NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 121
Habitat Use and Requirements
of Important Fish Species
Inhabiting
the Hudson River Estuary:
Availability of Information
by Anne
W. Everly1,2 and John Boreman1,3
1UMass/NOAA Cooperative
Marine Education and Research Prog., P.O. Box 30820, Amherst, MA
01003-0820
2Current Address: New England Aquarium,
Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110-3399
3Current Address:
National Marine Fisheries Serv., 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026
Print
publication date September 1999;
web version posted April 9, 2002
Citation: Everly AW, Boreman J. 1999. Habitat Use and Requirements
of Important Fish Species
Inhabiting
the Hudson River Estuary: Availability of Information. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 121; 75 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The objective of our project was to determine the extent and availability
of information that is adequate for: 1) assessing basic habitat requirements
of selected fishery resources of the Hudson River estuary; 2) relating
those requirements to habitat availability in that estuary; and 3) developing
priorities for projects that will enhance, restore, or maintain productivity
of those resources. We used a three-step process to determine if sufficient
information is available on habitat requirements of selected fish species.
First, we selected 11 fish species that are considered important and
representative of the fish community in the Hudson River estuary. Second,
we examined alternative definitions of habitat and selected one for evaluating
the role of habitat in the life history strategies of the 11 species.
Third, we assessed the availability of information necessary to evaluate
habitat requirements and use in the Hudson River estuary for each of
the 11 species.
We assembled a list of close to 1,000 publications up to 1995 containing
information that may be relevant to habitat requirements and use by the
selected fish species inhabiting the Hudson River estuary, then sorted
those publications by species and life stage. To determine the amount
of information that would likely be available for a full-scale study
of habitat use by the 11 selected species, we made two evaluations of
the collected publications: 1) the availability of published information
on site-specific distribution within the Hudson River estuary
of each life stage (i.e., spawning, egg, larva, juvenile, subadult,
and adult) for each selected species; and 2) the availability of published
information on habitat requirements of each life stage for each
selected species. We evaluated the two types of information separately
because evaluations of habitat requirements and use usually begin by
locating the organisms within the water body, then determining why they
are there; locational information is usually much easier to obtain, as
was apparent in our study.
We conclude that the available information is insufficient to conduct
a full-scale, detailed study of the importance of Hudson River habitats
to the selected fish species. Although our evaluation of the available
information suggests that little would be gained from a full-scale study,
we do not recommend total abandonment of the project; our review of the
literature revealed a wealth of information on a number of areas related
to the natural history of the Hudson River estuary and the alteration
of the estuary through human activities.
We suggest that the next step towards identifying important habitats
for Hudson River fishes would be to begin assembling the data on life
stage distributions and habitats of the Hudson River estuary into a geographic-based
information system (GIS). By using GIS, gaps in the information base
will become more clear, and priorities for collection of additional information
will become more evident. Because of the immensity of this task, no single
governmental or nongovernmental organization should be expected to undertake
such a project for the Hudson watershed singlehandedly -- a cooperative
effort among federal, state, and local agencies is needed where all parties
contribute and all parties benefit.
INTRODUCTION
Since
1963, the Hudson River estuary has been the focus of one of the most
ambitious environmental research and assessment programs ever performed
(Barnthouse et al. 1988), and nowhere has the conflict between
society and the environment been so intense (Smith 1988). The estuary
supports major commercial and recreational fisheries, serves as a major
transportation corridor, and is surrounded by one of the most densely
populated metropolitan areas in North America (Figure
1). In spite of efforts by government agencies and nongovernment
organizations to protect the fishery resources of the river, threats
-- including sediment-laden contaminants, municipal and industrial water
withdrawals and discharges, channel dredging, and nonpoint-source runoff
-- continue in this estuarine habitat.
Before major programs are initiated to protect, enhance, and restore
the fishery resources of the Hudson River estuary through habitat improvements,
an understanding is needed of the relationship between habitat characteristics
of the estuary and basic habitat requirements of the fishery resources,
as recommended in the "Habitat Research Plan of the National Marine
Fisheries Service" (Thayer et al. 1996). Information used
to gain that understanding also needs to be in a form that is useful
in determining: 1) the types of habitat restoration projects that are
feasible, and 2) the short-term and long-term benefits of these projects.
However, establishing baseline habitat requirements for fishery resources
of the Hudson River estuary is not as straightforward as it may seem.
In some instances, the habitat requirements of a prey species may be
the important factor in productivity of a fishery resource; for example,
productivity of bluefish may depend on the abundance of bay anchovy in
the estuary. Furthermore, the amount of available habitat may be limited
more by the abundance of competitor species than by the spatial scale
of the habitat itself. Thus, determining linkages between habitat characteristics
and fishery resource productivity requires an appreciation for, and understanding
of, the complexities of interactions among members of the fish community,
specifically among predators, competitors, and prey during all life stages
present in the system.
By 1981, an estimated $40-50 million had been spent on basic fisheries
research in the Hudson River (Smith 1988), and $3-4 million has been
spent per year since then on research and monitoring by the Hudson River
utilities and the Hudson River Foundation. Because of these enormous
expenditures, a dogma exists within the environmental community that
sufficient data now exist for informed management of the Hudson River
resources and their habitats. This is simply not the case, as evidenced
in recent criticism of the draft environmental impact statement prepared
by the Hudson River utilities (ESSA Technologies, Ltd., and Deriso 1994).
Much of the information gathered on Hudson River fishes has been specifically
for evaluating impacts of power plant operations (see Barnthouse et
al. 1984). Habitat-related studies in the Hudson River estuary have
been chiefly site-specific or species-specific, such as the work being
performed by the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook on
the effects of cadmium-contaminated sediments on the aquatic fauna at
Foundry Cove (Knutson et al. 1987), or by the Institute for Ecosystem
Studies on the invasion and subsequent distribution of zebra mussels
in the upper estuary (Strayer et al. 1994). No program has been
undertaken to define habitat use and habitat requirements of Hudson River
fishes on an estuary-wide basis; this is a fundamental void that needs
to be filled for development of remedial actions and restoration plans
for habitats.
The objective of our project was to determine the extent and availability
of information that is adequate for: 1) assessing basic habitat requirements
of selected fishery resources of the Hudson River estuary; 2) relating
those requirements to habitat availability in that estuary; and 3) developing
priorities for projects that will enhance, restore, or maintain productivity
of those resources.
METHODS
Two
approaches could be used, either independently or jointly, as first-order
approximations to understand the linkage between habitat requirements
and the well-being of fishery resources. One approach would be to determine
the minimum habitat requirements necessary to support selected fishery
resources, and then to map areas where any one or a combination of these
factors would exclude use by the selected resources. A tool to accomplish
this task would be a geographic-based information system (GIS). A second
approach would be to determine the historical extent of habitat use in
the estuary by selected fishery resources, compare to the current extent,
and determine what factors might be causing any differences. Both approaches
are data hungry, requiring an extensive amount of information from field
collections and controlled laboratory experiments. The extent to which
the data exist and are available will determine success of either approach
in assessing habitat requirements and, ultimately, in setting priorities
for habitat restoration projects in the estuary.
We used a three-step process to determine if sufficient information
is available on habitat requirements of selected fish species. First,
we selected 11 fish species that are considered important and representative
of the fish community in the Hudson River estuary. Second, we examined
alternative definitions of habitat and selected one for evaluating the
role of habitat in the life history strategies of those 11 species. Third,
we assessed the availability of information necessary to evaluate habitat
requirements and use in the Hudson River estuary for each of the 11 species.
SELECTION
OF SPECIES
The Hudson River estuary extends for 243 km from the Battery on Manhattan
Island north to the Troy Dam (Cooper et al. 1988), and is tidal
over its entire length, with the greatest tidal amplitudes occurring
at both ends. The magnitude of tidal flow within the estuary is 10-100
times greater than the freshwater inflows, causing a reversal in the
current pattern twice each day (Busby 1966, cited in Cooper et al. 1988).
The estuary is generally considered freshwater (<0.3‰) above
river kilometer (Rkm) 80 to 100, which may extend to Rkm 40 during high
inflow periods (spring and fall). The oligohaline zone (0.3-5‰)
extends from Rkm 80 to 40, but may reach Rkm 19, and the mesohaline zone
(5-18‰) generally occurs from Rkm 45 into New York Harbor (Cooper et
al. 1988; Haley 1999).
A total of 140 species of fish have been collected within the Hudson
River estuary, a listing of which by river region can be found in Beebe
and Savidge (1988, Table 6). Of the 140 species, 50 have been found in
all three salinity zones of the estuary, and two species have been found
only in the polyhaline zone (Yonkers and Tappan Zee sampling regions, Figure
2). The 140 fish species also embody a variety of life history strategies,
which can largely be described by four patterns: anadromous (spawning
and nursery areas in freshwater, oligohaline, and/or mesohaline zones
of the Hudson River estuary, most of adult life in the marine environment); freshwater-oligohaline
nonmigratory (entire life cycle in freshwater and/or oligohaline
zones); euryhaline nonmigratory (entire life cycle within the
Hudson River, but across all salinity zones); and oceanic/coastal
spawners (spawning in highest salinity zone of the Hudson River estuary
and surrounding coastal waters, early life stages enter lower salinity
zones of the estuary). Anadromous can be further subdivided into the
group of species that spawns in the tributaries -- if not also
the river proper -- of the Hudson River estuary, and the group that spawns
exclusively in the river proper. We chose 11 fish species that
represent the four life history strategies (Table
1), and that are also important to the Hudson River estuary economically
or ecologically. Synopses of the life histories of the 11 selected species
are presented in Appendix A.
HABITAT
DEFINITION
The term "habitat" needs to be defined before assessing
the availability of information related to habitat use by important fish
species inhabiting the Hudson River estuary. We thoroughly reviewed definitions
of habitat that have appeared in the literature (Odum 1971; Partridge
1978; Pimm and Rosenzweig 1981; Rosenzweig 1981, 1991; Van Horne 1983;
Boesch and Turner 1984; Rosenzweig and Abramsky 1985; Bell and Westoby
1986; Brown and Rosenzweig 1986; Bell et al. 1987; CBLRFT 1987;
Morris 1987a,b; McIvor and Odum 1988; Govoni et al. 1989; Sogard
and Able 1991; Peters and Cross 1992; Hoss and Thayer 1993; Able and
Kaiser 1994). We subsequently settled on one that seems to be most appropriate
for Hudson River estuary fishes: Habitat is that part of the environment
required for the survival (i.e., survival to successful reproduction)
of individuals of a species, consisting of biological and nonbiological
parameters which differ among species, as well as among life stages within
a species, and which are affected either seasonally or change as a result
of other environmental factors.
ASSESSMENT
OF INFORMATION AVAILABILITY
Given our working definition of habitat, we assembled information that
might be used to determine the importance of habitats in the Hudson River
estuary to the 11 selected fish species. We surveyed the published and
unpublished (gray) literature ("publications") available through
agencies and organizations involved with research on Hudson River resources.
We also contacted a number of investigators and organizations that might
possess unpublished information, such as databases and specimen collections,
that also might be relevant (Appendix B).
We used a software package for database retrieval called FileMaker
Pro Unlimited® (available in Windows and MacIntosh versions from
FileMaker, Inc., 5201 Patrick Henry Dr., P.O. Box 58168, Santa Clara,
CA 95054-8168) to organize the publications in a manner that allowed
us to search those publications. The publications could be searched by
the following: author, year, title, report type, publisher, geography,
fish species, and/or keyword(s). This database is available for public
access and use. See Appendix C ("Users
Guide to the Database") of this report for the several formats of
the database which have been prepared for public access and use.
RESULTS
We
assembled a list of close to 1,000 publications containing information
that may be relevant to habitat requirements and use by the selected
fish species inhabiting the Hudson River estuary (Appendix
D), then sorted those publications by species and life stage. Approximately
120 of the publications are available from us in hard copy. Unpublished
materials are also available through personal, agency, and nongovernmental
organization contacts. (See the "Remarks" column in Appendix
B.)
To determine the amount of information that would likely be available
for a full-scale study of habitat use by the 11 selected species, we
made two evaluations of the collected publications: 1) the availability
of published information on site-specific distribution within
the Hudson River estuary of each life stage (i.e., spawning, egg,
larva, juvenile, subadult, adult) for each selected species (Table
2); and 2) the availability of published information on habitat
requirements of each life stage for each selected species (Table
3). Habitat requirements information includes tolerances and preferences
for environmental parameters (salinity, temperature, turbidity, depth,
vegetation, bottom type, etc.) and trophic inter-relationships. We evaluated
the two types of information separately because evaluations of habitat
requirements usually begin by locating the organisms within the water
body, then determining why they are there; locational information is
usually much easier to obtain, as was apparent in our study. For each
life stage of each species, we noted whether information on distribution
or habitat requirements is: 1) available for the Hudson River population
(A in Table 2 and Table 3);
2) available for the Hudson River population, but limited either geographically
or temporally (Al); 3) not available for the Hudson River population,
but available for a population of the species in a neighboring system
(N); 4) unavailable, but attainable within 3 yr assuming adequate
funding (Ua); 5) unavailable and would not be attainable within
3 yr even if funding were adequate (Uu); or 6) inapplicable because
the life stage is not present in the Hudson River estuary (X).
The evaluations contained in Table 2 and Table 3 are
based on our judgments; others may draw different conclusions after reviewing
the publications contained in the database.
The most complete information on distribution of the 11 selected species
in the Hudson River estuary is for the planktonic life stages (egg and
larva) of alewife, American shad, Atlantic tomcod, blueback herring,
and striped bass. This result is not surprising, since all 11 selected
species, except the largemouth bass, have been targeted for collection
in the riverwide surveys conducted by the utility companies as part of
their impact assessment programs. Although the utilities' surveys covered
the entire estuary over a number of years, the spatial resolution of
the data is limited to the 12 regions designated by the survey design
(Figure 2). Their surveys also varied in coverage
of depth zones.
The distribution of spawners, eggs, and larvae of the largemouth bass
has been well documented in a special study of the species conducted
by David Green and his coworkers (e.g., see Nack and Cook 1987;
Hopkins and Green 1988; Green et al. 1988, 1989; Nack et al. 1993).
Information on the distributions of other life stages of largemouth bass
and on Hudson River populations of the other species is also generally
available, although limited geographically or temporally.
Information on habitat requirements for the 11 selected species is
much more limited than information on their distributions. For striped
bass, white perch, bay anchovy, and American shad, substantial information
exists on habitat requirements in neighboring systems, primarily Chesapeake
Bay, that may be transferrable to the Hudson River estuary. Transferring
habitat requirements information among estuarine systems, however, may
not withstand the scrutiny of litigation. Generally, information on habitat
requirements is unavailable for most species, but attainable within the
short-term (3 yr or so) if sufficient funding is available to test the
species' preference or tolerance for key habitat variables. The variables
may include, depending on the species and life stage, water temperature,
salinity, conductivity, sediment type, vegetation or other shelter, and
turbidity. We are assuming that the individual life stages need to be
tested under controlled conditions, and recognize that techniques for
rearing and maintaining the fish for purposes of experimentation have
not yet been developed for all life stages.
CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our assembly of close to 1,000 publications, and
on our contacts with a number of individuals, agencies, and nongovernmental
organizations involved with collection of information on Hudson River
fishes,
we conclude that the available information is insufficient to conduct a full-scale,
detailed study of the importance of Hudson River habitats to the selected
fish
species. If a full-scale study proceeds, the following findings are likely:
- Distributions will be available for the egg through juvenile life
stages of most of the 11 species, but the spatial resolution of the
distributions will not be adequate for evaluating use of specific areas
within the
estuary.
- Few studies have been conducted on the distributions of subadult
and adult life stages within and adjacent to the estuary, in and out
of spawning season. The distributions will have to be based on anecdotal
information from recreational and commercial harvesters, and on results
of studies presently being planned or conducted on striped bass, American
shad, the sturgeons, and bay anchovy.
- Specific habitat requirements
related to key environmental variables will be largely unknown for
the Hudson River populations of the 11 species.
Studies in other systems (Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River, and Connecticut
River) may provide some information, but transferability of the information
from the neighboring systems to the Hudson River estuary will be suspect.
Efforts should be made to compare extant data among these systems to
determine transferability.
- Tributaries to the Hudson River estuary
probably serve a more important role in the life history of the eleven
fish species than previously thought.
- Most life stages of the eleven
fish species are probably not associated with a specific habitat,
such as cobble bottom or mussel bed, but are
at the mercy of freshwater discharge and tidally-driven circulation
in the estuary. For planktonic life stages, such as eggs and larvae
of striped
bass, salinity, temperature patterns, and turbidity may be more important
to survival than substrate or vegetation.
Although our evaluation of the available information suggests
that little would be gained from a full-scale study, we do not recommend
total
abandonment of the project. Our review of the literature revealed a wealth
of information on a number of areas related to the natural history of
the Hudson River estuary and on the alteration of the estuary through
human activities; some of the information has already been synthesized
in literature reviews and atlases. However, such syntheses have limited
utility. Experience has shown that the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA related to coastal wetlands mapping and estuarine inventories
do not meet needs when attempts are made to use their information on
a site-by-site basis, which is where both agencies expend most of their
resource-advising efforts. This concern is especially critical as federal
and state agencies move towards ecosystem-level management of aquatic
and terrestrial systems.
We suggest that the next step towards identifying important habitats
for Hudson River fishes would be to begin assembling data on life stage
distributions and habitats of the Hudson River estuary into a GIS. By
using GIS, gaps in the information base will become more clear, and priorities
for collection of additional information will become more evident. The
GIS approach retains flexibility in its use and analysis, addresses the
needs of ecosystem-level management, and takes advantage of new and developing
technologies as recommended in the "Habitat
Research Plan of the National Marine Fisheries Service" (Thayer et
al. 1996). Giles and Nielsen (1992) give examples of how GIS can
be used in watershed research and management:
- bibliographic references to site-specific conditions and ecological
phenomena
- standard reports, texts, and tables for various reports and purposes
- ongoing research and development projects
- factual information (such as that provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Information System)
- numerical datasets (e.g., daily precipitation)
- models (statistical, mathematical)
- records of materials collections (plants, fish, wildlife, soil, water,
etc.)
- map databases that link all of the above
For a system as large and complex as the Hudson River estuary, both
in terms of its physical attributes and the resource management system
that oversees it, more than the current piecemeal approach to identifying
resource distributions and habitat use is necessary. A GIS for the Hudson
River estuary should contain the following dataset layers at a minimum:
- fish, wildlife, and plant distributions and abundances
- harvesting profiles (location, type, and density of effort, catch,
and access)
- water body characteristics (depth and current profiles, physical
and chemical features, wetted perimeter, locations and types of blockages,
and hydrologic features)
- sources and fates of environmental contaminants
- sediment characteristics and substrate types for the main channel
and its tributaries
- town zoning plans and bylaws
- density distribution of human population
- locations of parks, open space, and other recreational areas
- daily records of the amount and chemical composition of precipitation
- snow accumulation and chemical composition
- climatic information such as temperature, photoperiod, cloud cover,
and barometric pressure
- upland characteristics such as soil and bedrock types and properties,
slope, and land-use cover
Because of the immensity of this task, no single governmental or nongovernmental
organization should be expected to undertake such a project for the Hudson
watershed single-handedly -- a cooperative effort among federal, state,
and local agencies is needed where all parties contribute and all parties
benefit.
Concurrent with development of the GIS database, we recommend initiation
of studies on life stages of the selected fish species that would be
expected to associate with key habitat variables such as bottom type,
vegetation, structures, circulation patterns (eddies, plumes, etc.),
and geomorphological characteristics (wetlands, tributaries, etc.). Information
generated from these studies would be immediately useful in planning
habitat restoration programs. We recommend placing initial focus of the
studies on the juvenile, post-planktonic life stages of the 11 selected
species, examining the importance of shore zones, shelter created by
vegetation or structure, and tributaries and their outfalls. We speculate
that it is the juvenile life stage that is probably the least tolerant
of habitat alteration and loss in the Hudson River estuary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We
thank all of the people listed in Appendix B for
helping us locate information pertaining to the fish resources of the
Hudson River. In particular, we thank Hayes Batten, Nancy Steinberg,
Karl von Kries, John Waldman, and Robert Schmidt for their assistance
and advice during the course of this study. Useful comments on an earlier
draft were provided by John Waldman, Gordon Thayer, and Tom Halavik.
This study was supported, in part, under a contract with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and with funds provided by the
Hudson River Foundation.
REFERENCES
CITED
Able, K.W.; Kaiser, S.C. 1994.
Synthesis of summer flounder habitat parameters. NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program Decision Anal. Ser. 1; 68 p.
Bain, M.B.; Boreman, J.; Nack, S.; Haley, N. 1995. Techniques
for evaluating the population status of Atlantic sturgeon. Proposal to:
New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY; 27 p.
Barnthouse, L.W.; Boreman, J.; Christensen, S.W.; Goodyear,
C.P.; Van Winkle, W.; Vaughan, D.S. 1984. Population biology
in the courtroom: the Hudson River controversy. BioScience 34(1):14-19.
Barnthouse, L.W.; Klauda, R.J.; Vaughan, D.S. 1988. Introduction
to the monograph. In: Barnthouse, L.W.; Klauda, R.J.;
Vaughan, D.S.; Kendall, R.L., eds. Science, law, and Hudson River
power plants: a case study in environmental impact assessment. Am.
Fish. Soc. Monogr. 4:1-8.
Beebe, C.A.; Savidge I.R. 1988. Historical perspective on fish
species composition and distribution in the Hudson River estuary. In: Barnthouse,
L.W.; Klauda, R.J.; Vaughan, D.S.; Kendall, R.L., eds. Science,
law, and Hudson River power plants: a case study in environmental
impact assessment. Am. Fish. Soc. Monogr. 4:25-35.
Bell, J.D.; Westoby, M. 1986. Variations in seagrass height
and density over a wide spatial scale: effects on fish and decapods. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 104:275-295.
Bell, J.D.; Westoby, M.; Steefe, A.S. 1987. Fish settling in
seagrass: do they discriminate between beds of different leaf
density? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 111:133-144.
Bigelow, H.B.; Schroeder, W.C. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 53; 577 p.
Boesch, D.F.; Turner, R.E. 1984. Dependence of fishery species
on salt marshes: the role of food and refuge. Estuaries 7:460-468.
Boreman, J. 1981. Life histories of seven fish species that
inhabit the Hudson River estuary. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent.
Ref. Doc. 81-34; 97 p.
Boreman, J.; Fletcher, R.I. 1993. Modelling egg deposition patterns. Bull.
Hudson River Monit. Program Tech. Work. Group 1(1):1-8.
Boreman, J.; Klauda, R.J. 1988. Distributions of early life
stages of striped bass in the Hudson River estuary, 1974-1979. In: Barnthouse,
L.W.; Klauda, R.J.; Vaughan, D.S.; Kendall, R.L., eds. Science,
law, and Hudson River power plants: a case study in environmental
impact assessment. Am. Fish. Soc. Monogr. 4:53-58.
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research. 1977. An atlas
of the biological resources of the Hudson River estuary. Yonkers,
NY: Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Estuarine Study
Group.
Boyle, R.H. 1968. Notes on the fishes of the lower Hudson River. Underwater
Nat. 5(2):32-33,40.
Breder, C.M., Jr.; Rosen, D.E. 1966. Modes of reproduction in
fishes. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press; 941 p.
Brown, J.S.; Rosenzweig, M.L. 1986. Habitat selection in slowly
regenerating environments. J. Theor. Biol. 123:151-171.
Busby, W. 1966. Flow, quality, and salinity in the Hudson River
estuary. In: Hudson River ecology. Albany, NY: Hudson
River Valley Commission of New York; p. 135-145.
Carlson, D.M. 1992. Importance of wintering refugia to the largemouth
bass fishery in the Hudson River estuary. J. Freshwater Ecol. 7:173-180.
CBLRTF [Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force]. 1987. Habitat
requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources. Annapolis,
MD: Chesapeake Bay Program; 63 p.
Cooper, J.C.; Cantelmo, F.R.; Newton, C.E. 1988. Overview of
the Hudson River estuary. In: Barnthouse, L.W.; Klauda,
R.J.; Vaughan, D.S.; Kendall, R.L., eds. Science, law, and Hudson
River power plants: a case study in environmental impact assessment. Am.
Fish. Soc. Monogr. 4:11-24.
Dadswell, M.J.; Taubert, B.D.; Squires, T.S.; Marchette, D.;
Buckley, J. 1984. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser
brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 14;
45 p.
Dew, C.B. 1995. The nonrandom size distribution and size-selective
transport of age-0 Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod)
in the lower Hudson River estuary. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52:2353-2366.
Dew, C.B.; Hecht, J.H. 1994. Hatching, estuarine transport,
and distribution of larval and early juvenile Atlantic tomcod, Microgadus
tomcod, in the Hudson River. Estuaries 17:472-488.
Dovel, W.L. 1981. Ichthyoplankton of the lower Hudson estuary. N.Y.
Fish Game J. 28:21-39.
Englert, T.L.; Sugarman, D. 1988. Patterns of movement of striped
bass and white perch larvae in the Hudson River estuary. In: Smith,
C.L., ed. Fisheries research in the Hudson River. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press; p. 148-169.
ESSA Technologies, Ltd.; Deriso, R.B. 1994. A critical review
of the SPDES Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Report to: New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
NY; 70 p.
Giles, R.H., Jr.; Nielsen, L.A. 1992. The uses of geographic
information systems. In: Stroud, R.H., ed. Fisheries management
and watershed development. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 13:81-94.
Govoni, J.J.; Hoss, D.E.; Colby, D.R. 1989. The spatial distribution
of larval fishes about the Mississippi plume. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34:178-187.
Green, D.M.; Nack, S.B.; Bunnell, D.; Forney, J.L. 1989. Identification
of black bass spawning and nursery habitats in the Hudson River
estuary. Final report to: Hudson River Foundation, New
York, NY; 52 p.
Green, D.M.; Nack, S.B.; Forney, J.L. 1988. Identification of
black bass spawning and nursery habitats in the Hudson River
estuary. Final report to: Hudson River Foundation, New
York, NY; 49 p.
Haley, N.J. 1999. Habitat characteristics and resource use patterns
of sympatric sturgeons in the Hudson River estuary. [M.S. thesis].
Amherst, MA: Univ. of Massachusetts; 124 p.
Hardy, J.D. 1978. Morone americana (Gmelin), white perch. U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS-OBS-78/12(3):71-85.
Hildebrand, S.F. 1963. Family Clupeidae. In: Fishes of the western
North Atlantic. Part 3. Soft-rayed bony fishes. Sears Found.
Mar. Res. Mem. 1:257-385,397-442,452-454. New Haven, CT:
Sears Foundation for Marine Research, Yale Univ.
Hildebrand, S.F.; Schroeder, W.C. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake
Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43(pt.1); 366 p.
Hoff, T.B.; Klauda, R.J.; Young, J.R. 1988. Contribution to
the biology of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River. In: Smith,
C.L., ed. Fisheries research in the Hudson River. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press; p. 171-189.
Hopkins, D.; Green, D.M. 1988. Evaluation of potential sources
of recruitment of largemouth bass to the Hudson River. Section
VIII in: Blair, E.A.; Waldman, J.R., eds. Final reports
of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1988. New York, NY:
Hudson River Foundation; 26 p.
Hoss, D.E.; Thayer, G.W. 1993. The importance of habitat to
the early life history of estuarine dependent fishes. In: Fuiman,
L.A. Water quality and the early life stages of fishes. Am.
Fish. Soc. Symp. 14:147-158.
Kendall, A.W., Jr.; Walford, L.A. 1979. Sources and distribution
of bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, larvae and juveniles
off the East Coast of the United States. Fish. Bull. (Wash.,
D.C.) 77:213-227.
Klauda, R.J.; Fischer, S.A; Hall, L.W., Jr.; Sullivan, J.A.
1991. Alewife and blueback herring. In: Funderburk, S.L.;
Mihursky; J.A.; Jordan, S.J.; Riley, D., eds. Habitat requirements
for Chesapeake Bay living resources. Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake
Bay Program Living Resources Subcommittee.
Klauda, R.J.; McLaren, J.B.; Schmidt, R.E.; Dey, W.P. 1988.
Life history of the white perch in the Hudson River. In: Barnthouse,
L.W.; Klauda, R.J.; Vaughan, D.S.; Kendall, R.L., eds. Science,
law, and Hudson River power plants: a case study in environmental
impact assessment. Am. Fish. Soc. Monogr. 4:69-88.
Klauda, R.J.; Moos, R.E.; Schmidt, R.E. 1988. Life history of
the Atlantic tomcod, Microgadus tomcod, in the Hudson River estuary,
with emphasis on spatio-temporal distribution and movements. In: Smith,
C.L., ed. Fisheries research in the Hudson River. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press; p. 219-251.
Knutson, A.B.; Klerks, P.L.; Levinton, J.S. 1987. The fate of
metal contaminated sediments in Foundry Cove, New York. Environ.
Pollut. 45:291-304.
Leim, A.H.; Scott, W.B. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic coast of
Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 155; 483 p.
Lippson, A.J.; Moran, R.L. 1974. Manual for identification of
early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac estuary. Md.
Dept. Nat. Resour. Power Plant Siting Program Rep. PPSP-MP-13;
282 p.
Loesch, J.G. 1968. A contribution to the life history of Alosa
aestivalis. [M.S. thesis]. Storrs, CT: Univ. of Connecticut;
31 p.
Loesch, J.G. 1969. A study of the blueback herring, Alosa
aestivalis (Mitchill) in Connecticut waters. [Ph.D. dissertation].
Storrs, CT: Univ. of Connecticut; 78 p.
Marks, R.E.; Conover, D.O. 1993. Ontogenic shift in the diet
of young-of-the-year bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) during
the oceanic phase of the early life history. Fish. Bull. (Wash.,
D.C.): 91:97-106.
McFadden, J.T.; Texas Instruments; Lawler, Matusky & Skelly
Engineers. 1978. Influence of the proposed Cornwall pumped storage
project and steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River
estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations.
Revised. Report to: Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, New York, NY; p. 7.1-7.227.
McIvor, C.C.; Odum, W.E. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat
selection in a marsh fish assemblage. Ecology 69:1341-1351.
McLaren, J.B.; Cooper, J.C.; Hoff, T.B.; Lander, V. 1981. Movements
of Hudson River striped bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110:158-167.
McLaren, J.B.; Peck, T.H.; Dey, W.P.; Gardinier, M. 1988. Biology
of the Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River estuary. In:
Barnthouse, L.W.; Klauda, R.J.; Vaughn, D.S.; Kendall, R.L.,
eds. Science, law, and Hudson River power plants: a case study
in environmental impact assessment. Am. Fish. Soc. Monogr. 4:102-112.
Miller, K.D.; Kramer, R.H. 1971. Spawning and early life history
of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in Lake Powell. In: Hall,
G.E., ed. Reservoir fisheries and limnology. Am. Fish. Soc.
Spec. Publ. 8:78-83.
Morris, D.W. 1987a. Ecological scale and habitat use. Ecology 68:362-369.
Morris, D.W. 1987b. Tests of density-dependent habitat selection
in a patchy environment. Ecol. Monogr. 57:269-281.
Nack, S.B.; Bunnell, D.; Green, D.M.; Forney, J.L. 1993. Spawning
and nursery habitats of largemouth bass in the tidal Hudson River. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 122:208-216.
Nack, S.B.; Cook, W. 1987. Characterization of spawning and
nursery habitats of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
in the Stockport component of the Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve. Section IV in: Blair, E.A.; Waldman,
J.R., eds. Final reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program,
1988. New York, NY: Hudson River Foundation; 24 p.
Norden, C.R. 1967. Age, growth, and fecundity of the alewife, Alosa
pseudoharengus (Wilson), in Lake Michigan. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 96:387-393.
Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. Philadelphia, PA:
W.B. Saunders; 544 p.
Partridge, L. 1978. Habitat selection. In: Krebs, J.R.;
Davies, N.B., eds. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach.
Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; p. 351-376.
Peters, D.S.; Cross, F.A. 1992. What is coastal fish habitat? In: Stroud,
R.H., ed. Stemming the tide of coastal fish habitat loss: proceedings
of the Symposium on Conservation of Coastal Fish Habitat, Baltimore,
Md. Mar. Recreat. Fish. 14:17-22. Available from: National
Coalition for Marine Conservation, Savannah, GA.
Pimm, S.L.; Rosenzweig, M.L. 1981. Competitors and habitat use. Oikos 37:1-6.
Richards, S.W. 1959. Pelagic fish eggs and larvae of Long Island
Sound. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. Yale Univ. 17:95-124.
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1981. A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327-335.
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1991. Habitat selection and population interactions:
the search for mechanism. Am. Nat. 137:S5-S28.
Rosenzweig, M.L.; Abramsky, Z. 1985. Detecting density-dependent
habitat selection. Am. Nat. 126:405-417.
Ross, R.M.; Backman, T.W.H.; Bennett, R.M. 1993. Evaluation
of habitat suitability index models for riverine life stages
of American shad, with proposed models for premi
gratory juveniles. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 14;
26 p.
Sargent, W.; Boreman, J. 1984. Bluefish: biology and management
along the Atlantic coast. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Target.
Info. 1984 Apr. 25; 6 p.
Schmidt, R.E.; Klauda, R.J.; Bartels, J.M. 1988. Distributions
and movements of the early life stages of three species of Alosa in
the Hudson River, with comments on mechanisms to reduce interspecific
competition. In: Smith, C.L., ed. Fisheries research in
the Hudson River. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press;
p. 193-215.
Schmidt, R.E.; Limburg, K.; Stillman, T. 1994. An estimate of
the significance of tributary spawning of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
to the Hudson River estuary. In: Schmidt, R.E.; Stillman,
T., eds. Drift of early life stages of fishes in Stockport Creek
and significance of the phenomenon to the Hudson River estuary.
New York, NY: Hudson River Foundation; p.23-35.
Schmidt, R.E.; Stillman, T. 1994. Larval fish export from Stockport
Creek, a major tributary of the Hudson River estuary. In:
Schmidt, R.E.; Stillman, T., eds. Drift of early life stages
of fishes in Stockport Creek and significance of the phenomenon
to the Hudson River estuary. New York, NY: Hudson River Foundation;
p.3-22.
Scott, W.B.; Crossman, E.J. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish.
Res. Board. Can. Bull. 184; 980 p.
Smith, C.L. 1988. Introduction. In: Smith, C.L., ed.
Fisheries research in the Hudson River. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press; p. 1-4.
Smith, T.I.J.; Collins, M.R.; Kennedy, E. 1993. Identification
of critical habitat requirements of shortnose sturgeon in South
Carolina. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Serv.; 102 p.
Sogard, S.M.; Able, K.W. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea
lettuce, macroalgae, and marsh creeks as habitats for epibenthic
fishes and decapods. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 33:501-519.
Stevenson, R.A., Jr. 1958. A biology of the anchovies, Anchoa
mitchilli mitchilli Cuvier and Valenciennes 1848 and Anchoa
hepsetus hepsetus Linnaeus 1758. [M.S. thesis]. Newark,
DE: Univ. of Delaware; 56 p.
Strayer, D.L.; Hunter, D.C.; Smith, L.C.; Borg, C.K. 1994. Distribution,
abundance, and roles of freshwater clams (Bivalvia, Unionidae)
in the freshwater tidal Hudson River. Freshwater Biol. 31:239-248.
Texas Instruments, Inc. 1976a. Hudson River ecological study
in the area of Indian Point: thermal effects report. Report to: Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, New York, NY.
Texas Instruments, Inc. 1976b. Predation by bluefish in the
Hudson River. Report to: Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, New York, NY; 23 p.
Thayer, G.W.; Thomas, J.P.; Koski, K.V. 1996. The habitat research
plan of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries (Bethesda) 21(3):6-10.
Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat
quality. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:893-901.
Von Geldern, C.E., Jr. 1971. Abundance and distribution of fingerling
largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, as determined
by electrofishing at Lake Nacimiento, California. Calif. Fish
Game 57:228-245.
Woodhead, P.M.J. 1991. The fish community of New York Harbor:
spatial and temporal distributions of major species. In: Proceedings
of the Conference on the Impacts of New York Harbor Development
on Aquatic Resources, 1987. New York, NY: Hudson River Foundation;
p. 103-122.
Woodhead, P.M.J.; Rohlf, F.J.; O'Hare, M.A. 1992. The structure
of the fish community and distribution of major species in the
lower Hudson estuary and New York Harbor. Final report to: Hudson
River Foundation, New York, NY; 178 p.
Acronyms |
| GIS |
= |
geographical information system |
| NEFSC |
= |
Northeast Fisheries Science Center |
| SUNY |
= |
State University of New York |
| TL |
= |
total length |
