An evaluation of Northern Florida Bay as a nursery area for red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, and other juvenile and small resident fishes.

Red drum is one ofthe most popular species sought by anglers in Florida Bay, yet juveniles are rarely encountered. We evaluated Florida Bay as a nursery area for red drum by sampling for recently-settled late larvae in basin areas within the bay with an epi-benthic sled at six stations in November 2000, and at seven stations during December 2000 through February 2001. In November 2000 we surveyed potential sampling sites in quiet backwaters adjacent to mangroves for juvenile red drum. A total of 202 sites were sampled mainly in northern Florida Bay and adjacent waters with a cast net. We collected only one recently-settled red drum larvae and no juveniles. Obviously the sites that we sampled in Florida Bay and adjacent waters are not nursery habitat for this valuable species. Sled collections were dominated by bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, but densities were biased by one collection. Five small resident species were among the dominant species: rainwater killifish, Lucania parva; dusky pipefish, Syngnathus floridae; dwarf seahorse, Hippocampus zosterae; and clown goby, Microgobius gulosus. Three species that spawn outside Florida Bay in the GulfofMexico were common: pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides; pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera; and silver perch, Bairdiella chrysoura. Twenty-seven species were collected with the cast net. Hardhead silversides (Atherinomorus stipes), bay anchovy, tidewater mojarra (Eucinostomus harengulus), silver jenny (Eucinostomus gula), and goldspotted killifish (Floridichthys carpio) were the most common in cast net collections. Although only one red drum was collected, we were able to: (1) identify mesohaline waters from our cast net sites to test our preliminary assessment that mesohaline habitat might be limited in Florida Bay, (2) document the distribution and abundance of fishes collected by cast net that should enhance our understanding of ichthyofauna in the Northern Subdivision ofFlorida Bay and adjacent waters, and (3) from epibenthic sled collections, describe the habitats, abundance and distribution of recently settled larvae/small juveniles/small resident fishes during late fall and winter. This information should be useful to managers and future research. (PDF contains 34 pages)

Information science and the scientist. A look at information requirements and the technologies available to scientists in the pursuit of information

A review article looking at the type of information requirements commonly shared by scientists and their use of traditional information services. Areas covered include primary requirements of IFE (Institute of Freshwater Ecology) staff, pure versus applied research, informal and personal sources of information, and traditional library and information services. It goes on to describe how research into information systems and technology may improve the wider accessibility and use of information to the scientific community. Technologies covered include online databases, telecommunications, gateways, expert systems, optical technology and applications of CDROM.

Report of the Sea Turtle Health Assessment Workshop, 2-3 February 1998, Part I: Background and information needs

A two day workshop was convened on February 2-3, 1998 in Charleston, SC with 20 invited experts in various areas of sea turtle research. The goal of this workshop was to review current information on sea turtles with repect to health and identify data gaps. The use of a suite of health assessment indicators will provide insight on the health status of sea turtle populations. Since the relationship of health factors of sea turtles is limited, a seconde workshop was planned. Using a tiered approach, the first workshop we identified and reviewed the available, pertinent baseline information and data gaps. The second workshop will focus on developing the framework for the research plan. The workshops will address the use of integrated set of health parameters; specific objectives are: 1) Identify reliable indicators of health in sea turtles: assess advantages and disadvantages; determine new indicators/biomarkers which may be useful; 2) Review existing sea turtle field sampling projects; 3) Identify field projects suitable for inclusion for health assessment sampling; 4) Identify data gaps, particularly environmental characterization; 5) Identify new health assessment sampling sites, including reference site(s); and 6) Develop integrated five-year research plan, with focus on health assessment of environmental characterization. (PDF contains 174 pages)

Historical knowledge of sharks: ancient science, earliest American encounters, and American science, fisheries, and utilization

In western civilization, the knowledge of the elasmobranch or selachian fishes (sharks and rays) begins with Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Two of his extant works, the “Historia Animalium” and the “Generation of Animals,” both written about 330 B.C., demonstrate knowledge of elasmobranch fishes acquired by observation. Roman writers of works on natural history, such as Aelian and Pliny, who followed Aristotle, were compilers of available information. Their contribution was that they prevented the Greek knowledge from being lost, but they added few original observations. The fall of Rome, around 476 A.D., brought a period of economic regression and political chaos. These in turn brought intellectual thought to a standstill for nearly one thousand years, the period known as the Dark Ages. It would not be until the middle of the sixteenth century, well into the Renaissance, that knowledge of elasmobranchs would advance again. The works of Belon, Salviani, Rondelet, and Steno mark the beginnings of ichthyology, including the study of sharks and rays. The knowledge of sharks and rays increased slowly during and after the Renaissance, and the introduction of the Linnaean System of Nomenclature in 1735 marks the beginning of modern ichthyology. However, the first major work on sharks would not appear until the early nineteenth century. Knowledge acquired about sea animals usually follows their economic importance and exploitation, and this was also true with sharks. The first to learn about sharks in North America were the native fishermen who learned how, when, and where to catch them for food or for their oils. The early naturalists in America studied the land animals and plants; they had little interest in sharks. When faunistic works on fishes started to appear, naturalists just enumerated the species of sharks that they could discern. Throughout the U.S. colonial period, sharks were seldom utilized for food, although their liver oil or skins were often utilized. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Spiny Dogfish, Squalus acanthias, was the only shark species utilized in a large scale on both coasts. It was fished for its liver oil, which was used as a lubricant, and for lighting and tanning, and for its skin which was used as an abrasive. During the early part of the twentieth century, the Ocean Leather Company was started to process sea animals (primarily sharks) into leather, oil, fertilizer, fins, etc. The Ocean Leather Company enjoyed a monopoly on the shark leather industry for several decades. In 1937, the liver of the Soupfin Shark, Galeorhinus galeus, was found to be a rich source of vitamin A, and because the outbreak of World War II in 1938 interrupted the shipping of vitamin A from European sources, an intensive shark fishery soon developed along the U.S. West Coast. By 1939 the American shark leather fishery had transformed into the shark liver oil fishery of the early 1940’s, encompassing both coasts. By the late 1940’s, these fisheries were depleted because of overfishing and fishing in the nursery areas. Synthetic vitamin A appeared on the market in 1950, causing the fishery to be discontinued. During World War II, shark attacks on the survivors of sunken ships and downed aviators engendered the search for a shark repellent. This led to research aimed at understanding shark behavior and the sensory biology of sharks. From the late 1950’s to the 1980’s, funding from the Office of Naval Research was responsible for most of what was learned about the sensory biology of sharks.