452 
Fishery Bulletin 113(4) 
than in cluster 2 because of the nature of the habitat 
and the expansiveness of the west Florida shelf. Fish- 
ing effort in cluster 2 is also high, but the effort is con- 
densed into a much smaller area than that of cluster 1 
and is highly accessible to divers throughout the year. 
In both clusters 1 and 2, hogfish in shallow waters are 
harvested from the population relatively soon after 
reaching legal size, particularly near areas of high hu- 
man density (McBride and Richardson, 2007). Although 
commercial and recreational fisheries do exist within 
the region of cluster 3, that area presumably has lower 
fishing pressure for hogfish because of the distance 
from shore required to reach hogfish habitat, as well as 
inclement weather patterns during the winter months 
and lower densities of humans in coastal areas. 
Previous stock assessments designed to quantify re- 
gional fishing effort and landings have been challeng- 
ing (Kingsley 6 ). As an alternative, Ault et al. (2005) 
promoted a size-based approach to addressing the da- 
ta-poor nature of hogfish assessment, and Collins and 
McBride (2011, 2015) underscored the importance of 
considering spatial demographic structure. The genetic 
data presented herein strongly indicate that regional 
assessments are warranted for at least the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico and south Florida, and a separate as- 
sessment should be considered for the broad (but still 
undefined) region of habitat that stretches from north- 
east Florida to North Carolina. 
Acknowledgments 
We thank all the members of the Saint Petersburg Un- 
derwater Club (SPUC) for their involvement in this 
project, as well as J. Atack, B. Bateman, L. Borden, E. 
Burge, C. Collier, K. Fex, T. Grogan, J. Haag, J. Herrera, 
J. Shepard, A. Solana, M. Stokley and the contributing 
participants of the St. Pete Open, Spearboard Open, 
Key West Open, and Wrightsville Beach Spearfishing 
Tournaments. The Marine Fisheries-Independent and 
Marine Fisheries-Dependent Monitoring programs of 
the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, also provided 
specimens. E. Schotsman went above and beyond to 
collect data in south Florida. We are grateful to W. 
Cooper, D. Richardson, and 3 anonymous reviewers for 
their insightful comments. The majority of the work de- 
scribed herein was funded by grant NA05NMF4540040 
to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commis- 
sion from NOAA’s Cooperative Research Program, as 
well as through the U.S. Department of the Interior, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Federal Aid in 
Sport Fish Restoration Program, Grant F-69. 
6 Kingsley, M. C. S (ed.). 2004. The hogfish in Florida: as- 
sessment review and advisory report. Report prepared for 
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf 
of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service. Southeast Data, Assessment, and 
Review, Charleston, SC. [Available at website.] 
Literature cited 
Antoniou, A., and A. Magoulas. 
2014. Application of mitochondrial DNA in stock identifi- 
cation. In Stock identification methods: applications in 
fishery science, 2 nd ed. (S. X. Cadrin, L. A. Kerr, and S. 
Mariani, eds.), p. 257-295. Academic Press, London. 
Ault, J. S., S. G. Smith, and J. A. Bohnsack. 
2005. Evaluation of average length as an estimator of ex- 
ploitation status for the Florida coral-reef fish commu- 
nity. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62:417-423. 
Belkhir, K, P. Borsa, L. Chikhi, N. Raufaste, and F. Bonhomme. 
2000. GENETIX 4.05, logiciel sous Windows™ pour la 
genetique des populations. Laboratoire Genome, Popu- 
lations, Interactions CNRS UMR 5000, Universite de 
Montpellier II, Montpellier, France. 
Bowen, B. W., and J. C. Avise. 
1990. Genetic structure of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
populations of sea bass, menhaden, and sturgeon: in- 
fluence of zoogeographic factors and life-history pat- 
terns. Mar. Biol. 107:371-381. 
Briggs, J. C., and B. W. Bowen. 
2012. A realignment of marine biogeographic provinces 
with particular reference to fish distributions. J. Bio- 
geogr. 39:12-30. 
Cadrin, S. X., L. A. Kerr, and S. Mariani. 
2014. Stock identification methods, 2 nd ed., 566 p. Aca- 
demic Press, San Diego, CA. 
Claro, R., A. Garcia-Cagide, and R. Fernandez de Alaiza. 
1989. Caracteristicas biologicas del pez perro, Lachno- 
laimus maximus (Walbaum), en el golfo de Batabano, 
Cuba. Rev. Invest. Mar. 10:239-252. 
Colin, P. L. 
1982. Spawning and larval development of the hogfish, 
Lachnolaimus maximus (Pisces: Labridae). Fish. Bull. 
80:853-862. 
Collins, A. B., and R. S. McBride. 
2011. Demographics by depth: spatially explicit life-his- 
tory dynamics of a protogynous reef fish. Fish. Bull. 
109:232-242. 
2015. Variations in reproductive potential between near- 
shore and offshore spawning contingents of hogfish in the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 22:113-124. 
Cowen, R. K, K. M. M. Lwiza, S. Sponaugle, C. B. Paris, and 
D. B. Olson. 
2000. Connectivity of marine populations: Open or 
closed? Science 287:857-859. 
Cowen, R. K. 
2002. Larval dispersal and retention and consequences for 
population connectivity. In Coral reef fishes: dynamics 
and diversity in a complex ecosystem (P. F. Sale, ed.), p. 
149-170. Academic Press, Amsterdam. 
Davis, J. C. 
1976. Biology of the hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus (Wal- 
baum), in the Florida Keys. M.S. thesis, 86 p. Univ. 
Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 
Do, C., R. S. Waples, G. M. Macbeth, B. J. Tibet, and J. R. 
Ovenden. 
2014. NeEstimator v2: re-implementation of software for 
the estimation of contemporary effective population size 
( N e ) from genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14:209-214. 
Earl, D. A., and B. M. vonHoldt. 
2012. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program 
for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing 
the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4:359-361. 
