Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T16:07:20.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impacts of depleting forage species in the California Current

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2013

ISAAC C. KAPLAN ,
CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN ,
ELIZABETH A. FULTON ,
IRIS A. GRAY ,
JOHN C. FIELD  and
ANTHONY D.M. SMITH
ISAAC C. KAPLAN*
Affiliation:
Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2725 Montlake Boulevard E, Seattle WA 98112, USA
CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN
Affiliation:
Climate Adaptation Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Ecosciences Precinct, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, Queensland 4102, Australia
ELIZABETH A. FULTON
Affiliation:
CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship, Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
IRIS A. GRAY
Affiliation:
Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2725 Montlake Boulevard E, Seattle WA 98112, USA
JOHN C. FIELD
Affiliation:
Fisheries Ecology Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA
ANTHONY D.M. SMITH
Affiliation:
CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship, Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
*
*Correspondence: Dr Isaac Kaplan, Tel: +1 206 302 2446 Fax: +1 206 860 3394 e-mail: isaac.kaplan@noaa.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Human demands for food and fish meal are often in direct competition with forage needs of marine mammals, birds and piscivorous harvested fish. Here, two well-developed ecosystem models for the California Current on the West Coast of the USA were used to test the impacts on other parts of the ecosystem of harvesting euphausiids, forage fish, mackerel and mesopelagic fish such as myctophids. Depleting individual forage groups to levels that led to maximum sustainable yield of those groups may have both positive and negative effects on other species in the California Current. The most common impacts were on predators of forage groups, some of which showed declines of >20% under the scenarios that involved depletion of forage groups to 40% of unfished levels. Depletion of euphausiids and forage fish, which each comprise >10% of system biomass, had the largest impact on other species. Depleting euphausiids to 40% of unfished levels altered the abundance of 13–30% of the other functional groups by >20%; while depleting forage fish to 40% altered the abundance of 20–50% of the other functional groups by >20%. There are clear trade-offs between the harvest of forage groups and the ability of the California Current to sustain other trophic levels. Though higher trophic level species, such as groundfish, are often managed on the basis of reference points that can reduce biomass to below half of unfished levels, this level of forage species removal is likely to impact the abundance of other target species, protected species and the structure of the ecosystem.

Keywords

ecosystem modellingeuphausiidsfood webforage fishlower trophic level speciessardine
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Politics, Science and Policy of Reference Points for Resource Management
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 380 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainley, D., Dugger, K., Ford, R., Pierce, S., Reese, D., Brodeur, R., Tynan, C. & Barth, J. (2009) Association of predators and prey at frontal features in the California Current: competition, facilitation, and co-occurrence. Marine Ecology Progress Series 389: 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V., Kaschner, K. & Pauly, D. (2008) Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 153–166.Google Scholar
Anderson, D.W., Gress, F. & Mais, K.F. (1982) Brown pelicans: influence of food supply on reproduction. Oikos 39: 23–31.Google Scholar
Anker-Nilssen, T., Barrett, R.T. & Krasnov, J.V. (1997) Long-and short-term responses of seabirds in the Norwegian and Barents Seas to changes in stocks of prey fish. Report. Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems, pp. 683–698. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.Google Scholar
Barber, R.T. & Chavez, F.P. (1983) Biological consequences of El Nino. Science 222: 1203.Google Scholar
Barlow, J., Kahru, M. & Mitchell, B. (2008) Cetacean biomass, prey consumption, and primary production requirements in the California Current ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series 371: 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, S.R., Croll, D.A., Marinovic, B.B., Chavez, F.P. & Harvey, J.T. (2002) Changes in the cetacean assemblage of a coastal upwelling ecosystem during El Nino 1997–98 and La Nina 1999. Progress in Oceanography 54: 279–291.Google Scholar
Bjorkstedt, E. (2010) State of the California Current 2009–2010: regional variation persists through transition from La Nina to El Nino (and back?). CalCOFI Reports 51: 1–69.Google Scholar
Chavez, F.P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S.E. & Niquen, C. (2003) From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299: 217.Google Scholar
Checkley, D., Alheit, J., Oozeki, Y. & Roy, C. (2009) Climate Change and Small Pelagic Fish. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Checkley, D.M. & Barth, J.A. (2009) Patterns and processes in the California Current System. Progress in Oceanography 83: 49–64.Google Scholar
Christensen, V. & Walters, C.J. (2004) Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecological Modelling 172: 109–139.Google Scholar
Clark, W.G. (2002) F 35% revisited ten years later. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 251–257.Google Scholar
Crone, P.R., Hill, K.T., McDaniel, J.D., Lo, N.C.H. & Fisheries, N. (2009) Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus) stock assessment for USA management in the 2009–10 fishing year. Report. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon USA [www document]. URL http://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/Divisions/FRD/Small_Pelagics/Mackerel/PMackerel%20Assessment%20(Final)%20-%20Aug09.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cury, P.M., Boyd, I.L., Bonhommeau, S., Anker-Nilssen, T., Crawford, R.J.M., Furness, R.W., Mills, J.A., Murphy, E.J., Österblom, H., Paleczny, M., Piatt, J.F., Roux, J., Shannon, L. & Sydeman, W. (2011) Global seabird response to forage fish depletion. One-third for the birds. Science 334: 1703–1706.Google Scholar
Daly, E., Brodeur, R. & Weitkamp, L. (2009) Ontogenetic shifts in diets of juvenile and subadult coho and chinook salmon in coastal marine waters: important for marine survival? Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 1420–1438.Google Scholar
Dufault, A.M., Marshall, K. & Kaplan, I.C. (2009) A synthesis of diets and trophic overlap of marine species in the California Current. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWSC-103, NOAA, USA [www document]. URL http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/7024_12212009_134730_DietsCalCurrentTM103WebFinal.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2010) Commission decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. Official Journal of the European Union L 232: 14–24.Google Scholar
Field, J.C., Francis, R.C. & Aydin, K. (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
Frederiksen, M., Wanless, S., Harris, M.P., Rothery, P. & Wilson, L.J. (2004) The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 1129–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, E. (2004) Biogeochemical marine ecosystem models II: the effect of physiological detail on model performance. Ecological Modelling 173: 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, E.A., Link, J.S., Kaplan, I.C., Savina-Rolland, M., Johnson, P., Ainsworth, C., Horne, P., Gorton, R., Gamble, R.J., Smith, A.D.M. & Smith, D.C. (2011) Lessons in modelling and management of marine ecosystems: the Atlantis experience. Fish and Fisheries 12: 171–188.Google Scholar
Fulton, E., Smith, A. & Punt, A. (2005) Which ecological indicators can robustly detect effects of fishing? ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 540–551.Google Scholar
Gjosoeter, H. (1997) The Barents Sea capelin stock (Mallotus villosus): a brief review. In: Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems, pp. 469–484. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.Google Scholar
Hill, K., Dorval, E., Lo, N.C., Macewicz, B.J., Show, C. & Felix-Uraga, R. (2008) Assessment of the Pacific sardine resource in 2008 for US management in 2009. Report. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon, USA [www document]. URL http://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2008/1108/G2b_SUP_ATT1_1108.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hipfner, J. (2009) Euphausiids in the diet of a North Pacific seabird: annual and seasonal variation and the role of ocean climate. Marine Ecology Progress Series 390: 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, P J., Kaplan, I.C., Marshall, K.N., Levin, P.S., Harvey, C.J., Hermann, A.J. & Fulton, E.A. (2010) Design and parameterization of a spatially explicit ecosystem model of the Central California Current. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-104, NOAA, USA: 140 pp.Google Scholar
Jacobson, L.D. & MacCall, A.D. (1995) Stock-recruitment models for Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 566–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, I.C. & Leonard, J. (2012) From krill to convenience stores: forecasting the economic and ecological effects of fisheries management on the US West Coast. Marine Policy 36: 947–954.Google Scholar
Kaplan, I.C., Horne, P.J. & Levin, P.S. (2012) Screening California Current fishery management scenarios using the Atlantis end-to-end ecosystem model. Progress In Oceanography 102: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, I.C., Levin, P.S., Burden, M. & Fulton, E.A. (2010) Fishing catch shares in the face of global change: a framework for integrating cumulative impacts and single species management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67: 1968–1982.Google Scholar
Karpouzi, V., Watson, R. & Pauly, D. (2007) Modelling and mapping resource overlap between seabirds and fisheries on a global scale: a preliminary assessment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 343: 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaschner, K., Karpouzi, V.S., Watson, R. & Pauly, D. (2006) Forage fish consumption by marine mammals and seabirds. In: On the Multiple Uses of Forage Fish: from Ecosystem to Markets, Fisheries Research Report Volume 14, no. 3, ed. Alder, J. & Pauly, D., pp. 33–46. Vancouver, BC, Canada: University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre.Google Scholar
Koslow, J.A., Goericke, R., Lara-Lopez, A. & Watson, W. (2011) Impact of declining intermediate-water oxygen on deepwater fishes in the California Current. Marine Ecology Progress Series 436: 207–218.Google Scholar
Logerwell, E.A., Mantua, N., Lawson, P.W., Francis, R.C. & Agostini, V.N. (2003) Tracking environmental processes in the coastal zone for understanding and predicting Oregon coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) marine survival. Fisheries Oceanography 12: 554–568.Google Scholar
MacCall, A.D. (1996) Patterns of low-frequency variability in fish populations of the California Current. CalCOFI Reports 37: 100–110.Google Scholar
Mantua, N.J., Hare, S.R., Zhang, Y., Wallace, J.M. & Francis, R.C. (1997) A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78: 1069–1079.Google Scholar
McLeod, K. & Leslie, H. (2009) Ecosystem-based Mmanagement for the Oceans. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Muck, P. (1989) Major trends in the pelagic ecosystem off Peru and their implications for management. In: The Peruvian Upwelling Ecosystem: Dynamics and Interactions, ed. Pauly, D., Muck, P., Mendo, J. & Tsukayama, I., pp. 386–403. Instituto del Mar del Peru (IMARPE), Callao, Peru: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
Murphy, R.C. (1925) Bird Islands of Peru. New York, NY, USA: GP Putnams Sons.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, K., Nishimura, A., Asanuma, T. & Marubayashi, T. (1997) Myctophids in the Bering Sea: distribution, abundance, and significance as food for salmonids. In: Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems, pp. 337–350. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.Google Scholar
Pacific Fishery Management Council (1978) Fishery Management Plan for Northern Anchovy. Report. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon USA.Google Scholar
Pacific Fishery Management Council (2006) Fishery management plan for coastal pelagic species [www document]. URL http://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/fishery-management-plan-and-amendments/Google Scholar
Pacific Fishery Management Council (2008) Management of krill as an essential component of the California Current ecosystem. Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Mangement Plan [www document]. URL http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/CPS_Am12_Krill_DraftEA.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pacific Fishery Management Council (2011) Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan Draft. Portland, Oregon, USA [www document]. URL http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/H2a_ATT1_DRAFT_ECO_PLAN_NOV2011BB.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parrish, R. (2008) RE: Oceana's letter of May 6, 2008 ‘Ecosystem considerations in coastal pelagic species stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) reports and harvest guidelines’ [www document]. URL http://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2008/0608/G1d_PC_0608.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pikitch, E.K., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T.E., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plaganyi, E.E., Stanisbury, K. & Steneck, R. (2012) Little fish, big impact: managing a crucial link in ocean food webs. Report. Lenfest Ocean Program, Stony Brook, NY, USA [www document]. URL http://www.oceanconservationscience.org/foragefish/Google Scholar
Pikitch, E.K., Rountos, K.J., Essington, T.E., Santora, C., Pauly, D., Watson, R., Sumaila, U.R., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., Steneck, R.S., Geers, T.M., Gownaris, N. & Munch, S.B. (2013) The global contribution of forage fish to marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries (in press).Google Scholar
Plagányi, É.E. (2007) Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy [www document]. URL http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1149e/a1149e00.htmGoogle Scholar
Schwartzlose, R.A., Alheit, J., Bakun, A., Baumgartner, T.R., Cloete, R., Crawford, R.J.M., Fletcher, W.J., Green-Ruiz, Y., Hagen, E., Kawasaki, T., Lluch-Belda, D., Lluch-Cota, S.E., MacCall, A. D., Matsuura, Y., Nevarez-Martinez, M.O., Parrish, R.H., Roy, C., Serra, R., Shust, K.V., Ward, M.N. & Zuzunaga, J.Z. (1999) Worldwide large-scale fluctuations of sardine and anchovy populations. South African Journal of Marine Science 21: 289–347.Google Scholar
Shannon, L. (2000) Modelling effects of fishing in the Southern Benguela ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 720–722.Google Scholar
Shannon, L.J., Field, J.G. & Moloney, C.L. (2004) Simulating anchovy–sardine regime shifts in the southern Benguela ecosystem. Ecological Modelling 172: 269–281.Google Scholar
Smith, A.D.M., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano-Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.-J. & Tam, J. (2011) Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science 333: 1147–1150.Google Scholar
Tacon, A. & Metian, M. (2009) Fishing for feed or fishing for food: increasing global competition for small pelagic forage fish. AMBIO 38: 294–302.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S., Leonard, M., Boness, D. & Majluf, P. (2002) Foraging by Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) during the chick-rearing period: general patterns, sex differences, and recommendations to reduce incidental catches in fishing nets. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 700–707.Google Scholar
Thayer, J.A. & Sydeman, W.J. (2007) Spatio-temporal variability in prey harvest and reproductive ecology of a piscivorous seabird, Cerorhinca monocerata, in an upwelling system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 329: 253–265.Google Scholar
US Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final Report. US Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC, USA [www document]. URL http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/Google Scholar
US Department of Commerce (2007) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 [www document]. URL http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/MSA_Amended_2007%20.pdfGoogle Scholar
Valinassab, T., Pierce, G.J. & Johannesson, K. (2007) Lantern fish (Benthosema pterotum) resources as a target for commercial exploitation in the Oman Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23: 573–577.Google Scholar
Walters, C., Pauly, D., Christensen, V. & Kitchell, J. F. (2000) Representing density dependent consequences of life history strategies in aquatic ecosystems: EcoSim II. Ecosystems 3: 70–83.Google Scholar
Walters, C.J., Christensen, V., Martell, S.J. & Kitchell, J.F. (2005) Possible ecosystem impacts of applying MSY policies from single-species assessment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 558–568.Google Scholar
Zwolinski, J.P., Byers, K.A., Cutter, G.R., Renfree, J.S., Sessions, T.S., Macewicz, B.J. & Demer, D.A. (2011) Acoustic-trawl surveys of Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) and other pelagic fishes in the California Current ecosystem. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon, USA [www document]. URL http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/C3a_ATT3_PART2_ACOU_SURVEY_APR2011BBX.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

KAPLAN, I. C. Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download KAPLAN, I. C. Supplementary Material(File)
File 9.6 MB