636 



Fishery Bulletin 104(4) 



sandfish larvae in the shallow nearshore waters of The 

 Brothers Islands, this area appears to be an important 

 spawning and nursery area for Pacific sandfish. The 

 length of time that larvae remain in shallow nearshore 

 areas, however, appears to be limited because we cap- 

 tured no age-0 fish in July. 



Pacific sandfish have been caught incidentally in a 

 variety of habitats in Alaska. In southeastern Alaska, 

 Orsi and Landingham (19851 caught Pacific sandfish in 

 low-gradient beaches composed of sand, gravel, cobble, 

 or a combination of these substrates, and Orsi et al. 

 (2000) caught Pacific sandfish with a rope trawl in 

 deeper waters. In the Aleutian Islands, Isakson et al. 

 (1971) reported that Pacific sandfish were a prominent 

 species in the inshore sand and gravel community. Pa- 

 cific sandfish are known to burrow into soft substrates, 

 but most of the juveniles that we captured were close 

 to shore and adjacent to bedrock outcroppings — area 

 and substrate similar to those observed by Bailey et 

 al. (1983). Although Mecklenburg (2003) reported that 

 Pacific sandfish generally burrow in sand during the 

 day and are active at night, we observed large schools 

 of juvenile Pacific sandfish actively feeding near the 

 surface during the day. 



Age of Pacific sandfish varied with time of capture. 

 We captured mostly age-1 Pacific sandfish in July; mean 

 size of age-1 fish in our study (75 mm FL) was similar 

 to the size of age-1 fish captured in the northern Gulf of 

 Alaska (71 mm FL; Paul et al., 1997). In spring we cap- 

 tured subadult and adult Pacific sandfish, and in winter 

 we caught only larval Pacific sandfish. Notably absent 

 in all of our catches were age-2 and age-3 fish. Paul et 

 al. (1997) captured age-2 and age-3 Pacific sandfish by 

 a variety of methods in the northern Gulf of Alaska. 

 Most of their sampling, however, occurred in August 

 and in deeper waters (29-55 m). Pacific sandfish may 

 segregate into different habitat types depending on age 

 and size, which may explain the absence of some age 

 classes in our catches. 



Diets consisting of crustaceans and fish have been 

 reported for Pacific sandfish similar in size to those in 

 our study (Paul et al., 1997; Sturdevant et al.-). Percent 

 FO of fish in the diet of Pacific sandfish was 66% in the 

 Gulf of Alaska (Paul et al., 1997), 100% in Prince Wil- 

 liam Sound (Sturdevant et al.-), and 56% in our study. 

 For crustaceans, the highest %■ FO was for shrimp 

 (19%) in the Gulf of Alaska (Paul et al., 1997), gam- 

 marids (46%) in Prince William Sound (Sturdevant et 

 al.2), and crab larvae (83%o) in our study. Near Kodiak 

 Island, Alaska, stomach contents of 26 Pacific sandfish 

 in July were dominated by fish (70% by number and 

 97% by weight; Rogers et al.^). 



■' Rogers, D. E., D. J. Rabin, B. J. Rogers, K. Garrison, and 

 M. Wangerin. 1979. Seasonal composition and food web 

 relationships of marine organisms in the nearshore zone 

 of Kodiak Island including ichthyoplankton, meroplankton 

 (shellfish), zooplankton. and fish. Environmental Assess- 

 ment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, p. 529-662, vol. 

 IV. Receptors, Fish, Littoral, Benthos. Outer Continental 

 Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Boulder, CO. 



Percent FO of fish in Pacific sandfish stomachs was 

 nearly four times greater in 2001 than in 2002, which 

 probably reflects the abundance of prey. Based on seine 

 catches at The Brothers Islands, the relative abundance 

 of young-of-the-year (YOYi gadids, the dominant fish 

 identified in Pacific sandfish stomachs, was over six 

 times greater in 2001 than in 2002 (Thedinga et al., 

 2006). In addition, mean length of Pacific sandfish 

 was about 5 mm longer in 2001 than in 2002, which 

 may reflect the increased presence of fish in the diet of 

 Pacific sandfish, or could be due to increased growth 

 time because we sampled 10 days later in 2001 than 

 m 2002. 



Diet differed by fish size. Larger Pacific sandfish 

 (mean FL 150 mm) ate mostly fish, whereas smaller 

 Pacific sandfish (mean FL 86 mm) ate mostly decapods. 

 Paul et al. (1997) also observed a change in diet based 

 on fish size; % FO of fish in the diet of Pacific sandfish 

 greater than 115 mm FL was 90% compared to 14% for 

 fish less than 99 mm. Also in their study, mean % FO 

 of non-fish food items was 5% for larger fish compared 

 to 24% for smaller fish. 



Bailey et al. (1983) reported observing juvenile Pacific 

 sandfish in mixed schools with pink salmon iOncorhyn- 

 chiis gorbuscha) fry, but we caught Pacific sandfish with 

 YOY walleye pollock {Theragra chalcograinma), YOY 

 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), YOY Pacific herring 

 (Chipea pallasii). and juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhyii- 

 chus keta). Apparently, Pacific sandfish exhibit school- 

 ing behavior as larvae and juveniles and co-occur with 

 a variety of forage species, sometimes preying on those 

 that are of consumable size. High predation rates of 

 juvenile walleye pollock by Pacific sandfish have been 

 reported for the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska (Gue- 

 nette, 2005). 



Shallow nearshore waters provide important nurs- 

 ery and spawning habitat for Pacific sandfish. Pa- 

 cific sandfish diet varied between size classes and 

 years which was probably dependent on abundance 

 of YOY walleye pollock. Pacific sandfish are a nutri- 

 tious forage fish with moderately high oil, protein, 

 and caloric content (Anthony et al., 2000; Logerwell 

 and Schaufler, 2005) and could therefore be impor- 

 tant to some predators at certain times of the year. 

 For example. Pacific sandfish occurred in up to 64% 

 of Steller sea lion {Eumetopias jubatus) scats in the 

 Aleutian Islands (Sinclair and Zeppelin, 2002). The 

 dependence of Pacific sandfish upon nearshore ar- 

 eas for spawning, egg incubation, and larval rearing, 

 coupled with the greater sensitivity to pollutants of 

 early life stages than adults (Carls et al., 1999), war- 

 rant the protection of nearshore areas from shoreline 

 development and pollutants to maintain healthy forage 

 fish populations. 



Acknowledgments 



We thank D. Csepp, E. Flynn, and M. Johnson for help 

 with fish collections and otolith removal. We also thank 



