Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Evaluating habitat-fishery interactions: Submerged aquatic vegetation and blue crab fishery in the Chesapeake Bay

Main Article Content

Nikolaos Mykoniatis corresponding author
Richard Ready


This paper investigates habitat-fisheries interaction between two important resources in the Chesapeake Bay: blue crabs and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). A habitat can be essential to a species (the species is driven to extinction without it), facultative (more habitat means more of the species, but species can exist at some level without any of the habitat) or irrelevant (more habitat is not associated with more of the species). An empirical bioeconomic model that allows for all three possible relationships was estimated and two alternative approaches were used to test whether SAV matters for the crab stock. Our results indicate that a model that incorrectly assumes that habitat is essential to a species can result in model misspecification and biased estimates of the impact of habitat on species productivity. Using a model that assumes an essential relationship, we find that SAV has a significant positive impact on blue crab productivity (p<0.001). However, in a more general model, we failed to reject the null hypothesis that SAV is irrelevant for crabs in the Bay (p>0.05). 

empirical bioeconomics, Chesapeake Bay, essential and facultative habitat, blue crabs, submerged aquatic vegetation

Article Details

How to Cite
Mykoniatis, N., & Ready, R. (2020). Evaluating habitat-fishery interactions: Submerged aquatic vegetation and blue crab fishery in the Chesapeake Bay. Resources and Environmental Economics, 2(2), 207-217.


  1. Kahn JR and Kemp WM. Economic losses associated with the degradation of an ecosystem: the case of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1985, 12: 246-263.
  2. Lubbers L, BoyntonWRand Kemp WM. Variations in structure of estuarine fish communities in relation to abundance of submersed vascular plants. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 1990, 65: 1-14.
  3. Heck KL, Able K, Roman C, et al. Composition, abundance, biomass and production of macrofauna in a New England estuary: Comparisons among eelgrass meadows and other nursery habitats. Estuaries, 1995, 18: 379-389.
  4. VIMS. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. SAV Program monitors and restores bay grasses. A healthy Bay is a grassy Bay.
  5. NOAA. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office. Blue Crab, 2012.
  6. NOAA. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, 2013.
  7. Miller T. Review of the Soft and Peeler Fishery for Blue Crab in the Chesapeake Bay. Report of the BBCAC Technical Work Group Charrette in Solomons, MD, August 29-30, 2001. Report No 3.
  8. Perking-Visser E,Wolcott TG andWolcott DL. Nursery role of seagrass beds: enhanced growth of juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus Rathbun). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 1996, 198: 155-173.
  9. CBF. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay. July 2007, 2007.
  10. CBP. Chesapeake Bay Program. Underwater Bay Grass Abundance (Baywide).
  11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Where Have All the Grasses Gone?
  12. Kemp WM, Boynton WR, Twilley RR, et al. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technology Society Journal, 1983, 17: 78-89.
  13. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2020a. Winter Dredge Survey.
  14. VIMS. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. SAV in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays, 2020.
  15. Maryland Sea Grant. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management for Chesapeake Bay: Summary Brief from the Blue Crab Species Team. Read A, Kramer J, Green S, Smits J. (eds.), 2011.
  16. Foley NS, Armstrong CW, Kahui V, et al. A review of bioeconomic modeling of habitat-fisheries interactions. International Journal of Ecology, 2012, Article ID 861635.
  17. Lynne GD, Conroy P and Prochaska FJ. Economic valuation of marsh areas for marine production processes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1981, 8: 175- 186.
  18. Anderson EE. Economic benefits of habitat restoration: seagrass and the Virginia hard-shell blue crab fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 1989, 9: 140-149.;2
  19. Ellis GM and Fisher AC. Valuing the environment as input. Journal of Environmental Management, 1987, 25: 149-156.
  20. Freeman AM. Valuing environmental resources under alternative management regimes. Ecological Economics, 1991, 3: 247-256.
  21. Mykoniatis N and Ready R. Spatial Harvest Regimes for a Sedentary Fishery. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2016, 65(2): 357-387.
  22. Swallow SK. Renewable and nonrenewable resource theory applied to coastal agriculture, forest, wetland and fishery linkages. Marine Resource Economics, 1994, 9: 291-319.
  23. Foley NS, Kahui V, Armstrong CW, et al. Estimating linkages between redfish and cold water coral on the Norwegian Coast. Marine Resource Economics, 2010, 25: 105-120.
  24. Barbier EB and Strand I. Valuing mangrove-fishery linkages. A case study of Campeche, Mexico. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1998, 12: 151-166.
  25. Barbier EB, Strand I and Sathirathai S. Do open access conditions affect the valuation of an externality? Estimating the welfare effects of mangrove-fishery linkages in Thailand. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 21: 343- 367.
  26. Sathirathai S and Barbier EB. Valuing mangrove conservation in Southern Thailand. Contemporary Economic Policy, 2001, 19: 109-122.
  27. Cosby E. (Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Colonial Beach, VA, U.S.A). Personal communication, 2012.
  28. Hoover SM. (Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Ft. Monroe, V.A., U.S.A). Personal communication, 2013.
  29. Cap Log Group, LLC. Cap Log Reports. Version 5.1, June 2012. Overview of the Virginia Commercial Blue Crab Fishery. Published by Cap Log Goup, LLC.
  30. Cap Log Group, LLC. 2011. Cap Log Reports. Version 4.05, May 2011. Overview of the Maryland Commercial Blue Crab Fishery. Published by Cap Log Goup, LLC.
  31. Miller TJ, Wilberg MJ, Colton AR, et al. Stock Assessment of Blue Crab in Chesapeake Bay 2011. Final Assessment Report.
  32. Smith MD. Bioeconometrics: Empirical Modeling of Bioeconomic Systems. Marine Resource Economics, 2008, 23: 1-23.
  33. Mykoniatis N and Ready R. The Potential Contribution of Oyster Management to Water Quality Goals in the Chesapeake Bay. Water Resources and Economics, 2020, 32: 100167.
  34. Davis G. Personal communication Fisheries Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, January 10, 2013.
  35. Lewis C. (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Administration, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A). Personal communication, 2012.