Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0126
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFS­
NE­
149
Essential
Fish
Habitat
Source
Document:

Scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops,

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
September
1999
Recent
Issues
105.
Review
of
American
Lobster
(
Homarus
americanus)
Habitat
Requirements
and
Responses
to
Contaminant
Exposures.
By
Renee
Mercaldo­
Allen
and
Catherine
A.
Kuropat.
July
1994.
v
+
52
p.,
29
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB96­
115555.

106.
Selected
Living
Resources,
Habitat
Conditions,
and
Human
Perturbations
of
the
Gulf
of
Maine:
Environmental
and
Ecological
Considerations
for
Fishery
Management.
By
Richard
W.
Langton,
John
B.
Pearce,
and
Jon
A.
Gibson,
eds.
August
1994.
iv
+
70
p.,
2
figs.,
6
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB95­
270906.

107.
Invertebrate
Neoplasia:
Initiation
and
Promotion
Mechanisms
­­
Proceedings
of
an
International
Workshop,
23
June
1992,
Washington,
D.
C.
By
A.
Rosenfield,
F.
G.
Kern,
and
B.
J.
Keller,
comps.
&
eds.
September
1994.
v
+
31
p.,
8
figs.,
3
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB96­
164801.

108.
Status
of
Fishery
Resources
off
the
Northeastern
United
States
for
1994.
By
Conservation
and
Utilization
Division,
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center.
January
1995.
iv
+
140
p.,
71
figs.,
75
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB95­
263414.

109.
Proceedings
of
the
Symposium
on
the
Potential
for
Development
of
Aquaculture
in
Massachusetts:
15­
17
February
1995,
Chatham/
Edgartown/
Dartmouth,
Massachusetts.
By
Carlos
A.
Castro
and
Scott
J.
Soares,
comps.
&
eds.
January
1996.
v
+
26
p.,
1
fig.,
2
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB97­
103782.

110.
Length­
Length
and
Length­
Weight
Relationships
for
13
Shark
Species
from
the
Western
North
Atlantic.
By
Nancy
E.
Kohler,
John
G.
Casey,
Patricia
A.
Turner.
May
1996.
iv
+
22
p.,
4
figs.,
15
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB97­
135032.

111.
Review
and
Evaluation
of
the
1994
Experimental
Fishery
in
Closed
Area
II
on
Georges
Bank.
By
Patricia
A.
Gerrior,
Fredric
M.
Serchuk,
Kathleen
C.
Mays,
John
F.
Kenney,
and
Peter
D.
Colosi.
October
1996.
v
+
52
p.,
24
figs.,
20
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB98­
119159.

112.
Data
Description
and
Statistical
Summary
of
the
1983­
92
Cost­
Earnings
Data
Base
for
Northeast
U.
S.
Commercial
Fishing
Vessels:
A
Guide
to
Understanding
and
Use
of
the
Data
Base.
By
Amy
B.
Gautam
and
Andrew
W.
Kitts.
December
1996.
v
+
21
p.,
11
figs.,
14
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB97­
169320.

113.
Individual
Vessel
Behavior
in
the
Northeast
Otter
Trawl
Fleet
during
1982­
92.
By
Barbara
Pollard
Rountree.
August
1997.
v
+
50
p.,
1
fig.,
40
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB99­
169997.

114.
U.
S.
Atlantic
and
Gulf
of
Mexico
Marine
Mammal
Stock
Assessments
­­
1996.
By
Gordon
T.
Waring,
Debra
L.
Palka,
Keith
D.
Mullin,
James
H.
W.
Hain,
Larry
J.
Hansen,
and
Kathryn
D.
Bisack.
October
1997.
viii
+
250
p.,
42
figs.,
47
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB98­
112345.

115.
Status
of
Fishery
Resources
off
the
Northeastern
United
States
for
1998.
By
Stephen
H.
Clark,
ed.
September
1998.
vi
+
149
p.,
70
figs.,
80
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB99­
129694.

116.
U.
S.
Atlantic
Marine
Mammal
Stock
Assessments
­­
1998.
By
Gordon
T.
Waring,
Debra
L.
Palka,
Phillip
J.
Clapham,
Steven
Swartz,
Marjorie
C.
Rossman,
Timothy
V.
N.
Cole,
Kathryn
D.
Bisack,
and
Larry
J.
Hansen.
February
1999.
vii
+
182
p.,
16
figs.,
56
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB99­
134140.

117.
Review
of
Distribution
of
the
Long­
finned
Pilot
Whale
(
Globicephala
melas)
in
the
North
Atlantic
and
Mediterranean.
By
Alan
A.
Abend
and
Tim
D.
Smith.
April
1999.
vi
+
22
p.,
14
figs.,
3
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB99­
165029.

118.
Tautog
(
Tautoga
onitis)
Life
History
and
Habitat
Requirements.
By
Frank
W.
Steimle
and
Patricia
A.
Shaheen.
May
1999.
vi
+
23
p.,
1
fig.,
1
table.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB99­
165011.

119.
Data
Needs
for
Economic
Analysis
of
Fishery
Management
Regulations.
By
Andrew
W.
Kitts
and
Scott
R.
Steinback.
August
1999.
iv
+
48
p.,
10
figs.,
22
tables.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB99­
171456.

120.
Marine
Mammal
Research
Program
of
the
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
during
1990­
95.
By
Janeen
M.
Quintal
and
Tim
D.
Smith.
September
1999.
v
+
28
p.,
4
tables,
4
app.
NTIS
Access.
No.
PB2000­
100809.
U.
S.
DEPARTMENT
OF
COMMERCE
William
Daley,
Secretary
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
D.
James
Baker,
Administrator
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
Penelope
D.
Dalton,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Fisheries
Northeast
Region
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
Woods
Hole,
Massachusetts
September
1999
Essential
Fish
Habitat
Source
Document:

Scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops,
Life
History
and
Habitat
Characteristics
Frank
W.
Steimle,
Christine
A.
Zetlin,
Peter
L.
Berrien,
Donna
L.
Johnson,
and
Sukwoo
Chang
National
Marine
Fisheries
Serv.,
James
J.
Howard
Marine
Sciences
Lab.,
74
Magruder
Rd.,
Highlands,
NJ
07732
This
series
represents
a
secondary
level
of
scientifiic
publishing.
All
issues
employ
thorough
internal
scientific
review;
some
issues
employ
external
scientific
review.
Reviews
are
­­
by
design
­­
transparent
collegial
reviews,
not
anonymous
peer
reviews.
All
issues
may
be
cited
in
formal
scientific
communications.
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFS­
NE­
149
Editorial
Notes
on
Issues
122­
152
in
the
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFS­
NE
Series
Editorial
Production
For
Issues
122­
152,
staff
of
the
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center's
(
NEFSC's)
Ecosystems
Processes
Division
have
largely
assumed
the
role
of
staff
of
the
NEFSC's
Editorial
Office
for
technical
and
copy
editing,
type
composition,
and
page
layout.
Other
than
the
four
covers
(
inside
and
outside,
front
and
back)
and
first
two
preliminary
pages,
all
preprinting
editorial
production
has
been
performed
by,
and
all
credit
for
such
production
rightfully
belongs
to,
the
authors
and
acknowledgees
of
each
issue,
as
well
as
those
noted
below
in
"
Special
Acknowledgments."

Special
Acknowledgments
David
B.
Packer,
Sara
J.
Griesbach,
and
Luca
M.
Cargnelli
coordinated
virtually
all
aspects
of
the
preprinting
editorial
production,
as
well
as
performed
virtually
all
technical
and
copy
editing,
type
composition,
and
page
layout,
of
Issues
122­
152.
Rande
R.
Cross,
Claire
L.
Steimle,
and
Judy
D.
Berrien
conducted
the
literature
searching,
citation
checking,
and
bibliographic
styling
for
Issues
122­
152.
Joseph
J.
Vitaliano
produced
all
of
the
food
habits
figures
in
Issues
122­
152.

Internet
Availability
Issues
122­
152
are
being
copublished,
i.
e.,
both
as
paper
copies
and
as
web
postings.
All
web
postings
are,
or
will
soon
be,
available
at:
www.
nefsc.
nmfs.
gov/
nefsc/
habitat/
efh.
Also,
all
web
postings
will
be
in
"
PDF"
format.

Information
Updating
By
federal
regulation,
all
information
specific
to
Issues
122­
152
must
be
updated
at
least
every
five
years.
All
official
updates
will
appear
in
the
web
postings.
Paper
copies
will
be
reissued
only
when
and
if
new
information
associated
with
Issues
122­
152
is
significant
enough
to
warrant
a
reprinting
of
a
given
issue.
All
updated
and/
or
reprinted
issues
will
retain
the
original
issue
number,
but
bear
a
"
Revised
(
Month
Year)"
label.

Species
Names
The
NMFS
Northeast
Regionís
policy
on
the
use
of
species
names
in
all
technical
communications
is
generally
to
follow
the
American
Fisheries
Societyís
lists
of
scientific
and
common
names
for
fishes
(
i.
e.,
Robins
et
al.
1991a),
mollusks
(
i.
e.,
Turgeon
et
al.
1998b),
and
decapod
crustaceans
(
i.
e.,
Williams
et
al.
1989c),
and
to
follow
the
Society
for
Marine
Mammalogy's
guidance
on
scientific
and
common
names
for
marine
mammals
(
i.
e.,
Rice
1998d).
Exceptions
to
this
policy
occur
when
there
are
subsequent
compelling
revisions
in
the
classifications
of
species,
resulting
in
changes
in
the
names
of
species
(
e.
g.,
Cooper
and
Chapleau
1998e).

aRobins,
C.
R.
(
chair);
Bailey,
R.
M.;
Bond,
C.
E.;
Brooker,
J.
R.;
Lachner,
E.
A.;
Lea,
R.
N.;
Scott,
W.
B.
1991.
Common
and
scientific
names
of
fishes
from
the
United
States
and
Canada.
5th
ed.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Spec.
Publ.
20;
183
p.

bTurgeon,
D.
D.
(
chair);
Quinn,
J.
F.,
Jr.;
Bogan,
A.
E.;
Coan,
E.
V.;
Hochberg,
F.
G.;
Lyons,
W.
G.;
Mikkelsen,
P.
M.;
Neves,
R.
J.;
Roper,
C.
F.
E.;
Rosenberg,
G.;
Roth,
B.;
Scheltema,
A.;
Thompson,
F.
G.;
Vecchione,
M.;
Williams,
J.
D.
1998.
Common
and
scientific
names
of
aquatic
invertebrates
from
the
United
States
and
Canada:
mollusks.
2nd
ed.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Spec.
Publ.
26;
526
p.

cWilliams,
A.
B.
(
chair);
Abele,
L.
G.;
Felder,
D.
L.;
Hobbs,
H.
H.,
Jr.;
Manning,
R.
B.;
McLaughlin,
P.
A.;
PÈrez
Farfante,
I.
1989.
Common
and
scientific
names
of
aquatic
invertebrates
from
the
United
States
and
Canada:
decapod
crustaceans.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Spec.
Publ.
17;
77
p.

dRice,
D.
W.
1998.
Marine
mammals
of
the
world:
systematics
and
distribution.
Soc.
Mar.
Mammal.
Spec.
Publ.
4;
231
p.

eCooper,
J.
A.;
Chapleau,
F.
1998.
Monophyly
and
interrelationships
of
the
family
Pleuronectidae
(
Pleuronectiformes),
with
a
revised
classification.
Fish.
Bull.
(
U.
S.)
96:
686­
726.
Page
iii
FOREWORD
One
of
the
greatest
long­
term
threats
to
the
viability
of
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
is
the
continuing
loss
of
marine,
estuarine,
and
other
aquatic
habitats.
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act
(
October
11,
1996)

The
long­
term
viability
of
living
marine
resources
depends
on
protection
of
their
habitat.
NMFS
Strategic
Plan
for
Fisheries
Research
(
February
1998)

The
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act
(
MSFCMA),
which
was
reauthorized
and
amended
by
the
Sustainable
Fisheries
Act
(
1996),
requires
the
eight
regional
fishery
management
councils
to
describe
and
identify
essential
fish
habitat
(
EFH)
in
their
respective
regions,
to
specify
actions
to
conserve
and
enhance
that
EFH,
and
to
minimize
the
adverse
effects
of
fishing
on
EFH.
Congress
defined
EFH
as
"
those
waters
and
substrate
necessary
to
fish
for
spawning,
breeding,
feeding
or
growth
to
maturity."
The
MSFCMA
requires
NMFS
to
assist
the
regional
fishery
management
councils
in
the
implementation
of
EFH
in
their
respective
fishery
management
plans.
NMFS
has
taken
a
broad
view
of
habitat
as
the
area
used
by
fish
throughout
their
life
cycle.
Fish
use
habitat
for
spawning,
feeding,
nursery,
migration,
and
shelter,
but
most
habitats
provide
only
a
subset
of
these
functions.
Fish
may
change
habitats
with
changes
in
life
history
stage,
seasonal
and
geographic
distributions,
abundance,
and
interactions
with
other
species.
The
type
of
habitat,
as
well
as
its
attributes
and
functions,
are
important
for
sustaining
the
production
of
managed
species.
The
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
compiled
the
available
information
on
the
distribution,
abundance,
and
habitat
requirements
for
each
of
the
species
managed
by
the
New
England
and
Mid­
Atlantic
Fishery
Management
Councils.
That
information
is
presented
in
this
series
of
30
EFH
species
reports
(
plus
one
consolidated
methods
report).
The
EFH
species
reports
comprise
a
survey
of
the
important
literature
as
well
as
original
analyses
of
fishery­

JAMES
J.
HOWARD
MARINE
SCIENCES
LABORATORY
HIGHLANDS,
NEW
JERSEY
SEPTEMBER
1999
independent
data
sets
from
NMFS
and
several
coastal
states.
The
species
reports
are
also
the
source
for
the
current
EFH
designations
by
the
New
England
and
Mid­
Atlantic
Fishery
Management
Councils,
and
have
understandably
begun
to
be
referred
to
as
the
"
EFH
source
documents."
NMFS
provided
guidance
to
the
regional
fishery
management
councils
for
identifying
and
describing
EFH
of
their
managed
species.
Consistent
with
this
guidance,
the
species
reports
present
information
on
current
and
historic
stock
sizes,
geographic
range,
and
the
period
and
location
of
major
life
history
stages.
The
habitats
of
managed
species
are
described
by
the
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
components
of
the
ecosystem
where
the
species
occur.
Information
on
the
habitat
requirements
is
provided
for
each
life
history
stage,
and
it
includes,
where
available,
habitat
and
environmental
variables
that
control
or
limit
distribution,
abundance,
growth,
reproduction,
mortality,
and
productivity.
Identifying
and
describing
EFH
are
the
first
steps
in
the
process
of
protecting,
conserving,
and
enhancing
essential
habitats
of
the
managed
species.
Ultimately,
NMFS,
the
regional
fishery
management
councils,
fishing
participants,
Federal
and
state
agencies,
and
other
organizations
will
have
to
cooperate
to
achieve
the
habitat
goals
established
by
the
MSFCMA.
A
historical
note:
the
EFH
species
reports
effectively
recommence
a
series
of
reports
published
by
the
NMFS
Sandy
Hook
(
New
Jersey)
Laboratory
(
now
formally
known
as
the
James
J.
Howard
Marine
Sciences
Laboratory)
from
1977
to
1982.
These
reports,
which
were
formally
labeled
as
Sandy
Hook
Laboratory
Technical
Series
Reports,
but
informally
known
as
"
Sandy
Hook
Bluebooks,"
summarized
biological
and
fisheries
data
for
18
economically
important
species.
The
fact
that
the
bluebooks
continue
to
be
used
two
decades
after
their
publication
persuaded
us
to
make
their
successors
 
the
30
EFH
source
documents
 
available
to
the
public
through
publication
in
the
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFSNE
series.

JEFFREY
N.
CROSS,
CHIEF
ECOSYSTEMS
PROCESSES
DIVISION
NORTHEAST
FISHERIES
SCIENCE
CENTER
Page
v
Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................................
1
Life
History...............................................................................................................................................................................................
1
Habitat
Characteristics
..............................................................................................................................................................................
4
Geographical
Distribution
.........................................................................................................................................................................
5
Status
of
the
Stocks
...................................................................................................................................................................................
7
Research
Needs
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
8
Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................................................................
8
References
Cited
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
8
Tables
Table
1.
Summary
of
life
history
and
habitat
characteristics
for
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops.................................................................
14
Figures
Figure
1.
The
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops
(
from
Goode
1884)
.............................................................................................................
16
Figure
2.
Abundance
of
the
major
items
in
the
diet
of
scup
collected
during
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys
.......................................
17
Figure
3.
Abundance
of
scup
eggs
relative
to
water
temperature
and
bottom
depth
from
NEFSC
MARMAP
surveys
.......................
18
Figure
4.
Abundance
of
scup
larvae
relative
to
water
temperature
and
bottom
depth
from
NEFSC
MARMAP
surveys
.....................
19
Figure
5.
Seasonal
abundance
of
scup
relative
to
bottom
water
temperature
and
depth
based
on
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys.........
20
Figure
6.
Abundance
of
scup
relative
to
bottom
temperature,
depth,
DO,
and
salinity
based
on
Hudson­
Raritan
surveys
..................
22
Figure
7.
Abundance
of
scup
relative
to
bottom
temperature
and
depth
based
on
Massachusetts
inshore
bottom
trawl
surveys
.........
23
Figure
8.
Seasonal
abundance
of
scup
relative
to
bottom
temperature
and
depth
from
Narragansett
Bay
trawl
surveys......................
24
Figure
9.
The
distribution
of
scup
from
Newfoundland
to
Cape
Hatteras
............................................................................................
26
Figure
10.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
scup
eggs
collected
during
NEFSC
MARMAP
surveys
.......................................................
27
Figure
11.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
scup
larvae
collected
during
NEFSC
MARMAP
surveys.....................................................
29
Figure
12.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
collected
during
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys
...............................
30
Figure
13.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
in
Massachusetts
coastal
waters
......................................................
32
Figure
14.
Seasonal
distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
collected
in
Narragansett
Bay
...........................................
33
Figure
15.
Size
frequency
distribution
of
scup
collected
in
Narragansett
Bay
during
Rhode
Island
bottom
trawl
surveys
....................
35
Figure
16.
Distribution,
abundance,
and
size
frequency
of
scup
in
Long
Island
Sound,
from
the
Connecticut
bottom
trawl
surveys....
36
Figure
17.
Seasonal
distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
in
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary...........................................
37
Figure
18.
Commercial
landings
and
NEFSC
trawl
survey
indices
for
scup
in
southern
New
England
and
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
......
39
Page
1
INTRODUCTION
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops
Linnaeus
1766)
(
Figure
1),
is
a
temperate
species
that
occurs
primarily
from
Massachusetts
to
South
Carolina,
although
it
has
been
reported
as
far
north
as
the
Bay
of
Fundy
and
Sable
Island
Bank,
Canada
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953;
Fritz
1965;
Scott
and
Scott
1988)
and
as
far
south
as
Florida
(
Morse
1978;
Manooch
1984).
The
`
southern
porgy'
(
S.
aculeatus)
is
referred
to
in
a
number
of
South
Atlantic
Bight
studies
and
reviews
(
e.
g.,
Morse
1978;
Powles
and
Barans
1980;
Sedberry
and
Van
Dolah
1984),
but
is
not
considered
a
separate
species
by
the
American
Fisheries
Society
(
Robins
et
al.
1991)
leading
to
some
taxonomic
confusion
(
T.
Munroe,
National
Systematics
Laboratory,
Smithsonian
Institution,
Washington,
DC,
personal
communication).
For
example,
Miller
and
Richards
(
1980)
list
S.
chrysops
and
S.
aculeatus
as
reef
dwellers
in
the
South
Atlantic
Bight.
Although
there
can
be
some
mixing
of
the
Middle
and
South
Atlantic
Bight
scup
populations
off
North
Carolina,
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
population
is
treated
separately
here,
because
only
this
population
appears
to
make
extensive
seasonal
migrations
and
few
fish
tagged
off
New
England
or
New
York
have
been
caught
south
of
Cape
Hatteras
(
Nesbit
and
Neville
1935;
Finkelstein
1971).
Scup
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
population
are
commonly
found
during
the
summer
in
larger
estuaries
and
in
coastal
waters;
during
the
winter,
they
occur
along
the
outer
continental
shelf
to
about
200
m
(
656
ft)
and
occasionally
deeper.
Beebe
and
Tee­
Van
(
1933)
reported
that
scup
were
introduced
to
Bermuda,
but
the
status
of
that
introduction
is
unknown
and
probably
unsuccessful
(
B.
Collette,
National
Systematics
Laboratory,
Smithsonian
Institution,
Washington,
DC,
personal
communication).
Archeological
evidence
suggests
scup
have
been
common
in
southern
New
England
waters
for
several
thousand
years
and
were
used
as
food
by
native
Americans
(
Waters
1967).
The
scup
population
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
spawns
along
the
inner
continental
shelf
off
southern
New
England
from
May
through
August
with
a
peak
in
June
to
July.
Larvae
occur
in
coastal
waters
during
the
warmer
seasons,
feed
upon
small
zooplankton,
and
are
prey
to
a
variety
of
planktivores,
including
medusae,
crustaceans
and
fish.
Larvae
settle
to
the
seafloor
in
coastal
and
estuarine
waters
when
they
are
about
25
mm
total
length
(
TL),
but
this
event
is
poorly
documented.
During
the
summer
and
early
fall,
juveniles
and
adults
are
common
in
most
larger
estuaries
and
coastal
areas
in
open
and
structured
habitats
where
they
feed
on
a
variety
of
small
benthic
invertebrates.
Scup
begin
to
mature
at
2
years
of
age
(
Finkelstein
1969b)
at
about
15.5
cm
fork
length
(
FL)
(
O'Brien
et
al.
1993).
Most
fish
are
mature
at
3
years
and
at
21
cm
FL
(
Gabriel
1998).
In
the
last
century,
scup
³
45
cm
FL
were
reported
(
Baird
1873)
living
to
about
20
years
and
weighing
about
2
kg
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953).
Currently,
the
population
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
is
composed
primarily
of
fish
£
7
years
and
£
33
cm
FL
(
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
1997).
Since
the
1930s,
there
has
been
a
significant
decline
in
the
average
size
of
scup;
small
scup
have
slightly
different
habitat
and
prey
requirements
than
larger
scup
(
Smith
and
Norcross
1968).

LIFE
HISTORY
The
life
history
of
scup
is
typical
of
most
demersal
fishes,
with
pelagic
eggs
and
larvae,
and
a
gradual
transition
to
the
demersal
adult
stage.
As
a
temperate
species,
scup
is
at
the
northern
limits
of
its
range
in
the
northeastern
United
States
and
migrates
south
in
the
winter
to
warmer
waters
south
of
New
Jersey.

EGGS
Scup
eggs
are
small,
0.8­
1.0
mm
in
diameter,
and
buoyant
(
Kuntz
and
Radcliffe
1918;
Wheatland
1956).
They
require
two
to
three
days
(
40­
75
hrs)
to
hatch
depending
on
temperature
(
Griswold
and
McKenney
1984).
Little
else
is
known
of
this
ephemeral
stage.

LARVAE
The
newly
hatched
larvae
are
about
2.0
mm
TL,
pelagic,
and
depend
on
their
yolk
for
about
three
days
until
they
are
about
2.8
mm
TL
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953)
when
active
feeding
begins.
After
reaching
15­
30
mm
TL
in
early
July,
the
larvae
become
demersal
in
shoal
waters
(
Lux
and
Nichy
1971;
Johnson
1978;
MAFMC
1996;
Able
and
Fahay
1998).
Griswold
and
McKenney
(
1984)
considered
the
larvae
as
juveniles
when
they
grow
to
about
18­
19
mm
TL.
There
is
no
information
available
on
habitat
use
or
requirements
during
this
transition
period.

JUVENILES
Able
and
Fahay
(
1998)
noted
that
the
smallest,
young­
of­
the­
year
(
YOY)
individuals
appeared
in
estuaries
in
June.
In
southern
New
England,
juvenile
scup
grew
to
5
to
10
cm
FL
by
November
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953;
Gottschall
et
al.,
in
review).
Returning
juveniles
in
the
spring
were
about
10­
13
cm
FL
(
Michelman
1988;
Able
and
Fahay
1998).
Growth
of
YOY
scup
is
considered
relatively
slow
(
Able
and
Fahay
1998).
Michelman
(
1988)
estimated
daily
growth
of
juveniles
to
be
0.84%
of
its
dry
wt/
day
using
a
length
frequency
method
and
0.93%
of
its
dry
wt/
day
using
a
bioenergetics
method.
The
growth
production
rates
were
Page
2
between
0.15
and
0.40
g
of
its
dry
wt/
m2
with
a
growth
efficiency
of
about
24%.
Growth
rates
and
curves
for
juvenile
scup
were
reported
in
several
studies,
see
MAFMC
(
1996).

ADULTS
Adult
scup
are
common
residents
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
from
spring
to
fall
and
are
generally
found
in
schools
on
a
variety
of
habitats,
from
open
sandy
bottom
to
structured
habitats
such
as
mussel
beds,
reefs
or
rough
bottom.
Smaller­
sized
adult
scup
are
common
in
larger
bays
and
estuaries
but
larger
sizes
tend
to
be
in
deeper
waters.
Schools
are
reported
to
be
size­
structured
(
Morse
1978).
Scup
mature
at
about
2
years
of
age
and
50%
of
both
sexes
are
reported
to
be
mature
when
they
achieve
a
length
of
15.5
cm
FL
(
O'Brien
et
al.
1993).
Examining
growth
of
male
and
female
scup
from
the
New
York
Bight
(
the
continental
shelf
bounded
by
southern
Long
Island
and
the
New
Jersey
coast),
Wilk
et
al.
(
1978)
found
no
significant
difference
in
the
length­
weight
relationships
between
sexes
within
the
113­
361
mm
FL
range.
The
relationship
for
a
larger
sample
of
unsexed
fish,
27­
380
mm
FL,
was
log
W
=
log
(­
5.022)
+
3.169
log
FL,
where
W
is
weight
in
grams
and
fork
length
(
FL)
is
in
mm;
similar
relationships
have
been
reported
in
MAFMC
(
1996).
Growth
in
length
is
curvilinear
between
10­
38
cm
FL
corresponding
to
ages
of
about
1
to
13
years;
growth
is
relatively
rapid
at
10­
15
cm
FL
and
declines
with
increasing
size
(
Penttila
et
al.
1989).
Scup
are
members
of
an
offshore­
wintering
guild
of
fishes
whose
movements,
habitats,
and
food
habits
generally
coincide
(
Musick
and
Mercer
1977;
Colvocoresses
and
Musick
1984;
Austen
et
al.
1994;
Brown
et
al.
1996).
This
guild
includes
summer
flounder
(
Paralichthys
dentatus),
black
sea
bass
(
Centropristis
striata),
northern
searobin
(
Prionotus
carolinus),
and
smooth
dogfish
(
Mustelus
canis)
(
Gabriel
1992;
Shepherd
and
Terceiro
1994).
Although
biological
interactions
among
guild
members
can
occur,
slight
differences
exist
in
their
environmental
tolerances
and
habitat
preferences
(
Neville
and
Talbot
1964).

REPRODUCTION
The
mean
fecundity
of
scup,
17.5­
23.0
cm
FL,
is
about
7,000
(
±
4,860
SD)
eggs
per
female
(
Gray
1990).
Scup
spawn
once
a
year
beginning
in
the
spring
during
the
inshore
migration
(
Kendall
1973)
when
water
temperatures
are
>
10
°
C.
In
eastern
Long
Island
bays
(
New
York)
and
Raritan
Bay
(
New
York­
New
Jersey),
spawning
occurs
in
May
and
June
(
Breder
1922;
Finkelstein
1969a).
Along
coastal
Rhode
Island,
spawning
peaks
in
June
(
O'Brien
et
al.
1993)
and
extends
to
August
at
temperatures
of
about
24
°
C
(
Herman
1963).
In
southern
Massachusetts,
spawning
fish
occur
in
shoal
waters
<
10
m
deep
until
late
June,
when
they
move
into
deeper
waters
(
MAFMC
1996).
Most
spawning
occurs
in
southern
New
England
from
Massachusetts
Bay
south
to
the
New
York
Bight,
including
eastern
Long
Island
Sound,
Peconic
and
Gardiners
Bays,
and
Raritan
Bay
(
Goode
1884;
Kuntz
and
Radcliffe
1918;
Breder
1922;
Nichols
and
Breder
1927;
Permutter
1939;
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953;
Wheatland
1956;
Richards
1959;
Finkelstein
1969a;
Sisson
1974;
Morse
1978;
Clayton
et
al.
1978).
Able
and
Fahay
(
1998)
noted
that
there
has
been
no
reported
evidence
of
spawning
in
Block
Island
Sound
(
Rhode
Island),
Great
South
Bay
(
New
York),
the
Hudson
River
estuary,
and
Great
Bay
(
New
Jersey).
Although
Breder
(
1922)
reported
ripe
scup
in
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary,
more
recent
studies
do
not
report
the
collection
of
scup
eggs
or
larvae
(
Croker
1965;
Berg
and
Levinton
1985).
Esser's
(
1982)
note
on
scup
spawning
in
the
estuary
was
not
referenced
and
is
probably
based
on
Breder
(
1922).
Spawning
has
not
been
reported
south
of
New
Jersey
(
Morse
1982);
e.
g.,
off
Chesapeake
Bay
(
Hildebrand
and
Schroeder
1928;
Pearson
1932).
However,
Berrien
and
Sibunka
(
1999)
found
eggs
in
this
area
between
1978
and
1987,
although
they
were
not
abundant
or
widespread.
Although
scup
are
common
in
the
spring
off
Maryland
and
Virginia,
Eklund
and
Targett
(
1990)
did
not
observe
spawning
over
hard­
bottom
reef
habitat.
The
scup
they
observed
appeared
to
be
migrants
since
few
remained
as
summer
residents
in
the
study
area.
Ferraro
(
1980)
suggested
that
scup
spawn
in
the
morning
in
Peconic
Bay,
Long
Island,
unlike
most
fish
that
generally
spawn
in
the
evening
or
at
night.
Scup
usually
spawn
over
weedy
or
sandy
areas
and
fertilization
is
external
with
no
parental
care
(
Morse
1978).
Scup
appear
to
refrain
from
feeding
during
spawning
(
Baird
1873;
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953;
Morse
1978).
Spawning
can
fail
in
some
years,
e.
g.,
1958
(
Edwards
et
al.
1962),
even
though,
based
on
landings
data,
spawning
stocks
are
near
peak
abundance
(
MAFMC
1996).
The
relationship
of
this
apparent
spawning
failure
to
environmental
or
habitat
variables
is
unknown.
Scup
spawning
coincides
temporally
with
that
of
several
other
fish,
including
weakfish
(
Cynoscion
regalis),
tautog
(
Tautoga
onitis),
and
northern
searobin
(
Morse
1978).

FOOD
HABITS
Although
food
habits
data
for
scup
larvae
are
not
available,
rearing
experiments
suggest
that
the
larvae
feed
on
small
zooplankton
(
Griswold
and
McKenney
1984).
In
Long
Island
Sound,
juvenile
scup
feed
during
the
day,
principally
on
polychaetes
(
e.
g.,
maldanids,
nephthids,
nereids,
and
flabelligerids),
epibenthic
amphipods
and
other
small
crustaceans,
mollusks,
and
Page
3
fish
eggs
and
larvae
(
Bowman
et
al.
1987).
Copepods
and
mysids
are
important
to
post­
larvae
and
early
juveniles,
while
bivalve
mollusks
are
more
commonly
eaten
by
larger
fish
(
Richards
1963b;
Bowman
et
al.
1987;
Michelman
1988).
Allen
et
al.
(
1978)
reported
amphipods,
polychaetes,
copepods,
and
other
small
crustaceans
were
eaten
by
a
small
sample
of
juvenile
scup
in
southern
New
Jersey,
which
is
consistent
with
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
(
NEFSC)
data
[
Figure
2;
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
a
discussion
of
NEFSC
food
habitats
data].
Michelman
(
1988)
reported
that
scup
only
eat
when
they
are
in
a
school
and
the
relative
importance
of
major
prey
taxa
varies
seasonally.
Baird
(
1873)
reported
prey
were
"
rooted
out
of
the
sand
or
mud."
Juvenile
and
adult
scup
near
an
artificial
reef
in
lower
Delaware
Bay
ate
a
mix
of
hard­
surface
epifauna
and
sand
bottom
infaunal
prey,
including
amphipods
(
caprellids
and
others),
razor
clams
(
Ensis
directus),
hydroids,
blue
mussels
(
Mytilus
edulis),
anemones,
and
mysids
(
F.
Steimle,
unpublished
data).
In
Raritan
Bay,
scup
9­
12
cm
FL
ate
a
variety
of
benthic
infaunal
and
epifaunal
invertebrates
including
polychaetes,
copepods,
small
mollusks,
and
hydroids;
dietary
composition
varied
among
areas
within
the
bay
(
Steimle
et
al.,
in
review).
Michelman
(
1988)
estimated
that
juvenile
scup
in
Narragansett
Bay
(
Rhode
Island)
consumed
0.6­
1.7
g
dry
wt/
m2
of
benthic
prey
between
June
1
and
September
30.
The
daily
food
ration
of
juvenile
scup
was
3.49­
3.99%
of
dry
body
weight
(
depending
on
method
used),
or
about
5%
of
their
body
weight
per
day.
Adult
scup
are
also
benthic
feeders
and
forage
on
a
variety
of
prey,
including
small
crustaceans
(
including
zooplankton),
polychaetes,
mollusks,
small
squid,
vegetable
detritus,
insect
larvae,
hydroids,
sand
dollars,
and
small
fish
(
Goode
1884;
Nichols
and
Breder
1927;
Hildebrand
and
Schroeder
1928;
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953;
Oviatt
and
Nixon
1973;
Maurer
and
Bowman
1975;
Morse
1978;
Sedberry
1983;
Figure
2).
As
scup
grow,
their
diets
include
larger
prey.
Bowman
et
al.
(
1976)
found
that
polychaetes
were
more
important
in
the
diets
of
scup
off
southern
New
England
and
anthozoans
were
more
important
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight.
Sedberry
(
1983)
reported
that
during
the
fall
migration
off
New
Jersey
scup
fed
mainly
on
amphipods,
polychaetes,
and
to
a
lesser
extent
on
decapod
crustaceans,
copepods,
snails,
and
other
small
invertebrates.
Adults
also
prey
on
small
benthic
invertebrates,
although
feeding
and
growth
appear
to
be
reduced
during
the
winter.
At
times
and
in
certain
areas,
scup
diets
overlap
those
of
red
hake
(
Urophycis
chuss)
and,
depending
on
scup
size,
those
of
silver
hake
(
Merluccius
bilinearis)
and
Gulf
Stream
flounder
(
Citharichthys
arctifrons)
(
Sedberry
1983).
Langton
(
1982)
found
that
although
the
diets
of
scup
overlapped
those
of
several
other
demersal
species,
there
was
little
prey
overlap
with
cod
(
Gadus
morhua)
or
silver
hake
off
New
England,
even
though
they
have
similar
benthic
diets.
Jeffries
and
Terceiro
(
1985)
hypothesized
that
an
expanding
scup
population
in
Narragansett
Bay
seemed
to
replace
the
winter
flounder
(
Pseudopleuronectes
americanus)
because
both
species
have
similar
diets;
if
abundance
of
winter
flounder
were
reduced,
more
prey
could
be
available
for
benthic­
feeding
species
such
as
scup.
This
dietary
similarity
was
also
found
in
a
recent
fish
food
habit
study
in
Hudson­
Raritan
Bay
(
Steimle
et
al.,
in
review).
During
inshore
residency,
scup
gradually
accumulate
food
reserves
from
the
spring
into
the
fall.
The
mean
caloric
content
increases
from
24.2
kj/
g
ash­
free
dry
weight
of
whole
scup
in
the
spring
to
28.1
kj/
g
ash­
free
dry
weight
in
the
fall
(
Steimle
and
Terranova
1985).
This
stored
energy
can
support
the
extra
demands
of
migration,
reduced
feeding
in
winter,
and
gonadal
development.
Feeding
may
be
minimal
during
the
winter
because
there
is
so
little
growth
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953).

PREDATION
AND
MORTALITY
Larvae
are
probably
preyed
on
by
a
variety
of
planktivores,
including
medusae,
crustaceans,
and
fishes.
Small
or
juvenile
scup
are
heavily
preyed
on
by
bluefish
(
Pomatomus
saltatrix),
Atlantic
halibut
(
Hippoglossus
hippoglossus),
cod,
various
sharks,
striped
bass
(
Morone
saxitilus),
weakfish,
goosefish
(
Lophius
americanus),
silver
hake,
and
other
coastal
fish
predators
(
Baird
1873;
Smith
1898;
Jensen
and
Fritz
1960;
Schaefer
1970;
Morse
1978;
Sedberry
1983).
Baird
(
1873)
reported
that
cod
ate
large
numbers
of
small
scup
on
Nantucket
Shoals
in
late
November.
Wading
and
diving
shorebirds
are
also
potential
predators
during
the
summer.
The
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
survey
data
on
food
habits
lists
the
following
species
as
predators
of
scup:
dusky
shark
(
Carcharhinus
obscurus),
sandbar
shark
(
C.
plumbeus),
smooth
dogfish,
spiny
dogfish
(
Squalus
acanthias),
Atlantic
sharpnose
shark
(
Rhizoprionodon
terraenovae),
Atlantic
angel
shark
(
Squatina
dumeril),
Atlantic
torpedo
(
Torpedo
nobiliana),
bluntnose
stingray
(
Dasyatis
say),
silver
hake,
bluefish,
summer
flounder,
black
sea
bass,
weakfish,
northern
stargazer
(
Astroscopus
guttatus),
goosefish,
inshore
lizardfish
(
Synodus
foetens),
and
king
mackerel
(
Scomberomorus
cavalla).
Another
potential
source
of
mortality
is
disease.
Disease
can
be
initiated
by
direct
epidermal
exposure
or
through
feeding
on
contaminated
prey.
Scup
had
fin
rot
in
the
degraded
inner
New
York
Bight
and
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary
(
Mahoney
et
al.
1975).
Benthic
invertebrate
prey
commonly
eaten
in
the
New
York
Bight
were
contaminated
with
several
toxic
heavy
metals
(
Steimle
et
al.
1994).

MIGRATION
As
inshore
water
temperatures
decline
to
<
8­
9oC
in
Page
4
the
winter,
scup
leave
inshore
waters
and
move
to
warmer
waters
on
the
outer
continental
shelf
south
of
the
Hudson
Canyon
off
New
Jersey
and
along
the
coast
from
south
of
Long
Island
to
North
Carolina
in
depths
ranging
from
75­
185
m
(
Morse
1978;
Bowman
et
al.
1987).
Juveniles
follow
adults
to
wintering
areas
on
the
mid
to
outer
continental
shelf
south
of
Long
Island,
although
some
remain
in
larger
and
deeper
estuaries
during
warmer
winters.
During
migration,
scup
move
south
along
the
coast
(
within
the
18
m
isobath)
and
offshore
(
Hamer
1970)
as
coastal
bottom
water
temperature
declines
below
10oC.
Phoel
(
1985)
reported
that
scup
migrated
south
of
Cape
Hatteras
to
about
Cape
Fear
(
North
Carolina)
in
the
winter
and
spring
(
he
assumed
one
species
and
no
population
mixing).
With
rising
water
temperatures
in
the
spring,
scup
return
inshore.
Larger
fish
arrive
first
followed
by
schools
of
subadults,
which
have
been
reported
to
appear
off
southern
New
England
slightly
later
(
Sisson
1974).
The
fish
reach
Chesapeake
Bay
by
April
(
Hildebrand
and
Schroeder
1928)
and
southern
New
England
by
early
May
(
Baird
1873;
Perlmutter
1939;
Neville
and
Talbot
1964;
Finkelstein
1971).
It
has
been
suggested
that
the
population
moves
in
schools
of
similarly­
sized
individuals
during
migration
and
perhaps
at
other
times
as
well
(
Baird
1873;
Hildebrand
and
Schroeder
1928;
Neville
and
Talbot
1964;
Sisson
1974;
Morse
1978).
Fish
that
arrive
inshore
early
can
be
caught
in
pockets
of
residual
cold
water
and
can
become
inactive
or
dormant
(
Kessler
1966).

STOCK
STRUCTURE
Although
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
population
was
once
considered
to
be
two
stocks,
i.
e.,
southern
New
England
and
New
Jersey
(
Edwards
et
al.
1962;
Neville
and
Talbot
1964;
Hamer
1970;
Morse
1978).
More
recent
analysis
found
that
the
evidence
for
this
segregation
was
weak.
Pierce
(
1981)
suggested
that
the
apparent
segregation
of
two
stocks
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
could
be
an
artifact
of
the
temporary
location
of
separate
winter
water
masses
containing
temperatures
acceptable
to
scup;
in
most
years
this
water
mass
separation
is
lacking
or
less
influential.
Scup
is
presently
considered
a
single
stock
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
(
Pierce
1981;
Mayo
1982).

HABITAT
CHARACTERISTICS
Scup
are
a
temperate,
demersal
species
that
use
several
benthic
habitats
from
open
water
to
structured
areas
for
feeding
and
possibly
for
shelter
(
Table
1).
Their
distribution
changes
seasonally
as
fish
migrate
from
estuaries
to
the
edge
of
the
continental
shelf
as
water
temperatures
decline
in
the
winter
and
return
from
the
edge
of
the
continental
shelf
to
inshore
areas
as
water
temperatures
rise
in
the
spring.
Some
reports
on
scup
habitat
use
and
distribution
may
be
biased
by
the
type
of
collection
gear
used
and
the
habitats
in
which
they
can
be
deployed
effectively.
For
example,
most
surveys
use
towed
nets
that
are
appropriate
for
open
bottom
but
not
for
rough,
structured
habitats
that
scup
are
known
to
use
such
as
mussel
beds,
rock
rubble,
or
reefs.

EGGS
Scup
eggs
are
commonly
found
in
larger
bodies
of
coastal
waters
such
as
bays
and
sounds
in
and
near
southern
New
England
during
spring
and
summer.
Lebida
(
1969)
reported
eggs
were
relatively
abundant
in
Buzzards
Bay
(
Massachusetts)
from
May
through
June
at
water
temperatures
of
8.5o
to
23.7oC,
which
is
similar
to
their
distribution
in
Connecticut
and
Rhode
Island
estuaries
(
Herman
1963).
Eggs
hatched
in
about
70­
75
hrs
at
18oC
and
40­
54
hrs
at
21­
22oC
(
Griswold
and
McKenney
1984);
they
may
not
develop
normally
at
temperatures
below
10oC
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953).
Few
scup
eggs
were
collected
in
the
NEFSC
Marine
Resources
Monitoring,
Assessment
and
Prediction
(
MARMAP)
ichthyoplankton
survey
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
survey
methods].
The
few
survey
tows
that
collected
eggs
were
made
during
May­
August
when
integrated
water
column
temperatures
were
between
11o
and
23oC
(
Figure
3).
Their
occurrence
at
23oC
probably
represents
eggs
collected
off
Maryland­
Virginia
during
the
summer.
Most
eggs
were
collected
in
generally
<
50
m
(
Figure
3).

LARVAE
Larval
scup
are
pelagic
and
occur
in
coastal
waters
during
warmer
months.
Larvae
were
collected
in
the
more
saline
parts
of
Long
Island
Sound
and
eastern
Long
Island
bays,
Narragansett
Bay,
Buzzards
Bay,
Vineyard
Sound,
and
Cape
Cod
Bay
from
May
through
September
at
water
temperatures
of
14­
22oC;
the
greatest
densities
occurred
at
15­
20oC
(
Fish
1925;
Wheatland
1956;
Pearcy
and
Richards
1962;
Herman
1963;
Scherer
1984;
MAFMC
1996).
Herman
(
1963)
found
larvae
when
water
temperatures
were
20.0­
23.5oC.
The
optimum
for
rearing
larvae
in
the
laboratory
is
18oC
(
Lawrence
1979).
The
NEFSC
MARMAP
larval
data
indicate
a
peak
in
abundance
at
17oC
at
depths
<
50
m
(
Figure
4).

JUVENILES
During
warmer
months,
juvenile
scup
live
inshore
in
a
variety
of
coastal
habitats
and
can
dominate
the
overall
fish
population
in
most
larger
estuarine
areas
during
that
period.
In
Rhode
Island,
YOY
scup
have
been
collected
Page
5
in
intertidal
and
subtidal
habitats,
over
sand,
silty­
sand,
shell,
mud,
mussel
beds
and
eelgrass
(
Zosteria
marina)
(
Baird
1873).
Although
Gottschall
et
al.
(
in
review)
noted
that
1
year
old
scup
were
found
on
various
types
of
sediment
during
warmer
months
in
Long
Island
Sound,
Richards
(
1963a)
reported
collecting
more
juvenile
scup
in
a
sandy
habitat
9
m
deep
than
at
a
17
m
deep
muddy
area
of
the
sound.
Scup
were
also
collected
in
the
smaller
coastal
bays
of
Delaware
(
Derickson
and
Price
1973).
However,
scup
were
not
common
in
shoreline
seine
or
throw­
trap
surveys
in
vegetated
and
unvegetated
habitats
in
Chesapeake
Bay,
Long
Island
Sound,
or
New
Jersey
estuaries
(
Greeley
1939;
Warfel
and
Merriman
1944;
Briggs
and
O'Connor
1971;
Himchak
1982;
Weinstein
and
Brooks
1983;
Sogard
1989;
Sogard
and
Able
1991).
While
little
is
known
about
the
specific
habitats
occupied
in
winter
when
juvenile
scup
reside
offshore,
their
winter­
spring
distributions
indicate
that
they
occur
in
habitats
ranging
from
relatively
flat,
open,
sandy­
silty
bottoms
to
the
head
of
submarine
canyons,
and
other
areas
with
topographical
relief
and
varying
sediments
(
Wigley
and
Theroux
1981).
The
presence
of
structure
can
be
important
to
scup.
Gray
(
1990)
and
Auster
et
al.
(
1991,
1995)
noted
that
juveniles
use
biogenic
depressions
in
the
sediments
off
southern
New
England
in
the
fall;
the
size
of
the
depression
was
directly
related
to
the
size
of
the
fish.
Juveniles
can
use
biogenic
depressions,
sand
wave
troughs,
and
possibly
mollusk
shell
fields
for
shelter
in
winter.
Their
poor
growth
during
colder
months
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953)
suggests
inactivity
and
possibly
an
increased
need
for
shelter.
Juvenile
scup
have
been
collected
at
water
temperatures
ranging
from
5­
27oC
[
Figures
5­
8;
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
survey
methods].
This
is
slightly
below
the
thermal
maximum
of
30.2­
35.6oC
(
depending
on
acclimation)
reported
by
Everich
and
Gonzalez
(
1977).
The
modes
of
highest
relative
abundance
shift
from
about
10oC
in
the
spring
to
peaks
at
16oC
and
22oC
from
summer
to
fall,
except
in
Narragansett
Bay
(
Figure
8)
and
Long
Island
Sound
where
the
bimodality
was
unclear.
In
Long
Island
Sound,
where
juveniles
dominate
the
population,
they
were
collected
at
bottom
temperatures
of
7­
18oC
in
the
spring
and
15­
22oC
in
the
fall
at
salinities
of
25­
31
ppt.
Subadults,
which
usually
follow
the
migrations
of
adults
south
during
the
fall,
have
been
killed
by
sudden
cold
spells
in
shallow
New
England
bays
(
Baird
1873;
Sherwood
and
Edwards
1902;
Morse
1978).
However,
from
1971
to
1975,
juveniles
over­
wintered
in
Long
Island
Sound
(
Thomson
et
al.
1978).
In
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary,
juveniles
were
collected
at
temperatures
ranging
from
9o
to
26oC,
at
salinities
ranging
from
18
to
33
ppt,
and
dissolved
oxygen
(
DO)
levels
>
4
mg/
l
(
Figure
6).
From
summer
through
fall,
YOY
and
age
1+
scup
were
found
in
many
tidal
bays,
sounds,
and
coastal
areas
primarily
north
of
Maryland
at
depths
within
the
38
m
(<
125
ft)
contour
(
Morse
1978;
Figures
6­
8).
In
Raritan
Bay,
juvenile
scup
were
most
commonly
collected
at
depths
between
about
5
and
12
m
(
15
to
35
ft)
(
Figure
6).

ADULTS
Adult
habitats
are
similar
to
those
used
by
juveniles,
including
soft,
sandy
bottoms,
on
or
near
structures,
such
as
rocky
ledges,
wrecks,
artificial
reefs,
and
mussel
beds
in
euryhaline
areas
(
Briggs
1975a;
Eklund
1988;
MAFMC
1996).
In
Long
Island
Sound,
scup
exhibit
a
strong
preference
for
mixed
sand
and
mud
sediments
(
Gottschall
et
al.,
in
review),
which
are
probably
rich
in
small
benthic
prey
(
Reid
et
al.
1979).
Similar
to
juveniles,
the
specific
habitats
used
by
adult
scup
during
the
winter
or
during
migration
are
not
known.
The
areas
in
which
they
have
been
found
can
include
a
variety
of
habitat
types
that
differ
in
sediment
composition,
availability
of
food,
and
structure
or
relief
(
Wigley
and
Theroux
1981;
Steimle
1990).
Adult
scup
also
occurred
at
bottom
water
temperatures
of
6­
27oC
(
Figures
5­
8).
Their
winter
distribution
appears
to
be
mostly
limited
by
the
7oC
isotherm,
their
lower
preferred
limit
(
Neville
and
Talbot
1964).
Magnuson
et
al.
(
1981)
reported
that
scup
may
aggregate
north
of
transient
Gulf
Stream
frontal
boundaries
off
Cape
Hatteras,
at
least
in
the
fall
when
the
temperature
differential
was
about
8oC
(
25.6o
vs.
17.1oC).
However,
there
are
taxonomic
uncertainties
about
the
species
of
Stenotomus
involved.
Although
scup
are
considered
a
demersal
species,
they
have
been
observed
at
the
water
surface
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953).
Off
Massachusetts
(
Figure
7)
and
in
Narragansett
Bay
(
Figure
8),
most
adults
were
collected
in
spring
through
fall
at
depths
<
30
m
(
100
ft).
In
New
Jersey,
they
were
reported
to
aggregate
within
the
20
m
depth
coastal
zone
as
they
began
their
offshore
southerly
movements
(
MAFMC
1996).
Adult
scup
in
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary
were
collected
at
salinities
ranging
primarily
from
20
to
31
ppt
(
Figure
6),
which
is
consistent
with
salinity
associations
in
Long
Island
Sound
(
Gottschall
et
al.,
in
review).
Similar
to
juveniles
in
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary,
most
adults
were
collected
at
DO
levels
³
4mg/
l
(
Figure
6).

GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRIBUTION
Scup
is
a
temperate
species
and
north
of
Cape
Hatteras
the
population
is
restricted
to
water
temperatures
above
6oC
(
Figure
9).
Postlarval
scup
migrate
to
stay
within
acceptable
thermal
limits
as
bottom
water
temperatures
in
the
northeast
decline
in
winter.
Page
6
EGGS
Scup
eggs
have
been
collected
primarily
in
coastal
waters
off
southern
New
England
where
abundance
can
range
up
to
1000
eggs/
10
m2
of
sea
surface
(
Berrien
and
Sibunka
1999)
but
samples
containing
>
100
eggs/
10
m2
were
rare
during
the
NEFSC
MARMAP
survey
(
Figure
10)
when
stock
abundance
was
relatively
low
(
MAFMC
1996).
Eggs
were
collected
primarily
during
June
and
July
from
inshore
waters
off
southern
New
England;
few
eggs
were
collected
on
the
continental
shelf
from
May
to
August
(
Berrien
and
Sibunka
1999).
Patchy
occurrences
were
recorded
from
mid­
shelf
in
the
Chesapeake
Bight
from
May
through
August
(
Figure
10).
Since
the
NEFSC
MARMAP
surveys
did
not
sample
waters
<
10
m
and
excluded
most
coastal
bays,
it
is
probable
that
eggs
are
more
abundant
and
widely
distributed
in
nearshore
areas.
Wheatland
(
1956)
reported
that
in
eastern
Long
Island
Sound
and
nearby
bays,
eggs
were
variably
abundant
from
year
to
year
from
May
to
August
with
peaks
in
June
and
July.
According
to
Stone
et
al.
(
1994),
scup
eggs
were
common
or
abundant
in
the
saline
parts
of
coastal
bays
from
southern
Cape
Cod
to
Long
Island
Sound,
eastern
Long
Island,
and
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary.
In
contrast,
Merriman
and
Sclar
(
1952)
did
not
find
eggs
in
Block
Island
Sound,
along
the
south
shore
of
Long
Island,
or
in
coastal
waters
or
bays
to
the
south.
Interestingly,
Able
and
Fahay
(
1998)
note
that
there
has
not
been
a
verified
collection
of
scup
eggs
within
southern
New
England
estuaries
since
Sisson
(
1974).
North
of
Cape
Cod,
scup
eggs
have
been
recorded
in
southern
Cape
Cod
Bay
from
June
to
August
(
1974­
1976),
possibly
transported
from
Buzzards
Bay
through
the
Cape
Cod
Canal
(
Scherer
1984).
There
have
been
other
reports
of
eggs
in
Massachusetts
Bay
suggesting
that
spawning
occurs
there
(
MAFMC
1996).

LARVAE
Larval
distribution
is
also
limited
and
even
more
conjectural
than
for
eggs.
Although
Kendall
(
1973)
noted
the
offshore
occurrence
of
larvae
from
Virginia
to
Cape
Cod
and
in
estuaries
from
Delaware
Bay
to
Buzzards
Bay,
the
NEFSC
MARMAP
surveys
collected
<
5
larvae/
tow,
mostly
inshore
(
about
30
m)
off
Rhode
Island
in
July
(
Figure
11).
However,
larvae
can
be
more
abundant
in
shallow,
nearshore
waters
since
Stone
et
al.
(
1994)
reported
them
in
the
same
areas
as
eggs;
i.
e.,
from
southern
Cape
Cod
to
Long
Island
Sound
and
in
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary.
Despite
these
reports,
Able
and
Fahay
(
1998)
noted
that
like
the
eggs
there
has
been
no
verified
collection
of
scup
larvae
in
southern
New
England
estuaries
since
Sisson
(
1974).
Cowen
et
al.
(
1993)
did
not
collect
scup
larvae
in
coastal
or
shelf
waters
of
the
New
York
Bight
during
July
and
August
1988,
nor
were
they
common
in
bays
or
estuaries
south
of
Long
Island
(
Pearson
1932;
Massman
et
al.
1961;
de
Sylva
et
al.
1962;
Dovel
1967,
1981;
Scotton
1970;
Pacheco
and
Grant
1973;
Himchak
1982;
Morse
1982;
Olney
1983;
Berg
and
Levinton
1985;
Monteleone
1992;
Stone
et
al.
1994)
or
in
the
surf
zone
(
D.
Clark,
U.
S.
Army
Corps
Engineers,
Vicksburg,
MS,
personal
communication).
This
is
surprising
since
some
of
these
areas;
e.
g.,
Delaware
Bay,
are
important
juvenile
nurseries
(
de
Sylva
et
al.
1962).
Clayton
et
al.
(
1978)
reported
the
occurrence
of
larvae
in
Rocky
Point
in
northwestern
Cape
Cod
Bay,
which,
as
with
eggs,
could
have
been
transported
through
the
Cape
Cod
Canal
from
Buzzards
Bay
(
Scherer
1984).
Based
on
the
presence
of
eggs
and
larvae,
there
is
a
possibility
that
scup
can
spawn
in
Massachusetts
Bay
(
MAFMC
1996).

JUVENILES
In
contrast
with
the
conflicting
reports
and
uncertainty
in
the
spatial
extent
and
abundance
of
scup
eggs
and
larvae,
juveniles
have
been
collected
inshore
and
offshore
from
New
England
to
the
Chesapeake
Bay
area.
In
fact,
the
saline
areas
of
Narragansett
Bay,
Long
Island
Sound,
Raritan
Bay,
and
Delaware
Bay
are
important
nursery
areas
(
Richards
1963a;
Abbe
1967;
Oviatt
and
Nixon
1973;
Werme
et
al.
1983;
Michelman
1988;
Gray
1990;
MAFMC
1996;
Wilk
et
al.
1997;
Gottschall
et
al.,
in
review).
Reports
of
the
coastal
occurrence
of
juvenile
scup
date
back
to
the
last
century.
Smith
(
1894)
reported
that
they
were
abundant
from
Hyannis,
Massachusetts
to
Barnegat,
New
Jersey
in
1891
and
Moore
(
1894)
indicated
they
were
common
only
as
far
south
as
New
Jersey.
More
recent
reports
indicate
that
during
warmer
months,
juvenile
scup
were
common
from
the
intertidal
zone
to
about
30
m
in
more
saline
(>
15
ppt)
portions
of
bays
and
estuaries
and
along
the
inner
continental
shelf
of
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
from
about
May
to
November
(
Smith
1898;
Breder
1922;
Kendall
1973;
Werme
et
al.
1983;
Bowman
et
al.
1987;
Szedlmayer
and
Able
1996;
Gottschall
et
al.,
in
review).
The
changes
in
seasonal
distribution
are
reflected
in
the
results
of
the
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys
in
which
juveniles
occurred
offshore
in
winter
and
spring,
inshore
in
summer,
and
were
concentrated
in
near­
coastal
waters
through
fall
(
Figure
12).
Young­
of­
the­
year
fish
are
locally
abundant
north
of
Cape
Cod
(
Clayton
et
al.
1978),
especially
in
the
fall
(
Lux
and
Kelly
1982).
However,
this
is
not
reflected
in
the
Massachusetts
trawl
survey
that
indicated
higher
concentrations
south
of
the
Cape
in
spring
and
fall
(
Figure
13).
Juveniles
were
common
in
Narragansett
Bay
(
Figure
14)
and
Long
Island
Sound
(
Figure
16)
in
summer
and
fall.
Zawacki
and
Briggs
(
1976)
routinely
seined
juveniles
on
the
north
shore
of
Page
7
Long
Island
from
July
through
October.
Gottschall
et
al.
(
in
review)
reported
that
YOY
scup
(
approximately
4
cm
FL)
were
first
collected
in
Long
Island
Sound
in
August
and
became
numerically
dominant
in
the
catch
by
September;
1
year
old
juveniles
were
collected
in
April.
However,
other
surveys
of
Long
Island
estuaries
or
surf
zones
did
not
support
these
findings
(
Schaefer
1967;
Briggs
1975b).
The
occurrence
of
juveniles
in
coastal
bays
and
estuaries
south
of
Long
Island
is
temporally
and
spatially
variable.
In
Raritan
Bay,
juveniles
were
abundant
in
spring
and
summer;
a
few
were
collected
in
the
fall
and
were
not
collected
in
winter
(
Figure
17).
While
juveniles
occur
in
the
larger
bays;
e.
g.,
Raritan
and
Delaware
Bays
(
de
Sylva
et
al.
1962;
Werme
et
al.
1983),
they
seldom
occur
in
smaller
coastal
lagoons
such
as
Barnegat
Bay
(
New
Jersey),
tributaries
of
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary,
or
the
ocean
surf
zone
(
Marcellus
1972;
Howells
and
Brundage
III
1977;
Vouglitois
1983;
Wilk
et
al.
1997;
D.
Clark,
personal
communication).
Varying
numbers
have
been
collected
in
New
Jersey
estuaries
south
of
Barnegat
Bay;
i.
e.
within
Hereford
Inlet
(
Allen
et
al.
1978).
Although
formerly
relatively
abundant,
juvenile
scup
have
not
occurred
in
large
numbers
in
vegetated
sites
in
lower
Chesapeake
Bay
(
Orth
and
Heck
1980;
MAFMC
1996).
However,
in
fall
they
are
still
collected
in
relatively
large
numbers
by
the
NEFSC
trawl
surveys
at
the
mouth
of
the
bay
(
Figure
12).
While
juveniles
do
not
occur
to
any
great
extent
in
seaside
bays
of
Maryland
and
Virginia
(
Arve
1960;
Schwartz
1961,
1964),
Richards
and
Castagna
(
1970)
did
find
them
in
their
survey
of
Virginia's
seaside
bays.
The
NEFSC
groundfish
surveys
(
1963­
1997)
mostly
post­
date
the
last
period
of
high
scup
abundance,
approximately
1950­
1965
(
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
1997).
The
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
survey
results
for
1963­
1964
(
not
shown)
indicated
that
juveniles
were
widespread
and
distribution
was
similar
to
the
present.
The
only
apparent
change
in
this
general
coastal
distribution
pattern
was
in
the
late
1960s
(
during
the
period
of
relatively
low
abundance)
when
the
largest
collections
of
juveniles
were
clustered
off
southern
New
England,
Virginia,
and
North
Carolina.
This
distribution
pattern
raised
the
question
of
whether
there
were
two
stocks
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
(
Hamer
1970).

ADULTS
Adults
have
been
reported
as
far
north
as
the
Bay
of
Fundy,
southern
Nova
Scotia,
and
Sable
Island
Bank
(
east
of
Nova
Scotia)
as
summer
visitors
(
Scott
and
Scott
1988)
and
at
least
as
far
south
as
Cape
Hatteras.
As
part
of
a
temperate,
migrant
guild,
scup
have
even
been
collected
occasionally
on
the
southern
Grand
Banks
(
Brown
et
al.
1996).
Scup
occur
primarily
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight.
They
migrate
from
offshore
winter
habitats
into
coastal
waters
from
Chesapeake
Bay
to
southern
New
England
where
they
reside
from
spring
to
fall
(
Bigelow
and
Schroeder
1953;
Richards
1963a;
Scott
and
Scott
1988;
Morse
1978;
Chang
1990).
These
migration
patterns
are
reflected
in
the
results
of
the
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys
(
Figure
12)
and
in
the
Massachusetts
inshore
survey
(
Figure
13).
During
warm
months,
larger
scup
occur
in
or
near
the
mouths
of
larger
bays,
such
as
Narragansett
Bay
(
Figures
14,
15)
and
Long
Island
Sound
(
Figure
16),
and
along
the
coast
within
the
38
m
contour
(
Morse
1978).
Distribution
and
abundance
of
adult
scup
off
New
England
is
temperature
dependent
(
Mayo
1982;
Gabriel
1992).
Smaller
fish
are
found
in
more
saline
(>
15
ppt)
shallow
bays
and
parts
of
estuaries
including
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary
and
Hereford
Inlet
(
New
Jersey)
(
Figures
6,
17;
Allen
et
al.
1978;
Morse
1978;
Werme
et
al.
1983;
Wilk
et
al.
1997).
However,
they
may
not
be
abundant
in
all
bays;
e.
g.,
they
have
not
been
reported
in
Barnegat
Bay
(
Marcellus
1972;
Vouglitois
1983;
Tatham
et
al.
1984),
Maryland
bays
(
MAFMC
1996),
or
in
New
York
Harbor
(
Stoecker
et
al.
1992;
Will
and
Houston
1992).
Adult
scup
usually
arrive
offshore
in
December
and
winter
in
deeper
water
from
Nantucket
Shoals
to
Cape
Hatteras
to
depths
of
about
240
m
(
Figures
5
and
12;
Pearson
1932;
Neville
and
Talbot
1964;
Morse
1978).
Scup
density
and
distribution
during
the
winter
are
related
to
the
location
of
the
7oC
bottom
isotherm,
their
lower
preferred
limit
(
Neville
and
Talbot
1964).
Nesbit
and
Neville
(
1935)
indicated
that
this
band
of
warmer,
outer
continental
shelf
water
is
influenced
mainly
by
the
Gulf
Stream
just
off
the
shelf.
During
warm
winters,
scup
can
be
found
across
most
of
the
continental
shelf
south
of
New
Jersey
(
Nesbit
and
Neville
1935).
As
coastal
waters
warm
above
the
7oC
threshold
in
spring,
scup
return
inshore
and
to
the
north.

STATUS
OF
THE
STOCKS
Commercial
landings
of
scup
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
have
declined
substantially
since
peak
landings
in
the
1950s
and
early
1960s;
although
there
was
a
minor
peak
in
landings
in
the
early
1980s
(
Figure
18;
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
1997).
Recreational
landings
have
also
declined
(
MAFMC
1996).
Groundfish
surveys
by
the
NEFSC
indicated
cycles
in
abundance
of
scup
of
about
3­
4
years
and
an
overall
decline
since
the
1950­
1960s
(
Figure
18;
Gabriel
1998).
Currently,
the
stock
is
composed
primarily
of
fish
<
3
years
old
and
the
age
distribution
is
truncated
(
MAFMC
1996).
The
abundance
of
scup
eggs
off
southern
New
England
has
been
low
recently
(
Gray
1990;
Able
and
Fahay
1998).
According
to
Jeffries
and
Terceiro
(
1985),
slightly
warmer
average
summer
temperatures
(+
1
°
C)
in
coastal
waters
off
southern
New
England
are
related
to
an
Page
8
increase
in
scup
abundance.
The
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
stock
is
currently
considered
overfished
because
the
stock
is
near
record
low
abundance
levels
and
catches
exceed
Fmax
(
Gabriel
1998;
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
1997;
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
1997).

RESEARCH
NEEDS
·
The
taxonomic
status
of
scup
and
"
southern
porgy"
should
be
resolved.
·
The
degree
of
mixing
between
populations
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
and
South
Atlantic
Bights
across
Cape
Hatteras
should
be
determined.
·
Better
characterization
of
spawning
sites
and
egg
and
larval
habitats
is
needed.
·
Offshore
winter
habitats
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
need
to
be
identified
and
described.
·
The
relative
importance
of
larger
estuaries
(
e.
g.,
Chesapeake,
Delaware,
and
Raritan
Bays,
Long
Island
Sound)
compared
to
smaller
estuaries
and
inshore
areas
(
e.
g.,
Barnegat
Bay,
seaside
bays
from
Maryland
to
Virginia)
as
primary
nurseries
should
be
examined.
·
Determine
whether
the
patchy,
inconsistent
occurrence
of
juveniles
results
from
inadequate
monitoring
or
highly
variable
recruitment.
·
The
habitat
factors
that
result
in
the
patchy
distributions
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
in
space
and
time
need
to
be
identified.
·
The
role
of
natural
and
artificial
structured
habitats
in
the
life
history,
productivity,
and
fishery
management
of
scup
should
be
determined.
·
Research
should
be
conducted
on
the
trophic
relationships
of
scup,
including
the
factors
that
control
the
production
and
distribution
of
their
prey
(
Kline
1997).
·
The
effects
of
altering
the
population
age
structure
on
habitat
requirements
should
be
examined.
·
The
effects
of
the
winter
trawl
fishery
in
the
southern
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
on
spawning
stock,
juvenile
survival,
and
habitat
should
be
determined.
·
Information
is
needed
on
the
direct
and
indirect
effects
of
degraded
environments
on
feeding,
growth,
fecundity,
survival,
and
distribution
of
scup;
indirect
effects
should
include
food
web
alterations.
·
The
long­
term,
synergistic
effects
of
combinations
of
environmental
variables
(
e.
g.,
pH
and
toxins)
on
survival,
reproduction,
and
genetic
changes
should
be
investigated
(
Kline
1997).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C.
Steimle,
J.
Berrien,
and
R.
Ramsey­
Cross
provided
publications,
literature
searches,
and
interlibrary
loans
of
material.
Assistance
was
also
provided
by
EFH
team
members
(
S.
Griesbach,
D.
Packer,
D.
Sheehan,
W.
Morse,
D.
McMillan,
R.
Pikanowski,
and
J.
Vitaliano)
and
others
who
supplied
data
for
map
development
and
text.
W.
Gabriel
and
F.
Almeida
led
us
to
unpublished
information
and
commented
on
earlier
drafts
of
this
document.

REFERENCES
CITED
Abbe,
G.
R.
1967.
An
evaluation
of
the
distribution
of
fish
populations
of
the
Delaware
River
estuary.
M.
S.
thesis,
Univ.
of
Delaware,
Lewes,
DE.
64
p.
Able,
K.
W.
and
M.
P.
Fahay.
1998.
The
first
year
in
the
life
of
estuarine
fishes
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight.
Rutgers
Univ.
Press,
New
Brunswick,
NJ.
342
p.
Allen,
D.
M.,
J.
P.
Clymer,
III,
and
S.
S.
Herman.
1978.
Fishes
of
Hereford
Inlet
estuary,
southern
New
Jersey.
Lehigh
Univ.
Dep.
Biol.
&
Cent.
Mar.
Environ.
Stud.
and
the
Wetlands
Institute.
138
p.
Arve,
J.
1960.
Preliminary
report
on
attracting
fish
by
oyster­
shell
plantings
in
Chincoteague
Bay,
Maryland.
Chesapeake
Sci.
1:
58­
65.
Austen,
D.
J.,
P.
B.
Bayley,
and
B.
W.
Menzel.
1994.
Importance
of
the
guild
concept
to
fisheries
research
and
management.
Fisheries
(
Bethesda)
19(
6):
12­
20.
Auster,
P.
J.,
R.
J.
Malatesta,
and
S.
C.
LaRosa.
1995.
Patterns
of
microhabitat
utilization
by
mobile
megafauna
on
the
southern
New
England
(
USA)
continental
shelf
and
slope.
Mar.
Ecol.
Prog.
Ser.
127:
77­
85.
Auster,
P.
J.,
R.
J.
Malatesta,
S.
C.
LaRosa,
R.
A.
Cooper,
and
L.
L.
Stewart.
1991.
Microhabitat
utilization
by
the
megafaunal
assemblage
at
a
low
relief
outer
continental
shelf
site
­
Middle
Atlantic
Bight,
USA.
J.
Northwest
Atl.
Fish.
Sci.
11:
59­
69.
Baird,
S.
F.
1873.
Natural
history
of
some
of
the
more
important
food­
fishes
of
the
south
shore
of
New
England.
In
Report
on
the
condition
of
the
sea
fisheries
of
the
south
coast
of
New
England
in
1871
and
1872.
p.
228­
235.
Rep.
Commissioner
U.
S.
Comm.
Fish.
Fisheries.
Pt.
I.
Beebe,
W.
and
J.
Tee­
Van.
1933.
Field
book
of
the
shore
fishes
of
Bermuda.
G.
P.
Putnam's
Sons,
NY.
337
p.
Berg,
D.
L.
and
J.
S.
Levinton.
1985.
The
biology
of
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary,
with
emphasis
on
fishes.
NOAA
Tech.
Mem.
NOS
OMA
16.
170
p.
Berrien,
P.
and
J.
Sibunka.
1999.
Distribution
patterns
of
fish
eggs
in
the
United
States
northeast
continental
shelf
ecosystem,
1977­
1987.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
145.
310
p.
Bigelow,
H.
B.
and
W.
C.
Schroeder.
1953.
Fishes
of
the
Gulf
of
Maine.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Fish.
Bull.
53.
577
p.
Bowman,
R.
E.,
T.
R.
Azarovitz,
E.
S.
Howard,
and
B.
P.
Hayden.
1987.
Food
and
distribution
of
juveniles
of
Page
9
seventeen
northwest
Atlantic
fish
species,
1973­
1976.
NOAA
Tech.
Mem.
NMFS­
F/
NEC­
45.
57
p.
Bowman,
R.
E.,
R.
O.
Maurer,
Jr.,
and
J.
A.
Murphy.
1976.
Stomach
contents
of
twenty­
nine
species
from
five
regions
in
the
northwest
Atlantic
­­
data
report.
U.
S.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northeast
Fish.
Cent.
Lab.
Ref.
No.
76­
10.
37
p.
Breder,
C.
M.,
Jr.
1922.
The
fishes
of
Sandy
Hook
Bay.
Zoologica
(
NY).
2(
15):
330­
351.
Briggs,
P.
T.
1975a.
An
evaluation
of
artificial
reefs
in
New
York's
marine
waters.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
22:
51­
56.
Briggs,
P.
T.
1975b.
Shore­
zone
fishes
of
the
vicinity
of
Fire
Island
Inlet,
Great
South
Bay,
New
York.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
22:
1­
12.
Briggs,
P.
T.
and
J.
S.
O'Connor.
1971.
Comparison
of
shore­
zone
fishes
over
naturally
vegetated
and
sandfilled
bottoms
in
Great
South
Bay.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
18:
15­
41.
Brown,
S.
K.,
R.
Mahon,
K.
C.
T.
Zwanenburg,
K.
R.
Buja,
L.
W.
Claflin,
R.
N.
O'Boyle,
B.
Atkinson,
M.
Sinclair,
G.
Howell,
and
M.
E.
Monaco.
1996.
East
coast
of
North
America
groundfish:
Initial
explorations
of
biogeography
and
species
assemblages.
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration,
Silver
Spring,
MD
and
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans,
Dartmouth,
Nova
Scotia.
111
p.
Chang,
S.
1990.
Seasonal
distribution
patterns
of
commercial
landings
of
45
species
off
the
northeastern
United
States
during
1977­
88.
NOAA
Tech.
Mem.
NMFS­
F/
NEC­
78.
130
p.
Clayton,
G.,
C.
Cole,
S.
Murawski,
and
J.
Parrish.
1978.
Common
marine
fishes
of
coastal
Massachusetts.
Contrib.
54,
Mass.
Coop.
Fish.
Res.
Prog.
Univ.
Mass.,
Amherst.
231
p.
Colvocoresses,
J.
A.
and
J.
A.
Musick.
1984.
Species
associations
and
community
composition
of
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
continental
shelf
demersal
fishes.
Fish.
Bull.
(
U.
S.)
82:
295­
313.
Cowen,
R.
K.,
J.
A.
Hare,
and
M.
P.
Fahay.
1993.
Beyond
hydrography:
Can
physical
processes
explain
larval
fish
assemblages
within
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight?
Bull.
Mar.
Sci.
53:
567­
587.
Croker,
R.
A.
1965.
Planktonic
fish
eggs
and
larvae
of
Sandy
Hook
estuary.
Chesapeake
Sci.
6:
92­
95.
Derickson,
W.
K.
and
K.
S.
Price,
Jr.
1973.
The
fishes
of
the
shore
zone
of
Rehoboth
and
Indian
River
bays,
Delaware.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
102:
552­
562.
de
Sylva,
D.
P.,
F.
A.
Kalber,
and
C.
N.
Schuster,
Jr.
1962.
Fishes
and
ecological
conditions
in
the
shore
zone
of
the
Delaware
River
estuary,
with
notes
on
other
species
collected
in
deeper
waters.
Univ.
Delaware
Mar.
Lab.
Inform.
Ser.
Publ.
5.
164
p.
Dovel,
W.
1967.
Fish
eggs
and
larvae
of
the
Magothy
River,
Maryland.
Chesapeake
Sci.
8(
2):
125­
129.
Dovel,
W.
L.
1981.
Ichthyoplankton
of
the
lower
Hudson
estuary,
New
York.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
28:
21­
39.
Edwards,
R.
L.,
R.
Livingstone,
Jr.,
and
P.
E.
Hamer.
1962.
Winter
water
temperatures
and
an
annotated
list
of
fishes­
Nantucket
Shoals
to
Cape
Hatteras,
Albatross
III
Cruise
No.
126.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
Spec.
Sci.,
Rep.
Fish.
397.
31
p.
Eklund,
A.­
M.
1988.
Fishes
inhabiting
hard
bottom
reef
areas
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight:
seasonality
of
species
composition,
catch
rates,
and
reproduction.
M.
S.
thesis,
Univ.
of
Delaware,
Newark,
DE.
98
p.
Eklund,
A.­
M.
and
T.
E.
Targett.
1990.
Reproductive
seasonality
of
fishes
inhabiting
hard
bottom
areas
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight.
Copeia
1990(
4):
1180­
1184.
Esser,
S.
C.
1982.
Long­
term
changes
in
some
finfishes
of
the
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary.
In
G.
F.
Mayer
ed.
Ecological
stress
and
the
New
York
Bight:
science
and
management.
p.
299­
314.
Estuarine
Research
Federation,
Columbia,
SC.
Everich,
D.
and
J.
G.
Gonz
<
lez.
1977.
Critical
thermal
maxima
of
two
species
of
estuarine
fish.
Mar.
Biol.
41:
141­
145.
Ferraro,
S.
P.
1980.
Daily
time
of
spawning
of
12
fishes
in
the
Peconic
Bays,
New
York.
Fish.
Bull.
(
U.
S.)
78:
455­
464.
Finkelstein,
S.
L.
1969a.
Age
and
growth
of
scup
in
the
waters
of
eastern
Long
Island.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
16:
84­
110.
Finkelstein,
S.
L.
1969b.
Age
at
maturity
of
scup
from
New
York
waters.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
16:
224­
237.
Finkelstein,
S.
L.
1971.
Migration,
rate
of
exploitation
and
mortality
of
scup
from
the
inshore
waters
of
eastern
Long
Island.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
18:
97­
111.
Fish,
C.
J.
1925.
Seasonal
distribution
of
plankton
of
the
Woods
Hole
region.
Bull.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.
41:
91­
179.
Fritz,
R.
L.
1965.
Autumn
distribution
of
groundfish
species
in
the
Gulf
of
Maine
and
adjacent
waters,
1955­
1961.
Serial
Atlas
of
the
Marine
Environment,
Folio
10.
American
Geographical
Society,
NY.
48
p.
Gabriel,
W.
L.
1992.
Persistence
of
demersal
fish
assemblages
between
Cape
Hatteras
and
Nova
Scotia,
northwest
Atlantic.
J.
Northwest
Atl.
Fish.
Sci.
14:
29­
46.
Gabriel,
W.
1998.
Scup.
In
S.
H.
Clark
ed.
Status
of
the
fishery
resources
off
the
northeastern
United
States
for
1998.
p.
90­
91.
NOAA
Tech.
Mem.
NMFS­
NE­
115.
Goode,
G.
B.
1884.
Natural
history
of
useful
aquatic
animals.
In:
The
fisheries
and
fishery
industries
of
the
United
States.
p.
386­
393.
Rep.
U.
S.
Comm.
Fish
Fisheries,
Section
I.
Gottschall,
K.,
M.
W.
Johnson,
and
D.
G.
Simpson.
In
review.
The
distribution
and
size
composition
of
finfish,
American
lobster
and
long­
finned
squid
in
Long
Island
Sound,
based
on
the
Connecticut
Fisheries
Division
bottom
trawl
survey,
1984­
1994.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
Gray,
C.
L.
1990.
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops):
species
Page
10
profile.
Rhode
Island
Dep.
Environ.
Manag.,
Div.
Fish.
Wildl.,
Mar.
Fish.
Sect.
38
p.
Greeley,
J.
R.
1939.
Fishes
and
habitat
conditions
of
the
shore
zone
based
upon
July
and
August
seining
investigations.
In
A
biological
survey
of
the
salt
waters
of
Long
Island,
1938.
28th.
Ann.
Rep.
New
York
State
Cons.
Dep.
Suppl.,
Pt.
II:
72­
91.
Griswold,
C.
A.
and
T.
W.
McKenney.
1984.
Larval
development
of
the
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops
(
Pisces:
Sparidae).
Fish.
Bull.
(
U.
S.)
82:
77­
84.
Hamer,
P.
E.
1970.
Studies
of
the
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops,
in
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight.
New
Jersey
Div.
Fish.
Game
and
Shellfish.
Bureau
Fish.
Misc.
Rep.
5M.
Trenton,
NJ.
14
p.
Herman,
S.
S.
1963.
Planktonic
fish
eggs
and
larvae
of
Narragansett
Bay.
Limnol.
Oceanogr.
8:
103­
109.
Hildebrand,
S.
F.
and
W.
C.
Schroeder.
1928.
Fishes
of
Chesapeake
Bay.
Bull.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.
43(
l).
366
p.
Himchak,
P.
J.
1982.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
larval
and
young
finfishes
in
the
Maurice
River
and
in
waterways
near
Atlantic
City,
New
Jersey.
M.
S.
thesis,
Rutgers
Univ.,
New
Brunswick,
NJ.
78
p.
Howells,
R.
G.
and
H.
M.
Brundage,
III.
1977.
Fishes
of
Arthur
Kill.
Proc.
Staten
Island
Instit.
Arts
Sci.
29(
1):
3­
6.
Jeffries,
H.
P.
and
M.
Terceiro.
1985.
Cycle
of
changing
abundances
in
the
fishes
of
the
Narragansett
Bay
area.
Mar.
Ecol.
Prog.
Ser.
25:
239­
244.
Jensen,
A.
C.
and
R.
L.
Fritz.
1960.
Observations
on
the
stomach
contents
of
silver
hake.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
89:
239­
240.
Johnson,
G.
D.
1978.
Development
of
fishes
of
the
Mid­
Atlantic
Bight:
An
atlas
of
egg,
larval,
and
juvenile
stages.
Vol.
4:
Carangidae
through
Ephippidae.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Biol.
Serv.
Prog.
FWS/
OBS­
78/
12.
314
p.
Kendall,
A.
W.
1973.
Scup.
In
A.
L.
Pacheco
ed.
Proceedings
of
a
workshop
on
egg,
larval
and
juvenile
stages
of
fish
in
Atlantic
coast
estuaries.
p.
258.
U.
S.
Dep.
Commer.
NOAA,
NMFS
Mid­
Atl.
Coastal
Fish.
Cent.
Tech.
Publ.
No.
1.
Kessler,
M.
1966.
An
observation
on
dormant
scup
(
porgy).
Underwater
Nat.
4(
1):
33.
Kline,
L.
L.
1997.
Prioritized
research
needs
in
support
of
interjurisdictional
fisheries
management.
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission,
Special
Report
No.
62.
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission,
Washington,
DC.
189
p.
Kuntz,
A.
and
L.
Radcliffe.
1918.
Notes
on
the
embryology
and
larval
development
of
twelve
teleostean
fishes.
Bull.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.
35:
87­
134.
Langton,
R.
W.
1982.
Diet
overlap
between
Atlantic
cod,
Gadus
morhua,
silver
hake,
Merluccius
bilinearis,
and
fifteen
other
northwest
Atlantic
finfish.
Fish.
Bull.
(
U.
S.)
80:
745­
760.
Laurence,
G.
C.
1979.
Larval
length­
weight
relations
for
seven
species
of
northwest
Atlantic
fishes
reared
in
the
laboratory.
Fish.
Bull.
(
U.
S.)
76:
890­
895.
Lebida,
R.
C.
1969.
The
seasonal
abundance
and
distribution
of
eggs,
larvae
and
juvenile
fishes
in
the
Weweantic
River
estuary,
Massachusetts,
1966.
M.
S.
thesis,
Univ.
of
Massachusetts,
Amherst,
MA.
59
p.
Lux,
F.
E.
and
G.
F.
Kelly.
1982.
Abundance
and
size
composition
of
fish
and
invertebrates
from
coastal
otter
trawl
surveys
in
Cape
Cod
and
Massachusetts
bays
in
1975­
77.
U.
S.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northeast
Fish.
Cent.,
Woods
Hole
Lab.
Ref.
Doc.
No.
82­
21.
14
p.
Lux,
F.
E.
and
F.
E.
Nichy.
1971.
Numbers
and
lengths,
by
season,
of
fishes
caught
with
an
otter
trawl
near
Woods
Hole,
Massachusetts,
September
1961
to
December
1962.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
Fish.
622.
15
p.
[
MAFMC]
Mid­
Atlantic
Fishery
Management
Council.
1996.
Amendment
8
to
the
summer
flounder
Fishery
Management
Plan:
Fishery
Management
Plan
and
final
environmental
impact
statement
for
the
scup
fishery.
January
1996.
MAFMC.
[
Dover,
DE.]
162
p.
+
appendices.
Magnuson,
J.
J.,
D.
J.
Stewart,
and
G.
N.
Herbst.
1981.
Responses
of
macrofauna
to
short­
term
dynamics
of
a
Gulf
Stream
front
on
the
continental
shelf.
In
F.
A.
Richards
ed.
Coastal
upwelling.
p.
441­
448.
Coastal
and
Estuarine
Sciences
Vol.
1.
American
Geophysical
Union,
Washington,
DC.
Mahoney,
J.
B.,
F.
H.
Midlige,
and
D.
G.
Deuel.
1975.
A
fin
rot
disease
of
marine
and
euryhaline
fishes
in
the
New
York
Bight.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
102:
595­
605.
Manooch,
C.
S.,
III.
1984.
Fisherman's
guide:
fishes
of
the
southeastern
United
States.
North
Carolina
State
Mus.
Nat.
Hist.,
Raleigh,
NC.
362
p.
Marcellus,
K.
L.
1972.
Fishes
of
Barnegat
Bay,
New
Jersey,
with
particular
reference
to
seasonal
influences
and
the
possible
effects
of
thermal
discharges.
Ph.
D
dissertation,
Rutgers
Univ.,
New
Brunswick,
NJ.
190
p.
Massman,
W.
H.,
J.
J.
Norcross,
and
E.
B.
Joseph.
1961.
Fishes
and
fish
larvae
collected
from
Atlantic
plankton
cruises
of
R/
V
Pathfinder
December
1959
­
December
1960.
VIMS
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
No.
26.
21
p.
Maurer,
R.
O.,
Jr.
and
R.
E.
Bowman.
1975.
Food
habits
of
marine
fishes
of
the
northwest
Atlantic
­­
data
report.
U.
S.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northeast
Fish.
Cent.
Ref.
Doc.
No.
75­
3.
90
p.
Mayo,
R.
K.
1982.
An
assessment
of
the
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops
(
L.),
population
in
the
southern
New
England
and
Middle
Atlantic
regions.
U.
S.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northeast
Fish.
Cent.
Woods
Hole
Lab.
Ref.
Doc.
No.
82­
46.
61
p.
Merriman,
D.
and
R.
C.
Sclar.
1952.
The
pelagic
fish
eggs
and
larvae
of
Block
Island
Sound.
In
G.
A.
Riley
et
al.
eds.
Hydrographic
and
biological
studies
of
Block
Island
Sound.
p.
165­
219.
Bull.
Bingham
Oceanogr.
Page
11
Collect.
13(
3).
Michelman,
M.
S.
1988.
The
biology
of
juvenile
scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops
(
L.))
in
Narragansett
Bay,
RI:
food
habits,
metabolic
rate
and
growth
rate.
M.
S.
thesis,
Univ.
of
Rhode
Island,
Kingston,
RI.
106
p.
Miller,
G.
C.
and
W.
J.
Richards.
1980.
Reef
fish
habitat,
faunal
assemblages,
and
factors
determining
distributions
in
the
South
Atlantic
Bight.
Proc.
Gulf
Caribb.
Fish.
Inst.
32:
114­
130.
Monteleone,
D.
M.
1992.
Seasonality
and
abundance
of
ichthyoplankton
in
Great
South
Bay,
New
York.
Estuaries
15:
230­
238.
Moore,
H.
F.
1894.
List
of
fishes
collected
at
Sea
Isle
City,
New
Jersey,
during
the
summer
of
1892.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
12:
357­
364.
Morse,
W.
W.
1978.
Biological
and
fisheries
data
on
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops
(
Linnaeus).
U.
S.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.
Northeast
Fish.
Cent.
Sandy
Hook
Lab.
Tech.
Rep.
No.
12.
41
p.
Morse,
W.
1982.
Scup.
Stenotomus
chrysops.
In
M.
D.
Grosslein
and
T.
R.
Azarovitz
eds.
Fish
distribution.
p.
89­
91.
MESA
New
York
Bight
Atlas
Monograph
15,
N.
Y.
Sea
Grant
Institute,
Albany,
NY.
Musick,
J.
A.
and
L.
P.
Mercer.
1977.
Seasonal
distribution
of
black
sea
bass,
Centropristis
striata,
in
the
Mid­
Atlantic
Bight
with
comments
on
the
ecology
and
fisheries
of
the
species.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
106:
12­
25.
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
1997.
Report
to
Congress.
Status
of
fisheries
of
the
United
States:
Report
on
the
status
of
fisheries
of
the
United
States.
September
1997.
[
Homepage
of
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service].
[
Online].
Available:
http://
www.
nmfs.
gov/
sfa/
Fstatus.
html.
Nesbit,
R.
A.
and
W.
C.
Neville.
1935.
Conditions
affecting
the
southern
winter
trawl
fishery.
U.
S.
Dep.
Commer.
Bur.
Fish.,
Fish.
Circ.
No.
18.
12
p.
Neville,
W.
C.
and
G.
B.
Talbot.
1964.
The
fishery
for
scup
with
special
reference
to
fluctuations
in
yield
and
their
causes.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
Fish.
No.
459.
61
p.
Nichols,
J.
T.
and
C.
M.
Breder,
Jr.
1927.
The
marine
fishes
of
New
York
and
southern
New
England.
Zoologica
(
NY)
9:
1­
192.
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center.
1997.
Report
of
the
25th
Northeast
Regional
Stock
Assessment
Workshop
(
25th
SAW):
Stock
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
SARC)
concensus
summary
of
assessments.
Northeast
Fish.
Sci.
Cent.
Ref.
Doc.
97­
14.
143
p.
O'Brien,
L.,
J.
Burnett,
and
R.
K.
Mayo.
1993.
Maturation
of
nineteen
species
of
finfish
off
the
northeast
coast
of
the
United
States,
1985­
1990.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
113.
66
p.
Olney,
J.
E.
1983.
Eggs
and
early
larvae
of
the
bay
anchovy,
Anchoa
mitchilli,
and
the
weakfish,
Cynoscion
regalis,
in
lower
Chesapeake
Bay
with
notes
on
associated
ichthyoplankton.
Estuaries
6:
20­
35.
Orth,
R.
J.
and
K.
L.
Heck,
Jr.
1980.
Structural
components
of
eelgrass
(
Zostera
marina)
meadows
in
the
lower
Chesapeake
Bay
­
fishes.
Estuaries
3:
278­
288.
Oviatt,
C.
A.
and
S.
W.
Nixon.
1973.
The
demersal
fish
of
Narragansett
Bay:
an
analysis
of
community
structure,
distribution
and
abundance.
Estuarine
Coastal
Mar.
Sci.
1:
361­
378.
Pacheco,
A.
L
and
G.
C.
Grant.
1973.
Immature
fishes
associated
with
larval
Atlantic
menhaden
at
Indian
River
Inlet,
Delaware,
1958­
61.
In
A.
L.
Pacheco
ed.
Proceedings
of
a
workshop
on
egg,
larval,
and
juvenile
stages
of
fish
in
Atlantic
coast
estuaries.
p.
78­
117.
U.
S.
Dep.
Commer.
NOAA,
NMFS
Mid­
Atl.
Coastal
Fish.
Cent.
Tech.
Publ.
No.
1.
Pearcy,
W.
G.
and
S.
W.
Richards.
1962.
Distribution
and
ecology
of
fishes
of
the
Mystic
River
estuary,
Connecticut.
Ecology
43:
248­
259.
Pearson,
J.
C.
1932.
Winter
trawl
fishery
off
Virginia
and
North
Carolina
coasts.
U.
S.
Dep.
Commer.,
Bur.
Fish.
Investig.
Rep.
1(
10):
31
p.
Penttila,
J.
A,
G.
A.
Nelson,
and
J.
M.
Burnett,
III.
1989.
Guidelines
for
estimating
lengths
at
age
for
18
northwest
Atlantic
finfish
and
shellfish
species.
NOAA
Tech.
Mem.
NMFS­
F/
NEC­
66.
39
p.
Perlmutter,
A.
1939.
A
biological
survey
of
the
salt
waters
of
Long
Island,
1938.
An
ecological
survey
of
young
fish
and
eggs
identified
form
tow­
net
collections.
28th.
Ann.
Rep.
New
York
State
Cons.
Dep.,
Suppl.,
Pt
II:
11­
71
Phoel,
W.
C.
1985.
Community
structure
of
demersal
fishes
on
the
inshore
U.
S.
Atlantic
continental
shelf:
Cape
Ann,
MA
to
Cape
Fear,
N.
C.
Ph.
D.
dissertation,
Coll.
William
&
Mary,
Williamsburg,
VA.
94
p.
Pierce,
D.
E.
1981.
Scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops
(
Linnaeus),
of
southeastern
Massachusetts
waters
­
growth
and
yield,
fisheries,
and
management.
M.
S.
thesis,
Southeastern
Massachusetts
Univ.,
North
Dartmouth,
MA.
173
p.
Powles,
H.
and
C.
A.
Barans.
1980.
Groundfish
monitoring
in
sponge­
coral
areas
off
the
southeastern
United
States.
Mar.
Fish.
Rev.
42(
5):
21­
35.
Reid,
R.,
F.
Almeida,
and
C.
Zetlin.
1999.
Essential
fish
habitat
source
document:
Fishery
independent
surveys,
data
sources,
and
methods.
NOAA
Tech.
Mem.
NMFS­
NE­
122.
39
p.
Reid,
R.
N.,
A.
B.
Frame,
and
A.
F.
Draxler.
1979.
Environmental
baselines
in
Long
Island
Sound,
1972­
73.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
SSRF­
738.
31
p.
Richards,
C.
E.
and
M.
Castagna
1970.
Marine
fishes
of
Virginia's
eastern
shore
(
inlet
and
marsh,
seaside
waters).
Chesapeake
Sci.
11:
235­
248.
Richards,
S.
W.
1959.
Pelagic
fish
eggs
and
larvae
of
Long
Island
Sound.
In
G.
A.
Riley
et
al.
eds.
Oceanography
of
Long
Island
Sound.
p.
95­
124.
Bull.
Bingham
Oceanogr.
Collect.
17.
Richards,
S.
W.
1963a.
The
demersal
fish
population
of
Page
12
Long
Island
Sound
I.
Species
composition
and
relative
abundance
in
two
localities,
1956­
57.
Bull.
Bingham
Oceanogr.
Collect.
18(
2):
5­
31.
Richards,
S.
W.
1963b.
The
demersal
fish
population
of
Long
Island
Sound
II.
Food
of
the
juveniles
from
a
sand­
shell
locality
(
Station
1).
Bull.
Bingham
Oceanogr.
Collect.
18(
2):
32­
72.
Robins,
C.
R.,
R.
M.
Bailey,
C.
E.
Bond,
J.
R.
Brooker,
E.
A.
Lachner,
R.
N.
Lea,
and
W.
B.
Scott.
1991.
Common
and
scientific
names
of
fishes
from
the
United
States
and
Canada.
5th
ed.
American
Fisheries
Society
Special
Publication
20.
American
Fisheries
Society,
Bethesda,
MD.
183
p.
Schaefer,
R.
H.
1967.
Species
composition,
size
and
seasonal
abundance
of
fish
in
the
surf
waters
of
Long
Island
Sound.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
14:
1­
46.
Schaefer,
R.
H.
1970.
Feeding
habits
of
striped
bass
from
the
surf
waters
of
Long
Island.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
17:
1­
17.
Scherer,
M.
D.
1984.
The
ichthyoplankton
of
Cape
Cod
Bay.
In
J.
D.
Davis
and
D.
Merriman
eds.
Observations
of
the
ecology
and
biology
of
western
Cape
Cod
Bay,
Massachusetts.
p.
151­
190.
Lecture
Notes
on
Coastal
and
Estuarine
Studies
11.
Springer­
Verlag,
New
York,
NY.
Schwartz,
F.
J.
1961.
Fishes
of
Chincoteague
and
Sinepuxent
bays.
Am.
Midl.
Nat.
65:
384­
408.
Schwartz,
F.
J.
1964.
Fishes
of
Isle
of
Wight
and
Assawoman
bays
near
Ocean
City,
Maryland.
Chesapeake
Sci.
5:
172­
193.
Scott,
W.
G.
and
M.
G.
Scott.
1988.
Atlantic
fishes
of
Canada.
Can.
Bull.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
219.
731
p.
Scotton,
L.
N.
1970.
Occurrence
and
distribution
of
larval
fishes
in
the
Rehoboth
and
Indian
River
bays
of
Delaware.
M.
S.
thesis,
Univ.
of
Delaware,
Lewes,
DE.
66
p.
Sedberry,
G.
R.
1983.
Food
habits
and
trophic
relationships
of
a
community
of
fishes
on
the
outer
continental
shelf.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
SSRF­
773.
56
p.
Sedberry,
G.
R.
and
R.
F.
Van
Dolah.
1984.
Demersal
fish
assemblages
associated
with
hard
bottom
habitat
in
the
South
Atlantic
Bight
of
the
U.
S.
A.
Environ.
Biol.
Fish.
11:
241­
258.
Shepherd,
G.
R.
and
M.
Terceiro.
1994.
The
summer
flounder,
scup,
and
black
sea
bass
fishery
of
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
and
southern
New
England
waters.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
122.
13
p.
Sherwood,
G.
H.
and
V.
N.
Edwards.
1902.
Notes
on
the
migration,
spawning,
abundance,
etc.
of
certain
fishes
in
1900.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
21:
27­
31.
Sisson,
R.
T.
1974.
The
growth
and
movements
of
scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)
in
Narragansett
Bay,
Rhode
Island
and
along
the
Atlantic
coast.
Rhode
Island
Dep.
Nat.
Resources,
Completion
Rept.
Project
No.
3­
138­
R.
34
p.
Smith,
H.
M.
1894.
Economic
and
natural
history
notes
on
fishes
of
the
northern
coast
of
New
Jersey.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
12:
365­
380.
Smith,
H.
M.
1898.
The
fishes
found
in
the
vicinity
of
Woods
Hole.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
17:
85­
111.
Smith,
W.
G.
and
J.
J.
Norcross.
1968.
The
status
of
the
scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)
in
winter
trawl
fishery.
Chesapeake
Sci.
9:
207­
216.
Sogard,
S.
M.
1989.
Colonization
of
artificial
seagrass
by
fishes
and
decapod
crustaceans:
importance
of
proximity
to
natural
eelgrass.
J.
Exp.
Mar.
Biol.
Ecol.
133:
15­
37.
Sogard,
S.
M.
and
K.
W.
Able.
1991.
A
comparison
of
eelgrass,
sea
lettuce
macroalgae,
and
marsh
creeks
as
habitat
for
epibenthic
fishes
and
decapods.
Estuar.
Coast.
Shelf
Sci.
33:
501­
519.
Steimle,
F.
W.
1990.
Benthic
macrofauna
and
habitat
monitoring
on
the
continental
shelf
of
the
northeastern
United
States
I.
Biomass.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
86.
28
p.
Steimle,
F.
W.,
Jr.
and
R.
J.
Terranova.
1985.
Energy
equivalents
of
marine
organisms
from
the
continental
shelf
of
the
temperate
northwest
Atlantic.
J.
Northwest
Atl.
Fish.
Sci.
6:
117­
124.
Steimle,
F.
W.,
R.
Pikanowski,
D.
McMillan,
S.
Wilk,
and
E.
MacHaffie.
In
review.
Demersal
fish
and
American
lobster
diets
and
the
forage
base
of
Hudson­
Raritan
Bay,
1996­
97,
and
compared
to
diets
in
other
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
coastal
areas.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
Steimle,
F.
W.,
V.
S.
Zdanowicz,
S.
L.
Cunneff,
and
R.
Terranova.
1994.
Trace
metal
concentrations
in
common
benthic
macrofaunal
prey
from
the
New
York
Bight
apex.
Mar.
Poll.
Bull.
28:
760­
765.
Stoecker,
R.
R.,
J.
Collura,
and
P.
J.
Fallon,
Jr.
1992.
Aquatic
studies
at
the
Hudson
River
Center
site.
In
C.
L.
Smith
ed.
Estuarine
research
in
the
1980s:
Hudson
River
Environmental
Society,
Seventh
Symposium
on
Hudson
River
Ecology.
p.
407­
427.
State
of
New
York
Press,
Albany,
NY.
Stone,
S.
L.,
T.
A.
Lowery,
J.
D.
Field,
C.
D.
Williams,
D.
M.
Nelson,
S.
H.
Jury,
M.
E.
Monaco,
and
L.
Andreasen.
1994.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
fishes
and
invertebrates
in
Mid­
Atlantic
estuaries.
ELMR
Rep.
No.
12.
NOAA/
NOS
Strategic
Environmental
Assessments
Division,
Silver
Spring,
MD.
280
p.
Szedlmayer,
S.
T.
and
K.
W.
Able.
1996.
Patterns
of
seasonal
availability
and
habitat
use
by
fishes
and
decapod
crustaceans
in
a
southern
New
Jersey
estuary.
Estuaries
19:
697­
709.
Tatham,
T.
R.,
D.
L.
Thomas,
and
D.
J.
Danila.
1984.
Fishes
of
Barnegat
Bay,
New
Jersey.
In
M.
J.
Kennish
and
R.
A.
Lutz
eds.
Ecology
of
Barnegat
Bay,
New
Jersey.
p.
241­
280.
Lecture
Notes
on
Coastal
and
Estuarine
Studies.
No.
6.
Springer­
Verlag,
NY.
Thomson,
K.
S.,
W.
H.
Weed,
III,
A.
G.
Taruski,
and
D.
E.
Simanek.
1978.
Saltwater
fishes
of
Connecticut.
State
Page
13
Geol.
Nat.
Hist.
Surv.
Conn.
Bull.
105:
1­
186.
Vouglitois,
J.
J.
1983.
The
ichthyofauna
of
Barnegat
Bay,
New
Jersey
­
relationships
between
long­
term
temperature
fluctuations
and
the
population
dynamics
and
life
history
of
temperate
estuarine
fishes
during
a
five
year
period,
1976­
1980.
M.
S.
thesis,
Rutgers
Univ.,
New
Brunswick,
NJ.
304
p.
Warfel,
H.
E.
and
D.
Merriman.
1944.
Studies
on
the
marine
resources
of
southern
New
England.
I.
An
analysis
of
the
fish
population
of
the
shore
zone.
Bull.
Bingham
Oceanogr.
Collect.
9(
2):
1­
91.
Waters,
J.
H.
1967.
Fish
remains
from
southern
New
England
archeological
sites.
Copeia
1967(
1):
244­
245.
Weinstein,
M.
P.
and
H.
A.
Brooks.
1983.
Comparative
ecology
of
nekton
residing
in
a
tidal
creek
and
adjacent
seagrass
meadow:
community
composition
and
structure.
Mar.
Ecol.
Prog.
Ser.
12:
15­
27.
Werme,
C.
E.,
R.
E.
Hillman,
A.
Levandowski,
J.
A.
Scanlon,
and
D.
L.
McGrath.
1983.
Temporal
and
spatial
distributions
of
life
history
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
in
northeast
estuaries.
Final
report
to
NOAA/
NOS
Ocean
Assessments
Division,
Battelle
New
England
Marine
Research
Laboratory,
Duxbury,
MA.
559
p.
Wheatland,
S.
B.
1956.
Pelagic
fish
eggs
and
larvae.
In
G.
A.
Riley
et
al.
eds.
Oceanography
of
Long
Island
Sound,
1952­
1954.
p.
234­
314.
Bull.
Bingham
Oceanogr.
Collect.
15.
Wigley,
R.
L.
and
R.
B.
Theroux.
1981.
Macroinvertebrate
fauna
of
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight
region
­
faunal
composition
and
quantitative
distribution.
U.
S.
Dep
Inter.,
Geol.
Surv.
Prof.
Pap.
529­
N,
Woods
Hole
Oceangr.
Inst.,
Woods
Hole,
MA.
198
p.
Wilk,
S.
J.,
D.
G.
McMillan,
R.
A.
Pikanowski,
E.
M.
MacHaffie,
A.
L.
Pacheco,
and
L.
L.
Stehlik.
1997.
Fish,
megainvertebrates,
and
associated
hydrographic
observations
collected
in
Newark
Bay,
New
Jersey,
during
May
1993­
April
1994.
U.
S.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.
Northeast
Fish.
Sci.
Cent.
Ref.
Doc.
97­
10.
91
p.
Wilk,
S.
J.,
W.
W.
Morse,
and
D.
E.
Ralph.
1978.
Lengthweight
relationships
of
fishes
collected
in
the
New
York
Bight.
Bull.
NJ
Acad.
Sci.
23(
2):
58­
64.
Will,
R.
and
L.
J.
Houston.
1992.
Fish
distribution
studies
in
Newark
Bay,
New
Jersey,
May
1987­
April
1988.
In
C.
L.
Smith
ed.
Estuarine
research
in
the
1980s:
Hudson
River
Environmental
Society,
Seventh
Symposium
on
Hudson
River
Ecology.
p.
428­
445.
State
of
New
York
Press,
Albany,
NY.
Zawacki,
C.
S.
and
P.
T.
Briggs.
1976.
Fish
investigations
in
Long
Island
Sound
at
a
nuclear
power
station
site
at
Shoreham,
New
York.
N.
Y.
Fish
Game
J.
23:
34­
50.
Page
14
Table
1.
Summary
of
life
history
and
habitat
characteristics
for
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops.
MAB
=
Middle
Atlantic
Bight,
SNE
=
southern
New
England,
GOM
=
Gulf
of
Maine.

Life
Stage
Time
of
Year
Size
and
Growth
Geographic
Location
Habitat
Substrate
Temperature
Eggs
May­
Aug,
south
to
north
progression
0.8­
1.0
mm
Coastal
Virginia
­
SNE,
southern
GOM
Water
column,
<
30
m
in
depth
Buoyant
in
water
column
11­
23
°
C;
most
common
12­
14
°
C
Larvae
May­
Sept,
south
to
north
Hatch
at
~
2.0
mm;
stage
lasts
to
~
15­
30
mm
MAB
and
southern
GOM,
near
shore;
mostly
SNE
Water
column,
<
20
m
until
juvenile
transition
In
water
column
until
transition
14­
22
°
C;
peak
densities
at
15­
20
°
C
YOY
and
older
juveniles
May­
Nov,
south
to
north
YOY:
15­
30
mm
to
10
cm
by
Nov;
juveniles:
to
16
cm
by
end
of
1+
yr
MAB­
GOM;
in
estuaries
spring
to
fall
Estuarine
and
coastal;
from
intertidal
to
about
38
m
Sand,
mud,
mussel,
and
eel
grass
beds
Greater
than
~
9­
27
°
C;
mostly
16­
22
°
C
Winter
juveniles
Nov­
Apr/
May
~
10­
13
cm;
growth
rate
reduced
Most
move
offshore
and
south
of
New
Jersey
to
warmer,
deeper
waters;
some
overwinter
in
Long
Island
Sound
Mostly
>
38
m
depth;
mid
and
outer
continental
shelf;
sometime
in
deep
estuaries
Poorly
known,
found
over
various
sand
substrates
Greater
than
~
7
°
C
Summer
adults
Apr­
Dec
>
15.5
cm
FL
Coastal
from
Delaware
to
GOM
~
2­
38
m
Fine
to
siltysand
mud,
mussel
beds,
rock,
artificial
reefs,
wrecks,
and
other
structures
~
7­
25
°
C;
can
acclimate
to
35.6
°
C
Winter
adults
Jan­
Mar
>
15.5
cm
FL
Most
move
offshore
and
south
of
New
Jersey
to
warmer,
deeper
waters.
Mostly
38­
185
m
depths;
mid/
outer
continental
shelf.
Poorly
known,
found
over
various
sands.
>
7
°
C
Spawning
adults
May­
Aug,
peak
in
June
>
15.5
cm
FL;
mature
at
about
age
2
Inshore
from
Delaware
Bay
north
to
SNE;
mostly
in
SNE
<
30
m,
during
inshore
migration
Weedy
to
sandy
>
9­
24
°
C
Page
15
Table
1.
cont'd.

Life
Stage
Salinity
Prey
Predators
Notes
Eggs
>
15
ppt
Most
planktivores
where
the
eggs
are
found.
Eggs
hatch
in
70­
75
hrs
at
18
°
C,
and
in
40­
54
hrs
at
21
°
C
Larvae
>
15
ppt
Can
use
yolk
for
~
3
days;
at
~
2.8
mm
feeding
on
zooplankton
must
begin
Most
planktivores
where
the
larvae
are
found.
Benthic
settlement
and
juvenile
transition
occurs
at
~
15­
30
mm
FL
YOY
and
older
juveniles
>
15
ppt
Small
benthic
invertebrates,
fish
eggs
and
larvae
Bluefish,
cod,
hake,
summer
flounder,
weakfish,
striped
bass,
and
others
Diurnal
schooling
feeders.
Most
migrate
to
deeper/
warmer
waters
to
the
south
in
winter
Winter
juveniles
Mostly
>
30
ppt,
except
in
estuaries
Poorly
known;
possibly
small
benthic
invertebrates,
but
feeding
may
be
reduced
Cod
during
SNE
migration
Migrate
offshore
as
temperatures
fall
below
8­
9
°
C
and
inshore
and
north
as
water
warms
to
>
7
°
C;
early
arrivals
can
be
affected
by
late
cold
spell
Summer
adults
>
15
ppt
Benthic
and
near
bottom
invertebrates,
and
small
fish
Sharks,
stingrays,
dogfish,
bluefish,
silver
hake,
black
sea
bass,
and
others
Usually
found
in
schools
of
similarly
sized
individuals.
Possibly
tolerant
or
avoid
hypoxic
conditions
Winter
adults
>
30
ppt
Poorly
known,
but
feeding
may
be
reduced
Sharks,
stingrays,
dogfish,
bluefish,
silver
hake,
black
sea
bass,
and
others
7
°
C
isotherm
greatly
influences
distribution
Spawning
adults
>
15
ppt
Poorly
known,
but
feeding
may
be
reduced
Sharks,
stingrays,
dogfish,
bluefish,
silver
hake,
black
sea
bass,
and
others
Spawning
is
often
in
AM;
fish
may
avoid
hypoxic
areas
Page
16
Figure
1.
The
scup,
Stenotomus
chrysops
(
from
Goode
1884).
Page
17
Figure
2.
Abundance
of
the
major
items
in
the
diet
of
juvenile
(
1­
10
cm)
and
adult
(
11­
40
cm)
scup
collected
during
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys
from
1973­
1980
and
1981­
1990.
Abundance
in
the
1973­
1980
samples
is
defined
by
mean
percent
prey
weights,
and
in
the
1981­
1990
samples
as
mean
percent
prey
volume.
The
"
Arthropoda"
are
almost
entirely
crustacea;
see
text
for
discussion
of
specific
taxa
involved.
The
category
"
animal
remains"
refers
to
unidentifiable
animal
matter.
Methods
for
sampling,
processing,
and
analysis
of
samples
differed
between
the
time
periods
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
Arthropoda
54.9%

Unknown
Animal
Remains
18.3%
Annelida
11.1%
Echinodermata
5.5%
Miscellaneous
Materials
5.1%
All
Other
Prey
5.0%
Echinodermata
52.4%

Arthropoda
20.2%
Mollusca
13.1%
Unknown
Animal
Remains
5.6%
Annelida
4.1%
All
Other
Prey
4.6%

Annelida
17.0%

Arthropoda
31.1%

Unknown
Animal
Remains
51.9%
Annelida
61.6%

Arthropoda
17.8%
Unknown
Animal
Remains
10.8%
All
Other
Prey
9.8%
1­
10
cm
(
n=
239)
11­
40
cm
(
n=
795)
a)
1973­
1980
1­
10
cm
(
n=
50)
11­
40
cm
(
n=
330)
b)
1981­
1990
Page
18
Figure
3.
Abundance
of
scup
eggs
relative
to
water
column
temperature
(
to
a
maximum
of
200
m)
and
bottom
depth
from
NEFSC
MARMAP
ichthyoplankton
surveys
(
May
to
August
1978­
1987,
all
years
combined).
Open
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
all
stations
surveyed,
while
solid
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
the
sum
of
all
standardized
catches
(
number/
10
m2).
Eggs
vs.
Temperature
Mean
Water­
Column
Temperature
(
0­
200m,
C)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
0
10
20
50
60
Stations
Catch
Eggs
vs.
Depth
Depth
Interval
(
m),
Midpoint
10
30
50
70
90110130150
170190
210230250
270290
325375450
750
12501750>
2000
Percent
0
10
20
90
100
Scup
Eggs,
May
to
August
Page
19
Figure
4.
Abundance
of
scup
larvae
relative
to
water
column
temperature
(
to
a
maximum
of
200
m)
and
bottom
depth
from
NEFSC
MARMAP
ichthyoplankton
surveys
(
July
and
August
1977­
1987,
all
years
combined).
Open
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
all
stations
surveyed,
while
solid
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
the
sum
of
all
standardized
catches
(
number/
10
m2).
Larvae
vs.
Temperature
Mean
Water­
Column
Temperature
(
0­
200m,
C)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
0
10
20
90
100
Stations
Catch
Larvae
vs.
Depth
Depth
Interval
(
m),
Midpoint
10
30
50
70
90110130150170190210230250
27029032537545075012501750>
2000
Percent
0
10
20
30
90
100
Scup
Larvae,
July
&
August
Page
20
Figure
5.
Seasonal
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
relative
to
bottom
water
temperature
and
depth
based
on
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys
(
1963­
1997,
all
years
combined).
Open
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
all
stations
surveyed,
while
solid
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
the
sum
of
all
standardized
catches
(
number/
10
m2).
SPRING
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
643
CATCHES
N=
106979
SUMMER
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
7
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
109
CATCHES
N=
14653
FALL
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
1879
CATCHES
N=
384403
WINTER
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
BOTTOM
TERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
133
CATCHES
N=
31625
SPRING
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
270
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
643
CATCHES
N=
106979
SUMMER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
109
CATCHES
N=
18508
FALL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
160
210
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
1879
CATCHES
N=
384404
WINTER
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
310
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
133
CATCHES
N=
31625
Juveniles:
£
15
cm
TL
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
Page
21
Figure
5.
cont'd.
SPRING
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
643
CATCHES
N=
42311
SUMMER
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
7
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
109
CATCHES
N=
3855
FALL
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
1879
CATCHES
N=
49202
WINTER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
BOTTOM
TEMPERATURE
(
C)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
133
CATCHES
N=
7063
SPRING
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
270
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
643
CATCHES
N=
42311
SUMMER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
70
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
109
CATCHES
N=
3855
FALL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
160
210
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
1879
CATCHES
N=
49202
WINTER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
310
DEPTH
(
m)
PERCENT
STATIONS
N=
133
CATCHES
N=
7063
Adults:
>
15
cm
TL
Page
22
Figure
6.
Abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
relative
to
bottom
water
temperature,
depth,
dissolved
oxygen,
and
salinity
based
on
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary
trawl
surveys
(
1992
 
1997,
all
years
combined).
Temperature
(
C)

Depth
(
ft)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
Stations
Catches
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Dissolved
Oxygen
(
mg/
l)

Salinity
(
ppt)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Adults
(>
15
cm)
Temperature
(
C)

Depth
(
ft)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Stations
Catches
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Dissolved
Oxygen
(
mg/
l)

Salinity
(
ppt)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Juveniles
(
#
15
cm)
Page
23
Figure
7.
Abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
relative
to
bottom
water
temperature
and
depth
based
on
Massachusetts
inshore
bottom
trawl
surveys
(
spring
and
autumn
1978­
1996,
all
years
combined).
Open
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
all
stations
surveyed,
while
solid
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
the
sum
of
all
standardized
catches
(
number/
10
m2).
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
0
4
8
12
16
20
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
0
10
20
30
Juveniles
Adults
Stations
Catches
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Autumn
Autumn
Autumn
Autumn
Bottom
Depth
(
m)
Bottom
Depth
(
m)

Bottom
Depth
(
m)
Bottom
Depth
(
m)
Bottom
Temperature
(
C)
Bottom
Temperature
(
C)

Bottom
Temperature
(
C)
Bottom
Temperature
(
C)
Mass.
Inshore
Trawl
Surveys
Scup
Page
24
Figure
8.
Seasonal
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
relative
to
mean
bottom
water
temperature
and
bottom
depth
from
Rhode
Island
Narragansett
Bay
trawl
surveys,
1990­
1996.
Open
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
all
stations
surveyed,
while
solid
bars
represent
the
proportion
of
the
sum
of
all
catches.
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
10
20
30
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
10
20
30
40
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
10
20
30
40
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
20
40
60
80
Bottom
Temperature
(
C)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Scup
Juveniles
(<
16
cm)

Stations
Catches
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
20
40
60
80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
20
40
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
10
20
30
Bottom
Depth
(
ft)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Scup
Juveniles
(<
16
cm)

Stations
Catches
Page
25
Figure
8.
cont'd.
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
10
20
30
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
10
20
30
40
­
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
0
4
8
12
16
20
Bottom
Temperature
(
C)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Scup
Adults
(
$
16
cm)
Stations
Catches
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
10
20
30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
20
40
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0
10
20
30
40
50
Bottom
Depth
(
ft)
Scup
Adults
(
$
16
cm)
Stations
Catches
Winter
Summer
Autumn
Spring
Page
26
Figure
9.
The
distribution
of
scup
from
Newfoundland
to
Cape
Hatteras.
Data
are
from
the
U.
S.
NOAA/
Canada
DFO
East
Coast
of
North
America
Strategic
Assessment
Project
(
http//:
www­
orca.
nos.
noaa.
gov/
projects/
ecnasap/
ecnasap_
table1.
html).
Page
27
Figure
10.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
scup
eggs
collected
during
NEFSC
MARMAP
ichthyoplankton
surveys,
1978­
1987
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
The
upper
left
figure
is
a
summary
of
all
months
and
years;
the
remaining
figures
are
by
individual
month
(
May,
June,
July
and
August)
for
all
years
combined.
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Eggs
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
1978
to
1987
(
May,
Jun,
Jul,
Aug)

Number
of
Tows
=
3438;
with
eggs
=
12
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Eggs
/
10m2
1
to
<
10
10
to
<
100
100
to
149
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Eggs
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
May,
1978
to
1987
Number
of
Tows
=
1085;
with
eggs
=
1
Monthly
Mean
Density
=
0.003
Eggs/
10m2
Eggs
/
10m2
None
1
to
3
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Eggs
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
June,
1978
to
1987
Number
of
Tows
=
709;
with
eggs
=
3
Monthly
Mean
Density
=
0.240
Eggs/
10m2
Eggs
/
10m2
None
1
to
<
10
10
to
<
100
100
to
149
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Eggs
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
July,
1978
to
1987
Number
of
Tows
=
781;
with
eggs
=
7
Monthly
Mean
Density
=
0.161
Eggs/
10m2
Eggs
/
10m2
None
1
to
<
10
10
to
59
Page
28
Figure
10.
cont'd.
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Eggs
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
August,
1978
to
1987
Number
of
Tows
=
863;
with
eggs
=
1
Monthly
Mean
Density
=
0.008
Eggs/
10m2
Eggs
/
10m2
None
1
to
7
Page
29
Figure
11.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
scup
larvae
collected
during
NEFSC
MARMAP
ichthyoplankton
surveys,
1977­
1987
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
The
upper
left
figure
is
a
summary
of
all
months
and
years;
the
remaining
figures
are
by
individual
month
(
July
and
August)
for
all
years
combined.
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Larvae
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
1977
to
1987
(
Jul
&
Aug)

Number
of
Tows
=
2086;
with
larvae
=
2
Larvae
/
10m2
1
to
<
10
10
to
98
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Larvae
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
July,
1977
to
1987
Number
of
Tows
=
938;
with
larvae
=
1
Monthly
Mean
Density
=
0.104
Larvae
/
10m2
Larvae
/
10m2
None
1
to
<
10
10
to
98
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops)

Larvae
MARMAP
Ichthyoplankton
Surveys
61­
cm
Bongo
Net;
0.505­
mm
mesh
August,
1977
to
1987
Number
of
Tows
=
1148;
with
larvae
=
1
Monthly
Mean
Density
=
0.003
Larvae
/
10m2
Larvae
/
10m2
None
1
to
4
Page
30
Figure
12.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
collected
during
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
surveys
(
1963­
1997,
all
years
combined).
Densities
are
represented
by
dot
size
in
spring
and
fall
plots,
while
only
presence
and
absence
are
represented
in
winter
and
summer
plots
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
Page
31
Figure
12.
cont'd.
Page
32
Figure
13.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
in
Massachusetts
coastal
waters
collected
during
spring
and
autumn
Massachusetts
inshore
bottom
trawl
surveys,
1978­
1996
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
Scup
Mass.
Inshore
Trawl
Survey
Spring
1978
­
1996
Juveniles
(<
16cm)

Number/
Tow
1
to
10
10
to
50
50
to
250
250
to
1000
1000
to
5233
Scup
Mass.
Inshore
Trawl
Survey
Autumn
1978
­
1996
Juveniles
(<
16cm)

Number/
Tow
1
to
50
50
to
100
100
to
500
500
to
1000
1000
to
5233
Scup
Mass.
Inshore
Trawl
Survey
Spring
1978
­
1996
Adults
(>=
16cm)

Number/
Tow
1
to
25
25
to
100
100
to
500
500
to
1000
1000
to
6872
Scup
Mass.
Inshore
Trawl
Survey
Autumn
1978
­
1996
Adults
(>=
16cm)

Number/
Tow
1
to
10
10
to
50
50
to
100
100
to
500
500
to
1817
Page
33
Figure
14.
Seasonal
distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
collected
in
Narragansett
Bay
during
1990­
1996
Rhode
Island
bottom
trawl
surveys.
The
numbers
shown
at
each
station
are
the
average
catch
per
tow
rounded
to
one
decimal
place
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
7.4
2.8
0.0
0.1
2.7
0.1
0.0
0.2
6.0
9.1
16.5
0.3
5.8
9.8
37.3
9.1
3.2
99.1
65.5
105.8
17.1
537.2
172.7
16.8
112.5
18.8
318.6
56.9
37.2
25.2
39.5
171.8
66.8
113.2
210.7
443.2
124.9
182.9
18.4
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Juveniles
(
<
16
cm)
Page
34
Figure
14.
cont'd.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
23.9
49.8
39.8
0.2
33.4
0.3
7.1
0.0
0.0
13.5
0.0
5.3
1.6
66.6
26.8
2.9
2.3
1.8
7.3
40.8
0.6
1.3
37.1
2.9
0.9
1.1
16.6
4.2
4.6
4.2
1.8
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Adults
(>=
16
cm)
Page
35
Figure
15.
Size
frequency
distribution
of
scup
collected
in
Narragansett
Bay
during
1990­
1996
Rhode
Island
bottom
trawl
surveys.
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
0
1
2
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
0
200
400
600
800
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Total
Length
(
cm)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Page
36
Figure
16.
Distribution,
abundance,
and
size
frequency
of
scup
in
Long
Island
Sound
in
spring
and
autumn,
from
the
Connecticut
bottom
trawl
surveys,
1992­
1997
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
Number/
Tow
1
to
<
50
50
to
<
100
100
to
<
500
500
to
<
1000
1000
to
<
2048
Number/
Tow
1
to
<
200
200
to
<
500
500
to
<
1000
1000
to
<
2000
2000
to
<
2428
State
of
Connecticut
DEP
Fisheries
Division
Long
Island
Sound
Trawl
Survey
SPRING
1992
­
1997
State
of
Connecticut
DEP
Fisheries
Division
Long
Island
Sound
Trawl
Survey
AUTUMN
1992
­
1997
Scup
Scup
Page
37
Figure
17.
Seasonal
distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
and
adult
scup
in
the
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary
collected
during
Hudson­
Raritan
estuary
trawl
surveys,
1992
 
1997
[
see
Reid
et
al.
(
1999)
for
details].
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Fall
1992
­
1996
Juveniles
(<
16
cm)
Scup
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
No
Catches
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Winter
1992
­
1997
Juveniles
(<
16
cm)
Scup
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Juveniles
(<
16
cm)
Scup
Spring
1992
­
1997
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
Scup
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Summer
1992
­
1996
Juveniles
(<
16
cm)
Page
38
Figure
17.
cont'd.
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Fall
1992
­
1996
Adults
(>
15
cm)
Scup
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
Scup
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Summer
1992
­
1996
Adults
(>
15
cm)
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
Scup
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Winter
1992
­
1997
Adults
(>
15
cm)

No
Catches
Staten
Island
NEW
YORK
NEW
JERSEY
No/
Tow
1
­
9
10
­
24
25
­
49
50
­
199
200
­
685
Scup
Hudson­
Raritan
Estuary
Spring
1992
­
1997
Adults
(>
15
cm)
Page
39
Figure
18.
Commercial
landings
(
metric
tons,
mt)
and
NEFSC
bottom
trawl
survey
indices
(
stratified
mean
catch
per
tow,
kg)
for
scup
in
southern
New
England
and
the
Middle
Atlantic
Bight.
Southern
New
England
and
Middle
Atlantic
Year
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Landings
(
mt
x
1000)

0
2
4
6
8
10
Stratified
mean
catch/
tow
(
kg)

0
1
2
3
4
Commercial
landings
(
mt)
Autumn
survey
index
(
kg)
Smoothed
survey
index
(
kg)
NORTHEAST
FISHERIES
SCIENCE
CENTER
Dr.
Michael
P.
Sissenwine,
Science
&
Research
Director
CAPT
John
T.
Moakley,
Operations,
Management
&
Information
Services
Staff
Chief
Teri
L.
Frady,
Research
Communications
Unit
Chief
Jon
A.
Gibson,
Biological
Sciences
Editor
&
Laura
S.
Garner,
Editorial
Assistant
Publishing
in
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFS­
NE
Manuscript
Qualification
This
series
represents
a
secondary
level
of
scientific
publishing
in
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
For
all
issues,
the
series
employs
thorough
internal
scientific
review,
but
not
necessarily
external
scientific
review.
For
most
issues,
the
series
employs
rigorous
technical
and
copy
editing.
Manuscripts
that
may
warrant
a
primary
level
of
scientific
publishing
should
be
initially
submitted
to
one
of
NMFSís
primary
series
(
i.
e.,
Fishery
Bulletin,
NOAA
Technical
Report
NMFS,
or
Marine
Fisheries
Review).
Identical,
or
fundamentally
identical,
manuscripts
should
not
be
concurrently
submitted
to
this
and
any
other
publication
series.
Manuscripts
which
have
been
rejected
by
any
primary
series
strictly
because
of
geographic
or
temporal
limitations
may
be
submitted
to
this
series.
Manuscripts
by
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
(
NEFSC)
authors
will
be
published
in
this
series
upon
approval
by
the
NEFSC's
Deputy
Science
&
Research
Director.
Manuscripts
by
non­
NEFSC
authors
may
be
published
in
this
series
if:
1)
the
manuscript
serves
the
NEFSCís
mission;
2)
the
manuscript
meets
the
Deputy
Science
&
Research
Directorís
approval
and
3)
the
author
arranges
for
the
printing
and
binding
funds
to
be
transferred
to
the
NEFSCís
Research
Communications
Unit
account
from
another
federal
account.
For
all
manuscripts
submitted
by
non­
NEFSC
authors
and
published
in
this
series,
the
NEFSC
will
disavow
all
responsibility
for
the
manuscriptsí
contents;
authors
must
accept
such
responsibility.
The
ethics
of
scientific
research
and
scientific
publishing
are
a
serious
matter.
All
manuscripts
submitted
to
this
series
are
expected
to
adhere
­­
at
a
minimum
­­
to
the
ethical
guidelines
contained
in
Chapter
1
(
ìEthical
Conduct
in
Authorship
and
Publicationî)
of
the
CBE
Style
Manual,
fifth
edition
(
Chicago,
IL:
Council
of
Biology
Editors).
Copies
of
the
manual
are
available
at
virtually
all
scientific
libraries.

Manuscript
Preparation
Organization:
Manuscripts
must
have
an
abstract,
table
of
contents,
and
­­
if
applicable
­­
lists
of
tables,
figures,
and
acronyms.
As
much
as
possible,
use
traditional
scientific
manuscript
organization
for
sections:
ìIntroduction,
î
ìStudy
Area,
î
ìMethods
&
Materials,
î
ìResults,
î
ìDiscussionî
and/
or
ìConclusions
î
ìAcknowledgments,
î
and
ìReferences
Cited.
î
Style:
All
NEFSC
publication
and
report
series
are
obligated
to
conform
to
the
style
contained
in
the
most
recent
edition
of
the
United
States
Government
Printing
Office
Style
Manual.
That
style
manual
is
silent
on
many
aspects
of
scientific
manuscripts
NEFSC
publication
and
report
series
rely
more
on
the
CBE
Style
Manual,
fifth
edition.
For
in­
text
citations,
use
the
name­
date
system.
A
special
effort
should
be
made
to
ensure
that
the
list
of
cited
works
contains
all
necessary
bibliographic
information.
For
abbreviating
serial
titles
in
such
lists,
use
the
most
recent
edition
of
the
Serial
Sources
for
the
BIOSIS
Previews
Database
(
Philadelphia,
PA:
Biosciences
Information
Service).
Personal
communications
must
include
date
of
contact
and
full
name
and
mailing
address
of
source.
For
spelling
of
scientific
and
common
names
of
fishes,
mollusks,
and
decapod
crustaceans
from
the
United
States
and
Canada,
use
Special
Publications
No.
20
(
fishes),
26
(
mollusks),
and
17
(
decapod
crustaceans)
of
the
American
Fisheries
Society
(
Bethesda,
MD).
For
spelling
of
scientific
and
common
names
of
marine
mammals,
use
Special
Publication
No.
4
of
the
Society
for
Marine
Mammalogy
(
Lawrence,
KS).
For
spelling
in
general,
use
the
most
recent
edition
of
Websterís
Third
New
International
Dictionary
of
the
English
Language
Unabridged
(
Springfield,
MA:
G.&
C.
Merriam).
Typing
text,
tables,
and
figure
captions:
Text,
including
tables
and
figure
captions,
must
be
converted
to,
or
able
to
be
coverted
to,
WordPerfect.
In
general,
keep
text
simple
(
e.
g.,
donít
switch
fonts,
donít
use
hard
returns
within
paragraphs,
donít
indent
except
to
begin
paragraphs).
Especially,
donít
use
WordPerfect
graphics
for
embedding
tables
and
figures
in
text.
If
the
automatic
footnoting
function
is
used,
also
save
a
list
of
footnotes
as
a
separate
WordPerfect
file.
When
the
final
draft
is
ready
for
review,
save
the
text,
tables,
figure
captions,
footnotes,
and
front
matter
as
separate
document
files.
Tables
should
be
prepared
using
all
tabs
or
all
spaces
between
columnar
data,
but
not
a
combination
of
the
two.
Figures
must
be
original
(
even
if
oversized)
and
on
paper;
they
cannot
be
photocopies
(
e.
g.,
Xerox)
unless
that
is
all
that
is
available,
nor
be
on
disk.
Except
under
extraordinary
circumstances
color
will
not
be
used
in
illustrations.

Manuscript
Submission
Authors
must
submit
one
paper
copy
of
the
double­
spaced
manuscript,
one
magnetic
copy
on
a
disk,
and
original
figures
(
if
applicable).
NEFSC
authors
must
include
a
completely
signedoff
ìNEFSC
Manuscript/
Abstract/
Webpage
Review
Form.
î
Non­
NEFSC
authors
who
are
not
federal
employees
will
be
required
to
sign
a
ìRelease
of
Copyrightî
form.
Send
all
materials
and
address
all
correspondence
to:

Jon
A.
Gibson,
Biological
Sciences
Editor
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
166
Water
Street
Woods
Hole,
MA
02543­
1026
USA
Research
Communications
Unit
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
NOAA
166
Water
St.
Woods
Hole,
MA
02543­
1026
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFS­
NE
­­
This
series
is
issued
irregularly.
The
series
includes:
data
reports
of
longterm
or
large
area
studies;
synthesis
reports
for
major
resources
or
habitats;
annual
reports
of
assessment
or
monitoring
programs;
documentary
reports
of
oceanographic
conditions
or
phenomena;
manuals
describing
field
and
lab
techniques;
literature
surveys
of
major
resource
or
habitat
topics;
findings
of
task
forces
or
working
groups;
summary
reports
of
scientific
or
technical
workshops;
and
indexed
and/
or
annotated
bibliographies.
All
issues
receive
internal
scientific
review
and
most
issues
receive
technical
and
copy
editing.
Limited
free
copies
are
available
from
authors
or
the
NEFSC.
Issues
are
also
available
from
the
National
Technical
Information
Service,
5285
Port
Royal
Rd.,
Springfield,
VA
22161.

Fishermen's
Report
and
The
Shark
Tagger
­­
The
Fishermen's
Report
(
FR)
is
a
quick­
turnaround
report
on
the
distribution
and
relative
abundance
of
commercial
fisheries
resources
as
derived
from
each
of
the
NEFSC's
periodic
research
vessel
surveys
of
the
Northeast's
continental
shelf.
There
is
no
scientific
review,
nor
any
technical
or
copy
editing,
of
the
FR;
copies
are
available
through
free
subscription.
The
Shark
Tagger
(
TST)
is
an
annual
summary
of
tagging
and
recapture
data
on
large
pelagic
sharks
as
derived
from
the
NMFS's
Cooperative
Shark
Tagging
Program;
it
also
presents
information
on
the
biology
(
movement,
growth,
reproduction,
etc.)
of
these
sharks
as
subsequently
derived
from
the
tagging
and
recapture
data.
There
is
internal
scientific
review,
but
no
technical
or
copy
editing,
of
the
TST;
copies
are
available
only
to
participants
in
the
tagging
program.
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
Reference
Document
­­
This
series
is
issued
irregularly.
The
series
includes:
data
reports
on
field
and
lab
observations
or
experiments;
progress
reports
on
continuing
experiments,
monitoring,
and
assessments;
background
papers
for
scientific
or
technical
workshops;
and
simple
bibliographies.
Issues
receive
internal
scientific
review
but
no
technical
or
copy
editing.
No
subscriptions.
Free
distribution
of
single
copies.
The
mission
of
NOAA's
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
is
"
stewardship
of
living
marine
resources
for
the
benefit
of
the
nation
through
their
science­
based
conservation
and
management
and
promotion
of
the
health
of
their
environment."
As
the
research
arm
of
the
NMFS's
Northeast
Region,
the
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
(
NEFSC)
supports
the
NMFS
mission
by
"
planning,
developing,
and
managing
multidisciplinary
programs
of
basic
and
applied
research
to:
1)
better
understand
the
living
marine
resources
(
including
marine
mammals)
of
the
Northwest
Atlantic,
and
the
environmental
quality
essential
for
their
existence
and
continued
productivity;
and
2)
describe
and
provide
to
management,
industry,
and
the
public,
options
for
the
utilization
and
conservation
of
living
marine
resources
and
maintenance
of
environmental
quality
which
are
consistent
with
national
and
regional
goals
and
needs,
and
with
international
commitments."
Results
of
NEFSC
research
are
largely
reported
in
primary
scientific
media
(
e.
g.,
anonymously­
peer­
reviewed
scientific
journals).
However,
to
assist
itself
in
providing
data,
information,
and
advice
to
its
constituents,
the
NEFSC
occasionally
releases
its
results
in
its
own
media.
Those
media
are
in
three
categories:
Publications
and
Reports
of
the
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
To
obtain
a
copy
of
a
technical
memorandum
or
a
reference
document,
or
to
subscribe
to
the
fishermen's
report,
write:
Research
Communications
Unit,
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center,
166
Water
St.,
Woods
Hole,
MA
02543­
1026.
An
annual
list
of
NEFSC
publications
and
reports
is
available
upon
request
at
the
above
address.
Any
use
of
trade
names
in
any
NEFSC
publication
or
report
does
not
imply
endorsement.
STANDARD
MAIL
A