DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Joint Management of Catch and Bycatch and the Use of Marine Reserves

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Joint Management of Catch and Bycatch and the Use of Marine Reserves IIFET 2006 Portsmouth Proceedings ON THE JOINT MANAGEMENT OF CATCH AND BYCATCH AND THE USE OF MARINE RESERVES Siv Reithe, Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, Norway. e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper explores the possibility of using marine reserves to protect stocks subject to bycatch problems. The importance of migration rates and growth rates of both target and bycatch species and costs are analyzed. Pure open access equilibrium harvest of target species and stock level of bycatch species are compared to those generated by a reserve and open access in the harvest zone. Win-win situations, situations where both harvest of target species and stock size of bycatch species increase, are searched for. It is shown that using a reserve to protect a slow moving bycatch species is more likely to be a success than in the case of a fast moving bycatch species. Furthermore, a fast moving species is worse off after the introduction of a reserve if it has an intrinsic growth rate that is lower than the target species, and in some cases a reserve may actually drive the bycatch stock to extinction. No win-win situations are found in the case of a fast moving species. In the case of a slow moving bycatch species a reserve increases stock size and in cases with low unit cost of effort win-win situations are identified. INTRODUCTION Bycatch is a common problem in fisheries. [1] estimated the world’s total discards to be about 25% of the total commercial catch (by weight). In the fishery south east of Australia more than 100 species are caught, but only 15 of them account for 80% of the value [2]. In the Northeastern US only half of the total catch (by weight) taken by ground fish trawl, sink gillnet and scallop dredge vessels at Georges Bank during the 1990s consisted of the targeted species [3]. In the same region, protected species like harbor porpoise, right whale, leatherback and green sea turtles are taken as bycatch in different fisheries [4]. Other examples of fisheries with bycatch problems are dolphins caught in tuna fisheries and juvenile cod, haddock, redfish and greenland halibut taken as bycatch in the Barents Sea shrimp fishery. In many fisheries where there are bycatch problems the problem is sought dealt with with technical constraints on gear such as sorting grids in trawl bags, mesh size and shape restrictions. Also economic instruments such as taxes or tradable permits may be used to protect species that are taken as bycatch. This paper analyzes the possibilities of using marine reserves as a tool in the management of bycatch. The possibilities of win-win situations, defined as cases where both biomass of bycatch stock and harvest of targeted species occur, are also sought for. Some studies on the use of temporarily closed areas as a method of reducing bycatch or protect bycatch species have been conducted. [5] compare the use of temporarily closed areas and individual transferable quotas (ITQs) on bycatch of harbour porpoise in the New England multispecies gillnet fisheries and find that for a given level of bycatch ITQs are more profitable. [6] evaluate a suggested model for bycatch management using temporarily closed areas in the Barents Sea. Here, an area is closed whenever a maximum number of juvenile fish of different species are caught in the shrimp trawl nets. The decision to close is based on bioeconomic 1 IIFET 2006 Portsmouth Proceedings criteria balancing the value of lost shrimp catches resulting from a closure, and the value of future loss of catches of fish which will be taken as bycatch if the area is not closed. The maximum number of juveniles allowed in the shrimp catches will in certain cases be so high that, in practice, closure will not occur. [7] examines how the creation of a reserve of a given size affects harvest of targeted species and stock level of bycatch species under different assumptions regarding the ecological interactions between the two species. It is found that if there are no interactions between targeted and bycatch species or if bycatch species prey on bycatch species, a reserve increase the biomass of the bycatch stock, but if the two species compete, the biomass of the bycatch stock decreases a result of the reserve. In many analyses of marine reserves it is assumed that the biomass in the area covered by a reserve will increase as the result of the reserve. [8] reviews a number of empirical studies on the effects on marine reserves and finds that this is not the case for all species. [9] finds that for three out of ten species covered by a reserve outside South Africa no increase in abundance within the reserve could be detected. Their migratory nature was described as the probable cause for these findings. Others have found that the concentration of fish of certain species is greater in the harvest zone than within the reserve [10, 11]. In these cases other explanations have been forwarded; decreased competition with target species in the fishing zone and predator- prey interactions. In this paper we consider two cases for the bycatch stock; i) the abundance of fish is higher within the reserve then in the harvest zone, ii) the distribution of does not alter as a result of the reserve and the reason is speed of migration. In the first case we set the migration coefficient low, hence, the analysis may bee seen as a comparison of two extremes, the outcome of a reserve for one fast moving and one slow moving bycatch species. This paper extends previous works in that speed of migration, growth rate and the success of a reserve are analyzed in the setting of a bycatch species, and in that these factors are analyzed in relation to the properties of the targeted species. It is shown that the speed of motion of the bycatch species clearly matter when measuring the effect of a reserve, but also that how fast it grows relative to targeted specie and the unit cost of effort plays an important role. The outline of the paper is as follows; first the model is described, then a comparison of the effects of a reserve on the two bycatch stocks is made. In the third section the possibilities of win-win situations are identified. Some concluding remarks finalize the paper. THE MODEL Pre-reserve dynamics The model for the targeted species and bycatch species with migration is from [12]. This model is chosen because it has the property that pre- and post-reserve harvest is equal. The pre-reserve dynamics with harvest are given by ( 1 ) S& = r[]S(1− S) − ES Where S is the normalized stock level, r the intrinsic growth rate and E is normalized effort so that the catchability coefficient equals r. The rent function is defined as 2 IIFET 2006 Portsmouth Proceedings ( 2 ) π = prES − aE where p is a constant price per unit catch of targeted species and a is the cost per unit effort. Under open access the equilibrium rent is zero, resulting in an equilibrium stock level of the a targeted species S = = c . pr The equilibrium stock level, found by equating (1) to zero and solving for S, is ( 3 ) S(E) =1− E The dynamics of the bycatch stock are described by the following: ( 4 ) Z& = gZ(1− Z) − qEZ Where Z is the normalized stock level, g is the intrinsic growth rate and q is the catchability coefficient of the bycatch function. The equilibrium stock level of bycatch stock is q ( 5 ) Z(E) =1− E g Post-reserve dynamics When implementing a reserve of size 0 < m < 1, S = S1 + S2, where S1 is the stock in the reserve and S2 the stock in the fishable area and S1/m and S2/(1-m) are the densities. Growth after reserve formation is assumed to equal growth prior to reserve formation. The dynamics after reserve formation then become: ⎡ ⎛ S1 S2 ⎞⎤ ( 6 ) S&1 = r⎢S1 (1− S1 − S 2 ) − γ ⎜ − ⎟⎥ ⎣ ⎝ m 1− m ⎠⎦ ⎡ ⎛ S1 S 2 ⎞ S 2 ⎤ ( 7 ) S&2 = r⎢S 2 (1− S1 − S 2 ) + γ ⎜ − ⎟ − E ⎥ ⎣ ⎝ m 1− m ⎠ 1− m⎦ Where γ is the ratio of the migration coefficient over the intrinsic growth rate. Adding (6) and (7) we get ⎡ S2 ⎤ ( 8 ) S& = r⎢S(1− S) − E ⎥ ⎣ 1− m⎦ Hence, equilibrium yield from the targeted stock is H = rS(1-S) as prior to reserve formation. With open access in area 2 equilibrium stock densities as functions of effort becomes 3 IIFET 2006 Portsmouth Proceedings ( 9 ) S2 = c(1− m) m(1− c(1+ m)) −γ − (γ + (c(1+ m) −1)m)2 + 4cm2γ ( 10 ) S = 1 2m For the bycatch stock in question we shall consider two cases. In the first case, following Reithe (2006), we assume that reserve formation does not affect the distribution of the stock, that is, post-reserve density is uniform throughout its entire distribution area. The growth is therefore only affected by reserve formation through changes in effort and post-reserve dynamics are described by ( 11 ) Z& = gZ(1− Z) − qE(m)Z(1− m) Equilibrium stock with a reserve and open access is given by q ( 12 ) Z(E,m) =1− E(m)(1− m) g This approach may be a good approximation either when the species is very fast moving, or when the catchability coefficient is low. In the second case migration is explicitly modeled; ⎡ ⎛ Z1 Z 2 ⎞⎤ ( 13 ) Z&1 = g⎢Z1 (1− Z1 − Z 2 ) − λ⎜ − ⎟⎥ ⎣ ⎝ m 1− m ⎠⎦ ⎡ ⎛ Z1 Z 2 ⎞⎤ Z 2 ( 14 ) Z& 2 = g⎢Z 2 (1− Z1 − Z 2 ) + λ⎜ − ⎟⎥ − qE ⎣ ⎝ m 1− m ⎠⎦ 1− m Where λ is the ratio of the migration coefficient over the intrinsic growth rate for the bycatch species.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Blue Paradox: Preemptive Overfishing in Marine Reserves
    PAPER The blue paradox: Preemptive overfishing in COLLOQUIUM marine reserves Grant R. McDermotta,1,2, Kyle C. Mengb,c,d,1,2, Gavin G. McDonaldb,e, and Christopher J. Costellob,c,d,e aDepartment of Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; bBren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; cDepartment of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; dNational Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138; and eMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Edited by Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, and approved July 25, 2018 (received for review March 9, 2018) Most large-scale conservation policies are anticipated or an- This line of reasoning suggests that the anticipation of a new nounced in advance. This risks the possibility of preemptive conservation policy may give rise to a set of incentives that is resource extraction before the conservation intervention goes distinct from—but possibly just as important as—the incentives into force. We use a high-resolution dataset of satellite-based fish- arising from the policy’s implementation. While this kind of pre- ing activity to show that anticipation of an impending no-take emptive behavior has been well-documented for landowners, gun marine reserve undermines the policy by triggering an unin- owners, and owners of natural resource extraction rights, it has tended race-to-fish. We study one of the world’s largest marine not been studied in the commons. For vast swaths of the ocean, reserves, the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA), and find that no single owner has exclusive rights and so must compete against fishers more than doubled their fishing effort once this area was others for extraction.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Protected Areas (Mpas) in Management 1 of Coral Reefs
    ISRS BRIEFING PAPER 1 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS (MPAS) IN MANAGEMENT 1 OF CORAL REEFS SYNOPSIS Marine protected areas (MPAs) may stop all extractive uses, protect particular species or locally prohibit specific kinds of fishing. These areas may be established for reasons of conservation, tourism or fisheries management. This briefing paper discusses the potential uses of MPAs, factors that have affected their success and the conditions under which they are likely to be effective. ¾ MPAs are often established as a conservation tool, allowing protection of species sensitive to fishing and thus preserving intact ecosystems, their processes and biodiversity and ultimately their resilience to perturbations. ¾ Increases in charismatic species such as large groupers in MPAs combined with the perception that the reefs there are relatively pristine mean that MPAs can play a significant role in tourism. ¾ By reducing fishing mortality, effective MPAs have positive effects locally on abundances, biomass, sizes and reproductive outputs of many exploitable site- attached reef species. ¾ Because high biomass of focal species is sought but this is quickly depleted and is slow to recover, poaching is a problem in most reef MPAs. ¾ Target-species ‘spillover’ into fishing areas is likely occurring close to the MPA boundaries and benefits will often be related to MPA size. Evidence for MPAs acting as a source of larval export remains weak. ¾ The science of MPAs is at an early stage of its development and MPAs will rarely suffice alone to address the main objectives of fisheries management; concomitant control of effort and other measures are needed to reduce fishery impacts, sustain yields or help stocks to recover.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Patterns in Marine Mammal Distributions
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. TAXONOMIC DECISIONS In this work we followed Wilson and Reeder (2005) and Reeves, Stewart, and Clapham’s (2002) taxonomy. In the last 20 years several new species have been described such as Mesoplodon perrini (Dalebout 2002), Orcaella heinsohni (Beasley 2005), and the recognition of several species have been proposed for orcas (Perrin 1982, Pitman et al. 2007), Bryde's whales (Kanda et al. 2007), Blue whales (Garrigue et al. 2003, Ichihara 1996), Tucuxi dolphin (Cunha et al. 2005, Caballero et al. 2008), and other marine mammals. Since we used the conservation status of all species following IUCN (2011), this work is based on species recognized by this IUCN to keep a standardized baseline. II. SPECIES LIST List of the species included in this paper, indicating their conservation status according to IUCN (2010.4) and its range area. Order Family Species IUCN 2010 Freshwater Range area km2 Enhydra lutris EN A2abe 1,084,750,000,000 Mustelidae Lontra felina EN A3cd 996,197,000,000 Odobenidae Odobenus rosmarus DD 5,367,060,000,000 Arctocephalus australis LC 1,674,290,000,000 Arctocephalus forsteri LC 1,823,240,000,000 Arctocephalus galapagoensis EN A2a 167,512,000,000 Arctocephalus gazella LC 39,155,300,000,000 Arctocephalus philippii NT 163,932,000,000 Arctocephalus pusillus LC 1,705,430,000,000 Arctocephalus townsendi NT 1,045,950,000,000 Carnivora Otariidae Arctocephalus tropicalis LC 39,249,100,000,000 Callorhinus ursinus VU A2b 12,935,900,000,000 Eumetopias jubatus EN A2a 3,051,310,000,000 Neophoca cinerea
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Marine Protected Areas in Sustaining Fisheries
    The role of marine protected areas in sustaining fisheries Callum Roberts University of York, UK After World War II there was much optimism that fisheries could feed the World. But at the beginning of the 21st century, we are not so sure. Quota management of fisheries in the European Union has failed to deliver sustainability 100 80 60 40 20 Percentage of Quota Fish Stocks of Quota Percentage 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Healthy At risk In danger Data from ICES Cod decline in the Kattegat, North Sea Extinction is the ultimate in unsustainable fishing, whether or not the species of concern are targets of the fishery What is missing from fishery management? • Real provision for habitat protection and recovery • Precautionary targets • Resolute enforcement Objectives of marine reserves Maintaining ecosystem processes and services Conservation Sustaining fisheries Tree cover www.worldwildlife.org/oceans/pdfs/fishery_effects.pdf Spillover Reproduction & Dispersal Colonization & Growth Abundance Diversity What is the evidence that reserves work? Reserves all over the world show dramatic increases in spawning stocks Usually by at least 2-3 times in 5-10 years Long-term studies in New Zealand, Philippines, Florida and many other countries show strong responses to reserve protection Fish in reserves do live longer, grow larger and produce more eggs Egg production from protected fish stocks increases by much more than stock biomass Catches do increase Soufrière Marine Management Area, St. Lucia: Established 1995 35% of reef area closed
    [Show full text]
  • Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs
    little fish BIG IMPACT Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs A report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force The Lenfest Ocean Program invests in scientific research on the environmental, economic, and social impacts of fishing, fisheries management, and aquaculture. Supported research projects result in peer-reviewed publications in leading scientific journals. The Program works with the scientists to ensure that research results are delivered effectively to decision makers and the public, who can take action based on the findings. The program was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts (www.lenfestocean.org, Twitter handle: @LenfestOcean). The Institute for Ocean Conservation Science (IOCS) is part of the Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. It is dedicated to advancing ocean conservation through science. IOCS conducts world-class scientific research that increases knowledge about critical threats to oceans and their inhabitants, provides the foundation for smarter ocean policy, and establishes new frameworks for improved ocean conservation. Suggested citation: Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Cover photo illustration: shoal of forage fish (center), surrounded by (clockwise from top), humpback whale, Cape gannet, Steller sea lions, Atlantic puffins, sardines and black-legged kittiwake. Credits Cover (center) and title page: © Jason Pickering/SeaPics.com Banner, pages ii–1: © Brandon Cole Design: Janin/Cliff Design Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas
    Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Guidelines for Marine MPAs are needed in all parts of the world – but it is vital to get the support Protected Areas of local communities Edited and coordinated by Graeme Kelleher Adrian Phillips, Series Editor IUCN Protected Areas Programme IUCN Publications Services Unit Rue Mauverney 28 219c Huntingdon Road CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK Tel: + 41 22 999 00 01 Tel: + 44 1223 277894 Fax: + 41 22 999 00 15 Fax: + 44 1223 277175 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 3 IUCN The World Conservation Union The World Conservation Union CZM-Centre These Guidelines are designed to be used in association with other publications which cover relevant subjects in greater detail. In particular, users are encouraged to refer to the following: Case studies of MPAs and their Volume 8, No 2 of PARKS magazine (1998) contributions to fisheries Existing MPAs and priorities for A Global Representative System of Marine establishment and management Protected Areas, edited by Graeme Kelleher, Chris Bleakley and Sue Wells. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, and IUCN. 4 vols. 1995 Planning and managing MPAs Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers, edited by R.V. Salm and J.R. Clark. IUCN, 1984. Integrated ecosystem management The Contributions of Science to Integrated Coastal Management. GESAMP, 1996 Systems design of protected areas National System Planning for Protected Areas, by Adrian G. Davey. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Marine Reserves Ecological Monitoring Plan 2012
    Oregon Marine Reserves Ecological Monitoring Plan 2012 Marine Resources Program Newport, Oregon Acknowledgments: Thank you to the Redfish Rocks and Otter Rock Marine Reserve Community Teams, biological working groups, local fishermen, divers and scientific experts for their time, hard work, and contribution to the development of the monitoring plan and to this document. Individual Acknowledgments: Otter Rock Community Team Biological Working Group: Jim Burke, Terry Thompson, Paul Erskine and Gary Wise Redfish Rocks Community Team Science Working Group: Jim Golden, Dick Vander Schaaf, Dave Lacey, Brianna Goodwin, Lyle Keeler Advisors: Mark Carr, Mark Hixon, Alan Shanks, Rick Starr, Brian Tissot and the members of the Ocean Policy and Advisory Council’s Science and Technical Advisory Committee. Contributors: Alix Laferriere, Cristen Don, David Fox, Keith Matteson, Mike Donnellan, Scott Groth, Annie Pollard. Cover photo: Scott Groth. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-7701 x 227 www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ www.oregonocean.info/marinereserves Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Monitoring Plan Purpose..................................................................................................................... 1 B. Marine Reserves: Oregon’s Policy Guidance ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biscayne National Park National Park Service
    National Park Service Marine Reserves for People A National Park Perspective Biscayne National Park National Park Service Mark Lewis Superintendent Biscayne National Park [email protected] 786-335-3643 Biscayne National Park National Park Service From just south of Key Biscayne to just north of Key Largo. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Adjacent to approx 3 million people Biscayne National Park National Park Service Biscayne National Park • preserves and protects 173,000 acres of reefs, islands and most of Biscayne Bay; • contains over 5,000 patch reefs; • is the largest tropical marine park in the National Park system; • is a tourism, recreation & education destination for over ½ million people each year. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Mission of the National Park Service ...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? The purpose of the marine reserve would be to provide the public the opportunity to experience a healthy, natural reef with a wide diversity of fish species and sizes; Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? to create an area of the park where visitors can experience greater abundance, larger individuals, and higher diversity of fishes, corals, and other organisms. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? If you go to Yellowstone NP you expect to see bison; If you go to Redwoods NP you expect to see giant trees; Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? If you go to the largest tropical marine park in the national park system, you expect to see healthy coral reefs teeming with diverse and large fish.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve, a Coral Reef Marine Protected Area in Belize
    The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve in Belize. Draft report. V Hargreaves-Allen The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve, a Coral Reef Marine Protected Area in Belize. By Venetia Hargreaves-Allen Conservation Strategy Fund. Acronyms. CS: consumer surplus CPUE: catch per unit effort CVM: contingent valuation method FoN: Friends of Nature GSSCMR: Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve MPA: marine protected area MR: marine reserve NPV: net present value PS: producer surplus WTP: willingness to pay Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Lindsay Garbutt, Nigel Martinez, William Muschamp, Shannon Romero, and all the rangers at Friends of Nature for their continued support and daily help, without which this research could never have happened. Technical advice was provided by Linwood Pendleton, EJ Milner-Gulland, Susana Mourato and John Dixon. Funding was this study was provided by Conservation International, under the Marine Management Area Science program and through a PhD scholarship provided by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment research council, in the UK. The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve in Belize. Draft report. V Hargreaves-Allen Executive Summary. Marine Protected Areas Maintain Economic Values Coral reef marine protected areas (MPAs) protect ecosystem services that directly and indirectly contribute to the welfare of people, both nearby and far away. They do this by protecting species and their habitats from some of the many stressors that affect reefs. For example, they reduce the damaging effects of unsustainable fishing and inappropriate gear, as well as damage from anchors and trampling associated with tourism.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Discards and Unwanted Bycatch in European Trawl Fisheries
    Reducing d iscard s and unwanted bycatch in European trawl fisheries POSITION PAPER WWF’s mission is to conserve nature and ecological processes, while ensuring the sustainable use of renewable resources. As such, WWF works with governments and stakeholders to achieve sustainable fisheries through the implementation of ecosystem-based management March 2007 of all maritime activities. Introduction – bycatch and discards Most fisheries catch animals that were not originally targeted. This extra catch is known as bycatch . Of this bycatch some will have a commercial value and are landed by fishermen. Often, however, a proportion is unwanted and subsequently discarded (i.e. thrown back dead or dying over the side). Such unwanted bycatch is a major environmental problem in European fisheries as it is wasteful and can lead to high levels of mortality among fish that could otherwise have helped re-build and replenish stocks. Discarding of mature animals represents an immediate loss of spawning stock biomass and it is clear that a package of measures are needed to address this problem if European fisheries are to be sustainable. There are solutions to bycatch but there is not going to be a one size fits all fix. Solutions will need to be tailored to individual fisheries in response to the main cause of discarding and will likely involve not one measure but a range of measures working together to reduce the level of unwanted fish mortality. The reasons for discards are many including high-grading, the capture of fish which are below legal minimum landings size, of low economic value, or of poor marketable quality.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Research Report
    Oregon Marine Reserves Human Dimensions Monitoring Report 2010-2011 2014 Marine Resources Program Newport, Oregon Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Redfish Rocks Community Team and the Depoe Bay Near Shore Action Team, local stakeholders, staff at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program, and all the individuals that donated their time, hard work, and contributions to the development of this document. Contributing Authors Thomas C. Swearingen, Ph.D., Marine Reserves Human Dimensions Project Leader, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Cristen Don, Marine Reserves Program Leader, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Melissa Murphy, Former Socioeconomic Analyst, Marine Reserves Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Shannon Davis, The Research Group, Corvallis, Oregon Hilary Polis, The Research Group, Corvallis, Oregon Cover Photo: Devil’s Punch Bowl Overlook Facing South, Otter Rock, Oregon, June 29, 2013. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-7701 x228 www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ www.oregonocean.info/marinereserves SUGGESTED CITATION Swearingen, T.C., Don, C., Murphy, M., Davis, S., and Polis, H. 2014. Oregon Marine Reserves Human Dimensions Monitoring Report 2010 - 2011. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Program. Newport, OR. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries-Induced Selection Against Schooling Behaviour in Marine Fishes
    Fisheries-induced selection against royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb schooling behaviour in marine fishes Ana Sofia Guerra1, Albert B. Kao2,3, Douglas J. McCauley1 and Andrew M. Berdahl4 Research 1Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 2Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Cite this article: Guerra AS, Kao AB, 3Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA 4 McCauley DJ, Berdahl AM. 2020 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Fisheries-induced selection against schooling ASG, 0000-0003-3030-9765; ABK, 0000-0001-8232-8365; DJM, 0000-0002-8100-653X; behaviour in marine fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B 287: AMB, 0000-0002-5057-0103 20201752. Group living is a common strategy used by fishes to improve their fitness. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1752 While sociality is associated with many benefits in natural environments, including predator avoidance, this behaviour may be maladaptive in the Anthropocene. Humans have become the dominant predator in many marine systems, with modern fishing gear developed to specifically target Received: 28 July 2020 groups of schooling species. Therefore, ironically, behavioural strategies Accepted: 3 September 2020 which evolved to avoid non-human predators may now actually make certain fish more vulnerable to predation by humans. Here, we use an individual-based model to explore the evolution of fish schooling behaviour in a range of environments, including natural and human-dominated preda- tion conditions. In our model, individual fish may leave or join groups Subject Category: depending on their group-size preferences, but their experienced group Behaviour size is also a function of the preferences of others in the population.
    [Show full text]