The value of cephalopods to global marine fisheries Mary Hunsicker Oregon State University Timothy Essington University of Washington Reg Watson Rashid Sumaila UBC – Sea Around Us Project
Hunsicker et al. Fish and Fisheries 2010
Impacts of harvesting forage species y Fishing through marine food webs y Ecological and economic importance of forage species y Potential trade-offs and conflicts from the simultaneous harvest of predators and prey populations
Commodity contribution Summed tonnage (MT) and monetary value ($USD) of all cephalopods landed in an ecosystem
Supportive contribution Portion of landings and landed value of other species that rely on cephalopods for their production
Striped Bass
Silver Hake
Dogfish
Goosefish
Weakfish
Bluefish
Tilefish Summer Flounder
Red Hake
Squid
Scup
Winter Flounder Mackerel
Forage Fishes
Benthic Invertebrates
Crustaceans
Clupeids
Objectives y What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
y Change in contributions between historical (19601970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
y Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?
Large Marine Ecosystems 22 21
1
2
10 8
3
11
9 26
7
23
12
13
4
18
5 25 27 24
16
6 14
28
19
20
15
LME landings and market values estimated by Reg Watson and Rashid Sumaila
17
Point Estimates of Supportive Contribution (MT) Species list Tuna
Average Landings
Cephalopod in diet
6,000 MT
10 %
Supportive contribution 600 MT
Hake Squid Pollock Dogfish Mackerel
Total landings (MT)
Total supportive contribution (MT)
Point Estimates of Supportive Contribution ($) Species list Tuna
Cephalopod Average in diet Landed Value 10 % $ 2 million
Supportive contribution $ 200,000
Hake Squid Pollock Dogfish Mackerel
Total landings ($USD)
Total supportive contribution ($USD)
Data y Food habits data for each taxonomic group (% M or V) y Diet data for taxonomic groups in the specified ecosystem y Multiple estimates of the predators’ diet composition y Applied the same diet data for contemporary and historical periods
Results y What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
y Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
y Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?
Contribution to Global Landings (%) North Sea Humboldt Current Benguela Current Gulf of Mexico East Bering Sea Scotian Shelf West Bering Sea Pacific Central-American Coast Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Gulf of Alaska Canary Current Southeast Australian Shelf Celtic-Biscay Shelf South Brazil Shelf Agulhas Current Arabian Sea South Pacific North Atlantic Central Atlantic Eastern Tropical Pacific New Zealand Shelf California Current South Atlantic Sea of Japan Gulf of California Central North Pacific Patagonian Shelf
Commodity Supportive
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Total contribution to landings (%)
Contribution to Global Landed Value (%) North Sea Humboldt Current Benguela Current Gulf of Mexico East Bering Sea Scotian Shelf West Bering Sea Pacific Central-American Coast Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Gulf of Alaska Canary Current Southeast Australian Shelf Celtic-Biscay Shelf Arabian Sea South Brazil Shelf Agulhas Current South Pacific North Atlantic Central Atlantic Eastern Tropical Pacific New Zealand Shelf California Current South Atlantic Sea of Japan Gulf of California Central North Pacific Patagonian Shelf
Commodity Supportive
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Total contribution to landed values (%)
North Pacific Ocean Landings Commodity Supportive
East Bering Sea West Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska
*Sea of Okhotsk *Oyashio Current California Current
*Kuroshio Currrent Sea of Japan Central North Pacific
*Not included in publication
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Total contribution to landings (%)
North Pacific Ocean Landed Value Commodity Supportive
East Bering Sea West Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska
*Sea of Okhotsk *Oyashio Current California Current
*Kuroshio Currrent Sea of Japan Central North Pacific
*Not included in publication
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Total contribution to landed values (%)
Objectives y What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
y Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
y Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?
Historical vs. Contemporary Global Landings (MT)
North Pacific Ocean Landings (MT) Historical contribution
East Bering Sea
Commodity Supportive
West Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska Sea of Okhotsk Oyashio Current California Current Kuroshio Current Sea of Japan
NA
Central North Pacific 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Total contribution to landings (thousand mt) Contemporary contribution
East Bering Sea
Commodity Supportive
West Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska Sea of Okhotsk Oyashio Current California Current Kuroshio Current Sea of Japan Central North Pacific 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Total contribution to landings (thousand mt)
1000
North Pacific Ocean Landed Values ($) Historical contribution East Bering Sea
Commodity Supportive
West Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska Sea of Okhotsk Oyashio Current California Current Kuroshio Current Sea of Japan
NA
Central North Pacific 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
East Bering Sea
Contemporary contribution Total contribution to landed values (millionCommodity $USD)
West Bering Sea
Supportive
1000
Gulf of Alaska Sea of Okhotsk Oyashio Current California Current Kuroshio Current Sea of Japan Central North Pacific 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Total contribution to landed values (million $USD)
1000
Objectives y What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?
y Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?
y Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions? - Mean TL of ecosystem, Mean TL of catches, Primary production
Contemporary Historical
Direct contribution to landings
Indirect contribution to landings
Fishery mean TL is important driver Contemporary Historical
Summary y Total contribution: as much as 55% of landings and 70% of landed values
y Supportive: highest in open ocean systems Commodity: highest in coastal systems
y North Pacific ecosystems among the highest in terms contribution to MT and $USD
y In most ecosystems contributions have increased over time, exceptions are seen in the North Pacific systems
y Magnitude of contribution influenced by the nature of the fishery (i.e. mean TL)
Conservation Value
Impact as predator
Concluding Remarks y In general, current demands have no historical precedent y Ecosystems where cephalopods are highly exploited as target resource and ecological support service warrant further attention
y Considering the value of cephalopods, in addition to other forage, is important for ecosystem-based management