Preliminary evidence of increased spawning aggregations of mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) at Riley’s Hump two years after establishment of the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve

In this note we describe the re-formation of a spawning aggregation of mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis). A review of four consecutive years of survey data indicates that the aggregation may be increasing in size. Mutton snapper are distributed in the temperate and tropical waters of the western Atlantic Ocean from Florida to southeastern Brazil (Burton, 2002). Juveniles and subadults are found in a variety of habitats such as vegetated sand bottoms, bays, and mangrove estuaries (Allen, 1985). Adults are found offshore on coral reefs and other complex hardbottom habitat. They are solitary and wary fish, rarely found in groups or schools except during spawning aggregations (Domeier et al., 1996). Spawning occurs from May through July at Riley’s Hump (Domeier et al., 1996) and peaks in June, as indicated by gonadosomatic indices (M. Burton, unpubl. data). Mutton snapper are highly prized by Florida fishermen for their size and fighting ability, and the majority of landings occur from Cape Canaveral, through the Florida Keys, including the Dry Tortugas (Burton, 2002).

Soviet Illegal Whaling: The Devil and the Details

In 1948, the U.S.S.R. began a global campaign of illegal whaling that lasted for three decades and, together with the poorly managed “legal” whaling of other nations, seriously depleted whale populations. Although the general story of this whaling has been told and the catch record largely corrected for the Southern Hemisphere, major gaps remain in the North Pacific. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the details of this system or its economic context. Using interviews with former Soviet whalers and biologists as well as previously unavailable reports and other material in Russian, our objective is to describe how the Soviet whaling industry was structured and how it worked, from the largest scale of state industrial planning down to the daily details of the ways in which whales were caught and processed, and how data sent to the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics were falsified. Soviet whaling began with the factory ship Aleut in 1933, but by 1963 the industry had a truly global reach, with seven factory fleets (some very large). Catches were driven by a state planning system that set annual production targets. The system gave bonuses and honors only when these were met or exceeded, and it frequently increased the following year’s targets to match the previous year’s production; scientific estimates of the sustainability of the resource were largely ignored. Inevitably, this system led to whale populations being rapidly reduced. Furthermore, productivity was measured in gross output (weights of whales caught), regardless of whether carcasses were sound or rotten, or whether much of the animal was unutilized. Whaling fleets employed numerous people, including women (in one case as the captain of a catcher boat). Because of relatively high salaries and the potential for bonuses, positions in the whaling industry were much sought-after. Catching and processing of whales was highly mechanized and became increasingly efficient as the industry gained more experience. In a single day, the largest factory ships could process up to 200 small sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus; 100 humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae; or 30–35 pygmy blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda. However, processing of many animals involved nothing more than stripping the carcass of blubber and then discarding the rest. Until 1952, the main product was whale oil; only later was baleen whale meat regularly utilized. Falsified data on catches were routinely submitted to the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics, but the true catch and biological data were preserved for research and administrative purposes. National inspectors were present at most times, but, with occasional exceptions, they worked primarily to assist fulfillment of plan targets and routinely ignored the illegal nature of many catches. In all, during 40 years of whaling in the Antarctic, the U.S.S.R. reported 185,778 whales taken but at least 338,336 were actually killed. Data for the North Pacific are currently incomplete, but from provisional data we estimate that at least 30,000 whales were killed illegally in this ocean. Overall, we judge that, worldwide, the U.S.S.R. killed approximately 180,000 whales illegally and caused a number of population crashes. Finally, we note that Soviet illegal catches continued after 1972 despite the presence of international observers on factory fleets.

Simulation of Tail Weight Distributions in Biological Year 1986–2006 Landings of Brown Shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus, from the Northern Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Size distribution within re- ported landings is an important aspect of northern Gulf of Mexico penaeid shrimp stock assessments. It reflects shrimp population characteristics such as numerical abundance of various sizes, age structure, and vital rates (e.g. recruitment, growth, and mortality), as well as effects of fishing, fishing power, fishing practices, sampling, size-grading, etc. The usual measure of shrimp size in archived landings data is count (C) the number of shrimp tails (abdomen or edible portion) per pound (0.4536 kg). Shrimp are marketed and landings reported in pounds within tail count categories. Statistically, these count categories are count class intervals or bins with upper and lower limits expressed in C. Count categories vary in width, overlap, and frequency of occurrence within the landings. The upper and lower limits of most count class intervals can be transformed to lower and upper limits (respectively) of class intervals expressed in pounds per shrimp tail, w, the reciprocal of C (i.e. w = 1/C). Age based stock assessments have relied on various algorithms to estimate numbers of shrimp from pounds landed within count categories. These algorithms required un- derlying explicit or implicit assumptions about the distribution of C or w. However, no attempts were made to assess the actual distribution of C or w. Therefore, validity of the algorithms and assumptions could not be determined. When different algorithms were applied to landings within the same size categories, they produced different estimates of numbers of shrimp. This paper demonstrates a method of simulating the distribution of w in reported biological year landings of shrimp. We used, as examples, landings of brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus, from the northern Gulf of Mexico fishery in biological years 1986–2006. Brown shrimp biological year, Ti, is defined as beginning on 1 May of the same calendar year as Ti and ending on 30 April of the next calendar year, where subscript i is the place marker for biological year. Biological year landings encompass most if not all of the brown shrimp life cycle and life span. Simulated distributions of w reflect all factors influencing sizes of brown shrimp in the landings within a given biological year. Our method does not require a priori assumptions about the parent distributions of w or C, and it takes into account the variability in width, overlap, and frequency of occurrence of count categories within the landings. Simulated biological year distributions of w can be transformed to equivalent distributions of C. Our method may be useful in future testing of previously applied algorithms and development of new estimators based on statistical estimation theory and the underlying distribution of w or C. We also examine some applications of biological year distributions of w, and additional variables derived from them.

Interactions Between Platform Terminal Transmitters and Turtle Excluder Devices

Satellite telemetry is a common tool for examining sea turtle movements, and many research programs have successfully tracked adults. Relatively short satellite track durations recorded for juvenile Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, Lepidochelys kempii, in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico raised questions regarding premature transmission loss. We examined interactions between juvenile sea turtles outfitted with platform terminal transmitters (PTT’s) and turtle excluder devices (TED’s) and the potential for transmission loss due to this interaction. A pilot study was conducted with eight 34-month-old, captive-reared loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta; a larger trial the following year used twenty 34-month-olds. Half of the turtles in each trial were outfitted with dummy PTT’s (8×4×2 cm), and all turtles were sent through a trawl equipped with a bottom-opening Super-Shooter TED. No apparent damage was sustained by any PTT, but four of five PTT-outfitted loggerheads encountering the TED carapace-first exhibited increased escape times when the PTT wedged between the TED deflector bars (10.2 cm apart). Overall, 15 loggerheads (54%) impacted the TED carapace-first. Attachment of PTT’s to smaller sea turtles may slow or, in worst cases, inhibit escape from TED’s. Likewise, loose or poorly secured PTT’s could impede escape or be shed during such an interaction. Researchers tracking small turtles in or near regions with trawling activity should consider PTT size and shape and the combined PTT/adhesive profile to minimize potentially detrimental interactions with TED’s.

Small-scale Commercial Culturing of Northern Bay Scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians, in Atlantic United States and Canada

In recent decades, hatchery-growout culture of oysters, Crassostrea virginica, and northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria, has been commercially successful in Atlantic United States and oysters in Atlantic Canada. Culturists have not had success, as yet, with northern bay scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians. Large mortalities occur during the culture process, mainly because the scallops are relatively delicate and some die when handled. In addition, too little edible meat, i.e. the adductor muscle, is produced for the culture operation to be profitable. However, three companies, one in Massachusetts, one in New Brunswick, and one on Prince Edward Island, Canada, have discovered that they can produce bay scallops successfully by harvesting them when partially-to fully-grown and selling them whole. In restaurants, the scallops are cooked and served with all their meats (adductor muscles and rims) and also with the shells, which have been genetically-bred for bright colors. The scallop seed are produced in hatcheries and then grown in lantern or pearl nets and cages to market size. Thus far, production has been relatively small, just beyond the pilot-scale, until a larger demand develops for this product.

Catches of Humpback Whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, by the Soviet Union and Other Nations in the Southern Ocean, 1947–1973

From 1947 to 1973, the U.S.S.R. conducted a huge campaign of illegal whaling worldwide. We review Soviet catches of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the Southern Ocean during this period, with an emphasis on the International Whaling Commission’s Antarctic Management Areas IV, V, and VI (the principal regions of illegal Soviet whaling on this species, south of Australia and western Oceania). Where possible, we summarize legal and illegal Soviet catches by year, Management Area, and factory fleet, and also include information on takes by other nations. Soviet humpback catches between 1947 and 1973 totaled 48,702 and break down as follows: 649 (Area I), 1,412 (Area II), 921 (Area III), 8,779 (Area IV), 22,569 (Area V), and 7,195 (Area VI), with 7,177 catches not currently assignable to area. In all, at least 72,542 humpback whales were killed by all operations (Soviet plus other nations) after World War II in Areas IV (27,201), V (38,146), and VI (7,195). More than one-third of these (25,474 whales, of which 25,192 came from Areas V and VI) were taken in just two seasons, 1959–60 and 1960–61. The impact of these takes, and of those from Area IV in the late 1950’s, is evident in the sometimes dramatic declines in catches at shore stations in Australia, New Zealand, and at Norfolk Island. When compared to recent estimates of abundance and initial population size, the large removals from Areas IV and V indicate that the populations in these regions remain well below pre-exploitation levels despite reported strong growth rates off eastern and western Australia. Populations in many areas of Oceania continue to be small, indicating that the catches from Area VI and eastern Area V had long-term impacts on recovery.

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

The Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians, Massachusetts Through North Carolina: Its Biology and the History of Its Habitats and Fisheries

This article covers the biology and the history of the bay scallop habitats and fishery from Massachusetts to North Carolina. The scallop species that ranges from Massachusetts to New York is Argopecten irradians irradians. In New Jersey, this species grades into A. i. concentricus, which then ranges from Maryland though North Carolina. Bay scallops inhabit broad, shallow bays usually containing eelgrass meadows, an important component in their habitat. Eelgrass appears to be a factor in the production of scallop larvae and also the protection of juveniles, especially, from predation. Bay scallops spawn during the warm months and live for 18–30 months. Only two generations of scallops are present at any time. The abundances of each vary widely among bays and years. Scallops were harvested along with other mollusks on a small scale by Native Americans. During most of the 1800’s, people of European descent gathered them at wading depths or from beaches where storms had washed them ashore. Scallop shells were also and continue to be commonly used in ornaments. Some fishing for bay scallops began in the 1850’s and 1860’s, when the A-frame dredge became available and markets were being developed for the large, white, tasty scallop adductor muscles, and by the 1870’s commercial-scale fishing was underway. This has always been a cold-season fishery: scallops achieve full size by late fall, and the eyes or hearts (adductor muscles) remain preserved in the cold weather while enroute by trains and trucks to city markets. The first boats used were sailing catboats and sloops in New England and New York. To a lesser extent, scallops probably were also harvested by using push nets, picking them up with scoop nets, and anchor-roading. In the 1910’s and 1920’s, the sails on catboats were replaced with gasoline engines. By the mid 1940’s, outboard motors became more available and with them the numbers of fishermen increased. The increases consisted of parttimers who took leaves of 2–4 weeks from their regular jobs to earn extra money. In the years when scallops were abundant on local beds, the fishery employed as many as 10–50% of the towns’ workforces for a month or two. As scallops are a higher-priced commodity, the fishery could bring a substantial amount of money into the local economies. Massachusetts was the leading state in scallop landings. In the early 1980’s, its annual landings averaged about 190,000 bu/yr, while New York and North Carolina each landed about 45,000 bu/yr. Landings in the other states in earlier years were much smaller than in these three states. Bay scallop landings from Massachusetts to New York have fallen sharply since 1985, when a picoplankton, termed “brown tide,” bloomed densely and killed most scallops as well as extensive meadows of eelgrass. The landings have remained low, large meadows of eelgrass have declined in size, apparently the species of phytoplankton the scallops use as food has changed in composition and in seasonal abundance, and the abundances of predators have increased. The North Carolina landings have fallen since cownose rays, Rhinoptera bonsais, became abundant and consumed most scallops every year before the fishermen could harvest them. The only areas where the scallop fishery remains consistently viable, though smaller by 60–70%, are Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Mass., and inside the coastal inlets in southwestern Long Island, N.Y.

Removal of Sea Lettuce, Ulva spp., in Estuaries to Improve the Environments for Invertebrates, Fish, Wading Birds, and Eelgrass, Zostera marina

Mats (biomasses) of macroalgae, i.e. Ulva spp., Enteromorpha spp., Graciolaria spp., and Cladophora spp., have increased markedly over the past 50 years, and they cover much larger areas than they once did in many estuaries of the world. The increases are due to large inputs of pollutants, mainly nitrates. During the warm months, the mats lie loosely on shallow sand and mud flats mostly along shorelines. Ulva lactuca overwinters as buds attached to shells and stones, and in the spring it grows as thalli (leaf fronds). Mats eventually form that are several thalli thick. Few macroinvertebrates grow on the upper surfaces of their thalli due to toxins they produce, and few can survive beneath them. The fish, crabs, and wading birds that once used the flats to feed on the macroinvertebrates are denied these feeding grounds. The mats also grow over and kill mollusks and eelgrass, Zostera marina. An experiment was undertaken which showed that two removals of U. lactuca in a summer from a shallow flat in an estuarine cove maintained the bottom almost free of it.

Rangia and Marsh Clams, Rangia cuneata, R. flexuosa, and Polymesoda caroliniana, in Eastern México: Distribution, Biology and Ecology, and Historical Fisheries

Rangia and marsh clams, Rangia cuneata, R. flexuosa, and Polymesoda caroliniana, occur in brackish waters along México’s eastern coast from the northern State of Tamaulipas to the southern State of Campeche. The clams were important to the prehispanic people in the southern part of the State of Veracruz, where they were used as food and as construction material. In modern times, they are harvested for food. The fishermen wade in shallow water and harvest the clams in soft sediments by hand. Annual landings of whole clams during a recent 5-yr period, 1998–2002, were 1,139–1,695 t. The only area with a substantial ongoing clam fishery is in the Lower Papaloapan River Basin, including Alvarado Lagoon, where as many as 450 fishermen are licensed harvesters. This fishery for the Rangia and marsh clams is the most important clam fishery along México’s Gulf Coast.