nena masthead
NENA Home Staff & Editors For Readers For Authors

Observations of Juvenile Lobsters, Homarus americanus, on a Rock-Reef in Long Island Sound
Renee Mercaldo-Allen, Ronald Goldberg, Paul E. Clark, and Catherine A. Kuropat

Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 18, Issue 1 (2011): 45–60

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)

 

Access Journal Content

Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.



Current Issue: Vol. 30 (3)
NENA 30(3)

Check out NENA's latest Monograph:

Monograph 22
NENA monograph 22

All Regular Issues

Monographs

Special Issues

 

submit

 

subscribe

 

JSTOR logoClarivate logoWeb of science logoBioOne logo EbscoHOST logoProQuest logo

2011 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 18(1):45–60 Observations of Juvenile Lobsters, Homarus americanus, on a Rock-Reef in Long Island Sound Renee Mercaldo-Allen1,*, Ronald Goldberg1, Paul E. Clark1, and Catherine A. Kuropat1 Abstract - Movements of juvenile Homarus americanus (American Lobster; hereafter lobster) on and around a naturally occurring rock reef were monitored over a 3-year period. Lobsters were sampled with baited traps deployed at each of ten sites. Catch-perunit- effort (CPUE) and number of lobsters collected per trap haul was calculated for each sampling event. Physical habitat, visually characterized by underwater video and diver observations, differed among sites. Lobster CPUE was significantly greater at rocky sites (>70% density of cobble and/or boulder) containing complex structure, vertical relief from the seafloor, and colonies of macroalgae, sponge, and hydroids. Lobster CPUE was highest from late June to mid-July. Lobsters ranged from 18 to 82 mm carapace length (CL), with 90.7% of tagged lobsters measuring between 30 to 60 mm CL. Relative lobster abundance remained similar over the course of the study. Catch data were kriged to illustrate spatial patterns of distribution. Over the study period, a total of 934 lobsters were tagged and 66 were recaptured, for an overall recapture rate of 7.1%. The majority of recaptured animals (88%) were found at the original tagging site or adjacent sites, with one lobster remaining at liberty for 397 days. Most juvenile lobsters showed fidelity to their initial site of capture on a small, relatively isolated patch of rock-reef habitat in the central basin of Long Island Sound. Introduction Homarus americanus H. Milne-Edwards (American Lobster; hereafter lobster) is a commercially and recreationally important decapod crustacean with a range from Labrador to North Carolina (Holthuis 1991). Long Island Sound is at the southern end of the inshore shallow-water distribution for this species and has historically supported a commercial fishery. During fall of 1999, a largescale mortality of Long Island Sound lobsters resulted in a significant population decline (CT DEP 2000). Annual harvests from the commercial lobster fishery currently remain well below pre-mortality levels (Giannini and Howell 2007). Research efforts, initiated in response to the die-off, suggest that lobsters were weakened by adverse environmental conditions (e.g., high seawater temperatures, low dissolved oxygen levels, elevated sulfide, and/or ammonia), and may have become susceptible to infectious pathogens (Pearce and Balcom 2005). This widespread mortality and subsequent economic loss in Long Island Sound has highlighted the need for a better understanding of the habitat requirements of lobsters in this region and their potential for stock recovery. 1NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Milford Laboratory, 212 Rogers Avenue, Milford, CT 06460. *Corresponding author - renee.mercaldo-allen@ noaa.gov. 46 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 The role of shelter-rich habitat in the benthic ecology of the American Lobster has been well described (see reviews by Barshaw and Lavalli 1988, Cooper and Uzmann 1980, Lawton and Lavalli 1995, Mercaldo-Allen and Kuropat 1994). Rock-reef habitats, comprised of cobble and boulders, provide multi-dimensional, shelter-rich environments for lobsters in coastal southern New England (Steimle and Zetlin 2000) at all ontogenetic stages (Cobb et al. 1999). This habitat may be critical for lobster survival during the early years of life, when recruitment and abundance are closely tied to shelter availability (Cobb et al. 1999, Langton et al. 1996, Wahle 1992, Wahle and Incze 1997, Wahle and Steneck 1991). Composition of substrate along the seafloor determines structural complexity and shelter availability within habitats and can influence the density, biomass, and size structure of lobster populations (Beck 1995, Hudon 1987, Incze and Wahle 1991, Wahle 1993, Wahle and Steneck 1991). Studies have documented distribution, abundance, and movement of lobsters within Long Island Sound (DRS 2005, 2006; Howell et al. 2005; Lund et al. 1973), but specific fine-scale habitat use by juvenile lobsters in this region has not been well studied. Within the central basin of Long Island Sound, rock-reef habitat occurs in isolated patches and constitutes a relatively small portion of the overall available seafloor (Poppe et al. 2000). Discrete patches of shelter-rich habitat scattered amid featureless bottom have been shown to harbor resident populations of juvenile lobsters (Briggs and Zawacki 1974). The data presented here were collected coincidentally during a project investigating finfish settlement on a small reef in the central basin of Long Island Sound. The presence of significant numbers of juvenile lobsters in this habitat led us to initiate a tagging study to determine site fidelity and relative lobster abundance within this small, relatively isolated patch of rock-reef habitat. Methods Study area Our study area was a natural rock and cobble reef, located in Long Island Sound off the coast of Milford, CT near Charles Island at approximately 41°11'13.73"N and 73°3'48.65"W (Fig. 1). The reef covers an area of 0.25 km2, is discontinuous, and varies in rock size and density. Seawater depth varies from 3 to 4 m at low tide, with a 2-m tidal range, and is often highly turbid from resuspension of sediments by waves and tidal currents. Rock size was classified nominally with the Udden-Wentworth grain-size scale (Lewis and McConchie 1994) as pebbles (4–65 mm), cobble (>65–250 mm), and boulders (>250 mm–1 m). Physical characteristics of each site were assessed from Smith-McIntyre benthic grab samples, SCUBA diver observation, and from video and still images. Sediment samples from the benthic grab were sieved and characterized grossly. The Sea Boss System (Blackwood et al. 2000), developed and operated by the United States Geological Survey, Woods Hole Science Center, provided video and still seafloor images. Descriptions of sites were based on evaluations of images from still photos and video footage. 2011 R. Mercaldo-Allen, R. Goldberg, P.E. Clark, and C.A. Kuropat 47 Figure 1. The rock-reef study and study sites located off Charles Island on the coast of Milford, CT in the central basin of Long Island Sound. Benthic substrate on the study sites was characterized as: 70% boulder at sites 4, 5, and 10; < 50% boulder at site 3; 30% cobble at site 2 and 10% cobble at site 7; featureless silt-sand at sites 1, 6, and 8; and mud at site 9. 48 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 Bottom sediments in the study area ranged from all silt-clay to a mixture of silt-clay and sand. Sediment was covered with discontinuous patches of shell hash or pebbles and a fine silt layer. Reef sites 4, 5, and 10 were composed of over 70% dense boulder cover, providing vertical relief up to 1 m off the seafloor. Cobble and boulder at these sites were heavily encrusted with epibiotic growth including seaweed, sponges, hydroids, and bryozoans. Density of boulder cover at site 3 was less than 50%. At sites 2 and 7, only 30% and 10% of the bottom, respectively, was covered by cobble. Sites 1, 6, and 8 were characterized by a featureless silt-sand bottom covered with high densities of Crepidula fornicata L., shell hash, and low vertical relief. Site 9 (2004 and 2005 only) was primarily a mud bottom. Ten sites were established, with five located on reef structure (sites 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10) and five sites situated in areas with little to no reef structure (sites 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9). Sites were marked with a cinder block and attached buoy, and latitude and longitude were recorded using shipboard GPS. During 2006, site 9 was dropped from the study to accommodate commercial clamming activities. Sampling took place from either the Milford Laboratory’s 15-m NOAA R/V Victor Loosanoff or a smaller 7-m vessel. Lobster sampling Sampling was conducted using commercially available, wire-frame 3-mm nylon mesh fish traps. The traps measured 23 × 23 × 46 cm and contained no escape vents. Each double-entry single-chambered trap had a flexible 25-mmdiameter ring entrance opening at each end and a 5-kg steel plate along the base to assure stability. Three traps were set at each site in 2004. Since this study was initially designed to sample young fish, the presence of lobsters in the traps was unexpected. For the second and third study year, we increased sampling effort from 3 to 6 traps per site. Prior to deployment, traps were baited with clam meats. Traps were deployed from June through October of 2004, June through September 2005, and May through November 2006. Sampling periods varied with study year as a result of vessel availability and weather conditions. Traps were checked daily, although infrequently, traps soaked for more than a week due to weather. All sampling was conducted during daylight hours between 0800 and 1400 h. A total of 46, 41, and 51 sampling trips were completed in 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively. Upon retrieval, lobsters were removed from a trap, carapace length (CL) was measured to the nearest millimeter with a caliper, and sex was noted. Lobsters >30 mm were marked with a stainless steel sphyrion anchor-style tag (Floy Tag and MFG., Inc.) made of polyolefin tubing. Uniquely numbered tags were inserted into the dorsal musculature between the cephalothorax and the first abdominal segment, to one side of the midline, using the tip of a 5-cc (21 gauge × 1.5") disposable syringe (Smith et al. 2001) to allow identification and tracking of individual animals. Sphyrion tags have been widely used in mark-recapture 2011 R. Mercaldo-Allen, R. Goldberg, P.E. Clark, and C.A. Kuropat 49 studies with American Lobsters (e.g., Campbell 1989, Scarratt and Elson 1965). However, tag-retention rates vary from 10 to 36%, as tags can be lost during molting (Cooper 1970, Ennis 1986). Lobsters which were damaged or had recently molted were released without tagging. Animals which measured <30 mm in size were considered too small to tag and were also released. Sampling was restricted to the reef study area, and recaptures outside this zone included only incidental returns reported by commercial lobstermen. Near-bottom seawater temperature (°C), salinity (PSU), and dissolved oxygen (mg/L) were measured with a handheld YSI meter (model 88) at two sites (6 and 10) during each sampling trip. An automated water temperature logger (Onset HOBO Water Temp Pro) was attached to the top of one trap deployed at site 5 during the 2005 and 2006 sampling seasons. Statistical procedures Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) was calculated as number of lobsters caught per individual trap haul. The CPUE data could not be transformed to meet ANOVA assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, so a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA on ranks was used. Tukey’s multiple comparisons were used for post-hoc testing to identify differences in relative lobster abundance among sites within each year. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between lobster CPUE and both trap soak time and weekly mean seawater temperature. Spatial extrapolations of lobster distribution and relative abundance were generated by ordinary kriging for 2004 and 2005, using the Geospatial Analyst extension of ARC GIS 9.2 software. Use of a spherical model was validated by estimation of model strength, based on prediction-error plots generated by the software. Results Abundance, distribution, and size composition Size-frequency distributions for lobsters at each study site by year are shown in Table 1. The smallest lobsters collected in our traps measured 18 mm CL—a size at which they transition from a shelter-dependent lifestyle to a free-roaming existence (Hudon 1987, Lawton 1987, Lawton and Lavalli 1995). Due to their cryptic nature and strong association with the benthos, lobsters below this size have not been successfully sampled by trapping (Sclafani and Smith 2003). Our traps collected primarily juvenile lobsters (30 to 60 mm CL); however, occasionally larger Lobsters entered the traps due to the flexibility of the traps. Lobster CPUE for each site by year is shown in Figure 2. In all three years, lobsters were significantly more abundant at reef sites 4 and 5 compared to non-reef sites 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 (H = 131.602 [2004], H = 214.882 [2005], H = 196.416 [2006], df = 9, P < 0.001). There were no differences in lobster abundance between reef sites 4, 5, and 10 in all years. Lobsters were significantly more abundant at reef sites 4 and 5 than at non-reef site 6 during 2004 50 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 and 2006. Lobsters were more abundant at reef site 4 than at non-reef site 3 in all three years. Significantly more lobsters were found at reef site 5 compared to non-reef site 3 during 2005. Reef site 10 had significantly more lobsters than non-reef site 9 during 2005. Neither trap soak time (r = 0.025, P = 0.0409) or weekly mean seawater temperature (r = -0.033, P = 0.0154) correlated significantly with lobster CPUE. Lobster CPUE was highest from late June to early July in all years. Ambient seawater temperatures and Lobster abundance for each week of sampling by year are also shown in Figure 3. Seawater temperatures reached maximum values between late July and early August. Near-bottom salinity ranged from 24 to 29 PSU, and dissolved oxygen levels never dropped below saturation. Size-frequency distribution for all study years combined is shown in Figure 4. The majority of lobsters measured between 30 and 60 mm CL, while the total size distribution ranged from 17.9 to 82.4 mm CL. Sex ratios (female:male) measured 1.02 for 2004 and 2005 and 0.85 for 2006. Ordinary kriging of Lobster CPUE data illustrates spatially extrapolated lobster abundance in the vicinity of the reef for 2004 and 2005 (Fig. 5; the 2006 Table 1. Size (mm CL)-frequency distributions for American Lobsters collected from sites 1–10 during 2004, 2005, and 2006. ND indicates no data. Site Year CL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2004 11–20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 21–30 0 2 3 13 4 3 3 4 3 1 31–40 2 3 6 31 22 3 3 11 2 10 41–50 2 2 8 32 15 6 1 2 3 6 51–60 0 4 1 32 14 2 0 1 4 6 61–70 1 1 1 9 3 0 0 0 3 0 71–80 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 81–90 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 1 8 19 13 7 3 1 5 7 2005 11–20 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21–30 3 3 1 6 8 9 3 3 1 6 31–40 5 7 7 28 40 19 3 9 3 23 41–50 7 9 13 40 41 11 3 4 2 16 51–60 1 7 10 37 16 5 3 2 2 11 61–70 1 2 2 10 1 1 0 0 2 3 71–80 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2006 11–20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ND 0 21–30 0 0 5 3 4 2 3 2 ND 4 31–40 2 5 8 33 30 13 5 5 ND 14 41–50 4 7 9 27 30 9 6 8 ND 16 51–60 0 3 5 24 18 1 5 2 ND 13 61–70 1 0 3 4 2 1 1 0 ND 1 71–80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 2011 R. Mercaldo-Allen, R. Goldberg, P.E. Clark, and C.A. Kuropat 51 Figure 2. Comparison of lobster CPUE (catch/trap haul) at the ten sampling sites is shown for each year of the study (2004, 2005, and 2006). Mean CPUE are plotted with error bars representing standard error. Common superscript letters above error bars denote statistically similar groups (P > 0.05). ND indicates no data. 52 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 Figure 3. Lobster CPUE (catch/trap haul) versus bottom seawater temperatures over the sampling season for each study year (2004, 2005, and 2006). Solid black circles connected by lines represent temperature. ND indicates no data were collected during that month. data was not included since site 9 was dropped). Lobsters were most abundant on the eastern limb of the reef, corresponding generally to the darker bands on the charts near sites 4, 5, and 10. These sites had the highest density of cobble and boulder covered with epifauna and represented the greatest habitat complexity. Fewer lobsters were sampled at all other sites that had lower densities of cobble and boulders. 2011 R. Mercaldo-Allen, R. Goldberg, P.E. Clark, and C.A. Kuropat 53 Mark-recapture Table 2 shows mark-recapture data for 2004, 2005, and 2006. A total of 934 lobsters were tagged. During 2004, 19 of 279 tagged lobsters were recaptured after remaining at liberty from 4 to 105 days. Seventeen of these lobsters were recaptured at the original tagging site, and two Lobsters were recaptured twice. During 2005, 28 of 368 lobsters were recaptured after 5 to 67 days at liberty. Twenty-four were recaptured at the tagging site, and one lobster was recaptured twice. Nineteen of 287 were recaptured in 2006 with 17 recurring at the original tagging location, and days at liberty ranged from 1 to 397. Over the entire study, most of the recaptured lobsters (88%) were found at or adjacent to their original tagging sites. Among eight lobsters tagged during 2004 and 2005 and recaptured 1 year later, six were collected at their tagging sites. Discussion Traps have limitations as quantitative sampling devices for lobsters. The probability that a lobster will enter a trap varies with molt stage, reproductive cycle, trap design, gear saturation, choice of bait, gender, behavioral interactions, size, lunar and diurnal cycles, temperature, and hydrographic conditions (Jury et al. 2001, Miller 1990). Underwater observations show that Figure 4. Size-frequency distribution of lobsters collected at the ten sampling sites from 2004 through 2006. No data was available from site 9 during 2006. 54 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 Figure 5. Extrapolated geospatial patterns of distribution and abundance, based on ordinary kriging of the total number of American Lobsters sampled for 2004 and 2005, at each of the 10 sampling locations. Color gradations indicate the model estimate of the relative number of lobsters in that band. Scale values denote the largest number of lobsters in each band. 2011 R. Mercaldo-Allen, R. Goldberg, P.E. Clark, and C.A. Kuropat 55 many more lobsters approach a trap than actually enter and that trap catches may underestimate true population density of lobsters in the trapping area (Jury et al. 2001). Estimates of CPUE may be affected by undetected movement of small lobsters in and out of traps. Despite these shortcomings, traps offer an inexpensive, easily deployed method of continuous sampling that allows a relative assessment of population dynamics in a discrete area (Dunnington et al. 2005). Although a trap-based lobster CPUE does not represent an absolute measure of lobster density (Jury et al. 2001), it does provide an index of relative abundance (Scheirer et al. 2004). We found higher relative abundance of lobsters on this relatively isolated complex rock habitat as compared to adjacent areas with less structure. The majority of lobsters were collected (66% of all captured and 71% of those recaptured) from two sites with the highest concentrations of cobble and boulder substrate. Significantly fewer lobsters were found on open silt-clay or sand bottom locations having little cobble or boulder. Kriging of the CPUE data illustrates consistency of this trend during 2004 and 2005, where the highest concentrations of lobsters were associated with high rock density. The limited availability of Table 2. Lobster size (mm CL)-frequency distributions for tagged and recaptured lobsters collected from sites 1–10 during 2004, 2005, and 2006. ND indicates no data. Year Lobster size (CL) Number tagged Number recaptured Recapture rate (%) 2004 21–30 21 0 31–40 89 0 41–50 75 5 51–60 62 10 61–70 17 2 71–80 9 2 81–90 2 0 ND 4 - Total 279 19 6.8 2005 21–30 0 0 31–40 125 1 41–50 135 13 51–60 84 12 61–70 19 2 71–80 2 0 ND 3 - Total 368 28 7.6 2006 21–30 1 0 31–40 102 4 41–50 103 4 51–60 65 9 61–70 13 2 71–80 0 0 ND 3 0 Total 287 19 6.4 Total 934 66 7.1 56 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 rock habitat in central Long Island Sound could influence population size and recruitment potential for lobster. Cobble and boulder patches are relatively uncommon, representing a very small percentage of the total area of the central basin. Typical surficial sediments in Long Island Sound consist of sand along the nearshore margins and silty-clay in the low-energy environment of the basins (Poppe et al. 2000). The sand substrate beneath the boulder and cobble may have provided additional refuge for lobsters, which can modify or create shelter by excavating or bulldozing soft sediment (Barshaw and Bryant-Rich 1988, Cobb 1971, Miller et al. 2006, Wahle 1992). Lobster abundance was highest during late June and early July when seawater temperatures ranged from 18 to 22 °C. Studies in eastern Long Island Sound also reported the highest mean CPUE of Lobsters at this time (DRS 2005). We observed a decline in Lobster CPUE during mid-to-late July at peak seawater temperatures (22–24 °C). Lobsters experience stress at bottom temperatures exceeding 20 ºC (Howell et al. 2005, Pearce and Balcom 2005), and may be less likely to forage for food or enter traps at elevated water temperatures. Since the relationship between lobster catch and temperature can vary geographically and over time, it can be difficult to link abundance with environmental conditions (Koeller 1999). Our overall recapture rate of 7.1% (66 recaptured / 934 tagged) was similar to that found by Dunnington et al. (2005), who recaptured 8.6% (1023) of 11,856 lobsters tagged in Maine, and Watson et al. (1999), who recaptured 10.9% (1212) of 11,143 lobsters tagged in New Hampshire. During our study, juvenile lobsters showed fidelity to the sites on the rock reef where they were tagged with little evidence of movement among sampling sites. The majority of recaptured lobsters (88%) were found on the reef up to a year after tagging. When a tagged lobster was recaptured at another location, it was almost always at an adjacent site, fewer than 10 m away. In Long Island Sound, movement of lobsters appears to be localized and nonmigratory (Briggs and Mushacke 1984; Briggs and Zawacki 1974; Cooper 1970; DRS 2005, 2006; Howell et al. 2005; Lund et al. 1973). Most lobsters collected in our traps were below legal harvest size, reproductively immature, and would not be expected to undergo the deep-shallow water movements undertaken by larger mature animals, which migrate in response to seasonal temperature cues (Campbell 1989, Campbell and Stasko 1986). Recapture of seven of eight lobsters on the reef nearly a year or more after tagging, suggests that lobsters overwinter on the reef or return in spring following fall/winter migration to deeper more stable waters. More than half of small (50–59 mm CL) resident lobsters in a shallow Massachusetts cove remained there during winter (Karnofsky et al. 1989) and similar overwintering behavior was observed in lobsters inhabiting artificial pumice concrete shelters in otherwise open bottom near Point Judith Rhode Island (Sheehy 1976). Also, small ovigerous lobsters (less than 93 mm CL) in the Gulf of Maine were found to remain in shallow waters year-round (Cowan et al. 2007). 2011 R. Mercaldo-Allen, R. Goldberg, P.E. Clark, and C.A. Kuropat 57 Our study suggests that this rock-reef habitat concentrates and supports local populations of lobsters and may provide important ecological services to juvenile lobsters. This may be of particular importance to the commercial fishery in Long Island Sound, where lobster harvests have markedly declined and catches remain well below historic levels. Identification of those habitats that support lobster populations may assist in developing measures to enhance recovery of this species. Our study suggests that even a relatively small and isolated patch of rock reef may provide stable and valuable habitat for juvenile lobsters in the central basin of Long Island Sound Acknowledgments The authors thank Captain Robert Alix and Werner Schreiner of the R/V Victor Loosanoff for field support; Brian Hooper, Jose Pereira, Dylan Redman, James Reidy, Ann Marie Salvato, George Sennefelder, Lauren Vinokur, and John Ziskowski for technical assistance; Larry Poppe, Dan Blackwood, and Ivar Babb for video imagery; Larry Williams for allowing us to place our traps on his leased shellfish grounds; and Barry Smith, Mark Dixon, Dave Veilleux, and the rest of the NMFS/Milford Laboratory dive team for underwater photography and habitat assessments. Use of trade names does not imply endorsement by the NOAA Fisheries Service. Literature Cited Barshaw, D.E., and D.R. Bryant-Rich. 1988. A long-term study on the behavior and survival of early juvenile American Lobster, Homarus americanus, in three naturalistic substrates: Eelgrass, mud, and rocks. Fishery Bulletin 86(4):789–796. Barshaw, D.E., and K.L. Lavalli. 1988. Predation upon postlarval Lobsters, Homarus americanus, by Cunners, Tautogolabrus adspersus, and Mud Crabs, Neopanope sayi, on three different substrates: Eelgrass, mud, and rocks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 48:119–123. Beck, M.W. 1995. Size-specific shelter limitation in stone crabs: A test of the demographic bottleneck hypothesis. Ecology 76(3):968–980. Blackwood, D., K. Parolski, and P. Valentine. 2000. Seabed Observation and Sampling System. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-142-00. Woods Hole, MA. Briggs, P.T., and F.M. Mushacke. 1984. The American Lobster in western Long Island Sound: Movement, growth, and mortality. New York Fish and Game Journal 31(1):21–37. Briggs, P.T., and C.S. Zawacki. 1974. American Lobsters at artificial reefs in New York. New York Fish and Game Journal 21(1):73–77. Campbell, A. 1989. Dispersal of American Lobsters, Homarus americanus, tagged off southern Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Science 46:1842–1844. Campbell, A., and A.B. Stasko. 1986. Movements of Lobsters (Homarus americanus) tagged in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Marine Biology 92:393–404. Cobb, J.S. 1971. The shelter-related behavior of the American Lobster, Homarus americanus. Ecology 52:108–115. Cobb, J.S., M. Clancy, and R.A. Wahle. 1999. Habitat-based assessment of lobster abundance: A case study of an oil spill. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:285–298. 58 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 Cooper, R.A. 1970. Retention of marks and their effects on growth, behavior, and migrations of the American Lobster, Homarus americanus. Transactions American Fisheries Society 2:409–417. Cooper, R.A., and J.R. Uzmann. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Homarus. Pp. 97– 142, In J.S. Cobb and B.F. Phillips (Eds.). The Biology and Management of Lobsters. Volume II: Ecology and Management. Academic Press, New York, NY. Cowan, D.F., W.H. Watson, A.R. Solow, and A.M. Mountcastle. 2007. Thermal histories of brooding Lobsters, Homarus americanus, in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Biology 150:463–470. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP). 2000. Impact of 1999 lobster mortalities in Long Island Sound. Prepared by Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries Office, Old Lyme, CT. 46 pp. + appendices. DRS (Dominion Resource Services). 2005. Monitoring the marine environment of Long Island Sound at Millstone Power Station. Annual Report 2005. Prepared by the staff of Millstone Environmental Laboratory, Niantic, CT. 316 pp. DRS. 2006. Monitoring the marine environment of Long Island Sound at Millstone Power Station. Annual Report 2006. Prepared by the staff of Millstone Environmental Laboratory, Niantic, CT. 311 pp. Dunnington, M.J., R.A. Wahle, M.C. Bell, and N.R. Geraldi. 2005. Evaluating local population dynamics of the American Lobster, Homarus americanus, with trap-based mark-recapture methods and seabed mapping. New Zealand Journal Marine Freshwater Research 39:1253–1276. Ennis, G.P. 1986. Sphyrion tag loss from the American Lobster, Homarus americanus. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 914–917. Giannini, C., and P. Howell. 2007. Connecticut Lobster (Homarus americanus) population studies. Semi-annual Performance Report, Project No. 3-IJ-168, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries Division, Old Lyme, CT. 28 pp. Holthuis, L.B. 1991. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 13: Marine Lobsters of the World. Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Species of Interest to Fisheries Known to Date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125. Rome, Italy. 292 pp. Howell, P., J. Benway, C. Giannini, K. McKown, R. Burgess, and J. Hayden. 2005. Longterm population trends in American Lobster (Homarus americanus) and their relation to temperature in Long Island Sound. Journal of Shellfish Research 24(3):849–857. Hudon, C. 1987. Ecology and growth of postlarval and juvenile Lobster, Homarus americanus, off Îles de la Madeleine (Quebec). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 44:1855–1869. Incze, L.S., and R.A. Wahle. 1991. Recruitment from pelagic to early benthic phase in Lobsters, Homarus americanus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 79:77–87. Jury, S.H., H. Howell, D.F. O’Grady, and W.H. Watson. 2001. Lobster-trap video: In situ video surveillance of the behaviour of Homarus americanus in and around traps. Marine Freshwater Research 52:1125–1132. Karnofsky, E.B., J. Atema, and R.H. Elgin. 1989. Natural dynamics of population structure and habitat use of the Lobster, Homarus americanus, in a shallow cove. Biological Bulletin 176:247–256. Koeller, P. 1999. Influence of temperature and effort on lobster catches at different temporal and spatial scales and the implications for stock assessment. Fishery Bulletin 97:62–70. 2011 R. Mercaldo-Allen, R. Goldberg, P.E. Clark, and C.A. Kuropat 59 Langton, R.W., R.S. Steneck, V. Gotceitas, F. Juanes, and P. Lawton. 1996. The interface between fisheries research and habitat management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16(1):1–7. Lawton, P. 1987. Diel activity and foraging behavior of juvenile American Lobsters, Homarus americanus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 44:1195–1205. Lawton, P., and K.L. Lavalli. 1995. Postlarval, juvenile, adolescent, and adult ecology. Pp. 47–88, In J.R. Factor (Ed.). Biology of the Lobster, Homarus americanus. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Lewis, D.W., and D. McConchie 1994. Analytical Sedimentology. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. 197 pp. Lund, W.A., L.L. Stewart, and C.J. Rathbun. 1973. Investigation on the lobster. US Report on Commerce, NOAA NMFS Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act Project 3-130-R Final Report. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. 189 pp. Mercaldo-Allen, R., and C.A. Kuropat. 1994. Review of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) habitat requirements and responses to contaminant exposures. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-105. Woods Hole, MA. 52 pp. Miller, R.J. 1990. Effectiveness of crab and lobster traps. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 47:1228–1251. Miller, R.J., G.J. Sharp, and E.M. O’Brien. 2006. Laboratory experiments on artificial reefs for American Lobsters. Journal of Crustacean Biology 26(4):621–627. Pearce, J., and N. Balcom. 2005. The 1999 Long Island Sound Lobster mortality event: Findings of the comprehensive research initiative. Journal of Shellfish Research 24(3):691–697. Poppe, L.J., H.J. Knebel, B.A. Seekins, and M.E. Hastings. 2000. Map showing the distribution of surficial sediments in Long Island Sound. In V.F. Paskevich and L.J. Poppe (Eds.). Georeferenced Seafloor Mapping and Bottom Photography in Long Island Sound. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-304. Woods Hole, MA. Scarratt, D.J., and P.F. Elson. 1965. Preliminary trials of a tag for salmon and lobsters. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 22 (2):421–423. Scheirer, K., Y. Chen, and C. Wilson. 2004. A comparative study of American Lobster fishery sea and port sampling programs in Maine: 1998–2000. Fisheries Research 68:343–350. Sclafani, M., and C.F. Smith. 2003. A comparison of small-mesh traps for sampling juvenile Lobster (Homarus americanus) in Western Long Island Sound. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County Marine Program. 10 pp. + figures. Sheehy, D.J. 1976. Utilization of artificial shelters by the American Lobster (Homarus americanus). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1615–1622. Smith, I.P., A.C. Jensen, K.J. Collins, and E.L. Mattey. 2001. Movement of wild European Lobsters, Homarus gammarus, in natural habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 222:177–186. Steimle, F.W., and C. Zetlin. 2000. Reef habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Abundance, distribution, associated biological communities, and fishery resource use. Marine Fisheries Review 62(2):24–42. Wahle, R.A. 1992. Substratum constraints on body size and the behavioral scope of shelter use in the American Lobster. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 159:59–75. Wahle, R.A. 1993. Recruitment to American Lobster populations along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16(4):731–738. 60 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 18, No. 1 Wahle, R.A., and L.S. Incze. 1997. Pre- and post-settlement processes in recruitment of the American Lobster. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 217:179–207. Wahle, R.A., and R.S. Steneck. 1991. Recruitment habitats and nursery grounds of the American Lobster, Homarus americanus: A demographic bottleneck? Marine Ecology Progress Series 69:231–243. Watson, W.H., A. Vetrovs, and W.H. Howell. 1999. Lobster movements in an estuary. Marine Biology 134:65–75.