square k i 1 ometers hectares. 1 i ters cubic meters cubic meters milligrams grams. k i 1 ograms metric tons metric tons
REFERENCE COPY 'L .c r y
Do Not Remove from the Libracy m i
Biological Report 82(11.83) August 1988
N-I
. F
WetladsRe-& m 70QCajun Dome Boulevard L~Q@w, W i i a m 7-
r
TR EL-82-4
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
B i o l o g i c a l Report 82(11.83) TR EL-82-4 August 1988
Species P r o f i1es: L i f e H i s t o r i e s and Environmental Requirements o f Coastal Fishes and I n v e r t e b r a t e s ( G u l f o f Mexico)
RED SNAPPER
David Moran U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e N a t i o n a l Wetlands Research Center 1010 Gause Boulevard S l i d e l l , LA 70458
Project Officer David Morais U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e N a t i o n a l Wetl ands Research Center
Performed f o r Coastal Ecology Group Waterways Experiment S t a t i o n U. S. Army Corps o f Engineers Vicksburg, MS 39180
U.S. Department o f t h e I n t e r i o r F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e Research and Development N a t i o n a l Wetl ands Research Center Washington, DC 20240
T h i s s e r i e s may be r e f e r e n c e d as f o l l o w s : U. S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e . 1983-19-. Species p r o f i l e s : 1i f e h i s t o r i e s and e n v i ronmental r e q u i r e m e n t s o f c o a s t a l f i s h e s and i n v e r t e b r a t e s . U. S. F i s h U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers, TR EL-82-4. W i l d l . Serv. B i o l . Rep. 82(11). T h i s p r o f i l e may be c i t e d as f o l l o w s : 1988. Species p r o f i l e s : 1i f e h i s t o r i e s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e q u i r e Moran, D. ments o f c o a s t a l f i s h e s and i n v e r t e b r a t e s ( G u l f o f Mexico)--red snapper. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. B i o l . Rep. 82(11.83). U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 19 pp.
PREFACE T h i s species p r o f i l e i s one o f a s e r i e s on c o a s t a l a q u a t i c organisms, p r i n c i p a l l y f i s h , o f s p o r t , commercial , o r e c o l o g i c a l importance. The p r o f i l e s a r e designed t o p r o v i d e coastal managers, engineers, and b i o l o g i s t s w i t h a b r i e f comprehensive sketch o f t h e b i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and environmental requirements o f t h e species and t o describe how populations o f t h e species may be expected t o r e a c t t o environmental changes caused by coastal development. Each p r o f i l e has sections on taxonomy, 1 i f e h i s t o r y , e c o l o g i c a l r o l e , environmental requirements, and economic importance, i f appl i c a b l e . A t h r e e - r i n g b i n d e r i s used f o r t h i s s e r i e s so t h a t new p r o f i l e s can be added as they a r e prepared. This p r o j e c t i s j o i n t l y planned and financed by t h e U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers and t h e U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service. Suggestions o r questions regarding t h i s r e p o r t should be d i r e c t e d t o t h e f o l l owing addresses. I n f o r m a t i o n T r a n s f e r Special i s t National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service NASA-Sl i d e l 1 Computer Complex 1010 Gause Boulevard S l i d e l l , LA 70458
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment S t a t i o n A t t e n t i o n : WESER-C Post O f f i c e Box 631 Vicksburg, MS 39180
one of
CONVERSION TABLE M e t r i c t o U.S. Customary Mu1 t i p l y
To O b t a i n
m i l l i m e t e r s (mm) c e n t i m e t e r s (cm) meters (m) meters (m) k i 1ometers (km) k i 1ometers (km) square meters ( m 2 ) square k i 1ometers ( km2) h e c t a r e s (ha)
inches inches feet fathoms s t a t u t e m i 1es nautical miles 10.76 0.3861 2.471
square f e e t square m i l e s acres
l i t e r s (1) c u b i c meters (m3) c u b i c meters (m3)
g a l 1ons cubic f e e t acre- f e e t
m i l l i g r a m s (mg) grams (g) k i 1ograms (kg) m e t r i c tons (t) m e t r i c t o n s (t)
ounces ounces pounds pounds s h o r t tons
kilocalories (kcal) C e l s i u s degrees ( O C )
B r i t i s h thermal u n i t s F a h r e n h e i t degrees
U.S. Customary t o M e t r i c inches inches feet (ft) fathoms statute miles (mi) n a u t i c a l m i l e s (nmi)
millimeters centimeters meters meters kilometers kilometers
25.40 2.54 0.3048 1.829 1.609 1.852
square f e e t ( f t 2 ) square m i l e s ( m i 2 ) acres
square meters square k i 1ometers hectares
gallons (gal) cubic f e e t (ft3) acre-feet
1i t e r s c u b i c meters c u b i c meters
ounces (oz) ounces (oz) pounds ( l b ) pounds ( l b ) short tons (ton)
milligrams grams k i 1ograms metric tons metric tons
B r i t i s h thermal u n i t s (Btu) F a h r e n h e i t degrees (OF)
0.2520 0.5556 (OF
-
32)
kilocalories C e l s i u s degrees
CONTENTS
Page PREFACE .................................................................. iii CONVERSION TABLE ......................................................... iv FIGURES .................................................................. vi TABLES .................................................................... vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................... v i i i NOMENCLATLlRE/TAXONOMY/RANGE
.............................................. ........................................... o f Red Snapper ...............................
MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS
D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Characters D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Characters o f S i m i l a r Species from t h e Same General Area ......................................................... REASONS FOR INCLUSION I N THE SERIES ...................................... LIFE HISTORY ............................................................. Spawning ............................................................... Eggs ................................................................... Larvae ................................................................. J u v e n i l e s and A d u l t s ................................................... Movement ............................................................... GROW1-H CHARACTERISTICS ................................................... FISHERIES ................................................................ Commercial F i s h e r y ..................................................... S p o r t F i s h e r y .......................................................... ECOLOGICAL ROLE .......................................................... Feeding H a b i t s ......................................................... Competition, P r e d a t i o n , and P a r a s i t i s m ................................. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................... Temperature and S a l i n i t y ............................................... H a b i t a t ................................................................ Depth .................................................................. Contaminants ........................................................... REFERENCES
...............................................................
FIGURES
Page
Number
..........................
1
A d u l t r e d snapper L u t j a n u s campechanus
2
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico .............................................
2
Commercial and s p o r t f i s h i n g grounds f o r r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico ...........................................
9
3 4 5
6
1
Annual commercial l a n d i n g s o f r e d snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n F l o r i d a and Alabama, 1880-1985 ....................
10
Annual commercial l a n d i n g s o f r e d snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n L o u i s i a n a and Texas, 1880-1985 ....................
10
Annual commercial l a n d i n g s o f r e d snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n M i s s i s s i p p i , 1880-1985 ............................
11
TABLES
Page
Number
1
Estimated l e n g t h and age a t m a t u r i t y o f r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico ..........................................
4
..........
5
2
Spawning p e r i o d s o f r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico
3
Length (mm) a t age (years) o f r e d snapper i n f o u r r e g i o n s o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico ..................................
...............
4
Length (mm)-weight
5
R e c r e a t i o n a l c a t c h o f r e d snapper (thousands o f f i s h ) i n t h e G u l f S t a t e s , 1979-85 ....................................
12
Prey i t e m s found i n t h e g r e a t e s t frequency o f occurrence i n j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper and t h e g r e a t e s t volume i n j u v e n i l e s i n t h e C d l f o f Mexico .............................
13
Prey i t e m s found i n stomachs o f j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico ..................................
14
6
7
(g) r e l a t i o n s f o r r e d snapper
6 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am g r a t e f u l f o r reviews by Russell Nelson, F l o r i d a Marine F i s h e r i e s Commission, Tallahassee; Charles Manooch 111, National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service, Beaufort, North Carolina; and John Finucane, Churchi 11 Grimes, and A1 l a n Col 1i n s of t h e National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service, Panama C i t y , F l o r i d a .
Figure 1. A d u l t r e d snapper Lutjanus campechanus (from Vergara-R. 1978).
RED SNAPPER
*
S c i e n t i f i c name.. . Lutjanus cam echanus P r e f e r r e d common name.. .. (Figure 1) Other common names ........Sow snapper, r a t snapper (northwest coast o f chicken F l o r i d a ) ; mule snapper, snapper (northeast coast o f F l o r i da); g u l f r e d snapper, American r e d snapper Class .....................Osteichthyes Order. ..................... P e r c i formes Family ...................... L u t j a n i d a e Geographic range: the continental she1 ves b o r d e r i n g t h e G u l f o f Mexico (Figure 2) and t h e A t l a n t i c Coast as f a r n o r t h as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; n o t r e p o r t e d i n t h e Caribbean Sea (Rivas 1966, 1970).
MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS The f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s are taken from Rivas (1966), Anderson (1967),
and Vergara-R. (1978). Anderson ' s d e s c r i p t i o n i n c l u d e s f i s h t h a t are Caribbean red snapper, u r ureus, which he i c w i t h L. cam echanus; he -conspeci -T suggested t h e name *L the composite. The name C b ac f o r d i i i s an obsolete name f o r - t h e r e d snapper. D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Characters o f Red S n a ~ ~ e r Dorsal f i n I X - X spines, u s u a l l y X, 13-15 s o f t rays, u s u a l l y 14; anal f i n 111-IV, u s u a l l y 111, 8-10, u s u a l l y 9; p e c t o r a l f i n rays 15-18, u s u a l l y 17; scales on l a t e r a l 1i n e u s u a l l y 45-47; g i l l rakers on lower l i m b o f a n t e r i o r arch ( e x c l u d i n g rudiments) 9. Head l a r g e ; lower jaw p r o j e c t i n g s l i g h t l y beyond upper; snout somewhat pointed; eyes small, contained more than 6.5 times i n head length; i n t e r o r b i t a l r e g i o n convex i n t h e transverse plane; anchor-shaped patch o f s t r o n g t e e t h on r o o f o f mouth, a p o s t e r i o r median extension o f t h e p a t c h moderately
developed. Pectoral fins long, reaching t o anus when pressed a g a i n s t body; anal f i n angulate i n specimens longer than 50 mm; margin o f caudal f i n deeply notched.
REASONS FOR INCLUSION I N THE SERIES The r e d snapper i s t h e most import a n t f i s h i n t h e commercial snappergrouper f i s h e r y between Cape San B l as, F l o r i d a , and t h e mouth o f t h e Rio Grande (A1 l e n and Tashiro 1976); 4.6 m i l l i o n I b were landed commercially a t U.S. p o r t s i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico i n 1985 (National Marine F i s h e r i e s Servi c e 1986, unpubl. data). The r e d snapper ranked 1 9 t h i n number o f f i s h caught among groups o f s p o r t f i s h f o r which s t a t i s t i c s were recorded i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico i n 1985; about 2 m i l l i o n r e d snapper were caught by s p o r t fishermen i n t h e g u l f t h a t year (National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service 1986a).
Color: back and upper sides b r i c k r e d t o s c a r l e t ; lower sides and b e l l y rose-colored t o w h i t e , especial l y i n f r o n t . I r i s o f eye red. Dark spot on upper area o f each s i d e below a n t e r i o r s o f t dorsal f i n rays, disappearing i n long. specimens over 250 mm Occasional b l u i s h s t r i p e s on sides o f juveniles. D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Characters o f S i m i l a r S ~ e c i e sfrom t h e Same General Area L u t 'anus vivanus ( s i 1k snapper): body co o r - D red: i r i s o f eye y e l i ~ w ; 8 s o f t r a y s i n anal fin.
_t
LIFE HISTORY Spawning
L u t j a n i s anal is (mutton snapper): tooth p a t c h roof of mouth chevron-shaped, w i t h o u t a p o s t e r i o r extension; back, upper sides, and upper l o b e o f caudal f i n 01 i v e green; two b l u e s t r i p e s on snout and cheek; d a r k spot on each s i d e below s o f t rays o f d o r s a l f i n p e r s i s t i n g throughout life.
Red snapper u s u a l l y show p a r t i a l sexual m a t u r i t y when 1 year o l d and show f u l l m a t u r i t y when about 2 years o l d and 375 mm i n f o r k l e n g t h (FL) (Table 1). I n general, r e d snapper spawn i n summer and f a 1 1 i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. They have one peak spawning p e r i o d i n F l o r i d a waters and two peaks i n Texas waters (Table 2).
L u t 'anis p u r p u r e s (Caribbean r e d snapper occurring only i n the Caribbean Sea and i n t h e A t l a n t i c c o a s t a l waters o f South America.
I n d i v i d u a l f i s h probably spawn seve r a l times d u r i n g t h e spawning season (several egg stages occur simul taneo u s l y i n t h e ovaries); t h e p r o t r a c t e d spawning season and v a r i a t i o n i n gonadosomatic i n d i c e s i n f i s h o f s i m i l a r s i z e d u r i n g t h e season a r e consist e n t w i t h t h i s hypothesis ( C o l l i n s e t a l . 1987).
A l l o t h e r species o f Lutjanus: anal f i n rounded and c o l o r at terns d i f L. campechanus. f e r e n t from -
+
P r i s t i omoides a u i l o n a r i s (wenchd* rose t o man p i n k ; i n t e r o r b i t a l r e g i o n f l a t ; snout s h o r t and b l u n t ; t o o t h patch on r o o f o f mouth t r i a n g u l a r o r chevron-shaped, w i t h o u t a p o s t e r i o r extension; o n l y 10-11 s o f t rays i n dorsal f i n .
The f i s h spawn p r i m a r i l y away from reefs (Bradley and Bryan 1975). Spawning was r e p o r t e d a t depths o f 18-37 m over a firm sand bottom w i t h 1i t t l e r e 1 i e f (Beaumariage and B u l l ock 1976).
Rhombo 1 it e s aurorubens (vermi 1i o n s n i Z a c k and upper sides v e r m i l i o n ; t o o t h patch on r o o f o f mouth rhomboid; dorsal f i n X I 1 t o X I I I , 10-11.
Fecundity o f f i s h sampled i n northwest F l o r i d a ranged from 0.2 m i l l i o n 3
Table 1. Mexico. Age a t partial matut it y
Estimated l e n g t h and aye a t m a t u r i t y o f r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f
Age a t full maturity b
Length a t partial maturity
Length a t full maturity
325 m m ( ~ ~ ) ~ b 375 mm(FL)
Total fish sampl ed b 298
Reference Camber (1955)' Collins e t al. (1986) and Nelson and Manooch (1982) d'e
2
b
b
559
Futch and Bruger (1976) e ' f
a
Females. b ~ data. o C M a t u r i t y was determined by macroscopic exami n a t i o n o f o v a r i e s . d ~ g ewas determined m o s t l y from s c a l e a n n u l i . M a t u r i t y was determined by macroscopic and microscopic examination o f o v a r i e s and c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e gonadosom a t i c index. e The monthly d i s t r i b u t i o n o f marginal incremental growth beyond t h e l a s t annul us was used t o determine t h a t a n n u l i a r e formed a n n u a l l y . f ~ g ewas determined from o t o l it h annul i. M a t u r i t y was determined by macroscopic examination o f o v a r i e s .
eggs f o r a female about 3 years o l d and 386 mm FL t o 9.3 m i l l i o n f o r a f i s h about 12 years o l d and 754 mm FL ( C o l l i n s e t a l . 1987).
Red snapper eggs average 0.82 mm i n The diameter (range: 0.77-0.85 mm). unpigegg i s p e l a g i c , spherical, mented, and t r a n s p a r e n t , and has a single o i l globule (Raibalais e t a l . 1980). I n the laboratory, initial h a t c h i ng began 20 h a f t e r f e r t i 1 izat i o n (Minton e t a l . 1983), and about 50% o f t h e eggs hatched w i t h i n 25 h o f f e r t i 1i z a t i o n ( R a i b a l a i s e t a1 . 1980). Larvae Newly hatched l a r v a e i n t h e l a b o r a tory averaged 2.2 mm i n standard l e n g t h (SL) according t o R a i b a l a i s e t
a1 . (1980). The l a r v a e began a c t i v e l y feeding on culture of alga and r o t i f e r s 3 days a f t e r h a t c h i n g and were 2.5 mm SL 4 days a f t e r h a t c h i n g ( R a i b a l a i s e t a l . 1980). Lutjanid l a r v a e c o l l e c t e d i n t h e f i e l d c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d o n l y t o f a m i l y by C o l l i n s e t a l . (1980), who a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e head was p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e and head l e n g t h was about equal t o body depth f o r r e d snapper l a r v a e and j u v e n i l e s 4-22 mm SL.
Juveni 1es and A d u l t s The peak abundance o f j u v e n i l e s i s i n s h a l l o w e r water (20-46 m deep) than t h e peak d e n s i t y o f a d u l t s ( F i g u r e 2; Bradley and Bryan 1975). Juveni 1e r e d snapper were caught i n t r a w l s on t h e Texas shrimp grounds (Bradley and Bryan 1975).
Table 2.
Region
Spawning p e r i o d s o f r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico
Spawning season(s)
Number of fish sampled
Peak
Reference
Texas
May t o J u l y and November t o December
May t o J u l y and November
569
Brad1ey ang Bryan 1976
West F l o r i d a
J u l y t o October
August t o September
314
Futch and Bruger 1976~
Northwest F l o r i d a
May t o September
July
729
C o l l i n s e t a1 . 1986
a
On t h e b a s i s o f macroscopic examination o f o v a r i e s . bOn t h e b a s i s o f gonadosomatic i n d e x and b o t h macroscopic and microscopic examin a t i o n o f ovaries.
Instantaneous n a t u r a l m o r t a l i t y (M) was e s t i m a t e d t o be 0.19 i n West F l o r i d a and 0.20 i n L o u i s i a n a by Nelson and Manooch (1982). They a l s o reported that instantaneous total m o r t a l i t y (2) was e s t i m a t e d a t 0.78 o r 0.94 i n L o u i s i a n a (depending on t h e method o f c a l c u l a t i o n ) and 0.42 o r 0.44 a l o n g t h e west c o a s t o f F l o r i d a . Z by sampling They determined commercial catches. Movement A d u l t r e d snapper remain i n t h e i r r e e f h a b i t a t i o n s d u r i n g c o o l e r months. Tagging s t u d i e s general l y i n d i c a t e l i t t l e movement, p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e f i s h a r e r e l e a s e d i n water l e s s t h a n 14 m deep (Topp 1963; Beaumariage and W i tti ch 1966; Beaumariage and B u l l ock 1976; Fable 1980). A d u l t r e d snapper sometimes move c l o s e t o shore i n summer; t h e y were c o l l e c t e d i n t r a w l s i n t h e lower p a r t s o f t h e S t . Andrew Bay system, F l o r i d a , i n summer and f a l l b u t n o t i n w i n t e r and s p r i n g (Ogren and Brusher 1977). Occasional tagged a d u l t s were caught 5-150 nmi from t h e p o i n t o f r e l e a s e a f t e r 29-1,163 days o f freedom (Beaumari age and W i tti ch
1966;
Moe
1966;
Beaumariage
1969).
GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS Red snapper i n i t i a l l y grow q u i c k l y and t h e n growth slows s t e a d i l y as l a r g e r s i z e associated w i t h long l i f e span expectancy i s reached. They grow from 137-177 mm TL a t age 1 t o 538-546 mm TL a t age 5 and 784-794 mm TL a t They may reach 845 age 11 (Table 3). mm FL and 12 kg (Bradley and Bryan 1975) and an age o f about 13 years (Nelson and Manooch 1982). Variation i s c o n s i d e r a b l e b u t i s s i m i l a r a t each age, p r o b a b l y because o f t h e p r o t r a c t e d spawning season (Futch and Bruger 1976). Red snapper ages were d e t e r mined w i t h similar results using o t o l it h s , scales, and v e r t e b r a e o f fish off Alabama (Bortone and 1980), and using Hol 1ingsworth o t o l i t h s and scales o f f i s h o f f t h e Carol inas (Nel son and Manooch 1982). Scale annulus f o r m a t i o n o f f t h e U.S. g u l f c o a s t i s complete by e a r l y summer f o r f i s h ages 2 and o l d e r (Parrack 1986a). I n t h e g u l f , u n d e r y e a r l i n g f i s h grew 25 mm/month i n August and September
Table 3. Length (mm) G u l f o f Mexico.
a t age (years) o f r e d snapper i n f o u r r e g i o n s o f t h e
Northwestern g u l f a
~ouisiana~'~
~ l a b a m a ~ ' ~ Western ~ l o r i d a ~ ' ~
Age
Age
Age
SL
TL
TL
Age
TL
a
Moseley (1966). Most f i s h were taken i n w i n t e r . Age was determined from s c a l e annul i. Lengths in c l ude p a r t - y e a r increments a f t e r f o r m a t i o n o f t h e l a s t annulus. T o t a l sample s i z e was 243 f i s h . b ~ a c k - c acl u l a t e d 1engths. 'Nel son and Manooch (1982). Age was usual l y determined from scales (sometimes a l s o from o t o l i t h s ) . T o t a l sample s i z e was 443 f i s h f o r western F l o r i d a and 402 f i s h f o r Louisiana. d ~ a d e (1981). Age was determined from s c a l e a n n u l i . T o t a l sample s i z e was 238.
according t o B r a d l e y and Bryan (1975). Annual growth o f f i s h o f ages It o I V o r V i n t h e g u l f ranged from 60 t o 75 mm (Bradley and Bryan 1975) t o 90 mm (Mosel ey 1966). The r e l a t i o n s o f SL t o FL and FL t o TL ( l e n g t h s i n mm) and N (sample s i z e ) were r e p o r t e d by Futch and Bruger (1976) as f o l l o w s :
Nelson and Manooch (1982) r e p o r t e d t h e following relation:
l e n g t h r e l a t i o n s show a h i g h l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n ( Parrack 1986b). Length-weight r e l a t i o n s c a l c u l a t e d f o r several areas i n t h e g u l f were s i m i l a r (Table 4; Parrack 1986b). The length-weight r e l a t i o n changed a t 190-300 mm SL (Moseley 1966). Nelson and Manooch (1982) r e p o r t e d von B e r t a l a n f f y growth equations f o r f i s h from two areas i n t h e g u l f as f o l l o w s (Lt = TI- i n mm and t = age i n years): Louisiana: -0.175(t-0.10)) Lt = 950(1-e
A d d i t i o n a l l e n g t h - l e n g t h r e 1a t i o n s a r e g i v e n i n Parrack (1986b). Length-
West F l o r i d a : -O.l70(t+O. Lt = 941(1-e
lo))
Table 4.
Length (mm)-weight (g) r e l a t i o n s f o r r e d snapper.
Region
Equation
-
loglow
= 2.966 logloFL
loglow loglow
= 3.008 logloFL = 3.028 logioFL
A1 abama
logl,\
= 3.0092 logloTL
Texas
loglow = 2.885 logloFL
Campeche ( f o r f i s h 90-190 mm FL)
iogloW
West F l o r i d a Florida
a~ = 143.
b~ = 240.
Males: Females:
= 3.01
logloFL
'N = 722. d~ = 90.
They found t h a t t h e von B e r t a l a n f f y growth curves f o r Louisiana, western F l o r i d a , eastern F l o r i d a , and t h e Caro l i n a s d i f f e r e d . s t a t i s t i c a l l y , as d i d t h e length-weight r e l a t i o n s f o r f i s h from west F l o r i d a , e a s t F l o r i d a , and t h e Carol inas. However, t h e d i f f e r ences i n growth curves were small and the differences in length-weight curves had l i t t l e i f any b i o l o g i c a l Parrack (1986a) significance. r e p o r t e d d i fferences in growth curves between f i s h west o f and f i s h e a s t o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i Delta. This d i f f e r ence was i n c o n c l u s i v e , however (Reef F i s h S c i e n t i f i c Task Team and Special S c i e n t i f i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Committee 1987). FISHERIES Snappers a r e especial l y v u l n e r a b l e t o fishermen because, d u r i n g c o o l e r months, t h e f i s h w i l l remain i n a f i s h i n g area ( r e e f h a b i t a t ) u n t i l i t is overfished (Duffy 1970), and sometimes r i s e t o t h e surface and snap a t bare hooks o r whatever i s offered--hence t h e name "snapper"' (Stearns 1885).
Reference
-
4.7399
Nelson and Manooch (1982)~
4.8104 4.8618
Futch and Bruger (1976)
b
4.8539 Wade (1981)~
- 4.483
Wakeman e t a l . (1979)~
- 4.7921 Camber (1955)~
e~ n o t given.
F i s h i n g mortal it y i n t h e g u l f v a r i e s w i t h location. Nelson and Manooch (1982) estimated instantaneous f i s h i n g m o r t a l i t y t o be 0.58 o r 0.74 i n Louisiana (depending on t h e method o f c a l c u l a t i o n ) and 0.23 o r 0.25 i n west F l o r i d a . Mean age o f t h e t o t a l c a t c h was l e s s i n Louisiana (2.4 years) than i n west F l o r i d a ( 4 . 1 years), p o s s i b l y because o f t h e heavier f i s h i n g pressure i n Louisiana. F i s h i n g m o r t a l i t y was h i g h e r i n Louisiana p a r t l y because t h e f i s h i n g r e e f s a r e c l o s e r t o shore t h e r e and thus more accessible (Nelson and Manooch 1982). About 2,300 o i 1 p r o d u c t i o n p l a t f o r m s off the Louisiana coast enhance snapper f i s h i n g by p r o v i d i n g threedimensional h a b i t a t ( S t . Amant 1976) ; i t has n o t been determined i f a r t i f i c i a l h a b i t a t p r i m a r i l y increases o r mostly j u s t r e d i s t r i b u t e s a d u l t populations. The t o t a l standing stock f o r a l l species o f snappers along t h e South A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts o f t h e United States was estimated a t 350 m i l l i o n 1b (Kl ima 1976). Red snapper 1andi ngs were worth about l% o f t h e value o f
a l l f i n f i s h landed commercially i n t h e U n i t e d States i n 1985 (National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service 1986b). The number o f r e d snapper caught by s p o r t f i s h e r men was about 19;: o f t h e t o t a l number o f f i s h o f a l l species caught i n t h e recreational fisheries o f the A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts i n 1985 (National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service 1986a). Commercial F i shery Snappers and groupers a r e o f t e n taken t o g e t h e r i n t h e snapper-grouper fishery. Various f i s h i n g methods f o r snappers and groupers have been used o r t e s t e d over t h e years. Most comm e r c i a l f i s h i n g i s done w i t h b a i t e d hooks and l i n e s on e l e c t r i c and hyd r a u l i c r e e l s which were t o o expensive u n t i 1 r e c e n t l y (Churchi 11 Grimes, National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service, Panama C i t y , F l o r i d a ; pers. comm. ). (These a r e a l l c l a s s i f i e d as handlines i n National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service fishery statistics.) From 2 t o 40 hooks may be used w i t h one r e e l ( A l l e n and Tashiro 1976). Ladyfish and squid a r e t h e most e f f e c t i v e b a i t (Carpenter 1965); r e d snapper s e l e c t f i s h and squid e q u a l l y o f t e n (Futch and Bruger 1976). The i n d u s t r y has experimented w i t h o t h e r f i s h i n g methods, b u t many were d e f i c i e n t ; an o t t e r t r a w l adapted f o r rough bottoms was e f f e c t i v e , however (Smith 1948; Captiva and Rivers 1960; Nelson and Carpenter 1968). An extensive bottom long1 ine f i s h e r y t h a t may t a k e r e d snapper has developed i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico since about 1980 (Russel 1 Nel son, Florida Marine Fisheries Commission, Tallahassee; pers. comm. ). The l o n g l i n e f i s h e r y i n t h e eastern g u l f has been d i r e c t e d ye1 lowedge grouper primarily at f l avo1 imbatus) (Parrack Commercial f i s h i n g grounds f o r r e d snapper a r e we1 1 o f f s h o r e i n t h e Gulf o f Mexico (Figure 3). I n 1955, t h e most important f i s h i n g grounds had l o n g been t h e Campeche Banks o f f t h e Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, which were
t h e p r i n c i p a l grounds f i s h e d by t h e west F l o r i d a f l e e t (Camber 1955; H i ldebrand 1955). F i s h i n g t h e r e by American boats has been c u r t a i l e d , however, since the extension of Mexico's f i s h e r y conservation zone t o t h e 200-mi l i m i t (Deborah Fable, National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service, Panama C i t y , F l o r i d a ; pers. comm. ). Red snapper landings from f o r e i g n waters have composed l e s s than 13% of t h e t o t a l U. S. landings since 1973 ( G u l f o f Mexico F i s h e r y Management Counci 1 1981). Western F l o r i d a landings v a r i e d w i d e l y over t h e years (Figure 4; Camber 1955). They increased progress i v e l y as t h e f i s h e r y developed from 1880 t o 1902, s t a b i l i z e d as t h e Campeche Banks were e x p l o i t e d d u r i n g 1902-28, dropped w i t h reduced e f f o r t during the Great Depression of 1929-35, increased again as t h e economy began t o recover i n 1936-39, decl i n e d markedly w i t h reduced e f f o r t from 1939 t o 1945 d u r i n g World War 11, and then began t o recover again around 1946 (Figure 4; Camber 1955). I n t h e e a r l y 19601s, l a r g e numbers o f commercial vessels were b u i l t t o fish for snappers and groupers (Carpenter 1965). The average number of handline vessels in western F l o r i d a was 180 i n 1957-60; increased t o 290 i n 1961-65; l e v e l e d o f f a t 260 i n 1966-70; and increased again t o 320 i n 1971-74. The average t o t a l number of handline fishermen i n weste r n F l o r i d a was 780 i n 1957-60; increased t o 1200 i n 1961-65; and s t a b i l i z e d a t 1030-1100 i n 1967-74 ( F l o r i d a Sea Grant College 1980; G u l f o f Mexico F i s h e r y Management Council 1981).
Landings for western Florida d e c l i n e d g r e a t l y d u r i n g 1982-85 t o t h e 1eve1 ever recorded second-1 owest (Figure 4). I n 1983-85 c a t c h p e r u n i t o f e f f o r t (catch r a t e ) was r e l a t i v e l y high, b u t d e c l i n e d 26% d u r i n g t h a t period i n the g u l f east o f the Mississippi River Delta f o r f i s h 3
0
WEST FLOHIOA
a
LOUISIANA
1660
1900
1920 1940 YEAR
1960
1960
1660
1900
1920
1940
1960
1960
YEAR
Figure 4. Annual commercial 1andi ngs o f r e d snapper ( i n m i l 1i o n s o f pounds) i n F l o r i d a and Alabama, 1880-1985 (from U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service 1967; National Marine Fisheries Service [1986], unpubl . data).
F i g u r e 5. Annual commercial landings o f r e d snapper ( i n m i l l ions o f pounds) i n Louisiana and Texas, 1880-1985 (from U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service 1967; National Marine Fisheries Service, unpubl . data).
years o l d and o l d e r i n t h e bottomlong1 ine and rod-and-reel f i s h e r i e s A1 so (Parrac k and McCl e l 1an 1986). i n 1983-85, a r e c e n t stock assessment showed t h a t i n i t i a l biomass ( w i t h o u t r e c r u i t s ) decl i n e d 17% and r e c r u i t m e n t biomass d e c l i n e d 98% i n t h i s area (Parrack and McCl e l 1an 1986).
and M i s s i s s i p p i d e c l i n e d 73%-93% a f t e r these peaks i n t h e 1960's (Figures 4-6), b u t Louisiana landings increased t o a record h i g h i n 1984 (Figure 5). A r e c e n t stock assessment showed t h a t estimated i n i t i a l biomass ( w i t h o u t r e c r u i t s ) d e c l i n e d 45%, b u t estimated r e c r u i t m e n t biomass increased 2l%, f o r r e d snapper west o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r D e l t a between 1980 and 1985 (Parrack and McCl e l 1an 1986).
The p r i n c i p a l commercial f i s h i n g grounds used by fishermen from Alabama, M i s s i s s i p p i , Louisiana, and Texas a r e on t h e r e e f s o f f s h o r e from those States (Figure 3). The average number o f hand1 i n e vessels i n Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas t o g e t h e r was 150 i n 1957-60 and 180 i n 1961-65; d e c l i n e d t o 90 i n 1966-70; and l e v e l l e d o f f a t 80 i n 1971-74. The average s i z e o f t h e vessels increased from 30 gross tons i n 1957 t o 6 1 gross tons i n 1974 ( F l o r i d a Sea Grant College 1980; G u l f o f Mexico Fishery Management Counci 1 1981). Landings peaked i n t h e e a r l y 1960's i n Alabama and Texas (Figures 4-5), and i n 1968 i n M i s s i s s i p p i (Figure 6). Landings i n Alabama, Texas,
An increase i n t h e number o f f i s h i n g boats and t r i p s may cause c o m p e t i t i o n among boats, because t h e number o f boats t h a t can make a good c a t c h i n t h e prime f i s h i n g areas i s l i m i t e d ; c o m p e t i t i o n among boats reduces t h e c a t c h per u n i t o f f i s h i n g e f f o r t . On t h e Campeche Banks, t h e c a t c h r a t e (catch per u n i t e f f o r t ) d e c l i n e d from 1937 t o 1940, when t h e number o f f i s h i n g t r i p s (and probably, t h e r e f o r e , t h e competition) increased, and then increased g r e a t l y from 1941 t o 1945 when c o m p e t i t i o n probably decl i n e d because o f reduced f i s h i n g e f f o r t d u r i n g World War 11. The catch r a t e
0 1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
YEAR
F i g u r e 6. Annual commercial l a n d i n g s o f r e d snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n M i s s i s s i p p i , 1920-1985 (from U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e 1967; N a t i o n a l Marine F i s h e r i e s Service, unpubl . data).
d e c l i n e d from 1948 t o 1951, b u t c o m p e t i t i o n p r o b a b l y a1 so d e c l ined (Camber 1955). Red snapper and a s s o c i a t e d species a r e u s u a l l y g u t t e d when caught (Carp e n t e r 1965) and a r e s t o r e d i n i c e aboard t h e vessels ( r a t h e r t h a n i n l i v e w e l l s ) - - a p r a c t i c e t h a t began i n t h e l a t e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y (Warren 1897). A t l e a s t 10 species a r e marketed as r e d snapper (Rivas 1966). I n t h e commercial f i s h e r i e s f o r f i n f i s h and s h e l l f i s h i n t h e g u l f , t h e r e d snapper f i s h e r y ranks e i g h t h i n t o t a l weight, seventh i n t o t a l value, and s i x t h i n p r i c e p e r pound ( N a t i o n a l Marine F i s h e r i e s S e r v i c e 1986b and unpubl. data). Tne o n l y species r e g u l a r l y e x p l o i t e d by o f f s h o r e f i s h e r i e s i n t h e western g u l f a r e t h e r e d snapper and g u l f menhaden, B r e v o o r t i a p a t r o n u s (Hi 1debrand 1954). The r e d snapper i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t o f about 17 species i n t h e U.S. snapper f i s h e r y ( A l l e n and T a s h i r o 1976). I n the n o r t h e r n g u l f , i t made up about 86% o f
t h e t o t a l v a l u e o f t h e c a t c h by t h e l a r g e vessels ( 5 6 - f t t o 6 9 - f t long) i n t h e snapper-grouper f i s h e r y t h a t c o u l d reach d i s t a n t f i s h i n g grounds, and i n t h e southeastern g u l f , i t made up about 37% o f t h e t o t a l v a l u e o f t h e c a t c h by a l l vessels i n t h e f i s h e r y (Cato and Prochaska 1976). A t the t i m e o f Cato and Prochaska's study, t h e Campeche banks were n o t f i s h e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y by American b o a t s f o r p o l it i c a l reasons. T o t a l p r o f i t s were g r e a t e r f o r t h e l a r g e r vessels i n t h e n o r t h e r n g u l f because t h e v a l u e p e r pound was h i g h e r f o r r e d snapper than f o r t h e o t h e r species t h a t predominated i n t h e southeastern g u l f (Cato and Prochaska 1976). Sport Fishery The r e d snapper i s one o f t h e most d e s i r e d species o f s p o r t f i s h i n t h e S p o r t f is h i ng grounds over1 ap g u l f. commercial grounds ( F i g u r e 3). In 1965 and 1970, t h e weight o f t h e comm e r c i a l c a t c h was l e s s t h a n t h a t o f t h e s p o r t c a t c h (Nakamura 1976). S p o r t f is h i ng boats range from small 1 2 - f t p r i v a t e boats t o 8 5 - f t p a r t y boats (head boats). The number o f b o a t s increased from 1956 t o 1976 and probably p a r t l y displaced t h e inshore commercial f i s h e r y (A1 l e n and Tashi r o 1976; St. Amant 1976). Between 1982 and 1985, t h e g u l f c o a s t s p o r t f i s h e r y c a t c h o f r e d snapp e r d e c l i n e d by about 60% i n F l o r i d a and 78% i n L o u i s i a n a (Table 5). In western F l o r i d a , t h e commercial c a t c h a l s o d e c l i n e d s h a r p l y between 1982 and 1985. I n Louisiana, t h e commercial f i s h e r y may have supplanted t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r y over t h i s p e r i o d ( F i g u r e 5). The l a r g e s t annual s p o r t c a t c h f o r L o u i s i a n a from 1979 (when a c c u r a t e s t a t i s t i c s became a v a i l a b l e ) t o 1985 was about 2.7 m i l l i o n fish--the h i g h e s t recorded f o r any g u l f s t a t e f o r t h e same t i m e p e r i o d (Table 5). For t h a t p e r i o d , Alabama's s p o r t c a t c h f l u c t u a t e d w i t h h i g h catches about
Table 5. R e c r e a t i o n a l c a t c h o f r e d snapper (thousands o f f i s h ) i n t h e G u l f S t a t e s , 1979-85 (from N a t i o n a l Marine F i s h e r i e s S e r v i c e 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1986).
Year
Florida Gulf Coast
A1 abama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
a ~ odata.
every o t h e r y e a r ; i n y e a r s between 1979 and 1985, when t h e s p o r t c a t c h was h i g h e r (1979, 1981, and 1983), t h e commercial c a t c h was a1 so g e n e r a l l y higher--except t h a t t h e commercial c a t c h peaked i n 1982. A t r e n d i n t h e Texas c a t c h c o u l d n o t be determined because t o o few d a t a were a v a i l a b l e . M i s s i s s i p p i ' s c a t c h remained very low (Table 5), and t h e commercial c a t c h i n 1985 was t h e l o w e s t i n 17 y e a r s (Figu r e 6). Current regulations i n the U.S. waters o f t h e g u l f a l l o w a maximum o f 5 f i s h l e s s t h a n 12 inches FL p e r t r i p f o r headboats. I n summary, t h e s p o r t c a t c h and comm e r c i a l c a t c h were sometimes p o s i t i v e l y correlated--possibly because b o t h d e c l i n e d a f t e r heavy f i s h i n g p r e s s u r e o r because o f a n a t u r a l 30month c y c l e i n abundance (Camber 1955)--and sometimes negatively correlated, possibly because one f i s h e r y r e p l a c e d t h e o t h e r ( A l l e n and Tashi r o 1976). ECOLOGICAL ROLE Feeding H a b i t s J u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper a r e carnivorous. Small z o o p l a n k t e r s were
common p r e y o f j u v e n i l e s up t o 150 mm FL, b u t t h e f i s h p r o b a b l y s t a r t t o p r e f e r l a r g e r p r e y when t h e y a r e about 100 mm FL (Bradley and Bryan 1976). Stomachs o f j u v e n i l e s most f r e q u e n t l y c o n t a i n e d shrimp t h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico (Camber 1955; Other B r a d l e y and Bryan 1976). crustaceans ( i n c l u d i n g crabs), f i s h , and s q u i d were found i n 2%-10% o f t h e sampled f i s h . The types o f p r e y t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t h e g r e a t e s t percentage by volume t o t h e d i e t o f j u v e n i l e s were squid, octopuses, and shrimp (Table 6). J u v e n i l e s and a d u l t s e a t a l a r g e variety of species o f m o l l uscs, crustaceans, and f i s h e s (Table 7). Camber (1955) r e p o r t e d t h a t a d u l t r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico t o o k t h e f o l l o w i n g p r e y ( i n decreasing o r d e r o f frequency o f occurrence): shrimp, small r e e f f i s h , crabs, and gastropods. He s t a t e d t h a t t u n i c a t e s may be t a k e n i n s p r i n g . Futch and Bruger (1976) s t a t e d t h a t r e d snapper may feed over sand, s h e l l , o r mud bottoms n e x t t o r e e f s o r o t h e r r o c k y bottoms. Many o f t h e p r e y o f r e d snapper a r e found over l e v e l bottoms a d j a c e n t t o t h e r e e f s , r a t h e r t h a n on t h e r e e f s themselves (Davis 1975).
Table 6. Prey items found i n t h e g r e a t e s t frequency o f occurrence i n j u v e n i l e and a d u l t red snapper and t h e g r e a t e s t volume i n j u v e n i l e s i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico (from Bradley and Bryan 1976).
Season Winter Spring Summer Fa1 1
Juveni l e s Greatest Greatest frequency percentage o f occurrence o f vo 1ume
Adults Greatest frequency o f occurrence
Shrimp Shrimp Shrimp Shrimp
F i s h (83%) F i s h (39%) Lesser b l u e crab (36%) F i s h (55%)
(25%) (6%) (53%) (83%)
Competition, Predation, and P a r a s i t i s m The grey snapper ( L u t ' a n i s r i s e u s ) orobablv comoeti t+ b s j'uvenile r e d snapper ?ram inshore waters i n some l o c a l i t i e s (Smith 1976). Sharks sometimes s t r i k e a t f i s h being brought up by hook and l i n e (Brad1 ey and Bryan 1976). Parasitic leeches have been found attached t o t h e g i l l s o f r e d snapper (Williams 1979).
Shrimp (48%) Shrimp (75%) Squid (41%) Octopuses (45%)
Habitat
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Red snapper a r e common i n submarine g u l l i e s and depressions where food may accumulate and over c o r a l r e e f s , r o c k outcrops, and gravel bottoms i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico (Stearns 1885; Klima 1976). Usually, fewer f i s h a r e supp o r t e d by smooth bottom w i t h o u t h i g h r e l i e f than by bottom w i t h threedimensional s t r u c t u r e s , such as o f f shore o i l and gas r i g s , a r t i f i c i a l r e e f s , and wrecks (Johnston e t a l . 1976; Sonnier e t a l . 1976).
Temperature and S a l i n i t y
Depth
Red snapper have been taken a t 13-32 "C (Rivas 1970; Roe 1976). One o f a sample o f seven r e d snapper d i e d a t 12.5 "C--near t h e lower t o l e r a n c e 1i m i t--in a 1aboratory t e s t (Moore 1973). The upper t o l e r a n c e l i m i t i s about 33.5 'C (Rivas 1970). A s a l i n i t y o f 60 p p t was l e t h a l t o a l l r e d snapper i n a l a b o r a t o r y t e s t , b u t t h e y survived exposure t o about 45 p p t w i t h o u t s e r i o u s e f f e c t s ( H u f f and Burns 1981). They are marine f i s h and have been taken i n waters o f 33-37 p p t (Mosel ey 1966).
I n Texas, j u v e n i l e r e d snapper moved o f f s h o r e from shallow water (about 15-30 m) i n summer t o deep water (about 35-60 m) i n w i n t e r , based on depths o f capture by t r a w l (Moseley 1966; Bradley and Bryan 1975). The movement may be a means o f a v o i d i n g c o o l e r inshore water i n w i n t e r . The a c t u a l cue f o r movement, however, was n o t a drop i n water temperature, because movement occurred before t h e temperature declined. Nelson and Manooch (1982) r e p o r t e d no s i z e segregation between shallow ( ~ 3 5 m) and deep (>35 m) waters o f f t h e Carol inas.
I n t h e l a b o r a t o r y , r e d snapper under simulated n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s s awned i n water o f 23-25 "C and 31- 4 p p t ( A r n o l d e t a l . 1978).
P
Red snapper were abundant a t depths o f about 40-110 m (Carpenter 1965) and
Table 7. Prey items found i n stomachs o f j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico (from Stearns 1885, Felder 1973, Davis 1975, and Futch and Bruger 1976). This i s n o t intended t o be a comprehensive l i s t . Moll uscs Bivalves Laevicardi um p i c t u m Gastropods Pleuro l o c a g i g a n t e a m i a wi cox1
e7
'Squid' (Lo1 i g o sp. ) Crustaceans Stomatopods Saui 1 1a emDusa
* Trach
enaeus' c o n s t r i c t u s
Decapods (continued)
s or fun us
' ibbesi i Cal l i n e c t es7 simi i s C. danae r e todius agassizii h u n z i Parthino e serrata d- ; 4 ia Rani no1des sp. M a j i d crab Prlono l a x a t l a n t i c a Teleos ean ishes Gulf pipefish Shoal f l o u n d e r S hoeroides
-4-F
1 ~ )
ina) Pe F i l u s a r m f f a m ; 1 ) +C~i,P1 ;ctruY formosum O ~ h i c h t h i d s na e ee ". C\ upeids errin in^ f a m i l y )
1
have been caught a t 7-146 m (Moseley 1966; Rivas 1970). Contaminants Concentrations o f c h l o r i n a t e d hydrocarbons were lower i n f l e s h samples o f r e d snapper than i n samples o f species w i t h a higher n a t u r a l o i l content (>3% o i l ) , though contaminant l e v e l s i n t h i s group, too, were low ( S t o u t 1980). Wet r e d snapper f i l l e t s had an average of 0.039 ppm DDT and m e t a b o l i t e s ; t h e U. S. l e g a l rnaxin'lum i s 5 ppm ( S t o u t 1980). The same
f i l l e t s had 0.121 ppm PCB's; t h e U.S. l e g a l maximum i s 3 ppnl. Only one o f nine samples o f r e d snapper had detectable levels o f the pesticides d i e l d r i n and endrin. Red snapper i n an o f f s h o r e o i l f i e l d were n o t c ~ n t a mnated i w i t h petroleum hydrocarbons, although 13 other species o f f i s h were contaminated ( M i d d l e d i t c h e t a l . 1979). No e v i dence o f t o x i c e f f e c t s was found i n t e s t e s o f f i v e male r e d snapper from o i l f i e l d s i n the g u l f (Scott e t a l . 1980).
REFERENCES A1 1en, D. M. , and J. E. Tashi ro. 1976. Status o f t h e U.S. commercial snapper-grouper fishery. Pages 41-76 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones , T d s . Proceedings: c o l l o q u i um on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y r e sources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp. Jr. 1967. Field Anderson, W.D., guide t o t h e snappers (Lutjanidae) o f t h e western A t l a n t i c . U.S. F i s h W i l d l . Serv. C i r c . 252. 14 pp. Arnold, C.R., J.M. Wakeman, T.D. W i l liams, and G.D. Treece. 1978. Spawning o f r e d snapper ( L u t anus cam echanus) i n c a p t i v i t y . * b 3 ) :301-302. Bean, T. H. 1887. Notes on a young r e d snapper (Lut anus b l a c k f o r d i i ) Long I s l a n d . from Great Sou* Proc. U.S. N a t l . Mus. 10:512. Beaumariage, D. S. 1969. Returns from t h e 1965 S c h l i t z t a g g i n g program i n c l u d i n g a cumulative a n a l y s i s o f previous r e s u l t s . Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 59. 3 8 p p . Beaumariage, D. S. , and L. H. B u l l ock. 1976. B i o l o g i c a l research on snappers and groupers as r e l a t e d t o fishery management requirements. Pages 86-94 i n H. R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A. C. Jones, T d s . Proceedings: c o l loquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources of t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp. Beaumariage, D.S., and A.C. W i t t i c h . 1966. Returns from t h e 1964 S c h l i t z
tagging program. Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 47. 5 1 PP. Bortone, S. A. , and C. C. H o l l ingsworth. 1980. Ageing r e d snapper, L u t 'anus campechanus, w i t h o t h o l it h s ,* and vertebrae. Northeast G u l f Sci . 4: 60-63. 1975. Bradley, E. , and C. E. Bryan. L i f e h i s t o r y and f i s h e r y o f t h e r e d snapper (Lutjanus cam echanus) i n *xico: t h e northwestern Gul 1970-1974. Proc. G u l f C a r r i b . Fish. I n s t . 27: 77-106. Camber, C . I . 1955. A survey o f t h e r e d snapper f i s h e r y o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico, w i t h s p e c i a l reference t o t h e Campeche Banks. Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 12. 6 4 p p . Captiva, F. J. , and J.B. Kivers. 1960. Development and use o f o t t e r t r a w l i n g gear f o r r e d snapper f i s h i n g i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico, June, 1957-May, 1959. Con~mer. Fish. Rev. 22(10): 1-14. Carpenter, J.S. 1965. A review o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico r e d snapper fishery. U.S. F i s h W i l d l . Serv. C i r c . 208. 35 pp. Cato, J.C. , and F. J. Prochaska. 1976. The G u l f o f Mexico commercial and recreational red snapper-grouper fishery: an economic a n a l y s i s o f production, marketing, and p r i c e s . Pages 95-128 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , Proceedings: and A.C. JoneS; eds. c o l 1oqui um on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l
A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.
Sea
Grant
resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.
C o l l i n s , L.A., J.H. Finucane, and L.E. Barger. 1980. D e s c r i p t i o n o f l a r v a l and j u v e n i 1e r e d snapper, L u t 'anus cam echanus. U.S. N a t l . M a d Z F B u l l 77(4): 965-974.
Grimes, C.B., C.S. Manooch 111, G.R. Hutsman, and R. L.. Dixon. 1977. Red snappers o f t h e C a r o l i n a coast. Mar. Fish. Rev. 39:12-15.
C o l l i n s , L.A., J.H. Finucane, and H.A. Brusher. [1987]. Reproductive b i o l o g y o f t h e r e d snapper, Lutjanus cam echanus (Poey), from t h r e e areas a ong t e southeastern coast o f t h e U n i t e d States. U. S. National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service, Panama C i t y , Fla. Unpubl. MS. 2 1 pp.
G u l f o f Mexico F i s h e r y Management Counci 1. 1981. F i s h e r y management plan f o r the reef f i s h fishery o f t h e G u l f o f mexico. Pages 1-1 t o 10-12 i n Environmental impact s t a t e ment a i d f i s h e r y management p l a n f o r t h e r e e f f i s h resources o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico. G u l f o f Mexico F i s h e r y Management Counci 1 , Tampa, F l o r i d a .
-f%7
Davis, J. K. 1975. Factors in f 1uenci n g t h e presence o f r e d s n a m e r (Lut'anus cam echanus Poey) on seven an A b m Reef. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&I University, K i n g s v i l l e . 110 pp. D u f f y , M. 1970. Snappers a r e sociable. La. Conserv. 22(1):26-27. Fable, W.A., ies of
Sci .
J r . 1980. Tagging studred snapper (Lutjanus and vermi 1 i o n snapper aurorubens) o f f t h e coast. Contrib. Mar. 23: 115-121.
1973. A record o f Felder, D. L. Pinnixa 1unzi Glossel 1 (Decapoda, Pinnother-%k?J from o f f t h e coast o f Crustaceana 24(1) : Texas, U. S. A. 148-149. F l o r i d a Sea Grant College. 1980. Appendix t o t h e Environmental Impact Statement and f i s h e r y management p l a n f o r r e e f f i s h resources o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico. G u l f o f Mexico F i s hery Management Counci 1 , Tampa, F l o r i d a . 1 0 1 pp. Futch, R.B. , and G. E. Bruger. 1976. Age, growth, and r e p r o d u c t i o n o f red snapper i n F l o r i d a waters. Pages 165-184 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. J o n e z eds. Proceedings: c o l loquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y
Hildebrand, H.H. 1954. A study o f t h e fauna o f t h e brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus I v e s ) grounds i n t h e t e r T G i ' I 7 o f Mexico. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 3(2): 1-366. Hildebrand, H.H. 1955. A study o f t h e p i n k shrimp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) g r o u n d s i n e - ' G i i T Z Campeche. Publ. I n s t . Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 4(1): 169-232. H o l t , S.A., and C.R. Arnold. 1982. Growth o f j u v e n i 1e r e d snapper Lutjanus cam echanus i n t h e n o r t h c o . U.S. N a t l . western Guk Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. B u l l . 80(3): 644- 648. H u f f , J.A., and C.D. Burns. 1981. Hypersal ine and chemical c o n t r o l o f Cryptocaryon irritans i n r e d snapper, L u t 'anus cam echanus, monocul t u r e + c u l b - 1 8 4 . Huntsman, G. R. 1976. Offshore headboat f i s h i n g i n North C a r o l i n a and South ~ a r o i i n a . Mar. Fish. Rev. 38: 13-23. Johnston, J.B., J. K. Adams, and R. Foster. 1976. The r e d snapper resource o f t h e Texas Continental Shelf. Pages 237-247 i n H.R. Bul l i s , J r . , and A. C. Jones, eds.
Proceedings: c o l 1oqui um on snappergrouper resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp. Klima, E.F. 1976. Snapper and grouper resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Pages 5-40 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: c o l 1oqui um on snappergrouper resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp. M i d d l e d i t c h , B.S., E.S. Chang, B. 1979. B a s i l e , and S.R. Misler. A1 kanes i n f i s h from t h e Buccaneer O i lfield. B u l l . Environ. Contam. Toxic. 22: 249-257. Moe, M.A., J r . 1966. Tagging f i s h e s i n F l o r i d a offshore waters. Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 49. 40 pp. 1973. The e f f e c t o f temMoore, R.H. p e r a t u r e and swimming speed on t h e oxygen consumption o f two snappers, ~ u t j n u s campechanu (Poey) and Rhom o 11t e s auroru ens (Cuvier). o n t r ~ b Mar. Sci. 17:53-61.
+
Moseley, F.N. 1966. B i o l o g y o f t h e Block, o f r e d snapper, Lutjanus t h e northwestern G u l f o f Mexico. Publ. I n s t . Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 11:90-101. Nakamura, E. L. 1976. Recreational f i s h e r i e s f o r snappers and groupers i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. Pages 77-85 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: colloquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 PP. National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service, 1984. Marine r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f 1980. U.S. coasts, 1979 (revised). N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. S t a t . 8322. 239 pp.
National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service 1985a. Marine r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f U.S. N a t l . Mar. coasts, 1981-1982. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8324. 215 pp. National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service. 1985b. Marine r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts, 1983-1984. U.S. N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8326. 222 pp. National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service. 1986a. Marine r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts, 1985. U. S. N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8327. 130 pp. National Marine F i s h e r i e s Service. 1986b. F i s h e r i e s o f t h e United States, 1985. U.S. N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8380. 1 2 1 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm i n i s t r a t i o n . 1985. G u l f o f Mexico and Ocean Zones S t r a t e g i c .AssessNOAA, National ment: Data A t l a s . Ocean Service. n.p. Nelson, R. S. , and C. S. Manooch. 1982. Growth and m o r t a l i t y o f r e d snappers i n t h e west-central A t l a n t i c Ocean and n o r t h e r n G u l f o f Mexico. Trans. Am. F i sh. Soc. 111:465-475. Nelson, W. R. , and J. S. Carpenter. 1968. Bottom 1ongl i n e e x p l o r a t i o n s i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. A r e p o r t on "Oregon 11's" f i r s t c r u i s e . Commer. Fish. Rev. 30(10): 57-62. Ogren, L.H. , and H.A. Brusher. 1977. The d i s t r i b u t i o n and abundance o f f i s h caught w i t h a t r a w l i n t h e S t . Andrew Bay System, F l o r i d a . Northe a s t G u l f Sci. 1(2):83-105. Parrack, N.C. 1986a. A review o f Gulf o f Mexico r e d snapper age and growth. U.S. N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. , Southeast Fish. Cent. , Miami
Lab., Coastal Resour. Div. C o n t r i b . 7 1 pp. No. CRD-86/87-2. Parrack, N. C. 1986b. Review and upd a t e o f G u l f o f Mexico r e d snapper biometrics: 1. Weight-1 ength r e l a tions. 2. Length-1 ength conversions. U.S. N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv., Southeast Fish. Cent., Miami Lab., Coastal Resour. Div. C o n t r i b . No. CRD-86/87-3. 26 pp. Parrack, N.C., and D.B. McClellan. 1986. Trends i n G u l f o f Mexico r e d snapper p o p u l a t i o n dynamics, 197985. U.S. N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv., Southeast Fish. Cent., Miami Lab., Coastal Resour. Div. C o n t r i b . No. CRD-86/87-4. 116 pp. R a i b a l a i s , N.N. , S. C. Rabalais, and 1980. D e s c r i p t i o n o f C.R. Arnold. eggs and 1arvae o f 1a b o r a t o r y r e a r e d r e d snapper ( L u t 'anus campechanus). Copeia 1980(4)*. Reef F i s h S c i e n t i f i c Task Team and Special S c i e n t i f i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Committee. 1987. Review o f r e e f f i s h assessments and management options. Summary recommendations. G u l f o f Mexico F i s h e r y ManageTampa, Florida. ment Counci 1, 3 PP. Rivas, L. R. 1966. Review o f t h e Lutjanus cam echanus complex o f r e d Acad. Sci. snappers. *la. 29(2): 117-136. Rivas, L. R. 1970. western A t l a n t i c . Rev. 32(1): 41-44.
Snappers o f t h e Commer. Fish.
Roe, R.B. 1976. Distribution o f snappers and groupers i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico and Caribbean Sea as d e t e r mined from e x p l o r a t o r y f i s h i n g data. Pages 129-164 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: c o l 1oqui um on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.
1976. Response by St. Amant, L.S. S t a t e and Federal agency representat i v e s , panel 3, statement 5. Pages 322-324 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and Jones, eds. Proceedings: A. C. c o l loquim on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. F l a . Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp. McArthur, R. Scott, G.G., N.H. T a r p l e y , R.F. S i s , and V. Jacobs. 1980. Hi s t o p a t h o l o g i c a l survey o f male gonads o f f i s h from petroleum p r o d u c t i o n and c o n t r o l s i t e s i n t h e J. Fish. B i o l . G u l f o f Mexico. 17: 593-602. Smith, G.B. 1976. The impact o f f i s h - k i 11i n g p h y t o p l a n k t o n blooms upon mideastern G u l f o f Mexico r e e f f i s h communities. Pages 185-191 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: c o l 1oquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. F l a . Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp. Smith, ing use Rev.
R. 0. 1948. Experimental f i s h f o r r e d snapper. P a r t 1: The o f hoop nets. Commer. Fish. lO(2) :1-10.
Sonnier, F. , J. T e e r l i n g , and H. D. Hoese. 1976. Observations on t h e o f f s h o r e r e e f and p l a t f o r m f i s h fauna o f Louisiana. Copeia 1976(1): 105-111. Stearns, S. 1885. Notes on t h e r e d snapper. Pages 92-95 i n C.W. Smiley, compiler. Notes upon t h e f i s h and f i s h e r i e s : B u l l . U.S. F i s h Comm. 5: 65-112. 1980. Organochlorine S t o u t , V. F. residues i n f i s h e s from t h e n o r t h west A t l a n t i c Ocean and G u l f o f Mexico, U.S. N a t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. B u l l . 78(1): 51-58. Topp, R. 1963. i n Florida:
The t a g g i n g o f f i s h e s 1962 program. Fla.
Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. Ser. 5. 76 pp. Vergara-R. , R. , preparer. 1978. Lutjanidae. I n W. Fischer, ed. FA0 species identification sheets. F i s h i n g area 3 1 (western c e n t r a l At1 a n t i c ) . Food and A g r i c u l t u r e Organization o f t h e U n i t e d Nations, Rome. 1981. Age and growth o f Wade, C . W. s p o t t e d s e a t r o u t and r e d snapper i n Alabama. Pages 345-354 i n J. Sweeney, ed. Proc. T h i r t y T f i f t h Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. F i s h W i l d l . Agencies.
Wakeman, J.M., C.R. Arnold, D.E. Wohlchlag, and S. C. Rabalais. 1979. Oxygen consumption, energy expendit u r e , and growth i n r e d snapper ( L u t 'anus cam echanus). Trans. Am. F h . * 2 . Warren, A. F. 1897. The r e d snapper f i s h e r i e s : t h e i r p a s t , present, and future. B u l l . U.S. F i s h Comm. 17: 331-335. Williams, E.H., J r . 1979. Leeches o f some f i s h e s o f t h e Mobile Bay Region. Northeast G u l f Sci. 3(1): 47-49.
SO271 -191
REPORT WCUMENTATION PAGE
1. "Emm
NO.
4. Title and Subtltle
-
. 3. Rec~p~ent's Accession NO.
2.
B i o l o g i c a l Report 82(11.83)*
5. ReDon Date
August 1988
Species P r o f i 1es: L i f e H i s t o r i e s and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and I n v e r t e b r a t e s ( G u l f o f Mexico)--Red Snapper
I
.
7 Author(s)
I.Padoming Orcanization Re@. Na
- David Moran
1
9I. Pedoming Organlzatlon Name and W r e s s
10. Proiect/Tash/Worh Unit No.
II
11. ContractfC) or Grant(G) No. fc)
-
I2. Soonrorinc Orgenizatlon Name and Address
N a t i o n a l Wetlands Research Center NASA-Sl i d e l 1 Computer Complex 1010 Gause Blvd. Sl i d e l 1, LA 70458
U. S. Corps o f Engineers Wateqways Experiment S t a t i o n P.O. Box 631 Vicksburg, MS 39180
(G) 13. T Y ~ of . Reoon 6 h r i o d C-nd
I15. Supplementac). Notes
-
*U.S.
Army Corps o f Engineers Report No. TR EL-82-4
I6. Abstract (Llmit: 200 words)
The r e d snapper i s found o f f s h o r e on t h e C o n t i n e n t a l S h e l f t h r o u g h o u t t h e G u l f o f Mexico. Red snappers a r e t a k e n i n t h e snapper-grouper f i s h e r y , u s u a l l y w i t h b a i t e d hooks. The r e d snapper commercial f i s h e r y c u r r e n t l y ranks seventh i n t o t a l v a l u e among commercial catches o f f i n f i s h and s h e l l f i s h i n t h e g u l f . Red snapper a r e a l s o a t a r g e t o f a l a r g e s p o r t f i s h e r y . The most i m p o r t a n t p r e y o f r e d snapper a r e f i s h , squid, and crustaceans. I n g e n e r a l , r e d snapper spawn i n summer and f a l l i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. The peak abundance o f j u v e n i l e s occurs i n s h a l l o w e r w a t e r (20-46 m) t h a n does t h e peak abundance o f a d u l t s . A d u l t r e d snapper do n o t move from t h e i r r e e f h a b i t a t i o n s d u r i n g t h e c o o l e r months, and d u r i n g t h a t t i m e w i l l remain i n a f i s h i n g area u n t i l i t i s f i s h e d o u t . F i s h 1 t o Red snapper may reach a f o r k l e n g t h o f 845 5 y e a r s o l d grow 60-90 mm SL/year. mm, a w e i g h t o f 12 kg, and an age o f 13 years.
17. Document Analysis
a. Oaurlptom
Fisheries L i f e cycles Marine f i s h e s Contaminants
Growth Feeding h a b i t s Competition Depth
b. Identlfien/Oven-Ended Terms
Red snapper L u t j a n u s campechanus
-
C.
COSATI FieldlCroup
1L Ara~labllity Statement
19. Socurlty Class (This R e o n )
Unclassified
-
Unlimited release
(SIme ANSI-Z39.18)
ZO. Sacurity Class ( T ~ I SPaw)
I
21. No. d Paces
v i i i +19 -
P. wce
Unclassified OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77 (Forrmrly N T l S 3 5 ) Ompmnment d Comme=e
TAKE PRIDE 212 Amerzcd A
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 t o 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.
