FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFl Rep., <strong>Vol</strong>. XXVII. <strong>1986</strong>survey used the presence of sardine eggs to assess theextent of spawning area in southern <strong>California</strong> waters.Sardine spawning covered an estimated 670 n.mi.2,which was determined to be characteristic of a biomassof at least 20,000 tons. As provided by current law,CDFG announced the opening of a 1,000-ton fishery tobegin January 1, <strong>1986</strong>. Apart from the 75-ton live baitquota initiated last year, this is the first directed take ofsardines allowed in <strong>California</strong> since the moratoriumtook effect in 1974.The trend of increasing occurrences of sardines inthe mackerel fishery, which slowed last year, appearsto have resumed. An estimated 652 tons of sardineswere landed incidentally with mackerel during 1985(Table 1). This is the largest annual take in 20 years.Monterey landings accounted for 6% of the incidentalcatch, and local fishermen reported sighting largeschools of sardines in Monterey Bay on several occasions.The proportion of observed mackerel landingscontaining sardines increased from 30% in 1983and 1984 to over 57% during 1985. Sardines constituted1.3% of the overall 1985 “mackerel” catch;during March-April sardines were nearly 3% of thecatch. Length frequencies of incidentally caught sardinesshow an increasingly broader distribution from1983 through 1985, indicating that recruitment hascontinued.Sardine landings in live bait declined to .roughly25% of the 1984 estimated landings, and failed to reachthe 75-ton annual quota. This probably resulted from adecreased demand for sardines rather than a decline inavailability. Live bait fishermen often targeted insteadon squid, which were available for the first time in recentyears and are often preferred as bait for certain biggame fish. Legislation passed in 1985 increases the annuallive bait quota for sardines from 75 to 150 tons, effectiveJanuary 1, <strong>1986</strong>.During CDFG experimental young fish surveys inJuly and August, only adult sardines were captured.Evidence of sardine recruitment was not observed untilSeptember, when young-of-the-year fish appeared inboth the live bait catch and sea survey trawls. Adultand juvenile catch frequencies during the Septembercruise were lower than last year’s; however, the catchfrequency of juveniles suggests that the 1985 year classis similar in strength to the 1984 year class and considerablyweaker than the 1983 year class. Adult fishcaptured during the sea survey cruises were in progressivelymore advanced stages of prespawning conditionfrom July through September. Also, a greaterproportion of adult sardines occurring in the mackerelfishery were nearing spawning in the late summer thanin the spring. These observations suggest that a largeportion of spawning occurred during late summer andearly fall this year; the historical sardine populationspawned mostly in spring.Current state law provides for the rehabilitation ofthe sardine resource. During the process of rehabilitationa small fishery is allowed. If the spawning populationincreases beyond 20,000 tons, CDFG mayincrease the seasonal quota, but at such a rate as toallow for the continued recovery of the population.Only limited markets exist now for sardines, and it remainsto be seen whether new markets and uses will developas the resource recovel-s.NORTHERN ANCHOVYAt least one processor in both the northern (north ofPoint Buchon) and southern permit areas issued ordersfor northern anchovy (Engradis rnordax) for reductionduring the 1984-85 season. Fishermen, however,found anchovies unprofitable and concentrated theirefforts on mackerel. The anchovy price per tondropped from $38 to between $25 and $30, and fishermenreported that large anchovy schools were not locallyavailable in either permit area.A single landing of 77 tons was made during the1984-85 reduction season (Table 2). This landing occurredat Terminal Island in November 1984, againstthe southern area quota of 6,250 tons. No landings forreduction purposes were made toward the northernarea 1984-85 season quota of 694 tons.Using an egg production biomass assessmentmethod, the National Marine Fisheries Service esti-TABLE 2Anchovy Landings for Reduction Seasons in theSouthern and Northern Areas, in Short TonsSouthern NorthernSeason area area Total1966-671967-681968-691969-701970-711971 -721972-731973-741974-751975-761976-771977-781978-791979-801980-811981-821982-831983-841984-85**Preliminary29,58985225,3148 1,45380,09552,05<strong>27</strong>3, I67109,207109,918135,619101,43468,47652,69633,38362,16145,1494,92570778,0215,6512,7362,0206571,3742,35211,3806,6695,2915,0077,2121,1742,3654,7364,9531,<strong>27</strong>01,765037,6106,50328,05083,47380,75253,42675,519120,587116,587140,910106,44175,68853,87035,74866,89750, 1026,1951,835778
FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985<strong>CalCOFI</strong> Rep., <strong>Vol</strong>. XXVII, <strong>1986</strong>mated the 1985 northern anchovy spawning biomass at574,421 tons (521,000 metric tons). The U.S. optimumyield for the 1985-86 season was set at 159,750tons, and the harvest quota for reduction purposes wasset at 154,350 tons. Allocations established were10,000 tons for the northern permit area, and 144,350tons for the southern area.The 1985-86 reduction season opened on August 1in the north and September 15 in the south. Approximately909 tons of anchovy were landed between November15 and December 30, 1985. All landings weremade in the northern permit area by two boats fishingjust outside the Monterey Bay breakwater. Efforts tofill reduction orders dropped off as fish moved out ofthe area.Statewide reduction landings of northern anchovyfor 1985 were 909 tons. Nonreduction landings totaled883 tons. The live bait catch was estimated at 5,055tons. Bait was highly available year-round.Trawl surveys during 1985 indicate dominance bythe 1984 and 1983 year classes (66% and 22% bynumber, respectively, in survey samples). Althoughyoung-of-the-year ( 1985 year-class) fish made a strongshowing in live bait hauls from June through December,reports of poor catches of young fish in the 1985Mexican reduction fishery, and their poor representationin CDFG recruitment surveys indicate that the1985 year class may actually be weak.JACK MACKERELApproximately 10,320 tons of jack mackerel(Truchurus symmetricus) were landed during 1985.Jack mackerel constituted roughly 21 % of total mackerellandings. This marks the seventh consecutive yearthat jack mackerel have contributed less than Pacificmackerel to the <strong>California</strong> mackerel fishery. It is thesecond consecutive year that jack mackerel have contributedsuch a low proportion of the mackerel fisherysince this species first supported a fishery in the late1940s.Jack mackerel dominated landings only during January,when landings of Pacific mackerel were limited byinterseason restrictions, and overall mackerel landingswere the lowest of the year. Jack mackerel were mostlyunavailable or not sought after in southern <strong>California</strong>during the last four months of the year. The compositionof northern <strong>California</strong> catches varied greatlythroughout the year, with jack mackerel constitutingless than 1 % of the catch in October and more than 95%of the catch in January and February. Calculatedthroughout the year, jack mackerel made up 23% of thenorthern <strong>California</strong> mackerel catch and 20% of thesouthern <strong>California</strong> catch. This is in contrast to 1984and 1983, when jack mackerel contributed a consider-ably larger proportion of the mackerel landings in thenorth than in the south.Sea surveys conducted during 1985 indicate fair togood recruitment for the 1985 year class of jackmackerel.PACIFIC MACKERELThe 1984-85 season (July I-June 30) for Pacificmackerel (Scomber juponicus) was closed on December20 because the adjusted season quota of 26,000tons has been landed. Interseason restrictions were ineffect through January, limiting the take of Pacificmackerel to 50% or less by number, or pure loads of 3tons or less. The season reopened on February 5 afterthe <strong>California</strong> Fish and Game Commission (FGC), asrecommended by CDFG, augmented the quota with5,000 tons per month for February, March, and April,with uncaught portions of the monthly allotments to beadded to the next month’s quota. The quota increase resultedfrom a reevaluation of the 1984-85 Pacificmackerel total biomass, finally estimated to range between131,000 and 242,000 tons. For the first time thisestimate included consideration of Mexican commercialand U.S. recreational catches in cohort analysis.Landings continued to be low despite quota increases,because southern <strong>California</strong> processors imposeda landing limit of approximately 70 tons per boatper month through March. In April the landing limitwas increased to 50-60 tons per boat per week, but theprice per ton was lowered from $190 to $163. On April24, the FGC added another 15,000 tons to the season’sallowable catch, bringing the 1984-85 season quota to56,000 tons. Fishing for the remainder of the seasonwas slow. Although the price was increased to $170 perton, landing limits were decreased to 25 and 50 tons perboat per week, because inventories of frozen mackerelreportedly exceeded last year’s by 60%. In Montereyonly about 1,600 tons of mackerel were landed fromJanuary through June, because fishermen concentratedtheir efforts on squid. The National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) began to investigate the use of Pacificmackerel in a federal surplus commodities program tohelp ease poor local market conditions, which werepartly caused by competition from foreign countries.The 1984-85 season ended with a total catch of43,<strong>27</strong>0 tons of Pacific mackerel. Approximately 83%was landed in southern <strong>California</strong>. Pacific mackerelconstituted an average 93% of total mackerel landingsfrom January through June 1985, and 81% of totallandings for the 1984-85 season. Areas where fish werecaught from February through June ranged from off theSanta Barbara coast to outside Santa Monica Bay, andout to Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Catalinaislands.9
- Page 1: REPORTSVOLUMECICTCIBERXXVll1986
- Page 4 and 5: EDITOR Julie OlfeSPANISH EDITOR Pat
- Page 7: COMMITTEE REPORTCalCOFI Rep., Vol.
- Page 12 and 13: FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFI Rep.,
- Page 14 and 15: FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFl Rep.,
- Page 16 and 17: FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFl Rep.,
- Page 18 and 19: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 20 and 21: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 22 and 23: ~~ ~BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY
- Page 24 and 25: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 26 and 27: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 28 and 29: WOLF AND SMITH: MAGNITUDE OF SARDIN
- Page 30 and 31: WOLF AND SMITH: MAGNITUDE OF SARDIN
- Page 32 and 33: WOLF AND SMITH: MAGNITUDE OF SARDIN
- Page 34 and 35: PUBLICATIONSCalCOFI Rep., Vol. XXVI
- Page 37 and 38: Part I1SYMPOSIUM OF THE CALCOFI CON
- Page 39 and 40: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 41 and 42: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 43 and 44: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 45 and 46: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 47 and 48: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 49 and 50: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 51 and 52: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 53 and 54: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 55 and 56: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 57 and 58: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 59 and 60: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 61 and 62:
LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 63 and 64:
LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 65 and 66:
LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 67 and 68:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 69 and 70:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 71 and 72:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 73 and 74:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 75 and 76:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 77 and 78:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 79 and 80:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 81 and 82:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 83 and 84:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 85 and 86:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 87 and 88:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 89 and 90:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 91 and 92:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 93 and 94:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 95 and 96:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 97 and 98:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 99 and 100:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 101 and 102:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 103 and 104:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 105 and 106:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 107 and 108:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 109:
Part 111SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS
- Page 112 and 113:
BAILEY ET AL.: FORECASTING HAKE REC
- Page 114 and 115:
BAILEY ET AL.: FORECASTING HAKE REC
- Page 116 and 117:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 118 and 119:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 120 and 121:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 122 and 123:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 124 and 125:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 126 and 127:
MacGREGOR: SEEASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 128 and 129:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 130 and 131:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 132 and 133:
-~ ~MacCREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECa
- Page 134 and 135:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 136 and 137:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 138 and 139:
LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
- Page 140 and 141:
LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
- Page 142 and 143:
LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
- Page 144 and 145:
DuracionQUINONEZ-VELAZQUEZ Y GOMEZ-
- Page 146 and 147:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 148 and 149:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 150 and 151:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 152 and 153:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 154 and 155:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 156 and 157:
SCHMITT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 158 and 159:
SCHMITT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 160 and 161:
SCHMITT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 162 and 163:
SCHMIlT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 164 and 165:
MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEAN
- Page 166 and 167:
~MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEA
- Page 168 and 169:
MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEAN
- Page 170 and 171:
MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEAN
- Page 172 and 173:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 174 and 175:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 176 and 177:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 178 and 179:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 180 and 181:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 182 and 183:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 184 and 185:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 186 and 187:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 188 and 189:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 190 and 191:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTlA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 192 and 193:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 194 and 195:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALlFORNlEN
- Page 196 and 197:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 198 and 199:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 200 and 201:
TRUJILLO-ORTLZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 202 and 203:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 204 and 205:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 206 and 207:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 208 and 209:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 210 and 211:
CHEN: VERTlCAL DISTRIBUTlON OF PELA
- Page 212 and 213:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 214 and 215:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 216 and 217:
JOOCHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF P
- Page 218 and 219:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 220 and 221:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 222 and 223:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 224 and 225:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 226 and 227:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 228 and 229:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 230 and 231:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 232 and 233:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 234 and 235:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 236 and 237:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 238 and 239:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 240 and 241:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 242 and 243:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 244 and 245:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 246 and 247:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 248 and 249:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 250 and 251:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 252 and 253:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 254 and 255:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 256 and 257:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 258 and 259:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 260 and 261:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 262 and 263:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 264 and 265:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 266 and 267:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 268 and 269:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 270 and 271:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 272 and 273:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 274 and 275:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 276 and 277:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 278 and 279:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 280 and 281:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 283 and 284:
-130' 125. 120' 11.5. 110.I I I I I