REFERENCE COPY 

Do Not Remove from the Libracy 

mi cry 'L . .F 

Biological Report 82(11.83) N-I Wetlads Re-& mr TR EL-82-4 

August 1988 70Q Cajun Dome Boulevard 

L~Q@w, Wiiam 7- 

Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes 

and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) 

RED SNAPPER 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Coastal Ecology Group 

Waterways Experiment Station 

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Biological Report 82(11.83) 

TR EL-82-4 

August 1988 

Species Prof i 1 es: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements 

of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) 

RED SNAPPER 

David Moran 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wetlands Research Center 

1010 Gause Boulevard 

Slidell, LA 70458 

Project Officer 

David Morais 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wetl ands Research Center 

Performed for 

Coastal Ecology Group 

Waterways Experiment Station 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Research and Development 

National Wetl ands Research Center 

Washington, DC 20240 
This series may be referenced as follows: 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983-19-. Species profiles: 1 ife histories 

and envi ronmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates. U. S. Fish 

Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 

This profile may be cited as follows: 

Moran, D. 1988. Species profiles: 1 ife hi stories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)--red snapper. U. S. 

Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.83). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

TR EL-82-4. 19 pp. 
PREFACE 

This species profile is one of a series on coastal aquatic organisms, 

principal ly fish, of sport, commercial , or ecological importance. The profiles 

are designed to provide coastal managers, engineers, and biologists with a brief 

comprehensive sketch of the biological characteristics and environmental 

requirements of the species and to describe how populations of the species may be 

expected to react to environmental changes caused by coastal development. Each 

profile has sections on taxonomy, 1 ife history, ecological role, environmental 

requirements, and economic importance, if appl icable. A three-ring binder is 

used for this series so that new profiles can be added as they are prepared. 

This project is jointly planned and financed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to one of 

the foll owing addresses. 

Information Transfer Special ist 

National Coastal Ecosystems Team 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

NASA-Sl idel 1 Computer Complex 

1010 Gause Boulevard 

Slidell, LA 70458 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 

Attention: WESER-C 

Post Office Box 631 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 
CONVERSION TABLE 

Metric to U.S. Customary 

Mu1 tiply 

millimeters (mm) 

centimeters (cm) 

meters (m) 

meters (m) 

ki 1 ometers (km) 

ki 1 ometers (km) 

square meters (m2) 10.76 

square ki 1 ometers ( km2) 0.3861 

hectares (ha) 2.471 

liters (1) 

cubic meters (m3) 

cubic meters (m3) 

milligrams (mg) 

grams (g) ki 1 ograms (kg) 

metric tons (t) 

metric tons (t) 

kilocalories (kcal) 

Celsius degrees (OC) 

U.S. Customary to Metric 

inches 25.40 

inches 2.54 

feet (ft) 0.3048 

fathoms 1.829 

statute miles (mi) 1.609 

nautical miles (nmi) 1.852 

square feet (ft2) 

square miles (mi2) 

acres 

gallons (gal) 

cubic feet (ft3) 

acre-feet 

ounces (oz) 

ounces (oz) 

pounds (lb) 

pounds (lb) 

short tons (ton) 

British thermal units (Btu) 0.2520 

Fahrenheit degrees (OF) 0.5556 (OF - 32) 

To Obtain 

inches 

inches 

feet 

fathoms 

statute mi 1 es 

nautical miles 

square feet 

square miles 

acres 

gal 1 ons 

cubic feet 

acre- feet 

ounces 

ounces 

pounds 

pounds 

short tons 

British thermal units 

Fahrenheit degrees 

millimeters 

centimeters 

meters 

meters 

kilometers 

kilometers 

square meters 

square ki 1 ometers 

hectares 

1 i ters 

cubic meters 

cubic meters 

milligrams 

grams 

ki 1 ograms 

metric tons 

metric tons 

kilocalories 

Celsius degrees 
CONTENTS 

Page 

PREFACE .................................................................. CONVERSION TABLE ......................................................... FIGURES .................................................................. TABLES .................................................................... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................... 

NOMENCLATLlRE/TAXONOMY/RANGE .............................................. MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS ........................................... Distinguishing Characters of Red Snapper ............................... Distinguishing Characters of Similar Species from the Same 

General Area ......................................................... REASONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE SERIES ...................................... LIFE HISTORY ............................................................. Spawning ............................................................... Eggs ................................................................... Larvae ................................................................. Juveniles and Adults ................................................... Movement ............................................................... GROW1-H CHARACTERISTICS ................................................... FISHERIES ................................................................ Commercial Fishery ..................................................... Sport Fishery .......................................................... ECOLOGICAL ROLE .......................................................... Feeding Habits ......................................................... Competition, Predation, and Parasitism ................................. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................... Temperature and Salinity ............................................... Habitat ................................................................ Depth .................................................................. Contaminants ........................................................... 

REFERENCES ............................................................... 

iii 

i v 

v i 

vi i 

viii 
FIGURES 

Number Page 

1 Adult red snapper Lutjanus campechanus .......................... 1 

2 Distribution of juvenile and adult red snapper in 

the Gulf of Mexico ............................................. 2 

3 Commercial and sport fishing grounds for red snapper 

in the Gulf of Mexico ........................................... 9 

4 Annual commercial landings of red snapper (in millions 

of pounds) in Florida and Alabama, 1880-1985 .................... 10 

5 Annual commercial landings of red snapper (in millions 

of pounds) in Louisiana and Texas, 1880-1985 .................... 10 

6 Annual commercial landings of red snapper (in millions 

of pounds) in Mississippi, 1880-1985 ............................ 11 
TABLES 

Number Page 

1 Estimated length and age at maturity of red snapper 

in the Gulf of Mexico .......................................... 4 

2 Spawning periods of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico .......... 5 

3 Length (mm) at age (years) of red snapper in four 

regions of the Gulf of Mexico .................................. 6 

4 Length (mm)-weight (g) relations for red snapper ............... 7 

5 Recreational catch of red snapper (thousands of fish) 

in the Gulf States, 1979-85 .................................... 12 

6 Prey items found in the greatest frequency of occurrence 

in juvenile and adult red snapper and the greatest volume 

in juveniles in the Cdlf of Mexico ............................. 13 

7 Prey items found in stomachs of juvenile and adult red 

snapper in the Gulf of Mexico .................................. 14 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I am grateful for reviews by Russell Nelson, Florida Marine Fisheries Commission, Tallahassee; Charles Manooch 111, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Beaufort, North Carolina; and John Finucane, Churchi 11 Grimes, and A1 lan Col 1 ins 

of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, Florida. 
Figure 1. Adult red snapper Lutjanus campechanus (from Vergara-R. 1978). 

RED SNAPPER 

Scientific name.. . Lutjanus cam echanus 

Preferred common name.. .. (Figure 1) 

* 

Other common names ........ Sow snapper, 

rat snapper (northwest coast of 

Florida) ; mule snapper, chicken 

snapper (northeast coast of Florida); gulf red snapper, American red 

snapper 

Class ..................... Osteichthyes 

Order. ..................... Perci formes 

Family ...................... Lutjanidae 

Geographic range: the continental 

she1 ves bordering the Gulf of Mexico 

(Figure 2) and the Atlantic Coast as 

far north as Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina; not reported in the Caribbean Sea (Rivas 1966, 1970). 

MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS 

The following descriptions are taken 

from Rivas (1966), Anderson (1967), 

and Vergara-R. (1978). Anderson ' s 

description includes fish that are 

Caribbean red snapper, 

ur ureus, which he 

--T conspeci ic with L. cam echanus; he 

suggested the name L* the 

composite. The name C b ac fordii is 

an obsolete name for-the red snapper. 

Distinguishing Characters 

of Red Sna~~er 

Dorsal fin IX-X spines, usually X, 

13-15 soft rays, usually 14; anal fin 

111-IV, usually 111, 8-10, usually 9; 

pectoral fin rays 15-18, usually 17; 

scales on lateral 1 ine usually 45-47; 

gill rakers on lower limb of anterior 

arch (excluding rudiments) 9. Head 

large; lower jaw projecting sl ightly 

beyond upper; snout somewhat pointed; 

eyes small, contained more than 6.5 

times in head length; interorbital 

region convex in the transverse plane; 

anchor-shaped patch of strong teeth on 

roof of mouth, a posterior median 

extension of the patch moderately 

developed. Pectoral fins long, 

reaching to anus when pressed against 

body; anal fin angulate in specimens 

longer than 50 mm; margin of caudal 

fin deeply notched. 

Color: back and upper sides brick 

red to scarlet; lower sides and belly 

rose-colored to white, especial ly in 

front. Iris of eye red. Dark spot on 

upper area of each side below anterior 

soft dorsal fin rays, disappearing in 

specimens over 250 mm long. 

Occasional bluish stripes on sides of 

juveniles. 

Distinguishing Characters of Similar 

S~ecies from the Same General Area 

Lut 'anus vivanus (si 1 k snapper): 

body _t co or D- red: iris of eye 

yeli~w; 8 soft rays in anal fin. 

Lutjanis anal i s (mutton snapper): 

tooth patch roof of mouth 

chevron-shaped, without a posterior 

extension; back, upper sides, and 

upper lobe of caudal fin 01 ive green; 

two blue stripes on snout and cheek; 

dark spot on each side below soft rays 

of dorsal fin persisting throughout 

life. 

Lut 'anis purpures (Caribbean red 

snapper occurring only in the 

Caribbean Sea and in the Atlantic 

coastal waters of South America. 

All other species of Lutjanus: anal 

fin rounded and color at terns different from - L. campechanus. 

Pristi omoides a ui lonaris (wenchman *d + rose to 

pink; interorbi tal region flat; snout 

short and blunt; tooth patch on roof 

of mouth triangular or chevron-shaped, 

without a posterior extension; only 

10-11 soft rays in dorsal fin. 

Rhombo 1 i tes aurorubens (vermi 1 ion 

sniZack and upper sides 

vermilion; tooth patch on roof of 

mouth rhomboid; dorsal fin XI1 to 

XIII, 10-11. 

REASONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE SERIES 

The red snapper is the most important fish in the commercial snappergrouper fishery between Cape San Bl as, 

Florida, and the mouth of the Rio 

Grande (A1 len and Tashiro 1976); 4.6 

mill ion Ib were landed commercially at 

U.S. ports in the Gulf of Mexico in 

1985 (National Marine Fisheries Service 1986, unpubl. data). The red 

snapper ranked 19th in number of fish 

caught among groups of sport fish for 

which statistics were recorded in the 

Gulf of Mexico in 1985; about 2 

million red snapper were caught by 

sport fishermen in the gulf that year 

(National Marine Fisheries Service 

1986a). 

LIFE HISTORY 

Spawning 

Red snapper usually show partial 

sexual maturity when 1 year old and 

show full maturity when about 2 years 

old and 375 mm in fork length (FL) 

(Table 1). 

In general, red snapper spawn in 

summer and fa1 1 in the Gulf of Mexico. 

They have one peak spawning period in 

Florida waters and two peaks in Texas 

waters (Table 2). 

Individual fish probably spawn several times during the spawning season 

(several egg stages occur simul taneously in the ovaries); the protracted 

spawning season and variation in 

gonadosomatic indices in fish of similar size during the season are consistent with this hypothesis (Coll ins et 

al. 1987). 

The fish spawn primarily away from 

reefs (Bradley and Bryan 1975). 

Spawning was reported at depths of 

18-37 m over a firm sand bottom with 

1 ittle re1 ief (Beaumariage and Bull ock 

1976). 

Fecundity of fish sampled in northwest Florida ranged from 0.2 million 

3 
Table 1. Estimated length and aye at maturity of red snapper in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

Age at Age at Length at Length at Total 

partial full partial full fish 

matut i ty maturity maturity maturity sampl ed Reference 

b 325 mm(~~)~ b b Camber (1955)' 

375 mm(FL) 298 Collins et al. 

(1986) and Nelson 

and Manooch 

(1982) d'e 

2 b b 559 Futch and Bruger 

(1976) e'f 

a Females. 

b~o data. 

C Maturity was determined by macroscopic exami nation of ovaries. 

d~ge was determined mostly from scale annuli. Maturity was determined by macroscopic and microscopic examination of ovaries and calculation of the gonadosoe 

matic index. 

The monthly distribution of marginal incremental growth beyond the last annul us 

was used to determine that annuli are formed annually. 

f~ge was determined from otol i th annul i . Maturity was determined by macroscopic 

examination of ovaries. 

eggs for a female about 3 years old 

and 386 mm FL to 9.3 million for a 

fish about 12 years old and 754 mm FL 

(Coll ins et al. 1987). 

Red snapper eggs average 0.82 mm in 

diameter (range: 0.77-0.85 mm). The 

egg is pelagic, spherical, unpigmented, and transparent, and has a 

single oil globule (Raibalais et al. 

1980). In the laboratory, initial 

hatchi ng began 20 h after f erti 1 i zation (Minton et al. 1983), and about 

50% of the eggs hatched within 25 h of 

ferti 1 ization (Raibalai s et a1 . 1980). 

Larvae 

Newly hatched larvae in the laboratory averaged 2.2 mm in standard 

length (SL) according to Raibalais et 

a1 . (1980). The larvae began actively 

feeding on culture of alga and 

rotifers 3 days after hatching and 

were 2.5 mm SL 4 days after hatching 

(Raibalais et al. 1980). Lutjanid 

larvae collected in the field could be 

identified only to family by Collins 

et al. (1980), who also reported that 

the head was proportionately large and 

head length was about equal to body 

depth for red snapper larvae and 

juveniles 4-22 mm SL. 

Juveni 1 es and Adults 

The peak abundance of juveniles is 

in shallower water (20-46 m deep) than 

the peak density of adults (Figure 2; 

Bradley and Bryan 1975). Juveni 1 e red 

snapper were caught in trawls on the 

Texas shrimp grounds (Bradley and 

Bryan 1975). 
Table 2. Spawning periods of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico 

Number 

Spawning of fish 

Region season(s) Peak sampled Reference 

Texas May to July and May to July 569 Brad1 ey ang 

November to and November Bryan 1976 

December 

West Florida July to October August to 314 Futch and Bruger 

September 1976~ 

Northwest Florida May to September July 729 Coll ins et a1 . 1986 

a On the basis of macroscopic examination of ovaries. 

bOn the basis of gonadosomatic index and both macroscopic and microscopic examination of ovaries. 

Instantaneous natural mortality (M) 

was estimated to be 0.19 in West 

Florida and 0.20 in Louisiana by 

Nelson and Manooch (1982). They also 

reported that instantaneous total 

mortality (2) was estimated at 0.78 or 

0.94 in Louisiana (depending on the 

method of calculation) and 0.42 or 

0.44 along the west coast of Florida. 

They determined Z by sampling 

commercial catches. 

Movement 

Adult red snapper remain in their 

reef habitations during cooler months. 

Tagging studies general ly indicate 

little movement, particularly when the 

fish are released in water less than 

14 m deep (Topp 1963; Beaumariage and 

Wi tti ch 1966; Beaumariage and Bull ock 

1976; Fable 1980). Adult red snapper 

sometimes move close to shore in summer; they were collected in trawls in 

the lower parts of the St. Andrew Bay 

system, Florida, in summer and fall 

but not in winter and spring (Ogren 

and Brusher 1977). Occasional tagged 

adults were caught 5-150 nmi from the 

point of release after 29-1,163 days 

of freedom (Beaumari age and Wi tti ch 

1966; Moe 1966; Beaumariage 1969). 

GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS 

Red snapper initial ly grow quickly 

and then growth slows steadily as 

larger size associated with long life 

span expectancy is reached. They grow 

from 137-177 mm TL at age 1 to 538-546 

mm TL at age 5 and 784-794 mm TL at 

age 11 (Table 3). They may reach 845 

mm FL and 12 kg (Bradley and Bryan 

1975) and an age of about 13 years 

(Nelson and Manooch 1982). Variation 

is considerable but is similar at each 

age, probably because of the protracted spawning season (Futch and Bruger 

1976). Red snapper ages were determined with similar results using 

otol i ths , scales, and vertebrae of 

fish off Alabama (Bortone and 

Hol 1 i ngsworth 1980), and using 

otoliths and scales of fish off the 

Carol i nas (Nel son and Manooch 1982). 

Scale annulus formation off the U.S. 

gulf coast is complete by early summer 

for fish ages 2 and older (Parrack 

1986a). 

In the gulf, underyearling fish grew 

25 mm/month in August and September 
Table 3. Length (mm) at age (years) of red snapper in four regions of the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Northwestern gul fa ~ouisiana~'~ ~labama~'~ Western ~lorida~'~ 

Age SL Age TL Age TL Age T L 

a Moseley (1966). Most fish were taken in winter. Age was determined from 

scale annul i . Lengths i ncl ude part-year increments after formation of the 

last annulus. Total sample size was 243 fish. 

b~ack-cal culated 1 engths. 

'Nel son and Manooch (1982). Age was usual ly determined from scales (sometimes 

also from otol iths). Total sample size was 443 fish for western Florida and 

402 fish for Louisiana. 

d~ade (1981). Age was determined from scale annuli. Total sample size was 

238. 

according to Bradley and Bryan (1975). 

Annual growth of fish of ages I to IV 

or V in the gulf ranged from 60 to 75 

mm (Bradley and Bryan 1975) to 90 mm 

(Mosel ey 1966). 

The relations of SL to FL and FL to 

TL (lengths in mm) and N (sample size) 

were reported by Futch and Bruger 

(1976) as follows: 

Nelson and Manooch (1982) reported the 

following relation: 

length relations show a high linear 

correlation ( Parrack 1986b). 

Length-weight relations calculated 

for several areas in the gulf were 

similar (Table 4; Parrack 1986b). The 

length-weight relation changed at 

190-300 mm SL (Moseley 1966). 

Nelson and Manooch (1982) reported 

von Bertalanffy growth equations for 

fish from two areas in the gulf as 

follows (Lt = TI- in mm and t = age in 

years): 

Louisiana: 

Lt = 950(1-e -0.175(t-0.10)) 

Additional length-length re1 ations are West Florida: 

Lt = 941(1-e -O.l70(t+O. lo)) given in Parrack (1986b). Length- 
Table 4. Length (mm)-weight (g) relations for red snapper. 

Region Equation Reference 

West Florida loglow = 2.966 logloFL - 4.7399 Nelson and Manooch (1982)~ 

Florida Males: loglow = 3.008 logloFL - 4.8104 Futch and Bruger (1976) b 

Females: loglow = 3.028 logioFL - 4.8618 

A1 abama logl,\ = 3.0092 logloTL - 4.8539 Wade (1981)~ 

Texas loglow = 2.885 logloFL - 4.483 Wakeman et al. (1979)~ 

Campeche (for fish iogloW = 3.01 logloFL - 4.7921 Camber (1955)~ 

90-190 mm FL) 

a~ = 143. 'N = 722. e~ not given. 

b~ = 240. d~ = 90. 

They found that the von Bertalanffy 

growth curves for Louisiana, western 

Florida, eastern Florida, and the Carolinas differed. statistically, as did 

the length-weight relations for fish 

from west Florida, east Florida, and 

the Carol inas. However, the differences in growth curves were small and 

the differences in length-weight 

curves had little if any biological 

significance. Parrack (1986a) 

reported di fferences i n growth curves 

between fish west of and fish east of 

the Mississippi Delta. This difference was inconclusive, however (Reef 

Fish Scientific Task Team and Special 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

1987). 

FISHERIES 

Snappers are especial ly vulnerable 

to fishermen because, during cooler 

months, the fish will remain in a 

fishing area (reef habitat) until it 

is overfished (Duffy 1970), and 

sometimes rise to the surface and 

snap at bare hooks or whatever is 

offered--hence the name "snapper"' 

(Stearns 1885). 

Fishing mortal i ty in the gulf varies 

with location. Nelson and Manooch 

(1982) estimated instantaneous fishing 

mortality to be 0.58 or 0.74 in 

Louisiana (depending on the method of 

calculation) and 0.23 or 0.25 in west 

Florida. Mean age of the total catch 

was less in Louisiana (2.4 years) than 

in west Florida (4.1 years), possibly 

because of the heavier fishing pressure in Louisiana. Fishing mortality 

was higher in Louisiana partly because 

the fishing reefs are closer to shore 

there and thus more accessible (Nelson 

and Manooch 1982). 

About 2,300 oi 1 production platforms 

off the Louisiana coast enhance 

snapper fishing by providing threedimensional habitat (St. Amant 1976) ; 

it has not been determined if artificial habitat primarily increases or 

mostly just redistributes adult populations. 

The total standing stock for all 

species of snappers along the South 

Atlantic and gulf coasts of the United 

States was estimated at 350 million 1b 

(Kl ima 1976). Red snapper 1 andi ngs 

were worth about l% of the value of 
all finfish landed commercially in the 

United States in 1985 (National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1986b). The number 

of red snapper caught by sport fishermen was about 19;: of the total number 

of fish of all species caught in the 

recreational fisheries of the Atlantic 

and gulf coasts in 1985 (National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1986a). 

Commercial Fi shery 

Snappers and groupers are often 

taken together in the snapper-grouper 

fishery. Various fishing methods for 

snappers and groupers have been used 

or tested over the years. Most commercial fishing is done with baited 

hooks and lines on electric and hydraulic reels which were too expensive 

unti 1 recently (Churchi 11 Grimes, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Panama City, Florida; pers. comm. ). 

(These are all classified as handlines 

in National Marine Fisheries Service 

fishery statistics.) From 2 to 40 

hooks may be used with one reel (Allen 

and Tashiro 1976). Ladyfish and squid 

are the most effective bait (Carpenter 

1965); red snapper select fish and 

squid equally often (Futch and Bruger 

1976). The industry has experimented 

with other fishing methods, but many 

were deficient; an otter trawl adapted 

for rough bottoms was effective, however (Smith 1948; Captiva and Rivers 

1960; Nelson and Carpenter 1968). An 

extensive bottom long1 i ne fishery that 

may take red snapper has developed in 

the Gulf of Mexico since about 1980 

(Russel 1 Nel son, Florida Marine 

Fisheries Commission, Tallahassee; 

pers. comm. ). The longline fishery in 

the eastern gulf has been directed 

primarily at ye1 lowedge grouper 

fl avo1 imbatus) (Parrack 

Commercial fishing grounds for red 

snapper are we1 1 offshore in the Gulf 

of Mexico (Figure 3). In 1955, the 

most important fishing grounds had 

long been the Campeche Banks off the 

Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, which were 

the principal grounds fished by the 

west Florida fleet (Camber 1955; 

Hi ldebrand 1955). Fishing there by 

American boats has been curtailed, 

however, since the extension of 

Mexico's fishery conservation zone to 

the 200-mi limit (Deborah Fable, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Panama City, Florida; pers. comm. ). 

Red snapper landings from foreign 

waters have composed less than 13% of 

the total U. S. landings since 1973 

(Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Counci 1 1981). 

Western Florida landings varied 

widely over the years (Figure 4; 

Camber 1955). They increased progressively as the fishery developed from 

1880 to 1902, stabilized as the 

Campeche Banks were exploited during 

1902-28, dropped with reduced effort 

during the Great Depression of 

1929-35, increased again as the 

economy began to recover in 1936-39, 

decl ined markedly with reduced effort 

from 1939 to 1945 during World War 11, 

and then began to recover again around 

1946 (Figure 4; Camber 1955). 

In the early 19601s, large numbers 

of commercial vessels were built to 

fish for snappers and groupers 

(Carpenter 1965). The average number 

of handline vessels in western 

Florida was 180 in 1957-60; increased 

to 290 in 1961-65; leveled off at 260 

in 1966-70; and increased again to 

320 in 1971-74. The average total 

number of handline fishermen in western Florida was 780 in 1957-60; 

increased to 1200 in 1961-65; and 

stabilized at 1030-1100 in 1967-74 

(Florida Sea Grant College 1980; Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

1981). 

Landings for western Florida 

declined greatly during 1982-85 to the 

second-1 owest 1 eve1 ever recorded 

(Figure 4). In 1983-85 catch per unit 

of effort (catch rate) was relatively 

high, but declined 26% during that 

period in the gulf east of the 

Mississippi River Delta for fish 3 

0 

a WEST FLOHIOA 

1660 1900 1920 1940 1960 1960 

YEAR 

Figure 4. Annual commercial 1 andi ngs 

of red snapper (in mil 1 ions of pounds) 

in Florida and Alabama, 1880-1985 

(from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1967; National Marine Fisheries 

Service [1986], unpubl . data). 

years old and older in the bottomlong1 i ne and rod-and-reel fisheries 

(Parrac k and McCl el 1 an 1986). A1 so 

in 1983-85, a recent stock assessment 

showed that initial biomass (without 

recruits) decl ined 17% and recruitment 

biomass declined 98% in this area 

(Parrack and McCl el 1 an 1986). 

The principal commercial fishing 

grounds used by fishermen from 

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and 

Texas are on the reefs offshore from 

those States (Figure 3). The average 

number of hand1 ine vessels in Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas 

together was 150 in 1957-60 and 180 in 

1961-65; declined to 90 in 1966-70; 

and levelled off at 80 in 1971-74. 

The average size of the vessels 

increased from 30 gross tons in 1957 

to 61 gross tons in 1974 (Florida Sea 

Grant College 1980; Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Counci 1 1981). 

Landings peaked in the early 1960's 

in Alabama and Texas (Figures 4-5), 

and in 1968 in Mississippi (Figure 6). Landings in Alabama, Texas, 

LOUISIANA 

1660 1900 1920 1940 1960 1960 

YEAR 

Figure 5. Annual commercial landings 

of red snapper (in mill ions of pounds) 

in Louisiana and Texas, 1880-1985 

(from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1967; National Marine Fisheries 

Service, unpubl . data). 

and Mississippi declined 73%-93% after 

these peaks in the 1960's (Figures 

4-6), but Louisiana landings increased 

to a record high in 1984 (Figure 5). 

A recent stock assessment showed that 

estimated initial biomass (without 

recruits) declined 45%, but estimated 

recruitment biomass increased 2l%, for 

red snapper west of the Mississippi 

River Delta between 1980 and 1985 

(Parrack and McCl el 1 an 1986). 

An increase in the number of fishing 

boats and trips may cause competition 

among boats, because the number of 

boats that can make a good catch in 

the prime fishing areas is limited; 

competition among boats reduces the 

catch per unit of fishing effort. On 

the Campeche Banks, the catch rate 

(catch per unit effort) declined from 

1937 to 1940, when the number of fishing trips (and probably, therefore, 

the competition) increased, and then 

increased greatly from 1941 to 1945 

when competition probably decl ined 

because of reduced fishing effort 

during World War 11. The catch rate 
0 

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 

YEAR 

Figure 6. Annual commercial landings 

of red snapper (in millions of pounds) 

in Mississippi, 1920-1985 (from U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1967; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

unpubl . data). 

declined from 1948 to 1951, but 

competition probably a1 so decl i ned 

(Camber 1955). 

Red snapper and associated species 

are usually gutted when caught (Carpenter 1965) and are stored in ice 

aboard the vessels (rather than in 

live wells)--a practice that began in 

the late 19th century (Warren 1897). 

At least 10 species are marketed as 

red snapper (Rivas 1966). 

In the commercial fisheries for finfish and shellfish in the gulf, the 

red snapper fishery ranks eighth in 

total weight, seventh in total value, 

and sixth in price per pound (National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1986b and 

unpubl. data). Tne only species 

regularly exploited by offshore fisheries in the western gulf are the red 

snapper and gulf menhaden, Brevoortia 

patronus (Hi 1 debrand 1954). The red 

snapper is the most important of about 

17 species in the U.S. snapper fishery 

(Allen and Tashiro 1976). In the 

northern gulf, it made up about 86% of 

the total value of the catch by the 

large vessels (56-ft to 69-ft long) in 

the snapper-grouper fishery that could 

reach distant fishing grounds, and 

in the southeastern gulf, it made up 

about 37% of the total value of the 

catch by all vessels in the fishery 

(Cato and Prochaska 1976). At the 

time of Cato and Prochaska's study, 

the Campeche banks were not fished 

substantially by American boats for 

pol i tical reasons. Total profits were 

greater for the larger vessels in the 

northern gulf because the value per 

pound was higher for red snapper than 

for the other species that predominated in the southeastern gulf 

(Cato and Prochaska 1976). 

Sport Fishery 

The red snapper is one of the most 

desired species of sport fish in the 

gul f. Sportf i shi ng grounds over1 ap 

commercial grounds (Figure 3). In 

1965 and 1970, the weight of the commercial catch was less than that of 

the sport catch (Nakamura 1976). 

Sportf i s hi ng boats range from small 

12-ft private boats to 85-ft party 

boats (head boats). The number of 

boats increased from 1956 to 1976 and 

probably partly displaced the inshore 

commercial fishery (A1 len and Tashi ro 

1976; St. Amant 1976). 

Between 1982 and 1985, the gulf 

coast sport fishery catch of red snapper declined by about 60% in Florida 

and 78% in Louisiana (Table 5). In 

western Florida, the commercial catch 

also declined sharply between 1982 and 

1985. In Louisiana, the commercial 

fishery may have supplanted the 

recreational fishery over this period 

(Figure 5). 

The largest annual sport catch for 

Louisiana from 1979 (when accurate 

statistics became available) to 1985 

was about 2.7 million fish--the 

highest recorded for any gulf state 

for the same time period (Table 5). 

For that period, Alabama's sport catch 

fluctuated with high catches about 
Table 5. Recreational catch of red snapper (thousands of fish) in the 

Gulf States, 1979-85 (from National Marine Fisheries Service 1984, 

1985a, 1985b, 1986). 

Florida 

Gulf 

Year Coast A1 abama Mississippi Louisiana Texas 

a~o data. 

every other year; in years between 

1979 and 1985, when the sport catch 

was higher (1979, 1981, and 1983), the 

commercial catch was a1 so generally 

higher--except that the commercial 

catch peaked in 1982. A trend in the 

Texas catch could not be determined 

because too few data were available. 

Mississippi's catch remained very low 

(Table 5), and the commercial catch in 

1985 was the lowest in 17 years (Figure 6). Current regulations in the 

U.S. waters of the gulf allow a maximum of 5 fish less than 12 inches FL 

per trip for headboats. 

In summary, the sport catch and commercial catch were sometimes positively correlated--possibly because 

both declined after heavy fishing 

pressure or because of a natural 30- 

month cycle in abundance (Camber 

1955)--and sometimes negatively 

correlated, possibly because one 

fishery replaced the other (Allen and 

Tashi ro 1976). 

ECOLOGICAL ROLE 

Feeding Habits 

Juvenile and adult red snapper are 

carnivorous. Small zooplankters were 

common prey of juveniles up to 150 mm 

FL, but the fish probably start to 

prefer larger prey when they are about 

100 mm FL (Bradley and Bryan 1976). 

Stomachs of juveniles most frequently 

contained shrimp throughout the year 

in the Gulf of Mexico (Camber 1955; 

Bradley and Bryan 1976). Other 

crustaceans (including crabs), fish, 

and squid were found in 2%-10% of the 

sampled fish. The types of prey that 

contributed the greatest percentage by 

volume to the diet of juveniles were 

squid, octopuses, and shrimp (Table 

6). Juveniles and adults eat a large 

variety of species of moll uscs, 

crustaceans, and fishes (Table 7). 

Camber (1955) reported that adult 

red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico took 

the following prey (in decreasing 

order of frequency of occurrence): 

shrimp, small reef fish, crabs, and 

gastropods. He stated that tunicates 

may be taken in spring. 

Futch and Bruger (1976) stated that 

red snapper may feed over sand, shell, 

or mud bottoms next to reefs or other 

rocky bottoms. Many of the prey of 

red snapper are found over level 

bottoms adjacent to the reefs, rather 

than on the reefs themselves (Davis 

1975). 
Table 6. Prey items found in the greatest frequency of occurrence in juvenile 

and adult red snapper and the greatest volume in juveniles in the Gulf of Mexico 

(from Bradley and Bryan 1976). 

Season 

Juveni les 

Greatest Greatest 

Adults 

Greatest 

frequency percentage frequency 

of occurrence of vo 1 ume of occurrence 

Winter Shrimp (25%) Shrimp (48%) Fish (83%) 

Spring Shrimp (6%) Shrimp (75%) Fish (39%) 

Summer Shrimp (53%) Squid (41%) Lesser blue crab (36%) 

Fa1 1 Shrimp (83%) Octopuses (45%) Fish (55%) 

Competition, Predation, and Parasitism Habitat 

The grey snapper (Lut 'anis riseus) 

orobablv comoeti t+ bs 

j'uvenile red snapper ?ram inshore 

waters in some localities (Smith 

1976). Sharks sometimes strike at 

fish being brought up by hook and line 

(Brad1 ey and Bryan 1976). Parasitic 

leeches have been found attached to 

the gills of red snapper (Williams 

1979). 

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 

Temperature and Salinity 

Red snapper have been taken at 13-32 

"C (Rivas 1970; Roe 1976). One of a 

sample of seven red snapper died at 

12.5 "C--near the lower tolerance 

1 imi t-- i n a 1 aboratory test (Moore 

1973). The upper tolerance limit is 

about 33.5 'C (Rivas 1970). A 

salinity of 60 ppt was lethal to all 

red snapper in a laboratory test, but 

they survived exposure to about 45 ppt 

without serious effects (Huff and 

Burns 1981). They are marine fish and 

have been taken in waters of 33-37 ppt 

(Mosel ey 1966). 

In the laboratory, red snapper under 

simulated natural conditions s awned 

in water of 23-25 "C and 31- 4 ppt 

(Arnold et al. 1978). 

P 

Red snapper are common in submarine 

gullies and depressions where food may 

accumulate and over coral reefs, rock 

outcrops, and gravel bottoms in the 

Gulf of Mexico (Stearns 1885; Klima 

1976). Usually, fewer fish are supported by smooth bottom without high 

relief than by bottom with threedimensional structures, such as offshore oil and gas rigs, artificial 

reefs, and wrecks (Johnston et al. 

1976; Sonnier et al. 1976). 

Depth 

In Texas, juvenile red snapper moved 

offshore from shallow water (about 

15-30 m) in summer to deep water 

(about 35-60 m) in winter, based on 

depths of capture by trawl (Moseley 

1966; Bradley and Bryan 1975). The 

movement may be a means of avoiding 

cooler inshore water in winter. The 

actual cue for movement, however, was 

not a drop in water temperature, 

because movement occurred before the 

temperature declined. Nelson and 

Manooch (1982) reported no size 

segregation between shallow (~35 m) 

and deep (>35 m) waters off the 

Carol inas. 

Red snapper were abundant at depths 

of about 40-110 m (Carpenter 1965) and 
Table 7. Prey items found in stomachs of juvenile and adult red snapper in the 

Gulf of Mexico (from Stearns 1885, Felder 1973, Davis 1975, and Futch and Bruger 

1976). This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. 

Moll uscs 

Bivalves 

Laevicardi um pictum 

Gastropods 

Pleuro loca gigantea 

mia e7 wi cox1 

'Squid' (Lo1 igo sp. ) 

Crustaceans 

Stomatopods 

Saui 1 1 a emDusa 

* Trach enaeus' constrictus 

Decapods (continued) 

s or fun us ' i bbesi i 

Cal linectes -7 simi is 

C. danae 

re todius agassizii 

hunzi 

Parthino e serrata 

4;-d i a 

Rani no1 des sp. 

Majid crab 

Prlono lax atlantica 

Teleos -4-F ean ishes 

Gulf pipefish 

Shoal flounder 

S hoeroides 

Pe Fi lus armffam; 1 ) 

+C~i,P1 ;ctruY formosum 1 

O~hichthids na e ee ". 

C\ upeids errin in^ family) 

1~) 

- i na) 

have been caught at 7-146 m (Moseley 

1966; Rivas 1970). 

Contaminants 

Concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons were lower in flesh samples of 

red snapper than in samples of species 

with a higher natural oil content (>3% 

oil), though contaminant levels in 

this group, too, were low (Stout 

1980). Wet red snapper fillets had an 

average of 0.039 ppm DDT and 

metabolites; the U. S. legal rnaxin'lum 

is 5 ppm (Stout 1980). The same 

fillets had 0.121 ppm PCB's; the U.S. 

legal maximum is 3 ppnl. Only one of 

nine samples of red snapper had 

detectable levels of the pesticides 

dieldrin and endrin. 

Red snapper in an offshore oilfield 

were not c~ntami nated with petroleum 

hydrocarbons, although 13 other 

species of fish were contaminated 

(Middleditch et al. 1979). No evidence of toxic effects was found in 

testes of five male red snapper from 

oilfields in the gulf (Scott et al. 

1980). 
REFERENCES 

A1 1 en, D. M. , and J. E. Tashi ro. 1976. 

Status of the U.S. commercial 

snapper-grouper fishery. Pages 

41-76 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and A.C. 

Jones ,Tds. Proceedings: col loquium on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western central 

Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant 

Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

Anderson, W.D., Jr. 1967. Field 

guide to the snappers (Lutjanidae) 

of the western Atlantic. U.S. Fish 

Wildl. Serv. Circ. 252. 14 pp. 

Arnold, C.R., J.M. Wakeman, T.D. Williams, and G.D. Treece. 1978. 

Spawning of red snapper (Lut anus 

cam echanus) in captivity.* 

b3) : 301-302. 

Bean, T. H. 1887. Notes on a young 

red snapper (Lut anus blackfordii) 

from Great Sou* Long Island. 

Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 10:512. 

Beaumariage, D. S. 1969. Returns from 

the 1965 Schlitz tagging program 

including a cumulative analysis of 

previous results. Fla. Dep. Nat. 

Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 

59. 38pp. 

Beaumariage, D. S. , and L. H. Bull ock. 

1976. Biological research on snappers and groupers as related to 

fishery management requirements. 

Pages 86-94 in H. R. Bull is, Jr. , and 

A. C. Jones, Tds. Proceedings: colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery 

resources of the western central 

Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant 

Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

Beaumariage, D.S., and A.C. Wittich. 

1966. Returns from the 1964 Schlitz 

tagging program. Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 47. 

51 PP. 

Bortone, S. A. , and C. C. Holl i ngsworth. 

1980. Ageing red snapper, Lut 'anus 

campechanus, with othol i ths ,* 

and vertebrae. Northeast Gulf Sci . 4: 60-63. 

Bradley, E. , and C. E. Bryan. 1975. 

Life history and fishery of the red 

snapper (Lutjanus cam echanus) in 

the northwestern Gul *xico: 

1970-1974. Proc. Gulf Carrib. Fish. 

Inst. 27: 77-106. 

Camber, C.I. 1955. A survey of the 

red snapper fishery of the Gulf of 

Mexico, with special reference to 

the Campeche Banks. Fla. Board 

Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 

12. 64pp. 

Captiva, F. J. , and J.B. Kivers. 1960. 

Development and use of ottertrawling gear for red snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, June, 

1957-May, 1959. Con~mer. Fish. Rev. 

22(10): 1-14. 

Carpenter, J.S. 1965. A review of 

the Gulf of Mexico red snapper 

fishery. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 

Circ. 208. 35 pp. 

Cato, J.C. , and F. J. Prochaska. 1976. 

The Gulf of Mexico commercial and 

recreational red snapper-grouper 

fishery: an economic analysis of 

production, marketing, and prices. 

Pages 95-128 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., 

and A.C. JoneS; eds. Proceedings: 

col 1 oqui um on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western central 
Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant 

Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

Collins, L.A., J.H. Finucane, and L.E. 

Barger. 1980. Description of larval 

and juveni 1 e red snapper, Lut 'anus 

cam echanus. U.S. Natl. MadZF 

Bull 77(4): 965-974. 

Collins, L.A., J.H. Finucane, and H.A. 

Brusher. [1987]. Reproductive biology of the red snapper, Lutjanus 

cam echanus (Poey), from three areas -f%7 a ong t e southeastern coast of the 

United States. U. S. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Panama City, Fla. 

Unpubl. MS. 21 pp. 

Davis, J. K. 1975. Factors i nf 1 uencing the presence of red snamer 

(Lut'anus cam echanus Poey) on seven 

an A-bm Reef. M.S. 

Thesis. Texas A&I University, 

Kingsville. 110 pp. 

Duffy, M. 1970. Snappers are sociable. La. Conserv. 22(1):26-27. 

Fable, W.A., Jr. 1980. Tagging studies of red snapper (Lutjanus 

and vermi 1 ion snapper 

aurorubens) off the 

coast. Contrib. Mar. 

Sci . 23: 115-121. 

Felder, D. L. 1973. A record of 

Pinnixa 1 unzi Glossel 1 (Decapoda, 

Pinnother-%k?J from off the coast of 

Texas, U. S. A. Crustaceana 24(1) : 

148-149. 

Florida Sea Grant College. 1980. 

Appendix to the Environmental Impact 

Statement and fishery management 

plan for reef fish resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico 

Fi s hery Management Counci 1 , Tampa, 

Florida. 101 pp. 

Futch, R.B. , and G. E. Bruger. 1976. 

Age, growth, and reproduction of red 

snapper in Florida waters. Pages 

165-184 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and 

A.C. Jonez eds. Proceedings: colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery 

resources of the western central 

Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant 

Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

Grimes, C.B., C.S. Manooch 111, G.R. 

Hutsman, and R. L.. Dixon. 1977. Red 

snappers of the Carolina coast. 

Mar. Fish. Rev. 39:12-15. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Counci 1. 1981. Fishery management 

plan for the reef fish fishery of 

the Gulf of mexico. Pages 1-1 to 

10-12 in Environmental impact statement aid fishery management plan for 

the reef fish resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Counci 1 , Tampa, Florida. 

Hildebrand, H.H. 1954. A study of 

the fauna of the brown shrimp 

(Penaeus aztecus Ives) grounds in 

theterTGi'I7 of Mexico. Publ. 

Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 

3(2): 1-366. 

Hildebrand, H.H. 1955. A study of 

the pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum 

Burkenroad) groundsine -'GiiTZ 

Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 

Univ. Tex. 4(1): 169-232. 

Holt, S.A., and C.R. Arnold. 1982. 

Growth of juveni 1 e red snapper 

Lutjanus cam echanus in the northwestern Gu kco. U.S. Natl. 

Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 80(3): 

644- 648. 

Huff, J.A., and C.D. Burns. 1981. 

Hypersal i ne and chemical control of 

Cryptocaryon i rri tans in red snapper, Lut 'anus cam echanus, monocul ture+culb-184. 

Huntsman, G. R. 1976. Offshore headboat fishing in North Carolina and 

South ~aroiina. Mar. Fish. Rev. 

38: 13-23. 

Johnston, J.B., J. K. Adams, and R. 

Foster. 1976. The red snapper 

resource of the Texas Continental 

Shelf. Pages 237-247 in H.R. 

Bul lis, Jr. , and A. C. Jones, eds. 
Proceedings: col 1 oqui um on snappergrouper resources of the western 

central Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea 

Grant Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

Klima, E.F. 1976. Snapper and grouper resources of the western central 

Atlantic Ocean. Pages 5-40 in H.R. 

Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones, eds. 

Proceedings: col 1 oqui um on snappergrouper resources of the western 

central Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea 

Grant Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

Middleditch, B.S., E.S. Chang, B. 

Basile, and S.R. Misler. 1979. 

A1 kanes in fish from the Buccaneer 

Oil field. Bull. Environ. Contam. 

Toxic. 22: 249-257. 

Moe, M.A., Jr. 1966. Tagging fishes 

in Florida offshore waters. Fla. 

Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. 

Ser. 49. 40 pp. 

Moore, R.H. 1973. The effect of temperature and swimming speed on the 

oxygen consumption of two snappers, 

~utjnus campechanu (Poey) and + Rhom o 11 tes auroru ens (Cuvier). 

ontr~b Mar. Sci. 17:53-61. 

Moseley, F.N. 1966. Biology of the 

red snapper, Lutjanus Block, of 

the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 

11: 90-101. 

Nakamura, E. L. 1976. Recreational 

fisheries for snappers and groupers 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Pages 77-85 

- in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones, 

eds. Proceedings: colloquium on 

snapper-grouper fishery resources of 

the western central Atlantic Ocean. 

Fla. Sea Grant Coll. Rep. 17. 333 

PP. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

1984. Marine recreational fishery 

statistics survey, Atlantic and gulf 

coasts, 1979 (revised). 1980. U.S. 

Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. 

Stat. 8322. 239 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1985a. Marine recreational fishery 

statistics survey, Atlantic and gulf 

coasts, 1981-1982. U.S. Natl. Mar. 

Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8324. 

215 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

1985b. Marine recreational fishery 

statistics survey, Atlantic and gulf 

coasts, 1983-1984. U.S. Natl. Mar. 

Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8326. 

222 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

1986a. Marine recreational fishery 

statistics survey, Atlantic and gulf 

coasts, 1985. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. 

Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8327. 

130 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

1986b. Fisheries of the United 

States, 1985. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. 

Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8380. 

121 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1985. Gulf of Mexico 

and Ocean Zones Strategic .Assessment: Data Atlas. NOAA, National 

Ocean Service. n.p. 

Nelson, R. S. , and C. S. Manooch. 1982. 

Growth and mortality of red snappers 

in the west-central Atlantic Ocean 

and northern Gulf of Mexico. Trans. 

Am. Fi sh. Soc. 111: 465-475. 

Nelson, W. R. , and J. S. Carpenter. 

1968. Bottom 1 ongl ine explorations 

in the Gulf of Mexico. A report on 

"Oregon 11's" first cruise. Commer. 

Fish. Rev. 30(10): 57-62. 

Ogren, L.H. , and H.A. Brusher. 1977. 

The distribution and abundance of 

fish caught with a trawl in the St. 

Andrew Bay System, Florida. Northeast Gulf Sci. 1(2):83-105. 

Parrack, N.C. 1986a. A review of 

Gulf of Mexico red snapper age and 

growth. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. 

Serv. , Southeast Fish. Cent. , Miami 
Lab., Coastal Resour. Div. Contrib. 

No. CRD-86/87-2. 71 pp. 

Parrack, N. C. 1986b. Review and update of Gulf of Mexico red snapper 

biometrics: 1. Weight-1 ength relations. 2. Length-1 ength conversions. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 

Southeast Fish. Cent., Miami Lab., 

Coastal Resour. Div. Contrib. No. 

CRD-86/87-3. 26 pp. 

Parrack, N.C., and D.B. McClellan. 

1986. Trends in Gulf of Mexico red 

snapper population dynamics, 1979- 

85. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 

Southeast Fish. Cent., Miami Lab., 

Coastal Resour. Div. Contrib. No. 

CRD-86/87-4. 116 pp. 

Raibalais, N.N. , S. C. Rabalais, and 

C.R. Arnold. 1980. Description of 

eggs and 1 arvae of 1 aboratory reared 

red snapper (Lut 'anus campechanus). 

Copeia 1980(4)*. 

Reef Fish Scientific Task Team and 

Special Scientific and Statistical 

Committee. 1987. Review of reef 

fish assessments and management 

options. Summary recommendations. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Counci 1, Tampa, Florida. 

3 PP. 

Rivas, L. R. 1966. Review of the 

Lutjanus cam echanus complex of red 

snappers. *la. Acad. Sci. 

29(2): 117-136. 

Rivas, L. R. 1970. Snappers of the 

western Atlantic. Commer. Fish. 

Rev. 32(1): 41-44. 

Roe, R.B. 1976. Distribution of 

snappers and groupers in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean Sea as determined from exploratory fishing data. 

Pages 129-164 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., 

and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: 

col 1 oqui um on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western central 

Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant Coll. 

Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

St. Amant, L.S. 1976. Response by 

State and Federal agency representatives, panel 3, statement 5. Pages 

322-324 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and 

A. C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: 

col loquim on snapper-grouper fishery 

resources of the western central 

Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant 

Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 

Scott, G.G., N.H. McArthur, R. 

Tarpley, R.F. Sis, and V. Jacobs. 

1980. Hi stopathological survey of 

male gonads of fish from petroleum 

production and control sites in the 

Gulf of Mexico. J. Fish. Biol. 

17: 593-602. 

Smith, G.B. 1976. The impact of 

fish-ki 11 ing phytoplankton blooms 

upon mideastern Gulf of Mexico reef 

fish communities. Pages 185-191 in 

H.R. Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones, 

eds. Proceedings: col 1 oquium on 

snapper-grouper fishery resources 

of the western central Atlantic 

Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant Coll. Rep. 

17. 333 pp. 

Smith, R. 0. 1948. Experimental fishing for red snapper. Part 1: The 

use of hoop nets. Commer. Fish. 

Rev. lO(2) : 1-10. 

Sonnier, F. , J. Teerl ing, and H. D. 

Hoese. 1976. Observations on the 

offshore reef and platform fish 

fauna of Louisiana. Copeia 1976(1): 

105-111. 

Stearns, S. 1885. Notes on the red 

snapper. Pages 92-95 in C.W. 

Smiley, compiler. Notes upon the 

fish and fisheries: Bull. U.S. Fish 

Comm. 5: 65-112. 

Stout, V. F. 1980. Organochlorine 

residues in fishes from the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of 

Mexico, U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. 

Fish. Bull. 78(1): 51-58. 

Topp, R. 1963. The tagging of fishes 

in Florida: 1962 program. Fla. 
Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. 

Ser. 5. 76 pp. 

Vergara-R. , R. , preparer. 1978. 

Lutjanidae. In W. Fischer, ed. FA0 

species identification sheets. 

Fishing area 31 (western central 

At1 antic). Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome. 

Wade, C. W. 1981. Age and growth of 

spotted seatrout and red snapper in 

Alabama. Pages 345-354 in J. 

Sweeney, ed. Proc. ThirtyTfifth 

Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish 

Wildl. Agencies. 

Wakeman, J.M., C.R. Arnold, D.E. 

Wohlchlag, and S. C. Rabalais. 1979. 

Oxygen consumption, energy expenditure, and growth in red snapper 

(Lut 'anus cam echanus). Trans. Am. 

Fh.*2. 

Warren, A. F. 1897. The red snapper 

fisheries: their past, present, and 

future. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 17: 

331-335. 

Williams, E.H., Jr. 1979. Leeches of 

some fishes of the Mobile Bay Region. Northeast Gulf Sci. 3(1): 

47-49. 
Species Profi 1 es: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements August 1988 

I. 

of 

Pedoming 

Coastal Fishes 

Organlzatlon Name 

and 

and Wress 

Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)--Red Snapper . 

1 10. Proiect/Tash/Worh Unit No. 

I 

11. ContractfC) or Grant(G) No. I fc) 

. Author(s) 

David Moran 

2. Soonrorinc Orgenizatlon Name and Address 

-- I (G) 

National Wetlands Research Center U. S. Corps of Engineers 13. TY~. of Reoon 6 hriod C-nd 

NASA-Sl idel 1 Computer Complex Wateqways Experiment Station 

1010 Gause Blvd. P.O. Box 631 

Sl idel 1, LA 70458 Vicksburg, MS 39180 

I. Padoming Orcanization Re@. Na 

15. Supplementac). Notes 

*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Report No. TR EL-82-4 

6. Abstract (Llmit: 200 words) 

The red snapper is found offshore on the Continental Shelf throughout the Gulf of 

Mexico. Red snappers are taken in the snapper-grouper fishery, usually with 

baited hooks. The red snapper commercial fishery currently ranks seventh in 

total value among commercial catches of finfish and shellfish in the gulf. Red 

snapper are also a target of a large sport fishery. The most important prey of 

red snapper are fish, squid, and crustaceans. In general, red snapper spawn in 

summer and fall in the Gulf of Mexico. The peak abundance of juveniles occurs in 

shallower water (20-46 m) than does the peak abundance of adults. Adult red 

snapper do not move from their reef habitations during the cooler months, and 

during that time will remain in a fishing area until it is fished out. Fish 1 to 

5 years old grow 60-90 mm SL/year. Red snapper may reach a fork length of 845 

mm, a weight of 12 kg, and an age of 13 years. 

7. Document Analysis a. Oaurlptom 

Fisheries Growth 

Life cycles Feeding habits 

Marine fishes Competition 

Contaminants Depth 

SO271 -191 

b. Identlfien/Oven-Ended Terms 

Red snapper 

Lutjanus campechanus 

3. Rec~p~ent's Accession NO. 

5. ReDon Date 

- 

7 

- 

9 

- 

I 

- 

I 

- 

I 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

(SI 

REPORT WCUMENTATION 2. 

PAGE 

I Unclassified me ANSI-Z39.18) OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77 

(Forrmrly NTlS35) 

Ompmnment d Comme=e 

4. Title and Subtltle 

1. "Emm NO. 

Biological Report 82(11.83)* 

C. COSATI FieldlCroup 

21. No. d Paces 

viii + 

-- 

19 

P. wce 

L Ara~labllity Statement 

Unlimited release 

19. Socurlty Class (This Reon) 

Unclassified 

ZO. Sacurity Class (T~IS Paw) 
TAKE A PRIDE 

212 Amerzcd 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. ASH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our .nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes 

fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, 

preserving thsenvironmentai and cultural values of our national parks and hlstorical places, 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in 

the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for 

American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under 

U.S. administration.