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
14 - How many fish should we leave in the sea for seabirds and marine mammals?
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
Harvesting reduces fish populations. Using empirical data and stock-recruitment models, a biomass limit reference point may be set to maintain recruitment. This minimum is often <20% of the biomass that would be present without fishing. However, such a low biomass might be inadequate to sustain top predators, especially where an exploited fish stock is a key food for wildlife. Another limit reference point might be devised to account for food needs of predators. Empirical evidence shows that bioenergetics estimates of the quantities of food required by top predators are inadequate to set reference points. Top predators such as marine mammals and seabirds show population declines or breeding failures when food stocks remain far above the minimum amount these predators need to eat. The density of the prey field for foraging predators is probably a crucial factor affecting their foraging performance. Not all species of seabirds or marine mammals are equally vulnerable to impacts on their populations through food shortage. It is possible to identify the aspects of predator ecology most likely to require high densities of food to permit economically profitable foraging. It may be useful to select for study ‘sensitive species’ of seabirds and marine mammals; this might permit the development – from empirical studies – of reference points based on the ecology of these species. Such reference points for ‘sensitive species’ could be used in a precautionary way as proxies to protect the broad community of dependent wildlife.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Top Predators in Marine EcosystemsTheir Role in Monitoring and Management, pp. 211 - 222Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
(2001). Predator responses, prey refuges, and density-dependent mortality of a marine fish. Ecology, 82, 245–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1996). Recent responses to changes in fish stocks of prey species by seabirds breeding in the southern Barents Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 53, 713–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991). A comparison of fish biomass flow to fish, fisheries, and mammals in six marine ecosystems. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp., 193, 217–24.Google Scholar
, Thompson, D. R., Phillips, R. A. et al. (2001). Annual variation in great skua diets: the importance of commercial fisheries and predation on seabirds revealed by combining dietary analyses. Condor, 103, 802–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2001). Monitoring a marine ecosystem using responses of upper trophic level predators. J. Anim. Ecol., 70, 747–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). Energy requirements and food consumption of Eudyptes penguins at the Prince Edward Islands. Antarct. Sci., 1, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2000). The effect of food availability on the foraging behaviour of breeding great skuas Catharacta skua and Arctic skuas Stercorarius parasiticus. J. Avian Biol., 31, 367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2001). Does Holling's disc equation explain the functional response of a kleptoparasite?J. Anim. Ecol., 70, 650–62.CrossRefGoogle 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
Croxall, J. P. & Prince, P. A. (1987). Seabirds as predators on marine resources, especially krill, of South Georgia waters. In Seabirds: Feeding Ecology and Role in Marine Ecosystems, ed. . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 347–68.Google Scholar
Diamond, A. W., Gaston, A. W. & Brown, R. G. B. (1993). Studies of High-Latitude Seabirds. 3. A Model of the Energy Demands of the Seabirds of Eastern and Arctic Canada, ed. . Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 77. Ottowa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
, Anker-Nilssen, T. & Stenseth, N. C. (2003). Trophic interactions under climate fluctuations: the Atlantic puffin as an example. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 270, 1461–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (1995). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome, Italy: FAO.
& (2002). Scale-dependent predator–prey interactions: the aggregative response of seabirds to prey under variable prey abundance and patchiness. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 231, 279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2000). Scale-dependent predator–prey interactions: the hierarchical spatial distribution of seabirds and prey. Ecology, 81, 773–83.Google Scholar
(1978). Energy requirements of seabird communities: a bioenergetics model. J. Anim. Ecol., 47, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). An estimate of the quantity of squid consumed by seabirds in the eastern North Atlantic and adjoining seas. Fish. Res., 21, 165–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Management implications of interactions between fisheries and sandeel-dependent seabirds and seals in the North Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 59, 261–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Impacts of fisheries on seabird communities. Sci. Mar., 67 (Suppl. 2), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2000). Seabird–fishery interactions: quantifying the sensitivity of seabirds to reductions in sandeel abundance and identification of key areas for sensitive seabirds in the North Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 202, 253–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Camphuysen, C. J. & Furness, R. W. (1996). Amounts of discards by commercial fisheries and their significance as food for seabirds in the North Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 136, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2002). Scientific Review of the Harvest Strategy Currently Used in the BSAI and GOA Groundfish Fishery Management Plans. Report prepared for North Pacific Fishery Management Council, November 2002. Anchorage, Alaska: North Pacific Fishery Management Council.Google Scholar
, & (2000). Including predation mortality in stock assessments: a case study for Gulf of Alaska walleye pollock. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Physics, zooplankton, and the distribution of least auklets in the Bering Sea: a review. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 54, 600–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1996). Seabird–Fish Interactions, with Particular Reference to Seabirds in the North Sea. ICES Cooperative Research Report 216. Copenhagen, Denmark: ICES.Google Scholar
, Kaiser, M. J. & Reynolds, J. D. (2001). Marine Fisheries Ecology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
& (1992). Non-breeders as a buffer against environmental stress: declines in numbers of great skuas on Foula, Shetland, and prediction of future recruitment. J. Appl. Ecol., 29, 341–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Parsons, M., Heubeck, M., Pickerell, G. & Schmitt, S. (2003). Seabird Numbers and Breeding Success in Britain and Ireland, 2002. UK Nature Conservation, No. 27. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.Google Scholar
Mehlum, F. & Gabrielsen, G. W. (1995). Energy expenditure and food consumption by seabird populations in the Barents Sea region. In Ecology of Fjords and Coastal Waters, eds. , C. Hopkins, K. E. Erikstad & H. P. Leinaas. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science, pp. 457–70.Google Scholar
, Hunt, G. L., Jr, Klusek, Z. & Decker, M. B. (1999). Scale-dependent correlations between the abundance of Brunnich's guillemots and their prey. J. Anim. Ecol., 68, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 649–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2002). Influences of food availability and predation on survival of kittiwakes. Ecology, 83, 2516–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Caldow, R. W. G. & Furness, R. W. (1996). The influence of food availability on the breeding effort and reproductive success of Arctic skuas Stercorarius parasiticus. Ibis, 138, 410–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Catry, P., Thompson, D. R., Hamer, K. C. & Furness, R. W. (1997). Inter-colony variation in diet and reproductive performance of great skuas Catharacta skua. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 152, 285–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Catry, P., Hamer, K. C., Klomp, N. I. & Furness, R. W. (2002). The effect of age and year on the survival of breeding adult great skuas Catharacta skua in Shetland. Ibis, 144, 384–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2002). Net Loss – Seabirds Gain? Implications of Fisheries Management for Seabirds Scavenging Discards in the Northern North Sea. Sandy, UK: RSPB.Google Scholar
, Punt, A. E. & Smith, A. D. M. (2000). Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 731–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Hunt, G. L., Jr & Harrison, N. M. (1986). Mass and energy transfer to seabirds in the southeastern Bering Sea. Cont. Shelf Res., 5, 241–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, D.C., Hunt, G. L. & Powers, K. D. (1987). Energy flux to pelagic birds: a comparison of Bristol Bay (Bering Sea) and Georges Bank (Northwest Atlantic). In Seabirds: Feeding Ecology and Role in Marine Ecosystems ed. . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–77.Google Scholar
(2000). Can threshold foraging responses of basking sharks be used to estimate their metabolic rate?Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 200, 289–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Furness, R. W., Bearhop, S. et al. (2004). Changes in fisheries discard rates and seabird communities. Nature, 427, 727–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 5
- Cited by