Investigating the effects of mobile bottom fishing on benthic biota:A systematic review protocol

Background Mobile bottom fishing, such as trawling and dredging, is the most widespread direct human impact on marine benthic systems. Knowledge of the impacts of different gear types on different habitats, the species most sensitive to impacts and the potential for habitats to recover are often needed to inform implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries and strategies for biodiversity conservation. This knowledge helps to identify management options that maximise fisheries yield whilst minimising negative impacts on benthic systems. Methods/design The methods are designed to identify and collate evidence from experimental studies (e.g. before/after, control/impact) and comparative studies (spanning a gradient of fishing intensity) to identify changes in state (numbers, biomass, diversity etc.) of benthic biota (flora and fauna), resulting from a variety of mobile bottom fishing scenarios. The primary research question that the outputs will be used to address is: “to what extent does a given intensity of bottom fishing affect the abundance and/or diversity of benthic biota?” Due to the variety of gear and habitat types studied, the primary question will be closely linked with secondary questions. These include: “how does the effect of bottom fishing on various benthic biota metrics (species, faunal type, trait, taxon etc.) vary with (1) gear type and (2) habitat, and (3) gear type-habitat interactions?” and (4) “how might properties of the community and environment affect the resilience (and recovery potential) of a community to bottom fishing?

Selection of indicators for assessing and managing the impacts of bottom trawling on seabed habitats

Bottom trawl fisheries are the most widespread\ua0source of anthropogenic physical disturbance to seabed habitats. Development of fisheries-, conservation- and ecosystem-based management strategies requires the selection of indicators of the impact of bottom trawling on the state of benthic biota. Many indicators have been proposed, but no rigorous test of a range of candidate indicators against nine commonly agreed criteria (concreteness, theoretical basis, public awareness, cost, measurement, historical data, sensitivity, responsiveness, specificity) has been performed. Here, we collated data from 41 studies that compared the benthic biota in trawled areas with those in control locations (that were either not trawled or trawled infrequently), examining seven potential indicators (numbers and biomass for individual taxa and whole communities, evenness, Shannon–Wiener diversity and species richness) to assess their performance against the set of nine criteria. The effects of trawling were stronger on whole-community numbers and biomass than for individual taxa. Species richness was also negatively affected by trawling but other measures of diversity were not. Community numbers and biomass met all criteria, taxa numbers and biomass and species richness satisfied most criteria, but evenness and Shannon–Wiener diversity did not respond to trawling and only met few criteria, and hence are not suitable state indicators of the effect of bottom trawling. Synthesis and applications. An evaluation of each candidate indicator against a commonly agreed suite of desirable properties coupled with the outputs of our meta-analysis showed that whole-community numbers of individuals and biomass are the most suitable indicators of bottom trawling impacts as they performed well on all criteria. Strengths of these indicators are that they respond strongly to trawling, relate directly to ecosystem functioning and are straightforward to measure. Evenness and Shannon–Wiener diversity are not responsive to trawling and unsuitable for the monitoring and assessment of bottom trawl impacts

Global status of groundfish stocks

We review the status of groundfish stocks using published scientific assessments for 349 individual stocks constituting 90% of global groundfish catch. Overall, average stock abundance is increasing and is currently above the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Fishing pressure for cod-like fishes (Gadiformes) and flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes) was, for several decades, on average well above levels associated with MSY, but is now at or below the level expected to produce MSY. In contrast, fishing pressure for rockfishes (Scorpaeniformes) decreased from near MSY-related levels in the mid-1990s, and since the mid-2000s has remained on average at only one third of MSY-related levels. Regions with the most depressed groundfish stocks are the Northwest Atlantic and the Pacific coast of South America, while stocks from the Northeast and Eastern Central Pacific, Northeast Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic and Southwest Pacific tend to have greatest average abundance relative to MSY-based reference points. In the most recent year available for each stock, the catch was only 61% of MSY. Equilibrium yield curves indicate that 76% of global potential groundfish yield could be achieved using current estimates of fishing pressure. 15% of this is lost by excess fishing pressure, 67% results from lower than optimal fishing pressure on healthy stocks and 18% is lost from stocks currently overfished but rebuilding. Thus, there is modest opportunity to increase catch of global groundfish fisheries by reducing overfishing on some stocks, but more by increasing harvest on others. However, there may be other reasons not to fully exploit these stocks.Fil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Hively, Daniel J.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Baker Loke, Nicole. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: de Moor, Carryn L.. University Of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Kurota, Hiroyuki. Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency; JapónFil: Kathena, Johannes N.. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; NamibiaFil: Mace, Pamela M.. Ministry for Primary Industries; Nueva ZelandaFil: Minto, Cóilín. Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology; IrlandaFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos; ArgentinaFil: Quiroz, Juan-Carlos. Instituto de Fomento Pesquero; ChileFil: Melnychuk, Michael C.. University of Washington; Estados Unido

Paraoxonase 2 protein is spatially expressed in the human placenta and selectively reduced in labour

Humans parturition involves interaction of hormonal, neurological, mechanical stretch and inflammatory pathways and the placenta plays a crucial role. The paraoxonases (PONs 1–3) protect against oxidative damage and lipid peroxidation, modulation of endoplasmic reticulum stress and regulation of apoptosis. Nothing is known about the role of PON2 in the placenta and labour. Since PON2 plays a role in oxidative stress and inflammation, both features of labour, we hypothesised that placental PON2 expression would alter during labour. PON2 was examined in placentas obtained from women who delivered by cesarean section and were not in labour and compared to the equivalent zone of placentas obtained from women who delivered vaginally following an uncomplicated labour. Samples were obtained from 12 sites within each placenta: 4 equally spaced apart pieces were sampled from the inner, middle and outer placental regions. PON2 expression was investigated by Western blotting and real time PCR. Two PON2 forms, one at 62 kDa and one at 43 kDa were found in all samples. No difference in protein expression of either isoform was found between the three sites in either the labour or non-labour group. At the middle site there was a highly significant decrease in PON2 expression in the labour group when compared to the non-labour group for both the 62 kDa form (p = 0.02) and the 43 kDa form (p = 0.006). No spatial differences were found within placentas at the mRNA level in either labour or non-labour. There was, paradoxically, an increase in PON2 mRNA in the labour group at the middle site only. This is the first report to describe changes in PON2 in the placenta in labour. The physiological and pathological significance of these remains to be elucidated but since PON2 is anti-inflammatory further studies are warranted to understand its role

Estimating the sustainability of towed fishing-gear impacts on seabed habitats: a simple quantitative risk assessment method applicable to data-limited fisheries

1. Impacts of bottom fishing, particularly trawling and dredging, on seabed (benthic) habitats are commonly perceived to pose serious environmental risks. Quantitative ecological risk assessment can be used to evaluate actual risks and to help guide the choice of management measures needed to meet sustainability objectives. 2. We develop and apply a quantitative method for assessing the risks to benthic habitats by towed bottom-fishing gears. The method is based on a simple equation for relative benthic status (RBS), derived by solving the logistic population growth equation for the equilibrium state. Estimating RBS requires only maps of fishing intensity and habitat type — and parameters for impact and recovery rates, which may be taken from meta-analyses of multiple experimental studies of towed-gear impacts. The aggregate status of habitats in an assessed region is indicated by the distribution of RBS values for the region. The application of RBS is illustrated for a tropical shrimp-trawl fishery. 3. The status of trawled habitats and their RBS value depend on impact rate (depletion per trawl), recovery rate and exposure to trawling. In the shrimp-trawl fishery region, gravel habitat was most sensitive, and though less exposed than sand or muddy-sand, was most affected overall (regional RBS=91% relative to un-trawled RBS=100%). Muddy-sand was less sensitive, and though relatively most exposed, was less affected overall (RBS=95%). Sand was most heavily trawled but least sensitive and least affected overall (RBS=98%). Region-wide, >94% of habitat area had >80% RBS because most trawling and impacts were confined to small areas. RBS was also applied to the region's benthic invertebrate communities with similar results. 4. Conclusions. Unlike qualitative or categorical trait-based risk assessments, the RBS method provides a quantitative estimate of status relative to an unimpacted baseline, with minimal requirements for input data. It could be applied to bottom-contact fisheries worldwide, including situations where detailed data on characteristics of seabed habitats, or the abundance of seabed fauna are not available. The approach supports assessment against sustainability criteria and evaluation of alternative management strategies (e.g. closed areas, effort management, gear modifications)

Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance

Bottom trawling is the most widespread human activity affecting seabed habitats. Here, we collate all available data for experimental and comparative studies of trawling impacts on whole communities of seabed macroinvertebrates on sedimentary habitats and develop widely applicable methods to estimate depletion and recovery rates of biota after trawling. Depletion of biota and trawl penetration into the seabed are highly correlated. Otter trawls caused the least depletion, removing 6% of biota per pass and penetrating the seabed on average down to 2.4 cm, whereas hydraulic dredges caused the most depletion, removing 41% of biota and penetrating the seabed on average 16.1 cm. Median recovery times posttrawling (from 50 to 95% of unimpacted biomass) ranged between 1.9 and 6.4 y. By accounting for the effects of penetration depth, environmental variation, and uncertainty, the models explained much of the variability of depletion and recovery estimates from single studies. Coupled with large-scale, high-resolution maps of trawling frequency and habitat, our estimates of depletion and recovery rates enable the assessment of trawling impacts on unprecedented spatial scales

Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status

Marine fish stocks are an important part of the world food system and are particularly important for many of the poorest people of the world. Most existing analyses suggest overfishing is increasing, and there is widespread concern that fish stocks are decreasing throughout most of the world. We assembled trends in abundance and harvest rate of stocks that are scientifically assessed, constituting half of the reported globalmarine fish catch. For these stocks, on average, abundance is increasing and is at proposed target levels. Compared with regions that are intensively managed, regions with less-developed fisheries management have, on average, 3-fold greater harvest rates and half the abundance as assessed stocks. Available evidence suggests that the regions without assessments of abundance have little fisheries management, and stocks are in poor shape. Increased application of area-appropriate fisheries science recommendations and management tools are still needed for sustaining fisheries in places where they are lacking.Fil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Amoroso, Ricardo Oscar. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Anderson, Christopher M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Baum, Julia K.. University of Victoria; CanadáFil: Branch, Trevor A.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Costello, Christopher. University of California at Santa Barbara; Estados UnidosFil: de Moor, Carryn L.. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Faraj, Abdelmalek. Einstitut National de Recherche Halieutique; MarruecosFil: Hively, Daniel. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Jensen, Olaf P.. Rutgers University; Estados UnidosFil: Kurota, Hiroyuki. Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency; JapónFil: Little, L. Richard. Csiro Oceans and Atmosphere; AustraliaFil: Mace, Pamela. Ministry for Primary Industries; Nueva ZelandaFil: McClanahan, Tim. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Melnychuk, Michael C.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Minto, Cóilín. Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology; IrlandaFil: Osio, Giacomo Chato. Joint Research Centre (JRC); Italia. DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission; BélgicaFil: Pons, Maite. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos; ArgentinaFil: Segurado, Susana. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership; Estados UnidosFil: Szuwalski, Cody S.. University of California at Santa Barbara; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Jono R.. University of California at Santa Barbara; Estados Unidos. The Nature Conservancy; Estados UnidosFil: Ye, Yimin. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Itali

Catch shares, fisheries, and ecological stewardship: a comparative analysis of resource responses to a rights-based policy instrument

Rights-based approaches are potentially promising tools to meet conservation objectives in natural resource management. Here, we evaluated how population status and fishery production respond to catch shares, a rights-based policy instrument in fisheries whereby participants are granted a right to harvest a fraction of the allowable catch. By analyzing time series of landings, exploitation rate, and population biomass for >150 fisheries, we find that catch shares tended to dampen variance in fishery landings and exploitation rate, that they had no effect on population biomass, and that the responses were unrelated to population status prior to catch shares. Variance dampening was strongest when harvesting rights were durable and secure but was absent otherwise. Reductions in exploitation rate were strongest in multispecies fisheries with high levels of at-sea observers. Although benefits are not guaranteed, successful catch share programs share common elements that can be incorporated in the design of future programs.Keywords: marine conservation, Catch shares, market-based approaches, fisheries, policy evaluation, property-rightsKeywords: marine conservation, Catch shares, market-based approaches, fisheries, policy evaluation, property-right

Prioritization of knowledge-needs to achieve best practices for bottom trawling in relation to seabed habitats

Management and technical approaches that achieve a sustainable level of fish production while at the same time minimizing or limiting the wider ecological effects caused through fishing gear contact with the seabed might be considered to be ‘best practice’. To identify future knowledge-needs that would help to support a transition towards the adoption of best practices for trawling, a prioritization exercise was undertaken with a group of 39 practitioners from the seafood industry and management, and 13 research scientists who have an active research interest in bottom-trawl and dredge fisheries. A list of 108 knowledge-needs related to trawl and dredge fisheries was developed in conjunction with an ‘expert task force’. The long list was further refined through a three stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each knowledge-need. The top 25 knowledge-needs are presented, as scored separately by practitioners and scientists. There was considerable consistency in the priorities identified by these two groups. The top priority knowledge-need to improve current understanding on the distribution and extent of different habitat types also reinforced the concomitant need for the provision and access to data on the spatial and temporal distribution of all forms of towed bottom-fishing activities. Many of the other top 25 knowledge-needs concerned the evaluation of different management approaches or implementation of different fishing practices, particularly those that explore trade-offs between effects of bottom trawling on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the benefits of fish production as food.Fil: Kaiser, Michel J.. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Jennings, Simon. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Amaroso, Ricky. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Andersen, Michael. Danish Fishermen; DinamarcaFil: Balliet, Kris. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership; Estados UnidosFil: Barratt, Eric. Sanford Limited; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bergstad, Odd A. Institute of Marine Research; NoruegaFil: Bishop, Stephen. Independent Fisheries Ltd; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bostrom, Jodi L. Marine Stewardship Council; Reino UnidoFil: Boyd, Catherine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Bruce, Eduardo A. Friosur S.A.; ChileFil: Burden, Merrick. Marine Conservation Alliance; Estados UnidosFil: Carey, Chris. Independent Fisheries Ltd.; Estados UnidosFil: Clermont, Jason. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Collie, Jeremy S. University of Rhode Island,; Estados UnidosFil: Delahunty, Antony. National Federation of Fishermen; Reino UnidoFil: Dixon, Jacqui. Pacific Andes International Holdings Limited; ChinaFil: Eayrs, Steve. Gulf of Maine Research Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Edwards, Nigel. Seachill Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Fujita, Rod. Environmental Defense Fund; Reino UnidoFil: Gauvin, John. Alaska Seafood Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Gleason, Mary. The Nature Conservancy; Estados UnidosFil: Harris, Brad. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: He, Pingguo. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; Estados UnidosFil: Hiddink, Jan G. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hughes, Kathryn M. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Inostroza, Mario. EMDEPES; ChileFil: Kenny, Andrew. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Kritzer, Jake. Environmental Defense Fund; Estados UnidosFil: Kuntzsch, Volker. Sanford Limited; Estados UnidosFil: Lasta, Mario. Diag. Montegrande N° 7078. Mar del Plata; ArgentinaFil: Lopez, Ivan. Confederacion Española de Pesca; EspañaFil: Loveridge, Craig. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation; Nueva ZelandaFil: Lynch, Don. Gorton; Estados UnidosFil: Masters, Jim. Marine Conservation Society; Reino UnidoFil: Mazor, Tessa. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: McConnaughey, Robert A. US National Marine Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Moenne, Marcel. Pacificblu; ChileFil: Francis. Marine Scotland Science; Reino UnidoFil: Nimick, Aileen M. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Olsen, Alex. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Parker, David. Young; Reino UnidoFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Penney, Christine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Pierce, David. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Pitcher, Roland. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: Pol, Michael. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Richardson, Ed. Pollock Conservation Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Rijnsdorp, Adriaan D. Wageningen IMARES; Países BajosFil: Rilatt, Simon. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Rodmell, Dale P. National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations; Reino UnidoFil: Rose, Craig. FishNext Research; Estados UnidosFil: Sethi, Suresh A. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Short, Katherine. F.L.O.W. Collaborative; Nueva ZelandaFil: Suuronen, Petri. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department; ItaliaFil: Taylor, Erin. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wallace, Scott. The David Suzuki Foundation; CanadáFil: Webb, Lisa. Gorton's Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wickham, Eric. Unit four –1957 McNicoll Avenue; CanadáFil: Wilding, Sam R. Monterey Bay Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Ashley. Department for Environment; Reino UnidoFil: Winger, Paul. Memorial University Of Newfoundland; CanadáFil: Sutherland, William J. University of Cambridge; Reino Unid