Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The value of cephalopods to global marine fisheries
Mary Hunsicker Oregon State University
Timothy Essington University of Washington
Reg WatsonRashid Sumaila
UBC – Sea Around Us Project
Hunsicker et al. Fish and Fisheries 2010
Impacts of harvesting forage species
Fishing through marine food webs
Ecological and economic importance of forage species
Potential trade-offs and conflicts from the simultaneous harvest of predators and prey populations
Crustaceans
Fishes
Cephalopods
Seabirds
Marine Mammals
Fishes
Global Cephalopod Landings
FAO Landings Data
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Glo
bal l
andi
ngs
(X 1
000t
)
Global Cephalopod Landings
FAO Landings Data
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Glo
bal l
andi
ngs
(X 1
000t
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
N P
acifi
c la
ndin
gs (x
100
0t)
Trade-offs in cephalopod fisheries?
Valuation of cephalopods
Landings (MT) Landed value ($)
Commodity Supportive Commodity Supportive
Commodity contribution Summed tonnage (MT) and monetary value
($USD) of all cephalopods landed in an ecosystem
Supportive contribution Portion of landings and landed value of other species
that rely on cephalopods for their production
Goosefish
Striped Bass Silver Hake
Bluefish
Summer Flounder
MackerelClupeids
Squid
Weakfish
Winter Flounder
Tilefish
Red Hake
Benthic Invertebrates
Crustaceans
ForageFishes
Dogfish
Scup
Objectives
What are the commodity and supportivecontributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
Change in contributions between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8910 12
13
16
17
18
20
19
15
14
21
22 11
23
24
25
26
27
28
Large Marine Ecosystems
LME landings and market values estimated by Reg Watson and Rashid Sumaila
Tuna
Hake
Squid
Pollock
Species list
10 %
Supportive contribution
Cephalopod in diet
600 MT
Average Landings6,000 MT
Dogfish
Mackerel
Total landings
(MT)
Total supportive contribution
(MT)
Point Estimates of Supportive Contribution (MT)
Tuna
Hake
Squid
Pollock
Species list
10 %
Supportive contribution
Cephalopod in diet
$ 200,000
Average Landed Value$ 2 million
Dogfish
Mackerel
Total landings ($USD)
Total supportive contribution
($USD)
Point Estimates of Supportive Contribution ($)
DataFood habits data for each taxonomic group (% M or V)
Diet data for taxonomic groups in the specified ecosystem
Multiple estimates of the predators’ diet composition
Applied the same diet data for contemporary and historical periods
Results
What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?
Contribution to Global Landings (%)
Total contribution to landings (%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Patagonian ShelfCentral North Pacific
Gulf of CaliforniaSea of JapanSouth Atlantic
California CurrentNew Zealand Shelf
Eastern Tropical PacificCentral Atlantic
North AtlanticSouth PacificArabian Sea
Agulhas CurrentSouth Brazil Shelf
Celtic-Biscay ShelfSoutheast Australian Shelf
Canary CurrentGulf of Alaska
Newfoundland-Labrador ShelfNortheast U.S. Continental ShelfPacific Central-American Coast
West Bering SeaScotian Shelf
East Bering SeaGulf of Mexico
Benguela CurrentHumboldt Current
North Sea CommoditySupportive
Contribution to Global Landed Value (%)
Total contribution to landed values (%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Patagonian ShelfCentral North Pacific
Gulf of CaliforniaSea of JapanSouth Atlantic
California CurrentNew Zealand Shelf
Eastern Tropical PacificCentral Atlantic
North AtlanticSouth Pacific
Agulhas CurrentSouth Brazil Shelf
Arabian SeaCeltic-Biscay Shelf
Southeast Australian ShelfCanary Current
Gulf of AlaskaNewfoundland-Labrador Shelf
Northeast U.S. Continental ShelfPacific Central-American Coast
West Bering SeaScotian Shelf
East Bering SeaGulf of Mexico
Benguela CurrentHumboldt Current
North SeaCommoditySupportive
North Pacific Ocean Landings
Total contribution to landings (%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Central North Pacific
Sea of Japan
Kuroshio Currrent
California Current
Oyashio Current
Sea of Okhotsk
Gulf of Alaska
West Bering Sea
East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive
*
*
*
*Not included in publication
North Pacific Ocean Landed Value
Total contribution to landed values (%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Central North Pacific
Sea of Japan
Kuroshio Currrent
California Current
Oyashio Current
Sea of Okhotsk
Gulf of Alaska
West Bering Sea
East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive
*
*
*
*Not included in publication
Objectives
What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?
Historical vs. Contemporary Global Landings (MT)
Total contribution to landings (thousand mt)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Central North Pacific
Sea of Japan
Kuroshio Current
California Current
Oyashio Current
Sea of Okhotsk
Gulf of Alaska
West Bering Sea
East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive
Historical contribution
NA
North Pacific Ocean Landings (MT)
Total contribution to landings (thousand mt)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Central North Pacific
Sea of Japan
Kuroshio Current
California Current
Oyashio Current
Sea of Okhotsk
Gulf of Alaska
West Bering Sea
East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive
Contemporary contribution
Total contribution to landed values (million $USD)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Central North Pacific
Sea of Japan
Kuroshio Current
California Current
Oyashio Current
Sea of Okhotsk
Gulf of Alaska
West Bering Sea
East Bering Sea CommoditySupportive
Historical contribution
NA
North Pacific Ocean Landed Values ($)
Total contribution to landed values (million $USD)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Central North Pacific
Sea of Japan
Kuroshio Current
California Current
Oyashio Current
Sea of Okhotsk
Gulf of Alaska
West Bering Sea
East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive
Contemporary contribution
Objectives
What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions? - Mean TL of ecosystem, Mean TL of catches,
Primary production
Indi
rect
con
trib
utio
n to
land
ings
Dire
ct c
ontr
ibut
ion
to la
ndin
gs
Fishery mean TL is important driver
Contemporary Historical
Contemporary Historical
SummaryTotal contribution: as much as 55% of landings and 70% of landed values
Supportive: highest in open ocean systems Commodity: highest in coastal systems
North Pacific ecosystems among the highest in terms contribution to MT and $USD
In most ecosystems contributions have increased over time, exceptions are seen in the North Pacific systems
Magnitude of contribution influenced by the nature of the fishery (i.e. mean TL)
Conservation Value
Impact as predator
Concluding RemarksIn general, current demands have no historical precedent
Ecosystems where cephalopods are highly exploited as target resource and ecological support service warrant further attention
Considering the value of cephalopods, in addition to other forage, is important for ecosystem-based management