Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trends in Abundance Indices of Fishes in Maryland’s Coastal Bays During 1972–2009

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Maryland’s coastal bays provide habitat for juveniles of many commercially and recreationally important species of shellfish and finfish. Since 1972, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources has conducted the Maryland Coastal Bays Trawl and Seine Survey to monitor the populations of key species. The survey has undergone substantial spatial and methodological changes affecting the interpretation of simple indices of abundance. We developed generalized linear models to standardize the indices of abundance of five commonly caught fish species: Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus, weakfish Cynoscion regalis, spot Leiostomus xanthurus, bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli, and summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus. Density declined significantly since 1972 for menhaden, bay anchovy, and spot in at least one region within the coastal bays. The northern bays had significantly higher densities than the southern bays for all species. Changes in abundance indices of the five species examined were not related to sea grass coverage, temperature, salinity, nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratios, and other habitat variables but were likely a result of stock-wide recruitment processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdi, H. 2007. The Bonferonni and Sidak corrections for multiple comparisons. In Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics, ed. N. Salkind. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Able, K., and M. Fahay. 1998. The first year in the life of estuarine fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arreguin-Sanchez, F., and T.J. Pitcher. 1999. Catchability estimates and their application to the red grouper (Epinephelus morio) fishery of the Campeche Bank, Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97: 746–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASMFC. 2010a. ASMFC stock assessment overview: Atlantic menhaden. Arlington: ASMFC.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASMFC. 2010b. Spot stock monitoring report. Report to the South Atlantic State-Federal Fisheries Management Board. Arlington: ASMFC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkman, J. 2010. Assessment of populations with spatially explicit dynamics and the consequences for marine protected areas. Master’s Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck Jr., K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. BioScience 51: 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, H., R.E. Ruppel, W.T. Peterson, and E. Casillas. 2008. Spatial distribution of ocean habitat of yearling chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon off Washington and Oregon, USA. Fisheries Oceanography 17: 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, A., S. Doctor, A. Luettel, M. Luisi, and G. Tyler. 2007. Investigation of Maryland’s coastal bays and Atlantic Ocean finfish stocks 2007 report. Annapolis: Maryland Department of Natural Resources–Fisheries Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caddy, J. 1993. Toward a comparative evaluation of human impacts on fishery ecosystems of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. Reviews in Fisheries Science 1: 57–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, L.A., J.T. Finn, S.G. Ayvasian, C.A. Ryder-Kieffer, and J. Buonaccorsi. 1997. Development and validation of an estuarine biotic integrity index. Estuaries and Coasts 20: 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deroba, J.J., and J.R. Bence. 2009. Developing model-based indices of lake whitefish abundance using commercial fishery catch and effort data in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, C. R. 2004. State of the Maryland coastal bays. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Coastal Bays Program, and University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, IAN, Cambridge.

  • Froese, R. and S. M. Luna. 2010. FishBase—summer flounder. www.fishbase.org. Accessed 5 Nov 2010.

  • Gibson, R.N. 1994. Impact of habitat quality and quantity on the recruitment of juvenile flatfishes. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 32: 191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidetti, P. 2000. Differences among fish assemblages associated with nearshore Posidonia oceanica seagrass beds, rocky-algal reefs and unvegetated sand habitats in the Adriatic Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 50: 515–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L., B. Buckley, S.W. Nixon, and B.T. Allen. 2004. Experimental studies of predation by bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix in varying densities of seagrass and macroalgae. Marine Ecology Progress Series 281: 233–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, K.L., and R.J. Orth. 1980. Seagrass habitats: the roles of habitat complexity, competition and predation in structuring associated fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages. In Estuarine perspectives, ed. V.S. Kennedy, 449–464. New York: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, K.L., and T.A. Thoman. 1984. The nursery role of seagrass meadows in the upper and lower reaches of the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 7: 72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houde, E.D., and E.S. Rutherford. 1993. Recent trends in estuarine fisheries: predictions of fish production and yield. Estuaries and Coasts 16: 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAN, EcoCheck, and Coastal Bays Program. 2010. Coastal Bays Report Card 2009. Maryland Coastal Bays Program, Integration and Application Network at UMCES, and EcoCheck. http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/content/docs/Report%20Card.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2010.

  • Imhof, J.G., J. Fitzgibbon, and W.K. Annable. 1996. A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 312–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E.L., A.A. Rowden, M.J. Atrill, S.J. Bossey, and M.B. Jones. 2001. The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 39: 269–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipcius, R.N., and W.T. Stockhausen. 2002. Concurrent decline of the spawning stock, recruitment, larval abundance, and size of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 226: 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotze, H.K., H.S. Lenihan, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R.G. Cooke, M.C. Kay, S.M. Kidwell, M.X. Kirby, C.H. Peterson, and J.B.C. Jackson. 2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312: 1806–1809.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, S. M. and R. Froese. 2010. FishBase—spot croaker. www.fishbase.org. Accessed 5 Nov 2010.

  • Maunder, M., and A. Punt. 2004. Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fisheries Research 70: 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, P., and J.A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized linear models, 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Minns, C.K., J.R.M. Kelso, and R.G. Randall. 1996. Detecting the response of fish to habitat alterations in freshwater ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53: 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R.F., and D.H. Secor. 2006. Fish and blue crab assemblage structure in a U.S. mid Atlantic coastal lagoon complex. Estuaries and Coasts 29: 1121–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, R., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280–283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nagelkerken, I., C.M. Roberts, G. van der Velde, M. Dorenbosch, M.C. Van Riel, E. Cocheret de la Morinière, and P.H. Nienhuis. 2002. How important are mangroves and seagrass beds for coral-reef fish? The nursery hypothesis tested on an island scale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 244: 299–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemerson, D.M., and Able, K.W. 2004. Spatial patterns in diet and distribution of juveniles of four fish species in Delaware Bay marsh creeks: factors influencing fish abundance. Marine Ecology Progress Series 276: 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newberger, T.A., and E.D. Houde. 1995. Population biology of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 116: 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, S.W., C.A. Oviatt, J. Frithsen, and B. Sullivan. 1986. Nutrients and the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine systems. Journal of the Limnological Society of South Africa 12: 43–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oczkowski, A.J., S.W. Nixon, S.L. Granger, A.F.M. El-Sayed, and R.A. McKinney. 2008. Anthropogenic enhancement of Egypt’s Mediterranean fishery. PNAS 106: 1364–1367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R.J., K.L. Heck, and J. Montfrans. 1984. Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics and predator–prey relationships. Estuaries and Coasts 7: 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting, and A. K. Kenne. 2005. 2004 Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays. VIMS special scientific report number 146. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis. Grant no. CB973013-01-0, http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav04.

  • Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and S.L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56: 987–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. TREE 10: 430.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C.H., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, D. Esler, J.L. Bodkin, B.E. Ballachey, and D.B. Irons. 2003. Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302: 2082–2086.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rickabaugh, H. 2010. Evaluation of the status of spot in Maryland 2009. Annapolis: MD DNR Fisheries Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricker, R. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin 191, Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Science: Ottawa.

  • Rose, K. 2000. Why are quantitative relationships between environmental quality and fish populations so elusive? Ecological Applications 10: 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharf, F.S. 2000. Patterns in abundance, growth, and mortality of juvenile red drum across estuaries on the Texas coast with implications for recruitment and stock enhancement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 1207–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, F.J. 1964. Fishes of Isle of Wight and Assawoman bays near Ocean City, Maryland. Chesapeake Science 5: 172–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Commerce. 41st northeast regional stock assessment workshop (41st SAW). 41st SAW assessment summary report. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 2006, 05–10; 36 p.

  • Wang, S., and E.D. Houde. 1995. Distribution, relative abundance, biomass, and production of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in the Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 121: 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waycott, M., C.M. Duarte, T.J.B. Carruther, R.J. Orth, W.C. Dennison, S. Olyarnik, A. Calladine, J.W. Fourquerean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, F.T. Short, and S.L. Williams. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. PNAS 106: 12377–12381.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wazniak, C.E., M.R. Hall, T.J.B. Carruthers, B. Sturgis, W.C. Dennison, and R.J. Orth. 2007. Linking water quality to living resources in a mid-Atlantic lagoon system, USA. Ecological Applications 17: S64–S78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield, A.K. 1989. Ichthyoplankton in a southern African surf zone: nursery area for the postlarvae of estuary associated fish species? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 29: 533–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilberg, M.J., J.T. Thorson, B.C. Linton, and J. Berkson. 2010. Incorporating time-varying catchability into population dynamic stock assessment models. Reviews in Fisheries Science 18: 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank C. Kennedy, S. Doctor, and M. Luisi from Maryland DNR for their help with survey information, as well as T. Miller for reviewing early versions of the manuscript. Thanks are extended to the National Park Service, Water Resources Division, for support for L. Harris, with the funds administered by the North Atlantic Coast Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit at the University of Rhode Island. Data collected by the Assateague Island National Seashore (NPS) were provided by B. Sturgis. J.P. was supported by a Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Graduate Education Committee fellowship. This is contribution number 4829 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University Marine Field Station, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, 132 Great Bay Blvd., Tuckerton, NJ, 08087, USA

    Jennifer Pincin

  2. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 38, Solomons, MD, 20688, USA

    Jennifer Pincin, Michael J. Wilberg & Lora Harris

  3. Fisheries Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 301 Marine Academy Dr., Stevensville, MD, 21666, USA

    Angel Willey

Authors
  1. Jennifer Pincin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Wilberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lora Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angel Willey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Pincin.

Additional information

Communicated by Wim J. Kimmerer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pincin, J., Wilberg, M.J., Harris, L. et al. Trends in Abundance Indices of Fishes in Maryland’s Coastal Bays During 1972–2009. Estuaries and Coasts 37, 791–800 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9735-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9735-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation