FN Archimer Export Format
PT J
TI Making ecological indicators management ready: Assessing the specificity, sensitivity, and threshold response of ecological indicators
BT 
AF Fu, Caihong
   Xu, Yi
   Bundy, Alida
   Grüss, Arnaud
   Coll, Marta
   Heymans, Johanna J.
   Fulton, Elizabeth A.
   Shannon, Lynne
   Halouani, Ghassen
   Velez, Laure
   Akoğlu, Ekin
   Lynam, Christopher P.
   Shin, Yunne-Jai
AS 1:1;2:1;3:2;4:3;5:4;6:5,6;7:7,8;8:9;9:10;10:11;11:12,13;12:14;13:11;
FF 1:;2:;3:;4:;5:;6:;7:;8:;9:;10:;11:;12:;13:;
C1 Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 3190 Hammond Bay Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9T 6N7, Canada
   Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, PO Box 1006, Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada
   School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98105-5020, USA
   Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), Passeig Maritim de la Barceloneta, n° 37-49. 08003 & Ecopath International Initiative Research Association, Barcelona, Spain
   Scottish Association for Marine Science, Scottish Marine Institute, Oban, Argyll PA371QA, UK
   European Marine Board, Wandelaarkaai 7, Oostende 8400, Belgium
   CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
   Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
   Department of Biological Sciences, and Marine Research Institute, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa
   Marine and Freshwater Research Centre (MFRC), Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT), Dublin Road, Galway, Ireland
   Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMR MARBEC (IRD, University Montpellier, Ifremer, CNRS), Montpellier, France
   Middle East Technical University, Institute of Marine Sciences, 33731 Erdemli, Turkey
   Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale, Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/C, 34010 Sgonico, TS, Italy
   Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK
C2 MPO, CANADA
   BEDFORD INST OCEANOG, CANADA
   UNIV WASHINGTON, USA
   ICM-CSIC, SPAIN
   SAMS, UK
   EUROPEAN MARINE BOARD, BELGIUM
   CSIRO, AUSTRALIA
   UNIV TASMANIA, AUSTRALIA
   UNIV CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA
   GMIT, IRELAND
   IRD, FRANCE
   UNIV MIDDLE EAST TECH METU, TURKEY
   OGS, ITALY
   CEFAS, UK
UM MARBEC
IN WOS Cotutelle UMR
   copubli-europe
   copubli-int-hors-europe
   copubli-sud
IF 4.229
TC 34
UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00500/61148/64576.pdf
   https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00500/61148/64577.pdf
LA English
DT Article
DE ;Ecological modelling;Fishing pressure;Gradient forest method;Indictor performance;Marine ecosystem;Primary productivity
AB Moving toward ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) necessitates a suite of ecological indicators that are responsive to fishing pressure, capable of tracking changes in the state of marine ecosystems, and related to management objectives. In this study, we employed the gradient forest method to assess the performance of 14 key ecological indicators in terms of specificity, sensitivity and the detection of thresholds for EBFM across ten marine ecosystems using four modelling frameworks (Ecopath with Ecosim, OSMOSE, Atlantis, and a multi-species size-spectrum model). Across seven of the ten ecosystems, high specificity to fishing pressure was found for most of the 14 indicators. The indicators biomass to fisheries catch ratio (B/C), mean lifespan and trophic level of fish community were found to have wide utility for evaluating fishing impacts. The biomass indicators, which have been identified as Essential Ocean Variables by the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), had lower performance for evaluating fishing impacts, yet they were most sensitive to changes in primary productivity. The indicator B/C was most sensitive to low levels of fishing pressure with a generally consistent threshold response around 0.4*FMSY (fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable yield) across nine of the ten ecosystems. Over 50% of the 14 indicators had threshold responses at, or below ∼0.6* FMSY for most ecosystems, indicating that these ecosystems would have already crossed a threshold for most indicators when fished at FMSY. This research provides useful insights on the performance of indicators, which contribute to facilitating the worldwide move toward EBFM.   
PY 2019
PD OCT
SO Ecological Indicators
SN 1470-160X
PU Elsevier BV
VL 105
UT 000490574200003
BP 16
EP 28
DI 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.05.055
ID 61148
ER

EF