Seafood Watch Seafood Report
Red porgy Pagrus pagrus
(Image © Dianne Rome Peebles)
Final Report August 14, 2008
Casson Trenor Independent Consultant
Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.
Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices”, “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid”. The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Fisheries Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.
Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.
Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
1 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Table of Contents
I. Terminology 3 II. Executive Summary 4 III. Introduction 6 IV. Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure 11 Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks 14 Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch 17 Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems 19 Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime 20 V. Overall Evaluation and Seafood Recommendation 24 VI. References 27 VII. Appendix 1: GMFMC Ticketing Data 31
2 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
I. Terminology
Tai historically has been referred to as Pagrus major, or red sea bream. This highly prized reef fish exists in the western Pacific Ocean and is a traditional sushi staple in Japan. There are no data on sea bream imports to the United States (US), although red sea bream is known to be sold in US sushi restaurants. The “tai” served in American sushi bars is sourced from a variety of fisheries.
Other fishes of the domestic snapper-grouper complex may be sold as tai from time to time, but P. pagrus and L. campechanus are the most popular candidates. There are also establishments that import P. major specifically for consumption as sushi.
This report evaluates the US P. pagrus fisheries; evaluations of L. campechanus and other popular snappers are available in the Seafood Watch® Gulf of Mexico Snapper Report at www.seafoodwatch.org.
3 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
II. Executive Summary
Red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) is inherently resilient to fishing pressure, as it reaches maturity at an early age (1 – 2 years for females and 4 – 5 years for males). P. pagrus is highly fecund, and exhibits a moderate lifespan of approximately 18 years. P. pagrus is found throughout the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.
The stock status of red porgy in the South Atlantic1 is well-documented due to a series of stock assessments and fishery-dependent data. Stock assessments for P. pagrus in the South Atlantic began in 1985. The stock displayed continual signs of degradation until 1999 when a moratorium was instituted to protect and rebuild the fishery (SEFMC 2000; Davis 2003). Management measures are currently in place to protect the remaining stock, but they were implemented well after the P. pagrus population had been severely impacted by localized overfishing (Vaughn and Prager 2002; Davis 2003; SAFMC 2006). The fishery is currently in recovery.
The stock status of P. pagrus in the Gulf of Mexico is unknown; no stock assessments have been conducted and none are planned for the immediate future. Overall, the stock status of P. pagrus in the South Atlantic is ranked as a high conservation concern, while the stock status of P. pagrus in the Gulf of Mexico is ranked as unknown.
P. pagrus is not directly targeted in either the South Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico, but the two fisheries differ greatly concerning the degree to which red porgy may be exploited. While the South Atlantic fishery limits commercial vessels to 50 pounds of incidental catch per trip, the Gulf of Mexico has no such regulation.
The most common gear used to catch P. pagrus is vertical hook and line, a type of handline gear. As P. pagrus is taken incidentally by snapper-grouper vessels, P. pagrus bycatch mirrors that incurred by red snapper, grouper, and gag fishermen. Rates vary, but figures seem to average around 20-25%, with slightly higher levels of bycatch in the South Atlantic. Overall, bycatch is considered a moderate conservation concern in both the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Hook and line gear has little impact with the benthos, and is thus considered to have a benign impact on the habitat and ecosystem.
Past management in the South Atlantic has been lacking—overfishing has occurred and scientific advice has been ignored at times. These actions resulted in severe population declines which eventually forced the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) to declare a moratorium in 1999. This proved a vital turning point for the fishery, catalyzing subsequent legislation and policy which have helped to rebuild the stocks. P. pagrus stocks in the South Atlantic are still technically overfished, but overfishing is no longer occurring. Overall, management of P. pagrus in the South Atlantic is considered moderately effective according to Seafood Watch® criteria. In the Gulf of Mexico, P. pagrus is managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. There are currently no management measures in place for P. pagrus with the exception of a commercial permit requirement (there are no size limits, no bag
1 South Atlantic will be used throughout the report to refer to the southeast U.S.
4 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
limits, and no time/area closures). Catches of P. pagrus increased by 75% from 1998 through 2004 and have declined since; over 60% of P. pagrus caught in the US is from the Gulf of Mexico.
The combination of individual criteria results in an overall recommendation of “Good Alternative” for P. pagrus.
Table of Sustainability Ranks
Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherent Vulnerability √ Status of Stocks √ √ (Gulf of Mexico) (South Atlantic) Nature of Bycatch √
Habitat & Ecosystem Effects √
Management Effectiveness √ √ (South Atlantic) (Gulf of Mexico)
About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: • A seafood product is ranked Best Choice if three or more criteria are of Low Conservation Concern (green) and the remaining criteria are not of High or Critical Conservation Concern. • A seafood product is ranked Good Alternative if the five criteria “average” to yellow (Moderate Conservation Concern) OR if the “Status of Stocks” and “Management Effectiveness” criteria are both of Moderate Conservation Concern. • A seafood product is ranked Avoid if two or more criteria are of High Conservation Concern (red) OR if one or more criteria are of Critical Conservation Concern (black) in the table above.
Overall Seafood Recommendation:
Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid
5 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
III. Introduction
Basic Biology P. pagrus is a reef-associated fish that inhabits temperate, sub-tropical, and tropical neritic zones on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean (Davis 2003; Fishbase 2007). Juveniles are generally found at depths of 20 meters (m) to 50 m, while adults are known to exist at depths of up to 200 m (Manooch and Huntsman 1977; Davis 2003).
P. pagrus are protogynous hermaphrodites, with males occurring at all ages but more frequent in larger size classes (Manooch 1976; Davis 2003). Spawning occurs in the spring and peaks in March – April in the northern hemisphere (Manooch 1976; Davis 2003).
The eggs and larvae (Figure 1) of P. pagrus are pelagic and are able to survive ocean currents, contributing to populations which are often parceled into numerous hotspots, geographically distinct but genetically homogenous (Manooch 1976).
Figure 1. Larval P. pagrus (Figure from Fishbase 2007).
When P. pagrus reaches sexual maturity and adulthood, there is a suspected ontogenetic shift in both prey and habitat. Adult fish move into deeper waters further offshore and become crepuscular feeders (active at twilight), preying on mollusks, crustaceans, and other fish (Grimes et al. 1982; Labropoulou et al. 1999; Davis 2003). Females generally reach maturity at approximately 300 millimeters (mm) in length, usually between 1-2 years of age (Hood and Johnson 2000; Davis 2003). Mature females are highly fecund, and are capable of producing hundreds of thousands of eggs per year (Manooch 1976).
After a few years as a female, P. pagrus begins a hermaphroditic metamorphosis, with testicular tissue appearing and eventually replacing vestigial ovarian tissue (Davis 2003). Studies of populations in the Gulf of Mexico have identified the points at which male and female populations are equal to be 345.5 mm TL and 5.3 years; most P. pagrus age 6 and older are mature males (Hood and Johnson 2000).
Distribution off of the southeastern United States is patchy as it tends to be associated with outcroppings of sponge and coral reef. Even so, researchers believe that these colonies are concentrations of a larger population rather than distinct genetic units (Grimes et al. 1982; Parker 1990; Davis 2003).
6 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Fishery Information Commercial catches of P. pagrus increased dramatically throughout the 1970s, reaching a peak of 728 mt in 1982. Since then, catches have exhibited a steep decline (Figure 2) (SEFSC 2006). Since 2000, commercial landings have been stable at low levels compared to historic catches, in part due to a moratorium in certain areas that was established in 1999.
Figure 2. Total South Atlantic domestic landings of Pagrus pagrus from 1972 to 2004 (Figure from SEFSC 2006).
Historically, the vast majority of the total US catch of P. pagrus has been taken in four states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida, but these trends began to change in the early 1990s (Figures 3 and 4). Recreational catches of P. pagrus are not included here, although recreational catches may exceed commercial catches of this species (e.g., in 2004, commercial landings were 24 mt while recreational landings were 51 mt) (SEFSC 2006).
7 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
South Carolina 400 350 North Carolina 300 250 Georgia 200 150 100
Florida (Atlantic Metric tons (mt) 50 Coast) 0 All other states 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Year
Figure 3. Catches of P. pagrus by state in metric tons, 1985-2004 (Data from NMFS 2007a).
100% South Carolina
80% North Carolina 60% Georgia 40%
20% Florida (Atlantic Coast) 0% All other states 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Figure 4. Catches of P. pagrus by state as a percentage of total US landings, 1985-2004 (Data from NMFS 2007a).
Since 1999, there has been a shift away from the South Atlantic P. pagrus fishery. In 1995, the South Atlantic fishery had over 99% of the market share, yet this figure declined to approximately 30% by 2004 (NMFS 2007a). The reasons for this shift in supply are likely two- fold: the establishment of tighter regulations in the South Atlantic fishery, and a marked decline in stock abundance in the same area (Vaughn and Prager 2002; SAFMC 2006).
Ten years ago, the P. pagrus served as tai to American sushi diners was likely almost exclusively sourced from the South Atlantic. In 2007, P. pagrus most likely originated from the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2007a). Virginia is the only state outside the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to have taken any substantial amount of P. pagrus with 8.7 metric tons (mt) of red porgy taken in 1999. Aside from 1999, no state outside the two aforementioned regions has ever seen annual landings of P. pagrus exceeding 1 mt (NMFS 2007a). As such, one can hypothesize that the vast majority of landings depicted in Figure 4 as “all other states” were taken in the Gulf of Mexico.
The increasing landings of P. pagrus in the Gulf are not evenly distributed. In fact, they are almost exclusively taken on the Gulf coast of Florida (Figure 5) (NMFS 2007a).
8 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Alabama Florida (Gulf coast) Lo uis iana
60 Figure 5. Total landings (mt) of P. pagrus by state in the Gulf of Mexico region, 1992 – 2006 50 (Data from NMFS 2007a). 40 30 20 10
Metric(mt) tons 0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year
As recently as 1993, the Gulf coast of Florida provided less than 1% of the US domestic P. pagrus. By 1999, that number had increased to 29%. In 2004, Florida’s Gulf coast contributed 63.5% of the total amount of P. pagrus taken in the United States (Figure 6) (NMFS 2007a). An analysis of available science and literature suggests that the South Atlantic market share has diminished in direct response to historical overfishing, a resulting population crash, and the direct consequences thereof, including the implementation of restrictive management measures (Vaughn and Prager 2002; SAFMC 2007).
Florida Gulf coast landings Total US Landings
200
150 100
50 Metric tons (mt) tons Metric 0
92 93 94 95 996 19 19 19 19 1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year
Figure 6. Comparison of P. pagrus taken on the Gulf coast of Florida to total US landings (mt). Total US landing figures include landings from the Florida Gulf Coast (Figure from NMFS 2007a).
The most common gear used to catch P. pagrus is vertical hook and line; P. pagrus is predominantly caught as an incidental species in the snapper-grouper fishery. In the South Atlantic, P. pagrus is managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), and, in the Gulf of Mexico, it is managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC).
9 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Scope of the analysis and the ensuing recommendation: This report evaluates the US P. pagrus fisheries in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. These should not be confused with the scup/porgy fishery of the Atlantic coast, for although it is also known as “porgy,” the scup (Stenotomus chrysops) is not thought to be used for sushi. Additionally, the scup fishery does not occur south of North Carolina, and there is little overlap between the scup and P. pagrus fisheries in the South Atlantic. As the quantity of P. pagrus imported to the US is unknown, international fisheries for P. pagrus are not evaluated in this report. This includes the P. pagrus caught in Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
A final fishery worth mentioning as a component of the tai complex is the Japanese red sea bream (Pagrus major) fishery. Although it is uncommon for one to encounter P. major in an American sushi bar, it does occur, especially in upscale establishments. However, this report does not offer a recommendation on P. major.
Availability of Science
Scientific data on the life history and population dynamics of P. pagrus are widely available, but information on fishery impacts is largely restricted to the South Atlantic P. pagrus fishery, which operates off the coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and eastern Florida. Information on the inherent vulnerability of P. pagrus was taken from a large number of publications, with special focus on the work of Hood and Johnson (2000), Potts and Manooch (2002), and Davis (2003). Stock status information is taken from publications by and conversations with personnel at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). Additionally, information is taken from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) landings data and the work of researchers such as Huntsman et al. (1994) and Vaughn and Prager (2002). As P. pagrus does not support a true directed fishery and is generally caught incidentally by snapper and grouper vessels, bycatch and environmental impact data are limited to the tickets of snapper and grouper fishers and some personal communications with fisheries experts. Information on the management protocols and regulations of the South Atlantic fishery is widely available and is sourced from the appropriate oversight and regulatory agencies as well as from independent research, such as that conducted by Huntsman et al. (1994), Mays and Manooch (1997), Vaughn and Prager (2002), and Davis (2003). The lack of management in the Gulf of Mexico fishery is supported by personal communications with GMFMC and FWCC officials.
Market Availability
Common and market names: Red porgy is known as tai in sushi restaurants, but tai is likely to be translated as “red snapper” regardless of whether it is Pagrus major, P. pagrus, or true red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus (vermillion snapper may also be marketed as red snapper). In the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, P. pagrus is known as red porgy, pink porgy, pinky, rose porgy, and strawberry porgy. Elsewhere in the world, it is known as common sea bream (NMFS undated).
In addition, other species such as tilapia and red sea bream (P. major) are sold as “tai” in sushi restaurants (Chicago Sun-Times 2007). The technical term for P. major in Japanese is madai,
10 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
“true tai.” If a sushi bar offers madai, it is probably imported P. major rather than domestic P. pagrus or L. campechanus.
Seasonal availability: P. pagrus is available year-round. The closure of the fishery from January 1 through April 30 in the South Atlantic region has only a minor impact on product availability as the Gulf of Mexico fishery (which now provides over 60% of US P. pagrus) has no closures and is exploited throughout the year.
Product forms: While P. pagrus is sold in fish markets in the southeastern United States, the rest of the country rarely sees P. pagrus outside of sushi restaurants. Within the sushi industry, red porgy is offered as tai and served as sashimi (thin, raw cuts of fish), nigiri sushi (thin, raw slices atop seasoned rice) (Figure 7), and in other dishes.
Figure 7. Tai presented as nigiri sushi (Photo courtesy of Sushi Sake).
Import and export sources and statistics: There are no data available for P. pagrus imports or exports (NMFS 2007b).
IV. Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species
Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure
Female P. pagrus generally reach maturity between 1-2 years of age (Hood and Johnson 2000; Davis 2003). Mature males are usually much older, due mainly to the fact that the fish is a protogynous hermaphrodite and males do not generally occur in large numbers in younger age classes (Manooch 1976; Hood and Johnson 2000; Davis 2003). In general, there are fewer life history data for Gulf of Mexico P. pagrus.
The growth rate of P. pagrus seems to vary according to location and age. The intrinsic rate of increase (r) of P. pagrus is unknown at this time, and recorded values for the von Bertalanffy growth coefficient have varied from 0.09 ± 0.01 to 0.28 ± 0.01. Measurements taken among the populations covered by this report (South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) seem to average around 0.15 (Potts and Manooch 2002; Fishbase 2007). In the Gulf of Mexico, k has been estimated at 0.11 (Hood and Johnson 2000). This number seems to decrease as the fish ages, reflecting an age-onset decline in growth rate (Figure 8).
11 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Figure 8. Comparison of von Bertalanffy growth curves from various locations in the Atlantic Ocean. M&H = Manooch and Huntsman (1977); H&M = Harris and McGovern (1997); P&M = Potts and Manooch (2002); P&L = Pajuelo & Lorenzo (1996); V&P = Vassilopoulou and Papconstantinou (1992); S&K = Serafim and Krug (1995); C&R = Cotrina and Raimondo (1997); H&J = Hood and Johnson (2000); N = Nelson (1988). Figure from Potts and Manooch (2002).
There is substantial variation between sampling locations, and it should be noted that the largest fish sampled in any of these studies (over 700 mm) was significantly younger than many smaller fish taken elsewhere (Serafim and Krug 1995; Cotrina and Raimondo 1997; Hood and Johnson 2000; Potts and Manooch 2002). The oldest known specimen of P. pagrus was aged at 18 years, although it is possible that P. pagrus has a longer lifespan (SAFMC 2002).
P. pagrus has extremely high reproductive potential, with egg production increasing disproportionately with growth. A female approximately 300 mm in length may produce 50,000 eggs, while a 500 mm female may be capable of producing nearly 500,000 eggs (Manooch 1976).
While the US domestic fishery supplies most of the red porgy to the US sushi market, P. pagrus is a prolific fish within the Atlantic Ocean and inhabits the waters of dozens of countries. It is common along the coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and along the Antilles as well as along Venezuela and the northern coast of Brazil. It ranges as far south as the Uruguayan coast, and occurs along the shores of West Africa, throughout much of the Mediterranean, and as far north as the Irish Sea and the Scottish cliffs of Clyde (Figure 9).
12 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Figure 9. Global range of Pagrus pagrus (Figure from Fishbase 2007).
The hermaphroditic nature of P. pagrus may increase susceptibility to size-specific fishing pressure. Minimum size limits may cause a disproportionate amount of males (Table 1) to be retained by fishermen, which, if taken to extremes, may cause some amount of genetic perturbation or bottlenecking within the population (Hood and Johnson 2000; Davis 2003). Researchers Huntsman and Schaaf (1994) have identified deleterious effects to populations of Cephalopholis cruentata, a hermaphroditic grouper, when males are selectively removed by virtue of size-specific harvests. While a gonochoristic species (species with two distinct sexes) would be resilient to these potential impacts, hermaphrodites such as P. pagrus have been shown to be more vulnerable.
P. pagrus is found in the waters of numerous industrialized nations, many of which have experimented with dredging (e.g., Turkey), oil and gas exploration (e.g., United States), or extensive cruise-driven tourism (e.g., Bahamas). It is probable that certain areas of P. pagrus habitat have been impacted more than others by these and other similar anthropic influences, although no specific data were available at the time of this report.
Table 1. Life history characteristics of Pagrus pagrus.
Intrinsic Age at Growth Max Max Species Special Rate of Fecundity Sources Maturity Rate Age Size Range Behaviors Increase Gulf of Huntsman & Mexico Schaaf 1994; K = east to the Hood & between 733 mm Black Females Hermaphroditic; Johnson 0.09 and (Davis High (up Sea; 1-2 13 – Age-selective 2000; Potts & 0.28 2003), to 500,000 temperate, Manooch Unknown years; 18 grouping and depending 741 mm eggs per sub- 2002; Males 4- years feeding on age (Fishbase female) tropical, SAFMC 5 years behaviors and 2007) and 2002; Davis location tropical 2003; Fishbase neritic 2007 zones
13 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Synthesis While the intrinsic rate of increase of P. pagrus is unknown, it reaches maturity (as a female) between 1-2 years of age. The von Bertalanffy growth coefficient varies but seems to average around 0.15 or slightly higher. These characteristics, coupled with the high fecundity, make P. pagrus resilient to fishing pressure. That being said, this intrinsic resilience is somewhat compromised by P. pagrus’ moderate life span, hermaphroditic nature, and tendency towards age-onset migration patterns. P. pagrus has a limited but sizable range throughout much of the neritic zones of the Atlantic Ocean basin, but the quality of its habitat may vary widely by region.
Inherent Vulnerability Rank:
Resilient Moderately Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable
Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks
According to a 1996 assessment, P. pagrus is listed as Endangered under the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List. The IUCN defines Endangered as “…facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future” (Huntsman 1996). The assessment is annotated as out of date, however, and the endangered status of P. pagrus is not used in this Seafood Watch® evaluation.
South Atlantic A 1994 stock assessment identified sweeping downward trends in the stock health of South Atlantic P. pagrus from the 1970s to the mid 1990s. Declines in stock spawning ratio and recruitment coupled with a sharp increase in fishing mortality prompted the authors to consider the stock “drastically overfished” (Huntsman et al. 1994).
Other researchers have also documented a substantial decline in P. pagrus abundance. Estimates of the fully recruited fishing mortality rate (F) increased by 800%, increasing dramatically from 0.10/yr in 1975 to 0.88/yr in 1997 (Vaughn and Prager 2002). At the same time, the estimated spawning potential ratio (SPR) dropped from 67% to 18%. Estimated recruitment declined from 3 million fish in 1973-74 to 94,000 fish in 1997 (Vaughn and Prager 2002). These are substantial and worrying trends that may reflect excessive fishing pressure.
Spawning stock biomass dropped from a peak of 3,530 mt in 1979 to 397 mt in 1997, a decline of nearly 90% (Vaughn and Prager 2002). With P. pagrus populations dwindling so severely, it is not surprising that the market began to shift to other sources (NMFS 2007a).
A stock assessment of P. pagrus populations in the South Atlantic was conducted in 2002 using both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. This resulted in an estimated spawning potential ratio (SPR) of 46%, which is above defined overfished limits (<30%). When researchers conducted the same assessment using only fishery-dependent data, however, the SPR
14 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
dropped to 19%, placing the stock solidly within the overfished category (Potts and Manooch 2002).
A 2006 stock assessment update suggests that spawning stock biomass has increased in the years following the 2002 assessment (SEFSC 2006). In 2001, the estimated spawning stock biomass (SSB) was approximately 42% of SSBMSY; the 2005 estimate has risen to 66.1% of SSBMSY (Figure 10) (SEFSC 2006). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council uses a minimum size stock threshold definition of (1 −M) SSBMSY = 0.7 and assumes a natural mortality rate of M = 0.225 for P. pagrus. Using these parameters, estimates are 54% and 85% of MSST for 2001 and 2005, respectively (SEFSC 2006). According to the NMFS Status of US Fisheries, P. pagrus in the South Atlantic is overfished (NMFS 2006). Long-term abundance trends are declining, although there’s been a short-term increase in biomass (SEFSC 2006). Although the 2001 estimate of fishing mortality rate was about 62% of FMSY, the 2004 estimate has dropped to 39%. According to these figures, the stock is no longer experiencing overfishing (Figure 11) (SAFMC 2006). Uncertainty associated with stock status is considered low, as both fishery dependent and fishery independent data are used.
Figure 10. Relative spawning stock biomass for P. pagrus in the South Atlantic (Figure from SEFSC 2006).
Figure 11. Relative fishing mortality for P. pagrus in the South Atlantic (Figure from SEFSC 2006).
15 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Gulf of Mexico There is no stock assessment for P. pagrus in the Gulf of Mexico, and neither the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council nor the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission plans to conduct such an assessment in the immediate future (Brown, pers. comm.; Kennedy, pers. comm.). While there is no stock assessment for this species, landings have increased in recent years, which is cause for concern given the high uncertainty associated with the status of P. pagrus in the Gulf of Mexico.
Table 2. Stock status of Pagrus pagrus.
Degree of Occurrence Abundance Classification Age/Size/Sex Uncertainty SFW Fishery B/B of F/F Trends Sources Status MSY MSY Distribution in Stock Rank Overfishing /CPUE Status Vaughn and Long-term: No evidence Prager SSB / F / South Overfished, 2005 Not 2004 Downward; that 2002; SSB F = Low Atlantic recovering MSY occurring MSY Short-term: distribution SEFSC = 0.661 0.391 Poor Upward is skewed 2006; NMFS 2007a
Gulf of NMFS Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown High Mexico 2007a Unknown Unknown
Synthesis The stock status of P. pagrus in the South Atlantic is well understood. The stock is technically overfished and has been for some time, although overfishing is no longer occurring. Uncertainty is low due to a large amount of fishery-dependent and independent data. Over the long term, population abundance has exhibited a downward trend, but signs of reversal are being seen as short-term trends are positive in both abundance and recruitment. Size and sex distribution are thought to be functionally normal, but the protogynous hermaphroditic nature of P. pagrus may lead to a disparity between pressures applied on female and male segments of the stock under current or future size limitations.
The status of the Gulf of Mexico P. pagrus stock is unknown. The stock has never been assessed and thus has no management classification. Without these baseline data, it is impossible to determine whether or not overfishing is occurring. No data on abundance trends are available outside of limited fishery-dependent landings and ticket records. The current age, size, and sex distribution of the stock is unknown.
16 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Status of Wild Stocks Rank:
Gulf of Mexico:
Healthy Moderate/Rebuilding/Unknown Poor Critical
South Atlantic:
Healthy Moderate/Rebuilding/Unknown Poor Critical
Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch
Seafood Watch® defines sustainable wild-caught seafood as marine life captured using fishing techniques that successfully minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species (i.e., bycatch). Bycatch is defined as species that are caught but subsequently discarded (injured or dead) for any reason. Bycatch does not include incidental catch (non-targeted catch) if it is utilized, accounted for and managed in some way.
Handline gear (such as rod and reel and vertical hook and line) is the most common gear used to catch P. pagrus in both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In 2004, handlines accounted for 98% of the P. pagrus catch in the South Atlantic (SEFSC 2006). In the Gulf of Mexico, vertical line accounted for approximately 90% of the P. pagrus catch in 2005. The use of traps has declined since the late 1990s (Figures 12, 13) (Brown, pers. comm.; Stevens 2004; GMFMC 2007a).
As the majority of catch is from handline gear, only this gear type is evaluated in this report. Most P. pagrus landed in both the South Atlantic region and along the Gulf Coast of Florida is caught incidentally by the snapper-grouper fleets (SAFMC 2006; SEFSC 2006; Brown, pers. comm.). 2% 0% 100% 6% 80% Diving Longline 60% Vertical Line 25% 40% Trap 20% Percent of total of Percent Unknown 67% 0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year
Figures 12 and 13. P. pagrus taken in the Gulf of Mexico by year and gear type (left), and as a total decadal proportion (right) (Data from GMFMC 2007a).
17 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Handline Handline fisheries generally have low bycatch rates. The handline snapper fishery off Louisiana was assessed in 1995 and found to have a bycatch rate of approximately 0.19 (Schirripa and Legault 1999). While the Louisiana snapper fishery does not have a history of landing P. pagrus, bycatch rates in this fishery may be similar to other handline fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
A study in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic snapper-grouper fisheries (bottom longline and handline) between August 2001 and July 2003 revealed substantial bycatch, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of sea bass, grunts, porgies, amberjacks, sharks, and other species discarded each year (Poffenberger 2004). Much of these discards are prompted under management regulations and seasonal closures for red snapper and other desirable fish (Poffenberger 2004). While discards of P. pagrus were common in the South Atlantic (P. pagrus was the third most common species discarded in the handline and bottom longline fisheries), this species was not commonly discarded in the Gulf of Mexico fisheries.
Off the coast of North Carolina, Rudershausen et al. (2005) undertook a cooperative study with local fishermen to determine the survival rate of discarded species in the local snapper-grouper fishery. P. pagrus composed approximately 19% of the total catch, and 25.6% of the P. pagrus take was discarded (Rudershausen et al. 2005). The majority of the unwanted catch in this fishery is released alive, but barotrauma and predation are known to lead to the mortality of a substantial proportion of these discards (Rudershausen et al. 2005). While the actual population consequences of this bycatch are unknown, it is unlikely that such trends would have any positive consequences. Researchers theorize that minimum size limits may help to reduce mortality (Rudershausen et al. 2005).
Table 3. Bycatch data for the Pagrus pagrus fishery.
Trend in Bycatch Quality Population Composition / Target & Ecosystem SFW Fishery Gear Consequences Sources of Bycatch Species Quantity Effects Rank of Bycatch ratio of Bycatch Snappers, groupers, Poffenberger South gags, 25.6% 2004; Handline Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic porgies, (varies) Rudershausen
sharks, other et al. 2005 Moderate finfish Snappers, groupers, Schirippa and US gags, 19% Legault 1999; Gulf of Handline Unknown Unknown Unknown porgies, (varies) Poffenberger Mexico
sharks, other 2004 Moderate finfish
18 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Synthesis Discard rates for the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fisheries range from 19% to 25%, and includes species such as snappers, groupers, gags, porgies, sharks, and other finfish. Little science is available as to the population consequences of this bycatch. Trends are unknown but may have increased in the South Atlantic since the implementation of size limits in the 1990s.
Nature of Bycatch Rank:
Low Moderate High Critical
Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems
As it is primarily an incidental component of the snapper-grouper fishery, the P. pagrus fishery is primarily based on hook and line fishing methods, such as vertical rod and reel (Poffenberger 2004; Stevens 2004; Kennedy pers. comm.).
Handline gear has minimal contact with the benthos, thus habitat impacts are negligible (Barnette 2001; Chuenpagdee et al. 2003). However, lost line and tackle weights may impact gorgonian structures to some extent, and discarded fishing gear is known to provide habitat for algal colonies which may overpower local coral communities (Barnette 2001). Little is known about the actual impacts of the South Atlantic P. pagrus fishery on the local ecosystem as there has been little independent research on the subject.
Table 4. Habitat and ecosystem effects of the Pagrus pagrus fishery.
Effect of Habitat Geographic Evidence of Evidence of Gear Fishing SFW Resilience to Extent of Food Web Ecosystem Sources Type Gear on Rank Disturbance Fishery Disruption Changes Habitats Barnett 2001; Poffenberger 2004; Handline Minimal Low Moderate Unknown Unknown Stevens 2004; Kennedy pers. Benign comm.
Synthesis Handline gear is generally considered to have a benign habitat impact, as the gear does not come into contact with the benthos. However, the habitat of P. pagrus (reefs and rocky outcroppings) may be impacted by lost gear, or hooks and line snagging on coral structures. The consequences of removing P. pagrus by hook and line from the ecosystem are unknown.
19 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Effect of Fishing Practices Rank:
Benign Moderate Severe Critical
Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime
South Atlantic The original Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) designed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council was implemented in 1983 and did little to address P. pagrus populations from the perspective of sustainability (SAFMC 1983). A minimum size limit was set at 12 inches (in), but there were no bag limits, trip limits, or closures implemented (SAFMC 1983).
The 1998 release of Amendment 9 to the FMP began to address the plight of local P. pagrus stocks. The minimum size limit was raised to 14 inches and the Council implemented a recreational bag limit of 5 fish per person per day. Additionally, a commercial closure (prohibiting the sale and/or purchase of P. pagrus and restricting all commercial fishers to recreational bag limits) was implemented during the months of March and April (SAFMC 1998). By this point, the Council was well aware of the potential dangers posed by overfishing to health of P. pagrus stocks in the area, as evidenced by the inclusion within Amendment 9 of an excerpt from a 1994 stock assessment which states that:
…Catch size, observations by fishermen, and analyses of size distributions [all] indicate that the red porgy is drastically overfished. The history of the red porgy fishery appears to follow what is now regarded as a classic three-phase pattern exhibited by fisheries for many species: (1) an early period of increasing catches as effort increased on a near virgin stock, (2) a peak of yield as the stock reached maximum productivity, and (3) a period of declining catches (late 1980's and early 1990's) occurring as effort (including increased effectiveness of existing fishermen and vessels) became sufficiently high to take catches that limited the reproductive capacity of the stock (Huntsman et al. 1994)
The 1994 stock assessment identified a severe decline in the health of P. pagrus populations, citing a diminishing stock spawning ratio (SSR) which had dropped from 0.50-0.60 to 0.15 over the past two decades (Huntsman et al. 1994; SAFMC 1998). Moreover, in the same time span, there had occurred an increase in fishing mortality (F) from 0.2-0.3 in the 1970s to 1.2-1.4 in the mid-1990s, as well as a substantial decrease in recruitment to age 1 (Huntsman et al. 1994; SAFMC 1998). Finally, the estimated mortality of released undersized P. pagrus was believed to be 20% (Huntsman et al. 1994; SAFMC 1998). This combination of factors led the authors of the 1994 stock assessment to advise the Council to increase the minimum size limit for retained red porgy to 15 inches in order to reach the desired SSR of 0.30 (Huntsman et al. 1994; SAFMC 1998). Such an increase would have protected an additional 25.49% of the P. pagrus catch from retention, increasing the total to 64.69% (Mays and Manooch 1997; SAFMC 1998). However, this recommendation was never put into practice (SAFMC 1998; SAFMC 2000; SEFSC 2006).
20 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
The sizable impact that would have been made by increasing the minimum size limit is visible in Table 5, a breakdown of P. pagrus catches in the South Atlantic by size.2
Table 5. Red porgy catch reduction by size limits. Figures pertaining to the size restrictions in place in 1997 (the time of research) are highlighted in red; those pertaining to the theorized increase to a 15” minimum size limit are highlighted in green (Data from Mays and Manooch 1997).
Size Limit Number Weight Commercial Recreational Total Commercial Recreational Total TL (in) Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % 12 4.91 5.91 5.06 2.24 2.86 2.33 13 21.87 20.79 21.70 12.07 12.03 12.06 14 39.55 37.29 39.20 24.85 24.86 24.85 15 60.18 89.99 64.69 43.15 75.14 47.70 16 73.72 96.08 77.10 57.74 82.20 61.22 17 85.17 98.42 87.16 72.42 85.43 74.27 18 90.19 99.55 91.59 80.10 87.28 81.12 19 94.26 99.61 95.05 87.38 98.99 89.03 20 98.82 99.73 98.94 96.90 99.26 97.23
The 14 inch minimum size limit failed to revitalize the P. pagrus stock and populations continued to dwindle (Vaughn and Prager 2002). An emergency moratorium was implemented in September 1999 prohibiting the possession and/or sale of P. pagrus. The fishery remained closed until August 2000 when the moratorium was relaxed under FMP Amendment 12 (SAFMC 2000; Davis 2003). This reopened the fishery at the level of one P. pagrus per person per day (recreationally) and allowed 50 pounds of incidental catch per commercial vessel per trip (SAFMC 2000).
In 2006, FMP Amendment 13c was released subsequent to a stock assessment update that identified an encouraging increase in population and recruitment within the local P. pagrus population (SAFMC 2006; SEFSC 2006). This amendment expanded the P. pagrus fishery with the caveat that the South Atlantic P. pagrus stocks remain under a rebuilding plan (SAFMC 2006). Current regulations are those established in Amendment 13c: a 50-pound catch limit per commercial vessel per trip, a 14 inch minimum total length for retained P. pagrus, and a fishery- wide closure from January 1 though April 30. The Council is currently considering increasing the trip limit to 210 pounds (SAFMC 2006).
At this point, the future of the South Atlantic red porgy fishery seems relatively positive. Stock assessments are conducted on regular intervals and management is generally following the recommendations of its scientific advisors. Three distinct management scenarios are analyzed in the SAFMC 2006 stock assessment update. The first scenario assumes a constant level of mortality (F) equal to the average from 2001 – 2004 and predicts full stock recovery by 2012,
2 As P. pagrus is an age-onset hermaphrodite, an increase in the minimum size limit would have likely had an effect on the male-to-female ratio of the retained catch.
21 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
which is six years ahead of the time horizon of the rebuilding plan. The second scenario, which assumes consistent maximum landings that still allow rebuilding, will result in stock recovery by 2018. The third and final scenario, which holds F at the maximum level which allows for rebuilding, is also projected to yield a recovered stock by 2016. The latter two scenarios offer varied landing trends, but these will likely equalize by 2017, at which point cumulative landings are predicted to approach 2,500 mt (SEFSC 2006).
There is no bycatch reduction plan specific to P. pagrus, but it is theorized that maintaining current catch and size limits will help to protect younger spawning stock from fishing mortality. The actual effectiveness of this plan is under debate, but it must be acknowledged that recruitment and population levels within the fishery are both on the rise (Rudershausen et al. 2005; SAFMC 2006; SEFSC 2006).
Enforcement of fishery regulations is conducted by state and federal authorities. Landings are declared upon reaching shore and there is an observer program in place (Rudershausen et al. 2005; SAFMC 2006).
Gulf of Mexico The Gulf of Mexico P. pagrus fishery is currently the largest source of P. pagrus in the United States (NMFS 2007a). Fisheries in the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico are managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). However, there are no regulations in place for P. pagrus (GMFMC 2007b, Kennedy pers. comm.). Porgies (as well as grunts and sea bass) were removed from the GMFMC Reef Fish management unit in 1998 because landings of these fishes were logged almost entirely in Florida. Therefore, GMFMC gave the state of Florida jurisdiction over these fisheries in both state and federal waters (GMFMC 2007b, Kennedy pers. comm.). However, P. pagrus is caught in a mixed species fishery, and enforcement and reporting for the snapper-grouper fishery is deemed adequate.
As far as Florida state regulations, there is little management in place for Gulf of Mexico stocks. There is a commercial permit required to take P. pagrus on the Gulf coast of Florida (FAC 2003). While there are minimum size limits, recreational harvest limits, and a seasonal closure in place to regulate Florida’s Atlantic Ocean P. pagrus fishery, none of these measures extend into the Gulf of Mexico (FAC 2003). There is a restricted species (RS) endorsement that fishermen are required to carry; to qualify for the endorsement, fishermen must have $5,000 in non-restricted species in any consecutive 12 month period over the previous three years. Florida state agencies retain jurisdiction over this species in the Gulf of Mexico but have not yet implemented any regulations governing its exploitation (Brown, pers. comm.; Kennedy, pers. comm.; FAC 2003).
As of this writing, no scientific monitoring program had been implemented to investigate the effect of the P. pagrus fishery on P. pagrus populations or on the ecosystem as a whole. What enforcement measures exist pertain solely to fish such as snapper and gag which are protected to a degree under GMFMC and Florida state regulations (FAC 2003; GMFMC 2007b; Kennedy, pers. comm.). Fishery managers have expressed concern regarding the lack of management for P. pagrus in the Gulf of Mexico, as it is possible that effort will be shifted from red snapper to
22 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
other reef fishes (Anonymous 1993 in Hood and Johnson 2000). Overall, management of P. pagrus is deemed “ineffective” according to Seafood Watch® criteria.
Table 6. Management measures for the commercial Pagrus pagrus fishery.
Management Total Size Gear Trip SFW Fishery Jurisdictions & Allowable Closures Sources Limit Restrictions Limit Rank Agencies Landings South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 50 lbs / 50 lbs FAC 2003; Hook and line South (SAFMC); vessel / trip; > 14 / Jan 1 – Brown gear and traps Atlantic Florida Fish and incidental inches vessel Apr 30 pers. only Wildlife catch only / trip comm. Conservation
Commission Effective Moderately (FFWCC) Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management FAC 2003; Council Brown Gulf of (GMFMC); pers. None None None None None Mexico Florida Fish and comm.;
Wildlife Kennedy Ineffective Conservation pers. comm Commission (FFWCC)
Synthesis Management of P. pagrus in the South Atlantic has improved since the declines that began in the 1980s; the stock seems to have recovered to a degree and management is now taking progressive strides that have helped to rebuild the populations and increase recruitment. The 1999 moratorium and the subsequent enforced trip, bag, and size limits have increased the amount of available spawning stock; these trends are bolstered by consistent scientific analysis and frequent stock assessments. While management of P. pagrus is deemed “Moderately Effective” in the South Atlantic, there is little management in place governing the exploitation of P. pagrus in the Gulf of Mexico, with the exception of a commercial permit requirement, resulting in a classification of “Ineffective” management according to Seafood Watch® criteria.
Effectiveness of Management Rank:
South Atlantic:
Highly Effective Moderately Effective Ineffective Critical
Gulf of Mexico:
Highly Effective Moderately Effective Ineffective Critical
23 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
V. Overall Evaluation and Seafood Recommendation
P. pagrus is inherently resilient to fishing pressure, as it reaches maturity at an early age (1 – 2 years for females and 4 – 5 years for males). P. pagrus is highly fecund, and exhibits a moderate lifespan of approximately 18 years. It appears that the P. pagrus populations in the South Atlantic are recovering, although the stock remains overfished. Bycatch concerns are considered moderate, while and habitat and ecosystem impacts are considered a benign conservation concern. Management has only been moderately successful at rebuilding P. pagrus stocks, and, as a result, P. pagrus from the South Atlantic is recommended as a “Good Alternative.”
In the Gulf of Mexico, a stock assessment has not been conducted, and the only management measure in place specifically for P. pagrus is a commercial permit requirement for Florida state waters. As a result, management is deemed “ineffective.” However, P. pagrus is caught with handline gear in a multi-species fishery which has adequate enforcement and monitoring. Overall, P. pagrus from the Gulf of Mexico is also recommended as a “Good Alternative.”
Table of Sustainability Ranks
Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherent Vulnerability √ √ √ Status of Stocks (South (Gulf of Mexico) Atlantic) Nature of Bycatch √ Habitat & Ecosystem Effects √ √ √ Management Effectiveness (Gulf of (South Atlantic) Mexico)
Overall Seafood Recommendation:
Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid
24 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Acknowledgements
Seafood Watch® would like to thank Elizabeth Fetherston of Ocean Conservancy and two anonymous reviewers for their review of this report.
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
25 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
VI. References
Anderson, K. 2006. Image: Common seabream. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://hem.passagen.se/kent.andersson/rodbrax.htm
Anonymous. 1993. Final report of the reef fish stock assessment panel. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 N, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619-2266.
Barnette, M. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat. NMFS-SEFSC-449. NOAA Technical Memorandum: 62pp. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/fishery/sfreport/report01.htm
Brown, Steve. 2007. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Fishery Biologist, personal communication. February 23, 2007.
Chicago Sun-Times 2007. Hook, line & stinker; the menus said snapper. But it wasn't! Janet Rausa Fuller. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070510/ai_n19117946/pg_1. Accessed December 20, 2007.
Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse, and D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. Frontiers in Ecology 1:517-524.
Cotrina, C. P., and M. C. Raimondo. 1997. Study on the age and growth of the red porgy Pagrus pagrus from the Buenos Aires coastal shelf. Rev. Invest. Desarr. Pesq. 11:95–118.
Fishbase. 2007. Pagrus pagrus: common seabream. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=1756&genusname=Pagrus&spe ciesname=pagrus
Florida Administrative Code (FAC). 2003. Chapter 68B-14: Reef Fish. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://fac.dos.state.fl.us/faconline/chapter68.pdf
Grimes, C. B., with C. S. Manooch and G. R. Huntsman. 1982. Reef and rock outcropping fishes of the outer continental shelf of North Carolina and South Carolina, and ecological notes on the red porgy and vermillion snapper. Bulletin of Marine Science 32: 277-289.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2007a. Ticketing data: landings of red porgy (P. pagrus) by gear type in years 1998-2006. Data provided upon request by Stu Kennedy of GMFMC; data is included verbatim at Appendix A.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2007b. GMFMC website. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.gulfcouncil.org
26 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
Harris, P. J., and J. C. McGovern. 1997. Changes in the life history of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, from the southeastern United States. Fish. Bull. 95:732–747.
Hood, P. B., and A. K. Johnson. 2000. Age, growth, mortality, and reproduction of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 98: 723-735.
Huntsman, G. R. and W. E. Schaaf. 1994. Simulation of the impact of on reproduction of a protogenous grouper, the graysby. N. Am. J. Fish. Managmt. 14:41-52.
Huntsman, G.R., D.S. Vaughan, and J.C. Potts. 1994. Trends in population status of red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, in the Atlantic Ocean of North Carolina and South Carolina, USA, 1971- 1992. Unpublished data. South Atlantic Fishery Management, Charleston, SC.
Huntsman, G. 1996. Pagrus pagrus. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Kennedy, Stu. 2007. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Fishery Biologist, personal communication. February 13, 2007.
Labropoulou, M., with A. Machias and N. Tsimenides. 1999. Habitat selection and diet of juvenile red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758). Fishery Bulletin 97: 495-507.
Mays, R.W. and C.S. Manooch, 111. 1997. Compliance with Reef Fish Minimum Size Regulations as Indicated by Headboat, MRFSS, and Commercial Intercept Data for the Southeastern United States. Prepared for: SAFMC. NOAA/NMFS Beaufort Laboratory, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 285 16-9722. 26 pp.
Manooch, C. S. 1976. Reproductive cycle, fecundity, and sex ratios of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Pisces: Sparidae) in North Carolina. Fishery Bulletin 74: 775-781.
Manooch, C. S., and G. R. Huntsman. 1977. Age, growth, and mortality of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 26-33.
Nelson, R. S. 1988. A study of the life history, ecology, and population dynamics of four sympatric reef predators (Rhomboplites aurorubens, Lutjanus campechanus, Lutjanidae; Haemulon melanurum, Haemulidae; and Pagrus pagrus, Sparidae) on the East and West Flower Garden Banks, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Ph.D. diss., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 197 p.
NMFS undated. National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/documents/local%20fish%20names/local%20n ames%20atl%20gulf.txt Accessed December 20, 2007.
27 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
NMFS 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. Report on the Status of the U.S. Fisheries for 2006. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/StatusoFisheries/2006/2006RTCFinal_Report.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2007.
NMFS 2007a. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries Statistics & Economics: Commercial Fishery Landings. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/index.html
NMFS 2007b. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries Statistics & Economics: Foreign & Domestic Trade Database. National Marine Fisheries Service; NOAA/DOC. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/cumulative_data/TradeDataProduct.html
Parker, R. O. 1990. Tagging studies and diver observations of fish populations on live-bottom reefs of the US southeastern coast. Bulletin of Marine Science 46:749-760.
Pajuelo, J. G., and J. M. Lorenzo. 1996. Life history of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Teleostei: Sparidae), off the Canary Islands, central east Atlantic. Fishery Research 28:163–17
Poffenberger, J. 2004. A Report on the discard data from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center's Coastal Fisheries Logbook Program. National Marine Fisheries Service, SEFSC, 75 Virginia Beach Dr, Miami FL 33149: 16pp.
Potts, J. C., and C. S. Manooch. 2002. Estimated ages of red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) from fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data and a comparison of growth parameters. Fisheries Bulletin 100: 81-89.
Rudershausen, P., with Alex Ng, Anthony Ng, and J. A. Buckel. 2005. By-catch, discard composition, and fate in the snapper/grouper commercial fishery. SEDAR Project number 04-FEG-08. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S10RD06%20NCcommdiscard.pdf?id=DOCUM ENT
Schirripa, M. J. and C. M. Legault. 1999. Status of red snapper in US waters of the Gulf of Mexico updated through 1998. Report SFD-99/00-75, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Miami Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami FL: 44pp. http://www.gulfcouncil.org/downloads/RSAssess99.pdf
Serafim, M. P. P., and H. M. Krug. 1995. Age and growth of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pisces, Sparidae), in Azorean waters. Arquipelago (Life Marine Science) 13A:11–20.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1983. Fishery Management Plan, Regulatory Impact Review and Final Environmental Impact Assessment for the Snapper- Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic region. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/SnapGroupFMP.pdf
28 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/SnapGroupAmend9.pdf
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2000. Amendment 12 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/SnapGroupAmend12.pdf
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2002. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment for red porgy, 39 p. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2006. Snapper Grouper Amendment 13c. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/SG%20Amend%2013C%202-23- 06%20FINAL.pdf
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2007. Stock Assessment of Red Porgy off the Southeastern United States: SEDAR Update Assessment. 150 pp.
Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). 2006. Stock Assessment Update of Red Porgy of the Southeastern United States: SEDAR Update Assessment. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/rp-aw- 25May06.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
Stevens, M. 2004. Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Commercially Important Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic Snappers. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_GulfofMe xicoSnapperReport.pdf
Sushi Sake Restaurant. 2007. Image: Tai nigiri. Accessed February 2007. Available at: http://box1.waib.com/~sushi/fiche.php?cmd=view&ref=81&t=alacarte
Vassilopoulou, V., and C. Papaconstantinou. 1992. Age, growth and mortality of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, in the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Dodecanese, Greece). Vie Milieu 42:51–55.
Vaughan, D. S., and M. H. Prager. 2002. Severe decline in abundance of the red porgy, Pagrus pagrus, population of the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern United States. Fishery Bulletin 100: 351–375.
29 Seafood Watch® Red Porgy Report August 14, 2008
VII. Appendix 1: GMFMC Ticketing Data
Landings of Red porgy in Gulf of Mexico, 1995-2005 (Data courtesy of GMFMC):
Unknown Traps Vertical Lines Longlines Diving 1995 577 1996 16,020 1997 17,263 13,470 1,042 1998 38,615 24,397 893 1999 11,466 19,522 29,428 1,618 2000 16,092 46,907 1,385 2001 2,773 17,181 55,800 851 2002 9,295 16,675 66,047 544 2003 13,385 84,393 2,432 2004 25,032 77,336 3,512 2005 3,490 56,986 4,083 238
30