DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish and Shellfish Ecology Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish and Shellfish Ecology Technical Report Hornsea Project Four: Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) Volume 5, Annex 3.1: Fish and Shellfish Ecology Technical Report Prepared GoBe Consultants Ltd, 26 April 2019 Checked GoBe Consultants Ltd, 27 April 2019 Accepted David King, Ørsted. 28 May 2019 Approved Julian Carolan, Ørsted. 28 May 2019 A5.3.1 Version A Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8 1.1.1 Project background ............................................................................................... 8 1.1.2 Aims and Objectives .............................................................................................. 8 2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Fish and shellfish study area .............................................................................. 10 2.2 Evidence Plan ........................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Desktop Review ................................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 11 2.3.2 Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Survey methodology ........................................................................................... 12 2.3.4 Spawning and nursery grounds ........................................................................ 13 2.4 Data Limitations and sensitivities .................................................................... 17 2.4.1 Fish and Shellfish Ecology .................................................................................. 17 2.4.2 Spawning and nursery grounds ........................................................................ 17 3 Results .................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Fish ecology ........................................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Species by species distribution and abundance ........................................... 18 3.2 Spawning and nursery grounds ........................................................................ 46 3.2.2 Herring .................................................................................................................... 49 3.2.3 Sandeel ................................................................................................................... 58 3.3 Migratory fish species .......................................................................................... 62 3.4 Species of conservation importance ............................................................... 63 3.5 Shellfish populations in the fish and shellfish study area ........................... 66 3.6 Designated Sites ................................................................................................... 69 4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 71 4.2 Definition of valued ecological receptors (VERs) ......................................... 71 4.3 Fish ecology ........................................................................................................... 72 4.4 Shellfish ecology .................................................................................................. 73 4.5 Spawning and nursery grounds ........................................................................ 74 Doc. no. A5.3.1 Version A Page 2/83 4.5.1 Herring .................................................................................................................... 74 4.5.2 Sandeel ................................................................................................................... 75 4.6 Valued Ecological Receptors ............................................................................ 75 References ..................................................................................................................................... 79 List of Tables Table 1: Data sources used to inform the Hornsea Four baseline characterisation. .............................. 11 Table 2: Herring potential spawning habitat sediment classifications (Sources adapted from Reach et al, 2013). ................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 3: Sandeel habitat sediment classifications (Sources adapted from Latto et al, 2013)............. 16 Table 4: Summary of fish and shellfish spawning habitats within the Hornsea Four fish and shellfish study area from data presented in Coull et al. (1998), Ellis et al. (2010), Rogers et al. (1998), ERM (2012) and historic surveys across the former Hornsea Zone. ...................................................................... 47 Table 5: Summary of fish and shellfish nursery habitats within the Hornsea Four fish and shellfish study area from data presented in Coull et al. (1998), Ellis et al. (2010), Rogers et al. (1998), ERM (2012) and historic surveys across the former Hornsea Zone. ...................................................................... 47 Table 6: Summary of spawning timings in the southern North Sea for fish species known to have spawning habitats in the Hornsea Four fish and shellfish study area. Light blue indicates spawning period, dark blue indicates peak spawning period. .......................................................................................... 48 Table 7: Site-specific data from the Hornsea Four Offshore Wind Farm Habitat Classification Report (Gardline, 2019) classified using methods in Reach et al. (2013). ................................................................. 54 Table 8: Site-specific data from the Hornsea Four Offshore Wind Farm Habitat Classification Report (Gardline, 2019) classified using methods in Latto et al. (2013). .................................................................. 58 Table 9: Species of conservation importance recorded during historic surveys across the former Hornsea Zone or likely to occur within the Hornsea Four fish and shellfish study area. ........................ 64 Table 10: Criteria used to inform the valuation of ecological receptors in the Hornsea Four fish and shellfish study area (derived from guidance published by CIEEM (2016)). ................................................. 71 Table 11: Summary of Fish and Shellfish Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) and their value/importance within the Hornsea Four fish and shellfish study area. ................................................. 75 List of Figures Figure 1: Hornsea Four study area (not to scale). ............................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Data categorisation methodology (reproduced from the ORJIP report (2018)). .................... 15 Figure 3: Whiting abundances within the Hornsea Four array area, with data from Ellis et al. (2010) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale). .................................................................................. 21 Figure 4: Whiting abundances within the Hornsea Four ECC, with data from Ellis et al. (2010) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale). .................................................................................. 22 Figure 5: Dab abundances within the Hornsea Four array area (not to scale). ......................................... 23 Doc. no. A5.3.1 Version A Page 3/83 Figure 6: Dab abundances within the Hornsea Four ECC (not to scale). ..................................................... 24 Figure 7: Plaice abundances within the Hornsea Four array area, with data from Ellis et al. (2010) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale). .................................................................................. 25 Figure 8: Plaice abundances within the Hornsea Four ECC, with data from Ellis et al. (2010) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale).................................................................................................... 26 Figure 9: Cod abundances within the Hornsea Four array area, with data from Ellis et al. (2010) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale). .................................................................................. 27 Figure 10: Cod abundances within the Hornsea Four EEC, with data from Ellis et al. (2010) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale).................................................................................................... 28 Figure 11: Lemon sole abundances within the Hornsea Four array area, with data from Coull et al. (1998) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale). ..................................................................... 30 Figure 12: Lemon sole abundances within the Hornsea Four EEC, with data from Coull et al. (1998) and Ellis et al. (2010) showing spawning and nursery habitats (not to scale). .........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Norway Pout, Sandeel and North Sea Sprat
    FINAL REPORT Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery Norges Fiskarlag Report No.: 2017-008, Rev 3 Date: January 2nd 2018 Certificate code: 251453-2017-AQ-NOR-ASI Report type: Final Report DNV GL – Business Assurance Report title: Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery DNV GL Business Assurance Customer: Norges Fiskarlag, Pirsenteret, Norway AS 7462 TRONDHEIM Veritasveien 1 Contact person: Tor Bjørklund Larsen 1322 HØVIK, Norway Date of issue: January 2nd 2018 Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Project No.: PRJC -557210 -2016 -MSC -NOR http://www.dnvgl.com Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2017-008, Rev 3 Certificate No.: 251453-2017-AQ-NOR-ASI Objective: Assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery against MSC Fisheries Standards v2.0. Prepared by: Verified by: Lucia Revenga Sigrun Bekkevold Team Leader and P2 Expert Principle Consultant Hans Lassen P1 Expert Geir Hønneland P3 Expert Stefan Midteide Project Manager Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited. DNV GL Distribution: ☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 13.2 Marine Ecology and Biodiversity Baseline Conditions
    THE LONDON RESORT PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT Appendix 13.2 Marine Ecology and Biodiversity Baseline Conditions WATER QUALITY 13.2.1. The principal water quality data sources that have been used to inform this study are: • Environment Agency (EA) WFD classification status and reporting (e.g. EA 2015); and • EA long-term water quality monitoring data for the tidal Thames. Environment Agency WFD Classification Status 13.2.2. The tidal River Thames is divided into three transitional water bodies as part of the Thames River Basin Management Plan (EA 2015) (Thames Upper [ID GB530603911403], Thames Middle [ID GB53060391140] and Thames Lower [ID GB530603911401]. Each of these waterbodies are classified as heavily modified waterbodies (HMWBs). The most recent EA assessment carried out in 2016, confirms that all three of these water bodies are classified as being at Moderate ecological potential (EA 2018). 13.2.3. The Thames Estuary at the London Resort Project Site is located within the Thames Middle Transitional water body, which is a heavily modified water body on account of the following designated uses (Cycle 2 2015-2021): • Coastal protection; • Flood protection; and • Navigation. 13.2.4. The downstream extent of the Thames Middle transitional water body is located approximately 12 km downstream of the Kent Project Site and 8 km downstream of the Essex Project Site near Lower Hope Point. Downstream of this location is the Thames Lower water body which extends to the outer Thames Estuary. 13.2.5. A summary of the current Thames Middle water body WFD status is presented in Table A13.2.1, together with those supporting elements that do not currently meet at least Good status and their associated objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs
    little fish BIG IMPACT Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs A report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force The Lenfest Ocean Program invests in scientific research on the environmental, economic, and social impacts of fishing, fisheries management, and aquaculture. Supported research projects result in peer-reviewed publications in leading scientific journals. The Program works with the scientists to ensure that research results are delivered effectively to decision makers and the public, who can take action based on the findings. The program was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts (www.lenfestocean.org, Twitter handle: @LenfestOcean). The Institute for Ocean Conservation Science (IOCS) is part of the Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. It is dedicated to advancing ocean conservation through science. IOCS conducts world-class scientific research that increases knowledge about critical threats to oceans and their inhabitants, provides the foundation for smarter ocean policy, and establishes new frameworks for improved ocean conservation. Suggested citation: Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Cover photo illustration: shoal of forage fish (center), surrounded by (clockwise from top), humpback whale, Cape gannet, Steller sea lions, Atlantic puffins, sardines and black-legged kittiwake. Credits Cover (center) and title page: © Jason Pickering/SeaPics.com Banner, pages ii–1: © Brandon Cole Design: Janin/Cliff Design Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Connectivity Among Marine Protected Areas, Particularly Valuable and Vulnerable Areas in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Regions 2
    Connectivity among marine protected areas, particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the greater North Sea and Celtic Seas regions 2 Introduction to the connectivity study The NorthSEE project is focusing on transnational coordination between plans and planning processes in the North Sea Region on three main topics: Energy, Shipping and Environment. For the environmental strand the partners have been researching the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and other marine conservation measures, as well as the application of the Ecosystem Based Approach (EBA) in the planning processes. This report is part of WP3 environment and deals with the connectivity of MPAs in the North Sea. The reasons for this is that the North Sea ecosystem is interlinked and does not respect land borders. In MSP, it is important to understand the way in which a marine conservation site is relevant to areas elsewhere, and what significance different sites may have for the ecosystem as a whole. Another incentive for analyzing the ecological coherence, is that the OSPAR Recommendation 2003/31, amended by OSPAR Recommendation 2010/2, on a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) sets out the goal of OSPAR Contracting Parties (CPs) to continue the establishment of the OSPAR Network of MPAs in the North-East Atlantic. In the status report of 2016, OSPAR identified the need to using case-studies of connectivity to illustrate how the use of life-history traits information in combination with oceanographic modelling products can improve confidence in MPA network connectivity assessments. This study meets the need described by OSPAR. In order to have a better understanding of ecological relationships and conditions, the connectivity between all marine protected areas (MPAs) and particularly valuable and vulnerable areas (as part of the Norwegian Management Plans), have been analyzed.
    [Show full text]
  • Filey Cliffs Seabird Monitoring Report 2014
    Filey Cliffs Seabird Monitoring Report 2014 © Michael Babcock 2014 David Aitken, Michael Babcock and Keith Clarkson RSPB Bempton Cliffs, 9-11 Cliff Lane, Bempton, East Yorkshire, YO15 1JD Contents Page number 1. Summary 3 2. Introduction 5 3. Methods 7 4. Results 9 5. Discussion 13 6. References 15 7. Acknowledgements 16 Figures Page number 1. Filey/Cayton seabird colony location 5 2. SSSI designations within and adjacent to Filey/Cayton colony 5 3. SPM boundaries and Kittiwake productivity plot locations 7 4. Filey Brigg Kittiwake tagging site 2014 8 5. Trend in Kittiwake productivity at Filey 2012-2014 10 6. GPS tracking data from Kittiwakes at Flamborough and Filey 11 7. KDE contours for Kittiwakes tracked from Filey 2013 12 Tables Page number 1. Comparison of boat-based whole-colony counts 1986-2014 9 2. Distribution of breeding assemblage using SPM plots in 2014 9 3. Kittiwake productivity results 2014 10 4. Sample size and foraging range data from Flamborough and Filey 11 5. Kittiwake productivity results 2013 17 6. Kittiwake productivity results 2012 17 7. Filey whole-colony count results 2014 18 8. Filey whole-colony count results 2013 18 9. Filey whole-colony count results 2012 18 10. Filey whole-colony count results 2011 19 11. Filey whole-colony count results 2002 19 Appendices Page number 1. Filey Kittiwake productivity 2012-2013 17 2. Filey whole-colony data 2002, 2011-2014 18 3. Kittiwake productivity plot locations 20 4. Whole-colony count location and boundaries 23 Filey Cliffs Seabird Monitoring Report 2014 Summary The Filey Cliffs seabird monitoring programme is an ongoing partnership between RSPB and Natural England.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trophic Structure of a Wadden Sea Fish Community and Its Feeding Interactions with Alien Species
    The trophic structure of a Wadden Sea fish community and its feeding interactions with alien species Die trophische Struktur einer Fischgemeinschaft des Wattenmeeres und deren Fraßinteraktionen mit gebietsfremden Arten DISSERTATION Zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel vorgelegt von Florian Kellnreitner Kiel, 2012 Referent: Dr. habil. Harald Asmus Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Thorsten Reusch Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 24. April 2012 Zum Druck genehmigt: Contents Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Zusammenfassung ................................................................................................................................ 3 1. General Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 2. The Wadden Sea of the North Sea and the Sylt-Rømø Bight .........................................................14 3. Seasonal variation of assemblage and feeding guild structure of fish species in a boreal tidal basin. ..................................................................................................................27 4. Trophic structure of the fish community in a boreal tidal basin, the Sylt- Rømø Bight, revealed by stable isotope analysis .........................................................................55 5. Feeding interactions
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Tern Diet in a Changing Gulf of Maine
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses Dissertations and Theses October 2019 An Examination of Tern Diet in a Changing Gulf of Maine Keenan Yakola University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2 Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Yakola, Keenan, "An Examination of Tern Diet in a Changing Gulf of Maine" (2019). Masters Theses. 865. https://doi.org/10.7275/15222158 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2/865 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN EXAMINATION OF TERN DIETS IN A CHANGING GULF OF MAINE A Thesis Presented by KEENAN C. YAKOLA Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE September 2019 Environmental Conservation AN EXAMINATION OF TERN DIETS IN A CHANGING GULF OF MAINE A Thesis Presented by KEENAN C. YAKOLA Approved as to style and content by: ____________________________________________ Michelle Staudinger, Co-Chair ____________________________________________ Adrian Jordaan, Co-Chair ____________________________________________ Stephen Kress, Member __________________________________________ Curt Griffin, Department Head Environmental Conservation ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank for my two co-advisors would supported me throughout this process. Both Michelle Staudinger and Adrian Jordaan have been a constant source of support and knowledge and I can’t imagine going through this process without them.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cyprinid Fish
    DFO - Library / MPO - Bibliotheque 01005886 c.i FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C. Circular No. 65 RUSSIAN-ENGLISH GLOSSARY OF NAMES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL AND RELATED TERMS Compiled by W. E. Ricker Fisheries Research Board of Canada Nanaimo, B.C. August, 1962 FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA Biological Station, Nanaimo, B0C. Circular No. 65 9^ RUSSIAN-ENGLISH GLOSSARY OF NAMES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL AND RELATED TERMS ^5, Compiled by W. E. Ricker Fisheries Research Board of Canada Nanaimo, B.C. August, 1962 FOREWORD This short Russian-English glossary is meant to be of assistance in translating scientific articles in the fields of aquatic biology and the study of fishes and fisheries. j^ Definitions have been obtained from a variety of sources. For the names of fishes, the text volume of "Commercial Fishes of the USSR" provided English equivalents of many Russian names. Others were found in Berg's "Freshwater Fishes", and in works by Nikolsky (1954), Galkin (1958), Borisov and Ovsiannikov (1958), Martinsen (1959), and others. The kinds of fishes most emphasized are the larger species, especially those which are of importance as food fishes in the USSR, hence likely to be encountered in routine translating. However, names of a number of important commercial species in other parts of the world have been taken from Martinsen's list. For species for which no recognized English name was discovered, I have usually given either a transliteration or a translation of the Russian name; these are put in quotation marks to distinguish them from recognized English names.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Variation in the Diet Within and Between
    Geographical variation in the diet within and between the harbour seals (Phoca vitulina), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and Baltic ringed seals (Pusa hispida) inhabiting the greater Baltic Sea. Camilla Hjorth Scharff-Olsen k703) [Titel på afhandling] [Undertitel på afhandling] KU-account name: wxk703 Supervisor: Morten Tange Olsen Institut: Statens Naturhistoriske Museum Delivered: 26/10 2015 Side 1 af 48 Frontpage foto by Fred Bavendam (Scanpix): Voksen spættet sæl i karakteristisk hvilestilling. Side 2 af 48 Abstract The aim of the study is to investigate if there is a geographical variation in the diet within and between the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and the Baltic ringed seal (Pusa hispida) within the greater Baltic Sea. I reanalysed data that I had gathered from previous surveys that have had collected scats and/or examined seals digestive tracts to find and identify otoliths and/or other hard parts from fish. The three seal species diets were then compared from various areas within the Danish Straits and the Baltic Sea, to examine if a geographical difference occurs. The results indicate that there is a geographical variation within the diet of harbour seals, even though some fish species e.g. cod (Gadus morhua) and sand lances (Ammodytes sp.) occurred as primary prey items at more than one location. The results also indicate some geographical variation within the diet of grey seals, but Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) constitute a substantial part of the diet at several locations. However, no geographical variation is found within the Baltic ringed seal diet. There seems to be a geographical variation between the diets of the harbour and the grey seal from the Southwestern Baltic Sea, nevertheless dab (Limanda limanda) and black goby (Gobius niger) are found as some of the primary food items in both seal species.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology and Demographics of Pacific Sand Lance, Ammodytes Hexapterus Pallas, in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska
    Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Annual Report Ecology and Demographics of Pacific Sand Lance, Ammodytes hexapterus Pallas, in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska Restoration Project 97306 Annual Report This annual report has been prepared for peer review as part of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council restoration program for the purpose of assessing project progress. Peer review comments have not been addressed in this annual report. Martin Robards John Piatt Alaska Biological Science Center U. S. Geological Survey 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 April 1998 The Exxon VaIdez Oil Spill Trustee Council conducts all programs and activities free from discrimination, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication is available in alternative communication formats upon request. Please contact the Restoration Office to make any necessary arrangements. Any person who believes she or he has been discriminated against should write to: EVOS Trustee Council, 645 G Street, Suite 401, Anchorage, Alaska 99501; or O.E.O. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. Ecology and Demographics of Pacific Sand Lance, Ammodytes hexapterus Pallas, in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska Restoration Project 97306 Annual Report Study History: The purpose of this study is to characterize the basic ecology, distribution, and demographics of sand lance in lower Cook Inlet. Recent declines of upper trophic level species in the Northern Gulf of Alaska have been linked to decreasing availability of forage fishes. Sand lance is the most important forage fish in most nearshore areas of the northern Gulf. Despite its importance to commercial fish, seabirds, and marine mammals, little is know or published on the basic biology of this key prey species.
    [Show full text]
  • MARINE MAMMALS in the BALTIC SEA in RELATION to the NORD STREAM 2 PROJECT Baseline Report
    MARINE MAMMALS IN THE BALTIC SEA IN RELATION TO THE NORD STREAM 2 PROJECT Baseline report Report commissioned by Rambøll Scientifi c Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 236 2017 AARHUS AU UNIVERSITY DCE – DANISH CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY [Blank page] MARINE MAMMALS IN THE BALTIC SEA IN RELATION TO THE NORD STREAM 2 PROJECT Baseline report Report commissioned by Rambøll Scientifi c Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 236 2017 Jonas Teilmann Anders Galatius Signe Sveegaard Aarhus University, Department of Bioscience AARHUS AU UNIVERSITY DCE – DANISH CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY Data sheet Series title and no.: Scientific Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 236 Title: Marine mammals in the Baltic Sea in relation to the Nord Stream 2 project Subtitle: - Baseline report Report commissioned by Rambøll Authors: Jonas Teilmann, Anders Galatius & Signe Sveegaard Institution: Aarhus University, Department of Bioscience Publisher: Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy © URL: http://dce.au.dk/en Year of publication: September 2017 Editing completed: December 2016 Referee: Line Kyhn Quality assurance, DCE: Jesper Fredshavn Financial support: Rambøll Please cite as: Teilmann, J., Galatius, A. & Sveegaard, S. 2017. Marine mammals in the Baltic Sea in relation to the Nord Stream 2 project. - Baseline report. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 52 pp. Scientific Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 236. http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR236.pdf Reproduction permitted provided the source is explicitly acknowledged Abstract: Nord Stream 2 AG (NSP2) is planning the construction of a second gas pipeline in the Baltic running from Russia to Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Precautionary Catch Limits on Forage Fish Would Rarely Advance
    Page 1 of 37 Privileged Communication 1 1 Precautionary catch limits on forage fish would rarely 2 advance marine predator conservation 3 Christopher M. Free1,2*, Olaf P. Jensen2, Ray Hilborn3 4 5 1 Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa 6 Barbara, CA; [email protected] 7 2 Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 8 [email protected] 9 3 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 10 [email protected] 11 12 * Corresponding author: BrenFor School Peer of Environmental Review Science and Management, University of 13 California, Santa Barbara, 2400 Bren Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA; [email protected]; +1 (610) 14 999-4732 15 Abstract 16 Forage fish — small, low-trophic level fish such as herrings, sardines, and anchovies — are 17 critical prey species in marine ecosystems and also support large commercial fisheries. There 18 are increasing calls for precautionary catch limits on forage fish to protect valuable fish 19 predators and protected seabirds and marine mammals. However, the effectiveness of these 20 regulations, which assume that increasing prey abundance increases predator productivity, are 21 under debate. We used prey-linked population models to measure the influence of forage fish 22 abundance on the productivity of 45 marine predator populations of 32 species from five 23 regions. Our results indicate that predator productivity is rarely influenced by the abundance of 24 their prey. Only six predator populations were positively influenced by prey abundance; more 25 populations were negatively influenced.
    [Show full text]