Hernandez et al.: Variability in ichthyoplankton abundance and composition in the northern Gulf of Mexico 
201 
co 
E 
o 
o 
0 
03 
03 
C 
o 
5 
c 
0 
O 
c 
o 
O 
0.5 
S. pumilio 
t I 
A 
4—H 
in 
ONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASO 
600 
500 
400 
300 
200 
100 
C. chrysurus 
-t- i. .i i. . | -t-nfal.. 
_ cfaA i 1 ■ _l_ 
ONDJ FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJ JASO 
Month 2004-2006 
Figure 4 
Mean larval concentrations (no./lOO m 3 ) of dominant taxa for each month during the ichthyoplank- 
ton survey (October 2004-October 2006). Error bars denote ±1 standard error. Figure panels are 
presented in taxonomic order, as listed in Table 2. 
tion of larvae has been documented in numerous stud- 
ies, with the general conclusion that larger mesh sizes 
may efficiently collect the late larval stages but under- 
estimate the smaller size classes because of extrusion 
(Houde and Lovdal, 1984; Leslie and Timmins, 1989). 
Conversely, smaller mesh nets may collect smaller size 
classes of larvae, but are prone to clogging, thus reduc- 
ing their effectiveness in sampling ichthyoplankton, 
particularly late-stage fish larvae (Smith et al., 1968; 
Tranter and Smith, 1968). In our study the smaller 
mesh size enabled us to achieve better estimates of 
fish egg and preflexion larval fish concentrations, which 
