DOCSLIB.ORG

Reproductive Biology of Blue Runner (Caranx Crysos) from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico James M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reproductive Biology of Blue Runner (Caranx Crysos) from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico James M Northeast Gulf Science Volume 7 Article 2 Number 2 Number 2 3-1985 Reproductive Biology of Blue Runner (Caranx crysos) from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico James M. Goodwin IV John H. Finucane National Marine Fisheries Service DOI: 10.18785/negs.0702.02 Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/goms Recommended Citation Goodwin, J. M. IV and J. H. Finucane. 1985. Reproductive Biology of Blue Runner (Caranx crysos) from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Science 7 (2). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol7/iss2/2 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]. Goodwin and Finucane: Reproductive Biology of Blue Runner (Caranx crysos) from the East Northeast Gulf Science Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 139·146 March 1985 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OF BLUE RUNNER (Caranx crysos) FROM THE EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO James M. Goodwin, IV 8112 South Lagoon Drive, Panama City, FL 32047 and John H. Finucane Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Panama City Laboratory 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32407-7499 ABSTRACT: Blue runner were obtained from commercial fisheries in south Florida, northwest Florida, and the Mississippi Delta. Monthly mean gonadosomatic indices indicated that peak spawning occurred in June, July, and August for all areas with a secondary peak in October for northwest Florida. The spawning season was confirmed for the south Florida collection by histological examination of gonads. Probit analysis of 185 northwest Florida blue runner captured during peak spawning months indicated a length-at-maturity of 267 mm. Fecundity varied from 41,000 ova in a 243·mm·FL, 288-gram fish to 1,546,000 ova in a 385·mm· FL, 1,076-gram fish. Sex ratios were 1.15F:1M for Mississippi Delta, 1.66F:1M for northwest Florida and 1.91 F:1 M for south Florida. The blue runner, Caranx crysos, is a Seasonal occurrence of young blue coastal pelagic species of the western runner in collections made by various north Atlantic, ranging from Nova Scotia researchers has provided a basis of to Brazil (McKenney et at., 1958). It is estimating spawning cycles. Berry (1959) abundant along the southeast coast of noted from larval sizes that spawning the United States, through the West extended from early April to early Indies faunal region and, seasonally, the September off the southeastern Atlantic northeast Gulf of Mexico (Berry, 1959; coast of the United States. Juveniles Ginsburg, 1952). Blue runner are present (<100 mm SL) were found by Dooley in Bermuda water but are less abundant (1972) in peak abundance during June there than elsewhere (Nichols, 1939). and July off southeast Florida where Blue runner occur singly or in they have a close affinity with the schools and are captured by sport and sargassum community and the Gulf commercial fishermen for bait, food, Steam. McKenney eta/. (1958) and Fahay and sport. About 307 t of blue runner (1975) stated that spawning occurred were taken commercially off the west year-round; however 75% of the post­ coast of Florida during 1978 larvae collected by McKenney et a/. (Anonymous, 1981). More recently large (1958) were taken from April through numbers of fish are now being caught August. Montolio (1976) noted two together with red drum, Sciaenops separate spawning peaks based on his ace/latus, by purse seiners off the larval collections from the south-central Mississippi Delta (Overstreet, 1983). Blue Gulf of Mexico, one in April-May, and the runner are also taken by charter boats off other in August-September. A summary the Atlantic and gulf coasts and by pier of the reproductive biology of blue and jetty anglers. runner is also given by Johnson (1978). Published by The Aquila Digital Community, 1984 139 1 Gulf of Mexico Science, Vol. 7 [1984], No. 2, Art. 2 140 J.M. Goodwin, IV and J.H. Finucane Other aspects of the biology of blue fixative for storage. Later gonads were runner are less well known. Munro (1974) weighed to the nearest 0.1 g for calcula­ provided a length-weight equation of W tion of gonadosomatic index (GSI) 3 302 = .0065 TL · , where W = weight in g according to the formula: gonad and TL = total length in mm, and weight/whole body weight x 100. The estimates of 620 mm TL for maximum spawning season for each area was length and 5,400 g for maximum weight inferred by examining the mean GSI from the Caribbean Sea. Berry (1979) according to month of capture. Blue noted a maximum record fork length (FL) runner taken only from south Florida of 711 mm and an estimated maximum from April 1980 through April1981 were weight of 2,724 g and he estimated used to verify the spawning season by length-at-maturity occurred at 225-250 histological examination of gonadal mm SL. Reintjes (1959) stated that no tissue. Five to ten gonads from each data were available on age-size relation­ month were selected. Tissue samples ship, growth rates, age-at-first spawning, were randomly taken from each gonad, life expectancy, mortality rates, and sex then dehydrated, embedded in paraplast ratios. The purpose of this investigation and sectioned at 7-10 1-1· All samples were was to expand further our knowledge of stained with a modification of Mallory's blue runner reproductive biology by triple stain. Two-hundred ova from each determining spawning season, fecundity, ovarian section were classified as length-at-maturity, and sex ratios from follows: stage I, immature/resting; stage the eastern Gulf of Mexico. II, maturing; stage Ill, mature; stage IV, ripe; stage V, spent. These ova stages METHODS were similar to those reported by Bag lin (1982) for his whole ovarian development. We examined gonads from 1179 Sex ratios were determined for each of blue runner (447 males and 732 females the three study areas and were examined that were obtained during 1980 and for deviation from the expected ratio of 1981 from three geographic areas. Fish 1:1 by chi-square analyses (Snedecor and from northwest Florida were purchased Cochran, 1967). fresh from local fish houses. Mississippi Length-at-maturity was estimated Delta fish were taken by stratified by probit analysis from the lengths of 185 sub-sampling techniques of Ketchen northwest Florida female blue runner (1950) from drum seine catches made taken from May to August. Sub-samples in Louisiana coastal waters west of ovarian tissue from each fish were of the Mississippi River. These fish placed in watch glasses, teased apart, had been held on ice for 2-5 days and the ova examined at SOX magnifica­ prior to landing. Blue runner from south tion for their state of maturation. Florida were obtained fresh from Classification of individuals as mature or commercial fishermen from Marathon, immature was made on the basis of the Florida, and were then frozen for presence or absence of vitellogenic ova shipment to Panama City, Florida. All greater than 200 1-1 in diameter. Fish were fish were weighed for total body weight grouped into 10-mm FL intervals, and the to the nearest g and measured for fork percentage of mature individuals was length to the nearest mm. determined for each interval. Percen­ Gonads were preserved initially in tages were converted to probits and 10% Formalin and then placed in Bouin's plotted against fork length by the https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol7/iss2/2 2 DOI: 10.18785/negs.0702.02 Goodwin and Finucane: Reproductive Biology of Blue Runner (Caranx crysos) from the East Reproductive biology of blue runner 141 4.0 methods of Natrella (1973) to determine MISSISSIPPI 3.5 DELTA the size at which 50% of individuals may 3.0 No 325 be expected to become mature. Vi 2.5 Maturing or mature ovaries of 25 (!) z 2.0 blue runner taken from all three study < ~ 1.5 areas during peak spawning months 1.0 were used to estimate fecundity. Fish 0.5 were selected from several fork length intervals to allow correlation of fecundity OL-~~F-7.M~A~M~~J-7J~A~~~~~ MONTH with length. Three wedge-shaped 4D 4D MALE samples of ovarian tissue extending 0----0 FEMALE from the outer tunic to the central lumen 3.0 and weighing approximately 0.1 g each SOUTH - 2.5 FLORIDA were removed from each gonad at sites VI (!) 2.0 No 399 selected according to a random numbers ~ 1.5 table. The samples were weighed to the ~ nearest 0.01 g, teased apart, and counts 1.0 made of total number of ova exceeding 200 11 in diameter. Data from the three samples were combined and used to 3.0 estimate fecundity by the formula: F = NORTHWEST Vi 2.5 FLORIDA NxW/w, where F is fecundity, N is the (!) 2.0 No455 combined ovum count from the three z ;:l ].5 samples, W is the total gonad weight, ~ and w is the combined weight of the 1.0 three samples. This technique for deter­ 0.5 mining fecundity was similar to that O JFMAMJJASOND used by Finucane and Collins (1984). MONTH Figure 1. Seasonal variation in mean gonadoso­ matic index for male and female blue runner RESULTS collected from three study areas during 1980 and 1981. Monthly mean GSis for males and only from May through October from the females from the Mississippi Delta and Mississippi Delta and from April through south Florida indicated that June, October in northwest Florida.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tropical Fish Poisoning
    CIGUATERA: TROPICAL FISH POISONING Marine Biological I • •' iw« L I B R >*• ** Y JUL 3 -1350 WOODS HOLE, MASS. SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT: FISHERIES No. 27 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE I Explanatory Note The series embodies results of investigations, usually of restricted scope 9 intended to aid or direct management or utilization practices and as guides for administrative or legislative action.. It is issued in limited quantities for the official use of Federal , State or cooperating agencies and in processed form for economy and to avoid delay in publication.. Washington^, D. Co May 1950 United States Department of the Interior Oscar Lo Chapman, Secretary Fish and Wildlife Service Albert M. Day, Director Special Scientific Report - Fisheries No, 27 CIGUATERA; TROPICAL FISH POISONING By William Arcisz, Bacteriologist, Formerly with the Fishery Research Laboratory Branch of Commercial Fisheries Mayaguez, Puerto Rico . CONTENTS Page Part I o Historical Background ...,...,..„„,. ...„.„.„„..,.„ 1 Introduction ...".......„......„........................... 1 Origin of the Term "Ciguatera" ............................ \ of . Species Fish Involved ..,<,. , . .. .. o. .. 1 Localities in which Fish Poisoning is Prevalento........... 3 Symptoms of Ciguatera ...... 00.0...... ............ ......... I4 Outbreaks of Poisoning .0. ................... ............ 5 ' Theories Regarding Fish Poisoning . ....... 7 Endogenuous Origin ... .. ....... / Bacterial Origin ..................................... Seasonal
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Snapper Grouper Amendment 27 PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT
    Snapper Grouper Amendment 27 PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT JANUARY 2013 Purpose for Action Background The purpose of Amendment 27 is threefold: (1) to establish the South Atlantic Council as the responsible entity for managing Nassau grouper throughout its What Actions Are Being range including federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico; (2) modify the crew member limit on Proposed? dual-permitted snapper grouper vessels; (3) Amendment 27 to the Fishery modify the current restriction on crew Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper retention of bag limit quantities of snapper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region grouper species; (4) minimize regulatory (Amendment 27) would: Extend the South delay when adjustments to snapper grouper Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s species’ ABC, ACLs, and ACTs are needed (South Atlantic Council) management as a result of new stock assessments; and authority of Nassau grouper to include (5) address harvest of blue runner by commercial fishermen who do not possess a federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico; South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Permit. increase the number of crew members allowed on dual-permitted snapper grouper Need for Action vessels (vessels that have both a federal South Atlantic Charter/Headboat Permit for The need of Amendment 27 is to Snapper Grouper and a South Atlantic respond to the Gulf of Mexico Council’s Unlimited or 225 pound Snapper Grouper request for the South Atlantic Council to Permit); address the issues of captain and assume management of Nassau grouper in crew retention of bag limit quantities
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
    APPENDIX L ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (PHYSICAL HABITAT) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR NAVIGATION (DEEPENING) STUDY DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT JACKSONVILLE HARBOR NAVIGATION STUDY DUVAL COUNTY, FL Final Report January 2011 Prepared for: Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prudential Office Bldg 701 San Marco Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32207 Prepared by: Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. 490 Osceola Avenue Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. III LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATION ................................................................. 6 2.1 Assessment ........................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Managed Species .................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1 Penaeid Shrimp .................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1.1 Life Histories ............................................................................................... 9 2.2.1.1.1 Brown Shrimp ......................................................................................
    [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]
  • South Atlantic Snapper Grouper SAFE Report, Oct 2012
    South Atlantic Snapper Grouper SAFE REPORT October 12, 2012 1 DRAFT 1. Snapper Grouper Management Unit ........................................................................................ 1 2. Fisheries Overview .................................................................................................................. 5 3. Management Overview ............................................................................................................ 7 3.1. Management History ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2. Current Objectives ............................................................................................................ 9 3.3. Fishing years .................................................................................................................... 9 3.4. Management Specifications ............................................................................................. 9 3.5. Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 23 3.6. Management Program Evaluation .................................................................................. 24 4. Stock Status ........................................................................................................................... 30 4.1. Status of the Stocks ........................................................................................................ 30 4.2. Assessments ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Artificial Light on the Community Structure and Distribution of Reef-Associated Fishes at Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico" (2016)
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2016 The ffecE t of Artificial Light on the Community Structure and Distribution of Reef-Associated Fishes at Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Victoria Anne Barker Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons Recommended Citation Barker, Victoria Anne, "The Effect of Artificial Light on the Community Structure and Distribution of Reef-Associated Fishes at Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico" (2016). LSU Master's Theses. 3620. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3620 This Thesis 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 Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT ON THE COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF REEF-ASSOCIATED FISHES AT OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS IN THE NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in The College of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences by Victoria A Barker B.S., University of South Carolina, 2013 May 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my academic advisor, Dr. James H. Cowan, Jr., for this incredible opportunity to work and study at LSU.
    [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]
  • Fish Identification Guide Depicts More Than 50 Species of Fish Commonly Encoun- Make the Proper Identification of Every Fish Caught
    he identification of different spe- Most species of fish are distinctive in appear- ance and relatively easy to identify. However, cies of fish has become an im- closely related species, such as members of the portant concern for recreational same “family” of fish, can present problems. For these species it is important to look for certain fishermen. The proliferation of T distinctive characteristics to make a positive regulations relating to minimum identification. sizes and possession limits compels fishermen to The ensuing fish identification guide depicts more than 50 species of fish commonly encoun- make the proper identification of every fish caught. tered in Virginia waters. In addition to color illustrations of each species, the description of each species lists the distinctive characteristics which enable a positive identification. Total Length FIRST DORSAL FIN Fork Length SECOND NUCHAL DORSAL FIN BAND SQUARE TAIL NARES FORKED TAIL GILL COVER (Operculum) CAUDAL LATRAL PEDUNCLE CHIN BARBELS LINE PECTORAL CAUDAL FIN ANAL FINS FIN PELVIC FINS GILL RAKERS GILL ARCH UNDERSIDE OF GILL COVER GILL RAKER GILL FILAMENTS GILL FILAMENTS DEFINITIONS Anal Fin – The fin on the bottom of fish located between GILL ARCHES 1st the anal vent (hole) and the tail. 2nd 3rd Barbels – Slender strands extending from the chins of 4th some fish (often appearing similar to whiskers) which per- form a sensory function. Caudal Fin – The tail fin of fish. Nuchal Band – A dark band extending from behind or Caudal Peduncle – The narrow portion of a fish’s body near the eye of a fish across the back of the neck toward immediately in front of the tail.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Miami US Department of Commerce Miami-Dade County
    Fisheries assessment of Biscayne Bay 1983 Item Type monograph Authors Berkeley, Steven A. Publisher NOAA/National Ocean Service Download date 01/10/2021 13:52:32 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/30510 NOAA/University of Miami Joint Publication NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS CCMA 166 University of Miami RSMAS TR 2004-01 Coastal and Estuarine Data Archaeology and Rescue Program University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science February 2004 Miami, FL US Department of Commerce Miami-Dade County National Oceanic and Atmospheric Department of Environmental Administration Resources Management Silver Spring, MD Miami, FL a NOAA/University of Miami Joint Publication NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS CCMA 166 University of Miami RSMAS TR TR 2004-01 Fisheries Assessment of Biscayne Bay 1983 Steven A. Berkeley Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami Prepared for: Metropolitan Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management A. Y. Cantillo NOAA National Ocean Service (Editor, 2004) February 2004 United States National Oceanic and Department of Commerce Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service Donald L. Evans Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. Jamison S. Hawkins Secretary Vice-Admiral (Ret.), Acting Assistant Administrator Administrator For further information please call or write: NOAA National Ocean Service National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 1305 East West Hwy. Silver Spring, MD 20910 301 713 3020 COVER PHOTO: Pat Cope (Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science) interviewing a fisherman on the causeway leading to Miami Beach during the fisheries assessment. Photograph taken by Stephen Carney while at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.
    [Show full text]
  • Growing MARINE BAITFISH a Guide to Florida’S Common Marine Baitfish and Their Potential for Aquaculture
    growing MARINE BAITFISH A guide to Florida’s common marine baitfish and their potential for aquaculture This publication was supported by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under NOAA Grant No. NA10 OAR-4170079. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. Florida Sea Grant University of Florida || PO Box 110409 || Gainesville, FL, 32611-0409 (352)392-2801 || www. flseagrant.org Cover photo by Robert McCall, Ecodives, Key West, Fla. growing MARINE BAITFISH A guide to Florida’s common marine baitfish and their potential for aquaculture CORTNEY L. OHS R. LEROY CRESWEll MATTHEW A. DImaGGIO University of Florida/IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center 2199 South Rock Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34945 SGEB 69 February 2013 CONTENTS 2 Croaker Micropogonias undulatus 3 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 5 Killifish Fundulus grandis 7 Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 9 Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus 10 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 12 Ballyhoo Hemiramphus brasiliensis 13 Mojarra Eugerres plumieri 14 Blue Runner Caranx crysos 15 Round Scad Decapterus punctatus 16 Goggle-Eye Selar crumenophthalmus 18 Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 19 Scaled Sardine Harengula jaguana 20 Atlantic Threadfin Opisthonema oglinum 21 Spanish Sardine Sardinella aurita 22 Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 23 Sand Perch Diplectrum formosum 24 Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 25 References 29 Example of Marine Baitfish Culture: Pinfish ABOUT Florida’s recreational fishery has a $7.5 billion annual economic impact—the highest in the United States. In 2006 Florida’s recreational saltwater fishery alone had an economic impact of $5.2 billion and was responsible for 51,500 jobs.
    [Show full text]