RETFQEYTCK COPY Do Not Remove from the Libran/

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FWSlOB~-82/11.5 Notional w e ~ i a e ~ L W r October 1983 700 Cajun Dome Boulevard

TR EL-82.4

Lafayette, Louisiana 70506

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

SEA CATFISH AND GAFFTOPSAIL CATFISH

Coastal Ecology Group Fish and Wildlife Service Waterways Experiment Station U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

FWS/OBS-82/11.5 TR EL-82-4 October 1983

Species P r o f i l e s : L i f e H i s t o r i e s and Environmental Requirements o f Coasta l F ishes and I n v e r t e b r a t e s (Gul f o f Mexico)

SEA CATFISH AND

GAFFTOPSAIL CATFISH

Rober t J. Muncy and

W i l l i a m M. Wingo M i s s i s s i p p i Cooperat ive F i s h and W i l d l i f e Research U n i t

142 Dorman H a l l M i s s i s s i p p i S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y M i s s i s s i p p i S ta te , MS 39762

P r o j e c t Manager L a r r y Shanks

P r o j e c t O f f i c e r Norman Benson

Na t i ona l Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. F ish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e

1010 Gause Boulevard S l i d e l 1, LA 70458

T h i s s tudy was conducted i n coope ra t i on w i t h

Coasta l Ecology Group U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers Waterways Exper iment S t a t i o n

Performed f o r Na t i ona l Coasta l Ecosys tems Team D i v i s i o n of B i o l o g i c a l Serv ices

F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e U.S. Department o f t h e I n t e r i o r

Washington, DC 20240

CONVERSION FACTORS

M e t r i c t o U.S. Customary -- Mu1 t i p l y To O b t a i n -

r r ~ i l l i m e t e r s (mm) c e n t i m e t e r s (cm) me te rs (m) k i 1 ometers (km)

i nc hes i n c h e s f e e t m i l e s

square meters (m') square k i 1 ometers (km') h e c t a r e s (ha)

square f e e t square m i l e s a c r e s

l i t e r s ( 1 ) c u b i c meters (m3) c u b i c me te rs

ga l 1 ons c u b i c f e e t a c r e - f e e t

mi 1 1 i grams (mg) grams (gm) k i 1 ograms (kg ) m e t r i c t o n s (mt ) m e t r i c t o n s (mt ) k i l o c a l o r i e s ( k c a l )

ounces ounces pounds pounds s h o r t t o n s BTU

C e l s i u s degrees F a h r e n h e i t degrees

U.S. Customary M e t r i c

i n c h e s i nches f e e t ( f t ) fathoms m i l e s ( m i ) n a u t i c a l m i l e s (nmi )

m i 11 i m e t e r s c e n t i m e t e r s m e t e r s me te rs k i l o m e t e r s k i l o m e t e r s

square f e e t ( f t 2 ) a c r e s square m i l e s ( m i 2 )

square me te rs h e c t a r e s square k i 1 ometers

g a l 1 ons ( g a l ) c u b i c f e e t ( f t 3, a c r e - f e e t

1 i t e r s c u b i c me te rs c u b i c me te rs

ounces (oz ) pounds ( I b ) s h o r t t ons ( t o n ) BTU

grams k i 1 ograms m e t r i c t o n s k i l o c a l o r i e s

F a h r e n h e i t degrees Cel s i us degrees

CClNTE NTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONVERSION TABLE i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PREFACE i v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

NOMENCLATURE/TAXONOMY/RANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMPORTANCE 2 LIFE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Spawning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 F e c u n d i t y a n d E g g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Yo1 k-Sac Larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 J u v e n i l e s a n d A d u l t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A d u l t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 COMMERCIAL/SPORT FISHERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ECOLOGICAL ROLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENVIRONMENTALREQUIREMENTS 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temperature 10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( S a l i n i t y 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disso lved Oxygen 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subs t ra te 11 Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WaterMovement 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T u r b i d i t y 11

LITERATURE CITED

PREFACE

T h i s spec ies p r o f i l e i s one o f a s e r i e s on coas ta l aqua t i c organisms, p r i n c i p a l l y f i sh , o f spo r t , commercial, o r e c o l o g i c a l importance. The p r o f i l e s a r e designed t o p rov i de coas ta l managers, eng ineers , and b i o l o g i s t s w i t h a b r i e f comprehensive ske tch o f t h e b i 01 o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and env i ronmental r equ i r e - ments of t h e spec ies and t o desc r i be how popu la t i ons o f t h e spec ies may be expected t o r e a c t t o environmental changes caused by coas ta l development. Each p r o f i l e has sec t i ons on taxonomy, 1 .i f e h i s t o r y , e c o l o g i c a l r o l e , env i ronmenta l r equ i rements, and economic importance, i f appl i c a b l e . A t h r e e - r i n g b i n d e r i s used f o r t h i s s e r i e s so t h a t new p r o f i l e s can be added as they a re prepared. T h i s p r o j e c t i s j o i n t l y planned and f inanced by t he U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers and t h e U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Serv ice.

Suggest ions o r ques t ions regard ing t h i s r e p o r t should be d i r e c t e d t o :

I n f o rma t i on T r a n s f e r S p e c i a l i s t Na t i ona l Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. F i sh and W i l d l i f e Se rv i ce NASA-Sl i d e l 1 Computer Complex 1010 Gause Boul evard S l i d e l 1, LA 70458

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

Th i s s e r i e s should be re fe renced as f o l l o w s :

U.S. F ish and W i l d l i f e Serv ice. 1983. Species p r o f i l e s : l i f e h i s t o r i e s and environmental r equ i rements 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 . 1J.S. F i sh and W i I d 1 i f e Serv ice, g i v i s i o n o f B i o l o g i c a l Serv ices, FWS/OBS-82/11. U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Th i s p r o f i l e should be c i t e d as f o l l o w s :

Muncy, R.J., and W.M. Wingo. 1983. Species p r o f i l e s : l i f e h i s t o r i e s and env i ronmenta l requ i rements o f c o a s t a l f i s h e s and i n v e r t e b r a t e s ( G u l f o f Mexico) - - sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h . U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Se rv i ce , D i v i s i o n o f B i o l o g i c a l Serv ices , FWS/OBS-82/11.5. U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers , TR EL-82-4. 17 pp.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We a r e g r a t e f u l f o r t h e rev iews by Dave Ruple, Gulf Coast Labora to ry , Ocean Spr ings, M i s s i s s i p p i , and by W i l l i a m P e r r e t t , Lou is iana W i l d l i f e and F i s h e r i e s Department, New Orleans.

F igu re 1. Sea c a t f i s h ( t o p ) and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h ( bo t t om) .

SEA CATFISH AND GAFFTOPSAIL CATFISH

S c i e n t i f i c name .......... A r i us f e l i s -- (Linnaeus) S i 1 u rus f e l i s ............. Linnaeus

mi ty Char leston, SC) A r i u s m i l b e r t i .......... .Cuv ie r and

Val enciennes Gal e i c h thys .............. Cuvi e r and

Val enciennes A r i o p s i s f e l i s ( L .) ..... . T a y l o r and

Menezes ............ A r i u s f e l i s ( L . ) . M i l l e r --

P r e f e r r e d common name ..... sea c a t f i s h ( F i g u r e 1, Top)

Other common names ......... Smallmouth c a t f i s h , s i l v e r c a t f i s h , hardhead, t o u r i s t t r o u t

S c i e n t i f i c name ........ Bagre mar inus ( M i t c h i l l ) ~ i l u r u s mar inus ........... . I ' l i t ch i11 ( t y p e localit. N Y )

.......................... Oken Bagre P re fe r red common name ..... g a f f t o p s a i 1

c a t f i s h ( F i g u r e 1, Bottom) Other common names ..Bigmouth c a t f i s h ,

g a f f t o p

Class .................... Oste ich thyes Order .................... S i l u r i f o r m e s Family ........................ A r i i d a e

Geographic range: Sea c a t f i s h . A t l a n t i c coas ta l waters from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, t o Yucatan, Mexico. Ra re l y n o r t h of Chesa- peake Bay (Merriman 1940). Occasional l y en te rs f reshwater ( P l a t a n i a and Ross 1980). Gaf f - t o p s a i l c a t f i s h . Coastal waters f rom Cape Cod, Massachusetts, t o Panama, and throughout t h e G u l f o f Mexico (B r i ggs 1958). Gunter (1942) r epo r t ed i t i n f reshwater . The p r i n c i p a l e s t u a r i n e and coas ta l f i s h e r y areas f o r bo th species i n the n o r t h e r n Gu l f o f Mexico r e g i o n a r e noted i n F i gu re 2.

MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS

Naked sk i n , l a r g e se r ra ted sp ines l oca ted a t t h e f r o n t o f the do rsa l and pec to ra l f i n s , adipose f i n s , and a f o r ked caudal f i n a r e mar ine c a t f i s h f ea tu res common w i t h f reshwater ca t - f i s h e s ( I c t a l u r u s ) . No ba rbe l s on n o s t r i l s, s t ee l b lue-gray d o r s a l l y , and s i l v e r y s ides (Hoese and Moore 1977) a re d i s t i n c t i v e mar ine c a t f i s h f ea tu res .

A. f e l i s : 'D. I, 7; A. 19-20; P.1, -- 6-10; V. 6. Two p a i r of s h o r t rounded barbel s on lower ch in , maxi1 l a r y ba rbe l s n e a r l y as l o n g as t he head. Dorsal and pec to ra l f i n s w i t h o u t f i r s t rays e l onga ted separate sea c a t f i s h from g a f f t o p s a i l ca t - f i s h w i t h e longated f i r s t rays. Body i s elongated, s t e e l - b l ue above and s i l ve ry be1 ow. Maximum 1 e n g t h b 9 5 mm ( P e r r e t e t a1 . 1971).

B. mar inus: 0.1, 7; A. 22-28; - P.1, 11-14; V . 6. Two p a i r f l a t t e n e d ba rbe l s on lower c h i n and m a x i l l a r y ba rbe l s reach n e a r l y t o v e n t r a l f i n s .

F i r s t rays of dorsa l and f i n s have e longated wh i t e f i 1 amen t equal t o o r exceeding sp ina l l eng th . Anal f i n w i t h promi- nen t V-shaped i n d e n t a t i o n on p o s t e r i o r marg in (Merriman 1940). Body robus t s t ee l - b l ue d o r s a l l y , and wh i t e v e n t r a l l y . Maximum l e n g t h 571 mm (Jones e t a l . 1978).

IMPORTANCE

Sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t - f i s h a r e n o t favored s p o r t o r f o o d f i s h e s ; however, t h e i r widespread d i s t r i b u t i o n and abundance a long t he nearshore coas t from southern Fl o r i d a t o western Texas cause them t o rank h i g h i n t r a w l and s a l t w a t e r ang le r catches i n t h e G u l f o f Mexico. Ang le r surveys a long t he no r t he rn g u l f coas t ranked sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h ha rves t u s u a l l y 2nd o r 3 rd and no l owe r than 13 th among a l l s a l t w a t e r f i n - f i s h e s . I n d u s t r i a l and commercial catches o f these two species a r e pur- poseful l y low because areas w i t h h i gh abundance a r e avoided unless s u i tab1 e h i ghe r va lued f i shes co -ex i s t . C a t f i s h a re u s u a l l y c u l l e d from t r a w l catches because of low consumer acceptance i n p e t food products o r as human food f i s h (Benson 1982). Landings o f sea c a t f i s h represented l e s s than 2% of t he we igh t i n i n d u s t r i a l bot tom t r aw l ' f i . sher ies a l though e x p l o r a t o r y t r aw l surveys on i n d u s t r i a l t r aw l grounds revealed sea c a t f i s h t o comprise f rom 2% t o 36% o f t h e we igh t of bottom f i s h e s (Ragan e t a1 . 1978; Roi thmayr 1965). G a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h taken i n c i d e n t a l l y i n menhaden purse se ine opera t ions a re marketed as food f i s h i n M i s s i s s i p p i (Franks e t a l . 1972). Commercial f i s h e r i e s ca t ch s t a t i s t i c s p robab ly f a r underest imate t he ac tua l poundages o f sea and ga f f - t o p s a i l c a t f i s h e s harvested, removed, o r dest royed d u r i n g f i s h i n g opera t ions .

Commercial and s p o r t f i shennen cons ider t h e g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h and e s p e c i a l l y t he sea c a t f i s h t o be

1 25.4 rnm = 1 inch .

nuisances and dangerous. Commercial f ishermen have d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e - moving f i s h entangled by t h e i r spines i n ne ts and pump hoses (Benson 1982). The t o x i c substances from sp ine punc- t u r e s by sea c a t f i s h ranked h i gh i n v i r u l e n c e when compared t o l a r g e r s i z e f reshwater ( I c t a l u r u s ) c a t f i s h e s (Hals tead e t a1 . 1953; B i rkhead 1972). The excess ive s l imy mucus g iven o f f by g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h was a problem i n ne ts and t o humans hand l ing t h i s f i s h (Gudger 1916). Spo r t f ishermen o f t en ca tch these abundant a r i i d c a t f i s h e s and cons ider them a nuisance when they a re f i s h i n g f o r more d e s i r a b l e species i n coas ta l areas.

The o r a l g e s t a t i o n behav io r o f male sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h c a r r y i n g f e r t i l i zed eggs, l a r vae , and smal l j u v e n i l e s i n t h e i r mouths has been o f s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r e s t (Gudger 1916; Lee 1937; Merriman 1940). Also, t h e eggs o f these two species a r e t h e l a r g e s t o f a l l boney f i s h e s (Merriman 1940).

LIFE HISTORY

Spawning

Sea c a t f i s h reach sexual m a t u r i t y be fo re 2 years o f age (Benson 1982). The s m a l l e s t mature g a f f t o p s a i l ca t - f i s h examined by Merriman (1940) was a g r a v i d femal'e 265 mm standard l e n g t h (SL). Lee (1937) found a 126mm SL g r a v i d female sea c a t f i s h , b u t she s t a t e d t h a t 150 mm SL was t he minimum s i z e a t which sexual d i f f e r e n c e s were noted i n p e l v i c f i n s o f males o r females. Merriman (1940) thought t h a t s i z e o f f i r s t sexual m a t u r i t y f o r female sea c a t f i s h ranged from 120 t o 200 mm SL w i t h most f i s h matur ing a t l a r g e r s izes . He found severa l 190- t o 200-mm SL immature ma1 es; t he re fo re , males p robab ly mature a t s i zes approaching 250 mm SL.

Ward (1957) r epo r t ed g r e a t e r numbers o f male sea c a t f i s h i n a M i s s i s s i p p i Sound spawning area i n March and A p r i l , b u t sexes were e q u a l l y represented i n May. M o t i l e sperm were found i n males from March u n t i l mid- J u l y . Females con ta ined developing ova i n March, A p r i l , and May. Rapid en- largement o f ova by t h e a d d i t i o n o f yo1 k occurred i n e a r l y June.

Sea c a t f i s h spawn from May t o August i n back bays sometimes as sha l low as 0.6 t o 1.2 m (2 t o 4 f t ) w i t h s a l i n i t i e s from 13 t o 30 pp t . G a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h spawn over i nsho re mud f l a t s d u r i n g a s h o r t e r t ime span (10 days) f rom May t o August (Jones e t a l . 1978). Females o f sea c a t f i s h develop f 1 ap l i ke, adipose t i s s u e on p e l v i c f i n s (Lee 1937) and p e l v i c f i n s o f females o f bo th species a r e l a r g e r than p e l v i c f i n s o f males (Merriman 1940). Gunter (1947) speculated t h a t t he h i g h l y adhesive na tu re o f ex t ruded eggs f rom sea c a t f i s h and t h e h i g h l y mod i f i ed p e l v i c f i n f l a p s suggested f e r t i l i z a t i o n on and t r a n s f e r from the female 's p e l v i c f i n s t o t h e ma le ' s mouth. The eggs m igh t be p icked up from sandy depress ions s i nce eggs o f these two a r i i d c a t f i s h a r e demersal and e a r l y stages ( g a s t r u l a ) a r e n o t r epo r t ed i n c o l l e c t i o n s from ma1 es ' mouth (Ward 1957). Merriman (1940) d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t a l l mature eggs f rom a female were ext ruded a t one t ime.

Female g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h caught on t h e Alabama coas t i n A p r i l con ta ined we1 l - deve l oped eggs (Swingle 1971). Female sea c a t f i s h from t h e M i s s i s s i p p i Soutld examined by Ward (1957) con ta ined 6- t o 8-mm eggs i n A p r i 1, 9- t o 14-mm eggs i n rilay, and 14- t o 16-mm eggs i n June and Ju l y . Ova i n females d u r i n g e a r l y June enlarged by t he a d d i t i o n o f yo1 k and became green ish s h o r t l y b e f o r e o v u l a t i o n . Male sea c a t f i s h con ta ined m o t i l e sperm f rom March u n t i l m id -Ju ly . Males c a r r i e d developing young i n t h e i r

mouths from e a r l y May u n t i l e a r l y August (Ward 1957).

Fecundi ty and Eggs

The l a r g e eggs (14 t o 19 mm i n d iameter) o f sea c a t f i s h and g a f f - t o p s a i l c a t f i s h (Merriman 1940) and paren ta l ca re by males of bo th species o f f s e t the low f e c u n d i t i e s o f 20 t o 64 eggs per female. Gunter (1947) r epo r t ed sma l le r , non func t iona l hyal i n e eggs, a t tached oppos i te t h e m ic ropy le o f l a r g e r extr-uded eggs, may serve as a n u t r i t i o n a l source f o r t h e males du r i ng t h e 60- t o 80-day o r a l g e s t a t i o n per iod .

Lee (1937), Merriman (1940), Ward (1957), Mansueti and Hardy (1967), and Jones e t a l . (1978) d i d n o t p rov ide f e c u n d i t y da ta based on female sea c a t f i s h s izes , probably because o f numerous smal l nonfunct ional eggs a t tached t o l a r g e r eggs. Ward (1957) gave a range o f 40 t o 62 eggs f o r 152 female sea c a t f i s h and Merriman (1940) r epo r t ed 20 t o 64 mature ova produced each season. Jones e t a1 . (1978) presented no body s i z e r e l a t i o n s h i p da ta f o r numbers o f eggs rang ing from 20 t o 68. Gudger (1916) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t he ova r i es o f female g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h a r e g r e a t l y d is tended by r i p e eggs, 10 mm i n diameter, t h a t occupy 50% t o 60% o f the body c a v i t y , and crowd t h e o t h e r organs.

Sea c a t f i s h eggs a r e 12 t o 19 mm i n diameter, greenish, and demersal ; f e r t i l i z e d eggs a r e oval o r e l l i p t i c a l shaped and 14 t o 18 mm long. A t h i n , c o l o r l e s s , adhesive f i l m cover ing i s 1 os t w i t h embryo1 o g i c a l development. G a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h eggs a r e 15 t o 26 mm i n d iameter , go lden ye l l ow , and demersal. Mansueti and Hardy (1967) and Jones e t a l . (1978) i l l u s t r a t e d and summarized embryo1 og i ca l develop- ments f o r t h e two species. Eggs of sea c a t f i s h hatched i n approx imate ly 30 days a t 30°C (86°F) (Jones e t a l .

1978). The i ncuba t i on p e r i o d through t he yo1 k-sac . 1 a r va l s tage i n t he ma1 e ga f f t opsa i l c a t f i s h ' s mouth was 42 t o 70 days, a l though ha tch ing t ime and wate r temperatures were n o t s p e c i f i e d (Jones e t a1 . 1978).

S ince t he eggs and l a r v a e o f bo th species a r e r e t a i n e d i n t he ma le 's mouth u n t i l y o l k sacs a r e absorbed, adverse ex te rna l environmental con- d i t i o n s a r e reduced by t h e m o b i l i t y and suppo r t i ve a c t i o n s of t h e parent . Gudger (1916) mentioned t h a t f i n e sediments q u i c k l y coated demersal ga f f t opsa i l c a t f i s h eggs i n f low ing aquar ia , thereby reduc ing oxygen t r a n s f e r . Lee (1937) suggested t h a t t h e adhesive f i l m over sea c a t f i s h eggs, i f l e f t unattended, would be q u i c k l y covered by sand and sediment. Ward (1957) found t h a t unaerated sea c a t f i s h eggs d i d n o t develop. Gudger (1916) r epo r t ed advanced stages o f g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h eggs remained a l i v e f o r some t ime i n mouths o f dead males i f mo i s tu re was r e t a i n e d on t he eggs.

Yo1 k-Sac Larvae

Jones e t a l . (1978) r epo r t ed sea c a t f i s h yo1 k-sac l a r v a e were 29 t o 45 mm t o t a l l e n g t h (TL) and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h yo1 k-sac l a r v a e approximated 45 t o 78 mm TL. T h i s s tage remains i n t h e ma le 's mouth f o r 2 t o 4 weeks u n t i l t h e yo1 k-sac i s absorbed. 'The j u v e n i l e stages ranged i n l e n g t h from 68 t o 88 mm TL f o r sea c a t f i s h and 80 t o 100 rm TL f o r g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h . Harvey (1972) c o l l e c t e d yo1 k-sac l a r v a e from a d u l t sea c a t f i s h i n s a l i n i t i e s f rom 8.33 t o 12.78 p p t b u t n o t a t h i ghe r s a l i n i t i e s .

Larvae

Jones e t a l . (1978) do n o t cons ider a l a r v a l s tage t o e x i s t s i n c e a1 1 j u v e n i 1 e morphol o g i c a l f e a t u r e s a r e v i s i b l e p r i o r t o yo1 k absorp t ion .

Juven i l es and Adul t s Adu l t s

A1 1 a d u l t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e v i s i b l e a t y o l k absorp t ion b u t j u v e n i l e s remain i n o r r e t u r n t o t h e i r pa ren t s ' mouths f o r p r o t e c t i o n f o r a s h o r t t ime. Harvey (1972) found j u v e n i l e s i n mouths o f male sea ca t - f i s h i n waters o f 16.66 t o 28.32 pp t . He s t a t e d t h a t o l d e r j u v e n i l e s were a b l e t o successfu l l y osmoregulate i n h igher s a l i n i t i e s . Merriman (1940) repo r ted t h a t j u v e n i l e s o f bo th species fed h e a v i l y on p lank ton i c c rus tacea e i t h e r i n s i d e o r ou t s i de pa ren t s ' mouths. Feed'I.ng by males c a r r y i n g eggs o r j u v e n i l e s has n o t been documented.

Benson (1982) repor ted t h a t sea c a t f i s h j u v e n i l e s remain i n low s a l i n i t y es tua r i ne areas w i t h i n t h e M i s s i s s i p p i Sound. Gunter (1938) repo r ted j u v e n i l e g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h abundance i n t r aw l samples peaked d u r i n g August i n B a r a t a r i a Bay, Louis iana, and du r i ng September i n o f f s h o r e g u l f waters. G a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h l e f t Ba ra ta r i a Bay from November t o January, r e t u r n i n g i n May and June p r i o r t o spawning. J u v e n i l e sea c a t f i s h were r a r e l y taken by beach s e i n i n g a1 though r e g u l a r l y caught by o f f s h o r e t r aw l i n g (Reid 1957; P r i s t a s and T ren t 1978). Trawl surveys i n e s t u a r i n e waters o f Alabama (Swingle 1971), M i s s i s s i p p i (Franks e t a l . 1972), Lou is iana ( P e r r e t e t a l . 1971; Tarver and Savoie 1976; B a r r e t t e t a l . 1978), and Texas (Reid 1957; Hoese e t a l . 1968; Gallaway and Strawn 1975) revealed 10 t o 100 t imes fewer juve- n i l e g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h caught than j u v e n i l e sea c a t f i s h . Juven i l e g a f f - t o p s a i l c a t f i s h were repor ted as p r e f e r r i n g water temperatures from 16" t o 30°C (61" t o 86°F) w h i l e s a l i n i t i e s v a r i e d from 0 t o 31 pp t . Juneau (1975) repor ted j u v e n i l e g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h i n Ve rm i l i on Bay, Lou is iana , most ly du r i ng summer and f a l l months w i t h water temperatures rangf ng from 20.4" t o 30.5"C (69" t o 87°F).

Sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l ca t - f i s h d i s t r i b u t i o n and abundance i n g u l f coas ta l and es tua r i ne waters have been r e l a t e d t o spawning a c t i v i t i e s as w e l l as t o water temperatures and sa l i n i t i e s . Studies a long southern F l o r i d a ( P r i s t a s and T ren t 1978), nor thern F l o r i d a ( Z i l berberg 1966), Alabama (Swingle and Bland 1974; Swingle . 1971), M i s s i s s i p p i Sound and Lake Pon tcha r t r a i n Es tua r i ne Complex (Franks e t a l . 1972; Rounsefe l l 1964; Jackson 1972; Tarver and Savoie 1976), Lou is iana coas t (Pe r re t e t a l . 1971; B a r r e t t e t a l . 1978; Adkins e t a l . 1979), and Texas coas t (Gunter 1945; He1 1 i e r 1962; Hoese e t a1 . 1968; Moore e t a l . 1970; Landry and Strawn 1973) i n d i c a t e d sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h were sampled o r observed seasona l l y i n g r e a t e r numbers inshore a t h igher temperatures (>20°C o r 68°F) and s a l i n i t i e s ($20 p p t ) . A d u l t sea c a t f i s h avoided lower water tempera- t u res by m i g r a t i n g o f f s h o r e i n w i n t e r and r e t u r n i n g inshore i n t h e sp r i ng .

Exceptions were repor ted by Landry and Strawn (1973) a t warmwater d i s - charges and by Swingle (1971) f o r a d u l t sea c a t f i s h concentrated i n t h e deep Mob i le Sh ip Channel i n Alabama. A d u l t sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h remained year-round i n southern F l o r i d a inshore waters (Gunter and H a l l 1965; Tabb and Manning 1961; Roessler 1970). Water temperature appears t o be t h e major s t i m u l ~ s , a long w i t h s a l i n i t y , c o n t r o l 1 i n g sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n s . I n d u s t r i a l f i s h e r i e s t r a w l catches o f sea c a t f i s h e s i n Alabama, M i s s i s s i p p i , and Lou is iana inshore waters (Haskel l 1961) as we l l as shrimp t r a w l i n g a long t h e A t l a n t i c Ocean coas ta l waters o f South Caro l ina , Georgia, and F l o r i d a (Anderson 1968) were lower i n w i n t e r months. Catches were lowest du r i ng May i n A t l a n t i c Ocean o f f sho re areas o f f eas te rn Fl o r i d a . Roi thmayr (1965) repor ted increased w i n t e r catches o f

TL i n J u l y t o 95 mm TL i n May o f t h e sea c a t f i s h i n t h e 13- t o 43-11 (43- nex t year . Length frequency da ta o f t o 1 5 7 - f t ) o f fshore Gul f of Mexic0 g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h showed growth f rom i n d u s t r i a l f i s h e r y . McClane (1965) a mode of 75 mm TL i n J u l y t o 127 m s t a t e d t h a t i n November, Sea c a t f i s h TL ( range: 95 t o 167 mm TL) i n and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h m i g r a t e from September. bays and e s t u a r i e s t o t he sha l low open " ocean. They r e t u r n i nsho re i n February. COMMERCI AL/SPORT FISHERY

A d u l t sea c a t f i s h sometimes school (Gunter 1938; Jones e t a l . 1978) as do g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h (Gudger 1916). Tavol ga (1962) r e 1 a ted d i f f e r e n t sounds o f sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h t o t h e i r noc tu rna l school i n g behaviors , b u t found d i s t r e s s sounds were s i m i l a r f o r bo th spec ies . Tavol ga (1977) f u r t h e r i d e n t i f i e d and demonstrated a c o u s t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n by sea c a t f i s h .

GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS

Gal laway and Strawn (1974) r epo r t ed j u v e n i l e sea c a t f i s h i n Gal ves ton Bay, Texas, grew from 40 t o 44 mn SL i n J u l y 1968 t o 93 mn i n October be fo re l e a v i n g t h e bay f o r t h e g u l f , where 1 i ttl e w i n t e r growth occurred. The 1967 y e a r c l a s s (Age I ) reached 111 t o 130 mm SL by September 1968. Gunter and Hal 1 (1963) r epo r t ed Age 0 sea c a t f i s h i n southwestern F l o r i d a grew t o 118 t o 133 mm TL w h i l e Age I j u v e n i l e s grew t o 193 mm TL. Topp (1963) r epo r t ed a 345-mm TL sea c a t f i s h recap tu red 445 days a f t e r t agg ing showed a 2-mm decrease i n f o r ked l e n g t h (FL).

Benson (1982) s t a t e d t h a t l i f e expectancy of sea c a t f i s h was o n l y 2 yea rs w i t h a maximum l i f e span o f about 5 years . Doermann e t a l . (1977) found f rom aged pec to ra l sp ines o f 177 sea c a t f i s h c o l l e c t e d near Ocean Spr ings , P l i s s i s s i p p i , t h a t 17.1- t o 35.5-cm f i s h l i v e d 3 t o 8 growing seasons. Swingle (1971) r e p o r t e d a t l e a s t t h r e e sea c a t f i s h age c lasses i n Alabama i nsho re wa te rs i n 1968- 1969. Length f requency da ta f o r Age 0 sea c a t f i s h revea led growth f r om 47 mm

Sea c a t f i s h commercial l and ings i n c l u d e bo th sea c a t f i s h and g a f f - t o p s a i l c a t f i s h . G u l f o f Mexico com- me rc i a l l and ings o f "sea c a t f i s h " p l o t t e d by S ta tes f o r 1959 through 1967 i n d i c a t e d 2-year t r ends w i t h wide f l u c t u a t i o n s (U.S. Department o f Commerce 1959-1967). F l o r i d a 1 anded 257 m e t r i c tons (mt) o f c a t f i s h i n 1960, dropped t o 54 mt i n 1962, and averaged 105 m t over t h e 9 yea rs . Sea c a t f i s h l and ing s t a t i s t i c s f o r L o u i s i - ana averaged 33 m t over t h e 9 years . Two-year peak catches d i d n o t occur i n t h e same years as i n F l o r i d a . Sea c a t f i s h l and ings averaged 22 mt f o r M i s s i s s i p p i and 25 m t f o r Texas. The average va lue o f t h e c a t c h was about 6 t o 9 cen t s pe r pound over t h e 9-year per iod . Commercial f i s h e r i e s c a t c h d a t a p robab ly underes t imate t h e t r u e catches s i nce severa l r e f e rences (Gudger 1916; Topp 1963; Ro i thmayr 1965; Dunham 1972; Ragan e t a l . 1978) i n d i c a t e t h a t commercial f i shermen cons i de r sea c a t f i s h a nu isance and d i s c a r d them. I n d u s t r i a l b o t t o m f i s h t r a w l f i s h e r i e s a long t h e n o r t h e r n G u l f o f Mexico coas ta l areas f rom west F l o r i d a t o Ship Shoals, Lou is iana , p robab l y take t h e l a r g e s t catches o f sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h e s , espe- c i a l l y around t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Del t a . Sampl es o f commercial i n d u s t r i a l l and ings i n t h e no r t h - c e n t r a l G u l f o f Mexico i n d i c a t e d t h a t sea c a t f i s h made up 1% t o 3% o f t h e ca t ch f rom 1959 t o 1963 (Roi thmayr 1965) and 3% o f t h e c a t c h f rom 1970 t o 1972 (Dunham 1972). I n d u s t r i a l bottom- f i s h l and ings inc reased i n F l o r i d a , M i s s i s s i p p i , Louis iana, and Texas f o r t h e p e r i o d 1959 through 1967. Large q u a n t i t i e s o f sea c a t f i s h and g a f f - t o p s a i l c a t f i s h taken i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l

bottom t r a w l f i s h e r i e s o f F l o r i da , M i s s i s s i p p i , Louis iana, and Texas (Roi thmayr 1965; Dunham 1972; Ragan e t a l . 1978) rnay be c u l l e d p r i o r t o 1 anding o r d u r i n g unloading.

A l though t he sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h general l y a r e n o t regarded as favored food o r s ~ o r t f i s h by- t h e genera l p u b l i c , ~ c ~ l a n e ' s Standard F i s h i n g Encyc lopedia (1965) l i s t e d sea c a t f i s h as " e d i b l e " and s a f f t o ~ s a i l c a t f i s h as "a qood food f i sh. " ' Many sa l twa te r angl Cr surveys (Tabb and Manning 1961; Jackson 1972; Landry and Strawn 1973; Wade 1977) suggested ang le rs d i scard bo th species, espec ia l l y sea c a t f i s h , as nuisance f i s h . Therefore, a n g l e r surveys general l y underest imate abun- dances, ca tch ra tes , and p robab ly ha rves t o f bo th species. A 1965 sa l twa te r ang le r survey (Deuel and C l a r k 1968) r epo r t ed c a t f i s h e s ranked second, making up 9% o f a l l s a l t w a t e r f i s h e s caught from t h e F l o r i d a west coas t t o the M i s s i s s i p p i R iver . From t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r t o Texas, ca t - f i s h ranked s i x t h , making up 3% of s a l t w a t e r f i s h caught. Ons i t e ha rves t surveys o f ang le rs found sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h ranked t h i r d and c o n s t i t u t e d 20% o f t he ca tch i n sou thern F l o r i d a (Tabb and Manning 1961), ranked 13 th and c o n s t i t u t e d 2% o f t h e ca t ch i n Alabama (Wade 1977), ranked t h i r d and c o n s t i t u t e d 3% o f t h e ca t ch i n M i s s i s s i p p i Sound (Jackson 1972), and ranked second and c o n s t i - t u t e d 31% o f t h e ca tch i n a Galveston Bay, Texas, hot -water d ischarge (Landry and Strawn 1973). Juneau and Pol l a r d (1981) r epo r t ed sea c a t f i s h ranked t h i r d (10%) and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h ranked n i n t h (1%) i n a 2-year r e c r e a t i o n angl i n g survey i n Vermil i o n Bay, Louis iana. Sea c a t f i s h a r e u s u a l l y more abundant than g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h along t h e no r t he rn G u l f o f Mexico coas t and bo th species a r e most abundant o f f Louis iana.

Analyses from a 1960 oxygen d e p l e t i o n d i e - o f f i n southern F l o r i d a

(Tabb and Manning 1961) revealed a 10 t o 1 r a t i o o f sea t o g a f f t o p s a i l c a t - f i s h . Trawl sampling revea led an 80 t o 1 sea c a t f i s h t o g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h r a t i o i n Alabama coas ta l waterways (Swingle and Bland 1974); a 100 t o 1 r a t i o i n M i s s i s s i p p i Sound (Franks e t a l . 1972); a 5 t o 1, o r g rea te r , r a t i o i n t he Lake Borgne area (Rounse fe l l 1964; Tarver and Savoie 1976); b u t r a t i o s .approached 2 t o 1 i n south- western Lou is iana i nsho re waters ( P e r r e t e t a l . 1971; Juneau 1975; B a r r e t t e t a l . 1978; P e r r e t and C a i l l o u e t 1974). Abundances o f sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h r e p o r t e d l y decreased i n t r a w l samples f rom 5% i n Lou is iana t o 2% along t h e Texas coas t (Moore e t a l . 1970), b u t Bechte l and Copeland (1970) found sea c a t f i s h t o be t he most abundant f i s h d u r i n g t h e f a l l i n most areas o f Galveston Bay, Texas. Landry and Strawn (1973) found sea c a t f i s h made up 31% o f t he s p o r t ca t ch i n Galveston Bay, and outnumbered g a f f t o p s a i l ca t - f i s h 82 t o 1. Diener (1973) found sea c a t f i s h t o be t he f i f t h most abundant f i s h i n t r a w l i n g samples i n t h e t i d a l Colorado River , Texas, f rom February t o June 1962 and 100 t imes more numerous than g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h . Breuer (1962) r epo r t ed sea c a t f i s h common around P o r t I sabe l , Texas, whereas g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h were n o t common.

I n c i d e n t a l catches o f f i s h e s i n 89 menhaden purse se ine se t s a long t h e M iss i ss i pp i - Lou i s i ana coas t i n 1958-59 (Chr is tmas e t a l . 1960) revea led equal numbers o f sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h and each ranked f i f t h i n abun- dance. Observers noted g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h i n t w i c e as many sets , b u t p o s s i b l e p r i o r removal by f ishermen of g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h f o r food d u r i n g land ings p robab ly reduced t h e i r numbers i n deck counts.

E x p l o r a t o r y t r a w l sampl i n g and sa l twa te r ang le r surveys suggest t h a t sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h were abundant i n es tua r i ne and near- shore reg ions from Alabama t o eas t

Texas ( H e l l i e r 1962; Moore e t a1 . 1970; Ragan e t a l . 1978; B a r r e t t e t a l . 1978). Moore e t a l . (1970) i n d i c a t e d t h a t sea c a t f i s h averaged 5% of t h e t o t a l we igh t o f 1962-64 e x p l o r a t o r y t r a w l catches a1 ong t h e Lou is iana coas t and 2% o f t h e ca t ch a long t h e Texas coas t . I n the spr ing , sea c a t f i s h increased t o 10% o f i n - shore (7 t o 14 m o r 23 t o 46 ft depth) catches b u t decreased t o a smal l percentage o f w i n t e r catches. They d i d n o t f i n d t h a t e i t h e r c a t f i s h c o n t r i b u t e d over 5% by weight i n any season a t depths g r e a t e r than 14 m (46 f t ) . P e r r e t e t a l . (1971) r epo r t ed sea c a t f i s h made up 2.5% of t he f i s h e s i n t r a w l catches alorlg t h e Lou i s iana coast , and outnumbered g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h 2 t o 1. Both species were most abundant around Grand I s l e , Louis iana. R a g a w e t a l . (1978) r epo r t ed g r e a t e r percentages o f sea c a t f i s h i n catches on Lou is iana western shel f waters (88" t o 93" l o n g i t u d e ) a t depths t o 18 m (59 f t ) . Sea c a t f i s h abundance on t he eas te rn s h e l f i n n e r zone reached 37% ( f i r s t ranked) i n t h e summer, b u t dropped t o 8% i n t h e w in te r , averaging 24% over a1 1 seasons. Abundance never reached 5% i n depths 24 t o 100 m (79 t o 328 f t ) . Sea c a t f i s h seasonal and depth d i s t r i b u t i o n pa t t e rns were s i m i l a r on t h e western Lou is iana s h e l f area. Ragan e t a l . (1978) c a l c u l a t e d t h e abundance o f sea c a t f i s h i n a l l zones and areas as 10% o f catches. The h i gh numbers o f sea c a t f i s h i n t he western shel f and smal l e r popu la t ions o f A t l a n t i c croakers l i m i t i n d u s t r i a l bottom f i s h i n g west o f Ship Shoals, Lou is iana . Benson (1982) s t a t e d t h a t c a t f i s h sp ine r e g u r g i t a t i o n by pe t s adverse ly a f f e c t s consumer r e a c t i o n t o c a t f i s h uses i n t he p e t food i n d u s t r y . Commercial f ishermen found c a t f i s h t o cause problems because o f entanglement i n ne t s and pump hoses (Benson 1982).

ECOLOGICAL ROLE

Sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l ca t - f i s h , as o p p o r t u n i s t i c feeders over

mud and submerged sand f l a t s (Gudger 1916), ma in ta i n r e l a t i v e l y h i gh abun- dance i n most ' no r t he rn G u l f o f Mexico es tua r i ne and inshore areas. D i e t s o f g a f f t o p s a i l and sea c a t f i s h a r e s i m i l a r (Merriman 1940). A1 gae, sea grasses, coe l en t ra tes , ho lo thu r i ans , gastropods, polychaetes, crustaceans (shr imp, c rabs) , and f i s h e s were common i tems i n stomachs of both species. Large f i s h sca les and human garbage i n some stomachs i n d i c a t e d scavenging i n bo th species (Merriman 1940). Several au thors (Gudger 1916; Gunter 1945; Darnel 1 1961; McCl ane 1965; Gal laway and Strawn 1974) i n d i c a t e d b l u e crabs were a p r i n c i p a l food i t em o f sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h e s . Gal 1 away and Strawn (1974) r epo r t ed t h a t sea c a t f i s h concent ra ted a t a ho t -wate r d ischarge t o feed on d ischarged impinged p rey organisms and smal l b l ue crabs when t h e water temperature remained be1 ow 38°C.

A f t e r f i n d i n g t h a t 50% o f t h e sea c a t f i s h caught i n a s t a t i o n a r y wing-net i n a 4-hour evening pe r i od con ta ined j u v e n i l e and sub-adul t brown shrimp, H a r r i s and Rose (1968) expressed con- ce rn over t h e poss ib l e impact by t h i s f i s h on commerc ia l ly impor tan t shr imp popu la t ions . However, they recognized t h a t - n e t cap tu re o f shr imp and sea c a t f i s h cou ld a1 t e r p reda t i on es t imates from those i n open waters. Ward (1957) r epo r t ed sea c a t f i s h concen t ra t i ng near a shr imp cannery a t B i l o x i Bay, M i s s i s - s i p p i .

J u v e n i l e sea c a t f i s h have been repo r t ed t o feed on microcrustaceans w h i l e s t i l l be ing c a r r i e d i n males ' mouths (Merriman 1940). Darnel 1 (1961) r epo r t ed t h a t l a r g e r j u v e n i l e sea c a t f i s h stomachs con ta ined 56% o rgan i c d e t r i t u s , 26% m ic ro i nve r t eb ra tes , and 16% l a r g e r i n v e r t e b r a t e s . He found a d u l t sea c a t f i s h e a t 44% organ ic d e t r i t u s , 34% 1 arge i nve r t eb ra tes , and 21% m ic ro i nve r t eb ra tes . Reid e t a l . (1956) repor ted o rgan ic debr is , crabs, menhaden, and worm ee l s i n stomachs o f f o u r g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h 235 t o 298 mm (9.2 t o 11.7 inches) l o n g f rom East Bay, Galveston, Texas. Merriman (1940)

speculated t h a t f i s h e s found i n sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h stomachs may have been p icked up from f ishennen d iscards . Hoese (1966) observed lepidophogy, o r sca le feeding, as we1 1 as sea c a t f i s h a t t a c k i n g f i n s o f o t h e r f i s h e s .

Fuel o i l a t concen t ra t i ons o f 0.02 m l / l water d i d n o t a f f e c t feed ing behav io r o f sea c a t f i s h , b u t 0.08 m l / l water caused sea c a t f i s h t o r egu rg i - t a t e consumed foods and l o s e mucus l a y e r s i n stomachs (Wang and N i c o l 1977). Sea c a t f i s h h e a r t r a t e s slowed a t 0.01 ml f u e l o i l / l water and t h e l e t h a l concen t ra t i on f o r 50% o f t he f i s h t es ted f o r 96 hours was 0.14 ml f u e l o i l / l water .

Sea c a t f i s h have been repo r t ed as p rey f o r longnose gar (Darnel1 1961). Dugas (1975) captured t w i c e as many sea c a t f i s h a t n i g h t than du r i ng t h e day by t r a w l and s ta ted t h a t they a r e 1 a r g e l y scavengers. Fishermen use l i v e sea c a t f i s h as b a i t f o r l a r g e cob ia a t o i l r i g s o f f t h e Lou is iana coas t .

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Temperature

Adul t sea c a t f i s h p r e f e r water temperatures' above 25°C (77°F) (Jones e t a l . 1978), b u t avo id waters over 37°C (99°F) (Landry and Strawn 1973; Gal laway and Strawn 1974). Sea ca t - f i s h were c o l l e c t e d f rom 38" t o 39°C (100" t o 102°F) e f f l u e n t b u t some f i s h were observed i n apparent thermal shock (Gal laway and Strawn 1974). Sea c a t f i s h leave inshore areas f o r deeper channel s (Swingle 1971) o r o f f s h o r e areas when water temperatures d rop below 5" t o 6°C ( 4 1 t o 43°F) ( P e r r e t e t a1 . 1971; Juneau 1975). B a r r e t t e t a l . (1978) found t h a t t he sea c a t f i s h t r a w l ca tch a long t h e Lou is iana coas t

was re1 a ted t o water te~npera tu r es between 10" and 20°C (50" t o 68°F).

J u v e n i l e and a d u l t g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h p r e f e r water temperatures 25°C (77°F) and h i ghe r ( P e r r e t e t a l . 1971; Juneau 1975). B a r r e t t e t a l . (1978) found g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h t o be absent f rom 1 6 - f t e x p l o r a t o r y t r a w l i n g samples a t temperatures below 16.6"C (62°F) and P e r r e t e t a l . (1971) caught o n l y one specimen a t a temperature below 20°C (68°F). Comparat ively, a ca tch o f 2,227 g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h was taken f rom 20" t o 34.9"C (68" t o 95°F) water .

Sal i n i ty

Adul t sea c a t f i s h have been captured from waters w i t h sa l i n i t i e s rang ing from 0 t o 40 p p t (Jones e t a l . 1978). Harvey (1972) r epo r t ed yo1 k-sac l a r v a e found i n t h e mouth o f males i n water s a l i n i t i e s 8.3 t o 12.8 ppt ; j u v e n i l e s were c o l l e c t e d i n 16.7 t o 28.3 p p t s a l i n i t i e s . Gunter and H a l l (1965) found j u v e n i l e s i n water w i t h 0.1 p p t sa l i n i ty. Juveni 1 es a r e r epo r t ed t o be more numerous than a d u l t s i n low s a l i n i t y waters (Swingle and Bland 1974; K e l l e y 1965; Ta rve r and Savoie 1976; Jones e t a l . 1978). P e r r e t e t a1 . (1971) captured t h e most sea c a t f i s h a t s a l i n i t i e s 10 pp t o r h i ghe r . Gunter (1945) co l 1 ec ted sea c a t f i s h a t s a l i n i t y ranges o f 2 t o 36.7 ppt , b u t t h e g r e a t e s t abundance occurred above 30 ppt .

A d u l t g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h have been recorded from f reshwater , bu t a r e more abundant i n s a l i n i t i e s o f 5 t o 30 p p t ( P e r r e t e t a l . 1971; Jones e t a l . 1978). J u v e n i l e g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h have been c o l l e c t e d i n s a l i n i t i e s o f 0.2 p p t (Gunter and Hal 1 1965), 2.5 p p t ( K e l l e y 1965), 3.3 p p t (Tarver and Savoie 1976), up t o 25 p p t (Swingle and Bland 1974), and 33 p p t ( g u l f s a l i n i t y ) when j u v e n i l es l eave A1 abama bays

(Swingle 1971) and Texas bays (Gunter 1945).

D i sso l ved Oxygen

Benson (1982) c i t e d Adkins and Boman (1976) as c o l l e c t i n g sea c a t - f i s h from c losed canals w i t h low oxygen concent ra t ions . Tabb and Manning (1961) r epo r t ed sea and g a f f - t o p s a i l c a t f i s h k i l l e d by t o t a l oxygen d e p l e t i o n i n two F l o r i d a bays f o l l o w i n g Hur r i cane Donna i n 1960. Paren ta l ca re o f sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h eggs would reduce t h e poten- t i a l impacts o f reduced oxygen l e v e l s and sediments.

Subs t ra te

Reid (1957), Ragan e t a1 . (1978), and Shipp (1981) r epo r t ed sea c a t f i s h abundance h i ghe r i n areas w i t h h i gh o rgan ic subs t ra tes . Darnel 1 (1961) and Reid e t a l . (1956) repor ted sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h stomachs t o con ta i n q u a n t i t i e s o f o rgan ic d e t r i t u s a long w i t h i n v e r t e - b ra tes assoc ia ted wi t h o rgan ic sub- s t r a t e . A r t i f i c i a l food sources f rom seafood process ing p l a n t s and assoc ia ted dock ing f a c i l i t i e s as we1 1 as warmwater d i scharges con ta i n i ng impinged organisms can c r e a t e l o c a l i z e d sea and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h concen t ra t i ons independent o f subs t ra te .

Depth

Depth preferences o f sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h appear t o be r e l a t e d t o water temperatures and bottom composi t ion. Both species beg in moving o f f s h o r e o r i n t o warmer waters assoc ia ted w i t h deep channels (Swingle 1971) . as water temperatures drop below 10" t o 15°C (50" t o 59°F) i n l a t e f a l l o n l y t o r e t u r n i n spr i r lg when temperatures r i s e above these l e v e l s . H igher abundances i n sha l low (<20 m) inshore coas ta l areas and

e s t u a r i e s appear r e l a t e d t o o rgan ic subs t ra te and assoc ia ted i n v e r t e b r a t e food sources. The low f requency o f c a t f i s h i n smal l se ine samples suggests t hey do n o t commonly occur i n s h o r e l i n e beach h a b i t a t s (Reid 1957; P e r r e t e t a l . 1971; Juneau 1975; Ta rve r and Savoie 1976).

Water Movement

Reid (1957) i n d i c a t e d sea c a t f i s h concentrated near R o l l o v e r Pass, Texas, where r e s t r i c t e d t i d a l f l o w c rea ted a " j e t - e f f e c t " t o f a u n i s t i c a l l y r i c h waters. Landry and Strawn (1973) r epo r t ed both a r i i d c a t f i s h e s were a b l e t o remain and feed i n waters above 34°C (93°F) a t power genera t ing p l a n t d i s - charge r a t e s of 48 m3/s (1695 f t 3 / s ) when most o t h e r es tua r i ne f i s h had moved f a r t h e r away i n t o Galveston Bay, Texas. Water movements appear t o be used by a r i i d c a t f i s h e s t o l o c a t e and o b t a i n prey. Spawning and o r a l gesta- t i o n occurred i n sha l lower bay areas where water movements a re reduced. Juven i l es, independent o f parents , tend t o be found i n q u i e t water bays (Swing le and Bland 1974).

T u r b i d i t y

P l a t a n i a and Ross (1980) r epo r t ed sea c a t f i s h t o be found i n t u r b i d , shal low, coas ta l waters w i t h sand o r mud subs t ra te . References c i t e d i n L i f e H i s t o r y and F i she ry Sec t ions ill u s t r a t e d p re fe rence f o r i nsho re muddy o r sandy bottoms o f h i gh o rgan ic con ten t . Gudger (1916) c o l l e c t e d g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h f rom t u r b i d waters a t Beaufor t , Nor th Caro l ina , and he suggested t h a t t a c t i l e barbe ls enabled these f i s h t o q u i c k l y l o c a t e food i tems. Tavolga (1962, 1971, 1977) demonstrated t h a t sounds produced by sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h cou ld enable c a t f i s h t o avo id obs t ruc - t i o n s , and p robab ly predators, a t c l o s e range. Sounds may a l s o enable c a t f i s h t o communicate w i t h each o t h e r d u r i n g breeding and noc tu rna l school i ng. Sea

c a t f i s h produce " p e r c o l a t o r " choruses from 1700 t o 2250 d u r i n g A p r i l th rough October. A summer l u l l occurs i n J u l y and August when l i g h t i n t e n s i t y f a l l s below 1900 fc (Breder 1968). Sound o r i e n t a t i o n and communication, a long w i t h h i g h l y developed 01 f a c t o r y senses, would be e s p e c i a l l y use fu l i n t u r b i d waters .

Hoese e t a l . (1968) r epo r t ed t h a t genera l l y h i g h noc tu rna l t r a w l catches o f sea and g a f f t o p s a i l ca t -

f i shes dropped o f f i n August 1964 because o f h i g h t u r b i d i t y and p o s s i b l e changes i n f j s h s izes . Landry and S t rawn 's (1973) Texas c r e e l census da ta show sea c a t f i s h ca tch r a t e s increased i n March 1969 even though ca tch r a t e s f o r t h e f i v e o t h e r ma jo r species decreased because o f rough, murky waters . Gunter (1947) co l 1 ected breeding sea c a t f i s h from r a p i d l y r i s i n g , t u r b i d waters i n a 0.6- t o 3-rn (2- t o 1 0 - f t ) deep pass i n Copano Bay, Texas .

LITERATURE CITED

Adkins, G., and P. Bowman. 1976. A s tudy o f t he fauna i n dredged cana ls o f coas ta l Lou is iana . La. W i l d l . Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. 18:l-72.

Adkins, G., J . Tarver , P. Bowman, and 6. Savoie. 1979. A s tudy o f t h e commercial f i n f i s h i n coas ta l Lou is iana . La. Dep. W i l d l . Fish. Seafood Div . Tech. B u l l . 29. 87 PP

Anderson, W . W . 1965. F ishes taken du r i ng shr imp t r a w l i n g a long t h e South A t l a n t i c Coast o f t h e Un i ted States, 1931-35. U.S. F i s h W i l d l . Serv. Spec. Sc i . Rep. Fish. 570:l-18.

B a r r e t t , B.B., J.L. M e r r e l l , T.P. Morr ison, M.C. G i l l e s p i e , E.J. Ralph, and J.F. Burdon. 1978. A s tudy o f Lou i s i ana ' s ma jo r e s t u a r i e s and ad jacen t o f f s h o r e waters. La. Dep. W i l d l . Fish. Tech. B u l l . 27. 197 pp.

Bechte l , T.J., and B.J. Copeland. 1970. F i s h species d i v e r s i t y i n d i c e s as i n d i c a t o r s o f p o l l u - t i o n i n Galveston Bay, Texas. Cont r ib . Mar. Sc i . 15: 103-132.

Benson, N.G., ed. 1982. L i f e h i s t o r y requi rements o f se lec ted f i n f i s h and s h e l l f i s h i n M i s s i s s i p p i Sound and ad jacen t areas. U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Serv ice, O f f i c e o f B i o l o g i c a l Services, Washing- ton, D. C. FWS/OBS-81/51. 97 pp.

Birkhead, W.S. 1972. T o x i c i t y o f s t i n g s o f a r i i d and i c t a l u r i d c a t f i s h e s . Copeia (4 ) : 790-807.

Breder, C.M., J r . 1968. Seasonal and d i u r n a l occurrences o f f i s h sounds i n a smal l F l o r i d a bay. B u l l . Am. Mus. Nat. H i s t . 138(6) :325-378;

Breuer, J.P. 1962. An eco log i ca l survey o f t he lower Laguna Madre o f Texas, 1953-1959. Con t r i b . Mar. Sc i . 8: 153-183.

Br iggs , J.C. 1958. A l i s t o f F l o r i d a f i s h e s and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n . B u l l . F la . S t a t e Nus. B i o l . S c i . 2(8):318 pp.

Christmas, J.Y., G. Gunter, and E.C. Whatley. 1960. Fishes taken i n t h e menhaden f i s h e r y o f Alabama, M i s s i s s i p p i , and eas te rn L o u i s i - ana. U.S. F i s h W i l d l . Serv. Spec. Sc i . Rep. F ish. 339. 10 pp.

Darnel 1, R.M. 1961. T roph ic spectrum o f an e s t u a r i n e community, based on s tud ies o f Lake Pon tcha r t r a i n , Louis iana. Ecology 42(3) :553-568.

Deuel , D.G., and J.R. C la rk . 1968. The 1965 s a l t - w a t e r a n g l i n g sur - vey. U.S. Bur. Spo r t F ish . W i l d l . Resour. Publ. 67. 5 1 pp.

Diener , R.A. 1973. Observat ions on t he hydro1 ogy and mar ine organisms of t he t i d a l Colorado R i v e r and ad jacen t waters, Texas. February- June 1962. Cont r ib . Mar. Sc i . 17:99-110.

Doermann, J.E., D. Huddleston, D. Lipsey, and S.H. Thompson. 1977. Age and r a t e o f growth o f t h e sea c a t f i s h , A r i u s f e l i s , i n M i ss i s - s i p p i coas ta l waters. J. Tenn. Acad. Sc i . 52(4):148 pp.

Dugas, R.J. 1975. V a r i a t i o n i n day-n igh t t r aw l catches i n Ve rm i l i on Bay, Lou is iana . La. W i l d l . Fish. Comm. Oysters, Water Bottoms, Seafood D i v . Tech. B u l l . 14. 13 pp.

Dunham, F. 1972. A s tudy o f commer- c i a l l y impo r tan t es tua r i ne - dependent i n d u s t r i a l f i shes . La. W i l d l . Fish. Comm. Oysters, Water Bottoms, Seafood D iv . Tech. B u l l . 4. 63 pp.

Franks, J.S., J.Y. Christmas, W.L. S i l e r , R. Combs, R. Wal ler , and C. Burns. 1972. A s tudy o f nek ton i c and ben th i c faunas o f t h e sha l low G u l f o f Mexico o f f t he S ta te o f M i s s i s s i p p i as r e l a t e d t o some phys i ca l , chemi- ca l and geo log ica l f a c t o r s . G u l f Coast Res. Lab. 1972:140 pp.

Gallaway, B.J., and K. Strawn. 1974. Seasonal abundance and d i s t r i - b u t i o n o f mar ine f i s h e r i e s a t a ho t -wate r d ischarge i n Gal veston Bay, Texas. Cont r ib . Mar. Sc i . 18:71-137.

Gal laway, B.J., and K. Strawn. 1975. Seasonal and a rea l comparisons o f f i s h d i v e r s i t y i n d i c e s a t a ho t-wa t e r d i scharge i n Gal ves ton Bay, Texas. Con t r i b . Flar. Sc i . 19:81-89.

Gudger, E.W. 1916. The G a f f - t o p s a i l ( F e l i c h t h y s f e l i s ) a sea c a t f i s h t h a t c a r r i e s i t s eggs i n i t s mouth. Zoo log ica I 1 1 5 ) :125-158.

Gunter, G. 1938. Seasonal v a r i a t i o n s i n abundance o f c e r t a i n e s t u a r i n e and mar ine f i s h e s i n Lou is iana w i t h p a r t i c u l a r re fe rence t o 1 i f e h i s t o r i e s . Ecol . Monogr. 8 ( 3 ) : 313-346.

Gunter, G. 1942. A l i s t o f the f i s h e s o f the mainland o f i l o r t h and Midd le h e r i c a recorded i n

bo th f reshwater and seawater. Am. M id l . Nat. 28(2) :305-326.

Gunter, G. 1945. S tud ies on mar ine f i s h e s o f Texas. Publ. I n s t . Mar. Sc i . Univ . Tex. l ( 1 ) : l - 1 9 0 .

Gunter, G. 1947. Observat ions on breedina o f t h e mar ine c a t f i s h . ~ a l e i c h i h s f e l i s ( ~ i n n a e u s ) : 4 2 1 7 - 2 2 3 .

Gunter, G., and G.E. H a l l . 1963. B i o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e S t . Luc ie es tuary ( F l o r i d a ) i n connec t ion w i t h Lake Okeechobee d ischarges through the St . Luc ie Canal. G u l f Res. Rep. 1(5) :189- 307.

Gunter, G., and G.E. H a l l . 1965. A b i o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e Cal oosahathee es tuary o f F l o r i d a . G u l f Res. Rep. 2(1):1-71.

Halstead, B.W., L.S. Kumimobu, and H.G. Hebard. 1953. C a t f i s h s t i n g s and t h e venom apparatus o f t h e Mexican c a t f i s h , Ga le ich thys f e l i s (L inneaus) . Trans. Am. Mic rosc . SOC. 72(4) :297-314.

Ha r r i s , A.H., , and C.D. Rose. 1968. Shrimp p reda t i on by the sea ca t - f i s h , Ga le ich thys f e l i s . Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 97(4) :503-504.

Harvey, E.J. 1972. Observat ions on the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t he sea c a t - f i s h A r i us f e l i s l a r v a e w i t h and w i t h o u t chor ion, w i t h r espec t t o s a l i n i t y i n t he B i l o x i B a y - M i s s i s s i p p i Sound Area. Miss. Acad. Sc i . 17:77.

Haskel l , W.A. 1961. Gu l f o f Mexico t r a w l f i s h e r y f o r i n d u s t r i a l species. Commer. Fish. Rev. 23(2):1-6.

H e l l i e r , T.R., J r . 1962. F i s h pro- duc t i on and biomass s tud ies i n r e l a t i o n t o pho tosyn thes is i n t he

Laguna Madre of Texas. Publ . I n s t . Mar. Sc i . Univ. Tex. 8: 1-22.

Hoese, H.D. 1966. Ec toparas i t i s m by j u v e n i l e sea c a t f i s h , Ga le ich thys f e l i s . Copeia 4 ~ 8 0 0 - 8 K -

Hoese, H.D., and R.H. Moore. 1977. F ishes o f t h e G u l f o f Mexico, Texas, Lou is iana and ad jacen t waters . Texas A 81 M. U n i v e r s i t y Press. 140 pp.

Hoese, H.D., S.J. Copeland, F.N. Moseley, and E.D. Lane. 1968. Fauna o f t h e Aransas Pass I n l e t , Texas. 111. Die1 and seasonal v a r i a t i o n s i n t r a w l a b l e organisms o f t h e ad jacen t area. Texas J. S c i . 20:33-60.

Jackson, G.A. 1972. A s p o r t f i s h i n g survey o f B i l o x i Bay and t h e ad jacen t M i s s i s s i p p i Sound. M.S. Thes is . M i s s i s s i p p i S t a t e Uni - v e r s i ty, M i s s i s s i p p i S ta te . 101 pp.

Jones, P.W., F.D. Ma r t i n , and J.D. Hardy, J r . 1978. Development o f f i s h e s i n t h e m i d - A t l a n t i c b i g h t . An a t l a s o f egg, l a r v a l , and j u v e n i l e stages. Ac ipenser idae through I c t a l u r i d a e . U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Serv ice . B i o l . Serv. Program FWS/OBS-78/12. Vol . I : 301-307.

Juneau, C.L., J r . 1975. An i n v e n t o r y and s tudy o f t h e Ve rm i l i on Bay - A t cha fa l aya Bay Complex. La. W i l d l . F ish . Comm. Oysters, Water Bottoms, Seafoods Div . Tech. B u l l . 13. 153 pp.

Juneau, C.L., J r . , and J . F. P o l l a r d . 1981. A survey o f t h e r ec re - a t i o n a l shr imp and f i n f i s h ha r ves t s o f t h e Ve rm i l i on Bay area and t h e i r impact on commer- c i a l f i s h e r y resources. La. Dep.

W i l d l . F ish . Tech. B u l l . 33. 40 PP.

K e l l e y , J.R., J r . 1965. A taxonomic survey o f t h e f i shes o f D e l t a Na t i ona l W i l d l i f e Refuge w i t h emphasis upon d i s t r i b u t i o n and abundance. M.S. Thes is . L o u i s i - ana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Baton Rouge. 133 pp.

Landry, A.M., J r . , and K. Strawn. 1973. Annual c y c l e of s p o r t - f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y a t a warmwater d ischarge i n t o Gal veston Bay, Texas. Trans. Am. F ish . Soc. 102(3) :573-577.

Lee, G. 1937. Ora l g e s t a t i o n i n t h e mar ine c a t f i s h , Ga le ich thys f e l i s . Copeia:49-56.

Mansuet i , A.J., and J.D. Hardy, J r . 1967. A r i idae-sea c a t f i s h . Pages 155-157 i n E.E. Deubler , J r . , ed. ~ e v e l o p m z t o f f i s h e s o f t h e Chesapeake Bay r eg i on . P a r t I. Nat. Res. I n s t . U n i v e r s i t y of Maryland.

McClane, A .J . , e d i t o r . 1965. McClane's s tandard f i s h i n g ency- c l opedia and i n t e r n a t i o n a l angl i n g guide. Hol t, R ineha r t and Winston, New York. 1057 pp.

Merriman, D. 1940. Morpho log ica l and embryo1 o g i c a l s t u d i e s on two s ~ e c i e s -of mar ine c a t f i s h . Baare - - mar inus and G a l e i c h t h s f e l i s . Zoo log ica 25(13+ --

Moore, D., H.A. Brusher , and L. T r e n t . 1970. Re1 a t i v e abundance, seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n , and spec ies compos i t i on o f demersal f i s h e s o f f Lou i s i ana and Texas, 1962-1964. Con t r ib . Mar. Sc i . 15: 45-70.

P e r r e t , W.S., and C.W. C a i l l o u e t , J r . 1974. Abundance and s i z e o f f i s h e s taken by t r a w l i n g i n

Venni l i o n Bay, Lou is iana . B u l l . Mar. Sci . 24(1) :52-74.

Pe r re t , W.S., R.B. B a r r e t t , W.R. La tap ie , J.F. Po l l a rd , W.R. Mock, G.B. Adkins, W.J. Gaidry, and C. J. White. 1971. Cooperat ive G u l f o f Mexico e s t u a r i n e inven- t o r y and s tudy, Lou is iana . Phase I. Area d e s c r i p t i o n by Pe r re t , W.S. Phase 11. B io l ogy p. 31-69. La. W i l d l . F ish . Comm. 171 pp.

l a t a n i a , S.P., and S.W. Ross. 1980. A r i u s f e l i s (L innaeus) hardhead c a t f i s h p a g e 476 in D.S. Lee, C.R. G i l b e r t , C.H. Hocutt , R.E. Jenkins, D.E. M c A l l i s t e r , and J.R. S t a u f f e r , J r . , eds. A t l a s o f Nor th American f reshwater f i s h e s . N.C. S t a t e Mus. Nat. His t . , B i o l . Surv. Publ. No. 1980-12.

P r i s t a s , P.J., and L. Trent . 1978. Seasonal abundance, s ize, and sex r a t i o o f f i s h e s caught i n g i l l - ne t s i n St. Andrew Bay, F l o r i d a . B u l l . Mar. Sc i . 28(3) :581-589.

Ragan, J.G., E.J. Melancon, A.H. H a r r i s , R.N. Falgout , J.D. Gann, and J.H. Green. 1978. Bottom- f i s h e s o f t h e Con t i nen ta l Shelf o f f Louis iana. N i c h o l l s S t a t e Univ . P r o f . Pap. Ser. ( B i o l . ) 2. 34 PP.

Reid, G.K. 1957. B i o l o g i c and hydro- g raph ic adjustment i n a d i s t u r b e d g u l f coas t es tuary . L imnol . Oceanogr. 2 (3 ) : 198-212.

Reid, G.K., A. I n g l i s , and H.D. Hoese. 1956. Summer foods o f some f i s h species i n East Bay, Texas. Southwest Nat. l ( 3 ) : 100-104.

Roessler , M.A. 1970. C h e c k l i s t o f f i s h e s i n Buttonwood Canal, Ever- g lades Nat iona l Park, F l o r i da , and observa t ions on t h e seasonal occurrence and 1 i f e h i s t o r i e s o f se lec ted species.

B u l l . Mar. Sc i . G u l f Caribb. 20 ( 4 ) :850-893.

Roi thrnayr, C.M. 1965. I n d u s t r i a l bo t t omf i sh f i s h e r y o f t h e n o r t h e r n G u l f o f Mexico, 1959'-63. U.S. F ish W i l d l . Serv. Spec. Sc i . Rep. F i s h 518:l-18.

Rounsefel 1 , G.A. 1964. Preconstruc- t i o n s tudy o f t he f i s h e r i e s o f t h e e s t u a r i n e areas t raversed by t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i ve r - G u l f O u t l e t P r o j e c t . U.S. F i sh W i l d l . Serv. Fish. B u l l . 63 (3 ) :373-393.

Shipp, R.L. 1981. Summary o f know- ledge o f fo rage f i s h species i n Mob i l e Bay and v i c i n i t y . Pages 167-176. fi H.A. Loyacano, J r . , and J.P. Smith, eds. Symposium on t he n a t u r a l resources o f t h e Mob i le Estuary, Alabama. May 1979,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobi le, A la.

Swingle, H.A. 1971. B i o l o g y o f Alabama es tua r i ne areas - Cooper- a t i v e Gul f o f Mexico e s t u a r i n e inven to ry . A1 a. Mar. Resour. B u l l . 5. 123 pp.

Swingle, H.A., and D.B. Bland. 1974. A s tudy o f t he f i s h e s o f t h e coas ta l water courses o f Alabama. Ala. Mar. Resour. B u l l . 10:17- 102.

Tabb, D.C. , and R.B. Manning. 1961. A c h e c k l i s t o f t h e f l o r a and fauna o f Nor thern F l o r i d a Bay and adja- cen t b rack i sh waters o f t h e F l o r i d a main land c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the pe r i od J u l y 1957 through September 1960. B u l l . Mar. Sc i . G u l f and Caribb. l l ( 4 ) : 552-649.

Tarver, J.W., and L.B. Savoie. 1976. An i n v e n t o r y and s tudy o f t h e Lake P o n t c h a r t r a i n - Lake Maurepas es tua r i ne complex. Phase I 1 B io logy . La. W i l d l . F ish . Comm. Oysters, Water Bottoms, and Sea- foods D i v . Tech. B u l l . 19:7-99.

Tavol g a y C.I.IV. 1962. Mechanisms of sound o r o d u c t i o n i n t h e a r i i d c a t f i s h e s G a l e i c h t h y s and Bagre. B u l l . Am. Nat. H i s t . 124(1):1-30.

Tavol g a y W. N. 1971. Acous t i c o r i e n - t a t i o n i n t h e sea c a t f i s h , Gal e i c h t h y s f e l i s . Ann. N.Y. Acad. S c i . 188:80-97.

Tavolga, W.N. 1977. Mechanisms f o r d i r e c t i o n a l h e a r i n a i n t h e sea c a t f i s h ( A r i u s f e l 7 s ) . J. Exp. B i o l . 67:97-115.

Topp, R. 1963. The t a g g i n g 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. P r o f . Pap. Ser. 5. 60 pp.

U n i t e d S t a t e s Department o f Commerce. 1959-1967. F i s h e r y s t a t i s t i c s of

t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . S t a t i s t i c a l D i g e s t 65.

Wade, C.W. 1977. Survey of t h e A la- bama mar ine r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r y . A l a . Mar. Resour. B u l l . 12: l -22.

Wang, R.T., and J.A.C. N i c o l . 1977. E f f e c t s o f f u e l o i l on sea c a t - f i s h : feed ing a c t i v i t y and c a r d i a c responses. B u l l . Env i ron . Contam. Tox ic01 . 18(2 ) : 170-176.

Ward, J.W. 1957. The r e p r o d u c t i o n and e a r l y development o f t h e sea c a t - f i s h , G a l e i c h t h s f e l i s , i n t h e B i 1 o x i d P p n a y . Copeia 4:295-298.

Z i 1 berberg, M.H. 1966. Seasonal occur rence of f i s h i n a c o a s t a l marsh o f Nor thwes t F l o r i d a . Publ . I n s t . Mar. S c i . Univ. Tex. 126- 134.

1 0 2 7 2 -101

REPORT DOCUMENTATION .';'EmRT NO. 1 3. Recipient's Accers~on NO

PAGE 1 FWSIOBS-82/11.5 * I

9. Pcr lonning Organization N a m e and Address

M i s s i s s i ~ ~ i Cooperative F ish and Wild1 i f e Research U n i t

. . I I I

4. Title and Subtltlc I 5. Repon Date Species P r o f i l e s : L i f e H i s t o r i e s and Environmental Requirements I October 1983

142 orm mail H a l l ' M i ss i s s i pp i S ta te U n i v e r s i t y M i ss i s s i pp i State, MS 39762

3 f Coastal Fishes and Inver tebra tes (Gulf of Mexico) -- Sea C a t f i s h i n d Ga f f t opsa i l C a t f i s h - 7. Author(s)

Robert J. Muncy and W i l l i am M. Wingo I -

10. Pro,ect/Task/Work Unit No.

,

8. Pedormtng Organizatmon Rept. NO

*U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers r e p o r t No. TR EL-82-4

12. S w n s o r i n g Organization N a m e and Address

Nat ional Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers F i sh and W i l d l i f e Serv ice Waterways Experiment S t a t i o n U.S. Department o f t he I n t e r i o r P.O. Box 631 Washington, DC 20240 Vicksburg, MS 39180

16. Abstract (Limit: ZW words)

Species p r o f i l e s a re l i t e r a t u r e summaries o f t he taxonomy, morphology, range, l i f e h i s t o r y , and environmental requirements o f coas ta l aquat ic species. They a re designed t o a s s i s t i n environmental impact assessment. Sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h a re n o t - p r e f e r r e d s p o r t no r commercial f i s h ; however, t h e i r h i gh abundance inshore a long t he nor thern Gu l f o f Mexico causes them t o rank 2nd o r 3 rd and no lower than 13 th o f a l l sa l twa te r f i n f i s h i n ang le r surveys. Sea c a t f i s h comprised l e s s than 2% i n i n d u s t r i a l bottom t raw l f i s h e r i e s a l though surveys i n depths t o 20 m revealed they comprised 2% t o 36%, by weight, o f t he bottom f i shes . Sea c a t f i s h a t t a i n sexual m a t u r i t y before 2 years o f age, and spawn from May t o August i n shal low bays. Adu l t males do n o t feed f o r 60 t o 80 days w h i l e c a r r y i n g f e r t i l i z e d eggs and sac - f r y i n t h e i r mouths. Juveni les remain i n l o w - s a l i n i t y es tua r i es u n t i l decreasing water temperatures cause movements i n t o deeper channels and o f f sho re waters. Adu l t f i s h p r e f e r water temperatures above 250C bu t remain inshore a t temperatures above 10oC. Sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h have been c o l l e c t e d from waters w i t h s a l i n i t i e s ranging from 0 t o 30 ppt , bu t p r e f e r water s a l i n i t i e s above 10 ppt . Water depth preferences o f sea c a t f i s h and g a f f t o p s a i l c a t f i s h appear r e l a t e d t o water temperature, s a l i n i t y , and bottom subst ra te. As juven i les , both species are oppo r t un i s t i c feeders u t i l i z i n g microcrustaceans, and as adu l t s , they feed upon d e t r i t u s , microcrustaceans, and l a r g e r inver tebra tes . Blue crabs and shrimp a re considered major food items.

13. Type of Repen B Period Covered

14.

L7. Document Analysis a. Descriptors

Estuar ies F i shes Growth Feeding

15. Supplementary Notes

b. ldent l f@en/Open-Ended Terms

Sea c a t f i s h S a l i n i t y requirements Ar ius f e l i s -- Temperature requirements Ga f f t opsa i l c a t f i s h Hab i t a t requirements Barge marinus L i f e h i s t o r y

c COSATI Fleld/Group

8. Avanlab8lrty Statement , 19 Security Class (This Repor t ' 1 2 1 NO of pager

Unl i m i t ed , U n w s i f i e d 17 -- 20 Security Class (This Page) ' 22 Price

Unc lass i f i ed ?e A N S I - Z 3 9 . i E j OPTIONAL FORM 2 7 2 (4-77

(Formerly NTIS-251 Department of Commerce

REGION 1 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lloyd Five Hundred Building, Suite 1692 500 N.E. Multnornah Street Portland, Oregon 97232

REGION 4 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Richard B. Russell Building 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303

REGION 2 REGION 3 Regional Director Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1306 Federal Building, Fort Snelling Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 103 Twin Cities, Minnesota 55 1 1 1

REGION 5 REGION 6 Regional Director Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service One Gateway Center P.O. Box 25486 Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158 Denver Federal Center

Denver, Colorado 80225

REGION 7 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 101 1 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH 1 0 WILDLIFE SERVICE

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has respon- sibility 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 theenvironmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical 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.