1 / 4

Venues for presenting and reviewing ecosystem models

Venues for presenting and reviewing ecosystem models. Ad hoc, informal review characterizes all responses Typical phrases: “no formal means...” , “using local experts...”, “no formal venues exist” Some review associated with stock assessments

wilma-farmer
Download Presentation

Venues for presenting and reviewing ecosystem models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Venues for presenting and reviewing ecosystem models

  2. Ad hoc, informal review characterizes all responses • Typical phrases: “no formal means...” , “using local experts...”, “no formal venues exist” • Some review associated with stock assessments • Presentations at workshops is pretty standard for all centers • Some review associated with submission of journal articles • Many comments regarding lack of expertise of reviewers (especially within more general working groups)

  3. Antarctic stands in stark contrast • EM efforts are presented to and reviewed by • the Working Group on Statistics, Assessments and Modeling • Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management • Reviews are documented as part of each working group's report, and these reports are adopted by consensus • A further level of review is sometimes provided by the CCAMLR Scientific Committee

  4. Example: Evolution of single-species assessments to include advice from multispecies models and indicators • From North Pacific Fisheries Management Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee minutes, December 2006: • “The [eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock] stock remains above the MSY level, having declined … at a rate of about 19% per year….A series of 4 below-average recruitments has contributed to the decline…the series of low recruitments will result in an age-structure that is dominated by only a few year-classes which could increase fluctuations in the population.” • “Other issues raised in the stock assessment suggest a need for further caution.” • a northward shift … with some portion of the population into Russian waters. • a large decline in zooplankton, which is important in providing forage for juvenile pollock. • increasing predation by arrowtooth flounder on juvenile pollock, which could contribute to further declines in adult pollock biomass. • “Consequently, the SSC agrees with the Plan Team that a reduction in Allowable Biological Catch from the maximum permissible is justified.” Result from single-species assessment Assessment + ecosystem indicators Ecosystem indicators (FATE) Multispecies models – Modified Ecosim and MSFOR

More Related