NOAA Technical Report NMFS 23

Synopsis of Biological Data

on the Pinfish,

Lagodon rhomboides

(Pisces: Sparidae)

George H. Darcy

February 1985

FAG Fisheries Synopsis No. 141

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

John V. Byrne, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend or endorse any propriety product or proprietary material mentioned

in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which

would indicate or imply that NMFS approves, recommends or endorses any

proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has

as its purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this NMFS publication.
CONTENTS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

IDENTITy............................................................................................ I

1.1 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

I.1 I Valid name .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

1.12 Objective synonymy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

1.2 Taxonomy........................................................................................ I

1.21 Affinities................................................................................... I

1.22 Taxonomic status 2

1.23 Subspecies.................................................................................. 2

1.24 Standard common names, vernacular names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Morphology....................................................................................... 2

1.31 External morphology 2

*1.32 Cytomorphology

*1.33 Protein specificity

2 DISTRIBUTION 3

2.1 Total area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Differential distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.21 Spawn, larvae, and juveniles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.22 Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 Determinants of distribution changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

*2.4 Hybridization

3 BIONOMICS AND LIFE HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1 Reproduction...................................................................................... 6

3.11 Sexuality................................................................................... 6

3.12 Maturity................................................................................... 6

3.13 Mating..................................................................................... 6

3.14 Fertilization................................................................................. 6

3.15 Gonads 6

3.16 Spawning................................................................................... 6

3.17 Spawn..................................................................................... 7

3.2 Preadult phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.21 Em bryonic phase 7

3.22 Larvae and adolescent phase 7

3.3 Adult phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.31 Longevity.................................................................................. 9

3.32 Hardiness.................................................................................. 10

3.33 Competitors II

3.34 Predators................................................................................... II

3.35 Parasites, diseases, injuries, and abnormalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.36 Physiology, biochemistry, etc. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . ... .. .... . .. . . . . ... ... . . . . . ... ... .. . ... . . .. ... 12

3.4 Nutrition and growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.41 Feeding.................................................................................... 13

3.42 Food...................................................................................... 15

3.43 Growth rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.44 Metabolism................................................................................. 18

3.5 Behavior......................................................................................... 20

3.51 Migrations and local movements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.52 Schooling 21

3.53 Responses to stimuli. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 POPULATION......................................................................................... 21

4.1 Structure .. . . . . . .. 21

4.11 Sex ratio. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. 21

*4.12 Age composition

4.13 Size composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

*4.14 Subpopulations

4.2 Abundance and density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.3 Natality and recruitment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.31 Reproduction rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.32 Factors affecting reproduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.33 Recruitment 23

111
*4.4 Mortality and morbidity

*4.5 Dynamics of population

4.6 The population in the community and the ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5 EXPLOITATION....................................................................................... 25

5.1 Fishing equipment 25

5.2 Fishing areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5.3 Fishing seasons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.4 Fishing operations and results 26

5.41 Effort and intensity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.42 Selectivity.................................................................................. 26

5.43 Catches.................................................................................... 27

*6 PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT

*6.1 Regulatory measures

7 POND FISH CULTURE................................................................................. 27

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Literature cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

*No information available.

iv
Synopsis of Biological Data on the Pinfish,

Lagodon rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae)

GEORGE H. DARCY)

ABSTRACT

Information on the biology and resources of the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboid..(Pisces: Sparidae), is compiled,

reviewed, and analyzed in the FAG species synopsis style.

INTRODUCTION

The pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides, is one of the most common

inshore fishes of the southern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts

of the United States and is also common on Campeche Bank off

the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. It occurs in a wide range of

habitats, but reaches peak abundance over vegetated bottoms.

Although not of major commercial importance, the pin fish is a

common by-catch of commercial trawling operations and is sometimes marketed as a panfish; it is a quality food fish, though usually small. The pinfish is also used in pet food and as bait. It is one

of the most commonly caught recreational species throughout its

range and is important to subsistence fishermen. Because of its

abundance, the pinfish is frequently mentioned in faunal surveys,

environmental studies, and studies of estuarine and nearshore

community ecology. It often comprises a major component of

community respiration and production and has been shown to influence community structure through its food habits. As prey, the

pinfish is an important forage fish for other larger recreational and

commercial species. The pinfish is also used extensively in

laboratory testing of pesticides and other aquatic pollutants. This

synopsis summarizes the most important literature concerning the

pinfish.

IDENTITY

1.1 Nomenclature

1.11 Valid name

Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus, 1766) (Fig. I).

Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus, 1766:470) type locality: Charleston, SC. The name comes from the Greek lagos (hare)

and odontos (tooth), referring to the large incisor teeth, and the

Greek rhombos (rhombus) and -0 + eidos denoting likeness of

form, referring to the rhomboidal body shape.

1.12 Objective synonymy

The following synonymy is based on the work of Caldwell

(1957):

'Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 75

Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149-1099.

Sparus rhomboides Linnaeus, 1766

Sargus rhomboides. Valenciennes, in Cuvier and Valenciennes,

1830

Lagodon rhomboides. Holbrook, 1855

Diplodus rhomboides. Jordan and Gilbert, 1882

Lagodon rhomboidalis. Goode and Bean, 1886

Salema atkinsoni Fowler, 1940

Lagodon mercatoris Delsman, 1941

1.2 Taxonomy

1.21 Affinities

Suprageneric

Phylum Chordata

Class Osteichthyes

Superorder Acanthopterygii

Order Perciformes

Suborder Percoidei

Family Sparidae

Generic

The genus Lagodon Holbrook, 1855, is monotypic; type of the

genus is Sparus rhomboides Linnaeus, 1766, by subsequent

designation of Eigenmann and Hughes, 1887:66 (Caldwell 1957).

According to Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928) the essential

charactcr of the genus is the skull: Supraoccipital and temporal

crests nowhere coalescent; interorbital area not swollen; frontal

bone in the interorbital area thin, concave in transverse section;

temporal crest low, separated from supraoccipital crest by a flattish area, extending forward on each side of supraoccipital crest to

the groove of the premaxillary spines. In addition to skull characteristics, the genus is distinguished by: Mouth with single row of

incisor teeth, triangular in anterior aspect above their base, those

in anterior part of mouth almost always with a single notch, the

posterior ones with or without the notch; several series of rounded

molariform teeth behind incisors (Caldwell 1957). The deeply

notched incisor teeth distinguish Lagodon from all other sparids

(Randall and Vergara R. 1978).

Specific

The following species diagnosis of Lagodon rhomboides is from

Randall and Vergara R. (1978): Body oval and compressed;
Figure I.-Adult Lagodon rhomboid... (From Goode 1884, Plate 138.)

posterior nostril oval-shaped; mouth comparatively small, the

maxilla scarcely reaching to below anterior eye margin; both jaws

anteriorly with 8 broad, forward-directed incisorlike teeth, their

edges deeply notched; laterally with two and one-half rows of

molarlike teeth. Dorsal fin with 12 spines preceded by a small

forward-directed spine; usually 12 dorsal and II anal soft rays;

pectoral fins long, extending to anal opening when appressed;

caudal fin forked; scales on lateral line 53 to 68.

1.22 Taxonomic status

Lagodon rhomboides is generally considered a morphospecies.

1.23 Subspecies

No subspecies are recognized. Caldwell (1957) investigated

morphometries and meristics of pinfish and found a remarkable

lack of geographic variation. Only the number of lateral line

scales varied significantly from place to place, and this Caldwell

(1957) attributed to environmental factors, rather than genetic

differences. No significant differences were found between

specimens taken in deep versus shallow water.

1.24 Standard common names, vernacular names

The generally accepted common name of L. rhomboides in the

United States is pinfish (Robins et al. 1980), and standard FAO

common names are: English, pinfish; French, sar saleme; Spanish,

sargo salema (Randall and Vergara R. 1978). In Cuba, L. rhomboides is called chopa espina (Olaechea and Sauskan 1974). Many

other common names exist, some of the most used are: Sailor's

choice, bream (especially in the Florida Keys), and chopa spina

2

(Caldwell 1957); local variations include: Fair-maid (Virginia),

salt-water bream (South Carolina), piggy-perch (certain parts of

the western Gulf of Mexico). sargo (in some areas such as the

Florida Keys), and Spanish porgy (Bermuda). Other common

names known to have been applied to L. rhomboides are: Banded

porgy. bastard margaret, brim. Canadian bream, chopa, hogfish,

perch, pinfish, pin perch, pigfish, pisswink, porgy, rhomboidal

porgy, robin, ronco blanco, ronco prieto, sand perch, sargo, scup,

sea bream, shiner, shiny scup, spot, squirrelfish, thorny-back, and

yellowtail (Goode 1884; Caldwell 1957; Hoese and Moore 1977).

1.3 Morphology

1.31 External morphology

The foliowing description is based on Jordan and Fesler (1893),

Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928), Caldwell (1957), and Johnson

(1978) except where otherwise noted. Body oblong, variable in

depth. compressed, its depth 2.1-2.3 times in SL; back elevated;

head 3.1-3.4 in SL, flattened, profile not very steep; snout rather

pointed, 3.2-4.1 in head; eye 1.3-1.5 in snout, I in interorbital,

2.7 -3.1 in head; interorbital 2.9-3.6 in head; mouth rather small,

nearly horizontal, terminal; maxillary 2.9-3.3 in head, not reaching to front of orbit; maxillary slipping under lachrimal for most

of its length (Kilby 1955); each jaw with 8 broad, deeply notched

incisors anteriorly on edge of jaws, followed by 2 rows of low,

broad, blunt teeth; vomer and palatines without teeth; gill rakers

short and slender, 6-9 upper, 10-15 lower, usually 7 and 13; branchiostegals 6; scales rather small, firm, ctenoid, extending on base

of caudal and forming a scaly sheath on soft part of dorsal and

anal fins; lateral line scales 53-68, mean 62; scales between lateral

line and dorsal fin origin 10; dorsal fin VIII-XIII, 10-12, usually
XII, 11; anal fin III-IV, 7-12, almost always III, 11; pelvic fins I,

5; pectoral fins 14-17 rays, usually 16; caudal fin with 15

branched rays; dorsal spines all rather long, slender, and extremely

sharp; dorsal fin long, continuous, rather low, preceded by an

antrorse spine; dorsal fin origin a little in advance of base of pectorals; caudal fin deeply forked; anal fin with 3 rather strong,

sharply pointed spines, the second and third of equal length, the

soft part of the fin similar to dorsal fin; pelvic fins moderate and

broad, inserted behind base of pectorals; pectorals long, pointed,

reaching well beyond tips of pelvics and upper rays reaching past

origin of anal fin, 2.9-3.5 in SL; vertebrae 10+14 (Eigenmann

and Hughes 1887; Miller and Jorgenson 1973).

A table of selected body proportions of pinfish, with means and

ranges was presented by Caldwell (1957); with increasing body

length, the eye becomes proportionately smaller, the snout longer,

the head shorter, and the interorbital distance greater. The mean

and range of variation of the relationship of body depth to length

remains constant in pinfish 14-328 mm SL (Caldwell 1957).

Standard length, total length, and fork length are related as

follows:

TL = 1.26 SL; FL = 1.16 SL (Caldwell 1957).

Holbrook (1860) described the internal anatomy of the pinfish,

Eigenmann and Hughes (1887) described the skeleton, and

Caldwell (1957) and Stoner and Livingston (1984) described and

illustrated development of the incisor teeth.

Color of the pinfish has been described by Jordan and Evermann (1896-1900) and Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928): Olivaceous to dark green above, bluish-silvery below; a dark spot on

shoulder; 4-6 dark crossbars on sides, varying in distinctness

among individuals; sides with several light-blue and yellow longitudinal stripes (fading and nearly disappearing in preservative);

dorsal fin plain or pale blue, with faint yellowish-brown spots and

with yellowish brown on distal parts of the spinous portion; caudal

and pectoral fins pale yellow, caudal sometimes faintly barred;

anal fin translucent on basal half, the remainder yellowish brown;

pelvics pale, with yellowish-brown streaks at middle of fin. The

young are less brightly colored than adults; longitudinal stripes are

absent and the dark crossbars quite distinct.

2 DISTRIBUTION

2.1 Total area

The pinfish is distributed in coastal waters from Cape Cod,

MA, to Florida, throughout the Gulf of Mexico to the Yucatan

Peninsula, Mexico, and in Bermuda (Caldwell 1957; Randall and

Vergara R. 1978) (Fig. 2). Records from the Bahamas (Lee 1889),

Jamaica (Fowler 1939), and Cuba (Poey 1856-58) are doubtful

(Caldwell 1957; Johnson 1978) and may have been based on misidentifications (such as confusion with the sea bream,Archosargus

rhomboidalis), strays, or imports. A specimen collected at Great

Exuma, Bahamas, by Yocum (1971) probably represents a stray.

Pinfish appear to cross the Gulf Stream only rarely (Hoese and

Moore 1977).

See 2.21, 2.22, and 4.2.

2.2 Differential distribution

2.21 Spawn, larvae, and juveniles

Pinfish eggs are probably planktonic, but have not been iden3

1().1TT"--....,.---r---:r::~"'E....'lI'IIl~-r---r---,

...

...

0,,1t::t---....-------.,.,:;.

10,,1H-----t---H;::

IO'II+----t---t---;.

.o·IR-----t---t---1:

Figure 2.-D1stribution of Lagodon rhomboid... (Based on Caldwell 1957; Randall and Vergara R. 1978.)

tified in the natural state (Caldwell 1957). Eggs are spawned offshore; Hildebrand and Cable (1938) found the smallest pinfish

larvae (5.0-10.0 mm TL) about 19.3-20.1 km (12-13 mi) offshore, though the eggs may have been spawned farther offshore

than that. Houde et aJ.2 collected larval pinfish (2.1-13.0 mm TL)

in fall, winter, and spring in the eastern Gulf of Mexico; 97.6%

were collected in winter. Larvae were collected at 15°-26°C and

33-360 / 00 , More than 60% of these larvae were taken in < 30 m of

water, but larvae were widely distributed over the sampling area,

occurring from 7-64 m stations (Fig. 3). Larval abundance was

positively correlated with surface salinity and station depth.

Franks et al. (1972) reported one pinfish larva from an October

bottom sample from off Mississippi at 55.6 m (30 fathoms);

whether this represents a normal pattern, a premature metamorphosis, or a sampling artifact, is not known. Near Beaufort, NC,

Lewis and Wilkens (1971) found pinfish larvae most common in

daylight surface plankton tows and much less abundant in night

and bottom tows. Hildebrand and Cables' (1938) specimens were

collected in surface tows.

Larvae move inshore before metamorphosing. Many authors

have reported the influx of small (approximately 10-12 mm SL)

larvae to shallow water in fall, winter, and spring (Table 1). The

peak of this movement appears to be in February and March, with

'Houde. E. D.• J. C. Leak. C. E. Dowd, S. A. Berkeley. and W. J. Richards. 1979.

Ichthyoplankton abundance and diversity in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Report to

the Bureau of Land Management under Contract No. AA550-CT7-28. June 1979,

546 p.
28·

'10m .

. ., ..-.~'""~ • . •. ~~f

·~Om-' •. •. ~\,\

. ..~~~ . ...\ ... ~~~~~ . . . . -\

2~om~\..\:::.;':.\ . . .~"\ .. \~

. . . . '\ . . .,~

. .., \ ...\ . . \. . . . \ . . . . (" .-\-:. '.\,

26- LAGODON RttOMBOIOES •• ••\ •••• tl

...\.. \ . .~ . ..\. .. , , . :.....\.

\. .;. . •. j. '. . :.... ',';.,::"'" ',....,~.:..~~-_s::-~ ..."",

24·1-------,e-='6=·-----:e:L4:-::.--,----"='e'="2:-.-------::eo.

Figure 3.-Slalions al which Lagodon rhomboides larvae occurred al leasl once

during I7 cruises 10 Ihe easlern GulfofMexico; 1971-74. Large dots indicale sta·

tions al which L. rhomboides larvae were found. Small dots are stations at which

L. rhomboides larvae were nol collected. (Houde et al., see texi footnote 2.)

little geographical variation. Larvae sellie on or near the bottom

(Hildebrand and Cable 1938; Caldwell 1957).

Newly metamorphosed juveniles of about 12 mm SL were

found only along beaches and on shallow flats by Caldwell (1957).

Hildebrand and Cable (1938) reported 12 to 16 mm TL young

from deeper channels, sounds, and estuaries near Beaufort, in

winter, often in large schools with young Atlantic croakers, Micropogonias unduiatus, and spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, of the same

size. Small juveniles found over shallow, vegetated bollom are

generally less pigmented and shallower bodied than those over

vegetated bollom (Hildebrand and Cable 1938; Caldwell 1957).

Shenker and Dean (1979) reported that larvae entering North Inlet estuary, SC, were most common in mid-day samples.

Larger juveniles are spread over a wide variety of habitats,

mostly inshore, though Hoese (1973) reported many juveniles off

the Georgia coast and few inshore. Elsewhere, pinfish juveniles

occur over vegetated areas such as eelgrass or turtlegrass flats

(Brook 1977; Nelson 1979a, b; Stoner 1979a, 1980a, b, c, 1982;

Nelson et al. 1982), and around piers, pilings, and jellies (Hildebrand and Cable 1938; Reid 1954; Hastings 1972; Vick); in

canals and river mouths (Wang and Raney 1971; Kinch 1979);

and in intertidal pools in salt marshes (Dahlberg 1972). Stoner

(1979a) found that juveniles rarely venture beyond seagrasscovered habitats. Hyle (1976) reported juveniles abundant in

areas rich in the green alga Viva. Largest juveniles may move to

deeper inshore flats and channel edges (Caldwell 1957; Wang and

Raney 1971; Weinstein et al. 1977). At the end of their first summer, age-O pinfish move Lo deeper water offshore (Grimes and

Mountain 1971; Weinstein et al. 1977).

See 2.3 and 4.2.

JVick, N. G. 1964. The marine ichthynfauna of St. Andrew Bay, Florida, and

nearshore habitats of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M Univ. Res.

Found., A&M Proj. 286-D, 77 p.

Table I.-Size and time of year of larval and postlarval Lagodon rhomboides entering shallow-water habitats along the coast of

the southeastern Uniled Slates.

-----------------------------------------

Location

Virginia

Chesapeake Bay

North Carolina

Beaufort

Newport River estuary

South Carolina

intertidal creek near

Georgetown

North Inlet estuary

Florida

northern Florida Bay

Charlotte Harbor estuary

Tampa Bay

Crystal River

Cedar Key

Panhandle salt marshes

St. Andrew Bay jetties

Alabama

mouth of Mobile Bay.

Perdido Bay

Mississippi

plankton samples from

passes

Texas

Texas coast

Galveston I.

Redflsh Bay

Upper Laguna Madre

Size

Not specified

10 mm TL

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

10.5-15.5 mm SL

10 mm

Not specified

Not specified

12-14 mm SL

10-20 mm SL

13-20 mm SL

II mm SL

11+ mm SL

II mm SL

8-21 mm TL

11-18 mm TL

13 mm TL

Not specified

15 mm (measurement

unspeci fled)

25 mm SL

Time of year

spring

Oct.-Apr.; peak Dec., Jan.

first appear early Jan.

Nov.-Apr.; peak Feb., Mar.

peak Feb., Mar.

January

Mar.-Apr.

early Feb.

first appear Dec.

first appear Dec.

first appear late Nov.

first appear Jan.

first appear Dec.

spring

Dec.-Apr.

Dec.-Apr.

Dec.-Mar.

Jan.-Mar.

Jan.-Apr.; peak Feb.

Feb.-May; peak Apr.

Mar.-Apr.

4

Reference

Hilldebrand and Schroeder (1928)

Hildebrand and Cable (1938)

Adams (I 976a)

Hoss (1974)

Bozeman and Dean (1980)

Shenker and Dean (1979)

Tabb and Manning (1961)

Wang and Raney (1971)

Springer and Woodburn (1960)

Grimes and Mountain (1971)

Reid (1954)

Kilby (1955)

Caldwell (1957)

Subrahmanyam and Drake (1975)

Hastings (1972)

Swingle (1971)

Franks et al. (1972)

Gunter (1945)

Arnold et al. (1960)

Hoese and Jones (1963)

Hellier (1962)
2.22 Adults

Adult pinfish occupy a variety of habitats, both inshore and offshore. In shallow water they occur over vegetated flats, in

mangrove areas, over rocky substrates, and around wharves,

pilings, and jetties (Reid 1954; Kilby 1955; Cameron 1969a;

Hastings 1972; Hoese and Moore 1977; Randall and Vergara R.

1978; Vick footnote 3); in canals, ponds, and creeks in salt

marshes (Zilberberg 1966; Swingle 1971; Dahlberg 1972;

Subrahmanyam and Drake 1975; Cain and Dean 1976; Kinch

1979; Shenker and Dean 1979; Weinstein 1979; Bozeman and

Dean 1980; Crabtree and Dean 1982); and occasionally over

sandy bottoms and along beaches (Reid 1954; Caldwell 1957;

Springer and Woodburn 1960; Modde and Ross 1980). Large

individuals often occupy deeper inshore habitats such as channels

and passes (Caldwell 1957; Hellier 1962; Wang and Raney 1971).

Protected waters are generally preferred.

Pinfish also occur offshore, particularly in the cooler months of

the year. Struhsaker (1969) reported them very common (> 50%

occurrence) in coastal, open-shelf, and live-bottom areas off the

southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States. Pinfish were not

trawled commonly during MARMAP surveys of the South Atlantic Bight (Wenner et al. 1979), but mostly sand bottom was

sampled. Barans and Burrell (1976) and Miller and Richards

(1980) also reported pinfish from offshore waters of the southeastern United States.

In the Gulf of Mexico, Franks et al. (1972) trawled pinfish off

the Mississippi coast in every month of the year except April, and

found the greatest concentrations at 54.9-91.5 m (30-50 fathoms).

Pinfish move offshore in the cooler months along the northern

Gulf coast (Hastings 1972); Springer and Bullis (1957) and Bullis

and Thompson (1965) reported pinfish catches offshore, particularly in winter. Results of trawling on the West Florida Shelf

reported by Darcy and Gutherz (1984) indicated that pinfish are

most common in depths < 36 m, particularly between Tampa Bay

and the Dry Tortugas. Pinfish are also common on brown shrimp

grounds in the northwestern Gulf in winter, but not common on

white shrimp grounds (Hildebrand 1954; Chittenden and

McEachran 1976); pinfish were trawled as deep as 73.2 m (40

fathoms) on shrimp grounds. Hastings (1972), Hastings et al.

(1976), and Stott et al. (1980, 1981) reported pinfish from offshore platforms in the northern Gulf.

On Campeche Bank, pinfish are trawled at least as deep as 50

m, with greatest concentrations encountered on the central Bank

at 30-50 m (Sokolova 1965; Kapote 1971; Sauskan and Olaechea

1974).

See 2.3 and 4.2.

2.3 Determinants of distribution changes

Distribution of pinfish is determined by temperature (season),

salinity, bottom type and vegetation, water clarity, and growth

stage of the individual. The relative importance of these factors in

determining distribution is not clear; conflicting conclusions appear in the literature, though season is the most commonly mentioned factor.

Seasonal changes in distribution of pinfish have been reported

by many authors working throughout the geographical range of

the species. Roessler (1970) concluded that abundance of pinfish

in Buttonwood Canal, FL, correlated best with season. Pinfish

usually move to deeper water during the coldest part of the year.

Numerous authors (e.g., Cain and Dean 1976; Nelson 1979b;

Stoner 1979a, 1980a; Orth and Heck 1980; Stoner and Livingston

5

1984) have noted decreased abundance of pinfish in shallow

water in the winter. This movement may be offshore (Gunter

1945; Joseph and Yerger 1956; Grimes and Mountain 1971;

Ogren and Brusher 1977), or into deeper inshore waters such as

channels and basins (Tabb and Manning 1961; Hellier 1962;

Cameron 1969a). Such movements are probably attempts to avoid

low water temperatures; spawning also takes place during this

period. Abruzzini et al. (1979, 1982) and Clem et al. (1981) found

that the immunity system of pinfish is related to temperature of

acclimation. Pinfish also sometimes move to slightly deeper water

in the warmest months of summer to avoid high temperatures

(Cameron 1969a; Adams 1976a). By moving to somewhat cooler

water, pinfish may regulate their metabolism (Adams 1976a).

Although pinfish are usually reported to move offshore in

winter, some individuals may remain in nearshore waters yearround (Hildebrand and Cable 1938; Springer and Woodburn

1960; Swingle 1971; Hyle 1976; Modde and Ross 1980). Winter

inshore populations are often much smaller than summer populations, however (Gunter 1945; Reid 1954; Cain and Dean 1976;

Nelson 1979b; Stoner 1979a, 1980a; Stoner and Livingston

1984).

Pinfish are found through a wide range of salinity, from 0% 0 to

well over 40% 0 , Several authors, such as Gunter (1945), Kilby

(1955), and Weinstein (1979), reported that pinfish are rather

indifferent to salinity, and that other factors such as vegetation are

more important in determining distribution. Others, however,

noted salinity effects. Cameron (1969a) reported that pinfish

abundance on shallow flats along the Texas coast decreased after

periods of heavy rain and lowered salinity (4% 0 ), Wang and

Raney (1971) similarly found that juvenile pmfish left river

mouths near the Charlotte Harbor estuary, FL, when heavy July

rains lowered salinity. Subrahmanyam and Drake (1975) concluded that pinfish abundance in salt marshes of the Florida Panhandle was correlated with salinity rather than temperature, and

Subrahmanyam and Coultas (1980) found a positive correlation

between salinity and pinfish abundance. At Bayport, FL, over half

of the pinfish collected by Kilby (1955) were taken at 5-10% 0,

whereas Franks (1970) found pinfish most abundant at Horn

Island, MS, at salinities above 180 / 00 , At deeper stations

(54.9-91.5 m; 30-50 fathoms) off Mississippi, pinfish were most

abundant at 23.0-37.90 / 00 (Franks et al. 1972). Although Gunter

(1945) found no correlation of fish size with salinity, Wang and

Raney (1971) stated that juveniles were more common in low

salinity areas than were adults. Stoner and Livingston (1984)

reported pinfish most abundant near freshwater inflows to

Apalachee Bay, FL. Larvae collected by Houde et al. (see footnote

2) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico were taken in water of 33-36% 0 ,

Although pinfish occur over many bottom types-mud, coral,

sand, rock, and combinations (Caldwell 1957)-there is a preference for vegetated bottom. Kilby (1955) found distribution and

density more dependent on vegetation than salinity. Similarly,

Caldwell (1957) reported that pinfish avoid exposed coasts, and

that the environmental characteristic most influencing local

distribution is vegetation. Schwartz (1964) found pinfish more

commonly on sandy vegetated bottom than in other habitats.

When vegetated areas are not available, or as a secondary center

of abundance, pinfish will also live around rocks, jetties, pilings,

docks, breakwaters, and mangrove roots (Caldwell 1957). Preference for vegetated bottoms is probably due to the importance of

these areas as feeding grounds. Pinfish may congregate in areas

near food sources (Hansen 1970); Stoner (1980b) found a high

correlation (r = 0.998, P < 0.01) between pinfish abundance and

macrophyte biomass. Little is known about offshore habitat
preference, though pinfish seem to be more common on live bottom than over sand. Postlarvae are often associated with drifting

plant material (Caldwell 1957), probably for protection.

Water clarity may influence local distribution of pinfishHoese and Moore (1977) noted that pinfish avoid highly turbid

waters off western Louisiana. It is possible that the movements of

pinfish away from shallow inshore areas after heavy rains noted

by Cameron (I969a) and Wang and Raney (1971) were due, at

least in part, to increased turbidity.

Distribution of pinfish also varies with growth stage. Small larvae are pelagic and have been found about 20 km offshore (Hildebrand and Cable 1938). Before metamorphosing, larvae move inshore. During the warmer part of the year, smaller fish (primarily

juveniles) usually occupy shallower water than large fish (Caldwell 1957). Tabb and Manning (1961) reported that the smallest

fish in northern Florida Bay, FL, occupy the shallowest water during summer. Hellier (1962) found that larger pinfish in Upper

Laguna Madre, TX, moved to deeper water such as channels and

basins, where some of them remained year-round. Off Tampa

Bay, FL, Moe and Martin (1965) found large pinfish (probably

age I or older) in fairly deep water (10 m; 6 fathoms) in December; these fish may have been preparing to spawn. Wang and

Raney (1971) reported small pinfish « 100 mm SL) common in

brackish water in bays, whereas larger individuals were more

common in deeper passes. Cameron (1969a) hypothesized that

differential depth distribution with size might be due to a differ·

ence in prey-size selection, or to the inability of larger pinfish to

cope with metabolic extremes of very shallow water.

See 3.16, 3.32, 3.51,4.2, and 4.6.

3 BIONOMICS AND LIFE HISTORY

3.1 Reproduction

3.11 Sexuality

No sexual dimorphism in body shape or color has been reported

in pinfish. Sexes are separate and there is no evidence of sex

reversals or hermaphroditism.

3.12 Maturity

The smallest specimen of pinfish with developing gonads collected by Caldwell (1957) at Cedar Key, FL, was a 146 mOl SL

female taken in October. Hansen (1970) found much smaller ripe

individuals at Pensacola, FL, and concluded that maturation size

was about 80 mm SL. According to H,lnsen (1970), some age-O

and all age-I individuals were mature, but Caldwell (1957) stated

that only age-II and older fish were mature.

3.13 Mating

No records of mating in pinfish were found in the literature.

Pairing probably does not take place.

3.14 Fertilization

Fertilization is probably external with eggs and sperm liberated

simultaneously.

3.15 Gonads

Gonads are paired and lie immediately dorsal to the intestine in

6

the body cavity, between the lobes of the liver; the gonads are attached anteriorly with mesenteries near the origin of the liver

lobes (Caldwell 1957). When ripe, testes are pinkish to fleshcolored or white and slightly distended, and ovaries are yellow

with the opaque eggs macroscopically visible (Hansen 1970).

Pinfish ovarian follicles have been cultured in external media

(Hall and Cardeilhac 1981). Ovarian follicles of pinfish consist of

two distinct types of cells, based on differential staining (Wiley

and Cardeilhac 1977). Mammalian pituitary luteinizing hormone

and sex hormones have been successfully used to induce oocyte

maturation in females (Wiley and Cardeilhac 1977); methyl

testosterone injections have been used to obtain ripe sperm from

males (Cardeilhac 1981). Exposure to copper levels of 5 ppm had

no observable effect on ovarian follicle development (Cardeilhac

1981).

3.16 Spawning

Spawning takes place from late fall to late spring and occurs

somewhat offshore. The time of spawning may vary geographically.

Along the southern Atlantic coast of the United States, Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928) and Hildebrand and Cable (1938)

reported that pinfish spawn from October to March in the vicinity

of Chesapeake Bay. No ripe indi\iduals were collected in the Bay,

but the presence of larvae «10 mm TL) 19-21 km (12-13 mi)

offshore indicated that spawning occurred at least that far from

shore. Thayer et al. (1974) and Hoss (1974) reported pinfish larvae present in the Newport River estuary, NC, during all months

from November to April, with peaks of abundance in February

and March; larvae entering the estuary were probably spawned

offshore. In the SI. Lucie estuary, FL, Gunter and Hall (1963)

found smallest specimens in May and hypothesized a winterspring spawning.

In the Gulf of Mexico, numerous authors have reported fallwinter-spring spawning of pinfish based on larval occurrence.

Caldwell (1957) found that postlarvae (11-12 mOl SL) first

appeared inshore at Cedar Key, FL, in early December and continued to be taken at that size until late April. Joseph and Yerger

(956) reported 17 mOl SL juveniles at Alligator Harbor, FL, in

late May through July, although Caldwell (1957) questioned the

lateness in season of this record. Stoner and Livingston (1984)

found smallest specimens (11 mm SL) in December and January

in Apalachee Bay, FL. Other workers (Gunter 1945, Texas coast;

Reid 1954, Cedar Key, FL; Springer and Woodburn 1960, Tampa

Bay, FL; Arnold et al. 1960, Galveston, TX; Tabb and Manning

1961, northern Florida Bay, FL; Grimes and Mountain 1971,

Crystal River, FL; Hastings 1972, SI. Andrew Bay, FL) have confirmed late fall to late spring spawning. Females collected by Stott

et al. (1981) off Louisiana had a predominance of secondary ova

in May-June. Males (Stott et al. 1980) collected in the same

months had spermatogonia and primary spermatocytes in about

equal numbers. Juarez (1975) reported winter and spring spawning on Campeche Bank, stating that pinfish prefer to spawn when

waters cool.

Ripe adults have been found offshore. Schools of 1,000-2,000

ripe individuals were reported at the surface off the Mississippi

coast over 38 m (21 fathoms) of water in September by Springer

(1957). Franks et al. (1972) also found ripe adults off the Mississippi coast in 93 m (50 fathoms) in March. An ichthyoplankton

survey in the eastern Gulf of Mexico by Houde et al. (footnote 2)

produced pinfish larvae offshore in fall, winter, and spring, with

97.6% of the larvae collected in winter.
See 2.21.

3.17 Spawn

Ovarian eggs measured by Hansen (1970) were 0.09-0.66 mm

in diameter (mean 0.38 mm) and opaque yellow. Mature, unfertilized ova examined by Schimmel (1977) were clear, spherical,

and 0.90-0.93 mm in diameter. Cardeilhac (1976) reported

mature, unfertilized ova of 0.99-1.05 mm (mean 1.02 mm). The

eggs are assumed to be pelagic (Caldwell 1957).

3.2 Preadult phase

3.21 Embryonic phase

Artificially fertilized pinfish eggs were reared in the laboratory

by Cardeilhac (1976). Seventy-five percent of the fertilized eggs

reached the early blastula stage in about 3 h. At 6 h after fertilization, expanding blastulae were visible. By 16 h, the late gastrula

stage had been reached and the embryonic axis was evident. Optic

cups and lenses were present at 23 h. Heartbeat and body twitching were visible at 27 h. Most eggs hatched in about 48 h at 18°C.

Schimmel (1977) also reported there was hatching in about 48 h

at 18°C, with the emerging larva 2.3 mm TL. At hatching, the embryo lacks eye pigmentation but has a characteristic melanophore

on both lateral surfaces of the body, about 1 mm from the tip of

the tail.

3.22 Larvae and adolescent phase

Descriptions of early larval stages of pinfish are based on laboratory rearings. Cardeilhac (1976) reported 50% yolk utilization

within 15 h of hatching. Melanophores on the lateral body surfaces disappear within 48 h of hatching, and eye pigmentation

develops (Schimmel 1977). Yolk absorption is complete by the

time the larva reaches 2.7 mm TL (Schimmel 1977). By 96 h, the

larva has attained 2.9 mm TL and the jaw apparatus has developed extensively (Schimmel 1977).

The following larval descriptions are derived from Hildebrand

and Cable (1938).

5.0-5.5 mm TL (Fig. 4A)

Body elongate, compressed, depth 3.6-3.9 in SL; dorsal outline

concave in advance of eyes and at nape, or just posterior to the

brain; head rather low, compressed, 2.9-3.0 in SL; snout moderately pointed, as long as eye, 3.0-3.5 in head; maxillary reaches

nearly opposite anterior margin of pupil; gape anteriorly very

slightly below level of the middle of the eye; teeth not evident;

about 22 myomeres countable; vent slightly nearer base of caudal

than tip of snout; primitive dorsal fin membrane in 5.0 mm fish

has suggestions of rays which are better developed in 5.5 mm

specimens; rays somewhat more definitely developed in anal fin

than dorsal; notochord bent upward posteriorly, with welldeveloped caudal rays below it, the rays broken distally; caudal fin

probably rounded; pectoral fins quite well developed and long;

pelvics minute. Color pale; three dark spots on median ventral

line, one near isthmus, another on chest, third just in advance of

vent; row of black dots along ventral outline from origin of anal

fin to base of caudal; dark internal area visible on side above and

slightly posterior to vent.

7

6.0-7.0 TL (Fig. 4B)

Body slightly more elongate, depth 3.8-4.0 in SL; concavities in

dorsal outline less distinct; about 12 soft rays visible in dorsal and

anal fins; fin spines not well differentiated; pectoral fins long,

reaching to vent; pelvics scarcely differentiated.

Black dots present in smaller fish persist and are more definite;

a few to several black dots present on base of caudal, two or more

on upper surface of caudal peduncle, one at nape, and usually an

elongate blackish one above the base of the pectoral.

8.0-10 mm TL (Fig. 4A)

Body somewhat more slender, depth 4.3-4.6 times in SL; dorsal

outline remains as in smaller fish, but depressions in advance of

eyes and at nape have disappeared; brain visible; head 3.5-3.6

times in SL; eye 2.9-3.1 in head; snout 3.0-3.3 in head; mouth

oblique, maxillary reaching nearly opposite anterior margin of

pupil; jaw teeth evident; no spines evident on preopercular

margin; vent at midbody; spines in dorsal and anal fins well differentiated; caudal fin long and rounded, nearly as long as head; pectoral fins long, reaching vent; pelvic fins minute, scarcely longer

than pupil.

Additional dark dots along ventral outline of chest and abdomen present, varying in number among individuals; some with a

few extra chromatophores on dorsal surface of head.

13-15 mm TL

No measurable changes in body proportions; snout has decreased in proportionate length and is shorter than eye, 3.6-4.0 in head;

eye 2.8-3.0 in head; mouth oblique, gape anteriorly only slightly

below level of middle of eye; maxillary reaches only slightly

beyond anterior margin of eye; teeth minute; skull transparent,

brain visible from above; rays in dorsal and anal fins developed in

adult numbers, spines remain proportionately much shorter than

in adult; caudal fin becomes square when fish attains about 12

mm TL, and is concave at a length of about 14 mm TL; pectorals

long, reaching nearly to origin of anal fin; pelvics much larger,

nearly as long as eye in 15 mm fish, but spine not yet well differentiated.

Color unchanged from 8.0-10 mm TL specimens.

18-20 mm TL (Fig. 4B)

Variable in shape and color, some 20 mm TL fish remaining as

slender as 15 mm TL fish, others deeper; slender specimens

pigmented like 15 mm TL fish, deeper bodied specimens much

more densely pigmented, with crossbars as in adults; pigmentation

and body deepening occur simultaneously but at varying lengths,

apparently associated with a change in habitat, body depth

4.3-4.5 in SL in unpigmented specimens, 3.5-3.9 in SL in

pigmented specimens; head 3.3-3.6 in SL; eye 2.8-3.2 in head;

snout 3.3-3.8 in head; teeth small; pigmented specimens about 20

mm in length at least partially scaled, smaller specimens and unpigmented specimens un scaled; scales ctenoid when present; fins

longer and more fully developed in pigmented fish; pelvic spine

differentiated; pigmented specimens have first soft ray of pelvics

produced into short filament, not present in unpigmented fish;

caudal deeply concave.

Unpigmented specimens retain a few dark markings as in

smaller specimens; pigmented specimens greenish in life; preser-
A

Figure 4.-Larval and juvenile Lagodon rhomboid... A. 8 mm TL; B. 16 mm TL; C. 21 mm TL.

ved specimens profusely dotted with black forming crossbars extending more or less on dorsal and anal fins.

21-30 mm TL (Figs. 4C, 5A)

Body strongly compressed, depth 2.5-3.0 in SL (similar to

adult); dorsal profile strongly elevated and round, much more

strongly curved than ventral outline; head short and deep, 2.8-3.1

in SL; snout blunter and proportionately shorter than in adult,

3.5-3.8 in head; eye 3.1-3.5 in head; mouth almost horizontal,

gape entirely below eye; maxillary reaches slightly past anterior

margin of eye; anterior teeth somewhat enlarged, exposed tips of

8

anterior teeth pointed and arising in pairs from a common base;

body fully scaled; pectorals and pelvies shorter than in adults; first

soft ray of pelvic retains a filament which reaches the origin of the

anal fin; second anal spine stronger than third, though not as much

so as in adult.

General color pattern resembles adult.

;?;40 mm TL (Fig. 5B)

Body depth variable, often deeper in smaller fish; snout becoming more pointed and proportionately longer with age (3.1 in head

in 40 mm fish, 2.5 in head in 165 mm fish); mouth horizontal and
Figure S.-Juvenile Lagooon rhomboides. A. 27 mm TL; B. 63 mm TL.

much below eye; teeth broad and well notched; caudal fin more

deeply forked with age, the lobes sharply pointed; pectoral and

pelvic fins increase in length and become more pointed; pectorals

reach to vent in 40 mm fish, beyond anal fin origin in larger fish;

specimens to 100 mm retain filament on first soft ray of pelvic,

missing in larger fish; second anal spine thickens with age.

Color extremely variable; dark crossbars present in varying intensity; some specimens with prominent alternating bluish- and

yellowish-green longitudinal lines.

Caldwell (1957) described the coloration of 16-17 mm SL

postlarvae from Cedar Key, FL: Dorsal and anal fin membranes

tipped with brick red, smeared to the base of the fins, particularly

9

so on the spinous portions (and especially so on the spinous dorsal); lemon yellow to orange chromatophores over most of the

body, concentrated where the black chromatophores are least

numerous; black humeral spot developed; eye iridescent, bluish.

3.3 Adult phase

3.31 Longevity

Pinfish reach a length of at least 437 mm TL (Simmons 1957,

Upper Laguna Madre, TX), and are common to 180 mm SL (Randall and Vergara R. 1978). Although Caldwell (1957) estimated
that his largest specimen (328 mm SL) from Cedar Key, FL, was

at least 7 yr old, Hansen (1970) stated that few individuals live

more than 3 yr, and few age-II fish live to reenter shallow water.

See 4.13.

3.32 Hardiness

The pinfish is a warm-temperate species with a fairly broad

range of temperature tolerance. Several authors (Storey and

Gudger 1936; Storey 1937; Hildebrand and Cable 1938) have

remarked on the ability of pinfish to withstand cold better than

most other species living in the same areas. Although some pinfish

may overwinter in shallow water (Hildebrand and Cable 1938),

most appear to move to deeper water in the coldest months

(Gunter 1945; Joseph and Yerger 1956); some individuals may

bury themselves in the bottom to avoid extreme cold (T. R.

Hellier, pers. commun, as cited in Moore 1976). Cameron

(1969b) placed the lower lethal temperature of pinfish at 6°-8°C,

though several occurrences of the species in or below that range

have been reported. Large numbers of pinfish were killed by cold

at Port Aransas, TX, in January 1940 (Gunter 1941), and some

were swimming dazed in 4.7°C water. Hellier (1962) collected

specimens at temperatures as low as 7.6°C in Upper Laguna

Madre, TX, and Hyle (1976) found pinfish al 5.00C in the

Newport River estuary, NC. Moore (1976) reported that although

a few torpid individuals were found, no dead pinfish were seen

following a cold front (4.00-7.0 0C water) along the Texas coast.

In contrast, Gilmore et al. (1978) noted a few specimens killed by

cold (10.6°C) at Sanibel Island, FL, in January 1977. In Indian

River Lagoon, FL, active schools of pinfish were observed at

10°C (Gilmore et al. 1978). Differences in acclimation may account for the variation in lower lethal temperature reported.

Abruzzini et al. (1979,1982) and Clem et al. (1981) found that

the immunity system of pinfish is affected by acclimation temperature. In the laboratory, Peters et al. (1976) found that postlarvae

maintained at 6°C stopped feeding after several days, followed by

mortality, whereas at 8°C they survived and gained weight.

An upper thermal tolerance of 33°-34°C has been reported for

pinfish (Cameron 1969b); temperatures of 35°C or more are actively avoided. Gunter (1945) collected specimens at temperatures

as high as 34.9°C along the Texas coast, and Caldwell (1957) collected pinfish at 36.9°C at Cedar Key, FL, though Caldwell's

temperature readings were taken at the surface and may have been

somewhat higher than those at which the fish were actually living.

Franks et al. (1972) stated that pinfish prefer water of

16.00-27.9°C off the Mississippi coast. In the laboratory, Hoss et

al. (1971) determined the average critical maximum temperature

for pinfish to be 31.00C for acclimation at 15°C and 30°/00 ,

Chamberlain and Strawn (1977) reported that pinfish began dying

at 36.0°C in power plant effluent at Cedar Bayou, TX. Sizetemperature interactions indicate that large individuals are less

tolerant of high temperatures than small individuals, due to their

higher oxygen-consumption rate (Wohlschlag and Cech 1970).

Pinfish are tolerant of a wide range of salinity. They have frequently been reported at very low salinities (Gunter 1945,

2.1-37.2°/00, Texas coast; Tagatz and Dudley 1961,0-36.9°/00,

North Carolina coast; Gunter and Hall 1963, < 1.0-14.0°100' St.

Lucie estuary, FL; Perret et al. 1971,0-30°/00, Louisiana estuaries;

Swingle 1971, >2.0°/00, Alabama coast; Dunham 1972,

2.9-26.5°/00 , Barataria Bay, LA; Perret and Caillouet 1974,

2.1-11.9°100, Vermilion Bay, LA; Tarver and Savoie 1976,

0.0-4.9°/00, Lake Pontchartrain, LA) and have been found in

freshwater at Homosassa Springs, FL (Gunter 1942; Herald and

10

Strickland 1950) and in the St. Johns River, FL (McClane, pers.

commun., as cited in Caldwell 1957). Pinfish in power plant effluents subjected to drastic salinity reductions that lowered conductivities to <5 mS/cm were killed (Holt and Strawn 1977).

High salinities are also tolerated. Roessler (1970) collected pinfish at salinities as high as 43.8°/00 in Buttonwood Canal, FL. According to Cameron (1969b), pinfish are found in water exceeding

70%0 in Baffin Bay, TX.

Incipient lethal dissolved oxygen concentration for pinfish is

about 1.1 mg/l (Cameron 1969b). Oxygen consumption of pinfish

per unit body weight was found to be higher than that of

cyprinodontid and poeciliid fishes that are permanent salt-marsh

residents (Subrahmanyam 1980). This relatively greater need for

oxygen may explain why pinfish avoid shallow, hypoxic tidal

pools (Subrahmanyam 1980). Subrahmanyam found that pinfish

have a critical oxygen-tension level of 24 mm Hg. Water supersaturated with dissolved gases, such as in power plant effluents,

has been shown to be hazardous to pinfish (Chamberlain and

Strawn 1977). Pinfish can apparently detect oxygen saturation

levels and respond by moving away from supersaturated conditions, when possible (Romanowsky and Strawn 1979).

Siltation apparently does not greatly affect pinfish; Ingle (1952)

found individuals in the vicinity of an active dredge. Reid (1954)

repo:ted pinfish killed by a hurricane at Cedar Key, FL, in 1950,

but whether death was caused by siltation, turbulence, salinity

drop, or some other cause is not known.

Pinfish have been used extensively in pesticide testing. Schimmel et al. (1979) found that pinfish exposed to 2.4 jig/l EPN

(O-ethyl-o-p-nitrophenyl phenyl phosphonothionate) bioconcentrated rapidly and reached apparent equilibrium in about 48 h;

equilibrium concentration in pinfish tissue was 1.7 mg/kg.

Bioconcentration studies using EPN indicated a bioconcentration factor of about 707 for extended exposure (Schimmel et al.

1979). When pinfish were no longer exposed to EPN they eliminated most of its residues in 4 d and virtually all in 8 d. Coppage

and Matthews (1975) tested the effects of the organophosphate

insecticide naled (1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl dimethyl phosphate) on brain acetylcholinesterase activity in pinfish. Twentyfour-hour exposure to a nominal concentration of 75 jig/l naled

killed 40-60% of the pinfish exposed, as did 48-h exposure to 55

jigll, and 72-h exposure to 25 jig/l. Exposure to 15 jig/l for 96 h

caused no mortality, although sublethal doses of naled were

demonstrated to cause measurable changes in acetylcholinesterase

activity. Coppage (1977) also found reduced brain acetylcholinesterase activity in pinfish exposed to carbamate pesticides.

Results of acute toxicity tests of several organochlorine compounds are compared in Table 2. Borthwick and Schimmel (1978)

found that 48-h posthatch pinfish larvae were very sensitive to

Na-PCP (sodium pentachlorophenate) (96-h LCso = 38 jig/l) and

Dowicide G (79% Na-PCP) (96-h LCso = 66 jig/l). Hansen, Parrish, and Forester (1974) reported no deaths in pinfish subjected

to 100 jig/l of Arochlor 1016 (a polychlorinated biphenyl) for 96

h, but a 42-d exposure to 32 jig/l caused significant mortality and

liver tissue changes. A bioconcentration factor of as high as

17,000 was found for a 56-d exposure to 1 jig/l Arochlor 1016

(Hansen, Parrish, and Forester 1974). Pinfish avoided Arochlor

1254 concentrations of 10 mg/jil (Hansen, Schimmel, and Matthews 1974). Malathion in a concentration of 30 jig/l killed 60%

of the pinfish tested by Cook et al. (1976), within 72 h. Cook and

Moore (1976) found that specimens exposed to 75 jig/l malathion

for 24 h retained no malathion, but did retain its metabolites

mono-carboxylic acid malathion in the liver and di-carboxylic

acid malathion in the gut. Bioconcentration of pesticides appears
Table :Z.-Acute toxicity and bioconcentration factors of pesticides for 96-h tests of Lagodon rhomboides.

LC,o <!,g/L)

Compound

Na-PCP

(sodium pentachlorophenale)

Chlordane

Lindane

BHC

Toxaphene

Heptachlor

(tech. grade 65%)

Endosulfan

EPN

'Not given.

Test

conditions

X25.0°C

x20.80 / 00

31.3°C

24.60 / 00

22.5-25.0°C

21-23°100

22.0-26.0°C

20-23°/00

24.0-26.0 oC

18.5-26.0°100

27 .5-30.0oC

25.0-31.00 100

x24.3°C

x 16.4°100

x64 mm SL

x25.0°C

x28.8%

Nominal

dose

107.6

10.4

0.56

0.44

Measured

dose

53.2

6.4

30.6

86.4

0.53

3.77

0.30

18.3

Bioconcentration

factor

2,000-4,800

218

482

3.900

2,800-7,700

1,299 (@0.15 I'g/L)

1,046 (@0.26I'g/L)

744

Authors

Schimmel et al. (1978)

Parrish et al. (1976)

Schimmel, Patrick, and Forester

(J977b)

Schimmel, Patrick, and Forester

(1977b)

Schimmel, Patrick, and Forester

(1977a)

Schimmel et al. (1976)

Schimmel, Patrick, and Wilson

(1977)

Schimmel et al. (1979)

to be greater in the viscera than in edible tissues (Schimmel,

Patrick, and Forester I 977b).

Heavy metal sensitivity of pinfish was examined by Whaling et

al. (1976), who fed juveniles a diet of blue marlin axial muscles

containing 15 ppm (wet weight) mercury. Test animals died

beginning after 30 d of the high mercury diet and showed accumulation of mercury in the axial muscles, liver, kidney, heart, and

brain. The LCso of copper is 0.15 ppm for pinfish larvae (Engel et

al. 1976). Larger pinfish subjected to copper by Cardeilhac and

Hall (1977) became lethargic and stopped eating at concentrations of 6.2 ppm; longer exposure caused uncoordination, with

deaths occurring about 10 h after copper addition began (concentration 7.2 ppm). Signs of distress stopped 17 h after copper concentration fell below 0.2 ppm. Effects of copper poisoning in pinfish include increased serum levels of urea nitrogen, alkaline

phosphatase, sodium, and potassium; and increased levels of copper in the gills, liver, and kidneys (Cardeilhac and Hall 1977;

Cardeilhac 1981). Electrolyte imbalance results from impaired

osmoregulation and hemolysis (Cardeilhac and Hall 1977).

Selenium toxicity was tested on pinfish by Ward et al. (1981);

LCso for 96-h was 4.4 mglI at 30°/00 and 22 0c.

Pinfish have been shown to tolerate fairly high concentrations

of bleached kraft mill effluent (BKME) from paper production

(Stoner and Livingston 1978). Young specimens maintained in

aquaria with BKME added showed increased ventilation rates,

lowered condition factors, lowered moisture and lipid contents,

higher protein contents, and reduced capacity for food conversion.

Avoidance of BKME is elicited at concentrations of 0.06% or

higher (Livingston et al. 1976; Lewis and Livingston 1977).

Avoidance of residual chlorination is 0.02-0.4 mgll chlorine

(Cripe 1979).

Effects of other pollutants on pinfish have also been reported.

Daugherty (1951) found pinfish to be relatively resistant to

chemicals associated with oil-well drilling. Hall et al. (1978)

found the LCso of No.2 fuel oil to be <1.8 mglI after 4 h, and 0.58

mgll after 96 h. Stone et al. (1975) reported that pinfish were not

harmed by exposure to tires used in artificial reefs. Hoss et al.

(1974) found that sediments from Charleston Harbor, SC, were

harmful in high concentrations to larval pinfish, possibly due to

ammonia toxicity.

II

Red tides have been reported to kill pinfish on the west coast of

Florida (Gunter et al. 1948; Springer and Woodburn 1960).

Radiation exposure LDso for pinfish postlarvae is 2,083 rads for

50 d at 18°C (White and Angelovic 1966).

See 3.66 and 3.44.

3.33 Competitors

Stoner and Livingston (1984) studied competition between pinfish and spottail pinfish, Diplodus holbrooki, and concluded that

the two species, though sympatric, do not compete directly for

food because of differences in morphology. Food habits of pinfish

and sheepshead, Arehosargus probatoeephalus. are similar (Hildebrand and Cable 1938), but competition may be reduced by

different food size selection in adults, and different habitat utilization between juvenile sheepshead and adult pinfish (Darnell

1958). Food habits of pinfish from Card Sound, FL, show a strong

similarity to those of the mojarras Eueinostomus gula and E.

argenteus (Brook 1977). Juvenile pinfish may avoid competition

with anchovies in canals at Marco Island, FL, by switching to

benthic feeding habits (Kinch 1979). Competition with juveniles

of other species is reduced because juvenile pinfish enter shallow

water several months before the young of most other species

(Kinch 1979). Of adult fish, only pinfish were found to consume

attached algae in Marco Island canals (Kinch 1979).

See 3.41 and 3.42.

3.34 Predators

Predators on pinfish include fish: Sandbar shark, Careharhinus

plumbeus (formerly C. milberti), (Hildebrand and Schroeder

1928); ladyfish, Elops saurus, (Darnell 1958); gulf toadfish, Opsanus beta, (Reid 1954); southern hake, Urophyeisfloridana, (Reid

1954); red drum, Seiaenops oeellatus, (Peterson and Peterson

1979); spotted seatrout, Cynosdon nebulosus, (Moody 1950; Carr

and Adams 1973); weakfish, C. regalis, (Merriner 1975); sailfish,

Istiophorus platypterus, (Voss 1953); southern flounder, Paraliehthys lethostigma, (Darnell 1958); marine mammals: Spotted

dolphin, Stenella plagiodon, (Siebenaler and Caldwell 1956;

Springer 1957); and birds: Eastern brown pelican, Peleeanus oed-
dentaUs carolinensis, (Howell 1932); magnificent frigate bird,

Fregata magnificens rothschildi, (Howell 1932; Springer 1957);

and double-crested cormorant, Phalacrocorax a. auritus, (Scattergood 1950).

3.35 Parasites, diseases, injuries, and abnormalities

A list of parasites known from pinfish appears in Table 3. Hall

and Iversen (1967) found pinfish from the southwest coast of

Florida with cysts caused by the myxosporidean parasite Henneguya lagodon. About 5% of individuals caught in summer in

Mississippi estuaries have lesions, possibly of bacterial origin

(Overstreet and Howse 1977). Stott et il. (1980) found a protozoan parasite on the testicular capsule of at least one pinfish off

Louisiana.

19.3% protein, 4.1% fat. 1.4% ash, and 74.9% water, and had a

caloric content of 107 cal/g.

Caloric content of pinfish from Beaufort, NC, increases with

age (Adams 1976a, c) (Table 4). Thayer et al. (1973) determined

that the caloric content of pinfish from the Newport River estuary,

NC, varied seasonally, with the high fall value of adults due to

prespawning lipid production; carbon and lipid contents of adults

were higher than for juveniles. Caloric content of pinfish from the

Newport River estuary was measured at 4.665 cal/mg dry weight

by Angelovic et al. (1969).

Conversion efficiency of laboratory-held pinfish fed ad libitum

was determined to be 4.42-10.47% of wet weight, 8.57 -18.13% of

dry weight, and 7.98-17 .70% of total organic nitrogen (Darnell

and Wissing 1975). Nitrogen absorption efficiency was 86.73-

97.32%.

Table 3.-Parasites from Lagodon rhomboides. (From Caldwell 1957, table 7.)

Composition of pinfish from Campeche Bank was analyzed by

Korzhova (1965), who found that 45.2% of the total weight of the

fish was skin and flesh and 26.8% was head. Flesh contained

3.36 Physiology, biochemistry, etc.

Species

Phylum: Protozoa

Class: Sporozoa

Order: Myxosporidia

Phylum: Platyhelminthes

Class: Trematoda

Order: Monogenea

PseudohaliOlrema carbunculus

Order: Digenea

Leprocreadium ovalis

Lepidauchen hysrerospine

Distomum montiel'll;;

D. appendiculatum

D. vitellosum

D. pyrifonne

D. corpulentum

Diastomum sp.

Cymbephallus vitellosus

Class: Cestoidea

Scloex polymorphus

Rhynchobothrium sp.

Otobothrium crenacolle

Terrarhynchus bisulcatus

Phylum: Nematoda

Ascaris sp.

Phylum: Acanthocephala

Echinirhynchus pris/is

E. sagittifer

Phylum: Arthropoda

Class: Crustacea

Subclass: Copepoda

Caligus praetexlus

Caligus praetextus

Hatschekia linearis

Lernathropus amplitergum

Lernaeenicus po/yceraus

Argulus funduli

A. varians

Subclass: Malacostraca

Agathoa medialis

Location on

fish

external

gills

intestine

intestine

intestine

intestine

intestine

visceral cysts

cysts

cysts

body cavity on

viscera

intestine

on viscera

external

gills

gills

external

gills

Author

Causey in

Caldwell (1957)

Hargis (1955)

Manter (1931)

Manter (1931)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1940)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Linton (1905)

Causey in

Caldwell (1957)

Bere (1936)

Pearse (1953)

Pearse (1953)

Causey in

Caldwell (1957)

Bere (1936)

Bere (1936)

Pearse (1953)

12

Table 4.-Caloric content by size class of Lagodon

rhomboides collected at Beaufort, NC. (Data from

Adams 1976a, c.)

Caloric content

Fish size (caVmg ash-free

(mm SL) N dry wt.) SD

12-16 8 5.36

20-50 48 5.46 0.25

51-85 87 5.54 0.27

>89 39 5.91 0.34

Blood characteristics of pinfish from Redfish Bay, TX, were

reported by Cameron (1969b, 1970). Average erythrocyte counts

were 2.657 ± 0.387 x 107 cells/mm3 in late summer through

winter, with mean cell diameter 9.3 x 6.6 /01. Mean corpuscular

hemoglobin was 28.6 pmg/cell with a mean blood hemoglobin of

7.59 ± 0.72 gil 00 ml (gram percent). Clotting time was 8 s.

Hematocrit averaged 32.9 ± 3.0% for all seasons, with a blood

oxygen capacity of 7.78 ml °211 00 ml blood. In laboratory

experiments, as temperature was increased, hemoglobin concentration and red cell number increased and hematocrit and mean

erythrocyte volume decreased. Small increases in hematocrit and

hemoglobin were noted in response to increased salinity. Vigorous

exercise caused a decrease in blood volume. Comparison with

other fish species indicates that blood characteristics of pinfish

are similar to those of other moderately active species (Cameron

1969b). Cameron and Wohlschlag (1969) examined effects of

anemia on respiration of pinfish and found that tolerance of low

oxygen levels was not clearly related to hemoglobin concentration; reserve capacity of hemoglobin may be important in meeting

unusual demands of migration or escape. Large individuals do not

withstand high temperatures as well as smaller ones due to differences in oxygen consumption (Wohlschlag and Cech 1970).

Oxygen consumption was measured at 0.096 mllg per h for an

11.6 g pinfish and 0.071 mllg per h for a 13.5 g individual by

Subrahmanyam (1980). Pinfish die at critical oxygen tension of

24 mm Hg, which may be due to inability to respire at lower oxygen tensions.

Pinfish are capable of tolerating freshwater (5mmol Na), if

sufficient calcium is present (1 Ommol) (Carrier and Evans 1976).

Pinfish have a mechanism for extracting sodium from low-sodium

environments providing that calcium concentration is high

enough to prevent passive permeability of sodium into the surrounding water (Carrier and Evans 1976). Chloride excretion in

pinfish takes place largely through chloride-secreting cells on the
'Where Y = log,o (1 + mean no. copepods/larva), r = hours since feeding.

Table S.-Evacuation rate equations for larval Lagodon rhomboides from the

Newport River estuary, NC.

Figure 6.-Diel cycle of digestive tract contents in larval Lagodon rhomboith. at

IS·C based upon the geometric mean of the number of copepods per fish (n = 10

fish per sampling time). (From Kjelson and Johnson 1976, fig. Z.)

0400

0500

2400

2100

1600 2000

1300

TIME OF DAY (HR)

TIME OF DAY (HR)

0800 1200

t t I I I I I I

O~""T""--"T"""--r--~_....:::::r=-=;

10

20

40

30

-1

0500

...

50

::z::

11\

11\

Q

o

Q.

...

Q.

o

V

Ill:

...

III

::E

:J

Z

Z

«

...

::E

4

Ill:

:z:

'It

Z 3

Q

....

Iell 2 ....

C!)

Z

..:

1

>-

Ill:

Q

0

Size of larvae Temperature

(mm TL) Equation' (0C) Authors

15-18 Y = l.30-0.18r 12 Kjelson and Johnson (1976)

15-20 Y = 0.94-0.10r 16 Kjelson et al. (1975)

13-19 Y = 0.68-0.08r 17 Kjelson et al. (1975)

Figure 7.-Diel cycle of food consumption (% dry body weight per 4-h period)

by Lagodon rhomboide•. Negative value indicates net egestion for the period.

Arrows indicate sunrise and sunset. (From Peters and Kjelson 1975, rIg. 6.)

Pinfish are primarily benthic feeders with the exception of larvae and small juveniles, which feed higher in the water column.

Larval pinfish locate food visually (Peters and Kjelson 1975).

Studies conducted in the Newport River estuary, NC, by Kjelson

et aI. (1975) and Kjelson and Johnson (1976) investigated feeding

of pinfish larvae. Larvae 15-19 mm TL were found to feed most

actively when there was little or no current; specimens from nearshore contained more copepods than ones collected in channels.

Prey size increased with larva size, with 16-20 mm TL larvae

preferring copepods of about 600 /-1m. Peak feeding activity

occurrred during the day, with maximum gut fullness at 1200 h

(Kjelson et aI. 1975; Peters and Kjelson 1975; Kjelson and Johnson 1976) (Figs. 6, 7) and a maximum feeding rate of 26 copepods/h. Daily food consumption was found to be 38 copepods/fish

per d (about 3.5% of total body weight), or 0.63 callfish per d, by

Kjelson et aI. (1975), and 92 copepods/fish per d, or 1.3 callfish

per d, by Kjelson and Johnson (1976). Gut capacity of an 18 mm

TL larva was about 37 650-/-Im copepods (Kjelson et aI. 1975).

Evacuation rates of larvae appear in Table 5.

Juveniles feed as planktivores when very small, shifting to

larger benthic organisms and algae as the fish increase in size

(Kinch 1979; Livingston 1980; Stoner 1980c). Young are often

found feeding among seagrass blades (Stoner 1979b). Breder

(1962) observed juveniles apparently picking parasites from

MugU cephalus. Feeding is diurnal; guts are empty at night (Peters

and Kjelson 1975; Brook 1977; Stoner and Livingston 1984).

Daily ration for juveniles is about 9.5% of the total dry body

weight per day (Peters and Kjelson 1975). Food evacuation rates

(Fig. 8) and evacuation rates as a function of temperature (Fig. 9)

were studied by Peters and Kjelson (1975).

3.4 Nutrition and growth

gill epithelium (Hootman 1978; Hootman and Philpott 1978,

1979).

Chloride-secreting cells are of importance in branchial electrolyte regulation at both high and low environmental salinities

(Hootman and Philpott 1978). The number and size of the cells

increase in pinfish adapted to high salinities (Hootman 1978).

Hootman and Philpott (1979) examined the subcellular structure

of chloride-secreting cells of pinfish and found them to be the major site of activity of the electrolyte transport enzyme Na+,

K+-ATPase; activity of this enzyme increased when pinfish were

transferred from brackish water to seawater. Additional studies on

this enzyme, including microscopy of the pinfish pseudobranch,

were presented by Dendy (1972). Farmer and Evans (1981) examined chloride extrusion by pinfish gill tissues and found a

transepithelial potential of +0.73 ± 0.0075 mV in isolated gills in

Ringer's solution and +9.61 ± 1.83 mV in seawater. Transepithelial potential of gills in an intact pinfish was + 1.21 ± 0.32 mV

in Ringer's and +12.94 ± 2.21 mV in seawater. Chloride efflux

was measured at 789 ± 71 /-ImoUg per h in an isolated gill and

1,764 ± 587 /-Imol/g per h in the intact animal in Ringer's solution, and 1,385 /-Imol/g per h in an isolated gill and 3,422 ± 916

/-ImoIlg per h in the intact animal in seawater.

Pinfish lymphocytes have been shown to respond differently at

different temperatures of acclimation (Abruzzini et aI. 1979,

1982; Clem et aI. 1981). Temperature apparently affects lymphocyte mitogenic responses and plasma membrane fluidity and may

thus affect pinfish immunity (Abruzzini et aI. 1982).

See 3.32 and 3.36.

3.41 Feeding

13
TEMPERATURE (T) IN °c

Equation'

Y =0.9417 - 0.0168 (X-12)

Y = 0.8719 - 0.0216 (X-6)

Y = 1.0368 - 0.0335 (X-2)

Y = 1.0363 - 0.0528 (X-I)

12

18

24

30

Temperalure

(0C)

'Where Y = log,o (1 + percent body weight in

gastrointestinal tract), X = hours since feeding.

Table 6.-Regression equations of evacuation rate

of Lagodon rhomboid.. fed commercial food at varying temperatures in the laboratory. (Data from

Peters et al. 1974.)

Food is located visually and olfactorily (Stanford 1974; Stoner

and Livingston 1984). Carr and Chaney (1976) found that feeding

behavior could be elicited by a mixture of five amino acids plus

betaine. Extracts of shrimp, crab, clam, oyster, whelk, mullet, and

sea urchin also produced feeding response in pinfish in decreasing

order of potency (Carr et al. 1976).

Pinfish are generalist feeders (Stoner 1980c), though individuals may be selective at certain times. Stoner (l979b) studied

selective feeding of pinfish on amphipods and concluded that high

seagrass density caused increased selectivity for certain amphipod

species. Like juveniles, adults feed diurnally (Caldwell 1957;

Darnell 1958; Stanford 1974; Adams 1976c; Hastings et al.

1976). Feeding individuals may form aggregates, often by size

group, with largest individuals most aggressive and least prone to

feeding in large groups (Stanford 1974; Stanford and Schwartz

1977). Fish assume an angle of 25 ° from the horizontal while

feeding (Stanford 1974; Stanford and Schwartz 1977). When in

seagrass beds, most feeding is done somewhat above the substrate;

individuals seldom approach the sediment between plants except

at night (Stoner 1979b). Foraging behavior is a complex function

of predator, prey, and habitat characteristics (Stoner 1982).

Pinfish are voracious feeders and notorious bait stealers

(Caldwell 1957; Stanford 1974; Hoese and Moore 1977). Hansen

(1970) reported heaviest feeding in summer and early fall at Pensacola, FL, with reduced feeding during the spawning season.

Peters et al. (1976) found that temperature affects feeding rate

much more than salinity. In the laboratory, subsistence feeding

rate was determined to be 5.75% of body weight per day (Darnell

and Wissing 1975). Food consumption at a single meal is greatest

at 24°C and falls off rapidly by 30°C (Peters et al. 1974). Evacuation rates of commercial food were calculated by Peters et al.

(1974) (Table 6). Evacuation rate of natural foods is approximated by the relationship Y =0.388 - 0.0323 X, where Y =(I+

% body weight in gastrointestinal tract), and X = hours since capture (Peters et al. 1974). Food in the gastrointestinal tract was

estimated at 1.4% of the total body weight (Peters et al. 1974).

Peters and Hoss (1974) used a radioactive tag to estimate evacuation time of pinfish at 32.7 h.

The alimentary tract, described by Stoner and Livingston

(1984 J. is composed of a short esophagus, a thick walled, but

highly distendable stomach with internal convolutions, and a

iubular, unconvoluted intestine. The undistended stomach is a

small, subcylindrical outpocketing of the alimentary tract and is

pointed posteriorly. The intestine runs about half way to the vent,

makes one loop anteriorly to the base of the pylorus, and returns to

the vent in one to three short convolutions. The total gut length increases with body length from 0.76 times SL in 15 mm SL juveniles to a maximum of 1.52 times SL in 80 mm SL juveniles, then

decreases to about 1.1 times SL in adults.

See 3.42 and 4.6.

30 35

30

25

24

20

18

10 15

HR AFTER FEEDING

12

5

-.06

!Xl

-.05 ...

I-

<Ill: -.04

Z -.03 0

j:;

<;:) -.02

U

-.01 ... 0

1.2

+ 1.0

lV

<

IX

I- .8

c}

Z .6

,.:

:;:

.4 C

0

III

.2

C)

0

...

0

Figure 9.-Food evacuation rates in Lagodon rhomboid.. as a function of

temperature. Evacuation rate is the nel change in the weight of the gut conlenls

per hour. (From Peters and Kjelson 1975, fig. S.)

2

B = -.404 + .685 log T - .302 (log T)

R2 = .99

Large juveniles and adults often graze on vegetated bottoms

(Darnell 1958), usually not venturing beyond seagrass-covered

habitats in shallow water (Stoner 1979b). Epifaunal invertebrates

are nipped or scraped from hard substrates such as rocks and

pilings (Darnell 1958; Hastings 1972; Stanford 1974; Hastings et

al. 1976). Teeth are well adapted for grazing (Gunter 1945), large

food items being bitten or nibbled and small items being consumed whole (Caldwell 1957). Transition to herbivory involves

microepiphyte nibbling followed by seagrass grazing (Stoner

1980c; Stoner and Livingston 1984). Individuals may occasionally rise to the surface to feed (Caldwell 1957; Hastings 1972).

Large pinfish sometimes rotate to a lateral position and bite sections out of Syringodium blades (Stoner and Livingston 1984).

Figure 8.-Gastrointestinal evacuation of commercial food by Lagodon rhom·

boides at 24°C. Each point is the geometric mean of five observations. Log,o (%

borly weight in G." tracl + 1) = 1.037 - 0.033 (X - 2), where X = hours since

feeding, lag = 2 h, R' = 0.97. (From Peters and Kjelson 1975, fig. 4.)

14
Table S.-Percent frequency of occurrence of food items in

Lagodon rhomboides from Cedar Key, FL. (From Reid 1954,

table 4.)

fish. Kinch (1979) noted an increase in algae in the diet of individuals 30 mm SL from Marco Island and concluded that the increase was due to an increase in algae in the habitat during the

time when juveniles were reaching 30 mm SL.

Benthic organisms become increasingly important in the diet of

large juveniles as the fish attain larger sizes. Darnell (1958)

reported that small invertebrates were the main food of 40-74 mm

(type of length measurement unspecified) pinfish from Lake Pontchartrain, LA, with amphipods (Corophium spp., Cerapus sp.,

various gammarids) making up the major portion of the diet. Benthic copepods, isopods, and chironomid larvae and pupae were

also found in the stomachs examined. Nelson (l979a) reported

that small pinfish at Beaufort, NC, selected the amphipod Elasmopus levis over Melita appendiculata and Ampithoe longimana.

Hansen (1970) found that juveniles <76 mm SL from Pensacola,

FL, preferred crustaceans and polychaetes (Table 9). An analysis

of stomach contents of 47-87 mm TL juveniles from the Newport

River estuary, NC, produced 56 ± I% animal material, 8 ± 7%

phytoplankton, 26 ± 5% unidentified detritus, and 10 ± 3%

vascular plant detritus, by volume (Peters and Kjelson 1975); an

analysis of food consumed by 50-60 mm TL specimens showed

the food composition to be 24.7 ± 4.5% sand, 49.5 ± 4.6% ash,

and 10.6 ± 1.0% nitrogen, with an energy content of 5.31 ± 0.15

cal/mg ash-free dry weight. Adams (I 976c) reported that pinfish

65-70 mm SL were more omnivorous than smaller fish, feeding

less on detritus and more on polychaetes, larval fish, and plant

material (Table 10). Stoner (l980c) and Stoner and Livingston

(1984) also found juveniles (36-80 mm SL) to be omnivorous,

with about 30% of the diet made up of plants (mostly epiphytes)

101-128

3.42 Food

Pinfish are basically omnivores, but have been shown to

undergo several transitions of food habits with growth. Although

accepting a wide range of food items during a lifetime, pinfish

may be fairly selective feeders in certain areas and at certain

stages of growth. Prey-size selection depends on size of the fish

and density of the prey (Nelson 1979a). Prey choice varies with

seagrass blade density (Stoner 1979a, 1980a) and species of seagrass (Stoner 1982). Spatial variations of food habits within pinfish size classes are related to standing crops of prey species

(Stoner 1979a).

Larvae and postlarvae «20 mm SL) are planktivorous, feeding

mainly on copepods (Carr and Adams 1973; Kjelson and Johnson

1976; Adams 1976c; Livingston 1980; Stoner 1980c; Stoner and

Livingston 1984). Larvae examined by Kjelson et al. (1975) contained 99% copepods (by number): Harpacticoida 32%, Centropages 28%, Acartia 13%, Temora 3%, others 23%. At Marco

Island, FL, Kinch (1979) found a transition from copepod feeding

in 11-15 mm SL individuals, to amphipods, oligochaetes, and

polychaetes in 16-20 mm SL individuals (Table 7). Pinfish 11-15

mm SL show maximum dietary breadth in late spring and lowest

in winter (Stoner 1979a).

Small juveniles (approximately 20-35 mm SL) are primarily

carnivorous, feeding on shrimp postlarvae, amphipods, mysids,

harpacticoid copepods, invertebrate eggs, and other animal matter

(Reid 1954; Carr and Adams 1973; Nelson 1979a; Livingston

1980; Stoner 1980c; Stoner and Livingston 1984) (Table 8).

Small pinfish (25-33 mm SL) consume more amphipods per unit

time than larger (48-67 mm SL) fish (Stoner 1982). Gunter

(1945) found razor clam shells and plant material in 15.0-28.5

mm TL .specimens from the Texas coast. At Marco Island, FL,

Kinch (1979) found a predominance of polychaetes, oligochaetes,

mysids, and amphipods in stomachs of small juveniles. Adams

(l976c) reported that 3-5 mm SL specimens from Beaufort, NC,

contained copepods and detritus.

Large juveniles (approximately 36-80 mm SL) are basically

omnivorous, with the broadest diet of any size-group of pinfish

(Darnell 1958; Livingston 1980; Stoner 1980c). Stoner (1979a)

found that individuals 16-80 mm SL showed maximum dietary

breadth in mid-summer and lowest in late fall and winter. Both

plants and macrobenthic animals become increasingly prevalent

in the diet. Carr and Adams (1973) categorized 36-60 mm SL

pinfish from Crystal River, FL, as herbivores on microepiphytes

and 61-80 mm SL fish as omnivores on epiphytes, shrimp, and

Food item

Copepods

Amphipods

Shrimps

Crabs

Mollusks

Fish

Plant detritus

Organic detritus and mud

I Not present.

15-50

29.4

52.9

58.8

Size class (mm SL)

51-100

65.6

18.7

37.7

9.4

12.5

3.1

3.1

34.4

25.0

18.7

25.0

18.7

Table 7.-Percentage dry weigbt ofstomacb contents ofLagodon rhomboides from Marco Island,

FL, canais. (From Kincb 1979, table 4.)

Size class (mm SL)

Food item 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-60 61-70

Oligochaetes 32 30 17 5.5 4

Polychaetes 13 59 17 31 83 34

Nematodes 3 4

Copepods 45 21 2 8 4

Amphipods 13 22 22 35 5

Mysids 34 4

Vnident.

crustaceans 4

Fish eggs 5

Algae 12 70 64 65

Organic debris 7 10 1

Mud 5.5

1Not present.

15
I Includes brachiopods. bryozoans. chaetognaths. echinoderms. mollusks. and

nemeneans.

Table IO.-Annual average percentage by weight of food

items consumed by Lagodon rhomboid.. in eelgrass beds

near Beaufort, NCo (From Adams 19760, table I.)

Table 90-Percentage of total food volume contributed by different items in

Lagodon rhomboides from lower Pensacola estuary, FL, by season, 1963-650

(From Hansen 1970, table I.)

Size class (mm SL) and season

<76 76-173

Food item Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter

Crustaceans 58.3 2.8 21.7 44.8 8.7 4.6 5.6 24.9

Polychaetes 17.3 1.0 2.9 43.4 8.0 4.0 4.0 19.4

Chordates 3.1 1.5 l.l 10.8 12.5 2.0 2.9 31.3

Vegetation 4.6 87.2 66.5 0.9 21.9 66.4 56.6 23.1

Sand 12.9 6.7 6.6 0.0 44.4 18.9 29.5 0.2

Other' 3.8 0.8 1.2 0.1 4.5 4.1 1.4 l.l

Food item

Polychaetes

Scallops

Other bivalves

Bittium (gastropod)

Calanoid copepods

Harpacticoid copepods

Gammarid amphipods

Caprellid amphipods

Isopods

Palaemoneles (shrimp)

Hippolyle (shrimp)

Crabs

Juvenile and larval fish

Filamentous algae

Eelgrass

Eelgrass seeds

Detritus

Other

I Not present.

Juveniles

(n = 118)

3.9

19.6

1.7

10.9

6.3

0.6

3.6

3.0

0.7

7.1

10.5

30.4

I.7

Adults

(n =97)

10.5

1.7

0.2

0.5

9.5

0.3

7.2

9.5

0.5

0.8

0.7

0.8

9.8

7.7

5.8

27.8

6.5

and about 70% of macrobenthos (amphipods, small shrimp, harpacticoid copepods); amphipods were the preferred food of

juveniles at Apalachee Bay, FL, with Cymadusa compta, Lembos

sp., Elasmopus levis, and Paracaprella tenuis most often selected

(Stoner 1979b). Nelson (1979b) also reported amphipods a dominant food item of pinfish at Beaufort, NC. Livingston (1980)

reported the bivalve mollusk Brachidontes exustus fairly common

in 81-120 mm SL pinfish. In Florida Panhandle salt marshes,

Subrahmanyam and Drake (1975) found plants, detritus, sand, insects, and nereid polychaetes in the stomachs of 55-110 mm SL

pinfish, with an increasing tendency towards carnivorism with

growth.

Adults are omnivorous and quite broad in their food habits

(Caldwell 1957; Adams 1976c); variation in food habits with

space is a function of food availability and habitat structure

(Stoner 1980c). Greatest dietary breadth occurs in spring and

summer and lowest in fall (Stoner 1979a). Darnell (1958)

reported that small benthic invertebrates and zooplankton were

found in all size classes of pinfish examined from Lake Pontchartrain, LA, with algae becoming more important as fish increased

in size; filamentous green algae (Cladophora sp., Oedogonium,

Rhizuclonium, Spirogyra) were most abundant in stomachs examined, but vascular plants (Vallisneria spiralis and possibly Ruppia

maritima) were also consumed. Weinstein et al. (1982) found

eviuence of cellulose digestion in pinfish.

Macrobenthic animals such a'o crabs (Callinectes sapidus,

Rithropanopeus harrissi)o Shrimps (Palaemonetes sp.,

M{lcrobrachium ohione), and fishes (Gobiosoma basci) were also

important in the diets of pinfish examined by Darnell (1958). A

change from dominance of microbenthic animals to vegetation

was noted at about 90 mm SL (Darnell 1958) (Fig. 10). Stoner

(1980c) and Stoner and Livingston (1984) reported that at over

80 mm SL, pinfish from Apalachee Bay grew increasingly herbivorous, containing at least 50% plant material; specimens >100

mm SL contained 10% animal matter. Livingston (1980) found

that individuals >120 mm SL from Apalachee Bay were almost

strictly herbivorous on the seagrasses Syringodium fiiiforme and

Thalassia testudinum, though invertebrates were sometimes eaten.

10

70

!0-

W 60

2i

:::l

..J

0 50

>

:J: 40

U

«

0 30 tIl)

20

10

0 50 75

LAGODON

100

RHOMBOIDES

125

Figure IOo-Ontogenetic food progression of Lagodon rhomboid.. in

Lake Pontchartrain, LAo Type of body length measurement is

unspecified. (From Darnell 1958, fig. 140)

150

BODY LENGTH (mm 1

16
MONTH

3.43 Growth rate

F

./c

F M A

B·············B

B·.. ·......· ..

0 ..........................,......,-.,............,.-..-.................- ......,-.........

F M A M J J A SON 0

80

20

100

:r

:; 60

Z

...

...

C

Ill:

;§ 40

Z

:!

III

Growth rate of pinfish has been reported by several authors

(Table 11, Fig. 11). Kilby (1955) found two size classes present in

January at Cedar Key, FL; small individuals (13-20 mm SL)

reached 45-80 mm SL by the end of the year, and larger individuals (50+ mm SL) reached 100+ mm SL by July. Growth rate

determinations by Caldwell (1957) were similar to those of Kilby

(1955), with the largest fish 100-110 mm SL and the smallest

Figure H.-Growth curves of Lagodon rhomboides from length-frequency data

for the following studies: A. Hellier 1962, Laguna Madre, TX; B. Hildebrand

and Cable 1938, Beaufort, NC; C. Caldwell 1957, Cedar Key, FL; D. Hoese and

Jones 1963, Redfish Bay, TX, E. Cameron 1969b, Redfish Bay, TX; F. Reid

1954, Cedar Key, FL. (From Cameron 1969a, fig 3.)

Several other authors have reported on the food habits of pinfish. Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928) listed vegetable debris,

crustaceans, mollusks, and annelids from pinfish collected in

Chesapeake Bay. Reid (1954) reported copepods, shrimps, amphipods, and crabs as the most frequently occurring food items in

adults from Cedar Key, FL. Large amounts of plant material were

found in specimens from Tampa Bay, FL (Springer and Woodburn 1960); some individuals contained primarily, or only,

Halodule (Diplanthera) or Enteromorpha. At Pensacola, FL,

Hansen (1970) found that vegetation (diatoms, filamentous algae,

vascular plants) was the major portion of the diet of pinfish by

volume, with sand, crustaceans, polychaetes, fish, and cephalochordates making up significant portions. At Crystal River, FL,

adults are mainly carnivorous on shrimp and fish (Eucinostomus

and Menidia) (Carr and Adams 1973). Hastings (1972) observed

pinfish feeding on ctenophores on one occasion in St. Andrew

Bay, FL. Brook (1977) found plant material, polychaetes, copepods, amphipods, tanaids, isopods, shrimps, fish, and mollusks in

pinfish from Card Sound, FL. Adams (1976c) found detritus to be

the most important food of adults in the Newport River estuary,

NC, followed by polychaetes. Specimens from the Newport River

estuary examined by Hyle (1976) contained 17.4% vegetation,

17.3% polychaetes, 14.8% crustaceans, and 6.9% fishes, by

volume. Crustaceans and polychaetes were major food items in

the summer and fall, and filamentous algae were the main components in winter and spring (Hyle 1976); food diversity was

greatest in summer and fall, and mean stomach fullness was

lowest in winter. Pinfish from Chesapeake Bay examined by Orth

and Heck (1980) (75-110 mm SL) contained detritus, isopods,

barnacles, mollusks, pipefish, eelgrass, and Palaemonetes spp.

Pollutants can significantly alter trophic units of pinfish (Livingston 1980).

The order of preference of foods chosen in laboratory experiments by Stanford (1974) was: Shrimp, polychaetes, fish, and

vegetation. Other feeding experiments by Stanford and Schwartz

(1977) showed medium and large pinfish selecting polychaetes

first 80% of the time.

Table H.-Comparative monthly mean standard lengths (mm) for age-O Lagodon rhomboid.. collected

on the west coast of Florida.

Year

Study collected Feb. Apr. June Aug. Oct. Dec.

Springer and Woodburn (1960)1 1957 - , 78.6 76.5, 17.5

(Tampa Bay) 1958 19.9 28.8 51.3 62.6 78.1 88.3. 16.8

Reid (1954 )1' 1950 42.0 50.0 60.0 53.0, 15.0

(Cedar Key) 1951 22.0 30.0

Caldwell (1957)' 1953 19.9 30.4 53.2 67.9 71.3 71.2, 14.3

(Cedar Key) 1954 17.2 19.7

Grimes (1971 )\.4

(Crystal River-affected)' 1969 39.0 53.0 60.0 67.0 78.0

(Crystal River-nonaffected)' 1969 18.0 19.0 35.0

Grimes and Mountain (1971)1

(Crystal River-affected) 1970 15.0 38.3 50.9 70.7 79.1 70.3, 13.6

(Crystal River-nonaffected) 1970 21.0 50.5 68.4 75.6 75.2, 13.7

Stoner and Livingston (1984)' 1971-79 17 22 43 50 62

(Apalachee Bay)

'The newly spawned year class is included in December.

'No data.

'Figures are means estimated from graph.

'Statistical comparison of annual growth of fish from thermally affected and nonaffected areas revealed no

significant difference (Grimes 1971).

'The terms affected and nonaffected refer to thermal additions from a power plant.

17
65-70 mm SL by the end of the first year of growth. Caldwell

(1957) found that growth slowed after the first year, with a mean

increase of about 50 mm SL in the second year and about 45 mm

SL in the third year. Stoner and Livingston (1984) reported

Apalachee Bay, FL, pinfish to reach 63 mm SL by November of

the first year, and 95 mm SL by May of the second year. In

Florida Panhandle salt marshes, Zilberberg (1966) reported that

pinfish increased in length from 18 mm SL in March to 52 mm SL

in June. Hansen (1970) found that fish entering their third year of

life at Pensacola, FL, had a length of 127 mm SL at scale annulus

formation. Daily growth increments were 0.19 mm/d for age-O

fish, and 0.12 mm/d for age-I fish, with a seasonal growth breakdown of:

where Y is scale radius in millimeters and X is standard length in

millimeters (Hyle 1976).

Length-weight relationships for pinfish have been prepared by

several authors:

log W = -4.3734 + 2.9136 log L

where L is standard length in millimeters and W is body weight in

grams (Caldwell 1957, Cedar Key, FL);

log W = -4.353 + 2.903 log L (r = 0.99)

where L is standard length in millimeters and W is body weight in

grams (Cameron 1969a, Redfish Bay, TX);

Age 0

Age I

Spring

0.32 mm/d

0.32

Summer

0.23

0.21

Fall Winter

0.01

-0.04 -0.02

log W = -5.708 + 3.561 log L

where L is standard length in millimeters and W is body weight in

grams (Hyle 1976, Newport River estuary, NC). Hoss (1974)

determined length-weight relationships of larvae, juveniles, and

adults from the Newport River estuary as:

(Hansen 1970). Using scale annuli, Hyle (1976) back-calculated

lengths of pinfish of 103.6 mm SL at age I and 121.9 mm SL at

age II in the Newport River estuary, NC; annulus formation took

place in late April to early May.

Increases in weight in pinfish were calculated by Cameron

(1969b), based on data of other authors:

W = 0.0098 TL317

W = 0.0089 TU84

(n = 315) (juveniles and adults)

(n = 49) (larvae)

Stoner and Livingston (1978) found a mean growth ratc of 1.90%

increase in body weight per day in juvenile pinfish and a conversion efficiency of 44.6%.

Growth rate is dependent on temperature, increasing at higher

water temperatures. Growth slows or stops in the coldest months

of the year (Hildebrand and Cable 1938; Caldwell 1957) and is

most rapid in the summer when water warms (Moe and Martin

1965; Zilberberg 1966). Cameron (1969b) noted that the period

of maximum growth of pinfish also corresponds to the period of

maximum plant growth on Texas flats and hypothesized that the

slower growth rate of pinfish in Texas compared with Florida is

due to colder winter water temperatures and poorer winter food

supplies. Experiments by White and Angelovic (1973) indicated

that of temperature, salinity, and solar radiation, temperature had

the greatest effect on growth rate. Peters et al. (1976) found lowest

growth efficiencies at intermediate salinities. Growth rate and

food conversion\ efficiency are redLced at increased concentrations of bleached kraft mill effluent (Stoner and Livingston 1978).

Pinfish cultured in cooling lakes of a Texas power plant (Holt and

Strawn 1977) grew at <0.19 g/d. Caged pinfish held in the power

plant effluent grew at an average of 0.7 g/d (Chamberlain and

Strawn 1977).

The relationship of standard length to total length of pinfish

was calculated by Cameron (1969a):

3.44 Metabolism

where TL is total length in millimeters and W is body weight in

grams. Tabb and Manning (1961) plotted the relationship of body

weight to fork length of pinfish irom Florida Bay, FL (Fig. 12).

Because of their abundance and their hardiness in the laboratory, pinfish have been studied by many workers. Size (weight)

of the fish, temperature, activity, season, salinity, and pollutants

have been correlated to metabolism.

Postlarval pinfish were studied by Hoss et al. (1971) and

Thayer et al. (1974) (Tables 12, 13), who found that oxygen consumption increased with increasing size of the fish and temperature. Thayer et al. (1974) calculated daily oxygen-consumption

rates for postlarvae: 0.11 mg O/fish per d (Nov.-Dec.), 0.16 mg

02/fish per d (Jan.-Mar.), and 0.28 mg 02/fish per d (Apr.-May).

with an average value of 0.18 mg 02/fish per d over the 7-mo

N-194

...---

140

1>0

120

110

100

,.

,. 90 / 80 -~ ./ :J: TO ... ;/: '"

z 60 ./

/ " .0

a:

0 40 ... ,/

>0 / 20 !

10

Wt. at end of

first yr. (g)

4.3

7.8

11.0

22.3

Area

Cedar Key, FL

Redfish Bay, TX

Cedar Key, FL

Laguna Madre, TX

Author

Reid (1954)

Cameron (I 969b)

Caldwell (1957)

Hellier (1962)

SL = 0.78 (TL). ~12 46 8 12 14 18 W 22 24 28 34 M

TOTAL WEIGHT IN GRAMS

Scale radius is related to standard length by the relationship:

Y = 0.1371 + 0.0251X (r = 0.86, n = 56)

Figure 12.-Length-weight relationship of Lagodon rhomboides taken in Florida

Bay at Flamingo, Everglades National Park, FL, in April 1959. (From Tabb and

Manning 1961, fig. 8.)

18
600 Table 12.-0xygen consumption coemcients for postlarval LagOOo" rhomboUks, for the relationship Q = aWk , where Q is the rate of oxygen consumption In mg

0,lnsh per h, W Is wet weight ofthe ftsh in grams, and a

and k are constants. (Data from Hoss et al. 1971.)

Temperature

(0C) W' a k Q

15 0.03 0.586 0.910 2.4 x 10-'

20 0.03 1.066 0.862 5.2 x 10-'

25 0.03 1.002 1.002 3.0 x 10-'

I Based on an average specimen of 30 mg.

Table B.-Oxygen consumption coefficients for postlarval LagOOo"

rhomboiths, for the relationship Q = aWk, were Q Is the rate of oxygen

consumption in mg 0,lftsh per h, W Is wet weight of the fish in grams,

and a and k are constants. (Data from Thayer et al. 1974.)

Temperature

Month (0C) W a k Q

Nov.-Dec. 10 0.019 0.393 1.122 4.6 x 10-'

Jan.-Mar. 10 0.027 0.393 1.122 6.8 x 10-'

Apr.-May 15 0.027 0.264 0.865 11.6 x 10-'

400

200

x'"

.....

.....",100

0

80

E

60

:::<

en 40 ..J

0

'"<[

f0-

Ul

::!:

20

/

/05 TANDARD

10 15 20 25 30 35

TEMPERATURE (t )

5

10 15 20

TEMPERATURE - °C

10 ........-"T"----.,-----,-------;1;-----.-,...

25 30

1.0

0.8

0.6

z 0.4

Q.....

0..-

0.2 :!:e>........ zo<:

O:I: 0.10 u ........

Ze> 0.08

w:!: 0.06 e>-

>-

)( 0.04 0 .=109 FISH

"=1009 FISH

0.02

0.01

Figure B.-Calculated oxygen consumption rates per kilogram for LagOOo"

rhomboid.. over two temperature ranges. Calculations are for small, large, and

combined size groupings at zero swimming velocity. Data on routine and standard rates are from Wohlschlag et al. (1968). (From Wohlschlag and Cech 1970,

fig. 1.)

Figure 14.-Calculated oxygen consumption rates (mglh per g) for 10 g and 100

g LagOOo" rhomboid.. at various temperatures. Oxygen consumption values

calculated by laboratory-determined metabolism-weight coefficients for the

appropriate temperature. (From Hoss 1974, fig. 2.)

Q = 0.303 WO.1S2.

Q = 0.335 WO. 119.

Angelovic et al. (1969) found a similar relationship for

0.01-240.0 g pinfish from the Newport River estuary, NC:

period. Corresponding energy-consumption rates were 0.41

caI/fish per d (Nov.-Dec.), 0.16 cal/fish per d (Jan.-Mar.), and

1.04 caI/fish per d (Apr.-May), with an average of 0.68 cal/fish

per d over the 7-mo period.

Peters and Kjelson (1975) found that 25 g pinfish held at 29°C

respired 2.1 % of their total energy content when unfed and 3.2%

when fed to satiation once a day. Caloric intake was about 4.5% of

total body energy each day; about 9.5% of body weight was consumed each day. Based on feeding studies at 16°C, 16-20 mm TL

pinfish consumed 38 copepods/fish per d (3.5% of body weight),

which were equivalent to 0.6 callfish per d (Peters and Kjelson

1975). Routine oxygen consumption measurements by Hettler and

Hoss (unpublished data in Peters and Kjelson 1975) using 16-20

mm TL pinfish at 16°C, indicated an energy intake of 1.2 callfish

per d. Excretion rate of 6SZn was found to be unreliable in estimating pinfish metabolism (Hoss et al. 1978).

In general, oxygen consumption increases with increasing

temperature, activity, and fish weight (Figs. 13-16, Tables 14-16).

Adams (1976b) found that fish weight was more important than

temperature in determining oxygen consumption. Hoss (1967)

related respiration rate (Q) to fish weight in grams (W) using the

equation:

Seasonal changes in respiration are due primarily to environmental temperature changes (Cameron 1969b), increasing in spring

and summer and decreasing in fall and winter (Fig. 17, Tables 14,

15). Under normal circumstances, pinfish have fairly high respiration rates compared with temperate species (Wohlschlag and

Cameron 1967).

Slightly polluted water may depress respiration rates (Wohlschlag and Cameron 1967; Kloth and Wohlschlag 1972).

Although salinity has little effect on respiration under normal

19
____ Port Aransas. Texas

__ Beaulort, N.C.

e

.~in9and Fall

p Fall / 0

,,// Spring II Summer

/:.. __0 ~/•

0--/ I

0/ I Summer

."'

Temperature

range

(OC) N Equation "

13-15 8 Y= -1.42 + 0.91Xw + 0.08X, 0.99

15-18 18 Y= -0.24 + 0.64Xw + O.OIX, 0.94

19-22 27 Y= -0.55 + 0.60Xw + 0.04X, 0.88

23-26 23 Y= 0.53 + 0.70Xw - O.OIX, 0.94

26-28 27 Y= -1.45 + 0.67Xw + 0.06X, 0.97

Table IS.-Relationships of body weigbt, temperature, and swimming

velocity (activit}) to metabolism in Lagodon rhomboides. Coefficients fit

the equation Y = a + bXw + eXI + dXs' where Yis the expected log mg

oxygen consumed per hour, Xw is log weight in grams, XI is temperature

in DC, and Xs is swimming velocity in meters per minute. (Data from

Wohlschlag ot al. 1968.)

Table 14.-0xygen consumption regression equations for several

temperature ranges of Lagodon rhomboitks Inhabiting eelgrass beds

near Beaufort, NC. (Data from Adams 1976b, table 4.)

10 15 20 25 30 35

TEMPERATURE (DC)

5

a

,

,

,

,

,

, Winter,'

I

,

,

,

/

,

,

,

, ~.

• Wint.,

100

80

60

40

Z

Q

0-

... 20 :I:

:>

VI ... Z "-

0 :I: '" 10 V "-

Cl 8

Cl 6 >-

x

0 4

2

0

Coefficients

Figure IS.-Calculated oxygen consumption rates of 30 g Lagodon rhomboides

from Texas and North Carolina at seasonal temperatures. Open circles represent data of Cameron (1969a) and closed circles those of Hoss (1974). (From

Hoss and Peters 1976, fig. I.)

conditions, Kloth and Wohlschlag (1972) found that large pinfish

in high salinity (45% 0 ) water showed eltwated metabolic rates il;

the presence of petrochemical pollutants.

3.5 Behavior

Temperature

Season (OC) n a b d

Winter 10-20 18 -0.8909 0.9389 0.0287 0.0302

20-30 18 -0.3397 0.7855 0.0178 0.0108

Spring 10-20 18 -1.0006 1.0043 0.0389 0.0089

20-30 18 -0.2931 0.7889 0.0162 0.0049

Summer 10-20 30 -1.5114 1.0321 0.0379 0.0326

20-30 24 -0.6441 0.8 i83 0.0183 0.0129

Fall 10-20 32 -1.0130 0.9715 0.0275 0.0143

20-30 35 -0.4795 0.8381 0.0145 0.0118

3.51 Migrations and local movemenls

Pinfish migrations consist primarily of inshore-offshore

seasonal movements. Young begin to arrive on inshore grass beds

in late fall or early winter (Hansen 1970). At Marco Island, FL,

Kinch (1979) noted that juveniles moved into coastal canals in

winter. Most pinfish leave shallow water in winter and move offshore (Hildebrand and Cable 1938; Gunter 1945; Joseph and

Yerger 1956; Caldwell 1957; Hansen 1970; Hastings 1972; Moe

1972). Whether this offshore migration is in response to temperature or is for spawning, or both, is not clear. Pinfish abundance in

Table 16.-Regression equations for metabolism of Lagodon rhomboides from

Redf'sh Bay, TX, by season. (From Cameron 1969a, table I.)

We. range

Temp. range of Xw (log

Season N of X, (0C) wet we. in g) Equation

Spring 24 17-23 0.183-1.543 Y = -0.506 + 0.803Xw + 0.0 16X,

Summer 18 25-32 0.420-1.346 Y = -2.026 + 0.732Xw + 0.07IX,

Fall 19 18-24 0.462-1.179 Y= -1.865 + 1.132Xw + O.06IX,

Winter 16 7-12 0.362-1.295 Y = -2.366 + 1.191Xw + 0.135X,

40.0r------------------ --,

20.0 laaodon rhomboideI

.10

1.0

1.0 2.0 4. 10.0 20.0 40.0 100.0 00.0400.0 1.000.0

/

/

/

/

. 0 .40

.013 •.13711, K = .99; R' = .95 __

.4 - 1011 ,K = .15; R' =.30 __

13 .24011, K = .73; R2 = .81

Over..,II, K = .73; R2 = .95 _

.20

.04

10.0

":::- 4.0

"-at 2.0

l.

.02

z

Q0-

... ! .40

VI

Z

o

v

Z

c;

>-

x

o

Figure 16.-Calculated regression of oxygen consumption on weight

for pinfish between 0.3 and 67 g. Regressions for 0.013-0.137 g,

0.4-10 g, and 13-240 g fish are shown as well as overall regression

equation. Each point represents data for one fish. (From Hoss and

Peters 1976, fig. 2, based on unpublished data of Hoss.)

WEIGHT OF FISH (grams)

20
L8

.!: 0

"- / Ol 0

E. 6 u

Q)

E 0

"'4 " 0

c 0

0

u

~2 0

>,

Ol

x 0/

0

~~ °0 ./

J F M A M J J A SON D J F M A

1967 1968

Figure 17.-Metabollc rate of the average size Lagodon rhomboiths from Redfish

Bay, TX, March 1967 to April 1968. (From Cameron 1969a, fig. 5.)

grassbeds is generally low in winter, rising again in spring (Cain

and Dean 1976; Nelson 1979a; Stoner 1979a, 1980a; Orth and

Heck 1980). Some small individuals may remain in shallow water

year-round (Caldwell 1957); larger fish tend to seek deeper water

(Cameron 1969a). Subrahmanyam (1980) reported that pinfish

move into tidal creeks and pools at low tide to avoid shallow,

hypoxic pools.

Rulifson (1977) measured swimming speed of juvenile pinfish

(1.4-7.0 cm TL) at a maximum of 9.40 ± 0.215 body lengths/s,

with an average burst speed of 9.42 ± 0.325 body lengths/s.

Hettler (1978) detennined a velocity of 10.8 body lengths/s for

3.7 cm mean FL pinfish at 27°C. Rulifson (1977) found a positive

correlation between swimming speed and fish length and water

temperature, with smaller fish more rheotactic than larger fish. Increasing salinity lowers swimming velocity (Kloth and Wohlschlag 1972); small pinfish decreased from 10.93 m/min (107.4

body lengths/min) at 20% 0, to 8.92 m/min (75.0 body lengths/

min) at 45%0; large pinfish decreased from 22.30 m/min (131.2

body lengths/min) at 20% 0 , to 8.64 m/min (54.3 body lengths/

min) at 45% 0 ,

See 2.3.

3.52 Schooling

Pinfish school primarily when young and during spawning

migrations, but may also school during feeding. Hildebrand and

Cable (1938) reported 12 to 16 mm TL young in schools with

juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, and Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus, in quiet waters near jetties in Chesapeake Bay

in winter. Subrahmanyam and Coultas (1980) also found a close

association between pinfish and spot. Dense schools of juveniles

were also reported in canals at Marco Island, FL, by Kinch

(1979).

Large schools of pinfish may form before migrating offshore for

spawning (Hansen 1970); other schools of age-I fish were seen at

Pensacola, FL, returning to shallow water after the winter offshore

migration. Schools of 1,000-2,000 ripe pinfish were observed at

the surface well off the Mississippi coast by Springer (1957).

Although Caldwell (1957) stated that pinfish do not usually form

dense schools inshore, he pointed out that they may be so homogeneously abundant that definite schools are not distinguishable.

Other authors (Stanford 1974; Randall and Vergara R. 1978) have

mentioned large inshore aggregations. Feeding aggregations may

be segregated by size, with largest individuals least likely to school

(Stanford 1974). Some pinfish exhibit territoriality, which is

usually shown by largest members of a school (Caldwell and

21

Caldwell 1967 l. Territorial individuals chase other fish, including

pinfish; away from their territory, often accompanied by clicking

sounds produced by the teeth (Caldwell and Caldwell 1967).

3.53 Responses to stimuli

Small pinfish are more rheotactic than larger individuals (Rulifson 1977).

Romanowsky and Strawn (1979) found that pinfish held in

cages in a thermal effluent stream of a power plant reacted to

ambient light levels, gas saturation of the water, and pH. Pinfish

are physoclists and probably detect and react to gas saturation

through changes in swim bladder volume (Romanowsky and

Strawn 1979). Gibbard (1979) observed extreme territorial and

agonistic behavior in pinfish. In aquaria, pinfish have been

observed to dive into the sand and disappear from sight when

disturbed (Coen et al. 1981).

4 POPULAnON

4. I Structure

4.11 Sex ratio

Sex ratio is approximately 1: I. Pristas and Trent (1978) found

no significant deviation from a 1: 1 ratio in St. Andrew Bay, FL,

though females predominated numerically.

4.13 Size composition

Numerous workers have published length-frequency data on

pinfish (Reid 1954, Cedar Key, FL; Caldwell 1957, Cedar Key,

FL; Springer and Woodburn 1960, Tampa Bay, FL; Hellier 1962,

Upper Laguna Madre, TX; Hoese and Jones 1963, Redfish Bay,

TX; Moe and Martin 1965, off Tampa, FL; Hansen 1970, Pensacola, FL; Grimes 1971, Crystal River, FL; Grimes and Mountain

1971, Crystal River, FL; Wang and Raney 1971, Charlotte Harbor, FL; Hyle 1976, Newport River estuary, NC; Stoner 1980c,

Apalachee Bay, FL, see Fig. 18). Results indicate recruitment in

winter and early spring with two main size-modes usually present

in spring and summer.

4.2 Abundance and density

The pinfish is one of the most abundant fishes in shallow water

through much of its range. Along the southeastern Atlantic coast

of the United States, Angelovic et al. (1969) estimated pinfish

abundance in the Newport River estuary, NC, at 1.6 x 106 fish in

an area of30 km2 , or approximately 0.05 fish/m2 . Adams (1976a)

reported somewhat higher pinfish densities from the same general

area, with adult abundance peaking in late summer and early fall

(Table 17; Figs. 19,20); abundance of postlarvae was greatest in

spring and early summer as they moved into eelgrass beds.

Approximately 64% of fish larvae captured by Thayer et al.

(1974) in the Newport River estuary were pinfish. Bozeman and

Dean (1980) reported that 31.7% of larval and estuarine fishes

they caught in a South Carolina intertidal creek were pinfish.

Schwartz (1964) reported that pinfish abundance in Isle of Wight

and Assawoman Bays, MD, was highest in years with highest

vegetation in the bays. They are not common in Chesapeake Bay

(Orth and Heck 1980). Pinfish have also been reported abundant

on live bottom on the continental shelf in the South Atlantic Bight

(Barans and Burrell 1976).
Length (mm)

•. _. BOlue Sound

-- Phillip. IIlan"

....... ,I ......

/ .... <..-.. /\'\ ! //

\!.

' /0.-0 -- Phillip. IsI.n"

. -. - IOlue Sound , °

\

\

\

\

"

\

\

\

\

\

\

...

A

.............

0-.0-

1.0

0.10

0.05

10.0

5.0

'"

......

ffi 0.50 III

::>

z

1.0

0.50

50.0

N 10.0

::E::i 5.0

C

(,)

:.:

o.01 "'''''lS!--:jO~~N~~D''''+-~F!-'''!'M~~A--~M~''!'J-J~-A~''''!S~.

1971 1972

B

Apr

Jan

June

Dec

Mar

Aug

July

Oct

Nov

Feb

May

Sept

258

211

123

30

156

105

975

308

908

686

1010

N =92

o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Standard

40

20

20

20

20

40

20

40

20

40

20

40

20

20

40

20

40

20

40

20

(1)

Q.

E

en

lf)

o

'+-

o

0.10 ....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SONDJ FMAMJJAS

1971 1972

Figure 18.-Length-frequency distributions for Lagodon rhomboides collected in

Apalachee Bay, FL, from December 1976 to November 1977. Dots indicate that

<3.0% of the sample occurred in the size class. (From Stoner 1980., fig. S.) Figure 19.-Temporal distribution of A) numerical abundance (no./m'), and B)

standing crop energy (kcal/m'), of Lagodon rhomboides from Phillips Island and

Bogue Sound, NC. (From Adams 1976a, figs. 3, 4.)

Table 17.-Monthly population densities and energy

contents of Lagodon rhomboides from Phillips Island (PI)

and Bogue Sound (BS), NC, eelgrass beds. (From

Adams 1976a, tables 3, 4.)

Year

and Density (no.lm') Energy (kcal/m')

month PI BS PI BS

1971

Sept. 0.39 0.82 11.62 7.51

Oct. 0.30 0.65 9.58 15.08

Nov. 0.25 0.49 5.50 9.60

Dec. 0.02 0.13

1972

Jan. 0.13 0.01 1.38 0.16

Feb. 0.02 1.32 0.24 0.21

Mar. 0.08 1.81 0.03 0.01

Apr. 0.11 1.94 1.15 1.89

May 0.63 5.22 2.13 3.99

June 1.33 4.07 3.42 6.84

July 2.07 2.39 5.75 8.52

Aug. 0.66 1.60 3.03 7.46

Sept. 0.37 0.65 3.77 3.93

'No data.

Along the Gulf of Mexico coast of the United States, pinfish

have been reported as abundant in shallow water by numerous

authors (e.g., Florida: Florida Bay, Tabb et al. 1962; Marco Island

canals, Kinch 1979; Tampa Bay, Springer and Woodburn 1960;

Crystal River, Grimes and Mountain 1971; Apalachee Bay, Stoner

1979a, 1980b, Stoner and Livingston 1984; St. Andrew Bay, Vick

footnote 3, Naughton and Saloman 1978; Panhandle salt marshes,

Subrahmanyam and Drake 1975; Louisiana: Barataria Bay, Fox

and Mock 1968; Texas: entire coast, Hildebrand 1954; Galveston,

Arnold et al. 1960; Redfish Bay, Hoese and Jones 1963; Upper

Laguna Madre, Hellier 1962). Adults are usually most abundant

inshore in late spring, summer, and fall (Gunter 1945; Caldwell

1957; Hoese and Jones 1963; Zilberberg 1966; Hansen 1970;

Roessler 1970; Grimes 1971; Perret et al. 1971; Ogren and

Brusher 1977; Naughton and Saloman 1978; Pristas and Trent

1978; Stoner and Livingston 1984), and least abundant inshore in

the coldest months when they seek deeper water (Joseph and

Yerger 1956; Grimes 1971). Postlarvae and juveniles appear to

enter shallow water in winter and spring and may be quite abundant (Hansen 1970; Kinch 1979). Houde et al. (footnote 2)

22
4.33 Recruitment

Little is known regarding factors affecting reproduction. Caldwell (1957) speculated that pinfish spawning is probably affected

by temperature, with adults seeking deeper water to achieve an

optimum spawning temperature; water depth may be more important to spawning than distance offshore. Life history strategy

seems to be adapted to seasonal patterns of productivity and abundance of prey and macrophyte species (Stoner 1979a).

Hansen (1970) reported 7,700-39,200 eggs/female (mean

21,600) for eight 111-152 mm SL pinfish from Pensacola, FL.

4.3 Natality and recruitment

4.32 Factors affecting reproduction

4.31 Reproduction rates

Sauskan (1974). Sauskan and Olaechea (1974) found pinfish most

abundant at 30-50 m on the central Bank and estimated a mean

abundance of 34,000 t for the entire Bank, with a possible annual

harvest of 6-10,000 t. According to a MEXUS-GOLFOs report,

pinfish are second in abundance only to Haemulon aurolineatum

in night trawl catches on Campeche Bank. Hildebrand (1955) did

not find pinfish to be common on shrimp grounds on Campeche

Bank, but this may have been a different area of the Bank than

that sampled by Sauskan and Olaechea (1974) and MEXUSGOLFO (footnote 5).

See 2.3, 3.51, 4.33, and 4.6.

Adulll A-"~

JUY·"i1··/~"""" \ Larvae V

~."'.'" ; , I \

I \

I I , I

I \

I I

I I

I \

I \

I \

B BOGUE SOUND -Pinfish

A PHILLIPS ISLAND -Pinfish

:>t--~ -_. Adult.

-- Juvenil•• I

I ........ Larva. /"4-V

I

I r-"~ I .1 I

I t I •I

I I \ t

\ I \ t

I I \ I

I I \ t

I I \ t

\ #:.... I \ t

\ I I t

\ ...., ..J \

" ~~

\

\

\

\

\

\

\\'*

.' \.,........V"-./. \ \ :~,

\ / \

Ii: \ f

0.01 --:S~~O~N~+~-~~~~:I:-~~-~~S!!-'"

1971

10.0

5.0

... 1.0

:::E

0.50 «

u

>l

0.10

0.05

0.01

10.0

5.0

1.0 ...

:::E 0.50

«

u

>l

0.10

0.05

'MEXUS-GOLFO. 1979. Report on MEXUS-GOLFO Research Activities.

Mimeogr., II p. Available at Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS, NOAA, 75

Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, FL 33149-1099.

Table l8.-Estimated number of Lagodon rhomboid.. larvae

entering Newport River estuary, NC, by month. (Data from

Thayer et al. 1974.)

Recruitment of young pinfish to shallow-water areas takes

place in late fall, winter, and spring, with a peak in late winter and

early spring. Thayer et al. (1974) estimated monthly larval

recruitment to the Newport River estuary, NC, and found peak

larval recruitment in February and March (Table 18). Hoss (1974)

reported large numbers of 11-13 cm TL juveniles in the Newport

River estuary in April, and Adams (1976a) found postlarvae

moving into eelgrass beds in Bogue Sound, NC, in spring and early

summer. In South Carolina intertidal creeks, Bozeman and Dean

(1980) made largest catches of larvae and juveniles in February.

Juvenile pinfish are especially abundant in Marco Island, FL,

canals from November to April (Kinch 1979).

Figure 20.-Temporal distribution of tbe standing crop energy (kcal/m'

) for

three size-classes of Lagodon rhomboid.. from A) Phillips Island, and B) Bogue

Sound, NC. (Adams 19760, fig. 5.)

reported pinfish larvae among the 20 most-frequently captured

species in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and estimated a maximum

mean density of 11.7 larvae/10m2 column of water in the study

area.

Offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, pinfish were reported common

around man-made platforms off Panama City, FL, (Hastings

1972) and in trawl catches off Mississippi at 56-93 m (Franks et

al. 1972). On the West Florida Shelf, pinfish occurred at 28.1 % of

trawl stations sampled in January 1978 (Darcy and Gutherz

1984). From Tampa Bay south to the Dry Tortugas, FL, pinfish

made up 13.3% of the total fish catch in 9-35 m. On white shrimp

grounds off the Texas coast, Cody et al.4 reported catches of 981

g/h trawling (37.6 fish/h) and 40% frequency of occurrence in

1975-76, and 146 g/h trawling (6.3 fish/h) and 30% frequency of

occurrence in 1976-77. On brown shrimp grounds in the northwestern Gulf, pinfish are most abundant in late winter (Chittenden and McEachran 1976).

Pinfish density on Campeche Bank in the southern Gulf of

Mexico was estimated at 4.0 kg/ha in winter, 2.0 kg/ha in spring,

0.7 kg/ha in summer, and 1.3 kg/ha in fall by Olaechea and

'Cody, T. J., K. W. Rice, and C. E. Bryan. 1978. Commercial fish and penaeid

shrimp studies, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Part II. Abundance and distribution of

fauna on the white shrimp, Penaeus setiferus (Linnaeus), grounds off the central

Texas coast. Coast. Fish. Branch Tex. Parks Wildt. Dep., Austin, Tex., P.L. 88-309

project 2-276-R, 39 p.

Month

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Total

No. of larvae

1.5 x 10·

35.1 x 10·

17.5 x 10·

221.2 x 10·

248.8 x 10·

2.5 x 10·

526.6 x 10·

Mean cumulative

larval density per m'

0.05

1.14

1.99

7.50

16.86

10.44

23
Table 19.-Production (cal/m') of Lagodon rhomboides in

Phillips Island (PI) and Bogue Sound (BS) eelgrass beds,

NC, September 197I.August 1972. Parentheses enclose

negative values which were not included in totals. (From

Adams 1976b, table 2.)

INo data.

'Percentage of production of all fish species caught at each

study site.

Table 20.-Respiration (cal/m') of Lagodon rhomboides in

Phillips Island (PI) and Bogue Sound (BS) eelgrass beds,

NC. (From Adams 1976b, table 3.)

Year

and Juveniles Adults

month PI BS PI BS

1971

Sept. 3,654 4,422

Oct. 1,570 3,054

Nov.

Dec. 12

1972

Jan. 59 21

Feb. 7

Mar. 21 147

Apr. 89 1,252 412 680

May 1,041 4,937 722 697

June 3,375 8,916 664

July 4,893 7,383

Aug. 2,523 4,039

Sept. 260

Total 11,942 26,674 6,677 9,557

% Total' 17.1 46.1 9.6 16.5

Juveniles

PI BS

2,706

12.5

500

243

495

(-32)

788

680

(-428)

PI BS

Adults

189

702

860

4,186

19.3

1,260

1,175

(-45)

153

801

3,312

4,046

2,344

1,337

11,993

55.4

4

59

572

1,904

1,980

1,080

5,599

25.8

Year

and

month

Total

% Total'

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

1972

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

4.6 The population in the community and the ecosystem

Because of their abundance, pinfish are important as prey and

predators, as well as being major contributors to community

respiration, consumption, and production. Pinfish have frequently

been studied by biologists investigating community trophic

relationships and energy flows.

Pinfish are important as forage for larger recreationally and

commercially important fish species, as well as for marine mammals and birds. As predators, pinfish occupy more than one

trophic level (Hellier 1962). According to Tagatz (1976), pinfish

are at the top of the dominant food chain in northern Gulf of Mexico grass beds: Turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum, -+ grass shrimp,

Palaemonetes vulgaris -+ pinfish. Due to feeding selectivity, pinfish have been shown to playa role in the organization of faunal

assemblages (Young et al. 1976; Young and Young 1977; Nelson

1978, 1979a, 1981; Stoner 1979b, 1980a, b, c; Nelson et al.

1982). Orth and Heck (1980) attributed the much higher epifaunal density of lower Chesapeake Bay, relative to North Carolina estuaries, to the scarcity of pinfish at the Chesapeake study

site. Thayer et al. (1974) estimated that larval pinfish consumed

about 10% of the zooplankton standing crop in the Newport River

estuary, NC, between January and May. Weinstein et al. (1982)

stated that pinfish are important consumers of plant material in

warm temperate seagrass meadows.

The life history strategy of pinfish is adapted to seasonal patterns of macrophyte and prey abundance (Stoner 1980c). Stoner

(I 980c) noted that pinfish larvae appeared inshore at Apalachee

Bay, FL, in mid-winter when calanoid copepods were at their

peak of abundance. Similarly, juveniles (16-35 mm SL) appeared

in grass beds in spring when amphipods and harpacticoid copepods were at their peak.

In the Newport River estuary, Angelovic et al. (1969) estimated

an energy content of 47.6 x 106 cal for the entire 30 km2 estuary

(1.59 cal/m2 ), and a minimum pinfish respiration of 461 x 106

calld (15.4 callm2 per d). If phytoplar.kton represents one-third of

the total primary productivity of the estuary, and pinfish are

secondary consumers in a food chain with 10% transfer efficiencies, then pinfish would require 8.7% of the total primary production for basic metabolism (Angelovic et al. 1969). Hoss (1971,

1974), also working in the Newport River estuary, calculated an

average pinfish biomass of 23,433 kg/km2 (2.34 g/m2 ) and an

annual metabolic requirement of about 1 x 1011 callyr, or about

0.2% of the total primary production. Hoss (1974) found highest

pinfish biomass and energy content in spring and summer and

lowest in fall and winter; energy required for metabolism was

highest in May-June due to rising temperature.

Adams (1976a, b), working in eelgrass beds in Bogue Sound

and Phillips Island, NC, determined production and respiration

values for juvenile and adult pinfish (Tables 19, 20); juveniles

contribute more to the total community production and respiration than do adults, with highest values in summer. Consumption

figures were also generally higher in juveniles (Table 21). In

Phillips Island grass beds, pinfish contribution to total fish community respiration was 27%, biomass 47%, production 45%, and

consumption 31 %. In Bogue Sound grass beds the contribution to

respiration was 63%, production 68%, and energy 64%. In both

areas, pinfish were most abundant in summer and fall, making up

78% of the total fish standing crop at Phillips Island and 88% in

Bogue Sound. Hellier (1962) also found peak production in summer in Laguna Madre, TX (Fig. 21). The role of pinfish in North

Carolina eelgrass bed fish communities is shown in Figure 22.

INo data.

'Percentage of respiration of all fish species caught at each

study site.

Other species commonly associated with pinfish at Cedar Key,

FL, are: Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera; silver perch, Bairdiella

chrysoura; planehead filefish, Monacanthus hispidus; dusky pipefish, Syngnathusfloridae; gulf pipefish, S. scovelli; and silver jenny,

Eucinostomus gula, (Caldwell 1957). At open beach sites at Cedar

Key, postlarval pinfish were found with large numbers of postlarval spot, Leiostomus .tanthurus, (Caldwell 1957). Reid (1954)

noted that, though pinfish are common on vegetated flats in summer at Cedar Key, they are largely replaced in shallow water in

colder months by searobins, Prionotus spp.; puffers, Sphoeroides

spp.; southern hake, Urophycis jloridana; and flatfishes.

24
Table 21.-Summary energy budget (callm' per yr) and various efficiencies for Lagodon rhomboiths in PbUUps Island (PI) and Bogue Sound (8S) eelgrass beds, NC. (From Adams 1976b,

tables 5, 6.)

Production

(P)

Respiration

(R)

ConsumptionWinberg

(C)

ConsumptionBajkov

(C) PIC RIC

Juveniles

PI 5,599 11,942

BS 11,933 26,674

Adults

PI 4,186 6,677

BS 2,706 9,557

21.922

48,429

13,581

15,327

22,500 0.25 0.55

38,184 0.25 0.55

23,263 '0.18 0.49

18,795 0.18 0.62

'Calculated using Bajkov consumption value.

Figure 2t.-Biomass, production, and number of Lagodon rhomboid.. from a

drop-net quadrat in Laguna Madre, TX, Marcb 1958-July 1959. Yearly production may be determined by totaUng tbe production sbown for eacb montb.

(From Hellier 1962, fig. 6.)

See 3.33, 3.34, 3.42, and 3.44.

5.2 Fishing areas

5.1 Fishing equipment

Pinfish are caught in shallow to moderately deep water from

North Carolina to Texas (Randall and Vergara R. 1978) and on

Campeche Bank off the Yucatan Peninsula (Sauskan and

01aechea 1974). Commercial shrimp and bottomfish trawlers in

the Gulf of Mexico also catch pinfish incidental to the target

5 EXPLOITATION

Pinfish are caught with trawls, gill nets, trammel nets, beach

seines, traps, and hook and line (Caldwell 1957; Randall and

Vergara R. 1978). Pinfish caught commercially for use as live bait

are caught mainly in small baited or unbaited traps, with very

small hooks on hook and line, or with cast net& or push nets. Pinfish used for crab bait or cat food are caught primarily in large

bottom trawls (Caldwell 1957). Recreational fishermen catch

most pinfish by using bait fished near the bottom. (Caldwell

1957).

6

o

FMAMJ J

Abundance ( noJacre) 30

Biomass ( Ibs/acre)

Production (Ibs /acre)

24

rIII

VI

18 :!!

VI

J:

»

I"'l 12

'"

AMJJASONDJ

MONTH

30

0

0 24

><

...

D:: 18 U

<

J:

VI 12 i:

d

z

6

0

M

99.8 .;~

21.6

114.4

A

B

Figure 22.-Diagram of tbe energy now (kcallm'

) of tbe nsb community of A) Bogue Sound, and B) Pbllllps Istand,

eelgrass beds, NC. Large bexagon represents tbe total nsb community and small bexagons represent fisb populations;

numbers inside bexagons are average annual standing crop (kcallm'

). SoUd now lines are food consumption, dasbed

Unes oxygen consumption, and dotted Unes production. (From Adams 1976b, figs, 2, 3.)

25
species. Recreational fishermen catch pinfish from shore, bridges,

jetties, and boats throughout the range of the species, with

vegetated areas producing largest catches.

See 2.1, 4.2, and 5.43.

5.3 Fishing seasons

Caldwell (1957) reported definite seasonality in pinfish abundance at Cedar Key, FL, with pinfish much more common inshore

in spring and summer than in fall and winter. In St. Andrew Bay,

FL, pinfish are caught by recreational fishermen most frequently

from April to November, with a peak in October (Sutherland

1977), possibly because large specimens are more numerous late

in the year. Because of their scarcity inshore in colder months, it is

not economically feasible to fish for bait pinfish inshore in the

winter (Caldwell 1957).

See 2.3.

5.4 Fishing operations and results

5.41 Effort and intensity

Little information on effort and fishing intensity is available.

Anderson and Gehringer (1965) presented catch per unit effort

data from off Cape Canaveral, FL (Table 22), and Anderson

(1968) presented similar data from elsewhere along the southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States (Table 23). Both sets of

data indicate low catch per effort, but neither study was conducted

in areas or habitats known to have great numbers of pinfish and

are thus not very useful in indicating true abundance along the

coast.

Sutherland (1977) calculated average numbers of pinfish

caught by recreational fishermen in St. Andrew Bay, FL. Catch

per effort (fish per hour) for different bait types were: Squid 0.38,

cut fish 0.03, live shrimp 0.03, dead shrimp 0.16.

5.42 Selectivity

Kjelson and Colby (1977) and Kjelson and Johnson (1978)

studied the efficiency of bottom trawls at catching pinfish near

Beaufort, NC. Using a trawl with a 6.1 m footrope, 19 mm bar

mesh wings, and 6 mm mesh codend, Kjelson and Colby (1977)

found recapture efficiencies of 0.69 for 38-85 mm (measurement

unspecified) juvenile pinfish sampled immediately after release,

0.21 (day) to 0.23 (night) for 38-80 mm juveniles sampled after

2-3 d, and 0.50 (night) to 0.51 (day) for 90-157 mm adults.

Kjelson and Johnson (1978), using the same trawl described

above, estimated catch efficiencies of 0.48 for juveniles (53-79

Table 22.-Catch per unit effort ofLagodon rhomboid.. taken by trawling by MV Launch 58 off Cape

Canaveral, FL, by months for 2 yr. Gear used was a 22.9 m (75.ft) shrimp trawl towed at 3.7·5.6

km/h (2·3 kn). (From Anderson and Gehringer 1965, table 9.)

Month

F M A M A S 0 N D Total

No. fish/h 2.3 1.0 0.6 5.0 0.2 1.5 1.2 1.0 8.0 6.5 2.1

% total catch 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.5 *' 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

Total no. fish 14 4 4 10 8 4 32 36 121

'No data.

'Less than 0.05.

Table 23.-Catch per unit effort ofLagodon rhomboid.. caught as by-catch ofshrimp trawling along the southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States using a 22.9 m (75·ft) shrimp trawl towed at 3.7·5.6 km/h (2.3 kn). (Data from Anderson 1968,

tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.)

Month

Location F M A M A S 0 N D Total

South Carolina, outside

No. fish/h 0.3 3.0 1.6 1.5 0.5

% total catch ., 0.2 0.1

Total no. fish 2 15 8 33

Georgia. outside

No. fish/h 0.1 0.8 34.2 3.6 15.4 0.9 1.8 0.5 4.4

% total catch 0.1 3.8 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.3

Total no. fish 30 752 64 462 26 35 13 1,383

Georgia, inside

No. fish/h 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1

% total catch

Total no. fish 21 2 28

Florida, outside

No. fish/h 1.6 0.7 0.6 4.0 2.1 3.6 0.8 0.6 4.3 4.2 1.9

% total catch 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.\ 0.1

Total no. fish 14 4 4 12 29 40 4 32 36 183

All stations combined

No. fish/h 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 9.8 1.0 6.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.8

% total catch 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.\

Total no. fish 16 30 4 5 764 67 514 57 38 67 57 \,627

INo data.

'Less than 0.05.

26
mm FL) and 0.49 for adults (93-116 mm FL). Gill net mesh-size

selectivity of pinfish was estimated to be: Mean FL (cm) 2.978

x stretched-mesh size (cm) (Trent and Pristas 1977).

5.43 Catches

Pinfish arc quality food-fish, though their small size limits their

commercial importance. They are sometimes marketed locally as

panfish (Caldwell 1957) and are said to produce a high-grade oil

(Hildebrand and Cable 1938); pinfish were sometimes shipped

with menhaden to Beaufort, NC, for reduction to scrap and oil or

fish meal. Potential use of pinfish as fish meal was also mentioned

by Beaumariage (1968) and Randall and Vergara R. (1978). Pinfish are also caught for use as bait and are important catches of

recreational and subsistence fishermen.

Accurate catch figures are difficult to obtain because separate

statistics for pinfish are not usually reported (Caldwell 1957; Randall and Vergara R. 1978). Pinfish were of some commercial

importance in the 19th Century; Goode (1884) reported that pinfish were highly prized for food and were salted or iced for shipment to market. Many were brought into Key West alive (Jordan

1884). Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928) reported pinfish landings of 454 kg (1,000 lb), worth $40, from Chesapeake Bay in

1922. Average weight of marketed fish was 0.15 kg (Hildebrand

and Schroeder 1928). In 1935, pinfish landings in North Carolina

were 81,650 kg (180,000 lb), and in Florida, 14,060 kg (31,000

Ib) (Hildebrand and Cable 1938). Anderson and Power (1955)

reported pinfish catches of 443,984 kg, valued at $32,812, from

Florida and North Carolina combined in 1952.

Pinfish are not of major commercial importance today, though

they do enter industrial bottomfish catches in the north-central

Gulf of Mexico (Roithmayr 1965) and are used as pet food and as

commercial blue crab bait (Caldwell 1957). They are sometimes

killed in great numbers during commercial fishing operations

directed at other species and are often a nuisance to shrimpers and

gill- netters because of their sharp spines and their tendency to

become tangled in nets. Pinfish made up 2.8% by weight of fish

discarded by North Carolina shrimp trawlers from June to August

1970 (Wolff 1972) and 0.46% of trawl-caught fish in the South

Carolina shrimp fishery in nearshore waters from May 1974 to

August 1975 (Keiser 1976). Sauskan and Olaechea (1974)

estimated annual commercial pinfish catch on Campeche Bank at

6,000-10,000 t. Pinfish are commonly caught and sold as live or

cut bait, and are popular bait for red drum, Sciaenops ocellata;

spotted sea trout, Cynoscion nebulosus; tarpon, Megalops atlanticus; snook, Centropomus spp.; and groupers (Caldwell 1957;

Hastings 1972).

Although sometimes scorned as bait stealers, pinfish provide

considerable sport to recreational fishermen (Caldwell 1957; Arnold et al. 1960). In East Lagoon near Galveston, TX, three

quarters of all fish caught on hook and line are pinfish (Arnold et

al. 1960). At Cape Canaveral, FL, the pinfish is the second most

common sport fish, with the average fish weighing 0.11 kg

(Anderson and Gehringer 1965). Recreational fishermen catch

pinfish from bridges, piers, banks, boats, and in the surf. Sutherland (1977) reported that, in St. Andrew Bay, FL, most were

caught from fixed platforms. Anderson and Gehringer (1965)

found greatest numbers caught from bridges and causeways, with

highest total pinfish catches taking place in fall (Table 24). U.S.

Department of Commerce (1980) figures of recreational pinfish

catches indicate most are caught from man-made structures or

from small boats.

27

Table 24.-Estlmated sport fishery catch of Lagodon rhomboid.., Cape

Canaveral area, FL, by season for March-October, 1963. (Data from Anderson

and Gehringer 1965, tables 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 39.)

Location Spring Summer Fall Total

South section, No. 14,975 35,749 59,778 110,502

bridges and cau~eways kg 1,698 4,054 6,779 12,531

South section. No. 487 1,054 795 2,336

ocean piers kg 55 119 29 203

South s~ction. "io. 10,'27 18,576 4.652 33,955

Port Canaveral, inside kg 1,216 2,107 527 3,850

South section, No. 376 376

Port Canaveral, outside kg 171 171

North section, No. 3,438 16,122 3,441 23,001

banks kg 389 1,830 384 2,603

North section, No. 31,752 16,744 14,880 63,376

bridges kg 3,601 1,898 1,687 7,186

North section, No. 1,124 232 1,900 3,256

surf kg 128 25 215 368

Nonh section. No 4,228 3,328 56,822 64,378

boats kg 479 377 6,443 7.299

Total No. 66,731 92,181 142,268 301,180

kg 7,566 10.581 16,064 34,211

I No catch reported.

Estimated total numbers of pinfish caught by recreational

fishermen in 1979, by region, were as follows: North Atlantic,

<30,000; Mid-Atlantic, <30,000; South Atlantic. 3,770,000; Gulf

of Mexico, 9,070,000; total 12,811,000 (U.S. Department of

Commerce 1980). In the South Atlantic region, catches by state

were: North Carolina, 569,000; South Carolina, <30,000;

Georgia, <30,000; Florida (east coast), 3,141,000; and in the

Gulf, catches by state were: Florida (west coast), 7,858,000;

Alabama, 213,000; Mississippi, 32,000; Louisiana, 30,000; and

Texas 937,000. Of the total recreational pinfish catch recorded,

32.1% were caught in inland (sheltered) waters, 28.3% were

caught in ocean waters <4.8 km (3 mi) offshore, 5.6% were

caught in ocean waters over 4.8 km offshore, and 34.0% were

from unknown localities.

7 POND FISH CULTURE

Female pinfish have been artificially induced to mature ova by

injecting the fish with hormones, such as pituitary luteinizing hormone of mammalian origin, and human chorionic gonadotropin

(Cardeilhac 1976; Schimmel 1977). Schimmel (1977) reported

high variability in the response to hormonal injection. Eggs have

been stripped and artificially fertilized (Cardeilhac 1976).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Donald M. Allen of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, for critically reviewing this

manuscript. Joaquin Javech and Sharon Kelley, Miami Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, prepared the drawings of larvae

and juveniles. Bruce B. Collette provided a copy of Goode's figure

of L. rhomboides from the U.S. National Museum, Washington,

D.C.

LITERATURE CITED

ABRUZZlNI, A., E. FAULMANN, C. LOBB, and W. CLEM.

1979. Effects of temperature on T-dependent and T-independent responses of

teleosts, ectothermic vertebrates. Fed. Proc. 38:1368.

ABRUZZINI, A. F., L. O. INGRAM, and L. W. CLEM.

1982. Temperature-mediated processes in teleost immunity: homeoviscous

adaptation in teleost lymphocytes. Proc. Soc. Exp. BioI. Med. 169:12-18.
ADAMS, S. M.

1976a. The ecology of eelgrass, Zostera marina (L.), fish communities. I.

Structural analysis. J. Exp. Mar. BioI. Ecol. 22:269-291.

1976b. The ecology of eelgrass, Zostera marina (L.), fish communities. II.

Functional analysis. J. Exp. Mar. BioI. Ecol. 22:293-311.

1976c. Feeding ecology of eelgrass fish communities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

105:514-519.

ANDERSON, A. W., and E. A. POWER.

1955. Fishery statistics of the United States 1952. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,

Stat. Dig. 34, 345 p.

ANDERSON, W. W.

1968. Fishes taken during shrimp trawling along the south Atlantic coast of

the United States, 1931-35. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish.

570,60 p.

ANDERSON, W. W., and J. W. GEHRINGER.

1965. Biological-statistical census of the species entering fisheries in the

Cape Canaveral area. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 514,

79 p.

ANGELOVIC,1. W., D. E. HOSS., and G. W. THAYER.

1969. Energy requirements of pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides, in the Newport

River estuary, N.C. [Abstr.] Assoc. Southeast. BioI. Bull. 16(2):42.

ARNOLD, E. L., Jr., R. S. WHEELER, and K. N. BAXTER.

1960. Observations on fishes and other biota of East Lagoon, Galveston

Island. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 344, 30 p.

BARANS, C. A., and V. G. BURRELL, Jr.

1976. Preliminary findings of trawling on the continental shelf off the southeastern United States during four seasons (1973-1975). S.C. Mar. Resour.

Cent. Tech. Rep. 13, 16 p.

BEAUMARIAGE, D. S.

1968. Manufacture of fish meal from Florida's fishery waste and under·

exploited fishes. Part I. Wet reduction. Part II. Liquefaction. Fla. Board

Conserv., Tech. Ser. 54, 56 p.

BERE, R.

1936. Parasitic copepods from Gulf of Mexico fish. Am. MidI. Nat. 17:

577-625.

BORTHWICK, P. W., and S. C. SCHIMMEL.

1978. Toxicity of pentachlorophenol and related compounds to early life

stages of selected estuarine animals. In K. R. Rao (editor), Pentachlorophenol:

Chemistry, pharmacology, and environmental toxicology, p. 141-146.

Plenum Press, N.Y.

BOZEMAN, E. L., Jr., and J. M. DEAN.

1980. The abundance of estuarine larval and juvenile fish in a South Carolina

intertidal creek. Estuaries 3:89-97.

BREDER, C. M., Jr.

1962. Interaction between the fishes Mugi/ and Lagodon. Copeia 1962:

662-663.

BROOK, I. M.

1977. Trophic relationships in a seagrass community (Thalassia testudinum),

in Card Sound, Florida. Fish diets in relation to macrobenthic and cryptic

faunal abundance. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106:219-229.

BULLIS, H. R., Jr., and J. R. THOMPSON.

1965. Collections by the exploratory fishing vessels Oregon, Silver Bay,

Combat, and Pelican made during 1956 to 1960 in the southwestern North

Atlantic. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 510,130 p.

CAIN, R. L., and J. M. DEAN.

1976. Annual occurrence, abundance and diversity of fish in a South Carolina

intertidal creek. Mar. BioI. (Berl.) 36:369-379.

CALDWELL, D. K.

1957. The biology and systematics of the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides

(Linnaeus). Bull. Fla. State Mus., BioI. Sci. 2:77-173.

CALDWELL, D. K., and M. C. CALDWELL.

1967. Underwater sounds associated with aggressive behavior in defense of

territory by the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci.

66:69-75.

CAMERON, J. N.

1969a. Growth, respiratory metabolism and seasonal distribution of juvenile

pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides Linnaeus) in Redfish Bay, Texas. Contrib.

Mar. Sci. 14:19-36.

1969b. Seasonal changes in the ecology, respiration and hematology of the

pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus), in Redfish Bay, Texas. Ph.D.

Thesis, Univ. Tex., Austin, 143 p.

1970. The influence of environmental variables on the hematology of pinfish

(Lagodon rhombojdes) and striped mullet (Mugil cepha/us). Compo Biochem.

Physiol. 32:175-192.

CAMERON, J. N., and D. E. WOHLSCHLAG.

1969. Respiratory response to experimentally induced anaemia in the pinfish

28

(Lagodon rhamboides). J. Exp. BioI. 50:307-317.

CARDEILHAC, P. T.

1976. Induced maturation and development of pin fish eggs. Aquaculture

8:389-393.

1981. Effects of copper on the gonads of marine fish. Fed. Proc. 40:679.

CARDEILHAC, P. T., and E. R. HALL.

1977. Acute copper poisoning of cultured marine teleosts. Am. J. Vet. Res.

38:525-527.

CARR, W. E. S., and C. A. ADAMS.

1973. Food habits of juvenile marine fishes occupying seagrass beds in the

estuarine zone near Crystal River, Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102:

511-540.

CARR, W. E. S., and T. B. CHANEY.

1976. Chemical stimulation of feeding behavior in the pinfish, Lagodon

rhomboides: characterization and identification of stimulatory substances

extracted from shrimp. Compo Biochem. Physiol. 54A:437-441.

CARR, W. E. S., A. R. GONDECK, and R. L. DELANOY..

1976. Chemical stimulation of feeding behavior in the pinfish, Lagodon

rhomboides: a new approach to an old problem. Compo Biochem. Physiol.

54A:161-166.

CARRIER, J. c., and D. H. EVANS.

1976. The role of environmental calcium in freshwater survival of the marine

teleost, Lagodon rhamboides. J. Exp. BioI. 65:529-538.

CHAMBERLAIN, G., and K. STRAWN.

1977. Submerged cage culture of fish in supersaturated thermal effluent.

Proc. World Maricult. Soc. 8:625·645.

CHITTENDEN, M. E., Jr., and J. D. McEACHRAN.

1976. Composition, ecology, and dynamics of demersal fish communities on

the northwestern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf, with a similar synopsis for

the entire Gulf. Tex. A&M UOlV. Sea Grant Pub1. TAMU-SG-76-208,

104 p.

CLEM, L. W., C. J. LOBB, E. FAULMANN, and M. A. CUCHENS.

1981. Lymphocyte heterogeneity in fish: differential environmental effects

on cellular functions. In W. Hennessen and D. P. Anderson (editors), Developments in biological standardization, vol. 49, p. 279-284.

COEN, L. D., K. L. HECK, Jr., and L. G. ABELE.

1981. Experiments on competition and predation among shrimps of seagrass

meadows. Ecology 62:1484-1493.

COOK, G. H , and J. C. MOORE.

1976. Determination of Malathion, Malaoxon, and mono- and dicarboxylic

acids of Malathion in fish, oyster, and shrimp tissue. J. Agric. Food Chern.

24:631-634.

COOK, G. H., J. C. MOORE, and D. L. COPPAGE.

1976. The relationship of Malathion and its metabolites to fish poisoning.

Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:283-290.

COPPAGE, D. L.

1977. Anticholinesterase action of pesticidal carbamates in the central

nervous system of poisoned fishes. I" F. J. Vern berg, A. Calabrese, F. P.

Thurberg, and W. B. Vernberg (editors), Physiological responses of marine

biota to pollutants, p. 93-102. Acad. Press, N.Y.

COPPAGE, D. L., and E. MATTHEWS.

1975. Brain-acetylcholinesterase inhibition in a marine teleost during

lethal and sublethal exposures to 1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl dimethyl

phosphate (Naled) in seawater. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 31 :128-133.

CRABTREE, R. E., and J. M. DEAN.

1982. The structure of two South Carolina estuarine tide pool fish assemblages. Estuaries 5:2-9.

CRIPE. C. R.

1979. An automated device (AGARS) for studying avoidance of pollutant

gradients by aquatic organisms. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:11-16.

DAHLBERG, M. D.

1972. An ecological study of Georgia coastal fishes. Fish. Bull., U.S. 70:

323·353.

DARCY, G. H., and E. J. GUTHERZ.

1984. Abundance and density of demersal fishes on the west Florida shelf,

January 1978. Bull. Mar. Sci. 34:81-105.

DARNELL, R. M.

1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain,

Louisiana, an estuarine community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Tex. 5:

353-416.

DARNELL, R. M., and T. E. WISSING.

1975. Nitrogen turnover and food relationships of the pinfish Lagodon rhomboides in a North Carolina estuary. In F. J. Vernberg (editor), Physiological

ecology of estuarine organisms, p. 81-110. Univ. S.c. Press, Columt>ia.

DAUGHERTY, F. M., Jr.

1951. Effects of some chemicals used in oil well drilling on marine animals.

Sewage Ind. Wastes 23:1282-1287.
DENDY, L. A. H.

1972. Subcellular localization of sodium-potassium ion adenosinetriphosphatase; biochemical, morphological, and cell fractionation studies of the pinfish

pseudobranch. Ph.D. Thesis, Rice Univ., Houston, TX, 145 p.

DUNHAM, F.

1972. A study of commercially important estuarine-dependent industrial

fishes. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm., Tech. Bull. 4, 63 p.

EIGENMANN, C. H., and E. G. HUGHES.

1887. A review of the North American species of the genera LagOOon, Archosargus, and Dip/odus. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 10:65-74.

ENGEL, D. W., W. G. SUNDA, and R. M. THOUTTE.

1976. Effects of copper on marine fish eggs and larvae. Environ. Health

Perspect. 17:288-289.

FARMER, L. L., and D. H. EVANS.

198\. Chloride extrusion in the isolated perfused teleost gill. J. Compo

Physiol. 14IB:471-476.

FOWLER, H. W.

1939. Notes on fishes from Jamaica with descriptions of three new species.

Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 35, 16 p.

FOX, L. S., and W. R. MOCK, Jr.

1968. Seasonal occurrence of fishes in two shore habitats in Barataria Bay,

Louisiana. Proc. La. Acad. Sci. 31:43-53.

FRANKS, J. S.

1970. An investigation of the fish population within the inland waters of

Hom Island, Mississippi, a barrier island in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Gulf Res. Rep. 3:3-104.

FRANKS, J. S., J. Y. CHRISTMAS, W. L. SILER, R. COMES, R. WALLER, and

C. BURNS.

1972. A study of nektonic and benthic faunas of the shallow Gulf of Mexico

off the state of Mississippi as related to some physical, chemical and geological factors. Gulf Res. Rep. 4: 1-148.

GIBBARD, G. L.

1979. Survival, growth, and behavior of selected estuarine organisms cultured

in tanks receiving heated effluent from a power plant near Baytown, Texas.

M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, 162 p. [Not seen.]

GILMORE, R. G., L. H. BULLOCK, and F. H. BERRY.

1978. Hypothermal mortality in marine fishes of south-central Florida

January, 1977. Northeast Gulf Sci. 2:77-97.

GOODE, G. B.

1884. The fishes and fishery industries of the United States. Section I. Natural

history of useful aquatic animals. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., Wash., DC,

895 p.

GRIMES, C. B.

197\. Thermal .addition studies of the Crystal River steam electric station.

Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser. II, 53 p.

GRIMES, C. B., and J. A. MOUNTAIN.

197\. Effects of thermal effluent upon marine fishes near the Crystal River

steam electric station. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser.

17,64 p.

GUNTER, G.

194\. Death of fishes due to cold on the Texas coast, January, 1940. Ecology 22:203-208.

1942. A list of the fishes of the mainland of North and Middle America

recorded from both freshwater and sea water. Am. MidI. Nat. 28:305-326.

1945. Studies on marine fishes of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex.

1:1-190.

GUNTER, G., and G. E. HALL.

1963. Biological investigations of the St. Lucie estuary (Florida) in connection with Lake Okeechobee discharges through the St. Lucie Canal. Gulf

Res. Rep. 1:189-307.

GUNTER, G., R. H. WILLIAMS, C. C. DAVIS, and F. G. W. SMITH.

1948. Catastrophic mass mortality of marine animals and coincident phytoplankton bloom on the west coast of Florida, November 1946 to August

1947. Ecol. Monogr. 18:309-324.

HALL, D. L., and E. S. IVERSEN.

1967. Henneguya /agOOon, a new species of myxosporidian, parasitizing the

pinfish, LagOOon rhomboides. Bull. Mar. Sci. 17:274-279.

HALL, E. R., and P. T. CARDEILHAC.

1981. Culture of ovarian follicles from a marine fish in defined medium.

Fed. Proc. 40:47\.

HALL, L. W., Jr., A. L. BUIKEMA, Jr., and J. CAIRNS, Jr.

1978. The effects of a simulated refinery effluent on the grass shrimp, Pa/aemoneles pugio. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 7:23-35.

HANSEN, D. J.

1970. Food, growth, migration, reproduction, and abundance of pinfish,

LagOOon rhomboides, and Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulalus, near

Pensacola, Florida, 1963-65. Fish. Bull., U.S. 68:135-146.

29

HANSEN, D. J., P. R. PARRISH, and J. FORESTER.

1974. Arochlor 1016: toxicity to and uptake by estuarine animals. Environ.

Res. 7:363-373.

HANSEN, D. J., S. C. SCHIMMEL, and E. MATTHEWS.

1974. Avoidance of Aroelor 1254 by shrimp and fishes. Bull. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. 12:253-256.

HARGIS, W. J., Jr.

1955. Monogenetic trematodes of Gulf of Mexico fishes. Pt. II. The superfamily Gyrodactyloidea (continued). J. Parasitol. 41:185-193.

HASTINGS, R. W.

1972. The origin and seasonality of the fish fauna on a new jelly in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis, Fla. State Univ., Tallahassee, 555 p.

HASTINGS, R. W., L. H. OGREN, and M. T. MABRY.

1976. Observations on the fish fauna associated with offshore platforms in

the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull., U.S. 74:387-402.

HELLIER, T. R.

1962. Fish production and biomass studies in relation to photosynthesis in

the Laguna Madre of Texas. PubI. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 8:1-22.

HERALD, E. S., and R. R. STRICKLAND.

1950. An annotated list of the fishes of Homosassa Springs, Florida. Q. J.

Fla. Acad. Sci. 11 :99-109.

HETTLER, W. F.

1978. Swimming speeds of juvenile estuarine fish in a circular flume. Proc.

Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 31 :392-398.

HILDEBRAND, H. H.

1954. A study of the fauna of the brown shrimp (Penaeus aZlecus Ives)

grounds in the western Gulf of Mexico. PubI. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex.

3:233-366.

1955. A study of the fauna of the pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) grounds in the Gulf of Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex.

4(Part I): 169-232.

HILDEBRAND, S. F., and L. E. CABLE.

1938. Further notes on the development and life history of some teleosts at

Beaufort, N.C. Bull. Bur. Fish. 48:505-642.

HILDEBRAND, S. F., and W. C. SCHROEDER.

1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43:1-366.

HOESE, H. D.

1973. A trawl study of nearshore fishes and invertebrates of the Georgia coast.

Contrib. Mar. Sci. 17:63-98.

HOESE, H. D., and R. S. JONES.

1963. Seasonality of larger animals in a Texas turtle grass community. Publ.

Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 9:37-46.

HOESE, H. D., and R. H, MOORE.

1977. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Lousiana, and adjacent waters.

Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station, 327 p.

HOLBROOK, J. E.

1860. Ichthyology of South Carolina. 2d ed. Russell and Jones, Charleston,

SC, 205 p.

HOLT, R., and K. STRAWN.

1977. Cage culture of seven fish species in a power plant effluent characterired by wide salinity fluctuations. Proc. World Maricult. Soc. 8:73-91.

HOOTMAN, S. R.

1978. Localization of Na\ K+ -activated adenosine triphosphatase activity in

teleost chloride cells: cytochemical and cell isolation studies on the branchial

epithelium of the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides. Ph.D. Thesis, Rice Univ.,

Houston, TX, 150 p.

HOOTMAN, S. R., and C. W. PHILPOTT.

1978. Rapid isolation of chloride cells from pinfish gill. Anat. Rec. 190:

687-702.

1979. Ultracytochemical localization of Na., K' -activated ATPase in

chloride cells from the gills of a euryhaline teleost. Anat. Rec. 193:99-130.

HOSS, D. E.

1967. Rates of respiration of estuarine fish. Proc. 21st Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm., p. 416-423.

1971. Routine energy requirements of a population of pinfish (Lagodon

rhomboides Linnaeus) in the Newport River estuary, North Carolina. Ph.D.

Thesis, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, 87 p.

1974. Energy requirements of a population of pinfish Lagodon rhomboides

(Linnaeus). Ecology 55:848-855.

HOSS, D. E., L. C. COSTON, and W. F. HETTLER, Jr.

1971. Effects of increased temperature on postlarval and juvenile estuarine

fish. Proc. 25th Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm., p.

635-642.

HOSS, D. E., L. C. COSTON, and W. E. SCHAAF.

1974. Effects of sea water extracts ofsediments from Charleston Harbor, S.c.,

on larval estuarine fishes. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 2:323-328.
HOSS, D. E., and D. S. PETERS.

1976. Respiratory adaptation: fishes. fn M. Wiley (editor), Estuarine processes. Vol. I. Uses, stresses, and adaptation to the estuary, p. 335-346.

Acad. Press, N.Y.

HOSS, D. E., D. S. PETERS, W. F. HETTLER, and L. C. CLEMENTS.

1978. Excretion rate of ·'Zn: is it a useful tool for estimating metabolism of

fish in the field? J. Exp. Mar. BioI. Ecol. 31 :241-252.

HOWELL, A. H.

1932. Florida bird life. Fla. Dep. Game Fresh Water Fish in cooperation

with U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. BioI. Surv., 579 p.

HYLE, R. A.

1976. Fishes of the Newport River estuary, North Carolina: their composition, seasonality and community structure, 1970-72. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ.

N.C., Chapel Hill, 192 p.

INGLE, R. M.

1952. Studies on the effect of dredging operations upon fish and shellfish.

Fla. Board Conserv., Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 5, 26 p.

JOHNSON, G. D.

1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: an atlas of egg, larval

and juvenile stages. Vol. VI. Carangidae through Ephippidae. U.S. Fish

Wildl. Serv., BioI. Servo Prog. FWS/OBS-78112, 314 p.

JORDAN, D. S.

1884. The fishes of Florida Keys. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 4:77-80.

JORDAN, D. S., and B. W. EVERMANN.

1896-1900. The fishes of North and Middle America. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull.

47,3313p.

JORDAN, D. S., and B. FESLER.

1893. A review of the sparoid fishes of America and Europe. Rep. U.S.

Comm. Fish Fish., Pt. 17, for 1889-1891:421-544.

JOSEPH, E. B., and R. W. YERGER.

1956. The fishes of Alligator Harbor, Florida, with notes on their natural

history. Fla. State Univ. Stud. 22:111-156.

JUAREZ, M.

1975. Distribuci6n cuantitativa y algunas aspectos cualitativos del ictioplancton del Banco de Campeche. Rev. Invest. Cent. Invest. Pesq. Cuba

1:27-71.

KAPOTE, A. M.

1971. On the age of the main commercial bottom fishes of Campeche Bank.

In A. S. Bogdanov (editor), Sovetsko-Kubinskiye ryb. issled [Soviet-Cuban

fishery investigations], No.3, p. 77-81. [In Russ.] Moscow.

KEISER, R. K., Jr.

1976. Species composition, magnitude and utlization of the incidental catch

of the South Carolina shrimp fishery. S.c. Mar. Resaur. Cent. Tech. Rep.

16,95 p.

KILBY, J. D.

1955. The fishes of two Gulf coastal marsh areas of Florida. Tulane Stud.

Zool. 2:173-247.

KINCH, J. C.

1979. Trophic habits of the juvenile fishes within artificial waterwaysMarco Island, Florida. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 22:77-90.

KJELSON, M. A., and D. R. COLBY.

1977. The evaluation and use of gear efficiencies in the estimation of estuarine fish abundance.fn M. Wiley (editor), Estuarine processes. Vol. 2. Circulation, sediments, and transfer of material in the estuary, p. 416-424. Acad.

Press, N.Y.

KJELSON, M. A., and G. N. JOHNSON.

1976. Further observations of the feeding ecology of postlarval pinfish,

Lagodon rhomboides, and spot, Leiostomus xanthurus. Fish. Bull., U.S.

74:423-432.

1978. Catch efficiencies of a 6.1-meter otter trawl for estuarine fish populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:246-254.

KJELSON, M. A., D. S. PETERS, G. W. THAYER, and G. N. JOHNSON.

1975. The general feeding ecology of postlarval fishes in the Newport River

estuary. Fish. Bull., U.S. 73:137-144.

KLOTH, T. C., and D. E. WOHLSCHLAG.

1972. Size-related metabolic responses of the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides,

to salinity variations and sublethal petrochemical pollution. Contrib. Mal.

Sci. 16:125-137.

KORZHOVA, Yu. A.

1965. Technical and chemical characteristics of some commercial fish and

invertebrates of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.fn A. S. Bogdanov

(editor), Soviet-Cuban fishery research, p. 332-340. [Engl. transl. by

Israel Prog. Sci. Transl., Jerusalem, 1969.]

LEE, T.

1889. List of fishes taken by steamer Albatross among Bahama Islands and at

30

Nassau fish-market during March and April 1886. Rep. U.S. Fish. Comm.

Pt. 14:669-672.

LEWIS, F. G., III, and R. J. LIVINGSTON.

1977. Avoidance of bleached kraft pulpmill effluent by pinfish (Lagodon

rhomboides) and Gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis). J. Fish. Res. Board Can.

34:568-570.

LEWIS, R. M., and E. P. H. WILKENS.

197 I. Abundance of Atlantic menhaden larvae and associated species during

a diel collection at Beaufort, North Carolina. Chesapeake Sci. 12: I85-187.

LINTON, E.

1905. Parasites of fishes of Beaufort, North Carolina. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish.

24:321-428.

1940. Trematodes from fishes mainly from the Woods Hole region, Massachusetts. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 88:1-172.

LIVINGSTON, R. J.

1980. Ontogenetic trophic relationships and stress in a coastal seagrass

system in Florida. fn V. S. Kennedy (editor), Estuarine perspectives, p. 423-

435. Acad. Press, N.Y.

LIVINGSTON, R. J., C. R. CRIPE, R. A. LAUGHLIN, and F. G. LEWIS III.

1976. Avoidance responses of estuarine organisms to storm water runoff and

pulp mill effluents. fn M. Wiley (editor), Estuarine processes. Vol. I. Uses,

stresses, and adaptation to the estuary, p. 313-331. Acad. Press, N.Y.

MANTER, H. W.

1931. Some digenetic trematodes of marine fishes of Beaufort, North

Carolina. Parasitology 23:396-411.

MERRINER, J. V.

1975. Food habits of the weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in North Carolina

waters. Chesapeake Sci. 16:74-76.

MILLER, G. c., and W. 1. RICHARDS.

1980. Reef fish habitat, faunal assemblages, and factors determining distributions in the South Atlantic Bight. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 32:114-

130.

MILLER, G. L., and S. C. JORGENSON.

1973. Meristic characters of some marine fishes of the western Atlantic

Ocean. Fish. Bull., U.S. 71:301-312.

MODDE, T., and S. T. ROSS.

1980. Seasonality of fishes occupying a surf zone habitat in the northern Gulf

of Mexico. Fish. Bull., U.S. 78:911-922.

MOE. M. A., Jr.

1972. Movement and migration of south Florida fishes. Fla. Dep. Nat.

Resour., Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 69,25 p.

MOE, M. A., Jr., and G. T. MARTIN.

1965. Fishes taken in monthly trawl samples offshore of Pinellas County,

Florida, with new additions to the fish fauna of the Tampa Bay area. Tulane

Stud. Zool. 12: 129-151.

MOODY, W. D.

1950. A study of the natural history of the spotted sea trout, Cynoscion nebulosus, in the Cedar Key, Florida, area. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 12:147-171.

MOORE, R. H.

1976. Observations on fishes killed by cold at Port Aransas, Texas, 11-12

January 1973. Southwest. Nat. 20:461-466.

NAUGHTON, S. P., and C. H. SALOMAN.

1978. Fishes of the nearshore zone of St. Andrew Bay, Florida, and adjacent

coast. Northeast Gulf Sci. 2:43-55.

NELSON, W. G.

1978. Organization of a subtidal seagrass amphipod guild: the roles of predation, competition, and physical stress. Ph.D. Thesis, Duke Univ., Durham,

NC, 223 p.

1979a. Experimental studies of selective predation on amphipods: consequences for amphipod distribution and abundance. J. Exp. Mar. BioI.

Ecol. 38:225-245.

1979b. An analysis of structural pattern in an eelgrass (Zostera marina L.)

amphipod community. J. Exp. Mal. BioI. Ecol. 39:231-264.

1981. Experimental studies of decapod and fish predation on seagrass macrobenthos. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. SeLl 5:141-149.

NELSON, W. G., K. D. CAIRNS, and R. W. VIRNSTEIN.

1982. Seasonality and spatial patterns of seagrass-associated amphipods of

the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32:121-129.

OGREN, L. H., and H. A. BRUSHER.

1977. The distribution and abundance of fishes caught with a trawl in the St.

Andrew Bay system, Florida. Northeast Gulf Sci. 1:83-105.

OLAECHEA, A., and V. I. SAUSKAN.

1974. Cartas de pesca del Banco de Campeche, 1972. Resum. Invest. Inst.

Nac. Pesca Cent. Invest. Pesq. No. 1:176-181.

ORTH, R. J., and K. L. HECK, Jr.

1980. Structural components of eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows in the
Lower Chesapeake Bay-fishes. Estuaries 3:278-288.

OVERSTREET, R. M., and H. D. HOWSE.

1977. Some parasites and diseases of estuarine fishes in polluted habitats of

Mississippi. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 298:427-462.

PARRISH, P. R., S. C. SCHIMMEL, D. J. HANSEN, J. M. PATRICK, Jr., and J.

FORRESTER.

1976. Chlordane: effects on several estuarine organisms. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 1:485-494.

PEARSE, A. S.

1953. Parasitic crustaceans from Alligator Harbor, Florida. Q. J. Fla. Acad.

Sci. 15:187-243.

PERRET, W. S., and C. W. CAILLOUET, Jr.

1974. Abundance and size of fishes taken by trawling in Vermilion Bay,

Louisiana. Bull. Mar. Sci. 24:52-75.

PERRET, W. S., W. R. LATAPIE, J. F. POLLARD, W. R. MOCK, G. B. ADKINS,

W. J. GAIDRY, and C. J. WHITE.

1971. Section I, Fishes and invertebrates collected in trawl and seine samples

in Louisiana estuaries. In Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory

and study, Louisiana - Phase I, area description, and Phase IV, biology, p.

41-105. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm.

PETERS, D. S., M. T. BOYD, and J. C. De VANE, Jr.

1976. The effect of temperature, salinity, and food availability on the growth

and food-con version efficiency of postlarval pinfish. In G. W. Esch and R. W.

McFarlane (editors), Thermal ecology II. Proceedings of a symposium held

at Augusta, Georgia, April 2-5, 1975, p. 106-112. Tech. Inf. Cent., ERDA

Symp. Ser. 40.

PETERS, D. S., and D. E. HOSS.

1974. A radioisotopic method of measuring food evacuation time in fish.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103:626-629.

PETERS, D. S., and M. A. KJELSON.

1975. Consumption and utilization of food by various postlarval and juvenile

North Carolina estuarine fishes. In L. E. Cronin (editor), Estuarine research,

Vol. I, p. 447-472. Acad. Press, N.Y.

PETERS, D. S., M. A. KJELSON, and M. T. BOYD.

1974. The effect of temperature on digestion rate in the pin fish, Lagodon

rhomboides; spot. Leiostomus xanthurus; and silverside, Menidia menidia.

Proc. 26th Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm., p. 637-643.

PETERSON, C. H., and N. M. PETERSON.

1979. The ecology of intertidal flats of North Carolina: a community profile.

Rep. prepared for Natl. Coast. Ecosyst. Team, U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/

OBS-79/39.

POEY, F.

1856-58. Conspectus piscium Cubensium. Mem. Sobre Hist. Nat. Isla Cuba

2(50):357-404.

PRISTAS, P. J., and L. TRENT.

1978. Seasonal abundance, size, and sex ratio of fishes caught with gill nets

in St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28:581-589.

RANDALL, J. E., and R. VERGARA R.

1978. Sparidae. In W. Fischer (editor), FAO species identification sheets for

fishery purposes, Western Central Atlantic (Fishing Area 31), Vol. 5, unpaginated. FAO, Rome.

REID, G. K., Jr.

1954. An ecological study of the Gulf of Mexico fishes, in the vicinity of

Cedar Key, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 4: 1-94.

ROBINS, C. R., R. M. BAILEY, C. E. BOND, J. R. BROOKER, E. A. LACHNER,

R. N. LEA, and W. B. SCOTT.

1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United

States and Canada. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 12, 174 p.

ROESSLER, M. A.

1970. Checklist of fishes in Buttonwood Canal, Everglades National Park,

Florida. and observations on the seasonal occurrence and life histories of

selected species. Bull. Mar. Sci. 20:860-893.

ROITHMAYR, C. M.

1965. Industrial bottomfish fishery of the northern Gulf of Mexico, 1959-63.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 518,23 p.

ROMANOWSKY, P., and K. STRAWN.

1979. Vertical distribution of caged estuarine fish in thermal effluent subject

to gas supersaturation. 33rd Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish Wildl.

Agencies, p. 466-483.

RULlFSON, R. A.

1977. Temperature and water velocity effects on the swimming performances

of young-of-the-year striped mullet (Mugil cepha/us), spot (Leiostomus

xanthurus), and pin fish (Lagodon rhomboides). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:

2316-2322.

SAUSKAN, V. I., and A. OLAECHEA.

1974. Ictiofauna bentonica del Banco de Campeche. Resum. Invest. Inst.

Nac. Pesca Cent. Invest. Pesq. No. 1; I02-1 06.

31

SCATTERGOOD, L. W.

1950. Observations on the food habits of the double-crested cormorant,

Pha/acrocorax a. auritus. Auk 67:506-508.

SCHIMMEL, S. C.

1977. Notes on the embryonic period of the pinfish Lagodon rhomboides

(Linnaeus). Fla. Sci. 40:3-6.

SCHIMMEL, S. C., T. L. HAMAKER, and J. FORESTER.

1979. Toxicity and bioconcentration of EPN and Leptophos to selected

estuarine animals. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 22:193-203.

SCHIMMEL, S. c., J. M. PATRICK, Jr., and L. F. FAAS.

1978. Effects of sodium pentachlorophenate on several estuarine animals:

toxicity, uptake, and depuration. Pentachlorophenol 1978:147-155.

SCHIMMEL, S. C., J. M. PATRICK, Jr., and J. FORESTER.

1976. Heptachlor: toxicity to and uptake by several estuarine organisms. J.

Toxicol. Environ. Health 1:955-965.

1977a. Uptake and toxicity of Toxaphene in several estuarine organisms.

Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5:353-367.

1977b. Toxicity and bioconcentration of BHC and Lindane in selected

estuarine animals. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6:355-363.

SCHIMMEL, S. c., J. M. PATRICK, Jr., and A. J. WILSON, Jr.

1977. Acute toxicity to and bioconcentration of endosulfan by estuarine

animals. In F. L. Mayer and J. L. Hamelink (editors), Aquatic toxicology and

hazard evaluation, p. 241-252. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 634.

SCHWARTZ, F. J.

1964. Fishes of Isle of Wight and Assawoman bays near Ocean City, Maryland. Chesapeake Sci. 5:172-193.

SHENKER, J. M., and J. M. DEAN.

1979. The utilization of an intertidal salt marsh creek by larval and juvenile

fishes: abundance, diversity and temporal variation. Estuaries 2:154-163.

SIEBENALER, J. B., and D. K. CALDWELL.

1956. Cooperation among adult dolphins. J. Mammal. 37:126-128.

SIMMONS, E. G.

1957. An ecological survey of the Upper Laguna Madre of Texas. Publ. lnst.

Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 4: 156-200.

SOKOLOVA, L. V.

1965. Distribution and biological characteristics of the main commercial fish

of Campeche Bank. In A. S. Bogdanov (editor), Soviet-Cuban fishery research, p. 208-224. [Engl. transl. by Israel Prog. Sci. Transl., Jerusalem,

1969.]

SPRINGER, S.

1957. Some observations on the behavior of schools of fishes in the Gulf of

Mexico and adjacent waters. Ecology 38:166-171.

SPRINGER, S., and H. R. BULLIS, Jr.

1957. Collections by the Oregon in the Gulf of Mexico. List of crustaceans,

mollusks, and fishes identified from collections made by the exploratory fishing vessel Oregon in the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent seas 1950 through

1955. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 196, 134 p.

SPRINGER, V. G., and K. D. WOODBURN.

1960. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tampa Bay area. Fla. Board

Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser. I, 104 p.

STANFORD, R. M.

1974. Feeding behavior in the wild and under laboratory conditions of the

pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae). M.A. Thesis, Univ. N.C.,

Chapel Hill, 67 p.

STANFORD, R. M, and F. J. SCHWARTZ.

1977. Feeding behavior of wild and laboratory held pinfish Lagodon rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae). [Abstr.] Assoc. Southeast. BioI. Bull. 24:88-89.

STONE, R. B., L. C. COSTON, D. E. HOSS, and F. A. CROSS.

1975. Experiments on some possible effects of tire reefs on pinfish (Lagodon

rhomboides) and black sea bass (Centropristis striata). Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(3):

18-20.

STONER, A. W.

1979a. The macrobenthos of seagrass meadows in Apalachee Bay, Florida,

and the feeding ecology of Lagodon rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae). Ph.D.

Thesis, Fla. State Univ., Tallahassee, 175 p.

1979b. Species-specific predation on amphipod crustacea by pinfish (Lagodon rhamboides): Mediation by macrophyte standing crop. Mar. BioI.

(Beri.) 55:201-207.

1980a. Abundance, reproductive seasonality and habitat preferences of

amphipod crustaceans in seagrass meadows of Apalachee Bay, Florida.

Contrib. Mar. Sci. 23:63-77.

1980b. The role of seagrass biomass in the organization of benthic macrofaunal assemblages. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30:537 -551.

1980c. Feeding ecology of Lagodon rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae): variation

and functional responses. Fish. Bull., U.S. 78:337-352.

1982. The influence of benthic maccrophytes on the foraging behavior of pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus). J. Exp. Mar. BioI. Ecol. 58:271-284.
STONER, A. W., and R. J. LIVINGSTON.

1978. Respiration, growth and food conversion efficiency of pinfish (Lagodon

rlwmboides) exposed to sublethal concentrations of bleached kraft mill

effluent. Environ. Pollut. 17:207-217.

1984. Ontogenetic patterns in diet and feeding morphology in sympatric

sparid fishes from seagrass meadows. Copeia 1984:174-187.

STOREY, M.

1937. The relation between normal range and mortality of fishes due to cold

at Sanibel Island, Florida. Ecology 18: 10-26.

STOREY, M., and E. W. GUDGER.

1936. Mortality of fishes due to cold at Sanibel Island, Florida, 1886-1936.

Ecology 17:640-648.

STOTT, G. G., N. H. McARTHUR, R. TARPLEY, V. JACOBS, and R. F. SIS.

1981. Histopathologic survey of ovaries of fish from petroleum production

and control sites in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Fish BioI. 18:261-269.

STOTT, G. G., N. H. McARTHUR, R. TARP!~EY, R. F. SIS, and V. JACOBS.

1980. Histopathological survey of male gonads of fish from petroleum

production and control sites in the GLif of Mexico. J. Fish BioI. 17:593-

602.

STRUHSAKER, P.

1969. Demersal fish resources: Composition, distribution, and commercial

potential of the continental shelfstocks offsoutheastern United States. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Ind. Res. 4:261-300.

SUBRAHMANYAM, C. B.

1980. Oxygen consumption of estuarine fish in relation to external oxygen

tension. Compo Biochem. Physiol. 67A:129-133.

SUBRAHMANYAM, C. B., and C. L. COULTAS.

1980. Studies on the animal communities in two north Florida salt marshes.

Part III. Seasonal fluctuations of fish and macroinvertebrates. Bull. Mar.

Sci. 30:790-818.

SUBRAHMANYAM, C. B., and S. H. DRAKE.

1975. Studies on the animal communities in two north F!orida salt marshes.

Part I. Fish communities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 25:445-465.

SUTHERLAND, D. F.

1977. Catch and catch rates of fishes ca:Jght by anglers in the St. Andrew Bay

system, Florida, and adjacent coastal waters, 1973. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-708, 9 p.

SWINGLE, H. A.

1971. Biology of Alabama estuarine areas cooperative Gulf of Mexico

estuarine inventory. Ala. Mar. Resour. Bull. 5, 123 p.

TABB, D. c., D. L. DUBROW, and R. B. MANNING.

1962. The ecology of northern Florida Bay and adjacent estuaries. Fla.

Board Conserv. Tech. Ser. 39, 81 p.

TABB, D. C., and R. B. MANNING.

1961. A checklist of the flora and fauna of northern Florida Bay and adjacent

brackish waters of the Florida mainla.1d collected during the period July,

1957 through September, 1960. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. II:552-649.

TAGATZ, M. E.

1976. Effect of Mirex on predator-prey interaction in an experimental

estuarine ecosystem. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105:546-549.

TAGATZ, M. E., and D. L. DUDLEY.

1961. Seasonal occurrence of marine fishes in four shore habitats near

Beaufort, N.C., 1957-60. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 390,

19 p.

TARVER, J. W., and L. B. SAVOIE.

1976. An inventory and study of the Lake Pontchartrain - Lake Maurepas

estuarine complex. Phase II - Biology. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm. Tech. Bull.

19:7-99.

THAYER, G. W., M. W. La CROIX, and J. BROOKS.

1973. Carbon, nitrogen, and caloric contents of some estuarine organisms.

In T. R. Rice (editor), Annual report to the Atomic Energy Commission, p.

84-97. U.S. Dep. Commer., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Beaufort, NC.

THAYER, G. W., D. E. HOSS, M. A. KJELSON, W. F. HETTLER, Jr., and M. W.

La CROIX.

1974. Biomass of zooplankton in the Newport River estuary and the influence

of postlarval fishes. Chesapeake Sci. 15:9-16.

TRENT, L., and P. J. PRISTAS.

1977. Selectivity of gill nets on estuarine and coastal fishes from St. Andrew

32

Bay, Florida. Fish. Bull., U.S. 75:185-198.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

1980. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts,

1979. U.S. Dep. Commer., Curro Fish. Stat. 8063, 139 p.

VOSS, G. L.

1953. A contribution to the life history and biology of the sailfish, Istioplwrus

american us Cuv. and Val., in Florida waters. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb.

3:206-240.

WANG, J. C. S., and E. C. RANEY.

1971. Distribution and fluctuations in the fish fauna of the Charlotte Harbor

estuary, Florida. Charlotte Harbor Estuarine Study, Mote Mar. Lab., 56 p.

WARD, G. S., T. A. HOLLISTER, P. T. HEITMULLER, and P. R. PARRISH.

1981. Acute and chronic toxicity ofselenium to estuarine organisms. Northeast Gulf Sci. 4:73-78.

WEINSTEIN, M. P.

1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish,

Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fish. Bull., U.S. 77:339-357.

WEINSTEIN, M. P., C. M. COURTNEY, and J. C. KINCH.

1977. The Marco Island estuary: a summary of physiochemical and biological

parameters. Fla. Sci. 40:97-124.

WEINSTEIN, M. p.. K. L. HECK, Jr., P. E. GIEBEL, and J. E. GATES.

1982. The role of herbivory in pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides): a preliminary

investigation. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32:791-795.

WENNER, C. A., C. A. BARANS, B. W. STENDER, and F. H. BERRY.

1979. Results of Marmap otter trawl investigations in the South Atlantic

Bight. I. Fall, 1973. S.c. Mar. Resour. Cent. Tech. Rep. 33, 79 p.

WHALING, P. J., R. T. BARBER, and J. C. PAUL.

1976. Accumulation of mercury in tish fed a naturally high mercury diet.

Environ. Health Perspect. 17:289.

WHITE, J. c., Jr. and J. W. ANGELOVIC.

1966. Tolerances of several marine species to Co 16 irradiation. Chesapeake Sci. 7:36-39.

1973. Interactions of chronic gamma radiation, salinity, and temperature on

the morphology of postlarval pinfish, Lagodon rlwmboides. In A. L. Pacheco

(editor), Proceedings of a workshop on egg, larval, and juvenile stages of

fish in Atlantic Coast estuaries, held at Bears Bluff Laboratories, Wadmalaw

Is., South Carolina, June 1968, p. 199-210. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Middle

Atl. Coast. Fish. Cent., Tech. Publ. No. I.

WILEY, A. W., and P. T. CARDEILHAC.

1977. Possible mammalian luteinizing hormone induced differentiation of

follicle cells to oogonia in pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides. Physiologist 20:

120.

WOHLSCHLAG, D. E., and J. N. CAMERON.

1967. Assessment of a low level stress on the respiratory metabolism of the

pinfish (Lagodon rlwmboides). Contrib. Mar. Sci. 12: 160-171.

WOHLSCHLAG, D. E., J. N. CAMERON, and 1. J. CECH, Jr.

1968. Seasonal changes in the respiratory metabolism of the pinfish (Lagodon

rhomboides). Contrib. Mar. Sci. 13:89-104.

WOHLSCHLAG, D. E., and 1. J. CECH, Jr.

1970. Size of pinfish in relation to thermal stress response. Contrib. Mar.

Sci. 15:21-31.

WOLFF, M.

1972. A study of North Carolina scrap fishery. N.C. Dep. Nat. Econ.

Resour. Spec. Sci. Rep. 20, 29 p.

YOCUM, T. G.

1971. Pinfish and rockcut goby, fishes new to the Bahamas. Q. J. Fla. Acad.

Sci. 34:131.

YOUNG, D. K., M. A. BUZAS, and M. W. YOUNG.

1976. Species densities of macrobenthos associated with seagrass: a field

experimental study of predation. J. Mar. Res. 34:577-592.

YOUNG, D. K., and M. W. YOUNG.

J977. Community structure of the macrobenthos associated with seagrass of

the Indian River estuary, Florida. In B. C. Coull (editor), Ecology of marine

benthos, p. 359-381. Belle W. Baruch Libr. Mar. Sci. No.6, Univ. S.C.

Press, Columbia.

Z1LBERBERG, M. H.

1966. Seasonal occurrence of fishes in a coastal marsh of northwest Florida.

Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 11:126-134.

'GPO 593-081 1985