DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Ecosystem and Single-Species Focused Fisheries Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Ecosystem and Single-Species Focused Fisheries Management University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Open Access Master's Theses 2013 A Difference in Perspective: A Comparison of Ecosystem and Single-Species Focused Fisheries Management Catherine M. Foley University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses Recommended Citation Foley, Catherine M., "A Difference in Perspective: A Comparison of Ecosystem and Single-Species Focused Fisheries Management" (2013). Open Access Master's Theses. Paper 45. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/45 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A DIFFERENCE IN PERSPECTIVE: A COMPARISON OF ECOSYSTEM AND SINGLE-SPECIES FOCUSED FISHERIES MANAGEMNET BY CATHERINE M. FOLEY A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MARINE AFFAIRS UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 2013 MASTER OF ARTS IN MARINE AFFAIRS THESIS OF CATHERINE M. FOLEY APPROVED: Thesis Committee: Major Professor: Richard Burroughs Seth Macinko Jeremy Collie Nasser H. Zawia DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 2013 ABSTRACT Currently, most fisheries management bodies utilize a narrow, single-species focus in decision-making processes. These methodologies, however, fail to recognize the interrelated nature of ecosystems, and as such are unable to produce realistic and valid estimates of sustainable yield. One proposed method of integrating ecosystem data into the decision-making process of fisheries management involves quantifying ecosystem diversity. This study evaluates historical fisheries management success in terms of changes in biological diversity and evaluates the potential use of length and species diversity measurements to aid managers in understanding fishery-induced community changes. To evaluate these relationships, a comparison of ecological and management outcomes of the Georges Bank and Eastern Bering Sea groundfish fisheries was performed. These ecosystems were selected due to the strong importance groundfish fisheries play in both regions. Fisheries on Georges Bank are generally considered to be among the world’s most poorly managed and are considered to be in a state of severe decline. In contrast, Alaskan fisheries are generally considered to be among the most successfully managed in the world. Fishery independent survey data from Georges Bank and the Eastern Bering Sea were evaluated for at least an eighteen year period. Changes in the proportion of length distributions, mean length, and maximum length of annual trawl catches were evaluated for the entire catch and particular species of interest. Annual measurements of species diversity were quantified through the use of species richness, evenness, and trophic diversity calculations and overall trends were evaluated between the ecosystems. Results indicate that fishing pressure is correlated to fish size distributions in both ecosystems, however the relationship between fishing pressure and species diversity is slight in both ecosystems. Additionally, a surprising trend of increasing species diversity is apparent in both ecosystems, despite the simultaneous decline of several stocks on Georges Bank. Lastly, an evaluation of management approaches revealed that management of the Georges Bank region has been largely reactive, responding to immediate ecological needs of the fishery. In the Eastern Bering Sea, groundfish management has been comparatively proactive, seeking to address needs of the fishery prior to reaching critical management points. These differing management styles are apparent in the ecological assessments of both ecosystems. Frequently, the reactive management actions on Georges Bank resulted in more immediate responses in single species abundance and ecosystem diversity, while the more proactive management actions in the Eastern Bering Sea resulted in little ecological change in the system. These results highlight the importance of utilizing a proactive approach to fisheries management and suggest that changes in ecosystem and community composition should be strongly considered in all management actions to gain a more holistic perspective. Furthermore, they suggest that management goals related to the maintenance of biological diversity may not be suitable because of inadequate understanding of community dynamics. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of people who made this research possible. I wish to thank my major professor, Dr. Richard Burroughs for his continued support. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge my thesis committee members, Dr. Seth Macinko and Dr. Jeremy Collie, for helping to shape this project. I especially want to thank my family, for their constant love and encouragement. I would not have made it this far without their sound advice and encouraging words at exactly the right moments. Financial support for this research was provided by the Coastal Institute Graduate Fellowship Program and a teaching assistantship through the Department of Biological Sciences. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... v List of Tables................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xi 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2 Background ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 History of Fisheries Management ................................................................... 7 2.2 Management Landscape and the Role of Science ......................................... 12 2.3 The State of Science in Fisheries Management ............................................. 17 2.4 Diversity as an Ecosystem Assessment Tool ................................................ 21 2.5 Georges Bank Groundfish Fishery ................................................................ 27 2.6 Eastern Bering Sea Groundfish Fishery ........................................................ 32 3 Methods ................................................................................................................ 40 3.1 Data ............................................................................................................... 40 3.1.1 Georges Bank ......................................................................................... 40 3.1.1.1 Demersal Communities................................................................... 40 3.1.1.2 Fishing Effort .................................................................................. 41 3.1.1.3 Commercial Landings ..................................................................... 42 3.1.1.4 Climate ............................................................................................ 42 3.1.2 Eastern Bering Sea ................................................................................. 43 3.1.2.1 Demersal Community ..................................................................... 43 v 3.1.2.2 Fishing Effort .................................................................................. 44 3.1.2.3 Commercial Landings ..................................................................... 44 3.1.2.4 Climate ............................................................................................ 45 3.2 Length Diversity ............................................................................................ 45 3.3 Species Diversity ........................................................................................... 48 3.3.1 Species Richness .................................................................................... 49 3.3.2 Species Evenness ................................................................................... 50 3.3.3 Trophic Diversity ................................................................................... 50 3.4 Evaluation of Changes in Community Structure ........................................... 51 4 Results ................................................................................................................... 53 4.1 Fishing Effort & Commercial Landings ........................................................ 53 4.1.1 Georges Bank ......................................................................................... 53 4.1.2 Eastern Bering Sea ................................................................................. 54 4.2 Single Species Abundance ............................................................................ 55 4.2.1 Georges Bank ......................................................................................... 55 4.2.2 Eastern Bering Sea ................................................................................. 56 4.3 Climate & Environmental Indices ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Plan 2 3 A
    Arctic Pre-proposal 3.4-Galloway 1 Research Plan 2 3 A. Project Title: Characterizing lipid production hotspots, phenology, and trophic transfer at the 4 algae-herbivore interface in the Chukchi Sea 5 6 B. Category: 3. Oceanography and lower trophic level productivity: Influence of sea ice dynamics and 7 advection on the phenology, magnitude and location of primary and secondary production, match- 8 mismatch, benthic-pelagic coupling, and the influence of winter conditions. 9 10 C. Rationale and justification: 11 The spatial extent of arctic sea ice is declining and earlier seasonal sea ice melt may dramatically 12 affect the magnitude, and spatial and temporal scale of primary production (Kahru et al. 2011, Wassmann 13 2011). In order to predict the consequences of these changes to ecosystems, it is important that we 14 understand the mechanistic links between temporally dynamic ice conditions and the physical factors 15 which govern phytoplankton growth (Popova et al. 2010). The mechanisms that govern productivity of 16 the Chukchi Sea ecosystem are of considerable interest due to dramatically changing temporal and spatial 17 patterns of sea ice coverage and because this area is likely to be the subject of intense fossil fuel 18 exploration in coming decades (Dunton et al. 2014). Tracing the biochemical pathways of basal resources 19 (pelagic and attached micro- and macroalgae) in this system is critical if we are to better understand how 20 the Chukchi Sea ecosystem might be modified in the future by a changing climate and offshore oil and 21 gas exploration and production (McTigue and Dunton 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Using Ecologically Based Relationships to Predict Distribution of Flathead Sole Hippoglossoides Elassodon in the Eastern Bering Sea
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 290: 251–262, 2005 Published April 13 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Using ecologically based relationships to predict distribution of flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon in the eastern Bering Sea Christopher N. Rooper*, Mark Zimmermann, Paul D. Spencer Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, USA ABSTRACT: This study describes a method for modeling and predicting, from biological and physi- cal variables, habitat use by a commercially harvested groundfish species. Models for eastern Bering Sea flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon were developed from 3 relationships describing the response of organism abundance along a resource continua. The model was parameterized for 1998 to 2000 trawl survey data and tested on 2001 and 2002 data. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) of flathead sole had a curvilinear relationship with depth, peaking at 140 m, a proportional relationship with bot- tom water temperature, a positive curvilinear relationship with potential cover (invertebrate shelter- ing organisms such as anemones, corals, sponges, etc.), a negative relationship with increasing mud:sand ratio in the sediment, and an asymptotic relationship with potential prey abundance. The predicted CPUE was highly correlated (r2 = 0.63) to the observations (1998 to 2000) and the model accurately predicted CPUE (r2 = 0.58) in the test data set (2001 and 2002). Because this method of developing habitat-based abundance models is founded on ecological relationships, it should be more robust for predicting fish distributions than statistically based models. Thus, the model can be used to examine the consequences of fishing activity (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And
    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • Pictorial Guide to the Gill Arches of Gadids and Pleuronectids in The
    Alaska Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AFSC PROCESSED REPORT 91.15 Pictorial Guide to the G¡ll Arches of Gadids and Pleuronectids in the Eastern Bering Sea May 1991 This report does not const¡Ute a publicalion and is for lnformation only. All data herein are to be considered provisional. ERRATA NOTICE This document is being made available in .PDF format for the convenience of users; however, the accuracy and correctness of the document can only be certified as was presented in the original hard copy format. Inaccuracies in the OCR scanning process may influence text searches of the .PDF file. Light or faded ink in the original document may also affect the quality of the scanned document. Pictorial Guide to the ciII Arches of Gadids and Pleuronectids in the Eastern Beri-ng Sea Mei-Sun Yang Alaska Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Se:nrice, NoAÀ 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700 Seattle, lÍA 98115-0070 May 1991 11I ABSTRÀCT The strrrctures of the gill arches of three gadids and ten pleuronectids were studied. The purPose of this study is, by using the picture of the gill arches and the pattern of the gi[- rakers, to help the identification of the gadids and pleuronectids found Ín the stomachs of marine fishes in the eastern Bering Sea. INTRODUCTION One purjose of the Fish Food Habits Prograrn of the Resource Ecology and FisherY Managenent Division (REF![) is to estimate predation removals of cornmercially inportant prey species by predatory fish (Livingston et al. 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 46/Monday, March 9, 2020/Rules
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 46 / Monday, March 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 13553 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), vessel in Virginia under a safe harbor Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 9, 2020, Commerce. agreement. Based on the revised through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, ACTION: Notification; quota transfer. summer flounder, scup, and black sea 2021. bass specifications, the summer ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the flounder quotas for 2020 are now: North Alaska Groundfish Harvest State of North Carolina is transferring a Carolina, 3,154,229 lb (1,430,734 kg); Specifications Final Environmental portion of its 2020 commercial summer and, Virginia, 2,468,098 lb (1,119,510 Impact Statement (EIS), Record of flounder quota to the Commonwealth of kg). Decision (ROD), annual Supplementary Virginia. This quota adjustment is Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Information Reports (SIRs) to the Final necessary to comply with the Summer EIS, and the Initial Regulatory Dated: March 2, 2020. Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for Fishery Management Plan quota transfer Karyl K. Brewster-Geisz, this action are available from https:// provisions. This announcement informs Acting Director, Office of Sustainable www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. the public of the revised 2020 Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. The 2019 Stock Assessment and Fishery commercial quotas for North Carolina [FR Doc. 2020–04567 Filed 3–6–20; 8:45 am] Evaluation (SAFE) report for the and Virginia. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P groundfish resources of the BSAI, dated DATES: Effective March 6, 2020, through November 2019, as well as the SAFE December 31, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Bottom Trawl Survey of the Eastern Bering Sea Continental Shelf
    Alaska Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AFSC PROCESSED REPORT 2007-01 2005 Bottom Trawl Survey of the Eastern Bering Sea Continental Shelf January 2007 This report does not constitute a publication and is for information only. All data herein are to be considered provisional. This document should be cited as follows: Lauth, R, and E. Acuna (compilers). 2007. 2005 bottom trawl survey of the eastern Bering Sea continental shelf. AFSC Processed Rep. 2007-1, 164 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., NOAA, Natl. Mar, Fish. Serv., 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle WA 98115. Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Notice to Users of this Document This document is being made available in .PDF format for the convenience of users; however, the accuracy and correctness of the document can only be certified as was presented in the original hard copy format. 2005 BOTTOM TRAWL SURVEY OF THE EASTERN BERING SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF Compilers Robert Lauth Erika Acuna Bering Sea Subtask Erika Acuna Lyle Britt Jason Conner Gerald R. Hoff Stan Kotwicki Robert Lauth Gary Mundell Daniel Nichol Duane Stevenson Ken Weinberg Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering Division Alaska Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 7600 Sand Point Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98115-6349 January 2007 ABSTRACT The Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering Division of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center conducts annual bottom trawl surveys to monitor the condition of the demersal fish and crab stocks of the eastern Bering Sea continental shelf.
    [Show full text]
  • F Latfishes Families Bothidae, Cvnoalossidae, and F'leuronectidae
    NORTHEAST PAC IF IC F latfishes Families Bothidae, Cvnoalossidae, and F'leuronectidae Ponald E, Kramer a i@i!liam H. Bares Brian C. F'aust + Barry E. Bracken illustrated by Terry Josey Alaska 5ea Grant Col/egeProgram Universityor Alaska Fa>rbanks P.O.Pox 755040 Fairbanks,Aiaska 99775-5040 907! 474-6707 ~ Fax 907! 47a 5285 Alaska Rshenes0eveioprnent Foundation 508 West seoono'Avenue, suite 212 Anonorage.Alaska 99501-2208 Marine Advisory Bulletin No. 47 a 1995 a $20.00 ElmerE. RasmusonLibrary Cataloging-in-Publication Data Guide to northeast Pacific flatfishes: families Bothidae, Cynoglossidae, and Pleuronectidae/by Donald E. Kramer ... Iet al,l Marine advisory bulletin; no. 47! 1. Flatfishes Identification. 2. Flattishes North Pacific Ocean. 3. Bothidae. 4. Cynoglossidae.5, Pleuronectidae. I. Kramer,Donald E. II. AlaskaSea Grant College Program. III. AlaskaFisheries Development Foundation. IV, Series. QL637.9.PSG85 1995 ISBN 1-5 !t2-032-2 Credits Thisbook is the resultof work sponsoredby the Universityof AlaskaSea GrantCollege Program, which is cooperativelysupported by the U.S,Depart- mentof Commerce,NOAA Office of SeaGrant and ExtramuralPrograms, undergrant no. NA4f! RG0104, projects A/7 I -01and A/75-01, and by the Universityof Alaskawith statefunds. The Universityof Alaskais an affirma- tive action/equal opportunity employer and educational institution. SeaGrant is a unique partnership with public and private sectors com- bining research,education, and technologytransfer for public service,This national network of universities meets
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Flathead Sole-Bering Flounder Stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
    9. Assessment of the Flathead Sole-Bering flounder Stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands By Carey R. McGilliard1, Dan Nichol2, and Wayne Palsson2 1Resource Ecology and Fisheries Management Division 2Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering Division Alaska Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349 Executive Summary Summary of Changes in Assessment Inputs (1) 2018 catch biomass through October 6, 2018 and 1964-1976 catch biomass were added to the model (2) 2017 catch biomass was updated to reflect October – December 2017 catches (3) Historical catch prior to 1964 was set equal to the average catch from 1964-1977 (11,659 t). (4) 2015-2017 fishery age composition data were added (5) 2016-2018 fishery length composition data were added to the model. (6) 2017-2018 Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) shelf survey biomass and 2018 Aleutian Islands (AI) survey biomass were added to the linear regression used to determine estimates of AI survey biomass in years when no AI survey occurred; a new survey biomass index was added to the assessment model for 1982-2018 based on updated linear regression results. (7) 2017-2018 survey bottom temperatures were added to Model 16.0; all survey bottom temperatures were removed from new 2018 models (8) 2016-2017 survey age composition data were added to the model. (9) 2017-2018 survey length composition data were added to the model (10) Data for age within each length bin were added to all versions of Models 18.1 and 18.2 to estimate growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Flathead Sole
    Flathead sole − Hippoglossoides elassodon Overall Vulnerability Rank = Moderate Biological Sensitivity = High Climate Exposure = Moderate Sensitivity Data Quality = 92% of scores ≥ 2 Exposure Data Quality = 56% of scores ≥ 2 Expert Data Expert Scores Plots Hippoglossoides elassodon Scores Quality (Portion by Category) Low Habitat Specificity 1.8 3.0 Moderate High Prey Specificity 1.4 2.5 Very High Adult Mobility 1.8 3.0 Dispersal of Early Life Stages 1.4 2.5 Early Life History Survival and Settlement Requirements 2.5 1.8 Complexity in Reproductive Strategy 1.9 2.8 Spawning Cycle 3.0 3.0 Sensitivity to Temperature 1.6 2.8 Sensitivity attributes Sensitivity to Ocean Acidification 1.6 2.5 Population Growth Rate 3.5 3.0 Stock Size/Status 1.0 3.0 Other Stressors 1.3 2.5 Sensitivity Score High Sea Surface Temperature 2.0 2.5 Sea Surface Temperature (variance) 1.7 2.5 Bottom Temperature 2.1 3.0 Bottom Temperature (variance) 2.0 3.0 Salinity 1.2 2.0 Salinity (variance) 2.6 2.0 Ocean Acidification 4.0 3.0 Ocean Acidification (variance) 1.4 3.0 Phytoplankton Biomass 1.3 1.2 Phytoplankton Biomass (variance) 1.3 1.2 Plankton Bloom Timing 1.4 1.0 Plankton Bloom Timing (variance) 2.2 1.0 Large Zooplankton Biomass 1.2 1.0 Large Zooplanton Biomass (variance) 1.3 1.0 Exposure factors Exposure factors Mixed Layer Depth 1.6 1.0 Mixed Layer Depth (variance) 2.3 1.0 Currents 1.3 2.0 Currents (variance) 1.7 2.0 Air Temperature NA NA Air Temperature (variance) NA NA Precipitation NA NA Precipitation (variance) NA NA Sea Surface Height NA NA Sea Surface Height (variance) NA NA Exposure Score Moderate Overall Vulnerability Rank Moderate For assistance with this document, please contact NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology at (301) 427-8100 or visit https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/contact/office-science-and-technology Flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon) Overall Climate Vulnerability Rank: Moderate.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog
    Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program (OCS Study, BOEM 2016-048) Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photographs of various fish studied for this report. Background photograph shows Arctic icebergs and ice floes. Photograph from iStock™, dated March 23, 2011. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog By Lyman K. Thorsteinson and Milton S. Love, editors Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program (OCS Study, BOEM 2016-048) Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Disclaimer: This Scientific Investigations Report has been technically reviewed and approved for publication by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The information is provided on the condition that neither the U.S. Geological Survey nor the U.S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of this information. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service
    Alaska Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service 2012 Agency Report to the Technical Subcommittee of the Canada-US Groundfish Committee April 2013 Compiled by Wayne Palsson, Tom Wilderbuer, and Jon Heifetz VIII. REVIEW OF AGENCY GROUNDFISH RESEARCH, ASSESSMENTS, AND MANAGEMENT IN 2012 A. Agency Overview Essentially all groundfish research at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) is conducted within the Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering (RACE) Division, the Resource Ecology and Fisheries Management (REFM) Division, the Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis (FMA) Division, and the Auke Bay Laboratories (ABL). The RACE and REFM Divisions are divided along regional or disciplinary lines into a number of programs and tasks. The FMA Division performs all aspects of observer monitoring of the groundfish fleets operating in the North Pacific. The ABL conducts research and stock assessments for Gulf of Alaska groundfish. All Divisions work together closely to accomplish the missions of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. A review of pertinent work by these groups during the past year is presented below. A list of publications pertinent to groundfish and groundfish issues is included in Appendix I. Yearly lists of publications and reports produced by AFSC scientists are also available on the AFSC website at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/yearlylists.htm , where you will also find a link to the searchable AFSC Publications Database. Lists or organization charts of groundfish staff of these four Center divisions are included as Appendices II - V. RACE DIVISION The core function of the Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering (RACE) Division is to conduct quantitative fishery surveys and related ecological and oceanographic research to measure and describe the distribution and abundance of commercially important fish and crab stocks in the eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska and to investigate ways to reduce bycatch, bycatch mortality, and the effects of fishing on habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Редакционная Коллегия Editorial Board Адрес Редакции И Издателя
    МОРСКОЙ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ЖУРНАЛ включён в перечень рецензируемых научных изданий, рекомендованных ВАК Российской Федерации. Журнал реферируется международной библиографической и реферативной базой данных Scopus (Elsevier), международной информационной системой по водным наукам и рыболовству ASFA (ProQuest), Всероссийским институтом научно-технической информации (ВИНИТИ), а также Российским индексом научного цитирования (РИНЦ) на базе Научной электронной библиотеки elibrary.ru. Все материалы проходят независимое двойное слепое рецензирование. Редакционная коллегия Editorial Board Главный редактор Editor-in-Chief Егоров В. Н., акад. РАН, д. б. н., проф., ФИЦ ИнБЮМ Egorov V. N., Acad. of RAS, D. Sc., Prof., IBSS Заместитель главного редактора Assistant Editor Солдатов А. А., д. б. н., проф., ФИЦ ИнБЮМ Soldatov A. A., D. Sc., Prof., IBSS Ответственный секретарь Managing Editor Корнийчук Ю. М., к. б. н., ФИЦ ИнБЮМ Kornyychuk Yu. M., PhD, IBSS Адрианов А. В., акад. РАН, д. б. н., проф., Adrianov A. V., Acad. of RAS, D. Sc., Prof., ИБМ ДВО РАН IMB FEB RAS, Russia Азовский А. И., д. б. н., проф., МГУ Arvanitidis Chr., D. Sc., HCMR, Greece Генкал С. И., д. б. н., проф., ИБВВ РАН Azovsky A. I., D. Sc., Prof., MSU, Russia Довгаль И. В., д. б. н., проф., ФИЦ ИнБЮМ Bat L., D. Sc., Prof., Sinop University, Turkey Зуев Г. В., д. б. н., проф., ФИЦ ИнБЮМ Ben Souissi J., D. Sc., Prof., INAT, Tunis Коновалов С. К., чл.-корр. РАН, д. г. н., ФИЦ МГИ Dovgal I. V., D. Sc., Prof., IBSS Мильчакова Н. А., к. б. н., ФИЦ ИнБЮМ Finenko Z. Z., D. Sc., Prof., IBSS Миронов О. Г., д. б. н., проф., ФИЦ ИнБЮМ Genkal S.
    [Show full text]