48 Spatial fishery dynamics

Fishing fleets are specified in the Ecopath model, along with landings, discards, discard mortality rates, discard fate and market values of each landed species and non-market price. When moving to Ecospace, it is important to enter the percentage of costs that are “sailing related” (e.g., fuel, crew) in Ecopath and then specify how the relative cost of fishing is expressed across the modeled area. With this information, Ecospace will distribute fishing effort spatially through a gravity model[1] [2], where the effort allocated to each spatial cell is based on the profitability of fishing estimated as the difference between expected income and costs of fishing in each cell[3], thus proportional to the net benefits (profits-costs) gained from fishing in a given cell. When no cost or revenue information is entered, the fleets will gravitate to cells with the highest biomass of their target species. The cost of fishing can also be used to keep fleets from operating in certain areas, e.g., on the windward side of Caribbean islands or to keep fleets out of neighboring countries’ EEZ.

Ideally, expected income should be estimated with local economic and market data, otherwise it can be estimated using prices per functional groups from global price databases available based on average prices[4], or even better, regional or local data if applications are regional.

There is an option on the Ecospace map to calculate the cost of fishing based on the assumption that it is proportional to the distance (km) from the nearest coast or port. This is done based on Euclidean distances from the nearest port for each fleet. The calculation is very rudimentary and does not calculate pathway lengths around land masses thus, more suitable data can be used when available.

Each fleet can be allowed to operate – or restricted from fishing – in one or more habitat types, and MPAs can be placed that exclude one or more fishing fleets during specified months. For a detailed description of fishing dynamics in Ecospace,[5][6]. In addition, there is a new feature of the Ecospace model called the “MPA dynamic routine”. This routine allows one to study the spatial-temporal creations of MPAs, which can be allocated to fleet(s) at any moment in time during a simulation, and can be operative monthly or annually. This feature allows full control of MPA location or deletion in time and space[7]. It can be a good idea to use environmental preference functions to distribute ecosystem groups spatially and habitats to distribute fishing effort.

Ideally, the emergent fishing effort distributions predicted by Ecospace should be compared to observed spatial effort patterns, such as those from logbook and vessel monitoring systems (VMS and/or AIS) data[8], and parameters would be adjusted to improve agreement. However, this has rarely been done in practice[9], due to a lack of spatial effort data in most modeled systems and difficulties in modeling fisher behavior and complex spatial management. Alternatively, one may attempt to force fishing effort using the spatial-temporal framework by either directly importing fleet-specific sailing cost maps that make it prohibitively expensive to fish in certain cells, or by designating an MPA or habitat for each fleet and loading time-varying maps of closed cells or habitat types. Additionally, habitat layers and MPAs can be used to impose administrative boundaries that prohibit fleets from operating in certain jurisdictions. While Ecospace contains great flexibility in representing spatial fishery dynamics, thus far little attention has been devoted to spatial effort dynamics[10][11] compared to the biomass and ecological responses generated by Ecospace. This represents a component of the Ecospace that would benefit from simulation research, demonstration, and application.

Attribution

The chapter is based on de Mutsert et al.[12], adapted with permission.


  1. Caddy, J.F. 1975. Spatial model for an exploited shellfish population, and its application to the Georges Bank scallop fishery. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32: 1305–1328. https://doi.org/10.1139/f75-15
  2. Walters, C.J. and R. Bonfil, 1999. Multispecies spatial assessment models for the British Columbria groundfish trawl fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:601- 628. https://doi.org/10.1139/f98-205
  3. Walters, C., Pauly, D., Christensen, V., 1999. Ecospace: Prediction of Mesoscale Spatial Patterns in Trophic Relationships of Exploited Ecosystems, with Emphasis on the Impacts of Marine Protected Areas. Ecosystems 2, 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900101
  4. Sumaila, U.R., Marsden, A.D., Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2007. A Global Ex-vessel Fish Price Database: Construction and Applications. J Bioecon 9, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-007-9015-4
  5. Walters, C., Pauly, D., Christensen, V., 1999. Ecospace: Prediction of Mesoscale Spatial Patterns in Trophic Relationships of Exploited Ecosystems, with Emphasis on the Impacts of Marine Protected Areas. Ecosystems 2, 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900101
  6. Walters, C., Christensen, V., Walters, W., Rose, K., 2010. Representation of multistanza life histories in Ecospace models for spatial organization of ecosystem trophic interaction patterns. Bulletin of Marine Science 86, 439–459.
  7. e.g., Gomei, M., Steenbeek, J., Coll, M., Claudet, J., 2021. 30 by 30: Scenarios to recover biodiversity and rebuild fish stocks in the Mediterranean.
  8. Piroddi, C., Coll, M., Macias, D., Steenbeek, J., Garcia-Gorriz, E., Mannini, A., Vilas, D., Christensen, V., 2022. Modelling the Mediterranean Sea ecosystem at high spatial resolution to inform the ecosystem-based management in the region. Sci Rep 12, 19680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18017-x
  9. see Romagnoni, G., Mackinson, S., Hong, J., Eikeset, A.M., 2015. The Ecospace model applied to the North Sea: Evaluating spatial predictions with fish biomass and fishing effort data. Ecological Modelling 300, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.12.016
  10. Martell, S.J.D., Essington, T.E., Lessard, B., Kitchell, J.F., Walters, C.J., Boggs, C.H., 2005. Interactions of productivity, predation risk, and fishing effort in the efficacy of marine protected areas for the central Pacific. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62, 1320–1336. https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-114
  11. Adebola, T., De Mutsert, K., 2019. Spatial simulation of redistribution of fishing effort in Nigerian coastal waters using Ecospace. Ecosphere 10, e02623. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2623
  12. De Mutsert K, Marta Coll, Jeroen Steenbeek, Cameron Ainsworth, Joe Buszowski, David Chagaris, Villy Christensen, Sheila J.J. Heymans, Kristy A. Lewis, Simone Libralato, Greig Oldford, Chiara Piroddi, Giovanni Romagnoni, Natalia Serpetti, Michael Spence, Carl Walters. 2023. Advances in spatial-temporal coastal and marine ecosystem modeling using Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, 2nd Edition. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90798-9.00035-4

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Ecosystem Modelling with Ecosim (EwE) Copyright © 2024 by Ecopath International Initiative is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book