Parameters used for the different modules of SMART [22]–[25], [90]–[92].

<p>Parameters used for the different modules of SMART <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086222#pone.0086222-Sobrino1" target="_blank">[22]</a>–<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086222#pone.0086222-Voliani1" target="_blank">[25]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086222#pone.0086222-Bethke1" target="_blank">[90]</a>–<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086222#pone.0086222-Fiorentino4" target="_blank">[92]</a>.</p

Outputs of the simulations for both scenarios: box plots are used to represent the set of values of Pattern Score (<i>PS₂₀₁₀</i>), that is the proxy for the evaluation of costs associated to each fishing effort pattern, with respect to the effort configuration, as computed by simulations.

<p>Outputs of the simulations for both scenarios: box plots are used to represent the set of values of Pattern Score (<i>PS₂₀₁₀</i>), that is the proxy for the evaluation of costs associated to each fishing effort pattern, with respect to the effort configuration, as computed by simulations.</p

Prices for different ranges of size, for the three species (source: National Research Council, Institute for coastal marine environment).

<p>Prices for different ranges of size, for the three species (source: National Research Council, Institute for coastal marine environment).</p

Boxplots of Relative importance index (RI) for the EMPNs input variables, organized in 6 groups for the sake of conciseness and clearness.

<p>Boxplots of Relative importance index (RI) for the EMPNs input variables, organized in 6 groups for the sake of conciseness and clearness.</p

Figure 11

<p>Box plots representing the sets of values for <i>F_s</i> (total fishing mortality for a single species) as function of the applied fishing effort pattern (a). Simulations for the second scenario are located near the 100% effort level, in agreement with the scale of the first scenario. Boxplots of gains (<i>G₂₀₁₀</i>) corresponding to each simulated pattern (b).</p

Spatial distribution, for each species/year, of the reconstructed total biomass (Log10 of tons, mean values for the period 2006–2010) obtained after the interpolation procedure of the MEDITS data.

<p>Spatial distribution, for each species/year, of the reconstructed total biomass (Log10 of tons, mean values for the period 2006–2010) obtained after the interpolation procedure of the MEDITS data.</p

Conceptual scheme of the simulation approach used in exploring different scenarios of fishing effort (Section 3.7).

<p>Conceptual scheme of the simulation approach used in exploring different scenarios of fishing effort (Section 3.7).</p

Figure 5

<p>Distributions of the fishing effort in years 2006–2010 (a). Each map represents the 6 min×6 min grid in which the Log10 of the number of fishing points (VMS frequency = 10 minutes) is reported in a yellow-red scale color; b) trend in total fishing effort, from 2006 to 2010, in the GSA 16 area.</p

Results of the regression for the costs model (* marks statistically significant values).

<p>Results of the regression for the costs model (* marks statistically significant values).</p

Analysis of trained EMPNs by comparison between observed and predicted abundances for the three species.

<p>Each dot represents the average value for a cell, while abundances are reported as relative values (range between 0 and 1). The comparison was carried out on the test subset of data, that is a group of observations (cells) not used during the training phase. Training and testing of EMPN was performed 100 times for each species, since performance could be theoretically influenced by the composition of training and validation dataset, which is randomly determined.</p