Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7 - A172 749 SPECIES PROFILES LIFE HISTORIES
N ENVIRONMENT L ill
RESOURCES ST PETERSBURG FL BUREAU OFEUREET OFCASA ..(UFLRDDETONAUA
UCSSFE N F GODCHARLES ET AL. JUN 86 F/O 6/3 L
RsuhnhELE~hKnmomollm
F3mmmmomo
11111 AL
12.0
rr
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A
4.
%%
I?.. 'A - -.L-1' .-
BlologIcal Report 82 (11.58) TA EL-82-4
% Species Profiles: Life Histories andEnvironmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes 'L ;
Sand Invertebrates (South Florida) T ~j
KING AND SPANISH MACKEREL '<2 18
.AL
LA.
4.--
Cosa Eooy ru
FihadWllf Srie-aewy Eprmn tto
U.S.Deprtmnt o th Inerir U.. Amy orpsof ngieer
&,--rmenl~ ha be4'. ;,e
i4i. * '5cJOT P ; ,e an .;,i e, it 2 9Iitibto _ _ _ ynint
*4 ~. .p
Biological Report 82(11.58)TR EL-82-4June 1986
Species Profiles: Life History and Environmental Requirements "of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida)
KING MACKEREL AND SPANISH MACKEREL
by
Mark F. Godcharlesand
Michael D. Murphy -Division of Marine Resources
Florida Department of Natural Resources100 8th Ave. S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Project OfficerJohn Parsons I
National Coastal Ecosystems TeamU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1010 Gause BoulevardSlidell, LA 70458
Performed forCoastal Ecology Group
Waterways Experiment StationU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg, MS 39180
and
National Coastal Ecosystems TeamResearch and Development " , ,Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the InteriorWashington, DC 20240 '
. - - .4..,.-..-".-. ".,'',
.. 4"4.oO .
44.o . .'. .
W Y?-7% --V.
7 -%
16 %IM
%. . e
5.. .. ..
This series should be referenced as follows:-, ,,
Wild1. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
This profile should be cited as follows: . •.
Godcharl es, M. F. , and M.D. Murphy. 1986. Species profiles: life historiesand environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (south 0Florida) -- king mackerel and Spanish mackerel. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol.Rep. 82(11.58). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 18 pp..-.-.- -.
V.45 V..
-,-D.,.%S:./.
• . ...... .. .... ... .. .. ., ., .. . . . . ...... . ...., .. : . ...
.I,
PREFACE (
This species profile is one of a series on coastal aquatic organisms, ';'"-principally fish, of sport, commercial, or ecological importance. The profiles" '-iare designed to provide coastal managers, engineers, and biologists with a brief .comprehensive sketch of the biological characteristics and environmentalrequirements of the species and to describe how populations of the species may be J. ..'expected to react to environmental changes caused by coastal development. Each. .iprofile has sections on taxonomy, life history, ecological role, environmental-'•--"'requirements, and economic importance, if applicable. A three-ring binder is , •used for this series so that new profiles can be added as they are prepared.,,.o... "]This project is jointly planned and financed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. L .A
-., ~~Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to one of ,... --" ~the fo llow in g addresse s .. '- '. . -,
., ~-.'-.'- "-I ,
I ~Information Transfer Specialist.. ." ~~National Coastal Ecosystems Team _ .U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service"
NASA-S1lidellI Computtr Complex . '~~~~1010 Gause Boulevard ,, ,-'.SlPidell LA 70458
' ~~. ".,".
~~~~~o r'. . -_ -
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station autcogns,.
~~Attention: WESER-C ..Post Office Box 631 .Z; .Vicksburg, MS 39180 ' ; - -
principaly fish, o sport,,cmmercial:or ecoloicalimpotance. Th;profile
T-4J
, ,4•, 4', :, .'.: .profle hs setion on axonmy, ifehistry, coloicalroleenvronmnta
,- .,". requiremi e nts, and. economic: importance,-"-- if applicable.--.- A"..'-", three-ring :.. '.:"-.-.":.:-.:.".- .. ,", binder. is ..--.:-..::.: .'-:._-
- .- .- -I . . . . . . . .
.. %. *% * .~ ~
CONVERSION* TAL
o
Metric~? to U.S Cutmr
2* .
squaretr (ilmeers) k 0.337 inche le
ceite rs ((1 ) 0.3937 inches Jmetceers (in) 3.31 feet ee
kilometers (kin) %.24mls~.squre etes C 2) 0.76032 suaesfe
hgcars (a) 2.43571 aucesklters (9) 2.2602 gaponscubic etes (tn) 325.31 couicfeecubic mters 0.10011 acor-t
kilIocal ori es (Ckcal) 3.968 British thermial units ~-%. %4 f%Celsius degrees 1.8('C) + 32 Fahrenheit degrees
U.S. Customary to Metric
inches 25.40 millimetersinches 2.54 centimetersfeet (ft) 0.3048 meters ..
fatoms1.829 meters j.-e~.miles (mi) 1.609 kilometersnautical miles (rni) 1.852 kil1omneters
square feet (ft 2) 0.0929 square metersars2 0.4047 hectares
square miles (mi )2.590 square kilometers
gallons (gal) 3.785 literscubic feet (f)0.02831 cubic metersE'lw Aacre-feet 1233.0 cubic meters
ounces (oz) 28.35 grains ..
pounds (lb) 0.4536 k ilIog ram sshort tons (ton) 0.9072 metric tonsBritish thermal units (Btu) 0.2520 kil1ocal ori es %.Fahrenheit degrees 0.5556('F -32) Celsius degrees
iv
%%
Ai&~
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ........ .. ................................ .i iiCONVERSION TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv _ .TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi %' %,-.'TBE............................................._'..,vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........ ............................ .... vii
NOMENCLATURE/TAXONOMY/RANGE ........ ... ... .. ... ... 1MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS ..... .. .. .................... 3 . ..REASON FOR INCLUSION IN SERIES ..... ... .. ... ... .. .. 3LIFE HISTORY ................................ 3
Seasonal Distribution and Populations. . . . . .... . . . . . . . 3.......Spawning ..... .. ... ... .............................. 5Maturity and Fecundity ..... .. ... ....................... 6Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles . ................ 6 . . -'. ~ Logviy n Goth...................................8.P .t. a.,Longevity and Growth . . ., .- ." . .... . .. . .,
. COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES ..... .. ... .................... 9ECOLOGICAL ROLE ....... ............................ ..... 12
Food Habits ........ .... ............................. 12Predators 13 . . . ...-ENVROMETA.REUIEMNT...........................1ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 14 . . - . . ........ 1
Temperature ........ .... ............................. 14Salinity. .. ... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...... 14
LITERATURE CITED ........ .... ............................ 15
0" , .- . .aN
"- , % -
- "4"~~.' . -
'*- -~~.-. ...-. _.. . ,.,
TABLES
. *
Number Page
1 Meristic characteristics of mackerels in Florida ...... .. . 4
2 Regressions of fecundity on total weight and fork lengthfor king mackerel and Spanish mackerel. . .". . . .. .. ... .. .7
3 Mean back-calculated fork lengths of king mackerel and Spanish
mackerel ........ .. .. .............................. 8
4 Von Bertalanffy growth parameters for king mackerel and Spanishmackerel . ....... .............................. .... 10
5 Length-weight relations for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel. . . 10
6 Florida commercial landings of king and Spanish mackerel in the "Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast, 1960-83 ........ ..... 12
viV..,'.
'I ,. " "
,,,' ~~."1 2. , .
,,. ..'.~.-; ..:...
-'-,"-.","., . ¢ " ' ,.-,-''Z C:",, :': ':-". ".'', '".. :---'*-:-.,'""' -.-...-. .-. : :",.b : )""..,i- % ,,,.. ~ ' .%.' ] 'W .3 'P_, ~ r xa_ '' -- : ' '' .----- -"- -m .. . ... . . . . . . . . .. .
.5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful for reviews by J. Connor Davis, Florida Marine FisheriesCommission; Roy Williams, Florida Department of Natural Resources; Dr. BillSeaman, University of Florida; and staff of the National Marine Fisheries ServiceLaboratory in Panama City, FL.-0
l-
' ". % ° % "I
--. .. ., , .
-VV %~ %
King mackerel
.. .
4P~
Spanish mackerel
F % -. e
Figure 1. King and Spanish mackerel (from Goode 1884).
KING MACKEREL AND SPANISH MACKEREL .- - '
NOMENCLATURE/TAXONOMY/RANGE Geographic range: King mackerelinhabit Atlantic coastal waters
Scientific name..Scomberomorus cavalla from the Gulf of Maine to Rio de(Cuvier) Janeiro, Brazil, including the Gulf
Preferred common name... king mackerel of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea(Figure 1) (Briggs 1958; Beaumariage 1973). ' -
Other common names .......... kingfish, They are concentrated off the coastkings, serucho of the Carolinas in the spring,
Scientific name......... Scomberomorus summer, and fall; in the northernmaculatus (Mitchill) Gulf of Mexico from Texas to north-
Preferred common name ......... Spanish west Florida in summer; and offmackerel (Figure 1) southern Florida and Louisiana in
Class .................... Osteichthyes winter. The distributions andOrder.................. Perciformes concentrations in south Florida areFamily ..................... Scombridae shown in Figure 2.
6._% %
,,.............• ,..% "
%. %.J .. $J
% %~
%AVERAL OCEAN
SEATAS.t
ST.~~~~. PEESUR T PEC
SE
IAM.
Coastal distribution 0 so - 100 S
Areas of high concentration 0 50 100
Figure 2. Distribution of mackerel along the coast of South Florida.
2
. w ,%-Spanish mackerel inhabit coastal second fin is concave and originates a -waters of the western Atlantic Ocean short distance in front of the anal Vfrom the Gulf of Maine to the fin, which is similar in form and ' ,Yucatan Peninsula (Collette et al. size. These are followed by eight or V ,1978). They are common as far north nine dorsal and anal finlets. The"-.i'-as Chesapeake Bay in summer (Bigelow lateral line is wavy, and the caudal,','-wZi ,and Schroeder 1953). Large schools peduncle is keeled. The caudal fin is ,_iare common in south Florida waters lunate, and the pectorals are not' 0in late fall and winter (Figure 2). covered with scales. See Table 1 for "
other key diagnostic characters. -.- .'
". "." %
MORPHOLOGY/IDENTIFICATION AIDS Spanish mackerel are dark blue or".....blue-green above, pale and silvery"-."--.below. Their sides are marked with';Z"'m
King Mackerel many small, oblong, dull orange or . -
' ~. . .- -°
yellowish spots that are prominent "'-..The elongated, fusiform, com- both above and below the lateral line..-..--.:pressed body of king mackerel is 4.25 The membrane is black on the anterior
to 5.00 times as long as the head, and one-third of the first dorsal fin and5.50 to 6.25 times as long as it is the posterior is greenish-white. The *.,..
deep (Berrien and Finan 1977a). They second dorsal and the pectoral finshave two dorsal fins, the second are pale yellow with dusky edges. Thefollowed by eight or nine finletsh anal and ventral fins are whiteThe lateak Bin summe (bigelw laerl rien and Finan 1977b)uda
.-- curves downward below the second "'.-.''andorsal fin, distinguishes the king pdce s el. hculf imackerel from the Spanish mackerel and REASON FOR INCLUSION IN SERIES arthe cero mackerel (S. re (is). Thecaudal peduncle has a T arge fleshy King and Spanish mackerel support
bkeel. The body is entirely scaled commercial and sport fisheries ofwith rudimentary scales, except for major importance. Both species in-most of ty pectoral fin. The mouth habit coastal waters but Spanishis large and oblique with the mackerel usually come closer to shore,
maxillary reaching posteriorly 'to e.g. , along the beaches and in the " '-mslightly beyond the eye orbit. Each outer waters of estuaries. In the . .,-
side of the jaw has about 30 strongly summer, large solitary king mackerel -.compressed triangular teeth. This are sometimes captured off piers and
species gets considerably larger than near deepwater inlets. Juvenile king "'.'..the Spanish mackerel. mackerel sometimes mix with schools of .-.--.
Spanish mackerel. Both species feed "-""'The dorsal surface of the king principally on estuary- dependent spe-mackerel is black with iridescent hues cies such as menhaden (Brevoortia
of green and blue. The lateral and spp.) and anchovies (Anchoa spp.).-..,%. ....ventral sides are silvery white. The Excessive alterations of estuaries
lateral yellow spotting on the young could reduce the production of coastal Z' ' --is almost always absent on mature forage fish on which king and Spanish_.. .-specimens (Berrien and Finan 1977a). mackerel feed.
Spanish Mackerel LIFE HISTORYsupport
Spanish mackerel have compressed, Seasonal Distribution and Populationselongated bodies about 4.5 to 5.0 ott ctime of the as a othey are deep. The Kin mackerel. Extensive taggingckerelfirst dorsal fin is a teeth. the studies indicate that there are ats e t n a l rn d w i s v e
theSpnih.mckre. mckre soetme-mi-wthschol-o,"Spanish"mackerel. Both species feed
Th drslsufae fth"knpiniply n"suay-epnen se
makeelisblckwih rdecet.ue ces suh as mehaen (Bevoriofgenadbu. h aea n sp) ad acoie Aco p....''•%,ventral... sie are. ilvry. hit .h Exesv alterations of . ..estuaries......
,."- "" " " lateral."", yellow". spotting.','," on" "- ' the young could, reduce' the-- production''-,'',-'- of'-"-" ": coastal-""'--"-'-"-' -
*%~..4. ~ -~ %~ .*°.*.*. * - %,, " j. .,.
Table . Meristic characteristics of mackerels in Florida (Mago-Leccia 1958). -
.. ° .I
King Spanish Cero .. °
Characteri sti c mackerel mac kerel mac kerel ""-'- -
-. 4- °. •
Total number of vertebrae 42-43 52-53 47-49
First closed haemal arch ' "
at vertebra number 10 13-15 12,." .
." .- .•°-.
First haemal spine atmac ere'ma ke el ack re
vertebra number 18-19 22-24 20-21
Dorsal spines 15-16 16-18 16-18
- Dorsal rays 16-17 15-18 16
Dorsal finlets 8-9 8-9 8-9 -"
Anal spines 2 2 2
Anal rays 14-17 15-17 14-15
Anal finlets 8-10 8-9 8
Upper limb 1 2-3 3-4 .
Angle 1 1 1Gill rakers
Lower limb 6-7 10-12 11-13
Total 8-9 13-15 15-18
least two migratory groups of king Williams and Sutherland 1979;mackerel. Those tagged in the winter Sutherland and Fable 1980).south of Cape Canaveral, Florida,usually moved southward through the A second group of king mackerel,Florida Keys, entered the Gulf of tagged in the spring off southeastMexico in late winter and spring, and Florida, moved northward in the summer . .then continued northward along the along the Atlantic coast to the s'.'.west Florida Continental Shelf. Some Carolinas. One was recaptured as farwere recaptured as far west as Texas north as Chincoteague, Virginia. King Map 4and a few as far south as Veracruz and mackerel tagged in South Carolina inYucatan, Mexico. These western the spring generally moved south inmigrants, some tagged off the coasts May through August and were recap-of Texas and northwest Florida in the tured in Florida that summer. In thesummer, returned to south Florida in fall they migrated to the northernthe winter (Williams and Taylor 1978; limit of their distribution, and many .
4 -.-. - . ;
4.
N ... *.
.. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . ...: 7_.
-,D,. ,j. **,
were recaptured in North Carolina Spawning
(Williams and Sutherland 1979; VV .Williams and Godcharles 1983). Kino mackerel. This species
spawns in the coastal waters of the v ,_-%
northern Gulf of Mexico, and off thePreliminary electrophoretic anal- south Atlantic coast (Dwinell and,% % P
yses of 48 enzymes extracted from king Futch 1973; McEachran et al. 1980;mackerel tissues (heart, liver, eye, Burns 1981; Powles, unpubl. MS.). .1.• .4and muscle) give evidence that there Because of a protracted spawningare two populations of king mackerel. season, larvae have been collected by %Variation of two alleles for the pep- sampling gear from May throughtidase with glycylleucine-2 locus October. Catches were highest ingave the greatest differences between September. The paucity of larvae inSouth Carolina and Texas specimens; the eastern Gulf of Mexico south ofhowever, other loci were minimally Cape San Blas, off the Yucatan Channelpolymorphic and of limited value for and southeast Florida, indicates mini- ,-'Aseparating populations (May, unpubl. mal spawning in these waters (Wollam .-
MS.). Homing tendencies are additional 1970; Houde et al. 1979; Burns 1981).evidence of two populations. After ayear or more of freedom, king mackerel King mackerel larvae were discov-usually are recaptured at or near ered off northwest Florida and Texastheir release site at about the same between the Middle and Outer (35-183 .
time of year they were first tagged m) Continental Shelf (Dwinell and ..
(Williams and Godcharles 1983). Futch 1973; McEachran et al. 1980).Larvae captured near Palm Beach, .- -Florida, were closer to shore than
Spanish mackerel. Spanish mack- those captured farther north off Cape -- erel are also migratory, generally Canaveral, Florida, Savannah, Georgia,
moving northward each spring, spending and Cape Fear, North Carolina. North .. ' .summer in the northern part of their of Cape Canaveral, larvae were found ...
range, and migrating south in fall. near or off the shelf along the 200 mIn spring, summer, and fall, they are depth contour and near the Gulf Stream -
most abundant in the northern Gulf of (Wollam 1970; Burns 1981; Powles,Mexico and along the east coast of the unpubl. MS.).United States up to Virginia (Wollam1970; Dwinell and Futch 1973; Powell Further evidence of protracted1975). Their major wintering grounds spawning for king mackerel is theare off south Florida, but some over- holding of vitellogenic eggs (eggs -...winter off the east coast of Mexico with forming yolk) from May through(Mendoza 1968; Sutherland and Fable October (Beaumariage 1973). Multiple1980). spawning is suggested by bimodal dis-
tributions of mean oocyte diameter ofyolkbearing vitellogenic (stage 4)
Spanish mackerel from different eggs. The first mode was in late Maygeographic areas may mix in south through early July and the second wasFlorida during the winter. In summer, in late July and early August. Thethe south Atlantic and eastern Gulf of appearance of spent males from ,- i
Mexico populations spawn in isolation September through December coincidedin the northern parts of their ranges with a commensurate absence of vitel-(Wollam 1970). Electrophoretic pat- logenic eggs beginning in August,terns of two hemoglobin phenotypes suggesting a final climactic spawn.demonstrated that northwestern gulffish are distinct from fish captured Spanish mackerel. Spanishalong the U.S. east coast (Skow and mackerel also spawn over a protractedChittenden 1981). season (Powell 1975). Ripe females
S * .< ,5
_-e e-°," -,|2, -. '-.- ''.-,+
.It
have been collected from April through FL, Age I, 0.68 kg) to 12,207,000September in Florida waters (Klima (1,489 mm FL, Age XIII, 25.6 kg). The1959; Powell 1975; Finucane and best indicator of fecundity is theCollins, unpubl. MS.). Larvae have total weight of the fish (Finucane etbeen collected from spring until late al. unpubl. MS). Fecundity-weightsummer in the eastern Gulf of Mexico equations are listed in Table 2.(Dwinell and Futch 1973; Houde et al.1979), and from May through mid- Spanish mackerel in south FloridaSeptember from Cape Fear, North become sexually mature in their second -Carolina, to Cape Canaveral, Florida and third year of life (Ages I and II)(Powles, unpubl. MS.). when about 250 to 350 mm FL. In
southeast Florida, the length of mostThe onset of spawning progresses mature males and females ranges be- ,- ' -
from south to north. Spawning begins tween 325 and 349 mm FL; all fishin April in the Caroltnas, in mid-June larger than 375 mm FL were mature. ..0in Chesapeake Bay, and from late Klima (1959) found mature females asAugust to late September off Sandy small as 250 mm FL and mature malesHook, New Jersey, and Long Island, New between 280 and 340 mm FL. He esti-York (Earll 1883). Beaumariage (1970) mated that most of these fish were 1
I" reported that few mackerel spawned at or 2 years old. On the other hand, , -water temperatures below 26 *C. In Powell (1975) reported that Klima r.10
Texas, mackerel spawned when water overestimated all ages by one year- temperatures exceeded 25 °C and at because he misread the first annulus; -
salinities between 30 and 36 ppt therefore, fish less than 1 year old(Hoese 1965). Spanish mackerel may have been mature. Many Age I fish .'...
.' apparently spawn at night (Earll 1883; had ripe oocytes, but observations in -
Smith 1907). the April-September spawning seasonsuggested that the eggs of Age I fish
Collections of small larvae were not advanced enough to be spawnedindicate that Spanish mackerel spawn that season (Powell 1975). Spanishover the Inner Continental Shelf in mackerel Age III and older consti-waters 12-34 m deep (McEachran et al. tute the bulk of the spawning stock.1980). In the northeastern Gulf ofMexico off northwest Florida, most The fecundity of Spanish mackerellarvae were collected in water (Table 2) in southeast Florida in-shallower than 13 m, although some creases with increasing length andwere in water as deep as 91.5 m weight (Finucane and Collins, unpubl. '.(Dwinell and Futch 1973). All larvae MS.). Egg number estimates ranged ..
collected along the west coast of from 194,000 to 1,491,000 for females- - Florida by Houde et al. (1979) were 354 to 664 mm FL. Earll (1883) re- ,E- -
taken inside the 50 m depth contour; ported 1.5 million eggs from a 6-1bmost were within the 20 m contour. (2.7-kg) female collected from
Chesapeake Bay.. ~Maturity and Fecundity .'.--.
Maturit-and.FeundityEggs, Larvae, and Juveniles
In south Florida, most male king " '
mackerel probably spawn in their Examination of king and Spanish % --fourth year of life (Age III) when mackerel larvae 2.0 to 2.9 mm standardabout 718 mm fork length (FL); most length (SL) offered diagnostic aidsfemales spawn at Age IV when about 857 for separating the larvae based onmm FL (Beaumariage 1973). Finucane et pigment (melanophore) differences inal. (unpubl. MS.) reported mature fe- the jaw, head, and nape areasmales about 600 mm FL distributed from (Richardson and McEachran 1981). TheTexas to the Carolinas, with egg count myomere counts, mouth, teeth, preoper-estimates ranging from 69,000 (446 mm cular spines, fin elements, and pig-
{ 6 '.- .-.',-*.-'. %*
., . .. ' ,
1 .% o% • *
%
:: . --. .. ... ... .- .- v ., ..v ..v. .., -..- .-.. v
-% -.W Y e _. ... -t v
2. Regressions of fecundity (F) on total weight (TW) and fork length (FL)for king mackerel (Finucane et al., unpubl. MS.) and Spanish mackerel; r is thecorrelation coefficient (Finucane and Collins, unpubl. MS.). "
2Number of w
Equation 100r2 fish of
KING MACKEREL (SOUTHEAST U.S.)F = 1.854 x 10 (TW) 1.361 85.6 65
F = 4.391 x 10 - 6 (FL) 3.974 82.0 64 "
SPANISH MACKEREL (SOUTHEAST FLORIDA) .
F = 9.076 x 102 (TW) 0.919 94.1 11F = 1.027 x 102 (FL) 2.863 92.5 11
4' . 1 . ,
mentation of larger king mackerel inside the egg between the chorion and , - .:m =larvae (3.3 to 17.0 mm SL) were de- the oil globule) is about 0.1 mm
scribed by Wollam (1970). King mack- across, and the oil globule is 0.25 mm -.. ,erel eggs have not yet been described. in diameter. Hatching takes place . " '
after about 25 h at a temperature of 'King mackerf 1. Because most king 26 °C (Smith 1907). Larvae longer ?N-0,T_mceelaveare collected near the than 3 mm SL were described by Wollam ". ,
surface, the refinement of quantita- (1970). Most larvae have been col- Ir.tive sampling techniques to collect lected in coastal waters of the Gulflarvae 3 mm SL (about 3 days old) of Mexico (Wollam 1970; McEachran et % % €would aid in the delineation of el. 1980) and the east coast of the .. .%spawning grounds (McEachran et al. United States (Powles, unpubl. MS.)." ',1980). In the gulf, mackerel larvae "';'have been taken at surface salinities Juvenile Spanish mackerel have -Z €and temperatures from 27 to 36 ppt and been collected from low salinity26 to 31 *C, and in the south Atlantic estuaries and high salinity beach >.'..'~~between 30 and 37 ppt and 22 to 28 °C waters. A Spanish mackerel 58 mm long "'"°'-(Owl nel I and Futch 1973; Powles, was col lected from Sabot Pond,,...-"
~~unpubl. MS.). Louisiana, at a salinity of 0.2 ppt', .;- _ .~~~(Kelley 1965). Juveniles (133 to 158,-. , -'
Spanish mackerel. The eggs and mm SL) were collected along high sall-newly hatched larvae of Spanish mack- nity (33.8 ppt) beaches and low mall- II "merel have been described by Ryder inity (12.8 to 19.7 ppt) bayous in 1%"- % O
(1882). The eggs are pelagic, smooth, Tampa Bay, Florida (Springer and Wood- .,and transparent, with a single oil burn 1960). Apparently, some juvenile % .droplet. Eggs are round and about 1 Spanish mackerel use estuaries as , , ,mm (0.9 - 1.3 mm) in diameter; the nursery grounds, but most stay near-
_-.. .. perivitelline space (the clear space shore in open beach waters. -!, -
% %.
. . ... . . " P_ % . .. .
%.. -.
Longevity and Growth The von Bertalanffy growth equation isas follows:
Kina mackerel. Although Beau-mariage (1973) estimated age, growth, it = LD(1 - exp(-K(t to)))and mortality of king mackerel, recent.--ep(.Kt - ,),estimates (Johnson et al. 1983) are where 1 is length at age t, L isprobably more accurate because the asymptotic length, K is the growthdata base included more of the larger coefficient, and t is the age whenand older king mackerel collected from the theoretical len~th is zero (TableNorth Carolina to Texas. Most of 4).(TbBeaumariage's (1973) specimens camefrom winter collections in South Both Beaumariage (1973) andFlorida. The mean back-calculated Johnson et al. (1983) aged king mack-fork lengths are listed in Table 3. erel by using otoliths. Although
4.-4 o .4 .
Table 3. Mean back-calculated fork lengths (mm) of king mackerel (Beaumariage1973; Johnson et al. 1983) and Spanish mackerel (Kilma 1959; Powell 1975).Beaumariage's lengths were converted to fork lengths using his relation FL =1.096(SL) - 17.143. Powell's lengths were converted by using his relation FL =1.073(SL) + 2.427. Lengths for female king mackerel reported by Johnson et al.(1983) excluded Louisiana specimens.
.. .4
Males Females .. 4..
Age Beaumariage Johnson et al. Beaumariage Johnson et al. <.- :- -
(1973) (1983) (1973) (1983) b
King mackerel
1 457 414 491 434 ..II 643 613 703 652 "I I 705 689 793 747IV 752 734 857 807V 795 777 928 854 :%VI 822 809 986 899VII 839 851 1033 939VIII 897 998IX 943 1021X 1034
Males FemalesAge Kilma Powell Kilma Powell -(1959) (1975) (1959) (1975)
Spanish mackerel
1 178 337 186 373 %II 309 421 348 481 ,11I 404 460 464 542IV 492 490 582 580 %V 512 511 602 622
44q~ 8
44 .d.,. 4
.4-..-.*.%*.%
• ..-...:....,,...-4 ...
. .
there was good correlation between the about equal to the average length ofgrowth of otoliths and length of fish, Age I fish reported by Powell (1975).neither study clearly demonstrated One author probably misread the firstthat opaque otolith growth rings were annulus. Growth parameters for eachvalid indicators of age (Powers and sex are in Table 4. A ,,.'
Eldridge, unpubl. MS. a).Spanish mackerel of the same age
Females live longer than males are smaller in the southwestern Gulfand usually grow faster after Age II of Mexico than in south Florida(Table 3). The oldest females col- (Powell 1975). Mendoza (1968) and Doilected were 14 years of age or older: and Mendizabal (1979) also useda 1.4 m FL fish from Louisiana otoliths to determine age, but the(Johnson et al. 1983) and a 90 lb data for both sexes were combined. % 6,
(40.8 kg) fish from Key West Mendoza (1968) reported average fork __....
(Beaumariage, unpubl. data). The lengths (FL) of 333, 408, 471, 543,oldest male (979 mm SL) was 12 years and 593 mm for Ages II-VI, respec-old (Johnson et al. 1983). tively, and an estimated asymptotic
length of 860 mm FL. EstimatedKing mackerel growth is highly average total lengths (TL) reported by
variable. For example, females 850 to Doi and Mendizabal (1979) for Ages899 mm FL could be 1 to 8 years old; I-VI were 262, 426, 475, 512, 575, andmales about the same size could be 3 638 mm, respectively. A. 0to 8 years old. Johnson et al. (1983)suggested that compensatory growthoccurs in "slow growing" fish during The life span of Spanish mackereltheir second year when their growth is about 5 to 8 years (Klima 1959; .increment surpasses that of "fast Powell 1975; Doi and Mendizabal 1979). "I IPZ I
- growers." Nevertheless, "slow The total annual mortality rate based -growing" mackerel remain smaller than on Powell's (1975) data was estimated"fast growers" throughout their lives, at 0.62 (GM&SAFMC 1982), which approx-
imates the rate calculated by Doi andEquations relating weight to Mendizabal (1979) for Spanish mackerel
length of king and Spanish mackerel taken off the Mexican coast (0.59).are listed in Table 5. The total Weight-length relations for Spanishannual mortality estimate by Johnson mackerel are given in Table 5.et al. (1983) was 0.37; Beaumariage(1973) reported 0.54.
Spanish mackerel. The growth of COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIESlarval and juvenile Spanish mackerelhas not been measured in the labor- King Mackerelatory. The protracted spawning seasonmakes it difficult to estimate growth Florida has historically producedfrom length distributions. Hildebrand about 90% of the king mackerel commer-and Cable (1938) collected larvae 4 mm cial landings in the United Stateslong as early as June off North (Table 6). The species is also highly .-. :Carolina; some juveniles were 80 mm regarded as a sport fish. Sport fish-long by October. ermen in the south Atlantic region are . q
estimated to have caught 598,000 king-7VBy determining age and growth mackerel in 1979 and 1,370,000 in
from otoliths in south Florida, Powell 1980. In the gulf, about 600,000 were
(1975) and Klima (1959) reported that taken in 1979 and 1 million in 1980females grow faster than males (Table (Trent et al. 1983). At times, keen -. '-,,3). The average length of Age II fish competition for this resource has ledreported by Klima (1959), however, is to serious user conflicts. 4_-____
9
e.:r-.%-:e * P%4
,,S ,f ,,, W £, .# , F w. : .", " w w . .? , . .. ,', , "# .', ., ".,w , .. ". ", , # "4
a' ', • ,
Table 4. Von Bertalanffy growth parameters for king mackerel (Beaumariage 1973;Johnson et al. 1983) and Spanish mackerel (Powell 1975). Johnson et al. did notinclude large, mostly female fish captured off Louisiana in data used to estimategrowth parameters. Beaumariage's and Powell's estimates of asymptotic length -,(L ) were converted to fork lengths by using their length-length regressions(Table 3). K is the growth coefficient.
]%1%
Species Growth parameters V"4'" %
and sex K L0,(mm FL) t (years) Source % % %
King mackerel -.Males 0.35 903 -2.50 Beaumariage 1973 -
0.28 965 -1.17 Johnson et al. 1983Females 0.21 1,243 -2.40 Beaumariage 1973
0.29 1,067 -0.97 Johnson et al. 1983
Spanish mackerelMales 0.48 555 -1.12 Powell 1975Females 0.45 694 -0.78 Powell 1975 ' ,
,%. w, '. e
Table 5. Length-weight relations for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel. ' I V '" .-"
Weights (W) are in grams and lengths (L) in millimeters.,..
% 4.'. *. _ .%
,'" J" 4. .-.
Species Length Number of W =aLb e' .;,. . ,-
and sex measure* fish a b Source
King mackerel "--5" .""% ----
Females SL 292 3.907 x 10- 3. 1256 Beaumariage 1973 ;;.,FL 2,023 0.8801 x 10-5 2.9827 Johnson et al. 1983 ,
Ta-mSpanish mackerel.ack
Males SL 135 1.1519 x 10 " 2.9822 Powell 1975 . ,--, ,-Females SL 217 4.7491 x 10- 3.1373 Powell 1975 ,
*St = Standard lengths.., ,FL = Fork length. Nb o"
p. ~~~~10•"- - ,, "
adsx0ur fih aSor
King mckere
-, % % ",- -. - - , .Males.% •-,, % SL 27 .30 x 10 . 7 Beaumariage . 1973'-' ".-.., . .- -
- ~~. ./ ?° $
, . '. . .
Major commercial catches along Small numbers are caught as an inci-the Florida east coast are centered dental or supplemental commercialbetween Cape Canaveral and Palm Beach, species off the coasts of Alabama,and on the west coast from Key West to Mississippi, Louisiana, North .e.d.Naples (Beaumariage 1973). Although Carolina, and, to a smaller extent, .king mackerel support a year-round Georgia and South Carolina.fishery, most are caught in winter andearly spring. The percentages of the Spanish mackerel are primarily .total catch taken from 1950 to 1974 captured with gill nets deployed fromalong the east coast of Florida were small boats 20 to 22 ft long, and with67% by trolling, 29% by runaround gill power rollers used on large boats 30nets, and 4% by handlines. The per- to 60 ft long. Since 1976, commercialcentages for the west coast were 56% production on the gulf coast has fluc-for runaround gill nets, 34% for tuated between 1.5 and 3.5 million Ib,trolling, 6% for handlines, and 4% for and production on the Atlantic coast .
other methods (Trent et al. 1983). has fluctuated between 3.4 and 11Purse seining has recently been per- million lb (Table 6). The causes of ' '"mitted in Federal waters (GM&SAFMC fluctuation in catch cannot be identi-
" 1982). fied because there are no catch-per-unit-of-effort data.
Major changes in the locationsand the intensity of fishing in Flori- Spanish mackerel also are an - -da have taken place since about 1960. important species for the private boat .The east coast center of production and charter boat sport fishery alonghas gradually shifted northward from the gulf and south Atlantic coasts.Dade County toward Volusia County and Most anglers fish from private boats,a spring fishery of major importance although good catches are made fromhas developed off Palm Beach County charter boats, fishing piers, and - 1near Jupiter and Juno (Williams and beach fishing (Deuel 1973). :Godcharles 1983). As a result of -
higher dockside prices, fishing The limited sport statistics sug-efforts increased sharply: from 1969 gest that 1979 commercial landings on ...
to 1977 there was a three-fold the Atlantic coast were double the %'increase in hook-and-line vessels, sport catch. On the gulf coast, how-100 to 300, and gill net vessels, 12 ever, the sport catch was probably 50%to 33 (GM&SAFMC 1982). By 1983, the higher than the commercial catchnumber of gill net vessels had risen (GM&SAFMC 1982).to about 80, and the larger net boatfleet had moved onto fishing grounds Fisheries Management Plan. Thethat had formerly been used princi- Fishery Management Plan (FMP) forpally by trollers and handliners. In coastal pelagic fish species, includ-addition, the net fleet has increased ing mackerel, was implemented in Marchits efficiency through the use of 1983 by the Gulf of Mexico and South ..
spotter airplanes, monofilament net Atlantic Fishery Management Councilsconstruction, larger and deeper nets (GM&SAFMC). Quotas based on theoreti- -.,mechanically retrieved by power cal yields partitioned according torollers, and electronic equipment. historical landings were established
for the commercial hook-and-line w. m(3,877,200 lb), net (5,122,800 lb),
Spanish mackerel. This species and sport (28,000,000 lb) fisheries,is of major commercial importance in and were in effect from 1 July 1982 tosouth Florida (Klima 1959; Powell 30 June 1983. In May 1983, the com- %.%
1975). The main fishing areas are the mercial hook-and-line fishery wasFlorida Keys and the Atlantic coast officially closed when that quota wasbetween Palm Beach and Cape Canaveral. attained. This early closure was '
11o
r-.4.Z. -..%
__ _ ___. -~*.*.* -~ ~-.*.~ .~- % .-. --.- ;.-
% °
Table 6. Florida commercial landings (thousands of pounds) of king and Spanishmackerel in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast, 1960-83 (NMFS AnnualLandings).
Gulf of Mexico AtlanticKing Spanish King Spanish
Year mackerel mackerel mackerel mackerel
1960 1,785 5,435 1,807 2,282 , w'=1961 1,683 3,988 2,076 3,158 [;
1962 2,021 6,869 2,076 2,5781963 2,817 5,405 2,173 2,1231964 1,314 3,880 2,020 2,0021965 1,898 4,883 2,549 2,9011966 2,633 7,004 1,782 2,181 .1967 3,084 5,867 2,988 1,8021968 3,604 7,066 2,586 4,4061969 3,242 8,175 2,943 2,3591970 2,372 8,100 4,338 3,5741971 2,738 7,383 2,907 2,5821972 1,378 6,532 3,489 3,3691973 2,217 6,194 3,712 3,2031974 6,133 8,267 4,267 2,3461975 2,622 5,621 3,697 5,145 .," . .' N .*1976 2,801 7,783 4,821 9,589 4i 4W
1977 4,950 2,393 3,236 10,987 V- .'1978 1,745 1,478 3,402 3,4241979 1,691 1,946 3,346 4,8861980 3,002 1,770 3,073 9,8111981 3,073 3,550 4,858 4,1741982 1,966 3,287 4,383 3,7591983 1,250 3,287 3,066 5,945
attributed to increased catches in established by the fisheries manage-North Carolina (0.7 million lb) and ment plan (GM&SAFMC 1982). Sport andLouisiana (1.2 million lb). These new commercial catch statistics from thedevelopments in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service -.::/
decreasing catches in south Florida reveal that only about half of theare currently under review by the maximum sustainable yield was landedGM&SAFMC. Recent studies suggest that in 1979.increased catches are related tostrong year classes, that more than Lone migratory group exists, and that a ..- , .,.,,maximum sustainable yield of 37.7 ECOLOGICAL ROLEmillion lb may have been overestimated " .. '
(Powers and Eldridge, unpubl. MS. a, Food Habitsb; Williams and Godcharles 1983). King and Spanish mackerel juve-
A maximum sustainable yield of 27 niles and adults are primarily pelagicmillion lb for Spanish mackerel was carnivores. Analysis of the stomach
12 " :
• - - - ~~~~~~~~~....................... .- °.. - ., . . ,. ,. .........,. ... .... .•..... . ".."°
% .-.. %' -
contents of 84 juvenile king mackerel mackerel were about the same size:(103-309 mm FL) from Cape Canaveral, 100 to 150 mm FL (Saloman and Naughton130 Spanish mackerel (117-432 m FL) 1983a).from Cape Canaveral, and 214 Spanishmackerel from Galveston Bay revealed The food of adult king andthat juveniles of both species were Spanish mackerel is similar. Klimaprincipally piscivorous, but king (1959) examined 190 Spanish mackerelmackerel showed a greater preference stomachs and reported that 76% con-for invertebrates. Anchovies (Anchoa tained herringlike fishes, principallyspp.), menhaden (Brevoortia 3 the scaled sardine and Atlantic threadand Atlantic thread herring herring. Shrimp (Penaeus spp.),(Opisthonema oglinum) were the domi- mullet (Mugil spp., needlefishnant forage of the mackerels. Much (Stronaylura spp.), and anchovies wereless common were mugilids, sciaenids, less abundant. In Texas, Miles andcarangids, and eleotrids. Squid was Simmons (1951) examined 2,274 Spanish Pthe major invertebrate prey for both mackerel stomachs containing food, andspecies. Juveniles fed heavily on found that 30% contained menhaden. _. . 'anchovies, as shown by their frequency Kemp (1950), also working in Texas,of occurrence (19%-39%) and volume reported the contents of 611 Spanish(30%-54%) in mackerel stomachs. The mackerel stomachs: 13% containedbody shape of anchovies appears to shrimp; 5%, squid; 9%, ribbonfish; 1%,make them highly suitable prey for menhaden; 1%, other species; and the .juvenile mackerel (Naughton and remainder, unidentifiable. The roundSaloman 1981). scad (Decapterus punctatus) was also
listed as a food of the Spanish mack-King mackerel feed mostly on erel (Anderson and Gehringer 1957).
schooling fish, secondarily on crusta-i fl#~i ceans, and minimally on mollusks. The
dominant prey by number (59%) were Stomachs of 6,933 Spanish mack-clupeids (Atlantic thread herring) and erel (64% were empty) were examinedscaled sardines, Harengula Jaguana. from the northern Gulf of Mexico, from %-'"The minor fish prey (8%)were species east central Florida, and from theof Carangidae, Lutjanidae, Pomadasyi- Carolinas. In volume, anchovies made " *..
dae (Haemulidae), Sparidae, and up 96% of the food in Texas and 99% inTriglidae. Invertebrates, particu- east central Florida (Saloman andlarly squid and shrimps, made up 33% Naughton 1983b). Anchovies also madeof the diet (Beaumariage 1973). up 94% of the diet by number in ..
Louisiana and 98% in North and South% In south Florida, the king mack- Carolina. The predominance of an-
erel fed primarily on the ballyhoo, chovies, herring, and small jacks inHemiramphus brasiliensis, followed by the Spanish mackerel diet demonstrateslutjanids (five species), clupeids, major predation on small, schoolingscombrids, mugilids (two species), and pelagic fishes.serranids (Saloman and Naughton
% 1983a). The invertebrates eaten weremostly penaeid shrimp and some squid Predatorsand nematodes. In east centralFlorida, clupeids (principally the Larvae and juveniles of king and,Spanish sardine, (Sardinella aurita) principally, Spanish mackerel havewere the dominant fish prey. --Fer been identified as prey for the littleprey were anchovies, mullet, flying tunny, Euthynnus alletteratus, andfish, drum, and jacks. Squid was the dolphin, oryaena hi purus (Carlsonmajor invertebrate food; others were 1952; Klawe 1961; Dragovich 1969; Rosenematodes, penaeid shrimp, and iso- and Hassler 1974). Relatively largepods. Most fish eaten by adult king king and Spanish mackerel are eaten by
13 -
A
U . ,
,o Oo .
i
..." -.. -.,..--
%-' ." .Z ;'- ,. -..,..,-.
• * % .. . .- QI
pelagic sharks, little tunny, and erel have been reported as far north 0dolphins. The bottlenose dolphin as North Bay, Massachusetts (Arnold V e(Tursioes truncatus) interferes with 1951). According to Earll (1883), .commercial fishing by pirating king water temperatures of 21 to 27 *C aremackerel hooked on trolling lines and preferred by the Spanish mackerel;in nets (Cato and Prochaska 1976). rarely are they observed in waters 'Sharks sometimes interfere with gill cooler than 18 OC.net sets by eating mackerel caught inthe mesh. The most common shark spe- The arrival of king mackerel off ""'""cies are the tiger shark, Galeocerdo west central Florida in the spring -
cuvieri; bull shark, Carcharhinus depends on changes in water tempera-leucas; dusky shark, C. obscurus; ture and on the preceding winter's air -smooth hammerhead, Sphyrna zaena; temperature (Williams and Taylorshortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus; 1980). Furthermore, sport catch data O -.
lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris; from northwest Florida indicate thatand porbeagle, Lamna nasus (Bigelow catch-per-hour is usually higher "-..-.and Schroeder 1 , CTrk and von following warm winters and lowerSchmidt 1965; GM&SAFMC 1982). following cold winters (Fable et al.
1981).
SalinitENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
All life stages of king andTemperature Spanish mackerel usually inhabit
waters within salinities of 32 to 36Temperature and salinity are be- ppt. Spanish mackerel usually avoid
lieved to be the most important fac- freshwater or low salinities near thetors governing the distribution of the mouths of rivers (Earll 1883). Ex-two mackerels. Their northern range ceptions were reported by Tagatz andextends only to the 20 *C isotherm Dudley (1961), who collected youngwithin the 18 m depth contour (Munro Spanish mackerel in a salinity of 4.7 - .1943; Berrien and Finan 1977a). Their ppt in the Neuse River, North -, ~northern range limit is in the vici- Carolina. Other investigators have - .-..-nity of Block Island, Rhode Island reported juveniles in low salinities
(Beaumariage 1970). During years of (17.8 ppt, Springer and Woodburn 1960;warm water temperatures, Spanish mack- 0.2 ppt, Kelley 1965). .
.. _-.,
* 4
%14 * -'V '.
14
N 6"% .',, ,r' .,.
6q_,__ _ _,__ _"_
r'x~ 1 "I lie• 2 %
low
LITERATURE CITED .
Anderson, W.W., and J.W. Gehringer. sharks). Sears Foundation for Marine .-. '1957. Physical oceanography, Research, New Haven, Conn. 546 pp.biological, and chemical data, SouthAtlantic coast of the United States, Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder.- "Theodore N. Gill cruise 3. U.S. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. ".
-'-.' Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. .•.: #-Fish. 210. 208 pp. 53. 577 pp. ;...._
,. *"NArnold, E.L., Jr. 1951. Northward Burns, K.M. 1981. Seasonal and areal
dispersal of warm-water fishes in distribution of scombrid larvae insouthern New England during the the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida.: .,_
summer of 1949. Copeia M.A. Thesis. University of South1951(1):87-88. Florida, Tampa. 66 pp.
Beaumariage, O.S. 1970. Current sta- Briggs, J.C. 1958. A list of Floridatus of biological investigations of fishes and their distribution.Florida's mackerel fisheries. Proc. Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol. Sci. .Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst., 22nd 2(8). 318 pp.
• Annual Meeting, 1969:79-86.Carlson, C.B. 1952. Exploratory
Beaumariage, D.S. 1973. Age, growth, fishing for the little tunaand reproduction of king mackerel, (Euthynnus alletteratus) off theScomberomorus cavalla, in Florida. Atlantic coast of the UnitedFla. Mar. Res-T u-1. 1. 45 pp. States. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish.
Inst., 4th Annu. Session 1951:89-94.
Berrien, P., and D. Finan. 1977a. Cato, J.C., and F.J. Prochaska. 1976.Biological and fisheries data on Porpoise attacking hooked fish irkking mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla and injure Florida fisherman. Natl."(Cuvier). U.S. Natl. Mar. F sh Fisherman 56(9):3b, 16b.Serv., Sandy Hook Lab. , Highlands,N.J. Tech. Ser. Rep. 8. 40 pp. Clark, E., and K. von Schmidt. 1965.
Sharks of the central Gulf coast ofBerrien P., and D. Finan. 1977b. Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 15:13-83. ... '
Biological and fisheries data .'-on Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus Collette, B.B., J.L. Russo, and L.A.maculatus (Mitchill). U.S. Natl. Zavala-Camin. 1978. ScomberomorusMar. Fish. Serv., Sandy Hook Lab., brasiliensis, a new species ofHighlands, N.J. Tech. Ser. Rep. 9. Spanish mackerel from the western52 pp. Atlantic. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish.
Serv. Fish. Bull. 76(1):273-280. ,.'Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder.
1948. Fishes of the western North Deuel, D.G. 1973. The 1970 salt-Atlantic (lancelets, cyclostomes, water angling survey. U.S. Natl."..--•4"
15
. ,.
;:;--.1-.: : -- :,; ---..-. .. "...': :" ""
AA
L' % % •.* V.
Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. Scomberomorus cavalla, from the6200. 54 pp. southeastern United States. U.S.
Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Panama City,Doi, T., and D. Mendizabal. 1979. Fla. 28 pp. (unpubl. MS.)
Evaluacion preliminar de la pobla-cion de sierra, Scomberomorusmculatus (Michrra, fromen os Goode, G. B. 1884. The fisheries andmaculatusfisheries industries of the Unitedcostas de Veracruz. Proceedings: fihre inutesoteUied..I
costs d Veacrz. rocedigs:States. Section 1. Natural historycolloquium on the Spanish and king ofauefu aqtic animal Uis. .mackerel resources of the Gulf of of useful aquatic animals. U.S..'- - .
Government Printing Office,is, Mexico. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. Washington, D.C.
No. 4:43-55.
Gulf of Mexico and South AtlanticDragovich, A. 1969. Review of studies
of tuna food in the Atlantic Ocean. Fsr MamtocsU.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. (GM&SAFMC). 1982. Fishery manage-Rep. Fish. 593. 21 pp. ment plan/final environmental impact
statement/regulatory impact review/ -K, draft regulations for the coastal
Dwinell, S.E., and C.R. Futch. 1973. pelagic resources (mackerels) in the -Spanish and king mackerel larvae Gulf of Mexico and South Atlanticand juveniles in the northeastern region. Tampa, Fla. (GMFMC), andGulf of Mexico, June through Charleston, S.C. (SAFMC).October, 1969. Fla. Dep. Nat.Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Leafl. Ser. Hildebrand, S.F., and L.E. Cable.4(24). 14 pp.Hidbad S.. an E Cle
1938. Further notes on the develop-Earll, R.E. 1883. The Spanish mack- ment and life history of some .erl, R.E. 1883. TheSpanishcmack-teleosts at Beaufort, N.C. Bull. .-.-
erel, Cybium maculatum (Mitch.), U.S. Bur. Fish. 48(24):505-642.Ag. ; its natural history and artifi-cial propagation, with an account ofits origin and development of the Hoese, H.D. 1965. Spawning of marine .--fishery. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. fishes in the Port Aransas, Texas,..(1880) pt. 8:395-424. area as determined by the distri-
bution of young and larvae. Ph.DDiss. Univ. Texas, Austin. 144 pp.
Fable, W.A., Jr., H.A. Brusher, L.Trent, and J. Finnegan, Jr. 1981. Houde, E.D., J.C. Leak, C.E.Dowd, S.A.Possible temperature effects on Berkeley, and W.A. Richards. 1979.charter boat catches of king Ichthyoplankton abundance and diver- "- ,.,;.mackerel and other coastal pelagic sity in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.species in northwest Florida. U.S. Final report to the Bureau of LandNatl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Mar. Fish. Management, Contract No. AA550-CT7-Rev. 43(8):21-26. 28. 546 pp. .--
Finucane, J.H., and L.A. Collins. Johnson, A.G., W.A. Fable, Jr., M.L.Reproduction of Spanish mackerel, Williams, and L.E. Barger. 1983. ZScomberomorus maculatus, from the Age, growth, and mortality of kingGulf of Mexico and South Atlantic mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla,Ocean of the United States. U.S. from the Southeastern United tas.
', Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Panama City, U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish.Fla. 23 pp. (unpubl. MS.) Bull. 81(1):97-106. ..
Finucane, J.H., L.A. Collins, H.A. Kelley, J.K. 1965. A taxonomic survey -.Brusher, and C.H. Saloman. Repro- of the fishes of Delta Nationalductive biology of king mackerel, Wildlife Refuge with emphasis on
16... .'
as .
-__A .. A.\' 4.%, - .., ~ % ~ ~% ~ *. * ~ *
-@'.p...~
' h' -,,~P 9 ." ,.
distribution and abundance. M.S. Munro, I.S.R. 1943. Revisions ofThesis. Louisiana State University, Australian species of Scomberomorus.Baton Rouge. 126 pp. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 12(21):65-69.
Kemp, R.J. 1950. Report on stomach Naughton, S.P., and C.H. Saloman.analysis from June 1, 1949 through 1981. Stomach contents of juvenilesAugust 31, 1949. Pages 101-127 in of king mackerel (ScomberomorusTexas Game and Fish Commission cavalla and Spanish mackerel (S. .Laboratory Annual Report for fiscal macuTatus). Northeast Gulf Sci. 5year 1948-1949. (1) 7174.
Klawe, W.L. 1961. Young scombroids Powell, D. 1975. Age, growth andfrom the waters between Cape reproduction in Florida stocks ofHatteras and Bahama Islands. Bull. Spanish mackerel, ScomberomorusMar. Sci. Gulf Carib. 11(1):150-157. maculatus. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 5. d
21 pp.Klima, E.F. 1959. Aspects of thebiology and fishery for Spanish Powers, J.E., and P. Eldridge. A . -mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus preliminary assessment of king(Mitchill), of southern Florida• mackerel resources of the southeastFla. Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. United States. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish.Tech. Ser. 27. 39 pp. Ser., Miami, Fla. (unpubl. MS. a)
Mago-Leccia, F. 1958. The comparative Powers, J.E., and P. Eldridge.osteology of the scombroid fishes of Assessment of Gulf of Mexico andthe genus Scomberomorus from South Atlantic king mackerel. U.S.Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Miami, Fla.8(4):299-341. (unpubl. MS. b)
Powles, H. Abundance and distributionMay, B. Genetic variation in the of king mackerel (Scomberomorus
king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) and Spanish mackerel (S.cavalla). Cornell University, macuTatus) larvae off the southeastIthaca, N.Y. Final report on Con- United States. South Carolinatract No. C1434 to the Florida Marine Resources Center. Charleston.Department of Natural Resouces. 16 pp. (unpubl. MS.)(unpubl. MS.)
Richardson, S.L. , and J.D. McEachran.McEachran, J.D. , J.H. Finucane, and 1981. Identification of small (less
L.S. Hall. 1980. Distribution, than 3 mm) larvae of king andseasonality and abundance of king Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorusand Spanish mackerel larvae in the cavalla and S. maculatus. Northeastnorthwestern Gulf of Mexico (Pisces: Z -f-Sci. 5(1):779..Scombridae). Northeast Gulf Sci. ;.....4(l):1-16. Rose, C.D. , and W.W. Hassler. 1974.
Food habits and sex ratios ofMendoza, N.A. 1968. Consideraciones dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus,
sobre la biologia pesquera de la captured in the western tlantic 411w isierra Scomberomorus maculatus Ocean off Hatteras, North Carolina.(Mitchill), en el estado Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103:94-100.
,[w ~Veracruz. Bios 1(2):11-22. -..- ,Vearu. Bis1()112.Ryder, J.A. 1882. Development of the
Miles, D.W., and E.G. Simmons. 1951. Spanish mackerel (Cybium maculatum).The menhaden fishery. Tex. Game Fish Bull. U.S. FTsh Coimm.Oyster Comm. Bull. 30. 28 pp. 1(1881):135-173.
17..:.
SE". P" e""" - , ""@ "°"" - """"" - , - "" "" .
", , . : "-"""' ." " " " "" ' " " " " ' •
" "" "
7.- -. R- V V-' I
Saloman, C.H. , and S.P. Naughton. Trent, L., P. Eldridge, and E.1983a. Food of king mackerel, Anthony. 1983. Commercial and rec- -.,Scomberomorus cavalla, from the reational fisheries statistics forSoutheastern United States including king mackerel in the southeastthe Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dep. United States. Pages 1-2 inCommer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC- Abstracts of papers presented at the " -'126. 25 pp. king mackerel symposium November 4-
5, 1983, Orlando, Fla. Fla. Dep.Nat. Resour. and U.S. Natl. Mar.
Saloman, C.H., and S.P. Naughton. Fish. Serv. (Abstr.)1983b. Food of Spanish mackerel,Scomberomorus maculatus, from the Williams, R.O. , and M.F. Godcharles.Gulf of Mexico and southeastern 1983. King mackerel tagging and..--seaboard of the United States. U.S. stock assessment. Report forDep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- 1981-1982 to U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish.SEFC-128. 22 pp. Serv. (Unpubl.) Fla. Dep. of Nat.
Resour. PL 88-309: Project No.341-a. 30 pp. (16 pp. text.) ,_ . -4
Skow, L.C., and M.E. Chittenden, Jr.1981. Difference in hemoglobin Williams, R.O. , and D.F. Sutherland.phenotypes among Spanish mackerel , 1979. King mackerel migrations. Pro-Scomberomorus maculatus. Northeast ceedings: colloquium on the SpanishGulf Sci. 5(1):67-7 and king mackerel resources of the
Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States Mar.Fish. Comm. No. 4:57. (Abstr.)
Smith, H.M. 1907. The fishes of NorthCarolina. N.C. Geol. Econ. Surv. 2. Williams, R.O., and R.G. Taylor. -",- -433 pp. 1978. King mackerel tagging and -4 '
stock assessment study (unpl.) Com- " .Springer, V.G., and K.D. Woodburn. pletion report to Natl. Mar. Fish.
1960. An ecological study of the Serv. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. PLfishes of the Tampa Bay area. Fla. 88-309: Project No. 2-254-r. 70Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. pp. (19 pp. text.)Pap. Ser. 1. 104 pp.
Williams, R.O., and R.G. Taylor. 1980.Sutherland, D.F., and W.A. Fable, Jr. The effect of water temperature and
1980. Results of a king mackerel winter air temperature on springtime(Scomberomorus cavalla) and Atlantic migrations of king mackerel in theSpanish mackerel (Scomberomorus vicinity of Tampa Bay, Fla. Fla.maculatus) migration study, 1975- Sci. 43 (suppl.):26. (Abstr.) .1979. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-SEFC-12. 18 pp. Wollam, M.B. 1970. Description and
distribution of larvae and earlyjuveniles of king mackerel, Scomber-
Tagatz, M.E., and D.L. Dudley. 1961. omorus cavalla (Cuvier), and SpanishSeasonal occurrence of marine fishes mackerel, S. maculatus (Mitchill);in four shore habitats near Beau- (Pisces: Scombridae); in the westernfort, N.C. 1957-60. U.S. Fish North Atlantic. Fla. Dep. Nat.Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Serv.390. 19 pp. 61. 35 pp. ".'* -5'*
o . ., ..
18 " ° °' ' -
~ .L~ ~ ~ -~ - - -- . . .. .
' P;YV ?-" .~ - ... . - 2 ...... . . . . . . . ... ...7 .P ~. .""' -;.'
REPORT DOCUMENTATION LEPORT NO. S. Rtecipent's Accession No.
Ma . Gilea d chatile s and Michael D.Mupy *
il. Perfamning Organisation Name and Address 10. ProiectfTask/Work Unit No. 0
Florida Department of Natural Resources J. % .
100 Eighth Avenue, SE(CSt. Petersburg, FL 3370112. Sponsorngm Organiztion Nm n drs G
National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13' Type of Repor,PeriodCowred
Fish and Wildlife Service Waterways Experiment StationFU.S. Department of the Interior P. 0. Box 631Washington, DC 20240 Vicksburg, MS 39180 1415. Supplementary Notes
*U.S.~ Army Corps of Engineers Report No. TR EL-82-4 ..mLjetuct(umit.20words )This Species Profile onking an pns akrlsumarizes the tax-
onomy, morphology, distribution, life history, fishery descriptions, ecological role,and environmental requirements of these coastal pelagic fish to assist environmental%%impact assessment. King and Spanish mackerel support major commercial and sport %fisheries in south Florida. In 1974-83, Gulf of Mexico and Altantic commericalfluctuated between 4.9-17.4 million lb. Both inhabit coastal waters, but Spanish 4mackerel are generally found closer to beaches and in outer estuarine waters. Bothspecies feed principally on estuari ne- dependent species. They are highly migratory,exhibiting seasonal migrations to winter feeding grounds off south Florida and summerspawning/feeding grounds in the northern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic coast of % %the Southeastern U.S. Spawning occurs from March/April through September/Octoberbetween the middle and Outer Continental Shelf (35-183 mi) for king mackerel and theinner shelf (12-34 mi) for Spanish mackerel.~ King mackerel reach sexual maturity in9'their 3rd and 4th years and Spanish, between their 2nd and 3rd. Female king mackerel
L live longer and grow larger and faster than males. Spanish mackerel live to 8 years;females also grow faster than males. King and Spanish mackerel feed principally on
*schooling fishes. Larvae and juveniles of both species are prey to little tunny anddolphin; adults are prey for sharks and bottlenose dolphin. Temperature and salinitya-_re important factors regulating mackerel distribution..'
17. Document Analyis a. Descriptors
Growth Temperature Life cyclesFeeding habits Salinity Marine fishes -. .
Animal migrations
b. Identlf, nlOpen-Ended Terms
Scomberomorus cavalla Ecological roliSpanish-macker-eT Ecviological res rements %
C. COSATI FJ"ld/Group -
IS. Availablty Statement ,s. Security Class (This ,por 2. No. of P&G .
B cUnclassified1 8 . - .-Reease Unlimie P eSecurity Class (T Page) . ,I e a e Uni ie Unclassified
tS**ANSIZ39.I MOPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)Se* ASI-23.1S)Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of commerce
King Mckereland Spnish Mckerel L " ,.5". -.,
I. 7. A~hor4e) * .
te.. % % ''. ~ V % ~ - 5 X % . .) % % . .'.t .. ~ . 5)~ ~ % ~ * j *' d'-"-s '. "* Sf
.1'
L'. *T1 J-1-
Hawaiian islnd
% .
7%
*-.c Na plCatlEoytmsTa -Vri sa
wsternd~ Enrg an adUeTa
Locadqtios Region offices~cl
REIO I RGIN RGINRegatonal Coastlo ytm Reinleamto eioa irco
* * ~~oatn, Otregona O972 ce
REIO 4 EIN5RGON6frw i
..
.
* REGION I REGION 27EIORegional Director ~Regional Director Rgoa ietr--U.S Fsh ndWillie Srvceu~s Fsh ndWillie rvceU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
%otad Oncegone 97232a 99503A
%.
Cr%
b ,. * t,
%.. % ,.
%PI%. 4
, %
% % ".
TAKE PRIDEinAmerica
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I - ."'. . ."
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEAs 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 includesfostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, .4....preserving the, environmental 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 inthe best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility forAmerican Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories underU.S. administration.
4 4
e P 4 ..
. ..z "~~ ;.::.:. ::
: "<, , ,-, ;..:.4<>
H H - 2~4
TJJi'.~T
ThL. -~ ~ ~x..- r. ~ ~-~x -?-AwJ
0
:1 :11*1
-H-----
4U
I. -''H
0**-~*
V ~!- (-~>J.! 7~ ~ V ~ C~.&~o2, j' ~4~AiN
* q
1%*
99
______________________________________________________________________________________ 9
4.
4
4.
4.4 4
I I.4
.4
~I.4. 4,a.
4..
4'
.9'
44,
*'.i
4,-
.4
Ii
'N ~W %~ ~ '4. * *4*~ -. .4 4., ~4. *'4% __
