Disclaimer: This is an interactive, draft mock-up that was created to inform the development of the California Fisheries Portal. This is not an active website and does not represent the final draft of the California Fisheries Portal. This mock-up was developed based on the first stakeholder focus group (2018) and serves as an interactive discussion draft for the stakeholder webinar on March 22, 2019.

Barred Sand Bass Enhanced Status Report

Table of Contents

5. Future Management Needs and Directions

5.1 Identification of Information Gaps

Additional fishery-independent EFI data are necessary for effectively monitoring the Barred Sand Bass population. Trends in fishery-dependent data for this species can be masked by hyperstability, or artificially high catch rates, since anglers target aggregations rather than an evenly distributed population (Erisman et al. 2011). Fishery-independent data can provide a better, less-biased assessment of relative abundance since sampling can be standardized and information on all life stages can be collected. A long-term fishery-independent monitoring program for Barred Sand Bass is in development by Department scientists. The monitoring program may include both SCUBA surveys and baited underwater video surveys along ecotone habitat at coastal and artificial reefs to determine the relative abundance of Barred Sand Bass over time. Additionally, hydroacoustic transects using split-beam sonar may be a useful method for assessing annual variability in the total size of local spawning aggregations (Allen 2013).

Although EFI on age and growth of Barred Sand Bass exists, the Department is updating this information with more current and larger sample sizes. Additionally, a better estimate of natural mortality is needed. There is also a knowledge gap regarding long-term mortality associated with hook and line catch and release practices (Table 5-1). A formal stock assessment of Barred Sand Bass using existing and new EFI would also be helpful in the sustainable management of the fishery.

Table 5-1. Informational needs for Barred Sand Bass and their priority for management.

5.2 Research and Monitoring

5.2.1 Potential Strategies to Fill Information Gaps

Department staff will continue to use CPFV logbook and CRFS data to monitor Barred Sand Bass fishery trends. The Department will also continue to search for and incorporate any relevant results from other fishery-dependent or fishery-independent studies conducted by outside agencies. As mentioned in Chapter 2, additional fishery-independent indices of abundance for Barred Sand Bass will be essential to monitoring the future trends in the stock. This may require a combination of efforts led by the Department and independent researchers through various grants or other funding sources. Studies could include temporal surveys of the relative abundance and the size of Barred Sand Bass on reefs and within spawning aggregations in southern California. Moreover, an estimate of long-term discard mortality will be useful to the Department to understand whether restrictive size limits result in increased mortality of sublegal size classes.Research efforts like these may be particularly well suited for graduate studies at local universities.

Department scientists rely on data from CPFV logs and CRFS estimates to track Barred Sand Bass landings. Until recently, hard copies of CPFV logs were mailed in by the captains, which then had to be manually entered into MLS by Department staff. To expedite this process and increase efficiency, the Department began a program in October 2013 to allow CPFV owners and operators to submit CPFV fishing logs electronically. By July 2014, a fully functional MLS client application for CPFV data entry and reporting was completed and beta testing began in February 2015. The MLS client application officially launched in June 2015 and as of December 2017, 70% of all CPFV logs were voluntarily entered via this electronic application. CRFS data on catch estimates and mortality are also now available electronically within 40 days of collection on the updated RecFIN website (https://www.recfin.org/about/goals/).

Data collected by CRFS and via CPFV logbook are subject to standard procedures that ensure the accuracy and viability of these datasets over time. CRFS collects catch and effort data on the four major modes of fishing year-round, and monthly estimates are produced for all six geographic districts. The same methods are used statewide to ensure comparability among districts.

5.2.2 Opportunities for Collaborative Fisheries Research

The Department has collaborated in the past and will continue to work with outside entities such as academic organizations, NGOs, citizen scientists, and both commercial and recreational fishery participants to help fill information gaps related to the management of state fisheries. The Department will also reach out to outside persons and agencies when appropriate while conducting or seeking new fisheries research required for the management of Barred Sand Bass. Several of the information gaps identified above (section 5.1) are potential areas for collaboration. In particular, hydroacoustic surveys to determine Barred Sand Bass abundance and discard studies to determine long-term catch and release mortality are good subjects for collaborative studies involving a variety of stakeholders.

5.3 Opportunities for Future Management Changes

This section is intended to provide information on changes to the management of the fishery that may be appropriate, but does not represent a formal commitment by the Department to address those recommendations. ESRs are one of several tools designed to assist the Department in prioritizing efforts and the need for management changes in each fishery will be assessed in light of the current management system, risk posed to the stock and ecosystem, needs of other fisheries, existing and emerging priorities, as well as the availability of capacity and resources.

Although more stringent bag and size limits were implemented the Commission in 2013, Barred Sand Bass populations continue to be depressed and their spawning aggregations have essentially disappeared. Conversely, landings for Kelp Bass have shown an upward trajectory (Bellquist et al. 2017). The life history strategy of Barred Sand Bass makes them much more vulnerable to overfishing than the other sea basses. Most notably, Barred Sand Bass form large, predictable spawning aggregations that are easily accessible to anglers (Jarvis et al.2010), while Kelp Bass form smaller, more dispersed spawning aggregations within complex habitats (Erisman and Allen 2006). For example, more than 16,000 Barred Sand Bass were landed on CPFVs in a single day during peak spawning season (MLS 2004) while daily landings only reached a maximum 4,000 fish at the peak of the fishery for Kelp Bass (MLS 1992). Thus, the vulnerability of Barred Sand Bass during their spawning period is not comparable to Kelp Bass. Vulnerability to overfishing is an issue for aggregative spawners globally, and evidence suggests that a more precautionary approach to management for these species is necessary (Sadovy de Mitcheson 2016). However, management strategies must be tailored to the unique aspects of each fishery. Management initiatives, including a concurrent low bag limit (one fish), slot limit and quota-tags to establish a total allowable catch, have been successfully implemented for recreational fisheries targeting aggregative species in Australia (Jackson and Moran 2012). In other cases, seasonal or site-specific closures have been effective (Erisman et al. 2015). Potential management strategies for Barred Sand Bass may include a more restrictive bag limit or spawning season closure. Regardless of the methods used, Barred Sand Bass clearly require species-specific management options that account for their unique life history traits.

Additionally, the Department is currently prioritizing fisheries within the Master Plan update and exploring how to utilize a MSE approach with certain fisheries. MSE simulates the performance of a fishery in the future by testing a multitude of alternative management procedures against a set of performance metrics and evaluates the tradeoffs. The Department is currently developing a model of the Barred Sand Bass population in order to conduct a MSE using the Data Limited Toolkit platform. It is hoped this analysis will provide information about whatmanagement measures are most likelyto meet management objectives, as well as the tradeoffs between different management measures. A formal stock assessment on the Barred Sand Bass fishery would also aid in the sustainable management of this fishery.

5.4 Climate Readiness

Little is known about how climate change may affect Barred Sand Bass populations and habitats. To incorporate climate readiness into Barred Sand Bass management it is important to increase our understanding of possible impacts of climate variability. California’s coastal waters are already subject to high variability due to episodic events such as ENSO, PDO and NPGO. Climate change will bring even further uncertainty to these trends, with potentially extreme implications for ecosystem function and fishery sustainability in coastal areas. To manage Barred Sand Bass populations effectively under climate change, it will be important to take a proactive approach to management. This may entail increased or targetedmonitoring of populations and/or precautionary management measures until the uncertainties associated with climate change can be better understood.

Climate change that results in warmer ocean temperatures could have both positive and negative effects on Barred Sand Bass populations. Bass recruitment declines during cold-water periods and spikes during warmer water regimes (Jarvis et al.2014). Sustained warmer water periods may result in population growth and push the fishery further north. An overall increase in sea surface temperature may alter the timing and location of Barred Sand Bass spawning aggregations with spawning occurring either later or earlier in the season. This could make any specific regulations that are put in place to protect these aggregations less effectiveunless routine monitoring is conducted to detect changes in the spatial distributions of spawning aggregations. Ocean acidification may have a negative impact on prey availability for Barred Sand Bass, especially for hard-shelled invertebrates.

Protecting the health of key habitats for Barred Sand Bass such as artificial and natural reefs is a priority for climate readiness. This might involve targeted reef restoration efforts, removal and monitoring for invasive species and regulation of coastal runoff. Finally, increased monitoring of environmental variables, fish abundance and distribution from all available data sources will be important to anticipate change and take proactive management actions for Barred Sand Bass.

Version: The Barred Sand Bass Enhanced Status Report was updated in print and online in 2019.

Download: Barred Sand Bass Status Report (2019) (pdf)

Contact Us: To contact CDFW regarding Barred Sand Bass, please email fish@wildlife.ca.gov or call (831) 649-2870.

Citation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Barred Sand Bass, Paralabrax nebulifer, Enhanced Status Report.

Contributor(s): Jean Davis and Miranda Haggerty (2019)

Barred Sand Bass Enhanced Status Report (2019)

Table of Contents
  1. The Species
    1. Natural History
      1. Species Description
      2. Range, Distribution, and Movement
      3. Reproduction, Fecundity, and Spawning Season
      4. Natural Mortality
      5. Individual Growth
      6. Size and Age at Maturity
    2. Population Status and Dynamics
      1. Abundance Estimates
      2. Age Structure of the Population
    3. Habitat
    4. Ecosystem Role
      1. Associated Species
      2. Predator-prey Interactions
    5. Effects of Changing Oceanic Conditions
  2. The Fishery
    1. Location of the Fishery
    2. Fishing Effort
      1. Number of Vessels and Participants Over Time
      2. Type, Amount, and Selectivity of Gear
    3. Landings in the Recreational and Commercial Sectors
      1. Recreational
      2. Commercial
    4. Social and Economic Factors Related to the Fishery
  3. Management
    1. Past and Current Management
      1. Overview and Rationale for the Current Management Framework
        1. Criteria to Identify When Fisheries Are Overfished or Subject to Overfishing, and Measures to Rebuild
        2. Past and Current Stakeholder Involvement
      2. Target Species
        1. Limitations on Fishing for Target Species
          1. Catch
          2. Effort
          3. Gear
          4. Time
          5. Sex
          6. Size
          7. Area
          8. Marine Protected Areas
        2. Description of and Rationale for Any Restricted Access Approach
      3. Bycatch
        1. Amount and Type of Bycatch (Including Discards)
        2. Assessment of Sustainability and Measures to Reduce Unacceptable Levels of Bycatch
      4. Habitat
        1. Description of Threats
        2. Measures to Minimize Any Adverse Effects on Habitat Caused by Fishing
    2. Requirements for Person or Vessel Permits and Reasonable Fees
  4. Monitoring and Essential Fishery Information
    1. Description of Relevant Essential Fishery Information
    2. Past and Ongoing Monitoring of the Fishery
      1. Fishery-dependent Data Collection
        Monitoring of Bycatch Rates
      2. Fishery-independent Data Collection
  5. Future Management Needs and Directions
    1. Identification of Information Gaps
    2. Research and Monitoring
      1. Potential Strategies to Fill Information Gaps
      2. Opportunities for Collaborative Fisheries Research
    3. Opportunities for Future Management Changes
    4. Climate Readiness
List of Acronyms

CalCOFI: California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations
CCR: California Code of Regulations
CDFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CPFV: Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel
CPUE: Catch Per Unit Effort
CRFS: California Recreational Fisheries Survey
DPUE: Discards Per Unit Effort
ENSO: El Niño Southern Oscillation
EFI: Essential Fishery Information
FGC: Fish and Game Code
FMP: Fishery Management Plan
IGFA: International Fish and Game Association
MLMA: Marine Life Management Act
MLS: Marine Logs System
MPA: Marine Protected Area
MRFSS: Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
MSE: Management Strategy Evaluation
NGO: Non-Government Organization
NPGO: North Pacific Gyre Oscillation
PDO: Pacific Decadal Oscillation
RecFIN: Recreational Fisheries Information Network
SST: Sea Surface Temperature
TL: Total Length

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Adult Barred Sand Bass in kelp forest habitat.

Figure 1-2. Range map for Barred Sand Bass.

Figure 1-3. Map of Barred Sand Bass tagging locations from historical studies by the Department (1960s and 1990s).  

Figure 1-4. Annual trends in juvenile (<25 cm TL prior to 1991 and <15 cm TL thereafter) and adult (>25 cm TL) Barred Sand Bass abundance at King Harbor, Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County from 1974 to 2016.

Figure 1-5. Age structure of harvested Barred Sand Bass from 1980 to 2017.

Figure 1-6. Annual variability in recruitment of “rock bass” (Barred Sand Bass, Kelp Bass and Spotted Sand Bass) based on quarterly plankton tows by California CalCOFI from 1951 to 2013.

Figure 2-1. Percent change in CPUE by fishing block during peak spawning season (June to August) for Barred Sand Bass between 2000 to 2004 and late 2005 to 2012.

Figure 2-2. Number of CPFV trips in southern California targeting Barred Sand Bass (at least one caught) each year from 1980 to 2017.

Figure 2-3. Proportion of the yearly landings of Barred Sand Bass by month in southern California.

Figure 2-4. Ranking of Barred Sand Bass at landings in southern California from 2004 to 2017.

Figure 2-5. CPUE (black line) and landings (harvested catch) (grey bars) for (A) rock bass (Barred Sand Bass, Kelp Bass and Spotted Sand Bass) retained on CPFV trips from 1947-1980, and (B) Barred Sand Bass retained by CPFVs from 1980 to 2017, and (C) private/rental boats from 2004 to 2017.

Figure 2-6. Annual commercial landings (lb) of sea basses (combined landings of Kelp Bass, Barred Sand Bass, and Spotted Sand Bass) from 1916 to 1953.

Figure 3-1. (A) Annual trends in the proportion of sublegal and legal Barred Sand Bass discarded from CPFVs and annual trends in bycatch of Barred Sand Bass presented as DPUE (black line) and the total number of discards (grey bars) for (B) CPFVs 1995 to 2017, and (C) private/rental boats 2004 to 2017.

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Barred Sand Bass associated and co-occurring species.

Table 2-1. Percent of Barred Sand Bass catch (retained fish) in the recreational fishery by fishing mode from 2004 to 2017.

Table 3-1. Historical record of southern California saltwater bass (Paralabraxspp.) minimum size and bag limit regulations.

Table 3-2. Number caught and percent of trips (frequency of occurrence) for the top ten incidental catch species on CPFV trips where at least one Barred Sand Bass was also caught in 2017.

Table 3-3. Number caught and percent of trips (frequency of occurrence) for species whose take is prohibited.

Table 5-1. Informational needs for Barred Sand Bass and their priority for management. 

Literature Cited

Allen LG. 2013. A Fisheries Independent Assessment of Spawning Biomass of Barred Sand Bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) on the Major Spawning Aggregation off Southern California. University of California Sea Grant Report.

Allen LG, Block HE. 2012. Planktonic larval duration, settlement, and growth rates of the young-of-the-year of two sand basses (Paralabrax nebuliferandP. maculatofasciatus: fam. Serranidae) from Southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 111: 15-21.

Allen, Larry G, Daniel J. Pondella, and Michael H. Horn, editors. 2006. The ecology of marine fishes: California and adjacent waters. University of California Press. 660 p.

Ally J, Ono DS, Read RB, Wallace M. 1991. Status of major southern California marine sport fish species with management recommendations, based on analyses of catch and size composition data collected on board commercial passenger fishing vessels from 1985 through 1987. California Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Division Administrative Report 90-2. 376 p.

Anderson TW, DeMartini EE, Roberts DA. 1989. The relationship between habitat structure, body size and distribution of fishes at a temperate artificial reef. Bulletin of Marine Science 44: 681-697.

Bellquist L, Semmens B, Stohs S, Siddall A. 2017. Impacts of recently implemented recreational fisheries regulations on the Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel fishery for Paralabrax sp. California. Marine Policy 86: 134-143.

Bellquist L, Semmens BX. 2016. Temporal and spatial dynamics of ‘trophy’-sized demersal fishes off the California (USA) coast, 1966 to 2013. Marine Ecology Progress Series 547: 1-18.

Caselle JE, Davis K, Marks LM. 2017. Marine management affects the invasion success of a non‐native species in a temperate reef system in California, USA. Ecology Letters 21(1): 43-53.

Clark FN. 1933. Rock bass (Paralabrax) in the California commercial fishery. California Fish and Game 19: 25-35.

Demartini EE. 1987. Tests of ovary subsampling options and preliminary estimates of batch fecundity for two Paralabrax species. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation Report 28: 168-170.

Erisman B, Allen L. 2006. Reproductive behaviour of a temperate serranid fish, Paralabrax clathratus(Girard), from Santa Catalina Island, California, USA. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 157-184.

Erisman B, Heyman W, Kobara S, Ezer T, Pittman S, Aburto‐Oropeza O, Nemeth RS. 2015. Fish spawning aggregations: where well‐placed management actions can yield big benefits for fisheries and conservation. Fish and Fisheries 18(1): 128-44.

Erisman BE, Allen LG, Claisse JT, Pondella DJ, Miller EF, Murray JH, Walters C. 2011. The illusion of plenty: hyperstability masks collapses in two recreational fisheries that target fish spawning aggregations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 1705-1716.

Eschmeyer WN, Herald ES. 1999. A field guide to Pacific coast fishes: North America. Boston, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.210 p.

Hill K, Schneider N. 1999. Historical logbook databases from California's commercial passenger fishing vessel (partyboat) fishery. 1936-1997. University of California, San Diego: Scripps Institution of Oceanography Reference Series 99-19.

Hovey C, Allen LG, Hovey TE. 2002. The reproductive pattern of barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) from southern California. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation Report: 174-181.

Hsieh C-h, Reiss C, Watson W, Allen JM, Hunter JR, Lea RN, Rosenblatt RH, Smith PE, Sugihara G. 2005. A comparison of long-term trends and variability in populations of larvae of exploited and unexploited fishes in the Southern California region: A community approach. Progress in Oceanography 67: 160-185.

International Fish and Game Association. 2001. Database of IGFA angling records until 2001. Fort Lauderdale, USA.

Jackson G, Moran M. 2012. Recovery of inner Shark Bay snapper (Pagrus auratus) stocks: relevant research and adaptive recreational fisheries management in a World Heritage Property. Marine and Freshwater Research 63: 1180-1190.

Jarvis E, Linardich C, Valle C. 2010. Spawning-related movements of barred sand bass, Paralabrax nebulifer, in southern California: interpretations from two decades of historical tag and recapture data. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 109: 123-143.

Jarvis ET, Gliniak HL, Valle CF. 2014a. Effects of fishing and the environment on the long-term sustainability of the recreational saltwater bass fishery in southern California. California Department of Fish and Game 100: 234-259.

Jarvis ET, Loke-Smith KA, Evans K, Kloppe RE, Young KA, Valle CF. 2014b. Reproductive potential and spawning periodicity in barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) from the San Pedro Shelf, southern California. California Department of Fish and Game 100: 289-309.

Love M, Brooks A, Ally J. 1996a. An analysis of commercial passenger fishing vessel fisheries for kelp bass and barred sand bass in the Southern California Bight. California Fish and Game 82(3): 105-121.

Love MS. 1991. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific coast. Santa Barbara, California: Really Big Press. 386 p.

Love MS, Brooks A, Busatto D, Stephens J, Gregory PA. 1996b. Aspects of the life histories of the kelp bass, Paralabrax clathratus, and barred sand bass, P. nebulifer, from the southern California Bight. Fishery Bulletin 94: 472-481.

Lovell SJ, Steinback SR, Hilger JR. 2013. The economic contribution of marine angler expenditures in the United States, 2011. National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-134: 1-196.

Martin CJ, Lowe CG. 2010. Assemblage structure of fish at offshore petroleum platforms on the San Pedro Shelf of southern California. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 2: 180-194.

Mason TJ, Lowe CG. 2010. Home range, habitat use, and site fidelity of barred sand bass within a southern California marine protected area. Fisheries Research 106: 93-101.

McKinzie MK, Jarvis ET, Lowe CG. 2014. Fine-scale horizontal and vertical movement of barred sand bass, Paralabrax nebulifer, during spawning and non-spawning seasons. Fisheries Research 150: 66-75.

Mendoza-Carranza M, Rosales-Casian JA. 2002. Feeding ecology of juvenile kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus) and barred sand bass (P. nebulifer) in Punta Banda Estuary, Baja California, Mexico: Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 101: 103-117.

Miller EF, Erisman B. 2014. Long-term trends of southern california's kelp and barred sand bass populations: A fishery-independent assessment. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report 55: 119-127.

MRAG Americas. 2016. Productivity and susceptibility analysis for selected California fisheries. Report to California Ocean Science Trust and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 55 p.

Oda DL, Lavenberg RJ, Rounds JM. 1993. Reproductive biology of three California species of Paralabrax(Pisces: Serranidae). California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report 34: 122-132.

Paterson C, Chabot C, Robertson J, Erisman B, Cota-Nieto J, Allen LG. 2015. The genetic diversity and population structure of barred sand bass, Paralabrax nebulifer: A historically important fisheries species off southern and Baja California. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report 56: 97-109.

Patrick, WS, Spencer P, Ormseth O, Cope J, Field J, Kobayashi D,
Gedamke T, Cortés E, Bigelow K, Overholtz W, Link J, Lawson P. 2009. Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine stock vulnerability, with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-101. 90 p.

Pauly D. 1980. On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters, and mean environmental temperature in 175 fish stocks. Journal du Conseil 39: 175-192.

Pondella DJ, Stephens JS, Craig MT. 2002. Fish production of a temperate artificial reef based on the density of embiotocids (Teleostei: Perciformes). ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 59: S88-S93.

Provost EJ, Kelaher BP, Dworjanyn SA, Russell BD, Connell SD, Ghedini G, Gillanders BM, Figueira W, Coleman MA. 2017. Climate‐driven disparities among ecological interactions threaten kelp forest persistence. Global change biology 23: 353-361.

Ramírez-Valdez A, Aburto-Oropeza O, Arafeh Dalmau N, Beas-Luna R, Caselle JE, Castorani MC, Cavanaugh K, Edwards M, Hernández-Carmona G, Johnson AF. 2017. Mexico-California Bi-National Initiative of Kelp Forest Ecosystems and Fisheries. Oakland, California: University of California. 21 p.

Roberts DA, DeMartini EE, Plummer KM. 1984. The feeding habits of juvenile-small adult barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) in nearshore waters off northern San Diego county. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report 25: 105-111.

Sadovy de Mitcheson YS. 2016. Mainstreaming fish spawning aggregations into fishery management calls for a precautionary approach. BioScience66(4): 295-306.

Sanchez B. 2015. The Effects of Organic Pollutants on the Growth, Condition and Reproduction of Paralabrax Nebulifer (Barred Sand Bass) in Southern California [Master of Science]. Northridge, Long Beach, California: California State University. 68 p.

Semmens B, Parnell E. 2014. Mortality and Population Abundance of Three Species of Paralabrax off San Diego, California R/OPCCFRW-3 Jul. 2012-Jun. 2014. Scripps Institution of Oceanography: University of California, San Diego.69 p.

Stephens Jr JS, Morris P, Pondella D, Koonce T, Jordan G. 1994. Overview of the dynamics of an urban artificial reef fish assemblage at King Harbor, California, USA, 1974–1991: a recruitment driven system. Bulletin of Marine Science 55: 1224-1239.

Teesdale GN, Wolfe BW, Lowe CG. 2015. Patterns of home ranging, site fidelity, and seasonal spawning migration of barred sand bass caught within the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site. Marine Ecology Progress Series 539: 255-269.

Then AY, Hoenig JM, Hall NG, Hewitt DA. 2015. Evaluating the predictive performance of empirical estimators of natural mortality rate using information on over 200 fish species. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72: 82-92.

Valle CF, O’Brien JW, Wiese KB. 1999. Differential habitat use by California halibut, Paralichthys californicus, barred sand bass, Paralabrax nebulifer, and other juvenile fishes in Alamitos Bay, California. Fishery Bulletin 97: 646-660.

Williams CM, Williams JP, Claisse JT, Pondella DJ, Domeir ML, Zahn LA. 2013. Morphometric relationships of marine fishes common to Central California and the Southern California Bight. Bulletin, Southern California Academy of Sciences 112: 217-227.

Young PH. 1963. The Kelp Bass (Paralabrax Clathratus) and its Fishery, 1947-1958.  Fish Bulletin 122: 1-67.

Young PH. 1969. The California Partyboat Fishery 1947–1967. Fish Bulletin 145:91.

Zedler JB. 1996. Coastal mitigation in southern California: the need for a regional restoration strategy. Ecological Applications 6: 84-93.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Marine Region (Region 7)

Regional Manager: Dr. Craig Shuman

Main Office: 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100, Monterey, CA 93940

AskMarine@wildlife.ca.gov | (831) 649-2870

Office Locations | Marine Blog | Subscribe