NOTICE: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT BE USED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT OF THE AUTHORS

Investigation of Fishes that Utilize Pelagic Sargassum and Frontal Zone Habitats in Mississippi Marine Waters and the Northcentral Gulf of Mexico MISSISSIPPI MARINE SPORT FISH STUDIES

INVESTIGATIONS OF FISHES THAT UTILIZE PELAGIC SARGASSUM AND FRONTAL ZONE HABITATS IN MISSISSIPPI MARINE WATERS AND THE NORTHCENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO:

ASSESSMENT OF SPECIES DIVERSITY, RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, VFRTICAL DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF LARVAL AND JUVENILE STAGES OF MARINE FISHES IMPORTANT IN THE MISSISSIPPI RECREATIONAL FISHERY

FINAL REPORT Segments I, II, and III PROJECT PERIOD: 1 March 2002 - 31 March 2007

SUBMITTED TO THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES 1141 BAYVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 101 BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI 39530

and the

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM ATLANTA, GEORGIA

PREPARED BY

JAMES S. FRANKS, ERIC R. HOFFMAYER, BRUCE H. COMYNS, J. READ HENDON, E. MAE BLAKE AND DYAN P. GIBSON

CENTER FOR FISHERIES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF COASTAL SCIENCES GULF COAST RESEARCH LABORATORY THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI P.O. BOX 7000 OCEAN SPRINGS, MISSISSIPPI

March 2007 Project Title Investigations of fishes that utilize pelagic Sargassum and frontal zone habitats in Mississippi marine waters and the Gulf of Mexico: assessment of species diversity, relative abundance, vertical distribution and habitat requirements of larval and juvenile stages of marine fishes important in the Mississippi recreational fishery

Introduction This Final Report provides the findings of research conducted on young (larval and juvenile) fishes associated with Sargassum and oceanic frontal zones (fronts) located off Mississippi and in the northern Gulf of Mexico (NGOM). Our research also investigated young fishes associated with the Loop Current (primarily the Loop Current's western boundary). This reports covers research activities, data analyses, and Final Report preparation for Segments 1, 2, and 3 (all with slightly varying proposal titles, but all inter-related; the Project Title show above represents an amalgamation of proposal titles submitted and approved during the life of the project) of the Sargassum research proposed by the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory (GCRL) - The University of Southern Mississippi and conducted from March 2002 - March 2007 (the actual Final Report due period was extended from 2005 to 2007 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina GCRL).

Project principal investigators and associated research personnel conducted research as outlined in the Proposals of Work for those years. Successful offshore collection cruises in the Gulf of Mexico were conducted during all years of the project. Although the focus of the original proposal was on juvenile fishes associated with Sargassum, fronts, and the Loop Current, established biological collection protocol was modified early in the study to include collection gear aimed at sampling larval and post-larval fishes at those habitats as well.

The life history of fishes can be divided into three general stages: larval, juvenile and adult. Habitat requirements at each stage differ; larvae are planktonic, juveniles often require a nursery area or sheltered habitat, and adults may utilize a multitude of habitat types. As with all early life history stages, the larval and juvenile stages are critical periods in the life of fishes, stages which are not well understood. Juveniles of many species of fish use inshore estuarine areas as a nursery habitat where food and shelter from predators can be found, however, valuable nursery habitat also exists in the offshore environment, particularly within or adjacent to demarcation zones between offshore water masses with different hydrographic characteristics, including temperature, salinity and current flow (Brandt 1993, Largier 1993, Langmuir 1938). Physiographic features in the water column, often referred to as upwellings, downwellings, convergent zones, current boundaries, temperature discontinuities or more commonly "frontal zones or fronts " (the term front is used throughout this document to define such hydrographic phenomena), are common in the northem Gulf of Mexico off Mississippi. Although fronts are generally recognized as 2

impOliant ecosystem features having potential as biological habitat (SAFMC, 1998), their hydrographic characteristics and significance as habitat for larval and juvenile fishes off Mississippi and in the NGOM are not well understood.

Because some fronts consist of areas where different water masses or currents converge, they frequently are associated with pelagic Sargassum, debris and flotsam, all of which may form into long linear or meandering rows often termed "windrows" (Appendix 2). Because convergence of water masses of different densities generally creates a downward movement of surface waters at their boundary, buoyant materials do not sink but accumulate at or near the water surface along the frontal interface. The distribution of the younger life stages of some marine fishes is strongly influenced by frontal zones and the associated floating and drifting materials, around which juveniles aggregate, feed, and avoid predators (Hilborn and Medley 1989).

Sargassum (Family Sargassaceae) is a pelagic brown algae (Appendix 2) which originates in the Sargasso Sea of the western Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). In waters of the Atlantic, two species, Sargassum natans and S. fluitans, comprise the bulk of this floating habitat, although detached algae of five other species occur in low frequency (SAFMC 1998). Both S. natans and S. f1uitans are photosynthetic and employ small gas-filled bladders to maintain positive buoyancy and remain within sunlit ocean surface waters. Although the greatest concentration of Sargassum is found in the Sargasso Sea, it commonly occurs on the continental shelf of the southeastern United States, and current thinking postulates that Sargassum is transported via currents through the Caribbean Sea and on through the Yucatan Straits (Mexico) via the Yucatan Current into the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1). The word Sargassum is used interchangeably between the scientific and common form and mayor may not be italicized depending on its use. In this report we use the scientific (genus) italicized form.

Pelagic Sargassum is defined as "Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)" in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (NMFS 2006). Sargassum is strictly managed as critical habitat in the U. S. South Atlantic waters (SAFMC 1998) and as EHF for dolphinfish and wahoo in U. S. South Atlantic (SAFMC 2003). More recently, Sargassum is now recognized as essential habitat for a variety of large pelagic fishes, particularly billfishes, in U. S. waters (NMFS 2006).

Sargassum weedlines may form within the proximity of frontal zones or may appear as isolated, drifting mats in waters dissociated with fronts. Sargassum supports a species-rich community that is comprised of a unique and diverse assemblage of marine organisms and when associated with fronts is considered to be one of the most dynamic and significant frontal zone features utilized by pelagic organisms (Dooley, 1972). Dooley (1972), Moser et al. (1998), Settle (1993) and a few other researchers studied the Sargassum community in the Western Central South Atlantic Ocean. Bortone et al. (1977), Comyns and Rooker and Wells (2003), and Hoffmayer et al. (2005) investigated fishes 3

associated with Sargassum in the eastern, northwestern, and northcentral Gulf of Mexico, respectively.

Despite Sargassum's previously perceived ecological importance in the Gulf of Mexico, the present study represents the only detailed scientific investigation of pelagic Sargassum habitat off Mississippi and in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico. There currently is little information on the abundance of Sargassum in U. S. waters, and estimates of the standing stock in the north Atlantic are highly variable, ranging between four and eleven million metric tons (SAFMC 1998). In the Gulf, no estimates of biomass have been calculated, and the occurrence of this algae varies seasonally and annually depending on the level of intrusions of the Loop Current into the Gulf, the development of Loop Current eddies, and rings and regional wind and current patterns.

The Loop Current (Figure 1A) dominates circulation in the eastern Gulf, and is a strong geostrophic current that enters the Gulf through the Yucatan straits and exits the Gulf through the Florida Straits to become the Gulf Stream (Richards et al 1989). The boundary area (particularly the western and northern boundaries) of the Loop Current reportedly is a productive region with a high diversity of young fishes (Richards et al. 1989, 1993), due in great part to strong convergences and divergences which occur there. Prior to our study, the Loop boundary was thought to be an important habitat for the early life stages of numerous offshore fishes. Our studies confirmed that belief as factual.

Little is known about the role of fronts, Sargassum habitat, and the Loop Current in the survival of larval and juvenile fishes and their ultimate recruitment into the Gulf's fishery. In general, this study expanded our understanding of fronts (some associated with considerable amounts of Sargassum, some with 'negligible amounts of Sargassum, and some with no associated Sargassum), Sargassum mats, and the Loop Current as essential habitat, providing shelter and prey availability for young fishes.

Materials and Methods Research activities during this project were conducted in the Gulf of Mexico within a study area defined as between 86° Wand 89.5° W Longitude and north of 24.7° N Latitude (Figure 2). At-sea research was conducted during multi-day (24 h days) research cruises, the majority of which occurred during spring and summer months of the study years (2002-2005). Research was conducted aboard the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory's 30.5m research vessel RN Tommy Munro.

Collection locations (stations) were determined based upon: 1) satellite­ derived remote sensing of sea surface temperature (SST), 2) aerial surveys of the study area prior to and during research cruises, 3) reported sightings of Sargassum (weed lines or mats) and fronts by local anglers, charter boat captains, and offshore vessel operators, and 4) opportunistic encounters with 4

Sargassum and fronts during our research cruises. Satellite sea surface temperature images and data were made available to the project by Ocean Technologies, Bay St. Louis, MS at no cost to the project. The pilot for the majority of aerial surveys was Dr. Vemon Asper, Department of Marine Science, The University of Southern Mississippi, Stennis Space Center, MS.

Habitat types sampled Because definitive, "accurate" measurements of the areal coverage of Sargassum windrows and mats sampled were unattainable, Sargassum study sites were subjectively categorized based upon the following three habitat classifications: 1) Convergent zone: a well-defined convergence of two (typically) water masses; mayor may not be associated with Sargassum; each side of the front (i.e., each water mass) may exhibit a distinctly different color ('color change').

2) Sargassum windrow: a well-defined, continuous line of Sargassum typically associated with a zone of convergence. Note: The majority of Sargassum windrows we investigated were associated with fronts. At several of the Sargassumtfront features sampled, the point of surface convergence of two different water masses was marked by observable differences in surface water color, e.g., the surface of the water was "blueish" (typically oligotrophic oceanic waters) on one side and "greenish" (typically more productive waters) on the other.

Color differences likely observed at some Sargassum-front features sampled were not recorded as such, and in those instances, collection areas were identified by the orientation of the front. Windrows typically were oriented north-south with green nutrient rich waters to the north and blue oligotrophic oceanic waters to the south. The same scenario was most likely for fronts oriented in an eastly-westly direction. For purposes of statistical comparison, fronts recorded as having a north-south or east-west orientation without any specific notation as to water color differences were subjectively assigned colors as follows: north and east sides = green; south and west sides = blue.

3) Large Sargassum mats: scattered mats of Sargassum at least 25 m2 in size not directly associated with a convergent zone. Note: We also sampled at 'away' locations, areas which typically were located from 100m to 2 nautical miles from any habitat type listed above. A further word about sampling at "control" locations: to document the potential increased abundance and diversity of young fishes associated with fronts and Sargassum habitat, it is necessary to make comparisons with collections taken away from these hydrographic features. Initially, "control" collections were taken with surface plankton nets approximately 100m away from our targeted fronUSargassum habitat, but these collections were often not true controls because they often contained a few small clumps of Sargassum. We consequently took 'control' collections further away from our targeted habitat (up to two miles), but small 5

clumps of Sargassum were still occasionally collected. The 'away' collections used in data analyses for this report were those we believed represented, for the most part, Sargassum-free collections.

4) Loop Current: In early summer of 2003 and 2004 the Loop Current protruded a considerable distance northward into the Gulf (Figures 4A and 5A, respectively), which provided us a unique opportunity to sample the Loop's western boundary (perhaps a major conduit for the transportation of Sargassum and larval fishes into the NGOM), as well as the northern boundary. We were particularly interested in obtaining larvae of bluefin tuna and billfishes in order to investigate the possibility of bluefin and billfishes spawning along the Loop western boundary. Research cruises in both years consisted of multi-day trips funded jointly by the Sargassum project in concert with funding provided by the Southeast Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP), a NOAA/NMFS funded research and monitoring program.

The general location of the Loop's western and northern boundary was determined using sea surface temperature (SST) data acquired via satellite imagery (AVHRR) provided (at no cost to the project) by Ocean Technologies of Bay St. Louis, MS. To more accurately determine the location of the boundary, a CTO and XBTs were used to locate the 20°C isotherm at 100m which was reported by Richards et al. (1989) as being a good representation of the Loop Current boundary.

Biological and hydrological sampling Sampling and data collection typically varied from year to year with collection gear being used in differing protocols, depending on the situation. A number of collections taken during the study were acquired by procedures which deviated somewhat from our standard collection protocol. Although those collections contributed greatly to our knowledge of Sargassum and Loop Current habitats, due variations in the use of sampling gear and methodologies which rendered them inconsistent for comparison with other standardized collections, they were not appropriate for inclusion in statistical analyses pertaining to comparisons of habitat types, fish composition, and fish and densities/abundances. However, fishes collected during those events were included in the overall list of fishes collected during the project (Table 1), as well as in the list of fishes taken from the NGOM (Table 2) and Loop Current (Table 3), as appropriate.

Primary biological collection gear and procedures: 1) Neuston nets (1 m X 2 m frame; 4 m net length): a. A neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) (Appendix 3) sampled the surface interface (upper 1 m of the water column) and was towed for a period of 10 min. at an approximate speed of 2 knots along each edge (boundary) of fronts with: 1) Sargassum (windrows), and 2) 'negligible amounts/or no' Sargassum (the terminology 'negligible amounts' refers to minor amounts of randomly dispersed 6

small clumps of Sargassum, and does not represent an interpretation of negligible significance, because our studies show that all physical forms of Sargassum have value as habitat)). Since water conditions typically differed on both sides of a front or windrow, samples collected along each edge were treated separately.

b. A Neuston net (0.333 mm mesh) sampled the surface interface (upper 1 m of the water column) and was towed for a period of 5 min. at an approximate speed of 2 knots along each edge (boundary) of Sargassum windrows and at 'away' stations. All collections using this gear were taken in June 2005.

c. A neuston net (3.2 mm mesh) (Appendix 3) was towed directly through (parallel to) Sargassum windrows or large mats in order to collect large juveniles that typically would avoid other collection gear. Once fishes and associated organisms were removed from Sargassum samples, the wet weight of the entire sample of Sargassum was recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg, and the Sargassum was returned to the sea. Often, samples obtained from perpendicular tows were so large that aliquots of Sargassum were examined, i.e. organisms were removed from up to 50 kg (wet weight) of the sample, collected and retained. The remaining Sargassum was weighed and discarded overboard.

2) Bongo nets (0.333 mm mesh): Bongo nets (Appendix 3) sampled the surface interface and was towed for a period of -10 min. at an approximate speed of 2 knots along each edge (boundary) of fronts 1) with Sargassum (windrows) and 2) with 'negligible amounts to no' Sargassum. Since water conditions typically differed on both sides of a front or windrow, samples collected along each edge were treated separately. Bongo nets were also towed at a depth of 5m for a period of -10 min. at 'away' stations in 2005. Bongos were fitted with mechanical flow meters to record the volume of water filtered.

3) Tucker trawl (0.333 mm mesh): A frame rigged with 3 Tucker trawls (each fitted with a mechanical flow meter) was towed at 3 discrete depths (1 m, 10 m, and 20 m) at stations along four horizontal transects (-25 km in length) at the Loop Current western boundary at stations (three transects sampled in 2003; one transect sampled in 2004). Generally speaking, Loop stations were located "Outside" (westward of) the boundary, on the "Edge" of the boundary (two collections were taken here), and "Inside" (eastward of) the boundary edge. These three terms are used throughout this document in reference to Loop Current collections. A single Tucker trawl (rigged with a flow meter) was towed obliquely to a depth of 30 m at transect stations at the Loop Current boundary in May and June 2004. 7

Onboard processing of fish collections Specimens were removed from nets and placed in labeled containers with 95% ethanol. Ethanol preserved specimens will be suitable for any future otolith, feeding, or genetic studies.

Col/ection of hydrographic/environmental data The location of sampling sites was recorded using GPS coordinates. Sea surface temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen was recorded at each sample location using a YSI meter (Model 85) and in 2003 using aCTO (Hydrolab OataSonde- 4) to obtain water column data on temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. Other field data included air temperature, sea state, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, time of daylnight, water clarity (with a Secchi disc), general physical characteristics of frontal features (including the estimated size, i.e., length, width, and depth) of Sargassum weedlines and mats sampled, the general direction of frontal movement, and the general composition of floating objects entrained at frontal boundaries.

Much of our research at the Loop Current occurred along the Loop's western and northern boundaries. According to Richards et al. (1989) the approximate boundary of the Loop Current is best defined as 20°C at 100m depth. Therefore, based on Richards et al. (1989), once we arrived in the vicinity of the Loop Current boundary, we deployed XBTs to assist us in locating the 'actual' boundary, and we then proceeded to conduct our research.

Laboratory processing of samples Individual collections were sorted in the laboratory, and fishes were identified to the lowes! possible taxonomic level, enumerated, and most were measured (0.1 mm in standard length). Among the publications and guides used to facilitate fish identifications were McEachran and Fechhelm (1998) and Richards (2006). Other dominant organisms, e.g. crabs, shrimps, etc., which most likely represent important prey of juvenile fishes at Sargassum were placed in labeled sample jars and archived.

Standardization of biological collection data Field and laboratory data pertaining to fishes taken in all collections were entered in appropriate computerized data base files. Standardization of biological samples for statistical purposes were as follows: 1. Neuston net (adjacent to windrow): time towed in minutes 2. Neuston net (cross-section): total weight of Sargassum (kg) collected; for samples from which an aliquot was taken, abundances of organisms taken from the aliquot were extrapolated to represent the entire sample by multiplying fish abundance by the ratio of total weight of the Sargassum sampled to total weight of the aliquot of Sargassum. 3. Bongo nets (surface tows): 100m3 of water sampled 4. Tucker trawl: 100m3 of water sampled 8

Data analysis In order to better understand and document the role of Sargassum and fronts as essential habitat for larval and juvenile fishes, several statistical analyses and comparisons were conducted. Fishes collected by primary gear types from different habitat types were statistically analyzed to determine any differences in composition and abundance, e. g., fronts with substantial amounts of Sargassum (windrows), frontal zones with small amounts of Sargassum, Sargassum mats, and 'away' sites were examined to determine any significant relationships between habitat and fish composition.

A one-way analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) was performed to test for differences in square root transformed mean abundance of fishes between Sargassum habitat types using the Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient. The ANOSIM, based on Bray-Curtis values, was computed using PRIMERER (version 5.28; PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth, UK); these values range from 0 to 100% with 0% being no similarity and 100% being identical (Clarke 1993; Clarke and Warwick 2001).

Emphasis was placed on comparing the Global R-stat values in the output of the ANOSIM analysis. When Global R-stat values in pair-wise comparisons between collections are close to 1, the compositions are very different, whereas when they are close to 0, the compositions are very similar. The similarity percentages (SIMPER) analysis was used to disaggregate the similarity matrix to identify which families and/or species were most responsible for any dissimilarity between habitat types (Clarke 1993; Clarke and Warwick 2001). Samples were plotted in multi-dimensional space (MDS) to graphically show the relationships between habitat types. Pair wise t-tests were performed as appropriate.

Field conditions (weather, physical characteristics of stations, etc.) and at­ sea decisions to take advantage of "unplanned" sampling opportunities occasionally dictated a variance in procedures from standard collection protocol. As such, data from those random collection events were not included in statistical treatments comparing fish abundance, densities and diversity between and among the habitat types discussed in this report. However, those data were included in the overall summary information (tables) pertaining to number, mean density, and mean abundance of fishes collected at the various habitats.

Supplemental research: ROV video samples Although not part of the proposed research, a most fortunate collaborative research effort was established between project personnel and the National Underwater Research Center (NURC), University of North Carolina at Wilmington. The collaboration provided for the use of a NURC Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) and ROV operator to collect video samples (video documentation) of juvenile fishes at Sargassum habitat during five of the research cruises. Numerous hours of ROV video samples were acquired during daylight hours at Sargassum windrows and large mats during 5 of the research 9 cruises in order to assess large juveniles that were closely associated with the Sargassum and, because of their size and mobility, would not be collected in our net gear. The results of those video surveys were provided to NURC and a manuscript based on those findings will be submitted for peer-review publication. MDMR will be provided copies of that publication. A Power Point presentation of describing some of this research is provided in Appendix 6.

Results and Discussion Sample collections During 2002-2005, project personnel conducted 13 research cruises during which 204 biological collections were obtained. Collections were made primarily during summer months of each year, with the exception of collections taken in January 2004, and were taken from waters that ranged from 100 - 3,000 meters in depth. For all collection locations reported here, surface water temperature and salinity ranged 26.6° - 36.6°C and 29.5 - 36.4 ppt., respectively. Collection locations in the NGOM and at the Loop Current for each year of the project are show on maps in Figures 3 - 6 (with additional location information on the 2003 and 2004 Loop Current collections provided in Figures 4A and 5A, respectively).

Collections by gear type The categories of samples collected by the various biological sampling gear used in this project (2002-2005) are shown below, along with the number of samples per category (shown in parentheses):

1. Neuston net (0.505 mm mesh): - Adjacent to front/Sargassum windrow (26) - Adjacent to front with 'negligible amounts/or no' Sargassum (17) - At large Sargassum mat (8) -'Away' from frontlSargassum (1)

2. Neuston net (0.333 mm mesh) - Adjacent to front/Sargassum windrow (3) - 'Away' from frontlSargassum (5)

3. Neuston net (3.2 mm mesh) cross-section tow - Through Sargassum windrow (3) - Through large Sargassum mat (6)

4. Bongo net (0.333 mm mesh) surface tows - Adjacent to frontlSargassum windrow (14) - Adjacent to front with 'negligible amounts/or no' Sargassum (11) - At large Sargassum mats (5) - 'Away' from front or Sargassum (5) 10

5. Bongo net (0.333 mm mesh) - Oblique tow at Sargassum windrow (9) - Oblique tow at large mats (2)

6. Tucker trawl (0.333 mm mesh) - Discrete depth tow along horizontal transects at the Loop Current (57) - Oblique tow along horizontal transects at the Loop Current (33)

Obviously, the location of stations in the GOM varied from year to year, depending on the location of: 1) the most promising features (fronts, windrows, mats, etc.) in the NGOM and 2) the hydrographic conditions at the Loop Current boundary. As previously stated, use of the collection gear (neuston nets, bongo net, and Tucker trawl) also varied from year to year at collection locations, rendering the data from some collections not appropriate for usc with statistical comparisons but valuable for assessing species diversity and abundance at various habitats sampled.

Fish Composition A total of 51,093 young fishes (larvae and small juveniles) was collected during the project, all gear types, years, and locations combined. The diversity of fishes in the collections was high with 139 species, representing 71 families (Table 1). The size range (mm SL) for collected specimens is provided in Table 1. Eighty-four percent (84%) of all fishes collected were identified to at least the family level. Numerous recreationally and commercially important species were represented in the collections.

A total of 8,179 fishes (16% of the collection) were not identifiable to a reasonable taxonomic level, primarily due to the extremely small size of some larvae, the lack of keys and identification literature for some groups of fish, and the lack of enough 'scope time' required for larval fish identification. We are particularly interested in further identifications of the numerous members of families Carangidae, Clupeidae and Myctophidae, as they were quite numerous in our collections. As time permits, we plan to continue examining many of the unidentified fishes in an attempt at their identification in order to better understand the larval fish community at Sargassum habitat. It is our intention that such identifications should be included in future manuscripts based on the research reported here.

The dominant families in the overall collection, in order of numeric abundance of specimens, were Carangidae (26%), Scombridae (17%) Clupeidae (14%), Myctophidae (6%) and Exocoetidae (4%), representing a total of 67% of the total collection. Top families of recreational or commercial importance were Carangidae (26%), Scombridae (17%), Clupeidae (14%), Exocoetidae (4%), Corphaenidae (0.5%), Istiophoridae (0.4%), Lutjanidae (0.2%), Lobotidae (0.02%), Xiphidae (0.01%), and Rachycentridae (0.01%). The percentage 11

composition of the most numerically abundant families in NGOM and Loop Current collections is shown in Figure 7,

Family Carangidae was represented by the greatest number of species (n = 22), followed by Scombridae (n = 13), Exocoetidae (n = 9), and Monocanthidae (n = 8), Sixty-five families (92% of all families in our study) were represented by 5 or fewer species, Fishes identified to species level which numerically dominated the collections, in order of relative abundance, were Auxis rochei (5,064), Prognichthys occidentalis (828), Auxis thazard (891), Prognichthys occidentalis (828), MugU curema (730), Balistes capriscus (604), and Thunnus at/anticus (514),

NGOM and Loop Current collections It is extremely important to consider NGOM and Loop Current collections separately, primarily due to the different habitat 'types' which characterize each region, It is significant to note that Loop Current collections were taken in the total absence of Sargassum (as best as we could discern), i.e" Sargassum was not observed at the region of the Loop Current investigated during our cruises there in 2003 and 2004, To say the least, this finding came as a revelation to us, because we were expecting to encounter great amounts of Sargassum in the form of expansive mats and lengthy windrows, particularly along the Loop's western boundary area,

The composition of fishes collected from the NGOM and Loop Current regions is somewhat similar (Tables 2 and 3, respectively), however there are obvious differences, In general, species diversity and abundance of clupeids, nome ids, paralichthyids, and bothids in NGOM collections was greater than in Loop collections, Fishes noticeably more abundant in Loop collections were myctophids and istiophorids, Fishes not common to each list are so noted in the tables,

Not all collections taken in this study were used in statistical treatments of the data, primarily because they did not lend themselves to analytical comparisons for a variety of reasons, primary among them being deployment of the gear using procedures which were not standard protocol (but exploratory nonetheless), thereby making appropriate statistical comparisons impractical. However, all fishes collected during the project are provided in numerous tables and figures provided in this report which pertain to specific categories of collections taken from the various habitats by the primary gear types, Information on NGOM and Loop Current collections taken during this project is presented as follows:

NGOM collections

A total of 30,872 larval and small juvenile fish were taken in 112 collections at Sargassum habitat and fronts in the NGOM during 2002 - 2005, Figures 3 - 6 12

show the approximate locations of all NGOM collection sites (many sites consisted of numerous stations) occupied during 2002 - 2005, and it is very important to note that the NGOM stations shown in Figures 4 and 5 (2003 and 2004, respectively) are the more northerly clustered ones, while the southerly stations are those associated with the Loop Current.

Fishes taken in NGOM collections (all gear types combined) are listed in Table 2. Carangids Uacks), clupeids (herring), scombrids (mackerel/tunas), exocoetids (flyingfishes), and gerreids (mojarras) were the five most abundant families and represented 78.4 % of all fishes collected. Carangids were the most common family with the highest relative abundance (33.2%) and frequency of occurrence (85.5%) (Figures 8A and 8B). Clupeids were the second most abundance family (28.3%), however were only represented in 10.3% of the collections, indicating a very patchy distribution. Scombrids and exocoetids only represented 7.4% and 6.0% of the fishes collected, however, they were very common in the collections (70.1 and 62.4%, occurrence, respectively). Gerreids were relatively abundant (3.5%) and were present in many collections (13.7%). Highest mean monthly abundance of Carangidae, Clupeidae, Scombridae, and Gerreidae occurred during June and July, whereas Exocoetidae was relatively similar across months with a peak in May (Figure 9).

Carangids were also the most diverse family representing 18 different species, followed by Scombidae (n=13), Paralichthidae/Bothidae (n=10), Exocoetidae (n=9), and Nomeidae (n=6). Ninety-one percent (53/58) of families collected in the Northern Gulf of Mexico were represented by 5 or fewer species. The most abundant species present in the collections were Caranx sp. (n=3214), followed by Brevoortia sp. (n=2639), Auxis thaxard (n=811), Mugi/ curema (n=730), Prognichthys occidentalis (n=622), Balistes capriscus (n=601), Auxis rochei (n=564), Euthynnus alletteratus (n=386), Sphyraena sp. (n=355), and Caranx crysos (n=299).

Other recreational and commercial important families included Coryphaenidae (dolphinfishes), Lutjanidae (snapper), Lobotidae (tripletail), and Istiophoridae (billfishes). Tripletail and dolphinfishes represented only a small number of fishes (0.39 and 0.17%, respectively), however, they were relatively common in the collections (14.5 and 28.2% of the collections, respectively). Both snapper and billfishes were not very abundant (0.23 and 0.03%, respectively) and were relatively rare in the collections (6.0 and 2.6% of the collections, respectively).

The only published studies of the Sargassum fish community in the Gulf of Mexico are: 1) Bortone et al. (1977) who reported 15 families and 39 species of fish from Sargassum collections from the northeastern Gulf; 2) Comyns et al. (2002) (also the authors of this report) who assessed the association of larval fishes with Sargassum habitat and convergence zones in the northcentral Gulf; 3) Wells and Rooker (2003) who examined spatial and temporal patterns of 13 habitat use by fishes associated with Sargassum mats in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico and reported 17 families and 36 species of fish; and 4) Hoffmayer et al. (2005) (also the authors of this report) who reported on larval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico.

Bortone et al. (1977) reported Carangidae dominated their species list with 10 species, followed by Balistidae (9 species) and Syngnathidae (5 species). Wells and Rooker (2003) reported Carangidae (8 species), Monacanthidae (6 species), and Syngnathidae (4 species) numerically dominated their collections. In the eastern Atlantic Ocean, Dooley (1972) reported the families Carangidae (14 species) and Balistidae (also included Monacanthidae, 14 species) numerically comprised 90% of all fishes collected at the pelagic Sargassum community.

Some species in our collections, such as file fishes, pipefishes and the Sargassum fish, were consider permanent residents of Sargassum habitat, while many other fishes apparently utilized Sargassum as nursery habitat during their larval and juvenile life history stages. Some species, such as the dolphinfishes, associate with Sargassum during both their juvenile and adults stages, while other species were most likely short-term residents or transients and perhaps were incidental to the community as reflected, in part, by their low numbers in collections.

Among our Sargassum-related collections were 32 families and 67 species of fish not previously reported from the Gulf pelagic Sargassum community. Not reported by Bortone et al. (1977), and of particular interest during this study, were the collections of larval billfishes and tunas, particularly larvae of the bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). Of course, our collection were taken over a much longer period of time (years) and at a variety of Sargassum habitats, using a variety of biological sampling gear.

Comparisons between the findings of Rooker and Wells (2003) and findings from our study (using only cross-section tows through Sargassum habitat, i.e., windrows and large mats) are provided in Hoffmayer et al. (2005), a manuscript provided in Appendix 6 of this report.

Interestingly, Bortone et al. (1977) apparently collected flyingfishes but chose to exclude them, along with clupeids, from their analyses. Flyingfishes were among the most abundant species in our collections, and the majority of those specimens were taken in neuston tows (mesh) adjacent to Sargassum rather than in tows made directly through Sargassum (cross-sectional tows).

Some species such as file fishes, pipefishes and the Sargassum fish (Histrio histrio) were consider permanent residents of Sargassum habitat, while many others apparently utilized Sargassum as nursery habitat during their larval and juvenile life history stages. Species such as dolphinfish, jacks, billfishes, and 14

tunas associate with Satgassum during their larval, juvenile and adults stages. Some species are most likely short-term residents or transients and incidental to the community structure.

Analyses of NGOM collections: habitats and collection gear The following categories were selected for this report and represent the results of assessments and statistical analysis of multiple NGOM collections based on habitat type and collection gear type, and selected for their amenability to statistical comparison: A) Mean abundance of larval and small juvenile fishes collected in surface neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) tows at Sargassum windrows and large Sargassum mats: a comparison Mean abundance of young fishes collected from surface waters at Sargassum windrows (fronts) and large Sargassum mats in 2002 is shown in Table 4 (mean abundance shown for windrows represents fishes from both sides of a front 1 combined). A comparison of mean fish abundance (fish tow· ) between the habitat types showed no significant difference (Global R = -0.06, P = 0.662). The spread of the collection in Figure 10 demonstrates the large variability in species composition of the collections. The collections appear to group based on collection number/month (9 = May, 10 = June, 11 = July, 12 = August) more than habitat type.

These analyses suggest that combining collections from multiple summer trips in 2002 might have introduce too much variability in species composition for a clear understanding of comparative relationships between the two habitat types. A simple comparison of the most abundant families taken in these collections is shown in Figure 11. Clupeids appear as dominating windrow collections, however all of these specimens were taken in only a few collections. 1 ). A comparison of mean fish abundance (fish tow· ) between the habitat types showed no significant difference Environmental data for both of the habitat type sampled in 2002 are presented in Table 5. Mean temperature and salinity were slightly higher at Sargassum windrows than at mats.

A few oblique bongo net collections were also taken at these habitats to depths of 50 and 200m, but were not included in these analyses or in comparisons with other standardized (surface) bongo net collections taken during the study. However, fishes collected in those collections were included in the list of fishes collected during the study.

B) Larval and small juvenile fishes collected in surface neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) tows at Sarqassum windrows (fronts) with a difference in water color per side: a comparison At several of the Sargassum-front features sampled in 2002, the point of surface convergence of two different water masses was marked by observable (or subjectively assigned, based on geographic orientation) differences in 15

surface water color, e.g., blue on one side and green on the other. Table 6 presents the number of larval and small juvenile fishes collected in 2002 by neuston net (0.505 mesh) from surface waters adjacent to windrows (n = 7) according to which side of the windrow they were taken (green or blue). Fish diversity and abundance were far greater in highly productive "green side" collections than in "blue side" samples. These differences were most noticeable in families Carangidae, Lobotidae, Gerreidae, Mugilidae, and Scombridae. The large number of young fishes identified only to Clupeidae were all taken in only two collections. Although not shown in Table 6, a few extremely small fish were not identified to as to a specific order.

No significant difference in fish (identified to lowest possible taxa) composition was evident between 'green and blue' sides of Sargassum windrows (Global R = -0.069, p = 0.75) (Figure. 12). Additional pair wise t-tests were performed to further investigate total number of fishes and species diversity between the blue and green sides of windrows, and no significant differences in those data were evident between the two Sargassum habitat types (number: t = 1.230, P " 0.416; species: t" 1.099, P " 0.501).

Environmental data for each side ('color') of Sargassum windrows is presented in Table 7. There was no substantial difference between mean temperature and salinity at 'green' vs. blue' sides of Sargassum windrows (fronts)

C) Comparison of fish species composition among 3 Sargassum habitat types (large mats, Sarqassum windrows, and fronts with 'negligible amounts/or no' Sargassum

1. Neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) collections: The mean number of larval and small juvenile fishes collected in surface neuston tows (0.505 mm mesh) at three Sargassum habitat types (mats, windrows, and fronts with 'negligible amounts to no' Sargassum) during June 2004 is presented in Table 8. A comparison of the fish composition (identified to lowest possible taxa) between the three Sargassum habitat types examined in this study (large mats, fronts with negligible amounts/or to no Sargassum, and windrows) pertaining to neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) collections taken in 2004 found no significant difference (Global R = 0.154, P " 0.223) (Figure 13), suggesting that once larval fishes are recruited to Sargassum they remain iii close association with the Sargassum regardless of the habitat type.

Sargassum habitat in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico is very dynamic, and the habitat type may not be as important as the presence of Sargassum itself. Both windrows and mats of Sargassum appear to group together. With a larger sample size, differences between habitat types could become evident. These collections were appropriate for statistical comparison because all were taken during the same cruise, and were not confounded by monthly or annual variability. Environmental data for each of the habitat types sampled in 2004 are 16

presented in Table 9. Surface temperatures at each feature were quite similar, but salinities at windrows were higher than at the other habitats

2. Bongo net collections: The mean number of fishes collected in surface bongo tows at three Sargassum habitat types (mats (n = 4), windrows (n = 3), and fronts with negligible amounts/or no Sargassum (n = 3)) during a single research trip in June 2004 is shown in Table 10. All collections were obtained following standardized procedures. A significant difference was found in a comparison of the fish composition (identified to lowest possible taxa) between the three Sargassum habitat types pertaining bongo net collections from surface waters taken in 2004 (Global R = 0.525, P = 0.021) (Figure 14). Collections at mats of Sargassum were most similar and grouped tighter than the other habitat types. Differences between habitat types were more pronounced with bongo net collections when compared to neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) collections, suggesting there may be a size-related avoidance factor occurring in neuston collections, however surface temperatures at each feature were quite similar, but, as with neuston net collections, salinities at windrows were higher than at the other habitats (Table 11 ).

The SIMPER analysis revealed that Carangidae, Auxis rochei, and Thunnus sp. primarily (80%) accounted for the difference between 'little to no' Sargassum habitat and Sargassum mats; Carangidae, Auxis roche; and Sphyraena sp. primarily (60.3%) accounted for the difference between windrows of Sargassum and Sargassum mats; and Carangidae, Thunnus sp. and Sphyraena sp. primarily (52.5%) accounted for the difference between 'little to no' Sargassum fronts and windrows of Sargassum.

D) Mean density of larval fishes at windrows and 'away' locations: Mean larval fish densities (fish/100m3) collected adjacent to windrows (both sides combined) and 'away' from windrows in June 2005 using a neuston net (0.333 mm mesh) at surface waters and a bongo net at a 5-m depth are shown in Table 12. Since the 0.333 mm mesh net was used only in 2005, the data from these collections was not comparable to 0.505 mm mesh neuston net collections in years 2003, 2004 and 2004. Furthermore, only 2 sample locations comprise each category shown in Table 12, which rendered statistical comparison impractical. Environmental data for these collections are presented in Table 13. Mean salinity at adjacent and away 5-meter bongo collections was considerably higher than mean surface salinity. Mean temperature for surface and 5-meter collections was similar.

E) Species composition in cross-section neuston collections through Sargassum Fishes (all juveniles) collected in surface neuston (3.2 mm mesh) tows conducted directly through Sargassum habitat (windrows and mats) in 2002 and 2003 were assigned to 15 families and 34 species (Table 14). Collections were 17

numerically dominated by balistids, carangids, and monocanthids. Based on species composition, family Carangidae dominated with 10 species.

There were no significant difference in fish (identified to lowest possible taxa) composition in the cross-section collections between mats and windrows of Sargassum (Global R = 0.188, P = 0.127) (Figure 15). Most species collected wilh Ihis gear type live in close association with Sargassum, a dynamic habitat that is subject to rapid, short-term changes in its physical dimensions, i.e. mats can become windrows, and visa versa. So, it is not surprising that similar species composition was found at each. It is interesting to note that there appears to be a 'year effect' in composition, i.e., collections 16 taken in year 2003 align much differently than the other collections.

Since no significant difference was evident in fish (lowest possible taxa) composition between Sargassum mat and windrows in cross-section collections, collections were pooled and data were reanalyzed to test for year effect. Species composition in cross-section collections between 2002 and 2003 were significantly different (Global R = 0.887, p = 0.006) (Figure 16). With such an ephemeral habitat, it is not surprising to find that the composition of fishes closely associated with Sargassum vary from year to year. This inter-annual variability demonstrates the importance of understanding how year to year variability in available Sargassum habitat can affect annual recruitment and survivorship of many of the associated fish species.

Mean surface salinity and temperature at collection locations were slightly higher at mats than at windrows (Table 15). There was considerable difference between secchi and D.O. readings at windrow habitat and mats, with both parameters being substantially higher at windrows.

F. Winter collections of fishes adjacent to fronts with no associated Sargassum Fishes (and their size range) taken in neuston net (0.505) and bongo net collections (6 neuston; 3 bongo) from surface waters adjacent to obvious fronts with no Sargassum in January 2004 are listed in Table 16; gear types combined. Obviously, surface water temperatures were quite low for these collections, and mean D.O. was quite high (Table 17). All stations were located relatively close to land(see Figure 5).

During the study, Brevoortia sp., Urophysis cirrata, Lagodon rhomboids, Mugi/ cephalus, Hypleurochilus germinatus, and Citharichyhys spilopterus were taken only in the January collections. Trachurus lathami was the only carangid in the collections, only two exoceotid specimens were collected, and scombrids were absent. 18

Loop Current collections

In May and July-20_03 and May and June 2004 the Loop Current extended a considerable distance northward into the Gulf, which provided unique opportunity for us to sample various locations at the Loop, particularly along the Loop's western and northern boundary area. A 'generic' image of Loop Current intrusion into the NGOM is provided in Figure 17. Figures 4 and 5 show the locations of all stations occupied in 2003 and 2004, respectively, and although obvious, it is important to note that the Loop Current stations are those located southward of the NGOM stations. Figures 4A and 5A better depict the approximate locations of the Loop Current discrete and oblique transects described below in sub­ sections A and 8. The approximate study areas and transects shown in Figures 4A and 58 are superimposed onto 'representative' satellite images of the Loop Current (sea surface temperature) during the months of May 2003 and May 2004, respectively.

A total of 20,263 larval and juvenile fish were taken in 93 collections at Loop Current stations. Fishes taken in Loop Current collections (all gear types combined) are listed in Table 3. A major objective of the Loop Current trips was the collection of bluefin tuna and billfish larvae. Discrete depth and oblique collections were taken using a Tucker trawl. Multi-day research cruises to the Loop consisted of 6 actual sampling days in both years, the remainder of the cruise time involved transit from the dock to the Loop Current and back to the dock. These research trips were jointly funded by the Sargassum Project (MDMR, U.S. F&WS) and SEAMAP (NOAA, NMFS).

A few of the collections at the Loop were randomly taken in years 2003 and 2004 and were considered 'exploratory' collections not following the prescribed protocol. Fishes taken in those collections are included in the overall fish list provided in Table 3, but fishes from 'exploratory' collections and 'non-bonifide transect' collections were not included in statistical treatments pertaining to comparisons between (among) habitat and gear types presented in sub-sections A and 8 below.

Figure 18 shows a comparison of the most numerically abundant families taken in Loop Current collections. The top five families representing 84% of the collection were Scombridae (41 %), Myctophidae (17%), Carangidae (14%), Exocoetidae (7.2%), and Gonostomatidae (4.8%) in order of relative abundance. Additional families, some of which have recreational or commercial importance, were Istiophoridae (1.3%), Coryphaenidae (1.16%), Lutjanidae (0.18%), Xiphidae (0.04%), Rachycentridae (0.04%), and Clupeidae (0.01 %).

Family Carangidae was represented by the greatest number of species (n=12), followed by Scombridae (n=11), Exocoetidae (n=7), and Monocanthidae (n=6). Fifty-five families (93% of all families collected at the Loop current) were represented by 5 or fewer species each. Fishes identified to genus or species 19

level which numerically dominated the collections, in order of total abundance, were Auxis rochei (4501), Oecapterus sp. (402), Thunnus at/anticus (278), Caranx sp. (265), Oecapterus punctatus (227), Prognichthys occidenta/is (206), Auxis sp. (202), Sphyraena sp. (158), Katsuwanis pe/amis (150), and Thunnus thynnus (124).

Analyses of selected Loop Current transect collections: The following categories were selected for this report and represent the results of assessments and statistical analysis of multiple collections taken along specific transects at the Loop Current boundary and selected for their amenability to statistical comparison: A) Discrete Tucker trawl collections Tucker trawl collections were taken at three discrete depths (1, 10, and 20 m) along three 'bonifide' (samples collected following a uniform collection protocol) horizontal transects (two in May 2003 and one in June 2004) at the Loop Current boundary (Figures 4A and 5A). A total of 12 stations (3 "Inside", 6 "Edge", and 3 "Outside") were occupied, both years combined. Mean densities (fish/ 100 m,3) of larval fishes collected in these tows are provided in Table 18. Comparisons of mean larval density of the 15 most abundant families collected in the discrete tows are presented in Figures 19, 20, and 21, respectively.

A significant difference in family composition was evident among the discrete depths sampled (1,10, and 20 m; 2003 and 2004 combined; Global R = 0.099, P = 0.016) (Figure 22). Pairwise comparison of the three depths revealed that family composition was similar for the 10 and 20 m collections (Global R = 0.032, P = 0.25), but both were significantly different from the 1 m collections (Global R = 0.143, P = 0.02). Deeper collections (10 and 20 m) tended to group together, whereas the 1 m collections tended to group toward the outside of collections.

A marginally significant difference in family composition was evident between the habitat types (Inside, Edge, Outside) (Global R = 0.096, P = 0.074) (Figure 23). Pairwise comparison revealed that Inside and Edge samples were not significantly different in their species composition (Global R = -0.004, p = 0.50), whereas the families composition of the Outside collections were significantly different from the Inside and Edge collections (Global R = .168, P = 0.027). Inside and Outside collections tended to group toward the outside of the collections, whereas Edge collections grouped in the center of the plot.

These fish collections represent some of the most detailed, viable data we have among all Loop Current data, however due to the flooding of our offices associated with the Hurricane Katrina surge resulted in the extremely unfortunate destruction of the lap top computer which contained all hydrographic data (including CTD profiles of the water column) pertaining to the 2003 and 2004 Loop Current discrete depth collections. Prior to the storm we copied all hydrographic data related to those collections to a CD, but have been unable to 20

loeClle il Clnd fear it is also lost. We will continue to search for the CD, because we know that these discrete collections represent some of the very best data we acquired on young fishes at the Loop Current western boundary

B) Oblique Tucker trawl collections Oblique Tucker trawl collections were taken along four 'bonifide' (samples collected following a uniform collection protocol) transects at the Loop Current boundary in 2004 (three in May and one in June) (Figures 4A and 5A), A total of 12 stations (3 "Inside", 6 "Edge", and 3 "Outside") were occupied, both years combined, Mean densities (fish/100 m,3) of larval fishes collected in these tows are provided in Table 19, A comparison of mean larval fish density of the 15 most abundant families collected is shown in Figure 24, There was a significant difference in family composition among the three areas (Outside, Edge and Inside) (Global R = 0,199, P = 0,02) (Figure 25), All five Inside collections grouped relatively close together, and three of the five Outside collections that were closely grouped aligned away from the Inside collections. Edge collections contained more variability and aligned between Inside and Outside collections,

Environmental data for surface and 30-m depth Loop Current oblique stations sampled in May and June 2004, combined, are presented in Table 20, It appears that mean surface temperature at inside stations was considerably higher than that at the other sites, and surface salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen were analyzed in an attempt to explain differences in family composition found in oblique Tucker trawl collections along transects at Inside, Edge, and Outside stations, The three environmental parameters were compared using all data from the collection stations using a one-way ANOVA, and no significant differences were found (p > 0,5), This is not surprising since the horizontal transects sampled were relatively short in length «24 km) and the stations are not far removed from each other.

Fishes of special interest in NGOM and Loop Current collections Among fishes of great interest to us were the carangids which were represented by numerous species (similar in both regions) and present in considerable abundance in both NGOM and Loop collections, However, due to their extremely small size, many carangids were unidentifiable to genus or species, We are currently conducting a study of amberjack larvae (and their habitat) in the NGOM (funded by NOAA fisheries), which should provide the opportunity to develop expertise in identifying many carangid larvae and juveniles,

Scombrids were well represented in our collections with 13 species taken in NGOM collections (Table 2) and 11 species taken from the Loop Current (Table 3), Tunas, particularly species of Thunnus, have significant commercial and recreational value in the Gulf region and were important components of NGOM and Loop Current collections, Auxis thazard, A rochei, Thunnus at/anticus and Euthynnus al/etteratus were most abundant scombrids in NGOM collections, 21

while Auxis rochei and Thunnus at/anticus were predominant in Loop Current collections (taken in May 2003 and May and June 2004). Specimens of Thunnus collected during the entire project ranged 1.6 - 10.7 mm SL, with the majority <5 mm which made identifications quite difficult. Specimens of Thunnus (all species combined) were collected at the Loop Current in May and June, but were collected form NGOM waters during the months of May - August. The mean monthly numeric abundance of Thunnus in NGOM collections is presented in Figure 26.

Of great interest were the 124 specimens of Thunnus thunnus taken in Loop Current collections (taken during the months of May and June). Actual spawning location(s) of bluefin in the Gulf have not been identified, although Richards et al. (1989) reported that some bluefin spawning may occur in the vicinity of the Loop's western boundary. Bluefin tuna larvae that we collected along the Loop's western boundary may have been spawned there, or possibly passively transported into the Gulf from the Caribbean via the Loop Current.

Also, of particular interest during this study were the collections of larval billfishes (n = 192; 186 in Loop Current collections, and 6 from the NGOM), identified only to family at this time. Work is underway to determine billfish species composition of the samples using DNA analysis.

Summary Our studies showed that young fishes (larvae, post-larvae and juveniles) aggregate at Sargassum mats, along oceanic fronts associated with Sargassum, (e.g., windrows at convergence zones), fronts without Sargassum, and at the Loop Current boundary, however the growth and survival of young fishes of many species may be quite different each of both areas. This is an important question to ponder, and one beyond the scope of our study. Aggregations of larval fish at fronts (with and without Sargassum) may be the result of adults spawning in the area or the accumulation of eggs and larvae which are passively transported on currents into areas of convergence.

As part of earlier research associated with this project (2001 - 2002), Comyns et al. (2002) found that the relatively low abundance and diversity of fish larvae found in bongo net collections taken adjacent to large patches of Sargassum not associated with frontal features substantiates that the abundance and diversity of young fishes offshore is greater at sites where water masses converge, and perhaps even great where those fronts are associated with Sargassum. 22

Based on our statistical treatments of the data as presented in the various NGOM and Loop Current sub-sections presented above, we found: No significant difference in: l • Mean fish abundance (fish tow· ) between Sargassum mats and Sargassum windrows. • Fish (identified to lowest possible taxa) composition between 'green and blue' sides of Sargassum windrows. • Fish (identified to lowest possible taxa) composition in cross-section collections between mats and windrows

Significant difference in: • Fish family composition among the discrete depths sampled (1, 10, and 20 m) along Loop Current trransects. Furthermore, pairwise comparison of the three depths revealed that family composition was similar for the 10 and 20 m collections, but both were significantly different from the 1 m collections. • Fish family composition among the three Loop Current station areas (Outside, Edge and Inside)

Of the 54 families and 139 species of fish collected from the NGOM (primarily Sargassum-related collections; does not include Loop Current collections) in the present study, 32 families and 67 species were not previously reported from the Gulf of Mexico pelagic Sargassum community. The association of larvae and juveniles of valuable fishery species with Sargassum might have an influence on recruitment patterns of some species, particularly when Sargassum drifts shoreward (perhaps an advantage for some species and a disadvantage for other). Could predictions of future year class strength of important fishery species in the Gulf of Mexico be enhanced by knowledge of the relative abundance of their juveniles found at Sargassum and fronts?

Other questions are: 1) What is the areal abundance of Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico and how does the abundance change seasonally? 2) What is the relative importance of pelagic Sargassum and oceanic fronts to early life stages of rnanaged fishery species? 3) What are the growth and mortality rates of managed fishes which associate with Sargassllm habitat? 4) How does the age structure of fishes, such as triggerfish and amberjack, that utilize Sargassum habitat as a nursery compare to the age structure of recruits to benthic habitat?

Future Sargassum studies are needed to better understand the complexities of the pelagic Sargassum ecosystem in U.S. waters and to protect and manage this essential habitat for the benefit of managed fisheries. This study documented that Sargassum provides habitat for a multitude of young fishes, many of which as adults contribute significantly to Mississippi's valuable recreational finfish 23 fishery. Understanding the structure and function of the Sargassum ecosystem and the role it plays as Essential Fish Habitat in supporting and sustaining the feeding requirements, health, survivorship and distribution of larval and juvenile sport fishes is paramount to expanding the knowledge of the recruitment of young fishes into northern Gulf fisheries.

The findings of this research project provide valuable data and information to the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other fisheries management agencies in the Gulf region for use in the management of marine fisheries resources and their habitats, particularly in the development of management strategies for the sustainability of recreation ally important fishes.

Appendices Appendix 1: All tables and figures provided in this report

Appendices 2 - 8: Supporting materials Appendix 2: Photographs of Sargassum in the northern Gulf of Mexico Appendix 3: Sargassum research at-sea (examples of collection gear) Appendix 4: Examples of field data sheets Appendix 5: Graduate student research Appendix 6: Scientific presentations Appendix 7: Media coverage/public information pertaining to the project Appendix 8: American Fisheries Society Award

Project Research Personnel: 1 March 2002 - 31 March 2007 Co-Principal Investigator: James S. Franks Co-Principal Investigator: Eric R. Hoffmayer Co-Principal Investigator: Bruce H. Comyns Co-Principal Investigator: J. Read Hendon Co-Principal Investigator: Richard S. Waller Technical Assistant: E. Mae Blake Graduate Student Research Assistants: Nicole Crochet, Samantha Holden, and Sarah Turner

Acknowledgments Being able to study the unique larval and juvenile fishes associated with the Gulf of Mexico's pelagic Sargassum community and Loop Current environment was one of the greatest, most exciting, and rewarding research opportunities ever experienced by those of us who worked on the Sargassum project. It was a tremendous learning experience (both at sea and in the laboratory) for the principal investigators and graduate students alike. For that, we are forever thankful. We trust our efforts will contribute to the knowledge of Gulf fishes and their habitats.

We are extremely grateful to the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), Biloxi, Mississippi for funding this research through the U.S. 24

Fish and Wildlife Service (Atlanta, Georgia), Wallop/Breaux Sport Fish Restoration Program. We personally acknowledge the tremendous support given to us on multiple occasions by Dr. Bill Walker, Corky Perret, Michael Buchanan, Traci Floyd and others with the MDMR Bob Gassaway, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, always showed great interest in our work and gave us his strongest support, and for that we are most grateful.

We acknowledge Captains Paul Beaguez and Chuck Block and the crew of the GCRL research vessel RVfTommy Munro for their hard work, professionalism, and camaraderie. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Vernon Asper, a "Team Sargassum" member and pilot for Sargassum aerial surveys. We thank Ocean Technologies, Bay St. Louis, MS for providing satellite SST images of the Gulf and follow-up analysis. Graduate students James Ballard, Paul Grammer, Natasha Sharp and Glen Zapfe provided much needed assistance on research cruises. Vernon Asper's laboratory technician Leslie provided instructions and valuable assistance with the acquisition of COT data during one Loop Current research cruise. We are deeply grateful to friend and colleague Lance Horn (NURC) for his tremendous contributions to a better understanding of pelagic Sargassum habitat via ROV video documentation on two of the research cruises.

Literature Cited Bortone, S. A., P. A. Hastings and S. B. Collard. 1977. The pelagic Sargassum ichthyofauna of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Sci. 1 (2):60-67. Brandt, S. B. 1993. The effect of thermal fronts on fish growth: a bioenergetics evaluation of food and temperature. Estuaries 16(1 ):142-159. Dooley, J. K. 1972. Fishes associated with the pelagic Sargassum complex, with a discussion of the Sargassum community. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 16: 1-32. Clarke, K. R 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aus J Ecol 18:117-143. Clarke, K. R. and R M. Warwick. 2001. Change in Marine Communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. PRIMER-E. Plymouth Marine Lab., U. K. Comyns, B. H., N. M. Crochet, J.S. Franks, J.R Hendon, and RS. Waller. 2002. Preliminary assessment of the association of larval fishes with pelagic Sargassum habitat and convergence zones in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst. 53:636-645. Hilborn, Rand P. Medley. 1989. Tuna purse-seine fishing with fish-aggregating devices (FADS): models of tuna FAD interactions. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:28-32. Hoffmayer, E.R, J.S. Franks, B.H Comyns, J.R Hendon and RS. Waller. 2005. Larval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum in the north - central Gulf of Mexico. Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst. 56:259-270. Langmuir, I. 1938. Surface motion of water induced by wind. Science 87:119- 123. Largier, L. L. 1993. Estuarine fronts: how important are they? Estuaries 16(1):1- 11. 25

Moser, M. L., P. J. Auster and J. B. Bichy. 1998. Effects of mat morphology on large Sargassum-associated fishes: observations from a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and free-floating video camcorders. Environ. BioI. Fish. 51 :391- 398. McEachran, J.D. and J.D. Fechhelm. 1998. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Vol. 1. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1112 pp. NMFS. 2006. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. NMFS 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. NOAA, NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 1600 pp. Richards, W.J., T. Leming, M. F. McGowan, J.T. Lamkin, and S. Kelley-Fraga. 1989. Distribution of fish larvae in relation to hydrographic features of the Loop Current boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Rapp. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer. 191 :169-176. Richards, w.J., M. F. McGowan, T. Leming, J.T. Lamkin, and S. Kelley. 1993. Larval fish assemblages at the Loop Current boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 53(2):475-537. Richards, W.J. 2006. Early stages of Atlantic fishes, an identification guide for the Western Central North Atlantic. Vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 1335 pp. SAFMC. 1998. Final fishery management plan for pelagic Sargassum habitat of the south Atlantic region. S. Atl. Fish. Manag. Council, Charleston, S. C., 90 pp. SAFMC. 2000. Fishery management plan for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic region. S. Atl. Fish. Manag. Council, Charleston S. C., 213 pp. Settle, L. R. 1993. Spatial and temporal variability in the distribution and abundance of larval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum. M. S. Thesis, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 64 pp. Sinclair, M. and TD. lies. 1985. Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) distributions in the Gulf of Maine - Scotian Shelf area in relation to oceanographic features. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:880-887. Wells, R.J. and J.R Rooker. 2003. Spatial and temporal patterns of habitat use by fishes associated with Sargassum mats in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 74:81-99 APPENDIX 1

Tables and figures provided in this report Table I. Number and size range (length, SL, mm) of fishes (larvae and small juveniles) taken in all collections, 2002-2005. Fishes were identified to the lowest possible taxon. The number shown for families does not include numbers shown for taxa within families, but for fishes identified only to family level.

Size Range Family Species Number SL (mm} Anguillidae 7 Muraenidae 59 Congridae 2 Netlastomiidae 2 Ophichthidae 29

Clupeidae 5824 Harengula jaguana 191 3.1 10.8 Sardinia aurita 48 3.1 10.4 Etrumaus tares G 4.8 9.4 Brevoortia sp. 2639 3.8 11.5 Opisthonema oglinum 14 3.6 21.3 Engraulidae 45 Anchoa hepsetus 1 10.0 Gonostom8tid8e 714 Cyc/othone sp. 37 2.4 10.8 Melanostomiidae 2 Astronesthidae 1 Synodontidae 83 Chlorophthalmidae 46 Paralepidae 74 Para/epis atlantica 1 15.0 Myctophidae 2684 Diaphus sp. 10 3.7 6.0 Lampanyctus sp 4 6.3 7.9 Myctophum sp. 1 7.1 Myctophum asperum 1 18.8 Myctophum nitidulum 2 11.9 13.8 Centrobranchus nigroocellatus 2 22.0 36.8 Antennaridae 2 Histrio his trio 81 1.7 39.9 Ogcephalidae 3 Ceratiidae 1 Cryptosaurus couesi 3 2.4 13.1 Bregmacerotidae 9 Bregmacerous sp. 5 7.9 9.5 Ophididae 279 Phycidae Urophycis sp, 136 Urophycis cirralus 262 1,6 24,5 Exocoetidae 1303 Exocoelus oblusiroslris 144 1.0 29.1 Parexcocoelus brachyplerus 87 2.2 27.4 Oxyporamphus microplerus 77 2.4 20.6 Prognichlhys occidenlalis 828 1.4 109.0 Hirundichlhys affinis 125 3,1 16.5 Cheilopogon me/anurus 7 6,8 21,5 Cheilopogon exsiliens 177 1.5 33.4 Cheilopogon furcalus 128 2,5 13,5 Cheilopogon sp. 10 7.1 16.0 Hemiramphidae 195 Hemiramphus balao 1 42,1 Atherinidae 2 Pomacanthidae Holocanlhus sp, 4 4.0 7.6 Holocentridae 51 Holocenlrus sp. 59 2.3 6.1 Zeidae 1 Caproidae Anligonia sp. 7 2.0 Anligonia capros 29 1.8 5.2 Antigonia combalia 4 Lampridae Fistularidae Fislularia sp. 1

Macroramphosidae Macroramphosus sp. 1 6.0 Syngnathidae 2 Syngnalhus pelagicus 10 27,2 108.9 Syngnathus louisianae 20 60,9 153,0 Acenlronura dendrilica 1 28.5 Scorpaenidae 172 Triglidae 11 Oactylopteridae Oaclyloplerus volilans 1 4.2 Nomeidae 2 Cubiceps sp. 3 2,5 5,6 Cubiceps pauciradialus 23 2.7 4.4 Nomeus gronovii 3 10.9 11,6 Psenes sp, 9 4.4 39.0 Psenes cyanophrys 2 16.3 18.8 Stromateidae 18 Peprilus sp. 24 2.3 12.4 Peprilus burti 8 4.4 9.8 Serranidae 18 Hemanthias vivanus 3 3.1 3,7 Serranus sp. 4 3,0 8,5 Anthias sp. 5 4.4 5.5 Pristiponoides aquilonaris 6 3.8 6.8 Epinophelus sp. 3 Priacanthidae 112 Heteropriacanthus cruentatus 1 44.9 Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum 5 1.6 3.8 Echeinidae 14 Remora sp. 3 27.5 31.1 Carangidae 7181 Seriola dumeriJi 3 13.8 15.0 Seriola fasciata 2 20.6 23.3 Seriola rivoliana 11 2.4 66.7 Seriola lonata 1 3.0 Seriola sp. 71 1.3 13.8 oecapterus punctatus 230 1.3 31.3 Oecapterus sp. 431 1.9 6.9 Caranx crysos 299 1.7 81.7 Caranx ruber 3 16.8 28.4 Caranx hippos and/or latus 5 6.9 20.0 Caranx bartholomaei 12 4.3 29.5 Caranx sp. 3479 1.4 12.8 Chloroscombrus chrysurus 10 2.3 10.8 Trachurus lathami 195 1.9 7.4 Elegatis bipinnulata 75 2.7 33.0 Trachinotus carolinus 3 4.4 9.6 Selar crumenopthalamus 122 2.3 17.3 OJigoplites saurus 118 2.5 5.0 Selene sp. 6 2.8 3.8 Selene vomer 1 5.6 Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus 1 9.4 Naucrates ductor 4 3.0 Coryphaenidae 39 Coryphaena equisetis 35 1.7 18.1 Coryphaena hippurus 130 1.7 38.1 Coryphaena sp. 53 2.2 27.5 Lutjanidae 89 Lutjanus campechanus 6 3.7 4.1 Lutjanus sp. 1 Rhomboplites aurorubens 3 4.1 Lobotidae Lobotes surinamensis 119 5.0 94.1 Gerreidae 1110 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 22 2.9 10.3 Mullidae 105 1.9 5.1 Upeneus parvus 16 3.6 10.3 Kyphosidae 29 Kyphosis incisor 51 8.5 25.6 Kyphosus sp. 207 3.4 17.7 Chaetodontidae 20 Chaetodon sp. 1 3.0 Pomacentridac Abudefduf saxatilis 100 2.9 28.8 Mugilidae 1 Mugi/ cephalus 7 4.7 20.1 Mugi/ curema 730 5.3 13.5 Mugi/ sp. 108 3.2 17.9 Sphyraenidae 18 Sphyraena barracuda 27 2.1 23.1 Sphyraena guachancho 4.4 Sphyraena borealis 13 2.6 12.5 Sphyraena sp. 531 1.4 17.4 Polynemidae Polydactylus oligodon 34.8 Blenniidae 49 Hypsoblennies sp. 12 8.8 15.0 Hypleurochi/us germinatus 2 8.8 9.0 Microdesmidae 1 Callionymidae 4 Gobiidae 335 Gempylidae 65 Gempylus serpens 6 3.1 10.5 Trichiuridae 10 Trichiuruslepturus 6 9.4 33.8 Scombridae 233 Thunnus thynnus 126 2.2 5.7 Thunnus at/anticus 514 1.8 9.9 Thunnus albacores 156 2.5 10.7 Thunnus sp. 250 1.6 7.6 Auxis thazard 891 1.6 17.7 Auxis rochei 5064 1.3 41.5 Auxis sp. 203 3.0 Euthynnus alletteratus 464 1.8 10.6 Scomberomorus cavalla 3 2.2 3.0 Scomberomorus maculatus 3 2.8 6.2 Scomberomorus sp. 2 3.6 4.6 Katsuamis pelamis 152 1.9 7.5 Acanthocybium solandri 9 3.1 6.8 Istiophoridae 192 Xiphidae 2 Xiphias gladius 4 3.7 20.7 Paralichthyidae andlor Bothidae 330 Trichopsetta ventralis 1 5.4 7.7 Citharichthys macrops 1 8.0 Citharichthys spi/opterus 13 6.3 8.1 Citharichthys sp. 2 3.2 6.2 Paralichthys albigutta 1 13.2 Paralichthys lethostegma 5 7.8 8.8 Paralichthys sp. 2 5.9 7.0 Cyc/opsetta sp. 5 3.5 5.7 Cyc/opsetta fimbriata 4 Etropus sr. 1 6.0 Achiridae 2 Gymnachirus sp. 1 Cynoglossidae 1 Symphurus sp. 28 2.2 11.9 Balistidae 10 8a/istes capriscus 604 2.7 127.5 Canthidermis sufflamen 4 6.5 75.1 Canthidermis macu/ata 28 3.8 135.0 Xanthichys ringens 4 33.2 47.7 Monocanthidae 19 Monocanthus hispidus 100 7.7 75.0 Monocanthus setifer 8 18.3 29.5 Monocanthus ciliatus 7 48.2 49.1 Cantherhines pullus 2 4.6 14.9 Cantherhines macrocerus 3 28.0 31.9 A/uterus sp. 1 16.9 A/uterus schoepfi 1 57.3 A/uterus scriptus 1 29.6 Ostraciidae 5 Lactophyrs sp. Tetraodontidae 68 Spheroides sp. 14 4.1 7.0 Diodontidae 1 Diodon hystrix Diodon h%canthus 5 47.0 54.0 Chi/omycterus schoepfi 3 14.6 35.4 Unidentified Fish 8179

Total number 51,093 Table 2. Fishes (and number) collected in the northern Gulf of Mexico (NGQM), 2002 - 2005, all gears types combined. _,£amily _____ .. _~Jl()t:j()!: ___.. ______'.'N"'um!>()_r ___ Nettastomiidae* 2 Ophichthidae 19 Clupeidae 5822 Harengu/a jaguana 191 Sardinia aurita 48 Etrumeus teres 6 Brevoortia sp. 2639 Opisthonema oglinum 14 Engraulidae* 45 Anchoa hepsetus 1 Gonostomatidae 51 Cye/othone sp. 14 Synodontidae 3 Paralepidae Para/epis atlantica Myctophidae 257 Diaphus sp. 10 Antennaridae Histrio his trio 75 Bregmacerotidae Bregmacerous sp. 5 Ophididae 278 Phycidae* Urophycis sp. 136 Urophycis cirratus 262 Exocoetidae 732 Exocoetus obtusirostris 42 Parexcocoetus brachypterus 83 Oxyporamphus micropterus 58 Prognichthys occidenta/is 622 Hirundichthys affinis 96 Cheilopogon me/anurus 7 Chei/opogon exsiliens 142 Cheilopogon {urcatus 66 Cheilopogon sp. 10 Hemiramphidae 105 Atherinidae* 2 Pomacanthidae H%canthus sp. 1 Lampridae* 1 Fistularidae Fistu/aria spp. Macroramphosidae* Macroramphosus sp. 1 Syngnathidae o Syngnathus pefagicus 9 Syngnathus fouisianae 20 Scorpaenidae 1 Triglidae 1 Oactylopteridae * Oactylopterus volitans Nomeidae Cubiceps sp. 2 Cubiceps pauciradiatus 19 Cubiceps gracilis 1 Nomeus gronovii 3 Psenes sp. 9 Psenes cyanophrys 2 Stromateidae* Peprilus sp. 24 Peprillis bllrti 8 Serranidae 4 Serranus sp. 3 Anthiinae 3 Pristiponoides aquilonaris 3 Priacanthidae 3 Echeinidae 4 Carangidae 6155 Serio/a dumerili 3 Seriola fasciata 1 Serio/a rivoliana 10 Serio/a sp. 53 Oecapterlls punctatus 35 Caranx crysos 299 Caranx ruber 1 Caranx hippos/latus 5 Caranx sp. 3214 Chloroscombrus chrysurus 10 Trachurus lathami 176 Elegatis bipinnulata 74 Trachinotus carolinus 3 Selar crumenoptha/amus 52 Oligoplites S811rus 118 Selene spp. 5 Selene vomer 1 Coryphaenidae Coryphaena equisetis 3 Coryphaena hippurus 33 Coryphaena sp. 17 Lutjanidae 70 Lutjanus campechanus 3 Lobotidae* Lobotes surinamensis 119 Gerreidae 1087 Sparidae* Lagodon rhomboides 22 Mullidae 105 Kyphosidae Kyphosis incisor 51 Kyphosus sp. 235 Pomacentridae* Abudefduf saxatilis 100 Mugilidae Mugi/ cepilalus 7 Mugi/ curema 730 Mugi/ sp. 104 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda 27 Sphyraena guachancho 1 Sphyraena borealis 2 Sphyraena sp. 355 Blenniidae* 49 Hypsoblennies sp. 12 Hypleurochilus germinatus 2 Microdesmidae* 1 Callionymidae 1 Gobiidae 250 Gempylidae 2 Gempylus serpens 3 Trichiuridae Trichiurus lepturus 5 Stromateidae Peprilus burti 8 Peprilus sp. 24 Scombridae 40 Thunnus thynnus 2 Thunnus at/anticus 236 Thunnus albacores 74 Thunnus sp. 160 Auxis thazard 811 Auxis rochei 564 Auxis spp. 1 Euthynnus alletteratus 386 Scomberomorus cavalla 2 Scomberomorus macul 3 Scomberomorus sp. 2 Katsuwanis pelamis 2 Acanthocybium solandri 1 Istiophoridae 6 Paralichthyidae/Bothidae 11 Trichopsetta ventralis 1 Citharichthys macrops 1 Citharichthys spi/opterus 13 Citharichthys sp. 2 Paralichthys albigutta Paralichthys lethostegma 5 Paralichthys sp. 2 Cyclopse/ta sp. 3 Cyclopse/ta fimbriata 4 Etropus sp. 1 Achiridae* 2 Gymnachirus sp. 1 Cynoglossidae Symphurus spp. 28 Balistidae 3 Balistes capriscus 601 Canthidermis sufflamen 3 Canthidermis maculata 25 Xanthichys ringens 1 Monocanthidae 1 Monocanthus hispidus 100 Monocanthus ciliatus 1 Cantherhines macrocerus 1 Aluterus sp. 1 Aluterus scriptus 1 Tetraodontidae 2 Spheroides sp. 12 Diodontidae 0 Diodon holocanthus 5 Unidentified Fish Total

* Indicates families not collected at the Loop Current Crable 3) Table 3. Fisbes (and number) collected at the Loop Current during May 2003 and May and June 2004, all gear types combined .

... -.-.--~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- _.'F__ a.. m".i",ly'-- ______S~p,o,e'_'c".ie"'s"___. __ ._~ ..~ Total Number Anguilla rostrata 7 Muraenidae 59 Congridae 2 Ophichthidae 10 Clupeidae 2 Gonostomatidae 663 Cyc/othone sp. 23 Astronesthidae * 1 Melanostomiidae * 2 Synodontidae 80 Chlorophthalmidae * 46 Paralepidae 74 Myctophidae 2421 Lampanyctus sp 4 Myctophum sp. 1 Myctophum asperum 1 Myctophum nitidu/um 2 Centrobranchus nigrooceliatus 2 Antennaridae Histrio histrio 8 Ogcephalidae 3 Ceratiidae 3 Cryptosaurus couesi 1 Bregmacerotidae Bregmacerous sp. 9 Ophididae 1 Exocoetidae 571 Exocoetus obtusirostris 102 Parexcocoetus brachypterus 4 Oxyporamphus micropterus 19 Prognichthys occidenta/is 206 Hirundichtl/ys affinis 29 Cheilopogon exsiliens 35 Cheilopogon (urcatus 62 Hemiramphidae 90 Hemiramphus ba/ao Pomacanthidae H%canthus sp. 3 Holocentridae 51 H%centrus sp. 59 Zeidae * 1 Caproidae * Antigonia sp. 7 Antigonia capros 29 Antigonia combatia 4 Fistularidae Fistularidae Fistu/aria spp. 1 Syngnathidae 2 Syngnathus pe/agicus Acentronura dendritica Scorpaenidae 171 Triglidae 10 Nomeidae 1 Cubiceps pauciradiatus 4 Serranidae 14 Hemanthias vivanus 3 Serranus sp. 1 Anthiinae 2 Pristiponoides aqui/onaris 3 Epinephe/inae 3 Priacanthidae 109 Heteropriacanthus cruentatus 1 Rachycentridae * Rachycentron canadum 5 Echeinidae 10 Remora sp. 3 Carangidae 1026 Serio/a fasciata 1 Serio/a rivo/iana 1 Serio/a zonata 1 Serio/a sp. 18 Oecapterus punctatus 227 Oecapterus sp. 402 Caranx ruber 2 Caranx barth%maei 12 Caranx sp. 265 Trachurus /athami 19 E/egatis bipinnu/ata 1 Se/ar crumenoptha/amus 70 Hemicaranx amb/yrhynchus 1 Naucrates ductor 4 Coryphaenidae 27 Coryphaena equisetis 32 Coryphaena hippurus 97 Coryphaena sp. 9 Lutjanidae 19 Lutjanus campechanus 3 Lutjanus sp. 1 Rhombop/ites aurorubens 3 Gerreidae 23 Mullidae Upeneus parvus 16 Kyphosidae * Kyphosus sp. 1 Chaetodontidae * 20 Chaetodon spp. 1 Mugilidae Mugi/ sp. 5 Sphyraenidae 18 Sphyraena borealis 11 Sphyraena sp. 158 Polynemidae * Polydactylus oligodon 1 Callionymidae 3 Gobiidae 85 Gempylidae 63 Gempylus serpens 3 Trichiuridae 10 TrichilJrllS IAptlJrtJ.q 1 Scombridae 193 Thunnus thynnus 124 Thunnus at/anticus 278 Thunnus albacores 82 Thunnus sp. 90 Auxis thazard 80 Auxis rochei 4501 Auxis spp. 202 Euthynnus al/elteratus 78 Scomberomorus caval/a 1 Katsuamis pelamis 150 Acanthocybium solandri 8 Istiophoridae 186 Xiphidae * 2 Xiphias gladius 4 Stromateidae 17 Paralichthyidae/Bothidae 319 Cyclopselta sp. 2 Cyclopselta chittendeni 4 Cynoglossidae 1 Balistidae 7 Balistes capriscus 3 Canthidermis sufflamen 1 Canthidermis maculata 3 Xanthichys ringens 3 Monocanthidae 18 Monocanthus ciliatus 6 Monocanthus setiter 8 Monocanthus sp. 1 Cantherhines pul/us 2 Canlherhines macrocerus 2 Aluterus schoepfi 1 Ostraciidae * 5 Tetraodontidae 66 Spheroides sp. 2 Diodontidae Chilomycterus schoepfi 3 Unidentified fish 6100 Total Number 20263

* Indicates families not collected in the northern Gulf of Mexico Cfable 2) l Table 4. Mean abundance (tlsh tow· ) of larval and small juvenile 1ishes collected ii'om surface waters at Sargassum windrows (n = 14) and large mats (n = 5) of Sargassum using a 1 x 2 m neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) in the north central Gulf of Mexico in 2002. Mean abundance shown for families does not include that shown for taxa within families, but for tlshes identitied only to family level.

Mean Abundance Family .....§£E!cies Windrow Large Mat

Clupeidae 159.86 4 Opisthonema oglinum 0.86 Engraulidae 0.64 0.4 Gonostol11atidae 0.8 Antennaridae Histrio histrio 0.36 Ceratiidae Cryptosaurus couesi 0.14 Ophididae 0.07 Exocoetidae 0.36 8.4 Exocoetus obtusirostris 1 Parexcocoetus brachypterus 4 Oxyporamphus micropterus 2.36 1 Prognichthys occidentalis 21.86 10.6 Hirundichthys affinis 4.36 0.2 Cheilopogon melanurus 0.43 0.2 Cheilopogon exsiliens 6.64 Cheilopogon furcatus 2.07 Cheilopogon sp. 0.71 Atherinidae 0.07 Synganthidae Synganthus louisianae 0.21 0.2 Nomeidae Cubiceps gracilis 0.07 Psenes cyanophrys 0.4 Echeinidae 0.14 Carangidae 0.07 Seriola dumerili 0.2 Serio/a fasciata 0.2 Serio/a rivoliana 0.4 Seriola sp. 1.14 Oecapterus punctatus 0.14 Caranx crysos 4.71 19.8 Caranx hippos/latus 0.07 Caranx sp. 5.21 11.8 Chloroscombrus chrysurus 0.14 1 Trachurus lathami 2.93 Elegatis bipinnulata 0.5 10.8 Trachinotus carolinus 0.07 Selar crumenoptha/amus 1.57 Otigoplites saurus 7.86 Coryphaenidae Coryphaena equisetis 0.07 0.2 Coryphaena hippurus 1.14 Lobotidae Lobotes surinamensis 3.93 3 Gerreidae 59.57 14 Mullidae 1.86 Kyphosidae Kyphosus sp. 3.79 26.8 Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis 1.14 Mugilidae Mugi/ curema 33.64 51.6 Mugi/ sp. 0.29 Sphyraenidae 1.86 Sphyraena barracuda 0.36 Sphyraena guachancho 0.07 Sphyraena borealis 0.14 Sphyraena sp. 0.Q7 Blenniidae 1.86 OA Hypsoblennies sp. 0.29 1.2 Gempylidae Gempylus serpens 0.2 Scombridae Thunnus albacores 0.07 Thunnus sp. 2.36 2.6 Auxis thazard 39.36 13 Auxis rochei 0.71 0.8 Auxis spp. 0.07 Euthynnus alletteratus 0.14 Katsuamis pe/amis 0.14 Istiophoridae 0.07 Paralichthyidae/Bothidae Citharichthys macrops 0.2 Balistidae OA Batistes capriscus 4.64 2.8 Canthidermis macu/ata 0.14 1.8 Monocanthidae Monocanthus hispidus 0.07 2.2 Aluterus scriptus 0.07 Tetraodontidae 0.07 Seheroides s[l. 0.29 Table 5. Surfllce salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and transparency for neuston net stations adjacent to Sargas:\'lIIl1_~_

Habitat Salinity Temperature Dissolved T~pe (PSUl ee) Ox~gen (~~m) Mat 31.4 31.2 5.0 (31.1-31.7) (30.6-31.7) (4.9-5.2) Windrow 33.5 30.7 4.6 (32.8-34.3) (30.2-31.9) (4.5-4.7) Front with negligible or no Sargassum 32.3 30.8 4.9 (31.1-32.9) (30.4-31.2) (4.9-5.0) Table 10. Mean number of larval and small juvenile fishes, combined, collected in surface bongo tows (0.333 mm mesh) at three Sargassum habitat types (mats, windrows, and fronts with negligible amounts/or no Sargassum) during July 2004. Negligible - No Jamily Species Mats Windrows Sargassum ""---.~~.,.,. Gonoslomalidae 5.9 0.7 0.0 Myclophidae 5.5 6.2 0.0 Ophididae 0.0 4.5 0.0 Exocoetidae 0.0 7.1 3.2 Hemiramphidae 0.0 0.4 0.0 Carangidae 778.0 21.3 4.4 Seriola sp. 0.0 0.3 0.0 Caranx sp. 45.5 76.4 5.2 Coryphaenidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coryphaena sp. 0.0 1.3 0.8 Lutjanidae 0.0 8.6 0.0 Gerreidae 0.0 14.2 0.0 Sphyraenidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sphyraena sp. 0.0 34.9 0.0 Gobiidae 0.0 4.4 0.0 Scombridae 0.0 0.2 0.0 Thunnus Ihynnus 0.0 0.3 0.0 Thunnus allanticus 4.8 8.5 0.8 Thunnus albacores 2.1 3.0 0.0 Thunnus sp. 8.8 0.0 0.0 Auxis thazard 0.5 2.4 0.7 Auxis rochei 33.8 21.2 0.0 Eulhynnus alletteralus 2.5 6.2 0.0 Cynoglossidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symphurus sp. 0.0 0.3 0.0 ... __8alistidae .... __ .... _-- 0.2 0.0 0.0 Table II. Mcan (range in parenthesis) surface water salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen at each habitat type (Sargassum mat, Sargassum windrows, and ii'ont with negligible amounts/or no Sargassum) where bongo net tows were conducted in the north central Gulf of Mexico in June 2004.

Habitat Salinity Temperature Dissolved T}'pe (PSU) (C) OX},l!en (ppm) Mat 31.4 31.2 5.0 (311-31.7) (30.6-31.7) (4.8-5.2) Windrow 33.5 30.7 4.7 (32.8-33.9) (30.2-31.3) (4.5-4.9) Front with negligible or no Sargassum 32.5 30.9 4.8 (31.1-338) (30.5-31.2) (4.8-4.9) 3 Table 12. Mean larval fish densities (fishiI00m ) collected in June 2005 adjacent to Sargassum windrows (data hom both sides combined) and at 'away' sites using a neuston net (0.333mm mesh) towed at the surface and a bongo net towed at a depth of 5 m. Fishes were identified to the lowest possible taxon. Mean density shown for families docs not incorporate mean density shown for taxa within families, but for fishes identified only to family level.

--,~-"--- Neuston Net Bongo Net Surface Collections 5-m Collections Family Species Adjacent Away Adjacent Away

Synodontidae 1 .1 Myctophidae 1.7 Exocoetidae 0.3 Prognichthys occidentalis 1.5 0.1 0.4 Cheilopogon exsiliens 0.2 Hemiramphidae 0.1 0.2 Carangidae 0.7 0.5 17.9 12.3 Oecapterus sp. 2.3 1.2 Caranx sp. O~ 06 105 6.8 Chloroscombrus clJ/ysurus 0.4 Trachurus lathami 0.2 2.1 Selar crumenoptha/amus 0.4 Selene vomer 0.4 Coryphaenidae 0.1 0.6 Lutjanidae 1.8 Lutjanus campechanus 1.3 Gerreidae 0.1 Mugilidae 0.'1 MugU sp. 0.2 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena sp. 0.2 20.3 1.7 Blenniidae 1.3 0.8 Callionymidae 0.6 Gobiidae 0.1 1.8 9.3 Gempylidae 0.4 Gempylus serpens 0.1 Scombridae 0.2 0.3 9.4 3.5 Thunnus aI/anticus 1.4 0.5 2.9 1.4 Thunnus albacores 0.1 0.4 Auxis rochei 0.3 5.0 7.5 Euthynnus al/ellemtus 0.3 0.2 9.2 6.5 Acanthocybium solandri 0.6 Istlophoridae 0.2 Paralichthyidae 0.6 1.6 Balistidae Balisles capriscus 0.1 0.4 Nomeidae 0.4 Cubiceps pauciradialus 0.6 1.3 1.7 Table 13. Mean salinity (ppt), temperature (0C), and dissolved oxygen (ppm) at collections taken at surface (neuston) and 5 m depth (bongo) stations adjacent to and 'away' fl'Om~in(ll'Ows ofSargassum during June ~Q9?", Salinity (ppt) Temperature te) Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) Windrow .... g~.o'.th"--_-'M:.:.e"'a=:.n'- Range M,El9.n._ ",R",a"ng",e"-_....:.M",e",ao:,n,,--_....:.R,,,ao:,n=ge Adjacent Surface 32.9 29.5 35.6 28.9 28.6 29.2 6.1 5.7 6.5 5 meters 34.2 32.3 35.7 29.0 28.8 29.2 5.8 5.6 6.1 Away Surface 32.7 28.2 35.7 28.8 27.4 29.7 6.1 5.9 6.7 5 meters 34.1 31.1 35.7 28.8 27.5 29.5 5.9 5.6 6.1 -~~...... :."" Table 14. Juvenile fishes (and number) collected by nellston net (3.2 mm mesh) in cross-section tows through Sargassum mats and Sargassum windrows in 2002 and 2003.

. .. _------

Family Species Number Antennaridae Histrio histrio 60 Exocoetidae 2 Parexcocoetus brachypterus 1 Prognichthys occidenta/is 4 Hirundichthys affinis 1 Cheifopogon exsifiens 1 Cheifopogon furcatus 2 Syngnathidae Syngnathus pe/agicus 8 Syngnsthus /ouisianae 6 Carangidae Serio/a rivoliana 8 Serio/a sp. 3 Oecapterus punctatus 1 Caranx crysos 131 Caranx ruber 1 Caranx hippos/latus 4 Caranx sp. 4 E/ega/is bipinnu/ata 6 Trachinotus caro/inus 1 Se/ar crumenoptha/amus 3 Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus 1 Lobotidae Lobotes surinamensis 39 Kyphosidae Kyphosis incisor 51 Kyphosus sp. 17 Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis 66 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda 7 Blenniidae Hypsob/ennies sp. 2 Balistidae Balistes capriscus 507 Canthidermis suff/amen 1 Canthidermis macu/ata 3 Monocanthidae 1 Monocanthus hispidus 88 Monocanthus ciliatus 1 A/uterus sp. 1 Tetraodontidae Spheroides sp. 2 Diodontidae Diodon h%canthus 1 Nomeidae Psenes sp. 2 'fable 15, Mean transparency, salinity, temperature and dissolved oxygen at each Sargassum habitat type (mat and windrow) where cross-section neuston tows (3,2 mm mesh) were conducted in the north central Gulf in June 2002, 2003, Numbers in parenthesis represent the range of parameters,

Habitat Secchi Salinity Temperature Dissolved Type Depth (m) (PSU) (oe) Oxygen (ppm) Mat 35.8 33.0 29.9 5.8 (9.0-59.0) (30.0-35.6) (27.6-31.7) (4.5-6.8) Windrow 43.4 32.3 29.4 6.6 (10.5-95.0) (32.0-33.0) (28.0-30.2) (5.9-7.2) Table 16. Number and size range of larval and juvenile fishes collected adjacent to ii'onts with no associated Sargassum in January 2004; neus(on net (O..':>()) mm) and bongo net collections combined. Size Range Famil'y.~... __ ~S,.,p"e",cOO'ie"s,--_~ __.'N ... u... m=b .. er,--_S=L.\'(m=m :.1)_ Ophichthidae 13 42.5 70.9 Clupeidae 3542 Brevoortia sp. 2639 3.8 11.5 Myctophidae 176 Macroramphosidae Macroramphosus sp. 1 6.0 Ceratiidae 1 Antennaridae 1 Histrio histrio 6 2.0 3.0 Phyciidae Urophysis sp. 136 Urophysis cirrata 262 1.6 24.5 Exocoetidae 2 Syngnathidae Syngnathus louisianae 1 72.6 Scorpaenidae 1 Nomeidae Cubiceps sp. 2 2.5 5.4 Nomeus gronovii 3 10.9 11.6 Psenes sp. 7 4.4 7.5 Serranidae Anthiinae 3 4.4 5.5 Priacanthidae 1 Carangidae Trachurus lathami 88 3.0 7.4 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 22 2.9 10.3 Mullidae 69 Kyphosidae 1 Mugilidae Mugi! cephalus 8 4.7 20.1 Blenniidae 7 Hypleurochilus germinatus 2 8.8 9.0 Gobiidae 101 Trichiuridae 1 Stromateidae Pepri!us burti 8 4.4 9.8 Pepri!us sp. 24 2.3 12.4 Paralichthyidae/Bothidae 2 Citharichthys spilopterus 13 6.3 8.1 Paralichthys albigutta 1 13.2 Paralichthys lethostegma 5 7.8 8.8 Paralichthys sp. 2 5.9 7.0 Cynoglossidae 1 Symphurus spp. 2 9.0 9.4 Uniu8nlifi"eJ Fitill B Total 7162 Table 17. Mean (and range) surface water salinity (ppt), temperature (Oe), and dissolved oxygen (ppm) at stations where neuston (0.505 mm mesh) and bongo nets were towed at Jl'onts (convergence zones) _with ~~ass()Ciated Sargassum in Janu':l1",·Yc.:2=-O::,:O""4.,,. ___ Front Salinity (ppt) Temperature ("C) Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) No Sargassum Mean Range_. __ .... _.I'JI..E!

level...... -~"~ ... ~ ... -_...... _------_.. - __._._ . Inside Loop Current Loop Current Edge Outside Loop Current Family Species 1m 10m 20m 1m 10m 20m 1m 10m 20m " ...... ~, .. ,- Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 0.14 0.29 Muraenidae 0.32 0.43 0.18 0.06 0.29 0.91 0.31 3.63 Congridae 0.26 Ophichthidae 0.08 0.29 0.36 0.1 0.08 Clupeidae 0.08 0.04 Gonostomatidae 1.56 1.95 3.08 2.72 12.93 2.94 7.89 1.11 Cyelothone sp. 3.25 Melanostomiidae 0.25 Synodontidae 0.52 0.32 1.01 1.28 0.20 0.16 0.63 Chlorophthalmidae 1 Paralepidae 2.03 1.11 Myctophidae 1.35 7.45 2.56 7.11 43.16 10.66 2.33 39.01 18.06 Lampanyetus nobilis 0.16 0.13 Antennaridae Histrio his trio 0.14 0.12 0.13 Ogcephalidae 0.08 0.12 Ceratiidae Cryptosaras eouesi 0.13 Bregmacerotidae 0.47 0.25 Ophididae 0.05 Exocoetidae 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.3 Exoeoetus obtusirostris 0.06 Oxyporamphus mieropterus 0.05 Progniehthys oeeidentalis 0.08 0.25 0.08 0.04 Hemiramphidae 4.55 0.4 Holocentridae 0.10 0.12 0.98 0.06 0.38 Holoeentrus sp. 3.00 0.29 0.60 0.33 Zeidae Caproidae Antigonia sp. 0.11 0.28 Antigonia eapros 0.09 0.23 0.08 0.17 0.11 0.12 Antigonia combatia 0.12 0.23 Synganthidae Scorpaenidae 1.28 0.88 0.68 1.20 1.61 0.83 0.42 0.51 Triglidae 0.73 Nomeidae 0.14 Cubieeps paueiradiatus 0.06 0.2 0.14 Serranidae 0.11 0.18 0.25 Hemanthias vivanus 0.39 Serranus sp. 0.14 Anthiinae 0.06 Pristiponoides aquilonaris Epinephelinae Priacanthidae 1.06 0.59 1.56 1.07 1.27 0.30 0.25 0.26 Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum 0.26 0.1 0.07 cchelrlldae 0.41 0.11 Remora sp. 0.05 0.17 Carangidae 0.65 0.35 0.23 2.84 2.48 0.73 1.13 Seriola sp. 0.10 0.67 0.16 Oecapterus punctatus 0.41 1.61 0.41 3.76 4A5 0.74 2.35 Oecapterus sp. 0.31 0.59 1.66 0.19 1.38 0.06 Caranx sp. 1.34 1.98 0.09 4.22 2.30 0.58 OA2 0.32 051 Chloroscombrus chrysurus Trachurus lathami 0.10 Selar crumenopthalamus OA7 0.18 0.62 0.39 0.16 Naucrates ductor 0.14 0.13 Coryphaenidae Coryphaena equisetis 0.81 0.30 0.18 0.56 0.15 0.13 Coryphaena hippllrus 2A1 0.18 1.94 0.29 0.07 Coryphaena sp. 0.26 Lutjanidae 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.78 0.13 Lutjanus sp. 0.05 Lutjanlls campechanus 0.29 0.08 Rhomboplites aurorubens Gerreidae 0.32 0.12 Mullidae Upenells parvus 0.06 Kyphosidae Kyphosus sp. 0.13 Chaetodontidae OAO 0.97 0.05 0.26 0.14 Pomacanthidae Holocanthus sp. 0.07 0.06 0.14 Mugilidae MugU sp. 0.16 Sphyraenidae 0.35 0.52 0.06 Sphyraena borealis 0.51 Sphyraena sp. 3.65 0.72 0.66 0.07 Callionymidae OA7 Gobiidae 3.14 1.13 Gempylidae 0.10 0.99 0.94 0.19 0.30 0.26 Gempylus serpens 0.24 Trichiuridae Trichiurus lepturus 0.16 Scombridae 0.13 0.15 0.23 2.55 1.17 OA2 2.18 0.12 Thunnus thynnus 0.20 1.94 4.28 0.60 Thunnus at/anticus 0.71 1.77 0.59 3.22 4.32 OA6 0.32 0.91 0.25 Thunnus albacores 1.22 0.26 OA2 0.06 0.84 0.13 Thunnus sp. 1.19 1.54 0.54 0.15 Auxis thazard 0.83 OAO 1.25 0.29 0.07 0.13 Auxis rochei 5.31 9.38 9.62 104.34 32.57 10.80 0.89 29.47 13.79 Auxis spp. Euthynnus alletteratus 0.08 0.12 0.76 0.28 0.30 Scomberomorus cavalla 0.13 Katsuamis pe/amis 0.10 0.83 0.14 0.77 1.39 3.19 1.12 Acanthocybium so/andri 0.15 0.12 0.28 0.18 Istiophoridae 8.22 0.39 2.43 0.08 0.04 0.85 Xiphidae Xiphias g/adius 0.1 Stromateidae 0.05 Paralichthyidae/Bothidae 1.18 0.55 3.87 0.76 0.70 4.23 0.40 2.10 2.15 Cyclopsetta sp. 0.06 0.06 Cyclopsetta chittendeni 0.36 Balistidae 0.15 0.08 0.26 Ba/istes capriscus 0.08 0.09 Monocanthidae 0.13 0.06 0.26 Monocanthus ciliatus 0.12 0.06 0.18 0.12 Monocanthus sp. 0.07 Ostraciidae Tetraodontidae 0.20 0.43 0.26 0.11 Seheroides s~. Table 19. Mean density (flshll 00·3)of larval fishes collected in a Tucker trawl (0.333 mm mesh) towed obliquely to a depth of 30m at "Inside, Edge and Outside Stations" on four transects across the Loop Current boundary in May (3 transects) and June (1 transect) 2004. Mean density shown for orders and families does not include mean density shown for taxa within those categories, b~gKor fishes identified only to order or family level.. __ _ 3 Mean Fish Density (fish 100 m· ) Inside Loop Loop Current Outside Loop _ .. £.llm~ilY,:-___.:::S!:Cpecies Current Edge C.lI~rent____ _ Anguilliformes 0.21 0.61 0.13 Clupeiformes 0.22 Gonostomatidae 1.2 4.68 Astronesthidae 0.05 Synodontidae 0.09 0.18 Chlorophthalmidae 0.06 Myctophidae 2.17 9.61 4.72 Bregmacerotidae 0.05 0.13 Exocoetidae 0.48 1.46 0.07 Holocentridae 0.15 0.2 0.38 Zeidae 0.05 Caproidae Antigonia capras 0.2 0.63 Synganthidae Synganthus pelagicus 0.16 Scorpaenidae 1.69 1.22 0.42 Serranidae 0.04 1.45 0.06 Priacanthidae 0.84 0.26 0.06 Echeinidae 0.18 Carangidae 6.7 30.68 4.51 Seriola sp. 0.06 Oecapterus punctatus 1.29 3.44 0.35 Oecapterus sp. 0.1 9.16 3.63 Caranx sp. 1.88 2.44 1.12 Selar crumenopthalamus 0.41 0.13 0.42 Coryphaenidae 0.3 Coryphaena equisetis 0.18 Coryphaena hippurus 0.2 0.6 Coryphaena sp. 0.13 Lutjanidae 0.58 Chaetodontidae 0.58 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena sp. 1.46 0.61 Gobiidae 1.83 0.18 Gempylidae 0.06 Trichiuridae 0.73 0.35 Scombridae 0.27 0.06 Thunnus thynnus 0.22 Thunnus at/anticus 1.22 1.13 0.25 Thunnus albacores 0.18 1.13 Thunnus sp. 0.09 0.19 Auxis thazard 1.26 1.3 0.07 Auxis rochei 35.76 5.38 6.04 Euthynnus al/etteratus 0.81 0.92 0.61 Katsuamis pelamis 0.93 0.93 1.16 Stromateidae 0.34 0.29 Paralichthyidae/Bothidae 0.76 4.31 2.72 Balistidae 0.33 Canthidermis suff/amen 0.16 Monocanthidae 0.18 0.15 0.06 Monocanthus setifer 0.06 0.26 Monocanthus ciliatus 0.1 Cantherhines pul/us 0.17 Cantharhines macrocerus 0.09 Aluterus schoepfi 0.09 Ostraciidae 0.06 0.1 Paralepidae 0.11 0.56 0.2 Tetraodontidae 0.36 0.06 Table 20. Mean (and range) salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen at surface (0) and 30m depths at Inside, Edge, and Outside Loop Current transect stations in May and June 2004. Numbers in par.~1ttesis represent the range of parameters. ._,._.... ___ Dissolved Oxygen Depth Salinity (psu) Temperature (C) (ppm) Location (m) Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Inside 0 36.3 36.1 36.4 28.5 26.7 26.6 6.5 6.3 6.5 30 36.3 36.3 36.4 26.4 24.3 27.4 6.5 6.4 6.8 Edge 0 36.4 35.9 36.7 26.3 24.8 28.6 6.3 4.3 6.7 30 36.4 36.4 36.5 25.3 24.1 27.2 6.7 6.5 6.8 Outside 0 36.3 36.2 36.4 25.4 23.4 28.0 6.6 6.4 6.9

30 36.4 36.3 36.5 25.2 24.3._-' 26.4 7.0 6.5 7.8

MiIsiIsippi AIIII>.....

EIoriI

N I o 50 100 150 Miles

Figure 2. Overall study area for sites sampled from 2002 through 2005. Mississippi AlIIbama

Florida l.mUsiImIl -' ----

. ~)

• • •• • • I I • I • • Sample Month

• May • June N • July • August I o 50 100 150 Miles • September

Figure 3. Locations of sampling stations for 2002 project year. MIl· hi AIo6raII

CD • • ill

• • • •

III _. , N • Sample Month • •• • May I o 50 100 150 Miles • July

Figure 4. Locations of sampling stations for 2003 project year. -95 WATERSURFACE TEMPERATURE From AVHRR dalo for (] lime inteNo] of 2003 May Miolliliwl .....

o

~ ) • ~ ".,. ..• • •

• I I i I

Sample Month ..... o January • May N • June •• • • July o 50 100 150 Miles I • August

Figure 5. Locations of sampling stations for 2004 project year. -95 -90 WATERSURFACE T EMPERATURE Longitude From AYHRR dolo for 0 lime interval of 2004 >loy 10 Mississippi AJiIHmul

FloridIz limisiana -' -----

. ~)

• • • ••

•

N Sample Month • June I o 50 100 150 Miles

Figure 6. Locations of sampling stations for 2005 project year. 450/0T I------~

40% . NGOM

. LOOP 35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% Clupeidae Carangidae Scombridae Exocoetidae Myctophidae Gonostomatidae Gerreidae

Figure 7. Percentage composition of most abundant (numerically) families in northern Gulf and Loop Current collections Carangidae Clupeidae Scombridae Exoceotidae Family

Carangidae Scombridae Exoceotidae Gerreidae Clupeldae Family

Figure 8. (A) Most abundant and (8) most commonly occurring families of fishes in northern Gulf collections, all gear and years, combined. • MClY

------~ • June ------1 0 July • A ust

Family

Figure 9. Mean monthly abundance (number of fish per collection) of the top five fish families collected in the northern Gulf, all gear types combined. ---- 9-1 2D Stress: 0.13 Habitat A A Windrow V lvIat

9-16 12-05 A 9-11 V A 11-01 A 12-09 V

10-07 12-02 10-01 V A '12-07 12-1 if A A

12-20 V

Figure 10. Plot of neuston collections at two Sargassum habitat types (mat and windrow) in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity values. The numbers above the symbols represent collection trip, followed by the collection number. All sampling was conducted from May to August, 2002. 160.72 60

50 , _ • Windrows

j" , - • Mats 40 - - ~ -- - S'" .. u c .. 30 "c ~"

10

o

1»0 1»0 '?J.0 '110 0 # ~ # # # # ~ # # ~ # .o'"tt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl ~ P ~?$ ~o ~-?J~?$ ~0 ~0 0 :;0 ~ ~"':) ~ 0 6-' v' ~ ,§' ~v 'J>"'sP ~ {!J & # ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ # ~ '11(.'- :\.0 if tJ' oJ; (, .p c,if v tv<:-"" 0" 0

Figure II. Comparison of the 16 most abundant fish families collected from surface waters adjacent to Sargassum windrows, both sides combined (blue, n = 14), and large Sargassum mats (red, n = 5) using a I x 2 m neuston net (0. 505 mm mesh) in the northern Gulf of Mexico, May - August 2002. -9-~6--'------2-D-St-re-ss-:-O'-'1 1!/~El

10-01 v A 12-16 A 9-14 12-07 V 12-18 A V 11-01 JifJ_#-6 V V 9-11 A 9-1 11_03 12-06 A V

10-02 V

Figure 12, Plot of surface neuston collections from both sides (blue vs, green) of seven Sargassum windrows in the northem Gulf in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray­ Curtis similarity values, Numbers above symbols represent the collection trip and collection numbers, Sampling was conducted during May - August, 2002, 20-26 2D Stre •• : 0.05 Habitat A Mat '" '" No Sargassum • Windrow

20-09

'"2 10 • 20-15•

20-01 20-32 21 A 80-• 20-30 20-05 A '"

Figure 13. Plot of neuston net (0.505 mm mesh) collections at each of the three habitat types (Sargassum mat, front with negligible amounts/or no Sargassum (shown as no in the key), and Sargassum windrow» in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity values. The nnmbers above the symbols represent the sampling trip and the individual collection number. Sampling was conducted in June 2004. 2D Stress: 0.02 Habitat ... Mat ------'" No Sargassum 20-03 • Windrow 20-16 ... 20-04 20-08 • 20-...0 2 ... '" 20-31 o • • 20-13 20-23 • '" 20-29 •

Figure 14. Plot of bongo net collections at each of three habitat types (Sargassum mat, ii'ont with negligible amounts/or no Sargassum (shown as no in the key), and Sargassum windrow» in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity values. The numbers above the symbols represent the collection trip and individual collection number. Co llections were taken in June 2004. 20 Stre ss : 0.07 Habitat "' Windrow 13-01 " Mat 12-01 13-02 10-OP..21 " 1il'09" ." 11 -05 12-12 .... "

16- 05 .... 1 6-11 T

16...-10

Figure 15. Plot of cross-section (0.505 mm mesh net) collections (species composition) through Sargasswn mats and windrows in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity values. Numbers above symbols represent the sampling trip and collection number. Sampling was conducted during 2002 and 2003. 2D SI!ess. 0.07 Year ... 2002 13-01 ... T 2003 13-02 12-01 10 - 0~21 ... 1 ~9... '" 11...-051 2-...1 2

16-05 T 16-11 T

16-10 'Y

Figure 16. Plot of cross-section (3.2 mm mesh net) collections (species composition) through Sargassum mats and windrows during 2002 and 2003 in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray-Cwtis similarity values. Numbers above the symbols represent the sampling trip and collection number. _ Loop Current • 26

26 ., .. ~

~.r. E~ o jf. -- ...... ~ ...... J 24 ":':' ..; ",- ~". ".-, '. ~"'.'!'.

~ ....• , 22

20

16 - 95 WATER SURFACE TEMPERATURE From AVHRR data for (I time interval of 2.95 doys ending 2007 Mor 30 0 1:06 UT 7000~------______-,

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

~0 .1$~0 ~0 # # # # # # # # # ~,I$ ~I$ ~I$ ~I$ ~I$ ~~ ~I$ ~I$ ,!"I$ ~I$ ~ ~I$ 0 ,-0'1 '1> Cf' 0 ~ # # ~ ~ ~ Ov ,-0 flJ ~'Ii Q ~ ~ G v'li ~ ,,:;0 :§ !:A'I ~O . 'Ii C::>"O ~... v (j 0 if ,CO C,;P ~O «~ O

~'Ii «'Ii

Figure 18. Most abundant (numerically) families taken in Loop Current collections, 2003 - 2004 ~_ IL\ --I . 1m E • • 0 0 1n . . 10m ~ ~ .c S."' 1_. D 20m '" 8 '""'c: c" 6 ..c: :::;;"

##.#######.## #.####.# '" '" ~ .' ~ .~~ " G " .. .' G .. .' " ' 00,#'

"""'",.,.",. ~\c.Y;\

~"'~

Figure 19. Mean larval fish density (fish/IOO m'3) of the 17 most abundant families collected using a Tucker trawl (0.333 mm mesh) towed at three discrete depths (1, 10,20 m) at the "Inside Station" on three transects (n = 3) across the Loop Current boundary in May 2003 and June 2004. ~

..,- IL , _ . . 1m E g <~1___. -- J . 10m ~ •• ~ on ;;:. • D20m ~ on ..c C c .. :;;

'"'" .- " " ,~'" '" " '" ...'" '" "'" '" "'" '" • if' • if' '" ~if' . ~'" •.",'1> ~

o3 Figure 20. Mean larval fish density (fishllOO m ) of the 15 most abundant families collected using a Tucker trawl (0.333 mm mesh) towed at three discrete depths (I, 10, 20 m) at the "Edge Station" on three transects (n = 6) across the Loop Current boundary in May 2003 and June 2004. ~~##~##~########## '" . c'<'~ '" ~ '" .' '" .~'" .'" '" ~, " " .. " 0 '" " 0#',<"",-""' •. .p'."'''' ".""'if."", ''''.'~ ". J" fi' ,.' "'" " "'" ,'" «",< ~~"'."'" (,0 «l" if .,

3 Figure 21. Mean larval fish density (fish/IOO m- ) of the 15 most abundant families collected using a Tucker trawl (0.333 mm me5h towed at three discrete depths (1, 10, 20 m) at the "Outside Station" on three transects (n = 3) at the Loop Current boundary in May 2003 and June 2004 ,D Stress: U.2 Depth .6. 1 1~~)fj'P 19-~2-2 19-16-1 19-1 2-1 ,. 10 .6. 19-12-! • 20 19-10-fg 19-14-3 • -10 . 5-33- 1 19 - ~ -2 19-1•4 -1 .6. ,. 15-28-1 15-20-3 19-16-15 ~ 8-3 .6. ~ -33-2 15-29-3 • 15-20-2 'f' ,. 15-3 9~33~ • • 15- ;!!!!-2 15-28-2 15-i 9-1 15-20-1 15-21 -1 15-3qs121_3 ,. .6. 15-2 1-2 ,. .6. 15-22-1 .6. • 15-19-3 ,. .6. 15-30-2 15-19-1 ,. • .6. 15_19_2 5-22-3 'f' l1li 5-22-2 'f'

Figure 22. Plot of Tucker trawl collections (family composition) along three transects across the Loop Current boundary at three discrete depths (I, 10,20 m) in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity values. The numbers above the symbols represent sampling trips, collection numbers, and depth (\ = 1m, 2 = 10m, 3 = 20m) of the collections. All sampling was conducted in May 2003 and June 2004. 20 Stress: 0.19 Habitat 15-19-215-2i~22_2 .6. Inside 15-19-1 .6. •• • Outside .6. • Edge 15-30-1 15-19-3 15-21-2 .6. 15-~t!i-21-3 15- ~ 1 15-22-1 •• • 15-28-2 5-29-1 1~~%-2 1 • • ~ 15-20-2 15-3v-r5-33-2_ . • T5-29-3 • 15-20-3 • 15-28-~ • 15-28-1 • 19-10-2 1 ~1p-2 19-£0 •• • 19-10-3.6. 19-12-2 19-12-3 19-14-3 1 t- 3~12- 1 .6. 19-14-2• .... 19-1 ..3 19-16-1• . • •

Figure 23. Plot of Tucker Trawl collections at Inside, Edge and Outside stations along three Loop Current boundary transects in multi-dimensional space (MOS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity values. Numbers above the symbols represent sampling trips, collection numbers, and depth (1 = 1m, 2 = 10m, 3 = 20m) of the collections. All sampling was conducted during May 2003 and June 2004. 22.93 40.43

1

'1 E I I o Outside 0 0 • • Edge -:<: ~--rI •• • 0::"' • Inside -Z. 1 1 - • • J ·iii c C'" .r::;

u::"' 4 c '" :;;'" 2

o :6Vj< '--'~

~I:''''###############-o-v 0' • ~~. ~' •• 0 ~ _. ~'ff _ _ ~'" '" ,. .' " ~," '" ~ ~

3 Figure 24. Mean larval fish density (fish/lOO m- ) of the 15 most abundant families collected using a Tucker trawl (0.333 mm mesh) towed obliquely to a depth of 30 m at the "Outside, Edge and Inside Stations" on three transects across the Loop Current boundary in May and June 2004. ~------~1~1=9 :====:~----"2D~&~r~.~sS~:O~. 2~1 HABITAT ...... 0 1 ", E ... . 1 18-14 19-3 '" 19-1... "' 18-17 18-24 18-2 18-4 18-22 '" '" '" 18-23 ... 18-6 19-2 • • 8-13 '" 18-21 • '" 19-5 •

Figure 25. Plot of oblique Tucker trawl collections (family composition) along four transects across the Loop Current boundary in multi-dimensional space (MDS) based on Bray-Curtis similarity values. Samples were collected at stations Outside the Loop (0, n = 5), at the Loop Edge (E, n = 10), and inside the Loop (r, n = 5). The numbers above each symbol represent the collection trip and collection number. All sampling was conducted in May and June 2004. 4.5 ~ ------______-.

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0+1--- May June Jjly August

Figure 26. Average monthly abundance (numerically) of tunas (Thunnus) taken in northern Gulf collections, all gears and years combined Discrete-Depth Tucker Trawl Data Sheets - Tuna Trip

Station NO./ 0 / 4/ Site No. IT] Gear: /1 /9 / Date ___ / ___ / Recorder Vessel R/V TOMMY MUNRO Start GPS Latitude ___ 0 Start GPS Longitude n Time Start Time End -- -- Cloud Cover % Sea State m Wind Speed ___ kn Wind Direction Water Depth ____ 111 or fm Secchi ___ 111

0/ mg/ I-meter sample Salinity 00 Temp. D . 0 .--__ L

0/ I O-meter sample Salinity 00 Temp

mg/ 20-meter sample Salinity 0100 Temp D ..0 ---_ L

Windrow Length ___ km Windrow Width ___ m Habitat Type.: 0 windrow 0 patchy windrow o large 111ats 0 convergent zone (no Sarg.) Front Orientation (direction) Collection on side of line/front o 1-Metel'Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start 000000 Stop 000000 Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Quart __ Gallon __ Zip-Loc __ o lO-Meter Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start 000000 Stop 000000 Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Quart __ Gallon __ Zip-Loc __ o 20-Meter Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start 000000 Stop 000000 Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Qualt __ Gallon __ Zip-Loc __

Remarks: ______

Gear Type Codes: 19 ~ discrete-depth Tucker trawl Loop Current Field Data Sheets Station No, I 0 I 4 I I I I Site No. [JJ Gear: I I I I I I I I I I I I

Date I I Vessel Water Depth m or fin

Start GPS Latitude ---- ° Start GPS Longihlde ° --- Cloud Cover Sea State m Wind Speed kn Wind Direction --_.. __ ._-- % ---

mg/ Surface Salinity °/00 Surface Temp °C Surface D.O. L

mg/ -meter Salinity %0 -meter Temp °C -meter D.O. L

Windrow Length km Windrow Width m Secchi ------111 or ft Habitat Type.: 0 windrow 0 patchy windrow 0 large mats 0 convere;ent 7,()n'" (no Sarg.) Front Orientation (direction) Collection on side of linelfront

D Oblique Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start DDDDDD Stop DDDDDD Start Stop Max. Depth

Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint Quart __ Gallon Zip-Loc __ ------

D Other Gear Types Time Stmi Flowmeter Reading: R Start DDDDDD Stop DDDDDD Time Stop L Stmi DDDDDD Stop DDDDDD Lab Collection No. - # Jars: Pint Quart __ Gallon Zip-Loc ___ ------

Sargassum Total Weight = kg Aliquot Weight = kg

Remarks:

----

Gea .. T~pe Codes

3 =: IO-min, neuston tow 2 ~ dip net lOB = surface bongo 9 = cross-sectional neuston 7 ~ hook and line I OC ~ oblique bongo 20 ~ oblique Tucker trawl Appendices 2 - 8 Appendix 2

Photographs of SargasslIm in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Appendix 3

Sargassum research at-sea (examples of collection gear)

A. Bongo nets

B. 0.505 mm mesh neuston net

C. 3.2 mm mesh neuston net

Appendix 4

Examples of field data sheets ------._ ..... _._ .. .. - _.------.- "' _." ..••. - .- ----_. ------... Sargassum Field Data Sheets Station No.1 0 I 5 I I I I Site No. CD Gear: I I I I I I I I l I. I Date I I Vessel Water Depth._ m or fm _._- - ... ~ .. - ---_.. ,,- -.. -.-.-~--.-.-

Start GPS Latitude 0 Start GPS Longitude ~~._ 0 .~-~- ._ ... .-~-- --_ . ." --~.-- -.- --_. •.. _---

Cloud Cover % Sea State ...... m Wind Speed __ ~. __ kn Wind Direction --"'~ ..• - -_ _.- -".,-'- .

mg/ Surfilce Salinity __ ._. ___ °1 no Surface Temp °C Surface D.O. ._.. _~__ I. ------.-... ~--- -111eter D.O. mg/ ..-meter Salinity._.___ .... °/00 __._-meter Temp. ... _.. _--- °C -_...... ~ ____.. I.

Windrow Length _ .. _ .. - km Windrow Width ----_... m Secehi . _... _------m or ft Habitat Type.: n windrow D patchy wiudlUw D large lllaLs D c()l1ver2(~l1t 7()l1(·~ (no Sarg.)

Front Orientation (direction) Collection on .... _,-_._ .. side of line/front -----.. ,~,--.-..-- --_

Surface Bongo Flowmeter Reading: R Stmi DDDDDD Stop DDDDDD Start Stop ______Stop .--.-~'''-. L Start DDDDDD DDDDDD - Lab Collection No. _._-- --- II Jars: Pint .-- Quart_._._ Gallon -_._- Zip-Loc_._

Other Gear Types _ ... ~ ...... _-" Time Start Flowmeter Reading: R Start DDDDDD Stop DDDDDD Stop ___...... _ L Start DDDDDD Stop DDDDDD

Lab Collection No. -_.. - ---- II Jars: Pint _._--- Qumi __...... Gallon -- Zip-Loc .... __...

,)" , Total Weight = . ... kg Aliquot Weight =~ __._. __ kg

I~ ... ._. '''0. ---'"._. -_ __ ~-. .._._--.

..... _.. _. ..~ ..... ------~-. .. _-_ .... -_ .. _. ..._ ...... _-_._.__ .... _--".....

...... , .... --""- __ ---,,-_.- - -- ... ------~------.. -.. ---... -.

.•. . ------~.------, ----.-.. -~ .. ._-- _._ .. _--

_...... _-,_ ..... ------,,--- --.-.. -.------.. -.~ .... ------_._._- .---~.---.--.~~.

Gear Tvpe Codes

3 '.-.C- lO-min. neusion tow 2 "0 dip net 1013 = surface bongo

9 ,,-~ cross-sectional neuston 7 '-" hook and linc I OC ~ oblique bongo

20 =: oblique Tuckcr trawl Loop Current Field Data Sheets

S tati on No. LI0,,-,-1 4"-1-1 ----1-----1--' Site No. D:=J Gear: <-I -,---,----,I <-I ---'------,----"I ,-I ---'------'----'

Date ___ I ___ I ___ Vessel ____ Water Depth _____ m or fm Start GPS Latitude ___ ° ___ Start GPS Longitude ___ ° ___ Cloud Cover ___ % Sea State ___ m Wind Speed ___ kn Wind Direction __

DC - ___mgl L Surface Salinity ,'__ """"'___ °1 00 Surface Temp --- Surface D.O.

_,meter Salinity ,____ 0/00 _,meter Temp ____ DC - ,meter D.O. --____mgl L

Windrow Length _____ km Windrow Width m Secchi ____ m or ft Habitat Type.: 0 windrow 0 patchy windrow 0 large mats o convergent zone (no Sarg.) Front Orientation (direction) ______Collection on ______side of linelfront o Oblique Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start 000000 Stop 000000 Start ____ Stop ____ Max. Depth ______

Lah Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Quart __ Gallon Zip,Loc o Other Gear Types ______Time Start Flowmeter Reading: R Start 000000 Stop 000000 Time Stop ____ L Start 000000 Stop 000000 Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Qumt __ Gallon Zip,Loc __

Sargassum Total Weight = _____ kg Aliquot Weight = ____ kg

Remarks:

-----_.--,------'---

------

Gear Type Codes

3 = IO-min. neuston tow 2 ~ dip net I OB ~ surface bongo 9 = cross-sectional ncuston 7 ~ hook and line IOe ~ oblique bongo 20 ~ oblique Tucker trawl ------.----- I Recorder Vessel lUV TOMMY MUNRO ° Start GPS Longitude 0

Time End ---- Cloud Cover ---% Sea State ---m Wind Direction Water Depth morfm Secchi m

% mgl I-meter sample. Salinity 0 Temp °C D.O. L mgj I O-meter sample Salinity °100 Tcmp °C D.O. ----_ L

% mgl 20-meter sample Salinity 0 Temp °C D.O. L

Windrow Length km Windrow Width m Habitat Type.: 0 windrow o patchy windrow 0 large mats o convergent zone (no Sarg.) Front Orientation (direction) Collection on side of linelfront

D I-Meter Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start 000000 Stop 000000 Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Quart __ Gallon __ Zip-Loc __

D IO-Meter Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start 000000 Stop 000000 Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Quart __ Gallon __ Zip-Loc __

D 20-Meter Tucker Flowmeter Reading: Start 000000 Stop 000000 Lab Collection No. # Jars: Pint __ Quart __ Gallon __ Zip-Loc __

Remarks: ______

Gear Tvpe Codes: 19 ~ discrete-depth Tucker trawl Appendix 5

Graduate Student Research

Three USM Department of Coastal Sciences graduate students conducted research on aspects of the Sargassum project:

• Nicole Crochet: received her M.S. degree in 2003. Thesis title, "Investigations of flying fish larvae (exoceotidae) in the Western Central Atlantic: identification, distribution and abundance, and developmental descriptions of Prognichthys occidentalis"

• Samantha Holden: received her M.S. degree in 2006. Thesis title, "Early life history of greater amberjack (Serio/a fasciata) , almaco jack (Serio/a rivoJiana) and banded rudderfish (Serio/a zonata) associated with Sargassum habitat in the north-central Gulf of Mexico"

• Sarah Turner: candidate for the M.S. degree, 2007. Thesis title, "Trophic relationships of juvenile Stephanolepis hispidus and BaJistes capriscus within Sargassum habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico" Appendix 6

Scientific Presentations

During the project period, project researchers presented information on various aspects of the Sargassum research during professional and scientific meetings (e.g., Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, American Fisheries Society, Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Larval Fish Conference) and fisheries management meetings (e.g., Gulf State Marine Fisheries Commission, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Fisheries Workshops).

• Examples of 'title slides' of Power Point presentations (2002 - 2005)

• ROV Power Point presentation: Hoffmayer et al. (2006)

• Published manuscript: Hoffmayer, E.R, J.S. Franks, S.H Comyns, J.R. Hendon and R.S. Waller. 2005. Larval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 56:259-270. Abstract of scientific presentation:

Paper Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Mississippi and Louisiana Chapters

of the American Fisheries Society, Biloxi, MS, February 2002 20 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF THE EARLY LIFE HISTORY STAGES OF FLYINGFISHES (EXOCOETIDAE) IN THE NORTHCENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO

Nicole M. Crochet*l, Bruce H. Comyns2 and James S. Franks3. lLouisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Bourg, LA 70343 and Department of Coastal Sciences, College of Marine Sciences, The University of Southern Mississippi, Ocean Springs, MS 39564; 2Department of Coastal Sciences, 3Center for Fisheries Research and Development, College of Marine Sciences, The University of Southern Mississippi, Ocean Springs, MS 39564. crochet_ [email protected]

Exocoetids are important ecologically as a food source for many recreational and commercial fishes in offshore waters, including dolphinfish, wahoo, blue marlin, swordfish, and luna. Extensive studies on distribution and abundance of flyingfishes have been conducted in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans and also the Caribbean Sea; however, exocoetid studies are lacking in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Eggs, larvae, and juveniles of most exocoetid species are often associated with pelagic Sargassum, which often occurs in the vicinity of frontal boundaries. The purpose of this investigation was to document the spatial distribution and relative abundance of juvenile and larval exocoetids in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico with respect to Sargassum habitat and ephemeral small-scale frontal boundaries. Neuston collections were taken off the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama in the GOM during May, July, August, October, and December of2000 and in May and July of2001. Samples were taken both adjacent to Sargassum and/or frontal boundaries and up to two miles away from these oceanic features. The Kolmogorov-Smimov test showed that the data was not normally distributed, and consequently the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to distinguish differences in the spatial distribution of exocoetidae abundances. Because the same data were tested multiple times, significance levels were adjusted using the sequential Bonferroni correction. Exocoetids were the most abundant taxa of fishes in neuston collections. Nine of the ten species of exocoetids (n = 1747) distributed in the northcentral GOM were collected at 39 of the 46 (84.8%) sites sampled. Ten minute neuston collections taken adjacent to Sargassum or fronts had significantly more flyingfishes (n = 51.4 and 63.1, respectively) than collections taken away from Sargassum or fronts (n = 20.5 and 16.8, respectively). Sargassum and fronts play an important role in the life history of flyingfishes, providing a nursery area in open, pelagic waters.

What is S'argassum? Juvenile fishes associated with Sargassum in the north central Gulf of Mexico: observations • Pelagic brown algae found in the U. S from a remotely operated vehicle (ROY) primarily in the western Atlantic Ocean and Gu!fofMexico - Uses gas-filled pods to float within the upper meter or so of the water column - Provides fishes with: • A refuge from predators - An abundance of prey (i.e. small sllrimp and crabs) • Spawning substrate for variOUS fishes Eric !-Ioffmayer, Richard Waller, Jim Franks, Bruce Comyns, • Physical structure around which and 1. Read Hendon sp

Types of Sargassum Aggregations

Windrow'" Sargassum entrained in a frontal zone

Why Conduct a Visual Survey? Objectives

• Large juveniles were u'nder-represented in • Describe the juvenile fish communities our standard net sampling activities. associated with Sargassum in the north­ central Gulf of Mexico . • Fish larger than 10 cm are rarely captured in purse seines, dip nets, neuslon and • Compare the species composition bongo nets. associated with two Sargassum aggregates, windrows and isolated mats.

1 Determining Sample Locations Video Survey

• Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) • National Undersea Research Center • RUr"1 II dn~c!Lls diullg edye ur Sdl fjdSSUm • Constant speed • Verify fish were not attracted to ROV • Acclimation period • 15 mins

Enumeration of Fishes Statistics • Primer v6 (Clarke and Gorley) Visual Fast Count (VFC) Kimmel 1985 • Non-parametric multivariate package • Species-time metllod • Originally designed for coral reef surveys So.mpl ..

lO-minute video transects I • \ I Clu.ur\n~ • Five, 2-minute segments olumpl••

Fishes were lD to lowest possible taxa T.,,,,,O,,,, •• Simpl, (10 bllan' .... ' .. .lrnll.~U ••. ,nd O~m"wn 'pp) (no,,-coml.\loo b".d,o.g Bro,.curtb) Ordl,..\lon o"I ..mplo. (lIOu,11y ,onk-b...

Primer v6

• Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM) • Similar to ANOVA (mats vs windrows)

• Similarity Percentages (SIMPER) • Describes species contributions to the similarity and dissimilarity

2 Jacks Filefish and Triggerfish

Blue Runner, c;;;;;;;;;;y;;;; G,oy Triwrfish, iJo/i,/c. caprIS<7" O,ean (nggcrfish, ('oath/dermIS s"fJIam~n

Orange Fller/sh, Ailitem, IlClidolm, Scrawled Filcfish, A"II~nl5 SCrI!,/IIl

Results

• 12 video transects were performed 2000-02 • 6 windrows of Sargassum • 6 isolated mats of Sargassum

• 18 fish species .6 families

Tripletail, Labates surilJamensis

Family Representation Windrows vs Mats of Sargassum

• Species composition was significantly l. lacks (Carangidae) 60.7 % different in mats compared to windrows • ANOSIM (Global R=0.387, p=O.OI) 2. Triggerfishes (8alistidae) 18.4 % 3. Filefishes (Monocanthidae) 6.5 % • More species were identified under 4. Dolphin (Coryphaenidae) 0.49 % windrows compared to mats 5. Tripletail (Lobotidae) 0.40 % 015 vs 13 species 6. Chub (Kyphosidae) 0.38 % • Mean VFC scores were 4x higher under mats compared to windrows • 1,977 (±904) vs 543 (±248)

3 Non-Metric Multi-Dimensional Scaling Non-Metric Multi-Dimensional Scaling

Average Similarity Average Dissimilarities within Windrows and Mats between Windrows and Windrows

Windrow Mat Species Contribution Species Contribution Species Contribution capriscus 17.0% • C. CrySDS 51.6% • C. crysos 35.8% • B. • Seriola sp. 13.9% • B. capriscus 24.3% • Caranx sp. 12.0% • C. 5ufflamen 10.3% • C. 5uffiamen 7.0% • Monocanthus sp. 9.3% • Caranx sp. 10.0% • C. flippurus 4.6% • Caranx crysos 8.7% • S, riVoliana 8,7% • MOllocanthus sp. 3.0%

Bubble Plot - Balistes capriscus Bubble Plot - Caranx sp .

..... j --

4 Special Thanks Conclusions Mississippi Dept. ofMarillc Resources, particularly Corky Perret and Buck Buchanan, for their support and foresight to fund this • Carangids were the most abundant fishes new research associated with Sargassum in the northcentral ALSO U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sport Fish Restoration Gulf of Mexico, followed by triggerfishes and filefishes Capl. Paul 8eaugcz & the crew oflhe /?IV tommy Munro • Windrows and mats of Sargassum contained a different species composition Dr. Vernon Asper • pelagic species (i.e. jaCkS) under windrows National Undersea Research Center, UNC-Wilmington • Structure oriented species (Le. lriggerfishes and filefishes) under mats Fishman Forecasting Service, Stennis Space Center • Sargassum is a very ephemeral and dynamic habitat • Need more data on how time affects species composition

5 Larvnl and Juvcnilc Fishes Associated with Pelagic SaJ'gassum in the Northcentral Gulf of Mexico

2 ERIC R. HOFFMAYER", JAMES S. FRANKS', BRUCE H. COMYNS , J. READ HENDON', RICHARD S. WALLER' 1Center/oj' Fisheries Research and Development, The University ofS'outhern Ilviississippi, Gulf Coast Research Labol'atOlY, P.o, Box 7000, Ocean 5'prings, MS 39566 USA 2Departtnent a/Coastal ~)'ciences, The University a/Southern ,lviississippi, Guff Coasl Research [,aboralmy, 1'.0. Box 7000, Ocean Springs, MS 39566 USA *Corresponding Author: Email: el.ic.ltofilllarerCiJJ}lsllt.edu

ABSTRACT The information reported herein, which was obtaincd as part of a larger study, pertains lu (he idenlilicaliun and enumeratiun uflarval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum in the northern Gulf of Mexico. From 2000 to 2002, over 18,000 pelagic larval and juvenile fishes were collected using bongo and neuston nets, The diversity of fishes was high, with 110 species collected representing 69 genera and 57 families. The dominant families, in order of numeric abundance of specimens, were Exocoetidae, Carangidae, Clupcidac, Gerreidae, Mugilidae, Scombridae, Balistidae, and Monacanthidac.

The family Carangidae was represented by the greatest number of species (n ceo: 16) followed by Scombridae (n ~ 9), Exoeoctidac (n ~ 9), and Monacanthidae (n ~ 8).

KEY WORDS: Gulf of Mexico, Habitat, and Sargasslitn

RESUMEN Como parte de un cstudio extenso, la infonnaci6n repartada aqui pertenece a Itt identifieaci6n y cuuntificaci6n de Im'vas y juveniles de peccs asociados con Sargassum peh'tgico en el Norte del Golfo de Mexico. Desde cl afio 2000 al 2002, mas de 20,000 larvas y juveniles de peces pe1agicos fueron colectados usando redes bongo y neuston. La diversidad de peces fue alta, 110 especies rcprescntan 69 generos y 57 familias. Las familias dominantes, ordenadas en abundancia numenca de ejemplares, fueron Exocoetidae, Carangidae, Clupeidae, Gerrcidae, Mugilidae, Scombridae, Balistidae, y Monacanthidae. La familia Carangidae fue representada par el mayor numero de espeeies (n=16) seguida pOI' Seombridae (n ~ 9), Exococtidac (n ~ 9), y Monaeanthidae (n ," 8).

PALABRAS CLA YES: Golfo de Mexico, Habitat, y SargasSlitn

INTRODUCTION Juveniles of many species of fish use inshore estuarine areas as a nursery habitat where food and refuge from predators can be found; however, valuable nursery habitat also exists in the offshore environment in the form of pelagic SargasslilII (Butler et aJ. 1983, Coston-Clements et aJ. 1991). Pelagic k)'argassllnJ, a brown algae, is transported into the Gulf of Mexico by the Yucatan Current (Loop Current), where it forms large isolated mats, scattered clumps, and long windrows, depending on sea conditions, Aggregations of pelagic Sargassum provide food and refuge for small fishes and invertebrates (Dooley 1972, Coston-Celements et aL 1991). In recent years, Sargassum has been given considerable attention as essential fish habitat (EFH) in the offshore environment. In September 2003, the National Marine Fisheries Service approved the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for pelagic Sargassutn habitat in the U.S, South Atlantic, developed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SA FMC, 2003), strengthening the need to collect valuable information on the organisms utilizing this critical habitat. Only a few studies have examined the fish communities associated with Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico (Bortone et al. 1977, Wells and Rooker 2003), and these studies primarily focused on juvenile fishes. Little is known about the abundance and distribution of pelagic ..)'argassum in the Gulf of Mexico throughout the year and even less is known about which fish species utilize this habitat during their early life stages. The objective of this study, which is part of a larger investigation, was to identify and enumerate the larval and juvenile fishes that utilize pelagic 5'argassum habitat in the offshore environment of the northcentral Gulf of Mexico.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Sampling Locations and Shipboard J>l'Ocedure From May 2000 to September 2002, sampling was conducting during 14 research cruises in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1), Sal'gassum was located by aerial surveys, and neuston and bongo nets were used to collect fish. A "large mesh" neuston (LN) net (1 m x 2m frame, 3,2 mm mesh net) was towed through Sargassum to sample juvenile fishes within or immediately below the Sargassum. A "small mesh" neuston (SN) net (1m x 2m frame, 947~lJn mesh Nitrex net) was used to sample larval and juvenile fishes adjacent to (from 5-15 meters) S'argassum; tows were made at the surface for a 10~minute duration following Comyns et al. (2002). Paired bongo nets (60 cm mouth diameter, 0.333 n1lll mesh net) were towed at the surface adjacent to Sargassum (5-min duration) and also down to a depth of 50 meters (oblique tow). Mechanical flow meters were used to measure the volume of water sampled in the bongo nets, Samples were washed, concentrated with a sieve, preserved with 95% ethanol, and returned to the laboratory for sorting and identification. Fishes were identifIed to the lowest possible taxon,

RESULTS A total of 18,749 fishes were taken in 138 collections. Of the 138 collections, 23 were taken through Sargassum, 88 were surface tows taken adjacent to Sargassum (59 SN, 29 BN), and 27 were oblique tows adjacent to SargasSlltn, Surface tows adjacent to Sargassum produced the greatest number of fishes (16,032 fishes), followed by eollections through Sargassum (1;769 fishes), and oblique tows (948 fishes). The diversity of young fishes was high, with 110 species collected representing 69 genera and 57 families (Table I). The actual number of species would be higher because 19 taxa identifications extended only to the family level.

2 Flyingfishes (Exocoetidae, 3,Y3Y) and jacks (Carangidae, 3,642) were the dominant fishes identified in this study (Table 2). Herrings (Clupeidae) were the third largest group with 2,937 fish; however, 2,20 ( herrings were collected in one net tow alone. Other abundant families were the l110jarras (Gerrcidae), tunas (Scombridac), mullets (Mugilidae), triggerfishes (Balistidae), filefishes (Monac3Ilthidae), sea chubs (Kyphosidac), and damselfishes (Pomaccntridac; Table 2),

Within Sal'gassul1l Large larval and small to mid-sized juvenile fishes were abundant within Sargassum habitat, but the diversity of fishes was relatively low (12 families, 27 spc-cies)(Table 1). Collections were dominated by triggerfisi1es, filefishes,jacks, frogfishes (Antennaridae), sea chubs, tripletail (Lobotidae), pipefishes (Syngnathidae), and mullet. Triggerfishes and fiIefishes were the two 1110St abundant groups within the habitat, accounting for 49% of the fishes collected. The gray triggerfish, Batistes caprisclIs, was the most abundant species, followed by the planchead filefish, Monacanthus hispidus. Jacks, prirnarily the genera Carant and S'erio/a, and sea chubs, predominantly the yellow chub, Kyphosus incisor, accounted for 11% and 3% of the fish collected within the habitat, respectively.

Adjncent to Sal'gasslIm Surface waters adjacent to Sargassul'n contained the highest diversity of fishes and collections consisted of 97 species representing 54 families Crable 1). Exoccotids were the most numerically abundant fish collected at the surface and one of the most diverse, consisting of 9 species. The flyingfish, Prognichthys occidenfalis, was the most abundant species collected adjacent to Sargassum, and in fact, during the entire study. Carangids were the second most abundant family collected at the surface as well as the most diverse, consisting of 16 species Crable 1). Caranx was the most abundant genus, accounting for 72% of carangids collected, and consisted primarily of Caranx CfYSOS (29%) and unidentified Caranx (69%). Other families common in these collections were gerreids, scombrids, and l11ugilids. The scombrids were the second most diverse family collected adjacent to SargasSlIIl1, consisting of 9 species representing 5 genera. The frigate mackerel, Auxis thazard, was the most abundant scombrid, followed by the little tunny, Euihynnlls alleUeraius. III addition, 174 specimens of tuna were collected, including bluefin, Thunnus thynnlls, yellowfin, Thunnus albacores, blackfin, Thunnus allanticus, and skipjack, Katsuwanus pelamis.

Sub-Surfac.c Oblique tows yielded the lowest number of fish collected in this study. These collections were dominated by jacks, lantel'l1fishes (Myctophidae), tunas, herrings, flounders (Bothidae), and tonguefishes (Cynoglossidae) Crable I). The tunas were represented by 8 species but were dominated numerically by the genera Thunnus and Auxis. The flounders were the second most diverse family with 7 species representing 6 genera.

3 DISCUSSION The faunal communities associated with pelagic Sargassum have been examined in the Gulf of Mexieo (Bortone et al. 1977, Wells and Rooker 2003), western Atlantie (Dooley 1972, Bulter et al. 1983, Coston-Clements et al. 1991, Settle 1993), and Pacific (Gooding and Magnuson 1967, Kingsford and Choat 1985, Edgar and Aoki 1993). The majority of these studies foeused on juvenile fishes living in a close association with Sal'gassum. Dooley (1972) reporled 23 families, 36 genera, and 54 species of fishes associated with 5'argassum in the waters of the Florida Current. Bortone et al. (1977) reported 15 families, 24 genera, and 40 species associated with Sargassurn in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and Wells and Rooker (2003) reported 17 families, 26 genera, and 37 species associated with Sal'gassutn in the western Gulf. Settle (1993) sampled juvenile fishes within c)'argassum and larval fishes inhabiting surface waters around Sargasslim in the Atlantic and identified 99 species, representing 53 genera and 36 families. The present study is the most comprehensive study to dato all the larval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic ,)'argasswn, and over I 10 species consisting of69 genera and 57 families have been identified thus far. Of the 110 fish species and 57 families collected in the present study, 64 species and 36 families have not previously been recorded in association with Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, 22 families and 47 species found during this study were not reported from Sargassum communities in the Atlantic and Pacific. Studies examining fishes living within Sargassum (Fine 1970, Dooley 1972, Bortone et al. 1977, Kingsford and Choat 1985, Mosel' et al. 1998, Wells and Rooker 2003), reported the dominant species to be jaeks, triggerfishes, filefishes, pipefishes, and the Sargassum fish. The present study reports a similar species composition in collections taken within Sal'gassum. The Sargassum fish, His/I'o histro, Sargassum pipefish, ~)!ngnathlls pelagiclls, and chain pipefish, Syngnathus /ouisianae, were commonly found within the habitat itself Small tripletail, triggerfishes, and filefishes typically occUl'l'ed immediately below Sargassum, but \wrt: Ufit:ll observed moving in and out of the habitat (Hoffmayer, per obs). lacks and sea chubs were abundant approximately 0.5 to 1.0 m below the Sal'gassllm, but since these fishes are very mobile and evade the gear easily, their numbers are grossly underwreported in this study. The neuston and bongo nets towed at the surface of the water a(ljacent to Sargassllrn produced the largest number and greatest diversity of fishes in this study. Similar methods were used by Settle (1993) to colleet larval and juvenile fishes from surface waters adjacent to pelagic 5'argassum off North Carolina, and the species composition in his collections was similar to that of this study. In the Atlantic, only three individual billfishes were collected in association with SargasslIm (Settle 1993), however, 62 were eolleeted in the present study. In addition, scombrids werc the fifth most abundant family of fishes collected in this study but were absent in Settle's (1993) collections. Although the sampling effort in Settle's (1993) study was not reported, it may have heen suhstantial, because their numbers of fishcs collected far exceeded that of this study. Both scombrids and istiophorids arc known to spawn in Gulf of Mexico watcrs (Scott et a1. 1993, Brownwpetcrson et al. In Press), and the presencc of thcse fishcs in

4 our collections suggests that adults may be spawning at or within the vicinity of Sal'gassum with larvae being transported to convergent zones with entrained >-.)'al'gassum by occan currents (Langmuir 1938, Kingsford 1990). The absence of scombrids in Atlantic 5'argasswn studies is note worthy, and begets further study. Waters sampled by oblique tows produced the lowest number of fishes in this study. Jacks, herring, and scombrids were most abundant in surface collections, and those collected in obliquc tows may have been taken at or ncar the surface. Lanternfishcs, flounders, and tonguefishes were more numerous in sub-surl"ace tows and were most likely collected deeper in the water column. Bristlemouths (Gonostomatidae) and snake eels (Ophichthidae) were also more numerous in sub-smface rather than surface collections. Since oblique tows provide little information as to where these fishes are residing in the water column, discrete depth sampling is vital to understanding sub-surface fish communities in the vicinity of S'argassum habitat.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Mike Buchanan and William Peret at the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources for their support and advice and assistance with this project. We are indebted to Nicole Crochet and Samantha Griffith for their hard work identifying and enumerating many of the larval fishes. We would also like to thank Mae Blake for painstakingly sorting through all the collections. This project was funded by the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wallop-Breaux Sport Fish Restoration Program.

LITERATURE CITED Bartone, S.A., P.A. Hastings and S.B. Collard. 1977. The peiagic-Sargassliln ichthyofauna of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gur( of A;fexico Science 1(2):60-67. Brown-Peterson, N.J., J.S. Franks, B.H. Comyns, L.A. Hendon, E.R. Hoffmayer, lR. Hendon, and R.S. Waller. In Press. Aspects of the reproduction of large pelagic fishes in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings (~( the 55lhC;ulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Published Abstract. Butler, IN., B.F. Morris, J. Cadwallader, and A.W. Stoner. 1983. Studies of .)'argassum and the Sargassum community. Bermuda Biological Station Special Publication No. 22. Comyns, B.H., N.M. Crochet, J.S. Franks, J.R. Hendon, and R.S. Waller. 2002. Preliminary assessment of the association of larval fishes with pelagic Sargassum habitat and convergence zones in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings Q( the 531"<1 Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 53:636-645. Coslon-Clemenls, L., L.R. Seltle, D.E. 1·loss, and F.A. Cross. 1991. Utilization of the Sargassum habitat by marine invertebrates and vertebrates - a review. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-296, 321'.

5 Dooley, 1.K. 1972. Fishes associated with the pelagic 5'argassuflI complex, with a disclission of the k)'argassum community. Contributions in k/al'ine Science 16:1-32. Edgar, GJ. and M. Aoki. 1993. Resource limitation and fish predation: their importance to mobile epifauna associated with Japanese Sargassum. Oecologia 95: 122-133. Fine, M.L. 1970. Faunal variation on pelagic 5'argasswn. Alal'ine Biology 7:112-122. Gooding, R.M. and J.1. Magnllson. 1967. Ecological significance ofa drifting object to pelagic fishes. Pacific Science 21:486-497. Kingsford, MJ. and ll-/' Choat. 1985. The fauna associated with drift algae captured with a planktolHl1esh purse seine net. Limnology and Oceanography 30:618-630. Langmuir, I. 1938. SUI'face motion of water induced by wind. 5'cience 87: 119- 123. Moser, M.L., PJ. Auster and lB. Bichy. 1998. Effects of mat morphology on large Sargassum-associated fishes: observations from a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and free-floating video camcorders. F.nviromnental Biology of Fishes 51 :391-398. SA FMC. 2003. Final fishery management plan for pelagic Sargossum habitat of the south Atlantic region. South Atlantic Fisheries kfanagement Council, Charleston, S. c., 153 pp. Scott, G.P., S.C. Turner and C.B. Grimes. 1993. Indices of larval bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, abundance in the Gulf of Mexico: modeling variability n growth, mortality, and gear selectivity. Bulletin (?i'AIarine Science 53: 912- 920. Settle, L.R. 1993. Spatial and temporal variability in the distribution and abundance of larval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum. M.S. Thesis. University of North Carolina, Wilmington, NC. 64 pp. Wells, RJ.D. and l.R. Rooker. 2003. Distribution and abundance of fishes associated with Sargass1Jm mats ill the NW Gulf of Mexico. PJ'()(:eedings of the 54'" Gulf and Caribbean FIsheries institute 54:609-621.

6 Table 1. Total number and relative abundance of larval and juveniles fishes associated with pelagic Sargasswn in the northern Gulf of Mexico as presented by sample collectL,!~~.~.~g9.!1' Fishes are identified to the lowest possible taxon. Surface Through Oblique Adjaccne SargasslII1l 2 Adjacent' % % % No. ReI. No. ReI. No. ReI. Fmnily --_._------,- Fish Abd. Fish Abct. Fish Abcl. Moringidae 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Muraenidae 22 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ophiehthidae 7 0.04 0 0.00 22 2.32 Clupeidac 2893 18.05 0 0.00 44 4.64 lJarengula jaguana 6 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Saf'{linella aurita 48 0.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 Etrumeus teres 191 1.19 0 0.00 0 0.00 Opisthonema oglinum 12 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Engraulidac 42 0.26 0 0.00 35 3.69 Anchoa hepsetus I 0.01 0 0.00 1 0.11 Stomiifonnes 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.21 Gonostomatidae 16 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 eyclothone sp. 0.01 0 0.00 24 2.53 Melanostomatidae 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 /3alhophilis sp. 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.11 Eustmnas sp. 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.11 Synodontidae 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 0.63 Paralepidac Paralepis atlanticlls 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.11 Myetophidac 36 0.22 0 0.00 101 10.65 Diaphus sp. 0 0.00 0 0.00 28 2.95 Lampanyctus nobilis 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.11 Antennaridae Histrio histrio 34 0.21 79 4.47 0 0.00 Ogcocephalidae 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bregmaccrotidae 13regmacerous cantort 0 0.00 0 0.00 25 2.64 13regmacerous sp. 0.01 0 0.00 5 0.53 Phycidae Urophycis sp. 4 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ophidictac 2 0.01 0 0.00 0.11 Belonidae 12 0.Q7 0 0.00 0.11 Platybelone argahls I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Exocoetidae 63 0.39 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 Exocoelus obtusirostris 3 I 0.19 0 0.00 0 0.00 Parexcocoetl{s brachypterus 67 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 Oxypormnphus rnicropleJ'lIs 495 3.09 0 0.00 I 0.1 I Prognichthys occidentalis 2739 17.08 4 0.23 22 2.32 Hirundichthys'ifjinis 147 0.92 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cheilopogon me/anurus 10 0.06 I I 0.62 0 0.00 Chei/opogon exsilieny 240 1.50 0 0.00 I 0.1 I Cheilopogon/ill'catus 101 0.63 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chei/opogon cyanoplerus I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cheilopogon sp. 6 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Hcmiramphidac 8 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Athcrinidae 17 0.1 I 0 0.00 2 0.21 Holoccntl'idae 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Labridae 0.01 0 0.00 0.1 I Synganthidae S)mgnathus pe/agicus 6 0.04 12 0.68 0 0.00 .))ngnalhus /ouisianae 17 0.1 I I I 0.62 0 0.00 Scorpaenidae 2 0.01 0 0.00 I 0.1 I Triglidae 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.21 Nomeidac 2 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Nomells gronoui 2 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cuhiceps paucil'adiatus 21 0.13 0 0.00 14 1.48 Psenes maculates I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 P.r;enes cyanophlYs 13 0.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 Dactyloptcridae Dactyloplerus volitems 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.11 Serranidae 2 0.01 0 0.00 11 1.16 Serraninae 0 0.00 0 0.00 I 0.1 I Centrupristis sp. I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Serl'anus sp. 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 0.63 Anthiinae 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.32 Hemanlhias vivanas 2 0.01 0 0.00 1 0.1 I Grammistinae 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.21 Priacanthidac 2 0.01 0 0.00 3 0.32 Priacanthus arenalus 3 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Apogonidae I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum 2 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Echeinidae 2 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Remora,sp. 3 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Carangidae 85 0.53 II 0.62 72 7.59 Serio/a dumeri/i 28 0.17 I 0.06 0 0.00 Seriolafasciata 20 0.12 9 0.51 0 0.00 Serio/a rivoliana 28 0.17 17 0.96 0 0.00 5J'erio/a zonata 2 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 Seriola sp. 109 0.68 I 0.06 0 0.00 Decapterus punctatlls 8 0.05 I 0.06 0 0.00 Caranx ClYsos 771 4.81 152 8.59 0 0.00 Caranx latus I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx tuber 34 0.21 I 0.06 5 0.53 Caranx hippos/latus 15 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranxsp. 1806 11.26 2 0.11 26 2.74 l)'achutlls lathami 55 0.34 0 0.00 26 2.74 ChloroscOfnbrus chtysurus 69 0.43 0 0.00 2 0.21 Rlegatis bipinnulata 78 0.49 6 0.34 0 0.00 J)'achinotus carolinus 16 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 Selal' crumenopthalamus 63 0.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 Oligoplites saurus 117 0.73 0 0.00 0 0.00 Selene sp. I 0.01 0 0.00 4 0.42 Coryphaenidae C01yphaena equisetis 8 0.05 0 0.00 3 0.32 COJyphaena hippurlls 44 0.27 0 0.00 5 0.53 Cmyphaena sp. 3 0.02 0 0.00 3 0.32 Lu~anidae Lu(janus sp. 0 0.00 I 0.06 0 0.00 Pristiponoides aqllilonaris I 0.01 0 0.00 3 0.32 I.,obotidae Lobotes surinamensis 78 0.49 42 2.37 0 0.00 Gcrreidae 1498 9.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 Muliidae 34 0.21 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kyphosidac Kyphosus incisor 141 0.88 7 0.40 0 0.00 Kyphoslis Sp. 113 0.70 45 2.54 0 0.00 Chaetodontidae 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pomacanthidae Holocanthlls bermudensis 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.11 Pomacentridae Abllde{dlifsaxatilis 99 0.62 171 9.67 0.11 MugiJidae Alugil curema 775 4.83 311 17.58 I 0.11 Afugil cephallis 8 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 iVlugil sp. 47 0.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sphyraenidae I.)·'phyraena barracuda 106 0.66 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sphyraena guachancho I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sphyraena borealis 6 0.04 0 0.00 I 0.11 c)lJhyraena sp. 3 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Scaridae 22 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Blcnniidae 59 0.37 0 0.00 41 4.32 f/ypsoblennies sp. 10 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00

9 Microdcsmidae 3 0,02 a 0,00 1 0,11 Gcmpylidae 1 0,01 a 0,00 a 0,00 Gefnpylus serpens 17 0,11 a 0,00 0,11 Trichiuridae 7hchiurus lepturus 0,01 a 0,00 14 1,48 Scombridae 14 0,09 a 0,00 8 0,84 Thunnus thynnus 10 0.06 a 0,00 4 0,42 'l1umnus atlanticus 36 0.22 a 0,00 5 0,53 Thunnus albacores 9 0,06 a 0,00 2 0,21 Thunnussp. 116 0.72 a 0,00 33 3,48 At/xis thazard 796 4,97 a 0,00 33 3,48 Auxis rochei 34 0,21 a 0,00 8 0,84 iluxis sp. 18 0,11 a 0,00 8 0,84 Euthynnus alletleratus 315 1.96 a 0,00 9 0,95 Scomberoll1orus maculallls 1 0,02 a 0.00 3 0.32 SI~omhl~f'OmOI'IIS 1:(I1)UI/II 1 0,01 a 0,00 1 0,11 Katsuwanus pe/amis 3 0,02 a 0,00 a 0,00 istiophoridac 50 0.31 a 0,00 a 0,00 Bothidae 3 0,02 0,00 8 0,84 Cyclapsetta chittenden; 0,00 °a 0,00 3 0.32 Cyclopse/ta sp. °2 0,01 0,00 1 0,11 'lI'ichopsetta ventra/is 1 0,01 ° 0,00 3 0.32 Citharichthys macraps 1 0,01 ° 0,00 1 0,11 Citharichlhys spi/oplerlls I 0,01 ° 0,00 2 0.21 Citharichthys sp. 0,00 ° 0,00 2 0,21 Syaciumsp. °2 0,01 ° 0,00 7 0,74 Bo/hlls sp. 0,01 a° 0,00 16 1.69 Etropus ,~p. 0,01 0,00 a 0,00 Cynoglossidae ° Symphurus p/aguisa a 0,00 a 0,00 3 0.32 5'ymphurus sp. 8 0,05 a 0,00 23 2,43 Balistidae 7 0,04 0,00 0,00 Batistes capriscus 199 1.24 566° 32,00 °3 0.32 Canthidermis sl{fflatnen 3 0,02 1 0,06 0,00 Canthidermis macula/a 7.4 OJ, 4 023 °a 0.00 Monocanthidae 1 0,01 a 0,00 a 0,00 MOl1oeanthus hispidus 273 1.70 233 13,17 0,00 lV/anoeanthus setifer 5 0.03 15 0,85 a° 0,00 iVlonocanthus ciliallis 2 0,01 2 0,11 0,00 A{onoeanlhus '~1). 4 0,02 45 2.54 °a 0,00 Cantherhines pullus 4 0,02 a 0,00 a 0,00 Can/herhines macrOcerus a 0,00 1 0,06 a 0,00 Aluterus heude/oti a 0,00 I 0,06 a 0,00 A/uterus scriptus 6 0,04 3 0.17 a 0,00 A/uterus schoel?fi a 0,00 2 0.11 0 0,00 Ostraciidac 2 0,01 a 0,00 a 0,00

10 Laclophyrs sp. I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Tctraodontidae 2 0.01 I 0.06 0 0.00 Sphoeroides sp. S 0.03 0 0.00 0.11 Diodontidac Divdon hyslix 3 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Diadem holocanthus I 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chilomycterus schaer!/i 0 0.00 I 0.06 0 0.00 Unidentified Fish 338 2.11 0 0.00 180 18.99 Total 16032 1769 948 -'TS~~all mesh neuston and bongo net 2Largc mesh nouston 3Bongo net

Hoffmayer, E.R., 1.S. Franks, B.H. Comyns, J.R. Hendon, and R.S. Waller. 2005. Larval and juvenile fishes associated with pelagic Sargasswn in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 56:259·270.

I I Appendix 7

Media coverage and other public information pertaining to Sargassum research activities

• Example of newspaper articles: Sun Herald newspaper lead story, July 21,2002

• National Underwater Research Center web site (http://www. u ncwil. ed u/nu rc;)

• GCRL Summer Program Brochure

• GCRL web page information

• Sargassum research project 'hand-out' Mississipp i's $15:)-rr1 iII iOIl-a- year saltwater fishing industry, Wllicll provides 3,988 jot)S, stands to llenefit from a grouneJtJreak­ illg study of life in tile saloassunl.

1"'()WGrI""II~; IF iOl","Ill/trlfl,lljlIlE ,;U:, 1'l'Wi n Am(Jng the juvenile fish s/lc;clcs found in tilo s;lrg,msu1l1 windrow are dolphin, top; file fish, mhldle row from [eft. amberjack and Ghub; bottom row, smgassLim iiBh fUJi! chub, Biologist Jim FrSIlI(s snid, 'We th[llj( (the dolphin) 'atch am hil~h[y dependent 011 sllrgossurll as [;uvfln ;3!l(i ig juveni!es,' By JOliN flTZHIlGH TilE SilN lWHAf,j)

GULF OF MEXICO - In a gi!llli Wlllll~ of hiri':·

PIr.'iI,\'C sec Sargassllm, A-6

Tile small bulhs of the sargassum are filled with gas, whkh gives the brown alga ihi ~lJl!ity to float,

TI\e !3flrgnssurn project Ifj ;1 stUll), of the di'/t'lsi!\' an!! ilbunfJancc of JiJvoniie fisll ,~s',;!.'~i:j'il'f.lliln,-,r. l\rI:r,inist'i;IIO[" iJased .'It 111(, ',';;1\\)1;;1\1' of N(lI-U-, C,;foi:n,l V!llrninf;!O'l. is l,rfJ','.'!/:III} ,!.s~isU'nu: for 11113 prl~ect, !'II(Hjinf~ IS [ll')\/I(I(-',rj by f(!(1e,al Sporifisil P';'-;~orril'(ln firilqt nHlIlq' p;J1(llo til(' l'lki~-,!S iJ(_d [Vp.;rif]'fCfli of :\,l;'r1I~r' f~I:~,OIII(;('< 1t)(~ "';;'-"'1 CO "('5 fl~.'1)\ ,1 ),')rt;()n o(1(lx,2s 1)1',

:':-,i' 11)' J d0, ho;)t~i ,~'1(: utiH·' 'I(!!ll!; ,1'<;,,(" "",' <'.,'1-, If'CI'- ;)I")ll,l: iislllllg

Elic HoHITIOlym swims under a 'windrow,' j)f long linear mmlS, of sargnsrlurn In tho Gulf of Me,dco about SO mileB t!ue !lnuth of BiloxI. The research technlcinn is part of il team from USM's Gulf Const H0senrcll L01I1, whkh is \'.'(;rl~ll1g on a IIlJlfJrmnl( study of the g~n 'grass' that prol'ldes slw\ler allli food, Title slide of presentation to the 'Technical Coordinating Cornl11ittee at the C;ulfStalcs Marine Fisheries COl11l11ission 2002 Spring Meeling (03119/02), Abundance and Diversity of Juvenile Fishes Associated with Sargassum: Observations from a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)

Eric Hoffmayer Center for Fisheries Research and Development College of Marine Sciences The University of Southern Mississippi ASSOCIATION OF YOUNG FISHES WITH PELAGIC SARGASSUM HABITAT IN THE NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO

E.R. HOFFMAYER, J. S. FRANKS, B. H. COMYNS, J. R. HENDON, R. S. WALLER The University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Center for Fisheries Research and Development Space, Satellites and Sailfish. USING REMOTESENSING TO TRACKOCEAN

PROCESSESAND FISHERIESRESOURCES associated with these fealUrcs.

Sargassum is a pelagic (floating) brown alga which is important habitat for several fishes, invertebrates, and sea turtles li ving in the open ocean. T his alga, which uses gas-filled pods Satellite imagery of the Gulf of Mexico showing sea surface temperature (left) and to remain buoyant (right), originates in height (right). The lines on the left image illustrate [he normal paltern of wat~rflow of the Sargasso Sea of the western me Yucatan Current (solid black) which becomes the Loop Current (dashed black) once Atlantic Ocean and is brought into the it enters the Gu:f. This current is known as the Gulf Stream (red) as it flows northward southern Gulf of Mexico by the up the eastern U. S. coast. The thin black outline of the Loop Current off Louisiana in Yucatan Current. Sargassum is the left image (s mall red arrows) and the red ellipse on the right (circled in w;"ite) brought further into the northern indicate an "eddy" whic h has broken off from the Loop Current and is slow ly mov ing toward Louisiana. These types of eddies can be mapped over time by analyzing sea Gulf by eddies which break off from the Loop Sa,g!J~.'tJ surface temperature and height images, because the tropical water of the Loo? Current Current and by vari ations in the Loop Current itself. imDorle~1thab -1l :01 becomes "trapped" in the eddy and is both warmer and "higher" than the su rrounding mJlh UOnU,Jr!:~ Several important fish species utilize Sargassum as temperate waters of tbe north ern Gulf. spe_ies and habitat at different parts of their life history. Some fishes. such as tripletail, dolphinfish (mahi-mahi) J lle 1.1,lIiolis" J ilI Tri,IIllil BI.IIi. lJer "11l1ted a I '(!sen Iilllislllirn ...... _ CCC T.ulu .. and certain billfishes, occur at this habitat at all lish H3~lIa""w' stages their life (larval, juvenile and adult), while Na .JII.I M It ,. lI~hwe of suc. SC·VIC J, A~,IIUa;OrI3.11 J others , h as bluefin tuna and greater amberjack, II • . IiIlIClskllownall can be found only in the larval or juvenile stage. A -fOtgasflJlII tn the Gullo l wide variety of fish of al1 sizes can be fo und at this MUI R."SBa the· uni que habitat because: who ,1 , ~urr-!1111 !1I IV III : n,bIl31.01 CENTERFOR FISHERIES : ) It provides a place for young fisbes (larvae and II 011sale juveniles) to hide from predaton. RESEARCH& DEVELOPMENT r Jge ¥ to lot.-:;Ie 3re~ Gulf Coos/ Resellrch Laborll/o",\' 01 Suca<

3102 AAll! ll!UAUAI Contributions to Understanding Larval Tuna Habitat in the Gulf of Mexico: Bluefin (Thunnus thynnus), Yellowfin (Thunnus a/bacares), and Blackfin (Thunnus at/anticus) Tuna (j) Eric R. Ho!fmayer, James S. Franks, Bruce H. Comyns" J. Read Hendon, Richard S. Waller, E. Mae Blake, and John P. Shelley' ..&!lf~ o The Unlvenily 01 Southem Mi$$i$$ippi. CdIia< 19 II 21 Ie) lI tIISI*d ..,...... iIIIdcfrI_,.".,..j 18Kil"c.uant __ ...... BIod;f. s-u~.p ..... --..IaIl-uint )9 19 2(1 11 In_GCM .... _~ ...... tuI .. nat.~IIOIIQhI:.YFT n.. .. \'1 110 __ w.y IiDf 1*IIIn ... cnu....lI\mUI) (8FT) In .. GOM. buI..,..,._ • Yd.IIJw!oo Voanllaollllldlino .... ~ )9 II 21 11 I' ~1n .. VFT __ IoI9NI'IIMty_,.....pftdcIlClolntllCllClli'l _FiQuI.3...... TWO~_1lING _IIM__.... raIIIm 130MIIOIIIIM_ . ~'-Y ____ .....-,,_ ...... _ .... In .. GOM .. pooII)' R6Ul.T3 AND O&:USSICW '. .. :> T_III¥M'".2II)0CICIIIfId.,sn.(n-71)0I ..... CICIIIacII-.(".,3,) CCIIIcIiIcI_~lnbangD ~WIh .. ____d._ .... ~_~'I1 ,.,..,.III. '*_(l''II.fII_ I '*_(57'II.oI_l n...... ,IIt __ CCIIIcIiIcI.!nWaI_ F$n 1 of 'fIIIDooIft.DIIddiI, IIId , La!lloI. No. No. ::UE St.•• I I = T_-s F..t. Ran!IoeT~ fish - Ran!IoeT~ FISh Range T_ fish Range )0 n.._.~_inc-"_IDI_o-r~_YFT ...... _ ...... ,-'I'_ ...... ~ .., u , ~> n .. ,G • .>-7.2 ,~ ~, MATERIALSANO METHOOS (IMr _ .... L ...... 8K'T 1II¥M __ IIIIIftCIInI ____ D-'I' fIIlJIoIIt-CIcaIM) tFv 5). lMIQ." " ~" = • ...... ".. ~ ~ <.>u · 1.7~ ..., )0 T_ ..... _Dllleald ..... ~_ ...... _1rI 11*J~ •• _ .. YFT_ .. N_poAonrll ... IUIJ'_ .... ~IIId~ - -"- • • " " "" • • • GOM-.2000-20D3 ...... onOOllli RVToIMIr".."., ,.... ~ , ...'" .. U , ,... n G ,m ,,~ , ..., .. rocdIem __ OOU ...... _ ...... _fII ~_~WI--.dwe.piIIIIgIc )oy~_8KT_~_~-.- ... _NfII_IUlJ' __ _ • __ , , _bBFT .pecIII:ID ..... 1lt1hloLoop~_~_III III ...... , .. ., ....e ~ '" ~ '",~ .s.;...... -- ...... _ .. __ NDIIIfI01 .. GOMIlangN __ -*'f' __ __ .... • . " ~ • • -, Rrww (fl;. 8) - " ,~ , ,.~ " tNRI'" , , .~ . 5.2·7.2 , fII .. t.oocoeurr.w(LC) (..... Mer2OD3 .wn(FIe. 1). ~~~ .. .. n • · · .. )0 ,...,fII0111101:11Do'1 " ... _boIMdan~_.-.- _ )0 The .... _IItYFT IDIIrIG., cIDII PIoanotrID1hIoMR ... (fig . OJ,.IIPOI*fDrlMlQ .... , , e.ue , .~ ,~. , , .".~ "~ ~ ,~ __ __ .... '" • ~ fII....,iIIIIOIIYt_~lIfIICIIIaRdIIa{SST})- tl*'wtIollllll.a'-~lOhIIIhIW~~"""-",*,""1hIoMR~ BIM:I*I '- " ...... ,... ___ ~~~N.,.,,_(FiOO)

)0 ~_._._ ...... r_tlll1dil(leJ_~ __ IOCIII __ """"" T"" .s..--yflllWlotll~--.d_N_f11 ~~ ...... I'IIIIIIg.~ .. ~_._'*(lm.:zm...... _ )0 ~_IIt"dIIa""""""""'_CCIIIcIiIcI"""~uIInIr._ \IIIdIIIn,~_"""''''''_''''''_''''' ..... tFv2),.._lIiIooMIt.....,.2~ -"'G.~ ~CIIfIIIII,._" ____fII"OO .... _IDIBFT...... , .... LC(T... 3. flO 7). 0pImaI GI.or lit MeIIIco RIIIIQlII __ IDI 35.01031011'U ). 20.011131.G ·C 1- 7. .I(f"og. 7). .,. .... _ ...... ~WI .. 1IIIInct __ ...... ____ (uL c-.. 15 .5ID 0lllQl(DO ~ ..... ---- .....~_.r "'..... ~ ,-. )0 HabIIII i!ICUIed ("C). (pw)...... , ..., , •• r..- ____ ~ - <- o.,a.(-) ~ ..... 1III)IDaI',""" - ~, ..... ,m)._p.-tOl_fIIs.;-- ~ .....- m, K' - til i.n (' l.ll-UIO.I) (9.0-0,.0'1 (3O~1)(»"Il7) (<.I_7J) )0 In"~ . "'*'-'" _. _IDI ...... __ -..IId • ..-­ Mq-AoIt. Y_ ~, u, W ...... ~ -. RicIIiMII (lOIM)[s. TIDIIo 1) L-. _ ~ _ .n ", ,I) JI.I-lf,, &) 1) . .... SIJ IIM\O • wecpc _ III ...... In (C.W<" (t.-,I) \,Jt-lIJ) "",1 -.d~ 10 ..... 01 YFT IIId 81<'1'• ...-ad III¥M ."._ ~ .. ~ ~ __ ...... ~, ". ~ IU ,. f'aeajf{18I')IO (T ' . RglJ . $o'ICa ...... S.OIMlSL ...... ___ ... (llII.I4l1U+ II'"",U ) (lO~) (»""' .7) CI.J-UI "'''' __ N~''''''''''''50_Sl. __ - )0 ~_"""'fII __ ~101 ) _fIIfllht*100m'fII_ urotATURE cnm ~.'"-NJII.-.a. __ JJI. IU ..... 1DI.. bongD .... Illd2)NMNoIrfllllllt*'01llin_1DI .. __ '*- __ ,_;!IIIl.-._., .. _ e-...... sa___

. -- ' • .., . # ...... _~_ .v...... ~- -­ ~ . _~ ...... ~ _a..,---___~.l1.._.lJt..~------1.Il.._.It.I.._-.1IL__ __ ...... , _ .1..1 __ . :.== - .-.,...[Jl..J. _1.K.~.IA. __ IU._ -. ~_...- ~lU...e.I. __ _ .....,...... __ 1tF __ _ • __ .,_ ...... _O'c..._.-._7_N.__ .... ., ____ _

~$.JCDI.,...... III'1.ca.~ ___ __ ..-...DIo--- ._~_ ...... -. "'_. ....--~ ---_____ .lC.DIP. -----._---,W,J._T _ , 1...... ___....-- ...• ______-----­ It _ ..l.IU , ~1M_.--,._,.m..~_.~ __ -' W J . ~ T ~JT _ ... oe..., I-'~"' ____ . "'-_ -. · =-- _WJ... . _ . . cwT_.J .. ~ .....,...... M_IjIIIAo__ --,_~ .... -.-______...... ~ _..oJ. ______'- - ""-~ " ""7~ ... ;~ ; ~ d.",· AOCNOWLEDGMfHTS r -n. .,. • F9nS o.n--. t~ tkMW) ...... __ ~., .. _~'" w.co 110m2OOOtcl2OCD. CoIIcIooow ______.. __III ~I -.0 GMon.It~V"""" ._T-"""_,,,_._ ___ . 111_ _0"'--. us ~ lI:Im____ .. _-*'fIIN Loop c:....._ ..... eu.,g ..... 2CIOl(t:illo*ll DIIfw_cdlnaCOldle~_fII_ _ __ ...... ____ ..... , ... _ ...... 0u . ~ ~ I '- ! J 0 ~ I f rill I "Iu \ J .1I'i f ~ ~ J] i 1"I . Cl I iii,:! e ! II!JI' II) J l1lij'h. 1 I I '€ 1 0 <1 ~ !Ii'1i1 "'= I ! Ill!' I Z ~$ I II) -", u:i , illll'l !a." [ Im!l -5 S :;; \,1("11ie d H .~ d~ I! !/11i!j - , 1 J j lUI • ;I II " I - -~ ~ -J - 0 1 11 J I ~ '0 ~ ~ I q i 0.. • I I-hHH I d '0:: 0 l I I I ! 'I ' , 'l:! ~ .g I P I,l, , u _'" I ilWI I . - . ::l ""• N~- "0 ~ o i' >-." ! II 8 g ~ ! p.. z:r: ~ " I ~ I !t, II) -5 '0 ...

Fishes Associated with Sargassum Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Larval Billfish

Researchers: Gulf Coast Coast Re$Urch Labonuory Univ. ofSoutherr. Missiuippi Ocean Springs. Mississippi Funded by: Mississippi Depl. of Marine Resources Biloxl Mississipp Through the: U. S. Fish & Wildlife Servi;e (AtbJu. GAl Sport Fisb Restorrion Propam