Living Resources Committee ICES CM 2001/G:05 Ref: ACFM, ACME
REPORT OF THE
Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History
Faro, Portugal 28–30 March 2001
This report is not to be quoted without prior consultation with the General Secretary. The document is a report of an expert group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer
Palægade 2–4 DK–1261 Copenhagen K Denmark TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Terms of Reference...... 1 1.2 Attendance ...... 1 1.3 Opening of the Meeting and Arrangements for the Preparation of the Report ...... 1 2 LANDINGS AND EFFORT STATISTICS AND SURVEY DATA (TOR A) ...... 1 2.1 Compilation of Landing Statistics...... 1 2.2 General Trends...... 2 2.3 Conclusions...... 5 3 STOCK IDENTIFICATION AND POPULATION SIZE ESTIMATION (TOR B)...... 5 3.1 Introduction...... 5 3.2 Cephalopod stock assessment in Scotland, France, Spain, Portugal & Greece...... 5 3.2.1 Biological data ...... 5 3.2.2 Discards ...... 6 3.2.3 Cephalopod consumption by fish...... 6 3.2.4 Alternative methodology for stock assessment...... 7 3.3 Review of current knowledge of fished cephalopod stocks in the NE Atlantic ...... 7 3.3.1 Loligo forbesi...... 7 3.3.2 Loligo vulgaris...... 8 3.3.3 Illex coindetii ...... 9 3.3.4 Todaropsis eblanae...... 9 3.3.5 Cuttlefish (Sepia spp.)...... 9 3.3.6 Octopods...... 10 3.4 Assessments of Cephalopod stocks in other areas ...... 10 3.5 General discussion ...... 10 3.5.1 Cohort structure ...... 10 3.5.2 Assessment methods ...... 11 3.5.3 Mortality ...... 12 3.5.4 Data requirements ...... 12 3.5.5 Management strategies...... 12 4 GEAR SELECTIVITY (TOR C) ...... 12 5 POSSIBLE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACHES TO MANAGEMENT (TOR D)...... 13 5.1 General considerations...... 13 5.2 Management in European cephalopod fisheries...... 13 6 RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND TRANSNATIONAL PROJECTS (TOR E)...... 14 7 RESEARCH PRIORITIES (TOR F)...... 15 7.1 Funding for data collection ...... 15 7.2 Research priorities...... 16 8 THE FUTURE PROGRAMME OF WGCEPH AND RECOMMENDATIONS (TOR H)...... 17 8.1 Terms of reference ...... 17 8.2 Participation in WGCEPH meetings...... 18 9 OTHER BUSINESS AND CLOSING OF THE MEETING ...... 19 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 19 11 REFERENCES...... 19 ANNEX 1 ...... 34 ANNEX 2 ...... 36 ANNEX 3 ...... 38 ANNEX 4 ...... 40 ANNEX 5 ...... 42 ANNEX 6 ...... 50 ANNEX 7 ...... 52 ANNEX 8 ...... 66 ANNEX 9 ...... 69 @# i i 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
As indicated in Part 2 of the ICES Annual Report for 2000, ICES Council Resolution C.Res. 2000/2G04 stated that the Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History [WGCEPH] (Chair: Dr G. Pierce, UK) would meet at the University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal from 28-30 March 2001 to: a) update currently available landing statistics and information on fishing effort and discards; explore existing resource survey databases for information about sampled cephalopods in the ICES area; b) compile methods and results available for stock identification and estimation of population size of fished cephalopods; c) compile available data on gear selectivity for cephalopods; d) identify possible precautionary approaches to the management of these cephalopod resources; e) review the results of national and transnational projects collecting data on fished cephalopods, especially those projects studying relationships between abundance and environmental conditions, factors affecting recruitment, migration and distribution patterns of juveniles and adults, and trophic interactions; f) review research priorities in relation to data requirements for fishery assessment and management and identify how this could be undertaken; g) update the bibliographic database of cephalopod literature relevant to fisheries, including grey literature;
1.2 Attendance
The WGCEPH meeting in Faro, 28-30 March 2001, was attended by 13 of the currently appointed WGCEPH members. These participants represented 6 ICES member states (France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, UK).
The WGCEPH meeting was held alongside the Annual Co-ordination Meeting of the current DG Fisheries-funded CEPHASSESS project. The CEPHASSESS project and local hosts contributed 18 observers to the meeting.
1.3 Opening of the Meeting and Arrangements for the Preparation of the Report
The meeting was hosted by the Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences at the University of Algarve. The agenda of the meeting is given in Annex 3. The 2000 WGCEPH report was formally adopted and the Terms of Reference for 2001 were reviewed. Rapporteurs were appointed for each Term of Reference.
Due to the current unavailability of some landings statistics at the time of the meeting, it was agreed that some parts of the report could not be completed by 17 April although a draft will be submitted.
Prior to the meeting, responsibility for preparation, collation and presentation of material for the T.o.R. was delegated to the following members, João Pereira (Portugal), Uwe Piatkowski (Germany), Graham Pierce (UK), Simeon Hill (UK), and Begoña Santos (UK).
It was agreed that amended text, updated during and following the meeting, would be submitted electronically to the Chairman, who undertook to write and circulate a final draft to members and attendees.
2 LANDINGS AND EFFORT STATISTICS AND SURVEY DATA (TOR A)
2.1 Compilation of Landing Statistics
The present report updates landing statistics from 1994 to 1999 and provides preliminary catch data of 2000 for cephalopod groups caught in the ICES area (Tables 2.1 to 2.6). The data largely originate from the ICES STATLANT database and from additional national and more precise information supplied by Working Group members. It should be
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 1 noted that several ICES member countries/regions could yet not supply information for 2000 (i.e., Faroe Islands, Isle of Man and Spain). In these cases the 2000 catch information was marked as “not available” (n.a.) in the tables. It is anticipated that these data will be available for the 2002 report. In general, we feel that all 2000 data should be considered as preliminary, and they are marked as such (“P”) in the tables.
The data compiled in this report represent the most precise information on cephalopod landings within the ICES area that can be obtained to date. For all major fishery nations (i.e., France, Portugal, Spain, UK) we relied on the statistical information provided by the Working Group members. This information is – as in previous years – not necessarily identical to the data officially reported to the ICES ATATLANT database and stresses the inaccuracy with which cephalopod statistics are still handled.
Tables 2.1 to 2.4 give information on annual catch statistics (1994-2000) per cephalopod group in each ICES division or sub-area, separately for each nation. The cephalopod groups listed in the tables comprise the following species:
S Table 2.1. Cuttlefish (Sepiidae). The majority of landings summarised in this table are catches of Sepia officinalis, the common cuttlefish, plus small amounts of S. elegans and S. orbignyana. WGCEPH considers that no bobtail squids (Sepiolidae) occur in the reported catches.
S Table 2.2. Common squid (including the long-finned squids Loligo forbesi, L. vulgaris, Alloteuthis subulata and A. media). The majority of common squid landings are L. forbesi and L.vulgaris.
S Table 2.3. Short-finned squid (Illex coindetii and Todaropsis eblanae), European Flying squid (Todarodes sagittatus), and Neon Flying squid (Ommastrephes bartrami).
S Table 2.4. Octopods (including Eledone cirrhosa, E. moschata and Octopus vulgaris).
A compilation separated into single species is still not possible as all countries report landings for cephalopod groups, mostly in the format as given in the tables.
Table 2.5 summarises total annual cephalopod landings in the whole ICES area for major cephalopod groups. Table 2.6 provides information of total annual cephalopod landings in the whole ICES area for major cephalopod groups separated for each fishing nation.
2.2 General Trends
Total reported annual cephalopod landings within the ICES region varied between 39781 t in 1994 and 51429 t in 1999 (see Table 2.5). Data for 2000 (40573 t) are very provisional and definitely too low, particularly because Spanish data for this year are yet not available.
In terms of yields, cuttlefish are currently the most important cephalopods taken in the ICES area. Their landings increased remarkably from 1994 to 2000 (14744 t and 21522 t, respectively), even without Spanish data for 2000, which is mostly due to an increase of catches in the English Channel taken by France and UK. Total landings of common squid were in the range of ca. 10000 t from 1994 to 1999, and catches of short-finned squid have increased substantially since 1995 (see Tables 2.5 and 2.6). Again, due to the lack of Spanish data no trends for 2000 can be described. After a considerable decrease in 1998, octopod catches seemed to increase again in 1999 and will probably also be seen to have increased in 2000, once Spanish data can be obtained. In terms of total cephalopod landings, the most active nations in 2000 were France (22489 t), Portugal (11637 t) and probably Spain (15888 t in 1999), which together take the major share of cephalopods in the ICES region. In the following paragraphs some information and trends for the major fishing nations are given.
France
Year 2000 landings data are now available, although 1999 data are still preliminary. Not all data are geo-referenced. Year 2000 figures indicate slightly above the average landings of cuttlefish and slightly lower than average landings of loliginids. Ommastrephid landings are lower than in previous years. According to IFREMER scientists, loliginids are well reported (because most of the catch comes from boats with logbooks, which land in places with fish markets). Mis- reporting could be more important in the case of cuttlefish although it probably does not reach significant levels. A larger part of the cuttlefish catch is caught inshore by small vessels (with traps) and some of their landings may be missing from official data. The University of Caen team is in the process of checking this (at least for the coast of Normandy) with the co-operation of fishermen's organisations. The CAAM "official" database also includes fishing
2 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc effort data. IFREMER also studies fleet activities using observers, who record the fishing gear used and the "métier", i.e. also information about which species are targeted by each boat.
Two IFREMER surveys in autumn (CGFS and EVHOE, Oct-Nov) provide data on cephalopod catches which are both carried out. The 7E area is not covered by these surveys and no data are available for this area, although it is important for Cephalopods.
Ireland
The Working Group’s best estimates of Irish Loligo forbesi landings are presented in Table 2.1. The data since 1995 are considered to be of better quality than prior to 1995. The data are from the Irish Department of the Marine and Natural Resources logbook database but have been screened for anomalous landings data (e.g. removing errors due to misreporting or other data input errors).
A spatial analysis of the 2000 landings data indicates that the landings are highest from statistical rectangles along the western continental shelf and to the north of Ireland north of Greencastle, Co. Donegal (Fig. 2.1). Landings from the western and southwestern Irish shelf (Divisions VIIb,c,j,k) increased between 1996-1999 but declined sharply in 2000, although the 2000 data are still provisional. To the northwest of Ireland, Division VIa, landings peaked in 1997, but have declined since then. Landings from Rockall, the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea (Divisions VIb, VIIa, and VIIg respectively) have been very low (<35 t) since 1995.
Since 1995 the Irish landings data are also available on a monthly basis. An analysis of these data revealed clear temporal trends in landings from some divisions and statistical rectangles. The clearest trends were in VIa where landings and LPUE peaked in October during most years. In the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea the peak landings were in November most years. However, landings from the western and southwestern Irish shelf (Divisions VIIb,c,j,k) showed no clear seasonal patterns although landings were consistently lowest between May-July most years.
Due to the introduction of new codes in the logbook database and a photo-identification key (Annex 9), which was distributed to the Irish fisheries officers, 2000 landings data were available for ommastrephid squid. The spatial distribution of the landings by gear is presented in Fig. 2.2. Most of the landings are caught using demersal trawls in the Porcupine Trough. Two species, Illex coindetii and Todaropsis eblanae, are caught although data on the ratios of these species in the landings or catches are not available. In the Celtic Sea ommastrephids are mainly caught using seine nets in small quantities. There are also some landings thought mainly to be Todarodes sagittatus using demersal gillnets on the south western Porcupine Bank area. Todarodes sagittatus are also by-caught in trawls in other areas. Off the continental shelf in VIIk there are some landings of Ommastrephes bartramii from vessels using drift nets for albacore tuna.
Ireland has been collecting discard data from the demersal trawl and beam trawl fleet since 1993. However, discard data for non-fish discards including cephalopods has not routinely been collected. An examination of the discard database prepared under the EC funded FIEFA and SAMPFISH programme indicated that some discards of ommastrephid squid west of Ireland is know to occur. Discard rates of up to 3.5 t of ommastrephids (mainly Illex coindetii and Todaropsis eblanae) for a seven-day trip on a large demersal trawler were recorded in 1996. Eledone cirrhosa is also routinely discarded by Irish vessels. All Loligo forbesi caught are normal all landed by Irish vessels, except for the first few days of a long trip and when only small quantities are caught in a haul.
An analysis of the distribution and abundance of cephalopod species caught during demersal trawl surveys west of Ireland and in the Celtic Sea has recently been published by Lordan et al. (2001). Data on catches of seventeen cephalopod species during seven demersal trawl surveys were presented. Five of these surveys were conducted by CEFAS during the first quarter in the Celtic Sea. The other two were Marine Institute surveys in the fourth quarter of 1997. For the CEFAS surveys the spatial and bathymetric distribution data are presented for the species caught and the inter-annual variability is discussed. The most numerous species in catches was Loligo forbesi (n = 6,803), however, the highest biomass caught was Illex coindetii (418.3 kg). In terms of biomass I. coindetii and Todaropsis eblanae accounted for 63% of the total squid biomass caught during the CEFAS surveys and 51% of the total squid biomass caught during the Marine Institute west coast ground fish survey. Loligo forbesi, the main commercially exploited species, accounted for 35% and 42% of the squid biomass caught in both surveys respectively. Swept area density estimates are reported for the most abundant cephalopod species in catches.
Spain
Landings data for 2000 are yet not available, but 1999 data have been updated and considerably improved. A finer resolution of the catch data than given in the summary tables (2.1 to 2.4) is provided in Table 2.7. This table presents
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 3 1999 landings data by species and distinguishes the catch information for area IX (separated into the Cádiz and Galicia regions). Effort data for the trawling fishery on the Spanish Atlantic coast (number of fishing days) are available for the period 1994-1998 and are given in Table 2.8. The data are from the trawling fleet (both otter and pair trawl) fishing on the Spanish Atlantic Coast - excluding Basque Country and Gulf of Cádiz. Data for 1998 are not available yet for subdivision VIIIc. The data show some evidence of seasonal trends, as well as an apparent decline in fishing effort in 1998.
Figure 2.3 gives an overview of the discrepancies existing between officially reported landings data and the landings data compiled by the Working Group members of IEO Vigo. Numbers are in metric tonnes and information is separated for major cephalopod groups and ICES areas. These discrepancies are still a major shortcoming in estimating reliable Spanish statistics.
Figure 2.4 shows the IEO estimates of Spanish cephalopod landings (in metric tonnes) from ICES Waters during 1990- 1999. Few conclusions can be extracted, since changes in landings reflect improvement in the acquisition of data more than real changes in the fishery. The continuous increase between years 1993 and 1997 reflects this clearly, because this was the period during which the improvement in the estimation of landings took place (including each year data from more fishing ports and fleets). So, comparison between years could only properly be carried out during the periods 1990-92 and 1997-99. Among the few clear conclusions, the dominance of the octopods in landings during all the period is the more consistent. The yearly proportion of each group of species remains quite constant, common squid being the least important group, flying squid and cuttlefish being generally the second and third in the volume of landings, respectively. Data from 1993 do not include the Basque Country fleet and this is the reason for it being the year of lowest landings. Comparing the last three years (those of better and comparable estimates), a reduction of more than 2000 tons can be observed in 1998, mostly due to the drop in flying squid landings. Overall, during recent years of good estimations, a figure of about 11000 cephalopod tons/year can be considered reasonable.
In Figure 2.5 the IEO estimates of Spanish cephalopod landings (in metric tonnes) are split into ICES sub-areas. The same cautions highlighted for Fig. 2.4 must be applied here. In general, sub-areas VIII (Spanish and French Coast of the Gulf of Biscay) and IX (Southern Galicia and Gulf Of Cádiz) constitute the main areas of origin of landings. Data from Sub-area IX are displayed only from 1995 onwards, when the acquisition of data started to be improved dramatically in Southern Galicia. Octopods are the most important species for fisheries in sub-areas VIII and IX, whereas flying squid seem to generally dominate in landings from sub-area VII. Inter-annual trends cannot reliably be inferred from these data for reasons explained above. Nevertheless, landings in sub-area VIII, very likely the most consistent series of data, reflect great inter-annual variation as expected in such short-lived species. Low landings are observed in sub-area VII during 1994-1996 because estimations from the fleet of Southern Galicia fishing in the area are not yet standardized for inclusion in our database. Data from sub-area IX are consistent only during the period 1997-1999, as explained, and show that this area is probably the most important for the Spanish cephalopod fishery, especially due to the artisanal fishery for cuttlefish and octopods, landings of which are likely to be higher than the estimates shown here due to the amount of unreported catches.
A description of surveys in the Gulf of Cádiz appears as Annex 8 of this document.
Scotland
Landings and effort data for 2000 are available for Scotland, although no data were supplied for England and Wales. In the Scottish fishery, only Loligo forbesi is routinely landed, although results from discard trips indicate that Eledone cirrhosa and ommastrephid squids are also caught and usually discarded. As for Ireland, Loligo is discarded only if caught early during long trips or if very little is caught. Best estimates are that only around 1% of the amount caught is discarded. The Scottish squid fishery for inshore waters showed a major peak in 1990 but declined to low levels again in 1994. The 1999 catch rate was higher than in any previous year and values declined slightly in 2000 (Fig. 2.6). The offshore (Rockall) summer squid fishery remains at a rather low level as it has done since 1986.
The Scottish Executive's FRS Marine Laboratory undertakes regular trawling surveys in the North Sea and West of Scotland during which length frequency data on cephalopods (Loligo spp., Alloteuthis spp. and ommastrephid squid - the latter species since 1990) are collected. The North Sea is surveyed in January, April and August. These data are capable of yielding abundance indices suitable for interannual, seasonal and regional comparisons of abundance and distribution. In some cases, swept area abundance estimates can be made, as well as analysis of environmental influences on distribution (see Pierce et al., 1998).
4 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 2.3 Conclusions
During recent years there have been considerable improvements in compiling cephalopod landing statistics, notably in the data supplied by France, Portugal and Spain. Difficulties still remain in several aspects of data collection. Where cephalopod data are recorded there is frequently uncertainty about the species composition. The extent of this problem varies from country to country, with some making no distinctions, some distinguishing between major groups such as cuttlefish, squid, octopus, and some providing details on individual species. As long as cephalopod species are not regarded as quota species this situation is unlikely to change. There is presently little regulation of cephalopod exploitation, although minimum landing sizes are specified in some fisheries.
3 STOCK IDENTIFICATION AND POPULATION SIZE ESTIMATION (TOR B).
3.1 Introduction
The term of reference is as follows: Continue the compilation of methods and results available for stock identification and estimation of population size of fished cephalopods.
In previous WGCEPH meetings the various techniques available for stock assessment have been reviewed, as well as the range of methods used in cephalopod fisheries. In this section, findings of some recent work on cephalopod stock assessment are reviewed and more general discussions on the nature of fished stocks, stock discrimination and assessments are summarised.
3.2 Cephalopod stock assessment in Scotland, France, Spain, Portugal & Greece
The pan-European study of cephalopods began in 1990 with the first EU financed FAIR project. In June 1999, a two- year EC-funded Study Project 96/081 (Data collection for the assessment of fished cephalopod stocks) was completed. The aim of the study was to develop routine biological and fishery data collection to allow assessment of commercially important cephalopod species, and to provide a model for standardised data collection which would be appropriate for the relevant statutory bodies in the future. The UK (Scotland), France and Spain took part in the project and used depletion methods to carry out preliminary stock assessments for cephalopod species in several ICES fishery subdivisions areas. The species under consideration included the long-finned squid (L. vulgaris & L. forbesi), short- finned squid (I. coindetii & T. eblanae), cuttlefish (Sepia spp.) and octopus (O. vulgaris & E. cirrhosa).
Data collection continued in Scotland until the end of 1999 under Study Project 97/0107 (Development of Software to estimate unreported and misreported catch and effort data and to apply fisheries management models).
Despite the successful outcomes of these projects, it was considered that some aspects of the work were still outstanding, namely those that allow a safe assessment of the exploitation potential of cephalopod fisheries. These objectives are currently being addressed by Study Project 99/063 (Data Collection for Assessment of Cephalopod Fisheries) which has been running since January 2000. This project, which funds further data collection in Scotland, France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, will be valuable in allowing analysis of trends in stock size and between-year and between-area comparisons, as well as facilitating comparison of alternative approaches to assessment.
Progress has been made towards assessments of relevant stocks as a result of these projects. However, current parameter estimates are based on data from a single nation per stock, whereas many of these stocks are fished in the waters of several neighbouring countries. Data from all nations involved in such fisheries are necessary for definition and full assessment of such stocks. Nonetheless, data derived from limited areas or fleet components can provide valuable indices of abundance and biological characteristics. Details of data collection and assessments conducted under study project 99/063 are given below.
3.2.1 Biological data
Portugal: Port sampling in Portugal has been concentrated in the ports of Peniche (West Coast) and Santa Luzia (South Coast). From Peniche, monthly data have been obtained – initially from a random sample from all catches and subsequently by choosing a sample from within the locally loosely defined commercial categories. The aim of this approach is improved extrapolation between the samples and the total commercial catch. In Santa Luzia the sampling program was based on material obtained from the catches of an IPIMAR subcontractor. This data is considered of high value as it is attached to a well-defined catch location and fishing effort. There has also been irregular sampling of cuttlefish from the Rias of Aveiro and Formosa. However, from January 2001, this sampling regime has been changed to a regular monthly basis.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 5 Greece: In Crete, monthly visits are made to the fish markets at Agios Nikolaos (East Coast) and Chania (West Coast). Both of these ports are important markets for squid and cuttlefish.
Scotland: Biological sampling of loliginid squid takes place at the ports of Kinlochbervie (West Coast, Area VIa) and Aberdeen (East Coast, Area IVa) on a monthly basis. In addition to these ports, sampling was carried out at the port of Fraserburgh where squid caught in the Moray Firth targeted fishery were also being landed during the autumn months.
France: Squid and cuttlefish sampling takes place monthly at Port-en-Bessin. This sampling scheme has been in operation since July 1997.
Spain: Monthly market weight sampling has been carried out. In addition, during the research cruise “Demersales 2000” in September/October 2000, a researcher weighed and counted all the cephalopods caught. The three species of main interest to the trawling industry (Illex coindetii, Todaropsis eblanae and Eledone cirrhosa) were also biologically sampled.
3.2.2 Discards
Discards of commercially important cephalopod species were monitored using observers on fishing vessels. Cephalopods of commercial value were, in general, only discarded if caught in very small amounts, deemed insufficient to land, if they were very small animals, deemed not commercially viable (e.g. T. eblanae in Scotland) or if caught at the beginning of a long trip. In Portugal, it was considered that there was no discard problem. Less than 10% of catches are discarded in Spain and most of these are unmarketable species. In 2000, Scottish commercial discard survey data showed that discard weight of L. forbesi was 0.6% of the landed weight of the species. The proportion of commercial species discarded can be considered to be negligible compared with landings.
3.2.3 Cephalopod consumption by fish
Portugal: 169 fish were sampled from 21 species. Cephalopod species present were Sepiolinae, Loloiginidae, Octopus sp. and Octopus defilippi. In addition, in order to determine the evacuation rates in live animals of cephalopod beaks, laboratory experiments with the readily available culture fish species Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and Gilthead (Sparus aurata) were carried out. The cephalopod species used for prey (E. cirrhosa, O. vulgaris, L. vulgaris, I. coindetii, T. eblanae and S. officinalis) were either selected from specimens collected from research cruises or purchased commercially. These experiments showed that the number of days that beaks were retained in the digestive tract of Seabass ranged from an average of 4.14 for T. eblanae to 6.88 for S. officinalis. In the case of Gilthead, the average number of days ranged from 3.33 for O. vulgaris to 8.5 for T. eblanae. The results indicate considerable variation in retention times of all combinations of prey and predator. Statistical analyses are currently underway to determine the degree of significance of the differences noted. Potentially, the recorded environmental parameters could demonstrate a degree of dependence of the digestion and retention times from some characteristics of the environment, which could change the way assessment and modelling will be carried out.
Greece: Since fisheries of fish predators of the cephalopod species collected in Cretan waters are considered negligible, no sampling of fish stomachs has been carried out.
Scotland: In July 2000, 729 stomachs of 8 fish species were sampled during a survey cruise (mainly herring, haddock and Norway pout). These stomachs were frozen and, in December 2000, subsequently examined for the presence of squid beaks. No squid beaks were found. In December 2000, 179 stomachs from 4 fish species (mainly haddock) were sampled on a commercial seine netter. 3 L. forbesi mantles, but no beaks, were found in haddock stomachs.
France: In France, the stomach sampling period was divided into 3 periods. Period 1: January – April; Period 2: July – September; Period 3: October – December. 721, 180 and 104 fish stomachs were collected and analysed in periods 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The percentage of occurrence of cephalopods as a prey item in the studied fish stomachs was as follows:
Period 1: Lophius sp. 13.5%; Merluccius merluccius 15%; Gadus morhua 3.2%. Period 2: Lophius sp. 8% Period 3: Gadus morhua 11%
It was noted that monkfish can eat large cuttlefish (the size of adults) although this fish species is rather scarce in the areas where adult cuttlefish concentrate.
6 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc Spain: 900 fish stomachs from 18 fish species were sampled during the research cruise “Demersales 2000”. The majority of the prey items encountered were species without commercial value or falling outside the scope of the project. Only 11 beaks of possibly commercial cephalopods were found as follows:
Lepidorhombus boscii: 1; Micromesistius poutassou: 2; Scyliorhinus canicula: 5; Trisopterus luscus: 3.
The very low occurrence of commercial cephalopods among stomachs of the main fish species of the Galician coast reveals that the natural mortality of these species, at least through their adult life, is likely to be very small.
3.2.4 Alternative methodology for stock assessment
Portugal: Following the reading of relevant literature and consultation of experts on stock assessments of taxa other than cephalopods at IPIMAR, several significant improvements to the previously available data sets were made. Estimates of growth at age of 3 main taxa (L. vulgaris, O. vulgaris and S.officinalis) are also now available. The combination of these factors may allow the application of production-type models.
Scotland: Using a Bootstrap procedure, a preliminary application of the Gómez-Muñoz model to the Moray Firth L. forbesi targeted fishery resulted in substantially reduced confidence intervals compared to a similar study previously done on the multi-species fishery in area VIa. This study was carried out using monthly data and, due to the brevity of the Moray Firth fishery (8-9 weeks), better results may be possible if the model is adjusted to run on a weekly rather than monthly basis. It is hoped that this work will be done in the 2001 season in addition to applying a modified depletion model to the fishery. It is also hoped to explore the application of catch curves to Scottish data.
France: Whatever the species (squid or cuttlefish), updated stock assessments will require monthly fishery statistics from the main fishing fleets operating in the study area (i.e. France and the UK). In France, official fishery statistics databases have been re-organised and, because of this, in Caen, the latest data available in 2000 concerned the year 1998. This lack of fishery statistics has meant that the latest cohorts whose biomass can be estimated at the present time are the 1997 cohort in squid and 1996 cohort in cuttlefish (due to the 2 year life cycle of cuttlefish). The availability of fishery statistics is a real problem in the analysis of these stocks as biological data for cuttlefish was not collected before autumn 1996 while squid biological data has only been collected since 1993.
In a preliminary stage, an analysis of spatio-temporal variability of the fishing effort of different fishing gear types was carried out. From this study, it would seem that only the UK beam trawl and French otter trawl are relevant in the estimation of abundance indices for all the English Channel area. Seasonal changes in the spread of cuttlefish stocks suggest that the study area for this stock could be reduced (especially in spring when cuttlefish migrate inshore) and, during these periods of reduced extent, CPUE based on effort over all the English Channel are likely to underestimate abundance. Because of the complex relationship between CPUE and spatial and temporal patterns of cuttlefish abundance, it is necessary to perform preliminary analysis of the factors which influence catch rate in order to identify unbiased tuning series for assessments. General Linear Model (GLM) methods are likely to be useful in such analysis.
Using Port-en-Bessin samples, the analysis of cuttlefish length structure was developed to split the different cohorts which overlap and are caught together. The Normsep algorithm implemented in the FiSAT package was applied to monthly histograms looking for two different age groups. Monthly proportions of each cohort were derived together with the mean lengths of each cohort. This analysis seems to provide sensible results as far as cohort growth is concerned, however when looking at age-group proportions, Port-en-Bessin landings may not represent the relative importance of cohorts in all the studied stock.
Spain: Researchers working on the present project routinely carry out literature reading on assessment. The current sampling scheme is considered to be good enough to fulfil the requirements of the main assessment methods. Mortality rates of O. vulgaris and S. officinalis have been estimated using catch curves and production models fitted to 6-7 years of data.
3.3 Review of current knowledge of fished cephalopod stocks in the NE Atlantic
3.3.1 Loligo forbesi
Geographic range: The current southern limit for this species is Area VIIe & h, in the west English Channel. Fishing boats from the Basque country in Northern Spain land considerable quantities of Loligo spp. from the Bay of Biscay (Area VIII a), but there are currently no data available on the species composition of these landings. It is hoped that a sampling programme by Marina Santurtun Mazquiaran of AZTI, Spain, will provide information on the proportion of L.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 7 vulgaris and L. forbesi in catches from the Bay of Biscay. In recent years L. forbesi has disappeared from catches in Portugal and Spain – in a study monitoring the species composition of Loliginid landings at markets Galicia from Nov. 1997 until July 1999, L. forbesi was found in only 2 months in small quantities. Genetic analysis of L. forbesi has shown some geographic variation, with the population at the Azores distinct at sub-specific level, and significant but small differences between coastal populations and those at Rockall and Faroe. There is no evidence for stock divisions throughout the rest of the range. In Scotland, L. forbesi is generally caught by vessels, mainly demersal trawlers or seine netters, targeting whitefish and/or nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus). These vessels only consider squid as a bonus. However, there is a targeted squid fishery in the Moray Firth prosecuted by around 20 or so vessels from September to November. In general, the vessels involved in this fishery use trawl nets designed for catching squid. Some data on this fishery was obtained in October 2000 and it is hoped that a more detailed study will be carried out in the autumn of 2001 under the present project. The Moray Firth is an autumn recruitment area.
Spawning grounds: This species is exploited by Scotland, Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal and spawning animals have been found across the whole range between Shetland and the English Channel. Colm Lordan from University College, Cork has also recorded L. forbesi egg strings in west Brittany, west of Ireland.
Cohort structure of the stock: From length frequency data in the year 2000, in area VIa there appears to be 3 cohorts as follows: cohort 1 present till March, cohort 2 present from April to December and cohort 3 appearing in October.
Recruitment: Using length frequency data from 1997 to present (February 2001), a recruitment index has been estimated from the position of the peak of the length frequency curve. Using this index (all animals < 16cm mantle length were considered recruits), there is evidence, from biological data collected in 2000 from area Via, of continuous recruitment with two peaks - a large number of recruits between April and June, and a smaller peak of recruitment occurring in November.
Length-weight relationship: Using all the data from 1997 to present (February 2001) collected from area VIa, a least squares fit to the weight vs length plot gives the following relationship:
weight = 0.0009443 . (length)2.333
However, weight vs length curves for individual years from 1997 to 2000 indicate a reduction in weight for a given length in each consecutive year.
Assessment: Stock assessments have been carried out by the University of Caen for L. forbesi in the southern North Sea (area IVc) and the English Channel (areas VIIh & g), assuming one stock across this area. Assessments have also been carried out for the stock in Areas IVa and VIa by the University of Aberdeen. Both these countries carried out assessments using depletion methods as implemented in the CEDA (Catch and Effort Data Analysis) package. Catches of L. forbesi are considerably smaller in Ireland than in Scotland and it is thought that assessments carried out by France and Scotland cover the ‘hot spots’ or areas of highest abundance for this species. In defining separate stocks it is thought reasonable to assess Area VIa and the English Channel separately even though L. forbesi is apparently genetically similar in both areas. The latter area contains a mixed stock of the two Loligo species and different fleets are fishing in the two areas.
No assessment has been attempted for the Rockall stock since its sporadic appearance and the short period of the fishery makes application of depletion methods impractical. Some new data are available for assessment and this could be carried out on a country by country basis. It is thought that the Bpa could be set using retrospective assessments and current recruitment indices.
3.3.2 Loligo vulgaris
Geographic range: The northern limit of L. vulgaris is the southern part of the North Sea, Area IVc. It is found in the English Channel and extends south as far as the south of Portugal as well as occurring throughout the Mediterranean Sea and on the Saharan Bank. Loliginids are caught in the Bay of Biscay and landed in the Basque country and it is hoped that information on the proportion of L. vulgaris and L. forbesi in catches may soon be available (see above on L. forbesi). Genetic analysis has shown evidence of stock structure, with distinct NE Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks. The stock ID results are available from Aberdeen.
Spawning grounds: Animals in spawning condition have been recorded all along the coast from the English Channel to southern Portugal. As the spawning grounds of this species extends over such a large area, it is probably not sensible to try and assess the whole population as one stock.
8 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc Assessments: Historically, Portugal has assessed the L. vulgaris population off their coast and France has also carried out assessments in the English Channel based on depletion methods. During a recent Study Project, the IEO in Galicia, Spain attempted to carry out assessments of L. vulgaris. However, as this fishery comprises of mainly artisanal vessels that do not contribute to official statistics, it proved impossible to obtain sufficiently reliable information on catch, effort or landings to carry out assessments. The stock distribution is uncertain with an area of overlap between L. forbesi and L. vulgaris in the waters around the English Channel. Although the proportions of the two species have been estimated for Port-en-Bessin landings in 2000, more information is required on the proportions in this overlap area. Some new data are available for assessment and this could be carried out on a country by country basis.
3.3.3 Illex coindetii
Geographic range: In the north of Portugal and Galicia, there are fisheries for I. coindetii, as well as in areas VIIb, h & j, which extend up to the west of Ireland following the shelf edge at the 200m depth contour. It is also found as far south as southern Portugal. Small amounts of I. coindetii are also found off the west coast of Scotland (Area VIa) and in the northern North Sea (IVa). They are caught in demersal trawls, usually in small quantities and are always discarded. It is possible that these areas of occurrence are continuous, although there are currently insufficient data to make firm conclusions on stock structure. Results of a sampling programme in which animals over the whole range were sampled simultaneously (part of the FAIR project) are available. Recent work on maturation in I. coindetii suggests that they should all be considered as from the same stock.
Spawning grounds: There is a lack of information on this species and it is difficult to identify discrete stocks that would be suitable for assessment. One of the main problems with the data is the short-term nature of the life-span and fishing season. It is also possible that the I. coindetii migrate south to spawn from the northern end of their range. The area west of Ireland may be used predominantly as feeding grounds, rather than for spawning. This is analogous to Illex argentinus from the South Atlantic that spawn in north Flowing currents. Mature females are also found in the south of Portugal.
Assessments: Assessment of I. coindetii stocks have recently been carried out by IEO, Spain for Area IXa, using catch and effort from Spanish boats. New work in Spain and Portugal will include I. coindetii in market sampling for assessment. Recent assessments have been carried by IEO, Spain, for I. coindetii in Areas IX a and VIII c. The analysis of data from the research cruise “Demersales 2000” undertaken from Galicia showed that 2 distinct generations of I. coindetii were present at the same time. This finding clearly affects the assessment models employed to date and future assessments should assume two co-existing generations. Some new data are available for assessment and this could be carried out on a country by country basis.
3.3.4 Todaropsis eblanae
Geographic range: The range of T. eblanae is similar to that of I. coindetii and they are frequently caught together. T. eblanae is also caught in small quantities west of Scotland and in the North Sea. There are no apparent stock differences within ICES area.
Spawning animals have been recorded all along the Portuguese coast near the 200m depth contour. A similar situation to I. coindetii exists in terms of the data available to define discreet stocks for assessment. Again, this species has been studied in the recent FAIR project and results are available. Some new data are available for assessment and this could be carried out on a country by country basis.
3.3.5 Cuttlefish (Sepia spp.)
The most important species is S. officinalis and discussion focussed on this species.
Geographic range: Cuttlefish are found in the English Channel and along the Spanish and Portuguese coasts, as well as in the Mediterranean Sea.
Large amounts of Sepia spp. are landed by several countries, e.g. 14,000 tonnes were landed from the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay by France in 1998, with Portuguese landing being around 2-3000 tonnes annually from Area IX a.
Spawning grounds: Spawning grounds for S. officinalis are found around the French coast in Areas VIIe and VIIIa. In winter the animals move offshore and are found in Area VIIh and there may be populations in Area VIIe or VIIIa. In Portugal, spawning females are found mainly in the south. If cuttlefish are loyal to spawning areas, i.e. returning to their
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 9 area of origin to spawn, management would be possible using single spawning groups. As part of the FAIR Project, Paul Shaw from the University of Hull worked on S. officinalis population analysis using genetic parameters. This work highlighted the importance of including genetic analysis in stock discrimination. S. officinalis from the Spanish and Portuguese coast were sampled from a total of seven sites. Animals from all seven sites were found to be genetically distinct, even over relatively small distances, indicating that they should be considered as separate and distinct stocks. Finer scale sampling is necessary to discern patterns between adjacent sites. The populations of S. officinalis in the Rias are distinct and do not migrate out.
Migrations in the English Channel and Bay of Biscay both involve inshore-offshore movements but it is not known whether they mix when in deeper water. Biological parameters also show variation in life-span. Animals caught in the English Channel can be aged 2 years while those caught offshore have a maximum age of 1-year. (?)
Closed spawning areas are a possible management tool with Sepia spp., which has the added advantage of protecting the environment. If this strategy is to be adopted it is important to identify the most important habitat type to protect, such as seagrass beds. However, in some areas in France, the fishermen rely on these spawning populations but are aware of the problems they encounter in eggs being destroyed when traps are raised. and are open to the suggestion of enhanced spawning, e.g. trying to persuade the cuttlefish to lay the eggs elsewhere so that they are not destroyed when the traps are raised.
Assessment: The University of Caen has carried out assessments of S. officinalis, on stocks fished by traps or trawlers and assumes that there are different stocks in the English Channel and Bay of Biscay. Cuttlefish are slightly longer lived than other cephalopods and are multi-cohort. French landings from the English Channel have more than doubled since 1992 and this may be bringing the stock to within danger limits. In Portugal, Sepia spp. are not assessed although it is thought that the S. officinalis population in Area IXa can be treated as one stock. Some new data are available for assessment and this could be carried out on a country by country basis.
3.3.6 Octopods
O. vulgaris, E. cirrhosa and E. moschata are all fished in the ICES area. Recent genetic studies on O. vulgaris provide evidence for stock separation. Recent work in Spain using an “upwelling index” suggests that catches depend on the strength of upwelling in the previous year. Work is being carried out in Spain using a gonosomatic index (GSI) to find the fishing mortality of O. vulgaris. Some new data are available for assessment and this could be carried out on a country by country basis.
3.4 Assessments of Cephalopod stocks in other areas
The working group maintains contact with scientists conducting cephalopod assessments in waters elsewhere in the world. In 1999 and 2000, presentations were given by scientists working on cephalopod stocks in the northwest and southwest Atlantic.
Work carried out by the Northeast Fisheries Science Centre on the assessment for the squid L. pealeii (NFSC Reference Document 99-12, presented at the 2000 WGCEPH meeting) used length based virtual population analysis, seasonal dynamic pool models, and a quarterly surplus production analysis. This study indicated that the L. pealeii stock was approaching an overfished state, and overfishing was occurring. The L. pealeii stock is managed using a T.A.C. based on current stock size and FMSY.
The Renewable Resources Assessment Group at Imperial College London performs assessments of Loligo gahi and Illex argentinus on behalf of the Falkland Islands Government Fisheries Department. Assessments use depletion models tuned to CPUE series from several fleets simultaneously. Management is on the basis of allowable effort with the option of early closure of the fishery to preserve a minimum spawning stock biomass, equivalent to Bpa.
3.5 General discussion
3.5.1 Cohort structure
The recent collection of continuous time series of catch, effort and biological data which will be of benefit in defining the cohort structure of exploited populations. A cohort, in this sense, refers to a group of similarly-aged animals. Cephalopod populations may be composed of several cohorts recruiting at different times of year. Definition of the demographic structure and life cycle of cephalopod stocks (temporal components of stock ID) is a more important prerequisite for assessments than an exact spatial definition of the stock.
10 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc It is clearly important to establish which temporal components of a population are subject to fishing mortality. In some cases it might be appropriate to estimate total annual recruitment, and treat all cohorts as a single management unit while in others, separate assessment and management of individual cohorts, as in the Falkland Islands Loligo gahi fishery, will be preferable.
3.5.2 Assessment methods
Cephalopod populations usually have a simple demographic structure. They mainly consist of short-lived, semelparous individuals. An entire stock can consist of similarly aged animals, with variations in recruitment strength leading to large fluctuations in the size of the stock. In such circumstances, current population size is rarely a good predictor of future population size. However, some stocks, particularly octopods, have a greater degree of age-structure, consisting of several overlapping generations, and population size should, therefore, change proportionally less for a given change in recruitment. Recent evidence from the Falkland Islands Loligo gahi fishery suggests that the number of recruits is poorly predicted by spawning stock size, except at very low or very high levels which tend to result in below-average recruitment. Also, there is a growing body of evidence that cephalopod recruitment is strongly influenced by environmental factors.
The apparent lack of a strong relationship between current and future stock size suggests that production models will not be generally useful for cephalopod stocks. However, production models are a valuable means of estimating management parameters and their applicability should be assessed on a stock-by-stock basis. Such models have been used in the Saharan Bank/Mauritanean/Senegalese cephalopod fisheries. However, these fisheries now use (age-based) VPA on monthly basis. Preliminary examination at the assessment workshop of data on L. forbesi catches and effort in Scotland suggests that the interannual variation is not well described by a production model. However, there may now be enough data collected under projects to evaluate the applicability of production models to other stocks (e.g. 1990-99 for Spain).
Although age-structured methods have been applied to some cephalopod populations, since most fished cephalopods are short-lived (often 1 year) and show extended periods of recruitment and spawning, simple annual cohort-based models are probably not suitable. However, monthly data on "microcohorts" can be analysed using such methods. Also, recent work at IIM demonstrates that catch curves can be applied to cephalopod fishery data, providing that length-age conversions are available. Length-based catch curves may be a possible alternative, with the caveat that growth rates are thought to show considerable variation between individuals in different (or even the same) microcohort. It is not possible to apply annual length converted catch curves to cuttlefish in the English Channel as, at any given time, there is effectively only one cohort in the fishery (Dunn, 1999). However, it is theoretically possible to produce a composite catch curve from several sampling events, where the ‘age interval’ is equivalent to the interval between sampling events. Clearly it would be necessary to standardise effort between sampling events.
Depletion models offer an apparently widely applicable tool and, as such, remain the most promising means of assessment based on fisheries data. Depletion models ideally require a closed population and a fishing effort sufficient to reduce the stock over a short period but can, however, be modified to account for more open populations. When fitting a depletion model it is important to consider which error model to use: If migration effects are low and there is good confidence in the high catch estimates, a normal error model should be used. If there is more variance in larger catches, then gamma or log-normal models should be used. Varying catchability can cause errors in depletion models. For example, a problem may occur in multi-species fisheries if the catchability of each component species does not remain constant during the period of the experiment. Also, catchability in a fishery may decline over time as the easy to catch fish are removed first. Depletion models should therefore be used carefully with regard to potential failures in the model assumptions. Depletion methods are used in real-time in the Falklands. However, assessments based on real-time data are often not practical because of short fisheries and delays in data availability, and retrospective assessment may be more appropriate for EU fisheries. The assessment workshop focussed on CEDA, a DOS based software package which implements depletion models with some success. This software package is currently being updated to operate in Windows and it is hoped that it will be available later this year. It would be helpful if details of the equations and algorithms used in CEDA were available in order to better understand differences in models or fitting procedures.
While successful pre-recruit surveys have been conducted for the highly migratory Illex argentinus in the Southwest Atlantic, larval surveys for inshore species are usually ineffective as few cephalopod paralarvae and juveniles are caught in most sampling gears (e.g. bongo net, IKMT). It has therefore proved difficult to measure spawning success. Alternative larval survey methods (e.g. suprabenthic dredges) should be evaluated. However, migrations and extended periods of recruitment may result in data being unsuitable. Predictive models based on environmental variables could prove useful in the management of cephalopod fisheries bearing in mind, however that, after recruitment, the stock is still affected by fishing. There is a need to evaluate the consequences of management decisions based on such predictive models.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 11 Most stock assessment tools are of potential value for cephalopod fisheries. Simple guides such as catch curves are useful yet depend on age data - which are as yet unavailable, or at least expensive to collect, for most fished cephalopods. Thus for each stock, the way ahead may be to evaluate a range of possible tools and select that (or those) that appear to be most suitable. It is therefore still valuable to identify overfishing, measure mortality rates and have good catch and effort data.
3.5.3 Mortality
An essential component of stock assessment is a good estimate of natural mortality (M). Assessments based on De Lury depletion models can be very sensitive to the natural mortality parameter (Pierce et al., 1996). Previous studies on fish diets from European waters are often of limited use for the estimation of fish predation on cephalopods. This is due to either cephalopods not being identified to species, or the origin of the fish sampled, e.g. from regions of low cephalopod abundance. As some species of cephalopod have no commercial value (e.g. sepiolids), their predation is irrelevant when calculating M, thus making it essential to identify prey accurately. Results of previous studies suggest that commercially important finfish species do not have a significant impact on post-recruit commercial cephalopod species, although predation on pre-recruits may be significant. Natural mortality is generally assumed to be constant however this assumption is flawed as there is very high M at the end of the life span and probably high M in the early phases of life with relatively low M in the middle. However, consumption of pre-recruit squids is technically irrelevant to the depletion model but additional data on pre-recruit mortality could be used to help predict the strength of recruitment, which in annual species, directly determines adult stock size. It is important to note that during the decline in the fishing season, the natural decline in the population is also coupled with fishing mortality (F). More work needs to be done to assess fishing mortality.
3.5.4 Data requirements
Scottish data suggests that the squid catches in areas IVa and VIa are exclusively L. forbesi. However, the proportions of L. forbesi and L. vulgaris in catches from French waters is uncertain and, in the case of English landings from the North Sea, not known. There is therefore a need to collect information on the species proportions from the species overlap area.
There are differences between biological parameters (Length frequency and life span) for S. officinalis that spawn in the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay. However, it is likely that these stocks mix in their offshore wintering area and it is not known whether they are ‘loyal’ to their spawning grounds. Studies of migration patterns would help resolve this issue. Biological parameters for the Algarve suggest that there are separate populations of S. officinalis within that region. To determine this, assessments may be needed at a local level.
It is clear that for some species, especially the Ommastrephids, further information is required to allow the definition of stocks for assessment.
National fisheries laboratories should be encouraged to maintain or extend existing data collection and sampling schemes for fished cephalopods: without baseline data collection, no assessment will be possible. Doubts remain about stock identities but de facto unit stocks may be defined based on fishing patterns and should serve until detailed genetic data become available.
3.5.5 Management strategies
Any predictions of recruitment strength are likely to become available a short time before a fishery opens. There is, therefore, a need for dynamic management regimes which can produce recommendations at short notice.
Changes in allowable effort or catch at short notice are likely to be unpopular with fishers. Management methods should be developed in consultation with fishers in order to address the needs of the both the fishing industry and stock management. Consultation workshops with fishers, especially those operating in small-scale or artisanal fisheries, would be an appropriate way of involving the users of the fishery in the development of management plans.
4 GEAR SELECTIVITY (TOR C)
Perhaps one of the main reasons to analyse gear selectivity (even in Northern trawl fisheries) will be to better understand variations in catchability. Relevant factors include body size and form, habitat, response to fishing gear, and environmental conditions.
12 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc A study on trawl codend selectivity for squid was published by Hastie (1996). The estimated mean selection (mantle) length (L50) for Loligo forbesi ranged between 13.9 and 14.9 cm. It seems to be generally true that larger Loligo are more likely to be caught in trawls. However, unpublished observations collected by FRS marine laboratory using video cameras indicate that squid are also capable of holding station in the mouths of towed trawl nets and may be caught either when they start to tire (in which case they enter the cod-end) or attempt to escape in a direction perpendicular to the axis of travel of the net (in which case they are likely to be caught further along the net).
In other species, the relationship between catchability and body size may be complicated. Attempts to apply depletion methods to the English Channel cuttlefish stock are limited by the fact that partial recruitment to the fishery is likely to occur during the first winter of a cohort's life. In jig fisheries, environmental factors such as moonlight may have important effects on catchability. As cephalopods are poikilothermic, it might be expected that water temperature will affect catchability, e.g. by reducing the animals’ ability to escape from approaching fishing gear.
It remains the case that there has been little systematic study of catchability and gear selectivity in cephalopods.
5 POSSIBLE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACHES TO MANAGEMENT (TOR D)
Summary of term of reference: Review possible precautionary approaches to the management of cephalopod resources.
5.1 General considerations
While it is an oft-repeated platitude that squid are not fish, it is worth reviewing why the differences are relevant to management of cephalopod stocks in the ICES area.
It might be argued that there is little need to manage cephalopod fisheries in European waters - they are not quota species and the stocks have survived largely unmanaged until now. Fishing licences are issued to artisanal fishermen (e.g. in Portugal) and numbers issued can be controlled. Minimum landing size regulations are set in Spain and Portugal but are apparently widely ignored. However, especially in directed cephalopod fisheries, there are foreseeable circumstances under which management would be needed and there is, furthermore, an a priori argument for precautionary measures to be taken. [These arguments to not apply to western Atlantic waters, where active management of cephalopod fisheries is already an established fact].
Output controls: Quotas - cephalopod stocks generally show wide fluctuations in distribution and abundance from year to year and, without a reliable way of forecasting abundance it may be impossible to set meaningful quotas. Quotas on cephalopod catches are unlikely to provide a suitable control mechanism in any of the multispecies by-catch fisheries since the animals would continue to be caught after quotas were exceeded and discarded animals are unlikely to survive. In the artisanal fisheries quota control is probably unmanageable due to the vast numbers of small boats involved in these fisheries and the low proportion of landings that appear in official statistics. Minimum landing sizes may discourage fishing on new recruits but are unlikely to be an important tool.
Input controls: Licences: squid fisheries in the Falkland Islands are effort-limited both in terms of the number of boats licensed and the length of the fishing season. In European by-catch fisheries it is presently unlikely that the number of boats would be limited to protect cephalopod stocks. Licensing is more suitable for artisanal cephalopod fisheries, if only to discourage uncontrolled expansion leading to a collapse - such control would have the dual advantage of protecting stocks and jobs. Closed areas and seasons. Once recruitment and spawning areas are well known, it is feasible that such areas might be closed for periods to protect incoming recruits or spawning adults.
Technical measures: Cephalopods caught in fishing nets are likely to be damaged and unlikely to survive if discarded. The body form means that even quite small individuals can be caught in standard trawl meshes - however data on selectivity of gear (in relation to species and size-classes taken) are scarce. Development of species-specific gears (pots, jigs, traps) is useful.
5.2 Management in European cephalopod fisheries
Cephalopods support important fisheries in the ICES area. However, they remain outside the scope of the European Community's Common Fisheries Policy and policy makers consider non-quota species of lesser importance. As the work of fisheries biologists has tended to be focussed on TAC species where catch predictions are required, the understanding of cephalopod stock dynamics, particularly in European coastal waters, remains poor. Therefore, official statistics on cephalopod fisheries are generally of lower quality but are currently supplemented by data collected under
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 13 various research projects. New data and information on the state-of-the-art in cephalopod fishery assessment and management need to be updated and reviewed annually.
A recent evaluation of the accuracy of official statistics concluded that, in Scotland and France, official statistics represent a relatively accurate picture. However, the same study estimated that around 40% of O. vulgaris and up to 90% of L. vulgaris landings from artisanal fisheries in Spain do not enter official figures.
In France, there is willingness amongst inshore fishermen to develop a licensing scheme for the trap fishery for cuttlefish. This system has already been operated in a limited way along the coasts of Normandy. However, it is not related to any comprehensive management of the stock, which is mainly exploited by offshore trawlers, and therefore the value of such a system may be questionable. Licences are considered sometimes in France as a way for fishermen to share a resource more than as a real limitation of fishing effort.
In Portugal, licences are issued to the artisanal fleet even down to the level of discriminating between different types of trap for O. vulgaris. However, there is evidence in this fishery of considerable under-reporting, fishing in closed areas and unofficial landings of undersize cephalopods. The sheer size of the artisanal fleet in some Portuguese waters makes management of the cephalopod fishery very difficult.
There is evidence that the fishing mortality in Spanish Rias may be excessive. This over-fishing has lead to the Galician government acting on advice for Ria Vigo S. officinalis.
As most of Scottish cephalopod landings are by-catch, it would perhaps be difficult to impose any management actions. Most Scottish commercial fish are TAC species and the TAC is calculated perhaps a year in advance – clearly inappropriate for a short lived species. The quota system is, as it stands, inflexible and therefore unable to react to unforecasted situations (e.g. large quantities of saithe discarded in the North Sea during autumn/winter 2000). As quota systems also lead to large amounts of discarding or unreported landings, conversely, as cephalopods are outside the CFP and quota system, although the amount of official statistics is low, the statistics that are available may be of higher quality. The effect on catch rates in the bye-catch fishery by regulatory controls placed on either the directed fishery or bye-catch fishery also creates a potential fisheries data limitation.
However, the Moray Firth fishery for newly recruited squid may need some control in the future. This fishery has sustained a small number of (mainly) small vessels for 2 or 3 months per year in the last few years. Concern has been expressed by fishermen that large white-fish vessels from Peterhead and Fraserburgh, perhaps struggling to be profitable or having reached their fish quotas (the Moray Firth fishery occurs in the latter part of the year when quotas tend to get used up), may enter the fishery with potential drastic consequences for the fishery. In fact, there was evidence in 2000 that some large vessels did attempt to target Moray Firth squid but gave up due to poor catches. Squid fishermen considered that this was due to the use of normal whitefish trawls as opposed to the light squid trawls with 40mm cod-ends employed by vessels in the fishery. Squid fishermen consider that the use of bespoke squid trawls as opposed to standard demersal trawls can increase catches 5-fold. They fear that, in the future, these large vessels may invest in the correct gear and have voiced the opinion that some control of the fishery may be necessary. MLS controls are not an option in a trawl fishery due to the poor survival rate of discarded squid. Also, as this is a recruit fishery with, in the main, small animals being caught, a MLS regulation would not be appropriate. A possible control that could be applied is licensing the use of squid gear in the Moray firth (40mm cod-ends etc) – the issuing of licences perhaps depending on a historical record of being involved in the fishery. In order to maintain catch quality, all the vessels which target squid land their catch either daily or, at the most, every second day – a pattern not used by large white-fish or nephrops boats (trips are usually at least a week long). This would make it difficult for vessels that have not been involved in the fishery to claim a track record based on previous sale notes. Also, as prior notice of any licensing scheme would lead to a large influx of vessels into the fishery, licence issue should depend on sale notes acquired up to the year before any such scheme is notified. As this fishery has well defined spatial and temporal limits, it would be relatively easy to monitor by the authorities.
6 RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND TRANSNATIONAL PROJECTS (TOR E)
The majority of work described and discussed during the meeting was funded by DG Fisheries, under the Study Project programme, which ends this year. This leads to a good deal of pessimism about the future of research on cephalopod fisheries in European waters (see section 7).
Current projects are listed in Annex 4. One project summary was provided to WGCEPH, as follows:
14 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc Cuttlefish on the Portuguese coast (SEPIA)
Cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis, is one of the most abundant species in cephalopod fishery along the Portuguese coast and is caught mainly by artisanal gears. The importance of Sepia officinalis has been increasing in recent years, both in terms of landings and relative importance among other marine resources. Cuttlefish is an active predator and feeds on a wide variety of prey. There is no published information on the diet and feeding ecology of this species along the Portuguese coast. Thus, there is a need for detailed knowledge of the trophic relationships of Sepia officinalis, as predation has a significant influence on community structure and population dynamics.
This project has the following objectives:
S To study the diet of Sepia officinalis, in The Ria Formosa, in the Sado estuary and in the Ria de Aveiro;
S To increase the knowledge on trophic interactions of Sepia officinalis in each area;
S To provide data on the annual rate of food consumption by Sepia officinalis;
S To analyse the apparent substitution processes of dominant fish assemblages in the Ria Formosa, in the Sado estuary and in the Ria de Aveiro by populations of Sepia officinalis;
S To estimate the impact of predation by these species on juvenile fish assemblages of commercial species in each area
S To contribute to embed the cephalopod fishery with their supporting ecosystem;
S To bring together research groups with common problems and interests and to build data from each ecosystem.
Information will be stored in a relational data base system which will be designed as to permit the cross reference with a Geographic Information System (GIS) and linked to a project homepage on Internet. The GIS will allow: 1) an integration of data and methods in ways that support traditional forms of geographical analysis, such as map overlay analysis, and 2) a world-wide dissemination of the results of this study.
7 RESEARCH PRIORITIES (TOR F)
7.1 Funding for data collection
Perhaps the single most significant development in terms of its implications for research on cephalopod fisheries is the publication of the EC's plans for funding of fishery data collection (Council Resolution 1543/2000), replacing the current project-based DG Fisheries Study Project programme.
WGCEPH notes that only those WGCEPH members from Spain and Portugal (working in national fishery institutes) had any involvement in the process of setting data collection priorities. At meetings of WGCEPH, most ICES countries are represented by University staff, reflecting the low priority attached to cephalopods by many government Research Institutes. WGCEPH believes that the low priority assigned to collection of data on cephalopods is not consistent with their current importance as fishery resources and will seriously impede progress towards assessment and management of these stocks in the future.
The list of species and areas to be sampled (Appendix XIV of the DG Fisheries Report on Council Resolution 1543/2000, see Table 7.1) provides for collection of data on Octopus vulgaris, Loligo vulgaris, and Sepia officinalis in ICES areas XIIIc and IXa, i.e. the Atlantic coasts of Spain and Portugal. The latter two species, along with Eledone cirrhosa and Eledone moschata are included in data collection in the Mediterranean, while data collection on Octopus vulgaris is funded in the CECAF area (where data collection on Loligo vulgaris, and Sepia officinalis is optional). In the Bay of Biscay, English Channel, Celtic Sea, and west coasts of Scotland and Ireland, Octopus vulgaris, Loligo vulgaris, and Sepia officinalis appear in the list of optional species. The amount of sampling proposed within the above areas is limited in spatial and temporal resolution.
WGCEPH believes that this restricted coverage of cephalopods may lead to a reduction in the quality of fishery data available for cephalopods. Thus, in Scotland, information on landings of Loligo forbesi is available on a monthly, per ICES rectangle, basis, while in France, Spain and Portugal, monthly landings data are collected on ommastrephid squid
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 15 landings, and some of these data are collected by ICES rectangle. However, these species are not mentioned in the DG Fisheries plans. This may encourage national data collection schemes that currently include cephalopods to be dropped or downgraded.
A related point is that most of the data collected on cephalopod fisheries over the last decade has been project-based, and over the last five years funded by DG Fisheries Study Projects. This data collection will inevitably cease once the Study Project programme closes.
A third general concern is that the nature of the sampling programme does not take into account the biological differences between cephalopods and most quota finfish species. Namely, cephalopods are short-lived (generally annual) species, with extended periods of recruitment and spawning and complex migratory movements. They show wide interannual fluctuations in distribution and abundance, which will not easily be detected or predicted by low- resolution sampling. Landings and market sample data are needed on (minimally) a monthly basis to allow assessment by depletion methods. Collection of landings data by ICES rectangle is desirable since understanding of the complex migratory patterns and relationships with environmental factors is not possible without these baseline data.
In addition to this general concern, specific concerns and recommendations are as follows:
1. There should be no reduction in existing official data collection of cephalopod landings, recording of cephalopods during trawling surveys or market sampling programmes for cephalopods;
2. Ommastrephid squids should be included in the data collection programme, since they represent valuable fisheries off Spain and Portugal and, to a lesser extent, off Ireland and in the Mediterranean. These squids are known to be of rather spasmodic importance in the north-eastern part of the ICES area but sometimes support large fisheries (e.g. Todarodes sagittatus off Norway);
3. Loligo forbesi should be included in the data collection since it is currently the only cephalopod of major importance in the northern North Sea and on the west coast of Scotland, and forms the majority of loliginid squid catches in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and English Channel;
4. Recording of Sepia officinalis should be part of routine data collection in the English Channel and Bay of Biscay.
5. The "English Channel" is not recognised as a single area. Thus 7D is included with the North Sea and 7E is included with "Atlantic" divisions 7 and 8. This is a problem for fishery biologists who study English Channel stocks, because sampling programs and priorities are different in the two areas (some cephalopod species are optional in one area and ignored in the other).
6. It is essential to include provision for distinguishing and recording all cephalopod species occurring in mixed landings - Loligo vulgaris is landed admixed with Loligo forbesi and landings of octopus and cuttlefish are often of mixed composition. Thus, the Eledone species should be recorded in Atlantic waters, Loligo forbesi in all areas from the Bay of Biscay northwards, and Octopus vulgaris in the Mediterranean.
7. Recording of cephalopods should be extended into the North Sea.
8. Annual sampling is inappropriate for cephalopods and is likely to provide no useful information on stock status. Quarterly sampling may be adequate for some purposes, although it would clearly preclude the use of the depletion assessment methods found to be most suitable for these stocks (which require at least monthly data).
9. Length-frequency data alone is likely to be misleading due to the strong sexual dimorphism and wide variation in growth rates. Information on the sex ratio is essential and information on maturity status desirable.
10. Collection of landings data by ICES statistical rectangle is recommended.
11. The provisions for data collection should be subject to regular (annual) review
7.2 Research priorities
WGCEPH notes that 10 years of EC-funded research on exploited cephalopod stocks has substantially advanced our understanding of cephalopod life-history and ecology in the NE Atlantic and Mediterranean. It is suggested that we are
16 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc in a position to assess some stocks and provide management advice on others, while recognising that ongoing research is essential.
Priority areas identified were as follows:
1. APPLIED STUDIES ON CEPHALOPOD FISHERIES AND ON EXPLOITED SPECIES
S INVESTIGATIONS OF FISHING GEARS AND FISHERIES: trials of alternative methods and gears; comparisons of gear performance in terms of catch rates, selectivity and ecological impact; development of environmentally friendly gear, avoidance of recruitment overfishing; quantifying fleet interactions; historical analysis of exploitation patterns (e.g. to identify growth overfishing)
S POPULATION ASSESSMENT: comparison of currently applied assessment methods for European cephalopod fisheries, evaluation of their utility in multi-species by-catch fisheries and directed artisanal fisheries; stock identification;
S MANAGEMENT: review and evaluation of alternative management strategies, including considerations such as closed areas and seasons, co-management and risk sensitivity;
S BIO- AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES: investigation of new markets for cephalopods; cost-benefit analyses for different kinds of gears/fleets; studies/modelling of fishermen's behaviour.
S NEW FISHERIES / CEPHALOPOD CULTURE / STOCK ENHANCEMENT: research on culture methods, environmental impact of cephalopod culture and its possible use for stock enhancement, e.g.in overfished areas; evaluation of the potential for oceanic cephalopods in the eastern Atlantic to support fisheries;
2. FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH UNDERPINNING FISHERIES EXPLOITATION
S FILLING IN GAPS IN BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: topics requiring further work include age, growth, migration, recruitment, paralarval ecology and parasites
S ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS/INTERACTIONS: use of remote sensing and GIS to model and predict patterns of cephalopod abundance; impact of pollutants on cephalopod populations
S EVALUATION OF CEPHALOPODS AS FOOD: amino acid and fatty acid composition, levels and bio- accumulation of contaminants
S ARTIFICIAL REEFS - what is their value for cephalopods?
S CEPHALOPOD LITERATURE RELEVANT TO FISHERIES (TOR G)
Information on literature relevant to cephalopod fisheries published during the last calendar year (2000-2001) was downloaded from bibliographic databases and supplied by WGCEPH members. This information is summarised in Annexes 5 (journal papers) and 6 (grey literature). Papers presented at the 1998 ICES ASC theme session on cephalopods have now been published, in special issues of the ICES Journal of Marine Science (2000) and Fisheries Research (2001).
8 THE FUTURE PROGRAMME OF WGCEPH AND RECOMMENDATIONS (TOR H)
8.1 Terms of reference
WGCEPH considers that, broadly speaking, the present terms of reference continue to be relevant, and are necessary to ensure that advice on cephalopod fisheries can be made available to ICES as required, within the constraints imposed by the level of data collection.
Cephalopods support important fisheries in the ICES area. However, they remain outside the scope of the European Community's Common Fisheries Policy and understanding of stock dynamics, particularly in European coastal waters, remains poor. Official statistics on cephalopod fisheries are generally of low quality but are currently supplemented by
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 17 data collected under various research projects. New data and information on the state-of-the-art in cephalopod fishery assessment and management need to be updated and reviewed annually. Since patterns in landings may be a poor representation of stock size if there are substantial changes in fishing effort, in future it would be useful to also compile and report nominal effort statistics where available to help interpret patterns in landings.
The following terms of reference are recommended: a) update currently available landing statistics and information on fishing effort and discards; explore existing resource survey databases for information about sampled cephalopods in the ICES area; This activity remains fundamental to the work of the group. The broadening of the remit to include effort, discard and survey data was useful but improved data, and improved access to data, are needed. b) compile methods and results available for stock identification and estimation of population size of fished cephalopods; Arguably there is no need to repeat the compilation of methods, but it remains useful to continue to compile results. c) compile available data on gear selectivity for cephalopods; This task requires further attention since little data could be obtained in 2001. d) identify possible precautionary approaches to the management of these cephalopod resources; This task remains useful, since the outcome will be update as new results become available under tor b e) compile available data on relationships between abundance and environmental conditions, factors affecting recruitment, migration and distribution patterns of juveniles and adults, and trophic interactions; This tor essentially concerns review of biological data needed to underpin progress on assessment and management. f) update the bibliographic database of cephalopod literature relevant to fisheries, including grey literature; This provides a useful service to the research community as well as to WGCEPH.
8.2 Participation in WGCEPH meetings
WGCEPH, more than most ICES Working Groups, relies on participation from a wide range of scientists working outside the traditional government fisheries laboratories in ICES countries and has, indeed, benefited enormously over the last 10 years from the input of other scientists. While WGCEPH would encourage more of these scientists to seek formal membership of WGCEPH, it should be recognised that this will not always be possible. We suggest that strict limitation of participation in WGCEPH meetings to officially nominated members is counterproductive, and the availability a simple mechanism to facilitate the participation other scientists in WGCEPH meetings would be helpful. The reasons are as follows:
(a) As part of its Terms of Reference, WGCEPH reviews research on cephalopods and therefore directly benefits from soliciting scientific presentations from the wider community of cephalopod researchers.
(b) Cephalopods are not quota species in European waters and, as a consequence, the level of interest in their biology and fisheries in many national fisheries research laboratories is low.
(c) Consequently, most expertise on cephalopod biology and fisheries in the European part of the ICES area lies outside national fisheries research laboratories, often in universities where no funding is available for participation in ICES activities.
(d) A further consequence of (a) is that most biological data collection, and some of the basic fishery data collection, for fished cephalopods in European waters is project-based rather than part of national fishery data collection schemes.
(e) Another consequence of (b) is that much of the world-wide expertise on their biology and fisheries resides outside the ICES area.
(f) Following from points (c) and (d), over the last decade WGCEPH has been strongly dependent on the opportunity to timetable meetings alongside project meetings, in order to provide funding for delegates to attend.
(g) Finally, WGCEPH is not involved in estimating population size for quota species and the meetings are thus likely to involve little discussion of "sensitive" material.
18 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 9 OTHER BUSINESS AND CLOSING OF THE MEETING
The attention of the meeting was drawn to the forthcoming ICES ASC theme session "THE RESPONSE OF CEPHALOPOD POPULATIONS AND FISHERIES TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS AND ECOSYSTEMS".
The present Chairman's 3-year term having come to an end, elections were held for the post of Chair of WGCEPH. Dr Jean-Paul Robin (University of Caen) received the unanimous support of the meeting and it is recommended that the group continue under his Chairmanship.
The chairman closed the meeting at 17.00 on 30 March.
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WGCEPH wishes to thank Teresa Borges and her colleagues at the Universidade do Algarve for hosting the meeting, Iain Young and Drosos Koutsoubas for assistance with drafting the report, and staff at ICES, notably Mette Bertelsen, for assistance with provision of data and for general assistance during 2000-01.
11 REFERENCES
Dunn, M.R., 1999. Aspects of the stock dynamics and exploitation of cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis (Linnaeus, 1758), in the English Channel. Fisheries Research 40, 277-293.
Hastie, L.C., 1996. Estimation of trawl codend selectivity for squid Loligo forbesi based on Scottish research vessel survey data. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53, 741-744.
Lordan, C., Warnes, S., Cross, T. & Burnell, G., 2001. The distribution and abundance of cephalopod species caught duing demersal trawl surveys west ofIreland and in the Celtic Sea. Irish Fisheries Investigations No 8, Marine Institute, Dublin, 26 pp.
Pierce, G.J., Bailey, N. & Robin, J.-P., 1996. Stock assessment for Loligo spp. in the Northeast Atlantic. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea CM 1996/K:23.
Pierce, G.J., Bailey, N., Stratoudakis, Y. & Newton, A., 1998. Distribution and abundance of the fished population of Loligo forbesi in Scottish waters: analysis of research cruise data. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55, 14-33.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 19 Table 2.1 Landings (in tonnes) of Cuttlefish (Sepiidae).
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
ICES Division IVb (Central North Sea) Belgium + 1 1 2 3 3 6
ICES Division IVc (Southern North Sea) Belgium 13 15 5 4 4 5 8 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 47 163 90 22 28 22 14 France 187 234 174 135 140 141 422
ICES Division VIa,b (NW coast of Scotland and North Ireland, Rockall) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 1 + + 0 + 0 0 France 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 Spain + + 11 14 16 0 n.a.
ICES Division VIIa (Irish Sea) Belgium 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 13 19 8 1 1 1 1 France 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
ICES Divisions VIIb, c (West of Ireland and Porcupine Bank) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 France 2 0 0 0 0 0 + Spain + + 10 13 14 0 n.a.
ICES Divisions VIId, e (English Channel) Belgium 19 19 11 6 15 9 31 Channel Islands 2 1 11 8 20 22 2 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 1797 3925 4038 1634 2448 1973 2905 France 5415 8869 8012 5742 7530 7260 10718
ICES Division VIIf (Bristol Channel) Belgium 14 4 1 1 + + 1 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 38 42 64 44 42 9 12 France 22 14 33 29 36 39 24
ICES Divisions VIIg-k (Celtic Sea and SW of Ireland) Belgium 4 5 2 3 3 4 2 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 134 188 367 464 210 199 139 France 14 18 34 21 946 50 972 Spain 4 + 46 57 181 122 n.a.
ICES Sub-area VIII (Bay of Biscay) Belgium 4 + + 0 0 1 1 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 56 2 40 37 19 + 0 France 4606 3878 4058 5118 4363 5607 4896 Portugal 0 0 11 8 11 5 8 Spain 451 194 260 368 593 829 n.a.
ICES Subarea IX Portugal 1120 981 1625 1415 1723 1156 1357 Spain 773 1025 819 1504 1916 1868 n.a.
Grand Total 14744 19601 19736 16652 20267 19326 21522
20 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc Table 2.2. Landings (in tonnes) of Common Squid (includes Loligo forbesi, L. vulgaris, Alloteuthis subulata and A. media).
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
ICES Division IIIa (Skagerrak and Kattegat) Denmark 0 1 1 6 8 6 7 Sweden + 2 + 1 + + +
ICES Division IVa (Northern North Sea) Denmark 1 1 1 2 5 3 3 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 1 + 0 0 3 2 21 France 0 0 0 1 1 1 + Germany +++++ + + Scotland 93 268 279 453 844 712 529
ICES Division IVb (Central North Sea) Belgium 13 14 9 7 11 16 19 Denmark + + + 9 3 18 11 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 4 22 21 39 143 64 34 Germany 13135 5 3 Netherlands + + + + + + 4 Scotland 5 25 14 66 211 137 81
ICES Division IVc (Southern North Sea) Belgium 113 153 87 39 36 72 119 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 3 10 3 3 2 2 5 France 193 188 85 123 93 93 165 Germany 26216 1 2 Netherlands + + + + + + 759
ICES Division Vb (Faroe Grounds) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 1 + 0 0 + 1 + Faroe Islands 1 + + 5 36 29 n.a. Scotland + + 1 1 1 2 2
ICES Division VIa (NW coast of Scotland and North Ireland) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 144 16 49 40 3 2 16 France 138 98 132 82 136 129 50 Ireland 36 85 114 140 95 99 38 Scotland 91 267 287 301 273 332 196
ICES Division VIb (Rockall) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 6 2 8 5 3 + + Ireland 6 10 6 1 2 3 3 Scotland 28 6 19 5 25 13 5 Spain 2 2 61 76 49 2 n.a.
ICES Division VIIa (Irish Sea) Belgium 3 2 8 2 5 3 3 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 234 156 218 125 173 40 31 France 31 14 9 5 17 21 11 Ireland 66 7 9 6 12 5 5 Isle of Man 6 7 3 2 2 2 n.a. Scotland 4 2 2 3 2 2 2
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 21 Table 2.2. continued.
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
ICES Divisions VIIb, c (West of Ireland and Porcupine Bank) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 79 96 307 228 2 7 67 France 68 22 84 80 60 75 64 Ireland 11 50 48 42 86 70 26 Scotland 18 1 76 45 + 0 0 Spain + + 55 69 51 + n.a.
ICES Divisions VIId, e (English Channel) Belgium 132 220 163 77 133 113 250 Channel Islands 0 2 1 6 5 11 + England, Wales & Northern Ireland 727 672 392 496 415 622 447 France 2447 2636 2033 2518 2689 2593 3294
ICES Division VIIf (Bristol Channel) Belgium 4 13 12 6 6 6 8 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 162 132 39 77 29 68 16 France 435 275 164 193 126 128 88
ICES Divisions VIIg-k (Celtic Sea and SW of Ireland) Belgium 9 26 63 10 13 8 5 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 600 1002 1381 924 23 28 302 France 225 118 50 69 325 95 244 Ireland 164 80 143 168 158 176 67 Scotland 34 1 121 127 + 0 0 Spain 39 29 241 302 225 352 n.a.
ICES Sub-area VIII (Bay of Biscay) Belgium 17 40 46 14 49 3 48 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 96 55 46 68 8 + 0 France 2253 1565 1419 1489 829 1185 1139 Portugal 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 Spain 588 196 418 505 638 826 n.a.
ICES Sub-area IX Portugal 309 908 463 848 1011 327 614 Spain 210 245 236 1301 1011 540 n.a.
ICES Sub-area X (Azores Grounds) Portugal* 114 250 200 303 98 45 52
Grand Total 9967 10001 9632 11519 10197 9095 8856
*Landings consist exclusively of Loligo forbesi.
22 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc
Table 2.3. Landings (in tonnes) of Short-finned Squid (Illex coindetii and Todaropsis eblanae), European Flying Squid (Todarodes sagittatus), and Neon Flying Squid (Ommastrephes bartrami).
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
ICES Sub-area I + II (Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea) Norway* 0 352 + 190 2 + +
ICES Division Va (Iceland Grounds) Iceland* 0 11 3 5 4 3 n.a.
ICES Division VIa, b (NW coast of Scotland and North Ireland, Rockall) France + + 2 0 0 0 + Ireland + + + + + 0 + Spain 0 0 43 112 173 3 n.a.
ICES Division VIIa (Irish Sea) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ireland 66 17 23 + + + 0
ICES Divisions VIIb, c (West of Ireland and Porcupine Bank) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 0 0 0 8 + + 0 France + 0 0 0 29 29 12 Ireland 02136+ + + 29 Spain + + 38 97 150 69 n.a.
ICES Divisions VIId, e (English Channel) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 0 + 0 1 2 1 2 France 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
ICES Divisions VIIg-k (Celtic Sea and SW of Ireland) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 0 29 13 14 4 25 0 France 1 0 0 2 49 3 45 Ireland 0 167 312 + + 9 83 Spain 643 353 164 427 658 873 n.a.
ICES Sub-area VIII (Bay of Biscay) England, Wales & Northern Ireland 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 France 317 136 139 372 166 210 165 Portugal 0 0 1 11 5 1 2 Spain 505 360 1830 2013 1806 1453 n.a.
ICES Sub-area IX Portugal 190 101 121 353 383 313 323 Spain 75 149 1495 2536 1800 4476 n.a.
Grand Total 1798 1703 4221 6145 5232 7469 665
*Landings consist exclusively of Todarodes sagittatus.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 23 Table 2.4. Landings (in tonnes) of Octopods (Eledone spp. and Octopus vulgaris).
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
ICES Division IVa (Northern North Sea) Scotland 2 2 2 6 13 17 15
ICES Division IVb (Central North Sea) Belgium 3 0 + + 2 5 5 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 Scotland 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
ICES Division IVc (Southern North Sea) Belgium 1 2 0 2 + 2 1 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 4 8 4 1 + + 0
ICES Division VIa, b (NW coast of Scotland and North Ireland, Rockall) Belgium 0 0 0 1 1 + + England, Wales & Northern Ireland 1 0 0 0 + 0 0 Ireland 0 1 1 + 0 0 1 Scotland 2 4 1 1 + + 0 Spain 0 0 27 35 42 0 n.a.
ICES Division VIIa (Irish Sea) Belgium 14 14 3 18 26 4 5 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 24 2 0 1 + + 0 Ireland + 1 + 0 1 0 +
ICES Divisions VIIb, c (West of Ireland and Porcupine Bank) England, Wales & Northern Ireland + + 4 3 0 + 0 France 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Ireland 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 Spain + + 27 33 41 34 n.a.
ICES Divisions VIId, e (English Channel) Belgium + 6 1 1 + + + Channel Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 + England, Wales & Northern Ireland 60 77 75 37 17 9 0 France 32 45 23 7 3 4 13 Ireland 0 0 + 0 0 0 +
ICES Division VIIf (Bristol Channel) Belgium 6 9 6 6 3 3 13 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 26 8 6 9 4 4 0 France 3 2 2 1 0 0 1
ICES Divisions VIIg-k (Celtic Sea and SW of Ireland) Belgium 10 27 17 13 11 10 15 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 77 144 127 66 28 12 5 France 1 2 0 1 9 2 21 Ireland 2 4 25 3 2 3 7 Scotland 0 0 5 1 9 0 0 Spain 256 452 116 145 179 348 n.a.
ICES Sub-area VIII (Bay of Biscay) Belgium 6 3 1 4 4 17 4 England, Wales & Northern Ireland 0 + 5 23 0 0 0 France 64 68 49 84 78 116 138 Portugal 154 107 113 75 57 156 250 Spain 1434 1779 2486 2448 2787 1261 n.a.
24 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc Table 2.4. continued.
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
ICES Sub-area IX Portugal 7319 9708 11523 9078 6350 9025 9019 Spain 3757 3741 2991 3630 3298 4490 n.a.
ICES Sub-area X (Azores Grounds) Portugal* 7 8 16 64 39 12 11
Grand Total 13272 16226 17658 15801 13009 15539 9530
*Landings consist exclusively of Octopus vulgaris.
Table 2.5. Total annual cephalopod landings (in tonnes) in whole ICES area separated into major cephalopod species groups.
Cephalopod Group 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
Cuttlefish 14744 19601 19736 16652 20267 19326 21522 Common Squid 9967 10001 9632 11519 10197 9095 8856 Short-finned Squid 1798 1703 4221 6145 5232 7469 665 Octopods 13272 16226 17658 15801 13009 15539 9530
Total 39781 47531 51247 50117 48705 51429 40573
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 25 Table 2.6 Total annual cephalopod landings (in tonnes) in whole ICES area by country and separated into major cephalopod species groups.
Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000P
(a) Cuttlefish (Sepiidae)
Belgium 56 46 21 17 26 23 50 Channel Islands 2 1 11 8 20 22 2 England, Wales & N. Ireland 2091 4339 4607 2202 2752 2204 3071 France 10247 13015 12315 11046 13015 13097 17034 Portugal 1120 881 1636 1423 1734 1161 1365 Spain 1228 1219 1146 1956 2720 2819 n.a. Total 14744 19601 19736 16652 20267 19326 21522
(b) Common Squid (Loliginidae)
Belgium 291 468 388 155 253 221 452 Channel Islands 0 2 1 6 5 11 + Denmark 1 2 2 17 16 27 21 England, Wales & N. Ireland 2057 2163 2464 2005 804 836 939 Faroe Islands 1 + + 5 36 29 n.a. France 5790 4916 3976 4560 4276 4320 5055 Germany 3 9 3 4 11 6 5 Ireland 283 232 320 357 353 353 139 Isle of Man 6 7 3 2 2 2 n.a. Netherlands + + + + + + 763 Portugal 423 1158 665 1153 1111 372 667 Scotland 273 570 799 1001 1356 1198 815 Spain 839 472 1011 2253 1974 1720 n.a. Sweden + 2 + 1 + + + Total 9967 10001 9632 11519 10197 9095 8856
(c) Short-finned Squid (Ommastrephidae)
England, Wales & N. Ireland 0 35 13 26 6 26 3 France 319 137 142 375 245 243 225 Iceland 0 11 3 5 4 3 n.a. Ireland 66 205 371 + + 9 112 Norway 0 352 + 190 2 + + Portugal 190 101 122 364 388 314 325 Spain 1223 862 3570 5185 4587 6874 n.a. Total 1798 1703 4221 6145 5232 7469 665
(d) Octopods (Octopodidae)
Belgium 40 61 28 45 47 41 43 Channel Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 + England, Wales & N. Ireland 196 239 221 140 50 26 5 France 100 117 74 93 92 124 175 Ireland 4 8 28 7 4 4 12 Portugal 7480 9823 11652 9217 6446 9193 9280 Scotland 5 6 8 8 23 18 15 Spain 5447 5972 5647 6291 6347 6133 n.a. Total 13272 16226 17658 15801 13009 15539 9530
26 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc Table 2.7 Detailed breakdown of Spanish cephalopod landings, 1999 (tonnes)
SPECIES AREA Jan FebMar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecSUM Alloteuthis spp. IXa CADIZ 2 4 4 5 4 6 6 6 4 4 4 5 56 Eledone cirrhosa IXa GALICIA 16 33 27 36 27 20 11 10 22 31 24 22 280 Eledone cirrhosa VII 7 7 7 51 124 5 20 0 3 4 0 5 231 Eledone cirrhosa VIIIc 14 16 18 17 21 13 5 2 10 18 8 7 147 Eledone moschata IXa CADIZ 8 11 8 6 4 5 6 9 8 10 6 4 84 Loligo forbesi VII 40 46 11 6 23 7 53 18 63 43 23 19 352 Loligo spp. VIIIc 49 9 19 15 29 54 27 41 61 97 72 60 534 Loligo spp. VIIIab 19 3 8 6 12 21 8 15 24 39 27 23 203 Loligo vulgaris IXa GALICIA 2 1 1 1 3 4 8 7 5 5 3 1 41 Loligo vulgaris IXa CADIZ 15 11 10 10 9 10 14 17 24 28 29 26 202 Octopodidae VIIIc 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 8 16 11 47 Octopodidae VIIIab 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 5 20 Octopus vulgaris IXa GALICIA 129 183 102 103 184 153 85 108 81 125 151 69 1473 Octopus vulgaris IXa CADIZ 71 76 53 67 78 94 106 95 148 327 834 702 2653 Octopus vulgaris VIIIc 78 110 99 57 65 36 24 28 42 68 98 72 778 Ommastrephidae IXa GALICIA 12 11 27 16 43 49 32 8 21 44 22 16 299 Ommastrephidae IXa CADIZ 9 13 22 14 14 13 14 11 10 6 8 4 139 Ommastrephidae VII 47 49 122 0 50 16 76 7 59 57 22 8 514 Ommastrephidae VIIIc 77 146 194 125 160 58 32 18 30 54 116 78 1088 Ommastrephidae VIIIab 25 50 57 38 59 19 8 6 11 20 44 28 365 Sepia elegans IXa CADIZ 5 4 4 5 8 8 7 7 6 5 3 3 66 Sepia officinalis IXa CADIZ 91 73 75 66 59 45 45 40 64 81 77 68 784 Sepia officinalis VII 34 41 0 7 40 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 122 Sepia spp. IXa GALICIA 59 65 34 7 19 17 8 7 6 9 29 32 292 Sepia spp. VIIIc 65 34 52 35 41 12 4 7 4 64 92 76 486 Sepia spp. VIIIab 18 7 14 11 15 4 2 3 1 26 37 29 168
Table 2.8 Effort data (days fishing) for the Spanish trawler fleet fishing on the Spanish Atlantic coast (excluding the Basque country and Gulf of Cádiz)
1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 MONTH IXa VIIIc IXa VIIIc IXa VIIIc IXa VIIIc IXa 1 1113 1743 1436 1626 1405 1458 1617 1509 1463 2 1192 1664 1395 1434 1515 1308 1573 1235 1484 3 1595 2008 1680 1760 1690 1425 1686 1341 1429 4 1499 1878 1578 1454 1516 1429 1889 1536 1347 5 1539 1880 1772 1836 1602 1557 1929 1608 1469 6 1638 1961 1771 1702 1567 1229 1660 1604 1535 7 1553 1731 1652 1461 1676 1384 1804 1644 1498 8 1485 1901 1618 1591 1549 1429 1502 1299 1357 9 1477 1737 1455 1293 1460 1373 1537 1221 1343 10 1324 1521 1324 1398 1529 1372 1409 1208 1190 11 1303 1757 1318 1518 1334 1179 1272 1196 1038 12 1254 1661 1114 1178 1393 1248 1277 1199 1049
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 27 Table 7.1. Sampling of cephalopods funded under the new DG Fisheries scheme
Key: = required sampling, o = optional sampling, - = not covered
Area Species North Sea West coast XIIIc/IXa Mediterranean CECAF English Channel N Biscay Octopus vulgaris - o - Eledone cirrhosa - - - - Eledone moschata - - - -
Sepia officinalis - o o Other cuttlefish - - - - -
Loligo vulgaris - o o Loligo forbesi - - - - -
Short-finned squid - - - - -
28 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc
-18° -14° -10° -6° -2° 60° 48
47
46
45 VIb VIa 58° 44
43
42
41 56° 0m0 m 40
39 -200m200 m
38 -1000m1000 m 37 VIIb VIIa 54° 36 VIIc -2000m2000 m 35
3000-3000m m 34
33 52° -4000m4000 m 32
31 VIIk -5000m5000 m VIIg 30 VIIf
29 50° 2000 Irish landings of 28 Loligo forbesi (tonnes) 27 VIIe
26 VIIj VIIh 0 t 19 t 37 t 56 t 25 48° D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7
Figure 2.1. The spatial distribution of Irish Loligo forbesi landings in 2000.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 29 -18° -14° -10° -6° -2° 60° 48
47
46
45 VIb VIa 58° 44
43
42
41 56° 0m0 m 40
39 -200m200 m
38 -1000m1000 m 37 VIIb VIIa 54° 36 VIIc -2000m2000 m 35
3000-3000m m 34
33 52° -4000m4000 m 32 2000 Irish Ommastrephid 31 VIIk squid landings (tonnes) -5000m5000 m VIIg Set gillnets 30 VIIf Tuna Driftnets 29 Demersal trawl Danish seine 50° 28 Scottish seine
27 VIIe
26 VIIj VIIh
25 0.00 t 13.55 t 27.10 t 48° D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7
Figure 2.2. The spatial distribution of Irish ommastrephid squid landings by gear in 2000.
30 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc
6000
5000
4000
SOURCE 3000 IEO ESTIMATES OFFICIAL DATA
2000
1000
0 ICES 7 ICES 8AB ICES 8C ICES IXA ICES 7 ICES 8AB ICES 8C ICES IXA ICES 7 ICES 8AB ICES 8C ICES IXA ALL SQUIDS ALL OCTOPODS ALL CUTTLEFISH
Figure 2.3. Discrepancies existing between officially reported landings data and the landings data compiled by the Working Group members of IEO Vigo. Numbers are in metric tonnes.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 31
12000
10000
8000
SQUID OCTOPODS 6000 FLYING SQUID CUTTLEFISH
4000
2000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 2.4. IEO estimates of Spanish cephalopod landings (in metric tonnes) from ICES Waters during 1990-1999.
7000
6000
5000
SQUID 4000 OCTOPODS FLYING SQUID 3000 CUTTLEFISH
2000
1000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 VII VIII IX
Figure. 2.5. IEO estimates of Spanish cephalopod landings (in metric tonnes) split into ICES sub-areas.
32 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 1.6 4.5
1.4 4.0 IVa + VIa VIb 3.5 1.2
3.0 1.0 2.5 0.8 2.0 0.6 1.5 CPUE (tonnes/h)VIb 0.4 CPUE (tonnes/h) IVa + VIa 1.0
0.2 0.5
0.0 0.0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year
Figure 2.6. Annual catch of Loligo forbesi per unit fishing effort by Scottish single demersal trawlers (1970- 2000) in inshore (IVa + VIa) and offshore (VIb) waters.
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 33 ANNEX 1
WGCEPH MEETING, 28-30 MARCH 2001 IN FARO, PORTUGAL: PARTICIPANTS
(a) Members of WGCEPH
Name Address Telephone and Fax E-mail
Teresa Cerveira Universidade do Algarve, UCTRA, Campus de [email protected] Borges Gambelas, 8000-810 Faro, Portugal
Dr Simeon Hill Renewable Resources Assessment Group, Tel +44 20 7594 9275 [email protected] Imperial College, Royal School of Mines, Fax +44 20 7589 5319 Prince Consort Road, LONDON, SW7 2BP, UK Dr Noussithé Université de Caen, 14032 Caen Cedex, France Tel +33 231 565596 [email protected] Koueta
Colm Lordan Marine Fisheries Services Division, Marine Institute, Tel +353-1-8228203 [email protected] Abbotstown Laboratory Complex, Snugborough Fax +353-1-8205078 Road, Dublin 15, Ireland Paulino Lucio AZTI, Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g, 48369 Sukarrieta Tel +34 946 870700 [email protected] (Bizkaia), Spain Fax +34 946 870006
Ana Moreno IPIMAR, Avenida de Brasília, S/N, 1449-006 Lisbon, Tel +351-1-3027000 [email protected] Portugal Fax +351-1-3015948
João Pereira IPIMAR, Avenida de Brasília, S/N, 1449-006 Lisbon, Tel +351-1-3027000 [email protected] Portugal Fax +351-1-3015948
Dr Uwe Institut für Meereskunde, Universität Kiel, Tel +49-431-5973908 [email protected] Piatkowski Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany Fax +49-431-565876
Dr Graham University of Aberdeen, Department of Zoology, +44-1224-272459 [email protected] Pierce Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, UK +44-1224-272396 (Chairman)
Julio Portela Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro +34 986 492111 [email protected] Oceanográfico de Vigo, Cabo Estay-Canido, Apdo +34 986 492351 1552, E-36280 Vigo, Spain Dr Jean-Paul Université de Caen, I.B.B.A., Biologie et [email protected] Robin Biotechnologies Marines, F-14032 Caen Cedex, France Begoña Santos University of Aberdeen, Department of Zoology, Tel +44-1224-273796 [email protected] Vázquez Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, UK Fax +44-1224-272396
Dr Ignacio Instituto Español de Oceanografía Tel +34 956261333 [email protected] Sobrino Unidad de Cádiz, Apdo. 2609, 11006 CADIZ, Spain Fax +34 956263556
34 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc (b) Observers
Name Address Telephone and Fax E-mail
Dr Jose Pedro Faculdade de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, [email protected] Andrade Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 - 810 Faro, Portugal Dr Christos IMBC, P.O.Box 2214, 71 003 Heraklion, Crete, Tel +30-81-243612 / Arvanitidis Greece 346860 Fax + 30-81-241882 Sónia Borges Universidade Aberta, Rua Escola Politécnica 147, [email protected] Seixas 1250 Lisboa, Portugal
Ana Dimis Faculdade de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, [email protected] Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 - 810 Faro, Portugal Alexander Garcia IPIMAR, Centro de Investigaças Regional do Sul, Tel +351 289 700520 [email protected] Olhao, Portugal Inês André Faculdade de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, [email protected] Gonçalves Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 - 810 Faro, Portugal Dr Angel Guerra Instituto de Investigacions Mariñas, Eduardo Cabello Tel +34-986-231930 [email protected] 6, E-36208 Vigo, Spain
Dr Patrizia Jereb ICRAM, Via di Casalotti 300 Tel +39 06 61570491 [email protected] 00166 - Roma, Italy fax +39 06 61561906
Dr Drosos Dept. Marine Science, University of the Aegean Tel + 251-36814 / [email protected] Koutsoubas Sapfous 5, 81100 Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece 36800 Fax + 251-36809 Colm Lordan Marine Fisheries Services Division, Marine Institute, Tel +353-1-8228203 [email protected] Abbotstown Laboratory Complex, Snugborough Fax +353-1-8205078 Road, Dublin 15, Ireland Maria do Rosario IPIMAR, Avenida de Brasília, S/N, 1449-006 Lisbon, [email protected] R. Mendonça Portugal
Teresa Pina Faculdade de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, [email protected] Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 - 810 Faro, Portugal Carlos Sousa Departamento Zoologia e Antropologia, Faculdade de Tel +351 217 500000, [email protected] Reis Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, ext 22338 1700 Lisboa, Portugal Fax +351 217 500028 Jorge Santos University of Tromsø, Norway [email protected]
Hugo Saldanha IPIMAR, Centro de Investigaças Regional do Sul, [email protected] Olhao, Portugal
João Sendão Faculdade de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, [email protected] Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 - 810 Faro, Portugal António Sykes Faculdade de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, [email protected] Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 - 810 Faro, Portugal Iain Young University of Aberdeen, Department of Zoology, Tel +44-1224-273796 [email protected] Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, UK Fax +44-1224-272396
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 35 ANNEX 2
MEMBERSHIP OF WGCEPH (March 2001)
Dr Alexander Arkhipkin Ms M.E. Cunha Fisheries Department IPIMAR Falkland Islands Government Avenida de Brasilia P.O. Box 598 Stanley P-1400 Lisbon Falkland Islands Portugal [email protected] [email protected]
Mr N. Bailey Mr E.G. Dawe Fisheries Research Services Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans Marine Laboratory P.O. Box 5667 P.O. Box 101 St John's, Nfld A1C 5X1 Victoria Road Canada Aberdeen AB11 9DB United Kingdom Dr S. Desclers [email protected] Jackson Environment Institute Tel: +44 1224 876544 University College London Fax: +44 1224 295511 5 Gower Street London WC1E 6HA Mr Herman Bjørke [email protected] Institute of Marine Research P.O. Box 1870 Nordnes Mr E. Gaard N-5817 Bergen Fiskirannsóknarstovan Norway P.O. Box 3051, Noatun [email protected] FO-110 Tórshavn TEL: +47 55 238500 Faroe Islands FAX: +47 55 238531 Denmark [email protected] Dr Teresa Cerveira Borges Universidade do Algarve, UCTRA Ms L. Hendrickson Campus de Gambelas Northeast Fisheries Science Center 8000-810 Faro NMFS/NOAA Portugal Woods Hole, MA 02543 [email protected] USA [email protected] Prof. P. Boyle University of Aberdeen Dr Simeon Hill Tillydrone Avenue Renewable Resources Assessment Group, Aberdeen AB9 2TN Imperial College, Royal School of Mines, United Kingdom Prince Consort Road, LONDON, SW7 2BP, UK [email protected] [email protected]
Mr S. Cadrin Mr T. Howell Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research Services NMFS/NOAA Marine Laboratory Woods Hole, MA 02543 P.O. Box 101 USA Victoria Road [email protected] Aberdeen AB11 9DB United [email protected] Tel: +44 1224 876544 Dr M. Collins Fax: +44 1224 295511 University of Aberdeen Dept. of Zoology M N. Koueta Tillydrone Avenue Lab. de Biologie et Biotechnolgies Marines Aberdeen AB9 2TN Esplanade de la Paix United Kingdom B.P. 5186 [email protected] 14032 Caen Cedex France [email protected]
36 O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc Dr Han-Lin Lai Dr U. Piatkowski Northeast Fisheries Science Center Institut für Meereskunde an der Universität Kiel NMFS/NOAA Düsternbrooker Weg 20 Woods Hole, MA 02543 D-24105 Kiel USA Germany [email protected] [email protected]
Dr C. Lordan Dr G.J. Pierce Marine Fisheries Services Division Department of Zoology Marine Institute University of Aberdeen Abbotstown Laboratory Complex Tillydrone Avenue Snugborough Road Aberdeen AB24 2TZ Dublin 15 United Kingdom Ireland [email protected] [email protected]
Paulino Lucio Dr Mario Rasero AZTI Inst. Español de Oceanografía Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g Centro Oceanográfico de Vigo 48369 Sukarrieta (Bizkaia) Apdo 1552 Spain E-36200 Vigo TEL: +34 946 870700 Spain FAX: +34 946 870006 [email protected] [email protected]
Dr W.K. Macy Dr J.P. Robin Graduate School of Oceanography Biologie & Biotechnologies Marines University of Rhode Island I.B.B.A. South Ferry Road Unviversité de Caen Narragansett, RI 02882 14032 Caen Cedex USA France [email protected]
Mr Julio Martinez-Portela Dr P. Rodhouse Inst. Español de Oceanografía BAS Centro Oceanográfico de Vigo High Cross, Madingley Road Apdo 1552 Cambridge CB3 OET E-36200 Vigo United Kingdom Spain [email protected] [email protected]
Ms A. Moreno Dr M.B. Santos IPIMAR University of Aberdeen Avenida de Brasilia Dept. of Zoology P-1400 Lisbon Tillydrone Avenue Portugal Aberdeen AB9 2TN [email protected] United Kingdom [email protected]
Mr J.M.F. Pereira Dr Ignacio Sobrino IPIMAR Unidad Oceanográfica de Cádiz Avenida de Brasilia Muelle de levante, s/n P-1400 Lisbon 11071 Cádiz Portugal Spain [email protected] [email protected]
Mr S. Munch-Petersen Dr M. Vecchione Danish Institute for NMFS/NOAA Fishery Research Systematics Laboratory Charlottenlund Slot National Museum of Natural History DK-2920 Charlottenlund Washington D.C. 20560 Denmark USA [email protected] [email protected]
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 37
ANNEX 3
WGCEPH MEETING, 28-30 MARCH 2001 IN FARO, PORTUGAL: AGENDA
Joint Meeting of the ICES WGCEPH and the DG Fisheries project CEPHASSESS 28-31 March, Anfiteatro Azul (Reitoria), Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal
DAY 1 - Wednesday 28th March
09.30-10.30 Opening of meeting
S Introduction to the meetings - G Pierce, J. Pereira, T. Borges S Appointment of Rapporteurs S Adoption of 2000 WGCEPH Report S Report of the WGCEPH Chairman S WGCEPH terms of Reference S Arrangements for preparation of the 2001 WGCEPH report
11.00-13.00 Presentations of ongoing and recent research on cephalopods (WGCEPH TOR f) 14.30-15.30 16.00-17.30
S Simeon Hill (RRAG, UK) - Recruitment strength of annual squid stocks: Loligo gahi and Illex argentinus S Angel Guerra (IIM, Spain) - Data collection for assessment of octopus and cuttlefish fisheries in Galicia S Jean-Paul Robin (University of Caen, France) - Species specific assessments of English Channel loliginid squids based on depletion methods S Iain Young (University of Aberdeen, UK)- sampling and assessment of squid in Scottish waters S Uwe Piatkowski (University of Kiel, Germany) - Cephalopod sampling at Atlantic seamounts S Paulino Lucio (AZTI, Spain) - Cephalopod fisheries in the Basque Country S João Pereira (IPIMAR, Portugal) - Catch per unit effort in Portuguese cephalopod fisheries S Maria de Rosario Mendonça (IPIMAR, Portugal) - Socioeconomic studies of Portuguese cephalopod fisheries
DAY 2 - Thursday 29th March
09.30-10.30 WGCEPH TOR A and C
(a) Update currently available landing statistics and information on fishing effort and discards; explore existing resource survey databases for specific information about sampled cephalopods in the ICES area (c) Gear selectivity data
11.00-13.00 WGCEPH TOR B and D
(b) Continue the compilation of methods and results available for stock identification and estimation of population size of fished cephalopods; (d) Review possible precautionary approaches to the management of these cephalopod resources.
14.30-15.30 Presentations of ongoing and recent research on cephalopods (WGCEPH TOR f)
S Teresa Borges (University of Algarve, Portugal) - The common octopus artisanal fishery in the Algarve, south of Portugal S Colm Lordan (Marine Institute, Ireland) - Irish cephalopod fisheries
16.00-17.30 WGCEPH TOR E
(e) Review the results of national and transnational projects collecting data on fished cephalopods, especially those projects studying relationships between abundance and environmental conditions, factors affecting recruitment, migration and distribution patterns of juveniles and adults, and trophic interactions
38 i DAY 3 - Friday 30th March
09.30-11.00 WGCEPH TOR f,g,h
(f) Review research priorities in relation to data requirements for fishery assessment and management; review research priorities in relation to data requirements for fishery assessment and management and identify how this could be undertaken (g) Continue development of a bibliographic database of cephalopod literature relevant to fisheries, including grey literature (h) Identify the future programme of WGCEPH
11.30-12.30 WGCEPH business
S Response of WGCEPH to EC Council Resolution 1543/2000 on funding of sampling for fisheries data by DG Fisheries. S ICES ASC: theme session on "THE RESPONSE OF CEPHALOPOD POPULATIONS AND FISHERIES TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS AND ECOSYSTEMS" S Election for WGCEPH chair
13.00-17.30 JOINT WGCEPH/CEPHASSESS STOCK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
17.30 Close of WGCEPH meeting
DAY 4 - Saturday 31st March
09.30-13.00 CEPHASSESS project business meeting
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 39
40 ANNEX 4
CURRENT AND RECENT PROJECTS RELEVANT TO WGCEPH
(a) projects on cephalopod fisheries
Project name Acronym Co-ordination & Funding Duration Description Partners ALCACEPH Univ Algarve (PT), IEO (ES) EU DG Complete Cephalopod fishery trends, fishing gears, Fisheries 2Y biology, discards, assessment Data collection for assessment of cephalopod CEPHASSESS IPIMAR (PT), Univ Aberdeen EU DG Ongoing Data collection and stock assessment for fisheries (UK), Univ Caen (FR), IIM (ES), Fisheries (2000-01) cephalopod fisheries in European waters IEO (ES), IMBC (GR) CORRAM Univ Lisbon (PT), Univ Algarve FCT Ongoing Octopus fishery biology in relation to (PT), Univ Azores (PT), Univ (PT) 3Y environmental factors (metals, behaviour, Aberta (PT), DR Madeira (PT) recruitment, fishing gears) PULPOCIES IIM (ES), Univ Vigo (ES) Axunta Ongoing Recruitment of octopus in relation to Galicia 3Y oceanographic factors SEPIA Univ Algarve (PT), Univ Lisbon FCT Ongoing Feeding ecology, population dynamics and (PT), Univ Aveiro (PT) (PT) 3Y trophic interactions of cuttlefish Trophic interactions of pelagic squid and fish - Uni Aberdeen (UK) EU DG Ongoing Study of diet of pelagic squids using stomach in the North East Atlantic: application of Research (1999- contents and fatty acid analysis stable isotope and fatty acid techniques to (TMR) 2001) improve understanding of pelagic food webs
40 i (B) PROJECTS COLLECTING INCIDENTAL DATA ON CEPHALOPODS
Project name Acronym Co-ordination & Funding Duration Description - relevance to cephalopods Partners Bioaccumulation of persistent organic BIOCET Univ Aberdeen (UK), NNM (NL), EU DG Ongoing Role of cephalopods as food of marine pollutants in small cetaceans in european NIOZ (NL), Univ Cork (IR), Univ Research (2001-03) mammals and consequences for waters: transport pathways and impact on La Rochelle (FR), IIM (ES), bioaccumulation of contaminants reproduction CRMM (FR) BYDISCARD Univ Algarve (PT), IPIMAR (PT), EU DG Ongoing By-catches, discards, by-catch reduction Univ Tromso (NO) Fisheries 2Y devices, community ecology and bioeconomics Monitoring of discarding and retention by DISCARDS SEAFISH (UK), CEFAS (UK), EU DG Ongoing Discards from trawling in the NE Atlantic trawl fisheries in Western Waters and the Irish TRAWL Mar Inst (IR), IEO (ES), AZTI Fisheries 2Y Sea in relation to stock assessment and (ES), Queen's Univ (NI-UK), technical measures Univ Plymouth (UK) Data collection for assessment of the main HAKE IEO (ES), Univ Aberdeen (UK), EU DG Ongoing Fisheries and ecology of SW Atlantic hake + finfish stocks in the Patagonian shelf (SW RRAG (UK), FIFD (UK), Fisheries (2000-01) squid Atlantic ANAMER (ES) Pelagic fisheries in Scotland (UK) and Galicia MARMAM Univ Aberdeen (UK), Univ Vigo EU DG Ongoing By-catches and discards of pelagic and (Spain): monitoring by-catches of small BYCATCH (ES) Fisheries (2001) offshore fishing cetaceans in selected fisheries and collection of data on catches, effort, discards Improving sampling of Western and Southern SAMFISH AZTI (ES), Mar Inst/FRC (IR), EU DG Ongoing Discards, sampling methods in NW Atlantic European Atlantic Fisheries IEO (ES), IFREMER (FR), FRS Fisheries 2Y (2000- waters (UK), IPIMAR (PT), Univ Azores 02) (PT), CEFAS (UK)
41
O:\scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.doc 41 ANNEX 5
CEPHALOPOD BIBLIOGRAPHY (2000-01)
Adamo, S.A., Brown, W.M., King, A.J., Mather, D.L., Mather, J.A., Shoemaker, K.L. & Wood, J.B., 2000. Agonistic and reproductive behaviours of the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis in a semi-natural environment. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 417-418.
Agnew, D.J., Hill, S. & Beddington J.R., 2000. Predicting the recruitment strength of an annual squid stock: Loligo gahi around the Falkland Islands. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57: 2479-2487.
Alonso, M.K., Crespo, E.A., Pedraza, S.N., Garcia, N.A. & Coscarella, M.A., 2000. Food habits of the South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens, off Patagonia, Argentina. Fishery Bulletin, 98(2): 250-263.
Arkhipkin, A.I., 2000. Intrapopulation structure of winter-spawned Argentine shortfin squid, Illex argentinus (Cephalopoda, Ommastrephidae), during its feeding period over the Patagonian Shelf. Fishery Bulletin, 98(1): 1- 13.
Arkhipkin, A.I. & Bjørke, H., 2000. Statolith shape and microstructure as indicators of ontogenetic shifts in the squid Gonatus fabricii (Oegopsida, Gonatidae) from the Norwegian Sea. Polar Biology, 23:1-10.
Arkhipkin, A.I. & Bizikov, V.A., 2000. Role of the statolith in functioning of the acceleration receptor system in squids and sepioids. Journal of Zoology, 250(1): 31-55.
Arkhipkin, A.I. & Fetisov, A.A., 2000. Population structure and growth of the squid Illex illecebrosus (Cephalopoda, Ommastrephidae) off Nova Scotia, north-west Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80: 367-368.
Arkhipkin, A.I. & Golub, A., 2000. Aberrant structure of the statolith postnuclear zone in the squid Todarodes sagittatus (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80(1): 183-184.
Arkhipkin, A.I., Jereb, P. & Ragonese, S., 2000. Growth and maturation in two successive groups of the short-finned squid, Illex coindetii from the Strait of Sicily (Central Mediterranean). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 31- 41.
Arkhipkin, A.I. & Laptikhovsky, V.V., 2000. Age and growth of the squid Todaropsis eblanae (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae) on the north-west African shelf. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80: 747-748.
Arkhipkin, A.I., Laptikhovsky, V.V. & Middleton, D.A.J., 2000. Adaptations for the cold water spawning in squid of the family Loliginidae: Loligo gahi around the Falkland Islands. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 551-564.
Arreguin-Sanchez, F., 2000. Octopus-red grouper interaction in the exploited ecosystem of the northern continental shelf of Yucatan, Mexico. Ecological Modelling, 129(2-3): 119-129.
Barros, N.B., Parsons, E.C.M. & Jefferson, T.A., 2000. Prey of offshore bottlenose dolphins from the South China Sea. Aquatic Mammals, 26(1): 2-6.
Bellido, J.M., Pierce, G.J. & Wang, J., 2001. Application of generalised additive models to reveal spatial relationships between environmental variables and squid abundance in Scottish waters. Fisheries Research 52, 23-40.
Bello, G., 2000. How rare is Histioteuthis bonnellii (Cephalopoda: Histioteuthidae) in the eastern Mediterranean Sea? Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 575-577.
Bettencourt, V. & Guerra, A., 2000. Growth increments and biomineralization process in cephalopod statoliths. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 248(2): 191-205.
42 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Bjørke, H., 2001. Predators of the squid Gonatus fabricii (Lichtenstein) in the Norwegian Sea. Fisheries Research, 52: 113-120.
Boletzky, S.V. & Roeleveld, M.A.C., 2000. Ventral adhesion to hard substrates: a thigmotactic response in Sepiid cuttlefish (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Vie et milieu, 50(1): 59-64.
Bowen, W.D., 2000. Reconstruction of pinniped diets: accounting for complete digestion of otoliths and cephalopod beaks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(5): 898-905.
Boyle, P.R. & Daly, H.I., 2000. Fecundity and spawning in a deep-water cirromorph octopus. Marine Biology, 137:317- 324.
Brito Castillo, L., Alcantara Razo, E., Morales Azpeitia, R. & Salinas Zavala, C.A., 2000. Water temperatures in the Gulf of California in May and June 1996 and their relation to the capture of giant squid (Dosidicus gigas) D'Orbigny, 1835 [Temperaturas del Golfo de California durante Mayo y Junio de 1996 y su relacion con las capturas de calamar gigante (Dosidicus gigas D'Orbigny, 1835). Ciencias Marinas, 26(3): 413-440.
Bustamante, P., Grigioni, S., Boucher-Rodoni, R., Caurant, F. & Miramand, P., 2000. Bioaccumulation of 12 Trace Elements in the Tissues of the Nautilus Nautilus macromphalus from New Caledonia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(8): 688-696.
Cai, Y., McGee, J. & Walsh, E.J., 2000. Contributions of Ion Conductances to the Onset Responses of Octopus Cells in the Ventral Cochlear Nucleus: Simulation Results. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83(1): 301-314.
Carlini, D.B., Reece, K.S. & Graves, J.E., 2000. Actin gene family evolution and the phylogeny of coleoid cephalopods (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17(9): 1353-1370.
Castro Suaste, T., Mexicano Cintora, G. & Defeo, O., 2000. Las pesquerias del Estado de Yucatan (Mexico): Evolucion y manejo durante el periodo 1976-1997 [Yucatan State (Mexico) fisheries: history and management during the period 1976-1997]. Oceanides, 15(1): 47-61.
Chirat, R., 2000. The so-called 'cosmopolitan palaeobiogeographic distribution' of Tertiary Nautilida of the genus Aturia Bronn 1838: the result of post-mortem transport by oceanic palaeocurrents. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 157(1-2): 59-77.
Claes, M.F. & Dunlap, P.V., 2000. Aposymbiotic culture of the sepiolid squid Euprymna scolopes: Role of the symbiotic bacterium Vibrio fischeri in host animal growth, development, and light organ morphogenesis. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 286(3): 280-296.
Clarke, R. & Paliza, O., 2000. The Humboldt current squid Dosidicus gigas (Orbigny, 1835). Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía, 35(1): 1-39.
Collins, M.A. & Henriques, C., 2000. A revision of the family Stauroteuthidae (Octopoda: Cirrata) with redescriptions of Stauroteuthis syrtensis and S. gilchristi. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80: 685-697.
Collins, M.A., Yau, C., Allcock, L. & Thurston, M.H., 2001. Distribution of deep-water benthic and bentho-pelagic cephalopods from the north-east Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 81: 105-117.
Cronin, E.R. & Seymour, R.S., 2000. Respiration of the eggs of the giant cuttlefish Sepia apama. Marine Biology, 136: 863-870.
Curtin, N.A., Woledge, R.C. & Bone, Q., 2000. Energy storage by passive elastic structures in the mantle of Sepia officinalis. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203(5): 869-878.
Daly, H.I. & Peck, L.S., 2000. Energy balance and cold adaptation in the octopus Pareledone charcoti. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 245(2): 197-214.
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 43 Daly, H.I., Pierce, G.J., Santos, M.B., Royer, J., Cho, S.K., Stowasser G., Robin, J.-P. & Henderson, S., 2001. Cephalopod consumption by fish in UK waters. Fisheries Research 52, 51-64.
Danaceau, J.P. & Lucero, M.T., 2000. Mixture interactions of glutamate and betaine in single squid olfactory neurons, Journal of Comparative Physiology a-Sensory Neural and Behavioral Physiology, 186(1): 57-67.
Daneri, G.A., Carlini, A. & Rodhouse, P.G.K., 2000. Cephalopod diet of the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina, at King George Island, South Shetland Islands. Antarctic Science, 12(1): 16-19.
Dawe, E.G., Colbourne, E.B. & Drinkwater, K.F., 2000. Environmental effects on recruitment of short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1002-1013.
Demarcq, H. & Faure, V., 2000. Coastal upwelling and associated retention indices derived from satellite SST. Application to Octopus vulgaris recruitment. Oceanologica acta, 23(4): 391-408.
Denis, V. & Robin J.P., 2001. Present status of the French Atlantic Fishery for cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Fisheries Research, 1182: 1-12.
Dickel, L., Boal, J.G. & Budelmann, B.U., 2000. The effect of early experience on learning and memory in cuttlefish. Developmental Psychobiology 36: 101-110. dos Santos, R.A. & Haimovici, M., 2000. The Argentine short-finned squid Illex argentinus in the food webs of southern Brazil. Sarsia, 85(1): 49-60.
Durholtz, M.D. & Lipinski, M.R., 2000. Influence of temperature on the microstructure of statoliths of the thumbstall squid Lolliguncula brevis. Marine Biology, 136: 1029-1037.
Du Sel, G.P., Blanc, A. & Daguzan, J., 2000. The diet of the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis L. (Mollusca: cephalopoda) during its life cycle in the northern Bay of Biscay (France). Aquatic Sciences, 62(2): 167-178.
Emery, A.M., Shaw, P.W., Greatorex, E.C., Boyle, P.R. & Noble, L.R., 2000. New microsatellite markers for assessment of paternity in the squid Loligo forbesi (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Molecular Ecology, 9(1): 110-112.
Falcon, L.I., Vecchione, M. & Roper, C.F.E., 2000. Paralarval gonatid squids (Cephalopoda: Oegopsida) from the Mid- North Atlantic Ocean. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 113(2): 532-541.
Forsythe, J.W., Walsh, L.S., Turk, P.E. & Lee, P.G., 2001. Impact of temperature on juvenile growth and age at first egg-laying of the Pacific reef squid Sepioteuthis lessoniana reared in captivity. Marine Biology, 138: 103-112.
Frodello, J.P., Romeo, M. & Viale, D., 2000. Distribution of mercury in the organs and tissues of five toothed- whale species of the Mediterranean, Environmental Pollution, 108(3): 447-452.
Gerpe, M.S., de Moreno, J.E.A., Moreno, V.J. & Patat, M.L., 2000. Cadmium, zinc and copper accumulation in the squid Illex argentinus from the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology, 136: 1039-1044.
González, A.F., Dawe, E.G., Beck, P.C. & Pérez, J.A.A., 2000. Bias associated with statolith-based methodologies for ageing squid; a comparative study on Illex illecebrosus (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 244(2): 161-180.
González, M., Fernández-Casado, M., Rodríguez, M. d. P., Segura, A. & Martín, J.J., 2000. First record of the giant squid Architeuthis sp. (Architeuthidae) in the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80:745-746.
Greatorex, E., Jones, C., Murphy, J., Key, L., Emery, A. & Boyle, P., 2000. Microsatellite markers for investigating population structure in Octopus vulgaris (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Molecular Ecology, 9: 641-642.
Grigioni, S., Boucher-Rodoni, R., Demarta, A., Tonolla, M. & Peduzzi, R., 2000. Phylogenetic characterisation of bacterial symbionts in the accessory nidamental glands of the sepioid Sepia officinalis (Cephalopoda: Decapoda). Marine Biology, 136(2): 217-222.
44 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Gröger, J., Piatkowski, U. & Heinemann, H., 2000. Beak length analysis of the Southern Ocean squid Psychroteuthis glacialis (Cephalopoda: Psychroteuthidae) and its use for size and biomass estimation. Polar Biology, 23(1): 70- 74.
Grubert, M.A. & Wadley, V.A., 2000. Sexual maturity and fecundity of Octopus maorum in southeast Tasmania. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(1): 131-142.
Guerra, A. González, A.F. & Cherel, Y., 2000. Graneledone gonzalezi sp. nov. (Mollusca: Cephalopoda): a new octopod from the Iles Kerguelen. Antarctic science, 12(1): 33-40.
Guerrero-Kommritz, J., 2000. A new species of Graneledone (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) from the southwest Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 543-549.
Halm, M.P., Agin, V., Chichery, M.P. & Chichery, R., 2000. Effect of aging on manipulative behavior in the cuttlefish, Sepia, Physiology and Behavior, 68(4): 543-547.
Hatate, H., Tanaka, R., Suzuki, N. & Hama, Y., 2000. Comparison of protease activity in liver among several species of squid and cuttlefish. Fisheries Science, 66(1): 182-183.
Hatfield, E.M.C., 2000. Do some like it hot? Temperature as a possible determinant of variability in the growth of the Patagonian squid, Loligo gahi (Cephalopoda: Loliginidae). Fisheries Research, 47(1): 27-40.
Hernández-García, V., Martín, A.Y. & Castro, J.J., 2000. Evidence of external digestion of crustaceans in Octopus vulgaris paralarvae. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80: 559-560.
Hidaka, K. & Kubodera, T., 2000. Squids of the genus Abralia (Cephalopoda: Enoploteuthidae) from the western tropical Pacific with a description of Abralia omiae, a new species. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(2): 417-443.
Hunt, J.C. & Seibel, B.A., 2000. Life history of Gonatus onyx (Cephalopoda: Teuthoidea): Ontogenetic changes in habitat, behaviour and physiology. Marine Biology, 136(3): 543-552.
Jackson, G.D., Shaw, A.G.P. & Lalas, C., 2000. Distribution and biomass of two squid species off southern New Zealand: Nototodarus sloanii and Moroteuthis ingens. Polar Biology, 23: 699-705.
Jackson, G.D. & Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., 2001. The influence of ration level on growth and statolith increment width of the tropical squid Sepioteuthis lessoniana (Cephalopoda: Loliginidae): an experimental approach. Marine Biology, 138: 819-825.
Katugin, O.N., 2000. A new subspecies of the schoolmaster gonate squid, Berryteuthis magister (Cephalopoda: Gonatidae), from the Japan Sea. Veliger, 43(1): 82-97.
Knight, J., 2000. Early learning. Squid hold clues to the chemicals that shape our brains. New Scientist, 165(2223): 6.
Kolkovski, S. & Tandler, A., 2000. The use of squid protein hydrolysate as a protein source in microdiets for gilthead seabream Sparus aurata larvae. Aquaculture Nutrition, 6(1): 11-15.
Loi, P.K. & Tublitz, N.J., 2000. Roles of Glutamate and FMRFamide-Related Peptides at the Chromatophore Neuromuscular Junction in the Cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 420(4): 499- 511.
Lopez-Gonzalez, P.J., Bresciani, J., Huys, R., González, A.F., Guerra, A. & Pascual, S., 2000. Description of Genesis vulcanoctupus gen. et sp.nov. (Copepoda: Tisbidae) parasitic on a hydrothermal vent octopod and a reinterpretation of the life cycle of cholidyinid harpacticoids. Cahiers de biologie marine, 41(3): 241-253.
Martinez, J.M., Elfarissi, H., DeVelasco, B., Ochoa, G.H., Miller, A.M., Clark, Y.M., Matsumoto, B. & Robles, L.J., 2000. Distribution of tubulin, kinesin, and dynein in light- and dark- adapted octopus retinas. Visual Neuroscience, 17(1): 127-138.
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 45 Matzner, H., Gutfreund, Y. & Hochner, B., 2000. Neuromuscular system of the flexible arm of the octopus: physiological characterization. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83(3): 1315-1328.
Maunder, M.N., Starr, P.J. & Hilborn, R., 2000. A Bayesian analysis to estimate loss in squid catch due to the implementation of a sea lion population management plan. Marine Mammal Science, 16(2): 413-426.
Moltschaniwskyj, N.A. & Jackson, G.D., 2000. Growth and tissue composition as a function of feeding history in juvenile cephalopods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 253: 229-241.
Moltschaniwskyj, N.A. & Semmens, J.M., 2000. Limited use of stored energy reserves for reproduction by the tropical loliginid squid Photololigo sp. Journal of Zoology, 251(3): 307-313.
Monks, N., 2000. Functional morphology, ecology, and evolution of the Scaphitaceae Gill, 1871 (Cephalopoda). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66(2): 205-216.
Mori, J., Kubodera, T. & Baba, N., 2001. Squid in the diet of northern fur seals, Callorhinus ursinus, caught in the western and central North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research, 52: 91-98.
Mouat, B. Collins, M.A. & Pompert, J., 2001. Patterns in the diet of Illex argentinus (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae) from the Falkland Islands jigging fishery. Fisheries Research, 52: 41-50.
Navarro, J.C. & Villanueva, R., 2000. Lipid and fatty acid composition of early stages of cephalopods: an approach to their lipid requirements. Aquaculture, 183(1-2): 161-177.
Nesis, K.N., 2000. Squids of the family Onychoteuthidae: phylogeny, biogeography, and way of life [Semejstvo kal'marov Onychoteuthidae: filogeniya, biogeografiya i obraz zhizni]. Zoologicheskij zhurnal, 79(3): 272-281.
Nesis, K.N., 2001. West-Arctic and East-Arctic distributional ranges of cephalopods. Sarsia, 86: 1-11.
Neumeister, H., Ripley, B., Preuss, T. & Gilly, W.F., 2000. Effects of temperature on escape jetting in the squid Loligo opalescens. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203(3): 547-557.
Odblom, M.P., Williamson, R. & Jones, M.B., 2000. Ionic currents in cardiac myocytes of squid, Alloteuthis subulata, Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology, 170(1): 11-20.
Parry, M., 2000. A description of the nuchal organ, a possible photoreceptor, in Euprymna scolopes and other cephalopods. Journal of Zoology, London, 252: 163-177.
Pecl., G., 2001. Flexible reproductive strategies in tropical and temperate Sepioteuthis squids. Marine Biology, 138: 93- 101.
Pelletier, D. & Ferraris, J., 2000. A multivariate approach for defining fishing tactics from commercial catch and effort data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(1): 51-65.
Piatkowski, U., Pierce, G.J. & Morais da Cunha, M. (Editors), 2001. Impacts of cephalopods in the food chain and their interaction with the environment. Fisheries Research 52 (1-2).
Piatkowski, U., Pierce, G.J. & Morais da Cunha, M., 2001. Impacts of cephalopods in the food chain and their interaction with the environment and fisheries: an overview. Fisheries Research 52, 5-10.
Piatkowski, U., Pütz, K. & Heinemann, H., 2001. Cephalopod prey of king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) breeding at Volunteer Beach, Falkland Islands, during austral winter 1996. Fisheries Research, 52: 79-90.
Preuss, T. & Gilly, W.F., 2000. Role of prey-capture experience in the development of the escape response in the squid Loligo opalescens: a physiological correlate in an identified neuron. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203(3): 559-565.
46 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Quetglas, A., Carbonell, A. & Sanchez, P., 2000. Demersal Continental Shelf and Upper Slope Cephalopod Assemblages from the Balearic Sea (North-Western Mediterranean). Biological Aspects of Some Deep-Sea Species. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 50(6): 739-749.
Quetglas, A., González, M., Carbonell, A. & Sánchez, P., 2000. Biology of the deep-sea octopus Bathypolypus sponsalis (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) from the western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Biology, 138: 785-792.
Reid, A.L., 2000. Australian cuttlefishes (Cephalopoda: Sepiidae): the `doratosepion' species complex. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 14(1): 1-76.
Richardson, A.J., Maharaj, G., Compagno, L.J.V., Leslie, R.W., Ebert, D.A. & Gibbons, M.J., 2000. Abundance, distribution, morphometrics, reproduction and diet of the Izak catshark. Journal of Fish Biology, 56(3): 552-576.
Rodhouse, P.G., Elvidge, C.D. & Trathan, P.N., 2001. Remote sensing of the global light-fishing fleet: an analysis of interactions with oceanography, other fisheries and predators. Advances in Marine Biology, 39: 261-303.
Roel, B.A. & Butterworth, D.S., 2000. Assessment of the South African chokka squid Loligo vulgaris reynaudii. Is disturbance of aggregations by the recent jig fishery having a negative impact on recruitment? Fisheries Research, 48(3): 213-228.
Roeleveld, M.A.C., 2000. Giant squid beaks: implications for systematics. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80(1): 185-187.
Sakaguchi, H., Hamano, T. & Nakazono, A., 2000. Madako no hyoshikiho ni kansuru yobiteki kenkyu--arizarin konpurekuson wo mochiita heikoseki senshoku [Preliminary study on a statolith marking method for Octopus vulgaris using alizarin complexone]. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Fisheries Oceanography, 64(3): 155- 160.
Salcedo-Vargas, M.A. & Guerrero-Kommritz, J., 2000. Three new cephalopods from the Atlantic Ocean. Mitteilungen des hamburgischen zoologischen Museums und Instituts, 97: 31-44.
Santos, M.B., Clarke, M.R. & Pierce, G.J., 2001. The Importance of cephalopods in the diets of marine mammals and other top predators. Fisheries Research, 52, 121-140.
Santos, M.B., Pierce G.J., Smeenk, C., Addink, M.J., Kinze, C.C., Tougaard, S. & Herman, J., 2001. Stomach contents of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) stranded in the North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 81, 143-150.
Sato, K., Kajiwara, N. & Hashimoto, S., 2000. Accumulative characteristics of organochlorine compounds (OCs) in squids [Surumeika Todarodes pacificus ni okeru yukiensokei kagobutsu (OCs) no chikuseki tokusei]. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi, 66(4): 658-665.
Saulitis, E., Matkin, C., BarrettLennard, L., Heise, K. & Ellis, G., 2000. Foraging strategies of sympatric killer whale (Orcinus orca) populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science, 16(1): 94-109.
Seibel, B.A. & Childress, J.J., 2000. Metabolism of benthic octopods (Cephalopoda) as a function of habitat depth and oxygen concentration. Deep-Sea Research (Part 1, Oceanographic Research Papers), 47(7): 1247-1260.
Seibel, B.A., Hochberg, F.G. & Carlini, D.B., 2000. Life history of Gonatus onyx (Cephalopoda: Teuthoidea): deep-sea spawning and post-spawning egg care. Marine Biology, 137: 519-526.
Seibel, B.A., Thuesen, E.V. & Childress, J.J., 2000. Light-limitation on predator-prey interactions: consequences for metabolism and locomotion of deep-sea cephalopods. Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 198(2): 284-298.
Semmens, J.M. & Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., 2000. An examination of variable growth in the loliginid squid Sepioteuthis lessoniana: a whole animal and reductionist approach. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 193: 135-141.
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 47 Shashar, N., Hagan, R., Boal, J.G. & Hanlon, R.T., 2000. Cuttlefish use polarization sensitivity in predation on silvery fish. Vision Research, 40(1): 71-75.
Shaw, P.W. & Perez-Losada, M., 2000. Polymorphic microsatellites in the common cuttlefish Sepia officinalis (Cephalopoda). Molecular Ecology, 9(2): 237-239.
Sherrard, K.M., 2000. Cuttlebone morphology limits habitat depth in eleven species of Sepia (Cephalopoda: Sepiidae). Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 198(3): 404-414.
Smith, S.C. & Whitehead, H., 2000. The diet of galapagos sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus as indicated by fecal sample analysis. Marine Mammal Science, 16(2): 315-325.
Soeller, R., Warnke, K., Saint-Paul, U. & Blohm, D., 2000. Sequence divergence of mitochondrial DNA indicates cryptic biodiversity in Octopus vulgaris and supports the taxonomic distinctiveness of Octopus mimus (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae). Marine Biology, 136(1): 29-35.
Suzuki, H., Yamamoto, T. Inenaga, M. & Uemura, H., 2000. Galanin-immunoreactive neuronal system and colocalization with serotonin in the optic lobe and peduncle complex of the octopus (Octopus vulgaris). Brain Research, 865(2): 168-176.
Thorpe, J.P., Sole-Cava, A.M. & Watts, P.C., 2000. Exploited marine invertebrates: genetics and fisheries. Hydrobiologia, 420(1): 165-184.
Tu, Y. & Budelmann, B.U., 2000. Effects of nitric oxide donors on the afferent resting activity in the cephalopod statocyst. Brain Research, 865(2): 211-220.
Vecchione, M., Mickevich, M.F., Fauchald, K., Collette, B.B., Williams, A.B., Munroe, T.A. & Young, R.E., 2000. Importance of assessing taxonomic adequacy in determining fishing effects on marine biodiversity. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 677-681.
Vecchione, M., Young, R.E. & Carlini, D. B., 2000. Reconstruction of ancestral character states in neocoleoid cephalopods based on parsimony. American Malacological Bulletin, 15(2): 179-193.
Vecchione, M. & Galbraith, J., 2001. Cephalopod species collected by deepwater exploratory fishing off New England. Fisheries Research, 51: 385-391.
Velasco, F., Olaso, I. & Sánchez, F., 2001. The role of cephalopods as forage for the demersal fish community in the southern Bay of Biscay. Fisheries Research, 52: 11-22.
Villanueva, R., 2000. Effect of temperature on statolith growth of the European squid Loligo vulgaris during early life. Marine Biology, 136(3): 449-460.
Villanueva, R., 2000. Differential increment-deposition rate in embryonic statoliths of the loliginid squid Loligo vulgaris. Marine Biology, 137: 161-168.
Voight, J.R., 2000. Morphological deformation in preserved specimens of the deep-sea octopus Graneledone. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 67: 95-102.
Voight, J.R. & Grehan, A.J., 2000. Egg brooding by deep-sea octopuses in the North Pacific Ocean. Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 198(1): 94-100.
Warnke, K. Soeller, R., Blohm, D. & Saint-Paul, U., 2000. Rapid differentation between Octopus vulgaris Cuvier (1797) and Octopus mimus Gould (1852), using randomly amplified polymorphic DNA. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 38(2): 119-122.
Wood, J.B. & O'Dor, R.K., 2000. Do larger cephalopods live longer? Effects of temperature and phylogeny on interspecific comparisons of age and size at maturity. Marine Biology, 136(1): 91-99.
48 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Wood, J.W., Day, C.L., Lee, P. & O'Dor, R.K., 2000. CephBase: testing ideas for cephalopod and other species-level databases. Oceanography, 13(3): 14-20.
Yatsu, A. & Mori, J., 2000. Early growth of the autumn cohort of neon flying squid, Ommastrephes bartramii, in the North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research, 45(2): 189-194.
Yokogawa, K. & Ueta, Y., 2000. Genetic analysis of oval squid (Sepioteuthis lessoniana) around Japan. Venus: Japanese Journal of Malacology, 59(1): 45-55.
Zatylny, C., Durantou, F., BoucaudCamou, E. & Henry, J., 2000. Evidence of 5-hydroxytryptamine synthesis in the follicles of Sepia officinalis and direct involvement in the control of egg-laying. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 55(2): 182-188.
Zielinski, S., Lee, P.G. & Pörtner, H.O., 2000. Metabolic performance of the squid Lolliguncula brevis (Cephalopoda) during hypoxia: an analysis of the critical P sub(O[sub]2). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 243(2): 241-259.
Zielinski. S. & Pörtner, H.O., 2000. Oxidative stress and antioxidative defense in cephalopods: a function of metabolic rate or age? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B, 125: 147-160.
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 49 ANNEX 6
CEPHALOPOD GREY LITERATURE (2000-01)
Anderson, R.C., 2000. The release of a captive-reared giant Pacific octopus. Drum & Croaker, 31: 7-10.
Anon., 2000. Scientific Report - Fisheries Research Cruise ZDLH1-02-2000, Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government.
Anon., 2000. Report of the Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History (WGCEPH), 7-11 February 2000, Aberdeen, UK. Aberdeen, UK, ICES. CM 2000/G:4.
Arkhipkin, A.I. & Middleton, D.A.J., 2000. Squid interspecific competition: possible impact of Illex argentinus on Loligo gahi recruitment in the Southwest Atlantic. International Council for the Exploration for the Sea, C.M. 2000/Z:1.
Bettencourt, V., 2000. Idade e crescimento do choco, Sepia officinalis (Linnaeus, 1758), in: Unidade de Ciencias e Tecnologias dos Recursos Aquaticos, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, pp. 196.
Challier, L., 2000. Détermination de l'age d'Illex coindetii et de Todaropsis eblanae (Céphalopods, Ommastraephidés) et estimation de leur croissance. Rapport de stage T.E.R. Maîtrise de biologie des populations et des écosystèmes. Université de Caen, 26 pp.
Dawe, E.G., Hendrickson, L.C. & Showell, M.A., 2000. An update to commercial catch and survey indices for short- finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic for 1999. Scientific Council Research Documents Nafo, no. 00/37, 7 pp.
Dawe, E.G. & Showell, M., 2000. An investigation of early-season abundance indices for short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) in subareas 3+4. Scientific Council Research Documents Nafo, no. 00/36, 15 pp.
Denis, V., 2000. Variations spatio-temporelles d'abondance des céphalopodes exploités depuis les côtes atlantiques françaises et influence de paramètres environnementaux. Thèse Université de Caen, 293 pp.
Dubois, B., 2000. Contribution à l'identification des prédateurs de céphalopodes en Manche, analyse du régime alimentaire printanier de poissons et de mammifères marins. Rapport de stage T.E.R. Maîtrise de biologie des populations et des écosystèmes. Université de Caen, 25 pp.
Dunning, M., Yeomans, K. & McKinnon, S., 2000. Development of a northern Australian squid fishery. Proj. Rep. Dep. Prim. Ind. (Queensl.), QDPI, Brisbane, Qld., Australia, 112 pp.
Kelly, E., 2000. Assessment of the English Channel cuttlefish stock (Sepia officinalis) using depletion methods. MSc thesis, University of Aberdeen.
Lefkaditou, E., Souplet, A., Peristeraki, N. & Gonzalez, M., 2000. Preliminary investigation of factors affecting the spatial distribution and abundance of Eledone cirrhosa (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) in the Mediterranean Sea. Proceedings of the symposium on Assessement of demersal resources by direct methods in the Mediterranean and the adjacent seas, Pisa (Italy), 18-21 March 1998. Actes de colloques. Institut Francais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer, 26: 208-218.
Lordan, C., Warnes, S., Cross, T. & Burnell, G., 2001. The distribution and abundance of cephalopod species caught duing demersal trawl surveys west ofIreland and in the Celtic Sea. Irish Fisheries Investigations No 8, Marine Institute, Dublin, 26 pp.
Melo, Y.C. & Sauer, W.H., 2000. A histological description of post-ovulatory follicles in Loligo vulgaris reynaudii. 6. Int. Symp. on the Reproductive Physiology of Fish, Bergen (Norway), 4-9 Jul 1999.
Okuzumi, M. & Fujii, T., (Eds.), 2000. Nutritional and functional properties of squid and cuttlefish. National Cooperative Association of Squid Processors. 35th Anniversary Commemorative Publication, Tokyo, 223 pp.
50 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Relini, G., 2000. Demersal trawl surveys in Italian seas: a short review. Proceedings of the symposium on Assessment of demersal resources by direct methods in the Mediterranean and the adjacent seas, Pisa (Italy), 18-21 March 1998. Actes de colloques, Institut Francais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer, 26: 46-75.
Roper, C., 2000. Moby Squid. New Scientist, 20 May 2000:40-43.
Roper, C.F.E., 2000. The quest for the giant squid. Muse (from the publishers of Cricket and Smithsonian magazine), 4(2): 10-19.
Royer, J., 2000. Modélisation des stocks de céphalopodes de Manche. Rapport de fin première année de thèse.
Vidal, E.A.G., 2000. Optimizing survival, growth and feeding in hatchling squid (Loligo opalescens). Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Texas A&M University, 139 pp.
Waluda, C., 2001. Oceanographic influences on the Illex argentinus (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae) fishery, Southwest Atlantic. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.
Young, I.A.G., 2000. An analysis of the application of the Gómez-Muñoz model to Scottish fisheries data. MSc thesis, University of Aberdeen
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 51 ANNEX 7
WORKING DOCUMENT
SPECIES SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS OF LOLIGINID SQUID EXPLOITED IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL AND ADJACENT AREAS.
Royer J. *, Peries P. *, A. Carpentier°, Robin J.P.*
*Laboratoire de Biologie et Biotechnologies Marines, Université de Caen, France ° Centre IFREMER de Boulogne-sur-mer, France
Introduction
The English Channel area is a major fishing ground for long finned squid (Loliginidae).
On an average, annual landings from this area (3400 tonnes in 1993-1998, Anonymous 2000) represent one third of the production from ICES waters. The resource is mostly a by-catch for multi-species demersal trawlers.
The English Channel Loliginid stock is a mix of two species Loligo vulgaris and Loligo forbesi which are not distinguished by fishermen or in fishery statistics. Fish-market sampling programmes (Robin and Boucaud-Camou, 1995) have shown that Loligo forbesi was dominant although time lags in the life cycle induced seasonal changes in the proportion of each species.
Preliminary assessments of English Channel Loliginids have been carried out using depletion methods (Pierce et al, 1996 ; Rougeron and Robin, 1999). These methods are based on the analysis of the influence of cumulative catch (Leslie and Davis, 1939) or cumulative effort (Delury, 1947) on an abundance index: CPUE. Modified versions have been developed for "open populations" taking into account natural mortality and recruitment during the study period (Allen, 1966 ; Chapman, 1974). Rosenberg et al (1990) have shown that depletion methods could usefully be applied to annual squid stocks in the Falkland Islands fishery and the CEDA package (MRAG, Imperial College London) has made them easy to implement.
The need to assess English Channel Loliginids on a species specific basis had been underlined by recent E.U. funded projects during which fish-market sampling was continued (CFP 96-083, FAIR 96-1520). Comparisons with other stocks require to take into account the fact that Loligo forbesi is the only species caught in Scottish waters and that Loligo vulgaris makes the bulk of Portuguese Loliginid landings.
The present paper describes species specific population models fitted to the English Channel Squid fishery (ICES divisions 7D, 7E and 7H) using historical data concerning 5 fishing seasons (1992-1996). Comparisons with inter- annual trends derived from available trawl survey data (CGFS) have also been tested.
Materials and Methods
Stock boundaries
Three ICES divisions have been selected to describe Loligo stocks in the English Channel and adjacent areas (7D, 7E and 7H). The Southern part of the Celtic Sea (7H) is not a place were high catches are reported. It is considered as an area where juvenile Loligo forbesi can be caught before they enter the English Channel (Holme, 1974). From a biological point of view in both species L. forbesi and L. vulgaris genetic studies revealed little variation across Europe's Continental Shelf (Shaw et al, 1999) thus biological populations are very likely more widespread than these three divisions. Nevertheless, this area can be considered as a management unit since more than 95% of reported catches are made by the UK and France and since fishery statistics from these countries are available on a monthly basis.
Model selection
Depletion estimators are derived by combining two basic sub-models (or collections of assumptions).
52 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc First an abundance index is assumed to be proportional to population size
Ni = q Ui (where the subscript i denotes the month)
Second, the CEDA package version 1.0 uses the following population dynamic equation:
-M Ni+1 = e (Ni – Ci + RIi)
For one fishing season input variables are: an estimate of natural mortality M and a series of monthly values for Ci (total catch) Ui (abundance index) and Ri (recruitment index = percentage of total recruitment that occurs in month i).
The outputs of model fitting are estimates of q, Ni (population numbers) and (total recruitment in the study period). The fitting procedure is multiple linear regression applied to Log transformed abundance indices.
Fishery data sets
National data bases were interrogated for monthly records of total squid landings (kg) and of "catch and effort" data of selected fishing gears. The boats of one country using a selected fishing gear are called later in this text a "fishing fleet" although no other information about fleet composition was sought.
Scotland (SOAEFD data base) and England and Wales (CEFAS data base) are referred to in the text as UK data. In the case of France (CAAM data base) landings are sorted out per commercial category (5 categories based on individual weight, Robin and Boucaud-Camou 1995) a detail which was also collected. In both countries (UK and France) Fishery Statistics are available on an ICES rectangle basis.
Fishery trends in time and space
Hilborn and Walters (1992) underline that the most critical requirement for depletion estimators is to have a reliable abundance index. Changes in the spatial distribution of fishing effort of a fishing fleet can lead to biased CPUE estimates. In a preliminary step, visual analysis of fishing effort variability was carried out with the GIS application developed in Caen for cephalopod fisheries.
Input parameters
Natural mortality: Squid natural mortality is not precisely known. In previous assessments (Pierce et al, 1996) a series of values had been tested (monthly rates of 0.025 0.167 and 0.26). The sensitivity of species specific assessments to M was again tested using these values and also using 0.2 which is the monthly rate suggested by another empirical method (Caddy, 1996).
Abundance indices Ui and Total catch Ci (in numbers): Species specific abundance indices and total catches were computed by combining Fishery Statistics (in kg) and Port-en-Bessin fish market sampling which provided mean weights and species numerical proportions.
The formulae are given in the appendix. They are based on two assumptions:
1) the sorting out by commercial category is similar in all French harbours (mean weights per commercial category are in all French harbours as in Port-en-Bessin),
2) species proportions in month "i" and category "c" are those observed in Port-en-Bessin.
It is worth noting that differences in species spatial distribution appear in this calculus via changes in the way landings of a rectangle split by commercial category.
The abundance index in month "i" derives from a stratified-per-rectangle calculus which aims at compensating a fishing effort heterogeneous at the rectangle scale.
In the case of UK landings it is not the species proportion observed only in Port-en-Bessin which is applied but the percentage estimated in all French landings (a calculus weighted by commercial categories in all French landings).
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 53 Recruitment indices Ri: In each species the percentage of the annual cohort recruited in month i is derived from the abundance indices of the category of small squid in this month (Ui5). Seasonal variation of the occurrence of recruits and of complementary biological parameters indicate that a fishing season in Loligo forbesi is the period [June Y, May Y+1] and in Loligo vulgaris [Sept Y, June Y+1].
Comparison of population size with trawl survey data
Independent estimates of abundance were sought in IFREMER "CGFS" data. Squid catches were not recorded before 1993 (Robin et al, 1998). Surveys carried out in October show differences in the number of trawls which might correspond to unequal sampling effort in offshore rectangles. This problem was reduced by deriving from CGFS data averages abundance indices which were stratified per rectangle.
Results & Discussion
Selected fishing fleets:
Spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort at the ICES rectangle scale suggest that only three fishing fleets can be used to derive abundance indices for squid populations: French demersal otter trawlers, UK beam trawl and UK otter trawl. In the study area a significant number of rectangles is fished every month by these three groups of boats. However, fishing effort shows a great variability which should prevent from using as an abundance index the simple overall CPUE (total catch divided by total effort). Figure 1 shows with the example of French trawlers that inshore rectangles are less fished by this fleet than offshore ones (especially along the coast of England). Besides, the coefficient of variation (C.V.) indicates that fishing effort temporal variability is higher in areas less fished.
Input variables: Stratified Abundance Indices (Ui) and Recruitment Indices (Ri)
The three fishing fleets provide three descriptions of temporal changes in stocks abundance (fig. 2). It is worth noting that although year-to-year differences look similar whatever the fleet the range of values is higher with UK otter trawl.
Recruitment indices (fig. 3) suggest that the temporal pattern of recruitment is highly variable. In L. forbesi the second peak observed in autumn was highest in the 1997 fishing season which looks like an average season in L. vulgaris.
Fitted models
In each species a series of assessments have been carried out on 5 fishing seasons (1992-1996) using 3 fishing fleets to estimate abundance and 4 values for natural mortality (M). The main outputs (q, and R²) are displayed in table 1. As noted by Hilborn and Walters some combinations of input parameters fit best with a negative parameter which is not a realistic situation.
Inter-annual trends.
Loligo forbesi (fig. 4 and 5)
Models fitted with the UK bottom trawl abundance indices suggest that the total number of recruits was highest in the 1994 fishing season. The other fishing fleets suggest that recruitment peaked in 1993. All fishing fleets indicate a lower recruitment in 1996.
As suggested by RRAG scientists (Agnew and Hill pers. com.) natural mortality should influence estimates of stock size but inter-annual trends should remain similar. In figure 5 recruitment is plotted as percentages of the 1992 fishing season. Trends are similar in the range 0.26-0.167 but the smallest M (0.025) shows a different pattern.
Loligo vulgaris (fig. 6)
In Loligo vulgaris comparisons are limited by a higher number of fittings with negative lambda especially with abundance indices derived from UK fleets. French trawlers data suggest that a high recruitment was observed in 1992 and 1995 and low in 1993 and 1996.
54 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Population numbers (figure 7)
Monthly estimates of stock-size (Ni) are derived from assessments carried out for each fishing season independently. Each model fitted for a fishing season has an estimate for q and variations in the catchability coefficient explain why figure 7 do not reveal the same long-term pattern as abundance indices Ui (fig. 2). Within each fishing season, population estimates for Loligo forbesi and L. vulgaris suggest that peak abundance is 4 times higher in forbesi than in vulgaris which population was very low during the 1996 fishing season.
Comparison of October population size with survey data (figure 8).
At this stage of data collection (especially with UK data missing for 1998) only 4 October indices can be compared (1993 – 1996). Four data points are not enough to obtain significant correlation. Nevertheless, it may be interesting to note that L. forbesi estimates always seem more in agreement (Depletion estimates and CGFS indices) than L. vulgaris values. This could be related to the fact that October is a recruitment period in L. vulgaris and that at that stage the GOV trawl used in survey samples and commercial gears catch a different portion of the population.
Conclusions and prospects
In conclusion these species specific assessments of English Channel squid stocks provide estimates which are consistent with previous "mixed" assessments. The order of magnitude for the total number of squid which enter the stock in a fishing season is tens of millions (107) a recruitment which shows inter-annual variation in both species.
Whatever the fishing fleet used in assessments, 1996 estimates indicate low stock level for both species. Depletion methods require abundance indices that are truly proportional to stock size and we can hardly consider one fishing fleet better than the others. GLM techniques applied to catch rate should be useful to derive abundance indices taking into account the components of CPUE related to fleet, fishing harbour and rectangle.
At that stage a series of historical cohorts have been assessed. Monthly estimates of population size could be used to derive estimates of fishing mortality (Fi) which are desirable both to compare with natural mortality and to look at cohorts exploitation diagram. If this can be done than depletion methods can be used to check whether English Channel squid did undergo "growth over-fishing" or not.
References:
Allen K.R., 1966. Some methods for estimating exploited populations. J. Fish. Res. Bd; Can., 23, 1553-1574.
Anonymous, 2000. Report of the Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History. ICES CM 2000/G:04, 61pp.
Caddy J.F., 1996. Modelling natural mortality with age in short-lived invertebrate populations: definition of a strategy of gnomonic time division. Aquat. Living Resour., 9, 197-207.
Chapman D.G., 1974. Estimation of population size and sustainable yield of Sei whales in the Antarctic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 24, 82-90.
DeLury D.B., 1947. On the estimation of biological populations. Biometrics, 3, 145-167.
Hilborn R., Walters C.J., 1992. Quantitative Fish Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York. 570pp.
Leslie P.H., Davis D.H.S., 1939. An attempt to determine the absolute number of ratson a given area. J. Anim. Ecol., 8, 94-113.
Pierce G.J., Bailey N., Robin J.P., 1996. Stock assessment for Loligo spp. in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES CM 1996/K:23, 17pp.
Robin J.P., Boucaud-Camou E., 1995. Squid catch composition in the English Channel bottom trawl fishery.: proportion of Loligo forbesi and Loligo vulgaris in the landings and length-frequencies of both species during the 1993-1994 period. ICES CM 1995/K:36; 12pp.
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 55 Robin J.P., Denis V., Carpentier A., 1998. Distribution and abundance indices of East English Channel squid populations: comparison of commercial trawlers LPUE and CGFS research cruise data. ICES CM 1998/M:22, 12pp.
Rosenberg A.A., Kirkwood G.P., Crombie J.A., Beddington J.R., 1990. The Assessment of Stocks of Annual Squid Species. Fisheries Research, 8, 335-350.
Rougeron N., Robin J.P., 1999. English Channel Loliginids stocks assessment. ICES WGCEPH meeting (Heraklion, March 1999) Working Paper N° 11
56 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Table 1: Recruitment estimates (lambda coefficients, in thousands) derived from fitted models for the assessment of Loligo forbesi and Loligo vulgaris in the English Channel. (FR = French fleet, UK = UK fleet, ot = otter trawl, bt = beam trawl).
Loligo forbesi Loligo vulgaris fishing season fishing fleet natural R² lambda R² lambda mortality (thousands) (thousands) 1992 FR_ot 0.025 0.721 6078 0.482 8759 1992 FR_ot 0.167 0.702 12113 0.503 10658 1992 FR_ot 0.2 0.697 14504 0.51 11157 1992 FR_ot 0.26 0.69 21012 0.524 12158 1992 UK_bt 0.025 0.814 8264 0.802 3857 1992 UK_bt 0.167 0.811 13510 0.759 5398 1992 UK_bt 0.2 0.811 15313 0.747 6000 1992 UK_bt 0.26 0.809 19522 0.725 7419 1992 UK_ot 0.025 0.764 6396 0.774 3869 1992 UK_ot 0.167 0.765 11653 0.768 5830 1992 UK_ot 0.2 0.766 13426 0.765 6370 1992 UK_ot 0.26 0.766 17455 0.758 7485 1993 FR_ot 0.025 0.968 12030 0.548 2959 1993 FR_ot 0.167 0.969 17529 0.568 4257 1993 FR_ot 0.2 0.969 19234 0.573 4820 1993 FR_ot 0.26 0.969 22956 0.579 6536 1993 UK_bt 0.025 0.887 14711 0.837 188 1993 UK_bt 0.167 0.881 20055 0.78 -2864 1993 UK_bt 0.2 0.879 21790 0.823 2479 1993 UK_bt 0.26 0.878 25744 0.817 3224 1993 UK_ot 0.025 0.938 13174 0.881 -595 1993 UK_ot 0.167 0.932 18538 0.869 -97 1993 UK_ot 0.2 0.93 20183 0.865 601 1993 UK_ot 0.26 0.928 23725 0.856 1837 1994 FR_ot 0.025 0.846 7414 0.51 3847 1994 FR_ot 0.167 0.869 12204 0.474 6914 1994 FR_ot 0.2 0.868 13832 0.469 7746 1994 FR_ot 0.26 0.866 17640 0.466 9400 1994 UK_bt 0.025 0.595 10963 0.514 -3010 1994 UK_bt 0.167 0.578 22301 0.428 -2297 1994 UK_bt 0.2 0.574 31760 0.41 -1125 1994 UK_bt 0.26 0.567 31824 0.383 5650 1994 UK_ot 0.025 0.862 10445 0.877 188 1994 UK_ot 0.167 0.86 14940 0.858 260 1994 UK_ot 0.2 0.86 16442 0.852 294 1994 UK_ot 0.26 0.86 19882 0.839 410 1995 FR_ot 0.025 0.884 2183 0.67 9229 1995 FR_ot 0.167 0.885 7146 0.649 11049 1995 FR_ot 0.2 0.886 9072 0.645 11554 1995 FR_ot 0.26 0.889 13980 0.639 12573 1995 UK_bt 0.025 0.948 6154 0.744 -24260 1995 UK_bt 0.167 0.955 10647 0.919 6868 1995 UK_bt 0.2 0.956 12219 0.908 7026 1995 UK_bt 0.26 0.958 15883 0.885 7323 1995 UK_ot 0.025 0.896 6034 0.782 -23762 1995 UK_ot 0.167 0.911 10687 0.89 7506 1995 UK_ot 0.2 0.915 12234 0.764 -21413 1995 UK_ot 0.26 0.922 15683 0.777 -11506
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 57 Table 1 (continued) Recruitment estimates (lambda coefficients, in thousands) derived from fitted models for the assessment of Loligo forbesi and Loligo vulgaris in the English Channel. (FR = French fleet, UK = UK fleet, ot = otter trawl, bt = beam trawl).
Loligo forbesi Loligo vulgaris fishing season fishing fleet natural R² lambda R² lambda mortality (thousands) (thousands) 1996 FR_ot 0.025 0.709 -3265 0.129 2782 1996 FR_ot 0.167 0.675 -1749 0.203 3383 1996 FR_ot 0.2 0.668 -897 0.224 3542 1996 FR_ot 0.26 0.657 2744 0.264 3874 1996 UK_bt 0.025 0.812 2853 0.663 -11294 1996 UK_bt 0.167 0.813 4454 0.764 1209 1996 UK_bt 0.2 0.814 5026 0.784 1254 1996 UK_bt 0.26 0.815 6397 0.763 1363 1996 UK_ot 0.025 0.537 2458 0.829 -652 1996 UK_ot 0.167 0.511 4490 0.79 -1579 1996 UK_ot 0.2 0.506 5325 0.779 -2111 1996 UK_ot 0.26 0.5 7645 0.757 -4511
58 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc French Trawlers Fishing Effort
monthly average (89-98) 10 100 1000 10 000#S 100 000 1 000 000 + temporal variability (CV) S# <150% S# <250% #S <300% S# <400% #S <500% #S <1000%
#S #S S# #S S# S# #S #S #S
#S S# #S #S #S S# #S S# #S #S #S
S# #S #S #S S# #S S# S# #S #S S# #S #S
#S S# S# #S S# #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S
#S #S S# #S S# #S #S #S #S S# #S #S #S #S #S #S #S #S S# S# S# #S #S
#S #S #S #S S# #S S# #S S# #S
#S #S S# #S #S #S #S
#S #S #S #S #S
#S #S #S #S
Figure 1: French demersal trawlers fishing effort per statistical rectangle: monthly averages (1989-1998) = rectangle colour shade and temporal variability (C.V.) = discs.
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 59
monthly abundance indices Ui 50
40
30 forb_FR_ot 20 vulg_FR_ot
10 numbers per unit effort unit per numbers
0 01-92 01-93 01-94 01-95 01-96 01-97 01-98
monthly abundance indices Ui 50
40
30 forb_UK_bt 20 vulg_UK_bt
10 numbers per unit effort unit per numbers
0 01-92 01-93 01-94 01-95 01-96 01-97 01-98
monthly abundance indices Ui 50
40
30 forb_UK_ot 20 vul_UK_ot
10 numbers per unit effort unit per numbers
0 01-92 01-93 01-94 01-95 01-96 01-97 01-98
Figure 2: Species specific abundance indices derived from the 3 fishing fleet (dark line = forbesi, grey line = vulgaris) (FR_ot = French otter trawl, UK_bt = UK beam trawl and UK_ot = UK otter trawl)
60 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc
L. forbesi Ri indices (cumulated)
100%
80% 1992 1993 60% 1994 40% 1995 1996 20% 1997 0% July Oct. Jan. Apr. May Nov. Feb. Aug. June Sept Dec. March
L. vulgaris Ri indices (cumulated)
100%
80% 1992 1993 60% 1994 40% 1995 1996 20% 1997 0% July Oct. Jan. Apr. May Nov. Feb. Aug. Sept Dec. June March
Figure 3: Recruitment indices derived from fish market sampling and French landings per commercial category (see appendix for calculus)
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 61 L. forbesi annual recruitment (lambda) according to 3 different fleets (M = 0.167)
25 000
fr_ot_m2 20 000 uk_bt_m2 uk_ot_m2 15 000
10 000
5 000
population sizepopulation (thousands) 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -5 000 year
L. forbesi annual recruitment (lambda) according to 3 different fleets (M = 0.20)
35 000
30 000 fr_ot_m3
25 000 uk_bt_m3
20 000 uk_ot_m3
15 000
10 000
5 000 population sizepopulation (thousands) 0
-5 000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 year
L. forbesi annual recruitment (lambda) according to 3 different fleets (M = 0.260) 35 000
30 000 fr_ot_m4
25 000 uk_bt_m4
20 000 uk_ot_m4
15 000
10 000
5 000 population size(thousands)
0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 year
Figure 4: Estimates of Loligo forbesi total recruitment (lambda coefficient) derived from the three fishing fleets (FR_ot = French otter trawl, UK_bt = UK beam trawl and UK_ot = UK otter trawl)
62 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc
Trends in forbesi Recruitment (lambda) and natural mortality (M) Trends in vulgaris Recruitment (lambda) and natural mortality M 200% 120%
150% 100%
100% 80% 0.025 0.025 60% 0.167 50% 0.167 0.2 0.2 40% 0% 0.26 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 0.26 20% -50% 0% -100% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 models fitted with French trawlers Ui models fitted with French trawlers Ui
Figure 5: Comparison of inter-annual trends in Recruitment obtained with different values of natural mortality M (for each M the 1992 recruitment is the basis 100 and other years are given as a percentage of the 1992 estimate)
Loligo vulgaris annual recruitment (lambda) according to 3 different fleets (M = 0.2) 12500
fr_ot_m3 10000 uk_bt_m3 uk_ot_m3 7500
5000
2500
population size (thousands)population 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -2500 year
Figure 6: Estimates of Loligo vulgaris total recruitment (lambda coefficient) derived from the three fishing fleets (FR_ot = French otter trawl, UK_bt = UK beam trawl and UK_ot = UK otter trawl)
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 63
L. forbesi & L. vulgaris Population size (Ni) derived from French Trawlers indices (M = 0.2) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
population size (millions) 0 01/92 01/93 01/94 01/95 01/96 01/97
Figure 7: Monthly estimates of Loligo forbesi and Loligo vulgaris population size (Ni) fitted in the 5 fishing seasons with French trawlers abundance indices (Ui) and M = 0.2
64 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc French trawlers Ui forbesi R²=0.55 vulgaris R²=0.001
8 93 6 95 94 96 4
94 2 93 October populationOctober (millions) estimates 95 0 96 0 200 400 600 800 1000 CGFS abundance indices (nb/km2)
UK otter trawl Ui forbesi R²=0.76 vulgaris R²=0.18
10 94 8 93 6 94 95 93 95 4
2 96 October populationOctober (millions) estimates 96 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 CGFS abundance indices (nb/km2)
UK beam trawl Ui forbesi R²=0.14 vulgaris R²=0.08
16 94 94
12
8 93 93 95 95 4 October populationOctober (millions) estimates 96 0 96 0 200 400 600 800 1000 CGFS abundance indices (nb/km2)
Figure 7: Comparison between stock assessment and trawl survey data: October population size (Ni) is estimated with M = 0.2 and CGFS abundance indices (nb/km²) are averaged for the 7D division
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 65 ANNEX 8
Notations and formulae used in stock assessment ______
Fishery statistics and biological data are collected on a monthly basis subscripts
+ the subscript "i" denotes the month + "r" denotes the ICES rectangle + "c" denotes the commercial category + "g" denotes a fishing fleet + "f" or "v" refer to . L. forbesi or L. vulgaris
Descriptors Variables Descriptors Variables
Catch of a fleet in weight: y Total Catch in weight: Y Catch of a fleet in numbers: c Total Catch in numbers: C Fishing Effort: E CPUE in numbers per UE: U mean weight w number per kilogram: x numerical proportion of the species (f or v) p Recruitment index: Ri Sea Area of each ICES rectangle: Ar Percentage of the study area in each rectangle Sr = Ar /( Ar)
Origin of the data and basic variables :
' fish market sampling (in Port-en-Bessin) is used to convert weights into numbers and to split the Loliginids by species
monthly observations (i) provide per commercial category (c): wic, pfic, pvi
1 1 c x icf p fic and x icv pvic wic wic
' total catch: Yi addition of French (CAAM) and UK (MAAF/CEFAS + SOAEFD) landings fished by all gears in the study area
' catch and effort of selected fleets: yircg and Eirg
French bottom trawlers data (CAAM) landings per rectangle are split per commercial category
UK trawlers data (no commercial category). The two fishing gears are "beam trawl" and "otter bottom trawl"
Calculated variables
' Computation of abundance indices (Ui = CPUE in numbers per UE)
First calculus (Just indicated here as a reminder NOT used in assessments)
("overall" estimator which assumes homogenous spatial distribution of fishing effort)
66 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc cr! 1 "x .( y )2 c ifc igrc ifg # 3 Uifg r Eig Eigr
Second calculus
("stratified" estimator which takes into account changes in spatial distribution of fishing effort)
r c c y ifgr igrc U fig U figr .Sr with Uifgr and with cifgr ( p fic ) Egr wic
Modified version of the second (stratified) calculus for UK fleets (Catches are not sorted out per commercial category).
r c ifr yir U if U ifr .S r with Uifr xif .( ) Er Er
' Computation of Total Catch in numbers Ci principle: Ci = France Total Catch + UK Total Catch
1st step: France Total Catch Ci(FR)
c Ci (FR) (xifc .Yic )
2nd step: average number per kilogram xf estimated with French landings per commercial category
c C icf xif xifc .( ) Cif
3rd step UK Catch in numbers C i(UK)
Ci (UK) xif .(Y _UK i )
4th step: Total Catch in numbers Ci = Ci(FR) + C i(UK)
' Computation of a recruitment index Ri objective:
The recruitment index for month i (RIif ) is the percentage of all the recruits of the fishing season that enter the stock in month i .
Recruits are juvenile squid in the category of small squid (c = 5) observed in French Trawlers Landings.
U if 5 Riif 12 with months (i=1 … 12) numbered since the 1st month in the fishing season.
Uif 5 i1
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 67 Population dynamic equation of the depletion model
-M Ni+1 = e (Ni – Ci + RIi) M natural mortality rate Ni population numbers at start of time period i Ci total catch during i constant of proportionality between recruitment index and actual numerical recruitment basic model assumption Ui = qNi with q catchability coefficient (constant) model inputs (for 1 fishing season)
M and a series of Ci, Ui , Ri (observed data) model outputs (for 1 fishing season)
+ an estimate of N1 stock size at the start of the first month + a series of calculated Ui and Ni + an estimate of q + an estimate of
In Loligo forbesi a fishing season is the period [June Y, May Y+1] In Loligo vulgaris a fishing season is the period [Sept. Y, June. Y+1]
68 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc ANNEX 9
Surveys in the Gulf of Cádiz, Spain
The IEO bottom trawl survey conducted in the Southern part of Spain, covered the Gulf of Cádiz (Southern part of ICES Division IXa). The covered area extends to the longitudes 6º00 W to 7º20 W and from 15 m to 700 m depth. The survey is carried out in March and October-November
The area has been stratified according to depth and geographical criteria and a stratified random sampling scheme has been adopted. Five depth strata have been used (15-30, 31-100, 101-200, 201-500 and 501-750 m). The number of hauls per stratum is proportional to the trawlable surface adjusted to the ship time available at sea. A coverage of approximately 5.4 hauls for every 100 Km2 is conducted.
The survey is carried out on R/V Cornide de Saavedra, a stern trawler of 67 m length and 1133 t G.R.T. The gear used is a Baka 44/60 bottom trawl with a 43.6 m footrope and a 60.1 headline. The mean vertical opening is 1.8 m and the horizontal opening is 21m.
Since 1993, forty bottom trawl surveys were conducted in the Gulf of Cádiz. (Table I)
Table I. Gulf of Cádiz bottom trawl survey. Dates and number of valid hauls.
Year Dates Total 1993 15/03-25/03 34 1993 17/10-25/10 29 1994 28/02-08/03 30 1995 13/03-19/03 30 1996 23/03-29/03 31 1997 19/02-26/02 30 1997 30/10-11/11 27 1998 26/02-09/03 31 1998 30/10-09/11 34 1999 01/03-10/03 38 1999 03/11-13/11 38 2000 04/03-14/03 41 2000 07/11-20/11 30 2001 25/02-09/03 40
Table II. Survey data Cephalopods in Gulf of Cadiz.
Species Numerical (number/hour) and Lenght Biological Parameters Biomass (kg/hour) Indices Frequency Octopus vulgaris 1993-2001 1993-2001 1997-2001 Eledone moschata 1993-2001 1996-2001 1997-2001 Eledone cirrosa 1993-2001 1996-2001 1997-2001 Loligo vulgaris 1993-2001 1993-2001 no-data Loligo forbesii 1999-2001 2000-2001 no-data Alloteuthis spp. 1993-2001 no-data no-data Sepia officinalis 1993-2001 1993-2001 1997-2001 Sepia elegans 1993-2001 1998-2001 1998-1999 Sepia orbignyana 1993-2001 2000-2001 no-data Todaropsis eblanae 1993-2001 no-data no-data Illes coindetti 1993-2001 no-data no-data Other cephalopods 1993-2001 no-data no-data
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 69 ANNEX 10
Marine Fisheries Services Division Codes for the commercial squid species in Irish waters
SQC Sp: Loligo forbesi En: Common long-fin squid Fr: Encornet veiné Sp: Calamar veteado Common all over the coast. Important by-catch in trawl fishery in spring and autumn in some areas. The skin is often removed in trawl- damaged fish so they appear white in colour Fin 2/3 mantle length
Tail OUL Sp: Alloteuthis subulata En: European common squid Very small species <15cm mantle length very Fin 2/3 mantle length, mantle almost common all over the coast. Little or no transparent, very small with pointed tail, commercial landings in Ireland.
Fin <1/2 mantle length, reddish/brown in colour SQI Sp: Illex coindetii En: Short-fin squid/Illex squid Fr: Encornet rouge Sp: Pota voladora Common between 100-600m on west coast. Abundant in autumn-spring on west of Achill grounds. A very similar looking smaller species Todaropsis eblanae are also caught and landed in Ireland. The two species are generally unsorted in landings. Fin <1/2 mantle length, reddish/brown TDQ in colour. Mantle length shorter than Sp: Todaropsis eblanae Illex coindetii. En: Lesser flying squid Fr: Toutenon souffleur Sp: Pota costera Common between 100-600m on west coast. Abundant in autumn-spring on west of Achill grounds. Similar in appearance to Illex coindetii. However the mantle is shorter and more flaccid than Illex.
70 O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc Fin <1/2 mantle length, purplish in colour. SQE Sp: Todarodes sagittatus En: Northern flying squid Fr: Toutenon commun Sp: Pota europea Large species up to 52cm mantle length. More common in deep water >200m. Occasionally caught in large concentrations in trawls or in gill nets. A similar species Ommastrephes bartrami is caught in tuna gill nets during the summer months.
OMM Sp: Ommastrephes bartrami En: Webbed flying squid Fr: Encornet carol Sp: Pota velera Very large species up to 75cm mantle length. More common off the continental shelf in summer months. Often caught in tuna gill nets during the summer months. Third arm webbed in females.
Fin <1/2 mantle length, webbed third arm
Other Cephalopod Codes SQU OCT Sp: Loliginidae, Ommastrephidae Sp: Eledone cirrosa En: Various squids nei En: Horned octopus Fr: Calmars, encornets nca Fr: Elédone commune Sp: Calamares, jibias, potas nep Sp: Pulpo blanco Unidentified species squid. Common octopus, rarely landed due to poor market demand. OMZ CTC Sp: Ommastrephidae Sp: Sepia officinalis En: Short finned squid/ Squids nei En: Common cuttlefish Fr: Encornets nca Fr: Seiche commune Sp: Potas, etc. nep Sp: Sepia común All species where the fin length is less than ½ the mantle Common in small number in the Celtic Sea. length. For further information contact: Colm Lordan, MFSD, Marine Institute, Abbotstown, Dublin 15. Tel: 01- 8228200 (Switch) E-mail: [email protected]
O:\Scicom\LRC\WGCEPH\REPORTS\2001\WGCEPH01.Doc 71