u oi i; — Bait Shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) in Tampa Bay, Florida- Biology, Fishery Economics, and Changing Habitat By Carl H. Saloman Marine Biological Laboratory LIBRARY DEC 1 31965 WOODS HOLE. MASS. SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT-FISHERIES Na 520 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE B U REAlTof^COMMERair^lSHERl^ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Stewart L. Udall, Secretary John A. Carver, Jr., Under Secretary Stanley A. Cain, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Clarence F. Pautzke, Commissioner Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Donald L. McKernan, Director Bait Shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) in Tampa Bay, Florida— Biology, Fishery Economics, and Changing Habitat By CARL H. SALOMAN Contribution No. 18, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Station, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida United States Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report--Fisherie5 No. 520 Washington, D.C. October 1965 CONTENTS Introduction Descriptions of area and gear Methods Collection of data Collection of samples , Measurements of samples Statistics of the bait shrimp fishery , Biological characteristics of bait shrimp Sex ratio and size differences , Maturity Length and weight Decline of the bait shrimp fishery Effect of estuarine engineering on shrimping and fishing , Literature cited Page 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 7 7 15 FIGURES No. 1. 2. 3. 5, 6. Bait shrimping areas in Tampa Bay Length measurements of a typical penaeid shrimp (modified from Voss, 1955). Length frequency of 9,145 bait shrimp from Old Tampa Bay and lower Tampa Bay Length frequency of 9,145 bait shrimp from Old Tampa Bay and lower Tampa Bay Total weight of 9,212 bait shrimp from Old Tampa Bay and lower Tampa Bay.. Land mass created by dredging and filling through 1963 and some contem- plated filling in Boca Ciega Bay 2 3 11 12 13 14 TABLES No. 1. 2. 3. 6. Weekly wholesale and retail value and poundage of bait shrimp caught in lower Tampa Bay, October 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962 4 Weekly retail and wholesale value and poundage of bait shrimp caught in Old Tampa Bay, December 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962 5 Weekly fishing effort for bait shrimpers in lower Tampa Bay, October 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962 6 Weekly fishing effort for bait shrimpers in Old Tampa Bay, December 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962 7 Number of bait shrimp and percentage of males in samples purchased weekly for biological analysis in lower Tampa Bay and Old Tampa Bay 8 Carapace length, total length, and total weight of bait shrimp (Penaeus duorarxim) from lower Tampa Bay, by sex, October 8, 1961, through April 8, 1962 9 Carapace length, total length, and total weight of bait shrinnp (Penaeus duo ra rum) from Old Tampa Bay, by sex, December 10, 1961, through April 8, 1962 10 Bait Shrimp(Penaeus duorarum) in Tampa Bay, Florida-- Biology, Fishery Economics, and Changing Habitat By CARL H. SALOMAN, Fishery Biologist (General) Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Station St. Petersburg Beach, Florida ABSTRACT A bait shrimp survey was made in Tampa Bay, Fla., from October 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962. During this period, the fishery for pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, produced 6.2 million individuals, with a retail value of more than $155,000. Most of the shrimp were juveniles, taken from grass flats within Tampa Bay. Females outnumbered males by a narrow margin and were of larger average size than males. Shrimp taken from the two major shrimping areas of Tampa Bay had different sizes. The smallest specimens were caught toward the headwaters of the estuary, in water of relatively low salinity. An average of 8 boats and 12 to 16 men operated the bait shrimp fishery. The catch per unit of effort varied between areas; about 184 more shrimp were retained per boat-hour in lower Tannpa Bay than in Old Tannpa Bay. Fishing effort and production of bait shrinnp in Tampa Bay are declining while the demand is steadily increasing. Dredge-and-fill operations have reduced the amount of available habitat for shrimp and other estuarine- dependent species measurably since 1940. INTRODUCTION An annual increase in sport fishing and a demand for live shrimp by sportsmen have created a sizable bait shrimp industry along the Florida coast and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The importance of shrimp as a bait in southeastern United States has been estab- lished by a number of authors. In 1953, the northeast coast of Florida produced over 38 million bait shrimp (de Sylva, 1954). In 1955, the west coast of Florida between Cedar Key and Naples produced over 58 million bait shrimp (Woodburn, Eldred, Clark, Hutton, and Ingle, 1957). Alabama landings exceeded 17,000 pounds (7,700 kg.), or about 850,000 shrimp, in 66 days (Loesch, 1957). Chin (I960) recorded capture of 676,000 pounds (307,000 kg.) of bait shrimp over a 2-year period in Galveston Bay, Tex. Because of the importance of this industry to commercial and recreational interests in the Tampa Bay area, a survey was made fronn October 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962, to determine the magnitude of the fishery and related ecological information pertaining to the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum. This report is supplemental to similar bait shrimp surveys in Florida waters; the nnost significant include those by Tabb (1958), Hig- man (1952, 1955), Higman and Ellis (1955), Siebenaler (1953), and Idyll (1949, 1950). Cos- tello and Allen (in press) identified the prin- cipal areas where bait shrimp are caught in southern Florida as Pine Island Sound, the vicinity of Cape Romano, Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Card and Barnes Sounds, and Biscayne Bay south of Miami. Descriptions of Area and Gear Tampa Bay is a shallow estuary on the west-central coast of Florida. The Bay has a total shoreline of 212 miles (341 km.) and en- compasses an area of 346 square miles (89,620 ha.) (Olson and Morrill, 1955). Some of the shoreline still has mangroves, but land fills and bulkheads have changed its natural configuration measurably in recent years. Bait shrimping within Tampa Bay is con- centrated in two areas (fig. 1). The principal shrimping area is in lower Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay; a smaller fishery exists in Old Tampa Bay. Shrimp are caught in Tampa Bay from shallow-draft boats equipped with rigid- frame, roller trawls. Woodburn et al. (1957) gave a description of the fishing gear and boats in the bait shrimp industry of the west coast of Florida. Push nets and dip nets also are used but are largely noncommercial. Catch records of bait shrimping with push nets and dip nets are not available, and the take by these meth- ods is insignificant. In the principal shrimping areas, extensive beds of sea grasses (Thallasia testudinum, Diplanthera wrightii, and Syringodiunn fili- forme) were found with numerous species of algae (Phillips, 1960a). SHRIMPINO AREAS O d m X o o Figure 1. — Bait shrimping areas In Tampa Bay. METHODS Collection of Data To obtain information on areas fished, num- ber of shrimp caught, number of boats, boat- hours, and man-hours, I interviewed all known Tampa Bay bait shrimpers and wholesalers 1 week before the survey began. Thereafter, all bait shrimpers and wholesalers were interviewed weekly. Catch-effort data per- tained only to live shrimp and did not include those that died during sorting, handling, and holding. All shrimp were caught at night and usually marketed the following day. Collection of Samples Samples for biological analysis were pur- chased weekly from Tampa Bay shrimpers, wholesalers, and retailers. Although the total number of shrinnp purchased varied from week to week, the sample from each supplier contained at least 50 animals. The shrimp were placed immediately on ice in a plastic pan that had perforations to allow the melt- water to pass through. The shrimp were covered with cheesecloth to prevent them from jumping out and then transported to the laboratory in an ice chest. Shrimp from Old Tampa Bay and lower Tampa Bay-"- were kept separate. Measurements of Samples The carapace length, the total length, and the total weight were made on each shrimp while it was fresh. The carapace length extends from the posterior portion of the orbital notch to the posterior edge of the carapace (fig. 2). The total length extends from the anterior end of the rostrum to the posterior end of the telson. About one- third of about 50 shrimp were measured and weighed on the day of collection; of these, about 80 per- cent were still alive at measurement. The others were measured and weighed the follow- ing day. All specimens were in excellent condition; a few remained alive after being on ice up to 24 hours. The carapace length was measured to 0.1 mm. with vernier cali- pers, and the total length to the nearest 0.5 mm. by the specially designed plastic tube (Allen, 1963). Total weight of the shrimp was taken with a direct-reading, single-pan Metter balance, •'■ Lower Tampa Bay refers to the area near the mouth of Tampa Bay and adjoining Boca Clega Bay. 2 Trade names referred to in this publication do not imply endorsement of commercial products. -TOTAL LENGTH Figure 2. — Length measurements of a typical penaeid shrimp (modified from Voss, 1955). 3 Type K-7, having an accuracy of i 0.03 g. {Chin, 1960). Prior to weighing, a specimen was shaken three tinnes to eliminate excess water; its sex was determined; its carapace and total lengths were taken; and the aninnal was placed in a preweighed paper cup on the balance. After the weighing, each specimen was preserved for subsequent species identi- fication. STATISTICS OF THE BAIT SHRIMP FISHERY The catch of bait shrimp from October 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962, was estimated to be nnore than 6.2 million individuals. Of this number, 5.88 million were caught in lower Tampa Bay {table 1) and 32 3,700 in Old Tampa Bay (table 2). The total catch of live bait shrimp exceeded 70,000 pounds (31,700 kg.) The wholesale value, based on a price of $8.00 per thousand shrimp, was about $50,000; the retail value, based on an average selling price of $0.30 per dozen, was over $155,000. The period of highest production was October through February. A decline in the take began in March and continued into early April {tables 3 and 4). The fishing pressure in both areas of Tampa Bay was considered low. It averaged Table 1. — Weekly wholesale and retail value and poundage of bait shrimp caught in lower Tampa Bay, October <+, 1961, through April 8, 1962 Week of sample 1961 Oct. 4-8 Oct. 9-15 Oct. 16-22 Oct. 23-29 Oct. 30-Nov. 5. Nov. 6-12 Nov. 13-19 Nov. 20-26 Nov. 27-Dee. 3. Dec. 4-10 Dec. 11-17 Dec. 18-24 Dec. 25-31 1962 Jan. 1-7 Jan. 8-14 Jan. 15-21...... Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-Feb. 4. Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26-Mar. 4. Mar. 5-11 Mar. 12-18 Mar. 19-25 Mar. 27-Apr. 1. Apr. 2-8 Total Average . . . . Catch Shrimp caught Number 155,270 200,710 188,780 237,190 210,900 253,730 276,070 238,250 253,680 207,170 169,880 126,080 185,760 261,770 122,660 360,720 308,500 279,900 233,380 315,600 316,800 232,500 169,800 196,350 173,390 114,780 91,400 5,881,020 217,820 Wholesale value @$8.00 per thousand Dollars 3,880 5,020 4,620 5,930 5,270 6,340 6,900 5,960 6,340 5,180 4,250 3,150 4,640 6,540 3,070 9,020 7,710 7,000 5,830 7,890 7,920 5,810 4,250 4,910 4,340 2,870 2,290 146,930 5,440 Retail value @$0.30 per dozen Dollars 1,240 1,610 1,510 1,900 1,690 1,930 2,200 1,900 1,930 1,660 1,370 1,010 1,490 2,100 980 2,890 2,470 2,250 1,860 2,530 2,540 1,860 1,360 1,570 1,380 910 730 46,870 1,740 Total weight (heads on) Pounds 1,770 2,280 2,150 2,880 2,830 3,350 3,020 2,950 2,960 2,040 1,920 1,390 1,700 2,980 1,360 4,370 3,840 3,440 2,570 3,540 3,500 2,890 1,900 2,000 1,750 1,260 980 67,620 2,500 ■"• Estimated total weight calculated from the mean total weight in grams for all shrimp sangjled in lower Tampa Bay survey. Table 2. — Weekly retail and wholesale value and poundage of bait shrimp caught in Old Tampa Bay, December 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962 Catch Week of sample Shrimp caught Wholesale value @ $8.00 per thousand Retail value @ $0.30 per dozen Total weight (heads on) 1961 Dec. 4-10 Number 8,000 17, 500 6,000 14,000 22,700 21,000 20,000 22,000 19, 500 26,000 31,000 28, 500 21, 500 16, 500 21,000 16, 500 12,000 Dollars 200 437 150 350 568 525 500 549 487 650 775 713 538 413 525 413 300 Dollars 64 140 48 112 182 168 160 176 156 208 248 228 172 132 168 132 96 Pounds 93 276 73 153 247 183 311 196 221 241 268 309 204 223 216 189 94 Deo. 11-17 Dec. 18-24 1962 Jan. 1-7 Jan. 8-14 Jan. 15-21 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-Feb. 4.. Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25. Feb. 26-Mar. 4 Jfer. 5-11 Mar. 12-18 lifer. 19-25 Jfer. 26-Apr. 1 Apr. 2-8 Total 323,700 19,040 8,093 476 2,590 152 3,497 206 Average seven boats per day in lower Tampa Bay and less than one boat per day in Old Tampa Bay. About 184 more shrimp were produced per boat-hour in lower Tampa Bay than in Old Tampa Bay (tables 3 and 4). Catches consisted almost entirely of pink shrimp. One other penaeid species, Trachy- peneus constrictus (Stimpson), occurred rarely and was usually not marketed. This species was sorted from our samples before the pink shrimp were measured. The size of the bait shrimp catch varied considerably during the sampling period. In lower Tampa Bay it ranged from 91,400 to 360,720 individuals weekly (table 3), and in Old Tampa Bay the range was from 6,000 to 31,000 (table 4). During months of greatest abundance (October- February), the catch of shrimp depended mainly on weather and tides. Cold fronts and accompanying inclement weather were frequent during this period. Furthermore, low tides at this time of the year often drain large portions of the shrimping areas. Fortunately for shrimpers, the tides are generally nnore favorable at night, when the shrimpers do all of their fishing. BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BAIT SHRIMP Sex Ratio and Size Differences Pink shrimp examined totaled 11,695 of which 79.3 percent came from lower Tampa Bay. The sex ratio varied among samples and areas, but averaged nearly 1:1; females showed only a slight predominance (table 5). These findings correspond to those of Tabb, Dubrow, and Jones (1962) in Everglades Na- tional Park, Fla., and Eldred, Ingle, Woodburn, Hutton, and Jones (1961) in Tampa Bay, Fla. The mean carapace length of female shrimp was larger than that of males in all except one collection (tables 6 and 7). This inequality confirmed observations by Eldred et al.(196l) on Tampa Bay shrimp. In their samples, females were more abundant than nnales above 85 mm. in total length. Weymouth, Lindner, and Anderson (1933) found that in Penaeus setiferus the size difference between sexes increased with age and was clearly evident after the majority of individuals reached the total length of 130 mm. Williams (1955) de- tected no significant difference in size Table 3. — Weekly fishing effort for bait shrimpers in lower Tampa Bay, October 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962 Week of sample Shrimp caxjght Boats per day-"- Boat- hours Afen- hours Shrimp per man-hour Shrimp per boat-hour 1961 Oct, -i-S Oct. 9-15 Oct. 16-22 Oct. 23-29 Oct. 30-Nov. 5 Nov. 6-12 Nov. 13-19 Nov. 20-26 Nov. 27-Dec. 3 Dec. 4-10 Dec. 11-17 Dec. 18-24 Dec. 25-31 1962 Jan. 1-7 , Jan. 8-14 , Jan. 15-21 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-Feb. 4, Feb. 5-11 , Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26- Mar. 4, Afer. 5-11 ter. 12-18 1/BlT. 19-25 Mar. 26-Apr. 1, Apr. 2-8 , Total , Average . . . , Number 155,270 200,710 188,780 237, 190 210, 900 253,730 276,070 238,250 253,680 207, 170 169, 880 126,080 185,760 261 122 360 308 279 233 315 316 232 169 196 173 114 91 ,770 ,660 ,720 ,500 ,900 ,380 ,600 ,800 ,500 ,800 ,350 ,390 ,780 ,400 5,881,020 217, 820 Number 8.0 7.6 5.1 5.1 5.6 6. 4. 9. 8. 7. 7. 9. .3 .1 .6 .7 .1 .9 .9 8.6 8.0 5.7 7.3 6.4 4.9 4.0 6.7 Number 278 330 298 361 353 264 370 238 400 389 272 270 304 342 220 528 516 396 422 586 498 457 326 389 350 250 235 Number ?,642 357 503 583 516 653 614 360 723 684 734 679 503 469 500 642 372 864 913 712 742 1,116 868 809 574 705 644 448 438 17,368 643 Number 309 344 366 363 344 705 382 348 346 305 338 269 372 408 330 418 338 393 315 283 365 287 296 279 269 256 209 339 Number 559 608 634 657 597 961 746 1,001 634 533 625 467 611 765 558 683 598 707 553 539 636 509 521 505 495 459 389 610 Weekly average. between sexes when the mean total length was less than 100 mm. The mean sizes of bait shrimp in Old Tannpa Bay were snnaller than in lower Tampa Bay (tables 6 and 7). This difference possibly resulted from a difference in salinity; In lower Tannpa Bay, the salinity averages 8 to 10 per- cent higher than in Old Tan-ipa Bay (Saloman, Finucane, and Kelly, 1964), Nunnerous authors (Burkenroad, 1934; Gunter, 1950, 196l;Gunter, Christmas, and Killabrew, 1964; Williams, 1955; and Tabb et al., 1962) have found a cor- relation between the size of penaeid shrimp and salinity along the South Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Although my assumption is based in large part on the works of these authors, sonne dis- agreement exists regarding the effect of sa- linity on the growth of shrimp. Lindner and Anderson (1956) found that the size of young shrimp was correlated more with locality than salinity and that the apparent relation between size and salinity did not exist for the four stations from which data were analyzed. Under laboratory conditions, Zein-Eldin (1963) de- termined that postlarval shrimp can survive and grow in a wide range of salinities, and that salinity per se may not play a direct role in growth and survival of postlarval and juve- nile shrimp in estuaries. Table 4. — Weekly fishing effort for bait shrimpers in Old Tampa Bay, December 4, 1961, through April 8, 1962 Week of sample Shrimp caught Boats per day'' Boat- hours Man- hours Shrimp per man-hour Shriinp per boat hour 1961 Dec. 4-10 Dec. 11-17 Dec. 18-24 1962 Jan. 1-7 Jan. 8-14 Number 8,000 17,500 6,000 14,000 22,700 21,000 20,000 22,000 19,500 26,000 31,000 28,500 21,500 16,500 21,000 16,500 12,000 Number 0.28 .71 .28 0,85 .85 1.28 1.14 .85 .71 1.00 1.14 1.00 .85 .57 .85 .85 .71 Number 10 40 14 42 51 72 68 45 38 47 64 56 48 32 48 45 40 Number 30 96 28 84 102 144 104 69 62 82 96 88 72 48 72 69 64 Number 267 182 214 167 223 146 192 319 315 317 323 324 299 344 292 239 188 Number 800 438 429 333 445 Jan. 15-21 292 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-Feb. 4 Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26-Mar. 4 Mar. 5-11 Mar. 12-18 Mar. 19-25 Mar. 26-Apr. 1 Apr. 2-8 294 489 513 553 484 509 448 516 438 367 300 Total Average. 323,700 19,040 0.82 760 45 1,310 77 247 426 Weekly average. Maturity Among bait shrimp sampled during this survey, males were more often mature than females, and apparently became mature at a smaller size than females. Eldred (1958) found that male pink shrimp nnatured at 75 mm. total length and fennale pink shrimp became impregnated at 91 mm. total length. Cummings (1961) estimated the carapace length of about 22 mm. for female pink shrimp at first sexual maturity. Sexual maturity of males is based on a criterion (both petasma endopods joined) given by Eldred (1958). Old Tampa Bay appears to be one of the main nursery areas for young pink shrimp in Tampa Bay. The size of 1,2 38 pink shrimp caught by Eldred et al. (1961) near Big Island in Old Tampa Bay in 1957 and 1958 had a mean total length of 62 mm, and 56 mm. for those 2 years. These sizes indicate that most of the shrinnp were immature and were using the area as a nursery. Most of the female shrimp caught in Old Tannpa Bay during the present survey were also young and unimpregnated (81.7 mm. total length). The mean size of the males (79.2 mm.), however, indicated that a higher proportion of males was mature. These shrimp probably reach maturity in the Bay before they migrate into the Gulf of Mexico, Eldred et al. (1961) found that larger shrimp (85-140 mm. total length) migrated from estuarine areas in April through July. They also reported an abundance of pink shrimp caught by commercial shrimp boats offshore from Tampa Bay in the early summer of 1958, I observed commercial boats trawling there in March and April 1963, 1964, and 1965. The catches may have been of shrimp migrat- ing from Tampa Bay and other estuaries in the vicinity, because there was no apparent shrimping offshore from Tampa Bay other than in March and April. Length and Weight The bait shrimp fronn lower Tannpa Bay averaged longer (by about 0.5 mnn. carapace length and 2.0 mm. total length), and heavier (0,5 g,) than those fronn Old Tampa Bay (tables 6 and 7). Females were larger and heavier than males in all but one sample- - they averaged 0.8 mm. carapace length and 2,0 mm, total length longer and 0.6 g. heavier than males. Females also outnumbered males in the larger size classes (figs. 3-5). The ranges and means of the carapace length, total length, and total weight taken from each weekly sample should not be considered Table 5. — Nijmber of bait shrimp and percentage of males in samples piirchased weekly for biological analysis in lower Tampa Bay and Old Tampa Bay Date of Sample 1961 Oct. 11 Oct. 22 Oct. 29.... Nov. 5 Nov. 12.... Nov. 19 Nov. 26.... Dec. 3 Dec. 10 Dec. 17 Dec. 2-4.... Dec. 31 1962 Jan. 7 Jan. lA... Jan. 21... Jan. 28... Feb. A- Feb. 11... Feb. 18... Feb. 25... Mar. A Mar. 11... Mar. 18... Mar. 25... Apr . 1 . . . . Apr. 8 Total... Average . Lower Tampa Bay Shrimp Males Number 97 101 308 421 'i22 403 527 405 400 428 430 269 450 310 461 229 388 391 499 368 361 382 364 268 310 282 9,274 356.7 Percent 49.5 58.4 49.0 52.0 48. 50. 48. 50. 50.3 48.8 44.2 55.0 51.8 46.8 43.0 54.1 48.5 44.2 53.3 49.5 51.2 48.4 47.8 52.6 49.4 50.0 49.4 Old Tanjja Bay Shrimp Males Number 108 95 105 55 143 98 115 175 153 192 191 162 100 224 196 187 122 2,421 142.4 Percent 54.6 49.5 50.5 43.6 44.1 45.9 60.9 54.3 52.3 43.2 54.5 51.9 47.0 52.7 49.0 47.1 54.1 50.5 representative of the pink shrimp population in Tampa Bay (tables 6 and 7; figs. 3-5). The smaller specimens were eliminated either by selectivity of the fishing gear or by the fisher- nnen. Shrimp of carapace length smaller than 10.0 mm. and larger than 27.9 mm., total length smaller than 45.0 mm. and larger than 119.5 mm., and weight less than 1.0 g. and more than 13.9 g. are not included in figures 3-5 because of insufficient numbers of speci- mens. Disposal by fishermen of the smaller shrimp from catches also eliminated most specimens of T^. constr ictus. DECLINE OF THE BAIT SHRIMP FISHERY An almost complete daily sale of marketable bait during the survey was indicated by the demand for live bait shrimp. This demand was created primarily by residents and tourists in Pinellas County, Fla., particularly in the Tampa Bay area. In 1955, almost 15 million bait shrimp were sold in that county (Wood- burn et al., 1957). Sales by one dealer in the Boca Ciega Bay area increased from 490,000 to 667,000 shrimp from 1950 to 1955. The increase in retail value for this dealer was $4,425 (Hutton, Eldred, Woodburn, and Ingle, 1956). Although the supply of bait shrimp from Tampa Bay exceeded local dennand as recently as 1949 (Idyll, 1949), it now does not. To overcome this shortage, shrinnp caught along the periphery of the Gulf of Mexico north of Tampa Bay are now trucked to St. Petersburg and suburbs. A reduction in the number of bait shrimp caught and of persons and boats in this fishery is evident in both shrimping areas in Tampa Bay. In 1954, about 17 bait shrimp boats fished Boca Ciega Bay from October through May (Hutton et al., 1956). During the present survey, the average number of boats was less than seven per day (table 3). In 1954, 7 shrimp boats operating full time and 10 fishing part tinne within Old Tampa Bay landed 4.5 nnillion bait shrimp (Higman and Ellis, 1955). During 1961-62, however, the number of boats actively engaged in shrimping had dwindled to an average of less than one per day, and the catch dropped to 0.32 million shrimp (table 4). The reduction in fishing effort since 1954 can be attributed to several possible reasons. Shrimping in other areas (mainly the Gulf of Mexico) has produced more shrimp of larger size; vessel size has been increased; gear has been improved; and shrinnping areas in Old Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay have been reduced in size. Effect of Estuarine Engineering on Shrimping and Fishing The only significant alteration of shrimping grounds in Old Tampa Bay between 1954 and 1961 was brought about by the construction of Howard Frankland Bridge and approaches. In this project, about 275 acres (111 ha.) of submerged grass flats were covered with fill material, and much additional acreage was dredged or silted over. The largest reduction in fishing area was in Boca Ciega Bay, where the total water area was reduced by 19.8 percent since 1920 (fig. 6) through the ad- dition of land fill for realty development. Another proposed fill area will add about 1,120 acres (453 ha.) or almost 2 square miles tb the total (fig. 6). Hutton et al. (1 956) in a report on the ecology of Boca Ciega Bay concluded that 80-90 percent of the bait shrimping area would be eliminated by dredging and filling. If the proposed fill (fig. 6) is completed, this prediction will be reasonably accurate. to oa (0 & IS o Kl 0) o H I (1) c ol (Nji^OmOr^iHtotom vD(MNf^\OinNj-in-Nt->j--st^r^ C^C^^tD^^^H'X)Or^C^lnOC0 Ol I oojocoi-in^[>orj I (MvOC^-^^^p-^^ n!>tXlO^<^Jl^\c^Jnc^oo^^^^ I c^ I CM 00 I I en o tn to I Nf 1 i- ho o u O -P - Si M bO ^ •H C^ o CO cu H CO 0) CO B CD CU hO moomoooocnoooo mONfCNiinvDiriNf^-cocnoo OHHr-IHHOi-IHOrHOH iHHHHHHrHrHrHHrHrHH I I I I I I I I I I I I I mmomovomooomoo HnC(3NfOr-H^rHOOtONft> inoomooooomooo mtJ^OC^iHinOHmcMO^HtO OOHOOOOHOOCT^OCJN HHHr^l^^^^^Hr^H rH I I I I I I I I I I I I I OOOOu~immOmooino CMvDHNfON|-irvcnmc\JtX)HC0 c»^<3^t^OlANttJ0cnc^J^-c^o^r^ CO!>C0tOlX)tD!>t0tOC-I>tO!> vOOOr'^fHvDrHmvOrn^C^tO c7^cJ^c^]^n^^C^^l/^^c^iO[>-[^• (3^c\l^nN^r^r-l^^nocJ^c^oo I>(»COtOtDtJ0tOt»tO[>l>00tX) OmoiAOOOiAOOminm tXl^^-Ot>mc^J\Oc^i0^cnmO^ HOOvJCMCMCNJrHr^rnONi-CMiH HiHHrHHrHHr-lrHHrHHrH I I I I I I I I I I I I I mOOOOOOOinoomm tnvOvocMM3c\jONfvO[>-rgioto vntncnvDininininvominvO-Nt ooooommomoooo vOOvOOr\imtOt)0!>0\ONfNt- CMCMHCMCMHrHCMOOOOH iHHrHHrHHHHrHiHiHHH I i I I I I I I I I I I I OOOOOOmooooiAin rnocMH^vOsfneocvcnHcM OmtOO^OC--rnOOI>cnrHtO lAOvOmOtOO^^CMC^CMmiH tXIC-~tX)tOtOtDOOtX)tor-tDtDI> OOt~-c\iMiriOoc\jini>mc^o c^Jvoc^^oc^^-Nt-^oc^^O(n■A^- r^m'n^or^f<^CMI>iArHOrncn tototoootototDcoootototxitio I CM 1 r-l CO o -p J3 -P cu cu o CO ft cB u as o vO H CO H p CO ft CO u CO o CO l•cn-^l• CnstNtcnCMCnCNiNtCMrHHCMNt [> CMCXJCVCMCMOJCNJCMCNJCMCNJCMCM CM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H!>tDtO(7^CM\DCOcnrHOI>vO O rHHcnCMcnrHCMCMCMcnc-viCMCM O i-HHi-IHHHHHi-IHrHHrH [^■u~^voo^l-lco«Or^Ofnc3^c^c^^ cnc^cna^Ol>lA^--sl■^c»^cnH CJN[^00!>(J^tOC-C0t>^C-t>vO HrHHf-IHrHrHHHrHrHrHH cnmOinsttomcMmmrHOi-l c^mHO■^tNi■Ni■r^ot^■^omm v0r^0000I>-!>!>t0!>v0M3OI> r^f^r^^^Hr-^HI^^^^^HHr-^ §= S ^ C> O CM St t> to i> en tx) CIN vD O CM en CM o to O vD en CM in CM CM en St 7 St en C3^ CM CM CD 1> en 00 St CM St 0^ !> CD m rH CM CM CM r^ CM CM rH rH rn CM pH St O rH H H H rH H CMHencT»CM[>-Otost^!>ir\en (3\OO^vDtomvDHsl--4-enCMin CMCMC\iCMCMC\JCMenCMCMCMCMCM I I r I I I I I I I I I I cnstHstrH[^-ooo^mr^^oeno cncMcnencnrHiHcncMcncnnst cnO\ornvOcj>t>rH -4■c^cMl-lC^ooc\icMOen'nstcJ^ c^[>c3^c^cooooooc^^-cooo^o HrHrHrHrHHHiHHrHrHrHH in I St m toc^si■a^cnvooc^OlncMM■^- rH i ocMvotoomOsj-mvomooo --t ^-cooocatMtoooo^coc^c^t^to eu H Cm o CO o ON • |HCM(3^ -CMOvO 'Oi^strH tOrHCMCMinrHiHCMcnrHrHCMcn -P-P-p-P>>>>OOOCJO ooooOOOOeu0 S^S id 03 CD & ^ H T3 rH O S O U tM ^ ^ 01 ^1 O -) T3 rn =) 0) (\J (11 vO C ON (1) rH o, V .V CO & 6 rH •H -H 11 +^ J5 •H M a) d .Q O ^ tM J3 O -P -P •^ ^ H bO\D -H Ov O H ^ cl t- CNi tn rH -sf rH CO [>HrHsi-aN[>incjNinONOmNOin NONDNOCMrHHtnONHNOrHCMNOC- 1 en 1 -sf a) rH CO ON Ol rH rH ^ rHrHOOcooONOcnomrnom rHrHHrH r-{ rHrH rHrHrH CO to t ON ON m CMi>OinN0C0C0tJNr-C0ND[>[>ND mcninr^c^oominmtONOCJNON in rri P H H H rvl CMrHHrHHHCMrHHCMHHrHrH rH cd to en !> rH rri rH NtCOCTNCMNONtC^NvOtOONCOrHinrri ONto[>cMCorr\toONtoHsj-rri!>m O 1 m 1 .H I) rH Id p o ol • • • in NO lA -^l-Nt^r^rr,^r\N^^r^rr^NfNl-lnsl-s^-fn Nf (1) 5 o Nt :> >t rr> (^ nd to d H rH H ol 111 CO NO vD rH en CM t7NOcMNOH^-colnNONi-NOC^vONO mommvOrHcoocorHinONorri 1 NO 1 m CNl CMcnON0rriI>OCMrriO[>rHiAl> i-HrHrHrHr-iCMHHr-lHCMCMrH H CQ 0) rH Cd a ONl>t>ocorNitncnNfcoi>[>si-co o-^inc^rnm-NroinocrivOrHCo 3 CMHrHrHrHCMrHrHrHCMCMHCMrH c rH CO rH Nf On tJN C^cnC3NOOON-Ni-rHinO[>CMCOrH (^NOOOCMONstCMON-sftOOinCO rH 1 rH 1 ^ ol in [> lA stiA-st-ststmstst-Ntsj-voinmcn in o O m ininmoominoininoooo 1 o ON ON CM O CM O rH rH rH HinNONDNOt>tn[>-sl-[>aNst-i>o HOOoa^ooor^c^r^rHOC^ HrHHrH r^ r4 r-\ r^ r-i r-{ <-{ ^ ON CM rH SI O in o oinininoooininiAiAinoo in J3 •P H H !> O CO lA NO nD C0stC^-^i-Ocn^r^C0ND^nrHC^CMCM sOinininNONONominNOvomNONO -sf in CM in o • O [> m si (^ c(5 en !> CO CO c^stNOE>-rrtcMcncMNtc^cciONONLn coc^lnmc^c^Nt■mI>rHCOr^cMO Nt 1 CM 1 0^ r^c7N-^I■r^lnc^[>lnrHc^st■cor^m C0i>[>l>Ol>[>N0C0[>00I>C0[> O O O ooooooooomomoo 1 O cd p o NOC^NOCMCOOcrl^nNtCM^-NO r^OOHrHN^OrHr^O^Cnr^C^ ^^r-{<-{r-\,-\r-^r-\r-ir-\r-{r-{r-\ rH E-i (U sl in O O moininoooinmoinmino m cd a in t>co in t> NO CMP-i>toincoinHNOmNOONcr\cM vomminiANOmininNONOinNOND m (3 m CO C3N • O H CM toom^^omHincnHNOOCNic-- inomcMtninNOCNjincorHcnooN nD I sl Nt in vD CO c^ CO CMrHmmts-vooNvooONONrHcrtin COCO[>!>!>CO^-I>I>t>COCO0Ot> to !> NO CNl I^-Nocn!>s^cMcr^ocos^ln^-c^rH 1 NO 0) -si- ON en • CNi nj CM instcnrrirHNt-rr,minCMNOinrr,o\ OJCMCMCNlCMCNlCMCMCMCMCMCNJCMrH c^ CM p> m rH ai CM rri St- lnst■NO^nNOco^r\■Nt-cMs^ooco■si-cM sfrHrHrHoJcNJrncNJcNastCNjCNJmcn r^^^t-{r-{f-i<-{r^r-^r-\r-\r-\<-\rA Nt H H C . s^& vo:>!>-cMNoeoincncjNvOrHOOco c^vo^^rl^NJCOlnrr\oo-s^lnco^-^- NO 1 H 1 (U rH o cd cd sl t> ON I> rH rH rH r>r^ininNOvONONOC^C^covOC^in r-{r-\rNOONOONNfin 1 rn cd (1) oo o -Nt CM tn CM vOincnr-NONt-NfinNoincMOc-^rH cMnjCMCMCMmcNjnjCMCNjcnfncMrNi Nt M tS SI in CM m stNOcncMCocMCocncricriCorncMin m rH CM NO Nf H H rH CrirHCMCMHNt-HrHCMNfr^CMrriCn HrHrHHHiHHrHrHrHrHrHHH rH rH a m ON i> . Nf CO CO NDCMrHOOCOONstrHONCMrHtOCM CMtOCMtnNOCO^r^[>.o^ONOCJNNfNO S ! sl ^ Ota H CM rH C0C^nOn0nOC0C^nOC^C^C3NC^C0nO r-{<-{r-\r-ir-\r-{r-{r-\r-{<-{r^r^r-\rH 5 w ft to Cm O 0) +^ cd Q H NO ON H c r- ^ CM vO On ' -^ r-\ to •rHCQin .rHCOin • • H l^rHCNiCMNfHHCNi-vfHrHCMrHOO (1) • cd 01 0) c cdcdcdcd(ua)a>(i)cgrt^fflq,Q, ^-^^-^^-^'-D[i^Ej^tt^li^SSSS'=^'^ 10 600 - 5 8 0- 5 6 0 — 5 4 0- 5 2 0 5 0 0 MALE FEMALE 1 1 1 1 1 "J 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I" 1 01 o o - - -J ~ "2 Kl V «■ !!! ■^ !f ^ ^ •^ CO " (T> ffl o ID o «o o m o m o in o in o tf) o m O tfi O Irt o o - - ~ ~ " m CO oo en (n cj ry o K) c\j OJ ro ro in in U3 o m o m O m o tn o o — — OJ N (O ro TOTAL WEIGHT (GRAMS) Figure 5. — Total weight of 9,212 bait shrimp from Old Tampa Bay and lower Tampa Bay. 13 ^ PROPOSED FILL AREA m AREAS FILLED THROUGH 1963 liiia AREAS FILLED THROUGH 1940 ST. PETERSBURG f GMONr '^'^ANNEi Figure 6. — Land mass created by dredging and filling through 1963 and some contemplated filling in Boca Ciega Bay. 14 LITERATURE CITED ALLEN. DONALD M. 1963. A device for measuring live shrimp. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Circ. l6l, 92 p. ALLEN, DONALD M., and ANTHONY INGLIS. 1958. A pushnet for quantitative sampling of shrimp in shallow estuaries. Limnol. Oceanogr. 3{2):239-241. BURKENROAD, MARTIN D. 1934. The Penaeidae of Louisiana with a discussion of their world relationships. Bull. Amer. Mus. Natur. Hist. 68(2): 61-143. CHIN, EDWARD. 1960. The bait shrimp fishery of Galveston Bay, Texas, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 89(2):135-141. COSTELLO, T. J., and DONALD M. ALLEN. In press. Migrations and geographic dis- tribution of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, of the Tortugas and Sanibel grounds, Florida. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 65. CUMMINGS, WILLIAM C. 1961. Maturation and spawning of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 90(4):462-468. DE SYLVA, DONALD P. 1954. The live bait shrimp fishery of the northeast coast of Florida. Fla. State Board Conserv., Tech. Ser. 11, 35 p. ELDRED, BONNIE. 1958. Observations on the structural de- velopment of the genitalia and the im- pregnation of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser. 23, 26 p. ELDRED, BONNIE, ROBERT M. INGLE, KEN- NETH D. WOODBURN, ROBERT F. HUTTON, and HAZEL JONES. 1961. Biological observations on the com- mercial shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad, in Florida waters. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser. 3, 139 p. GUNTER, GORDON. 1950. Seasonal population changes and dis- tributions as related to salinity, of certain invertebrates of the Texas coast, including the comnnercial shrimp. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 1{2):7-51. 1961. Habitat of juvenile shrimp (family Penaeidae). Ecology 42(3):598-600. GUNTER, GORDON, J. Y. CHRISTMAS, and ROSAMOND KILLABREW. 1964. Some relations of salinity to popu- lation distributions of nnotile estuarine organisms, with special reference to penaeid shrimp. Ecology 45(1):181- 185, HIGMAN, JAMES B. 1952. Preliminary investigation of the live bait shrimp fishery of Florida Bay and the Keys. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Mar. Lab,, Univ. Miami, Mar. Fish. Res. Bull. 52-20, 8 p. [Processed.] 1955. Observations on the live bait shrimp industry of Pasco and Pinellas Coun- ties, Florida. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Mar. Lab., Univ. Miami, 55-16, 4 p. [Processed.] HIGMAN, JAMES B,, and ROBERT ELLIS. 1955. Investigation of sport and commercial fishery activities in Old Tampa Bay north of Gandy Bridge. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Mar. Lab., Univ. Miami, 55-20, 5 p. [Processed.] HILDEBRAND, H. H. 1955. A study of the fauna of the pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) grounds in the Gulf of Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 4( 1 ): 169-232. HOESE, H. D. I960. Juvenile penaeid shrimp in the shallow Gulf of Mexico. Ecology 41(3):592-593. HUTTON, ROBERT F., BONNIE ELDRED, KENNETH D. WOODBURN, and ROBERT M. INGLE. 1956. The ecology of Boca Ciega Bay with special reference to dredging and filling operations. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser. 17, 87 p. IDYLL, C. P. 1949. Shrimping in Tampa Bay. Report to Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Mar. Lab., Univ. Miami, 49-3. 10 p. [Processed.] 1950. The commercial shrimp industry of Florida. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Educ- Ser. 6, 33 p. KIDD, WILLL\M R. 1963. Florida outdoor recreation at the crossroads. Report of the Governor's Committee on Recreational Develop- ment, Tallahassee, Fla., 40 p. LINDNER, MILTON J., and WILLIAM W. ANDERSON. 1956. Growth, migrations, spawning and size distributions of shrimp, Penaeus setiferus. U.S. Fish Wildl, Serv., Fish. Bull. 56:555-645. LOESCH, HAROLD. 1957. Observations on bait shrimping ac- tivities in rivers north of Mobile Bay Causeway, J. Ala. Acad. Sci. 29:36-43. OLSON, F. C. W., and J. B. MORRILL, JR. 1955. Literature survey of the Tampa Bay area. Armed Serv. Tech. Inform. Agency, AD-81621, pt. 1, 66 p. PHILLIPS, RONALD C. 1960a, Ecology and distribution of marine algae found in Tampa Bay, Boca Ciega Bay and at Tarpon Springs, Florida. Quart. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 23(3):222-260. 1960b. Observations on the ecology and distribution of the Florida seagrasses. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Prof. Pap. Ser. 2, 72 p, POWER, E. A. 1962. Fishery statistics of the United States, 1960. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Stat. Dig. 53:255-313. 15 SALOMAN, CARL H., JOHN H. FINUCANE, and JOHN A. KELLY, JR. 1964. Hydrographic observations of Tampa Bay, Florida, and adjacent waters, Au- gust 1961 through December 1962. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Data Rep. 4, 6 nnicrofiches (ii +114 p.). SIEBENALER. J. B. 1953. The Biscayne Bay commercial fish- ery. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser . 6, 20 p. STAUFFER, ROBERT C. 1937. Changes in the invertebrate commu- nity of a lagoon after disappearance of the eel grass. Ecology 18{3):427-431 . SYKES, JAMES E. 1964. Requirements of Gulf and south At- lantic estuarine research. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., I6th Annu. Sess.: 113-120. SYKES, JAMES E., and JOHN H. FINUCANE. In press. The occurrence in Tampa Bay, Florida, of immature species dominant in Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. B\ill. 65. TABB, DURBIN C. 1958. Report on the bait shrimp fishery of Biscayne Bay, Miami, Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Mar. Lab., Univ. Miami, 15 p. [Processed.] TABB, DURBIN C, DAVID L. DUBROW, and ANDREW E. JONES. 1962. Studies on the biology of the pink shrinnp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad, in Everglades National Park, Florida. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser. 37, 32 p. TABB, DURBIN C, DAVID L. DUBROW, and RAYMOND B. MANNING. 1962. The ecology of northern Florida Bay and adjacent estuaries. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser. 39, 81 p. VOSS, GILBERT L. 1955. A key to the commercial and poten- tially connmercial shrinnp of the fannily Penaeidae of the western North At- lantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser. 14, 23 p. WEYMOUTH, F. W., MILTON J. LINDNER, and W. W. ANDERSON. 1933. Preliminary report on the life his- tory of the comnnon shrinnp, Penaeus setiferus (Linn.) U.S. Bur. Fish., Bull. 48:1-26. WILLIAMS, AUSTIN B. 1955. A contribution to the life histories of commercial shrimps (Penaeidae) in North Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib, 5(2):116-146. WOODBURN, KENNETH D. 1959. Arvida - Bird Key fill. Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Mar. Lab., Univ. Miami, 59-46, 6 p. [Processed.] WOODBURN, KENNETH D., BONNIE ELDRED, EUGENIE CLARK, ROBERT F. HUTTON, and ROBERT M. INGLE. 1957. The live bait shrinnp fishery of the west coast of Florida (Cedar Key to Naples). Fla. State Bd. Conserv., Tech. Ser. 21, 33 p. ZEIN-ELDIN, ZOULA P. 1963. Effect of salinity on growth of post- larval penaeid shrinnp. Biol. Bull. 125(1):188-196. MS. #1479 16 BL WHOl Libra™ - Scrjals 5 WHSE 01646 Created in 1849, the Department of the Interior — a depart- ment of conservation — is concerned with the management, conservation, and development of the Nation's water, fish, wildlife, mineral, forest, and park and recreational re- sources. It also has major responsibilities for Indian and Territorial affairs. As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the De- partment works to assure that nonrenewable resources are developed and used wisely, that park and recreational re- sources are conserved for the future, and that renewable resources make their full contribution to the progress, pros- perity, and security of the United States—now and in the future. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Return this sheet to above address, if you do NOT wish to receive this material □, or if change of address is needed Q] (indicate change). POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Li'orirlan, Marine Biological Lab., SSR 7~ Woods Hole, Ma33.