Stock assessment of the blue crab in Chesapeake Bay 2005: Final report

The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is an icon for the Chesapeake Bay region. The commercial fisheries for blue crab in the Bay remain one of the most valuable fishery sectors in the Bay. Ecologically, blue crab is an important component of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Thus, sound management to ensure the sustainability of this resource is critical. The first bay wide assessment for blue crab was undertaken in 1995 and completed in 1997. It concluded that the stock was moderately to fully exploited and at average levels of abundance. Subsequent to this assessment concerns over the continuing status of blue crab were raised because of declines in abundance and harvests. In response to concerns from stakeholders, a Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee was established in 1996. Work by this committee lead to the establishment in 2001 of biomass and exploitation thresholds and an exploitation target reference points. Since 2001, the status of the blue crab stock has been updated annually and its status determined relative to the reference points. Over the ensuing years, the approach to determining the status of blue crab in the Chesapeake Bay has been modified, but a new inclusive assessment has not been conducted

Lack of recreational fishing compliance may compromise effectiveness of Rockfish Conservation Areas in British Columbia

Compliance with spatial fishing regulations (e.g., marine protected areas, fishing closures) is one of the most important, yet rarely measured, determinants of ecological recovery. We used aerial observations of recreational fishing events from creel surveys before, during, and after 77 Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) were established in British Columbia, Canada. There was no evidence of a change in fishing effort in 83% of the RCAs, and effort in five RCAs increased after establishment. Fishing effort in open areas adjacent to the RCAs declined with time and was higher than effort in the RCAs in all 3 years. Next, we used compliance data for 105 RCAs around Vancouver Island to model the drivers of compliance. Compliance was related to the level of fishing effort around the RCA, the size and perimeter-to-area ratio of RCAs, proximity to fishing lodges, and the level of enforcement. Noncompliance in RCAs may be hampering their effectiveness and impeding rockfish recovery. Education and enforcement efforts to reduce fishing effort inside protected areas are critical to the recovery of depleted fish stocks

The dimensional accuracy of preparation of femoral cavity in cementless total hip arthroplasty

Objective: To observe the accuracy of femoral preparation and the position of the cementless prosthesis in femoral cavity, and to compare the results between the computer-assisted surgical group (CASPAR) and the conventional group. Methods: Ten femoral components were implanted either manually or by CASPAR in cadaver femurs. The specimens were cut to 3 mm thick slices. Microradiograms of every slice were sent to a computer for analysis with special software (IDL). The gaps and the medullary cavities between component and bone, the direct bone contact area of the implant surface, the gap width and the percentage of gap and bone contact area were measured in every slice. Results: In the proximal implant coated with HA of the CASPAR group, the average percentage of bone contact reached 93.2% (ranging from 87.6% to 99.7%); the average gap percentage was 2.9% (ranging from 0.3% to 7.8%); the maximum gap width was 0.81 mm and the average gap width was only 0.20 mm. While in the conventional group, the average percentage of bone contact reached 60.1% (ranging from 49.2% to 70.4%); the average gap percentage was 32.8% (ranging from 25.1% to 39.9%); the maximum gap width was 2.97 mm and the average gap width was 0.77 mm. The average gap around the implant in the CASPAR group was only 9% of that in the manual group; the maximum and average gap widths were only about 26% of those in the manual group. On the other hand, the CASPAR group showed 33% higher bone contact than the manual group. Conclusion: With the use of robotics-assisted system, significant progress can be achieved for femoral preparation in total hip arthroplasty