892 
Fishery Bulletin 96(4), 1998 
16 
12 
8 
4 
0 
a 
40% 
lb 
0% 
ab ab 
114% 20% 
Live conch (F (1045) = 3.9; P= 0.0001) 
16 
12 
8 
b b 4 
0% 0% 
‘ < 0 
B C3 D3 E 
Cl C2 C3 
D1 D2 D3 D4 
c 
o 
"O 
JZ 
o 
c 
o 
o 
16 
12 - 
Dead conch (F (10 45) = 2.0; P= 0.05) 
16 
12 
A B C3 D3 E 
Cl C2 C3 
D1 D2 D3 D4 
Total conch (F (1045) = 2.5; P = 0.02) 
A B C3 D3 E F 
Down flow field 
Cl C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 D4 
Across flow field 
Stations 
Figure 2 
Density of live, dead, and total queen conch collected from 11 dredge stations located down and across the Shark Rock 
flow field. Stations C3 and D3 are illustrated in both dimensions for comparison. Values are mean ± SE (n= 5 for all 
stations except C3, where n= 6). Percentage of the total count represented by live and dead conch at each station is also 
given. F and P values are for 1-way ANOVAs made for each variable and flow-field dimension. Means that were not statisti- 
cally different (P>0.05) are designated by similar letters (Tukey multiple comparison test on log-transformed data). 
were not significant (F 1045 =1.92, 0.067). Neither 
olivids nor marginellids were collected at station A. 
Because size-frequency distribution of each preda- 
tor group varied little among the 11 stations, mea- 
surements from all stations were considered together 
(Table 5). The majority of xanthids were very small, 
with a mode of just 1.5 mm carapace width. The larg- 
est predator collected was a portunid (36.1 mm cara- 
pace width); all others were <15 mm. Modal size of 
alpheids was 4.2 mm carapace length. 
