An Ecopath with Ecosim model of the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea validated against time series of abundance

We here present a fitted and partly validated Ecopath with Ecosim model for the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea. Ecopath mass-balance model parameters were obtained from the literature on Norwegian and Barents Sea organisms and from approximations. Predator-prey vulnerability parameters for Ecosim were fitted by driving a past state model balanced for the year 1950 from 1950 to 2000 and comparing the modelled biomass time series with series from VPA and acoustic surveys. Estimated fishing mortalities or reported catch were used to drive the modelled biomass through the 50-year period. The vulnerability parameters from the fitted 1950 model were then used as input for a simulation model balanced for the year 2000. The fits were reasonably good, and were improved after including fluctuation in the yearly phytoplankton production through a primary production forcing function. The fluctuating biomass trends characteristic for many of the short-lived groups in the model were better reproduced when including the primary production forcing function, suggesting that bottom-up control is important in this marine system. When evaluating the vulnerability parameters through a comparison between modelled and observed diet compositions, the parameter settings seemed reasonable for cod as a predator, but less so for haddock. The optimal long-term fishing pressure modelled in the model was consistent with advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) for the stocks for which values of target reference points are estimated.Her presenterer me ein Ecopath med Ecosim økosystemmodell for Norskehavet og Barentshavet som til dels er validert mot mengdemålingstidsseriar. Ecopath modellparametre på norskehavs- og barentshavsorganismar er henta frå litteraturen eller frå tilnærmingar viss ikkje annan informasjon er tilgjengeleg. Sårbarhetsparameteren som beskriv kor sårbart eit gitt bytte er for ein gitt predator, og som modellen er svært sensitiv ovafor, blei tilpassa ved å kjøra ein historisk modell balansert for året 1950 til 2000 og modellerte mengdemålingstidsseriar mot tidsseriar frå akustiske tokt eller VPA-kjøringar. Estimert fiskedødelighet eller rapportert fangst blei trekt frå biomassen for kvar modellert organismegruppe gjennom 50-årsperioden. Sårbarhetsparameteren blei ekstarhert ut frå den balanserte 1950-modellen, og blei deretter brukt inn i ein modell for det same området og med identiske organismegrupper, men balansert for året 2000. Samsvaret mellom den modellerte biomassen og den observerte var rimeleg god og blei forbedra ved å inkludera fluktuasjon i årleg planteplanktonproduksjon. Særleg den fluktuerande biomassen som er karakteristisk for fleire av dei pelagiske bestandane blei meir realistisk gjenskapt ved å inkludera primærproduksjonen, noko som indikerer at botn-opp kontroll er viktig i dette marine systemet. Den sensitive sårbarhetsparameteren blei delvis evaluert gjennom ein samanlikning mellom modellert og observert diettsamansetting hos torsk og hyse. Dietten til torsk blei rimeleg godt gjenskapt i modellen, men dietten for hyse i mindre grad. Optimalt fisketrykk ved langtidshausting som blei modellert med modellen balansert for år 2000, var konsistent med rådet frå det internasjonale råd for havforsking (ICES) for dei bestandane kor referansepunkt blir estimert

Defining the word “seamount”

Author Posting. © Oceanography Society, 2010. This article is posted here by permission of Oceanography Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Oceanography 23, 1 (2010): 20-21.The term seamount has been defined many times (e.g., Menard, 1964; Wessel, 2001; Schmidt and Schmincke, 2000; Pitcher et al., 2007; International Hydrographic Organization, 2008; Wessel et al., 2010) but there is no “generally accepted” definition. Instead, most definitions serve the particular needs of a discipline or a specific paper

Seamount sciences : quo vadis?

Author Posting. © Oceanography Society, 2010. This article is posted here by permission of Oceanography Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Oceanography 23, 1 (2010): 212-213.Seamounts are fascinating natural ocean laboratories that inform us about fundamental planetary and ocean processes, ocean ecology and fisheries, and hazards and metal resources. The more than 100,000 large seamounts are a defining structure of global ocean topography and biogeography, and hundreds of thousands of smaller ones are distributed throughout every ocean on Earth

Defining the word "Seamount"

Reading through this issue of Oceanography, it will become apparent that researchers in different disciplines see their seamounts in quite different ways. The term seamount has been defined many times (e.g., Menard, 1964; Wessel, 2001; Schmidt and Schmincke, 2000; Pitcher et al., 2007; International Hydrographic Organization, 2008; Wessel et al., 2010) but there is no “generally accepted” definition. Instead, most definitions serve the particular needs of a discipline or a specific paper. Inconsistencies are common among different publications and, most notably, differ from the recommendations of the International Hydrographic Organization and International Oceanographic Commission (International Hydrographic Organization, 2008). It is not the goal of this note to arbitrate or remedy these inconsistencies. However, as seamount researchers begins to coalesce into one broad, multidisciplinary research community, it is important to: (1) have a simple definition that explains which features are included under the umbrella of seamount research and which are not, providing an essential condition for defining the seamount research community, and (2) respect and be aware of differences among disciplinary definitions, as they may stand in the way of consistently applying one disciplinary data set to another

Management Effectiveness of the World's Marine Fisheries

A global analysis shows that fishery management worldwide is lagging far behind international standards, and that the conversion of scientific advice into policy, through a participatory and transparent process, holds promise for achieving sustainable fisheries

Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing

Illegal and unreported fishing contributes to overexploitation of fish stocks and is a hindrance to the recovery of fish populations and ecosystems. This study is the first to undertake a world-wide analysis of illegal and unreported fishing. Reviewing the situation in 54 countries and on the high seas, we estimate that lower and upper estimates of the total value of current illegal and unreported fishing losses worldwide are between $10 bn and$23.5 bn annually, representing between 11 and 26 million tonnes. Our data are of sufficient resolution to detect regional differences in the level and trend of illegal fishing over the last 20 years, and we can report a significant correlation between governance and the level of illegal fishing. Developing countries are most at risk from illegal fishing, with total estimated catches in West Africa being 40% higher than reported catches. Such levels of exploitation severely hamper the sustainable management of marine ecosystems. Although there have been some successes in reducing the level of illegal fishing in some areas, these developments are relatively recent and follow growing international focus on the problem. This paper provides the baseline against which successful action to curb illegal fishing can be judged

Marine Biodiversity in the Australian Region

The entire Australian marine jurisdictional area, including offshore and sub-Antarctic islands, is considered in this paper. Most records, however, come from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the continent of Australia itself. The counts of species have been obtained from four primary databases (the Australian Faunal Directory, Codes for Australian Aquatic Biota, Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums, and the Australian node of the Ocean Biogeographic Information System), but even these are an underestimate of described species. In addition, some partially completed databases for particular taxonomic groups, and specialized databases (for introduced and threatened species) have been used. Experts also provided estimates of the number of known species not yet in the major databases. For only some groups could we obtain an (expert opinion) estimate of undiscovered species. The databases provide patchy information about endemism, levels of threat, and introductions. We conclude that there are about 33,000 marine species (mainly animals) in the major databases, of which 130 are introduced, 58 listed as threatened and an unknown percentage endemic. An estimated 17,000 more named species are either known from the Australian EEZ but not in the present databases, or potentially occur there. It is crudely estimated that there may be as many as 250,000 species (known and yet to be discovered) in the Australian EEZ. For 17 higher taxa, there is sufficient detail for subdivision by Large Marine Domains, for comparison with other National and Regional Implementation Committees of the Census of Marine Life. Taxonomic expertise in Australia is unevenly distributed across taxa, and declining. Comments are given briefly on biodiversity management measures in Australia, including but not limited to marine protected areas

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Fisheries Centre research reports, Vol. 7, no. 2

Science, Faculty ofOceans and Fisheries, Institute for theUnreviewedFacult