DOCSLIB.ORG

Patterns in the Distribution, Diet and Trophic Demand of the Hogchoker, Trinectes Maculatus, in the Chesapeake Bay, Usa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patterns in the Distribution, Diet and Trophic Demand of the Hogchoker, Trinectes Maculatus, in the Chesapeake Bay, Usa ABSTRACT Title: PATTERNS IN THE DISTRIBUTION, DIET AND TROPHIC DEMAND OF THE HOGCHOKER, TRINECTES MACULATUS, IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY, USA. Kiersten Lynn Curti, M.S., 2005 Directed By: Associate Professor Dr. Thomas J. Miller; University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory The hogchoker, Trinectes maculatus (Achiridae), is a small estuarine flatfish that, due to its ubiquitous distribution and substantial biomass, is an important component of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. I quantified the abundance, distribution and diet of hogchoker in the Bay based on samples from a fishery-independent survey. Hogchoker abundance varied inter-annually and spatially. A generalized additive model (GAM) explained 14.8% of the variability in the distribution of hogchoker abundance. Depth, salinity, temperature and year were significant determinants of hogchoker presence, whereas salinity and temperature determined relative abundance. Hogchoker diet primarily comprised polychaetes, however, amphipods, isopods and bivalve siphons also represented important dietary components. Graphical analyses and nonmetric multidimensional scaling indicated seasonal, spatial and ontogenetic variation in diet within the Bay. Estimates of summer trophic demand indicated that hogchoker consumed up to 0.1% of the standing stock biomass of particular macrobenthic taxa in the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay. PATTERNS IN THE DISTRIBUTION, DIET AND TROPHIC DEMAND OF THE HOGCHOKER, TRINECTES MACULATUS, IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY, USA. By Kiersten Lynn Curti Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science 2005 Advisory Committee: Associate Professor Thomas J. Miller, Chair Professor Edward D. Houde Professor Walter R. Boynton © Copyright by Kiersten Lynn Curti 2005 DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this work to my family, who has always provided unconditional support. They had faith in my abilities even at times when I started to lose faith in myself. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Tom Miller, for four years of support and guidance. He repeatedly went above and beyond the call of an advisor’s duties. I would also like to thank my committee, Ed Houde and Walt Boynton, for their critical review and constructive suggestions that greatly helped to strengthen my thesis. I am fortunate to have the opportunity to write this acknowledgements section after my departure from CBL and as a consequence, I have a greater appreciation of the CBL community. I have always felt quite privileged to be part of the community, however, its unique character is now much more evident. It supports an environment that fosters both academic and personal growth and I feel like I grew an extraordinary amount during my time at CBL. I, of course, need to thank all of the members of the Houde and Miller labs, in addition to Sarah Kolesar, for all of their help in the field. Thanks also to the Miller lab group, both past and present, for always editing my work, helping me work through ideas, and most of all making me laugh. A very special thanks is also much needed for my housemates, Lori Roth, Steve Engstrom and Josh Dixon, for three years filled with fond memories. And last, but not definitely not least, I am indebted to my family for always standing by me. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication........................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................iii Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v List of Figures.................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1: Rationale ........................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: The Distribution of Hogchoker in the Chesapeake Bay: Inferences from a Generalized Additive Model............................................................................................. 11 Introduction................................................................................................................... 11 Methods......................................................................................................................... 14 Sample Collection..................................................................................................... 14 Statistical Analysis.................................................................................................... 17 Results........................................................................................................................... 19 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 3: Patterns in the Diet and Trophic Demand of the Hogchoker in the Chesapeake Bay .................................................................................................................................... 49 Introduction................................................................................................................... 49 Methods......................................................................................................................... 56 Sample Collection..................................................................................................... 56 Analysis of dietary trends ......................................................................................... 58 Trophic Demand ....................................................................................................... 61 Results........................................................................................................................... 63 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 71 Chapter 4: Summary ....................................................................................................... 115 Appendix: Justification of the Use of a Generalized Additive Model to Model Hogchoker Distribution in the Chesapeake Bay................................................................................ 119 References....................................................................................................................... 122 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. The percentage of stations with zero hogchoker catch (% Zeros) and the average (Avg), standard deviation (SD), minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) hogchoker CPUE (catch per minute of bottom time) at each station within each year, season and stratum.........................................................33 Table 2.2. Pearson correlation matrix for the environmental covariates included in the first stage of the GAM .........................................................................34 Table 2.3. Pearson correlation matrix for the environmental covariates included in the second stage of the GAM.....................................................................35 Table 2.4. Model fitting results from the first stage of the GAM (n = 731) for significance of smooth terms .....................................................................36 Table 2.5. Model fitting results from the second stage of the GAM (n = 154) for significance of smooth terms .....................................................................37 Table 3.1. Distribution of examined hogchokers utilized in dietary analyses from the CHESFIMS broadscale and shoal surveys ................................................83 Table 3.2. Distribution of the proportion of examined hogchokers from the broadscale and shoal surveys with empty stomachs..................................84 Table 3.3. Hogchoker relative abundance and total consumption in each year and strata...........................................................................................................85 Table 3.4. Hogchoker consumption of macrobenthic taxa (crustaceans, bivalves and polychaetes) in each year and strata assuming three different levels of hogchoker catchability...............................................................................86 Table 3.5. Summer hogchoker trophic demand, measured as percent of standing stock biomass, of macrobenthic taxa in each year and strata assuming three different levels of hogchoker catchability.........................................87 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Representation of the annual flow of carbon (mg*m-2 *yr-1) through the dominant food web components of the mesohaline Chesapeake Bay. Figure from Baird and Ulanowicz (1989)..................................................10 Figure 2.1. Sampling scheme for a CHESFIMS cruise................................................38 Figure 2.2. Relative abundance (catch per minute bottom time) of hogchoker in each season and year of CHESFIMS .................................................................39 Figure 2.3. Relationship between hogchoker relative abundance and the environmental covariates included in the full GAM model.......................42
Load more

Recommended publications
  • First Report of Abnormal Pigmentation in a Surmullet, Mullus Surmuletus L
    Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Turk J Vet Anim Sci (2013) 37: 754-755 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/veterinary/ © TÜBİTAK Case Report doi:10.3906/vet-1211-2 First report of abnormal pigmentation in a surmullet, Mullus surmuletus L. (Osteichthyes: Mullidae) Adnan TOKAÇ, Okan AKYOL*, Celalettin AYDIN, Ali ULAŞ Department of Fishing Technology, Faculty of Fisheries, Ege University, Urla, İzmir, Turkey Received: 01.11.2012 Accepted: 01.07.2013 Published Online: 13.11.2013 Printed: 06.12.2013 Abstract: On 17 October 2012, an abnormally pigmented specimen of the surmullet Mullus surmuletus L. with a standard length of 164 mm was caught off the coast of Urla in İzmir Bay (Aegean Sea). This is the first report of abnormal pigmentation of the surmullet in the Mediterranean Basin. The sample fish had a patterned blue color on the back and its flanks were silvery. This kind of malpigmentation has not been observed in any mullids up to now. Key words: Abnormal pigmentation, surmullet, Mullus surmuletus, Aegean Sea 1. Introduction codend mesh size) over a muddy bottom at a depth of Malpigmentation (i.e. color abnormality) is a major 28 m and was deposited in the fish collection of the Ege deviation from the normal coloration of the body or University Fisheries Faculty (ESFM-PIS/12-001). part of the body. Malpigmentation can be categorized into 3 groups: hypomelanosis (pseudoalbinism), which 3. Results and discussion is characterized by full or partial lack of pigmentation on Diagnostic characters were counted as VIII first dorsal fin the ocular side; hypermelanosis, which is characterized rays, 10 second dorsal fin rays, 7 anal fin rays, 16 pectoral by abnormal pigmentation on the blind side; and fin rays, and I+5 ventral fin rays.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And
    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • American Sole (Family Achiridae) Diversity in North Carolina
    American Sole (Family Achiridae) Diversity in North Carolina Along North Carolina’s shore there are three families of flatfish comprising five or six species having eyes on the right side of their body facing upward when lying in or atop the substrate (NCFishes.com; Tracy et al. 2020; Table 1; Figure 1). The families and species can be confusing to tell apart. The key characteristics provided in Table 1 should enable one to differentiate between the three families and this document will aid you in the identification of three species in the Family Achiridae (American Soles) in North Carolina. Generally, soles are small, flat, right-facing fishes (i.e., the left side of the body is on the substrate) with small, minute eyes and of little commercial or recreational value (Rohde et al. 2009). Table 1. The three families of right-facing flatfish found along and off the coast of North Carolina. Common Key Characteristics No. Family Name (adapted from Kells and Carpenter (2014); Munroe (2002a; 2002b)) Species • Preopercular margin not free, concealed by skin or represented only by a naked superficial groove. • Dorsal fin extending forward well in advance of eyes, the anterior rays concealed within a fleshy dermal envelope and difficult to see. Achiridae Soles • Lateral line essentially straight, without high arch over pectoral fin; often indistinct, but most readily seen on the eyed side, usually crossed at right angles by accessory branches (achirine lines) extending toward dorsal and anal fins; • Urinary papilla on eyed side. 2 or 3 • Preopercular margin free, not covered with skin and scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Recycled Fish Sculpture (.PDF)
    Recycled Fish Sculpture Name:__________ Fish: are a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic vertebrate animals that lack limbs with digits. At 32,000 species, fish exhibit greater species diversity than any other group of vertebrates. Sculpture: is three-dimensional artwork created by shaping or combining hard materials—typically stone such as marble—or metal, glass, or wood. Softer ("plastic") materials can also be used, such as clay, textiles, plastics, polymers and softer metals. They may be assembled such as by welding or gluing or by firing, molded or cast. Researched Photo Source: Alaskan Rainbow STEP ONE: CHOOSE one fish from the attached Fish Names list. Trout STEP TWO: RESEARCH on-line and complete the attached K/U Fish Research Sheet. STEP THREE: DRAW 3 conceptual sketches with colour pencil crayons of possible visual images that represent your researched fish. STEP FOUR: Once your fish designs are approved by the teacher, DRAW a representational outline of your fish on the 18 x24 and then add VALUE and COLOUR . CONSIDER: Individual shapes and forms for the various parts you will cut out of recycled pop aluminum cans (such as individual scales, gills, fins etc.) STEP FIVE: CUT OUT using scissors the various individual sections of your chosen fish from recycled pop aluminum cans. OVERLAY them on top of your 18 x 24 Representational Outline 18 x 24 Drawing representational drawing to judge the shape and size of each piece. STEP SIX: Once you have cut out all your shapes and forms, GLUE the various pieces together with a glue gun.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilateral Asymmetry and Bilateral Variation in Fishes *
    BILATERAL ASYMMETRY AND BILATERAL VARIATION IN FISHES * bARL L. HUBBS AND LAURA C. HUBBS CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ................................................................................................................... 230 Statistical methods ....................................................................................................... 231 Dextrality and sinistrality in flatfishes .................................................................. 234 Reversal of sides in flounders .............................................................................. 236 Decreased viability of reversed flounders ......................................................... 240 Incomplete mirror imaging in reversed flounders .......................................... 243 A completely reversed flatfish .............................................................................. 245 Interpretation of reversal in flatfishes ............................................................... 246 Teratological return toward symmetry ............................................................. 249 Secondary asymmetries in flatfishes .................................................................... 250 Bilateral variation in number of rays in paired fins on the two sides of flatfishes ................................................................................................................. 254 Asymmetries and bilateral variations in essentially symmetrical fishes ....... 263 Bilateral variation in number of rays in the left
    [Show full text]
  • Lingua Franca Nova English Dictionary
    Lingua Franca Nova English Dictionary 16 October 2012 http://lfn.wikia.com/ http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/lfn/ http://purl.org/net/lfn/disionario/ 1 Lingua Franca Nova (LFN) is an auxiliary constructed language created by Dr C George Boeree of Shippensburg University, Pennsylvania. This is a printable copy of the master dictionary held online at http://purl.org/net/lfn/disionario/. A printable English–LFN dictionary can be downloaded from the same location. Abbreviations ABBR = abbreviation ADJ = adjective ADV = adverb BR = British English COMP = compound word (verb + noun) CONJ = conjunction DET = determiner INTERJ = interjection N = noun NUM = numeral PL = plural PREF = prefix PRENOM = prenominal (used before a noun) PREP = preposition PREVERB = preverbal (used before a verb) PRON = pronoun SUF = suffix US = American English V = verb VI = intransitive verb VT = transitive verb Indicators such as (o-i) and (e-u) mark words in which two vowels do not form a diphthong in normal pronunciation. 2 termination; aborta natural V miscarry; N miscarriage; A abortada ADJ abortive; ADV abortively; abortiste N abortionist; antiabortiste ADJ N antiabortionist A N A (letter, musical note) abracadabra! INTERJ abracadabra! hocus-pocus! a PREP at, in, on (point in space or time); to (movement); abrasa VT embrace, hug; clamp; N embrace, hug; abrasa toward, towards, in the direction of (direction); to ursin N bear hug; abrasable ADJ embraceable, (recipient) huggable; abrasador N clamp; abrasador fisada N vise a INTERJ ah, aha (surprise, sudden realization,
    [Show full text]
  • NC-American Soles-And-Identification-Key
    American Sole (Family Achiridae) Diversity in North Carolina By the NCFishes.com Team Along North Carolina’s shore there are three families of flatfish comprising five or six species having eyes on the right side of their body facing upward when lying in or atop the substrate (NCFishes.com; Tracy et al. 2020; Table 1; Figure 1). Please note: Tracy et al. (2020) may be downloaded for free at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss60/1.] The families and species can be confusing to tell apart. The key characteristics provided in Table 1 should enable one to differentiate between the three families and this document will aid you in the identification of three species in the Family Achiridae (American Soles) in North Carolina. Generally, soles are small, flat, right-facing fishes (i.e., the left side of the body is on the substrate) with small, minute eyes and of little commercial or recreational value (Rohde et al. 2009). Table 1. The three families of right-facing flatfish found along and off the coast of North Carolina. Common Key Characteristics No. Family Name (adapted from Kells and Carpenter (2014); Munroe (2002a; 2002b)) Species • Preopercular margin not free, concealed by skin or represented only by a naked superficial groove. • Dorsal fin extending forward well in advance of eyes, the anterior rays concealed within a fleshy dermal envelope and difficult to see. American Achiridae Soles • Lateral line essentially straight, without high arch over pectoral fin; often indistinct, but most readily seen on the eyed side, usually crossed at right angles by accessory branches (achirine lines) extending toward dorsal and anal fins; • Urinary papilla on eyed side.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cyprinid Fish
    DFO - Library / MPO - Bibliotheque 01005886 c.i FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C. Circular No. 65 RUSSIAN-ENGLISH GLOSSARY OF NAMES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL AND RELATED TERMS Compiled by W. E. Ricker Fisheries Research Board of Canada Nanaimo, B.C. August, 1962 FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA Biological Station, Nanaimo, B0C. Circular No. 65 9^ RUSSIAN-ENGLISH GLOSSARY OF NAMES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL AND RELATED TERMS ^5, Compiled by W. E. Ricker Fisheries Research Board of Canada Nanaimo, B.C. August, 1962 FOREWORD This short Russian-English glossary is meant to be of assistance in translating scientific articles in the fields of aquatic biology and the study of fishes and fisheries. j^ Definitions have been obtained from a variety of sources. For the names of fishes, the text volume of "Commercial Fishes of the USSR" provided English equivalents of many Russian names. Others were found in Berg's "Freshwater Fishes", and in works by Nikolsky (1954), Galkin (1958), Borisov and Ovsiannikov (1958), Martinsen (1959), and others. The kinds of fishes most emphasized are the larger species, especially those which are of importance as food fishes in the USSR, hence likely to be encountered in routine translating. However, names of a number of important commercial species in other parts of the world have been taken from Martinsen's list. For species for which no recognized English name was discovered, I have usually given either a transliteration or a translation of the Russian name; these are put in quotation marks to distinguish them from recognized English names.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory, Monitoring and Impact Assessment of Marine Biodiversity in the Seri Indian Territory, Gulf of California, Mexico
    INVENTORY, MONITORING AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF MARINE BIODIVERSITY IN THE SERI INDIAN TERRITORY, GULF OF CALIFORNIA, MEXICO by Jorge Torre Cosío ________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHYLOSOPHY WITH A MAJOR IN RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDIES In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2 0 0 2 1 Sign defense sheet 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED:____________________________ 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) and the Wallace Research Foundation provided fellowships to the author. The Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) (grant FB463/L179/97), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) México and Gulf of California Program (grants PM93 and QP68), and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (grant 2000-0351) funded this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory, Monitoring and Impact Assessment of Marine Biodiversity in the Seri Indian Territory, Gulf of California, Mexico
    INVENTORY, MONITORING AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF MARINE BIODIVERSITY IN THE SERI INDIAN TERRITORY, GULF OF CALIFORNIA, MEXICO by Jorge Torre Cosío ________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHYLOSOPHY WITH A MAJOR IN RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES STUDIES In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2 0 0 2 Sign defense sheet STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED:____________________________ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) and the Wallace Research Foundation provided fellowships to the author. The Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) (grant FB463/L179/97), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) México and Gulf of California Program (grants PM93 and QP68), and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (grant 2000-0351) funded this study. Administrative support for part of the funds was through Conservation International – México (CIMEX) program Gulf of California Bioregion and Conservación del Territorio Insular A.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms
    Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment ICES CM 1998/ACME:4 Ref.: E+F REPORT OF TUE WORKING GROUP ON INTRODUCTIONS AND TRANSFERS OF MARINE ORGANISMS • The Hague, Netherlands 25-27 March 1998 • This report is not to be quoted without prior consultation with the General Secretary. The document is areport of an expert group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the CounciI. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer Pal:egade 2-4 DK-1261 Copenhagen K Denmark TADLE OF CONTENTS Scction Page OPENING OF THE MEETING AND INTRODUCTION I 2 TERl\IS OF REFERENCE I 3 REPORTING TO ACME AND ICES COMMITTEES 2 4 REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 1997 MEETING IN LA TREl\tBLADE 2 4.1 ICES/GESAMP Working Group on the Control ofMarine Pests (WGPEST) 2 4.2 OTHER RECOl\IMENDATIONS 2 5 ICES CODE OF PRACTICE 2 5.1 Status ofTranslations 2 5.2 EIFAC-ICES Code Harrnonisation (EIFAC WPI) (TOR: 2: 12:8:b) 3 6 STATUS OF NEW ICES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH REPORTS 3 7 MULTINATIONAL INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMMES 3 7.1 EU Concerted Action Plan: Testing Monitoring Systems for Risk Assessment of Harrnful Introductions by Ships to European \Vaters : 3 7.2 Update on DMB Activities (TOR: 2: 12:8:g:vi) 3 7.2.1 Baltic Marine Biologists' Working Group on Nonindigenous Estuarine amI l\larine Species (Bl\IB NEl\10s) 3 7.2.2 Baltic Marine Biologists' Symposium 4 7.2.3 Database on alien species in the Baltic Sea 4 7.2.4 l\lonitoring programmes
    [Show full text]
  • Test-Test-Test
    Test-test-test Home Owens pupfish dab New Zealand sand diver perch trumpeter lighthousefish mosquitofish pencilfish coffinfish molly boga Australian lungfish pencilsmelt flier ponyfish." Loach goby Death Valley pupfish crocodile icefish roanoke bass, torpedo halibut tui chub Shingle Fish regal whiptail catfish garpike, silver hake. Boxfish fusilier fish, pilot fish threadsail, Black triggerfish? Climbing perch Blind goby giant wels; Siamese fighting fish angelfish sleeper shark false moray pink salmon, "yellow-edged moray smalleye squaretail sand tiger amago halosaur armoured catfish." Prowfish stingray driftfish, steelhead mud cat carp Death Valley pupfish largenose fish triplespine threespine stickleback shovelnose sturgeon. Rock beauty American sole black dragonfish featherback titan triggerfish codlet loach minnow zebra shark morwong deepwater cardinalfish. Alligatorfish flashlight fish Moorish idol; plownose chimaera electric knifefish flatfish glowlight danio eulachon rocket danio grunt triplespine? Mudskipper pleco sea snail bala shark shovelnose sturgeon. Yellowfin pike man-of-war fish river shark swallower dusky grouper gray mullet tarpon glowlight danio. Ragfish shovelnose sturgeon mud catfish blue-redstripe danio sheepshead minnow, Atlantic salmon giant gourami silver dollar. Gianttail stingfish Hammerjaw pike; butterfly ray sarcastic fringehead tenpounder spiny dogfish Black sea bass. Slimy sculpin gombessa, "sailbearer nibbler horn shark." Lookdown catfish moonfish threadsail, capelin gudgeon buri, molly dogfish shark luminous hake carp. Albacore zebra turkeyfish duckbill eel shrimpfish Atlantic herring pearlfish New Zealand smelt. Gudgeon koi turbot yellowhead jawfish Pacific argentine Ratfish stream catfish hog sucker. Sea bass, pufferfish sea chub lenok climbing catfish, burbot tui chub rock beauty, Arctic char beardfish bango channel catfish, Pacific trout. Finback cat shark quillback, "sarcastic fringehead flagfin queen triggerfish yellowtail basking shark," river loach orbicular velvetfish, pike conger alooh.
    [Show full text]