2008 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 10.9MB) - Bolsa Chica ...
2008 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 10.9MB) - Bolsa Chica ...
2008 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 10.9MB) - Bolsa Chica ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Bolsa</strong> <strong>Chica</strong> Lowlands Restoration <strong>Monitoring</strong><br />
<strong>2008</strong> <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
Less common fish captured over the year included bonefish (Albula vulpes), California lizardfish<br />
(Synodus lucioceps), and an unidentified juvenile rockfish (Sebastes sp.). All were captured in low<br />
numbers. Only one California needlefish (Strongylura exilis) was captured (in April <strong>2008</strong>), though a<br />
school of them was observed from the boat at Station 1 in October but not captured. No striped mullet<br />
(Mugil cephalus) were captured in the basin but were regularly observed, particularly in October, in<br />
schools in the shallows along the riprap of the basin.<br />
Ca. butterfly ray in the beach seine.<br />
The total mass (g) of fish captured in <strong>2008</strong> is presented in Table 1-6. A<br />
total of 55 kg of fish was captured at Station 1, 68% of which was made<br />
up of elasmobranchs, primarily bat ray (Myliobatis californica), round<br />
stingray (Urobatis halleri), gray smoothhound (Mustelus californicus),<br />
and California butterfly ray (Gymnura marmorata). Topsmelt,<br />
yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador), and California halibut were also<br />
major contributors to overall mass at Station 1. A smaller total mass of<br />
19 kg of fish was captured at Station 2, dominated by topsmelt (45%),<br />
jacksmelt (17%), and diamond turbot (12%).<br />
It is important to note when reviewing these tables that survey intensity varied slightly between<br />
stations due to variations in large beach seine haul sizes, so direct comparisons between stations and<br />
quarters should be made carefully. In addition, the sampling biases between gear types make lumping<br />
of the catch of all gears together inappropriate. To standardize for the area sampled and to allow direct<br />
comparisons in density and biomass between stations, Figure 1-8 presents the mean density<br />
(individuals/m 2 ) by gear by quarter for each station. The results of the first sampling in October 2007<br />
are included as well.<br />
Merkel & Associates, Inc. 43