446 
Fishery Bulletin 99(3) 
Table 1 
Sources and details of data examined from Tampa Bay: sampling gear used (with mesh size); geographic zones sampled (see 
Fig. 1A); diel periods (D=day, N=night, C=crepuscular); months (l=January); years sampled during 1989-95; number of ladyfish 
collected (C (cl 7 ); and total number of sets with each net (f). The bay-wide survey of Tampa Bay included a stratified, random survey 
design and a fixed-station sampling design. The special survey of the Little Manatee River and the Gulf Beach survey used fixed 
stations. 
Gear 
Mesh (mm) 
Zones 
Period 
Months 
Years 
C (c) 4 
f 
Bay-wide fixed-station survey 
21.3-m seine (340 m 2 ) 7 
3.2 
A, (B-D), 2 F 
D 
1-12 
1989-95 
60 
377 
21.3-m seine ( 70 m 2 ) 7 
3.2 
F 
D 
1-12 
1989-95 
942 (6) 
1818 
21.3-m seine (140 m 2 ) 7 
3.2 
A-E 
D, N, C 2 
1-12 
1989-95 
22 
2081 
183-m seine 
38.5 
B-F 
D 
1-12 
1992, 2 1993-95 
1585 
458 
61-m block net 
3.2 
D 
D, N, C 2 
1-12 
1990 2 1991-92 
148 
210 
6.1-mtrawl 3.2 3 
Bay-wide, stratified random station survey 
B-F 
D 
1-12 
1989 2 1990-95 
32(2) 
2249 
21.3-m seine (340 m 2 ) 7 
3.2 
A-E,F 2 
D, N, C 
3-6, 9-12 
1989-95 
35 
1146 
21.3-m seine (70 m 2 ) 7 
3.2 
(A-E ), 2 F 
D, N, C 
3-6, 9-11, 12 2 
1989-95 
31 
639 
21.3-m seine (140 m 2 ) 7 
3.2 
A-F 
D, N, C 
3-5, 6, 2 9-12 
1989-95 
16 
1464 
6.1-m otter trawl 
3.2 3 
A-F 
D, N, C 
3-6, 9-12 
1989-95 
3(5) 
2538 
184-m gill net 
75-150 
A-E, F 2 
N, C 
3-6, 9-12 
1989-93 
952 
427 
198-m gill net 
50-150 
A-E 
N, C 
3-5,9-11 
1994-95 
583 
160 
Little Manatee River survey 
9.1-m seine 
3.2 
— 
D 
1-12 
1989-91 
15 
77 
22.9-m seine 
3.2 
— 
D 
1-12 
1988-91 
115 
1460 
120-m seine 
3.2 
— 
D 
1-12 
1990-91 
148 (1) 
89 
Gulf Beach survey 
22.9-m seine 
Total 
3.2 3 
D 
1-12 
1992-94 
156 
4843(14) 
435 
1 Value in parentheses indicates area swept by each haul; see text for further details. 
2 Less than 30 tows for this sampling unit. 
3 Minimum mesh size used. 
4 C = late-metamorphic, juvenile, and older stages; (c) = early- or mid-metamorphic (leptocephalus) larvae. 
between January 1988 and December 1991 (Table 1; Fig. 
1A). Samples were collected biweekly with a 22.9-m seine 
at six fixed shoreline stations located between the river 
mouth and the freshwater zone, with 2-3 seine hauls per 
station. Supplemental samples were collected with 9.1- 
and 22.9-m seines at two additional stations from January 
1989 to June 1991 and with a 120-m seine at five fixed sites 
near the river mouth from March 1990 to November 1991. 
Gulf beaches— Tampa Bay In a third independent survey 
by FMRI staff, two beach sites were sampled along the 
Gulf of Mexico coast of Pinellas County, FL (Table 1; 
Fig. 1A). Samples were collected biweekly with a 22.9-m 
seine from September 1992 to November 1994 at Treasure 
Island and from August 1993 to November 1994 at Indian 
Shores. Five hauls were made in the surf zone at each 
site during a single day; each haul began 50 m from the 
water’s edge and proceeded perpendicular to shore. 
Lagoon-wide Survey— Indian River Lagoon We also exam- 
ined data from an FMRI survey of the Indian River Lagoon 
fishes. The same general sampling design and gear were 
used in this survey and the bay-wide survey of Tampa 
Bay (see above; Tables 1-2; Tremain and Adams, 1995). 
Although the Indian River Lagoon survey started slightly 
later than the Tampa Bay survey, they were largely con- 
temporaneous (1990-1995). The northern Indian River 
Lagoon system is a complex of the Indian River basin 
(zones A-C) and the Banana River basin (zones D-E; Fig. 
IB). The sampling program in the Indian River Lagoon dif- 
fered slightly from that in Tampa Bay. In the Indian River 
Lagoon, neither the 183-m seine nor block nets were used; 
gill nets were used at fixed stations and stratified-random 
locations, and fewer total hauls were made with most types 
of sampling gear because portions of this program started 
one or two years later than Tampa Bay’s program. 
Abundance and size of ladyfish 
Monthly relative abundance was calculated as the mean 
number of ladyfish per haul (including hauls with no lady- 
fish) for each gear type used in each survey. Data from 
the stratified random programs were not included in cal- 
culations of monthly relative abundance because stratified 
