Biological Report 90(20) December 1990 An Ecological Characterization of the Tampa Bay Watershed
Fish and Wildlife Service and Minerals Management Service u.s. Department of the Interior Chapter 6. Fauna N. Scott Schomer and Paul Johnson
6.1 Introduction on each species, as well as the limited scope.of this document, often excludes such information from our Generally speaking, animal species utilize only a discussion. Where possible, references to more limited number of habitats within a restricted geo detailed infonnation on local fish and wildlife condi graphic range. Factors that regulate habitat use and tions are included. geographic range include the behavior, physiology, and anatomy ofthe species; competitive, trophic, and 6.2 Invertebrates symbiotic interactions with other species; and forces that influence species dispersion. Such restrictions may be broad, as in the ca.
showed significantly lower densities, especially of plankton in upper Tampa Bay. Hopkins (1973) tubificid worms, than other stations (Dye 1972; presents a general review of zooplankton in the east Cowell et al. 1974). ern Gulf of Mexico, and Turner and Hopkins (1985) and Weiss and Phillips (1985) review zooplankton The prevailing trends in zooplankton and benthic and meroplankton studies, respectively, in Tampa invertebrate communities lead Cowell et al. (1974) to Bay in particular. The most authoritative study of characterize the lake as eutrophic. Dominance of Tampa Bay zooplankton, however, is reported by zooplankton by small-bodied rotifers, the occurrence Hopkins (1977). of blue-green algae, high rates of productivity, and significant oxygen deficits in the summer hypolim Quarterly samples at 42 stations within the bay nion all point to this conclusion. Dominance of the yielded 37 taxa of true planktonic (haloplankton) benthos by oligochaetes and two species of chirono organisms (Hopkins 1977). These were divided into mids, Glyptotendipes paripes and Chironomus cras three categories based on numerical abundance; sicandatus, also support this conclusion. These taxa group 1 (>1,OOO/m3), group 2 (100-1,OOO/m3), and have been linked to eutrophic conditions in other group 3 «lOO/m3). Florida lakes receiving organic wastes and nutrient Group 1 consisted of four species, the cyclopoid runoff(provost 1958; Provost and Branch 1959; Beck copepod Oithona colcarva (=0. breviconus), the and Beck 1969). calanoid copepods Acartia tonsa and Paracalanus In the Alana and Little Manatee Rivers, freshwater crassirostris, and a tunicate, Oikopleura dioica. benthic faunas begin to dominate around 28 to 32 km These four species account for 60% and 38% of the upstream of Tampa Bay (Dames and Moore 1975). zooplankton biomass and numbers, respectively. Densities are typically low near the oligohaline wne Although Oithooo colcarva generally outnumbers A. of tnmsition from estuarine to freshwater conditions. tonsa in the summer, the latter ranks first in biomass Judging from the station-to-station variation in the because ofits greater size. In winterA tonsa is more group or taxa dominating at different times of the abundant than O. colcarva. Since copepod nauplii, year, there must be many localized controlling which account for 29% of total zooplankton, are not factors. Common groups include the chironomids. identified to species, the real population numbers of beetles, oligochaetes, pelecypods, mayflies, and these four species are no doubt higher. isopods. In comparing the two rivers, the Little Group 2 consists of six species of copepods, Manatee tends to have higher species diversities than Evadne tergestioo, Oithooo 0000, Pseudodiaptomus the Alalia, but lower densities of individuals. The coronatus, O. simplex, Euterpioo acutifrons, and authors (Dames and Moore 1975) relate this general Labidocera aestiva. Group 3 consists of 22 species condition to the relative enrichment of the Alafia including 11 copepods (Eucalanus pileatus, Paraca system with municipal, industrial, and agricultural lanus quasimodo, Temora turbioota, Centropages waste product". hamatus, C. furcatus, Oncaea curta, O. venusta, Corycaeus amazonicus, C. americanus, C. qies 6.2.2 Estuarine Invertebrates brechti, Microsetella rosea); 2 c1adoceran.."i (Penilia a. Planktonic invertebrates. Macrozooplankton avirostris, Podon polyphemoides), 1 decapod (Luci have been studied by Kelly and Dragovich (1967) in ferfaxoni), 2 chaetognaths (Sagitta tenuis, S. hispida), Tampa, Old Tampa, Hillsborough, Boca Ciega, and 4 tunicates (Oikopleura longicauda, O. fusiformis, Terra Ceia Bays. Weiss and Hopkins (1973) and Appendicularia sicula, DoUotum gegenbauri), 1 Donaldson and Johanson (1977) report on zooplank siphonophore (Muggiacea kochi), and I trachy ton of the Anclote estuary. Saloman (1974) present'; medusa (Liviope tetraphylla). data oI1l.Ooplankton offSand Key in Pinellas County Group 3 consists of a large number of relatively in association with other studies regarding beach res uncommon species which will not be listed as a toration. Morris (1976) reports on macroinvertebrate group. 218 6. Fauna
It is interesting to note that Kelly and Dragovich farther th.Ul the middle of the estuary, although six (1967) report Lucifer faxoni, porcellanid crab larvae, occurred as far up as Hillsborough and Old Tampa brachyuran crab larvae, and Sagitta hispida, along bays. These were C. hamatll-~, C. furcatus. Lucifer with copepods, as the most abundant macrozoo faxoni. Uviope tetraphylla. Sagitta tenuis. and S. his plankton of Tampa Bay. Some if not all of the pidi:l. discrepancy could originate from the larger mesh Meroplankton (organisms planktonic during only a sizes of their sampling gear as well as from annual portion oftheir life) often cOIl,,>titute a sizable fraction variations in population makeup. ofthe total zooplankton. In Tampa Bay the larvae of Total zooplankton numbers were clearly higher in benthic invertt~brates contribute 19% and 8% ofzoo the spring, summer, and fall than in winter. The plankton numbers and biomass, respectively. Again difference between the three warm se,l<;ons and winter the meroplankton are divided into three species 3 approaches an order of magnitude (i.e., 12,700/m in groups based on their median numerical abundance. winter to 93,100-108,600/m3 in the other seasons). Group 1 consists of pelecypod. cirriped. poly Temperature apparently has a profound influence on chaete. and gastropod larvae. Highest average zooplankton production. With regard to salinity, only numbers of pelecypod larvae are in Old Tmnpa Bay. 4 ofthe 10 most abundant species showed ,illY statisti For cirripcd larvae, greatest concentratioIl~ occurred cal correlation; these were Paracalanus erassirostris, in Old Tampa Bay and the Manatee River; for poly Ewerpina acutijrons. Oithona simplex and O. fUlna. chaete larvae, Boca Ciega and Old Tampa mlYs; for All were positively correlated, suggesting that some gastropod larvae. lower Tampa Bay and the Manatee or all may be seasonal invaders from more marine River. All group 1 larvae were least ,Ibundant in the waters. winter. Upper Bay and Manatee River stations supported Group 2 meroplankters include echinoderm, bryo the highest standing crops. Of the group I species. zoml, and decapod larvae. Echinoderm larvae are Oithona colcarva was most numerous in the Manatee River, Boca Ciega Bay, and Old Tampa Bay. Acartia most abundant in Boca Ciega Bay and lowest in Hills tonsa reached its peak abundance in the M,matec borough Bay, Old Tampa Bay, and the Manatee River and Old Tampa Bay. Paracalanus crassirostris River. Bryozoan larvae are least abundant in the was most abundant in Boca Ciega Bay and Old spring, while echinoderm and decapod larvae are lowest in the winter. Tampa Bay and least abundant in Hillsborough Bay. Oikopleura dioica was fairly uniformly distributed Group 3 larvae are only occasionally encountered, with the largest populations in Old Tampa Bay and mostly in summer collectioIl~. Taxa include polyclad, the smallest in lower Tampa Bay. phoronid, brachiopod, enteropneust, ascidian. and Among group 2 species, two displayed geographic cephalochordate larvae, as well as medusae of attached hydroids. preferences similar to those mentioned above. Evadne tergestina and Pseudodiaptomus coronatus In contrast to these results, Kelly and Dragovich were most abundant at upper estuary stations and the (1967), sampling at a different time md with different Manatee River. COIl<;istent with their high salinity equipment, report porcellanid crab larvae and preference, Oithona simplex, O. nana, and Ewerpina brachyuran crab larvae constituting 27.4% and 10.5% acutifrof/S were most abundant in the lower estuary. ofthe macro- and meroplankton, respectively. As might be expected, group 3 species were b. Benthic invertebrates. As mentioned in the abundant in very few samples. Only Paracalanus section on habitats, the benthos encompasses a quasimodo, Centropages hamatus, Oikopleura longi mixture of sand and silt bottoms often dominated by cauda, and Liviope tetraphylla exceeded 1,OeXJ in(jj rooted or attached plants, or animal dominated viduals/m3 in samples from lower Tampa and Boca habitat,,> such as oyster reefs. In his recent review of Ciega bays. Most group 3 species penetrated no benthiC invertebrates of the Tampa Bay System, 219 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization
Simon and Mahadevan (1985) cite over 70 informa- organisms. These are the salinity, sediment composi- tion sources on invertebrates ofTampa Bay, most of tion, and pollution gradients, which are most intense them in the grey (unpublished) literature. The major- in the upper estuary and relatively moderate toward ity ofthis worle has been conducted with reference to the lower estuary. It is believed that increases in specific effects, usually associated with local activi- benthic species richness from upper bay to lower bay ties such as thermal effluents (Vimstein 1972; are due in large part to the moderation of salinity Thorharg et al. 1977; Mahadevan and Patton 1979), changes and pollution in the lower bay. The third dredging operations (Taylor and Saloman 1968; gradient, sediment composition, is discussed below. Sykes and Hall 1970; Godcharles 1971; Simon and In the upperbay, sediments are finer, relatively less Dyer 1972; Simon et a1. 1976), sewage and industrial consolidated, and of a higher organic content than in discharges (Taylor et al. 1970), and canal and seawall the lower bay, where sorting and flushing lead to construction (Hall and LindaU 1974). Other major coarser, sandier sediment conditions and lower woIks have focused on one species or species groups organic content. Correlating with these conditions, such as the polychactes (Taylor 1971; Santos 1972), deposit feeders (those organisms that feed within or penaeid shrimp (Saloman 1964, 1965,1968; Eldredet upon the sediment/surface) are more abundant in the a1. 1965; Sykes and Finucane 1966) or mollusks upper bay than in the lower bay, while the reverse is (Dawson 1953; Sims and Stokes 1967; Finucane and true for filter feeders (those organisms which filter Campbell 1968). Although a considerable body of feed from the water column). Also, more individuals, knowledge has accumulated, relatively few studies though fewer species, tend to be found in the upper have been baywide and inclusive of the full range of than the lower bay. However, it has been shown that benthic invertebrates. The numbers of the correlation is better for mobile species, both macroinvertebrate species reported from Tampa Bay deposit feeders and suspension feeders, in finer sedi- has increased from 82 species (Dragovich and Kelly ments and sedentary in sandier sediments. Mobile 19Mb) to over I ,2(X) species (Simon and Mahadevan species suspend sediments while sedentary species 1985). What portion ofthis increao;;e is attributable to consolidate them. increasing population diversity or to improved sampling techniques is unknown. Development and pollution have reduced habitat diversity by the loss of seagrass beds and mangrove Signiticant studies also exist on estuarine and forests. This in itself results in a loss of species coastal locations out"ide Tampa Bay proper, such as richness. the Andote River estuary and Sarasota, Roberts, and Dona Bays (Tiffany 1974; Linceret a1. 1975). Consistent with these trends, the upper bay benthos appears to be dominated by what Simon and In broad terms, the eastern side ofthe bay is better Mahadevan (1985) call r-selected species, or oppor known than the western side and the shallow areas are tunists. These species are generally short lived and better known than deep area". However, many areas thus capable of exploiting habitats quickly after ofthe bay system have yet to be sampled because ofa periodic stresses. Such species also tend to be more lack offinancial support, manpower, and proximity to common in the upper than the lower bay. The k perturbations(which usually generate the most impe selected species, those that have more complex life tus for sampling). cycles, are longer lived, and hence more sensitive to Simon and Mahadevan (1985) divide their discus stress. These species are more frequently found in the sion of invertebrates into three areas: generalities in lower bay. benthic community composition and abundance, Seagrass beds have been shown to support greater variations in communities, and response and recovery species richness and abundance of benthic inverte of communities to various stress factors. Among the brates than open, unvegetated bottoms (Tabb and generalities, three environmental gradients are Manning 1961; Dragovich and Kelley 1964b; Santos recognized as influencing distributions of benthic and Simon 1974; Brook 1975; Stoner 1980; 220 6. fauna
Livingston 1982; Zieman 1982). This community response to stress has been collected in recent years, has suffered widespread elimination throughout the subsequent to major development in the surrounding Tampa Bay system, affecting not only those species watersheds. With this in mind, it is interesting to note dependent on seagrass as habitat, but also fishes and population trends in one ofthe major benthic inverte birds feeding on the species living within the brate communities of Tampa Bay, the oyster reefs. seagrasses. Because they are truly biogenic and thus require The preceding are, of course, only generalities. constant production in order to sustain themselves, Spatial and temporal variations in such general trends their growth or demise is fairly easy to follow. are considerable. Forinstance, long-term monitoring The success ofthe oysterreefdepends on a number results strongly indicate the existence of significant offactors, including an adequate food supply, suitable seasonal oscillations in numbers ofspecies and abun substrate, and an oscillating temperature and salinity dance per species throughout the bay. The most regime. An adequate food supply is obviously neces consistent variation is the presence ofmore individu sary. Hard substrate is required for young oyster spat als and more species during the winter months than to settle and attach. Higher summer temperatures during summer. Although this seasonality appears to promote growth and spawning, but must not be so be a bay-wide phenomenon, Simon and Mahadevan high as to cause thermal stress. Lower winter (1985) believe that the reasons for it differ for temperatures help to force some predators out of different parts of the bay. In Hillsborough Bay, the shallow waters into deeper, more moderate waters. reason is most definitely summer oxygen depletion Oscillating salinities have long been noted to play an (stress). In lower Hillsborough Bay, thennal stress is important role in oyster-reef ecology. Control of suspected as an important factor. In Old Tampa Bay, many of the oysters' most devastating predators and a combination of factors including pollution and parasites has been linked to reduced salinities that thennal stress, absence of tidal flushing, and preda force them offshore or inhibit their spread. Examples tion are all possible factors. Delineation ofthe degree of predators excluded by low salinity include the of influence these factors have and their synergistic oyster drills (Thais haemostoma and Urosalpinx effects are unknown at this time. It is particularly perrugata), crown conch (Melongena corona), interesting to note that the seasonal benthic-inverte Murex spp., whelks (Busycon perversum), boring brate abundance cycle is opposite to that of the sponge (Chione sp.), sea urchins (Echinaster sentus), zooplankton abundance cycle mentioned earlier. and stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria). Devastating The effects of five types of stress factors on parasites such as the fungus Labrynthomyxa marina macroinvertebrates have been investigated in Tampa and the turbellarian Stylochus inimicus are often also Bay: red tide, shell dredging, anoxia (oxygen stress), reduced by lowered salinities. phosphate slime spills, and power-plant entrainment The historical demise ofoysterreefs inTampa Bay and themal pollution. In all cases, even where is well documented (Dawson 1953; Finucane and defaunation is total and sediment profiles massively Campbell 1968; McNulty et aI. 1972). Records date disrupted, recovery usually occurs in 6 to 18 months. back as far as 1899, long before intensive upland Simon and Mahadevan (1985) believe thllt such resil development or dredging began in earnest. Evidence ience exists because of natural stress factors such as suggests that the chronic effects of development in red tides, which favor organisms that recover quickly. and around the bay affect the unique ecology of the Such relatively frequent short-tenn periodic stresses oyster in a complex and ultimately detrimental as droughts and red tide may, in effect, preadapt the manner. benthic community to other stresses that originate These chronic effects fall into three categories: from human activities (e.g., slime spills, shell dredg turbidity from dredging, runoff, and effluent ing, thermal and industrial effluent). discharges; hydrologic flow-through modifications In this regard it must be remembered that virtually resulting from dredging, canal and seawall con all information on invertebrate communities and their struction, and upland development; and chemical 221 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization discharges of bacteria, nutrient." and potential toxins It is unlikely that anyone ofthese factors by itself from industry, municipal, and nonpoint-source run can be clearly shown to be responsible for the decline off. in oyster production. It seems more probable that chronic changes in the background setting ofthe bay Turbidity from runoff or dredging is obviously have tipped the ecological balance against recruit capable of smothering young oyster spat. A more ment of spat and establishment and growth of oyster subtle effect is a relative increase in fine unconsoli beds, in favor of predators and population-limiting dated sediments, especially in upper bay waters, physical factors that reduce oyster reef viability in making it less likely that oyster spat settle at all. Tampa Bay. Destabilization, orshoaling, ofbottom sediments near channels, dredged canals, and seawalls may also reduce chances ofoyster settling and sUlvival. 6.3 Fishes Hydrologic flow-through modifications occur when the volume of water that a section of the bay 6.3.1 Freshwater Fishes nonnally handles is increased, decreased, or other wise altered. Increases may arise from construction The freshwater fishes of the watershed fall into or deepening and widening of channels that bring three categories ba<;ed on the physiological adapta more saline waters upstream, as well as hastening the tions of their respective families to the marine envi loss of freshwater downstream. Urban development ronment. The principally freshwater species belong also tends to accelerate the rate and volume loss of to families that have arisen exclusively in freshwater. freshwater via direct runoff. Without the urban devel Consequently, they tend to have little tolerance for opment more of the runoff would be shunted into brackish water conditions, As might be expected, the groundwater recharge or surface storage where it number of such species declines from north to south would be released slowly. Canals and seawalls also along the Florida peninsula (Briggs 1958), probably increa'iC the rate of exchange in some locations by because of a lack of suitable habitat a<; well as the removing the storage capacity of native shoreline relatively recent emergence of peninsular Florida. areas (e.g., mangroves and salt marshes). In other Representatives include members of the catfish locations, C<1.Ilals may retard hydrologic flow by creat family (Ictaluridae), the bass and sunfishes (Centrar ing slow-flushing dead-end systems that do not circu chidae), and the minnows (Cyprinidae). The princi late. In all cases, hydrologic modifications effect pally marine species belong to families with strong changes in background temperature and salinity evolutionary ties to the marine environment. Many of regimes. As with turbidity, these changes are rela the species belonging to this group are more tively more intert'iC in the upper bay and shoreline commonly recognized as estuarine inhabitants. areas than the deeper. lower end of the bay. Nonetheless, some species such as the tarpon Enrichment with chemicals that stimulate algal (Megalops atlanticus), American eel (Anguilla productivity orare potentially toxic to adult<; and spat rostrata), striped mullet (MugU cephalus), and snook may also affect oyster production. Chlorophyll a (Centropomus spp.) are capable ofmoving far inland levels in Tampa Bay have been quite high in the in canals and rivers. Others, such as the croaker recent past. This nutrient-stimulated soup may (Micropogonias undulam..<;), pinfish (Lagodon rlwm contain filamentous algae that clog the oysters' filter boides), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), and ladyfish ing apparatus. The organic load that contributes to (Elops saurus). are only occasionally (perhaps depressed oxygen levels is another source ofstress to sea'iOnally) found in oligohaline waters. the reef community. Sublethal concentrations of The third group, whose members belong to the heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and other chemicals are secondary freshwater families, are believed to have still other stress factors, which are also of special reached the region by a combination of marine and concern to public health in the harvesting ofoysters. freshwater routes. As such, members of this group 222 6. Fauna
tend to be more physiologically tolerant of a wide potentially powerful influence on fish species compo r.mge of osmotic conditions (euryhaline). Many of sition. Aquarium fish such as the oscar (Astronotus the more common and abundant fishes of the area ocellatus), blue acara (Aequidens pulcher), and gold belong to this group, including the mosquitofish fish have been reported throughout south Florida. (Gambusia affinis), the sailfin molly (Poecilia lati The incidence of releases in the Tampa Bay water pinna), and the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon shed is heightened by the large number offish farms, variegatus). particularly in the Alafia and Manatee River basins Were it not for human influence, these three (see Figure 97). Fish-farm escapees include many categories would serve as a fairly complete list of aquarium species as well as the tilapia, cultivated for biogeographic mechanisms influencing fish species its food value. A long and healthy debate over the composition in an area. Strictly freshwater connec potential effects of releasing the white amur into tions are envisioned for members of the principally Hydrilla-infested lakes has been going on for years. freshwater families. These connections probably The final resolution has been the tightly controlled existed as former sea level (and freshwater tables), and monitored release of sterile hybrids. This higher than at present, incrementally receded, and compromise solution arises from the fact that the freshwater species inched their way farther south. For white amur has reproductively established itself else members of secondary families with some tolerance where in the United States. Itis feared that ifit should for saline conditions, the connection is perhaps do so in Florida lakes, its voracious feeding habits broader because oftheir ability to invade the brackish would soon result in the consumption of native fringes of the receding seas. For members of this vegetation, to the eventual detriment ofother fish and group, as well as for the principally marine species, at wildlife species. least two factors peculiar to Florida have been identi Significant studies of freshwater fishes in the fied as facilitating invasion by marine avenues. Tampa Bay area include Barnett (1972) and Cowell et In south Florida, where land slopes are low and al. (1974) in the Hillsborough River, and Dames and rainfall seasonal, the estuarine tran~ition zone is both Moore (1975) in the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers. broad and seasonally transient. This creates a wne Layne et al. (1977) especially provide one ofthe more where the gradient ofsalinity (or chlorinity) is spread comprehensive compilations of freshwater fish out over a relatively wide area. In addition, the back species to be expected in the entire watershed. ground chiorinity ofinland waters is frequently in the Using museum collections, Layne et al. (1977) list oligohaline (or near oligohaline) range, owing to 66 species offishes thatmay be found in the variety of contact with residual salt from past invasions by aquatic habitats of the Tampa Bay watershed shallow seas. These two factors (Le., distance to (Appendix Table A-12). Another four species of seawater over an extended gradient and high residual exotic aquarium types believed to be established, but chiorinities) are believed to facilitate the invasion of whose habitat is unknown, are included. In waters freshwaters by euryhaline marine species (Odum near fish farms still more species may be periodically 1953). A second factor that may aid such invasions is reported due to escapes. the high concentration of calcium (Ca++) in Florida Flowing-water habitats appear to support the freshwaters (Hulet et al. 1967). High levels ofCart richest freshwater fish fauna in the study area. Fifty have been found to inhibit salt loss and water gain in seven species are reported from the major river marine fishes, helping them osmoregulate in less systems, while forty-three species are reponed from saline environments. streams and creeks. Although streams and creeks With the advent ofman, the release ofnew species support a large number of species, many unique to either by accident (aquarium rejects, fish fann escap this particular habitattype, many (1/4 of the species ees) or design (as weed controls, Le., white amur, reported) are under the category of"Population Status Ctenopharyngodon idella) has become a new and Questionable" in Appendix Table A-12. Area lakes 223 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization also support a high diversity offishes, with 42 species longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), Florida gar, reported. Ponds (33), ditches (35), marsh~<; (31). and bowfin, largemouth bass (Micropterus sal artificial impoundments (27) support moderate moides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), blue numbers of species. Swamps (15) and springs (8) tilapia (Tilapea aurea), golden shiner, pugnose support the lowe.'it. The population status ofm,my of minnow, and brook silverside. the fish species reported from the latter two habitat 5. The open chmnel with no vegetation, character types is also considered questionable. ized by only seven species, including the longnose Upon closer examination, these major habitat and Florida gars, bowfin, Seminole killifish or types may be subdivided even further based on caledonian (Fundulus seminolis), largemouth seasonal factors affecting water levels. such a<; deep bass, bluegill, and blue tUapia. These fish may be marsh and shallow marsh, seasonal or permanent transient. pond and fast- or slow-moving streams and creeks. In addition to gross differences due to habitat pref Local site conditions such as water quality, vegeta erence, fish species composition and standing crop tion, and topography may also influence suitability varies ali a function of at least two general factors: for certain species. Examples include whether a biotic interactions such as species life histories, stream flows into mangroves or cypress, whether a competition. food availability, and disea<;e; and stress pond is a<;sodated with a marsh or a cypress dome. factors such ali slime spills, drought, and organic whether cattails oroverhanging trees are p~<;ent in an pollution, which may cause massive mortality among oxtx)W, whether canals or rivers are deep with steep fish and invertebrate populations in affected areas. banks or shallow with sloping banks, and so on. Stress, in particular fish kills due to slime spills, has Cowell et al. (1974) identities these live character been well studied in the Peace River (Ware and Fish istic fish communities in the lower Hillsborough 1969; Chapm,m 1973). Such events act ali ma'isive River detention area: reset buttons on the fish community by destroying as 1. The swamp forest community (little instream much a'i 91 % ofthe standing crop over long stretches current), characterized by 16 species. Common of the river. Recovery occurs through downstream members include the Florida gar (Lepisosteus migration and recruitment from tributary populations platyrhincus), bowfin (Amia calva), pugnose and upstream movements of catadromous or other minnow (Notropis emiliae), mosquitofish, least eurytolerant species. In one study the first evidence of killifish (Heterarulriajormosa), and sailtin molly. bass spawning was recorded 13 months after the spill 2. TIle swift-current community, represented by the (Ware and Fish 1969). Although many species golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), sailfin seemed to have reached a steady-state recovery in shiner (No/ropis hypselopterus), iron-color shiner terms of numbers by this time, total biomass of fish (Notropis chalybaeus), brook silverside (Labides still appeared to be increaliing, indicating that young thes sicculus), and rainwater killifish (Lucania fish had coloni7.ed. parva). 3. Shorelines vegetated by Egeria-Hydrilla, and Little is known about the factors controlling fish characterized by 19 species. including the yellow populations and study ofthese factors is needed. An bullhead (lctalurus natalis). brown bullhead (I. underst.-mding ofthe natural history ofthese species is nebulosus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), necessary before appropriate studies can be under golden topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus), and taken. The following discussion gives what we know flagfish (Jordanella jloridae). Many of the 19 about the natural history of the freshwater fishes of species are characteristic ofother habitat>; as well. the Tampa Bay watershed. Where factors affecting 4. Open waters haVing little current and supporting the success of these species are known, these are spatterdock (Nuphar sp.) and/or water hyacinth given ali well. (Eichhomia cra."!sipes), and characterized by 10 a. Acipenseridae. The Atlantic sturgeon species. Representative species include the (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) has recently been reported 224 6. Fauna
from Tampa Bay (Huff 1975; Layne et a!. 1977). 'Dlis common and generally restricted to larger, slower record represent<; the southemmost extent ofits nmge, moving bodies of water. which reaches to the Mississippi River on the gulf TIle garpossesses an air bladder that retains a wide coast and from the St. John's River of Florida to connection to the pharynx; an essential part of the Quebec on the Athmtic Coast. TIle Gulf of Mexico respiratory system. it allows the gar to do quite well in sturgeon (A. oxyrhynchus desotoi) ranges as far south oxygen-limited, stagnant waters. The gar's diet as Olarlotte Harbor ,md was numerous in Tampa Bay consists ofa variety ofliving and dead animal matter, in the late 1800's until depleted by commercial with fish dominating (Eddy 1969). One particularly fishing (Wooley and Crateau 1985). It is under interesting adaptation of the gar is the toxicity of it<; review for possible listing as endangered by the U.S. eggs to warm-blooded vertebrates. causing great Fish and Wildlife Service. distress ifingested (Eddy 1969). The sturgeon is an anadromous fish, inhabiting c. Amiidae. One species, the bowfin (Amia calva), coa"tal marine waters throughout much of the year represents this family. Like the gar, it is a widespread and migrating into freshwater rivers and streams to species occupying a variety of habitat'; from shallow spawn. In the southern part of its range, spawning marshes to canals to pools and runs. Dineen (1974) begins in February according to Gilbert (1976), who report,> finding adult bowfin burrowed into the moist believes that, although populations may be fairly peat soils during extreme droughts. Apparently the stable in most patts of its range, it is "severely de bowfin is capable of entering a state of prolonged pleted, or absent, from some areas where it once estivation to survive dry conditions. occurred," including Tampa Bay. Primary reasons for its reductions seem to be the elimination of, or In addition. the tx)wfin, or freshwater dogfish, a<; it obstructions in routes to. their preferred spawning is sometimes called, retains a connection between the streams. The species is presently listed as threatened air bladder and the pharynx which, like the gar, enabls by the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered it to use the air bladder a<.; a respiratory organ. Conse Plants and Animals, as a species ofspecial concern by quently. they may occasionally rise to the surface and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, take a breath of air. This allows them to live in and as under review (for possible listing) by the U.S. stab'11ant waters where oxygen may be limiting for Fish and Wildlife Service. It<; dependence upon large other fishes. They fced primarily on small animals rivers and streams for spawning make it particularly such a<.; crustaceans and small fishes. vulnerable to human alteration ofsuch areas. Wooley d. Elopidae. The tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) is and Crateau (1985) discuss the migrations. habitats, reported in both marine and freshwater habitats and exploitation of the Gulfof Mexico sturgeon. within the study area. Carrand Goin (1955) report the Th~ sturgeon is an omnivorous bottom feeder species as occurring al.ong both Florida coast<;and the consuming a wide variety of benthic invertebrates, entire Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the idflging from chironomid larvae, polychaete worms, United States. In Florida it invades freshwaters, and sludge worms to large crabs end mollusks utilizing rivers and canals that enter the ocean and (Gilbert 1976). gulf. Bays and estuaries, however, are the most commonly reported habitat in the Tampa Bay area. b. Lepisosteidae. The gars are represented by two species, the longnosc gar(Lepisosteus osseus) and the This species is widely sought alter as a game fish far more common Florida gar (L. platyrhincus). The because of its size (up to 300 pounds) and its fighting Florida gar occurs in nearly all aquatic habitat<;- ability. Adult tarpon prey upon smaller. schooling lakes, canals. marsh sloughs. ponds. cypress swamps, fishes. During its juvenile stages copepods and small and rivers. During high water, it may even move into fishes make up 90% of its diet Each year. ilie city of the mangrove swamps (Kushlan and Lodge 1974; Tampa holds a well-attended tarpon-fishing tourna Odum et al. 1982). The lOnb'11ose gar tends to be less ment. 225 Tampa Bay Ecological Charactarlzatlon
t'. Esocidae, Two sl')(':cics, the to americafllts aTflcr,icQnu" l and the chain plcker,~l sulJsequent resurgence of the niger), repn~.sent in the et aL and area. 'I'he former to 1979; Hardin and Aucrson 1980), Carp frC(lUC1'ltly water. Like all of the seck (Jut vegetation other than those '>, RT"'" (ilccnlCcJ and redl1n pickerel arc yom· undesirable. leading to significant in ''''''''''11'', (~jous almost any fishes small bmte fXlpulations, i1sh food. :md fish habitat These enough to cal. Ofthe two. the redf1n is smaller. readl' c!l::mg1es may in turn promote local in fish a rnl,udmum of lllxmt 30 em. 'nrc chain sm~cij::s composition and abundance and (':rcj may reach 60 em. GaS
report it as rare in pools, runs and glides and common tum, they are heavily preyed upon by sport fishes in riffles in the Peace River. Pirate perch reach a such as the sunfish and bass and wading birds such as maximum size ofabout 53 em. They are predaceous, woodstOJ:K and white ibis. Since killifishes are rapid feeding mostly on aquatic insects and other small invaders of newly flooded marshes, prairies, and aquatic animals (Eddy 1969). marginal wetlands, they facilitate the ability of these environments to feed and support fish and wildlife. m. Cyprinodontidae. Despite the fact that the cyprinodonts, or killifishes, are not an obligatory n. Poeciliidae. The topminnows or live bearers freshwater family, but secondary invaders, they are (poeciliidae) are represented by three native species, represented by nine native species plus a few the ubiquitous mosquitofish (Gambusia qffinis), the aquarium escapees. 11l0se members of the killifish least killifish (Heterandriajormosa), and the sailfin family found inhabiting freshwater habitat within the molly (Poecilia latipinna); and four aquarium escap watershed include the sheepshead minnow (Cyprino ees, the swordtail molly (P. petenensis), liberty molly don variegatu.."i), the golden topminnow (Fundulus (P. sphenops), black molly (P. latipinna x velifera), chrysotus), the banded topminnow (P. cingulatus), and the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Two of these marsh killifish (P. confluentus), the Seminole killifish species, the mosquitofish and sailfm molly, are eury (P. seminolis), the starhead topminnow (F. notti haline, occupying a range of habitats from lake (=lineolatus), the flagfish (.Iordanella jloridae), the mar!,rins to salt marshes. The least killifish is abun goldspotted killifish (Floridichthys carpio), the dant in shallow marshes, prairies, and freshwater pygmy killifish (Leptolucania ommata), the bluefin pockets within mangrove swamps, but is seldom killifish (Lucania goodei), the rainwater killifish (L. found in brackish waters. According to Kushlan and parva), and the diamond killifish (Adinia xenica). Lodge (1974), it prefers thick emergent or submerged Three other srx:cies within the family, the gulf killi vegetation. fish (Fundulus grandis), the striped killifish (F. Along with the killifishes, members of the majalis), and the longnose killifish (F. similis), are Poeciliidae family playa key role in the diet ofbirds generally restricted to more saline conditions of the and sport fishes ofcentral and southern Florida. They bay and estuaries, but may be found well up the major feed primarily on small insects, crustaceans, and tributaries as far as saline conditions extend. The attached periphyton. The size range and upturned sheepshead minnow, marsh killifish, and diamond mouths are very similar among members of both killifish may also fall into this group. families. Poecilids generally avoid the problem of losing eggs to desiccation by internal fertilization and In addition to the generally euryhaline background development. The female carries the developing eggs ofthe killifish family, they also adapt well to fluctuat until they hatch and the young fish emerge alive. ing water levels. Because of their generally small size, they exploit extremely shallow waters and may o. Clariidae. One species, the walking catfish even invade underground channels in bedrock (Clarias batrachus), makes up this secondary family limestone during dry conditions. The upturned offish. Originally imported from South America as a mouths of many of the killifishes allow them to curiosity for aquarium owners, the potential impact of extract oxygen from the thin surface layers ofshallow the spread of walking catfish in Florida is consider ponds when deeper waters are otherwise devoid of able. These fish are capable ofmoving overland from oxygen (Carr 1973; Kushlan 1974). drying ponds to other bodies ofwater. They can also burrow into bottom sediments during periods of Perhaps because of their success in exploiting drought or cold weather and remain dormant for many aquatic habitats ofthe study area, the killifishes months (Courtenay 1970). As they congregate in reJ?resent a fundamental ecological link between pri drying ponds, they may devourall animal life within a mary and tmphicaUy higher fish and wildlifespecies. few weeks, leaving little food for native fish and wild Their diet consists of a mixture of plant and animal life species. However, the catfish itselfmay serve as a tissue ranging from periphyton to insect larvae. In food source for larger species (Duever et al. 1979). 228 6. Fauna
p. Cichiidae. Eight of the species of exotic fish r. Clupeidae. The herring family is also peripheral currently established in south-central Florida are to fresh waters; only two of four species found in the members ofthe tropical secondary freshwater family area are characterized as principally freshwater Cichlidae. A highly diversified group, the cichlids are dwellers. These are the gizzard shad (Dorosoma considered to be in many ways the tropical ecological cepedianum) and the threadfin shad (D. petenense). counterpart of the centrarchids (sunfish family). Rather large, these omnivorous fish tend to frequent Members ofthis family are generally well adapted for canals, rivers, channels, and open waters, where they survival, due to their ability to withstand drought, feed on plankton. Though considered a freshwater their highly developed system of parental care of species, they may use brackish waters as well. The young, and their general aggressiveness. The ability shad prefer slow-moving or sluggish waters. Some to withstand drought makes them especially competi authorities regard gizzard shad as an indicator ofpoor tive in south Florida. The Centrarchidae comprise a water-quality conditions. Attempts have been made freshwater family that reaches the southern limit ofit,;; to selectively remove the less desirable shad from range in south Florida in habitats characterized by area lakes (Lake Tarpon) by rotenone treatments seasonal drought, to which the family is poorly (phillippy 1964). adapted (Kushlan 1974). It is anticipated that the s. Belonidae. The Atlantic needlefish (Strongy spread ofcichlids will be at the expense of the native lura marina) is a primarily estuarine species that eentrarchids. The range expansion of the jewel fish occasionally enters freshwaters. Ware and Fish (Hemichromis bimaculatus), already widespread (1969) report only rarely encountering this species in throughout southern Florida, was aided by its toler pool habitat,;; along water courses entering the estuary. ance of brackish water and its use of the extensive t. Anguillidae. Although the American eel (Ang canal system ofthe interior. The interactions and fate uilla rostrata) belongs to a family peripheral to fresh ofthe exotic and native fish fauna ofsouthern Florida waters, it is a common inhabitant ofarea rivers (Ware should be a matter of concern in the area of Florida and Fish 1969; Dames and Moore 1975). The eel is a just south of the Tampa Bay watershed. It is likely catadromous species, living in freshwaters but spawn that survival of cichlids farther north will be increa'i ing in marine waters. When the young migrate into ingly limited by their intolerance of cold. However, the estuaries, the males remain in brackish waters, in spite ofthis, Texas Instruments (1978b) reports the while only the females proceed upstream, mostly mouth-breeding blue tilapia (Tilapea aurea) consti traveling at night. The eels remain here 5 to 7 years tuting a,;; much as 30% of the fish biomass of open until they are sexually mature. Upon migrating river waters during an October sampling in the Peace downstream, the mature females join the males and River. move offshore to spawn (Eddy 1969). Eels are q. A;therinidae. The silversides are a family omnivorous, feeding on all kinds ofanimal food, both periphe'ral to freshwaters. Only one ofthe tWo species dead and alive. reported from the Tampa area, the brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus), is found in freshwaters. The 6.3.2 Estuarine and Marine Fishes tidewater silverside (Menidia beryllina), as the name During the last 25 years, numerous studies have suggests, is more estuarine in its habit,>. The former been conducted regarding the community structure, fish occurs in open canals, lakes, clear-water ponds, distribution, and migration ofthe fishes in and around and deep cypress sloughs throughout the study area. Tampa Bay. Investigations centered along coastal ar According to Layne et al. (1977), the brook silverside eas and in lowerTampa Bay include those ofMoe and is an important biological indicator species of Martin (1965) offshore ofPinella,;; County; Fable and unpolluted conditiop.s. Brook silversides anchor their Saloman (1974) along the coastal beaches in Pinellas eggs in gravel bottoms on long filaments (Texas In County; Saloman and Naughton (1979) between struments 1978b). Long Key and Clearwater pass; and McNulty et al. 229 Tampa Bay Ecological CharaelfarlzaUol'l
It hll.'; been that around 90'% of all the important. and Ihc Gulf of Mexico use estuaries al some time in their For many are most vital as a nrO'ICCI- nursery area for larvae and The nursery function from the high productivity of estuar ies. which provides an abundant source of food to larvae and juveniles. ll.s well as through restricting the numbers of predator species to those capable of withstanding the curyhaline conditions. 121 of shows the distribution in Tampa Bay of the juveniles ofsome fish species.
'nlC timing ofsplnllning in the Gulfof Mexico and subsequent sea':;onal movement of the young into Tampa Bay coincidcs with summer. the period of highest estuarine production. A second peak in numbers of fish larvac occurs in late summer and fall and involvcs [ewer "I"...... '". an (i;(C(;UenUIJIlu:mtlry don One ofthe major questions in this general model of bCtWti(1'H t1'StIIiU'il:141' hiilbil,U& t~stuarinc dctx:ndcncc is how weak-swimming larvae dt;trUU(iOud COltSCjilll(::nt~~s their wuy into eSluaries against the nct outllov,i of water. Mimy investigators have s!'l()wn that larvae reglll~11ic their vcrti"u distribution in the wlltcr colum n to advantage of differential now gmdicms thai are tcmpomrily available in a two-layered system oyer a tidld (Robison 1985). Given the physical Sililill10n. individuals out bouom watcrs at all limes to have a greater probability of moving upper bay waters than those in the upper water column. However, the ('act that many common cstua· exhibit distinct tx:havioral pref(~rences for
Sllv~" p('f('h lJay ltfKhavy 5th,,, ,!tltll)' Sh'"9d1.,1td m!nMw Plnnllh SJXl'1 Strlpm mu!ld JI'MAMJJAS(}N!) l\toolh Flgurel2L Sea-sona! distribution of selected wirhin nursery areas of Ta.mpa Bay
230 6. Fauna certain depths (not all on the bottom) strongly minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), sailfin molly suggests that other factors must be involved in the (Poecilia latipinna), flagfish (Jordanella floridae), migratory process. Studies of circulation and the and rainwater killifish (Lucama parva). interaction of wind and current on smaller spatial As a group, these fishes represent an important scales are necessary to determine these factors. trophic link for many otherfish and wildlife. They are The seasonal movement of adult fishes in and out omnivorous, feeding on small invertebrates and huval ofthe estuary is similarto those ofthejuveniles in that fishes as well as on mangrove debris and algae. peaks in relative aboodance generally occur in the During high water, members ofthis community may spring and early fall (Comp 1985). Decreases in move downstream where they become the prey of relative abundance are apparent from the onset oflow larger fishes such as snook, tarpon, ladyfish, Florida water temperatures in December through February, gar, and mangrove snapper. During low water the when many species apparently migrate to the gulfor community members tend to concentrate in receding to the deeper areas ofthe bay. pools and ponds where wading birds such as herons, egrets, white ibis, and woodstork may feed upon Seasonal salinity variation is generally regarded as them. the main influence around which estuarine fish communities are organized. Temperature, substrate, b. Tidal stream and river community. Where and the influence of detritus have also been noted as coastal streams provide a continuous connection important background factors (Odum et al. 1982). between upstream fresh (or fresher) waters and down Based on these factors, Odum et al. (1982) identify stream estuaries, a second fish community can be the following four characteristic fish assemblages in defined. This is the tidal stream and rivercommunity; south-west Florida estuaries (Figure 122): it supports a larger number and wider variety of fish 1. The basin mangrove forest community. species than the basin mangrove forest community. 2. The tidal stream and river community. Seasonal oscillations ofenvironmental conditions and 3. The estuarine bay fringing community. the relative ease ofmovement between upstream and 4. The oceanic bay community. downstream habitat,; create a diverse system habit able to a variety ofspecies during one or more stages a. Basin mangrove forest community. The basin in their life cycles (Odum et al. 1982). mangrove forest community occurs within the estua rine wetlands (salt marshes and mangroves) where During the wet season the influx of freshwater depressions hold a combination of rainwater, runoff, brings with it many fishes that are characteristic of tidal overflow, and saline groood water. The fishes upstream marshes and sloughs. These include the that occupy these basin mangrove communities Florida gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus), several consist largely ofthe euryhaline killifishes (Cyprino members of the centrarchid family such as sunfish dontidae) and livebearers (Poeciliidae) discussed (Lepomis spp.), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), the yellow bullhead (lctalurus natalis), previously for freshwater communities. Water depth the tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), the bluefin is generally very low (0.3-1 m) and the mud substrate killifish (Lucania goodei), and the rivulus (Rivulus is generally high in hydrogen sulfide and low in marmoratus) (Dames and Moore 1975, Odum et al. dissolved oxygen (0-2 mg/L). The selection pressure 1982) Fish species which commonly spend a portion in such a setting obviously favors euryhaline charac oftheir life cycle in the mangrove-lined tidal streams teristics and high tolerance to low oxygen concentra and rivers of the Tampa Bay watershed include the tions. killifishes (Cyprinodontidae), livebearers (Poecili Remarkably, the members of this community are idae), silversides (Atherinidae), mojarras (Gerreidae), permanent residents, completing their life cycles tarpon (Elopidae), snook (Centropomidae), snappers wit.llln this harsh setting. Important members of this (Lutjculidae), sea catfishes (Ariidae), gobies (Gobii community are the mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), dae), porgys (Sparidae), mullet (Mugilidae), drums marsh killifish (Fundulus confluentus), sheepshead (Sciaenidae), and anchovies (Engraulidae). 231 tr.t Q.i ~ ~1 ~10 ~-..... 4~ ~7 .-I: 11~ ::I 2- ~ ~o o~ 5 8~ sa Q oj 3 12 '0 e0 ~3 ~9 l» ~ 6Q lXl l» '< .c 0 m tr.t ~Jilll'/IIlI Black mangrove Riverine fringing Estuarine bay Oceanic bay r.. 8 I\) basin forest community community community ~ (",) n I\) - !!!. o :r High Salinity variability -.,.- Low ...l» -- l» .. 51 ...III
High ~ Relative importance of mangrove detritus in food web Low ~ -- -- 0- -- ;::, Muddy, high organic ~-- Substrate -,.--- Largely sandy Gradients
1) Rivulus 4) Juvenile sheepshead 7) Silver perch 10) Lemon shark 2) Mosquito fish 5) Tidewater silverside 8) Pig fish 11) Gold-spotted killifish 3) Marsh killifish 6) Sheepshead minnow 9) Blackcheek tongue fish 12) Southern stingray
Figure 122. Estuarine fish communities (after Odum et aI. 1982). r 6. Fauna
During the dry season, higher salinities force fresh (Pomadasyidae), mojarras (Gerrcidae), snappers water fonns farther upstream and allow marine fishes (Lutj,midae), the SIX;Clt;S HP"",l!" ma,kirlj,?; up to 98% of the se,1l'>()lnal ebb in terms of numbers of and individuals Crable 'I1lC more common (JOlin iilanlts include the scaled sar,dinc, piini1sh. 6.4 Amphibians and Reptiles and The sh<;~reline similar. except thaI gulf and n()rtll(~m kirl}:;fish Habitat~spccilicstudies on herpclOfauna within th{~ pompano lend to be more common. arc particularly comnwn the lower while Tampa Bay watershed alnmd'{1m't.', co/l('ct('d if! st'lt;c1(;'ti ar(:as n:p're.I:e;m:cd by those (uia.pted Ma,>tlmo Point Big Bend McKay Bay (McNulty €It ••1 1 1 \;j(:i1lElUl~er and PriO.l. Tidewater silverside Striped mullet Longnos~ killifish Bay anchovy Spot Scaled sardine Pinfish 8S"'k of catch 91% of catch 92'7{; of catch '~''''·<,_.<"'·U''O ¥' , •.,'"."" •• ,. 234 6. Fauna From these records, a total of 94 species---27 am modified structures, may be the reason for low phibian,,>, including 8 salamanders and 19 frogs; and species numbers in the latter. 67 reptiles, including the alligator. 18 turtles. 1 Among the true forest-type habitat"" pine-turkey amphisbaenid, 17 lizards and 31 snakes-may be oak and typical flatwoods support the majority of expected to be found within the Tampa Bay water species, followed in descending order by live oak shed. This diverse and complex assemblage of spe hammocks, groves/parklands/etc., mesic hammock, cies comprise over 60% of the total herpetofauna s,md pine scrub, scrubby flatwoods, cabbage palm recorded for the State. The estimated distribution ,md hammocks, and bay forests. Reptiles abound here. relative abundance ofeach species by habitat, accord especially those adapted to burrowing. The sand pine ing to Layne et al. (1977), are shown for terrestrial scrub and pine-turkey oak habitats may support dense reptiles in Appendix Table A-14. for wetl Figure 123. Relative abundance ofamphibian ,md reptile species in various habitat categories within the Tampa Bay watershed. requirement~, as for many amphibians and reptiles, As for other faunal and floral groups, the geologi may vary sea..'IDnaUy in response to behavioral and cal history of central Florida and the geographical developmental adaptations to perfonn reproductive position ofthe peninsula in relation to the main conti and thennoregulatory functions. Forexample, amphi ncntalland mass of North America affects the rate of bians, in general, require aquatic habitats to invasion and the distribution of the herpetofauna. reproduce. Terrestrial species exemplified by toads General discussions of geographical origins and (Bufo, Gastrophryne) and arboreal species of Hyla affinities of the Florida herpetofauna are included in tend to be dependent on the rains oflate spring and Carr (1940), Neill (1954), Goin (1958), and Telford summer for reproduction and use the more ephemeral (1965). The majority ofthe species have invaded the ponds where predation and competition pressures peninsula from the southeastern Atlantic Coastal may be lower (McDiarmid and Godly 1974). Plain. Not all of these species that occur through Riparian and semiaquatic frogs (e.g., Acris and Rana much ofFlorida have diverged morphologically from spp.)oftcn use more pennanentwaters and tend to populations elsewhere. Examples of such species in have prolonged breeding and/or developmental the study area are the spadefoot toad, stinkpot turtle, periods. six-lined racerunner lizard, southeastern five-lined 236 6. Fauna skink, eastern hognose snake, and coachwhip snake. once endemic, are currently extending their ranges Boyles (1966) concludes that these species have been northward into southern Georgia (Layne et al. 1977). present on the GulfCoastal Plain and in Florida with Other species that, although not endemic, underwent out prolonged geographic isolation. much of their evolution in the Florida peninsula Many other species have invaded Florida from the before invading parts ofthe southeastern GulfCoastal west along the GulfCoastal Plain (Neill 1957). Their Plain include the dwarf siren, pig frog, gopher closest relationships are with species or larger taxo tortoise, Florida softshell turtle, mole skink, island nomic groups now found in the southwestern United glass lizard, and black swamp snake. States, Mexico, and Central America. Examples of As the land in central Florida was periodically this group in the Tampa Bay area include the ground isolated during past fluctuations in sea level, the true skink, pine woods snake, eastern indigo snake, pine Florida endemics and the "semi-endemics" that snake, coral snake, and eastern diamondback rattle moved northward during a drop in sea level could snake. have been isolated and differentiated from their Still otherspecies that have been recorded from the parental stocks, or they may represent relict popula area are forms whose ranges extend throughout tropi tions of species that were once widespread but now cal regions of the Western Hemisphere. These extinct elsewhere. It is significant that most of these include the American crocodile, Atlantic green turtle, species are burrowers in sand or mud, and that all of Atlantic loggerhead, Atlantic ridley, and Atlantic the true endemics except the Florida red-bellied turtle leatherback. are characteristic of sandhill and sand pine scrub habitats. Ofthe seven exotics in the Tampa Bay watershed, the greenhouse frog, Cuban treefrog, and the brown Populations of some species that invaded the anole have West Indian affinities. These three species Florida peninsula in earlier geologic times have are fairly widely distributed in Florida and inhabit differentiated to form new races, presumably as a natural as well as human-modified habitats. result of adaptation to subtropical environments, and Duellman and Schwartz (1958) speculate that the probably more importantly, isolation from parent invasion ofnatural habitats by these species indicates stocks (Neill 1957). Species with peninsular subspe eitherthatthey have been present in Florida for longer cies include the newt, snapping turtle, mud turtle, than otherintroduced species orare more adaptable to cooter, scarlet snake, king snake, mole skink, banded the environmental conditions present. Neill (1957) wat,er snake, black swamp snake, rat snake, suggest,> that their success may simply reflect the kingsnake, and crowned snake. These different races presence ofnear-tropical habitats that are unoccupied often possess subtle differences in habitat require by amppibians and reptiles of temperate stocks. Of ments. Ofspecial significance is the fact that on the the otherexotic species, the giant toad may have been Lake Wales Ridge, part of which lies in Polk County, introduced from almost anywhere in the Caribbean or three reptiles have differentiated populations: the Gulf of Mexico, while the gecko and the Mediterra worm lizard, blue-tailed mole skink, and the penin nean gecko are found in tropical regions around the sula crowned snake. world. The Texas homed lizard is native to the south Florida has an unusually large marine and brackish western United States. water herpetofauna. Reasons for this include its long All of the endemic Florida herpetofauna, with the coast line and numerous islands; low, flat topography, exception of the rim rock crowned snake, occur in which accounts for subtle stream gradients that might parts or all of the Tampa Bay watershed. These allow inland species to gradually adapt to brackish endemic species are the Florida red-bellied turtle, water conditions; repeated inundations during its Florida scrub lizard, sand skink, worm lizard, short history, forcing some species into saltwater habitUs tailed snake, and crowned snake. Two other species, and favoring the sUIVival of those that could adapt; the striped mud turtle and the striped swamp snake, oligohaline waters formed as a result of the gradual 237 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization solution of salt deposiL~ left in interglacial periods, wading-bird use spoil Hirth and Marion which may serve a" wnes of evolutionary adaptive (1979) on birds south Florida exchan.ge between freshwater and saltwater (Odum Woolfenden and Schre.iber (1973) on birds in the 1953); and the gcner&1 diversity of saltwater habitats lower Hillsborough River area. and CUlright (1981 along the coa"t, Funhennore. the rich and varied on bird use in terrestrial habitat'i, Layne e1 aL nature ofthe resident herpctofauna increases the like· present a summary of infomlation on the vertebrate Uh\xx! that some native species will adapt to saltwater fauna of the are.a which includes birds in the interior habitats (Neill 1958). and lower portions of the watershed. Paul and According to Layne et at (1977). almost one-third Woolfcnden (1985) summarize the birds of the of the amphibil:ms and reptiles in the study area aR~ Tampa Bay estuary, known to occur in saline habitats (Appendix Tabies For our discussion, the avifauna have been divided A-IS and A-I This list indudcK't 2 frogs, the Ameri· into the following six guilds. based on "I'fll'r:ll can ldligator, 11 turtles (inclUding 4 sea turtles and the similarities in habilat usc: btult" c()a<;t box turtle. 1 lizard. I skink. and 10 snakes 1. Forest artx,real birds. (including the mangrove Wli(Cr smtkc and the Ever· 2. Wading biRIs. glad(.~ nlt snake). A recent review of reptiles of the 3. Floating and diving WaleI' birds. Tampa Bay estuary (Reynolds and Patton 1(85) list 4. Birds of prey, only seVt'tl COllsldered exclusively estuariflC 5. Probing shorebirds, or marine depcndt~nl. Five are marin(~ turtles. includ· 6. Aerially se.arching birds. ing the Athmlk hawksbill. Athtnllc gre.en turtle. 111is scheme has been adopted since it seems more Albmk loggerllCad. Alhlnt.ic ridley, and the Atlantic descriplivc than other schemes such ;;IS Robert.,>on Table 42. Amphibians and rl?ptiles (~fbiological sigfl!ficancc. Reason for status as Amphibians Lesser siren (Siren intermedia) At southern limit of its range Dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus) Taxonomic uncertainty; wetland dependence Southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) Narrow habitat requirements; at southern limit of range Slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) Narrow habitat requirements; at southern limit of range Dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata) At southern limit of range Eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrook,) Narrow habitat preference when not breeding Giant toad (Buto marinus) Potentially negative effect on native fauna Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionatis) Potentially negative effect on native fauna BUllfrog (Rana catesbeiana) At southern limit of range Pig frog (Rana grylio) Commercially valuable Green frog (Rana clamitans) At or beyond southern limit of known range Florida gopher frog (Rana capito) Listed by FCREPA as threatened Reptiles American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Listed by FCREPA as threatened Sported turtle (Clemmys guttata) Listed by FCREPA as rare; at southern range limit Box turtle (Terrapene carolina) Intergradational populations taxonomically significant Diamondback terrapin (Malac!emys terrapin) Mangrove quality indicator species Suwannee cooter (Chrysemys floridana) Listed by FCREPA as threatened Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Listed by FCREPA as threatened Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas) Listed by FCREPA as endangered Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta) Listed by FCREPA as threatened Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi,) Listed by FCREPA as endangered Atlantic leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea coriacea) Listed by FCREPA as endangered Florida softshell turtle (Trionyx terox) Commercially valuable; biological interest re: breathing physiology Green anoia (Anolis carolinensis) Presence of morphologically different populations Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) At southern range limit Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus wood,) Listed by FCREPA as rare; narrow habitat requirement Broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps) At southern range limit Mole skink (Eumeces egregius) Listed by FCREPA as threatened; of evolutionary interest Blue-tailed mole skink (Eumeces egregius lividus) Listed by FCREPA as threatened; of evolutionary interest Sand skink (Neoseps reynolds,) Listed by FCREPA as threatened; narrow habitat requirements Worm lizard (Rhineura flor/dana) Endemic genus at southern range limit Banded water snake (Nerodia tasciata tasciata) Wetland-quality indicator species; sensitive Striped crayfish snake (Regina alieni) Wetland dependent, eats crayfish extensively Black swamp snake (Seminatr/x pygaea) Southern and northem races intergrade Florida red·bellied snake (Storeria occipitomaculata obscura) At extreme southern limit of range Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) At southern limit of range Pine Woods snake (Rhadinaea flavilata) At southern range limit; habitat specificity Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais coupen) Listed by FCREPA as threatened Short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum) Listed by FCREPA as endangered; endemiomonotypicgenus Florida crowned snake (Tantilla relicta) At southern range limit; two races present, habitat specific Pigmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius) _ Wet prairie indicator species 239 Tampa Bay Ecological Character!zatlon with 9 species; and (3) the migrating ortransient birds drained and flooded the south Rorida Peninsula. This with 50 species. Robertson and Kushlan (1974) note trend is graphically expressed in Figure 124, which that approximately 60% of the total south Rorida shows 55 to 60 species of arboreal birds using the avifauna is migratory. study area for breeding purposes. Farther north as many as to breeding species are observed. This An additional 20 to 30species ofarboreal birds not 65 70 listed in Appendix Table A-16 are reported, but north-south trend is especially pronounced with considered accidental in the study area. These include respect to the passerine birds, while the number of those escapees (Le., exotic parrot<; and parakeets) now nonpasserine species compares fairly well to other living in the wild and vagrant birds that occasionally locations in the same latitude. wanderinto the area. The fonner include such species While these numbers describe a rather clear trend, as the canary-winged parakeet (Brotogeris versi they do not tell the full story, particularly with regard colurus), the monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus), to the effect of season upon species composition and and the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus), which abundance. Summeris the time ofminimum arboreal now actively breed in South Rorida. The latter in bird use in south Rorida. Most ofthe approximately clude a mixture of species such as the homed lark 27 migratory species breed somewhere farther north (Eremophilla alpestris), rufous hummingbird during these months, so few would be expected in the (Selasphorus rufus), yellow-headed blackbird study area. The number of species breeding during (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), and eastern mead the summer is also low (9-19), approximately 30% to owlark (Sturnella magna) more typical of the 60% fewer than during the winter. Notewolthy midwestern United States, and the spotted-breasted among these breeders are the approximately eight oriole (Icterus pectoralis), smooth-billed ani summer-only residents such as the nighthawk and the (Crotophaga am), and Bahama swallow (Tachyci ea,;;tem kingbird. In addition to lower species num neta cyaneoviridis) of Caribbean origin. bers during the summer, the actual density of indi Historically and ecologically, the south Rorida viduals is also lower than in winter. In winter, species Peninsula represent<; a relatively unfavorable area for the proliferation of arboreal birds. In addition to the paucity oftrue terrestrial habitats, the area is regarded as climatically unstable in the long-term geological sen<;e. These factors, along with the relative isolation ofthe peninsula, are believed to be the major reasons for a relatively depaupemte arboreal fauna in south Rorida. RoberL<;on and Kushlan (1974) summari7£ the situation as follows: In ourview, southern Rorida (and to a dimin ishing degree northward, the entire southeast) exist.,;; today as a sort of avifaunal vacuum, the hiatus between a continental land avifauna with drawing before an unfavorable climatic trend and a West Indian land avifauna delayed in reaching vacant and suitable habitat by a sea barrier and perhaps also by intrinsic qualities that make island birds poor colonizers of main land areas. Figure 124. Number of species of breeding land The "unfavorable climatic trend" refers to the sea birds in the Rorida Peninsula (after Robert<;an and level fluctuations ofthe Pleistocene, which alternately Kushlan 1974). 240 6. fauna diversity and bird density increase significantly. The Ofthe 49 species, 32 were permanent residents, 13 South Florida Research Center (1980) lists 44 species were winter-only residents and 4 were summer-only ofwinter-only residents. residents. Consistent with the above general trends, With regard to habitat use by both resident and the total number of species was high in the fall and migratory species, the most commonly used commu winter and low in spring and summer. nities appear to be pinelands and cypress or mixed Trophically speaking, granivores dominated swamp forests. This is probably a function of food during the summer while insectivores dominated in supply (primarily insects and seeds) and structural the winter. Compared to granivores and insectivores, diversity. relatively few omnivores and carnivores were In a quantitative study on bird communities in the observed. Table 43 presents a list of species by watershed, Hirth and Marion (1979) record 49 season and their trophic categories. arboreal species from a flatwoods area north of the The most important ground-feeding insectivore Manatee River. Vegetation was a mixture of slash during all seasons was the eastern meadowlark. pine, saw palmetto, and grassland, dotted with occa Canopy-feeding insectivores (e.g., pine and palm sionallive oak hammocks along small streams. warblers) were abundant in the winter. During the Table 43. Species andfeeding strategies offorest birds usingflatwoods in the Tampa Bay area (adaptedfrom Hirth andMarion 1979) Species and feeding strategies SeasonS Species and feeding strategies SeasonS Insectivores (cont.) Omnivores Common grackle (Quiscafus quiscufa) p Boat-tailed grackle (Q. major') p Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) p Northern mockingbird (Mimus pofyglottos) p American robin (Turdus migratorius) W Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus atei) W Insectivores P Eastern meadowlark (Stumella magna) P P Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) P P Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) P Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) P P Carolina wren.(Thryothorus iudovicianus) P W Loggerhead shrike (Lanius iudovicianus) P a P = Permanent Resident; W = Winter Resident; S =Summer Resident 241 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization summer, woodpeckers and brown-headed nuthatches In recent times (the last 150 years), wading bird became the second most abundant insectivores. Most numbers have fluctuated widely due to a combination ofthe granivores were ground feeders (Le., bobwhite, of factors, some natural and some human-induced. dove) owing to the extent of grassland habitat. Robertson and Kushlan (1974) estimate that in 1870. Cardinals and towhees were common in the brushier south Horida supported a population of approxi habitats. Two birds, the rufous-sided towhee and the mately 2,500.000 wading birds. By the early 1900's white-eyed vireo, are particularly abundant in the population had been reduced to around 500,000, scrubby flatwoods. mostly due to direct harvesting by plume hunters. Another generally less important factor was early 6.5.2 Wading Birds coastal development that eliminated some nesting habitat. The species that probably suffered the most A total of 19 species of wading birds, mostly from plume hunting was the roseate spoonbilL herons (order Ciconiiformes) and some cranes and their allies (order Gruiformes), from this group are Although it is listed in Appendix Table A-21 as found in the Tampa Bay watershed (Appendix Table occurring in the Tampa Bay area, its distribution in A-21). Like the arboreal avifauna, the interior south Horida is currently limited to Horida Bay. wetland-dependent avifauna is considered to have a When commercial hunting ceased, the wetland low number ofspecies. From the interior wetlands of bird populations began to increase. reaching a new nearby Cuba, 26 species are reported, as compared to peak ofaround 1.2 million birds by 1935. In the back 19 species from south Horida. The explanation for ground, however, the agricultural and urban develop this phenomenon is similar to that for arboreal avifau ment of south Florida was beginning in earnest. nal impoverishment. The long-term sea-level fluctua Within a period of25 years. considerable wading-bird tions of the Pleistocene have created, in the south habitat was consumed as water-control structures Horida peninsula, an unreliable freshwater wetland were built and wetlands drained, crops planted, and habitat that has been both periodically submerged and coa<;tal cities built. By 1940 an estimated total ofonly considerably drier than at present. In contrast, 300,000 wading birds remained in south Horida. saltwater and brackish wetlands have been much More recently, this downward trend appears to have more constant. It is not surprising. therefore. that stabilized at around 125,000 to 130,000 (Robertson Robertson and Kushlan (1974) speculate that this area and Kushlan 1974; Kushlan and White 1977). is probably best exploited by mobile populations of Table 44 present<; a summary ofthe total numbers wading birds. most of which arc also, and perhaps of nests of wading birds observed in the'Tampa Bay primarily, estuarine. Consistent with this view is the area from 1976 to 1978. Because of variations in fact that the coastal nnd estuarine avifauna is essen timing and intensity of breeding coupled with tiaUy identical to the coa<;tal and estuarine avifauna sampling inconsistencies. these numbers cannot be elsewhere in the region. Robertson and Kushlan used as accurate population estimates. However, the (1974) hypothesize that breeding wading birds move numbers do indicate relative levels of density and into and exploit freshwater wetlands when conditions breeding activity for the study area. promote their feeding and reproductive needs. Relatively few species (e.g., cattle egret, white ibis, The growth, reproduction, and maintenance of and woodstork) actually appear to prefer freshwater wading-bird populations depend upon the area's nesting sites to brackish ones. In drought or flood capacity to produce the necessary fish and other years, the birds tend to rely onthe more stable produc foods. In this regard, both the availability ofphysical tivity of the mangrove zone (Odum et a1. 1982). habitat (shallow wetlands) and suitable hydrologic Superimposed onto these natural trends are coastal conditions (amount of rainfall and seasonality) are and wetland development, which may force some essential factors. The first factor is essential for species to seek out less than optimal breeding and adequate fish production, in that shallow ponds, feeding habitats. marshes, wet prairies, or sloughs arc important for 242 6. fauna Table 44. Number ofwading birdnests by county in the Tampa Bay watershedfrom 1976to 1978(adaptedfrom Nesbittetal.1982). County ._------Common name Pasco Pinellas Sarasota Manatee Hillsborough Total Cattle egret 450 1,237 35 3,200 12,300 17,222 White ibis 17 1,250 9,230 10,497 Wood stork 150 150 Great egret 586 100 700 184 1,570 Snowy egret + 100 200 502 802 Great blue heron 79 29 88 47 243 Little blue heron 25 100 349 474 Tricolored heron + + 50 400 450 Glossy ibis + 300 300 Green heron 7 7 Black-crowned night heron 400 400 Yellow-crowned night heron 314 315 Roseate spoonbill 15 15 + = present but uncounted. producing large populations of small fish and cray "mature" islands with trees and shrubs, the canopy fish. layer may be heavily used by great blue herons, great In general, the biggest threats to this linkage egrets, and woodstorks. The subcanopy layeris more between fish and birds are the mining ofwetlands for attractive to greenherons, little blue herons, tricolored phosphate rock, the draining of wetlands for agricul herons, reddish egrets, black- and yellow-crowned tural development, and suburban development in and night herons, white ibis, glossy ibis, and roseate around wetlands. On the positive side, however, of20 spoonbills. All ofthese species need to be left undis nesting sites identified in Polk County, 6 were located turbed during their breeding seasons and many need in reclaimed phosphate mines and 6 were located in shallow areas for feeding. Many spoil islands are water impoundments. Only eight were located in lacking in one orboth ofthese characteristics. natural habitats. This reflects a combination offorces and responses by wading bird populations to adapt to 65.3 Floating and Diving Water Birds changing or altered situations. In order to survive in this changing environment, wading-bird species must A list of46 floating and diving water birds that use possess the flexibility to exploit these new habitats. habitats of the Tampa Bay watershed appears in Although the relative species abundance and compo Appendix Table A-22 (I11978c). Members of this sition may be affected, it is encouraging that wading guild come from five taxonomic orders: the pelicans birds show sustained usage ofmining sites reclaimed and their allies (Pelecanifonnes), the waterfowl as wetlands (Nesbitt et al. 1982). Sites reclaimed to (Anserifonnes), the gallinules and coot (Gruiformes), deep lakes orpastures do not exhibit the same degree the loons (Gaviifonnes), and the grebes (podicipedi ofwildlife value. fonnes). Fartherdownstream, in estuarine waters, Schreiber The pelicans are represented by two species, the and Schreiber (1978) note a similartrend in the use of brown (?elecanus occidentalis) and the white (P. ery dredged-spoil islands by nesting waders. On older, throrhynchos). Aside from the obvious morphologic 243 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization differences between the two, the brown and white whistling duck, which feeds nocturnally on both differ in theirmethods offeeding. The brown pelican aquatic and terrestrial vegetation. Like surface- dives from a height ofabout 10 meters for small fish feeding ducks, they tip and feed from the surface. in estuarine and nearshore waters. An accomplished Bay ducks (subfamily Aythyinae) include the glider, this bird is frequently seen skimming along scaup, redhead, ring necked duck, and bufflehead. only a few centimeters above the surface ofthe water. These ducks seem to preferprotected coa<;tal bays and The white pelican, on the other hand, does not dive at river mouths for their wintering grounds. Unlike the all, but feeds in shallow waters by scooping up fish surface feeders, bay ducks dive beneath the water with it<; large bill. Whereas brown pelicans seldom surface where they swim in search offoOO. Generally soar, the white pelicans may be seen at great heights they eat more animal food than the surface feeders. migrating in large V-shaped formations. White peli- cans also inhabit freshwater lakes, unlike the more Stiff-tailed ducks (subfamily Oxyurinae) are repre- exclusively marine brown pelicans (Nesbitt et al. sented by only one occasional species, the ruddy 1982). shelduck. This small, stubby duck sits rather low in Two other important members ofthis order are the the water and dives for its predominantly animal food. double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) It appears in Florida from late October to early May. and the anhinga (Anhinga anhinga). Both species are Mergansers (subfamily Merginae) are represented fish eaters that dive from the surface and swim under- by the red-breasted merganser, the common mergan- water. It is generally thought that the cormorant ser, and, infrequently, the hooded merganser. The prefers coastal waters, while the anhinga is exclu- mergansers have long, thin bills, modified for seizing sively a freshwater species. However, Nesbitt et al. fish while they swim beneath the surface. The red- (1982) report numerous cormorants nesting almost breasted merganser seldom comes to inland water exclusively in the freshwater wetlands of Polk bodies, preferring the coastal waters instead. As with County, and anhingas may nest on barrier islands. other migratory ducks, the mergansers are found only The waterfowl (family Anatidae) consist of eight during the winter months. subfamilies. Two of these subfamilies, the swans Factors affecting waterfowl populations in the (subfamily Cygninae) and the geese (subfamily study area have been investigated by Gasaway and An..serinae), are not included in the following discus- Drda (1977), Montalbano et a1. (1978, 1979), sion. Visits to the Tampa Bay area by members of Ga<;away et al. (1979), Wenner (1979), Schnoes and these two groups are rare and accidental. Humphrey (1980), and Machr (1981). The percent- Surface-feeding ducks (subfamily Anatinae) age and type of vegetation cover, as well as the include the mallard, black duck, mottled duck, wood presence of grass carp (CtenopharyngodJJn idella), duck, teals, shoveler, American wigeon, gadwall, and have been shown to influence waterfowl production. pintail. These ducks do not generally dive, but rather The presence ofwater hyacinths, though good for fish tip up vertically to feed on vegetation, infauna, and and invertebrate production, is not desirable for ducks small fish in shallow waters. Most of these species and coots (Duke and Chabreck 1976). However, move between fresh and brackish waters, while a few hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) has been shown to (wood duck and American wigeon) prefer fresh provide a substantial portion of the diet of omnivo- water. Most ofthese ducks are winter residents only. rous ducks (Montalbano et al. 1979). Through its However, according to Sprunt (1954), the Florida indirect effects on hydrilla, the grass carp has been duck (Anas fuivigula fulvigula), a subspecies of the shown to degrade waterfowl habitat (Gasaway and mottled duck, is a permanent year-round resident of Drda 1977; Gasaway et aI. 1979), by reducing other peninsular Florida. vegetation and invertebrate and fish populations. Tree ducks, or whistling ducks, (subfamily Properly reclaimed phosphate mines may prove to be :Dendrocygninae) are represented by the shy fulvous very useful waterfowl habitat (Gilbert et al. 1981). 244 6. Fauna The cranes and their allies (order Gruiformes) are species of the order Falconiformes (hawks, eagles, represented by three of the most abundant floating and vultures) are included in this group, along with six and diving water birds of the florida gulf coast, the species ofowls (orderStrigiformes), and the magnifi common gallinule, the purple gallinule, and the cent frigatebird (order Pelecaniformes). American coot. These birds, which are permanent The vultures (family Cathartidae) are represented residents, exhibit characteristics somewhat intermedi by two species, the turkey vulture and the black ate between wading birds and floating birds. It is not vulture. Theirseemingly effortless glidingtakes them uncommon to see gallinules and coots feeding along overvirtually all habitats in search ofcarrion. Despite the edges of shallow waters, sometimes wading, the fact that they spend muchoftheirtime cleaning up sometimes floating. Their diet consists of a mixture road kills, they are seldom the victim of such acci of aquatic insects, benthic infauna, and vegetation. dents. The turkey vulture is more abundant than the As it is with the omnivorous ducks, Hydrilla proves to black vulture. be a very significant food source for the coot (Montalbano et al. 1979). The common and purple Another species that frequently associates with gallinules tend to be found in freshwaters only during vultures in south florida is the crested caracara the nesting season, moving to brackish waters during (Polyborus planeus). This bird, a member of the the winter months. Falconidae family, is a subtropical species having the greater part of its range farther west in Mexico and Another resident floating and diving water bird is Central America. Like the vultures, it feeds on the pied-billed grebe (family Podicipediformes). The carrion, though it flies much less and tends to restrict pied-billed grebe is a small bird that prefers shallow itself to open prairies, agricultural lands, and scrub freshwaters and rarely moves into brackish areas. Its habitat~. diet consists of about half fish and crayfish and the Another group ofpredatory birds that uses a broad other half insects (Sprunt 1954). An accomplished swimmer and rather JXX>r flyer, it frequently escapes range ofhabitats are the members ofthe Accipitridae danger overhead by diving. The grebe nests from family (hawks and eagles). The swallow-tailed kite, mid-April to September. Increased numbers ofbirds the red-tailed hawk, the red-shouldered hawk, and the in the winter indicates that there is some migration of short-tailed hawk are primarily forest dwellers, the population. preferring to nest in cypress, pine, or oak trees. The largest of the four, the red-tailed hawk, feeds The last group of floating and diving birds is the predominantly upon small mammals (meadowmice), family Gaviidae (loons), of which only one species, reptiles, insects, and crawfish. Small birds make up the common loon, occurs with any seasonal regular another 10% ofits diet. As its prey suggests, this bird ity. Arriving in late October or early November and is a frequent visitor to upland prairies and marshes as departing by April or May, the common loon spends well as forests. The swallow-tailed kite prefers a most of its time in coastal bays. An exceptional combination of prairies, open pine glades, and swimmer, the loon spends nearly all its time in the cypress. Its food, primarily snakes, lizards, dragon water, where it feeds exclusively on fish. The loon flies, and grasshoppers, is taken on the wing. The characteristically swims very low to the water giving relatively small red-shouldered hawk is the most its head and neck a roughly S-shaped profile. Just abundant and widely distributed of the four. Its diet before diving the loon hops upward to gain momen consists ofsmall mammals, snakes, lizards, frogs, and tum as it lunges under the surface. insects. The short-tailed hawk, although a resident and breeder in Florida, is relatively uncommon. The 6.5.4 Birds ofPrey greaterpart ofits range is located in Central and South A total of 27 .species of birds from three orders America. comprise the members of this guild within the study Among predatory birds that restrict themselves to a area (Appendix Tables A-23 through A-25). Twenty narrower range of upland habitats are the Cooper's 245 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization hawk and the broad-winged hawk, which appear to Finally the last group, the owls (order Strigi prefer upland forests; the kestrel, which appears to fonnes) are represented by six species. Three of prefer open uplands; and the Everglades kite, which these, the screech, barred, and great homed owl are exclusively uses wet prairies and sawgra<;s marshes. forest-dweUing species. All are well adapted to forest The Cooper's hawk is considered fairly uncommon hunting, with large sensitive ears and eyes and silent throughout all of Florida. The kestrel or sparrow flight. The smaller screech owl tends to be more hawk and the broad-winged hawk rely heavily upon restricted to upland woods than the other two species. insects as prey, while the Cooper's hawk preys on The larger barred and great homed owls are more smallerbirds, mammals, and reptiles. The Everglades commonly known from wet hammock and swamp kite, not a pennanent resident of Tampa Bay, is a forest habitats. Threeotherowls, the bam, burrowing, rather specialized subspecies that feeds exclusively and short-eared owls prefer to hunt in open country. upon the apple snail (pomacea sp.), found in abun The long legs of the bam owl are useful in capturing dance in sawgra'>s marshes. prey in marshes and prairies. The Horida burrowing A fourth group of Accipitridae includes two owl (Athene cunicularia jloridana) originates from species that prefer open areas in both marine and the tropics, reaching the northern limits ofit" range in freshwater settings. The marsh hawk is a common northern Florida. All owls are top carnivores, feeding species in salt marshes and is seen to a lesserextent in on a combination of small mammals, amphibians, upland marshes and prairies. The marsh hawk is reptiles, and occasionally even large insect'). primarily a rodent eater, consuming mice, rabbits, and particularly cotton rats (Signwdon hispidus). Some 6.5.5 Probing Shorebirds birds, such as the clapper rail and bob white, are also taken. The othermemberofthis group is the merlin or The tenn "probing shorebirds" is a somewhat eastern pigeon hawk, an uncommon, usually winter misleading label for this guild of birds (Appendix only resident. It is primarily a bird-eating hawk, Table A-26). Although most ofthese species frequent taking shorebirds, pigeons, doves, and flickers, as either shoreline or estuarine habitats while in the well as some insecL.. and small mammals. watershed, many others do not. This is particularly true when the total range and life history of each A fifth group contains two members, the sharp species is considered. A majority ofthese species are shinned hawk and the peregrine falcon, which are also either winter-only species or migrating transient'> and bird-eating hawks. These birds prefercoastal habitats use the food resources found in shallow subtidal and within the watershed, but utilize freshwater marshes intertidal habitat... During otherseasons in other parts and sloughs as well. Both are considered only occa~ sional winter resident... of their ranges, many of these birds use freshwater wetlands for nesting and feeding. In the final analysis The sixth group includes two species that are it is the combination of two factors, predominantly predominantly coastal in habitat preference, the coastal habitat utilization and the most common mode osprey (family Pandonidae) and the bald eagle offeeding, which is used to define this group. None (family Accipitridae). The origin of this preference, theless, some birds of this guild exhibit significant which is clearly stronger for the osprey than the eagle, variations in their mode of feeding, placing them is their dependence upon an aquat.ic food source. somewhere between the waders and probers. Both birds depend heavily upon fish. The osprey is a Examples include the greater yellowlegs and clapper striking and efficient predator, snatching fish from the rail. water surface with its feel. The eagle, while fishing in a similar manner, is better known fOf its habit of Five members of this guild, namely, the clapper robbing osprey oftheir prey. The larger eagle gener rail, king rail, Virginia rail, sora, and blackrail, belong ally harasses the osprey in flight until thelatter drops to the order Gruifonnes. The remaining birds all its prey. The eagle then catches the fish in the air, belong to the order Charadriiformes. These include leaving the osprey without its food. the oyster catchers (family Haematopodidae); the 246 6. Fauna plovers, turnstones, and surf-birds (family feeding strategies. Some, such as the plovers and Charadriidae); the sandpipers (family Scolopacidae); smaller sandpipers, feed by sight, commonly preying and the avocet'; (family Recurvirostridae). upon surface fauna in sea wrack orsand. Others, such It has been suggested (Recher 1966; Green 1968) as the semipalmated sandpiper and sanderling, feed that among the probing shore birds, morphological by truly probing in the substrate. Their bills are differences in bill length and structure are an impor intricately innervated with sensory nerves that facili tant resource-partitioning factor. Such differences are tate prey capture. Preferences for prey organisms believed to reduce competition between species by may also playa role in resource partitioning by virtue functionally segregating the infaunal food resources of minimizing spatial overlap between species. into fractions for which different bill lengths and Certain species, such as the ruddy turnstone, tend to structures are best suited. However, operation ofthis prefer hard substrates that support their favorite prey. principal for birds feeding in the same habitat, where Others, such as the clapper rail, stick to the higher competition should be greatest, has not been demon ends ofsalt marshes, only occasionally venturing out strated. In California, wintering shallow-feeding onto mudflats at low tide. birds (avocets, western sandpiper, dunlin, and Two species, the longbilled and shortbilled dowitcher) all fed on the same things (Quammen dowitchers, belong somewhere between the shallow 1982). Itis unknown ifthe morphological differences and deep-probing categories. Although their bills are in bills evolved for breeding grounds or wintering long, they often take the same food and frequently areas. feed more like the shallow probers than the deep Other factors such as feeding behavior, flexibility probers (Quammen 1982). Another species, the in diet, and the use ofother habitats also contribute to American oystercatcher, feeds when possible on this partitioning. Peterson and Peterson (1979) distin oysters and other large mollusks. For this reason it is guish two categories of probers, the shallow-probing hard to place the oyster-catcher in either category. and surface-searching shorebirds, and the deep The deep-probing shorebirds include such species probing shorebirds. This delineation is based on as the willet, the marbled godwit, and the long-billed fundamental differences in feeding habits and diets. curlew. Their long bills enable them to reach deeper Shallow probers are generally very opportunistic into the sediment to obtain a different food source. feeders, taking whatever prey presents itselfin great Their generally greater size also allows them to take est numbers. Consequently, their diets may vary larger prey. The most common deep prober in the widely depending upon their location. Experiments beach environment is clearly the willet. Although this conducted elsewhere along the Atlantic coast bird does probe for its own food, it more often exhib (Schneider 1978) have shown that shallow probers its aggressive behavior toward other probing shore can have a very significant effect on the composition birds, often appropriating their prey or chasing them and abundance of intertidal and beach fauna. away. Quammen (1982) found changes in intertidal and beach faunal abundance but not species composition 6.5.6 Aerially Searching Birds on the Pacific coast. The importance of this effect in Although the birds of this guild (Appendix Table Florida is unknown. Since many of these birds are A-27) are regarded as primarily estuarine, many of winter-only residents or migratory species, their them frequent a variety ofother habitaL~ as well. One predatory effect is likely to be greatest in winter. This species, the belted kingfisher, prefers the freshwater is the time of greatest abundance for many infaunal wetland habitat. The gull most commonly found invertebrate prey, such as polychaetes, amphipods, inland is the ringbilled gull. The herring, laughing, and bivalve mollusks. a."1d Bonapa.-rc's gulls tend to r..e strictly coastal and In addition to morphological differences, the venture only occasionally around inland lakes, shallow probers also differ among themselves in agricultural fields, or dump sites. The terns tend to 247 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization restrict themselves to coastal habitat.<;. Some, like just before stonns, gulls tend to move inshore many Forsters tern, are regularly reported from Lake kilometers, probably in search ofshelter. Okeechobee, but they more commonly occur in Many of the 10 gull species listed in Appendix coastal embayment<;, marsh and mangrove ponds, and Table A-27 visit the study area only during the winter. offshore waters. The black skimmer, probably The more common are the ringbilled gull, because ofits unique fishing tactics, tends to be found Bonaparte's gull, and the herring gull. The laughing inlarge bodies ofcalm waters both inland and coastal. gull is the only true year-round resident. Both its When skimming is not possible, the bird has been summer and winter range incorporate Tampa Bay. known to wade and probe for small fishes in shallow pools. The fish crow, though it is often found near Breeding populations of laughing gulls in the water, prefers neither estuarine nor freshwater Tampa Bay-Charlotte Harbor area have been identi habitats. fied by Dinsmore and Schreiber (1974) and Schreiber and Schreiber (1979, 1980). The large increase in Food habits for this group follow two main lines, a numbers of gulls from the mid-1960's to the mid heavy dependence on fish, and considerable omni 1970's has been associated with the increased food vory. The acrobatic terns are the more fish-dependent availability provided by garbage dumps in the area. group of birds within the guild, hovering 20-30 m Laughing gulls usually nest between April and above the water in search of surface-feeding fishes. September (Clap et al. 1983), with peak egglaying in When prey is sighted they make spectaculardives into May. Laughing gulls have been reported nesting on the water. Prey selectivity is probably a function of dredge-spoil islands in Tampa Bay by Schreiber and the size ofthe bird and the available fish. The Caspian Schreiber (1978). tern, being the largest tern, has been known to take mullet, menhaden, and sardines. Smaller birds such Probably the most omnivorous bird ofthis guild is as the least tern no doubt select smaller species or the fish crow, which belongs to this guild by virtue of juvenile fishes. Also a fish eater is the belted king its predilection of searching for unattended nests in fisher. which may be seen perching on cypress rookeries ofherons, ibises, and other seabirds. Ifeggs branches or power lines above roadside ditches. are present the fish crow will prey upon them. Other When the kingfisher locates a likely prey, it dives components of its diet include small fishes, crabs, down into the water much 30.<; the tem<; do. Because of shrimp, mollusks, and numerous types of wild fruit its unique anatomy and mode of feeding, the black including palmetto berries, dogwood, sour gum, red skimmer is also dependent almost exclusively upon a bay, and others. Turtle eggs have also been recorded fish diet. as part oftheir diet. Gulls are scavengers. They make use of beaches, Nesting patterns ofcolonial shorebirds in the study mudflats, open bays, offshore waters, inland lakes, area have been studied by Schreiber and Schreiber fields, marshes. and even urban settings. Some of (1978) (Figure 125), particularly with regard to their their most conspicuous gathering centers are landfills. use of dredged spoil islands. The openness and low Along the coast their diet consists offish, insects, and shrubbery ofsuch islands are attractive nesting habi other small marine fauna. At inland settings they feed tats for many birds of this guild. The presence of opportunistically on soil arthropods, possibly earth attractive nesting habitat, however, does notnecessar worms and, at landfills, garbage. The use of inland ily insure its use by birds. In contrast to the tree habitats appears to be seasonal and associated with nesting colonial wading birds, very few of the adverse weather. Gulls seem to move inshore more ground-nesting shorebirds intermingle, though they may simultaneously use the same island (Figure 125). often, almostdiumally, during the winter months. The winter months also correspond to the time of The Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered highest numbers ofgulls in the watershed. During or Plants and Animals (Kale 1978) lists 44 taxa ofbirds 248 6. Fauna Month Common name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Oystercatcher Snowy plover Wi Ison's plover Killdeer a Willet Black-necked stilt a Laughing gull Gull-billed tern Common tern Roseate tern Least tern Royal tern t::::::A4itt>;\i3tl#ili::::i:4~::!:~:!:1:::4l::::::4:~::::::+~:;:::::::<::::1 Caspian tern mH+~:J\w:::::~:::::;::::;::::\::::i;\:,*:!:~~f:@:}~::tgt~WmMM{mm Black skimmer t::W#*\l4'1::m::::::::::j:@:M'i;@::::~:::::::;-<:i:~::::¥'!:i:::*4:iia a Not yet found on dredged material Islands, but included here for completeness American oystercatcher snowy plover Wilson's plover -willet laughing gull - east tern royal tern •-• Caspian tern ---- black skimmer - Nest on same island in close association. • Nest on same island, but not usually intermingled. Figure 125. Nesting patterns of colonial shorebirds on Florida spoil islands (adapted from Schreiber and Schreiber 1978). from the Tampa Bay watershed (fable 45). This list 6.6 Mammals includes all of the wading birds plus..a number of species that depend on beaches and coastal wetlands. Appendix Tables A-28 through A-30 present 53 Cumulative habitat alteration is one of the primary taxa of mammals that are known or expected to be reasons for the decline ofmany ofthese species. Still found in terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats in other factors that enhance the decline of certain the Tampa Bay watershed. Ten of these species are species are their naturally limited range within the marked with an (E) to designate theirstatus as exotics. state and their specialized feeding or nesting habitat The nine-banded annadillo is considered an exotic by requirements. The Florida scrub jay and the Ever Layne et al. (1977), although it has naturally invaded glades kite are two good examples of species suffer the Florida panhandle from the west. The 39 native ing because of habitat destruction combined with an species of mammals represent 80% of the total inflexible set offood and habitat requirements. number of mammalian species in Florida. Virtually 249 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization Table 45. Bird~ designated as endangered (E), threatened (T), rare (R), or ofspecial concern by Kale (1978). Common Name Status Common Name Status Wood stork (Mycteria americana) E Short-jailed hawk (Buteo brachyurus) R Florida Everglade kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis Mangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor) R plumbeus) E Black-whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus) R Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) E Great egret (Casmerodius albus) se Cuban snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus Little blue heron (Florida caerulea) se tenuirostris) E Snowy egret (Egretta thula) se Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) E Tricolored heron (Hydranassa tricolor) se Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E Black-crowned nighj heron (Nycticorax Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus nycticorax) SC savannarum floridanus) E Yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammospiza violaceus) se maritimus mirabilis ) E Least bittern (/xobrychus exilis exilis) se Eastern brown pelican (Pelt/canus occidentalis Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinel/us) se carolinensis) T White ibis (Eudocimus albus) se MagniHcent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) T Cooper's hawk (Accipiter coopedi) se Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) T Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) se Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) T Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) se Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius Royal torn (Sterna maxima) se paulUS) T Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis) se Crested caracara (Polyborus planeus) T Black skimmer (Rynchops niger) se Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) T Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia American oystercatcher (Haematopus pal/iatus) T floridana) se Least tern (Sterml antilfarum) T Southern hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens auduboni) SC coerulescens) T Marian's marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris Reddish egret (DichromamlSsa rufoscens) R marianae) se Roseate spoonbill (Aja/a ajaja) R Florida prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor White,tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) R paludicola) se all of the native species listed are of North America of Florida recogn ized by Neill (1957). This region, Oligin. This essentially unimpaired range extension which includes the ridge section of Polk County, ofa temperate fauna into the subtTOpics accompanies is characterized by endemic species restricted to what appears to be an extensive differellliation of the xeric sand pine scrub and sandhill habitats. The some species populations into many races. Such Florida mouse (Peromyscusfloridanus) is a mem differentiation is believed to result from the frequent ber of this endemic species group. isolation of j"JOpulations and subsequent genetic drift during fluctuating sea levels of the late Pleistocene A rather large number ofspecies (20%) reach their (Layne 1974, 1(78), rather than adaptation resuhing soutbem limits in western peninsular Rorida within from invasion into uncxploited subtropical habitats. the study area. ll1cse include the southeastem shrew, Rat1nesquc's big-eared bat, big brown bat, southeast According to Layne et al. (1977), the mamma ern j"JOckct gopher, eastern harvest mouse, Rorida lhm fauna ofthe \vatershed is of interest in several mousc·, golden mOllse, and eastern woodrat. respects. A portion of the Tampa Bay area forms pm1 ofthe Central Florida .Highland biogeographic Two subspecies, the mole (Sealopus aquaticus region, one of seven major biogeographic regions bassi) and cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus 250 6. Fauna restrictus), were originally described from the Tampa Reynolds and Patton (1985) recently reviewed Bay area. The type localities are Englewood and manatee-related research and conservation efforts for Chadwick Beach (Sarasota County), respectively. these protected animals in Tampa Bay. Specific The 01adwick Beach cotton mouse is known only programs and study needs are outlined which, in their from that locality, and its present status is uncertain. opinion, are needed to better understand and manage Part ofthe range ofanother coastal subspecies with a the manatee population in the area. greatly restricted distribution, the insular cotton rat The manatee is a strict herbivore with no known (Sigmodon hispidus insulieola), also extends into the predators. It appears that cold weather, shoreline Tampa Bay area. The zone ofintergradation between development, injuries from boat collisions, and possi Sherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) and bly pollution are among the major factors 1in1iting the the mangrove fox squirrel (S. niger avieennia) may survival ofmanatees in Florida. also lie in the study area. Finally, the seven-county region of Layne et al. 's (1977) study area is in the The bottle-nosed dolphin is strictly marine and transition 7..one between north Florida with relatively estuarine in its distribution. Its primary source offood many bat species and south Florida with relatively is mullet. Offshore of Tampa Bay, Reynolds and few. Patton (1985) estimate a population of78 year-round residents with another 200 individuals just north and Regarding the exotic species of the region, appar south of the bay area. These animals appear to be in ently the only established population of coyotes in herds of two to three animals that are fairly evenly FlOlida exists in Polk County, and nutria colonies in distributed from nearshore to 24 km offshore. In dairy farm ponds near Brandon, Hillsborough Tampa Bay, numbers appear to be lower (around 23), County, may represent the densest populations ofthis although the survey coverage was admittedly inad introduced species in the state. equate. Irvine et aI. (1981) note that dolphin numbers In addition to land mammals, two species of in and adjacent to Tampa Bay increase from July to aquatic marine mammals are also considered part of November. A localized herd ofaround 102 individu the total mammalian fauna. The first of these, the als is reported from Sarasota Bay (Wells et al. 1980; manatee, frequents both fresh and estuarine waters. A Irvine et al. 1982). Reynolds and Patton (1985) note number of factors determine whether a particular site that Tampa Bay dolphins commonly harbor a parasite is suitable for manatee use, induding availability of that rarely appear in dolphins elsewhere in Florida. vascular aquatic vegetation for food, proximity to Othermarine mammals not considered residents of channels at least 2 m deep, recourse to warm water the study area, but occasionally observed alive or during cold snaps, and a source offreshwater. found stranded in Tampa Bay and nearby waters, Estimates of the Tampa Bay manatee population include 10 species ofwhales and 8 species ofdolphins vary from 40 to 55 animals, with the highest numbers (fable 46). Two ofthe eighteen species listed (fable reported in the winter months (Hartman 1974; Patton 47), the humpback whale and the sperm whale, are 1980; Irvine et al. 1981). An additional 14 to 35 currently on the federal endangered species list. manatees may remain outside the bay, widely scat These pelagic animals, more commonly associated tered in the surrounding coastal area. with deeper oceanic waters adjacent to or beyond the Patton (1980) demonstrated that most of the bay Continental Shelf, are generally considered rare in the population aggregated around artificial warm-water northeastern gulf. areas in winter (e.g., power plant thermal discharge Increased interest and research efforts have, how sites), with many individuals being found in the ever, shown that some species are more common than Alafia, Manatee, and Little Manatee Rivers. Descrip previously thought. For example, the pygmy sperm tions of this winter aggregation have resulted in the whale, once considered to be very rare, has been Alafia River being designated as a sanctuary under stranded several times around Tampa Bay, and is now the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1980. considered to be the second most commonly stranded 251 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization Table 46. Marine nwmmals sighted or stranded in Tampa Bay and in GulfofMexico coastal waters betiveen Pasco and Sarasota counties. Nwnbers represent events, not total number of animaL,> involved (from Schmidly 1980, SEAN1980-1982, Reynolds and Patton 1985).a Number of Number of Common Name Bryde's whale (Bafaenoptera edem) 1 o Humpback whaleb (Megaptera novaeangliae) o 1 S~rm whaleb (Phy,seter catodon) 1 o 5 o 1 o 2 o Pygmy killer whale (Faresa attenuata) 1 o False killer whale (Psaudorca crass/dens) o 1 Killer whale (Ore/nus orca) o 1 7 1 1 o o 1 IS50 sop In rampus gnseus Bridled dolphin (Stenella frontalis) 0 1 Atlantic spotted dolphin Wplagiodon) 3 1c cetacean in Florida, after the tXHlle-nosed dolphin Notable among these arc four of the larger mammals, (Odell et al. 1(81). Additional infornlation on marine the panther, the black bear, and two s~cics ofwea."'cl mammal strandings and sightings from !lIe Tampa (Muslda). Due probably to food requirements and Bay area may be found in Schmidley (l980) and the territorial im~ratives, these four taxa generally l11rive SEAN (Scientific Event Alert Network) reports only where mere is a large amount of open space 1975,1982. supporting a mixturc ofappropriate habitats. Besides L.lync (1978) lists nine taxa of mammals from the 111cse 9, an additional 24 species arc considered of study area ,l"l eil11cr endangered, threatened, rare, of commercial value or s~cial biological significance special concern, Or status undcternlined Crable 47). (Neill 1957). 252 6. Fauna Table 47. Mammals ofspecial concern in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfrom Layne 1978). Common name Reason for status as significant Virginia opossum Commercially valuable fur. Southeastern shrew Rare (FCREPA). Short-tailed shrew Biological indicator of forested wetlands. Big brown bat Rare (FCREPA). Northern yellow bat Indicator of open woodlands with mature trees. Rafinesque's big-eared bat Rare (FCREPA). Nine-banded armadillo Rapidly spreading invader. Marsh rabbit Game species. Eastern cottontail Game species. Gray squirrel Game species. Sherman's fox squirrel Threatened (FCREPA). Southeastern pocket gopher Reaches southern range limit. Eastern harvest mouse Reaches southern range limit. Florida mouse Threatened (FCREPA). Golden mouse Habitat specificity. Eastern wood rat Reaches southern range limit; forested wetlands indicator species. Roundtailed muskrat Species of special concern (FCREPA). Nutria Rapidly spreading invader. Bottle-nosed dolphin Estuarine quality indicator. Coyote New invader with unknown potential. Red fox New invader with unknown potential. Gray fox Sport and commercial fur-bearing species. Florida black bear Threatened (FCREPA). Raccoon Game species; commercial fur-bearer. Florida long-tailed weasel Rare (FCREPA). Striped skunk Commercially valuable fur-bearer. River otter Protected fur-bearer. Florida panther Endangered (FCREPA). Bobcat Indicator organism. Manatee Endangered (FCREPA). Wild hog Game species. White-tailed deer Game species. 253 Literature Cited Ad Lake Tarpon fluctuation schedule. Southwest Fla. Bock, J.H. 1966. An ecological study of Eichhornia Water Manage. Dist., Environ. Sect. Tech. Rep. 1977 crassipes with special emphasis on its reproductive 3. Brooksville. 89 pp. biology. Ph.D. Dissertation. University ofCalifornia, Bartos, L.F., T.F. Rochow, and W.D. Courser. 1978. Lake Berkeley. 175 pp. Tarpon fluctuation study 1973-1978. Southwest Fla. Bowman, RD. 1977. Evaluation ofambient air monitor Water Manage. Dist., Environ. Sect. Tech. Rep. 1978 ing for total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide 6. Brooksville. 131 pp. in Hillsborough County, Florida. Hillsborough Bauersfeld, P., RR Kifer, N.W. Durant, and J.E. Sykes. County. 1969. Nutrient content of turtle grass (Thalassis Boyle, RH., and K.M. Mechem. 1982. Anatomy of a testudinum). Proc. Inti. Seaweed Symposium. 6: 637 man-made drought. Sports mus. 56(11): 46-54. 645. Boyles, J.M. 1966. Zoogeography of the herpetofauna of Bcach, M.L., W.M. Wiley, J.M. Van Dyke, and D.M. central Florida. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Alabama, Riley. 1976. The effect of the Chinese grass carp Tuscaloosa. 164 pp. (Ctenopharyngodon idella [vaL]) on the ecology of Bradley, J.T. 1972. Climatography of the United States four Florida lakes, and its use for aquatic weed control. No. 60-8: climate of Florida. U.S. Dep. Comm., Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee. NOAA. 31 pp. 247pp. Bradley,J.T. 1974. TheclirnateofFlorida. In Climatesof Beaman, B. 1973. Plant community structure and vegeta the States, Vol. I: Eastern States (including Puerto Rico tional zones on spoil islands. New College, Sarasota, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). National Oceanic and Florida. 69 pp. Atmospheric Administration, Water Center, Washing Beck, E.C., and W.M. Beck, Jr. 1969. The Chironomidae ton, D.C. 480 pp. ofFlorida, VoU!. The nuisance species. Fla. Entomol. Brezonik, P.L., C.D. Hendry, Jr., E.S. Edgerton, R.L. 52: 1-11. Schultze, and TL. Crisman. 1982. Acidity. nutrients Beck, J.T. 1974. Some aspects of the life history and and minerals in atmospheric precipitation over Florida: ecology of the fresh-water caridean shrimp, Palaemo deposition patterns, mechanisms and ecological effects. netes paludosis. M.A. Thesis. University of South Final report to U.S.E.P.A., Project 805560. National Florida, Tampa. 50 pp. Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, Or. Beck, W.M., Jr. 1965. The streams ofFlorida. Bull. Fla. Briggs, J.C. 1958. A list ofFlorida fishes and their distri State Mus. 10(3): 91-126. bution. Bull. Fla. State Mus. 2(8): 223-318. Bedient, P.B. 1975. Hydrologic land use interactions in a Brook, LM. 1975. Some aspects of the trophic relation Florida river basin. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of ships among the higher consumers in a seagrass Florida, Gainesville. community (Thalassia testudinum konig) in Card Berner, L. 1950. The mayflies of Florida. Univ. Fla., Sound, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of BioI. Sci. Ser. 4(4): 1-267. Miami. 133 pp. Beyers, C.F. 1930. A contribution to the knowledge of Brooks, H.K. 1968. The Plio-Pleistocene in Florida. Florida odonata. Univ. Fla., BioI. Sci. Ser. 1: 1-327. Pages 3-42 in RD. Perkins, ed. Late Cenozoic stratig Bird,K.T.,CJ.Dawes,andJ.T.Romeo. 1980. Patternsof raphy of southern Florida-a reappraisal. Miami non-photosynthetic carbon fixation in dark-held respir Geological Society, Miami. ing thalli ofGracilaria verrucosa. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. Brooks, H.K. 1973. Geological Oceanography. Pages E 98: 359-364. 1 to 49 in J.I. Jones, RE. Ring, M.O. Rinkel, and R.E. Bird, K.T., C.J. Dawes, and J.T. Romeo. 1981. Light Smith, cds. A summary of knowledge of the Eastern quality effects on carbon metabolism and allocation in Gulf of Mexico - 1973. State University System Insti Gracilaria verrucosa. Mar. BioI. 64: 219-223. tute of Oceanography, St. Petersburg, FL. Blair, T.A., and RC. Fite. 1965. Wcather elements: a text Brooks, H.K. 19813. Geologic map of Florida. Univer in elementary meteorology. 5th ed. Prentice Hall Inc., sity ofFla., Institute ofFood and Agricultural Science, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Gainesville. Blaney, RF., and W.D. Criddle. 1962. Determining Brooks, H.K. 1982b. Physiographic map of Florida. consumptive uses and irrigation water requirement". University of F1a., Institute of Food and Agricultural Agric. Tech. Bull. 1275. Science, Gainesville. 255 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization Brown, D.P. 1982a. Effect,> ofeffluent spray irrigation on Cambridge. 1975. Scagrasses ofsouth-western Austra:Jia ground wa!Cr at a test site ncar Tarpon Springs, Florida. with special reference to the ecology ofPosidonia aus O.s. Gwl. Surv. Opcn-FileRcp. 81-1197. Tallahassee. tralis Hook f. in a polluted environment. Aquae Bot. : Brown, D.P. 1982b. Water resources and dala - network 149-161. assessment of the Manasota basin, Manatee and Campbell, H. W. 1978. Short-lailed snake. Pages 28-30 in Sarasola countie..<;, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat. RW. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and endangered biOla of Resour. Invest. 82-37. Tallahassee. Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Brown, M.T. 1976. The south Florida study-Lee Capehart, B.L., J. Ewel, B. Sedlik, R. Myers, and 1. C'ounty, and area ofrapid growth. Center for Wetlands, Browder. 1977. Remote sensing survey of spread of University ofFlorida, Gainesville, and Florida Division Melaleuca. Center for Wetlands, University ofFlorida, of Slate Planning, Tallahassee. Gainesville. 113 pp. Brown, S. 1981. A comparison of the structure, primary Carlisle, V.w. 1982a. Soil survey proce.dures and locating proouctivity, and transpirdtion ofcypress ecosystems in soil areas in publisheAl surveys. Pages 1-4 in V.W. Florida. &01. Monogr. 51(4): 403-427. Carlisle and R.B. Brown, eds. Florida soil identification handbook. University of Florida, Soil Science Depart Brown, M.T. and t.M. Sl2ffies. 1983. A wetlands study of ment, Gainesville, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Seminole County: Identification, evaluation, and Soil Conservation Service. preparation of development standards and guidelines. Carlisle, VW. 1982b. Published soil surveys, maps, and Univ. Florida, Center for Wetlands and Dep. Urban mapping scales, Pages 5-8 in VW. Carlisle and RB. Reg. Plan. Te.eh. Rep. 41. Brown, eds. Florida soil identification handbook. GerritS(~n Bruun, P., T.Y. Chiu, F. and W.H. Morgan. University of Florida, Soil Science Department, 1962. Storm tides in Horida as relate,d to coaslal topog Gainesville, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil mphy. Fl. Eng. Ind. Exp. SUI. Bull. Series No. 109. ConSt~rvation Service. University of Florida, Gainesville. 76 pp. Carlisle, V.W.. and R.B. Brown. 1982. Florida soil identi Buntz,J. 1%7. Annual progress report. Fish management fication handbook...thennic and hypertrophic tempera areas of Polk County. Florida Game and Fresh Water ture zones including selected interpretations. SoU C()mmission,Lak(~land. Fish 12 pp. Science Department, University of Florida, Gaines Buruz,1., .md P. Chapman. 1971. Annual progress report. ville. Fish management area of Polk County. Florida Game Carlisle, V.W., C.T. Halmark, F. Sodek, RE. Caldwell, and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Lakeland. 18 pp. L.c. Hammond, and V.E. Berkheiser. 1981. ChardC Buollo, A., K.W. Cau5.. Carter, M.R, LA Burns, T.R Cavinder, K.R. Dugger, Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan-Jacobs, and RC. Banks. 1983. D.L. Fore, D.B. Hicks, H.L. Revells, and T.W. Marine birds ofthe southeastern United States and Gulf Schmidt. 1973. Ecosystems analysis of the Big of Mexico. Part 3: Charadriiformes. U.S. Fish Wildl. Cypress Swamp and estuaries. U.S. Environ. Prot. Serv., FWS OBS-83/30. 853 pp. Agency, Fla. Bcol. Study DI-SFEP-74-51. EPA 90419 Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1977. A compre 74-002. 375 pp. hensive study of successional patterns of plants and Cathcart, J.B., L.V. Blade, D.F. Davidson, and K.B. animals at upland disposal areas. Environ. Effects Lab., Ketner. 1953. The geology of the Florida land-pebble U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Stn., Contract Rep. phosphate deposit". Pages 77-91 in C.R Algiers, ed. D-77-2. Vicksburg, Miss. 395 pp. Nineteenth International Geological Congress, Sec. II, Cohen, A.D., and W. Spackman. 1974. The petrology of Fasc. II. peats from the Everglades and coastal swamps ofsouth Causseaux, K.W., and J.D. Fretwell. 1982. Position ofthe ern Florida. Pages 233-255 in P.J. Gleason, ed. saltwater- freshwater interface in the upper part of the Environments of south Florida: present and past. Mi Floridan aquifer, southwest Florida, 1979. U.S. Geo!. ami GeoI. Soc., Mem. 2. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. Open-File Rep. 82-90. Collard, S.B., and CN. D'Asaro. 1973. Benthic inverte Tallahassee. brates of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Pages III G-l to Causseaux, K.W., and J.D. Fretwell. 1983. Chloride IIIG-27 in J.J. Jones, RE. Ring, M.O. Rinkel, and RE. concentrations in the coastal margin of the Floridan Smith, eds. A summary of knowledge of the eastern aquifer, southwest Florida. U.S. Geo!. Surv., Wat. Gulf of Mexico. State University System of Florida, Resour. Invest. Rep. 82-4070. Tallahassee. Institute of Oceanography. St. Petersburg. Chapman, P. 1973. Pollution investigation - Peace River Colle, DE., J.V. Shireman, and RW. Rottmann. 1978. and Whidden Creek, Cities Service Company Incident, Food selection by grass carp fingerlings in a vegetated Dec. 3, 1971. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish pond. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 107(1): 149-152. Commission, Tallahassee. 51 pp. Collins, ME., and R.E. Caldwell. 1982. Soil taxonomy Chapman, P. 1974. Lake Tarpon fish management area, the system of soil classification. Pages 29-36 in V.W. Pinellas County, review and status report. Florida Carlisle and R.B. Brown, cds. Florida soil identification Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. handbook. University ofFlorida, Soil Science Depart 31 pp. ment, Gainesville, and U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Chapman, P. 1975. Lake Tarpon fish management area, Soil Conservation Service. Pinellas County, status report. Florida Game and Fresh Comp, G.S. 1985. A survey ofthe distribution and migra Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 22 pp. tion of the fishes in Tampa Bay. Pages 393-425 in S.F. Chen, C.S. 1965. The regional lithostratigraphic analysis Treat, J.L. Simon, RR. Lewis III, and R.L. Whitman, of Paleocene and Eocene rocks of Florida. Fla. Dep. Jr., cds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Infor Nat. Resour., Geo!. Bull. 45. Tallahassee. mation Symposium, May 1982. Burgess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Available from Tampa Cheney, D.P., and J.P. Dyer. 1974. Deep-water benthic BASIS, P.O. Box 290197, Tampa, R.. 33687. algae of the Florida Middle Ground. Mar. BioI. 27: Conover, C.S., and S.D. Leach. 1975. River basin and 185-190. hydrologic unit map ofFlorida. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Cherry, R.N., J.W. Stewart, and J.A. Mann. 1970. Bur. Goo!. Map Ser. 72. Tallahassee. General hydrology of the Middle Gulf Area, Florida. Conservation Consultants, Inc. 1975. A survey ofvegeta Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geo!., Rep. Invest. 56. Tal tion and animal life, W.R Grace and Company Four lahassee. 96 pp. Comers Mine, southeastern Hillsborough County and Chew, R.L. 1974. Early life history of the Florid large northeastern Manatee County, Florida. WR. Grace mouth bass. Fla. Game Fresh Water Fish Comm. BulL and Company, Mulberry, FL. 7. 76pp. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1983a. Annotated Christiansen, J.E. 1966. Estimating evaporation and bibliography of seagrass research conducted in Tampa evapotranspiration from climatic data. Utah Water Bay, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Research Laboratory, Logan. Regulation, Tallahassee. 257 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization Continental Shelf A'isociates, Inc. 1983b. Report on the Dames and Moore. 1982 (Unpub!.). Draft: Deepwater 21 and 22 June 1983 scagrass bed ground truthing ports maintemmce dredging study subtask HB. Histori survey in Tampa Bay, Florida. Contract No. SP-91. cal and projected maintenance dredging nee{k Parts of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, JaCKsonville, Tampa, Manatee and Pensacola. Rorida Tallaha'isce. 17 pp. Department of Environmental Regulation, Office of Cooke, C.W. 1939. Scenery of Horida interpreted by a Coastal Management, Tallaha'!sce. geologist. Fla. Dep. Nat Resour., Bur. Geol., Bull. 17. Davis, CU. and M.M. Brinson. 1980. Responscs of TaHah,a'iscc. 118 pp. submerged va'iCular plant communities to environmen Cooke, CW. 1945. Geology of Florida. FI.1.. Ceo!. SurY. tal change. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo F·WS/OBS-79/33. Bull. 29: 1-339. 70pp. Copela.nd, C.E. 1973. The prediction of storm runoff Davis, J.H. 1940. Ecology and geologic role of quantity and qml1ity for the Tarnpa Bay region. M.S. mangroves in florida. Carnegie Ins!., Pub!. 517. Pap. Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa. Tortuga'! Lab. 32: 303-412. Coordinating Council (m the Restoration ofthe Kissimmee Davis, J.H. 1943. The natuml features of southern Rorida: River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Ba'!in. especially the vegetation and the Everglades. Fla. Geo!. 1978. Field trip guide for the N~\tional Symposium on Surv. Bull. 25: 1-311. w(:tlands, Nov. 10, 1978. Lak(~ Buena Vista, FL. Davis, J.H. 1946. The pc,at deposit'! of f1orida--their Am(~ric.m Water Resources Association and National occurrence, development, and uses. Ra. I.x..~p. Nat Wetlands T(x~hnical Council, Washington, D.C. 36 pp. Resour.• Bur. Gcol. Bull. 30: 1-247. Course.r, W.D., P.M. Dooris, and S.A. Putnam. 1974. Davis, J.H. 1967. Oeneral map of nmur..tl vegetation of Progress report - 1973 - moniwring of Lake Tarpon Honda. Univ. Ra., A!,.rric. Exp. Stn., Ins!. Food Agr. HUCUlUioll sched uk. Southw(~st Fla. Wat(~r Manage. Sci. Circ. S-178. Gainesville. DiSl., Environ. Sect Tech. Rep .. 1975-3. Brooksville. Davis, M.A. and CJ. Dawes. 1981. Seasonal photosyn 67 pp. thetic and respiratory responscs of the intertidal red COUrl.tmay, W.R., Jr. 1970. Florida's walking call1sh. alga, Bostrychia binderi Harvey (Rhodophyta, Cerami Ward's Bull. HI: I ales), from a mangrove swamp and a salt marsh. Cowell, B.C., D.O. Bun;;.h, L.N. Brown, ROW. McDiarmid, Phycologia 20: 165·-173. and G.E. W(x)lfen Dawes, C.J, K. Bird, M. Durako, R. Goddard, W. 1957-59. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. Hoffman, and R. McIntosh. 1979. Chemical fluctua 369. 175 pp. tions due to seasonal and cropping effects on an algal Dragovich, A., J.H. Finucane, and B.Z. May. 1963. seagrass community. Aquat. Bot. 6: 79-86. Counts ofred tide organisms, Gymnodinium breve, and Dawes, C.J., R.E. Moon, and M.A. Davis. 1978. The associated oceanographic data from Florida west coast, photosynthetic and respiratory rates and tolerances of 1960-61. U.S. Fish Wildt Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. benthic algae from a mangrove and salt marsh estuary: 455.40pp. a comparative study. Estaur. Cstl. Mar. Sci. 6: 175 Dragovich, A., and J.A. Kelly, Jr. 1964a. Preliminary 186. observations on phytoplankton and hydrology in Dawson, C.E., Jr. 1953. A survey ofthe Tampa Bay area. Tampa Bay and the immediate adjacent offshore Fla. State Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Tech. Ser. 8. 39 waters. Pages 4--22 in A collection ofdata in reference pp. to red tide outbreaks during 1%3. Rorida Board of Deuerling,RJ.,Jr.,andP.L.MacGill. 1981. Environmen Conservation. St. Petersburg. (Mimoo). tal geology series - Tarpon Springs sheet. Ra. Dep. Dragovich, A., and J.A. Kelly, Jr. 1964b. Ecological Nat. Resour., Bur. Geol., Map Ser. 99. Tallahassee. observations of macroinvertebrates in Tampa Bay, Dineen, J.W. 1974. The fishes of the Everglades. Pages Florida, 1%1-1962. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb.14: 375-385 in P.1. Gleason, ed. Environments of south 74-102. Florida: present and past. Miami Gool. Soc. Mem. 2. Dragovich, A., and J.A. Kelly, Jr. 1966. Distribution and Dinsmore, J.1., and R.W. Schreiber. 1974. Breeding and occurrence ofGymnodiniwn breve on the westcoast of annual cycle of laughing gulls in Tampa Bay, Rorida. Florida, 1964-65. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci. Wilson Bull. 86: 419-427. Rep. Fish. 541. 15 pp. Donaldson, H.A., andJ.O.R. Johansson. 1977. Plankton. Dmgovich, A.,].A. Kelly, Jr., and R.D. Kelly. 1%5. Red In Vol. 2, Section 4: Post-operational ecological water bloom of a dinoflagellate in Hillsborough Bay, monitoring program. Final Report, Anclote Unit No.1, Florida. Nature 207(5002): 1209-1210. Rorida Power Corporation. Drda, M., and M. Knox. 1981. Aquaculture Project 1980 Dohrenwend, R.E. 1977. Evapotransporation patterns in 81 Annual Report. Florida Game and Fresh WaterFish Rorida. Fla. Sci. 40(2): 184-193. Commission, Lakeland. 37 pp. Donn, W.L. 1975. Meteorology, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill DSP. See Florida Division ofState Planning. Book Co., New York. Duellman, W.E., and A. Schwartz. 1958. Amphibians and Dooris, P.M. 1975. Evaluation of the chloride status of reptiles ofsouthern Florida Bull. Fla. State Mus. 3(5): Lake Tarpon, Pinellas County, Rorida. Southwest Ra. 181-324. Water Manage. Dist., Environ. Sect. Tech. Rep. 1975 Duerr, A.D., and J.W. Stewart. 1980. Hydrologic data for 2. Brooksville. 21 pp. Eureka Springs landfill and adjacent area, north-rentral Dooris, P.M. 1979. Sawgrass Lake: data summary. Hillsborough County, Florida, 1969-73. U.S. Geol. Southwest Ra. Water Manage. Dist., Brooksville. 56 Surv. Open-File Rep. 80-70. 83 pp. pp. Duerr, A.D., andJ'w. Stewart. 1981. Hydrogeologic data Dooris, P.M., and G.M. Dooris. 1985. Surface flows to for Rocky Creek Landfill and adjacent area, northwest Tampa Bay: quantity and quality aspects. Pages 88 Hillsborough County, Florida, 1%9-73. U.S. Geol. 106 in S.P. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis III, and R.L. Surv. Open-File Rep. 80-1291. 72 pp. Whitman, Jr., eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Duerr, A.D., and J.T. Trommer. 1981. Estimated water Scientific Information Symposium, May 1982. Bur use in Southwest Florida Water Management District gess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Available and adjacent areas, 1979. U.S. Gool. Surv. Open-File from Tampa BASIS, P.O. Box 290197, Tampa, FL Rep. 81-56. Tallahassee. 58 pp. 33687. Duever, MJ. J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Duever, L.R. Dragovich, A., J.H. Finucane, and B.Z. May. 1961. Gunderson, LA Riopelle, T.R. Alexander,R.F. Myers, Counts ofred tide organisms, Gymnodinium breve, and and D.P. Spangler. 1979. Resource inventory and associated oceanographic data from Rorida west coast, analysis of the Big Cypress National Preserve. Final 259 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization Report to the Department of the Interior, National Park Eddy, S. 1969. How to know the freshwater fishes. Wm. Service. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. 286 pp. Gainesville, and National Audubon Society, Naples, Edgerton, E.S. 1981. A mass-balance atmospheric sulfur FL. model for Florida. M.S. Thesis. University ofFlorida, Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, and L.A. Riopelle. 1975. Gainesville. Ecosystems analysis at Corkscrew Swamp. Pages 627 Eiseman, N.J. 1980. An illustrated guide to the seagrasses 725 in H.T. Adam, K.C. Ewel,J.W. Ordway, and M.K. of the Indian River region of Florida. Harbor Branch Johnston, eds. Cypress wetlands for water manage Found., Tech. Rep. 31. Ft. Pierce. 24 pp. ment, recycling, and conservation. Second Annual EI-Sayed, S.Z., W.M. Sackett, L.M. Jeffery, A.D. Rep., National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Fredericks, R.P. Saunders, P.S. Conger, GA Fryxell, Foundation Center for Wetlands, University ofFlorida, K.A. Steidinger, and S.A. Earle. 1972. Folio 22: Gainesville. Chemistry, primary productivity and benthic algae of Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, L.A. Riopelle, and L.C. the Gulf of Mexico. American Geographic Society. Duever. 1978. Ecosystem analysis at Corkscrew Atla~ of the Marine Environment. 29 pp. Swamp. Pages 534-570 in H.T. Odum and K.C. Ewel, Eldred, B. 1966. Plankton collections with pertinent data, cds. Cypress wetlands for water management, recy Tampa Bay. Florida and Gulf of Mexico (July 1961 cling, and conservation. 4th Annual Rep. National June 1963). Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Spec. Sci. Science Foundation and the Rockerfeller Foundation Rep. 11. Center for Wetlands, University ofFlorida, Gainesville. Eldred, B., K.A. Steidinger, and J. Williams. 1964. Duke, R.W., and R.B. Chabreck. 1976. Waterfowl habitat Preliminary studies of the relation of Gymnodinium in lake..<; of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. Proc. breve counts to shellfish toxicity. Pages 25-52 in A Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 29: 501-512. collection of data in reference to red tide outbreaks Dunn, G.E. 1967. Florida hurricanes. ESSA Tech. Memo durinzg 1963. Florida Board of Conservation, Marine WBTM SR-38. Fort Worth, Texa<;. Research Laboratory (mimeo). Dunstan, EM., and R.R. Lewis. 1974. Avian utilization Eldred, B., J. Williams, G.T. Martin, and E.A. Joyce, Jr. and plant succe..<;sion on dredged material islands in 1965. Seasonal distribution ofpenaeid larvae and post Tampa Bay, Florida. Coastal Zone Resources Corpora larvae of the Tampa Bay area, Florida. Fla. Board tion, Wilmington, North Carolina. 73 pp. Conserv. Mar. Lab. Tech. Ser. 44. 47 pp. Durako. M.J., and M.D. Moffler. 1982. Spatial and Environmental Science and Engineering. Inc. (ESE). temporal variation in the growth and proximate compo 1975. Sulfur dioxide control strategy evaluations for sition of Thalassia testudinum Banks ex konig. Ms. fossil fuel steam generators. Cities of Lakeland and submitted to Aquatic Botany. Tallahassee, FPC, FPL, Gainesville-Alachua County Dye, C.W. 1972. Effects oforganic pollution on the distri Regional Utilities Board, Orlando Utilities Commis bution and abundance of benthic invertebrates in Lake sion, and Tampa Electric Co. Thonotosassa, Florida with emphasis on the ecology of Environmental Science and Engineering. Inc. (ESE). the Chironomidae (Diptera). M.A. Thesis. University 1977a. Evaluation ofemissions and control techniques of South Florida, Tampa. for reducing fluoride emissions from gypsum ponds in Earle, SA 1972. Benthic algaeand seagrasses. P' report. Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, January 1974 - October 1977. U.S. Goo!. Surv. Open Tampa. 39 pp. File Rep. 78-820. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1982b. Fernandez, M., Jr., c.L. Goetz, and J.E. Miller. 1984. Florida Acid Deposition Study: Source attribution Evaluation offuture base-flow wateT-quality conditions evaluation: Phase II summary report. Florida Electric in the Hillsborough River, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., Power Coordinating Group, Tampa. 46 pp. Wat.-Resour. Invest. 83-4182. Tallahassee, FL. 1 pp. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1984. Fernandez-Partaga~,J. and C.N.K. Mooers. 1975. A sub Florida Acid Deposition Study: Phase III report. synoptic study of winter cold fronts in Florida. Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Tampa. Monthly Weather Rev. 103(8): 742-744. 518 pp. Finucane, J.R. and R.W. Campbell II. 1968. Ecology of EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. American oysters in OldTampaBay, Florida. Q. J. Fla. ESE. See Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. Acad. Sci. 31: 37-46. Estevez, E.D. 1981. A review of scientific information: Finucane, J.H. and A. Dmgovich. 1959. Counts ofred tide Charlotte Harbor (Florida) estuarine ecosystem organisms Gymnodinium breve and associated oceano complex. Final Rep. Southwest Florida Regional Plan graphic data from Florida west coast, 1954-1957. U.S. ning Council, FortMyers. Mote Mar. Lab. Rev. Ser. 3. Fish Wildt Servo Spec. Rep. 289. 220 pp. 1,077 pp. Finucane, J.R. and A. Dmgovich. 1966. Hydrographic observations in Tampa Bay, Florida, and adjacent Gulf Evans, M., and T. Brungardt. 1978. Shoreline analysis of of Mexico waters-l%3. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Data Sarasota County bay systems with regard to revegeta Rep. 14. tion activities. Pages 193-206 in D.P. Cole, ed. Fmc. 5th Annual Conferenceon restomtion ofcoastal vegeta Florida Board ofConservation (FBe). 1954. Summary of tion in Florida. Environmental Studies Center, observed minfall on Florida to 31 December 1952. Fla. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa BoardConserv., Div. Water Surv. Res. Pap. 11. Ewel, J., R. Myers, L. Conde, and B. Sedlik. 1976. Studies Florida Bureau ofGeology. 1980. Evaluation ofpre-July of vegetation changes in south Florida. Research 1975 disturbed phosphate lands. Florida Departmentof Agreement No. 18-492. University of Florida, Natural Resources, Tallahassee. Gainesville, and U.S. Forest Service. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Fable, W.A., Jr., and C.R. Saloman. 1974. The recre (FDER). 1977. Ambient air quality. FDER, Bureau of ational fishery on three piers near St. Petersburg, Air Quality Management, Tallahassee. 116 pp. Florida during 1971. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36(10): 14-18. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation FEC. See Florida Board ofConservation. (FDER). 1978. Proposed revision to the State imple mentation plan for nonattainment areas. TalIaha<>see. FDER. SeeFlorida Department ofEnvironmental Regula tion. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). 1979a. Revision to the State implementation FDNR. See Florida Department ofNatural Resources. plan for nonattainment areas; attachment 4, Hillsbor Federal Water Pollution Control Administmtion (FWP ough County, transportation control plan. Tallahassee. CA). 1%9. Problems and management of water qual 24pp. ity in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. Federal Water Pollu Florida Department of Environmental Regulation tion Control Administmtion. Washington, D.C. (FDER). 1979b. Revision to the State implementation Fernandez. M., Jr. 1978. Water quality data from a land plan for nonattainment areas; attachment 5, Pinellas fill, Pinellas County, Florida U.S. Goo!. Surv. Open County, transportation control plan. Tallahassee. 59 File Rep. 78-822. pp. Fernandez. M., Jr. 1983. Municipal solid-waste disposal Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and groundwater quality in a coastal environment: (FDER). 1980. 1980 water quality inventory for the west-central Florida. U.S. Goo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour. State of Florida. Bureau of Water Analysis, Tallahas Invest. 83-4072, Tallahassee, FL. 29 pp. see. 294pp. Fernandez, M.,Jr. andR.R. Hallbourg. 1978. Waterqual Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ity data for landfills, Hillsborough County, Florida, (FDER). 1982. 1982 water quality inventory for the 261 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization State of Florida. Bureau of Water Analysis, Tallahas FWPCA. See Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis see. 334 pp. tration. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Gannon, P.T. 1978. Influence of earth surface and cloud (FDER). 1983. Nonpoint a<;sessment for the Wilson properties on south Florida sea bre.czes. Nat. Ocean. Grizzle area. Water Quality Analysis S Carolina, RPI/R/82rm-15. Florida Department ofVet Goodwin, C.R. 1981. Effective channel dredging and eran and Community Affairs, Tallahassee. tidal flow in Tampa Bay. Seminar, Florida Department ofEnvironmental Regulation, Tallahassee. Gilbert, C.R. 1976. Atlantic sturgeon. Pages 275-281 in Inventory of rare and endangered biota of Florida. Goodwin, C.R, J.S. Rothshein, and D.M. Michaelis. Florida Audubon Society and Florida Defenders of the 1974. Water quality of Tampa Bay, Florida. Dry Environment, University Presses of Florida, Gaines weather conditions, June 1971. U.S. GeoI. Surv. Open ville. File Rep. 74-026. 85 pp. Gilbert, T. 1977. Florida phosphate mine reclamation and Gorelick, S. 1975. Southwest Florida regional hydrology wildlife: an overview, preliminary findings. Job and water supply. New College Environmental Studies progress report mimeo. Florida Game and Fresh Water Program, University of South Florida, Sarasota. 115 Fish Commission, Bureau of Environmental Protec pp. tion, Tallahassee. 81 pp. Grady, J.R 1981. Properties of seagrass and sandflat sediment for the intertidal zone of St. Andrews Bay, Gilbert, T., T. King, and B. Barnett. 1981. An assessment Florida. Estuaries 4: 335-344. of wetland habitat establishment at a central Florida phosphate mine site. U.S. Fish WildI. Serv., BioI. Servo Green,J. 1968. Thebiology ofestuarine animals. Univer Program FWSIOBS-81/38. 95 pp. sity of Washington Press, Seattle. 401 pp. Gruber, A. 1%8. The energy budget and climatological Giovanelli, RF. 1981. Relation between freshwater flow description of the atmosphere over the Florida penin and salinity distributions in the Alafia River, Bullfrog sula when a convective regime dominates. Ph.D. Creek, and Hillsborough Bay, Florida. U.S. GeoI. Dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 80-102. 62 pp. Gruber, A. 1969. Energy budget and climatology of the Godcharles, M.F. 1971. A study of the effects of a atmosphere over the Florida peninsula. U.S. Army commercial hydraulic clam dredge on benthic commu Elect. Comm., Tech. Rep. ECOM-04367-F. 64 pp. nities in estuarine areas. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab., Tech. Ser. No. 64. 51 pp. Guimond, RJ. and S.T. Windham. 1975. Radioactivity distribution in phosphate products, by-products, Goetz, c.L. and C.R Goodwin. 1980. Water quality of effluents, and waters. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Tampa Bay, Florida, June 1972-M:ay 1976. U.S.Geol. Criteria Stand. Div., Tech. Note ORP/CSD 75-3: 1-32. Surv. Wat-Resour. Inv. 80-12. 49 pp. Gutfreund, P.D. 1978. Florida sulfur oxides study no. 2 Goin, C.J. 1958. Comments upon the origin of the dispersion, meteorology, and climatology. Dames and herpetofaunaofFlorida. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 21(1): 61 Moore, Inc., Atlanta. 3 vols. 70. Haddad, K. 1982. Hydrographic factors associated with Goodell, RG. and D.S. Gorsline. 1961. A sedimentologi west Florida toxic red blooms: an assessment for satel cal study ofTampa Bay, Florida Pt. 23, Pages 75-88 in lite prediction and monitoring. M.S. Thesis. University 21st Intemation Geological Congress, Copenhagen, ofSouth Florida, Tampa. 1960. Haddad, K. and K.D. Carder. 1979. Oceanic intrusion: Goodins, J.W., R.F. Fisher, W.S. Garbett, and V.W. one possible initiation mechanism ofred tide blooms on Carlisle. 1982. Interpreting soils for pine production. the west coast ofFlorida. Pages 269-274 in D.L. Taylor Pages 91-102 in V.W. Carlisle and RB. Brown, eds. and RR Selinger, cds. Toxic dinoflagellate blooms. Florida soil identification handbook. University of Elsevier, New York. Florida, Soil Science Department, Gainesville, and U.S. Hafer, FL. and CE. Palmer. 1978. Southwest Florida Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Water Management District Atlas. Southwest Florida Goodwin, C.R 1977. Circulation patterns for historical, Water M:anagement District, Brooksville. 58 pp. existing, and proposed channel configurations in Hall, J.R., and W.N. LindalI, Jr. 1974. Benthic Hillsborough Bay, Florida. International Navigation macroinvertebrates and sediments from upland eanals Congress, 24th Proceedings. 13 pp. in TampaBay, Florida. Nat .Mar. Fish. Serv., Data Rep. Goodwin, C.R. 1980. Preliminary simulated tidal flow 94. Seattle. 221 pp. and circulation patterns in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. Haller,W.T. 1977. Hydrilla. Univ.F1a.,InstFood Agric. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 80-1021. 25 pp. Sci. Cire. S-245. Gainesville. 263 Tampa Bay Ecological CharacterizaUon Hamm, D., and HJ. Humm. 1976. Benthic algae of the subtropical communities. Presentation abstracted on Anclote Estuary. n. Bottom-dwelling species. F1or. page 247 in SF Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis HI, and Sci. 39: 209-229. R.L. Whitman, Jr., cds. 1985. Proceedings, Tampa Hand, J., and D. Jackman. 1984. Water quality inventory Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, May for the State of Florida. Florida Department of Envi 1982. University ofSouth Florida, Tampa. ronmental Regulation, Bureau of Water Analysis, Tal Hela,1. 1952. Remarks on the climate ofsouthern Florida. lahassee. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2(2): 438-447. Hardin, S. and J. Atterson. 1980. E.cological effect,> of Henderson, S.E. 1983. Hydrology ofLake Padget, Saxon grass carp introduction in Lake Wales, Florida. Florida Lake, and adjacent area, Pasco County. Florida. U.S. Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee. Gool. Surv. Wat. Res. Inv. Open-File Rep. 82-759. Tal 95pp. lahassee. 1 p. Harper, R.M. 1927. Natural resources ofsouthern Florida. Herring, J.L. 1951. The aquatic and semi-aquatic Fla. Gool. Surv., 18th Ann. Rep.: 125-206. Hemiptera of northern Florida. P'dlt 4: Classification of Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinger, and J.A. Huff. habitats and keys to the species. Fla. Entomol. 34: 141 1983. Assessment of fisheries habitat: Charlotte 146. Harbor and Lake Worth, florida. Final report for Herwitz, S. 1977. The natural history of Cayo-Cosl.'l contract period Nov. 18 through Nov. 30, 1982. Florida Island. Univ. ofSouth fla., New College Environ. ScL Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Marine Program Rep. No. 14. Tampa. Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg. 211 pp. Heyl, M.G. 1982. Manatee River ecological study: a lbrtigan, J.P. and SA Hanson-Walton. 1984. Tributary technical basis for best management practices. Final stream flows and pollut.1nt loadings Hickey,J.J.andG.L.Barr. 1979. Hydrogeologic data for Holle, RL. 1971. Effects of cloud condensation nuclei u'1e Bear Creek subsurface injection test site, St. Peters due to fires and surface sources during south Florida burg, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 78-853. droughts. J. Appl. Meteorol. 10: 62-69. 104 pp. Hopkins, T.L. 1973. Zooplankton. Pages IIIF-1-IIIF-1O Hickey, U. and R.M. Spechler. 1979. Hydrogeologic in J.l. Jones, et al., cds. Asummary ofknowledge ofthe data for the southwest subsurface injection test site, St. eastern Gulf of Mexico. Martin Marietta Aerospace, Petersburg, Florida. U.S. Geot Surv. Open-File Rep. Orlando, FL. 78-852. Hopkins, TL. 1977. Zooplankton distribution in surface Hickey,J,J. and WE. Wilson. 1982. Resultsofdeep-well waters of Tampa Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf injection testing at Mulberry, Florida. U.S. Geot Surv. Caribb. 27(3): 467-478. Wa1.-Resour. Inv. 81-75. 15 pp. Hosler, C.R. 1%1. Low-level inversion frequency in the Hicks, D.B. and LA Burns. 1975. Mangrove metabolic contiguous United States. Monthly Weather Rev. 89: response to alterations ofnatural freshwater drainage to 319. southwestern Florida estuaries. Pages 238-255 in G. Huff, J.A. 1975. Life history ofGulf ofMexico sturgeon, Walsh, S. Snedaker, and H. Teas, eds. Proceedings of Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi. in Suwannee River, the international symposium on the biology and man Florida. Flor. Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar. Res. Lab., Flor. agement of mangroves. University of Florida, Mar. Res. Publ. 16. 32 pp. Gainesville. Hughes, R.H. 1974. Management and utilization of Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commis pineland threeawn range in south Florida. J. Range sion (HCEPC). 1982. Environmental Quality, 1980: Mange. 27(3): 186-192. Hillsborough County, Florida. HCEPC Rep. Tampa, Hughes, M.A., and J. Parks. 1977. A study of the effects FL. of entrainment and thermal discharge on the phyto Hillsoorough County Environmental Protection Commis plankton community at Big Bend, Tampa Bay (Flori sion (HCEPC). 1983. Environmental Quality, 1981: da). Pages 3-i --3-108 in RD. Garrity, W.J. Tiffany Hillsborough County, Florida. HCEPC Rep. Tampa, III, and S. Mahadevan (cds.) Ecological studies at Big FL. Bend Steam Electric Station. Tampa Electric Com Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commis pany. sion (HCEPC). 1984. Environmental Quality, 1982: Hulet, W.H., SJ. Masel, L.B. Jodrey, and R.G. Wehr. Hillsborough County, Florida. HCEPC Rep. Tampa, 1967. The role of calcium in the survival of marine FL. teleosts in dilute seawater. Bull. Mar. Sci. 17: 677-688. Hilmon, J.B. and CEo Lewis. 1962. Effects ofburning on Humm, H,J. 1956. Seagrasses of the northern gulfcoast. south Florida range. U.S. Forest Service, Southeast Bull. Mar. Sci. 6: 305-308. Research Station. 12 pp. Humm, HJ. 1973. Seagrasses. Pages IIIC1-IIIClO in J.l. HirtJl, D.H. and W.R Marion. 1979. Bird communities of Jones, RE. Ring, M.O. Rinkel, and RE. Smith, cds. A a soup"! Florida flatwoods. Fla. Sci. 42(3): 142-151. summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico Ho, F.P., R.W. Schwerdt, and H.Y. Goodyear. 1975. 1973. State University System Institute of Oceanogra Some climatological characteristics of hurricanes and phy, St. Petersburg, FL. tropical stonns, Gulf and east coasts,of the United Humm, HJ., RC. Baird, KL. Carder, TL. Hopkins, and States. Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin. Tech. Rep. NWS T.E. Pyle. 1971. Ancloteenvironmental project annual 15. report, 1970. Univ. South Fla., Mar. Sci. lnst., Contrib. Hobbs, H.B., Jr. 1942. The crayfishes of Florida. Univ. No. 29. S1. Petersburg. Fla., BioI. Sci. Ser. 3(2): 1-179. Gainesville. Hunn, J.D. 1974. Hydrology ofLake Tarpon near Tarpon Hoffman, W.E. and CJ. Dawes. 1980. Photosynthetic Springs. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geol. Map Ser. rates and primary production by two Florida benthic red No. 60. algal species from a salt marsh and a mangrove commu Hunter, M.E. 1978. What is the Caloosahatehee Marl? In nity. Bun. Mar. Sci. 30: 358-364. Southeastern Geological Society guidebook No. 20; Holcomb, D. 1965. A study of stocking rations of warm Hydrogeology of south-central Flonda. 22nd Field water fishes, management research. Florida Game and Conference, Southeastern Geological Society, West Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. Palm Beach, FL. 265 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization BUliChinson. C.B. AppraIsal of $!laUow li[1U\mo- Jones, J.A. 1968. Primary productivity by the tropical waterresoun::c,'1 and in the marine turtle grao;;s, Thtllassia testudinum Koenig, and uppt'\tPeac~ and florida. it'\ epiphytes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, U.S. Gool. Invt\"lt. n·t24. 57 pp. Coral Gables. HUlchirlSOO, C.B. and J.W. Stewart 1978. GelclhydrolOitic Jordan,C.L. 1913. Climate. Pages II A·l toHA-14inJJ. evaluation ofalandfIll in acoa'ltal area, St. Petersburg, Jones, RE. Ring, MD. Rinkel, Md R.E. Smith, cds. A Florida. U.S. Gent Surv., Wat.·Resour. InvC$l. 77·78. summary of knowledge ofthe eastern Gulf of Mexico 4Opp. 1913. State University System of Florida, Institute of Hutehinson, 1967. A treatise ol1limnology. Vol. 2: Oceanography. 51. Petersburg. Introduction to lake biology and the limnopl'l11kton. Jordan, C.L. 1984. Florida's weather and climate: Impli. lohn Wiley and Sons, Inc.• New York.l,l15 pp. cations f()fwater. Pages 18-35 inEA Fernald and DJ. Patton, eds. Water resources atlas of Florida. Florida Hutton, R.F.,B. Idled, KO. Woodburn, and R.M. Ingle. Slate University, Tallahas.'lCe. 291 pp. 1956. 'l1le ecology of Boca Ciega Bay with special ref«ence to dredging and filling operations. F1a. State Joyner. B.F.• and H. Sutcliffe., Jr. 1976. Water resources Board Ctmlre.rv., Tech. No. 17. 87 pp. of the Myakka River basin area, southwest Florida. U.s. Gco!. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Inve-'\t. 76-58. 87 pp. Hyd~ience Research Group. Inc. 1980. Preliminary evaluation ofthe water supplies in the Cow Pen Kale, H.W.• ed. 1978. Rare and endMgered biota of SI()Ugharea. S()ulhwestFltxlda Water MMagemelll Fl()fida, Vol. 2, Birds. University Presse.'l of Florida, DI$trict. H)'droscicnce Resean::h Group, Inc .• Luke Gaine.'lville. land.l:lL. Kelll~her, M.J. 1976. Water hyacinth, EicMornia Inglc.J.C. 1962. The mov Kurz, H. 1942. Florida dunes and scrub vegetation and mental impact study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, geology. Fla. State Geol. Surv. Bull. 23. 154 pp. Washington, D.C. 3 vols. Kurz, H., and K.A. Wagner. 1953. Factors in cypress Lazor. 1973. Aquatic plants ofprincipal concern,Chapter dome development. Ecology 34: 157-164. 5. In RL. Lyerly, N.W. Walls, and M.T. Sweeney, cds. An evaluation of aquatic weed control methods for Kurz, H., and K. Wagner. 1957. Tidal marshes ofthe Gulf power plant coding reservoir. Fla. Power Light Co., and Atlantic coasts ofnorthern Florida and Charleston, Environ. Eng. Tech. Rep. Ser.73-3. Miami. SC. Fla. State Univ. Stud. No. 24. 168 pp. Leendertse, J.J. 1967. Aspects ofa computational model Kushlan, JA 1974. Effects of a natural fish kill on the for long period water wave propagation. Rand Corpo water quality, plankton and fish population ofa pond in ration, Santa Monica, Calif. the BigCypress Swamp, Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103: 235-243. Lehman, M.E. 1976. Collier County: Growth pressure in a wetlands wilderness. Florida Bureau of Comprehen Kushlan, lA., and T.E. Lodge. 1974. Ecological and sive Planning. Tallahassee. 59 pp. distributional notes on the freshwater fish of southern Lewis, R.R., M.J. Durako, M.D. Moffler, and R.C. Florida. Fla. Sci. 37(2): 110-128. Phillips. 1985. Seagrass meadows of Tampa Bay - a Kushlan, JA, and D.A. White. 1977. Nesting wading review. Pages 210-246 in S.F. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. bird populations in southern Florida. Fla. Sci. 40: 65 Lewis III, and RL. Whitman, Jr., cds. Proceedings, 72. Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, Laessle, A.M. 1942. The plant communities of the May 1982. University of South Florida, Tampa. Welaka area. Univ. Fla., BioI. Sci. Ser. 4(1): 1-143. Lewis, RR, and E. Estevez. 1988. Theecology ofTampa Lane, E. 1980. Environmental geology series - West Palm Bay, Florida: An estuarine profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Beach sheet. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geo!., Map Servo BioL Rep. 85(7.18). 132 pp. Ser. 100. Tallahassee. Lewis, RR, and C.S. Lewis. 1978. Colonial bird use and Lane, E., M.S. Knapp, and T. Scott. 1980. Environmental plant succession on dredged material islands in Florida, geology series - Fort Pierce sheet. Fla. Dep. Nat. Vol. 2: Patterns of plant succession. U.S. Army Corp Resour., Bur. Geol., Map Ser. 80. Tallahassee. Eng., Waterways Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep. D-78-14. Vicksburg, Miss. 169 pp. Langford, F. 1974. Striped bass program status report 1974 Fish Management Report, South Florida Region. Lewis, RR and RC. Phillips. 1980. Seagrass mapping Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Talla project, Hillsborough County, Florida. Tampa Port hassee. II pp. Authority. 30 pp. Lanquist, E.E. 1953. Peace and Alafia rivers stream Lewis, RR and R.C. Phillips. 1981. Occurrence ofseed sanitation studies 1950-1953. Vol. 2, Suppl. 2: A and seedlings ofThalassia testudinum Banks ex Konig biological survey of the Peace River, Florida. Florida in the Florida Keys (U.S.A.) Aquat. Bot. 9:377-380. State Board of Health, Jacksonville. 75 pp. Lewis, RR, and RL. Whitman. 1985. A new geographic description of the boundaries and subdivisions of LaPoint RE., L.D. Williams, J.C. Goldman, and J.H. Tampa Bay. Pages 10-18 in SF. Treat, J.L. Simon, Ryther. 1976. The mass outdoor culture of macro RR Lewis III, and R.L. Whitman, Jr., cds. Proceed scopic marine algae. Aquaculture 8: 3-21. ings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Sympo Layne, IN. 1974. The land mammals of south Florida. sium, May 1982. University ofSouth Florida, Tampa. Pages 386-413 in Gleason, P.J., ed. Environments of Lincer,J.L.,etal. 1975. Theccologica1statusofDonaand south Florida: present and past. Miami Geo!. Soc. Robert's Bays and its relationship to Cow Pen Slough Mem.2. and other possible perturbations. Board of County Layne, J.N. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Commissioners, Sarasota County. Mote Marine Lab., Vol. 1: Mammals. University Presses of Florida, Sarasota, FL. Gainesville. 52 pp. Lindall, W.N., Jr., W.A. Fable, Jr., and L.A. Collins. 1975. Layne, J.N., J.A. Stallcup, G.E. Woolfenden, M.N. Additional studies of the fishes, macroinvertebrates, McCauley, and DJ.Worley. 1977. Fish and wildlife and hydrological conditions ofupland canals in Tampa inventory of the seven county region included in the Bay, Florida. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Servo Fish. Bull. (1): central Florida phosphate industry areawide environ- 81-85. 267 T'he OCCllrre:m:.e (1«' .4 UYI'I~.• l!', cbm:aS amd UJfmRi(l" HI. .md JR 1972, C'uu,mne mvenlJnry and llbll~ i:An,"Ji Nat, Mltr. :~, 126pp, M""l~lrill:~n SJ%. 1971), L.Mlid CO'ltt:t area, l'Cntfw fk'Jrida. •·1 M(ridith,zmd W.S. We.tu~fhall 1961 f'klfida. Fla. w41L- ~~e·!i{'tlf, In\'es't. :2 :'L Till Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1983. Tampa Nationwide Urban Montalbano, E, W.M. Hetrick, and T.C. Hines. 1978. Runoff Program. Final Summary Report. Department Duck food habits in central Florida phosphate settling ofPublic Works, City ofTampa, FL. ponds. Pages 247-255 in D.E. Samuel, J.R. Stauffer, Michewicz, JE., DL Sutton, and RD. Blackburn. 1972. c.H. Hocutt, and W.T. Mason, eds. Proceedings of The white amur for aquatic weed control. Weed Sci. Symposium on Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife 20: 106-110. Needs in the Eastern U.S. West Virginia University and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 386 pp. Miley, W.W. II, AJ. Leslie, Jr., andJ.M. Van Dyke. 1979. The effects of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella Montalbano, F., S. Hardin, and W.M. Hetrick. 1979. val.) on vegetation and water quality in three centml Utilization of Hydrilla by ducks and coot in central Florida. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish Florida lakes. Florida Department of Natural Re Wildl. Agencies 33: 36-42. sources, Mimoo. 119 pp. Mooers, C.N.K., J. Fernandez-Partagas, and J.F. Price. Miller, J., and J. Morris. 1981. The Peace River. Chapter 1975. An evaluation of meteorological data from 4 in E.D. Estevez, ed. A review of scientific infonna several buoys of the NOAA data buoy office, eastern tion: Charlotte Harbor (Florida) estuarine ecosystem Gulfof Mexioo (1973-1974). Univ. Miami, Rosenstiel complex. Report to Southwest Florida Regional Plan School Mar. Atmos. Sci. UM-RSMNS - No. 75030. ning Council, Fort Myers. Mote Mar. Lab. Rev. Ser. 3. Miami, FL. 1077 pp. Morrill, S., and J. Harvey. 1980. An environmental Miller, RE., and H. Sutcliffe, Jr. 1982. Water-quality and assessment of North Captiva Island. New College hydrogeologic data for three phosphate industry waste Environ. Stud. Program Pub!. 23. Sarasota, FL. disposal sites in central Florida, 1979-80. U.S. Gool. Morrill, J.B., R Gasser, C.B. Morrill, and S. Baker. 1977. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. Rep. 81-84. Tallahassee, Final water quality report of the Lemon Bay complex FL. 77 pp. study area. New College Environment Studies Pro Mills, L.R and c.P. Laughlin. 1976. Potentiometric gram Report. SardSOta, FL. 30 pp. surface of Floridan aquifer, May 1975, and change of Morris, J. 1974. An ecological study of Upper Myakka potentiometric surface 1969 to 1975, Southwest Florida lake with a special focus on water hyacinth and Water Management District and adjacent areas. U.S. Hydril/a. Unpublished thesis. New College Environ Geo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 76-80. Tallahassee, mental Studies Progmrn. Sarasota, FL. FL. 1 p. Morris, C.A. 1976. Macroinvertebrates and fish as Missimer,T.M. 1973. The depositional history ofSanibel sampled by trawls and seines. Chapter 5 in Ecological Island, Florida. M.S. Thesis. Florida State University, surveys of the Big Bend area. Tampa Electric Tallahassee. Company, Marine Research Laboratory, Mitzner, L. 1978. Evaluation ofbiological control ofnui Morris, J., and J. Miller. 1977. Estuaries affected by phos sance aquatic vegetation by grass carp. Tmns. Am. phate mining. M.S. Archbold Biological Station, Fish. Soc. 107(1): 135-145. University ofFlorida, Gainesville. Moe, M.A. 1964. A note on a red tide fish kill in Tampa Morris, J., J. Miller, W.K. Byle, and J.B. Morrill. 1978. Bay, Florida during April 1%3. Pages 122-125 in A Survey of the natural systems of Gasparilla Island, colleCtion of data in reference to red tide outbreaks Florida, with special references to conservation, protec during 1963. Fla. State Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. tion, restoration, and public use. Sarasota, FL. St. Petersburg. • Mote Marine Laboratory. 1975. The ecological status of Moe, M.A., Jr., and G.T. Martin. 1965. Fishes taken in Dona and Robert's bays and its relationship to Cow Pen monthly trawl samples offshore of Pinellas County, Slough and other possible perturbations. Board of Florida, with new additions to the fish fauna of the County Commissioners, Sarasota County, FL. Tampa Bay area. Tulane Stud. Zool. 12(4): 129-151. Motz, L.H. 1975. Hydrologic Effects of the Tampa Monk, C.D. 1968. Successional and environmental rela Bypass Canal System. Fla. Bur. Gool. Rep. Inv. 82. tionships of the forest vegetation of north-central Tallahassee. 42 pp. Florida. Am. MidI. Nat. 79(2): 411-457. Murphy, W.R, Jr. 1968. Causes of flooding of Little Monk, C.D., and J.T. McGinnis. 1%6. Tree species Chariey Bowlegs Creek upstream of Highlands diversity in six forest types in north-central Florida. 1. Hammock State Park, Florida. U.S. Geo!. Surv. Open Ecol. 54: 341-344. File Rep. 68-004. Tallaha..<.;see. 16 pp. 269 Tampa Bay Ecological Chlu.u:1erlzatlon Murray. G.E. 1963. Geologic history and fnul1cwork of Odum, WE. CC.McIvOf, and T.G. Smith. 1982. The Gulf.Atlantic geosyncline (abstract). Am. Assoc. Horicla mangrove zone: a community U.S. Fish Petro!. Geol. Bull. 47: 364-365. Wild!. Serv., BioI. Servo Program, FWS/OBS-82(24. Myers. R.t. 1975. The relationship of site conditions to 144 pp. the invading capability of Melaleuca quinquenervitl in Olson, F.CW., and 1.B. Morrill. 1955. Literature survey southwest Horida. M.S. Thesis. University ofHorida. of the Tampa Bay area. Florida SUite University Gainesville. Oceanographic Institute Report, (mimco). Tallahassee. Myers, R.L. 1976. Mda/(tw;a field slHdics. In J. Ewe!. R. Osborne, l.A., and N.M. Sassic. 1979. Biological control Me~\d()r, R. Myers, L Conde, ,md B. Sedlik, cds. Stud· of Hydrilla verticillata Royle with gmss c Peek, H.M. 1959. The artesian water ofthe Ruskin area of Provost, M.W. 1958. Chironomids and lake nutrients in Hillsborough County, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., Bull. Florida. Sewage Ind. Wa<;tes 30: 1417-1419. 1092. 111 pp. Provost, M.W., and N. Branch. 1959. Food ofchironomid Penfound, W.T., and T.T. Earle. 1948. The biology ofthe larvae in Polk County lakes. Fla. Entomol. 42: 50-62. water hyacinth. Ecol. Monogr. 18: 447-472. Puri, B.S., and RO. Vernon. 1964. Summaryofthegeol Penman, H.L. 1948. Natural evaporation from open ogy ofFlorida and a guidebook to the classic exposures. water, bare soil, or gra'>S. Proc. Roy. Soc., Ser. A. 193: Florida Bur. Geol. Spec. Publ. No.5 (revised). 312 pp. 120-145. Puri, H.S., and G.O. Winston. 1974. Geologic framework Perkins, RD., and P. Enos. 1968. Hurricane Bel,>y in the of the high transmissivity zones in south Florida. Fla. Florida-Bahama,> area: gc,ologic effects and compari Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geol., Spec. Pubi. No. 20. son with Hurricane Donna. J. Geol. 76: 710-717. Tallaha"sce. 99 pp. Peterson, C.H., and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The ecology of Pyle, T.E., SW. Rogers, D.F. Thompson, R.S. Clingan, intertidall1aL'> of North Carolina: a community profile. and J.e. McCarthy. 1972. Geology. Pages 23-47 in U.S. Fish WildI. Servo BioI. Servo Program. f<"WS/ Andote environmental project report, 1972. Florida OBS-79/39. 73 pp. Power Corpomtion, Tampa. Phillippy, c.L. 1964. Results ofselective shad treatmenl,> Quammen, M.L. 1982. The impact ofpnxlation by shore in six central Florida lakes. Proc. 18th Ann. Conf. birds, benthic fceding fish and a cmb on the shallow Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm., October 18-21, living invertebmtes in intertidal mudflats of two south 1964. 15 pp. em California lagoons. Dissertation. University of Phillips, RC. 1960. Observations on the ecology and Califomia. distribution ofthe Florida seagr.lSses. Fla. Slate Board Rabinowitz, D. 1978. Early growth of mangrove seed Conserv. Mar. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser. No.2. 72 pp. lings in Panama and an hypothesis conceming the rela Phillips, RC. 1%2. Distribution of seagra<;ses in Tampa tionship of di:"'PCrsal and zonation. J. Biogeogr. 5: 113 Bay, Florida. Fla. Slate Board Conscrv. Spec. Sci. Rep. 133. No.6. 12pp. Rabkin, R, lmd 1. Rabkin. 1978. Nature guide to Florida. Phillips, R.C. and V.G. Springer. 1960. Observations on Banyan Book, Miami, FL. the offshore benthic flora in the Gulf of Mexico off Rainwater, E.H. 1960. Stratigraphy and its role in the Pinella'> County, Florida. Am. MidI. Nat. 64: 62-381. future exploration for oil and gas in the gulf coast. Phosphate Land Reclamation Study Commission. 1978. Trans. Gulf A,>scx:. Geol. Soc. 10: 33-75. Report on phosphate mining and reclamation. Bureau Recher, H.F. 1966. Some a<;pects of the ecology of ofGeology, Florida Department of Natural Resources, migrdOt shorebirds. Ecology 47: 393-407. Tallahassee. 31 pp. Reichenbaugh, Re. 1977. A hydrologic description of Pielke, RA. 1973. A three dimensional numerical mood Keystone Lake near Tampa, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., of the seabreezes over south Florida. Nall. Ocean. Wal.-Resour. Invest. 76-124. 1 p. Atmos. Admin. Tech. Memo. ERL WMPO-2. 136 pp. Reichenbaugh, Re., and J.D. Bunn. 1972. A hydrologic Pomeroy, L.R 1960. Primary productivity of Boca Ciega description ofLake Thonotosassa near Tampa, Florida. Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 10: 1-10. Fla. Dt~p. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geol., l\fup Ser. No. 48. Pray, L.L. 1966. Hurricane Bel<;y (1965) and nearshore Tallaha<;see. I p. carbonate sedimenL,> of the Florida Keys. Geol. Sex:. Rcichenbaugh, R.C., J.S. Roscnshcin, and R.L Westly. Am., Ann. Meeting, South Florida Program, pages 168 1973. Ba,>ic water quality (lata for pollution abatement 169. plan, Tampa Bay area, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open Pressler, E.D. 1947. Geolo!:,')' and occurrence of oil in File Rep. FL-73020. 137 pp. Florida. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 31(10): 1851 Reid, G.K., and N.J. Blake. 1%9. Diumal z(xlplankton 1862. ecology in a phosphate pit lake. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 32: Priede-Sedgwick, Inc. 1980. Tampa Nationwide Urban 275-284. Runoff Program. Phase 1. Ta<4: 1.3B - Poillt Source Reid, RD., and R.B. Bodine. 1968. Numerical m,Jdel for Inventory and Task 1.3C - Runoff characteristics. storm surges in Galveston Bay. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., J. Department ofPublic Works, City of Tampa. Waterways Harbors, 94 (WWl): 33-57. 271 i9n ~ni~IU.W lil~(inrl wl~r in!) ~di~ ~la.'t~ ~'«'lm.lllia, rbkJ.jt Gnmnd W~ ',!.==,=~ e"-~_~'f,,,", __ ~! Ki~gmnlJe~dt>\ln;\~~eM."'If~", "",,"','" ,,", TllUft,,'iiI."cC, 212 References RounsefeU, G.A., and W.R Nelson. 1966. Red tide Saunders, R.P., B.I. Birnhak, J.T. Davis, and C.L. research summarized to 1964 including an annotated Walquist 1%7. Seasonal distribution of diatoms in bibliography. U.S. Fish Wildt Servo S}XX:. Sci. Rep. Florida inshore waters from Tampa Bay to Caxambas 535. 85 pp. Pass, 1963-64. Pages 48-78 in Red tide studies, Roush, RB. 1985. Terraces and soils of the Tampa Bay Pinellas to Collier counties, 1%3-1966, symposium. area. Pages 33-52 in S.P. Treat, J.L. Simon, RR Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. 9. Lewis ill, and R.L. Whitman, Jr., eds. Proceedings, Savage. 1972. Florida mangroves: A review. Fla. Depart Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, Nat. Resour., Mar. Res. Lab. Ser. 7(1): 1-15. May 1982. Burgess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, SCESL. see Sarasota County Environmental Services MN. Available from TampaBASIS, P.O. Box 290197, Laboratory Tampa, FL 33687. Schardt, J.D., and L.E. NaIl. 1982. 1982 Florida aquatic Ryder, P.D. 1978. Model evaluation ofthe hydrogeology plant survey. Florida Department of Natural Re of the Cypress Creek well field in west-central Florida. sources, Bureau ofAquatic PlantResearch andControl, U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 78-79. 68 pp. Tallahassee. 116 pp. Saloman, C.R. 1964. The shrimp Trachypenaeus similis Schmidley, DJ. 1980. Marine mammals ofthe southeast in Tampa Bay. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 27: 165. ern United States coast and the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Saloman, C.H. 1%5. Bait shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) in Fish Wildt Serv., BioI. Servo Program, FWS/OBS-80/ Tampa Bay, Florida - biology, fishery economics, and 41. 163 pp. changing habitat. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci. Schneider, D. 1978. Equilization of prey numbers by Rep. Fish. 561. 6 pp. migratory shorebirds. Nature 27: 353-354. Saloman, C.R. 1%8. Diel and seasonal occurrence of Schnoes, R.S., and S.R. Humphrey. 1980. Terrestrial pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum Barkenroad, in two plant and wildlife communities on phosphate-mined divergent habitats of Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Fish lands in central Florida. Fla. State Mus. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildt Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 561. 6 pp. No.3. 189 pp. Saloman, C.H. 1974. Physical, chemical, and biological Scholander, P.F., L. VanDam, and S.1. Scholander. 1955. characteristics ofnearshore zone of Sand Key, Florida, Gas exchange in the roots of mangroves. Am. J. Bot prior to beach restoration. National Marine Fisheries 42(1): 92-98. Service, Gulf Coastal Fisheries Center, Panama City Schreiber, E.A., and R.W. Schreiber. 1979. Breeding Laboratory, Panama City, FL. ISA No. CERC 73-27, biology of laughing gulls in Florida. Part 1: Nesting, Vol. 1 and 2. egg, and incubation parameters. Bird Banding 50: 304 Saloman, C.R., and S.P. Naughton. 1979. Fishes of the 321. littoral zone, Pinellas County, Florida. Fla. Sci. 42(2): Schreiber, E.A., and R.W. Schreiber. 1980. Breeding 85-93. biology of laughing gulls in Florida. Part 2: Nesting Saloman, C.H., and J.L. Taylor. 1972. Hydrographic parameters. J. Field Omithol. 51: 340-355. observations in Tampa Bay, Florida - 1969. Nat Mar. Schreiber, R.W., and E.A. Schreiber. 1978. Colonial bird Fish. Serv., Data Rep. 73: 1-82. use and plant succession on dredged material islands in Santos, S.L. 1972. Distribution and abundance of the Florida. Vol. 1: Sea and wading bird colonies. U.S. polychaetous annelids in Lassing Park, $t Petersburg, Army Corps Eng., Waterways Exp. Stn.,Tech. Rep. D Florida M.A. Thesis. University of South Florida, 78-14. 63 pp. Tampa. 67 pp. <- Schroeder, P.B., and J.A. Browder. 1979. Seed dispersal Santos, S.L., and J.L. Simon. 1974. Distribution and of Melaleuca quinquenervia : a stochastic simulation abundance of the po1ychaetous annelids in a south model. Final Report, Research Agreement 18-724. Florida estuary. Bull. Mar. Sci. 24: 669-689. U.S. Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experimental Sarasota County Environmental Services Laboratory. Station, Asheville, N.C. 1985. Ambient water quality, Sarasota County, Scott, T.M.,andP.L. MacGill. ·1981. The Hawthorn For Florida. Sarasota. mation ofcentral Florida. Part 1: Geology ofthe Haw Sarasota County Environmental Services Laboratory. thomFormati6nin·· central Florida: Fla.•·Dep.Naf. 1987. Ambient water quality, Sarasota County, Resour., Bur. GeoL, Rep. Invest No. 91. Tallahassee. Florida. Sarasota. 53pp. 273 pn)'!UCt~viIIY 0( (k::,~ntbl(: fi'lht'::ririiL Bun'~~i,l of' Fi:~~· \\lii!dbi~_ \\fli,1itiltrl~ton, r»,<;', 40' PJ), tWO, Wdd-hle ~ey Evt'r~bKks RCSOUfl,t Plan, 214 References Sprinkle, C.L. 1982. Dissolved-solids concentration in Stewart, J.W., A.D. Duerr, and M. Fernandez, Jr. 1983. water from the upper permeable zone of the Tertiary Hydrogeology and water quality of six landfill sites in limestone aquifer system, southeastern United States. Hillsborough County, Florida. U.S. GeoI. Surv., Wat. U.S. Geol. Surv., WaL-Resour. Invest., Open-File Rep. Resour. Invest. Rep. 83-4180. Tallahassee. 112 pp. 82-94 (map). Atlanta. Stewart, J.W., C.L. Goetz, and L.R. Mills. 1978. Spmnt, A., Jr. 1954. Florida bird life. Coward-McCann, Hydrogeologic factors affecting the availability and Inc., New York. 527 pp. quality of ground-water in the Temple Terrace area, Stahl, L.E. 1970. The marine geology of Tampa Bay. Hillsborough County, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat. M.S. Thesis. Florida State University, Tallahassee. 70 Resour. Invest. 78-4. Tallahassee. 45 pp. pp. Stewart, J.W., L.R Mills, D.O. Knochenmus, and G.L. Steidinger, KA. 1973. Phytoplankton ecology: a concep Faulkner. 1971. Potentiometric surface and areas of tual review base,d on eastern Gulf of Mexico research. artesian flow, May 1969, and change ofpotentiometric eRC Crit. Rev. MicrobioI. 3(1): 49-68. surface 1964 to 1969, Floridan aquifer, SWFWMD. U.S. Goo!. Surv., Hydrol. Invest Atlas RAMO. Steidinger, KA. 1975a. Basic factors influencing red tides. Pages 153-162 in V.R. LoCicero, ed. Proceed Stone, P.A., and PJ. Gleason. 1976. The organic sedi ings of the first international conference on toxic ments ofCorkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Pages 763-771 dinoflagellate blooms. Massachusetl<; Science and in H.T. Odum and KC. Ewel, cds. Cypress wetlands Technology Foundation, Wakefield, for water management, recycling, and conservation. Center for Wetlands, University ofFlorida, Gainesville. Steidinger, KA. 1975b. Implications ofdinoflagellate life cycles on initiation of Gymnodinium breve red tides. Stoner, A.W. 1980. The role of seagrass biomass in the Environ. Leu. 9(2): 129-139. organization of benthic macrofaunal assemblages. Steidinger, K.A., J.T. Davis, and 1. Williams. 1967. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30: 537-551. Dinoflagellate studies of the inshore waters of the west Sugg, A.L., L.G. Pardue, and R.L. Carrodus. 1971. coast of Florida. Pages 4-47 in Red tide studies, Memorable hurricanes of the United States since 1873. Pinellas to Collier counties, 1963-1966; a symposium. Nat Ocean. Atmos. Admin., Tech. Rep. 71-00610. Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. 9. Fort Worth, TX. Steidinger, KA, and W.E. Gardiner. 1985. Phytoplank Sutcliffe, H., Jr., and T.H. Thompson. 1983. Occurrence ton of Tampa Bay· a Review. Pages 147-183 in S.P. and use ofground water in the Venice-Englewood area, Treat, J.L. Simon, RR. Lewis m. and RL. Whitman, Sarasota and Charlotte counties, Florida. U.S. Geol. Jr., eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Infor Surv. Open-File Rep. 82-700, Tallahassee. 59 pp. mation Symposium, May 1982. SWFWMD. see Southwest Florida Water Management Steidinger, KA, and K. Haddad. 1981. Biologic and District hydrographic aspects of red tides. BioScience 31(11): Sykes, J.E., and J.H. Finucane. 1966. Occurrence in 814-818. Tampa Bay, Florida, of immature species dOminant in Steidinger, KA, and RM. Ingle. 1972. Observations on Gulfof Mexico commercial fisheries. U.S. Fish Wildl. the 1971 red tide in Tampa Bay, Florida. Environ. Lett. Servo Fish. Bull. 65: 369-379. 3: 271-277. Sykes, J.E., and J.R. Hall. 1970. Comparativedistribution Steidinger. KA, and J. Williams. 1970. Dinoflagellates: of mollusks in dredged and undredged portions of an Mem. Hourglass Cruises. Fla. Del'. Nat Resour. Mar. estuary. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Bull. 68(2): 299-305. Res. Lab. 2. 251 PI'. Tabb, D.C., and RB. Manning. 1961. A checklist ofthe Ste~ens, R.E. 1975. Current and future considerations flora and fauna ofnorthern Floridabayand the adjacent concerning striped bass culture and management Proc. brackish waters of the Florida mainland coUected 28th Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish during the period July 1957 through september 1960. Comm.: 69-73. Bull. Mar. Sci. GulfCaribb. 11(4): 552-649. Stevenson, J;A. 1967. A list ofthe vertebrates identifi&lin Tarnpa;Cityof. 198L Hillsborough RiverWaretTrem" Hillsborough River State Parle. Florida Board ofParks, mentPlant treatment study. City of Tampa Water Tallahassee. 16.pp. Department, Tampa. 275 as.sessmoot progrnm, U,So Environmem.al Protection (Je\l'e:I01Pf1'Wint in run;,,,,,,,,. Washirilgtoll. DC, """'V~'f. 153· 156, 'Te"as Inc, 1978b. Central Rorida phos· Po]tycl)~~)Ull :uulell1i1 andootllhic phate industry areawide a..~'re'ssmelll progmm. etlvin'ml'tlOOt~ in TwnpaPh,D, Vot5, Watt'f. Sect 1.WaterquantitYlUldquaUty. U.S. Unlvtl'Sit" off"kJritbl Gainesvil.le, pp, EmrlrolW(:nl.al PrtlU:;Ctioo A1rI~!ICV. Washington, DC. IUId inv~~mo;" 1978c. Central Rorida pllos. 'rM'tpaHlftx)fPrc}~t, U,S. An'ny (;()ff~ of" EI,gin<:~, phate intill 216 References Turner, J.F., Jr. 1979. Streamflow simulation studies of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Anclote Rivers, west Service. 1972. Soil survey ofPinellas County, Florida. central Horida. U.S. Gool. Surv., Water Resour. In Gainesville, FL. vest 78-102, Tallahassee. 161 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Turner, J.T. 1972. The phytoplankton of the Tampa Bay Service. 1981. Soil surveys in Horida - a status report system, Florida. M.S. Thesis. University of South Report FY-73-80. Gainesville, FL. Horida, Tampa. 188 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Turner, J.T., and T.L. Hopkins. 1985. The zooplankton of Service. 1982. Soil survey of Pasco County, Florida. Tampa Bay: a review. Pages 328-344 in S.F. Treat, Gainesville, FL. JL. Simon, RR. Lewis III, and R.L. Whitman, Jr., eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Service. 1983. Soil survey of Manatee County, Symposiwn, May 1982. Horida. Gainesville, FL. Twilley, RR., W.M. Kemp, K.W. Stager, J.C. Stevenson, USDC. See U.S. Department ofCommerce. and W.R. Boynton. 1985. Nutrient enrichment of estuarine submersed vascular plant communities. 1. U.S. Department ofCommerce (USDC). 1953. Climatic Algal growth and effects on production of plants and swnmary of the U.S. - supplement for 1931 through associated communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 23: 1952,Florida. (Bulletin W Supplement). U.S. Weather 179-191. Bur., Climatol. U.S., No. 11-6. 36 pp. USACE. see U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. U.S. Department ofCommerce(USDC). 1957. Surveyof USAFETAC. 1974. NOAA military climatic summary meteorological factors pertinent to reduction ofloss of for MacDill Air Foree Base, Tampa, Horida, for the life andproperty in hurricane situations. Nat Hurricane period from May 1941 to July 1972. AWS Climatic Res. Proj. Rep. No.5. brief, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC. U.S. Department ofCommerce (USDC). 1964. Climatic U.S. Air Force. 1982. Weather for aircrews. Air Force summary of the U.S. - supplement for 1951 through Manual AFM 51-12, Vol. 1. Headquarters, Washing 1960, Florida. (Bulletin W Supplement). U.S. Weather ton,D.C. Bur., Climatog. O.S., No. 86-6. 61 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Beach erosion U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). 1978. Local control study on Pinellas County, Florida. Jacksonville climatological data 1977: annual summary with District. Serial No. 14. comparative data-Lakeland. National Oceanic and U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. 1974. Final environmen Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National tal statement; C-13S and lower Hillsborough River Climate Center, Asheville, NC. 4 pp. basin; four river basins, Florida. Jacksonville District U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). 1981. Local U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. 1978. Preliminary guide climatological data 1980: annual summary with to wetlands of peninsular Horida. Major associations comparative data-Tampa. National Oceanic and and communities identified. U.S. Army Engineer Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Effects Climate Center, Asheville, NC. 4 pp. Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Rept Y-78-2. Final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1972. RepOrt. 92pp. . Identification of plan. 40CPR 52.520. U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1982. The Florida phosphate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. industry's technological and environmental problems, Detailed source emission data for 1976 for phosphate a review. U.S. Bur. Mines, Info. Cire. 8914. Tusca industry sources. Region IV, Atlanta, GA. loosa Research Center, AL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture. Compilation of air }X>llutant. emission. factors. AP-Z U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Soil Conservation Servic Pts. A and B. 2nd ed. Office of Air and Waste Man e. 1958. Soil survey of Hillsborough County, Florida. agement. Washington, DC. Gainesville, FL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Reporton Lake Tarpon,·PinellasCol.iritY,· Florida. Service. 1959. Soil survey of Sarasota County, National Eutrophication Survey. National Environ Florida. Gainesville, FL. mental Research Center, Corvallis, OR. 277 Atlintll. U.S, EnviroRlfl(tnll! J~~;fk,n i,"lI;() I~ld!el;(m,*ld ",W, lbt: or tX'IuomiWld iuvdw()(.lt1 !ilWMlpl (}I the !;'lUtl~~iL..t: II ltS. F~'ih Wildt !4k~t E, Bnnlhl;*)l:l"M:;w ii, fJtiJocUcvtJe, i ~n f'ure~Yd wet~ml" of i"l\)mm"",-tJ~lr IM~~'llt Imd ""~, fltlt'ida Di"i"ioll t"ltllllf~, Tlti.~"l«, 347 W' 1970, 11~ IJf !he f'1ofut. 1)C!!ill!t;;uila, F~, HUf, c~~, null, R 164 W' R, lbt: r~,w!l1Wlfi£h in flotidzl, Fbt. F~ Wl*"l' Fi!itr, 8u1t 1'40,5, M W.H, II;r~J, l~ llIl(l phJ~l1tlr{~, entu:hmcil';t 1m !!all mwsh ('UKnfrlllmty muchlfC, Unl'w'tN:liIY of Tef1Ifte.'l~, Koolt· Wt;ltUe"LK H')""~flil;tMr U".<,,,,,,, Mnl~ii;'4r~itt ~j " ,it H)'t:Ift~~k~)'. S{'lulh~~s:! FK~W~ di:n'ek,pllllcnt for mines, wcsH;ernral ,.u; 491·515, 218 References Wilson, W.E., and J.M. Gerhart. 1980. Simulated effect Woodburn, KD. 1962. Marine life and conservation in of ground-water development on potentiometric the Johns Pass Zone of Boca Ciega Bay, Pinellas surface of the Floridan aquifer, west-eentral Florida. County. Fla. State BoardConserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Bull. U.s. Geo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. Open-File Rep. No. 62-3. 20 pp. 79-127 L Tallahassee. Woodley, W.L. 1970. Precipitation results from a pyro Wilson, W.E., D.C. Parsons, and RM. Spechler. 1979. technic cumulus seeding experiment. J. Appl. Meteor. Hydrologic data for a subsurface waste-injection site at 9: 242-257. Mulberry, Florida, 1972-1977. U.S. Geo!. Surv. Open Woodley, W.L., A. Olsen, A. Herndon, and V. Wiggert. File Rep. 79-683. 33 pp. 1974. Optimizing the measurement ofconvective rain Wolansky, RM., L.R. Mills, W.M. Woodham, and C.P. fall in Florida. Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin., Tech. Laughlin. 1978. Potentiometric surface of Floridan Memo. ERL WMPO-18. 98 pp. aquifer, Southwest Florida Water Management District Wooley, C.M. and EJ. Crateau. 1985. Movement, micro and adjacent areas, May 1978. U.S. Goo!. Surv. Open habitat exploitation, and management of Gulf of File Rep. 78-720. 1 p. Mexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida. N. Wolansky, RM., G.L. Barr, and RM. Spechler. 1979. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 5(4): 590-605. Generalized configuration ofthe bottom ofthe Floridan Woolfenden, G.E. 1983. Rare, threatened, and endan Aquifer, Southwest Florida Water Management gered vertebrates of southwest Florida and potential District. U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 79 OCS activity impact. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/ 1490. OBS-82103. 64 pp. Wolansky, RM., F.P. Haeni, and RE. Sylvester. 1983. Wright, A.P. 1974. Environmental geology and hydrol Continuous seismic-reflection survey defining shallow ogy, Tampa area, Florida. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. sedimentary layers in the Charlotte Harbor and Venice Goo!., Spec. Publ. No. 19. Tallahassee. 94 pp. areas, southwest Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat. Resour. Invest. 82-57. Wyllie, M. 1981. Final report-evapotranspiration study for Southwest Florida Water Management District. Wood, D.A. 1989. Official lists ofendangered and poten Southwest Florida Water Management District, tially endangerd fauna and flora in Florida, 1July 1989. Brooksville. 142 pp. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 19 pp. Yobbi, DK 1982. Trends and fluctuations in the poten tiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer, west-central Woodall, S. 1978. Melaleuca in Florida. U.S. Forest Florida, 1961-80. U.S. Geo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Service, Lehigh Acres, FL. 27 pp. Invest. 82-4086, Tallahassee. Woodall, S.L. 1982. Seed dispersal in Melaleuca Young, EN. 1954. The water beetles ofFlorida. Univ. of quinquenervia. Fla. Sci. 45(2): 81-93. Fla., Stud. BioI. Sci. Sec. 5: 1-237. Woodburn, KD. 1961. Summary ofseagrass and marine Zellars-Williams, Inc. 1980. Evaluation of Pre-July I, algae studies and seagrass cultures as performed by Ronald C. Phillips for the Florida State Board of 1975 disturbed phosphate lands. Florida Department of Conservaton Marine Laboratory. Pages 432-434 in Natural Resources, Bureau ofGeology, Tallahassee. D.S. Gosline (00), Proc. first national coastal and shal Zieman, J.e. 1972. Origin of circular beds of Thalassia low water research conference, National Science Foun (Spermatophyta: Hydrocharitaeeae) in south Biscayne dation and Office ofNaval Research. Bay, Florida, and their relationship to.mangrove Woodburn, KD. 1959. Survey ofproposed Papys Bayou hammocks. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22(3): 559-574 dredge and fill, P.L. Bartow Power Plant area, Pinellas Zieman, J.e. 1982. Theecology ofthe seagrasses ofsouth County, Florida. Fla State Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish Wildt Servo Lab. Bull. No. 59-3. 9 pp. Off. BioI. Servo FWS/OBS-82/25. 150 pp. 279 280 Appendix Appendix Table A-I. Concluded. Miocene Hawthorne Highly variable mixture ofsilts, clays, sands, Northern boundary from 1.5,10,11,12,14,15, limestone, dolomite, and phosphate. Typically Dunedin to N. Old Tampa 16,17,18,19,20,21. a silty, sandy, phosphatic dolomite; yellowish- Bay to middle Hillsborough gray to white; microcrystalline to very fine. Bay to Polk City. Dips to Limestone white or occasionally yellowish- south, southeast and gray to very pale orange, calcilutite southwest; max height crytocrystalline to microcrystalline, sandy, exceeds 100ft MSL in SE clayey, phosphatic and dolomitic. Clay; Hillsborough County, and yellowish-gray to light green to moderately dips to greater than -100ft dark gray, quartz silt and sand, micritic, MSL around Tampa Bay dolomitic, phosphatic. Sand, light gray to very Harbor mouth. Generally pale orange to dusky yellow-green; very fine to thickens to south, thickest in medium, angular to subangular, silty, band from Sarasota to ENE phosphatic. As many as three units recognized county line. in the Tampa area. An upper sand unit, a middle phosphatic clay unit, and a lower limestone unit Middle unit is often combined with upper, lower, or both. Brooks(1982a) identified 5 facies statewide, three of which exist in the Tampa area. Miocene Tampa (S1. Marks) Quartz sand limestone; soft to hard; white, Underlies most ofthe study 1.5,10,11,12,14,15, light yellow, tan to gray; occasionally the area. Pinched out to north 16,17,18,19, upper portion contains calcareous sands and where Suwannee limestone 20,21,22,23. clays which grade downward to unconsolidated surfaces. Dips to WSW; or loosely cemented lime mud; upper portion attains maximum elevation contains chert layers, silicified fossils, and in extreme NE study area occasional phosphate nodules or pebbles; very (50' MSL), minimum porous. Sandy, green and gray clay. Fine to elevation (-350' MSL) in very fine quartz sand. High density and vicinity ofTampa Harbor diversity of fossils; includes corals, echinoids, mouth and City ofSarasota. ostracods, foraminiferans and mollusks. Surfaces in NW Hillsborough, N Pinellas, and SE Pasco County. Outcrops in Hillsborough R., Ballast Pt, and Interbay Peninsula. Few feet to 200 ft thick. a References 1) Brooks 1982a 9) Puri and Vernon 1964 17) Peek 1959 2) Davis 1946 10) Vernon and Puri 1964 18) Menke etal. 1961 3) Doyle 1982 '11) Wright 1974 19) Hutchinson and Stewart 1978 4) Cooke 1945 12) Dames and Moore 1975 20) King and Wright 1979 5) Heath and Smith 1954 13) TI 1978a 21) Deuerling and MacGill1981 6) Hunter 1978 14) Knapp 1980 22) Wetterhalll964 7) Cathcartetal.1953 15) Scott and MacGill1981 23) Mann 1972 8) Altschuler eta!. 1964 16) Carr and Alverson 1959 24) Brown 1982b 281 us 282 Appendix Appendix Table A-3. Summary ofpoint- and areal-source emissions in west-central Florida (after TI 1978a).Q Total emissions (tIyr) 1974 1976 County Partlculates(T5P) 5°2 Partlculales(T5P) 5°2 Hillsborough Areal sources 12,382 2,559 12,865 2,695 Point sources 29,358 267,620 7,909 238,649 Manatee Areal sources 3,091 326 3,121 348 Point sources 399 746 614 5,593 Polk Areal sources 10,983 841 11,199 901 Point sources 31,125 119,010 8,127 45,080 Sarasota Areal sources 2,806 328 2,901 349 Point sources 115 175 115 175 Total Areal sources 35,297 4,332 36,176 4,580 Point sources 61,095 387,790 16,863 289,736 All sources 96,392 392,122 53,039 294,316 §Pinellas County was not included in this survey. 283 124 11 1'I' 54 67 Ui 16 45 H~ 23 45 69'0 Continued, 284 Appendix Appendix Table A-4. Concluded. 1974 1976 TSP S02 TSP S02 ----- Source categ0'Y_____lIYi-___-!on/yr t/yr ton/yr t/yr ton/yr t/yr ton/yr Polk County Mobile sources Highway 1,121 (1,233) 355 (390) 1,189 (1,308) 376 (414) Aircraft 3.6 (4) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 2.7 (3) Vessels Railroad 61 (67) 140 (154) 68 (75) 155 (170) Off- highway 43 (47) 51 (56) 46 (51 ) 54 (59) Stationary fuel combustion Natural gas Fuel oil Coal 116 (128) 225 (248) 124 (136) 245 (270) Liquid petroleum gas Wood Burning Trash Incineration 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) Forest fires, agriculture1,705 (1,876) 1,705 (1,876) Other sources Citrus heating 345 (380) 66 (73) 345 (380) 61 (73) Fugitive dust 5,478 (6,026) 5,478 (6,026) Paved roads 2,106 (2,317) 2,235 (2,458) Total 10,983 (12,083) 841 (925) 11,199 (12,320) 895 (991 ) Sarasota County Mobile sources Highway 514 (565) 163 (179) 545 (599) 173 (190) Aircraft Vessels Railroad 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) O1f- highway 22 (24) 27 (30) 23 (25) 29 (32) Stationary fuel combustion Natural gas Fuel oil Coal 65 (71) 132 (145) 69 (76) 141 (155) Liquid petroleum gas -~ Wood Burning Trash Incineration 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) Forest fires, agriculture 544 (599) 544 (599) Other sources Citrus heating 1.8 (2) 1.8 (2) Fugitive dust 688 (757) 688 (757) Paved roads 965 (1,061 ) 1,024 (1,126) Total 2,806 (3,086) 328 (361 ) 2,901 (3,191) 349 (384) 285 Appendix Appendix Table A-7. Industrial dischargers in the Alafia River watershed (qfter Priede-Sedgwick, Inc. 1980; Hartigan and Hanson-Walton 1984). immediate Name Design/ADF (mgd)8 Facility activity Receiving Waters Florida Dairy b. I. Feed lot Hillsborough Bay Gardinier, Inc. - 166.3 Chemical manufacturer Hillsborough Bay Agrico Chemical Company - I- Phosphate milling Alafia River - North Prong Agrico Chemical Company . I- (1.4) Mine Alafia River - South Prong Borden, Inc. - 14.26 Big Four Mine Alafia River - South Prong Borden, Inc. • I- Coronet Mine English Creek Brewster Phosphate 0.005/- (43.7) Haynesworth Mine Alafia River - South Prong Brewster Phosphate - 114.57 (5.5) Fort Lonesome Mine Alafia River - South Prong C.F. Chemicals, Inc. - 13.32 (4.6) Phosphate complex Alafia River Conserv - 114.0 (3.6) Mine Thirty Mile Creek Electro-Phosphate Corp. - I- Chemical manufacturer Alafia River - North Prong Estech General Chemical Corp. - 11.8 (N.D.) Silver City Mine Alafia River - South Prong Farmland industries - 13.27 (2.9) Chemical manufacturer Alafia River· North Prong W.R. Grace & Company - 110.09 (22.9) Chemical manufacturer Alafia River - South Prong W.R. Grace & Company - 14.67 Chemical manufacturer Alafia River W.R. Grace & Company - 16.68 (6.0) Chemical manufacturer Alafia River - North Prong Hopewell land Corp. - 14.42 Recovery plant Alafia River IMC Corporation - 11.44 Chemical manufacturer Alafia River - South Prong IMC Corporation - 16.70 (0.6) Kingsford Mine Alafia River - South Prong Mid-Florida Phosphate Corp. - I- Chemical manufacturer Alafia River - North Prong Mobile Chemical Company - 112.9 (19.1 ) Nichols Mine Thirty Mile Branch Mobile Chemical Company - I. Chemical manufacturer Thirty Mile Branch Seaboard Coastline Railroad - 10.017 Freight car yard Winston Creek TIA Minerals - I- Sands and rock mining Alafia River - North Prong Royster (0.43) Chemical manufacturer Alafia River - South Prong Amax (1.84) Big Four Mine Alafia River - South Prong IMC Corporation (10.7) NoralynlPhosphoria Mine Alafia River - South Prong aData from Hartigan and Hanson-Walton (1984) survey. b(_) =not reported 287 BOD 1,311 ,2 1 CL9·1,6fO.8·1 ,1 4, 8l3, 1 3.5·6,3r.tS·5,Q IUl17.4 4,7·7.1/5,2,·11,0 44t5 3913 39·5413·14 TC 54tH) 4013 3~4312·6 21124 616 (Ptweo 14·34,117·4,2 8·1619·18 4·atJ-8 Cond. (SUrf.) 3~J3 42131 49/41 (xl0(0) o.pth (fNt) Light 'oneff.flon (irW:M~) 67·lt1;oo·110 'WOfIM L3IU} 1,211.0 1.2·1 ,411,l},1,1 1,1·L3IU),1.1 0,0610,06 O.OfHl01IOJ.>S·(109 eqold.ht 0.4210,60 NttfOOM Nttnlt. Orgllrdc HltrogM Tot•• 0,43/0,61 Hhtoo·n 00 (top) 00(bohom) pH Tot., (1,17/1120 Pho5f,dmto $artntty (top) 32/30 (Wt) $aUnlty (bottom) (Wt) Temp (middle) 24/24 288 Appendix Appendix Table A-9. Aquatic macrophytes collectedfrom the Alafla and little Manatee Rivers (adaptedfrom Dames andMoore 1975). Sampling Statlons8 ,b Common name Scientific name Alafla River little Manatee River -> Upstream -> -> Upstream -> A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 lM2 lM3 lM4 lM5 lM6 Algae Stonewort Charasp. Bryophytes Fissidens Fissidens sp. 0(2) 0(1) 0(2) Vascular Plants Cattail Typhasp. 0(1 ) Bur reed Sparganium sp. Water-thread pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius 0(2) 0(2) Bushy pondweed Najas flexilis 0(1) 0(1) Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus Water plantain Alismasp. Arrowhead Sagittaria sp. Waterweed Elodea canadensis 0(2) 0(3) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) Spiker'ush Eleocharis acicularis o Minute duckweed Lemna perpusilla Water-hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes 0(2) 0(1) Southern pickerelweed Pontederia cordata var.lanceolata 0(2) Continued. 289 CommonMme ScIMtlfic mime A!·ef. Rt"'e' Uttle Mana!" R!ver -'ilo Upstrom -. -> lJpstrea.m -> A2 A3 A4 AS AS LM2 LM3 LM4 LMS lMS 290 Appendix Appendix Table A-10. Bloom species ofalgae detected in Tampa Bay during 1981 (adaptedjromHCEPC 1982). Month location Species detected January Hillsborough Bay Prorocentrum triestinum Hillsborough River P. triestinum McKay Bay Euglena elastica Tampa Bypass Canal E. elastica Rocky Creek E. elastica February Upper Tampa Bay Gymnodinium splendens Hillsborough Bay Prorocentrum triestinum March McKay Bay Prorocentrum triestinum Cryptomonas sp. Torodinium robustum April No blooms detected. May Alafia River Gyrodinium fissum June Hillsborough Bay Lepocinclis playfairiana Gyrodinium fissum Gymnodinium sp. Hillsborough River Lepocinclis playfairiana Gymnodinium coeruleum McKay Bay Lepocinclis playfairiana Tampa Bypass Canal Prorocentrum sp. Gymnodinium sp. Euglenasp. Double Branch Creek Gymnodinium sp. Channel "A" Gymnodinium sp. Prorocentrum sp. Rocky Creek Gyrodinium sp. Edgewater Creek Gymnodinium sp. little Manatee River Prorocentrum sp. July Hillsborough Bay Lepocinclis playfairiana Gymnodinium coeruleum Hillsborough River Gonyaulax diacantha McKay Bay Lepocinclis playfairiana Tampa Bypass Canal Gyrodinium fissum Glenodinium sp. Prorocentrum triestinum August Tampa Bypass Canal Gymnodinium sp. September Hillsborough Bay Blue-green filamentous algae Euglena proxima Gymnodinium coetuleum Prorocentrum triestinum Tampa Bypass Canal Gonyaulax sp. Euglena proxima Continued. 291 GymflOdinium Sip~ McKay Bay GymflOdinium Sip .. Twnpa Canal GymflOdinium Sip~ Bloo-green filamentous AlatlaRiwr Pror~ntrlJm triest/flum DoublEt BrMch CrEtek Gonyaulax diac:ar:tlha enanoel ~A" Roc.ky Creek NovemOOf McKay Bay GynrUWt.1IniL(m Sip. Deoomoor No bloomll> det0Ctl$ 292 Appendix Table A-11. Rare, threatened, and endangered plant species in the Tampa Bay watershed; their status and distribution among major habitats (adaptedfromMcCoy 1980). .J::Iabllae _ ~ tn .E 2 Q. &l .s::: Q..c~ Q. E -gQ.~ 't) ~ -; 2 ~ E m.s::: m >. m com Uc:: m1i)3tn'ii u E 't'l mo'ii tn_ 3ftn"-tn.c ... c 4=:l!c ~Q..:.etno~mEm:::s~.:.e:::s V'l:" c- m -> ...... -Uo "imi -m°:lQ.o_cn~mo ... ;: .s::: .... Q..! U ~ E ~.ll!.! I ~ E E ... tn ~ ... II) 't) cn-... V'IIl'" c::.... - (I) Source • ~ c :::s fCC:: >. Q. m ; m tii 8. :l E Gi .s::: $pecles CITES FCREPA FDACS SI FS FWS 0 a: ~.e ~ .s -a is ~ :: 8 f£ 0 u: i! c7j 0 Acrostichum danaeifolium T • Adiantum tenerum T Agalinis purpurea carten T 1 Andropogon arctatus E 2 ':;:T--- Annon<$l glabra AristJda simpliciflora T I'\) Asclepias curtissii TT : "tI ~ AsclepIas tomentosa R· ! Asimina pygmaea T • • )(e: Asplenium auritum EE Asplenium platyneuron T Avicennia germinans SC Azalia caioliniana T BlachrJum serru/atum T Bonamia grandif/ora T T 2 Botrychium virginianum T Cacalia floridana U CalopOgon barbaius /I T • CalopQgon rnultiflorus II T Cafop¢gon pallidus II T Calopogon tuberO$US II T Centrosema arenicola E 2 Ceratia/a encoides T Ceratopteris pteridoides T Continued. Took A.-J !. Habitat\) ~"~--"_.~.-""""-"----~-~~.~..-~--~1lf.~" "~".-.•.~~_.~._. ! 6- ... "I. ....Q."e . .Q" Q. SeQ. e itiii .11 Ii ;;:- ~ ." IJ ia ~'I! !!~ i ilti Sowe.- J :.c::.: io!i~1 ~ ~ ••~ ! .~ ! ~ Cfres-fCREPA "FOACS-srFS "i::wS Bf. j!i~l £1:18 l A- ~ ! 16 T Ii E E 1 II T T 1 • T .. E • .' " T • T N T i U T if E!'.o~1Jsttacyi TT 1 Em<:Jdea littoralis T • Erythr~sqtJercetkoia II T EIJIoph/a alia II T ElJlaphVa &Cristata II T lasianthus T hirsutum E • Habft~ria sJrictissim.aodontopetala It T Habftnaria quinqueseta II T Habftnarla quinqueseta quinqueseta II T HabenElI'i8. repent:> II T Continued. Appendix Table A-iI. Continued. Species Harriselra porrecta Helianthus debilis vestitus HexaJeqtris spicata Hypolepis repens /lex ambigua /lex cas'sine llex decidua I\,) llex opaca opaca ~ llex vomitoria ... Continued. I ~IO j punowU·W • • , '1:JOWW8H .. "' .. . "' • • 'ISJIltW ....M&lG.,,::j • • • I1 !....dAt) qn..t) edQ • .. .. . I pU...... e d .. " . . .. . •I ~IItWI·.·80t) Iti !dWU••,,(:ueue., :ii, OJ dWeMS .. .. . • ! dwlltM dAo .. . • • '180 :»AA'Id .. -o".X/GUrd J"l6uo1 qNOS turd JWq lSe.tOI ourd 'f"1S U.-...nOS lPOOMl.fJ auld ...... pU...... fU'OO . .. '2::= I!u.. .e -g m u ill ...... II14: - _...... - ...... l~ = == _._--- Appendix Table A-ll. Continued. Habitat b CIl II) .5 2 c.. :.r:. Q..cCll c. E ~af! '0 II) oS 2 ~ E 1'!!' ~.r:. ~ >- ~ C~'" CIl w:: -UE ~o..!!! ~.5 ;CIlIl)f!:.c .. ~ .t:l:l!1I) CIlC..¥1I)6C1l~E~:::JCIl.¥:::J fIl.s:;C c-~ -> "tit;uo iG..!!!i Q.:o=Q.2iG~fIl::oE 1il ': :: 1il '0 "6> ~ ~ C)c 1il i: 8.': 'i EE ;0 Source- ~"':::SCllCC~ .... 5'" ~'; CIl =CIl.r:. 0.5 06 ~ o.r:.o>-::~o .. o" (G.r:.~ Species CITES FCREPA FDACS SI FS FWS 0 Q.0_0..1Q. 0 .... uQ. LL::J:0v Salviniai rotundifolia T ~t~~?t:~ ;::H~:::::: !((:}( Scaevola plumieri T ~ Schizacnyrium niveum T 1 ••••.•. ••.••. Schizaea germanii R E 1 Selaginjflla apoda T •.... Selagin~l/a arenicola T Sida ruqromarginata T ~ N Sml1ax sma/Iii T T "'C III ~ Spiranthes brevilabris brevilabris II T :::J Q, Spirantftes brevilabris f10ridana II T )( Spiran~es cetnua odorata II T • . Spirant1)es cranichoides II T Spiranthesgracl1is II T Spiranthesgrayi II T Spiranthes laciniata II T Spiranthes lanceolata lanceolata II T Spiranthes fanctiolata paludicola II T E 1 • Spiranthes longilabris II T • . \~~ Spirantftes polyantha II T T 2 • • Spirantf)es praecox II T Spiranthes vernalis II T :::<.~:/ Thelypten's augescens T Thelypt~ris.dentata T Thelyptttris interrupta T • Continued. II I. e A.,DO Q. a. '0 Ii E .'C: >. ~ 'Oc,-.j.JiIJ....•••.. i_..• ", I'X2 i i;!i•. ' .",.' Ii jo.. s ~ o -.¥ .. '0 t ...,. 'I.'•• C C - - ..... ;0-I.·ec.l s 0 s ..- ,I 'Q. I '0 • .0- ~ Soun;e- ~i ~-"". .! • .!.' E ; li; 11 .'8 I ! ._.•. .!::.!... lilte,. c;; ,. A: atts"""~FCREPA~~fOACs~ir FS-FViS 8i£fiI)! , .3 i. r; .I :is&: •• It! i 5 T T i II T II T E 1 T T .. . • T • .. II T E 3C . .. - · T T 3C • T T a Citatl Appendix Table A-J2. Habitat distribution and relative abundance offreshwater fzsh in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfrom Layne etal. 1977). a .:i Habitat Type 1:1 ~ 6 "tl 1:1 .c:!Il 0= .!!l OIl C\, Cll 6 1:1 .s= ~ ell U CZl -; !Il !Il• !Il . ~ ~ !Il C\, !Il !Il ~ .c: ;g S !Il Common Name (Species Name) .5 "tl ..~ ~ .c: S ] 1:1 :c .:::l .. ... Cll C\, Cll ...... ~ CZl'"' ...:l i. ~ ~ CZl'"' is ~ CZl Acipenseridae (Peripheral) Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) S Lepisosteidae (Primary) Longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) UU SC Florida gar (L. platyrhincus) AA C A CCCC Amiidae (Prim.ary) Bowfin (Amia calva) CCC C C U U Elopidae (Peripheral) Tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) R RR Esocidae (Primary) Redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus) C U S R S Chain pickerel (E. niger) C C S Cyprinidae (Primary) Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idel/a) C (see text) Redeye chub (Notropis harpert) C S Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) CC C CC SC Ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus) U Dusky shiner (N. cummingsae) V Pugnose minnow (Notropis emiliae) R R Sailfin shiner (N. hypselopterus) C V Coastal shiner (N. petersom) R A A Taillight shiner (N. maculatus) C U C UU V Catostomidae (Primary) Lake chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) AA C UUUU U Ictaluridae (Primary) White Catfish (lctalurus catus) U U C S S V Yellow bullhead (I. natalis) C C U CCC U Brown bullhead (I. nebulosus) A A C C CCC Channel Catfish (I. punctatus) U U C S V Tadpole rriadfurri (N()iiirus gyrinus) C U R U Continued. 299 c s s u v u u s C A C C C R C S S S S V R s C S lJ (' S R R R R V P.if lJ U tJ tJ u u S S C C C C C S S S C Continued. 300 Appendix Appendix Table A-l2. Concluded. II Habitat Typea =~ e "0 I;fl = .cl 0= .fQ CIJ l:l. ~ e oS= .... =~ 00 u I;fl. I;fl I;fl -a I;fl. ~ ~ .... l:l. I;fl CJ e ~ .cl Common Name (Species Name) ~ "0 l: f .cl I;fl e 'C= .:.c: -.::: ~ ~ ~ ... ell l:l. ell = ... ::: ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ < ~ 00 is ~ 00 Poeciliidae (Secondary) Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) AACAA A c C Least killifish (Heterandriaformosa) C A AA A c C Sailfm molly (Poecilia latipinna) S C cue u C u U Black molly (P. latipinna x velifera) Established but habitat unknown Swordtail molly (P. petenensis) Established but habitat unknown Guppy (P. reticulata) Established but habitat unknown Liberty molly (P. sphenops) Established but habitat unknown Clariidae (Secondary) Walking Catfish (Clarias batrachus) S S Cichlidae (Secondary) Blue acara (Aequidens pulcher) Jack Dempsey (Cichlasoma octofasciatum) S S Rio Grande cichlid (C. cyanoguttatum) S S S Jewelfish (Hemichromis bimaculatus) S Blue tilapia (Tilapia aurea) S A A C S Blackchin tilapia (T. melanotheron) S C S Mozambique tilapia (T. mossambica) S Congo tilapia (T. sparmannt) S Atherinidae (peripheral) Brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus) S c u u c c u S Inland stlverside (Menidia beryllina) u u R Clupeidae (Peripheral) Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) A R A U R R Threadfin Shad (D. petenense) A R C R Belonidae (peripheral) Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) u R Anguillidae (peripheral) American eel (Anguilla rostrata) cue u u u a Relative abundance categories and abbreviations: abundant (A), common (C), uncommon (U), rare (R), very rare (V), population status questionable (S). 301 a_Chondrichthyes Order Semfonotlformes Family ()reaolobidae fJ~ {(ilrIR~),,'m)SI(mulr cin'arwll) M Family Rhlncooontidae Whale Order Eloplformes .'amily ()dtmta.ididae Ii'atnily Elopidae Sand (Odonta.fpLt «JIlI"USI F'arnih,; l.atnnidae M I"a•.olly (:.n:harbinid~ B~ ~ (Corcha',hlrl:u,t Q('ro~Jtl"i) Order Angul1nformes lJuU 'amil)' AnguUlida... f'amily Ophkhthidae M'* (echi{IJ"his ifll(~rtbtctusl M" Order RaJUorm•• 'amtly .lriltl.~ SmalJt()(,AA ~Iwfl~h IE ",un J.ltJ"lilkl1ill .'amU, Rhl:nobaU_ Order Ciupeiformes ClulX>cldae M F" M aasa Osteichthyes Order Acfpen$ertformes Order Myclophltormes 302 Appendix Appendix Table A-13. Continued. Species Habitat TypeR Species Habitat Typea Order Siluriformes Family Cyprinodontidae (continued) Family Ariidae Marsh killifish (Fundulus confluentus) E Hardhead catfish (Ariusjelis) M,E Gulf killifish (F. grandis) E Gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus) M,E Seminole killifish ( F. seminolis) F* Family Ictaluridae Longnose killifish (F. similis) E Rainwater killifish (Lucania parva) E Brown bullhead (/ctalurus nebulosus) F* Family Poeciliidae Order Batracholdlformes Mosquitofish (Gambusia qffi.nis) F,E Family Batrachoididae Sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) E Gulftoadfish (Opsanus beta) M,E Leopard toadfish (0. pardus) M Family Atherinidae Atlantic midshipman (Porichthys plectrodon) M,E Rough silverside (Membras martinica) E Order Goblesoclformes Tidewater silverside (Menidia peninsulae) E Family Gobiesocidae Order lamprldlformes Skilletfish (Gobiesox strumosus) M,E Family Regalecidae Order Lophllformes Oarfish (Regalecus glesne) M* Family Ogcocephalidae Order Gasterostelformes Pancake batfish (Halieutichthys aculeatus) M* Family Syngnathidae Polka-dot batfish (Ogcocephalus radiatus,) M,E Lined seahorse (Hippocampus erectus) E Order Gadlformes Dwarf seahorse (H. zosterae) E Family Gadidae Fringed pipefish (Micrognathus criniger) E Southern hake (Urophycis floridana) M,E Dusky pipefish (Syngnathus jloridae) E Chain pipefish (S.louisianae) E Family Ophidiidae Gulf pipefish (S. scovel/i) E Longnose cusk-eel (Ophidion beanO M* Blotched cusk-eel (0. grayi) M Order Perclformes Crested cusk-eel (0. welshi) M Family Centrarchidae Order Atherlnlformes Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) F* Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) F* Family Exocoetidae Ballyhoo (Hemiramphus brasiliensis) M* Family Centropomidae Haltbeak (Hyporhamphus unifa.sciatus) M,E Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) M,E Family Belonidae Family Cichlidae Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) M* Blackchin tilapia (Yilapia melanotheron) E Redfin needlefish (S. notata) M,E Family Serranidae Timucu (S. timucu) M,E Black sea ba~s (Centropristis striata) M* Houndfish (Tylosurus crocodilus) M* Sand perch (Diplectrumjormosum) M Family Cyprinodontidae Jewfish (Epinephelus itajara) M,E Diamond killifish (Amnia xenica) E Red grouper (E. morio) M* SheePshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) E Gag (Mycteropercamicrolepis) M Goldspotted killifish (Floridichthys carpio) E Belted sandfish (Serranus subligarius) M* Continued. 303 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization Appendix Table A-13. Continued. Species Species _ Habitat Typea -----_•.. _---- Family Grammistidae Family Sparidae Greater soapfish (Rypticus saponaceus) M* Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) M,E Grass porgy (Calamus arctifrons) Family Apogonidae M* Family Sparidae (continued) Bronze cardinalfish (Astrapogon alums) M* Spottail pinfish (Diplodus holbrooki) M Family Pomatomidae Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) M,E Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) M,E Family Sciaenidae Family Rachycentridae Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) M,E Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) M,E Sand seatrout (Cynoscion areoorius) M,E Family Echeneidae Spotted seatrout (C. nebulosus) M,E Sharksucker (Echeneis naucrates) M,E High-hat (Equetus acuminatus) M,* Remora (Remora remora) M,E Cubbyu (E. umbrosus) M* Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) M,E Family Carangidae Southern kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus) M,E Blue runner (Caranx crysos) M Gulfkingfish (M.littoralis) M Crevalle jack (C. hippos) M,E Northern kingfish (M. saxatilis) M,E Horse-eye jack (C. latus) E* Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undu!atus) E Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus) M,E Black drum (Pogonias cromis) M,E Bluntnose jack (Hemicaranx amblyrhyncus) M* Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) M,E Leatheljacket (Oligoplites saurus) M,E Atlantic moonfish (Selene setapinnis) M* Family Mullidae Lookdown (Selene vomer) M Spotted goatfish (Pseudupeneus maculatus) M* Rorida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus) M,E Family Kyphosidae Permit (T.falcatus) M,E Bermuda chub (Kyphosus sectatrix) M* Palometa (T. goodei) M Family Ephippidae Family Lutjanidae Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber) M,E Schoolma.'\ter (Lutjanus apodus) M* Family Labridae Gmy snapper (L. griseus) M,E Lane snapper (L. syoogris) M,E Slippery dick (Halichoeres bivittatus) M* Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus) M* Family Lobotidae Tripletail (Lobotes surinamensis) M,E Family Scaridae Emerald parrotfish (Nicholsioo usta) M Family Gerreidae Irish pompano (Diapterus auratus) M* Family Mugilidae Striped mojam (D. plumieri) E Striped mullet (MugU cephalus) M,E Spotfm mojam (Eucinostomus argenteus) M,E White mullet (M. curema) M,E Silverjenny (E. gula) M,E Fantail mullet (M. trichodon) M,E Yellowfin mojarra (Gerres cinereus) E* Family Sphyraenidae Family Pomadasyidae Great barmcuda (Sphyraena barracuda) M,E Tommte (Haemulon aurolineatum) M* Northern sennet (S. borealis) M* Guagrianche (S. guachancho) White grunt (H. plumieri) M M* Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera) M,E Continued. 304 Appendix Appendix Table A-I3. Concluded. Habitat Species Habitat TypeR -, -. ~ .. --- ._-----_ .. _- -, -_. -- --, Family Pol~'nemidae Family Scorpaenidae Atlantic threadfin (Polydacrylus octonemus) M* Barbfish (Scorpal~na brasiliensis) M* Family Opistognathidae Family Triglidae Moustache jawfish (Opistognatlzus lonclzurus) M* Horned scarobin (Bel/ator militaris) M* Family Dactyloscopidae Bluespotted searobin (Prionotus roseu.s) M* Blackfin scarobin (P. rubio) M* Sand stargazer (Dactyloscopus tridigitatus) M* Leopard scarobin (P. scitulus) M,E Family Uranoscopidae Bighead searobin (P. tribulus) M,E Southem stargazer (Astroscopus y-graecum) M,E Order Pleuronectlformes Family Clinidae Family Bothidae Banded blenny (Paraclinusfasciatus) E* Ocellated flounder (Ancylopsetta Marbled blenny (P. marmoratus) E* quadrocellata) M* Striped blenny (Clzasmodes bosquianus) M* Spotted whiff (Citharichthys macropsy M* Florida blenny (C. saburrae) M,E Fringed flounder (Etropu.s crossotu.s) M Crested blenny (Hypleuroclzilus geminatus) M* Gulf flounder (Paraliclzthys albigutta) M,E Feather blenny (Hypsoblennius !zentzi) M,E Dusky flounder (Syacium papillosum) M* Highfin blenny (Lupinoblennius nic!zolsi) M* Family Soleidae Seaweed blenny (Blennius mamwreus) M* Lined sole (Aclzirus lineatu.s) M,E Family Eleotridae Hogchokcr (Trinectes maculatu.s) M,E Fat sleeper (Dormitator maculatus) F* Family Cynoglossidae Family Gobiidae Blackchcck tongucfish (Symp!zurus plagiu.sa) M,E Frillfin goby (Bat!zygobius soporator) E Order Tetraodontlformes Darter goby (Gobionellus boleosoma) E Family Balistidae Sharptail goby (G. lzastatus) E Orange filcfish (Aluteru.s schoepfi) M Naked goby (Gobiosoma bosci) E Fringed filefish (Monacanthu.s ciliatu.~') M,E Twoscale goby (G. longipala) E* Planehcad filcfish (M. hispidu.\') M,E Tiger goby (G. macrodon) M,E Code goby (G. robustum) E Family Ostraciidae Gown goby (Microgobius gulosus) E Scrawled cowfish (Lactophrys quadricornis) M,E Green goby (M. tlzalassinus) E TrunkJish (L. trigonu.sj M,E* Family Trichiuridae Smooth trunkfish (L. triqueter) M* Atlantic cutla.'isfish (Trichiurus lepturus) M Family Tetraodontidae Smooth puffer (Lagocephalu.'1laevigatus) M,E* Family Scombridae Southern puffer (Sphoeroides neplzelus) M,E King mackerel (Scomberomorus caval/a) M Spanish mackerel (8. maculatus) M,E Family Diodontidae Striped burrfish (Chilomyeterus schoepfi) M,E Family Stromateidae Balloonfish (Diodon h()locanth~') M* Hatvestfish (Peprilus alepidotus) M* Butterfish (P. triacanthus) M* aM =marine, E =estuarine, F =freshwater, * =uncommon to mre 305 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization Appendix Table A-14. Habitat distribution and relative abundance ofterrestrial reptiles in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfrom Layne et at. 1977). Habitat TypeS g 't:l J.l ~ g g .. c u u UU R U· U - R R R - . - - RR .~. v U U U R R U U U- RR R UUCU ;. ... UC U CC- Eastern hognose snake (Heterodon plaryrhinos) u .R··U u ..... ·U Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) R R. - -. R.· S Ringnecksnake (Diadophispunctatus) U - ...... i::U·" U Pine woods snake (Rhadinaea/laVilata) R - .•. UR Continued. 306 Appendix Appendix Table A-14. Concluded). Mud snake (Farancia abacura) .. _.. C Racer (Coluber constrictor) C CiC C> UA DC - C· ~( A Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) UU un u . RUR& Rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) U uti Hi U U· R. ... U -" "' Eastern indigo snake:<> (Drymarchon corais couperi) U • <0 U> U un u ... ··.·~ ..·>U Rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) UU <0 ·1)' C u C·· 0 u - ·u Pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) UU - R R . +,;"'7·~u±•....-.~-~~±7--- Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus) UU >U UU 0 C .• MiIksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) U- R URR Scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea) R- . 307 ~ « ~ < u ot: ~ V vi u <: ~ u c:': Q:: 1 I Appendix ! I I I> I I I I i i II I ::> I I I III I III et: i IIII U I .. & (:: qSJtlW Itlpmuy ..... :aS qs.rew J:lIP.MqsaJd l:'O =:= I I U:::> I :::>U ::>::> I! IUU I I I I I I I:::>:::> III I I I I I III dWUMS Il!pmuy I I I III 1l):jIUI II:::JI II II II dumMS SSOJdA;) dweMS (XX)MPJtlH 309 IIamml Type a ~ .g Gil f u - ~ R U A U U C A U Coli) "'" CC C - U Q"" ~....:"_..'" - - - S U U U CC U U U R R UU C C U C U A U - C S aboodaoc-e categories Breeding population (B). Popu~tion status questiooable (5) Appendix TableA~17, Wetland and aquatic habitat distribution and relative abundmu:e tfamphibians in the Tampa Bay watershed (adapted f!om!!fYne et ai. 1977). Habitat Type a ~ ~ - • . '" ~ 'C 0. 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ a m g- t> ~ ~ ~ '?s Vl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'" e ~ ~ ..c: Vl ~ Vl ";5; ; <> ~ ... 0 e <> '0 d ~ >, '0 Vl ~ r.n :s 'C ~ I;;; ~ c ~ ...... ~ r.n :> <:a Species 8~ ~ ! ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ 0 e '0 o ~ ~ <> ~ ~ ~a ~ '"e.Q <> 5 0 I;;; ~!.C ~ ~ ~. c!.c Vj..c: 'E ~ ~ ..... '" ,,.., .... c "'" ~ 'C .,.., c:l ~ c:l K>, ~ st:: .__~::t:,-_U tC. « ~ ~ ~.~. ~ ~~.~ 8.__.~_"_._~~.j .~ br. _.~ C"L.0 __" .,"~.. Two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means) UU - U C U u- - cu u C Greater siren (Siren lacertina) UU CC u- - cu - A Lesser siren (Siren inlermedia) CC U C CU - Dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus stria/us) RR U C C UR - U Eastern newt (Notopltlhalmus viridescensJ UU R R UU - V Southern dusky salamander (Desmognalhus auriculalus) U RRU Dw.ufs;:uamander (Eurycea quadridigiuua) U U U R UUUU w Ea..~rn .spadefoot (ScaphWpus holbrooki) U U u B B- - B A f :: Greenhouse frog (EleuJherodactyJus planirostris) U u :::J Q. Southern toad (Bufo terrestris) A U u B R R B B Sf Oak toad (Bufo quercicusJ U B B 13 13 Giant toad (Bufo marinus) B 13 Southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus) U U U A A A U U A Green ueefrog (Hyla cinerea) U u U C U C C A A C Barking treefrog (Hyla graliosa) R B B B B 13 Pine woods treefrog (Hylajemoralis) R B B B B B .13 Squirrel.treefrog (llyla squirdla) A U 13 B B 13 B Cuban 1lTeefrog (Hyla seple11lrionalis) B Little grass frog (Limnaoedus ocularis) RU - - UCCU--AC C Chorus frog (Pseudacris nigrita) UC---BBB--BB 13 Eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne caroliJlensis) C u- . U eBB - - - BB B Bullfrog (Rana cmesbeiana) UU- - UUUC - - CC C Pig frog(Ranagrylio) U U - - UCCC - - c C C Green frog (Rana clamitans) S .S . ------S Southern leopard frog (Rana sphe1lOcephaia) A . C. . •R C· UAACU - ACUA Florida $opberfrog (Rana areolata aesopus) --- .. _. - B 13 - - -B - - 13 - -. • Relative abundance categories and abbreviations: Abundant (A), Common (c). Uncommon (U), Rare (R), Vcry rare (V), Breeding population (B), Population slalUs questionable (5), Tampa Bay Ecological Characterllallol1 Apperuiix Table .4,,18. Terrestrial hahitats in which forest (arboreal) birds in the lourui. including distrilmtiiJn. rclmive abundann:, and ocCurrence (w..tap.tctijl Tl1978c). ---,,-- ,._"-_.__ .".",~ Habitat typt:b :.I'J .:L 'f, 6 ''..Ii X E j",. x 6 .:L E ";I; ;",) C ~ ~ (,j ;.;: ~- .::::; .>1: ~ f\louming dove (Zenaida macroura) P U /\ /\ U U t!j C A Commmon ground..(}ove (Colu.mbina P AA C A Ydlow~bmed CUl;K(;~) Hlack··bilkd cuckoo t'rythropthalmus) .1\1 Nonhem bobwhite (Colinlls virginiaruJs) P c p u C:huck·wiH'swidow (C'aptimulgus carolinensL\) S C c II Whip poor· will W \.1 u C'OlrmtlOt1 nig:l1t!ta\\,'k (<:., IUJrd,cllt'S minor) c RubY4h[\Jat(~dllUulmingblnl (/Itl}lilochus S u Nonhertl auratus) P c c p u P C u P lJ W P u u P c c s u w W p W R M R U ~1 R R M R RR Barn swallow (lliruruio rustica) 312 Appendix Appendix Table A-18. Continued. Habitat typeb OIl .><: OIl 15 E ClS ~ "8 E 12 ~ CQ lil ..c:: 12 15 ::::I ~ E rf! E 15 -0 ~ Il) E c: -S rf! c: {;3 E ctJ ctJ U'l <8 Il) 'S, 0- ..c:: :c .§ -;'" c: Il) § U'l ~ 'S, bl) ..c: . Oil Species .....:::s ..... 0= 0 "§ ctJ .~ ~ I .0 .0 .D 0- ~ Il) 'S, III Il) c: 2 ~ Il) ;> QJ u >- i::' i::' r;r.; ii: V) E-< U ::;E ::J Q Q Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) P C CCCC U (Florida) Scrub jay (Aphelocorna eoerulescens eoerulescens) PU Caroililachlckadee(Paruicar(jITnensL~)' ········p····U··_····· ····u ···U U Tufted titmouse (P. bie%r) PU CC C White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta earolinensis) P RR RR R Re(r~breastc{rn·utllaial·(S:··canadeniL~r···W R R R ····R R Brown-headed nuthatch (S. pusilla) P UU Brown creeper (Certhia americana) WRRRRR FIoi.lsc·wren(Troglod§ie.~ae·aoii5···-········_····W···Tr· U "'0 Tf ·u· ··tT·· ···u· Winter wren (T. troglodytes) WRRRRRR R Bewick's wren (Thryornanes bl.'Wickii) WR RRR CiiroHna··wren(TfiryotJi.Orii.~liidOvT(:Tanii.~r·p·CtcA··A·C Short-billed marsh wren (Cistot!wrus platensis) W U Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) PAA ACe CCA GrayCiitbfrd (DumeteUa carr:)llnen.\i"iY· . "P'C "'TrTr"C'c' ····e ··c·· U Brown thrasher (Toxostorna rufum) PCUUCCCCU American robin (Turdus migratorius) wee CCCCCA WoOd·thrush(flylo(,!'chlamu."iietliia) . W D . R 'R U'O ....'UR" Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus) WURRUUUR Swainson's thrush (c. ustulatus) MRRRRRRR GriiY~heekeathrusfi(C.mlnlmu:~r· M-··R·· ····RR ···_·R····R···lf·-R Veery (c;.fuseeseens) MRRRRRRR Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) PUUU U BIUe~griiygniitciitchcr(Poliopilla'caeruTea) "15'·'(' ·····U· 'U ·········e C 'C '0 Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) WURRU U UR Ruby-crowned kinglet (R. calendula) WCUUC C CU Water·plplt(Arithi.i.~sji{noleiiaf-·" .. ······W ····e Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) WU R RUUURR Loggerhead skrike (Lanius ludovicianus) PC A A CA Euro~an·starrrng(SiUrnus·vulgarl."iY .. p····U (j" '0'· U ·······U· 'UU"U White-eyed vireo (Vireo griseu.~) PC C u CCCCU Yellow-throated vireo (V.flavifrons) M U U u SoIriary..vIreoTVsolliarliiS5·········· .. · -··W·· ····U· U ·D··UO "U Continued. 313 Tampa Bay Ecological Characterlt,alion Appendix Table A·, Continlu~d, Red,eyed vin.x) (VIr('o o!iwU'('us) S tJ U lJ Philadelphia (V philaddphicus) M R R R \\J."rhlint' vireo gilvus) M R R R W0I111-<:luing wmbler (Helmilherosw~rmivorus) M R R R {J,lwrefu's warbler u:rn.'rencei} M R R R R M R R R R M R R R R M Onulgc·crowncd wtlrblcr (V. celata) W u U U U Nashville warbler M R R R M U U U U R M R R R R BliK;k·thn:);Il(~d Blue w.trbkr (0, caerult:sct'Ns) M U LJ U U Ydl()w,mmrK~d warbler (D coromufl) W A c c A A A c l~hlck"thr()itted grtx~n warbler a>, M O:ruknn wtubler (D. cerulea) M R R R Black.bumian warbler M R R R R Ox~stmfH;ided warl)ler (O.!N:?Il.\)Jlvanlca) M R R R R cdstmu:a) M R R R R R R M R R R P u c c R R R W Pralri<.: wllrl,!t:r (D. d. paludicola) P R Palm wartier W A A A C C C c A (Opo,.orm~<;l(mnosus) Kentucky wartIer M R R R Connecticut wtuhler M R R R Continued. 314 Appendix Appendix Table A-lB. Continued. Habitat typeb C'il til ....::I ...... C'il ~'" til .B -; ~ Species I: 0 I:> I til ~ C'il ~ c: tZl Cl: Mourning waIbler (Oporornis philadelphia) M Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) P CC C Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) M Hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) M Wilson's waIbler (W. pusilla) M Canada warbler (W. canadensis) M American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) M Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) M U Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) P U AA A "'R-ed·--wt..·n-g-ed...... b·la-c·k·bl,-·rd.:..--r(A·g-e·la-;ius-p'hoi"-e-m,-·c-eus~) ------.-:P- UUU U U Orchard oriole (Icterus spurius) S RRR Northern oriole (I. galbula) W RRR Rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) -W------U----U-----u----U Brewer's blackbird (E. cyanocephalus) W RRRR Boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major) P U U Common grackle (Q. quiscula) P U U Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) W U UU U Scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) M RRR Summer tanager (P. rubra) SR UUU UU Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) PCRRCCC U Rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheueticus ludovicianus) M RRR "'B·lu-e-gr-os·,be----.ak-'(7;G"u..ic-ra-c-a-'c-a-er-u·le-a"')------.:.--M....-· U------U-U--lJ------Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) W UU U U Painted bunting (P. ciris) M RR RR Dickcissel (Spiza americana) W -'-'-T American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) W U U U C CC C Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) PAAACCCAA nS-av-ann-ah-'-s-p-arro--w-:(""P:-'-as-s..o...e-rc-u·lus-=-s-a-ndw~i"-ch"--e-ns-l"--·s):--~W'-;-;-· UC C------_·--C Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) W U (Florida) Grasshopper sparrow (A. s.floridanus) PR R TiHr:-ens=-::i"lo:-::w:-:";-:-s-=sp::-:a=rro==w~(;;-:;A-.heT-:-ns-:-/aw'-:""ii")--=----:..---.W.,------··------··..·------·-·····--R· Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) W R Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) PCC C Continued. 315 Habihl! V':: .\of, <,r; 6 '/1 -2 X 6 E ;;"; !!JI E 'es ~ '.I':: "'"g ;;j ;t 1. r;. ;j ~ "'"6 § "0 '; c::: c; E ~ ..Vi \,;.,5 ... ] .c; "; ~ ,',r,. ~ .c; ~ 2 '.., J::i .~ c' .c ~ ;::l if, !'~ iii g ... -r;,) :.... v ~.. ~ 0: V') .i":, ...J hynmlJis) W R R R R R R R ChiI'lping SmlJnlW Vf}piz('l,ia Ihl..tw:rimJ) W C CC U t!/ U C W U U U R R R {1 Wllitc'Cf1(lWned spamlw {l,.{)'llllirrlt'hit1lc/J,cophrvsl White,thrm:llcd (if)ilimlW W RR R R R W R R R W R R R .. Inclu\!iCS iddt:r and willow nycmd1(~rs, U P J>etnHlllcnt S Surrllnt~r W b A Abundant; (~ U Unconmlon; and R 316 Appendix AppendixTable A-19. Wetland habitats in whichforest (arboreal) birds arefound in the Tampa Baywatershed, including relative abundance and seasonal occurrence (adaptedfrom Layne ct. at. 1977, TI1978c). Habitat typeb <» "'0 "'0 ..0 Cl:J c: "'0 "'0 ~ <» ..0 <» ~ "8 c: ~ la <» .3 ';:1 ~ ell ::a la (\) ~ <» E rs<» ~ (\) E ~ ] ~ (\) e C;; ..0"0 ;> ..c :~ B Species "'0 <» Cl:J c: "O~ <» c...... ~ 0 ~ (\)';:1 (\) ~ ..0 c.. ..0 ~ 1Q >. K (\) Ii § .... <» ..... (\) Cl:J ~~ >. ~ C;; V) P:l U ~ en ~ &: en* Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) P U Mangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor) S R Yellow-billed cuckoo (C. americanus) S C C C Black-billed cuckoo (C. erythropthalmus) M RR '~"-R--'---~-'---'---~- Northern bobwhite (Colinu.'l virginianus) P U Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) P U U Chuck-will's-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis) S C C -C-_·~---- Whip-poor-will (C. vociferus) W UU U Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) S U U U Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) P U C------tJ Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) P U U U Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) P C C C _.~-~----~---,--- Red-headed woodpecker (M. erythrocephalus) P U U Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) W CC U Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) P U U U Downy woodpecker (P. pubescens) P CCC Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) S C U U CC U Gray kingbird (T. dominicensis) S C Great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) P CC C Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) W UU U U C C Yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonaxflaviventris) M R RR Acadian flycatcher (E. virescens) M U U U Least flycatcher (E. minimus) M UU U U Traill's flycatcher* (E. traillii) M UU U Olive-sided flycatcher (Nuttallornis borealis) M R R Eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens) M UU U ~ Tree swallow (lridoprocne bicolor) W A A Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) M U --tT---- Southern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis) S U U --'-~-----'------~--'------TJ---u----- Bam swallow (Hirundo rustica) M Cliffswallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) M U U Purple martin (Progne subis) S C C C---C---=---'-~-'::----~-::-----"-::'----"-- Bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata) P C Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) P U U U Continued. 317 p c c c P R R R W R it R W lJ lJ lJ lJ W R R R R P A A A (' W U UU W U p' C C p C C C C lJ w C (' C A U w c c c u w c c f) c J;> u u u u w u s u u Continued. 318 Appendix Appendix Table A-19. Continued. Habitat~peb ~ .c ~ "'0 "'0 I: -g ~ fa "8 fa .§ .:g ~ .c a ';:l ~ ~ ~ g 0 "'0 ';:l "£3 5 ~ ~ 0 ~ 5 !a "'0 ~ ~ ~ '1:: ~ ea ~ ~ Species .cfa ~ I: ~ "'0 ...... ·S ~ ~ 0 0 ~ S- l:l.. .c ~ ~ .c ~~ ~ ...... ~ ..... ~ ~ fa 0 0 S ~ ~ ~ lZl I=Q U ~ tr.l ~ U:: tr.l - Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) M R RR Wonn-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) M R R Lawrence's warbler (Helminthophaga lawrencei) M R Brewster's warbler (H.leucobronchialis) M R Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) M R Blue-winged warbler (V. pinus) M R Tennessee warbler (V. peregrina) M RRR Orange-crowned warbler (V. celata) W UUU Nashville warbler (V. ruficapilla) M RRR Northern parula (Parula americana) P CCC U Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) M UUU R Magnolia warbler (D. magnolia) M RRR Cape May warbler (D. tigrina) M U UU Black-throated blue warbler (D. caerulescens) M UUU Yellow-romped warbler (D. coronata) W AAA C Black-throated green warbler (D. virens) M UUU Cerulean warbler (D. cerulea) M RRR Blackburnian warbler (D.fusca) M RRR Yellow-throated warbler (D. dominica) P UUU Chestnut-sided warbler (D. pensylvanica) M R R R Bay-breasted warbler (D. castanea) M RRR Blackpoll warbler (D. striata) M RR R Kirtland's warbler (D. kirtlandii) M R R R Pine warbler (D. pinus) PR R U Prairie warbler (D. discolor) W UUU (Florida) Prairie warbler (D. discolor paludicola) p C Palm warbler (D. paimarum) W CCC C Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) W UUU Northern waterthrush (S. noveboracensis) M R R R Louisiana waterthrush (S. motacilla) M R R R Kentucky warbler (Oporornisformosus) M R RR R Connecticut warbler (0. agilis) M R R R R Mourning warbler (0. philadelphia) M R RRR Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis tricliGs) P C C CC C C Yellow-breastedchat(lcteria virens) M R R RR Hooded warbler (Wiisonia citrina) M U UU U Continued. 319 Appentii,x TableA·19. Concluded. , b HabhatIP6 -g jl! .c ·lii ... S ~ t2 't:I ~ ~ e ~ e ~ .0 $J ;i .~ ) 'i3 i;I') Wil'lOt'l's wwbler{WlLfmuapuslll(() M R R C.lada warbler (W. tYl~lUls) M R R M C C U U .A .A R R W U U U W R R R U U U U U U U S U U U J} C C C U M U U R R W C C C II R R R W U U U W R R R W C C W M 320 Appendix Appendix Table A-20. Aquatic habitats in whichforest (arboreal) birds are found in the Tampa Bay watershed, including relative abundance and seasonal occurrence (adaptedfrom Layne et. al.1977, TI1978c). .. ttl Habitat typeb E 5 ttl ttl -a ttl bI:) c ttl ttl -a.... 0 Q) c ~ ttl Species ttl '1::l ro c .\:: ro Q) ~ 0 P< ~ 0 CI:l ...J 0.. CZl CZl U ------~_._--- Gray kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensL~) S C Scissor-tailed flycatcher (T.forjicatus) W U Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) WCC Tree swallow (lridoprocne bicolor) WA --·A-----·- A Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) MUU U Southern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx rujicollis) SUU U Bam swallow (Hirundo rustica) -----.-.-- M .---- U-----O----·--·U·---~· Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) MUU U Pulple martin (Progne subis) SCC C Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) .p-----.-..-----.-..--...----.--..--..--.....--...... Long-billed marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) WUU U (Marian's) Marsh wren (C. palustris marianae) PRR R Water pij)lt (Anthus spinoletta)" ----·-·...... ---..- ....- ....-W·..·..·..·--C·-·....--·· C---·--·---..·-...... ,C...... ---- Northern waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) MRR R Louisiana waterthrush (S. motaeilla) MRR R Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) ·----..----p..··-----C-··-·C-----:::-- C American redstart (Setophaga ruticilia) MCC C Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) PCC C "Boat-tailedgrnckle«(2UiscaliiSmexicanus) -.-- P A'---A' C Common grackle (Q. quiscula) PCC a P =Permanent resident; S =Summer resident (visitor); W =Winter resident (visitor); M =Migrant. b A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Uncommon; and R ~ Rare. 321 Tam~ 8ayEcologicai Characterization Appendix Table A~21 ..lfabiwdistribution, relative abundance, and seasonal (JCcurrence ofwading birds in the Tl1lfIPa Bay If.lQte,.,.;hed (aliaptedfrom ulyne et 11/97&). Habitat typeb .r:; "; '8 .r:; "In i ':::l ~ ~ i Il) :a ~ i -:::::l V'l e i ::t iU ... E 1A ::t ~ Il) ~ 'I: £ ... ;;. ~ ia 0. '~ £ i e ::t ~ blJ .;g ~ blJ ~ - ~ i ~ .... .c iU c: v;; ~ ~, K ~ Il) ! '"8 'r:: ::t iJ3 0. ....C:! ~ ~ ~ ~ :::E Ci') ::: ~ ~ -l e Ci') Ci') U Ore~lt bhre heron (Arf/c Continued. 322 Appendix Appendix Table A~21, Concluded, -,;:l b ~ Habitat type "::1 <:> ~ "Cl ..c: "Cl ~ .c ..~ ~ '8 ~ ij ~ 0 -=0 :E ~ g ~ "::1 ~ 8 .... -= <:> <:> .... ~ 'E ~ <:> '" S ("$ ~ 'C £ .... 7a'" "Cl ..c: Vl > «l «l ~ c. ~ c:: -,;:l ~ '[ ~ /:)Ij Species <:> ~ ~ ..c: ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ><: ~ .... In .... -g «l $:: ~ ~ ca '2c. g ~ ~ cx:l ~ U :E (I') ~ tJ,., (I') ~ &. (I') (I') U Scarlet ibis (Eudocimus ruber) Ac Roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja) sec C c C (Greater)Sandhill crane (Grus canat.tensis tabido.) W UU (Florida) Sandhill crane (G, canadensis pratensis) P UU Limpkin (t!ranlus K~!m~'!:!!2 .. ,.._~~ R_. .,._,._,._g,..,.~.. ,.,..~ .....__ ,,.,..~.,.. ._._.__. .J3: ._ a p:::: Pennanent resident.; S "" Summer resident (visitor); W::::: Winter resident (visitor); Ac := Accidental (vagrant), b A"" Abundant; C ::: Common; U ::: Uncommon; and R ::: Rare. 323 Tampa Bay ecological Characterization AppeNiix lQble A~22. Habitat distributkm, relative abundatu'e, and,feasonal occurrence ofjk;ating anddiving waterbirds tft the Tampa Bay wlllershed (adaptedfrom Layne et 1977, TI1978c). Species Common loon (Oavta immer) W - U Red-throated loon (0. stella/a) W - R Red-necked grebe (Podicep$ gr/segena) W - R Ilornc,rgreootP:'tiiiTliiLir-'''"''''''''·''''''''''''''''w''"..,:,.,~~~,,;.H:"'~""'"":""N"":"'·""':"-'-'''R~''"":'''''''''':'~'''''R''-''''C'''''N:'''' Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podlceps) pee u American white pelican (PeleciVUl.$ erythror u CA \"'.'-'!!I'''''' columbianul;) R R CaNitk:n.lj~") R Americ3U black duck (A. rubripe.r) Mottled duck Nol"thern pintail (A. acuul) (A. crecca) Arne-riCin Wigeon (1\, americana) Nmthern shoveler (A, Redhead (Aythya americana) Ritlil·neckl~ duck c Greater scaup (A. marifa) W R Le.~rscaup(A. affinis) W ~ .U • C C . CA. commori"gotdeneye{liiICepliiJa"c!tiitgI41iifW""":""'"''''''''--''''':" ""':' """"":""""'::-""':""':"""":"""'Ir'""": Bufflehead (8. albeola) W R R R W .. R R Continued. 324 Appendix Appendix Table A·22. Concluded. Habitat typeb ~ 'g "0 ..c:: g(I'l § ~ ..c:: .a0 g :2(I'l til l;I) ~ s 0 e 0 i ~ .I:> :~ £ ... ~ ~ (I'l ~ (I'l ~ ~ (I'l btl g Species ~ ..c:: ~ l: a ~ l: ... til ~ 'C:: ~ 0 ~ 0 0 I: ~ ~ ~ Q., l;I) ~ l;I) ~ ~ ~ l;I) &, l;I) l;I) u 0 White·winged sooter (Melanitta deglandl) W Surfscoter (M. perspicillata) W Black sooter (M. nigra) ~ iBi >! ill Common merganser (Mergus merganser) Red-breasted a P =Pennanent Resident; S (visitor); and b A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Unoommon; and R =Rare. Appendix Table A-23. Aquatic habitat distribution, relative abundance, and seasonal occurrence ofbirds of prey in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfrom Layne et al. 1977, T/1978c). Habitat typesb __.§peci~ ~tatusa Lakes Ponds Springs Streams Coastal Short e~red owl (Asioflammeus) W R Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) WUU UU Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) W_. . .__._. _._._..__.__.._. ....-f__ ~ Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) PUU U Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) W R Merlin (F. columbarius) W R American kestrel (F. sparverius)-----Vr------·_---·------····------·------"-"...... ·-·_"------_...·---_·-·C--- (Southeast) American kestrel (F. sparverius paulus) P U Magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) PR R U a P = Pennanent resident; W = Winter resident (visitor). b C =Common; U = Uncommon; and R =Rare. 325 Tampa Bay ecological Characterization Appendix Table A~24. Wetlond habitat distribution. relative abundance. and seasOfra[ occurrence of birds prey in the Tampa Bay water.wu!d (adapted/rom Layne 1977. Tl1.978c). Habitat tYPeb 't:l 't:l .c \\'III .c § i ~ ~ ~ ~ '=' i t a: "" e I ~ ) ~ ~ j :1 s Species 8- ii! ~ Iti~ Iii~ ~ 'd J l/Xl u ,; J: V) COlnlnc)n bam owl (l"to alba) P PA~tem screech owl (Oew 4Vt(» P P (Athena c,.nlcukuiajlorlt,iana) P Barred owl (Strlx varia) pee C * - - - - §ii;;iewi"'owr'(ASiO'~teU3r""'"'''''''''''''''0''''''''''''''''''''''' '""',,1""'''''''''.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.'-'''''''''''''---"'-''''''''--'-''''-''''''-'ii-'-'''''''''---'''''''''''' Turkey vultum (ea/harter (Ma) P C P C s u u u u u U W R (RfAftrhamu,r s(»ciabilLr pillmbeu.'i) P RR ~t!~~t",~(!lY::!).',,,,,,, "," ,,,,,,~W,.. ",~~".,~~,,, .•••. ,,,,,,,.~~,,,,, •..,,,,,..:.,.,.*,,.,.,,,,.:".,.,",.".,,,.~"'''''''",.,,'",,.,::,,''',.,, ..,''''''''',:,,.. , p ROO·caiJed hawk (lJutIU» jm,liflicen.ds) P U p C C Bm&f·wiule(f 'i) U StK>rt·ttilled hawk (fJ" !:mlChyuru.s') P R R W R Nortbem hamer (Circw C)ltV'lftllJ') W C C P U U camcard Peregrine falcon (l<'ak(l peregrill11S) W Meliin W 11 p:= Permanent resident; W := Winter resident (visitor), b A:= Abundant; C l'-" Common; U =: Uncommon; and R ::: :------ 326 Appendix Appendix Table A-25. Terrestrial habitat distribution, relative abundance, andseasonal occurrence ofbirds of prey in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfrom Layne etal. 1977, T1 1978c). Terrestrial habitat typeb g E ~ ..c:: E ~ Il) 1?Jl Species ~ Common barn owl (Tyto alba) P U U Eastern screech owl (Oms asio) P C C C C Great homed owl (Bubo virginianus) P CC C (Florida )Burrowing Owl (Athena cuniculariafloridana) P U Barred owl (Strix varia) P CCC Short eared owl (Asioflamm.eus) W R Turkey vulture(Cathartes aura) P C ACCC P A C Black vulture (Coragyps atratus) C C _._-_ .._-----C American swallow-tailed kite (Elanoidesforjicatus) S UU U U Mississippi kite (1ctinia mississippiensis) W R R RRR Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) W UU U Cooper's hawk (A. cooperii) P U UU Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) PUUUU U Red-shouldered hawk (B. lineatus) P C CCCC Broad-winged hawk (B. platypterus) W U U Rough-legged hawk (B.lagopus) W R R Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) W C CC Crested caracara (Polyborus plancus) P R RR American kestrel (Falco sparverius) W C C (Southeast) American kestrel (F. sparverius paulus) P U U a P =Pennanent resident; S =Summer resident (visitor); W =Winter resident (visitor). b A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Uncommon; and R =Rare. 327 Tampa Bay ecological Characterization Appendix 1ableA *26, Habitat dLvtribution., relati:vt abulUumce, and seasonal occurrence ofprobing shorebirds in. the Tampa Bay water.fhed (adapted/rorn Layne et ai, 1977, Tl1978c). Species Ruddy turnstone interpres) c American wood.oock (StYJlopaxs minor) see foomote C c CC c (Numen.iu.s americanus) R Whiimbl'el (N. phtUUJpus) u u U p c Cordlnued. 328 Appendix Appendix Table A-26. Concluded. Habitat typeb ~ ~ ~ ~ en e ~ a.> S 00 .c:: ~"'" 'G ~'"' en en ~ c.. ~ C'Il bO fij s Species .... en gj ~ e ~ '8 ·2c.. ~ 1t1 1U') ~ \.L. Ui ~ If Ui Ui (3 0 Oapper rail (Rallus longirostris) P C (Florida) Oapper rail (R.longirostris scottii) f P C Virginia rail (R.limicola) W U u U Sora (Porzana c.arolinq) W U U U Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) w R R R Black rail (LateraIlusjamaicensis) P R R R American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) . P R Common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Ac Semipalmated plover (c. semipalmatus) S R C ~l~!.~lover (C. melodus) W U (Cuban) Snowy plover (c. alexandrinus tenuirostris) P R Wilson's plover (C. wi/sonia) P------;-C.-__ KIlIdeer(C:~voCife;:ii.~yr·--~--'·-----'·_------pC-----C---:-----.-.-C----.::----:-----:-. U Lesser golden-plover (Pluvialis dominica) M R Black-bellied plover (P. squatarola) P R C a P =Permanent Resident; S =Swnmer Resident (visitor); W=Winter Resident (visitor); M =Migrant; and Ac = Accidental (vagrant). b A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Uncommon; and R =Rare. c rare in mixed hardwood wetlands and swamp brushland d rare in dry prairies e also common in mangrove wetlands f also common in mangrove wetlands g also uncommon in dry brushland 329 Tampa Bay EcclJogJctl.l cttalrac!erh~tk.n ApJ;'etmU Table A*27, dil;lribulian, ff!lt:;lti'llt~ (JblU~J!lm('e, i:IJ'1d !;i!?(I.~'{)fUJJ Ilrl"IJP,.j.,'I"U',' bird-fin thttTampa Bay wfltcnihl'dl (adaptedjr(1tn 14)'1Ut R R U c c A R U R A A 330 Appendix Appendix Table A-28. Terrestrial habitatdistribution and relative abundance ofmammals known orexpected to occur in the Tampa Bay watershed (Layne etal.1977, TI1978c). Habitat typesa ~ .!!.l 1 j € Oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) U :::,',,:::.:,:.::,::: Cotton mouse (P. gossypinus) U AA "U"· .·O····•. G U U Florida mouse (P.jloridanus) U C U U- Continued. 331 332 Appendix Appendix Table A-29. Wetland habitat distribution and relative abundance ofmammals known or expected to occur in the Tampa Bay watershed (Layne et at. 1977; Tl1978c). Habitat typesa 'g "'t:l ii ~ ~ .r:: i .r:: ~ Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) Southeastern aw'troirimuiu~\") Big brown bat (Eptesicusfusc~'i) Red bat Hoary (L. Rafmesque's big-eared bat (Plecom'i rafinesquii) free-tailed Marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) Eastern cottontail C gray Sherman's fox squirrel (S. niger shermani) Southern C C (Ochrotomys nuttalli) Round-tailed muskrat (Nt~ofi,beralleni) U Nutria R Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)b Raccoon (Procyon lotor) U C Horida long-tailed weasel (Mustelafrenata peninsulae) Continued. 333 Appendix Table A~29. Concluded. Species Rc Ram. X II:: SWUS Unknown. Appendix Tobie Aquatic habi«u tJi:;tribltlilm and relative abluu/ance of mmnmaLf kmJWn ortt'(ptiCuJd l(J occur in the Tampa Bay watershed (l..aylIC et aJ.. 1971; ff 1971k). ~ Spttdes ~ ~ CI)l ~ R R R R R R U U U C