DOCSLIB.ORG

The Environmental Impact of Scallop Dredging in Breiðafjörður, West Iceland a Call for Fishing Technique and Management Reform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Environmental Impact of Scallop Dredging in Breiðafjörður, West Iceland a Call for Fishing Technique and Management Reform Master‘s thesis The environmental impact of scallop dredging in Breiðafjörður, West Iceland A call for fishing technique and management reform K. Megan Chen Advisor: Jónas Páll Jónasson University of Akureyri Faculty of Business and Science University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management Ísafjörður, February/May Year 1 Supervisory Committee Advisor: Jónas Páll Jónasson, Fisheries Ecologist Reader: Name, title Program Director: Dagný Arnarsdóttir, MSc. K. Megan Chen The environmental impact of scallop dredging in Breiðafjörður: The need for fishing technique and management reform. 45 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of a Master of Resource Management degree in Coastal and Marine Management at the University Centre of the Westfjords, Suðurgata 12, 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland Degree accredited by the University of Akureyri, Faculty of Business and Science, Borgir, 600 Akureyri, Iceland Copyright © 2012 K. Megan Chen All rights reserved Printing: University Centre of the Westfjords and/or Printer, town, Month YEAR 2 Declaration I hereby confirm that I am the sole author of this thesis and it is a product of my own academic research. __________________________________________ Student‘s name 3 Abstract The fishery for C. islandica in Breiðafjörður was closed in response to the stock collapse around 2003. High rates of natural mortality, an increase in sea surface temperature, and inability to endure fishing pressure have been mechanisms suggested for the collapse. Fishing using inefficient or non-selective gear not only incurs direct mortality, but can also reduce individual fitness by applying physical damage and physiological stress. Reductions in fitness may compromise yield per recruit or lead to indirect mortality. The environmental impact of roller dredging was examined in two ways: (1) a framework for assessing cumulative impact on vulnerable marine taxa, and (2) modeling the effects on yield per recruit with the inclusion of different levels of indirect mortality. Results showed that total historical cumulative impact was highest for maerl (35.25%), echinoidea (35.25%), bivalves (33.24%) and alcyonacea (30.85%). As well, peak yield per recruit with the addition of indirect fishing mortality of 0.155 dropped to 27% of peak yield per recruit with no indirect fishing mortality. The certainty and significance of these results are discussed, along with strengths and weaknesses of both methods used. Then, a list of criteria was developed for fishing technique transform, and management actions are suggested. Útdráttur Veiðar á hörpudiski (C. islandica) í Breiðafirði voru stöðvaðar árið 2003 í kjölfar hruns í stofninum. Hár náttúrulegur dauði, hækkun sjávarhita og afleiðingar of mikillar sóknar hafa verið nefndar ástæður fyrir hruninu. Í þessari ritgerð voru áhrif veiðarfærisins (plógs) metin. Umhverfisáhrif plógsins voru metin á tvo vegu: (1) rannsóknaraðferð er metur uppsöfnuð umhverfisáhrif á viðkvæma lífveruhópa og (2) líkan sem metur afrakstur á nýliða að teknu tilliti til óbeins fiskveiðidauða af völdum veiðarfæris. Niðurstöður leiddu í ljós að uppsöfnuð neikvæð áhrif voru hæst hjá kalkþörungum (35.25%), ígulkerjum (35.25%), samlokum (33.24%) og náhönd (30.85%). Afrakstur á nýliða var metinn 27% af mögulegum hámarksafrakstri þegar tekið var tillit til óbeins fiskveiðidauða upp á 0.155. Fjallað var um áræðanleika og mikilvægi þessara niðurstaðna sem og veik- og styrkleika aðferðanna. Útbúin voru viðmið til að fylgja við breytingar á veiðarfærum og ráðlagðar nýjar nálganir við fiskveiðistjórnun. 4 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 5 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 9 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 The Chlamys islandica Fishery in Iceland ............................................................................ 12 1.1.1 History of the Fishery and Changes in Stock ................................................................................. 12 1.1.2 Scallop Processing ..................................................................................................................................... 14 1.1.3 Management of the Fishery ................................................................................................................... 15 1.1.4 Chlamys islandica Research ................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Incentives of Reopening the Fishery ...................................................................................... 16 1.2.1 Socio-Economic Incentives .................................................................................................................... 16 1.2.2 Alignment with Consumer Values ....................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Scallop Background ..................................................................................................................... 19 1.3.1 General Biology ........................................................................................................................................... 19 1.3.2 Scallop Ecology ............................................................................................................................................ 25 1.3.3 Epibenthic Role in Environment .......................................................................................................... 28 1.4 Traditional Fishing Method: The Dredge ............................................................................ 30 1.4.1 Indirect, Direct & Natural Mortality of Scallops ............................................................................ 31 1.4.2 Mortality of other Taxa ............................................................................................................................ 32 1.4.3 Other Environmental Considerations ................................................................................................ 35 1.5 Reason for Research ....................................................................................................................... 35 2.0 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 36 2.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 36 2.1.1 The Impact Assessment Framework ................................................................................................. 36 2.1.2 Including Indirect Mortality in Scallop Stock Modeling ........................................................... 36 2.2 Likely cumulative environmental impact of scallop dredge fishing activities ........... 37 2.2.1 The implications of physical change in benthic environments ............................................. 37 2.2.2 Alteration of Population Dynamics .................................................................................................... 40 2.2.3 Variables On Impact Intensity .............................................................................................................. 45 2.2.4 Deficiencies in Impact Research ......................................................................................................... 47 2.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 48 3.0 Materials & Methods ............................................................................................................ 49 3.1 The Impact Assessment Framework ........................................................................................ 49 3.1.1 Why the framework was chosen ........................................................................................................ 49 3.1.2 Outlining the framework steps ............................................................................................................ 50 3.2 Modeling Changes in Indirect Mortality .................................................................................. 51 3.2.1 Biomass yield per recruit function ................................................................................................... 51 4.0 Results .................................................................................................................................... 53 4.1 The Framework ............................................................................................................................... 53 4.1.1 Step 1: Description of Fishing Gear ................................................................................................... 53 4.1.2 Step 2: Description of Fishing Activity ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proceedings of the United States National Museum
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM VoL 109 WMhington : 1959 No. 3412 MARINE MOLLUSCA OF POINT BARROW, ALASKA Bv Nettie MacGinitie Introduction The material upon which this study is based was collected by G. E. MacGinitie in the vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. His work on the invertebrates of the region (see G. E. MacGinitie, 1955j was spon- sored by contracts (N6-0NR 243-16) between the OfRce of Naval Research and the California Institute of Technology (1948) and The Johns Hopkins L^niversity (1949-1950). The writer, who served as research associate under this project, spent the. periods from July 10 to Oct. 10, 1948, and from June 1949 to August 1950 at the Arctic Research Laboratory, which is located at Point Barrow base at ap- proximately long. 156°41' W. and lat. 71°20' N. As the northernmost point in Alaska, and representing as it does a point about midway between the waters of northwest Greenland and the Kara Sea, where collections of polar fauna have been made. Point Barrow should be of particular interest to students of Arctic forms. Although the dredge hauls made during the collection of these speci- mens number in the hundreds and, compared with most "expedition standards," would be called fairly intensive, the area of the ocean ' Kerckhofl Marine Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. 473771—59 1 59 — 60 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. los bottom touched by the dredge is actually small in comparison with the total area involved in the investigation. Such dredge hauls can yield nothing comparable to what can be obtained from a mudflat at low tide, for instance.
    [Show full text]
  • An Invitation to Monitor Georgia's Coastal Wetlands
    An Invitation to Monitor Georgia’s Coastal Wetlands www.shellfish.uga.edu By Mary Sweeney-Reeves, Dr. Alan Power, & Ellie Covington First Printing 2003, Second Printing 2006, Copyright University of Georgia “This book was prepared by Mary Sweeney-Reeves, Dr. Alan Power, and Ellie Covington under an award from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of OCRM and NOAA.” 2 Acknowledgements Funding for the development of the Coastal Georgia Adopt-A-Wetland Program was provided by a NOAA Coastal Incentive Grant, awarded under the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Program (UGA Grant # 27 31 RE 337130). The Coastal Georgia Adopt-A-Wetland Program owes much of its success to the support, experience, and contributions of the following individuals: Dr. Randal Walker, Marie Scoggins, Dodie Thompson, Edith Schmidt, John Crawford, Dr. Mare Timmons, Marcy Mitchell, Pete Schlein, Sue Finkle, Jenny Makosky, Natasha Wampler, Molly Russell, Rebecca Green, and Jeanette Henderson (University of Georgia Marine Extension Service); Courtney Power (Chatham County Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission); Dr. Joe Richardson (Savannah State University); Dr. Chandra Franklin (Savannah State University); Dr. Dionne Hoskins (NOAA); Dr. Charles Belin (Armstrong Atlantic University); Dr. Merryl Alber (University of Georgia); (Dr. Mac Rawson (Georgia Sea Grant College Program); Harold Harbert, Kim Morris-Zarneke, and Michele Droszcz (Georgia Adopt-A-Stream); Dorset Hurley and Aimee Gaddis (Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve); Dr. Charra Sweeney-Reeves (All About Pets); Captain Judy Helmey (Miss Judy Charters); Jan Mackinnon and Jill Huntington (Georgia Department of Natural Resources).
    [Show full text]
  • Observer Training Manual National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast
    Characterization of the US Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern Atlantic Otter Trawl and Bottom Reef Fish Fisheries Observer Training Manual National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center Galveston Laboratory September 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS National Overview ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 Project Overview ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 8 Observer Program Guidelines and Safety ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 15 Observer Safety ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 15 Medical Fitness for Sea ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 15 Training ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 15 Before Deployment on Vessel ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 16 Seven Steps to Survival ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 18 Donning an Immersion Suit ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 20 Safety Aboard Vessels ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 22 Safety At‐Sea Transfers ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 23 Off‐Shore Communications ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 24 Advise to Women Going to Sea ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 27 Summary: What You Need to Know About Sea Survival ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 29 Deployment on Vessel
    [Show full text]
  • Hermit Crabs - Paguridae and Diogenidae
    Identification Guide to Marine Invertebrates of Texas by Brenda Bowling Texas Parks and Wildlife Department April 12, 2019 Version 4 Page 1 Marine Crabs of Texas Mole crab Yellow box crab Giant hermit Surf hermit Lepidopa benedicti Calappa sulcata Petrochirus diogenes Isocheles wurdemanni Family Albuneidae Family Calappidae Family Diogenidae Family Diogenidae Blue-spot hermit Thinstripe hermit Blue land crab Flecked box crab Paguristes hummi Clibanarius vittatus Cardisoma guanhumi Hepatus pudibundus Family Diogenidae Family Diogenidae Family Gecarcinidae Family Hepatidae Calico box crab Puerto Rican sand crab False arrow crab Pink purse crab Hepatus epheliticus Emerita portoricensis Metoporhaphis calcarata Persephona crinita Family Hepatidae Family Hippidae Family Inachidae Family Leucosiidae Mottled purse crab Stone crab Red-jointed fiddler crab Atlantic ghost crab Persephona mediterranea Menippe adina Uca minax Ocypode quadrata Family Leucosiidae Family Menippidae Family Ocypodidae Family Ocypodidae Mudflat fiddler crab Spined fiddler crab Longwrist hermit Flatclaw hermit Uca rapax Uca spinicarpa Pagurus longicarpus Pagurus pollicaris Family Ocypodidae Family Ocypodidae Family Paguridae Family Paguridae Dimpled hermit Brown banded hermit Flatback mud crab Estuarine mud crab Pagurus impressus Pagurus annulipes Eurypanopeus depressus Rithropanopeus harrisii Family Paguridae Family Paguridae Family Panopeidae Family Panopeidae Page 2 Smooth mud crab Gulf grassflat crab Oystershell mud crab Saltmarsh mud crab Hexapanopeus angustifrons Dyspanopeus
    [Show full text]
  • Common Sea Life of Southeastern Alaska a Field Guide by Aaron Baldwin & Paul Norwood
    Common Sea Life of Southeastern Alaska A field guide by Aaron Baldwin & Paul Norwood All pictures taken by Aaron Baldwin Last update 08/15/2015 unless otherwise noted. [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction ….............................................................…...2 Acknowledgements Exploring SE Beaches …………………………….….. …...3 It would be next to impossible to thanks everyone who has helped with Sponges ………………………………………….…….. …...4 this project. Probably the single-most important contribution that has been made comes from the people who have encouraged it along throughout Cnidarians (Jellyfish, hydroids, corals, the process. That is why new editions keep being completed! sea pens, and sea anemones) ……..........................…....8 First and foremost I want to thanks Rich Mattson of the DIPAC Macaulay Flatworms ………………………….………………….. …..21 salmon hatchery. He has made this project possible through assistance in obtaining specimens for photographs and for offering encouragement from Parasitic worms …………………………………………….22 the very beginning. Dr. David Cowles of Walla Walla University has Nemertea (Ribbon worms) ………………….………... ….23 generously donated many photos to this project. Dr. William Bechtol read Annelid (Segmented worms) …………………………. ….25 through the previous version of this, and made several important suggestions that have vastly improved this book. Dr. Robert Armstrong Mollusks ………………………………..………………. ….38 hosts the most recent edition on his website so it would be available to a Polyplacophora (Chitons) …………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Shell-Bearing Gastropoda of Murman (Barents Sea): an Annotated Check-List
    Ruthenica, 2014, vol. 24, No. 2: 75-121. © Ruthenica, 2014 Published online November 24, 2014. http: www.ruthenica.com Marine shell-bearing Gastropoda of Murman (Barents Sea): an annotated check-list Ivan O. NEKHAEV Murmansk Marine Biological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladimirskaya str. 17, Murmansk 183010, Russia; [email protected] ABSTRACT. Annotated check-list of shell-bearing were placed close to Kola Peninsula [Derjugin, 1924]. Gastropoda of Murman Coast (Barents Sea Coast of Some samples of bottom fauna including Mollusca Kola Peninsula) is presented. Based on original materi- were collected along the Murman Coast by both al collected in 1996-2013 and literature data 148 species Helgoland expedition in 1898 and Poseidon expedi- are recorded for the region. Nine species: Skenea rugu- tion in 1913 [Thiele, 1928]. losa (G.O. Sars, 1878), Aclis sarsi Dautzenberg et Fis- Biological station in Dalnie Zelentsy village was cher, 1912, Admete clivicola Høisæter, 2010, Nassarius established after shutting of the research station in incrassatus (Strøm, 1768), Raphitoma leufroyi Ekaterinenskaya Bay in 1933. The first account of (Michaud, 1828), Taranis moerchi (Malm, 1861), Ondi- the fauna of the biological station vicinity (Yarnish- na divisa (J. Adams, 1797), Menestho albula (Fabri- naya, Dalne-Zelenetskaya and Porchnikha bays) was cius, 1780), Bogasonia volutoides Warén, 1989 were published by Ushakov [1948]. The general direction absent in previous reviews of Russian molluscan fau- na. Three species with unclear taxonomical position are of molluscan research during this period was com- listed: Skenea cf. trochoides, Omalogyra cf. atomus prehensive study of population ecology, life history, and Chrysallida sp. A majority of species found in breeding and in some cases embryonic develop- Murman waters have a boreal distribution and are typi- ment of common species [Kuznetsov, 1946; 1948a; cal for northern European fauna.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Composition and Distribution of the Macrobenthic Invertebrate Fauna of the Continental Shelf Ecosystems of the Northeastern United States
    Quantitative Composition and Distribution of the Macrobenthic Invertebrate Fauna of the Continental Shelf Ecosystems of the Northeastern United States ROGER B. THEROUX* ROLAND L. WIGLEY ** Woods Hole Laboratory Northeast Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 ABSTRACT From the mid-1950's to the mid-1960's a series ofquantitative surveys ofthe macrobenthic invertebrate fauna were conducted in the offshore New England region (Maine to Long Island, NewYork). The surveys were designed to 1) obtain measures of macrobenthic standing crop expressed in terms of density and biomass; 2) determine the taxonomic composition of the fauna (ca. 567 species); 3) map the general features of macrobenthic distribution; and 4) evaluate the fauna's relationships to water depth, bottom type, tempera­ ture range, and sediment organic carbon content. A total of 1,076 samples, ranging from 3 to 3,974 m in depth, were obtained and analyzed. The aggregate macrobenthic fauna consists of 44 major taxonomic groups (phyla, classes, orders). A striking fact is that only five of those groups (belonging to four phyla) account for over 80% ofboth total biomass and number ofindividuals ofthe macrobenthos. The five dominant groups are Bivalvia, Annelida, Amphipoda, Echninoidea, and Holothuroidea. Other salient features pertaining to the macrobenthos of the region are the following: substantial differences in quantity exist among different geographic subareas within the region, but with a general trend that both density
    [Show full text]
  • Common Seashore Animals of Southeastern Alaska a Field Guide by Aaron Baldwin
    Common seashore animals of Southeastern Alaska A field guide by Aaron Baldwin All pictures taken by Aaron Baldwin Last update 9/15/2014 unless otherwise noted. [email protected] Seashore animals of Southeastern Alaska By Aaron Baldwin Introduction Southeast Alaska (the “Alaskan Panhandle”) is an ecologically diverse region that extends from Yakutat to Dixon Entrance south of Prince of Wales Island. A complex of several hundred islands, fjords, channels, and bays, SE Alaska has over 3,000 miles of coastline. Most people who live or visit Southeast Alaska have some idea of the incredible diversity of nature found here. From mountain tops to the cold, dark depths of our many fjords, life is everywhere. The marine life of SE Alaska is exceptionally diverse for several reasons. One is simply the amount of coast, over twice the amount of the coastline of Washington, Oregon, and California combined! Within this enormous coastline there is an incredible variety of habitats, each with their own ecological community. Another reason for SE Alaska’s marine diversity is that we are in an overlap zone between two major faunal provinces. These provinces are defined as large areas that contain a similar assemblage of animals. From northern California to SE Alaska is a faunal province called the Oregonian Province. From the Aleutian Island chain to SE Alaska is the Aleutian Province. What this means is that while our sea life is generally similar to that seen in British Columbia and Washington state, we also have a great number of northern species present. History of this guide http://www.film.alaska.gov/ This guide began in 2009 as a simple guide to common seashore over 600 species! In addition to expanding the range covered, I animals of Juneau, Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • SVENSKA ARTPROJEKTETS MARINA INVENTERING – Slutrapport
    ArtDatabanken Rapporterar l 16 SVENSKA ARTPROJEKTETS MARINA INVENTERING – slutrapport Anna Karlsson, Matz Berggren, Kennet Lundin och Rikard Sundin Redaktion Anna Karlsson, Ingrid Nordqvist Johansson och Rikard Sundin Författare Anna Karlsson, Matz Berggren, Kennet Lundin och Rikard Sundin Kartor Matz Berggren Foto Från expeditionerna – Matz Berggren och Maj Persson Övriga – anges vid respektive bild Form och layout Ingrid Nordqvist Johansson Utgivare ArtDatabanken SLU, Box 7007, 750 07 Uppsala Rekommenderad citering Karlsson, A., Berggren, M., Lundin, K. & Sundin, R. 2014. Svenska artprojektets marina inventering – slutrapport. ArtDatabanken rapporterar 16. ArtDatabanken, SLU. Uppsala Distribution Rapporten kan kostnadsfritt laddas ner eller beställas från www.slu.se/artdatabanken Copyright © 2014 Förlag: ArtDatabanken SLU, Uppsala Tryck: SLU Repro ISBN: 978-91-87853-08-1 (tryck) 978-91-87853-09-8 (pdf) ISSN: 1402-6090 SVENSKA ARTPROJEKTETS MARINA INVENTERING – slutrapport Anna Karlsson, Matz Berggren, Kennet Lundin och Rikard Sundin ”En havsforskande zoologs dagar bjuda likheter med en fiskares. Han njuter sjömannens friska liv och har samma glädjeämnen. Men han kan också få del av samma mödor och besvärligheter, om oturen är framme.” L.A. Jägerskiöld INNEHÅLL Sammanfattning ......................................................5 Summary ............................................................5 Inledning ............................................................6 Varför inventera västkustens bottenfauna? ................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Not to Be Cited Without Prior Reference to the Author(S)
    NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR(S) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N7149 NAFO SCR Doc. 20/071 Kernel Density Analysis and Mapping of Ecosystem Functions in the NAFO Regulatory Area by E. Kenchington1, C. Lirette1, F.J. Murillo1, A.-L. Downie2, A. Kenny2, M. Koen-Alonso3, Mar Sacau Cuadrado4, Hannah Munro3 1Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2CEFAS, Lowestoft , Suffolk, United Kingdom. 3Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. 4Institute of Spanish Oceanography, Vigo, Spain. Abstract In support of the 2021/2022 NAFO review of the closed areas to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in the NAFO Regulatory Area, previously established kernel density estimation (KDE) methods were applied to four important ecological functions provided by benthic communities: A) Bioturbation; B) Nutrient cycling; C) Habitat provision; and D) Functional diversity (FRic), in order to evaluate significant adverse impacts of NAFO bottom-contact fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems against the wider benthic contributions to those functions. Fish and invertebrate species recorded in the EU and Canadian surveys from 2011-2019 were classified a priori as contributing to each of bioturbation, nutrient cycling and habitat provision functions, using literature references. The resultant catch biomass data for each function were examined using K-S statistics and cumulative biomass distribution plots to determine whether data from the different surveys could be combined. With few exceptions the surveys were analyzed separately and the KDE polygons overlain a posteriori to produce combined polygon areas for each function. A suite of species were important contributors to the biomass of catches used to delineate each of the KDE polygons.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium) —
    Contr. Tert. Quatern. Geol 34(3-4) 69-149 2 tab., 12 pis. Leiden, October 1997 Pliocene gastropod faunas from Kallo (Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium) — Part 3. Caenogastropoda: Aporrhaidae to Muricidae, and Part 4. Buccinidae to Helicidae R. Marquet Antwerp, Belgium Marquet, R. Pliocene gastropod faunas from Kallo (Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium) — Part 3. Caenogastropoda:Aporrhaidae to Muricidae, and Part 4. Buccinidae to Helicidae.— Contr. Tert. Quatern. Geol., 34(3-4): 69-149, 2 tabs, 12 pis. Leiden, October 1997. With Parts 3 and 4 the taxonomic revision of Pliocene from Kallo of the current series, gastropods temporary exposures at (Oost- Vlaanderen, Belgium) is completed. Material collected from the early Pliocene Kattendijk Formation and the middle-late Pliocene and Merksem members of the Lillo Formation is described and and and Oorderen, Kruisschans illustrated, stratigraphic geographic ranges of species are discussed. Twenty-nine (sub)species are new to the Belgian Pliocene, viz. Lamellaria perspicua (Linné, 1758), Euspira cirriformis gottschei (Kautsky, 1925), Cryptonatica operculata (Jeffreys, 1885), Krachia zelandica (Beets, 1946), Cerithiopsis barleei Jeffreys, 1867, Cerithiopsis nana (Wood, 1848), Aclis ascaris (Turton, 1819), Cirsotrema (C.) fimbriosum exfimbriosum Sacco, 1891, Vitreolina philippii (Rayneval & Ponzi, 1854), Crinophteiros collinsi (Sykes, 1903),Pterynopsis binominatus (Staadt in Cossmann, 1909), Trophon barvicensis (Johnston, 1825), Anachis anglica (Bell in Wood, 1874),Fusinus longiroster (Brocchi, 1814), Babylonella fusiformis Anisocyclasubangulosa (Wood, 1848),Pyramidella plicosa Bronn, 1838,Evalea divisa (J. Adams, 1797), Ondina obliqua (Alder, 1844), nitidissima (Montagu, 1803), Menestho britannica Bell, 1873, Brachystomia albella (Lovén, 1846), Diaphana minuta Brown, 1827, Cylichna concinna (Wood, 1839), Philineventrosa (Wood, 1839), Philine denticulata (J. Adams, 1800) and Limacina atlanta (Mörch, 1874).
    [Show full text]
  • Sampling Methodology GOM & Pelagic Observer
    Characterization of the US Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern Atlantic Otter Trawl and Bottom Reef Fish Fisheries Observer Training Manual National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center Galveston Laboratory MARCH 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 ‐ INTRODUCTION National Overview ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐1 National Observer Program FAQ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐2 Penaeid Shrimp ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐3 Shrimp Observer Program Overview ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐4 Reef Fish Observer Program Overview ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐7 Observer Program Guidelines and Safety ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐10 Observer Safety ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐10 Medical Fitness for Sea ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐11 Training ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐11 Before Deployment on Vessel ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐11 Seven Steps to Survival ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐13 Donning an Immersion Suit ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐16 Safety aboard Vessels ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1‐18 General Safety Precautions ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
    [Show full text]