340 
Fishery Bulletin 116(3-4) 
CD 
U) 
CO 
c 
0) 
o 
<5 
CL 
10 20 30 
Temperature (degrees C) 
Figure 2 
Comparison of depth (<500 m), temperature, and salin¬ 
ity (>24) at all sampled locations (gray bars) and at lo¬ 
cations where angel sharks (Squatinidae) were collect¬ 
ed (white bars) off the East Coast of the United States 
between 1950 and 2016, expressed as percentages of to¬ 
tal number of trawls conducted (A=49,887) and trawls 
in which angel sharks were captured (tz= 1001). 
15 
a> 
a> 
« 
c 
Q) 
o 
a> 
CL 
10 - 
5 - 
10 - 
15 - 
20 
25 
100 200 300 400 
Depth (meters) 
500 
~K^ 
10 20 30 
Temperature (degrees C) 
..r^-T-Ti-rff 
' 
^ . 
i ... i i i i r 
30 
35 
40 
Salinity 
Figure 3 
Comparison of depth (<500 m), temperature, and salin¬ 
ity (>24) at all sampled locations (gray bars) and loca¬ 
tions where angel sharks (Squatinidae) were collected 
(white bars) in the northern Gulf of Mexico between 
1950 and 2016, expressed as percentages of total num¬ 
ber of trawls conducted (7V=38,520) and trawls in which 
angel sharks were captured (n=1223). 
the EC, trawls were conducted from 24.67° to 44.87°N 
at depths from 3.7 to 3840.0 m (mean: 92.07 m [stan¬ 
dard error (SE) 0.46]) and 89 trawls were conducted at 
depths greater than 500 m (Fig. 2). In the GOM, trawls 
were conducted at depths from 1.8 to 3085.2 m (mean: 
62.07 m [SE 0.54]) and 49 trawls were conducted at 
depths greater than 1000 m (Fig. 3). In both regions, 
sampling occurred in all months; however, effort was 
lowest during January, February, and December (Fig. 
4). A total of 4999 angel sharks were collected during 
the trawl surveys; 2465 were caught off the EC and 
2534 were captured in the GOM. Angel sharks were 
collected off the EC from 32.93° to 39.29°N at depths 
between 5.4 and 494.0 m (Figs. 2 and 5). Off the EC 
there was a significant difference in the distribution of 
depths sampled and depths where angel sharks were 
collected (K-S statistic: 8.92, P<0.01). Angel sharks 
were captured at higher rates at depths less than ~60 
m and between 100 and 160 m than would be expected 
if their spatial distribution were uniform (Fig. 2). 
In the GOM, angel sharks were collected at depths 
between 25.6 and 473.6 m; however, only 2.2% of indi- 
