p sk er Crabs h n ph mm c p rust u Hy Cu Pandal Unid. Fish e go C apo E Ga Can C n c ra De C

Figure 93A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected in the 1970s (n = 476). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 30

20

10

% Composition % 0 ) ) s p p s s s s i s) p n bs d id nes i oder m a im id i ods od u ad r m frn ri rme p p ea -eels WDP ti h Sq lsim n k alopodsclou Shr ausi ro Iso artz i tophids er Crabsh rF a S od Cr d difo mmar st go i il c c p a e ph i Pe b Cus Unid. Fish Amphipods an e sm c ap u Ga Ga Ga we s C y a c apo E Lol s uSilver HakeMy C thea e c u i Ammodytes sp h ust D e ic cc Mantis Shri cStr r D l u rfi C ro l al u er Guh a t M (M Ci ( e ( s k er e a d id H n s r u rl e o a v l e il F P S m ea tr S lf u G

Figure 93B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected collected in the 1980s (n = 1,296). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 30

20

10

% Composition % 0

) ) ) ) s p s s s el id s s s ) n m abs d ids d d m u ids ids ids u p ia ro imp rii ru-e s th o g WDP f r hri po o Sq ph -eel n sScup e ti h ausii pe dusk o sk a ry r er Crabsalopodsc S Iso n ct My c h is Bivalvesc h r n a S od Cr ph mmarHy u C igo Cu Pandal a c c a e f l iButterfishs Unid. yFish s go c ap Eu Ga o o My tr u h Can Cep yam Floundern a ec awnr L s pSpotted Hake the ra p u m o h rust D mF l to r c C u ri o U lrfi Str C i p n ( a id e te e Guh h (P S k t p ( a Ci o sh p H ( ep fi u d er L r c e d ( e S tt n l tt o u e p o -e Bu S l k F s am Cu e n tr w S a lf F u G Figure 93C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected in the 1990s (n = 7,042). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) b s es s s s) ) ds p a d ds d elm id ri ds p u p ia o imp m ri ui r-eu u aak i hfish o g r ri sii a o He llo t Scups e WDP op h u Sq d Sq n dal a tern ry r l d Cr a x nusk lri n cat h s ha Sh o h mm e uC i Sc a c ctedi Hake n ea S ap a l f ligo lbve Pa iBu yt c Il o o s tr s Unid. Fishh go e Eup G r uSi s u p Cancer CrabsCep n awnp L ci u m oSpo ustac D mF c il to r Cra r u u r o U C i rl p n ( id e e te e h (P S k p (M ( a o e h p H p k is u e a rf c ed (L e S tt l H tt o e er p -e v Bu S k il s S Cu n aw F Figure 93D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected in the 2000s (n = 4,483). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s ) s) ) p bs s d s m id ds p a ds m a d ids id ui od ueel u i ids ids o i o rimp ri sii r ri q p r- s s eg WDP op h h u a o Sq ph yScup r l S a pe uskd o My r s Bivalveser Crabsa d Cr mm ex S Iso Cn Scallopsch i c h n a S ph Hy l fu Pandal ytcted Hake ep ce apo Il on s Unid.h Fish go a c Eu Ga wr Myct u p Can C an e p Loligo m oSpo Ammodytes sp r ust D mFa to r C r u o U C i n ( id te e h S k p ( a o p H p u e c ed (L S tt o el p -e S sk Cu n aw F

Figure 94A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 8,908). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) )t ) ) s p s es s el id s se s s ) n m abs d ids d m u u ri ids u ia ro rimp ri m po ru-e Poun a lops th g WDP if h h o Sq ca eHak -eel l n e t S ausii dusk i inr sk a r Bivalveser Crabsalopodsrc mmar Iso n eeran l Sca c is c h a n a S od Cr ph difor u C igo live Cu Pandal Butterfisha c ce ap f l m b ri Unid. yFish yams Floundergo a c Eu Ga Ga ro o aOc sSi t h Can Cep he n e pawn L s iu s pSpotted Hake t ra ust D F e c u o h C r m c c il r ic C u ar lu r U lrf Str i o r p ( a id Z e e e Guth h ( M (P k p t ( a Ci o u e sh H ( ep o k fi d er L P a r e d ( n H e tt n l a r tt o u e e e p o -e c v Bu S l k O il F s S am Cu e n tr w S a lf F u G

Figure 94B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected in Southern New England (n = 3,809). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) ) ) gs p s s d is ds u b eelm r o rgin im mp ra id ui -ru a WDP n r ri si q o e -eels lop rere h h C au d in k er Crabs a aH S S d n il c h h n ph lex S fu b Cus a ea apo u Il no Cusk s Unid. Fish e go ac c E wr uSilver Hake Can Cep p an p ci u r ust De mFa c Atlantic C r u u (Cl C i rl id e g h in p M r o ( er p e H e ak c (L H ti l n e er a -e v tl k il A s S Cu n aw F

Figure 94C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected on Georges Bank (n = 304). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) s s s d s ) s)e ) n bs d es ds id m id i ids ls ds ia oder imp mp a m i i ui od u-eel u r s i g frn r ri r q p r ea -ee llops e WDP ti h h pe o Sq n r alopodsclou S S ausii Iso dusk li My sk s Bivalvescer Crabsh Fr n od Crph difor mmar lex S Cn go i Sca i p a ea Hy nfu i b Cu Pandal Unid. yFishc e sm go c ap Eu Ga Ga Il o sSilver Hak h Can C y n a ec rw Lol iu Spottedp Hake thea ra p c o Ammodytes sp h rust D mFa c r cStr C u u U lrfi C i rl ( a id e e h h k tGu p (M a Ci o e H ( ep k d er L a e d ( H tt n l r o u e e p o -e v S l k il F s S am Cu e n tr w S a lf F u G Figure 95A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected in the fall (n = 6,677). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s) s s s) s) ) ds ug p b s d id ds ds u p ia o gin m mp ra id ri od u i i fhish o g nr ri ri C si a p t Scups e WDP op eer h h u Sq ph dal tern ry r l Hr S d a Iso o n cta h sd Hake Bivalveser Crabsha a S mm a c ctei c p h n ea apo ph ligo Pa Bui y t n e a c c u o tr s Unid.h Fish a e go a E Ga Myct s u p C C lanticp an L u m oSpo Ammodytes sp ut r ust De il to Mantis Shrimpr ClA C r r o U ( C p n ( g e te e n (P S k i ( a rr h p H e is u H rf c ed e S tt ic tt o t p an Bu S tl A

Figure 95B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected in the spring (n = 3,471). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) p s es s s) ds bs ds id ri ds u p o m a id ri u a i fhish o rimp ri si a e t Scups WDP op h h u Sq nHak dal tern y l S d Cr a lri n ta r er Crabs ha mm i ac h c n ea S ph ligo lbve Pa Bui c c apo u Ga o s tr s Unid. Fish ngo a c E uSi s u Can Cep a e L ci u m r ust D c il to C r lu r o C r ep n e P te M ( S ( h ( e is p ak f cu er S H tt er v Bu il S

Figure 95C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) collected in the winter (n = 3,100). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s s s s s ) e ds p n bs p d ds ds ia n o m a m id i ods iid i ids i g rimp ri ea i si ar p s e WDP op h h c Cr u er ph r l S a d Shr a tro p o My s er Crabsa mm s tedi Hake c h n ea S ust d ph Hy Pandal ytc Argenti ep c r apo u Ga olychaetesUnid. Fishh Amphipods go a C c apo E Ga Myct P p Can C an e c oSpo r rust D r C C De (U e ak H ed tt o p S

Figure 96A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) in the small size class (n = 4,276). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) ) s s d s id se s ) ) ) dern mp bs id ids ui meel u ri ids p s s ia no imp a q od ru- a lo u p g WDP fr r ri p o Sq e l th sScupo e toui h h Cr ausi d nr Hak dal tterfishn y r alopodscl S S Iso n usk li n a r s Bivalvescer Crabsh rF n od ph mmarlex S uC igo vei Sca c h i p a ea u fn bl Pa iBua c Unid. Fishyc e sm go c ap E Ga Il o Sis r s h Can C y n a ec rw Lol iu t u Spottedp Hake thea ra p c s m o Ammodytes sp h rust D mFa c lu o r cStr C u u i t U rfi C i l r o ( al d er p n e h i e te k tGu h M (P S a p ( ( Ci o e h p H ( ep k is u d er L a f c e d ( H er S tt n l r t o u e e t p o -e v S l k il Bu F s S am Cu e n tr w S a lf F u G

Figure 96B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spotted hake (Urophycis regia) in the medium size class (n = 8,995). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Goosefish

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) s) a s d d s sk se) s)r s s sl s s) s ) ds u uod e i ush uc i ue uish ue u p s ia o g hC idaice ui nfi no rak t hf rids err t o u g n r ol a fi eHa tand tr rme b kb ia Scups h e WDPlop eerring o s Squ Sq ic edd nr n tne o Skates mc c y d. Fish c r Hr m s x o rose l li e at m oa s r is s Clupeidsa te e g eo eHag ive dFlou ac tif o Mc fa ch c tedi Hake h s a ll i mG a ilb iBu c s Uni yRed Hakeytc a Gadiformesu l I a sS ys tr ne Sc irc eisan Redfishs h h Cepha e dAtlanticp Lol s s u h s o e td u p p p a s u u ci t u b sa m o oSpo u G e i m c mmerh l ur mlant a to r r Atlantic ( idAmerican P h m u iuc ri le o eAcb o U U (Cl d o p a l Sl p P Atc S n ( ( s o r r ra e S ( e e e g Co s L g e a P ( t k k in lo ( o M ( l sh (S a a r ic g h n ( (P h re fi H er t o is la e r s e d p H an p f e k e fi k e u d d H l p se a d r c c te c t i o M H n te a R S Re t ti A H o ( r u t M n o n ( k e o ia p a e G c v l Bu ic d S tl c o il F t a ai d S r n c A l d e la A P a m t n H m A a u ic S er m A

Figure 97. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus; n = 10,188). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

40 n 30

20

10 % Compositio 0 ) ) s )e d s s isn h ) s isc id i ri pu s ss ae iid a sl i u od idl qu qu h e o ates F h o S S n incu k c s o li p S sd Hake alop Clupeids es ex g Lop i s epiolids ie t li b m S yc eph Gadiforme a Ill o s eorn S Unid. h R pl L iuSilver Hakech p C c nge o es c od r dAmerican P lu to U i r cL ( so e o e s M s k lo ( lu a g e a H o k h p a p d ip H ce Re H er o ( v x e il yo ic S la (M P in n lp ca u ri c e S m rn A o h g n o L

Figure 98A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the 1970s (n = 587). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) s sg a s d d s se s s ate ) s s u es uod e i ush ri ishu e ta p s g m hC iaiced ui nfi aak hf c a o u n r ol a eH etr rme a i sScup ch eerrin o s Squ Sq ic nr tn o in d ry Hr m s x o r ose li cat rle Ska ray Skate h is a te le g e ive a ctif et n c c Argentineh lantics a l li mGo bil iBu a ja Scombridss SearobinsUnid. FishyRed Hake a Gadiforut l I a sS tr ne jLit a u h e Ad ericanp P Lo s u s o a Thorr p p a s u ci u r y m o Ammodytes sp u G em i c l ur o l to r Atlantic ( idA h u ri le c b o U (Cl d o p l p P eu m n ( s o er e L A e e g Co s (L P ( ( t k in lo M ( e e (S a r ic g h ( h t at H er t o is e s a k p an p f k fi k S u d H l p se a r S c c t i o H te e y S Re ti A H o r t tl rn n ( e it o a e G v Bu L h tl ic il T A la S P an ic er m A

Figure 98B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected collected in the 1980s (n = 1,383). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) sg) s) gs se) sr) e) s s ) u u u es id i ue ta u s ia g p linri m u akr t ce rids r u g n b eHa tnda a b b h e WDP eerrin m Sq n n Skates n mckerel c r Hr lu im o ir e lei Ska m oa id. Fish is s Clupeidsa s c difor veil Floud tr o c c ctedi Hake h uLumpfishs a lig ilb s e s Un yRed Hakeyt a r rdu Rock G o Ss y Litja Sc icr M h h Cephalopods e te p L u h a e p p p p o i t r b o oSpo u o beay cc mmerh o lmant r r Atlantic l erl u uic c o U U (Cl c h l Sl u Atc ( ( c er ra e (S e e g Cy Foun a (L k k in ( E M P el a a r h ( ( ( te r H H r is g e r a e e f n k e k k d d H p li a d S c te c m k H n a Re t ti u c r u le M o n L e lo tt c p a Ro v F i ti S tl il r L n A rd S e a a m tl e A rb m u u o S F

Figure 98C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the 1990s (n = 4,385). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) s) ) ) e) s l) ) ) ) ds sg es d ush shs csk is es s s a o u ui n pi ou akr reru tu p i g m afi eef in a rme bk a so g WDP op errinn Sq c iilc ddf eH o c i yScup re l re rosei t le irn Skates am sc r aH difor o eo nT g il tif o a h is Clupeidsh a ig G eo eHa bve c s Mc f c tcted Hake m l a il rc isan Redfishs Unid. Fishy ea G a e s Ss ne ei tde u h Cepha p Lol s a u iu o b as m Spop u iu m m c ur ant a o ro Atlantic h a c ml Acb t Cl p h m lu le cAto e o (U ( o c ra r P S (S n g L s g e ( te e n ( u o l h S k i h il n (M e is ( a rr s t a r f p H e fi la l e e d u H e o e ak ck e c ed c s h M H a R S tt ti o p ( n o n o o k er M a p a G (L c v ic i S tl o il t ad A sh d S n c i ad la A ef t il H A T

Figure 98D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the 2000s (n = 3,833). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) ) r) ) ) s l) ) ) s d ush kise es shs es ia d es s a u ui ni r tu u r ru p i g q a a and trhfi m ates te ri ber so g WDP n c e ut ne or k n Skate b ck yScup re re rosefi irn Ha on att f S a m am r a eo ile e c ti sel o o h is h igo S G b Fld iBua c g Msc c Searobins tcted Hake m ers r e Sc cr s Unid. Fishy ea Gadiformes a Silvs y t ne arnoa ei u h p Lol s iu th s o ej b m Spop u iu c mmh lu ur a ant o ro Atlantic Herring h c c i (ClR lm t Cl p lu Suli r le Atco o (U ( o r a ep P te S n g L e r a ( te e n ( M a (P k l S ak ri h ( (P S re ( r is e sh e e p H e f k er i s k u d H e a d rf o c c e c s H n te n a S tt ti o u t ar o n o er o e M p a G v l Bu ic S tl il F Cl t A S er an m tl m A u S

Figure 99A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 2,265). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) s) ) s) ) s) ds gs es id d shs ise u etae u s s o ids inu ui ip akr hish c r p u e rg m ceef a tf a rids b so h op eren Squ Sq til eH n n b ckerel y Scup c l lup r ni inr tater i m am r s a aH x o oT il c etler Ska o co h i h C h adifor le g e bve Buia s c Redyc Hake Il li l il r ja Sc rc M s Unid. Fishh ea G e Ss t aLit ei u p Cep p Lo a iu s r b m o Ammodytes sp u m c lu o ant o r Atlantic a c i c ml t Cl h lu r u co o (U ( c r ep e SAt n e g s e (L ( te k n lu M (P l S a ri ti ( te re ( r a e sh a e p H e l k fi k k u d H o a r S c c c h H te e a S Re ti op r t tl M n L e it c la ( lv Bu L ti t h i n A is S la ef t il A T

Figure 99B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in Southern New England (n = 3,953). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s) ) ) s) se) s) s ds ug es a id mel id uck i u s o g uod -eu u n r r u n m hC r fdoi a b h op eerrin r Squ o Sq ed eHak mckerel c l r o uskd l inr Skates oa s aH m ex n o g il c i Clupeids h adifor s l f uC g eHa blve s ycRed Hake tulantic Il o li a rc M Unid. Fishh ea G d r o s Sis ei p Cepha p aA awnp L u iu b o u F m c r Atlantic (G m c m Cl iu m lu co (U ( d d ra r SAtlant e g i g e ( k n Co h o M l a ri c p n ( re r ti o a e e H e n ep el k k d H la L a ac ic t ( (M H Re t A el r M n e ck e c la - o lv i t k d i t A s d S an a tl Cu n H A aw F

Figure 99C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 1,006). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) gs) s) sg es d hs st se) s s) s) u u u es ce u u i u s i rgin p rliin m aiid ui fisn n r t u u n b ol ea aPou ea ia h n eer m ss Sq isc ic n c c te alopods Hr lu im e ro anr li s id. Fish s h Clupeids a s c difor ant P ex e e i fa i is h Lumpfishs a lca l Go b yRedc Hakec Argentines a ru ud Rock G p Il m Ocm s eisan RedfishUn h y Cep e e pr eri a a uSilver Haktd p hWhite Hake p t o es s s i sa o p u p ybea d iu ce c a r ro Atlantic lo lr Ami h r c eAcb Cl c e o p a lu S (U U ( ch s o o r ( ( g Cy nFou s L Z e e e n ( lo ( ( M sh ak k ri h (E g h t ( fi a r s o s u e d H H e fi g p fi o k e d e H p in ip e P a t c l s n H R Re i i m k (H o a n h t u c o e er ia W an L e G c v d tl Ro ic O il a A rd la S c a P A e n rb a u c o ri F e m A

Figure 99D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 2,761). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

g) ) ) d ks) )e s) e) s) s) s) ) ds s s es a i id uc is u eat u p s ia o u u uod u no rak hfish c t o u g g p m rhC fi a t a ia Scups h e WDP op errinn m o Squ Sq edd e H tern n c y c r l re u o l nr ta Skates i s r id. Fish s s ClupeidsaH l difor m ex g g li c etrle Ska a h i i h sLumpfisha s l eHa ive iBua f c yRedc Haketcted Hake u utlantic Il li a bil r ja sian Redfishs Un h y a r G d o s sS t aLit tde u p h Cepha e te aA L u iu s r sa m o Spop p p G m c lu o a o r ro Atlanticu o ( c ri c bAc t l d m u p u e o (U (U (Cl c ra rl e e (S n g e L te e e g (Cy Co o (P ( h S ak k in c n M e is ( a r h ti a ( sh at f p H H er is n l e i k d u d d f a e k rf S e c e H p tl a e R S Re tt c m (M H tt le n o ti u A r tt a p n ck e i i a L o v Bu L d S tl d il ca A ad S A H

Figure 100A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the fall (n = 2,823). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) s g) g) ) ) t) s) st sk) s)e s s) s) ) ) s s es oda s uos ush ds u uc i u s ia is u iu m u aicee rp nfi i n n rak rids r u g u g r hC lid uS a hi a Pou fido Ha rme b b h e n eerrinn b r o h c p c ed e o Skates mckerel c r te Hr m o s t iose o rani l inr m oa id. Fishs s Clupeidsa i difor m es n er L ee Hag ivel tif o c i i is h c a slantic t xa Go m e bl c s SearobinsUn ycRed Hakeyc c Argentine s G ut la m aOc a s ne Sc ric M h h y ea u dA ericanp Ps a s u Si o e p p hWhite Hake p p a u s es u i b o oSpottedp Hake Ammodytes sp u beardo RocklinG ems m iu c m cc ur mlant r r ro Atlanticlyr ( Ad to h r m u e o U U (Cl e d i s p a a rl Pl cAt ( ( (U Fouh so io o o r e (S e e e g c Co s e L (Z g l k k k in n lo L ( t o (M e a a a r (E ic g ( h u n r H H er t o t is o la e e H g n p o f P e k k d d te H in la p p se a ac te i c l t i S o n (M H Re t h ti k A H o ea r M o n c ( c ck e c p W a e G o lv i S tl Ro c O d i t A d ai d S an ar l a tl e P H A rb n u ca o i F er m A Figure 100B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected collected in the spring (n = 2,568). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) gs) d sh) se) sr) e) s s s) ) ds u ps rki ue eta d u p ia o ring ui fei a t ates c ri r o g n q ice eHa tnda k a b b Scups e WDP lop ere S tl rn n S n mckerel ry r a Hr o Tin li e leri Ska m oa h s h Clupeids a g o vei Floud tet o c c ci h i le ilb s i Sc s s Unid. Fish y a e Ss y Lja irc M u h Cep e Lol a iu h a e p p m c t r b m oSpotted Hake u a c mmerch o mlant to r Atlantic h u lui c o o U (Cl c rl Sa eu cAt n ( s e r L (S te e g u a ( l S k in il (M P e ( a rr t ( te r H e la e r a e p o k e k k cu d H h a d S ac te c p H n e S t ti o r u tl M o n L e lo it c p la ( lv F ti S t h i r L n A is S e la ef m t il m A u T S

Figure 100C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the winter (n = 4,246). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) gs sg es se d id ise s is inu inu ec ui u r ish s u rg rli m ildai a F u n WDP ern b o Sq Sq eHak ch e re s inr Skates d. t alopods aH im s il i is s h Clupeids h c adifor tean P lex igo blve cRed Hake ci sd Rock ac Il l Un y y a ur G l o Sis h hWhite Hake Cep e p peri L iu p p p beao s c ro o Atlanticu ry Ame c r Cl el id lu (U U ( h o r ( g cFou s e e e n n s k k i E lo (M a a rr ( g e H H e g o k d e H n p a it c li ip H Re h ti k H r n c ( e W la e lv t Ro ic i A rd la S ea P rb n u ca o i F er m A

Figure 100D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) collected in the summer (n = 551). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) sg sg s mel id ise s ) ids inu inu u u r ish s ia e gr rli r -e a F u g WDP ern bk rme o Sq e ch e lup re c dusk in d. r alopods aH im n il i is is h C h c difo u C igo b cRed Hake c p ds Ro f l Un y y e a ur Ga ro o sSilver Hak h h C e pa pawn L iu p Spottedp Hake Ammodytes sp tplantic oe F c o o Au yb m c r r Cl eurl iu lu (U U ( h d r ( g Foc i e e e n n h M k k i E p ( a a rr ( o e H H e g p k d H n e a ed li (L Re tt ic k l H o t c e er p an -e v S tl Ro k il s S A rd ea Cu rb n u w o a F F

Figure 101A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) in the small size class (n = 3,095). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

gs) d se) r) ) s sl) s) ) ) ds u es id ki es s d ue p s ) kes o ids ing ui r tu fuish ri rer o ish s ia ai e nr m a and thr b bk Scups F u g u WDP op ere Squ Sq eHa t nte mc y h e en l lup r o inr n at Skates m oa r id. c r t a C Ha difor ex g il e c o c h is s s h h a ll bve dFlou aBu s M c cRed Hakeci i a I li s il s i Sc rc s Un y y yc e G uS y tr ei u h h hWhite H Cep p Lo i th s b m p pSpotted pHake Ammodytes sp u c mmerh u mant o o o o Atlantic c iuc il ol t r r r Cl lu Sl r cAt o U U U ( r a p S en ( ( ( g e r e ( t e e e n M a P l S k k k ri ( (P ( re ( a a a r e h e p H H e k er is k u H H a d f c c d d te c H n er a S te i ti u t Re t h n er o t M o a v l ic p W tl il F Bu t S A S er an m tl m A u S

Figure 101B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) in the medium size class (n = 5,471). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) s a s d s s )t sk se sr ) s s ds u es uod e i ush ipsh s uc ri u ea u tu o g m Ch aiced nfi ef u n aak tde c r a n r li a ilce nPou fido He tan a b i lop erringe o so Squ ic ti ca led rn n Skates n mckerel c Hr s x rose Tn ian g li e lei Skate oa s Clupeidsa m te e eo o re eHa vei Floud etr c fa h s a ll mG le e a ilb s Scombridss s SearobinsUnid. Fish a Gadifor u l I a e mOc s Ss y Litja ric M e Cepha e Atlanticd ericanp P s a a u iu h a e st p a ms u m s c t r b a u G e i a e m c cmmerh o m b Atlantic ( iAd h h rc m u lui c o eAcadian Redfish (Cl d o p c a a rl aS u cAtlant S s o s o r e r e (S ( g Co s (L u Z g a (L l h in lo il ( o (M P e s rr ic g h t t n ( te r fi e t o is la u la e r a e d an p f o o e k e k ck e H l p se h P a d S a R ic t i o p n (M H n e t A H o o a r u tl M an n ( L e ck e lo t c i la e G ( c o lv F i i d t c h O d i L t a A ai s d S er an c l fi a tl A P e m n il H m A a T u ic S er m A Figure 101C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for goosefish (Lophius americanus) in the large size class (n = 1,420). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Acadian Redfish

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) p p s se s ri d ds m id aak si i WDP ri si eH h au inr il My a S d Shrim ph bve Pandal e o u s il Unid. Fish p E uS ca i e cc u Crustac D l er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 102. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus; n = 3,904). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0 ) p s ise ds ans ods im id r i e si ea ap u rn Hak ec Shr a li d ph vei Copepods D u bl Pandal Unid. Fish Crustac E Sis capo iu e cc D lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 103A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected in the 1970s (n = 660). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

p p s se) m m id ri ids i si a WDP hri u e Hak Shr a inr il ea S d ph blve Pandal c u s Unid. Fish Amphipods a apo E uSi c ci rust e c C D lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 103B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected in the 1980s (n = 578). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s ) p e ds ise ds m ans rak sids i ri hor sii e eHa WDP h u nr op a li My n ph ive te arvac bl Pandal Unid. Fish Eu L sSi C iu cc Crustacea S lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 103C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected in the 1990s (n = 326). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p p s s s se) m d id ri ids sii i a WDP hri u rme er eHak a p inr d Shrim difo veil o ph Hy bl Pandal Unid. Fish p Eu Ga Sis a iu cc Crustacea S Dec lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 103D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected in the 2000s (n = 2,340). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Gulf of Maine

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s p p s ise d ds m id akr si i ri si Hea WDP h u rn a li My a S d Shrim ph vei e o u ilb Pandal Unid. Fish p E Ss ca iu e cc Crustac D lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 104A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 3,149). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Scotian Shelf

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s p s s d mp m id d ids i si WDP hri u pepo S Shr a mari o d ph m C ea u Pandal ac E Ga capo rust C De

Figure 104B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 582). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s ) p p ds d ise ds m ii ans akr sids i ri sii r e eHa WDP h u rn a pe li My d Shrim h vei o Hy arvac bl Pandal Unid. Fish p Eup L Sis a iu cc Crustacea S Dec lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 105A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected in the fall (n = 2,152). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p p s s se) m d ri ids ids sii aak s WDP hri u rme eH a inr My d Shrim difo ivel o ph bl Pandal Unid. Fish p Eu Ga sSi a iu cc Crustacea S Dec lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 105B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) collected in the spring (n = 1,748). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p p s s d m m id id ids i si s WDP hri u pepo Shr a My o a S d ph C e u Pandal Unid. Fish ac E capo rust e C D

Figure 106A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) in the small size class (n = 1,592). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p p s s se) m d ri ids ids sii aak s WDP hri u rme e H a inr My d Shrim difo ivel o ph bl Pandal Unid. Fish p Eu Ga sSi a iu cc Crustacea S Dec lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 106B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) in the medium size class (n = 2,312). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Blackbelly Rosefish

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s p s d s s e bs id d ids m or a im ui ean oi WDP ri h si r h u Sq iu op d Cr a h n o d Shr ph lex arvac Pandal te ap u Il L Op Unid. Fish C c E Polychaetes e capo D e Crustacea S D

Figure 107. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus; n = 957). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) p s e p s s s n m an abs va m id d d ids ro ri e r i ri oi WDP if h c a r dal t a L Shr ausi iu n rc d mma h a a S ust d ph Pa e r apod Cr u Op Unid. Fish yams Flounder C c apo E Ga Polychaetes he e c capo Scyphozoans t D e ch D De rfi Str Crustac al tGuh Ci ( er d n u lo F m ea tr S lf u G

Figure 108A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 300). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Gulf of Maine

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s ds p e bs p s d ds o m or a im id od oi i WDP ri h si p r lop h u iu a op d Cr Shr a Iso h h a S n d ph Pandal e te apo u Op Unid. Fish C c E Polychaetes Cep e capo D e Crustac D

Figure 108B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 332). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

p s s d s s s e bs d ids d d ids m or a r ui ean oi WDP h sii a po r u Sq iu op d Cr ha Iso h n o amm lex arvac Pandal ap Il L Op Unid. Fish Cte Eup G Polychaetes Dec Crustacea Shri

Figure 109A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) collected in fall (n = 443). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

p bs p s s ods m a m id d ids ri i si roi aetes WDP lop h u u dal h a d Cr Shr a hi n h a S o d ph e p u Pa Unid. Fish ca E Op Polyc Cep e capo Scyphozoans D e Crustac D

Figure 109B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) collected in spring (n = 372). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p p s d s m abs d ids ui d ids ri sii r oi WDP h u a Sq r dal d Cr a iu n o d Shrim h mm ex h p o l Pa Unid. Fish a p Eup Ga Il Op Polychaetes ca Scyphozoans Dec e Crustacea S D

Figure 110A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) in the small size class (n = 677). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) p s s s ies s ds e bs d d r d ids o m or a eans aak oi WDP ri h sii po He r lop h u irn iu a op d Cr a Iso il h h a S n ph bve e te arvac sl Pandal Unid. Fish apo Eu L uSi Op Polychaetes Cep C ec i cc D u Crustac l er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 110B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) in the medium size class (n = 279). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Longhorn Sculpin

25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0 ) ta s p s p s a ve abs m b m d ids ids otuse i imp ra i s WDP hr C ari ur Ma ival r Cr Shr Shr g h B S d mm Pa Scallops ta ce n d Pandal AmphipodsSeai n apo Ga Unid. Fish d a ngo acea c apo Polychaetes ro C a c Ammodytes sp h r ust De p C De A Cr ( se u o M ea S

Figure 111. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus; n = 12,188). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s p s s n abs m id u ids ids ids es sp rimp ea i ar eo s t WDP h ac Cr n S d Shr My cer Crabs n d mm Pagur n rust cella Pandal Unid. Fish a go C capo Ga s C n e capo Ammody ra D Mi C De

Figure 112A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the 1970s (n = 715). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ta es p s p usea v abs m b m ids ids sot i rimp ra ri a h C ur hM ival r Cr Shr Sh g B S d Pa ta ce n d Pandal Amphipods Seai n apo Unid. Fish d a ngo acea c apo Polychaetes ro C a c Ammodytes sp h r ust De p C De A Cr ( se u o M ea S Figure 112B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,346). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) ) s p s p s s ies ta e b d r ids ds a v im mp ra im od a s i st r ri ari p e a WDP val h h C n h Mouse i S S d Shr Iso li My B er Crabsn d mm i ta c ea b Pandal Unid. Fish Seai an go c apo Ga s d n a c apo iuSilver Hak Polychaetes ro C a c c Ammodytesh sp r ust De c p C r De lu A C r ( e se (M u e o k M a a H e er S v il S

Figure 112C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the 1990s (n = 6,484). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) a s p s p s s t e bs b d sc ids ta v a im imp ra im s WDP r ari llu Mousea ival h C h r Cr Shr S d Shr Scallops a B ce n d mm Mo Pandal iSeat n apo Ga Unid. Fish d a ngo acea c apo ro C a c Ammodytesh sp r ust De p C De A Cr ( se u o M ea S

Figure 112D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the 2000s (n = 3,643). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Southern New England 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s a es p b p s s cs t v m mp m d od ids ids ta ri ri ra i p s s WDP h h C ari llus Mousea ival S Shr My h B er Crabs S d mm Iso a c n ea d Mo Pandal AmphipodsiSeat n c apo Ga Unid. Fish d a ngo a c apo ro C a c h r ust De p C r De A C ( se u o M ea S

Figure 113A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in Southern New England (n = 1,898). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Georges Bank

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) a P s p s s t D ve abs m b d ids ids otause i imp ra s W hr C ari ur Ma ival r Cr Shr g h B S d mm Pa Scallops ta on Pandal Unid. Fish AmphipodsiSea ance g apo Ga d n tacea c ro C a s Ammodytes sp h u De p Cr A Cr ( se u o M ea S Figure 113B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 6,703). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Gulf of Maine 25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) s ) s s ta e bs p ths b p d ds usea v a im imp tu ra m i sot r a ri a WDP val h l C hM i r Cr Shr S cu d Sh mari a B n a m Pandal Seait Wrymoum apo Unid. Fish Amphipodsd ance go acea s c Ga Polychaetes o C n e capod Ammodytes sp r ra ust d De h C o De p Cr th A n ( a se c u a o t yp M ea (Cr S th u o m ry W

Figure 113C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 2,825). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Scotian Shelf

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s p s s s ta b d ds a mp ra im id od i st WDP ri si ari p a ivalve h C au h er Crabs S d Shr Iso a B c d ph mm Pandal iSeat Mouse n cea apo u Unid. Fish d a a c apo E Ga ro C c h ust De p r De A C ( se u o M ea S

Figure 113D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 748). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) p ) s s se) ta ths b d ri ds ds a im mp tu ra a i i st WDP r ri la ari e ur aMouse h h u C irn Hak g h er Crabs S S c d il a c n a mm lbve Pa Pandal itSea n cea mWrymou apo s Unid. Fish d a go a s c Ga uSi Polychaetes o C an e i Ammodytesr sp r ust d De cc h C r o u p C th l A n r ( a e se c (M u ta e o p k M y a H a (Cr e er S th v u il o S m ry W Figure 114A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the fall (n = 3,654). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0

) s s s s s ta e bs p b p d c ds ause v a im imp ra im od i sot r ari p lus a WDP val h C l h M i r Cr Shr S d Shr Iso a B ce n d mm Mo Pandal AmphipodsSeait n apo Ga Unid. Fish d a ngo acea c apo Polychaetes ro C a c Ammodytes sp h r ust De p C De A Cr ( se u o M ea S

Figure 114B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the spring (n = 6,873). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) a es p s p s ns t v abs m b m d su ids a i imp ra i ods o st WDP hr C ari p n aMouse ival r Cr Shr Shr ro iculpi h B S d mm st Sp a ce n d s Pandal iSeat n apo Ga m Unid. Fish d a go acea c Ga e o C n capo ec Ammodytesr sp ra ust De d h C De o p Cr Longhornct (A o e s s lu u a o h M ep ea c S xo yo (M in lp cu S rn o h g n o L Figure 114C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the winter (n = 897). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

) s s ta e bs p d ds ds a v a im ri ods i i tes sp st a p ur Mousea ival Cr g h er Crabs d Shr stro a B c d mm Pa Pandal Scallops iSeat n apo Ga Unid. Fish d a c apo Ga ro C e c Ammody h D p De A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 114D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) collected in the summer (n = 764). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

) p s s es) ta bs d ri ds a imp mp a im id a i st r ri si ari e a WDP h h Cr u r nHak hMouse S S d Shr a li er Crabs n d mm vei Scallops ta c ea ph lb Pandal Unid. Fish AmphipodsSeai an go c apo u Ga Sis Polychaetes d n a c apo E iu ro C a e c c h r rust D c p C De lu A C r ( e se (M u e o k M a a H e er S v il S

Figure 115A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) in the small size class (n = 6,126). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s a es p b p s s s t v m mp m d od sc ids ids ta ri ri ra i s WDP h h C ari p llu Mousea ival S Shr h B er Crabs S d mm Iso Pagur Scallops a c n ea d Mo Pandal Seait n c apo Ga Unid. Fish d a ngo a c apo ro C a c Ammodytesh sp r ust De p C r De A C ( se u o M ea S

Figure 115B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) in the medium size class (n = 6,062). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Sea Raven

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s gs) s) gs ) se) ) ) st sk) e) n) ) shu u uth iu es oda ec mel a id u uc is s s ip ids gin tu lrin u d u-e dere u n n r su s lu e nr lao b m rhC liai r in aPou fdoi a o rmes u s ere um o so o g Sq ic ed e nculpi o h a lup Hr c im tic s dusk luou ran l in Si c h er CrabsC a a c difor m tane P Cn r go ee Hag il p is ic c h m s a lans ac fu l rF li m e b s Unid. FishRedc Hake h a Wry rud RockG ut l o fie o aOc a Silvers Hakm y r e es p Ad erip r aa L s s u e h a Can p d o a s pawn d e u i ec p n u o lbeay G e F nwt c m c d o A Atlantich er ( Amd m alo r m c o r (Atlantic Wolff (Cl t h d i iu l a lu Longhornt Pleuronectif U h n c so d im o ra r c ( s g a nFou Co s i LYe Z g e o e fi m c E lo h ( ( o M s k lf ri ta ( ic g p r t n ( lu a o r p g t o o e u a e a H e y n n p ep d o el k h W H li la p L n P a p d c (Cr k t i ( u n (M H e Re i ic c A H l lo a r c t t th ( e F ce k e o an n u Ro e -e l c v x tl la o ic k i O o il o t rd a s ta d S y A A m a l w ad M ry e P Cu o ( rb n n ll H in W u a e p o ic aw Y l F er F cu m S A rn o h g n o L

Figure 116. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus; n = 7,472). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1980s 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) e s) gs a se st sk) se) n) uth u es uod ec mel u uc i s sm tu ri m Ch iaid ru-e n n r su oCusk lao b r ol o aPou fdoi ea o r um ico s d ic ed n nculpi Skates b c im mt s n usk ran l li Si e cer Crabs a c difor s tane P u C ee eHag i nsp m mWry s a tulan lac f m a b Unid. Fish s u G d p ro aOc s sSilver Hakeorm o Can es p aA eri pawn s u iu ch r d o es e c e B o rbeardy Rocklin (G d mF c m c d ( h el iAm u r m u o k t h d o i a a rl cLongt s n Fouc ss id o r e o a n Co o h (Z g Cu c E c l p t o M s ta ( ti g o u n ( lu p g n o p o la e a y n a p e P e k h li tl ip (L a p (Cr k A H l n (M H e c ( e ea r c th e e c ck e xo u Ro c - o lv o o i k O d i y rd la s d S m a P a (M ry e Cu H rb an n in W u c w p o ri a l F e F cu m S A rn o h g n o L Figure 117A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,072). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1990s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) s gs s gs ad st ise ns s ishu ids u tuth bs iu es uo mel id u r u s p e rgin a u a lrin m hC ru-e u n a s u lu n l o b r o a Pou e o rmes ch up rere um oic d Sq ic n iculpin o s l aH cy d Cr im mt nusk ran li pS is a er CrabsC h ar c difor s n uC go ee i s c h c m s ula f li m b mn yRed Hake ic a W apo ud Rock Ga d o o aOc s ore Unid. Fishh h e es c pr aAt r uSilver Hakhc p r Can p d e o pawn L es ci e o a u o D beay (G mF c c d r n Atlantich el u r u to U AtlanticA Wolff (Cl t hur d i a l Longc ( ( n c id o er o Pleuronectif e h g ca nFo Co h Z s k is m a E c p ( (M u a ff ri t ( ti o t l H l r p g n p u e a o e y n a e o k h d H li tl L P a p W c (Cr k ( n H ce Re c ti c A el a r o ti n th e ce e x n a u Ro - lv o la tl o sk O i y t A m rd S M A y a ( r e Cu n rb n i W u w lp o a u F F c S rn o h g n o L

Figure 117B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the 1990s (n = 3,765). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) st) ) ) ) ) ) s s id a u sk se sn s s s u e dere no uc ri u u s g liaiced in aP ino aak s ndern tid u erringn o Squ g c f e H o ua c rmes h re s uou i ledd nr inculpi ic ne o Skates c aH es x r eanr g li p S rlo o tif is h t le rFl ce eHa ive ns eF c Redc Hake la Il fe m a bil m m ur Unid. Fishy ea Gadiformesp aail Oa s sS eor ater e ne h Cancer Crabsp s dt s u iu ch sn Pl o p u e n e c nge e o Atlantic Americand P alow rc m c od Wit r Cl i ml a m lu Lto ec (U ( so ie o ra r c n Pleur g s LY Z g e o o e o ( ( o s r k im l r t n (M u u a rr g e u a l le H e o d o l e a p d p n P e k h o H ip u n M a p d c lo a ( H ce u Re ti (H F e r o e n e l c ck e x s la c ai O o lv o P t ai t d i y ( A l w d S M er P o a ( d ll H n an e in u ic Y lp lo er cu F S r m te A rn n o i h g W n o L Figure 117C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the 2000s (n = 2,519). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Southern New England

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) r ) d st e) r) s ae es s) ) ea uu kis es et u u ss e ui no r tu c ans s u ndin q aP a and me a o r h ug S ic eHa t or n u e c u o ran inr en if Skates ri qwp sCunnerp s Flor ee veil dFlou t etle Ska doa d i er mc b s c a ns a Unid. Fish yRedc Hake Gadiformes f aO Sils y ne jLit u s h taila Lolig s u h o a lm u p Cancer Crabs d e i t r aWi r o n c c mmerh ur co h b r lowa r c iuc le u t la a lu Sl P e h o (U im o r ra L p g e YelL (Z e a ( o o k ( t M P e c t a r u ( ( t (S u e o e r a r a H d P k e k e (T d n a d S d r u n H n le n e Re lo ea r u tt u n F c e lo i lo n il O lv F L F a i r e Cu t S e n w m a lo p l m w e u o Y S d in W

Figure 118A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in Southern New England (n = 906). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Georges Bank

25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) l) t ) ) ) gs es a e ) id s) ks) se sn s u abs odu m derea u u cu ri u u g m Ch r-eu n Poun don a s rmes panes errinen r sko i Sq a dfi e o o o r o d oug ic e n iculpin wu aH d Cr m n lu o eran l li pS q Clupeidsh o adifor s uCu rFr ig e Haeg i ns a ap tlanticu f iel l m a b m s Unid. Fish ea G d o af o aOc Silvers Hakeor u Cancer Crabs p Aa r a L s iu ch mWindo u Fawnp wtd s u c e l Atlantic Dec (G m on ce m c d a Cl u lal r m u o th ( d i a a rl cLongt Pleuronectifh g id Yeim o r e o p m Co h (L (Z g M s o i c p t o ( u c rr ti o er u n e l (S e n p d o la k a r la e n P e a h e H t (L u ep d ic A l o n (M H c n t e l ea er o u n e F c ck v x lo la - il o l o t sk a O d i y F A t d S M e w a ( an Cu lo H n p n el i w w lp o a Y u d F c n S i rn W o h g n o L

Figure 118B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 3,760). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Gulf of Maine

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) ) ) ) ) t) ) ) s) s) shu ske ths sg es cse d s eis sn u s pi mu ids uu iinu e ui u r u n u u s e ot rl m liaid q Poun a s ander h l oC la b o a Hake o uc c s r lup um m s ic rin inculpi i s a b c i s eran il pS elor i h e C a c adifor tane P lex S e lveb ns F Redyc Hake ic m Wrym ds Rock ac Il m m m Unid. Fishh h s ru G l aOc Sis eor tera p r o es p erip iu ch ns o a r d o s es c e te r n B o lrybea e c c d c U AtlanticA Wolff( h e iAmd r lu to eWi ( ( k t h o a r cLong n e h s n Fouc s o e o o k is ca n s (Z M s r a f Cu a E lo t ( u u lf t ( g u e l le H o p g o o k a p d y n p P a h o W li p ep d Re c (Cr k i n H c u ti c (H ea er o se n th c v x P la u Ro ce O il yo ( t o d ai S er A m ar l (M d ry e P n n rb n i u W u ca lp lo o ri cu F F e S r m te rn n A o i h g W n o L

Figure 118C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 1,992). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Scotian Shelf 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) e) sg) ) ) d ts sk ns u es oda s u uc u sm i u e ui n n s oCusk r m Ch ildaice Poua fdoi o rmes r b r o Sq ic led iculpin o b im o s anr g pS e er Crabs c difor m eans P ex ee eHa s c s a lantics ct l m a mn Unid. Fish sm u G tu la Il Oca s eor o Can p Ad peri s u ehc r o a ms e m d B lrybeard Rocklin G e c o ( e ( dA ar m t k h d i o ra cLong Pleuronectif s cFou so Z g o n Co s ( o s Cu E lo t n lu ( ic g u a a g t o o l h n n p P e p li la p M e k t i an ( c c A H e k o ( c c x Ro e O o yo d ic d r la ad (M ea P b H in r n lp u ca u o ri c F e S m rn o A h g n o L Figure 118D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 760). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) e) ) ) ) ) ) s)t ) s s) ) s ths gs a d mel id u sk ie un s m u utu iu es odu ui u u n uc r s s s g oa r m rCh r-e aPou in ea o u roCusk n l b o Sq o Sq c efdo n n rmes h b rerringe mu m ic d i l d li culpii o c Ha c i mt x nusk er an g i sSp is e h a c difor s le f uC igo e eHa b n c m Wrym ds Rocklin a tulan Il o l m a s m Unid. FishRedy Hake s ea s ru G d r o aOc s uSilver Hakcore h ro Cancer Crabsp e p aA awnp L s u ci eh p u d o G F e m c d o (B o rlbeay ( m rc u o r AtlanticCl th e d u a m l t U sk ( n h i o ra r Longc Pleuronectif ( g a Fouc id g e o e c n Co h (Z o M s k Cu m a E c p t n ( lu a ri t ( ti o u a e a H r p g n p o l k h e y n a e P e a p d H li tl L M H e c (Cr k A ( n ( c Re i c l ea er o t th ee c ck v x an u - o l o tl o Ro k O d i y d s d S M A m ar a ( ry e Cu H n rb n i W u w lp o a u F F c S rn o h g n o L

Figure 119A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the fall (n = 2,512). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) ) s a ) ) s t sk es sn) s s u es uod s ea uu uc ri u u s ri m C aicee nder no no aak s n u b rh ild in a P fi He o ander rmes h o o oug c edd rn culpin icu o Skates c im s u rian l li Si rlo s c m es Flrr ee Hag vei nsp Fe ctif ci s s t e e ilb m Unid. FishyRed Hake u Gadifor u la ailf Ocm a Ss orm a ne h p Atlanticd perican P ta a s iu che ter o p Cancer Crabso a m d s u c e ens o rybeard Rockling G es own ce m c dng t r el ( dA lla r m lu o eWic U h d i em a a r cLt n Pleur ( Fouc so Yi o r e o o e n Co s (L (Z g M s r k E c lo r t o ( u u a ( ti g e u n e l le H g n o d o la k a p n a p n e a h o d li tl p u P p d k i o n (M H ce u Re c A H l ea er o e ( F c ck v x s Ro e il o l o (P c a O d i y rd i t d S er a la w a (M d e P lo H n rb n l in u u a e p o o c Y l l F ri cu F e S r m te rn n A o i h g W n o L

Figure 119B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the spring (n = 3,898). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

l ) ) ) ) ) em era id st ks s s ia ids u e u u uc g e -er ndin Poun in eel e sko g Sq a fdo rme r up d ouu ic led sk- o Skates d. Fish s alopods l n r o ran g tif i ci h C fu eFlr ig ee eHa c tyted Hake o f l m a Cu Un h r aila o aOc s ne p Cancer CrabsCep p dt L s u o Spoo Fawnm Cu n e m ur r u lowa c m e U i ml r a ( id ei a r Pl e h YL o g k p ( (Z o a o er t n H p d u a e n o el ed (L u P tt l lo n (M o e F a p e l e ck S - i c o sk ta O d w ad Cu lo H n el aw Y F

Figure 119C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the winter (n = 459). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) s gs st) se) sn) ) s) s) shs tuth iu u i u s s i iu eids au lrin n akr s sneru ish u u p lo b a Pou eHa o rn F h n lu up mu m c n nculpi e c te s l yc i rani ir Si Cup id. s a er Crabs C ar c ee veil sp s i is h c m s ilb n d Un yRedc Hake c c sW rud Rock Ocm Ss orm a h y i e p a u che s p Whiteh Hake rh Can d o s i e ru o p a o lbeay ce cc dng b r ro Atlanticn Wolff th ure r lu too la U U A n h a r cL o ( ( ( a Foc o e o g e e h c n (Z s o k k is ta (E t (M u t a a ff p g u e l u H H l y n o k a a d o li P a h (T te Cr k ep r Re i W ( c an H c e h c h e er o n W ti t Ro c v x n n u O l o la o d i y Cu t m ar S M A ry e ( rb n W u i o lp F cu S rn o h g n o L

Figure 119D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) collected in the summer (n = 603). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s) sg d l) st) k) se) n) s ls s) uth u es i me u cs i s ds lue s ids tu ri -eu n u akr su eel i l u e ao b m r aPou idon a o enn rmes h ml Squ sko c df eH culpin dal nu o c lup cu im x d ani le irn Si sk- n n s er CrabsC a c difor e Cun er Hag veil s p u i c s a ll f u e ilb n Cu Pa cgk G Redyc Hake Wrym ud Rocklin I o Ocm a s orm is Unid. Fishh s pr G r a s uS he l p Can e o p s u i ec oRo o Ammodytes sp d ybea Fawn e m cc ngd h r o elr m rc u o P U th h iu a m l Lt ( Pleuronectif ( n c d o ra r c el e a nFou i Z g e o n c h ( o M s n ak ta (E p t n ( lu u p g o u a e a H y n ep o l k h G d i P e a p k Cr l (L n M H e c Re ( ck l a ( r c th e e k e xo Ro u Ro -e c c v o o k O o il y rd s d S m a ad (M ry e Cu rb n H in W u p o aw l F F cu S rn o h g n o L

Figure 120A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) in the small size class (n = 2,302). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) sg) s) sg) a se) a st s se s ) u th bs u es u ec e id u cuk ri un s g tu a iin h od d nder u n n a s s n ao rl m r C liai ni aPou fdoi e o rmes u eerrin l b o o g Sq ic de n Hak iculpin o ch r cum m tic ss ouu anr l lir p Skates d Hake aH a d Cr i m e rlr e eg i s S tif is Clupeidsh o c adifor s tan P e F igo m aHa blve n c cRe mWry ap ds Rock utlan lac ifl l a s m Unid. Fishy ea s ur G d p a o Oc s uSi core ne h Cancer Crabs p e p aA eri d L s u i eh o p u d o G es nwt ce m cc d o Atlantico Dec lrybea ( d ao r m u o r Cl th e d iAm ll a a l t U ( n h o im o r r Longc Pleur ( g a Fouc ss YeL Z g e o e c n Co o ( ( o M s k m a E c l r t n ( lu a ri t ( ti g e u a e a H r p g n o d o l k h e y n a p n P e a p d H li tl ip u n M H e c (Cr k A lo a ( c Re ti c (H F e k er o n th l c c v x a u Ro e i O o il o tl o ic ta d S y A m rd la w d M y a P o a ( r e ll H in rb an e p W u c Y l o ri cu F e S m rn A o h g n o L

Figure 120B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) in the medium size class (n = 4,942). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) ) ) s e) a s) a s)t sk ns ishu sk uod e e u uc u p sum Ch iaiced inder n in s lu oC r ol gn a Pou fdo o rmes s r o s u c led culpiin o a b m s rlou rani g Sp id. Fish h er Crabs s tane P r ee eHa s tif Zoarcids c e c ulantic ac fle F a mn c Un i m an dt l i Ocm s ore ne rh s aA erip aa a u hc o a ro C s d s e n (G em nwt e m d (B idA lao rc m to (AtlanticA Wolff d o ml a a Longc Pleur sk s i o r o h Co s (YeL Z g s is c lo r ( o u ff Cu ti g e t n l l n o d u la a o a p n o e h W tl p u P M ep A i lo n ( c ic H F a k o t ( l e c x an e i c o o tl ic ta O d y la w d M A P o a ( ll H in an e p c Y l ri cu e S m rn A o h g n o L

Figure 120C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) in the large size class (n = 228). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Northern Searobin

25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0

p s s s s s n bs id ids d ds imp m a id r od s oi i WDP r ri cea si a p r h h a Cr u iu S d a Iso My h er Crabs n a S ph mm c e rust u Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods go ac C capo E Ga Op Polychaetes Can an e r rust D C C

Figure 121. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus; n = 727). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s s s n b d ids imp ra id od s WDP r cea si ari p h a C u iuroids S d a Iso My h Bivalves er Crabs n ph mm c rust u go C apo E Ga Op Polychaetes Can n c ra De C

Figure 122A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 481). WDP = well-digested prey. B Southern New England 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p s b s s ids m mp od d ids d ri ri ra ari s roi WDP rell h h ap C p S S c d My iu er Crabs a n mm h c C ea De Unid. Fish Amphipods go ac capo Ga Op Polychaetes Can an r rust De C C

Figure 122B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) collected in Southern New England (n = 210). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

bs s s s mp a id id od ids ids rimp ri si ar p s WDP h h Cr u S S d a Iso My er Crabs n ph mm c ea u Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods go ac capo E Ga Polychaetes Can an e r rust D C C

Figure 123A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) collected in the fall (n = 301). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s ds p n b p d im ra m iids ri WDP ri a acea C us m iuroids iformes pepo Shr t d Sh a h t cer Crabs o n s d m n C u Amphipods a go Cr capo Euph Ga Op Polychaetes ronec C n capo ra De C De Pleu

Figure 123B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) collected in the spring (n = 217). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s b bs d ra a ms ri od WDP C er a p od er od Cr n mm Iso c p Pandalids a Ga Polychaetes Can ec Echi D

Figure 123C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) collected in the winter (n = 205). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s s s s m n b id d ids ids rimp ri ea ra si ari s WDP h ac C u Sh d a My er Crabs n a S ph mm c e rust u Pandal go c C apo E Ga Polychaetes Can n a c rust De Cra C

Figure 124A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) in the small size class (n = 335). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium

25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0

s s s s s p b s d d im ra id od oi WDP r si ari p r valve h C u iu i S d a Iso h B cer Crabs n ph mm n u Unid. Fish Amphipods a go apo E Ga Op Polychaetes C n c ra De C

Figure 124B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) in the medium size class (n = 377). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Striped Searobin

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) i p s s s s s ) ll ds b d p ia i o m mp id id ids o g ch ri ri ra ul si ari s Scups e t WDP op h h C a u ry r i l S d a My h s m er Crabs ha S gr mm c i a c p n ea n ph s yc o e c apo E u Ga u Unid. Fishh h go a c E p Bayc Anchovy Can C an m oSpotted Hake n r ust De to r A C r o U ( C n ( y te e v S k o ( a ch p H n u c ed A S tt y o p Ba S

Figure 125. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped searobin (Prionotus evolans; n = 362). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Atlantic Mackerel

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) s s s s ll ds ds n s d n i o mp id iid ids ch ri si ari ea s it WDP lop h acea u er ac a pepo S t a p My Anchovym h o s ph mm rv a p C ea u u Hy Unid. Fish o e ac Cr E Ga La Baych C Ammodytesn sp ust A r ( C y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 126. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus; n = 6,875). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1980s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) li s s s is il d n re ids r h mp o iids i a c WDP ri er e it h acea ph aus p in m opepo S st o il Anchovy u n Hy b a C ea e s Unid. Fish o ac Cr Euph Silveru Hake Baych Ct i Ammodytes spn ust cc A r u ( C l y r v e o (M ch e n ak A y H er Ba v il S

Figure 127A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the 1980s (n = 353). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1990s

40

30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s s e s s ds ths d d a ids id an ids o a sii rv r ri e s WDP op u a l pepo a La pe ac My ha togn o h mm v e C Hy ar Pandalids Unid. Fish Eup Fish Ga L Cep Cha Thecosomates

Figure 127B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the 1990s (n = 4,120). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 2000s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) li P s s s e s il d n id d ids h D mp rva i c W ri si er ichovyt h acea au mari p Squid mn opepo S st La Mysids A u ph m ya C ea u sh Hy Amphipodsao ac Cr E Fi Ga cBh Loligo Ammodytes sp n A rust ( C y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 127C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the 2000s (n = 2,130). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) li s s s s s il d n ids id id n ids h mp i ea s c WDP ri ul si er c it h acea a au p a Squid m pepo S gr My Anchovy o ust n ph rv a C ea E u Hy Unid. Fish o ac Cr E La Baych Loligo Ammodytesn sp A rust ( C y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 128A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 2,565). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s e s s s ds d mp id va d id n o ri si r i ea WDP op h u ari er c Squid l pepo a La p a Mysids ha o S mm rv p C ea ph ish Hy e c u F Ga La C a E Loligo Ammodytes sp rust C

Figure 128B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in Southern New England (n = 2,554). WDP = well-digested prey. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) sg) s p s e s s s is ds u d d n r o ths gin m id va iid a ids es sp a nr i si r ari ea e s t WDP lop eer u er c in a Hr pepo Shr a La p va il My h togn a o n ph mm r b p ae h C u ish Hy s Unid. Fish e h a go E F Ga La uSilver Hake C C e n i tlanticp ra cc Ammody u u ClA C l ( er g in (M r e er k H a c H ti er an lv tl i A S

Figure 128C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 1,144). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s ds ds p n s d ds o ids m mp id iid ids i e ri ri si ari s WDP lop up h h acea u er a l pepo S S t a p My h C o n s ph mm C ea u u Hy Pandal Unid. Fish go ac Cr E Ga Cep an r rust C C

Figure 128D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 499). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s) sg) s p s s ise s ths inu d m id ids id r ids ids u a gr i si r i a s h WDP n u a er eHak c eer pepo a p inr s togn Hr o Shr l My i e a n ph mm vei Pandal yc h C u Hy bl Unid. Fishh Red Hake Amphipods a go E Ga Sis p Cha e n iu o p ra c r u c U Atlantic C lu ( Cl r e ( e k g M a in ( H r e er k d H a Re c H ti er an lv tl i A S

Figure 129A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the fall (n = 960). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) s s s s ll ds ds n s d n i o mp id iid ids ch ri si ari ea s it WDP lop h acea u er ac a pepo S t a p My Anchovym h o s ph mm rv a p C ea u u Hy Unid. Fish o e ac Cr E Ga La Baych C Ammodytesn sp ust A r ( C y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 129B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the spring (n = 4,057). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s ds ds p ds e d n o m va i iid ri sii r ar ea WDP op h u er c Squid al pepo a La p a Mysids h o a S mm rv C e ph ish Hy c F Ga La Cep a Eu Loligo rust C

Figure 129C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) collected in the winter (n = 1,784). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s ds n s e d mp id va iids ids rimp ri si r ari s WDP h h acea u er pepo S S a La p My o n ph mm C ea ust u sh Hy Pandalids go ac Cr E Fi Ga an Ammodytes sp r rust C C

Figure 130A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the small size class (n = 1,158). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) s s s s ll ds n s d n i mp id ri iid ids ch ri si a ea s it WDP h acea u er ac Squid pepo S a p My Anchovym o ph mm rv a C ea ust u Hy Unid. Fish o ac Cr E Ga La Baych Loligo Ammodytesn sp A rust ( C y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 130B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the medium size class (n = 4,886). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) s) l ug s s s il ds ing re ids d h o rn od rimp o i tc WDP op ere h us eriids i l r pep taceans ph a mari p aceans m a Ha S s o m v Anchovy h h Co u n Hy a ep a e Lar Unid. Fish o e acea Cr Ct Euph Ga Baych C lanticp Ammodytesn sp tu ust A A ( (Cl Cr y v g o in h r c er n H A c y ti an Ba tl A

Figure 130C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the large size class (n = 826). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Butterfish

80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s s e ids d tes e or r ii eans e WDP h a r a pe ac h omat op mm v s Copepods n a Hy ar te L C G Polyc Theco Scyphozoans Urochordates

Figure 131. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus; n = 6,098). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s n ds e n id a iid ans u dia hor o r e aetes WDP i z pe ac h opepo op ro v Asc C n Hy ar te yd L C H Polyc Loligo Sq Thecosomates Urochordates

Figure 132A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,750). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1980s 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s n ods ton WDP lop acea ank a st h u Pl ep Unid. Fish C Cr

Figure 132B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the 1980s (n = 287). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s s s d d e id or eans WDP si arids c pepo ph au o o mm rva C en ph Amphipo u Ga La Ct E Scyphozoans

Figure 132C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected collected in the 1990s (n = 367). WDP = well-digested prey. D 2000s

80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

s p s s s d e d id ids m or ri i s WDP hri a er pepo ph p My o o mm C ea S en Hy c Ga a Ct Scyphozoans rust C

Figure 132D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the 2000s (n = 3,694). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s n d id es rids a ii ans u etes hores a r e a WDP pe ac h op rozo y v somat n H ar yd L ligo Sq Unid. Fish Cte Gamm H o Polyc L Theco Scyphozoans

Figure 133A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 2,988). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

80

60

40

% Composition % 20

0

s s s s n d e id ia or rids i WDP a er id pepo ph p o o mm Asc C en Hy Ga Polychaetes Ct Scyphozoans

Figure 133B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in Southern New England (n = 2,174). WDP = well-digested prey. C Georges Bank 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s s s d n re id ea o si WDP ac ph u pepo o a Mysids o n ph C rust e u C Ct E Scyphozoans

Figure 133C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 465). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s s e ids tes e or r eans e at WDP h a a zoan ac h om o op mm v s Copepods n a ar te L Unid. Fish C G Polyc Theco Scyph

Figure 134A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the fall (n = 3,303). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s p s s s s n d m e an id an ids or o ri e s WDP hri z c pepo ph pe a My o o dro rv Ascidia C ea S en Hy c t Hy La Polychaetes a C Urochordates rust C

Figure 134B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the spring (n = 1,571). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter 100 80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

s p s s d n re ids m o iids i WDP ri er h acea ph aus p opepo o Mysids C a S ust n Hy ce e a Cr Ct Euph rust C

Figure 134C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the winter (n = 880). WDP = well-digested prey. D Summer 100

80

60

40

% Composition % 20

0

s s P s s ds n e D an od i a t ri p ar e e W a e c ha d p m va c ni o m r y C a ol C G La P

Figure 134D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the summer (n = 344). WDP = well-digested prey. A Extra Small

80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

s p s s s s d e id id n m or r i ea WDP hri a er c pepo ph p a Mysids o o mm rv C a S n Hy ce e La a Ct Ga rust C

Figure 135A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the extra-small size class (n = 1,773). WDP = well-digested prey. B Small 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s s e ids d tes e or r ii eans e WDP h a r a pe ac h omat op mm v s Copepods n a Hy ar te L C G Polyc Theco Scyphozoans Urochordates

Figure 135B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) collected in the small size class (n = 4,230). WDP = well-digested prey. Northern Sand Lance

80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s ds s aths rid iid WDP a er pepo p Mysids togn o mm e C Hy ha Ga C Urochordates

Figure 136. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius; n = 1,357). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

ds aths rids WDP a pepo Mysids togn o mm e C ha Ga C Urochordates

Figure 137A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,021). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1980s

80

60

40

% Composition % 20

0

s s s ds n aths iid WDP er pepo acea p togn o st ae C u Hy Ostracod Unid. Fish h Cr C

Figure 137B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected in the 1980s (n = 336). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s ds n ea WDP ac d. Fish opepo v Mysids i C ar L Un

Figure 138A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 342). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s ds n s aths id iids WDP si arids er pepo acea au p togn o ph mm e C ust u Hy Unid. Fish Cr E Ga Cha

Figure 138B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected in Southern New England (n = 521). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank

80

60

40

% Composition % 20

0

s s aths od iid WDP er pep p togn Mysids e Co Hy ha C

Figure 138C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected on Georges Bank (n = 424). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall

80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s an ids ans u ids e r e eo s a n ac My mm v Copepods rustac a ar cella C G L s Mi

Figure 139A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected in the fall (n = 207). B Spring 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s ds s aths rid iid WDP a er pepo p Mysids togn o mm e C Hy ha Ga C Urochordates

Figure 139B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected in the spring (n = 915). WDP = well-digested prey. C Summer 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s ds ths ans od a ri a pep togn id staceans e n Co u C Cr Gammari Cha

Figure 139C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) collected in the summer (n = 235). Bluefish

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) t) ) ) ) ) is sy li gs sg d id s ise s) h) s s s ingl tuv il ds ids inu ids en ui u u r ishu isx u ru p va e h o e rg er n a hf tr r b so ti s chovytc op ern aul t Sq Sq ca Hake t a u yScup s p ni l lup re s i irn ttern lt sa amckerel r eHerr e m a aH gr u Herri ran Pou l a Bluefia ic Sauryo h a hAncho A h C h n de lex e lvei ac s x sc c a ya p E m Il ligo m b iBu s so c M s Unid. Fish sa o ao e a uun o aOc Sis tr u e eir u o h Bh C e r L s iu s r b m l Ammodytesc sp c tlanticp Rot e c u m eAtlant o (A n n Au (E c c il to b m t Blueback AStriped(A Cl ar lu r a m co o g ( ( g o r p m o SAtlant n in y y g in Z e e o c ( te r v v n r ( M P P (S l S er o o ri er t ( ( ( re ( h ch r u e h ry e p H c n e H o k is sh u k u k n H d P a f fi a c c c A A n n H er e S a S a d y ic u a t u b e t e er t ic M e p Ba an Ro c v Bl t ic u ri tl O il Bu an t Bl t A S tl an S A tl A

Figure 140. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix; n = 4,826). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

ys) n) g) s) vu es ds ns d id u t u o ids re ui u hfish se adn ul e q t rmes p n lop a t Sq tern o e ra a gr Herris at h yenh h u ex S ac a Mt p de l ligo iBu Unid. Fish o a e En m Il o tr h ti C unu L s c r tr u n o ERo il StripedA Ancho o ( r ( ev g p Pleuronectif y Atlanticr n e v B i P o ( rr ( h n e h c e H is n d d rf A a n e h u tt ed n p e ri M Ro Bu t c S ti an tl A Figure 141A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in the 1970s (n = 433). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) li n gs) gs) d st se) ) x) s) s) il e ds u ne id u i s ish u s h o gin r ui u n akr fishu tr r u c ad nr te a Pou ea th a u h it op ere Sq Sq ic n H tern lt a c al Hr Herris x o ran lir at a cs Saury is Anchovym enh h a e u e g ee vei c sBluefi xi c a M p h d l li m bl iBua s o Unid. FishyRed Hake o e a m Il o aOc Sis r u s h h C e unu L u t m re p Bayc lanticp tor es ci s e o Ammodytesn sp ut ER c c lu to bAtlant r (A ClA ( r lu ri a m (U ( g a r p m o y Atlantic g n o e e o c e v n ri (Z P P S k o i r t (M ( ( ( a ch rr e u h h y H n e H o e s is r d H d P ak fi f au A n r e S Re y ic u an H te u t e er t Bl ic Ba an Ro c v t tl O il Bu an A S tl A

Figure 141B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,575). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s s) i) ) st) s) ) ) ) li uy ll ds gs d id u uk ise s x iang tv i o ids inu ids ui u n nc r u i v e h e rg ul a doi a th tr ti s chovytc op eren a Sq Sq c edf e n a s ep ni l lup r ri l in a lt Herre h m a Ha gr ean Pou g il c Bluefisha a Ancho A h C h n lex eHa b Butterfisha s a a ya p tic E Il ligo m a s i s Unid. Fish s o ao e ea o aOc s uSilver Haktr u o h Bch C p L s u i s m l c n tulan e m c u o (A n A rc c il t Blueback StripedA (A Cl a m lu r a g ( ( o ra r p m in y y g Z g e e o r v v n ( o M P P er o o ri t n ( ( ( h ch r u a e h H c n e o l k is sh k n H P e a f fi c A A c n M H er e a d y ti a ( r tt u eb e n e k e u ip Ba a c c v Bu Bl tr tl O o il Bl A d S S ad H

Figure 141C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in the 1990s (n = 1,616). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s) i gs) ) ts) se) ) ) ) ) ) u ll ds u ngs es id u i s s s s s g i o g lids rie u n akr fishu u ru p su n h n er m a a th ndern b Scupso r e tc op errine au t Sq c eH tern ua ckerel y e r i al Hr r Hers o anri Pou irn at loic am r Cunnerp aAlewife Anchovym h a u difor g ee veil c Fr o h s h a h de a li b Bua e sc c d o o a Eng m o Ocm sil ri m c M s a Unid. Fish d h e unu G a uS t a eir u s u Bayc Cep p tor L s i s s b m ru se n u R e c u e ant o b p A Atlantic (E rc c il Wintert lm t a ( Cl a lu r ec Ato o l sa y ( g o r p n c n o o v g in Z e e o (S te g l o n rr ( M P r l S to A h ri e t ( ( u e ( u ( c r u e h le r p a e n e H o k is p e u T if H d P a f o ck c ( A c n n H er d a S r w y ti u a tt u e le n e er e M n A Ba a Ro c v s c n tl O il Bu P ti S ( n Cu A er a d tl n u A lo F r te in W Figure 141D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in the 2000s (n = 1,202). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) ) ys ) ns) ) sg) s x) ns) ) s) vu li eu ds shis ne id u shi u s p t il n o fil ids r u hfish tr n ru o se h adn k a ul te t aefi rlobii b Scups p c a op a g a Sq tern lut o ckerel y e it r al ere Herris o cat a r am r Anchoh Anchovy tenhy h gr e u g a Bls Seaa o h m M p Wn n d li iBu s c sc c SearobinsUnid. Fish a a ia e io E m o tr u rns ic M s o o t C c uun L s eu r u ch Bayh r s tr u m t e m Ammodytesn sp c o o ERo l to o lantb o Striped n o n ( ri a n m t (A (A ev g p m io Ato o Atlanticr Cy n e o Northr c en y y B ( ri P P (S t v v ( h r ( (P ( l S o o n is e h n e ( ch h e f H s sh i r p n c d k fi i b e u n a a d r ef ro ck c A A h e n te u a a S d y n W u t e e e Bl S M ip Ba M Ro Bu n c tr r ti S ic e n t th la an r t tl o A A N

Figure 142A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 2,763). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) g) g) )t e) ) ) ) li ds s ns d id s s s x s il o inu lids re ui u u ri fishu ri p es sp h rg e n a th t sScupo t tc op ern au t Sq Sq ca eHak tern ta y i al Hre r s ani Pou inr at l r Anchovym h a u ex er veil c sBluefisha h p h de Herri l ligo e bl Bua c Unid. Fish a e Eng m Il o Ocm Si ri s s o C ea unu L a s t u u cBayh p tor s iu s m m Ammody n u ER e c lu to o A Atlantic ( rc c i a t ( Cl g a lu r o y ( n o r p m en v g ri Z e e o t o n r ( M (P P S h ri e t ( ( ( c r H u e h h p n e o k is is u A H d P a rf f c c n n H e e S y ti u a tt u n e er Bl Ba a Ro c v Bu tl O il A S

Figure 142B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in Southern New England (n = 1,296). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) sg) d d st) ks) es) ) ) s) s ngis ids u i u cu i ishs s u s i l e rgin ui n n akr f u ru r u va n a doi Ha th u b h i up eer Squ Sq c def r e tern a mckerel c Herrst l Hr x o ani Pou l in ta cs Saury oa s e C a e g eer Hag veil c xi c ci a h ll li e lb Bua o s Unid. Fish yRed Hake I Ocm a Si ri sant ric M h sa ea Lo a s s t el e p o lanticp s u iu s Atr b o l Ammodytes sp ut e m c u e r A A rc c il b m U Blueback ( Cl a m lu r m cAtlanto ( g ( o ra r p o S e n g Z g e e c ( k ri n ( o M (P (S l a r ri t n ( re H e r u a e h ry e H e o l k is u k d H P e a rf a c ck c n M H e S a Re a ti a ( tt b n e k er ic M e a c c v t ic u tl O o il Bu an t Bl A d S tl an ad A tl H A

Figure 142C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected on Georges Bank (n = 472). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) t) ) ) ) ) is sy li ds ds sg) sg d id s ise s ) s s ingl uv il o inu ids en ui u u r ishu ix u p a t h ei gr ul er q n a thf tr r o iv se chovyc op ern a t Sq ca eHak n a u sScup t p nit l lup e s ani Pou inr atter lt sa ry eHerrs e a Hr gr u Herri ex S er il c Bluefisha h a Anchoh Am h C a n de l e blve Bua s x c ya p tich E m Il ligo m i s so Unid. Fish a a ao e a uun o aOc Sis tr u e s s o Bh C lane r L s iu s r u lo Ammodytesch sp c tp Rot e c u m Atlantice mSaury A n n Au (E c c il to b to Blueback ( AStriped A ar lu r a m o g ( ( (Cl g o r p m o n n y y in Z e e o c te ri v v g rr ( M (P P (S S r o o in e t ( ( ( e h h rr u e h ry p H c c e H o k is sh u u k n n d P a rf fi a c c A A H n n H e e S S a y ic u a r tt u c b ed t e e ti e p Ba n Ro c v Bu Bl n u ri la O il a Bl t t S tl S A A

Figure 143A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in the fall (n = 4,312). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s d d p. s ) n) ) ) u ds d i ps l s s s ia g o ui ss e fishu u u g n sii su E th iobin br e e op u Squ Sq rhu tern lr ckerel r r l a x o rh ta ro am id. Fish s Alewifea ha h e g rir ake c aSea o i h ll i iic n iBua c sc yc o I itc S r srn c M Un h d Eup etn t ue eir p u Cep Lol en s t b oSpotted Hake se M lu o lant r p M i n m U r io Atco ( sa ep rNorth S e o P (P ( k l ( l a A h in re H ( s b e fe fi o k ed i er ar ac tt ew tt e o l S M p A Bu n ic S er t h an rt l o t N A

Figure 143B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) collected in the spring (n = 237). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

y) i) gs) n) ) ) vs ll ds ne d id s s s tu i o ids r ui u su fishu p e h ul te o th Scupo s tc WDP op a s Sq Sq culpin tern s ep i al Herriu Si at ry h Anchovym h gr e ex s p c h a p d l ligo n Bua c Unid. Fish a o e En m Il o orm ri Scombrids s o h C runu L hce t u ch Bayc t e s m n n (RoE ngd lu o StripedA AnchoA too i t ( ( g cL r o y y in o p n v v r e te o o r s (P S h h e lu ( c c H a h p n n d h is u n p f c A A u e er S d y c tt e Ro xo ip Ba o Bu tr y S (M in lp cu S rn o h g n o L Figure 144A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) in the small size class (n = 2,645). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) is i ns) sg sg d id ies s x) s s ingl ll eu ds ds inu ids ren ui u r uish shi ru p a i adn o ei rg e q a thf tr b o iv ch n ern ul t Sq Hake n a Scups t t a lop up re a s irn atter lt ackerelm y eHerrs i enhr a l aH gr u Herri il c Bluefia o r a mAnchovyy h C h n ed lex S bve a s sc ch a Mt p tic E m ligo l iBu s Unid. Fish a o a e a uun Il o Sis tr u eicr M s s Bayh ti C e r L iu s b u lo Ammodytesc sp r tlanp Rot c u m m A n o Au (E c il to m to Blueback ( A vo Cl lu r a co o g ( e ( g r p m SAtlant n n y Atlanticr g in e e o ( e ri v B n r M P l t r o ( i er ( ( (P e (S e h n rr e h er H c e e H k is sh k p n d H d a rf fi c cu ck A a n H e e a S a h ic u r tt u b y en t e M e an Ro v Bu Bl ic u Ba M tl il t Bl c S an ti A tl an A tl A Figure 144B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) in the medium size class (n = 1,882). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large

25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0

) ) t) ) ) ) ) s) gs s id id s sk ies s s s u ringe u u uc r ishu ru u g e n in a thf u h tes sp errinn etrr Squ Sq a fdo Hake n a c re s ic led rin atter s d. Fish s aH uH x o eanr Pou g il c xic Saury i ci Clupeids h de le g e eHa lbve ia o yRed Hake m Il li m a s rBu s Un h ea unu o Oca s uSi t re p p tor L s u i s e o Ammody u ER e m cc lu bAtlant r Atlantic ( rc u ri m U Cl g a m l p o ( ( n o ra er e c e g ri Z g P S k n r ( o M ( ( a ri e t n ( h y H r H u a e s r e o l k fi u d H d P e a r a c n n M H te S Re ti u a ( r t c n e k e ti a Ro c c lv Bu n tl O o i la A d S t ad A H

Figure 144C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) in the large size class (n = 299). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Weakfish

25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0

y) i) gs) ) sg) s s ) ) vs ll ds u shs en d id s s tu i o rgin fili ids r u sids u p e h n ka ul te rme ari th Scupo s tc WDP lop ere ag a Sq n ys ep i a Hr ee gr s ifo My a r h Anchovym h a r n eu d mm c h a p h Wn d Herri iButterfisha c Unid. Fish a o e a io E m Ga Ga r s o h C e c ruun Loligo t u h cBay tlanticp s t s m c n u o ERo lu o Stripedn AnchoA A n ( i t (A ( (Cl g r o y Cy n ep n y v g ( ri te v o in h r (P S o h r s e ( h c r fi H h p c n e k is u n H a d rf c A A c e n e S d y ti u tt e n W ip Ba la Ro Bu tr t S A

Figure 145. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis; n = 5,117). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) ys i) p ) b s s vu ll ds ck ds is d d et i i ei im fishl ra sids s h ng Ja ka C uli p tc a e up eag d a e i r l Shr r mari My h Anchovym a all C n Wen m a a C ev o apo Engr Illex Squid Unid. Fish o o r go ci c Ga ch Bayh C an s n c r o De StripedA Anchon C n ( (A y Cy v y ( o v h h o is c ch f n n ak A A e ed y W ip Ba tr S Figure 146A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in the 1970s (n = 316). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ys i) P sn) s s s) vu ll ue d id ds u t i D n imp id u i hfish se h n po r ul t p chovytc W ahad lo h a Sq dal tern e ni r a S n at Anchoh Am tyen gr c M n ligo Pa iBua Unid. Fish a ya a E o tr o ao ti Ceph acea L ch cBh r s Ammodytesn sp n o ust lu Mantis Shrimp StripedA A vlantico ri ( ( et Cr p y y Ar e v v B P o o ( ( h h n h c c e is n n ad f A A h er n tt ed y e ip Ba M Bu tr c S ti an tl A

Figure 146B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in the 1980s (n = 739). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) sy li sg gs s s id s) s) tuv il inu ids ne id u ids uish p e h rg er r s hf o s c WDP ern aul t rme a Sq t Scups p it re s ttern y e aH gr u My ca r h Anchovym h de Herri difo mm a ch a a En m ligo iBu Unid. Fish o o a unu Ga Ga o tr s h Bayh e r L s u c c tlanticp Rot u m n n Au (E il to AStriped AnchoA Cl r o ( ( ( g p n y y g in e te v v n rr (P S o o ri e ( ch ch r h p n n e H is u H d rf c A A c n e S d y ti u tt e n ip Ba a Ro Bu tr tl S A

Figure 146C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in the 1990s (n = 2,575). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

sy) i) hs) gs) s s) s ) ) uv ll lsi ne ds id d u d s ia t i fia lids r ri u si fhish i p g se h kg te a t Scupso e p tc WDP e rau Sq tern aen y r e i r s My cta i r s h Anchovym n eu mm a h ci a a oWea d Herri ligo Bui Sc c Unid. Fishy o o i Eng m Ga o tr s h h h sc runu L s u p c Bayc o to u m oSpotted Hake n n n ER l o r AStriped AnchoA ( ri t U ( ( Cy g p o ( y y ( in e en e v v h r (P t k o o is er (S a h h f h H c c k H is p d n n a d rf u e A A e n e c tt W u tt S o ed y p ip Ba Ro Bu S tr S

Figure 146D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in the 2000s (n = 1,487). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

y) g) ) g) s ) ) vs i) ds s shs ns id s ds s u ll o inu mp li ids e u ids fuish i p t i gr ri afi ul er rme s th o se h WDP op ern h agk a t Sq n Scups p tc l re e s fo My atter ry e i a aH S r gr uHerri i c h h Anchovym h h Wen n de d Bua Sciaen c ep cea o E m i s Unid. Fish a a a a i uun Ga tr u o Bayo C lantice sc r Loligo s ch ch tp ust o Rot u m n n Au r n (E il to StripedA AnchoA Cl C r o ( ( ( Cy g p n y y g ( in e te v v n h r P S o o i s er ( ( h h rr fi h p c c e k H is u n n H a d rf c A A c e n e S ti W u tt ed y n ip Ba la Ro Bu tr t S A

Figure 147A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 4,014). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ys) i) s) s s s) a vu ll ds lshi d id p i t i o fia ids u o g es sp se h kg ul rme ari Scups re t p tchovyc op ae a Sq y e ni al er ifo r id. Fish is Anchoh Am h n gr d mm ch c p oW n y a ya e i E Ga Ga s Un h o ao C sc Loligo u p ch cBh o m rSpottedo Hake Ammody n n n to StripedA A o (U ( ( Cy n e y y ( te k v v h S a o o is ( H ch ch f p n n ak u ed e c tt A A S o d y W p e S ip Ba tr S

Figure 147B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in Southern New England (n = 740). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0 ) ) ) ys) i) s) gs s s s s vu ll ds lshi ne d id u p t i o afi ids r u sids h o se h gk ul te rme ari t Scups p tc WDP op ea a s Sq n ry e i al re u ifo My ca h h Anchovym h n gr e d mm a c p oW n md Herri iButterfishs a a e i E u Ga Ga tr u Unid. Fish o o C sc run Loligo s ch Baych o t u m n n n (ERo il to AStriped AnchoA r o ( ( Cy g p n y ( in e te v y r P S o v sh r ( ( h o i e h c ch f H s p n n ak d fi cu A A e n er S W u tt ed y ip Ba Ro Bu tr S

Figure 148A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in the fall (n = 4,433). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

) ) s) t ) ) ys li ug p s s s ia tvu il ing m n d ru ids g e h nr i Spou e s c WDP ere auli h r ep it r Shr tacea t id. Fish is h m Ha s gr n c Anchovy h n u n xa Sciaen y a a a go E s Un h o o e n Cr u p ch Baych lanticp a Spottedo Hake n n tu r m r StripedA AnchoA ClA C to (U ( ( ( s e y y g io k v v in e a o o rr (L H ch ch e t n n o ed H p tt A A c S o d y ti p e n S ip Ba la tr t S A

Figure 148B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) collected in the spring (n = 532). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s) i) s) s p uy ll p eg d m tv i mp m ids rn iids ids i se ch rimp ri i ul te s r p t WDP h h a s us h e i S Shr u a mari My S h m S gr eHerri m Penaeidsd a Anchovy n ea d n i a o c E ndm ae Unid. Fish o h go a apo ruu Euph Ga n ch cBay an c t e n n r ust e RoE P StripedA AnchoA C r D ( ( ( C g y y n v v ri o o r h h e c c H n n d A A n y u ed ip Ba Ro tr S

Figure 149A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) in the small size class (n = 2,925). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) ys) i) gs s) gs) s s) s) vu ll ds u lshi ids ne id id ids ishu ids p et i o ring fia r r u s fh o s h WDP n kg ul te a t Scups p tc lop rere ae a s Sq tern ry e i a Ha er gr u My ta h h Anchovym h h n n e mm ac c a a p oW d Herri ligo Bui Sciaen Unid. Fish o o e a i E m Ga o tr s h h C e sc runu L u c Bayc tlanticp o t s m n n u n ERo lu to StripedA AnchoA ClA ( ri o ( ( ( Cy g p n y y g ( n e e v v n ri P t o o i sh r ( (S h h rr fi e h c c e k H s p n n H a d fi cu A A c e n er S ti W u tt ed y n ip Ba la Ro Bu tr t S A

Figure 149B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) in the medium size class (n = 1,989). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) gs) es) n) ) ) li u es ds id i ds s s ia il g lids m i u akr i u p g h n Hea robiin Scupo e c errine au Sq n dal l ys r it Hr r o lri n ro r id. Fish s Anchovy a difor mmar g vei Seaa h i m h a li ilb Pa c c yc a a Eng Ga o s rns s Un h o e G Su eu u p Bayh p L i t oSpotted Hake Ammodytes csp u cc o m r n Atlantic u n to U A (Cl l io o ( ( er Northr n e y g P te k v in M ( S a o r ( n ( h r e i p H c e k b u d n H a ro c te A c H a S t y ti r e o n e S p Ba la lv n S t i er A S h rt o N

Figure 149C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) in the large size class (n = 203). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Striped Bass

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) i) s ) ) s s s) u l ens ds gs p d d u gife il u inu m r nw h adn ei rg i uli ri b e c n ern a mckerel r it ivalve ra lup re Shr oa aAle m B enhy C aH gr mma c h Anchovy t ich n s o a Ma at on E Ga rc M Unid. Fish d o ti e ng ei u cBayh r lanp a b Tonguefishes se n o ut lmant p A vo A Cr o a ( e (Cl Atc s y Atlanticr (S o v B g l o ( in el (A h n r r c e er e fe n d k i A a H ac w h ic le y en t M A Ba an ic M tl t ic an t A tl an tl A A

Figure 150. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis; n = 1,089). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1990s

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) li s ns s s s s il eu ds ingu id e d ids h n ei rg er ri c WDP hadn ern ul t it ivalve a up re a s enr l Ha gr Herringu m B ty C h n e mma Sciaen a aM tic E ndm Unid. Fish o ti nea uu Ga cBayh Anchovy r lap tr Tonguefishes n o u RoE A lanticvo At ( ( et (Cl g y Ar n v B g ri o ( in r h n rr e c e e H n ad H d A h c n y n ti u e n Ba M la Ro c t ti A an tl A

Figure 151A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) collected in the 1990s (n = 261). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 2000s 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) s i) s ns) g) p s s s s) ifeu ll eu ds s d d u g i n inu im ri od r wn h adn ei rg uli p b e tc valve a up eern a mckerel r i i r l Hr Shr Iso oa Alea Anchovym B tenhy C a gr mma c h M ich on n s Unid. Fish o a ia t g E Ga irc M d o t ea n e eu cBayh r lanp a b s n o ut m p A vo A Cr o a ( e (Cl Atlantc s y Atlanticr (S lo v (B g l A o in e ( ch en rr er fe n d e k i A a H c w h c a le y en ti M n c A Ba M la ti ic t n t A la an t tl A A Figure 151B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) collected in the 2000s (n = 811). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) ) i) ns) s) p s s s) ngli s l eu ds ung d u ai u il n gi im od r v g h n ei nr uli p b ti en tchovyc hada up eer a mckerel Herrs Alewifer in enr l Hr Shr gr Iso oa e a mA ty C a n c a h ay M tich on E s Unid. Fish a o oa ia na g ric M s d h rt ae n e Tonguefishes lo u cB o lp a b A se n o u mlant ( p A tlanticv At Cr o gBlueback ( e (Cl cAt n a y Ar S i s v B g ( rr lo o ( in l e A h n rr re H ( c e e e e n ad H k k if A h ac ac w n ic b e y e t M e l an c u A Ba M tl ti ic n Bl t A la an t tl A A

Figure 152A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 764). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) li s gs s s) sn) il u nge ids ds id ishu u h rgin erir u fh obin c WDP n t po Sq t lri it valve rere s ro tern o i aH Heru ta r m B h e mmar st c Seaa a md ligo Buia c Searobins Unid. Fish o a unu Ga Ga o tr rns Bayh Anchovy e or L s teu c tlanticp t u o n u (RE l n A ClA ri o ( ( g p Northi y g in e r v n rr P (P o ri e ( ch r H h in n e is b H d rf o A c n e ar y ti u tt e n S Ba la Ro Bu n t er A h rt o N

Figure 152B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) collected in Southern New England (n = 220). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) ) ) ) li s gs gs) s s sn il e ids u ne id id ishu u h v e rgin r u fh n c WDP n te t li it val up ere s Sq tern o i l Hr uHerri cta r m B C a de mmar a aSearobi a tich Bui c Unid. Fish o a unm Ga tr srn h e ru Loligo s tue Bayc Anchovy tlanp t u o n u ERo il n A ClA ( r o ( ( g p rNorthi y g in e P v n r (P ( o ri er n ch r h i n e H is b H d rf ro A c n e a y ti u tt e n S Ba la Ro Bu n t er A h rt o N

Figure 153A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) collected in the fall (n = 243). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) i) sn) gs) p s s s ll ue u d u i n eids rgin im od br ch nad n uli p m t a up rere a o ckerel i enhr l aH Shr gr Iso c a m Bivalves ty C h n s a aM tic on E rc M Unid. Fish o ti ea g ei Bayh Anchovy r lanp n b Tonguefishes c o tu a mant n o A Cr ol (A ev Cl Atc Atlanticr ( (S y B g l v ( n e o n ri r ch e er e n d ck A a H a h ic y en t M an ic Ba M tl t ic an t A tl an A tl A

Figure 153B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) collected in the spring (n = 772). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Medium 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) is i) s sn gs p s s s ingl ll e ue inu m ids id tes ids u a i v n rg i od e br iv ch WDP n n ul p a t t ival ahad rere a h mckerel Herrs i enr aH Shr gr Iso oa e mAnchovy B ty h n mmar Sciaen sc a a M tic on E Unid. Fish a o ia a g Ga Polyc irc M s h rt e n e Tonguefishes lo cBay o tlanp a b A n o Au m Blueback ( A tvlantic Cl Cr o g ( e ( Atlantc n y Ar g (S ri v (B n l r o ri e e h n r er H c e e k n ad H c k A h a ac n ic b y e t M e an c u Ba M tl ti Bl ic A an t tl an tl A A

Figure 154A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the medium size class (n = 604). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Large 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s) i) s s s s) u ll un ds u d u g i ne ging r n h n rrn ri b e tc ahad pei ee mckerel r i r u r oa aAlewife Anchovym teny Cl aH mma c h a ich s o o iaM at cr M Unid. Fish d h rt ne Ga ei eu Bayc o lpa b s n o u lmant p A lanticv ClAt o a ( ret ( Atc s y BA g (S lo v ( in l A o n r e ( ch e er er fe n ad H k i A h c ac w y n ti le e n M Ba a c A M tl ti ic A n t la an t tl A A

Figure 154B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the large size class (n = 435). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Atlantic Croaker

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) s s s vlyl b bs d id cs i a ids ri u s hoch ra ul a ict WDP valve C a i d Cr gr m B cer n mm Mollu a n E ligo Sq Unid. Fish o a capo Ga o Polychaetes Baych An C e L n D Mantis Shrimp A ( y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 155. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus; n = 924). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0 ) yli s s s s s s s vil b ds n d b d scs hoch ra po ea ra uli cit WDP valve C lo ac apo C a i a c d gr m B cer h ust n chordate Mollu a n p r De E Unid. Fish o a e C capo mi Polychaetes Baych An C C n De He Mantis Shrimp A ( y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 156A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) collected in the 1970s (n = 205). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 2000s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) s s s vyll e bs d id i v ab a ids ri u hoch r ul a cit WDP val C Cr a i r d gr m B ce n mm Molluscs a n E Unid. Fish o a capo Ga Polychaetes Baych An C e Loligo Sq n D A ( y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 156B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) collected in the 2000s (n = 518). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s li ds bs p ds s il o a m ri te sc ids h i a a lu s tc WDP valve op rd l i i l d Cr Shr o My id. Fish m B ha mm p d ch Mo a e apo Ga Un o C c apo mi Polychaetes cBayh Anchovy e c Spotted Hake n D e He A D ( y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 157A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) in the small size class (n = 555). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) yli s id p vil ve abs ids u scs hoch ul aetes cit WDP val a h hrim i d Cr gr S m B n Mollu a E ligo Sq Unid. Fish o capo o Polyc Baych An e L n D Mantis A ( y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 157B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) in the medium size class (n = 368). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Spot

80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

) li P s p s s il D ve m d c h al i ari lus tc W v l i Shr Anchovym Bi mm Mo Amphipods a on Ga o ng Polychaetes Baych a n A Cr ( y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 158. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spot (Leiostomus xanthurus; n = 1,156). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s p s s d m d u i eo WDP ari n ivalve pepo Shr B o mm C on Ga scella ng Polychaetes a Mi Cr

Figure 159A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) collected in the 1970s (n = 296). WDP = well-digested prey. B 2000s 100

80

60 40

% Composition % 20

0

s e s s d a id id rv r i WDP a La Mysids h mm Hyper Amphipo Fis Ga Polychaetes

Figure 159B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) collected in the 2000s (n = 600). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0 ) li P s p e s il e d ids h D v im rva s tc W i ival Shr La mari My Anchovym B m a on sh Amphipods o g Fi Ga Polychaetes Baych n n a A Cr ( y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 160A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) collected in the fall (n = 790). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s an sc rimp e lu aetes WDP h ac l h S n um Mo C ngo Polyc ra Mantis Shrimp C

Figure 160B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) collected in the spring (n = 205). WDP = well-digested prey. Scup

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) yl s es s s s s cs s vil an v ab n b d s d hoh o r ra ari roi ctc WDP val C C i i r acea d iu m B mm Mollu h a ust Unid. Fish o Anthoz ance Cr capo Ga Op Polychaetes Baych An C n De A ( y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 161. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops; n = 3,886). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s s s s s an b d n b d u es sp o ra po ra ari t WDP C o C al acea d cer mm n ust cellaneo Unid. Fish Anthoz a eph Cr apo Ga Illex Squid s Polychaetes C C c Ammody De Mi

Figure 162A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,078). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s e s ids n b c mp od ra rva WDP ell ri ap llus ivalve r h acea c C iuroids B ap S d La h C ea ust De sh Mo Amphipods ac Cr capo Fi Op Polychaetes rust De C

Figure 162B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in the 1980s (n = 429). WDP = well-digested prey. C 2000s

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) li ily s es s s s s cs s hv an v n b id d s d thoc o ea ra ul ari roi ci WDP val c C a m i a d iu B gr mm Mollu h a rust n Unid. Fish o apo E Ga Op Polychaetes ch Anthoz C c nBay An A De ( y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 162C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in the 2000s (n = 2,207). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s n b s s s ods mp d sc p ri ra ari lu WDP valve op h C l i l acea d B ha S mm Scallo p ea ust Mo e c apo Ga Unid. Fish Anthozoans C a Cr c Polychaetes rust De C

Figure 163A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 2,039). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) yli s s s s s s ivl e n b d d h v rab ra tes sp hoc WDP uli ari ict val C acea C a iuroids i r d gr h Anm B ust n mm Molluscs a E o ance Cr capo Ga Op Polychaetes Baych C Ammody n De A ( y v o ch n A y Ba

Figure 163B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in Southern New England (n = 1,499). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

i) ly s es s s s s ivl an v ab d b d hoh o r po ra ari ctc WDP val C o C i i r al taceans d m B s mm Molluscs a u Unid. Fish o Anthoz ance Cr capo Ga Polychaetes cBayh An C Ceph n De A ( y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 164A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in the fall (n = 2,575). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s e s s ids d b d u an ra rva WDP ell ce ari eo r a capo C La n topods iuroids ap e d mm h C rust D ish cella Oc Anthozoans C capo F Ga s Op Polychaetes De Mi

Figure 164B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in the spring (n = 707). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter 40

30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s s s s d n e ds s d v id rids ods ia si a p roi WDP id val u i pepo a tropods Iso B o ph mm s Scallops Asc C u Amphipo E Ga Ga Ophiu Polychaetes

Figure 164C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) collected in the winter (n = 521). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

es s s e s cs v n b va d s ids ea ra r ari s WDP val c C i a d La My B mm Mollu rust ish Unid. Fish Amphipods Anthozoans C capo F Ga Polychaetes De

Figure 165A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) in the small size class (n = 3,159). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) sp lyi s s s s s s s s s ivl e d n b d d e h an v rab ra t cho o WDP C po uli y itc ival lo acea C a mari iuroids d r a st d h o Anm B u m Molluscs m a Engr mSand Lanceo Anthoz ance Cr capo Ga Op Polychaetes A cBayh C Ceph n De A ( y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 165B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for scup (Stenotomus chrysops) in the medium size class (n = 727). WDP = well-digested prey. Black Sea Bass

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ys ) s s s s s s s s) sn) ) tvu ta e ds n b d id u u s e a v ra id i ods u sc hfish n p s st WDP po cea si rme p lu t li Scupso ep Mousea val lo a C u ro Sq l tern o y h h i a d a ifo at r r B cer Crabsh ust ph d mmar st Mo ac aSearobih a Seata n p r u iBu c c Unid. Fish o Anthozoansi a e C capo E Ga Ga Ga tr Polychaetessrn s ch d C C Loligo s tue u n ro u o m A h De il n to (Striped Anchop r o o y A p rNorthi n v ( e P te o e (P ( S h s n ( c u h i p n o is b u A M rf ro c a e a S ed e tt e ip S S tr Bu n er S h rt o N

Figure 166. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata; n = 2,400). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

i) s ) s s s s s ) vlyl a e d b d ds s i an uset v ab iids i p es sp hoh o ota r ra Scupso t ctc s val C apo C us y i Ma i r c d a mari r Anm h B m Pagur h a a De c o Seait apo s Unid. Fish h Anthoz d c Euph Ga u Bayc o Cance m Ammody n r De o A h t ( p o y A n v ( te o se (S ch u n o p cu A M S y ea Ba S

Figure 167A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in the 1970s (n = 478). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ys s d id s tvu ds abs ds ui u ids ids op e po po q Scups s WDP valve o Cr Sq ph ry ep i l d tro o h h B er Crabs ha s ex S Pagur c c p l ligo s Unid. Fish a an e apo Ga Il o u o C c L Myct Polychaetes ch C e m n D to StripedA Ancho o ( n y te v S o ( ch p n cu A S ed ip tr S Figure 167B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in the 1980s (n = 347). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 2000s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) a s b id s s s t ds n a es ids ds u sc ishu u ta o ea m hf n s WDP c Cr po Sq llu t li a lop a d ro ttern o h er Crabs a st ca r a Bivalvesc h ust difor mmar Mo a a iSeat Mouse n p r apo ligo iBu c Unid. Fish d a e C c Ga Ga Ga o tr Polychaetess o C C e L s tu r D u o h il n p r io (A ep rNorthern Searobin e P P s ( ( u h in o is b M rf o e ar ea tt e S S Bu n er h rt o N

Figure 167C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in the 2000s (n = 1,481). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s s s s s ) ta e b d n b id s a v ra ra id ods u op st WDP po si p Scups Mousea val C lo acea C u y h i a d a tro r B cer ph s Molluscs h ta n ust u c Unid. Fish AnthozoansiSea a eph Cr apo E Ga Polychaetess d C C c Loligo Sq u ro m h De to p o A n ( te se S u ( o p cu M S ea S

Figure 168A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 1,704). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s b gs s s s s) s) ta ns a ne d id c u u a a r i ods u h n st o te rme p lus t li a WDP valve z d Cr s ro Sq l n o h i yo Herriu ca r B r cer Crabs e difo mmar st Mo a a ta B n apo md iButterfishc Unid. Fish Seai Mouse a c unu Ga Ga Ga tr s d e or Loligo s tu ro C D t u o h (RE l n p ri o A g p Northerni Searobin ( in e r e r P (P s er ( u h in o H is b M d rf o n e ar ea u tt e S S Ro Bu n er h rt o N

Figure 168B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in Southern New England (n = 448). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ta ) p s s s) a bs ngs es ds ds s id u u st a rrie m i s u sc fhish n a e po u lu t li h WDP t p Sq l tern o d Cr Hers ro cta r ta Bivalvescer Crabs o u difor mmar st am Mo a a i n p de a c ligo rBui c Unid. Fish dSea Mouse a a unm G Ga Ga o t Polychaetess ro c ou po L s tu h C e tr p u o p D ER il n A ( Hi r o ( g ep rNortherni Searobin se in P P u rr ( ( o e sh in M H fi b d r ro ea n te a S u t e S Ro Bu n er h rt o N

Figure 169A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in the fall (n = 926). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s s s s d s s) ta b ds n b ids d p a ra ra id ods oi o st WDP po cea si p ph r Scups a valve C lo a C u o iu y h i a d a tro h r B cer h ph s h ta n p rust u c Unid. Fish iSea Mouse a e C apo E Ga Illex SquiMyct Op s d C C c u ro m h De to p o A n ( te se S u ( o p cu M S ea S

Figure 169B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in the spring (n = 657). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s s s s s a) ta e d n b id i a v rab ra ods u eg st WDP C po p r Mousea ival lo acea C topod s h r a d stro i B ce ust Oc yc Seata n Unid. Fish h Anthozoansi a eph Cr apo Ga Polychaetes p d C C c Loligo Sq Spottedo Hake ro r h De p (U A e ( k se a u H o ed M tt o ea p S S

Figure 169C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) collected in the winter (n = 666). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s s s sy n b s s tuv ds od id d ods e po ea ra si ari p s WDP valve o c ap C u ep i l a c d a tro h B er Crabs ha mm s Pagurids c p rust De ph a n e apo u Ga Ga Unid. Fish o a C C c E Polychaetes ch C n De AStriped Ancho ( y v o ch n A ed ip tr S Figure 170A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in the small size class (n = 1,372). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s s s s g) s ) ) ta b ds n b ns d id cs s s a re ri ods u s fishu p st ra po ea ra e a p th Scupso a WDP valve C o c C t tern y h Mouse i l a d s tro ta r B er ha u mm s c h ta c p rust de Herri Mollu Buia c iSea n e apo m Ga Ga r s Unid. Fish Anthozoansd a C C c uun Loligo Sq t Polychaetesu ro C tr s m h De ERo lu o p ( ri t A g p o ( n e en e ri P t s r ( S u e h ( o H is p M d f cu n er S ea u tt S Ro Bu

Figure 170B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in the in the medium size class (n = 1,002). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Ocean Pout

60

n 50 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0

) ss s s s ta dr id id ps e a DP ita o o o et st ro S n r a W a hi iu ha h e Bivalves r Crabs c Scall yc a AsteS e E l it Oph o dSea Mouse Gammarids P ro Canc h Decapod Crabs p A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 171. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus; n = 3,478). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0 ) a s s s s t b abs d ms d u ta ra oi eo s WDP C n er ari n a od iuroids h er d Cr chi n mm h Scallops ta c E cella iSea Mouse an apo chi Ga s Op d c E ro C e Mi h D p A ( se u o M ea S Figure 172A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the 1970s (n = 459). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1990s

50

n 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0 s drs s s ps DP tia o S W aero Crab Crab e Bivalves d tropods AstS cer Echinoids s Scall po Gammarids Ga Ophiuroids Can Deca

Figure 172B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the 1990s (n = 627). WDP = well-digested prey. C 2000s

50 n 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0

) ss s s s ta dr id ds ps a tia o o st roS rab rab n ari a WDP a C hi m h e Bivalves d C c m Scall a AsteS cer E it po Ophiuroids dSea Mouse an Ga ro C h Deca p A ( se u o M ea S Figure 172C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the 2000s (n = 2,222). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

50

n 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0 s d rs s es tidsa So rab oids et n ha ea C callops S Bivalves er S yc Aster c Echi ol Amphipo an P C Decapod Crabs

Figure 173A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 238). B Southern New England

60

n 50 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0

s ) ss s s d seta dr es d ua tia oids st S alv rab n erms a WDP aero iv od callops h e B d C n S eaa Mo AstS Echi i Amphipo Sit po ch Gammari d E ro Cancer Crabs h Deca p A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 173B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in Southern New England (n = 1,652). WDP = well-digested prey. C Georges Bank

60

n 50 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0

s s s s dr id ds ps DP tai o o S alve rab n ari W aero v hi m e Bi r Crabs d C c AstS e E m Scall po Ga Ophiuroids Canc Deca

Figure 173C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 972). WDP = well-digested prey. D Gulf of Maine

40 n 30

20

% Compositio % 10

0 ) s s s s ta dsr es d d e a ita lv ri ods i st DP S a ro et a W ro inoids u ha h ea r Crabs h i a S Biv e Scallops it Aste Ec olyc dSea Mouse Gamma Gastrop Oph P ro Canc h p A ( se u o M ea S Figure 173D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 495). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall

30 n

20

10 % Compositio %

0

) s s a r s t tidsa rids ous ta DP So alve e s W v Crab inoids an a ea r Crabs d h ll hiuroids callops h Bi e e S lychaetes a AsterS po Ec c Seait Mouse Gamma Gastropods is Op Po d Canc M ro h Deca p A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 174A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the fall (n = 612). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring

50 n 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0

s ) ss s s s d tsea iadr id au t rab o rms st S alve n a WDP aero v C hi callops h e Bi er c inode hiuroids S ychaetes aea Mo AstS c E h l Amphipo iSt an Gammarids Op Po d C Ec ro h Decapod Crabs p A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 174B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the spring (n = 1,958). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter

60

n 50 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0

) s a drs s t tia bs ab ta DP S ra s W ero inoids a ea C h callops h S er d Cr c S a Ast po E Seait Mouse anc d C ro h Deca p A ( se u o M ea S Figure 174C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) collected in the winter (n = 857). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small

40 n 30

20

10 % Compositio 0 s s srs s p ds od tda lids i rids ds ids p oiS eans rab o o etes i WDP er el c ha ea a Shrim hino S Bivalve st d C c Isop Ast Capr ru po E olyc Amph C Gamma Ophiur P Deca Decapod

Figure 175A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) in the small size class (n = 543). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium

40 n 30

20

% Compositio % 10

0

s ) ss s s s d tsea iadr id au t rab o rms st S alve n a WDP aero v C hi callops h e Bi er c inode hiuroids S ychaetes eaa Mo AstS c E h l Amphipo Sit Gammarids Op d an Ec Po ro C h Decapod Crabs p A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 175B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) in the medium size class (n = 2,270). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large

60

n 50 40 30 20

% Compositio % 10 0 ) s s ta drs s s d ds ps a tia i o st roS rab rab no ari a WDP a m h e C d C hi a S Bivalves er c m Scall it Aste c po E dSea Mouse an Ga Ophiuroids ro C h p Deca A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 175C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) in the large size class (n = 665). WDP = well-digested prey. Atlantic Halibut

50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) gs sth) a d st se ns ds u u bs es odu ui u ri u ids ids o g ot a m Ch n aak s op errinn la r Sq a eH o l re um tico ic nr iculpin a aH c d Cr nm anr Pou li pS h h a o difor as lex e lvei ns Pagur Pandal mWry p a ul Il m b m ScombridsUnid. Fish a ca G d Oca Sis ore Cancer CrabsCep e es e aAt u hc p d es ci e u o D (G c c d ClAtlantic h r u to ( t d a rl Longc g n zo e o n ca Co o s ri a c r (M lu r t ti c e a e yp n a k h H la M a p c t ( e ti (Cr A t H c n h u er o a t o v x tl u P il yo A o n S m ea (M ry c n O i W lp cu S rn o h g n o L

Figure 176. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus; n = 447). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) p ) g s) ) d s u ths bs s ers ds g m tu a lin iu su i n ri ao k rmer nds errine h ml Cr c b lo topod alopods Hr cyu d iifom gou h a a S ar dc Flo Oc Pagurids h e W s n Pandal Unid. Fish a m apo rd Ro Gau cyh Illex Squi Cep e s c a p tc Cancer Crabs p e e e o s u rustac d D b y lWiu Atlantic o ur l a (Cl C th e h n ch p g a Fo n e in c E c rr ta ( to e yp g p H in ly c Cr l G ti ( ck ( n th er la u Ro d t o n A rd u m a o ry e l rb F W u h o c F it W

Figure 177A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus; collected in the fall (n = 214). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

p s) ) st) es) sn) s uth bs oda uu i u ids ds m tu a Cu no akr s i ri lao rh a Hea o h um ico c rn iculpin topod c d Cr t rani P li pS a o m e vei ns Oc Pagur Pandal Wrym p tlans m ilb m Unid. Fish ca u aOc Ss eor Cancer Crabs es e Ad u ch d a es ci e o D G c c dng h ( r u to Crustacea S t d a rl cL n zo e o ca Co o s a c r (M lu t ti c e a p n a k h y a M a p Cr tl ( e ( A t H c h u er o t o v x u P il yo o n S m ea (M ry c n O i W lp cu S rn o h g n o L Figure 177B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus; collected in the spring (n = 201). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Summer Flounder

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

g) g) e) ) ) ) ) ds s bs nes id is s s s ia o ids inu a ids r u r fishu u p g e gr ul e a th br Scupso e WDP op eern Cr a t Sq e Hak tern ckerel y r l lup Hr d Herris inr at ma r s er Crabsha C a gr u l c o h ctedi Hake c p h n de ligo live Bua sc c yt e apo E m o b ri c M s Unid. Fishh ea c uun sSi t eri u p Can C plantic e tr L iu s b m oSpo Ammodytes sp ut D ERo c u lant o r A ( c il m t U Cl g lu r cAto o ( ( n r p S en e g ri e e ( t k in r M (P l (S a r e ( re H er H e sh e p k i k u ed H d a rf c c tt c n e a S o ti u H tt p n er M S a Ro v Bu ic tl il t A S an tl A

Figure 178. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus; n = 17,387). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s ds d id d o eids ui si tes sp lop up Sq Squ sk-eels a l x in My h C le f Cu Il ng Unid. Fish Cep o Ammody L

Figure 179A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in the 1970s (n = 517). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) ) ) ) li p gs ost id se s s s il ds m bs ne pu u ri uish p s h o a er r a hf o u c WDP ri Cr t Su Sq e t Scups h it lop h s th rn Hak ttern ry c a d uHerri n li a h is Anchovym h a S de a vei ac c c a p e m x ligo bl iBu Unid. Fish yRed Hake o e c apo unu s o Sis tr s h h C a ec r u L u u p cBay t ci s m o Ammodytesn sp ust D ERo m c lu to r A r ( to u ri o U ( C g s rl p n ( y in io e e te e v rr e (P S ak o e (L (M ( ch H t e h p H n o k is u d d p a rf c A n e S Re y u S H tt er Ba Ro v Bu il S

Figure 179B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected collected in the 1980s (n = 1,334). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) l) ) sg sg id s s s es s) s) a ds ids inu bs ids en u id uish d u p s i o e gr a er s hf ri rer o u g WDP n ul t Sq t b bk Scups h e lop up eer a s ttern m mc y d. Fish c r a l Hr d Cr gr uHerri o My a o oa r i s is h C a o de g c Mc ch ci tcted Hake h p En m li iBua Sc s Un yRed Hakey a a uun o r irc s h h Cancer CrabsCep e ec ro L t e u p Spop p Rt s antb m o o u D (E lu ml to r r Atlantic ri o o U U (Cl g p cAt n ( ( in e S e e e g r P ( t k k in r ( l (S a a rr e re H e H sh e p H d fi k u d ed H n r c c tt ic u te a S Re o t t M p an Ro c S tl Bu ti A an tl A

Figure 179C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in the 1990s (n = 8,889). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s) s) d e) s) s sl) ) ) ds u nge es kis u d ue s ia o g ir m ui r hfish ri err p g n trre Haa tr b kb Scupso e op erringe e Sq e tne mc y r l Hr s o inr at m oa r id. Fish s a eu difor g veil c o c h ci h a li ilb iBua sM c Un y a m G r Sc irc s h Cepha e undu H Lo Ss t e u p p tor iu s b m Spottedo Hake u ER c lu lant o r Atlantic ( c i m t U Cl g lu r cAto o ( ( n r ep S n e g ri e P ( te k in r M ( el (S a rr e ( h r H e H e s e p d k fi k u d H n a r c c te c u H te a S t ti t M o n er p a Ro v Bu ic S tl il t A S an tl A

Figure 179D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in the 2000s (n = 6,647). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

sg) sg) s s s) s) ) ) ds u bs ne id u u s ia o ids gin a ids r u hfish r p g e nr ul te rme eel t b sScupo e op eer a Sq tern mckerel y r l lup Hr d Cr Herris ifo sk- ta oa r s er Crabsha C a gr e u d c c h tedi Hake c h n d ligo Cu Buia s c ytc a apo E m o r rc M s Unid. Fishh e c unu Ga t ei u p Can Cep plantic e tr L s b m oSpo Ammodytes sp ut D ERo lu ant o r A ( i lm t Cl g r co o (U ( n p SAt n g i e ( te e n rr (P l S k ri e e ( a r h r H e H is e p d H d f ck cu e n er a tt ic u tt S o t M p an Ro Bu c S tl ti A an tl A

Figure 180A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 10,377). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) s) d e) s) s s)l ) ) ) ds u nge kis u d ure s ss ia o ids rgin rir ui r hfish ri re p ish u g e n te Haa tr b bk Scupso F h e op up ere s Sq e tne mc y c r al l Hr Heru o irn at m oa r id. s s h C a e g veil ac o c h i ci h d li ilb iBu s M c Un cRed Hake y a m s tr Sc irc s y h Cep e runu Lo uS e u h p p ot i s b m p oSpotted Hake Ammodytes sp u RE c lu mlant o ro r Atlantic ( c ri o t U (Cl g lu p cAt o (U ( in r e S en e e g r e P ( t k k in r M ( el S a a rr e ( h r ( H e H e s e p H d k fi k u d d H n a r c c te c u H te a S Re t ti t M o n er p a Ro v Bu ic S tl il t A S an tl A Figure 180B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in Southern New England (n = 6,080). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s) l ) e) e) l) ) ) ds bs nge em id is s es s s o a ir -eu u akr ansu erru p s trre r a po kb o u op e sko Sq eH u c Scups ch l s d inr q am ry id. Fish a d Cr Hu n o l a o h is h o de fCuu g vei dow sMc c Redc Hake ap m o li ilb ns c s Un y unu r o Ss u eir u h Cep tor p L iu lWim b p Ammodytes sp Dec RE Fawn c a ant m o ( m c h ml to r g iu lu t Atco o (U n d r h S n ri i e p ( te e r h M o l S k e p ( c e ( a H o (S er p H ep e k u d L ak e c c d n ( an a S u l H p Re e er w M Ro -e v o c k l d ti s i n n S i la Cu t n W A aw F

Figure 180C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 664). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) iy) s s) sg) se) s s s ) lvl b ds lshi bs en id i id uish p ia i ra o afi a ids r u akr s hf o g tes sp choh WDP g ul te eHa t Scups e itc C lop e Cr a s rn nter ry r a reak d gr u li My at h s Anm cer h n n e vei c c ctedi Hake a n p oW d Herri ligo Sq bl iaBu Scombridss Unid. Fishyt o a e i apo E m o Sis tr u h h C sc c uun L u p cBay C o e tr i s m oSpo Ammodyn n D ERo cc lu to r A ( u ri o U ( Cy g rl p n ( y ( n e e te e v h ri P S k o s r M ( ( a h fi e ( h p H c k H e is u n a d ak f c ed A e n er S tt y W u H tt o er p Ba Ro v Bu S il S

Figure 181A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in the fall (n = 5,626). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) ) sg d se) s s sl s) s) a) ds ids u ki ush d ure p ish s i o e rgin ui r fih ri re o F u g n eHaa rt b bk Scups h e lop up eer Sq rn ten mc y d. c r a l Hr o i cta m oa r i s is h C a g veil a co Mc h i c h i ilb Bui S s c Un yRedc Hake y a Ss tr irc s h h Cep e Lol u s e u p Spottedp Hake Ammodytes sp tplantic ci u antb m o o u c il ml to r r ClA u r o o U U ( rl p cAt n ( ( g e e (S e e e n (P l t k k ri (M e (S a a r h r H H e e is e p d H ak rf ck cu d e c e a S tt ti H tt Re o n er M p a v Bu ic S tl il t A S an tl A

Figure 181B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in the spring (n = 3,322). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

gs) d e) s l) ) ) ds u es kis d ues s ia o rgin m ui r fish ri rer p g n Haa r b bk Scupso e op ere Sq e te mc y r l Hr o inr t m oa r id. Fish s Clupeids a difor g veil o c h ci h a li ilb Bu s M c Un y a G Ss Sc irc s h Cepha e Lo u e u Spottedp Hake p ci antb m o u c ml to r ClAtlantic u o o U ( rl cAt n ( g e (S e e n l t k ri (M e (S a r r H e e e p d H ak ck cu e c a S tt ti H o n er M p a v ic S tl il t A S an tl A

Figure 181C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) collected in the winter (n = 8,328). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) p sg id s a ds m bs ids en u ids uish i o imp a r s hf eg WDP r ri ul te Sq t r lop h a s ttern d. Fish s a Sh d Cr gr uHerri My a i i h n a S n de ac c e E m ligo iBu Un y go capo uun o tr h Cep n e r L s Spottedp Hake Rot u ro rustac D (E il Cra C r (U g p e in e k rr (P a e H H sh d fi e d r tt n e o u tt p Ro Bu S

Figure 182A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in the small size class (n = 589). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 25 20 15 10

% Composition % 5 0

yi) s g) ) s ) s) s) a) lvl b ds bs ns mel id d s p s i i o a ids re ue u i fuish o u g es sp hoh ra ul e r s th Scups h e t tcc WDP C op a t o tern y c r i l d Cr s usk-d My at r id. Fish s is Anm er a gr u Cn c h i cted Hake c h n de Herri u Bua c yRedc Hakeyt a n ep apo E m f ligo Sq ri s Un h h o a c uun ro o t u p p cBayh C C e tr awnp L s m o oSpo Ammodyn D ERo F lu to r r A ( m i o U (U ( g iu r n ( y n d ep e e e v i i t k k o rr h (P (S a a h e p H H c H o h p n p is u d ed d e rf c tt A n (L e S Re o y u l tt p e S Ba Ro -e Bu sk Cu n aw F

Figure 182B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in the medium size class (n = 9,850). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Large 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) ) ) gs s) se) s s sel s) a ds ids u nge id i ishu d u p i o e rgin rri u akr fh ri rer o g n te Hea rt b bk Scups e lop up eer Sq rn ten mc y d. Fish r a l Hr Hers o i ta m oa r i is h C a u g veil c o cM h c h de li ilb Buia Sc s c Un y a unm o Ss tr ric s h Cep e oru L iu e u Spottedp Hake Ammodytes sp tlanticp Rt c s antb m o u E c lu ml to r ClA ( u ri o o U ( g rl p cAt n ( g n e e (S e e n ri P l t k ri r (M ( e (S a r e h r H e H e is e p d H d ak f ck cu e c n er a S tt ti u H tt o n er M p a Ro v ic S tl il Bu t A S an tl A

Figure 182C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in the large size class (n = 6,867). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Fourspot Flounder

25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s ) ds p b s d id is ds o im mp id u r i r ri ra si ea WDP lop h h C u Sq n a S S d a li er Crabs h n i c p ea ph b Pandal Unid. Fish an e go c apo u Illex Squi s C n a c E Loligo uSilver Hake C a ci Ammodytes sp r rust De c C C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 183. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga; n = 16,689). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s ) ) n bs p ad id ise ods a m uo u r ids ids rimp ea i hC a s WDP op h c cr Sq Hake l S a d Cr Shr toi irn My er Crabs ha nm il c n ust d sa ligo blve Pandal Sepiolids r apo ul o Unid. Fish go C c apo d Sis Can Cep an e c aAt L iu r D e G cc C D ( u d l er Co c (M ti e n k la a t H A er v il S Figure 184A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the 1970s (n = 489). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s ) ds p b p id is ds o im mp ra im iids u r i r ri ea WDP lop h h C us Sq n a S S d Shr a li cer Crabs h n d i n p ea b Pandal Unid. Fish a e go ac capo Euph Silvers Hake C C n capo Loligo iu Ammodytes sp ra ust De c C r c C De lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 184B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,569). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) p d es s ds bs ids id i ids u o imp m a r ui u r h r ri a q ea t WDP lop h h Cr Sq n n er Crabs a S d li a c h n a S mm lex S i Pandal c e Il ligo b iButterfisha Unid. Fish go ac capo Ga o Silvers Hak tr Can Cep n e L iu s ra ust D c u C r c il C lu r er ep P M ( ( h e is ak f er H tt er v il Bu S

Figure 184C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the 1990s (n = 9,527). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s p s s d id is dern m mp b ui u r ids rno ri ri ra q ea WDP if h h C rme Sq n lout S ifo li er Crabs alopods rc S d ex S go i c h a F n ea od l i b Pandal sm go c ap Ga Il s Unid. Fish Cep y n a c Lol iuSilver Hake Can thea a c h r ust De c cStr C r lu rfi C r al e h M Gut ( Ci e ( ak er d H n er u v lo il F S m ea tr S lf u G

Figure 184D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the 2000s (n = 5,104). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s ) ) ds p b d m id is ds o im mp ui r-ueel u r i r ri ra q o ea WDP lop h h C d Sq n a S S d nusk li cer Crabs h n ex S uC i n p ea l nf b Pandal Unid. Fish a e go c apo Il ro Silvers Hake C n a c pw Loligo u C a ci Ammodytes sp r rust De mFa c C C iu lu id r h e p (M o e ep k (L a l H e er -e v k il s S Cu n aw F

Figure 185A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 5,171). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) ) s se s ds b id ri ds u o imp mp ra u a i h WDP r ri e t lop h h C Sq irn Hak n er Crabs a S S d il ca c h n blve Pandal a p ea ligo s iButterfish Unid. Fish e go ac capo o uSi tr Can C an L i s r ust De cc u C r u il C rl r e ep P (M ( e h k is a rf H te er t v il Bu S

Figure 185B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in Southern New England (n = 7,493). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) p s s s es ds bs d id ri ds o imp m a id u a i WDP r ri si rme ari e lop h h au Sq in er Crabs a S d Cr il c h n a S ph difo mm b Pandal e u s Unid. Fish go ac capo E Ga Ga uSilver Hak Polychaetes Can Cep an e Loligo ci r rust D c C C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 185C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected on Georges Bank (n = 3,339). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) s) p s s yis ies s u ds m mp id id r ids ll o ri ri si r rm a ennel WDP op h h u a lenno Hake opod nu l S a Bef irn t n ha S mm a il u p n ea ph t lbve Oc Pandal g e c u e s s Unid. Fish Amphipods go a E Ga r uSi li C an Snakep i oRock G Ammodytes sp r ust m cc h C r la u P C s rl ( u e el en M n p ( n m e u u k G L a k ( H c y er n v Ro en il Bl S e ak n S Figure 185D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 665). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

s ) ) p b d id ise s ods m mp ui u r ids u ri ri ra q a h WDP op h h C Sq e t l S d in n er Crabs ha S ex S il a c p n ea l ligo b Pandal Butterfishac n e go c apo Il o s i Unid. Fish a C n a c uSilver Hak tr C a L i s Ammodytes sp r ust De cc u C r u il C rl r e ep M P ( ( e h k is a rf H te er t v il Bu S

Figure 186A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the fall (n = 6,302). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) p s d id ies ds m abs id ui u r ids ids o rimp ri si q a s WDP op h h Cr u Sq e l S d a in My er Crabs ha ex S il c n ea S ph l ligo b Pandal go c apo u Il o s Unid. Fish Cep n a c E L uSilver Hak Can a e ci r rust D c C C lu er (M e ak H er v il S Figure 186B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the spring (n = 5,065). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s ) ) ds b mel id ise ds o imp mp -eu u r i r ri ra r ea WDP lop h h C o Sq n a S S d uskd i er Crabs h n Cn il c p ea f u b Pandal Unid. Fish e go c apo ro Silvers Hak Can C n a c awnp Loligo iu ra ust De F c C r m c C iu lu id er h p M o ( p e e ak (L l H e er -e v k il s S Cu n aw F

Figure 186C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the winter (n = 5,095). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) ) p a s id is ods m uod ids od u m ids ids es sp ri hC ar p r s t WDP op h r Sq fo l S toic Iso e My er Crabs ha nm mm a c p n sa ligo t Pandal n e ul o re Unid. Fish a go d Ga p C C an aAt L Snake Blenny Ammody r G m C ( la d us Co en ic p t m n u la L t ( A y n en Bl e ak n S

Figure 186D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the summer (n = 227). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) p bs id se ods m a ids u akri ids ids rimp ri ar a s WDP op h h Cr Sq eH opods al S d inr My t er Crabs h n a S mm veil c e ligo bl Oc Pandal Unid. Fish go ac capo Ga o Sis Can Cep n e L iu ra ust D c C r c C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 187A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the small size class (n = 2,072). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

s ) ds p b s d id is ds o im mp id u r i r ri ra si ea WDP lop h h C u Sq n a S S d a i er Crabs h n il c p ea ph b Pandal Unid. Fish an e go c apo u Illex Squi s C n a c E Loligo uSilver Hake C a ci Ammodytes sp r rust De c C C lu er (M e ak H er v il S Figure 187B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga) collected in the medium size class (n = 14,441). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Yellowtail Flounder

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s P s s s D ve id u ids an l r eo s o W a a n v My Bi mm cella Amphipods Anthoz Ga s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 188. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea; n = 7,052). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s p s s ve m d u i eo WDP ari n ival Shr B mm on Ga scella Anthozoans ng Polychaetes a Mi Cr

Figure 189A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,049). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1980s

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s P e p d an lv im sids tes sp zo WD a o v Shr mari My Bi m nth d Amphipods A apo Ga Polychaetes Ammody c De

Figure 189B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the 1980s (n = 864). WDP = well-digested prey. C 1990s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

) s gs gs s s an ids inu g d od ids o rg ari p WDP rell ern p re a aH ish E mm Iso C ich F Pandal Amphipods t Ga Polychaetes Anthoz ea tlanp Au Cl ( g n ri er H c ti an tl A

Figure 189C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the 1990s (n = 952). WDP = well-digested prey. D 2000s 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s p s s ve m id u ids an i r eo s o WDP a n ival Shr My B n mm Scallops Amphipods Ga scella Anthoz ngo Polychaetes ra Mi C

Figure 189D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the 2000s (n = 4,187). WDP = well-digested prey. A Southern New England 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s p p s s ve m m id d ids ri i si s WDP val h u i S Shr a mari My B n d ph m Amphipods u Ga ngo apo E Polychaetes ra c C De

Figure 190A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in Southern New England (n = 2,421). WDP = well-digested prey. B Georges Bank

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s P s p s s D ve m id u ids an l i r eo s tes sp o W a a n v Shr My Bi mm Scallops Amphipods on Ga scella Anthoz ng Polychaetes Ammody a Mi Cr

Figure 190B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected on Georges Bank (n = 3,337). WDP = well-digested prey. C Gulf of Maine

40

30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s s s n s d u ia od eo WDP ari n cid pep s mm A Co cella Amphipods Ga s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 190C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 959). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s p b g s s s d m g d od u ids es sp i ra E ari p s t WDP C pepo Shr d sh Iso My er Crabs o n mm c C Fi cellaneo Amphipods an go apo Ga s Polychaetes C n c Ammody ra De Mi C

Figure 191A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the fall (n = 2,339). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s P s p s s D ve m d u ids an i eo s o W ari n ival Shr My B mm Amphipods on Ga scella Anthoz ng Polychaetes a Mi Cr

Figure 191B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the spring (n = 3,202). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s ds P e p d o D lv im tes sp W a ari v Shr Bi mm Amphip on Ga ng Polychaetes Ammody a Mantis Shrimp Cr

Figure 191C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the winter (n = 904). WDP = well-digested prey. D Summer 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s P e ds d u an D v oi o W n ari eo ival n B chi mm Scallops E cella Amphipods Anthoz Ga s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 191D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) collected in the summer (n = 607). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s p s s n abs m gg d ids ids rimp ea i s WDP h c Cr E ari S a Shr My d sh mm n rust d Fi Pandal Amphipods go C capo Ga Polychaetes n e capo ra D C De

Figure 192A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea)in the small size class (n = 383). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s P s p s s D ve m d u ids an i eo s o W ari n ival Shr My B mm Amphipods on Ga scella Anthoz ng Polychaetes a Mi Cr

Figure 192B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) in the medium size class (n = 5,814). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large

40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s) s s P e ung d u an D v rgi o W n ari eo val reer n i aH B h mm tic cella Amphipods Anthoz ena Ga s Polychaetes pa ul Mi Mantis Shrimp ClAt ( g n ri er H c ti an tl A Figure 192C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) in the large size class (n = 855). WDP = well-digested prey. Winter Flounder

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s P e d u an D v ri o al a W v zoans ro Bi mm d cellaneo Amphipods Anthoz Ga Hy s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 193. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus; n = 9,278). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s ids an u r o eo WDP a z n mm dro Molluscs a cella Anthozoans G Hy s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 194A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,229). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1980s 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s P es n d an D v ods o W arids zoans p ival ozoa o thoz B y mm Iso Br Amphipo An Ga Hydr Polychaetes

Figure 194B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,395). WDP = well-digested prey. C 1990s

40

30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s P s s s s s e id g d u an D v ll o W e Eg ival mari B sh m Capr Fi cellaneo Amphipods Anthoz Ga s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 194C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the 1990s (n = 848). WDP = well-digested prey. D 2000s 40

30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s s s e cs d v rid ans s a o roi WDP val z i ro thozoans B mm Mollu An Ga Hyd Ophiu Polychaetes

Figure 194D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the 2000s (n = 5,806). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 70 60 50 40 30 20 % Composition % 10 0

es es v or rids ods WDP a zoans p ival ph o thozoans B o mm Iso en An Ct Ga Hydr Polychaetes

Figure 195A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 676). WDP = well-digested prey. B Southern New England 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s ds s P e an D lv rids o W a a v tropods thoz Bi mm s Amphipo An Ga Ga Hydrozoans Polychaetes

Figure 195B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in Southern New England (n = 3,568). WDP = well-digested prey. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s es s s an v ans gs id u o o Eg ar eo WDP val z zoans n i ro B ryo ish mm d Molluscs B F cella Amphipods Anthoz Ga Hy s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 195C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 2,499). WDP = well-digested prey. D Gulf of Maine 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s n e d d ia v oi WDP po arids zoans r id val lo o hozoans sc i a t A B mm Ga Ophiu An Ceph Hydr Polychaetes

Figure 195D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 1,805). WDP = well-digested prey. E Scotian Shelf 50

40

30 20

% Composition % 10

0

s ds s P e an D lv rids ods o W a a zoans p v o thoz Bi mm Iso Amphipo An Ga Hydr Polychaetes

Figure 195E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 730). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 40

30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s s s s ve ans ab gs id u o r Eg ar eo WDP val z C zoans n i r ro iuroids B ryo ish mm d h B F cella Anthozoans ance Ga Hy s Op Polychaetes C Mi

Figure 196A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the fall (n = 3,308). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring 50

40

30 20

% Composition % 10

0

s s P es d an D v o al arids W v thoz Bi mm Amphipo An Ga Hydrozoans Polychaetes

Figure 196B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the spring (n = 4,919). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter

80

60

40

% Composition % 20

0

s ds s P ds e an D o v o al W rop v aceans marids hoz h st t rt Bi u m Molluscs Amphipo An A Cr Ga Polychaetes

Figure 196C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the winter (n = 474). WDP = well-digested prey. D Summer

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s ve ids ds u ar po eo WDP val zoans n i tro ro B mm s d Molluscs a cella Anthozoans G Ga Hy s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 196D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) collected in the summer (n = 577). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s P es s an D v d o al rimp ari W v h rozoans Bi S mm d Amphipods Anthoz acea Ga Hy Polychaetes st u Cr

Figure 197A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) in the small size class (n = 1,011). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium 50

40

30 20

% Composition % 10

0

s s P es d an D v o al arids W v thoz Bi mm Amphipo An Ga Hydrozoans Polychaetes

Figure 197B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) in the medium size class (n = 6,681). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large

30

20

10 % Composition %

0

s s s ve ans gs id u o Eg ar eo WDP val z zoans n i ro B ryo ish mm d Molluscs B F cella Anthozoans Ga Hy s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 197C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) in the large size class (n = 1,405). WDP = well-digested prey. Witch Flounder

80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

es s s v id id ods ar o p WDP ur ival h thozoans B mm Iso Ga Polychaetes An Holot

Figure 198. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus; n = 5,031). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s s s n ve id id ia si arids o WDP id u ur ival a h Asc B ph mm u Ga Polychaetes E Holot

Figure 199A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the 1970s (n = 829). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1990s 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s s e d u v ri al a eo WDP v n Bi mm cella Anthozoans Ga s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 199B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the 1990s (n = 411). WDP = well-digested prey. C 2000s 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s P es s s es an D v id ou t o l ar e e z W a n ha o iv m la c th B m l ly n a ce o A G is P M

Figure 199C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the 2000s (n = 3,693). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

P s D ids u r eo W a n mm cella Anthozoans Ga s Polychaetes Mi

Figure 200A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 646). WDP = well-digested prey. B Southern New England 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s s d u d rids oi WDP a po eo r an iu mm Iso h a cell G s Op Polychaetes Mi

Figure 200B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in Southern New England (n = 611). WDP = well-digested prey. C Georges Bank 100

80

60

40

% Composition % 20

0

) s tsea P cs a D rid s sout a Ma W hozoans h t a mm Mollu Pandalids iSeat An d Ga Polychaetes ro h p A ( se u o M ea S

Figure 200C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 422). WDP = well-digested prey. D Gulf of Maine 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s s e ds u v oi od WDP r p eo ival n B thu Iso o cella ol s Polychaetes H Mi

Figure 200D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 2,671). WDP = well-digested prey. E Scotian Shelf 70 60 50 40 30 20 % Composition % 10 0

es s s s s s v ans id id id od u ri si ar o p WDP val a u ur i id a h Iso B n ph mm C u cellaneo Anthozoans E Ga s Polychaetes Holot Mi

Figure 200E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 668). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s s s mp id d u ri si ari eo WDP valve h u n i S a B ph mm ea u cella ac E Ga s Polychaetes Mi rust C

Figure 201A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the fall (n = 1,628). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

es s s v id id ods ar o p WDP val ur i h Iso thozoans B mm Molluscs Ga Polychaetes An Holot

Figure 201B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the spring (n = 2,126). WDP = well-digested prey. C Winter 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s ds u d rids oi WDP a po eo r tro an iu mm s h a a cell G G s Op Polychaetes Mi

Figure 201C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the winter (n = 1,077). WDP = well-digested prey. D Summer 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s ds rid o ods WDP a p hozoans strop Iso t amm An G Ga Polychaetes

Figure 201D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) collected in the summer (n = 200). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small

80 n 60

40

% Compositio % 20

0 s s es an rids et zo WDP a Bivalve Unid. Fish Antho Euphausiids Gamma Polych

Figure 202A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) in the small size class (n = 274). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s ve id al si WDP v u marids hozoans a t Bi ph m u An E Ga Polychaetes

Figure 202B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) in the medium size class (n = 3,377). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

es s s s v ids d od u ar oi p eo WDP val ur n i h Iso B mm Molluscs a cella Anthozoans G s Polychaetes Holot Mi

Figure 202C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) in the large size class (n = 1,380). WDP = well-digested prey. Gulf Stream Flounder

40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s n s d mp id iid rimp ri si ari WDP h h acea u er S S a p iuroids n ph mm h ea ust u Hy Amphipods go ac Cr E Ga Op Polychaetes an r rust C C

Figure 203. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons; n = 996). WDP = well-digested prey. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s n s d imp mp id iid sids WDP r ri si ari er h h acea u p iuroids S S a My h cer Crabs n ph mm n ea ust u Hy Amphipods a go ac Cr E Ga Op Polychaetes C an r rust C C

Figure 204A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 269). WDP = well-digested prey. B Southern New England 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s s s s s m n id d d imp ea si od oi WDP r hri c u ari p r a a Iso iu a S mm h e rust ph u Ga Op ngon Sh C E Polychaetes rustac Cra C

Figure 204B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) collected in Southern New England (n = 543). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

s s s n s d mp id iid rimp ri si ari WDP h h acea u er S S a p iuroids n ph mm h ea ust u Hy Amphipods go ac Cr E Ga Op Polychaetes an r rust C C

Figure 205A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) collected in the fall (n = 450). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring 40

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

s s s ids n ids od d rimp ea r p oi WDP ell h c a r r S a iu mm Iso h Cap n rust Ga Op Unid. Fish ngo C Polychaetes ra C

Figure 205B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) collected in the spring (n = 265). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s s d d imp mp id od oi WDP r ri si ari p r h h u iu S S a Iso h er Crabs n ph mm c ea u go ac E Ga Op Polychaetes Can an r rust C C

Figure 205C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons) collected in the winter (n = 232). WDP = well-digested prey. Windowpane Flounder

20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

p s s s es) ) d es d i ds ia imp m m ri an r sids i g r ri sii a e ea e WDP h h u n Hak r S a lir My s n a S difor mm vei i e ph arvac lb Pandal Unid. Fishyc Amphipods go c Eu Ga Ga L Sis h n a iu Spottedp Hake Ammodytes sp ra ust c ro C r c C lu (U r e e k (M a e H ak ed tt H o er p v S il S

Figure 206. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus; n = 14,599). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

) s ds ise d ds lids ri akr i i es sp rimp a ea s t au n H r lir My n Sh mm vei ilb Pandal Unid. Fish go Eng Ga Ss n iu Ammody cc Cra lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 207A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the 1970s (n = 830). Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0 ) li P p p s s il d ds h D im mp im id sids i c W r ri si rmes chovyit h h au fo mari mn S S Shr i My A n d ph d m ya ea u Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipodsao go ac E Ga Ga Bch n capo Ammodytes sp n ra ust A C r ( C De y v o ch n A y Ba Figure 207B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,745). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C 1990s

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) p s e s s ies d a id r ids ids imp m rv r ean a s WDP r ri sii a e h h au La rin Hak S il My n a S ph mm arvac lbve Pandal e ish s Unid. Fish Amphipods go ac Eu F Ga L uSi an ci Urophycis sp Ammodytes sp r rust c C C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 207C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the 1990s (n = 7,556). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D 2000s

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

sr) s s s s mp ue id d id ids ids imp mnd ri i s WDP r ri ou rme er h h st ausi fo p er Crabs S S o i My c n r Flo ph d mma Hy Pandal tted Hake n ea ich u Unid. Fish Amphipods a go ac E Ga Ga C an omut Spo Ammodytes sp r ust us C r plm C ol tr E (Sma er d n u lo F th u o lm al m S Figure 207D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the 2000s (n = 4,468). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 25 20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) ) li p esr s a il m mp u id ids ids i h ri ri lids ndm s g c WDP h h u tuo rmes re it S ra s ausi ifo My s Anchovym er Crabs S g Floo d tedi Hake c n ea n c r ph Pandal ytc a n c E ih u Unid. Fishh o a ngo a utm E Ga p cBayh C a o oSpo Ammodytesn sp r ust us r A C r plm U ( C alo ( y r e v mt k o (SE a h c er H n d ed A n tt u o y lo p Ba F S th u o lm al m S Figure 208A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 4,814). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0 ) p s e s ies id d r ids ids imp mp im rva a s WDP r ri si ari e h h au La in S S Shr il My n d ph mm b Pandal cea u ish s Unid. Fish Amphipods go a apo E F Ga uSilver Hak an c ci Ammodytes sp r rust e c C C D lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 208B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in Southern New England (n = 4,820). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s ise id ids r ids ids imp mp r eans a s WDP r ri si a e h h au irn Hak d. Fish S S il My i n ph mm arvac blve Pandal ea u s Un Amphipods go ac E Ga L uSi an ci Urophycis sp Ammodytes sp r rust c C C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 208C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 4,416). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

p s s e s m n id va d ids ids rimp ri ea si r ari s WDP h h ac u S a La My n a S ph mm e rust u ish Pandal Unid. Fish Amphipods go ac C E F Ga an r rust C C

Figure 208D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 533). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 30

20

10 % Composition % 0 ) s ise mp id ids ans r ids ids rimp ri si r e a s WDP h h u a eHak S a irn My id. Fish S mm il n ea ph arvac blve Pandal Amphipods c u Ga L s Un ngo a E uSi a ci Urophycis sp Ammodytes sp r rust c C C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 209A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the fall (n = 5,244). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

20 15 10 5 % Composition % 0

) ) ) li P p esr s s s a il D m mp u id d ids ids i h ri ri ndm rme ri s eg chovytc W h h tuo r ni S s ausi ifo My s Am S Floo d mma tedi Hake n ea c r ph Pandal ytc Amphipodsya c hi u Ga Unid. Fishh ao ngo a utm E Ga p cBh a o oSpo Ammodytes sp n r ust us r A C r lmp U ( C ol ( y r e v t k o (SmaE a h c er H n d ed A n tt u o y lo p Ba F S th u o lm al m S

Figure 209B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the spring (n = 5,361). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Winter 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0

p s s e s s se) ) e d a d i ds ia m r ids i g rimp ri or sii rv rme ari ea s e WDP h h u n Hak r a La ifo lir My s Sh a S nop d mm vei i n e e ph ish lb Pandal yc t Ga s Unid. Fishh ngo C Eu F Ga uSi p ci oSpotted Hake Ammodytes sp rustac c r Cra C lu (U er e k (M a e H k a ed tt H o er p v S il S

Figure 209C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the winter (n = 3,635). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Summer 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s P p s d ds D im id sids i tes sp W usi ari Shr a My n ph mm Pandal Amphipods u Ga Unid. Fish ngo E Ammody ra C

Figure 209D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) collected in the summer (n = 359). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

30

20

10 % Composition % 0

p s s s s a) m n id id an ids ids i imp ea si r e s g WDP r hri c u a re a a My id. Fish s Sh a S mm i n e rust ph arvac Pandal yc Amphipods c u Ga L Un h go a C E p n oSpotted Hake rust r Cra C (U e ak H ed tt o p S

Figure 210A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) in the small size class (n = 2,267). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 20

15

10

5 % Composition % 0 ) li p s s s se) ) l P d i ds ia i D m mp id r ids i g ch ri ri si rme ari ea s e ichovyt W h h u n Hak r n S a ifo lir My s Am S d mm vei i a n ea ph bl Pandal yc Amphipodsoy c u Ga s Unid. Fishh ha go a E Ga uSi p Bc an i oSpotted Hake Ammodytes sp n r ust cc r A C r u ( C l (U y er e v k o (M a ch e H n k a ed A tt y H o er p Ba v S il S

Figure 210B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) in the medium size class (n = 12,320). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. American Plaice

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s p s s s s ars e d id u d ids v m oi oi WDP St ri n si eo r val h u n iu i a h Sea B a S chi ph e E u cella Pandal ac E s Op Polychaetes Mi rust C

Figure 211. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides; n = 7,199). WDP = well-digested prey. A 1970s

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s d ms id us d ids oi o oi WDP n er si r ur u ane iu g od a h Bivalves n ph Pa Echi u cell Pandalids E s Op Polychaetes Echi Mi

Figure 212A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,511). WDP = well-digested prey. B 1980s 100 80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

s p s s s m d m d ids ri oi r oi WDP h n de r ivalve o iu B chi n h Pagur ea S E c chi Op Polychaetes a E rust C

Figure 212B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the 1980s (n = 281). WDP = well-digested prey. C 1990s 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s ars e d d v oi oi WDP St n arids r ival B chi mm Sea E Pandalids Ga Ophiu

Figure 212C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the 1990s (n = 615). WDP = well-digested prey. D 2000s

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s p b s s s s ars a d id u d ids m oi r oi WDP St ri Cr n a eo r valve h d n iu i h Sea B a S chi mm Pandal e apo E cella Op ac ec Ga s Polychaetes D Mi rust C

Figure 212D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the 2000s (n = 4,792). WDP = well-digested prey. A Georges Bank

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s s rs p bs ds d u d ds a m a ri i St ri oi a eo roi WDP h Cr n n d iu Sea a S chi mm h e E cella Pandal Anthozoans ac capo Ga s Op Polychaetes e Mi rust D C

Figure 213A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected on Georges Bank (n = 1,007). WDP = well-digested prey. B Gulf of Maine 70 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s p us d ds m rms o oi i WDP hri e r ivalve od ane iu B a S n h e cell Pandal ac s Op Polychaetes Echi Mi rust C

Figure 213B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 5,173). WDP = well-digested prey. C Scotian Shelf

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

p s s s d d us d ids ids m oi o oi WDP ri n sii r ur h au ane u g Bivalves a S hi Pa Scallops e Echi ph cell Pandal Eu s Op Polychaetes Mi Crustac

Figure 213C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 1,001). WDP = well-digested prey. A Fall 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

p s s se) s s m d id ri u d ids oi si aak eo oi WDP hri n u eH n r a inr iu Bivalves a S veil h e Echi ph ilb Pandal u s scella Op E uS Polychaetes ci Mi rustac c C lu er (M e ak H er v il S Figure 214A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the fall (n = 3,153). WDP = well-digested prey. B Spring 60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s p s s s s ars e d id u d ids v m oi r oi WDP St ri n a eo r ival h n iu Sea B a S chi mm h e E cella Pandal ac Ga s Op Polychaetes Mi rust C

Figure 214B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the spring (n = 3,685). WDP = well-digested prey. C Summer

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

rs s s s s s a ve d ms id u d oi r eo oi WDP St n er a n r ival od iu Sea B n mm h Echi cella Pandalids chi Ga s Op Polychaetes E Mi

Figure 214C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) collected in the summer (n = 294). WDP = well-digested prey. A Small 50 40 30 20 10 % Composition % 0

p s se) s s m d ids ri u d ids imp sii r aak eo oi WDP r hri u a eH n r a irn iu Bivalves n Sh a S mm veil h e ph ilb cella Pandal go ac Eu Ga Ss s Op Polychaetes n iu ust c Mi Cra r c C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 215A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in the small size class (n = 1,362). WDP = well-digested prey. B Medium 60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s p s s s s s ars d id id u d ids m oi r oi WDP St ri n si a eo r valve h u n iu i a h Sea B a S ph mm e Echi u cella Pandal ac E Ga s Op Polychaetes Mi rust C

Figure 215B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in the medium size class (n = 4,801). WDP = well-digested prey. C Large

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s s s ars e bs id u v a o WDP St Cr n derm ival o B d chi Sea E in apo h scellaneo Ophiuroids ec Ec D Mi

Figure 215C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in the large size class (n = 1,037). WDP = well-digested prey. Northern Shortfin Squid

60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s s ds n id o ea si WDP op c u al a a h ust ph ep r u Illex Squid Unid. Fish C C E

Figure 216. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus; n = 3,072). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s 60 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s ds n o iids WDP lop acea aus a st h u ep Unid. Fish C Cr Euph

Figure 217A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus; collected in the 1970s (n = 1,674). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

ds mp o ri WDP lop h aceans a S st h u ep cea Illex Squid Unid. Fish C a Cr rust C

Figure 217B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected in the 1980s (n = 1,397). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

ds o rimp WDP lop h a S staceans h u ep Unid. Fish C acea Cr ust Cr

Figure 218A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 711). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s s ds n id o ea si WDP op c u al a a h ust ph ep r u Illex Squid Unid. Fish C C E

Figure 218B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected in Southern New England (n = 636). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s ds n o iids WDP lop acea aus a st h u ep Unid. Fish C Cr Euph

Figure 218C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected on Georges Bank (n = 916). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. D Gulf of Maine

50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s ds n o iids WDP lop acea aus a st h u ep Unid. Fish C Cr Euph

Figure 218D. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected in the Gulf of Maine (n = 518). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. E Scotian Shelf 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s n d ods WDP lop acea a st h u ep Illex Squi Unid. Fish C Cr

Figure 218E. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected on the Scotian Shelf (n = 256). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s ds n o iids WDP lop acea aus a st h u ep Unid. Fish C Cr Euph

Figure 219A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected in the fall (n = 1,952). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s p n m iids WDP hri us tacea a a S s e u Unid. Fish ac Cr Euph rust C

Figure 219B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected in the spring (n = 215). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Summer 50 40 30 20

% Composition % 10 0

s n d ods WDP lop acea a st h u ep Illex Squi Unid. Fish C Cr

Figure 219C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) collected in the summer (n = 905). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

ds ths o rimp WDP op na h l og ha S staceans p aet u Unid. Fish e h acea Cr C C st u Cr

Figure 220A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the small size class (n = 544). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium 60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s ds n id o ea si WDP op c u al a a h ust ph ep r u Illex Squid Unid. Fish C C E

Figure 220B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the medium size class (n = 2,501). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Longfin Squid

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s ds n o iids WDP lop acea aus a st h u ep Unid. Fish C Cr Euph

Figure 221. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii; n = 3,080). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A 1970s

80

60

40

% Composition % 20

0

s ds n o iids WDP lop acea aus a st h u ep Unid. Fish C Cr Euph

Figure 222A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the 1970s (n = 1,654). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B 1980s 60

40

20 % Composition % 0 ) p s s s ds n b id ri o m ra u a WDP ri e lop h acea C Sq in a d il h a S ust b e s Unid. Fish ac Cr capo Silveru Hake Cep Loligo ci rust De c C lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 222B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the 1980s (n =1,426). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Mid-Atlantic Bight 60

40

20 % Composition % 0

ds mp o ri WDP lop h aceans a S st h u ep cea apod Crabs Unid. Fish C a Cr c rust De C

Figure 223A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (n = 1,550). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Southern New England 80

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s) s s id i ds n id u r o ea si ea WDP op c u n l a a li ha i p ust ph ligo Sq b e r u o s Unid. Fish C C E L iuSilver Hake cc lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 223B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in Southern New England (n = 759). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Georges Bank 100 80 60 40

% Composition % 20 0

s ) n ise ods r ea WDP op n Hak al tacea lir h s vei p u lb Unid. Fish e Sis C Cr iu cc lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 223C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected on Georges Bank (n = 672). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Fall 60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s s) n b ie ods r ea ra ea WDP lop ac C in a d il h ust b ep r apo s Unid. Fish C C c iuSilver Hak De cc lu er (M e ak H er v il S

Figure 224A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the fall (n = 1,565). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Spring 100 80 60 40 20 % Composition % 0

ds o mp iids WDP ri lop h aceans aus a S st h u ep cea Unid. Fish C a Cr Euph rust C

Figure 224B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the spring (n = 754). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. C Summer

80

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s ds n b id o ea ra u WDP op c C al a d h ust ep r apo Unid. Fish C C c Loligo Sq De

Figure 224C. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the summer (n = 761). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. A Small

60

40

20 % Composition %

0

s s id ds n id u o ea si WDP op c u al a a h ust ph ep r u Unid. Fish C C E Loligo Sq

Figure 225A. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the small size class (n = 2,188). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. B Medium

60

40

20 % Composition % 0

s s ds n b ids o ea ra i WDP op c C us al a d a h ust ep r apo Unid. Fish C C c Euph De

Figure 225B. Percent diet composition by weight of major prey taxa for longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) collected in the medium size class (n = 878). WDP = well-digested prey; Unid. Fish = unidentified fish. Longfin squid Northern shortfin squid Atlantic sharpnose shark Goosefish Bray-Curtis Percent Similarity Fawn cusk-eel Ocean pout 80-100 Northern sand lance Striped searobin Northern searobin 60-80 Sea raven Longhorn sculpin 40-60 Blackbelly rosefish Acadian redfish 20-40 Spot Weakfish 0-20 Scup Black sea bass Striped bass Atlantic croaker Bluefish Butterfish Atlantic mackerel Gulf Stream flounder Windowpane Witch flounder Winter flounder Yellowtail flounder Fourspot flounder Summer flounder American plaice Atlantic halibut Spotted hake Red hake White hake Pollock Haddock Atlantic cod Silver Hake Offshore hake American shad Blueback herring Alewife Atlantic herring Thorny skate Smooth skate Little skate Rose tte ska te Clearnose skate Winter skate Barndoor skate Spiny dogfish Smooth dogfish Spot Scup Pollock Alewife Bluefish Haddock Weakfish Butterfish Red hake Red Goosefish Sea raven Little skate White hake Ocean pout Ocean Silver Hake Atlantic cod Atlantic Striped bass Striped Winter skate Thorny skate Thorny Rosette skate Rosette Spotted hake Spotted Windowpane Longfin squid Longfin Spiny dogfish Spiny Smooth skate Offshore hake Fawn cusk-eel Black bass sea Witch flounder Witch American shad Barndoor skate Atlantic halibut Atlantic Atlantic herring Atlantic Smooth dogfish redfish Acadian Winter flounder Winter Atlantic croaker Atlantic Clearnose skate American plaice Striped searobin Blueback herring Blueback Longhorn sculpin Summer flounder mackerel Atlantic Fourspot flounder Fourspot Northern searobin Northern Blackbelly rosefish Yellowtail flounder Yellowtail Northern sand lance sand Northern Gulf Stream flounder Stream Gulf Northern shortfin squidNorthern Atlantic sharpnose shark Figure 226. Dietary overlap for 52 predators of the NEUS continental shelf community based on the Bray-Curtis index of similarity. Common and scientific names for the species shown include: smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis), winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata), clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria), rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani), little skate (Leucoraja erinacea), smooth skate (Malacoraja senta), thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), offshore hake (Merluccius albidus), silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock (Pollachius virens), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), red hake (Urophycis chuss), spotted hake (Urophycis regia), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), fourspot flounder (Hippoglossina oblonga), yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus), blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus), longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus), sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus), northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus), striped searobin (Prionotus evolans), northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidium profundorum), goosefish (Lophius americanus), Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus), and longfin squid (Loligo pealeii).

APPENDIX

Table A1. Species to be sampled, and maximum lengths (cm) for sampling YOY for the major sampling regions (strata sets) during 1973-76.

Mid-Atlantic Bight Southern New England Georges Bank Gulf of Maine Scotian Shelf Species (Strata 61-76) Strata (1-12) (Strata 13-23, 25) (Strata 24, 26-30, 36-40) (Strata 31-35, 41-49)

American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides ) 7 7 Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus ) 13 13 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 20 20 20 Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 7 Flounder, Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus ) 7 7 Flounder, Yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea ) 12 12 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) 20 20 20 Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 20 Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 20 20 20 Hake, Spotted (Urophycis regia ) 13 Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 20 Ocean Pout (Zoarces americanus ) 13 13 Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 20 20 Redfish, Acadian (Sebastes fasciatus ) 7 Sculpin, Longhorn (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus ) 7 Scup (Stenotomus chrysops ) 13 13 Skate, Little (Leucoraja erinacea ) 20 20 Table A2. Offshore species to be sampled, and maximum lengths for sampling juveniles for the major sampling regions (strata sets) during 1977-80.

Mid-Atlantic Bight Southern New England Georges Bank Gulf of Maine Scotian Shelf (Strata 61-76) Strata (1-12)(Strata 13-23, 25) (Strata 24, 26-30, 36-40) (Strata 31-35, 41-49) Species

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus ) 15 Bass, Black Sea (Centropristis striata ) 15 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 20 Dogfish, Smooth (Mustelus canis ) 60 60 Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 60 60 60 60 60 Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 10 Flounder, Winter (Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) 15 15 Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) 40 40 40 40 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) 20 Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 20 20 20 Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 20 20 Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 25 Redfish, Acadian (Sebastes fasciatus ) 7 Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata ) 50 Squid, Longfin Inshore (Loligo pealeii ) 15 15 15 Squid, Northern Shortfin (Illex illecebrosus ) 15 15 15 15 15 Table A3. Species to be sampled for inshore strata north and south of Cape Cod during 1977-80.

South of Cape Cod North of Cape Cod

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name All sharks, skates, and rays Elasmobranchii All sharks, skates, and rays Elasmobranchii Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus Thorny skate Amblyraja radiata Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus Windowpane Flounder Scophthalmus aquosus Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus Witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Scup Stenotomus chrysops Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides Weakfish Cynoscion regalis Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus Black sea bass Centropristis striata Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus Atlantic cod Gadus morhua Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis Striped bass Morone saxatilis Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis Red hake Urophycis chuss Southern kingfish Menticirrhus americanus White hake Urophycis tenuis Longfin inshore squid Loligo pealeii Northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus Table A4. Miscellaneous species to be sampled from specific regions and any region during 1977-1980 (A “3” indicates that samples were collected).

Mid-Atlantic Southern Georges Gulf of Western Nova Any Species Bight New England Bank Maine Scotia Region

Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus ) 3 All grenadiers (Macrouridae) 3 Shad, American (Alosa sapidissima ) 3 Argentines (Argentinidae) 3 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix ) 3 Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus ) 3 Croaker, Atlantic (Micropogonias undulatus ) 3 Cusk (Brosme brosme ) 33 Cusk-eel, Fawn (Lepophidium profundorum ) 3 Dory, Buckler (Zenopsis conchifera ) 3 Eel, American (Anguilla rostrata ) 3 Eel, Conger (Conger oceanicus ) 3 Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 33 Flounder, Gulf Stream (Citharichthys arctifrons) 33 Flounder, Summer (Paralichthys dentatus ) 333 Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 33 Flounder, Winter (Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) 3 Flounder, Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus ) 3 Hake, Longfin (Phycis chesteri ) 3 Hake, Offshore (Merluccius albidus ) 3 Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 3 Halibut, Atlantic (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) 3 Herring, Round (Etrumeus teres ) 3 Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 33 Mackerel, Snake (Gempylus serpens ) 3 Needlefish, Atlantic (Strongylura marina ) 3 Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 3 Rays (Myliobatiformes) 33333 Sand Lance, American (Ammodytes americanus ) 3 Sand Lance, Northern (Ammodytes dubius ) 3 Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus ) 33 Sea Robin, Armored (Peristedion miniatum ) 3 Sea Robin, Northern (Prionotus carolinus ) 3 Sea Robin, Striped (Prionotus evolans ) 3 Sharks (Elasmobranchii) 33333 Skate, Thorny (Amblyraja radiata ) 3 Skates (Rajiformes) 33333 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus ) 3 Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) 3 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis ) 3 Wolffish, Atlantic (Anarhichas lupus ) 3 Wrymouth (Cryptacanthodes maculatus ) 3 Any other unusual fish obtained 3 Table A5. Order of sampling priority, length categories, target numbers of stomachs to sample per watch, and sampling methods for species from which stomach contents were collected during 1981-1984.

Length No. to Sampling Length No. to Sampling Category Sample/ Method Category Sample/ Method a a Species (cm) Watch to Use Species (cm) Watch to Use

Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 0-10 10 Preserve samples Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 0-20 5 Examine at sea 11-20 10 21-40 5 21-30 20 >40 5 31-35 20 >35 20 Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 0-10 5 Examine at sea 11-20 5 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 0-10 5 Preserve samples 21-30 5 11-30 20 31-35 5 31-50 20 >35 5 51-70 20 71-90 30 Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) All 5 Examine at sea >90 All Flounder, Winter (Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) 0-15 5 Preserve samples Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 0-65 20 Examine at sea 16-30 5 66-85 20 31-50 5 >85 20 >50 5

Flounder, Yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea ) 0-10 5 Preserve samples Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 0-20 5 Preserve samples 11-20 5 21-25 5 21-30 5 26-30 5 31-40 5 >30 5 >40 5 Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 0-15 5 Preserve samples Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) 0-25 5 Preserve samples 16-25 5 26-50 5 26-30 5 >50 5 >30 5

Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 0-15 5 Examine at sea 16-25 5 26-50 5 51-80 5 >80 5 aLength categories are to be consistent with those of the Age and Growth Project. Table A6. Priority species to have stomach contents collected at sea during 1985-91, and the minimum numbers of stomachs to sample per length category per watch.

Length Minimum Length Minimum Category No. to Category No. to Species (cm) Sample Species (cm) Sample

Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis )a 1-20 5 Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 1-25 5 21-25 5 26-50 5 26-30 10 51-80 5 31-35 10 >80 5 >35 10 Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 1-20 5 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua )a 1-30 5 21-25 5 31-50 10 26-30 5 51-70 15 31-35 5 71-90 15 >35 5 >90 All Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 1-25 5 Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias )a 1-65 20 26-30 5 66-85 25 >30 10 >85 25 Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 1-25 5 Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 1-20 5 26-30 5 21-40 5 >30 10 >40 5 aHighest priority species. Table A7. Secondary species to have stomach contents collected at sea during 1985-91. of each species should be taken for each watch.).

Common Name Scientific Name

Acadian redfish Sebastes fasciatus Little skate Leucoraja erinacea Striped bass Morone saxatilis Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus Scup Stenotomus chrysops Thorny skate Amblyraja radiata Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Sea raven Hemitripterus americanus Weakfish Cynoscion regalis Fourspot flounder Hippoglossina oblonga Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus Goosefish Lophius americanus Spotted hake Urophycis regia Winter skate Leucoraja ocellata Table A8. Species to be sampled, sampling ranges, and maximum numbers of stomachs to sample per station for 1992-93 bottom trawl surveys.

Bottom Trawl Survey Sampling 1992 1993 Species Range (cm) Spring Fall Spring Fall

Bass, Striped (Morone saxatilis ) 1 per 1 All All All All Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 3 per 3 25 25 25 25 Dogfish, Smooth (Mustelus canis ) 1 per 3 10 10 10 10 Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 1 per 3 30 30 30 30 Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Flounder, Summer (Paralichthys dentatus ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) 1 per 1 All All All All Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Hake, Spotted (Urophycis regia ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 3 per 3 10 10 10 10 Halibut, Atlantic (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) 1 per 1 All All All All Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 1 per 1 20 20 20 20 Sculpin, Longhorn (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Skate, Little (Leucoraja erinacea ) 1 per 2 10 10 10 10 Skate, Thorny (Amblyraja radiata ) 1 per 2 10 10 10 10 Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata ) 1 per 2 10 10 10 10 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis ) 1 per 1 10 10 10 10 Table A9. Species to be sampled, sampling ranges, and priority designations for stomach sampling per station for 1994-98 bottom trawl surveys. (A “3” indicates that samples were requested with no particular priority ranking.).

Sampling Bottom Trawl Survey Range 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Species (cm) Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall

Bass, Striped (Morone saxatilis ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 3 per 3 33 11 11 11 15 Dogfish, Smooth (Mustelus canis ) 1 per 3 33 33 33 33 33 Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 1 per 3 33 22 22 22 23 Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 1 per 1 33 55 65 65 64 Flounder, Summer (Paralichthys dentatus ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 31 Hake, Spotted (Urophycis regia ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 3 per 3 33 33 33 33 33 Halibut, Atlantic (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 1 per 1 33 44 3 4 3 4 3 2 Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 3 3 Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Sculpin, Longhorn (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus ) 1 per 1 33 33 8 3 8 3 8 3 Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus ) 1 per 1 33 33 7 3 7 3 7 3 Skate, Little (Leucoraja erinacea ) 1 per 2 33 33 4 3 4 3 4 3 Skate, Thorny (Amblyraja radiata ) 1 per 2 33 33 33 33 33 Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata ) 1 per 2 33 33 5 3 5 3 5 3 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis ) 1 per 1 33 33 33 33 33 Table A10. Species to be sampled, sampling ranges, and priority designations for 1999 bottom trawl surveys

Sampling Sampling Species Range (cm) PrioritySpecies Range (cm) Priority

Bass, Black Sea (Centropristis striata ) 1 per 5 - Halibut, Atlantic (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) 1 per 5 - Bass, Striped (Morone saxatilis ) 1 per 5 - Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 1 per 5 7 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix ) 1 per 5 - Herring, blueback (Alosa aestivalis ) 1 per 5 - Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus ) 1 per 5 - Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 1 per 5 8 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 1 per 5 - Ocean pout (Zoarces americanus ) 1 per 5 5 Cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus ) 1 per 5 - Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 1 per 5 - Cusk (Brosme brosme ) 1 per 5 - Redfish, Acadian (Sebastes fasciatus ) 1 per 5 - Cusk-eel, Fawn (Lepophidium profundorum ) 1 per 5 - Rosefish, blackbelly (Helicolenus dactylopterus) 1 per 5 - Dogfish, Smooth (Mustelus canis ) 1 per 10 (per sex) - Salmon, Atlantic (Salmo salar ) 1 per 5 - Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 1 per 10 (per sex) - Sculpin, Longhorn (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus ) 1 per 5 4 American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides ) 1 per 5 - Scup (Stenotomus chrysops ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 1 per 5 - Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Summer (Paralichthys dentatus ) 1 per 5 3 Shad, American (Alosa sapidissima ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 1 per 5 - Shad, hickory (Alosa mediocris ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Winter (Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) 1 per 5 - Skate, Little (Leucoraja erinacea ) 1 per 10 - Flounder, Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus ) 1 per 5 - Skate, rosette (Leucoraja garmani ) 1 per 10 - Flounder, Yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea )a 1 per 5 2 Skate, smooth (Malacoraja senta ) 1 per 10 - Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) 1 per 5 - Skate, Thorny (Amblyraja radiata ) 1 per 10 - Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) 1 per 5 1 Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata ) 1 per 10 - Hake, Offshore (Merluccius albidus ) 1 per 5 - Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 1 per 5 - Tautog (Tautoga onitis ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 1 per 5 - Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Spotted (Urophycis regia ) 1 per 5 - Wolffish, Atlantic (Anarhichas lupus ) 1 per 5 6 Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 1 per 5 - aSample ALL yellowtail flounder from Strata 5, 6, 9, and 10. Continue to sample one fish per 5-cm length interval in all other strata Table A11. Species to be sampled, sampling ranges, and priority designations for 2000-02 bottom trawl surveys

Sampling Sampling Species Range (cm) PrioritySpecies Range (cm) Priority

Bass, Black Sea (Centropristis striata ) 1 per 5 - Halibut, Atlantic (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) 1 per 1 - Bass, Striped (Morone saxatilis ) 1 per 1 - Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 1 per 5 7 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix ) 1 per 5 - Herring, blueback (Alosa aestivalis ) 1 per 5 - Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus ) 1 per 5 - Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 1 per 5 8 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 1 per 10 - Ocean pout (Zoarces americanus ) 1 per 5 5 Cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus ) 1 per 5 - Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 1 per 5 - Cusk (Brosme brosme ) 1 per 1 - Redfish, Acadian (Sebastes fasciatus ) 1 per 5 - Cusk-eel, Fawn (Lepophidium profundorum ) 1 per 5 - Rosefish, blackbelly (Helicolenus dactylopterus) 1 per 5 - Dogfish, Smooth (Mustelus canis ) 1 per 10 - Salmon, Atlantic (Salmo salar ) 1 per 1 - Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 1 per 20 - Sculpin, Longhorn (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus ) 1 per 5 4 American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides ) 1 per 2 - Scup (Stenotomus chrysops ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 1 per 5 - Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Summer (Paralichthys dentatus ) 1 per 5 - Shad, American (Alosa sapidissima ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 1 per 2 - Shad, hickory (Alosa mediocris ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Winter (Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) 1 per 2 2 Skate, Little (Leucoraja erinacea ) 1 per 10 - Flounder, Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus ) 1 per 2 - Skate, rosette (Leucoraja garmani ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea )a 1 per 2 1 Skate, smooth (Malacoraja senta ) 1 per 5 - Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) 1 per 10 - Skate, Thorny (Amblyraja radiata ) 1 per 10 - Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) 1 per 5 3 Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata ) 1 per 20 - Hake, Offshore (Merluccius albidus ) 1 per 1 - Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 1 per 5 - Tautog (Tautoga onitis ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 1 per 5 - Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Spotted (Urophycis regia ) 1 per 5 - Wolffish, Atlantic (Anarhichas lupus ) 1 per 1 6 Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 1 per 10 - Table A12. Species to be sampled, sampling ranges, and priority designations for 2003-05 bottom trawl surveys

Sampling Sampling Species Range (cm) Priority Species Range (cm) Priority

Bass, Black Sea (Centropristis striata ) 1 per 5 - Halibut, Atlantic (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) 1 per 1 - Bass, Striped (Morone saxatilis ) 1 per 1 - Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 1 per 5 7 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix ) 1 per 5 - Herring, blueback (Alosa aestivalis ) 1 per 5 - Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus ) 1 per 5 - Lanternfish (Myctophidae)b 1 per 1 - Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 1 per 10 3 Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 1 per 5 7 Croaker, Atlantic (Micropogonias undulatus ) 1 per 5 - Ocean pout (Zoarces americanus ) 1 per 5 - Cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus )a 1 per 5 - Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 1 per 5 2 Cusk (Brosme brosme ) 1 per 1 - Redfish, Acadian (Sebastes fasciatus ) 1 per 5 - Cusk-eel, Fawn (Lepophidium profundorum )a 1 per 5 - Rosefish, blackbelly (Helicolenus dactylopterus) 1 per 5 - Dogfish, Smooth (Mustelus canis ) 1 per 10 (per sex) - Salmon, Atlantic (Salmo salar ) 1 per 1 - Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 1 per 20 (per sex) - Sculpin, Longhorn (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus ) 1 per 5 5 Dory, Buckler (Zenopsis conchifera ) 1 per 5 - Scup (Stenotomus chrysops ) 1 per 5 - Eel, Conger (Conger oceanicus ) 1 per 5 - Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus ) 1 per 5 1 American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides ) 1 per 2 - Sea Robin, Armored (Peristedion miniatum ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 1 per 5 3 Sea Robin, Northern (Prionotus carolinus ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Gulf Stream (Citharichthys arctifrons ) 1 per 5 - Sea Robin, Striped (Prionotus evolans ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Summer (Paralichthys dentatus ) 1 per 5 3 Shad, American (Alosa sapidissima ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 1 per 2 - Shad, hickory (Alosa mediocris ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Winter (Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) 1 per 2 6 Skate, Little (Leucoraja erinacea ) 1 per 10 - Flounder, Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus ) 1 per 2 - Skate, rosette (Leucoraja garmani ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea )a 1 per 2 6 Skate, smooth (Malacoraja senta ) 1 per 5 - Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) 1 per 10 1 Skate, Thorny (Amblyraja radiata ) 1 per 10 - Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) 1 per 5 4 Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata ) 1 per 20 - Hake, Offshore (Merluccius albidus ) 1 per 1 3 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 1 per 5 - Tautog (Tautoga onitis ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 1 per 5 2 Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Spotted (Urophycis regia ) 1 per 5 - Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis ) 1 per 5 - Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 1 per 10 - Wolffish, Atlantic (Anarhichas lupus ) 1 per 1 - aPreserve stomach. bPreserve entire animal. Table A13. Species to be sampled, sampling ranges, and priority designations for 2006-08 bottom trawl surveys

Sampling Sampling Common Name Range (cm) Priority Common Name Range (cm) Priority

Bass, Black Sea (Centropristis striata ) 1 per 5 - Herring, blueback (Alosa aestivalis ) 1 per 5 - Bass, Striped (Morone saxatilis ) 1 per 1 - Kingfish, northern (Menticirrhus saxatilis ) 1 per 5 - Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix ) 1 per 5 - Lanternfish (Myctophidae)b 1 per 1 - Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus ) 1 per 5 - Mackerel, Atlantic (Scomber scombrus ) 1 per 5 7 Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua ) 1 per 10 5 Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus ) 1 per 5 - Croaker, Atlantic (Micropogonias undulatus ) 1 per 5 - Ocean pout (Zoarces americanus ) 1 per 5 - Cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus )a 1 per 2 - Pollock (Pollachius virens ) 1 per 10 2 Cusk (Brosme brosme ) 1 per 1 3 Redfish, Acadian (Sebastes fasciatus ) 1 per 5 - Cusk-eel, Fawn (Lepophidium profundorum )a 1 per 2 - Rosefish, blackbelly (Helicolenus dactylopterus) 1 per 5 - Dogfish, Smooth (Mustelus canis ) 1 per 20 (per sex) - Salmon, Atlantic (Salmo salar ) 1 per 1 - Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias ) 1 per 30 (per sex) - Sculpin, Longhorn (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus ) 1 per 5 - Dory, Buckler (Zenopsis conchifera ) 1 per 5 - Scup (Stenotomus chrysops ) 1 per 5 - Eel, Conger (Conger oceanicus ) 1 per 10 - Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus ) 1 per 5 - American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides ) 1 per 5 - Sea Robin, Armored (Peristedion miniatum ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Fourspot (Hippoglossina oblonga ) 1 per 10 6 Sea Robin, Northern (Prionotus carolinus ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Gulf Stream (Citharichthys arctifrons ) 1 per 2 - Sea Robin, Striped (Prionotus evolans ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Summer (Paralichthys dentatus ) 1 per 10 6 Shad, American (Alosa sapidissima ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus ) 1 per 2 - Shad, hickory (Alosa mediocris ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Winter (Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) 1 per 5 4 Skate, barndoor (Dipturus laevis ) 1 per 10 3 Flounder, Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus ) 1 per 2 - Skate, clearnose (Raja eglanteria ) 1 per 5 - Flounder, Yellowtail (Limanda ferruginea )a 1 per 5 4 Skate, Little (Leucoraja erinacea ) 1 per 10 - Rockling, Fourbeard (Enchelyopus cimbrius )a 1 per 2 - Skate, rosette (Leucoraja garmani ) 1 per 5 - Goosefish (Lophius americanus ) 1 per 20 - Skate, smooth (Malacoraja senta ) 1 per 5 - Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) 1 per 5 1 Skate, Thorny (Amblyraja radiata ) 1 per 10 - Hake, Offshore (Merluccius albidus ) 1 per 1 2 Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata ) 1 per 30 - Hake, Red (Urophycis chuss ) 1 per 5 - Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus ) 1 per 5 - Hake, Silver (Merluccius bilinearis ) 1 per 5 5 Tautog (Tautoga onitis )a 1 per 2 - Hake, Spotted (Urophycis regia ) 1 per 5 - Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps ) 1 per 2 - Hake, White (Urophycis tenuis ) 1 per 10 - Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis ) 1 per 5 - Halibut, Atlantic (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) 1 per 1 - Wolffish, Atlantic (Anarhichas lupus ) 1 per 1 - Herring, Atlantic (Clupea harengus ) 1 per 5 7 aPreserve stomach. bPreserve entire animal. Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Manuscript Qualification edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific This series represents a secondary level of scientific manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). CSE Style Manual, seventh edition. For all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special review, but not necessarily external scientific review. For most effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works contains issues, the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing. all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific titles in such lists, use the guidance of the International Standards publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS's Organization; such guidance is easily accessed through the various primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Professional Paper Cambridge Scientific Abstracts’ serials source lists (see http:// NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review). www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/JAS.htm). Personal com- Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should munications must include date of contact and full name and mailing not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication address of source. series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes, mol- series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations lusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and Canada, may be submitted to this series. use Special Publications No. 29 (fishes), 26 (mollusks), and 17 Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center (decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society (Bethesda (NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval MD). For spelling of scientific and common names of marine by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manu- mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the Society for Marine scripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series Mammalogy (Lawrence KS). For spelling in general, use the most if: 1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC's mission; 2) the recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director's the English Language Unabridged (Springfield MA: G. & C. approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding Merriam). funds to be transferred to the NEFSC's Research Communica- Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, tables, and tions Branch account from another federal account. For all figure captions should be converted to Word. In general, keep text manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published simple (e.g., do not switch fonts and type sizes, do not use hard in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the returns within paragraphs, do not indent except to begin para- manuscripts' contents; authors must accept such responsibil- graphs). Also, do not use an automatic footnoting function; all notes ity. should be indicated in the text by simple numerical superscripts, and The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing listed together in an "Endnotes" section prior to the "References are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series Cited" section. Especially, do not use a graphics function for are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines embedding tables and figures in text. contained in Chapter 2 ("Publication Policies and Practices") of Tables should be prepared with a table formatting function. the Scientific Style and Format: the CSE Manual for Authors, Each figure should be supplied in digital format (preferably GIF or Editors, and Publishers, seventh edition (Reston VA: Council JPG), unless there is no digital file of a given figure. Except under of Science Editors). Copies of the manual are available at extraordinary circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations. virtually all scientific libraries.

Manuscript Preparation Manuscript Submission

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table Authors must submit separate digital files of the manuscript of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and text, tables, and figures. The manuscript must have cleared acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific NEFSC's online internal review system. Non-NEFSC authors who manuscript organization for sections: "Introduction," "Study are not federal employees will be required to sign a "Release of Area," "Methods & Materials," "Results," "Discussion" and/ Copyright" form. or "Conclusions," "Acknowledgments," and "References Cited." Send all materials and address all correspondence to: Jarita A. Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are Davis (Editor), Editorial Office, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Sci- obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent ence Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Operations, Management & Information Division Research Communications Branch Editorial Office National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 166 Water St. Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

MEDIA MAIL

Publications and Reports of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources for the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health of their environment." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "conducting ecosystem-based research and assess- ments of living marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term sustainability of these resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their use." Results of NEFSC research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC occasionally releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of long-term field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected abstracts of, and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review, but no technical or copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen's Report) -- This information report is a quick-turnaround report on the distribution and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel surveys of the Northeast's continental shelf. There is no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of this report.

OBTAINING A COPY: To obtain a copy of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document, or to subscribe to the Resource Survey Report, either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2228) or consult the NEFSC webpage on "Reports and Publications" (http://www.nefsc. noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY EN- DORSEMENT.