DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised 2020 and Projected 2021 Black Sea Bass and Scup

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised 2020 and Projected 2021 Black Sea Bass and Scup 2020-2021 Scup and Black Sea Bass Specifications Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis March 2020 Prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901 (302) 674-2331 tel. (302) 674-5399 fax National Marine Fisheries Service 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 (978) 281-9315 tel. (978) 281-9135 fax Initial submission to NMFS: January 14, 2020 Revisions submitted to NMFS: March 5, 2020 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document was prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (the Council or MAFMC) in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This document was developed in accordance with all applicable laws and statutes as described in section 8. The purpose of this action is to implement commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits (RHLs) for the scup and black sea bass fisheries for 2020-2021. These measures are necessary to prevent overfishing and ensure that annual catch limits (ACLs) are not exceeded. This document describes all evaluated management alternatives (section 5) and their expected impacts on four aspects of the affected environment, which are defined as valued ecosystem components (VECs; sections 6 and 7). The expected impacts of the alternatives on the VECs are derived from consideration of both the current conditions of the VECs and expected changes in fishing effort under each alternative. Summary of 2020-2021 Scup Quota and RHL Alternatives and Impacts The 2020-2021 scup alternatives are summarized in Table 1 and described in more detail in section 5.1. Their expected impacts on the VECs are summarized in Table 2 and described in more detail in section 7. Alternative 1A is the status quo alternative and includes scup catch and landings limits identical to those implemented for 2018 and 2019 (82 Federal Register 60682, 12/22/2017). Alternative 1B is the preferred alternative, and includes catch and landings limits recommended by the Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission or ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) in October 2019. Alternative 1B is based on the recommendations of the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), which are based on the best available scientific information and are intended to prevent overfishing. Alternative 1C is the least restrictive alternative for scup and includes a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% higher than those under alternative 1A. Alternative 1D is the most restrictive alternative and includes a commercial quota and RHL that are 25% below the limits under alternative 1B. As shown in Table 1, the commercial quota and RHL under alternatives 1A, 1C, and 1D would be identical in 2020 and 2021, but would vary across the two years under alternative 1B. The Council and Board recommended varying catch and landings limits across 2020-2021 as their preferred alternative. The other scup alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1A, 1C, and 1D) are not preferred and are included for comparison purposes only. They include constant catch and landings limits across the two years for ease of comparison. Under all scup alternatives, it was assumed that commercial landings in 2020-2021 would be similar to the 2015-2018 average of 15.40 million pounds, which is lower than the 2020-2021 commercial quotas under all scup alternatives (Table 1). It was not assumed that commercial landings would reach the commercial quota under any alternative because the commercial fishery has not harvested the full quota since 2007. Commercial scup harvest appears to be limited more by market demand than by the quota. This is expected to continue to be the case under all alternatives for 2020-2021 scup catch and landings limits. Based on this assumption, even under the most restrictive alternative for scup (i.e., alternative1D), commercial harvest would not meet the commercial quota. However, recreational harvest estimates for 2015-2018 based on current data are higher than the 2020-2021 RHLs under all scup alternatives. For the purposes of analyzing the impacts of the 2020-2021 RHLs, it was assumed that under all scup alternatives, measures would be put in place to constrain harvest to the RHL. 2 Based on the assumptions described above, all the scup alternatives (1A-1D) would be expected to result in in status quo levels of commercial scup fishing effort and landings. All scup alternatives, including the least restrictive alternative (i.e., alternative 1C) would require a decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings compared to recent levels, though the magnitude of these expected changes varies across the four scup alternatives. Alternative 1D (most restrictive) is expected to result in the largest reduction in recreational fishing effort and landings of the four scup alternatives, followed by alternative 1B (preferred), alternative 1A (status quo), and alternative 1C (least restrictive). Under all scup alternatives, it is not expected that fishing effort would substantially shift or expand in geographic area or seasonality. Table 1: 2020-2021 scup commercial quota and RHLs under alternatives 1A-1D. Alternative Commercial quota (mil lb) RHL (mil lb) 2020 2021 2020 2021 1A (status quo) 23.98 7.37 1B (preferred) 22.23 18.06 6.51 5.34 1C (least restrictive) 29.98 9.21 1D (most restrictive) 16.67 4.88 Impacts of 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings limit Alternatives on Scup and Non-Target Species As described in more detail in section 7, all scup alternatives (1A-1D) would be expected to result in in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and landings due to market constraints which have kept commercial landings below the quotas under alternatives 1A-1D for several years. All scup alternatives would be expected to result in a decrease in recreational fishing effort and landings compared to recent years, though the magnitude of these expected changes varies across the four scup alternatives. All scup alternatives are expected to result in moderate positive impacts on scup in 2020-2021, as they would maintain biomass levels above the overfished threshold and overfishing would not be expected to occur. Alternative 1D has the lowest expected fishing effort and fishing mortality for scup and therefore is expected to result in the highest positive impacts to scup, followed by alternatives 1B, 1A, and 1C. As described in more detail in section 7.1.1, alternatives 1A-1D are not expected to result in a change in the stock status of any non-target species; therefore, they are all expected to have impacts on non-target species that range from slight negative for non-target species which currently have a negative stock status (i.e., bluefish and those tautog regions that are overfished and/or experiencing overfishing) to moderate positive for non-target species with a currently positive stock status (i.e., spiny dogfish).Of the four scup alternatives, alternative 1D has the highest potential for positive impacts to non-target species, followed by alternatives 1B, 1A, and 1C. Impacts of 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings limit Alternatives on Physical Habitat The scup fisheries operate in areas that have been fished for many years by many fisheries. As previously stated, all scup alternatives (i.e., alternatives 1A-1D) are expected to result in status quo levels of commercial fishing effort and a reduction in recreational fishing effort. The magnitude of the expected reduction in recreational fishing effort varies across the four alternatives. Recreational hook and line gear generally has much lesser impacts on physical habitat than bottom otter trawl gear, the dominant gear type in the commercial scup fishery. None of the 3 alternatives are expected to change the methods of fishing or the areas fished. The expected levels of commercial and recreational fishing effort under all scup alternatives are unlikely to further degrade habitat beyond its current state. Continued commercial and recreational fishing under all scup alternatives, including reduced levels of recreational fishing effort, is expected to result in slight negative impacts to habitat due to continued interactions between fishing gear and physical habitat. Of the four scup alternatives, alternative 1D is expected to result in the lowest total (i.e., commercial and recreational) fishing effort; therefore, the expected slight negative impacts to habitat are lowest in magnitude under alternative 1D, followed by alternatives 1B, 1A, and 1C. Impacts of 2020-2021 Scup Catch and Landings Limit Alternatives on Protected Species As described in more detail in section 6.3, bottom trawl gear is the predominant gear type used in the commercial fishery. As interactions between this gear type and ESA listed species and/or MMPA protected species have been observed, operation of the commercial scup fishery has the potential to interact with these species. Based on documented interactions between hook and line gear and some protected species, the recreational fishery also has the potential to interact with certain protected species (see section 6.3). The continued operation of the commercial and recreational scup fisheries under all alternatives is expected to result in some level of continued interaction risk for protected species. Any interaction with an ESA-listed species or an MMPA protected species which is not at a sustainable level (i.e., PBR level has been exceeded), is considered a negative impact, even under reduced fishing effort levels; therefore, all scup alternatives are expected to have slight negative impacts for those species. Some MMPA and ESA-listed species have not had documented interactions with the primary commercial scup gear types (e.g., large whales (except minke) and bottom trawls) and alternatives 1A-1D are expected to have negligible impacts for those species.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barndoor Skate, Dipturus Laevis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-173 Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Barndoor Skate, Dipturus laevis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts March 2003 Recent Issues in This Series: 155. Food of Northwest Atlantic Fishes and Two Common Species of Squid. By Ray E. Bowman, Charles E. Stillwell, William L. Michaels, and Marvin D. Grosslein. January 2000. xiv + 138 p., 1 fig., 7 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2000-106735. 156. Proceedings of the Summer Flounder Aging Workshop, 1-2 February 1999, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. By George R. Bolz, James Patrick Monaghan, Jr., Kathy L. Lang, Randall W. Gregory, and Jay M. Burnett. May 2000. v + 15 p., 5 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2000-107403. 157. Contaminant Levels in Muscle of Four Species of Recreational Fish from the New York Bight Apex. By Ashok D. Deshpande, Andrew F.J. Draxler, Vincent S. Zdanowicz, Mary E. Schrock, Anthony J. Paulson, Thomas W. Finneran, Beth L. Sharack, Kathy Corbo, Linda Arlen, Elizabeth A. Leimburg, Bruce W. Dockum, Robert A. Pikanowski, Brian May, and Lisa B. Rosman. June 2000. xxii + 99 p., 6 figs., 80 tables, 3 app., glossary. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-107346. 158. A Framework for Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. By Jon G. Sutinen, editor, with contributors (listed alphabetically) Patricia Clay, Christopher L. Dyer, Steven F. Edwards, John Gates, Tom A. Grigalunas, Timothy Hennessey, Lawrence Juda, Andrew W. Kitts, Philip N.
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-668
    NOAA TR NMFS SSRF-668 A UNITED STATES NMFS SSRF-668 DEPARTMENT OF NOAA Technical Report COMMERCE PUBLICATION r Oiological Unoralory Marine | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE J ^^P^^tSX National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Jilt "3 1973 National Marine Fisheries Service L An Annotated Bibliography of the Gunner, TBUtogo/abrus adspersus (Walbaum) FREDRIC M. SERCHUK and DAVID W. FRAME SEATTLE, WA May 1973 NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS National Marine Fisheries Service, Special Scientific Report-Fisheries Series The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in the quantity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for optimum use of the resources. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, develop- ment and enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, surveillance of foreign fishing off' United States coastal waters, and the development and enforcement of international fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also as- sists the fishing industry through marketing service and economic analysis programs, and mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry. The Special Scientific Report—Fisheries series was established in 1949. The series carries reports on scien- scientific tific investigations that document long-term continuing programs of NMFS, or intensive reports on studies of restricted scope. The reports may deal with applied fishery problems. The series is also used as a medium for the publication of bibliographies of a specialized scientific nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Sea Bass
    SEDAR25-RD16 Last Revised: December 2006 Black Sea Bass by Gary Shepherd Distribution, Biology and Management Black sea bass, Centropristis striata, are distributed in the Northwest Atlantic from Maine to Florida (Figure 16.1), with Cape Hatteras, NC serving as a geographic boundary between northern and southern stocks (Musick and Mercer 1977, Shepherd 1991). Sea bass are members of the family Serranidae, which includes groupers commonly found in tropical and sub-tropical waters. Structures such as reefs, wrecks or oyster beds are preferred habitats. Black sea bass may attain sizes up to 60 cm (23.5 in) and 3.6 kg (8 lbs) with maximum age of 10-12 years. Sexual maturity is attained between ages 2 to 4 for females. Black sea bass are protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning that they change sex from female to male. Born as females, most fish will change sex to males between ages 2 to 5 (Musick and Mercer 1977). The factors that lead to the sex change have not been proven although it has been speculated that the relative scarcity of males in a spawning group may be the stimulus for a female to switch sex. Spawning in the northern stock generally occurs from April to June after fish have migrated into coastal habitats (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Males develop a pronounced blue hump on their heads during spawning season and aggressively defend territory, although actual spawning behavior is not well documented. Larvae and juveniles develop and grow in inshore habitats, and juveniles attain lengths of 10-14 cm by fall. Sea bass remain in coastal habitats until water temperatures decrease in fall into early winter, and then migrate to deeper offshore water along the edge of the continental shelf.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Fish for Your Health and the Sea's
    Nova In Vitro Fertilization Best Fish for Your Health and the Sea's By The Green Guide Editors (National Geographic) Fish provide essential nutrients and fatty acids—especially for developing bodies and brains and make a perfect protein-filled, lean meal whether grilled, baked, poached or served as sushi. Yet overfishing, habitat loss and declining water quality have wreaked havoc on many fish populations. Furthermore, many are contaminated with brain-damaging mercury and other toxic chemicals. If the pickings appear slim, check out our "Yes" fish where you'll find many options available. As for our "Sometimes" fish, these may be eaten occasionally, while "No" fish should be avoided entirely. Photograph Courtesy Shutterstock Images Warnings are based on populations of highest concern (children and women who are pregnant, nursing or of childbearing age). To learn which fish from local water bodies are safe to eat, call your state department of health, or see www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish. Besides mercury, toxins can include PCBs, dioxins and pesticides. In compiling this list, the Green Guide referred to resources at the web sites of the Food and Drug Administration, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Foundation and Oceana among others. YES Fish Low mercury (L), not overfished or farmed destructively Abalone (farmed) L Lobster, spiny/rock (U.S., Australia, Baja west coast) L Anchovies L Mackerel, Atlantic (purse seine caught) L Arctic char (farmed) L Mussels (U.S. farmed) L Barramundi (U.S. farmed) L Oysters (Pacific farmed) L Catfish (U.S. farmed) L Pollock (AK, wild caught) L Caviar (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Leucoraja Erinacea
    Little Skate − Leucoraja erinacea Overall Vulnerability Rank = Low Biological Sensitivity = Low Climate Exposure = High Data Quality = 88% of scores ≥ 2 Expert Data Expert Scores Plots Leucoraja erinacea Scores Quality (Portion by Category) Low Moderate Stock Status 2.0 2.8 High Other Stressors 1.5 1.4 Very High Population Growth Rate 2.9 2.4 Spawning Cycle 1.2 3.0 Complexity in Reproduction 1.3 2.2 Early Life History Requirements 1.1 3.0 Sensitivity to Ocean Acidification 1.5 2.8 Prey Specialization 1.2 3.0 Habitat Specialization 1.2 3.0 Sensitivity attributes Sensitivity to Temperature 2.1 3.0 Adult Mobility 2.3 2.2 Dispersal & Early Life History 1.9 2.8 Sensitivity Score Low Sea Surface Temperature 3.9 3.0 Variability in Sea Surface Temperature 1.0 3.0 Salinity 2.0 3.0 Variability Salinity 1.2 3.0 Air Temperature 1.0 3.0 Variability Air Temperature 1.0 3.0 Precipitation 1.0 3.0 Variability in Precipitation 1.0 3.0 Ocean Acidification 4.0 2.0 Exposure variables Variability in Ocean Acidification 1.0 2.2 Currents 2.1 1.0 Sea Level Rise 1.1 1.5 Exposure Score High Overall Vulnerability Rank Low Little Skate (Leucoraja erinacea) Overall Climate Vulnerability Rank: Low (88% certainty from bootstrap analysis). Climate Exposure: High. Two exposure factors contributed to this score: Ocean Surface Temperature (3.9) and Ocean Acidification (4.0). Little Skate are demersal and complete their life cycle in marine habitats. Biological Sensitivity: Low. Only one attribute scored above 2.5: Population Growth Rate (3.4).
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 626-1520 Daniel J
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 626-1520 Daniel J. McKiernan Acting Director fax (617) 626-1509 Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Theoharides January 3, 2020 Secretary MarineFisheries Advisory Ronald S. Amidon Commissioner Mary-Lee King 2020 Recreational Fishing Limits Set for Fluke, Scup, and Deputy Commissioner Black Sea Bass; Bluefish Rules Pending The 2020 fishing limits for the recreational harvest of summer flounder (fluke), scup, and black sea bass in Massachusetts are listed below. These status quo regulations result from recent decisions made by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (see the ASMFC meeting summary for more details). Fishery Open Season Possession Limit* Minimum Size Summer Flounder May 23–October 9 5 fish 17" Scup, Private 30 fish January 1–December 31 9" Vessels & Shore (150 fish/vessel maximum) January 1–April 30 30 fish Scup, For-Hire May 1–June 30 50 fish 9" Vessels July 1–December 31 30 fish Black Sea Bass May 18–September 8 5 fish 15" * Possession limits are per person per day unless otherwise noted. While the Commission and Council also selected new recreational possession limits for bluefish (including a 3-fish limit for anglers fishing from shore or aboard private vessels and a 5-fish limit for anglers fishing aboard for-hire vessels), states have the ability to request alternative rules that have the same conservational value. The Division of Marine Fisheries is evaluating possible options for Massachusetts anglers; final bluefish rules will be announced by this spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
    Ocean Special Area Management Plan Chapter 5: Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Table of Contents 500 Introduction.............................................................................................................................9 510 Marine Fisheries Resources in the Ocean SAMP Area.....................................................12 510.1 Species Included in this Chapter ..........................................................................12 510.1.1 Species important to commercial and recreational fisheries.....................12 510.1.2 Forage fish ................................................................................................15 510.1.3 Threatened and endangered species and species of concern ....................15 510.2 Life History, Habitat, and Fishery of Commercially and Recreationally Important Species............................................................................................................17 510.2.1 American lobster.......................................................................................17 510.2.2 Atlantic bonito ..........................................................................................19 510.2.3 Atlantic cod...............................................................................................20 510.2.4 Atlantic herring .........................................................................................21 510.2.5 Atlantic mackerel......................................................................................23 510.2.6 Atlantic
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling the Ventilatory Behavior of the Embryos Of
    VASSAR COLLEGE | UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH SUMMER INSTITUTE (URSI) SYMPOSIUM | 2020 MODELING THE VENTILATORY BEHAVIOR OF THE EMBRYOS OF LITTLE SKATES Connor McShaffrey (‘21, Cognitive Science) and John Long (Biology, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience & Behavior) retract freeze recoil retract freeze recoil retract recoil ventilate pulsate (L) select & pulsate ventilate return to enter tendril search ventilate & enter front- search return to faced & enter tendril Stages 30-31 Stages 31-32 Stages 32-33 Pulsate: Gradual, slow undulation without insertion. Ventilate (L): Ventilate with the body bent laterally at the base of Ventilate Front-Faced: Ventilate with the body bent sharply Search & Enter: Rapid undulation down to tail tip to the putative adult caudal fin. at the caudal fin so that the tail tip is looped back over the find and insert into a tendril. Return to Tendril: After a full recoil, return to the same tendril anterior portion of the body disk.. Ventilate: High frequency undulation within a tendril. that was being ventilated. Select & Enter: Search & Enter, but with greater efficiency Retract : An incremental pull-back from tendril relative Freeze: Upon partial disturbance during ventilation, stop of selection and insertion. to sensitivity, amplitude, and frequency. moving and wait before ventilating or moving out of the Recoil: Upon sufficient disturbance, pull the tail back tendril. to coil it around the body. ● Embryos of elasmobranch fishes (skates and some sharks) develop for up to a year in a leathery egg case, the mermaid’s purse. ● An embryo must ventilate by undulating its tail inside one of the four hollow tendrils (or horns) of the capsule to exchange deoxygenated for oxygenated water.
    [Show full text]
  • Oyster Grow-Out Cages Function As Artificial Reefs for Temperate Fishes
    1 OYSTER GROW-OUT CAGES FUNCTION AS ARTIFICIAL REEFS FOR 2 TEMPERATE FISHES 3 4 Jessica C. Tallman and Graham E. Forrester* 5 6 Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 7 02881, USA 8 9 10 *Corresponding author: [email protected] Page 1 11 Abstract 12 We compared relative fish density, growth and disappearance rates (mortality 13 plus emigration) on 3 oyster grow-out sites, 6 natural rocky reefs, and 1 artificial reef 14 purposely built for fish habitat. All sites were located within Narragansett Bay, Rhode 15 Island. Trap surveys were conducted in the summer and autumn of 2004 and 2005 16 using a range of trap types designed to sample juvenile and adult fishes. Cunner, 17 Tautogalabrus adsperus, were more abundant on natural rocky reefs and the artificial 18 reef than on oyster grow-out sites, whereas scup, Stenotomus chrysops, and tautog, 19 Tautoga onitis, displayed the opposite pattern and were most abundant on aquaculture 20 sites. The relative density of black sea bass, Centropristis striata, was similar in all 21 habitats. A mark-recapture study on scup indicated that this species grew at higher 22 rates on natural rocky reefs, but had a lower disappearance rate from aquaculture sites. 23 Based on these criteria, the oyster grow-out cages provide good quality habitat for 24 fishes typically associated with hard-bottom habitats. Habitat restoration programs for 25 these fishes should thus consider grow-out cages alongside other types of artificial reef. Page 2 26 Introduction 27 Sea grass and macroalgae beds, marsh creeks, cobble and rocky reefs, and 28 shellfish beds are often described as key inshore fish habitats, and the loss or 29 degradation of these habitats is implicated in the decline of many coastal fisheries (Beck 30 et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Anesthesia and Analgesia in Fish
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1-2012 Clinical Anesthesia and Analgesia in Fish Lynne U. Sneddon University of Liverpool Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_vsm Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Animal Sciences Commons, and the Veterinary Toxicology and Pharmacology Commons Recommended Citation Sneddon, L. U. (2012). Clinical anesthesia and analgesia in fish. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine, 21(1), 32-43. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Clinical Anesthesia and Analgesia in Fish Lynne U. Sneddon University of Liverpool KEYWORDS Analgesics, anesthetic drugs, fish, local anesthetics, opioids, NSAIDs ABSTRACT Fish have become a popular experimental model and companion animal, and are also farmed and caught for food. Thus, surgical and invasive procedures in this animal group are common, and this review will focus on the anesthesia and analgesia of fish. A variety of anesthetic agents are commonly applied to fish via immersion. Correct dosing can result in effective anesthesia for acute procedures as well as loss of consciousness for surgical interventions. Dose and anesthetic agent vary between species of fish and are further confounded by a variety of physiological parameters (e.g., body weight, physiological stress) as well as environmental conditions (e.g., water temperature). Combination anesthesia, where 2 anesthetic agents are used, has been effective for fish but is not routinely used because of a lack of experimental validation. Analgesia is a relatively underexplored issue in regards to fish medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Leucoraja Naevus from Portuguese Continental Waters
    Universidade do Algarve Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Reproductive biology of the species Leucoraja naevus from Portuguese continental waters Catarina Maia Master thesis submitted for the partial fulfillment of the title of Master of Marine Biology 2010 Universidade do Algarve Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Reproductive biology of the species Leucoraja naevus from Portuguese continental waters Catarina Maia Master thesis submitted for the partial fulfillment of the title of Master of Marine Biology Internal supervisor: Prof. Dr. Karim Erzini External supervisor: Profa. Dra. Ivone Figueiredo 2010 Acknowledgements I would like to thank everyone who helped me in IPIMAR and University: First I would like to thank Dr. Ivone Figueiredo and Dr. Karim Erzini for the opportunity to perform this work and the availability and encouragement shown over the same; I would also like to express my immense gratitude to Dr. Barbara Serra-Pereira for the help, encouragement and support (tireless!!!!) that greatly facilitated my work; My sincere thanks to José do Lago and Neide Lagarto for their help in sampling and friendship; As Teresa, Ana Rita and Inês, Miguel and Nuno, who not only gave me the motivation but also by the availability and friendship shown. I also thank to all IPIMAR workers, including Carmo and Cristrina for their help and suggestions in histology; Tanks to PNAB that partially supported my work; My eternal gratitude to my parents and Francisco who were always by my side and supported me unconditionally. Abstract Skate populations tend to be highly vulnerable to exploitation as a result of the main life history characteristics (slow growth, late maturity and low fecundity).
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]