130 -I 



24 28 32 36 



FORK LENGTH (cm) 



r 



40 



I 



44 



Figure 2. — Length-frequency distribution of king mackerel taken in shrimp tongue trawl nets 

 during October 1986 along the southern Atlantic coast of the United States (n = 481). 



Table 2. — Catches of Spanish) mackerel during evaluations of tongue nets equipped with trawl efficiency devices 

 (TED'S). C = 22.9 m footrope length tongue net; NMFS = 22.9 m footrope length tongue net with a NMFS TED; 

 GA = 22.9 m footrope length tongue net with a Georgia TED. Tow times = 1 hour. 



Table 3. — Catches of king mackerel during evaluations of tongue nets equipped with trawl efficiency devices 

 (TED'S). C = 22.9 m footrope length tongue net; NMFS = 22.9 m footrope length tongue net with a NMFS TED; 

 GA = 22.9 m footrope length tongue net with a Georgia TED. Tow times = 1 hour. 



Although it is possible that juvenile mackerels 

 were more abundant in 1986 than in previous 

 years, the increased catches of these fishes in 

 tongue nets over semiballoon nets suggests that 

 the former are much more efficient in capturing 

 these fishes. Preliminary data from a gear com- 



parison cruise in 1987 indicate that tongue nets 

 do catch more pelagic fishes than semiballoon 

 nets even after adjusting for differences in 

 footrope lengths (G. Sedberry"*). Unfortunately, 



■*G. Sedberry, Marine Resources Research Institute, South 

 Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, P.O. Box 



396 



