Research priorities

Maine Department of Marine Resources

DMR Research priorities by species

Clams  |   Lobsters  |   Scallops  |   Shrimp  |   Urchins Click on any section headings to return to the top of the page.

DMR Research Priorities, General Description

The following research priorities are part of a larger research agenda-setting effort conducted by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) for five of Maine's major commercial species: lobsters, clams, scallops, sea urchins, and shrimp. Establishment of research priorities was identified during the late 1990's as a key strategy to accomplish several of DMR's agency goals as well as the King Administration's 1996 Jobs from the Sea Initiative. The ultimate purpose of the DMR research priority project is to ensure that fishery management decisions are based upon the best scientific and technical information so that Maine's marine resources are sustainable and productive. The articulation of an agenda, however, will accomplish several other goals. First, by establishing and communicating a shared vision of comprehensive research needs, it will stimulate the market for fishery research that serves the state's needs. Second, DMR will be able to direct internal funding decisions appropriately and identify and involve potential research partners from the broader marine science community, including the fisheries and aquaculture industries. Third, the agenda should enable the entire marine science community to develop quick responses to outside funding opportunities on topics that serve the state's needs. The project was conducted under contract by the Gulf of Maine Aquarium (GMA). It was funded by a planning grant from the Economic Development Administration, the DMR, and the University of Maine Sea Grant Program. The project was staffed by the GMA consultants, DMR and the University of Maine Marine Extension Team.

DMR research priorities for clams

Clam Priority 1: Nearshore oceanography and clam biology Clam Priority 2: Ecology and habitat Clam Priority 3: Enhancement Clam Priority 4: Predators Clam Priority 5: Assessment Clam Priority 1: Nearshore oceanography and clam biology The soft-shell clam is a difficult animal to study. It is intertidal, subject to many different environmental stresses, and many predators. More than any other important commercial species, clams require fine scale, site-specific research. Clammers, clam biologists, and sediment scientists all understand that conditions on flats within a single cove can vary widely. In order to develop an understanding of the mechanisms that operate on soft-shell clam behavior and population structure, research on current, salinity, nutrients, and sediment must be done at the level of individual coves. The close observation that diggers do, working a specific set of flats over many years provides a source of natural history information that could be very important in deciphering the underlying mechanisms of clam populations. Priority research needs are: What is the broodstock source for the larvae that settle in a specific cove? What are the oceanographic and sediment conditions that result in successful growth of clams after spat fall or reseeding? Document and explain local variability in clam growth rates, particularly the slow growth in eastern Maine. Clam Priority 2: Ecology and habitat It is impossible to look at clams outside of a complete examination of their habitat: the structure and chemistry of mud itself, the impact of pollution on flats, the role of green algae, and the interactions with other species and fisheries. The discussion clearly pushed toward multi-species, intertidal studies that go beyond the pursuit of information about a single species such as clams. Priority research needs are: What is the role of the clam flat in coastal ecology and the environment? What is the impact of harvesting methods on the ecology of the flat: pulling, turning over mud, clam digging, worm digging, nearshore dragging? What is impact of water quality, toxics, and exotics such as enteromorpha on flat health? What are the specific habitat needs of clams? Link natural history observations with science to discover the mechanisms that control clam settlement, survival, and growth. Clam Priority 3: Enhancement Clam enhancement provides a lens to focus a number of basic research questions about clam biology, nearshore oceanography, and the mud clams live in (benthic ecology). The term clam enhancement actually encompasses a spectrum of activity. It can mean adding brush, rocks, or other structures to the flats to enhance wild spat fall, moving small wild clams to high growth or clean water areas, planting hatchery seed, or pounding legal clams for sale at better market prices. Each of these activities raises questions about local circulation patterns, the chemistry and make-up of the mud, the growth rates and behavior of clams at various life stages. Priority research needs are: Evaluate reseeding in a statistically sound manner with evaluations of small areas (e.g. 1 acre.) Evaluate the economic viability of reseeding. Develop a guide for determining the optimal time for reseeding dependent on local conditions. Develop a reverse develop a production model that would give guidance about how many clams you need to move or reseed in order to get a certain yield in the future, factoring in natural and fishing mortality. Clam Priority 4: Predators Clams have numerous predators that include a range of organisms. The group specifically named moon snails, ribbon worms, blood worms, sand worms, green crabs, Japanese crabs, horseshoe crabs as well as seagulls and ducks. They also discussed neoplasia, a parasitic disease. Each presents a different challenge to clammers and managers. The green crabs and moon snails function on top of the mud and, at least for the crabs, may be vulnerable to physical barriers. The milky ribbonworm, however, eats from below taking both juvenile and adult clams. Discussion of predators included very pragmatic approaches: information sharing about predator population levels along the coast, destruction or commercial harvest of predators, destruction of their habitats such as destroying green crab burrows, and releasing sterile males into predator populations. The discussion also approached predators from a population biology and ecology point of view with questions about the life history and the role of human activities in enhancing or discouraging the growth of predator populations. Priority research needs are: Create a market for green crabs, moon snails, and even milky ribbonworms. Evaluate the ways that human activities (digging, dragging, water quality) impact the population levels of predators? Invest in developing better predator control methods such as green crab fences and nets. Develop collaborative tracking of predator abundance. Clam Priority 5: Assessment Clam assessments are currently used to make the most difficult fishery management decisions: allocation of rights to fish. This is done at the town level, where things are local, personal, and highly visible. This puts tremendous pressure on the methods and credibility of clam assessment techniques. Furthermore, the conditions that contribute to the accuracy of an assessment -- such variables as growth rates and natural mortality -- are highly variable, even within town boundaries. Improvements both of survey techniques and of the assumptions that go into the model about growth and natural mortality were discussed. However, especially given the expense of assessment, participants placed highest priority on developing ways to survey and ground truth surveys working with diggers to enhance the credibility and usefulness of assessments. Priority research needs are: Improve the assessment survey methods working with diggers. Develop seasonal and regional clam volumetric ratios and/or length/weight ratios. Develop growth rates for different areas using volunteer sampling cove-by-cove.

DMR research priorities for lobsters

Lobster Priority 1: Oceanography Lobster Priority 2: Assessment Lobster Priority 3: Life History and Behavior Lobster Priority 4: Socio-economic Issues Lobster Priority 1: Oceanography The source and sink for lobster larvae remains the dominant research question for the lobster industry. This is an area that has had considerable research attention in the last 15 years and that work has yielded new insights that in turn are producing new areas of research. Management questions about the relationship of the inshore and offshore lobster stocks and the value given in the assessment to the V-notched and oversize lobsters off the Maine continue to make this research directly pertinent to the future of the Maine lobster industry. Priority research needs are the following: Determine the broodstock source for larval settlement and harvest areas and the relationship and relative functions of the inshore and offshore broodstock. Study nearshore oceanography to understand its impact on larval transport and the relationship between larval source and settlement. Study the effect of water quality on lobster reproduction, growth, and health including chlorine, herbicides and pesticides, and nutrients. Are there large-scale oceanographic or climatic influences causing the reduced larval settlement in the last five years? If so, what is it operating on? Lobster Priority 2: Assessment The lobster stock assessment is the focal point of all of the disagreement about lobster population dynamics. As a result, for the lobster industry, the assessment provides the lens through which they see lobster science questions. There is interest in both improving the data and assumptions that go into the model and developing new models. In the process of improving data, there is interest in developing new ways to monitor the health of the lobster population. New indices that were discussed included larval surveys, post settlement surveys, and ventless trap juvenile surveys. Fishermen are interested in participating in the ongoing monitoring and concerned that the modelers involved in the assessment be able to use the information. Maine dominates the fishery in New England but until recently, little data from the Maine fishery was integrated into the federal stock assessment. Two types of data were missing: biological information about the make up of the stock and fishery independent data. In the last few years, that has started to change. Sea sampling is particularly important in the lobster fishery because the fishery is regulated to prohibit landing juveniles, breeders, and large adults. For this reason, port sampling or landings data will not provide information about those elements of the population. Maine has had a limited sea sampling program for years, but data from it was not used in the federal process. Now Maine has expanded its sea sampling, including an ongoing experiment with electronic data gathering and is providing the information to the assessment process. Fishery independent data is meant to provide an index of abundance and normally comes from a trawl survey. Maine and New Hampshire have been the only New England states without an inshore trawl survey. Furthermore, the federal survey does not come very far inshore in the eastern Gulf of Maine because of the bottom topography. As a result, fishery independent information has been missing from the most productive area for lobster in the Gulf of Maine. In 2000, Maine is initiating an inshore trawl survey. Priority research needs are: Document lobster abundance in Maine fishing areas through fishery independent means such as a trawl survey. Research lobster stock structure and migration patterns so that management areas can be made consistent with stock structure. Explore new models for lobster assessment and incorporate into models multiple indicators of stock health including new collaborative monitoring. Systematically improve research on inputs to the model such as natural mortality, growth rates and age, size composition of population and catch, measurement of fishing effort, lobster behavior and migration. Lobster Priority 3: Life History and Behavior As with all crustaceans, there is no established technique to age lobster. This puts a premium on studies of lobster growth because without a better understanding of growth rates, there is no way to link the settlement survey information to later harvest information. Research in the last five years has demonstrated a strong positive relationship between the number of lobster -----------post larvae in the water, and number of juvenile lobsters on the bottom in that area. That work, and another time series that started in 1989, has shown a downturn in abundance starting in 1996. Does this predict a downturn in the fishery in the next few years? If so, why is it occurring? Priority research needs are: Improve the understanding of growth rates, particularly of juveniles, in order to be able to link strength of post settlement year classes to future catch. Need better sampling procedures to monitor juvenile abundance: fishery independent and fishery dependent. Understand migration and movement of post larvae, juveniles, and especially broodstock. Lobster Priority 4: Socio-economic Issues If lobster landings fall even to the long-term average, they will be reduced by more than 50% of current landings. This situation will pose serious social and economic problems for the coastal communities that are now so dependent on lobstering. Articulation of economics and policy research questions is not as familiar turf for the industry as are biological and oceanographic questions. Economic contingency planning for an almost guaranteed eventual downturn received highest priority from the group. A first step in this planning process is information gathering about debt load in the industry, since that will determine the capacity of the industry to respond to lower landings. In addition, considerable discussion occurred about the fact that normal economic studies of the industry miss significant subtleties about the business that in fact determine behavior. The industry wants its understanding of the different business strategies, situations, and expectations that exist within the industry to be understood by policymakers. It also wants documentation of the profound changes in lobstering since the 1950s. Those changes include the shift from making a living to seeking the good life, dramatic changes in technology from haulers to wire traps to electronics. When combined with technological changes, the abundance of lobster resulted in it being much easier to succeed lobstering, so the business saw a pulse of new effort. These changes have undermined a number of the traditional checks on the business, including the integrity of the informal territories. The democratic zone process is a huge experiment in democratic resource management decision-making. It has had a rocky start, yet the participants at the lobster meetings did not place a high priority on improving the functioning of zones. Much of the discussion was about zone issues, but the group did not identify types of socio-economic work that could assist the process. Priority research needs are: Prepare a comprehensive response plan in the event of a sharp decrease in lobster landings and recommend actions to prepare the industry and coastal communities prior to a downturn with particular analysis of the impact of current debt load. Strengthen industry input and participation in science from the zones so that it becomes a continuous, ongoing process. Describe the lobster fishery: economics, the many different businesses and fishing strategies that exist within the industry, effect of loss of alternative fisheries, and changes since 1950s. Provide social and economic descriptive material to support state interests in federal and interstate management arenas.

DMR research priorities for scallops

Scallop Priority 1: Nearshore oceanography Scallop Priority 2: Life history Scallop Priority 3: Gear Scallop Priority 4: Enhancement Scallop Priority 5: Monitoring and assessment Scallop Priority 1: Nearshore oceanography As with clams and urchins, using enhancement as a lens focuses scallop research questions on understanding nearshore oceanography and scallop life history at a most basic and local level. If spat is to be collected, the very nearshore currents need to be understood, as does the transport of spat. The desire to collect scallop, as opposed to starfish or any other spat, focuses questions on scallop spawning behavior, triggers, and location of broodstock. Research priorities are: Fine scale research and current modeling to determine larval dispersement patterns. Where is the effective broodstock for each scallop area? What are the mechanisms that determine the relationship between adult biomass and recruitment success? Do adult scallops or scallop larvae move inshore and/or offshore? Scallop Priority 2: Life history Life history, growth, and behavior questions also rise to the top. What is the growth rate in scallops in different parts of Maine? What are the significant determinants of growth? The role of predators also emerges as important because of both the spat collection and the distribution of seed later. Research priorities are: What triggers spawning? Is it density dependent? Document and understand growth rates in different areas. Study predation on scallops at larval and juvenile life stages. Scallop Priority 3: Gear With the national focus by environmental groups on the effects of dragging, scallopers place a high priority on credible studies of the impact of scallop gear on the bottom and its impact on the scallop resource and discard rate. Conservation engineering on scallop gear emerged as a very high priority. Research priorities are: Improve the design of scallop gear to better select out juveniles, reduce discards, and reduce bottom impacts. Develop and communicate credible methods for doing gear impact research. Research impact of dragging on bottom and bay ecology with credible methods. Study cumulative effect of dragging on Cobscook Bay. Scallop Priority 4: Enhancement Scallop enhancement activities are stimulating an unprecedented level of discussion, both about enhancement and management of the traditional fishery. The discussion includes basic science questions, new opportunities for monitoring and assessment, and numerous policy questions. The discussion seeks information on very fine scale, about local phenomena rather than statewide or Gulf of Maine wide issues. A May 1998 trip to Japan provided information about spat collection and both bottom aquaculture and wild reseeding that supports the scallop industry in that country. Since then, local efforts by fishermen to collect spat have gotten started in a number of locations including Cobscook Bay, Stonington, and Saco. The effort is in a very early stage of development. The development of enhancement techniques provides an opportunity for collaborative work that links basic questions with specific gear and activities. As for any reseeding or restocking effort, evaluation of its effectiveness is essential. Scallop enhancement is bringing to the fore policy issues about aquaculture and the wild fishery. Enhancement is being used by some local groups to involve fishermen in stewardship of the local resource. At the same time, enhancement techniques could theoretically be used by scallop aquaculturists. There is concern about the ultimate ownership of the scallops that grow from collected spat. There are a number of regulatory issues that will need resolution. Research priorities are: Refine spat collection methodologies: gear, oceanographic monitoring, seeding techniques and timing. Create standard evaluation techniques for spat collection, reseeding efforts. Study the socio-economic issues of governance, community capacity, and necessary new regulatory structure for enhancement. Scallop Priority 5: Monitoring and assessment Maine does no assessment of scallops in the inshore area and has very little data that could be used in a formal assessment. What emerged from the discussion was a recognition that statewide work may not be the best use of limited resources and that focus on specific areas, such as Cobscook Bay which is the center of much of the scallop landings now, could provide more useful information. Potentially enhancement could create a demand for a number of monitoring programs, including spawning, spat abundance, and currents. Experimenting with a local, collaborative approach emerged as a good strategy. Research priorities are: Do a Cobscook Bay assessment. Use spat bags to develop a spawning index for assessment. Develop local gonadal indices and local oceanographic monitoring.

DMR research priorities for shrimp

Shrimp Priority 1: Shrimp life history and behavior Shrimp Priority 2: Effects of large-scale oceanographic events on shrimp Shrimp Priority 3: Habitat and gear Shrimp Priority 4: Access issues Shrimp Priority 5: Communication and collaboration in shrimp assessment Shrimp Priority 1: Shrimp life history and behavior Much is still unknown about the basic biology and behavior of Northern shrimp. (See D. Schick, appendix.) Little is known about timing, release, and subsequent behavior of shrimp larvae. Likewise it is not known even how long a shrimp is a juvenile -- one year or two -- a problem that is compounded by the inability to age a crustacean. Little is known about the inshore/offshore migration of juveniles, or the age at sexual maturity as a male. Migration is poorly understood for all life stages, of particular importance both for the design of the summer shrimp survey and for understanding the relationship between population size and availability to the gear. Finally, there is evidence that as the population is stressed, some males are making the transition to females in the same season that they normally would be males, something that has serious implications for management. Research priorities are: What are the key factors in larval survival? Can environmental conditions at the time of larval release be used as a predictor of year class strength? Describe juvenile life history, especially its duration, to provide better assumptions for stock assessment models. What factors regulate timing of juvenile migrations, sexual transformation (male tofemale) and female inshore/offshore migration? What factors such as density dependence are operating to determine sexual maturation (male)? Shrimp Priority 2: Effects of large-scale oceanographic events on shrimp Shrimp is a cold-water species that is at the southern extent of its Atlantic range in the Gulf of Maine. It has long been known that shrimp are highly sensitive to temperature. In fact, for many years, it was assumed that environmental factors far outweighed fishing pressure in determining year-class strength and that the predominant role of management was to optimize the value of the year classes. Modern oceanographic tools are providing us with a much more sophisticated understanding of the Gulf's oceanography and it is now possible to ask more detailed questions about the relationship between temperature and shrimp. The flow of warm, salty slope water through the Northeast Channel into the deep basins in the Gulf and the flow of relatively fresh, cold Scotian Shelf water into the gulf at the surface (>50 m) set up a pattern that can roughly be described as cold on the bottom and warm on top in the western Gulf of Maine and warm on the bottom and cold on top in the eastern half of the Gulf from Penobscot Bay east into the Bay of Fundy. These flows, in turn, are affected by the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a periodic (about every 10-years) flip-flop of atmospheric pressure between Iceland and the Azores. When the difference is positive, it increases the flow of cold Labrador Slope water down the coast of North America, which appears to limit the amount of warm slope water that enters the deep Gulf of Maine. The information gathered from large-scale oceanographic research provides a foundation from which it is possible to ask basic questions about how temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels operate in the shrimp life history. Research priorities are: Refine our understanding of the effects of large-scale oceanographic events such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino, and global warming on the Gulf of Maine. Evaluate the physical and biological effects of oceanographic events relative to the shrimp population. Shrimp Priority 3: Habitat and gear Habitat issues ranked very high despite minimal discussion at the meeting. Questions included the impact of trawl gear on the bottom communities, environmental issues, and the issue of refuges. Given the polarization that exists over trawling, attention to the objectivity and credibility of trawl impact research is most important. Despite little discussion of these issues, bycatch and gear design issues in the fishery include the potential need for gear modification when and if groundfish (including redfish) populations rebound. Research priorities are: Conduct objective, collaborative research on the effect of shrimp trawl gear on benthic habitats, substrate, and animals. Do shrimp have any refuges from gear in the Gulf of Maine and if so, what is their significance to the shrimp population? Continue conservation engineering for traps and trawls as needed to meet changing fishery conditions and new knowledge. Shrimp Priority 4: Access issues Access issues are a high priority because shrimp is one of the few fisheries left that does not have some form of controlled or limited entry. The fishery is seasonal, and is virtually entirely a secondary fishery. For this reason, access issues raise serious discussion of what multi-species management is and the importance of flexibility to fishermen. The fishery is important to Maine groundfish boats for which it provides a profitable alternative fishery when they are limited by their groundfish days-at-sea allotments. The fishery has also traditionally provided an important winter fishery for inshore fishermen and lobstermen throughout the state. Last year, a bill to control entry was defeated in the Maine Legislature. Research priorities are: Develop and evaluate options for multi-species management that considers the interests of all Maine shrimpers and gear types. Develop a framework to aid evaluation of the impact of limited entry proposals on the Maine fishing industry when and if such proposals come forward. Document the economic and social consequences of loss of flexibility to Maine's commercial fishermen as they have lost access to other fisheries under limited entry. Shrimp Priority 5: Communication and collaboration in shrimp assessment Communication and participation were a strident theme at the shrimp meeting, particularly between industry and management. The gradual shift in shrimp management from the state and Northern Shrimp Section to Washington as ASFMC staffers work on the new plan, has caused dismay and disillusionment among those fishermen who have traditionally participated in shrimp management. Fishermen stated they felt relegated to merely commenting, and being represented by one advisor on the plan development team, rather than having responsibility for the fishery. The industry wanted more fundamental inclusion in research priority setting, collaboration on shrimp survey design and execution, and wanted better explanation of the assessment. Fishermen want to have a formal role in deciding uses of the Shrimp Fund funded by the Maine shrimp license fees. Research priorities are: Provide a catalyst for industry collaboration in setting research priorities, making decisions on research funding, survey design and execution, and the development of a larval survey.

DMR research priorities for urchins

Urchin Priority 1: Reseeding urchins and closed areas Urchin Priority 2: Urchin health issues Urchin Priority 3: Local management Urchin Priority 4: Oceanography and life history Urchin Priority 5: Urchin stock assessments Urchin Priority 1: Reseeding urchins and closed areas The overwhelming interest in urchin research lies in those basic and practical questions that surround development and evaluation of both rotating closures and reseeding urchins for public stock enhancement. Scientific work has shown that the cycle of urchin barren and macroalgal community (kelp forest) does not necessarily rotate but instead may be two alternative steady states that do not switch without some external stimulus. Without intervention, it is not clear whether urchins are able to reestablish themselves after macroalgae such as kelp has grown. This may seem counterintuitive, since urchins prefer kelp as feed. However, at small sizes, it appears urchins have difficulty becoming established in the mature algal beds, which provide habitat for many small urchin predators. Participants expressed strong interest in evaluating rotational closures as a way to avoid overfishing and prevent the change in habitat from urchin barren to kelp forest. The question is still unanswered whether urchins would reestablish themselves if fishing pressure was removed without any other intervention. There is strong interest in reseeding for three distinct purposes (in order of priority): 1) to change the environment by shifting a kelp forest to an urchin barren to reestablish productive urchin bottom, 2) to enhance reproduction in the area, and 3) to enhance quality or fatten urchins. Research priorities are: Evaluate rotational closures both before and after overfishing and habitat shift: Can closures prevent overfishing? Can closures prevent habitat shift? Will closures enable urchins to reestablish themselves after a habitat shift? Create adequate experimental design for reseeding that fishermen can participate in, in 2001. Develop effective reseeding techniques: timing, disease and urchin source issues, choice of area, handling. Conduct onsite collaborative experimentation to evaluate the biological and ecological aspects of reseeding and closed areas relative to the three purposes: To change ecology by harvesting kelp; To provide reproduction in that area; To enhance quality, "fatten" urchins. Urchin Priority 2: Urchin health issues Health concerns ran a close second to the closure and reseeding issues. Urchin health and urchin diseases are neither well understood nor defined, particularly in light of the possibility of significant regional differences. Urchin populations experience periodic die-offs. Environmental stress is known to be one significant variable in these episodes but the specific stressors are and how they operate within urchin populations is unknown. In addition to the oceanographic changes contributing to environmental stress, participants considered a number of human activities including harvesting methods and pollution. The traditional elements of the urchin fishery: shipping, processing, and dumping waste across habitats all provide opportunity for the spread of a disease. Now, as the fishery becomes involved with reseeding urchins from both hatchery operations and wild stocks, the disease issues become more complex. The state health infrastructure is unable to do significant monitoring, diagnostics, or management. Research priorities are: Define and prioritize disease issues raised by urchin aquaculture. Examine health issues raised by reseeding urchins from one locale to another. Examine effects on urchin health of human activities such as harvest method, disposal of processing wastes, dredging, and pollution. Document the capacity of the current health management infrastructure and make recommendations for change. Can industry collaborate in health monitoring? Best management practices for industry. Urchin Priority 3: Local management The Sea Urchin Zone Council (SUZC) has provided the fishery with a rudimentary form of co-management. Fishermen of both major gear types, dealers, processors, and scientists have participated in management decisions and research planning. Now, as the fishery is looking seriously at enhancement through reseeding and closures, the policy issues that occur in any enhancement fishery are emerging as high priority. These issues include an evaluation of the benefits and costs of different types of ownership of areas where culture techniques are being used: private aquaculture versus community enhancement. At the same time, as the SUZC process gains some maturity, and as local closures and reseeding projects are undertaken, all of which are place-based, there is interest in the issues involved with refining both collaborative research and local management. Research priorities are: Evaluate the costs/benefits of public versus private access to urchin resource. Evaluate the potential for local urchin management and its impact on questions of privatization. Develop collaborative research proposals that respect both fishermen's need for action and results and appropriate scientific method. Get cooperation and participation locally in stewardship activities such as reseeding or kelp clearing. Urchin Priority 4: Oceanography and life history For urchins, as for most commercial species, the interface between oceanography and reproductive success is a mystery still unsolved. The ecological questions about predators, food, and competition link with questions as basic as the behavioral and chemical stimuli for reproductive behavior. Ultimately, fishermen who are taking care of closed and/or reseeded areas need to gain understanding about where the larvae produced there will settle, and the source of the natural settlement they receive. Because of the local nature of the urchin fishery, and because local management is partially implemented, the questions are being asked at a very fine scale, such as local bays and the characteristics and behaviors of urchins in those areas. In recent years both fishermen's observations and scientific developments have suggested that reducing fishing pressure alone may not be enough to rebuild the urchin resource. A complex ecological interaction between urchins, macroalgae such as kelp, and micropredators such as sea fleas, is emerging. Questions that will expand this knowledge of urchin life history and its interactions with its biological, chemical, and physical habitat dominate the urchin research agenda. Research priorities are: Study nearshore oceanography to understand its impact on larval transport and the relationship between larval source and settlement. Understand spawning, settlement survival, size/age ratio, and other biological measures in a local context to support local management. Urchin Priority 5: Urchin stock assessments The state is not currently doing any assessment of the urchin population, in contrast to New Brunswick, which conducts a regular assessment. (See Robinson, appendix) Given Maine's coastline, an urchin assessment would be costly, not to be undertaken without considerable evaluation. Participants at the meeting were most interested in the predictive qualities of an urchin larval survey. Improvement of landings information is a priority for DMR right now, although it did not emerge as a high priority from the meeting. It could emerge from a collaborative effort to arrive at an assessment strategy for the state. Research priorities are: Collaborate with industry in the design and execution of an urchin assessment. clarify the purpose of the assessment. ensure information used is credible. evaluate the result for reliability. decide appropriate mix of fishery dependent (landings, effort, etc.) information and fishery independent (surveys, samples etc.) information. Develop larval surveys to be useful for assessment.

Search for research priorities

By agency

• Maine Department of Marine Resources  • New England Fishery Management Council  • Northeast Consortium  • Maine Sea Grant, Research priorities for Shellfish Aquaculture

By species

By scientific discipline