CalCOFI Reports, Vol. 27, 1986 - California Cooperative Oceanic ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

~ ~___~LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA FISHES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHTCalCOFI Rep., Vol. XXVII, 1986TABLE 5Comparisons of Species Rankings(Using the index of Community Importance)between Depths, All Areas and Years CombinedKendall’sDepth vs Depth tau P6.1 12.2 0.372 0.002*6.1 18.3 0.069 0.60412.2 18.3 0.421 0.0002 **Significant at P G 0.5nemus were near or at the bottom of the top ten species.Seriphus, while still second in abundance, was infrequently(10.5) encountered.Sun Onofre area. As at Ormond and Redondo,Seriphus and Genyonemus ranked first and secondamong species captured in 6.1 m (Table 9). Engraulismordax ranked third; second in abundance (behindSeriphus); and was taken more consistently (40% ofthe trawls) than at the more northern stations. Californiacorbina, Menticirrhus undulatus; deepbodyanchovy, Anchoa compressa; and yellowfin croaker,Umbrina voncador (all ranked in the top ten at SanOnofre) were absent from this list at Ormond andRedondo.Citharichthys stigmaeus and G. lineatus tied for firstranking in 12.2 m (Table 9), though Seriphus was byfar the most abundant. However, its frequency of occurrencedeclined markedly from 74.5% in 6.1 m to39.8% in 12.2 m. Paralichthys californicus, as atevery isobath and area, was an important constituent,and was taken in over half of the trawls (53.0%). As in12.2 m, C. stigmaeus was ranked first in 18.3 m, followedby Synodus lucioceps and G. lineatus.Genyonemus was most abundant, though taken onlyabout 28% of the time. As at Redondo, flatfishes (suchas P. verticalis, Xystruerys liolepis, and P. californicus)were the most commonly taken group.Compared to fish assemblages in 6.1 m, those of12.2 m were somewhat more heterogenous. WhileSeriphus and Genyonemus continued to be dominant(both numerically and in occurrence) off Ormond, theywere not as important off San Onofre and Redondo.They remained the most abundant, but were no longerTABLE 6Comparisons of the Top Ten Species (index ofCommunity Importance) between Locations, Years, andDepths, Using Kendall’s Coefficient of ConcordanceW K N X ’ D F P RLocation .66 3 13 23.8 12 ,022 .49Year .68 3 13 24.6 12 .025 .52Depth .50 3 15 21.1 14 .IO0 .25SoeciesTABLE 7Composition of Ormond Area Trawl Catches(lop Ten Species, Based on Index ofCommunity Importance), 1982-84~~Number6.1-m isobath1. Seriphus politus 10,0882. Genyonemus lineatus 4.87 13. Engraulis mordax 4,8834. Hyperprosopon 866argenteum5. Amphistichus argenteus 4986. Paralichthys 125calijornicus7. Phanerodon $ireatus 2248. Citharichthys stigmaeus 1229. Peprilus simillimus 304IO. Syngnathus 92leptorhjnchus12.2-m isobath1. Genyonemus lineatus 9,5972. Seriphus politus 9,47 13. Cirharichthys stigmaeus 4194. Engraulis mordax 1,0755. Hyperprosopon 35 1argenteum6. Phanerodon furcatus 3747. Paralichthys calijornicus 1618. Synodus lucioceps 2369. Peprilus simillimus 269IO. Pleuronichthys verticalis 9 118.3-m isobath1. Genyonemus lineatus 13,3742. Seriphus politus 5,1803. Citharichthys stigmaeus 9404. Engraulis mordav 8045. Paralichthys 209calijornicus6. Pleuronichrhys 248verticalis7. Symphurus atricauda 3548. Synodus lucioceps 3569. Otophidium scrippsi 174IO. Phanerodon furcatus 125PercentfrequencyPercent ofnumber occurrence44.2 73.621.3 62.021.4 34.63.8 54.32.1 48.60.5 27.40.9 26.00.5 25.41.3 13.40.4 19.242.0 71.341.5 66.51.8 50.44.7 33.41.5 37.81.6 35.40.1 43.61.0 18.41.1 17.90.4 24.751.9 59.725.0 55.34.0 47.53.4 36.80.9 53.31.0 51.91.5 41.71.5 21.70.7 22.80.5 19.41c1-2.05.01.07.09.014.014.017.019.020.02.04.07.010.011.011.013.018.018.519.02.04.08.011.011.011.012.013.019.022.0the most frequently encountered species (these wereCitharichthys sordidus, P. californicus, and also P.ritteri off Redondo).In 18.3 m, densely aggregating, midwater fishescontinued to decrease in abundance at Redondo andSan Onofre. Off Redondo, C. stigmaeus was mostabundant, and P. ritteri was third, close behindSeriphus politus (which was captured only 10.5% ofthe time). Off San Onofre, G. lineatus was taken inhighest numbers, though captured in only 28.3% of thetrawls. Five species (C. stigmaeus, S. lucioceps, P.90
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA FISHES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHTCalCOFl Rep., Vol. XXVII. 1986TABLE 8Composition of Redondo Area Trawl Catches(Top Ten Species, Based on Index ofCommunity Importance), 1982-84PercentfrequencyPercent ofSpecies Number number occurrence IC16.141 isobathI. Seriphus politus 17,3932. Genyonemus lineatus 1,6683. Paralichthys 620calijornicus4. Hyperprosopon 995urgenteum5. Engruulis mordux 13,8346. Citharichthys stigmaeus 429I. Phanerodon,furcatus 3418. Pleuronichthys ritteri 1959. Sphyraena argentea 240IO. Paralabran- nebulifer 8212.2-m isobath1. Citharichthys stigmaeus 8142. Genyonemus lineatus 1,6133. Paralichthys californicus 5504. Seriphus politus 5,1245. Pleuronichthys ritteri 3066. Phanerodon furcatu.s 6697. Heterostichus rostratus 2428. Xystreurys liolepis I149. Synodus lucioceps 492IO. Puralabrax nebulifer 11418.3-m isobathI . Citharichthys stigmaeus I, 14 I2. Pleuronichthys ritteri 1,0323. Paralichthys californicus 3564. Pleuronichthys coenosus 3115. Synodus lucioceps 4396. Xystreutys liolepis 2867. Pleuronichthys verficalis 1168. Seriphuspolitus 1,1259. Scorpuena guttata 105IO. Genvonemus lineatus 26545.94.4I .62.636.51.10.90.50.60.26.412.74.345.32.45.3I .91.33.81.314.813.44.64.95.73.72.214.6I .33.451.443.355.735.728.035.129.031.613.819.561.436.614.221.662.323.335.233.320.930.471.486.166.152.832.850.432.810.425.212.33.06.06.09.510.011.516.016.021 .525.06. I6.07.09.010.013.014.016.517.017.54.05.010.010.011.513.016.518.019.021.5verticalis, X . liolepis, and P. californicus) were takenmore frequently. Genyonemus and Seriphus were stillthe major species off Ormond, constituting 82.9% ofall fishes taken. Genyonemus was captured more oftenin 18.3 m (57.9%) than along the shallower isobaths;Seriphus (25.0%) dropped in occurrence. Paralichthyscalifornicus, as at every isobath and area, was amongthe top ten species. It did not contribute large numbers,but was usually taken in at least 50% of the trawls.AbundanceOff San Onofre and Redondo (discounting variabilityin fish sizes and seasonal abundances), fisheswere most abundant in 6.1 m, declining sharply in 12.2and 18.3 m (Figure 2). In contrast, fish abundancesTABLE 9Composition of San Onofre Area Trawl Catches(Top Ten Species, Based on Index ofCommunity Importance), 1982-84PercentfrequencyPercent ofSpecies Number number occurrence6.1-m isobath1.2.3.4.5.6.1.8.9.10.Seriphus politusGenyonemus lineatusEngraulis mordaxMenticirrhus undulatusAnchoa compressaHyperprosoponargenteumParalichthyscalifornicusAmphistichus argenteusSyngnu rhusleptorhynchusUmbrina roncador21,1294,9891 1,9853622,01039620418321229912.2-111 isobath1. Citharichthys stigmaeus 4942. Genyonemus lineatus 4,0453. Seriphuspolitus 10,1054. Paralichthys 249califbrnicus5. Phunerodon furcatus 3856. Engraulis mordax 9121. Paralabrax nebulifer 1038. Synodus lucioceps 1219. Pleuronichthys ritteri 78IO. Xyslreurys liolepis 8118.3-111 isobath1. Citharichthys stigmaeus 1492. Synodus lucioceps 1603. Genyonemus lineatus 3,3834. PleuronichthyJ verticalis 2215. Xystreutys liolepis 2466. Paralichthys californicus 1641. Seriphus politus 6938. Engraulis mordax 1.6249. Citharichthys 111xunthostigmaIO. Svmphurus atricauda 5248.011.327.20.84.70.90.40.40.60.62.722.258.91.32. I5.30.50.60.40.48.99.040.22.72.91.98.319.31.30.614.551.840.241.231.929. I39.832.825.024.560.147.239.853.230.519.924.520.322.621.212.646.228.249.046.243.517.58.715.718.01c1-2.05.06.010.011.014.017.019.019.019.05.05.05.08.010.013.015.011.019.019.05.06.57.09.09.513.013.016.018.018.0were constant through the three isobaths off Ormond.As discussed previously, Seriphus and Genyonemuslineatus were the dominant species in 6.1 m throughoutthe bight, accounting for an overwhelming percentageof the total catch. Off San Onofre and Redondo, thesespecies declined in importance with depth, and noother species replaced them in numbers. Off Ormond,croakers remained abundant at all three isobaths. However,there was a shift with depth in the relative numberof Seriphus and Genyonemus. Seriphus was mostcommon in 6.1 m, and Genyonemus in 18.3 m.Discounting seasonal variability, abundance along91
Page 1:
REPORTSVOLUMECICTCIBERXXVll1986
Page 4 and 5:
EDITOR Julie OlfeSPANISH EDITOR Pat
Page 7:
COMMITTEE REPORTCalCOFI Rep., Vol.
Page 10 and 11:
FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFl Rep.,
Page 12 and 13:
FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFI Rep.,
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
~~ ~BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
WOLF AND SMITH: MAGNITUDE OF SARDIN
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
PUBLICATIONSCalCOFI Rep., Vol. XXVI
Page 37 and 38:
Part I1SYMPOSIUM OF THE CALCOFI CON
Page 39 and 40:
PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
Page 41 and 42: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
Page 55 and 56: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
Page 67 and 68: STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
Page 87 and 88: LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
Page 91: LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
Page 109: Part 111SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS
Page 112 and 113: BAILEY ET AL.: FORECASTING HAKE REC
Page 114 and 115: BAILEY ET AL.: FORECASTING HAKE REC
Page 116 and 117: ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
Page 124 and 125: MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
Page 126 and 127: MacGREGOR: SEEASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
Page 132 and 133: -~ ~MacCREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECa
Page 138 and 139: LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
Page 140 and 141: LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
Page 142 and 143:
LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
Page 144 and 145:
DuracionQUINONEZ-VELAZQUEZ Y GOMEZ-
Page 146 and 147:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
SCHMITT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
SCHMIlT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
Page 164 and 165:
MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEAN
Page 166 and 167:
~MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEA
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTlA CALIFORNIEN
Page 192 and 193:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
Page 194 and 195:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALlFORNlEN
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
TRUJILLO-ORTLZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
Page 210 and 211:
CHEN: VERTlCAL DISTRIBUTlON OF PELA
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
JOOCHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF P
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 283 and 284:
-130' 125. 120' 11.5. 110.I I I I I
show all

CalCOFI Reports, Vol. 27, 1986 - California Cooperative Oceanic ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?