Multiple stable reference points in oyster populations: implications for reference point-based management

In the second of two companion articles, a 54-year time series for the oyster population in the New Jersey waters of Delaware Bay is analyzed to examine how the presence of multiple stable states affects reference-point–based management. Multiple stable states are described by four types of reference points. Type I is the carrying capacity for the stable state: each has associated with it a type-II reference point wherein surplus production reaches a local maximum. Type-II reference points are separated by an intermediate surplus production low (type III). Two stable states establish a type-IV reference point, a point-of-no-return that impedes recovery to the higher stable state. The type-II to type-III differential in surplus production is a measure of the difficulty of rebuilding the population and the sensitivity of the population to collapse at high abundance. Surplus production projections show that the abundances defining the four types of reference points are relatively stable over a wide range of uncertainties in recruitment and mortality rates. The surplus production values associated with type-II and type-III reference points are much more uncertain. Thus, biomass goals are more easily established than fishing mortality rates for oyster population

New information from fish diets on the importance of glassy flying squid (Hyaloteuthis pelagica) (Teuthoidea: Ommastrephidae) in the epipelagic cephalopod community of the tropical Atlantic Ocean

Squids of the family Ommastrephidae are a vital part of marine food webs and support major fisheries around the world. They are widely distributed in the open ocean, where they are among the most abundant in number and biomass of nektonic epipelagic organisms. In turn, seven of the 11 genera of this family (Dosidicus, Illex, Martialia, Nototodarus, Ommastrephes, Sthenoteuthis, and Todarodes) are heavily preyed upon by top marine predators, i.e., birds, mammals, and fish, and currently support fisheries in both neritic and oceanic waters (Roper and Sweeney, 1984; Rodhouse, 1997). Their commercial importance has made the large ommastrephids the target of many scientific investigations and their biology is consequently reasonably well-known (Nigmatullin et al., 2001; Zuyev et al., 2002; Bower and Ichii, 2005). In contrast, much less information is available on the biology and ecological role of the smaller, unexploited species of ommastrephids (e.g., Eucleoteuthis, Hyaloteuthis, Ornithoteuthis, and Todaropsis).

Annual report 2006 - North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). Fifteenth meeting, Yokohama, Japan, October 13-22, 2006

◾ Report of Opening Session (p. 1) ◾ Report of Governing Council (p. 15) ◾ Report of the Finance and Administration Committee (p. 47) ◾ Reports of Science Board and Committees: Science Board Inter-sessional Meeting (p. 63); Science Board (p. 73); Biological Oceanography Committee (p. 87); Fishery Science Committee (p. 95); Marine Environmental Quality Committee (p. 105); MONITOR Technical Committee (p. 115); Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee (p. 125); Technical Committee on Data Exchange (p. 133) ◾ Reports of Sections, Working and Study Groups: Section on Carbon and Climate (p. 139); Section on Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms in the North Pacific (p. 143); Working Group 18 on Mariculture in the 21st Century - The Intersection Between Ecology, Socio-economics and Production (p. 147); Working Group 19 on Ecosystem-Based Management Science and its Application to the North Pacific (p. 151); Working Group 20 on Evaluations of Climate Change Projections (p. 157); Working Group 21 on Non-indigenous Aquatic Species (p. 159); Study Group to Develop a Strategy for GOOS (p. 165) ◾ Reports of the Climate Change and Carrying Capacity Scientific Program: Implementation Panel on the CCCC Program (p. 169); CFAME Task Team (p. 175); MODEL Task Team (p. 181) ◾ Reports of Advisory Panels: Advisory Panel for a CREAMS/PICES Program in East Asian Marginal Seas (p. 187); Advisory Panel on Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey in the North Pacific (p. 193); Advisory Panel on Iron Fertilization Experiment in the Subarctic Pacific Ocean (p. 197); Advisory Panel on Marine Birds and Mammals (p. 201); Advisory Panel on Micronekton Sampling Inter-calibration Experiment (p. 205) ◾ Summary of Scientific Sessions and Workshops (p. 209) ◾ Membership List (p. 259) ◾ List of Participants (p. 277) ◾ List of PICES Acronyms (p. 301) ◾ List of Acronyms (p. 303)

Age validation of juvenile Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) tagged and marked with oxytetracycline off southern California

The purpose of this study was to validate aging results of juvenile Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) by vertebral band counts. Vertebrae of 29 juvenile Shortfin Mako marked with oxytetracycline (OTC) were obtained from tag-recapture activities to determine centrum growth-band deposition. Tagging occurred off southern California from 1996 to 2010, and time at liberty of the 29 sharks ranged from 4 months to 4.4 years (mean=1.3 years). Growth information also was obtained from length-frequency modal analyses (MULTIFAN and MIXDIST) by using a 29-year data set of commercial and research catch data, in addition to a tag-recapture growth model (e.g, the GROTAG model). For vertebrae samples used for age validation, shark size at time of release ranged from 79 to 142 cm fork length (FL) and from 98 to 200 cm FL at recapture. Results from band counts of vertebrae distal to OTC marks indicate 2 band pairs (2 translucent and 2 opaque) are formed each year for Shortfin Mako of the size range examined. Length-frequency analyses identified 3 age class modes. Growth rate estimates from 26.5 to 35.5 cm/year were calculated for the first age-class mode (85 cm FL) and from 22.4 to 28.6 cm/year for the second age-class mode (130 cm FL). Results from the tag-recapture growth model revealed fast growth during time at liberty for tagged fish of the 2 youngest age classes. Collectively, these methods suggest rapid growth of juvenile Shortfin Mako in the southern California study area and indicate biannual deposition of growth bands in vertebrae for the first 5 years.

Survey and impact assessment of derelict fish traps in St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands

Since 2001, NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s (CCMA) Biogeography Branch (BB) has been working with federal and territorial partners to characterize, monitor, and assess the status of the marine environment across the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). At the request of the St. Thomas Fisherman’s Association (STFA) and NOAA Marine Debris Program, CCMA BB developed new partnerships and novel technologies to scientifically assess the threat from derelict fish traps (DFTs). Traps are the predominant gear used for finfish and lobster harvesting in St. Thomas and St. John. Natural phenomena (ground swells, hurricanes) and increasing competition for space by numerous user groups have generated concern about increasing trap loss and the possible ecological, as well as economic, ramifications. Prior to this study, there was a general lack of knowledge regarding derelict fish traps in the Caribbean. No spatially explicit information existed regarding fishing effort, abundance and distribution of derelict traps, the rate at which active traps become derelict, or areas that are prone to dereliction. Furthermore, there was only limited information regarding the impacts of derelict traps on natural resources including ghost fishing. This research identified two groups of fishing communities in the region: commercial fishing that is most active in deeper waters (30 m and greater) and an unknown number of unlicensed subsistence and or commercial fishers that fish closer to shore in shallower waters (30 m and less). In the commercial fishery there are an estimated 6,500 active traps (fish and lobster combined). Of those traps, nearly 8% (514) were reported lost during the 2008-2010 period. Causes of loss/dereliction include: movement of the traps or loss of trap markers due to entanglement of lines by passing vessels; theft; severe weather events (storms, large ground swells); intentional disposal by fishermen; traps becoming caught on various bottom structures (natural substrates, wrecks, etc.); and human error.