A PreliminaryStudy of the SummerFeeding Habits of JuvenileFlorida Trat:Itinotuscttrolintss! from Open aud Protected Beaches of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico

KERSTEN N. WHEELER, CLINTON C. STARK, and RICHARD W. HEARD Departmentof CoastalSciences Universityof SouthernMississippi Gulf CoastResearch Laboratory Campus OceanSprings, Mississippi 39566-7000 USA

ABSTRACT Relativelylittle informationis availableon thefeeding habits of theFlorida pompano Trachinotus carolinus! &om the northeastern Gulf of Mexico.The productiveshallow water habitats of coastalbarrier islands in this regionof the Gulf ofFera diversearray of potentialprey items for this commerciallyimportant fish.During July 2000 the digestive tracts of 78juvenile pompano were collected &om barrier island habitatsin Mississippi Horn, Ship, and Petit Bois Islands!, Alabama Dauphin Island!, and West SantaRosa Island!, preserved, and examinedfor food items, Comparisonsof the prey organismsfound were made based on fish size and collection site e.g. open beachesof the Gulf or the protectedbeaches of thebay/sound! &om the four islands. Of the78 juvenile pompanoexainined all but threecontained identifiable food items,which representedat least 32 differentprey items. Crustaceans, primarily juvenile mole Emeritaspp!, werethe dominantfood itemsof thejuvenile pompano, Molecrabs occurred at all butone of theeight collecting sites. Diet diversity was slightlyhigher for fish&um open beach habitats than for fish&om the protected beachesof thebay or soundsides of theislands P4ississippi Sound/ Mobile Bay/ PensacolaBay]. Fishcollected &om the protected north sides of the islandsfed on moreestuarine organisms e.g., Neanthes succinea, Corophium louisianum! thanthose fish examined&om open beach Gulf habitats.Our preliminary data indicatethat duringthe sununermonths, juvimiie pompanoare opportunistic feedersutilizing the most readily available food resources within the habitats they forage,Juvenile pompano &om open beach habitats appear to feedon juveniles of preyspecies Donm spp., Emerita spp.! known &om the diet of adults.

KEY WORDS:Juvenile pompano, Trachinotus carolinus, feeding, Gulf of Mexico

INTRODUCTION TheFlorida pompano, Trachinotus carolinus Linneaeus!, a member of the familyCarangidae, is a commonnearshore ranging &om Cape Cod to northeasternBxazil. Our study was designedto determineand comparethe diIVerencesin preyselection of juvenilepompano 4 - 94 mm! &omopen and Page 680 Wheeler, K.N. et al. GCFI:53 2002

protected beacheson four bamer islands in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. TheFlorida poinpano, referred to hereas "pompano," is an importantfood and game fish along the coast of the southeasternUnited States,with Florida havingthe largestconunercial landings Pattillo,et al. 1997!. Most of the previousreports dealing with the biologyof pompanohas been summarized by Pattilloet al. 997!. Juvenilepompano are reported to be abundantin the surf zone Gunter1958, BeHinger and Avault 1971,Benson 1982!. Bothjuveniles andadults are known to exhibitschooling behavior Benson 1982! Spawningtakes place offshore in earlyspring to late sununerand all life stagesare &ee swimming Pattillo et al. 1997!. Accordingto Ditty et al. 988!, pompanophmktonic larvae are present in theGulf of Mexico&om May through August.Ibe fish areconsidered juveniles when they reach a standardlength SL! of 7 mm. Juvenilesarrive in thesurf zone when they are about 10 - 15mm total lieth and leavefor deeperwater when they reach75 - 150 mm. Juvenilesare foundin the shallowwater beaches of thenorthern Gulf &omApril to October, andthey move south along the coastin responseto colderwinter temperatures Pattillo et aL 1997!. Pompanooccur in bothin oceanicand estiiarine wats andare reported to feedon benthic and epibenthic oqpnisms Armitage and Alevison 1980, Bellinger andAvault 1971, Fields 1962, Finucane 1969, Modde.aud Ross 1983!. Juvenile pompanoare known to exploit food sourcesin or adjacentto the swashzone of northernGulf beaches Modde and Ross 1983!, however they are also reported to feedin peripheralestuarine habitats BeHingerand Avault 1971,Finucane 1969!. Theyhave been reported to be diurnalfeeders Modde and Ross 1983, Pattilio et. al. 1997!,and adultshave been reported to feed duringthe day primarily on benthic bivalves Pattillo et al. 1997!. The adults have well developedpharyngeal plates, which allow them to feed on bard-shelleditems suchas bivalvesand inole crabs Finucane1969, Bellinger and Avault 1971!. Juvenilepompano are oplxntunistic feedersthat o&enutiTize the surf zoneto feed on prey iteruswhich becomedislodged or disorientedby wave action and vulnerableto predation Pattillo et al. 1997!. The smaller fish feed on benthic andpelagic invertebrates including polychaetes, calanoid copepods, amphipods, gaslxopodlarvae, and insect3. Studiesby Hildebrandand Schroeder928!, Berryand Iverson 967!, andBellinger and Avault 971! indicatedthat the diversityof thesefood items decrease as the fish grows,probably indicating that adultfish aremore selective in theirchoice of prey. Moddeand Ross 983! are the only authorsto presentinformation on the diet of pompanoin the northeasternGulf of Mexico HornIsland, Mississippi!, however, little detailed informationon the specificidentification of preyitems was reported. The most extensive feeding study of juvenile pompano in the Gulf of Mexico was conductedby Bellingerand Avault 971!. Their studywas basedon the examinationof 899juvenile fish collected&om two Louisianabeach sites west of the MississippiRiver. However,with few exceptions,most of the food items wereonly identifiedto majortaxonomic categories e.g., class and order!. Two 53" Qug and Cat1bbeanFiaheriea institute Page661 otherrelevant studies are those of Armitageand Alevizon 980!, who studied juvenileand adult fish &omthe eastcoast of centralFlorida, and Fields 962! who examinedjuveniles &om the coastof Georgia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Juvenilepompano were collected&om four barrier islandsalong the coasts of Mississippi,Alabama, and West Florida seeFigure 1!. In addition,a few adultspecimens were collected using hook and line &omWest Ship Island to be usedfor comparisonof diet with thejuveniles, The sevencollecting sites for juvenileswere ! thesouthwest tip of HomIsland, ! northside of HornIsland middle!, ! south side Horn Island middle!, ! north Petit Bois Island, ! northside of DauphinIsland, ! southside of DauphinIsland, ! northside of SantaRosa Island, and 8! SouthSanta Rosa Island.

F ure 1. Tiachinotus carolinus collection sites durin June 2000.

The fish were collected with a 7 foot diameter cast net with '/v inch mesh, a 10 foot diametercast net with '/i inch mesh,and a 20foot seine. When feasible,a miniinum of 10 fish &om each collection site were collected and examined. The numberof fish specimens&om eachstation was takenby availability. The salinity,air, and water temperature were taken at eachstation. Once coll~ thefish were preserved in 10/oformalin on site,and after a minimumof six days theywere transfemed to 70/oethanol. In thelaboratory, the standard length SL! of eachfish wasrecorded, The entire digestive tract of eachfish wasremoved. Utilizingboth dissectingand compound microscopes, prey items from the entire digestivetract were countedand identifiedto lowest possibletaxon. To compensateforthe large differences in size and number of eachof theprey items, Page 882 Wheeler, K.N. et al. GCFI:83 2002

the itemswere taken as a percentageof eachfishes' total stomach contents. The percentageof prey items for each individual fish was calculated, the averages for all fishexamined were combined, and this value was divided by thetotal number of fish examined. Thesepercentages are reflectedin Figures2 - 10. All calculations,graphs, and tables were madeusing Microsoft Excel 2000. Pish with emptystomachs were not includedin calculationsof dietcomposition, The nuscellaneouscategory encompasses all prey organismsthat composed2% or less of the diet.

RESULTS Seventy-eightjuvenile pompano wrxe collected &om eightdifferent brurier islandcollections sites during July 2000 Tablel!.'Ihe digestivetracts of only threefish, two Som the north side of SantaRosa Island station 7! andone Som the southwesttip of Hom bland station 1! containedno food items. The digestivetracts of the75 juvenilepompano containing food material yielded a total of 1046 recognizableprey organismsrepresenting at least 32 different speciesof invertebratesand fish AppendixA!. Thesummer feeding habits of juvenilepompano prey composition varied with collectionsite. Figures2 and3 indicatethe simdaritiesand differences in the preyconsumed by pompanofiom the north pro~ beaches!and south openGulf beaches!sides of the barrier islandsduring our study. The diet of the fish collectedon the northside was composedof 22 differentprey items, the smallburrowing isopod Exosphearorrra dirrrinuta,being the mostabundant prey organism recovered Figure 2!. The diet of fishcollected Som the southsides of theislands was composed of 26 different preyitems with Emeritaspp. being the most abundant prey item Figure3!.

Tablef. Location,date of collection,temperature, salinity, and number of juvenilepompano collected during July 2000

Air Temp WaterTernp Sak ¹ of Sile ¹ Coltectton Site Date 'C..'C %e Fish 1 SW Tip of Hom Ishnd 07/11/2000 34 32 33 1B 2 North Hom Island mid 07/200000 31 34 10 3 South Hom Island mid! 07/20I2000 34 25 35 10 4 North Pelt Bois lshnd 07/07/2000 34 32 5 5 Norlh DauphinIsland 07/23/2000 33 31 31 5 B South DauphinIsland 07/23/2000 31 30 33 10 7 North Sarrla Rosa Island 07/24/200G 35 31 33 10 5 Soulh Sanla Rosa Island 07/24/20M 35 12 53 Gulf and Caribbean Institute Page 5~3

Exosphaeroma ~ Haustorid sp diminuta 30% 31%

~ Mulinea lateralis 3% Q Neanthes succinea E3Misceirarl 88orophium 23% '5 BowmarIiells. dissimilis 4% 5%

Figure 2. Important prey species recovered from 29 juvenile Trachinotus carolinus collected from the protected beaches, north sites of Hom,Petit Bois, Dau hin, and Santa Rosa Islands

B Callanoid copepod 9% Donax spp. 7%

8 Emerita spp. Bates 36% cathannensls 12% Latreutes palvuius 4% megalopa 3%

a Bittoliurn v scellaneous 2% 10% ~ Fish spp. 15%

Figure 3. Importantprey speciesrecovered from 46 juvenile Trachinotus carolinus collected from the open beach, south sides of Hom, Petit Bois, Dau hin, and Santa Rosa Islands. Wheeler, K.N. et al. GCFI:58 2002

In genera1the food itemsidentified during this studywere indicative of shallow-water,sand dwelling organisms Stations1, 4, 6-8!, however,there were notableexceptions Stations 2,3,5!. At Station2, a protectedbeach area on the north side of Horn Island, the fish examinedhad been feeding in two different habitats,a protectedsand beach and adjacent sea grass beds Halodulewrightir'!, At this site a mirture of prey organisms,including sandbeach species Emerita spp.and Exosphaeroma diminuta!, and grassbed forms Astryis[=Metrellag lunata Bittolium[=Bittium] vari um, Hippolytesostericola!,occurred in the diet of the fish examined. When collectionswere made at Station 3, an open Gulf beachsite on the southside of Horn Island,a largeIxuch of drift algaewith associatedcrustaceans Batea catharinensis and Latreutes parvulus! was present. These two crustaceans,which are not typical of open beachhabitats, made up an iinportant part of the food items for the fish examinedfiom this site. A third site Station 5! on the north side of Daiiphin Island was an atypical habitatfor pompano.'Hus site is adjacentto sand/siltbeach with nearby Spartina salt marshesand submergedobstrucdons, The diet of the five pompano6om this site consistedof typical e.&ariiie epibenthicand soft bottomsforms suchas the polychaetes, Neanthes succinea and Polydara sp. and the criuWceans, Corophiumlouisianum and Sphaeromaquadridentatum. No typical sandbeach forms e.g., Emerita spp., Exosphaeromadiminuta! were observed. Basedon the sizeof fish, the prey datafor thejuvenile pompanowas divided into four sizeclasses Figures 4 - 7! andprey composition of eachsize class was determined.In the 6rst size class SL 14 - 34 mm!, 23 different diet items were identified with sphaerrunatidisopods Exosphaeromadiminuta! and haustoriid amphipods Haustoriusj ayneae and Lepidactylus sp. A! beingthe major dietary componentsconsumed. The next size class, SL 35 - 55 mm, contained 25 differen food items with juvenile mole crabs, Emerita spp., aud haustoriid amphipodscomprising of the major part of the prey orgamsmsidentified. The third size class,SL 56 - 76mm, consumed27 different prey items, the major food oqyuusmbeing Emerita spp, Only 14 prey items ruadeup the final size class, 77 - 94inm, with juvenile coquina clams, Donar spp., being an important prey species. The food organismsfound in fish of this size class reflectedthat reportedfor adult pompano. Figure9 illustiutesthe numericalrepresenuition of the majorprey items consumedby a11the 74 juveniles examinedwith food items in their digestive tracts. The juvenile diet was comprised of mostly Emerita spp. 0%! and Exosphaeromadiminuta 2%!, During July 2000we also collectedaud examinedthe digestivetracts of four adult fish SL 375 - 421 mm! &om an open beach site off Ship Island, Mississippi. The diet of thesewas comprisedof only 5 differentprey itemswith Donax spp. being the most abundantand important prey item Figure 10!. Except for the commensalcrab, Pinnixa beherae,which is associatedwith the ghost Callichirus islegrande!, the other prey organisms observed 53~ Guif and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page665

Gynocunadalli, Ancinusdepressas, PrJrahmrstorius sp.! are relativelysmall, sanddwelling species.

t3 Emerita spp. 10% 6 Exosphaeroma L diminuta 26%

5 Scoleiepis 8 Haustorid spp. squamata 26% I 3%

CICallanoid cop&pod 7% G Hippolyte lg Miscellaneous 8 Insect~ zostericola 16% T% 3%

Figure4. Totaldiet composition of 18juvenile Trachinotuscarolinus, SL 14 - 34

8 Exosphaeroma diminuta a Callanoid a Fish spp.

zostericoia 4% ~ Isocheles wurdemanni 5% W. gCmg~~op 3% ~ Miscellaneous t3 Haustoridspp. 11% 16%

Figure 5. Total diet compositionof 32 juvenile TrachinotuscaroIinvs, SL 35 - 55 mm Page 666 %heeler, K.N. et al. GCFI:63 002!

CtExosphaeroma diminuta 0 Fish 4% a Unid.Ark shells 13%

UAstryislunate 4% D Bowmanielta dissim@a 2% ~ Hliscetlaneous 12% ~ Emeritaspp. 45% austoridspp. 6%

Flgttre 6. Total balietcomposition of 19 juvenile Trachinotuscarolinus, SL 56 - 76 mm.

EI Ancinus depressus 6% 4% CIFish spp.

8 Emeritaspp. 17% Hippolyte zmterioota 5%

ClLatreutes 0 Miscellaneous parvulus 19% 4% ~ UnidArk shells 16%

Figure 7. Total diet compositionof five juvenile Trachinotuscarolinus, SL 77- 94 mm 53" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute Page 667

20 IL is

10 Z g 5

Rgure8. Totalnumber of preyspecies found in the fourjuvenile size classes of Trachinotus carolinus collected from both protected and open beach sites on Hom, Petit Bois, Dau hin, and Santa Rosa Islands.

8 Exosptiaercma dhrninuts ~ Callsnoid ~ Emerits spp 12% copepod 20%

Hoonax spp, 4% D Bates ~ Bittolium vsrium csthsrefienshs 6% 6% g Latreutes paulus %Crab megaiops R Hsustorid spp. 2% 12% 0 tiesnthes sucxAriea louisis num ella

15%

Figure tt. Major prey speciescomprising the diets of all size classesof juvenile Trachinotus carolinus, n = 74; sizes = 14 - 94 mm Page 666 Wheeler, K.N. etal. GCFI:53 2M2!

~ Gynaconadalii 0 Parahaostorius 15% spp 22% 0 Pinnixabeherae 4% a Ancinus deprassus 1%

O Dona pp 58%

Figure 10. Total prey items recoveredfrom four adult Trachinotuscarolinus, SL 375 -421 mmcollected from the protMed, northside of WestShip Island, Mississi i

DISCUSSION Thesepreliminary observations support earlier reports that juvenile pompano areopportunistic feeders Pattillo et al.!. Eventhough we examineda relatively limitednumber of fish collectedduring the monthof July,our data indicate that pompanomay feed on a greatervariety of invertebratesthan previously reported. In our studyat least32 dietaryorganisms w~ identifiedas distincttaxa. This includeda variety of estuarineand grass bed organisms,such as Neanthes succinea,Astryis lunata, Bittolium varium, Cymadusacompta, Corophium louisianumand typical beach species, including juvenile Donm spp,, Ancinus depressus,juvenile Emerita spp., Erosphaeromadiminuta, and haustoriid amphipods. A review of the literature see Patlillo et al, 1997! and the very limited observationsmade during our study,indicate that adult pompano in the northern Gulf of Mexico feed largelyon the sametypes of prey as the juveniles e.g., Donaxsp., mole crabs, and haustoriids and Harengul aj aguana!,but focustheir feedingefforts on the adultstages, whereas, smaller pompano feed on the juvenilesof theseprey species,plus a varietyof smaller,more diversefood organisms.As in manyother csrmvorous fish species,it wouldbe ecologically inefficientor not feasiblefor largerpompano to expendthe energyrequired to consumethe smallermore diverse organisms eaten by juveniles. Thus, there is a selectiveprocess to specializeon largerand more abundant prey. Hildebrandand Schroeder928!, Berryand Iverson967!, andBellinger and Avault 971!, 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page 660 haveindicated that adult pompano are more selective in theirchoice of preyand haveevolved strong pharyngeal teeth for crushinghard shellsof Donax.spp. Theseclams are consideredone of the most, if not the single most, important food organismsin the diet of adultpompano PattiHo, et al. 1997!. In contrast Finucane969a! statedthat pompano feeding becomes more diversified as the fish movestowiud adulthood. Basedon our preliminary observationsthere was anincrease in thevariety of foodorganisms with anincrease for fishin the 14mm to75 mm SL size range,but then an apparentdecrease in diversityof prey organismsfor fish in the76 - 94mm SL range Figure 8!. Thismay indicate that the olderjuveniles are becomingmore selective as they reachadulthood; however,our observations,are only tentativebecause they are based on a smaH samplesize of pompanowith a SL ~ than 75 nun. Therewas a slightlygreater diversity of preyitems &om fish collected at the openbeach Gulf! sitesthan those &om the moreprotected north side sites, however,this couldbe an artifiict of sampling. For example,presence of drift algaeand its associatedatypical beach fauna at Station3 mayhave skewed our limited observations in this ~. Someof thejuvenile pompano we examinedhad been feeding on smaH juvenilefish Anchoasp, and Hareagula jaguana!. Modde and Ross 983! statedthat prey volumeof Harengulajaguana =H.pensacolae! increased slightlywith fish length. In ourstudy, fish were part of theprey in aHfour size classes.In oneinstance, the stomach of a 42mm SL! pompanocontained three fish thatwere between 20 and24 mmin length.Notwithstanding, fish appearto beimportant dietary items because they are generally much larger than the other preyitems consumed and supply more energy than the smaller crustaceans and molluscs

FUTUIK STUDIES In the futurewe planto conducta muchmore extensive ontogenetic and temporalstudy beginning in thespring April/May! when juvenile fish first arrive in the surf zoneuntil thethey leave in the fall October/November!.Our study areawill beexpanded eiistward to thesouthwestern Gulf coastof Floridaand we~ to eastern Louisiana. In thesesubsequent coHections, wewiH collect more juvenile and adult fish overa widerrange of standardlengths to deterinineif thetrend toward a less diversediet in larger fish is supported. Diurnalstudies at oneor morecoHechng sites in Mississippi,Alabama, or West Florida areplanned to determine: i! Whenpompano are most actively feeding, ii! If thereare changes in prey selection during different periods of theday, iii! If juvenilesactively feed at night,and iv! Digestiveelimination rates. Page 670 Wheeler, K.N. et al. GCFI:63 2002

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dawne Hard for her assistance with data managementand graphicssupport. Jerry Mclleland and Sara LeCroy for their help with identification of prey and editing of this paper.In addition, w'ewould like to thankChet Rakocinski for his helpwith statisticalanalysis and editing. Finally, we would like to thank John Harsh at the University of Southern Mississippi-Hattiesburg for his statisticalguidance.

LITERATURE CITED Armitage T.M. and W.S. Alevizon.1980. The diet of the Florida Pompano Trachinotus carolinus! along the east coast of Centtul Florida. Florida Scientist 43!:19-26. Bellinger,J.W. andJ.W. Avault,Jr. 197G. Seasonaloccurrence, growth, and length-weightrelationship of juvenile pompano, Trachinotuscarolinus in Louisiana.Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 99!:353-358. Bellinger,J.W, and J.W. Avault, Jr. 1971.Food habits of juvenilepompano, Trachinotuscarolinus, in Louisiana Transactionsof the AmericanFisheries Society 100!:486-494. Benson,N.G., ed.!. 1982. Life history requirementsof selectedfinfish and sheHfishin MississippiSound and adjacent areas. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.Biol. Rep., FWS/OBS-81/51:45-46. Berry, F. and E.S. Iverson. 1967. Pompano:Biology fishixies and fiunnng potential. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 19:116-128. Ditty, J.G., G.G. Zieske, and R.F Shaw. 1988. Seasonalityand depth distribution of larval fishes in the Northern Gulf of Mexico above 26G GO' N. US. FisheriesBulletin 86!:811-823. Fields,H.M. 1962. PompanosP'rachinotus spp.! of the southAtlantic coast of the United States. U S. Fisheries Bulletin 62:189-222, Finucane,J.H. 1969a, Ecology of the pompano Trachinotuscarolinus! and the T. falcatus! in Florida.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98!:478486. Gunter, G. 1958. Population studiesof the shallow wats fishes of an outer beach in south Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. of Texas 5:186-193. Hildebrand,S.F., and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of ChesapeakeBay. Bulletin of the US. Bureauof Fisheries43:1-366 Modde,T. andS.T. Ross. 1983. Trophic relationships of fishesoccurring within a surf zonehabitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. NortheastGulf Science 6!:1G9-12G. 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheriaa institute Page 671

Pattillo,M.E., T,E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, aud M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and abundanceof fishesand invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries.Pages 222-227in: Volume11: Species life historysummaries. ELMR Rep. No. 11, NOAA/NOSStrategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, Maryland USA.

APPENDIX A, Taxonomiclisting of theprey organiszns recovered &om the digestive tracts of 78 juvenileFlorida pompano collected along the coasts ofAlabama, Mississippi and West Florida during July 2000,

Phylum Annelida ClassPolychaeta Family Nereidae Neanthessuccinea Frey andLeukart, 1847! Family Spionidae Scolelepissquarnata O. F. Muller,1806! unidentified. remains PhylumMolluscs ClassGastropoda Order Mesogastropoda Family Cerithiidae Bittolwn varium Pfeiffer, 1840! OrderNeogastropoda Fannly Columbellidae Astryis lunata Say, 1826! Class Bivalvia Family Crassatellidae Gynocunadalli Vanatui, 1904! Family Donacidae Donm texasianusPhilippi, 1847~ Donm variablis Say, 1822 Family Mactricidae Mulinea lateralis Say 1822! unidentified . mollusc remains Phylum Aitbropoda SubphylumCrustacea ClassCopepoda Subclass Calanoidea unidentified.sp. spp?! Class Malacostraca Order Mysida Family Mysidae Page 872 Wheeler,K.N. et al. GGFI:SS 2002!

Bow maniella dissimilis Coi6nan, 1939 Order Tanaidacea Family Kaliiapseudidae Xalliqpseadessp. A undescribed! Order Isopoda Fanuly Sphaemmatidae Ancimcs depressus Say, 1818! Exosphaeromadimingta Menziesand Frakenburg,1965 Sphaeromaqaadridentatum Say, 1818! OrderAmphipoda Family Ampithoidae Cytnadusacompta Suuth, 1873! Family Bateidae Batea catharinensis Muller, 1865 Family Haustoriidae Hmtstoriwsjayneae Foster and LeCroy, 1991 Lepidactylussp. A Parahaustoriussp. A unidenti6ed.Haustorid spp. remains Family Corophiidae Corophitanlouisiaman Shoemaker, 1934 Fauuly Hyalidae Parhyalehawaiensis Dana, 1853! Ordn Decopoda Family Penaeidae penaeidsp. small juv.! Infraorder Caridea Family Hippolytidae Hippolyte zosteri cola Suuth, 1873! Latr etttesparvtdtts Stimpson, 1866! unidenti6ed. caridean rcsnains Infraorder Anomura Famiiy Hippidae Emerita talpoida Say, 1817 Emerita benedicti Schmitt, 1935 Emerita spp. juvenile remains! Family Diogenidae lsocheles wgrdemanni Stimpson, 1862 Family Porcellanidae unidentified Porcellanid remains Infraorder Brachyura Family Portunidae unidenti6ed snaatljuveniles Family Pinnotheridae 53" Gulf and Caribbean FIsheries Institute

Pinnixa behreaeManning and Felder, 1989 Pinnixa sp.

PhylumChordata Subphylum V ertebrata ClassOsteichthyes Family Engmulidae Anchoasp, juvs.! Family Clupeidae Harengulajaguanapoey, 1865 juvs.!

~ Small,juvenile Donar texaniuswere found but were very difficult to identify and wererecorded with D. variabiis asDonax. spp PreliminaryObservation of ReproductiveFailure in Nearshore QueenConch $&ottsbgsgig us! in the Florida Keys

KEVIN J, McCARTHY's, CLAUDINE T. BARTELS' MEAGHANC. DARCY',GABRIEL A. DELGADO', aud ROBERT A. GLAZERl 'RoridaFish and iWildlife Conservation Commission Florida Marine Research Institute 2796 OverseasHighway, Suite I I 9 Marathon, FL 33050 USrf 'can ent address FloridaInstitute of Oceanography KeysMarine Laboratory P.O. Box 968 Long Key, FL 3300I VSA

ABSTRACT In the FloridaKeys, queen conch, Strombus gigas, occur nearshore in hard- bottomcommunities and oflshore in seagrassmeadows and rubble zones adjacent to thereef tract Queenconch in nearshoreaggregations have not been observed reproducing mating or spawning!since our monitoring program began in 1987. However,reproduction has commonly been observed in oflshoreaggregations. Reciprocaltransplants of conchwith flared lips were madebetween pairs of nearshoreand onshoresites, resulting in eachsite havingboth nearshore aud offshoreconcIL Nearshore conch wrac not observed mating or spawningin their nativenearshore region during this study. Nearshore conch transplanted offshore werenot observed mating, however, three months after transpianudion, nearshore conchwere observedspawning at offshoresites. Offshore conch transplanted nearshorematedaud spawned, but at reduced Sequencies compared with conch that remainedonshore. These preliminary results suggest that some component of the nearshoreenvironment affects reproduction in conchand that transplanting nearshoreconch to the oflehoreregion restores the reproductiveviability of transplantedconch.

KEY WORDS:Queen conch, reproduction, transplanting

INTRODUCTION Queenconch, Strombus gigas, occurwithin two distinctregions on the oceansideof theFlorida Keys archipelago: nearshore and ofIshore. Conch within thetwo regions are isolated from one another by Hawk Channel, which runs parallel to the FloridaKeys and lies between the islandchain and the ofFshorereef unct Bergand Glazer 1995!. Hawk Channelconsists of a fine-grained,soft-sediment substrate,which is unsuitableconch habitat and %us serves as a barrierto queen conchnugration Glazer and Berg 1994!. 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fiaheriee inetitute Page 675

Since1987, researchers monitoring queen conch stock abundance throughout the FloridaKeys have not observedany reproductiveactivity among conch in nearsboreaggregations; however, anecdotal reports indicated that conchin the nearshoreregionzepaducedasrecency as the mid-1980's Brian LaPointe, persoral communication1998!. Conversely,reproductive behavior bas commonly been observedamong conch in offshoreaggregations Glazer and Berg 1994!, Glazer andQuintero 998! conducteda histologicalexamination of conch&om these two regionsand found that the gonads of offshoreconch were viable and capable of undergoinggametogenesis, whereas the gonadsof nearshoreconch were nonfunctional.In the presentstudy, we examineddiff'erences in reproductive behavior i.e,, matingand spawning frequency! between nearsbore and offshore conchby transplantingnearshore conch to theoffshore region and offshore conch to the nearshore region.

METHODS DuringMarch, April, and May 1999, we transplanted queen conch with flared lips&om two nearshore to two offshore sites and vice versa, so that all foursites would have both nearshore and offshore conch. Nearshore sites were located at Tingler'sIsland 4' 4l' N, 81'05' W! andDuck Key 4' 45'N, 80' 55'W! in water1-2m deep Figure 1!. Offshoresites were located at Alhgator Reef 4' 51' N, 80'37'W! andPelican Shoal 4'30' N, gl' 37'W! in water5-1 lm deep Figure 1!. Reciprocaltransplants of queen conch were made between Tingler's Island aud AlligatorReef and between Duck Key aud Pelican Shoal Table 1!. Fewerconch werecollected and tagged &om nearshore sites Table 1! because aggregations were smaller there than at the offshore sites. We usedmonel wire to securea nmnbered,stainless-steel tag to eachconch's shellspue In addition,colored plastic tape was tied to thespires to facilitate recapture.From March 1999 through November 1999, each site was searched weeklyexcept during periods of inclement weather. Divers using SCUBA surveyed offshoresites, while nearshore sites wee surveyedby snorkeling. We quantified the matingactivity of queenconch by countingthe numberof copulatingpairs; spawningactivity was quantified by counting the number of femaleslaying egg- masses.For statistical purposes, data &om the two nearshore sites were pooled and treatedas the nearshore region; data &om the two offshoresites were treated in the samefashion. Data were also pooled by season. Spring consisted of March, April andMay; summer consisted ofJune, July, and August; fall consisted of September, October, and November. Page 676 llcCarth, K.J. et al. GCFI:53 2002

PS 120 KBometers

Figure 1. Sites in the Florida Keys where the queen conch transplant study was conducted. The nearshore region is landward of Hawk Channel; the offtthore region is so~ of Hawk Channel. Nealshore sites induded Tingler's Island TI! and Duck . Ofhhore sites induded Pelican Shoal PS and All Reef AR .

Table 1. Number of queen conch collected and tagged at each site for the reciprocal transplant study in the Ronde Keys. Ttte number of conch released at the site of initial capture, the number transplanted, and the transplant location are also given. Letters in parentheses indicate whetiter the location was in the offshore o! or nearshore n! region.

Source 8 Collected 8 Released Transplant Location 8 Tagged at Source Transplanted Loca5on at Source Location Location Alligator Reef 201 101 Tingler's o! n! Tingler'a 21 Alligator Reef n! o! Pelican Shoal 100 Duck Key o! n! Duck Key 58 Pelican Shoal n! o! 53" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute Page 677

PRELIMINARY RESULTS Mating Differencesinnuuin &equencieswere observed between the nativenearshore conchand the nativeoffshore conch. Nearshoreconch were not observedmating at either their native nearshoresites or at the offshore sites where they were transplanted,whereas offshore conchwere observedmating at both their native offshoresites and at the nearshoresites to which theyhad been transplanted Table 2!. Mating &equencyof offshoreconch was highest during the spring and decreased during subsequentseasons at both nearshoreand offshore sites Table 2!. The matingfrequency of offshoreconch transplanted to the nearshoreregion decreased &om 11.8'/oin the spring to 0,0'/oin the fall, whereasthe mating &equencyof offshoreconch that remainedoffshore decreased &om 5.3/o in the springto 0,9/0 in the faII Table 2!, All matingoccurred between native offshore conch with the exceptionof two offshore femalesthat were transplantednearshore, who were observedmating with untaggednelshore males,

Spawaing We also observeddifferences in the &equencywith which nearshoreand offshoreconch spawned.Nearshore conch were not observedspawning at their native nearshoresites; however,nearshore females transplanted to the offshore region spawnedduring the summerand fall with &equenciesof 12.5/oand 18.5/o, respectively Table2!. Native offshorefemales were observed spawning at offshor and nearshoresites; however,females transplanted nearshore spawned far less &equentiythan females that remained offshore. The spawning &equency of oIBhore female conch dec~ over time at their native offshore sites &om 46.2/o in the springto 5.3'/oin the falL Spawningfrequency of offshorefemales transplanted to the nearshoreregion also decreasedover time: &om 8.9/o in the springto 0.0/0 in the fall.

DISCUSSION Residenceby queenconch in the nearshoreregion had a severedetrimental impact upon their repmductive behavior as neither mating nor spawningwere observedin nativenearshore conch, The fact that neithermating nor spawningwas observedamong naive nearshoreconch residing in thenearshore region in this study or in our ongoing monitoring program, coupled with the histological deficits reportedby Glazerand Quintero 998!, suggeststhat conchnative to the nearshore regionare incapable of reproducingwhile residingnearshoie, In addition,offshore conchtransplanted to the nearshoreregion were observed spawning less &equently than offshore females that remained offshore. In fact, a&er six months, the reproductivebehavior of offshore conch transplantednearshore ceased entirely. Conchthat remainedoffshore were observed mating and spawning throughout the entire study, Page 678 Mc ~K.J. et el. GCFI:53 002

Tabb 2. Frequencyof mating both males and females!and spawning females only! of nativeand transplantedqueen conch, by season. Native refersto conch thatwere released at their initialcapture site. 'Transplant in the NearshoreRegion refers to conch that were moved nearahorefrom their original offshorelocation. "Transplant in the Offshore Region refers to conch that were moved offshore from their original nearshore location. N represents the number of observations.

N % Matin N % S l Spring Na5ve 37 0.0 0.0 Transplant 169 11.8 8.9 Svmnm Native 106 0.0 34 0.0 Transplant 490 2.9 215 4.7 Fall Naive 20 0.0 9 0.0 T 46 0.0 21 0.0

N %8 in Spring Native 95 5.3 39 48.2 Transplant 19 0.0 10 0.0 Summer Native 467 2.4 188 17.0 Transplant 83 0.0 40 12.5 Fall Native 232 0.9 95 5.3 T 51 0.0 27 18.5

Therewere two occasions when offshore females that wc' transplantedto the nearslroreregion mated with native,untagged nearshore males. This suggeststhat the maleswere alwayscapable of reproductionand/or that the presenceof reproductiveoffshore femalesstimulated mating behavior in nearshoremales. Preliminaryresults &om histological exannnationssuggest that somenearshore malesmayberepmductivelyviable Nancy8rown-Peterson,unpublished data!, and Reed995! reportedthat male conch demonslrated a preference for matingwith spawningfemales. Either way, males appear less susceptible to whateverchronic effect nearshore conditions have on females. Transplantingnearshore conch to theoffshore region appeared to nntigatethe deleteriouseffects that the nearshoreenvironment had on conchreproductive behavior. Nearshorefemales transplanted to the offshoreregion were observed layingeggs throughout the summer and fail Table2!. However,the peak spawning periodof the transplantednearshore conch was severalmonths later than the peak spawningperiod of the native offshore conch. Nevertheless,there is reasonto concludethat the tuning of both groups' reproductivebehavior may eventually becomesimilar. Appruently,it takesat leastthree months after transplantation for theadverse effects of thenearshore environment to bemitigated, explaining the lag 53 Gulfand CaribbeanFisheriesinstitute PaQe679 inpeak spawning forthe transplanted nearshore conch. Had we conducted the transplantingearlier inthe year e.g., January instead ofMarch}, the out-of-phase spawningmay have been prevented. Nearshorefemale conchtransplanted offshore were observed spawning, butnot mating.We cannot confirm tha these nearshore females mated after transplantation, butwe suspect that mating must have occurred offshore because ofthe deficits in nearshoreconch described above. The observed mating &equency waslow <12'}; however,this is not unexpected because Randall 964! reported similar mating &equenciesforconch inthe Virgin Islands. Therefore, wesuspect thatthe lack of observations Table 2!of nearshore conch ma&~ in the offshore region may have beenan artifact of the low probability ofencountering thatactivity and of the low numberof nearshoreconch transplanted offshore. Theimplications ofthis study have a directbearing onour ongoing queen conch stockrestoration program inthe Florida Keys. We have been examining theeflicacy ofproducing andreleasing hatchery-reared conchinan effort toincrease thequeen conchspawning stock. The present study c1early demonstratea thatthe goal of increasingthereproductive population willnot be realized if conch are released into nearshoresites.Transplanting largenumbers ofnaturally recrinting nearshore conch tothe offshore region may be more cost-effective thanproducing juvenile conch in a hatchery,especially if survival rates of transplanted conchare equivalent orgreater thanthose of hatcheryoutplants. However, before a transplantationprogram can beimplemented, wemust 1! ascertainif repmductive output wiII truly be augmented,2}determine if the larvae pmduced &om nearshore transplants ateas viableas larvae produced bynative offshore conch, and 3! d~e if larvae produced&om tmnsplanted conch are retamed within the Florida Keys. Thegoal of this study was to compare thereproductive behavior ofnearshore andoffshore conch in the Florida Keys; however, several new areas ofresearch are nowopen for inquiry. A moredetailed histological study wiII provide further informationonreproductive condition. Efforts should also focus on identifying the anthropogenicand/orenvironmental Iactorsthat are affecting therepmductive viabilityof nearshore . Other areas inthe Caribbean have shallow-water, nearshoreaggregafions of queen conch in whichreproduction hasnever been observed,including Mexico Alberto deJesus Navarrete, personal communication, 2000!and the Turks and Caicos Wesley Clerveaux, personal communication, 2000!.Therefore, identifying thekey elements involved inthe reproductive failure ofnearshore conch inthe Florida Keys may prove to be important forthe entire region.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S JohnHunt and Bill Stuup ofthe Florida Marine Research Institute provided commentsthatimpmved themanuscript. JimQuinn, Judy Leiby, and Lyn French providededitorial assistance. Wethank Mary Enstmm andSherry Dawson ofThe NatureConservancy TNC! for recruiting volunteers towork in the field The Page $80 MeCarth, K.J. etal. GCR:53 002

assistanceof the numerous'PIC volunteers who participated isgreatly appreciated. Sta8'ofthe Florida Ma&+ Research Institute also assisted inthe 6eid. This project wasfunded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Partnerships forWildlife Grant 8P-3 and by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Conunission.

LITERATURE CITED Berg,C.J. and R.A. Glazer. 1995. Stock assessment of a largemarine gastropod Strombusgigas!using randomized and stzati6ed towed-diver censusing. ICES Marine ScienceSymposia 199:247-258. Glazer, RA. and CJ. Berg, Jr. 1994. Queen conch researchin Florida: an overview.Pages 79-95 in: R. S.Appeldoom and B. Rodriguez eds.!. Queen conchbiology, fisheries, and marictdture. Fundacion Cientifica Los Roques. Carom, Venezuela Glazer,RA. andI. Quintero.1998. Observations on the scstsitivityof queen conch to waterquality: impHcations for ~ development. Proceedingsofthe Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 50:78-93. Lee,T.N., C. Rooth, E. Williams, M. McGowan,A.F. Szmant,and M.E. Clarke. 1992. Influenceof Florida C~ gyrm, and wind-driven circulation on transportof larvaeand recruitment in theFlorida Keys coral reefs. Continental Shelf Research 12:971-1002. Randall,J.E. 1964.Contributions to the biologyof the queenconch, Strombas gigas. Brdletinof Marine Science14:246-295. Reed,SX. 1995.Reproductive anatoray and biology of thegenus StrombNs in theCaribbean: I. Males.Journal of ShellfishResearch 14!:325-330. Water Quality Monitoringand Data Collectionin the MississippiSound

MICHAELS. RUNNER'and TRACI FLOYD' 'U,S GeologicalSurvey 308 SouthAirport Blvd Pearl, Mississippi39208-6649 USA MississippiDepartment of MarineResources 1141 Bayview Ave, Biloxi,Mississippi 39530 USA

ABSTRACT TheUnited States Geological Survey and the Mississippi Department of~ Resourcesare collecting data on the quality of thewater in theMississippi Sound of theGulf of Mexico,and streamflow data for its tributaries. The U,S Geological Surveyis coll~ continuouswater-leve1 data, continuous and discrete water- temperaturedata, continuous and discrete specific-conductance data,as well as chlorideand salinity samples attwo locations in theMississippi Sound and three Corpsof Engineers tidal gages. Continuous-discharge dataare also being collected at twoadditional stations on tributaries. The Mississippi Department of Marine Resourcescollects water samples at 169locations in theGulf of Mexico.Between 1$00and 2000 samples atecollected annually which are analyzed forturbidity and fecalcoliform bacteria. T hecontinuous data are made available real-time through theinternet and are being used in conjunctionwith stmunflow data, weather data, andsampling data for the monitoring andmanagement ofthe oyster reefs, the fisheryand other marine species and their habitats.

KEY WORDS:Water quality, data collection

INTRODUCTION TheMississippi Department of Marine Resources MDMR! and the U.S. GeologicalSurvey USGS! are collecting data on the quality of ~ in the MississippiSound of theGulf of Mexicoin supportof theMDMR missions to protectthe public health fiom diseases associated withthe consumption ofraw sheufishand to assist in the management of shellfish and their habitats as renewable resources.Data are being collected inthe Mississippi Sound ofthe Gulf of Mexico as well as in its estuaries.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE Thisreport describes data~llection eAorts of the MDMR and USGS in the MississippiSound, Included in the report are: i! Type of datacollected, Runner, II.S. and T. Flo GCFI:53 2002

ii! Methodsof datacollection, iii! Descriptionof data-collectionsites, and iv! Preliminaryresults of datacollected for instrumentverification. Dataare being collected on the quality of waterin theMississippi Sound and its estuaries,The Mississippi Sound is thepart of the Gulf of Mexicothat Iles betweenthe Mississippi Coast and the barrier islands, and ~ &om themouth of thePearl River to theMississippi-Alabama State boundary. Data collection consistsofthe compilation of discrete water samples for laboratory analysis and the operationofin situhydrological parameter monitors for the recording of continuous data.The MDMR collectsdiscrete water samples at 169locations, The MDMR- USGSoperate continuous water~uality monitors and collects water samples at sevenlocations in the coastalregion. The USGSalso operatescontinuous hydrologicalmonitors and velocity sensorsat two additionallocations.

DATA COLLECTION Water-qualitymonitoringand datacollection by the MDMR andthe USGSare describedin the following two sections,

MississippiDepartment of Marine ResourcesData Coieetioa Theprinluuy purpose of theMDMR sampling gaugram is to protectthe public healthfiom diseasesassociated with theconsumption of rawshellfish as stated in guidelinesset forth by theNational Shellfish Sanitation Program NSSP!. The NSSPwas developed in 1925in responseto requestsRom State and local public healthofficials for assistancein contmlling disa' associatedwith the consumption of rawshellfish. Their requests came after wide~ outbreaksof typhoidfever in Chicago,New York, and Washington,D.C., in 1924that were tracedto contaminatedoysters U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services 1997!. The NationalFood and Drug Admini~on hasthe oversight of theshellfish industry atthe Federal level; however, the developmentand enforcement ofregulations isthe responsibilityof the individualStates. The MississippiDepartment of Marine Resourcesis the agency responsible for regulationof theharvest and handling of shelifishin Mississippi. TheMississippi Sound has been divided by the MDMR into eight harvest areas extendingfiom themouth of thePearl River across the Mississippi Sound to the Mississippi-AlabamaState boundary Figtue 1!, The MDMR hasestablished 169 water-samplingstations in the Mississippi Sound,with individual harvestareas containingbetween 10 and40 samplingstations. Samplecollection by theMDMR begins after an oyster reef area is closedto harvest.Area closure is primarilybased on two factors: t! thestage of thePearl River at PearlRiver, La., and ii! 24-hour rainfall amountsat ~ weather stations 63~Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries lnatltute Pa9+683

Flow&om the Pearl River is critical to thequality of waterin MississippiSound becausewater entering the Mississippi Sound flows east along the coiL~~ between theshore and the barrier islands. This flow patternbrings the water over most of the oysterreefs in the western part of Mississippi Sound Plows that are signi6cantly abovebase flow carry in~ amountsof bacteriaand other pollutants. As water &omthe river flows across oyster reefs, pollutants in thewater are taken up by filter feederssuch as oysters. Human consumption ofthe contaminated shellfish can cause severeillness. The base-flowstage of the PearlRiver at PearlRiver, LA,, is approximately6ve feet. When the river stage reaches 10 feet, the MDMR starts closingareas to theharvesting of shellfish. If theriver reaches a stage of 12,5feet, additional areas are closed. Rainfallis a closurefiictor due to pollutantsthat are contained in storm-water runoff&om urban areas. A recordedrainfall of 1 inchwithin 24 hours wilt causethe closureof someharvest areas, primarily those near to the shore. A 24-hourrainfidl of 2 inchesor more causesthe closureof additionalareas. Afteran area has been closed to harvestby theMDMR, representatives of that agencywill collectwater and shellfish tissue samples to be analyzed for fecal- coliform bactcma.The area remains closed to harvestuntil boththe water and tissue samplesreach acceptable concentration levels for fecal~liformbacteria. The MDMR collectsbetween 1,800 and 2,000samples annually in this sampling program. In additionto protectingthe public health, the MDMR is responsiblefor the manageinentof oyster reefs and other marine life andtheir habitat as renewable reeurces.The shellfish industry bas a significantimpact on theeconomy of Mississippi,especiaay forthe Mississippi Gulf Coast region. The average annual oysterharvest for the past 10 years 989-99! was 1.5 million pounds ofmeat. The oyster~ in 1997was 3.5 million pounds snd bad a docksidevalue of 5,3 nulliondollars. The industry employs thousands of people in thecoast region includingharvesters, processors, andshippers, andwholesalers. Appmximately 200 commercialand 35 ~onal oysterpermits as well as hundreds of dealerand processorliemms, are sold annuaUy. Watertemperature, specific conductance, and salinity are important hydrologicalparameters providing a toolfor the management of marine organisms andtheir associatedhabitats. First, these parameters serve as indicatorsof the presenceof &eshwater &om streams flowing into the gulf, as the &eshwater will causea significantdecrease in the specific conductance. Second, temperature and salinityare critical to the propagation ofoysters and maintaining producfive reefs. Inaddition, these two parameters affect the distribution, growth and survival ofall marineorganisms inthe Mississippi Sound. As part of its mission tomanage the oysterreefs, the MDMR bas a programin which it seedsthe spat oyster babies! on thereefs to stimulateoyster growtIL There are optimum ranges in temperatureand salinityfor niaxixnumoyster growth. and detecting long-tenn trends in temperature andsalinity will help the MDMR plan and predict oyster growth and harvest aswell asindicate if additionalareas are also suitablefor seeding.

53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute Page 885

U.S. GeologicalSurvey Data Collectiou Througha cooperativeagreement which supportsthe MDMR missionof resourcemanagement, theMDMR and USGS have established seven data-collection stationswhem temperature, specific conductance, and salinity data are collected in MississippiSound and its estuaries,and two stationswhere velocity data are collected. The instrumentation at the continuous-data collection stations consists of a stagesensor, water-quality probe, velocity sensorwhere required, data- collectionplatform, satellite-transtmssion equipment, 12-volt battery, and solar panel.At eachstation, water level stage!,temperature, and specific conductance aremeasured and recorded hourly. Salinity is computedin situ by the probeusing temperatureand speciflc conductance data and is recorded hourly. Velocity data are collectedand recorded hourly. The recordeddata are transmtuxl via siuelliteto the USGSof5ce in Pearl,Mississippi. Data are then made available to theMDMR via theInternet. An exampleof thedata made available to thecooperator is shownin Figure2. Thevelocity stations were not established as a partof theMDMR-USGS data-collectionprogram but the data are used to helpshow the effects of thePearl River on the water quality of MississippiSound. Watersamples are also collected by the USGSand analyzed for speciflc conductance,salinity, and dissolved chloride at the USGSlaboratory in Ocala, FloridaSince the specific conductance measured by the probes may be affected by dissolvedconstituents other than chloride, the salinity values computedby the probesmay vary Imm those obtained &om the laboratory. A comparisonof the computedsalinity and labomtory salinity is shownin Figure3. Water-qualitydata and samplescollected by the USGSare collectedaccording to the methods describedby Wilde, and others,998!. Theselection of locationsfor thecontinuous water-quality data-collection stationswas dependent on the availability of a suitablestructure in ornear a shellfish harvestarea. The first stationestablished was on the U,S, CoastGuard USCG! Merrill ShellBank Front Range Light approximatelyfive milessouth of Pass Christian,Miss. Figure1!. Thismonitoring station is locatedin oneof themost productiveoyster harvest areas in theMississippi Sound. The second monitoring station was establishedon the USCG Biloxi East ChannelFront RangeLight, approximatelytwo milessoutheast of Biloxi Bay. Thenext three monitoring stationswere established at U.S. Army Corpsof Engineerstidal gageson the PascagoulaRiver mile 1 atPascagoula, Back Bay of Biloxiat Ocean Springs, and St. LouisBay at ChannelLight 1 in BayouPortage. These three stations are operatedin coopendion with the Corps of Engineersto take advantage of existing data-collectionefforts. Although these stations are located in estuaries,they are locatedwhere the waterlevel and water quality are affected by the Mississippi Sound. These stationsare located in areassampled by the MDMR and were establishedto helpdetermine the influence of thetributaries on the water quality of thesound. The final two water~ualitymonitoring stations established were at the mouth of the PearlRiver andat St. JosephsPass. Thesewme establishedto give betterspatial deflnition of theeffects of thePearl River on thewater-quality in Page686 Runner,M.S. and 7. Flo d GCFI:53002

MississippiSound. Thestations where velocity dataare collected along with water-quality data are at USCGlight 22A in thePearl River near Pearlington and at the raihead bridge in the Rigolets.These stations were established to determinethe flow characteristics of theirrespective waterways. The data collected wiH also be used in conjunction with the datacoHected by the MSMR and USGS.

II"

UO

I~,

Figure 2. Water level,temperature, and salinityfor BiloxiEast FrontRange Light for the riod Februa 1 th h Februa 15, 1999. 53 Gulf and CaribbeanFisheries Institute Page 687

ID H 5CAJ SSALJllY N PhRTSl%RTHDLShlCI Figure3.Comparison ofin siitu salinity tolaboratory salinityfor Mississippi Sound mohltohh stations.

RESULTS Preliminaryanalysis ofthe data obtained &omthe MDMR-USGS monitoring andsampling program have shown that the salinity values computed insitu by the probeusing thetemperature andspecific conductance datacorrelate weHwith the dataobtained kom the laboratory analysis for the normal ranges of salinity. However,limited data for periods oflow salinity donot aHow accurate definition of therelation when the salinity d~s dueto &eshwater influence Aninsuf5cient amount ofdata exists at this time to develop conelations betweenflows of the Pearl River and other tributaries andspatial variations inthe waterquality across the Mississippi Sound.

DISCUSSION TheU.S. Geological Survey, incooperation withthe Mississippi Department ofMarine Resources, Office of Fisheries, iscoHecting dataon the quality ofwats inthe Mississippi Soundof the Gulf of Mexico andits tributaries. TheMississippi DepartmentofMarine Resources collectswater samples at169 locations inthe Gulf ofMexico. Between 1,800 and 2,000 samples arecoflected annually and are analyzedforfecal~liform bacteria. TheU.S. Geological Survey iscollecting continuouswater level, water-tcsnperature, specific-conductance, andsalinity data, aswell as supplemental chlonde and salunty samples atseven locshons mornear the MississippiSound. Thecontinuous dataare made available through theInternet and arebeing used inconjunction withstream flow, weather, andsupplnnental-sampling datafor the monitoring andmanagement ofthe oyster reefs and other marine species and their habitats. Fa9e688 Runner,M.S. and T. Flo d GCFI:53002!

LITERATURE CITED Wilde, F.D., and others, 1998. National field manual for the collecdon of water- quality data: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations;book 9, variouslypaginiited. U.S.Department of Healthand Human Services 1997 [revisedj. Guide for the Controlof MolluscanShellgsk 406 pp. Diagnhsticopara la Creacibnde nna Reserva de la Biosfera en losArrecifes de Calnpeche,Mexico

ALICIA GONZALEZy DANIELTORRUCO C1NVESTAV-IPX Unidad Mdrida Laboraroriode Anecifes Coralinos A.P. 73 Cordemex, 97310 Merida, I'ucatdn, Mexico

RES UMEN Campecheesuno de los cuatro estados de la vertiente del Atlhntico que posee un desarrolloarrecifai con carscteristicas unicas en el Golfode Mexico. El areade an61isisincluy6 una superficie de 12 437 km', la zonapertenece a la provincia fisioy46caconocidacorno Carso Yucatan, enyo accidente fisiogrhfico mks notable esla barreracoralina que se desarmHa desde arrecife Alacranes en Yucathn hasta CayoArenas en Campeche. Seatmlizan seis estructuras arrecifales emergentes que formanun arcodesde el oestehacia el nordestecon crecumentosarrecifales a 18,35,70,80y 90 m deprofundidad. En cada estructura arrecifal se realizaron transectosbatimbtricos con equipode sondeoy radar.A excepci6nde Areasy Arenaslos atloramientos estan formados por restos coralinos. Elrelieve topogrkfico fuede 1.6m enpromedio con pendientes abruptas a moderadas.La vegetaci6n insulares divetsa con 29 cspecies deplantas, incluyendo ex6ticas e introducidas,en algunoscayos arenosos es incipienteo inexistente,La floramarina estk representadapor14 cspecies demacroalgas. Enla fiujna se registramn 30cspecies decorales escleractimos, 11 octocorales, 19 esponjas, 2 hidrozoarios,2 poliquetos y unnumero considerable depeces, varios de los cayos son zonas de desove para tiburonesy tortugas.En Ia mayorfade los cayosse presentanpoblaciones importantesdeaves nuuinas principalmente Stday Fregatas.Estos arrecifes son Areasimportantes para la pesca comercial delangosta, caracol y mero las cuales estrinreguladas por leyespesqueras vigentes y en dondees necesariouna reglamentacibnmksespecifica. Deacuerdo alas caracteristicas morfo-fisiogrtificas, faunisticasy floristicas registradas sedefine la zonaci6nespecifica del poligono propuestocon zonas nucleo, z. deamortiguamiento y z.de restauracion.

PALABRASCLAVE: Arrecifes, keas protqpdas, Campeche, Golfo de Mexico.

Diagsosisfor Creationof a BiosphereReserve in the Reefsof Campeche,Mexico

ABSTRACT Campecheisone of thefour states in Mexicoon the Atlantic slope having reef developmentunique within the Gulf of Mexico.The area within this analysis includesa 12437 km surfacein theYucatan Karst physiographic province, whose Pa9e690 Gonzalez,A. and D. TorrucoGCFI:53 2002 mostnotable aspect is the coralbarrier that runs from theAlacranes Reef in thestate of Yucatanto ArenasKey in Campeche.A nalysisis madeof six emergentreef stneturesthat form an arc &om west to no~ with reefgrowths at 18,35, 70, 80 and90mdepth. Usingradar and sounding equipmxrt, bathimetric transect> were madeof eachreef structure. With the exceptionof Arenasand Areas keys, the islandsare formed of coralrenuuns. Average topographical relief was 1,6 m with abruptand moderate slopes. Insular vegetation is divnse,ira:Iuding 29 plant species, someintmduced or exotic;on someof the sandkeys vegetation is incipientor nonexistent.Marine flora is representedby 14macnxtlgae species. Marine fauna includes30 scleractincoral species, 11 octocorals,19 sponges,2 hydrozoas,2 polychetesand nurnemus fish; manyof tbe keysare spawning zones for sharksand turtles.Most of thekeys are also host to sizablemarine bird populations, principally Srdaand Fregatas. These reefs are important areas for commercialcaphm of lobster,conch and grouper, which is currentlyregulated by fishinglaws, though morespecific regulation is needed.Utilizing the recorded morpho-physiogmphic, faunaland floral characteristics,a detailed zonation is definedfor the proposed reservepolygon, with nucleus,buffer and restorationzones.

KEY WORDS:Reefs, protected areas, Campeche, Gulf of Mexico.

INTRODUCCION Lascostas de Mhaco tanto del Pacifico como del Atlhatico, poseenecosistemas sumamenteimporburtes corno sonlos anecifes corahnos, lagunascostera'l, estuanos, humedalesy manglares.Estos recursos costeros son desdeel puntode vista diversidady economiaun patrimonioesencial para el pais Fene-D'Amare1985!, Actualmente, en Ia Peninsula de Yucathn se han llevado acabo acciones coneetas con respectoa la conservaci6ny el desanollo sustentablede los ecosistemasmarinos.El estado de Quintana Roo, ya cuenur con las siguientes cinco boreasnaturales protegidas: Isla Contoy, Costa Occidenttd de IslaMujeres, Punta Cancuny PuntaNizuc, Cozumel,Sian Ka'an y BancoChinchorro, en sus modalidadesdeParques NacionalesyResewas delaBiosferao Reservas Especiales. Enlo quese refiere al Golfode Mbxico, ya existen Areas anecifitles protegidas cornoson el casodel PanlueNacional Arrecifes de Veracruzen eseEstado y el ParqueNacional Arrecife Alacranesen Yucatbn. En cuanto a los arrecifesde Campeche,debido a sualto valorecol6gico, gen8ico, est8ico y a susrecursos natureses necesariotodo esfuerzo institucional anivel: fedend, estatal y local,que aseguresu conservaci6n,manejo y susterlabiiidaden el tiempo. El Laboratorio de Arrecifes Coralinos de la Unidad Mhida del CINVESTAV- IPNrealiz6 los estudiospara que el Gobiernode Campeche,por conductode la Secretariade Ecologia-Medio Arnbiente-Recursos Naturaiesy Desarrollo Pesquem del escudode Campeche,solicitant su declaratoria corno un AreaNatural Protegida y suinclusi6n en el SINAP Tonucoy Gonzliez1997a!. En el presentetrabajo se anaHzalasuperficie general propuesta para suconservaci6n, asicorno la importancia 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page 6$1 desu amplio potencial eco16gico y ecou6mico.

MATERIAL Y METODOS El breaesta ubicada en las costas del estado de Campeche que pertenecen a la provinciafisiogrtifica conocidacomo elCarso Yucateco Novak etal. 1992!. Cuenta concuatro estructuras arrecifales emergentes y sumergidas respectivamente: Cayo Arenas,Cayo Nuevo, Trihngulos, Areas, Banco Nuevo, Banco Fera, Bajo Obispos y BancosIngleses Figura 1!, Enla definici6n dela poHgonal delSea propuesta, fuenecesario delimitar las zonasarrecifales delas costas de Campeche, los vbrtices se establecieron mediante campa5asdemueshm enel Barco Marsep-1 delCetmar deCampeche. Encada cayose realizaron transectos batim8ricos utilizando elecosonda y radar FURUNO dela embarcaci6n.Adicionalmente, al inicio y al finalde cada cayo y transecto batim8xicoseobtuvo elposicionamiento satelital con un GPS portktil Magellan NAV5000. Seres Hoon perfiles de relieve en los cayos, ladescripci6n submarina serealizo rnediantefototransectos y lasobservaciones delfondo con buceo libre y aut6nomo enun intervalo deprofundidad de1 a50 m Torruco1995!. Se utilizaron cartas de navegaci6ndela Secretaria deMarim SM 1981 a yb! y topognÃcasdelINEGI NEGI1981!. En los cayos se realizaron perfiles del reheve con dodos topogr4ficosesthndar conel conteo respectivo deaves marinas y coberturu vegetal Gonz41ezy Torruco2000a!.

RESULTADOS

ReheveTopogrk5ee Elrelieve en todos los cayos esbajo con un promedio deL6 m ypendientes de abruptasamodejuulas, Iamayorlade lasislas, son alargadas conuna forma demedia hmaoriginada porla infiuencia delas comentes, laestructura arrecifal sigue el mismopatr6n demedia luna en la mayorla deeHos. Todas las islas de Trihngulos poseenuna vegetaci6n incipiente y en algunos casos inexistentes, sinembargo TrihngulosEstey Surpresentan poblaciones importantes deaves, pardcularmente pharosbobos y rabihorcados: Sulaspp., Fregatas magnipciens y Larus spp. Presmtanuna vegetaci6n extensa y nunks diversa con algunas cspecies introducidas corno:Casuarinas, Pahnas de coco y Uvamarina, entre otras. Su topografia mueslrados monticulos con dos depresiones en la isla,los cukles son las areas preferidasporlos rabihorcados paraasentar susnidos. Los pharos bobos, habitan enla zonacentral que presenta uua menor pendiente, Pa9e002 GorsnN8nr,A a88d D. Torruco GCFI:5$2002

..>8 ayo N + C P A

Inylesns TmnyllosOnsfn a. TrhbyuiosEsses-Scr 4 g + hnco NNNs g SqjoObispo r .i Cepheas j

leyaad~l~

!!

92' 9l' 90' 89' 88'

20'

l9'

F ura 1. Ubicaci0n rica de Ion Arracifen de Cam, Mexico, 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page 693

Caracteristicas Bioibgicas El PerecifeArenas incluye asociaciones delas cspecies: Porites porites, Porites astreoides,Acropora cervicornis, Acropora palmata, Favia Pagum, Diploria strigosa,Millepora alcicornis, Halimedaincrassatay Penicillusdwnetosus. Cayo Nuevo:A. palmata con Palythoa y algasftlamentosas. Arrecife Trihegulos: A. palmata,P. asteroides, F.jagum, Agaricia agaricites, algas coralinas incrustantes, anbmonascoloniales: Palythoa caribbeaerum y Zoanthussociattts, Halimeda, Diploriay Montastrea.Cayo Areas: formado por A. palmataarborescente, Diploria,Montastrea, P.porites y A. cervicornis.Banco Nuevo y Pera:son los arrecifessumergidos mks ~s al continentecon A. agaricites,Montastreasp., algascalciireas del ghnero Lithothamnium, P.astreoides, Diploria, hidrozoarios del gbneroMillepora, anhnonas coloniales P. caribbeaerumy Z sociatusBajo Obispo:cate sistema arrecifai presenta paredes simples y fusionadascon taludes externosde fuertm pendientes. Bancos Ingieses: son tambibn paredes arrecifales sunplesy fusionadascon taludes externos de pendientes moderadas Torruco y GonztHez 1997b!.

ComparacihnBibtica Losarrecifes de Campeche preset ttaron 207 cspecies con una alta biodiversidad y gradode desanollo con respecto a:Isla Cozumel, Costa Occidental Isla Mujeres, PuntaNizuc, Punta Cancun, Alacranes, Isla Contoy, Puerto Morelos y Tulum,en la mayorfade los siguientesgrupos funcionales: Heutcorales, Octocorales, Hidrozoarios,Anhnonas, Esponjas, Macroalgas, Poliquetos y Equinodermos,es importanteseilalar que estos sistemas presents diferentel esquemas depmtecci6n GonzQez2000b!.

AspectosHist6rico La zonapresenta una gum importancia sobre todo en los encallamientos de barcosen los bajosmreciMes. Se registraron los siguientes12 pecios con su geoposicionamiento:Wachos, Don Francisco, Santa Fb, Namditos, Atoradem, Cheroquee,Lorencillo, Cubano, Malujoca, Maria Quemado, Jaina, Catalpa

AspeetosSocioecondmicos Esdi6cil establecer para los arrecifes coralinos un estatus socioeconbmico real, sobretodo en los arrecifes de Campeche endonde su principal giro es la utilizaci6n pesqueray laextraccibn decrudo Ferze-D'Amare 1995!. Por otro lado, el arrecife y suszonas emergentes nopresentan un asentamientohumano permanente, los islotesde Cayo Nuevo, Trihngulos Este y Surno presentan ning' asentamiento,los Cayosde Areas y Arenasson los que presentan una mayor poblacibn que incluye a dosguardafaros, undestacamento deinfantes de marina de cuatro elementos, que en el caso de Areas el destacamentoes mls numeroso:tres infantes mls y un radiocomunicador,adernks en ambasislas sepresentan con &ecuenciapescadores querealizan estancias de poco tiempo, la islade Trihngulos Oeste tiene s6io dos guardaI3ros. »9+ 004 Gonzalez,A.and D. Torruco GCFI:53 002

Lasislas actuahnente sirven corno bases esporhhcas de pescay refugiode pescadoresde escama y de algunosinvertebrados de importancia comercial. En los alrededoresde Cayo Areas se presehtala construmi6n y funcionamiento de plataformasde extracci6nde crudo y estacionesde bombeo,de dondese extrae hastael 7Q/ade la producci6nnacional. El uso tradicionalde la flora y faunaen algunoscayos es inexistente, la Samageneraimente tieue implicaciones alimenticias y omamentales,en algunos casos con cspeciesde moluscos y corales. Es convenienteconsiderar que aunque el materialarreciIai no es utilizadopara la construcci6nde edificios o estructurascorno ocurri6 en el pasadocon otrossistemas arrecifales,Ia mayoriade las islas estrinconstruidas por restoscoralinos. Asinusmo,no existe alg6nantecedmte sobre laprotecci6n del Sea, sin embargo esta regida tanto por: la ley federal del mar, la ley de pesca,la ley generaldel equilibrio ecol6gicoy la protecci6nal ambiente,la ley oqyinica de la Armadade Mexico, asi cornolas leyesaplicables a estaszonas.

Super5eie Propuesta Las coordenadas extremas utilizadas en la formaci6n de los vertices del Sea total propuestasiguieron la isobatade las 28 bmzas1.24 m! y son:hacia el norte ol5N 9Io]Q~ hacjael sur2QoIQ'N 92oQQ~ aleste22oQ5t9]oQ5~yaioeste 21'15'N-92'25%', con ella se delimit6 la poligonal con una Sea de 12 437 Km' Figura2a!. E 1krea propuesta involucra el 9.6/o dela Sondade Campeche, lo cual signiflcarfauna breaprotegida 8.6 vecesmayor que la ~a de la Biosferade BancoChinchorro, hasta hoy Ia mks grandeen aguasmarinas Mexicanas Torruco et aL 1996!. No obstante,debido a los problemasque implicaba en cuantoa la vigilanciaycoordinaci6n de sus acciones, asI cornoa laprotestadelaCANAINPES por las restriccionesa la pesca,fue necesarioredefinir los Hmitescon diez Iheas n6cleoy uua breade amortiguanuentoque interconectaa todaslas tLreas,lo que disminuy6considerabiemente los conflictoscon los sectorespesquero e industrial Figura 2b!.

DISCUSI6N Estkpropuestaplante6unesquemade zoniflcaci6n desushreas arrecifales, con Ia finalidad de protegermediante zonas nucleo a la mayorfa de los sistemas arreci&lessumergidos, lo que implic6 el 37.85/odel total. EsbkSea fue deflnida cousin sus&onteras con el mar temtorial, lo quepermitir4 una continuidad bacia los arrecifesen sus procesosocehmcos y biol6gicos, asimismopermitini establecernormas de utiTizaci6nconcretas enrelaci6n a lanavegaci6n, transporte de materiales y disposici6n de desechos,entre otros. Eels zonas n6cleo inciuyen los niveles de biodiversidad res altos de estos sistemssarrecifales, adamIs de estarubicadas en posicionescenmms a loscayos emergentes,lo cuales unamedidanecesaria para larecolonizaci6nyrepoblaci6n de estaszonas, cuyo papel puede ser de amortiguamiento y deutHizaci6n mks intensa. 53" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute Page 895

Figure 2 a y b. Poiigonai propuesta y coordenadas extremes para el ANP: Arrecifes Coralinos de Cam e.

La elaboracionde un programaoperativo eficiente es complejo, ya quedebe amalgamarconeer4eiones con los diferentes sectores que hasta ahora hacen uso de estossistemas anecifaleg ademhsde identificarsectores de utilizaci6n racional,Es PaQ+SSS Gormhlez,A.and 0. TorrucoGCFI:53 2002! por ello, quees indispensableIa participaci6nactiva y comprometidade todoslos sectoresinteresados en laconservaci6n y aprovechamientode estas tireas arrecifales. Actualmente,se cuentacon la caracterizaci6n,delimitaci6n y zonificaci6n con limites precisosde estossistemas. No obstante,es de vital importanciaseguir con el procesode su declaratoria e incluirlasen el SINAP,debido a queson zonas con alta biodiversidad y ocupan un lugar importante con respectoa otras kress protegidas.

LITERATURA CITADA Ferre D Am', A.R 1985. Coral reefs of the Mexican Atlantic. A Review. Proc. 5 Int.Coral ReefCongr. Tahiti. 6:349-354 Fcste-D'amare,A.R 1995. Prospeccibnde los arrecifescoralinos de CayoAreas y Cayo Trihngulo, Campeche,Mbxico.impacto ambiental de una hkeh de actividades de la Industria Petrolera. Sian ka'an serie documentos 4: 40-47. GonzfilezM.A. y D. Torruco.Pn press]. Vegetacidnsumergida y de cayos arenososen los arrecifesde Campeche,Mdrico. Acta BotiuucaMexicana. GormfilezMA.. y D.Torruco. Pn press]. Lineamientos de Manj eo y Conservacion para los arrecifesde Campeche.IV CongresoNacional de AreasNaturales Protegidas,Mexico. INEGI, 1981. Cartas de Climas de Mhico, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geograjia e Informatica. NovakPC,J.,W.D.Liddell and D. Torruco.1992. Sedimento1ogy and community structureof reefsof the YuctdnnPeninsula. 7". Int. CoralReef Symposiwm. Guam. SM, 1981a.Contribucidn a la sedimentologiay morfologia de la Plataforma continentalPente a las ~costasde Campeche,Mexico. Primera Dir. Inv. ~G-81-01 SM, 1981b. Contribucidn a la sedimentologiay morfologia de la Plataforma continentalfrente a lascostas de Campeche, Mexico. Segunda parte. Dir. Inv. Ocean/G-81-02 Torruco, D. 1995. Faunistica y ecologia de los corales escleracliniosen los arrecifes de coral del sureste de Mexico. Ph.D. Di~on. Universitat de Barcelona,Espaha. 268 pp, Torruco, D. M.A. Gonzalezand M.A. Liceaga. 1996. The role of GIS in the ecologica1basis for managementof a reefsystem in theMexican Caribbean: the ChinchorroBank case.Ecoinforma Global Network,Miami. 37-2. Torruco,D. y M.A. Gonzalez.[1997a]. Propuesta de ANP ZonasArrecifaies de Campeche:Descripcion y Diagn6stico.SEMAIQACD/Gob. Campeche, Mexico 81 pp. Unpubl. MS. Torruco, D. y M.A. Gonzalez. 1997b. Arrecifes y Corales de CamIn.che, CINVESTAV/SEMARNYD. Gobiernodel Estado,ISBN:970-18-0705-97.