Commercial studies on radiation preservation of fish and shell-fish in Canada

The author describes work being undertaken at the Fisheries Research Board of Canada's Laboratory at Halifax (Nova Scotia). These studies relate particularly to the irradiation of fish and shellfish for storage, and bacterial analysis of irradiated products.

Annual report 2001 - North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). Tenth meeting, Victoria, B.C., Canada, October 5-13, 2001

Report of Opening Session (pdf 42 KB) Report of Governing Council Meeting (pdf 89 KB) Reports of Science Board and Committees: Science Board (pdf 88 KB) Study Group on North Pacific Ecosystem Status Report and Regional Analysis Center Biological Oceanography Committee (pdf 57 KB) Working Group 14: Effective sampling of micronekton Advisory Panel on Marine Birds and Mammals Fishery Science Committee (pdf 37 KB) Working Group 16: Climate change, shifts to fish production, and fisheries management Marine Environmental Quality Committee (pdf 62 KB) Working Group 15: Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the North Pacific Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee (pdf 34 KB) Working Group 13: CO2 in the North Pacific Technical Committee on Data Exchange (pdf 24 KB) Implementation Panel on the CCCC Program (pdf 39 KB) BASS Task Team (pdf 32 KB) Advisory Panel on Iron Fertilization Experiment MODEL Task Team (pdf 22 KB) MONITOR Task Team (pdf 32 KB) Advisory Panel on Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey in the North Pacific REX Task Team (pdf 21 KB) Report of the Finance and Administration Committee (pdf 53 KB) List of Participants (pdf 67 KB) List of Acronyms (pdf 13 KB)

Annual report 1996 - North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). Fifth meeting, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada, October 11-20, 1996

Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting Agenda Report of Opening Session Report of Governing Council Meetings Reports of Science Board and Committees Science Board Working Group 5: Bering Sea (Final Report) Working Group 9: Subarctic Pacific Monitoring Report of the First Meeting Report of the Second Meeting Biological Oceanography Committee Working Group 11: Consumption of Marine Resources by Marine Birds and Mammals Fishery Science Committee Working Group 12: Crabs and Shrimps Marine Environmental Quality Committee Working Group 8: Practical Assessment Methodology Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee Working Group 10: Circulation and Ventilation in the Japan Sea /East Sea and its Adjacent Areas Technological Committee on Data Exchange Finance and Administration Report of Finance and Administration Committee Assets on 31st of December, 1995 Income and Expenditures for 1995 Budget for 1997 Composition of the Organization Officers, Delegates, Finance and Administration Committee, Science Board, Secretariat, Scientific and Technical Committees List of Participants List of Acronyms (Document has 163 pages.)

Channel Islands marine protected areas first 5 years of monitoring: 2003-2008 [Report produced by the California Department of Fish and Game in collaboration with the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO), Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and Channel Islands National Park]

The Channel Islands—sometimes called the Galapagos of North America—are known for their great beauty, rich biodiversity, cultural heritage, and recreational opportunities. In 1980, in recognition of the islands’ importance, the United States Congress established a national park encompassing 5 of California’s Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands) and waters within 1 nautical mile of the islands. In the same year, Congress declared a national marine sanctuary around each of these islands, including waters up to 6 nautical miles offshore. Approximately 60,000 people visit the Channel Islands each year for aquatic recreation such as fishing, sailing, kayaking, wildlife watching, surfing, and diving. Another 30,000 people visit the islands for hiking, camping, and sightseeing. Dozens of commercial fishing boats based in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Oxnard, and other ports go to the Channel Islands to catch squid, spiny lobster, sea urchin, rockfish, crab, sheephead, flatfish, and sea cucumber, among other species. In the past few decades, advances in fishing technology and the rising number of fishermen, in conjunction with changing ocean conditions and diseases, have contributed to declines in some marine fishes and invertebrates at the Channel Islands. In 1998, citizens from Santa Barbara and Ventura proposed establishment of no-take marine reserves at the Channel Islands, beginning a 4-year process of public meetings, discussions, and scientific analyses. In 2003, the California Fish and Game Commission designated a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state waters around the northern Channel Islands. In 2006 and 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) extended the MPAs into the national marine sanctuary’s deeper, federal waters. To determine if the MPAs are protecting marine species and habitats, scientists are monitoring ecological changes. They are studying changes in habitats; abundance and size of species of interest; the ocean food web and ecosystem; and movement of fish and invertebrates from MPAs to surrounding waters. Additionally, scientists are monitoring human activities such as commercial and recreational fisheries, and compliance with MPA regulations. This booklet describes some results from the first 5 years of monitoring the Channel Islands MPAs. Although 5 years is not long enough to determine if the MPAs will accomplish all of their goals, this booklet offers a glimpse of the changes that are beginning to take place and illustrates the types of information that will eventually be used to assess the MPAs’ effectiveness. (PDF contains 24 pages.)

Resource survey of Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, 1983

Forward: Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary (LKNMS) was designated in 1981 to protect and promote the study, teaching, and wise use of the resources of Looe Key Sanctuary (Plate A). In order to wisely manage this valuable resource, a quantitative resource inventory was funded by the Sanctuary Programs Division (SPD), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in cooperation with the Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS), University of Miami; the Fisher Island Laboratory, United States Geological Survey; and the St. Petersburg Laboratory, State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. This report is the result of this cooperative effort. The objective of this study was to quantitatively inventory selected resources of LKNMS in order to allow future monitoring of changes in the Sanctuary as a result of human or natural processes. This study, referred to as Phase I, gives a brief summary of past and present uses of the Sanctuary (Chapter 2); and describes general habitat types (Chapter 3), geology and sediment distribution (Chapter 4), coral abundance and distribution (Chapter 5), the growth history of the coral Montastraea annularis (Chapter 6), reef fish abundance and distribution (Chapter 7), and status of selected resources (Chapter 8). An interpretation of the results of the survey are provided for management consideration (Chapter 9). The results are expected to provide fundamental information for applied management, natural history interpretation, and scientific research. Numerous photographs and illustrations were used to supplement the report to make the material presented easier to comprehend (Plate B). We anticipate the information provided will be used by managers, naturalists, and the general public in addition to scientists. Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs were taken at Looe Key Reef by Dr. James A. Bohnsack. The top photograph in Plate 7.8 was taken by Michael C. Schmale. Illustrations were done by Jack Javech, NMFS. Field work was initiated in May 1983 and completed for the most part by October 1983 thanks to the cooperation of numerous people and organizations. In addition to the participating agencies and organizations we thank the Newfound Harbor Marine Institute and the Division of Parks and Recreation, State of Florida Department of Natural Resources for their logistical support. Special thanks goes to Billy Causey, the Sanctuary Manager, for his help, information, and comments. We thank in alphabetical order: Scott Bannerot, Margie Bastian, Bill Becker, Barbara Bohnsack, Grant Beardsley, John Halas, Raymond Hixon, Irene Hooper, Eric Lindblad, and Mike Schmale. We dedicate this effort to the memory of Ray Hixon who participated in the study and who loved Looe Key. (PDF contains 43 pages)

Annual report 2007 - North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). Sixteenth meeting, Victoria, Canada, October 26-November 5, 2007

Report of Opening Session (p. 1). Report of Governing Council (p. 15). Report of the Finance and Administration Committee (p. 65). Reports of Science Board and Committees: Science Board Inter-Sessional Meeting (p. 83); Science Board (p. 93); Biological Oceanography Committee (p. 105); Fishery Science Committee (p. 117); Marine Environmental Quality Committee (p. 129); Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee (p. 139); Technical Committee on Data Exchange (p. 145); Technical Committee on Monitoring (p. 153). Reports of Sections, Working and Study Groups: Section on Carbon and Climate (p. 161); Section on Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms in the North Pacific (p. 167); Working Group 19 on Ecosystem-based Management Science and its Application to the North Pacific (p. 173); Working Group 20 on Evaluations of Climate Change Projections (p. 179); Working Group 21 on Non-indigenous Aquatic Species (p. 183); Study Group to Develop a Strategy for GOOS (p. 193); Study Group on Ecosystem Status Reporting (p. 203); Study Group on Marine Aquaculture and Ranching in the PICES Region (p. 213); Study Group on Scientific Cooperation between PICES and Non-member Countries (p. 225). Reports of the Climate Change and Carrying Capacity Program: Implementation Panel on the CCCC Program (p. 229); CFAME Task Team (p. 235); MODEL Task Team (p. 241). Reports of Advisory Panels: Advisory Panel for a CREAMS/PICES Program in East Asian Marginal Seas (p. 249); Advisory Panel on Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey in the North Pacific (p. 253); Advisory Panel on Iron Fertilization Experiment in the Subarctic Pacific Ocean (p. 255); Advisory Panel on Marine Birds and Mammals (p. 261); Advisory Panel on Micronekton Sampling Inter-calibration Experiment (p. 265). 2007 Review of PICES Publication Program (p. 269). Guidelines for PICES Temporary Expert Groups (p. 297). Summary of Scientific Sessions and Workshops (p. 313). Report of the ICES/PICES Conference for Early Career Scientists (p. 355). Membership (p. 367). Participants (p. 387). PICES Acronyms (p. 413). Acronyms (p. 415).

Histology and hormonal effect of Ghrelin on ovary of Benni (Barbus sharpeyi) in order to study sexual maturity, zygote and larval generation

Benni (Barbus sharpeyi) is valuable fish that Khuzastan fisheries office propagated it artificially in Susangerd Fish Propagation Center every year. Pituitary gland is used for this aim but female fish lost their fertilization power after 2-3 years, so in present research, new hormone, that is called Ghrelin. The aims of this research are histology, hormonal, zygote and larval generation studies and comparing the results with each other. Ghrelin is a multifunctional peptidyl hormone which increases GTH-II in fish, amphibian, and birds and mammalian so its effect on Benni sexual maturation was studied. Human Ghrelin (hGRL) was obtained from ANASPEC, Canada, with 28 amino acids. In the present study, three levels of ghrelin including 0 (sham treatments), 0.10 (treatment 1) and 0.15 μg/g (treatment 2) body wt and one level of pituitary gland 4000 μg/g (pituitary treatment) with two replications were used. 56 specimens were injected intraperitonealy and their ghrelin level was evaluated immediately after injection and after 24 h. Control fish(n=16) were just injected by physiological saline. For hormonal studies sham and experimental fish(n=40) were anesthetized with MS-222 at a concentration of 250 mg l-1, and blood samples were collected and kept at 4ْC, then spun to collect serum. Serum samples were stores at -20ْC until the RIA for CTH-II. For histology studies immediately after injection a piece of ovary was collected from control fish (Sham zero) after being anesthetized. The sampled ovaries were fixed in Buin solution and embedded in paraffin, and stained to Sections of 5–6 μm using haematoxylin and eosin. The ovarian samples were performed with a compound microscope. Histology and micrometry studies had done. The mature oocytes had given from mature fish, then weighted and the working fecundity were counted. The mature oocytes fertilized, the eggs were incubated and the percentage of fertilization was calculated. After 72h the eggs hatched and the percentage of hatch was counted. The percentage of hindrance was calculated after 6 days. Hormonal results indicate that ghrelin and pituitary increase significantly the GTH-II level in comparison to sham. Macroscopic observations (before taking ovary) showed that ovaries with green colored have couple oval structure located in the abdominal cavity. Microscopic studies of dissected ovaries indicated simultaneous growth of 127 oocytes with 6 stages. The type of the ovary is asynchronous. The results indicated that both of the ghrelin treatment increased the percentage of mature follicles followed by decrease of immature follicles. There were significant differences (P<0.05) between the number of mature and immature follicles. Average diameter of follicle in both of the ghrelin treatment was significantly (P<0.05) declined in the stages of the vitellogenesis when the result compared to the other treatment. Just treatment 1 and pituitary treatment can give mature oocytes. The fecundity of pituitary treatment significantly increase in comparision to ghrelin treatment (P<0.05). In food-restricted fish where endogenous ghrelin levels are known to be increased, a chronic administration of ghrelin induces overt negative effect in releasing mature oocytes. The percentage of fertilization was significantly increase (P<0.05) in ghrelin t. in comparison to pituitary t. and the percentage of hatch was significantly increase (P<0.05) in pituitary t. in comparison to ghrelin t. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in terms of percentage of hindrance between treatments. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that ghrelin has positive effect on the level of GTH-II, oocyte maturation, ovarian vitellogenesis and the number of mature follicles of Barbus sharpeyi ovary. Increasing of the mature follicles number reduces their average diameter, indicating stimulating effect of ghrelin in sexual maturation of Barbus sharpeyi.The ghrelin and pituitary treatment have equal chance in the post-stage of spawning.