Biological Report 82/11.83y/ WZ ~IR-EL-82-4 3

August 1988

Species Profiles: Life Histories and D IEnvironmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes ELE -I-Fand Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) OT0418

0 RED SNAPPER

DsTRIBTION 5TATF~vENTA

Df 'iubuo- I Coastal Ecology GroupFish and Wildlife Service W--~aerways Experiment Station

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(7

Biological Report 81.3Y.'TR EL-82-4-August 1988

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

* RED SNAPPER

by

David MoranU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wetlands Research Center1010 Gause BoulevardSlidell, LA 70458

Project OfficerDavid Morais

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Wetlands Research Center

Performed forCoastal Ecology Group

Waterways Experiment StationU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Vicksburg, MS 39180

U.S. Department of the InteriorFish and Wildlife ServiceResearch and Development

National Wetlands Research CenterWashington, DC 25240

This series may be referenced as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983-19 . Species profiles: life historiesand environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates. U.S. FishWildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

This profile may be cited as follows:

Moran, D. 1988. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirp-ments of coastal fishes and invertebrat>, (Gulf uf Mexico)--red snapper. U.S.Fish h"'X2 u rv. 3io. Rep. 82(11.83). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 0

TR EL-82-4. 19 pp.

--.. .,.,, ,i,, ,s am ill llili l l l i I I0

PREFACE

This species profile is one of a series on coastal aquatic organisms,principally fish, of sport, commercial, or ecological importance. The profilesare designed to provide coastal managers, engineers, and biologists with a briefcomprehensive sketch of the biological characteristics and environmentalrequirements of the species and to describe how populations of the species may beexpected to react to environmental changes caused by coastal development. Eachprofile has sections on taxonomy, life history, ecological role, environmentalrequirements, and economic importance, if applicable. A three-ring binder isused for this series so that new profiles can be added as they are prepared.This project is jointly planned and financed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Suggestions or questions regarding this report should he directed to one ofthe following addresses.

Information Transfer SpecialistNational Coastal Ecosystems TeamU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNASA-Slidell Computer Complex1010 Gause BoulevardSlidell, LA 70458

or

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment StationAttention: WESER-CPost Office Box 631Vicksburg, MS 39180

iii

CONVERSION TABLE

Metric to U.S. Customary

Multiply BY to Obtain

millimeters (mm) 0.03937 inches Gcentimeters (cm) 0.3937 inchesmeters (i) 3.281 feet

meters (m) 0.5468 fathomskilometers (km) 0.6214 statute mileskilometers (km) 0.5396 nautical miles

square meters (m2 ) 10.76 square feetsquare kilometers (km2 ) 0.3861 square mileshectare (ha) 2.471 acres

liters (1) 0.2642 gallonscubic meters (M3 ) 35.31 cubic feetcubic meters (m) 0.0008110 acre-feet

milligrams (mg) 0.00003527 ouncesgrams (g) 0.03527 ounces 0kilograms (kg) 2.205 poundsmetric tons (t) 2205.0 poundsmetric tons (t) 1.102 short tons

kilocalories (kcal) 3.968 British thermal unitsCelsius degrees (°C) 1.8(°C) + 32 Fahrenheit degrees

U.S. Customary to Metric

inches 25.40 millimetersinches 2.54 centimetersfeet (ft) 0.3048 metersfathoms 1.829 metersstatute miles (mi) 1.609 kilometersnautical miles (nmi) 1.852 kilometers

square feet (ft2 ) 0.0929 square meterssquare miles (mi2 ) 2.590 square kilometersacres 0.4n47 hectares

gallons (gal) 3.785 literscubic feet (ft') 0.02831 cubic metersacre-feet 1233.0 cubic meters

ounces (Oz) 28350.0 milligramsouncps (oz) 28.35 gramspound& (lb) 0.4536 kilograms

short tons (ton) 0.9072 metric tons

British thermal units (Btu) 0.2520 kilocaloriesFahreiheit degrees (°F) 0.5556 (oF - 32) Celsius degrees

iv

O

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE.................................................................... iiiCONVERSION TABLE............................................................ ivFIGURES..................................................................... viTABLES ....................................................................... viiACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................. vi1i

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

Distinguishing Characters of Red Snapper.................................. 1Distinguishing Characters of Similar Species from the Same

General Area............................................................ 3REASONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE SERIES......................................... 3LIFE HISTORY................................................................ 3Spawning.................................................................. 3Eggs...................................................................... 4Larvae.................................................................... 4Juveniles and Adults........................................................4Movement.................................................................. 5

GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS...................................................... 5FISHERIES................................................................... 7

Commercial Fishery........................................................ 8Sport Fishery............................................................. 11

ECOLOGICAL ROLE............................................................. 12Feeding Habits............................................ ............... 12 4Competition, Predation, and Parasitism................................... 13

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS............................................ ..... 13Temperature and Salinity.................................................. 13Habitat................................................................... 13Depth .................................................................... 13-

Contaminants................................ ............................. 14

REFERENCES.................................................................. 15

Accession ForNTIS Q.RL&I

DTIC TARUnrinnounced F

DTIC Dlstribut ion/

coSpy v i Availability Cods

IE1st Special

FIGURES

Number Page

1 Adult red snapper Lutjanus campechanus .......................... 1

2 Distribution of juvenile and adult red snapper inthe Gulf of Mexico ....... ...................................... 2

3 Commercial and sport fishing grounds for red snapperin the Gulf of Mexico ........................................... 9

4 Annual commercial landings of red snapper (in millionsof pounds) in Florida and Alabama, 1880-1985 .................... 10

5 Annual commercial landings of red snapper (in millionsof pounds) in Louisiana and Texas, 1880-1985 .................... 10

6 Annual commercial landings of red snapper (in millionsof pounds) in Mississippi, 1880-1985 ............................ 11

vi

TABLES

Number Page

1 Estimated length and age at maturity of red snapper

in the Gulf of Mexico .......................................... 4

2 Spawning periods of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico .......... 5

3 Length (mm) at age (years) of red snapper in fourregions of the Gulf of Mexico .................................. 6

4 Length (mm)-weight (g) relations for red snapper ............... 7

5 Recreational catch of red snapper (thousands of fish)in the Gulf States, 1979-85 .................................... 12

6 Prey items found in the greatest frequency of occurrencein juvenile and adult red snapper and the greatest volumein juveniles in the Gulf of Mexico ............................. 13

Prey items found in stomachs of juvenile and adult redsnapper in the Gulf of Mexico .................................. 14

v

vii

.. .. ...... ... . . . -- - -- -. , .,.. ,.. ..,,.m a, nm m mmn m m~ ,, ... .. 0

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for reviews by Russell Nelson, Florida Marine Fisheries Com-mission, Tallahassee; Charles Manooch III, National Marine Fisheries Service,Beaufort, North Carolina; and John Finucane, Churchill Grimes, and Allan Collinsof the National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, Florida.

0

viii

.0

20.5 cm

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

RED SNAPPER

NOMENCLATURE/TAXONOMY/RANGE and Vergara-R. (1978). Anderson sdescription includes fish that are

Scientific name... Lutjanus campechanus Caribbean red snapper, LutPreferred common name .... Red snapper purpureus, which he considered to e

(Figure 1) conspecific with L. campechanus; heOther common names ........ Sow snapper, suggested the name L. aa for the

rat snapper (northwest coast of composite. The name L. blackfordii is SFlorida); mule snapper, chicken an obsolete name for the red snapper.snapper (northeast coast of Flori-da); gulf red snapper, American red Distinguishing Characterssnapper of Red Snapper

Class ..................... OsteichthyesOrder ...................... Perciformes Dorsal fin IX-X spines, usually X,Family ...................... Lutjanidae 13-15 soft rays, usually 14; anal fin

III-IV, usually I1, 8-10, usually 9;Geographic range: the continental pectoral fin rays 15-18, usually 17;

shelves bordering the Gulf of Mexico scales on lateral line usually 45-47;(Figure 2) and the Atlantic Coast as gill rakers on lower limb of anteriorfar north as Cape Hatteras, North arch (excluding rudiments) 9. HeadCarolina; not reported in the Carib- large; lower jaw projecting slightlybean Sea (Rivas 1966, 1970). beyond upper; snout somewhat pointed;

eyes small, contained more than 6.5times in head length; interorbital

MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS region convex in the transverse plane;anchor-shaped patch of strong teeth on

The following descriptions are taken roof of mouth, a posterior medianfrom Rivas (1966), Anderson (1967), extension of the patch moderately S

1

1-4

0 '0GJ

'L. i U

0 Zn

00

o

4-)

=3

Cu~

LL.

developed. Pectoral fins long, REASONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE SERIESreaching to anus when pressed againstbody; anal fin angulate in specimens The red snapper is the most impor-longer than 50 mm; margin of caudal tant fish in the commercial snapper-fin deeply notched. grouper fishery between Cape San Blas,

Florida, and the mouth of the RioColor: back and upper sides brick Grande (Allen and Tashiro 1976); 4.6

red to scarlet; lower sides and belly million lb were landed commercially atrose-colored to white, especially in U.S. ports in the Gulf of Mexico infront. Iris of eye red. Dark spot on 1985 (National Marine Fisheries Serv-upper area of each side below dnterior ice 1986, unpubl. data). The redsoft dorsal fin rays, disappearing in snapper ranked 19th in number of fishspecimens over 250 mm long. caught among groups of sport fish forOccasional bluish stripes on sides of which statistics were recorded in thejuveniles. Gulf of Mexico in 1985; about 2

million red snapper were caught byDistinguishing Characters of Similar sport fishermen in the gulf that yearSpecies from tie Same General Area (National Marine Fisheries Service

1986a).Lutjanus vivanus (silk snapper):

body color plnk--to red; iris of eye LIFE HISTORYyello..i; 8 soft rays in anal fin.

Lutjanis analis (mutton snapper): Spawning

tooth patcF on roof of mouth Red snapper usually show partialchevron-shaped, without a posterior sexual maturity when 1 year old andextension; back, upper sides, and show full maturity when about 2 yearsupper lobe of caudal fin olive green; old and 375 mm in fork length (FL)two blue stripes on snout and cheek; (Table 1).dark Fpot on each side below soft raysof dorsal fin persisting throughout In general, red snapper spawn inlife. summer and fall in the Gulf of Mexico.

They have one peak spawning period inLut'anis purpureus (Caribbean red Florida waters and two peaks in Texas

snapper): occurring only in the waters (Table 2).Caribbean Sea and in the Atlanticcoastal wat rs of South America. Individual fish probably spawn sev-

eral times during the spawning seasonAll other species of Lutjanus: anal (several egg stages occur simultane-

fin rounded and color patterns dif- ously in the ovaries); the protractedferent from L. campechanus. spawning season and variation in

gonadosomatic indices in fish of simi-Pristipomoides dquilonaris (wench- lar size during the season are consis-

man): back and upper sides rose to tent with this hypothesis (Collins etpink; interorbital region flat; snout al. 1987).short and blunt; tooth patch on roofof mouth triangular or chevron-shaped, The fish spawn primarily away fromwithout a posterior extension; only reefs (Bradley and Bryan 1975).10-11 soft rays in dorsal fin. Spawning was reported at depths of

18-37 m over a firm sand bottom withRhomboplites aurorubens (vermilion little relief (Beaumariage and Bullock

snapper): back and upper sides 1976).vermilion; tooth patch on roof ofmouth rhomboid; dorsal fin XII to Fecundity of fish sampled in north-XIII, 10-11. west Florida ranged from 0.2 million

3

Table 1. Estimated length and aye at maturity of red snapper in the Gulf ofMexico.

Age at Age at Length at Length at Totalpartial full partial full fishmatuvity maturity maturity maturity sampled Reference

1a b 325 mm(FL)a b b Camber (19 55 )c

b 2 b 375 mm(FL) 298 Collins et al.(1986) and Nelsonand Manooch

(1982) d,e

b 2 b b 559 Futch andfBruger(1976) e,T

aFemales.bNo data.CdMaturity was determined by macroscopic examination of ovaries.aAge was determined mostly from scale annuli. Maturity was determined by macro-scopic and microscopic examination of ovaries and calculation of the gonadoso-matic index.

eThe monthly distribution of marginal incremental growth beyond the last annulusfwas used to determine that annuli are formed annually.Age was determined from otolith annuli. Maturity was determined by macroscopicexamination of ovaries.

eggs for a female about 3 years old al. (1980). The larvae began activelyand 386 mm FL to 9.3 million for a feeding on culture of alga andfish about 12 years old and 754 mm FL rotifers 3 days after hatching and(Collins et al. 1987). were 2.5 mm SL 4 days after hatching

(Raibalais et al. 1980). LutjanidEggs larvae collected in the field could be

identified only to family by CollinsRed snapper eggs average 0.82 mm in et al. (1980), who also reported that

diameter (range: 0.77-0.85 mm). The the head was proportionately large andegg is pelagic, spherical, unpig- head length was about equal to bodymented, and transparent, and has a depth for red snapper larvae andsingle oil globule (Raibalais et al. juveniles 4-22 mm SL.1980). In the laboratory, initialhatching began 20 h after fertiliza-tion (Minton et al. 1983), and about Juveniles and Adults50% of the eggs hatched within 25 h offertilization (Raibalais et al. 1980). The peak abundance of juveniles is 0

in shallower water (20-46 m deep) thanLarvae the peak density of adults (Figure 2;

Bradley and Bryan 1975). Juvenile redNewly hatched larvae in the labora- snapper were caught in trawls on the

tory averaged 2.2 mm in standard Texas shrimp grounds (Bradley andlength (SL) according to Raibalais et Bryan 1975).

4

. .. . , ,Mmo~mmem m n m ln mg i m ~ ilml~iil nl| ° i i0

Table 2. Spawning periods of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.

NumberSpawning of fish

Region season(s) Peak sampled Reference

Texas May to July and May to July 569 Bradley andNovember to and November Bryan 197 6a

December

West Florida July to October August to 314 Futch and BrugerSeptember 1976 a

Northwest Florida May to September July 729 Collins et al.

1986b

bOn the basis of macroscopic examination of ovaries.On the basis of gonadosomatic index and both macroscopic and microscopic exami-nation of ovaries.

Instantaneous natural mortality (M) 1966; Moe 19C3; Beaumariage 1969).was estimated to be 0.19 in WestFlorida and 0.20 in Louisiana by GROWTH CHARACTERISTICSNelson and Manooch (1982). They alsoreported that instantaneous total Red snapper initially grow quicklymortality (Z) was estimated at 0.78 or and then growth slows steadily as0.94 in Louisiana (depending on the larger size associated with long lifemethod of calculation) and 0.42 or span expectancy is reached. They grow0.44 along the west coast of Florida. from 137-177 mm TL at age 1 to 538-546They determined Z by sampling mm TL at age 5 and 784-794 mm TL atcommercial catches. age 11 (Table 3). They may reach 845

mm FL and 12 kg (Bradley and BryanMovement 1975) and an age of about 13 years

(Nelson and Manooch 1982). VariationAdult red snapper remain in their is considerable but is similar at each

reef habitations during cooler months. age, probably because of the protrac-Tagging studies generally indicate ted spawning season (Futch and Brugerlittle movement, particularly when the 1976). Red snapper ages were deter-fish are released in water less than mined with similar results using14 m deep (Topp 1963; Beaumariage and otoliths, scales, and vertebrae ofWittich 1966; Beaumariage and Bullock fish off Alabama (Bortone and1976; Fable 1980). Adult red snapper Hollingsworth 1980), and usingsometimes move close to shore in sum- otoliths and scales of fish off themer; they were collected in trawls in Carolinas (Nelson and Manooch 1982).the lower parts of the St. Andrew Bay Scale annulus formation off the U.S.system, Florida, in summer and fall gulf coast is complete by early summerbut not in winter and spring (Ogren for fish ages 2 and older (Parrackand Brusher 1977). Occasional tagged 1986a).adults were caught 5-150 nmi from thepoint of release after 29-1,163 days In the gulf, underyearling fish grewof freedom (Beaumariage and Wittich 25 mm/month in August and September

5

S

Table 3. Length (mm) at age (years) of red snapper in four regions of theGulf of Mexico.

Northwestern gulf a Louisianabc Alabamabd Western Floridabc

Age SL Age TL Age TL Age TL

0+ 100 1 137 1 168 1 1771+ 250 2 267 2 239 2 2982+ 350 3 379 3 321 3 3903+ 425 4 469 4 401 4 4704+ 575 5 546 5 535 5 538

6 613 6 631 6 5977 665 7 749 7 6428 707 8 835 8 6759 751 9 843 9 723

10 783 10 76211 794 11 78412 89113 906

aMoseley (1966). Most fish were taken in winter. Age was determined from

scale annuli. Lengths include part-year increments after formation of the

blast annulus. Total sample size was 243 fish.

cBack-calculated lengths.Nelson and Manooch (1982). Age was usually determined from scales (sometimesalso from otoliths). Total sample size was 443 fish for western Florida and

d402 fish for Louisiana.Wade (1981). Age was determined from scale annuli. Total sample size was238.

according to Bradley and Bryan (1975). length relations show a high linearAnnual growth of fish of ages I to IV correlation (Parrack 1986b).or V in the gulf ranged from 60 to 75mm (Bradley and Bryan 1975) to 90 mm Length-weight relations calculated(Moseley 1966). for several areas in the gulf were

similar (Table 4; Parrack 1986b). TheThe relations of SL to FL and FL to length-weight relation changed at

TL (lengths in mm) and N (sample size) 190-300 mm SL (Moseley 1966).were reported by Futch and Bruger(1976) as follows:

Nelson and Manooch (1982) reportedFL = 1.1585 SL + 13.3 (N = 21) von Bertalanffy growth equations forTL = 1.0678 FL + 3.5 (N = 100). fish from two areas in the gulf as

follows (Lt = TL in mm and t = age inNelson and Manooch (1982) reported the years):following relation: Louisiana:

TL = 1.0712 FL + 1.7 (N = 180). Lt = 950(1-e - 0 )

Additional length-length relations are West Florida:given in Parrack (1986b). Length- Lt = 941(1-e0170(t+ 1))

6

Table 4. Length (mm)-weight (g) relations for red snapper.

Region Equation Reference

West Florida log 1oW = 2.966 log 1OFL - 4.7399 Nelson and Manooch (1982)

a

Florida Males: log 1oW = 3.008 logoFL - 4.8104 Futch and Bruger (19 76)b

Females: log 1oW = 3.028 log1oFL - 4.8618

Alabama log 1oW = 3.0092 log 1oTL - 4.8539 Wade (1981)c

Texas log 1oW = 2.885 logloFL - 4.483 Wakeman et al. (1979)d

Campeche (for fish log 1oW = 3.01 logoFL - 4.7921 Camber (19 55)e

90-190 mm FL)

= 143. cN =722. eN not given.bN = 240. N= 90.

They found that the von Bertalanffy Fishing mortality in the gulf variesgrowth curves for Louisiana, western with location. Nelson and ManoochFlorida, eastern Florida, and the Car- (1982) estimated instantaneous fishingolinas differed statistically, as did mortality to be 0.58 or 0.74 inthe length-weight relations for fish Louisiana (depending on the method offrom west Florida, east Florida, and calculation) and 0.23 or 0.25 in westthe Carolinas. However, the differ- Florida. Mean age of the total catchences in growth curves were small and was less in Louisiana (2.4 years) thanthe differences in length-weight in west Florida (4.1 years), possiblycurves had little if any biological because of the heavier fishing pres-significance. Parrack (1986a) sure in Louisiana. Fishing mortalityreported differences in growth curves was higher in Louisiana partly becausebetween fish west of and fish east of the fishing reefs are closer to shorethe Mississippi Delta. This differ- there and thus more accessible (Nelsonence was inconclusive, however (Reef and Manooch 1982).Fish Scientific Task Team and SpecialScientific and Statistical Committee About 2,300 oil production platforms1987). off the Louisiana coast enhance

snapper fishing by providing three-dimensional habitat (St. Amant 1976);

FISHERIES it has not been determined if artifi-cial habitat primarily increases or

Snappers are especially vulnerable mostly just redistributes adult popu-to fishermen because, during cooler lations.months, the fish will remain in afishing area (reef habitat) until it The total standing stock for allis overfished (Duffy 1970), and species of snappers along the Southsometimes rise to the surface and Atlantic and gulf coasts of the Unitedsnap at bare hooks or whatever is States was estimated at 350 million lboffered--hence the name "snapper" (Klima 1976). Red snapper landings(Stearns 1885). were worth about 1% of the value of

7

all finfish landed commercially in the the principal grounds fished by theUnited States in 1985 (National Marine west Florida fleet (Camber 1955;Fisheries Service 1986b). The number Hildebrand 1955). Fishing there byof red snapper caught by sport fisher- American boats has been curtailed,men was about 1% of the total number however, since the extension ofof fish of all species caught in the Mexico's fishery conservation zone torecreational fisheries of the Atlantic the 200-mi limit (Deborah Fable,and gulf coasts in 1985 (National National Marine Fisheries Service,Marine Fisheries Service 1986a). Panama City, Florida; pers. comm.).

Red snapper landings from foreign

Commercial Fishery waters have composed less than 13% ofthe total U.S. landings since 1973(Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Snappers and groupers are often Council 1981).taken together in the snapper-grouperfishery. Various fishing methods for Western Florida landings variedsnappers and groupers have been used widely over the years (Figure 4;or tested over the years. Most com- Camber 1955). They increased progres-mercial fishing is done with baited sively as the fishery developed fromhooks and lines on electric and hy- 1880 to 1902, stabilized as thedraulic reels which were too expensive Campeche Banks were exploited duringuntil recently (Churchill Grimes, 1902-28, dropped with reduced effortNational Marine Fisheries Service, during the Great Depression ofPanama City, Florida; pers. comm.). 1929-35, increased again as the(These are all classified as handlines economy began to recover in 1936-39,in National Marine Fisheries Service declined markedly with reduced effortfishery statistics.) From 2 to 40 from 1939 to 1945 during World War II,hooks may be used with one reel (Allen and then began to recover again aroundand Tashiro 1976). Ladyfish and squid 1946 (Figure 4; Camber 1955).are the most effective bait (Carpenter1965); red snapper select fish and In the early 1960's, large numberssquid equally often (Futch and Bruger of commercial vessels were built to1976). The industry has experimented fish for snappers and grouperswith other fishing methods, but many (Carpenter 1965). The average numberwere deficient; an otter trawl adapted of handline vessels in westernfor rough bottoms was effective, how- Florida was 180 in 1957-60; increasedever (Smith 1948; Captiva and Rivers to 290 in 1961-65; leveled off at 2601960; Nelson and Carpenter 1968). An in 1966-70; and increased again toextensive bottom longline fishery that 320 in 1971-74. The average totalmay take red snapper has developed in number of handline fishermen 4n west-the Gulf of Mexico since about 1980 ern Florida was 780 in 1957-60;(Russell Nelson, Florida Marine increased to 1200 in 1961-65; andFisheries Commission, Tallahassee; stabilized at 1030-1100 in 1967-74pers. comm.). The longline fishery in (Florida Sea Grant College 1980; Gulfthe eastern gulf has been directed of Mexico Fishery Management Councilprimarily at yellowedge grouper 1981).(Epinephelus flavolimbatus) (Parrackand McClellan 198b). Landings for western Florida

declined greatly during 1982-85 to theCommercial fishing grounds for red second-lowest level ever recorded

snapper are well offshore in the Gulf (Figure 4). In 1983-85 catch per unitof Mexico (Figure 3). In 1955, the of effort (catch rate) was relativelymost important fishing grounds had high, but declined 26% during thatlong been the Campeche Banks off the period in the gulf east of theYucatan Peninsula, Mexico, which were Mississippi River Delta for fish 3

8

4 0

oj 0

OAOFBIGBC00

-- -z CL

o 0L

0)

'o

0: 0CC0

* C

Z 0

vN(?q V7x.. a) 4)

Lu0

1o0o 30oC.

0± ~ 2500." z

Z 8000WEST FLORIDA D ,

o 2000: TEXAS

'n 6000 wD 0z zI.4 cn1500~

Dn4000 I .. I , I .

1000'0 Lv

-20 z200 ALABAMKA Z 500:

4.IN.LO.USIANA L

1880 1900 t920 1940 1960 1980 1880 1900 1920 i940 1980 1980

YEAR YEAR

Figure 4. Annual commercial landings Figure 5. Annual commercial landingsof red snapper (in millions of pounds) of red snapper (in millions of pounds)in Florida and Alabama, 1880-1985 in Louisiana and Texas, 1880-1985(from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (from U.S. F;sh and Wildlife Service1967; National Marine Fisheries 1967; National Marine Fisheries 4Service [1986], unpubl. data). Service, unpubl. data).

years old and older in the bottom- and Mississippi declined 73%-93% afterlongline and rod-and-reel fisheries these peaks in the 1960's (Figures(Parrack and McClellan 1986). Also 4-6), but Louisiana landings increasedin 1983-85, a recent stock assessment to a record high in 1984 (Figure 5).showed that initial biomass (without A recent stock assessment showed thatrecruits) declined 17% and recruitment estimated initial biomass (withoutbiomass declined 98% in this area recruits) declined 45%, but estimated(Parrack and McClellan 1986). recruitment biomass increased 21%, for

red snapper west of the MississippiThe principal commercial fishing River Delta between 1980 and 1985

grounds used by fishermen from (Parrack and McClellan 1986).Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, andTexas are on the reefs offshore from An increase in the number of fishingthose States (Figure 3). The average boats and trips may cause competitionnumber of handline vessels in Alabama, among boats, because the number ofMississippi, Louisiana, and Texas boats that can make a good catch intogether was 150 in 1957-60 and 180 in the prime fishing areas is limited;1961-55; declined to 90 in 1966-70; competition among boats reduces theand levelled off at 80 in 1971-74. catch per unit of fishing effort. OnThe average size of the vessels the Campeche Banks, the catch rateincreased from 30 gross tons in 1957 (catch per unit effort) declined fromto 61 gross tons in 1974 (Florida Sea 1937 to 1940, when the number of fish-Grant College 1980; Gulf of Mexico ing trips (and probably, therefore,Fishery Management Council 1981). the competition) increased, and thenLandings peaked in the early 1960's increased greatly from 1941 to 1945in Alabama and Texas (Figures 4-5), when competition probably declinedand in 1968 in Mississippi (Fig- because of reduced fishing efforture 6). Landings in Alabama, Texas, during World War IT. The catch rate 0

10

- a I I i -

4000 the total value of the catch by the5large vessels (56-ft to 69-ft long) in

" _3500 the snapper-grouper fishery that could

3000 reach distant fishing grounds, and

} in the southeastern gulf, it made up

0 2500 about 37% of the total value of thez n0 catch by all vessels in the fishery

2000 (Cato and Prochaska 1976). At the

10 time of Cato and Prochaska's study,the Campeche Banks were not fished

100 q A substantially by American boats forpolitical reasons. Total profits were

500 greater for the larger vessels in thenorthern gulf because the value per

o - 0pound was higher for red snapper than1880 00 1920 YEAR 1960 1960 for the other species that pre-

dominated in the southeastern gulfFigure 6. Annual commercial landings (Cato and Prochaska 1976).

of red snapper (in millions of pounds)in Mississippi, 1920-1985 (from U.S. Sport FisheryFish and Wildlife Service 1967;National Marine Fisheries Service, The red snapper is one of the most

unpubl. data). desired species of sport fish in thegulf. Sportfishing grounds overlapcommercial grounds (Figure 3). In1965 and 1970, the weight of the com-mercial catch was less than that of

declined from 1948 to 1951, but the sport catch (Nakamura 1976).competition probably also declined Sportfishing boats range from small(Camber 1955). 12-ft private boats to 85-ft party

boats (head boats). The number of

Red snapper and associated species boats increased from 1956 to 1976 and

are usually gutted when caught (Car- probably partly displaced the inshore

penter 1965) and are stored in ice commercial fishery (Allen and Tashiroaboard the vessels (rather than in 1976; St. Amant 1976).live wells)--a practice that began inthe late 19th century (Warren 1897). Between 1982 and 1985, the gulf

At least 10 species are marketed as coast sport fishery catch of red snap-

red snapper (Rivas 1966). per declined by about 60% in Floridaand 78% in Louisiana (Table 5). In

In the commercial fisheries for fin- western Florida, the commercial catch

fish and shellfish in the gulf, the also declined sharply between 1982 and

red snapper fishery ranks eighth in 1985. In Louisiana, the commercial

total weight, seventh in total value, fishery may have supplanted the

and sixth in price per pound (National recreational fishery over this period

Marine Fisheries Service 1986b and (Figure 5).unpubl. data). The only speciesregularly exploited by offshore fish- The largest annual sport catch for

eries in the western gulf are the red Louisiana from 1979 (when accurate

snapper and gulf menhaden, Brevoortia statistics hccame available) to 1985

patronus (Hildebrand 1954). The red was about 2.7 million fish--the

snapper is the most important of about highest recorded for any gulf state

17 species in the U.S. snapper fishery for the same time period (Table 5).

(Allen and Tashiro 1976). In the For that period, Alabama's sport catch

northern gulf, it made up about 86% of fluctuated with high catches about

11

Table 5. Recreational catch of red snapper (thousands of fish) in theGulf States, 1979-85 (from National Marine Fisheries Service 1984,1985a, 1985b, 1986).

FloridaGulf

Year Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas

1979 1,746 1,306 <30 823 2,1561980 847 79 51 1,572 1,5971981 558 1,003 a 2,697 6421982 805 611 <30 2,348 a1983 354 1,349 <30 1,957 a1984 126 459 <30 701 <301985 297 453 <30 523 680

aNo data.

every other year; in years between common prey of juveniles up to 150 mm1979 and 1985, when the sport catch F! , but the fish probably start towas higher (1979, 1981, and 1983), the prefer larger prey when they are aboutcommercial catch wds also generally 100 mm FL (Bradley and Bryan 1976).higher--except that the commercial Stomachs of juveniles most frequentlycatch peaked in 1982. A trend in the contained shrimp throughout the yearTexas catch could not be determined in the Gulf of Mexico (Camber 1955;because too few data were available. Bradley and Bryan 1976). OtherMississippi's catch remained very low crustaceans (including crabs), fish,(Table 5), and the commercial catch in and squid were found in 2%-10% of the1985 was the lowest in 17 years (Fig- sampled fish. The types of prey thature 6). Current regulations in the contributed the greatest percentage byU.S. waters of the gulf allow a max- volume to the diet of juveniles wereimum of 5 fish less than 12 inches FL squid, octopuses, and shrimp (Tableper trip for headboats. 6). Juveniles and adults eat a large

variety of species of molluscs,In summary, the sport catch and com- crustaceans, and fishes (Table 7).

mercial catch were sometimes posi-tively correlated--possibly because Camber (1955) reported that adultboth declined after heavy fishing red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico tookpressure or because of a natural 30- the following prey (in decreasingmonth cycle in abundance (Camber order of frequency of occurrence):1955)--and sometimes negatively shrimp, small reef fish, crabs, andcorrelated, possibly because one gastropods. He stated that tunicatesfishery replaced the other (Allen and may be taken in spring.Tashiro 1976).

Futch and Bruger (1976) stated thatred snapper may feed over sand, shell,

ECOLOGICAL ROLE or mud bottoms next to reefs or otherrocky bottoms. Many of the prey of

Feeding Habits red snapper are found over levelbottoms adjacent to the reefs, rather

Juvenile and adult red snapper are than on the reefs themselves (Daviscarnivorous. Small zooplankters were 1975).

12

Table 6. Prey items found in the greatest frequency of occurrence in juvenileand adult red snapper and the greatest volume in juveniles in the Gulf of Mexico(from Bradley and Bryan 1976).

Juveniles AdultsGreatest Greatest Greatestfrequency percentage frequency

Season of occurrence of volume of occurrence

Winter Shrimp (25%) Shrimp (48%) Fish (83%)Spring Shrimp (6%) Shrimp (75%) Fish (39%)Summer Shrimp (53%) Squid (41%) Lesser blue crab (36%)Fall Shrimp (83%) Octopuses (45%) Fish 55%)

Competition, Predation, and Parasitism Habitat

The grey snapper (Lutjanis Rrierma)probably competitively excTuaes Red snapper are common in submarine

juvenile red snapper from inshore gullies and depressions where food maywaters in some localities (Smith accumulate and over coral reefs, rock

1976). Sharks sometimes strike at outcrops, and gravel bottoms in the

fish being brought up by hook and line Gulf of Mexico (Stearns 1885; Klima

(Bradley and Bryan 1976). Parasitic 1976). Usually, fewer fish are sup-leeches have been found attached to ported by smooth bottom without highthe gills of red snapper (Williams relief than by bottom with three-

1979). dimensional structures, such as off-shore oil and gas rigs, artificialreefs, and wrecks (Johnston et al.

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 1976; Sonnier et al. 1976).

Temperature and Salinity Depth

Red snapper have been taken at 13-32 In Texas, juvenile red snapper movedUC (Rivas 1970; Roe 1976). One of a offshore from shallow water (about

sample of seven red snapper died at 15-30 m) in summer to deep water12.5 uC--near the lower tolerance (about 35-60 m) in winter, based onlimit--in a laboratory test (Moore depths of capture by trawl (Moseley1973). The upper tolerance limit is 1966; Bradley and Bryan 1975). Theabout 33.5 UC (Rivas 1970). A movement may be a means of avoidingsalinity of 60 ppt was lethal to all cooler inshore water in winter. Thered snapper in a laboratory test, but actual cue for movement, however, wasthey survived exposure to about 45 ppt not a drop in water temperature,without serious effects (Huff and because movement occurred before theBurns 1981). They are marine fish and temperature declined. Nelson andhave been taken in waters of 33-37 ppt Manooch (1982) reported no size(Moseley 1966). segregation between shallow (<35 m)

and deep (>35 m) waters off theIn the laboratory, red snapper under Carolinas.

simulated natural conditions spawnedin water of 23-25 UC and 31-34 ppt Red snapper were abundant at depths(Arnold et al. 1978). of about 40-110 m (Carpenter 1965) and

13

ummm mlmm~mmI

pJ

Table 7. Prey items found in stomachs of juvenile and adult red snapper in theGulf of Mexico (from Stearns 1885, Felder 1973, Davis 1975, and Futch and Bruger1976). This is not intended to be a comprehensive list.

Molluscs Decapods (continued)Bivalves Hepatus pudibundus

Laevicardium pictum Persephona mediterranaeGastropods Ova 1 es ocellatus

Pleuroploca gigantea [. guadulpensisAplsia wilcoxi Portunus qibbesiiT'As--ae- Callinectes smi I is

Cephai-opdoTs C. danaeSquid (Loligo sp.) [ep!o-d-s agassizii

Crustaceans Pinnixa lunziStomatopods PF-TFITho-pe serrataSquilla emusa llacantha intermediaS. negmecta Raninoides sp.5. deceptrix Ma id crabS. rugosa Prionoplax atlantica

Decapods- TeleosteanFTishesAlpheid shrimp Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli)Trachypenaeus constrictus Shoal flounder (b mu nteri)1. similis Sphoeroides sp. (PutferAcet-es americanus Gymnothorax ocellatus (Moray family)Sc yonia dorsalis inland silverside (Menidia beryllina)Leptocela serratorbita Striped mullet (Mug cephalus)Oyrides limioTa Prionotus sp. (Se in famiy)Abnapatii Rough scad (Trachurus lathami)-e Peprilus paru (Butterfish family)

impressus and perc iplectrum formosum)anus sp. Ophichthids (snake eel family)

Scyllarus chacei Clupeids (Herring family)

have been caught at 7-146 m (Moseley fillets had 0.121 ppm PCB's; the U.S.1966; Rivas 1970). legal maximum is 3 ppm. Only one of

nine samples of red snapper hadContaminants detectable levels of the pesticidesdieldrin and endrin. 0

Concentrations of chlorinated hydro-

carbons were lower in flesh samples of Red snapper in an offshore oilfieldred snapper than in samples of species were not contaminated with petro eumwith a higher natural oil content (>3% hydrocarbons, although 13 otheroil), though contaminant levels in species of fish were contaminatedthis group, too, were low (Stout (Middleditch et al. 1979). No evi-1980). Wet red snapper fillets had an dence of toxic effects was found inaverage of 0.039 ppm DDT and testes of five male red snapper frommetabolites; the U.S. legal maximum oilfields in the gulf (Scott et al.is 5 ppm (Stout 1980). The same 1980).

14

REFERENCES

Allen, D.M., and J.E. Tashiro. 1976. tagging program. Fla. Board Con-Status of the U.S. commercial serv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 47.snapper-grouper fishery. Pages 51 pp.41-76 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and A.C.Jones, eds. Proceedings: colloqui- Bortone, S.A., and C.C. Hollingsworth.um on snapper-grouper fishery re- 1980. Ageing red snapper, Lutjanussources of the western central campechanus, with otholiths, scales,Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant and vertebrae. Northeast Gulf Sci.Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 4:60-63.

Anderson, W.D., Jr. 1967. Field Bradley, E., and C.E. Bryan. 1975.guide to the snappers (Lutjanidae) Life history and fishery of the redof the western Atlantic. U.S. Fish snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) inWildl. Serv. Circ. 252. 14 pp. the northwestern Gul ffMe'xico:

1970-1974. Proc. Gulf Carrib. Fish.Arnold, C.R., J.M. Wakeman, T.D. Wil- Inst. 27:77-106.

liams, and G.D. Treece. 1978.Spawning of red snapper (Lutjanuscampechanus) in captivity.Aqua- Camber, C.I. 1955. A survey of the

Vculture 15(3):301-302. red snapper fishery of the Gulf ofMexico, with special reference to

Bean, T.H. 1887. Notes on a young the Campeche Banks. Fla. Boardred snapper (Lutjanus blackfordii) Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser.from Great South Bay, Long Island. 12. 64 pp.Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 10:512. Captiva, F.J., and J.B. Rivers. 1960.

Beaumariage, D.S. 1969. Returns from Development and use of otter-the 1965 Schlitz tagging program trawling gear for red snapper fish-including a cumulative analysis of ing in the Gulf of Mexico, June,previous results. Fla. Dep. Nat. 1957-May, 1959. Commer. Fish. Rev.Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. 22(10):1-14.59. 38 pp. Carpenter, J.S. 1965. A review of

Beaumariage, D.S., and L.H. Bullock. the Gulf of Mexico red snapper1976. Biological research on snap- fishery. U.S. Fish Wild]. Serv.pers and groupers as related to Circ. 208. 35 pp.fishery management requirements.Pages 86-94 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and Cato, J.C., and F.J. Prochaska. 1976.A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: col- The Gulf of Mexico commercial andloquium on snapper-grouper fishery recreational red snapper-grouperresources of the western central fishery: an economic analysis ofAtlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant production, marketing, and prices.Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. Pages 95-128 in H.R. Bullis, Jr.,

and A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings:Beaumariage, 0.S., and A.C. Wittich. colloquium on snapper-grouper fish-

1966. Returns from the 1964 Schlitz ery resources of the western central

15

S

Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant resources of the western centralColl. Rep. 17. 333 pp. Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant

Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp.Collins, L.A., J.H. Finucane, and L.E.Barger. 1980. Description of larval Grimes, C.B., C.S. Manooch III, G.R.and juvenile red snapper, Lutjanus Hutsman, and R.L. Dixon. 1977. Redcam echanus. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fis snappers of the Carolina coast.Serv. Fish. Bull. 77(4):965-974. Mar. Fish. Rev. 39:12-15.

Collins, L.A., J.H. Finucane, and H.A. Gulf of Mexico Fishery ManagementBrusher. [1987]. Reproductive bio- Council. 1981. Fishery managementlogy of the red snapper, Lutjanus plan for the reef fish fishery ofcampechanus (Poey), from three areas the Gulf of mexico. Pages 1-1 toaong the southeastern coast of the 10-12 in Environmental impact state-United States. U.S. National Marine ment and fishery management plan forFisheries Service, Panama City, Fla. the reef fish resources of the GulfUnpubl. MS. 21 pp. of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council, Tampa, Florida.Davis, J.K. 1975. Factors influenc-

ing the presence of red snapper Hildebrand, H.H. 1954. A study of(Lutianus campechanus Poey) on Seven the fauna of the brown shrimpand One-Halt Fathom Reef. M.S. (Penaeus aztecus Ives) grounds inThesis. Texas A&I University, the western Gulf of Mexico. Publ.Kingsville. 110 pp. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex.

3(2):1-366.Duffy, M. 1970. Snappers are socia-

ble. La. Conserv. 22(1):26-27. Hildebrand, H.H. 1955. A study ofthe pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum

Fable, W.A., Jr. 1980. Tagging stud- Burkenroad) grounds in-T e -uTf-T7ies of red snapper (Lutjanus Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci.campechanus) and vermilion snapper Univ. Tex. 4(l):169-232.(R li tes aurorubens) off thesouth texas coast. Contrib. Mar. Holt, S.A., and C.R. Arnold. 1982.Sci. 23:115-121. Growth of juvenile red snapper

Lutjanus campechanus in the north-Felder, D.L. 1973. A record of western Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Natl.

Pinnixa lunzi Glossell (Decapoda, Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 80(3):Pin-no-tTerlda7e from off the coast of 644-648.Texas, U.S.A. Crustaceana 24(1):148-149. Huff, J.A., and C.D. Burns. 1981.

Hypersaline and chemical control ofFlorida Sea Grant College. 1980. Cryptocaryon irritans in red snap-Appendix to the Environmental Impact per, Lutjanus campechanus, mono-Statement and fishery management culture. Aquacultr I 22181- 184.plan for reef fish resources of theGulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Huntsman, G.R. 1976. Offshore head-Fishery Management Council, Tampa, boat fishing in North Carolina andFlorida. 101 pp. South Carolina. Mar. Fish. Rev.

38:13-23.Futch, R.B., and G.E. Bruger. 1976.

Age, growth, and reproduction of red Johnston, J.B., J.K. Adams, and R.snapper in Florida waters. Pages Foster. 1976. The red snapper165-184 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and resource of the Texas ContinentalA.C. Jone-s, eds. Proceedings: col- Shelf. Pages 237-247 in H.R.loquium on snapper-grouper fishery Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones, eds.

16

0

Proceedings: colloquium on snapper- National Marine Fisheries Servicegrouper resources of the western 198 '. Marine recreational fisherycentral Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea statistics survey, Atlantic and gulfGrant Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. coasts, 1981-1982. U.S. Natl. Mar.

Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8324.Klima, E.F. 1976. Snapper and grou- 215 pp.

per resources of the western centralAtlantic Ocean. Pages 5-40 in H.R. National Marine Fisheries Service.Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones, eds. 1985b. Marine recreational fisheryProceedings: colloquium on snapper- statistics survey, Atlantic and gulfgrouper resources of the western coasts, 1983-1984. U.S. Natl. Mar.central Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8326.Grant Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp. 222 pp.

Middleditch, B.S., E.S. Chang, B. National Marine Fisheries Service.Basile, and S.R. Misler. 1979. 1986a. Marine recreational fisheryAlkanes in fish from the Buccaneer statistics survey, Atlantic and gulfOilfield. Bull. Environ. Contam. coasts, 1985. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish.Toxic. 22:249-257. Serv. rurr. Fish. Stat. 8327.

130 pp.

Moe, M.A., Jr. 1966. Tagging fishes

in Florida offshore waters. Fla. National Marine Fisheries SL'vice.Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. 1986b. Fisheries of the UnitedSer. 49. 40 pp. States, 1985. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish.

Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. 8380.Moore, R.H. 1973. The effect of tem- 121 pp.

perature and swimming speed on theoxygen consumption of two snappers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-Lutjanus campechanus (Poey) and ministration. 1985. Gulf of MexicoRh oli tes aurorubens (Cuvier). and Ocean Zones Strategic Assess-Contrib. Mar. ScE.17:3-61. ment: Data Atlas. NOAA, National

Ocean Service. n.p.Moseley, F.N. 1966. Biology of the

red snapper, Lutjanus aya Block, of Nelson, R.S., and C.S. Manooch. 1982.the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Growth and mortality of red snappersPub). Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. in the west-central Atlantic Ocean11:90-101. and northern Gulf of Mexico. Trans.

Am. Fish Soc. 111:465-475.

Nakamura, E.L. 1976. Recreationalfisheries for snappers and groupers Nelson, W.R., and J.S. Carpenter.in the Gulf of Mpxico. Pages 77-85 1968. Bottom longline explorations

in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones, in the Gulf of Mexico. A report on

eds. Proceedings: colloquium on "Oregon II's" first cruise. Commer.snapper-grouper fishery resources of Fish. Rev. 30(10):57-62.the western central Atlantic Ocean.Fla. Sea Grant Coll. Rep. 17. 333 Ogren, L.H., and H.A. Brusher. 1977.PP. The distribution and abundance of

fish caught with a trawl in the St.Andrew Bay System, Florida. North- _

National Marine Fisheries Service, east Gulf Sci. 1(2):83-105.1984. Marine recreational fisherystatistics survey, Atlantic and gulf Parrack, N.C. 1986a. A review ofcoasts, 1979 (revised). 1980. U.S. Gulf of Mexico red snapper age andNatl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. growth. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish.Stat. 8322. 239 pp. Serv., Southeast Fish. Cent., Miami

p17

Lab., Coastal Resour. Div. Contrib. St. Amant, L.S. 1976. Response byNo. CRD-86/87-2. 71 pp. State and Federal agency representa-

tives, panel 3, statement 5. PagesParrack, N.C. 1986b. Review and up- 322-324 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., and

date of Gulf of Mexico red snapper A.C. Jo-nes, eds. Proceedings:biometrics: 1. Weight-length rela- colloquim on snapper-grouper fisherytions. 2. Length-length conver- resources of the western centralsions. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Atlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea GrantSoutheast Fish. Cent., Miami Lab., Coll. Rep. 17. 333 pp.Coastal Resour. Div. Contrib. No.CRD-86/87-3. 26 pp. Scott, G.G., N.H. McArthur, R.

Tarpley, R.F. Sis, and V. Jacobs.Parrack, N.C., and D.B. McClellan. 1980. Histopathological survey of

1986. Trends in Gulf of Mexico red male gonads of fish from petroleumsnapper population dynamics, 1979- production and control sites in the85. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Gulf of Mexico. J. Fish. Biol.Southeast Fish. Cent., Miami Lab., 17:593-602.Coastal Resour. Div. Contrib. No.CRD-86/87-4. 116 pp. Smith, G.B. 1976. The impact of

fish-killing phytoplankton bloomsRaibalais, N.N., S.C. Rabalais, and upon mideastern Gulf of Mexico reef

C.R. Arnold. 1980. Description of fish communities. Pages 185-191 ineggs and larvae of laboratory reared H.R. Bullis, Jr., and A.C. Jones,red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). eds. Proceedings: colloquium onCopeia 1980(4)T7047U8. snapper-grouper fishery resources

of the western central AtlanticReef Fish Scientific Task Team and Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant Coll. Rep.

Special Scientific and Statistical 17. 333 pp.Committee. 1987. Review of reeffish assessments and management Smith, R.O. 1948. Experimental fish-options. Summary recommendations. ing for red snapper. Part 1: TheGulf of Mexico Fishery Manage- use of hoop nets. Commer. Fish.ment Council, Tampa, Florida. Rev. 10(2):1-10.3 pp.

Sonnier, F., J. Teerling, and H.D.Rivas, L.R. 1966. Review of the Hoese. 1976. Observations on the

Lutjanus campechanus complex of red offshore reef and platform fishsnappers. . . Acad. Sci. fauna of Louisiana. Copeia 1976(1):29(2):117-136. 105-111.

Rivas, L.R. 1970. Snappers of the Stearns, S. 1885. Notes on the redwestern Atlantic. Commer. Fish. snapper. Pages 92-95 in C.W.Rev. 32(1):41-44. Smiley, compiler. Notes -pon the

fish and fisheries: Bull. U.S. FishRoe, R.B. 1976. Distribution of Comm. 5:65-112.

snappers and groupers in the Gulf ofMexico and Caribbean Sea as deter- Sto':t, V.F. 1980. Organochlorinemined from exploratory fishing data. residues in fishes from the north-Pages 129-164 in H.R. Bullis, Jr., west Atlantic Ocean and Gulf ofand A.C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: Mexico, U.S. Nat]. Mar. Fish. Serv.colloquium on snapper-grouper fish- Fish. Bull. 78(1):51-58.ery resources of the western centralAtlantic Ocean. Fla. Sea Grant Coll. Topp, R. 1963. The tagging of fishesRep. 17. 333 pp. in Florida: 1962 program. Fla.

18

Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. Wakeman, J.M., C.R. Arnold, D.E.Ser. 5. 76 pp. Wohlchlag, and S.C. Rabalais. 1979.

Oxygen consumption, energy expendi-Vergara-R., R., preparer. 1978. ture, and growth in red snapper

Lutjanidae. In W. Fischer, ed. FAO (Lutianus campechanus). Trans. Am.species idetification sheets. Fish. Soc. 108:288-292.Fishing area 31 (western centralAtlantic). Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Warren, A.F. 1897. The red snapperRome. fisheries: their past, present, and

future. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 17:

Wade, C.W. 1981. Age and growth of 331-335.spotted seatrout and red snapper inAlabama. Pages 345-354 in J. Williams, E.H., Jr. 1979. Leeches ofSweeney, ed. Proc. Thirt~fifth some fishes of the Mobile Bay Re-Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish gion. Northeast Gulf Sci. 3(1):Wildl. Agencies. 47-49.

19

19

i I I 2-I

REPORT DOCUMENTATION I. REOR NO. 2. 3. Reipin' Acession NoPAGE Biological Report 82(11.83)*

4. Title and Subtitle S. Report Date

Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements August 1988

of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)--Red Snapper '

7. Athr(s) 8. Perform,ig organization Pelt. NO.

David Moran9. Performing Orgnzation Nam and Address 10. Proe"t/Tas /Work Unit No.

£1. Contracl(C) or Grent(G) No.

12. S onsoring Organization Home end Addres

National Wetlands Research Center U.S. Corps of Engineers 13-. YPOofRp &O, CO,.vdNASA-Slidell Computer Complex Waterways Experiment Station1010 Gause Blvd. P.O. Box 631 •Slidell, LA 70458 Vicksburg, MS 39180 14.

IS. Supolementary Notes

*U.S. Army Cnrps of Engineers Report No. TR EL-82-4

I. Abstract (Limt: 200 words?

The red snapper is found offshore on the Continental Shelf throughout the Gulf ofMexico. Red snappers are taken in the snapper-grouper fishery, usually withbaited hooks. The red snapper commercial fishery currently ranks seventh intotal value among commercial catches of finfish and shellfish in the gulf. Redsnapper are also a target of a large sport fishery. The most important prey ofred snapper are fish, squid, and crustaceans. In general, red snapper spawn insummer and fall in the Gulf of Mexico. The peak abundance of juveniles occurs inshallower water (20-46 m) than does the peak abundance of adults. Adult redsnapper do not move from their reef habitations during the cooler months, andduring that time will remain in a fishing area until it is fished out. Fish 1 to5 years old grow 60-90 mm SL/year. Red snapper may reach a fork length of 845mm, a weight of 12 kg, and an age of 13 years. , . ,

1 - II

17. Document Anmlysis a. Descwriptorsl

,Fisheries Growth " 7)Life cycles- Feeding habits-Marine fishes CompetitionContaminants Depthb. Identifien/O e#-Ended Terms

Red snapperLutjanus campechanus

C. COSATI Fiold/G6oioI&. Av.,latillity Statement 1.. Soc M~y Class (This Report) 1.| Meiof Pages

Unclassified viii + 19Unlimited release M Securt c... (c i rde,) Pr ice

Unclassified(See ANSO-Z3W.1I) OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-7n

(Fo.rm rty NTIS-IS)

Deortment of CmVn....