Evaluating impacts of forage fish abundance on marine predators.

aves marinas dinámicas depredador-presa ecosystem models ecosystem-based fisheries management forage fish mamíferos marinos manejo de pesquerías basado en el ecosistema manejo precautorio marine mammals modelos de ecosistemas peces pelágicos pequeños precautionary management predator-prey dynamics seabirds small pelagics

Journal

Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
ISSN: 1523-1739
Titre abrégé: Conserv Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9882301

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2021
Historique:
received: 12 05 2020
accepted: 22 01 2021
pubmed: 27 4 2021
medline: 29 10 2021
entrez: 26 4 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Forage fish-small, low trophic level, pelagic fish such as herrings, sardines, and anchovies-are important prey species in marine ecosystems and also support large commercial fisheries. In many parts of the world, forage fish fisheries are managed using precautionary principles that target catch limits below the maximum sustainable yield. However, there are increasing calls to further limit forage fish catch to safeguard their fish, seabird, and marine mammal predators. The effectiveness of these extra-precautionary regulations, which assume that increasing prey abundance increases predator productivity, are under debate. In this study, we used prey-linked population models to measure the influence of forage fish abundance on the population growth rates of 45 marine predator populations representing 32 fish, seabird, and mammal species from 5 regions around the world. We used simulated data to confirm the ability of the statistical model to accurately detect prey influences under varying levels of influence strength and process variability. Our results indicate that predator productivity was rarely influenced by the abundance of their forage fish prey. Only 6 predator populations (13% of the total) were positively influenced by increasing prey abundance and the model exhibited high power to detect prey influences when they existed. These results suggest that additional limitation of forage fish harvest to levels well below sustainable yields would rarely result in detectable increases in marine predator populations. Evaluación de los Efectos de la Abundancia de Peces Forrajeros sobre los Depredadores Marinos Resumen Los peces forrajeros-peces pequeños, pelágicos y de bajo nivel trófico como el arenque, las sardinas y las anchoas-son especies presa importantes en los ecosistemas marinos y además mantienen a grandes pesquerías comerciales. En muchas partes del mundo, las pesquerías de los peces forrajeros son manejadas mediante el uso de principios precautorios que se enfocan en los límites de captura por debajo de la producción máxima sostenible. Sin embargo, cada vez hay más peticiones para incrementar la limitación de la captura de peces forrajeros para salvaguardar a las especies depredadoras de peces, aves y mamíferos marinos asociadas a estos peces. La efectividad de estas regulaciones, que están basadas en el supuesto de que al incrementar la abundancia de presas incrementa la productividad de los depredadores, está en debate. Usamos modelos poblacionales vinculados a la presa para medir la influencia de la abundancia de los peces forrajeros sobre las tasas de crecimiento poblacional de 45 poblaciones de depredadores marinos (28 peces, 10 aves marinas y 7 mamíferos) en cinco regiones alrededor del mundo. Usamos datos simulados para confirmar la habilidad del modelo estadístico para detectar certeramente las influencias de la presa bajo niveles variantes de fuerza de influencia y de proceso de variabilidad. La productividad del depredador rara vez afectó a la abundancia de su presa forrajera. Sólo seis poblaciones de depredadores (13% del total) estuvieron afectadas positivamente por la creciente abundancia de la presa y el modelo exhibió un poder alto para detectar las influencias de la presa cuando estuvieron presentes. Estos resultados sugieren que las limitaciones sobre la pesca de peces forrajeros a niveles muy por debajo de la productividad sostenible pocas veces resultarían en incrementos detectables en las poblaciones de depredadores marinos.

Autres résumés

Type: Publisher (spa)
Evaluación de los Efectos de la Abundancia de Peces Forrajeros sobre los Depredadores Marinos Resumen Los peces forrajeros-peces pequeños, pelágicos y de bajo nivel trófico como el arenque, las sardinas y las anchoas-son especies presa importantes en los ecosistemas marinos y además mantienen a grandes pesquerías comerciales. En muchas partes del mundo, las pesquerías de los peces forrajeros son manejadas mediante el uso de principios precautorios que se enfocan en los límites de captura por debajo de la producción máxima sostenible. Sin embargo, cada vez hay más peticiones para incrementar la limitación de la captura de peces forrajeros para salvaguardar a las especies depredadoras de peces, aves y mamíferos marinos asociadas a estos peces. La efectividad de estas regulaciones, que están basadas en el supuesto de que al incrementar la abundancia de presas incrementa la productividad de los depredadores, está en debate. Usamos modelos poblacionales vinculados a la presa para medir la influencia de la abundancia de los peces forrajeros sobre las tasas de crecimiento poblacional de 45 poblaciones de depredadores marinos (28 peces, 10 aves marinas y 7 mamíferos) en cinco regiones alrededor del mundo. Usamos datos simulados para confirmar la habilidad del modelo estadístico para detectar certeramente las influencias de la presa bajo niveles variantes de fuerza de influencia y de proceso de variabilidad. La productividad del depredador rara vez afectó a la abundancia de su presa forrajera. Sólo seis poblaciones de depredadores (13% del total) estuvieron afectadas positivamente por la creciente abundancia de la presa y el modelo exhibió un poder alto para detectar las influencias de la presa cuando estuvieron presentes. Estos resultados sugieren que las limitaciones sobre la pesca de peces forrajeros a niveles muy por debajo de la productividad sostenible pocas veces resultarían en incrementos detectables en las poblaciones de depredadores marinos.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33899227
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13709
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1540-1551

Subventions

Organisme : Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCeMFiS)

Informations de copyright

© 2021 Society for Conservation Biology.

Références

Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19:716-723.
Akaike H. 1981. Likelihood of a model and information criteria. Journal of Econometrics 16:3-14.
Bell A, Fairbrother M, Jones K. 2019. Fixed and random effects models: Making an informed choice. Quality & Quantity 53:1051-1074.
Brakes P, Dall SRX. 2016. Marine mammal behavior: A review of conservation implications. Frontiers in Marine Science 3:1-15.
Brooks EN, Deroba JJ. 2015. When “data” are not data: The pitfalls of post hoc analyses that use stock assessment model output. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72:634-641.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2004. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 33:261-304.
Carretta JV, Forney KA, Oleson EM, Weller DW, Lang AR, Baker J, Muto MM, Hanson B, Orr AJ, Huber H, Lowry MS, Barlow J, Moore JE, Lynch D, Carswell L, Brownell RL Jr. 2017. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments, 2016. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-577. Springfield, VA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Carroll G, Harcourt R, Pitcher BJ, Slip D, Jonsen I. 2018. Recent prey capture experience and dynamic habitat quality mediate short-term foraging site fidelity in a seabird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285:20180788-8.
Church GE, Furness RW, Tyler G, Gilbert L, Votier SC. 2019. Change in the North Sea ecosystem from the 1970s to the 2010s: Great skua diets reflect changing forage fish, seabirds, and fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76:925-937.
Cohen LA, Pichegru L, Grémillet D, Coetzee J, Upfold L, Ryan PG. 2014. Changes in prey availability impact the foraging behaviour and fitness of Cape gannets over a decade. Marine Ecology Progress Series 505:281-293.
Croxall JP, Butchart SHM, Lascelles B, Stattersfield AJ, Sullivan B, Symes A, Taylor P. 2012. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: A global assessment. Bird Conservation International 22:1-34.
Cury P, Bakun A, Crawford RJM, Jarre A, Quinones RA, Shannon LJ, Verheye HM. 2000. Small pelagics in upwelling systems: Patterns of interaction and structural changes in “wasp-waist” ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:603-618.
Cury PM, Boyd IL, Bonhommeau S, Anker-Nilssen T, Crawford RJ, Furness RW, Mills JA, Murphy EJ, Osterblom H, Paleczny M, Piatt JF, Roux JP, Shannon L, Sydeman WJ. 2011. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion--One-third for the birds. Science 334:1703-1706.
Deroba JJ, Gaichas SK, Lee M-Y, Feeney RG, Boelke D, Irwin BJ. 2019. The dream and the reality: Meeting decision-making time frames while incorporating ecosystem and economic models into management strategy evaluation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76:1112-1133.
Dias MP, Martin R, Pearmain EJ, Burfield IJ, Small C, Phillips RA, Yates O, Lascelles B, Borboroglu PG, Croxall JP. 2019. Threats to seabirds: A global assessment. Biological Conservation 237:525-537.
Essington TE, Plagányi ÉE. 2014. Pitfalls and guidelines for “recycling” models for ecosystem-based fisheries management: Evaluating model suitability for forage fish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71:118-127.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2018. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome: FAO.
Feeney RG, Boelke DV, Deroba JJ, Gaichas S, Irwin BJ, Lee M. 2019. Integrating management strategy evaluation into fisheries management: Advancing best practices for stakeholder inclusion based on an MSE for Northeast US Atlantic herring. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76:1103-1111.
Fox Jr. WW. 1970. An exponential surplus-yield model for optimizing exploited fish populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:80-88.
Frederiksen M, Jensen H, Daunt F, Mavor RA, Wanless S. 2008. Differential effects of a local industrial sand lance fishery on seabird breeding performance. Ecological Applications 18:701-710.
Free CM, Thorson JT, Pinsky ML, Oken KL, Wiedenmann J, Jensen OP. 2019. Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science 363:979-983.
Gilmour ME, Castillo-Guerrero JA, Fleishman AB, Hernández-Vázquez S, Young HS, Shaffer SA. 2018. Plasticity of foraging behaviors in response to diverse environmental conditions. Ecosphere 9:e02301.
Hayes SA, Josephson E, Maze-Foley K, Rosel PE. 2017. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2016. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-NE-241. Woods Hole, MA: Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Hazen EL, Scales KL, Maxwell SM, Briscoe DK, Welch H, Bograd SJ, Bailey H, Benson SR, Eguchi T, Dewar H, Kohin S, Costa DP, Crowder LB, Lewison RL. 2018. A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Science Advances 4:eaar3001.
Heithaus MR, Frid A, Wirsing AJ, Worm B. 2008. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:202-210.
Hilborn R, Amoroso RO, Anderson CM, Baum JK, Branch TA, Costello C, de Moor CL, Faraj A, Hively D, Jensen OP, Kurota H, Little LR, Mace P, McClanahan T, Melnychuk MC, Minto C, Osio GC, … Parma AM. 2020. Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117:2218-2224.
Hilborn R, Amoroso RO, Bogazzi E, Jensen OP, Parma AM, Szuwalski C, Walters CJ. 2017a. When does fishing forage species affect their predators? Fisheries Research 191:211-221.
Hilborn R, Amoroso RO, Bogazzi E, Jensen OP, Parma AM, Szuwalski C, Walters CJ. 2017b. Response to Pikitch et al. Fisheries Research, 198:224.
Hilborn R, Banobi J, Hall SJ, Pucylowski T, Walsworth TE. 2018. The environmental cost of animal source foods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16:329-335.
Hilborn R, Litzinger E. 2009. Causes of decline and potential for recovery of Atlantic cod populations. Open Fish Science Journal 2 https://doi.org/10.2174/1874401X00902010032.
Hilborn R, Walters CJ. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: Choice, dynamics and uncertainty. London: Chapman & Hall.
Ishii M, Shouji A, Sugimoto S, Matsumoto T. 2005. Objective analyses of sea-surface temperature and marine meteorological variables for the 20th century using ICOADS and the Kobe Collection. International Journal of Climatology 25:865-879.
Kaplan IC, Brown CJ, Fulton EA, Gray IA, Field JC, Smith ADM. 2013. Impacts of depleting forage species in the California Current. Environmental Conservation 40:380-393.
Kirchner T, Wiley DN, Hazen EL, Parks SE, Torres LG, Friedlaender AS. 2018. Hierarchical foraging movement of humpback whales relative to the structure of their prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 607:237-250.
Koehn LE. 2019. Advances in models for assessing interactions of forage fish and their predators and application to ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM) [PhD dissertation]. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Koehn LE, Essington TE, Marshall KN, Sydeman WJ, Szoboszlai AI, Thayer JA. 2017. Trade-offs between forage fish fisheries and their predators in the California Current. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 15:337-311.
Kowalczyk N, Chiaradia A, Preston T, Reina R. 2014. Linking dietary shifts and reproductive failure in seabirds: A stable isotope approach. Functional Ecology 28:755-765.
Kuhn CE, Ream RR, Sterling JT, Thomason JR, Towell RG. 2014. Spatial segregation and the influence of habitat on the foraging behavior of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 92:861-873.
Kristensen K, Nielsen A, Berg CW, Skaug H, Bell BM. 2016. TMB: automatic differentiation and laplace approximation. Journal of Statistical Software 70:1-21.
McHuron EA, Sterling JT, Costa DP, Goebel ME. 2020. Factors affecting energy expenditure in a declining fur seal population. Conservation Physiology 7 https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coz103.
Minto C, Worm B. 2012. Interactions between small pelagic fish and young cod across the North Atlantic. Ecology 93:2139-2154.
Pella JJ, Tomlinson PK. 1969. A generalized stock production model. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Bulletin 13:421-454.
Pichegru L, Grémillet D, Crawford RJM, Ryan PG. 2010. Marine no-take zone rapidly benefits endangered penguin. Biology Letters 6:498-501.
Pichegru L, Ryan PG, van Eeden R, Reid T, Grémillet D, Wanless R. 2012. Industrial fishing, no-take zones and endangered penguins. Biological Conservation 156:117-125.
Pikitch EK, Boersma PD, Boyd IL, Conover DO, Cury P, Essington T, Heppell SS, Houde ED, Mangel M, Pauly D, Plagányi É, Sainsbury K, Steneck RS. 2012. Little fish, big impact: Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.oceanconservationscience.org/foragefish/files/Little%20Fish,%20Big%20Impact.pdf.
Pikitch EK, Rountos KJ, Essington TE, Santora C, Pauly D, Watson R, Sumaila UR, Dee Boersma P, Boyd IL, Conover DO, Cury P, Heppell SS, Houde ED, Mangel M, Plagányi E, Sainsbury K, Steneck RS, Geers TM, Gownaris N, Munch SB. 2014. The global contribution of forage fish to marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries 15:43-64.
Pikitch EK, Boersma PD, Boyd IL, Conover DO, Cury P, Essington TE, Heppell SS, Houde ED, Mangel M, Pauly D, Plaganyi E. 2018. The strong connection between forage fish and their predators: A response to Hilborn et al. (2017). Fisheries Research 198:220-223.
Plagányi ÉE, Punt A, Hillary R, Morello EB, Thébaud O, Hutton T, Pillans R, Thorson J, Fulton E, Smith AD, Smith F, Bayliss P, Haywood M, Lyne V, Rothlisberg P. 2014a. Multispecies fisheries management and conservation: Tactical applications using models of intermediate complexity. Fish and Fisheries 15:1-22.
Plagányi ÉE, Butterworth DS. 2012. The Scotia Sea krill fishery and its possible impacts on dependent predators: Modeling localized depletion of prey. Ecological Applications 22:748-761.
Plagányi ÉE, Ellis N, Blamey LK, Morello EB, Norman-Lopez A, Robinson W, Sporcic M, Sweatman H. 2014b. Ecosystem modelling provides clues to understanding ecological tipping points. Marine Ecology Progress Series 512:99-113.
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ricard D, Minto C, Jensen OP, Baum JK. 2012. Examining the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database. Fish and Fisheries 13:380-398.
Ritchie EG, Johnson CN. 2009. Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters 12:982-998.
Robinson WML, Butterworth DS, Plagányi ÉE. 2015. Quantifying the projected impact of the South African sardine fishery on the Robben Island penguin colony. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 72:1822-1833.
Rountos KJ, Frisk MG, Pikitch EK. 2015. Are we catching what they eat? Moving beyond trends in the mean trophic level of catch. Fisheries 40:376-385.
Schaefer MB. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Bulletin 1:27-56.
Schoen SK, Piatt JF, Arimitsu ML, Heflin BM, Madison EN, Drew GS, Renner M, Rojek NA, Douglas DC, DeGange AR. 2018. Avian predator buffers against variability in marine habitats with flexible foraging behavior. Marine Biology 165:47.
Sherley RB, Barham BJ, Barham PJ, Campbell KJ, Crawford RJM, Grigg J; Horswill C, McInnes A, Morris TL, Pichegru L, Steinfurth A, Weller F, Winker H, Votier SC. 2018. Bayesian inference reveals positive but subtle effects of experimental fishery closures on marine predator demographics. Proceedings Biological Sciences /The Royal Society 285:20172443-9.
Sherley RB, Crawford RJM, Dyer BM, Kemper J, Makhado AB, Masotla M, Pichegru L, Pistorius PA, Roux J-P, Ryan PG, Tom D, Upfold L, Winker H. 2019. The status and conservation of the Cape Gannet Morus capensis. Ostrich 90:335-346.
Smith ADM, Brown CJ, Bulman CM, Fulton EA, Johnson P, Kaplan IC, Lozano-Montes H, Mackinson S, Marzloff M, Shannon LJ, Shin Y-J, Tam T. 2011. Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science 333:1147-1150.
Sydeman WJ et al. 2017. Best practices for assessing forage fish fisheries-seabird resource competition. Fisheries Research 194:209-221.
Tacon AGJ, Metian M. 2015. Feed matters: Satisfying the feed demand of aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 23:1-10.
Thorson JT, Cope JM, Branch TA, Jensen OP, Walters CJ. 2012. Spawning biomass reference points for exploited marine fishes, incorporating taxonomic and body size information. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69:1556-1568.
Thorson JT, Cope JM, Kleisner KM, Samhouri JF, Shelton AO, Ward EJ. 2013. Giants’ shoulders 15 years later: Lessons, challenges and guidelines in fisheries meta-analysis. Fish and Fisheries 16:342-361.
van Gemert, R Andersen, KH. 2018. Challenges to fisheries advice and management due to stock recovery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 93:1402-1407.
Walters C, Kitchell JF. 2001. Cultivation/depensation effects on juvenile survival and recruitment: Implications for the theory of fishing. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:39-50.
Watters GM, Hill SL, Hinke JT, Matthews J, Reid K. 2013. Decision-making for ecosystem-based management: Evaluating options for a krill fishery with an ecosystem dynamics model. Ecological Applications 23:710-725.
Young T, Pincin J, Neubauer P, Ortega-García S, Jensen OP. 2018. Investigating diet patterns of highly mobile marine predators using stomach contents, stable isotope, and fatty acid analyses. ICES Journal of Marine Science 75:1583-1590.

Auteurs

Christopher M Free (CM)

Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Olaf P Jensen (OP)

Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
University of Wisconsin - Madison, Center for Limnology, 680 N Park St., Madison, WI, 53706, USA.

Ray Hilborn (R)

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH