DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of Hawaii Tuna Tagging Project Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SCTB14 Working Paper /I" M. Shiham AdamI, John Sibertl, David Itanol and Kim Holland2 Ipelagic Fisheries Program,University of Hawaii 2Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology, University oa Hawaii 14th Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish Noumea, New Caledonia, 9 -16th August 2001 Yellowfin Research Group Size-specific tag attrition in bulk transfer models: Analysis of Hawaii Tuna Tagging Project data M. Shiham AdamI, John SibertI, David Itanol and Kim Holland2 SCTB 14 -Presentation Summary Introduction The Hawaiian Islands are home to a mixture of recreationaVsubsistence and commercial fisheries for tuna, billfish and other pelagic species. There is a large mix of handline and troll vessels that seek tuna, billfish, wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) and dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) operating in the waters surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands and an offshore pelagic longline fishery. For the most part, all of these fisheries depend heavily on the tendency of their target species to aggregate in certain areas where they become more vulnerable to hook and line gear. This is especially true for the offshore handline fishery that concentrates on bigeye and yellowfin tuna found in aggregation with a productive offshore seamount (Cross Seamount) and four offshore meteorological buoys that act as productive fish aggregation devices. The Cross Seamount -Offshore Handline Fishery Hawaii based longline vessels targeting medium and large bigeye tuna have fished the Cross Seamount for decades using deep set tuna longline gear. Coastal handline boats began to fish the seamount and four offshore weather buoys in the late 1980s, concentrating on juvenile and sub-adult bigeye and yellowfin taken by a mix of shallow set handline and troll gears. This fishery quickly expanded to include fishing mixed tuna aggregations on offshore weather buoys, typically referred to as Buoys 1,2, 3 and 4. The high catch rates possible on these features contributed to a rapid expansion of the fishery during the early 1990s. The sudden appearance of significant landings of juvenile bigeye to local markets initially caused several problems, including low quality product due to poor catch handling and storage, market flooding, low price structure, roadside sales and some health concerns and wastage. Since that time, the fishery has seen some stabilization and market development, currently landing about I million pounds of big eye and yellowfin tuna annually for local consumption. User group conflicts Since the beginning of the offshore handline fishery, various groups have expressed concern over the harvest of these juvenile sized tunas. Direct gear interactions and conflicts have also occurred between longline and handline vessels operating on the limited fishing area over the summit of the Cross Seamount. 1 Pelagic Fisheries Research Program Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research University of Hawaii, 1000 Pope Road, MSB #312 Honlulu, Hawaii 96822, USA 2 Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii PO Box 1346, Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744, USA 1 14th Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish Noumea, New Caledonia, 9 -16th August 2001 Yellowfin Research Group Inshore recreational and subsistence fishennen feel that the seamount fishery intercepts fish that would have later been available to them closer to the main islands. Inshore commercial handliners and offshore longline operators believe that the seamount fishery crops off too many young fish that would have later recruited to their fisheries as larger, more valuable sashimi grade tuna. Fish processors as well as fisheries that take larger sized bigeye and Yellowfin (longliners, charter vessels, commercial handliners, commercial trollers) see the offshore fishery as a waste of the resource at a low value. Conversely, the seamount fishennen suggest that longliners take too many large tuna, depleting local spawning stocks. Research response These debates have continued over the past decade through countless letters, meetings and discussions moderated by the Honolulu based Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Since 1995, he Pelagic Fisheries Research Program of the University of Hawaii has supported tagging studies of yellowfin and bigeye tuna in Hawaii to address many of these issues; i.e. interaction, residence times, movement patterns, exploitation rates and aggregation effects. The Seamount Tagging Project and the Hawaii Tuna Tagging Project (HTTP) has produced a tag release dataset of more than 17,000 bigeye and yellowfm tuna with an overall recapture rate of approximately 12.5% (Itano and Holland, 2000). One of the primary motivations for conducting the HTTP was to study the population dynamics of bigeye and yellowfin at the Cross Sea Seamount and FADs, and to investigate recruitment patterns from the Cross Seamount to the nearshore handline/troll fisheries and to the offshore longline fishery. Earlier studies utilizing relatively small amounts of tag recapture data indicated that bigeye tuna are more persistent at the Cross Seamount in comparison to yellowfin (Holland, et.al 1999) and that transfer rates from offshore to inshore areas for both species were low (Sibert, et al 2000). The analysis reported includes recaptures of tagged bigeye and yellowfin tuna released between January 1995 through June 2001 to the Hawaiian fishery between the geographic region 163°W to 152°W and 14°N to 24°N. Using release and recovery data up to June 2001, site and size-specific bulk transfer models were developed to estimate natural mortality, fishing mortality and transfer rates between various fishery components. Results The transfer rates from the Cross Seamount to the inshore fishery areas surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands were found to be low. Compared with this, the transfer rate from Cross Seamount and the offshore weather buoys to the offshore region were higher for both the species, indicating a considerable recruitment of Cross Seamount fish to the offshore longline fishery. The transfer rates from the seamount to Inshore, and vice versa, were about the same magnitude for bigeye where as for yellowfin, transfer rates from Inshore to the seamount were negligible. The natural and fishing mortality rate was estimated over three size classes; for yellowfin 29- 45 cm, 46-55 cm and > 56 cm, and for bigeye 40-60 cm, 61-80 cm and >81 cm. For each species the estimates of natural mortality were higher for the smaller size class, decreased for 2 14th Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish Noumea, New Caledonia, 9 -16th August 2001 Yellowfin Research Group the medium size class followed by an increase in the largest size class. For the Cross Seamount fishery, the fishing mortality rate of bigeye was found to be similar in the three size classes representing roughly 10% of the gross attrition in each size class. Although the global attrition rate (losses from the Cross Seamount) for both species were nearly the same, the estimated residence times of bigeye tuna at Cross Seamount was twice that for yellowfin, reaffirming the findings of earlier studies. For reasons that are not yet clear, bigeye appear to be more persistent at the seamount while yellowfin more relatively transient. There is also a tendency for larger bigeye to persist longer, exposing them for longer period of vulnerability in the offshore handline fishery. For yellowfin their persistence rates were found to be similar across all size classes. Fishing mortality rate estimates for both bigeye and yellowfin tuna at Cross Seamount are considered moderate at current levels of exploitation. For both species, emigration was found to be by far the greatest source of losses from the seamount. The current fishery does not appear to be adversely impacting the populations of bigeye and yellowfin at the Cross Seamount or their recruitment to inshore areas. The size based estimates of natural and fishing mortality together with transfer rates and other ancillary information will be useful for a yield per recruit analysis to investigate various scenarios of increase/decrease in fishing effort and its effects on the fishery components. Additional strategic tag releases from all the fishery regions and components over broader size ranges should be carried out to further refine these issues of recruitment and interaction. References Holland, K. N., Kleiber, P., Kajiura, S. M. 1999. Different residence times of yellow fin tuna, Thunnus albacares, and bigeye tuna, J: obesus, found in mixed aggregations over a seamount. Fish. Bull. 97:392-395. Itano, D. G. and K. N. Holland. 2000. Tags and FADs -Tuna movement and vulnerability of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin tuna (7: alba cares) in relation to FADs and natural aggregation points. Aquatic Living Resources. Aquat. Living Resource. 13: 1-11. Sibert, J. R., K. Holland, and D. Itano 2000. Exchange rates of yellowfin and bigeye tunas and fishery interaction between Cross seamount and near-shore FADs in Hawai'i. Aquat. Living Resource. 13: 225-232. 3.
Recommended publications
  • Cross Seamount South Point

    Cross Seamount South Point

    PFRP PI Meeting 2008 David Itano1, Kim Holland2 and Kevin Weng3 1 Pelagic Fisheries Research Program, University of Hawaii at Manoa 2 Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii, 3 University of Hawaii at Manoa, School of Earth Science Technology Hawaii Tuna Tagging Project (1995- 2001) (archipelagic scale, conventional dart tags for Movementbigeyeof bigeye and yellowfin and yellowfin tuna) within the Hawaii EEZ and between major fishing grounds. (exchange rates) Interaction à direct gear interaction / concurrent interaction à sequential or growth interactions à spatially segregated interaction Exploitation rates and differential vulnerability (local fishing mortality) of tuna around seamounts and FADs Aggregation effects - retention rates of bigeye and yellowfin tuna around seamounts, FADs and local HTTP: objectives and outcomes 17,986 bigeye and yellowfin tagged @ 53:47 ratio à 12.6% overall recapture rate Bulk transfer model developed to describe tag loss by all means … between offshore FADs/seamount, inshore areas and offshore LL fishery à Estimated transfer (movement) rates à Estimated size and species-specific M and F rates Calculated residence times and exploitation rates Provided a closer definition of fisheries and exploitation patterns 150 E 160 E 170 E 180 170 W 160 W 150 W 140 W 40 N USA JAPAN 30 N MEXICO Minami Tori HAWAII Shima Wake 20 N CNMI (US) Johnston (US) Guam Marshall Islands 10 N Federated States of Micronesia Palmyra Palau (US) Howland & Indonesia Nauru Kiribati Baker Jarvis 0 Papua New Guinea (US) Line Phoenix Islands Islands (Kiribati) (Kiribati) Tuvalu Solomon Islands 10 S WF SamoaAmerican Fiji Samoa Cook Islands Australia Vanuatu French Polynesia New Niue 20 S Caledonia Tonga Pitcairn (U.K.) New Zealand 180 170W 160W 150W 140W Yellowfin in red Bigeye in blue 30N 20N Johnston 10N Palmyra Line Islands 160 W 155 W Necker NOAA B-1 Nihoa Main Hawaiian Islands Kauai Niihau Oahu Kaula Kaena Pt.
  • Effects of Pelagic Longline Fishing on Seamount Ecosystems Based on Interviews with Pacific Island Fishers

    Effects of Pelagic Longline Fishing on Seamount Ecosystems Based on Interviews with Pacific Island Fishers

    Effects of Pelagic Longline Fishing on Seamount Ecosystems Based on Interviews with Pacific Island Fishers This publication was prepared by IUCN as a part of the Oceanic Fisheries Management Project, funded by the Global Environment Facility, through the United Nations Development Program. The Project aims to achieve global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources in the Pacific Islands region and the protection of the biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem. It is executed by the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency in conjunction with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and IUCN. Website: http://www.ffa.int/gef/. The designation of geographical entities in this document, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or contributory organizations, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Published by: IUCN Oceania Regional Office, Suva, FIJI Copyright: © 2010 International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Oceania Regional Office. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holders. Cover photos: Interviewing fishermen in Tonga, courtesy of Telmo Morato.
  • Pelagic Fisheries Research Program (PFRP) Over the Period 1993–2003

    Pelagic Fisheries Research Program (PFRP) Over the Period 1993–2003

    Research and writing: Noreen M. Parks Editing: John Sibert Layout:May Izumi Cover Photo: Richard Herrmann ~ UH-NOAA~ Executive Summary This report highlights the accomplishments of the Pelagic Fisheries Research Program (PFRP) over the period 1993–2003. Operating from the University of Hawaii-Manoa, the program supports the scientific research needs of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. More than 70 projects have been funded to address questions in fisheries biology, oceanography, statistics and modeling, genetics, protected species, fish- eries economics and socio-cultural issues. The PFRP has played a leading role in promoting research in support of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Through its links with the University of Hawaii, the PFRP is able to assist in training new fisheries scientists. In its scientific collaborations and partic- ipation in multinational forums for fisheries management, the PFRP also has played an important role in fostering international cooperation for the sustainable management of pelagic fisheries throughout the central and Western Pacific. Responding to emerg- ing scientific needs for responsible fisheries stewardship, the program continues to sponsor cutting-edge, multidisciplinary research. i ii THE PACIFIC OCEAN—HEART OF THE BLUE PLANET, HOME TO THE WORLD’S RICHEST FISHERIES If you hitched a ride on a space shuttle circling the globe, during much of the voyage the Pacific Ocean would dominate your view of Earth. Our “blue planet” owes much of its liquid character to the Pacific, which covers nearly one third of the globe—an area larger than all the landmasses combined.
  • Glossary for Hawaiian and Other Polynesian Terms

    Glossary for Hawaiian and Other Polynesian Terms

    Glossary for Hawaiian and Other Polynesian Terms Pronunciation Hawaiian vowels are as in English: a, e, i, o, and u. But with respect to pronunciation, the letter “a” is pronounced as the soft ah sound in papa; “e” as the ā sound in play; “i” as the ē sound in need; “o” as used in bowl; and “u” as the ew sound in tune. Diacritical marks are used to indicate stress on particular vowels, and as glottal stops. Te macron (called kahakō in Hawaiian) is used to stress and elongate any of the vowel sounds. For example, the ā sound in pāhoe- hoe (sheet lava) is stressed and lengthened, as in pahh-ho-ay-ho-ay. Te reverse apostrophe (called an okina in Hawaiian) is used as a glot- tal stop, as in the closed throat sound that should precede formation of the word ‘ahi (pronounced ah-hee), or between sounds, as in Punalu‘u (pronounced poo-nah-lew-ew). Certain vowel combinations (diph- thongs) are also pronounced in a manner dissimilar to the way they are pronounced in English, with stress on the frst vowel. For instance, the “ou” sound in Hawaiian is pronounced with stress on the o, as in pouli © Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s), under exclusive license 247 to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 E. W. Glazier, Tradition-Based Natural Resource Management, Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14842-3 248 Glossary for Hawaiian and Other Polynesian Terms (Hawaiian for dark or eclipse, pronounced poh-lee).
  • And Yellowfin (T. Albacares) Tuna in Hawaii's Pelagic Fisheries

    And Yellowfin (T. Albacares) Tuna in Hawaii's Pelagic Fisheries

    Dynamics of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin (T. albacares) tuna in Hawaii’s pelagic fisheries: analysis of tagging data with a bulk transfer model incorporating size-specific attrition Item Type article Authors Adam, M. Shiham; Sibert, John; Itano, David; Holland, Kim Download date 25/09/2021 11:30:32 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/30972 215 Abstract–Tag release and recapture Dynamics of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and data of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin tuna (T. albacares) from the yellowfin (T. albacares) tuna in Hawaii’s Hawaii Tuna Tagging Project (HTTP) were analyzed with a bulk transfer pelagic fisheries: analysis of tagging data with a bulk model incorporating size-specific attri­ transfer model incorporating size-specific attrition tion to infer population dynamics and transfer rates between various fishery components. For both species, M. Shiham Adam the transfer rate estimates from the John Sibert offshore handline fishery areas to the longline fishery area were higher than David Itano the estimates of transfer from those Pelagic Fisheries Research Program same areas into the inshore fishery Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research areas. Natural and fishing mortality University of Hawaii at Manoa rates were estimated over three size 1000 Pope Road, Marine Sciences Bldg. #313 classes: yellowfin 20–45, 46–55, and Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 ≥56 cm and bigeye 29–55, 56–70, and E-mail address (for M. S. Adam): [email protected] ≥71 cm. For both species, the estimates of natural mortality were highest in the smallest size class. For bigeye tuna, the Kim Holland estimates decreased with increasing Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology size and for yellowfin tuna there was a University of Hawaii slight increase in the largest size class.
  • Telepresence-Enabled Exploration of The

    Telepresence-Enabled Exploration of The

    ! ! ! ! 2014 WORKSHOP TELEPRESENCE-ENABLED EXPLORATION OF THE !EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN WHITE PAPER SUBMISSIONS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS ! ! NORTHERN PACIFIC! Deep Hawaiian Slopes 7 Amy Baco-Taylor (Florida State University) USS Stickleback (SS-415) 9 Alexis Catsambis (Naval History and Heritage Command's Underwater Archaeology Branch) Sunken Battlefield of Midway 10 Alexis Catsambis (Naval History and Heritage Command's Underwater Archaeology Branch) Systematic Mapping of the California Continental Borderland from the Northern Channel Islands to Ensenada, Mexico 11 Jason Chaytor (USGS) Southern California Borderland 16 Marie-Helene Cormier (University of Rhode Island) Expanded Exploration of Approaches to Pearl Harbor and Seabed Impacts Off Oahu, Hawaii 20 James Delgado (NOAA ONMS Maritime Heritage Program) Gulf of the Farallones NMS Shipwrecks and Submerged Prehistoric Landscape 22 James Delgado (NOAA ONMS Maritime Heritage Program) USS Independence 24 James Delgado (NOAA ONMS Maritime Heritage Program) Battle of Midway Survey and Characterization of USS Yorktown 26 James Delgado (NOAA ONMS Maritime Heritage Program) Deep Oases: Seamounts and Food-Falls (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary) 28 Andrew DeVogelaere (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary) Lost Shipping Containers in the Deep: Trash, Time Capsules, Artificial Reefs, or Stepping Stones for Invasive Species? 31 Andrew DeVogelaere (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary) Channel Islands Early Sites and Unmapped Wrecks 33 Lynn Dodd (University of Southern
  • This Ninuscript Has Been Reproduced Rom the Micro61m Master. UMI

    This Ninuscript Has Been Reproduced Rom the Micro61m Master. UMI

    INFORMATION TO USERS This ninuscript has beenreproduced Rom the micro61mmaster. UMI Sms the text directly &om the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesisand dissertationcopies are in typewriter See, while others may be &om anytype of computerprinter. The qualityof this reproductionis dependentupon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrationsand photographs,print bleedthrough,substandard margins, andimproper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that bte author did not send UMI a complete manuscriptand there are missingpages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorizedcopyright materialhad to be removed,a note will indicate the deletion. Oversizematerials e.g., maps, drawings, charts! are reproduced by sectioningthe original, beginningat the upper left-hand corner and continuingRom left to right in equalsections with small overlaps. Each originalis also photographedin one exposureand is includedin reduced form at the back of the book. Photographsincluded in the original manuscripthave been reproduced xerographicallyin this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographicprints are availablefor any photographs or illustrations appearingin this copy for an additionalcharge. Contact UMI directly to order. A Bell 8t Howell Information Company 300 North ZeebRoad, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346USA 3 13/761<700 800/521~ VOLCANO INSTABILITY ON THE SUBMARINE SOUTH FLANK OF HAWAII ISLAND A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAH IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY OCEANOGRAPHY DECEMBER 1996 By John R. Smith, Jr. Dissertation Committee: AlexanderMalahofE Chairperson Alexander N. Shor Gary M. McMurtry Richard N. Hey GeorgeP.L. Walker VMI Number: 9713982 Copyright 1996 by Smith, John Ruesell, Jr.
  • 2010 09 08 Kloser PIFSC Fisheries Acoustics Review Draft Report

    2010 09 08 Kloser PIFSC Fisheries Acoustics Review Draft Report

    Fisheries Oceanography Acoustics Applications in Western Pacific Dr R. J. Kloser September 2010 External Independent Peer Review by the Center for Independent Experts Contents 1. Executive summary:................................................................... 3 2. Background: .............................................................................. 4 3. Description of the Individual Reviewer’s Role in the Review Activities.................................................................................. 4 4. Summary of Findings for each ToR ............................................ 5 4.1 Evaluate whether the acoustic system is calibrated appropriately for high-quality data collection...........................................................................................................5 4.2 Evaluate whether surveys are designed appropriately for estimating relative biomass of top predators, such as tuna from active acoustics data. ........................5 4.3 Evaluate whether active acoustics data are pre-processed appropriately using Myriax Echoview Software for estimating relative biomass of top predators, such as tuna...........................................................................................................................6 4.4 Evaluate whether surveys are designed appropriately for estimating relative biomass of micronekton, forage for top predators, from active acoustics data. .......7 4.5 Evaluate whether active acoustics data are re-processed appropriately using Myriax Echoview Software for estimating
  • 02 Grigg MFR 64(1)

    02 Grigg MFR 64(1)

    Precious Corals in Hawaii: Discovery of a New Bed and Revised Management Measures for Existing Beds Item Type article Authors Grigg, Richard W. Download date 05/10/2021 12:33:30 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/26360 Precious Corals in Hawaii: Discovery of a New Bed and Revised Management Measures for Existing Beds RICHARD W. GRIGG Introduction and secundum off Makapuu, Oahu in the 1972 and 1979. During this time, a Fed­ History of Hawaii’s main Hawaiian Islands, again at depths eral Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Precious Coral Fishery near 400 m (Grigg, 1974, 1993) (Fig. 1). was written by the Western Pacific Re­ Precious corals, Corallium spp., were The former discovery by the Japanese gional Fisheries Management Council first discovered in the Hawaiian Islands in fueled a coral rush to the Emperor Sea- (USDOC, 1980). 1900 on one of the Albatross expeditions mounts that lasted about 20 years. During Finalized in 1983, the FMP allowed for (Bayer, 1956); however, it wasn’t until the peak years of this fishery, over 100 selective harvest of up to 2,000 kg/2-year the middle 1960’s that commercial quan­ coral boats from Japan and Taiwan har­ period of C. secundum, and, inter-alia, tities were found and exploited. In 1965, vested up to 200,000 kg of Corallium established a 10-inch minimum size limit. Japanese fishermen discovered a huge annually from these seamounts (Grigg, Both Federal and state permits were re­ bed of Corallium secundum at depths of 1974, 1982). Also during the peak quired to harvest the coral.
  • FINAL REPORT Collaborative Research with the Sitka Sound

    FINAL REPORT Collaborative Research with the Sitka Sound

    FINAL REPORT Sitka Sound Science Center Collaborative Research with the Sitka Sound Science Center and the Geological Survey of Canada to Investigate Recent Deformation Along the Queen Charlotte- Fairweather Fault System in Canada and Alaska, USA Reference: FY2015 EHP Program Grant G15AP00034 PIs: H. Gary Greene and J. Vaughn Barrie February 2017 Abstract This NEHRP study was designed to investigate the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather (QC- FW) fault system, which is the active transform boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, using the Canadian Coast Guard Ship (CCGS) John P. Tully to collect geophysical data and seafloor photographs, core and grab samples. The primary objective of the study was to identify and map piercing points such as channels and gullies that could be used to estimate offset along faults of the Queen Charlotte (QC) fault zone and date fault movement using datable material within the collected piston cores to determine slip rates. To this end the cruise was extremely successful as we were able to identify at least four erosional features such as a canyon and three gullies that consistently exhibited approximately 800 m ±50 m offsets along the central segment of the QC fault zone. Using an age of 14.5 ±0.5 ka for the complete retreat of the last major glacial advance established by Barrie and Conway (1999) and the youngest dates of the sediments recovered in cores of the piercing points at approximately 17 ka, we estimate a slip rate of approximately 55 mm/yr, similar to slip rates calculated by Brothers et al.
  • Maps of Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic Zone Interpreted From

    Maps of Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic Zone Interpreted From

    DISCUSSION The Hawaiian Islands form the southeast leg of a 5,000-km-long string of underwater and subaerial volcanoes called the Hawaiian-Emperor Chain (fig. 1, map sheet, inset). Volcanoes of the Hawaiian Islands form part of a long, discontinuous ridge known as the Hawaiian Ridge (Clague and Dalrymple, 1987). In 1983, the United States defined an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the Hawaiian Islands extending from the coastline to 200 nautical miles offshore (fig. 2, map sheet). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had the primary responsibility to map this zone and in 1984 began the EEZ- SCAN program to systematically map the EEZ at a reconnaissance scale. For assistance with the data collection, the USGS partnered with the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences (IOS) of the United Kingdom. The IOS developed a long-range side-scan-sonar system well suited to this purpose. This system, called GLORIA (Geologic LOng-Range Inclined ASDIC, where ASDIC is another acronym for SONAR, SOund NAvigating Ranging), is capable of imaging a swath of sea floor 40 km wide with each pass of the ship (fig. 3). The map is derived from GLORIA data collected in 1986-1989 from the southeastern Hawaiian Ridge EEZ, which covers more than 1,000,000 km2 of sea floor (fig. 2; Groome and others, 1997). The Hawaiian Islands cap the northwest-southeast-trending ridge. Over the past 80 m.y., the Hawaiian-Emperor Chain developed, one volcano after another, as the Pacific Plate moved slowly northwestward over a stationary hot spot. At the hot spot, magma from the Earth’s mantle continually rises through the ocean crust, and lava erupts frequently to slowly build a volcanic seamount.
  • Seamount Planning Workshop

    Seamount Planning Workshop

    SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE SECOND REGULAR SESSION 7-18 August 2006 Manila, Philippines SEAMOUNT RESEARCH PLANNING WORKSHOP REPORT, 20-21 MARCH 2006 WCPFC-SC2-2006/EB IP-5 Paper prepared by Valerie Allain, David Kirby, and J. Kerandel Oceanic Fisheries Program Secretariat of the Pacific Community Noumea, New Caledonia Seamount Research Planning Workshop Final Report Report of the Seamount Research Planning Workshop held at the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia, 20-21 March 2006 Valerie Allain, David Kirby, Julie-Anne Kerandel Oceanic Fisheries Programme Secretariat of the Pacific Community July 2006 GEF Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... 2 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Participants and presentations ......................................................................................................... 9 3. Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1. Seamount definition and classification....................................................................................................