Post on 16-Dec-2015
Assessing the ecosystem impacts of fishing in the South
Catalan Sea by developing dynamic simulations
on fishing effort and target species
Marta Coll, Isabel Palomera, Sergi Tudela and Francesc Sardà
Institut de Ciències del Mar (ICM-CSIC)
Barcelona, Spain
1. The South Catalan Sea ecosystem model (SCMEE 2004)
2. The SCS model calibrated with time series of data
3. Temporal dynamic simulations of 5 fishing scenarios
1. The South Catalan Sea ecosystem model
Mass balance model of trophic interactions
Ecopath with Ecosim software version 5.1
40 functional groups from primary producers to main top predators
Includes trawling, purse seining, long lining and troll bait fisheries
6 fishing harbours: Tarragona to Les Cases d’Alcanar
Area modelled of 4300 km2
50-400 m depth: continental shelf and upper slope
Represents the ecosystem in 1994
Coll et al., accepted to Journal of Marine Systems
Tarragona
Sant Carles de la Ràpita
Ebro River Delta
Les Cases d’Alcanar
Cambrils
L’Ametlla
L’Ampolla
Catala
nSea
Western Mediterranean
Study area
Ecopath mass balance modelling
Basic parameters required per compartment (i): B: BiomassP/B: Production per unit of biomassQ/B: Consumption per unit of biomassEE: Ecotrophic efficiency (production used within the ecosystem)1-EE: Other mortalityDCij: Fraction of (i) in the diet of (j)Y: Catches; E: Net migration; BA: Biomass accumulation
Expressed on an annual basis per unit surface area and WW (t·km-2·yr-1)
www.ecopath.org. Pauly et al., 2000. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57: 697-706; Christensen and Walters. 2004. Ecol. Model., 172(2-4): 109-139.
j
iiiiijjji )EE(1 i·BP
·BBAEY·DCBQ
·BBP
·B ii
1. The South Catalan Sea model
Production = Predation + Yield + Net Migration + Biomass accumulation + Other mortality
(i) food tedUnassimila(i) nRespiratio(i) Production(i) nConsumptio
Overview of trophic flows and ecosystem structure
1. The South Catalan Sea model
Pelagic Demersal Benthic
Large pelagics
Bonito
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Discards By catch
Detritus
Suprabenthos
Macrozooplankton
Various small pelagics
Squids
Fin whale
Dolphins
Anchovy
Jellyfish
Sardine
Marine turtles
Seabirds
Adult hake
Benthopelagic fishes Juvenile hakeAudouin
gull
Shrimps
Blue whiting
Demersal fishes(2)
Poor cod
Demersal fishes(3)
Demersal sharks
Anglerfish
Conger eel
Demersal fishes(1)
Flatfishes Mullets Octopuses
Crabs Norway lobster
PolychaetesBenthic
invertebrates
TL
V
IV
III
II
I
TrawlPurse seine
Troll baitLong line
Horse mackerel
Mackerel
Wide and intense fishing impact
Target species, predators and by-catch
Target species, preys and by-catch
Low TLcLow OI
High PPR
1. The South Catalan Sea model
1. Trawling fleet-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Fit
o
Zo
o
Mzo
o
Pg
el
Su
pr
Po
li
Nat
a
Rep
t
Nep
h
Inve
Cef
b
Cef
m
Mu
ll
Co
ng
Lo
ph
Ple
u
Tri
s
Mju
v
Mm
er
Mic
r
Pm
ix
Pin
v
Pp
ec
Sq
ua
Pzo
o
En
gr
Sp
il
Pp
el
Tra
c
Sco
m
Sar
d
Po
ce
Tm
ar
Lau
d
Ave
s
Od
on
Bal
a
Des
c1
Des
c2
Det
r
Arr
astr
e
Cer
co
Pal
ang
re
Ceb
o
2. Purse seine-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 T P L Tb
3. Longline-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 T P L Tb
4. Troll bait -1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 T P L Tb
Fishing feetLandings
t·km-2·y-1
Discards
t·km-2·y-1 TLc OI %PPR (pp) %PPR (pp+det)
Trawling 2.17 0.23 3.16 0.13 15.95 23.21Purse seining 2.61 0.14 3.01 0.01 13.78 10.43Longlining 0.17 0.01 4.04 0.06 5.47 6.98Troll bait fishery 0.03 0.00 4.16 0.06 1.50 1.36Total 4.98 0.37 3.12 0.10 36.70 41.99
Impact of fishing activities
1. The South Catalan Sea model
The mass balance modelling is a good tool to summarize and integrate the available information in a coherent way, identifying critical gaps and describing the ecosystem structure and functioning:
* Quantification of trophic flows, globally or by components * Estimation of TLs, OI, Mortalities: M2, M0, F* Indices related with network and information analysis * Quantification of fishing impact through the MTI, PPR, TLc, GE…
The starting point from where to develop dynamic simulations with the temporal dynamic module Ecosim:
* Assessing the impact of fishing trough time by changing fishing mortalities or
fishing effort by gear (from an initial value of Ecopath)
* Fitting the model to available data, searching for trophic interactions parameters
and environmental anomaly
* Applying optimization routines to include economic and social data
Walters et al. 1997. Rev. Fish Biol. and Fish., 7: 139-172, Christensen and Walters. 2004. Ecol. Model., 172(2-4): 109-139.
In summary…
2. Temporal dynamic modelling and calibration process
Ecosim takes the Ecopath master equation and sets up a series of differential equations of biomass dynamics to calculate changes of each group over time:
dBi/dt: growth rate during time dt of group (i) in terms of its biomassP/Q: net gross efficiencyMOi: other non-predation natural mortalityFi: fishing mortalityIi: immigration rate; ei: emigration rate; Ii-ei·Bi: net migration rate
j
Qji Total consumption by group i
j
Qij Total consumption on group i by all predators j
jj
ei)·BiFi(MOiIiQijQjii·QP
dtdBi
Walters et al. 1997. Rev. Fish Biol. and Fish., 7: 139-172, Christensen and Walters. 2004. Ecol. Model., 172(2-4): 109-139.
Qs are calculated based on the Foraging arena where Bi is divided into vulnerable and non-vulnerable components and the transfer rate vij determines the flow control: top-down, bottom-up or intermediate
·Sij·Tj/Djaij·Mij·Bjvij·Ti·MijvijSij·Mij/Dj·Bj·Ti·Tj·vij·aij·Bi
Qij
Walters et al. 1997. Rev. Fish Biol. and Fish., 7: 139-172, Christensen and Walters. 2004. Ecol. Model., 172(2-4): 109-139.
* vij is expressing the rate with which B move between being vulnerable and not vulnerable* Bi is prey biomass; Bj is predator biomass* aij is the effective search rate for i by j* Ti and Tj is relative feeding time for prey and predator * Dj represents effects of handling time as a limit to consumption rate* Sij are seasonal or long term forcing effects* Mij are mediation forcing effects
2. Dynamic modeling and calibration process
Fitting the model to data …
EwE now includes an iterative process to fit the model and calibrate it with empirical data
To explore how changes in functional groups can be attributed * to internal ecosystem factors: feeding interactions and population factors * to external ecosystem factors: fishing activity and environmental forcing
- From an ecosystem model of a past situation
- Using to force the model changes in: * fishing effort, fishing mortality, total mortality
- Using available information on biomasses and catches to modify model variables (mainly vulnerability factor vij) based on the reduction of the goodness of fit measure that it is the summed-squared residuals (SS) of a predicted from an observed value
2. Dynamic modeling and calibration process
Walters et al. 1997. Rev. Fish Biol. and Fish., 7: 139-172, Christensen and Walters. 2004. Ecol. Model., 172(2-4): 109-139.
South Catalan Sea calibrated ecosystem model: from 1978-2003
We developed an ecosystem model representing 1978-1979
We used changes in fishing mortality and nominal fishing effort of trawling, purse seining and longline fishery ► best fit: Cv > TRB > nº boats > days fishing
Absolute and relative biomasses to fit the model
Corrected catches from 1978-2003 to compare results
Change vulnerabilities of most sensible interactions (vij) and prediction of an environmental anomaly
2. Dynamic modeling and calibration process
0
5
10
15
20
25
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Bio
ma
ss
(t·
km
-2)
Anchovy biomass
Sardine biomass
2. Dynamic modeling and calibration process
* Trophic flow control for the most sensible prey-predator interactions: e.g. sardine
* Anomaly function linked with primary production correlated with NAO indexes (annual and winter values) and time series of temperature
* Identification of compensation in recruitment of hake when adult stock is low (commonly defined in many stocks, Myers and Cadigan, 1993)
Predicted and empirical biomasses and catches1
1. Relative and absolute values (y) over time (x); Myers and Cadigan, 1993. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 50: 1576-1590.
Fitting summary results SS values Contribution (%)
Total 215.22Fishing 194.48 9.64Vulnerabilities 57.75/95.68 63.53-45.91Environmental annomaly* 98.27/108.67 3.57-11.32Combined 50.07/71.30 76.74-66.87* Probability occuring by chance: 0.001
2. Dynamic modeling and calibration process
1. Trophic interactions play a key role in explaining the variability2. Fishing dynamics: adult hake, sardine, anchovy and demersal sharks3. Environmental forcing paying its role in the pelagic compartment
The model predicts important changes in the ecosystem structure and functioning, highlyexploited from 1978 and overexploited in 2003
Functional groups B2003/B1978 C2003/C1978
Jellyfish 1.28Shrimps 0.83 1.44Crabs 0.58 1.02Norway lobster 0.47 0.81Benthic cephalopods 0.60 1.12Benthopelagic cephalopods 0.47 0.84Mullets 0.24 0.57Conger eel 1.54 3.50Anglerfish 0.76 1.32Flatfishes 0.58 1.79Juvenile hake 0.63 1.08Adult hake 0.08 1.65Demersal fishes (1) 0.59 1.27Demersal fishes (2) 1.48 2.99Demersal fishes (3) 1.20 2.22Demersal sharks 0.06 0.15Benthopelagic fishes 4.28 7.30European anchovy 0.72 0.55European pilchard 0.19 0.79Other small pelagic fishes 0.87 1.39Horse mackerel 0.64 1.41Mackerel 0.55 1.28Total 0.78 1.61
* Biomass decrease of top predators like adult hake and demersal sharks
* Biomass decrease of target low TL organism: like small pelagics and juv. hake
* Increase of benthopelagic fishes, jellyfish, conger eel and small demersal fishes: preys and competitors
* Lower biomass of sardine than anchovy in 2003
* Lowest levels of anchovy in the late 1990s and showing modest recovering…
Summary: what seems to have happened in these 26 years?
3. Development of dynamic simulations of fishing options
* Changing the fishing mortality (F) by group or fishing effort by fleet * Assuming constant the predicted environmental anomaly* Making simulations of 20 years from 2003
* Assessing the impact of changing fishing activity * Comparing predicted values of Bf/Bi and Cf/Ci (1978-2003-2023)
5 Simulations
- If nothing changes… - If global fishing effort decreases 20% (≈ one fishing day) - If demersal fishery or purse seine fishing effort decreases 20% - How to recover high levels of hake, anchovy and sardine
3. Dynamic simulations
Simulation 1: If nothing changes….
3. Dynamic simulations
* Low biomasses of adult hake, sardine
* Decreasing biomass of juv. hake and several demersal species
* High biomasses of benthopelagic fishes, conger eel, other small pelagics (mainly round sardinella), jellyfish, shrimps and horse mackerel
* Anchovy shows a recovery trend
* Biomasses are maintained and catches don’t increase
1978 2003 2023
01
10
3.4
6.717
28
20
1418 1
Functional groups B2023/B1978 C2023/C1978
1 Jellyfish 1.622 Shrimps 1.35 2.343 Crabs 0.66 1.164 Norway lobster 0.56 0.965 Benthic cephalopods 0.86 1.606 Benthopelagic cephalopods 0.82 1.487 Mullets 0.94 2.188 Conger eel 3.25 7.409 Anglerfish 0.68 1.18
10 Flatfishes 0.85 2.6611 Juvenile hake 0.77 1.3412 Adult hake 0.09 2.0213 Demersal fishes (1) 0.93 1.9914 Demersal fishes (2) 1.68 3.4015 Demersal fishes (3) 0.63 1.1716 Demersal sharks 0.00 0.0117 Benthopelagic fishes 8.61 14.7318 European anchovy 1.49 1.1419 European pilchard 0.05 0.2220 Other small pelagic fishes 2.66 4.2521 Horse mackerel 1.11 2.4422 Mackerel 0.74 1.73
Total 1.05 0.89
Simulation 2: If fishing effort is globally reduced by 20%
3. Dynamic simulations
1978 2023
01
10
3.4
6.717
2
8
20
1418 1
* Some partial recovery on biomass of demersal and pelagic depleted species
* Still high biomasses of benthopelagic fishes, conger eel, other small pelagics, jellyfish
* Increasing catches of anglerfish, conger eel, demersal fishes, sardine, horse mackerel
* Global biomass maintained, non clear recovery of global catches
Functional groups B2023/B1978If nothing changes…
C2023/C1978If nothing changes…
1 Jellyfish 1.62 ►2 Shrimps 1.01 ▼ 1.79 ▼3 Crabs 1.30 ▲ 1.08 ▼4 Norway lobster 0.76 ▲ 0.63 ▼5 Benthic ceph. 1.05 ▲ 1.57 ▼6 Benthop. ceph. 0.80 ▼ 1.16 ▼7 Mullets 0.96 ▲ 1.78 ▼8 Conger eel 4.17 ▲ 7.59 ▲9 Anglerfish 1.09 ▲ 1.50 ▲
10 Flatfishes 0.96 ▲ 2.40 ▼11 Juvenile hake 0.80 ▲ 1.11 ▼12 Adult hake 0.10 ▲ 1.67 ▼13 Demersal fishes (1) 0.97 ▲ 1.66 ▼14 Demersal fishes (2) 1.68 ▲ 2.73 ▼15 Demersal fishes (3) 1.19 ▲ 1.77 ▲16 Demersal sharks 0.03 ▲ 0.06 ▲17 Benthopelagic fishes 8.38 ▼ 11.45 ▼18 European anchovy 1.47 ▼ 0.90 ▼19 European pilchard 0.07 ▲ 0.23 ▲20 Other small pel. fishes 2.41 ▼ 3.09 ▼21 Horse mackerel 1.08 ▼ 1.91 ▲22 Mackerel 0.74 ▲ 1.39 ▼
Total 1.05 ► 0.76 ▼
2003
Simulation 3: If fishing effort is reduced by 20% for purse seine
3. Dynamic simulations
Simulation 4: If fishing effort is reduced by 20% for the demersal fishery
* Some recovery on biomass of pelagic depleted species
* Still high biomasses of benthopelagic fishes, conger eel, other small pelagics, jellyfish
* Increasing catches of sardine and some demersal fishes
* General recovery on biomass of demersal depleted species
* Still high biomasses of benthopelagic fishes, conger eel, other small pelagics, jellyfish
* Increasing catches of some demersal fishes
Functional groups B2023/B1978If nothing changes…
C2023/C1978If nothing changes…
1 Jellyfish 1.61 ▼2 Shrimps 1.02 ▼ 2.33 ▼3 Crabs 1.35 ▲ 1.16 ►4 Norway lobster 0.66 ▲ 0.96 ►5 Benthic cephalopods 0.86 ► 1.60 ►6 Benthop. ceph. 0.84 ▲ 1.52 ▲7 Mullets 0.93 ▼ 2.17 ▼8 Conger eel 3.25 ► 7.38 ▼9 Anglerfish 0.68 ► 1.18 ►
10 Flatfishes 0.85 ► 2.66 ►11 Juvenile hake 0.77 ► 1.33 ▼12 Adult hake 0.09 ► 2.01 ▼13 Demersal fishes (1) 0.93 ► 1.98 ▼14 Demersal fishes (2) 1.67 ▼ 3.37 ▼15 Demersal fishes (3) 0.70 ▲ 1.30 ▲16 Demersal sharks 0.004 ► 0.01 ►17 Benthopelagic fishes 8.55 ▼ 14.24 ▼18 European anchovy 1.51 ▲ 0.92 ▼19 European pilchard 0.07 ▲ 0.24 ▲20 Other small pel. fishes 2.69 ▲ 3.54 ▼21 Horse mackerel 1.10 ▼ 2.28 ▼22 Mackerel 0.74 ► 1.61 ▼
Total 1.05 ► 0.83 ▼
Functional groups B2023/B1978If nothing changes…
C2023/C1978If nothing changes…
1 Jellyfish 1.63 ▲2 Shrimps 1.01 ▼ 1.79 ▼3 Crabs 1.30 ▲ 1.08 ▼4 Norway lobster 0.76 ▲ 0.63 ▼5 Benthic ceph. 1.06 ▲ 1.58 ▼6 Benthop. ceph. 0.78 ▼ 1.13 ▼7 Mullets 0.96 ▲ 1.78 ▼8 Conger eel 4.18 ▲ 7.60 ▲9 Anglerfish 1.08 ▲ 1.50 ▲
10 Flatfishes 0.96 ▲ 2.40 ▼11 Juvenile hake 0.81 ▲ 1.11 ▼12 Adult hake 0.10 ▲ 1.67 ▼13 Demersal fishes (1) 0.98 ▲ 1.67 ▼14 Demersal fishes (2) 1.69 ▲ 2.75 ▼15 Demersal fishes (3) 1.09 ▲ 1.62 ▲16 Demersal sharks 0.029 ▲ 0.06 ▲17 Benthopelagic fishes 8.43 ▼ 11.87 ▼18 European anchovy 1.45 ▼ 1.11 ▼19 European pilchard 0.05 ► 0.22 ►20 Other small pel. fishes 2.41 ▼ 3.77 ▼21 Horse mackerel 1.09 ▼ 2.07 ▼22 Mackerel 0.75 ▲ 1.51 ▼
Total 1.04 ▼ 0.82 ▼
Simulation 5: how to recover high levels of hake, anchovy and sardine
3. Dynamic simulations
If we reduce the fishing rate of adult hake to F/Z <0.81; eliminating fishing on juv. hake < 25cm (immature ones) to 80%, reducing F/Z for sardine <0.52 and maintaining F/Z for anchovy <0.5
0
1
2.7
5.3
8
1978 2003 2023
172
11 19 20 12
* Recovery of biomasses of adult and juv. hake, sardine and other benthic and pelagic species
* Lower levels for anchovy comparing 1978 but higher ones respect 2003 (25%)
* Lower biomasses of benthopelagic fishes, jellyfish, conger and other pelagic fishes
* Higher levels of caches for target demersal and pelagic species
* Global increase of biomasses and catches
Functional groups B2023/B1978In nothing changes…
B2023/B2003 C2023/C1978In nothing changes…
C2023/C2003
1 Jellyfish 1.00 ▼▼ 0.782 Shrimps 1.11 ▼ 1.41 2.43 ▲ 1.693 Crabs 1.41 ▲ 1.47 1.49 ▲ 1.474 Norway lobster 0.84 ▲ 1.67 1.35 ▲ 1.675 Benthic cephalopods 0.94 ▲ 1.57 1.76 ▲ 1.576 Benthop. cephal. 1.35 ▲ 2.89 2.43 ▲ 2.897 Mullets 1.01 ▲ 4.14 2.35 ▲ 4.148 Conger eel 0.10 ▼▼ 0.07 0.24 ▼ 0.079 Anglerfish 0.47 ▼ 0.62 0.82 ▼ 0.62
10 Flatfishes 0.73 ▼ 1.27 2.28 ▼ 1.2711 Juvenile hake 1.40 ▲▲ 2.24 0.48 ▼ 0.4412 Adult hake 1.15 ▲▲ 15.13 2.01 ▲ 1.2213 Demersal fishes (1) 0.91 ▼ 1.53 1.94 ▼ 1.5314 Demersal fishes (2) 1.08 ▼ 0.73 2.20 ▼ 0.7315 Demersal fishes (3) 0.65 ▲ 0.54 1.20 ▲ 0.5416 Demersal sharks 0.001 ▲ 0.01 0.002 ▼ 0.0117 Benthopelagic fishes 2.37 ▼▼ 0.55 4.04 ▼ 0.5518 European anchovy 0.90 ▼ 1.25 0.69 ▼ 1.2519 European pilchard 1.65 ▲▲ 8.67 1.31 ▲ 1.6520 Other small pelagic fishes 1.38 ▼ 1.58 2.20 ▼ 1.5821 Horse mackerel 0.82 ▼ 1.28 1.81 ▼ 1.2822 Mackerel 0.88 ▲ 1.61 2.06 ▲ 1.61
Total 1.10 ▲ 1.41 1.24 ▲ 1.60
1. As recommended for ground fished stocks: Mertz and Myersl, 1998. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 55: 478-484; 2. As recommended for small pelagic fishes: Patterson. 1992. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish, 2: 321-338.
Conclusions
Simulation examples are showing interesting results:
* Target species are driven by fishing activity and we need to lower fishing impact to recover them, probably preventing as well the proliferation of other species (jellyfishes and benthopelagic fishes: trophic cascades)
* A reduction of 20% of effort would imply some improvement of the ecosystem respect the actual state
* To recover the system we need an intervention in both pelagic and demersal fisheries to increase top predator biomasses and relax the impact on target small pelagic fishes, while increasing the predation on preys of top predators and competitors of low TL target species
Ecological modeling in the Mediterranean context is shown as an appropriated tool to investigate fishing management options
To answer important ecological questions, to pose new ones and to assess the ecosystem effects of fishing
This is especially relevant in the Mediterranean because it take into account the multispecific nature of ecosystem and fisheries: essential under the EAF
Conclusions
The ecosystem modeling approach is a tool to improve the strategic nature of the management: where we are, where we are going?
Complementing the tactical management from stock assessment and evaluation tools
This can contribute to evolve the reactive management of fishing resources into a more adaptive and strategic one, in line with recommendations of GFCM
Ecological modeling is nourished by conventional assessment methods, information that we already have and we organize into an ecosystem context
We need: to continue collecting this essential information to increase it: some critical gaps (diet of key specie, ontogeny) to collect new data to monitor model predictions (validate or refuse)
Are benthopelagic fishes increasing in Mediterranean exploited ecosystems?
Models are always under construction in the sense that when new data or new ideas are available, they can be improved
Conclusions
1. Libralato et al., Submitted to Journal of Applied Ecology; 2. Granzotto et al., 2004. Chemistry and Ecology, 20(1): 435-449; 3. Walters et al., 1999. Ecosystems, 2: 539-554.
EwE Ecological modeling shows an essential improvement with the ability to fit models to data:
* From calibrated models we can derive ecosystem indicators like L index (presented by S. Libralato and collaborators1)
* They can be used to derive classical indicators as fishing mortalities (F), predator mortalities (M2), maximum sustainable catches (MSY) from an ecosystem context
* They can also include socioeconomic data to assess the optimum equilibrium of different fishing options taking into account social, economic and ecological criteria (example in Venice lagoon 2)
* They are the baseline from where to develop spatial simulations3
We suggest to the Sub-Committee of Stock Assessment:To foment the ecosystem modeling application in the Mediterranean
by implementing EwE and other toolsby implementing them to different scales
We are also working in the Adriatic Sea (1970s to 2000s): This will enable us to have another example to compare observed patterns and different model scales
THANKS!