Meixler et al., p.1 

Fish community support in wetlands within protected embayments of 

Lake Ontario 

Marcia S. Meixler, Kristin K. Arend and Mark B. Bain 

Center for the Environment 

Cornell University 

Ithaca, NY 14853 

Running title: Fish community support in wetlands within Lake Ontario embayments 
Meixler et al., p.2 

ABSTRACT. Fish community data were collected to investigate the role of wetlands in 

supporting fish communities of protected embayments in Lake Ontario. Wetland and 

deeper, more open, littoral sites were sampled in five protected embayments using gill 

nets, fyke nets, minnow traps, and electrofishing gear during the summers of 2001 and 

2002. Pooled gear data were used to analyze community composition, size frequency, 

and species richness. We found that even within protected embayments where 

community composition of both habitats is similar, wetlands support a community of fish 

different in species dominance and size structure than littoral embayment habitats. The 

abundance of young-of-year fish suggests that wetlands support fish populations by 

providing important nursery habitat. The similarity in fish community composition 

between wetland and littoral habitats indicates that wetlands remain important in 

supporting a subset of the embayment fish community. These results demonstrate that 

both wetlands and littoral areas in embayments are valuable and intensively utilized fish 

habitats that should receive special consideration in ecosystem management plans for the 

Great Lakes. 

INDEX WORDS: coastal wetlands, littoral habitats, embayments, Great Lakes, fish 

communities, nursery function, habitat specificity 
Meixler et al., p.3 

INTRODUCTION 

Currently, the coastal wetland area in the Great Lakes is estimated to be 1,200 km2

(Herdendorf et al. 1981, Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). This reflects a 60-80 percent loss 

in wetland area since European settlement, due largely to agricultural practices, land 

filling, and industrial development (Whillans 1982, Jude and Pappas 1992, Comer et al. 

1995). Despite dramatic losses and ongoing pressures from human influences (Maynard 

and Wilcox 1997), coastal wetlands serve a valuable function in aquatic ecosystems. 

They improve water clarity through sediment removal (Jude and Pappas 1992), increase 

primary and invertebrate productivity (Jude and Pappas 1992), concentrate biodiversity 

(Randall et al. 1996), and provide a diversity of structural habitats (Jude and Pappas 

1992, Brazner and Beals 1997). 

In particular, coastal wetlands serve a key role for Great Lakes fish species. More than 

75 percent of Great Lakes fish species utilize coastal wetlands during some portion of 

their life cycle (Stephenson 1990, Whillans 1992, Jude and Pappas 1992). Increasing 

research suggests that coastal wetlands serve as critical spawning and nursery habitats for 

a variety of species (Jude and Pappas 1992, Brazner and Beals 1997). This is partly due 

to dense macrophyte stands that increase the presence of invertebrate prey species (Keast 

and Harker 1977, Keast 1978, Wiley et al. 1984), buffer water movements (Engel 1988), 

and provide a variety of habitats, thereby promoting a diverse fish community (Emery 

1978, Eadie and Keast 1984). In addition, high secondary productivity in wetlands 

provides a source of zooplankton and benthos important as a food source for fish (Jude 

and Pappas 1992). Clearly, wetland habitats support very unique fish faunas compared to 
Meixler et al., p.4 

the open water of the Great Lakes (Jude and Pappas 1992); however, their role within 

embayments has not been explored. 

Several calls have been released for research to increase our knowledge of fish 

community structure, feeding, migratory patterns, and nursery function of Great Lakes 

wetlands (Busch and Lewis 1982, Liston and Chubb 1986, Smith et al. 1991, Jude and 

Pappas 1992, Krieger et al. 1992). Studies were performed to elucidate the relationship 

of fish faunal composition between wetlands and open water in the Great Lakes (Jude and 

Pappas 1992), in wetlands and beaches (Brazner and Beals 1997), in wetlands, harbor 

breakwalls, and exposed shorelines (Randall and Minns 2002), and along the gradient 

between the macrophyte edge and shore (Cardinale et al. 1998). However, questions 

remain about the role of wetlands in providing fish community support within Lake 

Ontario embayments. This is of particular interest given that only one percent of the 

shoreline in Lake Ontario embayments is classified as protected wetlands (Bain and Mills 

2004). We examine basic patterns of habitat use through analysis of fish community 

species composition, size structure, and species richness data in wetland and relatively 

deeper, more open, nearshore (i.e., littoral) habitats throughout each embayment. 
Meixler et al., p.5 

METHODS 

Study Site Descriptions 

This study was conducted in five embayments across two regional areas along the 

southeast coast of Lake Ontario (Fig. 1). The embayments vary in four main physical 

factors: surface area, watershed size, wetland density, and connectedness to Lake 

Ontario. The eastern regional area (43°39.34'N, 76°10.93'W), consisting of Floodwood, 

South Colwell, and North Sandy ponds, all have extensive wetlands and are separated 

from Lake Ontario by barriers composed mainly of sand. Floodwood and North Sandy 

ponds are classified as sand-spit embayments, while South Colwell Pond has a barrier 

beach lagoon only open to the lake part of the year (Maynard and Wilcox 1997, Minc and 

Albert 1998, Chow-Fraser and Albert 1998, Keough et al. 1999). Little Sodus and Blind 

Sodus bays, located in the western regional area (43°20.08'N, 76°42.55'W), have fewer 

wetlands and are separated from Lake Ontario by sand and gravel barriers, some of which 

are reinforced and paved. Both are classified as protected embayments (Maynard and 

Wilcox 1997, Minc and Albert 1998, Chow-Fraser and Albert 1998, Keough et al. 1999). 

Embayment surface area ranges from 0.078 km2

 at Floodwood Pond to 9.73 km2 at North 

Sandy Pond, and drainage areas range from 1.38 km2 at South Colwell Pond to 658 km2

at Floodwood Pond. The shorelines of North Sandy Pond, Blind Sodus Bay, and Little 

Sodus Bay are somewhat developed for seasonal and occasional residences, while those 

of Floodwood and South Colwell ponds are largely intact. 

All embayments have wetlands with broad-leaved emergent, narrow-leaved emergent, 

and free-floating vegetation, including Sparganium eurycarpum (giant bur reed), Typha x 
Meixler et al., p.6 

glauca (hybrid cattail) and Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (European Frog’s bit). Littoral 

sites were randomly chosen to provide coverage of the entire embayment. Though offshore, these sites often were located near residential development, sandy beaches, or the 

opening to Lake Ontario; therefore, these sites were exposed to higher wind and wave 

action, lower macrophyte coverage, less diverse substrate, and increased human 

influences. The dominant macrophytes were Vallisneria americana and Myriophyllum 

spicatum in Floodwood Pond and Ceratophyllum demersum and M. spicatum in Little 

Sodus Bay and South Colwell Pond. The spatial extents of macrophyte coverage in the 

embayments were 29% in Little Sodus Bay, 46% in Floodwood Pond, and 100% in South 

Colwell Pond (R. L. Johnson, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 2004, personal 

communication). The remaining embayments have not been surveyed specifically for 

macrophytes. 

Sampling Methods 

We sampled fish assemblages at 38 sites (17 wetland and 21 littoral) between 30 May 

2001 and 20 August 2002 using four methods. Gill netting and electrofishing were 

performed in both the summer of 2001 and 2002, while fyke nets and minnow traps were 

used only in the summer of 2002. Each embayment was sampled fifty or more times to 

ensure good coverage of wetland and littoral areas. Shallow wetland sites were sampled 

with large and small fyke nets, minnow traps, and electrofishing gear. All wetland sites 

were sampled at the edge of the emergent vegetation based on findings of higher 

abundance and richness in these locations (Cardinale et al. 1998). Littoral sites were 

characterized by deeper water (1.5 – 4.5 m) and were sampled with gill nets and 
Meixler et al., p.7 

electrofishing gear only. The gear types employed in each habitat type were chosen to 

cover the size range of resident fish and ultimately to provide a pooled sample with all 

species in relative proportions approximating those of the local assemblage. 

Gill netting was performed using 9.1 x 1.8 m, 22.9 x 1.8 m, 32 x 1.8 m, and 45.7 x 1.8 m 

nets with stretched-mesh sizes of 2.5 cm, 5.1 cm, and 10.2 cm. Gill nets were deployed 

in 1.2 to 11.0 m of water and were set for approximately two hours. Both large (0.9 m x 

1.8 m opening, 1.3 cm stretched-mesh, two throats in the crib, 15.2 m leader, two 6.1 m 

wings) and small (0.9 m x 0.45 m opening, 1.3 cm stretched-mesh, two throats and five 

hoop frames, 15.0 m leader, two 3.6 m wings) fyke nets were set with the opening facing 

the emergent vegetation. The two wings were set at 45 degree angles to the net opening 

and the leader was extended into the emergent vegetation to optimize fish community 

sampling in those areas. Fyke nets were set for a period of 24 hours in water at least 25-

75 cm deep for the small nets and at least 75-125 cm deep for the large nets, ensuring all 

funnels were under water. Minnow traps (0.4 m long, 0.6 cm mesh, 2.5 cm opening) 

were used to sample fish in areas too shallow for fyke nets. Each trap was set near the 

edge of the emergent vegetation for 24 hours with no bait. Electrofishing was performed 

using a 4.9 m boat with booms for 15 minutes in each location. A 5,000 Watt generator 

was used with a Smith Root type VIA transformer unit set at 120 pulses per second DC 

with 354 volts. The pulse width varied between 3-5 milliseconds. A circular pattern was 

followed in water less than 4.0 m deep around a central buoy. All fish were identified, 

enumerated, and measured (mm total length, TL) before release. 
Meixler et al., p.8 

Statistical Analysis 

Spatial variation was analyzed by partitioning data by habitat type (wetland and littoral) 

and by embayment. The density and number of fish species collected by each of the four 

gears were not compared statistically due to differences in catchability and species 

vulnerability for each gear type. Instead, we used a set of gears considered effective for 

each habitat and sampled intensively to obtain representative collections of fish present in 

those habitats. Data from all gears were pooled based on the assumption that the 

diversity of methods employed produced a more complete representation of the fish 

species available for collection in each habitat. Differences between abundance in fish 

catches in 2001 and 2002 were examined using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and 

found to be insignificant at the 0.05 level. Therefore, we determined that it was 

acceptable to pool samples from both years. 

Sites in each habitat type were not sampled equally using all methods; therefore, we 

summed all the individual samples into site totals and converted species’ numerical 

counts into fractional abundances such that fewer strong systematic biases would be 

incorporated into our estimates of species’ relative abundances and spatial distributions 

(Winemiller and Leslie 1992). 

A paired t-test was used to investigate differences in species richness of fishes between 

wetland and littoral habitats. Significance was indicated at α = 0.05. We compared fish 

community composition pooled by habitat across embayments using a Chi Square test of 
Meixler et al., p.9 

independence at an α = 0.05 level of significance. A nonparametric Wilcoxon signedrank test was used to determine whether fish sizes were significantly different between 

wetland and littoral habitats. Significance was accepted at the α = 0.1 level for this test 

due to sample size constraints. 
Meixler et al., p.10 

RESULTS 

Species Richness 

A total of 7,015 individual fish were collected in this study: 3,174 from wetlands and 

3,841 from littoral sites. Forty-one species were identified from both littoral and wetland 

sites in the five embayments (Table 1). Twenty-five species from nine families were 

collected from wetlands, while 34 species from 14 families were found in littoral habitats. 

Seven species were found only in wetlands, 16 species were caught only in littoral sites, 

and 18 species were common between the two habitats (Table 1). With the exception of 

Luxilus cornutus, the additional species in littoral sites were all present in small numbers. 

Likewise, species found only in wetlands were uncommon, except for Umbra limi. 

Species richness was marginally lower (t = 2.15, p = 0.098) in wetland compared to 

littoral habitats with all embayments paired (Table 1). In each embayment, the number of 

species present in wetlands compared with littoral sites varied considerably, from a 

difference of three in highly vegetated South Colwell and Floodwood ponds to eleven in 

highly developed North Sandy Pond. Only one embayment, South Colwell Pond, had a 

greater number of fish species in wetlands than in littoral habitats. 

Community Composition 

Fish communities in wetland and littoral habitats of pooled embayments were similar in 

species composition but differed in species dominance (Fig. 2). Ameiurus nebulosus was 

dominant in pooled wetlands (53%) but much less so in littoral habitats (3%). 

Conversely, Perca flavescens comprised 58% of the total catch in pooled littoral sites but 
Meixler et al., p.11 

only 7% of the community in wetlands. Species dominant in both habitats were P. 

flavescens, Lepomis macrochirus, Lepomis gibbosus, and Micropterus salmoides, all of 

which comprised 5% or more of the total. In addition, littoral habitats maintained 

sizeable populations of the less tolerant L. cornutus (4%) and Notemigonus crysoleucas

(3%). Fish species in wetland and littoral habitats across embayments appear distinct (χ

2 

= 3,392, p < 0.001), suggesting there is little chance a common pattern of composition 

fits both habitat types.

The same trends were observed between wetland and littoral sites of individual 

embayments: species composition was similar, while dominant species varied between 

the two habitat types. P. flavescens was the dominant species in littoral sites in all 

embayments (Table 1). The dominant species in wetlands varied by embayment, with L. 

macrochirus dominant in Floodwood Pond, South Colwell Pond, and Little Sodus Bay; 

A. nebulosus dominant in Blind Sodus Bay; and M. salmoides dominant in North Sandy 

Pond. Although both wetland and littoral sites had a similar number of species 

comprising 3% or more of the community, percent composition was spread more evenly 

among the species in wetlands compared to littoral habitats. 

Size Frequency 

Fish in littoral sites were greater in size (p = 0.10) than those in wetlands for paired 

wetland and littoral habitats within embayments (Table 2). Median length values of 

pooled littoral fish were approximately twice that of pooled wetland fish. The median 

lengths of the five most common species, P. flavescens (21 mm), M. salmoides (26 mm), 
Meixler et al., p.12 

L. gibbosus (26 mm), L. macrochirus (45 mm), and A. nebulosus (231 mm), were greater 

in littoral habitats than in wetlands. Similarly, individual fish in the 25-75 interquartile 

ranges were consistently larger in littoral habitats than in wetlands and did not overlap in 

size between the two habitats in Floodwood and South Colwell ponds (Table 2). Littoral 

sites harbored larger sized and a wider range of fish. 
Meixler et al., p.13 

DISCUSSION 

Enclosed and protected embayments of the Great Lakes provide some of the same habitat 

attributes and fish community support functions as coastal wetlands. However, we found 

distinct differences between fish assemblages of wetland and littoral habitats within these 

productive embayments. Similar numbers of fish were recorded in each type of habitat 

with greater species richness (34 versus 25 species) in littoral habitats than in wetlands. 

Overall, similar fish species were caught in both littoral and wetland habitats, but the 

habitats differed sharply in dominant species and size structure. P. flavescens strongly 

dominated littoral habitats in each embayment, whereas the dominant species in wetland 

habitats varied by embayment (L. macrochirus, M. salmoides, and A. nebulosus). 

For many embayment fish species, spawning occurs in late spring and the young grow to 

approximately 50 mm by the end of summer (Smith 1985). Thus, a large proportion of 

the individuals captured in our wetlands, and in particular in Blind Sodus Bay, were 

young-of-the-year fish. The dominance of very young fish in wetland sites supports the 

important role wetlands play as nursery habitats (Stephenson 1990, Jude and Pappas 

1992, Brazner 1997, Brazner and Beals 1997). The size distribution of fish captured in 

littoral habitats was considerably larger than that of fish captured in wetland habitats 

indicating that multiple habitats within embayments are important to support fishes in 

varying life stages. 

The dominance of P. flavescens in littoral habitats may be due to their highly generalized 

feeding and habitat requirements and use of planktonic food resources in pelagic habitats 
Meixler et al., p.14 

(Smith 1985). We also recorded a wide size range of P. flavescens in littoral sites, 

indicating that the embayment waters serve as productive regions for multiple year 

classes. The higher species richness in littoral sites could result from transient use of 

these habitats by fish from open waters of Lake Ontario. Jude and Pappas (1992) and 

Cardinale (1998) found that connectedness between the Great Lakes and more protected 

habitats was important to maintain community structure via fish movements. In our sites, 

the embayments are situated between the Great Lakes and wetlands. Therefore, the 

embayments may act as transition zones between these two habitats. Jude and Pappas 

(1992) observed clear differences in fish community structure between wetlands and 

open, nearshore waters of the Great Lakes. Differences in our study were much less 

striking, most likely because wetland and littoral habitats of embayments are similarly 

protected, productive, and complex. Nevertheless, our results indicate that wetland 

habitats remain important in supporting a subset of the embayment fish community and 

in providing a clear nursery function. When combined with the protected and productive 

littoral habitats in embayments, the total fish diversity and habitat support function is 

even greater. These results demonstrate that both wetlands and littoral areas in 

embayments are valuable and intensely utilized fish habitats that should receive special 

consideration in ecosystem management plans for the Great Lakes. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We want to acknowledge Francoise Vermeylen and Kathy Mills for data analysis 

assistance, the Lake Ontario Biocomplexity project for providing much of the data used 
Meixler et al., p.15 

in this paper, and a number of field and lab technicians who provided valuable assistance 

with data collection. Funding for this project was provided by the National Science 

Foundation (OCE-0083625) and the Great Lakes Commission. 
Meixler et al., p.16 

REFERENCES 

Bain, M. B. and Mills, K. 2004. Modeling hydroecological relations for assessing impacts 

of water regulation plans on Lake Ontario. Submitted to the Environmental Technical 

Working Group, International Joint Commission’s Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River 

Study Board. 

Brazner, J. C. 1997. Regional, habitat, and human development influences on coastal 

wetland and beach fish assemblages in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes 

Res. 23:36-51. 

_________, and Beals, E. W. 1997. Patterns in fish assemblages from coastal wetland 

and beach habitats in Green Bay, Lake Michigan: a multivariate analysis of abiotic 

and biotic forcing factors. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54:1743-1761. 

Busch, W.-D. N., and Lewis, L. 1982. Some Great Lakes wetland responses to water 

level variations and the use of these wetlands by fish. In Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission minutes of the Lake Ontario Committee 1982 Annual Meeting, pp. 39-

60. Ann Arbor, MI. 

Cardinale, B. J., Brady, V. J., and Burton, T. M. 1998. Changes in the abundance and 

diversity of coastal wetland fauna from the open water/macrophyte edge towards 

shore. Wetlands Ecology and Management 6:59-68.

Chow-Fraser, P. and Albert, D. A. 1998. Biodiversity investment areas: coastal wetlands 

ecosystems. Identification of “eco-reaches” of Great Lakes coastal wetlands that 

have high biodiversity value. A discussion paper for the State of the Lakes 

Ecosystem Conference, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL, 

and Environment Canada, Burlington, ON. 
Meixler et al., p.17 

Comer, A. J., Albert, D. A., Wells, H. A., Hart, B. L., Raab, S. B., Price, D. L., Kashian, 

D. M., Corner, R. A., and Shuen, D. W. 1995. Michigan’s native landscape, as 

interpreted from general land office surveys, 1816-1856. Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory Report to Water Division, U.S. EPA and Wildlife Divisions, Michigan 

Dept. of Nat. Res. Lansing, MI. 

Eadie, J. and Keast, A. 1984. Resource heterogeneity and fish species diversity in lakes. 

Can. J. Zool. 62:1689-1695. 

Emery, A. R. 1978. The basis of fish community structure: marine and freshwater 

comparisons. Environ. Biol. Fish. 3:33-47. 

Engel, S. 1988. The role and interactions of submersed macrophytes in a shallow 

Wisconsin lake. J. Freshwater Ecol. 4:329-341. 

Herdendorf, C. E., Hartley, S. M., and Barnes, M. D. (eds.). 1981. Fish and wildlife 

resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States. Vol. 1: 

Overview. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

Washington, DC, FWS/OBS-81/02-VI. 

Jude, D. J., and Pappas, J. 1992. Fish utilization of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J. Great 

Lakes Res. 18(4):651-672. 

Keast, A. 1978. Trophic and spatial interrelationships in the fish species of an Ontario 

temperate lake. Environ. Biol. Fishes 3:7-31. 

_________ , and Harker, J. 1977. Fish distribution and benthic invertebrate biomass 

relative to depth in an Ontario lake. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2:235-240. 
Meixler et al., p.18 

Keough, J. R., Thompson, T. A., Guntenspergen, G. R., and Wilcox, D. A. 1999. 

Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great 

lakes. Wetlands 19:821-834. 

Krieger, K. A., Klarer, D. M., Heath, R. T., and Herdendorf, C. E. 1992. A call for 

research on Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res. 18:525-528. 

Liston, C. R., and Chubb, S. L. 1986. Relationships of water level fluctuations and fish. 

In Coastal Wetlands, ed. H. H. Prince and F. M. D’Itri, pp. 121-140. Chelsea, MI: 

Lewis Publishers, Inc. 

Maynard, L. and Wilcox, D. 1997. Coastal Wetlands. A discussion paper for the 1996 

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). Environment Canada and U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency EPA 905-R-97-015. 

Minc, L. D. and Albert, D. A. 1998. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: Abiotic and floristic 

characterization. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 

Mitsch, W. J., and Gosselink, J. G. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 

New York. 

Randall, R. G., Minns, C. K., Cairns, V. W., and Moore, J. E. 1996. The relationship 

between an index of fish production and submerged macrophytes and other habitat 

features at three littoral areas in the Great lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53(Suppl. 

1):35-44. 

_________ , and Minns, C. K. 2002. Comparison of habitat productivity index (HPI) and 

an index of biotic integrity (IBI) for measuring the productive capacity of fish habitat 

in nearshore areas of the Great lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 28: 240-255. 
Meixler et al., p.19 

Smith, C. L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. Albany, NY: New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Smith, P. G. R., Glooschenko, V., and Hagen, D. A. 1991. Coastal wetlands of the three 

Canadian Great Lakes: inventory, current conservation initiatives and patterns of 

variation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:1581-1594. 

Stephenson, T. D. 1990. Fish reproductive utilization of coastal marshes of Lake Ontario 

near Toronto. J. Great Lakes Res. 16:71-81. 

Whillans, T. H. 1982. Changes in marsh area along the Canadian shore of Lake Ontario. 

J. Great Lakes Res. 8:570-577. 

_________. 1992. Assessing threats to fishery values of Great Lakes wetlands. In 

Wetlands of the Great Lakes: protection, restoration, policies and status of the 

science. Proceedings of the International Wetland Symposium – Wetlands of the 

Great Lakes, pp. 156-165. The Association of State Wetlands Managers, Niagara 

Falls, NY. 

Wiley, M. J., Gordon, R. W., Waite, S. W., and Powless, T. 1984. The relationship 

between aquatic macrophytes and sport fish production in Illinois ponds: a simple 

model. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 4:111-119. 

Winemiller, K. O., and Leslie, M. A. 1992. Fish assemblages across a complex, tropical 

freshwater/marine ecotone. Environ. Biol. Fishes 34:29-50. 
Meixler et al., p.20 

FIG. 1. Map of Lake Ontario showing the relative position of the eastern and western regional areas encompassing the five study embayments. Locational information is provided for all wetland and littoral sites sampled during the study period (eastern region, A; western region, B; wetland sites, ●; littoral sites, ■). FIG. 2. Overall fish community composition in wetland and littoral habitats from pooled gear data collected during the summers of 2001 and 2002.
Meixler et al., p.21 

A. Eastern sites B. Western sites FIG. 1. 
Meixler et al., p.22 

FIG. 2. 

Wetland sites

nebulosus

Ameiurus 

53% gibbosus

Lepomis 

11%

Micropterus 

salmoides

8%

Perca 

flavescens

7%

Others

8%

Lepomis 

macrochirus

13%

Open sites

Perca 

flavescens

58%

gibbosus

Lepomis 

10%

Luxilus 

cornutus

4%

Others

10%

Notemigonus 

crysoleucas

3%

nebulosus

Ameiurus 

3%

Lepomis 

macrochirus

salmoides

Micropterus 

5%

7%
Meixler et al., p.23 

Amiidae Scientific Name Common Name No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No %

Amia calva Bowfin 2 0 12 1 13 2 0 0 6 1 4 1 11 1 7 1 5 1 3 1

Anguillidae

Anguilla rostrata American eel 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atherinidae

Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Catostomidae

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Centrarchidae

Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass 3 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 21 3 0 0 0 0Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 70 7 63 4 93 12 32 22 72 12 99 33 126 12 125 17 33 9 32 15Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 25 2 46 3 28 4 47 32 50 8 103 34 42 4 174 24 34 9 39 18Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 6 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 2Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 22 2 8 0 59 8 10 7 44 7 26 9 27 2 222 30 43 12 31 14Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 7 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 7 1 2 0 8 2 1 0

Clupeidae

Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife 1 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 7 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 12 1 0 0 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Floodwood

TABLE 1. Total and relative abundances of the species contributing to the total catch in littoral and wetland nearshore habitats using pooled electrofishing, gill netting, fyke netting, and minnow trapping data from summers 2001-2002. Percentages refer to the contribution to the total catch of each species. 

Littoral Wetland

Blind Sodus South Colwell Little Sodus North Sandy

Littoral Littoral Wetland Wetland Littoral Wetland Littoral Wetland
Meixler et al., p.24 

CyprinidaeScientific Name Common Name No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No %

Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cyprinus carpio Common carp 7 1 2 0 14 2 0 0 9 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hybognathus regius Eastern silvery minnow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Luxilus cornutus Common shiner 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 21 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner 59 6 5 0 35 5 1 1 12 2 0 0 10 1 2 0 12 3 3 1Notropis amoenus Comely shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Notropis heterodon Blackchin shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 1 0 22 10Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner 7 1 0 0 9 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 6 2 0 0Notropis rubellus Rosyface shiner 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Esocidae

Esox americanus vermiculatus Grass pickerel 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 4 2Esox lucius Northern pike 21 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 5 0 2 0 3 1 3 1Esox niger Chain pickerel 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 1 0

Fundulidae

Fundulus diaphanus Banded killifish 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 62 8 0 0 2 1

Wetland Littoral Wetland Littoral

TABLE 1. Continued.

Wetland Littoral

Blind Sodus Little Sodus Floodwood North Sandy South Colwell

Littoral Wetland Littoral Wetland
Meixler et al., p.25 

Scientific Name Common Name No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No %Ictaluridae

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0Noturus gyrinus Tadpole madtom 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 2Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead 11 1 1467 83 34 4 33 22 9 1 4 1 49 4 21 3 5 1 17 8

Lepisosteidae

Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 0000 8100 0000 2000 0000

Moronidae

Morone americana White perch 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Morone chrysops White bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percidae

Etheostoma olmstedi Tessellated darter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Perca flavescens Yellow perch 712 71 155 9 430 57 16 11 259 42 26 9 733 67 58 8 201 55 37 17Percina caprodes Logperch 9100 0000 0000 1000 0000

Sander vitreus Walleye 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sciaenidae

Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Umbridae

Umbra limi Central mudminnow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 10 0 0 21 3 0 0 9 4

Catch per sample (Cs) 43.6 26.9 25.3 5.3 32.5 9.8 31.3 11.8 17.5 6.7Total number of samples 23 66 30 28 19 31 35 62 21 32Total richness 24 16 18 11 17 14 28 17 14 17Total individuals 1002 1774 758 147 618 304 1095 734 368 215

Littoral Wetland

South Colwell

Littoral Wetland

North Sandy

Littoral

Blind Sodus Little Sodus Floodwood

Wetland Littoral Wetland Littoral Wetland

TABLE 1. Continued.
Meixler et al., p.26 

Median total 

length (mm)

Interquartile 25-75 

range (mm)

Total length 

range (mm) CV (%)

Littoral

Blind Sodus 74 48-129 34-862 100

Little Sodus 127 110-152 11-850 69

Floodwood 111 100-120 22-805 84

North Sandy 104 88-117 26-925 67

South Colwell 113 96-125 16-659 63

Wetland

Blind Sodus 48 45-51 33-680 77

Little Sodus 66 55-89 24-560 86

Floodwood 65 53-95 29-581 65

North Sandy 67 57-94 29-700 57

South Colwell 66 52-95 34-680 93

TABLE 2. Summary statistics on the total length distribution of fish captured 

in littoral and wetland habitats in the five bays using pooled sampling 

techniques and years. Coefficient of variation = (standard deviation 

/mean)X100.

Habitat and site