NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-196

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2005

Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus,

Life History and Habitat Characteristics

Second Edition
177. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Smooth Skate, Malacoraja senta, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 26 p., 15 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104256.

178. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 39 p., 18 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104255.

179. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 57 p., 25 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-

104254.

180. Variability in Blood Chemistry of Yellowtail Flounder, Limanda ferruginea, with Regard to Sex, Season, and Geographic

Location. By Renee Mercaldo-Allen, Margaret A. Dawson, Catherine A. Kuropat, and Diane Kapareiko. September 2003. vi + 20 p., 1

fig., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-107074.

181. In press.

182. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2003. By Gordon T. Waring, Richard M. Pace, Janeen

M. Quintal, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds., Nicole Cabana, Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Gregory L. Fulling,

Lance P. Garrison, Aleta A. Hohn, Blair G. Maise, Wayne E. McFee, Keith D. Mullin, Debra L. Palka, Patricia E. Rosel, Marjorie C. Rossman,

Frederick W. Wenzel, and Amy L. Whitingham, contribs. May 2004. vii + 287 p., 47 figs., 58 tables, 4 app., index. NTIS Access. No.

PB2004-106431.

183. In press.

184. A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management and Sustainability. By Frank J. Gable. August 2004. v +

84 p., 38 figs., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-101435.

185. Revised and Updated Edition of F. Bruce Sanford's 1957 "Planning Your Scientific Research Paper." By Jon A. Gibson.

August 2004. x + 36 p., 5 figs., 12 tables.

186. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Silver Hake, Merluccius bilinearis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By Meredith C. Lock and David B. Packer. August 2004. v + 68 p., 28 figs., 6 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-101436. [Online

publication only.]

187. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: American Plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides, Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Donna L. Johnson. August 2004. vi + 72 p., 23 figs., 6 tables. [Online publication only.]

188. In preparation by authors.

189. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Sea Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By Deborah R. Hart and Antonie S. Chute. September 2004. v + 21 p., 6 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-104079. [Online

publication only.]

190. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd

ed. By R. Gregory Lough. November 2004. vi + 94 p., 27 figs., 5 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-101528. [Online publication

only.]

191. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Lisa C. Hendrickson and Elizabeth M. Holmes. November 2004. v + 36 p., 13 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access.

No. PB2005-101437. [Online publication only.]

192. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By David K. Stevenson and Marcy L. Scott. July 2005. vi + 84 p., 40 figs., 7 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-107567. [Online

publication only.]

193. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By Larry D. Jacobson. August 2005. v + 42 p., 20 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-110684. [Online publication only.]

Recent Issues in This Series:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (ret.), Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2005

This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing. All issues employ

thorough internal scientific review; some issues employ external scientific review.

Reviews are -- by design -- transparent collegial reviews, not anonymous peer

reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-196

Jon K.T. Brodziak

Postal Address: National Marine Fisheries Serv., 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543

Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus,

Life History and Habitat Characteristics

Second Edition

E-Mail Address: Jon.Brodziak@noaa.gov
Editorial Notes on "Essential Fish Habitat Source Documents"

Issued in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE Series

Editorial Production

For "Essential Fish Habitat Source Documents" issued in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series, staff

of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's (NEFSC's) Ecosystems Processes Division largely assume the role of staff of

the NEFSC's Editorial Office for technical and copy editing, type composition, and page layout. Other than the four covers

(inside and outside, front and back) and first two preliminary pages, all preprinting editorial production is performed by,

and all credit for such production rightfully belongs to, the staff of the Ecosystems Processes Division.

Internet Availability and Information Updating

Each original issue of an "Essential Fish Habitat Source Document" is published both as a paper copy and as a Web

posting. The Web posting, which is in "PDF" format, is available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh.

Each issue is updated at least every five years. The updated edition will be published as a Web posting only; the

replaced edition(s) will be maintained in an online archive for reference purposes.

Species Names

The NMFS Northeast Region's policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is generally to

follow the American Fisheries Society's lists of scientific and common names for fishes (i.e., Nelson et al. 2004a

; Robins

et al. 1991b), mollusks (i.e., Turgeon et al. 1998c), and decapod crustaceans (i.e., Williams et al. 1989d), and to follow the

Society for Marine Mammalogy's guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals (i.e., Rice 1998e).

Exceptions to this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting

in changes in the names of species.

a

Nelson, J.S.; Crossman, E.J.; Espinosa-Pérez, H.; Findley, L.T.; Gilbert, C.R.; Lea, R.N.; Williams, J.D. 2004. Common and scientific names

of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 6th ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 29; 386 p. b

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. World fishes important to

North Americans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 21; 243 p. c

Turgeon, D.D. (chair); Quinn, J.F., Jr.; Bogan, A.E.; Coan, E.V.; Hochberg, F.G.; Lyons, W.G.; Mikkelsen, P.M.; Neves, R.J.; Roper, C.F.E.;

Rosenberg, G.; Roth, B.; Scheltema, A.; Thompson, F.G.; Vecchione, M.; Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic

invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. 2nd ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 26; 526 p. d

Williams, A.B. (chair); Abele, L.G.; Felder, D.L.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Manning, R.B.; McLaughlin, P.A.; Pérez Farfante, I. 1989. Common

and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 17;

77 p.

e

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine mammals of the world: systematics and distribution. Soc. Mar. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 4; 231 p.
Page iii

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 

One of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of 

commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing 

loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (October 11, 1996) 

The long-term viability of living marine resources 

depends on protection of their habitat. 

NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research 

(February 1998) 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSFCMA), which was reauthorized 

and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996), 

requires the eight regional fishery management councils 

to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) in 

their respective regions, to specify actions to conserve 

and enhance that EFH, and to minimize the adverse 

effects of fishing on EFH. Congress defined EFH as 

“those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.” 

The MSFCMA requires NOAA Fisheries to assist the 

regional fishery management councils in the 

implementation of EFH in their respective fishery 

management plans. 

NOAA Fisheries has taken a broad view of habitat 

as the area used by fish throughout their life cycle. Fish 

use habitat for spawning, feeding, nursery, migration, 

and shelter, but most habitats provide only a subset of 

these functions. Fish may change habitats with changes 

in life history stage, seasonal and geographic 

distributions, abundance, and interactions with other 

species. The type of habitat, as well as its attributes and 

functions, are important for sustaining the production of 

managed species. 

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center compiled 

the available information on the distribution, 

abundance, and habitat requirements for each of the 

species managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils. That information is 

presented in a series of EFH species reports (plus one 

consolidated methods report). The EFH species reports 

are a survey of the important literature as well as 

original analyses of fishery-independent data sets from 

NOAA Fisheries and several coastal states. The species 

reports are also the source for the current EFH 

designations by the New England and Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils, and understandably are 

referred to as the “EFH source documents.” 

NOAA Fisheries provided guidance to the regional 

fishery management councils for identifying and 

describing EFH of their managed species. Consistent 

with this guidance, the species reports present 

information on current and historic stock sizes, 

geographic range, and the period and location of major 

life history stages. The habitats of managed species are 

described by the physical, chemical, and biological 

components of the ecosystem where the species occur. 

Information on the habitat requirements is provided for 

each life history stage, and it includes, where available, 

habitat and environmental variables that control or limit 

distribution, abundance, growth, reproduction, 

mortality, and productivity. 

The initial series of EFH species source documents 

were published in 1999 in the NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NE series. Updating and review 

of the EFH components of the councils’ Fishery 

Management Plans is required at least every 5 years by 

the NOAA Fisheries Guidelines for meeting the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act/EFH Final Rule. The second 

editions of these species source documents were written 

to provide the updated information needed to meet 

these requirements. The second editions provide new 

information on life history, geographic distribution, and 

habitat requirements via recent literature, research, and 

fishery surveys, and incorporate updated and revised 

maps and graphs. This second edition of the Haddock 

EFH source document is based on the original by Luca 

M. Cargnelli, Sara J. Griesbach, Peter L. Berrien, 

Wallace W. Morse, and Donna L. Johnson, with a 

foreword by Jeffrey N. Cross (Cargnelli et al. 1999). 

Identifying and describing EFH are the first steps 

in the process of protecting, conserving, and enhancing 

essential habitats of the managed species. Ultimately, 

NOAA Fisheries, the regional fishery management 

councils, fishing participants, Federal and state 

agencies, and other organizations will have to cooperate 

to achieve the habitat goals established by the 

MSFCMA.
Page iv 
Page v

Contents

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................1

LIFE HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................................................1

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................................................................................3

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................................................4

STATUS OF THE STOCKS................................................................................................................................................5

RESEARCH NEEDS ...........................................................................................................................................................7

REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................................................................................7

Tables

Table 1. Median size and age at maturity of haddock....................................................................................................11

Table 2. Summary of life history and habitat parameters for haddock. .........................................................................12

Figures

Figure 1. The haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus (from Goode 1884).......................................................................15

Figure 2. Percent by weight of the major prey items in the diet of four size categories of haddock...............................16

Figure 3. Overall distribution and abundance of haddock in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. ..........................................17

Figure 4. Distributions and abundances of haddock eggs collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton 

surveys. ............................................................................................................................................................18

Figure 5. Distributions and abundances of haddock eggs collected during GLOBEC Georges Bank ichthyoplankton 

surveys. ............................................................................................................................................................21

Figure 6. Distributions and abundances of haddock larvae collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton 

surveys. ............................................................................................................................................................25

Figure 7. Distributions and abundances of haddock larvae collected during GLOBEC Georges Bank ichthyoplankton 

surveys. ............................................................................................................................................................28

Figure 8. Seasonal distributions and abundances of juvenile haddock collected during NEFSC bottom trawl surveys. 33

Figure 9. Seasonal distributions and abundances of juvenile haddock in Massachusetts coastal waters. .......................37

Figure 10. Seasonal distributions and abundances of adult haddock collected during NEFSC bottom trawl surveys. .....39

Figure 11. Seasonal distributions and abundances of adult haddock in Massachusetts coastal waters. ............................43

Figure 12. Distribution and abundance of haddock along the coasts of Maine and New Hampshire. ..............................45

Figure 13. Length frequency plots for haddock caught along the Maine and New Hampshire coasts, by season/year. ...46

Figure 14. Regional catch-per-unit-effort of haddock caught along the Maine and New Hampshire coasts, by 

season/year.......................................................................................................................................................47

Figure 15. Distributions of haddock eggs collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys relative to 

water column temperature and bottom depth...................................................................................................48

Figure 16. Distributions of haddock eggs collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to water column 

temperature. .....................................................................................................................................................49

Figure 17. Distributions of haddock eggs collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to bottom depth.50

Figure 18. Monthly distributions of haddock larvae collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys 

relative to water column temperature and bottom depth..................................................................................51

Figure 19. Distributions of haddock larvae collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to water 

column temperature..........................................................................................................................................52

Figure 20. Distributions of haddock larvae collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to bottom 

depth.................................................................................................................................................................53

Figure 21. Distributions of juvenile haddock and trawls from NEFSC bottom trawl surveys relative to bottom water 

temperature, depth, and salinity. ......................................................................................................................54
Page vi 

Figure 22. Distributions of juvenile haddock and trawls in Massachusetts coastal waters relative to bottom water 

temperature and depth. .....................................................................................................................................56

Figure 23. Distributions of adult haddock and trawls from NEFSC bottom trawl surveys relative to bottom water 

temperature, depth, and salinity. ......................................................................................................................58

Figure 24. Distributions of adult haddock and trawls in Massachusetts coastal waters relative to bottom water 

temperature and depth. .....................................................................................................................................60

Figure 25. Distribution of surficial sediments along the northeast coast of the United States. .........................................62

Figure 26. Fishing mortality (a), spawning biomass (b), recruitment (c), and recruits per spawning biomass (d) of 

Georges Bank haddock during 1931-2004, from Brodziak et al. (2005). ........................................................63

Figure 27. Spatial definition of haddock management units in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region along with 

locations of the western Gulf of Maine closed area (WGOM CA), Closed Area I (CA I), Closed Area II 

(CA II), and the Nantucket Lightship closed area (Nantucket Lightship CA). ................................................64
Page 1

INTRODUCTION

The haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, is a 

demersal gadid found on both sides of the North 

Atlantic (Figure 1). In the northwest Atlantic, haddock 

are distributed from Cape May, New Jersey to the Strait 

of Belle Isle, Newfoundland (Klein-MacPhee 2002). 

Six haddock stocks have been identified in the 

northwest Atlantic from Newfoundland to Georges 

Bank (Begg 1998). There are two haddock stocks in 

U.S. waters: Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine. U.S. 

haddock fisheries are managed by the New England 

Fishery Management Council under the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (NEFMC 

1993). The Georges Bank haddock stock is also a 

transboundary resource, which is co-managed with 

Canada. 

This Essential Fish Habitat Source Document 

provides up-to-date information on the life history 

characteristics and habitat requirements of the Georges 

Bank and Gulf of Maine haddock stocks. 

LIFE HISTORY 

The life history characteristics of Georges Bank 

and Gulf of Maine haddock are described in detail by 

Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) and Klein-MacPhee 

(2002). Some additional information on early life 

history stages may be found in Hardy (1978) and 

Chenoweth et al. (1986). Characteristics of egg, larval, 

juvenile, and adult haddock life history stages are 

described below. 

EGGS

Haddock spawn over various substrates including 

rocks, gravel, smooth sand, and mud (Klein-MacPhee 

2002). Eggs are broadcast and fertilized near the 

bottom. Fertilized eggs are buoyant and remain in the 

water column where subsequent development occurs 

(Hardy 1978; Page et al. 1989). Egg size ranges from 

1.32-1.60 mm. Incubation time varies with temperature 

(Laurence and Rogers 1976; Hardy 1978) and can range 

from 6-42 days (Klein-MacPhee 2002). In temperaturecontrolled laboratory experiments, haddock eggs 

averaged about 17-21 days to hatch (Hardy 1978). At 

water temperatures typical of Georges Bank, haddock 

eggs hatch in about 15 days (Page and Frank 1989). 

LARVAE 

Newly-hatched haddock larvae range from 2.0-5.0 

mm in length (Klein-MacPhee 2002). Average size at 

hatch is 4.1 mm for Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine 

haddock. Length at hatch tends to decrease as the 

spawning season progresses (Colton and Marak 1969). 

Larvae absorb their yolk sack within roughly 5 days 

(Page et al. 1999).

Larval survival and growth is influenced by 

hatching date and oceanographic conditions. Larvae 

hatched earlier in the spawning season appear to have a 

survival advantage over those hatched later in the 

season (Lapolla and Buckley 2005). On Georges Bank, 

stratified conditions appear to enhance larval survival 

and growth (Buckley and Lough 1987). Larvae may be 

advected long distances by ocean currents. In some 

years, wind-driven currents transport haddock larvae 

from Georges Bank to the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

(Polacheck et al. 1992). Larval growth appears to be 

positively correlated with temperatures of about 7-9C,

but may be suppressed at 4 C (Laurence 1974, 1978). 

In general, increased temperature has a positive effect 

on both larval size at age (Green et al. 2004) and 

growth rates (Caldarone 2005). Larval growth generally 

exceeds 0.2 mm d-1 and appears to peak at about 0.5 

mm d-1 in June (Green et al. 2004). 

JUVENILES

Larvae metamorphose into juveniles in roughly 30-

42 days (Laurence 1978) at lengths of 2-3 cm (Fahay 

1983). Small juveniles initially live and feed in the 

epipelagic zone. Juveniles remain in the upper part of 

the water column for 3-5 months. After reaching 

lengths of 3-10 cm (Hardy 1978; Fahay 1983; Mahon 

and Neilson 1987; Perry and Neilson 1988; Lough and 

Bolz 1989), juveniles visit the ocean bottom in search 

of food. Once suitable bottom habitat is located, 

juveniles settle into a demersal existence (KleinMacPhee 2002). 

ADULTS 

Adult haddock are demersal benthivores ranging in 

size from roughly 30 cm to up to 1 meter. Haddock do 

not make extensive seasonal migrations. In winter, they 

prefer deeper waters and tend to move shoreward in 

summer. When summer water temperatures reach 10-

11C, haddock move to colder, deeper waters. The 

largest haddock reported from American waters was a 

13.6 kg fish (Klein-MacPhee 2002). The oldest 

haddock documented from Northeast Fisheries Science 
Page 2 

Center (NEFSC) surveys during 1963-2002 was a 17 

year old fish captured in 1980. Most commerciallycaught haddock weigh from 1-3 kg. 

REPRODUCTION

Haddock are highly fecund broadcast spawners 

(Klein-MacPhee 2002). Depending upon their size, 

adult females produce on the order of hundreds of 

thousands to millions of eggs per year. Eggs are 

released near the ocean bottom in batches and fertilized 

by a courting male. After fertilization, haddock eggs 

become buoyant and rise to the surface water layer. 

Median age and size of maturity differ slightly 

between the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine haddock 

stocks (Table 1). During the late-1980s, Georges Bank 

haddock matured at younger ages and smaller sizes than 

Gulf of Maine haddock (O’Brien et al. 1993, see also 

Clark 1959). On Georges Bank, males matured at 

younger ages and smaller sizes than females. In the 

Gulf of Maine, median age of maturity for males was 

greater than for females while male and female sizes at 

maturity were similar. Size at maturity of Georges Bank 

haddock has declined in recent years (O’Brien et al.

1993; Trippel et al. 1997). For example, female median 

length of maturity was about 40 cm during 1977-1983 

but declined to about 34-36 cm in the early-1990s. 

Density-dependence may explain the apparent decline 

in median size of maturity since haddock appear to 

mature at smaller sizes when population density is low 

(Waiwood and Buzeta 1989; Ross and Nelson 1992). 

Georges Bank is the principal haddock spawning 

area in the northeast U.S. continental shelf ecosystem. 

Haddock spawning is concentrated on the northeast 

peak of Georges Bank. The western edge of Georges 

Bank also supports a smaller spawning concentration 

(Walford 1938). The two spawning components are 

persistent and exhibit phenotypic differences in otolith 

morphometrics (Begg et al. 2000). Although the vast 

majority of reproductive output originates from 

Georges Bank, some limited spawning activity occurs 

on Nantucket Shoals (Smith and Morse 1985) and along 

the South Channel (Colton and Temple 1961). In the 

Gulf of Maine, Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank are 

the two primary spawning sites (Colton 1972). In 

addition, Ames (1997) also reported numerous small, 

isolated spawning areas in inshore Gulf of Maine 

waters. Based on interviews with retired commercial 

fishers from Maine and New Hampshire, Ames (1997) 

identified 100 haddock spawning sites, covering 

roughly 500 square miles, from Ipswich Bay to Grand 

Manan Channel. 

The timing of haddock spawning activity varies 

among areas. In general, spawning occurs later in more 

northerly regions (Page and Frank 1989; Lapolla and 

Buckley 2005). There is also inter-annual variation in 

the onset and peak of spawning activity. On Georges 

Bank, spawning occurs from January to June (Smith 

and Morse 1985), usually peaking from February to 

early-April (Smith and Morse 1985; Lough and Bolz 

1989; Page and Frank 1989; Brander and Hurley 1992; 

Lapolla and Buckley 2005) but the timing can vary by a 

month or more depending upon water temperature 

(Marak and Livingstone 1970; Page and Frank 1989). 

In the Gulf of Maine, spawning occurs from early 

February to May, usually peaking in February to April 

(Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Overall, cooler water 

temperatures tend to delay haddock spawning and may 

contract the duration of spawning activity (Marak and 

Livingstone 1970; Page and Frank 1989). 

FOOD HABITS 

Haddock diet changes with life history stage. 

Pelagic larvae and small juvenile haddock feed on 

phytoplankton, copepods, and invertebrate eggs in the 

upper part of the water column (Kane 1984). Juvenile 

haddock eat small crustaceans, primarily copepods and 

euphausiids, as well as polychaetes and small fishes. 

Juveniles make a transition from pelagic to demersal 

habitat at ages from 3 to 5 months. During this 

transition, juvenile diet changes to primarily benthic 

prey (Mahon and Neilson 1987). Planktonic prey such 

as copepods and pteropods decrease in importance after 

juveniles become demersal, while ophiuroids and 

polychaetes increase in importance. When juveniles 

reach 8 cm in length, they feed primarily on 

echinoderms, small decapods, and other benthic prey 

(Bowman et al. 1987). Benthic juveniles above 30 cm 

and adults feed primarily on crustaceans, polychaetes, 

mollusks, echinoderms, and some fish (Bowman and 

Michaels 1984; Mahon and Neilson 1987; KleinMacPhee 2002). Regional variation in haddock food 

habits also exists (Bowman et al. 2000). Echinoderms 

are more common prey items in the Gulf of Maine than 

on Georges Bank. In contrast, polychaetes are more 

common prey on Georges Bank than in the Gulf of 

Maine. 

Food habits data collected during Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) bottom trawl 

surveys [see Reid et al. (1999) and Link and Almeida 

(2000)] reveal that the species composition of haddock 

prey varies by haddock size class (Figure 2). 

Unidentified fish (> 40%), amphipods (> 30%), and 

well-digested prey (WDP, > 10%) were the most 

common prey items by weight for small haddock less 

than 20 cm in length. The diet of haddock between 20 

and 50 cm in length was more varied and included 

WDP (> 20%), amphipods (> 15%), ophiuroids (> 

10%), and polychaetes (> 10%). Ophiuroids (> 15%), 

amphipods (> 10%), WDP (> 10%), and polychaetes (> 

10%) were the most common prey items of large 
Page 3

haddock with lengths between 50 and 80 cm. Extralarge haddock over 80 cm in length fed primarily upon 

clupeids (> 25%), ophiuroids (> 20%), amphipods (> 

10%), and scombrids (> 10%). There was more 

sampling variation in the diet of extra-large haddock 

due to low sample size. Overall, the NEFSC food habits 

data show that haddock diet includes more ophiuroids 

and becomes more varied as fish increase in size. It also 

shows that amphipods are an important prey item for all 

demersal life history stages and that fish are an 

important component of the diet of very large haddock. 

LARVAL RETENTION 

The retention of haddock larvae in suitable nursery 

areas is an important factor in determining year class 

strength of Georges Bank haddock. The clockwise gyre 

around the main portion of Georges Bank provides a 

physical mechanism to retain haddock larvae on the 

Bank. Larvae associated with the interior of the gyre 

tend to remain on Georges Bank (Smith and Morse 

1985) while those associated with the outside of the 

gyre tend to be transported southwest by prevailing 

currents towards Nantucket Shoals. Strong year-classes 

may arise in years when circulation results in either 

retention of larvae on the Bank (Smith and Morse 1985) 

or in transport of larvae to nursery grounds to the 

southwest of the Bank (Colton and Temple 1961; 

Polacheck et al. 1992). Comparisons of water 

residence times on Georges Bank and spawning 

locations suggest that haddock select areas and times of 

the year that enhance the probability of larval retention 

on the Bank (Page et al. 1999).

Lough and Bolz (1989) found that the southerly 

drift of larvae may be slowed, and retention on the 

shoals of Georges Bank enhanced, by larvae residing 

nearer to the bottom in waters shallower than 70 m. In 

some years, differences in wind stress and associated 

geostrophic currents alter the pattern of larval retention 

on the Bank. Wind-driven southwesterly surface 

currents can alter the pattern of larval retention and 

transport haddock larvae over hundreds of kilometers 

into the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Polacheck et al. 1992). In 

contrast, strong episodes of southeastward wind stress 

are associated with high egg and larval mortalities in 

some years (Mountain et al. 2003). There is limited 

information on retention of larval haddock in the Gulf 

of Maine. Ames (1997) suggests that haddock eggs and 

larvae in coastal Gulf of Maine waters may be retained 

in suitable habitats by tidal currents. 

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 

In the northwest Atlantic, haddock are distributed 

from Cape Charles, Virginia to Labrador, Canada 

(Figure 3). Georges Bank, the Scotian Shelf, and the 

southern Grand Bank have the highest densities of 

haddock. The distributions of haddock egg, larval, and 

juvenile and adult stages on Georges Bank and the Gulf 

of Maine are described below. 

EGGS

The distribution of haddock eggs was determined 

using monthly NEFSC Marine Resources Monitoring, 

Assessment and Prediction (MARMAP) survey data. 

During 1978-1987, MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys 

caught haddock eggs from New Jersey to southwest 

Nova Scotia (Figure 4). The highest densities were 

found on Georges Bank and Browns Bank, which are 

important haddock spawning areas (Colton and Temple 

1961; Laurence and Rogers 1976; Brander and Hurley 

1992). Eggs were collected from January through 

August. The highest concentrations occurred in April, 

followed by March and May. This pattern is consistent 

with the timing of peak spawning from March to May 

(Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Page and Frank 1989; 

Brander and Hurley 1992). In particular, the highest 

mean densities of eggs occurred in April (77.3 eggs/10 

m2

) and March (21.1 eggs/10 m2). By July and August, 

mean densities had decreased substantially (< 0.1 

eggs/10 m2

).

Data from the more recent U.S. GLOBEC Georges 

Bank surveys (February-July, 1995; January-June, 

1996-1999) showed the highest concentration of eggs to 

be on the eastern, Canadian side of Georges Bank, with 

peaks occurring during February-March and into April 

(Figure 5). 

LARVAE 

The distribution of haddock larvae was determined 

using monthly MARMAP survey data. The 1977-1987 

MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys captured haddock 

larvae from the Delmarva Peninsula to southwest Nova 

Scotia (Figure 6). Larvae were collected from January 

through July. The highest mean densities occurred in 

May (8.3 larvae/10 m2

) and April (8.1 larvae/10 m2).

High densities of larvae were found off southwest Nova 

Scotia and Georges Bank, spreading southward. Mean 

densities were low in January and February. Larval 

densities were highest in April through June and 

declined substantially by July (< 0.1 larvae/10 m2

).

These findings are consistent with the seasonal pattern 
Page 4 

of haddock spawning (Smith and Morse 1985; 

Campana 1989). 

Data from the more recent U.S. GLOBEC Georges 

Bank surveys showed the highest numbers of larvae 

were in March and April and mostly in southern areas 

of the Bank between the 50-100m isobath (Figure 7). 

JUVENILES AND ADULTS 

Seasonal catches of juvenile (< 31 cm) and adult 

haddock (> 31 cm) in NEFSC bottom trawl surveys 

[see Reid et al. (1999) for details] during 1963-2003 

show that the distributions of juvenile and adult 

haddock are generally similar (Figure 8 and Figure 10; 

note that winter and summer distributions are presented 

as presence data only, precluding a discussion of 

abundances). During winter and summer, juveniles and 

adults (Figure 8 and Figure 10) are found on Georges 

Bank, throughout the Gulf of Maine, in southern New 

England, and in the northern section of the MidAtlantic (the latter is not true for adults in the summer). 

During spring, adults are generally found near 

spawning areas (Figure 10). Dense concentrations of 

adults are found on the northeast peak of Georges Bank, 

in the Great South Channel and in coastal waters of the 

Gulf of Maine. Juvenile distribution during spring is 

similar to that of adults although more juveniles occur 

on the southern flank of Georges Bank (Figure 8). In 

autumn, adults are found throughout the Gulf of Maine, 

the Great South Channel, and the northern flank and 

northeast peak of Georges Bank (Figure 10). Juvenile 

distribution during autumn is generally shallower than 

adults and in some years, extends south into the MidAtlantic Bight, with large numbers around Hudson 

Canyon (Figure 8). 

Information on the inshore distribution of juvenile 

and adult haddock was collected from Massachusetts 

inshore bottom trawl surveys during 1978-2003 [see 

Reid et al. (1999) for details]. Juveniles were more 

abundant in coastal Massachusetts waters than adults 

(Figure 9 and Figure 11), and were more abundant in 

autumn than spring. In the spring, juveniles were most 

abundant north of Cape Ann, in northeastern 

Massachusetts Bay, and in two aggregations off eastern 

Cape Cod, but were not widespread in Cape Cod Bay. 

Another aggregation was found northwest of 

Provincetown, Cape Cod. Adults were more abundant 

in spring than in autumn. In spring, adults were most 

abundant in northeast Massachusetts Bay, and were also 

found northeast of Cape Ann and around Provincetown. 

In autumn, juveniles were most abundant directly north 

and northeast of Cape Ann and in northeastern 

Massachusetts Bay. They were also found in two 

aggregations off the east coast of Cape Cod, and in low 

numbers throughout Cape Cod Bay. In autumn, adults 

were mostly absent from inshore Massachusetts waters. 

The distributions and abundances of juvenile and 

adult haddock along the coasts of Maine and New 

Hampshire, based on spring and fall 2000-2004 MaineNew Hampshire inshore groundfish surveys (Sherman 

et al. 2005), are shown in Figure 12. The majority were 

juveniles, particularly in the fall, with higher numbers 

of adults seen in the spring (Figure 13). Haddock CPUE 

along the Maine-New Hampshire coast by region and 

season/year is shown in Figure 14. 

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS 

Detailed information on life history and habitat 

parameters for Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine 

haddock were summarized from the literature (Table 2). 

The habitat characteristics of egg and larval stages as 

well as juvenile and adult stages are described below. 

EGGS AND LARVAE 

Haddock egg and larval stages are pelagic. They 

are usually found at depths of 10-50 m below the 

surface (Marak 1960; Colton and Temple 1961; Miller 

et al. 1963; Hardy 1978), and in water temperatures of 

4-10°C (Laurence and Rogers 1976; Laurence 1978) 

and salinities of 34-36 ppt (Laurence and Rogers 1976). 

During the MARMAP surveys, most haddock eggs 

were collected at temperatures of 4-10°C and depths of 

50-130 m while most larvae were collected at 4-14°C 

and 30-90 m (Figure 15 and Figure 18). 

Haddock eggs were sampled at temperatures 

ranging from 2-

10°C. The vast majority were found at 

4-10°C (Figure 15), the temperature range at which egg 

survival is highest (Hardy 1978). In January, the 

highest densities of eggs were found at 6-7°C , while in 

February, March, and April, the highest densities 

occurred at 4-6°C. This is consistent with Colton 

(1972) and Hardy (1978) who reported that the 

optimum spawning temperature for haddock is 2-7°C. 

In May and June, the highest abundance of eggs was at 

5-7°C. During July and August almost all eggs were 

found at 8-10°C. Thus, eggs were found at higher 

temperatures as the spawning season progressed. 

Eggs were sampled at water column depths ranging 

from 10 m to 450 m. However, the majority were found 

at 50-130 m (Figure 15). From January to May the 

highest density of eggs occurred at depths of 70-90 m, 

while in June the majority of eggs were deeper, at 110-

150 m. In July, all eggs were found between 90-110 m, 

and in August all eggs were found at 50-70 m. 

Larvae were captured at temperatures of 2-15°C, a 

wider range than for eggs. The majority of larvae 

occurred at 4-14°C (Figure 18). There was monthly 

variation in the temperatures where larvae were caught. 
Page 5

In January, the majority of larvae were found at 

temperatures of 8-9°C. During February to April, larvae 

were at a cooler range of 4-6°C. In May and June, most 

larvae were caught at 6-9°C. In July, a few larvae were 

found at 9-11°C and 14°C. 

Larvae were captured at water column depths 

ranging from 10 m to 325 m. However the majority 

occurred at 30-90 m (Figure 18). From January to June, 

most larvae were found at 70-90 m, and during July all 

larvae were found at 30-90 m, with the highest 

abundance at 30-50 m. 

During the more recent GLOBEC Georges Bank 

survey from January to July 1995-1999, the majority of 

eggs were found in a narrow temperature range of about 

3-4°C in January, and from about 1-3°C from February 

to May, and at temperatures of 3-6°C in June (Figure 

13). Their depth range on Georges Bank during that 

same period was centered on 61-100 m (Figure 14). 

Larvae were found at temperatures of 6-7°C in January, 

mostly from 5-6°C in February and April, and from 4-

5°C in March (Figure 16). In May, the majority were 

found at the lower temperature of 2°C, while in June 

they were spread over a temperature range of 6-12°C. 

In July, larvae were caught at 8°C and 10°C. Most were 

found at depths of 61-100 m from January to April, 

from 61-80 in May and June, and from 81-120 m in 

July (Figure 17). 

JUVENILES AND ADULTS 

Juvenile and adult haddock are demersal. Juveniles 

and adults are usually found at depths between 40-150 

m (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Murawski and Finn 

1988; Perry and Neilson 1988). Their preferred depth 

range is from 50-100 m (Scott 1982; Waiwood and 

Buzeta 1989), but they can sometimes be found as 

shallow as 10 m (Blacker 1971) or as deep as 200+ m 

(Colton 1972; Hardy 1978). 

Juveniles are commonly found at water 

temperatures of 4.5-10°C (Murawski and Finn 1988). 

Adults can be found at a wider range of 0-13°C (Hardy 

1978), but prefer temperatures of 2-9°C (Bigelow and 

Schroeder 1953; Colton 1972; Waiwood and Buzeta 

1989). Juvenile and adult haddock are commonly 

associated with salinities of 31-35 ppt, although 32 ppt 

is optimal (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Scott 1982; 

Waiwood and Buzeta 1989). 

During spring and fall NEFSC trawl surveys 

(Figure 21 and Figure 23), both juveniles and adults 

were caught at depths of 21-400 m and temperatures of 

2-16°C. During spring and fall Massachusetts inshore 

trawl surveys (Figure 22 and Figure 24), juveniles were 

caught at depths of 6-85 m and temperatures of 3-16°C, 

while adults were caught at 26-85 m and 4-12°C. 

During spring NEFSC surveys, most juveniles and 

adults were captured at temperatures of 4-7°C with 

peaks at 5-6°C (Figure 21 and Figure 23). The preferred 

juvenile depth range in spring was 71-140 m while the 

preferred salinity range was 33 ppt. The preferred adult 

depth range in spring was 51-120 m while the preferred 

salinity was 33 ppt. During autumn, the preferred 

juvenile temperature range was about 6-13°C with a 

peak at 8°C (Figure 21). Most juveniles were captured 

at depths of 41-120 m and at salinities of 32-34 ppt. The 

preferred adult temperature range during autumn was 6-

10°C, and with a peak at 7°C (Figure 23). Most adults 

were found at depths greater than 81 m, with a 

preferred salinity of 33-34 ppt. 

During the Massachusetts spring inshore trawl 

surveys, juveniles were primarily found at temperatures 

of 4-8°C and at depths of 31-65 m (Figure 22). Most 

adults occurred at temperatures of 4-8°C and depths of 

46-55 m (Figure 24). In the autumn, juveniles were 

primarily found at temperatures of 7-10°C and at depths 

of 31-50 m (Figure 22). Adults were generally absent 

from inshore waters during autumn (Figure 24); the few 

that were present occurred at temperatures of 8°C, 

10°C, and 12°C and at depths of 61-65 m. 

SUBSTRATE

Preferred bottom types include gravel, pebbles, 

clay, and smooth hard sand, particularly smooth areas 

between rocky patches (Klein-MacPhee 2002). Juvenile 

and adult haddock do not frequent ledges, rocks, kelp, 

or soft oozy mud. The distribution of substrate 

sediments on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine 

area show regional differences (Figure 25). Substantial 

areas of suitable substrate for haddock (i.e., sand, 

gravelly sand, and gravel) are found on Georges Bank. 

In contrast, fewer areas of suitable substrate exist in the 

Gulf of Maine. Consequently, haddock are more 

abundant on Georges Bank than in the Gulf of Maine. 

In particular, the principal haddock spawning area on 

the northeast peak of Georges Bank (Colton and 

Temple 1961; Lough and Bolz 1989) contains large 

areas of suitable substrate. Similarly, the two principal 

spawning areas in the Gulf of Maine, Stellwagen Bank 

and Jeffreys Ledge (Colton 1972), also contain gravelly 

sand substrate. 

STATUS OF THE STOCKS 

The U.S. Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (DOC 

1996) requires that fishery conservation and 

management measures prevent overfishing and rebuild 

depleted stocks to biomasses consistent with producing 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Overfishing occurs 

whenever fishing mortality exceeds a threshold that 

jeopardizes the reproductive capacity of a stock to 
Page 6 

produce maximum sustainable yield. Guidelines to the 

Act also specify that a depleted resource is one that has 

been reduced below a minimum stock size threshold. 

For Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine haddock, the 

minimum stock size threshold is one-half the biomass 

needed to produce MSY (BMSY). It is possible for a 

stock to be classified as overfished (due to previous 

overharvesting) even though the annual harvest rate is 

below the overfishing threshold. This has been the case 

for haddock, which have been rebuilding in recent 

years.

For Georges Bank haddock, spawning biomass and 

the proxy fishing mortality (FMSY) to produce MSY are 

BMSY = 250,300 mt and FMSY = 0.26, respectively 

(Northeast Fisheries Science Center 2002). The 

overfished threshold for Georges Bank haddock is 

BTHRESHOLD = 125,200 mt. The overfishing threshold for 

Georges Bank haddock is FTHRESHOLD = 0.26. In the last 

formal assessment of Georges Bank haddock in 2004 

(Brodziak et al. 2005), spawning biomass was 116,800 

mt (93% of BTHRESHOLD and 47% of BMSY). Therefore, 

the Georges Bank haddock stock was overfished in 

2004. In 2004, the fishing mortality was 0.24 (92% of 

FTHRESHOLD). Therefore, overfishing was not occurring 

on the Georges Bank haddock stock in 2004. 

For Gulf of Maine haddock, the stock biomass 

index and the proxy exploitation rate index to produce 

MSY are BMSY = 22.2 kg/tow and FMSY = 0.23 

(Northeast Fisheries Science Center 2002). The 

overfished threshold for Gulf of Maine haddock is 

BTHRESHOLD = 11.1 kg/tow. The overfishing threshold 

for Gulf of Maine haddock is FTHRESHOLD = 0.23. In the 

last formal assessment of the Gulf of Maine haddock 

stock in 2004 (Brodziak and Traver 2005), the stock 

biomass index was 5.8 kg/tow (52% of BTHRESHOLD and 

26% of BMSY) with a standard error of 1.1 kg/tow. 

Based on the point estimate of the biomass index, the 

Gulf of Maine haddock stock was overfished in 2004. 

In 2004, the exploitation rate index was 0.18 (78% of 

FTHRESHOLD). Therefore, overfishing was not occurring 

on the Gulf of Maine haddock stock in 2004.

Prior to mid-1990s, Georges Bank haddock had 

been overfished for decades (Brodziak and Link 2002). 

The stock had experienced long-term declines in 

spawning biomass and recruitment (Brodziak et al.

2001) and was considered by some to have been near 

collapse in the early 1990s. It was around this time that 

fishery management actions to recover Georges Bank 

haddock and other groundfish stocks were initiated. 

Fishery management measures implemented since 

1994 have decreased fishing mortality (Figure 26a). 

These measures have included large year-round closed 

areas, restrictions on fishing effort, increases in trawl 

mesh size, and other conservation measures (Fogarty 

and Murawski 1998). Fishing mortality on Georges 

Bank haddock averaged F=0.35 per year during 1980-

1993, or about 36% higher than the current overfishing 

limit (FMSY =0.26) for this stock. Since 1994, annual 

fishing mortality for Georges Bank haddock has 

averaged about F=0.17, about 30% below FMSY.

Stock response to reductions in fishing mortality 

during the 1990s was dramatic (Figure 26b). Under 

persistent overfishing in the 1980s, Georges Bank 

haddock spawning biomass declined from 67,400 mt in 

1980 to only 14,600 mt in 1993. Since 1994, spawning 

biomass has increased substantially as fishing mortality 

decreased. By 2003, spawning biomass had increased to 

131,900 mt, the highest abundance of adult spawners 

since 1966 and over a 9-fold increase since 1993. 

Nonetheless, the Georges Bank haddock stock is 

presently considered to be overfished since spawning 

biomass is still less than half of the rebuilding target. 

Recruitment of Georges Bank haddock has 

displayed a similar positive response as spawning 

biomass to reduced fishing mortality (Figure 26c). 

Recruitment averaged only 8 million age-1 recruits per 

year during 1980-1993. Since 1994, average 

recruitment has increased over 10-fold to about 87 

million fish. Further, prospects remain positive for 

continued high recruitment. When Georges Bank 

haddock spawning stock biomass (SSB) exceeds its 

1931-1998 median value of about 82,000 mt, the 

likelihood of above-average recruitment increases over 

20-fold (Brodziak et al. 2001). Similarly, the expected 

magnitude of recruitment increases over 3-fold when 

SSB exceeds 82,000 mt. Recent U.S. and Canadian 

assessments and research survey data suggest that the 

2003 year class is exceptionally abundant (Figure 26c). 

Recruits per spawner data shows that survival 

ratios for Georges Bank haddock were relatively low 

from the late-1960s to early-1990s in comparison to 

historic ratios during the 1930s-1960s (Figure 26d). The 

impact of the large-scale area closures, reductions in 

fishing effort, and trawl mesh size increases during the 

1990s have had a positive effect on recruits per 

spawning stock biomass (R/SSB). During 1980-1993, 

R/SSB averaged about 0.33 recruits per kg. Since 1994, 

average R/SSB, excluding the exceptional 2003 year 

class, has increased to 0.46 recruits per kg. Further 

increases in R/SSB may still occur since, at least 

historically, the expected value of R/SSB was higher. 

Overall, the recent increases in R/SSB indicate that 

survival ratios are approaching the historical average of 

about 0.76 recruits per kg observed during 1931-1960. 

If the recent increase in productivity can be sustained, it 

is possible that historic yields on the order of 50,000 mt 

per year may be achieved. 

The formal rebuilding plan for Georges Bank 

haddock adopted in Amendment 13 calls for fishing at 

the overfishing threshold FMSY=0.26 during 2004-2008 

(NEFMC 2003). In 2009, the fishing mortality would 

be reduced marginally to FREBUILD=0.245, a value 

projected to produce at least a 50% chance that 

spawning biomass will meet or exceed BMSY=250,300 

mt in 2014. This rebuilding strategy is subject to change 

in 2008 if observed progress towards rebuilding 
Page 7

spawning biomass or reducing fishing mortality is not 

consistent with the projected rebuilding trajectory. 

In May, 2004, a formal quota sharing agreement 

between Canada and the U.S. was implemented to share 

the harvest of the transboundary eastern Georges Bank 

haddock management unit (Figure 27). This agreement 

includes total allowable catch quotas for each country 

as well as in-season monitoring of the catch of haddock 

on eastern Georges Bank. 

RESEARCH NEEDS 

The biology of northwest Atlantic haddock is 

reasonably well known and the habitat matrix is 

relatively complete (Table 2). However, more detailed 

information is needed in certain areas: 

 More information is needed on the population 

genetic structure of haddock stocks. The present 

stock definitions are based on tagging studies, 

meristic data, age composition, and growth data 

(Northeast Fisheries Science Center 1997). Few 

studies of genetic structure currently exist. Purcell 

et al. (1996) detected significant temporal variation 

in gene frequencies on Georges Bank, and 

suggested that spawning on the Bank may not be 

genetically discrete. However, Zwanenburg et al.

(1992) found that gene flow among spawning 

aggregations on five banks in the northwestern 

Atlantic, including Georges Bank, was restricted 

and that deep channels can be significant barriers 

to gene flow. Zwanenburg et al. (1992) indicated 

that additional sampling effort was needed to 

provide a clearer understanding of haddock 

population structure. 

 A better understanding of the factors affecting 

recruitment and year-class strength is also needed. 

Research into obvious factors such as the effects of 

water temperatures, food levels, and predation on 

the survival of the early life stages is required. 

Also, the role of other factors such as hydrographic 

effects (e.g., tidal and non-tidal currents) which 

affect the retention and transport of eggs and larvae 

should be investigated more thoroughly. 

 Interactions with other closely related species (e.g., 

cod) are probably important, and need to be better 

understood. 

 Detailed information on fecundity and spawning 

behavior is needed. There is limited field data on 

haddock reproductive biology for either the 

Georges Bank or the Gulf of Maine stocks. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Ames, E.P. 1997. Cod and haddock spawning grounds 

in the Gulf of Maine: From Grand Manan Channel 

to Ipswich Bay. Island Institute, Rockland, ME. 33 

p.

Begg, G.A. 1998. A review of stock identification of 

haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, in the 

northwest Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Fish. Rev. 60: 1-

15. 

Begg, G.A., W.J. Overholtz, and N.J. Munroe. 2000. 

The use of internal otolith morphometrics for 

identification of haddock (Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus) stocks on Georges Bank. Fish. Bull. 

(U.S.) 99: 1-14. 

Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the 

Gulf of Maine. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 

53. 577 p. 

Blacker, R.W. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on 

haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus (Linnaeus 

1758). FAO Fish. Synop. No. 84. 30 p. 

Bowman, R.E. and W.L. Michaels. 1984. Food of 

seventeen species of northwest Atlantic fish. 

NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-28. 183 p. 

Bowman, R.E., T.R. Azarowitz, E.S. Howard, and B.P. 

Hayden. 1987. Food and distribution of juveniles 

of seventeen northwest Atlantic fish species, 1973-

1976. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-45. 57 p. 

Bowman, R.E., C.E. Stillwell, W.L. Michaels, and 

M.D. Grosslein. 2000. Food of Northwest 

Atlantic fishes and two common species of squid. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE 155. 138 p. 

Brander, K. and P.C.F. Hurley. 1992. Distribution of 

early-stage Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus), and witch flounder

(Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) eggs on the Scotian 

Shelf: a reappraisal of evidence on the coupling of 

cod spawning and plankton production. Can. J. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 238-251. 

Brodziak, J., and J. Link. 2002. Ecosystem-based 

fishery management: What is it and how can we do 

it? Bull. Mar. Sci. 70: 589-611. 

Brodziak, J.K.T., W.J. Overholtz, and P.J. Rago. 2001. 

Does spawning stock affect recruitment of New 

England groundfish? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 

306-318. 

Brodziak, J. and M. Traver. 2005. Gulf of Maine 

haddock. In: Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 

2005. Assessment of 19 Northeast groundfish 

stocks through 2004: a report of the Groundfish 

Assessment Review Meeting (2005 GARM), 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts, 15-19 August, 2005. Northeast 

Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 05-13. p. 415-423.
Page 8 

Brodziak, J., M. Traver, and L. Col. 2005. Georges 

Bank haddock. In: Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center. 2005. Assessment of 19 northeast 

groundfish stocks through 2004: a report of the 

Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (2005 

GARM), Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 15-19 August, 2005. 

Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 05-13. p. 30-

80. 

Buckley, L.J. and R.G. Lough. 1987. Recent growth, 

biochemical composition, and prey field of larval 

haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and Atlantic 

cod (Gadus morhua) on Georges Bank. Can. J. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44: 14-25. 

Caldarone, E.M. 2005. Estimating growth in haddock 

larvae Melanogrammus aeglefinus from 

RNA:DNA ratios and water temperature. Mar. 

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 293: 241-252. 

Campana, S.E. 1989. Otolith microstructure of three 

larval gadids in the Gulf of Maine, with inferences 

on early life history. Can. J. Zool. 67: 1401-1410. 

Campana, S.E., S.J. Smith, and P.C.F. Hurley. 1989. A 

drift-retention dichotomy for larval haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) spawned on Browns 

Bank. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46 (Suppl. No. 1): 

93-102. 

Cargnelli, L.M., S.J. Griesbach, P.L. Berrien, W.W. 

Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 1999. Essential fish 

habitat source document: Haddock, 

Melanogrammus aeglefinus, life history and habitat 

characteristics. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE128. 

Chenoweth, S.B., D.A. Libby, and K.E. Geib. 1986. 

Early life histories of commercial shrimp and fish. 

Final report. NOAA/NMFS Management Division, 

State Federal Regulations Branch. Project No. 3-

378-R-2. 75 p. + appendices. 

Clark, J.R. 1959. Sexual maturity of haddock. Trans. 

Am. Fish. Soc. 88: 212-213. 

Colton, J.B., Jr. 1972. Temperature trends and the 

distribution of groundfish in continental shelf 

waters, Nova Scotia to Long Island. Fish. Bull. 

(U.S.) 70: 637-658. 

Colton, J.B., Jr. and R.R. Marak. 1969. Guide for 

identifying the common planktonic fish eggs and 

larvae of continental shelf waters, Cape Sable to 

Block Island. Bur. Comm. Fish., Woods Hole Lab. 

Ref. Doc. 69-9. 72 p. 

Colton, J.B., Jr. and R.F. Temple. 1961. The enigma of 

Georges Bank spawning. Limnol. Oceanogr. 6: 

280-291. 

Cushing, D.H. 1986. The migration of larval and 

juvenile fish from spawning ground to nursery 

ground. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 43: 43-49. 

[DOC] Department of Commerce. 1996. MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act as amended through October 11, 1996. NOAA 

Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/SPO-23, 1996. 

Fahay, M.P. 1983. Guide to the early stages of marine 

fishes occurring in the western North Atlantic 

Ocean, Cape Hatteras to the southern Scotian 

Shelf. J. Northwest Atl. Sci. 4: 1-423. 

Fogarty, M.J. and S.A. Murawski. 1998. Large-scale 

disturbance and the structure of marine 

ecosystems.: fishery impacts on Georges Bank. 

Ecol. Appl. 8: S6-S22. 

Goode, G.B. 1884. The fisheries and fishery industries 

of the United States. Section I: Natural history of 

useful aquatic animals. Govt. Print. Office, 

Washington, DC. Plates. 

Green, J., R. Jones, and S. Brownwell. 2004. Age and 

growth of larval cod and haddock on Georges Bank 

during 1995 and 1996. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 285: 

255-268. 

Hardy, J.D. 1978. Development of fishes of the MidAtlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile 

stages. Vol. 2: Anquillidae through Syngnathidae. 

U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS78/12. 458 p. 

Kane, J. 1984. The feeding habits of co-occurring cod 

and haddock larvae from Georges Bank. Mar. Ecol. 

Prog. Ser. 16: 9-20. 

Klein-MacPhee, G. 2002. Haddock/ Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus Linnaeus 1758. In: Collette, B.B., KleinMacPhee, G., editors. Bigelow and Schroeder’s 

fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 3rd Edition. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 

235-242. 

Langton, R.W. and R.E. Bowman. 1980. Food of 

fifteen northwest Atlantic gadiform fishes. 

NOAA Tech. Rep. SSRF-740. 23 p. 

Lapolla, A. and L.J. Buckley. 2005. Hatch date 

distributions of young-of-year haddock 

Melanogrammus aeglefinus in the Gulf of 

Maine/Georges Bank region: implications for 

recruitment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 290: 239-249. 

Laurence, G.C. 1974. Growth and survival of haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) larvae in relation to 

planktonic prey concentration. J. Fish. Res. Board 

Can. 31: 1415-1419. 

Laurence, G.C. 1978. Comparative growth, respiration 

and delayed feeding abilities of larval cod (Gadus 

morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus) as influenced by temperature during 

laboratory studies. Mar. Biol. 50: 1-7. 

Laurence, G.C. and C.A. Rogers. 1976. Effects of 

temperature and salinity on comparative embryo 

development and mortality of Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua L.) and haddock (Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus (L.)). J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 36: 

220-228. 

Link, J.S. and F.P. Almeida. 2000. An overview and 

history of the food web dynamics program of the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE159. 
Page 9

Lough, R.G. and G.R. Bolz. 1989. The movement of 

cod and haddock larvae onto the shoals of Georges 

Bank. J. Fish Biol. 35 (Suppl. A): 71-79. 

Lough, R.G., P.C. Valentine, D.C. Potter, P.J. Auditore, 

G.R. Bolz, J.D. Neilson, and R.I. Perry. 1989. 

Ecology and distribution of juvenile cod and 

haddock in relation to sediment type and bottom 

currents on eastern Georges Bank. Mar. Ecol. Prog. 

Ser. 56: 1-12. 

Mahon, R. and J.D. Neilson. 1987. Diet changes in 

Scotian Shelf haddock during the pelagic and 

demersal phases of the first year of life. Mar. Ecol. 

Prog. Ser. 37: 123-130. 

Marak, R.R. 1960. Food habits of larval cod, haddock 

and coalfish in the Gulf of Maine and Georges 

Bank area. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 25: 147-157. 

Marak, R.R. and R. Livingstone, Jr. 1970. Spawning 

dates of Georges Bank haddock. Int. Comm. 

Northwest Atl. Fish. (ICNAF) Res. Bull. 7: 56-58. 

Miller, D.J., R.R. Colton, and R.R. Marak. 1963. A 

study of the vertical distribution of larval haddock. 

J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 28: 37-49. 

Mountain, D., P. Berrien, and J. Sibunka. 2003. 

Distribution, abundance and mortality of cod and 

haddock eggs and larvae on Georges Bank in 1995 

and 1996. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 263: 247-260. 

Murawski, S.A. and J.T. Finn. 1988. Ecological bases 

for mixed-species fisheries: species co-distribution 

in relation to environmental and biotic variables. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 1720-1735. 

[NEFMC] New England Fishery Management Council. 

1993. Final amendment #5 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

incorporating the supplemental environmental 

impact statement. Vol. 1. September 1993. 

NEFMC. [Saugus, MA.] 361 p. 

[NEFMC] New England Fishery Management Council. 

2003. Final amendment 13 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan including a 

final supplemental environmental impact statement 

and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

NEFMC. [Newburyport, MA] 1659 p. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1997. Report of the 

24th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (24th SAW): Stock Assessment Review 

Committee (SARC) consensus summary of 

assessments. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 

97-12. 291 p. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2002. Final report 

of the working group on re-evaluation of biological 

reference points for New England groundfish. 

Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 02-04. 249 p. 

O’Brien, L., J. Burnett, and R.K. Mayo. 1993. 

Maturation of nineteen species of finfish off the 

northeast coast of the United States, 1985-1990. 

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 113. 66 p. 

Page, F.H. and K.T. Frank. 1989. Spawning time and 

egg stage duration in northwest Atlantic haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) stocks with emphasis 

on Georges and Browns Bank. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 46 (Suppl. No. 1): 68-81. 

Page, F.H., K.T. Frank, and K.R. Thompson. 1989. 

Stage dependent vertical distribution of haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) eggs in a stratified 

water column: observations and model. Can. J. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46 (Suppl. No. 1): 55-67. 

Page, F.H., M. Sinclair, C.E. Naimie, J.W. Loder, R.J. 

Losier, P.L. Berrien, and R.G Lough. 1999. Cod 

and haddock spawning on Georges Bank in relation 

to water residence times. Fish. Oceanogr. 8: 212-

226. 

Penttila, J.A., G.A. Nelson, and J.M. Burnett, III. 1989. 

Guidelines for estimating lengths at age for 18 

northwest Atlantic finfish and shellfish species. 

NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-66. 39 p. 

Perry, R.I. and J.D. Neilson. 1988. Vertical 

distributions and trophic interactions of age-0 

Atlantic cod and haddock in mixed and stratified 

waters of Georges Bank. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 49: 

199-214. 

Polacheck, T., D. Mountain, D. McMillan, W. Smith, 

and P. Berrien. 1992. Recruitment of the 1987 year 

class of Georges Bank haddock (Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus): the influence of unusual larval 

transport. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 484-496. 

Purcell, M.K., I. Kornfield, M. Fogarty, and A. Parker. 

1996. Interdecadal heterogeneity in the 

mitochondrial DNA of Atlantic haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) from Georges Bank. 

Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 5: 1-19. 

Reid, R., F. Almeida, and C. Zetlin. 1999. Essential fish 

habitat source document: Fishery independent 

surveys, data sources, and methods. NOAA Tech. 

Mem. NMFS-NE-122. 39 p. 

Ross, M.R. and G.A. Nelson. 1992. Influences of stock 

abundance and bottom-water temperature on 

growth dynamics of haddock and yellowtail 

flounder on Georges Bank. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 

121: 578-587. 

Scott, J.S. 1982. Depth, temperature and salinity 

preferences of common fishes of the Scotian Shelf. 

J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 3(1): 29-39. 

Sherman, S.A., K. Stepanek, J. Sowles, D.E. Grout, and 

R. Tetrault. 2005. Final report, fall 2003 and spring 

2004 Maine – New Hampshire inshore trawl 

survey. Submitted to the Northeast Consortium. 

Maine Dep. Mar. Resources Res. Ref. Doc. 05/02. 

Smith, W.G., P. Berrien, D.G. McMillan, and A. Wells. 

1981. The distribution, abundance and production 

of Atlantic cod and haddock larvae off northeastern 

United States in 1978-79 and 1979-80. ICES C.M. 

1981/G:52. 16 p. 
Page 10

Smith, W.G. and W.W. Morse. 1985. Retention of 

larval haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, in the 

Georges Bank region, gyre-influenced spawning 

area. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 24: 1-13. 

Trippel, E.A., M.J. Morgan, A. Frchet, C. Rollet, A. 

Sinclair, C. Annand, D. Beanlands, and L. Brown. 

1997. Changes in age and length at sexual maturity 

of northwest Atlantic cod, haddock and pollock 

stocks, 1972-1995. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 2157. 120 p. 

Tyler, A.V. 1972. Food resource division among 

northern marine demersal fishes. J. Fish. Res. 

Board Can. 29: 997-1003. 

Waiwood, K.G. and M.-I. Buzeta. 1989. Reproductive 

biology of southwest Scotian Shelf haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 46 (Suppl. No. 1): 153-170. 

Walford, L.A. 1938. Effects of currents on distribution 

and survival of the eggs and larvae of the haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) on Georges Bank. 

Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 49(20): 1-73. 

Wigley, R.C. and R.B. Theroux. 1965. Seasonal food 

habits of Highlands Ground haddock. Trans. Am. 

Fish. Soc. 94: 243-251. 

Zwanenburg, K.C., P. Bentzen, and J.M. Wright. 1992. 

Mitochondrial DNA differentiation in western 

North Atlantic populations of haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 49: 2527-2537. 
Page 11

Table 1. Median size and age at maturity of haddock. 

Stock Time A50 (years) L50 (cm) Reference 

Period male female Male female 

 

Georges Bank 1985-1989 1.3 1.5 26.8 29.7 O’Brien et al. 1993 

 1986-1989 1.1-1.9 1.8-2.6 24-34 33-41 Trippel et al. 1997 

 1989-1995 1.1-1.4 1.6-2.0 23-30 34-36 Trippel et al. 1997 

Gulf of Maine 1985-1989 2.1 1.8 35.0 34.5 O’Brien et al. 1993 

 
Page 12

Table 2. Summary of life history and habitat parameters for haddock. 

Based on the pertinent literature. Information that applies to both juveniles and adults is listed under ‘Juveniles/Adults.’ 

Life Stage Size and Growth Habitat Substrate Temperature 

Eggs 1

Mean size at hatch is 3.33 

mm. Largest size at hatch 

occurs at approximately 8°

C; 

decrease in size at lower and 

higher temperatures. 

Early stage eggs concentrated near 

the surface; later stages are 

distributed more uniformly over 

depth or have a sub-surface 

maximum. One study shows that 

stage I, II and III eggs were within 

the top 20 m, while the center of 

mass of stage IV eggs was 31 m. 

Eggs are spawned over rocks, 

gravel, smooth sand, and mud. 

After spawning, eggs become 

buoyant, rise and float near the 

surface where subsequent 

development occurs. 

Peak spawning occurs when 

mean surface temperature is 2-

10°

C. Incubation duration varies 

with temperature: 20-32 days at 

2°

C, 11-23 days at 4°C, 11-17 

days at 6°

C, 9-13 days at 8°C,

and 6-8 days at 11°

C. Highest 

survival rate occurs at 4-10°

C

(mean 6°

C). In temperaturecontrolled lab, eggs averaged 

about 17-21 days to hatch. 

Larvae 2

Size at hatch ranges from 2 - 5 

mm (mean = 4 mm). Larval 

growth generally exceeds 0.2 

mm d-1 and appears to peak at 

about 0.5 mm d-1 in June. 

Generally pelagic. Maximum 

depth approximately 150 m. 

Majority found at depths of 

10-50 m. 

Larval growth positively 

correlated with temperatures of 

about 7-9°

C , but may be 

suppressed at 4°

C.

Upper lethal = 10°

C; lower 

lethal = 4°

C.

Time to metamorphosis: 

at 9°

C = 30 days after hatching; 

at 4°

C = 36-42 days. 

Growth rates: at 4°

C = 3.68 

%/day, at 7°

C = 5.53, at 9°C = 

13.36. 

On Georges Bank, hatching 

occurs in 2-3 weeks at normal 

spring temperatures. 

Increased temperature has a 

positive effect on both larval 

size at age and growth rates. 

Juveniles 3

Metamorphosis of larvae 

occurs at approximately 

3 cm. 

Small juveniles found near the 

surface (10-40 m), more or less 

stationary in the open sea. Descent 

to bottom (35-100 m) occurs at age 

3-5 months and length 5-10 cm 

(after metamorphosis). 

YOY found in nursery area 

between Nantucket Shoals and 

Hudson Canyon. Occur on same 

grounds as adults. 

Pebble gravel bottom. See 

adults also. 

Occur at 4.5-11.0°

C. Occur at 

colder temperatures in 

winter/spring than summer/fall. 

Adults 4

Mean size at maturity 

(female/male, cm): 

Georges Bank: 29.7/26.8 

Gulf of Maine: 34.5/35.0 

Size at maturity positively 

density dependent. 

Occur throughout the Gulf and 

offshore banks; greatest 

concentration on Georges Bank. 

More exclusively a groundfish 

than cod. Generally below 10 m, 

most in 40-150 m, few deeper than 

200 m. 

No extreme migrations, only short 

inshore/offshore movements. 

Selective as to type of substrate: 

chiefly broken ground, gravel, 

pebbles, smooth hard sand and 

smooth areas between rocky 

patches. Avoid ledges, rocks, 

kelp, or soft mud. 

Occur at 0-13°

C, but are most 

abundant at 2-9°

C and prefer 4-

7°

C; mortality at < 1°C; avoid > 

10°

C.

Spawn at 2-7°

C, optimum is 4-

6°

C.

Juveniles/ 

Adults 5

Average size at age: 

1 - 17.5 cm, 2 - 33.8 cm, 

3 - 45.5 cm, 4 - 54.0 cm, 

5 - 60.1 cm, 6 - 64.5 cm, 

7 - 67.6 cm, 8 - 69.9 cm, 

9 - 71.5 cm, 10 - 72.7 cm, 

11 - 73. 6cm, 12 - 74.2 cm, 

13 - 74.6 cm, 14 - 75.0 cm, 

15 - 75.2 cm. 

 

1

 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Miller et al. (1963); Laurence and Rogers (1976); Hardy (1978); Lough et al. (1989); Page and Frank (1989); Page et al. (1989); Waiwood 

 and Buzeta (1989); Klein-MacPhee (2002). 

2

 Marak (1960); Colton and Temple (1961); Miller et al. (1963); Laurence (1974, 1978); Hardy (1978); Kane (1984); Lough and Bolz (1989); Green et al. (2004); 

 Caldarone (2005).

3

 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Colton and Temple (1961); Blacker (1971); Colton (1972); Hardy (1978); Mahon and Neilson (1987); Murawski and Finn (1988); Perry 

 and Neilson (1988); Lough and Bolz (1989); Lough et al. (1989). 4

 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Marak and Livingstone (1970); Colton (1972); Hardy (1978); Scott (1982); Waiwood and Buzeta (1989); O’Brien et al. (1993); 

 Klein-MacPhee (2002). 

5

 Penttila et al. (1989).
Page 13

Table 2. Cont’d. 

Life Stage Salinity Currents Prey 

Eggs 1

Highest egg survival occurs at 34-

36 ppt. Egg mortality below 25 ppt; 

mortality decreases with increasing 

salinity (26-36 ppt). 

SW flow of water off Georges Bank 

results in a southerly flow of eggs and 

larvae from the NE spawning center. 

Larvae 2

 Larvae drift with surface currents. 

Georges Bank larvae may be swept off 

the Bank to the SW (at 0.65 cm/s), 

otherwise are retained. Southerly drift of 

larvae may be slowed, and retention on 

shoals of Georges Bank enhanced, by 

larvae residing nearer to the bottom in 

waters < 70 m. In contrast, strong 

episodes of southeastward wind stress are 

associated with high egg and larval 

mortalities in some years. Eggs and 

larvae in coastal Gulf of Maine waters 

may be retained in suitable habitats by 

tidal currents. 

Passive foragers on less motile prey: invertebrate 

eggs, copepods and phytoplankton. In general, 

ate most abundant species but restricted to prey 

of a certain size; for example larvae 4-18 mm 

fed on larval copepods, > 18 mm fed on adult 

copepods. Feeding peaks shortly before sunset. 

Larvae may need prey concentrations of 0.5 - 3.0 

plankters/ml for suitable growth. 

Juveniles 3

 Tidal current weaker near bottom, for 

example at Georges Bank, current = 1-5 

cm/s at 10 cm above bottom, and 7-24 

cm/s at 1 m above bottom. 

Indiscriminate consumers of invertebrates. 

Distinct transition from planktonic to benthic 

feeding. Planktonic prey declines after becoming 

demersal: copepods and pteropods decreased, 

while ophiuroids & polychaetes increased. 

Major benthic prey items (proportion of diet by 

weight) are crustaceans (56.5%), polychaetes 

(15.1%), and fish (1.4%). 

Adults 4

Generally found within 31.5 - 35 

ppt; Spawn at 31.5 - 34 ppt. 

 Indiscriminate consumers of sedentary or slow 

moving invertebrates: crustaceans, annelids, 

polychaetes, mollusks and echinoderms. Fish 

make up small part of diet. Heaviest feeding in 

June; distinct seasonal changes in diet 

composition. 

Juveniles/ 

Adults 5

 Omnivorous and highly opportunistic. Prey 

almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates. 

Order of importance (proportion of diet by 

weight): echinoderms, 29.9%; polychaetes, 

17.6%; crustaceans, 16.2%; fish eggs, 14.6%; 

other polychaetes, 12.7%. 

Prey items by area (Gulf of Maine/ Georges 

Bank/Scotian Shelf) (% by weight): 

fish-2.2/28.4/3.8, 

polychaetes-14.7/23.5/11.8, 

crustacean-15.2/16.0/14.4,

mollusks-1.6/3.8/3.0, 

echinoderms-51.9/7.8/49.0. 

Echinoderms more common prey in Gulf of 

Maine than on Georges Bank; polychaetes more 

common prey on Georges Bank than in Gulf of 

Maine.

Overall, diet includes more ophiuroids and 

becomes more varied as fish increase in size; 

amphipods an important prey item for all 

demersal life history stages, with other fish an 

important component of the diet of very large 

haddock. 

1

 Colton and Temple (1961); Laurence and Rogers (1976); Smith and Morse (1985); Page et al. (1989). 2

 Marak (1960); Laurence (1974); Hardy (1978); Kane (1984); Smith and Morse (1985); Campana et al. (1989); Lough and Bolz (1989); Polacheck et al. (1992); Ames 

 (1997); Mountain et al. (2003). 3

 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Blacker (1971); Bowman and Michaels (1984); Mahon and Neilson (1987); Perry and Neilson (1988); Lough et al. (1989). 4

 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Wigley and Theroux (1965); Tyler (1972); Hardy (1978); Scott (1982); Bowman and Michaels (1984); Waiwood and Buzeta (1989) 5

 Langton and Bowman (1980); Bowman and Michaels (1984); Bowman et al. (2000); NEFSC food habits database.
Page 14

Table 2. Cont’d. 

Life Stage Predators Spawning Notes 

Eggs 1

Preyed upon by a wide range of 

pelagic predators. 

Northeast peak of Georges Bank and the 

Great South Channel are the principle 

spawning areas. Limited spawning along 

New England coast. Spawning occurs 

over all of Georges, but largest 

concentration is on the northeast peak. 

Spawning occurs from January to July; 

delay in peak spawning time as one 

moves north. 

Gulf of Maine: Feb.-May, peak varies 

Feb.-April;

Georges Bank: Jan.-June, peak lFeb.-

early April. 

Egg duration on Georges Bank varied from 10-

20 days over 34 year period; mean egg duration 

during peak spawning was 15.5 days. 

Haddock embryos less tolerant of temperature 

and salinity extremes than cod embryos. 

Larvae 2

Preyed upon by a wide range of 

pelagic predators. 

Nursery grounds lie (a) between Georges 

Bank and Nova Scotia and (b) to the east 

of Cape Cod. 

Young tend to drift under bells of jellyfish 

(Cyanea).

Lab results imply that the first weeks after 

hatching are a critical period for larvae. 

One study estimated daily mortality rate at 7.1%.

Juveniles 3

0+ and 1+ fish primarily preyed 

on by cod, pollock, and silver 

hake. 

 1-2 yr old fish particularly abundant on Georges 

Bank. 

Vertical migrations may depend on diel light 

cycle, thermal structure, interspecific 

competition, prey availability and tidal current 

speed.

Adults 4

Preyed upon by seals. Onset of spawning related to 

environmental conditions; earlier in 

years with moderate autumn-winter 

temperatures than in years with cold 

autumn/winter. 

Eggs released at intervals over a 3 week 

period. 

Fecundity ranges from 12,000-3,000,000 

eggs; varies with size; year to year 

variation may be correlated with 

temperature. 

Median age at maturity (female/male, 

years): 

Georges Bank: 1.5/1.3; 

Gulf of Maine: 1.8/2.1. 

Evidence that median length at maturity 

on Georges Bank has decreased (during 

1977-1983 was 40/37). 

Move into shallower water in spring and 

summer; coincides with the inshore fishery. 

Offshore fishery occurs during the winter and 

early spring. 

Distribution influenced more by restrictive 

spawning area and bottom type conditions than 

by temperature variation. 

Juveniles/ 

Adults 5

 Stock abundance clearly influenced growth rates: 

higher correlations occurred during time periods 

of highest stock abundance than at times when 

stocks were depleted. Stock size was 

significantly correlated with juvenile growth but 

not young adult growth. 

1

 Walford (1938); Colton and Temple (1961); Marak and Livingstone (1970); Laurence and Rogers (1976); Hardy (1978); Smith and Morse (1985); Perry and Neilson 

 (1988); Campana (1989); Lough and Bolz (1989); Page and Frank (1989). 

2

 Laurence (1974); Hardy (1978); Smith et al. (1981); Cushing (1986). 3

 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Miller et al. (1963); Blacker (1971); Murawski and Finn (1988); Perry and Neilson (1988). 4

 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Colton (1972); Hardy (1978); Smith et al. (1981); O’Brien et al. (1993). 5

 Ross and Nelson (1992). 
Page 15

Figure 1. The haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus (from Goode 1884). 
Page 16

<=20 cm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Ammodytes

sp.

Amphipods

Annelids

Bivalves

Clupeids

Cnidarians

Decapods

Echinoids

Euphasiids

Fish Eggs

Gadids

Holothuroids

Misc.

Crustaceans

Mysids

Ophiuroids

Other

Echinoderms

Other Fish

Polyhchaetes

Scombrids

Well

Digested

Percent

21-50 cm

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ammodytes

sp.

Amphipods

Annelids

Bivalves

Clupeids

Cnidarians

Decapods

Echinoids

Euphasiids

Fish Eggs

Gadids

Holothuroids

Misc.

Crustaceans

Mysids

Ophiuroids

Other

Echinoderms

Other Fish

Polycheates

Scombrids

Well

Digested

Percent

51-80 cm

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Ammodytes

sp.

Amphipods

Annelids

Bivalves

Clupeids

Cnidarians

Decapods

Echinoids

Euphasiids

Fish Eggs

Gadids

Holothuroids

Misc.

Crustaceans

Ophiuroids

Other

Echinoderms

Other Fish

Polycheates

Scombrids

Percent

>80 cm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Ammodytes

sp.

Amphipods

Annelids

Bivalves

Clupeids

Cnidarians

Decapods

Echinoids

Euphasiids

Fish Eggs

Gadids

Holothuroids

Misc.

Crustaceans

Mysids

Ophiuroids

Other

Echinoderms

Other Fish

Polyhchaetes

Scombrids

Well

Digested

Percent

Figure 2. Percent by weight of the major prey items in the diet of four size categories of haddock. 

Specimens were collected during NEFSC bottom trawl surveys from 1973-2001 (all seasons). For details on NEFSC diet 

analysis, see Link and Almeida (2000). 
Page 17

Figure 3. Overall distribution and abundance of haddock in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. 

Based on research trawl surveys conducted by Canada (DFO) and the United States (NMFS) from 1975-1994 

(http://www-orca.nos.noaa.gov/projects/ecnasap/ecnasap_table1.html).
Page 18

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

January to August; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 6203, with eggs = 559

Eggs / 10m2

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 to <1000

1000 to 8289

Figure 4. Distributions and abundances of haddock eggs collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys. 

For all available months and years from 1978 to 1987 combined. 
Page 19

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

January; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 433, with eggs = 23

Monthly Mean Density = 4.47 eggs/10m2

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

None

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 to 812

Eggs / 10m2

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

February; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 459, with eggs = 24

Monthly Mean Density = 8.98 eggs/10m2

None

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 to <1000

Eggs / 10m2

1000 to 1105

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

March; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 853, with eggs = 79

Monthly Mean Density = 21.06 eggs/10m2

None

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 to <1000

Eggs / 10m2

1000 to 8289

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

April; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 1020, with eggs = 278

Monthly Mean Density = 77.32 eggs/10m2

None

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 to <1000

Eggs / 10m2

1000 to 6435

Figure 4. Cont’d. 

From MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys, January through April, 1978-1987. 
Page 20

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

May; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 1085, with eggs = 127

Monthly Mean Density = 11.12 eggs/10m2

None

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 to <1000

Eggs / 10m2

1000 to 2099

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

June; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 709, with eggs = 23

Monthly Mean Density = 1.85 eggs/10m2

None

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 to 248

Eggs / 10m2

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

July; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 781, with eggs = 3

Monthly Mean Density = 0.04 eggs/10m2

None

1 to <10

10 to 14

Eggs / 10m2

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Haddock

Eggs

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

August; 1978 to 1987

Number of tows = 863, with eggs = 2

Monthly Mean Density = 0.04 eggs/10m2

None

1 to <10

10 to 23

Eggs / 10m2

Figure 4. Cont’d. 

From MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys, May through August, 1978-1987. 
Page 21

Figure 5. Distributions and abundances of haddock eggs collected during GLOBEC Georges Bank ichthyoplankton 

surveys.

For all available years (February-July, 1995; January-June, 1996-1999) combined. 
Page 22

Figure 5. Cont’d. 

From GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys, January and February, for all available years combined. 
Page 23

Figure 5. Cont’d. 

From GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys, March and April, for all available years combined. 
Page 24

Figure 5. Cont’d. 

From GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys, May and June, for all available years combined. 
Page 25

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

MARMAP Ichthyoplankton Surveys

61-cm Bongo Net; 0.505-mm mesh

January to July; 1977 to 1987

Haddock

Number of Tows = 6735, with larvae = 473

Larvae < 21.0 mm

Number of Larvae / 10m2

1 to < 10

10 to < 100

100 to < 1000

1000 to 1017

Figure 6. Distributions and abundances of haddock larvae collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton 

surveys.

For all available months and years from 1977 to 1987 combined. 
Page 26

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

January, 1977 to 1987

Number of Tows = 434, with larvae = 6

2 Number of Larvae / 10m

None

1 to < 10

10 to 26

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

February, 1977 to 1987

Number of Tows = 686, with larvae = 12

Number of Larvae / 10m2

None

1 to < 10

10 to 13

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

March, 1977 to 1987

Number of Tows = 1031, with larvae = 27

2 Number of Larvae / 10m

None

1 to < 10

10 to < 100

100 to 626

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

April, 1977 to 1987

Number of Tows = 1281, with larvae = 143

Number of Larvae / 10m2

None

1 to < 10

10 to < 100

100 to 630

Figure 6. Cont’d. 

From MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys, January through April, 1977-1987. 
Page 27

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

May, 1977 to 1987

Number of Tows = 1472, with larvae = 191

Number of Larvae / 10m2

None

1 to < 10

10 to < 100

100 to < 1000

1000 to 1017

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

June, 1977 to 1987

Number of Tows = 893, with larvae = 87

Number of Larvae / 10m2

None

1 to < 10

10 to < 100

100 to 256

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

July, 1977 to 1987

Number of Tows = 938, with larvae = 7

Number of Larvae / 10m2

None

1 to < 10

10 to 24

Figure 6. Cont’d. 

From MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys, May through July, 1977-1987. 
Page 28

Figure 7. Distributions and abundances of haddock larvae collected during GLOBEC Georges Bank ichthyoplankton 

surveys.

For all available years (February-July, 1995; January-June, 1996-1999) combined. 
Page 29

Figure 6. Cont’d. 

From GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys, January and February, for all available years combined. 
Page 30

Figure 6. Cont’d. 

From GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys, March and April, for all available years combined. 
Page 31

Figure 6. Cont’d. 

From GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys, May and June, for all available years combined. 
Page 32

Figure 6. Cont’d. 

From GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys, July 1995. 
Page 33

Figure 8. Seasonal distributions and abundances of juvenile haddock collected during NEFSC bottom trawl surveys. 

From NEFSC winter bottom trawl surveys (1964-2003, all years combined). Distributions are displayed as presence 

only. 
Page 34

Figure 8. Cont’d. 

From NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys (1968-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where juveniles were not 

found are not shown. 
Page 35

Figure 8. Cont’d. 

From NEFSC summer bottom trawl surveys (1963-1995, all years combined). Distributions are displayed as presence 

only. 
Page 36

Figure 8. Cont’d. 

From NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys (1963-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where juveniles were not 

found are not shown. 
Page 37

Figure 9. Seasonal distributions and abundances of juvenile haddock in Massachusetts coastal waters. 

From spring Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where 

juveniles were not found are not shown. 
Page 38

Figure 9. Cont’d. 

From fall Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where juveniles 

were not found are not shown. 
Page 39

Figure 10. Seasonal distributions and abundances of adult haddock collected during NEFSC bottom trawl surveys. 

From NEFSC winter bottom trawl surveys (1964-2003, all years combined). Distributions are displayed as presence 

only. 
Page 40

Figure 10. Cont’d. 

From NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys (1968-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where adults were not found 

are not shown. 
Page 41

Figure 10. Cont’d. 

From NEFSC summer bottom trawl surveys (1963-1995, all years combined). Distributions are displayed as presence 

only. 
Page 42

Figure 10. Cont’d. 

From NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys (1963-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where adults were not found 

are not shown. 
Page 43

Figure 11. Seasonal distributions and abundances of adult haddock in Massachusetts coastal waters. 

From spring Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where adults 

were not found are not shown. 
Page 44

Figure 11. Cont’d. 

From fall Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Survey stations where adults 

were not found are not shown. 
Page 45

Figure 12. Distribution and abundance of haddock along the coasts of Maine and New Hampshire. 

From the Maine – New Hampshire spring 2001-2004 and fall 2000-2003 inshore groundfish trawl surveys. 

For details on the survey, see Sherman et al. (2005). 
Page 46

Figure 13. Length frequency plots for haddock caught along the Maine and New Hampshire coasts, by season/year. 

Based on the Maine – New Hampshire inshore groundfish trawl survey for spring 2001-2004 and fall 2000-2003. 

Source: Sherman et al. (2005). 
Page 47

Figure 14. Regional catch-per-unit-effort of haddock caught along the Maine and New Hampshire coasts, by 

season/year.

Based on the Maine – New Hampshire inshore groundfish trawl survey for spring 2001-2004 and fall 2000-2003. 

Region 1 = NH–Southern ME; Region 2 = Casco Bay–Midcoast ME; Region 3 = Penobscot Bay, ME; Region 4 = 

Jerico–Frenchmens Bay, ME; Region 5 = Downeast ME. Source: Sherman et al. (2005). 
Page 48

January

0

10

20

30

60

80

Stations

Egg Catch

April

0

10

20

30

60

70

May

Percent

0

10

20

50

June

0

10

20

50

60

July

0

10

20

30

40

August

Water-Column Temperature (C)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

0

10

90

100

Haddock Eggs

February

0

10

20

30

40

50

March

0

10

20

70

80

January

0

10

20

60

70

Stations

Egg Catch

April

0

10

20

30

40

Haddock Eggs

May

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

June

0

10

20

30

40

July

0

10

20

30

70

80

August

Bottom Depth (m), Interval Midpoint

1030507090

110130150170190210230250270290325375450750

12501750

>2000

0

10

20

60

70

March

0

10

20

30

60

70

February

0

10

20

40

50

Figure 15. Distributions of haddock eggs collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys relative to water 

column temperature and bottom depth. 

For all available months and years from 1978-1987 combined. Open bars represent the proportion of all stations which 

were surveyed, while solid bars represent the proportion of the sum of all standardized catches (number/10 m2

). Note that 

the bottom depth interval changes with increasing depth. 
Page 49

January

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Stations

Egg Catch

February

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

March

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

April

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

May

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

June

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

July

0

20

40

60

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Water Column Temperature (0-200m, °C)

Percent

Figure 16. Distributions of haddock eggs collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to water column 

temperature. 

From GLOBEC Georges Bank surveys (February-July, 1995; January-June, 1996-1999) by month for all available years 

combined. Light bars represent the proportion of all stations surveyed, while dark bars represent the proportion of the 

sum of all standardized catches (number/10m2

).
Page 50

January

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Stations

Egg Catch

February

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

March

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

April

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

May

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

June

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

July

0

20

40

60

80

1-20

21-4041-6061-80

81-100

101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-220221-240241-260261-280281-300301-350351-400401-500

501-1000

1001-15001501-2000

>2001

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Figure 17. Distributions of haddock eggs collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to bottom depth. 

From GLOBEC Georges Bank surveys (February-July, 1995; January-June, 1996-1999) by month for all available years 

combined. Light bars represent the proportion of all stations surveyed, while dark bars represent the proportion of the 

sum of all standardized catches (number/10m2

). Note that the bottom depth intervals change with depth. 
Page 51

January

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stations

Larva Catch

April

Percent

0

10

20

30

60

70

May

0

10

20

30

40

June

0

10

20

30

July

Water-Column Temperature (C)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

0

10

20

30

40

Haddock Larvae (<21.0 mm length)

March

0

10

20

30

40

February

0

10

20

30

40

January

0

10

20

40

60

Stations

Catch

April

Percent

0

10

20

50

Haddock Larvae (<21.0 mm length)

May

0

10

20

40

50

June

0

10

20

40

July

Bottom Depth (m), Interval Midpoint

10305070

90

110

130150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

325

375

450

750

12501750

>2000

0

10

20

30

40

March

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

February

0

10

20

60

70

Figure 18. Monthly distributions of haddock larvae collected during NEFSC MARMAP ichthyoplankton surveys 

relative to water column temperature and bottom depth. 

For all available months and years from 1977-1987 combined. Open bars represent the proportion of all stations which 

were surveyed, while solid bars represent the proportion of the sum of all standardized catches (number/10 m2

). Note that 

the bottom depth interval changes with increasing depth. 
Page 52

January

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Stations

Larvae Catch

February

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

March

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

April

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

May

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

June

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

July

0

20

40

60

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Water Column Temperature (0-200m, °C)

Percent

Figure 19. Distributions of haddock larvae collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to water column 

temperature. 

From GLOBEC Georges Bank surveys (February-July, 1995, January-June, 1996-1999) by month for all available years 

combined. Light bars represent the proportion of all stations surveyed, while dark bars represent the proportion of the 

sum of all standardized catches (number/10m2

).
Page 53

January

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Stations

Larvae Catch

February

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

March

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

April

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

May

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

June

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

July

0

20

40

60

80

1-20

21-4041-6061-80

81-100

101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-220221-240241-260261-280281-300301-350351-400401-500

501-1000

1001-15001501-2000

>2001

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Figure 20. Distributions of haddock larvae collected during GLOBEC ichthyoplankton surveys relative to bottom depth. 

From GLOBEC Georges Bank surveys (February-July, 1995; January-June, 1996-1999) by month for all available years 

combined. Light bars represent the proportion of all stations surveyed, while dark bars represent the proportion of the 

sum of all standardized catches (number/10m2

). Note that the bottom depth intervals change with depth. 
Page 54

Haddock

NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey

Spring 1968 - 2003

Juveniles (<32 cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1-10

11-2021-3031-4041-5051-6061-7071-8081-90

91-100

101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-300301-400401-500

>500

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=12514

Occurrence N=1263

Catch N=30910

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Salinity (PPT)

Percent

Trawls N=2270

Occurrence N=249

Catch N=3993

0

10

20

30

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=10879

Occurrence N=1159

Catch N=30070

Figure 21. Distributions of juvenile haddock and trawls from NEFSC bottom trawl surveys relative to bottom water 

temperature, depth, and salinity. 

Based on NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys (temperature and depth: 1968-2003, all years combined; salinity: 1991-

2003, all years combined). Light bars show the distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls 

in which haddock occurred and medium bars show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock 

caught. Note that the bottom depth interval changes with increasing depth. 
Page 55

Haddock

NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey

Fall 1963 - 2003

Juveniles (<32 cm)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1-10

11-2021-3031-4041-5051-6061-7071-8081-90

91-100

101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-300301-400401-500

>500

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=14186

Occurrence N=2068

Catch N=73837

0

10

20

30

40

50

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Salinity (PPT)

Percent

Trawls N=2272

Occurrence N=315

Catch N=4397

0

5

10

15

20

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=12207

Occurrence N=1820

Catch N=51974

Figure 21. Cont’d. 

Based on NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys (temperature and depth: 1963-2003, all years combined; salinity: 1991-2003, 

all years combined). Light bars show the distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls in 

which haddock occurred and medium bars show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock 

caught. Note that the bottom depth interval changes with increasing depth. 
Page 56

Haddock

Massachusetts Inshore Trawl Survey

Spring 1978 - 2003

Juveniles (<32 cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1-5

6-10

11-1516-2021-2526-3031-3536-4041-4546-5051-5556-6061-6566-7071-7576-8081-85

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=2482

Occurrence N=95

Catch N=603

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=2407

Occurrence N=94

Catch N=578

Figure 22. Distributions of juvenile haddock and trawls in Massachusetts coastal waters relative to bottom water 

temperature and depth. 

Based on spring Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Light bars show the 

distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls in which haddock occurred and medium bars 

show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock caught. 
Page 57

Haddock

Massachusetts Inshore Trawl Survey

Fall 1978 - 2003

Juveniles (<32 cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1-5

6-10

11-1516-2021-2526-3031-3536-4041-4546-5051-5556-6061-6566-7071-7576-8081-85

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=2338

Occurrence N=241

Catch N=4124

0

10

20

30

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=2244

Occurrence N=234

Catch N=4097

Figure 22. Cont’d. 

Based on fall Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Light bars show the 

distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls in which haddock occurred and medium bars 

show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock caught. 
Page 58

Haddock

NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey

Spring 1968 - 2003

Adults (>=32 cm)

0

5

10

15

20

1-10

11-2021-3031-4041-5051-6061-7071-8081-90

91-100

101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-300301-400401-500

>500

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=12514

Occurrence N=2248

Catch N=49704

0

20

40

60

80

100

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Salinity (PPT)

Percent

Trawls N=2270

Occurrence N=317

Catch N=8857

0

10

20

30

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=10879

Occurrence N=2018

Catch N=45625

Figure 23. Distributions of adult haddock and trawls from NEFSC bottom trawl surveys relative to bottom water 

temperature, depth, and salinity. 

Based on NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys (temperature and depth: 1968-2003, all years combined; salinity: 1991-

2003, all years combined). Light bars show the distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls 

in which haddock occurred and medium bars show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock 

caught. Note that the bottom depth interval changes with increasing depth. 
Page 59

Haddock

NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey

Fall 1963 - 2003

Adults (>=32 cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1-10

11-2021-3031-4041-5051-6061-7071-8081-90

91-100

101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-300301-400401-500

>500

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=14186

Occurrence N=2901

Catch N=89807

0

20

40

60

80

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Salinity (PPT)

Percent

Trawls N=2272

Occurrence N=329

Catch N=14513

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=12207

Occurrence N=2579

Catch N=83419

Figure 23. Cont’d. 

Based on NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys (temperature and depth: 1963-2003, all years combined; salinity: 1991-2003, 

all years combined). Light bars show the distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls in 

which haddock occurred and medium bars show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock 

caught. Note that the bottom depth interval changes with increasing depth. 
Page 60

Haddock

Massachusetts Inshore Trawl Survey

Spring 1978 - 2003

Adults (>=32 cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1-5

6-10

11-1516-2021-2526-3031-3536-4041-4546-5051-5556-6061-6566-7071-7576-8081-85

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=2482

Occurrence N=42

Catch N=132

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=2407

Occurrence N=42

Catch N=132

Figure 24. Distributions of adult haddock and trawls in Massachusetts coastal waters relative to bottom water 

temperature and depth. 

Based on spring Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Light bars show the 

distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls in which haddock occurred and medium bars 

show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock caught. 
Page 61

Haddock

Massachusetts Inshore Trawl Survey

Fall 1978 - 2003

Adults (>=32 cm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1-5

6-10

11-1516-2021-2526-3031-3536-4041-4546-5051-5556-6061-6566-7071-7576-8081-85

Bottom Depth (m)

Percent

Trawls N=2338

Occurrence N=3

Catch N=16

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Bottom Temperature (°C)

Percent

Trawls N=2244

Occurrence N=3

Catch N=16

Figure 24. Cont’d. 

Based on fall Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys (1978-2003, all years combined). Light bars show the 

distribution of all the trawls, dark bars show the distribution of all trawls in which haddock occurred and medium bars 

show, within each interval, the percentage of the total number of haddock caught. 
Page 62

Figure 25. Distribution of surficial sediments along the northeast coast of the United States. 

Data are from the United States Geological Survey and NOAA. 
Page 63

Fishing mortality

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Year

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Recruitment

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

750

760

770

780

790

Average 

1931-1960 Average 

1980-1993

FMSY

Spawning biomass (kt)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

Year

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Recruits per biomass (kg)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Average 

1931-1960 Average 

1980-1993

BMSY

Georges Bank Haddock

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 26. Fishing mortality (a), spawning biomass (b), recruitment (c), and recruits per spawning biomass (d) of 

Georges Bank haddock during 1931-2004, from Brodziak et al. (2005). 
Page 64

Figure 27. Spatial definition of haddock management units in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region along with 

locations of the western Gulf of Maine closed area (WGOM CA), Closed Area I (CA I), Closed Area II (CA II), and the 

Nantucket Lightship closed area (Nantucket Lightship CA). 
Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific

publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

For all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific

review, but not necessarily external scientific review. For most

issues, the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing.

Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific

publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS's

primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Professional Paper

NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review).

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations

may be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval

by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series

if: 1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC's mission; 2) the

manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director's

approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding

funds to be transferred to the NEFSC's Research Communications Branch account from another federal account. For all

manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published

in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the

manuscripts' contents; authors must accept such responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series

are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines

contained in Chapter 1 ("Ethical Conduct in Authorship and

Publication") of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition (Chicago,

IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual are

available at virtually all scientific libraries.

edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style

Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific

manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the

CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works contains

all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial

titles in such lists, use the guidance of the International Standards

Organization; such guidance is easily accessed through the various

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts’ serials source lists (see http://

www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/JAS.htm). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and Canada,

use Special Publications No. 29 (fishes), 26 (mollusks), and 17

(decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society (Bethesda,

MD). For spelling of scientific and common names of marine

mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the Society for Marine

Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in general, use the most

recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of

the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G.&C.

Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, tables, and

figure captions should be converted to WordPerfect. In general,

keep text simple (e.g., don't switch fonts and type sizes, don't use

hard returns within paragraphs, don't indent except to begin

paragraphs). Also, don't use an automatic footnoting function; all

notes should be indicated in the text by simple numerical superscripts, and listed together in an "Endnotes" section prior to the

"References Cited" section. Especially, don't use a graphics

function for embedding tables and figures in text.

Tables should be prepared with a table formatting function.

Each figure should be supplied both on paper and on disk, unless

there is no digital file of a given figure. Except under extraordinary

circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table

of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: "Introduction," "Study

Area," "Methods & Materials," "Results," "Discussion" and/

or "Conclusions," "Acknowledgments," and "References Cited."

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are

obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Operations, Management & Information Division

Research Communications Branch

Editorial Office

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one disk copy, and original figures (if applicable).

NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off "NEFSC

Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Review Form." Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be required to sign a

"Release of Copyright" form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to: Jon A.

Gibson (Biological Sciences Editor), NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources

for the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health

of their environment." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science

Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "conducting ecosystem-based research and assessments of living

marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term sustainability of these

resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their use." Results of NEFSC

research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals).

However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC occasionally

releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of longterm field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall

assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of

important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies.

All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports

on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected abstracts of,

and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review, but no technical

or copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen's Report) -- This information report is a quick-turnaround report on the distribution

and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel surveys of the

Northeast's continental shelf. There is no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of this report.

OBTAINING A COPY: To obtain a copy of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Reference Document, or to subscribe to the Resource Survey Report, either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods

Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2228) or consult the NEFSC webpage on "Reports and Publications" (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

nefsc/publications/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.

MEDIA

 MAIL