Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 1295–1300 | Cite as

Summer Movements of the Gulf Killifish (Fundulus grandis) in a Northern Gulf of Mexico Salt Marsh

  • T. Reid Nelson
  • Deionta Sutton
  • Dennis R. DeVries
Note

Abstract

The Gulf Killifish (Fundulus grandis) is one of the most abundant nekton species in the US Gulf of Mexico (GOM) salt marshes, providing an important trophic link in these systems. Recently, the use of F. grandis as an indicator species of salt marsh health in the region has been suggested because its Atlantic coast congener, the Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) has filled such a role due to its demonstrated high site fidelity and small-scale movements. Given the similar life histories between species, F. grandis was assumed to exhibit the same type of small-scale movements, although this has not been documented. During summer 2013, we collected and marked 1,719 fish from a northern Gulf of Mexico estuary, recapturing 959 (56 % recapture rate). Of these recaptured fish, only 31 moved from their original tagging location, and of these, 29 moved only 100 m between sites connected by salt marsh. Based on these results, F. grandis appears to exhibit high site fidelity and make only small-scale movements, similar to F. heteroclitus, supporting its role as an indicator species.

Keywords

Movement Fundulus Mark-recapture Salt marsh Population Gulf of Mexico 

References

  1. Able, K.W., S.M. Hagan, and S.A. Brown. 2006. Habitat use, movement, and growth of young-of-the-year Fundulus spp. in southern New Jersey salt marshes: comparisons based on tag/recapture. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 335: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Able, K.W., D.N. Vivian, G. Petruzzelli, and S.M. Hagan. 2012. Connectivity among salt marsh subhabitats: residency and movements of the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus). Estuaries and Coasts 35: 743–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brownie, C., and D.D. Boos. 1994. Type I error robustness of ANOVA and ANOVA on ranks when the number of treatments ls large. Biometrics 50: 542–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Courtenay, S.C., K.R. Munkittrick, H.M.C. Dupuis, R. Parker, and J. Boyd. 2002. Quantifying impacts of pulp mill effluent on fish in Canadian marine and estuarine environments: Problems and progress. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 37: 79–99.Google Scholar
  5. Dubansky, B., A. Whitehead, J.T. Miller, C.D. Rice, and F. Galvez. 2013. Multitissue molecular, genomic, and developmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis). Environmental Science and Technology 47: 5074–5082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finley, M.A., S.C. Courtenay, K.L. Teather, and M.R. van den Heuvel. 2009. Assessment of Northern mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus macrolepidotus) as an estuarine pollution monitoring species. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 44: 323–332.Google Scholar
  7. Hill, J., and G.D. Grossman. 1987. Effects of subcutaneous marking on stream fishes. Copeia pp. 492–495.Google Scholar
  8. Kahn, A., and G.D. Rayner. 2003. Robustness to non-normality of common tests for the many-sample location problem. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decesion Sciences 7: 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kneib, R.T. 1986. The role of Fundulus heteroclitus in salt-marsh trophic dynamics. American Zoologist 26: 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kneib, R.T. 1997. Early life stages of resident nekton in intertidal marshes. Estuaries 20: 214–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kneib, R.T., and A.H. Craig. 2001. Efficacy of minnow traps for sampling mummichogs in tidal marshes. Estuaries 24: 884–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kneib, R.T., and A.E. Stiven. 1978. Growth, reproduction, and feeding of Fundulus heteroclitus (L) on a North-Carolina Salt-Marsh. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 31: 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kneib, R.T., and S.L. Wagner. 1994. Nekton use of vegetated marsh habitats at different stages of tidal inundation. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 106: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lotrich, V.A. 1975. Summer home range and movements of Fundulus heteroclitus (Pisces-Cyprinodontidae) in a tidal creek. Ecology 56: 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lotrich, V.A., and W.H. Meredith. 1974. Technique and effectiveness of various acrylic colors for subcutaneous marking of fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103: 140–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ludsin, S.A., and D.R. DeVries. 1997. First-year recruitment of largemouth bass: the interdependency of early life stages. Ecological Applications 7: 1024–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McMahon, K.W., B.J. Johnson, and W.G. Ambrose. 2005. Diet and movement of the killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus, in a Maine salt marsh assessed using gut contents and stable isotope analyses. Estuaries 28: 966–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meredith, W.H., and V.A. Lotrich. 1979. Production dynamics of a tidal creek population of Fundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus). Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 8: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rozas, L.P., and M.W. LaSalle. 1990. A comparison of the diets of Gulf killifish, Fundulus grandis Baird and Girard, entering and leaving a Mississippi brackish marsh. Estuaries 13: 332–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rozas, L.P., and D.J. Reed. 1993. Nekton use of marsh-surface habitats in Louisiana (USA) deltaic salt marshes undergoing submergence. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 96: 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rozas, L.P., and R.J. Zimmerman. 2000. Small-scale patterns of nekton use among marsh and adjacent shallow nonvegetated areas of the Galveston Bay Estuary, Texas (USA). Marine Ecology-Progress Series 193: 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skinner, M.A., S.C. Courtenay, W.R. Parker, and R.A. Curry. 2005. Site fidelity of mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) in an Atlantic Canadian estuary. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 40: 288–298.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, G.M., A.T. Khan, J.S. Weis, and P. Weis. 1995. Behavior and brain chemistry correlates in mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) from polluted and unpolluted environments. Marine Environmental Research 39: 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, K.J., and K.W. Able. 1994. Salt-marsh tide pools as Winter refuges for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in New Jersey. Estuaries 17: 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teo, S.L.H., and K.W. Able. 2003. Habitat use and movement of the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) in a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 26: 720–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weis, J.S., and A.A. Khan. 1990. Effects of mercury on the feeding-behavior of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus from a polluted habitat. Marine Environmental Research 30: 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weis, J.S., J. Samson, T. Zhou, J. Skurnick, and P. Weis. 2001. Prey capture ability of mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) as a behavioral biomarker for contaminants in estuarine systems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1442–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Whitehead, A., B. Dubansky, C. Bodinier, T.I. Garcia, S. Miles, C. Pilley, V. Raghunathan, J.L. Roach, N. Walker, R.B. Walter, C.D. Rice, and F. Galvez. 2012. Genomic and physiological footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 1–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.1109545108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Reid Nelson
    • 1
  • Deionta Sutton
    • 2
  • Dennis R. DeVries
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina A & T State UniversityGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations