FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 82, NO. 1 



DISTANCE FROM SHORE (km) 

 12 3 4 5 6 7 



Engrauhs mordax 

 eggs 







10 



20 



30 



-|40 

 50 

 60 

 70 



J 80 



DISTANCE FROM SHORE (km) 

 12 3 4 5 6 



Engrauhs mordax 

 early stage larvae 



DISTANCE FROM SHORE (km) 

 12 3 4 5 6 7 

 — i 1 1 1 1 1 1 



Engrauhs mordax 

 late stage larvae 





 10 



20 £ 



30" 



- 40 fE 



^°£ 

 60 o 



70 



J 80 



Genyonemus hneatus\ 

 preflexion stage larvae 





 10 

 20 

 30 

 40 

 50 

 60 

 - 70 

 J 80 



Genyonemus hneatus% 

 flexion and postflexion 

 stage larvae 





 10 



20 £ 

 30- 



- 40 f 



-50 a- 



60 £ 

 H70 



80 



Senphus pohtus 

 preflexion stage larvae 



o 



10 

 20 

 30 

 40 



- 50 



- 60 



- 70 

 J 80 



Senphus politus 

 flexion and postflexion 

 stage larvae 





 10 



20 E 

 30 — 



40 f 



50 Si 



60 q 

 70 



80 



FIGURE 5. — Changes with development stage in the cross-shelf abundance patterns of Engraulis mordax, Genyonemus lineotus, and Seriphus 

 politus off San Onofre, Calif. Shading indicates relative abundance in groups of strata differing significantly in mean abundance. Heavier shad- 

 ing indicates higher abundance; the darkest shading (black) is reserved for densities >3 individuals/400 m 5 (0.75/100 m 3 ). Geometric mean 

 abundance and 95' i confidence bounds for each group are given in Table 3. 



Table 4.— Early life stages of Engraulis mordax, Genyonemus lineatus, and Seriphus politus, for 

 1978 off San Onofre, Calif. See Figure 1 for description of sampling blocks. 



DISCUSSION 



The methods we have employed for sampling very 

 shallow inshore waters, though not without short- 

 comings, have proven satisfactory in that they clearly 

 emphasize the degree to which many larval fishes are 

 concentrated in different layers, especially near bot- 

 tom. Any quantitative sampling of nearshore fish lar- 

 vae over soft bottom (at least) in the Southern 

 California Bight must clearly include the epibenthic 

 layer. However, our method of doing so may leave 



room for improvement. The Auriga net probably 

 does not sample the 17 cm immediately above the 

 substrate, unless the rollers induce an avoidance re- 

 sponse such that larvae swim upward and into the 

 mouth. Moreover, we have not determined the thick- 

 ness of the epibenthic microhabitat or whether it is 

 the same for all species. The sharpness of some abun- 

 dance patterns suggests this layer may be no more 

 than 1 m thick (the bongo net tows began about 1 m 

 above the bottom), but small errors in this deter- 

 mination, and failure to sample obliquely from the 



106 



