Transcript Slide 1
Implementing EBFM in the (NE) U.S. Atlantic Jason Link NEFSC Woods Hole, MA EBFM Moving beyond when, why and what Now we’re to HOW? One Main Theme of EBFM: CONFRONTING TRADEOFFS “The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert Heurism Understanding Ecosystem Functioning Relative Importance of Different Processes Advancing Scientific Theory Tactical Management Revised Stock Assessments Yield Adjustments Altered Biological Reference Points, etc. Direct Impacts on Target, Non-Target Species, PETS, Habitat, Agg Groups Specific “What If” Scenarios and Gaming BINDING IN SCOPE Strategic Management Assessing Biomass Tradeoffs System Level Emergent Properties Evaluating Alternate Stable States Evaluating Long Term Recruitment Bottlenecks General “What If” Scenarios and Gaming, Long Term Trends BOUNDING IN SCOPE Gradient of Possibilities Stock/Single Species Multi-species Aggregate Biomass Ecosystem Gadids Flatfish Pelagics SS models, forget ecosystem issues Multi-species SS assessments assessments with explicit M2 or habitat or climate considerations Multiple SS assessments in “harmony” Aggregate Biomass Models Messy Picture Here Whole System Models, forget pop dy "I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it." -Pablo Picasso SS Add-ons Increasing #s of extant cases incorporated into assessments Still slow “uptake kinetics” in overall Mgt process Yields generally lower if predation is considered as a component of total mortality Remains critical for most “forage” species Starting to include environmental cues 250 Standard Assessment Catch (000's mt) 200 150 Predation Included 100 50 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year 2008 2010 e.g., Atlantic Herring M2 and F during 1959-2002 1.4 Mortality Rate 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 Year M2 F e.g., Pandalid Shrimp Assessment 300 Biomass B.25 250 B.50 B.60 200 Pandalus borealis consumed 150 100 50 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 e.g., Menhaden: Estimated Abundance With and W/out Predation 9000 Numbers (millions) 8000 Age 1 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Predators 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Numbers (millions) 3500 3000 Age 2 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 No Predators e.g., Loligo Production+M2 Model 1.6 B/BMSY No Predation With Predation 1.4 Relative Biomass 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year e.g., Linked Climate-Population Models Climate (IPCC Air Temperature to Estuarine Temperature) Fisheries (Environmentallyexplicit population model: R as a function of T) F=0.8 550 ppm Management (Link Forecasted SSB to Management Benchmarks) Based on mechanistic hypothesis developed in Hare and Able (2007) Fish Oceanogr 16: 31-45. Multispecies Models MSVPA, MSProd, AggProd etc. Effects of predation the main emphasis e.g., MSVPA >15 spp Age/size structured Focuses on M2 of main “forage” stocks Formal review process for 1 region, 2nd planned B. 1.6 1.4 MSVPA M1 MSVPA M2 ages 0-1 Mortality rate 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 8 19 3 84 19 8 19 5 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 9 19 3 94 19 9 19 5 96 19 9 19 7 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 19 19 82 0 Temporal variability in predation mortality on young age classes of Atlantic mackerel e.g., MS Production & Aggregate Production Models Used as part of recent GARM Basically same as SS, just for groups of stocks Simulators Fitting Context Scenarios Base Scenario 250 Guild Biomass- Base Scenario 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Time Benthivores Planktivores Shrimp-Amphipods Shrimp-Fish Piscivores Scenario 3: Over-Fish Pelagics 250 Guild Biomass- Scenario 3 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Time Benthivores Planktivores Shrimp-Amphipods Shrimp-Fish Piscivores Aggregate Production Model 120 Predicted Biomass Survey 1500 100 80 60 1000 40 500 20 0 1960 0 1970 1980 Year 1990 2000 Survey Index (kg/tow) Predicted Biomass (kt) 2000 EMAX Energy Budgets/ Network Analyses Emerging as a tool for: Heurism Strategic Mgt Tradeoff Evaluation MSE Pelagic Fisheries Sea birds Considered as part of formal trade-off analysis Dynamic models next Used as part of recent GARM Micronekton Small Copepods Discards Pelagic Sharks Baleen whales Medium Pelagics Small Pelagics Anadromous Demersal Fisheries Odontocetes Demersals Piscivores Demersals Omnivores Demersals Benthivores Small Pelagics Squid Coastal Sharks Pinnipeds HMS Larval & Juv. Fish Small Pelagics Other Small Pelagics Commercial Mesopelagics MegaBenthos Other Shrimp et al. MegaBenthos Filterers Large Copepods Microzooplankton Gelatinous ZP Primary Producers MacroBenthos Molluscs Bacteria MacroBenthos Crustaceans MacroBenthos Polychaetes MacroBenthos Other Detritus-POC DOC Cumulative Biomass (g m-2) 250 200 150 GOM 100 GB SNE MAB 50 0 1 2 3 Trophic Level 4 5 GOM Aggregated System Flow ECOGOMAGG X11 X6 X2 X12 X4 X7 X1 X13 X8 X5 X14 X3 X9 • A home grown dynamic model • Builds off of EMAX (energy budget) outputs X10 X15 X16 X1 Phytoplankton X2 Bacteria X3 Zooplankton X4 Gelatineous zoop X5 Microneckton X6 Macro-benthos X7 Mega-benthos X8 Shrimp X9 Pelagic fish X10 Demerdal fish X11 Sharks X12 HMS X13 Pinnipeds X14 Baleen whales X15 Toothed whales X16 Seabirds ATLANTIS NEUS Full blown ecosystem simulations Still in validation & verification stage An important Mgt tool Systemic Perspective Virtual “perturbations” MSE catch all model Northeast United States – (22, 8) 0 Pelagic 50 120+ 300+ Epibenthic Sediment Squids, No Fishing, yr 0 (1964) Squids, No Fishing, yr 46 Ecological Indicators • Outputs both from empirical and modeling studies • Evaluate a broad suite of ecosystem properties • Vetting ongoing, MV Approaches • Translation to Decision Criteria is key, ongoing (EO-F) • Remains to be incorporated into Mgt Process 2 1995 1.5 1973 1977 1 -1.5 PC 2 198 5 0 -1 198 0 -0.5 -0.5 Bpisc 0 -1 0.5 1 198 9 1.5 2 120 Mean kg Tow-1 0.5 196 8 -2 Decision Criteria: Aggregate Biomass 1999 100 < Bbenth + Bplank OK Piscivores Benthivores & Planktivores 80 N/A Threshold 60 40 20 -1.5 -2 PC 1 0 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 > Bbenth + Bplank Limit Summary of NEUS Model e.g.s Several modeling efforts at various stages along the modeling gradient Working at both ends of the gradient to make ecosystem-based mgt advice operational Several research/development activities A few instances of review in SAW/SARC/TRAC/GARM and like processes Most instances as ESAMs/MRMs; Systemic outputs still being developed Not as data limited as elsewhere, but have identified clear data gaps Tool and software development continually ongoing “Not only was an ecosystem management approach legal, it was mandatory if all applicable laws were to be simultaneously obeyed.” - Jack Ward Thomas MSE/MPs, IEAs Observations Monitoring or Surveys Ecosystem IEA Models Implementation Decision Rule MSE, virtual world for mgt institutions Education and Outreach Ecosystem Status Report For the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem Ecosystem Assessment Program Northeast Fisheries Science Center April, 2009 Main Findings The Northeast U.S. continental shelf large marine ecosystem has undergone sustained perturbations due to environmental and anthropogenic impacts over the last four decades, resulting in fundamental changes in system structure. Thermal conditions of the ecosystem are changing, the result of the warming of coastal and shelf waters and cooling in the northern end of the range. As a consequence, there has been a constriction of thermal habitats in the ecosystem, poleward shifts in distributions some of fish species and changes to a warmer-water fish community. Zooplankton community structure has changed in concert with climate and physical processes acting over the North Atlantic Basin indicating the importance of remote forcing to the function and structure of the ecosystem The direct and indirect effects of species-selective harvesting patterns have also contributed to shifts fish community composition which is now dominated by small pelagic fishes and elasmobranch species (skates and small sharks) of relative low economic value, The trajectory of regional human population size suggests that anthropogenic pressure in the ecosystem will continue to increase. The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf is classified as overfished from an ecosystem perspective according to established criteria for this designation. Contents: 1 Introduction 2 Climate Forcing 3 Physical Pressures 4 Primary and Secondary Production 5 Upper Trophic Level Dynamics 6 Anthropogenic Impacts 7 Integrative Ecosystem Measures Summary Literature Cited Further Information Acknowledgments Glossary 1 2 4 11 19 22 25 28 29 30 30 31 water and domestic fishing fleets [3]. Further, the region has experienced changes in climate and physical forcing that have contributed to large-scale Figure 1.1 Map of study region on the Northeast continental shelf of the United States. 1 Introduction The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NESLME) is a dynamic, highly productive, and intensively studied system providing a broad spectrum of ecosystem goods and services [1, 2]. This region, encompassing the shelf area between Cape Hatteras and the Gulf of Maine (Figure 1.1), spans approximately 250,000 km2 and supports some of the most lucrative fisheries in the nation. The system has also historically undergone profound changes as a result of heavy exploitation by distant- alteration in ecosystem structure and function. Projections of future climate change highlight the need to understand the effects of natural and anthropogenically driven perturbations to this system Stakeholder Interactions leading to Implementation Numerous presentations at MAFMC, NEFMC MREP Numerous mtgs with NGOs, Industry Groups SSC, Ecosystem Cmtes beginning to uptake FEPs Surveys, Workshops, Discussion Groups, Cooperative Research, Collaboration, etc. NERO Collaborations and Working Groups Academic Partners Buy in & Collaboration Ecosystem Assessment Program Started < 1 year ago Established to integrate all of NEFSCs efforts Goals are to develop LMR management products from an EBFM perspective, and to facilitate interdisciplinary endeavors within our Center and region The one part of the organization dedicated primarily with the task of taking a systemic, holistic, integrated view of our ecosystems The Key for Any Renewable Resource Management Rate of Removal of a resource <= Rate of Replenishment of that resource "When there is a hill to climb, don't think that waiting will make it smaller." -George Bernard Shaw Plans/Suggestions for Implementation: Technical Predation mortality (M2) should be included in stock assessments of forage (common & commerical prey) species (e.g., fish & invertebrates) Explore environmental drivers on r, g, dist, etc. for major stocks Tradeoffs among species, fleets, and sectors needs to be modeled explicitly Continue with multiple modeling efforts Venues & fora for model review and output dissemination need to be revisited Plans/Suggestions for Implementation: Institutional/Organizational Adoption of an MSE framework to evaluate scenarios and tradeoffs Develop integrated products (EAR, ESR, IEAs, etc.) Continue outreach and stakeholder engagement/involvement Work within existing institutional processes (e.g., SARC/TRAC/etc., SSC, Ecosystem Cmtes, ROs) to provide both modified SS and Systemic Mgt Advice “Keep it simple, keep it safe” – sensu Gandalf If you think you can or think you can’t, you’re right. - Henry Ford EBFM is as easy as pie Extra Slides in my hip pocket e.g.- Atlantic Herring Highly migratory, locally dominant, spatially overlapping with many species Predation by protected species, commercially valuable species- odontocetes, seals, birds, fish, invertebrates Competition with protected or commercial speciesplanktivores, ichthyoplanktivores Predation on larvae of commercial species Large fishery potential Lower trophic levels Very high trophic efficiency Horizontal flux, high biomass High linkage density Temperature mediated changes in distribution, migration or production?!