4.6 Review

Indicators of the health of the North Sea fish community: identifying reference levels for an ecosystem approach to management

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 573-593

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.12.009

关键词

community metrics; Ecological Quality Objectives; ecosystem approach to management; effects of fishing; fish communities; indicators; reference levels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The shift in emphasis away from the single-species focus of traditional fisheries management towards an ecosystem approach to management requires application of indicators, of ecosystem state. Further, an ecosystem approach to management requires the identification of ecological reference points against which management objectives might be set. In applying indicators, identifying reference points, and setting objectives, an obvious requirement is that the indicators respond primarily to the anthropogenic activity being managed and are sufficiently sensitive that impacts of the activity and the responses to management action are clearly demonstrable. Here we apply a suite of 12 indicators to Scottish August groundfish survey data collected in the northern North Sea over the period 1925-1997. These include indicators of size structure, life-history character composition, species diversity, and trophic structure within the community. Our choice of analytical design has two purposes; first to show that fishing has unequivocally affected these various aspects of the structure of the groundfish community, and second to illustrate an approach by which long time-series data sets might be used to identify possible management reference points. The results are discussed in the context of selecting ecological indicators in support of an ecosystem approach to management and determining appropriate reference points for objective-setting. Crown Copyright (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of lnternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据