Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems
|Author(s)||Coll M.1, 2, Shannon L. J.3, 4, Kleisner K. M.5, Juan-Jorda M. J.6, 7, Bundy A.8, Akoglu A. G.9, Banaru Daniela10, Boldt J. L.11, Borges M. F.12, Cook A.8, Diallo I.13, Fu C.11, Fox C.14, Gascuel D.15, Gurney L. J.16, Hattab Tarek17, Heymans J. J.14, Jouffre D.18, 19, Knight B. R.20, Kucukavsar S.9, Large S. I.5, Lynam C.21, Machias A.22, Marshall K. N.23, Masski H.24, Ojaveer H.25, Piroddi C.2, 26, Tam J.27, Thiao D.28, Thiaw M.29, Torres M. A.30, 31, Travers-Trolet Morgane32, Tsagarakis K.22, Tuck I.33, 34, Van Der Meeren G. I.35, Yemane D.3, 4, 36, Zador S. G.37, Shin Y. -J.1, 3, 4|
|Affiliation(s)||1 : CRH, Inst Rech Dev, Res Unit MARBEC, UMR 248, F-34203 Sete, France.
2 : Inst Marine Sci ICM CSIC, Barcelona 08003, Spain.
3 : Univ Cape Town, Marine Res Inst, ZA-7701 Cape Town, South Africa.
4 : Univ Cape Town, Dept Biol Sci, ZA-7701 Cape Town, South Africa.
5 : Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Northeast Fisheries Sci Ctr, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA.
6 : Herrera Kaia, Div Marine Res, AZTI, Pasaia 20110, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
7 : Simon Fraser Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Earth Ocean Res Grp, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
8 : Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Bedford Inst Oceanog, Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada.
9 : Middle E Tech Univ, Inst Marine Sci, TR-33731 Erdemli, Mersin, Turkey.
10 : Aix Marseille Univ, MIO, UMR 7294, UR 235, F-13288 Marseille 09, France.
11 : Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Pacific Biol Stn, Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7, Canada.
12 : Inst Portugues Mar & Atmosfera, P-1449006 Lisbon, Portugal.
13 : CNSHB, Conakry, Guinea.
14 : Scottish Assoc Marine Sci, Scottish Marine Inst, Oban PA37 1QA, Argyll, Scotland.
15 : Univ Europeenne Bretagne, Agrocampus Ouest, Ecol & Sante Ecosyst UMR985, F-35042 Rennes, France.
16 : Univ British Columbia, Dept Earth Ocean & Atmospher Sci, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
17 : Jules Verne Univ Picardie, Res Unit EDYSAN, FRE 3498, CNRS, F-80037 Amiens 1, France.
18 : Inst Rech Dev, Res Unit MARBEC, Dakar, Senegal.
19 : IFAN, IRD, LABEP AO, Dakar, Senegal.
20 : Cawthron Inst, Nelson 7010, New Zealand.
21 : Ctr Environm Fisheries & Aquaculture Sci, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, Suffolk, England.
22 : Hellen Ctr Marine Res, Inst Marine Biol Resources & Inland Waters, Athens 16610, Greece.
23 : Univ Washington, Sch Aquat & Fishery Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.
24 : Inst Natl Rech Halieut, Casablanca, Morocco.
25 : Univ Tartu, Estonian Marine Inst, EE-80012 Parnu, Estonia.
26 : Commiss European Communities, Joint Res Ctr, Inst Environm & Sustainabil, Water Resources Unit, I-21027 Ispra, VA, Italy.
27 : Inst Mar Peru IMARPE, Lima, Peru.
28 : CRODT, ISRA, Dakar, Senegal.
29 : CRODT, ISRA, LEH AO, Dakar, Senegal.
30 : Ctr Oceanog Cadiz, IEO, E-11006 Cadiz, Spain.
31 : Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Aquat Resources, Inst Coastal Res, SE-74242 Oregrund, Sweden.
32 : IFREMER, Fisheries Lab, F-62321 Boulogne Sur Mer, France.
33 : Natl Inst Water & Atmospher Res Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.
34 : Univ Auckland, Dept Stat, Auckland 1149, New Zealand.
35 : Hjort Ctr Marine Ecosyst Dynam, Inst Marine Res, NO-5817 Bergen, Norway.
36 : Dept Agr Forestry & Fisheries, Fisheries Branch, ZA-8012 Cape Town, South Africa.
37 : NOAA, Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Alaska Fisheries Sci Ctr, Seattle, WA 98115 USA.
|Source||Ecological Indicators (1470-160X) (Elsevier Science Bv), 2016-01 , Vol. 60 , P. 947-962|
|WOS© Times Cited||90|
|Note||DEVOTES – Development of innova-tive tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing goodEnvironmental Status – EC project (FP7 Grant Agreement 308392). PERSEUS (Policy-oriented marine Environ-mental Research in the Southern EUropean Seas; FP7 Contract N◦287600)|
|Keyword(s)||Ecological indicators, Marine ecosystems, Biodiversity, Redundancy, Trends, States, Fishing impacts, Conservation|
|Abstract||IndiSeas (“Indicators for the Seas”) is a collaborative international working group that was established in 2005 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 availability, 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 understanding 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.|