Catch-per-unit-effort and biological parameters from the Massachusetts coastal lobster (Homarus americanus) resource: Description and trends

Acomprehensive description of the Massachusetts coastal lobster (Homarus americanus) resou,rce was obtained by sampling commercial catches coastwide at sea and at dealerships between 1981 and 1986. Acommercial lobster sea-sampling program, wherein six coastal regions were sampled monthly, with an areal and temporal data weighting design, was the primary source of data. An improved index of catch per trap haul/set-over-day was generated by modeling the relationship between catch and immersion time and standardizing effort. This 6-year time-series of mean annual catch rates tracked closely the landings trend for territorial waters. During the study period there was a gradual increase in indices of exploitation and total annual mortality which corresponded to a gradual decline in mean carapace length of marketable lobster. The frequency of culls escalated from 10.0% in 1981 to 20.9% in 1986, while the percentage of lobster found dead in traps was consistently less than 1%. The sex ratio (%F:%M) was significantly different from 50:50 and approximated a 60:40 relationship during the study period. Male and female weight-length relationships were significantly different. Females weighed more than males at smaller sizes and less than males at larger sizes. A north-south clinal trend was evident wherein lobster north of Cape Cod weighed less at length than those from regions south of Cape Cod. Functional size-maturity relationships were developed for female lobster by staging cement gland development. Proportions mature at size represent more realistic values than those obtained by analyses of percent of females ovigerous. Regional variation occurred in most of the parameters studied. Three lobster groups, differing in major population descriptors, are defined by our data.(PDF file contains 28 pages.)

New and innovative advances in biology/engineering with potential for use in aquaculture: Proceedings of the Fourteenth U.S.-Japan Meeting on Aquaculture, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, October 16-17, 1985

The United States and Japanese counterpart panels on aquaculture were formed in 1969 under the United States-Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources (UJNR). The panels currently include specialists drawn from the federal departments most concerned with aquaculture. Charged with exploring and developing bilateral cooperation, the panels have focused their efforts on exchanging information related to aquaculture which could be of benefit to both countries. The UJNR was begun during the Third Cabinet-Level Meeting of the Joint United States-Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs in January 1964. In addition to aquaculture, current subjects in the program include desalination of seawater, toxic microorganisms, air pollution, energy, forage crops, national park management, mycoplasmosis, wind and seismic effects, protein resources, forestry, and several joint panels and committees in marine resources research, development, and utilization. Accomplishments include: Increased communication and cooperation among technical specialists; exchanges of information, data, and research findings; annual meetings of the panels, a policy-coordinative body; administrative staff meetings; exchanges of equipment, materials, and samples; several major technical conferences; and beneficial effects on international relations. (PDF file contains 76 pages.)

Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals: Proceedings of an International Symposium and Workshop Cambridge, England, 23-27 April 1984

The 1984 International Symposium and Workshop on the Biology of Fur Seals originated in informal talks in 1981. However, the scope and focus of the symposium remained unclear until an informal workshop was held in San Diego in June 1983. This meeting synthesised data on the foraging and pup attendance activities of six species of fur seals, and attempted to formulate a coherent framework for the adaptations associated with their maternal strategies (Gentry et al. 1986). During the workshop it was clear that comparative data on many key aspects of fur seal biology and ecology were missing. This absence of data applied not only to less well known species, for some of which considerable unpublished data existed, but also to better known species for which research in some areas had either been neglected or unreported. The value of applying the comparative method to seals, especially comparisons integrating physiology, ecology, and reproductive biology, was amply demonstrated by the results of the 1983 workshop (Gentry and Kooyman 1986). However, we were also aware that many other problems outside the area of maternal strategies could benefit from comparative data, such as recovery of populations from the effects of harvesting. Therefore, to accommodate the range of potential research, we organized this symposium to produce an up-to-date synthesis of relevant information for all species of fur seals. It was also clear that fur seal research could benefit from increased communication and collaboration among its practitioners. To foster the spread of ideas, we held oral presentations on some topics of current research and techniques and organized workshops on specific topics, in addition to providing opportunities for informal talks among participants. Thanks to generous support from the British Antarctic Survey, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the United States, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the International Fur Seal Symposium was held at the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England, 23-27 April 1984. The 36 participants are shown in Figure 1. A list of Symposium participants and authors is presented in Appendix 1 of the Proceedings. (PDF file contains 220 pages.)

History of Molluscan Fishery Regulations and the Shellfish Officer Service in Massachusetts

Oysters, Crassostrea virginica, and softshell clams, Mya arenaria, along the Massachusetts coast were harvested by European colonists beginning in the 1600’s. By the 1700’s, official Commonwealth rules were established to regulate their harvests. In the final quarter of the 1800’s, commercial fishermen began harvesting northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria, and northern bay scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians, and regulations established by the Massachusetts Legislature were applied to their harvests also. Constables (also termed wardens), whose salaries were paid by the local towns, enforced the regulations, which centered on restricting harvests to certain seasons, preventing seed from being taken, and personal daily limits on harvests. In 1933, the Massachusetts Legislature turned over shellfisheries management to individual towns. Local constables (wardens) enforced the rules. In the 1970’s, the Massachusetts Shellfish Officers Association was formed, and was officially incorporated in 2000, to help the constables deal with increasing environmental problems in estuaries where fishermen harvest mollusks. The constables’ stewardship of the molluscan resources and the estuarine environments and promotion of the fisheries has become increasingly complex.

History of the Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians, Fisheries and Habitats in eastern North America, Massachusetts through northeastern Mexico

This is a broad historical overview of the bay scallop, Argopecten irradians, fishery on the East and Gulf Coasts of North America (Fig. 1). For a little over a century, from about the mid 1870’s to the mid 1980’s, bay scallops supported large commercial fisheries mainly in the U.S. states of Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina and on smaller scales in the states in between and in western Florida. In these states, the annual harvests and dollar value of bay scallops were far smaller than those of the other important commercial mollusks, the eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, and northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria, but they were higher than those of softshell clams, Mya arenaria (Table 1). The fishery had considerable economic importance in the states’ coastal towns, because bay scallops are a high-value product and the fishery was active during the winter months when the economies in most towns were otherwise slow. The scallops also had cultural importance as a special food, an ornament owing to its pretty shell design, and an interesting biological component of

The Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians, Massachusetts Through North Carolina: Its Biology and the History of Its Habitats and Fisheries

This article covers the biology and the history of the bay scallop habitats and fishery from Massachusetts to North Carolina. The scallop species that ranges from Massachusetts to New York is Argopecten irradians irradians. In New Jersey, this species grades into A. i. concentricus, which then ranges from Maryland though North Carolina. Bay scallops inhabit broad, shallow bays usually containing eelgrass meadows, an important component in their habitat. Eelgrass appears to be a factor in the production of scallop larvae and also the protection of juveniles, especially, from predation. Bay scallops spawn during the warm months and live for 18–30 months. Only two generations of scallops are present at any time. The abundances of each vary widely among bays and years. Scallops were harvested along with other mollusks on a small scale by Native Americans. During most of the 1800’s, people of European descent gathered them at wading depths or from beaches where storms had washed them ashore. Scallop shells were also and continue to be commonly used in ornaments. Some fishing for bay scallops began in the 1850’s and 1860’s, when the A-frame dredge became available and markets were being developed for the large, white, tasty scallop adductor muscles, and by the 1870’s commercial-scale fishing was underway. This has always been a cold-season fishery: scallops achieve full size by late fall, and the eyes or hearts (adductor muscles) remain preserved in the cold weather while enroute by trains and trucks to city markets. The first boats used were sailing catboats and sloops in New England and New York. To a lesser extent, scallops probably were also harvested by using push nets, picking them up with scoop nets, and anchor-roading. In the 1910’s and 1920’s, the sails on catboats were replaced with gasoline engines. By the mid 1940’s, outboard motors became more available and with them the numbers of fishermen increased. The increases consisted of parttimers who took leaves of 2–4 weeks from their regular jobs to earn extra money. In the years when scallops were abundant on local beds, the fishery employed as many as 10–50% of the towns’ workforces for a month or two. As scallops are a higher-priced commodity, the fishery could bring a substantial amount of money into the local economies. Massachusetts was the leading state in scallop landings. In the early 1980’s, its annual landings averaged about 190,000 bu/yr, while New York and North Carolina each landed about 45,000 bu/yr. Landings in the other states in earlier years were much smaller than in these three states. Bay scallop landings from Massachusetts to New York have fallen sharply since 1985, when a picoplankton, termed “brown tide,” bloomed densely and killed most scallops as well as extensive meadows of eelgrass. The landings have remained low, large meadows of eelgrass have declined in size, apparently the species of phytoplankton the scallops use as food has changed in composition and in seasonal abundance, and the abundances of predators have increased. The North Carolina landings have fallen since cownose rays, Rhinoptera bonsais, became abundant and consumed most scallops every year before the fishermen could harvest them. The only areas where the scallop fishery remains consistently viable, though smaller by 60–70%, are Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Mass., and inside the coastal inlets in southwestern Long Island, N.Y.

Age, size, and sexual maturity of channeled whelk (Busycotypus canaliculatus) in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts

With the southern New England lobster fishery in distress, lobster fishermen have focused more effort toward harvesting channeled whelk (Busycotypus canaliculatus). However, minimal research has been conducted on the life history and growth rates of channeled whelk. Melongenid whelks generally grow slowly and mature late in life, a characteristic that can make them vulnerable to overfishing as fishing pressure increases. We sampled channeled whelk from Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, in August 2010 and in July 2011, studied their gonad development by histology, and aged them by examining opercula. Males had a slower growth rate and a lower maximum size than females. Male whelk reached 50% maturity (SM50) at 115.5 mm shell length (SL) and at the age of 6.9 years. Female whelk reached SM50 at 155.3 mm SL and at the age of 8.6 years. With a minimum size limit of 69.9 mm (2.75 in) in shell width, males entered the fishery at 7.5 years, a few months after SM50, but females entered the fishery at 6.3 years, approximately 2 years before SM50. Increased fishing pressure combined with slow growth rates and the inability to reproduce before being harvested can easily constrain the long-term viability of the channeled whelk fishery in Massachusetts.

Synthesis of summer flounder habitat parameters

The summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, is overexploited and is currently at very low levels of abundance. This is reflected in the compressed age structure of the population and the low catches in both commercial and recreational fisheries. Declining habitat quantity and quality may be contributing to these declines, however we lack a thorough understanding of the role of habitats in the population dynamics of this species. Stock structure is unresolved and current interpretations, depending on the technique and study area, suggest that there may be two or three spawning populations. If so, these stocks may have differing habitat requirements. In response to this lack of knowledge, this document summarizes and synthesizes the available information on summer flounder habitat in all life history stages (eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults) and identifies areas where further research is needed. Several levels of investigation were conducted in order to produce this document. First, an extensive search for summer flounder habitat information was made, which included both the primary and gray literature as well as unanalyzed data. Second, state and federal fisheries biologists and resource managers in all states within the primary range of summer flounder (Massachusetts to Florida) were interviewed along with a number of fish ecologists and summer flounder experts from the academic and private sectors. Finally, information from all sources was analyzed and synthesized to form a coherent overview. This document first presents an overview of the economic importance and current status of summer flounder (Chapter 1). It then summarizes our present state of knowledge of summer flounder distribution, life history patterns and stock identification (Chapter 2). This is followed by a synopsis of habitat requirements during each life history stage. For convenience, this is presented by general habitat as offshore eggs (Chapter 3), offshore larvae (Chapter 4), estuarine larvae (Chapter 5), estuarine juveniles (Chapter 6), offshore juveniles (Chapter 7) and estuarine and offshore adults (Chapter 8). In several instances, previously undigested data sets are analyzed to provide more detailed information, especially for estuarine juveniles. The information is then discussed in terms of its relevance to resource managers (Chapter 9).

A report on the fisheries of Uganda investigated by the Cambridge Expedition to the East African Lakes, 1930-31

There was very little previous information to use as a basis for work on Lakes Edward and George, but fortunately the region had been mapped in some detail by the Uganda-Congo Boundary Commission of 1906-08. This map served as a satisfactory foundation, but the western Congo shoreline of Lake Edward was inserted only by a dotted line, and a number of inaccuracies, particularly with regard to the islands and littoral of L. George, came to light during our survey.