1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

effects of fishing may include bycatch and discarding of nontarget fish species, bycatch of marine mammals and seabirds, and particularly with bottom trawling, mechanical disturbance and damage to benthic communities. Broad scale assessment of fishing impacts requires a detailed understanding of the spatial and temporal variability in fishing pressure across multiple spatial scales (Jennings and Cotter 1999, Stelzenmüller et al. 2008, Pederson et al 2009) (Figure 13). Spatial data representing fishing pressure and impacts play a critical role when objectives are to minimizing conflict with competing sectors and reducing the overall economic cost to fishers of any MPA network configuration (Lynch, 2006, Leathwick et al. 2008). Rarely are the spatial patterns of fishing pressure quantitatively mapped and analyzed in relation to marine benthic habitats, yet the newly available marine classifications now facilitate such an approach. For example, Stelzenmüller et al. (2008) calculated the proportion of each seascape class fished, using a classified seascape map together with fishing vessel locations over time acquired with a long-term vessel monitoring system (VMS). The results revealed that seascapes with coarse or mixed sediments and weak or moderate tide stress were heavily fished. Seascapes experienced different intensities of fishing pressure depending on their spatial location in UK offshore waters and the regional heterogeneity of seascape types (Figure 14). Descriptions of the spatial distribution of fishing pressures can also be linked to the sensitivity of the benthic environments. The patchiness of fishing activity, and the consistency with which fishing occurred in the same regions year on year provides valuable information for the selection of the spatial extent of marine planning units. 1.10.5.3 Examining Conflicts between Fishing and Conservation in the German North Sea 40
In May 2004, Germany was the first EU Member State to nominate a comprehensive set of 10 Natura 2000 marine sites to the European Commission, covering 31.5% of its offshore EEZs in the Baltic and North Sea (Kraus et al. 2006) (Figure 15). The principal objective of sites selected as part of Natura 2000 is to protect biodiversity and achieve or maintain a ‘favourable conservation status’ of habitats and species named in the EU Birds and Habitats directives and to contribute to the implementation of the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Several of the conservation areas overlapped with commercial fishing interests. To examine the extent of potential conflicts between fishing activities and nature conservation objectives, Pedersen et al. (2008) integrated habitat classifications, vessel monitoring data classified by gear type and existing MPA boundaries to support development of fishery-management plans for each Natura 2000 (Figure 15). In the German EEZ, only two benthic habitat types, sandbanks and reefs, have been relevant to the designation process of Natura 2000 marine sites. Sandbanks and reefs perform several important ecological functions, such as offering protection for rare and threatened species, supporting unique communities and providing breeding, nursery, feeding, and resting habitats for marine organism (listed in Pedersen et al. 2008). In addition to benthic habitat information, fishers behavior was classified and mapped using data from a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Within European seas, fishing vessels >15 m length are required to operate a satellite-based VMS providing detailed information on where fishing vessels operate (every 1-2 hours) and effort and gear used that can then be linked to reported catch data. Effort was classified by boat and gear type for registered vessels from Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Trawlers with trawling speeds of 5-7 knots (engine power > 221 kW) were classified as large beam trawlers, mostly targeting sole and plaice. Small beam trawlers (≤ 221 kW) known as “Eurocutters”, 41
Page 1 and 2: 1.10 Application of estuarine and c
Page 3 and 4: SYNOPSIS Coastal and marine classif
Page 5 and 6: government and non-governmental man
Page 7 and 8: paucity of species and habitat data
Page 9 and 10: and many sub-catastrophic disturban
Page 11 and 12: conservation practitioners, industr
Page 13 and 14: levels of the hierarchy are defined
Page 15 and 16: distributions, both within and surr
Page 17 and 18: In a hierarchical framework for the
Page 19 and 20: 1.10.2.3 Australian Coastal Classif
Page 21 and 22: Ecological theory predicts that the
Page 23 and 24: outbreaks in the late 1970s (Green
Page 25 and 26: intertidal zones, and shallow coast
Page 27 and 28: 1.10.3.1 Identifying Priority Conse
Page 29 and 30: y the Massachusetts Oceans Act (200
Page 31 and 32: eight color coded zones to provide
Page 33 and 34: appropriate place to investigate fe
Page 35 and 36: 1.10.4.3 Massachusetts Ocean Plan T
Page 37 and 38: One of the foundational concepts un
Page 39: ecosystems has shown that considera
Page 43 and 44: improve the design and interpretati
Page 45 and 46: NOAA’s CoastWatch Change Analysis
Page 47 and 48: ground resolution of 30 m. Each cla
Page 49 and 50: also be used to assess the role of
Page 51 and 52: States (Gundlach and Hayes 1978). T
Page 53 and 54: information at the species level. I
Page 55 and 56: 1.10.8.4 Classifying and Mapping Hu
Page 57 and 58: map of the entire Australian shorel
Page 59 and 60: within 11 regions, leading to an ov
Page 61 and 62: enhancement of certain functions in
Page 63 and 64: achieved by identifying barriers to
Page 65 and 66: ecosystem service values extracted
Page 67 and 68: 1.10.12 FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND PRIOR
Page 69 and 70: 1.10.12.1 Linking Patterns and Proc
Page 71 and 72: approach. New classifications will
Page 73 and 74: Arundel, H. and Mount, R. 2007. Nat
Page 75 and 76: Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in t
Page 77 and 78: Duke. N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittman
Page 79 and 80: Green, A.L., C.E. Birkeland, R.H. R
Page 81 and 82: Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaise
Page 83 and 84: Kostylev, V., Todd, B.J., Fader, G.
Page 85 and 86: Maxwell, D.L., Stelzenmüller, V.,
Page 87 and 88: Spatial and temporal patterns in fi
Page 89 and 90: Sharples, C. 2006. Indicative Mappi
Page 91 and 92:
Wells, S., Ravilous, C., Corcoran,
Page 93 and 94:
FIGURE LEGENDS Figure 1. A) Classes
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 10. Ecological evaluation in
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 21. Combining 'intolerance'
Page 99 and 100:
selected planning units in gray ins
Page 101 and 102:
Box 2. Classifications as thematic
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 1. 1
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 3. 3
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 5. 5
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 7. 7
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 9. 9
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 11. 11
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 13. 13
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 15. Fishing effort (hrs/day)
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 17. 17
Page 121 and 122:
Figure 19. 100% Conversion. 80% 60%
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 21. 21
Page 125 and 126:
Figure 23. 23
Page 127 and 128:
Figure 25. 25
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 27. 27
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 29. 29
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 31. 31
Page 135:
Figure 33. 33
show all

1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?