Northern Gulf Cooperative Institute 2009-2010

We examined the effects of a hydrologically restrictive transportation corridor on the nursery use of various habitats in the Mobile-Tensaw River delta (MTD). We compared nekton assemblage structure in fall 2009 and spring 2010 among 3 locations and 3 major habitat types (marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation SAV dominated by Vallisneria americana, and shallow non-vegetated bottom SNB) commonly found throughout the MTD using 1 m2 drop samplers. Sample locations (Tensaw River: TR, Chocolatta Bay: CB, and Below Causeway: BC) were selected based on their degree of tidal connectivity with the wider estuary (TR CB BC). Nekton assemblages varied among locations and habitat types. Recruitment by the young of transient fishery species appeared to drive the nekton assemblage structure at the least hydrologically restricted locations (BC and TR) in the delta, whereas estuarine-resident species dominated the nekton assemblage at CB. Species richness was greater at BC than at CB. Within locations, mean densities of abundant species were concentrated in SAV and marsh. Delta locations directly connected to Mobile Bay, therefore, likely provide an important nursery for fishery species such as white shrimp, blue crab, gulf menhaden, and southern flounder. Additional studies will be needed, however, to determine whether these fishery species represent strong conduits for cross ecosystem transfer of energy and nutrients between the delta and northern Gulf of Mexico.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a hydrologically restrictive transportation corridor on the nekton composition and use of potential nursery areas of the Mobile-Tensaw River delta.

Location Of The Main Office Of The South East Fisheries Science Center

Open to evryone

Download From Provided link on the PARR Data Server

None

Data set is not for use in litigation. While efforts have been made to ensure that these data are accurate and reliable, NOAA cannot assume liability for any damages or misrepresentations caused by inaccuracies, or as a result of these data being used on a particular system. NOAA makes no warranty, expressed or implied, nor does distribution constitute any such warranty.

None

Each sample was assigned a unique identification code. Field collected samples were tagged redundantly (e.g. one label inside of the collection vessel and a matching label attached to the outside of the vessel). The identifier and its associated information (e.g. date, location, habitat) was recorded on field data sheets. Once a sample arrived at the laboratory, the label remained with the sample throughout the various stages of sample processing. After data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet or similar database file, the information was printed out and compared against the field data sheets by two biologists. Corrections were made at this time and saved. The electronic file was also sorted and examined by the Lab Supervisor or other project personnel in a variety of ways to look for outliers, missing data, and other potential errors.

The data resides on a secure government network requiring multi-factor authentication for network access.