Download Plaice in the Celtic Sea, Beam trawl

Plaice in the Celtic Sea, Beam trawl
Plaice in the Celtic Sea, Beam trawl
Content last updated
24th Oct 2016
Stock:
Plaice in Divisions VIIf and g (Celtic Sea)
Management:
EU
Overview
European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) is a widely distributed flatfish that inhabits the waters of the temperate Northeast Atlantic Ocean
most frequently at depths ranging from 10 to 50 m. Adults are found in a variety of habitat types, with older fish usually inhabiting deeper
waters. In British waters, this species matures between 24.7 and 31 cm in total length and the maximum reported length and age is 100
cm and 50 years respectively. They feed on worms, molluscs and small crustaceans and they are preyed on by other fish, marine
mammals and sea birds. Spawning occurs in shallow waters from December to March at temperatures around 6 C (Pawson, 1995; Froese
and Pauly, 2015).
The mixed plaice and sole fishery in Divisions VIIf, g (Celtic Sea) is dominated by otter trawls (51% of the landings) and beam trawls (43%),
with bycatch of both commercial and non-commercial species. The main fishery occurs in the spawning area off the north Cornish coast,
at depths greater than 40 m, approximately 20 to 25 miles offshore. Although plaice are taken throughout the year, the bulk of landings
occur between February and March. Historically (1980-1998) annual landing were around 1 000-2 500 tonnes but after a substantial
decrease they have stabilised at around 430 tonnes since 2004. During this period, discards exceeded landings and total catches were
estimated to range between 700 and 1 700 tonnes (ICES, 2015). The status of the Celtic Sea plaice stock is stable but at a low level well
below historical abundance.
References
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org, version (08/2015).
ICES. 2015. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Divisions VIIf, g (Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and
effort Celtic Seas Ecoregions, ICES Advice 2015, Book 5, Section 5.3.38.
Pawson, M.G. 1995. Biogeographical identification of English Channel fish and shellfish stocks. Fish-eries Research Technical Report No.
99. MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft. Available at: http://www.cefas.co.uk/Publications/techrep/tech99.pdf
Stock Status
less risk
more risk
The status of the plaice stock in Divisions VIIf,g (Celtic Sea) has been scored a moderate risk. The stock is subject to a data limited
assessment based on two indices of mature biomass from surveys one of which indicates a stable and the other an increasing trend.
Given that the species has low resilience to fishing activities (FishBase, 2015) this indicates a moderate risk under the RASS scoring
method.
However, ICES consider the status of the stock difficult to assess because of the divergence in the trends of the mature biomass indices,
although the Spawning Stock Biomass is considered to be inside proxy precautionary levels for safe biological limits, but there are no
fishing mortality estimates. Additional survey biomass estimates are required to determine, with a higher degree of confidence the trend
for this stock. The stock is considered to be well below historical (1980s) levels of abundance.
Management
less risk
more risk
The management of plaice in Divisions VIIf,g (Celtic Sea) has been scored a low risk. This is because management decisions are informed
by an annual stock assessment, catches of plaice have been below the advised catch over the last year and a comprehensive regulatory
framework is in place. Management controls (TACs) are derived from an analytical stock assessment, known to be precautionary and
within the range specified by scientific advice. However, high levels of discarding may limit the ability of the TAC to control total mortality
on this stock.
Bycatch
less risk
more risk
The bycatch risk of this fishery has been scored a high risk. This is because beam trawls have the potential to take relatively high
quantities of bycatch of non-target and vulnerable species (> 30% of catch weight), including demersal elasmobranchs and protected,
endangered and threatened (e.g. sharks and rays) species in certain circumstances. Absolute levels of discards across all fleets have
gradually decreased since 2002 and the incoming EU landings obligation is intended to reduce discarding further (Catchpole et al., 2011).
Habitat
less risk
more risk
The habitat risk of this fishery has been scored a high risk. This is because beam trawls interact with the seabed, modifying bottom
topography including damage and removal of some biogenic features and interacting with vulnerable marine habitats and benthic
communities. However, the risk due to damage to vulnerable marine habitats is likely to be reduced given that most of the footprint of
the gear occurs on core fishing grounds.
Some spatial management is in place and is continually being developed, which will restrict the footprint of this gear on the seabed.
However, there remains some uncertainty about the location of some sensitive seabed habitats so these remain at risk
Outlook
Type
Current Risk Status
Outlook
Reason
Stock
Moderate
Stable
The status of the stock is likely to remain stable in the future given that
biomass estimates have increased since the mid-2000s. No reliable
forecast can be presented for this stock given that the assessment is only
indicative of trends and stock size and fishing mortality are uncertain.
Management
Low
Stable
Management of Celtic Sea plaice is likely to remain stable in the future. A
comprehensive regulatory framework is in place and management
controls are routinely enforced and independently verified through
surveillance of fishing activities.
Bycatch
High
Improving
Beam trawls disturb seabed habitats, but a range of Marine Protected
Areas have been established and are under development to help
minimise damage to vulnerable marine habitats.
Habitat
High
Improving
Beam trawls disturb seabed habitats, but a range of Marine Protected
Areas have been established and are under development to help
minimise damage to vulnerable marine habitats.
Stock Status Details
less risk
more risk
Time-trends
Relative biomass is estimated to have increased since the mid-2000s (Figure 1). However, since 2008 the survey indices’ trends have
shown some divergence, with one showing an increase and the other showing stability. Additional survey biomass estimates are required
to determine, with a higher degree of confidence the trend for this stock. Landings from the fishery have stabilised at around 420 tonnes
per year over the last decade while at the same time discarding has increased which may imply that total fishing mortality has increased in
recent years. However, an increase in stock size could also account for this increase in catches. Discarding was estimated to comprise the
majority of the international catch weight of plaice (~73%) in Divisions VIIf,g between 2012 and 2014 (ICES, 2016).
Figure 1. Plaice in Divisions VIIf,g. Catches (thousand
tonnes) and UK(E&W)-BTS-Q3 and IGFS-WIBTS-Q4 survey
biomass of plaice older and equal to 3 years old (relative to
the average of the time-series). Discard estimates prior to
2004 are not available (ICES, 2016).
Figure 1. Plaice in Divisions VIIf,g. Catches (thousand tonnes) and UK(E&W)-BTS-Q3 and IGFS-WIBTS-Q4 survey biomass of plaice older and
equal to 3 years old (relative to the average of the time-series). Discard estimates prior to 2004 are not available (ICES, 2016).
Stock structure and recruitment
Across its range, plaice is represented by numerous stock units (Pawson, 1995). The degree of separation between the stock of plaice in
the Celtic Sea and that of the Irish Sea is unclear. Historic tagging studies indicate a southerly movement of mature fish (or fish maturing
for the first time) from the southeast Irish Sea, off North Wales, into the Bristol Channel and Celtic Sea during the spawning season. While
some of these migrant spawning fish will remain in the Bristol Channel and Celtic Sea, the majority are expected to return to summer
feeding grounds in the Irish Sea (Dunn and Pawson, 2002). The main spawning grounds in the Divisions VIIf,g are situated off north
Cornwall though some reproduction also occurs in the north of Celtic Sea at St. George’s Channel.
Nevertheless, time-series of recruitment estimates for all stocks in waters around the UK (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, western and eastern
Channel, North Sea) show a significant level of synchrony. This could indicate that the stocks are subject to similar large-scale
environmental forces and respond similarly to them (Fox et al., 2000).
Data gaps and research priorities
The quality and coverage of the discard data has improved in recent years but the estimates still remain imprecise, and therefore further
improvement of statistical data collection is required. Further work examining the survival rates of discarded plaice would be profitable;
these are discussed in ICES 2016b. This should be researched and taken into account in the context of the ‘obligation to land all catches’
under the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (EU 1380/2013).
References
Dunn, M.R., and Pawson, M.G. 2002. The stock structure and migrations of plaice populations on the west coast of England and Wales.
Journal of Fish Biology 61: 360–393.
Fox, C.J., Planque, B.P., and Darby, C.D. 2000. Synchrony in the recruitment time-series of plaice (Pleuronectes platessa L) around the
United Kingdom and the influence of sea temperature. Journal of Sea Research 44: 159–168.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org, version (08/2015).
ICES. 2016a. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in divisions 7.f and 7.g (Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch,
and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregions, ICES Advice 2016, Book 5, Section 5.5.53.
ICES. 2016b. Draft report of the Working Group for the Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE), 4-13 May 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM
2015/ACOM.
Pawson, M.G. 1995. Biogeographical identification of English Channel fish and shellfish stocks. Fish-eries Research Technical Report No.
99. MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft. Available at: http://www.cefas.co.uk/Publications/techrep/tech99.pdf
Management Details
less risk
more risk
TAC Information
Catch 2015 (t)
Advised Catch 2016 (t)
Agreed TAC 2016 (t)
Advised Catch 2017 (t)
Total = 1251 Landings =381
Total <1 500 Landings < 420
420
Total < 1,500 Landings < 405
Advised and agreed catches
Management of this stock is by combined Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Divisions VIIf and VIIg. The combined TAC for 2016 was set at
420 tonnes. Reported landings were frequently below the agreed TAC between 2000 and 2010. However, since 2011 the reported
landings have fluctuated around the agreed TAC. Discards have exceeded landings for most years since 2006 and averaged 73% of total
international catch weight between 2013 and 2015 (ICES, 2016a).
Although there is some evidence of survival of plaice post discarding (ICES 2016b) the high level of discarding implies that the TAC may not
be instrumental in controlling fishing mortality on this plaice stock. A major factor in the high discard rates of plaice is the mismatch
between the Minimum Conservation Reference size (formally termed the Minimum Landing Size) of plaice set at 27 cm and the mesh size
used in the towed gear fisheries (see bycatch section). However, the relatively low market value of small plaice is also likely to be a
contributing factor and TACs may be restricting landings.
ICES advises that when precautionary approach is applied, total catches in 2017 should be no more than 1,500 tonnes. If this stock is not
under the EU landings obligation in 2016 and discard rates do not change from the average of the last three years (2011–2015), this
implies landings of no more than 405 tonnes (ICES, 2016).
Stock harvest strategy
Plaice in the Celtic Sea (Divisions VIIfg) is assessed annually by ICES using data limited methods to assess relative changes in stock size. The
assessment is based on time-series of indices of abundance from two standardised research trawl surveys. The management policy is
aimed to stabilise stock size in the short-term (3–5 years), but they may not be suitable if the stock size is low and/or overfished. Effort of
the main fleets has been decreasing since 2000 and is currently at the recorded lowest level. Landings are monitored exhaustively from EU
log books and sales notes (ICES, 2016a,b).
The fisheries for plaice in Divisions VIIf,g (Celtic Sea) are managed under the EU Common Fisheries Policy primarily through annual TACs
and technical measures set to maintain the exploitation rate at the rate which is consistent with the precautionary approach (Council
Regulations (EU) 43/2014). Technical measures in force for this stock are minimum mesh sizes, minimum landing size, and restricted areas
for certain classes of vessels. The minimum conservation reference size for (formerly minimum landing size) for this stock is 27 cm. The
‘Trevose box’ is an area of sea of approximately 11 400 square miles, extending westward from a line drawn between Trevose head in
Cornwall and the Gower peninsular in South Wales (ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4, and 32E3; EU27/2005), which has been closed to fishing
activities during the first quarter of the year (January – March) since 2005 with the intention of reducing the fishing mortality on cod. There
is evidence that this closure has redistributed effort to other areas. Closures may have decreased fishing mortality on Celtic Sea plaice in
spawning grounds, but the degree to which this is effective is unknown (ICES 2016a,b).
Surveillance and enforcement
Fisheries on plaice in Divisions VIIf,g (Celtic Sea) are carried out by three countries (United Kingdom, Ireland and France) and surveillance
activities to record compliance with national and international fishery control measures are primarily the responsibility of the competent
fishery inspection authorities in each country. In addition, the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), established in 2005
(http://efca.europa.eu/pages/home/home.htm), organises operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the
Member States as well as cooperation with third countries and other Regional Fishery Management Organisations.
The requirements for surveillance and sanctions for infringements are laid down in the EU Control Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, which
amended previous similar regulations. Surveillance activities on fisheries for plaice in Divisions VIIfg include the use of vessel monitoring
systems (VMS) on board vessels over 12 m overall length; direct observation by patrol vessels and aerial patrols; inspections of vessels,
gear, catches at sea and on shore; and verification of logbook data against sales documents.
Management controls are routinely enforced and independently verified through surveillance of fishing activities (e.g. VMS, logbooks,
dockside monitoring and visual inspections). Infringements happen only very occasionally and are unlikely to compromise harvest
objectives.
References
ICES. 2016a. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in divisions 7.f and 7.g (Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch,
and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregions, ICES Advice 2016, Book 5, Section 5.5.53.
ICES. 2016b. Draft report of the Working Group for the Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE), 4-13 May 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM
2016/ACOM.
Bycatch Details
less risk
more risk
Targeting and behaviour
Beam trawlers are in most cases specialised medium sized vessels, equipped with powerful engines and use large outrigger booms that
can tow two parallel beam trawls either side of the vessel. No hydrodynamic forces are needed to keep the net open, but close contact
with the seabed is required for successful operation. Beam trawls are towed at up to seven knots and tickler chains are often equipped to
disturb fish from the seabed. Beam trawling is mostly undertaken using mesh sizes between 80 and 119 mm and chain matrices can be
equipped for operations in very rough fishing grounds.
The fisheries catches a large diversity of species but the main economically important species are anglerfish, megrim, sole, lemon sole and
seasonally cuttlefish. However, beam trawling is not a well-targeted fishing activity, with poor selectivity and the potential to catch a wide
variety of non-target species (Løkkeborg, 2005) including benthic (seabed dwelling organisms) invertebrates: crabs, starfish and other
shellfish. Fish may be discarded because they are smaller than the Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS), or the size and/or
species are not marketable. Discarding due to the vessel being short of quota for the managed species also occurs.
Evidence of bycatch risk
Discard estimates in the English Channel, Irish sea, Celtic sea and Western approaches for beam trawls fisheries targeting mixed finfish
species produce relatively high discard rates 42% and 67% of total catch weight for all species combined (European Commission, 2011).
Recent figures from the discard atlas (Anon, 2014) indicate an average discard quantity for the top 10 species of around 22% with the
main species discarded by weight being anglerfish, haddock and plaice between 2010 and 2012. However, there are other species
captured and discarded in this fishery including lemon sole, cuttlefish, benthic and non-commercial species.
ICES has recommended the introduction of technical measures to reduce discards in the mixed-species beam trawl fishery in the Celtic Sea
given that plaice discards exceed landings by a factor of more than x2 (ICES, 2014b).
The main risks concerning these highly mixed and variable catches are in the differing vulnerabilities of the various species affected,
together with the serious data limiting issues for the assessment of some of the species.
For further discussion of the relative risks fishing to the various species caught in this fishery see Cotter et al., (2015) and Seafish, (2014).
Mitigation measures
With the wide variety of non-target fish species caught in European mixed beam trawl fisheries, mitigation measures applied include:
minimum mesh size of 80 mm for trawl gears intended to be congruent with the minimum landings size for sole in the Greater North Sea
(Council Regulation 850/1998). However, this does not suit all species.
Optimising gear selectivity in mixed fisheries is challenging given that different species have different selectivity requirements. However, a
substantial amount of research in recent years has focused on increasing species selectivity in beam trawls to reduce bycatch.
The high level of discarding in this fishery was recognised as requiring improvement in the late 2000s and Cefas and the fishing industry
developed a number of measures to reduce bycatch and discards of both resource species through improved design of cod ends and
through benthic release panels, potentially reducing unwanted catches by around 50%. Anecdotally, there were overall improvement in
selectively following the project. Further details are given on the Project 50% (Corporate Culture, 2009). However, there are no publically
available statistics on the uptake of these measures in the fishery.
A number of areas closed to fishing at certain times of the year have been established, such as the seasonal closure of the so called
“Trevose box” (figure 1) an area of sea of approximately 11,400 square miles extending westward from a line drawn between Trevose
head in Cornwall and the Gower peninsular in South Wales (ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4, and 32E3; EU27/2005) during the period January –
March. This is the spawning period for a number of demersal stocks; this is primarily intended to reduce catches of spawning cod, but
other spawning stocks are likely to benefit.
Figure 1. Map of the
“Trevose box”
(shaded in pink).
The introduction of the landings obligation or ‘discard ban’ under the EU Common fisheries policy (EU 1380/2013) is intended to take place
over the period 2016 – 2019 in this fishery. This landings obligation will ultimately apply to all species managed by TAC; it will not apply to
non-TAC species, however many of these are likely to benefit from improved selectivity.
References
Anon. 2014. Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal Fisheries, Prepared by Cefas, Lowestoft, England, Final version, 14
December 2014, 118 pp.
Catchpole, T.L., Enever, R., Maxwell, D.R, Armstrong, M., Reese, A. and Revill, A.S. (2011) Constructing indices to detect temporal trends in
discarding. Fisheries Research 107 (1-3); 94-99.
Corporate Culture 2009. Project 50 percent. A Cefas project to reduce discards amongst Devon beam trawlers by 50 %. Social Marketing
Research Report 2009. [http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/201998/cefasproject50percentfinalreport20june09.pdf[][Date accessed: 07Jan-16]
Cotter, J. Lart, W. de Rozarieux, N. Kingston, A. Caslake, R. Le Quesne, W. Jennings, S. Caveen, A.Brown, M. (2015) A development of
ecological risk screening with an application to fisheries off SW England ICES J. Mar. Sci. (March/April) 72 (3): 1092-1104. doi:
10.1093/icesjms/fsu167
Enever, R., Revill, A., Grant, C. 2007. Discarding in the English Channel, Western approaches, Celtic and Irish seas (ICES subarea VII).
Fisheries Research 86: 143–152
European Commission, 2011. Impact Assessment of Discard Reducing Policies, Common fisheries policy impact assessment. EU Discard
Annex. Studies in the Field of the Common Fisheries Policy and Maritime Affairs. Lot 4:
[http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/discards/report_en.pdf] [Date accessed: 07-Jan-16]
ICES. 2014a. Report of the Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History (WGCEPH), 16–19 June 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES
CM 2014/SSGEF:02. 353 pp.
ICES. 2014b. Report of the Working Group on Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE), 13–22 May, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:12,
5 pp.
ICES. 2015. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregions, ICES Advice 2015, Book 5
Løkkeborg, S. (2005). Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 472.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, 58 pp.
Seafish (2014) Ecological Risk Assessment of the effects of fishing for South West fisheries; ICES Divisions VII e,f,g & h Seafish Report SR
670 [http://seafish.org/media/Publications/SR670ERAEFFinal_report1.pdf] [Date accessed: 07-Jan-16]
Habitat Details
less risk
more risk
Gear effects, targeting and behaviour
Fishers use their knowledge of seasonal fish aggregations and seabed types together with information from the vessel’s electronic
mapping tools to make informed decisions on where to trawl. Gears are adapted to the substrate type and the species targeted, with a
relatively narrow range of conditions in which they can operate. Beam trawlers mostly operate within core areas of fine sand and sandy
mud, where yields are high and it is safe to trawl (Jennings and Lee, 2011).
The most pronounced impacts of beam trawling on seabed habitats is the flattening of irregular bottom topography and the disturbance
of biogenic features (Løkkeborg, 2005) and where chain mats are used and designed to disturb the upper few centimetres of substrate
which leads to damage and removal of some biogenic features.
Evidence of habitat risk
Beam trawls disturb seabed habitats (Løkkeborg, 2004). The penetration depth of a beam trawl depends on sediment characteristics and
varies between 1 cm and 8 cm. Trawls leave detectable marks on the seabed and the pressure exerted on the sea floor is strongly related
to the towing speed, which is very high (~7 knots) in flatfish fisheries as the gear itself is very heavy (FAO, 2014).
The habitat risks are related to the types of seabed communities and other sources of seabed disturbance such as wave and tidal action. A
number of theoretical and field studies have focused on the effects of towed gears, which show that areas outside the core areas fished
tend to be more sensitive to fishing (Gray et al., 2006; Jennings et al., 2012). Consequently, habitats outside the core areas that have not
traditionally been disturbed by fishing activities are relatively more sensitive to the effects of trawling.
The major impact of beam trawls on marine communities is the capture or destruction of non-target species living in/on the upper
sediment layers, particularly slow growing attached forms (e.g. sponges, corals etc.). In Liverpool Bay (Irish Sea), beam trawling reduced
both the abundance and diversity of taxa that live in stable sediments (Kaiser and Spenser, 1996). In addition, the biological condition of
plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) was negatively related to beam trawling frequency due to the reduced production of infaunal invertebrate
prey species (Hiddink et al., 2011). However, It has also been suggested that positive changes in growth rates of different demersal fish
species are not only related to density-dependent processes, but may also be dependent on increased bottom-trawl disturbance and
eutrophication (Millner and Whiting 1996, Rijnsdorp and van Leeuwen 1996, Shephard et al., 2010).
Surveys of benthic communities in ICES Division VIIe (the area where there is most beam trawl effort in ICES Divisions VIIefgh) have been
carried out in areas which have been subject to differing levels of beam trawling activity as ascertained from VMS (Vessel Monitoring
System) data (Defra, 2013); that is inside and outside the ‘core areas’. The resulting data were analysed to find out whether there was a
detectable effect of beam trawling on the biomass and size composition of benthic communities. The results showed that the variation in
biomass was more closely linked to environmental variables, (levels of chlorophyll, organic carbon, nitrogen and sediment type) than to
the previous year’s fishing effort. Although an effect of fishing was detected, it was considered insufficient to be a limiting factor for
benthic biomass.
Understanding the nature of these differences is important in the management of the effects of trawling. Communities that inhabit areas
where there is more disturbance by wave and tidal action are less likely to be affected by trawling, whereas communities inhabiting
deeper waters unaffected by disturbance from wave and tidal action or on harder more gravely substrate are relatively more sensitive to
trawling (Bolam et al., 2014). However, there are some habitats such as ross worm (or sabellaria) which inhabit shallower areas and are
considered relatively sensitive.
Mitigation measures
Whilst the effects of beam trawling have been found to be more difficult to detect in this area than in other areas, there is a risk attached
outside the core fishing areas. Spatial management is increasingly being used to manage the effects of beam trawling to minimise the
impacts on sensitive habitats.
Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) from the European Union (Council Directive 56/2008), the European nations have
commited to aim towards ‘good environmental status’ (GES) for the seabed habitats by 2020. The Convention for the Protection of the
Marine Envrionment of the North-East Atlantic (the ‘OSPAR Convention’), which was signed up to by 15 nations plus the European Union, is
developing a coherent network of Marine Protected Areas to protect vulnerable marine habiats in the North-East Atlantic.
The development of offshore Special Areas of Conservation under the European Habitats Directive (Council Directive 43/1992) contributes
to this process as does the UK Marine Act designating Marine Protected Areas in UK waters. Marine Protected Areas cover almost 5% of
the Celtic Seas region (Celtic + Irish Seas + channels) (OSPAR, 2013).
These initiatives have resulted in improvements in habitat mapping and risk assessment of the effects of trawling on the seabed and the
UK Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is engaging in a programme designed to assess the effects of fisheries and implement
management measures where sites are considered at risk. Similar initiatives are taking place in other European countries.
References
Bolam, S.G., Coggan, R.C., Eggleton, J., Diesing, M. and Stephens, D. (2014). Sensitivity of macrobenthic secondary production to trawling in
the English sector of the Greater North Sea: A biological trait approach. Journal of Sea Research 85: 162–177.
Cotter, J. Lart, W. de Rozarieux, N. Kingston, A. Caslake, R. Le Quesne, W. Jennings, S. Caveen, A. Brown, M. (2015) A development of
ecological risk screening with an application to fisheries off SW England ICES J. Mar. Sci. (March/April) 72 (3): 1092-1104. doi:
10.1093/icesjms/fsu167
Defra, (2013) Ecosystem approach to fisheries Project MF 1001 Evidence Project Final Report
Enever, R., Revill, A., Grant, A. 2007. Discarding in the English Channel, Western approaches, Celtic and Irish seas (ICES subarea VII).
Fisheries Research 86: 143–152
FAO. 2014. Fisheries and Aquaculture topics. Fisheries technology. Topics Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
[online]. Rome. Updated 31 October 2001. [Cited 4 November 2014]. [http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/2800/en] [Date accessed: 06-Jan16]
Gray, J. S., Dayton, P., Thrush, S. and Kaiser, M. J. 2006. On effects of trawling, benthos and sampling design. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 52,
840–843.
Hiddink, J.G., Johnson, A.F., Kingham, R. and Hinz, H. 2011. Could our fisheries be more productive? Indirect negative effects of bottom
trawl fisheries on fish condition. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1441–1449
ICES. 2014. Report of the Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History (WGCEPH), 16–19 June 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM
2014/SSGEF:02. 353 pp.
Jennings, S. and Lee, J. (2011). Defining fishing grounds with vessel monitoring system data. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69: 51–63.
Jennings, S., Lee, J and Hiddink, J.G. (2012). Assessing fishery footprints and the trade-offs between landings value, habitat sensitivity and
fishing impacts to inform marine spatial planning and the ecosystem approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69: 1053-1063.
Kaiser, M.J. and Spenser, B.E. 1996. The effects of beam-trawl disturbance on infaunal communities in different habitats. Journal of Animal
Ecology, 65: 348-358.
Løkkeborg, S. 2004. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 427. 78 pp.
Løkkeborg, S. 2005. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 472.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, 58 pp.
Marine Conservation Zones 2013. Natural England’s advice to Defra on proposed Marine Conservation Zones for designation in 2013.
Annex 5: Site-specific advice [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5717839965061120?category=1499649] [Date
accessed: 07-Jan-16]
Millner, R. S. Whiting, C. L. 1996. Long-term changes in growth and population abundance of sole in the North Sea from 1941 to the
present. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53: 1185-1195
OSPAR, 2013. 2012 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. 65 pp. [http://www.ospar.org/ospardata/p00618_2012_mpa_status%20report.pdf] [Date accessed: 07-Jan-16]
Rijnsdorp AD, van Leeuwen PI (1996) Changes in growth of North Sea plaice since 1950 in relation to density, eutrophication, beam-trawl
effort, and temperature. ICES J Mar Sci 53:1199–1213
Seafish (2014) Ecological Risk Assessment of the effects of fishing for South West fisheries; ICES Divisions VII e,f,g & h Seafish Report SR
670 [http://seafish.org/media/Publications/SR670ERAEFFinal_report1.pdf] [Date accessed: 07-Jan-16]
Shephard, S. Brophy, D. Reid, D. G. 2010. Can bottom trawling indirectly diminsh carrying capacity in a marin ecosystem? Mar. Bio. 157-11:
pp 2375-2381.
All content ©2017 Seafish. Origin Way, Europarc, Grimsby, DN37 9TZ.
This page created on 14th May 2017 at 03:17pm.