Atlantic cod Archives - Page 8 of 10

New camera can help assess cod stocks in Gulf of Maine

January 26, 2017 — Researchers from UMass Dartmouth say they have successfully tested an underwater video-survey system that they hope will provide an accurate method to assess Atlantic cod stocks.

In collaboration with fishermen, the research team recently placed high-resolution cameras in an open-ended commercial trawl net on Stellwagen Bank in the Gulf of Maine, known as one of the world’s most active marine sanctuaries.

The cameras captured images of cod and other groundfish as they passed through the net. Periodically, researchers from UMD’s School for Marine Science & Technology closed the net for short periods to collect length, weight, and take other biological samples from some of the fish. The fish are unharmed and are returned to the sea.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

National Fisheries Institute Sues NOAA Over New Seafood Fraud Import Rules Claiming Regulatory Overreach

January 10, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The National Fisheries Institute, six major seafood companies, and two West Coast Associations sued the Obama Administration over the final US Rule regarding seafood import regulations in federal district court on Friday, Jan 6th.

The six company plaintiffs are Alfa International, Fortune Fish & Gourmet, Handy Seafood, Pacific Seafood Group, Trident Seafoods, and Libby Hill Seafood Restaurants. Also the Pacific Seafood Processors Association and the West Coast Seafood Processors Association joined the lawsuit.

The Final rule was announced on December 9, 2016, and was the culmination of the regulations that were developed at the urging of the Presidential Task Force on Seafood Fraud.

The suit is unusual in that NFI was the leading advocate for action against seafood fraud over the past decade. However, NFI claims that the new rule is not based on a risk assessment with data about seafood fraud, but without evidence will impose enormous and unjustified costs on the American public and the seafood industry.

In a statement, John Connelly, President of NFI, said “The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and our members have led industry efforts to combat both Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud for the last decade. NFI has supported most U.S. government efforts to eliminate illegal fishing and urged the government to do more to ensure accurate labeling.”

NFI began publicizing and working against seafood fraud more than a decade ago, focusing on the lack of any enforcement over seafood labeling regarding net weights and product integrity. At the time, US buyers were being flooded with offers for seafood with glaze (protective ice coatings) of 20% to 40% of the total weight of the product, leading to a hugely misleading price per lb.

Also NFI worked with the FDA and NOAA on better enforcement of seafood labeling, including attacking mislabeling of species in commerce. As a result of this pressure a number of states increased their enforcement of state labeling requirements on seafood.

Finally, NFI aggressively supported NOAA action against IUU fishing, including traceability requirements on species like toothfish, the signing of the UN Port State Measures Agreement, and the authority of NOAA to blacklist products from IUU vessels from entering the United States.

So why, after a decade of work, would NFI feel compelled to sue over the implementation of the Presidential Task Force rule, through NOAA, to combat seafood fraud.

The simple answer is that the Task Force refused to recognize the major ways in which fraud was already reduced, and would not accept a data driven approach to defining risk.

Instead, the Task force defined 13 species ‘at risk’ that were the target of enforcement under the act, without any verifiable documentation that seafood fraud was a significant problem with these species.

Connelly says in the rush to publish the rule, NOAA and the Obama administration refused to disclose the data used to craft it, and grossly miscalculated compliance costs. The Office of Management and Budget made a back of the envelope calculation under the Paperwork Reduction Act that the cost to the industry would be $6.475 million, based on about 30 minutes additional work on each container.

The industry thinks costs could exceed $100 million per year, with a total economic impact on the seafood sector of as much as $1 billion.

The reason is that there is a total mismatch between the requirements in the rule and the way in which seafood is actually harvested, collected, processed and imported.

Connelly says NOAA “grossly underestimates the cost and impact of the regulation on those companies doing the right thing, and will not solve the problem. NOAA’s fundamental shift from targeted investigation of the suspected guilty to arbitrary and massive data collection from the innocent creates an enormous economic burden on American companies.”

One of the most glaring examples of the overreach is that in the Task Force, there was wide praise for the EU rule on traceability that requires exporters to the EU to certify the vessels from which the products originated. But at the same time, the EU provides a wide exemption to countries that have sufficient internal fisheries management controls. So for example, neither Norway, Iceland, the US, or New Zealand, for example, are subject to this requirement.

But NOAA’s rule makes no exemptions for the lower risk of fraud from countries where enforcement and management is at the highest standard.

The rule would apply to ten species of fish and the five species of tuna, or 15 commodities altogether. The agency has deferred rule-making on shrimp and abalone.

The ten species are: Atlantic Cod, Pacific Cod, Blue Crab, Red King Crab, Mahi Mahi, Grouper, Red Snapper, Sea Cucumber, Shark, and Swordfish.

In addition, Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bluefin tuna are included.

The complaint filed by NFI says:

“According to the Government’s own studies, most mislabeling occurs after seafood has entered the United States and even though many U.S. importers subject imported seafood to DNA testing to preclude fraud at the border. The Rule would accomplish its goals by requiring that fish imported into the United States be traceable to the boat or to a single collection point, time, and place that the fish was caught, and that this information be entered into a master computer program operated by the Government.

“The Rule, were it to go into effect, would remake the way in which seafood is caught, processed and imported around the World. These changes to food processing practices in every nation would reduce exports into the United States and would dramatically increase the cost of catching, processing and importing seafood. Fishermen, many of whom are subsistence workers operating in Third World Nations, would have to keep track of each fish harvested, as would the brokers who purchase the seafood from the fisherman, and processors who handle catches from hundreds of fishermen would have to be able to trace each piece of fish to a specific vessel and specific fishing events or to a single collection point. This would require significant changes in the way fish are processed overseas. It would also affect the way in which fish are processed in the United States, because these requirements would also apply to all domestically caught or farmed seafood covered by the Rule that are shipped outside the U.S. for processing and re-imported back into the United States.”

If implemented the rule will drive up seafood prices and reduce consumption, the exact opposite of the advice to consumers from government health agencies.

Alfa Seafood says “The Rule would require processors in Ecuador and Peru, where most of Alfa’s seafood originates, to change the way in which fishermen or brokers document their catches and the way in which processors actually process these catches, so that fish imported into the United States can be traced to a particular fishing event or to a single collection point. This will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to Alfa Seafood’s cost of importing fish, assuming that the processors abroad are willing to modify the way in which they process fish.

Handy says they already use DNA testing for all their imports to ensure accuracy. “If Handy’s processors modified their processing methods to segregate product by Aggregate Harvest Report and gathered the information required by the Rule, both the price of Blue Crab to Handy, as well as at retail, would increase by approximately 28%. The price of Grouper would increase by about 8% with a similar impact at retail.

Libby Hill restaurants says “The Department’s Rule would force Libby Hill to charge more for many popular seafood menu items, thus hurting its business and driving customers to less healthy fast-food options. Further, because of the very real possibility that certain species under the Rule may become less available in the U.S. market, Libby Hill may have to contend with supply interruption that will make it more difficult to attract return customers expecting to be able to rely on the same menu from visit to visit. Because return customers are essential in the fast-casual category of the restaurant industry, such uncertainty could have a debilitating impact on Libby Hill’s business.”

The rule would require the following to be entered for each seafood entry subject to the regulations:

a. Name of harvesting vessel(s).

b. Flag state of harvesting vessel(s).

c. Evidence of authorization of harvesting vessel(s).

d. Unique vessel identification(s) of harvesting vessel(s) (if available).

e. Type(s) of fishing gear used in harvesting product.

f. Names(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.

g. Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable name, AND an AFSIS number.

h. Product description(s).

i. Name of product(s).

j. Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).

k. Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture location.

l. Date(s) of harvest or trip(s).

m. Location of aquaculture facility [Not relevant to wild caught seafood].

n. Point(s) of first landing.

o. Date(s) of first landing.

p. Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) of first landing.

q. NMFS-issued IFTP number.

It would be a violation of Magnuson-Stevens to import any at-risk seafood without a valid IFTP number.

The rule would also reach into the US domestic industry, where currently no such reporting requirements exist, because any seafood exported from the US overseas for processing and re-imported into the US would be subject to the rule. So for example, this would change the entire reporting system for cod and salmon in Alaska.

The suit is being filed now, although the actual date of implementation is January, 2018.

The arguments are there are multiple ways in which this rule has violated the administrative procedures act:

There was no public sharing of the data on which the agency identified species at risk.
There is not a sufficient agency record to support the rule.
The final rule was rushed into being by a junior official, the Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, who is an employee of the Dept. of Commerce, not an ‘officer.’ There was no formal designation of authority to make the rule, and such designations are required to only go to “officers of the united states ” of the executive branch.
The agency does not have the legislative authority to ‘regulate seafood fraud’. That authority was given to the FDA, not NOAA.
The agency failed to do a regulatory flexibility analysis to see if the desired results could be achieved in a less costly and burdensome manner.
The agency failed to do an adequate cost benefits analysis.

The plaintiffs ask for a ruling that enjoins the effective date of the rule until the agency remedies the deficiencies that have been cited.

The plaintiffs ask the rule be declared invalid.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the Agency failed to do the required analysis under the regulatory flexibility act, and to enjoin the rule until such time as that is done.

The suit was filed on Friday in the federal district court in Washington, DC.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

US issuing new rules to curb illegal fishing, seafood fraud

January 3, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — The Obama administration is issuing new rules it says will crack down on illegal fishing and seafood fraud by preventing unverifiable fish products from entering the U.S. market.

The new protections are called the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, and they are designed to stop illegally fished and intentionally misidentified seafood from getting into stores and restaurants by way of imported fish.

The rules will require seafood importers to report information and maintain records about the harvest and chain of custody of fish, officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

The program will start by focusing on “priority species” that are especially vulnerable to illegal fishing, such as popular food fish like tuna, swordfish, Atlantic cod and grouper. The government hopes eventually to broaden the program out to include all fish species, NOAA officials said.

“It sends an important message to the international seafood community that if you are open and transparent about the seafood you catch and sell across the supply chain, then the U.S. markets are open for your business,” said Catherine Novelli, a State Department undersecretary.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Seattle Times

New Net Aims to Help Maine Fishermen Land Fewer Cod

December 9th, 2016 — Some fishermen are pinning their hopes on a new kind of trawl net at use in the Gulf of Maine, designed to scoop up abundant flatfish such as flounder and sole while avoiding species such as cod, which regulators say are in severe decline.

For centuries, cod were plentiful and a prime target for the Gulf of Maine fleet. But in recent years catch quotas have been drastically reduced as the number of cod of reproductive age dropped perilously low, according to regulators.

For many boats, that turned the formerly prized groundfish into unwanted bycatch.

But, for fishermen, it can be tough to avoid cod while trying to catch other fish. And the stakes are high.

“Say tomorrow I go out, have a 10,000 set of cod and I only have 4,000 pounds of quota, essentially your sector manager — the person that oversees this — would shut me down,” says Jim Ford, whose trawler, the Lisa Ann II, is based in Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Not only that, Ford would be forced to “lease” cod quota allowances from other fishermen to cover his overage. The cost of such leases, he says, can quickly outweigh the value of the cod that’s inadvertently landed.

“And I would pay a ridiculous price. And then you’re shut down, you can’t even go fishing,” he says.

Read the full story at Maine Public Radio

Can Atlantic Cod Return to Canada’s East Coast?

December 8th, 2016 — According to the New England Fishery Management Council, the 2016 quotas for George’s Banks Cod are 1200 metric tonnes for 2016 and 500 metric tonnes for Cod in the Gulf of Maine.

In an article posted by the NOAA last month, optomism for the health of these stocks are low due to warming waters and bycatch concerns.

Many East Coast processors, however, feel that the fishery is in remission and hope for increased total allowable catches before re-building infrastructure from the moratorium in the early 1990s.

For now, fillet production has been predominately labour intensive hand cutting, tightening profit margins considerably.

Pricing last month on Canadian Atlantic Cod was around $3.25 per pound for 12-32oz skinless fillets caught in Newfoundland, and $3.15 per pound for shatterpacked bones 4-8oz fillets in Boston.

The Fishery is faced with adverse weather conditions at the moment – full fishing efforts should resume in Spring 2017 at which point we will have a clearer outlook on pricing.

— Another interesting note on this fishery – Scientists are now pushing for increased commercial Atlantic Cod quotas because of Snow Crab stocks in the Maritimes.

Read the full story at The Fish Site

Atlantic Cod: The Good, The Bad, and the Rebuilding – Part 2

November 3, 2016 — “Fishing pressures…or environmental pressures…are different from place to place even within what is considered to be a single management area, and that effect is multiplied when you consider going from one management area to another” says Coby Needle. This implies that there is no singular reason for the observed differences in stock status. However, there do seem to be general trends based on the latitudinal position of stocks.

In general, the northern stocks are doing better than the southern populations. “In the NE Atlantic, the more northerly stocks like Barents Sea and Icelandic cod are generally in much better shape than the ones further south…There is some long-term environmental trend affecting their recovery” says Robin Cook. However, “it’s not as simple as it was 2 or 3 years ago when we probably thought it was all related to global change; the southern stocks were suffering while the northern stocks were benefitting from a warming Arctic” says Chris Zimmermann. One example is the disappearance of North Sea cod from the southern spawning grounds, where there has been no spawning activity for the last 10-15 years. “Newspapers say ‘there’s no spawning of cod in the North Sea at all.’ That’s not the case – it’s just the southern spawning grounds. That’s certainly related to global change” says Chris Zimmermann. “Distributions are further north because the more southern populations are less successful” Robin Cook agrees.

Why do we see these differences among northern and southern populations on both sides of the basin? More specifically, why are northern stocks faring better than their southern counterparts? Factors contributing to these observed differences include variations in (1) environmental conditions and (2) management structures.

Environmental conditions

Northern stocks

On both sides of the basin, first order oceanographic factors tend to influence changes in productivity more strongly than the southern stocks. “Norwegians and Icelanders both agree with first order oceanographic factors playing a big role in changes in productivity they see in their stocks” says Jake Rice. In other words, northern stocks are more affected by fairly dramatic environmental conditions that we don’t see in the more southern areas; the most notable being shifting location and intensity of Arctic cold water that is absent in temperate southern stocks.

Stocks in the higher latitudes are very susceptible to the position of the polar front, which is the difference between colder Arctic water and warmer temperate water. “Cod really don’t do well when the water gets down below 0°C” says Jake Rice, implying that colder Arctic water leads to slower growth rates. Northern stocks “are therefore more vulnerable to environmental changes than in more temperature regions like the North Sea, where water is generally warmer and less variable” says Robin Cook.

If northern stocks are more vulnerable to environmental conditions, why are they doing better than southern populations? In short, global warming. Over the last 10-plus years, the northern stocks have been benefitting from a warming Arctic, which not only includes favorable environmental conditions (warmer water), but has also led to second order trophodynamic benefits. More specifically, the re-emergence of cod’s key food source: capelin. “Capelin is a key species in the Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystem in the NE Atlantic, and there’s a clear connection between the availability of capelin and stock development of cod” says Chris Zimmermann. This has led to higher recruitment and thus the improvement of northern Atlantic stocks.

Southern stocks

The southern populations, conversely, are more heavily influenced by trophodynamics. Trophodynamics in the North Sea, Celtic Sea, and Irish Sea likely play a much larger role, particularly North Sea stock because it is a species-rich ecosystem. Unlike the northern populations, which are subject to cold Arctic water inflow, southern stocks are located in temperate waters. “The concern is that it might be getting too warm, and conditions are more favorable for some other species than they are for cod” says Jake Rice. In the western Atlantic, Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine stocks have declined in recent years through “a combination of historic overfishing and poor environmental conditions. Generally those stocks do well in cold winters and there hasn’t been a cold winter for a number of years…that has resulted in decline in recruitment success, etc.” says Steve Murawski. Increasing SST may be putting more stress on southern populations on both sides of the basin and may be altering their distribution. For instance, the center of spawning populations for European stocks are now further north than in past years because southern populations have not been as successful. “There’s a number of different possible drivers, temperature would be one…uneven fishing pressure…would be another one…Another potential driver keeping southern stock depressed could be multispecies effects” says Coby Needle.

Management

“Cod is extremely well-monitored…There are more than two dozen management stocks of Atlantic cod around the basin” says Steve Murawski. While these many programs each keep an eye on decreases in productivity, changes in recruitment, etc., “there’s a vast difference in the management approaches, certainly historically and even now” says Steve Murawski. These differences have lent a hand to the observed differences in stock status.

In general, poor environmental conditions combined with high fishing mortality rates contributed to the decline of many cod stocks in past years. One example is the Northern cod stock, where “a combination of overfishing and poor recruitment due to extremely cold weather conditions at Newfoundland conspired to result in a collapse in that stock from which it still is recovering” says Steve Murawski.

“I believe humans have the most important impact on the development stocks” says Chris Zimmermann. The number of participants in a fishery is an important factor, a stark example of which exists between the Barents Sea and North Sea stocks. The Barents Sea stock, which is in good shape, is harvested by 2 nations only (Norway and Russia) and includes a simple management system. In contrast, in the North Sea, which is low but rebuilding, there are several nations fishing on at least 2-3 different life stages. Five nations constitute the majority of the fishery targeting cod (Scotland, England, France, Denmark, and Norway) while minor impacts may come from bycatch of cod in fisheries targeting other species. “There are just too many participants, so it’s very difficult to reach an agreement, and it’s not only participants targeting the adult cod, but it’s also different fisheries catching juvenile cod as bycatch in the brown shrimp fishery, for example” says Chris Zimmermann. “What has happened is distribution of fishing effort hasn’t changed, but the distribution of the fish has changed dramatically, so they are much more distributed to the north” says Coby Needle. This means that nations fishing in northern areas are now catching a higher proportion of cod than their southern counterparts, which has interesting management implications. Despite these differences, the North Sea is now rebuilding, which, according to Steve Murawski, is because “managers have adopted a more conservation management approach. That, in combination with more effective management (actually meeting their targets), has resulted in improved prospects for that stock.”

Read the full story at CFOOD

Atlantic Cod: The Good, The Bad, and the Rebuilding

November 1, 2016 — Atlantic cod have been emblematic of fisheries problems, with the 1992 collapse of the Northern cod stock in Canada setting the stage for the last 25 years of concern surrounding status of cod stocks. Mark Kurlansky’s book “Cod” sold over a million copies, increasing awareness and concern over cod fisheries. Further, the two U.S. cod stocks continue to be at very low abundance; an article in the Houston Press released September of 2011 stated“Atlantic cod has been fished nearly to extinction.” However, over the entire Atlantic Ocean, the abundance of cod is high and increasing (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Abundance (in metric tons) of Atlantic cod from 1970 – 2010.

The purpose of this feature is to clarify the myriad of different claims recently released regarding the current status of Atlantic cod to highlight that not all is doom and gloom, but rather a mixed story of good and bad. In other words, not all stocks are low, failing to recover, and doomed to perish. In fact, what we actually see are three broad categories of stocks: those that are doing poorly, those that are low but rebuilding, and those that are large and doing well. In researching this story, we analyzed abundance data collected by scientific institutions and interviewed a range of scientists who have been involved in cod stock assessment and management over the last 15-35 years. These experts include: Chris Zimmermann, Director of the Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries with 15 years of experience working on ICES stocks; Coby Needle, Head of the Sea Fisheries Programme at MSS Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, Scotland and an active member of several ICES working groups for 20 years; Jake Rice, Chief Scientist Emeritus at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada (DFO) with 35 years of experience in cod stock assessment; Robin Cook, a Senior Research Fellow in the MASTS Population Modelling Group at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow who has been involved in ICES fisheries science since 1982; and Steve Murawski, a Professor of Biological Oceanography at University of South Florida (USF) with 7 years of experience as a Chief Scientist at the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The story of cod is complex; there are many different and unique stocks occupying distinct regions within the Atlantic basin that are subject to environmental factors and political influences that differ based on geographic location. “If you look at the whole picture, you see that there is no consistent whole picture…Every single stock develops differently” says Chris Zimmermann. “Stock dynamics are quite different from area to area, so a big picture is difficult to get a handle on because there isn’t one,” agrees Coby Needle. Further, “they all have very different management histories and scenarios in terms of their status” says Steve Murawski.

Status of Stocks

There are over two dozen cod stocks that are defined as management units, 6 of which are addressed in this feature: 2 on the western side and 4 on the eastern side of the Atlantic basin (see Figure 2). The two U.S. stocks are Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine, and the four European stocks occupy the shelves of Iceland, the Barents Sea, the North Sea, the Celtic Sea, and the Baltic Sea.

Figure 2. Map showing location of 6 different cod stocks addressed in this feature. The darker blue region represents Atlantic cod distribution, and the 6 circles represent stocks being examined in this feature. Red circles represent stocks that are doing poorly (Celtic Sea, Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank), yellow circles represent stocks that are low but recovering (North Sea), and green circles represent stocks that are doing well (Barents Sea, shelves of Iceland).

This feature focuses on the general trends among most of these stocks to demonstrate that rather than all stocks doing poorly, what we actually see are 3 broad categories of stocks: those that are (1) doing poorly, (2) low but rebuilding, and (3) doing well.

Read the full story at CFOOD

Scientists have found a way to predict whether fisheries are vulnerable to climate change

July 29, 2016 — World fisheries have steadily been declining over the past couple of decades, and the trend is continuing today.

Just this April, the United States banned most Pacific sardine fishing after the fish population declined by 90% over a nine year period.

And now, one of the United State’s fisheries that was once thought to be “indestructible” is in grave danger as well.

New England’s coastal Atlantic cod population used to be able to recover from short-term population drops, but since 2008, the cod fish have been unable to successfully rebound.

Overexploitation by humans is one of the leading causes of the drops in fish populations, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But a new study places at least part of the blame on the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) as well.

The NAO is responsible for causing warmer water temperatures in the North Atlantic by creating basin-wide changes in the intensity and location of the North Atlantic jet stream and storm track. It also affects the normal patterns of heat and moisture, affecting temperature and precipitation patterns. This varying phenomenon is the reason for at least 17% of the New England population loss since 1980. The warmer water temperatures cycle hurt the reproductive processes in fish.

Read the full story from Business Insider

Cod and climate: North Atlantic Oscillation factor in decline

July 28, 2016 — In recent decades, the plight of Atlantic cod off the coast of New England has been front-page news. Since the 1980s in particular, the once-seemingly inexhaustible stocks of Gadus morhua — one of the most important fisheries in North America — have declined dramatically.

In 2008, a formal assessment forecasted that stocks would rebound, but by 2012, they were once again on the verge of collapse. Two years later, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration instituted an unprecedented six-month closure of the entire Gulf of Maine cod fishery to allow stocks to recover.

While overfishing is one known culprit, a new study co-authored by researchers at UC Santa Barbara and Columbia University finds that the climatological phenomenon known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is also a factor. And it contributes in a predictable way that may enable fishery managers to protect cod stocks from future collapse. The group’s findings appear in the journal PLOS ONE.

“In the 1980s, the North Atlantic was stuck in a positive phase of NAO,” said lead author Kyle Meng, an economist at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. “We show not only that positive NAO conditions diminish a few consecutive cohorts of cod larvae but also that this effect follows a cohort as it matures.”

Read the full story at Science Daily

Overfishing Not Solely to Blame for New England Cod Collapse

July 28, 2016 — Overfishing is a known culprit of the decline of Atlantic cod off the coast of New England but now, a new study co-authored by researchers at UC Santa Barbara and Columbia University has found that the climatological phenomenon known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is also a factor. And it contributes in a predictable way that may enable fishery managers to protect cod stocks from future collapse.

“In the 1980s, the North Atlantic was stuck in a positive phase of NAO,” said lead author Kyle Meng, an economist at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

“We show not only that positive NAO conditions diminish a few consecutive cohorts of cod larvae but also that this effect follows a cohort as it matures.”

The NAO is a periodic climatic phenomenon that, like El Niño, causes changes in water temperatures, although the mechanism is different and the NAO affects the North Atlantic rather than the Pacific.

Also like El Niño, the NAO may be affected in terms of both strength and frequency by climate change. The researchers found that, since 1980, NAO conditions have accounted for up to 17 per cent of the decline in New England cod stocks.

“The Atlantic cod fishery has been the poster child of fishery science and challenges in the field,” said co-author Kimberly Oremus of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Read the full story at The Fish Site