264 
Fishery Bulletin 112(4) 
Table 1 
Numbers of red snapper ( Lutjanus campechanus ) sampled in 2009 and 
2010 for age and growth analysis from recreational catches in 6 regions 
of the Gulf of Mexico: South Texas, North Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, 
Northwest Florida, and Central Florida. 
Region 
Males 
Females 
Unknown sex 
Total 
South Texas 
134 
191 
23 
348 
North Texas 
111 
93 
20 
224 
Louisiana 
131 
132 
5 
268 
Alabama 
93 
108 
3 
204 
Northwest Florida 
186 
254 
23 
463 
Central Florida 
105 
161 
34 
301 
Total 
761 
938 
108 
1808 
Models were forced through to=0 for comparison pur- 
poses because of a lack of small, young (<2 years old) 
individuals in all sample populations. For all statisti- 
cal tests, significance was measured at an alpha level 
of 0.05. 
Results 
From 6 major recreational regions of the 
GOM, 1808 red snapper were sampled 
and a male-to-female ratio of 0.81:1.00 
was calculated (Table 1). Among all re- 
gions, the majority of fish were small: 
mean TL of 540.19 mm (standard error 
[SE] 2.17) and mean TW of 2.40 kg (SE 
0.04). On average, fish from Alabama 
were the largest fish, and the small- 
est fish were from the Florida regions 
(Table 2). Frequency distributions of 
TL and TW were significantly different 
among the regions; the largest propor- 
tion of small (<550 mm TL and <2.5 kg) 
fish were found in Northwest Florida 
(Fig. 2). No significant differences were 
noted between the sexes in the TL and TW frequency 
distributions (KS test: P=0.49 and P= 0.65) and means 
(Tukey HSD test: P=0.68 and i-L=0.92). 
Significant differences in TW-TL regression mod- 
els were detected among the regions (ANCOVA test of 
Table 2 
Minimum, maximum, and mean values of (A) total length (TL), in millimeters, (B) total weight 
(TW), in kilograms, and (C) age, in years, of red snapper ( Lutjanus campechanus) sampled from 
recreational catches in 6 regions of the Gulf of Mexico in 2009 and 2010. The 6 regions were 
South Texas, North Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Northwest Florida, and Central Florida. Each 
section of this table is arranged in increasing order of mean values. Superscript letters indicate 
significant differences (<0.05) among the means. Within each row, means not connected with the 
same letter are significantly different (least-square means with Tukey’s honestly significant dif- 
ferent adjustment). Standard errors of the mean (SE) are provided in parentheses. 
A 
Northwest 
Florida 
North 
Texas 
Central 
Florida 
South 
Texas 
Louisiana 
Alabama 
n 
435 
223 
298 
332 
268 
204 
Min TL 
389 
410 
394 
406 
400 
426 
Max TL 
880 
900 
780 
722 
821 
880 
Mean TL 
497.15 
525.94 
530.43 
552.10 
560.81 
604.19 
(SE) 
(3.90)“ 
(6.63)* 
(5.08)* 
(4.34F 
(5.24K 
(5.26) d 
Northwest 
North 
Central 
South 
B 
Florida 
Texas 
Florida 
Louisiana 
Texas 
Alabama 
n 
388 
203 
265 
193 
318 
178 
Min TW 
0.64 
0.84 
0.64 
0.87 
0.64 
1.04 
Max TW 
9.16 
10.25 
7.52 
8.71 
9.22 
12.7 
Mean TW 
2.10 
2.18 
2.21 
2.45 
2.54 
3.28 
(SE) 
(0.08)“ 
(0.11)“ 
(0.08)“ 
(0.10)* 
(0.60)* 
(0.10)“ 
Central 
Northwest 
North 
South 
C 
Florida 
Florida 
Louisiana 
Texas 
Alabama 
Texas 
n 
301 
463 
268 
224 
204 
348 
Min Age 
2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 
Max Age 
10 
9 
21 
33 
16 
13 
Mean Age 
4.06 
4.17 
4.72 
4.78 
4.79 
4.86 
(SE) 
(0.06)“ 
(0.05)“ 
(0.10)* 
(0.15)* 
(0.08)* 
(0.06)* 
