DOCSLIB.ORG

Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION On-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for the Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery 4th Surveillance Audit June 2016 Certificate Code F-ACO-0056 Prepared For: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Prepared By: Acoura Marine Authors: Ian Scott & Julian Addison BH (21/10/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Louisiana Blue Crab 2 Assessment Data Sheet Certified Fishery Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Agency State of Louisiana through the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and the Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Division of Marine Fisheries Species Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Fishing Method Trap Certificate Code F-ACO-0056 Certification Date 9th March 2012 Certification Expiration Date 8th March 2017 Certification Body Acoura Marine Ltd 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ, Scotland, UK Tel: +44(0)131 335 6601 MSC Fisheries Department Email: [email protected] Web: www.Acoura.com Surveillance Stage: 4th Surveillance Audit Surveillance Date: 12-13th May 2016 Page 2 of 60 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Louisiana Blue Crab 3 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 2 General Information ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Certificate Holder details ........................................................................................................................ 5 3 Background .................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Changes in the management system ...................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Changes in relevant regulations ............................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry ..................................................... 6 3.4 Changes to scientific base of information including stock assessments ................................................. 6 3.5 Any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non-certified fish) ............... 8 3.6 TAC and catch data ................................................................................................................................. 8 3.7 Summary of Assessment Conditions ....................................................................................................... 9 4 Assessment Process ..................................................................................................................... 9 th 4.1 Details of 4 Surveillance Audit Process ................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Scope & History of the Assessment ......................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 History ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2.2 Surveillance team details .............................................................................................................. 10 4.2.3 Date & Location of surveillance audit ........................................................................................... 10 4.2.4 Stakeholder consultation & meetings .......................................................................................... 10 4.2.5 What was inspected...................................................................................................................... 10 4.2.6 Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................................................. 10 4.3 Surveillance Standards .......................................................................................................................... 11 4.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used...................................................................... 11 4.3.2 Confirmation that destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions have not been introduced ........................................................................................................................................... 11 5 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 12 5.1 Condition 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 12 5.2 Condition 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 14 5.3 Condition 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 17 5.4 Condition 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 20 5.5 Condition 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 23 5.6 Condition 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 28 5.7 Condition 7 (Draft for consideration if the fishery enters recertification) ............................................. 30 6 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 31 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 31 8 References .................................................................................................................................... 33 9 Appendix 1 – Re-scoring Evaluation tables .............................................................................. 34 10 Appendix 2 – Stakeholder ....................................................................................................... 60 11 Appendix 3- Surveillance audit information .......................................................................... 60 12 Appendix 4 - Additional detail on conditions/ actions ......................................................... 60 13 Appendix 5 - Revised Surveillance Program ......................................................................... 60 Page 3 of 60 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Louisiana Blue Crab 4 FIGURE 1: ESTIMATES OF EXPLOITABLE BIOMASS FROM THE CATCH-SURVEY MODEL FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB RELATIVE TO MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKS ................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 2: ESTIMATES OF FISHING MORTALITY FROM THE CATCH-SURVEY MODEL FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB RELATIVE TO MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKS ........................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3: PHASE DIAGRAM OF ESTIMATES OF EXPLOITABLE BIOMASS AND FISHING MORTALITY FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB. THE YELLOW CIRCLE REPRESENTS THE LAST YEAR OF DATA PAIRS, AND THE YELLOW TRIANGLE REPRESENTS THE BIOMASS ESTIMATE FOR 2015. ................................................................. 7 FIGURE 4: OBSERVED JUVENILE ABUNDANCE FROM THE FISHERY-INDEPENDENT STOCK SURVEY AND ESTIMATED VALUES FROM THE FIT OF THE CATCH-SURVEY MODEL FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB ................ 8 FIGURE 5: COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF BLUE CRAB IN LOUISIANA .................................................................. 9 TABLE 1: TAC AND CATCH DATA ................................................................................................................ 8 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 9 TABLE 3: PRINCIPLE SCORES AT CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................... 10 TH TABLE 4: CLIENT MEETING: MAY 12 2016. BATON ROUGE ...................................................................... 10 TABLE 5: REVISED PRINCIPLE LEVEL SCORES AND INDIVIDUAL PI SCORES ................................................ 32 TABLE 6: PI 1.1.1 REVISED SCORING ....................................................................................................... 35 TABLE 7: PI 1.1.3 REVISED SCORING ....................................................................................................... 38 TABLE 8: PI 1.2.1 REVISED SCORING TABLE ............................................................................................. 41 TABLE 9: PI 1.2.2 REVISED SCORING ....................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 10: PI 2.1.1 REVISED SCORING ..................................................................................................... 48 TABLE 11: PI 2.2.1 RISK BASED ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 49 TABLE
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]
  • 011706 Status Report on the Goliath Grouper
    Status report on the continental United States distinct population segment of the goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) January 2006 National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of all who contributed to the contents of this report. In particular, we wish to recognize Lew Bullock, Felicia Coleman, Chris Koenig, and Rich McBride for reviewing the draft document. The participation and considerable contributions to the contents of the report by Andy Strelcheck and Peter Hood are also greatly appreciated. The team responsible for compiling this report included: Michael Barnette, Stephania Bolden, Jennifer Moore, Clay Porch, Jennifer Schull, and Phil Steele. This document should be cited as: NMFS. 2006. Status report on the continental United States distinct population segment of the goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara). January 12, 2006. 49 pp. Cover: goliath grouper illustration courtesy of Diane Peebles. ii Table of Contents List of Tables.................................................................................................................... iv Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................... vi Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX Table Al. Fishes of the Clear Lake Estuary Table A2
    APPENDIX Table Al. Fishes of the Clear Lake Estuary Table A2. Macroinvertebrates of the Clear Lake Estuary Table A3. Planktonic Organisms of the Clear Lake Estuary 60 Table Al. Fishes of the Clear Lake Estuary (* - Species Known to Inhabit Armand Bayou) Achirus lineatus. Lined Sole * Adinia xenica. Diamond killifish Alosa chrysochloris. Skipjack herring * Anchoa mitchilli. Bay anchovy Archosargus probatocephalus, Sheepshead Arius felis, Hardhead catfish Astroscopus y-graecum, Southern stargazer Bagre marinus, Gafftopsail catfish Bairdiella chrysoura, Silver perch * Brevoortia patronus. Gulf menhaden Chaetodipterus faber. Atlantic spadefish Citharichthys spilopterus, Bay whiff Cynoscion arenarius. Sand seatrout * Cynoscion nebulosus, Spotted seatrout * Cyprinodon variegatus. Sheepshead minnow * Dorosoma cepedianum, Gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense, Threadfin shad Elops saurus, Ladyfish * Fundulus grandis. Gulf killifish Fundulus pulvereus. Bayou killifish Fundulus similis, Longnose killifish * Gambusia affinis, Mosquitofish Gobiesox strumosus, Skilletfish Gobioides broussoneti, Violet goby Gobionellus boleosoma, Darter goby * Gobionellus bosci. Naked goby Gobionellus hastatus, Sharptail goby Gobionellus shufeldti, Freshwater goby * Lagodon rhomboides, Pinfish * Leiostomus xanthurus, Spot Lepisosteus osseus, Longnose gar * Lepisosteus spatula, Alligator gar Lepomis punctatus, Spooted sunfish Lucania parva, Rainwater killifish Menidia beryllina. Inland silverside * Menidia peninsulae, Tidewater silverside * Micropogonias undulatus, Atlantic
    [Show full text]
  • Stomach Content Analysis of Cobia, Rachycentron Canadum, from Lower
    665 Stomach content analysis of cobia, movement of cobia within lower Chesa­ peake Bay during summer, as well as Rachycentron canadum, the return of individual cobia to spe­ from lower Chesapeake Bay* cific locations or general regions of the lower Bay in subsequent summers.1 Al­ though Chesapeake Bay is an impor­ Michael D. Arendt tant destination for migrating cobia, School of Marine Science feeding habits of cobia in the Bay have College of William and Mary never been thoroughly examined. Our Virginia Institute of Marine Science study documents cobia feeding habits Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 in Chesapeake Bay and compares find­ Present address: Marine Resources Research Institute ings with similar cobia studies from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Division North Carolina and the northern Gulf 217 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, South Carolina 29422-2559 of Mexico. E-mail address: [email protected] Methods John E. Olney Department of Fisheries Science Cobia were sampled opportunistically School of Marine Science at marinas and fishing tournaments College of William and Mary in lower Chesapeake Bay between Virginia Institute of Marine science June and July 1997. Intact stomachs Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 were removed by cutting above the car­ diac sphincter (esophagus) and below Jon A. Lucy the pyloric sphincter (large intestine). Stomachs were labeled, bagged, trans­ Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program Virginia Institute of Marine Science ported on ice to the VA Institute of Glooucester Point, Virginia 23062 Marine Science, and examined in rela­ tively fresh condition. An incision was made along the longitudinal axis and the contents of stomachs were emp­ tied onto a 500-µm mesh sieve for rins­ ing and sorting.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series 513:143
    The following supplement accompanies the article Commercial trawling in seagrass beds: bycatch and long-term trends in effort of a major shrimp fishery C. D. Stallings1,2,*, J. P. Brower1,3, J. M. Heinlein Loch1, A. Mickle1 1Florida State University Coastal and Marine Laboratory, 3618 Coastal Highway 98, St. Teresa, Florida 32358-2702, USA 2College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, 140 Seventh Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5016, USA 3Department of Biology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dive, San Diego, California 92182-4614, USA *Corresponding author: [email protected] Marine Ecology Progress Series 513: 143–153 (2014) Supplement. Catch comparison between rollerframe and otter trawls (Table S1), and photographs of potential predators on post-release by-catch from a commercial bait-shrimp trawler (Fig. S1) Table S1. Catch composition from fishery-independent sampling with paired rollerframe (n = 52 tows) and otter trawls (n = 51 tows). Taxa are listed from the most to least abundant captured by rollerframe trawls. The mean (± SE) densities (number catch per 100 m2) of captured animals are provided for Size Classes 1 to 6 Species Common Name Gear No. L1 L 2 L 3 L4 L 5 L 6 caught (1–25 mm) (26–50 mm) (51–75 mm) (76–100 mm) (101–150 mm) (>150 mm) Arthropoda Tozeuma Arrow Shrimp rollerframe 90,146 327.30 (73.22) 0.03 (0.03) – – – – carolinense otter 38,510 137.29 (44.29) – – – – – Farfantepenaeus Pink Shrimp rollerframe 27,124 96.10 (10.71) 2.38 (0.42) 0.02 (0.02) – – – duorarum otter 3,474 11.76 (2.16)
    [Show full text]
  • Click on the Picture to the Left to Access Rookery Bay's Field Guide
    Click on the picture to the left to access Rookery Bay's Field Guide Date Date Date Observed- Observed- Observed- Organism Common Name Genus and species Phylum Subcatergory 9/15/10 10/14/10 10/15/10 Total Moon Jelly Aurelia aurita Cnidaria Anthozoa Upside Down Jelly Fish Cassiopeia xamachana Cnidaria Anthozoa 1 1 Anhinga Anhinga anhinga Chordata Aves 3 3 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Chordata Aves 1 1 2 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcryon Chordata Aves 2 2 Black Vulture Coragyps altratus Chordata Aves 0 Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Chordata Aves 17 10 27 Double Crested Cormorant Phalacrycorax auritus Chordata Aves 2 2 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Chordata Aves 3 3 6 Great Egret Ardea alba Chordata Aves 1 1 Green Heron Butorides virescencs Chordata Aves 0 Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Chordata Aves 4 4 Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens Chordata Aves 0 Osprey Pandion haliateus Chordata Aves 8 6 14 Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja Chordata Aves 1 1 2 Southern Kingfish Mentichirrhus americanus Chordata Aves 0 Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Chordata Aves 0 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Chordata Aves 3 3 White Ibis Eudociums albus Chordata Aves 4 4 Woodstork Mycteria americana Chordata Aves 0 Yellowcrowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea Chordata Aves 0 Smooth Butterfly Ray Gymnra micrura Chordata Chondrichthyes 0 Southern Stingray Dasyatis americana Chordata Chondrichthyes 0 Amphipod Gammarus species Arthropoda Crustacean 87 25 14 126 Arrow Shrimp Tozeuma carolinense Arthropoda Crustacean 0 Blue Crab Callinectus
    [Show full text]
  • Developmental Changes in Escape Response Performance of Five
    AR-365 Reprinted from Reimpressiondu Patternsof life-history diversification in North American fishes:implications for population regulation K. O. WINEMillER AND K. A. ROSE Volume 49 . Number 10 . 1992 Pages2196-2218 FISheries ~hes (~nada and Oceans et Oceans ~ in can.s. byThe ~ ~ LIni8d ~ auC8n8da per The RU"98 Pr8SS ~ Patternsof Life-History Diversification in North American Fishes: Implications for Population Regulation Kirk O. Winemiller1 and Kenneth A. Rose Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036. USA Winemiller, K. 0., and K. A. Rose. 1992. Patternsof life-history diversification in North American fishes: impli- cations for population regulation. Can.). Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 2196-2218. Interspecific patterns of fish life histories were evaluated in relation to several theoretical models of life-history evolution. Data were gathered for 216 North American fish species(57 families) to explore relationships among variables and to ordinate species. Multivariate tests, performed on freshwater, marine, and combined data ma- trices, repeatedly identified a gradient associating later-maturing fishes with higher fecundity, small eggs, and few bouts of reproduction during a short spawning seasonand the opposite suite of traits with small fishes. A second strong gradient indicated positive associationsbetween parental care, egg size, and extended breeding seasons.Phylogeny affected each variable, and some higher taxonomic groupings were associatedwith particular life-history strategies. High-fecundity characteristics tended to be associated with large species ranges in the marine environment. Age at maturation, adult growth rate, life span, and egg size positively correlated with anadromy. Parental care was inversely correlated with median latitude. A trilateral continuum basedon essential trade-offs among three demographic variables predicts many of the correlations among life-history traits.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Catfishes, Family Ariidae Hardhead Catfish, Ariopsis Felis (Linnaeus, 1758) Gafftopsail Catfish, Bagre Marinus (Mitchell, 1815)
    Sea catfishes, Family Ariidae Hardhead Catfish, Ariopsis felis (Linnaeus, 1758) Gafftopsail Catfish, Bagre marinus (Mitchell, 1815) Life History Two species of sea catfishes occur in Florida waters: the Hardhead Catfish, Ariopsis felis, and the Gafftopsail Catfish, Bagre marinus. Both species inhabit estuarine and nearshore waters throughout Florida. According to reports, the Gafftopsail Catfish also occurs in freshwater. Although not favored by anglers as sport or food fishes, anglers easily catch sea catfishes because the fish are broadly distributed and opportunistic feeders. Adult hardhead and Gafftopsail Catfish will move out of estuarine waters to nearshore coastal waters to avoid water temperatures below 25 ºC. A length of about 4.7" standard length (SL) is apparently reached by age 1. Past studies have reported that Hardhead Catfish reach a maximum age of 5–8 years (Doermann et al. 1977), and females mature to spawn at about 2 years of age and 4.7”–7.9" SL. The smallest mature Gafftopsail Catfish reported in the literature was 10.4" SL. However, unvalidated evidence indicates that maximum age for both species may be as old as 25 years and maturity is not reached by either species until age 5 (FWC-FWRI, unpublished data). Hardhead Catfish spawn from May to August in back bays; Gafftopsail Catfish spawn during May–August over inshore mudflats. Males of both species exhibit oral gestation behavior, carrying the fertilized eggs, larvae, and small juveniles in their mouths (Muncy and Wingo 1983). The similar diets of gafftopsail and Hardhead Catfish include algae, seagrasses, coelenterates, holothuroidians, gastropods, polychaetes, crustaceans, and fishes (Merriman 1940).
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Potential Adverse Health Effects Associated with Consuming Fish from The
    Characterization of Potential Adverse Health Effects Associated with Consuming Fish from the Lavaca-Matagorda Bay Estuary 2013 Department of State Health Services Division for Regulatory Services Policy, Standards, and Quality Assurance Unit Seafood and Aquatic Life Group Austin, Texas 1 INTRODUCTION This document summarizes the results of a survey of the Lavaca-Matagorda Bay Estuary conducted in the summer of 2012 by the Texas Department of State Health Service (DSHS) Seafood and Aquatic Life Group (SALG). The Texas Environmental Health Institute1 (TEHI) provided project financial support. Over 1.1 million people participate in saltwater fishing activities in Texas annually.2 Recreational saltwater fishing in Texas represents a $1.8 billion per year industry. In 1988, the Texas Department of Health (TDH), now the DSHS, issued Aquatic Life Order Number 1 (AL-1).3 AL-1 prohibited the taking of finfish and crabs from a delineated area of Lavaca and Cox Bays due to mercury contamination. Mercury contamination in Lavaca Bay is attributed to wastewater discharge from a chloralkali plant that the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) Point Comfort Operation in Calhoun County, Texas, operated from 1965 to 1979. During 1999, additional fish and blue crab tissue monitoring in Cox Bay indicated that mercury concentrations decreased to acceptable levels. In 2000, TDH issued Aquatic Life Order Number 13 (AL-13; Figure 1).4 AL-13 modified the prohibited area defined in AL-1 to exclude Cox Bay. Since the follow-up monitoring of Cox Bay in 1999, the DSHS has not conducted any seafood contaminant monitoring in the Lavaca-Matagorda Bay Estuary.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Fishes and Larger Invertebrat of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, A.4 Estuarine Community
    [Reprinted from INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, Vol. V, December, 1958] Food Habits of Fishes and Larger Invertebrat of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, a.4 Estuarine Community REZNEAT M. DARNELL Department of Biology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Contents Introduction 353 Acknowledgments 355 Methods 355 General Description of Lake Pontchartrain 356 Trophic Relations of Fishes and Invertebrates - - - - - - - - - 358 Fishes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 358 Invertebrates - - - - - - 406 Discussion 411 Summary 412 Literature Cited - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -413 Introduction During recent years the study of quantitative aspects of community metabolism has occupied the attention of increasing numbers of aquatic ecologists. As pointed out by Lindeman (1942), Ivlev (1945), Macfadyen (1948), Teal (1957) and others, rates of turnover in community metabolism are more satisfactorily expressed in terms of energy than in terms of biomass. Accordingly, a number of important studies have recently appeared dealing with quantitative aspects of the energy transfer associated with pri- mary production in aquatic communities. Studies of the energetics involved in second- ary production within restricted communities (Teal, 1957) also have provided valuable information. However, few attempts have been made to quantify the energy relations involved in secondary production in more complex aquatic communities, and
    [Show full text]
  • Life History Characteristics of Alligator Gar, Atractosteus Spatual, in The
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2009 Life history characteristics of alligator gar, Atractosteus spatual, in the Bayou DuLarge area of southcentral Louisiana Kayla Cheree DiBenedetto Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation DiBenedetto, Kayla Cheree, "Life history characteristics of alligator gar, Atractosteus spatual, in the Bayou DuLarge area of southcentral Louisiana" (2009). LSU Master's Theses. 1304. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/1304 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]. LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF ALLIGATOR GAR ATRACTOSTEUS SPATULA IN THE BAYOU DULARGE AREA OF SOUTHCENTRAL LOUISIANA 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 Master of Science in The School of Renewable Natural Resources by Kayla C. DiBenedetto B.S., Louisiana State University, 2006 December 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. William E. Kelso for the continuous support throughout my extended educational career at Louisiana State University. Dr. Kelso steered me into the fisheries graduate program and has helped shape my lifelong career goals. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Catfish? I Was Too Busy Looking for Food and Got Myself Family Reunions
    Texas Wildlife Association presents.... December 2013 Kid’s Quarterly Mini-Mag! Vol. 7 No. 4 Postcards from Nancy....By Cara Bierschwale Howdy, Friends! Do you know what I enjoy doing just as much as exploring He said, “Excuse me, young ‘dillos, but could you help out the outdoors? I love hanging out with my family at our Nineband an old catfish? I was too busy looking for food and got myself Family Reunions. Once a year, we all travel from our homes stuck in this muddy hole. I just need a little push back into the in different parts of Texas and spend a long weekend at a fun deeper water before this puddle dries up.” and relaxing place. This year, we met up at Lake Corpus Christi My cousin Nate laughed and replied, “Sure we can help State Park and had grasshopper roasts, mud baths, and digging you, Mr. Catfish, but do you always dine in the mud? That’s contests. My playful cousins, Nate and Neil O’Dillo, were so sure gross. And why are you called CAT-fish? Do you purr?” that one of them would win the contests that they had blue The catfish chuckled and his long ‘whiskers’ quivered. “Why ribbons made before they even arrived. yes, I tend to find my food near the bottom of the lake. I use Many parts of Texas have these barbels to touch the mud and taste experienced continued drought Photo by Paul Budd the water for tasty morsels of fish. I guess conditions over the past years, (Wikimedia) I was too focused to realize how close to but Lake Corpus Christi remains a shore I was.
    [Show full text]