Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG)

The Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG) reviews new methods for the defi-nition and investigation of stock structure and provides advice to other ICES expert groups on how to interpret patterns of population structure. The identification of the spatial boundaries of exploited stocks is a fundamental requirement before any stock assessment or modelling can be contemplated, and therefore lies at the heart of resource management. SIMWG continues to provide annual updates on recent applications of stock identification methods to species assessed by ICES and on advances in stock identification methods. Based on the wide expertise of SIMWG members, the group provides reviews of recent literature on genetics, growth marks in calcified structures, life history parameters, morphometrics/ me-ristics, tagging, otolith shape, otolith chemistry, parasites and interdisciplinary approaches. A key activity of SIMWG is to address requests by ICES working groups for technical advice on issues of stock identity. In 2020, the working group reviewed the outcome of the Workshop on Stock Identification of North Sea Cod (WKNSCodID). SIMWG contributes to the general understanding of the biological features of the north Atlantic ecosystem through its work to describe fish population structure. Additionally, SIMWG’s annual reviews on advances in stock identification methods keeps ICES members abreast of best prac-tices in this field of study. SIMWG expert reviews on questions of stock structure for particular ICES species are directly relevant to the appropriate definition of stock and contribute to the accuracy of stock assessment and effectiveness of management actions. We see an important role for SIMWG in the future as ICES copes with the shifting distributions of fishery resources and questions regarding the appropriate definition of fish stocks. Understanding stock structure is a fundamental requirement before any assessment or modelling on a stock can be contemplated and SIMWG will continue to work with ICES expert groups to address pressing stock identifica-tion issues

Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG). 2021

The Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG) reviews new methods for the definition and investigation of stock structure and provides recommendations to other ICES expert groups on how to interpret patterns of population structure. In 2021, SIMWG continued providing annual updates on recent applications of stock identification methods to species assessed by ICES and on advances in stock identification methods. Based on the wide expertise of SIMWG members, the group provides reviews of recent literature on genetics, growth marks in calcified structures, life history parameters, morphometrics/ meristics, tagging, otolith shape, otolith chemistry, parasites and interdisciplinary approaches. The key activity of SIMWG is to address requests by ICES working groups for technical advice on issues of stock identity. In 2021, SIMWG reviewed the report of a project on herring stock structure upon request by the ICES Herring Assessment Working Group (HAWG). SIMWG contributes to the general understanding of the biological features of the north Atlantic ecosystem through its work to describe fish population structure. Additionally, SIMWG annual reviews on advances in stock identification methods keep ICES members abreast of best practices in this field of study. SIMWG expert reviews on questions of stock structure for particular ICES species are directly relevant to the appropriate definition of stock and contribute to the accuracy of stock assessment and effectiveness of management actions. We see an important role for SIMWG in the future as ICES is coping with the shifting distributions of fishery resources and questions regarding the appropriate definition of fish stocks. Understanding stock structure is a fundamental requirement before any assessment or modelling on a stock can be contemplated and SIMWG will continue to work with ICES expert groups to address pressing stock identification issues

Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA)

The objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stake- holder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice. Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-bench- mark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be iden- tified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to ac- cess, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured infor- mation well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when prelim- inary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC ad- vice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differ- ences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment reports as well as in the ICES advice in a transparent manner. Not only should dif- ferences or similarities be documented and communicated, in those cases where there are differ- ences in perception between ICES stock assessments and stakeholders, a working group, external to the assessment working groups, should evaluate these differences and describe whether these differences can be logically explained or require further investigation. This outcome of this pro- cess may potentially lead to new data collection or additional analyses suitable for input to benchmarks. Essential in this entire process is making sure the same language is spoken between scientists and stakeholders, that there are clear and transparent processes in place on how to deal with stakeholder information and communicate clearly how this information is used in the prepara- tion of ICES advice.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA)

The objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stakeholder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice. Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-benchmark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be identified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to access, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured information well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when preliminary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC advice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment reports as well as in the ICES advice in a transparent manner. Not only should differences or similarities be documented and communicated, in those cases where there are differences in perception between ICES stock assessments and stakeholders, a working group, external to the assessment working groups, should evaluate these differences and describe whether these differences can be logically explained or require further investigation. This outcome of this process may potentially lead to new data collection or additional analyses suitable for input to benchmarks. Essential in this entire process is making sure the same language is spoken between scientists and stakeholders, that there are clear and transparent processes in place on how to deal with stakeholder information and communicate clearly how this information is used in the preparation of ICES advice.Peer reviewe

Population structure of beaked redfish, Sebastes mentella: evidence of divergence associated with different habitats

14 páginas, 4 figuras.--Steve Cadrin ... et al.-- Acceso avanzado online.Throughout their range, Sebastes spp. are adapted to a diversity of ecological niches, with overlapping spatial distributions of different species that have little or no morphological differences. Divergence of behavioural groups into depth-defined adult habitats has led to reproductive isolation, adaptive radiation, and speciation in the genus Sebastes. Recent genetic research, supported by life-history information, indicates four biological stocks of Sebastes mentella in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters: a western stock, a deep-pelagic stock, a shallow-pelagic stock, and an Iceland slope stock. Congruent differences in fatty acids and parasites suggest that these genetically distinct populations are adapted to disparate trophic habitats in pelagic waters (shallower and deeper than the deep-scattering layer) and in demersal habitats on the continental slope. Morphology of pelagic forms is also more streamlined than demersal forms. Although genetic differences and evidence for reproductive isolation are clear, these populations appear to share common nursery habitats on the Greenland shelf. We propose a redefinition of practical management units near the Irminger Sea based on geographic proxies for biological stocks and minimizing mixed-stock catches according to the spatial patterns of the recent fishery.Peer reviewe

Mechanisms and consequences of life cycle diversity of beaked redfish, Sebastes mentella

36 páginas, 14 figuras.-- Cadrin, Steve ... [et al.].-- Sesión H: What do fish learn in schools? Life cycle diversity within populations, mechanisms and consequencesRecent genetic research, supported by life history information, indicates that there are three biological stocks of S. mentella in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters: a ‘Deep Pelagic’ stock (>500m), a ‘Shallow Pelagic’ stock (<500m), and an ‘Icelandic Slope’ stock. Throughout their range, Sebastes species are adapted to a diversity of ecological niches, with overlapping spatial distributions of different species that have little or no morphological differences. Divergence of behavioral groups into depth-defined adult habitats has led to reproductive isolation, adaptive radiation and speciation of several Sebastes species. Congruent differences in fatty acid composition and parasites suggests that the three genetically distinct populations of S. mentella are adapted to disparate trophic habitats in pelagic waters (shallower and deeper than the deep-scattering layer), and in demersal habitats on the continental slope. Patterns of morphology are also consistent with adaptation to different habitats, because pelagic forms are more streamlined. Although genetic differences and evidence for reproductive isolation are clear, these populations appear to share common nursery habitats on the Greenlandic Shelf. Spatial overlap at early life stages and depth-defined adult populations present challenges for stock identification and fishery management. Effective resource monitoring, conservation and fishery management requires that the spatial definition of management units reflects biological stock structure. We describe a proposal for a redefinition of practical management units that are based on geographic proxies for biological stocks which minimizes mixed-stock catches according to spatial patterns of the recent fisher

Bycatch and discards: from improved knowledge to mitigation programmes Introduction

Discarding is considered by many as an important problem in world fisheries. In many regions, data collection onboard commercial vessels has intensified, and the understanding of both human and ecological drivers of discards is improving quickly. Discarding patterns vary widely across regions, fisheries, gears, and species. Fishers' responses to regulations and markets explain these complex patterns, on top of resource availability partly driven by environmental fluctuations. This expanded knowledge base provides an appropriate basis for discussing the discard mitigation measures proposed in various settings. In September 2012, a theme session was convened at the ICES Annual Science Conference in Bergen, Norway, to discuss these issues. This themed set of articles includes several of the studies presented at the theme session. Owing to the wide diversity of drivers and reasons for discarding, no single management measure or even framework is expected to address the issue. Rather, discard mitigation measures need to be tailored to each particular fishery, or even species within a fishery, and the effectiveness of solutions is greatest when they are used in combination with other approaches. Bottom-up approaches to bycatch and discard management, which involve incentive-based solutions to bycatch problems, were agreed to be the most promising

Goals and Strategies for Rebuilding New England Groundfish Stocks

Rebuilding depleted fishery resources is a worldwide problem. In the U.S., the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2007 requires that “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery…”. However, translating this legal mandate into tangible goals and actions presents several technical challenges, especially for resources that have been chronically over-exploited. For example, maximum sustainable yields and biomass reference points are poorly estimated for stocks that have been overfished for a long period of time and are poorly defined unless sufficient data are available from periods of low-fishing mortality rates and relatively high-stock sizes. The conundrum of how to set meaningful rebuilding goals given limited information on the population dynamics and trophic interactions of a rebuilt stock can generally be addressed through adaptive management procedures incorporating learning about density-dependent population dynamics. Monitoring changes in life history parameters and recruitment is critical for successful rebuilding strategies realizing the full yield potential of rebuilt stocks while periodic re-evaluation of rebuilding targets is also needed to address uncertainties due to density dependence, trophic interactions or environmental factors. This paper summarizes the development and implementation of goals and strategies to rebuild New England groundfish stocks over the past decade. Management is particularly challenging because the true yield and population size potentials of these interacting stocks is unknown due to chronic overfishing throughout the modern history of the fishery, uncertainty in compensatory/depensatory population dynamics and in the degree of stationarity in environmental control of groundfish recruitment