DOCSLIB.ORG

The Discard Ban and Its Impact on the Maximum Sustainable Yield Objective on Fisheries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Discard Ban and Its Impact on the Maximum Sustainable Yield Objective on Fisheries DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES RESEARCH FOR PECH COMMITTEE - THE DISCARD BAN AND ITS IMPACT ON THE MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD OBJECTIVE ON FISHERIES WORKSHOP This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. RESPONSIBLE FOR THE POLICY DEPARTMENT Research project management: Ms Carmen-Paz Marti, Seconded National Expert In charge, procurement: Mr Priit Ojamaa, Research Administrator Project and publication assistance: Virginija Kelmelytė Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in May 2016. © European Union, 2016. Print ISBN 978-92-823-9113-6 doi: 10.2861/51629 QA-04-16-356-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-823-9112-9 doi: 10.2861/994117 QA-04-16-356-EN-N This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES RESEARCH FOR PECH COMMITTEE - THE DISCARD BAN AND ITS IMPACT ON THE MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD OBJECTIVE ON FISHERIES WORKSHOP Abstract This is the reference document of the Workshop on "The discard ban and its impact on the Maximum Sustainable Yield objective on fisheries" of 16 th June 2016, organised by the Committee on Fisheries (COMPECH) and the Policy Department B (PECH Research) of the European Parliament. It is structured in three parts: 1 The discard ban and its impact on the MSY objective-The North Sea 2. The discard ban and its impact on the MSY objective-The Atlantic Ocean: The Bay of Biscay case 3. The discard ban and its impact on the MSY objective-The Baltic Sea An Overarching report on the commonalities and differences of the three reports is attached. May 2016 PE 573.440 EN The discard ban and its impact on the maximum sustainable yield objective on fisheries CONTENTS Overarching report 5 The discard ban and its impact on the MSY objective on fisheries-the North Sea 9 The discard ban and its impact on the Maximum Sustainable Yield objective-The Atlantic Ocean: The Bay of Biscay case 79 The discard ban and its impact on the MSY objective - The Baltic Sea 137 3 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 4 The discard ban and its impact on the maximum sustainable yield objective on fisheries Overarching report Authors: Raul Prellezo, Sarah Kraak and Clara Ulrich INTRODUCTION The three reports, on the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean (Bay of Biscay), have commonalities as well as differences, both in terms of the topics covered and in terms of the findings and conclusions. In this document we will highlight these differences and commonalities. First of all, the North Sea report provides helpful background information on the concept of MSY, its history, novel extensions of the MSY concept (e.g. MMSY) and their problems. Likewise, the Baltic Sea report provides a general section on implementation error and on how the behavioural sciences may be of help to reduce this. This general information is applicable to all three reports. The reports on the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay, but not the report on the Baltic Sea, include extensive discussion of modelling studies and results. The authors of the Baltic Sea report had agreed with the client on forehand that they would not include such modelling studies; their arguments for this decision are at the bottom of page 12 of their report. The reports on the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay, but not the report on the Baltic Sea, provide extensive discussion of mixed-fisheries and choke-species aspects (and related concepts of pretty good yield (PGY) and F-MSY ranges). The authors of the Baltic Sea report did not include these aspects because a report devoted to these matters, commissioned by the European Parliament, was already prepared in the summer of 2015. The report on the Baltic Sea, but not the reports on the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay, includes sections on recreational fisheries and other anthropogenic factors. In the case of the Bay of Biscay, although, as mentioned in the report, the impact of recreational fishery is increasing for some particular stocks, it still cannot be considered as a major factor on the ecosystem future evolution. In the North Sea, recreational fisheries and other anthropogenic factors are likely important mainly for the English Channel and coastal areas rather than the main North Sea. It can also be noted that there is considerable scientific activity related to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Good Environmental Status, so information on the topic of anthropogenic factors is available elsewhere. Furthermore this was not an explicit request in the given TORs. Most of the statements in the North Sea report on biological interactions are also valid for the Baltic Sea. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the food web is much simpler in the Baltic Sea compared to the North Sea. On the topic of the impact of reduced discards, the statement that the main threat is from increased predation by scavenger seabirds on other seabird species (in the North Sea report) is probably not transferable to the Baltic Sea, because the main scavenging seabirds in the Baltic are herring gulls, which also feed on dumping sites and are not as big as greater black- backed gulls or skuas in the North sea. It should also be noted that the amount of discards falling under LO is much lower in the Baltic compared with the situation in North Sea. 5 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies CONCLUSION All three groups of authors, of the North Sea, Baltic Sea, and Bay of Biscay reports, agree that the landings obligation (LO) and catch quotas should provide incentives for change in the fisheries, including adaptation through taking up selective gears and spatiotemporal effort reallocation, but also quota redistribution within and between member states (swapping). However, these incentives will only manifests if the LO and catch quotas are fully enforced. If they are not fully enforced, there will be an incentive to continue discarding. Because it is not known to what extent the LO and catch quotas will be enforced it is not known whether the incentives for change will manifest, and therefore the future behaviour of the fisheries cannot be predicted. However, bio-economic models need an assumption on future fishery behaviour. Without any evidence of change, the most obvious choice for such an assumption so far is the assumption of no change in fishing patterns. Therefore, many models were based on the assumption that catchability in the future would be the same as in the recent past. This assumption has led to the situation that if one species chokes the fishery the fishing opportunities for other species are underutilised. Whether this will in actual fact happen is not known. Two other possible outcomes could be the continuation of over quota discarding, or adaptive change in fishing patterns leading to a better balance between quotas and catches. However, predictions of these outcomes cannot be quantified because no justifiable assumption on fisher behaviour can be made. The Baltic Sea report contains a chapter on important aspects regarding governance and drivers of (non-) compliance. This part is largely generic and the considerations given can apply to most fisheries. The table below summarizes some commonalities and differences between the reports Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea North Sea (Bay of Biscay) Characteristics of the area analyzed Structure of the Relatively simple. Relatively Relatively Complex. ecosystem Complex. Fishing fleet Relatively Simple Relatively Relatively Complex Complex Objectives covered Objectives in Multispecies approach Mixed fisheries Mixed fisheries fisheries approach and LO approach and LO Objectives in Stability of yield. Stability of yield. management Minimization of the F ranges F ranges implementation error. LO LO Drivers in ecosystem Eutrophication, pollution, Not considered. Not considered. impacts coastal degradation, species introduction and climate change. LO LO LO Other Objectives Impact of recreational Not considered Not considered covered fisheries Mentioned the growing impact of recreational fisheries 6 The discard ban and its impact on the maximum sustainable yield objective on fisheries Results Results at stocks There is no biological optimal solution. Including recreational fisheries is important. Results at stocks Slightly higher biomass Fishing Fishing mortalities level of LO mortalities below FMSY. below FMSY. LO not fully LO not fully evaluated evaluated Results at fleet level Not considered Economic Economic of LO consequences consequences very very variable variable across fleet across fleet segments. segments. Not easy to Not easy to anticipate fleet anticipate fleet reaction reaction Results at Effects of discards are Effects of Effects of discards ecosystem level of little known, but amount discards are are little known. LO of discards is relatively little known. Might threaten small. Might not scavengers. Might not threaten threaten scavengers. scavengers. Effects on benthos unknown Results from the Fully documented Briefly Not considered implementation side fisheries (FDF) and not considered FDF should be treated differently. Complex top- down control and lack of trust undermine intrinsic motivation of fishermen to comply with regulations. Recommendations to increase this intrinsic motivation. Recommendations Recommendation Include other objectives Prioritize: MSY is Consider the from the objectives than MSY, e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A COMPARATIVE ACCOUNT of the SMALL PELAGIC FISHERIES in the APFIC REGION by M
    A COMPARATIVE ACCOUNT OF THE SMALL PELAGIC FISHERIES IN THE APFIC REGION by M. Devaraj and E. Vivekanandan Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Cocbin-682014, India Abstract The production of the small pe/agics in the APFIC region was 1.2 mt/sq. km during 1995. Among the four areas in the region, the small pe/agics have registered (i) the maximum annual fluctuations in the western Indian Ocean; (ii) the highest increase duri'}i the past two decades along the west coast of Thailand in the eastern Indian Ocean; and (iii) the consistent decline in the landings during the past one decade along the Japanese coast in the northwest Pacific Ocean. The short rnackerels emerged as the largest fishery in the APFlC region, fom'ing 19.5% of the landings of the small pelagics in 1995. The group consisting afthe sardines and the anchovies has shown clear signs of decline during the past one decade in almost the entire region. Most of the small pelagics have unique biological characteristics such as fast growth, short longevity, late maturity, high nalllral mortality, shoaling behaviour, high fecundity and severe recruitment fluctuations. As many species of the small pelagics undertake migration, collaborative research programmes and close coordination are required among the APFle countries for the stock assessment of all the major species. The management measures under implementation in these countries have been reviewed, with suggestions for regional cooperation for the management of the stocks of the small pelagics. INTRODUCTION The Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission covers four oceanic areas, which have been classified by the FAO as the western Indian Ocean (FAO Statistical Area 51), eastern Indian Ocean (Area 57) , northwest Pacific Ocean (Area 61) and western central Pacific Ocean (Area 71).
    [Show full text]
  • On Permaculture Design: More Thoughts
    On Permaculture Design: More Thoughts ON PERMACULTURE DESIGN: MORE THOUGHTS, IDEAS, METHODOLOGIES, PRINCIPLES, TEMPLATES, STEPS, WANDERINGS, EFFICIENCIES, DEFICIENCIES, CONUNDRUMS AND WHATEVER STRIKES THE FANCY ... PERMACULTURE AND SUSTAINABLE SITE DESIGN Today professionals and students in business, government, education, healthcare, building, economics, technology, and ntal environme sciences are being called upon to ‘design’ sustainable programs and activities. Through systems science we have learned that actions taken today can affect the viability of living systems to support human activity and evolution for many generations to come. Sustainability is a concept introduced to communicate the imperative for humanity to develop in nment our built enviro those conditions that will sustain the structures, functions, and processes inextricably linked with capacities for life. The challenge we face in this new era of sustainability is a realization that the goals and needs for developing sustainable conditions in our social environment are complex, diverse, and at times counter to the dynamics of ecological systems. In recent years ecology has been called upon to include the studies of how humans interrelate with ecological processes, within ecosystems. Although humans are part of the natural ecosystem when we speak of human ecology, the relationships between humanity and the t environment, i is helpful to think of the ‘environment’ as the social system. What are the relationships and interactions within this ecosystem? What are the relationships and interactions between the social system and ecological environment (this includes air, soil, water, physical living and nonliving structures)? How do the interactions systems, between affect the global ecosystem? The most fundamental means we have as a society in transforming human ecology is through modeling and designing in our social environment those conditions that will influence sustainable interactions and relationships within the global ecological system.
    [Show full text]
  • Maximum Sustainable Yield from Interacting Fish Stocks in an Uncertain World: Two Policy Choices and Underlying Trade-Offs Arxiv
    Maximum sustainable yield from interacting fish stocks in an uncertain world: two policy choices and underlying trade-offs Adrian Farcas Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, United Kingdom [email protected] Axel G. Rossberg∗ Queen Mary University of London, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 327 Mile End Rd, London E1, United Kingdom and Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, United Kingdom [email protected] 26 May 2016 c Crown copyright Abstract The case of fisheries management illustrates how the inherent structural instability of ecosystems can have deep-running policy implications. We contrast ten types of management plans to achieve maximum sustainable yields (MSY) from multiple stocks and compare their effectiveness based on a management strategy evalua- tion (MSE) that uses complex food webs in its operating model. Plans that target specific stock sizes (BMSY) consistently led to higher yields than plans targeting spe- cific fishing pressures (FMSY). A new self-optimising control rule, introduced here arXiv:1412.0199v6 [q-bio.PE] 31 May 2016 for its robustness to structural instability, led to intermediate yields. Most plans outperformed single-species management plans with pressure targets set without considering multispecies interactions. However, more refined plans to \maximise the yield from each stock separately", in the sense of a Nash equilibrium, produced total yields comparable to plans aiming to maximise total harvested biomass, and were more robust to structural instability. Our analyses highlight trade-offs between yields, amenability to negotiations, pressures on biodiversity, and continuity with current approaches in the European context.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Study Bycatch? an Introduction to the Theme Section on Fisheries Bycatch
    Vol. 5: 91–102, 2008 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Printed December 2008 doi: 10.3354/esr00175 Endang Species Res Published online December xx, 2008 Contribution to the Theme Section ‘Fisheries bycatch problems and solutions’ OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Why study bycatch? An introduction to the Theme Section on fisheries bycatch Candan U. Soykan1,*, Jeffrey E. Moore2, Ramunas ¯ 5ydelis2, Larry B. Crowder2, Carl Safina3, Rebecca L. Lewison1 1Biology Department, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, California 92182-4614, USA 2Center for Marine Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University Marine Laboratory, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort,North Carolina 28516, USA 3Blue Ocean Institute, PO Box 250, East Norwich, New York 11732, USA ABSTRACT: Several high-profile examples of fisheries bycatch involving marine megafauna (e.g. dolphins in tuna purse-seines, albatrosses in pelagic longlines, sea turtles in shrimp trawls) have drawn attention to the unintentional capture of non-target species during fishing operations, and have resulted in a dramatic increase in bycatch research over the past 2 decades. Although a number of successful mitigation measures have been developed, the scope of the bycatch problem far exceeds our current capacity to deal with it. Specifically, we lack a comprehensive understanding of bycatch rates across species, fisheries, and ocean basins, and, with few exceptions, we lack data on demographic responses to bycatch or the in situ effectiveness of existing mitigation measures. As an introduction to this theme section of Endangered Species Research ‘Fisheries bycatch: problems and solutions’, we focus on 5 bycatch-related questions that require research attention, building on exam- ples from the current literature and the contributions to this Theme Section.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Improving the Resilience of Ocean Ecosystems to Support Fish Populations, Coastal Communities
    A brief from March 2014 Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Improving the resilience of ocean ecosystems to support fish populations, coastal communities The fish on the end of your line, the little forage fish that feed the big fish, the corals that build reef habitats, and the catch of the day in your favorite restaurant are interconnected parts of a vibrant ocean ecosystem. Ensuring the long-term health of important marine species will depend upon our ability to understand and account for the interactions among those species, their environment, and the people who rely upon them for food, commerce, and sport. This comprehensive approach, called ecosystem-based fisheries management, is needed to conserve the healthy ecosystems essential to the sustainability of our fisheries and to deal with the increasingly complex challenges facing our oceans. The United States is a global leader in fisheries management and has made great strides in ending overfishing (the problem of catching fish faster than they can reproduce) and rebuilding vulnerable populations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act—the primary law governing U.S. ocean fisheries. In many regions of our nation, this progress has helped reestablish more abundant fish populations and created economic benefits for the fishing industry and coastal communities. Core conservation policies added to the law in 1996 and 2007 are fundamental to improving individual fish populations and returning value to fishermen. We must maintain them as the foundation for sustainable management. But the United States should make the transition from a species-by-species approach to ecosystem-based fisheries management to meet the rising and urgent challenges of damaged ocean environments and dynamic, changing oceans.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability in International Law - S
    INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – Sustainability in International Law - S. Wood SUSTAINABILITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW S. Wood Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Canada Keywords: Agenda 21, Brundtland Commission, Climate Change Convention, Convention on Biological Diversity, developed countries, developing countries, development, Earth Summit, ecological limits, economic growth, ecosystem approach, environmental protection, fisheries, equity, international agreements, international environmental law, international institutions, international law, marine living resources, maximum sustainable yield, natural resources, optimum utilization, precautionary principle, Rio Declaration, Stockholm Conference, Stockholm Declaration, sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable utilization, UNEP, United Nations, World Charter for Nature. Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the Subject 1.2 Scope of the Article 1.3 What is International Law? 1.3.1 What Counts as “Law”? 1.3.2 Who Are the “Members of the International Community”? 2. Origins of Sustainability in International Law 3. Sustainability as Optimal Exploitation of Living Resources 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Sustainability as Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) 3.3 The MSY Era in International Law 3.3.1 MSY’s Rise to Prominence 3.3.2 Early Results and Controversies 3.4 The UN Law of the Sea Convention and the Displacement of MSY 3.5 Recent Trends 3.5.1 The Greening of International Fisheries Law 3.5.2 The Ascendancy of the “Sustainable Utilization” Paradigm 3.6 Conclusion 4. Sustainability as Respect for Ecological Limits 4.1 Sustainability as a General Concern with Human-Nature Interaction 4.2 EmergenceUNESCO of Sustainability as “Limits – to Growth”EOLSS 4.2.1 The 1972 Stockholm Conference 4.2.2 The 1982SAMPLE World Charter for Nature CHAPTERS 4.3 Contemporary Manifestations 4.4 Conclusion 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and Food Systems
    United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021 Scientific Group https://sc-fss2021.org/ Food Systems Summit Brief Prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the Food Systems Summit, May 2021 Climate Change and Food Systems by Alisher Mirzabaev, Lennart Olsson, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Prajal Pradhan, Marta Guadalupe Rivera Ferre, Hermann Lotze-Campen 1 Abstract Introduction Climate change affects the Climate change affects the functioning of all the components of food functioning of all the components of food systems, often in ways that exacerbate systems1 which embrace the entire range existing predicaments and inequalities of actors and their interlinked value-adding between regions of the world and groups in activities involved in the production, society. At the same time, food systems are aggregation, processing, distribution, a major cause for climate change, consumption, and recycling of food accounting for a third of all greenhouse gas products that originate from agriculture emissions. Therefore, food systems can (including livestock), forestry, fisheries, and and should play a much bigger role in food industries, and the broader economic, climate policies. This policy brief highlights societal, and natural environments in nine actions points for climate change which they are embedded2. At the same adaptation and mitigation in the food time, food systems are a major cause of systems. The policy brief shows that climate change, contributing about a third numerous practices, technologies, (21–37%) of the total Greenhouse Gas knowledge and social capital already exist (GHG) emissions through agriculture and for climate action in the food systems, with land use, storage, transport, packaging, multiple synergies with other important processing, retail, and consumption3 goals such as the conservation of (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:136–162, 2016 © American Fisheries Society 2016 DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2015.1069211 Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations The Ecopath module of EwE is a static, mass-balance ecosystem model that uses two governing equations for each species and age group (Christensen and Walters 2004). The first governing equation describes each species group’s production for a time period, i.e., production (P) is the sum of fishery catch (F), predation (M2), net migration (immigration, I, and emigration, E), biomass accumulation (BA), and mortality from other sources (‘other mortality’, M0): P = F + M2 + (I - E) + BA - M0 The second governing equation is based on the principle of conservation of matter within a group, and is designed to balance the energy flows of a biomass pool, i.e., consumption (C) equals the sum of production (P), respiration (R), and unassimilated food (U): C = P + R + U At a minimum, Ecopath requires inputs of diet composition (DCi,j, where i is predator and j is prey), fishery catch (Yi), and three of the following four parameters for each model group (i): biomass (Bi), production-to-biomass ratio (Pi/Bi), consumption-to-biomass ratio (Qi/Bi), and the ecotrophic efficiency (EEi, the fraction of the production that is used in the system and does not move directly to the detritus pool). Mass-balance principles are then used to estimate the fourth parameter. P/B is the annual production rate of the population in Ecopath. Under equilibrium conditions, the P/B ratio of fish is equivalent to its total annual instantaneous mortality (Z) (Allen 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Upwelling Revisited: Ekman, Bakun, and Improved 10.1029/2018JC014187 Upwelling Indices for the U.S
    Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans RESEARCH ARTICLE Coastal Upwelling Revisited: Ekman, Bakun, and Improved 10.1029/2018JC014187 Upwelling Indices for the U.S. West Coast Key Points: Michael G. Jacox1,2 , Christopher A. Edwards3 , Elliott L. Hazen1 , and Steven J. Bograd1 • New upwelling indices are presented – for the U.S. West Coast (31 47°N) to 1NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Monterey, CA, USA, 2NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO, address shortcomings in historical 3 indices USA, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA • The Coastal Upwelling Transport Index (CUTI) estimates vertical volume transport (i.e., Abstract Coastal upwelling is responsible for thriving marine ecosystems and fisheries that are upwelling/downwelling) disproportionately productive relative to their surface area, particularly in the world’s major eastern • The Biologically Effective Upwelling ’ Transport Index (BEUTI) estimates boundary upwelling systems. Along oceanic eastern boundaries, equatorward wind stress and the Earth s vertical nitrate flux rotation combine to drive a near-surface layer of water offshore, a process called Ekman transport. Similarly, positive wind stress curl drives divergence in the surface Ekman layer and consequently upwelling from Supporting Information: below, a process known as Ekman suction. In both cases, displaced water is replaced by upwelling of relatively • Supporting Information S1 nutrient-rich water from below, which stimulates the growth of microscopic phytoplankton that form the base of the marine food web. Ekman theory is foundational and underlies the calculation of upwelling indices Correspondence to: such as the “Bakun Index” that are ubiquitous in eastern boundary upwelling system studies. While generally M. G. Jacox, fi [email protected] valuable rst-order descriptions, these indices and their underlying theory provide an incomplete picture of coastal upwelling.
    [Show full text]
  • Other Processes Regulating Ecosystem Productivity and Fish Production in the Western Indian Ocean Andrew Bakun, Claude Ray, and Salvador Lluch-Cota
    CoaStalUpwellinO' and Other Processes Regulating Ecosystem Productivity and Fish Production in the Western Indian Ocean Andrew Bakun, Claude Ray, and Salvador Lluch-Cota Abstract /1 Theseasonal intensity of wind-induced coastal upwelling in the western Indian Ocean is investigated. The upwelling off Northeast Somalia stands out as the dominant upwelling feature in the region, producing by far the strongest seasonal upwelling pulse that exists as a; regular feature in any ocean on our planet. It is surmised that the productive pelagic fish habitat off Southwest India may owe its particularly favorable attributes to coastal trapped wave propagation originating in a region of very strong wind-driven offshore trans­ port near the southern extremity of the Indian Subcontinent. Effects of relatively mild austral summer upwelling that occurs in certain coastal ecosystems of the southern hemi­ sphere may be suppressed by the effects of intense onshore transport impacting these areas during the opposite (SW Monsoon) period. An explanation for the extreme paucity of fish landings, as well as for the unusually high production of oceanic (tuna) fisheries relative to coastal fisheries, is sought in the extremely dissipative nature of the physical systems of the region. In this respect, it appears that the Gulf of Aden and some areas within the Mozambique Channel could act as important retention areas and sources of i "see6stock" for maintenance of the function and dillersitv of the lamer reoional biolooical , !I ecosystems. 103 104 large Marine EcosySlIlms ofthe Indian Ocean - . Introduction The western Indian Ocean is the site ofsome of the most dynamically varying-. large marine ecosystems (LMEs) that exist on our planet.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Ocean Action Plan 2016 – 2026
    NEW YORK OCEAN ACTION PLAN 2016 – 2026 In collaboration with state and federal agencies, municipalities, tribal partners, academic institutions, non- profits, and ocean-based industry and tourism groups. Acknowledgments The preparation of the content within this document was developed by Debra Abercrombie and Karen Chytalo from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and in cooperation and coordination with staff from the New York State Department of State. Funding was provided by the New York State Environmental Protection Fund’s Ocean & Great Lakes Program. Other New York state agencies, federal agencies, estuary programs, the New York Ocean and Great Lakes Coalition, the Shinnecock Indian Nation and ocean-based industry and user groups provided numerous revisions to draft versions of this document which were invaluable. The New York Marine Sciences Consortium provided vital recommendations concerning data and research needs, as well as detailed revisions to earlier drafts. Thank you to all of the members of the public and who participated in the stakeholder focal groups and for also providing comments and revisions. For more information, please contact: Karen Chytalo New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [email protected] 631-444-0430 Cover Page Photo credits, Top row: E. Burke, SBU SoMAS, M. Gove; Bottom row: Wolcott Henry- 2005/Marine Photo Bank, Eleanor Partridge/Marine Photo Bank, Brandon Puckett/Marine Photo Bank. NEW YORK OCEAN ACTION PLAN | 2016 – 2026 i MESSAGE FROM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY The ocean and its significant resources have been at the heart of New York’s richness and economic vitality, since our founding in the 17th Century and continues today.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia Patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout Jeffrey W. Short 1,*, Christine M. Voss 2, Maria L. Vozzo 2,3 , Vincent Guillory 4, Harold J. Geiger 5, James C. Haney 6 and Charles H. Peterson 2 1 JWS Consulting LLC, 19315 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801, USA 2 Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557, USA; [email protected] (C.M.V.); [email protected] (M.L.V.); [email protected] (C.H.P.) 3 Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia 4 Independent Researcher, 296 Levillage Drive, Larose, LA 70373, USA; [email protected] 5 St. Hubert Research Group, 222 Seward, Suite 205, Juneau, AK 99801, USA; [email protected] 6 Terra Mar Applied Sciences LLC, 123 W. Nye Lane, Suite 129, Carson City, NV 89706, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-907-209-3321 Abstract: Unprecedented recruitment of Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout (DWH). The foregone consumption of Gulf menhaden, after their many predator species were killed by oiling, increased competition among menhaden for food, resulting in poor physiological conditions and low lipid content during 2011 and 2012. Menhaden sampled Citation: Short, J.W.; Voss, C.M.; for length and weight measurements, beginning in 2011, exhibited the poorest condition around Vozzo, M.L.; Guillory, V.; Geiger, H.J.; Barataria Bay, west of the Mississippi River, where recruitment of the 2010 year class was highest.
    [Show full text]