Estuarine and habitat-related differences in growth rates of young-of-the-year winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and tautog (Tautoga onitis) in three northeastern US estuaries.

Instantaneous growth rates of young-of-the-year winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus (Walbaum) (12.0-60.4 mm standard length, SL) and tautog Tautoga onitis (Linnaeus) (21.4-73.8 mm total length, TL) from three estuarine systems in New Jersey (Great Bay-Little Egg Harbor and Navesink River) and Connecticut (Hammonasset River) were used in an attempt to assess the relative quality of selected nominal habitats. A series of short-term field caging experiments were conducted during 1994 and 1995 in: macroalgae (primarily, Ulva lactuca), eelgrass (Zostera marina), unvegetated areas adjacent to macroalgae and eelgrass and tidal creeks in Spartina dominated marsh. Growth rates varied with habitat, estuary and year. Comparisons across nominal habitats within and among estuaries did not show any one habitat with consistently higher growth, and growth was relatively independent of whether a habitat was vegetated or adjacent to vegetation. The growth rates of winter flounder and tautog from the Hammonasset River were not different among habitats in either year of the study. In the Great Bay-Little Egg Harbor, both winter flounder and tautog had higher growth rates in macroalgae with growth in eelgrass varying significantly between years. Conversely, in the Navesink River both species had higher growth rates in eelgrass. Environmental changes associated with temperature and dissolved oxygen appeared to influence growth rates. Winter flounder growth rate and survival was depressed in tidal marsh creeks in the three estuaries and in vegetated macroalgae habitats in the Navesink River where dissolved oxygen levels were often very low (<2 mgl(-1)) for extended periods. In summary, the growth rates of the young-of-the-year of these two species varied temporally and were dependent on the interaction of both the specific estuary and habitat in which the experiments took place. Further, habitat quality, as defined by relative growth rate, was difficult to evaluate because it can be variable and nominal habitat designations are often not sufficient to define the boundaries of a species habitat requirements.