DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study on indicators and reference points for the ecosystem-based resource assessment

생태계 기반 자원평가를 위한 지표와 기준점 연구

  • Published : 2010.02.28

Abstract

Ecosystem-based fisheries management requires a holistic assessment of the status of fisheries by integrating fishery ecosystem indicators for management objectives. In this study four objectives were identified such as the maintenance of the sustainability, biodiversity and habitat quality and socio-economic benefits. The ecosystem-based fisheries assessment (EBFA) model to assess fisheries and their resources at the ecosystem level developed for Korean fisheries (Zhang et al., 2009) has a number of indicators for three management objectives. However, it was found that there were some overlapping components among indicators and that there were difficulties in assessing some indicators in the EBFA model. This study identified problems of the approach and suggested more pragmatic and simpler indicators. It also presented alternative reference points to assess indicators and discussed issues associated with the application of the EBFA model to a marine ranching ecosystem. In this study a total of 24 indicators were used for the assessment which included 4 socio-economic indicators. New indicators and reference points were demonstrated by applying it to the Uljin marine ranch.

Keywords

Ecosystem based fisheries assessment;Objectives;Indicators;Reference points;Marine ranching ecosystem

References

  1. CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization), 2005. Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing Case Study Instructions. 8, pp. 95.
  2. Dulvy, N.K., N.V.C. Polunin, A.C. Mill and N.A.J. Graham, 2004. Size structural change in lightly exploited coral reef fish communities: evidence for weak indirect effects. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci, 61, 466-475. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-169
  3. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 1999. Indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 8, pp. 68.
  4. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2005. Discards in the world s marine fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 470, pp. 131.
  5. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 523, pp. 115.
  6. Gislason, H. and J. Rice, 1998. Modelling the response of size and diversity spectra of fish assemblages to changes in exploitation. ICES Journal of MarineScience, 55, 362-370. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.1997.0323
  7. Gislason, H., M. Sinclair, K. Sainsbury and R. O Boyle, 2000. Symposium overview : incorporating ecosystem objectives within fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 468-475. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0741
  8. ICES, 2005. Quantitative ecosystem indicators for fisheries management. ICES Marine Science Symposia, 222, pp. 613.
  9. Jennings, S., J.K. Pinnegar, N.V.C. Polunin and T.W. Boon, 2001. Weak cross-species relationships between body size and trophic level belie powerful size-based trophic structuring in fish communities. Journal of Animal Ecology. 70, 934-944. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00552.x
  10. Jennings, S. and N.K. Dulvy, 2005. Reference points and reference directions for size-based indicators of community structure. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62, 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.07.030
  11. Livingston, P.A., K. Aydin, J. Boldt, J. Ianelli and J. Jurado-Molina, 2005. A framework for ecosystem impacts assessment using and indicator approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 62, 592-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.12.016
  12. MSC (Marine Stewardship Council), 2006. KDSFF final performance indicators and scoring guideposts. http://www.msc.org/html/content_1248.htm
  13. Rice, J.C and M.J. Rochet, 2005. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 516-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.003
  14. Rice, J. and H. Gislason, 1996. Patterns of change in the size spectra of numbers and diversity of the North Sea fish assemblage, as reflected in surveys and models. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53, 1214-1225. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.1996.0146
  15. Shannon, C.E., W. Wiener, 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 125
  16. Shin, Y.J. and P. Cury, 2004. Using an individual-based model of fish assemblages to study the response of size spectra to changes in fishing. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 61, 414-431. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-154
  17. Shin, Y.J., M-J. Rochet, S. Jennings, J.G. Field, and H. Gislason, 2005. Using size-based indicators to evaluate the ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62, 384-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.004
  18. Sokal, R.R. and J.F. Rohlf, 1994. Biometry : The principle and practices of statistics in biological research. 3rd. ed., W.H. Freeman. pp. 880.
  19. Zhang, C.I. and S.K. Lee, 2004. Trophic Levels and Fishing Intensities in Korean Marine Ecosystems. J. Korean. Soc. Fish. Res., 6 (2) 140-152.
  20. Zhang, C.I., S. Kim, D. Gunderson, R. Marasco, J.B. Lee, H.W. Park and J.H. Lee, 2009. An ecosystem-based fisheries assessment approach for Korean fisheries. Fisheries Research, 100, 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.12.002
  21. Zhang, C.I. and B.A. Megrey, 2010. A simple biomassbased length cohort analysis for estimating biomass and fishing mortality. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., in press.
  22. Zhou, S. and S.P. Griffiths, 2008. Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects (SAFE): A new quantitative ecological risk assessment method and its application to elasmobranch bycatch in an Australian trawl fishery. Fisheries Research, 91, 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.11.007
  23. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 477, pp. 108.
  24. MSC (Marine Stewardship Council), 2009. TAB 15 -Agenda item No. 11 - FAM v2 (including RBF), pp.120.
  25. Thygesen, U.H., K.D. Farnsworth, K.H. Andersen and J.E. Beyer, 2005. How optimal life history changes with the community size-spectrum. Proceedings of the royal society B, 272, 1323-1331. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3094

Cited by

  1. An IFRAME approach for assessing impacts of climate change on fisheries vol.68, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr073
  2. Stock assessment by ecosystem risk analysis of large purse seine fishery in the southern sea of Korea vol.47, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3796/KSFT.2011.47.4.369
  3. Ecosystem-based resource assessment on coastal fisheries of Uljin in East Sea of Korea vol.50, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3796/KSFT.2014.50.4.567
  4. A study on the risk scoring and risk index for the ecosystem-based fisheries assessment vol.49, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3796/KSFT.2013.49.4.469
  5. The current status of west sea fisheries resources and utilization in the context of fishery management of Korea vol.102, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.02.011
  6. An ecosystem-based assessment of hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus) harvested by multi-gears and management implications in Korean waters vol.50, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12601-015-0021-5
  7. A study on the ecosystem-based fisheries assessment by quality analysis in Jeonnam marine ranching ecosystem vol.49, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3796/KSFT.2013.49.4.459
  8. An ecosystem-based assessment of the Korean blue crab trammel net fishery in the Yellow Sea and management implications vol.112, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.08.002
  9. Evaluation of the Effect of Marine Ranching Activities on the Tongyeong Marine Ecosystem vol.53, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12601-018-0045-8