236 
Fishery Bulletin 109(2) 
Table 1 
Number of dives, visual transects, and hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus) sampled (August 2005-August 2007) at nearshore 
(<30 m) and offshore (>30 m) sites. Visual transects (research dives where replicates could be completed and visibility was >3 m) 
are indicated by habitat type as artificial (A), flat hard bottom (F), rugose hard bottom (R). The number of transects (No. of tran- 
sects) during which at least one hogfish was observed (present) and the total number of transects performed (total) are listed for 
each month. Only seven dives were performed over other habitat (O); therefore this category was excluded from further analyses. 
Survey samples were harvested during research dives. Additional fish (included in the number of total fish sampled) were col- 
lected during spearfishing tournaments, trawl cruises or through private donations, n = number of fish sampled. 
No. of transects (present/total) 
No. of dives ti Total n 
Month 
(near/offshore) 
Total 
A 
F 
R 
O 
( survey) 
(near/offshore) 
Jan 
38 (25/13) 
29 
2/2 
3/5 
19/20 
0/2 
46 
46 (25/21) 
Feb 
32 (16/16) 
23 
0/1 
0/1 
10/18 
0/3 
28 
28 (11/17) 
Mar 
56(55/1) 
47 
7/11 
2/5 
28/31 
0 
31 
36 (32/4) 
Apr 
63 (30/33) 
32 
0/2 
2/5 
22/25 
0 
65 
110(52/57) 
May 
34 (30/4) 
26 
0/2 
1/3 
21/21 
0 
26 
75 (34/41) 
Jun 
37 (23/14) 
22 
2/3 
0/1 
17/18 
0 
25 
33 (6/14) 
Jul 
27 (10/17) 
14 
2/3 
0/1 
10/10 
0 
25 
29 (5/24) 
Aug 
21 (8/13) 
10 
0 
1/2 
7/8 
0 
21 
115 (14/63) 
Sep 
20 (16/4) 
18 
0 
1/2 
14/16 
0 
16 
38(13/25) 
Oct 
31 (16/15) 
17 
2/4 
3/5 
8/8 
0 
44 
80 (47/33) 
Nov 
31 (23/8) 
22 
3/9 
0/3 
8/8 
0/2 
24 
27 (11/16) 
Dec 
41 (12/29) 
23 
3/7 
1/2 
11/14 
0 
35 
36 (14/22) 
Total 
431(264/167) 
283 
21/44 
14/35 
175/197 
0/7 
386 
653 (264/337) 
Table 2 
Relationship of hogfish ( Lachnolaimus maximus ) presence and density to habitat type, depth zone, and season (main effects), as 
well as the interaction effects between habitat type and depth zone. Hogfish were considered present if at least one individual 
was observed. Surveys where hogfish were present and the total survey number are indicated in parentheses (no. of surveys pres- 
ent/no. of surveys performed). Hogfish presence and density were significantly related to habitat and depth, and they were most 
common and abundant on shallow, rugose habitat. There were no significant seasonal effects on hogfish presence or density, or 
interactions between depth and habitat or season. LSM indicates least squares means. 
Hogfish presence Hogfish density 
P>F 
F 
LSM 
P>\t\ 
P>F 
F 
LSM 
P>|/| 
Habitat 
<0.0001* 
32.38 
<0.0001* 
13.40 
Artificial (23/55) 
0.3943 
0.1797 
0.9641 
0.9003 
Flat (16/43) 
0.3248 
0.0606 
0.9847 
0.9682 
Rugose (278/324) 
0.8734 
<0.0001 
3.5074 
<0.0001 
Depth zone 
<0.0001* 
8.7 
<0.0001* 
18.46 
Deep (112/166) 
0.4284 
0.3376 
0.7591 
0.3607 
Shallow (205/256) 
0.6904 
<0.0001 
2.9395 
<0.0001 
Season 
0.6439 
0.56 
0.2998 
1.23 
Fall (66/101) 
0.5285 
0.671 
1.5843 
0.0125 
Spring (106/133) 
0.5741 
0.2902 
1.2634 
0.2131 
Summer (53/68) 
0.6387 
0.1101 
1.7192 
0.0084 
Winter (92/120) 
0.5111 
0.8787 
1.4467 
0.0424 
Depth zonexhabitat 
0.4968 
0.7 
0.3469 
1.06 
Depth zonexseason 
0.1488 
1.79 
0.0659 
2.44 
