Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks Marine & Environmental Sciences Faculty Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences Proceedings, Presentations, Speeches, Lectures

2004 Presence of Juvenile Blackfin nS apper, buccanella, and Snowy , Epinephelus niveatus, on Shallow-water Artificial Reefs Paul T. Arena Nova Southeastern University, [email protected]

Patrick Quinn Broward County Environmental Protection Department

Lance K. B. Jordan Nova Southeastern University

Robin L. Sherman Nova Southeastern University

Fleur M. Harttung Nova Southeastern University

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facpresentations Part of the Marine Biology Commons, and the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons

NSUWorks Citation Arena, Paul T.; Quinn, Patrick; Jordan, Lance K. B.; Sherman, Robin L.; Harttung, Fleur M.; and Spieler, Richard E., "Presence of Juvenile Blackfin nS apper, Lutjanus buccanella, and Snowy Grouper, Epinephelus niveatus, on Shallow-water Artificial Reefs" (2004). Marine & Environmental Sciences Faculty Proceedings, Presentations, Speeches, Lectures. 64. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facpresentations/64

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marine & Environmental Sciences Faculty Proceedings, Presentations, Speeches, Lectures by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Paul T. Arena, Patrick Quinn, Lance K. B. Jordan, Robin L. Sherman, Fleur M. Harttung, and Richard E. Spieler

This article is available at NSUWorks: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facpresentations/64 Presence of Juvenile B1acIdin Snapper, Lutjanus buccanella, and Snowy Grouper, Epinephelus niveatus, on SbaDow-water Artificial Reefs

PAUL T. ARENA"", T. PATRICK QUINN', LANCE K.B. JORDAN"', ROBINL. sHERMAN", FlEURM. HARTTUNG', and RICHARD E. SPIELER'" J Oceanographic Center (NSUOC) 'National Coral ReefInstitute (NCRI) 'Guy Harvey Research Institute (GHRI) , Farquhar College of Arts and Sciences Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333/4 USA

ABSTRACT The inshore environment of Broward County, Florida consists of three reef tracts, each separated by sand substrate, running parallel to the coastline in sequentially deeper water. A wide variety of artificial reef designs have been deployed in Broward County, many lying in sand Bats between the reeftracts. From 1995 through 2002, over 1, I 00 visual fish censuses (predominantly point-counts) were completed on the three natural reef tracts in water depths from 3 m to 30 m and over 1,100 censuses were done on artificial reefs at depths of 7 m to 23 m. Curiously, the juvenile stages of two deeper-water of the snapper/grouper complex, the blackfin snapper (Lutjanus huecanella) and the snowy grouper (£pinephelus niveatus), appear to prefer artificial reefs located in the sand flat separating the second and third reeftracts to oeaJby natural reefareas. Five hundred and forty blackfin snapper have been recorded in 64 visual censuses and nine snowy grouper have been observed in seven counts on artificial reefs. Despite the large volume ofvisuaJ census data collected thus far, these two species have never been recorded on nearby natural reef tracts. The reasons for this unanticipated observation is unclear but it provides an excellent launch-point for an examination ofjuvenile habitat requirements, natural availability of these requirements, and the potential for artificial substrate to be used in managing these species

KEY WORDS: Artificial reefs, blackfin snapper, snowy grouper

Presencia de Juveniles del Cbillo Oreja Negra (Lutjanus buccannella) y Mero (Ep/nephelus niveatus) en Arrecifes Artificiales Someros del Sureste de Florida (Eua)

Entre 1995 - 2002, 1100 conteos de peres fueron nevados a cabo en arrecifes natural (3 -30 m de profundidad) en el condado de Broward, Florida. As! mismo, 1100 conteos de pecos tambien fueron realizados en varios arrecifes artificiales (7 - 2S m de profundidad) en la misma area. A pesar de las numerosas observaciones, buccanel/a. y mero, Epinephelus niveaJus, se han registrado solamente en los arrecifes artificiales del area. Estos y parecen preferir babitllls artificiales a los arrecifes naturales mas proximos. La raz6n de esta preferencia a aun se desconoce pero puede ser debido a la competencia por recursos a Ia disponibilidad a1imento entre los arrecifes naturales y artificiales.

PALABRAS CLAVES: Arrecifes artificiales, chillo o~anegra, mem,

INTRODUCTION The blacldin snapper(),Lutjanus buccanella, and the snowy grouper (Serranidae), Epinephelus niveatus, are economically important deepwater species along the Atlantic coast in the southeast U.S. (parlrer and Ross 1986, Parlrer and Mays 1998). The high demand for these fish combined with natunilly slow growth rates make them extremely susceptible to overfishing. Fisheries data bave shown a steady decline in catch for both species since the early 1980., and the snowy grouper bas recently been listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natura! Resources (IUCN) (Matheson and Hmrtsman 1984, Moore and Labisky 1984, Park"" and Mays 1998). Commercially important deepwater fish species are the least studied ofali fish supporting a major fishery (Parker and Mays 1998). To properly assess the habitat characteristics aod fish assemblages below a depth of 45 m, costly specialized equipment is needed. The costs associated with this type of research continue to limitthe infonnationavailable on deepwater species (Matheson and Huntsman 1984, Moore and Labisky 1984, Parker and Ross 1986, Park"" and Mays 1998). Maoy juvenile fish species display ontogenetic habitat shifts with growth, maturing and then migrating to deeper waters (IflXon 1991, Perrson et aI. 1997, Lindeman 1999, NageJkerken 2000, Wilbur 2000). However, little is known about juvenile habitat requirements of many commercially important fish species and possible ontogenetic variations in habitat prefe

METI-lODS The inshore environment of Broward County, Florida consists of three reef tracts (inshore, middle, and oftSbore), each sepallIIed by sandy 511_, nmning parallel to the coastline in sequenUaIIy deeper water (Lighty et aI. 2(01). A wide variety of artificial reef designs have been deployed in Broward County and many lie on the sand flats between reeflIaCls. Doring an eight·year period (1995 to 2002) over 1,100 visual cen5',ses were completed on the three natural reef tracts at water depths from 3 m through 30 m, and well over 1,100 cotmU on artificial reefs at depths of7 m through 23 m. The data from these censuses are available elsewhere. PortiODSofthese data have been published in various scientific journals (Gilliam et aI. 1995, Shennan et aI. 1999, Shennan et aI. 200Ia,b), gray literature (Spieler 1995a,b, Spieler 1998a,b,c, Spieler 2000), theses and dissertations (Gilliam 1999, Shennan 2000, Jordan 2002), or is archived (Spieler 2002), in manuscript (Baron and Spieler in prep.), or in some combination of the preceding The census ofnatural bardbottom consisted oftwo studies. Between 1998 and 2002,751 point-wmrts (Bobnsack and Bannerot 1986) were completed (Ettinger et aI. 2001, Spieler 2(02). The cotmU were taken at the edges and crests of all three reef tracts at 0.463 km (0.25 nautical mile) intervals along the entire Broward County sboreline (35.2 km). The comrts were completed throughout the year but predominately during summer months. Also, from June to August 2001, 200 30x2xl m beh transects, lOOpoint-counts, and 98 rover diver comrts were made in the fir.rt 30 m of the nearsbore hardbottom ofBroward County (Baron and Spieler in prep.). The artificial reef censuses consisted of five studies from Broward County, Florida. From April 1995 to October 1996 a tota1 of 584 fish surveys were completed on 40 small artificial reefs, Gi\liam-Spieler modules (aka fish-wodo modules), in 7mofwater(GiUiam 1999). Between March 1995 and October 1996 a tota1 of 144 fish comrts on 20 Reefballl modules were performed at depthsof7 m and 23 m (Shennan et at 1999~ From October 1998 to September 2000 a total of 528 fish counts were also completed in the same sbaI10w inshore area (7 m) of Broward CountyusingvariollS spa1iaIammgements of30 Gilliam-Spielermodu1es (Jordan 2(02). An additional study, whicb began in Apri1 2002, bas thus far completed 120 fish comrts on Reetballs in 13 m of water (Quinn, unpubl. data). These four studies documented fish species,totalnumberofindividua1sperspecies, and estimated total fish length (11.) into five sizecJasses (0 - 2,2 - 5, 5 - 10, 10 - 20, > 20 em T1.). Lastly, an ongoing study censussing the fish assemblages on seven shipwreeks off Broward County bas completed 182 visual point-wmrts over 19 months (Arena unpubl data} Data were coUeeted from March 2000 to March 2001 and from March 2002 to September 2002. Six ships were censussed four times during the year, two ships each month and four monthly surveys have been completed on the seventh vessel, whicb was deployed in April 2002. Total abundance, as well as mean, minimum, and maximwn size of each species was recorded at each shipwreck site. 55'" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Instilule "-703

RESULTS Curiously,juvenile stages oftwo deepwater species, the I>lackfm snapper and snowy grouper, appear to prefer artificial reefs located in sand flats separating the reef tracts to nearby natural reef areas. A total of 586 juvenile blackfin snapper individuals (556 on sunken vessels, 30 on sntall concrete artificial reef modules) have been recorded in 86 visual censuses and a total ofeight juvenile snowy grouper has been recorded in seven counts(Table I). Although these are notoverwbehningnumbers, especially for snowy grouper, no individuals of either species have been recorded in fish cowrts on nearby natural reefs. The majority of blacldin snapper juveniles (95 %) have been recorded on sunken vessels. Snowy grouper juveniles are more evenly dispersed between artificial reef types, but have been seen more often on the sntall concrete modules (three on sunken vessels and five on small concrete modules).

Table 1. The abundance and size class of snowy grouper. RB = Reelball SV = Sunken Vessel Date (mo/yrj Reef Type N SIze e .... (em, 7/1995 RB 1 5-10 9/1995 RB 2 5-10 1111995 RB 1 2-5 811996 RB 2-5 1012000 'iN 1 10-20 112001 'iN 1 10-20 5/2002 'iN 1()..20

Bladdin S.... pper The minimum size class observed forblackfin soapperonconcrete modules was 2-5 em. The smallest fish observed on a ship was a 4 em individual, found on a newly deployed vessel. Themaximumsizeol>served for I>Iackfin snapperwas40cm, this was not typical and was observed for only one fish on a sunken vessel. The mean size ofblackfin snapper observed on ships was 19 em. The largest size class observed on the smaller artificial reefmodules was >20= The highest abundance ofblackfin snapper on ships was found fiom September to December 2000 (Figure 1). From January to Marcb2001 the largestmcan sizesofblackfinsnapperon ships were recorded (Figure 2)_ Ninety percent of all individuals on ships were between 15 em and 30 em and of these fish 60 % were from 15 - 20 em. The most common size class for the smaller artificial reefs was 5 - 10 em. Arena, P.T. at aI. GCFI:55 (2OCM)

Figure 1. Blacldin snapper monthly abundance on a pair of ships. Bar shades indicate one of three specific pail$ of ships. which ..... censused .--ate

25

23

~ 21 .~

." " , , c.

Figure 2. Biacldin snapper monthly mean size (+1- 1 SEM) on a pair of ships. Bar shades indicate one of three specific pairs of ships. which -.. censused repeatedly. The oblique line aftar Mar. 2001 indicates a gap in dala ooIIection "-105

Snowy Grouper 1be minimum size recorded for snowy grouper was 10 em on a suuken vessel and the 2 - 5 em size class on the Reefballs. The maximwn size obsecved ""'" 12 em on a sunken vessel and the 5 - 10 em sizeclass forthe ReefbaIIs. The 1argestnumber ofindividuals seen in any one countwas two individuals on the Reefballs (Table I).

DISCUSSION Thepn:sencc ofjuvenile blackfin """"""" and snowy _ on artificial reefs and their appateDt abseoce from surrounding naturaJ reefs is an unexpected and important observation. This one-sided distribution may be an indication that the artificial structures supply these species with ancillary, possibly tmique, nur.;eryljuvenile habitat in water depths of less than 30 Ill- The importance of juvenile nur.;ery areas to fisheries popu1ations is well establisbe

BlacIdiD Snapper Ontogenetic habitat shifts ofjuvenile fish to intennediate life stage habitats with increasing size have been recorded for many species (Leis 1987, Hixon 1991, Lindeman 1997, 1998, Nagelkedten et aI. 2000, Wilbur 2000). Based on the size distribution data ofthe blackfin snapper. they seem to be utilizjng artificial habitats (primarily _vessels in 21 - 23 m ofWBlerbetweenthemiddleand offsborereef tracts) as an intermediate or secondmy nur.;ery habitat. The majority of bIackfin snapper on vessels were in the 15 - 30 em size range. It appears these fish may be settling elsewhere and when reaebing a certain size (approximately IS em) they move onto sunken vessels. Smaller individuals « I 0 em) were recorded on a recently deployed vessel and smaller artificial reefmodules at a depth of21 - 23 m, as well as on Reefballs on the sand terrace of the middle reeftracl in 13 m of water. The sand flats between reef tIacts, as well as the sand terrace of the second reef tract, contain small sections of hanlbottom and an abundance of small rubble and shell debris patches (authors, persoual observation). These structures may be pmviding microhabitat areas for settling fish. Lindeman (1999) indicates that Lutjanids settle near inIerfaces of bardhottom structure and sand; this may be the case for settling blackfin """"""" as well. The rapid appea"lll

Juveniles may be utilizing the sbaIlow artificial environment due 10 the limited availabilityofdeeperjuvenilehabitatand increased competition with adults as space requirements overlap (Jones et aI. 1989, Hixon 1991). The apparent absence ofbJacldinsnapper and snowy grouper on sbaIIownatura\ reefs and their presence on artificia\ reefs at depths less than 30 m does not appear to be restricted 10 Broward Comty. In a study 10 the south of Broward in Dade ColDlty, Florida, 462 fish counts were completed on small artificial reefs and 83 counts on nearby naturaI reefs (Bobnsack et aI. 1994). Blackfin snapper and snowy grouper were observed settling on artificial reef sites at depths of 10 - 12 m, but none were recorded on naturaI reefs. The authors reported that juvenile bJacldin snapperdid well and grew at these sites before disappearing, wbich they snspect was due 10 an outosenetic migration 10 deeper water. Another study in the Florida Keys wbichcensusednaturaI reeffishassemblages offMooroe CoIDlty, F1oridaohserved one blackfin snapper from alOtaI of 6,673 surveys (Bohnsack et aI. 1999). The REEF (ReefEnvironmeotal Education Foundation) database was also accessed to compare blackfin snapper distributions (REEF 2002). Their data show all ohservationsofbIackfinsnappersinBrowardCountywereatartificialreefIocations. Interestingly, contrary 10 Broward, Dade, and Monroe Counties, REEF's database indicates Palm Beach Comty had an even dislribution ofbJacldin snapper on naturaI and artificial reefs. The naturaI reef locations were described as high profile reefs. However, a preference for high profile reefs does not adequately explain the differences in distribution, asthereare also highprofile areas in Broward, Dade, and Monroe Counties.

Snowy Gro.. per Although juveniJc snowy were seen less frequently and in Iower abundances than the blackfin snappers, theytoowereonly seen at artificial reefsites. Juvenile snowy groupers were ohserved at severaI size classes, but 110 individuals were larger than 12 em. There appears to be some similarity in habitat seIection between juvenile and adult snowy grouper. The larger juveniles (10 em - 12 em) were all ohserved nearsuoken vessels. All the juveniJcs seem 10 prefer two artificial reef types: ReefbaIIs and rock/coral covered burrows near sunken vessels. Both of these artificial reefbabitats are similar in structure 10 reported natura\ adult habitats. Aduhs have been reported from deeper areas in habitat consisting ofim:gnlar sized boulders (Mutheson and Huntsman 1984, Patker and Ross 1986, Gutberz et aI. 1987, Parker and Mays 1998). Thus, ReefbaII structure may be simiIsr 10 these adult habitats. Groupers (Semmidae) are heavilydependentonhabitat structure due 10 their sedenlaIy behavior (Leis 1987). ReefbaII complexity may inaease the feeding efficiency ofthe juvenile snowy grouper, aiding in its arnhush style feeding behavior (Dodrill et aI. 1993). Also, fish settIins 10 these small artificial reefs are preswnably easy prey for a juveniJc grouper, wbich may increase available food reso= Adults, as well as one juvenile have been observed utilizing blueline tilefish (Malacantbidae), Caulolatilus microps, burrows .. habitat in deeperwaters(parker Page 708 Arena, P.T. et aI. GCA:55 (2004) and Ross 1986, Jones et aI. 1989). Similarly, all juvenile snowy grouper on the shallow sunken vessels were observed near burrows in the sand covered by a small rock or coral bead and would retreat into the burrow when a diver appiOoched. Adults have also been reported to utilize wreck habitats in deeper waters on the upper continental shelf and slope (Dodrill et aI. 1993). The presence of adult and juvenile snowy grouper on sunken vessels may he related to _ habitat preferences, as the vertical relief provided by vessels (-10 m) is co~ to the relief found near natural adult habitats (parker and Ross 1986, Dodrill et aI. 1993, Parker and Mays 1998).

CONCLUSION The fish census data coUected thus far in Broward County on natural and artificial reefs represents a baseline offish populations for the region. It is clear that blackfin snapperandsoowygrouperjuvenilespreferartificialsubsbatetothat which is naturally available. The reasons for this unanticipated fact are unclear but provide an excellent launch-point foranexamiMlionolJUvenilebabitatrequirements, natural availabilityoftbeserequimnenls,andthepotentialforartificialsubsbatetoheused in managing these species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research stndies providing the data for this paper were fimded, in part, tbronsh a series of grants to RES from: the Florida FISh and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Broward County Department of PIsnnins and Environmental Protection; Guy Harvey ResearchInstitule; The Soulb Florida Fishing Classic Inc.; NOAAINationaIMarineFisheriesService,SoutbeastFisheriesScienceCenter,and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Research PI081an. Students from the NSU Oceanographic Center volunteered essential assistmce with artificial reef construction and diving.

LITERATIJRE CITED Able, K. 1999. MeasuresofjuveniIe fish habitat qua1ity. Poses 134-147. in: L.R. Benaka (ed.). Fish Habitat: EssentioJ Fish Habitat and lI£habi/ilation. American FISheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland USA. Acero, AP. and J.F. Gatzon 1985. Los Largos (Pisces: Pen:iformes: Luljanidae) del Carihe Colombia. Actualidades Biologkos 14(53):89-99. Austin, H.M 1971. A survey of the ichthyofauna of the mangroves of western Puerto Rico dorins December, 1967-August. 1968. Caribbean Journal of &ience 11:27-39. Baron R. and R.E. Spieler. [In prep.) Coral reefassociated fishes of the nearshore hardbottom of southeastern Florida, USA. Boardman, C. and D. Weiler 1980. Aspects oftbe life histoxyofthree deepwate< 55'" Gulf and cartbbean FlsherieslnstlbJIe

snappers around Puerto Rioo.Proceedings ofthe GulfandCaribbeanFisheries Instilule 32:158-172. Bohnsack, J.A and S.P. Bannerot. 1986. A statiouaIy visua1 census technique for quantitatively assessing oommunity structure ofcom! reeffishes. U.S. Dept. of Commen:e, NOAA Tecbnical ReportNMFS 41:1-15. Bohnsack, J.A, D.E.lIaJper, and D.B. McClellan. 1994. Effects of reef size on colonization, and assemblage structure offishes at artificial reefs off soutbeastern Florida, U.S.A Bulletin ofMarine Science 55(2-3):796-823. Bohnsack, J.A, D.B. McClellan, D.E.lIaJper, G.S. Davenport, GJ. Konoval, A.M. Eklund, J.P. Cootillo, S.K. Bolden, P.C. Fische~ G.S. Sandor£, J.C. Javech, M.W. White, M.H. Pickett, M.W. Hulsbeck, J.L. Tobias, J.S. AuIt, G.A Meester, S.G. Smith, andJ. Luo. 1999. Baaeline Data for Evaluating ReefFish Populations in the Florida Keys, 1979-1998. NOAA Technical Memoirs NMFS-SEFSC-427. 61 pp. Chiappone, M. 1996. Geology and Paleontology ofthe Florida Keys and F70rida Bay. The Preserver, Zenda, WISCOnsin USA. Cuellar N., G.R. Sedbeny, D.J. Machowski, and M.R. Collins. 1996. Speciescomposition, distributioo and trends in abundance of snappers of the soutbeastern USA, based on fishery-independent sampling. Pages 59-73 in: Arreguin-Sanchez, F., J.L. Munro, M.C. Balgos and D. Pauly, (cds.). Biology, fisheries and culture o/tropical groupers and snappers. ICLARM Coriference Proceedings Number 48. 449 pp. DodriIl,J., C.S. III, Manooch, and A.B. Manooch 1993. Food and feeding behavior of adult snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus (Valenciennes) (Pis<:es: Senanidae), oollected offthe centra1 North Caro1ins coast witbeoologieal notes on lIll!ior food groups. Brimleyana 19:101-135. Ettinger, B.D., D. S. Gilliarn, L. K.B. Jordan, R. L. Shennan, and R. E. Spieler. 200 I. The com! reeffishes ofBroward County Florida, species and abundance: a wad< in progress. Proceedings ofthe Gulfand Caribbean Fisheries Institute 52:748-756. Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2002. FishBaae. World Wide Web electronic publication. wwwjishbase.urg, 06 November 2002. Gilliam, D., K. Banks, and R.E. Spieler. 1995. Evaluation of a ~ncrete aggregate for artificial reef oonstruction. ECOSET Proceedings 1:345-350. Gi1liarn, D.S. 1999. Juvenile ReefFish Recruitment Processes in South F7orida: a Multifactorial Field Experiment. Ph.D. Dissertation. Nova Soutbeastern University, Ft. Landerdale, Florida USA. 111 pp. Grimes, C.B., C.S. ill, Manooch, G.R. Huntsman, and R.L. Dixon. 19n. Red Snappers of the Caro1inscoast. Marine Fisheries Review 39(1):12-15. Gutherz, E.J., W.R. Nelson, C.A. Barnns, G.M. Russell, R.S. Jones, C.A Weuner, and A.K. Shah. 1987. Popu1ation estimates ofdeep-warer finfish species based on submersible observations and intensive fishing efforts off Charleston, S.C. Proceedings of/he 1987 SEAMAP Passove Gear Assessment Workshop at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-SEFSC Page 710 Arena, P.T. et al. GCFI:55 (2004)

365:103-123. Hixon M.A. 1991. Predation as a process sttucturing coral reef fish communities. Pages 475-508 in: Sale, P.F. (ed.). The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Academic Press, New Yor!<, New York USA. Jones, R.S., EJ. Gutherz, W.R. Nelson, and O.C. Matlock. 1989. Burrow utilization by yeUowedge grouper, Epinephelus jlavolimbatus, in the northwestern . Environme7llal Biology ofFishes 26:277-284. Jordan, L.K.B. 2002. The effects of isolation distance and reef size on associated reef fish assemblages. M.S. Thesis. Nova Soulheastem University, Fort LaudenlaIe, Florida USA. 67 pp. Leis, J.M. 1987. Review of early life history of tropical groupers (Serranidae) and snappeIS (Lutjanidae). Pages 189-238 in: Tropical Snappers and Groupers: Biology and Fisheries Manageme7ll. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado USA. Leis, J.M. and M.I. MeConnick. 2002. The biology, behavior and ecology of the pelagic, larval stage of coral reef fishes. Pages 171-200 in: Coral ReefFIShes: Dynomie< and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem. Academic Press, New Yor!<, New Yott USA. Lighty,R.O.,I.O. Macintyre,andR. Stuckeorath. 1978. SubmergedearlyHolocene barricc reef south-east. Nature 276:59-60. Lindeman, K.C. and D.B. Snyder. 1999. Nearshorebardbottom fishes of southeast Florida and effects of habitat burial caused by dredging. Fisheries Bulletin 97:508-525. Lindeman, K.C. 1997. Development ofGrunts andSnappers ofSoutheast Florida: Cross-shelf Distributions and Effects of Beach Management Alternatives. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida USA. 419 pp. Matheson. R.H. and O.R. Huntsman. 1984. Growth, mortality,and yield-per-recruil models for speckled hind and snowy grouper from the United States Allantic Bight. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 1\3;607-616. Moore, C.M. and R.F. Labisky. 1984. Population parameters of a relatively unexploited stock ofsoowy grouper in the lowcc Florida Keys. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:322-329. Nagelkerken, I., O. van der Velde, M.N. Oorissen, OJ. Meijer, T. van'l HoC, and C. denHartog. 2000. Importance ofmangroves, seagrass beds and the sbaIlow coral reef as a nursery for important coral reef fishes, using a visual census tecboique. EstuarIne. Coastal and ShelfScience 51:31-44. Parker, R.O. Jr. and S.W. Ross. 19&6. Observingreeffisbes fromsubmersib1es off North Carolina. Northeast GulfScience 8(1):31-49. Parker, R.O. Jr. and R. W. Mays. 1998. Soulheastem U.s. deepwater reef fish assemblages, babitatcharacteristies,caI£hesand life bistory summaries. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 138: 1-41. Persson, L., S. Diehl, P. Eklov, and B. Christensen .1997. Flexibility in Fish Behavior: Consequences at the population and community levels. Pages 316- 343 in: Godin, J.J. (ed.). Behavioral Ecology of Teleost Fishes. Oxford 55'" GuH and carfbbean F_1nsIItute "-711

University Press, New Yark, New Yon: USA. REEF. 2002. Reef Enviroomen1al Education Foundation. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.reefO!!!.I1102l2002. Sedberry, G.R.andJ. Carter 1993. ThefishcommunityofashallowtropicallagOOD in Belize, Central America. Estuories 16:198-215. Sherman, R.L., D.S. Gilliam, and RE. Spieler. 1999. A preliminary examination of depth associated spatial variation in fish assemblages on small artificial reefs. Journal ofApplied Ichthyology 15(3):116-122. Sherman, RL. 2000. Studies on tire Roles of Reef Design and Site Selection in Juvenile Fish Recruitment to Small Reefs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Nova Southeastern Univer.;ity, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida USA 173pp. Sherman, RL., D.S. Gilliam, and RE. Spieler. 2001(a). Artificial reefdesign:void space, complexity and attractants. ICES Journal ofMarine Science 59(S): 196- 200. Sherman,RL., D.S. Gilliam, and RE. Spieler. 2001(b). Effectsofrefuge size and complexity on recruitment and fish assemblage formation on small artificial reefs. Proceedings oftire Gulfand Caribbean Fisheries Institule 52:455-467. Shulman, MJ. 1985. Recruitment of coral reef fishes: effects of distribution of predators and sheller. Ecology 66: I 056-1 066. Spieler, Richard E. [1995(a)]. Evaluation ofanovel material forrecycling tin:s into artificial reefs. Final Report to Broward County Office of Natural Resource Protection. Unpubl. MS. Spieler, RichardE. [1995(b)]. A preliminary study offishrecruitmentto "ReefbslI" artificial reefs in shallow and deep water. ConIIaCt completion report to Broward County Office ofN.turaI Resource Protection. Unpubl. MS. Spieler, Richard E. [1998(a)]. Artificial reef design: complexity and shelter size. ConlIaCt completion report to Broward County Office of Natural Resource Protection. Unpubl. MS. Spieler, Richard E. [1998(b)]. Artificial reef design: void space, complexity, and attractant. Contract completion report to Broward County Office of Natural Resource Protection. Unpubl. MS. Spieler, Richard E. [1998«)]. Recruitment ofjuvenile reef fishes to inshore and offshore artificial reefs: Iinal report. ConIIaCt completion report to Broward County Office of Natural Resource Protection. Unpubl. MS. Spieler, Richard E. [2000]. Effects of module spacing on the formation and maintenance offish assemblages onartificial reefs. ConIIaCtcompletionreport to Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection. UnpublMS. Spieler, RE. [2002). The marine fishes of Broward county, Florida: Report of 2001-2002 survey results. Nova Southeastern University, 0cean0gIaphic Center Report to NOAAlNMFS, ConlIaCt # 4OGENF100198, 16p. with data diskettes. Stephena, D.W. and J.R Krebs. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Prin

Sylvester. J.R. 1974. A preliminary study of the leugIh composition, distribution and relative abundance ofthree species ofdeepwater soappers from the Virgin Islands. Jorunal ofFish Biology 6(1):43-49. T abash. F A.B. and L.M.S. Siena. 1996. Assessment of Lutjanus vivanus and LUIj"anus buccanella in the North Can"bbean coast of Costa Rica. Pages 4&-51 in: NAGA. The ICLARM Qumterly October. Thayer, G.W,D.R. Colby, and W.F. Hettler. 1987. Utilization ofthe red mangrove prop root habitat by fishes in south florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series 35:25-38. Thompson, R. and J.L. Munro. 1983. The bioIosy, =Iosy, and bionomics ofthe soappers, Luganidae. Pages 94-1 09 in: TheBioiogy, Ecology, Exploitation and Management of Caribbean Reef Fishes: Scientific Repurt uf the ODAIUWl Fisheries Ecology Research Project 1969-1973: Universityofthe West Indies. Jamaica. ICLARM Studies and Reviews (7), Mani\a, Philippines Wilbur, A.R. 2000. Fish habitat characterization and asses"""",t: approach to integrate seafloor features andjuvenile organisms data. Pages 1555-1561 in: Oceans 2000: Where Marine Science and Technology Meet. Wyanski, D.M., D.B. White, and C.A. Barans. 2000. Growth, population age structure and aspects of the reproductive biolosy of snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus, off North Carolina and South Carolina. Fisheries Bulletin 98:199-218.