1. The estuary supports "an extremely abundant and diverse assemblage 
of bottom organisms, except in Hillsborough Bay, dredged regions 
of Boca Ciega Bay, and a system of inland canals developed in 
upper Tampa Bay" (Taylor 1973). Taylor listed 207 species of 
polychaetes, 231 species of mollusks, and 29 species of 
echinoderms found in the bay. Simon and Mahadevan (1985) stated 
that approximately 1,200 infaunal and epifaunal species (excluding 
meiofauna) occur in the bay. 
2. Seasonal fluctuations in the abundance and diversity of these 
organisms are pronounced. Seasonal variability in benthic 
populations is high and densities can range from zero to 
200,000/mS particularly in areas of pollution-related stress. 
3. Seagrass beds have declined, with a concomitant decrease in faunal 
diversity. 
4. Opportunistic and "pollution indicator" species are abundant, 
particularly in Hillsborough Bay where pollution problems have 
been well documented for many years. Both Santos and Simon (1980) 
and Dauer (1984) noted that parts of the bay periodically undergo 
catastrophic disturbance due to anoxia (lack of oxygen). This 
condition was first documented by the FWPCA (1969) and the 
National Marine Fisheries Laboratory (Taylor, Hall and Saloman 
1970) during the mid-1960s, and is similar to conditions reported 
in Chesapeake Bay (Officer, Biggs, Taft, Cronin, Tyler and Boynton 
1984) as far back as the 1930s. 
5. Sediment type appears to be a controlling factor in determining 
infaunal distributions in the bay. Bloom, Simon and Hunter (1972) 
sampled along three shallow shoreline transects in Tampa Bay, each 
with a distinct sediment type (mud, sand, muddy sand). They 
concluded that benthic assemblages along two of the transects were 
distinct, and the assemblage along the third was a composite of 
the other two. 
6. A general increase in species richness and decrease in total 
population abundance are evident on a north-to-south gradient in 
the bay. 
Springer and Woodburn (1960) listed 253 species of fish found in 
the Tampa Bay area. Additional studies raised the total number to 312 
(Springer and McEarlean 1961; Moe and Martin 1965). Comp (1985) noted 
that many of these were offshore species and would likely never be found 
in the bay. He prepared a list of 203 species which were actually 
collected within the bay. He believed that only 125 of these could be 
considered common inhabitants, and although the list indicates a diverse 
fish assemblage, ten or fewer species usually made up the majority of the 
fish caught in sampling programs. Table 4 lists the ten most common fish 
in Tampa Bay in terms of numerical abundance in collections made with 
standard gear. As both Springer and Woodburn (1960) and Comp (1985) 
emphasized, the standard gear used for sampling of fishes in the bay is 
100 
