DOCSLIB.ORG

Life History and Ecology of Sand Seatrout Cynoscion Arenarius Ginsburg, in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: a Review James G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Life History and Ecology of Sand Seatrout Cynoscion Arenarius Ginsburg, in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: a Review James G Northeast Gulf Science Volume 12 Article 4 Number 1 Number 1 11-1991 Life History and Ecology of Sand Seatrout Cynoscion arenarius Ginsburg, in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: A Review James G. Ditty Louisiana State University Marty Bourgeois Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Rick Kasprzak Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Mark Konikoff University of Southwestern Louisiana DOI: 10.18785/negs.1201.04 Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/goms Recommended Citation Ditty, J. G., M. Bourgeois, R. Kasprzak and M. Konikoff. 1991. Life History and Ecology of Sand Seatrout Cynoscion arenarius Ginsburg, in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: A Review. Northeast Gulf Science 12 (1). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol12/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Gulf of Mexico Science by an authorized editor of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ditty et al.: Life History and Ecology of Sand Seatrout Cynoscion arenarius Gin Northeast Gulf Science Vol. 12, No. 1 November 1991 p. 35·47 LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF SAND SEATROUT Cynoscion arenarius GINSBURG, IN THE NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO: A REVIEW James G. Ditty Coastal Fisheries Institute Center for Wetland Resources Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7503 and Marty Bourgeois Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries P. 0. Box 189 Bourg, LA 70343 and Rick Kasprzak Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries P. 0. Box 98000 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 and Mark Konikoff Department of Biology University of Southwestern Louisiana P. 0. Box 42451 Lafayette, LA 70504 ABSTRACT: Sand seatrout usually represent from 5-7% of trawl catches by weight, 8-10% by number, and consistently rank among the top 5 most abundant species in demersal surveys. Sand seatrout mature at 140-180 mm TL, begin to enter the late developing, gravid, or ripe stages around 180 mm TL, and first spawn at 12 months. Spawning occurs primarily from March through September with distinct peaks in both March-April and August­ September. Spawning initially takes place in midshelf to offshore waters and moves shoreward as the season progresses, with most occuring in the lower estuary and shallow GOMEX (7-15 m water depth). Larvae are primarily collected in water depths of <25m, more are collected at night than during the day, and they· are somewhat surface·oriented but become increasingly demersal with size. In pass studies, larval sand seatrout are also more abundant on night flood tides than at other times. Larvae migrate into shallow areas of the estuary where they remain until at least 50-60 mm TL after which they move to deeper water. Mean size predicted by regression was 250, 425, and 573 mm TL at ages I, II, and Ill, with a typical lifespan of 1-2 years and possibly up to 3 years. Total annual mortality approaches 100% based on trawl data if the lifespan is one year and 90% if two years. Distribution of sand seatrout appears restricted more by water temperature than salinity. Electrophoretic evidence is unclear whether sand seatrout should be recognized as distinct from weakfish. Evidence provided by otolith aging of larvae and differences in larval pigmentation, however, supports the separation of two co·occurring morphological types and suggests separate populations of sand seatrout in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Sand seatrout, C. arenarius, are har­ contributing a major portion of the in­ vested both commercially and recreation­ dustrial bottomfish and foodfish fleet ally in the Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) and catches (Gutherz eta/., 1975). Sand sea­ are one of the most important finfish in trout usually represent from 5-7% of commercial fisheries of the northern Gulf, trawl catches by weight (e.g., Moore eta/., Published by The Aquila Digital Community, 1991 35 1 Gulf of Mexico Science, Vol. 12 [1991], No. 1, Art. 4 36 Ditty, J.G., M. Bourgeois, R. Kasprzak, and M. Konikoff 1970; Dunham, 1972; Franks eta/., 1972; objectives of this paper are to review and Chittenden and McEachran, 1976; War­ synthesize sand seatrout life history data, ren, 1981), 8-10% by number (e.g., Gunter provide some new information on sea­ 1936, 1938a, 1945; Perret and Caillouet, sonal movements, resolve discrepancies 1974; Warren, 1981) and consistently rank where possible and identify areas requir­ among the top five most abundant spe­ ing further study. cies in demersal surveys. The fishery is centered around the Mississippi River STOCK DESCRIPTION Delta, an area of high bottomfish densi­ ties (Sheridan et a/., 1984). Landings of The taxonomic status of sand sea­ industrial bottomfish from the northern trout as a species distinct from weakfish, GOMEX have increased dramatically C. regalis, is still uncertain. Sand seatrout since 1953 (Gutherz et at., 1975) and by are primarily restricted to the GOMEX 1975 sand seatrout ranked 12th in total (Florida Bay to Campeche Bay) and weak­ landings and 14th in ex-vessel values in fish to the Atlantic coast of the U.S. and GOMEX commercial fisheries (Nakamura, Canada (Nova Scotia to southern Florida), 1981). Sand seatrout are also a major seg­ but two adult weakfish have been cap­ ment of the finfish discards of the shrimp tured in the GOMEX off southern Florida fleet (Gunter, 1936; Gutherz et at., 1975; near Marcos Island (Weinstein and Yer­ Juhl and Drummond, 1977), ranking ger, 1976). Sand seatrout and weakfish second by weight off Mississippi and have been recognized as distinct species Louisiana (Pavella, 1977), and third by or at least sub-species based on morpho­ number of individuals collected/yr (Butch metric and meristic counts but there is Pellegrin, pers. comm.)1. Sand seatrout considerable overlap in characters (Gins­ account for over 5% of.finfish bycatch in burg, 1929). Differences in larval pigmen­ the northcentral gulf and in the north­ tation, age, and growth data (Ditty, 1984; western gulf (Juhl and Drummond, 1977), Cowan, 1985; Cowan et a/., 1989; Ditty, but contribute <1% to the bycatch of the 1989) indicate that two larval types of northeastern GOMEX. Although this spe­ sand seatrout occur in the northern cies remains common in the northern GOMEX. Temporal separation of two dis­ GOMEX, sand seatrout utilization will tinct spawned groups each year also continue to increase with fishing pressure suggest separate populations or species resulting from more stringent manage­ but similarities in the life history and ment of the more popular and exploited population dynamics of sand seatrout species. Despite its abundance, many and weakfish suggest that they may be aspects of sand seatrout life history have conspecific (Shlossman and Chittenden, been relatively poorly studied, informa­ 1981). Electrophoretic evidence is unclear tion is widely scattered and some is con­ whether sand seatrout and weakfish are flicting. There has been one previous reproductively isolated (Paschall, 1986) synopsis of sand seatrout data but this and whereas one study suggests that review (Sutter and Mcilwain, 1987) does sand seatrout should be recognized as a not discuss stock identification problems, sub-species of weakfish (Weinstein and early life history information, or attempt Yerger, 1976) another study found that to resolve discrepancies in other aspects separation of these two taxa was un­ of seatrout life history. Therefore, the certain (Paschall, 1986). While literature on the possibly conspecific weakfish -'Butch Pellegrin, National Marine Fisheries Service, might apply to sand seatrout, we herein Southeast Fisheries Center, Pascagoula, MS. follow Robins et at. (1980) and refer to https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol12/iss1/4 2 DOI: 10.18785/negs.1201.04 Ditty et al.: Life History and Ecology of Sand Seatrout Cynoscion arenarius Gin Life History and Ecology of Sand Seatrout 37 sand seatrout as a species separate from through October in the northern GOMEX weakfish and therefore do not include above 26°00' N lat. (Ditty et at., 1988) and literature on weakfish (see Wilk, 1979; year-round off southwest Florida (Pee­ Mercer, 1983 for review). bles, 1987), but spawning occurs primarily from March through September with dis­ REPRODUCTION AND tinct peaks during both March-April and EARLY LIFE HISTORY August-September (e.g., Jannke, 1971; Shlossman and Chittenden, 1981; Sheri­ Sand seatrout mature at 140-180 mm dan et at., 1984; Ditty, 1986). Little spawn­ total length (TL), begin to enter the late ing occurs during mid-summer and none developing, gravid, or ripe stages around between October and December based on 180 mm TL, and first spawn at 12 months gonad maturity data (Shlossman and (Shlossman and Chittenden, 1981). Simi­ Chittenden, 1981; Sheridan et at., 1984). lar sizes at maturation have been reported Spawning in the laboratory occurs soon in another study (Sheridan et at., 1984) after (usually 1-2 hrs) lab-simulated dusk with the smallest maturing male and (Holt et at., 1985). Egg diameters range female of 129 and 140 mm SL. Maturing from 0.67-0.90 mm and hatching usually and ripe sand seatrout are mainly col­ occurs between 18-36 hrs. after spawning lected during March and April (e.g., Mof­ depending on water temperature (Holt et fett et at., 1979; Shlossman and Chit­ at., 1988). tenden, 1981; Sheridan et at., 1984), Off Texas, most maturing and ripe although maturing females have also female sand seatrout (38%) were col­ been collected during August (Sheridan lected between the 56 and 73 m isobaths et at., 1984). Male to female sex ratios vary (Sheridan et at., 1984), whereas they by study and show no pattern (Table 1). occurred at depths of 73-91 m off Missis­ Fecundities of sand seatrout (N = sippi (Franks et at., 1972). This variation 131) from the Mississippi Delta region in depth, however, may be due to differ­ increase with standard length (SL) and ences in habitat depths off Texas and the range from 28,200 eggs for a 210 mm SL Mississippi Delta (Sheridan et at., 1984).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico And
    A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast Fishes THIRD EDITION GSMFC No. 300 NOVEMBER 2020 i Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Commissioners and Proxies ALABAMA Senator R.L. “Bret” Allain, II Chris Blankenship, Commissioner State Senator District 21 Alabama Department of Conservation Franklin, Louisiana and Natural Resources John Roussel Montgomery, Alabama Zachary, Louisiana Representative Chris Pringle Mobile, Alabama MISSISSIPPI Chris Nelson Joe Spraggins, Executive Director Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. Mississippi Department of Marine Bon Secour, Alabama Resources Biloxi, Mississippi FLORIDA Read Hendon Eric Sutton, Executive Director USM/Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Florida Fish and Wildlife Ocean Springs, Mississippi Conservation Commission Tallahassee, Florida TEXAS Representative Jay Trumbull Carter Smith, Executive Director Tallahassee, Florida Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas LOUISIANA Doug Boyd Jack Montoucet, Secretary Boerne, Texas Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Baton Rouge, Louisiana GSMFC Staff ASMFC Staff Mr. David M. Donaldson Mr. Bob Beal Executive Director Executive Director Mr. Steven J. VanderKooy Mr. Jeffrey Kipp IJF Program Coordinator Stock Assessment Scientist Ms. Debora McIntyre Dr. Kristen Anstead IJF Staff Assistant Fisheries Scientist ii A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast Fishes Third Edition Edited by Steve VanderKooy Jessica Carroll Scott Elzey Jessica Gilmore Jeffrey Kipp Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 2404 Government St Ocean Springs, MS 39564 and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1050 N. Highland Street Suite 200 A-N Arlington, VA 22201 Publication Number 300 November 2020 A publication of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA15NMF4070076 and NA15NMF4720399.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrea RAZ-GUZMÁN1*, Leticia HUIDOBRO2, and Virginia PADILLA3
    ACTA ICHTHYOLOGICA ET PISCATORIA (2018) 48 (4): 341–362 DOI: 10.3750/AIEP/02451 AN UPDATED CHECKLIST AND CHARACTERISATION OF THE ICHTHYOFAUNA (ELASMOBRANCHII AND ACTINOPTERYGII) OF THE LAGUNA DE TAMIAHUA, VERACRUZ, MEXICO Andrea RAZ-GUZMÁN1*, Leticia HUIDOBRO2, and Virginia PADILLA3 1 Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México 2 Instituto Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, SAGARPA, Ciudad de México 3 Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México Raz-Guzmán A., Huidobro L., Padilla V. 2018. An updated checklist and characterisation of the ichthyofauna (Elasmobranchii and Actinopterygii) of the Laguna de Tamiahua, Veracruz, Mexico. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 48 (4): 341–362. Background. Laguna de Tamiahua is ecologically and economically important as a nursery area that favours the recruitment of species that sustain traditional fisheries. It has been studied previously, though not throughout its whole area, and considering the variety of habitats that sustain these fisheries, as well as an increase in population growth that impacts the system. The objectives of this study were to present an updated list of fish species, data on special status, new records, commercial importance, dominance, density, ecotic position, and the spatial and temporal distribution of species in the lagoon, together with a comparison of Tamiahua with 14 other Gulf of Mexico lagoons. Materials and methods. Fish were collected in August and December 1996 with a Renfro beam net and an otter trawl from different habitats throughout the lagoon. The species were identified, classified in relation to special status, new records, commercial importance, density, dominance, ecotic position, and spatial distribution patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial and Temporal Variations in Community Structure of the Demersal Macrofauna of a Subtropical Estuary (Louisiana)
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1982 Spatial and Temporal Variations in Community Structure of the Demersal Macrofauna of a Subtropical Estuary (Louisiana). Thomas C. Shirley Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Shirley, Thomas C., "Spatial and Temporal Variations in Community Structure of the Demersal Macrofauna of a Subtropical Estuary (Louisiana)." (1982). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3821. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3821 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Drum and Croaker (Family Sciaenidae) Diversity in North Carolina
    Drum and Croaker (Family Sciaenidae) Diversity in North Carolina The waters along and off the coast are where you will find 18 of the 19 species within the Family Sciaenidae (Table 1) known from North Carolina. Until recently, the 19th species and the only truly freshwater species in this family, Freshwater Drum, was found approximately 420 miles WNW from Cape Hatteras in the French Broad River near Hot Springs. Table 1. Species of drums and croakers found in or along the coast of North Carolina. Scientific Name/ Scientific Name/ American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name Aplodinotus grunniens – Freshwater Drum Menticirrhus saxatilis – Northern Kingfish Bairdiella chrysoura – Silver Perch Micropogonias undulatus – Atlantic Croaker Cynoscion nebulosus – Spotted Seatrout Pareques acuminatus – High-hat Cynoscion nothus – Silver Seatrout Pareques iwamotoi – Blackbar Drum Cynoscion regalis – Weakfish Pareques umbrosus – Cubbyu Equetus lanceolatus – Jackknife-fish Pogonias cromis – Black Drum Larimus fasciatus – Banded Drum Sciaenops ocellatus – Red Drum Leiostomus xanthurus – Spot Stellifer lanceolatus – Star Drum Menticirrhus americanus – Southern Kingfish Umbrina coroides – Sand Drum Menticirrhus littoralis – Gulf Kingfish With so many species historically so well-known to recreational and commercial fishermen, to lay people, and their availability in seafood markets, it is not surprising that these 19 species are known by many local and vernacular names. Skimming through the ETYFish Project
    [Show full text]
  • 02 Anderson FB107(1).Indd
    Evolutionary associations between sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius) and silver seatrout (C. nothus) inferred from morphological characters, mitochondrial DNA, and microsatellite markers Item Type article Authors Anderson, Joel D.; McDonald, Dusty L.; Sutton, Glen R.; Karel, William J. Download date 23/09/2021 08:57:20 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/25457 13 Abstract—The evolutionary asso- ciations between closely related fish Evolutionary associations between sand seatrout species, both contemporary and his- (Cynoscion arenarius) and silver seatrout torical, are frequently assessed by using molecular markers, such as (C. nothus) inferred from morphological characters, microsatellites. Here, the presence mitochondrial DNA, and microsatellite markers and variability of microsatellite loci in two closely related species of marine fishes, sand seatrout (Cynoscion are- Joel D. Anderson (contact author)1 narius) and silver seatrout (C. nothus), Dusty L. McDonald1 are explored by using heterologous primers from red drum (Sciaenops Glen R. Sutton2 ocellatus). Data from these loci are William J. Karel1 used in conjunction with morphologi- cal characters and mitochondrial DNA Email address for contact author: [email protected] haplotypes to explore the extent of 1 Perry R. Bass Marine Fisheries Research Station genetic exchange between species off- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department shore of Galveston Bay, TX. Despite HC02 Box 385, Palacios, Texas 77465 seasonal overlap in distribution, low 2 Galveston Bay Field Office genetic divergence at microsatellite Texas Parks and Wildlife Department loci, and similar life history param- 1502 FM 517 East, eters of C. arenarius and C. nothus, all Dickinson, Texas 77539 three data sets indicated that hybrid- ization between these species does not occur or occurs only rarely and that historical admixture in Galveston Bay after divergence between these species was unlikely.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations Biological Sciences Summer 2016 Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes Christi Linardich Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Linardich, Christi. "Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes" (2016). Master of Science (MS), Thesis, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/hydh-jp82 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds/13 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOTSPOTS, EXTINCTION RISK AND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES OF GREATER CARIBBEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO MARINE BONY SHOREFISHES by Christi Linardich B.A. December 2006, Florida Gulf Coast University A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE BIOLOGY OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2016 Approved by: Kent E. Carpenter (Advisor) Beth Polidoro (Member) Holly Gaff (Member) ABSTRACT HOTSPOTS, EXTINCTION RISK AND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES OF GREATER CARIBBEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO MARINE BONY SHOREFISHES Christi Linardich Old Dominion University, 2016 Advisor: Dr. Kent E. Carpenter Understanding the status of species is important for allocation of resources to redress biodiversity loss.
    [Show full text]
  • An Invitation to Monitor Georgia's Coastal Wetlands
    An Invitation to Monitor Georgia’s Coastal Wetlands www.shellfish.uga.edu By Mary Sweeney-Reeves, Dr. Alan Power, & Ellie Covington First Printing 2003, Second Printing 2006, Copyright University of Georgia “This book was prepared by Mary Sweeney-Reeves, Dr. Alan Power, and Ellie Covington under an award from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of OCRM and NOAA.” 2 Acknowledgements Funding for the development of the Coastal Georgia Adopt-A-Wetland Program was provided by a NOAA Coastal Incentive Grant, awarded under the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Program (UGA Grant # 27 31 RE 337130). The Coastal Georgia Adopt-A-Wetland Program owes much of its success to the support, experience, and contributions of the following individuals: Dr. Randal Walker, Marie Scoggins, Dodie Thompson, Edith Schmidt, John Crawford, Dr. Mare Timmons, Marcy Mitchell, Pete Schlein, Sue Finkle, Jenny Makosky, Natasha Wampler, Molly Russell, Rebecca Green, and Jeanette Henderson (University of Georgia Marine Extension Service); Courtney Power (Chatham County Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission); Dr. Joe Richardson (Savannah State University); Dr. Chandra Franklin (Savannah State University); Dr. Dionne Hoskins (NOAA); Dr. Charles Belin (Armstrong Atlantic University); Dr. Merryl Alber (University of Georgia); (Dr. Mac Rawson (Georgia Sea Grant College Program); Harold Harbert, Kim Morris-Zarneke, and Michele Droszcz (Georgia Adopt-A-Stream); Dorset Hurley and Aimee Gaddis (Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve); Dr. Charra Sweeney-Reeves (All About Pets); Captain Judy Helmey (Miss Judy Charters); Jan Mackinnon and Jill Huntington (Georgia Department of Natural Resources).
    [Show full text]
  • Diets of Coastal Bottlenose Dolphins from the U. S. Mid
    MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, 20(3):527-545 (July 2004) 0 2004 by the Society for Marine Mammalogy DIETS OF COASTAL BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS FROM THE U.S. MID-ATLANTIC COAST DIFFER BY HABITAT DAMONP. GANNON' DANIELLEM. WAPLES Duke University Marine Laboratory, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT We recorded 31 species in the stomachs of 146 coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatu) from North Carolina, U.S.A. Sciaenid fishes were the most common prey (frequency of occurrence = 95%). By mass, Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) dominated the diet of dolphins that stranded inside estuaries, whereas weakfish (Cynosicon regalis) was most important for dolphins in the ocean. Inshore squid (Loligo sp.) was eaten commonly by dolphins in the ocean, but not by those in the estuaries. There was no significant pattern in prey size associated with dolphin demography, but the proportion of the diet represented by croaker was higher for males than for females, and mature dolphins ate more croaker than did juveniles. Dietary differences between dolphins that stranded in the estuaries and those that stranded on ocean beaches support the hypothesis that some members of the population inhabit the ocean primarily while others reside principally in estuaries. The overwhelming majority of prey were soniferous species (75% of numerical abundance), which is consistent with the hypothesis that bottlenose dolphins use passive listening to locate noise-making fishes. However, spatiotemporal patterns in consumption of Sciaenid fishes did not coincide with their spawning, which is when peak sound production is thought to occur.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sea Trout of Weakfishes of the Gulf of Mexico 1958
    ··· OFHCE COPY ONlY 11. I· I I I \ ,• . TECHNICAL SUMMAltY··N.9 .. l .. · .. / ) / ! -!·1 . I /"". THE"· SEA• :TR.OUT~ • •, • •6R • WEAKFISHES• • • • J ' I . -y~ , ... --:- ',1 j (GENUS· CYNOSCION)., ~- I ( --.- I~·' i ' '·r - _..,, 1 _.. i ' OF THE \GULF-'OF .ME-XICO . , I ' ••. / • ' .. '1 />' ~·:. / ,'\ ·. '~.::-'<·<· :.',, . '\ /; \ ! 1,. i'. .. , '•' ' 1 \ /' by • ; • I ' • '~ •• ' i". - ·:, ·I., .J WILLIAM :<Z. GUEST "Texas. Garn~ and 'Fish' comrtii~sim11 1 · Rockport, .Texas ···; anq ·,.... , ·, GbRDON1 G$TER. \ GulfCgast :R..eseatch Laboratory Ocea~ Sp.rings, Mis's1ssipp~ . '/ " OCTOBER, . 1-958 , I ( ! ·)' ; \ , I . 'J \ .. , j\ )'.,I i ·,1 . I /... The Gulf . .States Marine :Fisheries Commis- , ' .' ' ' -.._ \ . \ sion realizing that .data on the sp'.eckled trout I \ i and tlie,tw:o;:~pecies of white trout appearing ' i ' in waters of the Gulf states· should ·b~ sum- . , 1 ·marized, is pleasea to P,resent this · .publi~ / \' cation. · ·· . '1-. Data, appearing>' herein have been gathered: from a multipl.icity of sources, both published ·-- . and iunp:ubll~hetl, as is ·evidenced by the ac- . · companying ci,tation·s. It is believed the basic · information ~ontained in this publication ' \ · can be of considerable assistance to state marine fishery legisiatiye committees "and · . ' state fishery agencies in consideration of.. · ' I management measures designed to preserve i I :I these .s'p'ecies for the "COm:tnercial and sport fishermen of bot~ the present and tlie future. ' d J I ,I ir,-- I I I ) i, ' \ Ii I l ~ -Oiulf ~fates )mtarine j'Jiisheries illomtnission ·1?·. I ' 1·, 1 ,I. ,) TECHNICAL SUMMARY No. 1 I ) , I JI ~ ,) .. : .\ ' I 'THE SEA TROUT OR WEAKFISHES (GENUS CYNOSCION) OF THE GULF OF MEXICO by WILLIAM C.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Resources Report Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Results - Open Bay Habitat
    Center for Coastal Studies CCBNEP Living Resources Report Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Results - Open Bay Habitat B. Living Resources - Habitats Detailed community profiles of estuarine habitats within the CCBNEP study area are not available. Therefore, in the following sections, the organisms, community structure, and ecosystem processes and functions of the major estuarine habitats (Open Bay, Oyster Reef, Hard Substrate, Seagrass Meadow, Coastal Marsh, Tidal Flat, Barrier Island, and Gulf Beach) within the CCBNEP study area are presented. The following major subjects will be addressed for each habitat: (1) Physical setting and processes; (2) Producers and Decomposers; (3) Consumers; (4) Community structure and zonation; and (5) Ecosystem processes. HABITAT 1: OPEN BAY Table Of Contents Page 1.1. Physical Setting & Processes ............................................................................ 45 1.1.1 Distribution within Project Area ......................................................... 45 1.1.2 Historical Development ....................................................................... 45 1.1.3 Physiography ...................................................................................... 45 1.1.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................ 46 1.1.5 Hydrology and Chemistry ................................................................... 47 1.1.5.1 Tides .................................................................................... 47 1.1.5.2 Freshwater
    [Show full text]
  • Report T-668 Population Characteristics, Food Habits and Spawning Activity of Spotted Seatrout, Cvnoscion Nebulosus, in EVE R
    Report T-668 Population Characteristics, Food Habits and Spawning Activity of Spotted Seatrout, Cvnoscion nebulosus, in EVE R NATIONAL -r., c, 3 01.... "C*, 0, @r*, lnI.10. Everglades National Park, South Flor~daResearch Center, P.O. Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030 Population Characteristics, Food Habits and Spawning Activity of Spotted Seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, in Everglades National Park, Florida Report T-668 Edward Rutherford, Edith Thue and David Buker National Park Service South Florida Research Center Everglades National Park Homestead, Florida 33030 June 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................... ii LIST OF FIGURES .......................... iii LIST OF APPENDICES ......................... v ABSTRACT ............................. 1 INTRODUCTION ........................... 2 Description of the Study Area ................... 3 METHODS .............................. 3 Data Collection ......................... 3 Aging Methods .......................... 3 Growth ............................. 4 Survival ............................ 5 Food Analyses .......................... 5 RESULTS .............................. 5 Length Frequency ........................ 6 Verification of Aging Technique .................. 6 Age Composition and Sex Ratio of the Catch ............ 7 Growth ............................. 8 Growth Equation ......................... 9 Length-weight Relationship .................... 9 Survival ............................. 9 Food Analyses .......................... 10 Spawning Activity .......................
    [Show full text]