DRYFOOS, CHEEK, and KROGER: ATLANTIC MENHADEN MIGRATIONS 



Table 11. — Calculated numbers of tags recovered and percentage distributions for 

 summer 1968 releases recovered in summer 1969. 



Totol 



802 4,165 1,935 280 



Distribution of recoveries by oreo of recovery (where tagged fish came from). 



7,182 



N.Y. ond N.J. 

 Chesapeake Boy 

 N.C. 

 Fla. 



N.Y. and N.J. 

 Chesopeake Boy 

 N.C. 

 Flo. 



' Adjusted numbers from Table 5. 



Table 12. — Comparison of percentage distributions of recoveries by area of recovery 

 (where fish came from) calculated from three different indices of achieved density 

 of tagging. Method 1 is based on season-average density. Method 2 on maximum- 

 monthly density; Method 3 on last-month-of-season density. Data are for spring 

 and summer 1967 releases recaptured in spring and summer 1968. 



and 7% in New York and New Jersey. These 

 data are not adjusted for different exploitation 

 rates in the different areas; however, we believe 

 the basic pattern would not change with adjust- 

 ment. 



These data point up the importance of fish 

 from Chesapeake Bay. An average of 21% of the 

 recoveries 1 yr later from fish released in Chesa- 

 peake Bay in 1967 and 1968 occurred in the 

 New York and New Jersey areas. Thus 21% of 

 the fish from the Bay made up 72% of the total 

 catch of tagged fish in the New York and New 



Jersey areas. The patterns of movement ob- 

 served for 1967 and 1968 releases are similar. 

 In the second year after release, there is even 

 more northward displacement from each tag- 

 ging area (Table 13). 



Peak migration speeds estimated from one 

 area to another along the coast ranged from 11 

 to 16 km/day. A fish tagged off St. Augustine, 

 Fla., in April traveled to Beaufort in no more 

 than 53 days or 14 km/day. The shortest mi- 

 gration time from Chesapeake Bay to New 

 Jersey in the spring was 29 days or 11 km/day. 



729 



