© 2004 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
Trophodynamic indicators for an ecosystem approach to fisheries
a IRD-CRHMT BP 171, 34203 Sète Cedex, France
b Marine and Coastal Management Private Bag X2, Rogge Bay 8012, South Africa
c Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources PO Box 394, Lüderitz, Namibia
d CEFAS Lowestoft Laboratory Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, England, UK
e Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, North Sea Centre PO Box 101, 9850 Hirtshals, Denmark
f Marine Biology Research Institute, University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
g Fisheries Centre, 2259 Lower Mall, University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4
*Correspondence to P. M. Cury: tel: +33 0 499573234; fax: +33 0 499573295. e-mail: pcury{at}ifremer.fr.
Acknowledging ecological interactions, such as predation, is key to an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Trophodynamic indicators are needed to measure the strength of the interactions between the different living components, and of structural ecosystem changes resulting from exploitation. We review trophodynamic indicators derived from models, as well as from emergent patterns such as trophic cascades and regime shifts. From 46 indicators identified in the literature, six (catch or biomass ratios, primary production required to support catch, production or consumption ratios and predation mortality, trophic level of the catch, fishing-in-balance, and mixed trophic impact) were selected because of their ability to reveal ecosystem-level patterns, and because they match published criteria. This suite of indicators is applied to the northern and southern Benguela ecosystems, and their performance is evaluated to depict drastic and contrasted ecosystem changes. A few complementary indicators are suggested as needed to detect the trophodynamic impacts of fisheries and ecosystem changes. Trends in indicators are sensitive to the choice of trophic level made for certain species. Trophodynamic indicators appear to be conservative, because they respond slowly to large structural changes in an ecosystem. Application of the selected indicators to other marine ecosystems is encouraged so as to evaluate fully their usefulness to an ecosystem approach to fisheries, and to establish international comparability.
Keywords: Benguela, ecosystem, fishery management, foodweb controls, indicators, trophodynamics
Received 1 April 2004; accepted 8 November 2004.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. P.R. Greenstreet and S. I. Rogers Indicators of the health of the North Sea fish community: identifying reference levels for an ecosystem approach to management ICES J. Mar. Sci., January 1, 2006; 63(4): 573 - 593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. L. Moloney, A. Jarre, H. Arancibia, Y.-M. Bozec, S. Neira, J.-P. Roux, and L. J. Shannon Comparing the Benguela and Humboldt marine upwelling ecosystems with indicators derived from inter-calibrated models ICES J. Mar. Sci., January 1, 2005; 62(3): 493 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-J. Rochet and J. C. Rice Do explicit criteria help in selecting indicators for ecosystem-based fisheries management? ICES J. Mar. Sci., January 1, 2005; 62(3): 528 - 539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|