Reproductive seasonality, fecundity, and spawning frequency of tautog (Tautoga onitis) in the lower Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters of Virginia

The tautog, Tautoga onitis (Linnaeus), ranges from Nova Scotia to South Carolina and has become a popular target for recreational and commercial fisheries. Although tautog are a multiple spawning species, reproductive potential, measured as annual fecundity, has not been estimated previously with methods (batch fecundity, spawning frequency) necessary for a species with indeterminate annual fecundity. A total of 960 tautog were collected from the mouth of the Rappahannock River in the lower Chesapeake Bay to 45 km offshore of Virginia’s coastline to investigate tautog reproductive biology in the southern portion of the species range. Tautog did not exhibit a 1:1 sex ratio; 56% were females. Male tautog reached 50% maturity at 218 mm TL, females at 224 mm TL. Tautog spawned from 7 April 1995 to 15 June 1995, at locations from the York River to 45 km offshore. Batch fecundity estimates ranged from 2800 to 181,200 eggs per spawning for female tautog age 3–9, total length 259– 516 mm. Mean batch fecundity ±SEM for female tautog ages 4–6 was 54,243 ±2472 eggs and 106,256 ±3837 eggs for females ages 7–9. Spawning frequency was estimated at 1.2 days, resulting in 58 spawning days per female in 1995. Estimates of potential annual fecundity for tautog ages 3–9 ranged from 160,000 to 10,510,000 eggs.

The Bait Purse-seine Fishery for Atlantic Menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, in the Virginia Portion of Chesapeake Bay

Through the mid 1990’s, the bait purse-seine fishery for Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, in the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay was essentially undocumented. Beginning in 1995, captains of Virginia bait vessels maintained deck logs of their daily fishing activities; concurrently, we sampled the bait landings for size and age composition of the catch. Herein, we summarize 15 years (1995–2009) of data from the deck logbooks, including information on total bait landings by purse seine, proportion of fishing to nonfishing days, proportion of purse-seine sets assisted by spotter pilots, nominal fishing effort, median catches, and temporal and areal trends in catch. Age and size composition of the catch are described, as well as vessel and gear characteristics and disposition of the catch.

History of whaling in and near North Carolina

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.)

Horizontal and vertical movements of juvenile bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in relation to oceanographic conditions of the western North Atlantic, determined with ultrasonic telemetry

We employed ultrasonic transmitters to follow (for up to 48 h) the horizontal and vertical movements of five juvenile (6.8–18.7 kg estimated body mass) bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the western North Atlantic (off the eastern shore of Virginia). Our objective was to document the fishes’ behavior and distribution in relation to oceanographic conditions and thus begin to address issues that currently limit population assessments based on aerial surveys. Estimation of the trends in adult and juvenile Atlantic bluefin tuna abundance by aerial surveys, and other fishery-independent measures, is considered a priority. Juvenile bluefin tuna spent the majority of their time over the continental shelf in relatively shallow water (generally less then 40 m deep). Fish used the entire water column in spite of relatively steep vertical thermal gradients (≈24°C at the surface and ≈12°C at 40 m depth), but spent the majority of their time (≈90%) above 15 m and in water warmer then 20°C. Mean swimming speeds ranged from 2.8 to 3.3 knots, and total distance covered from 152 to 289 km (82–156 nmi). Because fish generally remained within relatively con-fined areas, net displacement was only 7.7–52.7 km (4.1–28.4 nmi). Horizontal movements were not correlated with sea surface temperature. We propose that it is unlikely that juvenile bluefin tuna in this area can detect minor horizontal temperature gradients (generally less then 0.5°C/km) because of the steep vertical temperature gradients (up to ≈0.6°C/m) they experience during their regular vertical movements. In contrast, water clarity did appear to influence behavior because the fish remained in the intermediate water mass between the turbid and phytoplankton-rich plume exiting Chesapeake Bay (and similar coastal waters) and the clear oligotrophic water east of the continental shelf.