[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PB91- 169987 Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake San Antonio Bay Gulf of Mexico Baffin Ba' Laguna Madre : September 1989 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service QL1 39 REPRODUCED BY .E4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE no. 3 NATIONAL TECHNICAL c.1 INFORMATION SERVICE SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161 In June 1985, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began a project to develop a com- prehensive information base on the life history, relative abundance and distribution of fishes and invertebrates in estuaries throughout the Nation (Monaco 1986). This project, the Estuarine Living Marine Resources (ELMR) project, is conducted jointly by the Strategic Assessment Branch (SAB) of the Office of Oceanography & Marine Assessment and laboratories of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Currently, the Pt. Adams (Ham- mond), OR; Galveston, TX; Beaufort, NC; and Oxford, MD laboratories are compiling information for the contiguous West Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Southeast, and Northeast regions. To date, the project has compiled data for 115 species found in 73 estuaries. Four reports have been published: State of Washington (Monaco and Emmett 1988); State of Texas (Monaco et al. 1989); West Coast Volume I: Data Summaries (Monacoet al. 1990); and Eastern Gulf of Mexico (Williams etal. 1990). Alsoscheduled forpublication in 1990 are the Central Gulf of Mexico (Mississippi Sound, MS through Calcasieu Lake, LA'; the Southeast (Albemarle Sound, NC, through Biscayne Bay, FL) and the West Coast Volume II: Life History Frofiles. Three salinity zones as defined in Volume 1 of NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas (NOAA 1985) provided the spatial framework for organizing information on species distribution and abundance within each estuary. These salinity zones are tidal fresh (0.0 to 0.5 ppt), mixing (0.5 to 25.0 ppt), and seawater (25.0 and greater ppt). The primary data developed for each species for each salinity zone include spatial and temporal distribution and relative abundance by life stage, e. g., adult, spawning or mating, juvenile, larva, and egg. In addition, a detailed estuarine life history profile is developed for each species. Additional information on this or other projects of the Strategic Assessment Branch is available from: Strategic Assessment Branch Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 6001 Executive Blvd., Rm. 220 Rockville, Maryland 20852 (301) 443-0453 Reports available from NOAA's Estuarine Living Marine Resources project include: Monaco, M. E., et al. 1989. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Texas Estuaries. ELMR Rpt. No. 3. Strategic Assessment Branch, NOS/NOAA. Rockville, MD. 107 p. Monaco, M. E., et al. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries, Volume I: Data Summaries. ELMR Rpt. No. 4. Strategic Assessment Branch, NOS/NOAA. Rockville, MD. 240 p. Bulger, A. J., et al. 1990. A Proposed Estuarine Classification: Analysis of Species Salinity Ranges. ELMR Rpt. No. 5. Strategic Assessment Branch, NOS/NOAA. Rockville, MD. 28 p. Williams, C. D., et al. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Eastern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. ELMR Rpt. No. 6. Strategic Assessment Branch, NOS/NOAA. Rockville, MD. 105 p. BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PB91-169987 Report Nos: ELMR-3 Title: Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Texas Estuaries. Date: Sep 89 Authors: M. E. Monaco, D. M. Nelson, T. E. Czapla, and M. E. Pattillo. Performing Organization: Estuarine Living Marine Resources Project, Rockville, MD. NTIS Field/Group Codes: 47D Price: PC A06/MF A0l Availability: Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 22161 Number of Pages: 114p Keywords: *Marine fishes, *Texas, *Gulf of Mexico, *Estuaries, *Invertebrates, Spatial distribution, Abundance, Tables(Data), Seasonal variations, Species diversity, Salinity, *Estuarine Living Marine Resource Project. Abstract: The report presents information synthesized on the spatial and temporal distribution, relative abundance, and life history characteristics of 40 fish and invertebrate species in 9 estuaries along the Texas coast. Its purpose is to disseminate the results from the component of NOAA's Estuarine Living Marine Resources (ELMR) project. The presence, distribution, and relative abundance of each species' life history stage, and the time period it utilizes each estuary, are shown. The data and framework presented are illustrative of the nationwide ELMR project. As additional work continues on other estuaries throughout the Gulf of Mexico and more is learned about how specific species use estuaries, the data presented in the report may be refined further. PB91-169987 Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Texas Estuaries Project Team Mark E. Monaco and David M. Nelson Strategic Assessment Branch Ocean Assessments Division Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment National Ocean Service Rockville, MD 20852 Thomas E. Czapla and Mark E. Pattillo Galveston Laboratory Fishery Ecology Division Southeast Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service Galveston, TX 77551 ELMR Report Number 3 September 1989 Orr 4"'MENT OI~~ Acknowledgements We thank those individuals who provided information and reviewed the data in this report. Without their efforts a study of this magnitude and complexity would not be possible. In addition, we thank the many other scientists and managers who provided contacts and references. A special thanks is due to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) for being the primary reviewers of the species data sheets and to Drs. C.E. Bryan and Jerry Clark of TPWD for coordinating the review process. We also thank Donald W. Field for his assistance in the final preparation of this document. LIBRARy NOAA/CCEH ( 1990 HOBSON AVE. N~ ~ CH-LAS. SC 29408-2623 Introduction .............................................................. Why Conduct ELMR?...................................................... Data Collection and Organization............................................2 Selection of Estuaries ..................................................2 Selection of Species ...................................................3 Species Profiles.......................................................3 Data Sheets..........................................................4 Data Verification.......................................................4 Results of Study.........................................................6 Data Summaries ......................................................6 Seasonal Abundance...................................................6 Quantitative Abundance of Selected Species .................................7 Fishes .............7 Shrimp............ 9 Salinity and Species Abundance ..........................................9 Stocking Programs .....................................................11 Data Content and Quality ..................................................11 Variability in Space and Time .............................................12 Abundance Data.......................................................12 Brazos River Estuary Data ...............................................13 Complex Life Histories ..................................................13 Use of ELMR Data ..15.....................................................i Classifying and Comparing Estuaries.......................................15 Linkages to Marine Ecosystems...........................................15 Concluding Comments....................................................15 Data Summary Tables .....................................................17 Spatial Distribution ....................................................18 Temporal Distribution..................................................25 Data Reliability.......................................................46 ELMR Texas Presence/Absence Table....................................53 Appendices .............................................................5 Appendix 1. Gulf of Mexico ELMR species list................................56 Appendix 2. Gulf of Mexico ELMR estuary list................................56 Appendix 3. National Estuarine Inventory Map of Galveston Bay .................57 Appendix 4. Species Profiles and Data Sheets ...............................58 Appendix 5'. Personal Communications.....................................80 Appendix 6. Primary References and Personal Communications .................81 Literature Cited..........................................................90 Figure 1: ELMR study regions and regional research labs Figure 2: Major steps taken to complete the ELMR Texas study Figure 3: Texas estuaries Figure 4: Example of a species/estuary data sheet: Bay anchovy in Galveston Bay Figure 5: Mean number of species ranked as abundant or highly abundant in the mixing zones of Texas estuaries Figure 6: Total number of species ranked as abundant or highly abundant in the mixing zones of Texas estuaries Figure 7: Annual mean number of fish per hectare by estuary Figure 8: Low abundance (<40/ha) fish by estuary Figure 9: Moderately abundant (40-800/ha) by estuary Figure 10: Highly abundant (>1000/ha) fish by estuary Figure 11: Abundance of shrimp by estuary Figure 12: Mean numbers of Red drum stocked by estuary Table 1: ELMR species list for Texas Table 2: Data Summary Table: Spatial distribution and relative abundance Table 3: Data Summary Table: Temporal distribution Table 4: Data Summary Table: Data reliability Table 5: Texas ELMR species presence/absence table Appendix 1: Gulf of Mexico ELMR species list Appendix 2: Gulf of Mexico ELMR estuary list Appendix 3: National Estuarine Inventory map of Galveston Bay Appendix 4: Species profiles and ELMR data sheets Appendix 5: Personal communications Appendix 6: Personal communications and primary references 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I This report presents information synthesized on the Estuaries are among our most productive natural spatial andtemporaldistribution, relative abundance, systems (Mann 1982, Odum and Heald 1975). The and life history characteristics of 40 fish and physical, chemical, and biological composition of invertebrate species in 9 estuaries along the Texas estuaries are critically important to sustaining many coast. Its purpose is to disseminate the results from living resources (Healy 1982, Gunter 1967, Weinstein this component of NOAA's Estuarine Living Marine 1979). These important nursery areas provide food, Resources (ELM R) project (inside front cover). The refuge from predation, and various habitats for many presence, distribution, and relative abundance of aquatic species (Joseph 1973). Many of these each species' life history stage, and the time period organisms are important commercial and recreational it utilizes each estuary, are shown. The data and fishes and invertebrates, such as sciaenids, crabs framework presented are illustrative of the nationwide and shrimp. In spite of the well documented ELM R project. As additional workcontinues on other importance of these areas to fish and invertebrate estuaries throughout the Gulf of Mexico and more is populations, very little comprehensive and consistent learned about how specific species use estuaries, information exists on large numbers of species found the data presented in this report may be refined in or among groups of estuaries. Much of the further. distribution and abundance information for these estuarine dependent species exists primarily for the The objective of ELMR is to develop an inventory on offshore life history stage or the scale does not the distribution of selected fishes and invertebrates adequately address estuarine distributions (Darnell within the Nation's estuaries. The relative abundance et al. 1983, NOAA 1988). of each species' life stage and monthly occurrence were recorded by estuary forthethree salinity regimes Only a few comprehensive sampling programs (e.g. (seawater zone, mixing zone, and tidal fresh zone) State of Texas; Hammerschmidt and McEachron identified in NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory - 1986, McEachron and Green 1984) collect organisms Volume I (NOAA 1985). When completed, the entire with identical methods across groups of estuaries data base will contain information for approximately within a region. Thus, much of the data cannot be 150 estuarine species found in over 115 of the compared among estuaries due to the variability in Nation's estuaries. The Nationwide data base is sampling strategies. In addition, existing programs divided into four study regions (Figure 1). do notfocus onthe importance of groups of estuaries Figure 1. ELMR study regions and regional research labs. . .:~. � Hammond, : OR Lab West -C coast (33) /0-t;0O )xford, MD Lab Beaufort, \0000-:00 3 j to 0 NC Lab Galveston, Southeast (32) Nab Southeast TX Lab 1 f Numbers In parentheses are the .i numbers of estuaries in each region. G o ex \~Ul A 0 for regional management of fishery resources. The m.. | _ . ._ comprehensive data that do exist are for a relatively few important commercial and recreational species. Figure 2 summarizes the major steps taken to collect and organize information on the distribution and Since life stages of many species use both estuarine abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Texas and marine habitats, it is necessary to combine estuaries. The initial steps were selection of the information on distribution, temporal utilization, and estuaries and species to be studied. life history strategies to understand the relationships and linkages of estuariesto nearshore/offshore areas. Selection of Estuaries. Estuaries in Texas were To date, a national, comprehensive, and consistent selected based on NOAA's National Estuarine data base does not exist on the time, space, and Inventory (NEI) Data Atlas - Volume I (Appendix 2) function of each life stage for many species found in (NOAA 1985). Of the 38 Gulf of Mexico estuaries estuarine and marine habitats. Consequently, a included in the NEI, nine of these are located along need exists to develop a framework to integrate the the Texas coast (Figure 3): available fragments of information on marine and estuarine species and their associated habitats into 1. Sabine Lake a useful, comprehensive, and consistent structure. 2. Galveston Bay 3. Brazos River The ELMR project has been designed to address the 4. Matagorda Bay needs and to provide NOAA a uniform nationwide 5. San Antonio Bay data base on selected estuarine species. Results 6. Aransas Bay will complement other NOAA efforts to formulate a 7. Corpus Christi Bay national estuarine assessment capability (NOAA 8. Laguna Madre 1985) and coastal oceanicfishery sampling programs 9. Baffin Bay (e.g. Sherman 1985). Compiling this information will also provide a status of our knowledge of species in Data on species spatial and temporal distributions estuaries through the identification of information were developed and organized based on the tidal gaps and an assessment of existing data content fresh (0.0 to 0.5 ppt), mixing (0.5 to 25.0 ppt), and and quality. seawater (25.0 and greater ppt) zones delineated for each estuary in the NEI. A representative map and Figure 2. Major steps taken to complete the ELMR Texas study. Sample Outputs Estuadrne l O MPn1e Tbtmibuotl0n Ad~U~Y~ Estuaries InfE.Mm data table (Galveston Bay) from the NEI Data Atlas species were chosen. The four criteria were defined (NOAA 1985) is shown in Appendix 3. as: Compiling consistent species data nationwide for a 1) Commercialvalue -determinedby reviewof catch region limits the amount of information that may be data and value statistics from NMFS, e.g., Gulf compiled for each species and estuary combination. menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) and Shrimp Also, it would be time and cost prohibitive to map (Penaeusspp.). each species by life stage for each estuary (Monaco 1986). This framework enables a consistent 2) Recreational value - defined as a species that compilation and organization of available information recreational fishermen specifically try to catch that on the distribution of fishes and invertebrates in may or may not be of commercial importance. estuaries. Recreational species were determined by consulting regional experts and NMFS reports, e.g., Spotted Although necessaryforthisstudy, the NEIDataAtlas seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) and Red drum (NOAA 1985) does not contain sufficient information (Sciaenops ocellatus). on some physical parameters that affect species distributions. Additional information was compiled 3) Indicator species of environmental stress - on geological history, bottom type, watertemperature, identified from the literature, discussions with fisheries tidal and freshwater circulation, and water quality to experts, and from monitoring programs such as help understand the reported distribution of NOAA's NationalStatus and Trends Program(NOAA organisms. These additional data helped filter out 1984).Thesespeciesweremollusksorbottomfishes seasonal anomalies and reports of unusual species that consume benthic invertebrates or have a strong distributions. Therefore, the information developed association with bottom sediments. Their represents a species normal spatial and temporal physiological disorders, morphological abnormalities, distributions. and bioaccumulationof contaminants, such as heavy metals, indicate episodes of environmental pollution Figure 3. Texas estuaries. and/or stress, e.g., Gulf flounder (Paralichthys albigutta) and American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Texa. i- Basal 0 - 0 00-0 - i i i i4) Ecological value - based on several attributes, including trophic level, relative abundance, and evidence of its importance as a key predator or prey species, e.g., Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchill/). a.i..t.t40 fi4 tlag.rda.- :; IRegional allowances for endangered species were also taken into consideration, e.g., Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae). Species Profiles. A profile or life history description d0- lGulf of Mexico was developed for each species to provide an :: :s0Baffi t;ni:: ll1 overview of how the species utilizes estuaries. The profiles contain more information than is depicted in the data summaries of this report and were essential . ::Laguna Madr:: to understanding and interpreting the distribution of each species. Although many species profiles previously have been published, most lack specifics on estuarine life history data deemed necessary for this study. Therefore, the profiles developed Selection of Species. Species were selected based emphasize estuarine ecology, in situ species salinity on four general criteria. However, species were and temperature ranges, and life history information ultimately selected based on data availability. for estuarine dependent life stages. Representative Consequently, many of the species selected are species profiles and data sheets for Bay anchovy either commercially or recreationally important. (Anchoa mitchillh), Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), However, species of ecological value, or indicators and Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) are included in of environmental stress were also chosen when Appendix 4. possible. A species list (Table 1) was developed and peer reviewed to ensure that the most "important" 3 individuals, juveniles as immature but otherwise Table 1. ELMR species list for Texas similar to adults, and spawning was defined as the release of eggs and sperm (fertilization). A few Scientific name Common name exceptions existed, such as the livebearers and mating in crabs. Argopecten irradians Bay scallop Crassostrea virginica American oyster Three steps were taken to compile these data. First, Rangia cuneata Common rangia the presence or absence of a species within an Mercenaria species Hard clam estuary was determined. Second, the species Lolliguncula brevis Bay squid monthly distribution was determined and, if possible, Penaeus aztecus Brown shrimp the peak occurrence of each life stage was noted. Penaeus duorarum Pink shrimp Penaeus setfenrus White shrimp Finally, the relative abundance of a species in an Palaemonetes pugio Grass shrimp estuarywasdetermined usingthefollowing categories Menippe adina Gulf stone crab as defined below: Callinectes sapidus Blue crab Carcharhinus leucas Bull shark * Not present species or life history stage not Megalops atlanticus Tarpon found, questionable data as to identification of Alosa alabamae Alabama shad species, and/or recent loss of habitat or Brevoortia patronus Gulf menhaden environmental degradation suggests absence. Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy * No information available: no existing data Anus felis - Hardhead catfish available, and when after expert review it was Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow Fundulus grandis Gulf killifish determined that not even an educated guess Menidia species Atlantic silversides would be appropriate. Centropomus undecimalis Snook Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish * Rare: species is definitely present but not Caranx hippos Crevalle jack frequently encountered. Trachinotus carolinus Florida pompano Lutjanus griseus Gray snapper * Common: species is generally encountered but Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead not in large numbers, does not imply an even Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish distribution over a specific salinity zone. Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch Cynoscion arenarius Sand seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted seatrout * Abundant species is often encountered in Leiostomus xanthurus Spot substantial numbers relative to other species. Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker Pogonias cromis Black drum � Highlyabundant: species numerically dominates Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum relative to other species. Mugil cephalus Striped mullet Gobiosoma robustum Code goby Forwell-studied species such as shrimp, quantitative Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel data were used to estimate abundance levels. Paralichthys albigutta Gulf flounder Paralichthys 1alboigutta S oGutHer flounder However, for many species within any given estuary, reliable quantitative data were generally very limited. Therefore, regional and local experts were consulted to estimate relative abundance based on the above Data Sheets. A species data sheet was developed criteria. Referelative abundane speciesd on the bundance to enable quick compilation and simple graphic criteria. Referenceorguidespecieswithabundance presentation of the data. Figure 4 shows the data levels corresponding to the above criteria were sheet for Bay anchovy in Galveston Bay. A draft data developed for each estuary in cooperation with local sheet was developed for each species for each biologists. Other species were then placed into the estuary before additional experts were consulted. appropriate category relative to the guide species. Data collected on each species include: 1) the Thesedataonlyrepresentspeciesrelativeabundance salinity zone it occupies (seawater, mixing, or tidal levels within a specific estuary. Relative abundance fresh); 2) monthlydistributionthroughoutthosezones; levels across a suite of estuaries could not be and 3) life history stage(s) in a particular zone and their relative abundance level. Data Verification. Approximately one year was Adults were defined as reproductively mature spent on data compilation and consultation with regional and local experts to develop, verify, and 4 revise the 360 data sheets required for Texas particularly helpful in providing estuary/species estuaries (Figure 4). Initial interviews were arranged specific information on distribution and abundance. to explain the overall Living Marine Resources Theyalsoprovidedadditionalreferencesandcontacts Program and to introduce the ELM R project. Each and identified additional species to be included in the data sheet was carefully peer reviewed during these ELMR data base. meetings or subsequently by mailing the draft data sheets to reviewers. These important consultations The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) complemented the work and other published data served as the primary source of data and reviewers sets aggregated by NOAA. Approximately 50 ofthedatasheets becauseoftheirextensiveestuarine scientists and managers at 20 institutions oragencies fishery data base and knowledge. Each draft data were consulted. The names and affiliations of these sheet was reviewed and verified by several TPWD experts are listed in Appendix 5, as well as in coastalbiologists. Inaddition, expertswereconsulted Appendix 6, which lists the primary data sources for at colleges and universities with estuarine research each species by estuary. Local experts were and academic programs. Figure 4. Example of species/estuary data sheet: Bay anchovy in Galveston Bay. SCIENTIFIC NAME: Anchoa mitchilli REGION: Gulf of Mexico COMMON NAME: Bay anchovy STATE: Texas ESTUARY NAME: Galveston Bay INVESTIGATOR: Tom Czapla SALINITY LIFE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE SALINITY LIFE ZONE STAGE J F M A M J J A S O N D R ADULTS 2 SPAWNING 2 TIDAL FRESH JUVENILES 2 0.0 - 05 ppt LARVAE EGGS 2 ADULTS 2 MIXING SPAWNING 0.5 - 25.0 ppt JUVENILES LARVAE 2 EGGS 2 ADULTS--- 2 SPAWNING 2 SEAWATER JUVENILES 2 >25.0 ppt LARVAE -__ 2 EGGS ._ _. 2 Legend: Relative Abundance: Data Reliability (R): | = Not Present 1 = Highly Certain ----= No Data 2 = Moderately Certain * = Rare 3 = Reasonable Inference _=l~ = Common iBM_~- = Abundant = Highly Abundant counted for each lifestage in each month in the mixing zonesof Sabine Lake, Galveston Bay, Brazos Data Summaries. The information compiled for River, Matagorda Bay, San Antonio Bay, Aransas eachspeciesandestuaryonthe360datasheetshas Bay, and Corpus Christi Bay. The numbers of been synthesized into three data summaries. These species were averaged across estuaries, and the summaries provide graphic presentations of the mean numberof species present as larvae, juveniles, spatial and temporal distributions, and relative and adults were plotted versus month (Figure 5). abundance by life stage, for each species and estuary Mixing zones only were considered because their (Tables 2 and 3). A ranking of the level of reliability intermediatesalinitiesbesttypifytheestuarine habitat associated with these data is provided (Table 4). and they are present in seven of the nine estuaries studied. Although this is not a statistical analysis of Spatialdistribution andrelative abundance. Table 2 seasonal abundances, it does provide insights into summarizes the distribution and relative abundance how species are seasonally distributed in Texas by life stage for each species by salinity zone in each estuaries. Results were: estuary. The highest level of abundance at any point in the year in each estuary is depicted. Although this 1 ) The number of species for all life stages tends to report contains only a small portion of the nationwide be lower in winter, and higher in spring and summer. data base, Table 2 begins to show the significance of estuaries, orat leasttheiruse by specific species and 2) In each month, the number of species ranked as theirlife stages. Ingeneral,youngerlifestagesoccur abundant or highly abundant in the mixing zone is at lower salinities, while adults often are found in the highest for juveniles, moderate for adults, and lowest seawater zone. for larvae. Temporal distribution. Table 3 summarizes the 3) The number of larval species appears to peak in temporal distribution of each species by month and May, and the number of juvenile species appears to life stage foreach estuary. This information collapses peak in July and August. This could be the result of overthe three salinity zones and the highest level of maturation of larvae into juvenile size classes, or of abundance for a particular life stage by month is immigration of juveniles into the mixing zone. The shown. number of adult species is fairly stable from spring through fall, but is lower in the winter months. Although each species/lifestage is assigned one of five possible levelsof relative abundance: not present; 4) The seasonal variation in the number of species rare;common;abundant;orhighlyabundant, Tables is highest for larvae, moderate for juveniles, and 2 and 3 do not distinguish between the rare and not lowest for adults. present levels. This has been done because management of estuarine fisheries often does not Seasonal abundances for individual bays by larval, direct efforts towards rare species. To distinguish juvenile and adult lifestages are presented in Figure between "not present", "rare", and "no data", Table 5 6. Larval stages are lowest in the winter months presents information on the presence/absence of (Decemberto February), increasing duringthe spring species/lifestages by salinity zone. If a lifestage of (March to May), and summer (June to August), and a species is rare, common, abundant, or highly finally declining inthefall (Septemberto November). abundant forat least one month of theyearwithin an Juvenile and adult stages are abundant during the estuary, it is considered present. These data are spring, summer and extending into the fall. The important and are often used to explore linkages number of species present as juveniles and adults is between habitats and species biogeography (Hom high during the fall primarily due to many of these and Allen 1985). In addition, the Brazos River specieshavingannualcycles,thatis, juveniles are at estuary has a number of species for which there are or approaching maturity during fall and winter. In no data available. This is the only estuary in the addition, adults that had earlier immigrated into the Texas study where this occurs and these species are estuariesduring spring/summerwill experiencecooler also reported as "not present" in Table 2 and 3. temperatures in late fall, which typically drives a Approximately five percent of the entire Texas data majority of the adults out to warmer shelf waters, base falls intothe aggregated category"not present/ usually creating a "run" (e.g., the fall flounder run). rare/no data". The Brazos River system appears to have fewer species than other Texas estuaries for each lifestage. Seasonal Abundance . To examine general This may be primarily due to the lack of data for seasonal abundances in species, the number of species in the Brazos. However, it may also be species ranked as abundantorhighlyabundantwere partially due to the comparatively atypical physical 6 Figure 5. Mean number of species ranked as abundant or highly abundant in the mixing zones of Texas estuaries. 14 - * Larvae * Juveniles 12- 0 Adults 10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month and hydrographic characteristics of the Brazos compiled in this report. Since TPWD generates a estuary. The Brazos estuary is a river dominated great deal of data from various sampling gear, only system with relatively high flow and depth/width the bag seine data are being presented. Bag seines ratios, whereas most other Texas estuaries are are routinely taken in the program twice a month relatively shallow, broad, tidetwind dominated giving more complete data (gill nets being set in the systems. spring and fall; ottertrawlsoncea month). Bagseine data typically include smaller fishes, juveniles and [,,loml hl " mg.[,nt , x.ig'F-n[gih4,* nektonic shellfish. The following discussion refersto data on annual mean number of fish per hectare by Unlike most other coastal states, T exas, through its bay. Tex as Parks a nd Wildlife Department (TPWD), has been conducting a compre hensive fish mon itoring Fishes . Figure 7 shows that Galves ton Bay is progra m in coastal bays since 1977. The data compar atively hig her for annu al mea nca tchfortotal presented in this section were synthesized f rom numberoffishes.G alvest on Bayisin easter nTexas published TPWD reports. The monitoring program and receives a great deal of f reshwat er inflow. It is uses bag seine, otter trawl and gill net equipment to probably more representative of a " typical" estuary estimate abundances o f fishes and invertebrates. t than the other Texas bays. Estuaries from San This long-term monitoring program now makes it AntonioBaytoMexicohaveonlymixingandseawater possible to meaningfully compare the relative zones or a seawater zone only; a tidal fresh zone is a bundance of selected species across Texas absent (NOAA 1985). Whilethe mixing zon e is the estuaries.Theannualcatch recordsc anbe monitored essential character of an estuary, the lack of e ither a to witness oravoid the crashes of particularfisheries, tidal fresh or limited mixing zone may account for the a nd a llow TPWD to modify existing regulations as comparatively lower abundance seen in these other necessa ry (McEachron and Gre en 1984). De tails of bays. the operation of th is program, estuary boundaries as d efined by TPWD, and sampling site locations are In Figures 8, 9, a nd 10, the mean annual catch reported in McEachron and Green (1984). records by species have been grouped by orders of magnitudeise to illustrate three distinct levels of TheTPWDquantitative informationsupplementsthe abundance by species and across estuar ies. The relative abundance rankings of the ELMR species "low abundance fishes", comprised mostly of the U,~~~~~~~~~~ Figure 6. Total number of species ranked abundant and highly abundant in the mixing zone by estuary. Estuary ~~Larvae jJuveniles IAdults Corpus Ctwisti Bay . ,..I Arnsas ~..~ San Antonio Say .. ...... *~j: . . .... ..... Matagorda Say ... . .. Brazos River Galveston Bay ....... . Sabine Ia~ ~~ume o f S e i s 5iNumber of Species Number ofSpecies Legend: winter Spring ... Summer ( J Fall Figure 7. Annual mean number of fish per 9). The mean number of "highly abundant fishes", hectare by estuary. gulf menhaden and other primarily forage fishes, such as anchovy and killifishes, range in the soo - thousands per hectare (Figure 10). Galveston Bay again has comparatively higher numbers for several species (spotted seatrout, black drum, sand seatrout, 6000 hardhead, Atlantic croaker, and gulf menhaden). Shrimp. The overall abundance data for the major ' 4000 * . : .: ~ ;:. . penaeid species is shown in Figure 1 1. White shrimp are more abundant from Sabine Lake to Matagorda AE2 ~ ~ ~ ~ hi .Bay and brown shrimp are relatively abundant ~~ ~2ooo0 � i~ ~~~ '~=i~ ~throughout all the bays. Pink shrimp mostly occur in the estuaries of South Texas. E 0 o SalinityandSpecies Abundance. Estuaries along c ' i i i f the Texas coast generally increase in salinity going south from Sabine Lake to Laguna Madre (Diener B s & 1975). The effect of increasing salinity on relative abundance can be seen by changes in the numbers of certain species from estuaryto estuary. Numbers Source: Texas Parks and Wildale Departmem of hardhead catfish, sand seatrout, Atlantic croaker, gulf menhaden and white shrimp are relatively high sciaenids and other major predatory fishes, range in in Galveston and Matagorda Bays, but decline toward annual mean number per hectare (ha) from 0-35total Laguna Madre. The importance of low salinity water fish (Figure 8). The "moderately abundant fishes", to particular species, or estuarine dependence, can ranging in the hundreds per hectare, contain the be seen by the production of commercially important smaller sciaenids, pinfish and mullet, all of which are species off Louisiana. As examples, the menhaden foragefish inhabitingthe estuaries as juveniles (Figure and shrimp fisheries are some of the most productive Figure 8. Low abundance (<40/ha) fish by estuary. 40 * Red drum * Spotted seatrout a Black drum , [] Sheepshead o Southern flounder . 30 - Sand seatrout v [] U Hardhead catfish . 20 - E Galveston Matagorda San Antonio Aransas Corpus Christi Laguna Madre Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 9 Figure 9. Moderately abundant (40-800/ha) fish by estuary 700 - 0 Atlantic croaker OPinfish 600 - ESpot Striped mullet 400- 0 (D 2 300- -~200 ...-... C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ... 100- 0 Galveston Matagorda San Antonio Aransas Corpus Christi Laguna Madre Source. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Figure IO. Highly abundant (>1000O/ha) fish by Figure 1 1. Abundance of shrimp by estuary. estuary. me4000- IM 15Pin UGulf menhaden Pn I~Other Fishes -cUBrown o~~~~~~~~E OWhite cL 3000 C Co .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1000- a) *2000* E~~~~~~~~~~~~ E 100:10 <~~ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Suc:Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Source: Texas Parks and Wildliffe Department I10 fisheries in the United States (NMFS 1988). These eggs was less than 10 % of the total). These species and many others, such as spot and Atlantic releases have occurred in all months except January croaker, arevery abundant in regions with low salinity and February, and in all bay systems except Baffin waters. Thesewaters, inconjunction with other abiotic Bay. The bay systems of the coastal bend (Corpus and biotic parameters, such as bottom substrate, are Christi, Aransas, and San Antonio) usually receive important requirements of estuarine dependent more releases because of their close proximity to the organisms. hatcheries. Stocking Programs. The Texas Parks and Wildlife The effect of stocking on any of these bay systems is Department releases eggs, fry and fingerlings of not well understood. One study demonstrated that recreationally important fishes as an integral part of fingerlings survive up to one and a half months after its fisheries management program to supplement stocking in some systems (Dailey and McEachron theabundanceof natural stocks. The programbegan 1986), while another study did not demonstrate any in 1975 with red drum and striped bass. Since 1984, survival (Matlock 1988). Although survival rates of TPWD has released five different species of stocked fishes cannot be determined at this time, recreational importance: red drum, striped bass, average annual releases of 1 to 4 million eggs, fry or spotted seatrout, black drum, and snook (Dailey fingerlings within a system could increase the 1988). The program varies inthe numberofreleases abundance of red drum. between years and bays. Red drum have been released in all bays. Since 1983 spotted seatrout Stripedbass. From1975to1977,stripedbasswere and striped bass have had limited releases in and striped bass have had limited releases in principally stocked in Corpus ChristiandSan Antonio Matagorda and Galveston Bays. Black drum have Bays. More recently (1983-1987), efforts have been only been released in Aransas Bay and snook only in in stocking Galveston Bay with an average of 2.6 Matagorda Bay. million striped bass fry per year (Dailey 1988). Less than 0.2% of the total has been stocked in Matagorda Red drum. Red drum is regularly stocked in great Bay. abundance relative to other species (Figure 12). Since the beginning of the program in 1975, an Spotted seatrout. Releases of spotted seatrout fry annual average of over 10 million eggs, fry or and fingerlings have taken place almost entirely in fingerlings have been released (the number of the Matagorda Bay, with less than 3% of the total being stocked in Galveston Bay. An annual average of over334,000 spotted seatrout have been released in Figure 12. Mean annual numbers of Red drum Matagorda Bay since 1983. stocked by estuary. Black drum and Snook. The stocking programs for black drum and snook are not as extensive as those 5 - for the species mentioned above. In 1984, 31,000 black drum were released in San Antonio Bay, and o 4,249 black drum were released in Matagorda Bay. 04 -. In 1985, 333 snook were released in Aransas Bay. cc . An important aspect of any study, especially one o :~: ::': .<.-~-.-.;~:: | ^s ~based on literature reviews and consultations, is to t 2.- : determine the quality of the data used. Depending on the questions to be addressed, data of varying * 1 Y s quality may or may not be suitable to use. An explicit 1 ~-"-".~: ~'"~...."; f.a. : : " : fJ..:'.'-:~! effort was undertaken to assess consistently the 'overall" quality of the data developed so that the .- 1 ::i:i ": information can be used appropriately. - 2' 8 = = '~ BEstimates of the level of reliability associated with the a, g zc ,M a distributional information organized by species, life C g >c stage, and estuary are presented in Table 4 of the Data Summary Tables section. The following criteria Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department were used: Highlycertain: Considerable sampling data available. the personalcommunications and primary references Distribution, behavior, and preferred habitats well to enable individuals to track and obtain additional documented within an estuary. information efficiently. Moderately certain: Some sampling data available Variability in Space and Time. Species data have for an estuary. Distribution, preferred habitat, and been organized according to the salinity zone behavior well documented in similar estuaries. boundaries developed for each estuary in the NEI data atlas-Volume 1 (NOAA 1985). However, division Reasonable inference: Little or no sampling data of an estuary on the basis of salinity is highly variable available. Information on behavior and preferred duetothe many interacting factors that affect salinity, habitats documented in similar estuaries. such as variations in freshwater inflow, wind, and tides. To compile information on species distribution The quality and quantity of available data vary by according to these zones, it is assumed that if a species and byestuary. Forexample, a large amount particular salinity zone increases or decreases, the of information is available on shrimp because they distribution of a mobile species in that zone will are highly valued both commercially and correspond to that shift. For example, if increased recreationally. The least amount of information freshwater inflow shifts the tidal fresh zone further available and poorest quality of data are for the downtheestuary,thedistributionofaspeciesconfined spawning, egg, and larval life stages. Except for a to that zone increases to include the new area. If a few species (e.g. brown shrimp), very little data has species exhibits a wide range of salinity tolerance, a been generated on particular habitat preferences shift may or may not occur. This information was and environmental tolerances. This is particularly combined with additional habitat parameters, such true for the smaller forage and/or non-commercial as bottom type, to develop species distributional fishes and invertebrates. Gearselectivity, inabilityto data. The final placement of species in a salinity correctly identify larval stages and difficulty of zone was ultimately determined by where they have sampling various habitats limits the development actually been observed or captured. and reliability of this information. In addition, life history data are lacking on some of the commercially Temporal distributions are often dependent on annual important sciaenid and pelagic species. climatic conditions and water currents. Monthly distributional patterns were derived based on the Data reliability was also based on the number of consistent presenceof a life stagewithin aparticular studies conducted on a species within an estuary month. If a species is only present in an estuary in and whether they represented a time-series data set unusual years (e.g. drought), it is not portrayed as or were designed to identify and quantify a species' part of that species spatial or temporal distribution. particular life stage. For example, TPWD used However, if a species is normally found, even during different gear types to sample various habitats a restricted time period, it is portrayed present forthe accurately (Hammerschmidt and McEachron 1986). specific month(s). Greatertemporal resolution, such These data are more reliable due to sampling of as on a biweekly ratherthan on a monthly basis, was specific habitats with consistent and efficient gear. In not possible. the case of limited studies, information was occasionally inferred. Because this report is part of Abundance Data. Except for a relatively few the larger Gulf of Mexico data base still under important commercial or recreational species, little development, an opportunity exists to refine the data or noquantitative information is available to determine presented based on additional reviews. relative species abundance for a large number of organisms across estuaries. Therefore, an attempt Given that the amount and quality of available was made to only determine the relative abundance information varies by species, by life stage, between of a species compared to other species within an estuaries, and even within an estuary, considerable individual estuary. For well studied species, e.g. scientific judgment is required to derive or infer juvenile sciaenids or juvenile penaeids, quantitative spatial and temporal distributions from existing data data were used to estimate abundance within an and available literature. Unfortunately, even the estuary. However, in most cases the final level of most informed judgment is farfrom perfect due to the abundance assigned to a species was determined complexity of estuarine systems. Consequently, by asking regional and local experts for opinions information on the level of certainty associated with basedontheirknowledgeof individualspecieswithin each data element must be presented when anestuary. Thiseffortcomplementedthequantitative synthesizing multipledatasets (Table4). Inaddition, studies, and greatly increased the reliability of the Appendices 5 and 6 provide a complete summary of abundance information. It is important to note that 12 the TPWD has a quantitative computerized data ComplexLifeHistories. Becauseofthecomplexlife base on the distribution and abundance of several histories of some species, the following comments species found in Texas bays. The published areprovidedtoclarifyand supplementthe information information from this data base was a component presented in the data summary tables. used to develop the relative abundance information shown in this report. However, for the reasons Invertebrates. Sessile invertebrates, such as clams discussed below, it was not possible to use this data and oysters, usually have a patchy rather than a base to determine species abundance levels across general distribution. Therefore, the areal distribution the nine Texas bays in the ELMR study. First, not all of these organisms may be overestimated, but the of the estuaries in the ELMR project are included in salinity zones of colonization are identified. Specific the TPWD data base. Second, the TPWD reports areas may contain acceptable salinity regimes, but only summarize some of the commercially or suitable bottom habitat for colonization may not recreationally important fishes and invertebrates exist. Specific habitat requirements and life history (approximately 15) and classifythe rest of the fishes, characteristics of a number of invertebrate species such as forage species, into a category designated are provided below: as "otherfinfish". Finally, it was not feasible to query the TPWD system for40 species and 9 estuaries, by * Bay scallop: Usually associated with seagrass 3 salinity zones, forover approximately 10 years due beds. tothetremendous amount of time and effort necessary to do this. Therefore, the analyses ofthe TPWD data � Rangia: All life stages occur in salinities below shown in this report are synthesized from their annual 25 ppt. reports. These reports typically summarize the last year of data by month along with several previous � Hard clam: Most life stages occur in salinities years of data by year, allowing for some comparison above 20 ppt. between bays, but only on a yearly basis. This report only attempts relatively simple analyses of the * Bay squid: The lower lethal salinity limit is 17.5 TPWD data to generate a summary of several years ppt, and bay squid actively avoid salinities that by months to explore seasonal patterns. Based on are lowerthan this. Therefore, the distribution of the above facts, the relative abundance information juveniles and adults will only be from the lower shown in the data summaries of this report is the margin of the mixing zone to the sea water zone, "best" that could be synthesized from the TPWD and out tothe nearshore shelf waters of the Gulf reports, other studies, and expert reviews. of Mexico. Brazos RiverEstuary Data. A special section on * Penaeid shrimp: Postlarvae and juveniles are the data for the Brazos River estuary is presented the critical life stages utilizing the estuaries. hereduetothe limited amountof biologicalinformation Adults normally move to nearshore spawning available for this system. The Brazos River is one of grounds, where spawning, egg development, the longest and largest river basins in Texas, making and most of the larval development occur. it an important system with respect to river drainage and as an estuarine ecosystem influenced bysalinity. * Grass shrimp: Eggs and larvae are brooded. It is physically and hydrologically different from other Texas estuaries. Biological data on species temporal * Gulf Stone crab: Usually found in salinities and spatial distributions and relative abundance is greater than 20 ppt. Males are typically located very limited for the Brazos River Estuary. The in nearshore waters, but migrate intothe estuaries literature contained only two accessible reports for mating. addressing species distributions: Johnson (1977), and Armstrong and Goldstein (1975). Therefore * Blue crab: Mating usually takes place in the low much of the Brazos River data in this report is salinities of the tidal fresh to the upper region of primarily inferred from the tidal fresh and mixing the mixing zone. After mating, females move to zones data of Matagorda and Galveston Bays; its the seawater zone, while males often remain in closest neighbors. However, not all data can be the upper reaches of the estuary. The females easily transposed since the Brazos is a river brood the eggs, and larvae are released in the dominated system (Bernard et al. 1978), and lacks seawaterzone. Megalopae are transported into thetidal influences that affect the adjacent estuaries. the estuary for dispersion throughout the salinity Therefore, the reliability of the Brazos River Estuary zones. As they approach maturity, blue crabs information is low. seek lower salinities. 13 Fishes. Aggregating species by salinity zone uses a * Graysnapper. Larvae and juveniles aretypically single fundamental habitat parameter. However, a associated with vegetation in estuaries, combination ofhabitatcharacteristics, such as bottom particularly seagrass beds and mangroves. type, water temperature, and bathymetry, would Adults, spawning and eggs usually occur more accurately indicate species spatial and temporal offshore. distributions. Specific habitat requirements and life history characteristics of a number of fishes are * Pinfish: Juveniles arethepredominant lifestage presented here: within estuaries. Spawning, eggs and adults are usually offshore. Larvae are transported to � Bullshark: Development of eggs and larvae are inlets, but usually juvenile size has been attained internal, and birth results in pups of juvenile size. beforethey enterthe bays. Subadults and adults Therefore, only juveniles and adults are found in may remain in some bays before migrating out to the estuaries. Fishing gear usually limits the spawning grounds. ability to take large sharks. Based on the sizes of sharks captured, it may be inferred that * Sheepshead: Spawning occurs in nearshore parturition is occurring within the estuaries. and inletwaters. Larvae aretransportedtowards the estuaries, but usually juvenile size is reached e Tarpon: Spawning, egg and larval stages occur before they enter. well off shore. Juveniles use the estuaries as a nursery ground, often seeking waters of low * Sciaenids: Almost all of the sciaenids move to dissolved oxygen and low salinity. nearshore or offshore waters for spawning, although somefish may spawn in passes. Larvae * Alabama shad' Not found west of the Barataria may be transported toward estuaries, but fish Bay barrier islands in Louisiana. are usually of juvenile size bythe time they enter. Juveniles develop in the nursery habitats of the Gulfmenhaden: Typically only the juveniles are bays, then migrate out as subadults. Since some found in the estuaries. Sub-adults move into the of these species have rather long life spans, Gulf for maturation and spawning, and larvae several years may be spent in the estuaries as move towards the bays. juveniles. As temperatures drop in the winter, they move into deeper waters. e Gizzard shad' Large juveniles and adults are found in the estuaries, but adults must return to * Striped mullet: Adults, spawning, eggs and freshwater to spawn. In large rivers there is a larvae are in offshore waters, although some migration or "spring run" up the river. Large spawning may occur around the passes. juveniles that are washed into bays with floods Estuarine habitat is primarily used by juveniles. can mature to adulthood, but their upstream migration may be impeded by waterway * Codegoby: Usuallyassociated with seagrasses restrictions. and higher salinities. � Hardheadcatfish: Eggs and larvae are brooded * Spanish mackeret Juveniles occur in estuaries, in the mouths of adult males, therefore their but all other life stages are pelagic and occur distribution is determined bythe adult population. offshore. � Bluefish: Juveniles and adults are the principal * Flounders: Both Southern and Gulf flounders life stages found in estuaries. Adults may ascend have similar habitat requirements. Spawning, rivers into brackish waters. Spawning, egg and eggs and larvae are distributed in nearshore larval development occur offshore. waters. Juveniles migrate into the bays for growth and development. Gulf flounder appear Crevalle jack The juvenile stage is found in to be more restricted in their ascent into fresher estuaries, but all other life stages are in offshore water, typically remaining in salinities greater waters. than 20 ppt. Juveniles and adults migrate according to temperature, creating "fall runs" to � Florida pompano: Typically found in nearshore the offshore waters. surf and inlet waters, but juveniles and adults sometimes enterthe bays. Spawning, eggs and larvae are distributed offshore. 14 �Nf � . such as specific salinity regimes, 3) other offshore species spawning near the mouths of estuaries so Classifyingand ComparingEstuaries. In spite of thattidal andwind driven currentscan carry eggs and the qualitative nature of the distributional data larvae into estuarine nursery areas; and 4) species precluding exactcomparisonsof species abundances entering estuaries as adults during certain times of among estuaries, much can be done using year to feed on higher densities of prey. The information on presence or absence and timing of life importanceof anyestuarytoprimarilyoffshorespecies stages inasalinityzone. This information, combined can be determined by the intensity of use of that with the identification of thetime period eachspeies estuary by those species, most of which fall into one utilizes the estuary, is the strength of the data base. or more of the four categories. Importance can be Estuaries can be categorized in a preliminary wayby measured both by the number of offshore species their biological characteristics, and correlations of present as well as their actual abundances in the species distributions in and among estuaries may be estuary and offshore. These data may provide clues identified. The relative importance of individual for further investigation of the adverse effects on an estuaries in a particular region can also be assessed offshore population due to environmental degradation for a specific group of species based on varied of a given estuary. criterion of significance. The presence or absence of members of a set of pre- The species found in a given estuary are far more selected species or species with specific life history sensitive indicators of both mean and extreme strategies can be used to rank an estuaries' conditions than any set of physical measurements. importancetothesespeciesonaregionalbasis. For Estuaries can therefore be classified by the number example, if the species group is defined as of species present and bywhetherthey are primarily anadromous species which are commercially marine, estuarine, orfreshwaterdominated. Species important offshore, the strength of the offshore- assemblages may correlate with any number of estuarine linkage for each estuary can be established. physical characteristics, such as bottom substrate, This can be used to identify, on a regional basis, vegetation, and the areal and temporal characteristics estuaries worthy of special attention or management. of salinity zones. Species assemblage correlations This kind of approach may facilitate the linking and can be done even with an incomplete species list as importance of estuaries to geographically defined cang as the list's biases are considered. The marine ecosystems. The data sets developed or long as the list's biases are considered. The under development in the Living Marine Resources information on species presence or absence, area, under development in the Living Marine Resources or other attributes can be used to determine whether Program will enable regional assessments with estuaries clusterorarespread outalong a continuum consistent species information for life stage and life history strategies from the head-of-tide in estuaries Any shift in a species position in a list ranked by to the continental shelf. The integration of the degree of abundance when comparing estuaries biological and physical data will significantly improve warrants further analysis. A comparison among our ability to identify and define the linkages and estuaries using various correlates of that species' interchanges between estuarine and shelf habitats. distribution can identify differing factors among those estuaries that might account for the species shift in _ relative abundance, thereby helping to define the major environmental variables controlling its This study is the second completed component of an major environmental variables controlling its effort to develop a consistent and comprehensive distribution. In addition, ecological controls on a effort to develop a consistent and rehensive species can also be investigated. For example, a data base on the life history, distribution, and relative species may show differing salinitytolerances among abundance of selected fishes and invertebrates estuaries, indicating that some other factor, such as throughout estuaries of the USA. The information presence of a competitor, predator, availability of presented is a result of a program designed to specific food source, bottom type, or degree of "capture"theNation'sdata, information, and expertise pollution may be regulating its distribution. on species in estuaries. This work is one step in developing an information base and operational Linkages To Marine Ecosystems. Many species capability to bridge the gap between site specific use estuaries for specific parts of their life histories estuarine problems and formulation of regional and spend the rest offshore. Most species fall into management strategies. Filling this gap(s) is now fourgeneralcategories: 1 )diadromousspeciesusing more importantthan everbefore, as itbecomes clear estuaries as migration corridors and, in some that the cumulative effects of small changes in many instances, nursery areas; 2) species that enter places may have much greater systematic effects estuaries to utilize various habitats for spawning, throughout the Nation's estuaries and coastal oceans. 15 Compiling, transcribing, and unifying the endless fragments of information is a very difficult task, but necessary to effectively manage the Nation's estuarine resource base. Although the knowledge available to effectively preserve these areas and their resources continues to be limited, the ELMR data base will enable comparisons among species, groups of species, specific life stages and times of year within an estuary, or by geographic regions. In addition, knowledge gaps will be identified. When combined with other NOAA data sets, the ELMR data base will also be useful in developing and testing various hypotheses. Developing this information for the Nation is an enormous undertaking. This report alone required consultations with over 25 experts and the use of over 400 references to develop the relatively simple data summaries for only nine estuaries. Consequently, the emphasis has been primarily on developing distributional information on individual species by estuary, paying particular attention to life stage, the time period a species utilizes an estuary, and its general habitat requirements. Knowledge of the detailed biogeography of many species across estuaries provides new opportunities to address a range of broader problems and a framework to identify resourceuseconflictsforfurther investigation. 16 Table 2: Spatial distribution and relative abundance Table 3: Temporal distribution Table 4: Data reliabilty Table 5: ELMR Texas presence/absence table 17 Table 2. Spatial distribution and relative abundance. Texas Estuaries Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San. Aransas Laguna Baffin LakeoLagCurnsa Lake Bay River Bay Antonio Bay Madre Bay Bay Bay Species/Life Stage T M * T M S T M * T M S * M S * M S * M S * * S * * S Bay scallop A Argopecten J irradians L E American oyster A O 0 0 0 0 Crassostrea S o0 0 � 0 0 virginica J 0 a 0 � 0 0 L 0 5 0 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 � 0 0 Common rangia A * 5 0 O 0 Rangia S a 0 O 0 cuneata J � 0 .0 0 L � 00 00 E 0 0 00 Hardclam A 0 0 0 00 0 0 Mercenaria S 0 0 0 00 00 species J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 O0 00 E 0 0 0 00 00 Bay squid A 0 O O 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lolliguncula S00 0 a 00 00 0 0 bres JL 00 00 0 00 00 0 E0 O� O O 0 10 0 E 00 05 05 00 00 0 Brown shrimp A O * O 0 Penaeus S aztecus J 0 3 060 *0 13 0 @ O L � 0 0 �- 00 E T M T M ST M* T M S* M S* M S Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Aransas Corpusffin Lake Bay River Bay ntonio Bay Christia Ba Bay Bay Madre Bay Bay Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Salinity Zone Life Stage � Highly Abundant T - Tidal Fresh A - Adults � Abundant M - Mixing S - Spawning 0 Common S - Seawater J - Juveniles Blank Not Present, Rare, or e - Salinity zone not present L - Larvae No Data Available E - Eggs 18 Table 2, continued. Spatial distribution and relative abundance. Texas Estuaries Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda SnAassCru auaBfi Lake Bay River Bay Antonio B yChristi Maguna Bayfi - ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~Bay Bay Mar By Species/Life Stage TM T M STM*T M S M SM S*M S* S* S Pink shrimp A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plenaeus duorarum J0 0 0 0 0 00 O 0 L E White shrimp A6 0 0 0 60 a6a 00 06 Penaeus S setiferus 66 a6 6 a6 60 0 a6 L a 06 6 66O6 Grass shrimp A aa 06 a 6 0 66 6 paiaemonetes S a 06 a 66 a0 6 6 pugio J 06a 6 66 60 6a 6 6 a L686 06 6 66 6 0 66 66 E606 06 6 661116 60 66 66 Blue crab Ag a666 0 060C 6 0 60 CD 6 6 Cailinectes M a 6 0 0 0 0 0 C D 0 sapidus i6 66 0 06 6 6 06 a L a 66 0 6 0 06 0 S 66 CD 0 O Gulf stone crab A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Menppe M 0 0 0 0 0 0 Menippe~~ 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 adina O0 S 0 0 0 000 Bull shark A Carcharhinus M leucas O 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Aransas CorpusLauaBfi Lake Bay River Bay Antonio Bay Christi Maguna Sayi Bay Bay Mar By Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Salinity Zone Life Stage 6 Highly Abundant T - Tidal Fresh A - Adults 6 Abundant M - Mixing S - Spawning 0 Common S - Seawater J - Juveniles Blank Not Present, Rare, or *-Salinity zone not present L - Larvae No Data Available E - Eggs M - Mating Table 2, continued. Spatial distribution and relative abundance. Texas Estuaries Sabin GalvstonBrazo Mataorda San* rna Corpus Sabie G ayl vesto Brazoyaaod Antonio A assChristi Laguna Baffin Lake ay Rier Ba BayBay Bay Madre Bay Species/Life Stage T M T MSTM*T M S*M S M S*M S*S S Tarpon A 0 0 Meg~alops S atlanticus OO L E Alabama shad A Alosa aiabamae L E Gulf menhaden A 0 0 a6 00 0 0 0 firevoortia S patronus 66a 06 a 66 60 a6 a6 a 6I L 6 0 E Gizzardashad AQQ 0 O 0 000 60 0 6 Dorosoma S cepedianum J 6 0 0 0 L E Bay anchovy A g a6 6 a60 a60 a60 a60 6 Anchoa S 0 66l 6 06a0 6 0 6 0 60 a a mitchilli J6 666 a 66 ~0 IS0 a60 a60 a a LOC 06 6 6 00 060 6 0 6 6 E 0 66 6 00 0 a60 a60 III Hardhead catfish A 0 06600 66 66 III 60 6 6 Arius S 0 66 66 6 0 6 felis J 0 660 66 6 0 6 L 0 6666 60 60 6 6 E 0 66 66 60 60 6 6 TM T M STM T M S M S-M S *M S*S*S Sabin GalvstonBrazo Mataorda San* ass Corpus Sabie G ayl Rvesto Brazoyaaod Antonio Aransa Christi Laguna Baff in Lake ay Rier Ba BayBay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Salinity Zone Life Stage 6 Highly Abundant T -Tidal Fresh A - Adults 6 Abundant M - Mixing S - Spawning 0 Common S -Seawater J - Juveniles Blank Not Present, Rare, or *-Salinity zone not present L -Larvae No Data Available E - Eggs 20 Table 2, continued. Spatial distribution and relative abundance. Texas Estuaries Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda AS an sas Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Antonio Bay Christi Madre Bay Bay Bay Species/Life Stage T M * T M S T M * T M S * M S * M S * M S * * S * * S Sheepshead minnowA 0 O O O 0 5 O Cyprinodon S 0 0 0 0 0 � variegatus J � � a @� @a � a L 1 0 01 0 13 0 �� �� 05 * 1 E�� 0O01 0 �0 0 0� 55 O � � Gulf killifish A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fundulus S 0 0 0 0 00 0 grandis J �0 �0 � � 0 00 � � L � � O0 @S 5� �0 00 � E I S� 0 @� 55 @0 00 � 0 Atlantic silversides A 0 0 0 C 0 * O Menidia S O 0 � � � 0 * � species J � S0 5 S �0 �0 � LOS 05 55 55 � 0 0 0 EOQ 00 13 1 0 0 Snook A Centropomus undecimalis J L E Bluefish A Pomatomus saltatrix L E Crevalle jack A 00 00 00 00 0 0 Crevalle jack A O O O O O O O O O O Caranx S hippos J 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 L E T M* T MST M TMS M S* M S* M S * M S* * S * * S Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Aransas Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Bay ChristiBay Ma dre Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Salinity Zone Life Stage * Highly Abundant T - Tidal Fresh A - Adults � Abundant M- Mixing S - Spawning 0 Common S - Seawater J - Juveniles Blank Not Present, Rare, or * - Salinity zone not present L - Larvae No Data Available E - Eggs 21 Table 2, continued. Spatial distribution and relative abundance. Texas Estuaries Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Aransas Corpu Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Anto Madrnio Bay Bay Bay Species/Life Stage T M * T M S T M * T M S * M S * M S * M S * S * * S Florida pompano A o 0 Trachinotus carolinus J 0 0 0 0 0 � L E Gray snapper A Lutianus S griseus J 0 L E Sheepshead A O 00 0 00 10 0 0 00 0 0 Archosargus S 0 00 0 probalocephalus J 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 L 00 00 E 00 0 0 Pinfish A 00 0 � 0 0 0 Lagodon S rhomboides JOO 0 05 5 � � 5 0 � L E Silver perch A 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 S 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 chrysoura J 00 0 00 0 00 00 � chrysoura J � 0 � 0 � � 0 L 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 � E- 00 0 O 0 0 O0 0 Sand seatrout A I 0 0 00 0 0 Cynoscion S 0 0 arenarius J 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 E 0 0 T M * T M ST M* T M S* M S* M S * M S* * S * * S Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda an Arans Corpus Ba Lake Bay Ri v e r Bay Antonio Christi Lake Bay River Bay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Salinity Zone Life Stage * Highly Abundant T - Tidal Fresh A - Adults O Abundant M - Mixing S - Spawning 0 Common S - Seawater J - Juveniles Blank Not Present, Rare, or * - Salinity zone not present L - Larvae No Data Available E - Eggs 22 Table 2, continued. Spatial distribution and relative abundance. Texas Estuaries Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Aransas Corpu~sLauaBfi Lake Bay River Bay Antonio B yChristi Magune Bayfi Bay Bay' Ba Mar By Species/Life Stage TM *T M STM *T MS M S*M S*M S* S* S Spatted seatrout A 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 Cynoscion 0 (0 0 0 0 00 00 00O 0 0 neblousJO 00C OOO 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 L C) 00 0 00O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 00O 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spot A W 00 000 0 0 6 66 6 0 Lelostomus S xanthurus J OOC 060 06 0 60 60 66 6 6 6 L E Atlanticocroaker A6 0 0 666 60 6 06 Micropogonias undulatus JO 6660 66 66 a6 66 a a L 606 E Black drum A 0 0 0 00 00 0 O 0 00 0 O Pogonias s0 0 0 0 06 cromi~s O O 0 000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 6 E 0 0 0 0 6 Red drum A 0 0 0 Sciaenops0 ocellaftus O O 000 0) 000 00 00 00 C )C 0 0 L 00 0 E 0 Striped mullet AQO C 0 00 0 06 00 0 0 00O 0 0 Mugil S 6 cephalus J00 066 0 66 0 66 66 6 L 6 E 60 TM T M ST MT MS M S*M S -M SS S* Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Aransas CorpusLauaBfi Lake Bay River Bay Antonio Bay Christi Maduna Bayfi Bay Bay Mar By Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Salinity Zone Life Stage * U ~~~~~ Highly Abundant T - Tidal Fresh A - Adults 6 Abundant M -Mixing S - Spawning 0 Common S -Seawater J - Juveniles Blank Not Present, Rare, or *- Salinity zone not present L - Larvae No Data Available E - Eggs 23 Table 2, continued. Spatial distribution and relative abundance. Texas Estuaries Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San. Aransas Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Antonio Bay Christi Bay Bay Bay Species/Life Stage T M * T M S T M * T M S * M S * M S * M S * * S * * S Code goby A O O O O O O Gobisoma S O 00 0O 00 Gobiosoma robustum 00 00 00r L 00 00 00 � I E 00 00 O0 0 Spanish mackerel A 0 Scomberomorus maculatus J 0 L E Gulf flounder A Paralichthys S albigutta J L E Southernflounder A g g O �a0 O O � 0 O 0 O 0 O Paralichthys lethosbgma J 00 0 0 0 0 �0 0�0 0�0 0 0 L T M* T M STM MS M * M S*MS * S * * S Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San. Aransas Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Antonio Bay Christia Ba Bay Bay Madre Bay Bay Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Salinity Zone Life Stage * Highly Abundant T - Tidal Fresh A - Adults � Abundant M- Mixing S - Spawning O Common S - Seawater J - Juveniles Blank Not Present, Rare, or * - Salinity zone not present L - Larvae No Data Available E - Eggs 24 Table 3. Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Month J FM A M JJA SON DJ F MAM J JA SON D J FM AM J JA SON D Species/Life Stage Bay scallop A S ArgopectenJ irradiansL E American oyster A i ................... S Crassostrea j I I. L mi .na! .. 1111111..M virginica L . ..... Common rangia A ... S- Rangia j__ cuneata L E Hard clam A MercenariaJ species L Bay squid A S Lolliguncula J brvevs L E Brown shrimp A S Penaeus .... . 1*~ E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant ~~~~S - Spawning I~~~ Abundant ~~~~~J - Juveniles E~ Common L - Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 25 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Month JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Bay scallop A Argopecten irradians L E American oyster A I . .I Cras~sostrea J - virginica L Common rangia AI S Ran gia j cuneata L E Hard clam AI Mercenariaj species L__ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Bay squid A jm-m~mm-j. mumuum ~Ir!nf . Sm. I-............ . ... .... ..... in .- .-- Lolliguncula rnu -mN..... ... -.n:-.-W E a a.. mO-Mi . Brown shriimp A S Penaeus I Ml n!...... aztecus L~ E JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults ~* Abundant S- Spawning J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, orE-gs No Data Available 26 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Month J FM AM J JA SON D JF MA MJ JA SON D J FM A MJ JA SONDC Species/Life Stage Bay scallop A S Argopecten J irrains L E American oyster Ai S Crassostrea j virginica L E Common rangia A S Rangia j cuneata L E Hard clam At S Mercenaria J species L E__ _ _ Bay squid A I S II Lolliguncula i brevis L I E i Brown shrimp A E S Penaeus i S Ii m ~-- aztecus L E J FMA MJJASON D JFM AMJJASON D J FMA MJJASO N 1 Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant ~~~~S - Spawning E~~' Abundant ~~~~~J - Juveniles ED Common L -Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 27 Table 3, continued. Temporal distribution. Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Month J FMA MJ JAS ON D JFMAM JJASON D J FMA MJJ ASO N Species/Life Stage Pink shrimp A S Penaeus i duorarum L E White shrimp A S Penaeusj setiferus L -- E Grass shrimp A ..................... Palaemonetes j--- ** pugio L E,111111N3.......... E I 11 E .-i Blue crab A Callinectes .. ~ .~.......... ..... sapidus L .. .-~: ....-* ................... Gulf stone crab A Menippe adinaL SL Bull shark A M Carcharhinus leucas J FMAMJJASO0N DJ FM AMJJASON D J FMA MJ JASO NO Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Texas Estuaries Relative Abund ance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults ~II Abundant S - Spawning J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E - Eggsn No Data Available M-Mtn 28 Table 3, continued. Temporal distribution. Texas Estuaries Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Month JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAIMJJASONC Species/Life Stage Pink shrimp A S Penaeus j duorarum L E White shrimp A____ S Penaeus j setifrs L *.-.-ca E Grass shrimp A ....- ... - . . N.W. ::":I-.... S M- Palaemonetes . . ...... ..***......... pugia L I.. c ... E ........ ~~~~..........*..M.... Blue crab A 1 Callinectes J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ sapidus L_________ _______ Gulf stone crab AI Menippe adina L Bull shark A M Carcharhinus______ leucas J FMA MJJA SO N DJFM AMJJASON D J FMA MJ JASO N Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant ~~~~S - Spawning O~~i'~~j Abundant ~~~J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or M - Eggsn No Data Available M-Mtn 29 Table 3, continued. Temporal distribution. Texas Estuaries Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Month JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJ ASOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Pink shrimp A [D S Penaeus J I I I f l iii__ iii_ - ; [ duorarum L E White shrimp A l -: : S Penaeus J I iZ33333333H31 3; 3;33H31 setiferus E Grass shrimp A i _ S Palaemonetes pugio L _l _::: ::: :u E _ Blue crab A .....E.............P........... 1 ii33333H33#33 I... .3....3333H3H33H33 Callinectes J _U : E3H3H333H33H3H3H33HJ3333H3 I33H3H I 1 sapidus L -.......... ,S , IW il:u;i t333333333333333333H I Gulf stone crab A I Menippe M 0 adina J I L C] S I I I I Bull shark A Carcharhinus M leucas JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults 3m1iiiiiii~jjl Abundant S - Spawning J - Juveniles Common L-Larvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or M - Mating No Data Available 30 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Month J FMA MJJASO N DJFM AMJJASON D J FMA MJJASO N Species/Life Stage Tarpon A S Megalops J atlanticus L E Alabama shad A S Alosa J alabamae L E Gulf menhaden A S Brevoortiaj patronus L E Gizzard shad A'i DorosomaJ cepedianum L E Bay anchovy A Anchoa j mitchlilli L E Hardhead catfish A II Arius ___I__ fells L~ E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant ~~~~S - Spawning 2"~~fl Abundant ~~~~J - Juveniles Common L - Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 31 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Month J FMA MJ JASON D JFM AMJJASON D J FMA MJ JASO N Species/Life Stage Tarpon A S Megalops J aftanticus L E Alabama shad A S Alosa i alabamae L E Gulf menhaden A S Brevoortiaj paftrnus L E Gizzard shad A ... S Dorosoma J .~-~.,- cepedianum L E Bay anchovy A ---I.......... mitchilli Lh fells ~~L .- . E Hardhe~ataoda ca anAtonish .a Aranss.Ba ~~~~~~~~~~~TeAs surius Relatvl bnaceLf tg Highl ~ atgodaBy Sbnant Anoi Ba AduatsaBy Abundant ~~~~S - Spawning Abundant ~~~~~~J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 32 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Month J FMAMJJASO N DJFM AMJJASON D J FMA MJJ ASO N 0 Species/Life Stage Tarpon A S Miegalops j atlanticus L E Alabama shad A S Alosa j alabamae L E Gulf menhaden A___ S Brevoortia jI - . .--.--- patronus L E Gizzard shad ME S Dorosoma i cepedianum L E Bay anchovy A __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Anchoa__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mitchilliL E Hardhead catfish A -MM MHOM.UMMI S Anius J t fells L . E J FMAMJJASON D JFM AMJJASON D J FMA MJJ ASO N D Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults S - Spawning *** Abundant J - Juveniles E~ Common L - Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 33 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Month J FM AM J JA SON DJ F MA M J JA SOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Sheepshead minnow A M O ~ 0-i--~Oli ...a- ........ ... UM-4 Sfi: ..-. .. .................-.. . ..-...-......... Cyprinodon j a::-I'...-.....Ml........-.-. -.- -* grandis L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............... 1 -'-"''I S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... ..== =. .J UMMM. Men~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~Idi jr. = U... .... .......... . ...... urndeiais LN !iM .: E Btlueficshlesi A !:i"..:nlm N : :-utmgnl-M.i t...............M specaie s L E Crvaoejak A S hipposall L E Heighl AbnatA-dut PomaCommon V ra Noval jack Avial Caranx S~~~~3 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Month JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Sheepshead minnow At---'--- .11 11 5 H!!I33!H!3. I.......... .... u -.-......J Cyprinodon j I a.. .dL............................ variegatus L I iEiEIhrI I::::::-*-i I=====it ' I Gulf killifish Am--. S grandis L E Atlantic silversides A I I Iff33aaaa - - LI 5 =3., Menidia j 3333ii I I 3m33!333!I species L =i Snook A S Centropomus j undecimalis L E Bluefish A S Pomatomus saltatrix L E Crevalle jack A S Caranx ___________ hippos L E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults S - Spawning Abundant J - Juveniles Common L-Lgrvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or No Data Available 35 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Month JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Sheepshead minnow A 'Iaiiiiaiail i- ia:iiiiiiil Uf -iE-il-l3. HrlillM=.a !, S iBl....iii ...iii .... iH. .i..�. ... I Cyprinodon J Li.i.iii-.:- .i...i:=ii-iiii.-ii.i.-. I .i.i..iiai.j- variegatus L i.ii.iii ......... .iiiii......iiiiiii. I. El. Gulf killifish A . I 1l..i:i !iuai'il-a!iiinl-liia'iia i iWi=i. A li:ii-ii iiiii-iiiiiiii Fundulus J I I'a jangi=!":";=-: "! -'-' I" !.-i-i; eE.iii=..:.i=i"--'! ! grandis L a I.il.ili.lii.iiiEiiiiill .,ii.iii ili iiii E I. -. I .li i'i-iii"i:i' i!i~i =.'".!:iiiil Ii -!i -:-iiiiH=. !ii iii. r . :- Atlantic silversides A S -muU"="w.a Menidia j ; .t.- species L E Snook A S Centropomus J undecimalis L E Bluefish A S Pomatomus j saltatrix L E Crevalle jack A I _ . _ S Caranx J I I= : .. hippos L E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults If:: Abundant S - Spawning J -Juveniles Common L - Larvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or No Data Available 36 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Month JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASON0 JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Florida pompano A S Trachinotus j carolinus L E Gray snapper A S Lutjanus j griseus L E Sheepshead A ii S Archosargus j probatocephalus L E Pinfish A S rhomboides L E Silver parch A S Bairdiella chrysoura L E Sand seatrout A S Cynoscion arenarius L E J FMA MJJASON D JFM AM JJASON D J FMA MJ JASO ND Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant S - Spawning J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 37 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Matagorda Say San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Month J FMA MJJASO ND JFM AM JJASO ND J FMA MJJ ASO ND Species/Life Stage Florida pompano A S Trachinotus J carolinus L E Gray snapper A LutjanusJ griseus L E Sheepshead A ft: nsm- -n- I I A rc hosarg us j probatocephalus L E Pinfish A..... .... . S rhomboides L E Silver perch A i S Bairdiella I chrysoura L___ ___ ___ E J Sand seatrout A Cynoscion _____ arenariusL E J F MAM J JA SON DJ F MAM J JA SON D JF MAM J JA SON 0 Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant 8~~~~ - Spawning ~~ Abundant ~~~~~~J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or No Data Available 38 Table 3, continued. Temporal distribution. Texas Estuaries Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Month J FMAMJJASO NO0JFM AMJJASON D J FMA MJJASON D Species/Life Stage Florida pompano A S Tra chin otus carofinus L E Gray snapper A S Lutjanus j griseus L E Sheepshead Ai 'I S Archosargus j ............. pro batocephalus L E Lagodon J IW--!ed........ rhomboides L E Silver parch A . . ........ .... ... Bairdiella chrysoura ..L .............. .... ............ E Sand seatrout A IIl!.!'mi Cynoscion arenarius I................. E J FMA MJJASO N DJFM AMJJASON D JF MA MJJASO0ND0 Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant 8~~~~ - Spawning ~~ Abundant ~~~~~~J - Juveniles EJ Common L -Larvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or No Data Available 39 Table 3, continued. Temporal distribution. Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Month JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Spotted seatrout A S I I Cynoscion J nebulosus L J I r ' J E I Spot A - Il I S Leiostomus J ' IH..ii.ii.iiii-iH.iiiiHHHi5HiHi.iiiii-i.- iii li.iiH.iii.i.iiiiEH..ii. EHHiii.iiii xanthurus L E Atlantic croaker A t:iil I S Micropogonias J !:i1tiiH! H-..:~-. . _--.H-.. undulatus L E Black drum A I g S I I Pogonias J I cromis L E - Red drum A Sciaenops j r II I ocellatus L E Striped mullet A S Mugil J I li.iii!..ii.:i-i:i-i:i--.:!iiiiiii II cephalus L E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults ;;;' AbundantS - Spawning J - Juveniles Common L- Larvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or No Data Available 40 Table 3, continued. Temporal distribution. Texas Estuaries Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Month J FMA MJJASO N DJFM AMJJASOND0 J FMA MJ JASO NID Species/Life Stage Spotted seatrout A i S17 Cynoscion j ii nebulosus L E i Spot A ..... .. --.... ... .. .............. S Lejostomus j I !IT - HHE.M-m.E!=i xanthurus L E Atlantic croaker A m m- :....mi -:I umI S Micropogonias j ~- undulatus L -. E Black drum A S Pogonias J iI cromis L E __ __ _ Red drum A S Sciaenops ocellatus L E Striped mullet A........*I Mugil~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N -.. ...................-...-....... cephalus L mE~ JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage IIHighly Abundant A - Adults Abundant S - Spawning J - Juveniles Common L - Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 41 Table 3, continued. Temporal distribution. Texas Estuaries Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Month JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Spotted seatrout A I ' SII Cynoscion J 'i nebulosus L E Spot A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ..-. .. . i -. .............. Spot A~~ xanthurus L E Atlantic croaker A . . . . -. .-....-.-..... Moicropogonias . . .~~ I. .................... . . undulatus L Omn E Black drum A -- - - - - - ..~...... Pogonias j .. cromis L E Red drum A Sciaenops I ocellatusL E Striped mullet A NnUHMM Mug# . ..............""...I cephalusL E 13 J FM A M JJA S 0N DJ FMAM J JA S 0N JFMAMJJASONID Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant S - Spawning J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae Blank Not pre-sent, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 42 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Month JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Species/Life Stage Code goby A S Gobiosoma J robustum L E Spanish mackerel A S Scomberomorus j maculatus L E Gulf flounder A S Paralichthys J albigutta L E Southern flounder A I- - i .iiii-iriiii I - S Paralichthys J lethostigma L E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Sabine Lake Galveston Bay Brazos River Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults ; . Abundant S - Spawning J - Juveniles ri� � Common L - Larvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or No Data Available 43 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Month JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASONC Species/Life Stage Code goby A, S Gobiosoma j robustum L Spanish mackerel A S Scomberomorus j maculatus L E Gulf flounder A S Paralichthys J albigutta L E Southern flounder A W !.I.s....: . ! .-H l F - I I S Paralichthys J , lethostigma L E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Aransas Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults S - Spawning J - Juveniles r-'--I Common L- Larvae E - Eggs Blank Not present, Rare, or No Data Available 44 Table 3 (continued). Data Summary Table: Temporal Distribution Texas Estuaries Corpus Christi Say Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Month JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASONIJ Species/Life Stage Code goby A i----=r :=-n=-=-l :=4' S robustum L E I IM-F- m-Tum"M Spanish mackerel A S Scomberomorus j maculatus L E .Gulf flounder A S Paralichthys albiguttaL E Southern flounder A Paralichthys J lethostigma L E JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Corpus Christi Bay Laguna Madre Baffin Bay Texas Estuaries Relative Abundance Life Stage Highly Abundant A - Adults Abundant 3~~~~ - Spawning j~~~~a Abundant ~~~~J - Juveniles Common L -Larvae Blank Not present, Rare, or E-Eg No Data Available 45 Table 4. Data Summary Table: Data Reliability Texas Estuaries San A rna Corpu LaunaBfi Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aass Christi Laua afn Lake S ay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Species/Life Stage Bay soallop A li M 9I 01 0 E l 0 I S j 13j 3 03 El El 0 Argopecten J 9 o3 El 3E o irradians: L IN El 3 ElE o E 9 0 01 0 03 El American oyster A M *3 1 Crassostrea j * 1 El U virginica L El 13 1 oQ1 31 EQ 0 El0 0 El El 3 El0 Common rangia A N *11 1 9I I E S, Q3 Q Q3 Q3 1 31 Rangia J *M 0 E mm1 cuneata L [3 E l 03 0 03 03 0 0 E [3 0 3 03 O E3 E3 Q Hard clam A I*Ii 3 oE S l 03 03 0 0 01 0 El U Mercenaria J * 3 W E l 0 speiesL U 03 0 0 0 03 0 ii U E~~ 0 03 03 0 0 El 0 U Bay squid A * Q 39 O 99 91 S~~ Q Q3 Q3 Q3 Q Q3 Q Loffiguncula J * E 13 m1 III 9 9 braids L El 0 El 0 0 3 0 El 0 Brown shrimp A * UUUUUU S U U U U Penaeus i aztecus L U 0 0 U U a U U N Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda ASntoi Akansas Corpust Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay ntayl Chr isti Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Reliability Life Stage U Highly Certain A - Adults El Moderately Certain S - Spawning J - Juveniles 03 Reasonable Ineference L - Larvae E - Eggs 46 Table 4 (continued). Data Summary Table: Data Reliability Texas Estuaries San A assCorpus Lgn afi Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aass Christi Lgn afi Specie/LifeStage Lake S ay River Bay BWY Bay Bay Madre Bay Pink shrimp A *UU U Penaeus J * U i duorarurm L *9 , , White shrimp A U U U UU UU S U U U U U U U U Penaeus J * setiferus L * E3 U Grass shrimp A IM 0 13 U 9 V N 9 SD E3 0 II U IN U 9 Palaemonetes j IN 1 0 p U U U Ii puglo L 0 0 m 9 U1 9 , ED El I0 N m N 9 Blue crab A 13 U10 9 N~ S U U 3 a 0 U IN U 0 Caifinectes i U U3 0 U le 0 U a sapidus L U U O 13 E l IN I N EU N 0 0 El 0 9 N 0 Gulf stone crab A , Up 0 i3 Ii N U SD U3 U 0 D El 9 N 0 Menippe J * U3 0 U ii 0 M adina L D 0 ff U U! U EQ 0 Bullishark A U Carcharhinus i *0 U3 U leucas L * EU U San Corpus Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aransas Christi Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay S ay Bay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Reliability Life Stage U H-ighly Certain A - Adults U1 Moderately Certain S - Spawning J - Juveniles o: Reasonable Inference L - Larvae E - Eggs 47 Table 4 (continued). Data Summary Table: Data Reliability Texas Estuaries San CorpusLauaBfi Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio A nssChrist! aua afi Species/Life Stage Lake Bay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Tarpon AD [3iiL Megalops Ji atlanticus L O ii o 91 Alabama shad A 0 U 03 U 0 U U U U S. 0 0 U U a U U U Alosa j * 3 alabama, LU0 U o EU U 0 U U U U a U Gulf menhaden A UU ]L iL iU Brevoartia j * o E3 ii [U 9II patronuis L U U U 0 U] L U Li Uf Gizzard shad A UU0 ]]UU[i Dorosoma J0 N 13 fl f I cepedianum L U0 Say anchovy A U U Mi L iL S U3 0 03 03 El U] 11 Anchoa J U U 0 U U] U] 0 Li mitchilli L E3 0 O 13U9 o IN L Hardhead catfish A U] U 0 ML iU Arius s * i 0 3 Li LiL i i L Li 111 03 N U] L i i San A assCorpusLauaBfi 'Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio kass Chrsti aua afi Lake Bay River Bay s ay Bay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Reliability Life Stage * Highly Certain A - Adults Li Moderately Certain S - Spawning J -Juveniles 03 Reasonable Inference L - Larvae E - Eggs 48 Table 4 (continued). Data Summary Table: Data Reliability Texas Estuaries SanArnaCopsLgnBafi Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aass Chrpust Species/Life Stage Lake Bay River Bay Bay Bay Bay 1 Madre Bay Sheepshead minnow A 9 W Oi i IN 9 ii9 Cyprinodon J * 3 N~ NI varnegatus L 3 13 13 O O 13 13 9 Gulf killifish A E N 11 9 v 9 N N S 0 N 13 I IN 9 E l 0 Fundulus J * 3 N 0I grandis L iu N 13 W I 09 9 EU 0 03 U IN U Atlantic silversides A * O 9 13 U SQ 3 D 1 3 3 O Q3 0 El1 Menidia J * species L 3 E3 O 3 13 13 O IN EQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CentropomnusJ * Mi 3 INMm9IN undecimalis L * N U 3 ml Bluefish A U o E3 ii 1u1 M Pomnatomrus J 13 1 3 IN 13 93i i saltaffix L Crevalle jack A *UI Caranx H hippos LU San AassCru auaBfi Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio ka s Chrpust Lake Bay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Reliability Life Stage U Highly Certain A - Adults U Moderately Certain S - Spawning J Juveniles 03 Reasonable Inference L - Larvae E - Eggs 49 Table 4 (continued). Data Summary Table: Data Reliability Texas Estuaries Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Ano i oAan s a Chrpust Laguna Baff in Species/Life Stage Lake S ay River Bay S ay Bay Bay Madre Bay Florida pompano A N N Q L iL S U U U Trachinotus J U 0 03 U 9 LI N L carolinus L U 6 N 0 Gray snapper A U N 0 3 03 U U iLi Lutianus j mO * WM! 9fiseUS LU U U U U U Sheepshead AU U N i U U U L Archosargus J Ni i iL probatocePhalus L .ii L iL Pinfish A * l 0UL L iIi L Lagodon J U m 03 U U Li I N 0 L rhomboides L * Silver parch A U U 0 3 I I fli I N Im Li Bairdiella J U U 0 U U U U U L chrysoura L U U o 1 3 N1 1 Ifl 9 E UL 0 i U 3 a i 111 1 i IN Sandsesatrout A U U 03 I N fli L E U IN Cynoscion S U3 CO U 3 L3 Li U3 L arenanius L N 0 0 IN m N 9 9 EQ 0 03 03 0 0 0 03 0 San Corpus Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aransas Christi Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Reliability Life Stage * Highly Certain A - Adults IM Moderately Certain ~S - Spawning Li Moderately Certain ~~~J - Juveniles o3 Reasonable Inference L - Larvae E - Eggs 5 0 Table 4 (continued). Data Summary Table: Data Reliability Texas Estuaries San Corpus Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aransas Christi Laguna Baffin Species/Life Stage Lake Bay River SyBay Bay ~ ' Bay Madre Bay Speckled seatrout A N U 11 Ii I N U U U S E] U 0 0 IN U Ii m l Cynoscion J Ug U El goUN9I nebulosus LU I N ff U3 U3 U U U Spot A IN U3 0 U 9 U U Lelostomus j i Xanthurus L U U Atlanticocroaker A UU0UUUUUU M~icropogonias j U U El U U U U undulatus L U U Black drum A 03 U W Paognias i U3 U N cromis L No U 0 U Rod drum A U 9 Scianops J U U 0 i UUU UU ocellatus L U EU 0 U 0 0 0 Striped mullet A U U3 0 U U U I N U S U U1 U U U U Mfugil J U U I N U cephalus L U U San Cru Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aransas ChrisipaunaBfi Lake Bay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Reliability Life Stage U Highly Certain A - Adults U Moderately Certain S - Spawning J - Juveniles El Reasonable Inference L - Larvae E - Eggs Table 4 (continued). Data Summary Table: Data Reliability Texas Estuaries San Corpus Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Antonio Aransas Christi Laguna Baff in Specie/LifeStage Lake Bay River S ay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Code goby A~ U M Gobiosoma J U UU robustum L U 0 03 0l 1 9 0 El EU U 0 03 0 U 0 0 Spanish mackerel A 03 N 03 03 9 U U S 0 a U U U U U scomberomoru's j ID o 3 U El 0 U U maculatus, L U0W0a0 Gulf flounder A * 0 3 ff U N 9 S * 0 U U Paralichth~ys J IN I N 0 9 aJbigutta L U Southernflounder A U3 U 0 Paralichth~ys j U U 0 3 U Iethosdgma L U U a 9 Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Anni AiSan Corpusi Laguna Baff in Lake S ay River s ay S ay Bay Bay Madre Bay Texas Estuaries Reliability Ufe Stage U Highly Certain A - Adults IN Moderately Certain ~S - Spawning U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Juvenitly esti 0 Reasonable Inference L - Larvae E - Eggs 52 Table 5. Presencelabsence of 40 species in Texas estuaries. Estuary Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda Sani Antonio Aransas Corpus Christi Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Species T M T MS T M TMS M S M S M S S S Bay scallop, A 4 4 4 4 4 Argopecten J 3 4 . 44 irradians 1.1: 4 x444444: American oyster, A 4 4 nd nd 44 4 44 4 4 4 Crassosirea J 4 4 nd nd 444 4 44 44 vimninfa 14 44 ndnd 44 4 4 4 4 Comnion rangia. A ... 4... .dn 4 . 4 Rangla .4 4 -J 4 .........4 . . 4 . . cuneata L4 4 4 4 nn Hard clam, A 44 nd 4 4 44 44 Mercenarla J 3 44 nd 4 4 444 species L 44 rd 4 4 444 Bay squid. A 4 : 44: 4 4 4 4 4 Lolliguncula J 3 4. 44 44 4 444 brae~s L 44 id 4 4 4 4 Brown shrimp, A 4 44 4 4 44 Penaeus, J 44 44 nd4444 44444 azrecus 1L 4 4nd4444 44 44 Pink shrimp, A . ... 44 4. .. .4 ....... Penaeus J 4.d 44 4 44 4 44 duo ralum L I- White shrimp, A44 4 nd 4 44 - 4 44 44 44 Penaeus J 34 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 setiferus L 4 4 4 4 4 Grasssh~rimp, A 4+V ~4 4 4' rId4 4 4 4 44. . . .. . . . . 4 Paiaemonetes .34A4 d 444 4 4 4 4 Gulf stone crab, A 11 4n4rd 44 44 4 4 44 4 4 M-Onipe J 4 44 nd 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 adina L 4 4 4 4 4 Blue crab. A :4 . ... .. i 4 4 ~4 .. . 4 Callirlectes A::: 4 44 .4.. ..4 .. 44 sapidus L 4 4 . 4 4 Bull shark, A4 Carcharhlnus J.34 4 4 nd nd 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Tarpon, A 4 4 44 4 MWallops .3 44np 44 4 4 4 aftantlcs 4W4 Alabama sh~ad, A Alosa J 3 ala bamae L Gulf menhaden, A 4 - 4 "v444 firevoorla J 34 4.4d 4. 44 44 4 vatronus L: 4 4 Gizzard shad, A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 444 Donosorna J 3 nd rid 4 4 4 4444 cepedianum L Bay anchovy, A~ :4 4,W ....... 4 4 4 4 4 4 Anchoa .344 v4 ~ .4 4 4 4 4: mitchilll 14L4 4 4 44 Hardhead catfish, A44 4 4 4 44 444 44444 Arius J 344 4 44 4rid 444 44444 lelis L 4n4rd444 44444 Sheepshead minnow, A44 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 Cypnnodon J34 4-4 4 4 4 4 variecalus 14L4 44 4 4 4 44444 Gulf Idlilish, A4 4 44 444 4 44 44 44 4 4 4 Fundulus J 344 4 4 44 4 444 4 4 44444 oiarandis 144 44 4 44 4 4 4 4 44444 Atiariuicsilversides. A4 4444 44 4 4 4: .. : Menidla J 44 4444 :4444 444.4 species 1L: 4 4 4 4 4 .4 T M T MS T M T M S M M S M 5S S S~ Sablne Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Antonio Ararisas Corpus Christi Laguna Baffin Lake Bay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Madre Bay Legend: T - Tidal fresh zone A = Adults 4 =Species/liifestage IS present. Present - rare, common, abundant, or highly abundant M -Mixing zone J 3 = Juveniles Blank = Species/lifestage Is not present S =Seawater zone L = Larvae rid = No data available =Salinity zone not present Table 5, continued. Presencelabsence of 40 species in Texas estuaries. Estuary Sabine Galveston Brazos Matagorda San Antonio Aransas Corpus Christl Laguna Baffin Lake S ay River Bay Bay Bay Bay Mad re Bay Species T M T MS T M T MS M S M S M S S8 S Snook. A ' 4'4' .4 4' Cantropomus J '4 '4 1 4 ' 4 '4.' undeedmalls L 4' Bluefish, A ' 4' 4' Pomalomus J '4 ''' nd' '4 '4 '4. Crevallejack, A.4' '4.'4 '4'4.4'44 Caranx J J4 ... .. ... .4 '.4 4'4 hippos I. Florida pompano, A ' 4' 4' 4' Tlachinofljs J ' 4' 44 '. 4' carollnus L Gray snapper, A;:�.:: :17v: gntseus I :.:� ... ..: *.*.. ... ...... Shteepshead, A-' '4 q -nd 4 '4.44 '44 '44 '4.4 '4 '4 Ard~osivgus J'44 '. 4nd'4 ' 4 44 '. 4 4' Drbatocephalus L 44 '4' Pinfish, A .,A '4 4 '' 4 4 4' Lagodbn J44 44.' 44 '4 '4 4 4 ' rhomboldes L Silver perch, A'4 '4 '4 '4 '4 nd '4 ' '44 '4 4 - '4 4 4 '4 '4' Bawidiefia J'4 4 '4 4'4nd'4 4.4 '44 '44 4 4 chrysoura L '44 '4 '4.4 '44 '4.4 '. ' Sand seatrout. A '.'4- '4!-4 '44' cynosclon , J '4 ' 4' n 4 . 4 4. 4: 4 4 4' arenarius . ..... Spotted seatrout, A' 4 '44 '4 nd'4 '44 '44 '44 '44' Cy"Osoron J'4 4..nd'4 '4 44 4 4 4 nebulosus L 4 '4 4 444 '4 '4 4 Lejosromus J4 4444-44 4 ' 4 4' Atlantic croaker, A'4 '4 ' '4 '4 nd nd '4 '4 '4 '4 '4 '4 4 '4 4'4 Micropogonlas J4' 4 4 4 4 44 .. 4' undulatus L 4 ' 4' Black drum, A: '4 ttn 44 . . . . . 4 . 4 . '4 ' Pogonlas J.44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4' crones L 4,1 4'4. Red drum, A 4 ' 4 4 '4 nd nd '4 '4 '4 '4 '4 '4 4 '4 4'44 Sciaenops J'4'4 '4.4'4nd.4 4 44 '4.4 '4'4'44 ocellatus L '4 '4 '4 Striped mullet, A' 4 44 4 d4 44 4 44 '4 4 cephalus 14': Code goby, A '4 nd '44 '44 '. '4'44 Gobiosoma J 4 nd '4 44 4 4 4' robuslurn L 4 nd '44 '4. 4 4 4' Spanish mackerel, A . :. 4..>..4. 4'47 Scomberornonjs J '44 444 . 4 '.4 44.4 macu/a lusI Gulf flounder, A '4' 4' 4 '4 '4 '4' Parwichithys J ' 44 '. 4 4 4' albioutta L Southemnflounder, A' '4: '4 4' 444 .44 '4 '44 : Paralldnthys J' 4 4.44n 4 ' 4 '4 '4 '4 4' lelhosti-ama Number of species/ A222 18la2731 516 20 33 34 31 34~ 35 341 36 35 1 331 281 lifestages present Jj23 30 125 32 371825 12537 38 34 35 39 37 39 37 35 32 writhin each zone: LIa 12 10 16 18 4 10 9 s1919 is 16 17 23 IS 23 19 14 T M TM T M TMS M Sa i MS - MSI . 5. 5 Sabine Galveston ;.Atn assBrazos Matagorda Sa AnoM Aa sa Corpus Christ Laguna Baffin ILake Bay River Bay Bav Bav Bay I Madre Bay Legend: T - Tidal fresh zone A = Adults '4 =Speciesdifestage Is present. Present =rare, common, abundant, or highly abundant M -Mixng zone J = Juveniles Blank = Speciesillfestage Is not present S -Seawater zone L = Larvae nd = N'o data avaIlable =Salinity zone not present 54 Appendix 1: Gulf of Mexico ELMR species list Appendix 2: Gulf of Mexico ELMR estuary list Appendix 3: National Estuarine Inventory map of Galveston Bay Appendix 4: Species profiles and ELMR data sheets Appendix 5: Personal communications Appendix 6: Personal communications and primary references 55 Scientific Name Common Name Estuary State Argopectonirradins Bay scallop Florida Bay Florida Crassostrea virginica American oyster Ton Thousand Islands Florida Rangia cuneata Common rangia Charlotte Harbor Florida Mercenaia species Hard clam Caloosahatchee River Florida Lollgunculabrevis Bay squid Tampa Bay Florida Penaeus aztecus Brown shrimp Suwanee River Florida Penaeus duoranum Pink shrimp Apalachee Bay Florida Penaeus setiferus White shrimp Apalachicola Bay Florida Palaemonatespugio Grass shrimp St. Andrew Bay Florida Pan ulirus argus Spiny lobster Choctawhatchee Bay Florida Callinectes sap idus Blue crab Pensacola Bay . Florida Menippe adina Gulf stone crab Perdido Bay Florida Menippe mercenarfa Stone crab Mobile Bay Alabama Carcharhinus leucas Bull shark Mississippi Sound Alabama/Mississippi Mlegalops atlanticus Tarpon Breton/Chandeleur Sounds Louisiana WAosa alabamae Alabama shad Lake Borgne Louisiana Brevoortiapatronus Gulf menhaden Lake Pontchartrain Louisiana Brevoortia smithi Yellowf in menhaden Mississippi River Louisiana Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Baratania Bay Louisiana Anchoa mitchNi Bay anchovy Terrebonne/Timbalier Bays Louisiana Arius falls Hardhead catfish Atchafalaya and Vermilion Bays Louisiana Cypninodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow Calcasieu Lake Louisiana Fundulusgrandis Gulf killifish Sabine Lake Louisiana/Texas Menfida species Atlantic silversides Galveston Bay Texas Centropormusundecimnalis Snook Brazos River Texas Pomatomussaltatrix Bluefish Matagorda Bay Texas Caranx crysos Blue runner San Antonio Bay Texas Caranx hippos Crevalle jack Aransas Bay Texas Trachinotus carofinus Florida pompano Corpus Christi Bay Texas Lutjanus gnseus Graysnapper Laguna Madre Texas Archosargus pro batocephalus Sheepshead Baffin Bay Texas Lagodon rhomboides Pinf ish Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch Cynoscion arenanius Sand seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus Speckled seatrout Leiostomusxanthurus spot Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker Pogonias cromis Black drum Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum Mugilcephalus Striped mullet Gobiosomae robustum Code goby Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel Paralichthys albigutta Gulf flounder Paralichthys lethostigma Southemn flounder 56 -- I ~~~~~~~Galveston Bay PHYSICAL AND HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS 1 2 4 00 J I IB ER TY TX PHYSICAL FRESHWATER INFLOW TIDAL DATA = � '3 340~~~~~~~~~.4.2.. 204 203..444 -, - \-�- - - ------- -- 042~~~L222%~ ik~ 12030203 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1422 4024 0 To. 02XA A.---2 40 25522 5 322 2 14444l4.13442234ii CHAMBER0S8 24~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AO '\2I0e2,400224404 22..44. Hea of3 Tide Cr008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ut Bounda r y [722 Aoes A' Salin onw Bona r yHgheaiblt Apmi I~l 40 [of Estuarine mu Dra isnsowge Arap F(EDA)c~ 024~ls i0, put4 0*Im.4IJ Tidpiall. Freh9on tilriassotinIIISewae Zn ,1la Buknr 19 Hoftar Hydrlogi Matogngnit 19oundaryeanan e W. I u 2a 1 E. Cont Bondr I. eore.181 ea eateto ae so~e.I 9 330 Qni, fa W msA-ns.. . w.6 823, 52144et a l .22 1971 Wad. 197Wrd 9 Malsily, Zoell 9oaUSndarys 24 MLESVrablt D.P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~ent~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ *om~e Salinat ZoeBadry.oeae aiblt 10 20 30 40~~~~~~~ ~ KIOEESalip, Zon .oundar. 3ih a1a7lt 1... * . - SI -- Species profile: Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 1963; Houde 1974). Taken only rarely in Yucatan, Gulf of Maine, and Florida Keys and never in the Common Name: Bay Anchovy West Indies (Daly 1970; Hoese and Moore 1977; Scientific Name: Anchoa mitchilli Hildebrand 1943). There are two distinct subspecies of the bay anchovy: Anchoa mitchillidiaphana which Other Common Names: Anchovy occurs in the study area and ranges fromthe Yucatan to South Carolina, and Anchoa mitchillimitchilliwhich Classification extends from North Carolina to Maine (Hildebrand Phylum: Chordata 1943). It has also been shown by morphometric Class: Osteichthyes methods that virtually every section of the coast Order: Clupeiformes within the range of the bay anchovy has a distinct Family: Engraulidae population (Hildebrand 1943; Hildebrand 1963). Value Within Studv Area: Occurs from Rio Grande to Commercial: Not currently harvested in United States Mobile, Alabama, primarily in open bays (Hoese and due to their small size, but of some use as bait and Moore 1977; Springer and Woodburn 1960). forthe preparation of anchovy paste (Christmas and Waller 1973; Daly 1970; Hildebrand 1943; Hildebrand Life Mode 1963). All stages are pelagic, occurring throughout the watercolumn (Hoese 1965; Hoese and Moore 1977; Recreational: Indirectly importanttosportfisheryby Houde 1974; Kuntz 1913; Reid 1955; Ward and serving asa majorforagespeciesformanygamefish Armstrong 1980) as nektonic larvae, juveniles, and (Hildebrand 1943; Christmas and Waller 1973). adults (Darnell 1958; Damell 1961; Hildebrand 1943; Kuntz 1913; Reid 1955). Small schooling occurs in Indicatorof Environmental Stress: Studies supported large numbers during the day in protected areas by the Texas Water Quality Board show that the bay usually close to shore. Small schools have been anchovy can be used to indicate poor water quality. observed while feeding at night when in the presence This species can quickly adaptto pollution stress due of predators (Arnold etal. 1960; Daly 1970; Hildebrand to its small size and short food chain and can become 1943; Hoese and Moore 1977; Ward and Armstrong the dominant species of the polluted area. Its 1980). Activity is primarily nocturnal and probably dominance in a particular area for two of more associated with feeding (Daly 1970; Zimmerman consecutive seasons is indicative of deteriorating 1969). water quality (Bechtel and Copeland 1970). Habitat Ecological: Bay anchovies probably constitute the Iyo: Bay anchovy primarily a shallow estuarine and greatest biomass of any fish in the estuarine waters inshore coastal water species (Jones et al. 1978; of both the south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico Arnold etal. 1960;Swingle and Bland 1974;Springer (Christmas and Waller 1973; Perret etal.1971;Perry and Woodbum 1960; Kilby 1955; Gunter 1945; 1979; Reid 1955). This large population provides a Sheridan 1978; Sheridan 1983; Ward and Armstrong major staple in the diet of many birds and fish 1980). Studies show the bay anchovy is able to (Christmas and Waller 1973; Hildebrand 1943; Reid exploit a wide variety of habitats such as: in bays and 1955). Piscine predators include Sciaenopsocellatus, bayous; off sandy beaches; in muddy coves; grassy Cynoscion arenarius, C. nebulosus, Bairdiella areas along beaches; around mouths of rivers; and chrysoura, Strongylura marina, Synodus foetens, in both shallow and deeperwaters offshore (Jones et Elops saurus, Ictalurus furcatus, Micropogon al. 1978; Reid 1955; Sheridan 1978; Swingle and undulatus, Paralichthys lethostigma, and Caranx Bland 1974), but prefers bays and estuaries to shallow hippos(Carr and Adams 1973; Darnell 1958; Darnell waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Christmas and Waller 1961; Gunter 1945; Reid 1955; Sheridan 1978). 1973; Gunter 1945; Kilby 1955; Springer and Distributions of predators indicate that the bay Woodburn 1960). Population density appears to be anchovy is an important prey species in the weedy influenced bythe mass of zooplankton present (Reid shallows as well as surface and bottom waters 1955) which probably accounts for their preference (Darnell 1961). for bays and, when found in the Gulf, bay water masses (Hoese 1965). It is particularly common in Range primary and secondary bays, around shallow bay Overall: Occurs from Casco Bay, Maine to Vera margins, islands, spoil banks, and sheltered coves, Cruz, Rio Panuco, Tampico, Mexico (Daly 1970; but scarce in tertiary bays (Kilby 1955; Simmons Hoese and Moore 1977; Hildebrand 1943; Hildebrand 58 Bay anchovy species profile, cont. 1957; Swingle 1971; Ward and Armstrong 1980). to 29.9 ppt in Mobile and Baldwin counties, AL Reported as occurring from fresh to hypersaline (Swingle 1971);0.0 to 14.9 ppt in Lake Pontchartrain, waters (Perret et al. 1971; Simmons 1957; Swingle LA (Tarver and Savoie 1976); and 2 to 4.9 ppt along and Bland 1974) and from depths of 0.5 to 20.0 m, the Mississippicoastline(ChristmasandWaller1973). appearing to prefer 2 to 3 m (Bechtel and Copeland Larvae tend to move into less saline waters near the 1970; Dokken et al. 1984; Dunham 1972; Franks freshwater interface, moving back to more saline 1970; Miller 1965; Perret et al. 1971; Reid 1954; waters as they mature (Gunter 1945; Swingle and Renfro 1960; Swingle 1971). Bland 1974; Hoese 1965). Substrate: Characteristic of unvegetated mud Migrations and Movements substrate (Cornelius 1984). Also occuroverbottoms Moves into deeper waters during winter, and back of clay, hard sand, silty clay, clayey silt, silt and sand, inshoreduring summer (Hildebrand 1943; Hildebrand sandy mud, and muddy sand (Dunham 1972; Dokken 1963; Christmas and Waller 1973; Swingle and et al. 1984; Franks 1970; Miller 1965; Reid 1954; Bland 1974). Larvae reporter to migrate into lower Reid 1955; Swingle 1971;Tarverand Savoie 1976). salinity nursery areas while developing toward adulthood, and then migrate back to more saline Phvsical/Chemical Characteristics: areas (Hoese 1965; Swingle and Bland 1974). Temrerature- Eggs- Spawning and egg development have been Reproduction recorded from 22� to 320 C (Detwyler and Houde Mode: Sexual, external fertilization. 1970; Houde 1974; Kuntz 1913). Preferred temperature range is 27.20 to 27.8� C (Ward and Matina and Snawnina: Spawning occurs in waters Armstrong 1980). lessthan20 mdeep in bays and estuaries, and in the Gulf of Mexico where it is limited to the shallow Larvae/iuvenilesladults- Eurythermal, reported from inshore areas in bay water masses (Bechtel and waters ranging from 4.50 to 39.80 C (Chung and Copeland 1970; Jones et al. 1978; Hoese 1965; Strawn 1982; Dunham 1972; Franks 1970; Gunter Ward and Armstrong 1980). Eggs usually are 1945; Juneau 1975; Kilby 1955; Miller 1965; Perret released in the early evening, 6-9 pm, during warm etal. 1971; Reid 1954; Renfro 1960; Simmons 1957; water (>190 C) periods (Jones et al. 1978; Kuntz Springer and Woodburn 1960; Swingle 1971; Swingle 1913; Hoese 1965; Ward and Armstrong 1980) with and Bland 1974; Tarver and Savoie 1976) with typical seasons in the study area being: February to larvae preferring >11 � C and adults preferring 8.10 to March and to June in the Gulf near Port Aransas, TX 32.2� C (Ward and Armstrong 1980). A possible and the latter part of March in Copano and Aransas upper lethal limit of 400 C was reported in one Bays (Gunter 1945; Hoese 1965); summer months temperature study (Chung and Strawn 1982). (JuneandJuly)in EastBay, TX; Februaryto October in Galveston Bay, TX (Bechtel and Copeland 1970; Salinity- and February through October along the Mississippi Eggs- Spawning and development has occurred at coastline (Christmas and Waller 1973). In addition, 30.9 to 37 ppt (Detwyler and Houde 1970; Hoese some year round spawning is reported throughout 1965; Houde 1974 and per. comm.1989). the study area (Dokken et al. 1984; Miller 1965; Perret etal. 1971; Swingle 1971; Ward and Armstrong Larvae/iuveniles/adults- Euryhaline, collected from 1980) that may be due to the area's usually short mild waters ranging from 0.0 to 80 ppt (Juneau 1975; winters which involve warming trends during which Perret et al. 1971; Swingle 1971; Simmons 1957; shallow water temperatures approach and exceed Tarver and Savoie 1976; Cornelius 1984; Swingle 200 C (Dokken et al. 1984; Hoese 1965). Spawning and Bland 1974; Gunter 1945; Renfro 1960; Franks has beenobserved occurring in highersalinityportions 1970; Dunham 1972). Salinity appears to have no of estuaries with ranges of 30 to 37 ppt and <45 ppt relationship with distribution (Christmas and Waller being reported (Bechtel and Copeland 1970; Dokken 1973; Cornelius 1984; Hoese 1965; Krull 1976; Ward et al, 1984; Swingle and Bland 1974). and Armstrong 1980), but recorded preferences include: 0.5 to 1+ ppt for larvae and 1 to 32 ppt for Reoroductive Canacitv: Preliminary data using fish juveniles and adults in Matagorda Bay, TX (Ward from the Chesapeake Bay population indicate that and Armstrong 1980); 5 ppt and less in Copano and during the peak spawning period virturally all females Aransas Bays, TX (Gunter 1945); 11 to 30 ppt for daily spawn a batch of eggs that can range from ca. adults, and 11 to 20 ppt and 31 to40 ppt forjuveniles 400-2000, with the actual directly related to the in Alazan Bay, TX (Cornelius 1984); less than 50 ppt weight of the female. This can conceivably result in in the upper Laguna Madre, TX (Simmons 1957); 20 a female producing 30,000 to 50,000 eggs during the 59 Bay anchovy species profile, cont. four month season in Chesapeake Bay (Houde per. with a recorded mean of 56.3 mm TL for males and comm., 1989). 60.0 mm TL forfemales (Ward and Armstrong 1980). Two and possibly three size classes have been Growth and Development observed in wild fish populations but are virtually Egg: Slightly elongated; major axis 0.65 to 0.75 mm indistinguishable due to year round spawning in length and is 0.1 to 0.8 mm longerthan minor axis. (Cornelius 1984; Gunter 1945; Miller 1965; Perret et Transparent with no oil globule; yolk composed of al. 1971). separate masses appearing as large cells (Kuntz 1913; Hildebrand 1943). Yolk volume of 0.15 mm3 Food and Feeding (Houde 1974). Eggs float at or near water surface Bay anchovies are primary consumers that feed until near hatching and then gradually sink (Kuntz predominantly on zooplankton in nocturnal currents 1913; Hildebrand 1943). Cleavage advances with (Bechtel and Copeland 1970; Daly 1970; Reid 1955). great regularity and at a rapid rate (Kuntz 1913). Youngindividualsareplanktonstrainers,consuming Blastopore closes approximately ten hours after microzooplankton such as copepod nauplii and spawning with embryo slightly longer than 1/2 the rotifers. When a body length of approximately7 mm greater circumference of the egg. Soon after is reached, they feed on copepodites and copepods blastopore closure, Kupffer's vesicle forms and (Detwyler and Houde 1970; Damell 1958). Some embryo increases in length until it extends morethan detritus is also consumed but phytoplankton is not, two thirds around the greater circumference of the suggesting that food straining occurs nearthebottom yolk. Incubation is approximately 24 hours at 27.8� (Darnell 1958). As anchovies grow in size their diet C (Kuntz 1913). becomes increasingly selective, shifting from copepods more and more to small shrimp, larval and Larvae: 1.8-2.7 mm TL (total length) at hatching and juvenile fish, mysids, insect larvae, crab zoeae, weigh 0.0176 mg (Detwylerand Houde 1970; Houde clams, cladocerans, schizopods, gastropods, 1978; Kuntz 1913; Ward and Armstrong 1980). Yolk isopods, malacostracans, and supplemented by sac comparatively large and greatly elongated detritus from occasional bottom feeding (Amold etal. tapering to a point posteriorly. Flattened slender 1960; Bechtel and Copeland 1970; Carr and Adams body almost perfectly transparent with no evidence 1973; Detwyler and Houde 1970; Darnell 1958; of pigmentation. Larvae are 2.6 to 2.8 mm TL after Darnell 1961; Hildebrand 1943; Reid 1954; Reid hatching. Yolk mass retains elongated form and 1955; Sheridan 1978; Weaver and Holloway 1974). segmented character decreasing in size until its Gut analysis of individuals 30-49 mm long showed absorbed 1 Sto 25 hours after hatching with post yolk the following diet proportions:9% microinvertebrates; sac larvae ranging from 2.7-16 mm (Kuntz 1913; 58% zooplankton, and 33% organic detritus (Darnell Houde 1974; Ward and Armstrong 1980). 1961). Benthic animals and sand are most frequently encountered during the winter suggesting more Juvenile: Limits of stage unknown, metamorphosis intensive feeding in this area at this time (Darnell is essentially complete by 22.5 mm SL (standard 1958). length) (Jones et al. 1978; Ward and Armstrong 1980). Developmentof mouth and gut, pigmentation Persons Consulted of eyes, and yolk exhaustion. completed Dr. Edward Houde, University of Maryland, simultaneously at 36 hours after hatching at 26.20 C Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons and 30.9 ppt (Detwyler and Houde 1970; Kuntz Maryland. 1913; Hildebrand 1943). Size when feeding was initiated was 2.9 mm SL (Houde 1978). Growth rate References of 0.70 mm/day reported after fourth day from hatch Arnold. E. L., Jr., R. S. Wheeler and K. N. Baxter. (Detwyler and Houde 1970) reaching a weight of 1960. Observations on fishes and otherbiota of East 0.236 mg after 16 days (Houde 1978). Length of 18 Lagoon, Galveston Island. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., mmTL attained during first month after hatchgrowing Spec. Rep. Fish. No. 344. 30 pp. 10 mm/month over following 2 months (Christmas and Waller 1973). Bechtel, T. J. and B. J. Copeland. 1970. Fish species diversity indices as indication of pollution in Adult: Attain maturity at approximately 2.5 months Galveston Bay, Texas. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 15:103- (Jones et al. 1978; Hildebrand 1963) and at 34-40 132. mm TL (Gunter 1945; Ward and Armstrong 1980). Carr, W. E. S. and C. A. Adams. 1973. Food habits Reported size range for adults in study area is 34-93 of juvenile marine fishes occupying seagrass beds in TL (Franks 1970; Dunham 1972; Gunter 1945; Perret the estuarinezone near Crystal River, Florida. Trans. et al. 1971; Renfro 1960; Tarver and Savoie 1976) 60 Bay anchovy species profile, cont. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102(3): 511-540. Ocean. Col. 8(2): 1-165. Christmas, J. Y., and R. S. Waller. 1973. Estuarine Hildebrand, S. F. 1963. Family Engraulidae. In: vertebrates, Mississippi. na: Cooperative Gulf of Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Mem. no. 1, pt. Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Mississippi. 3, pp. 152-249. New Haven: Sears Found. Mar. Res. pp. 320-406. Gulf Coast Res. Lab., Ocean Springs, MS. Hoese, H. D. 1965. Spawning of marine fishes in Port Aransas, Texas area as determined by the Chung, K., and K. Strawn. 1982. Predicted survival distribution of young and larvae. Ph. D. Dissertation., of the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) in the heated Univ. Texas, Austin. 144 pp. effluent of a power plant on Galveston Bay, Texas. Env. Biol. Fish. 7(1): 57-62. Hoese, H. D. and R. H. Moore. 1977. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M Press, College Station, Cornelius, S. 1984. An ecological survey of Alazan TX. 327 pp. Bay, Texas. Vol. 1. Caesar Kleberg Wildl. Res. Inst., Tech. Bull. No. 5. Kingsville, TX. 163 pp. Houde, E. D. 1974. Effects of temperature and delayed feeding on growth and survival of larvae of Daly, R. J. 1970. Systematics of southern Florida three species of subtropical marine fishes. Mar. Biol. anchovies (Pisces: Engraulidae). Bull. Mar. Sci. 26: 271-285. 20(1): 70-104. Houde, E. D. 1978. Critical food concentrations for Darnell, R. M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger larvae of three species of subtropical marine fishes. invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an Bull. Mar. Sci. 28(3): 395-411. estuarine community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 5: 353- 416. Jones, P. W., F. D. Martin, J. D. Hardy Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight - an Damell, R. M. 1961. Trophicspectrumof anestuarine atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages, Vol. 1. U. S. community, based on studies of Lake Pontchartrain. Fish Wildl. Serv., FWS/OBS-78/12. 366 pp. La. Ecol. 42(3): 553-568. Juneau Jr., C. L. An inventory and study of the Detwyler, T. M. and E. D. Houde. 1970. Food Vermilion Bay-Atchafalaya Bay Complex. La. Wildl. selection by laboratory-reared larvae of the scaled Fish. Tech. Bull. No. 13: 21-74. sardine Harengula pensacolae (Pisces, Clupeidae) and the bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli (Pisces, Kilby, J. D. 1955. The fishes of two gulf coastal Engraulidae). Mar. Biol. 7: 214-222. marsh areas of Florida. Tulane Stud. Zool. 2(7): 175- 247. Dokken, 0. R., G. C. Matlock, and S. Cornelius. 1984. Distribution and composition of larval fish Krull, R.M. 1976. Thesmallfishfaunaofadisturbed populations within Alazan Bay, Texas. Contrib. Mar. hypersaline environment. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&l Sci. 27: 205-222. Univ., Kingsville, TX, 112 pp. Dunham, F. 1972. Astudyofcommerciallyimportant Kuntz, A. 1913. The embryology and larval estuarine-dependent industrial fishes. La. Wildl. development of Bairdiella chrysoura and Anchoa Fish. Comm., Tech. Bull. No. 4. 63 pp. mitchilli. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. 33: 3-19. Franks, J. S. 1970. An investigation of the fish Miller,J.M. 1965. AtrawlsurveyoftheshallowGulf population within the inland waters of Horn Island, fishes nearPortAransas, Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Mississippi, a barrier island in the northern Gulf of 10: 80-107. Mexico. Gulf Res. Rep. 3(1): 3-104. Perret, W. S., W. R. Latapie, J. F. Pollard, W. R. Gunter, G. 1945. Studies on marine fishes of Texas. Mock, G. B Adkins, W. J. Gaidry, and C. J. White. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 1(1): 1-190. 1971. Fishes and invertebrates collected in trawl and seine samples in Louisiana estuaries. In: Hildebrand, S. F. 1943. A review of the American Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and anchovies (Family Engraulidae). Bull. Bingham study, Louisiana. Pp. 39-105. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm., New Orleans, LA. 61 Bay anchovy species profile, cant. Mar. Sci. 18: 57-69. Perry, A. 1979. Fish of Timbalier Bay and offshore Louisiana environments collected by trawling. Rice Zimmerman, R. J. 1969. An ecological study of the Univ. Stud. 65: 537-545. macro-fauna occurring in turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum Konig) surrounding Ransom Island in Reid Jr., G. K. 1954. An ecological study of the Gulf Redfish Bay, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&I Univ., of Mexico fishes, inthevicinityof Cedar Key, Florida. Kingsville, TX. 129 pp. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf and Carib. 4(1): 1-94. Reid Jr., G. K. 1955. A summer study of the biology and ecology of East Bay, Texas: Pt. II. Tex. J. Sci. 7: 430-453. Renfro, W. C. 1960. Salinity relations of some fishes in the Aransas River, Texas. Tulane Stud. Zool. 8(3): 83-91. Sheridan, P. F. 1978. Food habits of the bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, in Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Northeast Gulf Sci. 2(2): 126-132. Sheridan, P. F. 1983. Abundance and distribution of fishes in the Galveston Bay system, 1963-1964. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 26: 143-163. Simmons, E. G. 1957. An ecological survey of the upper Laguna Madre of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 4(2): 156-200. Springer, V. G. and K. D. Woodburn. 1960. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tampa Bay area. Fla. St. Bd. Cons., Prof. Pap. Ser. No. 1. 104 pp. Swingle, H. A. 1971. Biology of Alabama estuarine areas-cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory. Ala. Res. Bull. 5: 1-123. Swingle, H. A. and D. G. Bland. 1974. A study of the fishes of the coastal watercourses of Alabama. Ala. Mar. Res. Bull. 10: 22-102. Tarver, J. W. and L. B. Savoie. 1976. An inventory and study of the Lake Pontchartrain-Lake Maurepas estuarine complex. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm., Tech. Bull. No. 19: 1-159. Ward, G. H. and N. E. Armstrong. 1980. Matagorda Bay, Texas: its hydrography, ecology and fishery resources. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog., Washington, D. C. FWS/OBS-81/52. 217 pp. Weaver, J. E. and L. F. Holloway. 1974. Community structure of fishes and macrocrustaceans in ponds of a Louisiana tidal marsh influenced by weirs. Contrib. 62 Bay anchovy - Galveston Bay data sheet SCIENTIFIC NAME: Anchoa mitchilli REGION: Gulf of Mexico COMMON NAME: Bay anchovy STATE: Texas ESTUARY NAME: Galveston Bay INVESTIGATOR: Tom Czapla SALINITY LIFE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE ZONE STAGE BY MONTH J F M A M J J A S O N D R ADULTS 2 SPAWNING 2 TIDAL FRESH JUVENILES 2 0.0 - 0.5 ppt LARVAE 2 EGGS 2 MIXING SPAWNING SEAWATER JUVENILES2 0.5 - 25.0 ppt JU ENILES LARVAE 2 EGGS _ 2 ADULTS 2 SBPAWNING-2 SEAWATER SANN >25.0 ppt JUVENILES 2 LARVAE 2 EGGS 2 Legend: Relative Abundance: Data Reliability (R): | |= Not Present 1 = Highly Certain | ---| = No Data 2 = Moderately Certain Iiiii::iiiii!!i:ii= Rare 3= Reasonable Inference = Common OM= Abundant = Highly Abundant 63 Species profile: Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) brown shrimp were better biodegraders of the ester than oysters. Common Name: Brown shrimp Scientific Name: Penaeus aztecus Ecological: Brown shrimp are consumed by many finfish species and by large crustaceans. The loss of Other Common Names: Brownies; Golden shrimp; marsh habitat and reduction in freshwater inflow into Green lake shrimp; Native shrimp; Red or red tail the bays have come under recent scrutiny as major shrimp (Motoh 1977). factors influencingshrimpproduction (Kutkuhn 1966; Minello and Zimmerman 1985; Zimmerman and Classification Minello 1984). Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Crustacea Range Order: Decapoda Overall: PenaeusaztecusisdistributedfromMartha's Family: Penaeidae Vineyard, Massachusetts, around the tip of Florida and throughout the Gulf of Mexico to northwestern Value Yucatan. They are conspicuously absent along the Commercial: The Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery isthe western Florida coast from the Sanibel grounds to most valuable commercial fishery in the U.S. Total Apalachicola Bay. Their maximum density occurs brown shrimp production for the area west of the alongthe coasts of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi Mississippi River Delta to the Texas-Mexico border (Williams 1984; NOAA 1985). was 67.7 million pounds (heads off) in 1985; slightly higherthan the average yield of 67.1 million pounds Within Studv Area: In the northwest Gulf of Mexico, from 1976-1984 (Klima et a/. 1987). The season brown shrimp are distributed throughout bays, begins in May, peaks from JunetoJuly and gradually estuaries and coastal waters. In the estuaries, declines through April. Major fishing grounds are off postlarvae and small juveniles are associated with the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Federal shallow vegetated habitats and large juveniles/ regulations have annuallyclosedthe offshorefishery subadults inhabit nonvegetated, deeper open water along the coast of Texas from around mid-May to bottoms (Parker 1970;Zimmerman and Minello 1984). mid-July, not more than 55 days, to allow shrimp to grow to larger sizes (Klima eta/. 1982; 1987). The Life Mode majorityofthe brown shrimp are harvestedfor human Eggs are denser than seawater and are demersal consumption, although a bait-shrimp fishery also (Kutkuhn 1966). Larval stages are planktonic, and exists (Klima et al. 1987). their position in the water column is dependent on time of day, water temperature and water clarity Recreational: Approximately 8.8 and 5.2 million lbs (Temple and Fischer 1965; 1967; Kutkuhn et al. (heads on) of total shrimp weretaken by recreational 1969). Fall-spawned postlarvae may burrow intothe shrimpers in 1979 and 1980, respectively, in Texas sediments to escape cooler temperatures and to and Louisiana. In Louisiana, no license is required overwinter(St. Amant etal. 1966; Aldrich etal. 1969). for otter trawls up to 16 ft. In Texas, licenses are Postlarvae move into estuaries and transform into required for recreational fishermen, in addition, a benthic juveniles (Cook and Lindner 1970). Adults license is needed for trawls; catches are limited by generally inhabit offshore waters ranging from 14 to location and season of fishing (Gulf of Mexico Fishery 110 meters (Renfro and Brusher 1982). Brown Management Council 1981). shrimp have an annual life cycle (Perez-Farfante 1969). Indicator of Environmental Stress: Miligan (1983) indicated dredge material was non-toxic to brown Habitat shrimp when exposed to dredge material free of ITse: Eggs occuroffshore and are demersal. Larvae significantconcentrations of heavy metals, pesticides occuroffshore and begin to immigrate to estuaries as and waste metabolites. A second experiment postlarvae around 8-14 mm TL (total length) (Cook demonstrated faster growth of shrimp in dredge and Lindner 1970). Juveniles and subadults prefer material treated ponds. Confounding factors shallow marsh areas and estuarine bays. Adults prevented direct interpretation of a third experiment occur in neritic Gulf waters (Perez-Farfante 1969; in a dredge material containment site. Ward et al. Williams 1984). (1981) determined a concentration of 1.2 mg/I selenium (96 h LC50) to be toxic to brown shrimp. Substrate: Larvae and juveniles inhabit soft, muddy Wofford etal. (1981) observed the bioaccumulation areas, especially in association with plant/water of phthalate esters (plasticizers) and demonstrated interfaces. Adults are associated with terrigenous 64 Brown shrimp species profile, cont. silt and muddy sand substrate (Williams 1984; GrowthandDevelopment Hildebrand 1954). Embryos: Eggs are approximately 0.26 mm in diameter. Hatch occurs within 24 hours of release Phvsical/Chemical Characteristics: into the water column (Kutkuhn 1966). Temperature- Eggs will not.hatch at temperatures Larval andJuvenile Develooment: Larvaetransform below 240 C (Cook and Lindner 1970). Postlarvae through five naupliar stages with average TL's of have been collected from temperatures of 12.60 - 0.35, 0.39, 0.40, 0.44 and 0.50 mm respectively; 30.6�C. Aldrich etal. (1969) demonstrated postlarval three protozoeal stages with average TL's of 0.96, burrowing in temperatures below 18� C. Extended 1.71, and 2.59 mm; and three myses stages with exposure to temperatures below 200 C may be average TL's of 3.3, 3.8 and 4.3 mm to become detrimental to population survival (Zein-Eldin and postlarvae at an average TL of 4.6 mm, in a period of Renaud 1986). Brown shrimp greater than 75 mm 10-25 days (Cook and Murphy 1971). Postlarvae tolerate temperatures between 4� and 36� C with a entertheestuariesandtransformintojuvenilesaround preferredrangeof14.9- 31.0�C(Ward etal. 1980). 25 mm TL. Juveniles in the estuary range from approximately 25 - 90 mm. The shrimp spend Salinity- Brown shrimp are euryhaline to stenohaline approximately three months on the nursery grounds depending on lifestage. Larvae tolerate salinities and then move back offshore in sizes ranging from ranging from 24.1 - 36 ppt (Cook and Lindner 1970). 80 - 100 mm TL (Cook and Lindner 1970; Copeland Postlarvae have been collected from salinities of 0.1 1965; Parker 1970). Growth rates are temperature - 69 ppt and have shown good growth at 2 - 40 ppt. dependent. Larval growth rate estimates are: nauplii, Juvenile brown shrimp are distributed from 0- 45 ppt, 0.1 - 0.2 mm/day; protozoea 0.3 - 0.35 mm/day; but prefer 10 - 20 ppt. Adults tolerate salinities of 0.8 myses 0.4 - 0.5 mm/day (Ward etal. 1980). Postlarval - 45 ppt with an optimum range of 24 - 38.9 ppt. growth is maximum (greater than 0.5 mm/day) Salinity and temperature effects are more between 25� - 270 C. Juveniles have grown at 3.3 conspicuous at either extreme (Zein-Eldin and mm/day at temperatures above 25� C, but their Renaud 1986). growth decreases from 29� - 33� C (Zein-Eldin and Renaud 1986). Growth of offshore adults has not Migrations and Movements been studied in detail. Brown shrimp and postlarvae move into estuaries from February to April with the incoming tides Food and Feeding (Copeland and Truitt 1966; King 1971). In the All life stages are omnivorous, and feeding begins northern Gulf of Mexico, estuarine recruitment may with the first protozoeal stage (Cook and Murphy occur all year (Baxter and Renfro 1967). Emigration 1971). Larval stages feed on phytoplankton and to offshore spawning grounds occurs from May zooplankton. Postlarvae feed on epiphytes, through August, coinciding with full moons and ebb phytoplankton and detritus, but faster growth is tides (Copeland 1965). Tagging studies in the attained on food of animal origin (Zein-Eldin and northern Gulf indicate a west and southward Renaud 1986). Juveniles and adults forage movement of the adults with the prevailing currents nocturnally on available food, including polychaetes, (Cook and Lindner 1970). However more recent amphipods, chironomid larvae, but also detritus and studies do not indicate any net movement in any algae. Juveniles are primarily encounter-feeders, direction (P. Sheridan, personal communication). whereas adults are selective omnivorous predators (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 1981; Reproduction Zein-Eldin and Renaud 1986). Mode: Sexual reproduction with external fertilization (Cook and Lindner 1970; Lassuy 1983). Persons Consulted Sheridan, Peter F. DOC\NOAA\NMFS\SEFC - Matinn and Snawnina: In waters off Texas, spawning Galveston Laboratory, 4700 Ave U, Galveston, Texas occurs at depths greater than 14 m; year-round at 77550. depths of 64-110 m; and peaks of spawning in shallower water are during late spring and in the fall References (Renfro and Brusher 1982). Brown shrimp may Aldrich, D. V.,C. E. Wood and K. N. Baxter. 1969. An spawn more than once (Perez-Farfante 1969). ecological interpretation of low water temperature responses in Penaeus aztecus and P. setiferus Renroductive Caoacitv: Renfro and Brusher (1982) postlarvae. Bull. Mar. Sci. 18: 61-71. found brown shrimp released an average of 246,000 viable eggs of which 15 % hatched. 65 Brown shrimp species profile, cont. Baxter, K. N., and W. C. Renfro. 1966. Seasonal Lassuy, D. R. 1983. Species Profiles: life histories distribution and size distribution of postlarval and environmental requirements (Gulf of Mexico) - brown and white shrimp near Galveston, Texas, brown shrimp. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., OBS, FWS/ with notes on species identification. Fish. Bull., U. S. OBS-82/1 1.1 66: 149-158. Miligan, D. 1983. Selection criteria and procedures Cook, H.L., and M. L. Lindner. 1970. Synopsis ofthe for establishing mariculture facilities in existing biologicaldataonthebrownshrimp, Penaeusaztecus containment sites. Dredging Operations Technical aztecus Ives, 1891. FAO Fish. Rep. 57: 1471-1498. Support Program. Aquaculture Material Containment Areas, Proceedings, pp. 153-162. Cook, H. L, and M. A. Murphy. 1971. Early developmental stages of the brown shrimp, Penaeus Minelbo, T.J., and R.J.Zimmerman. 1985. Differential aztecus Ives, reared in the laboratory. Fish. Bull., U. selection of vegetative structure between juvenile S. 69: 223-239. brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) and white shrimp (P. setiferus), and implications in predator-prey Copeland, B. J. 1965. Fauna of the Aransas Pass relationships. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 20: 707-716. Inlet, Texas. I. Emigration as shown by tide trap collections. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 10: 9-21. Motoh, H. 1977. An annotated list of scientific and English common names of commercially important Copeland, B. J., and M. V. Truitt. 1966. Faunaof the penaeid prawns and shrimps. Southeast Asian Aransas Pass Inlet, Texas. II. Penaeid shrimp Fisheries Development Center, Aquaculture Dept., postlarvae. Tex. J. Sci. 18: 65-74. Tech. Rep. 2, 14 p. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981. Parker, J. C. 1970. Distribution of juvenile brown Draft Update of Fishery Management PlanforShrimp shrimp (Penaeus aztecus Ives) in Galveston Bay, Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Texas, as related to certain hydrographic features Council, Tampa, FL. 241 p. and salinity. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 15: 1-12. Hildebrand, H. H. 1954. A study of the brown shrimp Perez-Farfante, I. 1969. Western Atlantic shrimps of (Penaeus aztecus) grounds in the western Gulf of the genus Penaeus. Fish. Bull., U. S. 67: 461-591. Mexico. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 3: 233-366. Renfro, W. C., and H. A. Brusher. 1982. Seasonal King, B. D., III. 1971. Study of migratory patterns of abundance, size distribution, and spawning of three fish and shellfish through a natural pass. Texas shrimps (Penaeus aztecus, P. setiferus, and P. Parks Wildl. Dept., Tech. Ser. 9, 54 p. duorarum) inthe northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1961- 1962. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFC-94, 47 p. Klima, E. F., K. N. Baxter and F. J. Patella. 1982. A review of the offshore shrimp fishery and the 1981 St. Amant, L. S., K. C. Corkum and J. G. Broom. Texas closure. Mar. Fish. Rev. 44: 16-30. 1963. Studies on growth of the brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, in Louisiana waters. Gulf Coast Klima, E. F., J. N. Nance, P. F. Sheridan, K. N. Fish. Inst., pp 14-26. Baxter, F. J. Patella and D. B. Koi. 1987. Review of the 1986 Texas closure for the shrimp fishery off NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Texas and Louisiana. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS- Administration) 1985. Gulf of Mexico Coastal and SEFC-197, 153 p. Ocean Zones Strategic Assessment: Data Atlas. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Kutkuhn, J. H. 1966. The role of estuaries in the Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment development and perpetuation of commercial shrimp Branch, Rockville, MD. resources. In: R. F. Smith (editor), A Symposium on Estuarine Fisheries, pp 3-16. Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Temple, R. F., and C. C. Fischer. 1965. Vertical Publ. 3. distribution of planktonic stages of Penaeid shrimp. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci 10: 59-67. Kutkuhn, J. H., H. L. Cook and K. N. Baxter. 1969. Distribution and density of prejuvenile Penaeus Temple, R. F., and C. C. Fischer. 1967. Seasonal shrimp in the Galveston entrance and the nearby distribution and relative abundance of planktonic- Gulf of Mexico (Texas). FAO Fish. Rep. 57: 1075- stage shrimp (Penaeus spp.) in the northwestern 1099. Gulf of Mexico, 1961. Fish. Bull., U. S. 66: 323-334. 66 Brown shrimp species profile, cont. Ward, G. H., Jr., N. E. Armstrong and the Matagorda Bay Project Teams. 1980. Matagorda Bay, Texas: Rs hydrography, ecology, and fishery resources. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog., FWS/OBS-81/ 52. Ward, G. S., T. A. Hollister, P. T. Heitmuller and P. T. Parrish. 1981. Acute and chronictoxicityof selenium to estuarine organisms. Northeast Gulf Sci. 4: 73- 78. Williams, A. B. 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., xviii + 550 p. Wofford, H. W., C. D. Wilsey, G. S. Neff, C. S. Giam and J. M. Neff. 1981. Bioaccumulation and metabolism of phthalate esters by oysters, brown shrimp and sheepshead minnows. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 5: 202-210. Zein-Eldin, Z. P., and M. L. Renaud. 1986. Inshore environmental effects on brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, and white shrimp, P. setiferus, populations in coastal waters, particularly of Texas. Mar. Fish. Rev. 48: 9-19. Zimmerman, R.J., and T. J. Minello. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus, and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7: 421-433. 67 Brown shrimp - Galveston Bay data sheet SCIENTIFIC NAME: Penaeus aztecus REGION: Gulf of Mexico COMMON NAME: Brown shrimp STATE: Texas ESTUARY NAME: Galveston Bay INVESTIGATOR: Tom Czapla SALINITY LIFGE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE ZONE STAGE BY MONTH J F M A M J J A S O N D R ADULTS 1 SPAWNING 1 TIDAL FRESH JUVENILES 0.0 - 0.5 ppt LARVAE 1 EGGS 1 ADULTS 1 MIXING SPAWNING 1 0.5 - 25.0 ppt JUVENILES __ '.:"'"*>1 LARVAE .:j . . .: .. EGGS 1 ADULTS 1 SEAWATER SPAWNING 1 JUVENILES :.. >25.0 ppt-<--<r~ ~ LARVAE _ EGGS 1 Peaks: Juveniles peak May - June Comments: Larvae are less than 25 mm TL ( = postlarvae") Legend: Relative Abundance: Data Reliability (R): |= Not Present 1 = Highly Certain | I = No Data 2 = Moderately Certain = Rare 3 = Reasonable Inference = Common = Abundant = Highly Abundant Species profile: Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) and Avault 1975; Boothby and Avault 1971; Hoese and Moore 1977; Matlock 1980; Overstreet 1983; Common Name: Red Drum Perret et al. 1980; Welsh and Breder 1924). The Scientific Name: Sciaenops ocellatus most important recreational fisheries in the study area are in Texas and Louisiana. Alabama does not Other Common Names - red fish, channel bass, consider this species a popular sport fish, and in drum, branded drum, spotted bass, spottail (Benson Mississippi, although popular, low fishing effort due 1982; Bryan 1971; Daniels and Robinson 1986; to a low human population and fewtourists results in Hoese and Moore 1977; Overstreet and Heard 1978; relatively insignificant catches (Bass and Avault 1975; Pearson 1929; Welsh and Breder 1924; Yokel 1966). Christmas and Waller 1973; Matlock 1980; Overstreet Smaller fish (<2.27 kg) are called rat reds or puppy and Heard 1978). The most sought after fish are drum while larger fish (>2.27 kg) are referred to as those less than 2.2 kg, larger fish being unpopular bull reds (Breuer 1957; Christmas and Waller 1973; due to presence of parasites in the flesh and the Welsh and Breder 1924; Yokel 1966). belief that larger fish have a poor taste (Adkins et al. 1979; Benson 1982; Boothby and Avault 1971). Classification Hybridization experiments with this species show Phylum: Chordata promise in producing an excellent sport fish (Anon. Class: Osteichthyes 1983). Fishing is primarily by rod and reel, or pole Order: Perciformes and line in surf, island passes, and estuaries especially Family: Sciaenidae during seasonal runs in the spring and fall (Benson 1982; Boothby and Avault 1971; Franks 1970; Matlock Value 1980). Commercial: Highly prized as a food fish throughout its range and is probablythe most important sciaenid Eco.Qgical: Marine, littoral, crepuscular predators commercially. Although a commercial fishery exists that indiscriminately feed on the bottom or in the on the Atlantic coast, the main industry is along the water column, usually in shallow water (Benson northern Gulf of Mexico in Texas, Louisiana, and 1982; Boothby and Avault 1971; Gunter 1945; Holt et Florida (BassandAvault 1975; Benson 1982; Boothby al. 1983; Pearson 1929; Simmons and Breuer 1962; and Avault 1971; Hoese and Moore 1977; Matlock et Ward and Armstrong 1980; Zimmerman 1969). al. 1977; Perret et al. 1980; Vetter et al. 1983). Commercial harvest is by gill net, trammel net, and Indicator: A study funded by the University of Florida trotline (Adkins et al. 1979; Heffernan and Kemp has found evidencethat metalpoisoning has occurred 1980; Matlock 1980; Matlock et al. 1977). Fish in the among large (7-18 kg) red drum (Cardeilhac et al. Gulf of Mexico are also caught by hand lines, beach 1981). seines in the surf, and intertidally in Gulf shrimp trawls. Harvest occurs mainly during fall (October - Range December) and spring (March - June), usually in Overall:lnthewesternAtlanticfromtheGulfof Maine estuaries (Matlock 1980). off Massachusetts to Florida, and in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Tuxpan, Mexico (Boothby and A decline in reported landings in recent years forGulf Avault 1971; Holt et al. 1983; Hoese and Moore coast states has been due to overfishing and habitat 1977; Lux 1969; Matlock 1980; Matlock 1987; destruction (Swingle et al. 1984; Heffeman and Overstreet 1983; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Ward Kemp 1982). These declines resulted in closure of and Armstrong 1980; Welsh and Breder 1924; Yokel the Texas commercial fishery in 1981, closure of the 1966). New Jersey probably represents the northern Alabama commercial fisheries, and severe restriction boundary where this species occurs as a regular part of the harvest in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. of the marine fauna. The exact southern end of the Commercial landings for 1985 were: Alabama range is unknown but probably occurs between 1,292,368 kg; Mississippi 12,272 kg; and Louisiana Tuxpan and Tecolutla, duetothe absence of bays or 1,334,545 kg (NMFS 1986). estuaries south of Nautla (403 km south of Tuxpan) (Yokel 1966). Centers of abundance exist in the Recreational: Highly prized as both a game and food waters of Chesapeake Bay, North Carolina, and the fish. Theirfighting abilityon lighttackle and delectable Gulf of Mexico (Matlock 1980; Ward and Armstrong taste has probably made this fish the most important 1980; Yokel 1966). recreational species of sciaenid. It is highly esteemed for the table in the south, but in the northern part of Within Studv Area: Rio Grande River to Mobile, its range it is primarily a game fish caught by surf Alabama (Boothby and Avault 1971; Holt et al. fishing (Adkins et al. 1979; Arnold et al. 1960; Bass 1983;Hoese and Moore 1977; Matlock 1980;Matlock 69 Red drum species profile, cant. 1987; Overstreet 1983; Simmons and Breuer 1962; best in polyhaline to euhaline waters, while early Ward and Armstrong 1980; Welsh and Breder 1924; larvae are found in mesohaline to euhaline waters. Yokel 1966). Centers of abundance occur in Texas Older larvae and post larvae are euryhaline (Arnold and Mississippi (Ward and Armstrong 1980; Yokel et al. 1979; Crocker et al. 1981; Holt et al. 1981a; 1966). HigherabundanceinMississippiwatersmay Overstreet 1983; Perret et al. 1980; Peters and be due to the benefits of the extensive estuaries McMichael 1987; Vetter et al. 1983; Ward and present in nearby Louisiana and low fishing effort Armstrong 1980; Yokel 1966). (Yokel 1966). Juveniles: Euryhaline (Benson 1982; Crocker et al. Life Mode 11981; Crocker et al. 1983; Daniels and Robinson Eggs, larvae, and early juveniles are planktonic and 1986; Gunter 1942; Gunter 1956; Holt et al. 1981 a; pelagic (Breuer 1957; Peters and McMichael 1987; Perret et al. 1980; Peters and McMichael 1987; Ward and Armstrong 1980). Juveniles and adults Simmons 1957; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Yokel are pelagic and nektonic (Benson 1982; Breuer 1966). Found in a wide variety of habitats perhaps 1957; Gunter 1945; Holt et al. 1981a; Osbum et al. due to their movements from bay shores to quiet 1982; Peters and McMichael 1987; Ward and backwater areas asthey grow and begin to disperse Armstrong 1980). Juveniles are often found in throughthe bay(Petersand McMichael 1987). Prefer schools, but adults are largely solitary when living in shallow, protected, open waters of estuaries, coves, shallow water (Adkins et al. 1979; Benson 1982; and secondary bays with depths up to 3.05 m, but Breuer 1957; Christmas and Waller 1973; Osburn et may also be found near the mouths of tidal passes. al. 1982; Overstreet 1983; Pearson 1929; Peters and Juveniles have also been reported from tidal pools, McMichael 1987; Simmons and Breuer 1962). Some marsh habitats, depressions in marshy areas, boat schools in the Gulf of Mexico are associated with basins, bayous, flats, channels, reefs, back bays, schools of Pogonias cromis, Megalops atlanticus, around islands, near river mouths, and occasionally Caranx crysos, Euthynnus alletteratus, and the surf along the Gulf of Mexico in the spring Trachinotus carolinus, at least when near shore, following hatching. Olderjuveniles tend to move into although they do not randomly mix with schools of slightly deeper, more open waters and into primary otherspecies. Largeschoolscan contain 150,000to bays (Benson 1982; Breuer 1957; Osburn et al. 200,000 individuals and first appear about April and 1982; Christmas and Waller 1973, Crocker et al. disappear offshore from September to October. 1981; Holt et al. 1981a; Overstreet 1983; Pafford Schools are often spread out more during summer 1981; Pearson 1929; Perret et al. 1980; Peters and than in spring or autumn (Overstreet 1983; Perret et McMichael 1987; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Reid al. 1980).Activityseemstobeequallydividedbetween 1955; Simmons 1957; Swingle 1971; Ward and night and day (Benson 1982; Minelloand Zimmerman Armstrong 1980; Yokel 1966; Zimmerman 1969. 1983; Peters and McMichael 1987; Zirhmerman 1969). Adult: Euryhaline (Benson 1982; Crockeret al. 1981; Daniels and Robinson 1986; Gunter 1942; Gunter Habitat 1956; Holt et al. 1981a; Simmons and Breuer ITYe: 1962).Occasionally found in shallow bays, but tend Eggs and larvae: Spawning occurs in nearshore to spend more time in marine habitats aftertheir first waters close to barrier island passes and channels. spawning. They are typically found in the Gulf of Larvae and post-larvae are carried by tidal currents Mexico in littoral and shallow nearshore waters off into the shallow inside waters of bays and estuaries beaches (Benson 1982; Overstreet 1983; Pafford (Benson 1982; Heffernan 1973; Holt et al. 1981 a; 1981; Perret et al. 1980; Ross et al. 1983; Ward and Pearson 1929; Peters and McMichael 1987; Yokel Armstrong 1980). Often caught in more offshore 1966). Larvae move through the passes and tend to waters, as far as 25 km from shore in depths up to 40 seek shallow, slack water along the sides of the m, and are commonly reported from depths of 40 to channels to prevent being carried offshore during 70 m; occasionally caught on Gulf reefs (Benson periods of ebb tide (King 1971). As larvae enter 1982; Heffernan 1973; Lux 1969; Overstreet 1983; inside waters, they seek grassy quiet coves, tidal Ross et al. 1983). flats, and lagoons where the vegetation protects them from predators and swept back offshore during Substrate: ebbtides, andtheycan avoid rough watersuntilthey Larvae/early juveniles: Newly hatched larvae are are strong enough to swim actively (Holt et al. 1983; found in the Gulf surf over pure sand bottoms, but Overstreet 1983; Pearson 1929; Perret et al. 1980; prefer muddy bottoms after entering bays and Simmons and Breuer 1962; Ward and Armstrong estuaries. Occur in inshore waters over substrates 1980; Yokel 1966). Eggs fromcaptive spawns develop of mud, sand, or sandy mud bottoms as well as in and 70 Red drum species profile, cont. among patchy sea grass meadows. Small fish are Salinity: All life stages are sensitive to high salinities probably more successful at capturing prey in the when combined with high temperatures, but this is less dense vegetation areas while living in areas of influenced by the size of the fish (Simmons 1957). greater sea grass density may help them to avoid Eggs and larvae in particular are sensitive to predation (Benson 1982; Holt et al. 1983; Overstreet environmental conditions (Overstreet 1983). 1983; Perret et al. 1980; Pearson 1929; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Ward and Armstrong 1980; Yokel Eggs: Eggs fromcaptive spawns develop successfully 1966). Normally associated with such sea grasses into feeding larvae at salinities of 10 to 40 ppt in a as Halodule beaudettes, Ruppia maritima, and temperature of 250 C. Below 10 ppt hatch rate is Thallasia testudinum(Perret et al. 1980;Zimmerman poor, and below 25 ppt eggs sink resulting in losses 1969). from fungal infection, crowding, and low oxygen (Vetter et al. 1983). High salinities coupled with high Large juveniles/adults: Common over muddy, sandy, temperatures were associated with poor yolk-sac or oyster reef bottoms with little or no sea grass larvae survival (Holt et al. 1981 a). Salinities reported (Perret et al. 1980; Yokel 1966). best for 24 h survival and hatch are 30 ppt at 25� C and 34 to 36.5 ppt at 23 to 26� C (Lee et al. 1984; Neff Phvsical/chemical: Tolerance to the environment et al. 1982; Overstreet 1983). changes with age (life history), season, and geography (Crocker et al. 1981). Larvae: Larvae from captive spawns were more stenohaline than older life stages, particularly during Temperature: Eggs/larvae: Eggs and newly hatched the first two weeks after hatching with best survival larvae tend to be stenothermal, but become more around 30 ppt (Crocker et al. 1981; Holt et al. 1981 a; eurythermal at 10 da and older (Crocker et al. 1981). Overstreet 1983). One article reports tolerance from Eggs and larvae from captive spawns havedeveloped <1 to 50 ppt and a preference of 20 to 40 ppt salinity over a temperature range of 20 to 300 C with optimal (Ward and Armstrong). Larvae and post-larvae survival at 25� C, while higher temperatures (30 and collected in the wild were found in a salinity range of 35� C) were associated with poor yolk sac larvae 16 to 36.4 ppt (Peters and McMichael 1987; Yokel survival (Holt et al. 1981 a; Lee et al. 1984; Overstreet 1966). 1983). Larvae and post-larvae have been collected inthewild from 18.3 to 31.0� C (Peters and McMichael Juveniles/adults: Euryhaline (Benson 1982; Crocker 1987; Perret et al. 1980; Yokel 1966). et al. 1981; Daniels and Robinson 1986; Gunter 1942; Gunter 1956; Holt et al. 1981a; Perret et al. Juveniles: Eurythermal, found in waters ranging in 1980; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Yokel 1966). Very temperature from 2.0 to 34.90 C (Adkins et al. 1979; efficient osmoregulators with the ability to tolerate Barret et al. 1978; Bonin 1977; Christmas and Waller abrupt changes in salinity which is especially important 1973; Daniels and Robinson 1986; Franks 1970; to juveniles in the estuarine environment. Juveniles Gunter 1945; Holt et al. 1981 a; Peters and McMichael appear more tolerant to low salinity, whereas adults 1987; Perret et al. 1971; Perret et al. 1980; Simmons that are less dependent on estuarine areas and and Breuer 1962; Tarver and Savoie 1976; Yokel spend more time at sea are more tolerant of high 1966). Appear to prefer temperatures ranging from salinity (Crocker et al. 1983; Yokel 1966). Collected 10 to30� C (Ward and Armstrong 1980). Juveniles in regularly from a salinity range of 0 to 45 ppt, but only heated discharge waters have survived up to 35� C, rarely at 50 ppt or above (Crocker et al. 1981; Barret but at 39� C some mortality occurred, apparently et al. 1978; Bonin 1977; Christmas and Waller 1973; from handling stress (Overstreet 1983). Large Daniels and Robinson 1986; Franks 1970; Gunter numbers have been reported killed in sudden severe 1945; Holt et al. 1981a; Juneau 1975; Perret et al. cold spells, but normally fish will move into deeper 1971; Perret et al. 1980; Peters and McMichael waters during periods of extreme temperatures 1987; Simmons 1957; Simmons and Breuer 1962; (Adkins et al. 1979; Simmons and Breuer 1962). Tarver and Savoie 1976; Ward and Armstrong 1980; Yokel 1966). Large juveniles and adults appear to Adults: Eurythermal, collected over a temperature prefer salinities from 20 to 40 ppt, with maximum range from 2.0 to 33� C (Juneau 1975; Daniels and growth for juveniles occurring at 35 ppt (Benson Robinson 1986; Perret et al. 1980; Simmons and 1982; Bonin 1977; Crocker et al. 1981; Holt et al. Breuer 1962; Ward and Armstrong 1980; Yokel 1981a; Perret et al. 1980; Ward and Armstrong 1966). Adults considered more susceptible to the 1980). One report found small juveniles (17-58 mm effects of winter cold waves than smaller fish (Yokel TL) at greatest abundance in salinities below 15 ppt 1966), and normally move into deeper waters for (Gunter 1945). refuge (Simmons and Breuer 1962). 71 Red drum species profile, cont. Other: adults may remain in the bays year-round, but older Oxygen: Fry can not survive low D.O.'s of 0.6-1.8 fishmoveoutintotheopenGulfinlatefallandwinter, ppm (Overstreet 1983). Large juveniles have been andpossiblyduringsummer(Matlock 1987; Perret et reported in waters with D.O.'s of 5.2 and 8.4 ppm al. 1980). This seasonal movement is a gradual one (Barret et al. 1978). with fish disappearing offshore presumablyto spawn (Benson 1982; Pearson 1929). Class I juveniles NH3: The maximum concentration allowing normal leaving the bay system in the fall probably reenter growth of larvae was 0.11 mg/liter, butolderfishwere wih older juveniles the following spring in a more found able to tolerate higher concentrations (Holt contracted migration (Benson 1982; Pearson 1929; and Amrold 1983). Ward and Armstrong 1980). Migrating fish may use salinity gradients as predictive cues for directed Movements and Migrations movements from estuarine to oceanic habitats and Relatively non-migratory with no significant back (Owens et al. 1982) movements, but does have broad random movements, loosely coordinated temperature Results from recent studies suggest large offshore induced migrations, and strong offshore or deep fish may have a more extensive migration over time water spawning migrations (Adkins et al. 1979; Moe than was previously thought. This migration may be 1972; Osburn et al. 1982; Perret et al. 1980; Simmons dictated by abundance of specificfood items in which and Breuer 1962; Ward and Armstrong 1980). case the red drum might continually migrate in a Tagging studies have shown little intra-bay movement relatively consistent pattern in order to optimize rich or bay-Gulf travel, except perhaps for short periods, areas seasonally (Overstreet 1983; Overstreet and and a few individuals with some extensive movement, Heard 1978; Pafford 1981). but very infrequently (Beaumariage 1969; Osbum et al. 1982; Pafford 1981; Simmons and Breuer 1962). Reproduction These studies also show fish tagged in the Gulf of Mode: Fertilization in captive fish is by externally Mexico remained there, perhaps permanently broadcast sexual products. (Simmons and Breuer 1962; Simmons and Hoese 1959). Matina and Soawnina: Onset and duration vary with photoperiod, water temperature, and possibly other Eggs, larvae, and early juveniles are carried bytides factors (Holt et al. 1981a; Overstreet 1983), but and currents in late fall into the shallow estuaries and typically lasts from latesummerthrough earlywinter, bays with peaks occurring in October. Larvae tend usually beginning in September and ending in early tomovethrough barrier island passes in mid-channel January, with peaks in mid-September through surface waters with thetidal current (Bass and Avault October and then declining (Benson 1982; Boothby 1975; Benson 1982; Holt et al. 1981a; King 1971). and Avault 1971;Christmas and Waller 1973; Gunter Fish move from bay shores farther into the estuaryto 1945; Heffeman 1973; Holt et al. 1981a; Lee et al. quiet back water areas as they grow, eventually 1984; Matlock 1987; Overstreet 1983; Perret et al. occupying secondary bays considerable distances 1980; Welsh and Breder 1924; Yokel 1966). Occurs from their original point of entry (Perret et al. 1980; in nearshore coastal waters on the Gulf side of Peters and McMichael 1987; Yokel 1966). Young barrierislands usually in ornear passes and channels drum will leave these shallow areas when ca. 40-120 between islands where currents can carry eggs to mm or 85-100 mm TL and move into primary bays shallow inside waters (Benson 1982; Breuer 1957; and somewhat deeper waters (>1.8 m). This Gunter 1945; Higgins and Lord 1926; Holt et al. movement may be accelerated by cold (Osbum et al. 1981 a; Lee et al. 1984; Matlock 1987; Pearson 1929; 1982; Pearson 1929; Peters and McMichael 1987; Peters and McMichael 1987; Perret et al. 1980; Yokel 1966). Movement of sub-adults (<3 years) in Yokel 1966). One study estimated spawning bays appears limited with schools remaining in a occurring 7.3 to 21.9 m offshore of a natural pass in single localeforseveral months (Osburn et al. 1982). Texas (Heffeman 1973). Spawning activities are Most movements bythis group apparently consist of initiated in early evening ornight (Guest 1978; Holt et responses to temperature and salinity, and foraging al. 1981b; Overstreet 1983). which can be considerable even if the fish remain within a small general area (Overstreet 1983;Pafford ReDroductive Caoacitv: Captive fish spawn 1981). As juveniles approach 200 mm TL during repeatedly and produce large numbers (ca. 106/ their first spring, they may remain in deep water spawn) of small buoyant eggs (Vetter et al. 1983). areas of bays or congregate near passes usually Estimated number of oocytes from a 758 mm SL occurring in large. aggregations (Peters and femalewas61,998,776whencalculatedbyvolumetric McMichael 1987; Simmons and Hoese 1959). Sub- means, or94,513,172 using thegravimetric method 72 Red drum species profile, cont. (Overstreet 1983). Inoneexperiment, 10-1 2spawns/ the ventral and anal fins remains of larval fin fold. fish over 90-100 days were typical, with one captive fish spawning 31 times over 90 days, while another Temperature hasa pronounced effect on larvalgrowth reported 3 females spawning 52 times in 76 days, (Holt et al. 1981b; Lee et al 1984). The yolk-sac producing an estimated 6 x 107 eggs. Captive stage can range from 40 h at 30� C to 85 h at 200 C spawns were around 1 million/spawn during the first (Holt et al. 1981a; Holt et al. 1981b), and larval 45 days, dropping to 10-100 thousand thereafter. growth can average 17.74 p/da at 240 and 30.25 p/ The maximum recorded spawn was 2,058,000/fish da at 28� C. Two distinct growth periods are evident during one night (Arnold et al. 1979; Overstreet in early larval development. One extends from 1983). A maximal single spawn apparently exists, hatching through depletion of the yolk-sac, while the estimated as 30,000,000 for 9-14 kg fish (Overstreet otherbegins with the onset of active feeding. Growth 1983). rate in terms of SL was low in the first stage and averaged less than 0.06 mm/da or more (Lee et al. Growth and Development 1984). Egg: Oviparous, spherical, and buoyant. Mean diameter of 0.95 mm and a range of 0.86-0.98 mm. Juvenile: 8.0 mm SL to ca. 40 mm TL (Gunter 1945; Usuallyone and upto six clearoil globules averaging Peters and McMichael 1987). Above 10 mm TL, 0.27 mm (0.24-0.31 mm) present. The perivitelline pigment rapidlyappearswithdistinctivecolorpattems space varies in size, but is generally less than 2% of at ca. 25 mm TL. Twenty to 50 dark distinct blotches the egg diameter (Holt et al. 1981b; Vetter et al. present at this point from the lateral line tothe dorsal 1983). Eggs spawned at 240 C and 28 ppt hatch in fin on each side of the trunk. At 36 mm TL, a 19-20 h (Arnold et al. 1979), 22 h when spawned at pronouncedchromatophoreenlargementatthebase 230 C and 36 ppt (Vetter et al. 1983), and 28-29 h at of the upper caudal fin appears that results in the 22-23� C (Holt et al. 1981b). Live eggs float with oil characteristic black ocelli. At 42 mm TL, juveniles globule on top, and animal pole downward. Eggs 1.5 are morphologically identical to adults except for a h after fertilization (AF) are in 1-4 cell stage; morula slightly more pointed caudal fin and lack of distinct stage occurs ca. 2.5 h AF; blastula forms by 3 h AF ocelli. Ocelli faintly visible at 50 mm TL and very and many are in gastrula stage. Somites form 14 h apparent at 75 mm TL. Brown lateral blotches AF. Eye lenses evident in the optic vesicles at 17-19 enlarge with fish until 150 mm TL, and then tend to h AF and tail begins to elongate and bend with fade and finally disappear (Pearson 1929; Simmons curvature of egg. Section of brain evident at 24-29 h and Breuer 1962). Growth tends to be sporadic in AF; tail lengthened past oil globule and free of yolk juveniles averaging 18.8 mm TL/mo or 20.4 mm SLU sac; moderately developed finfold present around mo for the first 7.5 mo of life (Bass and Avault 1975). posterior2/3's of embryo (Holt et al. 1981 b). Hatching Other estimates based on Texas fishes report: 320- usuallyoccurs in latesummertoearlywinter, peaking 360 mm SL first year growth; 500 mm SL second in September-October (Matlock 1987). year; 550-600 third year; 875 mm SL sixth year; 925 mm SL seventh year; 975-1000 mm SL eighth year Larvae: Fish less than 8.0 mm SL are larvae, while (Miles 1950). Modally averages run: 340 mm SL first those 8-15 mm SL fish are considered transitional year; 540 mm SL second year; 640 mm third year; juveniles (Peters and McMichael 1987). Larvae are 750 mm SL fourth year; 840 mm SL fifth year; 330- either transparent with no pigment patterns at 356 mm first year; 484-559 second year; 660-762 hatching, or have a compressed band of dendritic mm third year; 890-965 fourth or fifth year (Johnson melanophores on the ventral surface of the body in et al. 1977). the yolk-sac region (Holt et al. 1981 b). Newly hatched larvae are negatively buoyant with SL range of 1.71- Sexual maturity occurs at the end of the third, fourth, 1.79 mm (mean 1.74). At 25� C, on the third day after or fifth year with 5 year old fish constituting the bulk hatching, the mouth forms, eyes are pigmented, and of the spawning population. Males reach maturation more time is spent swimming to stay near surface. during their third year and females mature in their Swim bladder is well developed by day 4 and larvae fourth or fifth year (Benson 1982; Johnson et al. remain in a horizontal position in the water column 1977; Pearson 1929; Simmons and Breuer 1962). with little effort (Holt et al. 1981 b). Four to 5 mm TL Generally mature at ca. 700-800 mm TL (Miles 1950; fish have yolk-sac present, dorsal and ventral fin Simmons and Breuer 1962), but smaller ripe fish are folds continuous to caudal fin, caudal fin well occasionallyfound. Maturefishhavebeencollected developed as are ventral fins, but rays of dorsal and in Texas as small as 425 mm TL. Males are presumed ventral fins indistinct, ventrals and pectorals obscure to mature at a smaller size than females and have (Peters and McMichael 1987). At 7 mm TL, yolk-sac been reported from Mississippi to reach maturity at hasdisappeared and only a small membrane between 320-395 mm. Another study reported ripe males 500 73 Red drum species profile, cont. mm SL and ripe females 550 mm SL from samples include Uca sp., Sesarma reticulatum, (Gunter 1945; Miles 1950; Perret et al. 1980). In Rithropanopeus harrisii, Menippe spp., Eupagurus Florida, a 630 mm FL ripe female was collected spp., Libinia dubia, and Neopanope texana, but are (Yokel 1966). generally unimportant (Bass and Avault 1975; Miles 1949; Peters and McMichael 1987). Crabs Adult: Average adult size is 800-850 mm SL (Miles predominate in the diet of fish 184-625 mm TL, 1949; Pearson 1929). This is a long lived fish, particularly Callinectessapidusand Rithropanopeus surviving over eight years (Johnson et al. 1977) harrisii, as well as some fish (Darnell 1958). Largest recorded fish is 1520 mm TL (Pearson 1929). Fish play a substantial role in the diet of juveniles > 15rmm TL, but were most abundant in juveniles > 90 Food and Feeding mm TL (Bass and Avault 1975; Peters and McMichael Diet consists of food items belonging to five major 1987). Juveniles 20-29 mm TI began eating other groups: copepods, mysid shrimp, amphipods, sciaenids, usually Leiostomusxanthurus and some decapods, and fish (Bass and Avault 1975). Utilization Micropogon undulatus. Otherfish include: Myrophis of these groups is determined by their size and punctatus, Brevoortiapatronus, Anchoasp., Synodus availability (Bass and Avault 1975; Boothby and foetens, Mugil sp., Menidia beryllina, Gobionellus Avault 1971; Overstreet and Heard 1978). The boleostema, and Citharichthys spilosopterus. major prey of larvae are copepods, including cyclopoids, calanoids, and harpacticoids as well as Food habits vary little in fish 250-924 mm SL (Boothby various zooplankton (Bass and Avault 1975; Benson and Avault 1971). Smallerfish generally eat smaller- 1982; Peters and McMichael 1987). Larvae up to 9 sized items, but the three main groups, shrimp, mm TL subsist on copepods and their nauplii that crabs, and fish, were eaten by all size classes. No range from 0.4-1.5 mm TL (Bass and Avault 1975). noticeable difference has been observed between The calanoid Acartia sp. occur most frequently, but the diets of males and females (Boothby and Avault species of cyclopoids, harpacticoids, and calagoids 1971). Red drum 245-745 mm TL have been found are also found. Although they appear in juveniles 10- to consume algae, grass, eggs, cysts, detritus, mud 39 mm TL, copepods cease to be important in and sand, annelids, ostracods, amphipods, fish, volume by 10-19 mm TL. Mysid shrimp, particularly penaeid shrimp, squid, blue crabs, Palaemonetes Mysidopsis almyra, appear from 10-169 mm TL, but vulgaris, Panopeus herbstii, Neopanope texana, are most important in small juveniles 10-49 mm, TL Crago sp., Calianassa jamaicense, Mugil sp., constituting 70-100% of their diet (Bass and Avault Myrophis punctatus, Gobiosoma bosci, Cyprinodon 1975; Peters and McMichael 1987). Fish 30 mm TL variegatus, Sygnathus scovelli, Anchoa mitchilli, Arius and over eat small crustaceans like schizopods and felis, Luciana parva, Leiostomus xanthurus, and amphipods (Darnell 1958). Gammarid amphipods Symphurus plagiusa (Breuer 1957; Bryan 1971; are consistently found in 10-109 mm TL fish and are Dieneretal. 1974; Gunter 1945; Knapp 1949; Pearson a dominant food item in fish 30-60 mm TL (Bass and 1929; Reid 1955; Reid et al. 1956; Simmons 1957). Avault 1975; Peters and McMichael 1987). Generally Although crustaceans as a group exceed fish in at least five species including the genera Ampelisca frequency of occurrence and per cent volume, fish and Carinogammadus are a minor part of the diet, are consumed more frequently, in greater numbers, but are moderately important in fish 30-49 mm TL. A and in greater volume than shrimp or crabs alone. largevariety of decapods are eaten byfish 8-120 mm Plant and substrate material that occurs in stomach TL. The first to appear are caridean shrimp, usually contents is probablytaken incidentallyduring feeding Palaemonetespugio, as well as Hippolytezostericola, activities. Fish are generally more prevalent in the Crangonspp., and Apheid shrimp. These are eaten diet of red drum during winter and spring months, until fish reach 150-159 mm TL. Penaeid shrimp, Brevoortiasp. being a favorite. Crustaceans become Penaeus setiferus, P. duorarum, and P. aztecus, increasingly more important during late spring and enterthe diet of fish 70-79 mm, and become important by summer are the main staple and continue as such at 90-99 mm TL and larger (Bass and Avault 1975; until late fall. Shrimp appear more frequently in the Miles 1949; Overstreet and Heard 1978; Peters and spring, summer, and fall. Crabs are more frequent McMichael 1987). At 100-1 75 mm TL, the chief food than shrimp only in the winter (Boothby and Avault items are small penaeid shrimp, palaemonetid shrimp, 1971). small mullet, silversides, gobies, and small crabs (Simmons and Breuer 1962). Callinectes sapidus Other organisms eaten byjuveniles contributed little and C. spp. appear at 40-49 mm TL and assume tostomachcontentvolumewiththepossibleexception importance at 70-79 mm TL. Other crabs are found of polychaetes, especially Glycera americana (Bass predominantly in larger juveniles (>105 mm TL) and and Avault 1975; Peters and McMichael 1987). These 74 Red drum species profile, cont. were eaten by 30-139 mm TL fish, but were most Arnold Jr., E. L., R. S. Wheeler, and K. N. Baxter. important to 60-79 mm TL (Bass and Avault 1975; 1960. Observations on fishes and otherbiota of East Overstreet and Heard 1978). Echinoderms are Lagoon, Galveston Island. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., eaten regularly by large fish, but are not an important Spec. Sci. Rep., Fish. No. 344: 1-30. diet item (Overstreet and Heard 1978). Barret, B. B., J. L. Merrell, T. P. Morrison, M. C. Inadditiontothemainfoodspeciesarethefollowing Gillespie, E. J. Ralph, and J. F. Burdon. 1978. A occasional specific animals: molluscs- Bamea study of Louisiana's major estuaries and adjacent truncata; Petricola pholodiformes; Sinum offshore waters. La. Dept. Wildl. Fish.,Tech. No. 27: perspectivum; crustaceans- Callinectes simulis; 197 pp. Hepatus epheliticus; Ovalipes ocellatus; Pagurus longicarpus; Portunus gibbesi; Squilla sp.; Bass, R. J. and J. W. Avault, Jr. 1975. Food habits, echinoderms- Mellita quinquiesperforata; length-weight relationship, condition factor, and Sclerodactyla briareus; fishes- Fundulus majalis; growth of juvenile red drum, SciaenoDs ocellatus, in Menticirrhus americanus; Lagodon rhomboides; Louisiana. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 104(1): 35-45. Opsanus tau, Trachinotus carolinus; and Trinectes maculatus (Boothby and Avault 1971; Miles 1949; Beaumariage, D. S. 1969. Returns from the 1965 Overstreet and Heard 1978; Pearson 1929). Isopods, Schlitz tagging program including a cumulative bivalve siphons, bivalves, and a marsh rat have also analysis of previous results. St. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., been reported from stomach contents, but these Tech. Ser. No. 59. items have never been abundant (Pearson 1929; Peters and McMichael 1987). Benson, N. G., (editor). 1982. Life history requirements of selected finfish and shellfish in Ecological Interactions and Notes Mississippi Sound and adjacent areas. U. S. Fish Several organisms are known to parasitize red drum Wildl. Serv., Off. Biol. Serv., FWS/OBS-81/51 .97 pp. possibly as a consequence of the diverse foods consumed (Overstreet 1983; Perret 1980; Yokel Bonin, R. E. 1977. Juvenile marine fishes of Harbor 1966). Known parasites include: Sporozoans- Island, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&M Univ., Hennequya ocellata; Trematodes- unidentified; College Station, TX. 109 pp. Cestodes- Poecilan cistrium robustum (known as spaghettiworm) infecting muscles andoften resulting Boothby, R. N. and J. W. Avault, Jr. 1971. Food in fish being discarded; Copepods- parasitized most habits, length-weight relationship, and condition factor heavily by this group, contains Brachiella qulosa, B. of the red drum (SciaenoDs ocellatus) in southeastern intermedia, Echetus typicus, Lernaeenicus radiatus, Louisiana. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 100(2): 290-295. Caliqus latifrons, C. repax, C. bonito, C. haemulonis, and Lernanthropus paenulatus; Isopods- Nerocila Breuer, J. P. 1957. An ecological survey of Baffin and sp. (Perret et al. 1980;Simmons 1957; Yokel 1966). Alazan Bays, Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 4(2): 134- 155. Barnacles, Balanus improvisus, are known to attach to the flanks of red drums (Overstreet 1983). Bryan, C. E. 1971. An ecological survey of the Arroyo Colorado, Texas 1966-1969. Tex. Parks and Wildl. References Dept., Tech. Ser. No. 10. 28 pp. Adkins, G., J. Tarver, P. Bowman, and B. Savoie. 1979. A study of the coastal finfish in coastal Cardeilhac, P. T., C. F. Simpson, F. H. White, N.P. Louisiana. La. Dept. Wildl. Fish. Tech. Bull. No. 29: Thompson, and W.E. Carr. 1981. Evidence for metal 87 pp. poisoning in acute deaths of large red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Anonymous. 1983. Texas biologists cross redfish 27: 639-644. and black drum. Mar. Fish. Rev. 45: 72. Christmas, J. Y. and R. S. Waller. 1973. Estuarine Arnold, C. R., W. H. Bailey, T. D. Williams, A. vertebrates, Mississippi, In: Christmas, J.Y. (editor) Johnson, and J. L. Lasswell. 1979. Laboratory Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and spawning and larval rearingof reddrumand southern study - Mississippi. Miss. Mar. Cons. Comm., Ocean flounder. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish Springs, Mississippi, pp. 320-434. Wildl. Agen. 31:437-440. 75 Red drum species profile, cont. Crocker, P. A., C. R. Arnold, J. A. DeBoer, and G.J. Heffernan, T. L. and R. J. Kemp. 1982. The conflicts Holt. 1983. Blood osmolality shift in juvenile red andcontroversies surrounding red drum and spotted drum, Sciaenoos ocellatus L. exposedtofresh water. seatrout. Mar. Rec. Fish. 7: 57-63. J. Fish Biol. 23: 315-319. Higgins, E., and R. Lord. 1926. Preliminary report on Crocker, P. A., C. R. Arnold, J. A. DeBoer, and J.D. the marine fisheries of Texas. Rep. U. S. Comm. Holt. 1981. Preliminary evaluation of survival and Fish. 1926: 167-199. growth of juvenile red drum (ciaenos oceliatus) in freshandsaltwater.WorldMaricultureSociety12(1): Hoese, H. D. and R. H. Moore. 1977. Fishes of the 122-134. Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX. 327 pp. Daniels, W. H., and E. H. Robinson. 1986. Protein and energy requirements of juvenile red drum Holt, G.J.,andC. R. Amold.1983. Effects of ammonia (Sciaeno ,s ocellatus). Aquaculture 53: 243-252. and nitrite on growth and survival of red dium eggs and larvae. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112: 314-318. Damell, R. M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an Holt, J., R. Godbout, and C. R. Amold. 1981a. Effects estuarine community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 5: 353- of temperature and salinity on egg hatching and 416. larval survival of red drum, Sciaenos wellatus. Fish. Bull., U. S. 79(3): 569-573. Diener, R. A., A. Inglis, and G. B. Adams. 1974. Stomach contents of fishes from Clear Lake and Holt, J., A. G.Johnson, C. R. Arnold, W. A. Fable, Jr., tributary waters, a Texas estuarine area. Contrib. and T. D. Williams. 1981 b. Description of eggs and Mar. Sci. 18: 7-17. larvae of laboratory reared red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus. Copeia 1981 (4): 752-756. Franks, J. S. 1970. An investigation of the fish population within the inland waters of Horn Island, Holt, S. A., C. L. Kitting, and C. R. Arnold. 1983. Mississippi, a barrier island in the northern Gulf of Distributionof young reddrums amongdifferent sea- Mexico. Gulf Res. Rep. 3(1): 3-104. grass meadows. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112: 267- 271. Guest, W. C. 1978. A note on courtship behavior and sound productionof red drum. Copeia 1978(2): 337- Johnson, J., W. A. Fable Jr., T. D. Williams, and C. 338. R. Arnold. 1977. Description of reared eggs and young larvae of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. Gunter, G. 1942. A list of the fishes of the mainland Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Fed. Aid Completion Rep., of North and Middle America recorded from both Prof. F-31-R. Austin, TX. Pp. 118-127. freshwater and sea water. Amer. Midi. Nat. 28(2): 305-326. Juneau Jr., C. L. 1975. An inventory and study of the Vermilion Bay-Atchafalaya Bay Complex. La. Wildl. Gunter, G. 1945. Studies on marine fishes of Texas. Fish. Comm., Tech. Bull. No. 13: 21-74. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 1(1): 1-190. King IlI, B.D. 1971. Study of migratory patterns of fish Gunter, G. 1956. A revised list of the euryhaline and shellfish through a natural pass. Tex. Parks fishesof NorthandMiddleAmerica.Amer. Midi. Nat. Wildl. Dept., Tech. Ser. No. 9., 54 pp. 56: 345-354. Knapp, F.T. 1949. Menhaden utilization in relation to Heffernan, T. L. 1973. Survey of adult red drum the conservation of food and game fishes of the (Sciaenopsocellatus).Tex. ParksWildl. Dept.,Coast. Texas Gulf coast. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 79: 137- Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep., pp. 37-66. 194. Heffeman, T. L. and R. J. Kemp. 1980. Management Lee, W. Y., G. J. Holt, and C. R. Arnold. 1984. Growth of the red drum resource in Texas. Proc. Red Drum of red drum larvae in the laboratory. Trans. Amer. and Seatrout Colloq. ln: Gulf States Mar. Fish Comm., Fish. Soc. 113: 243-246. pp. 71-80. Spec. Rep. No. 5. Lux, F. E. 1969. First record of the channel bass, Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus), in the Gu If of Maine. Copeia 1969(3): 632-633. 76 Red drum species profile, cont. Matlock, G. C. 1980. History and management of the Freeport, Texas, 1979-1981. NOAA Tech. Mem. red drum fishery. Proc. Red Drum and Seatrout NMFS-SEFC-69. 58 pp. Colloq. In: Gulf States Mar. Fish Comm., Spec. Rep. No. 5, pp. 37-53. Overstreet, R. M. 1983. Aspects of the biology of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, In: Miss. Gulf Res. Matlock, G. C. 1987. The role of hurricanes in Rep., Suppl. 1, pp. 45-68. determining year-class strength of red drum. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 30: 39-47. Overstreet, R. M. and R. W. Heard. 1978. Food of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, from Mississippi Matlock, G. C., J. E. Weaver, A. W. Green. 1977. Sound. Gulf Res. Rep. 6(2): 131-135. Trends in spotted seatrout and red drum abundance in Texas coastal waters influenced by commercial Pafford, J. M. 1981. Seasonal movement and netting activities. Proc. Annu. Conf. SoutheastAssoc. migration of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in Fish Wildl. Agen. 31: 477-483. Georgia's coastal waters. Estuaries 4(3): 279-280. Miles, D. W. 1949. A study of the food habits of the Pearson,J. C. 1929. Natural history and conservation fishes of the Aransas Bay area. Univ. Houston, of redfish and other commercial sciaenids on the Houston, TX. 70 pp. Texas coast. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. 44: 129-214. Miles, D. W. 1950. The life histories of the sea-trout, Perret, W. S., W. R. Latapie, J. F. Pollard, W. R. Cvnoscion nebulosus, and the redfish, Sciaenogs Mock. G. B. Adkins, W. J. Gaidry, and C. J. White. ocellatus. Sexual development. Tex. Game Fish 1971. Fishes and invertebrates collected intrawland Comm., Ann. Rep. Sept. 1, 1950 to Aug. 31, 1950. seinesamplesinLouisianaestuaries, ln:Cooperative Rockport, TX. Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and study. Louisiana. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm., New Orleans, LA. Minello, T. J. and R. J. Zimmerman. 1983. Fish 41-105. predation on juvenile brown shrimp, Penaeus azecus Ives: The effect of simulated Spartina structure on Perret, W. S., J. E. Weaver, R. Q. Williams, P. L. predation sites. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 72:211-231. Johansen, T. D. Mcllwan, R. C. Raulerson, W. M. Tatum. 1980. Fishery profiles of red drum and spotted Moe Jr., M. A. 1972. Movement and migration of seatrout. Gulf St. Mar. Fish. Comm., 60 pp. south Florida fishes. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Tech. Ser. No. 69: 1-25. Peters, K. M. and R. H. McMichael, Jr. 1987. Early life history of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Pisces: Neff, J. M., M. P. Coglianese, A. Reitsema, S. Sciaenidae), in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries 10(2): Anderson, and W. McCulloch. 1982. Brine toxicity 92-107. bioassays on redfish. Vol. V (Pt. A). In: Jackson, W. B. (editor). Shrimpand redfish studies; Bryan Mound Reid, G. K., A. Inglis, and H. D. Hoese. 1956. brine disposal site off Freeport, Texas, 1979-1981. Summer foods of some fish species in East Bay, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFC-69. 82 pp. Texas. Southwest Nat. 1(3): 100-104. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1986. Final Reid Jr., G. K. 1955. A summer study of the biology secretarial fishery management plan, regulatory and ecology of East Bay, Texas: Pt. II. Tex. J. Sci. 7: impact review, regulatory flexibility analysis for the 430-453. red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. December 1986. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Ross, J. L., J. S. Pavela, and M. E. Chittenden, Jr. Admin., U. S. Dept. Comm. 104 pp. 1983. Seasonaloccurrence of black drum, Pogonias cromis and red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, off Texas. Osburn, H.R., G.C. Matlock, and A.W. Green. 1982. Northeast Gulf Sci. 6(1): 67-70. Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) movement in Texas bays. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 25: 885-97. Simmons, E. G. 1957. An ecological survey of the upper Laguna Madre of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Owens, D. W., K. A. Jones, and B. J. Gallaway. 1982. 4(2): 156-200. Brine avoidance/attraction bioassays on redfish. Vol. V (Pt. B). In: Jackson, W.B. (editor). Shrimp and redfish studies; Bryan Mound brine disposal sites off 77 Red drum species profile, cont. Simmons, E. G. and J. P. Breuer. 1962. A study of redfish, Sciaenops ocellatus Linnaeus and black drum, Poonias cromis Linnaeus. Pubi. Inst. Mar. Sci. 8: 189-211. Simmons, E. G., and H. D. Hoese. 1959. Studies on the hydrography and fish migrations of Cedar Bayou, a natural tidal inlet on the central Texas coast. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 6: 56-80. Swingle, H. A. 1971. Biology of Alabama estuarine areas-cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory. Ala. Res. Bull. No. 5: 1-123. Swingle, W., T. Leary, C. Davis, V. Blomo, W. Tatum, M. Murphy, R. Taylor, G. Adkins, T. Mcllwain, and G. Matlock. 1984. Fishery profile of red drum. Gulf of Mexico Fish. Mgt. Coun. and Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. 74 pp. Tarver, J. W. and L. B. Savoie. 1976. An inventory and study of the Lake Pontchartrain-Lake Maurepas estuarine complex. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm., Tech. Bull. No. 19: 1-159. Vetter, R. D., R. E. Hodson, and C. R. Arnold. 1983. Energy metabolism in a rapidly developing marine fish egg, the red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 627-634. Ward, G. H. and N. E. Armstrong. 1980. Matagorda Bay, Texas: its hydrography, ecology and fishery resources. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog., Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81/52. 230 pp. Welsh, W. W. and C. M. Breder, Jr. 1924. Contributions to life histories of Sciaenidae of the eastern United States Coast. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. 39: 141-201. Yokel, B. J. 1966. A contribution to the biology and distribution of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, M. S. Thesis, Univ. Miami. 161 pp. Zimmerman, R. J. 1969. An ecological study of the macro-fauna occurring in turtle grass (Thaiassia testudinum Konig) surrounding Ransom Island in Redfish Bay, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, TX., 129 pp. 78 Red drum - Galveston Bay data sheet SCIENTIFIC NAME: Sciaenops ocellatus REGION: Gulf of Mexico COMMON NAME: Red drum STATE: Texas ESTUARY NAME: Galveston Bay INVESTIGATOR: Tom Czapla SALINITY LIFE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE ZONE STAGE BY MONTH J F M A M J J A S O N D R ADULTS n. .. ' . g 2 SPAWNING 1 TIDAL FRESH JUVENILES - ________ 2 0.0 - 0.5 ppt LARVAE 1 EGGS 1 ADULTS X. 2 MIXING SPAWNING 1 0.5 - 25.0 ppt JUVENILES 2 LARVAE 1 EGGS 1 ADULTS 2 SPAWNING 3 SEAWATER2 25.0 ppt JUVENILES _ __ 2 LARVAE 2 EGGS 3 Peaks: Juveniles peak in fall Legend: Relative Abundance: Data Reliability (R): = Not Present 1 = Highly Certain -II***I����1 ..= No Data 2 = Moderately Certain go]= Rare 3= Reasonable Inference _= Common -_= Abundant II = Highly Abundant 79 A. Baxter, K. N. National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston B. Benefield, R. L. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Seabrook C. Bryan, C. E., III Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin D. Campbell, P. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Rockport E. Chaney, A. Texas A&l University, Kingsville F. Clark, J. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin G. Dailey, J. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Palacios H. Dansby, B. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Brownsville I. Edwards, R. Pan Am University, Edinburg J. Forsythe, J. Marine Biomedical Institute, Galveston K. Fuls, B. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Flour Bluff L. Green, L. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Rockport M. Hildebrand, H. H. Flour Bluff, TX N. LeBlanc, C. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Port Arthur 0. Mambretti, J. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Port Arthur P. Martin, J. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Flour Bluff Q. Marwitz, S. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Port O'Conner R. Meador, K. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Rockport S. Rice, K. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Brownsville T. Sheridan, P. F. National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston U. Trimm, D. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Seabrook V. Tunnell, J. Corpus Christi State University, Corpus Christi W. Wagner, T. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Port O'Conner X. Weixelman, M. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Palacios Y. Wood, C. Texas A&l University, Kingsville Z. Zimmerman, R. J. National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston 80 Scdentiflo/Common Name Sabine Lake American nter Hadclam Laoqii &r fbreml 350; N, 0 Sav sauld Pansaew aziacus 127,150,207,24Z 248,247.350, 368; N, 0 Brown shrlmD Pans au duorarum 127,150.242,248,247; N, 0 Pink shrimo Penas GABssnIAMN 126,127,150,207,242, 248,247,350,352,368; N, 0 White ahdmo alilnacssapldue 1~26,127,242.273 36 ,368 .. .. ..... Blue~~~~~~~~~. .....crab.... ..................... CmunsacM: t..... Bull~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .....ha.r.k. .. .... Aaaashadk . . . ...... Rraevofllspsfrnus: 242,313,349; N. 0 Gulf'menhaden Duamrsom capedianuin 349; N. 0 Gintard shad Cypetnckmn vdagahe 34;N0 Sheecaheed~~~~~~~~~~.. .....nnow.. FWI~~~~~~lcw~~~~~~es~...... . . . ; ... Mernffla species N, 0 Atliantic siversides COnanpanus undealmatle N, 0 Snook Pomstcnwg salfair'tx 349; N, 0 Bluefish Cara=s hippos 349; N, 0 Crevaile lack . ..... ...... Sheegahead XX X Bardaldlal cuysoura N, 0 Silver Parch Gynosclon warnawdr 126,242,313,349; N, 0 Sand seatrout Cynascion nabuloaus 126,242,313,349; N, 0 Soolted seatroul L.aketomus xanrhurus 24Z,313,349; N, 0 Soot -Alianto coaker Pogontaecroe* 126,2423, %*AO49......... * Bl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ack drumi.. . Slaancpmocailatcs~ ~ 9,2243.49N0 baol m 42msm.u..... N,. * ~~~~~~~~Code oobv Scombarononar Maswtskjs 24Z,349; N, 0 Soanish mackerel Paralid hys albigulta N, 0 Gulf flounder Pfaratidthys lathaedgma 24Z,313,349; N, 0 southern flounder Numbers correspond to references listed in the Uiterature Cited section, pp. 90 - 107 Letters correspond to individuals listed in the Personal Communications section, p. 80. 81 Appendix 6, continued. Personal communications arnd primary references. ScientificCommon Name Galveston Say American miter2 14 1.46 Bangle amuse 5,1.1M91,210,25,299.334,8, U, ..... Marroarb spadr St 174,180,241:,2008334; ,U Lotlygunculs brevs a , 51,Be. 158,154,210.241,258,299, 3D6,334; B,U, J Sm iould PMWtae aztecz 1, 5,13,14,19-21, 54-56,76,82,85,126-128,191-194, 203,207,237,238,241-244, Brown ihtlnrn 240-260. 292. 298. 299. 301. 303. 306. 310. 334. 356. 359. 360. 369. 371.8373: A. S. U POnaeW duolruma 19-21, 76,127,128,203,237.241, 242,246-260,334,356, 380:A, B, U Pink alirmo PanaeuwaedleNus 1, 5, 8,10, 14,19-21,55,56,78, 77,82,85,107,126-128,178,191-194,203,207,210, White shdmo 237. 241-244.240-260.296.299.301.303.306.310.332.334. 356.360.369.372: A.B. U Menw~~~~~edkm ~~~85, 162 ..4 ..1 .58 299 ....8, Cflbwctespldue 35,8,10,1,20,2, 56,81,873,2,85,4112, 2S-284M 191-198,910, 241, 24X2,25 Afegalops adianftu 291; S. U Taroon Alosa alasbama. B, U Alabama shiad Bevomrapauarrus 5,8,10,15,56,82,85,93,109, 113,114,156,175,178,191-193,204,205,210,236, Gulf menhaden 240-242.258.291. 298.300.3MS. 306.308.310.313.829: B. U Domeoms copedfnum , 5,3,56, 82, 85,114, 204, 210, 241, 258, 291, 298. 300, 305, 306, 308, 310, 329:9, U Gizzard shiad Nerritead etfie 306.08.21; 81329.330.831: .U qFldhonMvaflegAw...;a tO,: 56. 82. 85,14,190:,192204 212,213, 2fl,258,291,298;-S 30036,36,10: ~:: ::X: . ::::: .1 a Ltieeoh minnw 3942.U Ftmdukagrandk~~~ a.M8 .468,02,190122421"8 91.298,3~0, i306,308,1032% 5342 B~:. U Marddlle peclal 2,5, 8, 5682, 102,113,178,192,241, 258.305,308,310,329; B, U Atwlani iiiversides Cenfropornw undecimalis 241; S. U Snook PcenaJMMIwsa Mul 8, 204, 258, 291,8300, 310; B, U Blueflis cisnar hlppas 8,15,85,114,156,204,205,241,258, 291, 298,300,305,308,329:98, U Crevaile lack P~~hbbo~~~~acen ~ ~ ~ cidc:a 6,114126,258,2.. ..... .....1.. .... ~Aw~hngas;pmatplziua 5ae-., Pr-,33-3,S 114,126,156,20%M , N2102520222829202820 Sheeosheed 298.300.305.306.3031 0.313 329.351,.35t . Pftfl 310. IM3M3.329t........ ftdefrtul diqoysra S . 85,102,114,156.204,205,241,258,291, 298,300,305-308,310,329: B. U Silveroaerdh CynOscion arenedus 5,8,15,17,56,82,85,93,102,113,114,126,156,178,192,2D4,205,210,.240)-242, Sand seekrout 258.261.288.291.298.300.305-30. 313.329-331: B. U cynoscion nebutasw 5,8,9,32,35-38,56,93,94.102,114,126,156,190, 191,205,210,215,216,240-242, S~ooled seatrou 268. 269. 270. 288. 290. 291. 298.300. 305. 306. 308. 310.313. 329. 351. 352:9B. U Lelforms txanthunis 2S,5,,15,56,82,85,93,102,113,114,156,l178,190,191,204,205,210,240-242,- Soot 258. 291.300.306.308-610.313.329-331:1B. U A~lazwogwtla wsdufa~us 5,80,15,3256,.85,9310,104I,�1t�,20,s,9ol g4, 205,M 210,:236,.:M~ Atlantic ~ ~ ~ :: a'ew24-4. 258 288.90291:.298.300.305.-310.311329-931.3M51, .352.365:9, U. paahs crumba ~i~ 5 68,32,SO3538,685,3,02114,12e,14%11 190,191,2425202526202 lRed'drum :xw 240-2141.258269.270.28-9.983 38310'.311 329.3M1.352.2383 a 11 Mugifeeph~~~ ~ ~~~~~AZ 2,,,68,59,141,2,5,7811,90,191,204, 208,210,241,242,258, Gil~~ed mullet 291.298. 300,30SM0. 310D. 31 3. 32tLU Gobbasome robusturn 11 4,204, 241, 258. 291:9, U Code noby &combwuamonua maaflatus 204, 24Z,258,291, 305,31 0;S. U Sweish mackerel Paralhtdhys albiguthR 85, 114, 178, 229241,291; B, U Gulf flounder Pfarahldfhystledwaslgma S.,8,32. 35-38, 82, 85, 93,102,114, 156,190I-192,1 0. 215, 216, 229, 240-242Z 258, Southern flounder 263. 269.270.288.290.291, 298.300. 305-308.310.313.329.346.351. 352:9S. U Numbers correspond to references listed in fth Uterature Cited sectilon, pp. 90 - 107 Letters correspond to individuals listed in the Personal Communications section, p.80o. 82 Appendix 8, continued. Personal communications and primary references. Scienflfic(Common Name Brazos River Arr4*CI4R... . . . ....... Ot~n Common~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~. .... ....... Vs~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...ci .1.... Lottiguccia bray! 51,*194 Saw scuid Panaeucs aztecus 55,194 Brown shrimD Ponas" duoranurn 194 Pink ShriM Penaeus setitena 63,55,194 While shrimp Pfse~wspo1 Gras elitists :2:~~.>: :..: Gutratone~~~~~~~~~~~.... .. ....b. Alabashad MtuOWt nnS 6, 194 Gulf menhaden Dwmmcmna cepedianum 6,194 Gizzard shad MOMs 0001.. ...... Ftmduhxarandk .:.09 . -Gul~f iillsh: .:. ...:... ..... Msnidaf Species 19.4 Atlantic aliversides Cenfmponnuw undeermais Snook Pwnatornus sa~faifl 194 Bluefish Cfaran NppirP 194 Cirevaile lack 7051*105W~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... ..tth ...194. . . .......... ..... el"rd ........e..... Luparus~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .............. ...... ..... Grew~~~~~. ..s..n...a...n...e...r. Arlmsaguspnawcspha. .1....9...4 . . . . X....... GM:Sheeo-%a-.l....... Lngoan~~~~~~.... ......kls . ... .......... Pintlsh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ..... ...... .. .... Beirdtet~~ W .....u ..........94.... eioabtdMa xanfhurus8 194 ASlhwi cakerc Cynsonl as cramue 1G4, 335 Scyanopsci atblasus 619431 Radcfrum~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2.> �. ::.... .... Muglicephak~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. .. ~. .14:* Scanberamorus maculatus 194 Swaish mackerel Parafithtrs aMbigul Gulf flounder Paralfdmys lthaftfra 194 Southern flounder Numbers correspond to references listed in the Literature Cited section, pp. 90 - 107 Letters correspond to indivduals listed In the Personal Communications section, p. So. 83 Appendix 6, continued. Personal communications and primary references. ScientillcCommon Name Matagorda Bay L aned n wse -I0 1c .. .1 flangi~~~~~~~~ . ...... .tnt . . .. v . .. . . Loifigunwe be"* 5,51, 68,98,99,163, 275; G. X Say sould F'enaewaztecus 5, 119-21,55, 98-100, 127, 128, 193, 198, 207,237.242,246,248,249,251-257,259, Brown shrimp 260.275.277-279.301.361:6G. X Penaaw duwranmi 20,21. 98,127,237.242,248,248,249,251-257,259.260. 275,277-279:, G.X Pink shrlmo Panaae a edrt, 5, 19-21, 55, 98, 100, 126-128, 193,198. 207, 237, 242, 246, 248, 249, 251-257. 259, White shrlmo 280. 275. 277-279. 301. 361:0G. X Pdaenenelmpuajo~~~~~~~~x W,.7. ..6,X......... *Ga,~~aMuw Mrs ~~ 116;6,1.,G XK...... Megalcpa nanhleu 228:6, Tamaon Aloes aiabamae G , X Alabama shad Br~aso fpalmnuw 5,93,97,99,208,240,24Z 275,313,361.364,G. X Gulf menhaden Daweama Cepedlanum 97.99, 208, 275:6G, X Gizzard shad en~~~~~~2 -G Metes fl240,24z276,w~.... ........ .::Sheecaheed mIr .no... Menhi~~a apecis 97,99, 208, 275; G, X Atlantlc sllversidas CenbcpOmntm wdeckmaba 6, X Snook Plamealmw esaufta 275. G. X Bluefish Cwanwh4cpoe 97,208, 275; G, X Crvavle lack T0Wtb~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AkSite,; .a .u . .. . I......... Flofldauontaeno~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... LilrpJB~~~~.. ......... Awhlua~~~~wbafoowhaka ~M~ 3234,3 9,2,9,208, 215,2 242, 263,N 27,27288, 29,.313 351;I) rhO viiboldes 9%3.97,99, 208,20,2.,2. ...... Bahdwlaholo usouma 97,2D8, 275; G, X sl~ver nerch cynoacionranadw 5, 93,97,99,125,198.208,240,24Z,275,288,290,313; G, X Send seatrnul QoCkn nebulo"u 5, 32,35-38,93,94,97,99,126,198.206,208, 215,216,240, 24Z,263.275,276, 288, Spotted seetrout 290.313.351. 361. 364:6G. X LOW1omwsXanthufus 5,93,97,198,208,240,242,275,313,361,364; G, X Spot D~h~vpogo~u utte~s 93; 27.:99,426, 198,:208, 240,242,275,288,29,13.351.381,~384,:0, X 3Z '78, 103,94.971219 216,10.$240, 2 262, 27978.6.2f:9Q,03 Sciercpaoewrs 5, ~4 35-38,3,94,97,9,125,14 .982_08215,~216.230 231, 234,246, 242,26, Red dan2M-:27%'288290.3 13.33& 351.381. 364:. ~X ...... ~ 5 f3 t 9,.8,26208,242,275,:313,:361,364; ,GX Stipned mullet-.. . .... Goblboama mfbustum, 97,208,275; G, X Code ooby SconMbevovww MaUINAw 97, 208, 242, 275; G, X Soanish mackerel Paralikhihys alhgutla 229; G, X Gulf flounder Paraildflhys etMflgma 5, 32, 35-38, 93, 97, 99,198. 206, 208, 215, 216, 229, 240, 24Z,263, 275, 276. 288, 290, Southern flounder 313.351.a3ei. 364:6G. X Numbers correspond to references listed in the Literature Cited section, pp. 90 - 107 Letters correspond to individuals listed in the Personal Communications section, p. SO. 84 Appendix 6, continued. Personal communications and primary references. ScientiicCommon Name San Antonio Say ,Aucwedw* kffladans~i RW 29Q~ W awsree vbpb~~~~I 1: 58,80,65,6971,126,~1 28,143.15S7,161,16 16,6-6,20292 294, Ren10-111 brew s 5.5,141,210, 3;230, W Brown f~shrim 2 951527, 592930.31; W Pcllgduamuma breve ,58,1532815201; 3,4 04,2 8 4 9 5 1 575,2031,W Pinkshrimp Penaeunzteasbe 5, 19-21,158, 64.70, 75. 127.128, 140, 157.,201, 207, 210,237, 239,.24924,240a, 2 Brown shrimp 249, 251-257. 259. 260. 301: 0. W Pelaeraietespugie :5, r 83210, 239,1 0, W:~: S~~eomo~ ~ Me gaiaing affandcus W. mi,:0, W Tarpon Al=n alAbamae a , W Alabama shad &arvoorolpaworru 5, 5% 93,210,240,242,313, 0, W Gulf menhaden Dorosoma caepdlwrum 58, 59,210; 0, W Gizzard shad AflueISkt) 5,59,5B,93,1714M0,22 W1,390 Hardhead~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ....cat....fi........sh.... .... :.Gulf Idlilfis Mer~dia spades 5158.59,121, 21 0;0, W Atlantic sitverskles Conaupomws undadmails 59: 0, W Snook Panawnrms sallafrix 0, W Bluefish Caranux hippos A 8121; 0, W Crevele lack Lvi jnnts rkems 58a, W. Lagcrdonrhombadw ~ ~ ~ 41 55,9.6,7831,240,242,31~33;0, Ww~ PII~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... . Bal/dsield chOryso 58,121,157,339; 0, W sliver perch Gy"cscbl aranlarius 5, 58, 59, 93,157,210, 240, 242, 288, 290. 313, 339; 0, W Sand seatrout cynoscidn nebukiasta 5,32,35,36,38,59, 62,67, 72,93,121,126,157,201, 210,215, 216,240, 249, 288, Spotted seatrout 290.313. 339.- 351: 0. W LOAMIUmusxanlhunu S.,58,59,62,67,93, 121,157,210,240,242,313,339:O, 0.W spot Atmpogoetmtmdulal 5,32,5859,62,6 7,93, 121, 157,:210,240, 24 2,29 290,:313,3, 5;0 Allantlacrmeker' Poganim crank ~ ~ ' 53388599.62,Z67,72,78.93,121,16201,10,252620,2228 Black drum ~290,313.3M. 339.351:0 tOW. Sawncpieov~~~~~lkftw" Vn3-8,%6,7,28-5, g,16 149. 201,13 216, 231, 240, 242, 286290, Rod drum ~~~~~313,M33839443:0. .... A~~agffcqrha~~~~u 51,.58593. 93,10121,126,1$7, 21 0,24,13 W Gobkoomen robustum 210:0, W Code caby Scomberamana, maculalua 59,242, 0, W Spanishi mackerel Parallohlhys albulia 201, 229: 0, W Gulf flounder Parallchrhys lethcdgma 5, 32,37,38,58,59,62,67. 71,93,121, 157,201,210, 215, 216,229,240, 242, 288,290, Souflierri flounder 313.339,351: 0. W Numbers correspond to references listed in the Uterature Cited section, pp. 90 - 107 Letters correspond to individuals listed in the Personal Communications section, p. 80. Appendix 6, continued. Personal communications and primary references. Scientifict~ommon Name Aransas Say Argopecten Inud~~~m 163 293 l371 0 3, ,R : 3ricalc Water - LcdlgUnWAR breVi 5.84,12D, 148,153,169,314: , Bev sauld PenUsage"ate 5,19-21.80. 81,864, U. 111,117.120.125,127,128, NO.,147,148,159,193, Brown shdimo 207.237. 242.248. 248.249.251-257.259.20. 296.301. 319.322.325: 0. R P'saeisw duornrum 19.21, 84,38,111,120,127,128,148,159,180,193,237.24 246,248,249, Pink shdmpn 251-257. 259.290.319.322.325.370:OD. R Pmnaeues $tferus 5,19-21.51,111,117,120.126-128,141,147,148,159,190,207, 237,242,248, While shrimpe 248. 249. 251-257.258.260. 296. 301. 319. 322.325.370:0D. R Gras rabit ::..ane wee Ce'ckithue~~~~~~~~~~~tras47. 4 12 118,148 I8 M26 3700,L, 99Afsgadapahngos I A 8,347;0D.R TaOort Abrea aiabamae D . R Alabama shad filevortapahroru 4,5.25.84,127,117,118,147,158, 159. 240, 242. 311, 313, 314:0D, H Gulf menhaden DOMMwOnacspedanum 118, 125,147,148,311,314:D. R Gizard shad 4,5,23118,12,122,47,148 5,5,8,226 311,370;!), R C~~qw~i~mvalsgaas 23,8,11$,12j, 12,4. 48,12,13,11,3432!,F Funduils~~~~~~~e gun 23181217tos134,42;o 5. . . .*2 . hand:ftClllsh: Menidle specSB 45,523,117,118,121,122,125,147,148,158.160,182,311.314,370; 0, R Atlantic sliverfldas Cenlicpomwru undeclnall 347; D, R Pbnualaernsalleft 84,118,158,314.347; 0, R Bluefish Caranx hippos 84,118,121, 147,158,347.370 D, R Cravelna lack Tradikwhnrcam~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iws~~~~ . . 8 .f ......8......R. Sheecohead 3lt 314.818.320M-.323514.70; D. R. ... SairdisiJa duysoura 4,28,25,84, 117.118,121,125.147,148,158,160. 177,182,258,314, -giver Derch 326,370:0. D.H cynoscida arenarlu 4.5,84,90.117,118,126,158.240, 242.268.288,290,313,314,326,370:0. D, Sand seatroul �'ynoucbtnhwbulus 4,5,23,32,35-38.49,84,93,117,vI18, 121,125,147.148, 177,182,215,216,240, Scoffed seatrout 242,268.288.290. 295.297.313. 314,318,320. 328, 327.347.351, 3700. D.H Lehxstomus xaniuru 4.5,23,90,117,118,121,125,147,148, 158-16, 182.240,242,268,313,314. Soot 3700D. R fdavpgonlsundlabj 4,5,23,2,3Z 4,93118,122125126,147,148,15j8,159182240,242,268,.. Atlanifo c~oaker 288.290:296.323.3.26311.35.70:0MR..... Pogmtlmuo~k 4,,25,32,5-38,7893,117117,4121 261714,1821 216204, Btackdrum ~ ~ ~ "Z22 282031.3440333633,5.7:) R 0 Atgicaphaks' 45238,,181T1812,2121418160,242,257,268,i $1,313, Gobbwnoa roust urn, 4-28,158,160, 182-184,314,370; D. R Code oobv Scornbermornons mawulatus 84,118.158,242,268,312,326,347,370;0 D. Soanish mackerel Paralldtthyealblgufa 4', 23, 118, 158,1I82,229,268,354:0 D.H Gulf flounder Pafrahlk"h Iethcsnlgma 4'. 5, 23,'25,Z 32,5-37,84.93, 118,121,148,160, 182,215,216,229,240),242,268. Southern flounder 288. 290. 313. 314. 318. 320. 323. 326. 340, 351. 354. 370: 0. R Numbers correspond to references listed in the Uiterature Cited section, pp. 90 -107 Letters correspond to individuals listed in thle Personal Communications section, p. 80. Appendix 6, continued. Personal communications and primary references. Scientific/Common Name Corpus Chuisti Bay Augopedtm beans0 180. 7,371: K CAI~usssue *hta 5 .484,128,5,163,15928,2,314; K BeCouldmnttl Poneawlula durevm 2,24,84,84129,153,17,588, 1 ,1,,237142 46:2 K4 Pink shrinma 251-257.259. 260. 301. 370:, K Penaew sedfwis 5, 20. 21, 24, 51, 111,126, 127, 128, 129, 151,.159,.207. 220, 221,225, 237, White shrime 2421 246. 248. 249. 251-257. 258. 260. 301. 370: K _ ___ caecressqnie X.X 80212,16,,4271812%1151,1800178,2117,j224.227,242,27. Megallws adant kW 370: K Tarnon Al~oes sasi'nse K Alabama shad &uW~tssr&Pq& 4.5.25,84,93.151,158,159.195,240,242,313. 314,.K Gulf menhaden Dormsomscsipedkinum, 314: K Gizzard shad ... . (elk 8,2484,9% 128,~~50 158,96 248,242, 31,31436 370 K Haritheada q~~~~~~v~~~~~tatmvaflagaas~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ........12,31,32; Sheaushead~ ~ ~~~8 m -2.4Ano..... no:noo..k. T4DchhfltEWc 1t 4 ,3122125,126,5,16, 158, 314,30 K Ftloand lomerside Luonfmmus uleadmali 15347; K Sheeamssheed~ 8 4.124�1586.20. 31414 3231370: K Bluefishi343630 Off" 111AdWyOw 24,234,25.8347,123 5817,8,9534,2,30 Sivlver elack Cynosclcarensfl. ......,8.,....6,..9..8 ....1.5........28....,3.....4..6..3.0.. Sand~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ........a............. rigclnsbls . ,,33,53,88,3151619 i.i, 17,1220 1526,1,23 Pogonlascmmk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 35`& 4,5,,:~25, 32,,3,238,38, 7, 93,126.19,158 215, 20 2141, 22 % :226,4,4228 BarMft diph - 4,,23,244,25, 108.125,IA17128129,11,$,6195,314,326341,370. K Code oobvh Pnllduffhys albigrutt, 4,,284,3, 212,15 8,180152022,28%29031,31432,7; K Gulfdflounder Pynsrslln nlhysletuhslin 4'.5,723-2 5328-38,49. 4,9312,129,147,160,17182,9,206, 215,218,218, 223. Soufted sftounde 226.229240. 242. 295.297. 313.314. 327. 347.351.354370: K Lebtters corepndu 4o 5individua25129 liste In 58he 0 Pesoa Comnctons 195ction4, 2p. 290. 30 SDOI~ ~~~~~~~8 Appendix 6, continued. Personal communications and primary references. ScienglfWcCommon Name Laguna Madre Arpopscn mkrakw 29,57,3116:1-1,8, V-..... Bay~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... . .. ...o.. Qnaflea *phta 28,2% 9,48; 50,128,127,143 16318, IS 118625,294,337;I, S Mercenalseper~ 28, 29.174;ljL4.V Lo~uc~lllwmulaet 5,29,29,39,57r. 152,153,328,33?; H, 8, V Say sauld Pwmew! aaczicre 5,19-21,28.29,39,43,45, 50,57,111,127.149.132.134,136, 152,185,188,193, Brown ahrmp 207. 237. 242. 248. 248, 249. 251-257. 259. 260. 285. 296. 301. 336. 353: K S. V Pendus duwrarm 19. 20.21,29,43,45.111,127,128,132,'134,1136.18S5,188,193, 237,242, 248, Pink shrimp , 248.240.261-267.250.260.285,301.3M536.36:H. S. V Perawasu etliws 5 19, 20,21,26,29,39,43.45,50,111,127 128,132,134.136.152 , 185,88 193. While shrImpo 207.237.242. 246. 248,249. 251-257. 259. 260. 285. 301. 328.336.353: H. S. V Phluwmewtnpugb ~ a, 43' 1,52',263,35H,8V Oat Oct~~~~. .....S 5,62,8,93 3, 45,50,81, 88, 3127,126,~ 1130 a..13.,1...1...152..8 Blue: asA19242'.11Z M273.288.2 328.336. W7: H. S Megyalop attentikus 29, 50,336; HK IS Tarpon Akxa atabwame M 4.18S Alabama shaed Bmiwhftpafronus 5,20,39, 43. 45'. 50,57,93,162,180. 240.242,313,328,336;H,1. LS Gulf menhaden Dormsoma capedianum 29.45,5% 130,152,315, 336; H, 1,8S Ginawd shad .........5303946506? 101280.315,28A6,371f 1, Cw~~~~~fln ~ ~ fi 211n 2W,43.50,57123,1%W 15,12 18M1638 -,33343371. Sheecaheed~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... ..m...... ....o... Fwt~~~~~~~~~~~uwS 2% 43~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 5. P . 18.36. 2;tSQ:........ M~ant d species 123,150.15p,'180. 313.328,3MO; H. 1,8 Atlantic silversidee Conal'pamufa undoclmalls 337; H. k S Snook Fbannwmussaltarir 328, 336; H. 1, S Bluefish Carnx hippos 29, 39, 50,180,328.336; H, 1,8S Crevalle lack TjcbWM" CAMNrIUB: 428,180,2833 H, S .... ... Thddavvmpano~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........X ........ Lu~~~~~~~anusgrkaw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 2,10384.L.S.... .. .... Bakaef chly~a 293.,39 50,57 9,1%150,18524,18,01,328,338,;3H, 11,S Silver Derch Qwwscmarsffnadwu 5.30, 46, 50. 93.126. 130. 152, 180, 240, 242, 288,290, 313, 336, K. 1, S Sand seatrout Croscibnnebukeue S.28, 29. 30,32-48,50,57,93,126,130,133,137,139,160,152,180, 215.216,240 Spotted seatrmut 242. 288. 290. 313.328. 336. 337. 351: K. I S Letestomusmxanthuntw 93,130,139,150,1St 180,240,242,313,328,336; H. 1,83 spot Pogumniacavmis , 6,28-3941-48,50,3,12 Black drum 4t8.9W33383533.5:H . .Rdrum . .':215,2160 M, 230 :.21.2431:2,288. 290,313.315. 32& W,1938-K338 : . 3 . .... MLW#0ph~~~~s 5.2W,~0 939, 4.43% 57,;-93,.10812 130.13%50,:--152: 18. 24 2, 67, Mj3 Sruloedmuhet~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . 1.32.36.H........... Gablosoin robuslum 57 1 80; H, 1, 8 Code DOW Sooabemaon~sinmaculalus 29.30.50, 123,24Z,328;H K LS Spanish mackerel Parafichftss albigaut 29,150,229,336; H. 1.8S Gulf flounder Fafall idifs Iegmtrwima 5.28-30, 32-39,41-48.50,93, 126, 130,133.137, 150, 152, 180,215.216, 240, Southern flounder 242.288.290.313,336.351:. H. 1,8S Numbers correspond to references listed In the Uiterature Cited section, pp. 90 - 107 Letters correspond to individuals listed in the Personal Communications section, p. 80. Appendix 6, continued. Personal communications and primary references. ScndenlfcConimon Name Baffi Bay CrUst.A fn 28,7 10; 34P Ameown OSterD PHnuf dwarn m 3 0 Bronkshrima penaemg Bali Wuw 27,89, 210, 340; P White shflmD Palaeoroaeie poglo 210348;. .... AfenO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p~~~. s.n. . 9. ...P Bull sharkX- A118gak1* alariflams 27,89; P Tar~on Akmoakbfamas P Alabama shad Brevoormipaimunw 89, 110, 202, 210,340,358; P Gulf menhaden Daowsns cepedlsnum 27,89,1110,202, 340,358: P Gizzar shad ArluufO. i 27~ ~,87,891t:202 340,:358; P Gul:&f khllfish Mndaspecks. 27, 87. 89,105,106, 202,210, 340; P Atlantic sllversldes C9naopomuts uadecbnalk 27; P Snook Panmantmus aan P Blluefish caranx hio pe. 340,358; P crevelle lack Amttwamps pohatceptalr 89.3401 P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;r-PIhs Beiatwa civysoura 27, 89, 110, 202, 340, 358; P Silver Darch Q'noscion aranarfw 27. 89,110,340,358; P Sand asatrout cynnoscon nebukuus 27, 87, 89105, 1 06, I110,202,210, 340, 358; P Sooltad seatrout Lae, taints xandhunis 27, 89106,.106,110, 202, 210, 340, 358; P Soot Pogonte crown, i: i 27,87,89,90105,00 Illa j 2:0;2,Z 210,21 4,338 , 30358;PR Black drum~: Soteapntra: .2.7,8,%1022203%303438 Gabmowma mobustum 89; P Code oobv Scavnbwoinams inacaila P Soanlsh mackerel Paffilidithya a/biguUt 340; P Gulf flounder Paraiio'thya let hedfgina 27,87,89,110,202,210,340,358; P Southern flounder Numbers correspond to references listed in tihe Uterature Cited section, pp. 90 - 107 Letters correspond to individuals listed in the Personal Communications section, p. 80. 899 11. Baughman, J. L. 1947. Fishes not previously reported from Texas, with miscellaneous notes on other species. Copeia 1947: 280. 1. Aldrich, D. V., C. E. Wood and K. N. Baxter. 1969. An ecological interpretation of low temperature re- 12. Baughman, J. L. and S. Springer. 1950. Biologi- sponses in Penaeus aztecus and P. setiferus. Bull. cal and economic notes on the sharks of the Gulf of Mar. Sci. 18: 61-71. Mexico, with special referencetothose of Texas, and with a keyfortheir identification. Amer. Midi. Nat. 44: 2. Alexander, S. K. 1983. Summer diet offinfish 96-152 from nearshore habitats of West Bay, Texas. Tex. J. Sci. 35: 93-95. i. <35:93-95. g13. Baxter, K. N. 1962. Abundance of postlarval shrimp - one index of future shrimping success. 3. Alexander, S. K. 1986. Diet of the blue crab, Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst.15: 79-87. Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, from nearshore habi- tats of Galveston Island, Texas. Tex. J. Sci. 38:85- 14. Baxter, K. N. and W. C. Renfro. 1966. Seasonal 89. occurrence and size distribution of postlarval brown and white shrimp near Galveston, Texas, with notes 4. Allshouse W. C. 1983. The distbuton species identification. Fish. Bull., U. S. 66:149- immigrating larval and postlarval fishes into the 158. Aransas-Corpus Christi Bay complex. M. S. Thesis, Corpus Christi State Univ., Corpus Christi, Texas, 15. Bechtel, T. J. and B. J. Copeland. 1970. Fish 118 p. species diversity indices as indicators of pollution in Galveston Bay, Texas. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 15: 103- 5. Armstrong, N. E. 1987. The ecology of open-bay 132 bottoms of Texas: a community profile. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.12): 104 p. 16. Benefield, R. L. 1968. Survey of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus Rathbun) sport fishery of the 6. Armstrong, N. E. and A. Goldstein 1975. Deter- mination of effects of Dow Chemical Company dis- G alv eston Bay syst em, 1968. Tex. Parks Wild charge and organisms of the lower Brazos River Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1968: 35-44. charge and organisms of the lower Brazos River (Final Report Submitted to the Dow Chemical Coim- 17. Benefield, R. L. 1970. A study of sand seatrout pany, Texas Division, Freeport, TX). Center for of the Galveston Bay area. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Research in Water Resources, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1969 &1970: 217- TX. 225. 7. Arnold, C. R., W. H. Bailey, T. D. Williams, A. 18. Benefield, R. L. 1976. Shell dredging sedimen- Johnson and J. L. Lasswell. 1977. Laboratory tations in Galveston and San Antonio Bays 1964-69. spawning and larval rearing of red drum and south- Tex Parks Wildl Dept Tech. Ser. No. 19,34 p. ern flounder. Proc. SE Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agen. 31: 437-440. 19. Benefield, R. L. 1982. Studies of shrimp populations in selected coastal bays. I. Investigation 8. Arnold, E. L., Jr., R. S. Wheeler and K. N. Baxter. of brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) population of brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) populations in 1960. ObservationsonfishesandotherbiotaofEast Texas bays. II. Investigation of white shrimp (Pe- Lagoon, Galveston Island. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., naeussetifens) and pink shrimp (P. duoram) naeus setifers) and pink shrimp (P. duorarum) populations inTexas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. 9. Baker, W. B., Jr., G. C. Matlock, A. W. Green and Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 41:125 p. H. E. Hegen. 1986. Movement, growth and survival 20. Benefield, R. L., T. J. Cody, B. E. Fuls and P. C. of spotted seatrout tagged in Bastrop Bayou, Texas. Hammerschmidt. 1983 Monitoring of coastal shell- Contrib. Mar. Sci. 29: 91 -1 0.1. fish resources, January-December 1982. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., 10. Baldauf, R. J. 1970. A study of selected chemical and biological conditions of the lower Trin- ity River and upper Trinity Bay. Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX. 90 21. Benefield, R. L., P. C. Hammerschmidt, R. P. 31. Breuer, J. P. 1963b. Analysis of black drum Hofstetter and B. Bowling. 1986. Monitoring the harvest. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. coastal shellfishresourcesJanuary-December1984. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MF-M-4: Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Job No. 4; 7 p. Data Ser., No. 88: 130 p. 32. Breuer, J. P. 1964a. Coordination of coastwide 22. Bernard, H. A., C. F. Major, Jr., B. S. Parrott and fin-fish investigation project. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., R. J. LeBlanc, Sr. 1978. Recent Sediments of Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1963: 231-279. Southeast Texas: A Field Guide to the Brazos Allu- vial and Deltaic Plains and the Galveston Barrier 33. Breuer, J. P. 1964b. Population studies of the Island Complex. Bur. Econ. Geol., Univ. of Texas, sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of Austin, TX. the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1963: 387-401. 23. Bonin, R. E. 1977. Juvenile marine fishes of Harbor Island, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&M 34. Breuer, J. P. 1965a. Population studies of the Univ., College Station, TX, 109 pp. sports and commercial fin-fish of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, 24. Bradley, E. 1965. Populations of fin-fish on Proj. Rep 1964: 355-382. artificial shell reefs in the Corpus Christi Bay and upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., 35. Breuer, J. P. 1965b. Analysis of populations of Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1965: 87-96. sports and commercial fin-fish in the coastal bays of Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, 25. Bradley, E. and H. Compton. 1963. Survey of Proj. Rep 1965: 31-54. larval and post-larval fin-fish in Aransas and Corpus Christi Channels and in the inshore Gulf of Mexico. 36. Breuer, J. P. 1966. Analysis of populations of Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, sports and commercial fin-fish in the coastal bays of Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 6; Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept.,Coast. Fish. Branch, 7 p. Proj. Rep 1966:81-103. 26. Branstetter, S. G. 1986. Biological parameters 37. Breuer, J. P. 1967. Analysis of populations of of the sharks of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico in sports and commercial fin-fish in the coastal bays of relation to their potential as a commercial fishery Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, resource. Ph. D. Dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., Proj. Rep 1967: 61-76. College Station, TX, 138 p. 38. Breuer, J. P. 1968. Analysis of populations of 27. Breuer, J. P. 1957. An ecological survey of sports and commercial fin-fish in the coastal bays of Baffin and Alazan Bays, Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries 4: 134-155. Proj. Report 1968: 45-66. 28. Breuer, J. P. 1960. An ecological survey of the 39. Breuer, J. P. 1970a. A biological survey of the South Bay area, especially that area which was tidewater areas of the Rio Grande. Tex. Parks Wildl. influenced by Boca Chica Pass while it was open. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1969 & 1970: Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. 127-139. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M-9-D-5: Job No. G-1; 10 p. 40. Breuer, J. P. 1970b. A survey of spotted sea trout nursery areas of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. 29. Breuer, J. P. 1962. An ecological survey of the Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report lower Laguna Madre of Texas, 1953-1959. Publ. 1969 & 1970: 141-146. Inst. Mar. Sci. 8: 153-183. 41. Breuer, J. P. 1970c. Juvenile and adult food and 30. Breuer, J. P. 1963a. Population studies of the game fish of the Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1969 & 1970: the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Game and Fish 207-216. Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 12; 33 p. 42. Breuer, J.P. 1971a. Juvenile and adult food and game fish of the Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1971:125-134. 91 43. Breuer, J. P. 1971b. A survey of the North 55. Chamberlain, G. W. and A. L. Lawrence. 1983. Floodway system of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Reproductive activity and biochemical composition Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report of Penaeus setiferus and Penaeus aztecus in the 1971:93-105. Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M Univ. Sea Grant Publi- cation 84-203:1-35. 44. Breuer, J. P. 1972a. Juvenile and adult food and game fish of the Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. 56. Chambers, G. V. and A. K. Sparks. 1959. An Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1972: 78-92. ecological survey of the Houston ship channel and adjacent bays. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 6: 213-250. 45. Breuer, J. P. 1972b. Biological survey of the Brownsville Ship Channel. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., 57. Chaney, A. H. 1988. An analysis of the nekton Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1972:93-145. andplanktonaroundashoalgrassbedintheLaguna Madre of Texas. A Contract Study performed for 46. Breuer, J. P. 1973. A survey of the juvenile and Padre Island National Seashore, Texas A&l Univ., adult food and game fish of Laguna Madre, 1973. Kingsville, TX. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1973: 173-202. 58. Childress, R., E. Bradley, E. Hegen and S. Williamson. 1975. The effects of freshwater inflows 47. Breuer, J. P. 1974. Juvenile and adult food and on hydrological and biological parameters in the San game fish of the Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Antonio Bay System, Texas. Coast. Fish. Branch, Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1974:109-130. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Austin, TX. 48. Breuer, J. P. 1975. Biological studies in the 59. Childress, U. R. 1960a. Analysis of forage and lower Laguna Madre of Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. predator species. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Mar. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1975:158-196. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M-5-R-1: Job No. A-2; 11 p. 49. Brown-Peterson, N., P. Thomas and C. R. Arnold. 1988. Reproductive Biology of the spotted 60. Childress, U. R. 1960b. Survey of oyster reef seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, in South Texas. populations in San Antonio and Espiritu Santo Bays. Fish. Bull., U. S. 86: 373-388. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M-5-R-1: Job No. B-4; 5 50. Bryan, C. E. 1971. An ecological survey of the p. Arroyo Colorado, Texas 1966-1969. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 10:28 p. 61. Childress, U. R. 1963a. Coordinationoftheblue crab studies ofthe Texas coast. Tex. Game and Fish 51. Bryan, C. E. and T. J. Cody. 1975. White shrimp, Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Penaeus setiferus (Linneaus), spawning in the Gulf Proj. No. MC-R-1: Job No. 1; 15 p. of Mexico, 1973-1975. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1975: 36-42. 62. Childress, U. R. 1963b. Population studies of the sports and commercial fin-fish and forage spe- 52. Bulger, A. J., B. P. Hayden, M. E. Monaco, and cies of the San Antonio Bay system. Tex. Game and M. G. McCormack-Ray. 1989. Towards a biogeo- Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961- graphic estuarine salinity classification. U. S. Dept. 1962, Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 4; 13 p. of Commerce, NOAA, Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD. 63. Childress, U. R. 1963c. Population studiesof the blue crabs of the Espiritu Santo - San Antonio Bay 53. Cameron, J. N. 1969. Growth, respiratory system. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. metabolism and seasonal distribution of juvenile Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MC-R-1: pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides Linnaeus) in Redfish Job No. 4; 8 p. Bay, Texas. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 14: 19-36. 64. Childress, U. R. 1963d. Populations of juvenile 54. Carothers, P. E. and W. E. Grant. 1987. Fishery shrimp in the San Antonio Bay complex. Tex. Game management implications of recruitment seasonal- and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. ity: Simulation of the Texas fishery for brown shrimp, 1961-1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 5; 7 p. Penaeus aztecus. Ecol. Mod. 36: 239-268. 92 65. Childress, U. R. 1963e. Studyofoystergrowth 76. Chin, E. 1960. The bait shrimp fishery of and population structure in San Antonio and Espiritu Galveston Bay, Texas. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 89: Santo Bays. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. 135-141. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MO-R- 4: Job No. 8; 8 p. 76.1* Christmas, J. Y., L. N. Eleutreius, W. W. Langley, H. M. Perry and R. S. Waller. 1973. Phase 66. Childress, U. R. 1964a. Astudyofoystergrowth IV: Biology. In: J.Y. Christmas (editor). Cooperative and population structure in San Antonio and Espiritu Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Mis- Santo Bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. sissippi. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 213-221. Springs, Mississippi. 67. Childress, U. R. 1964b. Population studies of 77. Clark, S. H. and C. W. Caillouet, Jr. 1973. White the sports and commercial fin-fish and forage spe- shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) population trends in a cies of the San Antonio Bay system. Tex. Parks tidal marsh pond. Mar. Fish. Rev. 35: 27-39. Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 323-334. 78. Cody, T., K. W. Rice and C. E. Bryan. 1985. Distribution and gonadal development of black drum 68. Childress, U. R. 1 964c. Coordinationoftheblue in Texas gulf waters. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. crab studies of the Texas coast. Tex. Parks Wildl. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 72:16 p. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1963:515-529. 79. Colura, R. L. and A. F. Maciorowski. 1988. An 69. Childress, U. R. 1964d. Population studies of evalution of the collection of preovulatory females the blue crabs of the San Antonio - Espiritu Santo and hormone induced tank-spawningof spottedtrout. Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept.,Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 545-551. Data Ser., No. 144: 6 p. 70. Childress, U. R. 1964e. A study of populations 80. Compton, H. and E. Bradley. 1963. A study of of juvenile shrimp in the San Antonio Bay complex. the post-larval penaeid shrimp entering Aransas Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Bay. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Rep. 1963: 79-89. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 2; 9 p. 71. Childress, U. R. 1965a. Study of oyster growth and population structure in San Antonio and Espiritu 81. Compton, H. and E. Bradley. 1964. A study of Santo Bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. the post-larval penaeid shrimp entering Aransas Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 223-226. Bay. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 127-141. 72. Childress, U. R. 1965b. Population studies of thesportsandcommercialfin-fishoftheSanAntonio 82. Conner, J. V. and F. M. Truesdale. 1972. Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Ecological implications of a freshwater impound- Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 283-293. ment in a low-salinity marsh. Proceedings of the Coastal Marsh and Estuary Management Sympo- 73. Childress, U. R. 1965c. Coordination of the blue sium: 259-276. crab studies of the Texas coast. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 535- 83. Cooper, D. C. 1967. Ecological parameters 549. concerning the zooplankton community of the San Antonio Estuarine System. MAThesis, Univ. Texas, 74. Childress, U. R. 1965d. Population studies of Austin, TX, 124 p. the blue crabs of the San Antonio - Espiritu Santo Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. 84. Copeland, B. J. 1965. Fauna of the Aransas Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 589-594. Pass Inlet, Texas. I. Emigration as shown bytidetrap collections. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 10: 9-21. 75. Childress, U. R. 1965e. A study of the juvenile shrimp populations of the San Antonio Bay system. 85. Copeland, B. J. and E. G. Fruh. 1969. Ecological Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. studies of Galveston Bay, 1969. Final Report to Rep.1964: 89-96. Texas Water Ouality Board. 482 pp. 93 86. Copeland, B. J. and H. D. Hoese. 1966. Growth 97. Day, D. S. 1959a. Inventoryofvertebrateforms and mortality of the American oyster, Crassostrea present and relative abundance. Tex. Game and virginica, in high salinity shallow bays in central Fish Comm., MarineLaboratory Reports, 1959, Proj. Texas. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 11: 149-158. No. M-4-R-1: Job No. A-2; 7 p. 87. Copeland, B. J. and S. W. Nixon. 1974. Hyper- 98. Day, D. S. 1959b. Inventory of invertebrate saline Lagoons. In H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland and forms present with annotations on the commercial E. A. McMahon (editors), Coastal Ecological Sys- species of shrimp. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., tems of the United States. The Conservation Foun- Marine Laboratory Reports, 1959, Proj. No. M-4-R- dation, Washington, DC. 1:Job No. B-2; 5 p. 88. Copeland, B. J. and M. V. Truitt. 1966. Fauna 99. Day, D. S. 1960a. Inventoryof vertebrate forms of the Aransas Pass Inlet, Texas. II. Penaeid shrimp present and relative abundance. Tex. Game and postlarvae. Tex. J. Sci. 18: 65-74. Fish Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M-4-R-2: Job No. A-2; 5 p. 89. Cornelius, S. E. 1984a. An ecological surveyof Alazan Bay, Texas, Volume I. Caesar Kleberg 100. Day, D. S. 1960b. Inventory of invertebrate Wildlife Research Institute, Technical Bulletin No. 5, forms present with annotations. Tex. Game and Fish Texas A&I Univ., Kingsville 1: 1-163. Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M-4-R-2: Job No. B-2; 5 p. 90. Cornelius, S. E. 1984b. Contribution to the life history of black drum and analysis of the commercial 101. DeVlaming, V. L., A. Kuris and F. R. Parker Jr. fishery in Baffin Bay. Volume II. Caesar Kleberg 1978. Seasonal variation of reproduction and lipid Wildlife Research Institute, Technical Bulletin No. 6, reserves in some subtropical Cyprinodontids. Trans. Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville II: 1-53. Am. Fish. Soc. 107(3): 464-472. 91. Craig, M. A. and T. J. Bright. 1986. Abundance, 102. Diener, R. A., A. Inglis and G. B. Adams. 1974. age distributions and growth of the Texas hard clam, Stomach contents of fishes from Clear Lake and Mercenaria mercenaria texana, in Texas bays. tributary waters, a Texas estuarine area. Contrib. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 29: 59-72. Mar. Sci. 18: 7-17. 92. Craig, M. A., T. J. Bright and S. R. Gittings. 1988. 103. Diener, R. A. 1975. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Growth of Mercenara mercenaria and Mercenaria estuarine inventory and study -Texas: Area descrip- mercenaria texana seed clams planted in two Texas tion. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS Circ.-393, 129 p. bays. Aquaculture 71: 193-207. 104. Divita, R., M. Creel and P. F. Sheridan. 1983. 93. Crowe, A. L., L. W. McEachron and P. C. Foods of coastal fishes during brown shrimp, Pe- Hammerschmid. 1986. Trends in relative abun- naeusaztecus,migrationfromTexasestuaries(June- dance and size of selected finfish in Texas bays: July 1981). Fish. Bull., U. S. 81: 396-404. November 1975- December 1985. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 105. Dokken, Q. R. 1981. Spatial and temporal 114: 259. distribution and species composition of larval fish populations within Alazan Bay, Texas. MA Thesis, 94. Dailey, J. 1988. Fish stocking in Texas Bays: Corpus Christi State Univ., Corpus Christi, TX, 61. 1975-1987. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 147:26 p. 106. Dokken, 0. R., G. C. Matlock and S. Cornelius. 1984. Distribution and composition of larval fish 95. Dailey, J. A. and L. W. McEachron. 1986. populationswithin Alazan Bay, Texas. Contrib. Mar. Survival of unmarked red drum stocked into two Sci. 27: 205-222. Texas bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 116:8 p. 107. Duronslet, M. J., J. M. Lyon and F. Marullo. 1972. Vertical distribution of postlarval brown, 96. Darnell, R. M., R. E. Defenbaugh, and D. Moore. Penaeus aztecus, and white, P. setiferus, shrimp 1983. Northwestern Gulf shelf bio-atlas. Open File during immigration through a tidal pass. Trans. Report No. 82-04. Minerals Management Service, Amer. Fish. Soc. 101: 748-752. Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Offlice. Metairie, LA. 438 pp. 94 108. Finucane, J. H., L. A. Collins and L. E. Barger. 119. Gunter, G. 1947. Observations on breeding of 1978. Spawning of the striped mullet, Mugilcepha- the marine catfish, Galeichthys fells (Linnaeus). lus, in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. N.E. Gulf Sci. Copeia 1947: 217-223. 2(2): 148-150. 120. Gunter, G. 1950a. Seasonal population 109. Fore, P. L. and K. N. Baxter. 1972. Diel changes and distribution as related to salinity, of fluctuations in the catch of larval gulf menhaden, certain invertebrates of the Texas Coast, including Breevoortiapatronus, at Galveston entrance, Texas. the commercial shrimp. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 1: 7-51. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 101: 729-732. 121. Gunter, G. 1950b. Distributions and abun- 110. Fuls, B. E. 1974. Furtherecological studies on dance of fishes on the Aransas National Wildlife the macroicthyofauna of the Laguna Salada, Texas. Refuge, with life history notes. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Master's Thesis, Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, TX, 1:89101. 106 p. 122. Gunter, G. 1958. Population studies of the 111. Fuls, B. E. and T. J. Cody. 1988. Comparison shallow water fishes of an outer beach in south of shrimp catches off Aransas Pass and Mansfield Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 5: 186-193. Pass, Texas May-August 1980-1981. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., 123. Gunter, G. 1967a. Vertebrates in hypersaline No. 120: 28 p. waters. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 12: 230-241. 112. Gallaway, B.J. and K. Strawn. 1972. Seasonal 124. Gunter, G. 1967b. Some relationships of abundance and distribution of the blue crab, estuariestothefisheries of theGulf of Mexico. In: G. Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the discharge area H. Lauff (editor), Estuaries Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. of the P.H. Robinson Generating Station, Galveston Sp. Publ. No. 83, Washington, DC. 757 pp. Bay, Texas. Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society, 125. Gunter, G. and H.H. Hildebrand. 1951. De- Knoxville, Tennessee, 24 p. struction of fishes and other organisms on the south Texas coast by the cold wave of January 28-Febru- 113. Gallaway, B.J. and K. Strawn. 1974. Seasonal ary3,1951. Ecology32:731-736. abundance and distribution of marine fishes at a hot- waterdischarge in Galveston Bay. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 126. Hamilton, C. L. and G. E. Saul. 1984. Texas 18: 71-137. commercial harvest statistics, 1977-1983. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., 114. Gallaway, B. J. and K. Strawn. 1975. Seasonal No. 64: 66 p. and areal comparisons of fish diversity indices at a hot-water discharge in Galveston Bay, Texas. Cont. 127. Hammerschmidt, P. C. and L. W. McEachron. Mar. Sci. 19: 79-89. 1986. Trends in relative abundance of selected shellfishes along the Texas coast: January 1977 - 115. George, L. C. and W. E. Grant. 1983. A March 1986. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. stochastic simulation model of brown shrimp (Pe- Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 108:149 p. naeus aztecus Ives) growth, movement, and survival in Galveston Bay, Texas. Ecol. Mod. 19: 41-70. 128. Hammerschmidt, P. C., L. W. McEachron, and K. L. Meador. 1988. Trends in relative abundance 116. Green, L. M. 1981. Sharks in Texas bays. of selected shellfishes and finfishes along the Texas Annual Proceedings of the Texas Chapter, Ameri- coast: January 1977- December 1986. Tex. Parks can Fisheries Society 4: 68-93. Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 133:77p. 117. Gunter, G. 1941. Death of fishes due to cold on the Texas coast, January, 1940. Ecology 22:203- 129. Harrington, R. 1973. Faunistic changes in 208. Corpus Christi Bay, Texas after completion of an artificial pass and use of the pass by organisms 118. Gunter, G. 1945. Studies on marine fishes of important to the seafood industry, 1971-1973. Tex. Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 1: 1-190. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1973:67-110. 95 130. Harrington, R. A. 1970. Evaluation of the 141. Hedgpeth, J. W. 1950. Notes on the marine trotline fishery of the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. invertebrate fauna of the salt flat areas in Aransas Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report NationalWildlife Refuge,Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 1969 & 1970: 1-22. 1: 103-119. 131. Hawley, W. 1963a. Bluecrab investigations in 142. Heffernan, T. L. 1960. Survey and inventory of the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Game and Fish the invertebrate forms associated with the oyster Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, reefs in Aransas and Copano bays. Tex. Game and Proj. No. MC-R-1: Job No. 7; 3 p. Fish Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. MO-2-R-2: Job No. B-2; 3 p. 132. Hawley, W. 1963b. Populations of juvenile shrimp in the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Game and 143. Heffernan, T. L. 1963a. Computation, analysis Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961- and preparation of coastwide oyster population data. 1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 8; 6 p. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MO-R-4: Job No. 1; 133. Hawley, W. 1963c. Population studies of the 12 p. sports and commercial fin-fish and forage fish of the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., 144. Heffernan, T. L. 1963b. Plotting and survey of Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. the major oyster reefs in Aransas, Copano and MF-R-4: Job No. 9; 18 p. Mesquite Bays. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MO-R- 134. Hawley, W. 1964a. Populations of juvenile 4: Job No. 4; 4 p. shrimp in the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1963: 111-115. 145. Heffeman, T. L. 1963c. Studyof oystergrowth and population structure in Aransas, Mesquite and 135. Hawley, W. 1964b. Population studies of the Copano Bays. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. blue crabs of the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MO-R- Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 4: Job No. 5; 10 p. 577-579. 146. Heffernan, T. L. 1964. Astudyofoystergrowth 136. Hawley, W. 1965a. A study of the juvenile and population structure in Aransas, Mesquite and shrimp populationsof the upperLaguna Madre. Tex. Copano Bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Parks Wildi. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 191-194. 1964:117-121. 147. Heffernan, T. L. 1970. An ecological evaluation 137. Hawley, W. 1965b. Population studies of the of some tributaries of the Aransas Bay area. Tex. sports and commercial fin-fish of the upper Laguna Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1969 Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, & 1970 : 23-126. Proj. Rep 1964: 339-354. 148. Heffernan, T. L. 1971. Port Bay, an evaluation 138. Hawley, W. 1965c. Population studies of the ofthe marine habitat. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal blue crabs of the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1971: 63-91. Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1964: 609-612. 149. Heffernan, T. L. 1973. Survey of the adult red drum (Sciaenops ocellata), 1973. Tex. Parks Wildl. 139. Hawley, W. C. 1964. Population studies of the Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1973: 37-66. sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of the upper Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., 150. Hellier, T. R., Jr. 1950. Fish production and Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1963: 371-386. biomass studies in relation to photosynthesis in the Laguna Madre ofTexas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 2:1-22. 140. Healy, M. C. 1982. Juvenile pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system. In: V. S. Kennedy 151. Henley, D. E. and D. G. Rauschuber. 1981. (editor). Estuarine Comparisons. New York: Aca- Freshwaterneedsoffishandwildliferesourcesinthe demic Press. pp. 315 - 342. Nueces Corpus Christi Bay area, Texas: A literature synthesis. FWS/OBS-80/10, Washington, D.C., 410 PP. 96 152. Hildebrand, H. H. and D. King. 1975. A 163. Hofstetter, R. P. 1964. A summary of oyster biological study of the Cayo Del Oso and the Pita studies along the Texas coast. Tex. Parks Wildl. Island area of the Laguna Madre. Ann. Rep. 1973- Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963:163- 1974 Central Power and Light Co. 290 pp. 176. 153. Hixon, R. F. 1980. Growth, reproductive 164. Hofstetter, R. P. 1965a. Study of oyster biology, distribution and abundance of three species population in the Galveston Bay area. Tex. Parks of Loliginid squid (Myopsida, Cephalopoda) in the Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: northwest Gulf of Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. 165-185. of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, 233 p. 165. Hofstetter, R. P. 1965b. Study of the oyster 154. Hixon, R. F., R. T. Hanlon, S. M. Gillepsie and (Crassostrea virginica) along the Texas coast. Tex. W. L. Griffin 1980. Squid fishery in Texas: Biological, Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. economic, and market considerations. Mar. Fish. 1965:97-118. Rev. 42: 44-50. 166. Hofstetter, R. P. 1966a. Oyster mortality 155. Hoese, H. D. 1966. Habitat segregation in studies along the Texas coast during 1966. Tex. aquaria between two sympatric species of Gobio- Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. soma. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 11: 7-11. Rep.1966: 55-68. 156. Hoese, H. D. 1959. Achecklistoffishesof area 167. Hofstetter, R. P. 1966b. Study of the oyster M-3. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Marine Labora- population on public reefs in Galveston Bay. Tex. tory Reports, 1959, Proj. No. M-3-R-1: Job No. A-3; Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. 5 p. Rep.1966: 69-80. 157. Hoese, H. D. 1960. Biotic changes in a bay 168. Hofstetter, R. P. 1967. Oysterstudiesalongthe associated withthe end of a drought. Limnol. Ocean- Texas coast, 1967. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. ogr. 5: 326-336. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1967: 49-59. 158. Hoese, H. D. 1965. Spawning of marine fishes 169. Hofstetter, R. P. 1968. Oysterstudies alongthe in Port Aransas, Texas area as determined by the Texas coast, 1968. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal distribution of young larvae. Ph. 0. Dissertation, Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1968: 23-33. Univ. Texas, Austin, TX, 144 p. 170. Hofstetter, R. P. 1970a. Oyster studies - 1969. 159. Hoese, H. D., B. J. Copeland, F. N. Moseley and Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. E. D. Lane. 1968. Fauna of the Aransas Pass Inlet, 1969 & 1970: 147-153. Texas. III. Diel and seasonal variations in trawlable organisms of the adjacent area. Tex. J. Sci. 20: 33- 171. Hofstetter, R. P. 1970b. Oyster studies - 1970. 60. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1969 & 1970: 155-167. 160. Hoese, H. D. and R. S. Jones. 1963. Season- alityof largeranimals in a Texasturtle grass commu- 172. Hofstetter, R. P. 1971. Galveston Bay oyster nity.. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 9: 37-47. studies. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1971:107-124. 161. Hofstetter, R. 1965. A summary of oyster studies along the Texas coast. Tex. Parks Wildl. 173. Hofstetter, R. P. 1977. Trends in population Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1964:159-164. levels of the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin) on public reefs in Galveston Bay. Tex. Parks 162. Hofstetter, R. P. 1963. Studyof oystergrowth Wildl. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 24. 90 pp. and population structure of the public reefs in East Bay, Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay. Tex. Game and 174. Hofstetter, R. P. and R. B. Johnson. 1965. A Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961- study of the southern quahog (Mercenaria merce- 1962, Proj. No. MO-R-4: Job No. 10; 23 p. naria Gmelin) in Texas waters. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1965: 235- 243. 97 175. Holcomb Jr., H.W. 1970. An ecological study 186. Johnson, R. B. 1964b. Life history study of the of the gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) in a low commercial oyster in the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. salinity estuary in Texas. Texas A&M Univ., College Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. Station, TX, 47 p. 1963: 177-183. 176. Holland, J. S., N. J. Maciolek, R. D. Kalke and 187. Johnson, R. B. 1964c. Population studies of C. H. Oppenheimer. 1973. A benthos and plankton the blue crabs of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. study of the Corpus Christi, Copano and Aransas Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. Bay Systems. I. Report on the methods used and 1963: 581-585. data collected during the period September, 1972 - June, 1973. First Final Report to Texas Water 188. Johnson, R. B. 1965a. A study of the juvenile Development Board. shrimp populations of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 177. Holt, G. J., A. H. Scott and C. R. Arnold. 1985. 1964: 123-133. Diel periodicity of spawning in sciaenids. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 27: 1-7. 189. Johnson, R. B. 1965b. Population studies of the blue crabs of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. 178. Holt, J. and K. Strawn. 1983. Community Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. structure of macrozooplankton in Trinity and upper 1964: 613-621. Galveston Bays. Estuaries 6: 66-75. 190. Johnson, R. B. 1966a. The effects of engineer- 179. Holt, S. A., C. L. Kitting and C. R. Arnold. 1983. ing projects on the ecology of Jones Bay. Tex. Parks Distribution of young red drums among different sea- Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1966: grass meadows. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112: 267- 147-158. 271. 191. Johnson, R. B. 1966b. The effects of engineer- 180. Hook, J.H. 1986. Seasonalvariations, relative ing projects on the ecology of Moses Lake. Tex. abundance and distribution of fishes of South Bay, Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. Cameron County, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Pan Am. 1966: 159-168. Univ., Edinburg, Texas, 79 p. 192. Johnson, R. B., Jr. 1974. Ecological changes 181. Horn, M. H., and L. G. Allen. 1985. Fish associated with the industrialization of Cedar Bayou community ecology in southern California bays and and Trinity Bay, Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept. Tech. estuaries. Chap. 8: 169-190. In A. Yafez-Arancibia Ser. No. 16: 79 p. (editor), Fish community ecology in estuaries and coastal lagoons: Towards an ecosystem integration. 193. Johnson, R. B., Jr. 1975. A study of Texas 654 p. DR (R) UNAM Press, Mexico. shrimp populations, 1975. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Report 1975: 1-35. 182. Huh, S. H. 1984. Seasonal variations in populationsofsmallfishesconcentratedinshoalgrass 194. Johnson, R. B., Jr. 1977. Fishery survey of and turtlegrass meadows. J. Oceanol. Soc. Kor. 19: Cedar Lakes and the Brazos and San Bernard River 44-55. Estuaries. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 23: 65 p. 183. Huh, S. H. 1986. Ontogenetic food habits of four common fish species in seagrass meadows. J. 195. Jones, R. S. 1965. Fish stocks from a Oceanol. Soc. Kor. 21: 25-33. helicopter-borne purse net sampling Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, 1962-1963. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 10:68- 184. Huh, S. H. and C. L. Kitting. 1985. Trophic 75. relationships among concentrated populations of small fishes in seagrass meadows. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 196. Joseph, E. B. 1973. Analysis of a nursery Ecol. 92: 29-43. ground. In: A. L. Pachecc (editor). Proceedings of a Workshop on Egg, Larval, and Juvenile Stages of 185. Johnson, R. B. 1964a. A study of the juvenile Fish in Atlantic Coast Estuaries. shrimp populations of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 117-126. 98 197. King, B. D., IIIl. 1964a. A study of oystergrowth 207. Leary, T. and H. Compton. 1960. A study of the and population structure of the public reefs in Matag- bay populations of juvenile shrimp, Penaeus aztecus orda, Tres Palacious and East Matagorda Bays. and Penaeussetiferus. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M- Rep. 1963: 223-230. R-5: 32 p. 198. King, B. D., III. 1964b. Population studies of the 208. Lyon, J. M. 1962a. Composition of fish species sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of in Area M-4 according to specific sampling. Tex. the Matagorda Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 311-322. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. M-4-R-3: Job No. A-2; 8 P. 199. King, B. D., III. 1965a. Study of oyster growth and population stucturesofthepublicreefs in Matag- 209. Lyon, J. M. 1962b. Inventory of invertebrate orda, East Matagorda, Tres Palacious and Lavaca forms present in Area M-4. Tex. Game and Fish Bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. Rep. 1964: 207-221. Proj. No. M-4-R-3: Job No. B-2; 3 p. 200. King, B. D., Ill. 1965b. Population studies of the 210. Mackin, J. G. 1971. A study of the effect of blue crabs of the Matagorda Bay system. Tex. Parks oilfield brine effluents on biotic communities in Texas Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: estuaries. Texas A&M Res. Found., Proj. 735, 575-587. Texas A&M Univ. 201. King, B. D., III. 1971. Study of the migratory 211. Mann, K.H. 1982. Ecology of coastal waters. patterns of fish and shellfish through a natural pass. Univ. of California Press, Los Angeles, CA. 322 pp. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 9: 54 p. 212. Martin, F. D. 1968. Intraspecific variation in 202. Krull, R. M. 1976. The small fish fauna of a osmotic abilities of Cyprinodon variegatusLacepede disturbed hypersaline environment. M. S. Thesis, from the Texas coast. Ecology 49:1186-1188. Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, TX, 112 p. 213. Martin, F. D. 1970. Feeding habits of Cyprino- 203. Kutkuhn, J. H., H. L. Cook and K. N. Baxter. don variegatus (Cyprinodontidae) from the Texas 1969. Distribution and density of prejuvenile Pe- coast. SW Nat. 14: 368-369. naeus shrimp in Galveston entrance and the nearby Gulf of Mexico (Texas). FAO Fisheries Report 57: 214. Martin, J.H. 1979. Astudyof thefeeding habits 1075-1099. of the black drum in Alazan Bay and the Laguna Salada, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&l Univ., 204. Landry Jr., A. M. 1977. Life history and Kingsville, TX, 106 p. susceptibility of fishes in Galveston Bay, Texas to power-plant cooling-water operations. Ph. D. Dis- 215. Martin, J. H. 1988. Catches of five finfishes in sertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX., bag seines, May 1961 -May 1976. Tex. Parks Wildl. 546 p. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 132:39 p. 205. Landry Jr., A.M. and K. Strawn. 1973. Annual cycle of sportfishing activity at a warmwater dis- 216. Martin, J. H. and L. W. McEachron. 1986. charge into Galveston Bay, Texas. Trans. Amer. Occurence of select juvenile fishes during post Fish. Soc. 102: 573-577. spawning periods in Texas Bay-Gulf passes. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. 206. Lasswell, J. L., G. Garza and W. H. Bailey. Data Ser., No. 96:23 p. 1977. Status of marine fish introductions into the fresh waters of Texas. Proceedings of the Annual 217. Martinez, R. 1963a. Survey of blue crab Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish populations in the Corpus Christi Bay System. Tex. and Wildlife Agencies 31: 399-403. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MC-R-1: Job No. 6; 5 p. 99 218. Martinez, R. 1963b. Population studies of the 229. Matlock, G. C. 1982. By-catch of southern sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of flounder and gulf flounder by commercial shrimp the Corpus Christi Bay system. Tex. Game and Fish trawlers in Texas Bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 31:16 p. Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 7; 14 p. 230. Matlock, G. C. 1984. A summary of 7 years of 219. Martinez, R. 1963c. Study of oyster popula- stocking Texas bays with red drum. Tex. Parks Wildl. tions and experimental plantings in Corpus Christi Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. Bay. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. 60:14 p. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MO-R-4: Job No. 7; 3 p. 231. Matlock, G. C. 1985. Red drum sex ratio and size at sexual maturity. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., 220. Martinez, R. 1963d. Populations of juvenile Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 85:7 p. shrimp in the Corpus Christi Bay complex. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. 232. Matlock, G. C. 1987. Maximumtotal length and Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 7; 6 p. age of red drum off Texas. NE Gulf Sci. 9: 49-52. 221. Martinez, R. 1964a. Astudyof populations of 233. Matlock, G. C. 1988. Survival of red drum fry juvenile shrimp in the Corpus Christi Bay complex. stocked into Christmas Bay, Texas. Tex. Parks Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., Rep. 1963: 105-110. No. 152:7 p. 222. Martinez, R. 1964b. A studyof oyster popula- 234. Matlock, G. C., B. T. Hysmith and R. L. Colura. tion and experimentalplanting in Corpus Christi Bay. 1984. Returns of tagged red drum stocked into Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Matagorda Bay, Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Rep. 1963: 185-190. Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 63: 6 p. 223. Martinez, R. 1964c. Population studies of the 235. Matlock, G. C., R. J. Kemp, Jr. and T. J. sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of Heffernan. 1986. Stocking as a management tool for the Corpus Christi Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. red drum fishery, a preliminary evaluation. Tex. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 355- Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. 370. Data Ser., No. 75: 27 p. 224. Martinez, R. 1964d. Population studies of the 236. Matlock, G. C., R. A. Marcello Jr. and K. Strawn. blue crabs of the Corpus Christi Bay system. Tex. 1975. Standard length-total length relationships of Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. gulf menhaden, Brevoortia patronus Goode, bay 1963: 569-575. anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli(Valenciennes), and atlan- tic croaker, Micropogon undulatus (Linnaeus), from 225. Martinez, R. 1965a. A study of the juvenile Galveston Bay. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 104: 408- shrimp populations of the Corpus Christi Bay comn- 409. plex. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 107-116. 237. Matthews, G. A. 1982. Relative abundance and size distributions of commercially important 226. Martinez, R. 1965b. Population studies of the shrimp during the 1981 Texas closure. Mar. Fish. sports and commercial fin-fish species of the Corpus Rev. 44: 5-15. Christi Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 315-329. 238. Matthews, G.A. 1987. An intensivestudyof the postlarval brown shrimp entering through Bolivar 227. Martinez, R. 1965c. Population studies of the Roads during March 9 - April 3, 1987. NMFS blue crabs of the Corpus Christi Bay system. Tex. Unpublished Report. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964:601-608. 239. Matthews, G. A., C. A. Marcin and G. L. Clements. 1975b. A plankton and benthos survey of 228. Marwitz, S. R. 1986. Young tarpon in a the San Antonio Bay System. Tex. Parks WildI. Dept. roadside ditch near Matagorda Bay in Calhoun Proj. Report, 76 p. County, Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 100:8 p. 100 239.1* McEachron, L. W., and A. W. Green. 1984. 250. Moffett, A. W. 1965c. A study of the juvenile Assessment of annual relative abundance and mean shrimp populations of the Galveston Bay system. length of six marine fishes in Texas coastal waters. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Rep. 1964: 47-70. Agencies 38: 506-519. 251. Moffett, A. W. 1966. A study of commercial 240. McEachron, L. W. and A. W. Green. 1986. shrimps in coastal bays of Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Trends in relative abundance and size of selected Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep.1966: 1-26. finfish in Texas bays: November 1975 - June 1985. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. 252. Moffett, A. W. 1967. A study of commercial Data Ser., No. 91: 271. shrimp populations in coastal bays of Texas, 1967. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. 241. McEachron, L. W., C. R. Shaw and A. W. Rep. 1967: 19-48. Moffett. 1977. A fishery survey of Christmas, Drum and Bastrop Bays, Brazoria County, Texas. Tex. 253. Moffett, A. W. 1968. A study of Texas shrimp Parks Wildl. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 20: 83 p. populations - 1968. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep.1968: 67-93. 242. Meador, K. L., L. W. McEachron and T. J. Cody. 1988. Trends in relative abundance of selected 254. Moffett, A. W. 1970a. A study of Texas shrimp shellfishes and finfishes along the Texas coast: populations- 1969. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal January 1977 - December 1987. Tex. Parks Wildl. Fisheries Proj. Report 1969 & 1970: 169-183. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 153: 77 p. 255. Moffett, A. W. 1970b. A study of Texas shrimp populations- 1970. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal 243. Minello, T. J. and R. J. Zimmerman. 1985. Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1969 & 1970: 185-206. Differential selection of vegetative structure between juvenile brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) and white 256. Moffett, A. W. 1971. A study of brown shrimp shrimp (P. setiferus) and implications in predator in the Texas coastal bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., prey relationships. Est. Coastal Shelf Sci. 20: 707- Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1971: 191-208. 716 257. Moffett, A. W. 1972. Shrimp populations in 244. Mock, C. R. 1966. Natural and altered Texas - 1972. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal estuarine habitats of Penaeid shrimp. Proceedings Fisheries Proj. Rep.1972: 1-36. of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 19: 86- 98. 258. Moffett, A. W. 1975. The hydrography and macro-biota of the Chocolate Bayou estuary Bra- 245. Moffett, A. W. 1963. Population studies of the zoria County, Texas (1969-1971). Tex. Parks Wildl. blue crabs of the Matagorda Bay System. Tex. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 14: 72 p. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MC-R-1: Job No. 3; 6 p. 259. Moffett, A. W. and L. W. McEachron. 1973. Shrimp populations in Texas, 1973. Tex. Parks 246. Moffett, A. W. 1964a. A study of the Texas Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. 1973:1-21. populations of juvenile shrimp. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 1-49. 260. Moffett, A. W. and L. W. McEachron. 1974. A study of the Texas shrimp populations, 1974. Tex. 247. Moffett, A. W. 1964b. Astudyofjuvenileshrimp Parks Wildl. Dept., Coastal Fisheries Proj. Rep. populations of the Galveston Bay system. Tex. 1974: 1-39. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 51-67. 261. Moffett, A. W., L. W. McEachron and J. G. Key. 1979. Observations on the biology of sand seatrout 248. Moffett, A. W. 1965a. A study of the Texas (Cynoscion arenarius) in Galveston and Trinity Bays, shrimp populations. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Texas. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 22: 163-172. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1965: 1-30. 262. Moffett, A. W. and W. R. More. 1964. Popula- 249. Moffett, A. W. 1965b. A studyoftheTexas Bay tion studies of the blue crabs of the Galveston Bay populations of juvenile shrimp. Tex. Parks Wildl. system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 1-45. Proj. Rep. 1963: 531-544. 101 263. Moffett, A. W. and F. A. Murray. 1963a. 273. More, W. R. 1969. Acontributiontothebiology Population studies of the sports and commercial fin- of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in Texas, with fish and forage species of the Matagorda Bay sys- a description of the fishery. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept. tem. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Tech. Ser. No. 1: 31 p. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 3; 9 p. 274. More, W. R. and A. W. Moffett. 1965. Popula- tion studies of the blue crabs of Galveston Bay 264. Moffett, A. W. and F. A. Murray. 1963b. Study system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, of oyster growth and population structure in of the Proj. Rep. 1964: 551-574. public reefs in Matagorda, Tres Palacios and East Matagorda Bays. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., 275. Mosely, F. W. and B. J. Copeland. 1975. Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. Appendix to the Final Report on the Ecology of Cox MO-R-4: Job No. 9; 13 p. Bay, Texas 1969-1973. Central Power and Lighting Company. 265. Monaco, M. E. 1986. National Estuarine Inventory: Living marine resources component, 276. Munro, G. J. 1965a. Population studies of the preliminary West Coast study. Ocean Assessments sports and commercial fin-fish of the Matagorda Bay Division, NOS/NOAA. Rockville, MD. 33 pp. system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 267-281. 265.1 Monaco, M.E., and R.L. Emmett. 1988. The Estuarine Living Marine Resources Project: Wash- 277. Munro, G. J. 1965b. A study of the juvenile ington State Component. Ocean Assessments shrimp populations of the Matagorda Bay system. Division, NOS/NOAA. Rockville, MD. 82 pp. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1964: 71-88. 266. Monaco, M. E., J. P. Tolson, M. L. Donovan, and C. J. Klein. 1986. Strategic assessments of the 278. Murray, F. A. 1965. A study of populations of nation's estuaries: Activities of NOAA's Ocean juvenile shrimp in the Matagorda Bay area. Tex. Assessments Division. Renewable Resources Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. Journal 4(1): 18 - 22. 1963: 69-78. 267. Moore, R. H. 1974. Generalecology, distribu- 279. Murray, F. A. and A. W. Moffett 1963. Popu- tion and relative abundance of Mugil cephalus and lations of shrimp in the Matagorda Bay complex. Mugi/ curema on the south Texas coast. Contrib. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mar. Sci. 18: 241-255. Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 4; 7p. 268. Moore, R. H. 1978. Variations in the diversity of summer estuarine fish populations in Aransas 280. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1988. Bay, Texas, 1966-1973. Est. Coastal Shelf Sci. 6: Fisheries of the United States, 1987. U. S. Dept. of 495-501. Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 269. More, W. R. 1964. Population studies of the sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of 281. Neck, R. W. 1987. Freshwater bivalves of the the Galveston Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Baffin Bay drainage basin, southern Texas. Tex. J. Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963:281-309. Sci. 39:177-182. 270. More, W. R. 1965a. Population studies of the 282. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric sports and commercial fin-fish of the Galveston Bay Administration). 1984. The national status and system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, trends program for marine environmental quality: Proj. Rep. 1964: 231-249. Program description (memo). U. S. Dept. of Com- merce, NOAA, Ocean Assessments Division, 271. More, W. R. 1965b. A study of the blue crabs Rockville, MD. 28 pp. of Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1965: 213-234. 272. More, W. R. 1966. Studies of blue crabs in Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1966: 27-38. 102 283. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 292. Parker, J. C. 1970. Distribution of juvenile Administration). 1985. National Estuarine Inven- brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus Ives) in Galveston tory: Data Atlas. Volume 1. Physical and Hydrologic Bay, Texas, as related to certain hydrographic fea- Characteristics. Rockville, MD: U. S. Dept. of tures and salinity. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 15: 1-12. Commerce, NOAA, Strategic Assessment Branch, 103 pp. 293. Parker, R. H. 1959. Macroinvertebrate assem- blages of Central Texas coastal bays and Laguna 283.1 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Madre. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 43: 2100- Administration). 1988. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 2166. Seas Strategic Assessment: Data Atlas. Volume 1. Physical and Hydrologic Characteristics. Rockville, 294. Parker, R. H. 1960. Ecology and distributional MD: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Strategic patterns of marine macro-invertebrates, northern Assessment Branch, 135 pp. Gulf of Mexico. In: F. P. Shepard, F. B. Phleger, and T. H. van Andel (editors), Recent Sedimen's, North- 284. Odum, W. E., and E. J. Heald. 1975. The west Gulf of Mexico, 1951-1958. Amer. Assoc. detritus-based food web of an estuarine mangrove Petrol. Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma. 394 pp. community. In: L. E. Cronim (editor). Estuarine Research. Academic Press. New York, NY. pp 265 295. Pearson, J. C. 1928. Natural history and - 286. conservation of redfish and other commercial sci- aenids on the Texas Coast. Bull. Bur. Fish. U. S. 285. Osborn, K. W. 1962. Life history study of the Dept. Co 44:129-214. commercial oyster in the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. 296. Penn, G. J. 1979. Decapod crustacean Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MO-R-4: Job No. 2; 6 p. communities in Texas seagrasses. Ph. D. Disserta- tion, Univ. Houston, Houston, TX, 128 p. 286. Osbom, K. W. 1 963a. Population studiesof the blue crabs of the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Game 297. Peterson-Brown, N., P. Thomas and C. R. and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. Arnold. 1988. Reproductive biology of the spotted 1961-1962, Proj. No. MC-R-1: Job No. 8; 5 p. seatrout, Cynoscionnebulosus, insouthTexas. Fish. Bull., U. S. 86: 373-388. 287. Osborn, K. W. 1963b. Populations of juvenile shrimp in the lower Laguna Madre. Tex. Game and 298. Pullen, E. J. 1960a. Collection and identifica- Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961- tion of vertebrate forms present in Area M-2 and 1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 9; 7 p. determine their relative seasonal abundance. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 288. Osbum, H. R. and M. O. Ferguson. 1987. 1959-1960, Proj. No. M-2-R-2: Job No. A-2; 11 p. Trends in finfish landings by sport-boat fisherman in Texas marine waters, May 1974 - May 1986. Tex. 299. Pullen, E. J. 1960b. A checklist of invertebrate Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. animals: abundance and distribution with regards to Data Ser., No. 119:464 p. hydrologic conditions. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M- 289. Osbum, H. R., G. C. Matlock and A. W. Green. 2-R-2: Job No. B-2; 14 p. 1982. Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) movement in Texas bays. Cont. Mar. Sci. 25: 885-97. 300. Pullen, E.J. 1962. An ecological survey of area M-2, a study of the fishes of upper Galveston Bay. 290. Osburn, H. R., M. F. Osborn and H. R. Maddux. Tx. Game & Fish Comm., Mar. Fish Div. Proj. Rep., 1988. Trends in finfish landings by sport-boat fisher- 1960-1961, Proj. No. M-2-R-3: 1-28. men in Texas marine waters, May 1974-May 1987. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. 301. Pullen, E.J. 1963a. A study of the bay and gulf Data Ser., No. 150: 573. populations of shrimp: Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus and Penaeus duorarum. Tex. Game and 291. Parker, J. C. 1965a. An annotated checklist of Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961 - the fishes of the Galveston Bay System, Texas. 1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 1; 53 p. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 10: 201-220. 103 302. Pullen, E. J. 1963b. Population studies of the 314. Rickner, J. A. 1975. Seasonal variation of blue crabs of the Galveston Bay System. Tex. Game selected marine macro-fauna in a seagrass commu- and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. nity bordering Stedman Island, Redfish Bay, Texas. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MC-R-1: Job No. 2; 11 p. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, TX, 107 p. 315. Robinson, D. T. 1959. The ichthyofauna of the 303. Pullen, E.J. 1963c. A study of the juvenile lower Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico. Copeia 1959: shrimp populations, Penaeus aztecus and Penaeus 253-256. setiferus, of Galveston Bay. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, 316. Ross, J. L. 1983. Seasonal occurrence of black Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 3; 23 p. drum, Pogonias cromis, and red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, off Texas. NE Gulf Sci. 6: 67-70. 304. Pullen, E. J. and W. L. Trent. 1969. White shrimp emigration in relation to size, sex, tempera- 317. Schultz, R. L. 1963a. Population studies of the ture and salinity. FAO Fishery Reports 57;1001- blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the Aran- 1013. sas Bay system. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. 305. Reid, G. K. 1956. Ecological investigations in MC-R-1: Job No. 5; 10 p. a disturbed Texas Coastal estuary. Tex. J. Sci. 8: 296-327. 318. Schultz, R. L. 1963b. Population studies of the sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of 306. Reid, G. K. 1957. Biologic and hydrographic the Aransas Bay system. Tex. Game and Fish adjustment in a disturbed Gulf coast estuary. Limnol. Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Oceanogr. 2: 198-212. Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 5; 24 p. 307. Reid, G. K., A. Inglis and H. D. Hoese 1956. 319. Schultz, R. L. 1963c. A study of populations of Summer foods of some fish species in East Bay, juvenileshrimpinAransasBaycomplex. Tex.Game Texas. SW Nat. 1: 100-104. and Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, Proj. No. MS-R-4: Job No. 6; 10 p. 308. Reid, G. K., Jr. 1955. A summer study of the biology and ecology of East Bay, Texas. Part II. The 320. Schultz, R. L. 1964a. Population studies of the fish fauna of East Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of summary. Tex. J. Sci. 7: 430-453. the Aransas Bay system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: 335-354. 309. Reid, G. K., Jr. 1958. Size distribution of fishes in a Texas estuary. Copeia 3: 225-231. 321. Schultz, R. L. 1964b. Population studies of the blue crabs of the Aransas Bay system. Tex. Parks 310. Renfro, W. C. 1959a. Check list of the fishes Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1963: and commercial shrimp of area M-2. Tex. Game and 553-567. Fish Comm., Marine Laboratory Rep., 1959, Proj. No. M-2-R-1: Job No. A2; 30 p. 322. Schultz, R. L. 1964c. A study of populations of juvenile shrimp in the Aransas Bay complex. Tex. 311. Renfro, W. C. 1960. Salinity relations of some Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. fishes in the Aransas River, Texas. Tulane Stud. in 1963:91-104. Zool. 8: 83-91. 323. Schultz, R. L. 1965a. Population studies of the 312. Rice, K. W. 1979. An investigation of the sports and commercial fin-fish of the Aransas Bay Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus system. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, (Mitchill), along the Texas coast. Tex. Parks Wildl. Proj. Rep. 1964: 295-314. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 3: 11 p. 324. Schultz, R. L. 1965b. Population studies of the blue crabs of the Aransas Bay system. Tex. Parks 313. Rice, K. W., L. W. McEachron and P. C. Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep 1964: Hammerschmidt. 1988. Trends in relative abun- 595-600. dance and size of selected finfishes in Texas bays: November 1975-December 1986. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 139: 192 p. 104 325. Schultz, R. L. 1965c. A study of the juvenile 336. Simmons, E. G. 1957. An ecological survey of shrimp populations of the Aransas Bay system. Tex. the upper Laguna Madre of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. Sci. 4: 156-200. 1964:97-105. 337. Simmons, E. G. 1959a. Resurvey of the 326. Seagle, J. H. 1969a. Predator-prey relation- macroscopic flora and fauna of the upper Laguna ships in turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum Konig) Madre. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Marine Labo- beds in Redfish Bay, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&l ratory Reports, 1959, Proj. No. M-8-R-1: Job No. A- Univ., Kingsville, TX, 117 p. 2; 12 p. 327. Seagle, J. H. 1969b. Food habits of spotted 338. Simmons, E. G. and J. P. Breuer. 1962. A study sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus, Cuvier) frequenting of redfish, Sciaenopsocellatus (Linneaus) and black turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum, Konig) beds in drum Pogonias cromis (Linneaus). Publ. Inst. Mar. Redfish Bay, Texas. TAIUS 1: 58-63. Sci. 8: 184-211. 328. Shaver, D. J. 1984. The surf zone fish fauna 339. Simmons, E. G. and H. D. Hoese. 1959. ofthePadrelslandNationalSeashore. M.S.Thesis, Studies on the hydrography and fish migrations of Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, TX, 231 p. Cedar Bayou, a natural tidal inlet on the central Texas coast. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 6: 56-80. 329. Sheridan, P. F. 1983. Abundance and distri- bution of fishes in the Galveston Bay system, 1963- 340. Simons, M. H. and C. P. Huckabee. 1971. An 1964. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 26: 143-163. ecological study of a shallow hypersaline portion of the Laguna de los Olmos Bay, Texas. Unpublished 330. Sheridan, P. F. and D. L. Trimm. 1983. report to the Biology Department, Texas A&I Univ., Summerfoods of Texas coastal fishes relativeto age Kingsville, TX, 87 p. and habitat. Fish. Bull., U. S. 81: 643-647. 341. Simpson, D. G. 1954. Two small tarpon from 331. Sheridan, P. F., D. L. Trimm and B. M. Baker. Texas. Copeia 1954: 71-72. 1984. Reproduction and food habits of seven spe- cies of northern Gulf of Mexico fishes. Contrib. Mar. 342. Simpson, D. G. and G. Gunter. 1956. Notes on Sci. 27:175-204. habitats, systematic characters and life histories of Texas salt water cyprinodontes. Tul. Stud. Zool. 4: 332. Sheridan, P. F., R. D. Slack, S. M. Ray, L. W. 115-134. McKinney, E. F. Klima, T. R Calnan. 1989. Biologi- cal components of Galveston Bay. aIn: Estuarine 343. Soniat, T. M. and M. S. Brody. 1988. Field Programs Office. GalvestonBay:lssues, Resources, validation of a Habitat Suitability Index Model for the Status and Management (NOAA Estuary-of-the- American oyster. Estuaries 11: 87-95. Month Seminar Series No. 13). U. S. Dept. Comm., NOAA, EPO, Washington, D.C. 344. Spears, R. W. 1986. Observations of red drum mortality in the Gulf of Mexico. Tex. Parks Wildl. 333. Sherman, K., and L. M. Alexander (editors). Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. Data Ser., No. 1985. Variability and management of large marine 112: 11 p. ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 99. AAAS, Washington, DC. 319 p. 345. Spiller, K. W. 1977. Biology of the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes, on the lowerTexas coast. M. 334. Shidler, J. K. 1960. Preliminary survey of S. Thesis, Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, Texas, 70 p. invertebrate species. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. MO- 346. Spiller, K. W. 1982. The daytime fall southern 1 -R-2: Job No. B-2b; 15 p. flounder recreational fishery in three Texas passes. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. 335. Shlossman, P. A. and M. E. Chittenden, Jr. Data Ser., No. 46: 28 p. 1981. Reproduction, movement and population dynamicsofthesand seatrout, Cynoscionarenarius. 347. Springer, V. G. and J. Pirson. 1958. Fluctua- Fish. Bull., U. S. 79: 649-669. tions in the relative abundance of sport fishes as indicated by the catch at Port Aransas, Texas 1952 1956. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 5: 169-185. 105 348. Stevens, H. R., Jr. 1959. A general survey of 360. Trent, L., E. J. Pullen and R. Proctor. 1976. fish species in Corpus Christi Bay. Tex. Game and Abundance of macrocrustaceans in a natural marsh Fish Comm., Marine Laboratory Reports, 1959, Proj. and marsh altered by dredging, bulkheading and No. M-7-R-1: Job No. A-2a, A-2b; 3 p. filling. Fish. Bull., U. S. 74: 195-200. 349. Stevens, J. R. 1960a. Checklist of the fishes 361. Ward, G. H. and N. E. Armstrong. 1980. of the Area M-1. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., Mar. Matagorda Bay, Texas: Its hydrography, ecology Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M-1 -R-1: and fishery resources. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., U. S. Job No. A-2; 11 p. Department of the Interior, 230 p. 350. Stevens, J. R. 1960b. Checklist of inverte- 362. Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats brates of Area M-1. Tex. Game and Fish Comm., as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish. Cape Mar. Fish. Div., Proj. Rep., 1959-1960, Proj. No. M- Fear River, North Carolina. Fish. Bull., U. S. 77: 339- 1-R-1: Job No. B-2; 5 p. 357. 351. Stevens, J. R. 1963a. Coordination of coast- 363. Weixelman, M. B. 1982. The fall red drum Gulf wide fin-fish investigations project. Tex. Game and of Mexico pierfishery off Galveston Bay, Texas. Tex. Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961- Parks Wildl. Dept., Coast. Fish. Branch, Mngmt. 1962, Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 1; 61 p. Data Ser., No. 42:23 p. 352. Stevens, J. R. 1963b. Population studiesofthe 364. Wetzel, G. L. and N. E. Armstrong. 1987. sports and commercial fin-fish and forage species of Studies regarding the distribution and biomass the Galveston Bay system. Tex. Game and Fish densities of, and the influences of freshwater inflow Comm., Coast. Fish. Branch, Proj. Rep. 1961-1962, variations on finfish populations in the Matagorda Proj. No. MF-R-4: Job No. 2; 16 p. Bay System, Texas. Center For Research in Water Resources, Technical Report 192, Department of 353. Stokes, G. M. 1974. The distribution and Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX. abundance of penaeid shrimp in the lower Laguna Madre of Texas, with a description of the live bait 365. White, M. L. and M. E. Chittenden, Jr. 1977. fishery. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 15:32 Age determination, reproduction, and population p. dynamics of the Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undu- latus. Fish. Bull., U. S. 75: 109-123. 354. Stokes, G. M. 1977. Life history studies of southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) and 366. Williamson, C. J. 1980. Population dynamics gulf flounder (P. albigutta) in the Aransas Bay area of of molluscs in a seagrass bed surrounding a dredged Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept. Tech. Ser. No. 25:37 material island, upper Laguna Madre, Texas. M. S. p. Thesis, Corpus Christi State Univ., Corpus Christi, TX, 80 p. 355. Reference deleted. 367. Wood, C. E. 1967. Physioecologyof the grass 356. Temple, R. F. and C. C. Fischer. 1965. Vertical shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio, in the Galveston Bay distribution of planktonic stages of penaeid shrimp. estuarine system. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 12: 54-79. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 10: 59-67. 368. Wurtz, C. B. and S. S. Roback. 1955. The 357. Thomas, J. L., R. J. Zimmerman and T. J. invertebrate fauna of some Gulf coast rivers. Proc. Minello. In press. Abundance patterns of juvenile Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 107: 167-206. blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) in nursery habitats of two Texas bays. Bull. Mar. Sci. 369. Zein-Eldin, Z. P. and M. L. Renaud. 1986. Inshore environmental effects on brown shrimp, 358. Tinnin, R. K. 1974. A trammel net survey of a Penaeus aztecus, and white shrimp, P. setiferus, disturbed hypersaline environment. M. S. Thesis, populations in coastal waters, particularly of Texas. Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, TX, 75 p. Mar. Fish. Rev. 48(3): 9-19. 359. Trent, L. 1966. Size of brown shrimp and time of emigration from the Galveston Bay System, Texas. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 227: 7-16. 106 370. Zimmerman, R. J. 1969. An ecological study of the macro-fauna occurring in turtle grass (Thalas- sia testudinumKonig) surrounding Ransom Island in Redfish Bay, Texas. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&l Univ., Kingsville, TX, 129 p. 371. Zimmerman, R. J. and A. H. Chaney. 1969. Salinity decrease as an affectorof molluscan density levels in a turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum Konig) bed in Redfish Bay, Texas. Taius 2: 5-10. 372. Zimmerman, R. J. and T. J. Minello. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus, and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7:421-433. 373. Zimmerman, R. J., T. J. Minello and G. Zamora, Jr. 1984. Selection of vegetated habitat by brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, in a Galveston Bay salt marsh. Fish. Bull., U. S. 82: 325-336. * The references with numbers that contain decimals were added afterthe matrix (Appendix 4) was devel- oped. 107 Themajoractivitiesofthe StrategicAssessment Program are has resulted in the publication of NEI supplement reports. focused on assembling information and providing assess- Several data bases, including the Estuarine Living Marine ment services required for decisionmaking about the estuar- Resources (ELMR) data base, are being completed (see ine and marine resources of the USA. The information and inside front cover). Data and analytical capabilities are being assessments that are developed help identify strategies for made more accessible through improvements in the Com- balanced conservation and use of these resources for maxi- puter Mapping and Analysis System (Cmas) and develop- mum benefit to the Nation. Recent projects completed by the ment of the Coastal Ocean Management, Planning, and As- Branch include the Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort Seas Strategic sessment System (COMPAS). Assessment reports examin- Assessment Data Atlas, along with two National Estuarine ing pesticide use in estuarine drainage areas, susceptibility of Inventory Data Atlases and one pre-publication edition of the estuaries to nutrients, and quality oi coastal shellfishing wa- West Coast of North America Data Atlas. A continuing effort tars are also being completed. to expand and improve the National Estuarine Inventory (NEI) STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTPROGRAM I OPERAnONS&SUPPWoRr I I. |.....iI GEOGRAP Information OCEAN ECOOIS Products IINFOMATO MSYSTEMS - onei {te __ / Strateg c ases & Analyetical A RESOURCES i COTLPROCEsES Assessment Capabilitie s RX. 1 Data Atlases COAffrAL POLLUTON \Assessments & Information Services/ National and Regional Assessments of Estuerine and Marine Resources and Environmental Quallty The Strategic Assessment Program assembles and analyzes information to generate atlas products and assessment services on the multiple uses of the Nation's coastal ocean resources. -~~~~~~/~ 4a lj~~~~~ 'Nurg 0% Reproduced by NTIS National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce Springfield, VA 22161 This report was printed specifically for your order from our collection of more than 2 million technical reports. � 0 U , Foreconomy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast 1) Q Q i collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for *^ S -each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction available from n hU t our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document or any order you placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Services __ iDepartment at (703)487-4660. , Cm Always think of NTIS when you want: Po *._ * Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated t .1 by the ongoing multibillion dollar R&D program of the U.S. Government. E) : a)Q * R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20 . t other countries, most of it reported in English. 4- (4 Q) NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable o ~ ~~O = information: la ~J.~ * The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and 40; - datafiles produced by Federal agencies. ^ C tWs. * The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you 4a o 0 � access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources. 4-j CU ; For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products ._ a 0O and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and ' foreign Government technology. Call (703)487-4650 or send this (U sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. (U Us tM > Ask for catalog, PR-827. Name 0 $* C - Address o .( . Telephone - Your Source to U.S. and Foreign Government Research and Technology.