[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 June 1994 Abundance and Distribution of Ichthyoplankton along an Inshore-Offshore Transect in Onslow Bay, North Carolina Allyn B. Powell Roger E. Robbins SH11 U.S. Department of Commerce .A44672 no.120 U.S. Department of Commerce AA Ronald H. Brown Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration echnical D. James Baker Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere Reports NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Reports of the Fisheg Bulletin Rolland A. Schmitten Assistant Administrator for Scientific Editor Fisheries Dr. Ronald W. Hardy Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112-2097 110,11-1 or N@, Editorial Conunittee Dr. Andrew E. Dizon National Marine Fisheries Service Dr. IAnda L. Jones National Marine Fisheries Service (3 Dr. Richard D. Methot National Marine Fisheries Service 114 'Sol Dr. Theodore W. Pietsch University of Washington Dr. Joseph E. Powers National Marine Fisheries Service Dr. Tim D. Smith National Marine Fisheries Service Managing Editor James W. Orr The NOAA Technical Report NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (ISSN 0892-8908) series is published by Scientific Publications Office the Scientific Publications Office, National 7 600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C 15 7 00 Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 7600 Seattle, Washington 98115-0070 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115- 0070. Although the contents have not been copyrighted and may be reprinted entire- ly, reference to the source is appreciated. The NOAA Technical Report NMFS series of the Fishe@ Bulletin carries peer- The Secretary of Commerce has deter- . . reviewed, lengthy original research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, flora mined that the publication of tills senes is and fauna studies, and data intensive reports on investigations in fishery science, necessary in the transaction of the public engineering, and economics. The series was established in 1983 to replace two business required by law of this Depart- subcategories of the Technical Report series: "Special Scientific Report- ment. Use of funds for printing of this series has been approved by tire Director Fisheries" and "Circular." Copies of the NOAA Technical Report NMFS are avail- of the Office of Management and Budget. able free in limited numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. For sale by the U.S. Department of They are also available in exchange for other scientific and technical publications NO T Commerce, National Technical Infonna- in the marine sciences. Individual copies may be obtained from the U.S. Depart- tion Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, ment of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Springfield, VA 22161. Road, Springfield, VA. 22 16 1. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 A Technical Report of the Fisheiy Bulletin Abundance and Distribution of Ichthyoplankton along an Inshore-Offshore Transect in Onslow Bay, North Carolina Allyn B. Powell Roger E. Robbins June 1994 U.S. Department of Commerce Seattle, Washington LIBRARY NOAA/CCEB 1990 HOBSON AVE. CHAS. SC 29408-2623 Abundance And Distribution Of Ichthyoplankton along an Inshore-Offshore Transect In Onslow Bay, North Carolina ALLYN B. POWELL and ROGER E. ROBBINS National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAAINMFS Beaufort Laborato?y Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 ABSTRACT The distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton was investigated from November 1979 to March 1980 along a transect from coastal to continental slope waters in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Representatives of 66 families were collected; 24 of which were tropical families, a category that also includes families of typically oceanic and deep-sea fishes. Larvae of tropical species were collected in coastal and shelf waters, demonstrating the intrusion of Gulf Stream waters onto the continental shelf. From December through March, frontal waters that separated cold open-shelf surface waters from warm Gulf Stream surface waters were observed. Higher abundances of fish larvae were sometimes, but not consis- tently, associated with frontal waters. A great diversity of taxa was collected in offshore waters, and densities of larvae were low in coastal waters; low densities were attributed to gear selectivity rather than low larval abundance. Larvae of commercially and recreationally important estuarine-depen dent species, especially Leiostomus xanthurus and Micropogonias undulatus, were dominant components of the ichthyoplankton. Representatives of the families Bothidae, Clupeidae, Gadidae, Gonostomatidae, Myctophidae, Ophidiidae, and Sparidae were also important components of the ichthyoplankton. Larvae of species repre- senting two strikingly different life history types-mesopetagic and estuarine-dependent- frequently cooccurred. Introduction The objective of our study was to measure the abun- dance of all ichthyoplankton taxa taken along an in- Recently in April 1990 the National Marine Fisheries shore to offshore transect in Onslow Bay, North Caro- Service (NMFS), Beaufort Laboratory, initiated a reef lina, from late fall 1979 through early spring 1980. This fish recruitment study emphasizing recruitment on hard information was used (1) to determine the kinds and bottoms in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. One objective abundance of reef fish larvae, (2) to provide basic infor- of that study was to examine historical samples for the mation for projects like SABRE on the composition and presence of reef fishes, particularly gag, Mycteroperca abundance of fish larvae relative to distance from shore microlepis, and red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, that appear to in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, from late fall to early spawn during winter months (Manooch, 1976; Collins spring, and (3) to examine the composition and abun- et al., 1987). In addition, the National Oceanic and dance of ichthyoplankton in relation to a thermal front Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Ocean that separates warm Gulf Stream waters from cooler con ti- Program (COP) recently (1991) initiated a South At- nental shelf waters. A detailed account of the age and size, lantic Bight Recruitment Experiment (SABRE) study relative to distance from shore, of Micropogonias undulatus, centered in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. The SABRE Leiostomus xanthurus, and Brevoortia tyrannus collected dur- study focuses on recruitment processes for estuarine- ing this study has been given by Warlen (1982), Warlen dependent fishes spawned in fall and winter. and Chester (1985), and Warlen (1992), respectively. I 2 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Methods anic Fisheries Investigations (CALCOFI) techniques (Smith and Richardson, 1977). At the shallow stations The RV John deWolf II, a 19-m steel long-liner converted 11 and 12, nets were towed I m below the surface for for oceanographic work, was used on all cruises. One approximately 5 minutes. transect, consisting of eight stations (11-18) from in- Larvae from one net were preserved in 5% buffered shore to offshore (Fig. 1), was sampled monthly from formalin; larvae from the other, in 70% ethyl alcohol November 1979 to March 1980. Ichthyoplankton was Catches were standardized to number of larvae/100 sampled with a 60-cm bongo sampler with 505-um nets M3. Catches from duplicate tows, when taken, were except in February, when 333-Wednesday, 04 April, 200105:53:11 PMum mesh nets were used. averaged arithmetically. Surface temperature weas re- A flowmeter mounted in the center of each net mouth corded at each station. Isotherms depicted in Figure 2 was used to estimate the volume of water filtered. Ex- were interpolated from station data. cept for the shallow stations 11 and 12, nets were towed Taxa were classified by range and habitat of adults, to obliquely using standard California Cooperative Oce- allow comparisons between the following habitat groups: Figure 1 Location of sampling sites in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Values in parentheses indicate depth (m). Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 3 (1) estuarine dependent-species that spawn in coastal information from Robins and Ray (1986), and specific and shelf waters but that generally reside in estuaries distributional information on carapids from Olney and during their juvenile stage; (2) coastal-species that Markle (1979) and on stromateoids from Ahlstrom et commonly inhabit depths down to 18 m; (3) open al. (1976) were used to classify taxa. shelf-species that commonly inhabit depths of 18- Stations were classified by four general habitat types 65 m; (4) shelf edge-species that commonly inhabit following Struhsaker's (1969) classification: (1) coastal depths of 65-132 m; (5) lower shelf-species that com- habitat, stations I I and 12; (2) open-shelf habitat, stations monly inhabit depths of 132-185 m; and (6) "tropical'@-- 13-16; (3) lower-shelf habitat, station 17; and (4) slope subtropical and tropical species, as well as oceanic, habitat, station 18. Because open-shelf habitat covers a mesopelagic, and deep-sea species, whose occurrence wide area, we considered stations close to coastal habitat on North Carolina's continental shelf was most likely as inner open-shelf (e.g. 13 and 14) and stations close to caused by transport by Gulf Stream intrusions. For con- lower-shelf habitat as outer open-shelf (e.g. 15 and 16). venience, species of this latter group will be referred to Supplemental habitat descriptions were included from as "tropical" species. A list of 685 species inhabiting Schwartz (1989) and Robins and Ray (1986). North Carolina marine waters is given by Schwartz When evaluating the contribution of individual taxa (1989). Schwartz's classification, general distributional in terms of density, we used five larvae/100 m, (i.e. STATION ,C) NOV -M!-P-ERAT@LR-E( TOTAL LARVAE 3.1 ND PER 100 M3 q (0c) C4 DEC ---- IVL (0c) JAN 10.4 E@l 9 q qqqqq 9 R q q q co Cb 0- em 0) V In 0 N CD FEB VC) -- I -- 117=- 7 E@ E@ (00 MAR L i C) E@] E@] E@@ Figure 2 Total larvae (number/ 100 m3 ) and sea surface temperatures during November-March along a transect from coastal to Gulf Stream waters in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. ND = no data collected. 4 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 4.5 larvae/100 m3 ) as the criterion to separate abun- 15) were lower than the mean values calculated for dant from less abundant. Identifying larvae to species these stations over the entire study period, whereas the level resulted in the tentative identification of certain highest value occurred in warmer Gulf Stream waters taxa. For example, six species of the gadid genus over the continental slope (Fig. 2). During January, Urophycis reportedly occur in North Carolina waters abundances were high in the vicinity of the front (sta- (Schwartz, 1989; Comyns and Grant, 1993). Pigmenta- tions 13-15), but lack of samples at offshore stations tion patterns of three of these (U. regia, U. chuss, and U. would not allow proper evaluation of larval fish abun- chesteri) have been described (Fahay 1983; Methven, dance relative to frontal waters (Fig. 2). During Febru- 1985), but small specimens (<10 min SL) of U. chesteri ary, high abundances were associated with frontal wa- and U. chuss, which may occur in our study area, cannot ters (stations 14-15), but values at the shoreward side be separated. We identified, when possible, two types of of the front did not appear unusually high (Fig. 2). Urophycis, U. regia and U. floridiana, on the basis of the Similarly in March, high abundances were observed at absence (U. regia) or presence (U. floridiana) of pelvic- the ocean side of the front, but low abundances were fin pigment (Comyns and Grant, 1993); however, other observed at the shoreward edge (Fig. 2). However, in Urophycis spp. that resemble them may also have been general, areas that had the overall highest densities of caught. A similar case occurred for the families Mycto- fish larvae were associated with the thermal front. phidae and Bothidae. Identifications of myctophids were based on criteria following Fahay (1983). For the Bothidae, not all species of the genera Etrapus and Diversity of Families Citharichthys have been described in detail (i.e. Erimosus and C macrops) (Tucker, 1982) so species identification There was a greater diversity of families at offshore of larvae of these genera should be considered tenta- stations (14-18) than onshore stations (11-13) (Table tive. Unidentified Paralichthys are most likely P. lethostigma 1). Collections in coastal waters (stations 11-12), where or P. albigutta because larvae of these two species can- densities of fish larvae were low (Fig. 2), contained a not be separated from one another until meristic char- consistently low diversity of families (Table 1). On the acters (e.g. anal-fin rays) are developed, whereas P. other hand, collections at the lower-shelf and slope dentatus can be readily separated. A complete list of habitats contained a high diversity of families, but very larval abundance by cruise and station is given in Ap- few families were abundant (Table 1). For example, at pendix Tables 1-5. Larval material is deposited at the station 17 during December, 35 families were identi- Beaufort Laboratory under the care of the senior author. fied, but none were collected at densities @! five larvae/ 100 in 3. Results Distribution and Relative Abundance of Selected Taxa Total Abundance The families Bothidae, Clupeidae, Gadidae, Gonosto- Representatives of 66 families, including representa- matidae, Myctophidae, Ophidiidae, Sciaenidae, and tives of 24 "tropical" families, were collected (Appendix Sparidae were important components of the Tables 1-5). The greatest abundance of fish larvae dur- ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, given ing late fall to early spring appeared at open-shelf (sta- they were among the five most abundant families (with tions 14-16), lower-shelf (station 17), and slope (sta- 10 larvae/ 100 in 3) in at least one cruise (Table 2). tion 18) locations (Fig. 2). Although there was a con- siderable degree of variability, larvae over the entire Sciaenidae-Only two species of sciaenids (Leiostomus study period were most abundant at open shelf stations xanthurus and Micropogonias undulatus) were collected 14 and 15 and were least abundant at coastal stations 11 and they dominated collections during late fall and and 12. winter (Table 1). These larval sciaenids were most abun- A thermal front, as defined by the greatest difference dant at open-shelf habitat stations and least abundant in surface water temperatures that separated cool coastal at coastal habitat stations (Table 1). On one occasion waters from warm Gulf Stream waters, was usually present (December), a large number of larvae of these species on the shelf during sampling. Frontal waters were gen- were collected in slope habitat waters well inside the erally, but not consistently, associated with high larval Gulf Stream (Table 1, Fig. 2). Micropogonias undulatus, densities (Fig. 2). During November sampling, a ther- which intensively spawns in the study area from late mal front was not observed. During December, larval September through November (Warlen, 1982), was the fish abundances associated with the front (stations 13- most abundant estuarine-dependent species during ERRATA for publication entitled: "Abundance and distribution of. ichthyoplankton along an inshore-offshore transect in Onslow Bay, North Carolina" by: Allyn B. Powell and.Roger E. Robbins Reference: NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 (June 1994) 28 p. page 6, Table 2: Under Column "Nov" and opposite family name Bothidae, numeral should be 13.2, NOT 3.2 Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 5 Table I The most abundant families collected in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, by month and station. Values are numbers/ IOOM2'. Blank spaces indicate that larvae occurred at densities < 4.5/100 M3. Dashes indicate no samples were taken. Station Family 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 November Bothidae 11.5 Clupeidae 6.3 Sciaenidae 273.1 60.2 Triglidae 8.1 Total number of families 1 2 1 13 10 - December Bothidae 5.4 17.5 5.8 4.8 Carangidae 6.6 5.1 Centriscidae 7.0 Engraulidae 4.7 Gadidae 27.1 Gonostomatidae 11.2 Myctophidae 7.0 11.0 Ophidiidae 6.1 Sciaenidae 10.2 4.6 8.4 51.4 Triglidae 8.0 Total number of families 3 4 3 9 3 18 a5 23 January Bothidae 24.8 15.3 7.3 Clupeidae 22.2 14.6 5.2 9.6 Gadidae 9.8 18.8 15.4 6.0 Ophichthidae 5.4 Photichthyidae 4.9 Sciaenidae 139.8 15.5 4.8 Sparidae 7.7 78.1 8.7 Total number of families 7 1 4 11 17 15 February Bothidae 30.1 42.3 19.0 Carangidae 4.5 Clupeidae 8.4 8.2 37.8 13.4 Gadidae 5.0 10.4 27.6 22.1 6.5 6.2 Gobiidae 4.7 Myctophidae 6.8. 8.9 Ophidiidae 4.7 11.5 Sciaenidae 13.5 45.2 23.0 Scorpaenidae 6.7 6.4 Serranidae 4.5 Sparidae 21.8 Synodontidae 5.1 Triglidae 5.1 Total number of families 1 6 11 25 30 19 19 27 6 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Table I (Continued) Station Family 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 March Bothidae 10.5 10.1 18.9 9.6 Clupeidae 19.3 22.3 22.7 27.5 13.0 Cynoglossidae 21.8 Gadidae 5.5 4.8 47.8 6.3 Myctophidae 5.7 8.6 Ophidiidae 5.4 30.5 Sciaenidae 14.3 15.3 Serranidae 5.0 11.4 5.5 Sparidae 8.8 Stromateidae 5.9 Synodontidae 8.0 Total number of families 0 2 11 10 19 21 18 15 Table 2 November; from December through February, L. Total abundances (numbers/100 m3 summed over xanthuras was the dominant estuarine-dependent spe- all stations) of the most abundant families collected cies (Table 3). in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, from November 1979 through March 1980. Blank spaces indicate that lar- Bothidae-Bothids were abundant throughout the study vae occurred at densities < 4.5 larvae/100 m3. period (Table 2). They were most abundant in open- shelf waters and rarely were collected in coastal, lower- Month shelf, and slope habitat waters (Table 1). The most Family Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar commonly collected bothids were of the genera Etropus, Citha,richthys, and Paralichthys (Table 4). Of the genus Ariommatidae 4.7 Paralichthys, three estuarine-dependent species were Balistidae 5.7 most abundant: P. albigutta, P. dentatus, and P. lethostigmw' Bothidae 3.2 37.8 48.0 101.2 54.9 P. squamilentus was rarely collected (Table 4). Paralichthys Callionymidae 4.6 larvae were most abundant in open-shelf waters but Carangidae 13.5 5.1 9.8 were not collected in November. Paralichthys albigutta Centriscidae 7.4 and R lethostigma were first collected in December. Clupeidae 7.2 6.6 56.0 75.2 100.7 During February, all three species were abundant in Cynoglossidae 6.0 26.8 open-shelf waters that were on the Gulf Stream edge of Engraulidae 5.9 6.3 4.8 the thermal front (Table 4, Fig. 2). Paralichthys sp. (ei- Gadidae 28.0 50.0 79.3 64.4 ther P albigutta or P. lethostigma) ranked third in abun- Gobiidae 7.o 8.3 8.3 dance in December and fourth in abundance from Gonostomatidae 16.5 11.9 January through March among Paralichthys collections Myctophidae 24.8 4.9 30.8 23.2 (Table 4). Given their importance and their small size Ophichthidae 5.7 9.1 5.9 (meristic characters necessary to separate them have Ophidiidae 10.3 17.1 39.9 not yet developed), a comparative description of P. Photichthyidae 5.9 lethostigma and R albigutta is needed to evaluate the Scaridae 5.2 Sciaenidae 334.1 81.5 165.3 88.7 34.7 abundance and distribution of early life history stages Scombridae 5.8 and spawning areas of each of these bothids. Scorpaenidae 20.6 Etropus crossotus and E. microstomus were most abun- Serranidae 5.0 13.6 23.4 dant in open-shelf, lower-shelf, and slope habitat waters Sparidae 97.5 29.1 12.6 (Table 4) suggesting that the spawning area of these Stromateidae 9.4 estuarine, coastal, and open-shelf species might be off- Syngnathidae 4.8 shore of their adult habitat. Other bothids were less Synodontidae 10.6 15.8 abundant. Bothus sp., representative of two species that Triglidae 8.1 8.0 8.8 occur in the study area (B. ocellatus and B. robinsi), was never abundant. This genus, adults of which occupy Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 7 Table 3 Relative abundance (numbers/100 m3) of estuarine-dependent species, by month and station, collected in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Dashes indicate no samples were taken. Blank spaces indicate no larvae were collected. Station Family Taxon 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 November Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 0.9 - 6.3 - - Sciaenidae Leioslomus xanthurus - 43.2 3.2 Micropogonias undulatus - 229.8 56.9 December Bothidae Paralichthys albigutta 2.5 P. ,lethostigma 5.6 Paralichthys sp. 7.0 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 4.1 0.6 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 5.6 4.6 7.0 1.1 45.4 Micropogonias undulatus 1.9 1.8 4.6 1.8 1.4 0.5 6.0 January Bothidae Paralichthys dentatus 6.5 2.0 - - Paralichthys sp. 7.1 1.5 - - Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 2.8 1.6 22.3 14.4 2.0 1.0 - - Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 4.2 0.9 137.2 10.8 3.9 - - Micropogonias undulatus 2.7 4.7 1.0 - - Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 0.7 2.2 3.5 14.9 8.7 - - February Bothidae Paralichthys albigutta 1.6 4.1 5.6 P. dentatus 1.6 6.3 2.7 0.3 P. lethostigma 1.8 5.0 Paralichthys sp. 4.2 6.2 1.7 0.3 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 8.4 15.9 1.1 0.3 3.2 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 0.8 13.5 41.7 20.3 2.3 0.3 1.8 Micropogonias undulatus 3.5 2.7 1.1 0.3 0.3 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 0.8 1.4 1.6 2.7 21.8 March Bothidae Paralichthys dentatus 3.7 Paralichthys sp. 0.8 7.9 2.9 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 1.0 19.3 2.9 10.7 4.4 6.9 2.8 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 2.3 11.4 13.5 0.9 2.0 Micropogonias undulatus 2.9 1.7 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 3.9 8.8 8 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Table 4 Relative abundance (numbers/100 in') of bothid larvae, by month and station, collected in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Dashes indicate no samples were taken. Blank spaces indicate no larvae were collected. Station Taxon 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 November Bothus sp. - 1.3 - - Citharichthys sp. - 2.2 - - Etropus sp. - 1.6 - - Unidentified - 8.1 - - December Bothus sp. 2.0 1.6 0.6 1.6 Cyclopsettafinthriata 0.6 0.3 Etropus microstomus 0.6 Etropus sp. 2.8 2.2 Paralichthys albigutta 2.5 P. lethostigma 5.6 Paralichthys sp. 7.0 Scophthalmus aquosus 1.0 2.9 4.9 Unidentified 1.4 January Cithafichthys gymnorhinus 4.2 Cilha?ichthys sp. 4.9 4.5 1.4 Etropus sp. 7.2 5.8 Paralichthys dentatus 6.5 2.0 Paralichthys sp. 7.1 1.5 Unidentified 0.7 2.1 February Bothus sp. 1.6 1.4 0.3 0.8 Citharichthys cornutus 0.3 C. gymnorhinus 0.3 0.8 Citharichthys sp. 0.3 Cyclopsettafimbriata 0.3 Etropus crossotus 5.8 E. microstomus 7.6 3.4 2.6 0.5 Etropus sp. 6.8 7.0 0.9 0.4 Paralichthys albiguita 1.6 4.1 5.6 P. dentatus 1.6 6.3 2.7 0.3 P. lethostigma 1.8 5.0 Paralichthys sp. 4.2 6.2 1.7 0.3 Unidentified 4.1 3.2 10.5 1.2 March Bothus sp. 1.7 1.0 1.1 Citharichthys sp. 0.4 Cyclopsettafimbriata 1.4 Etropus microstomus 14.2 1.1 Etropus sp. 2.6 7.2 4.1 1.0 Paralichthys dentatus 3.7 P. squamilentus 1.0 1.1 Paralichthys sp. 0.9 7.9 2.9 Unidentified 1.3 0.4 Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 9 open-shelf waters, was most frequently collected in outer Gadidae Gadid larvae were abundant in the ichthyo- open-shelf, lower-shelf, and slope habitat waters (Table plankton in December through March (Table 2). Gadid 4). Citha7ichthys gmnorhinus and C comutus, which are larvae were not collected in November and were never not known to occur in Onslow Bay as adults (Tucker, abundant in coastal waters (Tables 1 and 2). Uraphycis 1982), were rare in our collections (Table 4). The larg- regia was the most common gadid, and it occurred est collection of C. gymnorhinus was taken during Janu- mainly in open-shelf waters (Table 6). Urophycisflofidiana ary in inner open-shelf waters on the shoreward edge of had a similar distribution although it occurred more the thermal front (Table 4, Fig. 2). Scophthalmus aquosus, often in middle to outer open-shelf waters. The least a coastal and open-shelf species, was collected only in common gadid Enchelyopus cimbyius was collected only December in coastal and inner portions of open-shelf during February and March and mainly in open-shelf waters. Cyclopsettafimbfiata, a species that occurs in open- waters. Unidentified Urophycis occurred only at offshore shelf and lower-shelf waters, was not commonly en- stations. countered. Larvae were only collected in outer open- shelf, lower-shelf, and slope waters within the Gulf Mesopelagic Larvae-The mesopelagic Myctophidae, Stream (Table 4). Gonostomatidae, and Photichthyidae were the most commonly encountered "tropical" families. These fami- Clupeidae-Clupeid larvae were abundant throughout lies were most abundant in open-shelf waters rather the study period, especially during March (Table 2). than in slope habitat waters (Table 1). During Decem- They were more commonly collected in coastal and ber these families were commonly collected in Gulf open-shelf waters, and less commonly collected in lower- Stream waters (Table 1) and were never collected within shelf and slope habitat waters (Table 1). Two species or at the inshore edge of the thermal front (Fig. 2). In dominated the collection, the estuarine-dependent February myctophids were collected close to shore within Brevoonia tyrannus and the pelagic Etrumeus teres, adults the front, where temperatures ranged from 10' to 15'C of which inhabit coastal and open-shelf waters. Although (Table 1, Fig. 2). Smaller numbers of larval myctophids, it was most abundant in open-shelf waters, B. tyrannus gonostomatids, and photichthyids were collected in occurred throughout the study period and in all habi- coastal waters at this time when temperatures were 8'- tats (Table 5). Larvae were a major component of the 9'C (Fig. 2). During March, myctophids, were most estuarine-dependent ichthyoplankton in January and abundant in open-shelf and lower-shelf waters on the February and dominated in March (Table 3). Etrumeus shore side and Gulf Stream side of the front, respec- teres was first collected in January in small numbers in tively (Table 1, Fig. 2). The inshore occurrence of these lower-shelf and slope habitat waters and was only col- mesopelagic families indicated a distributional pattern lected on the Gulf Stream side of the thermal front that is influenced by Gulf Stream intrusions onto the (Table 5). When collected together, E. teres always oc- open shelf. curred in greater densities than B. tyrannus. Table 5 Relative abundance (numbers/100 m3) of larval Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus (AM), and larval round herring, Etrumeus teres (RH), in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, by station and month. Dashes indicate no samples were taken. Station 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Month AM/RH AM/RH AM/RH AM/RH AM/RH AM/RH AM/RH AM/RH November 0/0 0.9/0 0/0 - 6.3/0 0/0 - December 0/0 0/0 0/0 4.1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0.3 0.6/1.6 January 2.8/0 1.6/0 22.3/0 14.4/0 2.0/3.2 1.0/8.7 - February 0/0 0/0 8.4/0 8.2 15.9/21.8 1.1/2.2 0.3/3.8 3.2/10.2 March 0/0 1.0/0 19.3/0 2.9/0 10.7/0 4.4/18.2 6.9/20.6 2.8/10.2 10 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Table 6 Relative abundance (numbers/100 in') of gadid larvae in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, by station and month. Dashes indicate no samples were taken. No gadid larvae were collected in November. Blank spaces indicate no larvae were collected. Station Taxon 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 December Urophycis regia 4.6 Urophycis sp. 0.3 0.6 Unidentified 22.4 January U. floridiana 1.6 - - U. regia 9.8 17.1 15.4 6.0 - February Enchelyopus cimbfius 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.3 U. floridiana 0.8 4.6 9.7 8.0 U. regia 0.8 3.4 4.2 16.3 2.8 Urophycis sp. 11.3 6.5 5.9 March E. cimbrius 2.6 1.1 U. floiidiana 12.2 1.8 U. regia 2.9 3.8 35.6 4.5 Ophidiidae-Ophidiid larvae were frequently captured, Reef fishes-Reef fish larvae generally were not abun- but were not generally found at densities @! five larvae/ dant in the ichthyoplankton collected in Onslow Bay 100 M3 throughout the study period (Table 2). Ophidiid from late fall to early spring (Table 7). However, ser- larvae were most abundant in open-shelf waters (Table ranid and scarid larvae were abundant during certain 1). In December, when ophidiids ranked seventh in months (Table 2). Scarids, found in abundance only in abundance (Table 2), we were unable to identify them December (Table 2), were never abundant at any single below the family level. In February, ophidiids collected station (Table 1) but were collected in outer open- in open-shelf waters (stations 14 and 15) were identi- shelf, lower-shelf, and slope habitat waters (Table 7). fied as Ophidion grayi (8.0 larvae/ 100 m3), a coastal and Serranids, whose larvae were the most frequently col- open-shelf species, and Lepophidium profundorum (2.4 lected of the reef fishes, were most abundant during larvae/100 m3), a shelf-edge and lower-shelf species. In February and March in open-shelf waters (Tables I and March, when they were more abundant (Table 2), 2). Species of Diplectrum were the most common ser- ophidiids were collected in open-shelf waters (Table 1). ranids in our collections. Mycteroperca, which was of Here, collections were dominated by 0. grayi (11.9 lar- major interest to the objectives of this study, was col- vae/100 m3), 0. selenaps (6.3 larvae/100 ml), and L. lected only in March (Table 7). Only one larva of Pagrus profundoram (4.7 larvae/100 m3). pagrus,, the other reef fish of major interest, was col- lected. Sparidae-Sparid larvae were abundant from January through March in open-shelf waters (Tables I and 2). Numerous unidentified sparids were collected at one Cooccurrence of "tropical" and estuarine- station Uanuary, station 15, 63.3 larvae/ 100 m3), but at dependent species all other stations the estuarine-dependent Lagodon rhomboides was the only abundant sparid (Tables I and An interesting distributional pattern observed was the 2). Lagodon rhomboides was the third most abundant cooccurrence of "tropical" and estuarine-dependent estuarine-dependent species in each of the months it species (Table 8). In November, "tropical" species were was collected (Table 3). rarely collected. In December, "tropical" and estuarine- Powell and Robbins: lchthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 11 Table 7 Relative abundance (number/100 m3) of reef fish larvae in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, by station and month. Dashes indicate no samples were taken. Blank spaces indicate no larvae were collected. Station Family Taxon 13 14 15 16 17 18 November Labridae Hemipteronolus sp. - 1.6 - - Pomacentridae Abudefduftaurus - 1.6 - - Scaridae Unidentified - 1.6 - - Serranidae Serraninae - 3.2 - - December Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. 1.9 1.5 Apogonidae Unknown 0.3 Congridae Ariosoma sp. 0.5 Holocentridae Unidentified 0.3 Muraenidae Unidentified 0.3 Scaridae Unidentified 2.8 0.8 1.6 Serranidae Anthias sp. 1.4 0.3 0.3 Anthiinae 0.3 Epinephelini 1.4 Serraninae 0.6 0.6 January Serranidae Diplectrum sp. 1.0 - - February Chaetodontidae Chaetodon sp. 1.0 Labridae Hemipteronotus sp. 1.6 1.4 1.4 Malacanthidae Lopholatilus chamaeleonliceps 1.0 Scaridae Unidentified 0.3 Serran'idae Anthias sp. 1.5 1.0 1.1 Anthiinae 0.3 Centropristis sp. 1.6 Diplectrumformosum 1.5 Diplectrum sp. 1.5 2.1 1.1 Serraninae 0.6 Unidentified 1.4 Sparidae Pagrus pagrus 1.6 March Holocentridae Holocentrus sp. 1.7 Kyphosidae Kyphosus seclatrix 1.0 Mullidae Mullus auratus 1.1 Scaridae Unidentified 1.1 Serranidae Anthias sp. 2.2 1.8 0.4 Centropfistis sp. 2.0 1.9 0.4 Diplectrum sp. 5.0 4.7 0.7 Epinephelini 2.0 My deroperca sp. 2.4 1 dependent species cooccurred on outer open-shelf, flowing, zooplankton-poor (Paffenhofer, 1985) Gulf lower-shelf, and slope habitats, in waters warmed by Stream is unknown. Gulf Stream intrusions (Table 8, Fig. 2). In slope habi- "Tropical" and estuarine-dependent species cooc- tat waters, where "tropical" ichthyoplankton would be curred in all habitats in February (Table 8). These expected to dominate, the estuarine-dependent groups were collected together in coastal, open-shelf, Leiostoinus xanthurus dominated (Table 8). The fate of lower-shelf, and slope habitat waters, as well as in waters these estuarine-dependent larvae in the northeastward shoreward of the thermal front, in the front, and on the 12 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Table 8 Relative abundance (numbers/100 m') of larvae of "tropical"/ estuarine-depen dent species (see definitions in Methods), by station and month, collected in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Dashes indicate no samples were taken. Station Month 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 November 0/0 0/0.9 0/0 - 1.3/279.3 0/60.1 - - December 0/1.9 0/4.3 0/22.7 0/8.7 7.0/1.8 36.4/8.4 11.4/1.5 5.4/52.0 January 0/7.7 0/1.6 0/25.4 7.9/171.6 3.3/35.9 11.6/14.6 February 0/0.8 5.3/2.2 6.8/25.1 19.0/59.6 9.4/83.8 9.5/8.9 5.8/1.5 8.3/5.3 March 0/0 0/1.9 3.7/33.4 8.6/20.0 5.8/38.4 4.2/5.3 10.7/9.0 2.1/2.8 Gulf Stream side of the front (Fig. 2). During this spawns earlier in the season off North Carolina (winter- sampling period, Leiostomus xanthurus was a dominant early spring, with a peak in late March and early April) estuarine-dependent species, whose age and size in- than M. phenax (April through August, with a peak in creased from offshore to inshore (Lewis andjudy, 1983; May and June) (Matheson et al., 1986; Collins et al., Warlen and Chester, 1985). Apparently both groups 1987). Like P. pagrus, the rarity of M. microlepis larvae in spawn in offshore waters and are transported shore- the ichthyoplankton remains largely unexplained. ward from warm Gulf Stream influenced water to cold coastal waters (e.g. Fig. 2). Gulf Streatn Intrusions Discussion The occurrence of "tropical" species (mainly meso- pelagics) in coastal and open-shelf waters might be Reef Fish Larvae evidence of the intrusion of Gulf Stream waters onto the shelf. The intrusions are episodic events (2-14 days) Our winter ichthyoplankton survey was not effective for caused by Gulf Stream meanders and filaments capturing commercially or recreationally important reef (Atkinson, 1985; Lee et al., 1985; Yoder, 1985), and fish larvae. We collected only one larval red porgy, apparently are associated with the upwelling of nutri- Pagrus pagrus, an important recreational species that is ents (Atkinson, 1985; Paffenhofer, 1985; Yoder, 1985). abundant on hard bottom reefs in Onslow Bay The intrusions might not only provide a productive (Manooch, 1976; Grimes et al., 1982). Ripe females food environment for fishes that spawn in concordance have been collected off North Carolina frornJanuary to with these episodic events but may also serve as mecha- April, and peak spawning periods occur during March nisms to transport larvae to shelf waters. During winter, and April (Manooch, 1976). Larvae of this species have intrusion of Gulf Stream water could transport larvae of only been collected in small numbers in the South estuarine-dependent species that are entrained in Gulf Atlantic Bight during winter (n = 3) and spring (n = 9), Stream water into shelf waters. For example, the large and only in the neuston (Powles, 1977). This species is numbers of Leiostomus xanthurus larvae we observed in highly residential (Grimes et al., 1982); therefore, it slope waters in December could be transported north most likely spawns off North Carolina. The rarity of reef into Raleigh Bay, North Carolina (Fig. 1), by Gulf Stream fish larvae in ichthyoplankton surveys in the South At- filaments or meanders. lantic Bight remains largely unexplained (Powles and We suggest that Gulf Stream intrusions transport lar- Stender, 1976; Powles, 1977). Larvae that were poten- vae onto the shelf, but we found no larvae that could tially Mycteroperca microlepis (i.e. identified to tribe have been transported southward into Onslow Bay by Epinephelini or Mycteroperca sp.) were rarely collected. the longshore Virginia current (Pietrafesa et al., 1985). Adult M. microlepis and M. phenax are the two most Northern genera such as Ammodytes frequently occur in abundant Mycteraperca species in Onslow Bay (Grimes et ichthyoplankton collections north of Cape Hatteras, al., 1982; Chester et al., 1984). Although their larvae North Carolina (Berrien et al., 1978), and should be a are indistinguishable from each other, M. microkpis good indicator of southerly directed, longshore trans- Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 13 port. We did not observe this genus or other northerly result of accessibility and vulnerability of larvae to the taxa (e.g. Gadus morhua, Pollachius virens) that are col- sampling gear, especially since coastal stations were lected north of Cape Hatteras in winter. sampled only during daylight. Inside estuaries, larvae are more accessible because they are concentrated in Estuarine-dependent Species smaller areas (Lewis and Judy, 1983). Larvae of the estuarine-dependent species Leiostomus Bothidae xanthurus, Micrapogonias undulatus, and Bremaytia tyran- nus are important components of the ichthyoplankton The larvae of several bothids are important compo- during late fall and winter in Onslow Bay and in North nents of the ichthyoplankton during late fall and early Carolina waters north and south of Onslow Bay (Powles winter in the lower Middle Atlantic Bight (Chesapeake and Stender, 1976; Berrien et al., 1978; this study). Bay to Cape Hatteras) (Table 9) and during late fall Although generally abundant in the study area, they (as and throughout the winter in the South Atlantic Bight well as other taxa) were rarely captured in coastal wa- (Table 4; Powles and Stender, 1976). In the lower Middle ters, although they are the most common species in Atlantic Bight, bothid larvae were rarely collected dur- estuarine collections (Warlen and Burke, 1990). Lewis ing mid- to late-winter (Table 9). During late fall and and Judy (1983) observed similar patterns for L. early winter, Paralichthys dentatus larvae were abundant xanthurus and M. undulatus in Onslow Bay. Mean lengths in the lower Middle Atlantic Bight (Table 9) but were and ages of B. tyrannus, L xanthurus, and M. undulatus not collected before midwinter in Onslow Bay (Table progressively increase from offshore to inshore (Warlen, 4), which is in concordance with Smith's (1973) obser- 1982; Lewis andjudy, 1983; Warlen and Chester, 1985; vations that spawning progresses southward with the Warlen, 1992), which strongly suggests offshore spawn- season. Larvae of P. albigutta and P. lethostigma have not ing. Obviously there would be a marked decline in been reported from the Middle Atlantic Bight (Berrien numbers due to high natural mortality rates in the early et al., 1978) but are commonly collected in the South stages, but their rarity in coastal waters is probably a Atlantic Bight during winter and early spring (Table 4; Table 9 Percentage of bothid larvae captured by area from Chesapeake Bay to Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina. Data (larvae/ 30 minute tow) are modified from Berrien et al. (1978). When duplicate samples were taken at the same station, data were averaged. Area of collection Number of South of Transect off North of Month Taxon larvae Cape Hatteras Cape Hatteras Cape Hatteras Nov Bothus ocellatus 183 78 22 0 Citharichthys arctifrons 87 2 32 66 Cyclopsettafi7nbriata 3 67 33 0 Etropus ?nicrostomus 255 58 31 11 Paralichthys dentatus 92 11 40 49 Scophthalmus aquosus 59 15 0 85 Syacium papillosum 25 68 32 0 Dec Bothus ocellatus 67 46 54 0 Citharichthys ardifrons 1 0 0 100 Cyclopsettafimbriata 1 100 0 0 Etropus inicrostomus 246 82 17 1 Paralichthys dentatus 317 25 35 40 Scophthalmus aquosus 108 54 23 23 Syacium papillosum 3 67 33 0 Jan-Feb Bothus ocellatus 8 88 12 0 Etropus microstomus 33 97 0 3 Paralichthys dentatus 33 64 27 9 Scophthalmus aquosus 4 50 0 50 14 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Powles and Stender, 1976). The distribution of P. Conclusions albigutta and P. lethostig-ma larvae coincides with that of the adults, whose northernmost limit is North Carolina Larvae of winter spawning estuarine-dependent species (Gutherz, 1967). were a major component of the ichthyoplankton in Bothus and Syacium were reported to be the dominant Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Most of these (R tyrannus, bothid larvae collected in the South Atlantic Bight dur- L. xanthurus, M. undulatus, Paralichthys spp.) are valu- ing late fall (Powles and Stender, 1976). We never able commercial or recreational species (U.S. Depart- collected Syacium and only collected Bothus larvae in ment of Commerce, 1992) and, with the exception of small numbers throughout the study period (Table 4). larval R albigutta and P. lethostigma, are readily identifi- Small numbers of Syacium and larger numbers of Bothus able. Results from our study suggo;st that future studies larvae have been previously collected in Raleigh Bay examining the relationship between primary and sec- and Onslow Bay but have been rarely collected north of ondary production, larval fish abundance, and the front Cape Hatteras (Table 9). Bothus larvae appear to be more separating warm Gulf Stream waters from cooler shelf common on the outer shelf (Table 4; Berrien et al., 1978). waters would be useful. Understanding the early life Etropus microstomus larvae were commonly collected history strategies of cooccurring, strikingly different in the upper South Atlantic Bight (Tables 4 and 9), but life history types (e.g. estuarine-dependent and meso- were not noted in Powles and Stender's (1976) survey pelagic species) or morphologically similar estuarine- of the South Atlantic Bight. Although adults of E. dependent and non-estuarine-dependent species (e.g. microstomus range north to New York (Tucker, 1982), the clupeids B. tyrannus and E. teres) through compara- larvae were rarely encountered above Cape Hatteras, tive studies should provide insight into biological mecha- North Carolina (Table 9). Scophthalmus aquosus was com- nisms that enable transport to favorable habitats. Inno- monly collected in the lower Middle Atlantic Bight and vative sampling techniques need to be developed to Onslow Bay (Tables 4 and 9) but was not noted in capture larvae of reef fishes, such as P. pagrus and Powles and Stender's (1976) survey of the South Atlan- Mycteraperca. tic Bight. Scophthalmus aquosus larvae were collected in great numbers in the Middle Atlantic Bight (Berrien et al., 1978) and, although adults range from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida, collections of larvae suggest Acknowledgments this species is most abundant north of Cape Hatteras. Cyclopsettafimbriata larvae are rarely encountered in We wish to express our appreciation to all those indi- the Middle Atlantic Bight and in Onslow Bay (Tables 4 viduals who participated in the cruises, including the and 9; Berrien et al., 1978), but were common during crew of the RV John deWo@f IL Special thanks to Dean late winter and early spring in Powles and Stender's Ahrenholz, Stanley Warlen, two anonymous reviewers (1976) survey of the South Atlantic Bight. Collections who made valuable suggestions, and Mark Fonseca who of larvae coincide with the distribution of adults, whose provided valuable computer programming expertise. northernmost limit is North Carolina (Gutherz, 1967). This work was supported in part by a cooperative agree- ment between NMFS and the U.S. Department of Energy. Absence of Certain Taxa Conspicuously absent from our collections was the ge- nus Mugil, especially Mugil cephalus which is a winter Literature Cited spawning, estuarine-dependent species (Powles and Ahlstrom, E. H.J. L. Butler, and B. Y. Sumida. Stender, 1976; Ross and Epperly, 1985). Muggil are com- 1976. Pelagic stromateoid fishes (Pisces, Perciformes) of the monly captured in neuston tows (Fahay, 1975; Powles eastern Pacific: kinds, distributions, and early life histories and Stender, 1976) but are not commonly collected in and observations on five of these from the northwest standard bongo tows (Powles and Stender, 1976; Berrien Atlantic. Bull. May. Sci. 26-.285-402. et al., 1978). Other winter spawning taxa whose larvae Atkinson, L. P. are known to be neustonic and not commonly collected 1985. Hydrography and nutrients of the southeastern U.S. continental shelf In L. P. Atkinson, D. W. Menzel, and in -this study are the Mullidae and Scomber (Powles and K. A. Bush (eds.), Oceanography of the southeastern U.S. Stender, 1976). The gadid Urophycis, which was abun- continental shelf, p. 77-92. Am. Geophys. Union, Coast. dant in our collections (Table 6), is even more com- Est. Sci. 2. mon in neuston tows (Powles and Stender, 1976) and Berrien, P. L., M. P. Fahay, A. W. Kendalljr., and W. G. Smith. was probably undersampled in this study. This indicates 1978. Ichthyoplankton from the RV Dolphin survey of conti- nental shelf waters between Martha's Vineyard, Massachu- the need to include neuston tows in ichthyoplankton setts and Cape Lookout, North Carolina, 1965-66. NOAA, surveys and points to one limitation of this study. NMFS, Sandy Hook Lab., Tech. Ser. Rep. No. 15,152 p. Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 15 Chester, A. J., G. R. Huntsman, P. A. Tester, and C. S. Manooch 111. Capes. In L. P. Atkinson, D. W. Menzel, and YL A. Bush 1984. South Atlantic Bight reef fish communities as repre@ (eds.), Oceanography of the southeastern U.S. continental sented in hook and line catches. Bull. Mar. Sci. 34:267-279. shelf, p. 23-32. Am. Geophys. Union, Coast. Est. Sci. 2. Collins, M. R., C. W. Waltz, W. A. Roumillat, and D. L. Stubbs. Powles, H. 1987. Contribution to the life history and reproductive biol- 1977. Larval distributions and recruitment hypotheses for ogy of gag, Mycteroperca microlepis (Serranidae), in the South snappers and groupers of the South Atlantic Bight. Proc. Atlantic Bight. Fish. Bull. 85:648-653. 31st Annu. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game Fish. Comm., 9-12 Oct. Comyns, B. H., and G. C. Grant. 1977, San Antonio, Texas, p. 361-371. 1993. Identification and distribution of Urophycis and Phycis Powles, H, and B. W. Stender. (Pisces, Gadidae) larvae and pelagic juveniles in the U.S. 1976. Observations on composition, seasonality and distribu- Middle Atlantic Bight. Fish. Bull. 91:210-223. tion of ichthyoplankton from MARMAP cruises in the South Fahay, M. P. Atlantic Bight in 1973. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent., Tech. Rep. 1975. An annotated list of larval andjuvenile fishes captured Ser. No. 11, 47 p. with surface-towed meter net in the South Atlantic Bight Robins, C. R., and G. C. Ray. during four RV Dolphin cruises between May 1967 and Feb- 1986. A field guide to Atlantic coast fishes of North ruary 1968. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-685, 39 p. America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 354 p. 1983. Guide to the early stages of marine fishes occurring in Ross, S. W., and S. P. Epperly. the western North Atlantic Ocean, Cape Hatteras to the 1985. Utilization of shallow estuarine nursery areas by fishes southern Scotian Shelf. J. Northwest Ad. Fish. Sci. 4:1-423. in Pamlico Sound and adjacent tributaries, North Grimes, C. B., C. S. Manooch, and G. R. Huntsman. Carolina. InA. Yanez-Aranciba (ed.), Fish community ecol- 1982. Reef and rock outcropping fishes of the outer conLi- ogy in estuaries and coastal lagoons: towards an ecosystem nental shelf of North Carolina and South Carolina, and integration, p. 207-232. DR(R) UNAM Press, Mexico. ecological notes on the red porgy and vermilion snapper. Schwartz, F. J. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32:277-289. 1989. Zoogeography and ecology of fishes inhabiting North Gutherz, E.J. Carolina's marine waters to depths of 600 meters. In R. Y. 1967. Field guide to the flatfishes of the family Bothidae in George and A. W. Hulbert (eds.), North Carolina coastal ocean- the western North Atlantic. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Circ. ography symposium, p. 335-374. NOAA-NURP Rept. 89-2. 263, 47 p. Smith, W. G. Lee, T. N., V. Kourafalou,J. D. Wang, W.J. Ho,J. 0. Blanton, and 1973. The distribution of summer flounder, Paralichthys L. P. Atkinson. dentatus, eggs and larvae on the continental shelf between 1985. Shelf circulation from Cape Canaveral to Cape Fear Cape Cod and Cape Lookout, 1965-66. Fish. Bull. 71:527- during winter. In L. P. Atkinson, D. W. Menzel, and K. A. 548. Bush (eds.), Oceanography of the southeastern U.S. conti- Smith, P. E., and S. L. Richardson. nental shelf, p. 33-62. Am. Geophys. Union, Coast. Est. 1977. Standard techniques for pelagic fish egg and larva Sci. 2. surveys. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 175, 100 p. Lewis, R. M., and M. H. Judy. Struhsaker, P. 1983. The occurrence of spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, and At- 1969. Demersal fish resources: composition, distribution, and lantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus, larvae in Onslow commercial potential of the continental shelf stocks off Bay and Newport River estuary, North Carolina. Fish. Bull. southeastern United States. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. 81:405-412. Ind. Res. 4:261-300. Manooch, C. S., 111. Tucker, J. W., Jr. 1976. Reproductive cycle, fecundity, and sex ratios of the red 1982. Larval development of Citharichthys cornutus, C. porgy, Pagrus pag-rus (Pisces: Sparidae) in North gymnorhinus, C spilapterus, and Eiropus crossotus (Bothidae), Carolina. Fish. Bull. 74:775-781. with notes on larval occurrence. Fish. Bull. 80: 35-73. Matheson, R. H., 111, G. R. Huntsman, and C. S. Manooch 111. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1986. Age, growth, mortality, food and reproduction of the 1992. Fisheries of the United States, 1991. NOAA, NMFS scamp, Mycieroperca phenax, collected off North Carolina Cur. Fish. Stat. 9100, 113 p. and South Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. 38:300-312. Warlen, S. M. Methven, D. A. 1982. Age and growth of larvae and spawning time of Atlantic 1985. Identification and development of larval and juvenile croaker in North Carolina. Proc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Urophycis chuss, U. tenius and Phycis chesteri (Pisces: Gadidae) Fish. Wildl. Agencies 34:204-214. from the Northwest Atlantic. J. Northwest Ad. Fish. Sci. 1992@ Age, growth and size distribution of larval Atlantic men- 6:9-20. haden off North Carolina. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:588- Olney,J. E., and D. F. Markle. 598. 1979. Description and occurrence of vexillifer larvae of Warlen, S. M., and A. J. Chester. Echiodon (Pisces: Carapidae) in the western North Atlantic 1985. Age, growth, and distribution of larval spot, Leiostomus and notes on other carapid vexillifers,. Bull. Mar. Sci. xanthurus, off North Carolina. Fish. Bull. 83:587-600. 29:365-379. Warlen, S. M., andj. S. Burke. Paffenhofer, G A. 1990. Immigration of larvae of fall/winter spawning marine 1985.. The abundance and distribution of zooplankton on fishes into a North Carolina estuary. Estuaries 13:453-461. the southeastern shelf of the United States. In L.P. Yoder,J. A. Atkinson, D. W. Menzel, and K_ A. Bush (eds.), Oceanogra- 1985. Environmental control of phytoplankton production phy of the southeastern U.S. continental shelf, p. 104- on the southeastern U.S. continental shelf. In L. P. 117. Am. Geophys. Union, Coast. Est. Sci. 2. Atkinson, D. W. Menzel, and K_ A. Bush (eds.), Oceanogra- Pietrafesa, L. J., G. S. Janowitz, and P. A. Wittmann. phy of the southeastern U.S. continental shelf, p. 93- 1985. Physical oceanographic processes in the Carolina 103. Am. Geophys. Union, Coast. Est. Sci. 2. 16 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Appendix Table I Relative abundance of ichthyoplankton by station during November 1979. An asterisk indicates taxa that are exclusively "tropical" (see definitions in Methods). Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./100 ml) 11 Sciaenidae Unidentified 0.9 12 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 0.9 Engraulidae Engraulis ewystok 0.9 Unidentified 1.8 13 Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. 3.1 14 No samples 15 Bothidae Bothus sp. 1.3 Cithwichihys sp. 2.2 Unidentified 8.1 Callionymidae Unidentified 1.3 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 6.3 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 1.3 Elopidae Elops saurus 1.6 Engraulidae Engraulis emystole 3.4 Gobiidae Unidentified 3.8 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 1.3 Ophichthidae Ophichthus sp. 1.7 Ophidiidae Ophidion selenops 1.6 Otophidium omostigmum 1.6 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 43.2 Micropogonias undulatus 229.9 Serranidae Serraninae 3.2 Synodontidae Unidentified 1.6 Unidentified 13.7 Bothidae Etropus sp. 1.6 16 Carangidae Decapterus Punctalus 1.6 Engraulidae Engraulis eutystole 1.6 Labridae Hemipteronotus sp. 1.6 Ophichthidae Ophichthus sp. 1.6 Pomacentridae Abudefduf taurus 1.6 Scaridae Unidentified 1.6 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 3.3 Micropogonias undulatus 56.9 Scorpaenidae Unidentified 1.6 Triglidae Prionotus sp. 8.1 17 No samples 18 No samples Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 17 Appendix Table 2 Relative abundance of ichthyoplankton by station during December 1979. Asterisks indicate taxa that are exclusively "tropical" or exclusively lower shelf (**) (see definitions in Methods). Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./100 m3) 11 Bothidae Scophthalmus aquosus 1.0 Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus 3.7 Engraulis eurystole 0.9 Sciaenidae Micropogonias undulatus 1.9 Unidentified 0.9 12 Balistidae Unidentified 1.0 Bothidae Paralichthys albigutta 2.5 Scophthalmus aquosus 2.9 Ophichthidae Myrophis Punctatus 1.3 Sciaenidae Micropogonias undulatus 1.8 13 Bothidae Paralichthys lethostigma 5.6 Paralichthys sp. 7.0 Scophthalmus aquosus 4.9 Gobiidae GoNonellus sp. 2.8 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 5.6 Micropogonias undulatus 4.6 Unidentified 2.8 14 Balistidae Unidentified 4.1 Bothidae Bothus sp. 2.0 Callionymidae Unidentified 2.3 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 4.1 Gadidae Unidentified 22.4 Urophycis regia 4.6 Ophidiidae Unidentified 6.1 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 4.6 Syngnathidae Hippocampus erectus 2.3 Triglidae Pfionotus sp. 8.0 Unidentified 5.5 15 Myctophidae Unidentified* 7.0 Ophichthidae Unidentified 1.8 Sciaenidae Micropogonias undulatus 1.8 Unidentified 3.5 16 Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. 1.9 Ariommatidae Aiiomma sp. 4.2 Bothidae Bolhus sp. 1.6 Etropus SP. 2.8 Unidentified 1.4 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 1.4 Callionymidae Unidentified 1.6 Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus 6.6 Caristiidae Caristius sp.* 1.9 Centriscidae Macroramphosus sp.** 7.o Ceratiidae Unidentified* 1.9 Congridae Unidentified 1.4 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 8.4 Unidentified* 2.8 Myctophidae Diogenichthys atlanticus* 2.8 Hygophum hygomii* 1.4 Notoscopelus sp.* 1.4 Unidentified* 5.5 Nomeidae Psenes sp.* 1.4 18 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Appendix Table 2 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./] 00 M3) Scaridae Unidentified 2.8 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 7.0 Micropogonias undulatus 1.4 Serranidae Anthias sp. 1.4 Epinephelini 1.4 Stomiidae Stomias sp.* 1.9 Synodontidae Unidentified 1.4 Unidentified 16.2 17 Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. 1.6 Antennariidae Antennarius sp. 0.3 Apogonidae Unidentified 0.3 Argentinidae Unidentified 0.3 Ariommatidae Ariom?na sp. 0.5 Balistidae Unidentified 0.3 Bothiclae Bothus sp. 0.6 Cyclopsettafim&iata 0.6 Bramidae Pterycombus brama" 0.3 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 0.8 Callionymidae Unidentified 0.6 Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus 1.5 Unidentified 0.3 Centriscidae Macroramphosus sp.** 0.3 Chiasmodontidae Unidentified* 0.3 Clupeidae Etrumeus teres 0.3 Congridae Ariosoma sp. 0.5 Unidentified 0.8 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 0.3 Gadidae Urophycis sp. 0.3 Gempylidae Gempylus serpens* 0.3 Gobiidae Unidentified 0.3 Gonostornatidae Cyclothone sp. 1.3 Unidentified* 2.7 Muraenidae Unidentified 0.3 Myctophidae Lampadena luminosa* 0.3 Unidentified* 3.2 Lampanyetus sp.* 0.6 Ophichthidae Myrophis Punctatus 0.3 Ophichthus sp. 0.5 Ophidiidae Brotula barbata* 0.3 Ophidion sp. 0.3 Unidentified 0.3 Paralepididae Unidentified* 0.6 Photichthyidae Vinciguenia nimbaria* 0.3 V. poweriae* 0.3 Scaridae Unidentified 0.8 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 1.1 Micropogonias undulalus 0.5 Scopelarchidae Unidentified* 0.3 Scmpaena sp. 0.6 Scorpaeniclae Unidentified 0.9 Serranidae Anthias sp. 0.3 Anthiinae 0.3 Serraninae 0.6 Stomiidae Stomias sp.* 0.3 Synodontidae Unidentified 0.3 Unidentified 11.0 Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 19 Appendix Table 2 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./ 100 M3) 18 Apogonidae Unidentified 0.3 Balistidae Unidentified 0.3 Bothidae Bothus sp. 1.6 Cyclopsettafimbriata 0.3 Efropus microstomus 0.6 Etropus SP. 2.2 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 0.3 Carangidae Decapterus macarellus 0.3 Heinicaranx amblyrhynchus 0.6 Unidentified 4.1 Chiasmodontidae Unidentified* 0.3 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 0.6 Etrumeus teres 1.6 Congridae Unidentified 0.3 Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus 0.3 Engraulis eurystole 1.3 Gadidae Urophycis sp. 0.6 Gempylidae Diplospinus multistriatus* 0.3 Unidentified* 0.3 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp. * 1.0 Unidentified* 0.3 Holocentridae Unidentified 0.3 Myctophidae Unidentified* 2.5 Ophichthiclae Myrophis Punctatus 0.3 Unidentified 1.6 Ophidiidae Ophidion selenops 1.6 Unidentified 1.6 Paralepididae Unidentified* 0.6 Scaridae Unidentified 1.6 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 45.4 Micropogonias undulatus 6.0 Scorpaenidae Unidentified 1.0 Serraniclae Anthias sp. 0.3 Serraninae 0.6 Synodonticlae Unidentified 1.0 Unidentified 28.5 20 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Appendix Table 3 Relative abundance of ichthyoplankton by station during January 1980. An asterisk indicates taxa that are exclusively "tropical" (see definitions in Methods). Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./100 ml) 11 Bothidae Unidentified 0.7 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 2.8 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 0.7 Gobiidae Unidentified 0.7 Ophichthidae Ophichthus sp. 0.7 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 4.2 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 0.7 12 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 1.6 13 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 22.3 Gadidae Urophycis regia 9.8 Sciaeniclae Leiostomus xanthurus 0.9 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 2.2 Unidentified 1.9 14 Bothidae Cithwichthys gymnorhinus* 4.2 Cithwichthys sp. 4.9 Paralichihys dentatus 6.5 Paralichthys sp. 7.1 Unidentified 2.1 Carangidae Unidentified 1.6 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 14.6 Gadidae Urophycisflmidiana 1.6 Urophycis regia 17.1 Gobiidae Unidentified 2.1 Myctophidae Unidentified* 1.0 Ophichthidae Aptetichtus ansp* 1.6 Myrophis Punctatus 1.9 Ophichthus sp. 1.9 Photichthyidae Vinciguemia nimba7ia* 1.0 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 137.2 Micropogonias undulatus 2.7 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 3.5 Unidentified 4.2 Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. 1.9 Unidentified 9.1 15 Bothiclae Citharichthys sp. 4.5 Etropus sp. 7.2 Paralichthys dentalus 2.0 Paralichthys sp. 1.5 Callionymidae Unidentified 2.0 Carangidae Unidentified 1.1 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 2.0 Etrumeus teres 3.2 Gadidae Urophycis regia 15.4 Gobiidae Unidentified 3.0 Gonostomatidae Unidentified* 0.8 Myctophidae Unidentified* 0.9 Ophichthidae Myrophis punctatus 2.0 Ophidiidae Unidentified* 3.0 Paralepididae Unidentified* 1.5 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 10.8 Micropogonias undulatus 4.7 Serranidae Diplectrum sp. 3.0 Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 21 Appendix Table 3 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./100 M3) Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 14.9 Unidentified 63.3 Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. 1.1 Synodontidae Unidentified 1.5 Trighdae hionotus sp. 3.7 Unidentified 21.1 16 Bothidae Citharichthys sp. 1.4 Efropus sp. 5.8 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 1.0 Etrumeus teres 8.7 Engraulidae Eng-raulis eutystole 1.0 Gadidae Urophycis regia 6.0 Gobiidae Unidentified 1.2 Gonostomatidae Unidentified* 1.4 Myctophidae Diaphus sp.* 1.4 Hygophum sp.* 1.4 Ophichthidae Ophichthus sp. 1.0 Paralepididae Stemonosudis intermedia* 1.0 Unidentified* 1.4 Photichthyidae Vinciguerria nimba7ia* 4.9 Sciaenidae Leioslomus xanthurus 3.9 Micropogonias undulatus 1.0 Serranidae Diplectrum sp. 1.0 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 8.7 Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. 1.0 Unidentified 1.4 Unidentified 31.0 17 No samples 18 No samples 22 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Appendix Table 4 Relative abundance of ichthyoplankton by station during February 1980. Asterisks indicate taxa that are exclusively "tropical" or exclusively lower shelf (**) (see definitions in text). Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./ 100 in') 11 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 0.8 Stenotomus ch?ysops 0.7 12 Gadidae Urophycisfloridiana 0.8 U. regia 0.8 Gonostomatidae Unidentified* 1.6 Myctophidae Ceratoscopelus maderensis* 0.8 Diogenich1hys ailanticus* 0.8 Hygophum sp.* 0.8 Unidentified* 0.8 Photichthyidae Vinciguerria attenuata* 0.8 Sciaenidae Leiosfomus xanthurus 0.8 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 1.4 Unidentified Unidentified 2.3 13 Bothidae Bothus sp. 1.6 Paralichthys albigutta 1.6 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 8.4 Eleotridae Dormitator maculatus 3.4 Gadidae Enchelyopus cimhiius 1.6 Urophycis regia 3.4 Haemulidae Unidentified 1.5 Myctophidae Ceratoscopelus maderensis* 6.8 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 13.5 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dactylopterus 1.6 Serranidae Diplectrumformosum 1.5 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 1.6 Stromateidae Pepfilas hiacanthus 1.9 Unidentified 5.0 14 Bothidae Etropus microstomus 7.6 Etropus sp. 6.8 Paralichthys albigulta 4.1 P. dentatus 1.6 P. lethostigma 1.8 Paralichthys sp. 4.2 Unidentified 4.1 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 1.4 Carapidae Echiodon sp. * 1.8 Clupeidae Etrumeus teres Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 2.5 Engraulidae Engraulis eurystole 1.6 Gadidae EnchelyoPus cimb-yius 1.6 Urophycisfloyidiana 4.6 U. regia 4.2 Gempylidae Diplospinus multistriatus* 1.6 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 2.2 Labridae Hemipteronotus sp. 1.6 Myctophidae Diogenichthys atlanticus* 1.8 Unidentified* 5.6 Lampanyaus sp.* 1.6 Nernichthyidae Unidentified 1.6 Notosudidae Scopelosaurus mauli* 1.5 Ophichthidae Unidentified 1.6 Ophidiidae Ophidion grayi 3.1 Unidentified 1.6 Paralepididae Lestidiopsjayakari* 1.8 Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 23 Appendix Table 4 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./100 ml) Scaridae Unidentified 1.6 Sciaeniclae Leiostomus xanihurus 41.7 Micropogonias undulatus 3.5 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dadylopterus 2.1 Unidentified 1.4 Serranidae Anthias sp. 1.5 Centropristis sp. 1.6 Diplectrum sp. 1.5 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 2.7 Pagrus pag7US 1.6 Synodontidae Synodussp. 3.5 Unidentified 1.6 Triglidae Piionotus sp. 1.5 Unidentified 15.3 15 Apogonidae Unidentified 1.2 Ariommaticlae A7iomma regulus* 1.4 Bothiclae Etropus crossotus 5.8 E. microstomus 3.4 Etropus sp. 7.0 Paralichthys albigutta 5.6 P. dentatus 6.3 P. lethostigma 5.0 Paralichthys sp. 6.2 Unidentified 3.2 Callionymidae Callionymus sp. 1.9 Carangidae Seriola dumefili 1.3 Unidentified 3.2 Centrolophidae Hyperoglyphe sp. 1.0 Chaetodonticlae Chaetodon sp. 1.0 Clinidae Unidentified* 1.9 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 15.9 Etrumeus teres 21.8 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 2.7 Engrauliclae Anchoa hepsetus 1.7 Engmulis emystole 1.3 Gadidae Enchelyopus cimbrius 1.7 Urophycisfloiidiana 9.7 U. regia 16.3 Gobiidae Microgobius sp. 1.7 Unidentified 3.0 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 1.9 Labridae Hemipteronotus sp. 1.4 Lophiidae Lophius americanus 1.0 Malacanthiclae Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps 1.9 Myctophidae Hygophum sp.* 1.0 Unidentified* 2.2 Ophichthidae Unidentified 1.3 Ophidiidae Lepophidium profundorum* 2.4 Ophidion grayi 4.9 Unidentified 4.2 Paralepididae Unidentified* 1.0 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 20.3 Micropogonias undulatus 2.7 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dactylopterus 1.5 Serranidae Anthias sp. 1.0 Diplectrum sp. 2.1 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 21.8 Stromateidae Peprilus hiacanthus 1.4 24 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Appendix Table 4 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./100 in') Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. 2.2 Synodontidae Unidentified 1.5 Tetraodontidae Unidentified 1.3 Triglidae Unidentified 5.1 Unidentified 12.2 16 Ariommatidae Ariomma sp. 1.1 Bothidae Bothus sp. 1.4 Etropus Microstomus 2.6 Paralichthys sp. 2.7 Paralichthys sp. 1.7 Unidentified 10.5 Bregmacerotidae Breg7naceros sp.* 1.6 Centriscidae Macroramphosus sp.** 1.1 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 1.1 Etru?neus teres 2.2 Gadidae Urophycisfloridiana 8.0 U, regia 2.8 Urophycis sp. 11.3 Gobiidae Unidentified 1.2 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 1.3 Labridae Hemipteronotus sp. 1.4 Lophiidae Lophius americanus 1.1 Myctophidae Unidentified* 1.5 Ophichthidae Unidentified 1.7 Photicbthyidae Vinciguerria nimbaria* 1.1 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 2.3 Micropogonias undulatus 1.1 Scomberesocidae Scomberesox saurus 1.1 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dactylopterus 5.3 Unidentified 1.4 Serranidae Anthias sp. 1.1 Diplectrum sp. 1.1 Unidentified 1.4 Synodontidae Unidentified 2.2 Triglidae Plionotus sp. 2.2 Unidentified 15.3 17 Bothidae Bothus sp. 0.3 Cithwichthys cornutus" 0.3 C gymnorhinus* 0.3 Citha7ichihys sp. 0.3 Etropus microstomus 0.5 Etropus sp. 0.9 Paralichthys dentatus 0.3 Paralichthys sp. 0.3 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 0.3 Etru7neus teres 3.8 Congridae Unidentified 0.3 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 0.5 Engraulidae Engraulis eurystole 0.3 Gadidae Urophycis sp. 6.5 Gobiidae Unidentified 0.5 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 1.4 Gonostoma elongatum* 0.3 Unidentified* 0.6 Myctophidae Unidentified* 2.7 Nemichthyidae Unidentified 0.3 Nomeidae Psenes Pellu cidus 0.3 Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 25 Appendix Table 4 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./ 100 in') Ophichthidae Ophichthus sp. 0.3 Unidentified 0.6 Ophidiidae Unidentified 0.9 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 0.3 Micropogonias undulatus 0.3 Scomberesocidae Scomberesox saurus 0.3 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dactylopterus 1.0 Stomiidae Unidentified* 0.3 Synodontidae Unidentified 0.7 Unidentified 7.7 18 Bothidae Bothus sp. 0.8 Citha7ichthys gymnorhinus* 0.8 Cyclopsettafimbriata 0.3 Etropus SP. 0.4 Unidentified 1.2 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 0.3 Callionymidae Unidentified 0.3 Carangidae Unidentified 0.6 Centriscidae Macroramphosus sp.** 0.5 Centrolophidae Hyperoglyphe sp. 0.3 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 3.2 Etrumeus teres 10.2 Congridae Unidentified 0.3 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 0.3 Gadidae Enchelyopus cimbrius 0.3 Urophycis sp. 5.9 Gobiidae Unidentified 2.0 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 1.3 Unidentified* IA Melamphaidae Melamphaes simms" 0.3 Moridae Unidentified" 0.3 Myctophidae Unidentified* 1.8 Ophichthidae Ophichthus sp. 0.3 Unidentified 0.3 Paralepididae Lestidiops affinis* 0.3 Photichthyidae Vinciguerria poweriae* 1.1 Priacanthidae Unidentified 0.3 Scaridae Unidentified 0.3 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 1.8 Micropogonias undulatus 0.3 Unidentified 0.3 Scomberesocidae Scomberesox saurus o.7 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dactylopterus 3.7 Unidentified 2.6 Serranidae Anthiinae 0.3 Serraninae 0.6 Synodontidae Unidentified 1.1 Tetraodontidae Unidentified 0.3 Unidentified 19.9 26 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Appendix Table 5 Relative abundance of ichthyoplankton by station during March 1980. Asterisks indicate taxa that are exclusively Caribbean (*) or exclusively lower shelf (**) (see definitions in Methods). Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./ 100 in') 11 No larvae collected 12 Bothidae Paralichthys sp. 0.9 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 1.0 Unidentified 1.0 13 Bothidae Eiropus sp. 2.6 Paralichthys sp. 7.9 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 19.3 Gadidae Enchelyopus cimbrius 2.6 Urophycis regia 2.9 Gonostomatidae Unidentified* 1.0 Myctophidae Hygophum sp. 2.7 Ophidiidae Unidentified 5.4 Sciaeniclae Leiostomus xanthurus 2.3 Serranidae Diplectrum sp. 5.0 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 3.9 Stromateidae Pepfilus ftiacanthus 2.4 Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. 1.0 14 Bothidae Etropus sp. 7.2 Paralichthys sp. 2.9 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 2.9 Cynoglossidae Symphurus diomedianus 4.7 S. plagiusa 17.1 Gadidae Enchelyopus cimbiius 1.1 Urophycis regia 3.8 Gobiidae Unidentified 2.9 Myctophidae Unidentified* 5.7 Photichthyidae Vinciguenia nimbayia* 2.9 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 11.4 Micropogonias undulatus 2.9 Synodontidae Synodussp. 2.3 Unidentified 5.7 Unidentified 7.0 15 Bothidae Etropus microstomus 14.2 Paralichthys dentatus 3.7 P. squamilentus 1.0 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 1.1 Carangidae Unidentified 3.0 Centriscidae Macroramphosus sp.** 1.0 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 10.7 Etrumeus teres 11.6 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 3.2 Gadidae Urophycisflofidiana 12.2 U. regia 35.6 Gobiidae Unidentified 3.4 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 1.1 Mullidae Mullus auratus 1.1 Myctophidae Ceratoscopelus sp.* 1.1 Unidentified* 2.6 Ophidiidae Lepophidium profundorum" 4.7 Ophidion grayi 11.9 0. selenops 6.3 Ophidion sp. 6.1 Unidentified 1.6 Powell and Robbins: Ichthyoplankton in Onslow Bay, North Carolina 27 Appendix Table 5 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./100 M3) Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 13.5 Micropogonias undulatus 1.7 Anthias sp. 2.2 Serranidae Centropiistis sp. 2.0 Diplectrum sp. 4.7 Mycteroperca sp. 2.4 Sparidae Lagodon rhomboides 8.8 Stromateidae Pepfilus triacanthus 5.9 Syngnathidae Unidentified 2.0 Synodontidae Unidentified 2.3 Trigliclae P7ionotus sp. 1.0 Unidentified 14.7 16 Balistidae Canthidermis maculatus* 1.1 Belonidae Unidentified 1.8 Bothidae Bothus sp. 1.7 Cyclopsettafimbtiata 1.4 EtroPus sp. 4.1 Paralichthys squamilentus 1.1 Unidentified 1.3 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 1.7 Carangidae Oligoplites saurus 1.8 Unidentified 0.9 Clupcidae Brevoortia tyrannus 4.4 Etrumeus teres 18.2 Cynoglossidae Symphurus sp. 1.8 Gadidae Urophycisfloiidiana 1.8 U. regia 4.5 Holocentridae Holocentrus sp. 1.7 Lophiidae Lophius americanus 3.2 Myctophidae Unidentified* 2.1 Ophichthidae Unidentified 1.8 Ophidiidae Ophidion selenops 1.1 Unidentified 1.8 Photichthyidae Vincigumia nimba?ia* 1.1 Sciaenidae Leiostomus xanthurus 0.9 Scombridae Scomberjaponicus 3.6 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dactylopterus 1.7 Serranidae Anthias sp. 1.8 Diplectrum sp. 1.7 Epinephelini 2.0 Syngnathidae Unidentified 1.8 Synodontidae Unidentified 2.3 Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides sp. 1.8 Unidentified 15.5 17 Ariommatidae Ariomma regulus* 0.4 Blenniidae Unidentified 0.4 Bothidae Bothus sp. 1.0 Citharich1hys sp. 0.4 Etropus SP. 1.0 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 0.4 Carangidae Unidentified 3.0 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 6.9 Etrumeus teres 20.6 Engraulidae Engraulis euiptole 0.4 Gobiidae Unidentified 1.0 Gonostomatidae Cyclothone sp.* 0.8 28 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 120 Appendix Table 5 (Continued) Relative abundance Station Family Taxon (No./ 100 in') Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatfix 1.0 Lophiidae Lophius americanus 1.0 Myctophidae Unidentified* 8.6 Nomeidae Psenes pellucidus* 0.4 Sciacnidae Leiostomus xanthurus 2.0 Scorpaenidae Helicolenus dactylopterus 1.1 Serranidae CentroP7,istis sp. 0.4 Synodontidae Trachinocephalus myops 1.0 Unidentified 1.4 Triglidae Unidentified 2.0 Unidentified 26.5 18 Bothiclae Bothus sp. 1.1 Etropus microstomus 1.1 Unidentified 0.4 Bregmacerotidae Bregmaceros sp.* 0.8 Carangidae Decapterus sp. 1.1 Clupeidae Brevoortia tyrannus 2.8 Etrumeus teres 10.2 Gempylidae Diplospinus multistriatus* 0.4 Gobiidae Unidentified 1.1 Myctophidae Diogenichthys allanticus* 0.4 Ophidiidae Unidentified 1.1 Photichthyidae Vinciguenia sp.* 0.4 Scaridae Unidentified 1.1 Scombridae Scomberjaponicus 2.1 Scorpacnidae Unidentified 0.4 Serranidae AnIhias sp. 0.4 Diplectrum sp. 0.7 Stromateidae Pep7ilus ftiacanthus 1.1 Synodontidae Unidentified 0.8 Unidentified 18.9 NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS NMFS The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in the quantity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for their optimum use. NMFS is also charged with the development and implemen- tation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, with the development and enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, with the surveillance of foreign fishing off U.S. coastal waters, and with the development and enforcement of international fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishing industry through marketing services and economic analysis programs and through mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry. Recently Published NOAA Technical Reports NMFS 109. Seasonal climatologies and variability of east- 114. Structure and historical changes in the ern tropical Pacific surface waters, by Paul C. Fiedler. groundfish complex of the eastern Bering Sea, by April 1992, 65 p. Richard G. Bakkala. July 1993, 91 p. 110. The distribution of Kemp's ridley sea turtles 115. Conservation biology of elasmobranchs, edited (Lepidockelys kempt) along the Texas coast: an adas, by Steven Branstetter. September 1993, 99 p. by Sharon A. Manzella, andjo A. Williams. May 1992, 52 p. 116. Description of early larvae of four northern 111. Control of disease in aquaculture: proceed- California species of rockfishes (Scorpaeuidae: ings of the nineteenth U.S.-Japan meeting on aquacul- Sebastes) from rearing studies, by Guillermo Moreno. ture; Ise, Mie Prefecture, Japan, 29-30 October 1990, November 1993, 18 p. edited by Ralph S. Svrjcek. October 1992, 143 p. 112. Variability of temperature and salinity in the 117. Distribution, abundance, and biological char- Middle Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Maine, by Robert L. acteristics of groundfish off the coast of Washington, Benway, Jack W. Jossi, Kevin P. Thomas, and Julien R. Oregon, and California, 1977-1986, by Thomas A. Dark Goulet. April 1993, 108 p. and Mark E. Wilkins. May 1994, 73 p. 113. Maturation of nineteen species of finfish off the 118. Pictorial guide to the groupers (Teleostei. Ser- northeast coast of the United States, 1985-1990, by ranidae) of the western North Atlantic, by Mark Grace, Loretta O'Brienjay Burnett, and Ralph K Mayo. June 1993, 66 p. Kevin R. Rademacher, and Mike Russell. May 1994, 46 p. Copyright Law Although the contents of Ilmse reports have not been copm@hted and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any ad- vertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NMFS approves, recommends, or endor- ses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an in- tent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this NMFS publication. NO -AA Technical Reports NMFS guarantee a good final printed copy. Technical Reports of the Fishery Bulletin Figures are to be labeled with author's name and number of figure. Use Times Guide for Contributors Roman font (upper and lowercase letters) to label within figures. Avoid vertical let- tering except for y-axis labels. Zeros should precede all decimal points for Text footnotes should be numbered values less than one. Figures may be sub- Preparation mitted as computer software files (along with Arabic numerals and typed on a with laser-printed copies), as photo- separate sliect of paper. Footnote all per- mechanical transfers (PMTs), or as high Title page should include authors' full sonal communications, unpublished data, quality photographic prints. Send only names and mailing addresses and the and unpublished manuscripts with full xerox copies of figures to the Scientific senior author's telephone and FAX address of the communicator or author, Editor- original figures will be requested number. or, as in the case of unpublished data, later when the manuscript has been ac- where the data are on file. Authors are cepted for publication. Figure legends Abstract should not exceed one double- advised to avoid references to nonstan- should explain all symbols and abbrevia- spaced typed page. It should state the dard (gray) literature, such as internal, tions and should be double-spaced on a main scope of tile research but em- project, processed, or administrative re- separate page at the end of the pliasize its conclusions and relevant find- ports, wherever possible. Where these manuscript. ings. Because abstracts are circulated by references are used, please include abstracting agencies, it is important that whether they are available from NTIS Copyright law does not cover govern- they represent tile research clearly and (National Technical Information Service) ment publications; they fall within die concisely. or from some other public depository. public domain. If an author reproduces any part of a government publication in Text must be typed double-spaced Literature cited comprises published his work, reference to source is con'- throughout. A brief introduction should works and those accepted for publication sidered correct form. portray the broad significance of the in peer-reviewed literature (in press). Fol- paper; the remainder of the paper should low the name and year system for cita- be divided into the following sections: tion format. In the text, cite Smith and Submission Materials and methods, Results5 Jones (1977) or (Smith andjones, 1977). Discussion (or Conclusions), and Ac' If there is a sequence of citations, list Send printed copies (original and two knowledgments. Headings within each chronologically: Smith, 1932; Green, copies) to the Scientific Editor: section must be short, reflect a logical se- 1947; Smith and Jones, 1985. Abbrevia- quence, and follow the rules of multiple tions of serials should conform to ab- Dr. Ronald Hardy, Scientific Editor subdivision (i.e. there can be no subdi- breviations given in Serial Sources for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, vision without at least two items). 'I he BIOSIS heviews Database. Authors are F/NWC3 entire text should be intelligible to inter- responsible for the accuracy and com- National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA disciplinary readers; therefore, A acro- pleteness of all citations. 2725 Monflake Boulevard East nyms, abbreviations, and technical terms Tables should not be excessive in size Seattle, WA 98112-2097 should be spelled out the first time they and must be cited in numerical order in Once the manuscript has been accepted are mentioned. The scientific names of the text. Headings should be short but for publication, you will be asked to sub- species must be written out tile first time ample enough to allow the table to be mit a software copy of your manuscript they are mentioned; subsequent mention intelligible on its own. All unusual sym- to the Managing Editor. The software of scientific names may be abbreviated. bols must be explained in the table head- copy should be submitted in WordPe?fect Follow the U.S. Government 1@inting Office ing. Other incidental comments may be text format (or in standard ASCII text Sole Manual (1984 ed.) and die CBE Syle footnoted with italic numerals. Use format if WordPerfect is unavailable) and Manual (5th ed.) for editorial style, and asterisks for probability in statistical should be placed on a 5.25-inch or 3.5- the most current issue of the American data. Because tables are typeset, they inch disk that is double-sided, double or Fisheries Sociey's Common and Scientific need only be submitted typed and for- high density, and that is compatible with Names of Fishes from the United States and matted, with double-spaced legends. Zeros either DOS or Apple Macintosh systems. Canada for fish nomenclature. Dates should precede all decimal points for should be written as follows: I I Novem- values less than one. ber 199 1. Measurements should be ex- Copies of published articles and pressed in metric units, e.g., metric tons Figures include line illustrations and notes are available free of charge to the as (t); if other units of measurement are photographs (or slides) and must be cited senior author (50 copies) and to his or used, please make this fact explicit to the in numerical order in the text. Unless her laboratory (50 copies). Additional reader. The numeral one (1) should be photographs are submitted on glossy copies may be purchased in lots of 100 typed as a one, not as a lower-case el (1). paper with good contrast, we cannot when the author receives page proofs. C.0 UNITED STATES CoT====' DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC BULK RATE 0 ADMINISTRATION POSTAGE & FEES PAID Q@Z NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 0 -M SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS OFFICE U.S. Department of Commerc I@J BIN C15700 Permit No. G-19 SEATTLE, WA 98115 >M OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for Private Use, $300 NOAA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was established as part of the Department of Commerce on October 13, 1970. The mission responsibilities of NOAA are to assess the socioeconomi .c impact of natural and technological changes in the environment and to monitor and predict the state of the solid Earth, the oceans and their living resources, the atmosphere, and the space environment of the Earth. The major components of NOAA regularly produce various types of scientific and technical information in the following kinds of publications: PROFESSIONAL PAPERS-Important definitive TECHNICAL SERVICE PUBLICATIONS-Reports research results, major techniques, and special containing data, observations, instructions, etc. A par- investigations. tial listing includes data serials; predictions and outlook periodicals; technical manuals, training papers, plann- CONTRACT AND GRANT REPORTS-Reports ing reports, and information serials; and miscellaneous prepared by contractors or grantees under NOAA technical publications. sponsorship. TECHNICAL REPORTS-Journal quality with exten- ATLAS-Presentation of analyzed data generally in the sive details, mathematical developments, or data listings. form of maps showing distribution of rainfall, chemical and physical conditions of oceans and atmosphere, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS-Reports of distribution of fishes and marine mammals, ionospheric preliminary, partial, or negative research or technology conditions, etc. results, interim instructions, and the like. 0-1 ATMOS, @ol Information on availability ofNOAA publications can be obtainedfrom.- U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5283 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161