Forage Fish Interactions: A symposium on "creating the tools for ecosystem-based management of marine resources"

ICES Journal of Marine Science

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-4

  Peck, Myron A ^a   Neuenfeldt, Stefan ^b   Essington, Timothy E ^c   Trenkel, Verena M ^d   Takasuka, Akinori ^e   Gislason, Henrik ^b   Dickey Collas, Mark ^f,g   Andersen, Ken H ^b   Ravn Jonsen, Lars ^h   Vestergaard, Niels ^h   Kvamsdal, Sturla F ⁱ   Gårdmark, Anna ^j   Link, Jason ^k   Rice, Jake C ^l  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d IFREMER   (France)

^e FISHERIES RESEARCH AGENCY   (Japan)

^f International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ^*  (Denmark)

^g WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^h UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

ⁱ NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Norway)

^j SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^k NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^l CSAS DFO   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

forage fish; introduction; symposium

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PROCEEDING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM APPROACH; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EXPLOITATION; FOOD WEB; MARINE RESOURCE; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84890509114     PISSN: 10543139     EISSN: 10959289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fst174     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Barrett, R. T., Anker-Nilssen, T., Gabrielsen, G.W., and Chapdelaine, G. 2002. Food consumption by seabirds in Norwegian waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: 43-57.
2. Bax, N. J. 1998. The significance and prediction of predation in marine fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 997-1030.
3. Cury, P. M., et al. 2011. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion - one-third for the birds. Science, 334: 1703-1706.
4. Dickey-Collas, M., Engelhard, G., Rindorf, A., Raab, K., Smout, S., Aarts, G., van Deurs, M., et al. 2014. Ecosystem-based management objectives for the North Sea: riding the Forage Fish Rollercoaster. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 128-142.
5. Engelhard, G., et al. 2014. Forage fish, their fisheries, and their predators: who drives whom? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 90-104.
6. Essington, T. E., and Plagányi, E. E. 2014. Pitfalls and guidelines for "recycling" models for ecosystem-based fisheries management: evaluating model suitability for forage fish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 118-127.
7. Fréon, P., Cury, P., Shannon, L., and Roy, C. 2005. Sustainable exploitation of small pelagic fish stocks challenged by environmental and ecosystem changes: a review. Bulletin of Marine Science, 76: 385-462.
8. Howell, D., and Filin, A. A. 2014. Modelling the likely impacts of climate-driven changes in cod-capelin overlap in the Barents Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 72-80.
9. Irigoien, X., and de Roos, A. 2011. The role of intraguild predation in the population dynamics of small pelagic fish. Marine Biology, 158: 1683-1690.
10. Lassalle, G., Nelva Pasqual, J-S., Boët, P., Rochet, M-J., Trenkel, V.M., and Niquil, N. 2014. Combining quantitative and qualitative models to identify key interactions in the Bay of Biscay continental shelf exploited food web. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 105-117.
11. Link, J. S. 2010. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management: Confronting Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
12. Litz, M. N. C., Emmett, R. L., Bentley, P. J., and Claiborne, A. M. 2014. Biotic and abiotic factors influencing forage fish and pelagic nekton community in the Columbia River plume (USA) throughout the upwelling season 1999-2009. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 5-18.
13. Methratta, E. T., and Link, J. S. 2006. Evaluation of quantitative indicators for marine fish communities. Ecological Indicators, 6: 575-588.
14. Peck, M. A., Reglero, P., Takahashi, M., and Catalán, I. A. 2013. Life cycle ecophysiology of small pelagic fish and climate-driven changes in populations. Progress in Oceanography, 116: 220-245.
15. Pikitch, E. K., Rountos, K. J., Essington, T. E., et al. 2012a. The global contribution of forage fish to marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries, doi:10.1111/faf.12004.
16. Pikitch, E., et al. 2012b. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean FoodWebs. Lenfest Ocean Program, Washington, DC. 108 pp.
17. Rice, J., and Duplisea, D. 2014. Management of fisheries on forage species: the test-bed for ecosystem approaches to fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 143-152.
18. Røjbek, M. C., Tomkiewicz, J., Jacobsen, C., and Støttrup, J. G. 2014. Forage fish quality: lipid composition and seasonal dynamics of herring (Clupea harengus L.) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus L.) in the Baltic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 56-71.
19. Smout, S., Rindorf, A., Hammond, P. S., Harwood, J., and Matthiopoulos, J. 2014. Modelling prey consumption and switching by UK Grey Seals. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 81-89.
20. Tian, Y., Uchikawa, K., Ueda, Y., and Cheng, J. 2014. Comparison of fluctuations in fish communities and trophic structures of ecosystems fromthree currents around Japan: synchronies and differences. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 19-34.
21. Tschirhart, J. 2009. Integrated ecological-economic models. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1: 381-407.
22. Tyrrell, M. C., Link, J. S., and Moustahfid, H. 2011. The importance of including predation in some fish population models: implications for biological reference points. Fisheries Research, 108: 1-8.
23. van Deurs, M., Koski, M., and Rindorf, A. 2013. Size composition of copepods determine consumption of a particulate feeding planktivorous fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, this volume.
24. Yasue, N., Doiuchi, R., and Takasuka, A. 2014. Trophodynamic similarities of three sympatric clupeoid species throughout their life histories in the Kii Channel as revealed by stable isotope approach. ICES Journal ofMarine Science, 71: 44-55.