Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T01:47:27.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Haddock on the Porcupine Bank, September 1944

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

C. F. Hickling
C. F. Hickling
Affiliation:
Colonial Office
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. It is suggested that the population of haddock (Gadus aeglefinus L.) on the Porcupine Bank is largely a self-contained stock.

2. This stock had complete immunity from trawling from December 1940, to September 1944.

3. In 1939 and 1940 there was an abundance of small haddock in this stock, due to the good brood of 1938. In 1944, this brood was still very abundant, and was then joined by the good brood of 1942.

4. These two good broods, growing up immune from fishing mortality, caused the Porcupine Bank to carry, in 1944, the densest stock of haddock ever experienced there.

5. The average number of sclerites in the first zone of the scales of these fish is the highest recorded in any region. It is still high in the second zone, but in the later zones falls below that found in the scales of haddock from other regions.

6. The growth rate was faster, in the first four years of life, than even that of Iceland and Faroe haddock, but in the later years it fell behind these, though still superior to the growth rate of the North Sea haddock.

7. The expectation that this greatly increased stock of haddock, due to the war-time cessation of fishing, would show a slowing in its rate of growth, due to intensified competition for the available food, is not supported by the facts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , July 1946 , pp. 398 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bückmann, A., 1939. Zur Frage der Beziehungen zwischen Befischung und Ertrag. Rapp. Proc. Verb. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer, Vol. CX, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Fischer, E., 1939. Der Einfluss der Fischerei auf den Schollen- und Flunderbestand in der Ostsee. Rapp. Proc. Verb. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer, Vol. CX, pp. 97–105.Google Scholar
Hickling, C. F., 1928 a. The Fleetwood exploratory voyages for hake. Journ. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer, Vol. III, pp. 70–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickling, C. F., 1928 b. The exploratory voyages of the Florence Brierley. Notes on the fish recorded. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 10, Vol. II, pp. 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raitt, D. S., 1939. The rate of mortality of the haddock of the North Sea stock, 1919–1938. Rapp. Proc. Verb. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer, Vol. CX, pp. 65–79.Google Scholar
Thompson, H., 1922. Problems in haddock biology. I. Preliminary report. Fisheries, Scotland, Set. Invest. 1922, No. V (May 1923).Google Scholar
Thompson, H., 1928. Haddock biology. V. General features in the biology of the Haddock (Gadus aeglefinus L.) in Icelandic waters in the period 1903–26. Fisheries, Scotland, Sci. Invest., 1928, No. V.Google Scholar