Biological investigations of noxious coelenterates and ctenophores in coastal North Carolina

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Se r
@c
Wo Fir

Biological Investigations of Noxious Coelenterates
and Ctenophores in Coastal North Carolin@@
CIO F. J. Schwartz
L4
A. F. Chestnut
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina
Morehead City, N. C. 28557
C; 40
ba, Public law 89-720, Jellyfish act
C<N _* _L
I Project JF-2-9-1 January-December 1972
G

Abstract

A year long study was made of the coastal waters of North Carolina in
1972 to resolve the questions of what coelenterates and ctenophores occur
therein and are they a problem to man. Eight species of jellyfishes, Chrysaora
quinquecirrha,, Cyane capilla , Rhopile verrilli, Aureli aurita, Stomolo-
phus meleagri , Nemopsi bachei, Physalia sp. and.Blackfordia@ manhattensis and
two ctenophores" Mnemiopsis leidyi and Beroe ovata were encountered. Each
had a seasonal preference as to occurrence, water temperature, salinity, and
depth distribution. Chrysaora quinquecirrha and Mnemiopsis 'leidyi population
abundances were influenced by salinity, water temperature, and their own
interaction. Albemarle Sound yielded no jellyfishes and few ctenophores while
the sounds south of Pamlico Sound possessed no or few jellyfishes and sparse
populations of ctenophores. Highest incidences of Chr@ysaora polyps and cysts
occurred in."DaTnlico Sound, especially that southern shore arc area between
Cedar Island and Swanquarter Bay. Several recommendations for future research
and action are included.

Printin'g of this publication was financed by the North Carolina Divi sion of
Commercial and Sports Fisheries, Department of Natural and Economic Resources,
and incorporated as Special Scientif ic Report Number 27 in the Division, s
scientific series.

QL
380.32 Printed: Marchp 1974
N8
S39
1974

Biological Investigations of Noxious Coelenterates
and Ctenophores in Coastal North Carolina

The Jellyfish act (PL 89-720) was passed to "Provideassistance to the
states in controlling and eliminating jellyfish and other such pests in such
waters." Before control or elimination of these, often referred'to as noxious
coelenterates, can be attempted one must accumulate considerable information
on the species involved. Most laymen, fishermen, and scientists simply and
grudgingly accepted their presence@ on occasion, until they interfered with
their use of the estuarine and marine waters of North Carolina, whether for
boating, sport of commercial fishing, swimming, livelihood, or esthetics.
Such was the state of the art in North Carolina until late 1971.

In late 1971 a project was devised to provide answers to the questions
of what species of jellyfishes and ctenophores inhabit North Carolinian.waters,,
at what seasons, at what depths, in what abundance, what were their.biological
life histories and needs, what associations of species and environment trig-
gered or permitted their presence,, and more importantly how did all these
affect man and his utilization of the area.

Study Area

The coastal estuarine and marine waters of North Carolina were arbi-
trarily divided into five sampling areas (Fig. 1). These had some contiguity
in relation to location., general ecology, salinity, etc.

Area 1 - Albemarle regio included Albemarle Sound, Croatan Sound., and
tributaries south to Oregon Inlet.

Area 2 - Pamlico regio : included Pamlico Sound, Pamlico and Neuse
Rivers and tributaries from Oregon Inlet north to Core Sound.

Area 3 Core-Bogue region: included Core and Bogue Sounds and tribu-
taries south to Bogue Inlet.

Area 4 - New River regio : included New River and all estuarine areas
from Bogue In-let south to the Cape Fear River.

Area 5 - 'Cape Fear regio : included Cape Fear River and estuarine areas
south to the South Carolina line.

Past Geologic Histo : Geologic processes have moved the North Carolina
coast line back and forth, from far inland, to far at sea, or to the present
conditions as the Atlantic Ocean waters rose and fell, as a function of the
natural tectonic activities of the planet Earth (Flint, 1947). These eustatic
changes and their estimates are numerated by Curray (1965) and Stearns (1969).

With sea level lowering, the existent drainages must have elongated,
ramified., or anastomosed into the mosaic recorded off Cape Hatteras (Newtonp
Pilkey, and Blanton, 1971). Darton (1894). Shattuck (1906)., and Lachner and

T'T 716

X
X.,

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
36-

.35 C3 35-

I V

SCALE
34 to 0 to 10 30 40 MILES 34-

10 @o ZO @O 4P SO XILOMETERS
V 7P 717

Figure 1. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating the five geographic areas studied
in 1972.

Jenkins (101) noted the interdrainage connections for central Atlantic slope
streams, which drained levels now part of the continental shelf: the greater
Susquehanna River, the greater Roanoke River, and probably the greater Pamlico
River. The increased runoff that must have existed then or following deglaci-
ation (Schumann, 1965; Whitehead, 1@65)., along with the colder prevailing world
temperatures, must have favored freshwater conditions, or.restricted the marine
fauna to clearer, less turbid, or sediment laden areas, at least north of
Wilmington. While the above favorable conditions permitted much stream faunal
interchange, especially in the Chesapeake Bay area (Jenkins, Lachner, and
Schwartz, 1972), it did not affect the biogeographic boundary between the
Cape Fear and Neuse River faunas (Cole, 1967).

Later warming of the world and water temperatures (Kincer, 1933; Richards.,
1936, 1950; Richards and Judson, 1965) most likely influenced the shifts in
marine and freshwater faunas to that we encounter today. The rising sea levels
shifted the coast line inland (Oaks and Coch, 1963) and permitted a coastal
and shelf fauna to predominate. This is substantiated by the fossil Pamlico
formation record which revealed that many marine forms occupied the area during
this oscillation (Richards., 1936, 1950; Ri-chards and Judson., 1965).

Physical and Chemical Features of Area: Starting at the high tide mark we
find most estuaries possess a mud or silty-mud substrate. These persist
throughout most river estuaries and the great sounds north of.Cape Lookout
(Pickett and Ingram, 1969). At the eastern limits of the sounds, the Outer
Banks., the bottom composition is sandier, especially in the vicinity of in-
lets (Ingram., 1968; Pickett and Ingram, 1969). South of Pamlico Sound, Bogue
Sound., and most of the narrow short sounds south of Cape Lookout are sandier
in texture, especially on their southern shores (Brett, 1963; Kruczynski, 1971);
the adjoining estuaries, however, have beds of mud often overlain with silt.
.Yanheim., Mead, and Bond (1970) commented that considerable amounts of sus-
pended matter escaping from the inshore sounds also tends to move longshore-
ward rather than seaward.

Temperature and Salinity Profiles: The usual progressions exist from low
salinities inland to near sea water conditions along the outer and coastal
banks (Williams and Deubler, 1968; Williams., Murdoch., and Thomas,, 1968; and
Williams, Posner., Woods., and Deubler, 1967).

Circulation and Current Patterns: Circulation patterns within the coastal
sounds are poorly known (Brett, 1963; Roelofs and Bumpus, 1963) while surface
or shelf water currents are better known (Bumpus and Lanzier., 1965).

Invertebrate fauna: While the above tectonic shifts undoubtedly occurred and
various faunas must have developed and been subjected to the equally harsh
changes in the environment, from freshwater to oceanic water to lower estuarine
conditions " oyster beds or rocks did develop in all coastal areas (Chestnut., 1955;
Grave, 1904; Winslow., 1889). Other benthic organisms also found, for prolif-
eration and existence, their preferred habitat and ecological requirements met
by the inland coastal areas of North Carolina (Wells, 1961; Crump., 1971; Bird,
1970; Porter, 1969; and Williams and Porter, 1971). Whetherthe then less
dammed up streams draining North Carolina brought more fresh water into the
coastal sounds and estuaries to proliferate or control these faunas is not well
documented. Neither are there good observations of the presence of absence,
numbers, species of coelenterates and ctenophores during past to present times.

Likewise, man is only now becoming aware of the effects of his activities.of
draining, channelization, and pollution as factors which indirectly may be
aiding the proliferation,of coelenterates and ctenophores, Man didl however,
in his greediness, overfish the natural oyster and hard substrate bottoms of
the coastal areas (Chestnut, 1951; Coker, 1907). Whether this action had a
direct influence on the coelenterate-ctenophore problem is unknown.

Methods

Sampling vessels: Two methods were employed to sample the 84 stations es-
tablished throughout coastal North Carolina waters (Fig. 2). The 14.3 m R/V
Machapunga, which is equipped for long distance overnight trips., with winch,
booms., etc.,, was used monthly throughout the area north of Morehead City. South
of Morehead City quarterly cruises were made with the Machapunga in February,
May, August, and November. Daring all other months., those stations south of
Morehead City and in Core Sound were made using a 5.5 m skiff outfitted with
an outboard motor. In areas from Morehead City north, such as the Newport
River and Pamlico Sound tributaries, where depths were too shallow for the 1.7
m draft of the Machapunga,. skiffs were the additional means of sampling., on
a monthly schedule.

Collecting gea : Trawls: Semi-balloon 13.7 or 12.2 m flat shrimp trawls
were used aboard the Machapunga. These nylon nets, 38 mm. body, 19 mm. bag,
had tickler chains preceeding them. Otter board doors were 0.7 x 1.5 m towed
by two wire cables, one to each door. Semi-balloon trynet trawls (5.5 or
6.1 m) were towed from the skiff. These had 32 mm body, 19 mm. bag with a
6.4 mm. knotless liner. All trawls were towed at a cable length to depth
ratio of 3:1.

Dredges: Standard han "d oyster dredges 0.6 m wide, with the regular bag
lined with 6.4 mm knotless nylon., were used to sample marl and oyster beds
for live polyp and cyst bearing oysters or marl. These were towed at a 3:1
scope ratio from either type of vessel.

Plankton nets: Meter and half meter nylon plankton nets were bridled
and towed at or just under the surface from the Ylachap-anga or skiffs. M3.terial
was of Stern and Stern fabric pattern A5274 with' resin finish. This permitted
the best straining to retention ratio known (Dovel, 11964). A screen (Heinle,
1965) or other methods (Burrell and Van Engel., 1970) were not used to exclude
the various jellyfishes and ctenophores.

Sampling time: Twenty minute tows were made for the stations along the tran-
sect from Garbacon light to Ocracoke, North Carolina, until July; therea@ter)
the towing time was reduced to 10 minutes. At all other stations., regardless
of vessel, tows were of 10 minute duration.

Shell bags: Wire bags of hexagonal design 25.4 mm. chicken wire, 30.5 cm.
on a side were filled with 30 oysters shells and set in Turnagain Bay., South
River, and the Thorofare in April and May 1972 by attaching them to pilings.
Natural inclement weather, storms, and uncontrollable events precluded their
successful use.

T'7 76

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA

Q)CD n

-35 v 35-

SrArIOAMIS

SCALE
34 10 0 10 20 30 MILES 34-

N- 0 L@O 3,0 @O 5,0 KILOMETERS
7P 77 76

Figure 2. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating t'r-,e 84 sample sites.

Environmental Parameters:

a) Temperature: Surface and bottom temperatures were determined with
standard mercury or alcohol thermometers. These are reviewed
separately by Schwartz and Chestnut (1973).

b) Water samples: Water samples were obtained by draw bucket (surface)
or at all other depths employing one or 3.1 liter Kemmerer water sam-
plers.'

c) Oxyge Oxygen samples were collected by placing water collected
with Kemmerer samplers into 100 or 250 ml bottles. A standard
modified winkler titration method was then performed to determine
02 present (Strickland and Parsons, 1968).

d) Salinit : Salinity was determined by using refractoneters which
read directly to the nearest part per thousand. These are reviewed
separately by Schwartz and Chestnut (1973).

e) Rydroclimatographs were constructed for 18 arbitrarily (Figs. 3-5)
chosen stations (of the 84 total) to illustrate the stable or un-
stable environmental conditions often encountered in the five sample
areas in 1972. These note the relationships between temperature (00
and salinity (ppt).

Sampling stations: A maximum of 84 stations (Tables 1, 2) were established through-
out the coastal area (Fig. 2). Transects usually extended from Adams Creek
0 to Ocracoke to Wysocking Bay to Hatteras Inlet to Stumpy Point to Oregon
Inlet to Croatan Sound to near Currituck Sound toward Pasquotank River to
the firing platform in Albemarle Sound to and down Alligator ITUver through
1 the inland waterway down Pungo River through Rose Bay and Swanquarter Bay to
Pamlico Light to the inland waterway to Hobucken to Jones Bay to Bay River
to Neuse River and return to Morehead City.

Core Sound and adjacent areas of Turnagain Bay', South River., etc., were
sampled by entering the Thorofare south of Cedar Island then proceeding south
to Barden and Beaufort inlets.

To the south, simple progression up the inland waterway from the North
Carolina-South Carolina state line to Morehead City traversed all the desig-
nated stations.

The nearest available waterways were utilized as access, in all areas,
where oyster beds were sampled in nearby shallow waters.

Bridge stations: Six bridges on the Neuse River, Trent Rilver., Emerald
Isle Causeway, Atlantic Beach Causeway, Morehead-Beauffort Ca:aseway, and North
River were used from which meter plankton nets were streamed montftly for five
minutes to note additional ctenophore-jellyfish occurrences and abundances.

Additional daily bridge observations were possible by th-e cooperation
of bridge tenders stationed thereon and who submitted data on presupplied data
forms (see later discussion).

Figure 3. Hydroclimatographs for six arbitrary sample sites in Areas 1 and 2.

Albemarle West Alligator River No.20

F 1.7 F
0 0
N I I
Is 20 27.6 a 15 20 28.4

31.8 -
30 -
0/00 Croaton Sound 25, Oregon

20
12 N
10

7.1
0 --1 1 A A
8 10 Is 20 25 28.6 7.5 10 15 20 27.5

Hatteras Inlet Ocra6coke

33.1
0/00 30

25 20
24.1 F

20 D
18.7 1 A 1 14 D I A
4D

9.5 Is 20 25 2Z6 10 15 20 25 28.3
oc oc

Figure 4. Hydroclimatographs for six arbitrary sample sites in Areas 2 and 3.

Long Shoal Pamlico Pt. Light

19.9 15
%o N

F 10

1 1 1 1 1 1 6.1 1 1 A
8 10 is 20 25 27.9 10 Is 20 25 29.4

Neuse River Light Brant island Shoal

15.9

D 19.5
10 D
Is

S 11.7
3.8 A i A
7 10 is 20 2524.9 7 10 15 20 25 27.1

Newport River White Oak River No. 44

35.1 32.8
my Y
30 D 30
%o 00
D
25 25 July

F
20 0.
19.6 17.6

A I A A I A
F
D
F

5.5 10 15 20 2526.6 12 15 20 25 28
OC oc

9
Figure 5. Hydroclimatographs for six arbitrary'sample sites in Areas' 4 and 5.

34.6
35

36.7 P-
30 35 P-
F D

*/a, 25 30

20 25
New River Inlet No. 74 Old Mosonboro Inlet

No.134
14.6 m 19.5
AL 1 11 1 1 1 1
14.5 20 25 29.5 910 15 20 25 28.8
36'.5
35
F

30
0/00 25 25
20

20 P-

15
10 Carolina Beech 15 Cape Fear No. 18
10

4.4 D 6.9 F
A i
910 15 20 25 28.3 8 10 is 20 25 29.1

36.9
35

Lockwood folly

36,2
35
25
F Tubbs Inlet
30
F 20

24.4 D 16.4 D
1 10 15 20 -25 28.8 910 is 20 25 28
C C
0 Id M - , bo

0.
Now Riv
N 134""
1
Cap, @F.-,No. I
@D @Tu b, I

Table 1. Number, type., and station designation for 14 samples in Area I,
4-1 in Area 11, 37 in Area 111, 14 in Area IV, and 11 in Area V.
Exact longitude and latitude for each station can be found in
Schwartz and Chestnut 1973 (Table 83).

AREA I

1. Stumpy Point East 9. Albemarle West
2. Oregon Inlet 10. Albemarle South
3. Croatan South 11. Alligator Entrance
4. Croatan 12. Alligator Eight
5. Croatan North 13. Alligator Twenty
6. Albemarle East 14. Alligator Twenty-eight
7. Albemarle North 0 Dredge Stations
8. Albemarle Northwest 14 Trawl & Plankton

AREA II

1. Garbacon. Shoal 23. Rose Bay
2. Gum Thicket Shoal - Marker R11611 24. Ranger Point (dredge)
3. Neuse River Entrance Light 25. Swan Point (dredge)
4. Brant Island Shoal West 26. Swanquarter Narrows (dredge)
5. Brant Island Shoal 27. Swanquarter Bay
6. Brant Island Shoal East 28. Swanquarter Harbor (dredge)
7. Royal Shoal 29. Pamlico Point
8. Big Foot Slough Channel 30. Oyster Creek
9. Ocracoke 9 31. Goose Creek
10. Teach's Hole Channel 32. Jones Bay - Maiden Point
11. Bluff Shoals 33. Bay PCiver - Bonner Bay (dredge)
12. Wysocking Bay (dredge) 34. Bay River
13. Wysocking Bay - Gull Shoal R11411 35. Bay River - Bay Point
14. Southeast of Gull Shoal 36. Turnagain Bay (dredge)
15. Hatteras Inlet 37. Turnagain., Trawl
16. Hatteras Inlet - Shark Shoal 38. West Bay (dredge)
17. Northwest of Clam Shoal 39. West Bay 6, Trawl
18. Pamlico Sound - Long Shoal South 40. Neuse River - New Bern bridge
19. Pamlico Sound - Long Shoal North 41. Trent River bridge
20. Stumpy Point 8 Dredge Stations
21. Pungo #3 33 Trawl & Plankton
22. Pungo-Abel Bay

Table 2. Number, type, and station designation for 14 samples in Area I,
41 in Area 11, 37 in Area 111, 14 in Area IV, and 11 in Area V.
Exact longitude and latitude for each station can be found in
Schwartz and Chestnut 1973 (Table 83).

AREA III

1. Drum Inlet 14. Newport River - Station #13
2. Jarrett Bay (Dredge) 15. Newport River - Station #14
3. North River (Dredge) 16. Newport River - Station #15
4. Newport River - @ railroad bridge 17- Bogue Inlet Bridge - @ Swansboro-
5. Newport River Station #1 & 2 Bogue banks Bridge
6. Newport River - Station #3 18. White Oak f-dver - @ Swansboro bridg-e
7. Newport River - Station #4 19. White Oak PLiver - (Dredge)
8. Newport River - Station #6 20. White Oak River east (Trawl)
9. Newport River - Station #7 21. Borden's Inlet
10. Newport River - Station #8 22. Shackleford
11. Newport River - Station #10 3 Dredge Station s
12. Newport River - Station #11 17 Plankton
13. Newport River - Station #12 17 Trawl

AREA IV

1. Jarretts Point (dredge) 9. Virginia Creek (dredge)
2. Masonboro Inlet #134 10. Old Topsail Sound #86 - Sloop Point
3. Mason Inlet - Howe Point 11. New River Inlet #74
4. Pages Creek 12. New River (dredge)
5. Mason Channel (dredge) 13. Bear Inlet - Saunders Creek #55
6. Futch Creek (dredge) 14. Bogue Inlet - Queens Creek #49
7. Green Channel #105 5 Dredge Stations
8. Howard Channel - New Topsail Inlet 9 Trawl & Plankton

AREA V

1. Little River Inlet - Bonaparte' Creek 7. Lockwoods Folly (dredge & trawl)
2. Little River Inlet (dredge) 8. Elizabeth River #11
3. Tubbs Inlet 9. Cape Fear --','18
4. Sauce Pan Creek (dredge) 10. Cape Fear 7--1'174
5. Shallotte Point (dredge) 4 Dredge Stations
6. Shallotte Inlet @hrker #78 N 7 Trawl & Plankton

Ferry boat observations: Personnel., during routine operations of their
respective ferries operating across the Neuse River and Cedar Island to Ocracoke
likewise, reported occurrences and abundances of jellyfishes and ctenophores on
a daily basis. These were surface observations.

Atlantic Ocean observations: Offshore observations were made possible
during cruises aboard the Duke University R/V Eastward, by our personnel and
other scientists, and the R/V machapunoa, by University of North Carolina
personnel.

Biological observations:

Ctenophore - The ctenophores Mnemiopsis leidyi and Beroe ovata were
counted at each sample station, if their numbers were small7-Where collections
produced large gelatinous masses of a respective species their total volume.,
weight, and sizes (length) were noted.

Jellyfishes - The jellyfishes., Ch3@@ysaor quinguecirrha, Cyanea capillat
Rhopilema verrilli, Stomolophus melea,,cris. Aurelia aurita, Physalia sp.,
Nemopsi bachei, and Blackfordia manhattensis were counted, measured (bell
diameter), weighed, and their volume (liter) noted for each station.

Other associated organisms: a) fishes were measured (standard length),
counted, weighed, and sorted to species, if the sample was small. When samples
were large, subsamples were those that filled a standard 11 .4 liter pail.

b) crabs were counted, sexed, and released.

c) shrimps: Penaeids, and other shrimps, Palaemonetes and Crangon., were
counted., measured, and released.
Id d) other associates were simply noted as to number and species.

Observations

Overall observations: Until late 1971 the presence or absence of ctenophores
and jellyfishes in North Carolina was simply tolerated with no question of why,
when., where, etc., they occurred. This report presents data on many aspects,,
then unknown., as an attempt to answer 'the various questions concerning the
"noxious" aspects of these invertebrates.

The works of Kramp (1961), Mayer (1910, 1912). Littleford and Truitt (1937)p
and others resolved much of the systematics of the groups and the task of de-
termining what species we were encountering. The biology of Chrysaora was
well documented and reviewed by Cargo and Schultz (1966, 1967, 1971). Calder,
Cones, and Joseph (1971) brought together the literature dealing with Aurelia.
Kennedy (1972) reviewed the 'Ph@ysalia problem. Cargo (1971) commented on
Rhopile . Stomolophus has been studied by Phillips., Burke, and Keener (1969)
and more recently by Kroeuter in South Carolina.

Sampling effort: During the., "biological year" 1972 some 749 plankton., 44 dredge.,
and 833 otter trawl stations (Tables land 2) were maintained throughout the five
sample areas (Fig. I and 2, Table 3).

It was not poss ,ible to sample all plankton., dredge, or trawl stations,
during each month, for a variety of reasons. These were ice, which prevented

Table 3. Sampling Effort irrespective of area, 1972

@bnth Plankton Dredge Trawl Interview

1 7 13 12 16
F 69 18 74 10
M 54 0 68 7
A 84 5 79 9
M 72 0 67 1401
84 0 80 179
53 0 71 36
A 81 0 73 7
S 79 0 79 0
0 70 0 64 4
N 72 0 72 4
D 24* 8 24* 0

Totals 749 44 833 1676

*Trip incomplete due to ship's masts bro ken.

sampling a few stations in Albemarle Sound, snags tearing gear on the boat,
and extreme low water or tides preventing passage through natural waterways.

In the case of plankton samples - the huge volume of organisms, cteno-
phores, or jellyfishes., on occasion,, often ripped the net causing loss of its
contents.

Dredge samples were not taken during the May to November period for Cargo
and Schultz (1967) have shown that the most likely period for cyst occurrences
is dLLring the colder months when water temperatures were below 180C and salinities
were lower (7-20 o/oo).

Problems of torn trawls explain the inability to achieve the full compliment
of samples each month even though some 90% of the potential samples were achieved.
The January 1972 sample consisted of only the Garbacon-Ocracoke transect rather
than sampling the entire five areas. The December sample for Area 1, parts of
Area 2 and all of Areas 3-5 was smaller as a snag in Area 1 broke loose the boat
stays and bent the masts prohibiting further sampling.

Coelenterates: In general, two species of ctenophores (Mnemiopsis leidvi
and Bero@@ ovata)., eight species of jellyfishes Chrysaora quinguecirrha, Cyanea
capillata, Rhopilema verrilli, Aurelia aurata, Stomolophu@@ meleagri , Nemopsis
bachei, and Blackfordia manhattensis we-recollected.

BY SEASON: The greatest quantities of coelenterates and ctenophores were
encountered durin.- the summer and fall months, primarily May through November
(Tables 8-14).

Table 4. Sampling effort by month, type, area, and whether positive (+) or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

January 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total pos.
1
C
i

2
C 6
2

3 3 1 6
C 1 3

4 3 0 3 0 3
C

5 3 0 3 1 5
C 1
i

Totals 7 1 f3 4 12 16

Table 5. Sampling effort by month, type, area, and whether positive or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area.

February 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total Pos.

1 14. 3 14 3
C 3 3
J 3*

2 8 2 8 5 29 9
C 2 7
Jm 3*f 3
Jcysts 5

3 29 14
C 7 1
J

4 11 5 10
C
J

5 7 5 7
C
J

Totals 69 4 18 5 74 12 10 2

C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes, *Nemopsis bachei **.Cyanea capillata., Jm=mature jellyfish

Table 6. Sampling effort by month, ty-pe., area, and whether positive (+) or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

March 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total Pos.
1 14 1 14
C

2 14 5 31 9
C 5 5 4 4
.4

3 9 1 6
C 1 3 1

9 9
C cr,

5 8 8
C

Totals 54 8 68 9 7 5

Table 7. Sampling effort by month., typey area, and whether positive or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=.ctenophores, J=Ijellyfishes

April 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total Pos.

1 14 14 2 1
C 2

2 31 15 5 3 31 16 4 4
C 17 3 10 1
9 3

.3 22 1 17 3
1

4 10 1 10
C

5 7 7
C

Totals 84 19 5 3 79 18 9 5
Ctenophores 19 12 1
Jellyfishes 10 4

Table 8. Sampling effort by month, type, area, and whether positive or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

May 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total pos.

1 13 3 14 3 129 10
C 3 2

2 32 22 30 12 348 6
C 22 12.
5

3 10 6 163 8
1

4 10 10 2 63 2
3

5 7 1 7 199 1
C 2

Totals 72 29 67 18 902 27

Table 9. Sampling effort by month, type., area,, and whether positive (+) or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

June 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total pos.

1 14 3 14 3
C 3 1 189
1 3

2 32 17 31 24
C 17 9 26
4 24

3 21 5 18 1
C 5 1 94 8
i

4 10 1 10 2
C 2 2 46 2
i

5 7 7 2
C 2 2
i

Totals 84 29 80 32 356 11

Table 10. Sampling effort by month., type, area., and whether positive or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

July 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations, Total pos.

1 2 13 1
C 2 2
i

2 30 17 29 28
C 16 3 @1 1
26

3 4 1 12
C 1 16 1 0
i

4 10 2 10
C 2 12 2
i

5 7 7
C 5

Totals 53 19 71 28 36 6

M MM M M MIM M M'M M M M'M'='=

Table 11. Sampling effort by month, type, areay and whether positive (-F) or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

August 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total pos.

1 14 4
C 14
4

2 29 9 27 26
C 9 7 5 1
26

3 20 15 1

4 10
C

5 7 7
C

Totals 81 73 32 7 3

Table 12. Sampling effort by month, type, and whether positive or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C:--:ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

September 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total Pos.

1 14 14 2
C.
2

2 27 10 27 26
C 10 14
24

3 21 1 1
C 1 21

4 9
C 9

5 8 2 8
C .2

Totals 79 13' 79 30

Table 13.. Sampling effort by month., type,, area, and whether positive or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

October 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total pos.

1 17 1 17 1
C 1
1 1

2 19 25 2-4
C 27 19 3
1 22

3
C 5 4

4 9 2 9
C 2
i

5 2 8
C 8 2

Totals 66 24 60 25 4

Table 14. Sampling effort by month, type, area, and whether positive (+) or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

November 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total pos.

1 16 16 2
C
2

2 24 7 24 19
C 7 3
19

3 6 6 1
C

4 10 1 10
C

5 7 7
C

Totals. 63 8 63 22
C 8 3
22

Table 15. Sampling effort by month., type, area., and whether positive or negative observations were
obtained for a specific study area. C=ctenophores, J=jellyfishes

December 1972

Plankton Dredge Trawl Interviews
Area Species Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Samples + Observations Total pos.

1 3 3
C
i

2 15 6 1 15 4
C 6 1
4

3
C

10 10
C
i

5 7 5 7
C

Totals 36 6 10 36 4
C 6 1
4

BY AREA: The distribution of medusae or adult ctenophores and jellyfishes
encountered is depicted in Figs. 6-16 and Tables 16-17.

Area 1. Albemarle Sound harbored no coelenterates and few ctenophores.
Croatan Sound possessed some Mnemiopsis leidyi in June and Chrysaora
quinquecirrha. in August. Note the influence of high oceanic waters intrusion
via Oregon Inlet and the absence of jellyfishes and ctenophores in the adjacent
Pamlico Sound (Figs. 10, 12-14). Nemopsis bachei occurred abundantly in
February, at all levels, throughout Croatan. This was expected of this
northerly winter form (Miner, 1950).

Table 16. Jellyfish occurrence, 1972, by Area

Area
Month 1 2 3 4 5
J (X) M
F X
M X
A W X
M W X
J (1) X
J X
A W X (X) (X)
3 W X (X) W
W X
N M (X)** W
0
D (X)
(X)* Nemopsis, (X)** Rhopilema, (X) few, X present

Area 2. Area 2 was the most prolific in numbers of species of coelenterates
as well as volumes and numbers of each species (Figs. 6-16). Their distri-
bution was influenced by environmental factors as well as the natural inter-
relationship of jellyfishes preyin@E,, on ctenophores (Cargo and Schultz, 1967;
Heinle, 1966; Miller and Williams, 1972). This was most vividly detected and
noted in Figs. 10-14 for June-October 1972.

Coelenterates abounded throu-hout all portions of Area 2 except for Core
Sound. The extent of freshwater in Croatan Sound (Figs. 6-16) determined
their entry into Croatan Sound (Figs. 6-16). As the jellyfish populations
reached their summer peaks,, the grazing of ctenophores by jellyfishes
apparently accounted for their August and September distribution patterns
more than environmental factors. This "tuo-of-war" was most vivid in Figs.
12-14. As the fall water temperatures dropped to kill off Chrysaora (Cargo
and Schultz, 1966) the ctenophore population of Mnemiopsis leidyi surged,
except for those regions of extreme high oceanic waters near inlets (Fig- 14),
back into abundance throughout all of Area 2.

Table 17. Ctenophore occurrence, 1972, by Area

AREA
Month 1 2 3 4 5

J - X X - -
F (X) X - - -
M - X X - (X)
A X X X - (X)
M X X - - (X)
J - X (X) - (X)
J (X) X (X) (X) -
A - X - (X) (X)
S - X (X) - (X)
O (X) X - (X) (X)
N - X - (X) -
D - X - - -

(X)= few X=present

Area 3 was a virtual coelenterate-ctenophore "deser". A few Mnemiopsis, how-
ever, were encountered in August, October, and November (Figs. 12, 14, 15).

Area 4. Except for scattered otenophores this area was likewise a barren of
coelenterates and ctenophores.

Area 5. This area also passessed limited and sporatic occurrences of
ctenophores.

BY SPECIES: Nemopsis bachel, a northern form (Miner, 1950) was encountered
only in the Croatan Sound portion of Area 1. This small 25mm diameter species
abounded there in February.

Chrysaora quinquecirrha first appeared in the western end of Area 2,
Pamlico Sound, in April as medusae 1.6 mm in diameter, Within weeks their
abundance and size enlarge until, by late April, they were encountered
as individuals with 600 mm bell diameters. Large specimens 240 mm were not
evident or abundant throughout the area until July. They only known natural
predators of the medusae stage are sea turtles (Schwartz, 1967) or some fish
(Cargo, 1962).

Aurelia aurita occurred, on occasion, in August and September in Area
3, Newport River, and in the Atlantic Ocean along the beach waters from
Cape Lookout to Cape Fear. Elsewhere specimens 335-457 mm in diameter were
oftern encountered, but at not time were they abundant.

Rhopilema verrilli which has been previously recorded from Pamlico Sound
in August (Miner, 1950) was not captured until November and Decemver 1972
(Figs. 15-16). Wysocking Bay and Ocracoke Channel produced the four specimens

T'T

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
-36 36-

Cj
February 0

C tenaphores 00

Jellyfish

M Nemiopsis

35 35-

IZR

SCALE
34 10 0 10 10 so 40 MILES 34.

1@ 3
'Q to 5? 91LOMI'VEItS

Figure 6. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

?'T i6

X., Y"

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA

March

* Ctenophores

a Jellyfish

-35 olp 35-

SCALE
34 10 0 10 1'* so 40 WIL94 34-

10 10 10 3@ @O 50 KILOMET91%

Figure 7. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

T'T

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
3 ISO

A p r i

e Ctenophores
m Jellyfish 6 mom

Nis
Physalia

..:*:* ....... ...
................

............

. ........

...................
.................
.................
..............
...........
...........

SCALE
34 10 0 to 10 30 40 MILES '34 -

1? 0 1.0 1,0 @O OP 3@ KILOMETERS

@T T .6

Figure 8. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

7'8 T'T T@

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
36 -

May a

Ctenophores

m Jellyf ish

Physolic

35 35-

SCALE
-34 10 0 10 10 3.0 40 MILES 34,@
10 1
1? 0 2,0 3@O 4P @O KILOM tkg

7 18 @7 76

Figure A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collectio ns

718 T'7

..........

-36 COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA 36-

June

e Ctenophores

8 Jellyf ish

Area of combined

heavy density

35 35

SCALE
34 10 0 10 20 30 40 .11ES 34-
'10 0 101 Z0 ,@O 40 ' 50 KILO@ETERS

78 77
@6

Figure 10. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

7'7

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA

July

0 C,enoplores

a Je I lyf ish

F-P Area of combined
heavy dens ity

-35 35-

SCALE
-34 1@0 40 MILES 34-

50 91LOWITENO
@0 @O tO

7 7@T 76

n
Figure 11. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collectio s

?,8 T'T

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
36-

ass
Augus .t ones&
a & a a

&ease
0 Ctenophores an Ong
Names a a
.8144's a 1A &
a Jelly f ish ass as it as

0 Stomatolepis

Area of combined
35 heavy density 35-

SCALE
34 10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES 34-
I

0 11) 2,0 @O 4P SO KILOMETERS

7P 7 7 T16 1

s
Figure 12. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collection

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
36 36-

0'00
September 048 no
see
gas
aan a
goes so
9 Ctenophores nano an
son go
nows::448
wage so&
a Jellyfish It on a J, aanaaof
as& so
as stills
a I&I a
(11 Stomotalepis J�rge
an
Jr a a
61 Blackfordia manhattenis man
a 35-

Area of combined

heavy density

61 SCALE
-34 10 0 10 20 110 410 MILES 34-

2.0 @O 4@O SO KILOMETERS

T 76

Figure 13. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

7'T @6

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
-36 36

October

Ctenophores
Be
Jellyfish

Area of combined

heavy density

.35 35
Be Beroe ovata
be

54 SCALE 30 40 MILES

20 3@ 4@ SO KILOMETERS
10 ?

7P 77 76

Figure 14. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

-36 COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA 36-

November a

e Ctenophores

0 Jellyfish 9

R Rhopilema a

35 35-

SCALE
34 10 1 10 10 30 40 MILES 34-

0 10 2,@O @O tO 5,0 KILOMETERS

1 7.7 7,6

Figure 15. A map of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

7'8 77 7'6

-X,

-3 6 COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA 3 ra -

December

Clenaphores

N J e I I y f i s h

R Rhopilema verriiiii

0 b

35 35-

SCALE
34 Io o lo "o 3o o MILES 34-
I I I

1.0 1@0 @Q P 5,0 KILDIIIETERS

78 7 76

Figure 16. A map-of coastal North Carolina illustrating coelenterate-ctenophore collections.

obtained. Those at Ocracoke's Big Foot Slough Channel were enormous,
measuring some 457-508 mm in bell diameter.

Physali sp. was observed as early as April (Fig. 8) while aboard var-
ious vessels, occurring from the 185 m depth seaward. Their abundance pre-
vailed until May (Fig. 9), and undoubtedly was replenished, throughout the
summer, by the nearby Gulf Stream. Specimens 102-152 mm float length were
abundant even during severe wind and wave conditions. Northeast winds appar-
ently drove this Gulf Stream transport onto the beaches from Morehead City to
Wrightsville Beach in April, when the greatest incidences of medical stings
were reported.

Stomolophus and Blackfordia. The most exciting finds were the capture
of two poorly known species in August and September 1972. Several 76 mm
diameter Stomolophus meleagris were captured at the mouth of the Cape Fear
River (Figs. 13-14). Note the one August capture on the scallop grounds
22.2 km offshore (Fig. 13). Since this study, great masses of adult
Stomolophus occurred from the South Carolina line at sea and in the sounds
south of Hatteras between April and November 1973, Dense samples of
Blackfordia manhattensis were taken in September just below Wilmington
and at the mouth of the Cape Fear River (Fig. 14).
0

Mhemiopsis leidyi was the common ctenophore encountered. It occurred
as adults throughout all seasons, being most abundant, however, in the west-
ern portion of Area 2 (Figs. 6-16). Their distribution was affected by
environmental factors as well as the cropping they received by 2@@rsao@ra
quinqueccirrha (Figs. 12-13). It is believed they are serious predators
of zoo- and phytoplankters (see survey in Miller and Williams, 1972; and
Bishop, 1967, 19685 1972). Cargo (1962) cites their being eaten by the fish
Peprilus par (alepidotus).

Beroe ovata, a winter form of ctenophore, was found only sparingly in
October at Wysocking Bay and at Ocracoke Inlet (Fig. 14). 'Why it didn't
persist or proliferate throughout the remainder of the winter months is un-
known. It has been retaken in samples in Area 1 in February 1973., and in
Area 5; Cape Fear River in November 1973.

BY TYPE OF GEAR:

Otter trawls and plankton net were the most indicative of coelenterate
presence, abundance, and location. Since all coelenterates, as adults, are
subject to winds and currents., on those days when surface weather conditions
were bad the trawl yielded more individuals than the surface towed plankton
nets. The reverse was true when conditions were calmer or water currents
less violent.

As part of another project, where gill nets were being used after July,
the vertical distribution of jellyfishes was noted on gill nets that were
set from surface to bottom and subject to water currents and conditions.

Rough weather conditions found more jellyfishes enmeshed in the lower portions
of each net while calmer conditions found them in the upper meshes of the nets.

Dredge. Oyster dredge samples, during the cold spring and winter months
of 1972, yielded oysters and oyster shells with varying number of polyps
and cysts The highest incidences occurred in Area 2, Pamlico Sound. Only
one polyp was found on shells outside of Area 2. This was in Area 5 at
Lockwoods Folly. All other beds sampled were negative (Fig. 17).

Most Chrysaora polyps and cysts occurred in an arc spanning the western
portion of Pamlico Sound, Area 2. Highest incidences occurred in February
and March in South River, Turnagain Bay, with diminishing amounts in Bay
River,- Rose Bay, and Swanquarter Bay (Fig. 17).

The high incidence of Chrysaor quinquecirrha cysts and polyps coincided
with the areas of highest seasonal occurrence and distribution of the jellyfish
in Pamlico Sound. The attached polyp-cysts can) therefore., be considered the
reservoir area for summer abundances of it's medusae stage. Note from figs.
6-16 that the ctenophore Mnemiopsi leidyi was also encountered more often
in the same arc zone that the Chrysaora polyps and cysts were. Other factors
of salinity, hDwever, help explain this preference of Mnemiopsis to western por-
tions of Pamlico Sound.

Fall and winter (through December 1972) samples of the same oyster beds,
throughout all areas., failed to yield any Chrysaora polyps or,cysts. It
is believed water temperatures and salinities were not optimum for their
development (Cargo and Schultz., 1967). Termination of the project in December,
with no funding continuation, prevented sampling in February-March 1973
when conditions would have been more suitable for their existence.

Relation to environmental factors:

Temperature: Chrysaor medusae were most abundant (Figr 10-14, 18)
during the summer and fall months when water temperatures were 25 0 C or
higher. Note that as the fall water temperatures dropped (Figs. 3-5),
the number of medusae (in terms of volume) decreased drastically (Figs. 15-16,
18).

Ctenophores (Figs. 10-14, 20) likewise were most abundant when water
temperatures were above 25 0 C., the exception being Nemopsis bachei for
February in Croatan Sound, Area 1.

Salinit : Chrysaora, was moot abundant (Fig. 19) in waters of salinities
of 15-20 ppt (Figs. 3-5). This helped explain their absence during in-
fluxes of-high oceanic waters at Ocracoke, Hatteras, and Oregon inlets
(Fi-s. 10@ 12-14). These observations are corroborated by the ferry boat
and:bridge personnel observations where no or few coelenterates were noted
in the low or high salinity waters occurring in their observations areas
(Table 18).

Oxygen: Since abundant amounts of oxygen were present at all levels in
all areas of the study, we believe this facet was not as influential to
coelenterate and ctenophore distribution or abundance as wind, wave currents.,

7'8 7'7

COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
36 -

S p r i n g 1972

2 6
29 10 1
31 7
35

SCALE
34 10 0 10 to 30 40 MILES '54 -

III 1@0 5,0 "I.O.IETERS

7,7 76

Figure 17. Incidence of Chrysaora polyp or cysts found associated with oyster, oyster shells
or marl, sample volume was a 11.5 liter pail.

JELLYFISH

30
VO L.
IN
L ITERS

S 10- --15 0 Ts- 30 35

Figure 18. Relationship of temperature to volume in liters of jellyfish regardless
of area, 1972.

20-

CTENOPHO RES

10-

0
> 5-

AL
-15 20 25 30 35

20-

CTENOPHORES

15-

lo-

0
> 5

A-
15
5 10 is 20 35
lee
Figure 19. Relationship of temperature and salinity to volume in liters of ctenophore5-
regardless of area, 1972.

JELLYFISH

VOL.
I N
LITERS
25

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 20. Relationship of salinity to volume -in liters of jellyfish regardless
of area, 1972.

water temperatures, or salinities.

Associated species:

Fishes: The organisms most frequently captured or possibly affected by
abundances of coelenterates and ctenoDhores were fishes. Eighty-five species
of fishes (Table 19) were captured throughout the five areas. Each area
(Fig. 1) possessed a fauna slightly more unique to that area than another.

It is interesting that for the months of April and October, trawl catch
data did not substantiate the local folk lore beliefs that during these months
fishes were supposed to be moving into or out of the sounds and estuaries
in earnest (Table 20). By area,, Area 2, Pam-lico Sound yielded the greatest
number (Table 20) and species of fishes. Area 1 was likewise productive,
considering its nearly freshwater status.

Areas 3, 41 5, were surprises as one would have expected them to be
rich with oceanic-estuarine fishes. Core Sound, Area 3, possessed a sparce
fish population but apparently serves as an occasional route for fish move-
ments. This was strange in the light of the known fall fishery for Mugil cephalis
and C. Etgalis and the summer gig and seine fishery for flounders, Paralichthys,
mostly lethostigma.

Table 18. Montbly Observations by ferry boat (F) and bridge (B) personnel
during 1972 of jellyfish and ctenophore occurrence.

Locality JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Neuse River (F) C 3130* C 1130 C 4/30
Atlantic Beach -
Bogue Sound (B) 0/5 0/31 0130 0131 0130
Cedar Island (F) P 1131 Ct 1131 0/30 0131 0130 0/15
Ocracoke (F) C 6/30 0131 P 3130 C 3130 0131
Harkers Island-
Straits (B) Ct-P 1131 0/31 0130 0131 0130 0131
Beaufort Rt 70
Bridae (B) 0/31 0/31 0/30 A 1/31 0/30 0/31
Pamlico River (F) 0/30

C = Chrysaora, Ct Otenophore, A = Allurelia, P Physali
*positive occurrences/days of observations

Table 19. List of fish species collected in 1972 from coastal North Carolina
irrespective of area sampled.

Alosa aestivalis Lutianus synagris
Alosa mediocris Menidia menidia
Alosa pseudoharengus Menticirrus sp.
Alosa sapidissima Micropogon undulatus
Aluterus schoepfi Monocan-thus hispidus
Aluterus scriptus Morone americana
Anchoa hepsetus Morone saxatilis
Anchoa mitchilli Mugil sp.
Ancylopsetta quadrocellata Mycteroperca bonaci
Anguilla rostrata Opisthonema oglinum.
Archosargus probatocephalus Opsanus tau
Arius felis Orthopristis chrysoptera.
Astroscopus y-graecum. Ostracion. diaphanum,
Bairdiella chrysaora Paralichthys albigutta
Brevortia tyrannus Paralichthys dentatus
Caryn.x hippos Paralichthys lethostigma
Centropristes philidelphicus Peprilus alepidotus
Centropristes striata Peprilus triacanthus
Chaetodipterus faber Perca flavescens
Chasmoides sp. Pogonias chromis
Chilomycterus schoepfi Pomatomus saltatrix
Citharichthys sp, Prionotus carolinus
Cynoscion nebulosus Prionotus evolans
Cynoscion regalis Prionotus scitulus
Dorosoma. cepedianum Prionotus tribulus
Elops saurus Rachycentron canadum
Etropus sp. Raja eglanteria
Eucinostomus gula Hissola marginata
Gobionella boleosoma Sciaenops ocellata
Gobiesox strumosus Scomberomorus raculata
Gobiosoma sp. Scophthalmus a(Tdosus
Gymnura micrura Selene vomer
Hippocampus erectus Sphoeroides maculatus
Hypopleura sp Stellifer lanceolatus
Hypsoblennius hentz Stenotomus caprinus
ictalurus catus Strongylura marina
Ictalurus punctatus Symphurus plagiusa
Ictalurus sp. Syngnathus sp.
Lagodon rhomboides Synodus foetans
Lei0st0mus xanthus Trichiurus lep",'=S
Lepomis gibbosus Trinectes maculatus
Lutjanus analis Urophycis regius
Vomer setapinnis

Table 20. Fish trawl catch (total) by area, 1972
Month 2 Area
1 3 4* 5*

3793 1908 -
F 967 4428 - 15637
M 507 8527 212 378
A 2317 6756 42 202
M 3097 13568 39 2492
1 3693 1221-1 ill 246
2165 8742 0 729
4184 8265 40 1478
Is 1656 9424 54 373
0 4105 7925 0 62
N 1649 5880 33 540
D --- 1429 0 646

Total 28133 89063 531 22783 140510

*Areas 4 and 5 combined
**Samples ommitted due to boat's broken masts

Areas 4 and 5 were also devoid of fishes (Table 8). The high catch
figure for February occurred at Bonaparte Inlet near the South Carolina line.
Apparently an overwintering group of fishes had entered or was leaving the
system via that inlet. At no other time did any one specific portion of
Area 4 or 5 yield appreciable numbers of fishes. To prevent unwieldiness of
this report, tables listing actual catches, sizes, and weights of each species
for each of the 84 stations are available and on file at the Institute of
Marine Sciences rather than as appendages to this report.

Crabs: The blue crab Callinectes sapidus was found in all areas but
Area 1. Their abundance and size varied by season, sex, and location. The
only pattern evident was the greater abundance near inlets in the fall and
early spring.

Shrimps: Penaeids2 especially brown spotted or pink shrimp were found
-In abundance in Area 2 from late April to late October and early November.
P-,amlico So-and is known to harbor an overwintering pink shrimp population
(McCoy, 1968; Purvis and McCoy, 1972). Shrimp sizes were greatest during the
period September to November.

Area 5 supports a summer and winter white and brown shrimp population
that is of bait and commercial importance (MpCoy, 1972). Some white shrimp
seemed to be evident in Area 5 each month of the year. Grass shrimp of
the genera Palaemonetes sp. and Crangon septemspinosa were common throughout
all areas but Area 1. This agreed well with Williams and Deubler (1968).

Crango , a deeper ,,,inter form, occurred from January-March and again in De c-
ember 1972. Crvigerious females of Crangon were common during these months.
Falaemonetes sp. were abundant during the summer months, especially in Areas
4 and 5, with ovigerious females being present during almost any but the sever-
est cold months,

Other associates: An unusual population of Anomalocera ornata was en-
countered in the inland waterway between Carolina Beach and Topsail Beacn
inlets on 23-February 1972. This oceanic species described by Sutcliff from
New River Inlet in 1949 occurred in such vast numbers that pure concentrations
could be obtained in the plankton net or simply with a draw bucket. A five
minute tow literally filled a meter plankton tow. McCreary (1972) sampling
almost simultaneously found wind rows of Anomalocera along the same portion
of the inland waterway and has noted their periodic ingress since 1966 (McCreary,,
pers. comm.) as well as in mid February 1973.

Literature Review

During the course of this study a literature compilation was prepared
to many papers that dealt with the systematics, occurrence, zoogeography,
evolution, biology, ecology, effects to man by coelenterates and ctenophores.
This large compilation could have been partof this report had not toward the
end of 1972 the Bibliography on the Scyphozoa, with Selected References on
Hydrozoa and Anthozoa, been published by Calder, Cones, and Joseph. This
publication made the effort of presenting much of our list here redundant.

Interviews

Another aspect of the 1972 co elenterate- ctenophore study was to assess
their economic impact upon the commercial fishery, sport fishery, and tourist
industries of coastal North Carolina. .

Various approaches were utilized to assess the impact of coelenterates
to North Carolina. @bst were in the form of questionnaire or personal interview.

General public, commercial fisherman interview form: Some 1676 forms
(Table 21) were sent out to the general public, commercial, and sports fisher-
men, with the majority to coincide with the first major incidence of jellyfish
and ctenophore abundance. Return of the form, to which was appended (Table 22)
a short designation and drawing of each of the believed naturally occurring
species, was hoped would resolve much understanding Iby the public's encounter.
or reaction to coelenterates and ctenophores.

Area 1 received 35 interview forms. Only four were returned of which
25% indicated they felt coelenterates and ctenophores were a problem while
most indicated they never saw a jellyfish or even realized there was a problem.

Area 2. Some 478 forms were sent. Again a low response was received.
Of those responding, mostly commercial fishermen, 57% felt there was a problem,
29% responses were negative and 14 had no opinion. Most respondents cited
Chrysaora followed by Cyanea, Physalia, and Aurelia as troublesome jellyfishes.,

with 'Mnemiopsis as the most harassing ctenophore. All noted that the months
July to November were the problem months.

Area 3 received 320 forms. Of the returns 53% responded positively to
question !-, while 42% said no, and 4% had no opinion. Again Chrysaora followed
by Cyanea, Physalia, Aurelia and Rhopilema was singled as the greatest menace
to all concerned. Mnemiopsis was the problem ctenophore. 11,1ost respondents
noted that greatest abundances seemed to occur during high, tides when SW or NE
winds prevailed. Ctenophores were likewise noted abundant during high tides
and SW or NE winds. The period May to November was singled out as that when
each individual seemed most affected, be it by jellyfish or ctenophore.

Area received 155 forms and it is assumed that the negative returns
indicate the public feels there was no real problem caused by "noxious coelen-
terates" in that area.

Area 5 received 90 forms. The responses were negative, indicating no
problem.

Hospitals: Ten hospitals located in coastal counties were contacted. @bst
reported (Table 23) that they had never seen or had a patient who needed
treatment for jellyfish stings. Of the five positive reports received in
1972, three were from Carteret General Hospital, one from i. Arthur Dosher
Hospital, and one from New Hanover Hospital. Every case treated for Physalia
stings following their onshore deposition by the northeasters of April 1972.

Doctors: Some 300 interview forms were sent out to physicians (Table 24).
A positive response was reported by only nine doctors who simply washed the
jellyfish sting and treated the area with Benadryl or Supercainol. @Iost
serious encounters were with patients who had been stung by Physalia washed
up on the beach. Treatment for Chrysaora stings was simple washing. Only
one used meat tenderizer (Cargo and Schultz, 1971) which was a proven sup-
pressant of the jellyfish stinging sensation and after e--'--,'ects.

Motels: A total of 236 motels were interviewed. There was a great reluctance.
by the owners to reply as they felt their comments might hurt their businesses.
All who did reply noted emphatically that regardless of area along the coast
there was a jellyfish problem rrom May to October, with thle highest incidences
of lost customer days in August and September (periods of highest Chrysaora
incidences in Area 2).

Ferryboat and Bridge tenders: Ten key locations within Areas 2-5 produced few
direct observations of ccelenterates or ctenophores (Table 18) but all observers
strongly agreed that when incidences of jellyfishes or ctenophores occurred
the tourist beach traffic was down.

Sport shops, piers, etc.: Some 42 interviews were made of such places as surf
shops, fishing piers, fishing boats, fish dealers, etc. @11 reluctantly
agreed that on occassion there were abundances of jellyfishes tIR t caused
the public to shun their area of business.

Table 21. Typical fisherman inquiry form.

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES

MOREHEAD CITY, N. C, 2R517

919: 726-6841

A Dear Sir:
May I take.a few minutes of your time to ask you to fill out
the questionnaire below, it will help us in a survey of jellyfishes
on the North Carolina coast. All information on this report will be
HELD IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. Only in unusual circumstances, such
as an unusually severe case, will we seek out additional information.

Date Address(city)

I I believe there is is not a local problem with jellyfish.
e or pinkish- 7ue (see drawing A on left) with
I notice the purpl -7b
oblong air-sac and tentacles from to
C I notice the pan6ake-shaped, 2 ft. w@ide with no or short tentacles
jellyfish (drawing C&F), from -_ to - .
I notice the dome-shaped jellyfish 7draviTing D) with long tentacles
present -from to
D I notice the egg-shaped clear with blue lines (drawing 1), no
tentacles, sea walnut, jelly, or gall from t o
--C-rawing H no
I notice the large egg-shaped with pink lines d
tentacles, sea walnut, jelly, or gall, from to
I notice the orange with purple tentacles, winT-e-rjellyfish
(drawing E), from to _(see.drawing) jellyfish during the
I also notice type
months of
2. When the jellyfish with tentacles (no.air sac) is present the
sea walnuts are are not so abundant.
3. 1 note that jellyfish are more common on tide stage.
I note that sea walnuts are more common on tide stage.
4. Do you associate abundance of jellyfish or sea walnuts with
winds? If so, which winds yield most? least?
5. Jellyfish or sea walnuts are more common near inlets?
The incidence of jellyfish affects my busine5S.during the
months of
The incidence of sea walnuEs affects my business during the
months of
7. 1 try to operate by taking the follcwing ziction against them.
8. Concentrations of jellyfish or sea walnuts (rarely,
common,ly, alwaysT-Prevent the operati-on of my skiff, boat,
trawler, and/or swimming.
G 9. When stung by a jellyfish, I treat the itch or rash by

10. 1 (would, would not) use the area more for if the jellyfish
or sea walnuts were not present.
H I]. Do heavy rains have an effect on the presence of jellyfish?
How?
Do heavy rains have an effect on the presence of sea walnuts?-
How?
12. 1 am located of miles) from (what body of
water).

51
Table 22. General features of expected coelehterates and ctenophores.

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES

MOREHEAD CITY. N. C. 2RS57

919: 726-6841

A
GENERAL FEATURES REGARDING

JELLYFISH AND SEA WALNUTS

A. Portuguese Man-O-War. Occurrence: Summer, oceanic.
Color: Bluish-pink with large air sac; tentacles
numerous. Size: Tentacles to 20 ft; air sac 18 inches.

B. Nemopsis bachei. Occurrence: November to March;
brackish water. Color: Clear with white internal
structures. Size: Less than I inch; tentacles very
C short.

C. & F. Moon Jellyfish. Occurrence: April to November; oceanic
or in sounds. Color: Pink-white with four white or
D ink horseshoe shaped internal structures. Size: Flat
p
plate u to 2 ft across. Tentacles short, hardly
p
visible.

D. Summer Jellyfish, Sea Nuttle. Occurrence: April to
November in sounds or near inlets. Color: Two color
p
hases, dome white or with red streaks. Size: Dome
8 inches; tentacles to 12 ft.
E
E . Winter Jel lyfish. Occurrence: October to March in
sounds or open oceans. Color: Dome orangish;
tentacles pu rp I i s h- red. Size: Dome 8 inches in
sounds, 3 ft in open oceans. Tentacles to 4 ft.

G. Rhopilema verrillii. Occurrence: Late summer; sounds
or oceanic. Color: Dome yellowish; heavy parts
whitish. Size: Dome 12 inches; arms 7 inches.

H. Winter Sea Walnut. Occurrence: Sounds or near inlets.
F
Color- Clear body with pink bands; no tentacles.
Size: Four inches wide, 6-8 inches long; mitten shaped.

1. Summer Sea Walnut. Occurrence: All year; everywhere.
Color: Clear with 8 little bands which irridesce.
G
Size: Less than about 4 inches.
K

Economic Investigations of Noxious Coelenterates in
Coastal North Carolina being conducted by
the U.N.C. Institute of Marine Sciences, Morehead City, N.C.

Table 23. Hospital Incidence Report

This questionnaire is an attempt to determine the economic importance
of jellyfish incidence along North Carolina's coastal areas. This is
associated with a study recently begun to determine distribution, species
composition, relative and seasonal abundance of jellyfish in North Carolina
and to determine the economic impact of these animals to-coastal North
Carolina's commercial fishing, marine sports fishing, and tourist industries.
All information on this report will be STRICTLY HELD IN CONFIDENCE*
Only in unusual circumstances, such a-san unusually severe case, will we
seek out the patient for information regarding the effect of jellyfish.

Date

1. What part of body is affected?

2. Location of incident.

3. Description of organism

4a. Relative abundance of jellyfish in that area. (many-few)

4b. Were all of the jellyfish like the one described above?

5. Is this the first time you have been stung by a jellyfish? If not,

explain.(when-where).

6. Will this incident affect your returning to the area for recreation?

7. What was your activity associated with the incident?

Do Not Write below this line
To be filled out by attending physician
E.R.#

Name of Physician

Address

2. Severity of Case

3. How long before treatment was begun did the incident occur?

4. Treatment

5. What First-Aid measures, if any, were applied?

6a. Does Patient require extended care? Describe

6b. How long will he require treatment (in your opinion)?

Comments

Table 24. Medical Doctor form.

Economic Investigations of Noxious Coelenterates in
Coastal North Carolina being conducted by the U.N.C.
Institute of Marine Sciences, Morehead City, N.C.

All information on this report will be HELD IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. Only
in unusual circumstances, such as an unusually severe case, will we seek
out the patient for information regarding the effect of jellyfish.

Date Address (city)

1. 1 tend to have cases a year, mostly during the months of

2. The patients most often describe the jellyfish as

3. Treatment

4. The cases I receive could be generally described as

5. In what area are most of your patients stung (what body of water?)

6. What First-Aid treatment do you recomend?

7. How lonE; before treatment was begun did the incident(s) occur?

8. Is there one particular case which was unusually severe?
Describe:

9.- What type of people are mo 'st often affected by jellyfish in your area
(tourists, commercial fishermen, sports fishermen)?

10. What activities are most commonly associated with jellyfish stings?

Acknowledgements

Thanks are extended Ken Bradley, our able field assistant, who saw the
project through in its entirety and who was responsible for major sections
of the interview aspect of the project. Other field assistants have been
Bob Chapman, Allyn Powell, Howard Marshall, and Preston Fulford. Graduate
student assistants, on occassion, have been Steve Bortone, Jim Dooley, Roy
Hyle, and Teri Herbert. Harry Willis and Julius Lane, provided much main-
tenance logistics. Boat operations were under the direction of Capts. Tom
Kellum and Elmo Willis; mates were Jerry Spencer and William Willis. Labora-
tory assistance and data analysis and preparation were possible with the help
of Rosemond Baldree, Barbara Grimes, Vickie Hyman, and Edith Widder. Rosemond
Baldree prepared the figures and tables. The text was typed by R. Baldree.,
Joyce Lewis., and Beverly Guthrie.

The appreciation of the many fishermen, hospital coordinators., doctors,
nurses, motel managers, and private citizens is appreciated. Mr. David
Cargo, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland, was most generous
of his time for discussion, suggestions, encouragement during all phases of
the study. Dr. Ann McCreary, University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
provided comments on Anomalocera and Stomolophus occurrences. Mr. W. Dovel,
B. Thompson Institute for Plant Research made valuable suggestions on plankton
net use and construction. Peggy Peoples drew the jellyfishes and ctenophores
depicted in Tables 21 and 22.

Dr. T. Linton and Mr. E. McCoy were most instrumental in handling as-
pects of the subcontract at the state-federal level while Dr. G. Holcomb
and Mr. W. Fulk handled the contract on the University level.

Recommendations

As a result of this study and survey we recommend the following action
for further research and study:

1) efforts be made to learn more concerning the biology of the cteno-
phore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Methods of its control would remove one obstacle
from the public as well as a food source for the jellyfish Chrysaora quinguecir-
rha.

2) efforts should be made to find some way to control the summer jelly-
fish C. quinguecirrha by way of attacking the cyst and polyp stages of its
life cycle.
3) the state should carefully weigh whether it is more advantageous to
create and enlarge oyster reefs, which are key components to jellyfish polyp
and cyst stages of its life cycle for survival and attachment, or to alter
present oyster culture practices.

4) the state should weigh carefully the long-range effects of jellyfish
and ctenophore eradication for it is believed the feeding habits of jellyfishes
and ctenophores,deprive the water column of a vast quantity of zoo- and phyto-
plankters-food for fishes and many other aspects of the food web-chain.

5) the state should weigh the side effects of too much damming which
could permit more saline water intrusion into the great sounds and estuaries
and the repercussions thereof to coelenterates and ctenophores and the associ-
ated food web-chain.

6) the state should develop an alert system which would notify the pub-
lic of areas, seasons, etc., of dense concentrations or probabilities of en-
countering coelenterates and ctenophores.

7) the state should review the entire Pamlico Sound complex to note
man's alterations as they directly or indirectly affect the coelenterate-
ctenophore problem.

Literature Cited

Bird., S. 0. 1970. Shallow-marine and estuarine benthic molluscan communities
from the area off Beaufort, North Carolina. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.
Bull.54:1651-1676.

Bishop, J. W. 1967. Feeding rates of the ctenophore, Ymemiopsis. leidyi.
Chesapeake Sci. 8(4):259-260.

. 1968. A comparative study of feeding rates of tentaculate cteno-
phores. Ecology 49(5):996-997.

1972. Ctenophores of Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 13 (Suppl.):
SlOO-S102.

Brett, C. E. 1963. Relationships between marine invertebrate infauna dis-
tribution and sediment type distribution in Bogue Sound., North Carolina.
Ph.D. Univ. North Carolina., Chapel Hill., 202 p.

Bumpus, D. F. and L. M. Lanzier. 1965. Surface circulation. on the continental
shelf off eastern North America between Maryland and Florida. Amer.
Geogr. Soc. Ser. Atlas Mar. Environment Folio 7.

Burrell., V. and W. A. Van Engel. 1970. A means of coping with Mnemiopsis leidvi
in plankton samples. Chesapeake Sci. 11(2):139-140.

Ualder, D. R. 1972. Cnidaria of the Chespeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 13
(Suppl):SlOO-SlO2.

H. N. Cones, and E. B. Joseph. 1971. Bibliography on the Scyphozoa,,
with selected references on Hydrozoa and Anthozoa. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci.
Spec. Sci. Rept. 59, 142 p.

Cargo, D. G. 1962. Sea nettles food for Peprilus par I. Aquat. Life Aquat.
World 12:3-4.

-. 1971. The sessile stages of a Scyphozoan identified as Rhopilema
verillii. Tulane Stud. Zool. Bot. 17(2):31-34.

and L. P. Schultz,, 1966. Notes on the biology of the sea nettle,
Chry*saora qui quecirrha, in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 7(2):95-100.

1967. Further observations on the biology of the
sea nettle and jellyfishes in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 8(4):
209-220.

1971. The sea nettle of Chesapeake Bay. Nat.
Res. Inst. Educ. Ser. 93, 8 p.

Chestnut, A. F. 1951. The oyster and other mollusks in North.Carolina. In:
Hayden F. Taylor. Survey of marine fisheries of North Carolina. Univ.
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 555 p.

1955. A report of the mollusk studies conducted by the University
of North Carolina Institute of Fisheries Research. January., 66 p.

Coker, R. E. 1907. Experiments in oyster culture in Pamlico Sound,, North
Carolina. N. C. Geol. Econ. Surv. Bull. 15, 74 P.
Cole,, C. F. 1967'. A study of the eastern. Johnny Darter., Etheostoma ohlmstedi
Storer (Teleostei, Percidae). Chesapeake Sci. 8(l):28-51.

Crump, R. M. 1971. Population density and distribution of the estuarine clam,
Rangia cuneata, in Croatan Sound, North Carolina. J. Elisha 1,4itchell
Sci. Soc. 87:169.

Curray, J. R. 1965. Late quaternary history, continental shelves of the United
States. pp. 723-735. In: H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. E. Frey (Eds.). The
quaternary of the UniteTStates. Princeton Univ. Press, 922 p.

Dorton, N. H. 1894. Outline of Cenozoic history of a portion of the Middle
Dovel Atlantic Slope. J. Geol. 2(6):568-587.
., W. L. 1964. An approach to sampling estuarine macroplankton. Chesapeake
Sci. 5(1-2):77-90.

Flint, R. F. 1947. Glacial geology and the Pleistocene Epoch. J. Wiley and
Sons, N. Y. 589 p.

Grave, C. 1904. Investigations for the promotion of the oyster industry of
North Carolina. U. S. Fish Comm. Rept. for 1903, p. 247-341.

Heinle, D. R. 1965. A screen for excluding jellyfish and ctenophores
from Clarke-Bumpus plankton samples. Chespeake Sci. 6(4):231-232.

Ingram, R. L. 1968.. Vertical profiles of modern sediment along the North
Carolina coast. Southeastern Geol. 9(4):237-244..

Jenkins., R. E.., E. A. Lachner, and F. J. Schwartz. 1971. Fishes of the
central Appalachian drainages: Their distribution and dispersal. In:
The distribution history of the southern Appalachians. Pt. 3. Vei@t_e-
brates. Res. Div. @bngr. 3. Va. Poly-tech. Inst. Blacksburg, Va.
P. 43-117.

Kennedy., F. S. Jr. 1972. Distribution and abundance of Physali in Florida
waters. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res. Prof. Pap. Ser. 18, 38 p.
Kincer, J. B. 1933. Is our climate changing - A study oi long-time tempera-
ture trends. @bnthly Weather Rev. 61:251-259.

Kramp, P. L. 1961. Synopsis of the medusae of the world. J. Yar. Biol.
Assoc. U. K. 40:1-469.

Kruczynski, W. L. 1971. The relationship of the pea crab Pinnotheres maculatus
Say, with the scallops, Argopect.en irradians concentricus (Say) and
Argopecten gibbus (Linne) Ph.D. Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 120 p.

Lachner, E. A. and R. E. Jenkins. 1971. Systematics, distribution and
evolution of the chub genus Nocomis girard (Pisces; Cyprinidae@ of
eastern United States., with description of new species. Smiths. Contr.
Zool. No. 85, 97 P.

Littleford, R. A. 1939. The life cycle of Dac-tv lometra quinguecirrha., L.
1
Agassiz in Chesapeake Bay. Biol. Bull. 77 3):368-381.@

and R. V. Truitt. 1937. Variation of Dactylometra quinguecirrha.
Science 86(2236):427.

Manheim., F. T* R,, 11, Meade, and G. C, Bond. 1970. Suspended matter in surface
waters of the Atlantic continental margin from Cape Cod to the Florida
keys. Science 167(3917):371-376.

Mayer, A. G. 1910. Medusae of the world. The Scyphomedusae. Carnegie Inst.
Wash. 3:499-735.

- . 1912. Ctenophores of the Atlantic Coast of North Carolina.
Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 162, 55 P.

McCreary., Ann. 1972. Periodic insurgences of Anomalocera ornata in Wrightsville
Sound. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. (In Press).

McCoy, E. 1968. Migration, growth, and mortality of North Carolina pink-and
brown penaeid shrimps. N. C. Cons. Devel. Dept. Spec. Sci. Rept. 15, 26 p.

1972. Dynamics of North Carolina commercial shrimp populations.
N. C. Dept. Econ. Nat. Res. Spec. Sci. Rept. 21, 53 P.

Miller., R. i. and R. B. Williams. 1972. Energy requirements and food supplies
of ctenophores and jellyfish in the Patuxent River estuary. Chesapeake
Sci. 13(4)328-331.

Miner, R. W. 1950. Field book of Seashore Ld-fe. G. P. Putmam. Sons, N. Y.
888 p.

Newton, J. G., 0. H. Pilkey, and J. 0. Blanton. 1971. -An oceanographic atlas
of the Carolina Continental Margin. No. Carolina Bd. Sci. Tech. 57 p.
Oaks, R. Q. Jr. and N. R. Coch. 1963. 11:11eistocene-Loea levels, southeastern
Virginia. Science 140:479-883.

Phillips2 P. J.2 W. D. Burke, and E. J. Koener. 1969. Observations on the
trophie significance of Jellyfishes in Mississippi Sound with quantitative
data on the associative behavior of small fishes with medusae. Trans. Amer.
Fish Soc. 98:703-712.

Pickett, T. E. and R. L. Ingram. 1969. The modern sediments of Pamlico
Sound. Southeastern Geol. 11(2):53-83.

Porter., H J. 1969. The molluscan fauna in North Carolina's Neuse River
estuary. Amer. Malacol. Union Inc. Arm. Rep. P. 39-40.

Purvis., 0. E. and E. G. McCoy. 1972. Overwintering pink shrimp, Penaeus
duoranum in Core and Pamlico Sounds, North Carolina. N. C. Dept. Econ.
Nat. Res. Spec. Sci. Rep. 22) 29 p.

Richards, H G. 1936. Fauna of the Pleistocene Pamlico formation of the
southe;n Atlantic Coastal Plain. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 47:1611-1656.

1950. Geology of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Amer.
Philos. Soc. Trans. 40:1-83.

and S. Judson. 1965. The Atlantic Coastal Plain and the
Appalachian Highlands in the Quaternary. pp 129-136. In: H. E. Wright.,
Jr. and D. G. Frey (Eds.). The Quaternary of the Unite-dStates.
Princeton Univ. Press, 922 p.

Roelofs, E. W. and D. F. Bumpus. 1963. The hydrography of Pamlico Sound.
Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 3:181-205.

Schumann., S. A. 1965. Quaternary paleohydrology. pp. 783-794. In:
H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G. Frey (Eds.). The Quaternary of the United
States. Princeton Univ. Press, 922 p.

Schwartz, F. J. 1967. Maryland turtles. Nat. Res. Inst. Univ. Maryland)
38 p.

Shattuck, G. B. 1906. The Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits of Maryland,
pp. 23-137. In: Ind. Geol. Surv. Pliocene and Pleistocene.

Spangenberg, Dorothy B. 1965. Cultivation of the life stages of Aurelia
aurita under controlled conditions. J. Exp. Zool. 159(3):303-318.

Stearns, F. 1969. Bathymetric maps and geomorphology of the Middle Atlantic
continental shelf. U. S. Fish Wildlf. Ser. Fish. Bull. 68'(1):33-66.

Stri ckland,, J. D. H. and T. R Parsons. 1968. A practical handbook of sea-
water analysis. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Bull. 167, 311 p.

Sutcliff, J. 1949. A new species of calanoid copepod from North Carolina.
J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 65:273-275.

Wells, H. W. 1961. The fauna of oyster beds, with special reference to
the salinity factor. Ecol. Ivbnogr. 31:239-275.

Whitehead, D. R. 1965. Palynology and Pleistocene phytogeography of un-
glaciated eastern North America. pp. 417-432. In: H. E. Wright, Jr.
and D. E. Frey (Eds.). A quaternary of the Unit-ed States. Princeton
Univ. Press, 922 p.

3 6668 00004 396C