88 
Fishery Bulletin 95( I ), 1997 
Table 1 
Centropages hamatus abundance data for each subarea by survey. The asterisk indicates where survey operations were not 
completed past the US-Canadian maritime boundary. Abbreviation Key: MAB = Middle Atlantic Bight; GBK = Georges Bank; 
SNE = Southern New England; GOM = Gulf of Maine; Yr = year; no. = number of samples, Mid-day = survey midpoint (jday ), Log 
mean =log ( 10) mean abundance, SE = standard error of the mean. 
MAB 
SNE 
GBK 
GOM 
Mid- Log 
Mid- Log 
Mid- Log 
Mid- Log 
Yr 
no. 
day 
mean 
SE 
Yr 
no. 
day 
mean 
SE 
Yr 
no. 
day 
mean 
SE 
Yr 
no. 
day 
mean 
SE 
77 
30 
86 
2.59 
0.33 
77 
29 
74 
1.95 
0.29 
77 
19 
49 
0.16 
0.11 
77 
30 
123 
0.00 
0.00 
77 
30 
140 
2.90 
0.32 
77 
46 
133 
1.89 
0.24 
77 
32 
80 
0.46 
0.15 
77 
25 
308 
0.87 
0.24 
77 
30 
238 
0.16 
0.11 
77 
36 
242 
1.29 
0.27 
77 
23 
114 
1.71 
0.30 
77 
27 
315 
0.18 
0.12 
77 
30 
293 
0.09 
0.09 
77 
30 
300 
1.34 
0.25 
77 
31 
147 
1.18 
0.28 
78* 
25 
139 
0.09 
0.09 
78 
29 
49 
1.16 
0.27 
78 
31 
60 
1.07 
0.20 
77* 
24 
219 
3.38 
0.25 
78* 
31 
193 
0.44 
0.17 
78 
28 
112 
2.00 
0.29 
78 
30 
131 
1.38 
0.25 
77 
19 
307 
2.58 
0.45 
78 
29 
240 
0.46 
0.18 
78 
29 
177 
2.43 
0.30 
78 
34 
188 
2.12 
0.27 
77 
22 
333 
2.47 
0.32 
78* 
31 
286 
1.49 
0.23 
78 
31 
227 
0.72 
0.25 
78 
31 
233 
1.25 
0.25 
78 
28 
49 
1.33 
0.20 
78* 
31 
322 
0.44 
0.17 
79 
46 
59 
1.74 
0.24 
78 
31 
294 
1.62 
0.28 
78 
29 
137 
0.46 
0.19 
79 
40 
114 
0.06 
0.06 
79 
30 
129 
3.06 
0.29 
79 
40 
64 
1.64 
0.20 
78 
19 
241 
3.04 
0.42 
79 
32 
147 
0.19 
0.11 
79 
49 
172 
2.74 
0.22 
79 
27 
107 
1.12 
0.29 
78 
32 
287 
2.84 
0.25 
79* 
37 
240 
1.13 
0.22 
79 
46 
226 
0.59 
0.18 
79 
27 
134 
2.30 
0.29 
79 
30 
94 
0.80 
0.23 
79 
32 
297 
0.51 
0.20 
79 
31 
280 
0.17 
0.12 
79 
44 
188 
2.13 
0.23 
79 
20 
143 
0.80 
0.29 
79 
47 
331 
0.17 
0.10 
80 
49 
64 
1.35 
0.23 
79 
37 
232 
0.59 
0.21 
79* 
18 
192 
2.38 
0.50 
80* 
34 
54 
0.29 
0.14 
80 
47 
111 
2.66 
0.23 
79 
27 
290 
1.41 
0.28 
79* 
17 
238 
3.15 
0.43 
80* 
33 
178 
0.38 
0.17 
80 
48 
147 
2.52 
0.23 
80 
43 
70 
1.98 
0.18 
79 
29 
296 
2.66 
0.31 
80* 
37 
217 
1.06 
0.23 
80 
45 
201 
0.97 
0.23 
80 
41 
117 
2.21 
0.21 
79 
33 
349 
2.19 
0.32 
80 
51 
296 
0.34 
0.12 
80 
47 
273 
0.11 
0.08 
80 
43 
157 
2.28 
0.26 
80* 
20 
62 
1.49 
0.35 
81 
53 
52 
0.13 
0.07 
80 
40 
327 
0.66 
0.22 
80 
40 
207 
2.56 
0.22 
80 
29 
88 
1.32 
0.30 
81 
46 
146 
0.44 
0.14 
81 
48 
82 
1.82 
0.24 
80 
43 
282 
0.38 
0.15 
80 
28 
123 
1.46 
0.34 
81 
40 
339 
0.19 
0.11 
81 
43 
90 
2.08 
0.30 
80 
44 
341 
1.08 
0.23 
80* 
21 
163 
3.05 
0.40 
82 
35 
49 
0.04 
0.04 
81 
42 
222 
0.99 
0.25 
81 
43 
77 
1.25 
0.18 
80* 
20 
215 
3.13 
0.36 
82 
48 
124 
0.13 
0.08 
81 
43 
271 
0.00 
0.00 
81 
44 
103 
1.39 
0.23 
80 
30 
293 
1.68 
0.33 
82 
37 
156 
0 
0 
82 
35 
80 
1.75 
0.27 
81 
35 
162 
2.07 
0.25 
80 
30 
353 
1.49 
0.29 
82 
49 
302 
0.50 
0.17 
82 
44 
81 
2.60 
0.26 
81 
33 
191 
2.75 
0.29 
81 
26 
66 
0.29 
0.14 
82 
52 
334 
0.44 
0.15 
82 
29 
157 
1.62 
0.31 
81 
30 
228 
1.80 
0.35 
81 
20 
96 
0.92 
0.30 
83 
53 
26 
0.25 
0.09 
82 
34 
214 
1.29 
0.28 
81 
38 
284 
1.43 
0.26 
81 
24 
115 
1.63 
0.32 
83 
38 
116 
0.46 
0.13 
82 
38 
268 
0.55 
0.19 
82 
40 
75 
1.62 
0.19 
81 
24 
157 
1.57 
0.40 
83 
55 
167 
0.68 
0.15 
83 
36 
53 
1.33 
0.28 
82 
34 
100 
1.25 
0.25 
81 
31 
196 
3.34 
0.32 
83 
46 
306 
0.22 
0.11 
83 
39 
78 
2.05 
0.27 
82 
44 
146 
1.44 
0.21 
81 
52 
296 
2.36 
0.25 
83 
31 
349 
0 
0 
83 
46 
149 
2.60 
0.18 
82 
39 
198 
2.58 
0.20 
81 
32 
335 
1.71 
0.32 
84 
47 
14 
0.20 
0.10 
83 
33 
212 
0.31 
0.13 
82 
24 
285 
1.86 
0.38 
82 
29 
64 
0.47 
0.18 
84 
40 
112 
0.20 
0.12 
83 
43 
268 
0.07 
0.07 
82 
43 
348 
1.20 
0.21 
82 
36 
109 
1.22 
0.22 
84 
54 
151 
0.36 
0.11 
continued on next page 
spring 1979 in SNE (Fig. 4) and above average in the 
MAB (Table 1). There were no substantial upward 
abundance departures recorded on surveys of GBK and 
only one in the GOM (1978). This is probably due to 
the limited coverage the areas received during the peak 
periods of abundance (Fig. 4). There were several years 
in three of the subareas where survey mean abundance 
had substantial downward departures from the aver- 
age annual cycle when C. hamatus was at or near its 
annual low (Fig. 4). These anomalies are probably not 
significant because log transformation increases the 
amplitude of low values. Plots of untransformed data 
show little interannual variation between survey means 
during low periods of abundance. 
Correlation of abundance with other 
variables 
Bottom depth Centropages hamatus abundance is 
negatively correlated to depth in all the subareas for 
most or all of the entire year (Table 2). Exceptions 
occur and correlations weaken during low periods of 
abundance in the MAB and GOM subareas when the 
copepod is present only at a few inshore locations. 
