DOCSLIB.ORG

Ices Cm 2007/C:11

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

- Not to be cited without prior reference to the author - ICES CM 2007/C:11 Interactions between cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, simulated with a robust dynamic model Outi Heikinheimo Abstract The interactions between cod (Gadus morhua), herring (Clupea harengus) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the Baltic Sea were examined by simulation with a robust dynamic model, an alternative to more complicated and data-demanding multispecies models. The main targets of the study were to find out structural uncertainties of the system and sensitivity of the model output to key parameter values. The results were then compared to the predictions made with the forward calculating multispecies model used by ICES for fish stock assessment in the Baltic Sea. The model output was sensitive to the functional response in predation by cod on herring and sprat. The type II functional response led to a collapse of the clupeid stocks when cod was abundant, while the type III response produced more plausible stock dynamics. According to the simulation, an abundant cod stock was able to keep the sprat stock at a low level. Herring was less affected. The functional response was the most important source of differences in the results obtained with the dynamic model compared to the ICES multispecies model. Keywords: Cod, sprat, Baltic herring, interactions, dynamic model, Baltic Sea Contact author: Outi Heikinheimo, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Viikinkaari 4, P.O. Box 2, FI-00791 Helsinki, Finland [tel: +358 205 751 254, mobile phone: +358 40 745 2421, fax: +358 205 751 201, e-mail: [email protected]] 1. Introduction, material and methods In the Baltic Sea, the interacting fish community in the open sea areas is dominated by three species: cod, herring, and sprat. Large changes in the abundance of cod and sprat have been typical in the Baltic Sea during the past three decades (Fig 1). Both environmental changes and interactions between the fish species are involved, which complicates fisheries management and prediction of the effect of management measures. The abundance of cod stock is currently low, herring stocks are decreasing, and the sprat stock is at high level (ICES 2005). 450000 3500 t 400000 a 3000 ) r 350000 s p ) n s 2500 s o 300000 i n d l l o n 2000 i i 250000 l a l m i ( g 200000 1500 m n d i ( r 150000 o r 1000 C e 100000 H 50000 500 0 0 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Year Herring Sprat Cod Fig. 1. Development of the stock sizes of cod, herring and sprat (ages ≥ 1) in the Baltic Sea from 1974--2004. Note the different scale for the cod stock. Multispecies virtual population analysis (MSVPA) has been used in the fish stock assessment of the Baltic with both a hind-cast VPA type mode and a forecast catch prediction mode MSFOR (e.g. Sparre 1991, Magnusson 1995). Complicated multispecies models are sensitive to structural uncertainty (ICES 2005). One target of the BECAUSE project (EU FP6) was to develope more robust and less data demanding models that increase understanding of the interactions of the fish species in the Baltic. A dynamic model on interactions between cod, sprat and Baltic herring was constructed using parameter values from multispecies assessment key run for the Baltic (Study Group on Multispecies Assessment in the Baltic, SGMAB) and literature, with the software Powersim Constructor. The main interactions that are assumed to affect the dynamics of the species are predation by cod on herring and sprat, predation by the clupeids on the early stages of cod, and cannibalism in cod (Köster et al. 2005). The model includes two options, good and bad environmental conditions for cod reproduction, as in the SGMAB scenarios. The model is suitable for examining the feasibility and effects of different model structures on the dynamics of cod and the clupeids, and the sensitivity of the system to the parameter values. The results were compared to the predictions made using MSFOR. Stock/recruitment equations (Ricker) were used for sprat and herring but the recruitment of cod was drawn from lognormal distributions, based on the data from “good” and “bad” periods. Good/ Bad S/R- Spawning stock Herring relationship biomass stock Herring Herring Herring 0+ 1-year-old Ad. catch Sprat stock Herring taken by cod Fishing mortality Herring stock Other Predation natural mortality Predation mortality mortality Functional response Cod stock Fig. 2: Structure of the herring submodel. Squares are level variables (numbers of fish); ovals are auxiliary variables; diamonds are auxiliary variables with constant values; arrows between the level variables indicate flows (in numbers of fish), with faucets that regulate the flows; thin arrows indicate effects on variables or flows; and “clouds” represent the borders of the system. The variables with double outline are duplicates of variables elsewhere in the model or in other submodels. To model the predation on sprat and herring by cod, the clupeids are considered here as one group of prey, because their individual size and behaviour are similar (e.g. Rindorf & Gislason 2005). The total consumption then breaks down in proportion to abundance of the prey species (see below). Other food was not taken into account, which means that the clupeids were assumed to be the most preferable food so that the abundance of other food would not affect their proportion in the diet. The value for maximum consumption of clupeids was the number of clupeids taken per cod versus clupeid density, obtained from the results of SGMAB key run; so it is not the bioenergetic maximum energy intake. n n n Pi = Ci (Nh+s) /[(Nh+s) +(Dh+s) ] P = functional response, i.e. number of herring + sprat eaten by one cod in one year C = maximum consumption by cod of herring + sprat (in numbers), i.e. the number of herring and sprat together eaten by one cod/ year when the abundance of the clupeids was at a maximum level during the study period i = age classes of cod (age 1, age 2, adults) Nh+s = size of herring + sprat stock in numbers (all age groups) Dh+s = half saturation constant (size of herring + sprat stock when the consumption was half of the maximum) n = constant that determines the type of the functional response (n = 1 for type II response, n ≥2 for type III response) r g a 160 e n i y r r 140 r e e h p 120 / t d n=1 a r o 100 c p n=2 s e 80 f n n=3 o o 60 r y e n=4 b 40 b n n=5 m 20 e u k N a 0 t 0 500 000 1 000 000 1 500 000 Sprat+herring stock (millions) Fig. 3. Functional response curves for cod predation on sprat/herring with different values of n; n = 1 is the type II response, others type III. Half-saturation constant D = 260 000 millions. (Sprat+herring stock level in millions during bad conditions for cod approximately 4-7*105, good conditions 2-2.5*105). d e s 0.0006 u a c 0.0005 s y d t i o l 0.0004 n=1 c a t r 0 n=2 0 o 0.0003 0 m n=3 1 n 0.0002 y o n=4 b i t a 0.0001 n=5 d e r 0 P 0 500 000 1 000 000 1 500 000 Sprat+herring stock (millions) Fig. 4. Predation mortality for different functional response curves According to the SGMAB results, the annual proportions of sprat and herring in the diet of cod correspond to their abundances in the sea but sprat seems to be “preferred” to herring. Sprat was taken about twice the proportion that the relative abundance compared to herring would suggest. To take this into account in the FR calculation, the abundance of sprat was weighted by 2. The most important difference between the types of functional responses is in the form of the mortality curve: with the type II response the mortality rises with decreasing prey density (depensatory mortality) (Figs. 3 and 4). 2. Results The effects of different types of functional responses and values of the half-saturation constant (D) were first studied. The type III functional response with the value 2 for n and D = 260 000 millions were the assumed nominal values. The simulations with the model showed that the type III functional response in cod predation on the clupeids produces moderately feasible stock sizes and fluctuations in each species, but the type II response leads to collapse of sprat and herring during good conditions for cod. Sprat collapses also with low half saturation constants. During bad conditions for cod, the clupeid stocks are only little affected by cod predation. Simulation results with current fishing and type III response (stock sizes in millions), Figs. 5 and 6: ) 5000 n o i l l 4000 i m ( 3000 e z Cod i s 2000 k c o 1000 t S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6 7 8 9 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) n 300000 o i l l 250000 i m ( 200000 Herring e z 150000 i s Sprat k 100000 c o t 50000 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Time in years Fig.
Recommended publications
  • Lateral Muscle Development of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus Thynnus Orientalis, from Juvenile to Young Adult Stage Under Culture Condition

    Lateral Muscle Development of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus Thynnus Orientalis, from Juvenile to Young Adult Stage Under Culture Condition

    SUISANZOSHOKU 49(1), 23-28 (2001) Lateral Muscle Development of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus orientalis, from Juvenile to Young Adult Stage under Culture Condition Nobuhiro HATTom*1, Shigeru MIYASHITA*1, Yoshifumi SAWADA*2, Keitaro KATO*1, Toshiro NASU*1, Tokihiko OicADA*2, Osamu MURATA*1, and Hidemi KUMAI*1 (Accepted December 5, 2000) Abstract: The volume of lateral muscle, cross-sectional area of red and white fibers, and the number of fibers were examined for artificially hatched Bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus orientalis, from juvenile to young adult stage within the size range of 19.5-163.0 mm body length (BL). The red and white muscle volumes increased exponentially with BL. At a size larger than 80.0 mm BL, both the volume increases were significantly accelerated. The proportion of red muscle volume in the total lateral muscle volume slightly increased with BL. The cross-sectional area and the total num - ber of red and white fibers at the point of maximum body height increased in the BL range exam -ined. The small red fibers(<a100μm2 in size)of a cross-sectional area gradually disappeared with the growth of BL. In contrast, there existed the white small fibers(200-300μm2 in size)at all body sizes. Increases of both fiber numbers were approximately accelerated at sizes larger than 85 mm BL. The size of 80-85 mm BL, at which the phase change of muscle development occurred, corre -sponded to the transitional stage from juvenile to young adult. Key words: Thunnus thynnus orientalis; ontogenetic development; lateral muscle The seedstock production of the Pacific bluefin fish reach the body length (BL) of 80 to 160 tuna has developed remarkably in recent years mm.

  • Clean &Unclean Meats

    Clean & Unclean Meats God expects all who desire to have a relationship with Him to live holy lives (Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 1:15). The Bible says following God’s instructions regarding the meat we eat is one aspect of living a holy life (Leviticus 11:44-47). Modern research indicates that there are health benets to eating only the meat of animals approved by God and avoiding those He labels as unclean. Here is a summation of the clean (acceptable to eat) and unclean (not acceptable to eat) animals found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. For further explanation, see the LifeHopeandTruth.com article “Clean and Unclean Animals.” BIRDS CLEAN (Eggs of these birds are also clean) Chicken Prairie chicken Dove Ptarmigan Duck Quail Goose Sage grouse (sagehen) Grouse Sparrow (and all other Guinea fowl songbirds; but not those of Partridge the corvid family) Peafowl (peacock) Swan (the KJV translation of “swan” is a mistranslation) Pheasant Teal Pigeon Turkey BIRDS UNCLEAN Leviticus 11:13-19 (Eggs of these birds are also unclean) All birds of prey Cormorant (raptors) including: Crane Buzzard Crow (and all Condor other corvids) Eagle Cuckoo Ostrich Falcon Egret Parrot Kite Flamingo Pelican Hawk Glede Penguin Osprey Grosbeak Plover Owl Gull Raven Vulture Heron Roadrunner Lapwing Stork Other birds including: Loon Swallow Albatross Magpie Swi Bat Martin Water hen Bittern Ossifrage Woodpecker ANIMALS CLEAN Leviticus 11:3; Deuteronomy 14:4-6 (Milk from these animals is also clean) Addax Hart Antelope Hartebeest Beef (meat of domestic cattle) Hirola chews
  • Atlantic Herring Atlantic

    Atlantic Herring Atlantic

    Atlantic herring Clupea harengus Image ©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook / www.scandfish.com Atlantic Midwater trawl, Purse Seine November 17, 2014 Lindsey Feldman, Consulting researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. 2 About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild- caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible.
  • Herring River Brochure

    Herring River Brochure

    How can I get involved an d l earn more? As the Herring River Restoration Project Int r o duction progresses, opportunities will arise for a broad Everyone dreams of turning back time. spectrum of educational, stewardship, and Re sto ring t he Opportunities to rectify past mistakes are rare and volunteer activities. For a wealth of background fleeting. Who wouldn’t relish the chance to undo an materials and other documentation on the project, error made long ago? One hundred years ago in visit Wellfleet’s Herring River Restoration web page Wellfleet, Massachusetts, Town officials decided to at http://www.wellfleetma.org/Home/S007129EE. build a dike at the mouth of the Herring River. At To speak to a staff person working on the project, the time, the river was the lifeblood of one the largest contact John Portnoy, Senior Ecologist at the Herring and most productive coastal wetland systems in New Cape Cod National Seashore at 508-487-3262 England. But during that era the immense benefits ext. 107 or the Wellfleet Conservation and values of wetlands were ignored and the desire to Commission at 508-349-0308. River “…exterminate the mosquito pest…” and “…drain the marshes so they may be brought into valuable land…” For the most up-to-date information on the led to the construction of a dike at Chequessett Neck project, subscribe to the Herring River News, a Road in order to “…exclude the sea” (report of Whitman periodic, e-newsletter. To subscribe, send and Howard on Proposed Dike at Herring River, 1906). an email with the subject “Herring River News” to [email protected].
  • Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia Patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout

    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.
  • Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings for 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California

    Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings for 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California

    UC San Diego Fish Bulletin Title Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/93g734v0 Authors Pinkas, Leo Gates, Doyle E Frey, Herbert W Publication Date 1974 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 161 California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California By Leo Pinkas Marine Resources Region and By Doyle E. Gates and Herbert W. Frey > Marine Resources Region 1974 1 Figure 1. Geographical areas used to summarize California Fisheries statistics. 2 3 1. CALIFORNIA MARINE FISH LANDINGS FOR 1972 LEO PINKAS Marine Resources Region 1.1. INTRODUCTION The protection, propagation, and wise utilization of California's living marine resources (established as common property by statute, Section 1600, Fish and Game Code) is dependent upon the welding of biological, environment- al, economic, and sociological factors. Fundamental to each of these factors, as well as the entire management pro- cess, are harvest records. The California Department of Fish and Game began gathering commercial fisheries land- ing data in 1916. Commercial fish catches were first published in 1929 for the years 1926 and 1927. This report, the 32nd in the landing series, is for the calendar year 1972. It summarizes commercial fishing activities in marine as well as fresh waters and includes the catches of the sportfishing partyboat fleet. Preliminary landing data are published annually in the circular series which also enumerates certain fishery products produced from the catch.
  • The Paradox of the Pelagics: Why Bluefin Tuna Can Go Hungry in a Sea of Plenty

    The Paradox of the Pelagics: Why Bluefin Tuna Can Go Hungry in a Sea of Plenty

    Vol. 527: 181–192, 2015 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published May 7 doi: 10.3354/meps11260 Mar Ecol Prog Ser OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS The paradox of the pelagics: why bluefin tuna can go hungry in a sea of plenty Walter J. Golet1,2,*,**, Nicholas R. Record3,**, Sigrid Lehuta2, Molly Lutcavage4, Benjamin Galuardi4, Andrew B. Cooper5, Andrew J. Pershing1,2,** 1School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, College Road, Orono, ME 04469, USA 2Gulf of Maine Research Institute, 350 Commercial Street, Portland, ME 04101, USA 3Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, East Boothbay, ME 04544, USA 4Department of Environmental Conservation, Marine Fisheries Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst, PO Box 3188, Gloucester, MA 01931, USA 5School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, V5A 1S6, BC, Canada ABSTRACT: Large marine predators such as tunas and sharks play an important role in structuring marine food webs. Their future populations depend on the environmental conditions they en- counter across life history stages and the level of human exploitation. Standard predator−prey rela- tionships suggest favorable conditions (high prey abundance) should result in successful foraging and reproductive output. Here, we demonstrate that these assumptions are not invariably valid across species, and that somatic condition of Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus in the Gulf of Maine declined in the presence of high prey abundance. We show that the paradox of declining bluefin tuna condition during a period of high prey abundance is explained by a change in the size structure of their prey. Specifically, we identified strong correlations between bluefin tuna body condition, the relative abundance of large Atlantic herring Clupea harengus, and the energetic payoff resulting from consuming different sizes of herring.
  • Interaction Between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Control in Marine Food Webs

    Interaction Between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Control in Marine Food Webs

    Interaction between top-down and bottom-up control in marine food webs Christopher Philip Lynama, Marcos Llopeb,c, Christian Möllmannd, Pierre Helaouëte, Georgia Anne Bayliss-Brownf, and Nils C. Stensethc,g,h,1 aCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, United Kingdom; bInstituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Oceanográfico de Cádiz, E-11006 Cádiz, Andalusia, Spain; cCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway; dInstitute of Hydrobiology and Fisheries Sciences, University of Hamburg, 22767 Hamburg, Germany; eSir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth PL1 2PB, United Kingdom; fAquaTT, Dublin 8, Ireland; gFlødevigen Marine Research Station, Institute of Marine Research, NO-4817 His, Norway; and hCentre for Coastal Research, University of Agder, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway Contributed by Nils Chr. Stenseth, December 28, 2016 (sent for review December 7, 2016; reviewed by Lorenzo Ciannelli, Mark Dickey-Collas, and Eva Elizabeth Plagányi) Climate change and resource exploitation have been shown to from the bottom-up through climatic (temperature-related) in- modify the importance of bottom-up and top-down forces in fluences on plankton, planktivorous fish, and the pelagic stages ecosystems. However, the resulting pattern of trophic control in of demersal fish (11–13). Some studies, however, have suggested complex food webs is an emergent property of the system and that top-down effects, such as predation by sprat on zooplankton, thus unintuitive. We develop a statistical nondeterministic model, are equally important in what is termed a “wasp-waist” system capable of modeling complex patterns of trophic control for the (14).
  • Appendix A: Fish

    Appendix A: Fish

    Appendix A: Fish Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Federal Listing State Listing SC Global Rank G5 State Rank S5 High Regional Status Photo by NHFG Justification (Reason for Concern in NH) Alewife numbers have declined significantly throughout their range. Commercial landings of river herring, a collective term for alewives and blueback herring, have declined by 93% since 1985 (ASMFC 2009). Dams severely limit accessible anadromous fish spawning habitat, and alewives must use fish ladders for access to most spawning habitat in New Hampshire during spring spawning runs. River herring are a key component of freshwater, estuarine, and marine food webs (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). They are an important source of prey for many predators, and they contribute nutrients to freshwater ecosystems (Macavoy et al. 2000). Distribution The alewife is found in Atlantic coastal rivers from Newfoundland to North Carolina. It has been introduced into a number of inland waterbodies (Scott and Crossman 1973). In New Hampshire, alewives migrate into the Merrimack River and the seacoast drainages (Scarola 1987). Habitat Adult alewives migrate from the ocean into freshwater spawning habitats with slow moving water, including riverine oxbows, lakes, ponds, and mid‐river sites (Scott and Crossman 1973). Juveniles remain in freshwater until late summer and early fall when they migrate downstream into estuaries and eventually to the ocean. There is little information available on alewife movement and habitat use in the ocean. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Appendix A Fish-21 Appendix A: Fish NH Wildlife Action Plan Habitats ● Large Warmwater Rivers ● Warmwater Lakes and Ponds ● Warmwater Rivers and Streams Distribution Map Current Species and Habitat Condition in New Hampshire Coastal Watersheds: Alewife populations in the coastal watersheds are generally stable or increasing in recent years at fish ladders where river herring and other diadromous species have been monitored since 1979.
  • Before the Secretary of Commerce Petition to List the Pacific Bluefin Tuna

    Before the Secretary of Commerce Petition to List the Pacific Bluefin Tuna

    Credit: aes256 [CC BY 2.1 jp] via Wikimedia Commons Before the Secretary of Commerce Petition to List the Pacific Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus orientalis) as Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act June 20, 2016 6/20/2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petitioners formally request that the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), list the Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) as endangered or in the alternative list the species as threatened, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 – 1544. Pacific bluefin tuna are severely overfished, and overfishing continues, making extinction a very real risk. According to the 2016 stock assessment by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC), decades of overfishing have left the population at just 2.6% of its unfished size. Recent fishing rates (2011-2013) were up to three times higher than commonly used reference points for overfishing. The population’s severe decline, in combination with inadequate regulatory mechanisms to end overfishing or reverse the decline, has pushed Pacific bluefin tuna to the edge of extinction. Pacific bluefin tuna are important apex predators in the marine ecosystem and must be conserved. They are one of three bluefin tuna species. These three species are renowned for their large size, unique physiology and biomechanics, and capacity to swim across ocean basins. They are slow-growing, long-lived, endothermic fish. The Pacific bluefin migrates tens of thousands of miles across the largest ocean to feed and spawn, ranging from waters north of Japan to New Zealand in the western Pacific and off California and Mexico in the eastern Pacific.
  • Reduction Fisheries: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2018

    Reduction Fisheries: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2018

    Reduction Fisheries: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2018 September 2018 Reduction Fisheries: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2018 Reduction Fisheries: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2018 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Report Authors: Pedro Veiga (coordination) | Senior Scientist, Science Unit, Systems Division | [email protected] Marina Mendes | FishSource Fisheries Analyst, Systems Division | [email protected] Blake Lee-Harwood | Programs Division Director | [email protected] Fisheries evaluations and revisions in FishSource: Marina Mendes (coordination), Mariana Bock, Christie Hendrich, Matthew Cieri, David Villegas, Patrícia Amorim, Alexia Morgan, Susana Segurado, Pedro Veiga Suggested improvement actions in FishSource: Megan Westmeyer (coordination), Christiane Schmidt, Dave Martin, Doug Beveridge, Enrique Alonso, Geoff Tingley, Pedro Ferreiro Scientific advice Pedro Sousa PHOTO CREDITS Bottom left: Image courtesy of surasakiStock at FreeDigitalPhotos.net © Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, September 2018 KEYWORDS BMSY; fisheries; FishSource; FMSY; forage; improvement; low trophic level; ecosystem-based fisheries management; reduction; stock status; supply chain; sustainability; target Sustainable Fisheries Partnership wishes to acknowledge the generous support of BioMar, Cargill/EWOS, and Skretting in the production of this report. DISCLAIMER This report was mainly prepared with information available from FishSource.org™, a program of Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP).
  • Differences in Diet of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

    Differences in Diet of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

    16 8 Abstract–The stomachs of 819 Atlan­ Differences in diet of Atlantic bluefin tuna tic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) sampled from 1988 to 1992 were ana­ (Thunnus thynnus) at five seasonal feeding grounds lyzed to compare dietary differences among five feeding grounds on the on the New England continental shelf* New England continental shelf (Jef­ freys Ledge, Stellwagen Bank, Cape Bradford C. Chase Cod Bay, Great South Channel, and South of Martha’s Vineyard) where a Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries majority of the U.S. Atlantic commer­ 30 Emerson Avenue cial catch occurs. Spatial variation in Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 prey was expected to be a primary E-mail address: [email protected] influence on bluefin tuna distribution during seasonal feeding migrations. Sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), squid (Cephalopoda), and bluefish (Pomato­ Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thyn- England continental shelf region, and mus saltatrix) were the top prey in terms of frequency of occurrence and nus) are widely distributed throughout as a baseline for bioenergetic analyses. percent prey weight for all areas com­ the Atlantic Ocean and have attracted Information on the feeding habits of bined. Prey composition was uncorre­ valuable commercial and recreational this economically valuable species and lated between study areas, with the fisheries in the western North Atlantic apex predator in the western North exception of a significant association during the latter half of the twentieth Atlantic Ocean is limited, and nearly between Stellwagen Bank and Great century. The western North Atlantic absent for the seasonal feeding grounds South Channel, where sand lance and population is considered overfished by where most U.S.