briefing book - andrew loftusandrewloftus.com/reports/blue crab review/blue crab review briefing...

BRIEFING BOOK

MARYLAND BLUE CRAB STOCK

ENHANCEMENT REVIEW

January 8-9 2009

Merrill Environmental Center Chesapeake Bay Foundation Annapolis, MD

BRIEFING BOOK MARYLAND BLUE CRAB STOCK ENHANCEMENT REVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Charge Letter to the Review Committee from Secretary John Griffin 2. Proposed Review Agenda Basic Blue Crab Biology, Management, and the Fishery 3. Summary of Blue Crab Management, Science, and the Fishery in the Chesapeake Bay 4. 2008 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium (BCARC) 5. Executive Summary

A. History of the BCARC Program B. Evaluation of results C. Future work, budget needs and justification for funds requested

6. Historical Funding for BCARC Programs 7. Future Funding Request 8. UMBI/MDDNR 2007 Memorandum of Understanding for Piney Point Hatchery Facility 9. Letter of Support from Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, University of Southern Mississippi Appendix I: BCARC Publications, Technological Innovations, and Dissertations/Theses Appendix II: BCARC Presentations and Outreach Activities Appendix III: List of BCARC Papers available on-line/CD

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 19 December 2008

TO: Maryland Blue Crab Stock Enhancement Review Panel

Mr. Lee Blankenship

Dr. Richard Forward

Dr. Paul Sandifer

Dr. John Ward

FROM: John Griffin, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

SUBJECT: Charge to the Review Panel

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an independent evaluation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of

blue crab stock enhancement efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. Your expertise and insight will help the state of

Maryland make some very crucial decisions regarding this program and I sincerely appreciate your

willingness to contribute your time and energy.

The issues impacting blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay are numerous. Blue crab life history is complex with

blue crabs migrating through several jurisdictions during their life cycle. Management is complicated by the

need for coordination among three management entities (Maryland, Virginia, Potomac River Fisheries

Commission) for whose fisheries are very different due to the migratory pattern of blue crabs.

In 2008, Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission implemented complimentary

actions to reduce the harvest of female blue crabs by 34% and maintain a harvest that does not remove more

than 46% of the population annually. These actions were based on recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay

Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC), which stated that reducing harvest pressure on female crabs would

maximize the odds of rebuilding the crab population to the established abundance target. Concurrent with

these management actions, the state of Maryland has been asked to make a significant financial commitment

to support blue crab stock enhancement efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. A debate continues over whether or

not an investment in this stock enhancement effort should be made given management actions alone are

designed to rebuild this resource.

I, with the input of the Chancellor of the University of Maryland system, have developed a set of guidelines to

focus your review and obtain the information we need to make decisions about our future support of this

program in Maryland. While addressing these questions will provide the information that I feel is

fundamental to decision making, I also encourage you to address in your review other pertinent information

that you feel should be considered.

REVIEW GUIDANCE

Objective: Evaluate the efficacy, both from a biological and economic viewpoint, of stocking juvenile blue

crabs to enhance the adult stock of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay.

1. Is there promise for substantially increasing the number of blue crabs in the Bay based on the research done

to date by Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium (BCARC) scientists?

2. What would be the likely quantitative effect of the BCARC program on the Chesapeake Bay spawning

stock?

3. What are the benefits and detriments of using this stock enhancement program for replenishing blue crabs

in the Chesapeake Bay?

4. What would be the cost of such an effort both in terms of capital investments and ongoing operational

expenditures?

5. How does the cost effectiveness of a stock replenishment effort of this scale compare with harvest

management plans recently implemented by Maryland and Virginia?

6. Is significant public investment in blue crab stock replenishment, including both capital and operating

costs, justified at this time? If not, what conditions might change this?

7. What, in the teams’ view, are the best approaches to stock enhancement?

Staff from the Department of Natural Resources, University of Maryland, and other institutions will be

providing you with the best information that they have to lead you through this review.

Again, thank you for your contributions to strengthening Maryland blue crab management efforts.

1

PROPOSED AGENDA

MARYLAND BLUE CRAB STOCK ENHANCEMENT REVIEW

January 8-9 2009

Merrill Environmental Center, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Annapolis, MD

REVIEW GUIDANCE

Objective: Evaluate the efficacy, both from a biological and economic viewpoint, of stocking

juvenile blue crabs to enhance the adult stock of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay.

1. Is there promise for substantially increasing the number of blue crabs in the Bay based on the

research done to date by BCARC scientists?

2. What would be the likely quantitative effect of the BCARC program on the Chesapeake Bay

spawning stock?

3. What are the benefits and detriments of enhancement for the replenishment of the blue crab in

the Chesapeake Bay?

4. What would be the cost of such an effort both in terms of capital investments and ongoing

operational expenditures?

5. How does the cost effectiveness of a stock replenishment effort of this scale compare with

harvest management plans recently implemented by Maryland and Virginia?

6. Is significant public investment in blue crab stock replenishment, including both capital and

operating costs, justified at this time? If not, what conditions might change this?

7. What, in the teams’ view, are the best approaches to stock enhancement?

Thursday, January 8

8:30 Opening Introductions and Remarks

a. Purpose of Review

b. Review Guidelines and Scope

c. Timeline for completion

Chesapeake Bay blue Crab Biology, Management, Fisheries, and Economics

A. Basic blue crab life history-MDDNR staff

B. Blue crab management – MDDNR staff

1. CBSAC blue crab stock assessment-official estimates – Lynn Fegley, MDDNR

2. Current blue crab management and projected effects

3. Trends in recruitment, factors thought to be limiting stock growth.

C. Economics of the blue crab fishery – Doug Lipton, Maryland Sea Grant

1. What is the annual cost (economic impact) of the decline of the blue crab fishery?

2. What’s at stake?

10:00 Break

2

Thursday, January 8 (continued)

10:20 Review panel questions/discussion

11:00 History of the Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium (BCARC) Program – BCARC

Partners

A. Initial rationale for establishing the effort

1. Review status of the Chesapeake fishery and stock

2. Asian stock enhancement programs for portunids

a. hatchery production

b. limited field tests

B. Establishing the Chesapeake Bay blue crab as a candidate for stock enhancement

1. Standards for responsible enhancement

2. Evidence for recruitment limitation

3. Spawning stock size

C. BCARC’s multi-disciplinary responsible approach to blue crab stock enhancement

1. Team composition for responsible enhancement

2. Rigorous, experimental testing and incrementally progressive strategy

D. How is the BCARC approach intended to complement and enhance current management of the

fishery?

12:00 Lunch – provided on site

1:00 BCARC research findings to date and evaluation of BCARC efforts

A. Advances in hatchery technology and basic biology

1. Development and optimization of blue crab hatchery technologies (larval, postlarval,

juvenile production)

2. Endocrinology (basic biology, prospects for hormonal control of molting)

3. Blue crab genetics (basic biology, impacts on wild diversity, applied tagging technologies)

4. Disease (population impacts, disease management)

B. Evaluation of field efforts

1. Evidence for recruitment limitation in Chesapeake Bay

2. Comparison of hatchery-reared and wild crab juveniles

3. Field tests of enhancement (upper and lower Bay) (40 min)

4. Spatial & seasonal dynamics of mature female production, migration and exploitation

5. Advances toward integrated ecosystem assessment

C. Prospects for blue crab aquaculture

1. Blue crab pond culture

2. Blue crab soft-shell aquaculture

3

Thursday, January 8 (continued)

D. Budget (current and projected):

1. Budget and justification for funds requested from MDDNR/legislature

a. Facilities development

b. Operation and maintenance

c. Field stocking and monitoring 2. Vision and costs of full-scale production (10-20 million juveniles)

3:00 Break

3:20-3:45 BCARC Wrap Up

3:45 Review Panel Questions/Discussion

5:00 Adjourn

Friday, January 9

8:30 Convene -Wrap up any discussions not completed prior day.

9:00 Closing summaries

Address: “If enhancement were successful, what part of current programs could be eliminated

and what would be gained (or saved)” and other issues.

a. MDDNR

b. BCARC

9:30 Review Panel Questions/Discussions to MDDNR and BCARC

10:00 Break

10:20 Review Panel convenes- closed door

(MDDNR staff and BCARC partners to be on hand nearby to answer any questions).

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Review Panel begins formulation of findings/recommendations

2:30 Review Panel reports initial findings to DNR/BCARC

Discussion

4:00 Next steps

4:30 Adjourn

Basic Blue Crab Biology, Management, and the Fishery

BCARC Review Briefing Document

January, 2009

Annapolis, Maryland

In this Presentation:

• Challenges for crabs

• Crab life cycle and implications for management

• The science behind current management actions

• Harvest overview

• Economics

Challenges for Crabs

Fishing pressure represents one of many challenges the blue crab faces.1

Loss of habitat, pollution, and changes in the structure of the ecosystem are key issues that also must be addressed if any Bay fishery is

to be sustained. 1

1. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997. Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Blue Crab Life CycleIn mid-summer crabs are dispersed throughout the Bay and tributaries.

Mating occurs May through September.

Mated females begin Southward migration in early fall.

Female crabs spawn in saline waters near the mouth of the Bay, June – early Sept.

Crab larvae develop in the ocean.

Larvae return to the Bay on winds and currents after ~60 days.

After settling in the lower Bay, growing crabs move steadily northward. Reach

maturity/harvestable size in 14 (early summer spawn) – 24 (late summer spawn) months.

Implication of Life Cycle to Management:

• The fall migration is a ‘choke point’ where female crabs are highly vulnerable to the fishery.

• Because these migrating females are mated, and carry the next generation of crabs, large removals of these crabs has serious implications for spawning potential.

• Coordination among Bay jurisdictions is critical.

Blue Crab Management In Chesapeake Bay

Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan (BCFMP)-Signed by Chesapeake Executive Council (governors, etc...) in 1997.

-Provides guidelines for management, identifies sources of concern.

Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC)-Synthesizes data from multiple sources.

-Provides official scientific assessment and guidance to management.

-Coordinated by NOAA, comprised of managers and scientists from MDNR, VIMS, PRFC,

UMCEES, NOAA, NMFS1.

VMRC, PRFC, MDNR-Using BCFMP, CBSAC guidance, members of Fisheries Steering Committee make management

recommendations.

-Fisheries Steering Committee: coordinated by NOAA and comprised of MDNR, VMRC, PRFC

managers.

- Recommendations enacted by states.

1. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (College of William and Mary), Potomac River Fisheries Commission, University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Chesapeake Bay Office), National Marine Fisheries Service.

In order:

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

Virginia Institute of Marine Science



Virginia Marine Resources Commission

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Dr. Doug Vaughn

Dr. Joe Idoine

Derek Orner

Dr. Tom Miller

Dr. John Hoenig

Chris Bonzek

Dr. Rom Lipcius

Rob O’Reilly

Dr. Alexei Sharov

Lynn Fegley (Chair)

CBSAC Scientists

The Science Behind Current Management Efforts….

Winter Dredge Survey

Survey conducted by Virginia Inst. of Marine Science and Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources.

1500 sites sampled Baywide. Stratified, random design.

Sampling occurs Dec.-Mar. when crabs are immobile, little fishing pressure (near Bay mouth).

Unit of measure = density (crabs/1000 m2).

Density calibrated by gear efficiency (vessel-specific), experiments conducted annually.

Generates estimates of abundance by size (age0 / age1+), gender.

Results adopted by NOAA Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) as best measure of stock abundance and recommended as platform for blue crab management.

Endorsed by Chesapeake Bay Steering Committee, comprised of fishery managers from the three jurisdictions (MD, VA, PRFC).

Winter Dredge Survey

Distribution of samples in blue crab winter dredge survey.

Stratum 1

Stratum 2

Stratum 3

Annual estimates of Baywide total blue crab over-wintering abundance in Chesapeake Bay.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

To

tal

blu

e c

rab

ab

un

dan

ce

(x m

il.)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

Matu

re fem

ale

abundance (x m

il.)

Annual estimates of Baywide over-wintering abundance of mature female blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay.

Over-wintering distribution of mature female blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay.

Low density

High density

Density is, on average, 6.5x higher in Stratum 3 than 1 & 2.

Data points represent dredge samples* with positive catch of mature female blue crabs.*-data pooled over multiple years.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06

Year

Landin

gs (M

etric

Tons X

1,0

00)

Virginia

Maryland

Reported commercial landings of blue crabs, all market categories, in Chesapeake Bay.

78,604,7542007123,917,9051998

96,197,0512006168,871,9771997

104,557,0582005153,186,9471996

101,575,6982004152,214,8011995

87,150,0202003150,444,1421994

106,645,1992002195,953,2261993

91,598,095200199,474,6131992

115,592,4712000156,247,4971991

135,444,0371999177,496,8411990

IndividualsYear IndividualsYear

Estimated annual Baywide landings of female hard crabs.

Conversion of volume to individuals based on reported bushel landings and regionally observed mean size.

The Number of Spawning-Age Crabs (male and female) in Chesapeake Bay is substantially below the abundance

target.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Cra

bs (

millio

ns)

adult abundance

minimum safe abundance = 86 million crabs

target abundance = 200 million crabs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Cra

bs (

millio

ns)

Age 0 Abundance Average

Crab reproduction has been poor, as shown by the number of age 0 Crabs in Chesapeake Bay

between 1990-2008.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Lan

din

gs

(Mil

lions

of

Pou

nds)

Bay-wide harvest Average

Harvest levels are well below average.The 2007 Bay-wide harvest was among the

lowest since 1945.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Perc

en

tag

e R

em

oved

Percentage of Crabs Removed

Target Percentage = 46%

Threshold Percentage = 53%

Removals by the commercial and recreational fisheries have exceeded the target removal rate of 46% nine of

the last ten years.

CBSAC advice given to management to achieve Baywide goals:

Reduce female harvest by 34% in order to:

1) Return the crab fishery to the target removal rate of 46% in 2008.

2) Extend protective measures for the mated female crabs.

3) Maximize odds of rapidly rebuilding the population and fishery.

Economics of the blue crab fishery...

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Year

Ex-v

essel valu

e (m

il d

ollars

)

Maryland

Virginia

Baywide*

Ex-vessel value of blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay, includes all market categories

* - does not include Potomac River.

$22,578,992$32,176,052 1996

$15,850,828$35,181,951 2007$24,879,432$40,872,604 1995

$14,525,873$30,033,936 2006$22,793,847$42,245,521 1994

$21,599,938$35,621,579 2005$35,475,910$35,425,446 1993

$23,165,745$38,684,389 2004$10,467,129$20,677,032 1992

$20,726,620$33,178,212 2003$11,980,433$24,241,651 1991

$21,771,205$27,965,870 2002$17,886,798$23,539,802 1990

$27,048,674$31,218,703 2001$15,050,475$26,849,332 1989

$25,422,641$28,486,105 2000$13,382,847$21,514,232 1988

$26,063,792$33,889,714 1999$9,797,528$24,594,681 1987

$27,512,662$29,975,340 1998$9,893,216$20,200,003 1986

$27,392,408$36,550,299 1997$9,653,185$23,061,079 1985

VirginiaMarylandYearVirginiaMarylandYear

Total ex-vessel value of blue crabs in Maryland and Virginia.

$7.03Soft

$0.65Females

$1.47Males

$/lb.Market Category

Average price per pound of blue crab (ex-vessel, whole) by market category, 2003-2007.

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Mil

lio

ns o

f D

oll

ars

s

Year

Male value

Female Value

Cull value

Soft / peeler value

Ex-vessel value of blue crabs in Maryland, by market category

Estimated Economic Impact of 2008 management actions:

• $ 403,578 to recreational crabbers,

• $1,471,780 to commercial crab harvesters,

• $1,466,895 to processors.

$ 3,342,253 TOTAL

95,181,3522007173,069,1271998

104,914,2402006183,576,8051997

111,068,9242005161,530,7631996

119,028,2502004172,914,5571995

98,153,1582003182,078,3901994

123,828,9262002175,472,0601993

108,017,0082001124,601,2521992

147,294,5272000179,393,9561991

130,821,9411999186,352,8231990

IndividualsYearIndividualsYear

Estimated annual Baywide landings of female blue crabs, hard + soft/peeler.

Conversion of volume to individuals based on reported bushel landings and regionally observed mean size.

2008 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report Approved by the Fisheries Steering Committee: July 2008, Colonial Beach, Virginia

Status of the stock: In 2006, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) adopted the Bay-wide winter dredge survey (WDS) as the primary indicator of blue crab stock status because it is the most comprehensive and statistically robust of the blue crab surveys conducted in the Bay1. The WDS measures the density of crabs (number per 1,000 square meters) in Chesapeake Bay. These densities are then adjusted for the efficiency of the sampling gear and expanded to the area of Chesapeake Bay in order to derive precise annual estimates of abundance of over-wintering crabs by age and gender grouping. The abundance of spawning age crabs (age 1+) is a key indicator of stock status, and is used to determine if the population is overfished (see control rule section below). At the beginning of the 2008 commercial season, results of the 2007-2008 WDS indicated that the abundance of age 1+ blue crabs declined slightly from 16 crabs per 1,000 square meters in 2006-2007 to 12 crabs per 1,000 square meters in 2007-2008 (Figure 1). These densities equate to estimates of spawning age abundance of 143 million crabs in 2006-2007 and 120 million crabs in 2007-2008, which is well below the target level of 200 million spawning age crabs (Figure 2). The interim abundance target of 200 million spawning crabs was established by the CBSAC in January of 2008 and was accepted by the Chesapeake Bay blue crab management authorities in April of 2008 (Appendix 1). Recruitment, as measured by the abundance of age 0 crabs, increased slightly in the 2007-2008 WDS. Despite this slight increase over last year, the abundance of young crabs remains well below the survey average (Figure 3). Therefore, 2008 represents a continuation of a period of low recruitment that has persisted since 1997-1998. In the 2007-2008 WDS, female spawning potential (abundance of females greater than 60mm or 2.4 inches carapace width) remained below the average range for the WDS (Figure 4). A management control rule is used to determine the status of the Chesapeake Bay blue crab stock and guide management decisions. Despite continued low abundance, the blue crab stock remains above the abundance (overfished) threshold of 86 million age 1+ crabs, but below the target abundance of 200 million (Figure 5). The exploitation fraction for 2007 (percentage of crabs removed from the population by fishing) was estimated to be 55%, which is above the overfishing threshold of 53%. One change from previous advisory reports was the incorporation of recreational harvest into the annual exploitation fractions. Landings from recreational crabbers was estimated to be 8% (Ashford and Jones 2002) 2 of the total harvest for all years. When considering both commercial and recreational harvest, the exploitation fraction has been above the target exploitation fraction of 46% in 9 of the last 10 years. Further, the exploitation fraction has not fallen below the overfishing threshold for more than 2 consecutive years since the mid-1990’s. Data from three supporting blue crab surveys (the Maryland and Virginia trawls and the Calvert Cliffs Pot study) were reviewed. Results of these surveys are presented in Appendix 2 of this report. The results of these surveys were generally consistent, showing an overall decline of crab abundance in 2007. Harvest:

The 2007 Bay-wide crab harvest of 43.5 million pounds is the lowest recorded since 1945 (Figure 6). The 2007 Maryland harvest of 23.7 million pounds is the second lowest recorded, but above the historical low of 20 million pounds observed in 2000. Virginia’s harvest of 17.4 million pounds is the lowest recorded since the mid-1970s (Figure 7). Projected harvest and exploitation: The 2007-2008 WDS resulted in an estimated total abundance of 280 million crabs. Based on the historical relationship between crab abundance estimated from the WDS and the subsequent harvest, the 2008 harvest is predicted to be 49 million pounds with a possible range of 33.4 to 65 million pounds based on 95% prediction intervals (Figure 8). This projection is based on fishery performance in the absence of any additional regulatory action that could limit harvest. In 2008, the Bay management jurisdictions took action to reduce female harvest by 34%, which is equal to a total harvest reduction of 17%, since the Bay-wide harvest is divided equally among male and female crabs. This reduction was based on the difference between the projected harvest of 49 million lbs and the harvest (in pounds) that would be equivalent to 46% of the estimated 2008 crab abundance, which would be approximately 40 million lbs. Control rule: The control rule, which was adopted by the Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee in 20013, and updated in the 2005 stock assessment4, is the foundation for sustainable management of the blue crab fishery in Chesapeake Bay. The control rule represents the relationship between adult crab abundance (millions of crabs), exploitation (the fraction of crabs removed by the fishery in a year) and management reference points. In 2006 the CBSAC defined the overfished limit to be 86 million age 1+ crabs. This value, observed in the 1999-2000 WDS, is the lowest value in the 17-year WDS time series, and delineates the overfished threshold based on a lack of historical evidence that a sustainable fishery can be maintained at an age 1+ abundance that is less than 86 million crabs. The overfishing definition, or exploitation threshold, for this stock is based on the consensus that a minimum of 10% of the spawning potential of an unfished population must be preserved to reliably produce the next generation of crabs. The target exploitation fraction of 46%, maintained over several years, represents an exploitation fraction that would preserve 20% of the unfished spawning potential. Special comments: In January 2008, CBSAC established an interim rebuilding target of 200 million spawning age (1+) crabs. The committee also recommended that the jurisdictions take action to achieve this target and specified that management action expanding protection for mature female crabs would maximize the odds of increasing recruitment and rebuilding the blue crab stock. In making these recommendations, CBSAC recognized that blue crab recruitment is strongly influenced by environmental drivers which could prevent an immediate substantial increase in recruitment (age 0 abundance) despite increased adult abundance. Ultimately, effective management of the blue crab requires implementation of ecosystem-based approaches that deal not only with the fishery, but also with broader issues such as habitat quality and food web interactions. The regulatory actions taken in 2008 were coordinated among the three management jurisdictions and were designed to protect the 2008 cohort of female crabs migrating down the Bay in fall, and the subsequent spring to the spawning grounds in Virginia. As a result of the 2005 blue crab stock assessment, a number of changes and improvements have been made in our analysis of stock status. Harvest has been adjusted to account for a number of

historical changes in estimation methodology employed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission5. Additionally, annual harvest has been adjusted to include landings from both the commercial and recreational fisheries. In constructing the control rule, the annual estimates of abundance and exploitation fraction use data from the WDS and reported fishery harvest. Critical data needs: It is critical that robust, fishery-dependent data collection programs be implemented for blue crabs throughout the Chesapeake Bay. The design of these programs should be based on the need for improved information on biological characteristics of the harvest and reliable effort data for the commercial and recreational fisheries. A collaborative and coordinated Bay-wide fishery-independent survey focused on the spring through fall distribution and abundance of blue crabs remains important. Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee Members: Chris Bonzek VIMS Derek Orner NMFS/NCBO Lynn Fegley Maryland DNR - chair Alexei Sharov Maryland DNR John Hoenig VIMS Joe Idoine NMFS/NEFSC Tom Miller CBL Doug Vaughan NMFS/SEFSC Rob O’Reilly VMRC Also participating: Eric Johnson SERC

Glenn Davis Maryland DNR

Literature Cited 1. Sharov, A. F., J. H. Volstad, G. R. Davis, B. K. Davis, R. N. Lipcius, and M. M. Montane. 2003.

Abundance and exploitation rate of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 72:543-565.

2. Ashford, J. R., and C. M. Jones. 2002. Survey of the blue crab recreational fishery in Maryland, 2002. Final Report to the Maryland Department of natural Resources. Annaplos, MD. 31p.

3. Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee. 2001. Taking Action for the Blue Crab: Managing and Protecting the Stock and its Fisheries. A report to the Chesapeake Bay Commission; Annapolis, Md, Richmond , Va. 24p.

4. Miller, T. J. et al. 2005. Stock Assessment of the Blue Crab in Chesapeake Bay. Technical Report Series No. TS-487-05 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 162p.

5. Fogarty, M.F. and T.J. Miller. 2004. Impact of a Change in Reporting Systems in the Maryland Blue Crab Fishery. Fisheries Research. 68:37-43.

CBSACCBSAC

2008 Blue Crab Advisory Report 2008 Blue Crab Advisory Report

FiguresFigures

Figure 1. Winter dredge survey density of blue crabs aged one year and older (age 1+) 1989-2007. These are crabs measuring greater than 60mm across the carapace and are considered the ‘exploitable stock’. 95% confidence intervals (1.96*std error) shown around individual points. The average range for the survey is defined as the standard deviation of the annual crab density values divided by the square root of three.

Year represents the calendar year at the beginning of the survey. The 1989 value represents results for the winter of 1989-1990.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Year

Cra

bs p

er 1

,000

Squ

are

Met

ers

annual crab density3-year averagesurvey averageSeries4Series5

upper and lower bounds of average range for survey

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Year

Num

ber o

f Cra

bs (m

illio

ns)

adult abundance

minimum safe abundance = 86 million crabs

target abundance = 200 million crabs

Figure 2. Estimate of abundance of blue crabs aged one year and older from the Bay wide winter dredge survey 1989-2007. These are crabs measuring greater than 60mm across the carapace and are considered the ‘exploitable stock’. The lowest observed abundance of 86 million crabs was observed in the 1998-1999 survey. This is considered the overfished threshold. The interim target abundance has been set at 200 million crabs.

Figure 3. Winter dredge survey density of age 0 blue crabs (recruits) 1989-2006. These are crabs measuring less than 60mm (2.4 inches) across the carapace. 95% confidence intervals (1.96*std error) shown around individual points. The average range for the survey is defined as the standard deviation of the annual crab density values divided by the square root of three.

Upper and Lower Bounds of Average Range for the Survey0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Year

Cra

bs p

er 1

,000

Squ

are

Met

ers

annual crab density

3-year average

survey average

Series4

Series5



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Year

Cra

bs p

er 1

,000

Squ

are

Met

ers

annual crab density3-year averagesurvey averageSeries4Series5


Figure 4. Winter dredge survey density of female spawning potential 1989-2006. These are immature and mature female crabs measuring greater than 60mm (2.4 inches) across the carapace. 95% confidence intervals (1.96*std error) shown around individual points. The average range for the survey is defined as the standard deviation of the annual crab density values divided by the square root of three.


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Abundance of Age 1+ Crabs (Millions)

Expl

oita

tion

frac

tion

annual exploitation fraction

target exploitation fraction = 0.46

threshold exploitation fraction = 0.53

Overfishing

Harvest Rate too High

Overfished

Abundance

too Low

1999

200420002001

2002

2006

2007

20052003

Figure 5. The control rule used to manage the Chesapeake Bay blue crab fishery. An abundance of 86 million age 1+ crabs represents the overfished threshold. In 2007, abundance was above the overfished threshold and the exploitation rate was above the overfishing threshold.

Figure 6. Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab harvest 1945-2007, adjusted for changes in reporting methods.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Land

ings

(Mill

ions

of P

ound

s)

Bay-wide harvest adjusted for reporting changes

Mean

Figure 7. Maryland and Virginia Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab harvest 1945-2007, adjusted for changes in reporting methods.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07Year

Har

vest

(Mill

ions

of P

ound

s)

Maryland HarvestVirginia HarvestMaryland Average HarvestVirginia Average Harvest

y = 0.0835x + 25.813R2 = 0.87

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Crab Abundance (Millions of Crabs)

Bay

wid

e H

arve

st (M

illion

s of

Pou

nds)

Figure 8. The relationship between the total abundance of crabs measured in the Bay-wide winter dredge survey (WDS), and the subsequent year’s harvest in pounds. Based on this relationship, the 2007 harvest is predicted to be 48.7 million pounds with a possible range of 32.3 to 65.1 million pounds. The lowest total abundance of crabs was observed in 2001. The highest abundance and the largest harvest during this time period was recorded in 1993.

95% Prediction intervals for harvest

Predicted annual harvest

Observed annual harvest

Predicted 2008 harvest (49 million lbs)

Observed 2007 harvest (43.5 million lbs)

February 8, 2008 CBSAC final report pending approval by the Fisheries Steering Committee

1

Appendix 1 Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee 2008 Blue Crab Advisory Report

Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee Working Meeting on Blue Crab Assessment and Management

January 27, 2008 NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office

Annapolis, Maryland I. Recommendations for Fishery Management: 1) An interim rebuilding target should be set at 200 million age 1+ crabs.

This recommendation is based on the following:

a) Analyses suggesting that 200 million age 1+ crabs is representative of the average abundance when fishery was operating at the target exploitation fraction (U) of 0.46 and appears to be a minimum age 1+ abundance associated with consistently higher levels of recruitment.

b) An abundance of 200 million age 1+ crabs appears to be achievable in the near term, as this abundance has been observed in the Baywide winter dredge survey as recently as 2003, which was the only year since 1996 that age 1+ abundance exceeded this level.

c) Baywide harvest levels associated with an age 1+ abundance greater than 200 million between 1990 and 2003 have ranged from 47 – 90 million pounds.

Note:

The interim target of 200 million is based on analyses using simple regression models that describe the very strong relationship between abundance measured in the Baywide winter dredge survey and subsequent harvest. In addition, regression models relating dredge survey data to survey data from the Calvert Cliffs pot survey and the Virginia trawl survey were used.

The target level of 200 million is meant to be a goal for initial rebuilding and likely will be replaced by a subsequent target derived from a statistically structured assessment model that integrates all data sources. Based on current analyses, the target will likely be adjusted upwards.

2) The jurisdictions should take management action aimed at achieving the interim


2

rebuilding target. Management actions that extend protection to female crabs will create the best odds of increasing recruitment (abundance of age 0 crabs).

Note: Mature females would require protection between the time when they are immature and exploitable and when they subsequently spawn. Therefore it is critical that measures be coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries. Blue crab recruitment is strongly influenced by environmental drivers which could prevent an immediate substantial increase in recruitment (age 0 abundance) despite increased adult abundance.

3) Regulating fishing effort is not the most direct or effective method for controlling

harvest. This is due to an uncertain relationship between effort and catch which complicates establishing effort reference points. However, at present, effort control is an available means for reducing fishing mortality. Consequently, the CBSAC recommends that jurisdictions should take action to better quantify and reduce current levels of effort.

4) A management strategy that sets annual catch allowances based on estimates of

abundance from the winter dredge would ensure that catches remain in balance with highly variable recruitment, and therefore highly variable levels of abundance. The CBSAC recommends that the jurisdictions begin work to develop a foundation for implementation and enforcement of catch-based management.

II. *Recommendations for Future Research and Analysis:

1) Improving estimation of gear efficiency for the winter dredge survey should be a top priority for both field and analytical work. Because the dredge survey is the basis of the current management structure, it is essential that potential biases in efficiency estimates be quantified. Some comparison and validation of gear efficiency could be conducted using the catchability estimates generated in the catch survey stock assessment model.

2) Analyses should be conducted toward understanding whether the depensatory

relationship that suggests higher exploitation at low abundance is real or is an artifact of how these variables are calculated. Validation of this relationship would inform management advice.

3) A coordinated Baywide summer-fall trawl survey that is designed to provide a

robust index of relative crab abundance would be more informative to


3

management than are the current Maryland and Virginia trawl surveys based on disparate sampling designs.

4) Management agencies should adopt a leadership role and facilitate funding to

develop a single data warehouse for fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. This would improve and streamline assessment processes and allow for more extensive examination of relationships among surveys.

5) An improved recreational licensing system is essential for tracking recreational

effort and catch in all jurisdictions.

6) A Baywide fishery-dependent survey would allow for a greater understanding of fishery dynamics over time and space and facilitate the development of management options that balance biological and economic impacts.

7) Future assessment efforts should include sex-specific modeling approaches given

the disparate life cycle traits and exploitation patterns for male and female crabs. *The research and analysis recommendations are not listed in order of priority and are distilled from the Center of Independent Experts (CIE) review of the 2005 Stock Assessment of Blue Crab in Chesapeake Bay (Miller et al.) Technical Report Series No. TS-487-05 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Submitted to the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, MD on 8 July 2005. Committee Attendance: Mark Terceiro Northeast Fisheries Science Center Rob O’Reilly Virginia Marine Resources Commission Tom Miller University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Derek Orner NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Alexei Sharov Maryland Department of Natural Resources Lynn Fegley (Chair) Maryland Department of Natural Resources Rom Lipcius Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dave Hewitt Virginia Institute of Marine Science Absent: Doug Vaughn Southeast Fisheries Science Center John Hoenig Virginia Institute of Marine Science Chris Bonzek Virginia Institute of Marine Science


4

Appendix 2Appendix 2Supporting Survey Indices of Supporting Survey Indices of

AbundanceAbundance

Data: Three additional fishery-independent surveys are used to monitor stock status: The Virginia trawl survey, the Maryland summer trawl survey, and the Calvert Cliffs crab pot survey. Data from the two trawl surveys and the Calvert Cliffs pot survey are based on calendar year collections through 2006. The indices are expressed as the geometric mean catch per unit effort. Standardized width-age cutoff values were used to differentiate age classes for three of the four surveys (Maryland and Virginia trawl and Calvert Cliffs pot survey) used to derive the abundance indices.

Appendix 2, Figure 1. Maryland Trawl Survey catch per tow of age 0 crabs, 1977 -2007. Age 0 is assigned to crabs caught during September and October that are less than or equal to 50 mm across the carapace. The average range is defined as the standard deviation of the annual crab density values divided by the square root of three.

Upper Bound of Expected Average Range

Lower Bound of Expected Average Range

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Num

ber o

f Age

0 C

rabs

per

Tow

Annual Catch per Tow

3-Year Average

Suvey Average

Upper Prediction Bound

Lower Prediction Bound

Upper and Lower Bounds of Average Range for the Survey

Appendix 2, Figure 2. Virginia Trawl Survey catch per tow of age 0 crabs, 1968-2007, from sites in the upper and lower rivers. Age 0 is assigned to crabs that are less than or equal to 50 mm across the carapace in September, and less than or equal to 60 mm across the carapace in October and November.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Num

ber o

f Age

0 C

rabs

per

Tow

Annual Catch per Tow3-Year AverageSurvey AverageUpper Prediction BoundLower Prediction BoundUpper and Lower Bounds of Average Range for the Survey

Appendix 2, Figure 3. Maryland Trawl Survey catch per tow of age 1+ crabs, 1977 -2007. Age 1+ crabs are defined as those caught from June through October that are greater than or equal to 51 mm across the carapace.

0

5

10

15

20

25

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Num

ber o

f Age

1+

Cra

bs p

er T

ow

Annual Catch per Tow3-Year AverageSurvey AverageUpper Prediction BoundLower Prediction BoundUpper and Lower Bounds of Average Range for the Survey

Appendix 2, Figure 4. Virginia Trawl Survey catch per tow of age 1+ crabs, 1968-2007, from sites sampled in the upper and lower rivers. Age 1+ crabs are defined as those that are greater than or equal to 36 mm across the carapace in August, greater than or equal to 51 mm in September, and greater than or equal to 61 mm across the carapace in October.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Num

ber o

f Age

1+

Cra

bs p

er T

ow


3-Year Average

Survey Average




Appendix2, Figure 5. Calvert Cliffs pot survey catch per pot of age 1+ crabs, 1968-2007. Age 1+ crabs are defined as those caught from June through August that are greater than or equal to 95 mm across the carapace.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Cat

ch o

f Age

1+

Cra

bs p

er P

ot


3-Year Average

Survey Average




Appendix 2, Figure 6. Maryland Trawl Survey catch per tow of adult female crabs, 1977 -2007. Adult female crabs caught from August through October are classified in adult, in that they will likely spawn within one year.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Cat

ch o

f Adu

lt Fe

mal

es p

er T

ow


3-Year Average

Survey Average




Appendix 2, Figure 7. Virginia Trawl Survey catch per tow of adult female crabs, 1968 through 2007, from sites in the upper and lower rivers, and the mainstem of Chesapeake Bay. All females caught from August through November are considered to be adult, in that they will likely spawn within 1 year.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Cat

ch o

f Adu

lt Fe

mal

es p

er T

ow


3-Year Average

Survey Average




Appendix 2, Figure 8. Calvert Cliffs pot survey catch per pot of adult female crabs, 1968-2007. Adult female crabs are defined as those caught in September that are greater than or equal to 120 mm across the carapace.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Year

Cat

ch o

f Adu

lt Fe

mal

es p

er P

ot


3-Year Average

Survey Average




Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium (BCARC)

Executive Summary for External Review Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium (BCARC)

Provided below are executive summaries as requested by DNR for the following three areas: 1. History of the BCARC Program 2. Evaluation of results 3. Future work, budget needs and justification for funds requested

1. History of the BCARC Program A. Initial rationale for establishing the BCARC effort I. Status of the Chesapeake fishery and stock After decades of wide annual fluctuations in catch and abundance but no long-term population trends, the Chesapeake Bay blue crab stock declined markedly during the 1990s to record low levels that have persisted throughout the 2000s. Both the severity of the decline and the persistence of the low abundance levels have been unprecedented. Lipcius and Stockhausen (2002) provided compelling evidence that the Chesapeake spawning stock biomass of blue crabs declined by 84% following 1991, and that the recruitment of larvae and early stage juveniles to the stock was limited. This analysis provided clear indication that not only has the population of blue crabs declined during the 1990s, but that the reproductive capacity of the stock has diminished drastically. The Bi-state Blue Crab Advisory Committee (BBCAC) and its Technical Advisory Committee (BBTAC) were formed to address the status of the stock on an integrated, bay-wide basis. In addition the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) developed a comprehensive stock assessment and developed a model that set recommendations for exploitation levels. Despite numerous changes to fishing regulations in an effort to reduce fishing pressure, exploitation levels remained persistently above target levels, and landings as well fishery-independent measures of the stock abundance remained at record low levels through the present (2007-2008). In 2008 both MD-DNR and VA-VMRC acknowledged the serious condition of the stock and the Chesapeake blue crab fishery was declared in emergency status for federal disaster relief funding. Recognizing the seriousness of the problem in 2001, BCARC scientists began to explore new approaches to restoring and managing the Chesapeake stock of blue crabs. BCARC scientists set out to explore concepts of: • spatial management through expansion of the spawning sanctuary into a network that

links migration corridors and nursery habitats with the spawning sanctuary; • integrated ecosystem assessment to protect and restore resources for all life stages of blue

crabs; • the carrying capacity of nursery habitats; • the feasibility of stock enhancement with hatchery-reared juveniles into recruitment-

limited nurseries; and • unresolved aspects of the basic biology of blue crabs needed for successful management.

1

II. Asian stock enhancement programs for portunids Hatchery production. From the outset, BCARC looked to existing hatchery technologies and aquaculture systems in Asia as potential models for enhancing the Chesapeake blue crab stock. Hatchery rearing over 30+ years in Japan, China, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand and Australia has been successful for several similar portunid species, including Portunus pelagicus, P. trituberculatus, and 4 species of Scylla (e.g., Hamasaki 2000). Three Chesapeake scientists (Hines, Place and David Secor) visited several hatcheries in Japan in summer 2001 to investigate success at production and stock enhancement of coastal fisheries for P. trituberculatus. In addition, during 2002-2006 BCARC scientists consulted closely with projects funded by Phillips Seafood and by the European Union working successfully in Southeast Asia and Australia on mud crab (Scylla spp.) production for pond culture and enhancement of mangrove ecosystems. In winter 2005, BCARC scientists participated in a conference held in the Philippines on portunid crab production and enhancement, which also allowed consultation with hatchery scientists from Vietnam, Australia, and Thailand, as well as the Philippines (e.g., Lindner 2005, Le Vay et al. 2008). And BCARC scientists visited Chinese hatcheries and pond production systems for portunid crabs during 2004 and 2005. Results of this on-going assessment showed that mass rearing of juvenile portunid crabs was feasible. For example, Japanese hatcheries produced upwards 60 million juvenile swimming crabs per year for release into coastal fisheries over a 30+ year period (e.g., Hamasaki 2000, Secor et al. 2002). The Tamano hatchery in Japan consistently produced approximately 10 million juvenile swimming crab juveniles annually. Depending on the species and the level of infrastructure funding, various evolving technologies have been used in producing juvenile portunid crabs in Asian systems, which have informed BCARC’s successful development of hatchery and grow-out for blue crabs. Limited field tests. Despite the very clear success of hatchery production in Asia, BCARC also recognized from the outset that rigorous field tests of stock enhancement for portunid crabs have been limited. In Japan, for example, even with repeated stocking of 40-60 million juveniles per year, field analysis of stocking success included only limited tests at 3 scales that seemed designed to support a “put and take” approach (rather than spawning stock enhancement) (Secor et al. 2002). Nevertheless, these limited tests suggested that enhancement was probably helping to sustain the fishery in Japan, whether or not it was enhancing the spawning stock. Field tests of stock enhancement for Scylla spp. in mangrove systems of Vietnam and the Philippines were more rigorous on small scales, and showed successful enhancement both through releases of hatchery-reared juveniles and through habitat enhancement of mangrove nurseries (e.g., Lindner 2005, Le Vay et al. 2008). Large-scale production in coastal pond systems in China also has been successful for both Scylla spp. and Portunus trituberculatus (Y. Cheng, personal communication). The diversity and general success of these systems provided encouragement for BCARC to proceed. However, their limited, uncertain characteristics also encouraged BCARC to conduct rigorous, quantitative field experiments on the effects of releases of hatchery-reared crabs into Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina Sounds. This is a crucial component of “responsible approaches to stock enhancement” (see below).

2

III. Need for information on basic biology of blue crab. A major goal of the BCARC program has been to provide information on the basic biology of Callinectes sapidus, which is necessary for improved fishery management, ecological restoration, and hatchery production of blue crabs. Many aspects of blue crab biology and ecology have been revealed by recent BCARC research, and much remains unknown (see 2007 book The Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus edited by Kennedy & Cronin). BCARC priorities included application of modern biotechnology tools to genetics, endocrinology and diseases of blue crabs, knowledge of which was very limited at the start of the program, but which was essential for achievement of the program goals. Although Hines, Rittschof and others had been working actively on reproductive and mating ecology of blue crabs, BCARC set out to determine environmental controls of egg production and many other aspects of the life cycle. At the outset, specific elements of nutrition were unknown for rearing all life stages. Despite decades of research, much of the biology of blue crabs was poorly understood, contributing to difficulties in managing the fishery and the stock. Demographic parameters for growth, survival, and longevity were only generally known and not sufficiently detailed for new approaches to life-stage-specific, spatially explicit management. While we had learned much about movement of larger crabs within tributaries (Hines 2007), dispersal of early juveniles to, and migration of adults from, nursery habitats were not well understood. In turn, many aspects of “integrated ecosystem assessment” were lacking to support ecosystem-based fishery management and coordination with other components of restoration of the Bay. The hatchery releases of the BCARC program allowed rigorous replicated experiments to be conducted across space and time to test many aspects of density-dependent ecological interactions of juvenile growth and survival in nursery habitats. BCARC tagging of both juveniles and adults provided much information about movement at spatial and temporal scales not previously assessed. In addition to the enhancement activities, BCARC funding was used (1) to conduct the baywide winter dredge survey, which is the keystone of blue crab stock assessment, (2) to produce the first direct field estimates of survival and migration of mature females, (3) to provide the first field estimates of natural mortality and dispersal of juveniles, (4) to define essential nursery habitat characteristics, and (5) to assess the potential of multi-species management through the deployment of successful oyster reef communities that serve as a major foraging ground for blue crabs, and which could serve as a model for the implementation of ecosystem-based management. B. Establishing the Chesapeake Bay blue crab as a candidate for stock enhancement I. Standards for responsible enhancement. After half a century of hatchery releases failed to produce evidence of increased yield in many fish species in the U.S. and elsewhere, stock enhancement fell out of favor among many fishery biologists. At the same time, most fishery stocks – including the Chesapeake blue crab stock - continued to decline precipitously to historically low levels under traditional fishery management approaches. Faced with this dilemma, fishery scientists began to consider new perspectives and approaches to restore fisheries, including ecosystem-based management and stock enhancement. Blankenship & Leber (1995) provided criteria for applying technological advances in fish tagging and fish culture for hatchery-based

3

enhancement as a “responsible approach to marine stock enhancement”. These 10 criteria assert that one must:

1. Prioritize and select target species as appropriate for enhancement; 2. Develop a species management plan for harvest opportunity, realistic stock rebuilding

goals, and genetic objectives; 3. Define quantitative measures of success; 4. Use genetic resource management to avoid deleterious genetic effects; 5. Use disease and health management; 6. Consider ecological, biological, and life-history patterns to form enhancement

objectives and tactics; 7. Identify released hatchery fish and assess stocking effects; 8. Use an empirical process for defining optimum release strategies; 9. Identify economic and policy guidelines; and 10. Use adaptive management.

These standards have been applied successfully to particular stocks of several species, and BCARC has followed them with rigorous commitment, presenting and publishing the incremental progress of the program. In 2007, BCARC presented a series of papers to summarize much of the program results at the 3rd International Symposium on Sea Ranching and Stock Enhancement held in Seattle, WA (Zohar et al. 2008, Hines et al. 2008, Eggleston et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2008, Aguilar et al. 2008, Young et al. 2008). The international community of scientists at the symposium advanced further the commitment to “responsible stock enhancement” and recognized the BCARC program as a prime example of integrated research for stock enhancement of a marine fishery (Bell et al. 2008). II. Evidence for recruitment limitation. A key premise of stock enhancement is that the depressed stock is, in fact, recruitment limited and that the ecosystem is below carrying capacity for the stock. Attempts to enhance stocks that are not recruitment limited will not succeed, although they may directly augment the fishery. Although Lipcius and Stockhausen (2002) provided clear evidence of recruitment limitation of the Chesapeake spawning stock, rigorous assessment of the carrying capacity of Chesapeake habitats for blue crabs was not available at the start of the BCARC program, as this requires a combination of system-wide sampling and experimental tests. A BCARC goal has been to complete a conduct this combined assessment of recruitment limitation in the Bay (see below). III. Spawning stock size. Stock enhancement can take two forms. One is direct enhancement of the fishery, which is often viewed as a “put-and-take” enhancement. The other is enhancement of the spawning stock, which allows the population to rebuild its reproductive capacity. A critical aspect of spawning stock enhancement is determining the true size of the spawning stock and comparing this size to the production capacity of hatchery reared juveniles and their survival in field conditions. From its inception, BCARC’s major goal has been to enhance the spawning stock of female crabs brooding eggs in the lower Bay sanctuary during summer, while recognizing that males would also provide direct enhancement to the fishery.

4

Using the VIMS long-term trawl survey as the best available measure of the function spawning stock, Seitz et al. (2001) estimated the spawning stock within the VA spawning sanctuary during the summer egg production season to be approximately 8 million females during years of low crab abundance, which have occurred since the recent decline. VIMS tagging studies showed mature females within the expanded spawning sanctuary had a 6-fold higher survival than females outside the sanctuary during the spawning season, but that only 8% of mature females survived to spawn during their second season. The functional spawning stock has been estimated at the same level of 6-10 million females throughout the 2000s. Based on the production levels of juvenile portunid crabs in Asian hatcheries, BCARC considered that it would be reasonable to test the feasibility of enhancing the Chesapeake functional spawning stock of females by 10% (600,000 to 1,000,000 crabs) per year. By contrast, the “winter dredge survey” estimate of the “total stock” of crabs >60 mm is approximately 70 million female crabs over-wintering through out the Bay. Based on demonstrated hatchery production levels, it would be difficult to enhance this size of spawning stock. What accounts for the apparently large (10-fold) disparity in the two estimates of the spawning stock? In reality, the winter dredge survey provides an estimate of the “potential spawning stock” before significant mortality occurs. Many individuals in the “potential stock” throughout the Bay in winter are subject to growth through 2+ additional molts from 60-90 mm to reach sexual maturity at 130-180 mm. They are also subject to at least 2 years of mortality, fishing, and migration before they are incorporated into the actual stock of mature females that spawn in the lower Bay in summer. VIMS and SERC tagging studies clearly show high mortality rates due to both fishing and natural mortality that reduce the 70 million potential stock to 8 million females in the functional spawning stock. C. BCARC’s multi-disciplinary responsible approach to blue crab stock enhancement I. Team composition for responsible enhancement. The BCARC program assembled a unique multi-disciplinary team of experts selected to support all of the standards for responsible stock enhancement, with a single exception of economic analysis. BCARC reasoned that until initial research objectives of feasibly rearing juveniles and enhancing local blue crab stocks in the field could be met with confidence at a small scale, the BCARC program should delay economic analysis of large-scale production. That economic analysis is an important goal of the next “scale-up, transitional phase” of BCARC research. The BCARC multi-disciplinary team includes experts in applications of biotechnology and hatchery development, including: brood stock management (Chung, Zohar), hatchery/nursery technology and live food production (Zmora); endocrinology (Chung, Zohar), genetics (Place), and disease (Schott, Overstreet). The team also includes leading experts in fisheries and stock assessment well as quantitative experimental population biology and community ecology of blue crabs (Lipcius, Hines, Eggleston, Seitz, Johnson, Perry). This team had seven major goals in the initial phase of the program:

• Develop hatchery technologies for intensive production of juvenile blue crabs for small-scale field tests of releases;

• Conduct replicated experimental releases of hatchery reared crabs to determine their fate at local scales;

5

• Apply and develop mechanical and genetic tagging that would identify hatchery and wild crabs in the field releases;

• Test for differences between hatchery and wild crabs; • Determine the timing, route(s), mechanism of female migration from nursery habitats to

spawning sanctuary, as well as the fishery fate of females produced in model nursery systems;

• Integrate experimental results into integrated ecosystem assessment and adaptive spatial management;

• Provide new information on basic biology and ecology of blue crabs needed for responsible restoration and new, successful management of the fishery.

II. Rigorous, experimental testing and incrementally progressive strategy. A crucial aspect of the BCARC program is commitment to rigorous experimental testing and a strategy of incremental progress. This responsible strategy is essential to build – at progressively larger scales - confidence in the feasibility of stock enhancement and to provide realistic expectations, tests and measures of success for each incremental step. To do otherwise would fall into the trap of unsuccessful stock enhancement programs of the past. In advancing this rigorous approach, the research funds could be guaranteed to produce valuable new information that – as a minimum – would support improved fishery management. The BCARC program focused initially on conducting releases in the two subsystems of the Bay that provide the best detailed background information on blue crabs ecology: Rhode River (SERC’s 30 years of study) and York River (VIMS nearly 50 years of study). In addition to rigorously testing the feasibility of stock enhancement, the BCARC approach committed to:

• Quantitative ecosystem assessment of juvenile nursery habitats, • Providing quantitative information on blue crab movement and migration for spatial

management • Monitoring and assessing spawning stock size and local stocks of key experimental

systems • Developing working relations with local fishers to measure fishery impacts on the

stocked subsystems.

6

2. Evaluation of results

The BCARC progress summarized below was published in over 70 peer reviewed scientific publications, including journal articles, technical communications and book chapters. It involved 10 PhD and 6 Master dissertations (completed or in progress) and five honors undergraduate thesis. Our work was presented in over 150 talks in international and national conferences, and in over 100 intra-institutional and outreach presentations. These activities are detailed in Appendices I and II (attached). A. Advances in hatchery technology and basic biology I. Development and optimization of blue crab hatchery/nursery technologies

As stated above, the overall goal of the BCARC was to contribute to reversing the continuous declines in the spawning stocks and blue crab abundance in the Chesapeake Bay through two main strategies: 1. Further our understanding of the basic biology of the blue crab, which will contribute to better managing the fishery and 2. Explore the feasibility of using hatchery-produced juveniles to restore the blue crab spawning stocks. A prerequisite to the success of these two strategies is the ability to close the life cycle of the blue crab in captivity and mass produce blue crab juveniles on demand to be used both for the basic and the applied (field) research. This was considered by many as an over-ambitious goal, primarily due to the fact that C. sapidus has eight zoeal (larval) stages and thus its early life cycle was thought to be too complicated to be accomplished in hatchery conditions. The success of Japanese scientists in developing hatchery technologies for mass producing juveniles of its close relative, the Japanese blue swimming crab, Portunus pelagicus, did not necessarily guarantee similar success with the Chesapeake blue crab since the Japanese species has only four larval stages, all of which are larger than those of the blue crab. Nevertheless, a concerted effort by our group led to the development of successful protocols for the mass production of blue crab juveniles all year round (Zmora et al., 2005, Zohar et al., 2008).

Studying the regulation of blue crab reproductive cycles by environmental factors led to consistent brood (sponge) production and spawning in captivity. Although we were able to obtain mating of hatchery-produced crabs (F1 progeny), as part of our overall responsible plan to address genetic resource management and prevent inbreeding, each year we established our broodstock by collecting a large number (80-120) of inseminated females from the Chesapeake Bay. In order to achieve on-demand and year-round spawning and juvenile production, groups of wild-caught inseminated brood females were exposed to computer-controlled natural and phase-shifted environmental conditions. To keep a stock of mated females ready to be induced to ovulate and produce broods, they are exposed to winter conditions, i.e. low temperatures (15oC) and short days (8 hours of dim light). To induce ovulation and brood production, the external conditions were gradually shifted to simulate those that females experience on their spawning grounds, i.e. warm temperatures (up to 22oC), long days (16 hours of dim light) and high salinity (30 ppt). Using this approach, over the last 5 years we have consistently produced ovulated, ovigerous females and blue crab larvae and juveniles all year round.

7

Documenting the reproductive activity of individual tagged brood females demonstrated that blue crabs can produce multiple (2-6) subsequent egg masses (sponges) of similar size at 2-3 week intervals. This discovery regarding Chesapeake Bay blue crab reproduction has major implications to managing the fishery, as it means that harvesting mated females results in removing up to six times the spawning potential of the females compared to what was previously believed to be the case.

Upon hatching (1-4 million zoeae/sponge), the planktonic zoea-1 are collected and placed in 2m3 tanks at an average of 100 larvae per liter. Detailed experiments, focusing on both biotic (e.g. quality and concentration of live feed) and abiotic parameters, led to the development of intensive larval rearing protocols. Briefly, along with development from zoea-1 to zoea-8, larvae are provided varying concentrations of rotifers fed with a mixture of three microalgal species (Nannochloropsis sp., Isochrysis sp. and Tetraselmis sp.), as well as enriched Artemia nauplii. Implementing these protocols routinely results in 30-80% survival rates (average 50%) to the megalopae stage after four weeks of culture.

Megalopae and young crabs are highly cannibalistic. We have conducted intensive research to develop culture protocols that address and significantly reduce cannibalism in nursery tanks (Zmora et al, 2005). Zoea-8 and megalopae produced at COMB are collected and transferred to the off-site refurbished DNR culture facility (Piney Point, MD) and stocked into 4 m3 nursery tanks at a relatively low density of 10-20 per liter. The tanks contain ample shelter substrate (plastic mesh netting at ~10 m2 per m3 of culture volume). The current feeding regime consists of live prey (enriched young Artemia) and natural and formulated diets, which are offered several times throughout day. Upon reaching instar 3 (C3; 6-8 mm, mean carapace width), juveniles are collected for release in Chesapeake Bay (primarily the lower Bay) or to be restocked in larger tanks (8-12 m3) for continued growing. Shelter substrate is provided in this phase as well, however juveniles are now weaned from live feed and receive mainly formulated diets. This last phase is relatively short (10-14 days) and instar 6 (C-6; 18-22 mm) juveniles are harvested to be tagged and released, primarily in the upper part of the Chesapeake Bay. Survival rate from Z8 larvae to releasable C3 and C6 juveniles is 15% and 10%, respectively.

The above studies led to the development of predictable, reproducible and efficient protocols for routinely culturing releasable size crabs (Zmora et al. 2005) as follows: megalopae are consistently harvested four weeks post-hatch and releasable size C3 and C6 juveniles are produced at 6 and 8 weeks post-hatch, respectively.

With the optimization of the above protocols and the improvements and gradual expansion of the DNR Piney Point hatchery, we progressively produced larger numbers of juvenile crabs for release experiments (Table 1). From 2002 through 2008, we produced a total of about 1.317 million C3-C6 juveniles in our hatchery/nursery operations, out of which 815,000 were experimentally released into upper and lower tributaries in Chesapeake Bay (many juveniles were also used for aquaculture and other experiments). During 2008 alone, we released 310,000 blue crab juveniles, which was more than double the number of juveniles released just two years earlier. The majority of the released juveniles were individually marked with micro-wire and/or elastomer tags. However, with the rapid increase in the number of crabs released, our program began to progressively shift to an increasing reliance on genetic tagging via DNA fingerprints (see below). This approach has enabled our program to become the world’s largest hatchery-produced, tag-release-and-monitor study for

8

any species of crab, thereby also providing significant data and ecological modeling information for other crustacean fisheries around the globe.

Year Nursery Produced Crabs Released Crabs 2002 40,000 25,000 2003 41,000 20,000 2004 90,000 55,000 2005 111,000 64,000 2006 290,000 130,000 2007 334,000 211,000 2008 411,000 310,000 Total 1,317,000 815,000

Table 1: Number of juvenile crabs produced and released by BCARC hatchery/nursery operations from 2002-2008.

The program described above marks the first-ever successful effort to reproducibly

mass produce C. sapidus in hatchery/nursery operations, making juveniles of this species available on demand and year-round. This, in turn, enables consistent studies of blue crab biology and ecology (see below), as well as potential approaches toward restoring the spawning stocks in the Chesapeake Bay, both through better management of the fishery and optimized releases of cultured juveniles. Additionally, the availability of blue crab ‘seed’ on-demand paves the way for developing aquaculture technologies for both soft- and hard-shell production (also discussed below). II. Blue crab endocrinology (reproduction, development and molting).

Understanding the basic biology of blue crab reproduction, development and molting is essential to optimizing its hatchery and aquaculture technologies, as well as to better managing the fishery. As indicated in section A.I. above, studying reproductive biology and endocrinology led to the identification of environmental factors that regulate vitellogenesis and spawning, enabling on-demand ovulation and brood production. Additionally, it resulted in the important and relevant finding of multi-brood production.

Spawning wild-caught inseminated females, we observed a vast genetic variation in the offspring generated from single broods, resulting in a great variability in individual growth rates and non-synchronized ecdysis/shedding. In crustacean aquaculture, including C. sapidus, this non-synchronized ecdysis is considered to be the most important contributing factor to cannibalism, which reduces the productivity in hatchery production and is a major hurdle to blue crab aquaculture.

Through studying the physiology and endocrinology of C. sapidus using hatchery-reared animals, the history of which is traceable, C. sapidus hemolymph is found to carry a complex profile of ecdysteroids with the presence of at least six different ecdysteroids at any given molt stage (Chung, submitted). The peak concentration of ecdysteroids is measured at ~200-300 ng/ml hemolymph, with ponasterone A and 20-ecdysone as the highest and second highest ecdysteroids at premolt using the analysis of HPLC-RIA. We have also

9

demonstrated (Chung, submitted) that the molt process can be controlled by regulating the levels of molting hormones using crustacean hyperglycemic hormone and molt-inhibiting hormone, which regulate the synthesis and release of ecdysteroids by the Y-organ.

Based on these findings, it is now anticipated that manipulating the levels of the regulatory neuropeptide hormones and/or molting hormones could become a viable strategy for regulating the molting process, and thus can be used as tools to synchronize molting and growth to increase productivity by reducing cannibalism in hatchery and juvenile production. We are in the process of isolating natural compounds that will be added into the water or feed in order to re-set the timing of molt to achieve the synchronization. This approach is expected to lead to a major breakthrough in blue crab juvenile production as well as soft-shell aquaculture (see below) and to significantly enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of juvenile production for basic studies and for stock enhancement. III. Genetic considerations during the experimental and expanded phases of blue crab stock enhancement

A responsible approach to marine stock enhancement requires that potential negative impacts upon the gene pools of wild populations be mitigated through the use of genetically-sound breeding and release protocols. There are numerous ways in which cultured organisms can have a direct genetic impact on recipient stocks. According to the Ryman/Laikre model, reductions in effective population size (Ne), if severe, can result in substantial allelic and genotypic frequency changes over time and, depending upon future population abundance, excessive loss of genetic diversity. In order to adopt an effective broodstock selection approach for our blue crab enhancement project, the genetic structure of the Callinectes sapidus population was assessed at the sites of enhancement. We determined the entire DNA sequence for the C. sapidus mitochondrial genome (Place et al., 2005) and developed microsatellite markers (Steven et al., 2005). Using mtDNA NADH dehydrogenase subunit II (ND2) gene sequences and microsatellite loci as markers, the population structure of the blue crab population at our release sites have been studied for 6 consecutive years (2003-2008). We demonstrated that the Chesapeake Bay blue crab population is highly genetically diversified (haplotype diversity >0.7; lack of common haplotype; microsatellite heterozygosity varies from 40-97%, depending on loci). We have extensive data showing that the blue crab exhibits heteroplastidy with regard to its mitochondrial genome. Based on mtDNA data, significant yearly variation of genetic composition was observed (p<0.005), despite a low Fst value(<0.03), suggesting local population genetic structure changes from year to year. Distinguishing hatchery from wild crabs based on the ND2 haplotype alone is highly reliable (>95%) but clearly impacts the local genetic structure at the release sites. We have nearly 100% congruence with our wire tagging releases in the upper Bay (Rhode River, 2005 & 2006) and recent releases (2007 & 2008) of very young juveniles (C1 to C3) at Virginia release sites finds that the hatchery genetic signal can be monitored for more than a month post-release. Given these findings, our current recommendation is to use wild-caught inseminated females from the mouth of the Bay, induce them to spawn in captivity, and not use them again for hatchery production. We now consider that our mtDNA fingerprint technology is a very reliable tool to monitor the survival and the fate of the released juveniles, and we have started to substitute the mechanical tags with the genetic markers. Given these developments, we are now able to use DNA fingerprint technology to quantify

10

the direct contribution of large-scale hatchery to the breeding stocks and subsequent generations.

We have been able to extend our genotyping technology to individual megalopae and late larval instars. Among the wild megalopae (> 30) tested, only 2 shared a common ND2 sequence and none shared a common allele at all four microsatellite loci. Therefore, the swarms of megalopae entering the Chesapeake Bay in 2007 do not appear to represent a single parentage. Also, none of the megalopae have the same ND2 sequence as juveniles collected at the mouth of the Bay in 2007 and are a statistically distinct population from adults collected during a winter dredge in 2005/2006. These data demonstrate genetic diversity within megalopae swarms as well as genetic differences between colonizing blue crab megalopae and benthic populations in the Chesapeake Bay, which is in support of the hypothesis that crab populations from different estuaries mix via pelagic larval dispersal. Given this breakthrough technology, we can now envision releasing large numbers (> 1 million) of hatchery-raised late instar larvae at sites deemed to be staging areas for recruitment to the Bay and monitoring their dispersal into seagrass beds prior to their metamorphosis. This idea will be tested during the next field season of Spring-Summer 2009. IV. Disease and stress physiology (population impacts, disease management, relevance to restoration)

Disease: As part of its responsible approach to stock enhancement, as well as to understand the prevalence of disease in the Chesapeake, BCARC has developed tools to help safeguard hatchery production from disease, and to understand the link between disease and natural mortality.

Estimates of how many crabs are available for harvest in the Chesapeake depend on estimates of natural mortality. The role of diseases in limiting crab populations is largely unexplored but cannot be insignificant. In Chesapeake Bay, there are dozens of blue crab pathogens capable of impacting crabs of all stages, including viruses, bacteria and protozoa. Dead and dying crabs will not be caught, but rather remain in the benthos, and so their numbers may be underreported. Viruses, which are not easily observed, may be especially underestimated.

At least one protistan disease, Hematodinium, can cause 80-100% mortality in high salinity waters. BCARC has developed sensitive PCR-based methods to detect Hematodinium, both in animals and in the environment (Nagle et al, in revision). There are anecdotal reports of blue crab viruses, but no studies on their role in natural mortality, or what threat they pose to aquaculture or hatchery operations. At COMB, we have identified what is likely a major viral threat to aquaculture, and have produced tools to rapidly monitor this pathogen (a reo-like virus we have termed CsRV1).

Responsible stock enhancement includes measures to monitor and minimize diseases in hatcheries. Under the guidance of the National Aquarium in Baltimore’s chief veterinarian Dr. Brent Whittaker, and with input from crab pathologist Dr. Gretchen Messick (NOAA Oxford Lab), we have procedures in place to screen for disease in incoming broodstock and to monitor the health of hatchery-produced animals released into the Bay. Incoming broodstock are kept in a a separate quarantine facility for at least 1 month. Once in the hatchery, broodstock are under daily observation and any animal with aberrant behavior is removed from the system and analyzed for possible disease. We screen a subset of outgoing hatchlings for known pathogens, using sensitive PCR methods. Thus far, we have not

11

detected either Hematodinium or reovirus in larvae, juveniles, or broodstock used for production. Responsible enhancement efforts also include an assessment of diseases in potential release sites. For this reason, crabs collected by ecologists are also sent to COMB for testing (Hematodinium or reovirus), so that potential disease hotspots are not targeted for releases.

Stress physiology and stress biomarkers: Although the natural mortality of C. sapidus has never been determined, notably high mortality is found during summer and over-wintering periods, suggesting that environmental factors such water temperature, salinity and DO affect the fitness and well-being of these animals. In addition, the poor water quality and the loss of habitats in Chesapeake Bay in recent years accentuate the reduction in productivity, fitness and well-being of organisms that inhabit in the Bay. Through studying the stress physiology of C. sapidus, particularly in response to environmental stresses that mimic natural conditions, a set of typical physiological responses are noted that can be used as stress markers: carbohydrate levels in tissue and hemolymph, regulatory genes, and a hormone. These markers can be adopted as tools that allow scientists to monitor the health/fitness of animals in the particular habitats and to assess the suitable environmental habitats for mass releases of juveniles. B. Evaluation of field efforts I. Evidence for recruitment limitation in Chesapeake Bay

Spawning ground – summer trawls, tagging: In the two recent decades, there has been a substantial reduction in the blue crab spawning stock, postlarval recruitment, larval abundance, and female size such that: (1) spawning stock abundance and biomass declined over 80 %, (2) female size by 8 %, and (3) larval abundance and postlarval recruitment by approximately an order of magnitude (Lipcius and Stockhausen 2002, CBSAC 2008). A recent tagging program using the terminally molted, mature female component of the Chesapeake Bay blue crab stock estimated annual survival rates at 8 % (Lambert et al. 2006a); survival rates of mature females have therefore remained extremely low during a period of depressed abundance, which may be preventing stock recovery. Analyses of female crab use of the lower bay spawning sanctuary indicate that fishing mortality is six-fold higher outside the sanctuary, attesting to the success of this method of protection (Lambert et al. 2006b). The collective findings suggest that additional sanctuaries connecting the shallow nursery areas via migration corridors to existing spawning sanctuaries would benefit the population by allowing hatchery-reared juveniles to migrate to the lower Bay spawning sanctuary before being caught by the fishery.

Additionally, in the lower Chesapeake Bay, seagrass beds are the habitat with the highest juvenile survival rate (Orth and van Montfrans 1987, Lipcius et al. 2005, 2007). Higher coverage of seagrass results in higher crab settlement (Stockhausen and Lipcius, 2003), and the vegetation type and density affect abundance by increasing surface area for postlarval habitat (Orth and van Montfrans 1987, 2002). Recent investigations by BCARC on recruitment in seagrass beds and other shallow-water nurseries revealed that major parts of the Bay have extensive juvenile habitat but few resident juvenile crabs. These data indicate that many areas throughout Chesapeake Bay, particularly the upper Bay and bayside Eastern Shore, are often below carrying capacity and therefore are recruitment limited. Such

12

underutilized habitats could be readily enhanced with the infusion of hatchery-reared juvenile crabs.

Bay-wide survey & long-term tethering: Recent evidence from large-scale surveys and experiments indicate that there are various habitats throughout Chesapeake Bay that are suitable for enhancement due to their value in providing food and refuge from predation (King et al. 2005, Lipcius et al. 2005, Seitz et al. 2005), and due to low abundance of blue crab juveniles as a result of low recruitment to these sites. Our Bay-wide field surveys of shallow blue crab nursery habitats on both the eastern and western shores of Chesapeake Bay clearly show that the abundance of juvenile blue crabs declines with increasing distance from the Bay mouth (Johnson et al. unpublished manuscript) and in the eastern shore seagrass beds from March through July (Lipcius et al. unpublished manuscript). Conversely, tethering experiments indicate that survival of blue crab juveniles is higher in up-estuary sites (Johnson et al. unpublished manuscript) and in seagrass or macroalgal beds on the bayside eastern shore (Johnston and Lipcius manuscript in submission, Falls and Lipcius manuscript in submission), and benthic samples revealed abundant prey at all sites (Seitz et al. 2005). These results suggest that low crab abundance in these locations is likely a result of insufficient juvenile recruitment and not poor survival or lack of food resources. Further, in the Rhode River, a representative upper Bay subestuary, long-term tethering experiments show that predation rates on juvenile blue crabs have declined over the past 20 years to levels that are less than 10% of levels in the 1980s (Hines and Ruiz, 1995, Hines, unpublished data). This decline in mortality is concurrent with the decline in the population levels and recruitment of juveniles into the Rhode River which are far below historical averages for this system. Overall, the evidence from these ongoing surveys and experiments conducted at large spatial and temporal scales indicate that many areas of Chesapeake Bay suffer from recruitment limitation and that secondary production in these systems may be enhanced by the addition of hatchery-reared crabs.

Experimental tests of enhancement: Our ability to directly augment local wild stocks through field releases of hatchery-reared juveniles demonstrates that localized enhancement of blue crab populations is successful at small spatial scales in muddy coves (<10 ha) in both upper and lower Chesapeake Bay (Davis et al. 2004, Hines et al. 2008), and in seagrass and macroalgal beds of the lower bay (Lipcius et al. various manuscripts in submission). Hatchery crabs more than doubled production in release sites on average, and increased wild populations by as much as seven fold in some areas, clearly demonstrating our ability to increase productivity in these systems. Further, releases had no detectable impact on benthic prey communities indicating that these sites not limited by prey availability are below carrying capacity. Further, intensive sampling within release sites detected no declines in wild juvenile abundance following release of hatchery-reared crabs indicating that wild crabs were not displaced from release areas, and that local productivity was increased as a direct result of hatchery releases in these systems. II. Comparison of hatchery-reared versus wild crab juveniles

Hatchery-reared animals often exhibit morphological, physiological, or behavioral characteristics different from their wild counterparts. Such differences raise concerns that hatchery organisms may be maladapted to natural habitats resulting in poor survival following release. Our laboratory and field trials indicate that while hatchery-reared and wild blue crabs differed in some aspects, they were similar in most respects. Hatchery-reared blue

13

crabs did not differ significantly from wild juveniles in growth, feeding rates and diet composition, habitat utilization, or movement, but showed significant differences in burying behavior and spine morphology (Davis et al. 2004; Young et al. 2008). Although hatchery-reared juveniles initially had shorter lateral spines and did not bury into sediment as frequently as wild crabs, conditioning prior to release was effective at rapidly mitigating differences between wild and hatchery individuals (Davis et al. 2005). Further, evidence suggests that such differences do not translate into decreased performance of hatchery-reared blue crabs in the field since simultaneous field releases of free-ranging wild and hatchery crabs indicate that hatchery crabs have survival rates similar to those of wild crabs (Johnson et al., in prep). Hatchery-reared blue crabs also appear to display normal behavior with respect to reproductive biology. Both mature male and female hatchery-reared blue crabs have been observed successfully mating in the wild, and post-copulatory females recaptured from the field and returned to the laboratory have produced viable sponges and successfully hatched healthy zoea. III. Field tests of enhancement

Upper Chesapeake Bay: A responsible approach to stock enhancement requires rigorous, quantitative, field tests of enhancement to assess the potential of hatchery releases to augment wild fishery stocks. Toward this goal, we have conducted multi-year experiments designed to (i) assess potential for enhancing local populations of blue crabs with hatchery-reared juveniles and (ii) identify factors influencing survival of hatchery-reared juveniles in the wild. Over the past 7 years (2002-2008), we have tracked the fate of 53 cohorts comprised of approximately 310,000 individually tagged hatchery-reared juvenile crabs released into upper Chesapeake Bay nurseries. Cohorts of 1,000 to 25,000 hatchery-reared juveniles were released into shallow cove systems (0.2-8.0 ha) that serve as typical nurseries for wild juveniles and monitored for survival and growth to maturity. Field releases of hatchery-reared crabs demonstrated that hatchery-reared crabs were able to adapt readily to conditions in the field with overall performance and survivorship of hatchery-reared individuals equivalent to that of wild conspecifics. Hatchery-reared crabs enhanced local subpopulations by an average of 125% (ranging from 2 to 620%) with survivorship to maturity averaging 12% (ranging from 1 to 35%) when considering all releases. However, survival from releases targeting optimal habitats in the Rhode River in spring and fall averaged 20% (ranging from 5 to 33%). Estimates of survivorship were variable among seasons, years and sites, which differed drastically in abiotic conditions, such as salinity, temperature, and oxygen levels. These results highlight the critical need for multi-year studies to adequately assess the potential of stock enhancement for this species. Hatchery-reared juveniles reached maturity in as few as three months after release and were observed mating in the field. Juveniles released in spring and early summer can mate, migrate to lower Bay spawning grounds and spawn the following season, less than one year from release, indicating that hatchery releases have the potential for rapid input to the blue crab reproductive stock. Hatchery juveniles released late in the season over-wintered successfully and grew to maturity in the following summer, on the same schedule as wild crabs (Davis et al. 2004, Hines et al. 2008, Johnson et al. in review). Overall, production from hatchery releases into natural systems has averaged 325 mature crabs per hectare, which is more than double levels of production reported for intensive pond culture in China for the closely related blue swimmer crab.

14

A critical step toward assessing the full potential of stock enhancement with this species has been to identify release strategies that optimize survival and growth to maximize the performance of hatchery-reared individuals released into the field. To this end, we have focused considerable effort on optimization experiments in three areas:

• Preparation and pre-release variables (e.g., size-at-release, pre-release conditioning),

• Stocking variables, (e.g., season of release, stocking density), and • Site selection and characteristics (water quality, predator abundance, prey

availability, habitat quality, disease prevalence, fishery intensity, proximity to spawning grounds).

Tethering and release experiments indicate that survival increases with crab size in upper Chesapeake Bay (Hines et al. 2008, Johnson et al. in review). Based on field survival and on logistical and production constraints, a release size of approximately 20 mm CW appears to be optimal in muddy coves of the upper Bay; however the optimal release size varies seasonally (Johnson et al. 2008, in review). For example, releasing at a smaller size (C4-5) may be feasible in spring and fall when low predation rates allow these animals to survive and attain a size refuge prior to intense predation during summer. Release strategies for hatchery-reared juveniles do not appear to require pre-conditioning in the hatchery since although hatchery-reared juveniles initially differ from wild crabs in some behavioral and morphological traits, these differences disappear rapidly following release and do not ultimately result in decreased survival (Young et al. 2008, Johnson et al. in prep). Survival of hatchery-reared crabs varies seasonally and is maximized by releasing crabs in spring and fall when predation rates are lowest, while survival of hatchery-reared crabs released during summer is consistently low as a result of intense predation (Hines et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2008, in review). Although both spring and fall releases resulted in relatively high survival and production, releasing hatchery-reared blue crabs in the upper Chesapeake Bay in spring may be preferable for several reasons. Crabs released in spring will grow to maturity within the first season and rapidly augment spawning stocks the following summer; whereas cohorts released in fall must overwinter and grow to maturity in the second year, similar to wild juveniles for which recruitment to upper Bay nurseries occurs predominantly in the fall. Further, because crabs released in spring begin their southward migration to lower Bay spawning areas during fall of the first season of release (Aguilar et al. 2005, 2008), higher temperatures and salinities of the lower Bay will reduce the impact of winter mortality on hatchery-reared cohorts during extreme winters (Rome et al. 2005). Spring releases in underutilized habitats may also minimize the potential for competition between wild and hatchery-reared juveniles for prey resources and habitat. Survival of hatchery-reared juvenile blue crabs is substantially increased at low stocking densities suggesting that stocking at low densities is optimal (<0.4 crabs m-2); however, this relationship is characterized by high variability as a result of local, seasonal and annual fluctuations in habitat, food availability and environmental conditions. Ongoing large-scale surveys in important juvenile blue crab nurseries are helping to identify key attributes of nursery habitats that will maximize survival and growth of juveniles. These surveys are a critical step toward identifying optimal enhancement sites throughout the Chesapeake Bay.

Collectively, our field tests of enhancement in the upper Bay show that hatchery-reared juveniles can significantly enhance wild populations and provide estimates for levels of production that can be expected from releases at a local scale. Our current estimates should

15

be considered conservative since optimized release strategies have the potential to significantly increase survival, enhancement and production from hatchery releases. A key next step in our evaluation is to increase the spatial scale of our tests of enhancement.

Lower Chesapeake Bay: In the lower Bay, BCARC research has been successful in

determining that local enhancement is indeed possible and in identifying suitable seasons, sizes, and locations for hatchery-reared crab releases. Availability of hatchery crabs has increased steadily through the years, culminating in our largest batch yet--35,000 crabs released in November 2008. Separate releases of hatchery-reared crabs in recruitment-limited muddy coves and seagrass nurseries augmented the local abundance by 2-6 fold (Mahalak et al. 2008, Lipcius unpublished manuscript 2008). Increasing the number of crabs and spatial scale in future releases remains a critical component for field tests of the potential for large-scale enhancement.

Released and wild crabs were monitored for survival and growth using depletion estimates and tethering techniques in release and control areas. The collective experimental data from all years indicates that survival of small juveniles is low in summer during the peak predation period, but is significantly higher in spring and fall; optimal release times are thus in spring and fall. Survival of tethered crabs increased substantially with size, indicating that optimal release would be at 20 mm or larger in unstructured habitats, but 1st-3rd instar crabs could be released into structured nurseries such as seagrass or macroalgal beds. There were no differences in survival between hatchery-reared and wild crabs. Thus, hatchery crabs acclimate well to their new surroundings, and their survival rates should be equivalent to those of wild crabs of similar size. Growth rates of hatchery-reared juveniles were similarly high, such that juveniles released in one year would be expected to mature the following year. In all years and in all coves sampled, abundance of juvenile crabs was significantly correlated with abundance of potential benthic prey (clams, worms, small crustaceans) in the unvegetated coves, and in most cases remained above the benthic carrying capacity throughout the predation period (spring-fall). This is leading to the development of a habitat suitability index that utilizes prey abundance as a metric for optimal juvenile habitat.

North Carolina: A large-scale field experiment in NC quantified whether local populations of early juvenile blue crabs (C1-2) could be enhanced through the translocation of crabs to underutilized nursery habitats, and if enhancement success, survival and potential impacts of stocked crabs on their benthic prey varied in a density-dependent manner. Using plankton nets ~143,000 blue crab megalopae were collected as they ingressed into Pamlico Sound, NC--of these, ~ 13,800 early juvenile blue crabs (C1-2 stages) were then stocked at potential nursery sites relatively far removed (32-70 km) from their initial settlement areas using a replicated before-after control impact (BACI) experimental design. On average, there was negative enhancement success (-34%) five weeks after local crab enhancement, and no evidence of density-dependent enhancement success, mortality, or impact on potential crab prey. Poor stocking success was likely due to pelagic emigration from enhancement sites relative to controls. Attempts to assess the feasibility of stocking blue crabs at local scales of small coves should (i) probably not consider J1-2 stages because of their apparent propensity to emigrate from these areas, or (ii) further assess the effects of geomorphology and wind fetch of release sites on density-dependent emigration.

16

IV. Spatial and seasonal patterns of mature female production, migration and exploitation

To successfully enhance the spawning stock, hatchery-reared mature females require protection from intense fishing pressure as they migrate from upper Bay release areas to the spawning sanctuary. Toward this goal, we have worked closely with local watermen throughout Maryland to conduct large-scale tag, release and recapture programs targeting mature females and legal-sized males. Recapture data provide spatially-explicit information on

• Population dynamics (populations size, survival), • The timing, route and mechanisms of female migration, • Spatio-temporal patterns of fishery exploitation of mature female blue crabs • Composition of the fishery for mature females (recreational vs. commercial).

Our tagging studies have estimated the population size of the Rhode River to peak at

approximately 80,000 adult crabs in fall and indicate that meaningful enhancement at the scale of a subestuary (585 ha) is attainable with as few as 150,000 released juveniles. The timing, route and mechanisms of mature female migration from upper Bay nursery areas and release sites to spawning areas has been be a key focus of study. Our data show that females are migrating along the bottom of both the eastern and western shores of the Bay during September-November, and shift to deeper waters as temperatures decline (Aguilar 2005, 2008, Hines et al. 2008, Hines et al. unpublished manuscript). Nearly all mature females released in Maryland (97.3%, 1485 females) were captured before they could reach lower Bay spawning grounds to reproduce (Hines et al. 2008). In Maryland, fishing pressure was most intense (62.1%) in shallow subestuaries prior to migration, with an additional 27.3% of the females captured while migrating down the Bay. Intense fishing pressure was also reported in Virginia with the annual probability of survival for mature females baywide estimated to be 8% (Lambert et al. 2006). Thus, to successfully enhance the spawning stock, hatchery mature females will require protection from intense fishing pressure both within subestuaries where mating occurs and as they migrate from upper Bay release areas to the spawning sanctuary. Our studies provide key information for spatial management, specifically for the design of a migration corridors in Maryland and Virginia linking enhanced nursery grounds in the upper Bay or lower Bay seagrass beds where crabs grow and mate to the lower Bay spawning sanctuary where spawning occurs. V. Advances toward integrated ecosystem assessment

Enhancement efforts may have substantial and significant impacts at the ecosystem level (e.g. changes in community structure). In some cases, enhancement efforts have resulted in dramatic increases of the target stock, such as with the American shad in Chesapeake Bay where over 50 % of the individuals in the population have been produced through stock enhancement. In other instances, there have been detrimental ecosystem impacts, such as that associated with salmon culture operations in the Pacific northwest. Blue crabs have a key role in regulating food webs and community structure, including soft-sediment benthos, oyster reefs, and salt marshes (Baird and Ulanowicz, 1984; Hines et al., 1990; Eggleston, 1991; Silliman and Bertness, 2002). Hence, it is imperative to examine ecosystem effects of enhancement efforts with the blue crab.

17

We have been examining the impact of crab enhancement on oyster restoration, on community structure of benthic species in enhancement habitats, on landscape processes that link enhancement habitats with other nurseries, and on general ecosystem benefits of enhancement habitats. Most of these studies began in the most recent phase of the program and are thus incomplete. However, we have made substantial progress in this objective by examining (a) the impact of crab enhancement on native oyster restoration, (b) the role of habitat structure in mediating native oyster survival and foraging activities of blue crab juveniles and adults, and (3) landscape processes that link enhancement habitats. We are presently conducting field tests on the potential detrimental effect of crab enhancement on localized restoration of the native oyster where oyster reefs are planted to increase the oyster population. We have conducted enhancement trials in areas where oyster reefs have been planted, and are measuring survival of juvenile oysters. We have also determined key characteristics of oyster reefs that drive oyster survival and which influence blue crab foraging efficiency. These experiments are expected to provide the foundation for future research on the optimal means of restoring both the blue crab and the oyster, which may have to be attempted in spatially segregated habitats if crab predation on oyster reefs is severe. We are also planning to conduct field experiments on the effects of blue crab enhancement upon community structure of other soft-sediment benthic species in enhancement habitats, and on the landscape processes that link enhancement habitats with other nurseries (e.g. hydrodynamic models at the metapopulation scale).

Finally, many of the investigators of BCARC (Lipcius, Seitz, Hines, Johnson, Zohar) are members of the Blue Crab Biological Team that is assembling the data for Quantitative Teams for the Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Plan being developed currently under Maryland Sea Grant direction. Lipcius is also Co-Chair of the Habitat Quantitative team, which will be developing the actual plans for striped bass, blue crab, menhaden, American shad, and native oyster. The findings of the BCARC program will therefore be tightly integrated into the ecosystem-based plans. C. Prospects for blue crab aquaculture I. Blue crab pond culture

A reduction in blue crab harvests along the east and gulf coasts of the U.S. has stimulated interest in the use of hatchery-reared (HR) crabs to stock freshwater ponds for grow-out to hard- and soft-crab fisheries, as well as the use of fresh-water ponds as holding ponds for shedding operations, and for short-term grow-out of smaller, lower grade crabs to higher-priced sizes. A series of laboratory and field experiments during 2002-07 tested the feasibility of freshwater pond grow-out of hatchery-reared blue crabs with the ultimate goals of: (1) providing soft-crabs and jumbo jimmie crabs to meet market demand and create jobs, and (2) use #1 to help relieve pressure on wild stocks when and where necessary. The data from our collective studies indicate that (1) blue crab megalopae die below salinities of 12 ppt., and are therefore not a viable stage for pond grow-out, (2) C1-C5 crabs can tolerate salinities down to 0.3 ppt, making these early juvenile stages viable for pond grow-out, (3) survival of HR crabs stocked into ponds averaged 15%, with a survival of 20% very attainable if ponds are removed of predators, crabs are stocked at sizes of ~ 10 mm CW, and physical structure is added to ponds to enhance survival, (4) crabs stocked into freshwater ponds exhibited some of the highest growth rates on record (2.6 m CW/day), and (5) crabs

18

reach a size that can be placed into soft-crab shedding operations within 1.5 months of stocking. In terms of economic feasibility, assuming: (1) crabs will sell for $2/ea., (2) 20% survival of stocked crabs, (3) stocking four 1ha ponds (1 ha = 2.5 acres) with 30,000 crabs each (3 crabs/m2), the estimated gross sales should be $144,000/4ha/year (assuming 20% survival = 6,000 crabs produced/pond × wholesale of $2/crab = gross of $12,000/pond × 4 ponds × 3 batches/yr. = $144,000 gross/4 ha/yr.). Thus, we suggest that future efforts examining the feasibility of freshwater grow-out of HR blue crabs scale-up of stocking efforts to ponds that are > 0.5 ha to match the size of ponds often available to farmers that may wish to diverse their farm income. The information generated from this study is critical to any business plan to assess the economic feasibility of blue crab pond culture. II. Blue crab soft-shell aquaculture

The peeler fishery and soft-shell production are very profitable sectors of the blue crab industry, yet they place direct pressure on the spawning stock, as they largely depend on harvesting females undergoing their pubertal molt. The year-round availability of hatchery-produced juveniles paves the way for developing aquaculture of soft crabs that will not use wild-caught peelers. Moreover, being able to fully control the time of molting and inhibit or interrupt the hardening process will make soft-shell aquaculture fully predictable and economically feasible. Our endocrinology research has characterized two hormones that play crucial roles in molting (Chung, in prep): gut crustacean hyperglycemic hormone (CHH) and bursicon. CHH is associated with water uptake, resulting in swelling of the body in the beginning and during ecdysis, while bursicon induces shell tanning at the completion of ecdysis. By understanding the mode of action of these hormones, we expect to control both molting and shell hardening, and thus enable year-round production of soft-shell crabs.

While working with the soft-shell industry, we realized that one of its major challenges is the very high crab mortality (25%+) in shedding facilities, representing a loss of millions of dollars nationally. In most cases, unsuccessful and incomplete ecdysis results in death of animals, suggesting that crabs at very late premolt and during ecdysis have little tolerance to stress, particularly to low DO, which is due to the limited activity in the oxygen delivery tissue, i.e., gills. Moreover, such physiological and morphological (soft-cuticle) conditions in these facilities are ideal for transmission of disease agents such as viruses. Going back 20 years, there are various reports of viruses associated with soft-shell tank mortalities. One virus observed in the Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere is reo-like virus. Our recent data indicate that up to 80% of soft-shell mortalities are associated with the reo-like virus, CsRV1. It kills rapidly, and therefore may represent a significant problem for the soft-shell crab industry. Our two rapid molecular assays for CsRV1 will be useful tools for monitoring the virus in soft-shell facilities and for understanding how much of a threat it poses for wild and captive crabs.

19

3. Future work, budget needs and justification for funds requested

A. Introduction:

The BCARC recognizes the need to conduct sound science, while at the same time providing cost-effective value and services to its respective stakeholders. To this end, the BCARC, which started in 2001 with little funding or available crab-specific technology, has focused since its inception on developing capabilities and scale-specific infrastructure. We have meticulously assessed the fishery’s problems and implemented gradual scientifically-validated steps toward a full-scale enhancement effort. Our science and efforts have been very favorably peer-reviewed by the international science community (see Bell et al., 2008, Reviews in Fisheries Science) as well as local stakeholders (e.g., formal recognition of efforts by Maryland Legislature and Watermen’s Association).

Since 2001, BCARC has received $16.86 M in federal funds from NOAA, of which $11.16 M funded Maryland efforts (see attached). At little to no cost to the States of Maryland or Virginia, this funding has enabled technological advances to be developed in the areas of crab culture, endocrinology, population genetics, disease screening/management, ecology, fisheries and stock assessment. However, federal BCARC funding will run out soon, forcing the end of this innovative project in mid-2009, with loss of jobs, infrastructure, and the past federal investment in this very productive approach to restoring the blue crab fishery. B. Further research: During its first seven years (2001-2008) of research, the BCARC program has been highly productive, resulting in multiple key publications and many presentations in international and national conferences (see appendices I and II, attached). Based on feedback from the scientific community, our program is recognized as one of the best examples for a responsible approach to stock enhancement and provides significant potential to replenish the Chesapeake blue crab stock. In their paper entitled “A New Era for Restocking, Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching of Coastal Fisheries Resources”, Bell et al., (2008) refer to our program as “providing at least four vital lessons” to the field, one of which is that “restocking and stock enhancement programs must be guided by thorough science that leads to optimal release strategies and dependable assessment of success”. While we have clearly demonstrated the feasibility of the concept of using hatchery-produced juveniles to restock the local populations in the Chesapeake Bay, we need additional research to assess fully both the cost of a large-scale release program and the quantitative benefits and effects of integrating the released crabs into the Bay’s spawning stock of blue crabs. We therefore propose a 3-year transitional program of research and development focused on incrementally increasing hatchery production of juveniles (0.5, 1 and 1.5 million annually) in sufficient numbers to test for system enhancement of the stock. This transitional phase will enable BCARC both to optimize production efficiency for cost analysis and to evaluate the contributions of the released juveniles to the blue crab stock. At the end of the transitional period, we will be able to provide a thorough cost-benefit analysis of our approach and hopefully to expand the program towards implementing large-scale releases (10 million crabs). The large-scale (10 million crabs) releases, together with science-based management

20

to protect the blue crab females, are expected to have an immediate impact on increasing the blue crab spawning stocks in the Chesapeake Bay. C. Strategic Goals for next phase of R&D. The strategic goals for a 3-year intermediate phase of scaling-up hatchery production and testing fishery enhancement at a system scale are: I. Increase hatchery production of juveniles incrementally to provide realistic basis for cost analysis of mass production. From the production level achieved in 2008 of about 300,000 juveniles, we plan to increase annual production to: 500,000 juveniles in 2009; 1,000,000 in 2010; and 1,500,000+ in 2011. Increased capacity of the hatchery and grow-out facilities will be developed for increased production. These levels of production will be achieved through increasing batch size from present levels of 35,000 juveniles at C6 (20 mm) to 50,000 juveniles and then to 100,000+ juveniles. Research emphasis will focus on techniques for increased efficiency and on cost-reduction. Larger batches of earlier staged crabs (C2-C3) can be produced as well. Production at the scale of greater than 1,000,000 will allow cost analysis at appropriate levels. These cost estimates will be compared to cost estimates from other strategies of fishery management. II. Use increased hatchery production to test the feasibility of fishery enhancement at a system scale, focusing initially on the Rhode River and Lynn Haven systems and expanding to optimize release strategy. Increase hatchery production of juvenile crabs will allow us to test enhancement of crab production at the next scale from a whole system. Thus far, hatchery production levels provide replicate batches of 10,000 to 20,000 crabs to release into small coves within subsystems. Although we were clearly able to achieve significant enhancement at this small scale, these batches were not large enough to be detected at the scale of the system. However, the success of our small scale releases and mark-recapture studies allow us to predict that increased levels of hatchery production in the transition phase will be large enough to detect enhancement at the system scale. This system-scale enhancement will be detectable with release of several batches 50,000-100,000 crabs. Focusing on two model systems initially (Rhode River in upper Bay, Lynn Haven in lower Bay), and continuing to work closely with local watermen, we will conduct both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent sampling to track the survival, growth, movement, and fate of hatchery crabs. All crabs in the expanded releases will be identified by genetic markers. III. Use system releases and tagging linked to quantitative analysis of integrated ecosystem assessment and improved spatial management of blue crabs. Additional, smaller batches of crabs from the hatchery will be used to complete tests of optimal release strategies and to provide quantitative improvements to integrated ecosystem assessment for blue crabs. The hatchery releases provide measures of spatial and temporal variation in predation, refuge habitat and food resources. We will also expand our tagging studies of large (legal-size) crabs to determine spatial and temporal variation in the production, migration and fishery fate of mature males and females in an array of

21

representative tributaries. Working closely with DNR and VMRC, these tagging studies will allow development of strategies for spatial management of both hatchery-stocked and wild crabs. IV. Advance aquaculture systems for pond culture and soft crab production of food that can relieve some of fishing pressure.

BCARC’s initial experimental analyses show that aquaculture of blue crabs in ponds and soft-crab production systems have good potential for profitable food production in local watermen and agricultural communities. In addition, this increased food production can be used to meet increased demand and to reduce fishing pressure. We will refine these aquaculture production systems and transfer the technology to local groups for further economic analysis.

C. Thoughts on costs and benefits of the program.

Costs of responsible stock enhancement programs include hatchery rearing and field

monitoring of released juveniles. Costs of enhancing the spawning stock of female crabs may be repaid in part by the benefits of direct enhancement of the fishery for males (i.e., 50% of the product of the program). Cost analysis should consider stock enhancement in comparison both to costs of the past failure to protect the stock from lost production, and to costs of alternative strategies for restoration of the stock. Costs also may be balanced by additional benefits of aquaculture technology developed for crabs, as well as the investment in the capacity for enhancing and restoring other species gained with developing facilities and expertise. The BCARC program has approached cost analysis of producing juvenile crabs in 3 distinct phases for responsible stock enhancement: I. Basic research & development phase (2001-2008). This first phase focused on developing systems for rearing juvenile crabs, testing the feasibility of localized enhancement, and for the production and migration of mature female blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. Emphasis has been on fundamental research for hatchery rearing methods and execution of field experiments on the fate of experimental batches of tagged hatchery-reared crabs, ultimately to link female production in nursery habitats by migration to the spawning sanctuary. Hatchery and field experiments have emphasized rigorous quantitative experiments with replication to provide statistical tests of differences among treatment groups. Depending on juvenile size at release, batch size has increased steadily in the hatchery and grow-out facilities to ~70,000 C3 (3 mm) crabs and ~35,000 C6 (20 mm) crabs per batch in 2008. With multiple batches per year and multiple years of research in this first phase, the objective has been to determine variability of hatchery production and field survival over a range of conditions. The means and upper end of this variability provided targets for optimizing production in both the hatchery and field environments. By working with watermen, we also tagged large crabs to determine migration patterns and the impact of the fishery on them. And we conducted fishery independent sampling to determine mechanisms of migration and to monitor the spawning stock in the lower Bay.

22

While the scale of culture tanks and field releases were consciously constrained until this phase of the program could be completed, we have been encouraged by costs of production of these “R&D juveniles”. R&D costs per juvenile have dropped rapidly with increasing production. Optimization analysis of field releases shows that survivorship of hatchery crabs to maturity can approach 30%, depending on spatial and temporal factors of the location and timing of release. We provided the first detailed analysis of migration from nursery habitats and fishery impacts on production of mature females in representative nursery habitats. Monitoring throughout the BCARC program showed that the spawning stock of mature females in the spawning sanctuary has remained at low levels suitable for stock enhancement. II. Transitional (intermediate) scale-up phase (2009-2011).

The focus of the next, transitional phase of the BCARC program will be on scaling up production systems for cost-benefit analysis and testing system enhancement that will contribute to the spawning stocks. Based on both the success and costs of initial R&D phase, BCARC predicts that scaling up production incrementally to 1.5 million juveniles per year and advancement in culture technology and engineering, automation, and control over molting can result in production costs equivalent to those of existing aquaculture systems for fishes: ~$0.25 per juvenile and below. One of the main goals of the transition phase is to test/demonstrate this standard.

While our primary objective remains enhancement of the spawning stock of females, we note that 50% of the production from the program will provide direct enhancement of the fishery for males. At present, levels of survival to fishable size (12.5-25%) and production of $0.25 per juvenile, cost per fishable crab will range from $1-2. At present, fishery values of $150-200 per bushel of 75 males, the value of the males directly enhancing the fishery would nearly cover the costs of producing both males and females combined. In addition to the value of the direct enhancement of the male fishery, further development and economic analysis of aquaculture systems for crabs through pond culture and culture of soft crabs will add further value to the program.

The transition phase will provide clear tests of enhancement at the system level. The enhancement is predicted to be measured within the fisheries of the model systems. These tests will also allow for quantitative measures of the fate and fishery impacts on female production, allowing for good integration of the enhancement with fishery to advise improved spatial and integrated ecosystem management. From these quantitative measures, we expect to be able to model the input of females into the functional spawning stock of the lower Bay sanctuary. III. Full-scale production phase (2012 and beyond).

At full-scale production, BCARC expects to measure enhancement of the functional spawning stock in the lower Bay sanctuary. Genetic detection of hatchery-reared females will monitor the composition of hatchery-produced and wild crabs. Spatially explicit modeling will allow optimization of releases to maximize production and improve ecosystem-based management. In addition to managing the enhancement of spawning females, the program will provide direct enhancement of the fishery by a like number of males.

Starting from a transitional production cost of $0.25 per juvenile crab, our vision is to reduce production costs substantially further (to ~$0.10 per crab) by increased scale and

23

application of additional biotechnology, automation systems, and energy-efficient “green” technology. Such systems are now being engineered by BCARC partners at the Center of Marine Biotechnology, Mote Marine Laboratory and University of Southern Mississippi. These approaches depart from several high-cost culturing systems in Japan and Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, long-term goals entail linking production systems for blue crabs to poly-culture systems of multiple species that will leverage infrastructure and capital costs to diversify products for ecosystem based fishery enhancement and habitat restoration.

Aquaculture technologies linked to food production, fishery replenishment and habitat restoration have gained remarkable recent advances in coastal communities world-wide. However, the U.S. remains far behind competitively in these global industries and has a growing deficit from the cost of imported seafood. BCARC seeks ultimately to develop innovative approaches for responsible aquaculture and ecological restoration for a broad array of products, fisheries and environmental management in the nation’s largest and historically most productive estuary. BCARC envisions blue crab culturing systems and integrated ecosystem management approaches linked to cost-efficient aquaculture technologies and science-based habitat and ecosystem restoration for an array of other species. Species that are now successfully cultured singly (bivalves, fishes, algae, SAV, emergent grasses) can be integrated into polyculture systems that increase efficiency and process wastes. Development of these polyculture systems E. Budget and justification for the next phase of transitional scale-up R&D (FY10-12) I. Budget The summary of the budget request is provided in the attached “Budget request” Excel document. Detailed budgets will be discussed as requested. II. Budget Justification I. Facilities development In an effort to minimize infrastructure costs prior to full validation of enhancement approach, the BCARC program identified, secured, and retro-fitted a ‘mothballed’ state-owned (DNR) oyster production facility in Piney Point, Maryland (southern part of western shore) to accommodate crab production. The nursery/grow-out at Piney Point has been a stakeholder-assisted operation, with coordination, renovation activity, and manpower supplied by the Maryland Watermen’s Association. Since the signing of a 2007 MOU legitimizing the state-academic ‘cohabitation’, Maryland DNR has also invested in repairs and long-term maintenance of the facility (roof repair, pump house replacement, safety-related repairs, etc). The MOU establishing the partnership between UMBI and Maryland DNR runs through 2017. For its part the academic partners of the BCARC have worked with MWA to purchase and install tank systems totaling over 61 m3 of nursery/growout production volume, thereby increasing the total production volume to 270 m3. Additional upgrades and necessary food chain culture, life support systems, and electrical capabilities have also been added. To achieve an intermediate (transitional) scale of production sufficient to accommodate a scientifically-sound scale-up effort, we must expand the current capabilities of the hatchery and nursery facilities and increase the manpower. A nominal architectual and engineering

24

budget (A&E; $5000/yr) has been requested to assist with expansion design and modifications. The hatchery/nursery program has allocated $300,000 per year for facilities and equipment (which includes expansion-related expenditures at the COMB hatchery ($50,000/yr) and the Piney Point nursery ($250,000/yr). We will need to more precisely determine the details of these figures as we move forward. Indeed, this is part of the objectives and scope of the research program. It is important to note, however, that the infrastructure and equipment costs at this intermediate-stage will consist mostly of incremental tank and equipment additions, not new facility construction. To produce 1 million juvenile crabs, we estimate that the current larval rearing volume must be doubled (from 16 m3 to 32 m3) via the installation of additional 6’ and 8’ tank systems. Live feed production volumes for the hatchery must also double to support the increase rearing biomass. Likewise, nursery rearing volume must also be increased significantly from 42 m3 (current) to 80 m3 (1 million crabs production). This will necessitate the addition of five 8 m3 tanks (indoors). As with the hatchery, live food production volume must increase as well.

For the production of 1 million C3 crabs, we will have to double the current culturing capacity in both phases (hatchery and nursery/growout). In the hatchery, larval rearing tanks should be expanded from 16 m3 capacity (current) to 32 m3. Correspondingly, live feed tanks should also be doubled, as well as brood stock facilities. At the Piney Point facility, the current nursery capacity of 42 m3 should be increased to at least 80 m3 and live feed tanks should be adjusted. For the production of C6 juveniles, the current grow-out operation (indoor and outdoor tank systems; 220 m3 total volume) should be increased as well. Likewise, future production of 1.5 million C3 juveniles will require a similar and proportional increase in the facilities. As mentioned above, the transition to a full-scale Bay-wide effort (phase 3 above) will also require an increase in the production infrastructure. Presuming a successful scale-up to the intermediate-production stage, the continuation of encouraging results from the field monitoring studies, and a favorable cost-benefit analysis, the BCARC will work together with DNR to promote a State Capital Budget Request for new facility (hatchery/nursery) construction sufficient for implementation of a full-scale production program in Maryland. II. Operations and maintenance The production scale-up will build upon our current operational base. As noted above, federal funds have been used to compile not only the infrastructure, but also to develop the current level of technology, expertise, and training. The coordinated array of skills in place within the BCARC can not be overstated. The lead PI, Professor Zohar, will coordinate and oversee all efforts related to the proposed scope of work for the entire research and stock restoration effort. Professor Zohar will devote considerable effort to this project. However, salary for his effort is not requested. A significant portion of the requested funds for the operation and maintenance for the intermediate-scale hatchery/nursery production consist of personnel costs ($314,399 base salaries Yr 1, inclusive of PIs, hatchery/nursery managers and 4 FTE technicians, and nominal administrative effort). Personnel costs for the hatchery/nursery program will be leveraged against existing NOAA funds and other private and/or competitive grant funding sources in the future. Moreover, FTE technician effort (both in production and field operations) has been and should continue to be provided by local watermen, thereby further incorporating stakeholders into the fishery restoration and

25

stewardship process. Intermediate-scale production will also require roughly $142,000 in expendables and supplies to accommodate the hatchery, nursery, and disease-screening aspects of the scale-up program. This production will be the foundation of the three year research and development program described herein. Inclusive in this three year program will also be continued experimental work to improve production by optimizing protocols and culture conditions, enhancing diets, managing and screening for disease, and potentially synchronizing molting. Technology to monitor the contribution of hatchery-raised crabs to Bay spawning stocks via DNA fingerprinting is already in place and funds (increasing annual sample analysis budget of $80,000-96,800/yr corresponding to increasing field releases/sampling; 5% PI effort) have been requested to analyze large numbers of field samples. Molecular assays to screen for some known crab pathogens (e.g., Hematodinium, reovirus) have been developed using federal funds. Assays will be developed for other prevalent pathogens. Funds to conduct ongoing screening of released and field-sampled crabs, as well as Bay habitats, have been requested ($20,000/yr in supplies; 25% PI effort; 30% technician effort). BCARC endocrine studies have provided considerable new information toward understanding the hormonal control of blue crab molting and reproduction at the whole animal, cellular and molecular levels. Future studies are planned, not only to provide to improve our knowledge of the basic biology of molting, but mainly to develop methodologies that enable synchronization of molting for culture and shedding operations. Such technology would undoubtedly reduce cannibalism and mortalities in hatchery/nursery production operations and thus be expected to significantly reduce juvenile production costs. Funds for these studies ($30,000/yr in supplies; 8% PI effort; 50% technician) are requested. In addition to the scaled-up hatchery/nursery production and related research, we will pursue a promising alternative growout strategy for early stage hatchery-raised juveniles using outdoor pond culture. Pilot studies using this approach have shown considerable promise and may provide cost-effective value to the current culture process. Subcontract funds ($80,000 direct costs to NSCU plus $20,000 in indirect cost) are included in the budget request for this work. Finally, to initiate cost-benefit analyses, effort will be required from a fishery economist. We request $30,000 in subcontract funds for a part-time economist to conduct analyses and to develop cost-benefit strategies for the full-scale production operations. III. Field stocking and monitoring The field research program will continue to address important aspects of blue crab biology and ecology necessary to responsibly evaluate hatchery-based enhancement at an increased scale in Maryland and Virginia and North Carolina. A significant portion of the requested funds for field stocking and monitoring support personnel ($438,057 in base salaries and fringe benefits in Yr 1, inclusive of PIs, 8 full-time or seasonal technicians, 3 graduate students, and 2 undergraduate interns) required for completion of the intense field components of the project. Field efforts will also require roughly $51,100 in expendables and supplies to support the costs associated with field stocking and monitoring of releases at an intermediate scale of 1-2 million juveniles. Field monitoring and associated experimental studies at an increased scale will also require substantial use of both small boats and larger research vessels. A large portion of the requested funds ($95,250) will directly support watermen through involvement with the scientific collection of adult blue crabs and through tag rewards. We also request funding to

26

support infrastructure upgrades at wetlab facilities to increase the capacity to accommodate larger batches of hatchery-reared blue crabs necessary to complete project objectives. The increased production of juveniles at the intermediate scale will also require a transition from mechanical to genetic tagging technologies developed during the earlier phases of the project to identify hatchery-reared juveniles from field releases.

27

SUMMARY OF FUNDING FOR THE BLUE CRAB ADVANCED RESEARCH CONSORTIUM (BCARC)

Source FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 TotalState $100 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200Phillips $200 $50 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300DBED/WMA $0 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300Total Non-Federal Funding $300 $450 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800

Agency FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 TotalNOAA $0 $1,500 $1,982 $2,000 $2,200 $4,750 $3,633 $16,065

Total $0 $1,500 $1,982 $2,000 $2,200 $4,750 $3,633 $16,065

Funds Allocation to the Consortium Members

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 TotalNorth Carolina University $0 $40 $65 $65 $69 $125 $96 $459SERC $0 $325 $397 $372 $400 $700 $536 $2,730University of Southern Mississippi $0 $335 $482 $400 $535 $980 $750 $3,482VIMS $0 $225 $273 $248 $272 $425 $325 $1,768Watermen's Association $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $500 $383 $933UMBI Center of Marine Biotechnology $300 $1,025 $815 $915 $874 $2,020 $1,545 $7,493Total Funding $300 $1,950 $2,032 $2,000 $2,200 $4,750 $3,633 $16,865

Maryland Partners in the ConsortiumFY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 Total

SERC $0 $325 $397 $372 $400 $700 $536 $2,730Watermen's Association $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $500 $383 $933UMBI Center of Marine Biotechnology* $300 $1,025 $815 $915 $874 $2,020 $1,545 $7,493

Total MD Partners $300 $1,350 $1,212 $1,287 $1,324 $3,220 $2,463 $11,156

*Non-federal funds shown in UMBI column also supported some other MD Partners

Out of State Partners in the Consortium

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 TotalNorth Carolina University $0 $40 $65 $65 $69 $125 $96 $459University of Southern Mississippi $0 $335 $482 $400 $535 $980 $750 $3,482VIMS $0 $225 $273 $248 $272 $425 $325 $1,768

Total Non-MD Partners $0 $600 $820 $713 $876 $1,530 $1,170 $5,709

Total Program Funding From All Sources $300 $1,950 $2,032 $2,000 $2,200 $4,750 $3,633 $16,865

Blue Crab Funding - Federal Funding($000)

Blue Crab Funding - Non-Federal Funding($000)

GRANTEE

Total

Crab Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 1-3A. SALARIES AND WAGES MAN-MONTHS

1. SENIOR PERSONNEL No. of People Amt. Of Effort

a. (Co) Principal Investigator 0 - -

b. Associates (Faculty or staff 6 varies 125,057 128,808 132,673 386,538

Sub Total -

2. OTHER PERSONNEL -

a. Professionals 0 - -

b. Research associates 0 - - -

c. Intern 3 100% 13,500 13,905 14,322 41,727

d. Prof. School Students - - -

e. Pre-Bac. Students 0 - -

f. Secretarial-clerical - - -

g. Technical-shop 13 varies 226,634 325,233 396,790 948,657

h. Other - - -

Total Salaries and Wages 365,191 467,946 543,785 1,376,922

B. FRINGE BENEFITS (when charged as a direct cost) 40% 146,076 187,179 217,514 550,769

Total Personnel (A and B ) 511,267 655,125 761,299 1,927,691

-

C. EQUIPMENT 300,000 300,000 300,000 900,000

-

D. EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES 175,000 179,650 184,440 539,090

-

E. TRAVEL -

1. Domestic - U.S. and its Possessions (Inc. Puerto Rico) 2,600 2,678 2,758 8,036

2. International 1,200 1,236 1,273 3,709

Total Travel 3,800 3,914 4,031 11,745

-

F. PUBLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION COSTS 1,000 1,030 1,061 3,091

-

G. OTHER COSTS -

1. Information Technology Costs 10,956 14,038 16,314 41,308

2. Analytical Services 10,956 14,038 16,314 41,308

3. Genetic Analysis 80,000 88,000 96,800 264,800

4. Consultant 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000

5. Subcontract (SERC) 600,238 618,245 636,792 1,855,276

6. Subcontract (VIMS) 300,027 309,028 318,299 927,353

7. Subcontract (NCSU) 100,000 103,000 106,090 309,090

8. Subcontract (MWA) 37,184 74,368 76,599 188,151

9. Subcontract (Fishery Economist) 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000

10. Maintenance Agreement for Equip Repair 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000

11. Tuition - - - -

12. ARC Charges 25,900 38,850 51,800 116,550

13. Vehicle lease 7,200 7,416 7,638 22,254

Total Other Costs 1,217,460 1,311,984 1,371,645 3,901,089

-

-

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A through G) 2,208,527 2,451,703 2,622,477 7,282,707

MODIFIED TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 908,262 1,121,430 1,261,295 3,290,988

INDIRECT COSTS % AMT -

On Campus 25.0% : -

Off Campus : - 227,066 280,357 315,324 822,747

TOTAL COSTS 2,435,593 2,732,060 2,937,800 8,105,454

BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY

Total Indirect Cost

Crab ProjectCenter of Marine Biotechnology, UMBI

APPENDICES

Appendix I – BCARC Publications, Technological Innovations, and Dissertations/Theses

The following pages contain selected publications, manuscripts in preparation, presentations and outreach activities that derived directly from the congressional funding of the BCARC Consortium project or utilized BCARC results/information (wholly or in part). Two high-impact technological innovations have also been listed. The list is not exhaustive, but rather is intended to convey the regional and national impact of program since its inception in 2002. Patents and Technological Innovation: Zohar, Y., Zmora, O., and Hines, A. 2003. "Process for culturing crabs in recirculating marine aquaculture systems". USPTO #6,584,935; issued July 1, 2003. Genome sequencing and public dissemination of the blue crab mitochondrial genome sequence: The complete blue crab mitochondrial genome has recently been submitted to GenBank (see Place et al., 2005 in the publication list below). J.S. Chung. 2006. UMBI invention disclosure for hormone-based manipulation of the blue crab shell hardening process. Publications and Manuscripts Containing BCARC Research (over 70 total): 2002 (3 manuscripts published) Clark, K. G.M. Ruiz, and A.H. Hines. 2002. Diel variation in predator abundance,

predation risk and prey distribution in shallow-water estuarine habitats. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 287:37-55.

Kendall, M.S., D.L. Wolcott, T.G. Wolcott, and A.H. Hines. 2002. Influence of male size and mating history on sperm content of ejaculates of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230:235-240.

Secor, D., A. Hines, and A. Place. 2002. Japanese hatchery-based stock enhancement: Lessons for the Chesapeake Bay blue crab. Publication No. UM-SG-TS-2002-02, Maryland Sea Grant, 46 p.

2003 (13 manuscripts published) Alvarez-León, R., Overstreet, R.M., Sepúlveda-Cárdenas, S., and Alvarez-Berrera,

J.E. 2003. First report of the association Loxothylacus texanus (Cirripedia: Sacculinidae) - Goniopsis cruentata (Crustacea: Grapsidae) in the Colombian Caribbean coast. Revista de Biología Tropical: Intl. Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservation 51(1): 265.

Hines, A.H. 2003. Ecology of juvenile and adult blue crabs: Summary of discussion of research themes and directions. Bulletin of Marine Science 72:423-434.

Hines, A.H., J.L.D. Davis, A. Young-Williams, R.N. Lipcius, J. Hoenig, Y. Zohar, O. Zmora, A. Place, D.H. Secor, S-J. Ju, R. Harvey, T.G. Wolcott and D.L. Wolcott. 2003. Blue crab stock restoration and ecology in Chesapeake Bay. Proceedings Coastal Zone 2003, NOAA, Baltimore, MD.

1

Hines, A.H., P.R. Jivoff, P.J. Bushmann, J. vanMontfrans, and D.L Wolcott. 2003. Evidence for sperm limitation in female blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). Bulletin of Marine Science 72:287-310. (Featured by the journal for this issue).

Lipcius, R.N. 2003. Summary of session: Ecology of early benthic juveniles. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 367-370.

Lipcius, R.N., W.T. Stockhausen, R.D. Seitz and P.J. Geer. 2003. Spatial dynamics and value of a marine protected area and corridor for the blue crab spawning stock in Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 453-470.

Peterson, C.E. and R.N. Lipcius. 2003. Conceptual progress towards predicting quantitative ecosystem benefits of ecological restorations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264: 297-307.

Seitz, R.D., L.S. Marshall Jr., A.H. Hines, and K.L. Clark. 2003. Effects of hypoxia on predator-prey dynamics of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and the Baltic clam (Macoma balthica) in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 257:179-188.

Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, W.T. Stockhausen, K.A. Delano, M.S. Seebo and P.D. Gerdes. 2003. Potential bottom-up control of blue crab distribution at various spatial scales. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 471-490.

Sharov, A., J.H. Volstad, G.R. Davis, B.K. Davis, R.N. Lipcius and M.M. Montane. 2003. Abundance and exploitation rate of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 543-566.

Stockhausen, W.T. and R.N. Lipcius. 2003. Simulated effects of seagrass loss and restoration on settlement and recruitment of blue crab postlarvae and juveniles in the York River, Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 409-422.

Turner, H.V., D.L. Wolcott, T.G. Wolcott, and A.H. Hines. 2003. Post-mating behavior, intramolt growth, and onset of migration to Chesapeake Bay spawning grounds by adult female blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 295:107-130.

Zohar, Y., H. Perry, D. Eggleston, A. Hines, and R. Lipcius. 2003. The blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: An integrated program of basic biology, hatchery technologies and the potential for replenishing stocks. Pp. 115-123 in Orner, D. (ed.), Chesapeake Bay fisheries research program symposium report 2002. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, Annapolis, MD

2004 (4 manuscripts published) Davis J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, R. Aguilar, B. L. Carswell, M. R. Goodison, A. H.

Hines, M. A. Kramer, Y. Zohar, and O. Zmora. 2004. Differences between hatchery-raised and wild blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus): Implications for stock enhancement potential. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:1-14.

Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and O. Zmora. 2004. Fishery and population studies: Comparing two types of internal tags in juvenile blue crabs. Fisheries Research 67: 265-274.

Eggleston, D.B., E.G. Johnson, and J.E. Hightower. 2004. Population Dynamics and Stock Assessment of the Blue Crab in North Carolina. Final Report for Contracts 99-FEG-10 and 00-FEG-11 to the NC Fishery Resource Grant Program (FRG), NC Sea Grant, Raleigh, NC. 230 pp.

2

Eggleston, D.B., G. Plaia, E.G. Johnson, G.T. Kellison, C. Huggett. 2004. Blue crab stock enhancement: Ecological feasibility and pond culture. Final Report for 02-STOK-02 to the North Carolina Fishery Research Grant Program, NC Sea Grant, July 2004, 60. pp.

2005 (14 manuscripts published) Aguilar, R., A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and R.N. Lipcius.

2005. Migration of mature female blue crabs: seasonal timing and route in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:117-128.

Davis, J.L.D., M.G. Eckert-Mills, A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and Y. Zohar. 2005. Morphological conditioning of a hatchery-raised invertebrate, Callinectes sapidus, to improve survivorship after release. Aquaculture 243:147-158.

Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and Y. Zohar. 2005. Assessing the potential for stock enhancement in the case of the Chesapeake Bay blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 62:109-122.

King, R.S., A.H. Hines, F.D. Craige, and S. Grap. 2005. Regional, watershed and local correlates of blue crabs and bivalves in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, USA. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:101-116.

Kuhlmann, M.L. and A.H. Hines 2005. Density-dependent predation by blue crabs in natural prey populations of infaunal bivalves: experimental tests and behavioral mechanisms. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295:215-228.

Lipcius, R.N., Seitz, R.D., Seebo, M.S., and Colon-Carrion, D. 2005a. Density, abundance and survival of the blue crab in seagrass and unstructured salt marsh nurseries of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319: 57-68.

Lipcius, R.N., L.B. Crowder and L.E. Morgan. 2005. Metapopulation structure and marine reserves. Pp. 328-345, In Marine Conservation Biology (Eds. E. Norse and L.B. Crowder). Island Press.

Motz Carver, A., T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and A.H. Hines. 2005. Unnatural selections: effects of a male-focused size-selective fishery on reproductive potential of a blue crab population. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:29-41.

Place, A. R., Feng, X., Steve, C. R., Fourcade, H. M., and Boore, J. L. (2005). Genetic Markers in Blue Crabs (Callinectes sapidus) II: Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequence and Characterization of Genetic Variation. J. Exper. Marine Biol. Ecol. 319: 15-27.

Rome, M.S., A.C. Young-William, G.R. Davis, and A.H. Hines. 2005. Winter mortality of Chesapeake blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:129-145.

Seitz, R.D. 2005. Introduction to the proceedings of the 2003 Blue Crab Symposium: Genetics, ecology, and conservation of the blue crab. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319: 1-2.

Seitz, R.D., Lipcius, R.N. and Seebo, M.S. 2005. Food availability and growth of the blue crab in seagrass and unvegetated nurseries of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of

3

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319: 57-68. Steven, C. R., Hill, J., Masters, B., and Place, A. R. 2005. Genetic markers in blue crabs

(Callinectes sapidus) I: characterization of microsatellite markers. J. Exper. Marine Biol. Ecol 319: 3-14.

Zmora, O., Findiesen, A., Stubblefield, J., Frenkel, V., and Zohar, Y. 2005. First hatchery mass production of blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) juveniles. Aquaculture 244: 129-139.

2006 (12 manuscripts published) Bi-State Blue Crab Technical Advisory Committee (J. Greer, A.P. Swanson, A.H. Hines,

E.G. Johnson and 25 co-members). 2006. Blue crab 2005. Status of the Chesapeake population and its fisheries. Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, Maryland. 12 p.

Chung, J.S., Wilcockson, D.C. Zmora, N. Zohar, Y. Dircksen, H. and Webster, S.G. 2006. Identification and developmental expression of mRNAs encoding crustacean cardioactive peptide (CCAP) in decapod crustaceans. J Exp Biol. 209: 3862-72.

deRivera, C.E., G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, and P.R. Jivoff. 2006. Biotic resistance to invasion: Native predator limits abundance and distribution of an introduced crab. Ecology 86: 3364-3376.

Eggleston, D.B., Bell, G.W., Searcy, S.P., Johnson, E.G., Alphin, T., Plaia, G. and Posey, M. 2006. Field assessment of spawning sanctuaries and possible migration corridors for the blue crab spawning stock in North Carolina. Report 01-POP-08 to the NC Blue Crab Research Program, NC Sea Grant, Raleigh, NC. 44 pp.

Hines, A.H. 2006. Deep science at the Smithsonian Institution. Pp. 226-230 in Lang, M.A. and E. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the Advanced Scientific Diving Workshop. February 23-24, 2006.. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 277p.

Lambert, D.M., J.M. Hoenig and R.N. Lipcius. 2006. Tag-return estimation of annual and semi-annual survival rates of adult female blue crabs. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 1592-1603.

Lipcius, R.N. and R. Latour. 2006. Food web interactions and modeling. Pp. 91-128, In Fisheries Ecosystem Planning for the Chesapeake Bay. American Fisheries Society, Trends in Fisheries Science and Management 3, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lambert, D.M., R.N. Lipcius and J.M. Hoenig. 2006. Assessing effectiveness of the blue crab spawning stock sanctuary in Chesapeake Bay using tag-return methodology. Marine Ecology Progress Series 321: 215-225.

Lotz J. M., R. M. Overstreet, and D. J. Grimes. 2006. Aquaculture and Animal Pathogens in the Marine Environment with Emphasis on Marine Shrimp Viruses. Pp. 431- 451. In Belkin and Colwell (eds). Oceans and Health: Pathogens in the Marine Environment. Springer, New York.

Ma, H. and Overstreet, R.M. 2006. Two new species of Epistylis (Ciliophora: Peritrichida) on blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 53(2): 85-95.

Schreiber, S.J., R.N. Lipcius, R.D. Seitz, and W.C. Long. 2006. Dancing between the devil and the deep blue sea: the stabilizing effect of enemy-free sinks and victimless sinks. Oikos 113: 67-81.

4

Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, and D.M. Lambert. 2006. Influence of shallow-water habitats and shoreline development upon abundance, biomass, and diversity of Chesapeake Bay Benthos and their predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 326: 11-26.

2007 (6 manuscripts published) Fogarty, M.J. and R.N. Lipcius. 2007. Population dynamics and fisheries. pp. 711-749.

In: Biology and Management of the Blue Crab (V. Kennedy and E. Cronin, Eds.). University of Maryland Sea Grant Press.

Hewitt, D. A., Lambert, D.M., Hoenig, J.M., Lipcius, R.N., Bunnell, D.B., and Miller, T.J. 2007. Direct and indirect estimates of natural mortality for Chesapeake Bay blue crab. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 136.

Hines, A.H. 2007. Ecology of juvenile and adult blue crabs. pp. 565-630. In: Biology and Management of the Blue Crab (V. Kennedy and E. Cronin, Eds.). University of Maryland Sea Grant Press.

Jivoff, P.R., A.H. Hines, and S. Quackenbush. 2007. Blue crab reproductive biology. pp. 255-286. In: Biology and Management of the Blue Crab (V. Kennedy and E. Cronin, Eds.). University of Maryland Sea Grant Press.

Shields, J.D. and Overstreet, R.M. 2007. Diseases, parasites, and other symbionts. pp. 223-339. In: Biology and Management of the Blue Crab (V. Kennedy and E. Cronin, Eds.). University of Maryland Sea Grant Press.

Zmora, N., Trant, J., Chan, S.-M., Chung, J.S. 2007. Vitellogenin and its mRNA during ovarian development in the female blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: gene expression, synthesis, transport and cleavage. Biology of Reproduction 77:138-146.

2008 (15 manuscripts published or in press) Aguilar, R., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, and M.R. Goodison.

2008. Importance of blue crab life history for stock enhancement and spatial management of the fishery in Chesapeake Bay. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 117-124.

Chung, J.S. (2008) A trehalose 6-phosphate synthase gene of the hemocytes of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: the molecular structure, the expression, its enzyme activity and relationship to hemolymph trehalose levels. Saline Systems (in press)

Chung, J.S. and N. Zmora (2008). Functional studies of crustacean hyperglycemic hormones (CHHs) of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: the expression and release of CHH in eyestalk and pericardial organ in response to environmental stress. FEBS Journal 275, 693-704.

Eggleston, D.B., E.G. Johnson, G.T. Kellison, G.R. Plaia, and C. Huggett. 2008. Pilot evaluation of early juvenile blue crab stock enhancement using a replicated BACI design. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 91-100.

Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson, A.C.Young, R. Aguilar, M.A. Kramer, M. Goodison, O. Zmora, and Y. Zohar. 2008. Release strategies for estuarine species with complex migratory life cycles: Stock enhancement of Chesapeake blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 175-185.

5

Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, and A. Young. 2008. Importance of season and size of release to stocking success for the blue crab in Chesapeake Bay. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 243-253.

Katayama H. and J.S Chung (2008). The specific binding sites of eyestalk- and pericardial organ-crustacean hyperglycaemic hormones (CHHs) in multiple tissues of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. J Exp Biol (in press)

Lipcius, R., S. Schreiber, H. Wang, J. Shen, M. Sisson. 2008. Metapopulation source-sink dynamics and stock enhancement of marine species. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 101-110.

Long, W.C., and R.D. Seitz. 2008. Trophic interactions under stress: hypoxia enhances foraging in an estuarine food web. Marine Ecology Progress Series 362: 59-68.

Long, W.C., B.J. Brylawski, and R.D. Seitz. 2008. Behavioral effects of low dissolved oxygen on the bivalve Macoma balthica. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 359: 34-39.

Lipcius, R.N., D.B. Eggleston, S.J. Schreiber, R.D. Seitz, J. Shen, M. Sisson, W.T. Stockhausen, and H.V. Wang. 2008. Metapopulation connectivity and stock enhancement of marine species. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16: 101-110.

Seitz, R., R. Lipcius, K. Knick, M. Seebo, and W.C. Long. 2008. Stock enhancement and ecosystem carrying capacity in blue crab nursery habitats of Chesapeake Bay. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 329-337.

Seitz, R.D., and A. Lawless. 2008. Landscape-level impacts of shoreline development upon Chesapeake Bay benthos and their predators. Pp. 63-70 In Erdle, S.Y., J.L. Davis, and K.G. Sellner (Eds): Management Policy, Science and Engineering of Nonstructural Erosion Control in the Chesapeake Bay: Proceedings of the 2006 Living Shoreline Summit. CRC Publ. 08-164, CRC Press, 152 pp.

Young, A., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, J. Davis, O. Zmora, and Y. Zohar. 2008. Do hatchery reared blue crabs differ from wild crabs, and does it matter? Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 254-261.

Zohar, Y; A.H. Hines; O. Zmora; E.G. Johnson; R.N. Lipcius; R.D. Seitz; D.B. Eggleston; A.R. Place; E.J. Schott; J.D. Stubblefield; J.S. Chung. 2008. The Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus): A Multidisciplinary Approach to Responsible Stock Replenishment. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 24-34.

2009 (6 manuscripts in press) Breitburg, D., J.K. Craig, R.S. Fulford, K.A. Rose, W.R. Boynton, D. Brady, B.J. Ciotti,

R.J. Diaz, K.D. Friedland, J.D. Hagy, III, D.R. Hart, A.H. Hines, E.D. Houde, S.E. Kolesar, S.W. Nixon, J.A. Rice, D.H. Secor, and T.E. Targett. Nutrient enrichment and fisheries exploitation: Interactive effects on estuarine living resources and their management. Hydrobiologia (in press).

de Rivera, C.E. N.G. Hitchcock , S.J. Teck, B.P. Steves, A.H. Hines, and G.M. Ruiz. Larval development rate predicts range expansion of an introduced crab. Marine Biology (in press).

Eggleston, D.B., G.W. Bell, E.G. Johnson, and G.T. Kellison. Nurseries as integrated ecosystems: A reminder from back reef habitats in the lower Florida Keys, USA. Bulletin of Marine Science (in press).

6

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791197323~db=all~order=page



Eggleston, D.B., D, Parsons, G.T. Kellison, G. Plaia, and E.G. Johnson. Functional response of sport divers to lobsters with application to fisheries management. Ecological Applications (in press).

Johnson E.G. and D.B. Eggleston. Population demographics and movement patterns of blue crabs in salt marsh creeks. Marine Ecology Progress Series (in press).

Johnson, E.G., G. Bright, and A.H. Hines. Comparison of habitat utilization between hatchery-reared and wild blue crabs. Aquaculture Research (in press).

Articles in revision or in review (late 2008-early 2009) Findiesen, A. L, and Place, A.R. The effect of cage size and ration on growth of the

juvenile blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun), in a recirculating system. Aquaculture Research (in revision).

Hill, J. M., and Place, A.R. Multiple paternity in blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) assessed with microsatellite markers Aquaculture Research (in revision).

Dineen, J.F., A.H.Hines, and S.A. Reed. Patterns of brachyuran larval settlement in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. (in review).

Hines, A.H., J.R. Terwin and S.F. Thrush. Scale matters: the spatial distribution of prey patches affects predation rates in an estuarine benthic community (in review).

Hines, A.H., J. Freire, T.G. Wolcott, G.M. Ruiz, and D.L. Wolcott. Size-dependent habitat use, movement and risk of cannibalism in blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus (in review).

Johnson, E.G., D.B. Eggleston and J.E. Hightower. A stochastic, discontinuous growth model for blue crabs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (in review).

Nagle, L., Place, A., Jagus, R., Schott, E.J., Messick, G. and Pitula, J.S. Real-time Quantitative PCR-based assay for enhanced detection of Hematodinium sp. infection and tissue Invasion in the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). submitted to Diseases of Aquatic Organisms (in revision).

Terwin, J.R. and A.H. Hines. Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, foraging adjustments in response to changes in Baltic clam, Macoma baltica, density: implications for modeling the functional response (in review).

J. Sook Chung. A coordinated hormonal cascade in the completion of ecdysis of Callinectes sapidus: initiation by gut-crustacean hyperglycemic hormone and completion by bursicon (in review).

Publications for correlative crustacean fisheries Lipcius, R.N., W.T. Stockhausen and D.B. Eggleston. 2003. Metapopulation dynamics

and marine reserves: Caribbean spiny lobster in Exuma Sound, Bahamas. In (Chapter 7 The Bahamas: Tropical Island Nation) Coastal-Marine Conservation: Science and Policy (Eds. Ray, G.C. and J. McCormick-Ray). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK.

Eggleston, D.B., G.W. Bell, E.G. Johnson, and G.T. Kellison. 2004. Fish and spiny lobster density, size-structure, and fish diversity within multiple back reef habitats of Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, USA. Final Report in Partial Fulfillment of a Challenge Cost-Share Agreement between the Center for Marine

7

Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Contracts 1448-40181-99-6 and 1448-40181-00-6143, June 2004, 75 p.

Eggleston, D.B., C.P. Dahlgren, and E.G. Johnson. 2004. Fish Density, diversity, and size-structure within multiple back reef habitats of Key West National Wildlife Refuge. Bulletin of Marine Science 75(2):175-204.

Zohar, Y., J. Stubblefield, O. Zmora, J. Gomezjurado, A. Hines, D. Eggleston, R. Lipcius, and E. Johnson. 2006. A Synopsis of the Spiny Lobster Fishery in Mexico: Utilization of Current Resources and Strategies to Develop Live Culture and Transport Opportunities. Final UMBI Phase One Report, Center of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. 71 p.

Dissertations, Theses and Undergraduate Honors Theses: (10 PhD dissertations, 6 MSc theses, 5 honors theses) "Population genetics of the blue crab in the Gulf of Mexico". Richard Lester Darden, PhD, 2004. University of Southern Mississippi. “Multiple paternity in the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) assessed with microsatellite markers”. Jessica Hill, MSc., 2004. Towson University. co-Advisor: A. Place. “Estimation of annual and semi-annual survival of adult female blue crabs and assessment of the effectiveness of the Virginia blue crab sanctuary using tag-return methodology”. Debra Lambert, MSc., 2005. The College of William and Mary. “Diet of the juvenile blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, in shallow-water nurseries in response to large-scale variations in benthic communities”. Miranda J. Westphal, Florida Gulf Coast University - Honors Thesis 2005; Advisors: R. Seitz and K. Knick. “Fiber digestion in the juvenile blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun”. Andrea L. (Findiesen) Allman, MSc., 2006. University of Maryland College Park. Advisor: A. Place “Effectiveness of Gracilaria sp. as structured nursery habitat for juvenile blue crabs in mud coves”. Kristin Mahalak, College of William and Mary - Honors Thesis 2007; Advisors: R. Seitz and R. Lipcius Evaluation of macroalgae (Gracilaria spp.) as alternative nursery habitat for blue crab in Chesapeake Bay using the growth rate/predation risk trade-off hypothesis. Cora Ann Johnston, Hampshire College - Honors Thesis 2007; Advisor: R. Lipcius Habitat degradation effects on seagrass density and benthic community productivity. Carolyn Ewers, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo - Honors Thesis 2007; Advisor: R. Seitz

8

blue crab abundance and enhancement in the seagrass beds of the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Elizabeth Hamman, New College of Florida - Honors Thesis 2008; Advisor: R. Lipcius Benthic macroalgae Gracilaria vermiculophylla as a nursery habitat for juvenile blue crabs. Justin Falls, MSc Thesis 2008. The College of William and Mary; Advisor: R. Lipcius

Effects of shoreline development and oyster reefs on benthic communities in Lynnhaven, Virginia. Amanda Lawless, MSc Thesis 2008. The College of William and Mary; Advisor: R. Seitz Cultural eutrophication and the clam Macoma balthica: evidence for trophic disruption and effects on blue crabs. Bryce Brylawski, PhD Dissertation 2008. The College of William and Mary; Advisor: R. Seitz Alternative substrates as a native oyster reef restoration strategy in Chesapeake Bay. Russell Burke, PhD Dissertation in progress, 2009 expected. The College of William and Mary; Advisor: R. Lipcius Natural mortality of blue crab: estimation and influence on population dynamics. David Hewitt, PhD Dissertation 2008. The College of William and Mary; Advisor: R. Lipcius “Hypoxia and Macoma balthica: ecological effects on a key infaunal species.” William Christopher Long, PhD Dissertation 2007. The College of William and Mary; Advisor: R. Seitz “Reservoir hosts for White Spot Syndrome Virus”. Tershara Matthews, , PhD. 2008. The University of Southern Mississippi; Advisor: R. Overstreet. “Yellowhead virus in crustacean vectors”. Hongwei Ma, PhD. 2008. The University of Southern Mississippi; Advisor: R. Overstreet.; “Vitellogenesis and its regulation by sinus gland neuropeptides in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus.” Nilli Zmora, PhD. 2009 (expected). Hebrew University of Jerusalem (co-advising and research conducted at UMBI-COMB) Advisors: J.S. Chung and Y. Zohar “Identifying environmental cues for spawning induction in blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)”. Sarah Bembe, MSc. 2009 (expected). University of Maryland College Park; Advisor: J.S. Chung. “Population genetics of blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico”. Xiaojun Feng, PhD. 2009 (expected). University of Maryland College Park; Advisor: A. Place

9

“Molting gene expression in the pre-pubertal female crab, Callinectes sapidus.” (working title) Sirinarta Techa. PhD. 2012 (expected). University of Maryland College Park. Advisor: J.S. Chung.

10

Appendix II - BCARC Presentations and Outreach Activities

The following pages contain selected presentations at scientific conferences and meetings, as well as outreach and education activities, that derived directly from the congressional funding of the BCARC Consortium project or utilized BCARC results/information (wholly or in part). In total over 150 scientific presentations and over 100 outreach or intra-institutional presentations are included. The list is not exhaustive, but rather is intended to convey the regional and national impact of program since its inception in 2002. Presentations at Scientific, Management and Outreach Meetings (by year):

2002 Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Orlando, Florida, March. Lipcius, R.N., and R.D. Seitz. 2002. Catastrophic disturbance, ecosystem degradation, and population phase shifts in Chesapeake Bay. 31st Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Orlando, Florida, March. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, and W.T. Stockhausen. 2002. What Drives Variation in Benthic Abundance along an Environmental Gradient – Physical, Recruitment, Top-Down, or Bottom-Up Factors? 31st Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Orlando, Florida, March.

2003

American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, DC: Young-Williams, A.C., J.L.D. Davis, A.H. Hines, and Y. Zohar. 2003. Burden of proof: assessing stock enhancement o f the blue crab in the Chesapeake Bay. American Institute of Biological Sciences meeting, Arlington, VA.

American Society of Limnology & Oceanography, Salt Lake City, Utah: Young-Williams, A.C., J.L.D. Davis, A.H. Hines, and Y. Zohar. 2003. Comparing two types of internal tags in juvenile blue crabs. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography annual meeting, Salt Lake City, UT. Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and O. Zmora. 2003. Assessment of enhancement potential in the case of the Chesapeake blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). American Society of Limnology and Oceanography annual meeting, Salt Lake City, UT. Benthic Ecology Meeting, University of Connecticut, Groton, CT: Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, R. Aguilar, B.L. Carswell, M.R. Goodison, A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, Y. Zohar and O. Zmora. 2003. Do hatchery-raised blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) feed, grow, behave and survive as well as their wild counterparts? Implications for stock enhancement.

1

Hines, A.H., M.A. Kramer, TG. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and J. Freire. 2003. Long-Term Decline in Juvenile Blue Crab Mortality: Local Scale Experiments Reflect Large Scale Reduction of Chesapeake Population? Aguilar, R., M. Kramer, A.H. Hines, T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and R. Lipcius. 2003. Migration of female blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. Grap, S., R. King, D. Craige, and A. Hines. 2003. Factors influencing the distributions of blue crabs and bivalves in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, USA.

National Association Shellfish Meeting, New Orleans, LA: Findiesen, A., Zmora, O., Harel, M., Zohar, Y., Young-Williams A.and Hines, A.H. Manipulation of environmental parameters for out-of-season egg and larval production in blue crab broodstock (Callinectes sapidus). Presented (poster) at the National Shellfisheries Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 2003. Hines, A.H., J.L.D. Davis, A. Young-Williams, Y. Zohar, and O. Zmora. 2003. Assessing the feasibility of stock assessment for Chesapeake blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. National Association of Shellfisheries, New Orleans, LA. Place, A.R., Findiesen, A., and Zmora, N. 2003. Fiber digestion in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Presented (poster) at the National Shellfisheries Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 2003. Place, A.R., Steven, C.R., and Feng, X. 2003. Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) genetic structure and diversity in Callinectes sapidus. National Shellfisheries Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 2003. Steven, C.R., Wilkes, J. Place, A.R., Hill, J. and Masters, B. 2003. Development of microsatellite markers in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Presented (poster) at the National Shellfisheries Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 2003. Zohar, Y., Zmora, O., Hines, A. and J. Davis. 2003. Hatchery methods for production of juvenile blue crabs. National Association of Shellfisheries, New Orleans, LA. Zohar, Y., Zmora, O., Stubblefield, J., Lipman E., and A. Findiessen. Hatchery mass production of blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) juveniles. Invited presentation. 95th Annual Meeting of the National Shellfish Association. New Orleans, LA, April 13-17, 2003.

NOAA CBSAC Fisheries Conference, Laurel, MD: Hines, A.H., J.L.D. Davis, A. Young-Williams, M. Kramer, R. Aguilar, M. Goodison, M. Rome, Y. Zohar, O. Zmora, T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and R.N. Lipcius. 2003. Assessing feasibility of stock enhancement linked to migratory corridors for Chesapeake blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). NOAA Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment, Fisheries Research Program Symposium 2002.

2

NOAA Coastal Zone 2003, Baltimore, MD:Hines, A.H., J.L.D. Davis, A. Young-Williams, R.N. Lipcius, J. Hoenig, Y. Zohar, O. Zmora, A. Place, D.H. Secor, S-J. Ju, R. Harvey, T.G. Wolcott and D.L. Wolcott. 2003. Blue Crab Stock Restoration and Ecology in Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Zone 2003 NOAA conference, Baltimore, MD.

Restore America’s Estuaries, Baltimore, MD: Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and Y. Zohar. Assessing potential for restoration of blue crab stocks by enhancement in Chesapeake Bay. Restore America’s Estuaries conference, Baltimore, MD

The Crustacean Society, Blue Crab Symposium, College of William & Mary, VIMS, Williamsburg, MD: Aguilar, R., M. Kramer, A.H. Hines, T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and R. Lipcius. 2003. Migration of female blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. The Crustacean Society annual meeting, Blue Crab Symposium, Williamsburg, VA. Hines, A.H., T.G. Wolcott, J. Terwin, and S.F. Thrush. 2003. Spatial scale of blue crab foraging on bivalve prey. King, R. D. Craige, A. Hines, and S. Grap. 2003. Habitat correlates of blue crabs and bivalves in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, USA. The Crustacean Society annual meeting, Blue Crab Symposium, Williamsburg, VA. Rome, M., A.C. Young-Williams, M. Goodison, G. Davis, and A.H. Hines. 2003. Winter mortality of Chesapeake blue crabs. The Crustacean Society annual meeting, Blue Crab Symposium, Williamsburg, VA. Zmora, O., A. Findiesen, E. Lipman, J. Stubblefield, A. Hines, J. Davis, A. Young-Williams and Y. Zohar. 2003. Hatchery mass production of blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) juveniles. The Crustacean Society annual meeting, Blue Crab Symposium, Williamsburg, VA. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, and M.S. Seebo. 2003. Habitat-specific variation in food availability and growth of blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) in the field. The Crustacean Society, Williamsburg, Virginia, June. Lipcius, R., R. Seitz, W.C. Long (presenter), M. Seebo, D. Lambert, and W. Stockhausen. 2003. Ecosystem Effects, Carrying Capacity, and Recruitment Limitation in Blue Crab Nursery Habitats. The Crustacean Society, Williamsburg, Virginia, June. Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Mystic, Connecticut, March. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, and D.M. Lambert. 2003. Influence of shallow-water habitats and shoreline development upon abundance, biomass,

3

and diversity of Chesapeake Bay benthos. 32nd Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Mystic, Connecticut, March. Lipcius, R., R. Seitz, W.C. Long (presenter), M. Seebo, D. Lambert, and W. Stockhausen. 2003. Ecosystem Effects, Carrying Capacity, and Recruitment Limitation in Blue Crab Nursery Habitats. 32nd Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Mystic, Connecticut, March. Miscellaneous Invited Talks Y. Zohar. The Application of Biotechnology in Aquaculture. Invited Lecture. Southampton University. May 2003 2004 Beijing International Symposium on Biological Invasions: Hines, A.H., G. Ruiz, W. Miller, P. Fofonoff, B. Steves. 2004. Invasive species in marine ecosystems of North America: Temporal and spatial patterns of taxonomy, source, and vectors. Beijing International Symposium on Biological Invasions. Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing; Qingdao Institute of Oceanology, China. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Dauphin Island Sea Lab and University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL: Aguilar. R., A.H. Hines, and M. Goodison. 2004. Long-term Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of a Fish and Macro-invertebrate Assemblage in an Upper Chesapeake Bay Subestuary. Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, Y. Zohar, O. Zmora. 2004. Narrowing in on Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Carrying Capacity in certaib Chesapeake Bay Habitats and Implications for Optimizing Stock Enhancement. Young-Williams, A.C., J.L.D. Davis, A. Hines, K. Forman, O. Zmora and Y. Zohar. 2004. Does Size Really Matter to Hatchery Blue Crabs. National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, Orlando, Florida, December. Lipcius, R.N., Seitz, R.D., and W.T. Stockhausen. 2004. Success and Limits of a Marine Protected Area: the Blue Crab in Chesapeake Bay. National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, Orlando, Florida, December. Lipcius, R.N., Seitz, R.D., and W.T. Stockhausen. 2004. Alternative Ecosystem States and the Likelihood of Restoration Success in Chesapeake Bay. National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, Orlando, Florida, December. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, and D.M. Lambert. 2004. Success of Ecosystem Restoration in Estuarine and Coastal Subtidal Habitats: Benthic Abundance and Diversity in Natural and Degraded Shorelines of Chesapeake Bay. National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, Orlando, Florida, December.

4

Miscellaneous Meetings Ma, Hongwei and Robin M. Overstreet. Ciliate diversity related to shrimps and blue crab. The 56th Annual Meeting of the Society of Protozoologists. 2-6 June 2004, Bryant College, Smithfield, Rhode Island. Zimmermann, N.P., V. Breeland, J.M. Lotz, and R.M. Overstreet. Infections of Hematodinium sp. detected in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Joint meeting of the American Society of Parasitologists and the American Association of Veterinary Parasitologists. 24-28 July 2004, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Parisitologists: Overstreet, R.M. Bullard, S.M. and Cook, J.O. 2005. Using local marine parasites as teaching tools. 80th Annual Meeting of the Amer. Soc. of Parisitologists. Mobile, AL, July 2005. Benthic Ecology Meeting , College of William & Mary, VIMS, Williamsburg, VA: Aguilar, R., M.R. Goodison, A.H. Hines, and M.A. Kramer. 2005. Decadal variation of an epibenthic fish and macro-invertebrate community in an upper Chesapeake Bay subestuary. Bademan, M., A.H. Hines, and E.G. Johnson. 2005. Predation rates on hatchery-reared juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Bright, Jr., G., E.G. Johnson, and A.H. Hines. 2005. Comparison of habitat utilization between juvenile hatchery-reared and wild blue crabs. Brylawski, B.J. and R.D. Seitz. 2005. The effects of hypoxic events on the distribution, foraging potential, and scope for growth of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). 34th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia, April. Eggleston, D.B. Integrating effects of humans and nature on blue crabs. Benthic Ecology Meeting., Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Hines. A.H. 2005. Portunid crab fisheries: emerging approaches for supplementing and restoring stocks. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA Hines, A.H. and R.N. Lipcius. 2005. Threshold mechanism and long-term indirect effects of siphon nipping by fishes upon blue crab predation on infaunal bivalves. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines, J.L.D. Davis, A.C. Young-Williams, M. Kramer, M. Goodison, R. Aguilar, Y. Zohar, O. Zmora. 2005. Field assessment of the feasibility of

5

enhancing blue crab stocks in Chesapeake Bay. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Knick, K.E., R.D. Seitz, R.N. Lipcius, W.C. Long, and M.S. Seebo. 2005. Bivalve Populations and Carrying Capacity of Coves Enhanced with Juvenile Blue Crabs. 34th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia, April. Lipcius, R.N. 2005. Declines in Atlantic populations of the blue crab require ecosystem-based restoration. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Long, W.C., R.D. Seitz, and R.N. Lipcius. 2005. Effects of Hypoxia on Community Structure and Population Dynamics of Benthic Infauna in the York and Rappahannock Rivers. 34th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia, April. Place, A.R. 2005. Genetic consequences of blue crab stock reduction and enhancement. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, F.J. Soto, K.E. Knick, M.S. Seebo, W.C. Long, and B.J. Brylawski. 2005. Effects of predation and food availability on the blue crab in nursery habitats enhanced with juvenile crabs. 34th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia, April. Van Montfrans, J.D., Combs, D. and Latour, R.J. 2005. Fish predation impacts on juvenile blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay seagrass beds. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Young-Williams, A.C., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, M. Goodison, R. Aguilar, M. Kramer. 2005. Predator enhancement experiments: density-dependant response of blue crabs to infaunal bivalve prey. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Zmora, O., Bystry, B., Grap, S., Stoler, A., Flynn, P. and Y. Zohar. 2005. Successful mass production of juvenile blue crab: A prerequisite for stock enhancement. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Young-Williams, A.C., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, M. Goodison, R. Aguilar, M. Kramer. 2005. Predator enhancement experiments: density-dependant response of blue crabs to infaunal bivalve prey. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, April 2005. Y. Zohar. The first tool for blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) stock enhancement: Mass production of juveniles. 34th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting (Williamsburg, VA, April 2005).

International Marine Biotechnology Conference, Newfoundland, Canada:

Chung, J.S and Webster, S.G. 2005. Endocrine cascades and signalling during ecdysis and postmolt in crustaceans. International Marine Biotechnology Conference, Newfoundland, Canada.

6

Chung, J.S and Webster, S.G. 2005. Expression and release patterns of neuropeptide genes during embryogenesis and hatching in the green shore crab, Carcinus maenas. (Poster). International Marine Biotechnology Conference., Newfoundland, Canada International Workshop and Conference on Culture, Fisheries and Stock Enhancement of Portunid Crabs, Iloilo, The Phillipines: Findiesen, A. L. and Place, A. R. (2005). Developing diets for the juvenile blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun), in a recirculating system: determination of rations and dietary fiber utilization. (Oral Presentation) International Workshop on Culture, Fisheries and Stock Enhancement of Portunid Crabs, Iloilo City, Phillippines Hill, J. M., and Place, A. R. (2005). Multiple paternity in blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) assessed with microsatellite markers (Poster Presentation) International Workshop on Culture, Fisheries and Stock Enhancement of Portunid Crabs, Iloilo City, Phillippines Hines, A.H. 2005. International Workshop and Conference on Culture, Fisheries and Stock Enhancement of Portunid Crabs Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Development Center (SEAFDEC), January, 2005, Iloilo, The Philippines. Place, A. R. (2005). Genetic markers in blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) -Nuclear and Mitocondrial in Origin (Oral Presentation) International Workshop on Culture, Fisheries and Stock Enhancement of Portunid Crabs, Iloilo City, Phillippines Sixth International Crustacean Congress, Glasgow, Scotland: Hines, A.H., Jivoff, P.R., Lipcius, R.N., Wolcott, T.G., and Wolcott, D.L. 2005. Complex impacts on reproductive processes in a heavily exploited crab stock: an overview for Chesapeake blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Invited presentation in Special Session on Fishery Impacts on Decapod Mating Systems. Jivoff, P.R. and A.H. Hines. 2005. How interactions between human exploitation and mating system structure may limit the reproductive potential of blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Southeast Data Assessment And Review (SEDAR). Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) Data workshop: Johnson, E.G., D.B. Eggleston, C. Dahlgren, G.T. Kellison, and D. Nadeau. 2005. Distribution and Abundance of spiny lobster in the Florida Keys: Impacts of an intense recreational fishery. January, 2005, Marathon, FL. Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Symposium, Feb. 2005: Hines, A.H., R.N. Lipcius, O. Zmora, and Y. Zohar (et al.). 2005. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium: Basic biology and feasibility of stock enhancement of blue crab stocks, Callinectes sapidus. Invited talk.

7

Miscellaneous Meetings: Overstreet, Robin M. Parasites connecting the Gulf of Mexico with human health. Connecting the Gulf of Mexico and Human Health. The University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, 4-6 May 2005, Long Beach, Mississippi. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, and D.M. Lambert. 2005. Indirect effects of habitat degradation upon shallow-water benthic organisms and predators in an interconnected landscape. Estuarine Research Federation Meeting, Norfolk, VA, October. Seitz, R.D., and R.N. Lipcius. 2005. The landscape approach: Importance of alternative prey for effective shellfish restoration. International Conference on Shellfish Restoration, Brest, France, October. Seitz, R.D. 2005. Influence of shallow-water habitats and shoreline development upon abundance, biomass, and diversity of Chesapeake Bay benthos. Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Texel, The Netherlands. September. Y. Zohar. The Application of Biotechnology in Aquaculture. Invited Lecture. University of Ancona, Italy. July 2005. 2006 Third International Symposium on Stock Enhancement & Sea Ranching. Seattle WA: Aguilar, R., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, and M.R. Goodison. 2008. Importance of blue crab life history for stock enhancement and spatial management of the fishery in Chesapeake Bay. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 117-124. Hill. J. and Place, A. R. (2006) Using Microsatellites to Track Hatchery Released Blue Crabs. Third International Symposium on Stock Enhancement & Sea Ranching. Seattle Washington. (Poster Presentation). Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson, A.C.Young, R. Aguilar, M.A. Kramer, M. Goodison, O. Zmora, and Y. Zohar. 2008. Release strategies for estuarine species with complex migratory life cycles: Stock enhancement of Chesapeake blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 175-185. Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, and A. Young. 2008. Importance of season and size of release to stocking success for the blue crab in Chesapeake Bay. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 243-253. Lipcius, R., S. Schreiber, H. Wang, J. Shen, M. Sisson. 2008. Metapopulation source-sink dynamics and stock enhancement of marine species. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 101-110.

8

Place, A. R. Feng, X., and Hill. J. (2006) Genetic Considerations during the Experimental and Expanded Phases of Blue Crab Stock Enhancement in Chesapeake Bay. Third International Symposium on Stock Enhancement & Sea Ranching. Seattle Washington. (Oral Presentation). Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, K.E. Knick, M.S. Seebo, W.C. Long, B.J. Brylawski, and A. Smith. 2006. Stock enhancement and ecosystem carrying capacity for blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. International Symposium on Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching. Seattle, WA, September. Young, A., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, J. Davis, O. Zmora, and Y. Zohar. 2008. Do hatchery reared blue crabs differ from wild crabs, and does it matter? Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 254-261. Zohar, Y., A.H. Hines; O. Zmora; E.G. Johnson; R.N. Lipcius; R.D. Seitz; D.B. Eggleston; A.R. Place; E.J. Schott; J.D. Stubblefield; J.S. Chung. 2008. The Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus): A Multidisciplinary Approach to Responsible Stock Replenishment. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 24-34.

Meeting of Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, Orlando, Florida:

Chung, J.S., Zmora, N., and Zohar, Y. 2006. Cloning and expression profile of non-eyestalk crustacean hyperglycaemic hormone (CHH) neuropeptides from the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. SICB, Orlando, Florida Chung, J.S., Zmora, N., and Zohar, Y. 2006. Crustacean cardioactive peptide: cDNA structures and expression patterns in crustaceans. Poster. SICB, Orlando, Florida. Zmora, N., Trant, J., and Chung, J.S. 2006. Characterization of a vitellogenin gene and the endocrine regulation of vitellogenesis of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Annual Meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, Orlando, Florida. Miscellaneous Meetings: Chung, J.S., N. Zmora, and H. Katayama (2006). An overview of the regulatory role of crustacean hyperglycaemic hormone (CHH) neuropeptides in molting and reproduction in decapod crustaceans. Plenary Talk, The Crustacean Society Summer Meeting, Juneau, Alaska. Feng, X, Hill, J. and Place, A. R. (2006) Genetic Considerations During the Experimental and Expanded Phases of Blue Crab Stock Enhancement in the Chesapeake Bay. International Symposium Genetics in Aquaculture IX, June 25-30, Montpellier, France. (Poster Presentation). Long, W.C., B.J. Brylawski, and R.D. Seitz. 2006. Lethal and non-lethal effects of hypoxia on Macoma balthica: A laboratory experiment with a novel method for reducing

9




dissolved oxygen concentrations. Atlantic Estuarine Research Society Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, October. Long, W.C., and R.D. Seitz. 2006. From the Individual to the Community: Effect of Hypoxia in Bay Tributaries. DREAMS (Diversity in research in environmental and marine science) Seminar Series, Science Club, Hampton University, Hampton, Virginia, April. Seitz, R.D., and R.N. Lipcius. 2006. Ecosystem-based restoration of the blue crab in Chesapeake Bay. Pennsylvania College, Invited Marine Ecology Lecture. May. Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. March. Brylawski, B.J., and R.D. Seitz. 2006. The effect of eutrophication on the growth, survival, production, and condition of the thin-shelled clam, Macoma balthica. 35th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, March. Long, W.C., and R.D. Seitz. 2006. Hypoxia-Enhanced Foraging of Epibenthic Predators in the York River, Virginia. 35th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. March. Seitz, R.D., K.E. Knick, and M. Schultz. 2006. Prey availability and juvenile blue crab foraging in shallow-water nurseries in Chesapeake Bay. 35th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, March. Zmora, O., Bembe, S., Bystry, B. Kramer, M., Flynn, P., Hines, A.H., and Zohar, Y. 2006. Year-Round Production for Blue Crab Research and Stock Replenishment Studies. 35th Annual Benthic Ecology Meeting. 2007 NOAA Chesapeake Fisheries Symposium, April 2007 J. Sook Chung and H. Katayama (2007). The regulation of ecdysteroids profiles in hemolymph during molt cycles of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office 2007 Fisheries Science Symposium. April 10-11, Laurel, MD. (Poster Presentation). Hines, A.H. et al. 2007. Dynamics of stocking Chesapeake blue crabs: Spatial and temporal variation. Contributed paper. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office 2007. NOAA Fisheries Science Symposium, Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, MD, April 10, 2007.

N. Zmora, J. T. Trant and J. Sook Chung (2007). Vitellogenesis and its regulation by sinus gland neuropeptides in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office 2007 Fisheries Science Symposium. April 10-11, Laurel, MD. (Poster Presentation).

10

N. Zmora, J. T. Trant and J. Sook Chung (2007). CYP4 C15 is probably not involved in ecdysteroidogenesis in the Y-organ of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office 2007 Fisheries Science Symposium. April 10-11, Laurel, MD. (Poster Presentation).

Zohar, Y. 2007.The Blue Crab—An Integrated Research Program of Basic Biology, Hatchery Technologies, and the Potential for Replenishing Stocks (Invited Talk). International Marine Biotechnology Conference, Eilat, Israel: Feng, X., Hill, J. and Place, A.R. 2007. Tracking hatchery blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) using molecular genetic markers. IMBC 2007, March 11-16, 2007. Chung, J.S. and Katayama, H. 2007. Regulation of hemolymph ecdysteroids in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. IMBC 2007, March 11-16, 2007. (Poster presentation) Chung, J.S. and Katayama, H. 2007. Understanding the physiological functions of crustacean hyperglycemic hormones of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: localization, release and expression patterns. IMBC 2007, March 11-16, 2007. Schott, E.J., Jennings, K. Murphy, S., Nagle, L., Pitula, J.S, Jagus, R., Messick, G. Place, A., Application of quantitative PCR to monitor dynamics of the crab parasite, Hematodinium sp. in experimental and field studies of the Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus. IMBC conference, 2006 Eilat, Israel, March 11-16. (Poster presentation)

Zmora, N. and Chung, J.S. 2007. Vitellogenesis and its regulation by sinus gland neuropeptides in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. (Poster presentation) Zmora, N., Trant, J.M. and Chung, J.S. 2007. CYP4C15 is probably not involved in ecdysteroidogenesis in the Y-organ of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. (Poster presentation) Zohar, Y. 2007. The role of biotechnology in sustainable aquaculture. IMBC conference, 2006 Eilat, Israel, March 11-16. (Keynote lecture incorporating BCARC crab culture technologies) Benthic Ecology Meeting, Atlanta, GA. Aguilar, R., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines. K. Chop, and K. Tenggardjaja. 2007. Population demographics and exploitation of blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus, in a subestuary of Chesapeake Bay. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Atlanta, GA. March 22, 2007. Johnson, E.G., A. Young, A.H. Hines, M. Kramer. 2007. Partitioning loss of hatchery-reared juvenile blue crabs into emigration and mortality components. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Atlanta, GA. March 22, 2007.

11

Long, W.C., E. Bromage, R.D. Seitz, S. Kaattari. 2007. Quantifying fecundity in Macoma balthica using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Benthic Ecology Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, March. Knick, K.E., R.D. Seitz, M. Westphal, and A. Smith. 2007. Large-scale Variation in Benthic Communities in Shallow-water Nurseries and Associated Diet of the Juvenile Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, March. Sanchez, A.J., A.H. Hines, R. Florido, and E.G. Johnson. 2007. Sea grass density effect on interaction between the predator Archoglossus rhomboidalis and the prey Hippolyte zostericola. Contributed paper, Benthic Ecology Meeting, Atlanta, GA. March 22, 2007. ASLO 2007 Aquatic Sciences Meeting, February 2007: Falls, J. and Lipcius, R.M. Effects of benthic macro-algae on predation of juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) in Chesapeake Bay. Miscellaneous Meetings, 2007: Aguilar, R. and A.H. Hines. 2007. Long-term patterns of variation in abundance and species composition of estuarine fish communities in upper Chesapeake Bay. Contributed paper. American Fisheries Society, Tidewater Chapter meeting, Lewes, DE. January 2007. Andrews, O., Shi, Q and J. Sook Chung (2007). The presence and role of trehalose in response of stress in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) Austin, Texas. Sanchez, A., R. Salina, and A.H. Hines. 2007. Predation on shrimps by two species of fish in a lagoon system. Invited presentation. Wetland Symposium, Universidad Juarez Autonoma de Tabasco, Tabasco, Mexico. Hines, A.H. 2007. Overview of SERC ecosystem research. SERC-NCBO workshop, Edgewater, MD, March 22, 2007. Johnson, E.G., and seven co-authors. 2007. Field assessment of the feasibility of enhancing blue crab and oyster stocks in Chesapeake Bay. Contributed paper. 19th Biennial Conference of the Estuarine Research Federation, Providence, RI, November 7, 2007. Aguilar, R. 2007. A survey of arthropod phylogeny and morphology. Invited lecture. Northern Virginia Community College, November 2007. Seitz, R.D., and W.C. Long. 2007. Impacts of hypoxia on the functional response of predators. Estuarine Research Federation meeting, Providence, RI, November.

12

Seitz, R.D., and W.C. Long. 2007. Impacts of hypoxia on key infaunal species and their predators in Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation at Ecological Impacts of Hypoxia on Living Resources Workshop. Biloxi, Mississippi, March. Brylawski, B.J., and R.D. Seitz. 2007. The growth, survival, and condition of the thin-shelled clam, Macoma balthica, in the York River, Virginia. AERS/SEERS Joint meeting, Pine Knolls Shores, NC, March. Long, W.C., B.J. Brylawski, and R.D. Seitz. 2007. Hypoxia removes the low-density refuge from predators for Macoma balthica. Atlantic Estuarine Research Society/South Eastern Estuarine Research Society Joint Meeting, Pine Knoll Shores, NC, March.

Overstreet, Robin M. Parasitology Research. De Hoop Nature Reserve, Potberg, South Africa. Department of Zoology and Entomology, The University of the Free State, 1 April 2007.

Overstreet, Robin M. Helminth diseases in aquaculture, with an emphasis on catfish, nematodes, and trematodes. The First North American Parasitology Congress, Annual meeting of the American Society of Parasitologists, Merida, Mexico. 21-25 June 2007, symposium lecture.

2008

Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI: Johnson, E.G. and nine co-authors. 2008. Large-scale patterns of blue crab distribution and abundance in upper Chesapeake Bay. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI, April 12, 2008. Aguilar, R., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, P.M. Roberts, M.R. Goodison, and M.A. Kramer. 2008. Fishery characterization, exploitation and population size of blue crabs Callinectes sapidus in a subestuary of Chesapeake Bay. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI, April 12, 2008. DiMaria, R.and E.G. Johnson. 2008. Chateau de Callinectes sapidus: Design and field test of a passive collector for juvenile blue crabs. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI, April 12, 2008. Gamelin, E.F., E.G. Johnson and A.H. Hines. 2008. Functional response and prey switching of adult blue crabs Callinectes sapidus on two prey species. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI, April 12, 2008. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson and 11 co-authors. 2008. Field assessment of the feasibility of

13

enhancing blue crab stock in Chesapeake Bay. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI, April 12, 2008. Kramer, M.A., A.H. Hines, E.G. Johnson, L. Nye, K. Ruffin. 2008. Annual, seasonal and size- dependent patterns of juvenile blue crab Callinectes sapidus mortality in upper Chesapeake Bay. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI, April 12, 2008. Roberts, P.M., R. Aguilar, and E.G. Johnson. 2008. Estimating tag-induced mortality and retention of externally tagged blue crabs Callinectes sapidus. Contributed paper. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI, April 12, 2008. Lawless, A.S. and R.D. Seitz. 2008. Effects of Shoreline Development on Benthic Communities in Lynnhaven Bay, VA. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Providence, RI. April.

S. E. Bembe and J. Sook Chung (2008) Enviromental alternations in capacity to induce egg extrusion in blue crabs. Benthic Ecology Meeting, Boston. April. 8-11.

S. E. Bembe*, Naoaki Tsutsui, and J. Sook Chung (2008) Lipophorin receptor cloning and characterization in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, Benthic Ecology Meeting, Boston. April. 8-11. (Poster Presentation).

Miscellaneous Meetings, 2008 Aguilar, R., A.H. Hines, T.G. Wolcott, E.G. Johnson, A.C. Young, M.A. Kramer, M.R. Goodison. 2008. Multiple Tagging Techniques in Determining Movement and Population Demographics of the Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus). International Symposium on Advances in Fish Tagging & Marking Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, February 24, 2008. Aguilar, R. and A.H. Hines. 2008. Long-term patterns of variation in abundance and species composition of estuarine fish communities in upper Chesapeake Bay. Invited paper. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, Hamilton, New Zealand, February 27, 2008. Aguilar, R. et al. 2008. Variation in survival, enhancement and production of small scale releases of hatchery juvenile crabs in upper Chesapeake Bay. Invited talk. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, February 28, 2008. DiMaria, R. and E.G. Johnson. 2008. Chateau de Callinectes sapidus: design and field study of a passive collector for juvenile blue crabs. Contributed paper, Atlantic Estuarine Research Society Spring Meeting. Lewes, DE., March 14, 2008. Winner – Best student paper.

14

Long, W.C., R.D. Seitz, B.J. Brylawski. 2008. Cascading ecological effects of hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, FL, October. Long, W.C., R.D. Seitz, B.J. Brylawski. 2008. Hypoxia and Chesapeake Bay: From Individual Clams to the Ecosystem. Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, October. Lawless, A.S. and R.D. Seitz. 2008. Benthic Infaunal Community Responses to Living-Shoreline Oyster Reefs. Atlantic Estuarine Research Society Spring Meeting, Lewes, DE. March.

S. Bembe, J. Sook Chung, A. Hines, J. Eric, R. Lipcus, A. Place, S. J. Stubblefield, John, O. Zmora, Y. Zohar. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium (BCARC) to Enhance the Fishery (2008). Aquatic and Fisheries Science Symposium. UMCES, Assateague, Island, MD

O. Andrews, Q. Shi and J. Sook Chung (2008). The presence and role of trehalose in response of stress in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Undergraduate Student Research Day, Annapolis.

Ma, Hongwei and Robin M. Overstreet. Experimental infection of some shrimps and crabs by yellowhead virus (YHV). Aquaculture America 2008, Orlando, Florida, 9-12 February 2008.

Overstreet, R.M., J. Jovonovich, and H. Ma. Parasitic crustaceans as vectors of viruses. Annual Meeting for the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, Boston, Massachusetts, 3-7 January 2009.

Schott, E.J. Utility of molecular approaches to study infectious disease in blue crab. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (Solomons, MD). Invited Talk. November 5, 2008.

Y. Zohar. The Role of Biotechnology in Sustainable Aquaculture. Invited Talk. IBS 2008 Meeting. July 2008. China.

2009 Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, Boston. N. Zmora, J. Trant, N. Tsutsui, and J. Sook Chung (2009) An additional role for molt-inhibiting hormone in the mature female blue crab Callinectes sapidus as a vitellogenesis stimulating hormone. Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, Boston. J. Sook Chung and H. Katayama (2009) Co-localization of the specific binding sites of crustacean hyperglycemic hormones (CHHs) of eyestalk and pericardial organ on multiple tissues of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, Boston.

15

S. Tamone and J. Sook Chung (2009). Molecular cloning of crustacean hyperglycaemic hormone of Alaskan tanner crab, Chionoecetes bairdi. Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, Boston (Poster Presentation). J. Sook Chung and Q. Shi (2009) Trehalose 6-phosphate synthase genes of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: the molecular structure, the expression, its enzyme activity and relationship to hemolymph trehalose levels. Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, Boston. (Poster Presentation). National Shellfisheries Meeting, Savannah, GA Feng, X., Williams, E.P, and Place, A. R. 2009. Mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy in blue crab Callinectes sapidus. The NSA 101st Annual Meeting, Savannah, USA. Feng, X., P. M. Gaffney, Williams, E. P., and Place, A. R. 2009. The phylogeography of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus: genetic variation to the MAX. The NSA 101st Annual Meeting, Savannah, USA. Williams, E. P., and Place, A. R. 2009. The genetic diversity of blue crab megalopae entering the Chesapeake Bay. The NSA 101st Annual Meeting, Savannah, USA. Outreach and Intra-Institutional Presentations: 2002

BCARC Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD: A.H. Hines. Strategy for testing the feasibility of blue crab stock enhancement in Chesapeake Bay. 2003 Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition: Y. Zohar. Invited Speaker. “Update on recent BCARC progress in blue crab hatchery technolgoies.” 28th Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition (Ocean City, Maryland, February 2003).

BCARC Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD: Aguilar, R. 2003. Migration of mature female blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Davis, J.L.D. 2003. The fate of hatchery-reared blue crabs released into small embayments of upper Chesapeake Bay. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.

16

Hines, A.H. 2003. Requirements for stock enhancement of blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Young-Williams, A.C. 2003. Crustacean tagging tools: comparing two types of internal tags in juvenile blue crabs. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Young-Williams, A.C. 2003. Comparisons of morphological, physiological, and behavioral variables between hatchery-raised and wild juvenile blue crabs. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD: Davis, J.L.D. 2003. Stock enhancement of Chesapeake blue crabs: testing hatchery-reared juveniles. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Hines, A.H. 2003. Blue crab research overview. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Brubaker, K. 2003. Intern seminar: Effect of exercise on claw strength in blue crabs. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Larson, K. 2003. Intern seminar: Variation in sperm stores of male and female blue crabs in upper Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Eckert-Mills, M. 2003. Intern seminar: Comparison of color in hatchery-reared and wild blue crabs. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Foreman, K. 2003. Intern seminar: Comparisons of aggressive behaviors in hatchery-reared and wild blue crabs. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Seitz, R.D. 2003. Stock Status Carrying Capacity and Status of the Blue Crab in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Governor’s School Program, Gloucester Point, VA. Seitz, R.D. 2003. Recruitment and Spawning Stock Limitation, Carrying Capacity, and Enhancement of the Blue Crab in Chesapeake Bay. VIMS Teacher Workshop, Gloucester Point, VA. Annual Watermen’s Conference and Expo. Ocean City, MD Zohar, Y., Zmora, O., Lipman, E., and J. Stubblefield. Hatchery mass production of blue crab juveniles for stock enhancement. Invited expert speaker. Waterman Conference and Expo. Ocean City, MD, January 31-February 2, 2003. 2004 Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition: Y. Zohar. Invited Speaker. “Update on recent BCARC progress in blue crab hatchery technolgoies.” 29th Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition (Ocean City, Maryland, February 2004).

17

BCARC Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD: Aguilar, R. 2004. Female migration from mating areas to spawning grounds: contrasts of 2003. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Davis, J.L.D. 2004. Effect of stocking density and methods to improve survivorship of hatchery-reared crabs. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hines, A.H. 2004. Overview: Insights from two contrasting years (2002 and 2003) on blue crab ecology and potential for stock enhancement. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Johnson, E.G., D.B. Eggleston, G. Plaia, G.T. Kellison, and C. Huggett. 2004. The life and death of translocated blue crabs. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Young-Williams, A.C. 2004. Effects of size on survival and growth of hatchery-released crabs; effects of conditioning on aggressive and competitive behavior of hatchery-reared crabs. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD: Bademan, M. 2004. Intern seminar: Predation rates on hatchery-reared juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Bright, Jr., G. 2004. Intern seminar: Study of molting in juvenile blue crabs Callinectes sapidus. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Himelberg, R. 2004. Intern seminar: What’s for dinner? The diet of white perch, striped bass and blue crabs. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Johnson, E.G. 2004. Invited presentation: Population dynamics and stock assessment of the blue crab in North Carolina. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Novillo, A. 2004. Intern seminar: Comparing behavior of hatchery and wild blue crabs in different habitats when a predator is introduced. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Y. Zohar. Invited Speaker. Update on recent BCARC progress in blue crab hatchery technolgoies. 30th Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition. Ocean City, Maryland, February 6-8, 2004. 2005 Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition:

18

Y. Zohar. Invited Speaker. “Update on recent BCARC progress in blue crab hatchery technolgoies.” 30th Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition (Ocean City, Maryland, February 2005). Seitz, R.D. 2005. The blue crab: Current status and current research in Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Chefs’ Symposium. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, VA. October. 2006 Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition: Y. Zohar. Invited Speaker. “Update on recent BCARC progress in blue crab hatchery technolgoies.” 31th Annual East Coast Commercial Fishermen’s & Aquaculture Trade Exposition (Ocean City, Maryland, January 2006). Long, W.C., and R.D. Seitz. 2006. Hypoxia and Predation: A tale of not-so-happy clams. Earthday Seminar Series, Department of Biology, Thomas Nelson Community College, Hampton, Virginia, February. Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, D.M. Lambert, and A. Lawless. 2006. Effects of shoreline development upon abundance, biomass, and diversity of Chesapeake Bay benthos and their predators. Living Shorelines Summit. Williamsburg, VA, December. Seitz, R.D., A. Lawless, and R.N. Lipcius. 2006. Benthic prey and fish population research in the Lynnhaven system. Lynnhaven River 2007 Public Symposium. Virginia Beach, VA, November. Seitz, R.D. 2006. Current Research on Enhancement of the Blue Crab in Chesapeake Bay: Habitat Considerations. Tidewater Rotary Club High School Course for Blue Crab and Blue Crab Fishery in Virginia week, Gloucester Pt., VA, June.

BCARC Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD: Aguilar, R. 2006. Female migration from mating areas to spawning grounds. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hines, A.H. 2006. Overview: Insights from two contrasting years (2002 and 2003) on blue crab ecology and potential for stock enhancement. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Young-Williams, A.C. 2006. Effects of size on survival and growth of hatchery-released crabs; effects of conditioning on aggressive and competitive behavior of hatchery-reared crabs. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.

19

2007 Andrews, O., Shi, Q. and J. Sook Chung (2007). The presence and role of trehalose in response of stress in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. 10th Undergraduate Symposium University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Baltimore. BCARC Annual Meeting Chung, J.S. (2007) Blue crab endocrinology: An introduction to ongoing studies, BCARC, COMB. Zmora, N. and J.S. Chung (2007) Vitellogenesis: A possible role for MIH in the regulation of vitellogenesis, BCARC, COMB. Bembe, S. and J.S. Chung (2007) Progress towards the characterization of a vitellogenin receptor gene(s), BCARC, COMB. Aguilar, R., E. Johnson, A. Hines, K. Chop, and K. Tenggardjaja. 2007. Population dynamics and demographics: Mark-recapture studies of blue crabs in a Chesapeake subestuary. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 11, 2007. Hines, A., E.G. Johnson, et al. 2007. Variation in survival, enhancement and production of small scale releases of hatchery juvenile crabs in upper Chesapeake Bay. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 11, 2007. Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines et al. 2007. Partitioning loss of juvenile hatchery-reared blue crabs into mortality and emigration components. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 11, 2007. Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines et al. 2007. Large-scale patterns of juvenile blue crab recruitment to nursery habitats in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 11, 2007.

Matthews, Tershara and Robin M. Overstreet. 2007 Update of blue crab parasites and diseases. Annual meeting of Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium, April 2007, UMBI Center of Marine Biotechnology, Baltimore, Maryland.

DiMaria, R. 2007. Chateau de Callinectes sapidus: design and field study of a passive collector for juvenile blue crabs. Intern presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, October 2007. Aguilar R., K. Chop, K. Tenggardja, E.G. Johnson, M.A. Kramer, A.H. Hines. 2007. Large-scale tagging of blue crabs in the Rhode River: cooperative field studies with local

20

watermen. Invited presentation. Annual Watermen’s Exposition, Ocean City, MD. January 27, 2007. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson et al. 2007. Blue crab stock enhancement – overview of field and release strategies. Invited presentation, Annual Watermen’s Expo, Ocean City, MD. January 27, 2007 2007 Hines, A. H., E.G. Johnson and R. Aguilar. 2007. Interview with MD Sea Grant writer for Chesapeake Quarterly for article on blue crabs. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson, J. Lamonaca, A. Young, and R. Aguilar. 2007. Booth presentation of blue crab stock enhancement and tagging program Watermen’s Expo, Ocean City, MD. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson et al. 2007. Blue crab stock enhancement – overview of field and release strategies. Invited presentation, Watermen’s Expo, Ocean City, MD. January 27, 2007. Aguilar R., K. Chop, K. Tenggardja, E.G. Johnson*, M.A. Kramer, A.H. Hines. 2007. Large-scale tagging of blue crabs in the Rhode River: cooperative field studies with local watermen. Invited presentation. Annual Watermen’s Exposition, Ocean City, MD. January 27, 2007. Johnson, E.G., D. Breitburg, A.H. Hines. 2007. Natural history and restoration of Chesapeake Bay osyters: Summary of ongoing research at SERC. Invited presentation. Southern Maryland Audobon Society, La Plata, MD. February 7, 2007. Long, W.C., R.D. Seitz. 2007. Hypoxia and Macoma balthica: Ecological effects on a key benthic infaunal species. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, December Seitz, R.D. 2007. Biological considerations and habitat tradeoffs. Living Shorelines publicc course. Ocean City, Maryland, April. Smith, A., R.D Seitz, and K. Knick. 2007. Density of the blue crab and its piscine predators in shallow habitats in the York and Rappahannock rivers. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium, Baltimore, Maryland, April. Hines, A.H. 2007. West-Rhode Riverkeeper meeting. Galesville, MD. Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines, J.L.D. Davis, A.C. Young, M.A. Kramer, M. Goodison, R. Aguilar. 2007. Assessing the feasibility of enhancing blue crab stocks in Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation. World Trade Center Institute, International Visitors Program, Delegation from Ecuador, Edgewater, MD. March 8, 2007.

21

Johnson, E.G. Blue crab research at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Hands-on demonstration to the children of SERC employees. SI Women’s Council: Take our daughters and sons to work day, SERC, Edgewater, MD, April 26, 2007. Johnson, E.G., Hines A.H., Kramer M.A., Aguilar, R., Goodison, M., Soulen H. Roberts P. 2007. “Crab release – Chesapeake Bay”, Aquakids™ Episode 2007-17. Hines, A.H. 2007. Living on the edge: SERC’s focus on people in coastal ecosystems. Keynote talk, anniversary celebration. Captain Salem Avery House, Shady Side, MD. Hines, A.H. 2007. Coastal research. North Carolina Coastal Federation. Morehead City, NC. Hines, A.H. 2007. Blue crab stock enhancement and habitat requirements. Duke University Marine Lab, Beaufort, NC. Hines, A. H., E.G. Johnson and R. Aguilar. 2007. Interview on blue crab stock enhancement project with Rona Kobell of Baltimore Sun. Hines A.H., E.G. Johnson, R. Aguilar. 2007. Article on blue crab female migration and spatial management in the Washington Post “Making a path for a declining crab population” November 17, 2007. Kramer, M.A., A. Young, and R. Aguilar. 2007. Booth presentation of blue crab stock enhancement and tagging program. Maryland Maritime Heritage Festival, Annapolis, MD. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson, R. Aguilar, A.C.Young-Williams, M.A. Kramer, and M. Goodison. 2007. Blue crab research at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center: Annual workshop exchange for local and regional watermen. Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines, et al. 2007. Field assessment of the feasibility of enhancing blue crab and oyster stocks in Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation and hands-on demonstration to a student group of 49 IB students from Robert E Lee High School, Edgewater, MD, September 26, 2007. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD: Johnson, E.G. and nine co-authors. 2008. Large-scale patterns of blue crab distribution and abundance in upper Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 25, 2008. Aguilar, R., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, P.M. Roberts, M.R. Goodison, and M.A. Kramer. 2008. Fishery characterization, exploitation and population size of blue crabs Callinectes sapidus in a subestuary of Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation. Blue Crab Advanced

22

Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 25, 2008. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson and 11 co-authors. 2008. Field assessment of the feasibility of enhancing blue crab stock in Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 25, 2008. Kramer, M.A., A.H. Hines, E.G. Johnson, L. Nye, K. Ruffin. 2008. Annual, seasonal and size- dependent patterns of juvenile blue crab Callinectes sapidus mortality in upper Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 25, 2008. Roberts, P.M., R. Aguilar, and E.G. Johnson. 2008. Estimating tag-induced mortality and retention of externally tagged blue crabs Callinectes sapidus. Contributed paper. Invited presentation. Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium Workshop, Center of Marine Biotechnology, Baltimore, MD, April 25, 2008.

Chung, J.S. (2008) Hormonal cascade during ecdysis: potential applications in crustacean aquaculture, April 30, BCARC, COMB

Zmora, N. and J. Sook Chung (2008) Reproductive endocrinology of the blue crab: molt inhibiting hormone acts as a vitellogenesis stimulating hormone, April 30, BCARC, COMB

Bembe, S. and J. Sook Chung (2008) Light, Temperature, Action: The induction of spawning in the blue crabs, April 29, BCARC, COMB.

Overstreet, Robin M. 2008 update of blue crab parasites and diseases. Annual meeting of Blue Crab Advanced Research Consortium, 29-30 April 2008, UMBI Center of Marine Biotechnology, Baltimore, Maryland.

Overstreet, Robin. Research Activities. Innovation Lifetime Achievement Award. Lives Enriched Through Their Endeavors: Research and Scholarship (LETTERS) Day 2008, 31 October 2008, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Grow, J.N. 2008. Effects of shoreline type on juvenile blue crab food availability and predator abundance in the South River. Intern presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, August 7, 2008. Majoris, J. 2008. The effect of shoreline type on growth and diet of juvenile blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Intern presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, August 7, 2008.

23

Saha, N. 2008. Prey preference and optimal foraging of juvenile blue crabs on bivalve prey. Intern presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, August 14, 2008. Carlozo, N. 2008. Effect of air exposure on mortality and physiology of the adult blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Intern presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, November, 2008. Blake, C. 2008. Risk-sensitive foraging behavior in wild and hatchery-raised blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). Intern presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, November, 2008. Pittfield, T. 2008. A fishery independent study on migration depth of mature female blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Intern presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, December 4, 2008. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson, M. Kramer, H. Soulen, R. DiMaria. 2008. Booth presentation of blue crab stock enhancement and tagging program Watermen’s Expo, Ocean City, MD. Johnson, E.G. 2008. Chesapeake Bay oysters: natural history, restoration and the potential introduction of C. ariakensis. 2008. Invited presentation. Southern Maryland Coastal Conservation Association, Hughesville, MD, February 4, 2008. Hines, A.H. and G. Ruiz. 2008. Invasive species research at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center: A global perspective. Invited presentation. Alberg30 Sailing Club, Annapolis, MD, February 9, 2008. Johnson, E.G. and eight co-authors. 2008. Testing the feasibility of enhancing blue crab stocks in Chesapeake Bay. 2008. Invited presentation. Alberg30 Sailing Club, Annapolis, MD, February 9, 2008. Hines, A.H. and Johnson, E.G. 2008. “Blue Crab Blues” Blue crab research featured on Maryland Public Television, Outdoors Maryland, Episode 2002, February 19, 2008. Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines and seven co-authors. 2008. Rebuilding blue crab stocks through hatchery-based enhancement: A feasible approach? Invited presentation. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Evening Lecture Series, Edgewater, MD, March 19, 2008. Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson, H. Soulen, M. Kramer, M. Goodison, P. Roberts. 2008. “Fish and Invertebrate Ecology laboratory Research” SERC Annual Open House for Nature, Edgewater, MD, May 10, 2008.

24

Johnson, E.G., R. Aguilar, P. Roberts, M. Kramer. 2008. “Tracking methods monitor blue crab” Feature story on Discovery Channel News, May 15, 2008. Johnson, E.G. and 11 co-authors. 2008. Field assessment of the feasibility of enhancing blue crab stock in Chesapeake Bay. Invited presentation., Maryland Sea Grant Summer Seminar Series, Chesapeake Bay Laboratory, Solomons, MD, June 13, 2008. Johnson, E.G. and 11 co-authors 2008. Blue crab research at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Invited presentation and hands-on demonstration to the Multicultural Students at Sea Together (MAST) Program at Hampton University, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, June 30, 2008. Johnson, E.G. 2008. How to give an effective scientific presentation. Invited presentation. SERC Internship Program, SERC, Edgewater, MD. July 16, 2008. Johnson, E.G. 2008. Status of the blue crab stock in Chesapeake Bay: Current problems and innovative solutions. Invited presentation., Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen’s Association, Westminster, MD, August 7, 2008. Johnson, E.G. 2008. Ecosystems, Food Webs, and Human Impacts on Chesapeake Bay. Invited lecture to 7th grade science students. School of the Incarnation, Gambrills, MD, September 19, 2008. Breitburg, D.L., A.H. Hines, E.G. Johnson, G. Ruiz, R. Osman. 2008. Fisheries from an ecological perspective: Emphasis on strong, complementary field experiments, laboratory experiments, field sampling and models. Invited presentation. Maryland Department of Natural Resources and The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center: Matching Expertise, Interests and Needs for Chesapeake Bay Management, Edgewater, MD, October 8, 2008. Johnson, E.G. 2008. Marine biologists: What do they do and how do I become one? Annual career fair for 7-8th grade students. School of the Incarnation, Gambrills, MD, October 10, 2008. Johnson, E.G. and 11 co-authors 2008. Blue crab research at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Invited presentation and hands-on demonstration to the Chesapeake Research Consortium Fellows, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, October 27, 2008.

25

1

Appendix III: BCARC Publications Available On-Line

BCARC Publications

The following list contains 50 selected publications, or manuscripts in press or review, that

derived directly from the congressional funding of the BCARC Consortium project or utilized

BCARC results/information (wholly or in part). These publications address topics including blue

crab stock assessment, reproductive biology, life-stage specific ecology and dynamics, habitat

and prey assessments, migration, genetic variation, culture, endocrinology, disease, and stock

enhancement approaches. PDF versions of the publications on this list have been provided by the

BCARC for the review committee. The list and accompanying PDF files are intended to convey

the breadth of the BCARC regional and national impact of the program since its inception in

2002.

PDF Files of Selected Publications and Manuscripts Containing BCARC Research:

(Files are named using first author name, year, journal and a short descriptive phrase)

2002

Clark, K. G.M. Ruiz, and A.H. Hines. 2002. Diel variation in predator abundance, predation risk

and prey distribution in shallow-water estuarine habitats. Journal of Experimental

Marine Biology and Ecology 287:37-55.

Kendall, M.S., D.L. Wolcott, T.G. Wolcott, and A.H. Hines. 2002. Influence of male size and

mating history on sperm content of ejaculates of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus.

Marine Ecology Progress Series 230:235-240.

Secor, D., A. Hines, and A. Place. 2002. Japanese hatchery-based stock enhancement: Lessons

for the Chesapeake Bay blue crab. Publication No. UM-SG-TS-2002-02, Maryland Sea

Grant, 46 p.

2003

Lipcius, R.N. 2003. Summary of session: Ecology of early benthic juveniles. Bulletin of

Marine Science 72: 367-370.

Lipcius, R.N., W.T. Stockhausen, R.D. Seitz and P.J. Geer. 2003. Spatial dynamics and value

of a marine protected area and corridor for the blue crab spawning stock in Chesapeake

Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 453-470.

Peterson, C.E. and R.N. Lipcius. 2003. Conceptual progress towards predicting quantitative

ecosystem benefits of ecological restorations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264: 297-

307.

Seitz, R.D., L.S. Marshall Jr., A.H. Hines, and K.L. Clark. 2003. Effects of hypoxia on predator-

prey dynamics of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and the Baltic clam (Macoma

balthica) in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 257:179-188.

Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, W.T. Stockhausen, K.A. Delano, M.S. Seebo and P.D. Gerdes. 2003.

Potential bottom-up control of blue crab distribution at various spatial scales. Bulletin of

Marine Science 72: 471-490.

Stockhausen, W.T. and R.N. Lipcius. 2003. Simulated effects of seagrass loss and restoration

on settlement and recruitment of blue crab postlarvae and juveniles in the York River,

Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 72: 409-422.

Turner, H.V., D.L. Wolcott, T.G. Wolcott, and A.H. Hines. 2003. Post-mating behavior,

intramolt growth, and onset of migration to Chesapeake Bay spawning grounds by adult

female blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology

and Ecology 295:107-130.

2

2004

Davis J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, R. Aguilar, B. L. Carswell, M. R. Goodison, A. H. Hines,

M. A. Kramer, Y. Zohar, and O. Zmora. 2004. Differences between hatchery-raised and

wild blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus): Implications for stock enhancement potential.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:1-14.

Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and O. Zmora. 2004. Fishery and population

studies: Comparing two types of internal tags in juvenile blue crabs. Fisheries Research

67: 265-274.

Eggleston, D.B., E.G. Johnson, and J.E. Hightower. 2004. Population Dynamics and Stock

Assessment of the Blue Crab in North Carolina. Final Report for Contracts 99-FEG-10

and 00-FEG-11 to the NC Fishery Resource Grant Program (FRG), NC Sea Grant,

Raleigh, NC. 230 pp.

2005

Aguilar, R., A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and R.N. Lipcius. 2005.

Migration of mature female blue crabs: seasonal timing and route in Chesapeake Bay.

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:117-128.

Davis, J.L.D., M.G. Eckert-Mills, A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and Y. Zohar. 2005.

Morphological conditioning of a hatchery-raised invertebrate, Callinectes sapidus, to

improve survivorship after release. Aquaculture 243:147-158.

Davis, J.L.D., A.C. Young-Williams, A.H. Hines, and Y. Zohar. 2005. Assessing the potential

for stock enhancement in the case of the Chesapeake Bay blue crab, Callinectes sapidus.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 62:109-122.

King, R.S., A.H. Hines, F.D. Craige, and S. Grap. 2005. Regional, watershed and local correlates

of blue crabs and bivalves in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, USA. Journal of

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:101-116.

Kuhlmann, M.L. and A.H. Hines 2005. Density-dependent predation by blue crabs in natural

prey populations of infaunal bivalves: experimental tests and behavioral mechanisms.

Marine Ecology Progress Series 295:215-228.

Lipcius, R.N., Seitz, R.D., Seebo, M.S., and Colon-Carrion, D. 2005a. Density, abundance and

survival of the blue crab in seagrass and unstructured salt marsh nurseries of Chesapeake

Bay. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319: 57-68.

Motz Carver, A., T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and A.H. Hines. 2005. Unnatural selections:

effects of a male-focused size-selective fishery on reproductive potential of a blue crab

population. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:29-41.

Place, A. R., Feng, X., Steve, C. R., Fourcade, H. M., and Boore, J. L. (2005). Genetic Markers

in Blue Crabs (Callinectes sapidus) II: Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequence and

Characterization of Genetic Variation. J. Exper. Marine Biol. Ecol. 319: 15-27.

Rome, M.S., A.C. Young-William, G.R. Davis, and A.H. Hines. 2005. Winter mortality of

Chesapeake blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology

and Ecology 319:129-145.

Seitz, R.D. 2005. Introduction to the proceedings of the 2003 Blue Crab Symposium: Genetics,

ecology, and conservation of the blue crab. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and

Ecology 319: 1-2.

Seitz, R.D., Lipcius, R.N. and Seebo, M.S. 2005. Food availability and growth of the blue crab in

seagrass and unvegetated nurseries of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Experimental Marine

Biology and Ecology 319: 57-68.

3

Steven, C. R., Hill, J., Masters, B., and Place, A. R. 2005. Genetic markers in blue crabs

(Callinectes sapidus) I: characterization of microsatellite markers. J. Exper. Marine Biol.

Ecol 319: 3-14.

Zmora, O., Findiesen, A., Stubblefield, J., Frenkel, V., and Zohar, Y. 2005. First hatchery mass

production of blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) juveniles. Aquaculture 244: 129-139.

2006

Chung, J.S., Wilcockson, D.C. Zmora, N. Zohar, Y. Dircksen, H. and Webster, S.G. 2006.

Identification and developmental expression of mRNAs encoding crustacean cardioactive

peptide (CCAP) in decapod crustaceans. J Exp Biol. 209: 3862-72.

deRivera, C.E., G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, and P.R. Jivoff. 2006. Biotic resistance to invasion:

Native predator limits abundance and distribution of an introduced crab. Ecology 86:

3364-3376.

Lambert, D.M., J.M. Hoenig and R.N. Lipcius. 2006. Tag-return estimation of annual and semi-

annual survival rates of adult female blue crabs. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 135: 1592-1603.

Lambert, D.M., R.N. Lipcius and J.M. Hoenig. 2006. Assessing effectiveness of the blue crab

spawning stock sanctuary in Chesapeake Bay using tag-return methodology. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 321: 215-225.

Ma, H. and Overstreet, R.M. 2006. Two new species of Epistylis (Ciliophora: Peritrichida) on

blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Eukaryotic

Microbiology 53(2): 85-95.

Schreiber, S.J., R.N. Lipcius, R.D. Seitz, and W.C. Long. 2006. Dancing between the devil and

the deep blue sea: the stabilizing effect of enemy-free sinks and victimless sinks. Oikos

113: 67-81.

Seitz, R.D., R.N. Lipcius, N.H. Olmstead, M.S. Seebo, and D.M. Lambert. 2006. Influence of

shallow-water habitats and shoreline development upon abundance, biomass, and

diversity of Chesapeake Bay Benthos and their predators. Marine Ecology Progress

Series 326: 11-26.

2007

Lipcius, R.N., Eggleston, D.B., Heck, K.L., Seitz, R.D. and Van Montfrans, J. 2007. Post-

settlement abundance, survival and growth of postlarvae and young juvenile blue crabs in

nursery habitats. pp. 536-566. In: Biology and Management of the Blue Crab (V.

Kennedy and E. Cronin, Eds.). University of Maryland Sea Grant Press.

(Note: the chapter above by Lipcius et. al. was inadvertently left off the original BCARC

publications list submitted to DNR on December 22, 2007.)

Zmora, N., Trant, J., Chan, S.-M., Chung, J.S. 2007. Vitellogenin and its mRNA during ovarian

development in the female blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: gene expression, synthesis,

transport and cleavage. Biology of Reproduction 77:138-146.

2008

Aguilar, R., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, and M.R. Goodison. 2008. Importance of

blue crab life history for stock enhancement and spatial management of the fishery in

Chesapeake Bay. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 117-124.

Chung, J.S. (2008) A trehalose 6-phosphate synthase gene of the hemocytes of the blue crab,

Callinectes sapidus: the molecular structure, the expression, its enzyme activity and

relationship to hemolymph trehalose levels. Saline Systems (in press)

4

Chung, J.S. and N. Zmora (2008). Functional studies of crustacean hyperglycemic hormones

(CHHs) of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus: the expression and release of CHH in

eyestalk and pericardial organ in response to environmental stress. FEBS Journal 275,

693-704.

Eggleston, D.B., E.G. Johnson, G.T. Kellison, G.R. Plaia, and C. Huggett. 2008. Pilot evaluation

of early juvenile blue crab stock enhancement using a replicated BACI design. Reviews

in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 91-100.

Hines, A.H., E.G. Johnson, A.C.Young, R. Aguilar, M.A. Kramer, M. Goodison, O. Zmora, and

Y. Zohar. 2008. Release strategies for estuarine species with complex migratory life

cycles: Stock enhancement of Chesapeake blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Reviews in

Fisheries Science 16 (1): 175-185.

Johnson, E.G., A.H. Hines, M.A. Kramer, and A. Young. 2008. Importance of season and size of

release to stocking success for the blue crab in Chesapeake Bay. Reviews in Fisheries

Science 16 (1): 243-253.

Katayama H. and J.S Chung (2008). The specific binding sites of eyestalk- and pericardial organ-

crustacean hyperglycaemic hormones (CHHs) in multiple tissues of the blue crab, Callinectes

sapidus. J Exp Biol (in press)

Lipcius, R.N., D.B. Eggleston, S.J. Schreiber, R.D. Seitz, J. Shen, M. Sisson, W.T. Stockhausen,

and H.V. Wang. 2008. Metapopulation connectivity and stock enhancement of marine

species. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16: 101-110.

Long, W.C., and R.D. Seitz. 2008. Trophic interactions under stress: hypoxia enhances foraging

in an estuarine food web. Marine Ecology Progress Series 362: 59-68.

Long, W.C., B.J. Brylawski, and R.D. Seitz. 2008. Behavioral effects of low dissolved oxygen

on the bivalve Macoma balthica. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

359: 34-39.

Seitz, R., R. Lipcius, K. Knick, M. Seebo, and W.C. Long. 2008. Stock enhancement and

ecosystem carrying capacity in blue crab nursery habitats of Chesapeake Bay. Reviews

in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 329-337.

Young, A., E.G. Johnson, A.H. Hines, J. Davis, O. Zmora, and Y. Zohar. 2008. Do hatchery

reared blue crabs differ from wild crabs, and does it matter? Reviews in Fisheries Science

16 (1): 254-261.

Zohar, Y; A.H. Hines; O. Zmora; E.G. Johnson; R.N. Lipcius; R.D. Seitz; D.B.

Eggleston; A.R. Place; E.J. Schott; J.D. Stubblefield; J.S. Chung. 2008. The

Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus): A Multidisciplinary Approach to

Responsible Stock Replenishment. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16 (1): 24-34.

2009

Johnson, E.G., Hines, A.H., Kramer, M. and A. Young. Growth and survival of the blue crab in

upper Chesapeake Bay: Implications for hatchery-based restocking. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. (in review).

(Note: the manuscript above by Johnson et. al. was inadvertently left off the original

BCARC publications list submitted to DNR on December 22, 2007.)

briefing book - andrew loftusandrewloftus.com/reports/blue crab review/blue crab review briefing...

Documents