DOCSLIB.ORG

Spanish Mackerel (8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spanish Mackerel (8 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 41(3): 822-834, ]987 LARVAL KING MACKEREL (SCOMBEROMORUS CAVALLA), SPANISH MACKEREL (8. MACULATUS), AND BLUEFISH (POMATOMUS SALTATRIX) OFF THE SOUTHEAST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES, 1973-1980 Mark R. Collins and Bruce W Stender ABSTRACT Surface and subsurface ichthyoplankton collections were made from 9 m to beyond the continental shelf(deepest station 3,940 m) in all seasons from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Cape Canaveral, Florida. King mackerel spawn from April to at least September, primarily at depths >40 m. Spring spawning activity takes place further offshore than does summer spawning. An apparent concentration of larvae between 32° and 33°N suggests that the area of upwelling associated with the Charleston bump is an important spawning and/or nursery area. Spanish mackerel spawn from May to September in depths <40 m. Larvae were less abundant than those of king mackerel, and no areas of concentration were found. Vertical migration to the surface at night is indicated for both king and Spanish mackerels. Bluefish spawn bimodally from March through at least November in depths >40 m, with the primary spawning peak in spring and the secondary peak in late summer. In spring, larvae were caught most often between 32° and 33°N, but in summer-fall were taken more often at locations further south. Neither vertical migration or visually-cued net avoidance is indicated, but bluefish >4 mm are strongly associated with the surface. Spanish (Scomberomorus maculatus) and king (S. cavalla) mackerels and blue- fish (Pomatomus saltatrix) support large recreational and commercial fisheries along the east coast of the United States. All three species, particularly S, maculatus and P. saltatrix, occur near shore as adults and are available to pier, shore, and small boat anglers. Depletion of stocks, especially of S. cavalla, is of particular region-wide concern. The Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have established a management plan with associated quotas and restrictions for this species; however, management efforts are based upon the limited life history information currently available. Improvements in the data base could enhance future modifications of this plan. Several studies have addressed the distribution of larval S. cavalla and S. maculatus in the Gulf of Mexico (Dwinell and Futch, 1973; Houde et aI., 1979; McEachran et aI., 1980) and bluefish in the Atlantic off the eastern U.S. (Lund and Maltezos, 1970; Norcross et aI., 1974). One or more of these species have been included in faunal surveys along portions of the Atlantic coast (Herman, 1963; Fahay, 1975). In addition Powles (1981), working with a portion (1973- 1976) of the present data, and Kendall and Walford (1979) reported on the oc- currence of bluefish larvae in the Atlantic off the southeastern U.S. Most inves- tigations conducted off the southeast coast of the U.S. in the area known as the South Atlantic Bight (SAB) (Blumberg and Mellor, 1983; Weisberg and Pietrafesa, 1983), however, have been limited to a one- or two-year sampling period or restricted in terms of depth range, gear utilization and/or seasonality, Thus, rel- atively little is known about spawning locations and the distribution of larvae of S. cavalla, S. maculatus and P. saltatrix in this region. The intent of this report is to summarize the distribution, abundance, and occurrence oflarval king mack- erel, Spanish mackerel, and bluefish in the SAB from 1973 through 1980. 822 COLLINS AND STENDER: EAST COAST LARVAL FISHES 823 81. W 80. W 79. W 78. W 77. W ••.• .: .• °0 "P:..... 33. N ... 33. N , .•. , .• '\".... .:"...." " ~l ° ••• 0 32. N 2. N " 31. N 31. N 30. N O. H 29. N 29. H 28. N 28. N 82. W 81. W 80. W 79. W 78. W 77. W 76. W Figure 1. Locations of ichthyoplankton collections, 1973-1980. METHODS During 1973-1980, the Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment and Prediction (MARMAP) program of the South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute conducted quantitative surveys to investigate the distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton throughout the SAB. A total of 1,163 collections was made from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Cape Canaveral, Florida, and from 9 m to beyond the continental shelf over depths as great as 3,490 m (Fig. I). Cruises were carried out aboard the R/V DOLPHIN. Three types of gear were utilized during these cruises: (I) a 1.0 x 0.5 m neuston net with 505 /.1mmesh towed half-submerged, (2) a 2.0 x 1.0 m neuston net with 947 /.1m mesh towed half-submerged, and (3) a bongo frame with 0.6 m diameter nets of 505 /.1mand 333 /.1m mesh towed in double-oblique fashion from 0 to .:5 200 m. For the purposes of this study, no distinction was made between the two surface-towed nets, and only the 505 /.1mbongo sample was sorted for ichthyoplankton. For more specific survey information, see Jossi et al. (1975) and Powles and Stender (1976). Samples were filtered and preserved at sea in 5% buffered formalin and sorted in the laboratory using Bogorov trays under dissecting microscopes. All lengths given refer to notochord length on pre flexion larvae and standard length on flexion and postflexion larvae. The smallest and largest 824 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 41, NO.3, 1987 Table I. Ichthyoplankton collections 1973-1980 by light phase, gear type and season Light phase Day Night Dawn/dusk Season Surface Bongo Surface Bongo Surface Bongo Winter 73 72 89 88 39 40 Spring 53 46 42 34 22 21 Summer 117 114 83 82 39 41 Fall 12 10 18 13 II 4 individuals (therefore, minimum and maximum lengths) in each sample were measured to obtain a range oflengths rather than complete length frequency data, and the total number of each species was recorded for each sample. Data on abundance were standardized to concentration (#/1,000 m) using duration, speed, and effective sampling area for surface tows and using calibrated General Oceanics digital flowmeters for bongo tows. When calculating monthly mean catches of bongo collections, abundance data were also standardized to number of larvae under 100 m' of surface area for tabular comparison to concentration values. All references to standardized catch are in terms of concentration. Data were separated for analyses on the basis of gear (bongo vs. neuston), station depth, season, and diel period. Depth zones wcre designated as inner-shelf (s 20 m), middle-shelf (21-40 m), outer- shelf (41-200 m), and off-shelf (> 200 m) areas, and were chosen on the basis of previous hydrographic studies in the SAB (Atkinson et aI., 1985). Seasonal separations were based on generally accepted hydrographic seasons: January-March for winter, April-June for spring, July-September for summer, and October-December for fall. Collections were made in all months except June and December. Dusk and dawn were defined as sunset ± I h and sunrise ± I h, respectively, with night and day as the remaining periods. Table I presents the number of collections made by gear, season, and light phase. Data from all years were pooled for analyses, and all statistical tests were non parametric. The Mann- Whitney (M-W) and Chi-square (x') tests were used to compare standardized catches and frequencies of occurrence, respectively, by shelf area, diel period, and latitude. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (SR) was used to test for correlations of standardized catch and length with depth and latitude. Minimum and maximum length in each sample were used in all tests involving lengths since length frequency data were not available. For all statistical tests, P was required to be s.05 for significance. RESULTS Scomberomorus cavalla. -King mackerel larvae (2-14 mm) were taken in 105 collections (Fig. 2), 39 of which were surface tows, for a total of 459 individuals. Larvae occurred from April to September (no June collections) and in November. Individuals ~4 mm in length occurred from May to September. September pro- duced the highest percentage of collections containing larval S. cavalla (24.3%) and, in neuston tows, the greatest monthly mean standardized catch of larvae. Abundance was slightly greater in August than September in bongo collections (Table 2). Collections containing larvae ~4 mm also occurred most frequently in September (21.4%). No larval S. cavalla occurred in the 20 October collections. Frequency of occurrence of S. cavalla was higher in night than in day collections with both bongo and surface nets. There was no significant difference between day and night frequencies for bongo tows, but surface tows produced S. cavalla significantly more often during night than day (x2: P < 0.001). During the day, but not during the night, bongo tows caught S. cavalla more often than surface tows (X2: P < 0.001). King mackerel larvae were taken most often in the outer-shelf area with both gear types. Considering only the months in which larvae occurred, 32% of bongo and 44% of night surface collections from the outer shelf contained larval S. cavalla, while only 2 of the total 175 collections in the inner-shelf area (1.1%) COLLINS AND STENDER: EAST COAST LARVAL FISHES 825 76. W 82. W 81. W 80. W 79. W 78. W 77. W H. N '. N 33. N 33. N 32. N 32. N 31. N 1. N 30. N O. N 29. N 29. N 28. N 28. N 82. W 81. W 80. W 79. W 78. W 77. W 76. W Figure 2. Locations of ichthyoplankton collections containing Scomberomorus cavalla. con tained larvae. When com pared to the other shelf areas, frequency of occurrence in bongo collections was significantly greater in the outer than inner-shelf area (x2: P < 0.00 I), but was not significantly different from the middle and off-shelf areas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Saltwater Fishing Tournament 20
    UG Annual Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament 20 Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament Marine Resources Commission 380 FenwicN Road Fort Monroe, VA 23651 Tel. No. (757) 491- 5160 Fax. No. (757) 247-8014 E-mail: [email protected] 1/20 ELIGIBLE SPECIES AND MINIMUM WEIGHTS FOR CITATIONS Swordfish...................................................................................100 lbs. Tuna, Bluefin............................................................................. 100 lbs. Black Drum ..................................................................................80 lbs. Tuna, Yellowfin or Bigeye........................................................... 70 lbs Cobia ............................................................................................55 lbs. Tuna, True Albacore (Longfin Tuna)...........................................40 lbs. Striped Bass .................................................................................40 lbs. Wahoo ..........................................................................................35 lbs. Golden Tilefish ............................................................................30 lbs Dolphin ........................................................................................25 lbs. King Mackerel .............................................................................20 lbs. Bluefish........................................................................................16 lbs. Sheepshead ...................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure and Biology of Shortfin Mako, Isurus Oxyrinchus, in the South-West Indian Ocean
    CSIRO PUBLISHING Marine and Freshwater Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF13341 Population structure and biology of shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, in the south-west Indian Ocean J. C. GroeneveldA,E, G. Cliff B, S. F. J. DudleyC, A. J. FoulisA, J. SantosD and S. P. WintnerB AOceanographic Research Institute, PO Box 10712, Marine Parade 4056, Durban, South Africa. BKwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board, Private Bag 2, Umhlanga Rocks 4320, South Africa. CFisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Private Bag X2, Rogge Bay 8012, South Africa. DNorwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, NO-9037, Tromsø, Norway. ECorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. The population structure, reproductive biology, age and growth, and diet of shortfin makos caught by pelagic longliners (2005–10) and bather protection nets (1978–2010) in the south-west Indian Ocean were investigated. The mean fork length (FL) of makos measured by observers on longliners targeting tuna, swordfish and sharks was similar, and decreased from east to west, with the smallest individuals occurring near the Agulhas Bank edge, June to November. Nearly all makos caught by longliners were immature, with equal sex ratio. Makos caught by bather protection nets were significantly larger, males were more frequent, and 93% of males and 55% of females were mature. Age was assessed from band counts of sectioned vertebrae, and a von Bertalanffy growth model fitted to sex-pooled length-at-age data predicted a À1 birth size (L0) of 90 cm, maximum FL (LN) of 285 cm and growth coefficient (k) of 0.113 y .
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Report
    February 2006 WHAT’S ON THE HOOK? MERCURY LEVELS AND FISH CONSUMPTION SURVEYED AT A GULF OF MEXICO FISHING RODEO Kimberly Warner Jacqueline Savitz ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We wish to thank the organizers of the 73rd Annual Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo, particularly Pat Troup, Mike Thomas, and the anglers, the National Seafood Inspection Lab, the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, and the invaluable assistance of Dr. Bob Shipp, Dr. Sean Powers, Melissa Powers, the hard working DISL graduate students and Oceana staff, including Gib Brogan, Phil Kline, Mike Hirshfield, Suzanne Garrett, Bianca Delille, Sam Haswell, Heather Ryan and Dawn Winalski. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 4 Executive Summary 5 Major Findings 6 Recommendations 8 Introduction 10 Results 10 Mercury Levels 14 Fish Consumption 16 Fish Consumption and Mercury Levels 18 Recommendations 19 Methods 20 Appendices 20 Table A1 Raw Mercury Data 25 Table A2 Gulf Comparisons 30 Table A3 US EPA Risk-based Consumption Guideline 31 Endnotes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the past few years, seafood lovers have become increasingly concerned about mercury levels in Gulf of Mexico fish. Unfortunately, anglers have not had the in- formation they need to help them decide which fish may be safer to eat, despite the fact that recreational anglers and their families typically eat more fish than the average population. In fact, recent studies have found that people who live in coastal areas of the United States have higher levels of mercury in their blood than residents from inland areas.1 The purpose of this report is to help provide infor- mation to recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico on which fish may be higher in mercury than others, which would be safer to eat, and which species are in need of further monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • Shortfin Mako (Isurus Oxyrinchus) Is One of Two Species in the Genus Isurus
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus Atlantic population in Canada THREATENED 2006 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus (Atlantic population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 24 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Scott Wallace, Steven Campana, Gordon (Sandy) McFarlane and Jacquelynne King for writing the status report on the shortfin mako (Atlantic population) Isurus oxyrinchus in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Mart Gross and Howard Powles (co-chairs, Marine Fishes Specialist Subcommittee) and Robin Waples (member, Marine Fishes Specialist Subcommittee). For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le requin - taupe bleu (Isurus oxyrinchus) population de l’Atlantique, au Canada. Cover illustration: Shortfin
    [Show full text]
  • Inshore Fish Survey Report 2013
    THE DELAWARE CENTER FOR THE INLAND BAYS INSHORE FISH AND BLUE CRAB SURVEY OF REHOBOTH BAY, INDIAN RIVER AND BAY, AND LITTLE ASSAWOMAN BAY FOR 2013 RONNIE J. KERNEHAN, C. LYNN LAMBERTSON, MITCHELL C. MASSER, DEANNA C. PECK, ROY W. MILLER, DENNIS H. BARTOW, and ANDREW MCGOWAN Delaware Center for the Inland Bays 39375 Inlet Rd, Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971 May 2016 Report may be accessed via www.inlandbays.org © BY Delaware Center for the Inland Bays 2016 All Rights Reserved Citation Format Kernehan, R.J., C.L. Lambertson, M. C. Masser, D.C. Peck, R. W. Miller, D.H. Bartow, and A.T. McGowan. 2016. 2013 Inshore fish and blue crab survey of Rehoboth Bay, Indian River and Bay, and Little Assawoman Bay. Delaware Center for the Inland Bays. Rehoboth Beach, DE. 34pp. Cover Illustration: Blackcheek Tonguefish, Symphurus plagiusa by Val Kells © 2014. Val Kells, Marine Science Illustration, www.valkellsillustration.com The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays is a non-profit organization and a National Estuary Program. It was created to promote the wise use and enhancement of the Inland Bays watershed by conducting public outreach and education, developing and implementing restoration projects, encouraging scientific inquiry and sponsoring needed research, and establishing a long-term process for the protection and preservation of the Inland Bays watershed. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….……….…....… iii Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….…... 1 Introduction…….………………………………….………………………………….…….……. 1 Methods and Materials………………………………………………………………….………. 2 Results……………………………………………………………...………………………….….. 3 Overall Catch……………………………………………………………………….…… 3 Catch by System…………………………………………………………………….….. 4 Rehoboth Bay…………………………………………………………….…… 4 Indian River Bay………………………………………………………….……. 4 Little Assawoman Bay………………………………………………………… 5 Discussion………………………………………………………….…………………………....... 6 Results and Discussion: Target Species……………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Diet Composition of Young-Of-The-Year Bluefish in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and the Coastal Ocean of Virginia
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:371–378, 2006 [Note] Ó Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2006 DOI: 10.1577/T05-033.1 Diet Composition of Young-of-the-Year Bluefish in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and the Coastal Ocean of Virginia JAMES GARTLAND,* ROBERT J. LATOUR,AIMEE D. HALVORSON, AND HERBERT M. AUSTIN Department of Fisheries Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Post Office Box 1346, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, USA Abstract.—The lower Chesapeake Bay and coastal ocean of from the coastal waters (Baird 1873; Bigelow and Virginia serve as an important nursery area for bluefish Schroeder 1953). Recent trends in biomass estimates Pomatomus saltatrix. Describing the diet composition of and landings have raised concerns that the stock is young-of-the-year (hereafter, age-0) bluefish in this region is currently in a period of decline (Lewis 2002). Factors essential to support current Chesapeake Bay ecosystem including overfishing, declining habitat quality and modeling efforts and to contribute to the understanding of reproductive success, altered migratory patterns, com- the foraging ecology of these fish along the U.S. Atlantic petition with increased populations of striped bass coast. The stomach contents of 404 age-0 bluefish collected Morone saxatilis, and shifts in feeding ecology have from the lower Chesapeake Bay and adjacent coastal zone in 1999 and 2000 were examined as part of a diet composition been identified as possible causes of these trends study. Age-0 bluefish foraged primarily on bay anchovies (MAFMC 1998). Anchoa mitchilli, striped anchovies Anchoa hepsetus, and The perception of a decline in the abundance of Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Recreational Saltwater Fishing Regulations
    Issued: July 2015 Florida Recreational New regulations are highlighted in red Regulations apply to state waters of the Gulf and Atlantic Saltwater Fishing Regulations (please visit: MyFWC.com/Fishing/Saltwater/Recreational for the most current regulations) All art: © Diane Rome Peebles, except snowy grouper (Duane Raver) Reef Fish Snappers General Snappers Regulations: • Within state waters of the Atlantic and Gulf, the snapper aggregate bag limit is 10 fish ● ● ● ● per harvester unless the species Snapper, Cubera Snapper, Red Snapper, Vermilion Snapper, Lane rule specifies that it is not Minimum Size Limits: Minimum Size Limits: Minimum Size Limits: Minimum Size Limits: included in the aggregate. This • Atlantic and Gulf - 12" (see remarks) • Atlantic - 20" • Atlantic - 12" • Atlantic and Gulf - 8" means that a harvester can • Gulf - 16" • Gulf - 10" retain a total of 10 snappers Daily Recreational Bag Limit: Daily Recreational Bag Limit: in any combination of species. • Atlantic and Gulf - 10 per harvester Season: Daily Recreational Bag Limit: • Atlantic - 10 per harvester • Atlantic - Open year-round • Atlantic - 5 per harvester • Gulf - 100 pounds (see remarks) Exceptions are noted below. Remarks • Gulf - May 23–July 12; Sept. 5, 6, 7; • Gulf - 10 per harvester • If no season information is • May possess no more than 2 over Remarks and every Saturday and Sunday in included, the species is open 30" per harvester or vessel per day, Remarks • Gulf not included within the snapper Sept. and Oct.; and Nov. 1 year-round. whichever is less. 30" or larger not • Not included within the snapper aggregate bag limit. included within the snapper aggregate Daily Recreational Bag Limit: aggregate bag limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Activity Handbook.Pdf
    Hello, my name is Speck. I am a Spotted Sea Trout and live in estuaries and in waters along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. Hi, my name is Spot and I am, well, a Spot, named for my spot just behind my gills. Speck and I are both fish that are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and we would like to introduce you to some of our friends that live in the Atlantic Ocean. 1 The fish you are about to meet are very diverse, but they have a few things in common. They are all managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for the following reasons: 1. They swim between different states, so the states work together through the Commission to take care of them. 2. Each fish represents a substantial interest to either commercial or recreational fishermen. A commercial fisherman is someone who fishes for a living and sells the fish they catch to make a profit, while a recreational fisherman is anyone who enjoys just fishing for fun and for sport. If you have ever caught a fish or been crabbing, you are a recreational fisherman. Commercial Fisherman 2 Recreational Fisherman 3. All of these fish are currently or have historically faced a major threat to their existence, whether it has been due to changes in their environment from industrial and residential development along the coast or from overfishing, or taking fish at a rate faster than they can reproduce. 4. All along the eastern seaboard, there are towns that depend on the income generated by their fishing industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Contaminated Fish, Moderate and How Much Can Safely Be Eaten Each Month (Assuming No Other Contaminated Fish Is Consumed)
    CONTAMINATEDCONTAMINATED FFISHISH HOW MANY MEALS ARE SAFE PER MONTH? The ecological concerns with how 1 4 3 2 1 ⁄2 0 these fish are caught or farmed are: Considerable Fish is generally healthy to eat, but you should eat some types infrequently, if at all. This chart lists the most contaminated fish, Moderate and how much can safely be eaten each month (assuming no other contaminated fish is consumed). The advice is based on guidance from Minimal the Environmental Protection Agency and the latest mercury and PCB data. See the green sections below for safer seafood options. Variable Older Younger Women Men FISH children children Reason for advisory American and European eel• 0 0 0 0 PCBs, mercury Striped bass (wild)• 0 0 0 0 PCBs, mercury Alewife and shad• 0 0 0 0 PCBs Bluefish• 0 0 0 0 PCBs, mercury Sturgeon (wild)• 0 0 0 0 PCBs, mercury Weakfish• 0 0 0 0 PCBs, mercury Bluefin tuna• 0 0 0 0 PCBs, mercury 1 King mackerel• 0 ⁄2 0 0 Mercury Marlin• 0 1 0 0 Mercury Swordfish• 0 1 0 0 Mercury Shark• 0 1 0 0 Mercury 1 1 Croaker• ⁄2 ⁄2 0 0 PCBs 1 1 Summer and winter flounder• 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 PCBs 1 Salmon (wild-Washington)• 1 1 1 ⁄2 PCBs 1 Opah/moonfish• 1 1 1 ⁄2 Mercury 1 Atlantic or farmed salmon• 1 1 1 ⁄2 PCBs 1 Bigeye tuna• 1 1 1 ⁄2 Mercury 1 Orange roughy• 2 1 1 ⁄2 Mercury Spotted seatrout• 2 2 1 1 PCBs, mercury Spanish mackerel• 2 2 1 1 Mercury Pacific rockfish• 2 2 1 1 PCBs, mercury Blue crab• 2 2 1 1 PCBs, mercury Chilean seabass• 2 2 1 1 Mercury Lingcod• 2 2 1 1 Mercury Wahoo• 3 2 2 1 Mercury Grouper• 3 2 2 1 Mercury Eastern/American oyster
    [Show full text]
  • Finfish of Jamaica
    Sampling Stations — Jamaica Bay Finfish Inventory Recreational Fishing Survey Gateway National Finfish of Recreation Area: 1985-1986 Jamaica Based on interviews of 450 fishermen, fishing the shores or bridges of Jamaica Bay: 1. The average number of years fished Jamaica Bay : 13 years. 2. When asked importance of "fishing for food" as a reason to fish on Jamaica Bay; 46 respondents said it was very important, 86 important, and 206 not impor­ tant. 112 persons did not respond. 3. When asked, "Do you eat fish caught in Jamaica Bay," 304 persons said Yes, 139 said No, and 7 did not respond. 4. People who eat fish from Jamaica Bay indicated that an average of 2.4 family members also eat Jamaica Bay fish. 5. The 304 persons who said they consume fish from Jamaica Bay were asked which species of fish they eat. The respondents answered as follows: bluefish, 89; winter flounder, 88; summer flounder, 77; porgy, 57; blackfish, 22; weakfish, 11; striped bass, 6; American eel, 5; black sea bass, 5; menhaden, 1; herring, 1. Total Number of Each Fish Species Captured by Otter Trawl, Gill Net, and Beach Seine in Jamaica Bay, November 1985 to October 1986 Compiled by: Smooth dogfish 37 White hake 2 Yellow jack 1 Butterfish 12 Little skate 2 Mummichog 210 Crevalle jack 2 Striped searobin 71 Acknowledgments Don Riepe Cownose ray 1 Striped killifish 700 Lookdown 2 Grubby 29 This list was compiled with the help of many National John T. Tanacredi, Ph.D. American eel 5 Atlantic Scup (porgy) 229 Smallmouth flounder 22 Park Service staff and volunteers.
    [Show full text]
  • Bluefish Pomatomus Saltatrix
    Supplemental Volume: Species of Conservation Concern SC SWAP 2015 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Contributors (2014): Joseph C. Ballenger (SCDNR) DESCRIPTION Bluefish are a coastal, pelagic species of interest to fisheries that are often encountered in South Carolina estuarine and coastal waters. Taxonomy and Basic Description Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus 1766), is a member of the monotypic family (family represented by single species) Pomatomidae (bluefishes). This family is found within the order Perciformes, the most diversified of all fish orders and largest order of vertebrates (Collette 2002; Nelson 2006). Within the order Perciformes, they are found within the suborder Percoidei (largest suborder of the Perciformes) and superfamily Percoidea (Nelson 2006). The species is similar in appearance to some members of the families Carangidae and Rachycentridae occurring in the western Atlantic (Collette 2002). It differs from the most superficially similar carangid, Seriola (amberjacks), because Seriola have bands of villiform teeth in jaws (Collette 2002). Bluefish are a large species (to 1 m or 3 ft.) with a sturdy, compressed body and large head with prominent, sharp, compressed teeth in a single series (Collette 2002). The jaw is terminal, with the lower jaw sometimes slightly projecting (Collette 2002). As is common in most other members of the suborder Percoidei (Nelson 2006), bluefish possess two dorsal fins, the first being short and composed of 7 to 8 weak spines connected by a membrane and the second long, with one spine and 23-28 soft rays (Collette 2002). The pectoral fins are short, not reaching the origin of the soft dorsal fin (Collette 2002). Bluefish possess small scales that cover the head, body, and bases of vertical fins; the lateral line is almost straight (Collette 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • 1- Summary Table of King Mackerel, (Scomberomorus Cavalla) Life History
    Summary Table of King Mackerel, (Scomberomorus cavalla) life history for the Gulf of Mexico. Associations and interactions with environmental and habitat variables are listed with citations. Trophic relationships Habitat Associations and Interactions Life Stage Season Location Temp(oC) Salinity(ppt) Oxygen Depth(m) Food Predators Habitat Selection Growth Mortality Production Egg Spring and Offshore Hatch in 18- Pelagic; over Summer 21h at 27C depths of 35-180m Citations 4,9,18 17,18 17 17,18 Larvae May Middle and outer 20-31C 27-37ppt 35-180m; Larval fish, Source of food for Enhanced Vulnerable to Area of Abundance in through continental shelf may descend to especially young pelagic growth in predation and northcentral and October area of abundance mid-depths during carangids, fishes such as northcentral starvation northwestern Gulf north-central and day clupeids and tunas and dolphin and has been associated north- engraulids northwestern with the Mississippi western Gulf of Gulf associated River plume Mexico with Mississippi River plume Citations 4,9.18 4,13,18 9,18 9,18 9,18 11 12 8,13 14 13 Early May Inshore to middle Often taken by Predominately Larger pelagic Inshore waters Enhanced Bycatch in shrimp Area of abundance in Juveniles through shelf; area of shrimp trawlers in fish; some squid fishes growth in fishery; vulnerable northcentral and October, abundance north- < 9m. northcentral to sport fishery northwestern Gulf peaking in central and and has been associated July and northwestern Gulf northwestern with the Mississippi October
    [Show full text]