Population Assessment of Snow Crab, Chionoecetes opilio, in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Including Oil and Gas Lease Areas 

Principal Investigators 

Bodi! A. Bluhm1.2 

Katrin I ken 1 

Graduate Student 

Lauren Divine' 

1

1nstitute of Marine Sciences. Universirv of Alaska Fairbanks 

~Department of Arctic and Marine Biol~gy. UiT - The Arctic University of Norway 

FINAL REPORT 

August 2015 

OCS Study BOEM 2015-029 

BOEM U,-IIV[RS I TY o r 

A LASKA FA IR BA N KS 
Contact Information: 

email: CMl@alaska.edu 

phone: 907.474.6782 

fax: 907.474.7204 

Coastal Marine Institute 

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

P. 0. Box 757220 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

This study was funded in part by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) through 

Cooperative Agreement Ml IAC00003 between BOEM, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, and the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks. This report, OCS Study BOEM 2015-029, is available through the Coastal Marine Institute, select federal depository 

libraries and electronically from http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies/AlaskaRegion/lndex.aspx. 

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the 

opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 
Population Assessment of Snow Crab, Chionoecetes opilio, in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Including Oil and Gas Lease Areas 

Principal Investigators 

Bodi! A. Bluhm1.2 

Katrin !ken 1 

Graduate Student 

Lauren Divine' 

1 Institute of Marine Sciences. University of Alaska Fairbanks 

2

Department of Arctic and Marine Biology. UiT- The Arctic University of Norway 

FINAL REPORT 

August 2015 

OCS Study BOEM 2015-029 

BOEM U HIV [R S IT Y or 

ALASKA 

FAIRBANKS 

Table of Contents 

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... v 

List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... v 

E t

. s .. xecu 1ve ummary ...................................................................................................................... v11 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... I 

Objectives and Hypotheses ............................................................................................................. 3 

Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 4 

Field sampling ............................................................................................................................. 4 

Laboratory methods .................................................................................................................... 6 

Analytical approach .................................................................................................................... 8 

Results ............................................................................................................................................. 9 

Crab distribution and population structure ................................................................................ 9 

Abundance and biomass ............................................................................................................ 13 

Reproductive potential .............................................................................................................. 1 7 

Trophic characterization ........................................................................................................... 20 

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 24 

Presentations and Publications ...................................................................................................... 27 

Broader Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 29 

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 30 

References ..................................................................................................................................... 3 I 

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 3 7 

111 
iv 

I. 
List of Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Approximate global distribution of snow crab ............................................................ 1 

Figure 2. Station coverage for snow crab in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in relation 

to lease sale areas and by survey year .......................................................................... 5 

Figure 3. Illustrations of methods applied ................................................................................... 7 

Figure 4. Regions and station locations for stomach content and stable isotope sampling ........ 9 

Figure 5. Abundance and biomass estimates of snow crabs in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas for all sampling years combined ........................................................................ 10 

Figure 6. Distributions of snow crab sexes and maturity stages ............................................... 11 

Figure 7. Distribution of body sizes for snow crabs from the Chukchi and Alaska Beaufort 

Seas ............................................................................................................................ 12 

Figure 8. Size-frequency-distribution of snow crabs caught in the Chukchi Sea and Alaska 

Beaufort Sea, across all sampling years ..................................................................... 13 

Figure 9. Abundance and biomass estimates of snow crabs in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas for 2009 and 2012 .............................................................................................. 14 

Figure 10. Regional distribution of size-frequencies of snow crabs caught in the Chukchi 

Sea in 2009 ................................................................................................................. 15 

Figure 11. Maximum body size of snow crab in the Chukchi and Alaska Beaufort Seas .......... 16 

Figure 12. Biomass relationships of snow crab in the Chukchi and Alaska Beaufort Seas to 

water depth, bottom water temperature and bottom water salinity ............................ 1 7 

Figure 13. Fecundity as number of eggs per mature female snow crab from the Chukchi Sea .. 18 

Figure 14. Female reproductive characteristics ........................................................................... 19 

Figure 15. Sperm reserves in mature females from the Chukchi Sea ......................................... 20 

Figure 16. Frequency of occurrence of dominant diet items in snow crabs from the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas ...................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 17. Trophic position of snow crab as indicated by o 15N versus o 13C values ................... 22 

Table 1. 

Table 2. 

Table 3. 

List of Tables 

List of cruises, projects, and sampling periods during which snow crabs 

were collected ................................................................................................................ 4 

Statistics on difference in stomach contents of snow crab between regions ............... 22 

PERMANOVA comparing carapace width size classes (CW) and sex classes nested 

within study regions in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas ............................................. 23 

List of Appendices 

Appendix 1. Abundance and Biomass ........................................................................................ 37 

Appendix 2. Egg Counts ............................................................................................................. 51 

Appendix 3 Stable Isotope Data ................................................................................................. 65 

V 
vi 
Executive Summary 

The snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio is widely distributed in offshore waters of high latitudes 

including the Chukchi Sea and parts of the Alaska Beaufort Sea where oil and gas lease sale areas 

are located. This cold-water crab is not commercially harvested in United States (U.S.) high Arctic 

waters, but it supports major fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea, the Canadian North Atlantic, 

coastal Greenland and the Barents Sea. Limited knowledge of the snow crab population structure in 

the Chukchi and U.S. Beaufort Seas, in combination with increasing human activity in those areas 

and recent changes in C. opilio distributions on sub-Arctic and Arctic shelves have prompted this 

study. This study was intended to provide new information on the snow crab stock in the Chukchi 

and Alaska Beaufort Seas to improve current baseline knowledge for risk assessment and 

environmental analysis. Specifically, our goals were to (1) assess snow crab distribution, size 

structure and sex composition, (2) determine abundance and biomass, (3) determine reproductive 

capacity of female crabs, and ( 4) identify diet and trophic position of snow crab. 

Data and/or samples were collected between 2004-2013 from various projects by the principal 

investigators and their colleagues. Communication with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

ensured compatibility of lab methods with those employed during their regular Bering Sea trawl 

surveys; however, we based our abundance and biomass estimates on a smaller trawl used on most 

of the cruises that provided crabs for this project. Standard lab methods included morphometric 

measurements of body size ( carapace width = CW) and weight, chela height for males, 

determination of sex and maturity status based on belly flap shape for females, and shell condition 

index. Female fecundity was quantified by determining clutch size and the number of eggs per 

female in a clutch, and sperm storage was measured by weighing spermathecal load and 

determining the number of sperm layers in the spermathecal load. Trophic ecology was 

characterized by frequency of occurrence of prey items in crab stomachs, and by analysis of stable 

isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen in muscle tissue of crabs. 

Snow crabs occurred throughout the Chukchi Sea > 25 m, on the western Beaufort Sea shelf (to 200 

m), and on the upper slope in the Beaufort Sea (to 500 m). Crabs were present in the northeastern 

Chukchi Sea oil and gas lease areas, but essentially no crabs occurred in the Beaufort Sea lease 

areas. Abundance and biomass were highest in the southern Chukchi Sea and lowest in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea (with virtually no crabs on the shelf in that area), resulting in large differences in mean 

densities between the Chukchi and U.S. Beaufort Seas(> 1000 ind /1000 m·2 and< 2 ind /1000 m·2

, 

respectively). Temporal data resolution was too sparse to determine potential cyclic patterns 

(especially in the Beaufort Sea), but variable abundance and biomass patterns in the Chukchi Sea 

suggest interannual variability in standing stock size. 

Mature females appeared to be concentrated in the central parts of the Chukchi Sea, while the few 

females found in the Beaufort Sea occurred on the shelf break and upper slope. Generally, all crabs 

in the Chukchi Sea were small (primarily <60 mm CW), irrespective of maturity status and gender. 

Large male crabs (> -80 mm CW) occurred exclusively on the Beaufort Sea slope. We cannot 

conclude from this study if these larger size classes conduct ontogenetic migrations from shallower 

to deeper waters as seen in the Bering Sea; however, applying the chela height to CW ratio used in 

Vll 
the Bering Sea suggests that all measured males from the Chukchi Sea were immature. This 

conclusion seems unlikely given that I 4% of female C. opilio in the Chukchi Sea were mature and 

essentially all were egg-bearing. Their widespread occurrence and full egg clutches strongly suggest 

local reproduction occurs in the Chukchi Sea, including the Chukchi lease areas. However, very 

small (recently settled) crabs were primarily found in the southern Chukchi Sea and very few (only 

in 2014) small crabs and no egg-bearing females were found in the Beaufort Sea. This pattern 

suggests that larval supply from the Bering Sea probably plays a large role in maintaining the 

population no11h of Bering Strait by adding to Chukchi-reared larvae. 

Fecundity of Chukchi Sea female C. opi/io scaled to body size, as it does in other areas, and ranged 

from <5000 to >50,000 eggs per female over a size range of 36-64 mm CW. Based on a Bering Sea 

shell condition index, about a quarter of mature females were multiparous. Most females stored one 

sperm layer only, but a maximum of four layers was found. By weight, low to moderate amounts of 

sperm (as defined by Sainte-Marie et al. 2002) were stored. We cannot conclude whether the stored 

sperm would be sufficient to produce a subsequent clutch without re-mating. None of the few 

mature females found in the Beaufo11 Sea carried eggs. 

Snow crabs from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas were omnivorous predators, as they are in other 

areas, with prey including a broad range of invertebrates such as polychaetes, bivalves, crustaceans, 

fishes, and cannibalism on juvenile individuals. Regional diet differences were most prominent 

between the central/Canadian Beaufo11 Sea and the Chukchi/western Beaufo11 Sea and were 

coincident with size differences of crabs. Stable nitrogen isotope values indicated a high trophic 

position in the food web and some difference in feeding preferences of male and female crabs. 

The combined results from this and other recent studies suggest that snow crabs are an integral part 

of the benthic communities of the Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas. They contribute (in some 

areas substantially) to benthic biomass, and to food web connections through their opportunistic 

predatory feeding mode. Their high trophic level makes snow crabs potentially vulnerable to 

bioaccumulation of contaminants. The occurrence and fecundity of egg-bearing females in the 

Chukchi Sea appears to successfully sustain, or at a minimum supplement, the regional component 

of what recent studies suggest is a panmictic population, although the degree of dependence on 

larval supply from the Bering Sea versus local reproduction remains unquantified. The drastic 

difference in body sizes between snow crabs in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas could be interpreted 

as ontogenetic migration, but these differences, and large differences observed in crab density, 

remain puzzling and warrant further study. 

In summary, our study has substantially advanced our knowledge of snow crab distribution and 

population characteristics in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and builds a foundation for future 

impact and climate change studies. 

VIII 
Introduction 

Snow crab Chionoecetes opilio 0. Fabricius is a cold-water brachyuran crab species that is 

widely distributed in sub-Arctic and Arctic waters around the North American continent. More 

recently, the species has appeared in the Barents Sea, and a few records suggest it is present on 

the Russian shelves (Figure 1, from Albrecht 2011 ). 

C. opilio distribution 

- Prop0sed lease sale area 

C. opilio fishery 

Figure I. Approximate global distri bution of snow crab (mod ified from Albrecht 20 11 , with permission). 

The interest in snow crab distribution and stock size is primarily related to the multi-million 

dollar crab fishery active in U.S. waters since the 1970s (Fitch et al. 2012), subsequent declines 

resulting in an overfished population by 1999 (Zheng et al. 2001 ), and restoration goals installed 

in 2000 that remained unsatisfied in 2009 (Turnock and Rugolo 2009). The fishery is regulated 

by a quota, season, and minimum legal size, the latter preventing the harvest of the much smaller 

females compared to males. While the U.S. fishery is concentrated in the southeastern Bering 

Sea, snow crabs also occur on the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea shelves (Paul et al. 1997, Bluhm et 

al. 2009, Rand and Logerwell 2011 , Blanchard et al. 2013, Ravelo et al. 20 14). Presumed to have 

low exploitable biomass and/or small sizes, these high Arctic crab populations are neither 

commercially harvested (NPFMC 2009) nor regularly monitored (Paul et al. 1997), pai1icularly 

given the logistical challenges operating in seasonally sea-ice covered waters. 

Additional inforn1ation regarding snow crab distribution, population structure, and reproductive 

potential is needed for the Pacific Arctic. Oceanographic conditions and crab distribution 

patterns have changed in recent decades (Orensanz et al. 2004, Mueter and Litzow 2008), and 

consequently, commercial fishery activities could move from the Bering Sea no11h into the 

Pacific Arctic. Specifically, in the southern Bering Sea, warming of near-bottom water 

temperatures in the 1990s was followed, with a 6-year time lag, by a contraction of the 

distribution range of mature female C. opilio to the north (Orensanz et al. 2004). Also, increased 

abundance of C. opilio has been suggested for the Chukchi Sea (Feder et al. 2005, Bluhm et al. 

2009), and snow crab appeared to be more common in the western Beaufort Sea in the 2000s 
(Logerwell and Rand 2010) than in the 1970s (Carey 1977). In the Barents Sea, where C. opilio 

was historically absent, an entirely new and now viable population has established over the past 

two decades (Kuzmin et al. 1998, Alsvag et al. 2009). The increasing level of human activities in 

the Arctic (e.g. shipping, oil and gas development, tourism) provides another reason to advance 

baseline knowledge about potentially important species, such as snow crab. 

Concurrent with changing snow crab distributions on a number of Arctic shelves, petroleumrelated activities have increased on those same shelves, potentially exposing C. opilio to oil and 

gas-related chemicals in the future. Responses to long-term exposure to persistent petroleum 

products and other chemicals can be related to the position of a taxon in a food web because the 

bioaccumulation and biomagnification potential of persistent pollutants contained in petroleum 

products are dependent on the trophic position of an organism (Barga et al. 2004). Organisms 

feeding at high trophic levels have a heightened potential for biomagnification, the concentration 

of chemicals through dietary absorption (Gobas and Morrison 2000) because persistent 

compounds can accumulate across several trophic transfers. As omnivorous predators, 

scavengers and cannibals (Feder and Jewett 1981 , Lovrich and Sainte-Marie 1997, Kolts et al. 

2013), snow crabs in the Chukchi Sea occupy the highest trophic levels of dominant 

invertebrates and fishes in the study region (I ken et al. 2010, Mc Tigue and Dunton 2014 ). In this 

study, we combine a time-integrated trophic assessment using stable isotope analysis, with 

stomach content analysis of point-in-time prey taxa, to provide the trophic position of snow crab 

and assessments of their bioaccumulation and biomagnification potential for different regions of 

the Pacific Arctic. 

Snow crab stock size and structure are strongly shaped by characteristics of the life cycle of the 

species. In the Bering Sea, reproductive maturity is reached at an average carapace width of 8.4 

cm for males and 5.1 cm for females, and size-at-maturity is typically smaller in colder waters at 

higher latitudes than in warmer temperatures at lower latitudes (Jewett 1981 , Orensanz et al. 

2007). Males were generally small in the Chukchi Sea in the 1970s and 1990s (<75 mm in 

carapace width; Frost and Lowry 1983, Barber et al. 1997), yet C. opilio with carapace widths as 

large as 114 mm were collected during a 2008 western Beaufort Sea fish survey (Rand and 

Logerwell 2011 ). It is unknown if this size difference reflects an overall increase in crab size in 

the Pacific Arctic, or if it is specific to the previously unsampled Beaufort slope. It is also 

unclear whether early benthic life stages occur in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, or whether all 

crabs migrate into the area from the Bering Sea. High connectivity between crabs in the three 

areas is clear from genetic evidence suggesting snow crabs in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas are a panmictic population (Albrecht et al. 2014). It is impo11ant to identify the location and 

distribution of areas important for reproductive and young crabs in order to assess potential stock 

sensitivity to oil and gas exploration and extraction activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Tlle reproductive capacity of snow crabs is influenced by their life span, age and size at maturity, 

duration of egg maturation, and body size, all of which can be influenced by environn1ental 

variability (Comeau et al. 1998, Sainte-Marie et al. 2008). Snow crabs are long-lived at ~ 15- 18 

2 
years for large males and a few years less for females (Shirley and Bluhm 2005, Fonseca et al. 

2008, Ernst et al. 2012). Depending on temperature, females carry a clutch once a year, or every 

other year, after their terminal molt (Conan et al. 1990, Sainte-Marie 1993). The capability of 

storing sperm in spermathecae for later fertilization of eggs enhances reproductive potential in 

snow crab, and brachyurans in general (Gravel and Pengilly 2007, Sainte-Marie et al. 2008). 

Thus, a female can produce viable clutches in consecutive years following a single mating, and 

immature females can mate and store sperm (Kruse 1993 ). Sperm limitation may still arise when 

insufficient male gametes are available to fertilize all eggs in a population, for example, when a 

fishery selectively exploits males (Sainte-Marie et al. 2002). In addition, C. opilio stock size can 

be influenced by large interannual fluctuations in recruitment ( e.g. 7-8 year cycles in the Gulf of 

Saint Lawrence and southeastern Bering Sea; Sainte-Marie et al. 1996, Parada et al. 2010), and 

by temperature-dependent variations in egg incubation time. Below water temperatures of --1 °C, 

females switch from an annual to a biennial reproductive cycle with diapause periods in 

embryonic development (Gulf of Sainte Lawrence; Moriyasu and Lanteigne 1998). Bottom water 

temperatures below --1 °C occur both seasonally and permanently in parts of the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas and may structure female reproductive cycles. However, it is not clear if crabs in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are sustained by locally released larvae or by those advected from 

the Bering Sea. 

The Chukchi Sea is outside of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 

regular fish and shellfish survey areas, so there is a lack of historical and continuous data for the 

region. However, several recent surveys make it possible to comprehensively study snow crab 

populations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. This study includes areas of interest to the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), specifically, the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas Outer 

Continental Shelf oil and gas lease areas (Figure 2a) and the larger shelf and slope regions of 

U.S. territorial waters. The study addressed BOEM research needs by providing information to 

better understand marine environments potentially affected by offshore oil and gas exploration 

and extraction. 

Objectives and Hypotheses 

The overarching goal of this project was to provide a population assessment of snow crabs in the 

Chukchi and Alaskan Beaufort seas, with a focus on U.S. waters and inclusion of the oil and gas 

lease sale areas located in the northeastern Chukchi Sea and the western Alaska Beaufort Sea. 

Our specific objectives were to: 

( 1) assess snow crab distribution and population structure, 

(2) determine snow crab abundance and biomass, 

(3) determine reproductive capacity of female snow crabs, and 

( 4) identify diet and trophic position of snow crab. 

We hypothesized that snow crab densities, stock structure, and diet would exhibit south to north 

gradients within the Chukchi Sea, and west to east gradients in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, based 

3 
on distinct environmental gradients. Specifically, we anticipated lower densities, smaller body 

sizes and lower fecundity in the northern parts of the study area due to the overall lower 

temperatures and productivity regimes. 

Methods 

Field sampling 

This project used a combination of previously collected crab data and samples in addition to 

crabs collected specifically for this project. In total, samples and/or data from 13 surveys, eight 

in the Chukchi Sea and five in the Beaufort Sea (Table 1 ), were used in various combinations 

and subsets for the project objectives, depending on data and crab availability. All surveys were 

conducted during the open water season, primarily in August/September. Not all data or 

materials collected during each of these cruises were available to this project, especially in cases 

where we obtained data from collaborators. 

Table I. List of cruises, projects, and sampling periods during which snow crabs were collected. 

MonthNr Location Project Provided by (lead PI) Funding 

8/2004 Chukchi US, Russia RUSALCA-1 !ken, Bluhm NOAA 

8/2007 Chukchi US BASIS Holladay, Norcross NOAA 

8/2008 Chukchi US Oshoru Maru IPY Holladay, Norcross Japan 

8/2008 Western Beaufort US* Western Beaufort Logerwell MMS 

Fish Survey 

8/2009 Chukchi US, Russia RUSALCA-2 Iken, Bluhm NOAA 

9/20 I 0 Chukchi lease areas CSESP Blanchard Oil Industry 

8/20 I 0 Chukchi lease areas COMIDA Konar BOEM 

8- 9/20 11 Beaufort Sea US Beau Fish lken, Bluhm (Norcross) CM I/BOEM 

8/2012 Chukchi US, Russia RUSALCA-3 !ken, Bluhm NOAA 

8-9/2012 Chukchi US* Arctic Eis Bluhm, !ken (Mueter) BOEM 

9/2012 Western Beaufort Sea Transboundary Bluhm, !ken (Norcross) BOEM 

8- 9/20 13 Central Beaufort Sea Transboundary Bluhm, !ken (Norcross) BOEM 

8-9 /20 14 Central Beaufort Sea Transboundary Bluhm, lken (Norcross) BOEM 

*Crabs from 83-1 12 hauls were included in fec undity and diet studies, but not in abundance and 

biomass estimates. 

The vast majority of all samples were collected with a plumb staff beam trawl (PSBT, after 

Gunderson and Ellis 1986) w ith a 2.26 m effective opening and net mesh of 7 mm with a 4 mm 

cod end liner (Figure 3a). Tow duration ranged from 1- 6 min, the area swept ranged from ~ 100-

~ 1300 m

2

, and the towing speed was approximately 1.5 knots. Details on the method can be 

found in Norcross et al. (2010, 2013). Crabs not collected by PSBT included individuals sampled 

with a modified 83-1 12 otter trawl during the Beaufort Sea 2008 survey (Rand and Logerwell 

2011) and crabs from the Arctic Eis 20 12 survey using an 83-11 2 eastern otter trawl, which is the 

4 
standard net for Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) bottom trawl surveys on the Bering Sea 

shelf. AFSC standard survey methods were followed during those 83-1 I 2 trawls including 

maintaining a constant vessel speed and monitoring of vertical and horizontal net openings with 

net sounders (Logerwell et al. 20 11 ). 

For mapping distribution, abundance, and biomass estimates of snow crab, we combined survey 

data from 378 stations sampled during 2004-2013 surveys that used consistent plumb staff 

beam-trawl gear and deployment procedures (Table I, Figure 2b ). The resulting region-wide map 

of crab distribution and time-integrated densities may reflect biases due to possibly high 

interannual and spatial variability in snow crab stock size. Research from the southeastern Bering 

Sea demonstrated that the species had ontogenetic migrations (Ernst et al. 2005) and a population 

size cyclic with a 7-8 year period (Parada et al. 2010). Therefore, we identified 2009 and 2012 as 

the survey years with the highest sampling effort and also mapped abundance and biomass 

separately for those years. Based on gear comparisons between the plumb-staff beam trawl (see 

below) and the 83-112 trawl (Bluhm et al. 2014, Britt et al. 20 13), we chose not to combine 

estimates derived by different trawl gears. Abundance and biomass derived from the 83-11 2 

were reported elsewhere for the western Beaufort Sea by Rand and Logerwel I (2011) and by the 

Arctic Eis 201 2 survey in the Chukchi Sea (Britt et al. 2013). 

Approximately 4100 crabs from across the Chukchi Sea were available to support our analysis of 

stock structure and size-frequency distribution. Crabs from lease sale areas in the Chukchi Sea 

were provided by Dr. Konar from the 20 10 BO EM-funded CO MID A cruise, and by Dr. 

Blanchard from the 2010 CSESP survey, with permission from the oil company consortium 

funders. Only 45 I crabs were collected during 2008- 2013 surveys of the Beaufo11 Sea. Subsets 

of these crabs were used for the fecundity and trophic objectives. 

a Eul Slbvf1n s,, 

..;... :,, ~ ·· 

Chu!chl 

SOI 

.. 

s.,u1on b s.. 

,\·~::.-~ .. . .. . ·· 

Eur SJbtrlan 

s.. \ -

e 2007 

• 2006 

• = e 2010 

e 2011 

e 2012 

Figure 2. Station coverage for snow crab in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, (a) in relation to the active leases up 

through Sale 193 (as per BOEM website, September 20 14) (b) color-coded by survey year. (Note that symbols of 

locations of the 2008 Western Beaufort Survey used for the trophic ecology obj ective are underneath 2011 stations 

west of - I 50°W). 

5 
Environmental variables including water depth, bottom water temperature, and bottom water 

salinity, were collected during all surveys, by collaborating research teams and/or the principal 

investigators. As a standard procedure, bottom water temperature and salinity were obtained 

from CTD casts at each sampling station as part of hydrographical surveys. 

Laborato,y methods 

All snow crabs from trawl catches were rinsed and counted, and bulk wet weight per station was 

recorded using spring scales or digital hanging scales. Body size, as maximum carapace width 

(CW) to the nearest 0.1 mm using vernier calipers (as described by Jadamec et al. 1999), was 

measured from all collected crabs either on deck or in the home lab. Preserved (2009 RUSALCA 

samples only, 10% formalin-seawater) or fresh crabs were dry blotted, and wet weight of 

individuals was recorded to the nearest 0.1 g. No correction was applied to formalin-preserved 

crab weight from RUSALCA 2009; all other crabs were processed fresh or after freezing. For all 

males, the right chela height was measured to determine their morphometric maturity by means 

of chela allometry (Conan and Comeau 1986). For all sampled females, maturity was recorded 

based on the presence of a mature-shaped abdominal flap (flap covers entire ventral side in 

mature females; Paul et al. 1997). Shell condition, a relative index of shell age as determined for 

Bering Sea snow crabs, was categorically classified for all crabs as molting, soft shell, recently 

molted/new shell, old shell, very old, and very very old shell (according to Jadamec et al. 1999 

and as updated by Stichert 2009). 

Fecundity was estimated from egg clutches of 322 mature females (Figure 3b) using egg counts 

and weights. From a total egg clutch removed from the pleopods, 250 eggs were subsampled, 

dried at 60°C until a constant weight was reached, and dry weight detern1ined (Paul et al. 1997, 

Stiche11 2009). The remaining eggs were dried in the same fashion for total dry weight (Figure 

3c). Egg developmental stage was determined in three categories (stage 1-4; stage 5- 9; stage >9) 

by yolk amount (after Moriyasu and Lanteigne 1998) and by the presence of eye spots in a subset 

of clutches (n=268) based on a photographic guide by J. Webb (ADF&G Juneau). Clutch 

fullness as a measure of reproductive success was determined categorically according to Jadamec 

et al. (1999) and updated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Spermathecae were removed (Figure 3d) and the 

spermathecal content was taken out and weighed to the nearest mg from n=l 95 mature females. 

The number of ejaculate layers was recorded after cutting the spermathecae in half. In addition, 

the spermathecal load was classified 'low' from :SO. I g, 'moderate' from 0.2-0.5 g, and large 

0.6 g, after Sainte-Marie et al. (2002). 

For dietary analyses, 360 crabs collected 2011-2013 (30- 130 mm CW) were dissected (Figure 

3e), and stomach contents removed. Items were studied under a dissecting microscope (Leica 

M 165) outfitted with a camera (Lei ca DFC420), and each prey item was identified to the lowest 

taxonomic category possible and photo-cataloged. Frequency of occurrence of individual food 

items was determined. Enumerating or weighing prey items was not possible because crab 

gastric mills (Figure 3f) efficiently grind prey items into many small pieces (Figure 3g). 

6 
Figure 3. Illustrations of methods applied. (a) Standardized plump-staff beam trawl used for most crab collections, 

(b) detem1ination of clutch size in mature female crab with clutch, (c) quantification of number and weight of eggs 

to estimate fecundity, (d) dissection of spermathecal (marked by black box) to determine sperm reserves in female 

snow crab for potential subsequent clutch production, (e) dissection of stomach (black box) to identify prey 

composition, (I) gastric mill that crushes prey items, (g) identification of prey item pieces. 

In most cases, the same crabs studied for stomach contents were also used for stable carbon and 

nitrogen analysis. Muscle tissue samples were dissected from crab legs and kept frozen at -20°C 

before drying at 60°C. Lipids were removed from crab muscle tissue to avoid bias in carbon 

signatures from isotopically lighter lipids. Water column particulate organic matter was analyzed 

as the food web baseline reference for determining trophic level. For this, water collected from 

the CTD rosette was filtered onto pre-combusted GF/F filters, dried at 60°C and HCl-fumed 

prior to analysis to remove inorganic carbonates. Samples were measured at the Alaska Stable 

Isotope Facility at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on a Thermo Finnigan Delta Isotope Ratio 

Mass-Spectrometer with Pee Dee Belemnite and atmospheric nitrogen as standards for carbon 

7 
and nitrogen, respectively (as in Iken et al. 2010). Sample isotopic ratios are expressed in the 

conventional 8 notation as parts per thousand according to the following equation: 

8 X = [(Rsamplc/Rstandard) - 1] • I 000 

where X is 13C or 

15N of the sample and R is the corresponding ratio 13Ci'2C or 15N/14N. 

Analytical instrument error typically is ~ 0. 1 % for 13C and 0.2% for 15N. 

To ensure compatibility of our lab methods with those routinely used by NMFS and the ADF&G 

for their Aleutians Islands and eastern Bering Sea crab surveys, we visited the ADF&G office 

and laboratories in Kodiak at the beginning of this project. Laura Stichert, an ADF &G snow and 

tanner crab biologist who conducts a major part of the reproductive studies for the agencies, 

provided training and feedback. 

Analyhcal approach 

Biomass and abundance were estimated from area swept (= net swath x distance towed) and 

counts and weights collected at sea, and were normalized to 1000 111-2

. Spatial patterns in 

abundance and biomass were produced using ArcGIS version 9.1 with support by Alynne Bayard 

at the University of Maryland. 

A size-frequency distribution (SFD) histogram was established from all size data available across 

years to characterize the size range of immature and mature females and males. Given the 

absence of any obvious modes, a typical problem for slow-growing, high latitude crustaceans 

(Sainte-Marie et al. I 995, Bluhm and Brey 2001, Shirley and Bluhm 2005), we did not attempt to 

separate instars. Rather, we used the SFD to identify regional-scale distribution patterns for 

2009, the year with the largest sample size. 

Fecundity in mature females was determined by dividing the dry weight of the total egg mass by 

the average dry weight of the eggs in the subsample. The relationship of both the number of eggs 

and sperm reserves with various variables was tested using Pearson rank correlations. Size-atmaturity is given as the size where 50% of all females were mature (Jewett 198 I). 

Diets were analyzed for differences within and among regions, size classes (in 10 mm 

increments), and sex classes using permutational multivariate analysis of variance 

(PERMANOVA). Regions were bounded as follows: southern Chukchi (66.05 to 70.00 °N, -

164. 14 to -1 68.50 °W, 11=!06), northern Chukchj (70.50 to 73.00 °N, -157.18 to -168.51 °W, 

n= l 15), western Beaufort (70.50 to 71.30 °N, -147.28 to -151.34 °W, n=37), central Beaufo11 

(70. 10 to 70.90 °N, -1 44. 95 to -14 7.07 °W, n=72), and (for diet studies only) Canadian Beaufort 

(69.93 to 71.33 °N, -123.49 to -1 40.40 °W, n=30) (Figure 4). Crab size ranges included by 

region: southern Chukchi Sea 40.2-89.2 mm CW; no11hern Chukcru Sea 40.1- 88.5 mm CW; 

western Beaufort Sea 32.6-75.8 mm CW; central Beaufo11 Sea 50.5-129.6 mm CW; Canadian 

Beaufort Sea 80.0- 130.0 mm CW. Regional differences in snow crab 813C and o15N stable 

isotope signatures were tested using PERMANOVA with post-hoc tests within each region to 

test whether sex had significant effects on isotope values. 

8 
I~: \\ 161" \\ 16-1 \\' 

-

Cbukrhi •• 

••••••• 

t .. •.• .• . • • ... , .... 11s (>O•• ·· •• • 

!i • " , -

... ,. ti~• , D..... 

•••• - ••••• 66'!', •• 

0 

Bcaufor1 Sea 

,, 500'" ,.ooo 

Canada 

°""' blood

sampled stations depth (m) 61 

(by y•ar) 200 

0 2011 - 500 

e 2012 - 2500 s 

2013 

, I - RUSALCA 2012 

Figure 4. Regions (delineated by dotted lines) and station locations for stomach content and stable isotope sampling. 

Results 

Crab distribution and population structure 

The combined 2004-2013 data showed that Chionoecetes opi!io occurs across the entire Chukchi 

Sea up to Wrangel Island and into the East Siberian Sea in the west and into Barrow Canyon in 

the east. In both the western and the eastern Chukchi Sea, the distribution extended to at least 

73°N (Figure 5a,b). Most Chukchi Sea stations were shallower than 70 m, but crabs were also 

fo und at the few stations> I 00 m. In the Beaufort Sea, crabs occurred on the western shelf and 

along the upper continental slope to ~500 m in the western and central Beaufo11 Sea (Figure 

5a,b ). No C. opilio were found at stations shallower than 26 m and east of 146.08° W in the 

surveys considered in this study. The few crabs found during the Transboundary cruise in the 

Beaufort Sea in 20 13 extended the documented range of snow crab in U.S. waters eastward. It is 

noteworthy, however, that we found a few small specimens at I 9 m in the central Beaufort Sea in 

the 2014 ANIMIDA III survey, and one large snow crab at 140° W (near the U.S.- Canadian 

border) during the Transboundary 2014 survey. Interestingly, three blue king crab specimens 

were also found at depths of 180 m in the western Beaufort Sea during the 2011 survey. These, 

and a blue king crab caught in 2008 are the first recorded for the area to our knowledge. 

The combined data set revealed insights into the spatial and depth distribution of male, female 

and juvenile crabs (Figures 6, 7). Juvenile crabs (~5- 16 mm CW) were primarily encountered in 

the southern Chukchi in 2012 between 30- 60 m depth, although some were encountered as far 

north as Herald Canyon (Figures 6b, 7a). Immature female crabs and male crabs were fo und 

throughout the locations sampled, and mature females were absent from Bering Strait. Immature 

females occurred tlu-oughout the depth range sampled on the Chukchi shelf ( ~30- 150 m), and in 

the Beaufort Sea shallower than 200 m. Large males only occurred deeper than 180 m, and were 

restricted to the Beaufort Sea shelf break and slope (Figure 7b ). 

9 
Applying the chela height to carapace width ratio used to identify morphometrically mature male 

C. opilio in the Bering Sea (Conan and Comeau 1986), our data suggest that all measured male 

crabs from the Chukchi Sea were morphometrically immature and that only the males in deeper 

waters on the Beaufort slope were morphometrically mature. Mature females were concentrated 

on the central part of the Chukchi Sea shelf including the Central Channel (Figure 6b). Their 

body size varied widely across the region with no clear pattern with latitude (Figure 7d). In the 

Beaufo1t Sea, very few mature females were caught, and those were only found deeper than 160 

m on the upper slope (with one exception) (Figures 6b, 7a). Averaged across the Chukchi Sea, 

54% of the crabs were males, 14% mature females, and 32% immature females. In the Beaufort 

Sea, the sex ratio was strongly skewed towards males with 82% males, 7% mature females, and 

11 % immature females. 

a 

... 

East Siberian -

Sea 

.... ltO'W 

HO'W 

• 1 - 793 

• 794 - 2.744 

e 2,745- 8,950 

• 8,951 - 21,795 

• 21.796 - 53,602 

UO'W 

• 0.6 • 4.437 

• 4,438 · 13,092 

e 13,093 • 26,783 

• 26,784 - 53,516 

• 53.517 • 111,552 

·-

Figure 5. Abundance and biomass estimates of snow crabs in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, standardized to 

individuals per I 000 1112 based on 2- 10 min plump-staff beam trawl hauls taken at - 1.5 kn speed with 4 mm mesh in 

the cod end). (a) Abundance and (b) biomass for all sampling years combined. 
a 

b 

I 

} 

I 

I 

E•>t S/borl•n s., 

,.,. 

Chukchi • • Sea • • • • 

... .. .,,1 . •• .. _ .. ..,,,S,). •• ••• 

: . :iyi1o , .. . , . , . .. . , ..... 

. , 

· ~ 

• 70' N -. 

-- - ....... _.:,...__~ 

Depth 

(m) 

0 - 30 

- 30-50 

100 

,so· 175"W 170'W 

-

BNufon 

SN - - ,. - ~_...... __ .... ;..,~r-: ·. . , .. 

,,,.. 

150•w 155"W 

Figure 6. Distributions of snow crab sexes and maturity stages. (a) Locations where juvenile crabs were found. (b) 

Spatial distribution of proportions of immature and mature females and males across the study area for all years. 

When applying the chela height to carapace width relationship used to identify morphometrically 

mature male C. opilio in the Bering Sea (Conan and Comeau 1986; Figure 7c), these large males 

in deeper waters on the Beaufort slope would be considered morphometrically mature, while all 

measmed male crabs from the Chukchi Sea would be classified morphometrically immature. 

Mature females were concentrated on the central part of the Chukchi Sea shelf including the 

Central Channel (Figure 6b). Their body size varied widely across the region with no clear 

pattern with latitude (Figure 7d). In the Beaufort Sea, very few mature fema les were caught, and 

those were only found deeper than 160 m on the upper slope (with one exception) (Figures 6b, 

7a). Averaged across the Chukchi Sea, 54% of the crabs were males, 14% mature females, and 

32% immature females. In the Beaufort Sea, the sex ratio was strongly skewed towards males 

with 82% males, 7% mature females, and 1 I% immature females 

11 
a 160 

b 

140 1 • Mature females 

• Immature females 

e120 O Mature males 

.§. 100 , small Juveniles 

-ti 

°j 80 ., 

u 

60 

I! 

.. 

u 40 

20 

0 

0 

• 

100 

160 

140 

If) 

120 lfl 

100 

·2 0 

200 300 

Water depth (m) 

lfJ 

400 

• 

500 

q ,;, 

Ii I • 

4 

Bottom water temperature (°C) 

C 

d 

45 

35 

e 3o 

E i:25 

.; 

.c 20 .. 

.; 

.c 

u 15 

10 

0 

65 

35 

30 

30 50 

- II 

66 68 

70 90 l!O 

carapace width (mm) 

• 

70 

Latitude (degrees N) 

130 

• 

72 

• 

• 

150 

74 

Figure 7. Distribution of body sizes for snow crabs from the Chukchi and Alaska Beaufort Seas; (a) in relation to 

water depth and (b) in relation to bottom water temperature. Males classified morphometrically mature in this 

fashion are symbolized as such in (a). (c) Separation of mature male crabs (above red line) and immature males 

crabs (below red line) based on the ratio of chela height to carapace width applicable in eastern Bering Sea and east 

Canadian crabs. Note: it not clear whether this line is biologically meaningful in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. (d) 

Mature female body size in relation to latitude with black symbols showing means per degree latitude. 

Crabs caught in the PSBT ranged in size from 4- 144 mm CW (Figure 8). Morphometric 

measurements revealed that snow crabs in the Chukchi Sea were overall smaller than those from 

the Beaufort Sea (Figure 8a,b). The majority of male Chukchi Sea crabs were smaller than 65 

mm CW (Figure 8a), most immature females measured between 30 and 45 mm CW, and the 

majority of mature females fell into the range of 40- 55 mm CW. For the Chukchi Sea, this 

pattern appeared to be fairly consistent across the region, as shown by the consistent patterns in 

subregion-specific size-frequency distributions from 2009, the year with the largest sample size 

(Figure 9). In contrast, a larger range of crab sizes occurred in the Beaufort Sea and 29% were at 

Bering Sea fishery legal size (78 mm CW) or larger. Very small crabs were not found in the 

Beaufort Sea during the 2008- 2013 surveys considered here. As noted above, however, four 

crabs <12 mm CW were sampled during the 2014 ANIMIDA III survey. 

12 
a b 20 Size group (m m ) 

100 , I 

90 j Max Immature females Mature females 18 -

16 - N=451 

80 1 14 

70 

C 

1: 

C: 12 - 60 N=4100 10 " r::r 

50 - 8 I.I. 

J :, 

o 40 • 6 ;; 

<I'. 

30 l 4 

20 2 oih__q 

10 • 0 

Jl~-·- 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 Carapace width (mm) 

Figure 8. Size-freq uency-distribution of snow crabs caught in the (a) Chukchi Sea and (b) Alaska Beaufort Sea 

across all sampling years. Note the larger sizes in the Beaufort Sea. 

Abundance and biomass 

Mean snow crab abundance across all sampling years was 1073 ind 1000 m·

2 fo r the Chukchi 

Sea and only 1. 7 ind 1000·

2 in the Beaufort Sea. Mean abundance was almost 8-fold higher in the 

southern versus the northern Chukchi Sea (Figure 5a). Similarly, mean abundance was> 10-fold 

higher in the western than the central Beaufort Sea, and 5-fold higher on the Beaufort slope 

(> 100 m) than the shelf. When 2009 and 2012 records were mapped separately, vari ability in 

abundance between years became obvious (Figure 9c,d). In 201 2, the asymmetry between high 

abundance in the southern Chukchi Sea and lower abundance in the northern Chukchi Sea was 

particularl y striking (Figure 9d). This asymmetry was driven in part by high numbers of juvenile 

occurring at a few sites in the southern Chukchi that added to the high abundance there. 

Mean biomass across all sampling years was 6803 g ww 1000 nf2 for the Chukchi Sea and 273 g 

ww 1000 111·

2 for the Beaufort Sea. Biomass was 2.4-fold higher in the southern than the northern 

Chukchi Sea, 10-fold higher in the western than the central Beaufort Sea, and 21 -fold higher on 

the Beaufort slope than the shelf (Figure 5b). Combined, the relationships in abundance and 

biomass suggested that crabs were, on average, larger in the northern than the southern Chukchi 

Sea (maybe parti ally driven by the small, juvenile crabs that were abundant in the southern 

Chukchi), and also larger on average on the Beaufort slope compared to the shelf (see also 

Figures 10, 11 ). As with abundance, biomass patterns mapped separately for 2009 and 2012 

revealed interamrnal variability both in absolute magnitude and distributional pattern of snow 

crab biomass (Figure 9e,f). Crab biomass was highest at depths below 100 m, at temperatures 

between -2 and + 3°C and at salinities of 32 to 33.4 (Figure 12). 

13 
a 

b 

East Siberian 

Sea 

,J!a IS • 

EHi Siberian -. 

s •• 

... __ .. ,. 

... '-.'?#. • · \ ~:'\ I ? ! /-'/1,:1 ,. ':,,-·~~~~~;._ ) .f ) ' 8•;~:0:1 Chukchi ~-'-·--~./;.~k,;- S•• ••• 

11,.ll::. 

Chukchi 

Sea 

, . 

... 

,,rw 

• 0 

• 1-186 

• 187-565 

566 · 1,105 

1.106 • 2,216 

2.217 · 4.538 

' \ \ ( ( .Boa11fo,: . . . 1/j-J/lt' • _ 1 . j Sea • -.- ~~~~=;.,."--... .. -----• ---==' /.,.ij, 

.. 

.. 

. . 

• 1. 1,193 

• 1,194-3,818 

3,819 · 11 ,703 

11 ,704 • 21,795 

21,796 • 53,602 

C 

w 

d 

East Siberian 

Sea 

jl 

,. 

Depth 

(m) 

0-30 

- 30-50 

East Siberian 

Sea 

• 

.. -Is . 

• I , . , ' l 

Chukchi • . 

Sea • • .,,. 

• 

k 

• • 

Chukchi 

Sea 

••• 

1• 

---- ~ -

...___ ",~ 

• 

I t.. ':: .. • • 

I • • .. • • 

llt''W ,,...,, 

• 0.6 • 2.954 

• 2,955 • 8,719 

8,720 • 17,032 

17,033 • 39,180 

39,181 • 74,520 

• 1 -586 

• 587 · 2,268 

2,269 • 5,310 

5,311 • 8,638 

8,639 • 47,333 

Figure 9. Abundance and biomass estimates of snow crabs in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, standardized to individuals per 1000 1112 based on 2- 10 min plumpstaff beam trawl hauls taken at ~ 1.5 kn speed with 4 111111 mesh in the cod end). (a) Abundance in 2009, (b) abundance in 2012, (c) biomass in 2009, (d) biomass 

in 2012. 2009 and 20 12 were the two years with the most extensive sampling coverage. 
25 Herald Canyon 25 

20 7 IF O M Central 

> 

u 

15 MF 15 ::::, 

g 10 - .. ... 5 5 

0 0 

20 40 60 20 40 60 

CW(mm) CW(mm) 

25 25 

Southwest 

20 20 -

Southeast 

> > u u 

15 - 15 ::::, ::::, 

g 10 .. [ 10 - ... ... 5 

0 0 C 

20 40 60 20 40 60 

CW(mm) CW(mm) 

25 

20 Bering Strait 

> 

u 

15 - ::::, 

C" 10 

... 5 -

0 CD 1. 

20 40 60 

CW(mm) 

Figure 10. Regional distribution of size-frequencies of snow crabs caught in the Chukchi Sea in 2009, the year for 

which most data were available. 

15 
a 

b 

,.. .. 

C 

70'rt 

Depth 

(m) 

0-30 

• 

Depth 

(m) 

0- 30 

.... 

East Siberian 

Sea 

.. 

' ••o 

• 

• 

•. . , ,. 

Depth 

(m) 

• • 

• 

• 

l l'O"'\'I 

Chukchi 

Sea 

Sea 

0 - 30 

- 30-50 • - 50 - 80 • 

t70-W 

,.,..,, 

Immature Females 

carapace width (mm) 

30 - 35 

36 -42 

0 43 -47 

0 48-53 

0 54-70 

e 43 - 53 

• 54-58 

• 59-64 

• 65 - 82 

• 10 - 40 

e 41 -53 

• 54 - 68 

• 69 - 97 

• 98-144 

Figure I I. Maximum body size (as carapace width) of snow crab in the Chukchi and Alaska Beaufort Seas for (a) 

immature females, (b) mature females, and (c) males. Crabs from all sampling years were combined. 

16 
a 

b 

C 

"' E 

0 

g 00.CXXl \ 

"' 40,0CIJ 

g ,, al t 

l 20JXX) 

"' E 

0 

o OOJXXJ 0 

! 

s 

"' 

100 200 :n:l 400 500 600 700 0C0 9Xl I JXX) 

Water depth (m ) 

• : 40.0l) 

E . : 0 

al ., 

O l.:JltiloL_L.&.._.......::144.1.:i...,.:.J..........,J..--,J ·2 ., 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Bottom water temperature (degrees C) 

E 

0 g 00.CXXl 

! 

s 

"' .!OJXXJ 

E 

0 

al 

... 

oL----1-- .L....oo.J...;;...aa1-.""""-e.i.......- a D 

Bottom water salinity 

Figure 12. Biomass relationships of snow crab in the Chukchi and Alaska Beaufort Seas to (a) water depth, (b) 

bottom water temperature and (c) bottom water salinity. 

Reproductive potential 

Female fecundity ranged from <5,000 to >50,000 eggs per female over a female crab size range 

of 36- 72 mm CW. Most females had full clutches, corresponding to clutch fullness indices 5 and 

6. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the number of eggs per female versus carapace width 

was r-0.69, confirming that female fecundity scales with body size as it does in other regions 

(Figure 13a). The low correlation coefficients for relationships between fecundity and water 

depth, bottom water temperature, and latitude (all r<0.30) suggest that those factors have less 

direct influence on female fecundity (Figure I 3b-d). The eggs were in early developmental 

stages ( combined stages 1-4) in 84% of the mature females investigated, while 15% were in later 

developmental stages with reduced yolk amounts (combined stages 5-9), and 1 % were in late 

stages with pigmented eyes visible ( combined stages 11- 12). 

17 
\ 60000 1 

n=307 . b 60000 n=294 

Pearson r=0.685 . Pearson r= 0.242 

e 50000 50000 

-2! • 

iii 40000 •• 40000 • . 

i 30000 j 

• • • ., • ... .. . . •• :1 • 

••• ... 30000 • 

• • (. • ii t 

20000 • • t 20000 • II) .. .0 

E • • 10000 J .\j • -.. 10000 • :i 

z ... .. . .. • . :., . 0 0 

35 45 55 65 75 0 50 100 150 200 

Carapace width (mm) Water depth (m) 

C 60000 n=187 d 

n=322 QJ Pearson r= 0.274 60000 Pearson r= -0.108 

50000 • QJ • 50000 

-40000 • • • a. •• 40000 • • • • •• "' • I • • • .< 30000 • • • • 30000 I • • •• • QJ • • • • • I 

i : ii I ......... - • r 20000 • • •• • • • : .. ,, .. 

a =~ 

20000 t :i . I • • ( I ! • • QJ J • ' • . i '.\ .a • • I •• 

: :1 ' 10000 Ii" ..-. I 10000 • 

z • • • • I • I • . : • • • ' • • • • 

0 0 

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 67 69 71 73 

Bottom water temperature (°C} Latitude (degrees N) 

Figure 13. Fecundity as number of eggs per mature female snow crab from the Chukchi Sea plotted against (a) body 

size, (b) water depth, (c) bottom water temperature, and (d) latitude. The only strong relationship was with carapace 

width. 

About 77% of all mature females were new shell crabs (shell condition 2; Figure 14a), which in 

the southeastern Bering Sea and Canadian Atlantic is interpreted as being primiparous (i.e., 

carrying the first clutch; Sainte-Marie et al. 2008). About 16% of the mature females were 

classified as shell condition 3 (old shell), and 7% as condition 4 (very old shell). These shell 

condition indices are considered multiparous crabs in the Bering Sea (i.e., carrying subsequent 

clutches; see Sainte-Marie et al. 2008). We caution, however, that the shell condition criteria and 

interpretation of primiparous versus multiparous were developed for Bering Sea and Canadian 

Atlantic crabs, and may not be applicable to Arctic crabs. For Chukchi Sea crabs, we estimated 

that 50% of female snow crabs in the Chukchi Sea reach maturity at 46 mm carapace width 

(Figure 14b). We caught very few mature snow crab females from the Beaufort Sea and cannot 

provide an estimate of size-at-maturity for that region. 

18 
a 300 

250 

., 

a. 200 

E 

:,: 

o ISO 

t 

.D 

100 

z 

so 

0 

b 100 

90 

80 

70 

~- 7% 

3 4 

Shell condition N=211 

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4 l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 

CW(mm) 

C 160 

140 

120 ., 

a. 

E JOO 

:,: 

0 80 ., 

.D 60 E 

:, 

z 40 

20 

0 

4 

Number of sperm layers 

Figure 14. Female reproductive characteristics. (a) Distribution of mature, egg-bearing females in terms of shell 

condition index. (b) Size at which 50% of female snow crabs in the Chukchi Sea were mature= 46 mm carapace 

width. (c) Number of sperm layers in spermathecae. 

Spermathecal load measured as weight of the spenn stored in the left spenn atheca in female 

crabs ranged from 0.00 I to 0.240 g, and loads were classifi ed as ' low' to ' moderate' by SainteMarie et al. (1996). Most of the loads were ' low' (0.025±0.032 g) and were neither related to 

female body weight, nor to shell condition or water depth (Figure 15). The number of spem1 

layers ranged from 1-4 with the majority (71 %) of mature females having only one layer in their 

spermathecae (Figure 14b ). 

19 
a 0.0 O.JO• n=186 b 0.30 n=185 

E 0.11· Pearson r= 0.251 011 Pearson r= 0.119 

... 0.20 · .!!.D 020 

Cl/ . 3 0.11 0.11 . "C 

ra • • • ..Q 0 10 • 0.10 

E ••• 

• • •• • I ... 0.01 

. ·s.t ii•.: • 0.01 . : • Cl/ ' C. 

"' 0 l • ... 0 

0 10 40 r,o 80 100 120 140 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

Wet weight (g) 0 30 Shell condition index 

C 030 

ao d l n=167 .s n=195 021 ' 0 21 

· Pearson r= 0.072 Pearson r= 0.344 ... 020 I no 020• 

'ci 

3 0.111 0.11 

"C 

ra . . . . . ..Q 0.101 0.10 . . .... . . E . .. ... . . 0.01 ., Cl/ 0.01 . . r ,; ... :, • C. •• I • • • • "' o- •- U P. ,tikiG ·- * . 67 68 G9 70 71 72 73 74 00 10 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 100 

Latitude (deg N) Water depth (m) 

Figure IS. Sperm reserves (as weight of sperm load in the left sperrnathecal) in mature females from the Chukchi 

Sea, plotted against (a) body weight, (b), shell condition index, (c) latitude and (d) water depth. None of the 

relationships was particularly strong. 

Trophic characterization 

Crab stomach fullness and diet compos1t1on ranged widely and varied regionally. Stomach 

fullness ranged from 0-70%. Snow crabs consumed four main prey taxa: polychaetes, decapod 

crustaceans (crabs, amphipods), echinoderms (mainly ophiuroids), and mollusks (bivalves, 

gastropods) (Figure 16a). Polychaetes and bivalves were more common than ophiuroids, 

amphipods, decapods, and fishes. Both stomach contents and stable isotope values revealed 

regional differences. Crab diets in the two Chukchi regions were similar to those in the western 

Beaufort (highest bivalve, amphipod, and crustacean consumption) (Figure 16a, Table 2). The 

Canadian Beaufort region was most unique in prey composition and stable isotope values. Crab 

diets in the Canadian Beaufort Sea were different from all other regions due to apparent 

dominance of 'other polychaetes', but this result may be somewhat biased by the limited crab 

size range available from that region (all > 80 mm CW; Figure 16b). Regional differences were 

most conspicuous for polychaetes, which were more common in the central and Canadian 

Beaufort than the western Beaufort and Chukchi seas, and for bivalves, which were more 

common in both Chukchi regions and the western Beaufort than the other two Beaufort regions 

(Figure 16a). Cannibalism on small snow crabs was higher in the Chukchi regions relative to the 

Beaufort regions. 

20 
a 90% 

80% 

70% 

g 

i 601' 

::l 50% 0 

0 

i 4 0% 

" 30% 

20% 

JO% 

°" Ci.HenidH other 

hypcrborea potyc:h ae1e1, 

b 60% 

50% 

"2 

C 

40% 

-~ 

.. 

:2. 30% 

0 

-,. 20% 

°" 30 40 50 60 

amphipods 

70 80 

as. Chukchi (n = 106) 

N . Chukchi (n• J JS) 

0 W . Beaufort (n• 37) 

C.. Beaufort (nz72) 

N Canadian Beaufort (n: 30) 

Brachyunn othe:r teleost part.I 

cr~bs Cf"u.stace~ns ophlurold.s. 

::::; CAB 

"' § § § § § § § § § § § § 

§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § 

§ § § :§: § :§: § :§: "' § :§: § § :§: § :§: § 

j § § § 

§ § § 

90 100 110 120 130 

CW w idth size class (mm) 

Figure 16. (a) Frequency of occurrence of dominant diet items in snow crabs from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

(b) Body size of crabs used to determ ine stomach contents. Note that the legend is different between (a) and (b). 

2\ 
Table 2. Statistics on the differences in stomach contents of snow crab between regions: PERM A NOY A post-hoc 

pairwise comparisons for regional snow crab diet composition using frequency of occurrence data. SC= southern 

Chukchi, NC= northern Chukchi, WB= western Beaufort, CB= central Beaufort, EB= eastern Beaufo11. In ita lics: 

not significant. 

Regional painvise t p-value 

comparison 

WB, CB 1.8826 0.003 

WB, SC 1.601 0.014 

WB,NC 1.2744 0. 131 

WB, EB 2.0243 0.004 

CB, SC 2.372 1 0.001 

CB, NC 2.9254 0.001 

CB, EB 1.6865 0.011 

SC, NC 1.6605 0.004 

SC, EB 1.6538 0.009 

NC, EB 2.2557 0.001 

We also observed a trend of decreasing carbon stable isotopes in crabs from the Chukchi to those 

in the Canadian Beaufort, with the central and Canadian Beaufort crabs having the lowest 813C 

values (Figure 17; Appendix 3), likely reflecting the increasing use of terrestrial carbon sources 

towards the eastern regions of the Beaufort Sea from Mackenzie River influx. Similarity between 

the northern Chukchi and the western Beaufo11 Seas may refl ect the high advective connectivity 

between these two regions, located between the productive Bering Sea Anadyr water to the south 

and the less productive Beaufort regions to the east. 

16.5 

15.5 

z 

"' ro 14.s 

13.5 

12.5 

-20.5 

MALE 

IMMATURE FEMALE 

MA J URE FEMALE 

... -11f~ 

1 ~ I 

.... 

-20 -19.5 -19 -18.5 

613C 

e Southern Chukchi 

A Northern Chukchi 

Wester n Beaufort 

al Beaufort 

n Beaufort 

Centr 

Xcanadia 

-18 -17.5 -17 

Figure 17. Trophic position of snow crab as indicated by 8 15N versus 8 13C values, shown separately for immature 

and mature females and males from five subregions. 

22 
Prey composition only varied with crab size in some size classes in the southern Chukchi and 

central Beaufort, while stable isotope results showed no size-dependent differences (Table 3). 

Slightly, although statistically significantly higher mean carbon isotope values for males in the 

southern Chukchi (Appendix 3) may not be reflective of a gender-specific pattern but rather be 

driven by low sample size. Mean o1

5N values of region-sex groups were generally similar 

(primarily within <1 %0). Male crabs overall had higher o 15N values than females from the same 

region (although this difference was not obvious in the diet composition) (Fig. 17). 

Table 3. Comparison of results from stomach content analysis (SCA) and stable isotope analysis (SIA) using 

PERMANOV A. Comparisons were done for different size classes and sex classes nested within study regions in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Results shown indicate variance components explained by region and body size, Fstatistics, and significance. 

Pseudo - P (based on 

Source of variation df ss MS F 999 

permutations) 

SCA- Region, Sex, size class as fixed variables 

Among regions 3 20333 6777.7 2.8 0.001 

Region *size class 13 42935 3302.7 1.4 0.002 

SCA- size class nested within region 

Among regions 4 57218 14304 5 0.001 

Region ( size class) 23 76203 3313.2 1.4 0.002 

SCA- post-hoc pairwise regions 

southern Chukchi- northern Chukchi 0.208 

southern Chukchi- western Beaufort 0.281 

southern Chukchi- central Beaufort 0.001 

southern Chukchi- Canadian Beaufort 0.025 

northern Chukchi- western Beaufort 0.338 

northern Chukchi- central Beaufort 0.001 

northern Chukchi- Canadian Beaufort 0.008 

western Beaufort- central Beaufort 0.655 

western Beaufort- Canadian Beaufort 0.013 

central Beaufort- Canadian Beaufort 0.001 

SCA- size class within Individual region 

southern Chukchi 4 24572 6143.1 2.2 0.001 

northern Chukchi 4 10109 2527.4 1 0.473 

central Beaufort 7 21653 3093.3 1.7 0.007 

western Beaufort 4 9717.5 2429.4 I.I 0.305 

Canadian Beaufort 4 10150 2537.6 0.8 0.656 

SIA- Region, Sex, size class as fixed variables 

Among regions 3 0.1 0.05 2.1 0.07 

Size class 9 0.1 0.01 0.7 0.72 

Sex classes 1 0.1 0.1 4.7 0.03 

Region*size class 14 0.2 0.02 0.8 0.65 

Region*Sex 5 0.1 0.03 1.3 0.22 

Sex*size class 6 0.1 0.01 0.4 0.93 

Region*Sex*size class 4 0.1 0.02 0.7 0.66 

SIA- Sex class nested within region 

Among regions 4 0.6 0.2 7.1 0.05 

Region (sex classes) 2 0.2 0.07 3.4 0.03 

23 
Discussion 

This study improved the knowledge of snow crab distribution in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Snow crabs occur throughout the Chukchi Sea and into at least the western part of the East 

Siberian Sea. Our sampling coverage had a gap in the central part of the Russian Chukchi Sea, 

but the distribution records around Wrangel Island, and results from predictive modeling based 

on habitat preferences (Hardy et al. 2011 ), makes it reasonable to assume that snow crabs also 

occur in that area. In the Alaska Beaufort Sea, in contrast, the species seems to be restricted to 

the western and central areas with more and larger crabs on the upper slope than on the shelf. 

There appears to be a distribution gap in the eastern part of the U.S. Beaufort Sea, but snow 

crabs occur again in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Crabs are present in no1theastern Chukchi lease 

areas but essentially absent from current Beaufort lease areas. Where crabs are present, 

abundances are highest in the southern Chukchi Sea and lowest in the central Beaufort Sea. 

Biomass patterns vary between years; however, snow crabs contribute substantially to epibenthic 

biomass tlu·oughout the Chukchi Sea and western Beaufort slope, and are among the biomassdominant epibenthic taxa in some areas (Bluhm et al. 2009, Rand and Logerwell 20 11, Ravelo et 

al. 20 I 4). Crabs were rare in waters less than 30 m (although few shallow sites were sampled) 

and east of 146° W during the surveys considered here. In the Canadian Beaufort Sea, however, 

snow crabs were found farther east during BREA cruises between 2012- 20 I 4 (A. Majewski and 

S. McPhee, personal communication), albeit in low numbers (those crabs are included in the diet 

results in this study). Abundances increase to harvestable levels farther east in western Greenland 

(Burmeister and Sainte-Marie 2010). Temporal resolution of abundance and biomass data was 

too sparse to determine potential cyclic patterns ( especially in the Beaufort Sea), but variable 

abundance and biomass across years in the Chukchi Sea suggest interannual variability in 

standing stock size, as has been documented in the Bering Sea and eastern Canada (Sainte-Marie 

et al. I 996, Parada et al. 2010). 

Regional distribution patterns differed some between males and females and between immature 

and mature crabs. The differences were most obvious in the Beaufort Sea. Such regional 

patterns, again, have been documented for the eastern Bering Sea, where large sample sizes and 

long time series have facilitated in-depth analyses in this regard (Zheng et al. 2001 , Ernst et al. 

2005). Our more limited data set suggests that mature females appear to be concentrated on the 

inner (offshore) parts of the Chukchi Sea, where essentially all mature females were egg-bearing. 

In contrast and somewhat surprising, mature gravid females were almost absent from the 

adjacent Chirikov Basin just south of Bering Strait in recent years (Kolts et al. 2015). In the 

1970s, mature fema les with eggs were also extremely sparse in the southeastern and the 

northeastern Chukchi Sea, and the western Beaufort Sea (Jewett 1981, Frost and Lowry I 983). 

Specifically, less than 5% of mature females from the northeastern Bering and southern Chukchi 

Seas combined were gravid in 1976 (Wolotira et al. 1977, Jewett 1981) and only a single gravid 

female from the northeastern Chukchi Sea was found in 1976- 1977, and none in the western 

Beaufo1t Sea (Frost and Lowry 1983). In contrast, almost all mature females sampled in the 

1990s were gravid in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (Paul et al. 1997), as they were in our study. 

24 
Slight differences in sampling period relative to the timing of clutch extrusions or a northward 

shift in of gravid female distribution in the Chukchi Sea could explain these differences in gravid 

female occurrence in different decades. The occurrence of a few juvenile crabs in the nearshore 

Mackenzie Shelf area suggests that gravid females may be present in the area, but were not 

collected. Few mature females occurred in the Beaufort Sea in the 2010s and those found were 

limited to the shelf break and upper slope and were not gravid. 

While all crabs in the Chukchi Sea are small (primarily <60 mm CW), irrespective of maturity 

status and sex, size-segregation was apparent in the Beaufort Sea. Large male and mature female 

crabs (>-80 mm CW) occurred exclusively on the Beaufort Sea slope and both sexes were 

smaller on the adjacent shelf. It is unclear if these larger size classes in the deeper waters are 

related to ontogenetic migrations from shallower to deeper waters in the Beaufort Sea as is 

documented for the Bering Sea (Ernst et al. 2005, 2012). However, when applying the chela 

height to carapace width ratio used to identify morphometrically mature male C. opilio in the 

Bering Sea (Conan and Comeau 1986), our data suggest that all measured male crabs from the 

Chukchi Sea are morphometrically immature, and that only the males in deeper waters on the 

Beaufort slope are morphometrically mature. This conclusion seems unlikely given that we 

found gravid females distributed across the Chukchi Sea, and these would have had to be 

fertilized. If the absence of mature male crabs on the Chukchi shelf was indeed true, one might 

speculate that the virtual absence of gravid females in the Chirikov Basin could be explained by 

their northward migration into the southern Chukchi Sea after fertilization in the Chirikov Basin 

or even further south, a speculation that would need further investigation. Females found in the 

Chukchi Sea stored sperm in low to moderate amounts comparable to the Bering Sea and 

Canadian waters (see Sainte-Marie et al. 1996, Stichert et al. 2013). Whether that amount of 

sperm storage would be sufficient to produce a subsequent clutch needs further study. One could 

also speculate that few of the many immature male crabs present in the Chukchi Sea ever grow 

to morphometric maturity, although we would consider this unlikely given that appropriate 

habitat conditions (Hardy et al. 2011) and food resources are available. Perhaps the allometric 

relationship between chela size and carapace size of snow crab needs refinement for the small 

size range of crabs so prominent in the Chukchi Sea. A study focused on relationships of gonad 

development in relation to body size in maturing male C. opilio from the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas could resolve the question of whether small sized male crabs have mature gonads. 

If ontogenetic migration was indeed happening, as the distribution of crabs in the Beaufort Sea 

suggests and as is documented for the eastern Bering Sea, what would the cues be? Bottom water 

temperature, in particular, and perhaps water depth, are thought to explain the spatial segregation 

of mature females in the Bering Sea (Ernst et al. 2005, 2012). In our study area, there was no 

clear relationship between the distribution of either mature females or males and bottom water 

temperature or water depth. Male and female crabs essentially occurred across a broad 

temperature range of close to freezing to about 5°C, but we point out some possible preferences 

of mature crabs. The majority of mature females were collected at bottom water temperatures 

between -0.5 and 4 °C, with the large mature females in the Beaufort Sea collected at coincident 

25 
temperatures around 0.5°C where the putative mature males were found. Juveniles were not 

collected at bottom water temperatures below -1 °C. Our sample sizes of mature females and 

putative mature males, and the number of sites where juvenile crabs were found are too low to 

identify clearer patterns. In addition, bottom water temperatures fluctuate somewhat on the 

Chukchi shelf, especially in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (Weingartner et al. 2013 ). 

The proportion of mature female C. opi/io was overall low, but their widespread occurrence and 

full egg-clutches suggest that reproduction occurs in the Chukchi Sea, including the northeastern 

Chukchi lease areas. Egg-bearing female occurrence suggests that larvae get released locally in 

the Chukchi Sea, although the larval supply may be supplemented by advective transport from 

the Bering Sea as suggested by occurrence of very small crabs primarily in the southern Chukchi 

Sea and hardly any in the Beaufort Sea. Such a transport mechanism is well-documented for 

Pacific-origin zooplankton (Berline et al. 2008, Hopcroft et al. 2010). Crab larvae advected into 

the Chukchi Sea would have to come from as far away as south of St. Lawrence Island, as hardly 

any gravid females occurred north of St. Lawrence Island (Kolts et al. 2015). 

Fecundity of female C. opilio from the Chukchi Sea appeared to scale to body size in the same 

fashion as in the south-eastern and northern Bering Sea (Webb 2014, Kolts et al. 2015). The size 

of mature females has been related to latitude and/or bottom water temperature with smaller sizeat-maturity at higher latitudes and lower temperatures (Orensanz et al. 2007). Our data set did 

not confirm this trend within the Chukchi Sea, perhaps because the temperature gradient is not 

distributed latitudinally, and bottom temperatures are somewhat variable in part of the study 

area. Also, some very small females in the Chukchi Sea carried clutches. It remains puzzling, 

though, that the mature females found in the Beaufort Sea were both substantially larger than 

mature females in the Chukchi and at the same time lacked clutches, although they were 

collected during the same months. Further puzzling is that those larger mature females had very 

clean carapaces matching the description for shell condition index 2 as used in the Bering Sea 

( classified as primiparous females), while about a quarter of the mature, but much smaller, 

females in the Chukchi were classified as shell condition index 3 and 4, which is interpreted as 

multiparous in the Bering Sea (Webb 2014 ). We caution that the criteria used for shell condition 

and inferred reproductive categories established for the Bering Sea may not be transferable to 

snow crabs in Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

This study showed that snow crabs from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are omnivorous 

predators, as they are in other areas (Feder and Jewett 1980, 1981; Kolts et al. 2013). Prey 

includes a broad range of invertebrates and fishes. In the northeastern Chukchi lease areas, 

polychaetes and bivalves were common prey items. The different isotope signature in the study 

region generally matched the diet content results showing the similarity between the Chukchi 

and western Beaufort seas, but differences to the central and Canadian Beaufort Sea. Gender and 

size differences in diets, however, were limited. Patterns in stable isotope values are consistent 

with our and other published data (Dunton et al. 2012, Divine et al. 2015) that document greater 

influence of terrestrial (lighter in carbon isotopes) organic matter in sediments and consumer 

26 
tax.a in the central and Canadian Beaufort Sea from the Colville, Mackenzie and smaller rivers, 

compared to the Chukchi Sea. Crabs from the central and Canadian Beaufort Sea were, however, 

also larger because few smaller crabs were available from that region. Cannibalism was 

substantial in the southern Chukchi and should be considered in assessments of mortality 

sources. 

We confirm our hypothesized south to north gradients within the Chukchi Sea and the west to 

east gradients in the Alaskan Beaufort Seas in terms of snow crab densities. Crab densities did 

indeed appear to be highest in the southern Chukchi and were higher in the western than the 

central Beaufort Sea. Body sizes, however, did not display a clear south to north gradient, rather 

the largest crabs found on the Beaufort Sea slope, while Chukchi crabs were mostly <60 mm 

CW. These large mature females and putative mature males in the Beaufort Sea remain puzzling 

in various respects and warrant further study. As hypothesized, the smallest mature females were 

found in the northern compared to the southern Chukchi Sea, and, because clutch size relates to 

body size, their fecundity was lower in those northern Chukchi areas where bottom temperatures 

were coldest. The mature females in the Beaufort Sea, in contrast, were larger but not gravid. 

Diets varied between regions and differed most between the large crabs from the central and 

Canadian Beaufort Sea slopes and all smaller Chukchi and western Beaufort shelf crabs. Snow 

crabs are common in the northeastern Chukchi lease areas, but are essentially absent from the 

Beaufort Sea lease areas, although they do occur offshore of those on the upper slope. 

Presentations and Publications 

Presentations 

2015 

Divine L, Iken K, Bluhm BA, Foy R, Lauth R, Norcross B, Aydin K, Whitehouse A. Snow crab 

( Chionoecetes opilio) ecology in the Alaskan Arctic. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 

Anchorage, AK, January 2015 ( oral) 

Iken K, Bluhm BA, Divine L. Snow crabs in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Coastal Marine 

Institute Annual Review, Anchorage, AK, January 2015 (oral) 

2014 

Divine L, Iken K, Bluhm BA. Evaluating the trophic role of Arctic snow crabs using stomach 

content and stable isotope analyses. Interagency Crab Meeting, Kodiak, AK, December 

2014 (oral) 

Divine L, Aydin K, Bluhm BA, Foy R, Gray B, Iken K, Lauth R, Norcross B, Whitehouse A. 

Snow crab ecology in the Chukchi Sea. Arctic Eis project PI meeting, Juneau, AK, June 

2014 (oral) 

Divine L, Bluhm BA, Iken K. Arctic snow crab ( Chionoecetes opilio) diets: comparison of stable 

6 15N and 613C isotope and stomach content analyses. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 

Anchorage, AK, January 2014 (poster) 

27 
Iken K, Bluhm BA, Divine L. Snow crabs in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Coastal Marine 

Institute Annual Review, Anchorage, AK, January 2014 ( oral) 

2013 

Bluhm BA, Iken K, Divine L. Chionoecetes opilio population structure in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas: Trophic ecology. Interagency Crab Meeting, Anchorage, AK, December 

2013 (oral) 

Divine L, Iken K, Bluhm BA. Arctic snow crab ( Chionoecetes opilio) diets: a comparison of 

stomach content and stable 6 13C and 6 '5N isotope analysis. American Fisheries Society 

Meeting, Alaska Chapter, Fairbanks, AK, October 2013 ( oral) 

Bluhm BA, Iken K. Population assessment of snow crab, Chionoecetes opi/io, in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas: preliminary findings. 28th Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, 

AK, March 2013 (oral) 

Divine L, Iken K, Bluhm BA. Can you stomach it?: preliminary diet and stable isotope analysis 

of snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in the Alaskan Arctic. 28th Lowell Wakefield 

Symposium, Anchorage, AK, March 2013 (poster- best student poster award) 

Bluhm BA, Iken K. Population assessment of snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio, in the Chukchi 

Sea: preliminary findings. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, AK, January 

2013 (poster) 

Divine L, Iken K, Bluhm BA. Regional benthic food-web structure on the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

shelf. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, AK, January 2013 (poster) 

Divine L, Bluhm BA, Iken K. Chionoecetes opilio population assessment in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas: Trophic ecology. Coastal Marine Institute Annual Review, Fairbanks, AK, 

January 2013(oral) 

2012 

Bluhm BA, Iken K, Divine L. Chionoecetes opilio population structure in the Pacific Arctic: 

preliminary results. Institute of Marine Science seminar series, November 2012 ( oral) 

Divine L, Iken K, Bluhm BA. Snow crabs (C. opilio) in the Alaskan Arctic: contributing to stock 

assessment data for the AFMP. Interagency Crab Meeting. Kodiak, AK, December 2012 

(oral) 

Bluhm BA, Iken K. Chionoecetes opilio population structure in the Pacific Arctic: preliminary 

results. CMI Annual Review, Fairbanks, AK, November 2012 (oral) 

Bluhm BA, Iken K. Population assessment of snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio, in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas: preliminary findings. Institute of Marine Science Seminar Series, 

Fairbanks, AK, November 2012 (oral) 

28 
Divine L, Iken K, Bluhm BA. Population structure and trophic pos1t1oning of snow crabs 

(Chionoecetes opilio) in the Alaskan Arctic. Alaska Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society. Kodiak, AK, October 201 2 (oral) 

Bluhm BA, Iken K. Population assessment of snow crab. Chionoecetes opilio. in the Beaufort 

Sea including oil and gas lease sale areas - first results. BOEM UAF campus visit (K. 

Wedemeyer), July 201 2 

Divine L, Iken K. Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) stock characteristics and trophic dynamics in 

the Alaskan Arctic. University of Alaska Fairbanks chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society. Fairbanks, AK, February 2012 (oral) 

Bluhm BA, Iken K. Population assessment of snow crab. Chionoecetes opilio, in the Beaufort 

Sea: preliminary fi ndings. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, AK, January 

2012 (poster) 

Divine L, lken K, Bluhm BA. Fitting snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) into the benthic food web 

of the central Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Alaska Marine Science Symposium. Anchorage, AK, 

January 201 2 (poster) 

2011 

Bluhm BA, Iken K. Population assessment of snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio, in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas including oil and gas lease areas: First results. CMI Annual Review, 

Fairbanks, AK, Nov 2011 ( oral) 

Publications in progress and planned 

Divine L, Bluhm BA, Mueter FJ, !ken K. Diet analysis of Alaska Arctic snow crabs 

(Chionoecetes opilio) using stomach contents and 813C and 815N stable isotopes. Submitted 

to Deep-Sea Research II 

Bluhm BA, !ken K. Reproductive ecology of snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) from the Chukchi 

Sea. Journal and submission date to be dete1mined. 

Broader Impacts 

In total, one PhD student, two master students, tlu-ee undergraduate students, two technicians, 

and one volunteer participated in this project. The diet and stable isotope trophic objectives of 

the project form a chapter of the PhD disse11ation of L. Divine. An undergraduate used the 

proj ect for experiential learning credit required to complete his undergraduate Fisheries degree 

and is now a permanent employee with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 

Two master students (who did their thesis work on other projects) helped with sample processing 

at sea. Three undergraduate students assisted with crab measurements and dissections in the lab. 

A summer technician and a long-term technician helped with crab measurements, dissections, 

egg counts, and spermathecae processing in the lab. The summer technician is now a graduate 

29 
student continuing work on epibenthic communities and food web structure in the Chukchi Sea. 

A volunteer graduate student also helped with the egg counts. All students and staff received 

training and gained experience that will be useful in their future careers. 

Acknowledgments 

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Coastal Marine Institute, the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and the MESAS NSF graduate student program. C. Coon 

from BOEM is thanked for her generous support for and patience with this project. Crabs were 

collected during studies funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the CSESP Shell, Statoil and ConocoPhillips 

consortium. Training, advice and fruitful discussions were provided by L. Stichert, D. Pengilly 

and J. Webb from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Kodiak and Juneau offices), Dr. J. 

Lovvorn from Southern Illinois University, and Dr. S. Jewett from the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks (UAF). Collections from the CSESP and COMIDA programs were kindly provided 

through Dr. Konar with A. Ravelo, and Dr. Blanchard with C. Parris, respectively (all UAF). 

Onboard, we had help from Dr. S. Hardy, L. Bell, B. Gray, D. Hondolero, A. Ravelo, J. Weems 

(all UAF), and K. Wedemeyer (BOEM). The Fisheries Oceanography Lab at UAF, led by Dr. B. 

Norcross, is thanked for their continued, enthusiastic sharing of their trawl hauls. The captains 

and crews of many research vessels facilitated crab collections. The lab work was supported by 

E. Kandror, M. Kaufman, C. Lipka, K. Maslan, C. Serratos (all UAF), and D. Stohr (University 

of Stuttgart). Crab size data from the 2008 cruise to the Beaufort Sea were provided by Dr. L. 

Logerwell (AFSC, Seattle). T. Howe from the Alaska Stable Isotope Facility at UAF skillfully 

ran the isotope samples. Crabs from the Canadian Beaufort Sea included in the trophic studies 

were provided by S. MacPhee and A. Majewski from the BREA team (DFO Winnipeg). Tissue 

samples for genetic analysis were provided to G. Albrecht (UAF) for this MSc thesis and to J.M. 

Sevigny (DFO St. Jolie) for further molecular studies. The principal investigators are grateful for 

the introduction to snow crab ecology by Dr. T. Shirley (formerly UAF) in the early 2000s. 

30 
References 

Albrecht GT (2011) Defining genetic population structure and historical connectivity of snow 

crab (Chionoecetes opilio). MSc thesis, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University 

of Alaska Fairbanks 

Albrecht GT, Valentin AE, Hundertmark KJ, Hardy SM (2014) Panmixia in Alaskan populations 

of the snow crab Chionoecetes opilio (Malacostraca: Decapoda) in the Bering, Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas. J Crust Biol 34:31-39 

Alsvag J, Agnalt AL, Jerstad KE (2009) Evidence for a permanent establishment of the snow 

crab ( Chionoecetes opilio) in the Barents Sea. Biol Invasions 11 :587-595 

Barber WE, Smith RL, Vallarino M, Meyer RM ( 1997) Demersal fish assemblages of the 

northeastern Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Fish Bull 95: 195-209 

Berline L, Spitz YH, Ashjian CJ, Campbell RG, Maslowski W, Moore SE (2008) Euphausiid 

transport in the western Arctic Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 360: 163-178 

Blanchard A.L, Parris CL, Knowlton AL, Wade NR (2013) Benthic ecology of the northeastern 

Chukchi Sea. Part II. Spatial variation of megafaunal community structure, 2009-2010. Cont 

Shelf Res 67:67-76 

Bluhm BA, Brey T (2001) Age determination in the Antarctic shrimp Notocrangon antarcticus 

(Pfeffer, 1887) (Crustacea: Decapoda) using the autofluorescent pigment lipofuscin. Mar 

Biol 138:247-257 

Bluhm BA, Iken K, Mincks SL, Sirenko Bl, Holladay BA (2009) Community structure of 

epibenthic megafauna in the Chukchi Sea. Aquat Biol 7:269-293 

Bluhm BA, Hilttmann F, Norcross BL (2014) Ecological analysis of Western Beaufort Sea data. 

OCS Study BOEM 2014-014, USDOI Alaska OCS Region, 46 pp 

Borga K, Fisk AT, Hoeksta PF, Muir DCG (2004) Biological and chemical factors of importance 

in the bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of persistent organochlorine contaminants in 

Arctic marine food webs. Envir Tax Chem 23:2367-2385 

Britt LL, Lauth RR, Norcross BL (2013) Paired catch comparisons from two standard bottom 

trawls used in Arctic surveys. As part of: Distribution of fish, crab and lower trophic 

communities in the Chukchi Sea AK-11-08, #Ml2PG00018. Draft report to Department of 

the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Burmeister A, Sainte-Marie B (2010) Pattern and causes of a temperature-dependent gradient of 

size at terminal molt in snow crab ( Chionoecetes opilio) along West Greenland. Polar Biol 

33:775-788 

Carey AG ( 1977) Summarization of existing literature and unpublished data on the distribution, 

abundance, and life histories of benthic organisms (Beaufort Sea). Outer Continental Shelf 

Energy Program, NOAA/BLM. Final Report Contract No 03-5-022-68, Volume I 

Comeau M, Conan GY, Maynou F, Robichaud G, Therriault JC, Starr M (1998) Growth, spatial 

distribution, and abundance of benthic stages of the snow crab ( Chionoecetes opilio) in 

Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:262-279 

Conan GY, Comeau M ( 1986) Functional maturity and terminal molt of male snow crab, 

Chionoecetes opilio. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43: I 710-1719 

31 
Conan GY, Elner RW, Moriyasu M (1990) Review of literature on life histories in the genus 

Chionoecetes in light of the recent findings on growth and maturity of C. opilio in eastern 

Canada. In Melteff B (ed) Proc. Int. Symp. King and Tanner Crabs. Alaska Sea Grant 

College Program Report 90-04 University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp 163-180 

Divine L, !ken K, Bluhm BA (2015) Regional benthic food web structure on the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea shelf. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 531: 15-32 

Dunton KH, Schonberg SV, Cooper LW (2012) Food web structure of the Alaskan nearshore 

shelf and estuarine lagoons of the Beaufort Sea. Estuar Coast 35:41 6-435 

Ernst B, Orensanz JM, Armstrong DA (2005) Spatial dynamics of females snow crab 

(Chionoecetes opilio) in the eastern Bering Sea. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:250-268 

Ernst B, Armstrong DA, Burgos J, Orensanz .IM (201 2) Life history schedule and periodic 

recruitment of female snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in the eastern Bering Sea. Can J Fish 

Aquat Sci 69:532-550 

Feder HM, .Jewett SC (1980) A survey of the epifaunal invertebrates of the southeastern Bering 

Sea with notes on the feeding biology of selected species. Institute of Marine Science Report 

R 78-5: 1-105, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Feder HM, Jewett SC (1981) Feeding interactions in the eastern Bering Sea with emphasis on the 

benthos. In: Hood DW, Calder JA (eds) The Eastern Bering Sea shelf: oceanography and 

resources. Vol II, NOAA, University Press, Seattle, WA. pp 1229-1261 

Feder HM, .Jewett SC, Blanchard A (2005) Southeastern Chukchi Sea (Alaska) epibenthos. Polar 

Biol 28:402-421 

Fitch H, Schwenzfeier M, Baechler B, Hartill T, Salmon M, Deiman M, Evans E, Hemy E, Wald 

L, Shaishnikoff J, Herring K, Wilson J (2012) Annual management report for the 

commercial and subsistence shellfish fisheries of the Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea and the 

Westward Region's shellfish observer program, 2010/11. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Fishery Management Report No. 1222, Anchorage, AK. 25 1 pp 

Fonseca DB, Sainte-Marie B, Hazel F (2008) Longevity and change in shell condition of adult 

male snow crab Chionoecetes opilio inferred from dactyl wear and mark-recapture data. 

Trans Am Fish Soc 137: 1029-1043 

Frost KJ, Lowry LF (1983) Demersal fishes and invertebrates trawled in the northeastern 

Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas, 1976-77. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-764 

Go bas F APC, Morrison HA (2000) Bioconcentration and biomagni fications in the aquatic 

environment. In: Boethling RS, Mackay D (eds) Handbook of prope11y estimation methods 

of chemicals: environmental and health sciences. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL. pp 189-231 

Gunderson DR, Ellis IE (1986) Development of a plumb staff beam trawl for sampling demersal 

fauna. Fish Res 4:35-41 

Gravel KA, Pengilly D (2007) Investigations on reproductive potential of snow and Tanner crab 

females from the eastern Bering Sea in 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Fisheries Data Series 07-23 

32 
Hardy SM, Lindgren M, Konakanchi H, Huettmann F (2011) Predicting the distribution and 

ecological niche of unexploited snow crab ( Chionoecetes opilio) populations in Alaskan 

waters: a first open-access ensemble model. Integr Comp Biol, icrl 02 

Hopcroft RR, Kosobokova, KN, Pinchuk AI (2010) Zooplankton community patterns in the 

Chukchi Sea during summer 2004. Deep-Sea Res II 57:27-39 

Iken K, Bluhm BA, Dunton K (2010) Benthic food web structure serves as indicator of water 

mass properties in the southern Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res II 57:71-85 

Jadamec LS, Donaldson WE, Cullenberg P ( 1999) Biological field techniques for Chionoecetes 

crabs. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report 99-02, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Jewett SC ( 1981) Variations in some reproductive aspects of female snow crabs Chionoecetes 

opilio. J Shellfish Res 1 :95-99 

Kolts JM, Lovvorn JR, North CA, Grebmeier JM, Cooper L W (2013) Relative value of stomach 

contents, stable isotopes, and fatty acids as diet indicators for a dominant invertebrate 

predator (Chionoecetes opilio) in the northern Bering Sea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 449:274-283 

Kolts J, Lovvorn JR, North CA, Janout MA (2015) Oceanographic and demographic 

mechanisms affecting population structure of snow crabs in the northern Bering Sea. Mar 

Ecol Prog Ser 518: 193-208 

Kruse GH (1993) Biological perspectives on crab management in Alaska. In: Kruse GH, Eggerst 

DM, Marasco RJ, Pautzke C, Quinn TJ (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium 

on Management Strategies for Exploited Fish Populations. Alaska Sea Grant College 

Program Report 93-02, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp 355-284 

Kuzmin SA, Akhtarin SM, Menis DT ( 1998) The first finding of snow crab Chionoecetes opilio 

(Decapoda, Majidae) in the Barents Sea. Zool Zhurn 77:489-491 

Logerwell L, Rand K (2010) Beaufort Sea marine fish monitoring 2008: pilot survey and test of 

hypotheses. OCS Study MMS 2008-062, USDOI Alaska OCS Region 

Logerwell E, Rand K, Weingartner TJ (2011) Oceanographic characteristics of the habitat of 

benthic fish and invertebrates in the Beaufort Sea. Polar Biol 34: 1783-1796 

Lovrich GA, Sainte-Marie B (1997) Cannibalism in the snow crab, Chionoecetes opi/io (0. 

Fabricius) (Brachyura: Majidae), and its potential importance to recruitment. J Exp Mar Biol 

Ecol 211 :225-245 

McTigue N.D, Dunton KH (2014) Trophodynamics and organic matter assimilation pathways in 

the northeast Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Deep-Sea Res II 102:84-96 

Moriyasu M, Lanteigne C ( 1998) Embryo development and reproductive cycle in the snow crab, 

Chionoecetes opilio (Crustacea: Majidae ), in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. 

Can J Zool 76:2040-2048 

Mueter FJ, Litzow MA (2008) Warming climate alters the demersal biogeography of a marginal 

ice sea. Ecol Appl 18:309-320 

Norcross BL, Holladay BA, Busby MS, Mier KL (20 I 0) Demersal and larval fish assemblages in 

the Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res II 57:57-70 

33 
Norcross BL, Raborn SW, Holladay BA, Gallaway BJ, Crawford ST, Priest JT, Edenfield LE, 

Meyer R (2013) Northeastern Chukchi Sea demersal fishes and associated environmental 

characteristics, 2009-2010. Cont Shelf Res 67:77-95 

No11h Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) (2009) Fishery Management Plan for Fish 

Resources of the Arctic Management Area. No11h Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Anchorage, AK. 146 pp 

Orensanz J, Ernst B, Armstrong DA, Stabeno P, Livingston P (2004) Contraction of the 

geographic range of distribution of snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in the Eastern Bering 

Sea: An environmental ratchet? Ca!COFI Report, pp 65-79 

Orensanz JM, Ernst B, Armstrong DA (2007) Variation of female size and stage at maturity in 

snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) (Brachyura: Majidae) from the eastern Bering Sea. J Crust 

Biol 27:576-59 1 

Parada C, Armstrong DA, Ernst B, Hinckley S, Orensanz JM (2010) Spatial dynamics of snow 

crab (Chionoecetes opi!io) in the Eastern Bering Sea - putting together the pieces of the 

puzzle. Bull Mar Sci 86:413-437 

Paul JM, Paul AJ, Barber WE (1997) Reproductive biology and distribution of the snow crab 

from the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Am Fish Soc Sym 19:287-294 

Rand KM, Logerwell EA (20 11 ) The first demersal trawl survey of benthic fish and invertebrates 

in the Beaufort Sea since the late 1970s. Polar Biol DOI I 0.1007/s00300-010-0900-2 

Ravelo AM, Konar B, Trefry JH, Grebmeier JM (2014) Epibenthic community variability in the 

northeastern Chukchi Sea. Deep-Sea Res II I 02: I 19-13 I 

Sainte-Marie B ( 1993) Reproductive cycle and fecundity of primiparous and multiparous female 

snow crab, Chionoece/es opilio, in the Northwest Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Can J Fish Aquat 

Sci 50:2147-2156 

Sainte-Marie B, Raymond S, Brethes JC ( 1995) Growth and maturation of the benthic stages of 

male snow crab, Chionoecetes opi!io (Brachyura: Majidae). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:903-

924 

Sainte-Marie B, Sevigny JM, Smith BO, Lovri ch GA (1996) Recruitment variability in snow 

crab (Chionoecetes opi/io): patterns, possible causes, and implications for fishery 

management. In: High latitude crabs: Biology, management and economics. Alaska Sea 

Grant College Program Report 96-02, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp 451-478 

Sainte-Marie B, Sevigny JM, Carpentier M (2002) Interannual variability of sperm reserves and 

fecundity of primiparous females of snow crab (Chionoeceles opi!io) in relation to sex ratio. 

Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59: 1932-1 940 

Sainte-Marie B, Gosselin T, Sevigny J-M, Urbani N (2008) The snow crab mating system: 

opportunity for natural and unnatural selection in a changing environment. Bull Mar Sci 

83:131-161 

Shirley T, Bluhm BA (2005) Development of age determination methods for snow crabs. In: 

Pengilly D, Wright SE (eds) Bering Sea snow crab restoration research. Final 

comprehensive performance report. NOAA cooperative agreement NAl 7FW1274, pp 36-56 

34 
Stichert L (2009) Lab protocol: processing Chionoecetes crabs. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Kodiak, AK. 12 pp 

Stichert LM, Webb JB, Pengilly D (2013) Reproductive potential of snow crab (Chionoecetes 

opilio) in the eastern Bering Sea: patterns observed in female sperm reserves, 2007-2012. 

(presentation) Alaska Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, AK 

Turnock BJ, Rugolo LJ (2009) Stock assessment of eastern Bering Sea snow crab. In: Report to 

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Anchorage) by the Plan Team for the King 

and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, pp 29-130 

Webb J (2014) Reproductive potential of snow (Chionoecetes opilio) and Tanner (Chionoecetes 

bairdi) crabs in Alaska. PhD thesis, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of 

Alaska Fairbanks 

Weingartner T, Dobbins E, Danielson S, Winsor P, Potter R, Statscewich H (2013) Hydrographic 

variability over the northeastern Chukchi Sea shelf in summer-fall 2008-2010. Cont Shelf 

Res 67:5-22 

Wolotira RJ Jr, Sample TM, Morin M Jr (1977) Demersal fish and shellfish resources of Norton 

Sound, the southeastern Chukchi Sea, and adjacent waters in the baseline year 1976. 

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Processed Report 

Zheng J, Kruse GH, Ackley DR (2001) Spatial distribution and recruitment patterns of snow 

crabs in the eastern Bering Sea. In: Spatial processes and management of marine 

populations. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report 01-02, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, pp 233-255 

35 
36 
Appendix I: Abundance and Biomass 

37 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelffsloee Deeth !ml 1ooom·

2 ind 1ooom·

2 Temp. (0

C) Salinity 

RUSALCA2004 6 65.675 -168.296 SC shelf so 1564 141 0.61 34.81 

RUSALCA2004 18 68.982 -166.885 SC shelf 46 41612 2444 -0.27 31.07 

RUSALCA2004 10 66.000 -169.620 SC shelf 49 322 8 0.55 34.83 

RUSALCA2004 11 66.930 -170.990 SC shelf 43 560 so 0.45 34.85 

RUSALCA2004 13 67.430 -169.640 SC shelf 51 7330 1303 -0.62 30.99 

RUSALCA2004 15 67.870 -168.320 SC shelf 59 350 30 -0.38 29.21 

RUSALCA2004 17 68.317 -167.074 SC shelf 38 89 9 -0.84 31.67 

RUSALCA2004 20 69.000 -168.864 SC shelf 54 1597 269 -1.32 32.15 

RUSALCA2004 23 68.515 -171.457 SC shelf 56 620 1504 -1.21 31.51 

RUSALCA2004 25 67.859 -172.572 SC shelf 49 1584 84 -1.18 31.73 

RUSALCA2004 27 67.409 -173.640 SC shelf 34 61 2 -1.19 31.73 

RUSALCA2004 58 71.436 -174.365 NEC shelf 60 5321 100 -1.05 30.96 

RUSALCA2004 62 71.391 -174.871 NEC shelf 77 2066 56 -1.08 30.97 

RUSALCA2004 73 71.912 -175.452 NEC shelf 71 598 223 -1.23 31.20 

RUSALCA2004 85 72.316 -175.987 NEC shelf 101 191 8 -1.49 32.52 

RUSALCA2004 106 70.759 -175.521 NEC shelf 72 3784 96 -1.24 33.80 

RUSALCA2004 107 70.895 -172.720 NEC shelf 40 2260 95 0.48 34.73 

Oscar Dyson 2007 OD-1 65.647 -168.412 SC shelf 52 0 0 -0.58 34.20 

Oscar Dyson 2007 OD-5 69.990 -165.711 NEC shelf 43 1173 39 -1.44 32.58 

Oscar Dyson 2007 OD-15 69.504 -168.025 NEC shelf 51 344 197 -1.41 32.46 

Oscar Dyson 2007 OD-20 68.510 -167.977 SC shelf 55 1675 48 0.61 34.81 

Oscar Dyson 2007 OD-22 68.010 -167.994 SC shelf 56 1936 97 0.57 34.78 

Oscar Dyson 2007 OD-31 67.065 -166.086 SC shelf 31 993 115 -1.26 33.64 

Oscar Dyson 2007 OD-43 65.123 -168.066 SC shelf so 2S6 27 0.59 missing 

Oshoru Maru 2007 OM-CO2 66.641 -168.865 SC shelf 41 2548 3496 -0.90 34.03 

Oshoru Maru 2007 OM-Cl0 68.863 -166.819 SC shelf 40 1520 615 -0.30 34.40 

Oshoru Maru 2007 OM-ClS 68.899 -168.918 SC shelf so 4285 843 missing missing 

Oshoru Maru 2007 OM-C16 70.015 -167.991 NEC shelf 45 2243 441 -1.50 32.64 

Oshoru Maru 2007 OM-C19 70.019 -163.714 NEC shelf 26 649 14 -1.43 32.50 

l,j 

00 Oshoru Maru 2007 OM-C24 71.079 -167.080 NEC shelf 43 1909 831 -1.45 32.63 

Oshoru Maru 2008 CO2 66.678 -168.665 SC shelf 36 47408 3382 0.39 34.85 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp.(°C) Salinity 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C04R 67.545 -168.558 SC shelf 47 30811 2025 0.43 34.84 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C09 68.187 -167.197 SC shelf 44 15915 851 0.43 34.84 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C12 68.859 -167.838 SC shelf 47 9775 289 0.40 34.84 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C14 68.510 -168.575 SC shelf so 111552 3479 missing missing 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C15 68.872 -168.687 SC shelf 51 76406 1910 -0.27 31.83 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C17 70.180 -166.284 NEC shelf 43 3058 264 0.42 34.84 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C18 70.099 -164.992 NEC shelf 38 134 9 0.43 34.85 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C21 70.498 -164.749 NEC shelf 42 1521 76 0.45 34.85 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C22 70.574 -165.939 NEC shelf 41 855 214 0.46 34.84 

Oshoru Maru 2008 C31 69.501 -167 .022 NEC shelf 44 1113 387 0.49 34.85 

Oshoru Maru 2008 E03 70.060 -167.164 NEC shelf 44 4035 655 0.41 34.83 

Oshoru Maru 2008 E0S 70.481 -166.753 NEC shelf 46 10459 4017 0.35 34.83 

Oshoru Maru 2008 E08 71.085 -166.130 NEC shelf 41 6166 867 0.45 31.82 

Oshoru Maru 2008 M04-04 70.632 -166.744 NEC shelf 45 2305 603 0.44 34.84 

COMIDA2009 chukl 69.040 -166.593 NEC shelf 38 3252 186 -0.72 32.07 

COMIDA2009 chuk2 69.502 -167.675 NEC shelf 49 17032 988 -1.12 32.03 

COMIDA2009 chuk3 69.829 -165.500 NEC shelf 41 1 3 missing missing 

COMIDA2009 chuk4 70.023 -163.761 NEC shelf 28 122 18 -1.08 32.10 

COMIDA2009 chuk6 70.345 -165.450 NEC shelf 46 3926 196 -1.19 32.08 

COMIDA2009 chuk7 70.469 -166.086 NEC shelf 46 15826 940 -0.72 32.17 

COMIDA2009 chukl0 70.671 -167.083 NEC shelf 54 607 42 missing missing 

COMIDA2009 chuk12 70.697 -165.441 NEC shelf 45 7875 285 -1.23 32.36 

COMIDA2009 chuk13 70.747 -164.176 NEC shelf 51 1012 260 missing missing 

COMIDA2009 chuk14 70.642 -162.266 NEC shelf 42 1514 151 2.90 32.50 

COMIDA2009 chuk16 70.919 -165.421 NEC shelf 44 3741 229 1.70 31.90 

COMIDA2009 chuk17 71.077 -166.178 NEC shelf 45 13092 1034 9.80 31.90 

COMIDA2009 chuk18 70.935 -166.474 NEC shelf 45 39180 1860 4.80 31.90 

COMIDA2009 chuk20 71.207 -168.311 NEC shelf 51 23428 1601 3.40 32.50 

COMIDA2009 chuk21 71.485 -167.782 NEC shelf 51 13018 1077 -0.70 32.20 

COMIDA2009 chuk23 71.387 -166.276 NEC shelf 46 38271 1533 -0.60 33.10 w 

'° COMIDA2009 chuk24 71.249 -165.448 NEC shelf 44 6536 394 -1.10 32.80 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·

2 ind 10oom·2 Temp. (0

C) Salinity 

COMIDA2009 chuk26 71.077 -162.558 NEC shelf 47 369 47 -1.40 32.70 

COMIDA2009 chuk29 71.298 -161.689 NEC shelf 51 2029 328 1.50 32.20 

COMIDA2009 chuk30 71.453 -162.611 NEC shelf 47 1518 165 -1.10 32.40 

COMIDA2009 chuk32 71.396 -164.109 NEC shelf 47 5290 457 -1.40 32.70 

COMIDA2009 chuk33 71.569 -165.769 NEC shelf 44 36054 1908 -1.70 33.00 

COMIDA2009 chuk34 71.676 -166.444 NEC shelf 47 61850 4538 -1.30 32.70 

COMIDA2009 chuk37 72.046 -166.340 NEC shelf 48 8719 661 4.71 31.32 

COMIDA2009 chuk42 72.062 -164.131 NEC shelf 41 3989 565 4.30 Nan 

COMIDA2009 chuk43 72.404 -164.958 NEC shelf 51 10115 1826 2.01 32.29 

COMIDA2009 chuk44 72.282 -163.289 NEC shelf 42 23372 1491 -0.12 32.29 

COMIDA2009 chuk45 72.116 -162.055 NEC shelf 28 7190 910 1.10 32.39 

COMIDA2009 chuk47 71.377 -159.468 NEC shelf 54 11481 1853 1.21 32.35 

COMIDA2009 chuk48 71.412 -157.492 NEC shelf 130 6202 908 -0.02 32.45 

RUSALCA2009 CEN3 70.291 -176.747 NEC shelf 58 31836 2034 2.08 32.13 

RUSALCA2009 CL 1 68.965 -166.867 SC shelf 49 4053 216 -0.17 32.36 

RUSALCA2009 CL 10 67.419 -173.610 SC shelf 38 4898 686 -0.95 32.61 

RUSALCA2009 CL3 69.016 -168.923 SC shelf 56 16973 351 0.57 32.23 

RUSALCA2009 CL6 68.513 -171.559 SC shelf 57 74520 2216 -0.17 32.36 

RUSALCA2009 CL8 67.878 -172.592 SC shelf so 60355 3602 -0.95 32.61 

RUSALCA2009 cs 17 68.312 -167.048 SC shelf 40 1152 96 4.36 32.23 

RUSALCA2009 CS4 66.948 -170.930 SC shelf 45 12606 1105 -1.45 32.68 

RUSALCA2009 CS8 67.446 -169.552 SC shelf 51 53516 2096 0.21 32.30 

RUSALCA2009 HC49 73.336 -175.695 NEC shelf 152 10351 630 3.71 32.24 

RUSALCA2009 HCSS 73.000 -174.080 NEC shelf 94 4437 266 1.08 32.15 

RUSALCA2009 LS 1 69.792 177.979 NEC shelf 44 37 37 3.96 32.25 

RUSALCA2009 ss 4 71.880 173.129 NEC shelf 42 85 42 1.57 32.10 

RUSALCA2009 WN l 71.670 179.485 NEC shelf 33 0 0 2.15 32.15 

RUSALCA2009 WN3 72.648 177.601 NEC shelf 74 1484 111 6.12 31.92 

WWW1003 BF00l 71.110 -163.800 NEC shelf 40.7 1 1 0.69 32.40 

WWW1003 BF00l 71.110 -163.800 NEC shelf 40.7 1 1 -0.80 32.53 

.j:::,. 

0 WWW1003 BF003 71.110 -163.030 NEC shelf 42.8 2480 21 -1.50 32.58 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) l000m-2 ind l000m-2 Temp.(°C) Salinity 

WWW1003 BF003 71.110 -163.040 NEC shelf 43.5 474 19 -1.63 32.82 

WWW1003 BF005 71.100 -162.270 NEC shelf 44.9 205 49 0.39 32.21 

WWW1003 BF005 71.100 -162.260 NEC shelf 44.5 638 32 0.22 32.16 

WWW1003 BF009 71.230 -162.640 NEC shelf 43.6 1771 236 0.70 32.40 

WWW1003 BF009 71.230 -162.630 NEC shelf 44.1 3397 400 0.81 32.42 

WWW1003 BF009 71.230 -162.630 NEC shelf 44 2954 257 0.75 32.19 

WWW1003 BF0ll 71.370 -163.790 NEC shelf 42.7 1 1 0.75 32.41 

WWW1003 BF0ll 71.370 -163.790 NEC shelf 43.2 9927 902 -1.65 32.92 

WWW1003 BF013 71.360 -163.010 NEC shelf 43.2 2419 129 -1.53 32.64 

WWW1003 BF015 71.350 -162.230 NEC shelf 42.7 295 40 -0.94 32.48 

WWW1003 BF015 71.350 -162.230 NEC shelf 42.7 67 7 -1.24 32.59 

WWW1003 BF015 71.350 -162.230 NEC shelf 43 6822 558 -1.57 32.91 

WWW1003 BF015 71.350 -162.230 NEC shelf 43 484 4 -1.62 32.81 

WWW1003 BF015 71.350 -162.200 NEC shelf 43.1 3547 296 0.57 32.23 

WWW1003 BF017 71.490 -163.390 NEC shelf 40.2 278 36 0.70 32.35 

WWW1003 BF017 71.490 -163.380 NEC shelf 40.2 663 7 -0.45 32.48 

WWW1003 BF017 71.490 -163.380 NEC shelf 40.2 6796 598 -1.63 32.67 

WWW1003 BF019 71.480 -162.600 NEC shelf 41.6 3217 536 -1.50 32.78 

WWW1003 BF019 71.480 -162.600 NEC shelf 41.8 11874 1602 -1.30 32.60 

WWW1003 BF019 71.480 -162.600 NEC shelf 41.8 699 70 -0.65 32.55 

WWW1003 BF021 70.870 -165.180 NEC shelf 39 1086 109 0.30 32.44 

WWW1003 BF021 71.620 -163.760 NEC shelf 38.6 10356 888 -1.42 32.73 

WWW1003 BF023 71.610 -162.990 NEC shelf 39.7 4133 827 0.34 32.39 

WWW1003 BF023 71.610 -162.980 NEC shelf 40.9 2311 377 -1.39 32.79 

WWW1003 BF023 71.610 -162.970 NEC shelf 40.2 378 57 -0.65 32.55 

WWW1003 BF025 71.600 -162.200 NEC shelf 41.4 2034 262 -1.34 32.69 

WWW1003 BF025 71.600 -162.200 NEC shelf 41.8 3480 667 -1.73 33.01 

WWW1003 BF025 71.600 -162.190 NEC shelf 41.3 417 69 -0.91 32.48 

WWW1003 KF00l 70.640 -166.000 NEC shelf 40.5 1527 38 -1.58 33.01 

WWW1003 KF00l 70.650 -165.990 NEC shelf 40.4 1 1 -1.37 32.97 

- WWW1003 KF00l 70.650 -166.010 NEC shelf 40.4 4656 94 -0.91 32.48 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp. (°C) Salinity 

WWW1003 KF003 70.650 -165.240 NEC shelf 40.3 9 11 -1.44 32.96 

WWW1003 KF003 70.650 -165.240 NEC shelf 40.7 215 11 -1.52 32.78 

WWW1003 KF003 70.650 -165.260 NEC shelf 39.8 2741 49 -1.32 32.67 

WWW1003 KF005 70.650 -164.510 NEC shelf 45.1 2257 290 -1.54 32.51 

WWW1003 KF005 70.650 -164.500 NEC shelf 44.2 475 62 0.75 32.19 

WWW1003 KF005 70.650 -164.500 NEC shelf 44.4 1912 1912 -1.45 32.68 

WWW1003 KF007 70.770 -165.630 NEC shelf 38.9 1697 54 3.08 32.53 

WWW1003 KF007 70.770 -165.610 NEC shelf 38.9 1 1 -1.59 32.84 

WWW1003 KF007 70.780 -165.640 NEC shelf 38.4 163 3 -1.43 32.82 

WWW1003 KF009 70.770 -164.870 NEC shelf 37.4 1052 30 2.32 31.64 

WWW1003 KF009 70.770 -164.890 NEC shelf 38.4 2611 163 -1.54 32.66 

WWW1003 KF009 70.770 -164.870 NEC shelf 37.3 166 8 -0.95 32.61 

WWW1003 KF0ll 70.890 -166.020 NEC shelf 39.5 15174 793 0.20 32.06 

WWW1003 KF0ll 70.900 -166.010 NEC shelf 39.5 4341 178 -0.98 32.40 

WWW1003 KF0ll 70.890 -166.020 NEC shelf 39.3 7591 100 -0.95 32.61 

WWW1003 KF013 70.900 -165.250 NEC shelf 39 1983 103 0.14 31.94 

WWW1003 KF013 70.900 -165.270 NEC shelf 39.5 2128 94 -1.66 32.74 

WWW1003 KF013 70.900 -165.260 NEC shelf 38.9 1499 41 -0.72 32.51 

WWW1003 KF015 70.900 -164.490 NEC shelf 36 307 35 0.26 32.23 

WWW1003 KF017 71.020 -165.630 NEC shelf 40.5 1 1 0.57 32.10 

WWW1003 KF017 71.020 -165.630 NEC shelf 40.8 1345 67 -1.73 32.81 

WWW1003 KF017 71.020 -165.640 NEC shelf 40.4 6989 178 -1.45 32.68 

WWW1003 KF021 71.150 -166.020 NEC shelf 41.1 1601 54 0.26 32.24 

WWW1003 KF021 71.140 -166.030 NEC shelf 40.7 2326 110 -1.57 32.58 

WWW1003 KF021 71.140 -166.030 NEC shelf 40.7 22330 262 -1.51 32.72 

WWW1003 KF023 71.150 -165.240 NEC shelf 42.4 610 41 -1.47 32.46 

WWW1003 KF023 71.150 -165.250 NEC shelf 41.6 6636 277 -1.51 32.72 

WWW1003 KF025 71.150 -164.480 NEC shelf 41 341 4 -0.75 32.35 

WWW1003 SF007 71.750 -164.950 NEC shelf 37.6 1891 126 -0.72 32.51 

WWW1003 SF009 71.740 -164.150 NEC shelf 35.6 191 27 -1.43 32.82 

N WWW1003 SF0ll 71.740 -163.360 NEC shelf 38.7 1111 88 -1.18 32.87 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station LatdegN Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp.{°C) Salinity 

WWW1003 SF014 71.870 -164.550 NEC shelf 37.6 3428 237 -1.18 32.87 

WWW1003 SF016 71.870 -163.760 NEC shelf 40 837 93 3.50 32.18 

WWW1003 SF020 71.990 -164.140 NEC shelf 36.3 1927 164 -1.51 32.72 

WWW1003 SF022 71.980 -163.330 NEC shelf 37.6 1548 120 4.47 32.20 

WWW1003 TF00l 71.000 -164.200 NEC shelf 40 61 6 3.90 32.12 

COMIDA2010 chukll 70.733 -165.997 NEC shelf 40 4844 174 3.71 32.24 

COMIDA2010 chuklS 71.021 -164.255 NEC shelf 42 3730 63 -0.95 32.61 

COMIDA2010 chuk19 71.028 -166.953 NEC shelf 45 20658 759 3.50 32.18 

COMIDA2010 chuk22 71.272 -167.014 NEC shelf so 14461 346 -0.65 32.55 

COMIDA2010 chuk35 71.669 -166.917 NEC shelf 45 24941 783 3.71 32.24 

COMIDA2010 chuk36 71.930 -167.389 NEC shelf 48 32697 978 2.15 32.15 

COMIDA2010 chuk38 71.927 -165.161 NEC shelf 36 16136 997 1.57 32.10 

COMIDA2010 chuk39 71.702 -164.515 NEC shelf 38 1730 67 3.96 32.25 

COMIDA2010 chuk40 71.725 -163.456 NEC shelf 40 3750 274 2.08 32.13 

COMIDA2010 chuk41 71.707 -162.482 NEC shelf 40 3944 347 3.90 32.12 

COMIDA2010 chuk46 72.117 -162.055 NEC shelf 25 213 4 -1.18 32.87 

COMIDA2010 chuk49 71.767 -159.373 NEC shelf 51 3563 188 -1.43 32.82 

COMIDA2010 chuk9 70.831 -167.787 NEC shelf 55 8601 524 4.47 32.20 

COMIDA2010 chuk00S 70.405 -164.482 NEC shelf 45 596 91 2.08 32.13 

COMIDA2010 chuklOl0 71.269 -160. 716 NEC shelf 52 2676 268 1.08 32.15 

COMIDA2010 chuk1013 71.933 -162.668 NEC shelf 38 3709 209 4.47 32.20 

COMIDA2010 chuk1014 70.840 -163.291 NEC shelf 45 795 53 -1.51 32.72 

COMIDA2010 chuk1016 70.710 -165.253 NEC shelf 45 4696 126 2.15 32.15 

COMIDA2010 chuk103 67.670 -168.958 NEC shelf 50 9270 317 3.90 32.12 

COMIDA2010 chuk105 68.974 -168.945 NEC shelf so 7222 143 1.57 32.10 

COMIDA2010 chuk107 70.086 -166.455 NEC shelf 47 6890 343 3.96 32.25 

COMIDA2010 chuk108 72.101 -162.975 NEC shelf 36 9270 676 4.36 32.23 

COMIDA2010 chuk109 72.104 -161.190 NEC shelf 30 1265 65 3.50 32.18 

Beaufish 2011 CB0l 70.515 -147.325 WCB shelf 20 0 0 3.70 25.80 

BeauFish 2011 CB02 70.554 -147.740 WCB shelf 25 0 0 7.72 31.13 

.,1:::,. 

vJ BeauFish 2011 CB03 70.607 -148.201 WCB shelf 20 0 0 -1.50 31.50 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) l000m-2 ind l000m-2 Temp.(°C) Salinity 

BeauFish 2011 CB04 70.623 -148.692 WCB shelf 20 0 0 -1.50 32.80 

Beaufish 2011 CB05 70.661 -149.163 WCB shelf 16 0 0 -1.80 33.40 

BeauFish 2011 CB06 70.696 -149.689 WCB shelf 16 0 0 -1.80 32.90 

Beaufish 2011 CB07 70.738 -150.137 WCB shelf 16 0 0 -1.10 33.30 

BeauFish 2011 CB08 70.723 -150.520 WCB shelf 16 0 0 missing missing 

BeauFish 2011 CB09 70.814 -151.105 WCB shelf 14 0 0 -0.90 29.30 

Beaufish 2011 CBl0 70.857 -151.589 WCB shelf 14 0 0 0.40 33.50 

Beaufish 2011 CBll 70.770 -147.153 WCB shelf 45 0 0 1.64 29.44 

Beaufish 2011 CB12 70.802 -147.546 WCB shelf 38 0 0 3.12 30.42 

Beaufish 2011 CB13 70.827 -148.063 WCB shelf 40 0 0 1.64 29.44 

Beaufish 2011 CB14 70.856 -148.589 WCB shelf 33 0 0 0.85 29.15 

Beaufish 2011 CB15 70.925 -149.041 WCB shelf 30 0 0 3.92 31.51 

BeauFish 2011 CB16 70.961 -149.548 WCB shelf 30 0 0 3.04 30.96 

BeauFish 2011 CB17 71.000 -150.002 WCB shelf 30 0 0 3.82 32.05 

BeauFish 2011 CB20 71.119 -151.426 WCB shelf 17 0 0 -1.60 33.20 

BeauFish 2011 CB22 70.995 -147.467 WCB slope 180 0 0 3.70 32.90 

BeauFish 2011 CB23 71.069 -147.881 WCB slope 180 185.6 2.32 7.80 32.10 

BeauFish 2011 CB24 71.160 -148.342 WCB slope 180 102.24 1.42 6.40 31.40 

BeauFish 2011 CB25 71.210 -148.831 WCB slope 176 399.05 3.47 3.10 32.50 

Beaufish 2011 CB26 71.211 -149.380 WCB slope 180 138 1.38 1.40 32.40 

BeauFish 2011 CB27 71.216 -149.872 WCB slope 180 611.24 5.18 6.50 30.80 

Beaufish 2011 CB28 71.253 -150.422 WCB slope 180 341.25 2.73 3.20 32.20 

BeauFish 2011 CB28b 71.255 -150.446 WCB slope 180 358 6.36 1.40 32.80 

Beaufish 2011 CB29 71.320 -150.950 WCB slope 180 273.6 2.88 1.00 32.60 

BeauFish 2011 CB30 71.364 -151.400 WCB slope 180 0 0 1.10 32.90 

Beaufish 2011 CB31 70.909 -151.841 WCB shelf 14 0 0 0.40 33.50 

BeauFish 2011 CB32 70.813 -151.647 WCB shelf 10 0 0 

Beau Fish 2011 CB33 70.680 -150.691 WCB shelf 13 0 0 

Beaufish 2011 CB34a 71.278 -150.653 WCB slope 180 1110 10 -1.20 32.70 

BeauFish 2011 CB34b 71.278 -150.656 WCB slope 180 1242 20.9 -0.80 33.30 

.J::,. 

Beaufish 2011 CB35a 71.288 -150.670 WCB slope 220 2169 28.7 2.20 32.70 .J::,. 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp. (°C) Salinity 

Beaufish 2011 CB35b 71.287 -150.660 WCB slope 220 2548.48 28.16 1.50 32.20 

Beaufish 2011 EB02 70.865 -146.676 EB shelf 62 0 0 1.91 32.13 

Beaufish 2011 EBl0 70.561 -146.142 EB shelf 38 0 0 -0.22 32.49 

Beaufish 2011 EB12 70.788 -146.094 EB shelf 60 0 0 -0.33 32.44 

Beaufish 2011 EB14 70.456 -145.807 WCB shelf 35 0 0 3.91 30.02 

Beaufish 2011 EB16 70.674 -145.807 WCB shelf 53 0 0 7.90 31.30 

Beaufish 2011 EB19 70.336 -145.427 WCB shelf 30 0 0 3.82 32.05 

Beaufish 2011 EB21 70.578 -145.409 WCB shelf 49 0 0 1.70 33.20 

Beaufish 2011 EB23 70.783 -145.451 EB slope 124 0 0 

Beaufish 2011 EB25 70.234 -145.094 EB shelf 24 0 0 -0.05 32.50 

Beaufish 2011 EB27 70.463 -145.076 EB shelf 40 0 0 -0.84 32.53 

Beaufish 2011 EB29 70.677 -145.101 EB shelf 62 0 0 

Beaufish 2011 EB32 70.926 -146.435 EB slope 180 0 0 

Beaufish 2011 EB4 70.443 -146.438 EB shelf 31 0 0 -1.01 32.53 

Beaufish 2011 EB6 70.675 -146.413 EB shelf 42 0 0 -0.10 32.36 

Beaufish 2011 EB8 70.339 -146.123 EB shelf 26 0 0 -0.50 32.47 

Beaufish 2011 WB02 71.738 -154.957 WCB slope 180 0 0 -0.20 33.10 

Beaufish 2011 WB04 71.841 -153.902 WCB slope 180 631.68 7.52 1.80 32.70 

Beaufish 2011 WB05 71.810 -154.409 WCB slope 152 295.62 3.79 3.30 32.30 

Beaufish 2011 WB07 71.711 -152.975 WCB slope 180 607.32 2.5282 3.20 32.00 

Beaufish 2011 WB07b 71.714 -152.979 WCB slope 180 376.25 3.01 2.30 32.20 

Beaufish 2011 WB08 71.652 -152.649 WCB slope 180 0 0 1.80 32.80 

Beaufish 2011 WBl0 71.720 -153.871 WCB shelf 50 0 0 2.80 32.60 

Beaufish 2011 WB12 71.482 -153.992 WCB shelf 49 0 0 2.50 32.90 

Beaufish 2011 WB13 71.397 -153.995 WCB shelf 40 415.8 5.25 3.26 30.50 

Beaufish 2011 WB14 71.237 -153.105 WCB shelf 38 0 0 -0.13 27.86 

Beaufish 2011 WB15 71.379 -153.023 WCB shelf 78 0 0 1.70 33.00 

Beaufish 2011 WB16 71.452 -153.011 WCB shelf 62 200.64 3.04 2.20 32.90 

Beaufish 2011 WB17 71.155 -152.210 WCB shelf 21 0 0 -0.10 34.50 

Beaufish 2011 WB18 71.283 -152.270 WCB shelf 48 0 0 10.50 30.60 

VI Beaufish 2011 WB19 71.352 -151.964 WCB shelf 86 0 0 7.10 31.90 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) l00om·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp. (

0

C) Salinity 

Beau Fish 2011 WB20 71.501 -152.184 WCB slope 181 571.35 8.79 1.10 32.40 

BeauFish 2011 WB21 71.589 -155.064 WCB shelf 45 462 16.8 1.31 26.83 

BeauFish 2011 WB22 71.684 -154.484 WCB shelf 48 0 0 3.00 32.60 

Beau Fish 2011 WB23 71.530 -152.847 WCB shelf 58 0 0 3.70 32.30 

Beau Fish 2011 WB24 71.507 -153.558 WCB shelf so 0 0 7.00 31.00 

Beau Fish 2011 WB25 71.212 -154.005 WCB shelf 20 0 0 -0.40 30.50 

BeauFish 2011 WB26 71.618 -153.845 WCB shelf 46 417.83 9.87 -0.58 28.47 

Beau Fish 2011 WB27 71.859 -154.369 WCB slope 180 0 0 -0.10 33.00 

Beau Fish 2011 WB28 71.684 -155.158 WCB slope 180 207.36 3.46 3.70 28.70 

Beau Fish 2011 WB29 71.471 -155.023 WCB shelf 21 0 0 -1.00 33.00 

Beau Fish 2011 WB30 71.237 -155.126 WCB shelf 10 0 0 

Beau Fish 2011 WB31 71.798 -153.422 WCB slope 180 0 0 3.90 31.40 

Beau Fish 2011 WB31b 71.797 -153.409 WCB slope 180 201.21 7.06 3.80 31.90 

Beau Fish 2011 WB32 71.733 -153.503 WCB shelf 80 153.45 1.98 -1.5 32.90 

Beau Fish 2011 WB32b 71.731 -153.488 WCB shelf 80 169.86 2.98 3.20 32.60 

Beau Fish 2011 WB34 71.129 -153.186 WCB shelf 22 0 0 

Beau Fish 2011 WB35 71.109 -154.046 WCB shelf 14 0 0 -1.60 33.60 

Beau Fish 2011 WB36 71.562 -152.462 WCB slope 151 0 0 2.70 32.40 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-B01 66.495 -168.495 SC shelf 52 446 5266 1.27 31.43 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-C01 66.999 -168.495 SC shelf 37 47333 53602 3.14 28.77 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-C02 67.004 -167.216 SC shelf 38 2268 2744 3.58 30.83 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-C03 66.994 -165.947 SC shelf 24 9 200 -0.63 31.81 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-D01 67.502 -168.499 SC shelf 47 6957 5308 1.05 31.63 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-D02 67.494 -167.181 SC shelf 46 30146 16810 missing missing 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-D03 67.509 -165.871 SC shelf 40 425 2707 4.48 31.10 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-E01 67.995 -168.505 SC shelf 58 7137 3818 3.23 29.51 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-E02 68.012 -167.185 SC shelf 56 1001 1817 3.23 29.51 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-E03 67.999 -165.821 SC shelf 29 279 113 3.23 29.51 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-F01 68.502 -168.499 SC shelf 51 73 670 3.60 31.67 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-G01 68.999 -168.498 SC shelf 51 113 5945 missing missing 

+s,. 

0\ Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-G03 68.998 -165.686 SC shelf 21 7 2 3.97 31.29 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station LatdegN Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp. {°C) Salinity 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-H01 69.494 -168.476 SC shelf 51 321 11703 -0.70 31.87 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-H02 69.502 -167.116 SC shelf 47 214 8950 -0.60 31.73 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-H03 69.496 -165.653 SC shelf 35 7 201 0.30 31.64 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-101 70.004 -168.480 SC shelf 42 8 157 1.71 31.22 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-103 70.003 -165.600 SC shelf 40 41 537 -1.14 32.01 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-104 70.004 -164.104 SC shelf 31 12 456 -0.75 31.84 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-J01 70.494 -168.498 NEC shelf 40 46 202 1.67 32.69 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-J04 70.505 -163.999 NEC shelf 45 80 26 5.12 31.82 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-K01 70.995 -168.501 NEC shelf 47 3809 983 1.57 32.82 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-K03 70.996 -165.427 NEC shelf 42 5224 729 1.87 32.40 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-L01 71.506 -168.511 NEC shelf 49 41 909 9.95 29.27 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-L03 71.500 -165.348 NEC shelf 43 196 27 2.27 32.48 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-L04 71.493 -163.819 NEC shelf 44 35 8 1.96 32.50 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-L07 71.502 -159.031 NEC shelf 50 14 496 9.43 29.40 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-M02 72.007 -166.910 NEC shelf 48 110 1193 3.79 32.09 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-M04 72.001 -163.648 NEC shelf 40 26 428 6.51 31.18 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-M05 72.026 -162.247 NEC shelf 28 112 21 7.79 30.44 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-N02 72.507 -166.851 NEC shelf 50 1106 138 5.97 29.12 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-N05 72.500 -161.906 NEC shelf 44 76 20 5.41 31.83 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-N06 72.484 -160.229 NEC shelf 47 957 274 7.06 31.41 

Arctic Eis 2012 CH30-O02 73.000 -165.819 NEC shelf 60 33 340 2.87 31.31 

RUSALCA2012 CENla 70.667 -178.415 NEC shelf 40 209 55 2.90 32.30 

RUSALCA2012 Cll 68.965 -166.992 SC shelf 50 2845 117 1.98 31.36 

RUSALCA2012 Cll0 67.400 -173.610 SC shelf 34 0 0 1.30 31.48 

RUSALCA2012 CL3-R 69.019 -168.845 SC shelf 8638 164 3.09 31.24 

RUSALCA2012 CL6 68.505 -171.563 SC shelf 57 533 1743 1.38 31.41 

RUSALCA2012 CL8 67.874 -172.607 SC shelf 50 3017 60 4.21 31.23 

RUSALCA2012 CS12R 67.858 -168.271 SC shelf 58 26783 21795 1.89 31.64 

RUSALCA2012 CS17 68.342 -167.089 SC shelf 40 0 0 0.45 31.82 

RUSALCA2012 CS4 66.931 -170.881 SC shelf 45 409 11 3.17 31.52 

-..J RUSALCA2012 CS8R 67.429 -169.613 SC shelf 52 4195 5050 1.89 31.62 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp. (°C) Salinity 

RUSALCA2012 HCl-1 70.958 -173.975 NEC shelf 52 586 26 1.60 32.60 

RUSALCA2012 HCl-2 70.967 -173.977 NEC shelf 53 835 38 2.20 32.50 

RUSALCA2012 HC2 70.897 -175.000 NEC shelf 70 1940 73 1.35 32.44 

RUSALCA2012 HC22 71.712 -174.912 NEC shelf 73 1361 38 8.24 29.87 

RUSALCA2012 HC26 71.789 -174.352 NEC shelf 57 3055 123 2.02 32.48 

RUSALCA2012 HC3 71.032 -175.990 NEC shelf 50 440 12 2.50 32.51 

RUSALCA2012 HC70 71.638 -175.390 NEC shelf 1 1 1.34 32.86 

Transboundary 2012 Bl-0020 70.738 -150.070 WCB shelf 16.5 0 0 -1.15 32.09 

Transboundary 2012 Bl-0050 71.151 -150.118 WCB shelf 51.2 0 0 -0.82 32.08 

Transboundary 2012 Bl-0100 71.213 -150.137 WCB slope 102 0 0 1.87 31.79 

Transboundary 2012 Bl-0200 71.231 -150.130 WCB slope 200 0 0 3.71 31.35 

Transboundary 2012 Bl-0350 71.244 -150.147 WCB slope 351 5310 4 3.63 31.44 

Transboundary 2012 B1-0500 71.251 -150.181 WCB slope 500 7662 21 0.67 32.25 

Transboundary 2012 Bl-1000 71.308 -150.044 WCB slope 1000 0 0 2.38 31.85 

Transboundary 2012 B2-0020 71.075 -151.082 WC8 shelf 20 0 0 -0.42 31.60 

Transboundary 2012 B2-0020 71.072 -151.069 WC8 shelf 20 0 0 4.33 31.37 

Transboundary 2012 B2-0020 71.069 -151.057 WC8 shelf 20 0 0 4.28 31.48 

Transboundary 2012 82-0050 71.182 -151.090 WC8 shelf so 0 0 4.28 31.48 

Transboundary 2012 B2-0100 71.326 -151.160 WC8 slope 100 0 0 4.83 31.39 

Transboundary 2012 B2-0200 71.388 -151.396 WC8 slope 202 0 0 3.75 31.56 

Transboundary 2012 82-0350 71.417 -151.137 WCB slope 353 0 0 3.63 31.44 

Transboundary 2012 82-0500 71.426 -151.101 WC8 slope 509 1631 3 -1.27 32.16 

Transboundary 2012 BX-0200 71.297 -150.747 WC8 slope 220 0 0 -0.94 31.95 

Transboundary 2012 BX-0350 71.302 -150.681 WCB slope 350 0 0 3.99 31.59 

Transboundary 2012 BX-0500 71.317 -150.691 WCB slope 491 8408 20 0.85 32.21 

Transboundary 2013 Al-100 70.367 -141.168 EB slope 100 0 0 2.06 32.84 

Transboundary 2013 Al-1000 70.616 -141.127 EB slope 1008 0 0 0.45 34.85 

Transboundary 2013 Al-20 70.039 -141.062 EB shelf 20 0 0 0.45 34.76 

Transboundary 2013 Al-200 70.412 -141.177 EB slope 210 0 0 -0.82 33.28 

Transboundary 2013 Al-350 70.417 -141.260 EB slope 350 0 0 0.41 34.82 

00 Transboundary 2013 Al-SO 70.336 -141.090 EB shelf so 0 0 0.47 34.78 
Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Cruise Station LatdegN Long deg Region Shelf/slope Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp. (°C) Salinity 

Transboundary 2013 Al-500 70.458 -141.087 EB slope 500 0 0 -0.86 33.17 

Transboundary 2013 Al-750 70.537 -141.096 EB slope 752 0 0 6.86 31.52 

Transboundary 2013 A2-100 70.127 -142.278 EB slope 101 0 0 0.16 34.56 

Transboundary 2013 A2-20 69.717 -141.120 EB shelf so 0 0 0.48 34.76 

Transboundary 2013 A2-200 70.487 -141.948 EB slope 230 0 0 -0.60 33.62 

Transboundary 2013 A2-350 70.504 -141.951 EB slope 352 0 0 -0.82 33.92 

Transboundary 2013 A2-50 69.953 -142.163 EB shelf so 0 0 0.42 34.74 

Transboundary 2013 A2-500 70.540 -142.072 EB slope 506 0 0 -0.16 34.49 

Transboundary 2013 A2-750 70.609 -142.001 EB slope 757 0 0 -0.16 34.49 

Transboundary 2013 A6-100 70.821 -146.046 EB shelf 98 0 0 1.80 31.99 

Transboundary 2013 A6-1000 71.014 -146.100 EB slope 1004 0 0 0.14 32.31 

Transboundary 2013 A6-20 70.429 -146.048 EB shelf 34 0 0 2.38 31.85 

Transboundary 2013 A6-200 70.889 -146.032 EB slope 200 2139 3.1 1.42 31.89 

Transboundary 2013 A6-350 70.921 -145.978 EB slope 350 0 0 -1.07 32.70 

Transboundary 2013 A6-50 70.675 -146.107 EB shelf so 0 0 1.09 31.96 

Transboundary 2013 A6-500 70.969 -146.123 EB slope 500 0 0 -1.12 32.89 

Transboundary 2013 AG-750 70.981 -146.076 EB slope 782 0 0 -1.47 32.83 

Transboundary 2013 AG-mid 70.552 -146.131 EB shelf 38 0 0 1.09 31.96 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-100 70.133 -137.764 EB slope 100 0 0 6.86 31.52 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-1000 70.534 -139.268 EB slope 960 0 0 6.68 31.33 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-20 69.716 -136.652 EB shelf 20 0 0 0.06 34.58 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-200 70.096 -138.045 EB slope 200 0 0 -0.88 33.22 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-350 70.256 -138.343 EB slope 350 0 0 -0.82 33.92 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-50 69.906 -137.207 EB shelf 55 0 0 1.09 32.56 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-500 70.285 -138.631 EB slope 505 0 0 0.16 34.63 

Transboundary 2013 GRY-750 70.462 -138.845 EB slope 756 0 0 missing missing 

Transboundary 2013 MAC-100 69.613 -137.982 EB slope 102 0 0 -0.98 32.68 

Transboundary 2013 MAC-1000 70.592 -139.782 EB slope 980 0 0 7.00 31.34 

Transboundary 2013 MAC-200 69.827 -138.420 EB slope 197 0 0 -0.88 33.22 

Transboundary 2013 MAC-SO 69.460 -137.626 EB shelf so 0 0 0.16 34.63 

..J:::,. 

'° Transboundary 2013 MAC-500 missing missing EB slope 500 0 0 0.07 34.53 
VI 

0 

Cruise 

Transboundary 2013 

Transboundary 2013 

Transboundary 2013 

Transboundary 2013 

Transboundary 2013 

Transboundary 2013 

Station 

TBS-100 

TBS-1000 

TBS-350 

TBS-SO 

TBS-500 

TBS-750 

Lat deg N Long deg Region Shelf/slope 

70.246 -140.300 EB slope 

70.602 -140.419 EB slope 

70.353 -140.456 EB slope 

70.153 -140.379 EB shelf 

70.405 -140.286 EB slope 

70.577 -140.468 EB slope 

Biomassgww Abundance Bottom Bottom 

Depth (m) 1ooom·2 ind 1ooom·2 Temp.{°C) Salinity 

100 0 0 0.16 34.63 

1007 0 0 0.54 34.80 

361 0 0 -0.82 33.92 

50.7 0 0 3.29 32.25 

505 0 0 0.16 34.63 

750 0 0 0.42 34.74 
Appendix II: Egg Counts 

51 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight She ll Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers in 

Cruise Year Station •N 0W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fu llness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 C0l 66.99 -168.48 37 55.9 37.2 2 18711 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 C0l 66.99 -168.48 37 54.1 60.9 2 33122 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 COl 66.99 -168.48 37 55.0 57.9 2 27653 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 C0l 66.99 -168.48 37 59.3 72.7 2 16105 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 C0l 66.99 -168.48 37 58.2 66.3 2 22909 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.50 49 53.0 55.6 4 26267 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.50 49 47.6 39.6 3 24439 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.50 49 53.0 68.3 3 30564 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.50 49 61.9 81.8 2 24759 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.49 47 49.7 43.3 2 28017 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.49 47 51.6 60.8 3 21685 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.49 47 57.5 82.8 4 40722 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.49 47 46.3 42.6 3 22559 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.49 47 57.0 65.0 3 13409 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D01 67.50 -168.49 47 48.1 45.9 4 24411 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D03 67.51 -165.87 40 48.1 39.8 4 16064 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 D03 67.51 -165.87 40 64.6 87.2 3 42597 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 46.2 32.3 4 4454 2 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 44.1 29.7 4 12529 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 42.1 24.1 3 10965 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 53.2 52.8 3 20383 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 54.8 60.9 3 37448 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 43.6 34.5 2 14354 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 51.4 47.7 3 18765 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 48.3 40.0 3 13365 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 44.1 32.1 4 6142 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 E02 68.00 -167.21 56 43.9 26.S 3 14583 6 

v, Arctic Eis 12 2012 J0l 70.49 -168.49 39 53.7 59.3 2 22433 5 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers in 

Cruise Year Station ON 0

W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 JOl 70.49 -168.49 39 44.2 33.0 2 7844 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 JOl 70.49 -168.49 39 52.7 63.1 3 50780 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 JOl 70.49 -168.49 39 44.0 33.5 2 11773 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 JOl 70.49 -168.49 39 41.3 27.4 2 9020 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 MOB 71.99 -157.19 86 53.8 61.4 3 32756 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 MOB 71.99 -157.19 86 52.4 55.3 2 22442 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 MOB 71.99 -157.19 86 53.0 48.0 2 15099 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 MOB 71.99 -157.19 86 46.3 69.9 3 35614 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 NOl 72.50 -168.46 53 58.1 46.4 2 21759 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 NOl 72.50 -168.46 53 51.3 60.8 2 10590 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 N04 72.50 -163.51 47 51.8 54.9 2 18744 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 N04 72.50 -163.51 47 50.4 45.3 2 17651 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 NOS 72.50 -161.93 42 45.4 35.1 2 10353 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 NOS 72.50 -161.93 42 49.3 45.0 2 19579 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 NOS 72.50 -161.93 42 62.7 81.9 2 30189 6 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 N06 72.48 -160.22 46 44.3 33.5 2 12203 5 

Arctic Eis 12 2012 N06 72.48 -160.22 46 49.8 46.3 2 16223 5 

BeauFish 2011 2011 WB28 71.68 -155.16 180 64.1 96.0 2 31923 5 0.121 0.049 2 3 

BeauFish 2011 2011 CB27 71.21 -149.85 180 62.3 96.0 2 33981 5 0.316 0.243 3 4 

BeauFish 2011 2011 WB32 71.73 -153.49 80 105.0 2 53531 6 0.282 0.175 3 3 

BeauFish 2011 2011 CB28 71.25 -150.42 180 61.7 125.0 2 37143 5 0.156 0.081 2 3 

BeauFish 2011 2011 WB28 71.68 -155.16 180 51.8 54.0 2 18267 5 0.087 0.044 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 9 70.83 -167.79 52 54.6 53.2 2 22717 6 0.062 0.009 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 35 71.67 -166.92 47 42.9 27.3 2 11107 5 0.057 0.025 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 5 70.40 -164.48 42 17297 0.083 0.048 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 19 71.03 -166.95 46 50.4 42.9 2 17500 5 0.057 0.012 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 20 71.21 -168.31 20 47.S 37.9 2 16917 6 0.071 0.015 1 1 

Vl Comida 2010 2010 35 71.67 -166.92 47 52.9 51.1 2 20625 6 0.066 0.009 1 1 

w 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight {g load weight Fullness layers in 

Cruise Year Station •N 0W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww} {gww} index Spermatheca 

Comida 2010 2010 21 71.48 -167.78 49 62.9 81.6 2 37250 6 0.083 0.010 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 21 71.48 -167.78 49 52.7 50.1 3 22250 6 0.081 0.037 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 22 71.27 -167.01 47 51.0 43.7 2 18600 5 0.053 0.009 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 20 71.21 -168.31 20 57.8 64.5 2 28821 5 0.151 0.109 3 3 

Comida 2010 2010 21 71.48 -167.78 49 52.6 40.2 2 23404 5 0.051 0.009 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 9 70.83 -167.79 52 52.3 40.5 2 27750 6 0.087 0.048 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 1013 71.93 -162.67 41 60.2 73.0 2 34300 5 0.078 0.002 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 35 71.67 -166.92 47 47.6 39.2 2 18450 6 0.042 0.005 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 22 71.27 -167.01 47 52.6 49.2 2 20464 5 0.059 0.003 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 108 72.10 -162.98 38 38.7 20.4 2 9333 5 0.030 0.005 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 22 71.27 -167.01 47 56.S 60.9 2 25683 5 0.070 0.003 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 107 70.09 -166.46 46 51.4 41.9 2 22788 5 0.099 0.029 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 20 71.21 -168.31 20 40.3 18.2 2 21500 6 0.047 0.016 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 10 70.67 -167.08 52 46.4 38.0 2 15558 5 0.057 0.008 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 37 72.05 -166.34 47 47.1 30.7 2 10654 5 not found 

Comida 2010 2010 10 70.67 -167.08 52 49.7 40.8 2 14633 5 0.087 0.057 2 3 

Comida 2010 2010 22 71.27 -167.01 47 42.S 27.2 2 12192 4 0 .044 0.004 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 107 70.09 -166.46 46 54.9 62.8 2 25516 6 0.076 0.004 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 19 71.03 -166.95 46 22.7 2 8679 5 0.045 0.029 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 35 71.67 -166.92 47 56.0 56.1 2 27018 6 0.081 0.003 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 9 70.83 -167.79 52 52.0 46.1 2 22429 6 0.077 0.018 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 20 71.21 -168.31 20 53.0 52.6 2 11242 6 0.080 0.014 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 107 70.09 -166.46 46 50.8 49.3 2 22192 5 0.062 0.008 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 35 71.67 -166.92 47 51.S 45.4 2 17867 5 0.063 0.007 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 107 70.09 -166.46 46 49.6 49.6 2 18000 5 0.194 0.128 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 37 72.05 -166.34 47 55.4 55.0 2 10179 6 0.074 0.019 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 21 71.48 -167.78 49 52.4 52.2 2 26058 6 0.048 0.017 1 1 

v-, Comida 2010 2010 21 71.48 -167.78 49 55.1 55.2 2 26923 6 0.052 0.001 1 1 

+:-
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight(g load weight Fullness layers In 

Cruise Year Station ON 0

W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

Comida 2010 2010 10 70.67 -167.08 52 51.6 47.9 2 16694 6 0.079 0.029 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 21 71.48 -167.78 49 52.1 49.5 2 22917 6 0.057 0.005 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 38 71.93 -165.16 38 45.2 37.6 3 13404 5 0.144 0.110 3 3 

Comida 2010 2010 20 71.21 -168.31 20 52.9 50.0 2 23450 5 0.055 0.007 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 37 72.05 -166.34 47 43.1 29.0 2 27483 5 0.077 0.006 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 37 72.05 -166.34 47 43.1 25.9 2 5 0.054 0.005 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 22 71.27 -167.01 47 56.5 59.2 2 26911 5 0.069 0.003 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 22 71.27 -167.01 47 45.2 33.0 2 13038 5 0.074 0.017 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 35 71.67 -166.92 47 43.8 28.2 2 11365 5 0.043 0.014 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 38 71.93 -165.16 38 46.8 36.5 2 16192 5 0.047 0.018 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 10 70.67 -167.08 52 50.2 42.9 2 20231 6 0.091 0.003 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 19 71.03 -166.95 46 61.7 60.4 2 30563 6 0.148 0.076 2 3 

Comida 2010 2010 9 70.83 -167.79 52 48.S 37.8 2 17517 6 0.048 0.004 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 10 70.67 -167.08 52 44.2 28.8 2 12054 5 0.140 0.111 3 3 

Comida 2010 2010 19 71.03 -166.95 46 55.5 53.9 2 23518 5 0.069 0.012 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 10 70.67 -167.08 52 48.6 37.7 2 18446 6 0.048 0.004 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 9 70.83 -167.79 52 54.6 53.2 2 11734 6 0.076 0.044 2 3 

Comida 2010 2010 19 71.03 -166.95 46 45.1 28.2 2 12107 5 0.038 0.008 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 36 71.93 -165.39 so 54.9 52.8 2 27077 6 0.067 0.002 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 36 71.93 -165.39 so 50.9 44.9 2 22250 5 

Comida 2010 2010 36 71.93 -165.39 so 50.6 39.5 2 17788 5 0.061 0.037 2 3 

Comida 2010 2010 9 70.83 -167.79 52 44.3 27.0 2 13558 6 0.066 0.041 2 2 

Comida 2010 2010 107 70.09 -166.46 46 48.3 39.9 2 17214 5 0.080 0.024 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 36 71.93 -165.39 so 53.7 52.5 2 23089 6 0.059 0.002 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 36 71.93 -165.39 so 53.1 54.5 2 25083 6 0.048 0.001 1 1 

Comida 2010 2010 19 71.03 -166.95 46 52.4 53.0 4 27031 6 0.126 0.039 2 ? 

Comida 2010 2010 9 70.83 -167.79 52 44.1 26.4 2 11865 6 0.107 0.085 3 4 

V'l CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 51.2 45.5 2 17850 5 0.059 0.009 1 1 V'l 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers In 

Cruise Year Station ON 0W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 50.1 46.0 2 17071 6 0.052 o.oi5 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 49.0 42.2 2 11089 6 0.043 0.005 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 47.6 38.5 2 14547 6 0.051 0.010 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 53.5 49.5 2 20000 5 0.059 0.009 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 55.2 55.8 2 20594 5 0.061 0.005 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 40.7 21.7 2 8308 5 0.037 0.002 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 52.5 50.6 2 18333 5 0.061 0.011 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 50.1 50.2 2 19036 6 0.050 0.006 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 53.2 51.4 2 20875 5 0.064 0.012 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 57.1 69.4 3 42078 6 0.114 0.048 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 36 71.93 -165.39 50 49.2 40.0 2 16200 6 0.025 0.008 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 46.3 37.6 2 14250 5 0.028 0.002 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 54.8 56.0 2 18147 6 0.056 0.019 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF003 70.65 -165.25 39.8 54.3 54.0 2 24217 6 0.073 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 47.7 37.8 2 14804 5 0.048 0.004 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 50.1 49.5 2 16467 6 0.050 o.oi5 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 48.6 41.7 2 13633 6 0.056 0.022 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 47.4 41.1 2 13500 6 0.060 0.005 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 54.2 55.7 2 22429 6 0.076 0.013 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF017 71.02 -165.64 40.4 48.2 39.3 2 15696 5 0.060 0.040 2 2 

CSESP 2010 2010 SF014 71.87 -164.55 37.6 41.3 24.8 2 11538 5 0.043 0.002 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 47.9 40.8 2 14365 6 0.053 0.027 2 2 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 48.8 36.3 2 17423 6 0.064 0.017 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 SF007 71.75 -164.96 37.6 47.9 37.9 2 22083 ? 0.042 0.006 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 SF020 71.99 -164.15 36.3 38.7 22.8 2 9558 5 0.034 0.005 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 42.9 29.5 2 12346 5 0.098 0.080 2 3 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 47.4 35.8 2 18804 6 0.040 0.004 1 1 

Vl CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 47.0 37.8 3 18615 6 0.185 0.157 3 3 

0\ 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers in 

Cruise Year Station ON 0W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gwwJ index Spermatheca 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 45.9 37.1 2 13578 6 0.046 0.020 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 45.8 35.5 2 15786 6 0.044 0.003 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 47.6 38.6 2 14067 6 0.044 0.022 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 48.4 40.0 2 13214 6 0.048 0.010 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 50.1 41.0 2 16167 5 0.049 0.D15 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 50.0 43.2 2 20107 6 0.065 0.005 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 52.6 56.4 2 27232 6 0.060 0.004 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 41.3 25.7 2 11692 6 0.034 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 49.2 40.8 2 17607 5 0.045 0.003 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 58.4 73.0 2 26567 6 0.049 0.001 1 1 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 49.2 39.8 2 13600 6 0.048 0.024 2 2 

CSESP 2010 2010 KF021 71.14 -166.03 49.9 40.2 2 15518 5 0.046 0.027 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN5 69.68 -174.84 54 47.4 37.1 2 19536 6 0.041 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 38.9 17.1 2 8425 5 0.052 0.041 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 42.4 20.7 1 9542 6 0.056 0.028 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN5 69.68 -174.84 54 48.4 30.S 2 16827 6 0.037 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 40.1 18.0 2 11477 6 0.049 0.025 2 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 37.9 13.6 1 5654 5 0.044 0.031 2 3 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 HC49 73.34 -175.57 147 52.2 34.0 2 4946 ? not found 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 43.8 28.9 2 11771 6 0.028 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 42.2 21.2 2 12833 6 0.042 0.Q15 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 40.0 18.2 1 9958 6 0.070 0.049 2 3 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 45.2 29.9 2 10979 5 0.058 0.036 2 3 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 43.5 22.3 2 13958 5 0.054 0.032 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN5 69.68 -174.84 54 52.4 40.4 3 22900 6 0.044 0.008 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN5 69.68 -174.84 54 50.4 45.2 3 20172 6 0.045 0.006 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN5 69.68 -174.84 54 47.8 38.4 2 18400 6 0.097 0.062 2 2 

Vl RUSALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 39.5 18.3 2 6167 6 0.067 0.041 2 3 

-....J 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers in 

Cruise Year Station ON 0

W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Sperm a the ca 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 HC49 73.34 -175.57 147 49.0 38.6 2 21135 6 0.080 0.005 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CEN5 69.68 -174.84 54 51.6 39.7 2 23458 5 0.036 0.002 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CEN3 70.29 -176.67 57 40.4 20.6 1 9250 6 0.039 0.021 2 2 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 45.0 33.1 3 11904 5 0.032 0.003 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 55.3 59.6 2 26821 6 0.005 0.003 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 59.6 68.8 2 38654 6 0.061 0.014 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 48.3 35.5 2 16795 6 0.070 0.046 2 2 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 52.9 52.7 2 22071 6 0.054 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 54.7 49.7 3 24125 6 0.079 0.010 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 57.3 66.7 2 27633 5 0.068 0.001 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 52.5 48.6 2 22717 6 0.062 0.002 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 47.4 37.9 2 14391 6 0.081 0.029 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 46.5 35.1 2 16089 6 0.045 0.007 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 42.1 25.2 2 10712 5 0.057 0.008 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 48.7 42.9 3 18563 6 0.047 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 47.1 33.0 2 12938 5 0.047 0.005 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL8 67.87 -172.55 50 52.9 54.2 2 24483 6 0.056 0.004 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 54.5 54.3 2 24203 6 0.077 0.003 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 47.8 35.1 2 6226 5 0.042 0.004 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 48.4 35.8 2 12696 6 0.043 0.005 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 17133 0.046 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 55.6 62.2 2 29857 6 0.070 0.007 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 so 23633 0.146 0.063 2 2 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 43.8 28.1 2 17731 6 0.059 0.008 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 27406 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 so 15804 0.040 0.003 1 1 

RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 so 44.5 27.7 2 6538 4 0.064 0.022 2 2 

Vl RU5ALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 so 15375 0.068 0.016 1 1 

00 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers In 

Cruise Year Station ON 0

W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 54.6 55.2 2 21984 6 0.064 0.006 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 24519 not found 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 46.2 34.3 2 9750 5 0.105 0.078 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 so 46.3 31.9 2 14135 5 0.071 0.023 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL8 67.87 -172.55 50 49.3 43.4 2 21365 6 0.047 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 26071 0.150 0.093 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL6 68.51 -171.47 55 15383 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 19288 0.051 0.012 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 9393 0.126 0.105 3 4 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 49.0 39.1 2 17442 6 0.044 0.002 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 so 49.4 36.6 13536 5 0.062 0.021 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 54.1 49.7 2 20446 5 0.038 0.004 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 50 21297 0.057 0.005 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL3 69.00 -166.92 so 14021 0.078 0.018 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 CL8 67.87 -172.55 50 47.0 38.1 2 18018 5 0.032 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 46.5 37.0 2 6979 6 0.042 0.001 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 50.1 38.7 2 14549 6 0.051 0.003 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 53.8 47.3 2 8833 5 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 50.2 36.2 2 16326 6 0.040 0.001 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 42.8 27.9 3 10130 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 48.9 40.2 2 17230 5 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 48.3 42.7 2 17265 6 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 54.1 56.9 2 21970 6 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 54.1 52.6 2 16783 6 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 52.8 47.4 2 15065 5 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 44.7 32.9 2 14787 6 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 47.9 36.9 2 11340 5 

VI RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 45.8 33.4 2 17332 5 

\0 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers In 

cruise Year Station ON 0W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 43.6 34.2 3 9244 6 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 57.3 58.3 3 25909 5 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 45.9 37.0 2 18864 5 0.074 0.035 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 52.4 53.3 2 26825 6 0.048 0.004 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 47.1 36.3 2 23495 6 0.027 0.007 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 49.3 43.0 3 10711 5 0.046 0.016 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 48.7 43.2 2 19140 6 not found 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 47.9 38.3 2 15606 6 0.039 0.008 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 51.9 48.7 2 13959 5 0.058 0.003 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 50.2 47.5 2 18541 6 0.047 0.002 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 52.7 55.0 3 22030 5 0.111 0.084 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 51.6 50.2 2 15006 5 0.060 0.001 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 51.6 54.5 2 15209 6 0.053 0.008 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 48.8 42.3 2 18316 5 0.045 0.004 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 45.5 32.2 2 13265 5 0.061 0.009 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 51.0 47.3 3 20138 5 0.049 0.003 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 53.7 50.4 3 26990 6 0.038 0.002 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 51.4 46.4 2 20798 6 0.072 0.014 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 50.3 39.1 2 12836 6 0.105 0.033 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 48.5 60.2 2 7265 6 0.050 0.006 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 55.7 55.0 3 24127 6 0.060 0.014 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 52.1 56.4 3 14815 5 0.039 0.004 1 1 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 52.0 36.0 3 46793 5 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 45.4 56.9 2 14775 5 0.119 0.099 3 3 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 55.9 27.0 2 21911 5 0.091 0.051 2 2 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.30 -167.04 38 42.3 27.0 3 11151 5 

RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.51 -171.47 55 27.7 6.5 2 21922 0.053 0.027 2 2 

°' RUSALCA 2009 2009 68.51 -171.47 55 53.5 50.7 3 8316 6 0.046 0.011 1 1 

0 
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers In 

Cruise Year Station ON 0W/E (m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 68.30 -167.04 38 50.3 38.0 2 13121 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 50.8 61.0 3 27472 6 0.069 0.030 2 2 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 47.2 46.0 3 23396 6 0.050 0.031 2 2 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 47.5 47.0 4 10443 4 0.122 0.075 3 3 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 45.3 42.0 3 21262 6 0.062 0.016 1 1 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 43.3 48.0 4 13419 4 0.048 0.013 1 1 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 50.8 65.0 4 25123 6 0.093 0.057 3 3 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 46.6 58.0 4 15358 5 0.061 0.032 2 2 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 52.2 64.0 4 24423 6 0.084 0.036 2 2 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 43.7 39.0 4 15058 6 0.074 0.046 2 3 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 56.2 73.0 3 25024 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 44.4 52.0 4 12531 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 41.5 35.0 3 13760 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 43.8 33.0 4 14474 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 41.9 28.0 4 34426 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 49.2 44.0 3 13092 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 52.5 57.0 3 12610 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 57.7 74.0 2 9922 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 45.5 36.0 4 18873 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 69.02 -168.84 54 52.9 60.0 4 15152 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.87 -172.61 50 54.1 58.0 2 3455 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.87 -172.61 50 51.6 51.0 2 17994 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.87 -172.61 50 49.7 43.0 2 17407 5 0.025 empty 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.87 -172.61 50 49.3 44.0 2 18698 5 0.031 empty 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.87 -172.61 50 49.2 45.0 2 13909 4 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.87 -172.61 50 45.4 45.0 3 28192 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.86 -168.27 58 56.4 74.0 4 0.116 0.039 1 1 

°' RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.86 -168.27 58 54.4 66.0 3 30268 0.109 0.029 1 1 

-
Water Wet Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Lat Long depth cw weight Shell Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers in 

Cruise Year Station ON 0

W/E {m) (mm) (g) condition of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.86 -168.27 58 54.4 57.0 3 32094 0.130 0.061 2 3 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.86 -168.27 58 56.7 66.0 3 33546 0.070 0.023 1 1 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.86 -168.27 58 46.8 49.0 4 21896 0.066 0.037 2 2 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 67.86 -168.27 58 53.2 51.0 3 24558 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.96 -173.98 52 47.8 40.6 3 17295 6 

RU5ALCA 2012 2012 70.96 -173.98 52 38.5 22.0 2 10833 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.96 -173.98 52 44.7 34.0 2 8524 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 57.6 72.0 4 32266 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 42.1 27.0 2 8166 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 45.0 31.0 2 13439 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 43.2 31.0 2 11252 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 45.8 35.0 2 11735 4 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 45.0 31.0 2 15385 4 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 44.2 31.0 2 16526 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 46.1 34.0 2 5034 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 44.6 29.0 2 9881 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.97 -173.98 53 40.0 25.0 2 4023 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 45.0 34.0 2 9235 4 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 45.0 34.0 2 12133 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 43.6 30.0 2 10082 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 39.6 24.0 2 6449 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 43.9 30.0 2 8812 4 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 40.6 26.0 2 10199 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 38.6 22.0 2 5455 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 38.7 21.0 2 5781 6 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 40.6 25.0 2 6782 5 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 70.90 -175.00 70 44.8 33.0 2 11454 5 

O'\ 

RUSALCA 2012 2012 71.71 -174.91 73 40.7 23.0 2 6194 4 0.047 0.015 1 1 

l',J 
°' vJ 

Cruise 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

RUSALCA 2012 

Transboundary 12 

Lat 

Year Station ON 

2012 71.71 

2012 70.90 

2012 70.90 

2012 70.90 

2012 70.90 

2012 71.79 

2012 71.79 

2012 71.79 

2012 71.79 

2012 71.79 

2012 70.90 

2012 70.90 

2012 70.90 

2012 71.71 

2012 71.03 

2012 71.03 

2012 71.31 

Water 

Long depth 0

W/E (m) 

-174.91 73 

-175.00 70 

-175.00 70 

-175.00 70 

-175.00 70 

-174.35 57 

-174.35 57 

-174.35 57 

-174.35 57 

-174.35 57 

-175.00 70 

-175.00 70 

-175.00 70 

-174.91 73 

-175.99 50 

-175.99 so 

-150.67 500 

Wet 

cw weight Shell 

(mm) (g) condition 

42.4 27.0 2 

41.0 23.0 2 

42.6 26.0 2 

47.1 38.0 2 

43.1 27.0 2 

46.1 40.0 2 

42.3 33.0 3 

49.6 41.0 2 

47.1 40.0 2 

41.2 28.1 2 

43.9 33.0 2 

48.9 38.0 1 

38.0 21.0 2 

47.0 40.0 2 

41.2 24.0 2 

40.0 26.0 2 

72.2 148.0 2 

Spermatheca Spermatheca Number of 

Number Clutch weight (g load weight Fullness layers in 

of eggs fullness ww) (gww) index Spermatheca 

11073 5 0.029 0.003 1 1 

8723 5 

7020 4 

5 

4 

13239 5 0.055 0.005 1 1 

9951 5 0.053 empty 

15556 5 0.055 0.017 1 1 

11550 5 

10122 

12289 5 

11235 4 

8529 5 

4248 

6588 5 

7212 5 

58251 5 
64 
Appendix III: Stable Isotope Data 

65 
Region Water Bottom 

Cruise Year Station depth Temp. Bottom Size class 

613C (o/oo) 615N (o/oo) code r . Sexclass 

(m) (°C) sa 1n1ty (mm CW) 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCF02 SC 37 9.37 28.30 imm female 40 15.50 18.68 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC03 SC 24 8.64 29.18 imm female 40 15.64 18.66 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC03 SC 24 8.64 29.18 imm female 40 13.43 18.59 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC03 SC 24 8.64 29.18 immfemale 40 14.12 18.22 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC03 SC 24 8.64 29.18 imm female 40 14.58 18.61 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCOOl SC 47 3.83 30.36 imm female 40 12.85 16.56 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCA02 SC 15 10.30 25.67 imm female 40 14.19 18.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCBOl SC 52 1.46 32.31 imm female 40 14.52 17.38 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 immfemale 40 14.19 18.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCA02 SC 15 10.30 25.67 imm female 40 14.29 18.50 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC04 SC 27 8.91 29.20 imm female 40 13.60 18.92 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC04 SC 27 8.91 29.20 imm female 40 14.12 18.22 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 i mm female 40 14.08 18.93 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD02 SC 46 4.73 28.51 imm female 40 14.56 17.80 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 imm female 40 15.70 18.95 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD02 SC 46 4.73 28.51 imm female 40 15.21 17.09 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC 50 3.91 30.02 imm female 40 15.09 18.50 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM03 NC 42 1.37 29.26 imm female 40 14.40 18.55 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCLOl NC 49 3.82 32.05 imm female 40 14.27 18.54 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC 50 3.91 30.02 imm female 40 14.98 18.57 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC 50 3.91 30.02 imm female 40 16.84 18.98 

Arctic Eis 2012 N51F9 NC 42 1.64 29.44 imm female 40 14.603 18.63 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI03 SC 40 6.62 31.44 imm female 50 14.69 18.07 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC04 SC 27 8.91 29.20 imm female 50 14.60 18.72 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCAOl SC 52 1.70 32.45 imm female 50 14.52 18.68 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC03 SC 24 8.64 29.18 imm female 50 15.01 18.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC04 SC 27 8.91 29.20 imm female 50 13.98 19.18 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCAOl SC 52 1.70 32.45 imm female 50 14.57 18.20 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCAOl SC 52 1.70 32.45 imm female 50 14.19 18.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCAOl SC 52 1.70 32.45 imm female 50 15.19 17.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC02 SC 38 2.58 32.33 imm female 50 13.77 18.44 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCBOl SC 52 1.46 32.31 imm female 50 15.34 17.95 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL06 NC 46 5.23 29.97 imm female 50 13.66 18.64 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ04 NC 43 7.72 31.13 imm female 50 13.99 18.81 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM03 NC 42 1.37 29.26 imm female 50 14.06 18.37 

Arctic Eis 2012 M21F16 NC 47 3.12 30.42 imm female 50 14.775 18.42 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 male 40 15.00 18.70 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC04 SC 27 8.91 29.20 male 40 14.50 18.39 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD03 SC 40 6.39 31.48 male 40 13.71 16.36 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD03 SC 40 6.39 31.48 male 40 15.22 18.00 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 40 15.10 18.20 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH03 SC 35 9.22 29.08 male 40 14.34 19.02 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC04 SC 27 8.91 29.20 male 40 14.84 18.53 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD03 SC 40 6.39 31.48 male 40 15.37 17.51 

66 
Water Bottom 

Region Size class 

depth 

Bottom 613C (%o) 615 Cruise Year Station N (%o) code Temp. r I Sexclass (mm CW) (m) (°C) sa in ty 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCF02 SC 37 9.37 28.30 male 40 14.79 18.65 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 40 16.03 18.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCF02 SC 37 9.37 28.30 male 40 14.76 18.74 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD03 SC 40 6.39 31.48 male 40 13.71 16.36 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC03 SC 24 8.64 29.18 male 40 14.39 19.49 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD02 SC 46 4.73 28.51 male 40 14.58 17.84 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD02 SC 46 4.73 28.51 male 40 15.12 17.54 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCK03 NC 41 3.04 30.96 male 40 14.98 18.94 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL02 NC 47 3.68 31.30 male 40 13.77 17.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM03 NC 42 1.37 29.26 male 40 13.93 18.97 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM03 NC 42 1.37 29.26 male 40 14.71 18.63 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male 40 15.02 19.49 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ03 NC 42 5.95 31.28 male 40 14.77 18.02 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM03 NC 42 1.37 29.26 male 40 14.18 18.72 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 40 15.92 19.05 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC so 3.91 30.02 male 40 14.59 18.38 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCK03 NC 41 3.04 30.96 male 40 14.93 18.42 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL06 NC 46 5.23 29.97 male 40 13.45 18.14 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC so 3.91 30.02 male 40 14.34 18.53 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 40 13.62 18.47 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 40 16.39 18.67 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 40 15.65 18.95 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC so 3.91 30.02 male 40 15.62 18.77 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male 40 14.56 19.15 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ02 NC 50 5.09 31.98 male 40 14.73 18.02 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 40 14.88 18.35 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male 40 14.13 19.37 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 50 16.24 18.31 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCE02 SC 56 5.45 30.72 male 50 15.24 17.41 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCB0l SC 52 1.46 32.31 male so 14.04 17.41 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male so 15.55 16.60 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 50 14.44 17.98 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male so 15.10 18.20 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 50 13.80 18.73 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD0l SC 47 3.83 30.36 male 50 13.39 15.82 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI03 SC 40 6.62 31.44 male 50 13.74 18.59 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male so 15.55 16.60 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male 50 15.77 19.27 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male 50 16.21 17.44 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH03 SC 35 9.22 29.08 male 50 14.70 19.81 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC02 SC 38 2.58 32.33 male 50 15.40 18.09 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC02 SC 38 2.58 32.33 male 50 14.96 17.77 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC03 SC 24 8.64 29.18 male 50 15.64 19.08 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCE02 SC 56 5.45 30.72 male 50 15.86 17.52 

67 
Region Water Bottom 

Cruise Year Station depth Temp. Bottom Size class 

613C (%o) 615N (%o) code r . Sexclass 

(m) (°C) sa m1ty (mm CW) 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCF02 SC 37 9.37 28.30 male so 14.41 18.45 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male so 14.40 18.79 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH03 SC 35 9.22 29.08 male 50 13.93 18.47 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 male 50 14.58 18.66 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD0l SC 47 3.83 30.36 male 50 13.22 16.17 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 50 15.06 17.36 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 50 14.44 17.98 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI0l SC 42 3.81 28.82 male so 15.80 17.50 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCA0l SC 52 1.70 32.45 male 50 15.19 17.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCA02 SC 15 10.30 25.67 male 50 14.35 18.73 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCA02 SC 15 10.30 25.67 male 50 14.84 18.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD0l SC 47 3.83 30.36 male 50 14.67 18.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 50 14.52 17.17 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 50 16.24 18.31 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 50 17.17 19.68 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCN05 NC 42 1.64 29.44 male so 15.90 18.53 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male so 15.23 19.52 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ02 NC 50 5.09 31.98 male 50 15.56 17.92 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 50 16.72 19.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ02 NC 50 5.09 31.98 male 50 14.09 17.64 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male so 14.54 18.59 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCK03 NC 41 3.04 30.96 male 50 14.74 17.80 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ0l NC 39 4.11 31.64 male 50 15.49 18.10 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ0l NC 39 4.11 31.64 male 50 14.70 18.44 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ0l NC 39 4.11 31.64 male so 14.93 18.11 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 50 13.96 18.44 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC 50 3.91 30.02 male 50 14.22 18.67 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 50 17.27 19.56 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCN05 NC 42 1.64 29.44 male 50 13.89 18.10 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ02 NC 50 5.09 31.98 male 50 15.05 18.79 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ02 NC 50 5.09 31.98 male 50 13.51 18.56 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ04 NC 43 7.72 31.13 male 50 14.72 18.95 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM04 NC 39 -0.13 27.86 male 50 14.01 18.16 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male 50 14.87 19.05 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 50 15.69 19.40 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 50 14.69 18.10 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL02 NC 47 3.68 31.30 male so 14.63 17.78 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCJ04 NC 43 7.72 31.13 male so 13.70 19.30 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 50 14.87 18.16 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC 50 3.91 30.02 male so 14.37 18.81 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 50 15.75 19.39 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male 50 14.35 19.19 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male so 16.25 18.66 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male so 14.79 19.16 

68 
Region Water Bottom 

Size class 

Cruise Station depth Bottom 613C (%o) 615 Year N (%o) code Temp. r . Sexclass (mm CW) (m) (°C) sa in1ty 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 50 12.41 20.62 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO02 NC 50 5.09 31.98 male 50 15.18 17.40 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO03 NC 42 5.95 31.28 male 50 14.02 18.04 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO03 NC 42 5.95 31.28 male 50 14.29 17.65 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM04 NC 39 -0.13 27.86 male 50 13.87 18.02 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO02 NC 50 5.09 31.98 male 50 14.35 17.82 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO03 NC 42 5.95 31.28 male 50 15.10 17.70 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL06 NC 46 5.23 29.97 male 50 13.66 18.64 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL07 NC 50 3.91 30.02 male 50 13.98 18.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male 50 14.73 19.35 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM08 NC 86 2.55 27.51 male 50 15.82 19.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCE02 SC 56 5.45 30.72 male 60 16.08 17.00 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC02 SC 38 2.58 32.33 male 60 13.46 17.74 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 male 60 14.92 19.05 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCE02 SC 56 5.45 30.72 male 60 15.91 18.81 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 male 60 15.55 17.76 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 60 15.72 17.29 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI03 SC 40 6.62 31.44 male 60 16.20 18.45 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCE02 SC 56 5.45 30.72 male 60 15.86 17.52 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCE02 SC 56 5.45 30.72 male 60 16.08 17.00 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 60 15.72 17.29 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 60 13.82 18.41 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male 60 14.27 17.76 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 60 15.29 17.49 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI04 SC 31 8.46 30.82 male 60 14.60 18.60 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 60 14.52 17.17 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD0l SC 47 3.83 30.36 male 60 12.87 16.44 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH03 SC 35 9.22 29.08 male 60 13.74 19.18 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 60 14.69 17.11 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM02 NC 47 3.12 30.42 male 60 14.28 17.36 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCN0S NC 42 1.64 29.44 male 60 15.22 18.83 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 60 14.18 17.83 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO03 NC 42 5.95 31.28 male 60 14.17 17.67 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCN05 NC 42 1.64 29.44 male 60 15.55 18.49 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO0l NC 39 4.11 31.64 male 60 15.27 17.27 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL02 NC 47 3.68 31.30 male 60 14.63 17.78 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO02 NC so 5.09 31.98 male 60 13.68 18.16 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO02 NC so 5.09 31.98 male 60 14.73 18.02 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 60 13.77 18.13 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO04 NC 43 7.72 31.13 male 60 14.72 18.95 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO03 NC 42 5.95 31.28 male 60 14.39 17.57 

Arctic Eis 2012 NO04 NC 43 7.72 31.13 male 60 14.21 18.76 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCM06 NC 38 0.07 27.18 male 60 14.35 18.15 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 70 15.27 17.30 

69 
Region Water Bottom Bottom Size class Cruise Year Station depth Temp. I' • Sexclass 613C {%0) 615N {%o) code (m) (°C) sa 1mty (mm CW) 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCE02 SC 56 5.45 30.72 male 70 14.62 16.88 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 70 15.70 17.48 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 70 17.13 17.06 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCB0l SC 52 1.46 32.31 male 70 14.81 18.58 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male 70 13.95 16.87 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male 70 15.85 16.88 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 male 70 15.21 17.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 male 70 15.07 18.43 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male 70 15.03 17.48 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCC02 SC 38 2.58 32.33 male 70 16.22 17.64 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCH02 SC 47 7.89 30.16 male 70 14.70 18.76 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL0l NC 49 3.82 32.05 male 70 14.68 17.68 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCL02 NC 47 3.68 31.30 male 70 13.57 17.75 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCN0l NC 53 2.43 29.99 male 70 14.64 17.89 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCI02 SC 47 5.54 31.12 male 80 16.10 17.68 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCD03 SC 40 6.39 31.48 male 80 14.76 17.50 

Arctic Eis 2012 SCG0l SC 51 4.22 30.87 male 80 15.34 16.96 

Arctic Eis 2012 NCK03 NC 41 3.04 30.96 male 80 15.26 17.74 

Arctic Eis 2012 M4NF1 NC 39 -0.13 27.86 mature female 30 14.117 18.39 

Arctic Eis 2012 N7F3 NC 59 2.03 27.10 maturefemale 30 16.839 18.98 

Arctic Eis 2012 J3Fl NC 42 5.95 31.28 mature female 30 14.983 18.07 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F17 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female 40 15.14 17.83 

Arctic Eis 2012 E2F4 SC 56 5.45 30.72 mature female 40 13.72 16.76 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F16 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female 40 14.059 18.32 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F9 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female 40 14.475 19.51 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F6 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female 40 14.191 18.91 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F22 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female 40 15.713 18.11 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F4 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female 40 14.58 17.59 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F3 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female 40 14.042 17.65 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F19 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female 40 15.124 17.41 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F5 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female 40 14.469 18.11 

Arctic Eis 2012 J3F3 NC 42 5.95 31.28 mature female 40 13.903 18.09 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F17 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female 40 14.829 18.73 

Arctic Eis 2012 L7F22 NC 50 3.91 30.02 mature female 40 15.751 18.44 

Arctic Eis 2012 L5F2 NC 44 1.72 29.49 mature female 40 14.85 18.22 

Arctic Eis 2012 N7Fl NC 59 2.03 27.10 mature female 40 14.544 19.03 

Arctic Eis 2012 N7F4 NC 59 2.03 27.10 mature female 40 15.276 20.30 

Arctic Eis 2012 J4F3 NC 43 7.72 31.13 mature female 40 14.228 18.53 

Arctic Eis 2012 J4Fl NC 43 7.72 31.13 mature female 40 13.553 18.31 

Arctic Eis 2012 J4F2 NC 43 7.72 31.13 mature female 40 13.137 18.26 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F19 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female 40 14.797 17.89 

Arctic Eis 2012 H2F3 SC 47 7.89 30.16 mature female so 14.101 18.45 

Arctic Eis 2012 E2F2 SC 56 5.45 30. 72 mature female so 13.965 17.91 

Arctic Eis 2012 E2Fl SC 56 5.45 30.72 mature female so 15.41 17.03 

70 
Region 

Water Bottom 

Size class Cruise Year Station depth Bottom 

613C (%o) 615N (%o) code Temp. I" • Sexclass (mm CW) (m) (°C) sa 1mty 

Arctic Eis 2012 E2F3 SC 56 5.45 30. 72 mature female 50 14.294 17.64 

Arctic Eis 2012 GlFl SC 51 4.22 30.87 mature female 50 13.56 18.01 

Arctic Eis 2012 G1F2 SC 51 4.22 30.87 mature female 50 14.106 18.32 

Arctic Eis 2012 G1F3 SC 51 4.22 30.87 mature female 50 14.892 17.61 

Arctic Eis 2012 G1F5 SC 51 4.22 30.87 mature female 50 15.143 17.18 

Arctic Eis 2012 G1F6 SC 51 4.22 30.87 mature female 50 14.832 17.59 

Arctic Eis 2012 H2F2 SC 47 7.89 30.16 mature female 50 14.925 18.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F9 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female 50 14.692 18.07 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F4 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female 50 14.869 18.35 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F19 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female so 14.273 18.18 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F16 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female so 15.243 18.54 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F8 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female so 14.486 20.37 

Arctic Eis 2012 11F7 SC 42 3.81 28.82 mature female 50 14.954 18.46 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F5 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female so 13.598 17.70 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F10 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female so 15.41 18.28 

Arctic Eis 2012 13Fl SC 40 6.62 31.44 mature female so 11.121 22.18 

Arctic Eis 2012 H2Fl SC 47 7.89 30.16 mature female 50 13.975 18.54 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F9 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female so 14.322 17.95 

Arctic Eis 2012 N2F4 NC 50 3.26 30.50 mature female so 15.816 17.49 

Arctic Eis 2012 L2F6 NC 47 3.68 31.30 mature female so 14.851 17.64 

Arctic Eis 2012 M8F5 NC 86 2.55 27.51 mature female so 15.873 18.11 

Arctic Eis 2012 N7F2 NC 59 2.03 27.10 maturefemale so 15.686 19.47 

Arctic Eis 2012 M6Fl NC 38 0.07 27.18 mature female so 14.791 18.61 

Arctic Eis 2012 L5Fl NC 44 1.72 29.49 mature female so 13.916 18.89 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F6 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female so 8.032 18.17 

Arctic Eis 2012 L7F19 NC 50 3.91 30.02 mature female so 15.37 18.70 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F7 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female so 15.875 18.47 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F10 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female so 14.706 17.91 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F2 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female so 13.928 17.75 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2Fl NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female so 14.3 17.87 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F8 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female so 13.734 18.00 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F20 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female 50 16.196 19.22 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F18 NC so 5.09 31.98 mature female so 15.398 17.78 

Arctic Eis 2012 Glf4 SC 51 4.22 30.87 mature female 60 15.041 17.97 

Arctic Eis 2012 14Fl SC 31 8.46 30.82 mature female 60 15.473 18.84 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F8 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female 60 15.3 17.96 

Arctic Eis 2012 12F20 SC 47 5.54 31.12 mature female 60 14.415 19.94 

Arctic Eis 2012 Klfl NC 46 3.92 31.51 mature female 60 14.302 17.93 

Arctic Eis 2012 J2F13 NC 50 5.09 31.98 mature female 60 14.48 17.75 

Beaufish 2011 WB21 WB 45 4.83 31.39 imm female 30 13.37 18.81 

BeauFish 2011 WB32 WB 80 1.09 31.96 imm female 30 15.19 17.13 

BeauFish 2011 WB16 WB 62 2.38 31.85 imm female 40 14.87 18.34 

Beaufish 2011 WB07 WB 180 -0.88 33.22 imm female so 15.19 17.13 

Beaufish 2011 WB32 WB 80 1.09 31.96 imm female so 15.76 17.84 

71 
Region 

Water Bottom 

Bottom Size class 

Cruise Year Station 

code depth Temp. r . Sexclass (mm CW) 613C {%o) 615N (%o) 

(m) (°C) sa 1nrty 

BeauFish 2011 CB34 CB 180 0.16 34.63 imm female 60 15.56 18.74 

BeauFish 2011 CB28 CB 180 0.47 34.78 immfemale 60 15.39 19.10 

BeauFish 2011 CBX-500 CB 500 -0.16 34.49 imm female 70 15.24 18.95 

BeauFish 2011 WB21 WB 45 4.83 31.39 male 30 13.06 18.19 

BeauFish 2011 WB21 WB 45 4.83 31.39 male 30 14.15 18.61 

,,..-

BeauFish 2011 WB31 WB 180 -0.82 33.92 male 30 15.94 18.11 

BeauFish 2011 WB21 WB 45 4.83 31.39 male 30 14.46 18.83 

BeauFish 2011 WB26 WB 46 1.87 31.79 male 30 15.21 18.31 

BeauFish 2011 WB26 WB 46 1.87 31.79 male 30 15.28 19.00 

BeauFish 2011 WB16 WB 62 2.38 31.85 male 40 14.78 18.27 

BeauFish 2011 WB32 WB 80 1.09 31.96 male 40 14.78 18.27 

BeauFish 2011 WB24 WB so 3.63 31.44 male 40 14.92 18.87 

BeauFish 2011 WB21 WB 45 4.83 31.39 male 40 13.95 18.25 

Beau Fish 2011 WB21 WB 45 4.83 31.39 male 40 13.66 19.09 

BeauFish 2011 WB20 WB 181 -0.86 33.17 male 40 11.71 21.20 

BeauFish 2011 WB21 WB 45 4.83 31.39 male 40 14.28 18.22 

BeauFish 2011 WB04 WB 180 -0.98 32.68 male so 15.08 18.42 

BeauFish 2011 WB16 WB 62 2.38 31.85 male so 14.68 18.58 

BeauFish 2011 WB13 WB 40 4.28 31.48 male so 14.69 18.60 

BeauFish 2011 WB13 WB 40 4.28 31.48 male so 13.82 18.94 

BeauFish 2011 WB13 WB 40 4.28 31.48 male so 13.72 18.12 

BeauFish 2011 WB13 WB 40 4.28 31.48 male so 14.03 18.71 

BeauFish 2011 WB26 WB 46 1.87 31.79 male so 16.20 17.85 

BeauFish 2011 WB20 WB 181 -0.86 33.17 male so 14.42 18.96 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 -0.16 34.49 male so 16.41 18.02 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 8.97 29.45 male so 15.32 19.09 

BeauFish 2011 CB28 CB 180 3.29 32.25 male so 13.63 20.28 

BeauFish 2011 CB29 CB 180 2.06 32.84 male so 15.31 19.10 

BeauFish 2011 WB02 WB 180 0.16 34.56 male 60 15.13 18.67 

BeauFish 2011 WB13 WB 40 4.28 31.48 male 60 14.79 18.83 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 7.00 31.34 male 60 15.63 18.36 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 2.06 32.84 male 60 15.79 18.11 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 8.97 29.45 male 60 15.32 19.09 

BeauFish 2011 CB34 CB 180 1.42 32.49 male 60 16.16 18.47 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-350 CB 350 0.75 32.50 male 60 15.36 18.25 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-350 CB 350 4.23 32.07 male 60 14.39 18.14 

BeauFish 2011 W807 WB 180 -0.88 33.22 male 70 15.07 18.05 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 0.16 34.63 male 70 15.28 19.79 

BeauFish 2011 CB34 CB 180 8.97 29.45 male 70 16.23 18.46 

BeauFish 2011 CB29 CB 180 1.09 32.56 male 70 14.78 18.02 

BeauFish 2011 CB27 CB 180 9.35 29.21 male 70 13.86 19.33 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-500 CB 200 6.68 31.33 male 70 15.42 19.55 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-350 CB 350 6.86 31.52 male 70 15.23 18.69 

BeauFish 2011 CB34 CB 180 9.10 30.60 male 80 15.71 18.31 

72 
Region 

Water Bottom 

Bottom Size class 

Cruise Year Station depth Temp. r . Sex class 613C (%o) 615N (%o) code (m) (°C) sa 1mty (mm CW) 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 7.00 31.34 male 80 15.28 19.79 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 9.35 29.21 male 80 15.79 18.11 

BeauFish 2011 CBX-500 CB 500 4.53 31.98 male 80 16.82 19.06 

BeauFish 2011 CB34 CB 180 8.97 29.45 male 90 16.61 18.15 

BeauFish 2011 CB2-500 CB 500 2.18 32.37 male 90 16.05 18.85 

BeauFish 2011 CBX-500 CB 500 1.42 32.49 male 90 16.19 18.61 

BeauFish 2011 CBX-500 CB 500 4.23 32.07 male 90 16.25 19.80 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-500 CB 500 3.29 32.25 male 90 16.02 19.05 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-500 CB 500 0.75 32.50 male 90 15.26 19.28 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-500 CB 500 0.75 32.50 male 100 14.97 19.66 

BeauFish 2011 CB2-500 CB 500 7.00 31.34 male 110 16.22 19.47 

Beau Fish 2011 CB2-500 CB 500 6.68 31.33 male 110 14.86 19.80 

BeauFish 2011 CBl-350 CB 350 6.86 31.52 male 110 15.80 18.93 

BeauFish 2011 CB34 CB 180 6.86 31.52 male 120 15.70 18.77 

BeauFish 2011 CB34 CB 180 8.97 29.45 male 120 15.39 17.99 

BeauFish 2011 CB35 CB 220 2.06 32.84 male 120 15.63 18.36 

BeauFish 2011 WB32 WB 80 1.09 31.96 mature female 30 13.05 18.19 

BeauFish 2011 WB31 WB 180 -0.82 33.92 mature female 30 12.70 17.95 

BeauFish 2011 WB28 WB 180 0.41 34.82 mature female 60 14.03 18.60 

BeauFish 2011 CB28 CB 180 0.16 34.63 mature female 60 13.91 19.36 

Beaufish 2011 CB27 CB 180 0.47 34. 78 mature female 60 15.06 19.23 

BREA 2013 BREA4 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 80 13.66 19.23 

BREA 2013 BREA11 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 100 13.44 20.43 

BREA 2013 BREA20 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 100 14.85 18.92 

BREA 2013 BREA22 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 100 14.66 19.00 

BREA 2013 BREA25 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 100 13.95 19.98 

BREA 2013 BREA29 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 100 13.64 20.76 

BREA 2013 BREA30 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 100 13.14 19.36 

BREA 2013 BREA2 CAB 200 -1.21 33.54 male 110 14.05 18.92 

BREA 2013 BREA3 CAB 350 0.52 34.80 male 110 14.85 17.93 

BREA 2013 BREA9 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 110 13.82 19.96 

BREA 2013 BREA 12 CAB 350 0.60 34.80 male 110 15.17 19.44 

BREA 2013 BREA 16 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 110 14.89 19.35 

BREA 2013 BREA 21 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 110 14.60 19.21 

BREA 2013 BREA24 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 110 15.21 18.50 

BREA 2013 BREA27 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 110 14.07 18.74 

BREA 2013 BREA8 CAB 394 0.42 34.84 male 120 14.45 19.07 

BREA 2013 BREA 10 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 120 14.44 18.73 

BREA 2013 BREA14 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 120 13.61 19.07 

BREA 2013 BREA 15 CAB 394 0.42 34.84 male 120 15.25 18.77 

BREA 2013 BREA 19 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 120 15.54 19.73 

BREA 2013 BREA26 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 120 13.89 21.50 

BREA 2013 BREAl CAB 198 -1.42 32.97 male 130 14.41 18.66 

BREA 2013 BREAS CAB 339 0.31 34.90 male 130 16.30 19.48 

73 
Region Water Bottom Bottom Size class Cruise Year Station depth Temp. r i Sexclass 613C (%o) 615N (%o) code (m) (°C) sa in ty (mm CW) 

BREA 2013 BREA6 CAB 42 -0.87 31.66 male 130 12.72 20.52 

BREA 2013 BREA 7 CAB 200 -1.02 33.68 male 130 14.75 18.65 

BREA 2013 BREA 13 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 130 14.39 19.86 

BREA 2013 BREA 17 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 130 14.96 18.64 

BREA 2013 BREA28 CAB 343 0.47 31.01 male 130 15.47 20.20 

74 
BOEM 

The Department of the Interior Mission 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the sound use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish, 

wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our 

national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through 

outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and 

works to ensure that their development 1s in the best interests ot all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also 

has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people 

who live in island communities. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the exploration 

and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that appropriately balances 

economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection through oil 

and gas leases, renewable energy development and environmental reviews and studies. 
·::·· 

.·•:. 

~:· 

• I 

' I I ... 

\ 

.\.