568 



Fishery Bulletin 104(4) 



42°N 



38°N 



34°N 



30°N 



26''N 



42°N 



38"N 



34 N 



30"N 



26°N 



91m 



"A^ 



-1 ami. 



i. T-T \ Jl i i Southeri 



Niirthcrn Release 

 Dec-May Recaplure 



• Release 



Reeapllirc 



NY 



;NH , 

 ,'1._MA 



iCT.Bl''-:;, 



>iii^- 



Northern 



GA y 



Southern 



Central Release 

 Dee-May Recapture 



• Release 



Recuplurc 



L,i£ 





Central 



.<.. 



, . ';. Southern Release 



p. '^^ Southern Dec-May Recaplure 



»^ • Release 



"^i, Recapture 



Mb 



i^aw.y 



\y\jr 91ni 



'^* 

 -W-^ 



Mt ^ 

 NY i MA>Z 91m 



KC ^4 ■! 



Ml) >•/ 



914m 



Central 



■<>■ 



NC /.. V- - 



sc ;>-^ / /! 



:;a /"',■«/) 



Central 



% FL \ 



Southern 



Northern Release 

 Jun-Nov Recapture 



• Release 

 C Recapture 





Central Release 

 Southern jun_Nov Recapture 



• Release 



'.: Recapture 



Southern Release 

 Jun-Nov Recapture 



• Release 

 Recapture 



82°W 



78'W 74"W 



70''W 



66"W 82°W 78'W 74 W 70'W 66"W 82 'W 78'W 74 = W 70' W 66"W 



Figure 6 



Geographic distribution of tag recoveries, by region of release and season of recapture, for bluefish iPomatomus 

 saltatrix) sampled in National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and American Littoral Society (ALS) tagging programs 

 combined. 



by the seasonal aggregations of smaller fish ( less than 

 approximately 45 cm. 18 inch FL). Juvenile bluefish use 

 a coastal migratory route that extends farther south 

 and offshore with increasing size. Some fish past the 

 juvenile stage may remain in Florida for a season while 

 others return to northern areas in the first or second 

 spring. As growth continues, north-south migration 

 routes become truncated — replaced by a route that 

 keeps fish within the Mid-Atlantic Bight circuit. 



Because migration patterns appear to be size re- 

 lated, growth rate will determine how long individuals 

 maintain a particular migration behavior. Tag-based 

 growth rate estimates (K=Q.2Z and 0.21) are similar to 

 values reported from scale-based age studies, but the 

 tag model resulted in larger theoretical maximum sizes 

 of 100 and 118 cm (39 to 46 inch). Salerno et al. (2001) 

 reported an average L, value of 87 cm and K equal to 

 0.26, whereas previously published estimates range 

 from 67 to 128 cm (Lassiter. 1962; Wilk, 1977) and have 

 K values ranging from 0.10 to 0.34 (Lassiter, 1962; Wilk 

 1977). The tag-based estimates of maximum size are 

 similar in size to that of the largest fish reported in 



recreational landings (Salerno et al., 2001) and size of 

 this largest fish caught in recreational landings could 

 be considered an empirical estimate of L,. Otoliths have 

 been shown to be preferable to scales for aging bluefish 

 (Sipe and Chittenden, 2002). Growth parameters of 

 bluefish from the South Atlantic, aged from otoliths 

 (L, =101.9 cm, A:=0.10 [Barger, 1990]), compare well 

 with our tag-based estimates of L^ but produce very 

 different growth-rate estimates. 



The migration route bluefish follow from coastal New 

 England to southern Florida, a distance of potentially 

 >2000 km, is completed over the course of several 

 months. Bluefish held in aquaria have been shown to 

 travel at speeds from 40 to 60 cm/s and to have burst 

 speeds up to 80-110 cm/s (011a et al., 1970). An ap- 

 proximate average speed for bluefish similar in size to 

 those tagged in the present study would be between 39 

 km per day (40 cm/s) and 59 km/day (60 cm/s). The 

 majority of tagged fish moved between and 5 km per 

 day (84%), and most (97%) bluefish swam less than 20 

 km/day. However, several individuals averaged between 

 55 and 111 km per day. An average swimming speed 



