Evaluation of potential trophic impacts from hake - North Pacific ...

Evaluation of potential trophic impacts from hake (M. merluccius) emergence in the North Sea. 3rd International Symposium Effects of Climate Changes on World’s Ocean

Xochitl Cormon1 , A. Kempf2 , K. Rabhi1 , M. Rouquette1 , Y. Vermard3 , M. Vinther4 and P. Marchal1 1 IFREMER,

Channel and North Sea Fisheries Research Unit, Boulogne-sur-Mer 2 Thünen

3 IFREMER, 4 Denmark

Institute, Institute of Sea Fisheries, Hamburg Unit of Fisheries Ecology and Modelling, Nantes

Technical University, DTU Aqua, Charlottenlund

21-27 March 2015, Santos, Brazil

Introduction

Species presentation

Saithe and hake in the North Sea

[email protected]

Hake emergence trophic impacts

PICES 2015, 27 March

1/8

Introduction



−2

−1

0

1

2

Saithe Hake Q1 Hake Q3

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Standardized spawning stock biomass trends (ICES, 2013; Baudron and Fernandes, 2014) [email protected]



1/8

Introduction



? COMPETITION ?

−2

−1

0

1

2


2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Standardized spawning stock biomass trends (ICES, 2013; Baudron and Fernandes, 2014) [email protected]



1/8

Introduction

State of the knowledge

Step by step towards competition theory (Link and Auster, 2013) Since early 2000’s in the North Sea: Opposite trends of population abundance.

1. Opposite trends

−2

−1

0

1

2


2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

[email protected]

2010

2012



2/8

Introduction


Step by step towards competition theory (Link and Auster, 2013) Since early 2000’s in the North Sea: Opposite trends of population abundance.

2. Spatial overlap, Cormon et al., 2014 60

1.0

60

1.0

58

0.8

58

0.8

10

−0.2

−0.4

0

5

10

60

0.4

58

0.2 0.2 0.0

56 0

54

5

0.4

Increase of hake probability of presence and of saithe-hake overlap.

0.0 5

10

−0.2

−0.4

52

56 54 52

0.0

0.0

52

54

0.2

0.2

56

52

0

0.6 0.4

0.4

58

54

60

56

0.6

0

5

10

Winter and Summer, (2007-2012) - (1991-1996)

[email protected]



2/8

Introduction


Step by step towards competition theory (Link and Auster, 2013)

3. Drivers of probable habitats, Cormon et al., 2014 Hake Winter

Overlap

Summer

Winter

NS NS

[email protected]

Summer

Since early 2000’s in the North Sea: Opposite trends of population abundance. Increase of hake probability of presence and of saithe-hake overlap. Importance of temperature and Norway pout presence for probable habitats.



2/8

Introduction


Step by step towards competition theory (Link and Auster, 2013) 4. Occurences of prey in winter 1.00

Since early 2000’s in the North Sea: Opposite trends of population abundance.

re su lts Species

Gadiforms

Other

0.00 H

Norwaympout

Othermfish

in 0.25

Legend

Clupeiforms

ar y

0.50

Pr el im

Percentagemobserved

0.75

S

Study in progress

[email protected]

Increase of hake probability of presence and of saithe-hake overlap. Importance of temperature and Norway pout presence for probable habitats. Potential diet overlap.



2/8

Introduction


Step by step towards competition theory (Link and Auster, 2013) Since early 2000’s in the North Sea: Opposite trends of population abundance. 5. Limiting resources? Last but not least condition to assume competition

Increase of hake probability of presence and of saithe-hake overlap. Importance of temperature and Norway pout presence for probable habitats. Potential diet overlap.

[email protected]



2/8

Introduction

Objectives

Limiting resources? Saithe-Hake-Norway pout threesome

[email protected]



3/8

Introduction

Objectives


[email protected]

Pros Main shared prey



3/8

Introduction

Objectives


Pros Main shared prey NS distribution overlapping

[email protected]



3/8

Introduction

Objectives


Pros Main shared prey NS distribution overlapping Bottom-up processes only

[email protected]



3/8

Introduction

Objectives


Pros Main shared prey NS distribution overlapping Bottom-up processes only Assessed species

[email protected]



3/8

Introduction

Objectives



Cons Simplistic

Assessed species

[email protected]



3/8

Introduction

Objectives



Cons Simplistic

Assessed species Research question What are the potential impacts of hake on saithe trough Norway pout availability in the North Sea?

[email protected]



3/8

Materials and methods

SMS

Materials and methods SMS, Lewy and Vinther, (2004)

[email protected]



4/8


SMS


Hake?

[email protected]



4/8


SMS


Hake? WGSAM 2014 key-run [email protected]



4/8


SMS



Bottom-up?



4/8


SMS



Bottom-up? Cormon et al., in prep



4/8


Parametrization and scenarios

Parametrization and scenarios Parametrization

[email protected]



5/8



Parametrization and scenarios Parametrization Stock-recruitment: Ricker (saithe & Norway pout), deterministic.

[email protected]



5/8



Parametrization and scenarios Parametrization Stock-recruitment: Ricker (saithe & Norway pout), deterministic. Saithe growth: VBGF and linear relationship between K and Norway pout average on two years

[email protected]



5/8



Parametrization and scenarios Parametrization Stock-recruitment: Ricker (saithe & Norway pout), deterministic. Saithe growth: VBGF and linear relationship between K and Norway pout average on two years Consumption rates: Allometric relationship with mean weight.

[email protected]



5/8



Parametrization and scenarios Parametrization Stock-recruitment: Ricker (saithe & Norway pout), deterministic. Saithe growth: VBGF and linear relationship between K and Norway pout average on two years Consumption rates: Allometric relationship with mean weight. Fishery mortality: Status-quo from hindcast.

[email protected]



5/8



Parametrization and scenarios Parametrization Stock-recruitment: Ricker (saithe & Norway pout), deterministic. Saithe growth: VBGF and linear relationship between K and Norway pout average on two years Consumption rates: Allometric relationship with mean weight. Fishery mortality: Status-quo from hindcast. Hindcast & Forecast: 1974-2013 & 2014-2065.

[email protected]



5/8



Parametrization and scenarios Parametrization Stock-recruitment: Ricker (saithe & Norway pout), deterministic. Saithe growth: VBGF and linear relationship between K and Norway pout average on two years Consumption rates: Allometric relationship with mean weight. Fishery mortality: Status-quo from hindcast. Hindcast & Forecast: 1974-2013 & 2014-2065. Scenarios Growth Hake change Period

Status-quo X 1 2011-2013

[email protected]

Growth O 1 2011-2013

Extreme O 1.10 2014-2025


Moderate O 1.05 2014-2025


5/8

Results and discussion

Results

Status-quo results Hake in number of individuals

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

Abundance at Q1 (1E3)

80

60

40

20

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ●●● ● 1975

2000

Years Scenarios

[email protected]

2025

2050

● status−quo



6/8


Results

Status-quo results Saithe spawning biomass SSB at Q1 (1E3 tons)

600

400

200

● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1975

2000

Years Scenarios

[email protected]

2025

2050

● status−quo



6/8


Results

Status-quo results Saithe recruitment Recruitment at Q1 (1E3)

400

300

200

100

0 1975

2000

Years Scenarios

[email protected]

2025

2050

status−quo



6/8


Results

Status-quo results

TSB at Q1 in (1E3 tons)

Norway pout biomass

●

1200

800

400

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1975

2000

Years Scenarios

[email protected]

2025

2050

● status−quo



6/8


Results

Status-quo results

Hake in number of individuals

1.5

●

20

● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● 1975

2000

Age 0


60

40

Norway pout predation mortality

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

80

1.0 Years

2025

2050

0.5

● status−quo

Scenarios

0.0 1.5

●

200

M2

● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1975

0.5 0.0

●

400

1.0

2000

Years

2025

1.0

2050

0.5

● status−quo

Scenarios

1.5 Age 2

SSB at Q1 (1E3 tons)

600

Age 1

Saithe spawning biomass

0.0 1.5

Age 3

1.0

Norway pout biomass TSB at Q1 in (1E3 tons)

0.5 ●

1200

800

400

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1975

2000

Years Scenarios

2025

2050

0.0 1975 Predators Fulmar Her.Gull

2000

GBB.Gull R.radiata

G.gurnards W.mackerel

2025

Years N.mackerel W.horsemac

H.porpoise Hake

2050

Cod Whiting

Haddock Saithe

Razorbill Greyseal

● status−quo

[email protected]



6/8


Results

Scenarios comparison Hake in number of individuals Abundance at Q1 (1E3)

200

150

100

50

0

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● 1975

2000 Scenarios

[email protected]

Years

● status−quo

2025

growth

2050 extreme


moderate


7/8


Results

Scenarios comparison



200

150

●●● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ●●

100 2020

2030 Scenarios

[email protected]

● status−quo

2040

2050

Years growth

extreme


2060

moderate


7/8


Results



Norway pout biomass 600

400

●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●● ●● ●● ●

200

0 2020

2030 Scenarios

[email protected]

● status−quo

2040

2050

Years growth

extreme


2060

moderate


7/8


Results


Hake in number of individuals

Norway pout predation mortality


200

0

150

100

0

●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● 1975

2000 Scenarios

● status−quo

Years

2025

growth

1

2

3

1.5

status−quo

50

1.0

2050 extreme

0.5

moderate

0.0 2.0 growth

1.5


1.0

150

M2

0.0 9 extreme


0.5

200

●●● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ●●

6

100 2020

2030 Scenarios

● status−quo

2040

2050

Years growth

extreme

2060

3

moderate

0 8

4

2060

2050

2040

2030

2020

2060

2050

2040

2030

extreme

2020

growth

[email protected]

2060

Years

2050

● status−quo

2050

2040

Scenarios

2040

2030

Predators Fulmar GBB.Gull G.gurnards N.mackerel Hake Whiting Saithe Greyseal Her.Gull R.radiata W.mackerel H.porpoise Cod Haddock Razorbill

0 2030

2020

Years

200

2020

2060

2050

2040


0 2030

400

2

●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●● ●● ●● ●

2020

600

moderate

6

Norway pout biomass

2060

moderate



7/8


Conclusion and prospects

What do we know and what’s next? Conclusions Lower saithe biomass estimates with growth.

[email protected]



8/8



What do we know and what’s next? Conclusions Lower saithe biomass estimates with growth. Dominance of saithe and hake in predation on Norway pout.

[email protected]



8/8



What do we know and what’s next? Conclusions Lower saithe biomass estimates with growth. Dominance of saithe and hake in predation on Norway pout. Impact of hake on Norway pout and on saithe biomass.

[email protected]



8/8



What do we know and what’s next? Conclusions Lower saithe biomass estimates with growth. Dominance of saithe and hake in predation on Norway pout. Impact of hake on Norway pout and on saithe biomass. Limits Simplistic.

[email protected]



8/8



What do we know and what’s next? Conclusions Lower saithe biomass estimates with growth. Dominance of saithe and hake in predation on Norway pout. Impact of hake on Norway pout and on saithe biomass. Limits Simplistic. Uncertainties.

[email protected]



8/8



What do we know and what’s next? Conclusions Lower saithe biomass estimates with growth. Dominance of saithe and hake in predation on Norway pout. Impact of hake on Norway pout and on saithe biomass. Limits Simplistic. Uncertainties. Prospects Stochastic recruitment.

[email protected]



8/8



What do we know and what’s next? Conclusions Lower saithe biomass estimates with growth. Dominance of saithe and hake in predation on Norway pout. Impact of hake on Norway pout and on saithe biomass. Limits Simplistic. Uncertainties. Prospects Stochastic recruitment. Fishery scenarios.

[email protected]



8/8

The End

The End... (: Travel support :)

Baudron, A. and Fernandes, P. (2014). "Adverse consequences of stock recovery: European hake, a new “choke” species under a discard ban?" Fish and fisheries. doi: 10.1111/faf.12079. Cormon, X., Loots, C., Vaz, S., Vermard, Y. and Marchal, P. (2014). "Spatial interactions between saithe (Pollachius virens) and hake (Merluccius merluccius) in the North Sea." ICES Journal of Marine Science. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu120. Cormon, X., Ernande B., Kempf, A., Vermard, Y., and Marchal, P. (in prep). "Bottom-up processes in the North Sea, an investigation of North Sea saithe growth characteristics in relation to environmental factors." ICES (2013). "Saithe in Subareas IV, VI and Division IIIa." Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) CM/ACOM:13:565-609. Lewy P. and Vinther M. (2004) "SMS, A stochastic age-length-structured multispecies model applied to North Sea and Baltic Sea stocks." Link J. and Auster P. (2013) "The challenges of evaluating competition among marine fishes: who cares, when does it matter, and what can we do about it?" Bulletin of Marine Science: 89(1):213-247. [email protected]



8/8