34 resultados para Banks and banking--South Carolina--Statistics--Periodicals
em Aquatic Commons
Resumo:
Angler creel surveys and economic impact models were used to evaluate potential expansion of aquatic vegetation in Lakes Murray and Moultrie, South Carolina. (PDF contains 4 pages.)
Resumo:
This study aims to reconstruct the history of shore whaling in the southeastern United States, emphasizing statistics on the catch of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, the preferred targets. The earliest record of whaling in North Carolina is of a proposed voyage from New York in 1667. Early settlers on the Outer Banks utilized whale strandings by trying out the blubber of carcasses that came ashore, and some whale oil was exported from the 1660s onward. New England whalemen whaled along the North Carolina coast during the 1720s, and possibly earlier. As some of the whalemen from the northern colonies moved to Nortb Carolina, a shore-based whale fishery developed. This activity apparently continued without interruption until the War of Independence in 1776, and continued or was reestablished after the war. The methods and techniques of the North Carolina shore whalers changed slowly: as late as the 1890s they used a drogue at the end of the harpoon line and refrained from staying fast to the harpooned whale, they seldom employed harpoon guns, and then only during the waning years of the fishery. The whaling season extended from late December to May, most successfully between February and May. Whalers believed they were intercepting whales migrating north along the coast. Although some whaling occurred as far north as Cape Hatteras, it centered on the outer coasts of Core, Shackleford, and Bogue banks, particularly near Cape Lookout. The capture of whales other than right whales was a rare event. The number of boat crews probably remained fairly stable during much of the 19th century, with some increase in effort in the late 1870s and early 1880s when numbers of boat crews reached 12 to 18. Then by the late 1880s and 1890s only about 6 crews were active. North Carolina whaling had become desultory by the early 1900s, and ended completely in 1917. Judging by export and tax records, some ocean-going vessels made good catches off this coast in about 1715-30, including an estimated 13 whales in 1719, 15 in one year during the early 1720s, 5-6 in a three-year period of the mid to late 1720s, 8 by one ship's crew in 1727, 17 by one group of whalers in 1728-29, and 8-9 by two boats working from Ocracoke prior to 1730. It is impossible to know how representative these fragmentary records are for the period as a whole. The Carolina coast declined in importance as a cruising ground for pelagic whalers by the 1740s or 1750s. Thereafter, shore whaling probably accounted for most of the (poorly documented) catch. Lifetime catches by individual whalemen on Shackleford Banks suggest that the average annual catch was at least one to two whales during 1830·80, perhaps about four during the late 1870s and early 1880s, and declining to about one by the late 1880s. Data are insufficient to estimate the hunting loss rate in the Outer Banks whale fishery. North Carolina is the only state south of New Jersey known to have had a long and well established shore whaling industry. Some whaling took place in Chesapeake Bay and along the coast of Virginia during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, but it is poorly documented. Most of the rigbt whales taken off South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida during the 19th century were killed by pelagic whalers. Florida is the only southeastern state with evidence of an aboriginal (pre-contact) whale fishery. Right whale calves may have been among the aboriginal whalers' principal targets. (PDF file contains 34 pages.)
Resumo:
This study evaluated longevity and population persistence of 768,500 triploid grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella Valenciennes) stocked in the 70,000-ha Santee Cooper system in South Carolina from 1989 through 1996 to control hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle).
Resumo:
Toxic chemicals can enter the marine environment through numerous routes: stormwater runoff, industrial point source discharges, municipal wastewater discharges, atmospheric deposition, accidental spills, illegal dumping, pesticide applications and agricultural practices. Once they enter a receiving system, toxicants often become bound to suspended particles and increase in density sufficiently to sink to the bottom. Sediments are one of the major repositories of contaminants in aquatic envronments. Furthermore, if they become sufficiently contaminated sediments can act as sources of toxicants to important biota. Sediment quality data are direct indicators of the health of coastal aquatic habitats. Sediment quality investigations conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and others have indicated that toxic chemicals are found in the sediments and biota of some estuaries in South Carolina and Georgia (NOAA, 1992). This report documents the toxicity of sediments collected within five selected estuaries: Savannah River, Winyah Bay, Charleston Harbor, St. Simons Sound, and Leadenwah Creek (Figure 1). (PDF contains 292 pages)
Resumo:
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 88 pages.)
Resumo:
The South Carolina Coastal Information Network (SCCIN) emerged as a result of a number of coastal outreach institutions working in partnership to enhance coordination of the coastal community outreach efforts in South Carolina. This organized effort, led by the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium and its Extension Program, includes partners from federal and state agencies, regional government agencies, and private organizations seeking to coordinate and/or jointly deliver outreach programs that target coastal community constituents. The Network was officially formed in 2006 with the original intention of fostering intra-and inter- agency communication, coordination, and cooperation. Network partners include the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium, S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control – Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and Bureau of Water, S.C. Department of Natural Resources – ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service and Carolina Clear, Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments, Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments, Urban Land Institute of South Carolina, S.C. Department of Archives and History, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Coastal Services Center and Hollings Marine Laboratory, Michaux Conservancy, Ashley-Cooper Stormwater Education Consortium, the Coastal Waccamaw Stormwater Education Consortium, the S.C. Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Lowcountry Council of Governments. (PDF contains 3 pages)
Resumo:
Trawling was conducted in the Charleston, South Carolina, shipping channel between May and August during 2004–07 to evaluate loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) catch rates and demographic distributions. Two hundred and twenty individual loggerheads were captured in 432 trawling events during eight sampling periods lasting 2–10 days each. Catch was analyzed by using a generalized linear model. Data were fitted to a negative binomial distribution with the log of standardized sampling effort (i.e., an hour of sampling with a net head rope length standardized to 30.5 m) for each event treated as an offset term. Among 21 variables, factors, and interactions, five terms were significant in the final model, which accounted for 45% of model deviance. Highly significant differences in catch were noted among sampling periods and sampling locations within the channel, with greatest catch furthest seaward consistent with historical observations. Loggerhead sea turtle catch rates in 2004–07 were greater than in 1991–92 when mandatory use of turtle excluder devices was beginning to be phased in. Concurrent with increased catch rates, loggerheads captured in 2004–07 were larger than in 1991–92. Eighty-five percent of loggerheads captured were ≤75.0 cm straight-line carapace length (nuchal notch to tip of carapace) and there was a 3.9:1 female-to-male bias, consistent with limited data for this location two decades earlier. Only juvenile loggerheads ≤75.0 cm possessed haplotypes other than CC-A01 or CC-A02 that dominate in the region. Six rare and one un-described haplotype were predominantly found in June 2004.
Resumo:
This study examined the sexual differentiation and reproductive dynamics of striped mullet (Mugil cephalus L.) in the estuaries of South Carolina. A total of 16,464 specimens were captured during the study and histological examination of sex and maturity was performed on a subsample of 3670 fish. Striped mullet were sexually undifferentiated for the first 12 months, began differentiation at 13 months, and were 90% fully differentiated by 15 to 19 months of age and 225 mm total length (TL). The defining morphological characteristics for differentiating males was the elongation of the protogonial germ tissue in a corradiating pattern towards the center of the lobe, the development of primary and secondary ducts, and the lack of any recognizable ovarian wall structure. The defining female characteristics were the formation of protogonial germ tissue into spherical germ cell nests, separation of a tissue layer from the outer epithelial layer of the lobe-forming ovarian walls, a tissue bud growing from the suspensory tissue that helped form the ovary wall, and the proliferation of oogonia and oocytes. Sexual maturation in male striped mullet first occurred at 1 year and 248 mm TL and 100% maturity occurred at age 2 and 300 mm TL. Female striped mullet first matured at 2 years and 291 mm total length and 100% maturity occurred at 400 mm TL and age 4. Because of the open ocean spawning behavior of striped mullet, all stages of maturity were observed in males and females except for functionally mature females with hydrated oocytes. The spawning season for striped mullet recruiting to South Carolina estuaries lasts from October to April; the majority of spawning activity, however, occurs from November to January. Ovarian atresia was observed to have four distinct phases. This study presents morpholog ical analysis of reproductive ontogeny in relation to size and age in South Carolina striped mullet. Because of the length of the undifferentiated gonad stage in juvenile striped mullet, previous studies have proposed the possibility of protandric hermaphrodism in this species. The results of our study indicate that striped mullet are gonochoristic but capable of exhibiting nonfunctional hermaphroditic characteristics in differentiated mature gonads.
Resumo:
The spatial and temporal occurrence of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the coastal and estuarine waters near Charleston, SC were evaluated. Sighting and photographic data from photo-identification (ID), remote biopsy, capture-release and radio-tracking studies, conducted from 1994 through 2003, were analyzed in order to further delineate residence patterns of Charleston area bottlenose dolphins. Data from 250 photo-ID, 106 remote biopsy, 15 capture-release and 83 radio-tracking surveys were collected in the Stono River Estuary (n = 247), Charleston Harbor (n = 86), North Edisto River (n = 54), Intracoastal Waterway (n = 26) and the coastal waters north and south of Charleston Harbor (n = 41). Coverage for all survey types was spatially and temporally variable, and in the case of biopsy, capture-release and radio-tracking surveys, data analyzed in this report were collected incidental to other research. Eight-hundred and thirty-nine individuals were photographically identified during the study period. One-hundred and fifteen (13.7%) of the 839 photographically identified individuals were sighted between 11-40 times, evidence of consistent occurrence in the Charleston area (i.e., site fidelity). Adjusted sighting proportions (ASP), which reflect an individual’s sighting frequency in a subarea relative to other subareas after adjusting for survey effort, were analyzed in order to evaluate dolphin spatial occurrence. Forty-three percent (n = 139) of dolphins that qualified for ASP analyses exhibited a strong subarea affiliation while the remaining 57% (n = 187) showed no strong subarea preference. Group size data were derived from field estimates of 2,342 dolphin groups encountered in the five Charleston subareas. Group size appeared positively correlated with degree of “openness” of the body of water where dolphins were encountered; and for sightings along the coast, group size was larger during summer months. This study provides valuable information on the complex nature of bottlenose dolphin spatial and temporal occurrence near Charleston, SC. In addition, it helps us to better understand the stock structure of dolphins along the Atlantic seaboard.
Resumo:
This CD contains summary data of bottlenose dolphins stranded in South Carolina using a Geographical Information System (GIS) and contains two published manuscripts in .pdf files. The intent of this CD is to provide data on bottlenose dolphin strandings in South Carolina to marine mammal researchers and managers. This CD is an accumulation of 14 years of stranding data collected through the collaborations of the National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR), the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and numerous volunteers and veterinarians that comprised the South Carolina Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Spatial and temporal information can be visually represented on maps using GIS. For this CD, maps were created to show relationships of stranding densities with land use, human population density, human interaction with dolphins, high geographical regions of live strandings, and seasonal changes. Point maps were also created to show individual strandings within South Carolina. In summary, spatial analysis revealed higher densities of bottlenose dolphin strandings in Charleston and Beaufort Counties, which consist of urban land with agricultural input. This trend was positively correlated with higher human population levels in these coastal counties as compared with other coastal counties. However, spatial analysis revealed that certain areas within a county may have low human population levels but high stranding density, suggesting that the level of effort to respond to strandings is not necessarily positively correlated with the density of strandings in South Carolina. Temporal analysis revealed a significantly higher density of bottlenose dolphin strandings in the northern portion of the State in the fall, mostly due to an increase of neonate strandings. On a finer geographic scale, seasonal stranding densities may fluctuate depending on the region of interest. Charleston Harbor had the highest density of live bottlenose dolphin strandings compared to the rest of the State. This was due in large part to the number of live dolphin entanglements in the crab pot fishery, the largest source of fishery-related mortality for bottlenose dolphins in South Carolina (Burdett and McFee 2004). Spatial density calculations also revealed that Charleston and Beaufort accounted for the majority of dolphins that were involved with human activities. 1