Cameron H. Ainsworth

Identifying Thresholds for Ecosystem-Based Management

Background One of the greatest obstacles to moving ecosystem-based management (EBM) from concept to practice is the lack of a systematic approach to defining ecosystem-level decision criteria, or reference points that trigger management action. Methodology/Principal Findings To assist resource managers and policymakers in developing EBM decision criteria, we introduce a quantitative, transferable method for identifying utility thresholds. A utility threshold is the level of human-induced pressure (e.g., pollution) at which small changes produce substantial improvements toward the EBM goal of protecting an ecosystems structural (e.g., diversity) and functional (e.g., resilience) attributes. The analytical approach is based on the detection of nonlinearities in relationships between ecosystem attributes and pressures. We illustrate the method with a hypothetical case study of (1) fishing and (2) nearshore habitat pressure using an empirically-validated marine ecosystem model for British Columbia, Canada, and derive numerical threshold values in terms of the density of two empirically-tractable indicator groups, sablefish and jellyfish. We also describe how to incorporate uncertainty into the estimation of utility thresholds and highlight their value in the context of understanding EBM trade-offs. Conclusions/Significance For any policy scenario, an understanding of utility thresholds provides insight into the amount and type of management intervention required to make significant progress toward improved ecosystem structure and function. The approach outlined in this paper can be applied in the context of single or multiple human-induced pressures, to any marine, freshwater, or terrestrial ecosystem, and should facilitate more effective management.

Transforming management of tropical coastal seas to cope with challenges of the 21st century

Over 1.3 billion people live on tropical coasts, primarily in developing countries. Many depend on adjacent coastal seas for food, and livelihoods. We show how trends in demography and in several local and global anthropogenic stressors are progressively degrading capacity of coastal waters to sustain these people. Far more effective approaches to environmental management are needed if the loss in provision of ecosystem goods and services is to be stemmed. We propose expanded use of marine spatial planning as a framework for more effective, pragmatic management based on ocean zones to accommodate conflicting uses. This would force the holistic, regional-scale reconciliation of food security, livelihoods, and conservation that is needed. Transforming how countries manage coastal resources will require major change in policy and politics, implemented with sufficient flexibility to accommodate societal variations. Achieving this change is a major challenge - one that affects the lives of one fifth of humanity.

Generalized Additive Models Used to Predict Species Abundance in the Gulf of Mexico: An Ecosystem Modeling Tool

Spatially explicit ecosystem models of all types require an initial allocation of biomass, often in areas where fisheries independent abundance estimates do not exist. A generalized additive modelling (GAM) approach is used to describe the abundance of 40 species groups (i.e. functional groups) across the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) using a large fisheries independent data set (SEAMAP) and climate scale oceanographic conditions. Predictor variables included in the model are chlorophyll a, sediment type, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and depth. Despite the presence of a large number of zeros in the data, a single GAM using a negative binomial distribution was suitable to make predictions of abundance for multiple functional groups. We present an example case study using pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duroarum) and compare the results to known distributions. The model successfully predicts the known areas of high abundance in the GoM, including those areas where no data was inputted into the model fitting. Overall, the model reliably captures areas of high and low abundance for the large majority of functional groups observed in SEAMAP. The result of this method allows for the objective setting of spatial distributions for numerous functional groups across a modeling domain, even where abundance data may not exist.

A statistical approach for estimating fish diet compositions from multiple data sources: Gulf of California case study

Trophic ecosystem models are one promising tool for providing ecosystem-based management advice. Diet and interaction rate parameters are critical in defining the behavior of these models, and will greatly influence any predictions made in response to management perturbations. However, most trophic ecosystem models must rely on a patchwork of data availability and must contend with knowledge gaps and poor quantification of uncertainty. Here we present a statistical method for combining diet information from field samples and literature to describe trophic relationships at the level of functional groups. In this example, original fieldwork in the northern Gulf of California, Mexico, provides gut content data for targeted and untargeted fish species. The field data are pooled with diet composition information from FishBase, an online data repository. Diet information is averaged across stomachs to represent an average predator, and then the data are bootstrapped to generate likelihood profiles. These are fit to a Dirichlet function, and from the resulting marginal distributions, maximum-likelihood estimates are generated with confidence intervals representing the likely contribution to diet for each predator-prey combination. We characterize trophic linkages into two broad feeding guilds, pelagic and demersal feeders, and explore differentiation within those guilds. We present an abbreviated food web for the northern Gulf of California based on the results of this study. This food web will form the basis of a trophic dynamic model. Compared to the common method of averaging diet compositions across predators, this statistical approach is less influenced by the presence of long tails in the distributions, which correspond to rare feeding events, and is therefore better suited to small data sets.

Ecosystem models of Northern British Columbia for the time periods 2000, 1950, 1900 and 1750

................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction........................................................................................................... 4 Model Groups......................................................................................................... 4 1) Sea Otters .............................................................................................................................. 4 2) Mysticetae ............................................................................................................................. 5 3) Odontocetae .......................................................................................................................... 5 4) Seals and sea lions ................................................................................................................ 5 5) Seabirds................................................................................................................................. 6 6) Transient (migratory) salmon............................................................................................... 6 7-8) Coho and chinook salmon ................................................................................................. 7 9-10) Juvenile and adult squid..................................................................................................8 11) Ratfish.................................................................................................................................. 9 12) Dogfish ................................................................................................................................ 9 13-14) Juvenile and adult pollock ........................................................................................... 10 15-16) Forage fish and eulachon.............................................................................................. 10 17-18) Juvenile and adult herring ............................................................................................11 19-20) Pacific ocean perch: juvenile and adult ........................................................................11 21) Inshore rockfish................................................................................................................. 12 22-23) Piscivorous rockfish: juvenile and adult ..................................................................... 12 24-25) Planktivorous rockfish: juvenile and adult.................................................................. 13 26-27) Juvenile and adult turbot (arrowtooth flounder)........................................................ 14 28-29) Juvenile and adult flatfish........................................................................................... 14 30-31) Juvenile and adult halibut ............................................................................................15 32-33) Juvenile and adult Pacific cod ......................................................................................15 34-35) Juvenile and adult sablefish ........................................................................................ 16 36-37) Juvenile and adult lingcod........................................................................................... 16 38) Shallow-water benthic fish ................................................................................................17 39) Skates .................................................................................................................................17 40-41) Large and small crabs .................................................................................................. 18 42) Commercial shrimp .......................................................................................................... 18 43-45) Epifaunal, infaunal carnivorous and detritivorous invertebrates............................... 18 46) Carnivorous jellyfish ......................................................................................................... 19 47-48) Euphausiids and copepods.......................................................................................... 19 49) Corals and sponges ...........................................................................................................20 Ecosystem Models of Northern BC, Past and Present, Page 2 50) Macrophytes ..................................................................................................................... 20 51) Phytoplankton................................................................................................................... 20 52) Discards ............................................................................................................................ 20 53) Detritus............................................................................................................................. 20 Balancing the Models ...........................................................................................20 Acknowledgements............................................................................................... 21 References............................................................................................................ 23 Appendices........................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A. Bycatch and discards ......................................................................................... 24 Appendix B. Parameter estimation..........................................................................................25 Appendix C. Parameters Used in models ............................................................................... 28 Appendix D. Diet matrices...................................................................................................... 29 Appendix E. Non-market prices ............................................................................................. 36 Appendix F. Landings..............................................................................................................37 Appendix G. Group definitions............................................................................................... 40 A Research Report from ‘Back to the Future: the Restoration of Past Ecosystems as Policy Goals for Fisheries’ Supported by the Coasts Under Stress ‘Arm 2’ Project A Major Collaborative Research Initiative of the Canadian Government 41 pages

Improvements to Rapfish: a rapid evaluation technique for fisheries integrating ecological and human dimensionsa

This paper reports recent developments in Rapfish, a normative, scalable and flexible rapid appraisal technique that integrates both ecological and human dimensions to evaluate the status of fisheries in reference to a norm or goal. Appraisal status targets may be sustainability, compliance with a standard (such as the UN code of conduct for responsible fisheries) or the degree of progress in meeting some other goal or target. The method combines semi-quantitative (e.g. ecological) and qualitative (e.g. social) data via multiple evaluation fields, each of which is assessed through scores assigned to six to 12 attributes or indicators: the scoring method allows user flexibility to adopt a wide range of utility relationships. For assessing sustainability, six evaluation fields have been developed: ecological, technological, economic, social, ethical and institutional. Each field can be assessed directly with a set of scored attributes, or several of the fields can be dealt with in greater detail using nested subfields that themselves comprise multidimensional Rapfish assessments (e.g. the hierarchical institutional field encompasses both governance and management, including a detailed analysis of legality). The user has the choice of including all or only some of the available sustainability fields. For the attributes themselves, there will rarely be quantitative data, but scoring allows these items to be estimated. Indeed, within a normative framework, one important advantage with Rapfish is transparency of the rigour, quality and replicability of the scores. The Rapfish technique employs a constrained multidimensional ordination that is scaled to situate data points within evaluation space. Within each evaluation field, results may be presented as a two-dimensional plot or in a one-dimensional rank order. Uncertainty is expressed through the probability distribution of Monte-Carlo simulations that use the C.L. on each original observation. Overall results of the multidisciplinary analysis may be shown using kite diagrams that compare different locations, time periods (including future projections) and management scenarios, which make policy trade-offs explicit. These enhancements are now available in the R programming language and on an open website, where users can run Rapfish analyses by downloading the software or uploading their data to a user interface.

Coral-algal phase shifts alter fish communities and reduce fisheries production

Anthropogenic stress has been shown to reduce coral coverage in ecosystems all over the world. A phase shift towards an algae-dominated system may accompany coral loss. In this case, the composition of the reef-associated fish assemblage will change and human communities relying on reef fisheries for income and food security may be negatively impacted. We present a case study based on the Raja Ampat Archipelago in Eastern Indonesia. Using a dynamic food web model, we simulate the loss of coral reefs with accompanied transition towards an algae-dominated state and quantify the likely change in fish populations and fisheries productivity. One set of simulations represents extreme scenarios, including 100% loss of coral. In this experiment, ecosystem changes are driven by coral loss itself and a degree of habitat dependency by reef fish is assumed. An alternative simulation is presented without assumed habitat dependency, where changes to the ecosystem are driven by historical observations of reef fish communities when coral is lost. The coral–algal phase shift results in reduced biodiversity and ecosystem maturity. Relative increases in the biomass of small-bodied fish species mean higher productivity on reefs overall, but much reduced landings of traditionally targeted species.

Exploring trade-offs between fisheries and conservation of the vaquita porpoise (Phocoena sinus) using an Atlantis ecosystem model.

Background Minimizing fishery bycatch threats might involve trade-offs between maintaining viable populations and economic benefits. Understanding these trade-offs can help managers reconcile conflicting goals. An example is a set of bycatch reduction measures for the Critically Endangered vaquita porpoise (Phocoena sinus), in the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico. The vaquita is an endemic species threatened with extinction by artisanal net bycatch within its limited range; in this area fisheries are the chief source of economic productivity. Methodology/Principal Findings We analyze trade-offs between conservation of the vaquita and fisheries, using an end-to-end Atlantis ecosystem model for the Northern Gulf of California. Atlantis is a spatially-explicit model intended as a strategic tool to test alternative management strategies. We simulated increasingly restrictive fisheries regulations contained in the vaquita conservation plan: implementing progressively larger spatial management areas that exclude gillnets, shrimp driftnets and introduce a fishing gear that has no vaquita bycatch. We found that only the most extensive spatial management scenarios recovered the vaquita population above the threshold necessary to downlist the species from Critically Endangered. The scenario that excludes existing net gear from the 2008 area of vaquita distribution led to moderate decrease in net present value (US

Vertical Zoning in Marine Protected Areas: Ecological Considerations for Balancing Pelagic Fishing with Conservation of Benthic Communities

42 million) relative to the best-performing scenario and a two-fold increase in the abundance of adult vaquita over the course of 30 years. Conclusions/Significance Extended spatial management resulted in the highest recovery of the vaquita population. The economic cost of proposed management actions was unequally divided between fishing fleets; the loss of value from finfish gillnet fisheries was never recovered. Our analysis shows that managers will have to confront difficult trade-offs between management scenarios for vaquita conservation.

Indirect Effects of Conservation Policies on the Coupled Human-Natural Ecosystem of the Upper Gulf of California

Abstract Marine protected areas (MPAs), ideally, manage human uses that threaten ecosystems, or components of ecosystems. During several recent MPA designation processes, concerns have arisen over the scientific justification for no-take MPAs, particularly those that restrict recreational fishing for pelagic species. An important question is: under what conditions might recreational pelagic fishing be compatible with the conservation goals of an MPA that is primarily focused on benthic communities? In 2005, an expert workshop of fisheries biologists, marine ecologists, MPA managers, and recreational fishermen was convened by NOAAs National MPA Center to evaluate the limited empirical data on benthic-pelagic coupling and to help provide practical advice on this topic. The participants (i) proposed a preliminary conceptual framework for addressing vertical zoning, (ii) developed preliminary guidelines to consider when evaluating whether to allow or restrict pelagic fishing in an MPA, and (iii) identified f...