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.

Genetics in Aquaculture: Proceedings of the Sixteenth U.S.-Japan Meeting on Aquaculture Charleston, South Carolina October 20 and 21, 1987

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.)

Commercial Whaling, Especially for Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus, and Humpback Whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, at California and Baja California Shore Stations in the 19th Century (1854–1899)

Shore whaling along North America’s California and Baja California coasts during 1854–99 was ancillary to the offshore and alongshore American whale fishery, which had begun in the North Pacific in the early 1800’s and was flourishing by the 1840’s. From its inception at Monterey, Calif., in the mid 1850’s, the shore fishery, involving open boats deployed from land to catch and tow whales for processing, eventually spread from Monterey south to San Diego and Baja California and north to Crescent City near the California–Oregon border. It had declined to a relict industry by the 1880’s, although sporadic efforts continued into the early 20th century. The main target species were gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, and humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, with the valuable North Pacific right whale, Eubalaena japonica, also pursued opportunistically. Catch data are grossly incomplete for most stations; no logbooks were kept for these operations as they were for high-seas whaling voyages. Even when good information is available on catch levels, usually as number of whales landed or quantity of oil produced, it is rarely broken down by species. Therefore, we devised methods for extrapolation, interpolation, pro rationing, correction, and informed judgment to produce time series of catches. The resulting estimates of landings from 1854 to 1899 are 3,150 (SE = 112) gray whales and 1,637 (SE = 62) humpback whales. The numbers landed should be multiplied by 1.2 to account for hunting loss (i.e. whales harpooned or shot but not recovered and processed).

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.

William Francis Thompson (1888–1965): a Preeminent Fishery Biologist of the Early and Mid Twentieth Century

William Francis Thompson (1888–1965) was a preeminent fishery scientist of the early to mid twentieth century. Educated at Stanford University in California (B.A. 1911, Ph.D. 1930), Thompson conducted pioneering research on the Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis, from 1914 to 1917 for the British Columbia Provincial Fisheries Department. He then directed marine fisheries research for the State of California from 1917 to 1924, was Director of Investigations for the International Fisheries Commission from 1924 to 1939, and Director of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission from 1937 to 1942. He was also Director of the School of Fisheries, University of Washing-ton, Seattle, from 1930 to 1947. Thompson was the founding director in 1947 of the Fisheries Research Institute at the University of Washington and served in that capacity until his retirement in 1958. He was a dominant figure in fisheries research of the Pacific Northwest and influenced a succession of fishery scientists with his yield-based analysis of fishery stocks, as opposed to studying the fishes’environment. Will Thompson was also a major figure in education, and many of his former students attained leadership positions in fisheries research and administration.

A Century of Copepods: The U.S. Fisheries Steamer Albatross

The marine invertebrates of North America received little attention before the arrival of Louis Agassiz in 1846. Agassiz and his students, particularly Addison E. Verrill and Richard Rathbun, and Agassiz's colleague Spencer F. Baird, provided the concept and stimulus for expanded investigations. Baird's U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries (1871) provided a principal means, especially through the U.S. Fisheries Steamer Albatross (1882). Rathbun participated in the first and third Albatrossscientific cruises in 1883-84 and published the fist accounts of Albatross parasitic copepods. The first report of Albatross planktonic copepods was published in 1895 by Wilhelm Giesbrecht of the Naples Zoological Station. Other collections were sent to the Norwegian Georg Ossian Sars. The American Charles Branch Wilson eventually added planktonic copepods to his extensive published works on the parasitic copepods from the Albatross. The Albatross copepods from San Francisco Bay were reported upon by Calvin Olin Esterly in 1924. Henry Bryant Bigelow accompanied the last scientific cruise of the Albatross in 1920. Bigelow incorporated the 1920 copepods into his definitive study of the plankton of the Gulf of Maine. The late Otohiko Tanaka, in 1969, published two reviews of Albatross copepods. Albatross copepods will long be worked and reworked. This great ship and her shipmates were mutually inspiring, and they inspire us still.

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).

Marine cage culture and the environment: twenty-first century science informing a sustainable industry

Technological innovation has made it possible to grow marine finfish in the coastal and open ocean. Along with this opportunity comes environmental risk. As a federal agency charged with stewardship of the nation’s marine resources, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requires tools to evaluate the benefits and risks that aquaculture poses in the marine environment, to implement policies and regulations which safeguard our marine and coastal ecosystems, and to inform production designs and operational procedures compatible with marine stewardship. There is an opportunity to apply the best available science and globally proven best management practices to regulate and guide a sustainable United States (U.S.) marine finfish farming aquaculture industry. There are strong economic incentives to develop this industry, and doing so in an environmentally responsible way is possible if stakeholders, the public and regulatory agencies have a clear understanding of the relative risks to the environment and the feasible solutions to minimize, manage or eliminate those risks. This report spans many of the environmental challenges that marine finfish aquaculture faces. We believe that it will serve as a useful tool to those interested in and responsible for the industry and safeguarding the health, productivity and resilience of our marine ecosystems. This report aims to provide a comprehensive review of some predominant environmental risks that marine fish cage culture aquaculture, as it is currently conducted, poses in the marine environment and designs and practices now in use to address these environmental risks in the U.S. and elsewhere. Today’s finfish aquaculture industry has learned, adapted and improved to lessen or eliminate impacts to the marine habitats in which it operates. What progress has been made? What has been learned? How have practices changed and what are the results in terms of water quality, benthic, and other environmental effects? To answer these questions we conducted a critical review of the large body of scientific work published since 2000 on the environmental impacts of marine finfish aquaculture around the world. Our report includes results, findings and recommendations from over 420 papers, primarily from peer-reviewed professional journals. This report provides a broad overview of the twenty-first century marine finfish aquaculture industry, with a targeted focus on potential impacts to water quality, sediment chemistry, benthic communities, marine life and sensitive habitats. Other environmental issues including fish health, genetic issues, and feed formulation were beyond the scope of this report and are being addressed in other initiatives and reports. Also absent is detailed information about complex computer simulations that are used to model discharge, assimilation and accumulation of nutrient waste from farms. These tools are instrumental for siting and managing farms, and a comparative analysis of these models is underway by NOAA.

Strong, low frequency (decadal) environmental fluctuations during the 20th century in the North Pacific Ocean, on the Washington coast, and in Puget Sound

At decadal period (10-20 years), dynamic linkage was evident between atmospheric low pressure systems over the North Pacific Ocean and circulation in a Pacific Northwest fjord (Puget Sound). As the Aleutian low pressure center shifts, storms arriving from the North Pacific Ocean deposit varying amounts of precipitation in the mountains draining into the estuarine system; in turn, the fluctuating addition of fresh water changes the density distribution near the fjord basin entrance sill, thereby constraining the fjord's vertical velocity structure. This linkage was examined using time series of 21 environmental parameters from 1899 to 1987. Covariation in the time series was evident because of the strong decadal cycles compared with long-term averages, interannual variability, and seasonal cycles.

An overview of decadal to century time-scale variability in the climate system

EXTRACT (SEE PDF FOR FULL ABSTRACT): Time scales extracted from high-resolution proxy records and observations indicate that the spectrum of climate variability exhibits significant power in the range of decades to centuries superimposed on a red-noise continuum. The classical view of climate variability is based on the concept that observed fluctuations have their origin in periodic forcings on the same time scale. ... Instead, it is proposed that these fluctuations are linked to interactions within and between the different climate system components.

Determining the role of linear and nonlinear interactions in records of climate change: possible solar influences in annual to century-scale records

Time series analysis methods have traditionally helped in identifying the role of various forcing mechanisms in influencing climate change. A challenge to understanding decadal and century-scale climate change has been that the linkages between climate changes and potential forcing mechanisms such as solar variability are often uncertain. However, most studies have focused on the role of climate forcing and climate response within a strictly linear framework. Nonlinear time series analysis procedures provide the opportunity to analyze the role of climate forcing and climate responses between different time scales of climate change. An example is provided by the possible nonlinear response of paleo-ENSO-scale climate changes as identified from coral records to forcing by the solar cycle at longer time scales.

Reconstructing 20th century flood patterns in Havasu Creek, Arizona, using historical and dendrochronologic data [abstract]

EXTRACT (SEE PDF FOR FULL ABSTRACT): Havasu Creek is the second largest tributary of the Colorado River in Grant Canyon. Perennial streamflow in the creek seldom exceeds 2 cubic meters per second, but it supports an important riparian habitat as well as unique travertine pools and waterfalls that attract over 20,000 tourists annually. Havasu Canyon is also home to over 400 members of the Havasu Tribe. Despite a long history of habitation and recreation in Havasu Canyon, streamflow records for Havasu Creek are extremely limited, making flood prediction difficult.

Integrating varve and tree-ring time series for southern California climate reconstruction: a 20th century outlook [abstract]

EXTRACT (SEE PDF FOR FULL ABSTRACT): Our objective is to combine terrestrial and oceanic records for reconstructing West Coast climate. Tree rings and marine laminated sediments provide high-resolution, accurately dated proxy data on the variability of climate and on the productivity of the ocean and have been used to reconstruct precipitation, temperature, sea level pressure, primary productivity, and other large-scale parameters. We present here the latest Santa Barbara basin varve chronology for the twentieth century as well as a newly developed tree-ring chronology for Torrey pine.