U.S. Department of Commerce

 

Authors

M. Coll, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, CRH, Research Unit MARBEC (UMR 248), avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 Sète Cedex, FranceFollow
L.J. Shannon, University of Cape Town
K.M. Kleisner, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA
M.J. Juan-Jordá, AZTI, Marine Research Division, Herrera Kaia, Portualdea z/g, 20110 Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain
A. Bundy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, 1 Challenger Drive, Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada
A.G. Akoglu, Middle East Technical University
D. Banaru, Aix-Marseille Université
J.L. Boldt, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station
M.F. Borges, Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Av. de Brasília, 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal
A. Cook, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, 1 Challenger Drive, Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada
I. Diallo, Centre National des Sciences Halieutiques de Boussoura (CNSHB)
C. Fu, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station
C. Fox, Scottish Association for Marine Science, Scottish Marine Institute
D. Gascuel, Université Européenne de Bretagne
L.J. Gurney, University of British Columbia
T. Hattab, Jules Verne University of Picardie
J.J. Heymans, Scottish Association for Marine Science, Scottish Marine Institute
D. Jouffre, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement
B.R. Knight, Cawthron Institute, 98 Halifax Street East, Nelson
S. Kucukavsar, Middle East Technical University
S.I. Large, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA
C. Lynam, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
A. Machias, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters
K.N. Marshall, University of Washington
H. Masski, Institut National de Recherche halieutique, Bd Sidi Abderrahmane, Casablanca
H. Ojaveer, University of Tartu
C. Piroddi, Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta,
J. Tam, Instituto del Mar del Perú (IMARPE), Esquina Gamarra y Gral
D. Thiao, ISRA/Centre de Recherches Océanographiques de Dakar-Thiaroye
M. Thiaw, Laboratoire d’Ecologie Halieutique-Afrique de l’Ouest
M.A. Torres, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
M. Travers-Trolet, IFREMER, Fisheries Laboratory
K. Tsagarakis, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters
I. Tuck, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited, Auckland
G.I. van der Meeren, Institute of Marine Research, The Hjort Centre for Marine Ecosystem Dynamics
D. Yemane, University of Cape Town
S.G. Zador, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Seattle, WA
Y.-J. Shin, M. Coll , Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, CRH, Research Unit MARBEC (UMR 248), avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 Sète Cedex, France

Date of this Version

2016

Citation

M. Coll et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 947–962

Comments

U.S. Government Work

Abstract

IndiSeas (“Indicators for the Seas”) is a collaborative international working group that was established in2005 to evaluate the status of exploited marine ecosystems using a suite of indicators in a comparative framework. An initial shortlist of seven ecological indicators was selected to quantify the effects of fishing on the broader ecosystem using several criteria (i.e., ecological meaning, sensitivity to fishing, data avail-ability, management objectives and public awareness). The suite comprised: (i) the inverse coefficient of variation of total biomass of surveyed species, (ii) mean fish length in the surveyed community, (iii)mean maximum life span of surveyed fish species, (iv) proportion of predatory fish in the surveyed community, (v) proportion of under and moderately exploited stocks, (vi) total biomass of surveyed species,and (vii) mean trophic level of the landed catch. In line with the Nagoya Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011–2020), we extended this suite to emphasize the broader biodiversity and conservation risks in exploited marine ecosystems. We selected a subset of indicators from a list of empirically based candidate biodiversity indicators initially established based on ecological significance to complement the original IndiSeas indicators. The additional selected indicators were: (viii) mean intrinsic vulnerability index of the fish landed catch, (ix) proportion of non-declining exploited species in the surveyed community, (x) catch-based marine trophic index, and (xi) mean trophic level of the surveyed community. Despite the lack of data in some ecosystems, we also selected (xii) mean trophic level of the modelled community, and (xiii) proportion of discards in the fishery as extra indicators. These additional indicators were examined, along with the initial set of IndiSeas ecological indicators, to evaluate whether adding new biodiversity indicators provided useful additional information to refine our under-standing of the status evaluation of 29 exploited marine ecosystems. We used state and trend analyses,and we performed correlation, redundancy and multivariate tests. Existing developments in ecosystem-based fisheries management have largely focused on exploited species. Our study, using mostly fisheries independent survey-based indicators, highlights that biodiversity and conservation-based indicators are complementary to ecological indicators of fishing pressure. Thus, they should be used to provide additional information to evaluate the overall impact of fishing on exploited marine ecosystems.

Share

COinS