Saving Seafood

Pandemic disrupted commercial fishing in Northeast, study finds

December 21, 2020 — The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted commercial fishing activities in the Northeastern U.S. and Mid-Atlantic, according to a new study.

Though many fishers suffered a decline in income, survey results — published Thursday in the journal PLOS One — suggest many were able to adapt and continue fishing through the market disruptions triggered by the pandemic.

With indoor dining services restricted across much of the country, restaurants have been especially hard hit by the pandemic’s economic consequences. When restaurants falter, those that supply them suffer, too.

Between March and June, researchers at Rutgers University surveyed commercial fishers from Maine through North Carolina to find out how those who make their living on the water were coping as demand for fine dining dried up.

Read the full story at UPI

Directly and Indirectly, Humans Contributing to Most Orca Deaths

December 3, 2020 — New research shows that humans are taking a greater toll on killer whale populations than previously believed. Between pollution, overfishing and impacts with vessels — it doesn’t look good for the majestic, endangered creatures.

The most common human-related causes of death include infectious disease, malnutrition, congenital defects induced by chemical pollution, blunt force trauma from boat strikes and ingested fish hooks. These cases represent otherwise preventable deaths that can likely be reduced through further research and effort.

Researchers looked at blubber thickness and body length to determine an orca’s overall body condition. Not surprisingly, mature orcas tended to be healthiest prior to death and most often died from bacterial infections, emaciation and injuries caused by boat strikes, whereas calves were more likely to die from infectious disease, malnutrition or congenital defects and were typically healthy before their deaths. Understanding these interactions with humans is critical to ongoing management and conservation efforts for over 55,000 orcas worldwide.

Lead author Dr. Stephen Raverty from Canada’s Ministry of Agriculture and his team looked at pathology reports for 53 individuals stranded between 2001 and 2017, which revealed human activity to be a significant cause of death for orcas across every age group. The researchers published their findings Wednesday in the journal PLOS One.

Read the full story at the Courthouse News Service

“Restorative aquaculture” potential greatest in North Sea, East China Sea, and Southern California

October 15, 2019 — Combined commercial shellfish and seaweed aquaculture have significant potential to provide sustainable food and jobs while restoring marine ecosystems in Europe’s North Sea, the East China Sea, and Southern California.

A new study published in PLOS ONE finds that every inhabited continent has marine regions well-suited for the kind of shellfish and seaweed aquaculture that benefits both ecosystems and people by filtering polluted waters, providing habitat for commercially valuable species, and generating steady food and jobs. For shellfish, the potential was greatest in Europe, Oceania, and North America, while for seaweed, it was greatest in Europe, Asia, Oceania, and South America.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Maine fishermen: adapting in a sea of change

September 21, 2017 — ORONO, Maine — Increasing environmental uncertainty coupled with rapidly changing market conditions in the Gulf of Maine raise important questions about the ability of Maine’s commercial fishermen to adapt. How resilient is the industry to these shifting waters? Who is best positioned to adapt and who is most vulnerable?

“We have started to explore these questions by studying the relationships fishermen have to marine resources in Maine,” says Joshua Stoll, assistant research professor at the University of Maine School of Marine Sciences and lead author of the paper “Uneven adaptive capacity among fishers in a sea of change” published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE.

“Most assessments of adaptability are conducted at the community scale, but our focus is on individual-level adaptive capacity because we think community-level analyses often obscure critical differences among fishermen and make the most at-risk groups invisible,” says Stoll, whose research was funded in part by a grant from the UMaine Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, where he is a Faculty Fellow.

In their analysis, Stoll and co-authors Beatrice Crona and Emma Fuller identified over 600 types of fishing strategies in Maine based on the combinations of marine resources that fishermen target to support their livelihoods.

Read the full story at the Penobscot Bay Pilot

Hawaiʻi nearshore fishery provides big benefits

August 16, 2017 — The monetary, social and cultural importance of Hawaiʻi nearshore fisheries has been examined by researchers in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management (NREM). The study argues that fully appreciating the multitude of benefits the nearshore fishery provides to society is a crucial step towards sustainable management.

The multi-year study tracked commercial and noncommercial reef-fish value chains, which was conducted as a collaboration between researchers in the College of Tropcial Agriculture and Human Resources and Conservation International Hawaiʻi. The study, “Follow that fish: Uncovering the hidden blue economy in coral reef fisheries,” was published in the scientific journal PLoS ONE.

Small-scale fisheries support the well-being of millions of people around the world—even in a well-developed economy such as Hawaiʻi’s, they provide important economic as well as social benefits. The total annual monetary value of the fishery is approximately $10.3 to $16.4 million. The non-commercial fishery in particular provides huge benefits to the community—non-commercial catch is around three times reported commercial catch and is worth $4.2 to $10 million more annually.

Read the full story at University of Hawai’i News

Indigenous peoples of the world’s coastlines are losing their fisheries — and their way of life

December 5th, 2016 — The world loves seafood. According to some estimates, people consumed about 102 million tons of it last year.

A new study released Friday by the Nippon Foundation-Nereus Program, based at the University of British Columbia, shows that indigenous people who live on the world’s coasts are definitely hooked. They consume 15 times more seafood per capita than people in other parts of the world, about 2.3 million tons, or about 2 percent of the global catch, the study said.

They don’t simply catch and eat fish and other seafood. It’s the heart of communities, the center of culture and religion, a gift from the heavens. Seafood is crucial to the cultures of coastal indigenous people in the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Arctic, among other places, and overfishing and the ocean-wide movement of fish due to climate change could wipe those resources out.

On the coast of Africa at the equator, huge commercial ships are starting to encroach on native fishing areas as ocean stocks diminish. In places such as Madagascar, the stocks of community fisheries have been nearly lost.

“These big industrial fisheries are chasing the fish. In West Africa, larger vessels are moving closer and closer to shore,” said Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor, research associate at the University of British Columbia and an author of the study published in PLOS One. “A lot of these indigenous communities, all they have are dugout canoes.”

Read the full story at The Washington Post 

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

How will Fish in the Northeast Respond to Climate Change?

April 27, 2016 — A new study, published by the journal PLOS ONE found 82 species of marine fish and invertebrates in the northwest Atlantic (or the northeast US) to be vulnerable to climate change (A write up of the study by the New York Times can be found here). These 82 species encompass every commercially managed fishery in the region as well as a few popular recreational species and endangered species.

Not all species were predicted to experience negative effects from climate change – only about half were likely to be negatively affected. 20 percent will be positively affected by climate change and the rest will be neutral, said Jon Hare, NOAA oceanographer and lead author of the paper. However a majority of the species studied did show a high potential for a change in habitat distribution, which could create significant management challenges

“Peter Baker, director of Northeast U.S. oceans for the Pew Charitable Trusts, said the report should be a motivator for fishing managers to protect more ocean habitat and preserve marine species.”

Comment by Doug S. Butterworth, Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, University of Cape Town

In this paper, Hare et al. report the results of the application of Vulnerability Assessment methodology to assess the extent to which abundance or productivity of species on the Northeast US Continental Shelf may alter in response to climate change. More particularly, they consider, inter alia, directional effects (whether negative, neutral or positive) and potential for changes in distribution. The determinations are based on expert opinions which lead the authors to draw firm conclusions, e.g. that climate change is expected to negatively affect about half the species they consider.

The environmental conditions associated with the habitat preferences of different species may be determined from empirical studies for which considerable data are available. Hence there is a clear basis in data and analyses to formulate the opinions that have been consolidated in this report.

What is much less clear, however, is what bases could defensibly have been used by experts to comment on directional effects for abundance and particularly productivity under projected changes in environmental variables under climate change. The productivity, and consequently to a large extent, the abundance, of a population of a fish or invertebrate species is driven by the (typically) annual recruitments to that population. The inferences drawn by these experts must consequently have been based on knowledge of how environmental variables affect such recruitment.

Yet the difficulties of reliably establishing such relationships are well known in fisheries assessment science. The classic article on this topic by Ram Myers (When do environment-recruitment correlations work?) pointed to the failure of almost all such relationships that had been proposed when tested with new data.

This then begs the questions of what bases the experts contributing inferences concerning directional effects to the Hare et al. study used for their determinations and how reliable those inferences might be. If they are reliable, why are they generally not being used in the fisheries assessments from which advice on catch limits is formulated?

I agree with Hare et al. when they argue that the expert opinions they collated “can guide future monitoring, research, and monitoring studies.” However, they go further to state that their results can be used by managers to “guide management actions” (they provide examples of species for which they suggest decreasing fishing mortality). Should they not first meet the burden of justifying the bases on which the experts who contributed to their study drew their inferences about directional effects, and also explain the associated implications for the reliability of knowledge about fishery recruitment-environmental variable relationships?

Read the original post at CFOOD

These Fish Species Are Most Vulnerable to Climate Change

February 3, 2016—Scallop and salmon are among the species of fish most vulnerable to the warming of ocean waters due to climate change, according to new research.

The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and published in the journal PLOS One, evaluated how more than 80 species will respond to their rapidly warming environment in the waters off the coast of the Northeastern United States. Species that can consume a wide variety of prey and survive in many different habitats tended to be less vulnerable to warming than their counterparts confined to one area and to a few sources of sustenance.

Some species, like anchovies, black sea bass and Spanish mackerel, may even benefit from climate change. But species whose populations will be negatively affected—including mussels, shrimp and pollock—far out number those whose standing will improve, according to the study. Others will be left largely unaffected. The results show 17% of the 82 species examined will benefit from climate change, while 83% will either be hurt or not affected by warming.

The research, which evaluated waters from North Carolina to Maine, is the first of several planned by NOAA to assess how vulnerable fish in the U.S. are to climate change. The results provide little indication about when the fish populations will begin to feel the pressure of climate change.

Read the full story at Time