54 
Fishery Bulletin 1 14(1) 
AS/NHB 
SS 
Poly prion americanus 
Anthiinae (unidentified) 
Anthias nicholsi 
Conger oceanicus 
lutogolabrus adspersus 
Physiculus fulvus 
Urophycis sp 
Macroram phosus scolopax 
Seriola dumerili 
Antigonia capros 
Scorpaena sp. 
Centropristis striata 
Prionotus sp. 
Paralichthys oblongus 
Pomatomus sattatrix 
Paralichthys dentatus 
Stenotomus chrysops 
Rajidae (unidentified) 
Leucoraja garmani 
Ophichthus cruentifer 
Caulolatilus sp. 
Bothidae (unidentified) 
N 
3 
320 
2 
8 
3 
2 
4 
2083 
23803 
5705 
320 
392 
51 
45 
32 
205 
16763 
313 
35 
2808 
738 
706 
3 
3 
140 
2 
11 
8 
4 
2 
4 
3 
20 40 60 
Abundance (%) 
80 
100 
Figure 4 
Relative abundance within species across 2 habitat types: 1) artificial (shipwreck) 
substrata and natural hard bottom (AS/NHB) and 2) soft substrata (SS), for benthic 
species that had 2 or more individuals identified in the analysis of video. A=total 
number of individuals counted during analysis of video collected along transects. 
(e.g., goosefish [Lophius americanus], spotted hake 
[Urophycis regia], fourspot flounder, summer flounder). 
The most abundant taxa observed in our study (i.e., 
the chain dogfish, Anthiinae, and the deepbody boar- 
fish), as well as others known to be reef associates (e.g., 
groupers, the blueline tilefish, and wrasses [Labridae]), 
were not abundant or were not reported in those ear- 
lier trawl-based studies (see also Grosslein and Az- 
arovitz, 1982). The differences in species composition, 
largely resulting from sampling constraints imposed 
by trawls, emphasize the high degree of separation be- 
tween fish communities on soft-bottom and those on 
reef-like habitats in the MAB. 
Although Grimes et al. (1986) and Ross et al. (2015) 
conducted visual surveys that covered extensive com- 
plex habitats in the region, they reported only 2 (25% 
overlap) and 10 (12% overlap) fish species, respectively, 
in common with those observed in our study. In those 
2 studies, the faunal differences can be attributed to 
deeper waters or a sampling areas much farther north 
than those surveyed in our study. Although also com- 
pleted farther north (~ 41°N), visual surveys (Auster 
et al., 1995) conducted over flat, primarily sand and 
shell bottom (sites at depths of 55, 240, 712 m) yielded 
37.5% fish species in common with our study, and most 
of those species exhibited broad habitat affinity or af- 
finity for soft bottom. In contrast, the MAB hard-bottom 
habitats surveyed in our study shared 43% of the fish 
