The value of cephalopods to global marine fisheries

Mary Hunsicker Oregon State University

Timothy Essington University of Washington

Reg WatsonRashid Sumaila

UBC – Sea Around Us Project

Hunsicker et al. Fish and Fisheries 2010

Impacts of harvesting forage species

Fishing through marine food webs

Ecological and economic importance of forage species

Potential trade-offs and conflicts from the simultaneous harvest of predators and prey populations

Crustaceans

Fishes

Cephalopods

Seabirds

Marine Mammals

Fishes

Global Cephalopod Landings

FAO Landings Data

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Glo

bal l

andi

ngs

(X 1

000t

)

Global Cephalopod Landings

FAO Landings Data

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Glo

bal l

andi

ngs

(X 1

000t

)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N P

acifi

c la

ndin

gs (x

100

0t)

Trade-offs in cephalopod fisheries?

Valuation of cephalopods

Landings (MT) Landed value ($)

Commodity Supportive Commodity Supportive

Commodity contribution Summed tonnage (MT) and monetary value

($USD) of all cephalopods landed in an ecosystem

Supportive contribution Portion of landings and landed value of other species

that rely on cephalopods for their production

Goosefish

Striped Bass Silver Hake

Bluefish

Summer Flounder

MackerelClupeids

Squid

Weakfish

Winter Flounder

Tilefish

Red Hake

Benthic Invertebrates

Crustaceans

ForageFishes

Dogfish

Scup

Objectives

What are the commodity and supportivecontributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?

Change in contributions between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?

Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8910 12

13

16

17

18

20

19

15

14

21

22 11

23

24

25

26

27

28

Large Marine Ecosystems

LME landings and market values estimated by Reg Watson and Rashid Sumaila

Tuna

Hake

Squid

Pollock

Species list

10 %

Supportive contribution

Cephalopod in diet

600 MT

Average Landings6,000 MT

Dogfish

Mackerel

Total landings

(MT)

Total supportive contribution

(MT)

Point Estimates of Supportive Contribution (MT)

Tuna

Hake

Squid

Pollock

Species list

10 %

Supportive contribution

Cephalopod in diet

$ 200,000

Average Landed Value$ 2 million

Dogfish

Mackerel

Total landings ($USD)

Total supportive contribution

($USD)

Point Estimates of Supportive Contribution ($)

DataFood habits data for each taxonomic group (% M or V)

Diet data for taxonomic groups in the specified ecosystem

Multiple estimates of the predators’ diet composition

Applied the same diet data for contemporary and historical periods

Results

What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?

Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?

Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?

Contribution to Global Landings (%)

Total contribution to landings (%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Patagonian ShelfCentral North Pacific

Gulf of CaliforniaSea of JapanSouth Atlantic

California CurrentNew Zealand Shelf

Eastern Tropical PacificCentral Atlantic

North AtlanticSouth PacificArabian Sea

Agulhas CurrentSouth Brazil Shelf

Celtic-Biscay ShelfSoutheast Australian Shelf

Canary CurrentGulf of Alaska

Newfoundland-Labrador ShelfNortheast U.S. Continental ShelfPacific Central-American Coast

West Bering SeaScotian Shelf

East Bering SeaGulf of Mexico

Benguela CurrentHumboldt Current

North Sea CommoditySupportive

Contribution to Global Landed Value (%)

Total contribution to landed values (%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Patagonian ShelfCentral North Pacific

Gulf of CaliforniaSea of JapanSouth Atlantic

California CurrentNew Zealand Shelf

Eastern Tropical PacificCentral Atlantic

North AtlanticSouth Pacific

Agulhas CurrentSouth Brazil Shelf

Arabian SeaCeltic-Biscay Shelf

Southeast Australian ShelfCanary Current

Gulf of AlaskaNewfoundland-Labrador Shelf

Northeast U.S. Continental ShelfPacific Central-American Coast

West Bering SeaScotian Shelf

East Bering SeaGulf of Mexico

Benguela CurrentHumboldt Current

North SeaCommoditySupportive

North Pacific Ocean Landings

Total contribution to landings (%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Central North Pacific

Sea of Japan

Kuroshio Currrent

California Current

Oyashio Current

Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska

West Bering Sea

East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive

*

*

*

*Not included in publication

North Pacific Ocean Landed Value

Total contribution to landed values (%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Central North Pacific

Sea of Japan

Kuroshio Currrent

California Current

Oyashio Current

Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska

West Bering Sea

East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive

*

*

*

*Not included in publication

Objectives

What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?

Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?

Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions?

Historical vs. Contemporary Global Landings (MT)

Total contribution to landings (thousand mt)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Central North Pacific

Sea of Japan

Kuroshio Current

California Current

Oyashio Current

Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska

West Bering Sea

East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive

Historical contribution

NA

North Pacific Ocean Landings (MT)

Total contribution to landings (thousand mt)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Central North Pacific

Sea of Japan

Kuroshio Current

California Current

Oyashio Current

Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska

West Bering Sea

East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive

Contemporary contribution

Total contribution to landed values (million $USD)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Central North Pacific

Sea of Japan

Kuroshio Current

California Current

Oyashio Current

Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska

West Bering Sea

East Bering Sea CommoditySupportive

Historical contribution

NA

North Pacific Ocean Landed Values ($)

Total contribution to landed values (million $USD)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Central North Pacific

Sea of Japan

Kuroshio Current

California Current

Oyashio Current

Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska

West Bering Sea

East Bering SeaCommoditySupportive

Contemporary contribution

Objectives

What are the commodity and supportive contributions of cephalopods to fisheries landings and landed values?

Change between historical (1960-1970) and contemporary (1990-2004) periods?

Biophysical factors that dictate the magnitude of their contributions? - Mean TL of ecosystem, Mean TL of catches,

Primary production

Indi

rect

con

trib

utio

n to

land

ings

Dire

ct c

ontr

ibut

ion

to la

ndin

gs

Fishery mean TL is important driver

Contemporary Historical

Contemporary Historical

SummaryTotal contribution: as much as 55% of landings and 70% of landed values

Supportive: highest in open ocean systems Commodity: highest in coastal systems

North Pacific ecosystems among the highest in terms contribution to MT and $USD

In most ecosystems contributions have increased over time, exceptions are seen in the North Pacific systems

Magnitude of contribution influenced by the nature of the fishery (i.e. mean TL)

Conservation Value

Impact as predator

Concluding RemarksIn general, current demands have no historical precedent

Ecosystems where cephalopods are highly exploited as target resource and ecological support service warrant further attention

Considering the value of cephalopods, in addition to other forage, is important for ecosystem-based management