PURPOSE: To provide access to detailed stomach content data and associated metadata from Atlantic Bluefin Tuna sampled in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence from 2018 to 2023. These data support fisheries science by contributing to analyses of predator–prey dynamics, diet composition, and ecosystem understanding, as well as informing stock assessment and fisheries management activities within Fisheries and Oceans Canada. DESCRIPTION: This dataset contains metadata and stomach content information collected from Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ABFT) caught from mid-August to late September in the commercial fishery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence between 2018 and 2023. Stomach samples were primarily obtained from fish harvested near the eastern end of Prince Edward Island, with additional samples collected from the Miscou/Baie‑des‑Chaleurs area in 2018 and 2019. SAMPLING METHODS: Fish were measured to the nearest curved fork length (cm) and weighed to the nearest round weight (kg). Stomachs were obtained directly from harvesters or through a fish buyer and were stored at −20 ◦C before being processed in the laboratory. Stomachs identification numbers were cross-referenced with ABFT tag numbers recorded by fish provider in order to obtain logbook and port data (catch location, time, weight length, sex, gear, etc.) for each sample. Stomachs were thawed in the laboratory and the content was sorted and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level. For each stomach, prey were weighed collectively as a taxonomic group and individually to the nearest 0.1 g. Dead bait used to capture ABFT, identified by cut marks, were recorded and weighed but excluded from the analysis. Live bait items cannot be identified from stomach content analyses. Only a few otoliths were found in 2018 and their degraded quality precluded performing ageing or species identification. Rare and small prey items such as algae and rocks were classified in the category “other”. Fish remains that could not be identified were classified in the category “Unidentified teleostei remains”. For 2019 to 2023, when stomach content items could not be visually identified and when tissue was available, tissue samples were collected and stored at −20 °C for DNA barcoding analysis. DNA extraction, mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 amplification, Sanger sequencing and species assignation were performed at the Plateforme d’Analyses Génomiques and Plateforme Bio-informatique of the Institut de Biologie Intégrative et des Systèmes (PAG-IBIS, Université Laval, Quebec city, QC, Canada, http://www.ibis.ulaval.ca/en/services-2/genomic-analysis-platform/). DNA was extracted from 20 mg of muscle tissue using the Omega Bio-tek E-Z-96 Tissue DNA Kit (Omega Bio-tek, Norcross GA, USA) following manufacturer instructions. The mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 region was amplified and sequenced as described in Hashemzadeh Segherloo et al., 2021). Sanger forward and reverse reads were analyzed independently using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool against non-redundant sequences to identify the top hit for each sequence. When samples could not be identified by a top hit sequence they were classified as “unidentifiable fish”. Prey items that were successfully identified using DNA barcoding were incorporated into the stomach content analysis database and used in all subsequent diet analyses (abundance, occurrence and weight). The weight of the items used in the database was the weight of the remains as they were, and not reconstructed weights calculated for a live animal of the species identified by the barcoding. USE LIMITATION: To ensure scientific integrity and appropriate use of the data, we would encourage you to contact the data custodian.

Phytoplankton counts (cell/L)) at the 3 fixed stations and some of the 46 stations grouped into Atlantic Zone Monitoring Program (AZMP) transects under Quebec region responsibility. Phytoplankton data counts at AZMP stations in June 2014, 2018 and 2019 are displayed as 5 layers: Diatoms, Dinoflagellates, Flagellates, Protozoans and Total Phytoplankton. Another layer displays the fixed stations Rimouski, Anticosti Gyre and Gaspe Current and the attached files contain the phytoplankton data acquired at those stations: a .png file for each one, showing time series of counts for the 5 groups, and a .csv file containing the data themselves (columns : Latitude,Longitude, Date(UTC), Depth_min/Profondeur_min(m), Depth_max/Profondeur_max(m), Diatoms/Diatomées(cells/L), Dinoflagellates/Dinoflagellés(cells/L), Flagellates/Flagellés(cells/L), Protozoans/Protozoaires(cells/L), Phytoplankton/Phytoplancton(cells/L)). Purpose The Atlantic Zone Monitoring Program (AZMP) was implemented in 1998 with the aim of increasing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) capacity to detect, track and predict changes in the state and productivity of the marine environment. The AZMP collects data from a network of stations composed of high-frequency monitoring sites and cross-shelf sections in each following DFO region: Québec, Gulf, Maritimes and Newfoundland. The sampling design provides basic information on the natural variability in physical, chemical, and biological properties of the Northwest Atlantic continental shelf. Cross-shelf sections sampling provides detailed geographic information but is limited in a seasonal coverage while critically placed high-frequency monitoring sites complement the geography-based sampling by providing more detailed information on temporal changes in ecosystem properties. In Quebec region, two surveys (46 stations grouped into transects) are conducted every year, one in June and the other in autumn in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence. Historically, 3 fixed stations were sampled more frequently. One of these is the Rimouski station that still takes part of the program and is sampled about weekly throughout the summer and occasionally in the winter period. Annual reports (physical, biological and a Zonal Scientific Advice) are available from the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS), (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm). Devine, L., Scarratt, M., Plourde, S., Galbraith, P.S., Michaud, S., and Lehoux, C. 2017. Chemical and Biological Oceanographic Conditions in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence during 2015. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2017/034. v + 48 pp. Supplemental Information Phytoplankton samples are collected using Niskin bottles, preserved with acid Lugol solution and analysed according to AZMP sampling protocol: Mitchell, M. R., Harrison, G., Pauley, K., Gagné, A., Maillet, G., and Strain, P. 2002. Atlantic Zonal Monitoring Program sampling protocol. Can. Tech. Rep. Hydrogr. Ocean Sci. 223: iv + 23 pp.

This visualization product displays the cigarette related items abundance of marine macro-litter (> 2.5cm) per beach per year from Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) monitoring surveys related to UNEP-MARLIN data only. EMODnet Chemistry included the collection of marine litter in its 3rd phase. Since the beginning of 2018, data of beach litter have been gathered and processed in the EMODnet Chemistry Marine Litter Database (MLDB). The harmonization of all the data has been the most challenging task considering the heterogeneity of the data sources, sampling protocols and reference lists used on a European scale. Preliminary processing were necessary to harmonize all the data: - Selection of MSFD surveys only (exclusion of other monitoring, cleaning and research operations); - Exclusion of beaches without coordinates; - Selection of cigarette related items only. The list of selected items is attached to this metadata. This list was created using EU Marine Beach Litter Baselines and EU Threshold Value for Macro Litter on Coastlines from JRC (these two documents are attached to this metadata); - Selection of surveys referring to the UNEP-MARLIN list: the UNEP-MARLIN protocol differs from the other types of monitoring in that cigarette butts are surveyed in a 10m square. To avoid comparing abundances from very different protocols, the choice has been made to distinguish in two maps the cigarette related items results associated with the UNEP-MARLIN list from the others; - Normalization of survey lengths to 100m & 1 survey / year: in some case, the survey length was not exactly 100m, so in order to be able to compare the abundance of litter from different beaches a normalization is applied using this formula: Number of cigarette related items of the survey (normalized by 100 m) = Number of cigarette related items of the survey x (100 / survey length) Then, this normalized number of cigarette related items is summed to obtain the total normalized number of cigarette related items for each survey. Finally, the median abundance of cigarette related items for each beach and year is calculated from these normalized abundances of cigarette related items per survey. Sometimes the survey length was null or equal to 0. Assuming that the MSFD protocol has been applied, the length has been set at 100m in these cases. Percentiles 50, 75, 95 & 99 have been calculated taking into account cigarette related items from MSFD monitoring data (UNEP-MARLIN protocol only) for all years. More information is available in the attached documents. Warning: the absence of data on the map doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, but that no information has been entered in the Marine Litter Database for this area.

This visualization product displays the cigarette related items abundance of marine macro-litter (> 2.5cm) per beach per year from Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) monitoring surveys without UNEP-MARLIN data. EMODnet Chemistry included the collection of marine litter in its 3rd phase. Since the beginning of 2018, data of beach litter have been gathered and processed in the EMODnet Chemistry Marine Litter Database (MLDB). The harmonization of all the data has been the most challenging task considering the heterogeneity of the data sources, sampling protocols and reference lists used on a European scale. Preliminary processings were necessary to harmonize all the data: - Exclusion of OSPAR 1000 protocol: in order to follow the approach of OSPAR that it is not including these data anymore in the monitoring; - Selection of MSFD surveys only (exclusion of other monitoring, cleaning and research operations); - Exclusion of beaches without coordinates; - Selection of cigarette related items only. The list of selected items is attached to this metadata. This list was created using EU Marine Beach Litter Baselines, the European Threshold Value for Macro Litter on Coastlines and the Joint list of litter categories for marine macro-litter monitoring from JRC (these three documents are attached to this metadata); - Selection of surveys referring to the UNEP-MARLIN list: the UNEP-MARLIN protocol differs from the other types of monitoring in that cigarette butts are surveyed in a 10m square. To avoid comparing abundances from very different protocols, the choice has been made to distinguish in two maps the cigarette related items results associated with the UNEP-MARLIN list from the others; - Normalization of survey lengths to 100m & 1 survey / year: in some case, the survey length was not exactly 100m, so in order to be able to compare the abundance of litter from different beaches a normalization is applied using this formula: Number of cigarette related items of the survey (normalized by 100 m) = Number of cigarette related items of the survey x (100 / survey length) Then, this normalized number of cigarette related items is summed to obtain the total normalized number of cigarette related items for each survey. Finally, the median abundance of cigarette related items for each beach and year is calculated from these normalized abundances of cigarette related items per survey. Sometimes the survey length was null or equal to 0. Assuming that the MSFD protocol has been applied, the length has been set at 100m in these cases. Percentiles 50, 75, 95 & 99 have been calculated taking into account cigarette related items from MSFD monitoring data (excluding UNEP-MARLIN protocol) for all years. More information is available in the attached documents. Warning: the absence of data on the map does not necessarily mean that they do not exist, but that no information has been entered in the Marine Litter Database for this area.

Moving 6-year analysis of Water body dissolved oxygen concentration in the NorthEast Atlantic for each season: - winter: January-March, - spring: April-June, - summer: July-September, - autumn: October-December. Every year of the time dimension corresponds to the 6-year centred average of each season. 6-year periods span from 1950/1955 until 2019/2024. Observation data span from 1950 to 2024. Depth levels (IODE standard depths): [0.0, 5.0, 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 75.0, 100.0, 125.0, 150.0, 200.0, 250.0, 300.0, 400.0, 500.0, 600.0, 700.0, 800.0, 900.0, 1000.0, 1100.0, 1200.0, 1300.0, 1400.0, 1500.0, 1750.0, 2000.0, 2500.0, 3000.0]. Data sources: observational data from SeaDataNet/EMODNet Chemistry Data Network. Description of DIVAnd analysis: the computation was done with DIVAnd (Data-Interpolating Variational Analysis in n dimensions), version 2.7.12, using GEBCO 30 sec topography for the spatial connectivity of water masses. The horizontal resolution of the produced DIVAnd maps is 0.1 degrees. Horizontal correlation length varies from 400km in open sea regions to 50km at the coast. Vertical correlation length is defined as twice the vertical resolution. Signal-to-noise ratio was fixed to 1 for vertical profiles and 0.1 for time series to account for the redundancy in the time series observations. A logarithmic transformation (DIVAnd.loglin) was applied to the data prior to the analysis. Background field: a vertically-filtered profile of the seasonal data mean value (including all years) is substracted from the data. Detrending of data: no, advection constraint applied: no. Units: umol/l.

The assessment of the status of eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds at the bay-scale in turbid, shallow estuaries is problematic. The bay-scale assessment (i.e., tens of km) of eelgrass beds usually involves remote sensing methods such as aerial photography or satellite imagery. These methods can fail if the water column is turbid, as is the case for many shallow estuaries on Canada’s eastern seaboard. A novel towfish package was developed for the bay-scale assessment of eelgrass beds irrespective of water column turbidity. The towfish consisted of an underwater video camera with scaling lasers, sidescan sonar and a transponder-based positioning system. The towfish was deployed along predetermined transects in three northern New Brunswick estuaries. Maps were created of eelgrass cover and health (epiphyte load) and ancillary bottom features such as benthic algal growth, bacterial mats (Beggiatoa) and oysters. All three estuaries had accumulations of material reminiscent of the oomycete Leptomitus, although it was not positively identified in our study. Tabusintac held the most extensive eelgrass beds of the best health. Cocagne had the lowest scores for eelgrass health, while Bouctouche was slightly better. The towfish method proved to be cost effective and useful for the bay-scale assessment of eelgrass beds to sub-meter precision in real time. Cite this data as: Vandermeulen H. Data of: Bay Scale Assessment of Eelgrass Using Sidescan and Video - Cocagne 2008. Published: November 2019. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/431c815e-65f0-477b-9389-060fa41ec955

Nearshore marine construction activities often involve projects conducted directly in or adjacent to eelgrass beds and can have detrimental effects on eelgrass health, through physical destruction of beds, smothering of plants by sediment, and light reduction from turbidity. A liquefied natural gas (LNG) marine terminal is proposed to be constructed near Goldboro in Isaacs Harbour on the Eastern shore of Nova Scotia in an area where sediments are contaminated with heavy metals from historical goldmining tailings. We conducted a pre-impact assessment of the eelgrass beds in Isaacs Harbour and in adjacent contaminated and non-contaminated harbours. We used underwater video to precisely map the eelgrass bed in the direct construction footprint in Isaacs Harbour. We surveyed 169 stations along ~40 km of coastline from Wine Harbour to New Harbour to identify eelgrass presence or absence in the nearby region and provide data on the distribution and abundance of other sensitive fish habitat such as kelp and other macrophytes. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed for grain size, organic matter content and heavy metal contamination. We also collected eelgrass plants to assess plant condition using morphological and physiological metrics, and heavy metal contamination in plant tissues. The overall condition of eelgrass plants in the surveyed area fell within the range of healthy plant characteristics (morphometrics and carbohydrates reserves) seen elsewhere along the Atlantic coast. However, a few stations displayed high arsenic and mercury contamination in sediments, which translated in some cases to high contamination in eelgrass rhizomes and leaves. There would be significant risk of impact on benthic habitat and contamination of marine biota from resuspension of sediments during a construction and operation of a ship terminal in Isaacs Harbour. This pre-impact assessment will allow DFO to assess the LNG terminal construction proposal and develop appropriate mitigation and monitoring procedures. Collected data will also be used for habitat-forming species distribution modeling to inform marine spatial and conservation planning. Vercaemer, B., O’Brien, J. M., Guijarro-Sabaniel, J. and Wong, M. C. 2022. Distribution and condition of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the historical goldmining region of Goldboro, Nova Scotia. Can. Tech. Rep. Aquat. Sci. 3513: v + 67 p. Cite this data as: Vercaemer, B., O’Brien, J. M., Guijarro-Sabaniel, J., Wong, M. Data of: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) study in the historical goldmining region of Goldboro, Nova Scotia (2020). Published: February 2023. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ee88aa17-fd30-4d4a-8924-897fd47cf560

This dataset was compiled as part of a multiyear effort lead by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to support sustainable aquaculture regulation in the Coast of Bays, an area of the south coast of Newfoundland. It is the second of a series aiming to provide an oceanographic knowledge baseline of the Coast of Bays. This dataset includes temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen concentration profiles collected during CTD surveys, each survey containing a varying number of casts/profiles taken within the area of interest. In total, 760 profiles from 11 surveys, executed over 276 stations, were collected from June 2009 to November 2013. Data were processed and quality controlled using the instrumentation manufacturer guidelines, custom tools as well as visual inspection. Data are provided in tab-delimited text-based format compatible with most data processing language and tools (e.g. MS. Excel) as well as with the Ocean Data View software (https://odv.awi.de/) for rapid visualisation. A summary of the CTD profiles and stations surveyed is also provided as a comma separated values (CSV) file. A full description of the data and of its use in the context of the motivating project can be found in http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2017/2017_077-eng.html. Analyses from this dataset were presented during a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) meeting which took place in St John’s in March 2015 (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/schedule-horraire/2015/03_25-26b-eng.html) and from which a Science Advisory Report (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_039-eng.html) and Proceedings (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/Pro-Cr/2017/2017_043-eng.html) were published.

Moving 6-year analysis of Water body phosphate in the Baltic Sea. Four seasons (March-May, June-August, September-November, December-February). Every year of the time dimension corresponds to a 6-year centred average. Periods span between 1980-1985 and 2013-2018. Analyses for depths (m) (HELCOM standard depths): 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, 275, 300. Data Sources: observational data from SeaDataNet/EMODnet Chemistry Data Network. Description of DIVA analysis: Geostatistical data analysis by DIVA (Data-Interpolating Variational Analysis) tool. GEBCO Grid (30 arc-seconds) topography is used for the contouring preparation. Files contain analysed fields, error fields and combined field with the deepest value for each grid point selected. Also pre-masked fields using relative error threshold 0.3 and 0.5 are included. In the analyses the Correlation length in the horizontal direction were fixed to 80 km and in the vertical direction to 25 m. Signal to noise ratio were fixed to 1.0. Background fields were created using data for the given time period and season. Log transformation was used in the analyses. No detrending, advection constraints or weighting are applied. Unit is umol/l.

Data layers show commercial fishery footprints for directed fisheries using bottom and pelagic longlines for groundfish and large pelagics respectively, and traps for hagfish, LFA 41 and Grey Zone lobster, snow crab, and other crab on the Scotian Shelf, the Bay of Fundy, and Georges Bank in NAFO Divisions 4VWX and Canadian portions of 5Y and 5Z. Bottom longline and trap fishery maps aggregate commercial logbook effort (bottom longline soak time and logbook entries) per 2-minute grid cell using 2002–2017 data. Pelagic longline maps aggregate speed-filtered vessel monitoring system (VMS) track lines as vessel minutes per km2 on a base-10 log scale using 2003–2018 data. The following data layers are included in the mapping service for use in marine spatial planning and ecological risk assessment: 1) multi-year and quarterly composite data layers for bottom longline and trap gear, and 2) multi-year and monthly composite data layers for pelagic longline gear. Additional details are available online: S. Butler, D. Ibarra and S. Coffen-Smout, 2019. Maritimes Region Longline and Trap Fisheries Footprint Mapping for Marine Spatial Planning and Risk Assessment. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3293: v + 30 p. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/mpo-dfo/Fs97-6-3293-eng.pdf