Content uploaded by Krishna Kumar Thakur
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Krishna Kumar Thakur on Oct 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
fmars-07-589549 October 18, 2020 Time: 19:6 # 1
BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT
published: 23 October 2020
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.589549
Edited by:
Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor,
The University of British Columbia,
Canada
Reviewed by:
Ricardo Calado,
University of Aveiro, Portugal
Claudio Vasapollo,
Independent Researcher, Ancona,
Italy
*Correspondence:
Marina K. V. C. Delphino
mdelphino@upei.ca
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture
and Living Resources,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Marine Science
Received: 30 July 2020
Accepted: 06 October 2020
Published: 23 October 2020
Citation:
Patanasatienkul T,
Delphino MKVC and Thakur KK
(2020) Comparing the Effectiveness
of Traditional and Alternative Baits
in Prince Edward Island, Canada
Lobster Fishery.
Front. Mar. Sci. 7:589549.
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.589549
Comparing the Effectiveness of
Traditional and Alternative Baits in
Prince Edward Island, Canada
Lobster Fishery
Thitiwan Patanasatienkul, Marina K. V. C. Delphino*and Krishna K. Thakur
Centre for Veterinary Epidemiological Research, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island,
Charlottetown, PE, Canada
The American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery is an economically important
commercial activity in Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada. This fishery requires
substantial amounts of bait, resulting in an emerging conservation challenge. To address
this issue, an alternative lobster bait, manufactured using fresh and process pelagic
fish, and dehydrated fish, corresponding to 75% less fresh pelagic fish than traditional
bait has been developed by Bait Masters Inc. The performance of the alternative bait
compared to that of the traditional bait was evaluated in a field study. This field trial
was conducted in eight lobster fishing bays around PEI, during the 2019 lobster fishing
seasons. Bait effectiveness was assessed based on catch-per-unit-effort (total lobsters
and number of legal-sized lobsters caught per trap), and the ability to produce a catch.
An average of five lobsters per trap were caught for both alternative and traditional baits.
The results showed that both lobster bait types performed equally well in all PEI lobster
fishing areas studied. This indicates that the alternative bait is a viable replacement for
traditional bait, allowing the lobster fishery industry to address the bait-species shortage
and ongoing conservation challenge.
Keywords: alternative bait, lobster, forage fish, fishery, sustainability, bait
INTRODUCTION
American lobster (Homarus americanus) is an iconic Canadian species and the country’s most
valuable seafood export, having generated a total of $2.6 million CAD in international exports
in 2019 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2020a). Lobster fishery is an economically important
commercial activity for Prince Edward Island (PEI), which accounts for approximately 17.5%
(17,014 metric tonnes) of the annual Canadian lobster landings (Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
2018). PEI has two lobster fishing seasons. The spring lobster fishing season runs from May to
June and provides about 80% of the annual landing. The second season runs in late summer, from
mid-August to mid-October, but is often referred to as fall lobster fishing season (Province of PEI,
2013). Conservation practices, including the implementation of a minimum legal harvesting size,
fishing seasons, escape mechanisms in the traps (for undersized lobsters), the number of fishing
licenses and limits on the number of traps laid have contributed to the stable and successful
development of this fishery (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2013).
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 1October 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 589549
fmars-07-589549 October 18, 2020 Time: 19:6 # 2
Patanasatienkul et al. Effectiveness of Alternative Lobster Bait
Lobsters are caught in baited traps placed on the bottom
of the sea. Commercial lobster fishing requires a significant
amount of bait that traditionally relies heavily on forage fish
such as herring (Clupea harengus harengus) or mackerel (Scomber
scombrus) (Harnish and Willison, 2009;Dellinger et al., 2016).
This practice is resource consuming for fishermen and depletes
bait species stocks. Consequently, the overfishing of forage fish
for crustacean bait and to meet other competing demands, such
as human consumption, has led to the emergence of conservation
challenges for these fish species. As traditional baits become
scarcer, efforts have been made to produce more sustainable
alternative baits, to alleviate some of the pressure that is currently
placed on bait species used by the industry (Chanes-Miranda and
Viana, 2000;Dellinger et al., 2016;Masilan and Neethiselvan,
2018;Araya-Schmidt et al., 2019).
There have been studies quantifying bait used per catch
(Harnish and Willison, 2009), and evaluating economic viability
of using alternative baits, e.g., green crab (St-Hilaire et al., 2016)
and cunner (Hewitt, 2018) in Atlantic Canada’s lobster fisheries.
However, there is still much to learn about the effectiveness
and sustainability of alternative baits in lobster fishery and the
number of studies on this topic is very limited.
A more sustainable and environmentally friendly bait has been
developed by Bait Masters Inc., to replace the traditional bait
used in PEI’s lobster fishery. This alternative bait is made from
a mixture of fresh and processed pelagic fish, contained in an
organic biodegradable casing. The amount of fresh pelagic fish
required in the alternative bait corresponds to one-quarter of that
used in traditional bait.
In the present work, we evaluated the effectiveness, in terms of
catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; defined as total lobsters and legal-
sized lobsters caught per trap) and catchability, of an alternative
bait compared to the traditional bait, using data collected from
a field trial carried out in PEI during the spring and fall of 2019
lobster fishing seasons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Alternative Bait Composition
Alternative bait used in this study is made from a mixture of 25%
fresh and 50% processed pelagic fish (mackerel and/or herring),
10% dehydrated fish, and 15% oil and binder, contained in an
organic biodegradable casing. This plant-based case is mainly
made from banana peels. The bait disintegration time (i.e., period
of time from when the bait is first put in water to its complete
disintegration) has been observed to be, on average, 5 days in
seawater, while the traditional bait lasts for one to 2 days (M.
Prevost, Personal communication, September 23, 2020).
Study Area
The Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence region, PEI, consists of five
lobster fishing areas (LFAs): 23, 24, 25, 26A, and 26B (Figure 1),
based on the definition by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
(Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2014a). LFAs 24 and 26A have
spring lobster fishing season, which runs from May until the end
of June, while LFA 25 is fished in the fall lobster fishing season
and is active from mid-August until mid-October (Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, 2014b).
Study Design and Data Collection
Field trials were carried out in eight bays from three LFAs
around PEI (i.e., 24, 25, and 26A), representing both northern
and southern coasts of the province; the latter includes the
Northumberland Strait (Figure 1). To account for variations
in fishing experience, weather conditions, and day-to-day
variations, lobster traps were deployed from 12 commercial
fishing boats over six consecutive fishing days, during the spring
and fall of 2019 PEI lobster fishing seasons. A single boat was used
in each bay, with the exception of Nine Mile Creek bay, in which
five boats were used. For each boat, six “sites” were randomly
selected based on feasibility to deploy lobster traps (Figure 1). Six
lobster traps were tied in a longline to form a “trap set.” Two trap
sets, each using the same type of bait (traditional or alternative
baits), were deployed per site, 30 – 90 meters apart, to ensure
other conditions (such as lobster abundance and hydrodynamic
conditions, etc.) associated with CPUE and catchability, were
similar for both trap sets. At the sites where it was not feasible
to place a pair of trap sets, a single trap set with the same number
of traps of each bait type (three to six, depending on the site) was
used and the bait order in that trap set was alternated between
traditional and alternative baits. An equal amount of bait was
used in all lobster traps from the same pair of trap sets to account
for effect of bait quantity on CPUE and catchability.
Lobster traps were set daily (from Monday to Saturday) in
each “site.” The traps were retrieved the following day, except
for those set on Saturdays (which were retrieved 2 days later)
or whenever the weather was not permitting. Upon the trap
retrieval, lobsters were removed from the trap, measured and
counted, and those that met legally harvest requirements were
kept, while the rest were released.
Data related to the total number of lobsters caught
(categorized into legal-sized vs. restricted, and gender), type of
bait, fishing boat, bay, trap number, date of trap set, date of catch,
and water temperature were collected.
The restricted lobster refers to the lobster that did not meet the
size restrictions, softshell lobsters, or egg-bearing females. The
number of legal-sized lobsters caught was available and further
broken down into number of male and female lobsters caught.
The number of restricted lobsters caught was also recorded;
however, information on gender of restricted lobsters was not
recorded. The total lobsters caught per trap was calculated as the
sum of the numbers of legal and restricted lobsters.
The duration of the trap in the water (“immersion time”) refers
to period of time from deploying to retrieving a trap. It was later
categorized into the duration of one and more than 1 day. It was
expected that the number of lobsters caught increased with the
duration that the trap stayed in the water, and, therefore, this
variable was accounted for in the multivariable analysis.
Data Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using Stata (Release 16.1;
StataCorp, 2019). A descriptive analysis was carried out to
summarize the data. Mean and 95% confidence intervals,
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 2October 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 589549
fmars-07-589549 October 18, 2020 Time: 19:6 # 3
Patanasatienkul et al. Effectiveness of Alternative Lobster Bait
FIGURE 1 | Map of the study area: Lobster Fishing Areas (24, 25, 26A, and 26B) in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada; black dots represent the location of
wharves for each of the study bays. Data source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2014a); Map created using the open source QGIS.
adjusting for bay clustering effect, were computed for the count
data for traditional and alternative baits.
Effectiveness of lobster bait was determined as (1) the
catch-per-unit effort (CPUE), and (2) catchability. CPUE was
measured by the total lobsters caught per trap, and the number
of legal-sized lobsters caught per trap. Catchability was defined
as the ability to produce a catch (i.e., at least one lobster
caught). The effectiveness of the two bait types was evaluated
using multivariable regression analysis, which was carried out
separately for the spring and fall lobster fishing seasons.
Considering the overdispersion of data, we used negative
binomial regression to evaluate the effect of each lobster bait
on the numbers of total lobsters, and legal-sized lobsters caught
per trap. The baits’ ability to produce a catch (catchability) was
assessed using logistic regression analysis. Bait type, bay, and
immersion time were included in the analyses as fixed-effects.
An interaction between bay and bait type was also included in
the model to assess potential differences in the effect of bait on
CPUE across different bays. These multivariable analyses also
accounted for between-day variation of CPUE and catchability
for each boat. We grouped boat and date of trap set into a
new variable (“boat-date”) and included it as a random-effect in
the analyses. Water temperature data were missing from over
half of the observations and therefore were not included in the
analyses. Model assumptions were tested and residual diagnoses
were performed (Dohoo et al., 2009). Akaike’s information
criterion (AIC) was used to assess the fit of alternate models
(Burnham, 2002).
RESULTS
Descriptive Analysis
Mean and 95% confidence interval, adjusting for the bay
clustering effect, of the number of lobsters caught per trap,
proportion of male and female lobsters, and proportion of
non-empty traps by bait type are presented in Table 1. A total
of 4,252 traps were set to capture lobsters on PEI waters
during the spring and fall of 2019 lobster fishing seasons.
The majority of traps (73%) were set in the spring and 28%
in the fall lobster fishing season (Supplementary Table S1).
The number of traps set were distributed equally between the
traditional and alternative baits (Table 1). On average, a trap
captured around five lobsters, with six percent of the catch
being discarded due to size restrictions, shell condition, or
reproductive status (i.e., bearing eggs). Approximately 70% of
the legal-sized lobsters caught by each trap were male and
90% of the traps caught at least one lobster at the time of
retrieval (Table 1). The average number of lobsters per trap
caught by both alternative, and traditional baits were 3 (SD
2) for spring and 10 (SD 6) for fall lobster fishing seasons
(data not shown).
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 3October 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 589549
fmars-07-589549 October 18, 2020 Time: 19:6 # 4
Patanasatienkul et al. Effectiveness of Alternative Lobster Bait
TABLE 1 | Number of traps (n), mean and 95% confidence intervals adjusting for bay clustering for number of lobsters caught per trap and the proportions of legal-sized,
and male lobsters per trap, and overall proportion of non-empty traps by bait type.
Traditional bait Alternative bait
Variables n Mean (95% CI) n Mean (95% CI)
Legal-sized lobsters 2,127 5 (1,8)2,125 5 (1,8)
Total lobsters 2,127 5 (2,8)2,125 5 (2,8)
Male lobsters 1,855 3 (1,4)1,848 3 (1,4)
Female lobsters 1,855 2 (0,3)1,848 2 (0,4)
Proportion of legal-sized lobsters 1,924 0.94 (0.91,0.98)1,863 0.94 (0.89,0.99)
Proportion of male lobsters 1,634 0.69 (0.50,0.89)1,569 0.67 (0.47,0.88)
Proportion of non-empty traps 2,127 0.90 (0.78,1.00)2,125 0.88 (0.73,1.00)
Multivariable Regression Model
Results from the multivariable regression model, evaluating the
effectiveness of lobster baits, while accounting for immersion
time and boat-date are presented in Table 2. The interaction
effect between bait and bay are presented in Figure 2. Since
the outputs for legal-sized lobsters and the total lobsters
caught per trap were similar, only the results for the latter
are presented. The total number of lobsters caught per trap
using the alternative bait was not significantly different from
that obtained using the traditional bait in all bays (Figure 2).
Additionally, the probability of producing a catch was not
significantly different between the two bait types in any of the
studied bays (Supplementary Figure S1).
DISCUSSION
This study represents the first field trial to evaluate the
performance of an alternative bait in the commercial capture of
lobsters in PEI. Our results indicate that the ability to produce
a catch (catchability) of traditional and alternative baits was not
different in all studied bays. The two bait types also yielded a
similar CPUE in these bays.
Although our study design controlled for the effect of bait
quantity and the analysis adjusted for immersion time and spatial
variation, we could not account for bait loss due to other factors
such as predation and disintegration. The amount of bait used per
trap has been shown to be correlated with the number of lobsters
caught in Maine, the United States, and Nova Scotia, Canada
(Saila et al., 2002;Harnish and Willison, 2009). However, it is
challenging to quantify the amount of bait loss to other factors
in a field setting. For this reason, this was not accounted for in
the analyses but could potentially have affected the number of
lobsters caught.
Under field conditions, disintegration time of this alternative
bait has been observed to be longer than that of the traditional
bait, depending on hydrodynamic conditions (M. Prevost and W.
MacPhee, Personal communication, July 27, 2020); however, this
observation has not been statistically tested.
The number of lobsters caught was higher during the fall
than in the spring lobster fishing season. This same pattern was
also observed in Nova Scotia by Harnish and Willison (2009).
TABLE 2 | Coefficients (β), 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for the effect of bait type, after accounting for other factors, on the number of lobsters caught per trap
using negative binomial multivariable regression analyses for spring and fall of 2019 lobster fishing seasons.
Spring Fall
Variable β95% CI p-value β95% CI p-value
Bait
Traditional (Reference)
Alternative −0.25 [−0.47, −0.03] 0.03 0.05 [−0.02, 0.11] 0.16
Bays – <0.01 – <0.01
Bay ×Baita–<0.01 – <0.01
Immersion timeb
1 day (Reference)
>1 day 0.14 [0.01, 0.28] 0.04 0.20 [−0.01, 0.41] 0.06
Constant 0.06 [−0.15, 0.27] 0.56 2.71 [2.54, 2.88] <0.01
Ln(Alpha) −3.36 [−3.89, −2.82] −3.25 [−3.53, −2.97]
Random effect
Boat-date: variance (SE) 0.02 (0.01) –
Note that the analyses were done separately for spring and fall seasons. aDetails on interaction term (Bay ×Bait) are presented in Figure 2.brefers to period of time
from deploying to retrieving a trap.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 4October 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 589549
fmars-07-589549 October 18, 2020 Time: 19:6 # 5
Patanasatienkul et al. Effectiveness of Alternative Lobster Bait
FIGURE 2 | Predicted number of total lobsters caught per trap with 95% confidence intervals, using traditional and alternative baits in the studied bays in spring and
fall of 2019 lobster fishing seasons in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Note that the analyses were done separately for spring (green) and fall seasons (brown). Gray
dashed lines separate different lobster fishing areas (LFAs).
However, this temporal variation in the number of lobsters
caught may be a result of seasonal geographical differences, given
that the fishing activity in the fall lobster fishing season occurs
only in LFA 25. The water depth in the Northumberland Strait
tends to be shallower than that of other areas around PEI (den
Heyer et al., 2009;Obert and Brown, 2011). Lobsters tend to
migrate from shallow waters to the north of PEI before and
during winter to avoid ice at the sea bottom. They later return
to warmer waters in the Northumberland Strait when the ice
melts in the spring and do not move much from summer to
winter (Comeau and Hanson, 2018). This may explain the larger
number of lobsters caught in LFA 25 that occurred during the fall
lobster fishing season.
While the two types of bait performed equally well, the
alternative bait requires considerably less fresh forage fish in
its composition. As the sustainability of traditional bait is
at risk, DFO has imposed limitations on bait-species fishing
quotas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2020b,c). For this reason,
the development of efficient alternative baits is of paramount
importance to lobster fishery. In addition, it would help
reduce financial burden, arising from labor and time dedicated
to fishing bait-species, while creating job opportunities in
parallel bait-producing industries. However, the lobster fishing
community is traditionally reluctant to adopt alternative bait
products out of fear of income loss due to ineffective baits.
New alternative baits should be properly evaluated in real field
conditions, and their effectiveness supported by robust data to
promote their widespread use. Similar studies in other LFAs
would provide further evidence on the effectiveness of this or
other alternative bait products. Results from such studies could
provide assurance to the lobster fishing community and motivate
them to use these baits, thus, allowing the industry to address the
bait-species shortage and ongoing conservation challenge.
When conducting field trials to evaluate the effectiveness of
lobster bait, potential spatial variation needs to be considered.
The spatial difference in bait effectiveness may be linked to
environmental factors, such as water temperature or bathymetry.
The fact that lobsters rely on their olfactory system to detect
and move toward food source (Derby and Atema, 1982;Devine
and Atema, 1982;Moore et al., 1991;Lees et al., 2018), and that
solubility of the solid substance (e.g., lobster bait) differs between
colder and warmer temperature (Lu et al., 2020) may explain the
spatial difference in the bait effectiveness.
The characteristics (i.e., composition and disintegration time)
of the alternative bait studied help reduce the amount of fresh
pelagic fish used and save bait-related costs. It is expected
that fishermen would reduce their bait cost by 60–80%, saving
approximately $4.95–13.20 CAD for each kg of bait used (M.
Prevost and W. MacPhee, Personal communication, September
22, 2020). However, no formal studies have been conducted to
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 5October 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 589549
fmars-07-589549 October 18, 2020 Time: 19:6 # 6
Patanasatienkul et al. Effectiveness of Alternative Lobster Bait
assess the financial implications of type of bait used, therefore,
a more in-depth analysis should be performed to evaluate the
cost and benefits of alternative bait over traditional bait usage on
lobster fishing.
CONCLUSION
Our study indicates that the alternative bait is a viable
replacement for traditional bait. Further studies could be
performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of this
alternative bait and quantify the reduction in forage fish use for
bait production.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, upon reasonable request, without
undue reservation.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
KT designed the study and Bait Masters Inc. helped to
conduct the field trial and data collection. TP, MD, and KT
carried out the data management and statistical analyses. TP
and MD wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors
contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the
submitted version.
FUNDING
Springboard Atlantic Inc. and National Research Council
Industrial Research Assistance Program funded the design of field
trial and analysis of the field trial data, Department of Fisheries
and Oceans Canada funded the alternative bait development and
field trial implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank John McKinnon and Brendan Hansen
for their assistance in data recording, and all the fishers who
participated in the field trial. We want to extend our gratitude to
the editor and the two reviewers for their feedback, which helped
improve this manuscript.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.
2020.589549/full#supplementary-material
REFERENCES
Araya-Schmidt, T., Olsen, L., Rindahl, L., Larsen, R. B., and Winger, P. D. (2019).
Alternative bait trials in the Barents Sea snow crab fishery. PeerJ. 7:e6874.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.6874
Burnham, K. P. (2002). “Information and likelihood theory: a basis for model
selection and inference,” in Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: A
Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, eds K. P. Burnham and D. R.
Anderson (New York, NY: Springer), 49–97. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-22
456-5_2
Chanes-Miranda, L., and Viana, M. T. (2000). Development of artificial lobster
baits using fish silage from tuna by-products. J. Shellfish Res. 19, 259–264.
Comeau, M., and Hanson, J. M. (2018). American lobster: persistence in the face of
high, size-selective fishing mortality – a perspective from the southern Gulf of
St. Lawrence. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 75, 2401–2411. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2017-
0374
Dellinger, A., Plotkin, J., Duncan, B., Robertson, L., Brady, T., and Kepley, C.
(2016). A synthetic crustacean bait to stem forage fish depletion. Glob. Ecol.
Conserv. 7, 238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2016.07.001
den Heyer, C. E., Chadwick, E. M. P., and Hutchings, J. A. (2009).
Diffusion of American lobster (Homarus americanus) in Northumberland
Strait, Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 659–671. doi: 10.1139/
f09-024
Derby, C. D., and Atema, J. (1982). The function of chemo- and mechanoreceptors
in lobster (Homarus americanus) feeding behaviour. J. Exp. Biol. 98, 317–327.
Devine, D. V., and Atema, J. (1982). Function of chemoreceptor organs in spatial
orientation of the lobster, Homarus americanus: differences and overlap. Biol.
Bull. 163, 144–153. doi: 10.2307/1541504
Dohoo, R. I., Martin, S. W., and Stryhn, H. (2009). “Introduction to clustered data,”
in Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, ed. S. M. McPike (Charlottetown: VER,
Inc), 529–552.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2013). American Lobster, Homarus Americanus,
Stock Status in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: LFA 23, 24, 25, 26a and
26b. Science Advisory Report 2013/029, Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2014a). Lobster Fishing Areas. Available online
at: http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Gulf/Fishing- Area-Maps/Lobster [Accessed
June 20, 2020].
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2014b). Reference Point Options for the Southern
Gulf of St. Lawrence Lobster Stock (Lobster Fishing Areas 23, 24, 25, 26A,
26B). Available online at: https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/363534.
pdf (accessed June 20, 2020).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2018). Seafisheries Landed Quantity by Province,
2018. Available online at: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/commercial/land-
debarq/sea-maritimes/s2018pq- eng.htm [Accessed June 20, 2020].
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020a). Canada’s Fisheries Fast Facts 2019. Available
online at: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/fast_facts_2019.pdf (accessed
September 20, 2020).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020b). Conservation and Harvesting Plan for the
southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Bait Herring/Mackerel Fishery. Available online
at: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/commercial-commerciale/atl-
arc/2020/herring-hareng-eng.html [Accessed September 20, 2020].
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020c). Maritimes Region Commercial Fisheries
Licensing Policy. Available from: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports- rapports/
regs/licences-permis/maritimes/com- fish-lic- pol-permis- peche-com- eng.htm
[Accessed September 20, 2020].
Harnish, L., and Willison, J. M. (2009). Efficiency of bait usage in the Nova Scotia
lobster fishery: a first look. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 345–347. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.
2008.08.005
Hewitt, M. A. (2018). Evaluating Alternative Bait Options for the PEI lobster
fishery in Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 25, Atlantic Canada. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE.
Lees, K. J., Mill, A. C., Skerritt, D. J., Robertson, P. A., and Fitzsimmons, C.
(2018). Movement patterns of a commercially important, free-ranging marine
invertebrate in the vicinity of a bait source. Anim. Biotelem. 6:8. doi: 10.1186/
s40317-018- 0152-4
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 6October 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 589549
fmars-07-589549 October 18, 2020 Time: 19:6 # 7
Patanasatienkul et al. Effectiveness of Alternative Lobster Bait
Lu, J. X., Foster, K., and Murray, J. (2020). Biochemistry, Dissolution and Solubility.
Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing,
Masilan, K., and Neethiselvan, N. (2018). A review on natural and artificial fish bait.
Int. J. Fish. Aquatic Stud. 6, 198–201.
Moore, P. A., Scholz, N., and Atema, J. (1991). Chemical orientation of lobsters,
Homarus americanus, in turbulent odor plumes. J. Chem. Ecol. 17, 1293–1307.
doi: 10.1007/bf00983763
Obert, K. M., and Brown, T. G. (2011). Ice ridge keel characteristics and
distribution in the Northumberland Strait. Cold Regions Sci. Technol. 66, 53–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.01.004
Province of PEI (2013). Independent Review of the Prince Edward Island
Lobster Industry. Available online at: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/
default/filespublications/af_independent_review_of_lobster.pdf [Accessed July
24, 2020].
Saila, S. B., Nixon, S., and Oviatt, C. (2002). Does lobster trap bait influence
the Maine inshore trap fishery? North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 22, 602–605. doi:
10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022< 0602:dltbit>2.0.co;2
StataCorp (2019). Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX:
StataCorp LLC.
St-Hilaire, S., Krause, J., Wight, K., Poirier, L., and Singh, K. (2016). Break-even
analysis for a green crab fishery in PEI, Canada. Manag. Biol. Invasions 7,
297–303. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2016.7.3.09
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that this study received funding from
Springboard Atlantic Inc. The funder only covered for data analysis. The funder
was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data,
the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Copyright © 2020 Patanasatienkul, Delphino and Thakur. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academicpractice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 7October 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 589549
