DOCSLIB.ORG

CFMC EFH Review Final Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CFMC EFH Review Final Draft FINAL Five-Year Review of Essential Fish Habitat in the U. S. Caribbean VOLUME I: TEXT Caribbean Fishery Management Council 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108 San Juan Puerto Rico 00918-1920 21 November 2011 . Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT ............................................................. IV 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. FIVE‐YEAR REVIEW APPROACH ................................................................................................................. 2 1.2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: COUNCIL ACTIONS TO PROTECT HABITAT (UP TO 2004) .......................................... 3 1.3. CHANGES IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ENVIRONMENT: COUNCIL ACTIONS (AFTER 2004) ........................................ 4 1.3.1. Comprehensive Sustainable Fisheries Amendment (SFA) to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of the U.S. Caribbean: .............................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2. 2010 ACL Amendment ................................................................................................................ 5 1.3.3. 2011 Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment for the US Caribbean .................. 5 1.3.4. Bajo de Sico Closure Extension ................................................................................................... 6 1.3.5. Data ............................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3.5.1. U.S. Caribbean Data Workshop .......................................................................................... 6 1.3.5.2. Data Improvement Project ................................................................................................. 8 1.4. CURRENT EFH DESIGNATIONS .................................................................................................................. 8 1.5. CURRENT HAPC DESIGNATIONS ............................................................................................................... 9 1.6. MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN .................................................................................. 12 1.7. EFH AREAS PROTECTED FROM FISHING IMPACTS IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN ..................................................... 12 1.8. CURRENT MEASURES TO MINIMIZE FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH ..................................................................... 12 2. REVIEW EXISTING EFH DESCRIPTIONS AND DESIGNATIONS ............................................................ 13 3. REVIEW CHANGES IN THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................. 13 3.1. SPECIES ADDED OR ELIMINATED FROM FISHERY MANAGEMENT UNITS .......................................................... 14 3.2. CHANGES TO THE STATUS OF MANAGED SPECIES AND REGULATORY AMENDMENTS ........................................ 17 3.2.1. Spiny Lobster ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.2.2. Queen Conch ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.2.3. Reef Fish and Coral ................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. NEW INFORMATION ABOUT SPECIES OR LIFE STAGE DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, DENSITY, PRODUCTIVITY, OR HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.1. Spiny Lobster ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.3.2. Queen Conch ............................................................................................................................ 22 3.3.3. Reef Fish ................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.3.1. Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.3.3.2. USVI ................................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.3.3. Other Areas ....................................................................................................................... 36 3.3.4. Corals ........................................................................................................................................ 36 3.3.4.1. Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................................ 37 3.3.4.2. USVI ................................................................................................................................... 38 3.3.4.3. Mesophotic Reefs ............................................................................................................. 41 3.3.5. Community/ Ecosystem ............................................................................................................ 45 i 4. REVIEW OF NEW MAPPING EFFORTS, TOOLS AND MODELING TECHNIQUES IN EFH AND HAPC IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 47 4.1. REVIEW OF NEW MAPPING RESEARCH, MAPPING TOOLS, AND MODELING TECHNIQUES USED IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN ................................................................................................................................................................ 48 4.1.1. Habitat mapping research conducted by the NOAA Biogeography Branch ............................. 48 4.1.2. Habitat mapping research conducted by other groups ............................................................ 52 4.1.3. Integrated GAP Analysis Program ............................................................................................ 54 4.1.4. EFH Mapper .............................................................................................................................. 57 4.1.5. MPA Mapping Tool ................................................................................................................... 58 4.2. REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGIES FOR USE IN EFH DESIGNATION IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN .................. 58 4.2.1. Habitat models ......................................................................................................................... 59 4.2.1.1. The Pacific Fishery Management Council Modeling Approach ........................................ 60 4.2.1.2. Florida Habitat Suitability Models .................................................................................... 62 4.2.1.3. Texas Habitat Utilization Model ....................................................................................... 63 4.2.1.4. Caribbean Habitat Suitability Model Prototype................................................................ 63 4.2.1.5. Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Model ........................................................................................... 63 4.2.2. Habitat Models in Stock and Ecosystem Assessments ............................................................. 64 4.2.3. Modeling Impacts of Fishing .................................................................................................... 64 5. REVIEW CHANGES IN THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................ 65 6. REVIEW CHANGES AND NEW INFORMATION ON FISHING IMPACTS THAT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT EFH .................................................................................................................................................... 68 7. REVIEW CHANGES AND NEW INFORMATION ON NON‐FISHING IMPACTS THAT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT EFH ........................................................................................................................................ 72 7.1. REVIEW OF MARITIME‐RELATED FACTORS ................................................................................................ 72 7.2. REVIEW OF NATURAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 73 7.2.1. General Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 74 7.2.2. Spiny Lobster Disease ............................................................................................................... 76 7.2.3. Review of Likely Climate Change Impacts to Habitat ............................................................... 78 7.2.4. Review of Likely Impacts of Lionfish Invasions ......................................................................... 85 8. REVIEW HABITAT AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (HAPC) DESIGNATIONS (ADDITION OR REMOVAL OF HAPCS) ......................................................................................................................................... 89 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON UPDATING EFH INFORMATION ............................... 90 9.1 DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF EFH ............................................................................................... 91 9.1.1. Spiny Lobster EFH. ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:136–162, 2016 © American Fisheries Society 2016 DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2015.1069211 Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations The Ecopath module of EwE is a static, mass-balance ecosystem model that uses two governing equations for each species and age group (Christensen and Walters 2004). The first governing equation describes each species group’s production for a time period, i.e., production (P) is the sum of fishery catch (F), predation (M2), net migration (immigration, I, and emigration, E), biomass accumulation (BA), and mortality from other sources (‘other mortality’, M0): P = F + M2 + (I - E) + BA - M0 The second governing equation is based on the principle of conservation of matter within a group, and is designed to balance the energy flows of a biomass pool, i.e., consumption (C) equals the sum of production (P), respiration (R), and unassimilated food (U): C = P + R + U At a minimum, Ecopath requires inputs of diet composition (DCi,j, where i is predator and j is prey), fishery catch (Yi), and three of the following four parameters for each model group (i): biomass (Bi), production-to-biomass ratio (Pi/Bi), consumption-to-biomass ratio (Qi/Bi), and the ecotrophic efficiency (EEi, the fraction of the production that is used in the system and does not move directly to the detritus pool). Mass-balance principles are then used to estimate the fourth parameter. P/B is the annual production rate of the population in Ecopath. Under equilibrium conditions, the P/B ratio of fish is equivalent to its total annual instantaneous mortality (Z) (Allen 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations Biological Sciences Summer 2016 Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes Christi Linardich Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Linardich, Christi. "Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes" (2016). Master of Science (MS), Thesis, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/hydh-jp82 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds/13 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOTSPOTS, EXTINCTION RISK AND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES OF GREATER CARIBBEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO MARINE BONY SHOREFISHES by Christi Linardich B.A. December 2006, Florida Gulf Coast University A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE BIOLOGY OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2016 Approved by: Kent E. Carpenter (Advisor) Beth Polidoro (Member) Holly Gaff (Member) ABSTRACT HOTSPOTS, EXTINCTION RISK AND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES OF GREATER CARIBBEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO MARINE BONY SHOREFISHES Christi Linardich Old Dominion University, 2016 Advisor: Dr. Kent E. Carpenter Understanding the status of species is important for allocation of resources to redress biodiversity loss.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Ocean Action Plan 2016 – 2026
    NEW YORK OCEAN ACTION PLAN 2016 – 2026 In collaboration with state and federal agencies, municipalities, tribal partners, academic institutions, non- profits, and ocean-based industry and tourism groups. Acknowledgments The preparation of the content within this document was developed by Debra Abercrombie and Karen Chytalo from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and in cooperation and coordination with staff from the New York State Department of State. Funding was provided by the New York State Environmental Protection Fund’s Ocean & Great Lakes Program. Other New York state agencies, federal agencies, estuary programs, the New York Ocean and Great Lakes Coalition, the Shinnecock Indian Nation and ocean-based industry and user groups provided numerous revisions to draft versions of this document which were invaluable. The New York Marine Sciences Consortium provided vital recommendations concerning data and research needs, as well as detailed revisions to earlier drafts. Thank you to all of the members of the public and who participated in the stakeholder focal groups and for also providing comments and revisions. For more information, please contact: Karen Chytalo New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [email protected] 631-444-0430 Cover Page Photo credits, Top row: E. Burke, SBU SoMAS, M. Gove; Bottom row: Wolcott Henry- 2005/Marine Photo Bank, Eleanor Partridge/Marine Photo Bank, Brandon Puckett/Marine Photo Bank. NEW YORK OCEAN ACTION PLAN | 2016 – 2026 i MESSAGE FROM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY The ocean and its significant resources have been at the heart of New York’s richness and economic vitality, since our founding in the 17th Century and continues today.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia Patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout Jeffrey W. Short 1,*, Christine M. Voss 2, Maria L. Vozzo 2,3 , Vincent Guillory 4, Harold J. Geiger 5, James C. Haney 6 and Charles H. Peterson 2 1 JWS Consulting LLC, 19315 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801, USA 2 Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557, USA; [email protected] (C.M.V.); [email protected] (M.L.V.); [email protected] (C.H.P.) 3 Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia 4 Independent Researcher, 296 Levillage Drive, Larose, LA 70373, USA; [email protected] 5 St. Hubert Research Group, 222 Seward, Suite 205, Juneau, AK 99801, USA; [email protected] 6 Terra Mar Applied Sciences LLC, 123 W. Nye Lane, Suite 129, Carson City, NV 89706, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-907-209-3321 Abstract: Unprecedented recruitment of Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout (DWH). The foregone consumption of Gulf menhaden, after their many predator species were killed by oiling, increased competition among menhaden for food, resulting in poor physiological conditions and low lipid content during 2011 and 2012. Menhaden sampled Citation: Short, J.W.; Voss, C.M.; for length and weight measurements, beginning in 2011, exhibited the poorest condition around Vozzo, M.L.; Guillory, V.; Geiger, H.J.; Barataria Bay, west of the Mississippi River, where recruitment of the 2010 year class was highest.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew David Dorka Cobián Rojas Felicia Drummond Alain García Rodríguez
    CUBA’S MESOPHOTIC CORAL REEFS Fish Photo Identification Guide ANDREW DAVID DORKA COBIÁN ROJAS FELICIA DRUMMOND ALAIN GARCÍA RODRÍGUEZ Edited by: John K. Reed Stephanie Farrington CUBA’S MESOPHOTIC CORAL REEFS Fish Photo Identification Guide ANDREW DAVID DORKA COBIÁN ROJAS FELICIA DRUMMOND ALAIN GARCÍA RODRÍGUEZ Edited by: John K. Reed Stephanie Farrington ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research under award number NA14OAR4320260 to the Cooperative Institute for Ocean Exploration, Research and Technology (CIOERT) at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute-Florida Atlantic University (HBOI-FAU), and by the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory under award number NA150AR4320064 to the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS) at the University of Miami. This expedition was conducted in support of the Joint Statement between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba on Cooperation on Environmental Protection (November 24, 2015) and the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. National Park Service, and Cuba’s National Center for Protected Areas. We give special thanks to Carlos Díaz Maza (Director of the National Center of Protected Areas) and Ulises Fernández Gomez (International Relations Officer, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment; CITMA) for assistance in securing the necessary permits to conduct the expedition and for their tremendous hospitality and logistical support in Cuba. We thank the Captain and crew of the University of Miami R/V F.G. Walton Smith and ROV operators Lance Horn and Jason White, University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW-CIOERT), Undersea Vehicle Program for their excellent work at sea during the expedition.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Ecopath with Ecosim to Explore Nekton Community Response to Freshwater Diversion Into a Louisiana Estuary
    Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem 4:104-116, Science 2012 © American Fisheries Society 2012 ISSN: 1942-5120 online DOI: 10.1080/19425120.2012.672366 ARTICLE Using Ecopath with Ecosim to Explore Nekton Community Response to Freshwater Diversion into a Louisiana Estuary Kim de Mutsert*^ and James H. Cowan Jr. Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA Carl J, Walters Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mali, Vancouver, British Columbia V6TIZ4, Canada C5 ,=3 Abstract Current methods to restore I.ouisiana’s estuaries include the reintroduction of Mississippi River water through freshwater diversions to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from the main channel. The reduced salinities associated with freshwater input arc likely affecting estuarine nekton, but these effects are poorly described. Ecopath with Ecosim was used to simulate the effects of salinity changes caused by the Caernarvon freshwater diversion on species biomass distributions of estuarine nekton. A base model was first created in Ecopath from 5 years of monitoring data collected prior to the opening of the diversion (1986-1990). The effects of freshwater discharge on food web dynamics and community composition were simulated using a novel application of Ecosim that allows the input of salinity as a forcing function coupled with user-specified salinity tolerance ranges for each biomass pool. The salinity function in Ecosim not only reveals the direct effects of salinity (i.e., increases in species biomass at their optimum salinity and decreases outside the optimal range) but also the indirect effects resulting from trophic interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 5 Ecopath with Ecosim: Linking Fisheries and Ecology
    CHAPTER 5 Ecopath with Ecosim: linking fi sheries and ecology V. Christensen Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada. 1 Why ecosystem modeling in fi sheries? Fifty years ago, fi sheries science emerged as a quantitative discipline with the publication of Ray Beverton and Sidney Holt’s [1] seminal volume On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. This book provided the foundation for how to manage fi sheries and was based on detailed, mathe- matical analyses of the dynamics of individual fi sh populations, of how they grow and how they are affected by fi shing. Fisheries science has developed and matured since then, and remarkably much of what has been achieved are modifi cations and further developments of what Beverton and Holt introduced. Given then that fi sheries science has developed to become one of the most data-rich, quantita- tive fi elds in ecology [2], how well has it fared? We often see fi sheries issues in the headlines and usually in a negative context and there are indeed many threats to the sustainability of ocean resources [3]. Many, judging not the least from newspaper headlines, consider fi sheries manage- ment a usual suspect in connection with fi sheries collapses. This may lead one to suspect that there is a problem with the science, but I hold this to be an erroneous conclusion. It should be stressed that the main problem is not to be found in the computational aspects of the science, but rather in how management advice actually is implemented in praxis [4]. The major force in fi sh- eries throughout the world is excessive fi shing capacity; the days with unexploited resources and untapped oceans are over [5], and the fi shing industry is now relying heavily on subsidies to keep the machinery going [6].
    [Show full text]
  • SINGLE DOSE PHARMACOKINETICS of AZITHROMYCIN in BALL PYTHONS (Python Regius)
    SINGLE DOSE PHARMACOKINETICS OF AZITHROMYCIN IN BALL PYTHONS (Python regius) Rob L. Coke, DVM,1* Robert P. Hunter, MS, PhD,2 Ramiro Isaza, MS, DVM,1 James W. Carpenter, MS, DVM,1 David Koch, MS,2 and Marie Goatley, BS2 1Department of Clinical Sciences and the 2Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA Abstract Azithromycin is a new sub-class of macrolide antibiotics classified as an azalide. This antimicrobial has a similar mechanism of action to the other macrolides (i.e., erythromycin) by binding to the 50S ribosomal subunit.2 Azithromycin provides broad-spectrum antibiosis against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria.2 It also has the ability to obtain sustained drug concentrations in tissues much greater than the corresponding plasma concentration.1,3 This study determined the pharmacokinetics of azithromycin (Zithromax®, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY 10017 USA) in ball pythons (Python regius), a species that is representative of the Boidae family. Snakes were administered azithromycin intravenously (i.v.) to determine distribution and orally (p.o.) to determine bioavailability and absorption. Seven ball pythons (two males, five females), weighing approximately 0.67-0.96 kg, were used in this experiment. Using a crossover design, each snake was given a single 10 mg/kg i.v. dose of azithromycin via cardiocentesis. For the oral study, each snake was dosed at 10 mg/kg using the same i.v. azithromycin preparation. Blood samples were collected prior to dosing and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hr post-azithromycin administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Full Article As Pdf ⬇︎
    St.— Changing Croix Tides on the Caribbean Isle Text and photos by Jennifer Idol 28 X-RAY MAG : 86 : 2018 EDITORIAL FEATURES TRAVEL NEWS WRECKS EQUIPMENT BOOKS SCIENCE & ECOLOGY TECH EDUCATION PROFILES PHOTO & VIDEO PORTFOLIO feature St Croix Diver at reef wall, St. Croix (above); Reef shark (top right); Converted sugar plantation home (right); Emerging leatherback sea turtle hatchling at Sandy Point (left) islands. The islands are uniquely situated next to the Puerto Rican Trench, the deepest part of the Atlantic Ocean, with depths exceeding 8,400m (27,559ft). This unique geography influences the nest- ing behavior of leatherback sea turtles St. Croix is known for nesting on Puerto Rico and St. Croix. leatherback sea turtles but Visitors since the 1400s have left their hardwoods. Canopy loss from the removal impression on the islands, seen through of trees on St. Croix reduced rainfall and has recently become known historic buildings and the changed land- diminished water resources. The remain- as one of the islands through scape, especially on the island of St. ing tropical dry forest can be seen in the which Hurricane Maria passed. Croix. The Christiansted National Historic northwestern corner of the island and is However, life on this US Virgin Site reflects the activities of St. Croix’s known locally as the rainforest. colonial legacy as part of the Danish Islands are isolated and vulnerable Island reaches beyond the tales West Indies center for sugar production, ecological centers. St. Croix resembles a of these two stories. trade, and Transatlantic Slave Trade. desert but is home to significant life.
    [Show full text]
  • An Unscripted Dive Guide to the U.S. Virgin Islands
    DIVE SHOPS ST. CROIX ST. JOHN Anchor Dive Center Cruz Bay Watersports Co. Coki Beach Dive Club Toll Free: 800-532-3483 Tel: 340-776-6234 Toll Free: 800-474-2654 Tel: 340-778-1522 [email protected] Tel: 340-775-4220 [email protected] www.divestjohn.com [email protected] www.anchordivestcroix.com www.cokidive.com Low Key Watersports Bubble Makers, Inc. Toll Free: 800-835-7718 Dive In Tel: 340-719-7201 Tel: 340-693-8999 Toll Free: 866-434-8346 [email protected] [email protected] Tel: 340-777-5255 www.bubblesvi.com www.divelowkey.com [email protected] www.diveinusvi.com Cane Bay Dive Shop, Inc. Maho Bay Watersports Toll Free: 800-338-3843 Toll Free: 800-392-9004 Patagon Dive Center Tel: 340-718-9913 Tel: 340-776-6226 Tel: 340-775-3333 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] www.canebayscuba.com www.maho.org www.patagondivecenter.com Dive Experience Patagon Dive Center Red Hook Dive Center Toll Free: 800-235-9047 Tel: 340-776-6111 Tel: 340-777-3483 Tel: 340-773-3307 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] www.patagondivecenter.com www.redhookdivecenter.com www.divexp.com St. Thomas Diving Club N2 The Blue Diving Adventures ST. THOMAS Tel: 340-776-2381 Toll Free: 888-789-3483 [email protected] Tel: 340-772-3483 Admiralty Dive Center www.stthomasdivingclub.com [email protected] Toll Free: 888-900-3483 www.N2theblue.com Tel: 340-777-9802 Underwater Safaris, Inc./ [email protected] Waterworld Outfitters St. Croix Ultimate Bluewater www.admiraltydive.com Tel: 340-774-3737 Adventures, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Fisheries Onto Marine Ecosystems for Regional, Oceanic and Global Integrations
    Large Marine Ecosystems of the World G. Hempel and K. Sherman (Editors) 0 2003 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved 375 Mapping Fisheries onto Marine Ecosystems for Regional, Oceanic and Global Integrations Reg Watson, Daniel Pauly, Villy Christensen,Rainer Froese,Alan Longhurst, Trevor Platt, Shubha Sathyendranath,Kenneth Sherman,John O'Reilly, and Peter Celone ABSTRACT Research on ecosystem-based fisheries management, marine biodiversity conservation,and other marine fields requires appropriate maps of the major natural regions of the oceans,and their ecosystems.A global ocean classification system proposed by T. Platt and S. Sathyendranathand implemented by A.R. Longhurst, defined largely by physical parameters that subdivide the oceansinto four 'biomes' and 57 'biogeochemicalprovinces' (BGCPs),is merged with the systemof 64 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) identified by K. Sherman and colleagues as transboundarygeographic coastaland watershedunits. This arrangementenhances each of the systems,and renders them mutually compatible. LMEs are ecologically defined to serve as a framework for the assessmentand managementof coastal fisheries and environments including watersheds,while the BGCPshave physical definitions, including borders defined by natural features, and extend over open oceanregions. The combined mapping will, for example, allow the computation of GI5-derived properties such as temperature,primary production, and their analysis in relation to fishery abundancedata for any study area in the combinedsystem. A further useful aspectof the integration is that it allows for the quantification, even within the EEZs of various countries, of the distribution of marine features (e.g. primary production, coral reef areas)so far not straightforwardly associatedwith different coastalstates. Applications to shelf,coral reef and oceanicfisheries, and to the mapping of marine biodiversity are briefly discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Fisheries Yields for Georges Bank
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Woods Hole Open Access Server Steele Gifford Collie Fish Res June 2011 Comparing species and ecosystem-based estimates of fisheries yields John Steele1, Dian Gifford2 and Jeremy Collie3 Abstract Three methods are described to estimate potential yields of commercial fish species: (i) single-species calculation of maximum sustainable yields, and two ecosystem-based methods derived from published results for (ii) energy flow and for (iii) community structure. The requirements imposed by food-web fluxes, and by patterns of relative abundance, provide constraints on individual species. These constraints are used to set limits to ecosystem-based yields (EBY); these limits, in turn, provide a comparison with the usual estimates of maximum sustainable yields (MSY). We use data on cod and haddock production from Georges Bank for the decade 1993-2002 to demonstrate these methods. We show that comparisons among the three approaches can be used to demonstrate that ecosystem based estimates of yields complement, rather than supersede, the single-species estimates. The former specify the significant changes required in the rest of the ecosystem to achieve a return to maximum sustainable levels for severely depleted commercial fish stocks. The overall conclusion is that MSY defines changes required in particular stocks, whereas EBY determines the changes required in the rest of the ecosystem to realize these yields. Species specific MSY only has meaning in the context of the prey, predators and competitors that surround it. 1John H Steele: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole MA 02543, USA.
    [Show full text]