Oogenesis in fishes follows a universal plan; yet, due to differences in the synchrony and rate of egg development, spawning frequency varies from daily to once in a lifetime. Some species spawn and feed in separate areas, during different seasons, by storing energy and drawing on it later for reproduction (i.e. capital breeding). Other species spawn using energy acquired locally, throughout a prolonged spawning season, allocating energy directly to reproduction (i.e. income breeding). Capital breeders tend to ovulate all at once and are more likely to be distributed at boreal latitudes. Income breeding allows small fish to overcome allometric constraints on egg production. Income breeders can recover more quickly when good‐feeding conditions are re‐established, which is a benefit to adults regarding bet‐hedging spawning strategies. Many species exhibit mixed capital‐ and income‐breeding patterns. An individual's position along this capital–income continuum may shift with ontogeny or in relation to environmental conditions, so breeding patterns are a conditional reproductive strategy. Poor‐feeding environments can lead to delayed maturation, skipped spawning, fewer spawning events per season or fewer eggs produced per event. In a few cases, variations in feeding environments appear to affect recruitment variability. These flexible processes of energy acquisition and allocation allow females to prioritize their own condition over their propagules' condition at any given spawning opportunity, thereby investing energy cautiously to maximize lifetime reproductive value. These findings have implications for temporal and spatial sampling designs, for measurement and interpretation of fecundity, and for interpreting fishery and ecosystem assessments.

We assessed the taxonomic diversity, geographic distributions, life history, ecology and fisheries of tarpons, ladyfishes and bonefishes (members of the subdivision Elopomorpha), which share many life history and habitat use characteristics that make them vulnerable to environmental and anthropogenic stresses in coastal environments. This assessment of Red List status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature reveals three species considered near threatened or vulnerable, three species of least concern, and 11 data‐deficient species. Although the taxonomy of tarpons appears stable, it is less so for ladyfishes and bonefishes. In aggregate, these species are distributed circumtropically and foray into temperate zones. Although they spawn in marine habitats, larvae of many species disperse into estuarine habitats, which are declining in area or degrading in quality. Several species support high‐value recreational fisheries, or culturally important small‐scale commercial and artisanal fisheries. Nonetheless, no formal stock assessment exists for any species, so improved data collection, information sharing and assessment techniques should facilitate socio‐economic development of individual fisheries. Catch‐and‐release recreational fisheries that promote conservation of tarpon and bonefishes in some regions are promising models to improve the conservation status of these fishes elsewhere, as well as the economic development of these fishing communities. Most tarpons, ladyfishes and bonefishes likely face significant challenges from anthropogenically mediated habitat loss and alteration, and several are vulnerable to both habitat degradation and overfishing. Broader protection and enhancements to fisheries habitat in all regions will benefit these as well as many other coastal fishery species.

The bluef~sh Pomatomus saltatnx spawns offshore In cont~nental shelf waters and juven~l e s mlgrate to near-shore or estuanne waters dunng t h e~r flrst growlng season In estuanes of the New York Blght d u r~n g 1987 and 1988 young-of-the-year bluef~sh appeared in 2 d~screte slze groups Otol~th analyses confirmed that the 2 groups originated from d~s t~n c t sprlng and summer spawnlng penods The spnng-spawned cohort flrst recruited to estuanes In early to m~d -J u n e . whereas the summer-spawned cohort f~rst recru~ted In m~d d l e to late August In contrast w~t h prevlous years when only spnng-spawned f~s h were abundant the overall abundance of s p n n g vs summer cohorts was s~m~l a r There were however, signlf~cant d~fferences In abundance among bays that depended on cohort Much of t h~s v a r~a t~o n in abundance 1s probabl\ caused by vanation in advect~ve transport of larvae from spawnlng grounds to estuanes Growth patterns dlffered substant~ally between the 2 cohorts Spr~ng-spawned bluef~sh grew slower than summer-spawned blueflsh d u r~n g the pre-recruitment oceanlc phase of the early llfe hlstory perhaps because the11 northward transport causes them to encounter lower temperatures d u r~n g the larval p e r~o d Both cohorts grow r a p~d l y after estuanne recru~tment but spring-spawned blueflsh are much larger than summer-spawned bluef~sh at the onset of fall m~gratlon Overall year-class strength of bluef~sh along the US mid-Atlant~c coast IS a funct~on of the c o m b~n e d recru~tment success of the sprlng and summel cohorts