RED SNAPPER

REFERENCE COPY Do Not Remove from the Libracy

m i cry 'L . . F

Biological Report 82(11.83) N-I Wetlads Re-& m r TR EL-82-4 August 1988

70Q Cajun Dome Boulevard L~Q@w, W i i a m 7-

Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)

RED SNAPPER

Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Ecology Group

Waterways Experiment Station

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

B i o l o g i c a l Report 82(11.83) TR EL-82-4 August 1988

Species P ro f i 1 es: L i f e H i s t o r i e s and Environmental Requirements o f Coastal Fishes and Inver tebra tes (Gu l f o f Mexico)

RED SNAPPER

David Moran U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Serv ice

Nat ional Wetlands Research Center 1010 Gause Boulevard S l i d e l l , LA 70458

P r o j e c t O f f i c e r David Morais

U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Serv ice Nat ional Wetl ands Research Center

Performed f o r Coastal Ecology Group

Waterways Experiment S t a t i o n U. S. Army Corps o f Engineers

Vicksburg, MS 39180

U.S. Department o f t he I n t e r i o r F i sh and W i l d l i f e Serv ice Research and Development

Nat iona l Wetl ands Research Center Washington, DC 20240

T h i s s e r i e s may be re fe renced as f o l l ows :

U. S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Serv ice. 1983-19-. Species p r o f i l e s : 1 i f e h i s t o r i e s and env i ronmental requi rements o f coas ta l f i s h e s and i nve r t eb ra tes . U. S. F i s h W i l d l . Serv. B i o l . Rep. 82(11). U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Th i s p r o f i l e may be c i t e d as f o l l ows :

Moran, D. 1988. Species p r o f i l e s : 1 i f e h i s t o r i e s and envi ronmenta l r e q u i r e - ments o f coas ta l f i s h e s and i n v e r t e b r a t e s (Gu l f o f Mexico)--red snapper. U. S. F i s h W i l d l . Serv. B i o l . Rep. 82(11.83). U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 19 pp.

PREFACE

Th is species p r o f i l e i s one o f a se r i es on coasta l aquat ic organisms, p r i n c i p a l l y f i s h , o f spo r t , commercial , o r eco log ica l importance. The p r o f i l e s are designed t o prov ide coasta l managers, engineers, and b i o l o g i s t s w i t h a b r i e f comprehensive sketch o f t he b i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and environmental requirements o f t h e species and t o descr ibe how populat ions o f t he species may be expected t o r e a c t t o environmental changes caused by coasta l development. Each p r o f i l e has sect ions on taxonomy, 1 i f e h i s t o r y , eco log ica l r o l e , environmental requirements, and economic importance, i f appl i cab le . A t h r e e - r i n g b inde r i s used f o r t h i s se r i es so t h a t new p r o f i l e s can be added as they are prepared. This p r o j e c t i s j o i n t l y planned and f inanced by t h e U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers and the U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Service.

Suggestions o r questions regarding t h i s r e p o r t should be d i r e c t e d t o one of the f o l l owing addresses.

In fo rmat ion Trans fer Special i s t Nat ional Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Serv ice NASA-Sl i d e l 1 Computer Complex 1010 Gause Boulevard S l i d e l l , LA 70458

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment S t a t i o n A t ten t i on : WESER-C Post O f f i c e Box 631 Vicksburg, MS 39180

CONVERSION TABLE

M e t r i c t o U.S. Customary

Mu1 t i p l y

m i l l i m e t e r s (mm) cen t ime te rs (cm) meters (m) meters (m) k i 1 ometers (km) k i 1 ometers (km)

square meters ( m 2 ) 10.76 square k i 1 ometers ( km2) 0.3861 hectares (ha) 2 .471

l i t e r s (1) cub ic meters (m3) cub ic meters (m3)

m i l l i g r a m s (mg) grams (g) k i 1 ograms (kg) m e t r i c tons (t) m e t r i c tons (t)

k i l o c a l o r i e s ( k c a l ) C e l s i u s degrees ( O C )

U.S. Customary t o M e t r i c

inches 25.40 inches 2.54 f e e t ( f t ) 0.3048 fathoms 1.829 s t a t u t e m i l e s ( m i ) 1.609 n a u t i c a l m i l e s (nmi) 1.852

square f e e t ( f t2) square m i l e s ( m i 2 ) acres

g a l l o n s ( g a l ) cub ic f e e t ( f t3) a c r e - f e e t

ounces (oz) ounces (oz) pounds ( l b ) pounds ( l b ) s h o r t tons ( t o n )

B r i t i s h thermal u n i t s (Btu) 0.2520 Fahrenhe i t degrees (OF) 0.5556 (OF - 32)

To Obta in

inches inches f e e t fathoms s t a t u t e m i 1 es n a u t i c a l m i l e s

square f e e t square m i l e s acres

ga l 1 ons cub ic f e e t acre- f e e t

ounces ounces pounds pounds s h o r t tons

B r i t i s h thermal u n i t s Fahrenhe i t degrees

m i l l i m e t e r s cen t ime te rs meters meters k i l o m e t e r s k i l o m e t e r s

square meters square k i 1 ometers hec ta res

1 i t e r s c u b i c meters cub ic meters

m i l l i g r a m s grams k i 1 ograms m e t r i c tons m e t r i c tons

k i l o c a l o r i e s C e l s i u s degrees

CONTENTS

Page

.................................................................. PREFACE CONVERSION TABLE ......................................................... FIGURES ..................................................................

.................................................................... TABLES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................

NOMENCLATLlRE/TAXONOMY/RANGE .............................................. MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS ...........................................

D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Characters o f Red Snapper ............................... D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Characters o f S i m i l a r Species from the Same

General Area ......................................................... REASONS FOR INCLUSION I N THE SERIES ...................................... LIFE HISTORY .............................................................

Spawning ............................................................... Eggs ................................................................... Larvae ................................................................. Juven i les and Adu l ts ................................................... Movement ...............................................................

GROW1-H CHARACTERISTICS ................................................... FISHERIES ................................................................

Commercial F ishery ..................................................... Spor t F ishery ..........................................................

ECOLOGICAL ROLE .......................................................... Feeding Hab i ts ......................................................... Competi t ion, Predat ion, and Paras i t i sm .................................

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................... Temperature and S a l i n i t y ...............................................

................................................................ H a b i t a t Depth .................................................................. Contaminants ...........................................................

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

iii i v v i

v i i v i i i

FIGURES

Number Page

1 Adul t r ed snapper Lut janus campechanus .......................... 1

2 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r ed snapper i n the Gu l f o f Mexico ............................................. 2

3 Commercial and spo r t f i s h i n g grounds f o r red snapper i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico ........................................... 9

4 Annual commercial landings o f red snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n F l o r i d a and Alabama, 1880-1985 .................... 10

5 Annual commercial landings o f red snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n Louis iana and Texas, 1880-1985 .................... 10

6 Annual commercial landings o f red snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n M i s s i s s i p p i , 1880-1985 ............................ 11

TABLES

Number Page

1 Estimated l e n g t h and age a t m a t u r i t y o f r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico .......................................... 4

2 Spawning per iods o f r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico .......... 5

3 Length (mm) a t age (years) o f r e d snapper i n f o u r reg ions o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico .................................. 6

4 Length (mm)-weight (g) r e l a t i o n s f o r r e d snapper ............... 7

5 Recreat ional ca tch o f r e d snapper (thousands o f f i s h ) i n t h e G u l f S ta tes , 1979-85 .................................... 12

6 Prey i tems found i n t h e g rea tes t frequency o f occurrence i n j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper and t h e g r e a t e s t volume i n j u v e n i l e s i n t h e C d l f o f Mexico . ............................ 13

7 Prey i tems found i n stomachs o f j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico .................................. 14

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am g r a t e f u l f o r reviews by Russel l Nelson, F l o r i d a Marine F i she r ies Com- mission, Tallahassee; Charles Manooch 111, Nat ional Marine F isher ies Service, Beaufor t , North Carol ina; and John Finucane, Churchi 11 Grimes, and A1 l a n Col 1 i n s of the Nat ional Marine F isher ies Service, Panama C i t y , F lo r i da .

Figure 1. Adul t red snapper Lutjanus campechanus (from Vergara-R. 1978).

RED SNAPPER

S c i e n t i f i c name.. . Lutjanus cam echanus Pre fer red common name.. ..

(Figure 1) *

Other common names ........ Sow snapper, r a t snapper (northwest coast o f F l o r i d a ) ; mule snapper, chicken snapper (nor theast coast o f F l o r i - da); g u l f r ed snapper, American red snapper

Class ..................... Osteichthyes Order. ..................... Perc i formes Family ...................... Lut jan idae

Geographic range: t he con t i nen ta l she1 ves border ing t h e G u l f o f Mexico (Figure 2) and t h e A t l a n t i c Coast as f a r no r th as Cape Hat teras, North Carol ina; no t repor ted i n t h e Carib- bean Sea (Rivas 1966, 1970).

MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS

The f o l l o w i n g desc r i p t i ons are taken from Rivas (1966), Anderson (1967),

and Vergara-R. (1978). Anderson ' s d e s c r i p t i o n inc ludes f i s h t h a t are Caribbean r e d snapper,

u r ureus, which he conspeci i c w i t h L. cam echanus; he --T suggested the name L* t he composite. The name C b ac f o r d i i i s an obsolete name for - the red snapper.

D i s t i ngu i sh ing Characters o f Red S n a ~ ~ e r

Dorsal f i n I X - X spines, u s u a l l y X , 13-15 so f t rays, usua l l y 14; anal f i n 111-IV, usua l l y 111, 8-10, usua l l y 9; pec to ra l f i n rays 15-18, usua l l y 17; scales on l a t e r a l 1 i n e u s u a l l y 45-47; g i l l rakers on lower l imb o f a n t e r i o r arch (exc lud ing rudiments) 9. Head la rge; lower jaw p r o j e c t i n g s l i g h t l y beyond upper; snout somewhat pointed; eyes small , contained more than 6.5 t imes i n head length; i n t e r o r b i t a l reg ion convex i n t he t ransverse plane; anchor-shaped patch o f s t rong t e e t h on r o o f o f mouth, a p o s t e r i o r median extension o f t he patch moderately

developed. Pectoral f i n s long, reaching t o anus when pressed aga ins t body; anal f i n angulate i n specimens longer than 50 mm; margin o f caudal f i n deeply notched.

Color: back and upper s ides b r i c k red t o s c a r l e t ; lower s ides and b e l l y rose-colored t o wh i te , especia l l y i n f r o n t . I r i s o f eye red. Dark spot on upper area o f each s ide below a n t e r i o r s o f t dorsal f i n rays, d isappear ing i n specimens over 250 mm long. Occasional b l u i s h s t r i p e s on s ides o f juven i les .

D i s t i ngu i sh ing Characters o f S i m i l a r S ~ e c i e s from the Same General Area

Lut 'anus vivanus ( s i 1 k snapper): _t body co o r D- red: i r i s o f eye

y e l i ~ w ; 8 s o f t rays i n anal fin.

L u t j a n i s anal i s (mutton snapper): t o o t h p a t c h r o o f o f mouth chevron-shaped, w i thou t a p o s t e r i o r extension; back, upper s ides, and upper lobe o f caudal f i n 01 i v e green; two b lue s t r i p e s on snout and cheek; dark spot on each s ide below s o f t rays o f dorsa l f i n p e r s i s t i n g throughout l i f e .

Lu t 'anis p u r p u r e s (Caribbean red snapper occu r r i ng on l y i n t he Caribbean Sea and i n t he A t l a n t i c coas ta l waters o f South America.

A l l o ther species o f Lut janus: anal f i n rounded and c o l o r at terns d i f - f e r e n t from - L. campechanus.

P r i s t i omoides a u i l o n a r i s (wench- man *d + rose t o p ink ; i n t e r o r b i t a l r eg ion f l a t ; snout s h o r t and b l u n t ; t o o t h patch on r o o f o f mouth t r i a n g u l a r o r chevron-shaped, w i thou t a p o s t e r i o r extension; on l y 10-11 s o f t rays i n dorsal f i n .

Rhombo 1 i t e s aurorubens (vermi 1 i o n s n i Z a c k and upper s ides vermi l ion ; t o o t h patch on r o o f o f mouth rhomboid; dorsal f i n X I 1 t o X I I I , 10-11.

REASONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE SERIES

The r e d snapper i s the most impor- t a n t f i s h i n t he commercial snapper- grouper f i s h e r y between Cape San B l as, F l o r i d a , and the mouth o f t he Rio Grande (A1 l e n and Tashiro 1976); 4.6 m i l l i o n I b were landed commercially a t U.S. p o r t s i n t h e Gu l f o f Mexico i n 1985 (Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Serv- i c e 1986, unpubl. data). The red snapper ranked 19 th i n number o f f i s h caught among groups o f s p o r t f i s h f o r which s t a t i s t i c s were recorded i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico i n 1985; about 2 m i l l i o n red snapper were caught by s p o r t f ishermen i n t h e g u l f t h a t year (Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Serv ice 1986a).

LIFE HISTORY

Spawning

Red snapper u s u a l l y show p a r t i a l sexual m a t u r i t y when 1 year o l d and show f u l l m a t u r i t y when about 2 years o l d and 375 mm i n f o r k l eng th (FL) (Table 1).

I n general, r ed snapper spawn i n summer and fa1 1 i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico. They have one peak spawning pe r iod i n F l o r i d a waters and two peaks i n Texas waters (Table 2).

I n d i v i d u a l f i s h probably spawn sev- e r a l t imes du r ing t h e spawning season (several egg stages occur simul tane- ous ly i n t he ovar ies) ; t h e p ro t rac ted spawning season and v a r i a t i o n i n gonadosomatic i nd i ces i n f i s h o f s imi - l a r s i z e du r ing the season a re consis- t e n t w i t h t h i s hypothesis (Co l l i n s e t a l . 1987).

The f i s h spawn p r i m a r i l y away from r e e f s (Bradley and Bryan 1975). Spawning was repor ted a t depths o f 18-37 m over a firm sand bottom w i t h 1 i t t l e re1 i e f (Beaumariage and B u l l ock 1976).

Fecundity o f f i s h sampled i n nor th- west F l o r i d a ranged from 0.2 m i l l i o n

3

Table 1. Estimated l eng th and aye a t m a t u r i t y o f r e d snapper i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico.

Age a t Age a t Length a t Length a t Tota l p a r t i a l f u l l p a r t i a l f u l l f i s h matut i t y m a t u r i t y m a t u r i t y m a t u r i t y sampl ed Reference

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

375 mm(FL) 298 C o l l i n s e t a l . (1986) and Nelson and Manooch

(1982) d'e

2 b b 559 Futch and Bruger (1976) e ' f

a Females. b ~ o data. C M a t u r i t y was determined by macroscopic exami na t i on o f ovar ies.

d ~ g e was determined most ly from sca le annu l i . M a t u r i t y was determined by macroscopic and microscopic examination o f ovar ies and c a l c u l a t i o n o f t he gonadoso-

e mat ic index. The monthly d i s t r i b u t i o n o f marginal incremental growth beyond the l a s t annul us was used t o determine t h a t annu l i a re formed annual ly .

f ~ g e was determined from o t o l i t h annul i . M a t u r i t y was determined by macroscopic examination o f ovar ies.

eggs f o r a female about 3 years o l d and 386 mm FL t o 9.3 m i l l i o n f o r a f i s h about 12 years o l d and 754 mm FL (Co l l i n s e t a l . 1987).

Red snapper eggs average 0.82 mm i n diameter (range: 0.77-0.85 mm). The egg i s pe lag i c , spher ica l , unpig- mented, and t ransparent , and has a s i n g l e o i l g lobu le (Ra iba la is e t a l . 1980). I n t he labora tory , i n i t i a l ha tch i ng began 20 h a f t e r f e r t i 1 i za- t i o n (Minton e t a l . 1983), and about 50% o f t h e eggs hatched w i t h i n 25 h o f f e r t i 1 i z a t i o n (Raibala i s e t a1 . 1980).

Larvae

Newly hatched l a rvae i n t he labora- t o r y averaged 2.2 mm i n standard l eng th (SL) according t o Ra iba la is e t

a1 . (1980). The l a rvae began a c t i v e l y feeding on c u l t u r e o f a lga and r o t i f e r s 3 days a f t e r ha tch ing and were 2.5 mm SL 4 days a f t e r ha tch ing (Ra iba la is e t a l . 1980). L u t j a n i d l a rvae c o l l e c t e d i n t he f i e l d could be i d e n t i f i e d on ly t o f a m i l y by C o l l i n s e t a l . (1980), who a l so repor ted t h a t t he head was p ropo r t i ona te l y l a r g e and head l eng th was about equal t o body depth f o r r e d snapper l a rvae and j uven i l es 4-22 mm SL.

Juveni 1 es and Adul ts

The peak abundance o f j uven i l es i s i n shal lower water (20-46 m deep) than t h e peak dens i t y o f adu l t s (F igure 2; Bradley and Bryan 1975). Juveni 1 e red snapper were caught i n t r a w l s on the Texas shrimp grounds (Bradley and Bryan 1975).

Table 2. Spawning per iods o f r e d snapper i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico

Number Spawning o f f i s h

Region season(s) Peak sampled Reference

Texas May t o J u l y and May t o J u l y 569 Brad1 ey ang November t o and November Bryan 1976 December

West F l o r i d a J u l y t o October August t o 314 Futch and Bruger September 1976~

Northwest F l o r i d a May t o September J u l y 729 C o l l i n s e t a1 . 1986

a On the bas is o f macroscopic examination o f ovar ies.

bOn t h e bas is o f gonadosomatic index and both macroscopic and microscopic exami- n a t i o n o f ovar ies.

Instantaneous na tu ra l m o r t a l i t y (M) was est imated t o be 0.19 i n West F l o r i d a and 0.20 i n Louis iana by Nelson and Manooch (1982). They a l so repor ted t h a t instantaneous t o t a l m o r t a l i t y (2) was est imated a t 0.78 o r 0.94 i n Louis iana (depending on the method o f c a l c u l a t i o n ) and 0.42 o r 0.44 a long t h e west coast o f F lo r i da . They determined Z by sampling commercial catches.

Movement

Adu l t r e d snapper remain i n t h e i r r e e f h a b i t a t i o n s du r ing coo ler months. Tagging s tud ies general l y i n d i c a t e l i t t l e movement, p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e f i s h a re re leased i n water l ess than 14 m deep (Topp 1963; Beaumariage and W i tti ch 1966; Beaumariage and B u l l ock 1976; Fable 1980). Adu l t r ed snapper sometimes move c lose t o shore i n summer; they were c o l l e c t e d i n t r a w l s i n t h e lower p a r t s o f t he St . Andrew Bay system, F lo r i da , i n summer and f a l l b u t n o t i n w i n t e r and s p r i n g (Ogren and Brusher 1977). Occasional tagged adu l t s were caught 5-150 nmi from t h e p o i n t o f re lease a f t e r 29-1,163 days o f freedom (Beaumari age and W i tti ch

1966; Moe 1966; Beaumariage 1969).

GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS

Red snapper i n i t i a l l y grow q u i c k l y and then growth slows s t e a d i l y as l a r g e r s i z e associated w i t h long l i f e span expectancy i s reached. They grow from 137-177 mm TL a t age 1 t o 538-546 mm TL a t age 5 and 784-794 mm TL a t age 11 (Table 3). They may reach 845 mm FL and 12 kg (Bradley and Bryan 1975) and an age o f about 13 years (Nelson and Manooch 1982). V a r i a t i o n i s considerable b u t i s s i m i l a r a t each age, probably because o f t he p ro t rac - t e d spawning season (Futch and Bruger 1976). Red snapper ages were deter - mined w i t h s i m i l a r r e s u l t s us ing o t o l i ths , scales, and ver tebrae o f f i s h o f f Alabama (Bortone and Hol 1 i ngsworth 1980), and us ing o t o l i t h s and scales o f f i s h o f f t he Carol i nas (Nel son and Manooch 1982). Scale annulus fo rmat ion o f f t h e U.S. g u l f coast i s complete by e a r l y summer f o r f i s h ages 2 and o l d e r (Parrack 1986a).

I n t h e g u l f , underyear l ing f i s h grew 25 mm/month i n August and September

Table 3. Length (mm) a t age (years) o f r ed snapper i n f o u r reg ions o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico.

Nor thwestern gu l fa ~ o u i s i a n a ~ ' ~ ~ l a b a m a ~ ' ~ Western ~ l o r i d a ~ ' ~

Age SL Age TL Age TL Age T L

a Moseley (1966). Most f i s h were taken i n w i n t e r . Age was determined f rom sca le annul i . Lengths i n c l ude pa r t - yea r increments a f t e r f o rma t i on o f t h e l a s t annulus. To ta l sample s i z e was 243 f i s h .

b ~ a c k - c a l c u l a t e d 1 engths. 'Nel son and Manooch (1982). Age was usual l y determined f rom scales (sometimes a l s o from o t o l i t h s ) . To ta l sample s i z e was 443 f i s h f o r western F l o r i d a and 402 f i s h f o r Louis iana.

d ~ a d e (1981). Age was determined f rom sca le annu l i . To ta l sample s i z e was 238.

accord ing t o Brad ley and Bryan (1975). Annual growth o f f i s h o f ages I t o I V o r V i n t h e g u l f ranged from 60 t o 75 mm (Bradley and Bryan 1975) t o 90 mm (Mosel ey 1966).

The r e l a t i o n s o f SL t o FL and FL t o TL ( leng ths i n mm) and N (sample s i z e ) were repo r ted by Futch and Bruger (1976) as f o l l ows :

Nelson and Manooch (1982) repo r ted t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n :

l e n g t h r e l a t i o n s show a h i g h l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n ( Parrack 1986b).

Length-weight r e l a t i o n s c a l c u l a t e d f o r severa l areas i n t h e g u l f were s i m i l a r (Table 4; Parrack 1986b). The leng th-we igh t r e l a t i o n changed a t 190-300 mm SL (Moseley 1966).

Nelson and Manooch (1982) repo r ted von B e r t a l a n f f y growth equat ions f o r f i s h f rom two areas i n t h e g u l f as f o l l ows (Lt = TI- i n mm and t = age i n years):

Louis iana: Lt = 950(1-e -0.175(t-0.10))

A d d i t i o n a l l eng th - l eng th re1 a t i o n s a re West F l o r i d a : Lt = 941(1-e -O.l70(t+O. l o ) )

g i ven i n Parrack (1986b). Length-

Table 4. Length (mm)-weight (g) r e l a t i o n s f o r red snapper.

Region Equation Reference

West F l o r i d a loglow = 2.966 logloFL - 4.7399 Nelson and Manooch (1982)~

F l o r i d a Males: loglow = 3.008 logloFL - 4.8104 Futch and Bruger (1976) b

Females: loglow = 3.028 logioFL - 4.8618

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

Texas loglow = 2.885 logloFL - 4.483 Wakeman e t a l . (1979)~

Campeche ( f o r f i s h iogloW = 3.01 logloFL - 4.7921 Camber (1955)~ 90-190 mm FL)

a~ = 143. 'N = 722. e~ no t given. b~ = 240. d~ = 90.

They found t h a t t he von B e r t a l a n f f y growth curves f o r Louisiana, western F l o r i d a , eastern F lo r i da , and the Car- o l i n a s d i f f e red . s t a t i s t i c a l l y , as d i d t he length-weight r e l a t i o n s f o r f i s h from west F l o r i d a , eas t F lo r i da , and the Carol inas. However, t he d i f f e r - ences i n growth curves were small and the d i f f e rences i n length-weight curves had l i t t l e i f any b i o l o g i c a l s i gn i f i cance . Parrack (1986a) repor ted d i f ferences i n growth curves between f i s h west o f and f i s h eas t o f t he M iss i ss ipp i Del ta. This d i f f e r - ence was inconc lus ive , however (Reef F i sh S c i e n t i f i c Task Team and Special S c i e n t i f i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Committee 1987).

FISHERIES

Snappers are especia l l y vu lnerab le t o fishermen because, du r i ng coo le r months, t he f i s h w i l l remain i n a f i s h i n g area ( ree f h a b i t a t ) u n t i l i t i s over f i shed (Duf fy 1970), and sometimes r i s e t o t h e sur face and snap a t bare hooks o r whatever i s offered--hence the name "snapper"' (Stearns 1885).

F i sh ing morta l i t y i n t he g u l f va r i es w i t h l oca t i on . Nelson and Manooch (1982) est imated instantaneous f i s h i n g m o r t a l i t y t o be 0.58 o r 0.74 i n Louisiana (depending on the method o f c a l c u l a t i o n ) and 0.23 o r 0.25 i n west F lo r i da . Mean age o f t he t o t a l ca tch was l ess i n Louis iana (2.4 years) than i n west F l o r i d a (4 .1 years) , poss ib l y because o f t h e heavier f i s h i n g pres- sure i n Louisiana. F i sh ing m o r t a l i t y was h igher i n Louis iana p a r t l y because the f i s h i n g ree fs are c l o s e r t o shore the re and thus more accessib le (Nelson and Manooch 1982).

About 2,300 o i 1 product ion p la t fo rms o f f t he Louisiana coast enhance snapper f i s h i n g by p rov id ing three- dimensional h a b i t a t ( S t . Amant 1976) ; it has no t been determined i f a r t i f i - c i a l h a b i t a t p r i m a r i l y increases o r most ly j u s t r e d i s t r i b u t e s a d u l t popu- l a t i o n s .

The t o t a l s tanding stock f o r a l l species o f snappers a long the South A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts o f t he Uni ted States was est imated a t 350 m i l l i o n 1b (Kl ima 1976). Red snapper 1 andi ngs were worth about l% o f t he value o f

a l l f i n f i s h landed commercially i n the Un i ted States i n 1985 (Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Serv ice 1986b). The number o f red snapper caught by spor t f i s h e r - men was about 19;: o f t he t o t a l number o f f i s h o f a l l species caught i n t he rec rea t i ona l f i s h e r i e s o f t h e A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts i n 1985 (Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Serv ice 1986a).

Commercial F i shery

Snappers and groupers are o f t e n taken together i n the snapper-grouper f i she ry . Various f i s h i n g methods f o r snappers and groupers have been used o r t e s t e d over t he years. Most com- merc ia l f i s h i n g i s done w i t h b a i t e d hooks and l i n e s on e l e c t r i c and hy- d r a u l i c r e e l s which were t o o expensive u n t i 1 r e c e n t l y (Churchi 11 Grimes, Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Service, Panama C i t y , F lo r i da ; pers. comm. ). (These are a l l c l a s s i f i e d as handl ines i n Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Serv ice f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s . ) From 2 t o 40 hooks may be used w i t h one r e e l ( A l l e n and Tashiro 1976). Ladyf ish and squid are t h e most e f f e c t i v e b a i t (Carpenter 1965); r e d snapper s e l e c t f i s h and squid equa l l y o f t e n (Futch and Bruger 1976). The i n d u s t r y has experimented w i t h o ther f i s h i n g methods, bu t many were d e f i c i e n t ; an o t t e r t r a w l adapted f o r rough bottoms was e f f e c t i v e , however (Smith 1948; Capt iva and Rivers 1960; Nelson and Carpenter 1968). An extensive bottom long1 i ne f i s h e r y t h a t may take red snapper has developed i n the Gu l f o f Mexico s ince about 1980 (Russel 1 Nel son, F l o r i d a Marine F isher ies Commission, Tallahassee; pers. comm. ). The l o n g l i n e f i s h e r y i n the eastern g u l f has been d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y a t ye1 lowedge grouper

f l avo1 imbatus) (Parrack

Commercial f i s h i n g grounds f o r red snapper are we1 1 o f f sho re i n t h e Gulf o f Mexico (Figure 3). I n 1955, t he most important f i s h i n g grounds had long been the Campeche Banks o f f t he Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, which were

t h e p r i n c i p a l grounds f i shed by t h e west F l o r i d a f l e e t (Camber 1955; H i ldebrand 1955). F i sh ing the re by American boats has been c u r t a i l e d , however, s ince t h e extension of Mexico's f i she ry conservat ion zone t o t h e 200-mi l i m i t (Deborah Fable, Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Service, Panama C i t y , F lo r i da ; pers. comm. ). Red snapper landings from f o r e i g n waters have composed l ess than 13% of t he t o t a l U. S. landings s ince 1973 (Gu l f o f Mexico F ishery Management Counci 1 1981).

Western F l o r i d a landings v a r i e d w ide ly over t he years (Figure 4; Camber 1955). They increased progres- s i v e l y as t h e f i s h e r y developed from 1880 t o 1902, s t a b i l i z e d as t h e Campeche Banks were e x p l o i t e d du r ing 1902-28, dropped w i t h reduced e f f o r t du r i ng the Great Depression of 1929-35, increased again as the economy began t o recover i n 1936-39, decl i ned markedly w i t h reduced e f f o r t from 1939 t o 1945 du r ing World War 11, and then began t o recover again around 1946 (Figure 4; Camber 1955).

I n the e a r l y 19601s, l a r g e numbers o f commercial vessels were b u i l t t o f i s h f o r snappers and groupers (Carpenter 1965). The average number of handl ine vessels i n western F l o r i d a was 180 i n 1957-60; increased t o 290 i n 1961-65; l eve led o f f a t 260 i n 1966-70; and increased again t o 320 i n 1971-74. The average t o t a l number of handl ine fishermen i n west- e rn F l o r i d a was 780 i n 1957-60; increased t o 1200 i n 1961-65; and s t a b i l i z e d a t 1030-1100 i n 1967-74 ( F l o r i d a Sea Grant Col lege 1980; Gu l f o f Mexico F ishery Management Council 1981).

Landings f o r western F l o r i d a dec l ined g r e a t l y du r i ng 1982-85 t o the second-1 owest 1 eve1 ever recorded (Figure 4). I n 1983-85 ca tch pe r u n i t o f e f f o r t (catch r a t e ) was r e l a t i v e l y high, b u t dec l ined 26% du r ing t h a t p e r i o d i n t he g u l f eas t o f t he M i s s i s s i p p i R iver D e l t a f o r f i s h 3

0 a WEST FLOHIOA

1660 1900 1920 1940 1960 1960 YEAR

Figure 4. Annual commercial 1 andi ngs o f red snapper ( i n m i l 1 ions o f pounds) i n F l o r i d a and Alabama, 1880-1985 (from U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Service 1967; Nat ional Marine F isher ies Serv ice [1986], unpubl . data).

years o l d and o lde r i n t he bottom- long1 i ne and rod-and-reel f i s h e r i e s (Parrac k and McCl e l 1 an 1986). A1 so i n 1983-85, a recent s tock assessment showed t h a t i n i t i a l biomass (w i thout r e c r u i t s ) decl ined 17% and recru i tment biomass dec l ined 98% i n t h i s area (Parrack and McCl e l 1 an 1986).

The p r i n c i p a l commercial f i s h i n g grounds used by fishermen from Alabama, M i s s i s s i p p i , Louisiana, and Texas are on the ree fs o f f sho re from those States (Figure 3). The average number o f hand1 i n e vessels i n Alabama, M i s s i s s i p p i , Louisiana, and Texas together was 150 i n 1957-60 and 180 i n 1961-65; dec l ined t o 90 i n 1966-70; and l e v e l l e d o f f a t 80 i n 1971-74. The average s i ze o f t he vessels increased from 30 gross tons i n 1957 t o 61 gross tons i n 1974 ( F l o r i d a Sea Grant Col lege 1980; Gu l f o f Mexico Fishery Management Counci 1 1981). Landings peaked i n t he e a r l y 1960's i n Alabama and Texas (Figures 4-5), and i n 1968 i n M iss i ss ipp i (F igure 6). Landings i n Alabama, Texas,

LOUISIANA

1660 1900 1920 1940 1960 1960

YEAR

Figure 5. Annual commercial landings o f red snapper ( i n m i l l ions o f pounds) i n Louisiana and Texas, 1880-1985 (from U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Serv ice 1967; Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Service, unpubl . data).

and M iss i ss ipp i dec l ined 73%-93% a f t e r these peaks i n t he 1960's (Figures 4-6), b u t Louis iana landings increased t o a record h igh i n 1984 (Figure 5). A recent s tock assessment showed t h a t est imated i n i t i a l biomass (w i thout r e c r u i t s ) dec l ined 45%, b u t est imated recru i tment biomass increased 2l%, f o r red snapper west o f t he M iss i ss ipp i R iver De l ta between 1980 and 1985 (Parrack and McCl e l 1 an 1986).

An increase i n t he number o f f i s h i n g boats and t r i p s may cause compet i t ion among boats, because t h e number o f boats t h a t can make a good ca tch i n t he prime f i s h i n g areas i s l i m i t e d ; compet i t ion among boats reduces t h e ca tch per u n i t o f f i s h i n g e f f o r t . On the Campeche Banks, t he ca tch r a t e (catch per u n i t e f f o r t ) dec l ined from 1937 t o 1940, when the number o f f i s h - i n g t r i p s (and probably, there fore , t he compet i t ion) increased, and then increased g r e a t l y from 1941 t o 1945 when compet i t ion probably decl ined because o f reduced f i s h i n g e f f o r t dur ing World War 11. The catch r a t e

0 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

YEAR

Figure 6. Annual commercial land ings o f r e d snapper ( i n m i l l i o n s o f pounds) i n M i s s i s s i p p i , 1920-1985 ( f rom U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Serv ice 1967; Nat iona l Mar ine F i she r i es Serv ice, unpubl . data).

dec l ined f rom 1948 t o 1951, b u t compe t i t i on p robab ly a1 so dec l i ned (Camber 1955).

Red snapper and assoc ia ted species a re u s u a l l y g u t t e d when caught (Car- pen ter 1965) and a re s to red i n i c e aboard t h e vessels ( r a t h e r than i n l i v e we l l s ) - - a p r a c t i c e t h a t began i n t h e l a t e 1 9 t h cen tury (Warren 1897). A t l e a s t 10 species a re marketed as r e d snapper (Rivas 1966).

I n t he commercial f i s h e r i e s f o r f i n - f i s h and s h e l l f i s h i n t h e g u l f , t h e red snapper f i s h e r y ranks e i g h t h i n t o t a l weight , seventh i n t o t a l value, and s i x t h i n p r i c e p e r pound (Nat iona l Marine F i s h e r i e s Serv ice 1986b and unpubl. data). Tne o n l y species r e g u l a r l y e x p l o i t e d by o f f s h o r e f i s h - e r i e s i n t h e western g u l f a re t h e r e d snapper and g u l f menhaden, B r e v o o r t i a pa t ronus (Hi 1 debrand 1954). The r e d snapper i s t h e most impo r tan t o f about 17 species i n t h e U.S. snapper f i s h e r y ( A l l e n and Tash i ro 1976). I n t h e no r the rn g u l f , i t made up about 86% o f

t h e t o t a l va lue o f t h e ca t ch by t he l a r g e vessels ( 5 6 - f t t o 6 9 - f t long) i n t h e snapper-grouper f i s h e r y t h a t cou ld reach d i s t a n t f i s h i n g grounds, and i n t h e southeastern g u l f , i t made up about 37% o f t h e t o t a l va lue o f t h e ca tch by a l l vessels i n t h e f i s h e r y (Cato and Prochaska 1976). A t t he t ime o f Cato and Prochaska's s tudy, t h e Campeche banks were n o t f i s h e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y by American boats f o r p o l i t i c a l reasons. To ta l p r o f i t s were g rea te r f o r t h e l a r g e r vessels i n t h e no r the rn g u l f because t h e va lue p e r pound was h ighe r f o r r e d snapper than f o r t h e o t h e r species t h a t pre- dominated i n t h e southeastern g u l f (Cato and Prochaska 1976).

Spor t F i she ry

The r e d snapper i s one o f t h e most des i red species o f s p o r t f i s h i n t h e gu l f. S p o r t f i s h i ng grounds over1 ap commercial grounds (F igure 3). I n 1965 and 1970, t h e weight o f t h e com- merc ia l ca t ch was l e s s than t h a t o f t he s p o r t ca t ch (Nakamura 1976). S p o r t f i s h i ng boats range f rom small 1 2 - f t p r i v a t e boats t o 8 5 - f t p a r t y boats (head boats). The number o f boa ts increased from 1956 t o 1976 and probab ly p a r t l y d isp laced t h e inshore commercial f i s h e r y (A1 l e n and Tashi r o 1976; St . Amant 1976).

Between 1982 and 1985, t h e g u l f coas t s p o r t f i s h e r y ca t ch o f r ed snap- pe r dec l i ned by about 60% i n F l o r i d a and 78% i n Lou is iana (Table 5). I n western F l o r i d a , t h e commercial ca t ch a l s o dec l i ned sharp ly between 1982 and 1985. I n Louis iana, t h e commercial f i s h e r y may have supplanted t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r y over t h i s p e r i o d (F igure 5).

The l a r g e s t annual s p o r t ca t ch f o r Lou is iana f rom 1979 (when accura te s t a t i s t i c s became a v a i l a b l e ) t o 1985 was about 2.7 m i l l i o n f i s h - - t h e h ighes t recorded f o r any g u l f s t a t e f o r t h e same t ime p e r i o d (Table 5). For t h a t pe r i od , Alabama's s p o r t ca t ch f l u c t u a t e d w i t h h i gh catches about

Table 5. Recrea t iona l ca t ch o f r e d snapper (thousands o f f i s h ) i n t h e G u l f S ta tes , 1979-85 ( f rom Na t i ona l Marine F i s h e r i e s Serv ice 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1986).

F l o r i d a G u l f

Year Coast A1 abama M i s s i s s i p p i Lou is iana Texas

a ~ o data.

every o the r yea r ; i n years between 1979 and 1985, when t h e s p o r t ca t ch was h i ghe r (1979, 1981, and 1983), t h e commercial ca t ch was a1 so g e n e r a l l y h igher - -excep t t h a t t h e commercial ca t ch peaked i n 1982. A t r e n d i n t h e Texas ca t ch c o u l d n o t be determined because t o o few da ta were a v a i l a b l e . M i s s i s s i p p i ' s ca t ch remained very low (Table 5), and t h e commercial ca t ch i n 1985 was t h e lowes t i n 17 years (F ig- u re 6). Cur ren t r e g u l a t i o n s i n t h e U.S. waters o f t h e g u l f a l l o w a maximum o f 5 f i s h l e s s than 12 inches FL per t r i p f o r headboats.

I n summary, t h e s p o r t ca t ch and com- merc i a l c a t c h were sometimes pos i - t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d - - p o s s i b l y because b o t h dec l i ned a f t e r heavy f i s h i n g p ressure o r because o f a n a t u r a l 30- month c y c l e i n abundance (Camber 1955)--and sometimes n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d , p o s s i b l y because one f i s h e r y rep laced t he o t h e r ( A l l e n and Tashi r o 1976).

ECOLOGICAL ROLE

Feeding Hab i t s

J u v e n i l e and a d u l t r e d snapper a re carn ivorous . Small zoop lank te rs were

common prey o f j u v e n i l e s up t o 150 mm FL, b u t t he f i s h p robab ly s t a r t t o p r e f e r l a r g e r p rey when t hey a re about 100 mm FL (Bradley and Bryan 1976). Stomachs o f j u v e n i l e s most f r e q u e n t l y con ta ined shrimp th roughout t h e yea r i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico (Camber 1955; Brad ley and Bryan 1976). Other crustaceans ( i n c l u d i n g crabs) , f i s h , and squ id were found i n 2%-10% o f t h e sampled f i s h . The types o f p rey t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t h e g r e a t e s t percentage by volume t o t h e d i e t o f j u v e n i l e s were squid, octopuses, and shrimp (Table 6). Juven i l es and a d u l t s e a t a l a r g e v a r i e t y o f species o f mo l l uscs, crustaceans, and f i s h e s (Table 7).

Camber (1955) r epo r t ed t h a t a d u l t r e d snapper i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico took t h e f o l l o w i n g p rey ( i n decreasing o rde r o f f requency o f occurrence): shr imp, smal l r e e f f i s h , crabs, and gastropods. He s t a t e d t h a t t u n i c a t e s may be taken i n spr ing .

Futch and Bruger (1976) s t a t e d t h a t r e d snapper may feed over sand, s h e l l , o r mud bottoms n e x t t o r e e f s o r o t h e r rocky bottoms. Many o f t h e p rey o f r e d snapper a re found over l e v e l bottoms ad jacen t t o t h e r e e f s , r a t h e r than on t h e r e e f s themselves (Davis 1975).

Table 6. Prey i tems found i n t he greates t frequency o f occurrence i n j uven i l e and a d u l t red snapper and t h e greates t volume i n j uven i l es i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico (from Bradley and Bryan 1976).

Season

Juveni l e s Greatest Greatest

Adul ts Greatest

frequency percentage frequency o f occurrence o f vo 1 ume o f occurrence

Winter Shrimp (25%) Shrimp (48%) F ish (83%) Spr ing Shrimp (6%) Shrimp (75%) F i sh (39%) Summer Shrimp (53%) Squid (41%) Lesser b lue crab (36%) Fa1 1 Shrimp (83%) Octopuses (45%) F i sh (55%)

Competi t ion, Predation, and Paras i t i sm Hab i ta t

The grey snapper (Lu t 'an is r i seus ) orobablv comoeti t+ b s j 'uveni le red snapper ?ram inshore waters i n some l o c a l i t i e s (Smith 1976). Sharks sometimes s t r i k e a t f i s h being brought up by hook and l i n e (Brad1 ey and Bryan 1976). P a r a s i t i c leeches have been found at tached t o t he g i l l s o f red snapper (Wi l l iams 1979).

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Temperature and S a l i n i t y

Red snapper have been taken a t 13-32 "C (Rivas 1970; Roe 1976). One o f a sample o f seven red snapper d ied a t 12.5 "C--near the lower to le rance 1 i m i t-- i n a 1 aboratory t e s t (Moore 1973). The upper to le rance l i m i t i s about 33.5 'C (Rivas 1970). A s a l i n i t y o f 60 p p t was l e t h a l t o a l l r ed snapper i n a l abo ra to ry t e s t , b u t they surv ived exposure t o about 45 p p t w i thou t ser ious e f f e c t s (Huf f and Burns 1981). They are marine f i s h and have been taken i n waters o f 33-37 p p t (Mosel ey 1966).

I n the l abo ra to ry , red snapper under s imulated na tu ra l cond i t ions s awned i n water o f 23-25 "C and 31- 4 p p t (Arno ld e t a l . 1978).

P

Red snapper a re common i n submarine g u l l i e s and depressions where food may accumulate and over co ra l ree fs , rock outcrops, and gravel bottoms i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico (Stearns 1885; Kl ima 1976). Usual ly , fewer f i s h a re sup- por ted by smooth bottom w i thou t h igh r e l i e f than by bottom w i t h three- dimensional s t ruc tu res , such as o f f - shore o i l and gas r i g s , a r t i f i c i a l ree fs , and wrecks (Johnston e t a l . 1976; Sonnier e t a l . 1976).

Depth

I n Texas, j u v e n i l e red snapper moved o f f sho re from shal low water (about 15-30 m) i n summer t o deep water (about 35-60 m) i n w in te r , based on depths o f capture by t r a w l (Moseley 1966; Bradley and Bryan 1975). The movement may be a means o f avo id ing coo le r inshore water i n w in te r . The ac tua l cue f o r movement, however, was no t a drop i n water temperature, because movement occurred before the temperature decl ined. Nelson and Manooch (1982) repor ted no s i ze segregation between shal low ( ~ 3 5 m) and deep (>35 m) waters o f f t h e Carol inas.

Red snapper were abundant a t depths o f about 40-110 m (Carpenter 1965) and

Table 7. Prey i tems found i n stomachs o f j u v e n i l e and a d u l t r ed snapper i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico ( f rom Stearns 1885, Felder 1973, Davis 1975, and Futch and Bruger 1976). This i s no t in tended t o be a comprehensive l i s t .

Mol l uscs B iva lves

Laevicardi um p ic tum Gastropods

Pleuro loca g igantea m i a e7 wi cox1

'Squid' (Lo1 i g o sp. ) Crustaceans

Stomatopods Saui 1 1 a emDusa

Trach enaeus' c o n s t r i c t u s *

Decapods (continued)

s or fun us ' i bbesi i Cal l i nec tes -7 simi i s C. danae r e t o d i u s a g a s s i z i i h u n z i Pa r th ino e se r ra ta 4;-d i a Rani no1 des sp. Ma j i d crab Pr lono l a x a t l a n t i c a

Teleos -4-F ean ishes Gu l f p i p e f i s h Shoal f lounder S hoeroides

Pe F i l u s a r m f f a m ; 1 ) + C ~ i , P 1 ;ctruY formosum 1 O ~ h i c h t h i d s na e ee " . C\ upeids errin in^ fam i l y )

1 ~ ) i na) -

have been caught a t 7-146 m (Moseley 1966; Rivas 1970).

Contaminants

Concentrat ions o f ch lo r i na ted hydrocarbons were lower i n f l e s h samples o f red snapper than i n samples o f species w i t h a h igher na tu ra l o i l content (>3% o i l ) , though contaminant l e v e l s i n t h i s group, too, were low (Stout 1980). Wet red snapper f i l l e t s had an average of 0.039 ppm DDT and metabo l i tes ; t he U. S. l ega l rnaxin'lum i s 5 ppm (Stout 1980). The same

f i l l e t s had 0.121 ppm PCB's; the U.S. l ega l maximum i s 3 ppnl. Only one o f n ine samples o f red snapper had detec tab le l e v e l s o f the pes t i c i des d i e l d r i n and endr in.

Red snapper i n an o f f sho re o i l f i e l d were no t c ~ n t a m i nated w i t h petroleum hydrocarbons, al though 13 o ther species o f f i s h were contaminated (Midd led i tch e t a l . 1979). No e v i - dence o f t o x i c e f f e c t s was found i n t es tes o f f i v e male red snapper from o i l f i e l d s i n t he g u l f (Scot t e t a l . 1980).

REFERENCES

A1 1 en, D. M. , and J. E. Tashi ro. 1976. Status o f the U.S. commercial snapper-grouper f i s h e r y . Pages 41-76 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones , T d s . Proceedings: co l l o q u i - um on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y re - sources o f t he western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant Co l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

Anderson, W.D., J r . 1967. F i e l d guide t o t h e snappers (Lut janidae) o f the western A t l a n t i c . U.S. F i sh W i l d l . Serv. C i rc . 252. 14 pp.

Arnold, C . R . , J.M. Wakeman, T.D. W i l - l iams, and G.D. Treece. 1978. Spawning o f red snapper (Lu t anus cam echanus) i n capt iv i ty . * b 3 ) : 301-302.

Bean, T. H. 1887. Notes on a young red snapper (Lut anus b l a c k f o r d i i ) from Great Sou* Long Is land. Proc. U.S. Nat l . Mus. 10:512.

Beaumariage, D. S. 1969. Returns from the 1965 S c h l i t z tagg ing program i n c l u d i n g a cumulat ive ana lys is o f previous r e s u l t s . Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 59. 3 8 p p .

Beaumariage, D. S. , and L. H. B u l l ock. 1976. B i o l o g i c a l research on snappers and groupers as r e l a t e d t o f i s h e r y management requirements. Pages 86-94 i n H. R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A. C. Jones, T d s . Proceedings: co l - loquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources of t he western cen t ra l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant Co l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

Beaumariage, D.S., and A.C. W i t t i c h . 1966. Returns from the 1964 S c h l i t z

tagging program. Fla. Board Con- serv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 47. 51 PP.

Bortone, S. A. , and C. C. H o l l i ngsworth. 1980. Ageing red snapper, Lu t 'anus campechanus, w i t h o tho l i t h s ,* and vertebrae. Northeast Gu l f Sci . 4: 60-63.

Bradley, E. , and C. E. Bryan. 1975. L i f e h i s t o r y and f i s h e r y o f the red snapper (Lut janus cam echanus) i n t he northwestern Gul *xico: 1970-1974. Proc. Gu l f Car r ib . Fish. I n s t . 27: 77-106.

Camber, C . I . 1955. A survey o f t he red snapper f i s h e r y o f the Gu l f o f Mexico, w i t h spec ia l reference t o t he Campeche Banks. Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 12. 6 4 p p .

Captiva, F. J. , and J.B. Kivers. 1960. Development and use o f o t t e r - t r a w l i n g gear f o r red snapper f i s h - i n g i n the Gu l f o f Mexico, June, 1957-May, 1959. Con~mer. F ish. Rev. 22(10): 1-14.

Carpenter, J.S. 1965. A review o f the Gu l f o f Mexico red snapper f i she ry . U.S. F i sh W i l d l . Serv. C i rc . 208. 35 pp.

Cato, J.C. , and F. J. Prochaska. 1976. The Gu l f o f Mexico commercial and rec rea t i ona l red snapper-grouper f i she ry : an economic ana lys is o f product ion, marketing, and pr ices . Pages 95-128 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. JoneS; eds. Proceedings: co l 1 oqui um on snapper-grouper f i s h - e r y resources o f t he western cen t ra l

A t l a n t i c Ocean. F la. Sea Grant Co l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

C o l l i n s , L.A., J.H. Finucane, and L.E. Barger. 1980. Descr ip t ion o f l a r v a l and juven i 1 e r e d snapper, Lu t 'anus cam echanus. U.S. Nat l . M a d Z F

B u l l 77(4): 965-974.

C o l l i n s , L.A., J.H. Finucane, and H.A. Brusher. [1987]. Reproductive b io - l ogy o f t he red snapper, Lut janus cam echanus (Poey), from th ree areas -f%7 a ong t e southeastern coast o f t he Un i ted States. U. S. Nat ional Marine F isher ies Service, Panama C i t y , F la. Unpubl. MS. 21 pp.

Davis, J. K. 1975. Factors i n f 1 uenc- i n g the presence o f r e d snamer (Lut'anus cam echanus Poey) on seven an A - b m Reef. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&I U n i v e r s i t y , K i n g s v i l l e . 110 pp.

Duf fy , M. 1970. Snappers are socia- b le . La. Conserv. 22(1):26-27.

Fable, W.A., J r . 1980. Tagging stud- i e s o f red snapper (Lut janus

and vermi 1 i o n snapper aurorubens) o f f t he

coast. Contr ib. Mar. Sci . 23: 115-121.

Felder , D. L. 1973. A record o f Pinnixa 1 unzi Glossel 1 (Decapoda, Pinnother-%k?J from o f f the coast o f Texas, U. S. A. Crustaceana 24(1) : 148-149.

F l o r i d a Sea Grant College. 1980. Appendix t o t h e Environmental Impact Statement and f i s h e r y management p l a n f o r r e e f f i s h resources o f t he Gul f o f Mexico. Gu l f o f Mexico F i s hery Management Counci 1 , Tampa, F lo r i da . 101 pp.

Futch, R.B. , and G. E. Bruger. 1976. Age, growth, and reproduct ion o f red snapper i n F l o r i d a waters. Pages 165-184 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. J o n e z eds. Proceedings: c o l - loquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y

resources o f the western cen t ra l A t l a n t i c Ocean. F la. Sea Grant Co l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

Grimes, C.B., C.S. Manooch 111, G.R . Hutsman, and R. L.. Dixon. 1977. Red snappers o f t h e Caro l ina coast. Mar. Fish. Rev. 39:12-15.

Gu l f o f Mexico F ishery Management Counci 1. 1981. F ishery management p l a n f o r t he r e e f f i s h f i s h e r y o f t h e Gul f o f mexico. Pages 1-1 t o 10-12 i n Environmental impact s ta te - ment a i d f i s h e r y management p l a n f o r t he r e e f f i s h resources o f t h e Gu l f o f Mexico. Gu l f o f Mexico F ishery Management Counci 1 , Tampa, F lo r i da .

Hi ldebrand, H.H. 1954. A study o f the fauna o f t he brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus Ives) grounds i n t h e t e r T G i ' I 7 o f Mexico. Publ. I n s t . Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 3(2): 1-366.

Hi ldebrand, H.H. 1955. A study o f the p i n k shrimp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) g r o u n d s i n e - ' G i i T Z Campeche. Publ. I n s t . Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 4(1): 169-232.

H o l t , S .A . , and C.R. Arnold. 1982. Growth o f juven i 1 e red snapper Lutjanus cam echanus i n t h e nor th - western Gu k c o . U.S. Nat l . Mar. Fish. Serv. F ish. B u l l . 80(3): 644- 648.

Hu f f , J.A., and C.D. Burns. 1981. Hypersal i ne and chemical c o n t r o l o f Cryptocaryon i rri tans i n red snapper , Lu t 'anus cam echanus, mono- c u l t u r e + c u l b - 1 8 4 .

Huntsman, G. R. 1976. Of fshore head- boat f i s h i n g i n North Caro l ina and South ~ a r o i i n a . Mar. F ish. Rev. 38: 13-23.

Johnston, J.B., J. K. Adams, and R. Foster. 1976. The red snapper resource o f t he Texas Cont inenta l Shel f . Pages 237-247 i n H.R. Bul l i s , J r . , and A. C. Jones, eds.

Proceedings: co l 1 oqui um on snapper- grouper resources o f t he western cen t ra l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

Klima, E.F. 1976. Snapper and grouper resources o f t he western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Pages 5-40 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: co l 1 oqui um on snapper- grouper resources o f t he western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. F la. Sea Grant Co l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

Midd led i tch , B.S., E.S. Chang, B. Bas i le , and S.R. M is le r . 1979. A1 kanes i n f i s h from the Buccaneer O i l f i e l d . B u l l . Environ. Contam. Toxic. 22: 249-257.

Moe, M.A., J r . 1966. Tagging f i shes i n F l o r i d a of fshore waters. Fla. Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 49. 40 pp.

Moore, R.H. 1973. The e f f e c t o f tem- pera ture and swimming speed on the oxygen consumption o f two snappers, ~ u t j n u s campechanu (Poey) and Rhom o 11 t e s auroru ens (Cuvier). + o n t r ~ b Mar. Sci . 17:53-61.

Moseley, F.N. 1966. B io logy o f t he red snapper, Lut janus Block, o f t he northwestern Gu l f o f Mexico. Publ. I n s t . Mar. Sci . Univ. Tex. 11: 90-101.

Nakamura, E. L. 1976. Recreational f i s h e r i e s f o r snappers and groupers i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. Pages 77-85 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, - eds. Proceedings: col loquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t he western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 PP.

Nat ional Marine F isher ies Service, 1984. Marine rec rea t i ona l f i she ry s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts, 1979 (rev ised). 1980. U.S. Na t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. S ta t . 8322. 239 pp.

Nat ional Marine F isher ies Serv ice 1985a. Marine rec rea t i ona l f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts, 1981-1982. U.S. Na t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. F ish. Stat . 8324. 215 pp.

Nat ional Marine F isher ies Service. 1985b. Marine rec rea t i ona l f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts, 1983-1984. U.S. Nat l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat . 8326. 222 pp.

Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Service. 1986a. Marine rec rea t i ona l f i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s survey, A t l a n t i c and g u l f coasts, 1985. U. S. Na t l . Mar. F ish. Serv. Curr. Fish. S ta t . 8327. 130 pp.

Nat ional Marine F i she r ies Service. 1986b. F i she r ies o f t h e Uni ted States, 1985. U.S. Na t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. F ish. Stat . 8380. 121 pp.

Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- m i n i s t r a t i o n . 1985. Gu l f o f Mexico and Ocean Zones S t r a t e g i c .Assess- ment: Data At las . NOAA, Nat ional Ocean Service. n.p.

Nelson, R. S. , and C. S. Manooch. 1982. Growth and m o r t a l i t y o f red snappers i n t h e west-centra l A t l a n t i c Ocean and nor thern Gu l f o f Mexico. Trans. Am. F i sh. Soc. 111: 465-475.

Nelson, W. R. , and J. S. Carpenter. 1968. Bottom 1 ongl i n e exp lo ra t i ons i n t he Gu l f o f Mexico. A r e p o r t on "Oregon 11's" f i r s t c ru ise . Commer. Fish. Rev. 30(10): 57-62.

Ogren, L.H. , and H.A. Brusher. 1977. The d i s t r i b u t i o n and abundance o f f i s h caught w i t h a t r a w l i n t h e S t . Andrew Bay System, F lo r i da . North- eas t Gu l f Sci. 1(2):83-105.

Parrack, N.C. 1986a. A review o f Gulf o f Mexico red snapper age and growth. U.S. Na t l . Mar. Fish. Serv. , Southeast Fish. Cent. , Miami

Lab., Coastal Resour. Div. Cont r ib . No. CRD-86/87-2. 7 1 pp.

Parrack, N. C. 1986b. Review and up- da te o f G u l f o f Mexico r e d snapper b iomet r i cs : 1. Weight-1 ength r e l a - t i o n s . 2. Length-1 ength conver- s ions. U.S. N a t l . Mar. F ish. Serv., Southeast F ish. Cent., Miami Lab., Coastal Resour. Div. Cont r ib . No. CRD-86/87-3. 26 pp.

Parrack, N.C., and D.B. McCle l lan. 1986. Trends i n G u l f o f Mexico r e d snapper popu la t i on dynamics, 1979- 85. U.S. N a t l . Mar. F ish. Serv., Southeast F ish. Cent., Miami Lab., Coastal Resour. Div . Cont r ib . No. CRD-86/87-4. 116 pp.

Ra iba la i s , N.N. , S. C. Rabala is , and C.R. Arnold. 1980. D e s c r i p t i o n o f eggs and 1 arvae o f 1 abora to ry reared r e d snapper ( L u t 'anus campechanus). Copeia 1980(4)*.

Reef F i s h S c i e n t i f i c Task Team and Specia l S c i e n t i f i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Committee. 1987. Review o f r e e f f i s h assessments and management op t ions . Summary recommendations. G u l f o f Mexico F i she ry Manage- ment Counci 1, Tampa, F l o r i d a . 3 PP.

Rivas, L. R. 1966. Review o f t h e Lut janus cam echanus complex o f r e d snappers. *la. Acad. Sci. 29(2): 117-136.

Rivas, L. R. 1970. Snappers o f t h e western A t l a n t i c . Commer. F ish. Rev. 32(1): 41-44.

Roe, R.B. 1976. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f snappers and groupers i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico and Caribbean Sea as de te r - mined f rom e x p l o r a t o r y f i s h i n g data. Pages 129-164 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: c o l 1 oqui um on snapper-grouper f i s h - e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. F la. Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

St . Amant, L.S. 1976. Response by S ta te and Federal agency representa- t i v e s , panel 3, s tatement 5. Pages 322-324 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A. C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: c o l loquim on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. F la . Sea Grant Co l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

Sco t t , G.G., N.H. McArthur, R. Tarp ley , R.F. S i s , and V. Jacobs. 1980. Hi s topa tho log i ca l survey o f male gonads o f f i s h from petro leum p roduc t i on and c o n t r o l s i t e s i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. J. Fish. B i o l . 17: 593-602.

Smith, G.B. 1976. The impact o f f i s h - k i 11 i n g phy top lank ton blooms upon mideastern G u l f o f Mexico r e e f f i s h communities. Pages 185-191 i n H.R. B u l l i s , J r . , and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: c o l 1 oquium on snapper-grouper f i s h e r y resources o f t h e western c e n t r a l A t l a n t i c Ocean. F la . Sea Grant C o l l . Rep. 17. 333 pp.

Smith, R. 0. 1948. Experimental f i s h - i n g f o r r ed snapper. P a r t 1: The use o f hoop nets. Commer. F ish. Rev. lO(2) : 1-10.

Sonnier, F. , J. Teer l i n g , and H. D. Hoese. 1976. Observat ions on t h e o f f s h o r e r e e f and p l a t f o r m f i s h fauna o f Louis iana. Copeia 1976(1): 105-111.

Stearns, S. 1885. Notes on t h e r e d snapper. Pages 92-95 i n C.W. Smiley, compi ler . Notes upon t h e f i s h and f i s h e r i e s : B u l l . U.S. F i sh Comm. 5: 65-112.

S tou t , V. F. 1980. Organochlor ine res idues i n f i s h e s from t h e nor th - west A t l a n t i c Ocean and G u l f o f Mexico, U.S. N a t l . Mar. F ish. Serv. F ish. B u l l . 78(1): 51-58.

Topp, R. 1963. The tagg ing o f f i s h e s i n F l o r i d a : 1962 program. F la .

Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof . Pap. Ser. 5. 76 pp.

Vergara-R. , R. , preparer . 1978. Lut janidae. I n W. F ischer, ed. FA0 species i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sheets. F i sh ing area 3 1 (western c e n t r a l At1 an t i c ) . Food and A g r i c u l t u r e Organizat ion o f t h e Un i ted Nat ions, Rome.

Wade, C . W. 1981. Age and growth o f spot ted sea t rou t and red snapper i n Alabama. Pages 345-354 i n J. Sweeney, ed. Proc. Th i r t yT f i f t h Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. F ish Wi ld l . Agencies.

Wakeman, J.M., C.R. Arnold, D.E. Wohlchlag, and S. C. Rabalais. 1979. Oxygen consumption, energy expendi- t u r e , and growth i n red snapper (Lu t 'anus cam echanus). Trans. Am. F h . * 2 .

Warren, A. F. 1897. The red snapper f i s h e r i e s : t h e i r pas t , present , and fu tu re . B u l l . U.S. F i sh Comm. 17: 331-335.

Wi l l iams, E.H., J r . 1979. Leeches o f some f i shes o f t h e Mobi le Bay Re- g ion. Northeast Gu l f Sci. 3(1): 47-49.

Species P r o f i 1 es: L i f e H i s t o r i e s and Environmental Requirements August 1988

of Coastal F ishes and I n v e r t e b r a t e s (Gu l f o f Mexico)--Red Snapper . I. Pedoming Organlzatlon Name and W r e s s 1 10. Proiect/Tash/Worh Unit No.

I

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

. Author(s)

David Moran

-- 2. Soonrorinc Orgenizatlon Name and Address

I (G)

Nat iona l Wetlands Research Center U. S. Corps o f Engineers 13. T Y ~ . of Reoon 6 h r i o d C-nd

NASA-Sl i d e l 1 Computer Complex Wateqways Experiment S t a t i o n 1010 Gause Blvd. P.O. Box 631 Sl i d e l 1, LA 70458 Vicksburg, MS 39180

I. Padoming Orcanization Re@. Na

15. Supplementac). Notes

*U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers Report No. TR EL-82-4 6. Abstract (Llmit: 200 words)

The r e d snapper i s found o f f s h o r e on t h e Con t i nen ta l S h e l f th roughout t h e G u l f o f Mexico. Red snappers a re taken i n t h e snapper-grouper f i s h e r y , u s u a l l y w i t h b a i t e d hooks. The r e d snapper commercial f i s h e r y c u r r e n t l y ranks seventh i n t o t a l va lue among commercial catches o f f i n f i s h and s h e l l f i s h i n t h e g u l f . Red snapper a r e a l s o a t a r g e t o f a l a r g e s p o r t f i s h e r y . The most impor tan t p rey o f r e d snapper a r e f i s h , squid, and crustaceans. I n genera l , r e d snapper spawn i n summer and f a l l i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. The peak abundance o f j u v e n i l e s occurs i n sha l lower water (20-46 m) than does t h e peak abundance o f a d u l t s . A d u l t r e d snapper do n o t move f rom t h e i r r e e f h a b i t a t i o n s d u r i n g t h e c o o l e r months, and d u r i n g t h a t t ime w i l l remain i n a f i s h i n g area u n t i l i t i s f i s h e d out . F i s h 1 t o 5 yea rs o l d grow 60-90 mm SL/year. Red snapper may reach a f o r k l e n g t h o f 845 mm, a we ight o f 12 kg, and an age o f 13 years.

7. Document Analysis a. Oaurlptom

F i s h e r i e s Growth L i f e cyc les Feeding h a b i t s Mar ine f i s h e s Compet i t ion Contaminants Depth

SO271 -191

b. Identlfien/Oven-Ended Terms

Red snapper Lut janus campechanus

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

5. ReDon Date

- 7

- 9

- I

- I

- I

- 1

- 1

- (SI

2. REPORT WCUMENTATION PAGE

I U n c l a s s i f i e d me ANSI-Z39.18) OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77

(Forrmrly NTlS35) Ompmnment d Comme=e

4. Title and Subtltle

1. "Emm NO.

B i o l o g i c a l Report 82(11.83)*

C. COSATI FieldlCroup

21. No. d Paces

v i i i + 19 -- P. wce

L Ara~labllity Statement

U n l i m i t e d re lease

19. Socurlty Class (This R e o n )

U n c l a s s i f i e d ZO. Sacurity Class ( T ~ I S Paw)

TAKE A PRIDE 212 Amerzcd

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. ASH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our .nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving thsenvironmentai and cultural values of our national parks and hlstorical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department as- sesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

RED SNAPPER

Documents

Transcript of RED SNAPPER