Advertisement

Estuaries

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 434–443 | Cite as

Composition and distribution of larval fishes in New Jersey high marshes

  • Christopher W. Talbot
  • Kenneth W. Able
Article

Abstract

The surface of the salt marsh is an important, but largely unrecognized, site for fish reproduction and larval growth. In an attempt to determine the composition and distribution of fishes utilizing these habitats, we sampled larval and juvenile fish with plankton nets, dip nets, and traps at a variety of microhabitats (tidal and nontidal ponds and ditches and the marsh surface) in three New Jersey high marshes. Two of the three marshes had been altered for mosquito control. During April to September 1980, we collected over 2,400 larvae and juveniles. All study sites were dominated by the larvae of the resident killifishes (Fundulus heteroclitus, Cyprinodon variegatus, F. luciae, andLucania parva) and less commonlyMenidia beryllina. However, the occurrence and abundance of each species varied with microhabitat. Larval production in all three marshes peaked during June–July, but extended from May until September. In most instances juveniles of the dominant fishes had microhabitat preferences similar to the larvae. High marshes may be more important for fish production than previously recognized because they serve as nursery areas for the resident killifishes.

Keywords

Salt Marsh Larval Fish Tidal Creek Marsh Surface Rose Bengal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Burns, R. W. 1974. Species abundance and diversity of larval fishes in a high-marsh tidal creek. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
  2. Byrne, D. M. 1978. Life history of the spotfin killifish,Fundulus luciae, in Fox Creek marsh, Virginia.Estuaries 4:211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cain, R. L., andJ. M. Dean. 1976. Annual occurrence, abundance, and diversity of fish in a South Carolina intertidal creek.Mar. Biol. 36:369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman, V. J. 1960. Salt Marshes and Salt Deserts of the World. Interscience Publ., New York. 392 p.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, J. 1977. Coastal Ecosystems Management: A Technical Manual for the Conservation of Coastal Zone Resources. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Clymer, J. P. 1978. The distribution, trophic dynamics, and competitive interactions of three salt marsh killifishes (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae). Ph.D. Thesis, Lehigh Univ. 281 p.Google Scholar
  7. Coorey, D. N., K. W. Able, and J. K. Shisler. (in press). Life history and food habits ofMenidia beryllina in a New Jersey salt marsh.Bull. N.J. Acad. Sci. Google Scholar
  8. Hardy, J. D., Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Service Program, FWS-OBS 78-12.Google Scholar
  9. Kneib, R. T. 1981. Reanalysis of conversion efficiencies for larvalFundulus heteroclitus.Mar. Biol. 63:213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kneib, R. T. 1982. The effects of predation by wading birds (Ardeidae) and blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) on the population size structure of the common mummichog,Fundulus heteroclitus.Estaurine Coastal Mar. Sci. 14:159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kneib, R. T. (in press). On the role ofFundulus heteroclitus in salt marsh trophic dynamics.Amer. Zool. Google Scholar
  12. Kneib, R. T., andA. E. Stiven. 1978. Growth, reproduction and feeding ofFundulus heteroclitus on a North Carolina salt marsh.J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 31:121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lippson, A. J., and R. L. Moran. 1974. Manual for identification of early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac River Estuary. PPSP-MP-13, Env. Tech. Cent., Martin Marietta Corp.Google Scholar
  14. Meredith, W. H., andV. A. Lotrich. 1979. Production dynamics of a tidal creek population ofFundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus).Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 8:99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitterer, L. G., andW. D. Pearson. 1977. Rose bengal stain as an aid in sorting larval fish samples.Prog. Fish Cult. 39:119–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nixon, S., andC. Oviatt. 1973. Ecology of a New England salt marsh.Ecol. Monogr. 43:463–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Odum, E. P. 1961. The role of tidal marshes in estuarine production.N.Y. State Conserv. 15:12–15.Google Scholar
  18. Radtke, R. L., andJ. M. Dean. 1979. Feeding, conversion efficiencies, and growth of larval mummichogs,Fundulus heteroclitus.Mar. Biol. 55:231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reiss, R. 1977. Temporal variation in utilization of a high marsh intertidal creek by larval and juvenile fish. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia. 68 p.Google Scholar
  20. Richards, C. E., andM. Castagna. 1970. Marine fishes of Virginia’s eastern shore (inlet and marsh, seaside waters).Chesapeake Sci. 11:235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmelz, G. W. 1964. A natural hsitory study of the mummichog,Fundulus heteroclitus, (Linnaeus) in Canary Creek Marsh. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Delaware. 64 p.Google Scholar
  22. Seligman, E. G., Jr. 1951.Cyprinodon variegatus riverendi (Poey) and other aquatic notes.Aquarium 20:234–236.Google Scholar
  23. Shenker, J. M., andJ. M. Dean. 1979. The utilization of an intertidal salt marsh creek by larval and juvenile fishes: Abundance, diversity, and temporal variation.Estuaries 2:154–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shisler, J. K. 1978. Water management methods being utilized in coastal marshes to control mosquito populations.Proc. N.J. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 65:59–66.Google Scholar
  25. Talbot, C. W. 1985. Temporal and spatial distribution of larval, juvenile and adult fishes in altered and unaltered high marshes in New Jersey. M.S. Thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  26. Talbot, C. W., K. W. Able, and J. K. Shisler. (submitted). Fish species composition in New Jersey salt marshes: Effects of alterations for mosquito control.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. Google Scholar
  27. Taylor, M. H., andL. Dimichele. 1983. Spawning site utilization in a Delaware population ofFundulus heteroclitus (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae).Copeia 1983: 719–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor, M. H., andG. J. Leach, L. DiMichele, W. M. Levitan, andW. F. Jacob. 1979. Lunar spawning cycle in the mummichog,Fundulus heteroclitus (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae).Copeia 1979:291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teal, J. M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia.Ecology 43:614–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Valiela, I., J. E. Wright, J. M. Teal, andS. B. Volkman 1977. Growth, production, and energy transformations in the salt marsh killifishFundulus heteroclitus.Mar. Biol. 40:135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang, J. C., andR. J. Kernehan 1979. Fishes of the Delaware Estuaries: A guide to the early life histories. EA Communications, Towson, Maryland.Google Scholar
  32. Warlen, S. M. 1963. Some aspects of the life history ofCyprinodon variegatus, Lacepede (1803), in Southern Delaware. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Delaware. 40 p.Google Scholar
  33. Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina.Fish. Bull. 77:339–357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher W. Talbot
    • 1
  • Kenneth W. Able
    • 2
  1. 1.Zoology Graduate ProgramRutgers—The State UniversityNew Brunswick
  2. 2.Biological Sciences and Center for Coastal and Environmental StudiesRutgers—The State UniversityNew Brunswick

Personalised recommendations