1999 Lindeman & Snyder. NHB Fishes and Dredging

8/9/2019 1999 Lindeman & Snyder. NHB Fishes and Dredging

1/18

508

Abstr act

. - -

Fi s h assembl ages

of

near -

shore

hardbottom

habi tats of southeast

Fl or i da

were

quant i f i ed at t hr ee si t es

from

Apri l 1994 t o

J une

1996

Random

2

x

15 mransects wer e visual l y censured

w t hi n

two

repl i cate

areas at each s i t e

The

hardbottom

at

one

s i t e was buri ed

by

a

dredge

proj ect t o wden a

beach

one

year i nt o t he study At o t a l of 394

transects were sampled

Ei ght y - s i x

taxa 77 i dent i f i ed t o

speci es)

f r o m

36

f a m l i es

were

censured

Grunts

H a e - m u l i d a e w t h e

m o s t

i v r s f a m i l y

11

speci es) ,

f ol l owed

by t he

wrasses

Labri dae) and

parr otf i shes Scari dae)

w th

seven and s i x speci es,

respecti vely

The

most

abundant

speci es

were

s a i l -

ors choi ce aemul on

parr a) , s i l v e r

porgy

pl odus argent eus) , and

cocoa

damsel f -

i sh tegastes

vari abi l i s)

w th

mean

abundances i ndi v i d ual s / t r a ns ect ) of

4

. 5

3

8

and

3 7

respecti vely Earl y

l i f e

st ages new y sett l ed,

ear l y j uv eni l e,

and

j uveni l e) represented over

80

of

t he i ndi v i dual s at

al l

sit es

Newy

sett l ed st ages

of over 20 speci es were

observed i n associ ati on

w th hard-

bott omreef structure Outsi de

o f l a -

goons, nearshore

hardbottomareas

are

t he

pri mary

natural

structures

i n

shal-

l ow

waters of

mainland Fl ori da s east

coast and

wereesti mated t o

have nurs-

er y val ue f or 34 speci es of f i shes

Af ter

one year,

buri al of appr oxi matel y

f i v e

ha

of hardbottomhabi t at at

one

s i t e

l owered t henumbers of

i ndi vi dual s

and

speci es by

over 30x

and

l Ox,

respec-

t i v e l y Due t o

t hei r ear l y

ont ogeneti c

st age, many of t hes e speci es may not

be

adapted f or

hi gh

mobi l i ty

i n

r e-

sponse t o habi tat buri al

Dredgi ng

ef -

f e c t s may

be

ampl i f i ed

by

buri al pr ior

t o andduri ng

spri ng

andsummer peri -

ods

of

peak

l arval r ecrui t ment

Manuscri pt

accept ed

28 August

1998

Fi s h

Bul l

97

: 508- 525 1999)

Nearshorehardbottom

i shes of

southeast Fl ori da andef fects of

habi tat

buri al caused by dredgi ng

Kenyon

C

Lindemn

Di visi on of Mari ne Bi ol ogy and F i s h e r i e s

R os e n s t i e l

School of Mari ne and At mospheri c S c i e n c e

Un i v e r s i t y of M am

4600

Ri ckenbacker

Cswy

M am, F l o r i d a 33149

F -mai l address f or K Li ndeman kl i ndeman@smas. mam.edu

Davi d

B

Snyder

Cont i nental

Shel f

A s s oc i a t e s I nc

759

Par kway St

J u p i t e r

F l o r i d a 33477

The sout heast

coast

of mai nland

Fl or i da i s w t hi n

a

bi ogeogr aphi c

t r ans i t i on

zone of hi gh

mari ne

bi odi versi ty Bri ggs, 1974

;

Gi l mor e,

1995)

Thi s r egi on i s al so under go-

i ng some

of

t he most

rapi d

human

popul at i on growth

of

any area

of

t he

Uni t ed States

Cul l i ton et al

1990)

Due t o t he economc and recre-

ati onal val ue of beaches, subst an-

t i a l

mari ne dredgi ng proj ects up

t o

. 5

x 10 5

m

of f i l l / pr oj ect ) ar e

commony

used

t o

wden

beaches

that ar e subj ect

t o

erosi on

i n

t he

area

COE, 1996) Nearshore

hardbottomhabi t at s ar e t he

p r i -

mary

natural reef

structures

of t hi s

r egi on at

dept hs of

0- 4

m

nd are

of ten

bur i ed

or i ndi rect l y

af f ectedby

these proj ects To

dat e,

no quant i -

t at i v e

st udi es of t he

f i s h

f auna

of

these

habi t at s or t he e f f e c t s

of beach

dredge- and- f i l l proj ects on near-

shore f i shes ar e

avai l abl e

NRC

1995)

Nearshore

hardbottom

habi t at s

of

thi s

area ar e

deri ved

from

accre-

t i onary

r i dges

of

coqui na

mol l usks,

sand,

andshel l

marl whi ch

l i t h i f i e d

paral l el

t o

anci ent

shorel i nes

dur-

i ng Pl ei stocene i ntergl aci al

per i ods

uane and Mei sburger, 1969

Hof f mei st er,

1974) The habi t at

compl exi t y

of

these

l i mestone

struc-

tures

has been expandedbycol oni es

of tube- bui l di ng

pol ychaete

worms

Ki r t l ey and Tanner 1968) and

other i nvert ebrate and macr oal gal

speci es

Gol dber g,

1973

Nel son,

1989 Nelson

and Demetri ades,

1992)

I n sout heast

Fl ori da,

most

nearshore hardbottom

structures

are w t hi n 200

mf

t he shore These

habi t at s are

of t en cent r al l y l ocat ed

between

md shel f reef s t o

t he

east

and

est uar i ne

habi t at s

w t hi n

i n l e t s

t o

t he west Theref ore,

theymay

serve

as

set t l ement

habi t at s

f or

i mm gr at i ng l arvae

or

as

i nt erme-

di ate

nursery

habi t at s f or j uveni l es

em grati ng

out of i nl ets Vare, 1991

Li ndeman, 1997a)

Nonet hel ess,

most

admni s trat i ve r evi ews

have

concl uded t hat

t he f i s h habi t at

val ue of

nearshore

hardbottomand

t he

ef f ect s of dr edge- based

beach

restorati on proj ects ar e mnimal

e g

ACOE,

1996)

Thi s study

quanti f i es nearshore

hardbottom i s h ass embl ages on t he

sout heast

coast of

mai nl and

Fl ori da

over a27-month peri od

The

e f f e c t s

of

dredge- f i l l

pl acement were

al so

examned because t he hardbottom

habi t at

at

one s i t e

was buri ed on

account of

a

beach

r e st o r at i on

proj ect

12 months

i n t o t he study

Threepri mary

obj ecti ves

were

ex-

amned

F i r s t spati al and

t empor al

att r i butes

of f i sh

assembl ages

at


2/18

Li ndeman nd

Snyder

Nearshorehardbottom i shes of southeast Fl or i da

Fi gure

CARLIN

PARK

Pri mary

study s i tes f or f i s h

surveys

of

nearshorehardbottomhab tats at J upi ter , Fl ori da 26°56 N

80°04 4 W

three

undi st ur bed hardbottoms i t e s were

character-

i zed

Second,

abundances

of

di f f erent l i f e st ages were

comared

to

assess the potenti al nursery val ue

of

nearshore hardbottomhabi t at Thi r d, effects

of

dredge bur i al onnumers

of

i ndi vi dual s and

speci es

were comaredbetween

a

s i t e

subj ected

to

bur i al and

a control s i t e

Methods

Study areas

Fi sh

abundances werequanti tati vel y surveyed on

two nearshore hardbottomsi tes approxi matel y 2

km

north

( Coral Cove) and2 kmout h (Car l i n Park) of

J upi t er

I n l e t ,

Fl ori da

( 26°56 N, 80°04 W fromApri l

509

1994

through

J une

1996 ( F i g

Saml i ng

at both

si tes

extended approxi matel y

100

m

ffshore

to

a

depth

of 4m

Nearshorehardbottomf

s im la r

depth

and

structure at OceanRi dge, i mmedi atel y south

of

t he South

LakeWorth

I nl et

( 26°31 N,

80°02 W

was

al so surveyed f or comparat i ve

pur poses dur i ng the

summer

of

1995

Weathered

l i mestone out cr oppi ngs

were

commn

between

depths

of

0and

4 mt

a l l

si tes

These

struc-

tures

havea

vari ety

of

names e . g Anast asi a

f orma-

t i on

out cr oppi ngs, coqui na

r e e f s , worme e f s but are

referred

to by thei r mst commnname

nearshore

hardbott om

i n

t he

present

st udy I n som

areas,

t he

hardbottom

extended

. 75m

above t he bottom

and

was

hi ghl y convol ut ed

Shoreward port i ons of

t he hardbottomwereexposed at l ow t i de Epi bi ot a

consi st ed

of

a vari ety

of

i nver t ebrat es and

al gae

The


3/18


4/18

Li ndemanandSnyder

Nearshore

hardbottom i sh es of southeast F l o r i da

sampl es W t hi n each

s ampl e,

count s

f or

i ndi vi dual

taxa

wereaver aged over al l transects

t o pr ovi de val -

ues f or

t he matr i x These val ues

were

l og- tr ans-

f ormed

[ l og10 n+1) ] to pre vent

abundant taxa from

domnati ng t he

or di nat i on

or cl as s i f i cat i on r e s ul t s

The

t r ansf o r me d mat r i x

was

anal yzed

by

corre-

spondence

anal ysi s

CA) , a method that empl oys a

two-way

wei ght ed aver agi ng al gor i t h m t o pr oduce

s i mul t aneous

or d i nat i on of

s i t es

and t axa

Gauch,

1982 ; J ongman et a l

1995)

These anal yses

were

performed w t h t he

program

CANOCO t er Br aak,

1988) From he

same l og- t r ansf ormed

data matr i x,

normal sampl es ) and i nve rs e t axa)

resemblance

matr i ces were gener ated by usi ng t he Br ay- Cur t i s

d i s s i m l a r i t y i nd ex Br ay and Curt i s , 1957)

Normal

and i nve rs e

r es embl ance

matr i ces

were cl us t e r e d

separ at el y

by t he unwei ghted pai r ed- gr oup

method

of aver agi ng

PGMA) Sneat h

and

Sokal ,

1973)

Al l

d i s s i m l a r i t y

and

cl ust er

anal yses

were computed

w t h

NTSYS-pc

sof t war e Rohl f ,

1997)

To address

t h e s e cond

pr oj ect obj ecti ve, numbers

of

l i f e stages per transect were compared

w t h i n each

s i t e Datawere

anal yzed

by usi nga paramet r i c one-

wayANOVA

when var i ances were

homogeneous

Bart l ett s

t e s t

Aposter i or s

compar i s ons

of

d i f f e r -

ences among

means empl oyed Tukey s HSDtest

Vari ances

of

numbers

of l i f e stages

of

gr unt s

per

transect

at

t he

twoJ upi t e r s i t es

remai ned heteroge-

neous af ter

l o g

10 n+1 t r ansf ormat i on and a

Kr uskal l -

Wal l i s

nonparamet r i c, s i ngl e cl as s i f i cat i onANOVA

was

used Pr o babi l i t y

was

cal cul at ed

usi ng t he

x2

appr oxi mat i on

Two-sampl e

t - t e s t s

f or

unequal

var i -

ances

were

used t o

compare

numbers

of

i ndi vi dual s

at

hardbottom

and natur al sand

s i t e s

Onl y hard-

bottoms ampl es f r o mmonthswhennatur al sand s i t e s

weresampl ed

March

and

Apr i l

1995)

wereused

f or

t h e s e tes ts I n

a l l

stat i st i cal

t e s t s , di f f e r e nce s were

consi dered

si gni f i cant

at P


5/18

512

Meannumber of

i ndi v i d ua l s / l t r a ns ec t

and

f re q ue nc y

of oc c urre nc e

f or themost

abundant t h r e e f a m l i e s , genera,

and

spec i es at al l

ne a rs h ore

hardbottom

s i t e s

On y p re d re d gi ng d a ta were

used

f or Ca r l i n

Park

s i t e CC

Cor al Cove

148 t r a ns e c t s ) ; CP Ca r l i n

Park

112 t r a n s e c t s ) ; OROcean

R dge

36

t ransec ts)

;

GM

grandmean

Tabl e

1

The

t h r ee

mst abundant

speci es

weret he

s ai l or s

choi ce aemul on

p a r r a ) ,

s i l ver

porgy D pl od us

argenteus), and

cocoa

dams el f i s h St egast es var i abl es)

w t h

means

of 4

. 5

3

. 8

and 3

7

i ndi v i dua l s / t r a ns ec t

over

a l l s i t es

Tabl e 1 Themst

abundant

speci es

at Cora Cove,

s ai l or s

choi ce,

bl ack margate

nsot remus

s u r i n ame ns i s ) ,

and hai ry blenny

abri somus

nuc hi pi nn i s ) , r ep r esent ed 32 of

a l l

i ndi vi dual s Sevenof t he 15 mst abundant

speci es

at Cor al Covewere grunts

At Car l i n

Par k, s i l ver

por gy, cocoa

damsel f i sh, and s ai l or s

choi ce

repre-

s ented 41 of

a l l i ndi vi dual s

Ei ght of t he 16

most

abundant

s pec i es

weregr unt s At

OceanRi dge, t he

mst abundant speci es

were

s i l ver por gy, sergeant

maj or

Abu de f du f s axat i l i s ) , ands ai l or s choi ce Grunt

speci es ranked f i r s t i n f r equency of oc c ur r enc e

per

t r ans ect at Cor al Cove

and

Ocean

Ri dge, and second

at

Car l i n Park

Tabl e

1

Damsel f i sh

speci es ranked

f i r s t i n frequency at Car l i n Parkand

second

at t he

ot her

s i t e s Themost f r equent l y

oc c ur r i n g speci es

over al l

were cocoa damsel f i sh,

ha i r y b l enny

abri somus

nuchi pi nnus ) , and s ai l or s

c hoi c e Tabl e

1

Norma c l us t e r

a na l ys i s

of

saml es

from

al l s i t e s

r e s ol v ed

t h r ee

gr oups t hat

br oa dl y

r e f l ec t ed t empo-

r al

p a t t e r n s Fi g 3

No di s t i nc t

spat i a l gr oupi ngs

emerged

i n

t he

norma

a na l ys i s

Group 1

cons i s t ed

Fi shery Bu l l et i n

97 3) , 1999

of 21

sampl es

ei ght f r o m

Car l i n Par k, t en from

Cor al

Cove,

and t h r ee

fromOceanRi dge) most l y t a ken i n

s pr i ng

and

summer

mnths

Group

2

cons i s t ed

of 8

sampl es

four

e ac h f r om

Car l i n

Park and

Cor a l Cove)

t a ken

i n

mdand

l a t e

summer

Group3

i n cl ude d t he

on l y

w nt e r

sampl es

Feb r ua r y

1995 and

1996)

t a ken

dur i ng t he

pr oj ect

I n v e r s e

c l us t e r a na l ys i s r e ve al e d sev en gr oups

of

t a x a

Fi g 4

Group A c on t a i n ed 26 common

t a x a

i nc l udi ng t he mst f r e que nt l y oc c ur r i n g and

abun-

dant

s pec i es

fromv i s u al sur veys

suc h

as s ai l or s

choi ce,

cocoa

damsel f i sh, ha i r y bl enny,

and s i l ver

porgy Tabl e

1 Thi s

groupc ha ra c te r i zed t he

spr i ng-

summer

group

of

sampl es

d ef i n ed

by normal gr oup

The

remaini ng

s i x

groups cons i s t ed

of

t a xa t hat

were t e mpor a l l y var i abl e

i n t he i r

abundance

and

oc c ur r enc e i n

t he sampl es

Group

B

was

ch ar act er -

i z ed by

s pec i es

t hat o ccurred

at

l ower abundances

Groups

FandGwere

r ep r esent ed

by

s i ngl e

ta xa :

Apogon

macul atusand Ar chosar gus

probat ocephal us,

r e s pe ct i v el y

The

l at t e r

s pec i es

was i mport ant

i n

de-

f i n i n g

normal gr oup

3

Fi g 3

Or d i n at i on of sampl es pr o j ect ed onCA axes 1

and

2

produceda

p a t t e r n t hat

ge ne r a l l y

agr e ed w t h t he

normal

c l us t e r a na l ys i s Fi g 5A) Thee i genva l ue

f or

CA a xi s

was 0. 218 and account ed f or 16. 9

of

t he

Mean

number / t r a ns ec t

r equency

occurrence

CC CP

OR GM CP OR GM

Faml y

Ha emu l i d a e

15 5

17 4 9 4 15 5 89

90

92

90

Pomacentri dae

5 9

7

9 5 7

6

6 81

95

86 87

Spa r i d a e

5 9

3 7

3

9

37

44

38

Labri dae 3 2

3

0

65

64

Genus

Haemul on

9 8 15 3

6

2 11

75 80 42

75

Stegastes

3 4 6 1

4 3

72

89

73

Ani sot r emus 5 7

3

2 4 1

74

39

69

Dpl odus

5 8

3

7 3 8

35

36 65

Spec i es

Haemul on

p a r r a

4 4 5 0

3

4 4 5

62

64 33 59

Dpl odus

argent eus

5 8

3 7 3 8

35 36 36

Stegast es

var i abl es

5 4

3 7

86

71

Labr i somus

nuc hi pi nni s

3 1

2 7

73 69

Abudefduf s a x a t i l i s

3 1 2 3

17 31

Ani sot r emus sur i namensi s

3 5 2 2

36 43


6/18

Li ndeman

and Snyder Near shor e

hardbottom

f i s h e s

o f s o u t h e a s t F l o r i d a 51 3

var i at i o n

i n

t he dat a s e t , whereas t he ei genval ue

f or

axi s

2

was 0. 124 and

account ed

f o r

9

. 7

of

t he

var i at i o n

i n t he dat a set Sampl es fromAugust and

September at Cor al Cove

and

Car l i n Park separ at ed

f r o m

al l

ot her

sampl es

al ong CA axi s 1

I n gener al ,

sampl es were

not

spr ead

w del y

al ong

axi s

2

;

however , twos ampl es,

May

1995 at OceanRi dgeand

February

1995

at

Car l i n Par k,

di d

separ at e

f r o m t he

ot her s i t e s

The o rdi nat i o n of taxa on CA axes and 2 showed

how t he

taxa were

di s t r i but ed

i n r e l a t i o n

t o t he

hardbottomsamples

al ong

these

same

axes

Fi g

5B)

The

mos t common speci es e g

Tabl e 1

cl ust er ed near

t he

or i gi n of

t he or di nat i on Taxa

w t h hi gh

scores

al ong

axi s

i ncl uded

i nf r equent l y

occur r i ng spe-

c i e s

such

as

Hal i choeres

poeyi ,

Haemul on aur o l i n-

eatum

Mul l oi di chthys mart i ni cus, and Caranxruber

Lowscores on axi s 1 were Echi dna

catenat a,

Acanthurus

chi rurgus,

Chaetodon

ocel l atus,

and

Sci aeni dae

sp Speci es

w t h

hi gh

scores

on

axi s 2

were

Spari soma

aurofrenatum

Chaetodon ocel l atus, and

Spari soma

v i r i d e

Theseweremost abundant

at

Ocean

Ri dge

i n

May

1995 and

were

r esponsi bl e

f or

t he sepa-

r at i on of t hi s

sampl e

f r o m

al l others al ong axi s

2

I n compar i s ons

of

hardbottom

and nat ur al

sand,

20 t ransects over

nat ur al

sand pl ai ns r ecor ded

onl y

f our taxa

Thecl upei d, Harengul aj aguana,

was

most

abundant

18

j uveni l es

i n

two school s t o t al

An uni -

dent i f i ed

Euci nost omus

s p ec i e s ,

Gerres

ci ner eus,

and

Caranx barthol omaei were

al so

r ecor ded

f o u r ,

one,

andone

i ndi vi dual s, r especti vel y)

Hardbottom

habi -

tats typi cal l y had

over

t h i r t y t i mes

t he

i ndi vi dual s

per

t r ansect

as

nat ur al

sand

habi t at s

Two-sampl e

t - t e s t s

compari ng

hardbottomwth sand

habi t at s

rej ect ed

t he

hypot hes i s

of no di f f er ences

i n

mean

number s of

i ndi vi dual s per t r ansect P


7/18

51

Fi shery

Bu l l e t i n 97 3 , 1999

Figure4

C usteri ng

of f i s h taxaco-occurrenceat threenearshore

hardbottom

s i t e s

by

UP M

nal ysi s

of an

i nverse

Bray-Curti s

di ssi mlarity

mtri x

Numeric

codes

used

i n correspondence

anal ysi s

are

next

toeach

name NS

NewySett l ed

Dashed

l i nes

deli neate

groups

A G

and

Abudefduf

ranked w t hi n t he t en

most

abun-

dant

speci es

from

a l l

three s i t es

Tabl e

Rel at i ve

abundances

of

t he l i f e

st ages

of a l l grunts censused

at t he J upi t er s i t es ar e shown i n F i gure

7

Ear l y j u-

veni l e st ages of t he mst

abundant

speci es,

sai l or s

choi ce,

were

s igni f i cant l y mre

abundant

t han any

ot her l i f e

st age

at

each

of

t he

three

s i t e s

Kr uskal -

Wal l i s

ANOVA P

001, and

a post er i o r i pai rw se

compar i sons

Adul t

sai l ors

choi ce

were

s igni f i cant l y

l ower

i n

abundance

thanj uveni l e s t ages Kr uskal -

Wal l i s

ANOVA P


8/18

Li ndeman

and

Snyder

: Nearshore hardbottom

i shes

of

southeast F lor ida

Mean number

of i ndiv i dual s/ tr ansect

by l i f e

st age f or the ten

most

abundant

t axa at each of

t hree sit es

Newy Sett l ed ;

EJ

:

Earl y J uveni l e f or haemul i ds onl y

J

:

J uveni l es A Adul t s

Only predredgi ng

data

were used

f or Car l i n

Park

s i t e n

a

= not

avai l abl e

thi rd i n overal l abundance amonggrunt s and

were

represent ed by

al l

l i f e st ages Fi g 7 Tom at e, Hae

mul on

aurol i neatum

r anked

f ourt h

on t he

basi s of l arge

but i nf requent

i nf l uxes of earl y

st ages

Out si de of

t hese

pul ses,

tomate

was not

an

abundant

or

f requentl y

oc -

curr i ng

speci es at any s i t e duri ng any l i f e

st age

Some newyset t l ed gr unt s coul d not be posi ti vel y

i dent i f i ed dur i ng vi sual

surveys and

were pool ed as

Haemul on sp

new y set t l ed l arvae

of Ani sot remus

are di sti ncti ve,

Li ndeman

1997a Thi s group con-

tai ned epi benthi c l arvae of

several

speci es and

rankedtenth i n abundanceamongal l taxa Tabl e

2

and f i f t h

among

haemul i ds

Fi g

7 The

l argest

com

ponent of t hese

uni denti f i ed

school s was pr obabl y

sai l ors choi ce Thi s assumpti on i s based on t he

great er

rel at i ve abundances of sai l ors choi ce

earl y

j uveni l es

at

al l

si tes 2 t he cl ose proxi mt y of sai l ors

choi ce earl y j uveni l es

t o

t hese

newy

set tl ed

Haemul on

sp

and

3

col l ecti ons

of

several newy sett l ed Hae

mul on sp

school s

most commonl y

cont ai ned

sai l ors

choi ce upon

m croscopi c exam nat i on

Earl y st ages of commerci al l y val uabl e speci es

oc -

curred

i nf requentl y dur i ng

t he

surveys,

al t hough

recreati onal l y i mport ant

speci es

were

common The

most abundant

commerci al f am l y

at t he nearshore

hardbottom

si tes

was t he Lutj ani dae

snappers

Four snapper

speci es, total i ng

58 i ndi vi dual s, were

Tabl e 2

Mean

number i ndi vi dual s/t ransect

515

recorded at

al l

si tes

Thi rt y- ei ght

of t hese

were l ane

snapper, Luj anus synagri s Thi rt y-t hree of t hese

were j uveni l es, the maj ori t y

l ess

than

f i v e

cm F i ve

newy sett l ed

i ndi vi dual s


9/18

516

F i s h er y B u l l e t i n

97 3 , 1999

c i es

andnumbers

of

i ndi v i dual s

per transect f or Apri l

among1994-96 reveal ed

no s i gni f i cant i nter annual

di f f erences ANOVA P=0

34

;ANOVA P - - 0 . 2 1

I den-

t i c a l

compar i s ons

f or J une among t he

same

three-

year peri od reveal ed no

di f f erences

among mean

numbers of

i ndi v i dual s ANOVA

P - - 0

. 0 6 ,

but

s i g -

ni f i c ant

di f f e renc es among

numbers

of

spec i es

ANOVA P


10/18

Li ndeman and

Snyder

Nearshore

hardbottom

i shes of southeast F lor i da

51

7

Fi gure

6

Abundances

of d i f f e r e nt l i f e hi story

stages

at

theJ upi ter

hardbottom

s i t e s w th 95 confi dence i nte rval s ) AA l

speci es pool ed

B

Pooled

grunt

speci es

onl y

Onl y

pre-

dredgi ng

data were

used f or Carl i n Park

s i t e. NS

Newy

Sett l ed E

Earl y J uveni l e f or grunts onl y)

;

J

J uveni l es;

AAdults ;

PE

Pool ed

Earl y

Stages

=NS+E +

sur veys i n

September

1995 r ecor ded

no

exposed out-

cr ops

or

f i s hes

Duri ng

t he f ol l ow ng

w nte r ,

eros i on

occur r ed

and

t he wdth

of

t he newbeachwas

r educed

Some

out cr ops were r e- exposed by t he

l os s of

dr edge-

f i l l However

w ndand

waves prohi bi ted

vi sual

sam

pl i ng

dur i ng

t h i s

peri od Surveys

i n

Febr uar y,

Apr i l ,

andMayof 1996

22

transects

t o t a l

recorded

no

spe-

ci es

Fi g

9

D scussi on

Fi sh

assembl ages

of

nearshore

hardbottom

The

di ver s i t y

of

f i s hes ut i l i zi ng nearshore har d-

bottom

habi t ats

of mai nl and

F l o r i da

has not been

quant i f i ed

Qual i tati ve

studi es

by

i chthyol ogi sts

ex-

per i enced w t h t he subst ant i al taxonomc probl em

Fi gure 7

Comparat i ve abundances

of

grunts

among 12 taxa

and

l i f e hi story stages

Data

pool ed f romal l Coral

Cove

sur-

veys

and

predredgi ng

Carl i n Park

surveys

260

transects

to tal ) Speci es

represented

by

abbrevi ated genus

and

spe-

c i es

names

w t hi n these di verse,

l arge l y j uveni l e ass embl ages

ar e al so l acki ng Three

studi es

have i ncl uded

sec-

ti ons onnearshore

har dbott om

f i s hes as par t of

l ar ger

pr oj ect

goal s

G lmore 1977) l i s t e d 105 speci es i n

associ at i on w t h

surf

zone ree f s

at

dept hs

l es s

than

twomTwo

addi t i onal speci e s

were added

i n

l ater

papers G l mor e

et al

1983 G l mor e,

1992)

Usi ng

vi sual surveys, Vare

1991)

recorded 118 speci es from

near shor e

hardbottom

s i t es

i n Pal m

Beach County

Futch and Dw nel l 1977)

i ncl uded

a

l i s t

of

34

spe-

ci es

obt ai ned

from

several

i cht hyoci de

col l ecti ons

on

nearshore reefs

I nc l ud i ng speci es

from

these

pri or

studi es,

192

speci es

have nowbeen

recorded i n asso-

ci at i onwthnear shor e hardbottom

habi tats of

mai n-

l and

southeast

Fl or i da

Tabl e

3 . 3

i n Li ndeman,

1997a)

Numbers

of

l abr i somd, bl enni i d,

gobi i d,

and

apogoni d

speci es

may be

under est i mated

ow ng t o

t hei r

smal l

si z e or

crypti c behavi ors

Other

har d-

bott omhabi t at s

of

t he southeas t Uni t ed

States

oc

cur

i n

areas wth subs tant i al l y di f f er ent physi -


11/18

51

8

Fishery Bul l et i n 97 3 , 1999

ogr aphi c

r egi mes

Sedberry andVan

Dol ah,

1984

Chi appone

and Sul l i van, 1994

and

myshow

d i f -

f er i ng patterns of f i s h

di versi ty

Spati al

and t emporal at t ri but es

of f i sh

assem

bl ages

at

t he three

sit es i n

t he

present

st udy

were

examned

by

usi ng

ordi nat i on

and

cl uster

anal y-

s i s

Vi sual census sampl es col l ected

fromMarch

t hrough J u l y

were

si m l ar

i n speci es

composi t i on

and

rel at i ve abundance

amng

si t es Fi g

3

Thi s

f i ndi ng

i s i n agreement w t h t he

si ml ar

pl ots of

i ndi vi dual

and speci es

abundances

amng

si tes

Fi g

2 The rel ati ve

homogenei t y

of

t hese

sampl es

was

f urt her ref l ected i n

t he

co-occurr ence

of

mny

taxa

i ncl udi ng haemul i ds aeml on parra,

f l avol i neat um

chrysar gyr eum

Ani sotrems

vi rgi ni cus,

A suri namensi s ,

pomacent r i ds

Steg-

ast es

vari abi l i s,

Abudef duf saxati l i s ,

l abri somds

abri soms

nuchi pi nni s , spar i ds D pl odus

hol brooki ,

l

abri ds

Hal i choer es

bi v i t t a t us ,

Thal as-

som

bi f asci at um

and scari ds

Spari soma

rubri -

pi nne

Fi g

4

Wth t he

except i on

of

L

nuchi -

pi nni s

and

S

vari abi l i s, most

taxa

occurred

as

earl y

l i f e

st ages

Saml es from

ate summr August

and

Septem

b e r

were

di sti nct f r om

t he spri ng

and

earl y

sum

mr i n

both cl uster

anal ysi s

and

ordi nat i on

group

2,

F i gs

3

and 5 The onl y two samples taken i n

w n-

t er February

di f f ered f r omal l

other

sampl es

i n

t he

anal yses

group

3,

F i gs

3

and

5

These pat t erns

suggest

that

som seasonal i t y i n

assembl age

struc-

ture

exi sted

Thi s my

r e f l e c t

l a t e spri ng

and

sum

mr peaks

i n

l arval

set t l ement i n cont rast

t o reduced

w nt er set t l ement

and,

p os s i b l y ,

i nf l uxes

of

ol der j u-

veni l es fromi nshor e l agoonal

habi t at s Subst ant i al

numers of

mny

speci es s t i l l

sett l ed

i n l at e

sum

mr

but were possi bl y subj ect

t o

hi gher predat i on

from

ol der

i ndi vi dual s t hat

set t l ed ear l i er i n

t he

year

Vari ous

physi cal

di st urbances e g

w nter

col d

f r o n t s ,

summr hurr i canes and

bi ol ogi cal

phenomna

vari ati on

i n l arval r ecrui t ment

a f f e c t t he

composi -

t i on of f i s h

assembl ages

of nearshore

hardbottom

The turbi di ty gener at ed

by physi cal

di st urbances

const r ai ns t he vi sual

surveys

needed

t o

assess

thei r

i mmdi ate

effects

Nursery

habi t at s

and

nearshore

hardbottom

Wth

i ncreasi ng humn modi f i cat i ons

of

coast al

ar-

eas, det ai l ed

know edge

of

habi t at usage

i s

akeycom

ponent of i nf ormed f i shery andcoast al

l and mnage-

mnt

I dent i f i cat i on

of

essenti al habi t at s i ncl udes

t he

eval uat i on of

spati al

di stri but i ons of

structural

habi -

tats

across

t he shel f and

habi t at

r equi r ement s

of

key

taxa

Several

l i nes of evi dence suggest t hat

nearshor e

har dbot t om

habi t at s al ongt hemai nl and coast

of

east

F l or i da can

serve

as nursery

areas

f or

mnycoast al

f i s h speci es

Over

80 of

t he i ndi vi dual s

at

al l

sit es

were

earl y

l i f e

st ages

Ei ght of t he t op t en speci es

were consi stent l y

r epr esented

by earl y st ages Use

of

har dbot t om

habi t at s was

recorded

f or

new y

sett l ed

st ages

of

mre

t han

20 speci es

I n

addi t i on,

other

nat ural

habi t at s

w t h

subst ant i al

vert i cal

r e l i e f

were

absent

fromt he shal l ow

physi ogr aphi c

regi mes

where

nearshore hardbottomoccurred

Al though

suggesti ve of

nursery val ue,

t hese

l i nes

of evi dence

need t obevi ewed i n t he

appr opri ate con-

text

H ghabundances of

earl y

l i f e st ages

comared

wthadul ts do

not guarant ee t hat

a

habi t at

i s

a

val u-

abl e nursery

H gh

mort al i t y

rates i n

mny reef f i s h

popul ati ons S al e ,

1980 Shul mn

and

Ogden

1987

Ri chards and

Li ndemn,

1987 ; J ones,

1991 suggest

t hat

earl y

st ages

w l l

typi cal l y be mre

abundant

thanadul t s

I f spati al

di stri buti ons

of

al l l i f e st ages

ar e

homgeneous, al l habi t at s

w l l

have

mre

earl y

st ages

than

adul t s

However ,

t he

abundances

of

earl y

stages on

nearshore reef s probabl y

r e f l e c t

mrethan

j ust l arger numers

of

homgeneousl y

di str i buted

recrui ts

Newysett l ed

st ages

of

ei ght

of

t wel ve spe-

ci es of

grunts

and ei ght

of ni ne speci es of snappers

of t he sout heast mi nl and F l or i da

shel f have been

recorded

pri mari l y i n dept hs l ess than

t en

Li nde-

mn

e t al

1998

Adul t s

of

mst speci es are typi -

cal l y

uncommnor absent

i n

shal l ow

habi t at s

There

i s consi derabl e

evi dence

f o r

cross-shel f

habi t at

seg-


12/18

Li ndemanand

Snyder

Nearshorehardbottom i shes of southeast

Flor i da

51

Figure

Meannumbers of ind vidua s andspeci esat contr ol and

imact

si t es

i n J upi ter , FL

Arrows i ndi cate timngof dredge buri al of hardbottom

reef .

regati on

amng l i f e

st ages

of

many grunt

andsnapper

speci es

fromother regi ons

as

wel l earl y demer sal st ages appear to mst

commn y

use shal l ow

habi t at s

Starck,

1970

Denni s,

1992)

Si ml ar ontogenet i c

di f f erences

i n

di str i buti on

and

abundance

exi st

f or many

ot her

t axa t hat

ut i l i z e

nearshore hardbottomhabi t at s

Determni ng t he

avai l abi l i ty of habi t at

structure

l i m t s

survi val

of earl y

st ages

i s

i mpor t ant

i n assessi ng

nursery val ue Ab-

sences

of habi t at

structure can

resul t i n

i ncr eased predat i on or l owered

growh

Hi xon, 1991) I n southeast main and

Fl ori da, many

nat ur al nearshore mrine

habi t at s

outsi de

of

coastal l agoons andbe-

tween 25°30 N

and

26°20 N Dade and

Broward

Count i es)

are sand pl ai ns

l acki ng

hardbottom

and

subst anti al

t hree- di men-

si onal

structure ACOE 1996)

Athough

l arge stretches

of nearshore hardbottom

exi st

between26°20 N

and

27°50 N Pal m

Beach,

Mar t i n,

St Luci e,

and

I ndi an

Ri ver

Counti es) these

habi t at s are

often

separat ed

by ki l omet ers

of

sand pl ai ns There are no

ot her

natural

habi t at s

i n

t he

same

near-

shore areas t hat can support

equi val ent

abundances

of

earl y

l i f e

st ages These

con-

di ti ons

coul d

promote

a

demographi c

bott l e-

neck

t hat

l i m t s

l ocal

adul t popul at i ons

owng

t o

l i m t e d

habi t at avai l abi l i ty f or

earl y st ages

Despi t e

thei r

shal l ow dept h, nearshore

hardbottom

reef s

are posi ti oned wi thi n cur-

rent andti de

r egi mes

t hat

can

support

con-

si derabl e

l arval

abundances

The occur-

rence of preset t l ement l arvae i n t hese

ar

eas

i s

refl ected by t he abundances of new y sett l ed

st ages

i n

t he

present

st udy

and

l arvae

i n nearshore

zones of

Gul f

of Mexi co

barr i er

i sl ands

Rupl e, 1984

Ross

et al

1987)

Newysett l ed i ndi vi dual s were not

recorded duri ng any

surveys

of pure sand habi t at s

i n t he pr esent study However t he presence

of

nearshore hardbottom

promted

subst anti al

col oni -

z at i on of shal l ow outcrops by l arvae

of

many spe-

c i e s

i ncl udi ng

haemul i ds,

l utj ani ds,

spari ds,

l abri ds,

gerr ei ds,

sci aeni ds, and spar i ds Ecot ones w th hi gh

vert i cal

rel i ef

e . g hardbottomsand i nterf aces near

l edges) somtims

had

l arge

aggregati ons

of

new y

sett l ed st ages

of

t hese taxa

However ,

mcr ohabi t at -

scal e di stri buti ons of

f i shes

on nearshore hardbottom

reminunquanti f i ed

Use

of nearshore hardbottom

reef s

as

nur ser i es

may be

bi di recti onal

across

t he shel f Both

i nshore

and

offshore

mgrati ons dur i ng di ff eri ng ont ogenet i c

st ages can be

faci l i tated

by habi t at s posi ti oned cen-

t ra l ly

on t he shel f Nearshorehardbottommay serve

a

primry

nursery r o le f o r

i ncomng earl y

l i f e st ages

t hat wouldundergo

i ncreased predati on mortal i ty

wi t hout

shel t er

Nearshore hardbottommay al so

serve as

secondary nursery

habi t at f o r j uveni l es

t hat

emgrate out of

i nl ets

t owards offshore reefs Thi s

pattern

i s

seen

i n

gray snapper

and

bl uest r i ped grunt

whi ch

often

sett l e

i ns i de

i nl ets and

pri mari l y

use

nearshore hardbottomas

ol der

j uveni l es

I n addi t i on,

som

speci es

use these str uctures as resi dent nurs-

e r i e s

s e t t l i n g

growi ng- out , and

mturing

sexual l y

as

permnent

resi dents

e g

pomacent r i ds, l abri -

somds) secondar y nur ser y ro le

may

al so

resul t

f r o m i ncreased

growth

because of hi gher

food

avai l -

a b i l i t i e s i n structure- ri ch

envi ronments

The

i nter-

medi at e cross-shel f

posi t i oni ng

andot her

att ri butes

r evi ewed above suggest nearshore

hardbottom

ep-


13/18

52

0

resents essenti al

f ish

habi tat

for

mny

speci es

f o l -

l owngNO

1996 Bi di recti onal

use

of

nursery

habi tats posi ti oned between i nshore

grassbeds

and

offshore

reef s

requ res further study

Fromabundancepatterns

of

earl y

l i f e

stages and

theabsence

of anynearby

natural

habi tats

wthhi gh

vert i cal

r e l i e f ,

nearshore

hardbottom

of

southeast

mi nl and

Fl ori da

was

esti mted

to

have nursery

val ue f or

34

speci es

Appendix . Emi ri cal correl a-

ti on of

vari ati on

i n

earl ysurvi val

wth

adu t popu a-

ti on si ze

i s an i mortant but rarel yachi eved como-

nent of nurseryarea eval uati on Cominng

experi -

mntal studi es

of

habi tat

requ remnts wth broad

f i e l d

surveys

can

ai d i n connecti ng

organi smscale

attri butes wthpopu ati on-scal e patterns Serafy

et

al .

1997

Earl y

demrsal

stages

of

several

of the

mst

representati ve taxa of

nearshore

hardbottom

e . g

grunt and

damel f i sh

speci es

can be

col l e ct ed and

mni pu ated

i n

the

f i e l d

and

l aboratorywth

rel ati ve

ease Li ndemn,

1986

1997a

.

These

taxa

my

serve

as

usefu mdel s f or nursery habi tat studi es

that ex-

peri mntal l y assess habi tat requ remnts

Ef fects of

dredge-and- f i l l act i vi t i es

on

i chthyofauna

Buri al

of

the

nearshore hardbottomhabi tat

at Carl i n

Parkwth dredged sand signi f i cantl y

l owered

the

abundances

of

both

speci es

and i ndi vidual s

Fi g

9

Before

buri al

54

speci es

wererecorded, wth man

abundances of 38 i ndi vi dual s

and 7. 2

speci es per

transect

n=112 transects After

buri al

eight

spe-

ci es were recordedwthman

abundances

of

l e ss than

one i ndi vi dual

and

speci es per

transect

n=92

transects Noquanti tati ve

studi es

on

the

e f f ec t s of

nearshore

hardbottom

buri al

on

f i shes

are

avai l abl e

i n

the

peer- revi ewed

l i terature f or

comari son

The

f i nal

supplemnta envi ronmntal imact

statemnt EI S for the Carl i n

pro ect

Pal mBeach

Co

Dep

Envi ron

Resources

Managemnt

1994

summrizedseveral agency and contractor surveys

between 1985and 1990at Carl i n

Park

Ten t o

for ty-

eight f ish speci es

were recorded

f romqual i tati ve

surveys

of the

hardbottomStatemnts

regardingthe

habi tat val ue

of

nearshore

reefs and dredgi ng

e f f ec t s

i n

the Carl i n

ParkEIS

emhasi zed the vari abl e

na-

ture

of

reef

exposure

and

forecast that

f i s h i macts

wou d

be mni ml

and

temorary Pri mry

i macts

predi cted f or f i sheswere 1 short- termdi spl acemnt

duri ng constructi on and 2 temorary l oss

of

food

sources

TheEIS

al soemhasi zed

that

i macts wou d

be reduced

by several features

of

the pro ect desi gn

and nearshoreenvi ronmnt . Thesefeatures i ncluded

the

fol l owng

1

the f i shery

val ueof i macted

spe-

ci es was l ow 2 somamunt

of

hardbottomwou d

remn

or would

be constructed f or mti gati on i f

Fi shery

Bu l l e ti n 97 3 ,

1999

needed and 3 constructi onof

the pro ect wou d take

pl ace

when

f i s h popu ati ons were

at

thei r l owest

No

mnti on of di rect or

i ndi rect

mrtal i ty

upon

f i shes

wasmde

The

bi ol ogi cal

assumti ons

wthi n

thi s

EI S

are

siml ar

to

those

f ound

i n

related

documnts

e . g

COE

1996 For the

fol l owng

reasons,

i t i s

sug-

gested

that

som

of

these assumti ons

my

be

tenu-

ous

The

mj ori ty

of

i ndi vi dual s di spl aced

by

hardbottomburi al i n southeast Fl ori da

are

earl y

stages of

economcal l yand eco og cal l y

val uabl e

spe-

ci es

Appendi x Fi gure 9 Earl ydemrsal

l i f e

stages

are parti cu arl y vu nerabl e to predators e . g

ShulmnandOgden, 1987 Dspl acemnt wasper-

mnent

for

mst i ndi vidual s

because

al mst al l pri or

habi tat

was

el i mnated

for at

l east

15

mnths

the

postburi al durati on

of

the

present

study Because

of behavi oral

and

mrphol ogi cal

constrai nts

on

f l i ght

responses, hi ghmrtal i ti es are

probabl yunavoi dabl e

f or

mny

crypti c

speci es

newy sett l ed

l i f e stages,

or

other si te-associ ated

taxa subj ected

t o

di rect habi -

tat

buri al Tabl e 4

.10 in Li ndemn, 1997a

.

Whether

a

f ish

popu ati on i s seasonal l y l ow

at

the t i m

a

pro ect

beg ns i s

i nsigni f i cant

i f dredgi ng w l l bury

the

habi tat i mmdi atel y before

the peak peri od

of

l arval

sett l ement,

2

as i n the Carl i n

Park

pro ect

I n

addi ti on, l oss

of

reef -associ ated

food

sources

was

probabl y substanti al over

thi s

peri od

No substanti al habi tat structure

was

present

wthi n

at l east

0 8 km

f

the

Carl i nPark reef duri ng

i t s buri al The

cl osest

natural structure

was

east-

ward at depths of

at

l east 10mThese deeper

mdshel f

habi tats mybe

uti l i zed

by

rel ati vel y

f ew

grunt and snapper speci es duri ng thenewysett l ed

andearl y

j uveni l e

stages To the

south,

nosubstan-

t i al

hardbottom

was

present

f or

at l east 4

kmTo

the

north,

the

j ett i es

of

the

J upi ter I nl et

were

approxi -

mtel y 2 km

away

However ,

f i shes

i n a northerl y

f l i ght

responsehad

to

negoti ate

awater columwth

zerovi si bi l i t y because dredge f i l l

was

dumed

north-

to-south nyearl y stages

of f i sh

reachi ng the

j et-

t i e s wou d

probabl y

encounter

hi gh

predati on f rom

o der

pi scivores

uti l i zi ng

the

l arge cavi t i es

amng

the

armr-stone bou ders

of

the

a r t i f i c i a l l y

deepened

j etty

area

Li ndemn, 1997a

ostburi al mti gati on

pro ect

usi ngshal l owar t i -

f i c i a l

reef s of l i mstone

bou ders

was

proposed

i n the

z

Hackney

C

T

HPosey,

and SW

Ross 1996 Summry

and recommndati ons I n C T

Hackney

HPosey,

S

W

Ross and

A R

Nor r i s eds .

A

rev iew

and

synthesi s

of data on

surf

zone

f i shes

and i nvertebrates

i n t he south

At l ant i c Bi ght

and the potenti al i mpacts

f rombeach

r enouri shment,

p

108-

111

Rep t

o

U

S

ArmCorps of Engi neers,

Wl mngton Di s-

t r i c t , Wl m ngton, NC


14/18

Li ndeman

and Snyder Near shor e hardbottom

f i s h e s

o f s o u t h e a s t F l o r i d a

Car l i n Park

EI S

I n

t he

summer of

1998,

thre e

years

af ter

t he

bur i al ,

c ons t r uct i o n

of

appr oxi mat el y

1

ha

of m t i gat i on

reef s

began

I f

constructed bef ore

buri al

and at

s i m l a r

dept h s, m t i gat i on reefs

my

have pr ovi ded

a

r efuge

f or a

s i zeabl e f r act i on

of

t he

thousands

of

di spl aced f i s hes

du r i ng

t he

buri al

of

t he

hardbottom e e f as wel l as thousands

of

subsequent

newr e cr u i t s Evenwi t h promt c ons t r u ct i on o f a r t i -

f i c i a l r e e f s

mny

factors can l i m t t he net pr oduc-

t i o n

of

bi omass GFOSsmn

e t al

1997)

Some

bur-

i ed outcr oppi ngs were uncovered because of

er o s i o n

of

t he pr oj ect f i l l However

s t ruc tura l

suppor t

f o r

two

years of

l arval

r ecr ui t ment ,

shel t er

from

post-

set t l ement pr edati on, and

f o od

f or growt h,

were

pr ob-

abl y el i m nat e d at t he

hardbottom

ur i al s i t e

Nearshore

ha rdb ottom

areas, such as Car l i n Par k,

can be exposed

t o ext ended peri ods of

wave

ener gy

and t u r bi di t y , part i c ul ar l y du r i ng w nter mnths

However

condi t i ons

i n

wi nter

do

not d i l u t e

t he

po-

tent i al s i gni f i c anc e of a r t i f i c i a l buri al duri ng t he

s pr i ng and

summer mnths

These

ar e t he peri ods

of

peak usage of

ha rdb ottomhabi t at s by

new y sett l ed

and

j uveni l e s t ages of

f i s hes

I n t he

absence of dr edg-

i ng,

nearshore

areas t y pi cal l y showh i gh r eef

expo-

sures and

r educt i ons

i n

phy si o l o gi cal s t r es s or s

dur -

i ng t he

spr i ng-summer

r ecrui t ment wndowE l i m -

nat i o n of t h i s r ecrui t ment wndowby

habi t at

buri al

f o r

one or mre

years,

r egardl ess of

wi nter dynam

i c s

my

s ubs ta nt i al l y degrade t he

val ue of

t he

p r i -

mry natural nu rs ery habi t at s al ong t he wndward

shor el i nes

of F l o r i da s east

coast

Theabove r easons

suggest a

r i sk- aver se appr oach

t o

hardbottom

bur i al ,

as

pr evi o us l y suggested f or i nver t ebr at e fauna

Nel son, 1989)

Thecumul at i ve

e f f e c t s

onf i s hes of r epeat ed

buri al

of nearshore habi t at s and other bypr oduct s

of

these

pr oj ects remi n unknown Cascadi ng

di st urbances

w thec osyst em sc al e effects canbe hypot hesi zed f or

anumer of cumul ati ve ant hropogeni c

modi f i cat i ons

i n s o u t h

F l o r i da

e . g Butl er

et

al 1995 Aul t

et

al

1998) Habi t ats af f ected

by dr edgi ng or f i l l i n g

can

show

e f f e c t s

over

t empor al

and spati al s cal es t hat

are r a r el y cons i dered

Vest al

and Ri eser , 1995 ;

Li ndemn,

1997b) For exampl e,

c hr o ni c al l y

el evated

t u r bi di t i es c oul d l ead t o

decl i nes

i n pri mary pr oduc-

t i o n f or

f r equent l y

dredged

ar eas

of

t h e s o ut h eas t

F l o r i da shel f Concl usi ve

st at ement s

on

t he cumul a

t i ve ef f ect s of l ar ge- scal e

dr edgi ng upon

f i s hes

wi l l

ul t i mat el y dependon

t h e cor r el at i on of var i at i o ns

i n

ear l y

sur vi val

wi t h adul t popul ati on

s i z e s

a r a r e l y

achi eved task,

evenwhen

effects

mybe subst ant i al

Os enber g and

Sc hm t t , 1996)

However t he current

absence

of basi c i nf or mat i on

on

both short- and l ong-

term cal es can al s o be

t r e a t e d

as an

opport uni t y

Large dr edge pr oj ects

af f ect i ng m ds h el f and

near -

s h o r e

habi t at s

w l l c ont i nue al o ng

t he southeast

Fl or i da s hel f

at

one- or t wo- year

i nt er val s

Basi c

quest i ons

on

dr edge-and- f i l l ef fects

upon habi t at

use,

pr edati on,

andgr owt h, awai t

s tu dy wi t h i n

a

di ver se

ass embl age

of

nearshore f i s hes

Acknow edgment s

J

Au l t J

Bohnsack, G

Denni s,

G Gi l mor e, P

Gl ynn,

MHarwel l , and H

Wanl ess

pr ovi ded subst ant i al

revi ewcomments

Sever al

anonymus r evi ewers

were

al s o ver y hel pf ul

Co nver s a t i o ns wi t h t he

la t e

Davi d Ki r t l ey

on

s abel l ar i i d reef s were consi st ent l y

val uabl e The as s i s t a nc e of these agency per so nnel

i s

acknowl edged

P Davi s, D F e r r i l l

J

I l i f f AMager ,

and

C

Sul tzmn

Assi st ance

was

al s o pr ovi ded

by

J

Gonzal ez, B

Hart i g,

R

Hudson,

C Leyendecker , M

Perry,

R

Pugl i ese,

M

Ri dl er,

P

Sal e,

E

Schoppaul ,

J

Ser afy, A St one, K

Snyder ,

G

Waugh, andD

Wl der

Fundi ng

was pr ovi ded by the

El i z abet h

OrdwayDunn Foundat i on, t he Ameri can Li t t o r al

Soci et y, Coast al Resear ch and Educat i on, I nc t he

South

At l ant i c F i s her y

Management

Counci l , andt he

Dorr Foundati on

Li terature ci ted

ACOE

AmCorps

of

Engi neers .

1996

Coast of Flori da erosi onandstorm f f e c t s study r e-

gi on I I I

wth

f i nal

envi ronmental

i mact statement

ACOETech

Rep

J acksonvi l le

D s t r i c t

Threevolumes and

appendices A 1

Ault, J

S

J

Bohnsack

andG

Mester

1998

Aetrospecti ve 1979-1996 multi spec es assessment

of coral reef f i s h stocks i n the

Flori da

Keys

Fish Bul l

96 3) :395-414

Bray, J R and

J .

TCurt i s

1957 An

ordinati on

of

the upland

f o r e s t communi t i es of

southernWsconsi n Ecol

Monogr

27

:325-349

Bri ggs,

J .

C

1974 Mari ne

zoogeography McGrawH l l ,

Nework NY,

475

Butler I V J J

HHunt F

Herrnki nd,

J

Chi l dress,RBertelsen, Sharp, TMtthew

J.

Field,

and

HG

Marshal l

.

1995

Cascadi ng

di sturbances

i n

Flori da

Bay,U

S

. A

cyanobacteri a bloom,

sponge

mo r t a l i t y ,

and

i ml i cati ons

f or j uveni lespi ny l obsters

Panul i rus

argus

Mr

Ecol

Prog

Ser

129:119-125

Chi appone,

M

andK Sul l i van

1994 E col ogi c al structureanddynamcsof nearshorehard

bott om

communi t i es i n theFlori da

Keys

Bul l

.

Mr Sci

54 3) :747-756

Cul l i ton, T

J

WarrenTR Goodspeed,

DG

Renter,

B ackwel l , andJ . J

MDonough

1990 Fi fty years of

populati on

change along

the

n at i on s

c oas t s , 1960-2010

Second Rep

Coastal

Trends Seri es

Strat

Assess

Branch, NOAA 41p

P

521


15/18

522

Dennis,

G

1992 Resource

u t i l i z a t i o n

by members of a gui l d of

benthic

feeding

coral r eef f i s h Ph. D di s s

Uni v

of

Puerto

Ri co,

Mayaguez, Puerto Ri co,

224

p

Duane,

B andEPMei sburger

1969-

Geomrphology

and

sediments

of

thenearshorecon-

ti nental

shel f ,

Mam

t o

Palm

Beach,

Flori da

USACOE

Coastal EngineeringCenter, Tech

Memo No 29, 47 p

Futch,

CR andSE

Dwnel l

1977-

Nearshore

marine

ecology at Hutchinson I sl and,

Flori da 1971-1974-

I V

Lance ets

and f i s hes

Fl a

Mar

Res

Pub] No 24, 23 p

Garci a-Cagide, A R

Clara, and

BV

Koshelev

1994

Reproducci on I n RC aro ed.

Ecologia

del ospeces

marinos

de

Cuba, p 187-262

Centrode

I nvestigaciones

de

Quintana Roo,

Mexi co,

525p

Gauch,HG

1982

Mul tivariate

anal ysi s i n

commun tyecology

Cam

bridge

Univ

Press, Camridge,

298

p

Glmre,

R

G

J r

1977

Fi shes

of

theI ndian

River Lagoonand adj acent wa-

ters,

Flori da

Bul l

Fl

St

Mus

Bio Sci 22 3 , 147p

1992

Striped

croaker,

Bai rdie la

sanctae uciae

I n

CR

G l ber t ed

Rare and endangered bi ot a of

Flori da I I :

Fi shes, p

218 222 Universi ty Press

of

Flori da,

Gainesvi l l e,

FL, 242

p

1995

Envi ronmental

and

biogeographic f act or s

i nf l uenc-

i ng i chthyofaunal di ver s i t y

I ndian

River

Lagoon

Bul l

Mar Sci

57 1

:153-170

Glmre,RG P

A

Hasti ngs

andD

J

Herrema

1983

I chthyofauna addi t i onst o t he

I ndian

River l agoon

and

adj acent waters, east - central Fl or i da Fl a Sci 46

:22-30

Goldberg,

M

1973

Theecol ogy of

the

coral -octocoral

commni tiesof f the

southeast Flori dacoast : geomrphology, species

composi -

t i on, and

zonation

Bul l

Mar Sci

23 3) :465-488

GossmanGD

GPJones,

and eaman

J r

1997

Do a r t i f i c i a l r e ef s i nc r eas e r e gi onal

f i s h producti on?

A

reviewof

exi s t i ng

data

Fisheries

22 4

:17-23

Hxon,

H

1991 Predati onas aprocess

structuri ng

c or a l r eef

f i s h

commni ti es I nPF Sale ed

Theecologyof f i shes on

coral reef s, p

475-500

Academc

Press,

San

D ego,

CA

754

Hoffmeister,

J

E

1974

Land f romthe

sea

the

geologi c

story of south

Flori da Uni vMam Press, Coral Gables,

FL,

143p

HumannP

1994 Reef

f i s h

i dent i f i cat i on

: Flori da, Caribbean,

Bahamas

New

Wrl d

Press,

J ac ks onvi l l e,

FL, 396

p,

Jongman

RHG , J - F ter

Braak, andOFR

van

Tongeren eds

1995- Data

ana ysis

i n commni tyandl andscapeecology

Camri dgeUn v Press, Camri dge,

299

p

J ones,

GP-

1991 Postrecruitment

processes

i n theecologyof

c or a l r e ef

f i s h populati ons amult i f actori al

perspective

I n P. R

Sale

ed

The

ecol ogy of

f i shes oncoral reefs, p

294-330

Aca-

demc Press,

San

D ego,

CA, 754

p

Krt ley,

1994 Areviewandtaxonomc

r e vi s i on of

the

famlySabel -

l ar i i dae, Johnston,

1865

Anne ida

Polychaeta Sabecon

Press

Science

Seri es 1

VeroBch

FL,

223

p

Krt ley,

and

Tanner

1968

Sabel l ar i i d

worm

bui l der s of ama or r eef

type

J

Sed Pet r ol

38 1)

: 73-78

P

Fi sher y

Bul l et i n

97 3 , 1999

LindemanKC

1986

Devel opment of l ar vae of

theFrench

grunt , Haemul on

favolineatum

and

comparati ve

devel opment

of twe ve

westernAtlanti c speciesof Haemul on

Percoi dei ,

Haemu-

fdae Bul l

Mar Sci

39 3 : 673-716

1997a Devel opment of

grunts

and

snappers of southeast

Flori da

c r os s - s hel f di s t r i but i ons

and ef fects

of beach

man-

agement al t er nat i ves-

Ph

. D di ss

Un v Mam, Coral

Gables, FL, 419p

1997b Comparati ve

management of beach system of

Flori daand theAnt i l l es

:

appl i cat i ons

using

ecol ogi cal

as-

sessment

and deci si on

support procedures

I n GCam

ber s ed. Managi ng beach

resources i n t he

small er

Car

ibbean i sl ands, p 134-164 UNESCO

Coastal Region

and

Smal l I s l and Paper 1 269p

LindemanKC GADaz, J

E

Serafy,

andJ S

Ault

1998 Aspati al f ramework

f or assessing cross-shel f habi -

t at

use

among

newy-settl ed

grunts

and

snappers

Proc

Gul f

Cari b Fish I nst

50

: 385-416

NR

Nati onal Research Counci l

1995 Beachnouri shment

and

pr ot ect i on National

Acad-

emyPress, Wshington,

DC

334p

Nelson,

G

1989 Beach

nouri shment andharts bottom

habitats

:

the

case f or cauti on I nS

Tai t

ed

. Proc

1989

Nationa

Conf

BeachPreserv Technol p 109-116 Fl Shore

and

Beach

Preserv

Assoc

Ta lahassee, FL

Nelson,

G andL Demetri ades

1992

Peracari i ds associ ated wth sabe larf d wormrock

Phragmatoporna l apidosa Knberg at

Sebastian

I nl et ,

Flori da, US . A J

Crust

B ol

12 4

: 647- - 654

NOAA Nati onal OceanicandAtmspheri c

Admnistrati on

1996 Magnusen-Stevens

Fi shery

Conservati onand

Man-

agement

Act , as amended

through

Oct

11, 1996

U

S

Dp

Commer NOAATech

Memo

NMFSF/SPO23 121 p

Osenberg,

and

R

J

Schmtt

1996

Detect i ng ecologica

impact s

caused

by human

ac t iv i t i es

I n

R J

Schmtt

and

CW

Osenberg

eds

.

Detecting

ecol ogi cal i mpact s , p

3-15

Academc Press,

SanD ego, CA, 401 p

PalmBeachCountyDept

Env ron

Resources

Management

1994

PalmBeach

County,

Flori da,

shore

protect i on proj ect,

f romMartin

County l i n e

t o LakeWrth I nl et andf rom

southLake

Worth

I nl et t o Broward County l i ne

:

J up i t er /

Carl in

segment

Final suppl emental environmental im

pact statement

Submttedt o

USACOE

Jacksonvi l le

D s-

tr ic t

Of f i ce, 80 pwth appendi ces

Ri chards, . and

K

C

Li ndeman

1987 Recrui tment

dynamcs of r eef f i shes

;

p ankton c pro-

cesses,

settl ement anddemersal

ecol ogi es,

and

f i s her y

ana ysis

Bul l

Mar Sci

41 2) : 392-410

Robins, C

R

and

G

C

Ray

1986

A iedguidet o

At l ant i c

coast f i shes of North

Ameri ca

HoughtonM f f l i nCo Boston, MA 354p

Rohl f ,

F

J

1997

NTSYSpc numeri cal

taxonomy

and

ml ti vari ate

anal ysi s

systemversion

2. 0

Exeter

Publ ishing,

Setauket,

NY,

31p

Ross, ST RHMcMchael

J r

.

and

L Rupl e-

1987

Seasonal

and diel variation i n

thestanding

crop of

f i shes

and

macroinvertebrates

f rom

a

Gulf

of Mexico surf

zone Estuari ne

Coastal

She f Sci

25

: 391-412

Rupl e, L

1984

Occurrenceof l arval f i shes i n thesurf zone

of anorth

ern

Gulf

of Mexicobar r i er i s land

EstuarineCoastal

She f

Sci

18:191-208


16/18

Li ndeman andSnyder : Nearshorehardbottom i shes of

southeast

Flor i da

Sa e, PF

1980

Theeco ogyof fi shes oncoral reefs

Oceanogr

Mar

B ol

18:367-421

Sedberry,

GR

andRFVan

Dolah

1984 Demersal f i s h

assemb ages

associated

wth

hard-bot-

tomhabi tat i n

the

South Atl anti c B ght of the

US

A

Environ Bi ol

Fi shes

11 4)

: 241-258

Serafy,

J E

K

CLindemn TEHopki ns, and

J S

Aul t

1997 Ef fects of

freshwater

cana d scharges

on

subtrop -

ca mari ne

f ish

assembl ages:

f i eld

and

l aboratory

observati ons Mar Ecol

Prog

Ser 160:161-172

Shulmn

J .

and

J

COgden

1987

Wat control s tr opi cal reef f i s h populati ons : recruit -

ment

or benthi c mrta i ty? Anexamp e i n theCari bbean

reef f i sh, Haemlonfavol i neatum Mar Ecol Prog

Ser

39

: 233-242

Sneath,

PHA

andRR

Sokal

1973

Numeri cal taxonom, the pr i nci pl es andpracti ce of

numeri ca cl assi f i cat i on H Freemn

and

Co

San

Franci sco, CA, 573

p

Starck, A

1970

Bol ogy

of

the

gray

snapper,

Lutj anus

gri seus

Lin-

naeus , i n theFlori da

Keys

Stud Trop

Oceanogr

Uni v

Mam

10:11-150

Stewart-Oaten,

A

1996 Goal s i n envi ronmenta mni tori ng I nRJ

Schmtt

ant] C Osenberg eds .

Detecting ecol ogi cal

impacts,

P

17-26 Academc Press

SanDego,

CA,

401p

Stewart-Oaten,

A

Murdoch

and

K

R

Parker-

1986

Envi ronmental

impact assessment :

pseudore-

pl i cati on i n time?

Ecology

67:929-

940

ter Braak, CJ F

1988 CANOCOa

FORTRANprogramor canon ca

com

mni ty ord nati on Mcrocomputer Power, I thaca

NY

95

Vare, CN

1991 Asurvey analysi s

and

evauationof thenearshore

reefs

si tuated

of f

Palm

BeachCounty, Fl ori da M

S

t he-

si s Fl ori da

Atl anti cUni v

Boca

Raton FL, 165p

Vesta ,

and

Ri eser

1995 Part

Syntheses, wthannotatedbib iography I n:

Methodologiesandmechani sm f or management ofcum-

l at i vecoastal envi ronmenta impacts

NOAH

Coasta Ocean

Program

Deci sionAna ysis Seri esNo 6 NOAA

Coasta

Ocean

Off i ce,

Si l ver

Springs,

MD

139

p

p-

523


17/18

52

4

F i s h er y B u l l e t i n

97 3 ,

1999

Appendix

Total abundancesof al l speci es vi s ua l l y

surveyed

at

three

nearshore

hardbottom

sites,

southeast Fl ori da

Onl y

predredgi ng

data

were

used f or

Carl i n

Park

s i t e

*

hypothesi zed

t o usenearshore

hardbottomas anurseryhab tat

see

di scussi on

Rank

Commn

nam

Species

Coral

Cove

Carl i n

Park

Ocean

Rdge

Total

Sai l ors

choi ce

I l aemulonparra 649

555

122 1326

2 Si l ver porgy

D pl odus argent eus* 344

647

132

1123

3 Cocoa damel f i sh St egastes

var iabi l i s* 420 600 66

1086

4

Sl i ppery

di ck Hal i choeres bivit tat us 439

327 50 816

5 Hai ry

b enny

Labri somus nuchi pi nni s*

463 262

81

806

6

Sergeant mjor

Abudef duf saxati l i s*

367

199

112

678

7

B ack mrgate

Anisotremus suri namensi s

513 68 55 636

8

Porkf i sh Ani sot remus vi rgini cus*

331

174 61

566

9

Tomate Haernul on

aur ol i neatum*

245 295

8 548

10 Gunt sp

Haernul onsp

266 233 34

533

11 French grunt

Haemul on f l avol i neat um*

134

210 43 387

12

Sml l muth grunt

Haernul on

chrysargyreum

60 222

10

292

13 Wi te

grunt

Haemu on

pl umeri

70

150

221

14 Gassy

sweeper

Pempher i s schomburgki 153

21

32 206

15

Dusky

damel f i sh

S t e g a s t e s f u s c u s *

75

83

9

167

16 Hgh hat

Equetus

acum i nat us*

54

59

13

126

17 Ocean

surgeon

Acanthurus

bahianus

51 12 17

80

18 Doctorf i sh

Acanthurus

chi rurgus 63 Z 7

72

19

Redfi n parrotf i sh Spari som

rubri pi nne*

52 14

2

68

20

Mcjarrasp Euci nostomus

sp

37

20

2

59

21

Spani shgrunt Haemu onmacrostomum 14

35

50

21

Yel l ow

jack

Caranx bart hol omaei

9

41

0

50

23 Yel l owgoatf i sh

Mul l oi di cht hys

mrti ni cus 34 8

0 42

24

Lane snapper

Lu

t j anus synagri s

23 12

3

38

25 B ueheadwasse

Thal assom b fasci atum

22

7

7 36

25 Croaker

sp

Sciaeni d

sp

22 14 0

36

27

Redtai l parrotf i sh Spari som

chrysopterum

16 14 3 33

28

Damel f i shsp Stegastes sp

5 18

32

29

Parrotf i sh

sp

Spari som sp

14

14

0

28

30

Reef croaker

Odontosci on

dentex 13

3

8

24

30

Barj ack

Caranx

ruber

2 20

2 24

32

Chub sp Kyphosus

sp

10 4 23

33

Bri dl edgoby

Coryphopterus glaucofr aenum

2 19

1

22

34

Cownwasse

Hal i choeres mcu i pi nna

8 5

4

17

35

Anchovy

sp

Engrau i d

sp 15

0 0

15

36

Puddi ngwfe

Hal i choeres

radi atus*

4 6 4

14

36

Oangespotted f i l e f i s h Canther hi nes pu l us

2 11

14

38

French

angel f i sh

Pomcanthusparu 5

5

3 13

39 Seaweed

b enny

Parabl enni us mrmreus 2 5 5

12

40

Caesar

grunt I l aemul on

carbonari um 3

7

11

41

Yel l owai l snapper Ocyuruschrysur us* 3

5 2

10

41

Stri pedcroaker Ba i r di e l l a

sanctel uci ae*

10

0

0

10

43 Stopl i ght

parrotf i sh

Spari som vi r i de 4

4

cont i nued


18/18

Li ndeman

andSnyder :

Nearshore

hardbottom

i shes of southeast Flor i da

5 5

Appendix

continued

Rank

Commn

nam

Species

Cora

Cove

Carl in

Park

Ocean

Rdge Total

43

Redband

parrotf i sh

Spari soma

aurofrenatum

8 9

44 Gaysnapper

Lutj anus gri seus

6 2

8

44

Porgy

sp

Sparid

sp

8 8

44 Bl uestri pedgrunt Haemlonsciurus 2 4 8

44 Spani sh sard ne Sard ne l aauri ta 8

8

49 Mol l yml l er Scartel l a

cr i s tata

2 5 7

49

Blackear wasse Ha ichoerespoeyi 6

7

5 Sheepshead Archosargusprobatocepha us 5 6

5

Bl ue

tang Acanthurus

coeruleus 3

3 6

5

Spottedgoatf i sh Pseudupeneus

macul atus

3 3 6

54 Sadd ed

b enny Ma acoctenus

tr iangul atus* 3

5

55

Barbfi sh

Scorpaenaplumeri 2 4

55

Queen

parrotf i sh

Scarus

vetul a

3 4

57 Fl amfi sh Apogonmacul atus 3 3

57

Ye l owin

mj arra Gerres

cinereus

3 3

57 Bl uerunner Caranx crysos 3 3

57 Spotf inbutterf l yfi sh Chaetodonocel l atus 3

61

Ba l oonfi sh Dodon

hystri x

61 Chainmray

Echidna

catenata

61

Scrawedcowish Lactophrys quadricorn s

61 Schoolmster

Lutj anus

apodus

61

Blenny

sp Bl en idsp 2

61 Cottonwck Haemlonmlanurum 2

6 Geat barracuda Sphyraenabarracuda

2

6

Scrawed

f i l e f i s h

A uterus

scri ptus

2

69

B col or

dame fish

Stegastesparti tus

69

Oangespottedgoby

Nes

l ongus

69 Spani shhogfish Bodianus rufus

69

Spotted

snakeeel

Myri chthys

acumnatus

69

Gay

ange fi sh

Pomacant hus

arcuatus

69

Sharpnose

puff er Canthigaster

rostrata

69 Geater

soapf i sh

Rypti cus saponaceus 1

69 Smoth trunkfi sh

Lactophrys

tr i queter 1

69

Hogfish

Lachnolaims

mxims

69 Puffcheckb enny

Labri soms

bucci ferus

69

Nurse

shark

Gnglymstoma

cirratum

69 Squi r re l f i sh

Holocentrus

rufus

69

Bl ue

ange fi sh

Holacanthus

bermdensi s*

69

Rosy

b enny Ma acoctenus

macropus

69

Spotted

mray Gymnothorax

mri nga

69

Goldenta l

mray

Muraenamli ar is

69

Atl anti c

spadefi sh ChaetodpterusFaber

69 Sand

drum

Umrinacoroi des

Tota taxa 72 60 5 86

Total

indvidua s 5093

4438

960

10491

1999 Lindeman & Snyder. NHB Fishes and Dredging

Documents

Transcript of 1999 Lindeman & Snyder. NHB Fishes and Dredging