848 



Fishery Bulletin 97(4), 1999 



area. Table 3 summarizes results by area of release 

 and shows the pattern of movement away from the 

 release site (or no movement when the area of 

 release=area recapture). Table 3 shows the pattern 

 of movement into an area from standardized releases 

 in adjacent areas and is organized so that the two 

 aspects of tag recoveries appear on the same hori- 

 zontal line. For example, in the second row of data, 

 results show 31.4% of cod released in 4Xm were re- 

 caf)tured in 4Xo, whereas only 15.5% of cod recap- 

 tured in 4Xm originated from 4Xo releases. 



About 63% of the cod tagged in 4Xm appeared to 

 remain in the area although there was some move- 

 ment to the west into adjacent areas. Over 76% of 



cod recaptured in 4Xm originated from 4Xm releases. 

 At the divisional level, movement in relation to the 

 division 4X/4W boundary is small (Fig. 3); however, 

 exchange between divisions does occur and is con- 

 centrated in the 4Xm, 4Xn, and 4Xo areas. 



No releases were made in 4Xn but about 80 recap- 

 tures were taken in the area. Most of these recap- 

 tures were from the Browns Bank (46% ) and Georges 

 Bank (27%) releases. Additional recaptures origi- 

 nated in the Bay of Fundy area and about 4% from 

 the area east of 4X. 



Results for the 4Xo area indicate a contrast be- 

 tween the two analyses of recaptures. Close to 100% 

 of recaptures of cod released in the 4Xo area were 



