Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Effects of fisheries on ecosystems: just another top predator?
- 3 Physical forcing in the southwest Atlantic: ecosystem control
- 4 The use of biologically meaningful oceanographic indices to separate the effects of climate and fisheries on seabird breeding success
- 5 Linking predator foraging behaviour and diet with variability in continental shelf ecosystems: grey seals of eastern Canada
- 6 Distribution and foraging interactions of seabirds and marine mammals in the North Sea: multispecies foraging assemblages and habitat-specific feeding strategies
- 7 Spatial and temporal variation in the diets of polar bears across the Canadian Arctic: indicators of changes in prey populations and environment
- 8 Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments
- 9 Consequences of prey distribution for the foraging behaviour of top predators
- 10 Identifying drivers of change: did fisheries play a role in the spread of North Atlantic fulmars?
- 11 Monitoring predator–prey interactions using multiple predator species: the South Georgia experience
- 12 Impacts of oceanography on the foraging dynamics of seabirds in the North Sea
- 13 Foraging energetics of North Sea birds confronted with fluctuating prey availability
- 14 How many fish should we leave in the sea for seabirds and marine mammals?
- 15 Does the prohibition of industrial fishing for sandeels have any impact on local gadoid populations?
- 16 Use of gannets to monitor prey availability in the northeast Atlantic Ocean: colony size, diet and foraging behaviour
- 17 Population dynamics of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba at South Georgia: sampling with predators provides new insights
- 18 The functional response of generalist predators and its implications for the monitoring of marine ecosystems
- 19 The method of multiple hypotheses and the decline of Steller sea lions in western Alaska
- 20 Modelling the behaviour of individuals and groups of animals foraging in heterogeneous environments
- 21 The Scenario Barents Sea study: a case of minimal realistic modelling to compare management strategies for marine ecosystems
- 22 Setting management goals using information from predators
- 23 Marine reserves and higher predators
- 24 Marine management: can objectives be set for marine top predators?
- Index
- References
22 - Setting management goals using information from predators
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Effects of fisheries on ecosystems: just another top predator?
- 3 Physical forcing in the southwest Atlantic: ecosystem control
- 4 The use of biologically meaningful oceanographic indices to separate the effects of climate and fisheries on seabird breeding success
- 5 Linking predator foraging behaviour and diet with variability in continental shelf ecosystems: grey seals of eastern Canada
- 6 Distribution and foraging interactions of seabirds and marine mammals in the North Sea: multispecies foraging assemblages and habitat-specific feeding strategies
- 7 Spatial and temporal variation in the diets of polar bears across the Canadian Arctic: indicators of changes in prey populations and environment
- 8 Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments
- 9 Consequences of prey distribution for the foraging behaviour of top predators
- 10 Identifying drivers of change: did fisheries play a role in the spread of North Atlantic fulmars?
- 11 Monitoring predator–prey interactions using multiple predator species: the South Georgia experience
- 12 Impacts of oceanography on the foraging dynamics of seabirds in the North Sea
- 13 Foraging energetics of North Sea birds confronted with fluctuating prey availability
- 14 How many fish should we leave in the sea for seabirds and marine mammals?
- 15 Does the prohibition of industrial fishing for sandeels have any impact on local gadoid populations?
- 16 Use of gannets to monitor prey availability in the northeast Atlantic Ocean: colony size, diet and foraging behaviour
- 17 Population dynamics of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba at South Georgia: sampling with predators provides new insights
- 18 The functional response of generalist predators and its implications for the monitoring of marine ecosystems
- 19 The method of multiple hypotheses and the decline of Steller sea lions in western Alaska
- 20 Modelling the behaviour of individuals and groups of animals foraging in heterogeneous environments
- 21 The Scenario Barents Sea study: a case of minimal realistic modelling to compare management strategies for marine ecosystems
- 22 Setting management goals using information from predators
- 23 Marine reserves and higher predators
- 24 Marine management: can objectives be set for marine top predators?
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter examines how goals and reference points might be set for higher trophic levels – such as marine mammals, birds and fish. It briefly explores the general characteristics of objectives for higher trophic levels within the context of ecosystem-based management, noting that the emphasis for managing the effects of human activities on higher trophic levels is biased towards fisheries-based approaches rather than approaches that take into account the maintenance of ecosystem structure and function. Following this, the precautionary approach developed in the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) for taking account of higher trophic levels in setting catch limits for target prey species is described. The last section considers indicators of the status of predators with respect to establishing target and limit/threshold reference points that can be used directly for making decisions. These indicators include univariate indices summarizing many multivariate parameters from predators, known as composite standardized indices, as well as an index of predator productivity directly related to lower trophic species affected by human activities.
Ecosystem-based management encapsulates notions of conservation and wise use of ecosystems (Mangel et al. 1996). Managers are now expected (a) to maintain ecosystem properties and, in some cases, (b) to restore ecosystems when they are judged to be impacted (caused to be altered), directly or indirectly, by human activities. With appropriate scientific support, they need to define how ecosystems might be judged to be impacted and to determine mechanisms for reducing or eliminating such impacts.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Top Predators in Marine EcosystemsTheir Role in Monitoring and Management, pp. 324 - 346Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
& (1984). The Ecological Web: More on the Distribution and Abundance of Animals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
& (1983). The Potential Yield of Fish Stocks. Fisheries Technical Paper 242. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Beddington, J. R. & de la Mare, W. K. (1985). Marine mammal–fishery interactions: modelling and the Southern Ocean. In Marine Mammals and Fisheries, eds. , & . London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 94 –105.Google Scholar
& (1982). The harvesting of interacting species in a natural ecosystem. Sci. Am., 247, 42–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Integrated environment–prey interactions off South Georgia: implications for management of fisheries. Aquat. Conserv., 12, 119–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2001). Monitoring a marine ecosystem using responses of upper trophic level predators. J. Anim. Ecol., 70, 747–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Gluckman, G. R., Thomson, R. B. & Chalis, S. (1994). Further computations of the consequences of setting the annual krill catch limit to a fixed fraction of the estimate of krill biomass from a survey. CCAMLR Sci., 1, 81–106.Google Scholar
Chesson, P. L. & Case, T. J. (1986). Overview. Nonequilibrium community theories: chance, variability, history, and coexistence. In Community Ecology, eds. & . New York: Harper & Row, pp. 229–39.Google Scholar
(2001). The ecosystem approach to managing fisheries: achieving conservation objectives for predators of fished species. CCAMLR Sci., 8, 37–64.Google Scholar
(2002). CCAMLR ecosystem monitoring and management: future work. CCAMLR Sci., 9, 233–53.Google Scholar
(2004). Managing fisheries effects on marine food webs in Antarctica: trade-offs among harvest strategies, monitoring, and assessment in achieving conservation objectives. Bull. Mar. Sci., 74, 583–605.Google Scholar
& (2003). Annex 4, Attachment 3: using predator response curves to decide on the status of krill availability: updating the definition of anomalies in predator condition – preliminary analyses. In SC-CAMLR, Report of the Twenty-second Meeting of the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Hobart, Australia: CCAMLR, pp. 277–82.Google Scholar
, de la Mare, W. K., Agnew, D. J., Everson, I. & Miller, D. (2000). Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 778–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Improvement of fishery-management advice through simulation testing of harvest algorithms. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56, 797–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1986). Simulation Studies on Management Procedures. IWC SC/37/O 14. Cambridge, UK: International Whaling Commission.Google Scholar
de la Mare, W. K. (1996). Some recent developments in the management of marine living resources. In Frontiers of Population Ecology, eds. , & . Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, pp. 599–616.Google Scholar
(1998). Tidier fisheries management requires a new MOP (management- oriented paradigm). Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 8, 349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2000). Utilising data from ecosystem monitoring for managing fisheries: development of statistical summaries of indices arising from the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program. CCAMLR Sci., 7, 101–17.Google Scholar
et al. (2002). Monitoring Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Practice in Flowing Waters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everson, I. (1984). Marine interactions. In Antarctic Ecology, ed. . London: Academic Press, pp. 491–532.Google Scholar
(1990). Is predation capable of interacting with other community processes on rocky reefs?Aust. J. Ecol., 15, 453–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (1996). Precautionary Approach to Fisheries. Part 1: Report of the Technical Consultation. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 350. Rome, Italy: FAO.
& (1978). New principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Wildl. Mon., 59, 1–33.Google Scholar
(1996). Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 6, 139–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science, 260, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
et al. (1996). Principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Ecol. Applic., 6, 338–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, E. J., Morris, D. J., Watkins, J. L. & Priddle, J. (1988). Scales of interaction between Antarctic krill and the environment. In Antarctic Ocean and Resources Variability, ed. . Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 120–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. J. Anim. Ecol., 49, 667–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). The maintenance of species diversity by disturbance. Q. Rev. Biol., 64, 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimm, S. L. & Gilpin, M. E. (1984). Theoretical issues in conservation biology. In Perspectives in Ecological Theory, eds. , & . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 287–305.Google Scholar
(2000). Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 731–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D. M. (1993). Risks of over- and under-fishing new resources. In Risk Evaluation and Biological Reference Points for Fisheries Management, eds. , & . Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: National Research Council for Canada, pp. 261–7.Google Scholar
(1992). Assessing effects of unreplicated perturbations: no simple solutions. Ecology, 73, 1396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Modeling the consequences of Antarctic krill harvesting on Antarctic fur seals. Ecol. Applic., 10, 1806–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80, 1455–74.Google Scholar
, , et al. (1999). Ecosystem Change and the Decline of Marine Mammals in the Eastern Bering Sea: Testing the Ecosystem Shift and Commercial Whaling Hypotheses. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 7. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Fisheries Centre.Google Scholar
(1989). The analysis of stress in natural populations. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 37, 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1990). Experiments in ecology and management: their logics, functions and interpretations. Aust. J. Ecol., 15, 365–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Predator–prey theory and management of multispecies fisheries. Ecol. Applic., 4, 51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Food webs and perturbation experiments: theory and practice. In Food Webs Integration of Patterns and Dynamics, eds. G. A. Polis & K. O. Winemiller. New York: Chapman and Hall, pp. 192–200.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 3
- Cited by