Ecosystem-Based Management of What? An Emerging Approach for Balancing Conflicting Objectives in Marine Resource Management

Part of the Fish & Fisheries Series book series (FIFI, volume 31)

Managing marine resources has always been challenging, but this task looms ever larger as society demands more seafood while also requiring that we act as careful stewards of marine ecosystems. Evaluating management strategies in light of the diverse and changing demands of society for the goods and services the oceans provide requires that we clearly expose trade-offs among conflicting objectives. In this paper, we describe an approach using an Atlantis ecosystem model to evaluate management strategies and potential trade-offs between economic and conservation goals in the California Current ecosystem. We simulate a range of fishing intensities, and evaluate potential trade-offs between harvest maximization and the structure of the food web. Our results reveal that fishing combined with life history traits will alter the composition of the community such that short-lived, productive species replace longer-lived, lower productivity species. From an economic perspective, sustainably fishing productive high value species (Dungeness crab, hake, and squid) while overfishing less valuable, low productivity species (some rockfish) may seem like a wise choice; however, from a conservation perspective such a strategy would be completely unacceptable. We use the ecosystem model to visualize these trade-offs between economic and conservation concerns. We measure conservation and ecosystem structure by evaluating a suite of ecosystem indicators, such as ratios of the abundance of functional groups, and mean trophic level. The ratios of piscivore to planktivore, benthic to pelagic fish, and scavenger to piscivore all showed substantial shifts in community structure as levels of harvest increased. The mean trophic level of biological groups in the model was not sensitive to fishing intensity, and did not capture the associated shifts in the structure of the food web. Overall, we illustrate a simulation approach that can examine trade-offs between harvest and community-level indices of ecosystem structure. An ecosystem approach to management requires that we synthesize diverse physical, biological, and socioeconomic data and think critically about the ways in which our decisions affect the ecosystem services we value.

The whole trend of research and education is toward specialization on particular objects or particular organisms. These are stressed while the assemblage to which they belong is ignored or forgotten, together with the fact that they are to be regarded as integral parts of the system of nature. Shelford (1933)

Keywords

California Current fisheries ecosystem model trade-offs ecosystem indicators Atlantis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angliss, R. P., and K. L. Lodge. 2004. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA-AFSC, 230 p.Google Scholar
  2. Arkema, K. K., S. C. Abramson, and B. M. Dewsbury. 2006. Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brand, E.J., I.C. Kaplan. C.J. Harvey, P.S. Levin, E.A. Fulton, A.J. Hermann, and J.C. Field. 2007. A spatially explicit ecosystem model of the California Current's food web and oceanography. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-84, 145 p.Google Scholar
  4. Builder Ramsey, T., T. A. Turk, E. L. Fruh, J. R. Wallace, B. H. Horness, A. J. Cook, K. L. Bosley, D. J. Kamikawa, L. C. Hufnagle Jr., and K. Piner. 2002. The 1999 Northwest Fisheries Science Center Pacific West Coast Upper Continental Slope Trawl Survey of Groundfish Resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of Distribution, Abundance, and Length Composition. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-55.Google Scholar
  5. Cailliet, G. M., E. J. Burton, J. M. Cope, L. A. Kerr, R. J. Larson, R. N. Lea, D. VenTresca, and E. Knaggs. 2000. Biological characteristics of nearshore fishes of California: a review of existing knowledge and proposed additional studies. For the Pacific ocean interjurisdictional fisheries management plan coordination and development project.Google Scholar
  6. Carretta, J., K. Forney, M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M. Lowry. 2005. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2004. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-375. NMFS.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, S. P., T. E. Essington, J. F. Kitchell, S. J. D. Martell, C. J. Walters, C. Boggs, and I. Kaplan. 2002. Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific Ocean, 1952–1998. II. A preliminary assessment of the trophic impacts of fishing and effects on tuna dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1736–1747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Essington, T. E. 2004. Getting the right answer from the wrong model: Evaluating the senstivity of multispecies fisheries advice to uncertain species interactions. Bull. Mar. Sci. 74:563–581.Google Scholar
  9. Field, J. 2004. Application of Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Approaches in the Northern California Current. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  10. Field, J. C., R. C. Francis, and K. Aydin. 2006. Top-down modeling and bottom-up dynamics: linking a fisheries-based ecosystem model with climate hypotheses in the Northern California Current. Progress in Oceanography 68:238–270.Google Scholar
  11. Frank, K. T., B. Petrie, and N. L. Shackell. 2007. The ups and downs of trophic control in continental shelf ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22:236–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2005. FishBase. In R. Froese and D. Pauly, editors. World Wide Web electronic publication.Google Scholar
  13. Fulton, E. A. 2001. The effects of model structure and complexity on the behavior and performance of marine ecosystem models. Doctoral thesis. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Fulton, E. A. 2004. Biogeochemical marine ecosystem models II: the effect of physiological detail on model performance. Ecological Modelling 173:371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fulton, E. A., A. D. M. Smith, and A. E. Punt. 2005. Which ecological indicators can robustly detect effects of fishing? ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Granek, E. F., D. R. Brumbaugh, S. A. Heppell, S. S. Heppell, and D. Secord. 2005. A blueprint for the oceans: implications of two national commission reports for conservation practitioners. Conservation Biology 19:1008–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harms, W. F. 2004. Information and Meaning in Evolutionary Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Harvey, C. J., S. P. Cox, T. E. Essington, S. Hansson, and J. F. Kitchell. 2003. An ecosystem model of food web and fisheries interactions in the Baltic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:939–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helvey, M. 2004. Seeking consensus on designing Marine Protected Areas: keeping the fishing community engaged. Coastal Management 32:173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilborn, R. 2007. Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Marine Policy 31(2):153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinke, J. T., I. C. Kaplan, K. Aydin, G. M. Watters, R. J. Olson, and J. F. Kitchell. 2004. Visualizing the food-web effects of fishing for tunas in the Pacific Ocean. Ecology and Society 9(1):10.Google Scholar
  22. Hollowed, A. B., N. Bax, R. Beamish, J. Collie, M. Fogarty, P. Livingston, J. Pope, and J. C. Rice. 2000. Are multispecies models an improvement on single-species models for measuring fishing impacts on marine ecosystems? ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keller, A. A., T. L. Wick, E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, D. J. Kamikawa, J. R. Wallace, and B. H. Horness. 2005. The 2000 U.S. West Coast Upper Continental Slope Trawl Survey of Groundfish Resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of Distribution, Abundance, and Length Composition. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-70.Google Scholar
  25. Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, D. J. Kamikawa, J. R. Wallace, B. H. Horness, V. H. Simon, and V. J. Tuttle. 2006a. The 2001 U.S. West Coast Upper Continental Slope Trawl Survey of Groundfish Resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of Distribution, Abundance, and Length Composition. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-72.Google Scholar
  26. Keller, A. A., B. H. Horness, V. J. Tuttle, J. R. Wallace, V. H. Simon, E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, and D. J. Kamikawa. 2006b. The 2002 U.S. West Coast Upper Continental Slope Trawl Survey of Groundfish Resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of Distribution, Abundance, and Length Composition. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-75, 189 p.Google Scholar
  27. Kirkwood, G. P. 1997. The revised management procedure of the international whaling commission. In Global Trends: Fishery Management. E. K. Pikitch, D. D. Huppert, and M. P. Sissenwine, editors. American Fisheries Society Symposium 20, Bethesda, MD, pp. 91–99.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, P. S., E. E. Holmes, K. R. Piner, and C. J. Harvey. 2006. Shifts in a Pacific Ocean fish assemblage: the potential influence of exploitation. Conservation Biology 20:1181–1190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Love, M. 1996. Probably More Than You Wanted to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 381 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Love, M. S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 404 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Ludwig, D., and C. J. Walters. 1985. Are age-structured models appropriate for catch-effort data? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1066–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mangel, M. 2000a. Irreducible uncertainties, sustainable fisheries and marine reserves. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2:547–557.Google Scholar
  33. Mangel, M. 2000b. On the fraction of habitat allocated to marine reserves. Ecology Letters 3:15–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mangel, M. and P.S. Levin 2005. Regime, phase and paradigm shifts: making community ecology the basic science for fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 360:95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLeod, K. L., J. Lubchenco, S. R. Palumbi, and A. A. Rosenberg. 2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Signed by 221 academic scientists and policy experts with relevant expertise Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea at http://compassonline.org/?q = EBM.
  36. Millar, R. B., and R. D. Methot. 2002. Age-structured meta-analysis of U.S. West Coast rockfish (Scorpaenidae) populations and hierarchical modeling of trawl survey catchabilities. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NMFS. 2004. NMFS strategic plan for fisheries research. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS F/SPO-61, Silverspring, MD.Google Scholar
  38. NOAA. 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management. A report to congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD.Google Scholar
  39. Parrish, J., and E. Loggerwell. 2001. Seabirds as indicators, seabirds as predators. In J. Parrish and K. Litle, editors. PNCERS 2000 Annual Report. Coastal Ocean Programs. NOAA, pp. 87–92.Google Scholar
  40. Perrin, W., B. Wursig, and H. Thewissen, editors. 2002. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  41. Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's living oceans: charting a course for sea change. A report to the nation. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  42. Pikitch, E. K., C. Santora, E. A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D. O. Conover, P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E. D. Houde, J. Link, P. A. Livingston, M. Mangel, M. K. McAllister, J. Pope, and K. J. Sainsbury. 2004. Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305:346–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rogers, J. B., M. E. Wilkins, D. Kamikawa, F. Wallace, T. Builder, M. Zimmerman, M. Kander, and B. Culver. 1996. Status of the remaining rockfish in the Sebastes complex in 1996 and recommendations for management in 1997. Appendix E: Status of the Pacific Coast ground-fish fishery through 1996 and recommended acceptable biological catches for 1997. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  44. Russell, R. W. 1999. Comparative Demography and Life History Tactics of Seabirds: Implications for Conservation and Marine Monitoring. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  45. Sainsbury, K. J., A. E. Punt, and A. D. M. Smith. 2000. Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schreiber, E., and J. Burger. 2002. Biology of Marine Birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  47. Shelford, V. E. 1933. The preservation of natural biotic communities. Ecology 14:240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final report to the Present and Congress.Google Scholar
  49. Thomas, J.W. 1996. Forest Service perspective on ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6(3):703–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walters, C.J., and S.J.D. Martell. 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management. Princeton University Press, Princetion N.J. 448 pp.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 332 pp.Google Scholar
  52. Zabel, R. W., C. J. Harvey, S. L. G. T. P. Katz, and P. S. Levin. 2003. Ecologically sustainable yield. American Scientist 91:150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring DivisionNOAA FisheriesSeattle

Personalised recommendations