Abstract.-Using acoustic telemetry on migratory striped bass Morone saxatilis in Plum Island Estuary (PIE), Massachusetts, we found that striped bass (335-634 mm total length) tagged in the spring and summer Striped bass spent the most time in two specific reaches: middle Plum Island Sound and lower Rowley River. In both years, three different use-groups of striped bass were observed in PIE. Short-term visitors (n ¼ 24) stayed in the estuary only briefly (range ¼ 5-20 d). Two groups of seasonal residents stayed for more than 30 d, either in the Rowley River (n ¼ 14) or in Plum Island Sound (n ¼ 22). Within PIE, the two seasonal-resident use-groups may be foraging contingents that learn how to feed efficiently in specific parts of the estuary. These distinct within-estuary use patterns could have different implications for striped bass condition and prey impact.

Almost three-quarters of the 46 young adult and sub-adult striped bass Morone saxatilis that were acoustically tagged in Plum Island Estuary, Massachusetts, U.S.A., in the summer of 2006 were detected in one or more southern coastal arrays during their autumn migration. On the basis of the trajectories along which these M. saxatilis moved from feeding to overwintering areas, three migratory groups emerged. After leaving Plum Island Estuary, about half of the fish were detected only in a mid-latitude array, Long Island Sound. The other half of the tagged fish were detected during autumn and winter in a more southern array, the Delaware Estuary. This latter group of fish may have used two routes. Some travelled to the Delaware Estuary through Long Island Sound while other fish may have taken a second, more direct, coastal route that did not include Long Island Sound. Consequently, a seemingly homogeneous group of fish tagged at the same time in the same non-natal feeding location exhibited a diversity of southward movement patterns that could affect population-level processes. These three groups that differed in overwintering location and migration route could be movement contingents with migratory connectivity.

Successful conservation depends on a scientifically literate public. We developed the Adopt‐A‐Herring program to educate nonscientists about fisheries and watershed restoration. This interactive educational and outreach project encouraged coastal residents to be involved in local watershed restoration. In the northeastern United States, river herring (Alosa spp.) are an important component of many coastal watersheds and often are the object of conservation efforts. In order to understand river herring spawning behavior and to improve the effectiveness of restoration efforts, our research tracked these fish via radiotelemetry in the lpswich River, Massachusetts. In our Adopt‐A‐Herring Program, participating stakeholder organizations adopted and named individual tagged river herring and followed their movements online. We also made information available to our adopters on our larger research goals, the mission and activities of other research and management agencies, examples of human actions that adversely affect watersheds, and opportunities for proactive conservation. Research results were communicated to adopters through our project web page and end‐of‐season summary presentations. Both tools cultivated a personal interest in river herring, stimulated discussion about fisheries and watershed restoration, educated participants about the goals and methods of scientists in general, and initiated critical thinking about human activities that advance or impede sustainability.

With the collapse of many fisheries, evident habitat destruction, and loss of biodiversity, there is little question that conservation and restoration of life in the seas is necessary today. Yet important questions remain. Which species or ecosystems are the most critical? What are the restoration goals? Are there potentially negative consequences of restoration plans? Marine Conservation Biology seeks to address these questions and others by presenting the science, acknowledging the uncertainties, and considering the socioeconomic concerns that surround conservation efforts. The editors have assembled leading researchers in related fields to contribute their knowledge on marine conservation efforts. This text was reviewed by graduate students in an aquatic ecosystem conservation seminar.The editors begin with a persuasive argument for why the emerging field of marine conservation biology requires its own text. Chapter 1 presents a thorough comparison between terrestrial and marine conservation, a reoccurring theme throughout the book. Both disciplines emphasize biodiversity, focus on keystone species and