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

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.

Northerly Distribution of White Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, in the Eastern Pacific and Relation to ENSO Events

Twenty-nine verified records of white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, from British Columbia and Alaska waters (1961–2004) are presented. Record locations ranged from lat. 48°48ʹN to lat. 60°17ʹN, including the northernmost occurrence of a white shark and the first report of this species from the central Bering Sea. White sharks recorded from the study area were generally large, with 95% falling between 3.8 and 5.4 m in length. Mature white sharks of both sexes occur in British Columbia and Alaska waters, although they do not necessarily reproduce there. White sharks actively feed in the study area; their diet is similar to that reported for this species from Washington and northern California waters. Sea surface temperature (SST) concurrent with white shark records from the study area ranged from 16°C to between 6.4°C and 5.0°C, extending the lower extreme of the range of SST from which this species has been previously reported. White shark strandings are rarely reported, yet 16 (55%) of the records in this study are of beached animals; strandings generally occurred later in the year and at lower latitudes than nonstrandings. No significant correlation was found between white shark records in the study area and El Niño events and no records occurred during La Niña events. The data presented here indicate that white sharks are more abundant in the cold waters of British Columbia and Alaska than previous records suggest.

Quahogs in Eastern North America: Part II, History by Province and State

The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England and Long Island, N.Y., made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has given consumers a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Tabasco leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certified beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Quahogs in Eastern North America: Part I, Biology, Ecology, and Historical Uses

The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has provided consumers with a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Campeche leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certifi ed beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

The Demand for Eastern Oysters, Crassostrea virginica, from the Gulf of Mexico in the Presence of Vibrio vulnificus

California, in response to health concerns, initiated a program on 1 March 1991 which required anyone selling eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, from the Gulf of Mexico area to notify potential consumers that there was a risk in consuming them raw. This mandatory warning, followed shortly thereafter by a similar warning in other states, including Louisiana and Florida, received extensive press cover-age throughout the country and particularly in the Gulf area. This paper examines the extent to which the demand for Gulf-area oysters has been reduced as a result of mandatory warning labels and negative publicity. In general, the results suggest that since 1991 the “summer” dockside price has been reduced by about 50% as a result of warning labels and associated negative publicity, while the “winter” dockside price has been reduced by about 30%.

Reef Habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Abundance, Distribution, Associated Biological Communities, and Fishery Resource Use

One particular habitat type in the Middle Atlantic Bight is not well recognized among fishery scientists and managers, although it is will known and used by recreational and commercial fisheries. This habitat consists of a variety of hard-surface, elevated relief "reef" or reef-like environments that are widely distributed across the predominantly flat or undulating, sandy areas of the Bight and include both natural rocky areas and man-made structures, e.g. shipwrecks and artificial reefs. Although there are natural rock and shellfish reefs in southern New England coastal waters and estuaries throughout the Bight, most reef habitats in the region appear to be man-made reef habitat modification/creation may be increasing. Very little effort has been devoted to the study of this habitat's distribution, abundance, use by living marine resources and associated biological communities (except on estuarine oyster reefs) and fishery value or management. This poorly studied and surveyed habitat can provide fish refuge from trawls and can be a factor in studies of the distribution and abundance of a variety of reef-associated fishery resources. This review provides a preliminary summary of information found on relative distribution and abundance of reef habitat in the Bight, the living marine resources and biological communities that commonly use it, threats to this habitat and its biological resources, and the value or potential value of artificial reefs to fishery or habitat and its biological resources, and the value or potential value of artificial reefs to fishery or habitat managers. The purpose of the review is to initiate an awareness among resource managers about this habitat, its role in resource management, and the need for research.

History of Whaling and Estimated Kill of Right Whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924

This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.

Biological Characteristics and Fishery Assessment of Alaska Plaice, Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus, in the Eastern Bering Sea

Alaska plaice, Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus, is one of the major flatfishes in the eastern Bering Sea ecosystem and is most highly concentrated in the shallow continental shelf of the eastern Bering Sea. Annual commercial catches have ranged from less than 1,000 metric tons (t) in 1963 to 62,000 t in 1988. Alaska plaice is a relatively large flatfish averaging about 32 cm in length and 390 g in weight in commercial catches. They are distributed from nearshore waters to a depth of about 100 m in the eastern Bering Sea during summer, but move to deeper continental shelf waters in winter to escape sea ice and cold water temperatures. Being a long-lived species (>30 years), they have a relatively low natural mortality rate estimated at 0.20. Maturing at about age 7, Alaska plaice spawn from April through June on hard sandy substrates of the shelf region, primarily around the 100 m isobath. Prey items primarily include polychaetes and other marine worms. In comparison with other flatfish, Alaska plaice and rock sole, Pleuronectes bilineatus, have similar diets but different habitat preferences with separate areas of peak population density which may minimize interspecific competition. Yellowfin sole, Pleuronectes asper, while sharing similar habitat, differs from these two species because of the variety of prey items in its diet. Competition for food resources among the three species appears to be low. The resource has experienced light exploitation since 1963 and is currently in good condition. Based on the results of demersal trawl surveys and age-structured analyses, the exploitable biomass increased from 1971 through the mid-1980’s before decreasing to the 1997 level of 500,000 t. The recommended 1998 harvest level, Allowable Biological Catch, was calculated from the Baranov catch equation based on the FMSY harvest level and the projected 1997 biomass, resulting in a commercial harvest of 69,000 t, or about 16% of the estimated exploitable biomass.

A Brief History of Bycatch Management Measures for Eastern Bering Sea Groundfish Fisheries

Bycatch management measures instituted for groundfish fisheries of the eastern Bering Sea have focused on reducing the incidental capture and injury of species traditionally harvested by other fisheries. These species include king crab, Paralithodes and Lithodes spp.; Tanner crab, Chionoecetes spp.; Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi; Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis; and Pacific salmon and steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus spp. Collectively, these species are called "prohibited species," as they cannot be retained as bycatch in groundfish fisheries and must be discarded with a minimum of injury.

Assessment of the Distribution and Abundance of Coastal Sharks in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Seaboard, 1995 and 1996

During 1995 and 1996, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), conducted pilot studies to develop survey methodology and a sampling strategy for assessment of coastal shark populations in the Gulf of Mexico and western North Atlantic. Longline gear similar to that used in the commercial shark fishery was deployed at randomly selected stations within three depth strata per 60 nautical mile gridf rom Brownsville, Tex. to Cape Ann, Mass. The survey methodology and gear design used in these surveys proved effective for capturing many of the small and large coastal sharks regulated under the auspices of the 1993 Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) for Sharks oft he Atlantic Ocean. Shark catch rates, species composition, and relative abundance documented in these pilot surveys were similar to those reported from observer programs monitoring commercial activities. During 78 survey days, 269 bottom longline sets were completed with 879 sharks captured.

The Oyster Industry of Eastern Mexico

Mexico has an oyster industry of substantial size, ranking about sixth in the world. In 1993, among the top ten oyster producers, Korea, Japan, the United States, China, and France ranked ahead of Mexico, while the Philippines, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand trailed it (Fig. 1). On its east coast, the species landed is the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, while on its west coast C. corteziensis, C. iridescens, and the Pacific oyster, C. gigas, are landed. During the last 10-15 years, annual production often was at least 50,000 t of shelled oysters, or nearly 1.5 million bushels (Anonymous, 1995), with the great preponderance (90%) coming from a series of lagoons connecting with the Gulf of Mexico along the east coast (Fig. 2) and the remainder produced on the west coast.

History of a Systematics Odyssey: The Marine Flora and Fauna of the Eastern United States

On an early fall day in September 1962 I sat quietly, thoughtfully, at my large desk in a newly renovated corner office in the old Crane wing of the Lillie Building, Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Looking out through high, ancient windows, I could see the busy main street of Woods Hole in the foreground, Martha's Vineyard beyond, behind me the MBL Stone Candle House, across the street the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and to the far right, the Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF)(Fig. 1). Down the inner hall from my office stretched renovated quarters for the fledgling, ongoing, year-round MBL Systematics-Ecology Program (SEP), which I had been invited to direct.