Abstract
Concern for the status of horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) has increased as harvest for conch and eel bait has increased and spawning habitat has decreased. In early 1999 a workshop was held at the behest of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to design a statistically valid survey of horseshoe crab spawning in Delaware Bay. The survey that resulted was a redesign of a volunteer-based spawning survey that began in 1990, and its network of volunteers was relied on to implement the three-stage sampling design in 1999. During May and June of 1999, 163 participants surveyed during the highest of the daily high tides on 16 beaches (8 on each site of Delaware Bay). During the first half of the spawning season, spawning was associated with lunar phases, but moderated by wave height. Disproportionately more spawning occurred within 3 d of the first new and full moons, and spawning activity (measured by an index of female density) was correlated inversely to the percent of beaches with waves ≥0.3 m. Spawning was heaviest on the Delaware shore around the full moon in May in spite of low waves in New Jersey during the new and full moons in May. Number of beaches sampled was the most important factor in determining the precision of the spawning index and power to detect a decline. Explicit consideration of statistical power has been absent from the current debate on horseshoe crab status and harvest. Those who argue against harvest restrictions because of a lack of statistically significant declines take on a burden to show that the surveys they cite have high statistical power. We show the Delaware Bay spawning survey will achieve high statistical power with sufficient sampling intensity and duration. We recommend that future Delaware Bay spawning surveys sample on 3 d around each new and full moon in May and June and increase the number of beaches to ensure high statistical power to detect trends in baywide spawning activity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998a. Interstate fishery management plan for horseshoe crab. Fishery Management Report No. 32, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998b. Terms of reference and advisory report for the horseshoe crab stock assessment peer review. Stock Assessment Report No. 98-01, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998c. Horseshoe crab stock assessment report for peer review. Stock Assessment Report No. 98-01 (Supplement), Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.
Berkson, J. andC. N. Shuster, Jr. 1999 The horseshoe crab: The battle for a true multiple-use resource.Fisheries 24:6–12.
Botton, M. L., R. E. Loveland, andT. R. Jacobsen. 1994. Site selection by migratory shorebirds in Delaware Bay, and its relationship to beach characteristics and abundance of horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) eggs.The Auk 111:605–616.
Botton, M. L. andJ. W. Ropes. 1987. The horseshoe crab,Limulus polyphemus, fishery and resource in the United States.Marine Fisheries Review 49:57–61.
Brockmann, H. J. 1990. Mating behavior of horseshoe crabs,Limulus polyphemus.Behaviour 114:206–220.
Buhl-Mortensen, L. andS. Welin. 1998. The ethics of doing policy relevant science: The precautionary principle and the significance of non-significant results.Science and Engineering Ethics 4:401–412.
Burger, J., L. Niles, andK. E. Clark. 1997. Importance of beach, mudflat and marsh habitats to migrant shorebirds on Delaware Bay.Biological Conservation 79:283–292.
Castro, G. andJ. P. Myers. 1993. Shorebird predation on eggs of horseshoe crabs during spring stopover on Delaware Bay.The Auk 110:927–930.
Christman, M. C. 2000. A review of quadrat-based sampling of rare, geographically clustered populations.Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 5:168–201.
Elliott, J. M. 1977. Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication No. 25. Ambleside, Cumbria, UK.
Finn, J. J., C. N. Shuster, Jr., andB. L. Swan. 1991.Limulus Spawning Activity on Delaware Bay Shores 1990. Finn-Tech Inc., Cape May, New Jersey.
Fuller, W. A. 1999. Environmental surveys over time.Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4:331–345.
Gerrodette, D. 1993. TRENDS: Software for a power analysis of linear regression.Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:515–516.
Hedayat, A. S. andB. K. Sinha. 1991. Design and Inference in Finite Population Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Maio, K. J. 1998. Quantitative description of temporal and spatial patterns in spawning activity of the horseshoe crab,Limulus polyphemus. Master's thesis. University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland.
Peterman, R. M. andM. M'Gonigle. 1992. Statistical power analysis and the precautionary principle.Marine Pollution Bulletin 24:231–234.
Rudloe, A. 1980. The breeding behavior and patterns of movement of horseshoe crab,Limulus polyphemus, in vicinity of breeding beaches in Apalachee, Florida.Estuaries 3:177–183.
Rudloe, A. 1983. The effect of heavy bleeding on mortality of the horseshoe crab,Limulus polyphemus, in the natural environment.Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 42:167–176.
Shuster, Jr.,C. N. andM. L. Botton. 1985. A contribution to the population biology of horseshoe crabs,Limulus polyphemus (L.), in Delaware Bay.Estuaries 4:363–372.
Thompson, S. K. 1992. Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Tsipoura, N. andJ. Burger. 1999. Shorebird diet during spring migration stopover on Delaware Bay.The Condor 101:635–644.
Widener, J. W. andR. B. Barlow. 1999. Decline of a horseshoe crab population on Cape Cod.Biological Bulletin 197:300–302.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, D.R., Pooler, P.S., Swan, B.L. et al. Spatial and temporal distribution of horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) spawning in Delaware Bay: Implications for monitoring. Estuaries 25, 115–125 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696055
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696055