Baby Lobster Decline in Gulf of Maine Puzzles Scientists

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

BOWDOINHAM, Maine (Reuters) - The number of baby lobsters in the Gulf of Maine has dropped by half since 2007, a phenomenon that has puzzled scientists as the population of adult lobsters remains near a record high, contributing to robust catches.

Scientists note that baby lobsters take eight years to reach harvestable size, meaning the dip could yet be felt by the state's 4,200 lobstermen, who last year hauled in a record catch worth $365 million, representing nearly 70 percent of Maine's total seafood harvest.

Despite the record hauls, scientists, including University of Maine researcher Rick Wahle, who founded the baby lobster study in 1989, contend over-fishing is not likely the culprit. The lobster industry, they note, is among the country's most closely regulated.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"This remains the most productive lobster habitat on the planet," Wahle said. "The evidence points elsewhere."

Instead, Wahle and other researchers believe shifting ocean currents, wind and weather patterns may have led drifting lobster larvae astray, contributing to the decline.

The survey relies on divers who use vacuum cleaner-like suction tubs and traps to count baby lobsters on the rock ocean floor of the New England and Canadian coasts.

Scientists said it is unclear whether the decline in the count of young lobsters will eventually cut into the high harvests, which have pushed prices down and left lobstermen scrambling to find new markets.

"We don't know if we're coming to a stable period, or if we're going to come back down to Earth," said Carl Wilson, Maine's state lobster biologist. "But I think for the first time, we're starting to see a change in the system."

(Reporting by Dave Sherwood; Editing by Scott Malone and Dan Grebler)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe