Table Of Contentwr )S S< 4 “ ENT OF G w % %. q Mar ine LL.A L ‘—® - ips
a
*
cc A
A“ >
Bay Scallops
in Eastern
North America
Part Il
Fisheries
Marine
or =e II 1
/ : 4
\ ; aA
W. L. Hobart, Editor
J. A. Strader, Managing Editor
On the cover:
Top to bottom, left to right Town of Nan-
tucket and Nantucket Harbor, Mass., cour-
tesy of Nantucket Historical Society: shell-
fish law enforcement patch; northern bay
scallop seed attached to small stone: scallop
aquaculture harvest, C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.:
eelgrass transplanted into Narragansett Bay,
R. I., Jay Preshoso: bay scallop seed attached
to eelgrass blades, C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
71(3), 2009
Articles
The Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians, in Florida Coastal Waters William S. Arnold
Bay Scallops, Argopecten irradians, in the Northwestern
Gulf of Mexico (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) Kim Withers and Matt Hubner
The Bay Scallop, Argopecten
irradians amplicostatus, in Northeastern Mexico Armando T. Wakida-Kusunoki
The Status of Eelgrass, Zostera marina, as Bay Scallop
Habitat: Consequences for the Fishery in the Western Atlantic Mark S. Fonseca and Amy V. Uhrin
Geomorphological Evolution of Estuaries:
The Dynamic Basis for Morpho-Sedimentary Units
in Selected Estuaries in the Northeastern United States Norbert P. Psuty and Tanya M. Silveira
Small-scale Commercial Culturing of Northern Bay Scallops,
Argopecten irradians irradians, i 1 Atlantic United States and Canada Clyde L. MacKenzie, Jr.
History of Molluscan Fishery Regulations
and the Shellfish Officer Service in Massachusetts Henry Lind
U.S. DEPARTMENT The Marine Fisheries Review (ISSN 0090-1830) is pub- printing this periodical has been approved by the Director of
OF COMMERCE lished quarterly by the Scientific Publications Office, Na the Office of Management and Budget.
tional Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point The NMFS does not approve, recommend, or endorse any
Gary Locke,
Way N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115. Annual subscrip proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned in this
Secretary tions are sold by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S publication. No reference shall be made to the NMFS, or to
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The this publication furnished by the NMFS, in any advertising
annual subscription price is $21.00 domestic, $29.40 foreign or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that the
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND Single copies are $12.00 domestic, $16.80 foreign. For new NMFS approves. recommends, or endorses any proprietary
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION subscriptions write: New Orders, Superintendent of Docu product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which
Jane Lubchenco, ments, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 has as its purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the
Although the contents of this publication have not been advertised product to be used or purchased because of this
Under Secretary
copyrighted and may be reprinted entirely, reference to NMFS publication. POSTMASTER: Send address changes
for Oceans and Atmosphere source is appreciated for subscriptions for this journal to: Marine Fisheries Re-
Publication of material from sources outside the NMFS is view, c/o Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
National Marine Fisheries Service not an endorsement, and the NMFS is not responsible for the Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. This issue, volume
accuracy of facts, views, or opinions of the sources. The Sec- 71 number 3, was printed and distributed in November 2009
James W. Balsiger. retary of Commerce has determined that the publication of
Acting Assistant Administrator this periodical is necessary for the transaction of public busi- This publication is available online at
for Fisheries ness required by law of this Department. Use of the funds for http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mcontent.htm
The Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians, in Florida Coastal Waters
WILLIAM S. ARNOLD
Introduction tions by transplantation of field-collect- the grass blades and assume a benthic
ed specimens or by rearing scallops ina existence. They achieve a shell height
The bay scallop, Argopecten irradi- hatchery setting and then planting them of 50-55 mm by June of the follow-
ans, supports one of the most popular at sites targeted for restoration (Arnold ing year, at which time growth slows
and family-oriented fisheries currently et al., 2005). Regardless of the methods considerably and energy is devoted to
pursued in Florida coastal waters. Har- used to restore scallop populations in reproductive development and spawn-
vesting bay scallops has a long history Florida, the species remains imperiled in ing (Barber and Blake, 1983).
in both peninsular (Marelli and Arnold, the face of continued human population
Species Distribution and Status
2001) and panhandle (Mikell, 1992; growth and concomitant loss of suitable
1994; Thomas and Campbell, 1993) bay scallop habitat. Three species of Argopecten occur
Florida dating to at least A.D. 900, but in Florida including the calico scallop,
Life History
in recent years the popularity of the Argopecten gibbus; the nucleus scal-
scallops as a target for recreational and Bay scallops are short-lived, and in lop, Argopecten nucleus; and the bay
commercial fishermen appears to have Florida their life span rarely exceeds scallop, Argopecten irradians (Abbott,
contributed to local declines and the 18 months (Barber and Blake, 1985). 1974). The calico scallop inhabits
implementation of more stringent man- Their primary habitat is seagrass beds, deeper offshore waters and has been
agement measures (Arnold et al., 1998). particularly Thallassia and Syringo- the target of an occasionally lucrative
Those declines also have instigated dium, but it is not uncommon for scal- commercial fishery (Moyer and Blake,
many efforts to rebuild scallop popula- lops to be found in open sand areas or 1986; Blake and Moyer, 1991). In con-
lying on algal mats among the seagrass trast, the bay scallop and the nucleus
beds. Bay scallops may or may not have scallop inhabit shallow inshore waters.
William S. Arnold was with the Fish and Wild-
life Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife the physiological apparatus to support Their range appears to overlap in south
Conservation Commission, 100 Eighth Avenue gregarious behavior, but they are com- Florida and particularly Biscayne Bay
S.E., St. Petersburg, FL 33701. His current monly found in patches that are densely (Waller, 1969), but otherwise the range
address is the Southeast Regional Office, NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 263 13th Ave. populated relative to background abun- of the nucleus scallop is more southerly
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (email: Bill. dance. The patchy distribution pattern than that of the bay scallop.
Arnold @noaa.gov).
may facilitate successful reproduction. Nucleus scallops occur throughout
Scallops are broadcast spawners, so the the Caribbean and northern South
likelihood of successful fertilization America (Waller, 1969) whereas the
is enhanced by proximity (Levitan, most southerly record of the bay scallop
ABSTRACT—The bay scallop, Argopec-
ten irradians, supported a small commer- 1995). is from Tuxpan in the Veracruz region
cial fishery in Florida from the late 1920's Peak spawning activity appears to of Mexico (Wakida-Kusunoki, 2009).
through the 1940’s; peak landings were occur in the fall season in Florida, in There are published reports of calico
in 1946 (214,366 lbs of meats), but it cur-
contrast to the situation with bay scal- scallops occurring in Biscayne Bay
rently supports one of the most popular and
family-oriented fisheries along the west lops in New York to Massachusetts (Coleman et al., 1994), thus creating
coast of Florida. The primary habitat of where spawning is a summer or even a situation where all three species co-
the short-lived (18 months) bay scallop is spring event. However, ongoing studies occur, and the author has many records
seagrass beds. Peak spawning occurs in the by the author show that spring spawning of calico scallop recruits collected from
fall. Human population growth and coastal
development that caused habitat changes occurs In some years, and recruitment inshore bays on both the east and west
and reduced water quality probably are the has been recorded in almost every coast of Florida.
main causes of a large decline in the scallop’s month of the year. Fertilized larvae Within the species Argopecten ir-
abundance. Bay scallop restoration efforts spend about two weeks in the pelagos, radians, three extant subspecies are
in bays where they have become scarce after which they settle and attach to recognized including A. i. irradians
have centered on releasing pediveligers
seagrass blades. At a shell height of from the northeastern United States, A.
and juveniles into grass beds and holding
scallops in cages where they would spawn. about 15-20 mm, the scallops drop off i. concentricus trom the Mid-Atlantic
region and eastern Gulfo f Mexico, and north, somewhat consistent with human ing, and wet weather during the spring,
\. i. amplicostatus from the western development patterns in the state. Bay but no definitive correlations could be
Gulf of Mexico including Mexico. A scallops appear to have disappeared discerned.
fourth subspecies (A. i. taylorae) oc- first from the southeast coast of the Bay scallop population density sur-
cupying Florida and the eastern Gulf state, then from Pine Island Sound in veys were initiated at several sites along
of Mexico has been suggested but not southwest Florida, followed by loss of the Gulf of Mexico coast of Florida
codified (Marelli et al., 1997a). If that populations in Sarasota Bay and Tampa beginning in 1993 and have continued
subspecific designation is accepted, Bay, then Anclote, and finally Homosas- to the present. Survey sites were selected
then the A. i. concentricus designation sa and Crystal River (Fig. |). However, based upon the historical and anecdotal
would be dropped and bay scallops from bay scallops also have disappeared from information described above and have
North Carolina north would be lumped western panhandle Florida, suggesting been continued (and expanded) since
into the A. i. irradians group (Marelli a more complex pattern of loss. their initiation at Homosassa in 1993.
et al., 1997b). Anecdotal information gleaned from At each survey site, 20 stations were
The three subspecies are in many telephone and personal interviews with randomly selected from within the 2 ft
respects similar in appearance al- fishermen, owners of marine-dependent to 6 ft (0.61 m to 1.83 m) depth contours
though they can be distinguished by businesses (dive shops, bait shops, ma- (Arnold et al., 1998). At each station,
morphological details such as hinge rinas), and coastal managers conducted two scuba divers swam the length of a
width and the number of ribs on the during 1991, 1992, and 1993 supports 984 ft (300 m) transect line and counted
shell surface (Waller, 1969). They also the pattern of disappearance described all scallops within 1.1 yds (1 m) on
share a dependence on marine seagrass above (Arnold and Marelli'). Responses either side of the line, thus surveying an
as a habitat (Thayer and Stuart, 1974), were divided into three geographically area of 718 yds? (600 m2) at each station
although the particular species of sea- representative areas including south- or 14,352 yds? (12,000 m2) at each site.
grass upon which the scallop depends west Florida (from Tampa Bay south), At the Cedar Key site, where the extent
differs from site to site according to the central west coast of Florida (i.e. of seagrass beds is relatively small, only
seagrass distribution patterns. That the Big Bend, from Tampa Bay north 6 rather than 20 stations were surveyed
dependence upon seagrass has con- to approximately Apalachicola Bay), each year.
tributed to the decline of bay scallops and northwest Florida (from Apala- Initial survey results supported the
in Florida and throughout the range of chicola Bay to the Florida—Alabama historical and anecdotal information
the species, because the seagrasses are state line). reported above. Scallops have been
becoming scarcer. In the southwest region, scallops were essentially nonexistent in Pine Island
Museum collections indicate that the reported only from Pine Island Sound, Sound (Table 1) in southwest Florida
distribution of bay scallops in Florida where they were scarce and their inter- and in Pensacola Bay and St. Andrew
once extended from Palm Beach on the annual abundance was inconsistent. In Bay in northwest Florida. In the central
southwest coast of the state to Pensacola the central region, scallops were rare region, scallops were rare in the Homo-
and westward to the Chandeleur Islands from Tampa Bay north to the Pepperfish sassa/Crystal River area through 1998
in Louisiana (Waller, 1969). Although Keys area, but from Pepperfish Keys but abundance has been highly variable
no definitive information is available, it north to Keaton Beach (i.e. the Stein- in Anclote. In contrast, although interan-
is likely that the scallops were not con- hatchee area) scallops were abundant, nual fluctuations are apparent at both the
tinuously distributed within this range. although abundance varied from year to St. Joseph Bay and Steinhatchee study
Instead, the population was composed year. Respondents reported that scallops sites, at least through 1998 scallop abun-
of many discretely distributed sub- “used to be” abundant in areas such as dance at those sites has been an order
populations that inhabited the bays and Anclote and Homosassa and suggested of magnitude greater than at most other
estuaries that characterize the Florida that declines in these populations were sites during most years. Since 1998,
coast. In recent years, many of those relatively recent. some increases in scallop abundance at
local populations have disappeared in In the northwest region, scallops several sites have occurred. Events that
response to a variety of factors including remained abundant in St. Joseph Bay may have contributed to the increases
habitat loss, deteriorating water quality, and occasionally could be found in are discussed in the “Population Resto-
and overfishing. St. Andrew Bay, but otherwise they ration Efforts” section below.
According to Arnold et al. (1998), by had largely disappeared from the area.
the mid 1990's only two consistently Various explanations were offered by the Causes of Population Loss
productive local populations remained respondents for any observed declines, There appears to be no single expla-
in Florida, one located in the coastal including increased turbidity, overfish- nation or event that led to the depletion
waters near Steinhatchee and the other of bay scallops in coastal Florida. The
located within St. Joseph Bay (Fig. 1). ‘Arnold, W. S., and D. C. Marelli. 1991. Assess- available explanations are based largely
The loss of these local populations ap- ment of bay scallop populations on the west coast upon anecdotal information rather than
of Florida. Internal Report IHR1991-001, Fla.
pears to have occurred from south to Mar. Res. Inst., 19 p. hard data. In southeast Florida, where
Marine Fisheries Review
» ste Atlantic
Pensacola . Ree : ? Ocean
St. Andrew Bay
St. Joseph Bay
* Chandeleur
Islands Cedar Key
Homosassa
Hernando
Anclote
Tampa Bay '
Gulf of Mexico
Sarasota Bay
Palm
Beach
Pine Island
we
“ZN
@ Bay Scallop Spring Survey Sites
V7) Bay Scallop Open Harvest Area
Figure |.—Bay scallops, Argopecten irradians, in Florida, including their historic range from West Palm Beach to the Chandeleur
Islands in Louisiana, the location of summer adult abundance survey sites, and the present (2009) open recreational harvest area
along the west coast.
Table 1.—Mean abundance of adult bay scallops, Argopecten irradians, at various sites along the Florida west coast. Sample locations are depicted in Figure 1. Adult abundance
(SD) is calculated as the mean of the abundance at each of twenty 718 yd? (600 m2) survey transects determined by scuba divers, except at Cedar Key where only six stations
were surveyed each year.
Site 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Pine Island 0 2.4 0.8 2.3 2.4 2.6 2. 55 0.6 0.6
(0) (7.7) (2.1) (3.9) (5.7) (6.1) (10.5) (1.6) (1.1)
Anciote 14.6 0.2 3.4 47.4 20.3 2.5 y 5.9 37.2 35.8
(26.8) (5.8) (74.0) (69.8) (3.8) ‘ (8.0) (63.7) (49.8)
Hernando 14.2 0.6 5.7 2.2 46.1 7.2 8.0
(33.1) (1.5) (11.8) (44.9) (124.2) (3.9) (16.8)
Homosassa < ) 3 15.2 3.0 28.6 242.8 299.3 51.8 125.6
(16.0) (7.9) (48.1) (290) (305.4) (38.9) (149.8)
Cedar Key af 0.3 7.7 2.3 6.0
(2.8) (0.5) (9.4) (2.6) (4.2)
Steinhatchee Z 27.3 164.4 218.3 122.8 138.7 61.3
(227.3) (388.5) (190.0) (136.9)
St. Joseph Bay ra fe 3.4 31.1 3.8 12.1
(48.2) (6.3) (37.6)
St. Andrew Bay 56 y 2.4 1.2 0.1
(3.0) (2.6) (0.2)
Pensacola Bay
bay scallops occurred at least during resupply of populations both north and lops were planted in each of five cages at
the early part of the century (see “Fish- south of Tampa Bay. each of those stations. Scallops planted
ery and Harvest Regulations” section The depletion of scallop populations in spring at a shell height of about 20
below), intensive human population in the Anclote and Homosassa/Crystal mm grew slowly and did not achieve
growth and concomitant development River area may be the result of indirect full adult shell height until the following
have led to obvious and substantial effects that contributed to a lack of larval spring, but they did appear to develop
changes to habitat and water quality supply to these areas. Scallops are an and spawn normally.
that certainly contributed to the scallop’s annual species in Florida, so extreme Plantings were conducted in 1998,
decline. population fluctuations occur. It is 1999, and 2000, and contemporane-
In southwest Florida, construction of therefore not the collapse in abundance ous sampling (Table 1) suggests that
a causeway from the mainland to Sani- that is of concern but rather the lack of at least at the Homosassa and Crystal
bel Island is popularly considered to be recovery. When bay scallop populations River sites an increase in abundance of
the causative agent of decline of the Pine fall below a certain level of abundance, wild scallops resulted from the restora-
Island Sound scallop population. How- they appear to be no longer capable of tion efforts. However, a genetic study
ever, Dr. Peter Sheng? at the University producing enough larvae to support self- designed to detect contributions from
of Florida suggests that, based upon his seeding (Arnold et al., 1998). the planted scallops to subsequent gen-
hydrodynamic modeling of Pine Island At that point, allochthonous larval erations of wild scallops failed to detect
Sound, dredging the Intracoastal Water- inputs are necessary to rebuild the any significant contribution (Seyoum
way through Pine Island Sound led to population, but as the external sources et al., 2003; Wilbur et al., 2005). Given
increased transport of fresh water north of such larvae are lost (e.g. as scallop the extreme fluctuations in scallop
from the Caloosahatchee River into the populations in Tampa Bay and other abundance observed from long-term
sound rather than south into the Gulf areas become depleted) the likelihood fisheries landings (Fig. 2) and from the
of Mexico. of larval supply is lessened. A “domino adult scallop monitoring program (Table
Since the Sanibel Causeway lies effect” comes into play; as more popula- 1), natural fluctuations as an explana-
just south of the mouth of the Caloo- tions are lost the remaining populations tion of the sudden resurgence cannot
sahatchee River and likely contributes become increasingly imperiled. This be ruled out.
to blocking the exit of fresh water concept of population collapse, based A novel approach to rebuilding scal-
from the river into the Gulf of Mexico, upon the theory of metapopulation ecol- lop populations has recently been de-
it is possible that channelization and ogy (Levins, 1969; Hanski, 1991) has veloped and was applied in Pine Island
causeway construction acted synergis- formed the basis of bay scallop popula- Sound during November 2003 (Leve-
tically to increase freshwater inputs tion restoration efforts in Florida. rone et al., 2004; Arnold, 2008). For
into Pine Island Sound. The increase this effort, adult scallops were collected
Population Restoration Efforts
in fresh water would lower the sound’s from Pine Island Sound and induced to
salinity and thereby reduce the suitable Efforts to rebuild bay scallop popu- spawn in a hatchery. Resultant larvae
bay scallop habitat, because scallops lations in Florida have been ongoing were raised to the pediveliger stage, at
require salinities above 20%c for proper on a sporadic basis since at least the which time they are anticipated to set
embryological and larval development 1970's, but a more concerted effort was within approximately 24 hours. The
(Castagna, 1975). initiated by Dr. Norman J. Blake at the larvae were then transported to the field
In Tampa Bay, it is likely that dredge- University of South Florida beginning in and released into three pre-established
and-fill operations, causeway construc- the early 1990's (Blake, 1996; 1998; Lu enclosures constructed from sediment
tion, and human population growth and Blake, 1997). Those efforts involved containment booms (Fig. 3). Larvae
indirectly contributed to the depletion of culturing locally collected scallops in a were allowed 72 hours to settle, after
scallops in that estuary. Those activities hatchery setting (Lu and Blake, 1997), which the containment booms were
led to a loss of about 80% of the seagrass then either releasing the resulting juve- removed and the scallops were allowed
beds in Tampa Bay (Lewis et al., 1985). niles into grass beds or planting them to grow to adult size and to spawn ina
Such a loss of essential scallop habitat into cages deployed throughout Tampa natural setting.
(Thayer and Stuart, 1974) would proba- Bay (Blake, 1996; 1998). This approach is designed to emulate
bly result in an equivalent or greater loss Bay scallop population restoration the caging approach, with each enclo-
of scallops. The loss of the Tampa Bay efforts in Florida were expanded in sure serving the same purpose as a set
scallop population may have imperiled 1997 to include several additional loca- of five cages at each of the stations men-
other populations along the west coast of tions including Anclote, Homosassa, tioned above. In both cases, the idea is
Florida, because that estuary may have and Crystal River (Arnold et al., 2005). to establish a concentration of spawning
acted as a source of larvae for periodic For the latter effort, ten stations were individuals and ultimately to maximize
established within each of the Tampa the fertilization success of the scallops
Bay, Anclote, Homosassa, and Crystal that do successfully survive to spawning.
Sheng, P. Physical oceanographer, Coastal Eng.
Dep., Univ. Fla. Gainesville. Personal commun. River study areas and from 50-300 scal- However, the larval release approach
Marine Fisheries Review
achieves that goal with considerably
Bay Scallop Commercial Landings
less cost and effort and with the scallops
Florida West Coast
proceeding through their growth and
development in a natural manner.
The larval release approach appears 500000 Tr
to have been successful. Recruit col-
lectors deployed within the enclosures
captured an average of 1.5 scallop 400000-
recruits, whereas no recruits could be
found on collectors deployed outside of
the enclosures or within a control enclo- 300000
sure that received no larvae. Moreover,
during June 2004 we found an average
of 20 scallops within the footprint of the
three treatment enclosures versus only PoMfeo autnsd s
three scallops within the footprint of the
control enclosure. 100000
Finally, surveys conducted in Pine
Island Sound during June 2005, when
offspring from the June 2004 adults 7a hl =
would be expected to have achieved
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
adult size themselves, revealed that
Year
scallop density in Pine Island Sound
increased by two orders of magnitude Figure 2.—Bay scallop, Argopecten irradians, commercial fishery landings from the
relative to the previous I1 years of west coast of Florida during 1950-93. The commercial fishery was closed by regula-
tion beginning in 1994, Data are courtesy of the Florida FWCC Fish and Wildlife
monitoring (Table |). Scallop density in
Conservation Commission’s Fisheries Dependent Monitoring group.
Pine Island Sound decreased by an order
of magnitude in 2006 relative to 2005,
suggesting that restoration outcomes
may be short-lived and may need to be
continuous to be successful.
As with the previous restoration ef-
forts, despite apparent success we have
no absolute evidence of a connection
between our restoration efforts and
the resultant resurgence of scallops in
Pine Island Sound. Given the vagaries
of population abundance characteristic
of this short-lived animal, it is possible
that the increase in scallop abundance
observed during 2005 simply reflected
natural variation. The 2003-05 effort
in Pine Island Sound was designed to
be low-cost so no genetic assessment
was included, but we are refining and
applying genetic assessment in our Figure 3.—Sediment containment booms formed into enclosures for receipt of
ongoing restoration program. Genetic bay scallop, Argopecten irradians, larvae in Pine Island Sound, Fla. For the study
described in the text, one of the four enclosures served as a control and received no
assessments are a costly but necessary
larvae. Photo from the author’s archives.
component of population rebuilding pro-
grams as they provide the best assurance
that perceived success is a reality. once active along both coasts of Florida. of those counties are located along the
Most production came from Pine Island east central coast of Florida, well north
Fishery and Harvest Regulations
Sound and St. Joseph Bay (Table 2), of reported northernmost distribution of
Apparently beginning in the late but landings were recorded from sev- the species on the east coast of Florida
1920’s (Murdock, 1955), an occasion- eral other counties including Brevard, (Waller, 1969). This fishery was some-
ally substantial commercial fishery was Volusia, Flagler, and St. Johns. All four times substantial; in 1936 over 332,000
Table 2.—Statewide Florida commercial landings of bay Scallops were shucked by hand, and harvest and the area from the mouth of
scallops, Argopecten irradians, from 1928 through 1950. the women and high school girls and St. Joseph Bay west to the Florida—Ala-
Data are from Murdock (1955) who provides additional
information on the various sources of these data. * indi- boys employed could shuck a bushel in bama line was closed to harvest due to
cates missing data or no production less than an hour (Murdock, 1955). The low scallop abundance in the estuaries of
resultant meats were washed to remove that area. As of 2009, those regulations
any shell and visceral fragments and remain in effect.
placed in metal bins with fresh water As noted, considerable effort has
and ice for an initial chilling. The meats been expended on restoring bay scallop
absorbed some water, which increased populations in various Florida estuar-
their volumes and also improved their ies, but no definitive evidence can be
appearance by whitening them. The offered regarding the success of those
meats then were packed in |-gallon tins efforts. One reason for advising cau-
32,523
» 499 which were subsequently packed on ice tion in the interpretation of the possible
10,593 in barrels or boxes for shipment to local outcomes of those efforts relates to the
10,948
17,497 or out-of-state markets. changes that have occurred in harvesting
There were no regulations regarding regulations contemporaneous with those
this fishery (Murdock, 1955), with the restoration efforts. Possibly, changes in
predictable result that by the 1960's management strategies, the restoration
21,600
landings were decreasing. By the 1970's, efforts, or a combination of the two will
the fishery was artisanal at best. The be adequate to maintain functional bay
first substantial regulations regarding scallop populations in Florida coastal
7,180
commercial or recreational bay scallop waters in the face of continued human
harvests in Florida were implemented population growth. The loss of bay
lbs of meats were landed and in 1951 in 1985, when a statewide closed season scallops from Florida waters would be a
over 250,000 Ibs of meats were landed. from | April through 30 June of each disappointment because the species sup-
However, the fishery was also very spo- year was instituted. A recreational bag ports an enjoyable and family-oriented
radic, and Murdock (1955) suggests that limit of five gallons of whole scallops recreation, and that loss would signal that
at least some of this variance was due to also was put into effect and allowable serious environmental problems within
red tide, Karenia brevis, events that still dimensions for commercial harvest gear the seagrass community are occurring.
severely affect bay scallop populations were defined.
Acknowledgments
in Florida. As scallop populations continued to
Vessels involved in this fishery were decline statewide, more stringent harvest Many people have contributed to our
typically 15-20 ft (4.5—6 m) long, they regulations were instituted beginning in understanding of the history and ecology
had shallow drafts suitable for running 1994. That year the commercial fishery of bay scallops in Florida waters, includ-
in shallow water, and each was manned was closed and commercial sale of bay ing numerous citizens who contributed
by one fisherman (Murdock, 1955). scallops harvested from Florida waters their memories and knowledge of scal-
Their engines were centrally located, was prohibited. In addition, the recre- lop distribution and abundance. Specific
and a culling board was attached to the ational harvest was limited to the area acknowledgment goes to Alcee Taylor
stern gunwhale. Dredges, constructed north of the Suwannee River and only from Cortez, Florida, for the time he
from a triangular iron frame of maxi- during the period | July—30 Sept. of each spent discussing the history of scallops
mum dimensions 28 in (70 cm) wide year. In 1995 the recreational harvest and to Dr. Norm Blake and his students
x 24 in (60 cm) high, with a 2 2/3 in season was further limited to the period for establishing research baselines for
(7 cm) stretch mesh net attached to the | July—30 Aug., and the bag limit was bay scallops in Florida. Florida FWCC
distal end of the frame, were the harvest reduced to 2 gallons of whole scallops or staff who have been instrumental in
gear of choice. The dredges could hold | pint of meats/person. A boat limit of 10 developing our knowledge of this im-
about one bushel; two dredges were gallons of whole scallops (1/2 gallon of portant and charismatic species include
towed from each vessel. In Pine Island meats) was included, the prohibition on Dan Marelli, Catherine Bray, Melissa
Sound, a maximum of perhaps 40 fish- commercial sale was continued, and the Harrison, Kate Hagner, Melanie Parker,
ermen moved in and out of this fishery use of any mechanical gear for harvest Sarah Stephenson, Steve Geiger, Janessa
depending upon scallop abundance was outlawed. Cobb, Mark Gambordella, Bill Teehan,
and the abundance of other harvestable In 1997 the recreational season was and others too numerous to mention.
species such as blue crabs, Callinectes extended to 10 Sept. to include the Labor
sapidus. No information was provided Day holiday, but all other regulations Literature Cited
regarding the number of fishermen were left intact. Finally, in 2002, the area Abbott, R. T. 1974. American seashells: The
engaged in the fishery in other Florida from the Suwannee River south to the marine mollusca of the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts of North America, second edition. Van
areas (Murdock, 1955). Weeki Wachee River was reopened to Nostrand Reinhold Co., N.Y., 663 p.
Marine Fisheries Review
Arnold, W. S. 2008. Application of the larval Coleman, F. C., C. C. Koenig, and W. F. Herrn- pecten irradians concentricus (Say, 1822) and
life history phase for restoration of coastal kind. 1994. Survey of Florida inshore shrimp of the bay scallops of Florida. The Nautilus
marine bivalve populations. Rev. Fish. Sci. trawler by-catch. Second annual report, Fla. 110:42-44.
16:65-71. Dept. Nat. Resour., Fla. Mar. Res. Inst., DNR Mikell, G. A. 1992. 80KS: A coastal Weeden
= , N. J. Blake, M. M. Harrison, D. C. contract #C-7779, 56 p. Island village in northwest Florida. The Fla.
Marelli, M. L. Parker, S. C. Peters, and D. Hanski, I. 1991. Single-species metapopulation Anthropol. 45: 195-220
E. Sweat. 2005. Restoration of bay scallop dynamics: concepts, models and observa- 1994. 8WL38, A protohistoric vil-
(Argopecten irradians (Lamarck)) popula- tions. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42:17-38. lage site on Choctawhatchee Bay. The Fla.
tions in Florida coastal waters: Planting Leverone, J. R., W. S. Arnold, S. P. Geiger, and Anthropol. 47:233-267.
techniques and the growth, mortality and J. Greenawalt. 2004. Restoration of bay scal- Moyer, M. A., and N. J. Blake. 1986. Fluctua
reproductive development of planted scal- lop populations in Pine Island Sound: Compe- tions in calico scallop production (Argopecten
lops. J. Shellfish Res. 24:883-904. tent larval release strategy. Final report to the gibbus). Proc. 11th Annu. Trop. Subtropical
____, D.C. Marelli, C. P Bray, and M. M. Charlotte Harbor Natl. Est. Prog. Mote Mar. Fish. Conf. Am., p. 45-58
Harrison. 1998. Recruitment of bay scal- Lab. Tech. Rep. 974, 13 p. Murdock, J. F. 1955. Investigation of the Lee
lops Argopecten irradians in Floridan Gulf Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic County bay scallop fishery. Rep. 55-13, The
of Mexico waters: scales of coherence. Mar. consequences of environmental heterogene- Mar. Lab., Univ. Miami, Fla., 10 p.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 170:143-157. ity for biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc Seyoum, S., T. M. Bert, A. Wilbur, C. Crawford,
Barber, B. J., and N. J. Blake. 1983. Growth and Am. 15:237-240. and W. S. Arnold. 2003. Development, assess
reproduction of the bay scallop, Argopecten Levitan, D. R. 1995. The ecology of fertilization in ment, and application of a mitochondrial DNA
irradians (Lamarck) at its southern distribu- free-spawning invertebrates. /n L. McEdward genetic tag for the bay scallop, Argopecten
tional limit. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 66:247 (Editor), Ecology of marine invertebrate larvae, irradians. J. Shellfish Res. 22:1 11-117
256. p. 123-156. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Thayer, G. W., and H. H. Stuart. 1974. The bay
—s and . 1985. Substrate Lewis, R. R., M. J. Durako, M. D. Moffler, and scallop makes its bed of seagrass. Mar. Fish
catabolism related to reproduction in the bay R. C. Phillips. 1985. Seagrass meadows in Rev. 36(7):27—30.
scallop, Argopecten irradians concentricus, Tampa Bay-a review. /n S. A. F. Treat, J. L. Thomas, P. L., and L. J. Campbell. 1993. Eglin
as determined by O/N and RQ physiological Simon, R. R. Lewis II, and R. L. Whitman, Air Force Base historic preservation plan,
indexes. Mar. Biol. 87:13-18. Jr. (Editors), Proceedings Tampa Bay Area Technical synthesis of cultural resources
Blake, N. J. 1996. Demonstration of large-scale Scientific Information Symposium, p. 210 investigations at Eglin, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa
reintroduction of the southern bay scallop 246. Fla. Sea Grant Coll. Rep. 65. and Walton Counties, Florida. New World
to Tampa Bay, Florida. Final Rep. Tampa Lu, Y., and N. J. Blake. 1997. The culture of the Res., Inc., Rep. Invest. 192. Chap. 8, Prehis-
Bay Natl. Est. Prog., St. Petersburg, Fla., southern bay scallop in Tampa Bay, an urban toric Interpret., p. 489-637
28 p. Florida estuary. Aqua. Intern. 5:439-450. Wakida-Kusunoki, A. T. 2009. The bay scallop,
2 __. 1998. The potential for reestablishing Marelli, D. C., and W. S. Arnold. 2001. Shell rgopecten irradians amplicostatus, in north
bay scallops to the estuaries of the west coast morphologies of bay scallops, Argopecten eastern Mexico. Mar. Fish. Rev. 71(3):17-19.
of Florida. Trans. 63rd No. Am. Wildl. and irradians, from extant and prehistoric popula- Waller, T. R. 1969. The evolution of the Argo-
Natur. Resour. Cont., p. 184-189. tions from the Florida Gulf coast: Implications pecten gibbus stock (Mollusca: Bivalvia),
____—s and ~*M. A. Moyer 1991. The calico for the biology of past and present metapopu- with emphasis on the tertiary and quater-
scallop, Argopecten gibbus, fishery of Cape lations. J. Archaeoi. Sci. 28:577-586. nary species of eastern North America. The
Canaveral, Florida. /n S.E. Shumway (Editor), . M. K. Krause, W. S. Arnold, and W. Paleontological Society Memoir 3(43):1
Scallops: biology, ecology and aquaculture, p. G. Lyons. 1997a. Systematic relationships 125.
899-911. Develop. Aquacult. Fish. Sci., Vol. among Florida populations of Argopecten Wilbur, A. E., S. Seyoum, T. M. Bert, and W. S
21, Elsevier, N.Y., irradians (Lamarck, 1819) (Bivalvia: Pectini- Arnold. 2005. A genetic assessment of bay
Castagna, M. 1975. Culture of the bay scallop, dae). The Nautilus 110:31-41. scallop (Argopecten irradians) restoration
Argopecten irradians, in Virginia. Mar. Fish. . W. G. Lyons, W. S. Arnold, and M efforts in Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coastal
Rev. 37(1):19-24. K. Krause. 1997b. Subspecific status of Argo- waters (USA). Cons. Gen. 6:11 1—122
Bay Scallops, Argopecten irradians, in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico
(Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas)
KIM WITHERS and MATT HUBNER
Introduction began being published in 1950.' Texas (Ricklis, 1995), but on the Louisiana
reported its only commercial catches Chenier plain, middens can be difficult
Two subspecies of bay scallops in- (since 1895) in 1984 and 1985 (Culbert- to separate from natural accumulations
habit the northwestern Gulf of Mexico son et al., 2004). The landings for both of shell (Henderson et al., 2002).
coast: Argopecten irradians concentri- years combined were 2.4 metric tons Scallops do not appear in middens
cus on the west coast of Florida to the (t) with a market value of $2,746.00. In from Louisiana (e.g. Poverty Point Site;
Chandeleur Islands, Lousiana, and A. the same years, 13,437 t of bay scallops Gagliano and Saucier, 1963) but they
i. amplicostatus from Galveston Bay, with a total value of $35,842.00 were are acommon component of middens in
Texas, south to northern Mexico. Abun- landed in Florida.' Texas is the only northwestern Florida (Russo and Quit-
dance of bay scallops in the northwest- state in the northwestern Gulf that regu- myer, 1996) and Texas (Table |). We
ern Gulfi s typically much lower than on lates recreational harvesting of scallops could find no record of marine/estuarine
the west coast of Florida and the Atlantic (TPWD, 2002, 2006). Scallops can only shell middens or bay scallop artifacts in
coast. Alabama, Mississippi, and Loui- be harvested from waters approved by either Mississippi or Alabama. Rangia
siana have not reported a commercial the Texas Department of Health. They or freshwater forms dominate the few
scallop catch since harvest statistics can be taken year-round by hand, using middens in Louisiana that have been
dip nets, rakes, or dredging and there are studied (Henderson et al., 2002), sug-
Kim Withers and Matt Hubner are with the no size or bag limits. gesting that estuarine salinities may
Center for Coastal Studies. Texas A&M Uni- Since there is no fishery on the north- have been too low outside of Texas and
versity-Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Dr., Unit
5866, Corpus Christi, TX 78412 (email: Kim. western Gulfo f Mexico, this paper will Florida to support large prehistoric scal-
Withers @tamucc.edu) focus on what is known about past and lop populations.
present bay scallop distribution and Bay scallops are one of five species
abundance in the northwestern Gulf of marine/estuarine mollusks that were
(primarily Texas, Fig. 1) and the reasons exploited by prehistoric inhabitants of
ABSTRACT—There is no evidence that a why a commercial fishery is unlikely to the Texas coastline. Their shells are
commercial bay scallop fishery exists any-
develop. often co-dominant with oyster shells
where in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico.
No data concerning scallop abundance or (Ricklis, 1995), but they are not usually
Prehistoric Scallop Usage
distribution was found for Alabama, Missis- associated with middens dominated by
sippi, and Louisiana. Texas is the only state Shell middens composed primarily of rangia shells. Bay scallops are infre-
west of Florida where bay scallop popula-
eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, or quently found in middens on the upper
tions have been documented. These records
come from a variety of literature sources rangia, Rangia cuneata and/or R.f lexuo- Texas coast and are much more abundant
and the fisheries-independent data col- sus, Shells are common along much of from Matagorda Bay southward (Steele,
lected by Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart- the northwestern Gulf of Mexico coast. 1987; Table 1). The majority of bay scal-
ment (1982-2005). Although common in The predominant species depends on lop shells found in archeological sites
the diet of prehistoric peoples living on the
Texas coast, recent (last ~50 years) bay whether they were deposited in low are unmodified, even articulated, and
scallop population densities tend to be low salinity areas near river deltas and bay in large enough quantities to suggest
and exhibit “boom-—bust” cycles of about heads (rangia), or in areas of higher they were a significant and integral food
10-15 years. The Laguna Madre, is the salinity closer to the Gulf along bay source (Steele, 1987; Ricklis, 1996).
only place on the Texas coast where scal-
margins and barrier islands (oysters). Scallops were apparently not used for
lops are relatively abundant; this is likely
due to extensive seagrasses cover (>70%) Texas shell middens usually represent tools or ornaments since possibly modi-
and salinities that typically exceed 35 psu. Sites of repeated seasonal occupation fied shells were only found at two sites
The lack of bay scallop fishery development (Steele, 1987).
in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico is prob-
'Landings statistics have been published by the Bay scallops are most abundant in
ably due to variable but generally low den- National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, in middens that date to the early Archaic
sities of the species combined with a limited various issues of the Current Fisheries Statistics
amount of suitable (i.e. seagrass) habitat. series period (~7500—4500 YBP). At that
Marine Fisheries Review
