Bibliografía argentina de peces de agua dulce.

Espanol: En la presente lista bibliográfica fueron recopiladas las referencias sobre los peces continentales de la Argentina, del período comprendido entre mediados del siglo XVIII y fines del año 2005. Incluye las listas bibliográficas publicadas durante los años 1981 a 2004, y las citas no mencionadas en ellas. Se incluyeron el ISSN o ISBN según correspondiera, la abreviatura oficial y el lugar de origen de las publicaciones. En algunos casos, los ISSN, las abreviaturas de los nombres de las publicaciones o su procedencia, mencionados en los catálogos, no coinciden con los de la home page de la publicación. Una bibliografía puede ser muy rica y aún estar incompleta. Requiere de sus lectores algún interés histórico, y aún un interés profundo por su tema. Ante una bibliografía, muchos investigadores preferirían no encontrar algunas referencias, y de hecho, muchas son oportunamente olvidadas. Por no saber como hacerlo, o por menosprecio, estas listas raramente son citadas en los trabajos, aunque sobre algunos temas en particular, sería realmente difícil formarse una idea si las bibliografías no existieran. Aún desde el comienzo es complicado precisar un criterio de inclusiones. Por ejemplo, gran parte de la ictiofauna Argentina se encuentra también en Brasil. ¿Justifica esto incluir informes perdidos sobre artes de pesca en una cuenca distante? ¿Deben los clásicos, que todo el mundo conoce y el que se inicia encontrará sin dificultad, ser incluidos? Aún a un grupo que se dedicara full time a este trabajo, le sería difícil verificar la precisión de las citas antiguas, en las que fechas y autoría cambian según la investigación histórica. En una bibliografía más o menos general, la perfección atenta contra la publicación. Sin embargo, pensamos que es conveniente hacerlas. Una mirada a este volumen, muestra la enorme cantidad de desarrollos en muchos temas, y la regla que uno de nosotros ha mencionado desde hace tiempo: siempre hay más publicado sobre un tema de lo que uno cree. La sospecha de que con sólo mirar lo que está hecho, muchos subsidios podrían utilizarse para algo más útil que algunas evaluaciones repetidas de recursos o biodiversidad, es un poco pesimista y no haremos perder trabajos insistiendo en eso. Cada generación elige sus metas, su propia base epistemológica, sus trabajos preferidos y los que desecha. Aún en trabajos perdidos o de mala calidad, es posible encontrar datos valiosos. Ningún proyecto, por mejor diseñado que esté, podrá mostrar en el presente los organismos que vivían en el pasado en un lugar en el que las condiciones han cambiado, o lo hará en términos de otra disciplina. En los temas aplicados la información del pasado puede ser importantísima. Aún en una disciplina tan conservadora como la nomenclatura, los cambios pueden ser exasperantes; no pueden serlo menos en las que intrínsecamente, como la ecología, es lo que estudian. Para dar una idea más precisa del desarrollo de la ictiología en la Argentina, esta lista podría ir acompañada de una apreciación crítica. Entendemos que una tarea así exige un trabajo diferente, de cierta magnitud y con no pocos elementos históricos. Aunque tiene deficiencias, la ictiología argentina constituye una acumulación de conocimientos de considerable calidad y pertinencia para la historia natural de América del Sur. Dejamos a los lectores que cada uno haga la suya. English: For the present list, references on freshwater fishes of Argentina were compiled from the period between middle XVIII Century and the end of the year 2005. It includes previous lists published during 1981 to 2004, and references not mentioned therein. The ISSN o ISBN numbers were included, as well as the official abbreviations and the place of origin of the periodicals. In some cases, these data as quoted in catalogs, do not agree with those in the home page of the publication. A bibliography may be very rich and anyway never complete. It requires from its readers some historic interest and indeed a deep interest on his (her) subject. Browsing a bibliography, many researchers would prefer not to find some references, and in fact, sometimes they forget some of them. Not imagining how to do it, or because people do not concede importance to them, bibliographic lists are rarely quoted in papers, though some subjects would be rather difficult to understand if list of publications would not exist. Even from the beginning, it is difficult to precise a criterion of inclusions. For example, many Argentine fishes occur also in Brazil. Does this justify the inclusion of grey reports on a distant basin? Should classic works, that everybody knows and are easily found, be included? Is near impossible, even for a group dedicated full time to this work, to verify the precision of old citations, whose dates and authorship change according to authorities and historical research. In a more or less general bibliography, completeness is against publication. Nevertheless, we think that is convenient to prepare these lists. A look at this volume shows the enormous developments in many subjects, and the rule that one of us mentioned long ago: there are always more papers on any subject than one suspects. Looking at what has already been done raises the suspicion that many grants could be used for something more useful than repeated evaluations of biodiversity or resources. This is a bit pessimistic, and we do not want to erase working opportunities. Each generation chooses its targets, its own epistemological base, its preferred papers and those that rejects. Even in lost or bad quality papers, the possibility of finding valuable information exists. No project, whatever the appropriateness of its design, could show at present which organisms lived in the past in a place where environmental conditions have changed, or it will do it in terms of another discipline. In applied subjects, information from the past can be very important. Even in a conservative discipline as nomenclature, changes can be exasperating. They are not lesser in those like ecology, where change itself is studied. To provide a more precise idea of the development of ichthyology in Argentina, this list could be accompanied by a critical appreciation. We understood that such an aim requires a different work, with no few historical elements and of certain magnitude. In spite of some deficiencies, Argentine ichthyology, resulting from collaboration of both local and foreign people, constitutes a bulk of knowledge of considerable quality and pertinence for the natural history of South America. We leave each reader to make his (or her) own evaluation. (Texto en Espanol. PDF tiene cien setenta paginas.)

Preliminary guide to the identification of the early life history stages of Priacanthid fishes of the Western Central Atlantic

The family Priacanthidae contains four genera and four species that occur in the western central North Atlantic (Starnes, 1988). Pristigenys alta is distributed in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and along the east coast of North America. Although juveniles have been reported from as far north as southern New England waters, adults are not reported north of Cape Hatteras, NC. Priacanthus arenatus is distributed in tropical and tropically influenced areas of the western central North Atlantic in insular and continental shelf waters. Adult P. arenatus are distributed north to North Carolina and Bermuda, juveniles have been collected as far north as Nova Scotia. Cookeolus japonicus and Heteropriacanthus cruentatus are circumglobally distributed species and are both common in insular habitats. In the western central North Atlantic, C. japonicus ranges from New Jersey to Argentina; H. cruentatus from New Jersey and northern Gulf of Mexico to southern Brazil (Starnes, 1988). (PDF contains 6 pages)

The History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of North and Central American and Europe: Volume 1, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts

This three-volume monograph represents the first major attempt in over a century to provide, on regional bases, broad surveys of the history, present condition, and future of the important shellfisheries of North and Central America and Europe. It was about 100 years ago that Ernest Ingersoll wrote extensively about several molluscan fisheries of North America (1881, 1887) and about 100 years ago that Bashford Dean wrote comprehensively about methods of oyster culture in Europe (1893). Since those were published, several reports, books, and pamphlets have been written about the biology and management of individual species or groups ofclosely related mollusk species (Galtsoff, 1964; Korringa, 1976 a, b, c; Lutz, 1980; Manzi and Castagna, 1989; Shumway, 1991). However, nothing has been written during the past century that is comparable to the approach used by Ingersoll in describing the molluscan fisheries as they existed in his day in North America or, for that matter, in Europe. (PDF file contains 224 pages.)

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.)

Limnology in Sicily: A history of fresh waters surrounded by the sea

The aim of this short article is to trace the history of limnology in Sicily, from the end of the last century up to the present, and pay a little homage to a scientist to whom limnology is deeply indebted: G.E. Hutchinson. Due to its insular and climatic conditions, Sicily is characterised by a drainage network formed by numerous short, torrent-like rivers, and by a few small, natural lakes. The geological characteristics of the island strongly condition the quality of these small waterbodies which generally have surface areas of less than 0.2 km super(2). The earliest observations on Sicilian lentic waters go back more than a century; in particular, at the end of the 19th century, some of the issues regarding the natural lakes had already been brought into focus. Subsequent studies on natural waterbodies concentrated on the geomorphology of landslide lakes or lakes created by the dissolution of the gypsum tableland. However, many of the waterbodies no longer exist because of land reclamation which took place up to the first half of the 1950s. During the last 35 years, there has been a notable increase in limnological publications. In addition, these studies show a more careful and integrated approach to the limnological aspects of waterbodies, compared with the early studies.

A review of IATTC research on the early life history and reproductive biology of scombrids conducted at the Achotines Laboratory from 1985 to 2005

English: For nearly a century, fisheries scientists have studied marine fish stocks in an effort to understand how the abundances of fish populations are determined. During the early lives of marine fishes, survival is variable, and the numbers of individuals surviving to transitional stages or recruitment are difficult to predict. The egg, larval, and juvenile stages of marine fishes are characterized by high rates of mortality and growth. Most marine fishes, particularly pelagic species, are highly fecund, produce small eggs and larvae, and feed and grow in complex aquatic ecosystems. The identification of environmental or biological factors that are most important in controlling survival during the early life stages of marine fishes is a potentially powerful tool in stock assessment. Because vital rates (mortality and growth) during the early life stages of marine fishes are high and variable, small changes in those rates can have profound effects on the properties of survivors and recruitment potential (Houde 1989). Understanding and predicting the factors that most strongly influence pre-recruit survival are key goals of fisheries research programs. Spanish: Desde hace casi un siglo, los científicos pesqueros han estudiado las poblaciones de peces marinos en un intento por entender cómo se determina la abundancia de las mismas. Durante la vida temprana de los peces marinos, la supervivencia es variable, y el número de individuos que sobrevive hasta las etapas transicionales o el reclutamiento es difícil de predecir. Las etapas de huevo, larval, y juvenil de los peces marinos son caracterizadas por tasas altas de mortalidad y crecimiento. La mayoría de los peces marinos, particularmente las especies pelágicas, son muy fecundos, producen huevos y larvas pequeños, y se alimentan y crecen en ecosistemas acuáticos complejos. La identificación los factores ambientales o biológicos más importantes en el control de la supervivencia durante las etapas tempranas de vida de los peces marinos es una herramienta potencialmente potente en la evaluación de las poblaciones. Ya que las tasas vitales (mortalidad y crecimiento) durante las etapas tempranas de vida de los peces marinos son altas y variables, cambios pequeños en esas tasas pueden ejercer efectos importantes sobre las propiedades de los supervivientes y el potencial de reclutamiento (Houde 1989). Comprender y predecir los factores que más afectan la supervivencia antes del reclutamiento son objetivos clave de los programas de investigación pesquera.

Participatory management of a reservoir fishery in northeastern Brazil

Consensus, compromise and cooperation. That was how more than 100 fishers reached agreement on how they would manage their own fishery in a small reservoir in northeastern Brazil. The long hard road that led to the agreement, the final congress in which fishers made minor history and the lessons that others may draw from the experience are described in this article. The fishers agreed on a nonfishing period of protected areas and a seasonal ban on certain nets in the face of a government department that told them the measures were non-building and essentially illegal.

Nineteenth-century Ship-based Catches of Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in the Eastern North Pacific

The 19th century commercial ship-based fishery for gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in the eastern North Pacific began in 1846 and continued until the mid 1870’s in southern areas and the 1880’s in the north. Henderson identified three periods in the southern part of the fishery: Initial, 1846–1854; Bonanza, 1855–1865; and Declining, 1866–1874. The largest catches were made by “lagoon whaling” in or immediately outside the whale population’s main wintering areas in Mexico—Magdalena Bay, Scammon’s Lagoon, and San Ignacio Lagoon. Large catches were also made by “coastal” or “alongshore” whaling where the whalers attacked animals as they migrated along the coast. Gray whales were also hunted to a limited extent on their feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi Seas in summer. Using all available sources, we identified 657 visits by whaling vessels to the Mexican whaling grounds during the gray whale breeding and calving seasons between 1846 and 1874. We then estimated the total number of such visits in which the whalers engaged in gray whaling. We also read logbooks from a sample of known visits to estimate catch per visit and the rate at which struck animals were lost. This resulted in an overall estimate of 5,269 gray whales (SE = 223.4) landed by the ship-based fleet (including both American and foreign vessels) in the Mexican whaling grounds from 1846 to 1874. Our “best” estimate of the number of gray whales removed from the eastern North Pacific (i.e. catch plus hunting loss) lies somewhere between 6,124 and 8,021, depending on assumptions about survival of struck-but-lost whales. Our estimates can be compared to those by Henderson (1984), who estimated that 5,542–5,507 gray whales were secured and processed by ship-based whalers between 1846 and 1874; Scammon (1874), who believed the total kill over the same period (of eastern gray whales by all whalers in all areas) did not exceed 10,800; and Best (1987), who estimated the total landed catch of gray whales (eastern and western) by American ship-based whalers at 2,665 or 3,013 (method-dependent) from 1850 to 1879. Our new estimates are not high enough to resolve apparent inconsistencies between the catch history and estimates of historical abundance based on genetic variability. We suggest several lines of further research that may help resolve these inconsistencies.

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

History of the Atlantic Pearl-Oyster, Pinctata imbricata, Industry in Venezuela and Colombia, with Biological and Ecological Observations

In the 1500’s, the waters of Venezuela and to a lesser extent Colombia produced more natural pearls than any place ever produced in the world in any succeeding century. Atlantic pearl-oysters, Pinctata imbricata Röding 1798, were harvested almost entirely by divers. The pearls from them were exported to Spain and other European countries. By the end of the 1500’s, the pearl oysters had become much scarcer, and little harvesting took place during the 1600’s and 1700’s. Harvesting began to accelerate slowly in the mid 1800’s and has since continued but at a much lower rate than in the 1500’s. The harvesting methods have been hand collecting by divers until the early 1960’s, dredging from the 1500’s to the present, and hardhat diving from 1912 to the early 1960’s. Since the mid 1900’s, Japan and other countries of the western Pacific rim have inundated world markets with cultured pearls that are of better quality and are cheaper than natural pearls, and the marketing of natural pearls has nearly ended. The pearl oyster fishery in Colombia ended in the 1940’s, but it has continued in Venezuela with the fishermen selling the meats to support themselves; previously most meats had been discarded. A small quantity of pearls is now taken, and the fishery, which comprised about 3,000 fishermen in 1947, comprised about 300 in 2002.

Harvest History of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, represent a unique and isolated marine mammal population that has been hunted for a variety of purposes since prehistoric times. Archeological studies have shown that both Alutiiq Eskimos and Dena'ina Atabaskan Indians have long utilized many marine resources in Cook Inlet, including belugas. Over the past century, commercial whaling and sport hunting also occurred periodically in Cook Inlet prior to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). During the 1990's, the hunting mortality by Alaska Natives apparently increased to 40-70 whales per year, which led to the decling of this stock and its subsequent designation in 2000 as depleted under the MMPA. Concerns about the decline of the Cook Inlet stock resulted in a voluntary suspension of the subsistenc hunt by Alaska Natives in 1999. The difficulty in obtaining accurate estimates for the harvest of these whales is due to the inability to identify all of the hunters and, in turn, the size of the harvest. Attempts to reconstruct harvest records based on hunters' recollections and interviews from only a few households have been subject to a wide degree of speculation. To adequately monitor the beluga harvest, the National Marine Fisheries Service established marking and reporting regulations in October 1999. These rules require that Alaska Natives who hunt belugas in Cook Inlet must collect the lowere left jaw from harvested whales and complete a report that includes date and time of the harvest, coloration of the whale, harvest location, and method of harvest. The MMPA was amended in 2000 to require a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Alaska Native organizations before hunting could be resumed.

The Origins and Early History of the Steamer Albatross, 1880–18

Spencer Fullerton Baird (Fig. 1), a noted systematic zoologist and builder of scientific institutions in 19th century America, persuaded the U.S. Congress to establish the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries1 in March 1871. At that time, Baird was Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Following the death of Joseph Henry in 1878, he became head of the institution, a position he held until his own demise in 1887. In addition to his many duties as a Smithsonian official, including his prominent role in developing the Smithsonian’s Federally funded National Museum as the repository for governmental scientific collections, Baird directed the Fish Commission from 1871 until 1887. The Fish Commission’s original mission was to determine the reasons and remedies for the apparent decline of American fisheries off southern New England as well as other parts of the United States. In 1872, Congress further directed the Commission to begin a large fish hatching program aimed at increasing the supply of American food f

History of Whaling and Estimated Kill of Right Whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924

This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.

The History and Literature of America's Oysters

Historically, America's use and enjoyment of the oyster extend far back into prehistoric times. The Native Americans often utilized oysters, more intensively in some areas than in others, and, at least in some areas of the Caribbean and Pacific coast, the invading Spanish sought oysters as eagerly as they did gold-but for the pearls. That was the pearl oyster, Pinctada sp., and signs of its local overexploitation were recorded early in the 16th century. During the 1800's, use of the eastern oyster grew phenomenally and, for a time, it outranked beef as a source of protein in some parts of the nation. Social events grew up around it, as it became an important aspect of culture and myth. Eventually, research on the oyster began to blossom, and scientific literature on the various species likewise bloomed-to the extent that when the late Paul Galtsoff wrote his classic treatise "The American oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin" in 1954, he reported compiling an extensive bibliography of over 6,000 subject and author cards on oysters and related subjects which he deposited in the library of the Woods Hole Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (now NMFS). That large report, volume 64 (480 pages) of the agency's Fishery Bulletin, was a bargain at $2.75, and it has been a standard reference ever since. But the research and the attendant literature have grown greatly since Galtsoff's work was published, and now that has been thoroughly updated.

A History of Benthic Research in the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service has a long history of research on benthic invertebrates and habitats in support of the management of living marine resources. These studies began in the 1870's under Spencer F. Baird's guidance as part of an effort to characterize the Nation's fisheries and living marine resources and their ecological interactions. This century and a quarter of research has included many benthic invertebrate studies, including community characterizations, shellfish biology and culture, pathology, ecosystem energy budget modeling, habitat evaluations, assessments of human impacts, toxic chemical bioaccumulation in demersal food webs, habitat or endangered species management, benthic autecology, systematics (to define new species and species population boundaries), and other benthic studies. Here we review the scope of past and current studies as a background for strategic research planning and suggest areas for further research to support NOAA's goals of sustainable fisheries management, healthy coastal ecosystems, and protected species populations.