A Comparison of Two Methods for Enhancing the Recovery of Seagrasses into Propellor Scars: Mechanical Injection of a Nutrient and Growth Hormone Solution vs. Defecation by Roosting Seabirds: Final Report.

Based on the recovery rates for Thalassia testudinum measured in this study for scars of these excavation depths and assuming a linear recovery horizon, we estimate that it would take ~ 6.9 years (95% CI. = 5.4 to 9.6 years) for T. testudinum to return to the same density as recorded for the adjacent undisturbed population. The application of water soluble fertilizers and plant growth hormones by mechanical injection into the sediments adjacent to ten propellor scars at Lignumvitae State Botanical Site did not significantly increase the recovery rate of Thalassia testudinum or Halodule wrightii. An alternative method of fertilization and restoration of propellor scars was also tested by a using a method of “compressed succession” where Halodule wrightii is substituted for T. testudinum in the initial stages of restoration. Bird roosting stakes were placed among H.wrightii bare root plantings in prop scars to facilitate the defecation of nitrogen and phosphorus enriched feces. In contrast to the fertilizer injection method, the bird stakes produced extremely high recovery rates of transplanted H. wrightii. We conclude that use of a fertilizer/hormone injection machine in the manner described here is not a feasible means of enhancing T. testudinum recovery in propellor scars on soft bottom carbonate sediments. Existing techniques such as the bird stake approach provide a reliable, and inexpensive alternative method that should be considered for application to restoration of seagrasses in these environments. Document contains 40 pages)

Restricted Access vs. Open Access Methods of Management: Toward More Effective Regulation of Fishing Effort

This paper gives an overview of the economic rationale for limited entry as a method of fishery management and discusses general advantages and disadvantages of license limitation and catch rights as the two primary methods of restricting access to marine fisheries. Traditional open-access methods of regulation (e.g., gear restrictions, size limits, trip limits, quotas, and closures) can be temporarily effective in protecting fish populations, but they generally fail to provide lasting biological or economic benefits to fishermen because they do not restrict access to the fishery. The general result of regulation with unrestricted access to a fishery is additional and more costly and complex regulations as competition increases for dwindling fishery resources. Regulation that restricts access to a fishery in conjunction with selected traditional methods of regulation would encourage efficient resource usage and minimize the need for future regulatory adjustments, provided that enforcement and monitoring costs are not too great. In theory, catch rights are superior to license limitation as a means of restricting access to a fishery.

"Cool" vs. "warm" winter precipitation and its effect on streamflow in California

Precipitation is a difficult variable to understand and predict. In this study, monthly precipitation in California is divided into two classes according to the monthly temperature to better diagnose the atmospheric circulation that causes precipitation, and to illustrate how temperature compounds the precipitation to runoff process.

Geographic patterns in the lag of temperature response to insolation for El Niño vs. La Niña conditions [abstract]

EXTRACT (SEE PDF FOR FULL ABSTRACT): The most important control on the annual cycle of temperature is insolation, with secondary influences from terms related to moisture, yet direct statistical analysis of the moisture-driven modulations (such as El Niño) of the response of temperature to insolation are not available. We have examined one aspect of the relationship between insolation and the instrumental record of maximum daily temperature - the lag between the two - at 252 stations in the western United States.

Impact of seafarming: fish farms vs. mussel farms

The article presents comparative impacts of fish and mussel seafarms. Specifically, it tackles the impacts of the two farms on the following: solid waste production, water flow and sedimentation, effect on native bottom fauna, effect on wild fish populations, the spread of toxic chemicals and drugs, and multi-use conflicts.