DOCSLIB.ORG

Effect of Predators on Juvenile Menhaden in Clear & Turbid Estuaries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

78 F G I J Fig. 1 _ Juvenile menhaden injured by predators. Fish A is normal. EFFECT OF PREDA TO RS ON JUVENILE MENHADEN IN CLEAR & TURBID ESTUARIES Richard L. Kroger and J am e s F . Guthrie L ittle is known about the effects of pre da­ P redators Reduce Schools tion on juvenile menhaden during their 6 to 9 months of est u a r i n e life (Reintje s a nd Observations by fishermen and rat of Pacheco,1966). Numerous published report s s c arring suggest that the number of juveml s have de scribed the occurrence of juvenile in Steinhatchee River decreases steadily as menhaden in stomach samples of other spe­ a r e s ult of predation. Fishermen who live by cies (Reintjes, Christmas and Collins, 1960). t he r iver reported that schools of juvel1l:f' No studies have mentioned scarring rates in m e nhaden are usually 20 to 30 feet in diam­ populations of juvenile menhaden from dif ­ e te r in April. But, by July of each year, the ferent-type estuaries, or the kind of injurie s s c h ools which are about the same in numb I' incurred by juveniles that escape after be ing are r e duced by the abundant predator popula­ bitten by predators. tiont o t he 5 - to 10-feet- diameter schools we saw. These observations are supported by A sample of 682 juvenile Gulf menhade n) c alculations - -based on the fact that 197'0 of Brevoortia pat ron us (mean for k le ngth t he fis h wer e injured, and the assuP1ption that 62 mm), asp ott e d sea t r ou t) Cy nosci on one of 10 bitten juveniles survives. Thes nebulosus, and a blue runner,) Caranx cry s os) indi cate that our sample of 682 fish was th were collected in Steinhatchee River, Florida, r emains of an original group of 1,852 juve­ on July 13, 1971, with a cast net. We ex­ niles (682 x .197-.1 + 552 = 1852). This esti­ amined the menhaden immediately and de ­ mate should be greater if scars disapp aI', termined t hat 19% had been i nj u r ed by or if rate of predation increases on injured pre-dators . Injuries ranged from single tooth menhaden. slashes to missing fins and chunks of fle sh The precise number of injured juvemle (Figure 1). It can be assumed that m ost menhaden in samples from other clear-water injuries occurred recently if rapid r egener­ and turbid estuaries was not obtained because ation and healing obscures injuries in this we did not immediately examine each fish river, as observed for fin -clipped and t a gged when fresh. After the samples were pre­ juvenile menhaden in other estuarie s and in served, only major injuries were discermble. the laboratory (Kroger and Dryfoos , 1972), Based on field calculations, however, we or if injured menhaden in schools are preyed know that at least 10% of the juve nile Atlantic upon at a greater rate than noninjure d m en­ menhaden, B . tyrannus) were injured in sam­ haden (Gunter and Ward, 1961). pIes collected from two Rhode Island and Massachusetts clear -water est u a r i e s in Most injuries were probably c aused by 1969-71. Water clarity in these estuaries trout and other sight-feeding predatory fish, was such that the bottom was visible in over such as blue runners (Simmons a nd B reuer, 2 m of water. Typical abundant predatory 1950 and Reintjes, 1969). We saw the s e spe­ fish captured in the haul seine with the in­ ci es make 20 predatory attacks in 1 h our on jured menhaden, and whose stomachs con­ menhaden schools at the surface i n a s mall tained menhaden, included chub mack r I, cove. Water clarity, as indicated by secchi Sc omber c olias) and b I u e f ish) Pomatomus disk readings, reg i s t er e d greater than saltatrix. Other probable menhaden preda­ 100 cm (the length of our s ecchi stick). We tors were caught, but their stomachs were consider this very clear and ideal for s ight­ not examined; these included crevalle Jack" feeding predators. Caranx hippos) and northern sennet,Sphyraena borealis. Mr. Kroger is Fishe'Y Biologist and Mr. Guthrie is Fisheries Technician, National Marine Fisheries Service, AtI"nuc Est nn~ F r- ies Center, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 . 79 80 Contrast of Turbid Estuaries the samples, or were present only in small numbers. In contrast, while capturing juvenile men­ hadenfor tagging and yearly abundance stud­ The high rate of scarring we observed in ies from 1956 to 1 971 on the Atlantic and populations of juvenile menhaden in clear Gulf coasts, we have never observed more water, relative to turbid water, indicates than one or two injured juvenile menhaden in either a different rate of escapement when any of several thousand samples collected in juveniles are bitten by the resident preda­ over 50 turbid estuaries where secchi read­ tors--or a different rate of predation on the ings ranged from 10 to 50 cm. Stomachs of juveniles in the two types of estuaries. We ladyfish)Elops sauruE1captured in these sam­ believe the great amount of scarring indi­ pIes have been examined and shown to con­ cates a higher rate of predation on the men­ tain a high percentage of juvenile menhaden haden. In our opinion, abundant predators (Sekavec, 1971). The only other t ypical severely reduce the number of juvenile men­ predatory fish captured with the juveniles in haden in some clear -water estuaries, whereas these turbid estuaries, and which stomach in turbid estuaries rates of predation on analysis showed they fed on menhaden, in­ menhaden are much lower (Kroger and cluded longnose and alligator gars, Lepisos­ Guthrie, 1973). Additional studies of the in­ teus osseus and L. spatula. These turbid­ teraction of menhaden and predator popula­ water predators usually were absent from tions in clear and turbid est u a r i e s are needed. LITERA TURE CITED GUNTER, G. and J. W. WARD REINTJES, J. W. andA. L. PACHECO 1961. Some fish that survive exteme injuries, and some 1966. The relation of menhaden to estuaries. Amer. Fish. aspects of tenacity of life . Copeia 1961: 456-462 . Soc. Spec. Publ. No .3: 50-58. KROGER, R. L. and R. L. DRYFOOS 1972. Tagging and tag recoveIY experiments with Atlantic 1969. The Gulf menhaden and our changing estuaries . menhaden, Brevoortiatyrannus. U.S. Dep. Comm. Proc . Gulf Caribbean Fish. Inst., 22nd Annual Nat. Mar. Fish Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.-Fish. In Session, 87 -9~. press . SEKAVEC, G. B. and J. F. GUTHRIE 1971. Gross morphology of the digestive tract of the lady­ -'1"'97"'3'. Migrations of tagged juvenile Atlantic menhaden. fish, £lops saurus. Chesapeake Sci. 12(4): 275-276. Trans . Amer. Fish. Soc. 102 (2). In press. SIMMONS, E. G. and J. p. BREUER REINTJES, J. W., J. Y . CHRISTMAS, Jr. and 1959. The Texas menhaden fisheIY. Texas Parks Wildl. R. A. COLLINS Dept. Bull. No. 45A., 16 p. 1960. Annotated bibliography on biology of American men­ haden. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Servo Fish. Byll. 60: 297-322. .
Recommended publications
  • Fisheries of the Northeast

    Fisheries of the Northeast

    FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEAST AMERICAN BLUE LOBSTER BILLFISHES ATLANTIC COD MUSSEL (Blue marlin, Sailfish, BLACK SEA BASS Swordfish, White marlin) CLAMS DRUMS BUTTERFISH (Arc blood clam, Arctic surf clam, COBIA Atlantic razor clam, Atlantic surf clam, (Atlantic croaker, Black drum, BLUEFISH (Gulf butterfish, Northern Northern kingfish, Red drum, Northern quahog, Ocean quahog, harvestfish) CRABS Silver sea trout, Southern kingfish, Soft-shelled clam, Stout razor clam) (Atlantic rock crab, Blue crab, Spot, Spotted seatrout, Weakfish) Deep-sea red crab, Green crab, Horseshoe crab, Jonah crab, Lady crab, Northern stone crab) GREEN SEA FLATFISH URCHIN EELS (Atlantic halibut, American plaice, GRAY TRIGGERFISH HADDOCK (American eel, Fourspot flounder, Greenland halibut, Conger eel) Hogchoker, Southern flounder, Summer GROUPERS flounder, Winter flounder, Witch flounder, (Black grouper, Yellowtail flounder) Snowy grouper) MACKERELS (Atlantic chub mackerel, MONKFISH HAKES JACKS Atlantic mackerel, Bullet mackerel, King mackerel, (Offshore hake, Red hake, (Almaco jack, Amberjack, Bar Silver hake, Spotted hake, HERRINGS jack, Blue runner, Crevalle jack, Spanish mackerel) White hake) (Alewife, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic Florida pompano) MAHI MAHI herring, Atlantic thread herring, Blueback herring, Gizzard shad, Hickory shad, Round herring) MULLETS PORGIES SCALLOPS (Striped mullet, White mullet) POLLOCK (Jolthead porgy, Red porgy, (Atlantic sea Scup, Sheepshead porgy) REDFISH scallop, Bay (Acadian redfish, scallop) Blackbelly rosefish) OPAH SEAWEEDS (Bladder
  • © Iccat, 2007

    © Iccat, 2007

    A5 By-catch Species APPENDIX 5: BY-CATCH SPECIES A.5 By-catch species By-catch is the unintentional/incidental capture of non-target species during fishing operations. Different types of fisheries have different types and levels of by-catch, depending on the gear used, the time, area and depth fished, etc. Article IV of the Convention states: "the Commission shall be responsible for the study of the population of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organization". The following is a list of by-catch species recorded as being ever caught by any major tuna fishery in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. Note that the lists are qualitative and are not indicative of quantity or mortality. Thus, the presence of a species in the lists does not imply that it is caught in significant quantities, or that individuals that are caught necessarily die. Skates and rays Scientific names Common name Code LL GILL PS BB HARP TRAP OTHER Dasyatis centroura Roughtail stingray RDC X Dasyatis violacea Pelagic stingray PLS X X X X Manta birostris Manta ray RMB X X X Mobula hypostoma RMH X Mobula lucasana X Mobula mobular Devil ray RMM X X X X X Myliobatis aquila Common eagle ray MYL X X Pteuromylaeus bovinus Bull ray MPO X X Raja fullonica Shagreen ray RJF X Raja straeleni Spotted skate RFL X Rhinoptera spp Cownose ray X Torpedo nobiliana Torpedo
  • Sharkcam Fishes

    Sharkcam Fishes

    SharkCam Fishes A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower By Erin J. Burge, Christopher E. O’Brien, and jon-newbie 1 Table of Contents Identification Images Species Profiles Additional Info Index Trevor Mendelow, designer of SharkCam, on August 31, 2014, the day of the original SharkCam installation. SharkCam Fishes. A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower. 5th edition by Erin J. Burge, Christopher E. O’Brien, and jon-newbie is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. For questions related to this guide or its usage contact Erin Burge. The suggested citation for this guide is: Burge EJ, CE O’Brien and jon-newbie. 2020. SharkCam Fishes. A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower. 5th edition. Los Angeles: Explore.org Ocean Frontiers. 201 pp. Available online http://explore.org/live-cams/player/shark-cam. Guide version 5.0. 24 February 2020. 2 Table of Contents Identification Images Species Profiles Additional Info Index TABLE OF CONTENTS SILVERY FISHES (23) ........................... 47 African Pompano ......................................... 48 FOREWORD AND INTRODUCTION .............. 6 Crevalle Jack ................................................. 49 IDENTIFICATION IMAGES ...................... 10 Permit .......................................................... 50 Sharks and Rays ........................................ 10 Almaco Jack ................................................. 51 Illustrations of SharkCam
  • U.S. Commercial Landings

    U.S. Commercial Landings

    U.S. Commercial Landings U.S. DOMESTIC LANDINGS, BY SPECIES, 2009 AND 2010 (1) Average Species 2009 2010 (2005-2009) Fish Thousand Metric Thousand Thousand Metric Thousand Thousand pounds tons dollars pounds tons dollars pounds Alewife 1,670 758 346 1,949 884 491 1,032 Anchovies 7,754 3,517 512 2,815 1,277 563 23,421 Atka mackerel 156,887 71,163 26,732 145,206 65,865 27,523 134,235 Bluefish 7,057 3,201 2,920 7,386 3,350 3,183 7,034 Blue runner 335 152 289 269 122 248 335 Bonito 4,788 2,172 1,880 104 47 129 2,577 Butterfish 2,644 1,199 1,201 1,644 746 976 2,525 Catfish and bullheads 7,636 3,464 3,774 7,173 3,254 3,110 8,410 Chubs 487 221 781 381 173 879 1,374 Cod: Atlantic 19,708 8,939 25,220 17,714 8,035 28,119 16,458 Pacific 491,143 222,781 133,714 539,635 244,777 146,941 508,028 Crevalle (jack) 585 265 457 623 283 496 515 Croaker: Atlantic 16,010 7,262 8,644 14,382 6,524 8,659 20,013 Pacific (white) 116 53 38 13 6 11 85 Cusk 106 48 67 75 34 67 156 Dolphinfish 2,883 1,308 5,690 2,255 1,023 4,810 2,390 Eels, American 728 330 1,870 848 385 2,449 768 Flatfish: Atlantic and Gulf American plaice 3,068 1,392 3,886 3,115 1,413 4,499 2,623 Summer flounder 10,881 4,936 23,247 13,004 5,899 28,292 12,183 Winter flounder 4,873 2,210 8,099 3,492 1,584 6,945 6,021 Witch flounder 2,090 948 4,055 1,674 759 3,775 3,324 Yellowtail flounder 3,535 1,603 4,755 2,905 1,318 4,192 4,887 Other 7,048 3,197 6,877 6,319 2,866 5,210 3,841 Total, Atlantic/Gulf 31,495 14,286 50,919 30,509 13,839 52,913 32,879 Pacific Arrowtooth flounder 90,074 40,857 9,827 109,248
  • Fish Species List

    Fish Species List

    Appendix P List of Fish Species Found in the CHSJS Estuary 5-1 Species list of fishes, decapod crustaceans and bivalve molluscs collected from the CHSJS Estuary. Species are listed in phylogenetic order. Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name Scallops Argopecten spp. Sand perch Diplectrum formosum Bay scallop Argopecten irradians Belted sandfish Serranus subligarius Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica Sunfishes Lepomis spp. Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Brackish grass shrimp Palaemonetes intermedius Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Riverine grass shrimp Palaemonetes paludosus Dollar sunfish Lepomis marginatus Daggerblade grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Longtail grass shrimp Periclimenes longicaudatus Spotted sunfish Lepomis punctatus Florida grass shrimp Palaemon floridanus Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Snapping shrimp Alpheidae spp. Warmouth Lepomis gulosus Zostera shrimp Hippolyte zostericola Swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme Peppermint shrimp Lysmata wurdemanni Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Rathbun cleaner shrimp Lysmata rathbunae Cobia Rachycentron canadum Arrow shrimp Tozeuma carolinense Live sharksucker Echeneis naucrates Squat grass shrimp Thor dobkini Whitefinsharksucker Echeneis neucratoides Night shrimp Ambidexter symmetricus Crevalle jack Caranx hippos Blue crab Callinectes sapidus Horse-eye jack Caranx latus Ornate blue crab Callinectes ornatus Atlantic bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus Swimming crab Portunus spp. Leatherjack Oligoplites
  • Sharkcam Fishes a Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower by Erin J

    Sharkcam Fishes a Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower by Erin J

    SharkCam Fishes A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower By Erin J. Burge, Christopher E. O’Brien, and jon-newbie 1 Table of Contents Identification Images Species Profiles Additional Information Index Trevor Mendelow, designer of SharkCam, on August 31, 2014, the day of the original SharkCam installation SharkCam Fishes. A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower. 3rd edition by Erin J. Burge, Christopher E. O’Brien, and jon-newbie is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. For questions related to this guide or its usage contact Erin Burge. The suggested citation for this guide is: Burge EJ, CE O’Brien and jon-newbie. 2018. SharkCam Fishes. A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower. 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Explore.org Ocean Frontiers. 169 pp. Available online http://explore.org/live-cams/player/shark-cam. Guide version 3.0. 26 January 2018. 2 Table of Contents Identification Images Species Profiles Additional Information Index TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD AND INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 8 IDENTIFICATION IMAGES .......................................................................................... 11 Sharks and Rays ................................................................................................................................... 11 Table: Relative frequency of occurrence and relative size ....................................................................
  • Every Winter, Thousands of Canadian Anglers Flock South to Costa Rica

    Every Winter, Thousands of Canadian Anglers Flock South to Costa Rica

    Every winter, thousands of Canadian anglers flock south to Costa Rica. Associate editor BOB SEXTON Hooked takes on the tough task of finding out why WINTER escApes on 2010 PuraBy BoB Sexton s soon as I set the hook, thigh when it swooped down. As my girl- Alone or sometimes in groups, they’ll I knew something was friend, Norine Williamson, watched in swim up to a school of tuna, mackerel strange. There was ten- muted horror Vidaand clicked a few photos or jack and use their long bills as blud- sion on the line, but for posterity, Lopez grabbed the bird, laid geons, thrashing and bashing their prey whatever was at the it out on the motor and held its beak as I before scooping them up whole into A other end didn’t feel twisted out the hook. The injury was sur- their gaping maws. like any fish I’d ever caught before. The prisingly minor, and when we let the bird There’s also an alluring element of headshakes were light, then heavy, then go, it stood there for a couple of seconds, danger when you target billfish. If a 400- absent, then light again. Since it was my looked at us in what I swear was disgust, pound marlin on the line suddenly turns first time fishing in Costa Rica, however, I squawked loudly and flew off, presum- and jumps at the boat, for example, you’re just figured this was the norm. Then I saw ably none the worse for wear. going to want to get out of the way—or what looked like a gull struggling to take “He was very angry,” Lopez said, and risk becoming a human shish kebab.
  • Two Days in Acapulco Ryan Crutchfield

    Two Days in Acapulco Ryan Crutchfield

    Two Days in Acapulco Ryan Crutchfield Winter 2018 American Currents 20 TWO DAYS IN ACAPULCO Ryan Crutchfield FishMap.org It was early morning when our plane cleared the haze of store we stopped at had whole squid by the package, so we Mexico City for the short jump to Acapulco where a boat grabbed one and hurried to the boat. I had noticed dur- was waiting for us at the docks. Benjamin (Ben) Cantrell ing our drive groups of soldiers from the army and navy and I had just spent a week with a goodeid study group standing every few hundred feet dressed in full battle gear traveling to obscure locales in Morelos, Michoacán, and with automatic weapons (Figure 1). As we passed an ar- Jalisco. Guided by Dr. John Lyons and Dr. Norman Mer- mored personnel carrier I said, “Hey Roberto, what is up cado, and sponsored by the North American Goodeid with all the soldiers?” Roberto waved his hands towards a Working Group, we had sought out native fish species group of soldiers and said, “It is nothing, my friend, it is from locations including mountain lakes at over 10,000 just for show so that the tourists feel safe.” I nodded, but I feet elevation and the shores of Lake Chapala. While the had my doubts. rest of the group spent time netting and electroshocking, We finally reached the Señora Cotorrona (Figure 2), Ben and I spent our time using tiny hooks to catch tiny where Captain Mike and first mate Miguel were waiting to fish. We had decided earlier on that we would round the cast off.
  • Download the Report

    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.
  • Training Manual Series No.15/2018

    Training Manual Series No.15/2018

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CMFRI Digital Repository DBTR-H D Indian Council of Agricultural Research Ministry of Science and Technology Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Department of Biotechnology CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual This is a limited edition of the CMFRI Training Manual provided to participants of the “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals” organized by the Marine Biotechnology Division of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), from 2nd February 2015 - 31st March 2018. Principal Investigator Dr. P. Vijayagopal Compiled & Edited by Dr. P. Vijayagopal Dr. Reynold Peter Assisted by Aditya Prabhakar Swetha Dhamodharan P V ISBN 978-93-82263-24-1 CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Published by Dr A Gopalakrishnan Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (ICAR-CMFRI) Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute PB.No:1603, Ernakulam North P.O, Kochi-682018, India. 2 Foreword Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), Kochi along with CIFE, Mumbai and CIFA, Bhubaneswar within the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Department of Biotechnology of Government of India organized a series of training programs entitled “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals”.
  • Inshore Fish Survey Report 2013

    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……………………………………………………….
  • Notes on Fishes from the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica

    Notes on Fishes from the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica

    Rev. Biol. .• 19( 1. 2): 59-71, 1971 Trop Notes on fishes from the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica by Donald S. Erdman':;' (Received for publication September 13, 1968) From March 1951 through March 1953, I fished for the market in Puno tarenas and collected more than 500 fish specimens and 70 species for the Field Museum of Natural History. This paper concerns information on life histories, migrations, habits and ecology of marine fishes. Of particular interest are notes on blacktip, hammerhead and bonnethead sharks; sawfish, stingrays and mantas; sea catfishes, floating cIingfish, crevalle jack, corbina, sierra and Pacific bonito. Fifty-five fish species are discussed in phylogenetic order, in accordance with BAILEY al. (1). The reader is referred to BUSSING (4) for fresh· et water fishes and BUSSING (5) for marine fish families with sorne vernacular Spanish names. The Gulf of Nicoya is estuarine, with extensive areas of shallow mud bottom. Tidal currents are strong. The difference between high and low tides is 7 feet for neaps and 11 feet for springs. For the purposes of this paper the inner Gulf waters are northwestward of a hypothetical line drawn southwestward from Puntarenas along the north coast of San Lucas Island, where the Gulf narrows, to the coast of Nicoya. Most of these waters are less than 10 fathoms. Fishes characteristic of the inner Gulf were bonnethead sharks, guitarfish, stingrays, eagle rays, ladyfish, anchovies, marine catfishes, toadfish, snooks, groupers, jacks, grunts, corbina and mullets. The outer Gulf south of P�tarenas is open to the ocean and the water is cIearer.